(Blogger now has backlinks - very similar to the trackback feature in Movable Type.) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack…

Yes.

And FWIW:
Okay, well, there, I did feel an implied slur as you state. I did think you were implying that liberalism on college campuses or among young people in general is sort of a fad or a fashion or a passing phase rather than being grounded in real values and beliefs.

You’re partly right about my meaning, because I was trying to say that this is true for SOME students. And I take it that you agree with that because earlier you said:

I submit to you that young people who "learn" liberal "ideology" on college campuses and then become conservative as they move on in life were never liberal in their deepest values, or in their minds or hearts. People simply do not abandon profoundly felt beliefs that easily.
So can we agree that some people have preformed ideas and values prior to college which may or may not change, and that both conservatism and liberalism represent value systems that people might hold as authentic beliefs or they might try them on in a more superficial way and later reject them?

No, Christine, you did not say that. But I did not say you said that. And I can’t find anything in what I wrote that implies what you wrote above. <smile>

Nor did I say anything about whether or not parents might instill liberal values (you seem to have inferred some sort of slur there, as though I don’t believe that liberals have values- and I never said anything like that.)

Okay, well, there, I did feel an implied slur as you state. I did think you were implying that liberalism on college campuses or among young people in general is sort of a fad or a fashion or a passing phase rather than being grounded in real values and beliefs.

So you read my reaction correctly there, and if I was mistaken in what I took from your comments, then I apologize.

Well, I’d say this comes pretty close, for just one example (and obviously I’m not saying that ANYONE is advocating for a set of Jim Crowe laws aimed at literally disenfranchising uneducated white voters, but what I am referring to is a dismissive attitude toward those kinds of voters).  Of course like all things that are whispered but not really said outright, stuff like this can be understood one way by a candidates supporters and another way by his opponents. To the supporters of Obama, it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about the ignorance of Appalachian voters as though they should just be written off since they’re not smart enough or they’re too bigoted to vote for Obama. For his opponents, that’s as offensive as Hillary’s supporters stressing her appeal to certain white voters since she basically has to write off the black demographic. Everyone sees the logic in looking at the demographic appeal of their candidate in terms of effects on how the campaign should be run, but when the other candidate’s team and supporters are doing that out loud, suddenly it’s racist or elitist. In both cases, there’s a right and a wrong way to talk about these things, I think- and both sides ought to be more careful to give a more generous reading of the other whenever possible.

It’s a bit of an unfair situation for Clinton, too, since the racial thing works out so that SOME white voters are being dissed but not all- so it doesn’t appear that the race card is really being played. Of course the problem is that when black voters break 90% of more for Obama, then talking about the group that didn’t vote for her INEVITABLY means that she’s talking about blacks. She’s basically doing the same thing as he is in talking about the people that do support her vs. the voters who support him- but since the black vote is monolithic, it ends up being parsed as a racial undertone by her opponents.

The reverse can happen as well. Young people who were raised in apolitical families, or in families that adhered to conservative or right-wing ideology, sometimes move to the left when they leave home and are exposed to a wider range of social and political thought.

Also, it’s a mistake in my view to think that just because you believe liberalism is a flawed ideology that sensible people "grow out of," that others feel that way, or that such a view is even true. I grew up with very liberal parents who instilled liberal values in me and my brother. They were not apolitical. They had strong beliefs, strong core values, and they imparted those values to their children.

I submit to you that young people who "learn" liberal "ideology" on college campuses and then become conservative as they move on in life were never liberal in their deepest values, or in their minds or hearts. People simply do not abandon profoundly felt beliefs that easily.

the exclusion of respect for the unschooled masses

Notably, this is a reversal of the truth. It is the "eggheads" that we are being told by the Clintonistas to ignore and marginalize, not the "unschooled masses". The "unschooled masses" are, we are told, the true representatives of the common person, to be obeyed without question or challenge of any type even when they are found spouting blatant untruths (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim"). The accusation that academics have contempt for the unschooled is a slander against all the professors who work to teach and educate the unschooled.

I haven’t found any pro-Obama person or site arguing that the "unschooled" should be excluded. What I am saying and I stand behind is the idea that lack of education should not be romanticized as some kind of virtue and education treated as a vice, as has been done by many Clinton supporters and conservatives.

If you want to accuse anyone of promoting “exclusion”, perhaps you should focus on the ONLY case of a site directly advocating censorship of those that disagree — it was a pro-Clinton site, if you will recall.

And when Obama had supporters who were racists (Farrakhan, Wright), he was forced to publicly renounce them. Where are the anti-racism critics now that Hillary Clinton is the one featuring some racist supporters? All the sudden they seem to have lost interest in the entire problem of racist supporters. Suspicious timing, that.

Jason, what we "anti-Obamans" take grave offense at is your lumping us ALL in as anti-Obama crusaders whenever we make some criticism of the man.

See, Pat and Tully, even when I put the modifier "some" in italics, that doesn’t prevent you guys from going off lying about me supposedly talking about "all".

And if a “very very long time” means less than a month (since I posted my own concerns about Obama), then you might have a point there too. But since less than a month is not in fact a “very very long time” AND since ElectionSnark features DAILY digs at Obama (along with everyone else), I guess that is just more false blustering meant to change the subject whenever you see a criticism you don’t want to deal with directly.

Anyway, given the apparent lack of good faith in how you two represent others’ comments on any issue related to Obama, I don’t see any point in responding further to it.