Yes, that’s true. And exactly the same is true about what so many Obama supporters believed about Clinton. I watched a campaign in which ardent supporters of each candidate seemed to be supporting a symbol rather than the real person who was the candidate, and increasingly finding the opposition to be a monster.

It’s the Zen student in me, but IMO this shows us there’s much to be said for seeing things as-they-are without trying to fit all phenomena into pre-constructed conceptual boxes.

I also think conceptualizing “evil” usually leads people to odd conclusions. As far as judging which is worse — doers of evil or enablers of doers of evil — from a Buddhist perspective it’s kind of irrelevant. It’s all one big dance. The enablers give rise to the doers, but at the same time the doers give rise to the enablers. They create and define each other.

…I came across Digby’s Credo (”We’re 2% less shitty than Pure Evil! It’s all we’ve got!” — a deeply inspiring manifesto if ever I heard one, and one which appears to work wonders with the morally insensate, intellectually inert pustule that is the progressive netroots)…

…This is profoundly wrong, and exactly backwards. Think about this: as history has demonstrated many times, full actualization of a great evil such as the imperial presidency is only made possible by those who are weak and corrupt. Since Digby was thoughtful enough to bring up Germany in the 1930s, you can get a head start on my new essay by reading or rereading this: “Thus the World Was Lost.” Pay special attention to the comments of those Germans who tried to work for change “within the system” and to “bore from within,” and about “the problem of the lesser evil,” and how bitter were their own later condemnations of their acquiescence to evil…

And so, in his mind, it follows that McCain is the lesser evil. I will say this for Arthur, he is good at taking an argument to its conclusion. He’s got something about the enablers of evil, certainly about how they felt afterward, but even in their delusions I find his argument hard to accept. (And it feels weird dissecting his words here, but he doesn’t provide a way to comment).

I read a comment on James Kunstler’s blog (in reference to Peak Oil and Peak Credit - cute phrase, that) that:

…The best Obama will be able to do is guide the smart folks, twits, racists, wealthy, poor, middle-class, hypocrites, criminals and good folks through a series of increasingly difficult shocks to our American way of life.

Think of Obama as the elevator going down. McCain (and most Republicans and the Democratic Party (not Democratic voters)) is the elevator in free fall.

You make the choice.

I don’t think Silber sees the difference.

What, Obama might sully and tarnish the paragon, the saintly model of excellence brought to the presidency these past 7 1/2 years?

And if he is living direly (perhaps of his own choice) and lost one of his few companions, it is a situation that would drive one to extremes.

Genuine enthusiasm is rare and wonderful. The possibility of finding some end to the dark tunnel that is not an oncoming McCain has lifted my mood of late. Some of the polls indicate people are waking up.

About time.

I know people who are suspicious of strong emotion, thinking that it inevitably leads to wrong thinking and bad decisions. But it need not. After all, we are wired that way, and people who go for the Spock and dismiss emotion can get their own tangled up. Which can mess up their thinking more than anything else.

And, if the goal is to avoid leaders who take advantage of fanatical followers who are disconnected from reality and endow their chosen candidate with superpowers, has Silber noticed the GOP’s hagiography of El Jefe, (before, of course, the chickens started coming home to roost)? How voting Republican can be seen as an answer to cultish devotion to a political leader is thoroughly beyond me.