Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reportedly not the nicest person either, Mr. Peretz. I don't think that you would have liked him. If you haven't read David McCullough's magisterial book on that great haberdasher,  Harry Truman, you should. Therein lies a superb telling of FDR's Machiavellian machinations whereby he dumped Henry Wallace in '44. And a good thing, too. It is a common mistake of the moralist to equate good people with good policy. Who would have made a better president than Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey? Big Bill brought the Democrats out of the wilderness and into the White House. I was a severe critic of his during his administrations but I have softened somewhat since then. You have consistently written that the Democratic Party has tacked too much to the left in foreign policy, that there is not enough robustness among the liberals, not enough of a realization of the grimy and grim realities that too often describe the world, particularly in the Middle East. So who might best lead America, Hillary "Tough As Nails" Clinton or Barack "High Road" Obama? This debate has all but been settled, in the primary, anyway. I just ask this of you rhetorically. And I predict that if Barack Obama is elected predident, you soon will be issuing stinging dissents on his Middle East policies here on the Spine. Surely you will be as disillusioned by him as Norman Podhoretz was by Bibi in the mid - 1990's.

Nah, that's another load of crap liberal.  The idea that foreign policy depends on a lot of faux machismo should have been thoroughly debunked by now -- hasn't the country suffered enough from the idiocy of "Bring 'em on" and the rest of that crap from the weenies who like to imagine they have large testicles when they have none?  Hillary is just s somewhat smarter George Bush, equally unmoored from any sort of principle about anything other than ambition, or in his case, money, or maybe both for the both of them.

Teddy Roosevelt said it very well a century ago, "Talk softly and carry a big stick."  Successful conduct of foreign and military affairs requires the deftness we see in Obama, not the crassness we see in Hillary.

Marty,

I think it's time to do like Obama and start looking toward the general.  Specifically, Bush's speech at the Knesset seems tailor made for a response from you.

Roidu, not so:

There is no principle that Obama proceeds from than Hillary proceeds any less from. Obama's Iraq policy has been a series of twists and turns no less opportunistic than Hillary's who had least had the testicular fortitude not to do a pandering mea culpa a la John Edwards who when he ran seemed to apolgize for every position he had taken as a senator.

we are not to disrespect hillary  with all sorts of behaviors.  this is the latest charge.  my feeling is that if a female candidate has to be this coddled about  being 'disrepected", then the female is not ready for the big time.  males have been trained to deal  with these issues of winning and losing gracefully.  you see it every day on the sports channels.  for the clintonistas to talk like this - the kennedy was disrespectul or oberman or whatever, just makes me cringe.  she should learn a few lessons from gore and the others who left with grace to live another day.  sometime its just to hard to feel proud of this female candidate and her supporters.  she still makes me cringe.  

we are not to disrespect hillary  with all sorts of behaviors.  this is the latest charge.  my feeling is that if a female candidate has to be this coddled about  being 'disrepected", then the female is not ready for the big time.  males have been trained to deal  with these issues of winning and losing gracefully.  you see it every day on the sports channels.  for the clintonistas to talk like this - the kennedy was disrespectul or oberman or whatever, just makes me cringe.  she should learn a few lessons from gore and the others who left with grace to live another day.  sometime its just to hard to feel proud of this female candidate and her supporters.  she still makes me cringe.  

Roidubouloi: Now that jacksondyer is on vacation, there is no one left that can write or think at something approaching the plataeu that is Mr. Peretz.  I am surprised by your elementary error: I am not in quest of a faux tough guy. Walker has brought into existence more jihadists than there were before. Basman has you on this one.

liberal,

Much as I'm fond of Jackson, and respect his knowledge of Jewish and Israeli history, I'm always blown away by Roid.  He is honest, consistent, and amazingly eloquent.  And I write this as someone who once hurled invective at him.

By the way, is Jackson really on vacation?  Or is he AWOL?  I've been hoping I'd find him around--wanted to tell him something.  

Mollysimon: Jacksondyer posted on here earlier this week that he was off to the Midwest for a fortnight. Boneill  - I believe it was - invited him over for a brew if he made it to the Windy City. Even when I disagree with him, jacksondyer is much superior to roidubouloi. And I say that as someone who once (a fortnight ago) had invective hurled at me (I returned fire) by him (j.).

Oh yeah basman, Hillary had the intestinal fortitude to vote for the war in Iraq merely to cover her political ass for her presidential run and has never looked back.  Couldn't give a crap about how many kids she sent to die in the desert for nothing.  But, you are right about one thing.  As her original vote was completely cynical, she need not respond to any sort of principle in acknowledging it to have been a profound error.  

Hilllary has just one principle -- Hilllary.

liberal,

You think I am defending the idiot Bush by comparing her to the slightly smarter but equally cynical Hillary Clinton.  I quite agree, Bush has in every way I can think of damaged our security by fighting a pointless war, at huge expense of every kind, financial, human, military, diplomatic, while letting our real enemies run around loose.  But you want get any agreement on that from jacksondyer.  He thinks the whole think has been just great, steely-eyed real-politik.

You think the panderer Hillary would do much better than Bush?  I don't.  You think Obama has been all over the lot on Iraq?  I don't.  I think the guy actually tries to pay attention to what is happening in the real world and respond to it rather than trying to shove his ridiculous ideology up everyone's ass like Peretz and his acolytes.

Basman's got nothing.  Neither do you.  And I do welcome any invidious comparisons you care to make.  Given your tenuous grasp on most of the things you discuss here, it can only be considered a compliment.

Particularly amusing, liberal, is your childish notion that being able to have the Republicans dump shit on you and respond by licking their boots is a sign of Hillary's "toughness."  She has never stood up to the Republican party.  Her toughest response is occasional whining.  That's a good idea!  Let's have "tough as nails" Hillary whine at the terrorists and jihadists.  If that doesn't scare the living daylights out of them, nothing will.

Molly, I just scrolled up and saw your post.  Thank you.  I am truly flattered although I know that wasn't your intention.

Roidubouloi: I know who has the tenuous grasp and it isn't me. You are such a literalist, just to begin with. As for the Great One and his position(s) on Iraq, TNR had a good article earlier this year on his less than granitic stance since 2003.  Also, has it escaped your notice that Mr. Peretz is an avid supporter of Obama's?  C'mon, where is your Obama spirit? Pony up and be an Obama girl. It never ceases to amaze me: the bile that some (only some) of your Obama supporters contain, as well as the invective you spew. When is the Great One going to rub off on you?

Mollysimon: As you know, I admire your posts. But as for roidubouloi, he utilizes profanity and is crude. How is this "amazingly eloquent"? Jacksondyer has his moments when in battle but otherwise is mostly sedate. And he has no sense of humor. I can think of many dialecticians on here more subtle than him.

liberal reformer --

I think your rhetorical question is spot on. Obama will be skewered and ravaged just like all politicians. I continue to be stunned by how over the top are the criticisms of Hillary by Obama supporters. She has been around quite a while and has a track record which has allowed her detractors to sharpen their knives. These same people who are shredding Hillary today are overlooking the fact that Obama is a political babe with no track record to attack which is of course beneficial in one sense and a huge liability in another. Given time he will have to make unpopular decisions and will make mistakes which will open him to invective. Over time his rhetorical skills will not bail him out of every difficulty. After the gloss wears off and we get down to day to day politics are these same people going to be as harshly critical of Obama? My guess is that in some cases yes. There will be others who will restrain themselves for a time due to ego and the over investment they have made in his candidacy. Take a look at the Republicans and how they were in denial for so long in regards to Bush. I'm not comparing Bush to Obama what I'm saying is that when supporters get over invested in a candidate they will irrationally defend errors and blemished in their candidate of choice because their ego will not allow them to admit easily that the candidate is not as wonderful as they originally thought. Obama's day will come and I certainly hope I don't have to read the howls from his supporters when it happens. What I have witnessed in this primary campaign is behavior right in line with what Democrats have complained about coming from the Republicans and the Rove crowd. There is no justification whatsoever for thinking that Obama supporters are on some political high road. In many cases Obama supporters are not listening to their candidate, nor certainly espousing his high minded view of politics. What they are doing is playing the same old game of political hardball and character assination which is helping to divide the party along gender, class, and ethnic lines. Obama is talking inclusion and some of his supporters are practicing division.

R-brown207: Thank you for your compliment. Your post is extremely articulate on the psychology of investing too heavily in a candidate. May we see more perceptive missives from you.

Liberal,

I am so sorry that the candidate you supported, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was such a hack and a fraud.  But you really should have had a bit more sense than to buy that whole "tested, vetted, ready day one" line of nonsense.  You could have spared yourself a lot of embarrassment.  (You do know how to be embarrassed, don't you? It would seem that you have plenty of opportunity.)  

In that vein, let me point out that, now that your various predictions about the course of the campaign and your preferred choice have come a cropper, you do yourself no favor by adopting the pretense that you are but a wry observer of the political foibles of others. For that, you need brains and wit.  You might try ernest, or maybe principled, or even curious.  But you just don't have the chops for wry wit.  You are simply too pedestrian an intellect to bring it off.    

But don't go away, liberal.  Target practice is fun, and it is nice at times to have some easy pickin's like you around.  I especially enjoy your fantasy that you are a great ironist.  That practically defines irony in this sort of wonderful, reflexive, and yet utterly un-self-conscious way.  So, it is not as if you are completely useless.

Also, liberal, that would "more subtle than he," not "more subtle than him."

Roidubouloi: You cannot even manage a riposte that isn't leaden and you denominate me "pedestrian"? And what could be more pedestrian than your vulgarity? It is cheap and easy, so you indulge in it. Over on another thread, bloggers were saying recently that I am the one Hillary supporter that they could have a rational conversation with. That is indeed the case. I have repeatedly made fun of Hillary on this website for her Machiavellianism, for her thuggish conduct, for her faux populism. I have cited the numbers as against her, saying that she is finished. It is good enough for the others but is it good enough for you? Of course not. You are a bitter ender. You remind me of the cretins that have disfigured 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for lo all too many years. I think that if Karl Rove were to simply flip his ideology to the antipodes, you two could become the best of pals. It is pedestrian to be - like you and Rove -  belligerent and to engage in smackdown. It is nuanced to be ambivalent and make distinctions. Much as I  am opposed to Obama, he has that nuance. I am still waiting for the Great One to rub off on you.

molly,

I think I know how to round up old jackson...

psst.....jack...mackenzie said yo mama...

sit back and get out of the way of the incoming cannonade...

Oh please, liberal.  You made a stupid point, straight out of the Republican playbook, and got called on it.  You praise Hillary Clinton for her purported "toughness" while disparaging Obama for "taking the high road," and you make this a metaphor for what you imagine their respective handling of foreign policy would be. It is true that many Americans, maybe the great majority, mistake the willingness to employ nasty tactics in a political campaign as evidence of necessary toughness in a leader.  But if that silly notion ever made any sense (and I don't think it ever did), it has been thoroughly debunked by George Bush.  

There is no particular evidence that Hillary is "tough" in any useful way.  We have evidence that she is dogged, unrelenting, unable to admit error.  Like I said, a slightly smarter version of George Bush.  To be sure, Obama is untested in foreign affairs, as is Hillary.  However, it is not "taking the high road" for him to recognize that military power alone is far from sufficient to accomplish our goals in the world.  It had better be combined with deft diplomacy, the use of moral, cultural, and economic power, and even by negotiation with enemies when that may be to our advantage (see, rhubarbs for an excellent explanation of same).  That's not the high road; it is strategic realism rather than faux tough guy fantasy.  Does Obama have what it takes to bring it off?  I don't know.  One can be optimistic or pessimistic, but that fact that he correctly characterizes the problem instead of aping the inanities of the Republicans is a big step in the right direction.

Characterizing Hillary as "tough as nails" and Obama as "taking the high road" is not nuanced.  It is typical Republican caricaturization intended to remove any semblance of nuance from the discussion, so vacuous that it barely qualifies as making a distinction.  If you want to be taken seriously here, you cannot simply regurgitate the talking points of Republican spinners and discredited neo-cons.  And, when you have done so, you are not going to rescue yourself either by attacking me or be carrying on about nuance, irony, levity, metaphor, your imagined literary prowess, or what an exemplary Hillary supporter you are.

Finally, my dear liberal, there is a big difference between sarcasm and invective, a difference you should be able to understand.  If you are going to be so thin-skinned, you ought to refrain entirely from personal attacks.  You cannot engage in such behavior and then run and hide by declaring that "invective" is on the loose.

Amen check - Hillary deeply embarasses me as a woman and as a feminist.

Roidubouloi: I am having a great time. It is you who is thin - skinned. You are simply engaging in ad hominem when you say that I operate out of the Rerpublican playbook. Not that you would notice from inside your partisan bunker but I am thinking about the good of the country. As I have written before, Obama seems a genuinely nice guy. When is the Great One going to rub off on you?

I think both Obama and Hillary are sort of blank slates in terms of foreign policy, but anyone using tired I'm so tough/the other guy is a wimp arguments deserves whatever they get.  

Whoever asks the nation to grow up and get real should win.  Black and white answers to things will only dig the hole we are in deeper.

The military is close to broken, there is no case that makes any sort of sense for why we are in Iraq, the US citizenry is screaming to get out of Iraq NOW, the US is billions in debt, our soft power is gone (they help us pay the bills, remember them?).  Macho posturing has its place, but in the end - it makes us look weaker at this point in the game.  We got no game and that is obvious.  We're standing here with our peenie in our hands (and I say this as a woman) and strutting around makes us look foolish and much weaker.  

I'm rather clealy the daughter of a retired Marine, so don't expect me to sugar coat this.  

Do we want to save lives, restore our military, solve problems or salve our ego problems? Be pandered and lied to?  I have a feeling the majority of Americans are fed up with being treated like Pavlovian idiots.

You crack me up liberal.  You seem not to understand the meaning of "ad hominem" at all as you run about characterizing everyone.  I've already lost count of the number of people you have tagged as "inside your partisan bunker," a "bitter-ender," and a variety of other quaint little labels, again right out of the Republican play book, that you deploy whenever you run out of something to say, which is often.

So, let's see if we can organize your thoughts a little.  When I say you are making an argument "out of the Republican playbook," that is not a characterization of you or of your state of mind.  I will admit that it is a bit of shorthand, but most politically knowledgeable readers, given the reference, would be able to make a judgment whether your ad hominem characterizations of Hillary and Obama are or are not typical of the Republicans.  The relevant facts are in the public domain for anyone to interpret.  

On the other hand, when you characterize me or my state of mind as a substitute an argument, THAT is "ad hominem."  Your ad hominem remarks are typically petty and ineffectual, but do try to keep track of the difference.  You see, even when I characterize your remarks as "petty and ineffectual," that still is not ad hominem argument, because no one need have any privileged access to you or your state of mind to decide whether that characterization is or is not accurate.  Get it now?

It goes without saying that you are only "thinking about the good of the country."  Thank god you finally showed up here.  Until you appeared, there was almost no one posting who did not wish ill upon our nation.  It is such a pleasant change of pace to hear from someone who is only thinking about the greater good.

As liberal reformer says the foregin policy issue is not macho toughness, which is self parody as a foreign policy posture. But the issue is a certain kind of toughness and resolve given what America is up against. Bad by my lights would be to have in office another Carter, and some may be excused for worrying about that in relation to Obama. Though she is on the cusp of being long gone I like Glenn Loury's defence to John McWhorter for his support for Hillary: her crisp intelligence, her obvious competence, her indefagitable toughness, her fighting spirit, her experience as, for part,  in her around the blockness,--much of which was shown in her debate performances, in which, for whatever they measure, overall she clean kicked Obama's ass. None of the foregoing said need attract roidubouloi's unhinged bile. People can see these things differently and reasonable people can disagree. I am always interested in those whose sense of self is so tenuous tand puny hat they cannot brook disagreement and wind up revilng those with whom they are by and large philosophically compatible, as opposed to those with whom they stand diametrically opposed to. And, by the way, for the latter, save for instances of bad faith, and given a spectrum of good faith reasonable disagreement about how the world works, ought to work, and  about the nature of menand women, there is no need for biliousness either. After all --slightly mixing epigrams--if we are we eat, no less are what we vomit.

Oh welcome back basman.  Law practice getting you down?  Oh, and can bile be unhinged, or are you speaking ad hominem?

What liberal actually said was, "So who might best lead America, Hillary "Tough As Nails" Clinton or Barack "High Road" Obama?"  Of course, this is an intensely stupid comment.  No wonder that you are so eager to disown it for him, but your reading is the exact opposite of what he said.  I search in vain for evidence of his great, self-proclaimed sense of irony.  It looks like these are the comic book terms in which liberal sees the world.  Aircraft carrier landing anyone?

It is certainly welcome that you bring our attention back to Hillary Clinton's many fine qualities, "her crisp intelligence, her obvious competence, her indefatigable toughness, her fighting spirit, her experience, her around-the-blockness."  Funny, though, there is this article by Michele Cottle today, "What went wrong?" that cast an awful lot of doubt on Hillary's intelligence, crisp or otherwise, her competence (obvious incompetence comes more readily to mind), and her chimerical political experience.  Round-the-blockness? Yes, we have to concede that she has been around the block quite a few times, but which ones?

Withal, thanks for coming to liberal's rescue.  The poor sod is plainly incapable of taking care of himself.  While it isn't likely that you are up to the job either, it is kind of you to try.

Basman,

Next time, before you get into the middle, try and get the state of play right.  You want to sound like you know what you are talking about.  The point that foreign policy is not the place for faux machismo was mine, not liberal's. You have simply GOT to track the ball if you want to make a good impression.

Roidubouloi: I have posted over five hundred times and I rarely have scored anyone for partisanship and then only the uberpartisan. In yet another leaden move, you endeavor to portray me as having waltzed in here recently, only to give lessons on pro bono publico. I don't think even you are fatuous enough to believe that. It is just another leaden, low move on your part to score a point. I made my remark in opposition to you and not to anyone else out here. Lastly, under your rubric, anyone to the right of, say, Barbara Boxer could be said to be operating from the Republican playbook. What is especially delicious about this nonsense is that you wrote it on the website of a magazine that is routinely and falsely called conservative and on a forum whose originator sometimes makes common cause with neoconservatives on certain matters of foreign policy. I don't believe that the tribune of the people, The Nation, runs a blogsite but if it did, your remarks would make sense there. But this irony, like many another irony, will be lost on you.

Roidubouloi: I can take care of myself quite well. It is you that is unhinged. Your bared teeth are showing through the words on the screen. Why so bitter, roid? You consistently refuse to answer when I ask you when the Great One is going to rub off on you. I know the reason for the silence. Answer: never. I suggest that you start a group "Bitter for Obama", though I don't think that he would want to be anywhere near you. As for my Clinton vs. Obama characterization, that is what is called a "heuristic device". I have very nuanced views on about everything, sometimes so dialectical that I court contradiction. But you wouldn't know that because you just hurl empty rhetoric and don't engage in dialogue. You seem to be a clear - cut case of not getting any. I am smiling throughout the typing of my post because I have the number of a Rove - like cretin and my girlfriend at my side.

Roidubouloi: I'm only guessing mind you, but I suspect you have a history of troubled and failed relationships, and  that you have trouble getting along with people. No?  And let us be clear: you are what you vomit. And if you are concerned about me keeping my imagery pure, let me suggest that vomit by defintion is unhinged bile.

Liberal:

I realize it is embarrassing to you when I actually quote what you say and that you find it "fatuous" that I do so.  Just try and read your own stuff.  Perhaps you will realize that what strikes you as fatuous is you as soon as one calls attention to the things you say.  

Since you do not seem to understand the reference "Republican playbook," allow me to unpack it for you.  I am not referring to liberal versus conservative policy or ideology.  Thus, it has nothing to do with whether one's politics are to the left or the right of Barbara Boxer.  I am referring to a set of tactics.    For example:

1.  Avoiding argument by characterizing the mental state of the opponent:  "angry," "bitter," "ultra-partisan," "unhinged."

2.  Framing opponents with comic book characterizations and then ridiculing the frame and hence the opponent: "Great One," "Messiah,"

3.  Smearing the left as "soft on" [          ]  fill in the blank while characterizing oneself as a "tough," hard-headed realist (typically a complete inversion of reality).

Does any of that sound familiar to you?  It should.  If you were able to articulate anything that might be considered a coherent political view, partisan or otherwise, I might take issue with it.  But you don't, so that is not possible.  What I take issue with, as there really is no other there there, are your infantile characterizations of just about everything before you begin to complain about it or them, people or policy.  Then, while peeing on your shoe, you babble about nuance and irony and how poor me simply cannot understand a breathtaking intellect like you.  

Speaking of which, do you know any adjective besides "leaden?"  You've got to spice it up a bit.  And, gee whiz, talk about literal!  Did you really think my point about your pompous declaration that you are only thinking about the good of the nation was your arrival date?  Or might I have been saying something about your pompous declaration that you are only thinking about the good of the nation?  Self-important, are we?  Brilliant, incisive, subtle, ironic, a wry wit, non-partisan, patriot, equal-opportunity wielder of levity and metaphor.  My god, liberal, you've got it all.  

Where did liberal reformer come from?  It seems like I used to be able to come here and read the comments, made by extremely bright people, and deepen my understanding of the original post.  Now it's all criticism of each other's arguing and writing styles, and it seems like LR is always on one side of the (off-topic) arguments.

Dang it.  I can get THAT at Salon.

No, basman and liberal, not at all.  You two boys, you and liberal that is, are a hoot.  Don't you see how pathetic it is that when you simply cannot find anything clever to say you resort to delusional babblings about what you imagine my personal and sexual life to be?  That's it?  You have nothing more than that?

You are two half-wits, no, less actually, who cannot together make up a whole-wit.  If you would stick to making your banal political points and accept that they will be criticized for that reason, you can continue to play.  If you insist on engaging in personal attacks for which you have neither the stones nor the hide, sooner or later you are going to have to start ruminating about the sex life of strangers.   And then everyone gets to see what a pair of ninnies you are.

Reganad: Where did you come from? I was set upon by the roidbot and when I merely respond, you point at me. Are you roid's valet, or something? I much prefer civil discourse but where there is no civility, that is difficult. If I jumped you in similar fashion, would you say to yourself what you wrote to me? Thank you, I think not. R. also attacked basman for no good reason other than that he disagreed with him. At the risk of overestimating your hermeneutical skills, scroll above and read the exchanges. Also, scroll below and read where the genius r. refers to basman and myself as "boys". He would have made a good racist. I should think even you could see who the aggresor is when you note who employs vulgarities (roid) and who doesn't (me). If not, I can try to explain it more fully to you.  As for off - topic, are you unaware that the threads frequently meander in all sorts of directions? A philosophical discussion might result from a political post. It is even allowed. You actually seem to like the roid 'tude, given that you laid into me and said nothing about him, so by all means, have at salon

Roidbot: You are truly a self - parody.  The idea of you breaking down anything for anyone is hilarious. You cite the comic book characterizations of the right. Have you ever - and I do mean ever - studied the vituperation and shrink - wrapping tactics of the left? And, as to irony, your horizons are so cramped that it flies right over you and then you subsequently claim that it is not there.

Roidbot: You got yet another thing wrong. I was speculating on the non - sex life of strangers.

As a matter of fact, liberal, the very first ad hominem comment -- remember, I explained the meaning of ad hominem to you so you should be able to check --  was an out of the blue remark from you.  The occasion for it was the fact that molly simon paid me a complement.  It seems that you found that unbearable.  I can understand why.  Anyone who combines thinking and writing as muddled and faux intellectual as yours with such an unembarrassed grandiosity must constantly be feeling under-appreciated.  Basman only entered a few posts ago with his own ad hominem additions to which I was most happy to respond.  I do think he is slightly the brighter of the two of you, but not by much.

Since you enjoy speculating about my life, might I inquire of you?  Are you an under-employed type with a second-rate education, didn't get into the college of your choice, economically marginal, who figures that no one appreciates your true worth?  You are constantly employing vocabulary and terms from a junior college philosophy course that you do not know how to use correctly.  That suggests a desperate need to impress without have much of anything with which to do so.  Perhaps the girlfriend you claim to have sitting on your lap as you type is herself not much and so admires you, but I can assure you that no one of any serious ability or accomplishment would find you more than a pretentious boob.

As you can see above, I am not the only one who has taken note that you repeatedly hijack threads with your self-important meta-commentary on the style of everyone else's argument.  In defending yourself against this perfectly accurate observation, you claim that I have used vulgarity with respect to you.  That is not at all the case.  It is true that I find you both juvenile and pompous, a pedestrian intellect whose comments here make banal seem like high praise, but no vulgarity is necessary to call attention to your obvious incapacity.  Also, I have no idea as to either your race or basman's.  When I refer to you as "boys" it is only because you are childish.

Roibot: My prose is crisp and brimming with intellectual references - e.g., Freud, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, ad in. - even as you call people "ninnies and "boys". And who is the faux intellectual? It is why you name - call; the paucity of your verbiage and education require it. It would be great uproarious fun to have a conversation with you - you would be so left behind.  You are another mirror - image genius; I use the term juvenile, you hurl it back. It is the tactic of the schoolboy. Any sane person would not denominate basman or myself "childish". We put forth reasoned arguments, have nuanced views (some concept, huh?) and engage people respectfully. As for the Albert Einstein of TNR online, you might win the prize, what with your ninny and boy talk. And you set on me well before my comment on what mollysimon said.  Truth - as well as decency - is a stranger to you.

Well, liberal, as I noted, you have a very thin skin, especially for someone who wants to start one of these flamefests.  Truth and honesty?  Here was my only comment before you began jumping the shark.

"Nah, that's another load of crap liberal.  The idea that foreign policy depends on a lot of faux machismo should have been thoroughly debunked by now  .  .  . "

While admittedly dismissive in tone, it is a comment about your immediately preceding argument, not a comment about you.  

I can see that I have hit a raw nerve.  I'm sorry. You can flame on your own from here on out.  I've lost my appetite for it.

Roidbot: Just to take one example, you blathered on a my girlfriend being in my lap.  I never wrote that at all. Another roidbot special, made up out of whole cloth. I should print this entire exchange and send it to the Great One. I don't think he would approve.

Why liberal, referring to her as sitting on your lap rather than next to you, as you literally said, is called "sarcasm.":

'Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound. Sarcasm can also be used in a humorous or jesting way depending on the intent of the person speaking.'

As an accomplished ironist yourself, it should be instantly clear to you.

Roibot: That is a failed eleventh hour attempt at extricating yourself. No sentient reader of any awareness would read sarcasm into that comment. There is not warrant nor context for doing so. You, roidbot, just toss off whatever comes to mind and then, if called on it, you say "Oh, i was just being sarcastic". You are textbook psychological case. You call people "ninnies" and "boys" and then say that I am juvenile.

I'm not going to bother insulting you any more, liberal.  You picked this fight, as can clearly be seen if you just scroll up to the top of the thread, but I confess I no longer have the heart for it.   I do this sort of thing professionally, against opponents who are also pros, when the stakes are real -- actual elections.  I have become embarrassed by this because I really have no business getting into it with amateurs even when they deserve it.  I'm not trying to extricate myself.  I'm trying to extricate you.

roidu: keep your arguments straight. Before all the invective started and generally starts when you are around--by you-- folks were arguing about whatever they were arguing about without insults or name calling. You got that going so the issue in the process became you--your need to to insult, call names, try to destroy presonally those wh disagree with you. Now you have the ego driven need to complain that those who engage you on that issue--yourself--have nothing substantive to say. Sorry honey you cannot have it both ways. And it is remarkable how often threads involving you descend into vituperation between you and who you is disagreeing with you.

You could look it up.

Roibot: You so remind me of Karl Rove. He once lamented his bad fortune concerning the enemies he had acquired. No realization that he might have had something to do with that. I didn't start anything, I made a comment. You started the name - calling, which, I think, is pretty much a default position for you. Basman has your number, too, which is why you lit out after him. He - along with me - can respectfully disagree with others - something that is entirely foreign to your Mack truck approach. Just today, on another thread, I praised someone for his civil and intelligent disagreement with my post. The roidbot response would have been to throw everything at him, including the kitchen sink. Your style could be characterized as either (perhaps both?) that of a Leninist or a testosterone and alchohol - fueled nineteen year - old. I don't blame you for bailing, your replies are getting staler by the day. And it is a colossal waste of time to engage the roidbot. Take your valet and canter on over to salon, where you belong.

Basman: Excellent point. I rarely get into it with anyone. I like civil discourse; in fact, you and I had a civil disagreement on Shakespeare. I have dealt with the roidbot's kind before. I am always amused by the aggressors who, when you reply to them, say "look at what you're like".  Note the schoolboy whine of his, also: "you started it".

You know, I am really trying to restrain myself with the two of you, but it isn't easy because you both imagine yourselves to be gentlemen who are victimized by me.  If you read the thread above it is quite clear that the two of you have picked this fight and then proceed to mewl and whine about it.  And I haven't even really started to go to work on you.  Both of you behave badly, and often, on these threads while congratulating yourselves on your civility.  Most people choose to ignore you.  I don't.  I have perfectly civil conversations here with people of widely divergent views who manage not to engage in teh snarky conduct of the two of you, but, unlike, I am willing to get into it with the badly behaved like the two of you.  In this case, I have decided to desist because I am feeling guilty about engaging with amateurs.  

If you can bear the truth, here is a reprise of the key elements of this exchange.  As you can see, it is the tow of you who have behaved badly and then don't like the result.  But, if we really have to go a few more rounds in order for you to get the point, so be it.

Here it is.  Take a look in the mirror:

Roidubouloi said:

Nah, that's another load of crap liberal.  The idea that foreign policy depends on a lot of faux machismo should have been thoroughly debunked by now .  .  .

Liberal reformer said:

I am surprised by your elementary error: I am not in quest of a faux tough guy. Walker has brought into existence more jihadists than there were before. Basman has you on this one.

Mollysimon: Jacksondyer posted on here earlier this week that he was off to the Midwest for a fortnight. Boneill  - I believe it was - invited him over for a brew if he made it to the Windy City. Even when I disagree with him, jacksondyer is much superior to roidubouloi. And I say that as someone who once (a fortnight ago) had invective hurled at me (I returned fire) by him (j.).

mollysimon said:

liberal,

Much as I'm fond of Jackson, and respect his knowledge of Jewish and Israeli history, I'm always blown away by Roid.  He is honest, consistent, and amazingly eloquent.  And I write this as someone who once hurled invective at him.

Roidubouloi said:

Basman's got nothing.  Neither do you.  And I do welcome any invidious comparisons you care to make.  Given your tenuous grasp on most of the things you discuss here, it can only be considered a compliment.

Particularly amusing, liberal, is your childish notion that being able to have the Republicans dump shit on you and respond by licking their boots is a sign of Hillary's "toughness."  She has never stood up to the Republican party.  Her toughest response is occasional whining.  That's a good idea!  Let's have "tough as nails" Hillary whine at the terrorists and jihadists.  If that doesn't scare the living daylights out of them, nothing will.

Liberal reformer said:

I know who has the tenuous grasp and it isn't me. You are such a literalist, just to begin with. As for the Great One and his position(s) on Iraq, TNR had a good article earlier this year on his less than granitic stance since 2003.  Also, has it escaped your notice that Mr. Peretz is an avid supporter of Obama's?  C'mon, where is your Obama spirit? Pony up and be an Obama girl. It never ceases to amaze me: the bile that some (only some) of your Obama supporters contain, as well as the invective you spew. When is the Great One going to rub off on you?

Mollysimon: As you know, I admire your posts. But as for roidubouloi, he utilizes profanity and is crude. How is this "amazingly eloquent"? Jacksondyer has his moments when in battle but otherwise is mostly sedate. And he has no sense of humor. I can think of many dialecticians on here more subtle than him.

Basman said:

None of the foregoing said need attract roidubouloi's unhinged bile. People can see these things differently and reasonable people can disagree. I am always interested in those whose sense of self is so tenuous tand puny hat they cannot brook disagreement and wind up revilng those with whom they are by and large philosophically compatible, as opposed to those with whom they stand diametrically opposed to.

And so, off to the races

Roidbot: I told my girlfriend that you would respond even though you said that you wouldn't. It's recess time, roid.

No, liberal, I said I wasn't going to bother insulting you any longer.  I'm bored, and every else here has long since gotten the point.  

I just happened to stumble on this exchange.  Here again is liberal reformer, who fantasizes himself a gentlemen, engaging in his customary name-calling, unprovoked in this case as is usual; The Ignorant Populist had made no comment at all about  any other poster.  This comes from the Spine blog about Freud:

"The Ignorant Populist said:

Why does a (viable) Palestinian state mean the negation of Israel LR? I don't understand, can you elaborate?

liberal reformer said:

Ignorant Populist: Your blogname surely befits you. I postulated the negation of Israel simply as a thought experiment and certainly not as the counterposition to a Palestinian state, which I dearly would love to see spring into existence if it simply would not be a staging area writ large from which to launch rockets at Tel Aviv, et. al., etc."

Crisp.  Very crisp.

Roidbot: You fibbed again. You said you were bored with this and were going to stop. You have a sort of polemical Tourette's. I don't fantasize myself a gentleman, I am one, until I'm crossed by a varmint. Basman alone - never mind my contribution - rendered you roadkill. As he said, it is interesting that it is always you who is involved in acrimonious exchanges. Doesn't this strike you as odd, if it is you who is the poor set - upon boy? Dr. Freud would have had a field day with the roidbot. You undoubtedly would have even ticked off Mother Theresa. And you refuse to respond to my repeated inquiry: when is the Great One going to rub off on you? It is just bizzare that you are a truculent supporter of Mr. Grace. It would make far more sense if you were a partisan of Tough - As - Nails Hillary. And I see that you still are not getting any. After an amorous day with my baby, I was offline for many hours, and when I pop back up there you are with yet more onanistic posts, after promising to cease and desist. The principal is summoning you, roid.

All that furious, embarrassed spew, liberal, cannot hide the fact that I am simply cutting from there and pasting here your very own words, without any editing.  Humiliating, isn't it, to be exposed?  And so very easily.  I am bored with you, who wouldn't be, but when I happened so immediately on yet another example of your misbehavior, it was just too good to resist putting it here.

And, liberal, any real gentleman wouldn't be offering up "his baby" for comment or boasting about his sex life, whether real or imagined.  It is obvious that you have not the slightest idea of the manner in which you humiliate yourself.  Everyone here can see exactly what you are.  There's nowhere to run, and even you cannot generate enough nonsense to obscure it.

So carry on, liberal, but remember.  We have all got your number.  Get a good night's sleep and, in your Freudian dreams, try to guess how many people are laughing at you.  

roidu: I'm signing off here because bullying, pathetic you as a subject is finally of only so much interest to me. And taking shots at you is like shooting fish in a barrel. You intensify your putziness with every new post. I know that you, compulsive and obsessive and enraged, cannot deal with the fact that you have been called here on your mode of ranting, insulting, obsessive *discourse*, that you have been shown up for what you are, and that your ass has been kicked all over this thread coming and going. It will not surprise me if you are driven, virtually uncontrollably, to another long winded and breathless rant citing as evidence this and that, and quote from various posts, over which only God knows how many tmes you have combed. And it won't surprise me if you again spend a few hours mining TNR vaults for some thread exchange and then trot it out under the guise of "stumbling" over it. How transparent was that!  By the way, I wouldn't be too quick to judge who is being laughed at here. It's you, I'd think; and that truly is an example of irony, a concept into which you seem to think you have some unique insight.

Over and out!

Well, well.  basman the little coward pokes his head out of his hole again.  While you appear on the surface to have command of the English language, in fact it is obvious that you are rather challenged.  Look up, basman.  While you and liberal work yourself into a lather, becoming more hysterical, agitated, and boastful with each post, I'm not enraged.  I'm quite calm (and why not?), just methodically working over you and the pathetic creature that you put forward to take the hits for you.  After all, its just business, and not very demanding business at that.

As usual, poor little basman, you are unable even to keep the state of play straight in your head.  You constantly attribute to me things said by liberal and vice versa.  if you were able to see through the haze of your frustration, you would have noticed that it is not I who boasts of being a great ironist.  It is liberal who makes that boast, along with about a half dozen others.  I wouldn't dream of boasting of anything to the two of you, because anyone with even a shred of dignity would instantly understand that trying to puff oneself up in front of two such ignoramuses would simply be demeaning, not to mention unnecessary.  Don't flatter yourself, basman, that I care whatsoever about your opinion on this or any other subject.  I simply enjoy dissecting you for the edification of the general public.  

Despite your evident liabilities, I mentioned earlier that, of you two not-quite half-wits, it is you, basman, who is slightly the brighter one.  Liberal has yet to notice that you consistently surface just long enough to give him a little encouragement and then run away leaving him to put his foot in it and draw fire again.  Is it possible he enjoys being your patsy or is he just too dumb to notice?

So sign off basman, do.  No doubt liberal will be along soon to take the bait you threw out for him and the games can go on.  Someday I am sure I will get my ass kicked, but the notion the you and/or liberal is up to that job is beyond funny.

Basman: Well said. You already left the Roidbot face - down in the gutter but he is too clueless to know it. He is abusive and vulgar and juvenile and when we reply - not even in kind because that is beneath us - he points to us and says how terrible we are. He has Dr. Freud's concept of projection tattooed all over his face. He is like the character in Monty Python's Holy Grail who had all four of his limbs sliced off by an opponent who wielded a mean sword and then, as the victor cantered off, he yelled "come back here, you coward". What a piece of work.

liberal reformer

My God you're a joke, making everyone gag with your sickly sweet ass kissing drivel.  And as I've said before, your idea of liberalism comes straight out of the conservative handbook, I'm beginning to believe you're one of their online operatives.  Probably getting paid on a per comment basis.  :-)

And how many times are you going to use the word "polemical" or some permutation thereof this month, what, did you just learn the word this week? You're dragging down the level of discourse here, injecting far too much BS for us plain speakers who see through your crap.

Itzik

Where you been man? Believe it or not I actually missed you.  

I woke up to this article in the Times from an obvious Clinton apologist, a piece loaded with fawning revisionisms and dubious assumptions which would have us swallow the illusion the Clinton campaign was trying to sell the less intelligent less informed more easily manipulated voters.  As evidence I offer up this line.

"Mrs. Clinton seemed to have the most success in the last months, fighting like a mama bear for her cubs."

Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton is the kind of mama bear who eats her cubs once they've served their purpose.

She Just Might Be President Someday

www.nytimes.com/.../18zernike.html

Senator Clinton has damaged the prospects for every woman attempting to run for president in future, as a result of the questionable morality she brought to this race.  We will certainly have a woman president, but out of necessity she will be a gentlewoman of substance and character, with the necessary rhetorical and leadership skills required by the office.  You know, kind of the polar opposite of Mrs. Clinton, a politician's wife who had a political career handed to her off the back of her husband's labors.  This country certainly doesn't want a person of such low moral fiber and questionable skills to claim the highest office in the land, because such a person would harm the credibility of that office in the same way George W. Bush has, not to mention the likely collateral damage that person would do to our country and its people.

AaronBBrown: It is Mr. Logorrhea himself. The joke, in a Milan Kundera - like fashion, is on you, and is you. No surprise that another thug worms his way to the surface to defend the original one. I make highly literate references, the roidbot calls people "ninnies" and "boys"  and you use that term to try to typecast me. My unanswered question to the bot is most relevant for you, too: when is the great one going to leave at least a leaf scar on you? I am quite sure that B. Obama would run the other way if accosted by you two schoolyard bullies.

AaronBCannibalBrown: It is most mysterious why the phenomenon of Hillary Clinton eating her own cubs would not appeal to someone such as yourself, who routinely exhibits animalistic behavior. Whack jobs like you make life so interesting. The kind of hatred within you is exactly that of the homophobe and the racist. Chris Hedges asseverates in his book "I Don't Believe in Atheists" that moral progreess is a myth. I think this to be too pessimistic but that thought certainly does occur when dealing with Neanderthals like you.

liberal reformer, seriously, what kind of discussants did you expect roi and AaronB to be?

roi wished me to die - no less. AaronBBrown habitually sounds like the Communist Party USA or the KKK (hard to distinguish in tone and often in themes).

Perhaps you haven't been enough here.

Sleepyavl: Both of them I regard as Leninist - style thugs. I think that they need to start a group titled Intolerants for Obama.

What a great pissing match this is. And with "great", I dont mean good.

In the whole unending sequence of rhetorically packaged yo-mamas, there is one point, however, that stands out in my eyes.

It's where Roidubouloi 'unpacked the Republican playbook' as follows:

___

1.  Avoiding argument by characterizing the mental state of the opponent:  "angry," "bitter," "ultra-partisan," "unhinged."

2.  Framing opponents with comic book characterizations and then ridiculing the frame and hence the opponent: "Great One," "Messiah,"

3.  Smearing the left as "soft on" [          ]  fill in the blank while characterizing oneself as a "tough," hard-headed realist (typically a complete inversion of reality).

___

I'll amen to that. These are the tactics of smear and distract, and they are unendingly annoying, regardless of who is using them. I thought it was a little disappointing that this point was not at all followed up on (unless I missed something in between the ad hominems).

Finally, on a note of historical awareness, references to "Leninist-style thugs", much like references to, say, Nazi-style brutes, should be strictly reserved for instances where there is in fact anything going on that is remotely proportional to those historical evils. Bad boy commenters engaging in pissing matches do not meet that standard. Have some respect for the victims of actual Bolshevism, instead of equating some stridently liberal web comments with the evil they faced - it belittles it.

        Of course!  I should have realized that liberal reformer and sleepyavl were fellow travelers.  The TNR League of Mediocrities, those special few of no accomplishment, mediocre education, and limited intellect who run from cliché to epithet and back again without ever having something of interest to say.  The perpetually hostile because they have always been passed over for the jobs, recognition, and opportunities that they imagine are due to them but never, ever seem to come their way.

So, let’s review the state of play, liberal, shall we?  According to you, the grandiose one himself, I am lying face down in the gutter having had my “ass kicked” by you and your fellow clown, basman.  Basman checked out.  Having injected himself into our happy game as your trusty sidekick, his widdle feelings were hurt by the spanking I gave him for his rude interjection and he went home.  Somehow, watching him scurry away is not making my ass feel sore.  But it is making my foot feel good.  

Then we have you, liberal, our little boy, our ninny, as in simpleton, nincompoop.  You see, liberal, anyone who thinks that it is appropriate, let alone persuasive, to argue in a political blog by boasting about his sex life, as you have repeatedly, is a little boy, mental age of 15 or so.  Adults don’t do that sort of thing.  I had actually begun to wonder whether you were in fact a slightly precocious teenager or a damaged adult and then I saw something you wrote that said you were 7 years old in 1962.  That means damaged adult.

You’re a simpleton because, among other things, you fantasize that I have somehow been laid low by your absurd boasting.  I’m going to let you in on a secret, liberal.  When you boast openly as you do about how you make “nuanced arguments” and write “prose that is crisp and brimming with intellectual references – e.g. Freud, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard ad in.” anyone with a real education, anyone genuinely accomplished, laughs at you, liberal.  Why? Because NO ONE who actually did those things would be stupid enough to humiliate himself by bragging about it.  If your thought really had any nuance (an oxymoron in your case), it would be quite superfluous to make an announcement.  The thought would announce itself.

Fittingly enough, liberal, as you are died-in-the-wool Hillarista, you are apparently afflicted with the same emotional problem as Hillary Clinton, the compulsive need, born of deep insecurity and feelings of being an unworthy fraud, to call public attention to your insecurities and inadequacies by making up patently ridiculous fibs about just those very things.  I’m surprised that you haven’t yet boasted that you are “tested, vetted, ready day one.”  Any moment now I expect you to tell us the story about how you landed in hostile territory under sniper fire and had to run to your car with your head down.  As you have become more agitated under pressure, your boasting has become ever more pompous and grandiose.  As a result, this thread has become a virtual roadmap of your insecurities, about your intellect, your sex life.  You have laid out enough material there for me to taunt you and twist your nose for several months at least.

Here’s the thing, liberal.  When people constantly have to announce that they can and have kicked your ass, it is because they can’t and haven’t.  When they announce that they make “nuanced arguments,” it’s because they can’t and they don’t.  When they boast about intellectual references, it is usually evident, as it is in your case, that they don’t understand the work of the people to whom they refer and resort to constant references as a means of covering up the fact that they themselves have nothing to say that anyone would pay attention to.  That describes you to a tee.

Your fantasy life is certainly vivid, liberal.  It is a pity you are so un-self-conscious that you have no idea how ridiculous you make yourself in the eyes of serious people.

Over to you, you poor thing.  Let’s see your very best shot

Roidbot: My insecurities? You are walking advertisement for Dr. Freud's concept of projection. You calling me insecure is like Robert Gabriel Mugabe denominating someone as a dictator. Have you no sense of irony? As for my being a staunch supporter of Hillary, even someone as a fatuous as yourself ought to gather from my frequent criticism of her that my support is highly compromised. I have written that I am just barely hanging on as a supporter. Perhaps you are so lost in your fellabama to even notice this elementary fact.

Just keep the crisp prose coming, liberal.  And the "intellectual references."  And, of course, keep us all informed about your sex life.  What could be more fascinating or more relevant to the discussion here?

Goodbye now.  Your spanking is over.  Go and sin no more.

Roidbot: FYI: Fellabama was not a reference to my sex life. I made one (1) glancing mention to my spending time with my girlfriend,  a nice diversion from Roidbotian insanity. You truly are a self-parody. You appeal to the court of serious people on this blog, declaiming that they can see what I am like. This from a someone who employs hyperserious terms like "clown" and "ninnies". David Sedaris could not be funnier than you. Only in your case the hilarious part is that you are a kneeslapper unintentionally , unconciously. I often cannot tell if you are just trying to provoke or if you are as fatuous as you seem. The scary thing is, I think it is the latter. I have never once bragged about my knowledge; I have merely cited some of the things I have blogged about, over against your Leninist - style polemics. By doing this, I am making an invidious comparison to you but clueless as usual, this eludes you like so many other things do. Lastly, your homoerotic reference certainly bolsters a pet theory of mine. No thanks.

If I were gay, liberal, I would be proud of it.  Apart from your other fine qualities, it seems that you are a homophobe too who thinks that it is insulting to be referred to as a homosexual -- or rather to have it intimated that one is a homosexual.  Considering that the gays I know are amongst the funniest and most talented people I have ever met, I am flattered that you might have a pet theory that I am one of them.  Even before the world grew up and stopped regarding homosexuality as a source of shame, the rest of us, long about the 7th grade, stopped thinking it was either funny or a brilliant riposte to call someone a "homo" or "fag."  You are severely regressed, liberal.

Since you boast about being a great ironist, contemplate the irony of your moniker for a while.  You and that other great luminary of the left, the racist Hillary Clinton whom you so admire, absolutely deserve each other.

I have long thought you merely a pompous ass.  I suppose I should not be surprised to discover that there is a much darker and uglier side to you.

I did by the way notice your homosexual taunt of "fellabama."  But I said to myself, "Nah, he couldn't possibly have intended that.  Even he can't be that much of a cretin," and so I just ignored it.  Silly me.  You are every bit the cretin your words suggest, and proud of it too.

Oh my God, roidbot. Tell me that even you can't descend this low. Homophobe? Because I am reviled by the thought of you? You must think more highly of yourself than I even imagined. I have a bisexual girlfriend and I am a staunch supporter of gay rights and gay marriage and I am homophobic? Even with your miniscule neocortex, you can do better than this, 'bot. Just try hard. The cartoon called "roidbot" is becoming more riotous by the minute. The cretin would be the name-caller, 'bot.

"Fellabama," liberal?  You are a complete disgrace to yourself and NO amount of name calling directed at me is going to alter that reality.  If you are in some sense a "staunch supporter" of gay rights, marriage or whatever else you claim, your behavior is that much worse.  Like Hillary Clinton, you ought to know better and do know better, but are willing to engage in homosexual taunting if you think you can gain some momentary advantage that way, as she is willing to engage in race-baiting for here advantage.

You win the prize liberal, you really do, as the single vilest poster here.  Even ndmackenzie has conscientious beliefs, however, objectionable to most.   But you, you just like to wallow in the mire because you like it there.

You're a pig.  Go away.

Roidbot: Despite your pathetic attempt to affect an air of unconcern when it comes to me, it is obvious that I have your number because you say that you are bored with me and that you are going away but then cockroach - style you are right back posting mind-numbing lengthy blathering idiocies. Here is Mr. Court of Serious People's Opinions calling me a pig. You are not within light-years of being clever enought to coin a neologism of the kind I did, so you just rage at me further. Hamas could use your black talents - you should loan yourself to them.

You're a pig.  Not even worthy of the effort to coin a response.

Roidbot: However minimalist a response, you coined one. Call it roidbot dadism. Your self-refuting persona is back. Look, I was having fun with you - a nutter - and you are so p.c. that you denominate me a homophobe. McCarthyism of the left.

LR: Since you seem to value comments on the style people use in their posts, I humbly offer a very small suggestion along these lines: You should consider dropping the word "denominate" from your posts. While doing so won't fix your broader problem with overwrought diction, it might help a little.