The "reasons" aren't standing up to scrutiny, especially with no criticisms of C accompanying it. The "reasons" are , with time passing and therefore more time to think about them, vacuous. especially all the nonsense out and out accusing O supporters of various "manias: and craziness. That stuff has long been unacceptable, to put it euphemistically. to persist in it in the face of having it pointed out agains and again, requires looking to other reasons to explain it. Eventually, objectively racist, unconsciously racist, structurally racist is all that's left. After all, it is objectively , if not explicitly , in league with the Clintons' racist tactics. If you run with dogs, you are going to get flees, to give a non-elitist analogy. If you want to defend it, you'll have to come up with more than you say here, a better alternative explanation.
[...]
and Julio Huato wrote:
The profound mistake of Charles' postings is not that he speaks about Obamaphobia in our list. It's that he speaks of it as if our list was static; as if no progress could be made -- as if shag, in spite of all, hadn't started to advocate for Obama with her co-workers.
[...]
......
Charles, as I've pointed out time and again (and, for good measure, even linked to a recent posting in which I state a criticism of Clinton, though your medical emergency might have prevented you from noting it) the Clinton campaign is corrupt and useless. The only thing which makes it look even marginally useful is the presence of the absolutely horrible and geriatric McCain campaign, which should be launched into the heart of the sun.
We all agree that Senator Clinton is an eager imperialist who, in a better cosmos, would be mind-wiped and forced to work in the salt mines of some distant world.
What we don't agree on is the role of Senator Obama's campaign. In the past, I've patiently described our differing positions.
Here's the link:
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080317/005228.html>
And in the past, you acknowledged that I'd done just that. I thought we'd reached a point where we could at least agree that the fact we differed wasn't evidence of a moral failing on my part but I see you've reverted to that unyielding point of view.
You place "reasons" in quotes as if the topics I and others have discussed re: Sen. Obama aren't reasons at all but suspect and murky, veiled covers for clandestine urges. You repeatedly bring up the word "mania" as if that's the only thing that has been said about Sen. Obama's supporters. You do this, even though I've only used the word mania once -- as the title of a post which never actually referred to the Senator's supporters using that term.
You cite the long list of the Senator's backers as evidence that those of us who have other views are out-of-touch and perhaps, compelled by evil motives (For why else would we disagree with the list of laudables?).
I'm bored and I'm tired. I'm bored by the endlessly recycled arguments of old men, which aren't nearly as interesting as other things vying for my time, and I'm tired of being called a villain.
Of course I voted for Obama during the Pennsylvania primary. And of course, if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him in the general election. Like Shag, I've been gaging the mood around my workplace -- which, as part of the financial sector, is strongly pro Obama -- and encouraging people to put their lot in with the Senator. So in the outside world, the world of people who wonder what the hell you're talking about when you say the US invaded Indochina (instead of helping) and is brutally occupying Iraq, I've been a consistent, though 'strategic', friend of the Obama camp.
But here, in this space, I've written about other considerations. Your response has been disappointingly stubborn.
And when I write "stubborn" I'm not referring to your views on Obama but the way you've assumed the very worst about the people who've disagreed with you.
Once again, here's what you wrote:
"The "reasons" are, with time passing and therefore more time to think about them, vacuous. especially all the nonsense out and out accusing O supporters of various "manias: and craziness. That stuff has long been unacceptable, to put it euphemistically. to persist in it in the face of having it pointed out again and again, requires looking to other reasons to explain it. Eventually, objectively racist, unconsciously racist, structurally racist is all that's left"
[...]
Do you realize what you're saying here? You're essentially accusing me of being an Uncle Tom by contributing to the debate on the side of the doubters.
Do you understand why many of us would rather play GTA4, bike, talk to friends, pretend we're Tyler Durden, jeezus, anything but put up with this? Political discussion with your adversaries -- who you don't expect to grant you any benefit of the doubt -- is bruising enough.
But with friends like these....
.d.