> Why oh why did O suddenly become the bete noir on LBO-Talk ?
He's not a bete of any coleur. He's just another Democrat. Why did he
suddenly become something more than that?
Doug
^^^^^ CB: Like Clinton, he's been a Democrat for over a year. But LBO was full of criticism of Clinton until Iowa, then all of a sudden when the voting started just about no criticism of Clinton and an avalanche of criticism on O. Not very even handed treatment of the Democrats bete and noir. Since the voting started, one would think from here that O is a worse Democrat than C.
Then there's this strange complaint about enthusiasm for O when he has no substance. First, what about all the enthusiasm for C when her substance is no more than O's ? Strange silence on that once the voting started.
Overall, the feel here is just more anger with O than C for some reason. As if Samantha Power is worse than whomever C has in the corresponding position. I don't even know who C's "Samantha Power" is. Why aren't they being attacked here ?
But even more, this is a list where the enthusiasm and fandom for non-substantives like Paris Hilton is celebrated. I'm kept up to date on her highly formal activities. And there are advocates of Nietszche's ideal of Artist as Head of State. Seems to me for O to raise such excitement based on form and not substance is exactly an aesthetic and formal, low substance, achievement (smile).
And "Change" as a main campaign theme is dialectics per se. And it's working ! ( which is pragmatism) ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk