Silly Season Update

A followup to an earlier post, (which I am posting in brief so that I remember to actually follow-up on it--does that make sense?)

Larry Sinclair has reportedly told the folks at Big Head DC that he's postponing all media appearances for the time being. It seems he wants to focus on his various, and numerous, lawsuits. Good luck there, Mr. Sinclair.

Meanwhile, DBKP presents an ongoing critique of Mr. Sinclair's actions: a recent post suggests that Larry Sinclair has lost his "credibility," while another entry provides a rundown of Mr. Sinclair's attempts to shake down Whitehouse.com (perhaps "shake down" isn't the correct phrase, but you get the picture). You might also want to stop by Hbee Inc. for an energetic take on the Sinclair situation.

You'd think the man would know when to call a halt to his accusations; seriously, the 'net notoriety has gone to his head. How can the man believe that he's due for some mainstream news coverage based on a series of unsubstantiated claims that could truly destroy someone's life?

I've noted that numerous (alleged) Clinton supporters are backing Sinclair, and they appear to see this brouhaha as similar to the ruckus surrounding the Clintons in the '90s (I'm not referring to Ms. Lewinsky). The reasoning seems to be, somehow, that because Bill and Hillary (or Billary) were victimized by scurrilous rumors, then Obama is--or even should be--fair game. Yes, people threw wildly unsubstantiated dirt at the Clintons too, but how many legitimate news organizations treated The Clinton Chronicles, or the accusations of rape, as appropriate news material? And you simply cannot compare the Sinclair story with Whitewater (Rezko, maybe...and I anticipate that we'll know about the association with Obama shortly as Rezko's trial has commenced).

And one more thing: I've always resisted the "the Democratic party, despite its favor for identity politics, maintain a closeted racism" argument. But, folks--the longer the Obama/Clinton battle continues, the basis of that argument is being revealed. The Democratic party seems no less racist (or sexist, or anti-Muslim, or anti-Semitic) than any other party: it's just better at masking its prejuduce (as well as its privileging of the status quo). I know I've made several claims that need further support, but it's late, I'm tired, and I'm damned grumpy, so I'll elaborate tomorrow (that's the goal, anyway).

Aside: Maureen Down offered a fine editorial piece today on how the Democrats are being hoisted by their own petard as identity politics threatens to fragment the party: "Duel of Historical Guilts."

Update (3/9): The comments left at Big Head DC have now gone absolutely bonkers. Accusations over Obama's and Clinton's sexuality abound, Obama's been associated, obliquely, with everything from dead choir directors to voodoo. Granted, such posts are invented by people trolling the Larry Sinclair fans, but they are entertaining. Then there's this.