From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #498 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, February 12 2008 Volume 16 : Number 498 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [none] [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: [2fs ] Re: why do they hate Hillary? [The Great Quail ] Re: why do they hate Hillary? [The Great Quail ] Re: ["Benjamin Lukoff" ] Re: Hillary [Michael Sweeney ] Amanda Knox won't stop singing "Let It Be" [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: why do they hate Hillary? [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:45:24 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: [none] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513855&in_page_id=1811 "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:00:39 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: On Feb 12, 2008 2:45 PM, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513855&in_page_id=1811 > > > And suddenly, the whole country converts to Judaism... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:51:15 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: why do they hate Hillary? > "Feeling" and "aura" aren't very substantive, now, are they? Many Obama > supporters cite his "aura" of authenticity while conceding that the policy > differences between the two are slight at best. Auras? Are we all Shirley > McClaine now? I believe my use of "aura" falls well within the bounds of normal usage: "2. A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere: An aura of defeat pervaded the candidate's headquarters" ...and I am surprised you would take me to mean something more aligned with new age mysticism. When discussing personality and leadership styles, it's fairly typical to invoke qualities rather than quantities. I think that when you dislike or like someone, it's acceptable to say that you get a "felling," or a "sense." As far as policies go, Tom Clark posted a link to Obama's platform. It is remarkably similar to Hillary's. Therefore, it becomes fair play to start discuss leadership styles, personality, the ability to create a sense of vision, and so on. > Quail, how old are you? You constantly bash boomers, and you seem > to identify yourself culturally as part of The Yout'. I was born in 1967, which makes me the exact same age as Kurt Cobain, so I suppose I am part of the aging Generation X. I do bash the Boomers, true -- but then again, they gave us the Beatles, so that's cool. (But they are still keeping James Taylor a relevant figure; there's that to consider, too.) > Jeff D. cited Bill Maher's assertion that hating Hillary mostly > says more about the person hating than her. I am a big fan of Bill Maher -- mostly, at least -- and I agree to a certain extent. I do not believe I used the word "hate," but rather dislike, and I believe in another post I called her brilliant. If I've said in any post that I "hate" Hillary, I'd be curious -- I do not recall saying such a thing. > Your flavor of hating her > suggests Peter Pan Syndrome more than anything else. That's rather harsh, don't you think? First of all, as I said, I do not hate her, I dislike her. Second of all, there are many people my age and older who dislike Hillary for the same reasons I do -- again, a combination of hypocrisy, inauthenticity, self-righteousness, degree of manipulation, and so on. I could spend hours writing out a long explanation, but I am not as articulate as Andrew Sullivan, Noam Scheiber, et all -- even Bill Maher, who has taken some deserved shots at her recently. That's hardly consistent with a "Peter Pan" syndrome is it? In fact, I was a big Al Gore supporter, and I was crushed that he didn't enter the race. Then I looked to Edwards, until Obama really began to capture my attention, imagination, and finally enthusiasm and support. > Exhibit B: concern > about who will do more about video games. (I don't say this because of any > past animosity between you and I; it's just that the way you frame all of > your arguments on this issue as diary entries about your personal > emotio-political journey invites this kind of analysis.) I decline any invitation, explicit or implicit, to wander into the treacherous waters of that statement! But as I have said, I do not see video games as any different than rock music or literature, and I resist attempts by the government to interfere with my First Amendment rights. Yes, I am a gamer, so it hits closer to home; but I think I have a long record of publicly defending banned books and subversive literature as well. Hillary's uninformed stance against the "Hot Coffee" issue calls to mind all too clearly the days of the PMRC, not to mention Bob Dole bashing Quentin Tarantino movies he hadn't even seen. Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, and one that is growing every year. It's a form of entertainment that is becoming born in front of our very eyes, and it's not going away. I understand that you find them childish, but I assure you, you are standing on the wrong side of a trend here. > Why hate Hillary at all? Why not just argue in favor of Obama (as, for the > most part, Obama does)? I did in an early post. I was responding to *your* post about Fish's blog. Though I suppose if I posted too favorably for Obama, you'd discount me as a creeped-out American girl, too. I feel I am pretty rational about both candidates. >In fact, why bother at all, at this point, since > Obama surely has the nomination clinched. I wish that were the truth, I really do. But there's still a long way to go. There's still the open question of super delegates (excuse me -- Hillary's now calling them "automatic delegates") -- and there's the giant 800-pound donkey in the room named Florida/Michigan. (which I should add, going against her earlier stance, Hillary now thinks *should* be counted.) >Far and away most of the > Dems/Lefties I know have been magnanimous about conceding that it's a good > thing that two viable candidates emerged from this campaign... As I said in an earlier post, I think she's a brilliant woman and a consummate politician. However, I do not like her, she fights dirty, she's focus-grouped to death, and she will most likely lose against McCain. Am I excited that we have America's first viable female candidate for president? I suppose so -- I understand that it provides a great role model for girls and so on. But I will tell you this -- if Hillary Clinton was Herman Clinton, and had all the same stances, and the same speech style, and the same personality, and the same way of running a campaign -- not to mention, had the tendency to cry before major primaries -- I am not sure Herman Clinton would inspire that many people. > Final thought as Hillary's campaign boards the boat for the Elder Lands > (sorry, Tolkien ref. approx.)... if the Republicans would really prefer to > run against Hillary, why do they make such a point of saying so over and > over again? I highly suspect reverse psychology there. Well, I suppose the alternative is that they've all conferenced together in a room and said, "Despite all polls to the contrary, despite the emerging 'conventional wisdom,' let's play a sneaky reverse-psychology joke on the entire nation. Let's, as one, say that we really want to run against Hillary, so they all pick Obama!" Sorry, but I don't buy that. > And I think the > Republicans genuinely believe they have a better chance against Obama, and > many months to make him look foolish. Well, if you believe that, you are in the minority. From where I am standing, that belief does not hold up to careful scrutiny. I suppose we'll just have to see on this one. I would also like to point out that you are an unreconstructed Nader voter, which certainly removes you from the restraints of "conventional wisdom" and Realpolitik. Which is something that I am sure you find pride in, so no insult is intended. Believe me, I have no desire to start flaming with you again, Rex. And I hope you feel the same way -- your reply to my post certainly raised my eyebrows a bit. > I don't think that they will succeed, > but I suspect that their tactics against an Obama nomination are just as > well-crafted and nefarious as anything they could have thrown against > Clinton. Well, most people agree that they'll have a considerably harder time sliming Obama than Clinton -- but I do agree with you on one thing: they will certainly try. > Ain't that the truth, though. "Liberal media" indeed. I do not think of the mainstream media as being conservative or liberal, but rather an empty vessel that echoes back whatever is shouted the loudest. > -Rex, not a "boomer" by no stretch nohow If I recall, you are approximately my age, no? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:51:15 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: why do they hate Hillary? > "Feeling" and "aura" aren't very substantive, now, are they? Many Obama > supporters cite his "aura" of authenticity while conceding that the policy > differences between the two are slight at best. Auras? Are we all Shirley > McClaine now? I believe my use of "aura" falls well within the bounds of normal usage: "2. A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere: An aura of defeat pervaded the candidate's headquarters" ...and I am surprised you would take me to mean something more aligned with new age mysticism. When discussing personality and leadership styles, it's fairly typical to invoke qualities rather than quantities. I think that when you dislike or like someone, it's acceptable to say that you get a "felling," or a "sense." As far as policies go, Tom Clark posted a link to Obama's platform. It is remarkably similar to Hillary's. Therefore, it becomes fair play to start discuss leadership styles, personality, the ability to create a sense of vision, and so on. > Quail, how old are you? You constantly bash boomers, and you seem > to identify yourself culturally as part of The Yout'. I was born in 1967, which makes me the exact same age as Kurt Cobain, so I suppose I am part of the aging Generation X. I do bash the Boomers, true -- but then again, they gave us the Beatles, so that's cool. (But they are still keeping James Taylor a relevant figure; there's that to consider, too.) > Jeff D. cited Bill Maher's assertion that hating Hillary mostly > says more about the person hating than her. I am a big fan of Bill Maher -- mostly, at least -- and I agree to a certain extent. I do not believe I used the word "hate," but rather dislike, and I believe in another post I called her brilliant. If I've said in any post that I "hate" Hillary, I'd be curious -- I do not recall saying such a thing. > Your flavor of hating her > suggests Peter Pan Syndrome more than anything else. That's rather harsh, don't you think? First of all, as I said, I do not hate her, I dislike her. Second of all, there are many people my age and older who dislike Hillary for the same reasons I do -- again, a combination of hypocrisy, inauthenticity, self-righteousness, degree of manipulation, and so on. I could spend hours writing out a long explanation, but I am not as articulate as Andrew Sullivan, Noam Scheiber, et all -- even Bill Maher, who has taken some deserved shots at her recently. That's hardly consistent with a "Peter Pan" syndrome is it? In fact, I was a big Al Gore supporter, and I was crushed that he didn't enter the race. Then I looked to Edwards, until Obama really began to capture my attention, imagination, and finally enthusiasm and support. > Exhibit B: concern > about who will do more about video games. (I don't say this because of any > past animosity between you and I; it's just that the way you frame all of > your arguments on this issue as diary entries about your personal > emotio-political journey invites this kind of analysis.) I decline any invitation, explicit or implicit, to wander into the treacherous waters of that statement! But as I have said, I do not see video games as any different than rock music or literature, and I resist attempts by the government to interfere with my First Amendment rights. Yes, I am a gamer, so it hits closer to home; but I think I have a long record of publicly defending banned books and subversive literature as well. Hillary's uninformed stance against the "Hot Coffee" issue calls to mind all too clearly the days of the PMRC, not to mention Bob Dole bashing Quentin Tarantino movies he hadn't even seen. Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, and one that is growing every year. It's a form of entertainment that is becoming born in front of our very eyes, and it's not going away. I understand that you find them childish, but I assure you, you are standing on the wrong side of a trend here. > Why hate Hillary at all? Why not just argue in favor of Obama (as, for the > most part, Obama does)? I did in an early post. I was responding to *your* post about Fish's blog. Though I suppose if I posted too favorably for Obama, you'd discount me as a creeped-out American girl, too. I feel I am pretty rational about both candidates. >In fact, why bother at all, at this point, since > Obama surely has the nomination clinched. I wish that were the truth, I really do. But there's still a long way to go. There's still the open question of super delegates (excuse me -- Hillary's now calling them "automatic delegates") -- and there's the giant 800-pound donkey in the room named Florida/Michigan. (which I should add, going against her earlier stance, Hillary now thinks *should* be counted.) >Far and away most of the > Dems/Lefties I know have been magnanimous about conceding that it's a good > thing that two viable candidates emerged from this campaign... As I said in an earlier post, I think she's a brilliant woman and a consummate politician. However, I do not like her, she fights dirty, she's focus-grouped to death, and she will most likely lose against McCain. Am I excited that we have America's first viable female candidate for president? I suppose so -- I understand that it provides a great role model for girls and so on. But I will tell you this -- if Hillary Clinton was Herman Clinton, and had all the same stances, and the same speech style, and the same personality, and the same way of running a campaign -- not to mention, had the tendency to cry before major primaries -- I am not sure Herman Clinton would inspire that many people. > Final thought as Hillary's campaign boards the boat for the Elder Lands > (sorry, Tolkien ref. approx.)... if the Republicans would really prefer to > run against Hillary, why do they make such a point of saying so over and > over again? I highly suspect reverse psychology there. Well, I suppose the alternative is that they've all conferenced together in a room and said, "Despite all polls to the contrary, despite the emerging 'conventional wisdom,' let's play a sneaky reverse-psychology joke on the entire nation. Let's, as one, say that we really want to run against Hillary, so they all pick Obama!" Sorry, but I don't buy that. > And I think the > Republicans genuinely believe they have a better chance against Obama, and > many months to make him look foolish. Well, if you believe that, you are in the minority. From where I am standing, that belief does not hold up to careful scrutiny. I suppose we'll just have to see on this one. I would also like to point out that you are an unreconstructed Nader voter, which certainly removes you from the restraints of "conventional wisdom" and Realpolitik. Which is something that I am sure you find pride in, so no insult is intended. Believe me, I have no desire to start flaming with you again, Rex. And I hope you feel the same way -- your reply to my post certainly raised my eyebrows a bit. > I don't think that they will succeed, > but I suspect that their tactics against an Obama nomination are just as > well-crafted and nefarious as anything they could have thrown against > Clinton. Well, most people agree that they'll have a considerably harder time sliming Obama than Clinton -- but I do agree with you on one thing: they will certainly try. > Ain't that the truth, though. "Liberal media" indeed. I do not think of the mainstream media as being conservative or liberal, but rather an empty vessel that echoes back whatever is shouted the loudest. > -Rex, not a "boomer" by no stretch nohow If I recall, you are approximately my age, no? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:55:19 -0800 From: "Benjamin Lukoff" Subject: Re: Hmm, 300,000 of them (us) there already... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Brazil On Feb 12, 2008 2:00 PM, 2fs wrote: > On Feb 12, 2008 2:45 PM, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513855&in_page_id=1811 > > > > > > > And suddenly, the whole country converts to Judaism... > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:16:35 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: Hillary Rex wrote: >Hillary's about to become her generation's Ted Kennedy ...A) not an exact parallel (Teddy's '72 tease...before insurgent '80 run against an incumbent...all underpinned with '63, '68, and (self-inflicted) '69 tragedies)...but B) still an astute, great, GREAT line -- i.e., if she loses this time, knows she will never be Prez...and C) I WILL steal it (with credit) in my next political piece...and D) no offense to the Jr. Sen. from NY, but she should WISH for the lifeong career of public service that Teddy has/had (I know, let the haters reply, but...I don't care -- Teddy will go down with Hamilton, Burr, Clay, Webster, Douglas, Hanna, Bryan, and Bob Taft (among others) as this country's most important poitical leaders who were never President...) Michael "Not over yet...but keeping fingers crossed for a sweep tonight" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail.-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:20:18 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Amanda Knox won't stop singing "Let It Be" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3349027.ece (Local [Seattle] relevance: The Jesuit school in question is Seattle Prep, and she was a University of Washington student at the time of the murder.) 'Cellmates of Amanda Knox, the American student suspected of involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia last November, have pleaded with prison authorities to stop her repeatedly singing the Beatles' song Let it Be at the top of her voice. Father Scarabattoli, the prison chaplain at Perugia, said that Ms Knox, 20, from Seattle, had asked for a guitar so that she could play the song as well a sing it, but this had been refused. Inmates have complained that Ms Knox sings the song all day long, with one jailer reported as agreeing with them that it "drives you mad". However, Father Scarabattoli said that she sang the song only at exercise time, in the open air, and he insisted that it had a "spiritual dimension" since it referred to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Ms Knox, who attended a Jesuit school, has been receiving religious instruction from the chaplain and reading the Bible. ' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:43:29 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Amanda Knox won't stop singing "Let It Be" On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Ms Knox, who > attended a Jesuit school, has been receiving religious instruction > from > the chaplain and reading the Bible. ' That always ends well. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:00:19 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: why do they hate Hillary? On Feb 12, 2008 2:51 PM, The Great Quail wrote: > > "Feeling" and "aura" aren't very substantive, now, are they? Many Obama > > supporters cite his "aura" of authenticity while conceding that the > policy > > differences between the two are slight at best. Auras? Are we all > Shirley > > McClaine now? > > I believe my use of "aura" falls well within the bounds of normal usage: > > "2. A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person > or > thing; atmosphere: An aura of defeat pervaded the candidate's > headquarters" > > ...and I am surprised you would take me to mean something more aligned > with > new age mysticism. I didn't-- it was an attempted joke. > I was born in 1967, which makes me the exact same age as Kurt Cobain, so I > suppose I am part of the aging Generation X. I do bash the Boomers, true > -- > but then again, they gave us the Beatles, so that's cool. (But they are > still keeping James Taylor a relevant figure; there's that to consider, > too.) "Keeping" him a relevant figure? I missed something there. > > > Your flavor of hating her > > suggests Peter Pan Syndrome more than anything else. > > That's rather harsh, don't you think? > > Not really; I rather expected you to assert that there's nothing wrong with PPS. And it's not necessarily a terrible thing, fairly common among people I consider close friends, really. Probably present in myself, but I tend to live it out vicariously, either through friends or the press-- hell, I read reviews of all the blockbusters and genre films and comics and, yes, even videogames. But these days that's usually enough. > Second of all, there are many people my age and older > > > who dislike Hillary for the same reasons I do -- again, a combination > > > of > > > hypocrisy, inauthenticity, self-righteousness, degree of manipulation, > > > and > > > so on. > > > > Earlier you were careful to qualify this by calling it your impression, or feeling; my impression at the time was that you believed this to be absolute unshakeable truth (having ascertained it, one assumes, via some infallible entitlement-ometer), and it looks like you confirm that here. > But as I have said, I do not see video > games as any different than rock music or literature, I guess. A much larger percentage of them seem to be property-driven tie-ins to synergistic releases in other media, but I also understand that the game can actually sometime be better than the movie (which doesn't often happen with, say, novelizations). > and I resist attempts > by the government to interfere with my First Amendment rights. Yes, I am a > gamer, so it hits closer to home; but I think I have a long record of > publicly defending banned books and subversive literature as well. > Hillary's > uninformed stance against the "Hot Coffee" issue calls to mind all too > clearly the days of the PMRC, Well, I have yet to hear any issues of censorship of any kind raised in the course of this campaign other than by you, actually, so I hardly think it's a hot-button issue of major concern other than for those who have a vested interest in it. I have a bunch of pre-teen daughters, but I'm not basing my vote on which of the candidates can get me tickets to that Hannah Montana movie, and I don't expect a large amount of other people to share that concern with me. In fact I imagine I'd look rather silly if that, or some other completely marginal entertainment-related issue, was among the first knocks I came up with against the guy I didn't favor. > > > Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, and one that is growing > every year. > (Why does everyone who insists that videogames are art start their arguments by talking about how much money they generate? It's got nothing to do with anything.) > > I understand that you find them > childish, but I assure you, you are standing on the wrong side of a trend > here. > I never said that. I just said that I personally don't give a shit about them. I did when I was a kid myself. And I note that the multi-billions being generated by the industry still come mostly from kids. At least that's what I observe from visits to Target and Toys'R'Us; there may be figures to contradict that, and I know that there are adult gamers... among my acquaintances they tend towards a form of Peter Pan-ism which may be unique to my own generation. > I did in an early post. I was responding to *your* post about Fish's blog. > Though I suppose if I posted too favorably for Obama, you'd discount me as > a > creeped-out American girl, too. No, not at all. I've made reference to liking Obama as well, and I really don't have a problem with the vast majority of his supporters. The creepiness is just around the fringes of his following, and, to be honest, I didn't begin to feel it until the very end of last week. I sure haven't seen any evidence of uninformed Obama-mania anywhere on the feg list. > I wish that were the truth, I really do. But there's still a long way to > go. > There's still the open question of super delegates (excuse me -- Hillary's > now calling them "automatic delegates") -- and there's the giant 800-pound > donkey in the room named Florida/Michigan. (which I should add, going > against her earlier stance, Hillary now thinks *should* be counted.) I should be really clear about this, for what it's worth: I favor Clinton by a thin but significant margin, for very specific reasons... but I would *far* rather vote for Obama in November if he wins the lion's share of the state delegates than I would for Clinton if she's pushed into the slot by the superdelegate/party establishment/smokey-backroom factor at the convention. If HC secured the nomination via that channel, I would have to concede that the Hillary-dislikers/haters might have a point in that "entitlement" accusation. I guess it's all academic, since I'd vote against McCain anyway, but it's worth mentioning, as I see it. Am I excited that we have America's first viable female candidate for > president? I suppose so -- I understand that it provides a great role > model > for girls and so on. But I will tell you this -- if Hillary Clinton was > Herman Clinton, and had all the same stances, and the same speech style, > and > the same personality, and the same way of running a campaign -- not to > mention, had the tendency to cry before major primaries -- I am not sure > Herman Clinton would inspire that many people. But that, too, is academic. Gender is a factor. I do have a bunch of daughters who are going to be disappointed when (tick tick tick) Hillary's campaign ends. They rightly can't fathom why there has never been a female president before now. For myself, finding, as I do, the candidates equally fit in most respects (and favoring Clinton's stance on most of the few differences, particularly health care), and being relatively immune to the personality (or cult thereof) issue, the option of voting for a woman sends a stronger message. It probably wouldn't tip the balance for me if I had grudgeful feelings about the individual (and in the past I have), but I've been satisfied by what I've seen over the past year. I've also already voted, so it's out of my hands and clearly into Obama's, as far as I can see, and I don't intend to complain about that. > > Well, if you believe that, you are in the minority. From where I am > standing, that belief does not hold up to careful scrutiny. I suppose > we'll > just have to see on this one. I would also like to point out that you are > an > unreconstructed Nader voter, which certainly removes you from the > restraints > of "conventional wisdom" and Realpolitik. That is true. I don't really make any claims to understand the "electability" issue; popularity really doesn't mean that much to me. I can't in the least figure out the first thing about what drives it, so for the most part I set it aside, along with box office totals and record and book sales, as somthing interesting to contemplate, but no true measure of the value of a thing. > Which is something that I am sure > you find pride in, so no insult is intended. I don't find it insulting, but I don't think it's quite accurate-- I don't take pride in it (at least as I understand "pride"). I just don't know any other way to be. Copping to a Nader vote (or two) sure doesn't win one any friends; I mentioned it only to distinguish myself from the longterm Clintonites. > Believe me, I have no desire to > start flaming with you again, Rex. And I hope you feel the same way I do, don't worry on that point. > > If I recall, you are approximately my age, no? > Generationally, probably so: born 1971. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:52:04 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: why do they hate Hillary? On 2/12/08, The Great Quail wrote: > > > > As far as policies go, Tom Clark posted a link to Obama's platform. It is > remarkably similar to Hillary's. Therefore, it becomes fair play to start > discuss leadership styles, personality, the ability to create a sense of > vision, and so on. I would agree - especially given the current state of the electorate (and for that matter, of the presidency outside of bloated Bushism): its symbolic import is nearly as potent as its literal power - and I'm becoming more convinced that insofar as HRC stands for the "old" Dems (the ones who've lost every presidential election since Bill was prez) and Obama represents hope (however heavily we have to lean on "represents"), that's a strong deciding factor in Obama's favor. > > > Jeff D. cited Bill Maher's assertion that hating Hillary mostly > > says more about the person hating than her. > > I am a big fan of Bill Maher -- mostly, at least -- and I agree to a > certain > extent. I do not believe I used the word "hate," but rather dislike, and I > believe in another post I called her brilliant. If I've said in any post > that I "hate" Hillary, I'd be curious -- I do not recall saying such a > thing. That's my memory as well: someone (no logner remember who) raised the question of why Hillary is so hated, and along the way, people dropped in their various pro- and anti-Hillary pieces. I don't think anyone here *hates* Hillary with the burning, gemlike hatred characteristic of professional Hillary-haters - tehre are people here who strongly disagree with her policies & positions, to be sure (both from the left and, I imagine, from our handful of right-wing Fegs) - but I'm not hearing the crazed "Hillary eats baby kittens!" type talk here. > > treacherous waters of that statement! But as I have said, I do not see > video > games as any different than rock music or literature, and I resist > attempts > by the government to interfere with my First Amendment rights. It hasn't been as big an issue this campaign - but insofar as in the past HRC aligned herself to whatever extent with those who'd censor various artistic and entertainment items, I find that troubling. I too have zero interest in video games - but that's maybe all the more reason to be opposed to censoring them, in that if I were to support that it would be from sheer ignorance. > > > Why hate Hillary at all? Why not just argue in favor of Obama (as, for > the > > most part, Obama does)? Rex, I covered this above - in my memory at least, this thread started as a "why Hillary?/why Obama?" thread - not a "goddamn Hillary" thread. I did in an early post. I was responding to *your* post about Fish's blog. For the record, I posted the link to Fish's blog, not Rex. > > >In fact, why bother at all, at this point, since > > Obama surely has the nomination clinched. I wish that were the truth, I really do. But there's still a long way to go. > There's still the open question of super delegates (excuse me -- Hillary's > now calling them "automatic delegates") -- and there's the giant 800-pound > donkey in the room named Florida/Michigan. (which I should add, going > against her earlier stance, Hillary now thinks *should* be counted.) Which, btw - as stupid as it was for the party to piss on two key states - should not count, since their not counting meant most candidates (at the time) did not campaign there. Hillary's "victory" is thus rather hollow, and counting such delegates would be, I think, unfair. > > Am I excited that we have America's first viable female candidate for > president? I suppose so -- I understand that it provides a great role > model > for girls and so on. Well, of course we also have America's first viable black candidate...unless you count Jackson, but he wasn't in the race anywhere near this long (by "long" I mean by primary count...back then, there were hardly any primaries before this time of Feb.). > > > Ain't that the truth, though. "Liberal media" indeed. > > I do not think of the mainstream media as being conservative or liberal, > but > rather an empty vessel that echoes back whatever is shouted the loudest. > True maybe...except guess who owns almost all the megaphones? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #498 ********************************