Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It supports a theory I've had for a while...
it's disturbing. We can't help but identify with a larger group. But it's like Russian dolls. We're all members of different groups - the boundaries of which are often arbitrary and which one we identify with depends on who our perceived opponents are.
yeah, and its very hard not to do it even when you know its happening.
But tribal loyalty will almost always trump reason - no matter how liberal you are. That's why I don't mind the bear pit that is representational politics. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of keeping the violence to being just verbal.
-
Despite the tribal hostility in the intranets about Obama and Hillary supporters there's some good news - most Dems don't want either Obama or Clinton to drop out right now. Suggesting a more reasoned attitude among many voters about the contest.
And more importantly for the long term -
But the Democratic race may be producing an even more valuable asset for the fall, particularly when compared with Republican John McCain's campaign. By the time this race is over, Clinton and Obama will have competed in almost every state (Michigan and Florida being two potentially costly exceptions). The Democratic candidates have been forced to organize these states in the winter and spring. They have identified and trained legions of organizers. They will know which of their state coordinators are the best, and many of those staffers will already be familiar with some battleground states for the fall.
That, too, is a contrast with past races. When nomination battles end quickly, candidates begin the general-election campaign having had little direct experience with many states critical to winning the presidency. They have spent little time campaigning in those states, and their teams have to start almost from scratch.
-
I think if Obama was in the same room as Scafie, and Michelle Obama was calling into the Rush Limbaugh Show the day before the Penn primary (as Bill Clinton did just before Texas), Clintonistas and the political blogisphere would be all over it.
Maybe some would, I wouldn't. Given Obama's speech talked about reaching out to alienated white voters I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he took his message to elements of the conservtive media.
You also ignore the context of Clinton's meeting with Scaife.
-
And I think I'm entitled to feel uncomfortable with The Family.
That's fair enough but Clinton's religious views are mainstream Methodist. The Barbara Ehrenreich piece was an ugly and dishonest attempt at guilt by association which was exactly the thing Obama was asking people not to do in his speech about him and Wright.
Steve's contention was that she had no religious associations beyond the mainline Methodist church. It's clear that she does.
And Obama has "associations" with Wright. But we know he does not share his crazier ideas andt does at the same recognise some good in what he has achieved. Maybe we could apply this level of analysis more broadly.
-
While I'd say many things against Hillary Clinton, I don't think she's naive enough agree to a sit-down with the editorial board of a newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife...
more guilt by association - what was it that Obama was saying again? So, do you have any substantive criticism of Clinton on policy?
Scaife is a prominant media figure in Pittsburgh which is in Pennsylvania where there is about to be a primary. The guy owns one the major local newspapers - the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. It woulds be highly surprising if she didn't meet him. And on the basis of Obama's speech to you think he would or would not do the same?
-
You keep saying that, Neil.
Parenti is a far left ideologue who has always preferred left wing authoritarian regimes over democracies. He would not be my first port of call for dispassionate historical analysis.
As for Barbara Ehrenreich, her piece is a pack of lies loosely based on the more accurate Mother Jones piece. She's a Clinton hater and her piece was a hatchet job.
Both you and Craig have used this piece to slime Clinton which is exactly that sort of thing that Obama was calling for people not to do - not to make hasty and mean judgements about what are often complicated intersections of the personal, religious and political.
I've gone in to bat for Obama here over the Wright issue in an attempt to try and move a little beyond petty political tribalism. I would appreciate it if criticisms of Hillary were based on issues and not on the netroots style of innuendo and dishonesty.
I mean, what do you think about the difference between Obama and Clinton's performance-based pay policies in schools?
-
Hitchens comments are not about Clinton which are my own views, but not having a copy of Audacity myself , Ill take his word on what it contains.
I'd prefer to read it for myself and I doubt it is how Hitchens portrays things (my reference to the Clintons was just an aside about how deranged he's always been about them. Seems to be catchy though).
-
Picking the church of an Afro-centric liberation theologist hasn't exactly panned out brilliantly for him politically this year, has it?
But it wouldn't have done him any harm when he was starting off his political career in the poorer neighbourhoods of Chicago and I doubt he would have been at that time considered his membership in the light of a possible future bid for the presidency.
I would say political calculation comes into it for an activist of this age.
That's a bit too harsh. I think his membership went hand in hand with his political aspirations - I don't believe he would have joined had he not believed in the sort of spiritual guidance the church provided and that guidance fitted with his early politics. (I wouldn't rely on Hitchens on anything to do with religion - or the Clintons).
-
Obama has basically very little religious beliefs and attends church to advance his political career.
I disagree aswell, his religious beliefs look genuine. Not to say that there isn't a slight amount political calculation invloved but that would be true of almost all US politicians regarding religion.
Apart from that slightly creepy (to me, anyway) conservative Bible-study group she's been involved with for the last 15 years.
According to Barbara Ehrenreich. Who I wouldn't trust. The group looks odd but Roosevelt belonged to it and so do other pretty liberal Dems. It's been used as an opportunity for Senators from both parties to meet free from the normal political stress.
She attends a pretty straight forward Methodist church which is the best indication of her religious beliefs.
Still, perhaps I'm unfair.
For once we're in agreement.
-
I've never thought of Michael Paranti as being particularly reliable. His attiude towards Slobodan Milosevic is quite repugnant.
I don't know anything about Tibet's history and presumable, like most other countries, Tibet's past is not perfect but I doubt Parenti is the best source of information on this.