News, opinions, and links about politics, technology, gadgets, and anything else I find interesting.
We’ve seen this movie before. Whenever conservatives can’t win an argument on the merits, they attack some real or perceived enemy as Hitler. So Ho Chi Mihn was Hitler. bin Ladin was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Of course Hussein was Hitler. And anyone who does something to try to resolve conflict short of more war is Neville Chamberlain.
[Bush’s statement] is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement.
The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November.
There’s a bit of a kerfluffle going on in the mainstream media and the blogosphere around divining the “meaning” of Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary election. A lot of it has to do with Senator Clinton’s margin of victory in the race, which was 9.4%, but which has been widely reported as being 10%. When some Obama supporters complain about that particular characterization, they are called nitpicky. Really, though, it’s not about picking nits, it’s about managing expectations.
In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Clinton’s campaign was on the ropes, and looking for a comeback. The conventional wisdom was that if Clinton could keep her advantage from eroding beyond 10 points (or, more often, if she could achieve a “double digit” victory), she would be doing well.
As it turns out, though, Clinton didn’t achieve a “double digit” victory. She didn’t keep her advantage above 10 points. There is no rounding scheme I know of which can result in a round up from 9.4 to 10. Clinton’s margin of victory was, in fact, a “single digit” victory. She failed to reach the bar set by her own supporters. Even so, nearly every media outlet (certainly every maindstream media outlet) is reporting that she won by 10 points.
Are they stupid, are they ignorant, or do they think we’re not paying attention?
Being “bitter” is an interesting thing. I’m a little bitter, I suppose, about how my family, my friends, and my peers have been treated by the policies of George Bush and the Republicans over the past quarter century. That bitterness makes me want to vote for change, and it also makes me realize that real, significant change is unavoidable given the election of either of the two remaining Democratic candidates, and that real, significant change is absolutely impossible given the election of the Republican McCain.
There is another feeling that, until recently, has been much more decisive than “bitterness,” and that is “fear.” Republican administrations, most particularly the Bush administration, have cultivated a political atmosphere dominated by fear. The current bogeyman is “terrorism,” though some Republicans continue to cling to “communism” as a focus for their fear even though it has been pretty much eliminated as a significant political force, at least in this country. Those whose political decisions are based on fear, as opposed to those who are bitter, will likely vote to continue the authoritarian policies of the Bush administration, happily voting to trash their civil liberties in the name of what they moronically perceive as an increase in “security.”
Our only hope as a nation is that there are more of us who are bitter than there are who are fearful.
