re: #365 enoughalready

Why is it troubling? Are you seriously entertaining the notion that there are secret marxists plotting to overthrow the government? Or are you worried that… I don’t even get it really. Reading Mao is not radicalism. Neither is quoting Mao. Nobody in their right mind, not even the chinese Communist Party, would argue that maoism is a good idea.

I’m not Beck, nor do I play him on the web.

Radical chic - the kitschification of totalitarianism. If you don’t see a problem with quoting these folk approvingly, or doing up campaign artwork in the style of early Maoist propaganda, then you should see no problem with Euro-fascists and their “cute” riffs on swastika etc.

Obama aint’ a radical - he just hangs out with, appoints, and is attractive to, radicals.

She chose to quote Mao precisely because it’s a sort of “in” thing on the left; has been for years. Atwater quoted him, too, but I daresay that the points of intersection between anything espoused by Atwater or his president and mao would be fewer than those intersections betweeen say, Van Jones and Mao, to name but one.