Reply #63: A special invitation to logic.

[mrbluto]

Look, I've had enough of an administration that doesn't feel it necessary to explain itself - why should I be enthused about another?

It is you that defy logic. Unless you have a time travel machine you've been hiding. The nominee is chosen at the convention. There can be no nominee until chosen. It is cultish and irrational to call Obama anything but the presumptive nominee until then.

By the way, judging from the picture in your sig, and from your attitude, you can keep your "flying fuck". I didn't ask for a "warm-and-fuzzy" feeling from the
Obama supporters I encounter - I ask for reasons.

If you see reasons and policies as "wooing" then, well, I'm just not gonna go there. Suffice to say I don't share your ideas of romance.

To call people who support people other than Obama, or have doubts, "dead-enders" is nothing but shear delusion. The sort of swaggering self-pleasuring fantasy upon which demogogary is built. Even giving Obama the most ridiculously charitable count of votes leaves 40% of the remaining Democratic electorate for whom Obama was not the first choice. If you think 40% of the Democratic party holds a worthless bargaining chip then I wonder what you would ever consider to be a worthwhile bargaining chip. Personally I think that stance is some ploy - you know there's going to be some bargaining come the convention and just can't help yourself from deprecating the value of the coin your guy doesn't hold all of. Trouble is that the way you go about it is pernicious to Obama's chances, and the objectives of the party.

The most disconcerting thing about this is how easily you (and people like you) slip into the sort of tropes and cant that used to be mainly Republican tools, the love-it-or-leave-it, the attempting to equate insisting on civility, respect and dignity as a demand for "warm-and-fuzzies", and this manachian view of your guy vs. the world.

Just the "warm-and-fuzzy" comment is straight out of the neothug play book. I don't know the number of times I've seen someone resisting a discussion of respect or dignity dismiss all such ideas as "unprovable ideas about feelings". I'm sure any woman who fought for woman's rights in the seventies would recognize that for what it is in a heartbeat. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Which brings me to the virtually information-free nature of your post. Not only do you put things in a poor form - you add so little useful information. (* see note) If you went back and swapped-out the name "Obama" for the name of any other name in many of your posts there'd be little to distinguish them other than who you rail against. Movements, or people, that define themselves by what they're against are, practically by definition, reactionary.

You are a reactionary, You promote reactiveness.

You are not a Progressive. (IMHO)

Not even though the candidate you favor might be.

~

p.s. I love it when you swear at me! The sputtering swagger of your response says more than could be said in pages and pages of text. Amongst the things it signifies is an unhealthy transference going on between your ideas of self and that of Obama-the-candidate, the dynamic of which you might want to examine if possible.

---

* (yes, why do I bother to read? - it's like complaining about airline food: "It's so bad - and the portions are so small!" Suffice to say you're like an indicator species - if I keep any eye on you Nance it gives me a clue about the whole ecosystem.)