It doesn't have to be worse, but if you agree that ideas matter, what happened to LG, which pissed me off royally then and still does now, was a milestone in its own right.
A different kind of principle was involved this time, one of knee-jerk validation of the right's reverse racism canard, which CB seems to downplay, to my eternal mystification. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Michael J. Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, July 21, 2010 4:19 pm, Max Sawicky wrote: > > > The Guinier thing was worse because she stood for an intellectual and > > policy > > approach to dealing substantively with voting rights and discrimination. > > Clinton trashed what she stood for, as well as her. > > Why, I wonder, does one have to be worse than the other? Isn't it all, > all of a piece throughout? What Democrats Do, you might say. > > -- > > Michael J. Smith > [email protected] > http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org > http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com > http://cars-suck.org > > "Everyone has his favorite passage from > the Theodosian Code." -- M I Finley > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
