Actually, I had a post all written up about Kevin White, but then my computer froze before I could save it, and because my parents were in town this weekend, I didn’t want to take the time to re-create it. I’ll probably post something today.
Oh, and Anonymous Hoosier, the “anti-Hillary Trojan” would be more appropriate.
This “Brendan does nothing but shill for Obama” meme is really quite tiresome, mostly because it’s so inaccurate. I repeat:
I am undecided [between Obama and McCain]. In fact, if you put a gun to my head right now and made me choose, I think — *think* — I’d vote for McCain. But it’s really entirely up in the air how I’ll vote in November. I like and admire Obama, but that doesn’t mean I think he’d make the best president. The best Democratic nominee, yes, but that’s only because his opponent is such a lying, conniving, deceitful [bad word]. Against McCain, he doesn’t have such an obvious “character” advantage (both candidates are, as best as I can tell, generally good, decent and honest, though of course not pure or perfect), and I’m not at all sure who I think is, on balance, better on policy.
Honestly, I don’t know where this “schilling [sic] for Obama” business is coming from. I could understand that criticism back in January and February, when my blog was arguably infected with a bit more Obamamania, but these days, almost everything “pro-Obama” on my blog is actually more “anti-Hillary.” I mean, just look at my obsession with Hillary’s fraudulent vote-counting machinations. That has nothing to do with Obama as such; it’s purely a criticism of Clinton. She could be running against Tom DeLay and she’d still be just as wrong. It’s her math that I take issue with, not the fact that she’s using it against my, uh, beloved Barack, or whatever.
I’ve criticized Obama a bunch of times when I felt he deserved it, and most of my recent posts about the election have been either neutral/analytical, satirical, or anti-Clinton. I don’t actually heap fulsom praise on Obama all that often these days, and when I do say something unabashedly positive, it’s usually something fairly obvious, like “he gives good speeches” (this post) or “he knows how to draw a crowd” (a couple posts back). Are you seriously arguing with those statements?
Alas, just as Bush Derangement Syndrome has led many of the president’s critics to conclusively presume that anybody who defends Bush is just a partisan shill, Obama Derangement Syndrome is having the same effect in reverse. Just because somebody expresses something other than utter revulsion for Obama, and defends him when he’s unfairly attacked (see: “appeasement”), doesn’t mean that person is some sort of cultist.