And here’s Jonathan Chait, proving once again that nobody dishes liberal derision better than he does:
Let’s translate what O’Donnell and Chait have said into plain terms that facilitate a meaningful comparison of their respective messages.“For the record, the accusation is not that she is a witch, but that she ‘dabbled in witchcraft.’ And, actually, this isn't an accusation but her own admission. Given that nobody is claiming she is currently a witch, it's interesting that O'Donnell is bringing up the charge herself. It suggests a guilty frame of mind.”
She ’s saying to voters that, since I’m a lot like you in pertinent respects, the people calling me an airhead also think that a lot of you are airheads with political views that are beyond the pale. Isn’t it time we all stopped listening to these assholes?
He’s saying that, if hearing O’Donnell’s confession about “dabbl[ing] into” witchcraft didn’t convince you that she’s an airhead, her efforts to convince us that she isn’t prove beyond all doubt that she is. Can you believe that this airhead would actually run for the Senate and there are a lot of airheads in Delaware who will actually vote for her?
I’m still chuckling, appreciatively at Chait’s words and derisively at O’Donnell’s because, like most of the people reading this blog, I’m a lot more at home viewing the world from his standpoint than from hers. But note the possibility that they're both saying things that are perfectly defensible from their respective standpoints. Can someone explain to me why Chait’s (and our) standpoint is any less parochial than O’Donnell’s?