What Atrios said

[swag]

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_02_03_archive.html#3429243622002809498

. . .

I am still open to being persuaded, not that my April vote is likely to matter much. And I do read the cases made by supporters with interest, even the zealous ones. But the worst supporters are the ones who are essentially saying, "If you don't support my candidate there's something wrong with you." You're stupid, or naive, or misinformed, or cowardly, or racist, or sexist, or immoral, or frightened, or whatever.

These twin editorials by Michael Chabon and Erica Jong are two representatives of this genre. Of the two Chabon's is less insulting, but it isn't ultimately that much different. Both suggest that if you can only manange to overcome your personal shortcomings and failings, then the choice is obvious. A failure to make that choice isn't simply a bad decision, but a reflection of personal flaws.

It's really a poor way to sell a candidate. More than that, both fail to understand that people actually do have different sets of priorities, and those differing priorities, combined with subjective yet informed judgments about the candidates, can lead perfectly sensible people to come to different decisions.

[CreekDog]

1. I agree. It's not a winning strategy.

I support one particular candidate but that doesn't mean I'm smarter or have better judgement than people who disagree with me.

We'll see which candidate can convince more people to vote for them and hopefully have the confidence that the more effective candidate was chosen by the party.

That said, I'd rather have our choices than theirs.

[blm]

2. I see it only on a basis of who is FOR open government and who is against it.

And what does the record show.