Ron Paul sucks, yeah, but highlighting what little he has right as Greenwald and a sparse other few rational people have dared to do, knowing full well they would be lambasted for doing so, is more important than serving up to the prickly liberal elite the hypocrisy of our erudite first black president. The primary importance is that someone, anyone, even if it’s a nut like Paul, is saying these things in an otherwise utterly fatuous horse race.
Pollitt’s off-handed smear of Greenwald, for instance, who took great pains keeping discrete the foreign policy ideas Paul has right from the numbskull overall policies of the man (and who pointed out more than once how his daring to praise some aspect of the nut was going to be conflated with complete and total and absolute support for the man and bring about the very sarcasm Pollitt believes she’s entertaining us with)—it was cheap on her part, that’s all.
Look, I’m done with the Democrats except for local politics. I’m indeed throwing my vote away on some arcane candidate who has no chance in hell, even if i have to write in somebody like Nader. Obama is the tombstone of a corpse buried a long time ago, Chris Hedges’s “liberal class.” My little vote means nothing. The take of great institutions like The Nation does matter, and i feel for the tough spot you’re in. Not voting for Obama (indefinite detention, self-defeating laughable foreign policy, Wall Street cabinet positions and giveaways, things like the new defense authorization nonsense)—not voting for all those things because the other side is vocally and openly more extreme about the same things is an understandable position. The Nation will probably take it. But it’s just low to make caricatures out of people who point out Obama’s substantial failings. Only a clueless capitulating Democrat could codify and make bipartisan consensus out of the legacy of the right-wing nightmare preceding him.