Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Stupidest Wright Wreck Comment (So Far)

Thomas Edsall, political editor of the Huffington Post, appears to think that the most important political fact about the Wright wreck is that it has made conservatives angry. Thus, his attempt to gauge the amount of damage is to survey the liberal reaction to the ?explosion of commentary in the conservative blogosphere.? Presumably liberals aren?t, on their own and apart from fearing what conservatives will make of Wright, angered by Obama?s long association with angry anti-Americanism.

One of the liberal responses he cites earns the dubious distinction of being the stupidest comment to date:

Former Democratic presidential candidate and Colorado Senator Gary Hart, noting that campaign aides, advisers and surrogates are playing a larger role in this election than ever before, said ?the legitimate side of this is the desire to know the influences on the candidate. The unhealthy side is the imputation of guilt, blame, or evil to the candidate based upon some flaw in the increasingly wide circle of ?advisors?.? Wright?s conduct, Hart said, ?is relevant only if Senator Obama had listened to this tripe and not objected or walked out. Otherwise, he cannot be held accountable for the excesses of a man, even a minister, who holds extreme and unacceptable views. Otherwise, what about his banker, or barber, or doctor, or shoe salesman??

Candidates, including Obama, are ciphers. You can tell as much about a candidate?s character and judgment by his choice of shoe salesman as by his 20 year association with his carefully selected spiritual mentor.

I don?t know what kind of shoes Gary Hart wears, but I do know where both of them are right now: in his mouth.

Full post as published by Discriminations on March 17, 2008 (boomark / email).