Yes, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on Halperin's piece about how Obama should use racism to beat Obama. Here's the link again. Here's another highlight:

11. Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama’s unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.

Posted at February 26, 2008 2:38 PM in response to Hate Speech as to Obama and Clinton

To behold Bush before Sept. 11, 2001 and not notice that he was an ignoramus and a cover-up artist, or to notice it and cover up the embarrassing fact because he was your ignoramus and cover-up artist, is sheer intellectual disgrace. This is what the pundits refuse to see about themselves.

I agree completely. What I don't understand is why they were taken in by him so completely. Was it incompetence or something else?

Posted at October 9, 2007 12:56 PM in response to A Footnote on Kanan Makiya, George Packer, and Learning from Errors

I agree with you here. Juan Cole, the guys at the Army War College who write that we'd need 500,000 troops for Iraq, etc...those guys are intellectuals too.

The trouble is that the wrong intellectuals are empowered. My impression is that the think tanks are filled with well-connected people with Ph.D.'s who were not able to get a job a university (not that there's any shame in that, it's tough out there). Michael O'Hanlon certainly seems to fit that bill. He sounds like many a political science professor I know, only dumber. (I know we're not supposed to call people "dumb" here, but what else would you call his opinion pieces?) Frankly, I have the same impression of Andrew Sullivan.

There are plenty of intellectuals out there who nailed Iraq. But they're marginalized (perhaps systematically) by our bizarre system.

Posted at October 9, 2007 8:51 AM in response to A Footnote on Kanan Makiya, George Packer, and Learning from Errors

Commenters are bad all over, except possibly here, but in fairness to the people who swarmed you at Democracy Arsenal, some of the posts over there are truly comical. If you use the word "serious" repeatedly without even an ounce of irony, then you deserve to be mocked.

The Atriots do a good job of taking the p**s out of people, even if they themselves are not always as well-informed as they might be. One doesn't have to be a foreign policy expert to ridicule anyone who uses the word "serious" five times in a defense of Marshall Whitman.

Posted at October 9, 2007 7:04 AM in response to The Passion of Kanan Makiya

I have no patience with the view that, because George Packer supported the war, he is a running dog.

I fail to see how a well-informed person could have supported the war. Read James Fallows' Flying Blind In Iraq if you don't believe me.

Sorry, but I just don't see how being catastrophically wrong about something as important in the Iraq war doesn't hurt Packer's credibility

Posted at October 9, 2007 6:47 AM in response to A Footnote on Kanan Makiya, George Packer, and Learning from Errors

I certainly think that Gitlin seems cool, too. Perhaps the the whole George Packer/CFF childlike world of "moral clarity" is so nauseating that there's no way to write about it that isn't aggravating.

Posted at October 8, 2007 6:19 AM in response to The Passion of Kanan Makiya

I'm curious to hear what others here think of Atrios's criticism of this piece. I tend to agree with the criticism to some extent, though it's a little hardh.

Many commenters and emailers have made me realize that my difficulty with Gitlin was hard to peg because it was a consequence of many things. First, and I think foremost, was the self-important tendency to write as if he and his are the central actors in the historical drama known as reality. Second, it's the continuing tendency to perpetuate this narrative of the Iraq war as the consequence of the tragic romanticism of idealistic intellectuals, along with the elevation of their personal narratives. You know, instead focusing on all the dead people. Third, there's this annoying tendency to cast literally every political debate as some Heroic Clash of 1960s Ideological Opponents.

It really doesn't matter who convinced George Packer of something over drinks one evening.

Thoughts?

Posted at October 8, 2007 5:13 AM in response to The Passion of Kanan Makiya

You're right, I had you pegged wrong. You're one of those would-be realpolitik DFA types. Well, I like that type better, even if I don't agree. And I've gotten pretty used to their strangely condescending tone, where everything is "patently obvious" and so on. Fair enough -- if it's genuine anger, which it seems to be, then I'm all for it.

Posted at September 24, 2007 10:40 PM in response to Welcome to The Argument

So clearly there is some kind of disconnect here, and instead of faulting those in the party you decide to fault a journalist that is analyzing the situation and often drawing correct conclusions about it.

I'm not wild about your tone here. You sound like a New Republic-reading pompous jerk. Take it down a notch and try to say something of substance. If you have a point to make, it will come through better without the smug condescension.

Posted at September 24, 2007 6:36 PM in response to Welcome to The Argument

We're not a majority in DC. Within DC, liberals aren't anything close to a majority even among Democrats. I'm talking about out here in flyover country where everyone wants better health care and a way out of Iraq, not DC where everyone wants to be on Meet The Press and a favorable mention from David Broder.

Posted at September 24, 2007 5:29 PM in response to Welcome to The Argument