So you write this:
I'm genuinely interested in the names of the ones you're afraid of.
And everything was going fine until you dropped this:
Many of his associates have been America-haters, believing this country is evil.
"Many" "America-haters" "evil"
And I'm supposed to think that you're serious about your first statement? No, right? It's just more posturing so that you can slam Obama.
But just in case I'm misreading you--here's why:
First--the incendiary language doesn't help when you're talking to someone who doesn't agree with you. You're alienating me from the get-go (have been doing so for a while, I add), which undercuts that "genuine" a bit.
Second, content-wise: You do realize you're talking about
all the people "who have shaped the way Obama thinks and how he would react" and of those you're focusing on those that just so happen to be the most extreme...
And you
truly think that this is a fair assessment? That this is the kind of thing that would lead to dialogue with people who don't agree with you?
Really? O.o
You're kidding, right? You're just messing with me...I mean, I'm pretty left, but I know that while there is some truth to the Bush-McCain connection, there is also much more than that. I don't buy the world of insinuations behind the "90% of the time" gimmick. When it comes to discussions, I think it's an act of good faith to come clean, try to stake a middle ground so to speak.
I guess this is what "middle ground" is to you:
I'll shock you all further. I'd feel A LOT safer if Hillary Clinton were president
But no, it's not a shock. What a coincidence, the conservative media also has this brand new
love Hillary in some weird revisionist history mode (well its kinda fading after the anti-Iran rally thing, but...). If Hillary were running now, you'd be slamming her as somehow suspect on moral grounds as well. Goodness knows if you'd be claiming to want Obama over her even. It's very easy to be cynical with these arguments when they're based on caricatures of the opposing side.
Ultimately, I get no sense of a middle ground from your statements at all, which suggests that any exchange threatens to become a "my candidate is better than yours" exercise. Incidentally, that's where any pointed critique of McCain/his advisors/campaign would lead and why I think it's best for me to move away.
Curbing my
very biased outrage at some of what the campaign has done and focusing on defending mine rather than poking at the opposing party when I post is a very conscious choice. Whenever possible, I'd like to avoid being part of an endless back and forth where both sides seem unaware that they're mimicking each other. I can get that on any hard right or left blog.
alcyone
