Fafaroo, I understand they’re hiring. Get some of that wingnut welfare, delivered straight to your home!

Dude! Cannibalism is militaristic now?

And besides, Oliver spelled Kamikaze right.

Where/when did Oliver echo right-wing attacks against the Clintons?

“I look like an idiot who doesn’t know what the word means.”

OK, I’ll grant you that one.

indeed.

Much like our host, who has STILL yet to tie together the title with the body.

And yes, I do find it ironic and amusing that Oliver says that Clinton is “echo(ing) right-wing attacks versus Sen. Obama” while he himself echoes right-wing attacks against the Clintons.

I’m guessing Oliver was either not in church when those particular sermons were preached, or was distracted about being under sniper fire at the time, or was cutting a sweetheart real estate deal in Chicago at the time. Understandable. Those can be very distracting events.

J.

Which is fine, and what one should do. Provide support for your views.

But having to explain the meaning of “kamikaze” isn’t the same as having to explain your opinion on something. Thinking it is necessary to tell someone what “blue” is is insulting. Telling them why it’s your favorite color is not.

Do you really not see that?

I never said I created it, Oliver. Only that I used it before you did,

So if you didn’t invent it, who used it before you? Did you credit him?

Wait a minute. Oliver criticizes Hillary for parroting right-wing talking points and then, in response, Jay criticizes Oliver for “parroting the right wingers.” Huh?

Dude, explaining to your audience where the term kamikaze derives from is not respecting them — it’s treating them like children. The term kamikaze, what it means and where it comes from, is common knowledge. It’s become a part of the language, like blitzkrieg. Writers stopped having to explain what blitzkrieg meant in 1939, pretty much the same year it became a regular part of war reporting.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t think anyone on the left thought the Clinton’s were political innocents in the 90s. Suggesting, however, that they had Vince Foster murdered, however, was entirely worthy of derision. The problem people have with the Clinton’s now is that they are training their sites on a fellow democrat and thereby reinforcing right wing talking points and attacks. As Oliver correctly points out, given the no hope position of the Clinton campaign, continued attacks on Obama is akin to a kamikaze strategy — killing yourself to take the other guy down.

Arguing that Obama is a political opportunist now is just as worthy of derision, especially in a campaign that has seen John McCain change his positions on every major policy initiative he claimed to support in the last decade from taxes to immigration to campaign finance reform to win the support of conservatives. Principle be damned, he’s in it to win this thing!

It’s also ridiculous to suggest that Obama’s relationship with Wright is an act of political expediency when Obama, while condemning some of Wright’s inflammatory comments, has refused to reject Wright as a friend and mentor despite the political damage it may do. Obama has similarly criticized Rezko for falling afoul of the law — as well as his own errors in judgment with regards to their real estate deal — without rejecting or denouncing his friendship with the man. In both cases, Obama has shown a lot of courage in not throwing his friends under the bus when it would have been political advantageous to do so. That’s why the right continues to attack him.

On the hand conservatives claim Obama is a political opportunist and the other they attack him for not distancing himself enough from Wright. So which is it, Jay Tea?

Short answer: too recently.

And the reason why I write explaining things and you don’t: I respect my audience. I don’t expect to just say things without being ready to explain why I think them, and back them up.

In school terms, it’s called “showing your work.”

The opposite school is usually called “laziness” or “guesswork” or “arrogance” or “taking things for granted.”

But I do find it vastly entertaining to see you parroting the right wingers who’ve been saying all these things about the Clintons for nigh on two decades, usually to great derision. They are the same people they were in 1992, and have been since — you were just too blind to see it then.

Whether that blindness was ideological (you had no problems as long as they were Clintoning the “right” people) or sheer ignorance (you just couldn’t see what was flagrantly obvious to so many of us), it’s refreshing to see the realization dawn in your eyes.

So, how long will it take for you folks to realize Obama’s an empty suit who pals around with whoever will best help him achieve his ambitions, whether it’s a paranoid, race-baiting minister or a real estate con man or anyone?

I’ll bet on 2018.

J.

Furthermore, I think its hilarious that you’re seeking recognition for inspiring something you now claim is a crappy mess. I guess this is the same attitude that requires you to write thousands of words on your site writing about me discussing why you don’t think I’m important.

Get over yourself.

Waaah! Read my blog!!!!

Yeah, I also skipped the part where you threw in a Meat Loaf lyric in a dazzling crash of mixed metaphors.

Typically, Jay Tea, all one has to say is “Clinton is running a Kamikaze campaign” and people will know what you’re talking about. Oliver said in a freaking headline what you took a whole paragraph to set up and then conclude with a flourish of purple prose.

Whether you made “the case” that Clinton was in fact running a “kamikaze campaign” is irrelevant to your hamfisted execution of the metaphor itself.

Oliver is obviously arguing that Clinton knows she’s going down and is willing to use any tactics to take Obama down with her.

All in all, I think we’ve identified why you’re such a pedantic writer: You are a profoundly pedantic person.

And I’m still waiting for someone to explain just what about Oliver’s use of “kamikaze” means in relation to his article.

J.

Oh this is just too rich. So you had to spell out “precisely” to your readers how and why your were using the metaphor? Are your readers really that fucking stupid? Trust Oliver on this, Jay Tea. Opening up a post with this:

Towards the end of World War II, the Japanese were growing desperate. They had lost the best of their pilots in the first year or two of the war against the United States, and had never instituted a first-rate program to replace them and fully train new ones. As a last-ditch effort to get some use out of half-trained young men who were most likely going to die anyway, they convinced them to pilot planes converted into “flying bombs” and deliberately crash into American and British ships. They were called “kamikaze,” or “Divine Wind,” after the storms that twice wrecked Mongol invasion fleets in the 13th century.

Just so you can say this:

A little over sixty years ago, the Kamikaze corps inflicted a terrible toll on the American and British fleets — but, in the end, had a negligible effect on the outcome of the war. I suspect that Hillary’s Divine Winds will have even less of an effect.

Is about the very definition of pedantic, extraneous, overwritten crap. Then to argue that it somehow makes you a superior writer? Classic. Just classic. I pity the readership of wizbang.