Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on A Request

1

Americans will never live in Fear.

We are made of sterner stuff than that!

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 4, 2008 11:52 AM
2

It appears that Candidate A is pure good, a visionary sent to us unworthy voters by a god who clearly loves us much. The power of love and compassion flow in Candidate A's veins, and I propose that we should consider restocking the human race with Candidate A's genome in order to advance humanity to a new level.

Conversely, candidate B is an abomination of the natural order, an entropy generator, the fountain of all that is vile and putrid in the world. I believe that candidate B would murder puppies for the sheer nastiness of it, if they could.

Also, I have checked with three or four people and they too consider candidate B to be the new benchmark of human evil. Those of you who support candidate B clearly must belong to some apocalyptic church that I don't know about, and are secretly (or not so secretly) working to bring about the reign of Old Scratch. Are you also raising red calves in your basement?

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 11:53 AM
3

I've gotten the same vibe from my friends who support Hillary. The patronizing "America isn't ready for Obama" or worse "Why not in 8 years? He can wait" or worse still "he's a great idea, but the Clinton's can fight dirtier and win". It's like they begrudge me for being excited about a candidate for the first time in my 35 years. Let me be excited, you can gloat when Hillary gets the nomination.

Posted by Jason | February 4, 2008 11:58 AM
4

After reading that article I now share Dan Savage's fear that Obama will be gunned down before the election.

Posted by Winna | February 4, 2008 11:59 AM
5

you cant live in fear of your candidate dying.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 12:02 PM
6

Sven what it says is that your main reason for supporting Hillary, that she is a fighter, is based in "fear of disappointment." And further that if politics is so dirty today that you think we need a junkyard dog of a candidate, don't you think we really need a new kind of candidate to fix the real problem? That is, if Hillary is as vicious a fighter as you say, then isn't she part of the problem, not the solution?

Or are you saying that Hillary is first going to win using the old rules of dirty politics, and then turn around and change everything?

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 12:06 PM
7

another necessary article on the "hillary haters" from the NY times. really makes me ashamed for the people that berate her on a ongoing basis.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/index.html

Posted by Maria | February 4, 2008 12:09 PM
8

Sven-

Did you even read the editorial? Because the nonsense you wrote had nothing to do with refuting the main points of the article. Like all of your posts, I again have to wonder what kind of point you are trying to make.

Posted by ss | February 4, 2008 12:13 PM
9

@8, yeah but that's such a presumptuous position. the millions of hillary supporters have vastly ranging reasons for supporting hillary. personally, my support is not based on any sort of fight-related situation. i support her for much the same reason people seem to be claiming they support obama: hope and change, inspiration, possibility.


for me, both of them stand for those things that we so desparately need right now. i just see hillary as being the more substantive agent for change, hope, inspiration and possibility. she's an exceptional example of overcoming hardships and doing extraordinary work despite all the odds being against her. i'm inspired by that, and i think having someone like that in office would result in huge, sweeping transformational change.


so this notion that being for anyone other than obama equates allowing yourself to be motivated by fear is preposterous. it allows people to perpetuate some charicature of hillary and her supporters that just doesn't exist.


i understand tons of people see those qualities more in obama, but i just disagree. and i reject the notion that supporting hillary means i'm perpetuating a culture of fear. that's bullcrap.

Posted by kim | February 4, 2008 12:15 PM
10

RE: Maria

The NYT's intrepid Stanley Fish has discovered that those on Hillary's political right criticize her for being too liberal, while -- get this! -- people on Hillary's political left criticize her for being too conservative! Amazing discovery! They can't both be right, can they?

Obviously, Hillary is an empty vessel that neurotic people pour their hate into. Because nobody else gets hit from both sides. Do they?

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 12:23 PM
11

I was a little surprised by the article... he seems to be saying that the Obama detractors think that Hillary is more electable. If anything, I think the polls (and you know, general common sense) indicate the opposite.

Some pro-Hillary people think that she might be able to get more done once in the White House, since she is better at all the political manuevering required. So, maybe the match-up is more hope V. getting things done.

I have not made up my mind yet (I am excited about both candidates), so, I sort of resent the tone of "if you're not for Obama you are being ruled by fear."

Posted by Julie | February 4, 2008 12:23 PM
12

Chabon creates vivid, fascinating worlds, and is especially good at linking his settings closely enough to the world readers know that they easily make the leap with him.

The moral linchpin of "The Yiddish Policeman's Union" is [SPOILER ALERT] the Verbover rebbe's only son Mendel Shpilman, who may have been his generation's Messiah, come to heal if only the world can manage to deserve it. Rejected by his family for being gay, Shpilman ends up a dead junkie in a fleabag hotel.

Chabon's view of Obama meets perfectly (minus the gay) his description of Shpilman's Messiah role.

Take that how you will.

Posted by tomasyalba | February 4, 2008 12:27 PM
13

The thing that makes me sad is that supporters of both candidates are making arguments that amount to "I support my candidate as a protest against the tactics of the supporters of the other candidate". It's not even the CANDIDATE that annoys you; it's the supporters. And yes, Clinton supporters do this more than Obama supporters -- but not by much.

I support my candidate because I support my CANDIDATE. Y'all should try it.

Posted by Fnarf | February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
14

Fnarf - I haven't gotten that impression at all. It seems to me that people who comment on Slog have already made up their mind about which candidate they're supporting, and that all the sniping back and forth between Clinton and Obama people is mostly about "please treat my candidate (and thereore me) with more respect?"

I haven't gotten the impression that people are changing sides (or deciding) based on how the opposite candidate's supporters are acting... just that people who have decided are annoyed that supporters of the other candidate are being assholes.

Posted by Julie | February 4, 2008 12:36 PM
15

I found this article in support of Obama as vapid as much of Obama's stumping. Hope hope hope . . . What am I hoping for? I know, I know, when we look *into* Obama's campaign materials, we can find the specific policies he supports. But his campaign success seems to rely on leaving out the details and sweeping everyone up in pure ephemera. This aricle participates in that very same tendency, rather than getting people involved in discussing hard issues. I was an Edwards supporter, now I'm torn. I don't like either candidate's comfort with the corporatization of America. I think Hillary might swing me on healthcare. But I'm not going to vote for someone because they tell me to "hope." And I suspect that some--not all--middle-class white votes for "hope" are themselves the result of a kind of liberal racism that pats itself on the back for smiling at a black guy instead of crossing to the other side of the street.

Posted by Les | February 4, 2008 12:39 PM
16

All that article teaches us is that Chabon can create an beautiful straw man.

For me the campaign comes down to which I think is more important, a candidate's foreign policy or their domestic policy?

Hillary absolutely owns Obama on the domestic side. The opposite is of course true for our overseas adventures.

Posted by dirge | February 4, 2008 12:41 PM
17

A lot of you people lack imagination. The person who sent this article to the SLOG doesn't.

Posted by Ed | February 4, 2008 12:44 PM
18

#15 I think this is one of the fundamental problems with our Head of Government and Head of State being one and the same. Obama, and I think many Clinton supporters would agree, has such amazing Head of State potential. Head of Governement he's a little more untested (although just as qualified as many past presidents like Lincoln have been). He is inspirational and shows the world the American dream is true: we're not political dynasties and voter fraud and imperialism. A goat-hearder's son CAN become president. A large section of our country does vote based on those hazy "who seems like a leader" and "who inspires you to be better" and "who makes you proud" reasons. Not saying its a good thing people vote on that, but it is the reality.

Posted by Jason | February 4, 2008 12:50 PM
19

@15 - Les your comment is retarded. Did you even read the article? The author said the state of the US is in the shitter because people like you keep voting for the same politician instead of someone that ignites the people. You're comment just validated everything he said. And I don't understand what you mean by "either candidate's comfort with the corporatization of America." Obama, like Edwards does not accept lobbyist or special interest money, where Clinton does.

Posted by Rye | February 4, 2008 1:03 PM
20

I adore Michael Chabon. But I didn't really appreciate his article. He insinuates racism, and yet there has been so. much. sexist. bullshit targeted at Hillary. To ignore that is insulting. I have actually been pleasantly surprised by how little overt racism there has been in the campaign; the amount of overt sexism has been disheartening.

The thing is, I like BOTH the candidates. I don't think they are that different in terms of issues, so it does come down to personality. I think Hillary will kick a lot of ass as president, but I do think it will be more of the same, so I am leaning towards Barack because I think this country needs some inspiration and rejuvenation more than we need someone who will hit the ground running as president.

But it's a hard choice, and frankly anyone who has made the choice with vindictive conviction really puzzles me.

Posted by exelizabeth | February 4, 2008 1:04 PM
21

I couldn't turn on the tv in 1992 without hearing about how Bill Clinton "still believe[d] in a place called Hope." Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the Clinton camp is slamming Obama's for delivering a message that is essentially their old rhetoric?

Posted by jon c | February 4, 2008 1:06 PM
22

Julie @11 -- so maybe the issue is Hope v. Getting Things Done? I wish it were that simple. The anti-Hillary virus runs deep in the GOP. They will block her every move, just like the GOP minority in the Senate is blocking the Dem majorities today. Unless the Dems get 60 sure votes in the Senate (not including Lieberman, thank you), she will be stymied.

And then comes all the diversionary tactics, phony investigations of whatever nonsense the right-wing talkers and bloggers can gin up, all to distract her, get her off-message, and get her agenda to lose traction.

Obama presents a completely different picture. He does not generate the visceral hate that Hillary does. With his much-needed (and yes, much-loved) "coming together" theme, the GOP will only subject itself to criticism if it tries the "stymie everything" tactics they would use on Hillary.

Poll today says Obama gets 13 percent of the Republican vote and over half the independents. He can rewrite the political landscape in a way that can sideline the GOP hate machine, hopefully for a long time.

Posted by Inspired Voter | February 4, 2008 1:08 PM
23

it's a woman vs. a black man for the democratic nomination... can't we just all excited about how awesome that is for like ten seconds?
I like obama more... mostly because I'm age-ist.

Posted by eloise | February 4, 2008 1:28 PM
24

Exelizabeth @20

Thank you for your sensible comments. It IS a tough decision. Like you, I am totally thrown by the resolute certainty so many bright and level-headed people have for their candidate (though I have to say, the Obama people are especially manic). And Dirge @16 is also right: Chabon is a brilliant writer, but this is really just an extremely well-executed straw man (the man being "fear") argument.

And Sven, I love ya, but you may have been a little harsh (though I get where you're coming from).

Posted by Matthew | February 4, 2008 1:35 PM
25

@15 THANK YOU for putting it into words.

HOPE HOPE HOPE hope HOPE hope hope hope

I fucking HOPE you will talk about some of your policies, Obama

Posted by Non | February 4, 2008 1:36 PM
26

Sums it all up

What am I hoping for? I know, I know, when we look *into* Obama's campaign materials, we can find the specific policies he supports. But his campaign success seems to rely on leaving out the details and sweeping everyone up in pure ephemera. This aricle participates in that very same tendency
Posted by Non | February 4, 2008 1:37 PM
27

e@6:

My point is that Chabon's article is the most morally simplistic piece of crap I've read in a long time. Obama's cool but he's not the second coming of Christ.

It's not that there's this awesome candidate that I can't support because I can't get away from the politics of destruction. I happen to think that Obama and Clinton are very, very similar; both seem like good peeps, I'd be fine with either as President, Obama's a better speaker, Clinton is more wonky and has a proven track record going up against Republican sleaze. That's it.

Chabon's article is a giant fucking love letter to a nice but not (for me) inspirational candidate. So his whole argument falls apart for me.

Yes, yes, I know that many of you find Obama inspirational. A lot of you also believe in a sky god who sent his only son to get tortured for a while to somehow wipe away all our sins. I chose not to believe either of these things. Vote your way and I'll vote mine.

ss@8:

I've never heard of you before. What the fuck do you know about anything else I've ever posted here?

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 1:49 PM
28

How do you know, Big Sven?

Maybe God is having fun, and instead of sending a woman this time, she's sending a black multi-ethnic man instead?

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 4, 2008 2:17 PM
29

@27

Unlike you and a few others, not everybody that reads DESPERATELY feels the need to add their two cents and feel right/heard/seen.

Take the Seattle Sexy poll posted by Adrian....nearly 600 votes so far, indicating how many people actually check this place out. Yet about only 8 users are incessant.

The blogosphere definition is a "lurker"

Posted by Non | February 4, 2008 2:18 PM
30

This piece of shit made your friend decide which political candidate he was going to chose? Is this person twelve or just an idiot? Nice moral hit job, Eli. I'm surprised that everyone attacks ECB when you are clearly the more partisan and one-sided of the two.

Posted by juan diaz | February 4, 2008 2:19 PM
31

Inspired Voter@22-

Poll today says Obama gets 13 percent of the Republican vote and over half the independents. He can rewrite the political landscape in a way that can sideline the GOP hate machine, hopefully for a long time.

Ref, please? All the polls that SLOG and Slate are referencing show Clinton and Obama doing the same against Romney (kicking ass) and McCain (not so much, work cut out for us there.)

Non@29-

If one is going to only pop up every so often, perhaps a "your shit is always pointless" might not be the best tack. If elenchos or Will in Seattle or anyone I've ever heard of before said that, it would give me pause. Fnarf called me out on something last week that made me look hard at some things I was saying. Hell, if Reality Check said it I would understand because he and I *always* disagree. But your boy saying it just sounds like a gratuitous ad hominem.

But ss, if you feel my observations low-carb diets with respect to the obesity epidemic and my thoughts about living with my mom's metastatic cancer are also pointless, well then I've misjudged you.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 3:09 PM
32

kim @ 9


i just see hillary as being the more substantive agent for change, hope, inspiration and possibility. she's an exceptional example of overcoming hardships and doing extraordinary work despite all the odds being against her.


Excuse me, but could you enlighten me on exactly what "hardships" Hillary Clinton has overcome and examples of "...all the odds being against her"? She's the child of a prosperous white, middle-class family who went to college at Wellesley and Yale. She got elected to the Senate from New York because she rode her husband's coat tails into the job and faced no significant opposition when re-elected in 2006.


Is Hillary Clinton smart, yes. Has she accomplished a lot? Yes. But she's never had to overcome any hardships and the odds have hardly been against her.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 4, 2008 3:17 PM
33

i was referring mainly to the excessive media scrutiny, the question of bill's infidelity, the scandals and bullshit that's been piling up over the past decade or so. she's accused of riding her husband's coattails (which is totally not true, more likely is that his success has been due to her savvy, not vice versa). her first major legislative quest was an utter embarassment of a failure. those are just a few examples. amidst all that, she's managed to accomplish extraordinary things and maintain a balanced, clear vision of what she intends to accomplish through her political career. despite all that, she's never not been focused on improving the lives of children and families.

Posted by kim | February 4, 2008 7:28 PM
34

@33:
Please tell me again how voting for the war or accepting her husbands infidelities = focusing on improving the lives of children & families.

Thanx!

Posted by Hal | February 4, 2008 9:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).