(Cross-Posted at dailyKos)

Sean Wilentz created a big teapot in a tempest around here with his New Republic piece Race Man, in which he blames Barack Obama for all of the racial division in the Democratic primaries. This article has become a rallying point for many Clinton supporters in advancing this claim, partially because no one else has taken up the cry. At the time I, and many others, pointed out that it was poorly documented, relied on argument by assertion and circular logic, and in no way proved its point. Since that, the article has largely fallen into obscurity except among people who occasionally trot it out along with other tired charges.

But now Wilentz is back, with a much more succinct and updated version of the same attack, Obama was the first to play the race card. The New Republic piece at least had the virtue of being poorly circulated outside the blogosphere, but this piece ups the ante by reaching for wide circulation in a state with an upcoming primary.

The piece itself is, if anything, more poorly constructed than the New Republic article. But it is clearly well written; Wilentz has put the words together well to promote the agenda he's promoting, and someone reading with an uncritical eye may be tempted to believe some of his assertions. Thus, this diary: to point a critical eye at Wilentz' Philadelphia Inquirer piece and point out the numerous problems therein.

Alegre's strike against dailyKos got me thinking about the nature of the debate on both sites, about civility and lack thereof, about why well-intentioned writers on both sites sometimes go crazy and vent invective, personal slurs, and curse words on the often undeserving. I started this as a reply in the thread over there, but realized it was turning into a diary, and so it has.

Since this started as a response to Alegre's piece, I suppose a response is still a good thing: I respect Alegre, and then also I don't. I very much respect the personal-experience diaries, her diaries about many worthy causes, even diaries about why she supports Hillary Clinton. I don't respect the "post whatever HillaryClinton.com says, even if it's ridiculous spin" diaries. Someone as smart as she is can see through the spin.

So I won't be joining the strike as she asks, but I do agree with what I think her biggest point is: while civility isn't always justified, there is never a time to take it personal, there is never a time for curse words and invective (with the slight caveat that it's ok, in my opinion, to snarkily call someone the same non-cursing name they just called someone else; if the shoe fits...). Civility is a good thing, even a necessary thing, but there are reasons people go nuts and reasons that crossing some lines over and over demands a firm smackdown -- but not with cursing and invective, and never, ever, with threats and bullying.

I had dinner tonight with friends, including several women of the right age to remember Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro's historic 1984 run for Vice President as a very important part of their lives. For one, a very vocal supporter of Senator Clinton, Ferraro's run came at the same time as she was getting divorced; seeing a woman in that position made gave her extra strength and confidence. For two others, supporters of Senator Obama, this was their first chance to vote in an election, and they felt wonderfully empowered to be able to vote for a woman. Everyone at the table had fond memories of Ferraro's candidacy (if not the outcome of it).

Their feelings about the current situation were, uniformly, shock, dismay, and worry.