Who is this Jack Kingston? What a reductive jerk.

About Obama: "He wants to bomb Pakistan. He wants to hug Castro."

OK, this is the kind of reductionism I can't stand (and referred to in an earlier post. These assholes don't deserve me as a voter on the other side, b/c here I am trying to stay honest on the hundred years war comment and this is the kind of spin they will put in the homes of every American. God, I just can't stand it.)

When Obama was given a HYPOTHETICAL debate question: What would you do if you know bin ladin is in Pakistan? Would you consider bombing there even if Musharrif says no? "I'd consider it."

OBAMA WANTS TO BOMB PAKISTAN!

Long, convoluted answer about Cuba--consider meeting with Raul b/c historic oppportunity to interrupt a non-working (decades-old, Cold War driven, outdated, asinine) policy toward Cuba and encourage normalizing relations with that (tiny, insignificant island) country:

OMG OBAMA WANTS TO HUG CASTRO!

(parentheticals were my sentiments, of course, not Obama's. As if they are not the truth, and what every rational person actually thinks and what both Obama and Hillary actually want to say).

Did anyone notice that Kingston's suggested response for Michelle Obama's patriotic faux pas was to just say something like "Oh America is great, I misspoke" and it would all be all right?

1. Not only is it not true that everything would be all right if she said that (they would hound her anyway)...

2. But what if she really wasn't proud of the last 8 years, which is of course what she really meant? I mean, isn't it just hysterical that the right can't imagine anyone actually not being proud of America in the last 8 years? I mean, she must have misspoke!! The only correct answer here is a complete retraction!! No nuanced explanation that might involve some regret over America's actions in Iraq and elsewhere. Out of Kyoto! Torture for all! Secret prisons around the world! No World Court! Dis the UN! Mock global warming! And she's not allowed to work into her explanation somewhere that we really have been on the wrong track? Do these people think they (and we--the US) have done ANYTHING wrong?

I feel better now.

I'm not sure why this resonates with me so much. Not only does it feel accurate--I saw the show last night and thought it was airless--but Wilson's insight and writing reach for ideas just outside my radar that, when articulated by her, feel just right. Though her metaphors and descriptions may seem negative or farfetched for some, it struck me as dead on. Perhaps it's my mood or the movies themselves this year, but this review leaves me feeling melancholy even as the show left me cold. (Her Britney comparison was so precisely how I felt about the show--and Hollywood, and Americans, and humans even, and maybe just plain me and my family--that it gives me goosebumps). This is the kind of voice and intellect I come to salon for and have seen little of lately. Thank you for your original piece.

I'm coming to this thread late and have perused only a few pages of letters, but I'm surprised the starred ones don't reflect much of the opinion here, mainly that Kamiya's piece was off base. I agree with those who think his use of race to justify a vote for Obama is simplistic and wrong and, worse, inflames those who already have a low opinion of Obama supporters. In combination with the inane "dude vote" article, it has certainly worked against Obama: With friends like this, he doesn't need enemies. Is salon, famous for its pro-Hillary slant, playing out a Machiavellian double-triple psych?

and you're using the 2 Good 2 Be True Rule to justify a vote against Obama?

If I may explain your point again chrislrob...

Hillary and Obama are similar in policy positions. Dcbrown and others may point to some differences that suggest a Hillary advantage, but others may suggest a few that they feel demonstrate an Obama advantage (for me it's education, Cuba, and lobbyists). If we can skip the original Iraq vote for a moment and assume they are mostly the same, barring the few minor differences--molehills if you will--that have been made into mountains for the sake of differentiating themselves (or being forced to by an insistent media), then Obama has this charisma thing ON TOP OF their similar and substantive policy positions.

Why, dcbrown, would you not want this gravy? This frosting on the cake? And I'm being reductive myself here for rhetorical purposes, because you know darn well that an ability to coax others to one's position, to disagree without being disagreeable, to, dare I say, inspire--this ability is a tangible asset, is it not? The prospect of his making inroads with enemy leaders, not to mention opponents in Congress, is formidable indeed. Think about it.

PS. The reason I left the Iraq vote out momentarily is because it is not, by any means, a molehill of an issue. In other words, Obama is ahead of Clinton at the gate, BEFORE we grant him the oratory points.