He hardly characterized the TP as "delirous" and "unhinged" and instead argued that among among us, there were people who were "serious" and "connected" as well as "delirious" and "unhinged". http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19clinton.html
And, even if he did call them all unhinged and delirious - and never suggested there were "serious" and "connected" folks among them - that is hardly an indication of snobbery. It's called political warfare in the u.s., where using logical fallacies against an opponent is perfectly normal and an excellent idea. Calling them fucknutted jackoffs or whatever else comes to mind just means: "I disagree with your fucking politics, but we are in such huge disagreement that it's a waste of my time to engage. Furthermore, I think your politics are so reprehensible I feel ZERO need to engage in some ritual of deference and demeanor while I pretend to respect your ideas. Sorry dewds, line in the sand: some ideas and ideologies ARE the mortal enemy of mine. Ta!"
But anything to parade around an identity politics which advances the normal average white guy as an embattled identity oppressed by the elitist left.
> Sean Collins, for Spiked:
>
> The Tea Party? Get over it already
>
> In their discussion of the Tea Party as 'delirious' and 'unhinged',
> liberals
> like Bill Clinton are exposing their own snobbery.
>
> ...there has always been an anti-party, anti-politics strain to the
> Tea
> Party. It is ironic that the group has 'party' in its name, since it
> is
> clearly not a party, and is arguably anti-party. The incoherence of
> views
> beyond the anti-tax message, the generational differences, the calls
> for
> 'taking back our country' - all suggest that the Tea Party is neither
> coherent nor really just about policy; rather it is the product of
> disarray
> amongst Republicans and the confused, anti-political times we live in.
>
> So, the Tea Party may be novel in some respects, but it is not that
> difficult to recognise its limitations. But the discussion of the Tea
> Party
> in the American media has always been out of proportion to its size
> and true
> influence. From the conservative side, it is understandable why they
> would
> want to hype up the Tea Party. Fox News and right-wing talk radio, in
> particular, have promoted the movement in an attempt to refresh
> conservatism
> after its recent setbacks. But what is less obvious is why liberals
> are so
> preoccupied, even obsessed at times, with the Tea Party.
>
> Given that the Tea Party is relatively small and skewed towards older
> Americans, liberals could have ignored or downplayed it. Instead, they
> exaggerated the Tea Party's numbers and influence. They portrayed the
> organisation as a growing mass movement and a dangerous threat...
>
> More at http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8775/
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)