Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Frequently members of various political persuasions express their displeasure with the opinions of others not equally inclined. Often the displeasure describes the opposing viewpoint as less than intelligent, politically motivated or worse, inspired or concocted by the opposition of a candidate which the complainant supports. How is this a surprise?

Does anyone remember politics as a sport in which the participants refrain from purposely annoying those with opposing viewpoints? Didn’t think so. Whether there was ever a time when political jousting was limited to meaningful and worthy debate or discourse requires one with a minimum of twice the current life expectancy of humans to remember from personal experience. With that in mind, a few current examples of what passes for acceptable commentary in in modern politics. And modern is not necessarily a qualitative judgment.

Beware the Clintons
Edward S. Davison Jr.,
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Recent Democratic-sponsered advertisements in the New York Times reported General Petraeus as a possible traitor, the leader of the U.S. forces against terrorism.

Bill and Hillary Clinton support, 100 percent, MoveOn.org, which paid for the advertisement. By the way, it received more than a 60 percent discount on the ad, because its original purpose and continuing purpose is to attack any Republican who dares stand up to Hillary’s election.

The author includes comments about HRC not voting to condemn the ad, Bill condemning those who condemned the ad as well as dodging military service, the Clintons should not be trusted and something about poop. This may be a stretch but you can probably rest assured Edward Davison will not be voting for a Clinton.

The next example from the cruise for news in cyberspace provides an author with somewhat less absolute indicators of voting preference. But the analogy used is interesting.

USC and HRC: Invincible!

With each national poll that is released, Clinton’s nomination and election to become president of the United States appears inevitable. With all apologies to Fidel Castro, she is looking invincible with or without Barack Obama by her side if you listen to the political pundits. And that’s why Clinton risks the same tragedy as my USC Trojans.

USC never thought they could lose to Stanford. In the week before the game, the coaches went home early. In their pre-game walk to the Stadium, players and coaches looked more focused on having fun than on playing football. And when it came time to put the pads on, the coaches now admit that they never considered that Stanford might win when choosing which plays to call.

In a word, my friends, that’s hubris. And hubris, as my Spot-on colleague Mike Spinney pointed out yesterday, is the Democratic Party’s greatest enemy right now.

The author makes a point not missing from the MSM in places that HRC is convinced an election victory for her is a foregone conclusion and she only needs to participate in scripted, limited campaigning like a nominee. Just as a powerhouse sports team can be overconfident and lose, the author attaches that possibility for Clinton. OMG, he accused her of hubris! How many HRC supporters get nuts about commentary like the last two only to express that their opponents go crazy over completely insignificant matters?

The last example comes from a source most conservatives will ignore. But sometimes you must go where the trail leads. The author’s name was not prominently displayed but the picture assumed to be the author had a filename ‘Boehlert’. And the source was or is mediamatters.org.

The Cackle joins The Haircut and The Sigh

The media’s comical obsession earlier this month with the tone and frequency of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s laugh didn’t just represent another head-smacking moment in the annals of awful campaign journalism. It also served as a preview of what’s likely to come in 2008.

Anybody who thinks that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination that the Cackle narrative won’t be revived has not been paying attention in recent years. That’s why it’s so important to take a moment to understand the press dynamics that allow a story like The Cackle to flourish, and why pointless stories like that — and John Edwards’ Haircut or Al Gore’s Sighs during a 2000 presidential debate — only affect Democrats.

Surprisingly enough, most of the commentary within the piece excerpted above makes sense. But coming from what is assumed to be a left leaning site and left leaning author, something is a suprise. It is one thing to call the MSM on focusing on trivia or completely useless topics, but there is an absence of any reference to the equally annoying antics of the likes of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. And as long as the subject has presented itself, over the top, gratuitous profanity and mindless rants on sites like Wonkette, Pandagon, Shakespeare’s Sister and the Daily Kos add nothing to meaningful or worthwhile debate. That is one reason less reverent commentary has begun to appear on this blog. It was the original intent to avoid wandering into that territory but then what’s good for the goose……

We will see what effect, if any, pointing this out has on future dialogue here or elsewhere. The guess would be, none.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.cmo

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Perri Nelson’s Website, Faultline USA, guerrilla radio, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, and Cao’s Blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 10th, 2007 at 5:30 pm and is filed under wordpress, Politics, campaign, Clinton, hillary, Entertainment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.