Jim Devine wrote: >> he doesn't seem to feel entitled. Unlike Dubya or Caroline Kennedy, he >> does not seem to believe that he was born to be in higher office.
Sandwichman wrote: > Renegade! Seriously, Tom, if I understand this message correctly, you are saying that those who criticize Obama and his (critical) supporters are sectarians, tossing epithets just as Lenin tossed the word "renegade" at Kautsky even though the historical situation is vastly different. First, throughout this whole discussion, I have mentioned both good and bad sides of Obama. (I know people don't -- and shouldn't -- feel obligated to pay attention to the nuanced and sophisticated [;-)] things I say, but I do.) In fact, I told people I was going to vote for him (though in the end, following the late lamented Molly Ivins' strategy I decided that it didn't matter who I voted for, and voted for Nader).[*] Second, it's not just the critics of BHO who sometimes dip into sectarian language. I remember be lambasted by someone (not Tom) who was very upset because I doubted the reality of the "mass movement" that's behind BHO. It reminded me of a conclusion I came to a long time ago: sectarianism is not simply a left-wing phenomenon but can come from the right or even the middle. Of course, when one of the US duopolistic political parties revels in the "maverickness" (or to the French, "mavericity") of their political candidates, there's nothing wrong with being a "renegade." [*] BTW, I would never have given money to Obama's campaign, but I don't see those who did as sinners, trumping their having given as if it was a major piece of evidence against them. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
