From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #547 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, March 24 2008 Volume 16 : Number 547 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Musical "How Do They Do That?" [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Rex ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Twain and Rand (No RH) [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Steve Schiavo 1. Keith Moon - (can't imagine him beng topped for that inexplicable combo of >casual / forceful moves that created that sound he put out) >2. Robert Fripp - (speed + math = man, oh, man) >3. Adrian Belew - (Elephant talk? Elephant talk? "scree-wee-wee-wee!") >4. Bill Bruford - (who needs to keep time? bah! -- that's for lesser men...) >5. John Entwistle - (if I were Bill Wyman during both of their heydays. I >woulda killed myself out of embarassment) >6. Pete Townshend - (mostly for the variety and volume -- by weight, not sound >- -- of stuff he put out when they were a trio w/singer) >7. Andy Summers - (I still think he was playing a TV antenna in the >"Synchronicty II" video / '83 tour) >8. Tony Levin - (the Lex Luthor of rock!) >9. Glenn Kotche - (Wilco..."Fell in love with a drummer," indeed...) >10. Lindsey Buckingham - (for the studio work...Kleenex boxes, toy pianos, and >banjos never sounded so rock 'n' roll) Interesting that 70% of you list is covered by just two bands (and given that fripp and Summers put out a couple of albums,t he first of which is astonishing, that accounts for the top eight of the list). FWIW, I'll add that I recently got a DVD of Thrak-era King Crimson and had the pleasure of seeing some of these anazing things for the first time. I ust can't work out how the hell some of it could be humanly possible. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:48:28 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:57 PM, 2fs wrote: > > > > Sorry, Rex. > I'm apparently the only one not only not to have ejaculated instantly over that "race" speech, but to have been profoundly disappointed by it. What Obama still had going for him was that aura of not playing politics, of honesty. And having avoided making is campaign a referendum on race, he gets put on the spot about it, and suddenly he's been planning on making this huge speech about it for a long time? The one thing he had never seemed before was disingenuous. That's over. The irony (sort of) is that from my point of view, he didn't have jack shit to apologize for. Sentiments like "god damn America" don't bother me too much, free speech and America both being what they respectively are. Oh well. Better to get it over with now than halfway through the guy's first administration (except that everyone seems to have bought it hook line & sinker). - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:02:18 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On 3/23/08, Rex wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:57 PM, 2fs wrote: > > > < > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin > > > > > > > Sorry, Rex. > > > > I'm apparently the only one not only not to have ejaculated instantly over > that "race" speech, but to have been profoundly disappointed by it. What > Obama still had going for him was that aura of not playing politics, of > honesty. And having avoided making is campaign a referendum on race, he > gets put on the spot about it, and suddenly he's been planning on making > this huge speech about it for a long time? The one thing he had never > seemed before was disingenuous. That's over. > Frankly, I don't see the contradiction you allude to. It's entirely possible both to vow to not make one's campaign *about* race, while still recognizing it as the 800-pound monster in the room and as a subject that, eventually, one must address. The irony (sort of) is that from my point of view, he didn't have jack shit > to apologize for. Sentiments like "god damn America" don't bother me too > much, free speech and America both being what they respectively are. > Of course he didn't - but politicians are always required to apologize and take responsibility for shit they have nothing to do with. I think there's a line between not *cynically* playing the game of politics and not playing it at all: the first is a viable route, the second political suicide. Not to mention hey, funny how McCain's crazed, froth-foaming, gaybaiting, Catholic- and Jew-hating minister doesn't require McCain to apologize... But that's because, you know, all black people in America know one another and are responsible for what each and every one of them does, whereas white people are all individuals and utterly independent of one another. Anyway: the outlines of the coming Republican attack (unless HRC wins it) are starkly clear: Obama is The Stranger Who Can't Be Trusted. I mean, he's got this weird minister, this foreign name, this weird mother, the foreign father... Of course, Republicans will be shocked - shocked! - if anyone imagines that any of this has the slightest scintilla of an iota to do with race - how dare anyone suggest it! - but still, you know, who is this "Obama" character? Anyway: the cogent point about Rich's article that I "apologized" to you for was this: HRC has a problem, in that she voted for the war in Iraq. This is the clearest point any opponent to McCain can make, and today's death toll again makes clear that Bush is a lying sack of shit when he says things are going well in Iraq - but HRC can't really position herself as opposed to it, given that vote. She cannot undo that, and she has not yet forcefully disavowed that vote. Saying she fell for the clearly bogus evidence makes her look, well, far more stupid than she actually is: if it was crystal clear to much of the nation that that evidence was crap, how gullible does someone have to be to ignore the clear political incentive to manufacture it and instead accept it as gospel? Whatever - the first order is for both Obama and Clinton to start running against McCain, not against each other. If the Dems are perceived as bickering amongst themselves, while McCain blathers his bullshit "integrity" meme and flagwaves his war-heroism, he'll win over all the people who, unaccountably, haven't yet decided between the two parties. (Short version: McCain wants your great-grandchildren to be blown to bits in Iraq; neither Dem does.) Regardless of the above, the Democrats bear a huge portion of blame here - not only in that many of them, like Clinton, did vote for the goddamned war, but in that despite the clear mandate of the populace in the '06 elections, they're still dithering, tentatively wafting proposals into the night, instead of actually doing something to extract our soldiers from the quagmire of impossible Iraq and stanch the oozing flow of dollars whose intensity increases each day this pointless, immoral, grandstanding war pitilessly drags on. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:28:30 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster Howard Stern - a huge Hilary supporter -hated the speech - he said it didn't address the fact that Obama has supported a racist for two decades (i'm too tired to go into it all now) His side-kick Robin Quivers thought it was a great speech and Howard just didn't get it . . . Howard felt Obama should have disassociated himself years and years ago . . and his continued alliance says more about Barack's character than a pretty speech . . In a message dated 3/23/2008 11:54:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, spottedeagleray@gmail.com writes: I'm apparently the only one not only not to have ejaculated instantly over that "race" speech, but to have been profoundly disappointed by it. **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:30:12 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Twain and Rand (No RH) Anyone ever notice the extreme similarity of Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics to Mark Twain's "What Is Man?"? It struck me the other day while I was reading the latter...here's an excerpt.... http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/7/70/70.txt O.M. Then there is but ONE law, one source. Y.M. That both the noblest impulses and the basest proceed from that one source? O.M. Yes. Y.M. Will you put that law into words? O.M. Yes. This is the law, keep it in your mind. FROM HIS CRADLE TO HIS GRAVE A MAN NEVER DOES A SINGLE THING WHICH HAS ANY FIRST AND FOREMOST OBJECT BUT ONE--TO SECURE PEACE OF MIND, SPIRITUAL COMFORT, FOR HIMSELF. Y.M. Come! He never does anything for any one else's comfort, spiritual or physical? O.M. No. EXCEPT ON THOSE DISTINCT TERMS--that it shall FIRST secure HIS OWN spiritual comfort. Otherwise he will not do it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:36:16 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Anyone ever notice the extreme similarity of Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics > to Mark Twain's "What Is Man?"? The difference is that Twain might've seen the joke. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:48:37 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mar 24, 2008, at 12:28 AM, HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > Howard Stern - a huge Hilary supporter -hated the speech - > he said it didn't address the fact that Obama has supported a > racist for two > decades > (i'm too tired to go into it all now) His side-kick Robin Quivers > thought it was a great speech and Howard just didn't get it . . . > Howard felt Obama should have disassociated himself years and > years ago . . > and his continued alliance says more about Barack's character than > a pretty > speech . . Yes, more subtle thought from Howard Stern. - - Steve _______________ Interconnectedness among living beings can be accounted for by nonlocal quantum entanglement. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:09:59 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: REAP . . . and REAP alert http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/bailey-raes-hus band-found-dead/20080323163909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 Bailey Rae's Husband Found Dead and . . . not doing well : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_art icle_id=542362&in_page_id=1773 McCartney flies to bedside of 'Fifth Beatle' as he fights for life **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:41:11 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of 2fs Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:02 AM To: Rex Cc: menaced by bears! (and mice) Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On 3/23/08, Rex wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:57 PM, 2fs wrote: > > > < > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=s > > login > > > > > > > Sorry, Rex. > > > > I'm apparently the only one not only not to have ejaculated instantly > over that "race" speech, but to have been profoundly disappointed by > it. What Obama still had going for him was that aura of not playing > politics, of honesty. And having avoided making is campaign a > referendum on race, he gets put on the spot about it, and suddenly > he's been planning on making this huge speech about it for a long > time? The one thing he had never seemed before was disingenuous. That's over. > Frankly, I don't see the contradiction you allude to. It's entirely possible both to vow to not make one's campaign *about* race, while still recognizing it as the 800-pound monster in the room and as a subject that, eventually, one must address. The irony (sort of) is that from my point of view, he didn't have jack shit > to apologize for. Sentiments like "god damn America" don't bother me > too much, free speech and America both being what they respectively are. > Of course he didn't - but politicians are always required to apologize and take responsibility for shit they have nothing to do with. I think there's a line between not *cynically* playing the game of politics and not playing it at all: the first is a viable route, the second political suicide. Not to mention hey, funny how McCain's crazed, froth-foaming, gaybaiting, Catholic- and Jew-hating minister doesn't require McCain to apologize... But that's because, you know, all black people in America know one another and are responsible for what each and every one of them does, whereas white people are all individuals and utterly independent of one another. Anyway: the outlines of the coming Republican attack (unless HRC wins it) are starkly clear: Obama is The Stranger Who Can't Be Trusted. I mean, he's got this weird minister, this foreign name, this weird mother, the foreign father... Of course, Republicans will be shocked - shocked! - if anyone imagines that any of this has the slightest scintilla of an iota to do with race - how dare anyone suggest it! - but still, you know, who is this "Obama" character? Anyway: the cogent point about Rich's article that I "apologized" to you for was this: HRC has a problem, in that she voted for the war in Iraq. This is the clearest point any opponent to McCain can make, and today's death toll again makes clear that Bush is a lying sack of shit when he says things are going well in Iraq - but HRC can't really position herself as opposed to it, given that vote. She cannot undo that, and she has not yet forcefully disavowed that vote. Saying she fell for the clearly bogus evidence makes her look, well, far more stupid than she actually is: if it was crystal clear to much of the nation that that evidence was crap, how gullible does someone have to be to ignore the clear political incentive to manufacture it and instead accept it as gospel? Whatever - the first order is for both Obama and Clinton to start running against McCain, not against each other. If the Dems are perceived as bickering amongst themselves, while McCain blathers his bullshit "integrity" meme and flagwaves his war-heroism, he'll win over all the people who, unaccountably, haven't yet decided between the two parties. (Short version: McCain wants your great-grandchildren to be blown to bits in Iraq; neither Dem does.) Jeff wrote: >Regardless of the above, the Democrats bear a huge portion of blame here - not only in that many of >them, like Clinton, did vote for the goddamned war, Huge? Yes, 39% of the Dems in the House and 59% of the Dems in the Senate. I bet most of the public think that it's more than that though. It's the GOP'ers that should be held accountable and voted out of office, as some of them already have been in 2006. Many more to follow in 2208. Iraq Resolution vote: United States House of Representatives Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote Republican 215 6 0 2 Democratic 81 126 0 1 Independent 0 1 0 0 TOTALS 296 133 0 3 United States Senate Party Ayes Nays No Vote Republican 48 1 0 Democratic 29 21 0 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 77 23 0 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:44:19 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster i think you've missed the point of Howard Stern In a message dated 3/24/2008 8:56:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: Yes, more subtle thought from Howard Stern. **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:10:58 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster Rex writes, > I'm apparently the only one not only not to have ejaculated instantly over > that "race" speech, As much as I was impressed, I managed to keep my biological functions in check. But I did think it was an amazing speech. I also assure you, you are not alone -- in fact, your sentiments on this somewhat align you with Geraldine Ferraro, a few far-left wing commentators, and needless to say, a vast array of "conservative" punditry. > but to have been profoundly disappointed by it. What > Obama still had going for him He has a lot more than that "still" going for him, such as a wealth of intelligent and sane propositions on how to run this country. What attracts me the most to Obama is his ability to think *reasonably.* I've been following the campaign extremely closely, and I am again and again impressed by his ability to apply common sense, reason, and rationality to a variety of positions. What's most remarkable to me about his "race speech" (by the way, the first of *three* consecutive major speeches, but the only one covered extensively by the mainstream media; perhaps the War and the Economy are not as juicy as the Wright affair) is that he speaks about race in an intelligent and reasonable fashion. That in itself is startling for a high-profile politician. >was that aura of not playing politics, of > honesty. You cannot run for any office and not "play politics" to a certain extent. Jeff writes nicely and succinctly about the difference between cynical politics and realistic politics. > And having avoided making is campaign a referendum on race, he > gets put on the spot about it, and suddenly he's been planning on making > this huge speech about it for a long time? The one thing he had never > seemed before was disingenuous. That's over. I have no idea where this is coming from. I understand that, as a Hillary Clinton supporter, you may be disappointed with the kind of campaign she's run; and in response, you may be holding Obama up to an impossible standard. But that "race speech" was written *by Obama* recently; in fact, he was up until 2 am the night before finishing it. Race was always going to be a factor in this election -- as long as Obama is black, and Hillary is female, race and gender will be issues. I am just glad its being addressed now -- better to have all of Obama's "dirty laundry" aired sooner than later. In that respect, going against Hillary Clinton has been a very useful experience. She's played the Hardball Republican role to the hilt, and has given him a taste of what's to come. > The irony (sort of) is that from my point of view, he didn't have jack shit > to apologize for. Sentiments like "god damn America" don't bother me too > much, free speech and America both being what they respectively are. They don't bother you too much, but I assure you they bother the majority of voters. And seeing as you are neither running for president, or will elect the president solely by your own vote, I am not too sure where your sense of irony is coming from. > Oh well. Better to get it over with now than halfway through the guy's > first administration (except that everyone seems to have bought it hook line > & sinker). Again, your language reveals a certain degree of hostility; I find that curious, especially seeing how your chosen Democratic candidate has lied, manipulated, distorted, hectored, and hardballed her way so far long the campaign trail.... - --Quail http://www.dailykos.com/user/Great%20Quail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:45:00 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster (The Jeff remix) > Not to > mention hey, funny how McCain's crazed, froth-foaming, gaybaiting, Catholic- > and Jew-hating minister doesn't require McCain to apologize... But that's > because, you know, all black people in America know one another It's also because the mainstream media has a love affair going on with John McCain. The sheep lack of actual reporting that goes on in the MSM is breathtaking, we all know that. But for whatever reason, McCain gets free pass after free pass. > Anyway: the outlines of the coming Republican attack (unless HRC wins it) > are starkly clear: Obama is The Stranger Who Can't Be Trusted. I mean, he's > got this weird minister, this foreign name, this weird mother, the foreign > father... Of course, Republicans will be shocked - shocked! - if anyone > imagines that any of this has the slightest scintilla of an iota to do with > race - how dare anyone suggest it! - but still, you know, who is this > "Obama" character? There will also be a line of attack directly questioning his patriotism. This will be more effective than the race card -- and certainly more damaging. We can see this being previewed right now, from Bill Clinton's sly attacks about "loving your country" to the ever-reliable Fox News. > Anyway: the cogent point about Rich's article that I "apologized" to you for > was this: HRC has a problem, in that she voted for the war in Iraq. True, but this is itself a reflection of a deeper problem: a deep-seated narcissism that breeds the worst kind of political dishonesty. Witness her comments re: S-CHIP, NAFTA, the war, Ireland peace talks, and of course the ludicrous "sniper fire" distortion. Voting for the war is a symptom of this deeper issue. Whether or not she believed it was the right thing to do is a great unknown, a black box. What we do know is that she believed it would help her look "tough"; and now that public sentiment is against the war, she believes being against it will make her look electable. Of course, this is largely my opinion; I have no proof that if public sentiment was "Stay the course!" Hillary would be a stay-the-courser. But it's hard to ignore the general pattern of her track record, and its extremely hard to ignore the disconnect between her words and actions. Hillary Clinton is an Orwellian candidate. This is a disappointment to me, because I defended her in the 90s. > Whatever - the first order is for both Obama and Clinton to start running > against McCain, not against each other. That's easy to say from afar, but the problem is deeper. Clinton *began* with the negativity, Clinton began making Obama look unelectable -- that's part of her strategy. Obama cannot simply ignore her and focus on McCain, because she's doing *more* damage to him than McCain is doing. He has got to *first* defeat her, then defeat McCain. It's very sad, and believe me, I wish that this process would soon come to an end, so we can all pull together and focus on defeating McCain. But it's not entirely accurate to say that Obama and Clinton are beating on each other and letting McCain run free. Blame cannot be equally distributed here, *especially* when the Obama campaign makes two major speeches positioning himself against McCain, all the while Hillary and Bill continue to sing his praises. > Regardless of the above, the Democrats bear a huge portion of blame here - > not only in that many of them, like Clinton, did vote for the goddamned war, > but in that despite the clear mandate of the populace in the '06 elections, > they're still dithering, tentatively wafting proposals into the night, > instead of actually doing something to extract our soldiers from the > quagmire of impossible Iraq and stanch the oozing flow of dollars whose > intensity increases each day this pointless, immoral, grandstanding war > pitilessly drags on. I agree with you 100%. And because Clinton is unlikely to step down, and will likely take this thing to a brokered convention, it becomes increasingly more important that the Democratic Party leadership (ah, I am aware of the oxymoron!) needs to step in. Simply put, superdelegates have to get off the fence and actually make commitments. They need to do this thing *now,* and stop worrying about their long-term career goals. While it's important for Carter and Gore to remain neutral -- just in case we do need a brokered convention -- I am losing respect for Edwards by the day. It's clear he wants a cabinet position, whether it's in an Obama administration or a Clinton administration. And his "neutrality" is beginning to look more like self-interested timidity if not outright cowardice. A few good links: Story Behind the Story: The Clinton Myth http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html This piece details why the race is far from a "dead heat." Go Already! http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee40 6c The New Republic on why Clinton should drop out of the race. Hillary's Balkan Adventures http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventur es_par.html A devastating appraisal of Clinton's lie about her trip to Bosnia. Keith Obermann's "Special Comment" on the Clinton Campaign http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23601041/ Keith Olbermann unloads on the tactics of the Clinton campaign. Obama memo on Clinton's distortions http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clinton-misleading-voters/ From the Obama camp, a searing list of the Clinton campaign's many distortions. Hillary's War http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b4af4e6f-c079-427e-947f-fdd05d0665 24 A New Republic analysis of Clinton's stance on the war. Clinton, Genocide, and a Gaffe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/clinton-genocide-and-a-c_b_90436.h tml A good essay on Samantha Power and Clinton's Rwanda problem. Clinton a long way from the White House at key foreign policy moments http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/hillaryclinton.uselections20081 The Guardian looks through the First Lady's schedule. Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama One of the earliset pro-Obama pieces that pulled me away from Edwards to to Obama. Obama's Senate Record http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422 His track record. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:02:01 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:02 PM, 2fs wrote: > On 3/23/08, Rex wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:57 PM, 2fs wrote: > > > > > < > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, Rex. > > > > > > > I'm apparently the only one not only not to have ejaculated instantly > > over that "race" speech, but to have been profoundly disappointed by it. > > What Obama still had going for him was that aura of not playing politics, > > of honesty. And having avoided making is campaign a referendum on race, he > > gets put on the spot about it, and suddenly he's been planning on making > > this huge speech about it for a long time? The one thing he had never > > seemed before was disingenuous. That's over. > > > > Frankly, I don't see the contradiction you allude to. It's entirely > possible both to vow to not make one's campaign *about* race, while still > recognizing it as the 800-pound monster in the room and as a subject that, > eventually, one must address. > That is how everyone seems to have taken it. I don't buy the idea that he'd wanted to make the speech before the media started attacking him with the Rev. Wright issue. This was damage control. Brilliant damage control, but political and disingenuous damage control nonetheless-- that was, to me, trasparent in the way BO threw a whole bunch of different, sometimes contradictory, takes on the subject at the wall to see what would stick. Frustratingly, all that stuff was interspersed with a bunch of stuff to which I couldn't help but say "hell yeah". It was as whiplash-inducing a thing as I've ever encountered. > Of course he didn't - but politicians are always required to apologize and > take responsibility for shit they have nothing to do with. I think there's a > line between not *cynically* playing the game of politics and not playing it > at all: the first is a viable route, the second political suicide. And that's the riddle of Obama, isn't it? Beloved for not playing politics, and then celebrated for it. It's like he's the Jesus of two mutuallly exclusive domains. > Not to mention hey, funny how McCain's crazed, froth-foaming, gaybaiting, > Catholic- and Jew-hating minister doesn't require McCain to apologize... But > that's because, you know, all black people in America know one another and > are responsible for what each and every one of them does, whereas white > people are all individuals and utterly independent of one another. I really can't fathom how-- unless I missed it-- *someone* didn't do exhaustive profiles of everything Clinton and McCain's respective pastors might have said over the past few years. The whole manufactured Rev. Wright thing was media hypocrisy of the highest degree. God damn America indeed. > Anyway: the cogent point about Rich's article that I "apologized" to you > for was this: HRC has a problem, in that she voted for the war in Iraq. That problem has existed from, erm "Day 1", though. But I'm not saying anything positve about the Clinton campaign at this point either. I'm sad that what looked like a choice between two strong candidates has turned into another "pull the lever for the person who is not Republican in Novemeber and don't bitch about it too much" situation. Some blame for that goes to Clinton drawing the race out too long, and a lot of it goes to the media, who would have flogged the Wright thing to death under any circumstances. But Obama's response did too much pandering to too many factions to be anything other than off-putting to me, and I wanted to like it. I really wanted it to mean something. But it didn't. - -Rex ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #547 ********************************