564 words
Let's say (and as the Rude Pundit would say, why don't we) that you're a Connecticut constituent. Let's say that you voted in last Tuesday's primary (LAST Tuesday, was it only last Tuesday?) for Ned Lamont, and eight days later (ie today) you read in a Newsweek article the following paragraph:
Vice President Cheney, fundraising in Phoenix, commented that Democratic National Committee chair Howard "Dean's party has turned its back on [Lieberman]. Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000... and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of his generation. Joe is also an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most other senators in both parties did the same -- and he's had the courage to stick by that vote even when things get tough. And now, for that reason alone, the Dean Democrats have defeated Joe Lieberman. Their choice, instead, is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq."
Bear with me now; I'm trying to use the gray box. If it doesn't succeed, at least I've set apart the quotation in quotation marks. Anyway, let's say you read Mr. Cheney's assessment of the results of the election and you come across the operative phrase:
"...for that reason alone,..."
Kind of sticks in the craw, doesn't it? I mean, unless that IS the only reason (not that it isn't sufficient as the prevailing issue of our time) and, what the hell, even if it IS the only reason you voted for Lamont, where does The Robot (my nickname for Cheney) get off telling you what you were thinking when you punched in, marked, dotted the computer screen, or otherwise noted your preference for the candidate Lamont, as if he (The Robot) could read your mind?
While recovering from that terrifying prospect (and while noting the almost-as-execrable reference to "Dean's party" and "the Dean Democrats" not to mention perhaps wondering exactly how many Lamont supporters are going to be repulsed by the notion of associating Dean with Lamont), you may consider that whereas The Robot may be the last person on earth you want presuming to define your motives for you, actually nobody else is capable of doing that, either.
Nor is the reverse true, either. Think about it, as The Robot would say in another rhetorical context, if you will. Nobody really knows why you've said what you've said, done what you've done, although psychologists, if they're good, can help you figure out why when you may not know yourself. Even when it seems fairly or screamingly self-evident what the actor is attempting to accomplish, elicit, or provoke (for instance, dragging Howard Dean into the remark to imply Lamont is equally a far leftist and unbalanced as well), which I'll now go on record claiming is EXACTLY what The Robot intended, you're really not sure.
And while The Robot's little ploy seems so obvious you can barely hear the precise words themselves, many times someone else will say something, do something, not nearly so clear-cut, to which you respond not to just that but to the assumed underlying objective. If your subconscious is guiding you, you probably won't realize you've even done it.
The point of this Diary is to highlight that tendency, and to respectfully discourage such presumptions in comments on this website.