home
Yeah, your point (5.00 / 3) (#95)
by frankly0 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM EST
is exactly on target, and shows the stupid bias of Skocpol, whose hatred of all things Clinton is obviously seeking any harbor it can find.

While she says, breathtakingly, that, somehow, the "clinical" observations of the Clintons and/or their aides were less "human" than Obama's, to any objective person it's obviously more acceptable to talk about such delicate issues in as "clinical" and  emotionally neutral, and objective terms as possible. Why? Because one wishes above all not to be passing judgment on the people involved, or even appearing to be doing so, precisely because it would seem unfair and unsympathetic to do so.

And describing Obama's "clinging" sentence as a more "humanly sympathetic" approach is so off-target than it's hard even to read without gagging.

Yeah, the sentence is more "human" alright, in the sense that it is filled to the brim with a sneering, morally judgmental tone toward those voters -- the precise thing that any "clinical" approach is designed to avoid. He is essentially calling them deluded fools who turn to morally suspect values in their bitterness. Yeah, that what a "human" might say -- a "human" who is so infected with his sense of moral superiority that he can't help but come out with condescending remarks about the little people who refuse to acknowledge his wonderfulness.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft