Sometimes I get busy and don’t get the chance to write things in as timely a manner as I’d like. The only advantage to this is that I get to let certain ideas simmer on the back burner of my cerebral cortex. Eventually you have to take the slightly charred cortex and put it into the refrigerator for a while. Then you have to take it out and reheat it in the microwave. If you’ve ever had cerebral leftovers you know what I’m talking about.
So a few of us were standing around in yard of the Mott House next to the Supreme Court. The occasion was a fundraiser for Netroots Nation, also known as the Kos Kids Kegger. By the way, from the Mott House you could see that the activity in the Supreme Court clerk’s offices was in full swing. I’m not sure if that’s a good sign. The Scalias, Roberts, Alitos and Thomases of the world, as well as their consorts, should not be up late without adult supervision.
At this point I brought up the Great Blog War of 2008 between Clinton and Obama supporters. I had relayed a brief conversation I had with Eric Boehlert at Take Back America on what had happened to the Reality-Based Community over the feud. He chose his words carefully- I was sporting a red-flag Media badge at the time, but he used an expression along the lines of “out the window” to describe where the reality had gone to.
So us bloggers at the Mott House talked about this. If there was a consensus to the discussion it was that things would get better after the nominee was 100% clear. Whether Clinton would continue to campaign (as the SNL sketch had suggested) well after the 2009 inauguration was unknown.
What is less clear to me is whether some of the blogs that have gone off the reservation would be able to return to the fold. Indeed, the very nature of the fold was being critiqued with Obama supporters being labelled as “the boiz.”
I want to take a moment to explain what I mean by going off the reservation. The nature of the progressive blogosphere has always been to argue, often passionately, over the nature of life and politics in our fair society. Yet, there has always been an unwritten rule that the argument needs to stay within certain bounds. It is not okay to take things completely out of context, use straw-men constructions, quote selectively, or to play any of the other tricks described in the rules of fallacious rhetoric. It is always been a source of pride that the right-wing freak show uses those tactics, while the left doesn’t.
Now, let me pick on Talk Left which, like Elvis, appears to have left the building. Today I noticed this post:
Where’s Obama on Israel and the Palestinians? On both sides.
Since running for President, he’s become an outspoken supporter of Israel. While in the Illinois legislature, he was a friend, supporter and beneficiary of Palestinians whose organizations trashed Israel.
Likewise, I’ve been wondering whether Obama prefers hot dogs on one hand, or beer on the other. He obviously can’t have it both ways on the hot dog/beer debate. By the way, any commenter who asks whether I mean Kosher dogs or Ball Park Franks is reading too much into the analogy.
What’s encouraging in this case is that the comment section picked up on this as well:
Wow (none / 0) (#3)
by silly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23:05 AM EST
Wow, this post scares the crap out of me.
With regard to TL and Jeralyn.
Are you really saying that someone who has an ounce of sympathy and understanding of the Palestinian situation is somehow not fit to be president?
As Matt Yglesias often points out, the spectrum of views about Israel is far more dynamic, open, and honest among Israeli Jews than it is amongst American politicians.
This post, and your initial comment, are really saddening.
Absolutely not (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:26:18 AM EST
I said nothing of the kind. Nor did I express my own views of Israel and Palestine. I am writing about news reports showing his inconsistency and questioning whether his current support for Israel is a product of his run for President or are his true beliefs.
[ Parent ]
it’s not inconsistency. (none / 0) (#63)
by selise on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:42:12 AM EST
The way I see it: It’s true that Obama has been a supporter of Israel since becoming Senator and especially since running for President. But, as a state legislator in Illinois, he more often expressed his support for Palestinian rights and opposition to Israel’s militarism.
jeralyn - imo, this is the problem. you are equating support for palestinian rights and opposition to israeli militarism as the opposite of support for israel.
nothing could be further from the truth.
and even worse - this is the kind of false choice the right in the usa makes: that support for iraqi rights and opposition to american militarism is anti-americanism.
i hope you will reconsider your amplification of right wing frames.
This is exactly right. Talk Left was using right-wing frames (not to mention fallacious logic) to argue against Obama. That her commenters called her on this is both a good indication of the kind of blog she runs, as well as the potential the reality-based community has to repair the hole in our starboard bow and get this ship back on coarse. (Update: interesting that I said “coarse” and not “course.” Subconsciously, I may have meant something by that. Better not change it. )
It relates to something that Senator Feingold said at the Netroots Nation benefit. I don’t have the exact quote in front of me, but it’s to the effect that whoever takes office in January 2009- and I strongly suspect that it will be a Democrat- we have to hold their feet to the fire. Our elected officials are accountable to us. They have forgotten this, and need to be reminded that any power they have is a result of the consent of the governed. In the same way that Jeralyn’s commenters called BS, it’s our responsibility to call BS. Not, as the NROs, Powerlines, and Captain Eds of the world do- to excuse bad conduct when it’s done on behalf of someone in the same party.
Update: Thomas Nephew has a nice rundown of the Netroots Nation benefit, and of our conversation.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Interesting post. I’ll comment here with something I originally put up at my post as an update. But it was a bit long, and is really more of a comment that belongs here.
To me, maybe Jeralyn’s post is an example of “going off the reservation.” But after admittedly skimming it, though, I’m mainly just confused by it — I can’t tell whether her complaint is that Obama was once stripeless, that he now sports stripes, that he changed his stripes, or that she doesn’t know whether he has stripes or not. (As you show, she says +/- the latter in comments, but I agree that the post itself leaves that open to question.)