[Terez]

This is the first Dem debate I've watched since I quit watching the first debate a few minutes in. This one is getting good right about now.

[worry]

The country.

[Terez]

I think it was a tie. I just saw the question on a Twitter poll, and I voted Bernie, but they didn't give the tie option.

I think MSNBC deliberately set it up as a tie; their main interest tonight was to contextualize all the campaign drama and remind everyone that the vast majority of us are going to vote for whoever wins the nomination when the general comes around. The debate was designed to make us feel better about that, whoever our first choice might be. They asked the major drama/differentiation questions in the beginning and then moved on to the huggy stuff. And even during the differentiation stuff, there were efforts to hobble the drama llama. The hosts gave both candidates opportunities to show their strengths and highlight their opponent's weaknesses; it got really heated in the second half-hour and that was not nearly as difficult to watch as I expected. The last half-hour or so was incredibly mellow, with refusals on both sides to attack their opponent on trivial issues, or even serious issues (like the death penalty).

I think Hillary did her homework a little better, though Bernie was somewhat prepared on the CFMA, which was oddly never named by anyone. I love how he told people to go to YouTube and search "Bernie Sanders Greenspan". What can he do? This stuff is complicated. He missed a lot of opportunities when she talked about her voting record, and it would appear he's not reading Yves Smith, a big mistake on his part if true. But again, it's complicated stuff and I can understand not wanting to get into it on a debate stage; it could lead to a lot of stupid back-and-forth that still doesn't dig deep enough. But I think other people could probably litigate the case better on the stage, Elizabeth Warren being at the top of that list. God, I would have loved to see her and Hillary one-on-one like Hillary and Bernie were tonight. Why, Liz? Why?

[Terez]

I just wanted to drop a few random things. First, for Magus, it turns out that there is actually a town in Alaska that has a cat for a mayor. Obviously it's mostly a joke and a tourist attraction, but you can be sure it's also a commentary on wilderness politics.

Second, an interview with a black academic, Adolph Reed, concerning TNC's criticism of Bernie re: reparations and also the white liberal worship of TNC. It should be noted that Yves Smith (who posted this transcript) is very white and I'm very wary of this kind of thing because all white commentary on race politics can essentially be reduced to tokenism. One should approach my own linkage of this interview with that thought in mind.

Reed comes across to me as a radical, not in a bad way, but in a way that's certainly not mainstream in modern black politics, but which seems more common and visible in academia. His views and approaches are similar to those of Cornel West in many ways. They don't like the eternal compromises in black politics, and they're not afraid to criticize Obama as being himself a product of tokenism.

As a white liberal, I've always been very conscious of the fact that I love reading TNC mostly because he's good at writing. But I also think there is a lot of substance in his writing and I find his arguments to be logically superior to those of most journalists these days. He's incredibly intelligent, and a master of prose, and it's very lulling.

I totally get what TNC is saying when he criticizes Bernie's "class first" approach to politics. I believe that race more than any other issue has shaped American politics over the course of its history, and it remains critically influential today in both parties. As a white progressive, racial justice is a very important issue to me, but I can also see that it is the ultimate in "distraction" politics, and MLK saw it too. I believe that white conservatives bear the greatest burden of responsibility for that distraction by far, but that moral superiority does not give progressives the luxury of ignoring the underlying issue of class. Can we focus on class while acknowledging that black Americans have suffered and continue to suffer the most from class warfare? Can we talk about the two-tiered justice system (rich & powerful vs ordinary people) and also talk about the race-based division of the lower tier? Can we talk about one without the other?

I wish Bernie were a better candidate; I don't believe he will be the candidate to lead this revolution. His heart is in the right place but he is ultimately just not very good at what he does. I support him, but I wish he had better strategists.

Edit, to avoid spamming the thread: a funny commentary on why Santorum endorsed Rubio when he dropped out, which QT might like:

Rick Santorum said:

There’s a website, you may have seen this website, called Isidewith.com and it’s a website if you go on there you can do a questionnaire — really detailed questionnaire actually — about your positions, and then when you finish the questionnaire, it tells you who you’re closest with, which person, which presidential candidate you align with most-closely. And I aligned with myself 97% of the time, which I felt was really funny. That wasn’t bad that I agreed with myself 97% of the time. So I thought, well that’s good, but here’s the interesting thing: I sided with Marco Rubio, 98% of the time. So, I agreed with him more than I agree with me.

This post has been edited by Terez: 05 February 2016 - 11:33 PM

[worry]

Like I said earlier, I think Coates is a cynical voice, and I don't use that term dismissively. Back on one of his appearances on The Colbert Report for instance, Stephen brought up the MLK quote "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice" and TNC basically said he didn't actually believe that at all. In that light, I think his call for reparations isn't meant to be more than palliative...it's literally restorative in the way any successful lawsuit would be, a payment for damages done, with the difference being the scale. It's not meant to repair society...that damage is either irreparable or the work is so far-flung as to seem that way in any foreseeable time frame. In other words, the only "hope" here is to make actual, existing individuals' lives materially better through monetary reparation...the feel-good social repair work (even in the decidedly practical terms Reed seems to seek) is the distraction.

In that light, though I'm not familiar with Reed outside this interview, I can see why you'd link him with Cornell West: these are men of hope. TNC isn't. And I don't particularly know why that's the case, but it's part of what draws me to him. Frankly the timeline of hope surpasses the human expiration date. Collapse is imminent, near-extinction probable, and material recompense in the present IS as practical as "hope" gets, in all likelihood.

[Terez]

Bobby Jindal endorsed Rubio. Not that anyone cares except Cajun Gator Whatever His Name Is Now.

[worry]

Unlike Santorum, BJ came to this conclusion when he realized they both got Berger on the "Which SATC boyfriend are you?" Facebook quiz.

[Terez]

Dumbledude, on 06 February 2016 - 02:15 AM, said:

SATC

I had to google that.

[worry]

That's cuz you're a Miranda.

[Terez]

Should I google that too? Or are you going to tell me what that means?

[worry]

There are four main friends of various personalities, people often describe themselves as one of the four in a kind of playful shorthand, and Miranda would be the most likely to have to Google SATC if she were a real person.

[HoosierDaddy]

Dumbledude, on 06 February 2016 - 03:05 AM, said:

There are four main friends of various personalities, people often describe themselves as one of the four in a kind of playful shorthand, and Miranda would be the most likely to have to Google SATC if she were a real person.

This is weird, Worry. People don't "often" do this anywhere other than wherever you are from.

[HoosierDaddy]

Holy shit, is this a Sex and the Fucking City thing?

Lol.

[Mentalist]

HoosierDaddy, on 06 February 2016 - 04:43 AM, said:

Holy shit, is this a Sex and the Fucking City thing?

Lol.

It took me to see the word "four" to get that.

But I haven't watched TV in any regular manner since 2008.

[worry]

I don't want to stray too far off topic, but HD is definitely a Samantha (at her crankiest!).

Anyway, back on track, I just wanna say while seeing Cruz's daughter not wanna get hugged is kinda funny, I think it's a low blow by media to suggest it's a sign of anything. Especially since the media are constantly salivating for the chance to report a candidate has gone negative, w/ the "_____ slams _____" headlines probably already prewritten. There's plenty of opportunity to mock Ted Cruz for his actual stances.

Also, Marco Rubio criticizing Obama for going to a Mosque seems like blatant vote-grubbing from the Trump trough to me, and I don't see how it'll work. Nobody who supports Trump is gonna switch over to Rubio, and may see Iowa as a bigger reason to vote Trump in NH anyway. I suppose there might be undecided racists who haven't settled on Trump as their man.

[HoosierDaddy]

I didn't have to google it though. Shame on me.

Anywho, in what world is the Cruz daughter non-hug being taken seriously, other than the sensationalist paper world, which doesn't matter.

[HoosierDaddy]

Nah, Miranda ain't in it. So it can't be that. I'm interested in hearing an explanation as to what SATC actually does stand for though.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 06 February 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

Nah, Miranda ain't in it. So it can't be that. I'm interested in hearing an explanation as to what SATC actually does stand for though.

It is Sex And The City. And this is Miranda.

[worry]

Some journos (and others largely of the blogosphere ilk) online. I don't have cable so maybe its presence was inflated online compared to TV. I don't think it's important whether an outlet that covered it took it seriously or not though; it's an inherently sensational video so rolling it at all kinda does the implication work for them.

[amphibian]

Regarding Cornel West, I saw him speak live in 2005. It was magnificent. Easily the best public speaker I have ever seen in my life and what he said on race and democracy was eye-opening to college kids like me.

However, in the last 10 years, Cornel has stopped writing academically and has kinda gone off the deep end. He still supports many worthwhile causes, but he's increasingly erratic and very interested in sniping at other black intellectuals for various reasons. To me, it seems like early onset Alzheimer's. It's that bad.

So I'd be wary of comparing people to Cornel now instead of what Cornel was 10+ years ago when he was writing his books.