Reply #13: I read it twice-- [View All]

[TwilightGardener]

If I get what she's saying, the term "partisan" connotes a group who fights evil, both in that historical/Holocaust context, and still yet in these times. She's trying to say it could/should have a positive meaning instead of the negative one that it has now. I'm saying it's one thing to praise the values of partisanship (which has limited value to me, politically speaking), quite another to use a good chunk of the article as a vehicle to criticize Obama, and his stated plans to create a less-hostile, less-divisive, more healing atmosphere in this nation as President. Comparing him to Lieberman is low--he's as politically toxic as they come. She's a progressive blogger--she knows full well what she's doing. And I frankly thought the Holocaust story was more emotionally manipulative than useful as a metaphor for our political battles today. I don't buy that all Repubs are "evil"--I'm related to some! I don't feel we're "at war" with MOST of our elected officials and their followers--just the most powerful at the very top.

Casting ourselves as "good" fighting "evil", while perhaps true and emotionally satisfying, is not going to fix our government's problems, it just makes average citizens of all political stripes (and none at all) recoil, stay out of the political process and hate our government. She mocks the Unity '08 idea, and I'm not sure it will fly either, but she makes the very point (unintentionally) of why it might appeal to people today. And maybe there's a reason why Obama is resonating with average citizens of ALL political bents. Reacting to an unfavorable political situation by digging in and villifying the "other side"--what the RW does to us--that's not going to solve things, that's not how to win hearts and minds, as we're learning in Iraq.