That is astonishingly wrong, and all the more disappointing since it comes from Walsh who, normally, gets it just about right. A "contentious" campaign is neither a reason nor an excuse not to address sexism, just as it gives no cover not to address racism, something Sen. Clinton, also in the middle of a "contentious" campaign, has done, and several times, just as she should have. Has it occurred to anyone that one of the reasons the campaign has been so contentious is that the chauvinism has run rampant and unchecked? Sen. Obama has not only not addressed sexism, but benefited from its ill-effects and engaged in some of his own; giving him a hall pass on it because he's busy and tired is shocking.Someone else criticizes Clinton for undermining Democratic chances by attacking the "presumtive nominee" and elicits this:
Look, you ludicrous, pseudo intellectual, self-promoting, pontificating, meandering quack: this is a political campaign, not a bluegrass revival, okay? Clinton is running for President and, as a candidate, she has every right to question her opponent, his positions and his deficiencies, of which there are many. It is not her job to make Obama glimmer so you can adore him a little more, nor is it her responsibility to make what is unsavory about him palatable to the masses. It is wholly and absurdly disingenuous to act as though the Republicans would have no idea how to go about beating him if only it weren't for Clinton, passing them notes during class. Give me a break already, and grow the hell up.Let that be a writing lesson to you: use too many figures of speech, especially the structural ones like paradiastole ("nor is it" etc.), and you will come across as someone who is about to have an aneurysm. (Hat tip: memeorandum)
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
No comments:
Post a Comment