First, we get hit with disturbing sexual inneundo in her post title "No, really, I'll pull out." I haven't been this permaflaccid since Bob Dole was pimping for Viagra. Seriously, I think my dick just shrank all the way up inside my body cavity.
Megan spends the post explaining that she thinks the possibility of a timetable for withdrawal being set while Bush is still in office is better for McCain than it is for Obama:
I'm puzzled by war opponents who think that voters will suddenly love Obama for having been "right all along". Assuming arguendo that this is true, the psychological logic is off. Most Americans supported the war. Do you become more endeared of your spouse when it turns out that you really should have taken that left fork thirty miles ago? Most people prefer folie à deux.Unfortunately, she may be right about this. Of course, that doesn't make her any less incompetent.
Rather than feeding the early war proponents the same self-centered bullshit they've been filling up on ever since it became clear how stratospherically wrong they were, she could've pointed out that this isn't the best way to make a decision. How about actually conceding that Barack may have gotten it right because he has better-than-average judgment? Naw, after all, who wants the leader of the free world to be smarter than Dick, John, and Jane? Maybe she might point out that McCain was one of the earliest proponents of the war and his voice, filled with warmongering and lies, was one of the reasons so many Americans were fooled? McCain wanted us to invade Iraq BEFORE Bush started pushing for it, for fuck's sake. Why not point out that, while a lot of us were wrong along with him, he was the first to be wrong. His wrongness was a deciding factor in the wrongness of all those who trusted him to be right!
But, naw, that's too "complex" and the rubes won't get it. Stick to the cynical observations, Megan. It's not like you have a unique position of being a somewhat well listened to voice that might actually sway a few people to realize the folly of voting for the guy who was just as dumb as they were. Just go ahead and encourage them to vote for the guy that steered them wrong in the first place. Carry on, Megs. You're doing God's work.
Posts
10 comments:
But remember, she's for Obama.
I mention that only because you could never tell from the content of her posts.
The title is vulgar. She should know better.
No doubt if McCain gets to bomb more countries we'll hear all about how popular the bombing is from Megan, and not a word about the victims or the morality of the entire enterprise.
"How about actually conceding that Barack may have gotten it right because he has better-than-average judgment?"
For one, I don't think this is true. Obama's entire political career consists of taking mainstream, non-controversial positions in order to further his career. This tendency explains his opposition to the Iraq war better than any principled, or even empirical judgment based on the facts at the time. Now if Obama was a politician in a district that wasn't as liberal as Hyde Park, chances are he wouldn't publicly oppose the war (even though he may privately believe its nuts). Furthermore, Obama's waffling about ending the war, and FISA, suggest his liberalism is a product of circumstance, not principle.
I don't think it's just vulgar, Susan. In the context, it's actually kind of creepy.
Redundant, or merely pretentious:
"Assuming arguendo"
You decide.
Yes, CP, considering her recent abortion statements, it is creepy.
I'm afraid I agree with rick about Obama. He's not very liberal, but the bar has been lowered so far that he looks better than he is. And of course anyone's better than McCain, the walking time bomb.
Obama never claimed to be a liberal. He's a centrist with a hint of the left, as opposed to Bill Clinton's centrism with a hint of the right. He moves the Overton window in the right direction. Asking him to be the beginning of a rebirth of liberalism in America is too much to ask of any politician. FFS, he's already moved some pretty impressive mountains.
It's always wise to be skeptical of a politician, but I think Obama is one of the few that seems like he might actually have common human decency. His activism in Chicago is what makes me think that. There are many other ways he could've chosen to "start" a political career that would have had just as good a chance at succeeding.
Also, I don't think he's waffled on Iraq. He's changed his wording rather slightly which makes sense. He knows that he can't give a set date before actually having access to all the info that commander in chief has. So the 16, or however many, months thing was slightly dishonest but whatever. The points is he wants to get the troops out (a position I'm not sure I entirely agree with.. for very complicated reasons) and he's stuck by that.
The FISA bill I agree is despicable but you can't expect him to NEVER pander and there are far worse things he could've dodged right on.
I agree with Brad, and also hold out hope that he'll enact much more liberal policies once elected.
Maybe you're right, though. Absolute cynicism might be the only realistic outlook. Frankly, the right gives me enough to be cynical about. In a two party state, I'm stuck with "the left" that we have. I just can't handle being bitter ALL the time.
In what universe was opposition to the war a mainstream position?
I'm asking 'cause I'd like to move there.
I'm not buying the product of Hyde Park angle there unless someone can definitively show that Hyde Park was overwhelmingly opposed to the war.
Margalis-
Read Lizza's piece on Obama in the New Yorker, or just visit Hyde Park. It was overwhelmingly against the war.
Post a Comment