I would take the mewling from the Right more seriously if---just once---I heard the complaint about this remark from someone who wasn't, in fact, a white christian dude. ...blanket statements stereotyping half the voters in the last election.... Whatever you may have heard, touchy is not the new black, and hurt feelings are not attractive, dahling.

Damn, how much is Karl Rove paying Dean to say shit like this, hhm?

TtP: a) White, and a dude, yes. Who's Christian? b) Who's being touchy? If Dean ran for President again, I'd donate $5 bucks to his campaign again. And if he could get either Pat Buchannan or John McCain as a running mate, I'd chip in another $50 just for getting them associated with the Dems... Sorry, TtP, but sarcasm isn't the new black either: you actually have to know how to wear it.

Sorry, maybe I'm persnippity from everyone with a freakin' blog getting all butt-hurt over very little words. (I'm thinking the word "gulag" over at Powerline and "women's studies major" over at Dailykos. Some of the dumbest stuff you'll ever read.) And perhaps it's misplaced to call you touchy. But you have to admit, if you weren't, you were in thin company. The reaction to Dean's comment was completely disproportionate.

When it's a brown recent convert to Catholicism in the GOP, the dude's agreeing with Dean. While I haven't spent a lot of time in Republican gatherings, the Federalist Society certainly is a white Mormon/ Catholic dude- dominated organization. I wouldn't say that either Republicans or Federalists as people lack friendliness toward women and people of color. On the contrary, they get excited as hell when someone like Janice Rogers Brown is in their corner. (The friendliness toward people outside the Judeo-Christian heritage does seem more questionable due to support for policies that actively heighten the religious majority's place in American life, though if Bush's faith-based office is dispensing proportionately equal funding toward Muslim, Buddhist and Native American faiths, I withdraw this exception.) They just don't seem to have much to offer these groups qua groups in their ideology. So, yes, insofar as half of America was voting for the GOP, half of America, intentionally or unintentionally, supported an agenda that limits reproductive control and sexual orientation equality, and conserved the racial status quo. But everyone has their own motivation, so a religious conservative black person might vote Republican to prevent harm to "family values"; a white homosexual might vote Republican to preserve his racial and economic privilege; a woman might disfavor reproductive rights or consider them sufficiently safe that she could vote based on other issues. Whether Dean can figure out how to make these people see that their interests lie better with the Dems seems to be the test that he's failing.

Lemme put it this way---you accuse Dean of being insensitive to a full half of the country. Tom Friedman today made blithe generalizations about both liberals and conservatives---i.e., both halves of the country. If I believed for a second that conservative grumbling over Dean's remarks was in the slightest bit genuine, I'd be expecting a lengthy post on why Tom Friedman is a jerk.

TtP-- From Friedman: Conservatives don't want to talk about it because, with a few exceptions, they think their job is just to applaud whatever the Bush team does. Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed. That reminds me to send my monthly support check to the Jihad. Mmm, nothin' we anti-war liberals love more than folks who kill in the name of God. Isn't it a bit more insulting to be told that if you weren't one of the Friedman liberals and didn't support the invasion, you must be wishing for the implosion of a nation and the misery of millions, than to be told that you're a cheerleader for your president? Perhaps that's why you won't see too many conservatives saying Friedman's a jerk.

TtP: You seem to be under two mistaken impressions: a) That I wasted my time in Manila reading the New York Times, and thus saw the article in the first place; and b) That making fun of Tom Friedman is anywhere near as inherently funny as making fun of Howard Dean. Howard Dean is the titular leader of one of the two big parties, and thus a worthy target for satire when he acts like Michael Moore. Whereas the New York Times hired a jerk for an editorial writer? So long as they still employ Maureen Dowd, why is this shocking?

TtP: But if you really want to see conservatives calling Tom Friedman a jerk, you don't really need to look all that far. Never say I didn't give you anything.

Far be it from me to say that! Quibble: John Kerry is the titular leader of the Democratic party. Central: What is it with you guys that enables you to have such thin skin? It's like the "sticks and stones" rhyme was never taught to you. Seriously, the mere fact that torture and prisoner abuse were being committed in military bases that fly our country's flag---this doesn't seem to bother you. But when someone uses the word "gulag"? Heavens! And the mere fact that overwhelming majorities of black Americans, plus solid majorities of Latinoes and Asians, most Jews, and almost all non-Christians don't think the GOP represents them or deserves their vote---eh. Shrug. So boring. But when Howard Dean says what's been said by twelve-year-olds for a generation, that the Republican party is overwhelmingly white, whitebread, WASP-y and boooooring---jesus effin' christ, it's like a madhouse out there! You know, I and many other liberals look down on the crass purveying of identity politics of hurt-feelings when it's practiced by those on our side. (Head over to the liberal blogosphere and CTRL-F "kos" and "pie-fight" for evidence of that. Also evidence that we seem to be losing that particular snit.) It would be nice if someone on your side did, too.