I know you were responding to @tena, but doesn’t someone’s opinion about the piece include whether or not it’s well-reasoned, not just a given as you state?
And just because I disagree with Judis does not make my posts ad hominems and I do not believe that they are.
1 Like
Faulting Hillary for Benghazi was of course absurd. The email server and the way she handled its revelation were a lot more problematic. Her penchant for privacy and inauthenticity — going all the way back to barring Stephanapolus from releasing Whitewater records – has backfired over and over and over. Unless you’re truly deluding yourself, claiming she felt “great” when she had pneumonia was cringeworthy – particularly because it so dramatically confirmed what people most distrust about her. That was all her, in the most personal way.
But Judis’ separate point was more profound. You’re latching onto the Dukakis thing as if he was flinging it out as an insult, when in fact he brought up Dukakis to illustrate the fact that she and/or her campaign don’t understand the need to establish a positive vision. By failing to do so, she’s allowed Trump, other enemies and the small-minded media to define her in negative ways.
What’s the “mess”? It’s too close for comfort, and she’s managed to trim her own coattails. Even if she does win, it will be without a mandate, with (at best) a very small Senate majority, and with a substantially fraying of the coalition that Axelrod and Obama assembled (despite all the help Trump has given her in keeping that coalition intact).
My point is that Judis wasn’t flinging out some snarky attack on Clinton – which is the way any honest criticism of Clinton is treated by many on TPM. He made a coherent argument that as is typical on this site was greeted with fierce anger. Perhaps “well-argued” would be a more neutral way of putting it, but the basic point remains.
1 Like
It’s not over yet - you cannot make such claims because you’re basing it on polls and mostly polls that reflect the past and not the present because they do.
You are reading every sign in deep pessimism. I"m not that kind of person.
I"m not fiercely angry - I disagree and you are trying to discredit my honest disagreement with Judis.
That really wasn’t my question. I didn’t misunderstand your point, I understood it well enough to disagree with it. My point was that you declared the Judis post to be well-reasoned ( or well-argued) as a given, when plenty of people disagree with that.
And one more thing - you aren’t inspired. John Judis isn’t inspired = so damn sorry for you both.
I am inspired beyond belief. I know lots and lots of women and little girls in this country and around the world who are likewise inspired beyond belief by this election.
I’m sorry for everyone who just doesn’t get it.
5 Likes
Fair enough. Perhaps I’m reflecting some of the very angry piling on I’ve seen here directed at, for example, the NY Times, Axelrod and other honest liberals. I didn’t mean to imply that your comment alone constituted some sort of angry screed. It’s the piling on and demonization bothers me. That said (and not meant aggressively), I do think you’re unfairly reducing Judis’ argument when you just make it about his choice to use Dukakis as an illustration; he himself drew distinctions from Dukakis, and I do think his point about the visionary gulf in both campaigns rings true.
1 Like
Will he argue with the Ref? Will he demand instant replay every time Trump lies? Will the Ref call fouls on fibs? This could go into serious overtime.
I’m inspired about a lot of things. But you’re right, I am among the many, many supporters of Hillary Clinton, who sadly enough aren’t inspired by her.
Gee, thanks for feeling sorry for me.
2 Likes
Won’t get a lotta likes here with that, but man that was funny…
I think you can disagree with someone without impugning that person’s intellect, honesty, decency and grasp of reality. In any case, it is profoundly illiberal for people to call for Judis’ firing or to claim he must be a misogynist because he offered a sincere – and yes, well-reasoned – argument. But that’s where people go when they become mindlessly tribal.
1 Like
No offense, but the name on the ballot is Hillary Clinton.
Substance?
You mean, like a half a million in “excess dead” through 2013?
How 'bout the spawning of Isis?
How, exactly, was the Iraq War “right”?
1 Like
I disagree that the Iraq War was right. There was nothing about that war that was right, from the moment it was decided to create the illegal framework to justify it, up to the point where the present administration took the first steps to extricate the US from it. That conflict was (and is) a boondoggle from soup to nuts, and a way for junior to show daddy Bush he had stones and was going to “finish” what he started.
However, I also disagree with carlosfiance that somehow HRC is the only one who voted for it who is never going to be allowed to forget that she did, despite expressing regret repeatedly. As though she was the one and only vote that got them into it. Another point for misogyny there, since John Kerry and Joe Biden have been allowed to regret, repent and walk away from their same vote practically unscathed by the alleged progressive community, but clearly she’s not going to be held to that same standard.
If it’s going to continue to be held as an albatross around HER neck, it better still be considered an albatross for EVERYONE who voted for it. And that’s clearly NOT been the case the last 8 years.
2 Likes
I’m in!!
So, you wouldn’t vote for a war to unseat a psychopathic dictator because you know how it turned out?
let’s imagine you had to vote at the time: you would play politics and let genocide and humans rights violations go unpunished?
How many millions were saved? I personally work with refugees from that war. They really appreciate what we did.
1 Like
Politics aside: to me it is very black and white in the decision to unseat a toltalitarian regime. Is this why it was done? No way. You are correct on those reasons being shit. Was the fallout a big deal? Indeed.
In the moment, you must decide if we stop a genocide or we do what we do all over the world and turn the other cheek. The morally correct thing is to free civilians from tyranny. Every time.
I think we agree on the politics- however I for one, could definitely defend either side of that vote.
Seriously, we need a real time debate thread keeping track. Nickel dime donations is a good idea because otherwise I’d be staggeringly drunk.
2 Likes