The Palin-bin Laden Debate

Here's the promised argument I received by e-mail about why I shouldn't have posted an item two days ago which I titled "Osama bin Palin." (The idea was that both Palin and bin Laden want to force their world-view on others, though they use different means.)



"The problem with this pointed association of the ideology of Sarah Palin to Osama bin Laden is that - so far as we know - Sarah Palin has only threatened to squelch our liberties, but she hasn't actually committed genocide. There is probably no one who dislikes or despises George W. Bush more than I, but when I read the diatribes of well-meaning people of his favorable comparison to Hitler, I have to just accept that the thought the diatribe is intentional in its passion, it misses the opportunity for intellectual discourse with others that leads to problem-solving. It shuts a definitive soundbite door on the opportunity to use logic to evaluate the problem and determine a logical way to address it.

...It's the same sort of rhetoric Conservatives use to make their points - fill people with succinct opinions and do it all in just a few words ... the more dramatic, the better. I realize the title "Osama bin Palin" is yours and it is overtly funny. But the comments inherent in the title and the sentiments are sensational and unsubstantiated in a way that discredits the very smart and savvy nature of your blog (I respectfully submit)."


Now, I do favor good pithy soundbites. I want them to be true and memorable. They make a difference in campaigns.

However, I don't want to rant; it isn't effective.

Thoughts from you on what is decently bold in a campaign as important as this one?








If you like this post, please bookmark it on del.icio.us, share it on StumbleUpon, vote for it on Digg. Thanks so much.