by Robert Oak, Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:56:50 AM EST
I'm no fan of Hillary. That said, I'm no fan of any candidate who presents corporate lobbyist policy on trade, economics, budget, tax policy, insourcing, labor. I'm personally desperate for someone to push hard for economic sanity that is really based on statistics, theory with the national interest, working America's interests as the beneficiaries.
I never write blog posts on anything but economics, trade and labor.
But, that said, I find something going on here in this campaign, so disgusting, so outrageous I have to say something.
And that is the Lynching of Hillary Clinton.
by bruh21, Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:02:08 AM EST
Okay, I am about to say something that's going to be a real shocker to progressives because I've read a series of diaries over the last couple of days that are truly bizarre to me:
Whether its identity politics or electability, several A-list bloggers are hungering to understand the magic formula for winning elections and influencing people.
Well, for $19.95 I am happy to tell you the secret.
by truthteller2007, Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:00:57 PM EST
It is a dossier of horrors, of comments posted by overzealous Obama supporters. It is a product of the Obama campaign's predilection for the lewd and the scabrous: notice the preoccupation with sexual acts; notice the gratuitous profanity; notice the desire to engage in violent activity. No wonder these comments have been hidden from view: they are so much political pornography; they are so many discarded stills from a low budget snuff film.
These comments by Obama supporters are not progressive; they are regressive. What one sees here is a thematic of misogyny and sexism that has no place in Democratic politics. Also unacceptable is one user's trivilization of the practice of lynching in his failed attempt to intimidate other posters. How odd that the Obama campaign believes the Jim Crow tactics of the Klan should be deployed in a forum where progressives congregate and debate.
Because Democrats have a legacy of engaging in amicable and respectful debate, I ask the Obama campaign and its supporters to refrain from posting comments similar to those I reproduce in the extended entry. Not only do they reflect poorly on your candidate; they are a scourge on our Party, a Party that is committed to completing and not reversing the unfinished projects of the 1960s. To jettison that legacy with sexist and racist imagery is to compromise the foundation on which our Party is balanced. Please consider this as you review these comments penned by the Obama campaign and its fanatical supporters.
by bookgrl, Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:32:55 PM EST
There's been alot of debate about comments aimed at Hillary sprinkling the political blogs, and whether some of them are routed in sexism. In truth, I think some are, some arn't. It's true, the Clinton's have always been somewhat polarizing. I think one reason for that, is the right wing's contempt for one of few extremely successful Democrat's in the last several decades. But, with Hillary, there is more to it than that. Remember, Pat Buchanon once called her a "radical feminist". Still, as we've seen here in some instances, the sexism is not necessarily only coming from Right or Left, it's just coming.
by Natasha Chart, Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:36:07 PM EST
A couple weeks ago, I wrote about my experience at the BlogWorldExpo political panels, and noted the alarming moral degeneracy among the conservative attendees. I was helped in this by the notes taken by K T Cat. He made my point for me by condensing several examples of this government's behavior (warrantless wiretapping, shredding the Constitution, going to war on lies, etc.) that I find more offensive than words for sex and body parts into the dismissive phrase "Bush administration policies," then promptly declaring that sexual attitudes should be the top priority of society.
Right. Because when your fellow citizens are being made homeless by the perfidy of our banks and financial institutions or remaining homeless because the Bush administration abandoned the poor of the Gulf Coast, or are living in debt peonage, or when police violence and impunity continues to escalate across the nation, or while the country is being bled dry to feed Halliburton, Bechtel, CH2M, Lockheed Martin and Blackwater, that's the time to rail against the horrors of one of our species' most basic biological urges. Unless it's time to rail against the horror of knowing that you helped pay for a kid's bone marrow transplant, which ought to make you mad, for some reason.
That's the sort of problem you get when your ideological peers are grimly ignorant, and proud of it. You end up saying racist things, then claiming that you didn't mean it that way, which doesn't mean by a long shot that it wasn't a racist thing to say. Or, you might end up saying stupid things, like that people would stop having sex if they had fewer rights and no government assistance. And that might be embarassing once you step outside your usual circles.
Which is no better than the ignorance displayed by someone in the audience at a Friday panel at Blog World, from the near unnavigable site Democast, who insisted that the Tamil Tigers were just another example of a dangerous Muslim group bringing fascism to the world, after I mentioned that they were the original suicide bombers. But as I'd said, the Tamil Tigers are a nationalist movement, spurred by the racist policies of a Sinhalese government instead of religion, and they happen also to be Hindu. Not Muslim. Not Arab. Tamil Hindus. Kind of puts a damper on blaming all the ills of the world on the Scary Islamic Jihadis.
Wingnuts. They'd almost be cute if their leaders hadn't seized control of the government by means of vote fraud and a corrupt court. Also, if they weren't so racist. Really dampens the charisma potential.
So, on to this quote that Ron at Centerface* rescued from a previous version of K T Cat's original posting: