I followed a friend's pointer to the latest Salon, which I never read (except for Keith Knight "K Chronicles" comics) and an Op-Ed by Camille Paglia, whom I never read. Now I understand why.
In the early paragraphs she bypasses McCain, asserting it is style, not substance, that matters, and that, after Bush, America needs more style. She bypasses any media criticisms of Obama because the media is in bed with McCain. Besides, she adds, such many and varied criticism must be wrong because it is endlessly repeated.
Obama must be good, Paglia concludes, because his waffling shows he has an open and flexible mind. Obama isn't making things up on the fly; rather he is a "conciliator and synthesizer". And, she says, "his administration will be as good as its appointments" demonstrating her immediate need for eyeglass regrinding, for not seeing the multitude of bodies thrown under the Copperhead Express, Obama's campaign bus.
But the real reason to read the Op-Ed, according to my friend, is the savaging of Hillary and Bill in the sixth paragraph. Ignore the previous five oh-so-predictable libberish grafs and be hit in the eye sockets with the tawdry description of scheming and an over-active libido. It's rapier-like and funny.
But if McCain is disqualified for style-over-substance, Paglia DQ's herself for the same reason. She follows her inflammatory demagoguery in the very next paragraph with a claim to be "shocked and appalled at Hillary's inflammatory demagoguery". No reason to read any further.
