President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

O What a Beautiful Morning.

Actually, it's a grey damp start to a new Era here in London. But despite sleeplessness and hangovers, the world seems a lot brighter today. People are walking with a spring in their step.

What happened last night? What happened over the last year? Did I dream all that? Did America, the country that gave George Bush two terms: whose voters were robbed in 2000, bamboozled in 2004: did that same country really elect this smart, dedicated, eloquent, passionate man called Barack Hussein Obama?

When our most read newspaper, a famously right wing tabloid, publishes a headline like this, then you know the world has changed, changed utterly...

Here's Gordon Brown congratulating President ELECT Barack Hussein Obama. Even his traditionally dour Scottish bearing has a lightness and kindness this morning 05/world.reaction/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

This is a moment that will live in history as long as history books are written

But I found this the picture from last night and it made me think::

As Literature majors will know, much of the American narrative, in fiction and in politics, is about breaking away from fathers. Some say this a metaphor for the radical act of independence. Others put it down to the pioneer spirit, which while opening up new frontiers, meant a painful severance with old patrimonies. Even McCain and Bush fit into this narrative of confronting, emulating, struggling with the father, higher or otherwise.

Obama's election changes this utterly too.  

That a man who never really had a father, is clearly such a brilliant father to his own daughters, and is now a kind of father figure to a whole nation, nay to the world, I find that infinitely telling and touching.

Just seen Colin Powell on CNN, and he's still in tears.

So how does it feel America, to be a role model for the world?

[UPDATED] before I'm flamed again for apparently upholding the norms of oppressive patriarchy, or suggesting that anyone needs fathers, let me state (for the record and with my hangover abated) that what I like about the image of father Obama projects is that its not patriarchal - distant, imperious and commanding. He seems incredibly present with his kids. And in his historic acceptance speech last night he constantly referenced the achievements of the women's movement. So please - let's not equate a discussion of the roles of fathers (necessary after all) with the unnecessary attributes of patriarchy, macho, or the American male. Update [2008-11-5 17:29:11 by brit]: The classic work on the role of absent or abusive fathers in American Literature is "Love and Death in the American Novel" by Leslie A. Fiedler. Barack Obama's "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" has become a classic addition to that canon. Update [2008-11-5 19:24:22 by brit]: I always intended to leave MYDD the day Obama was elected. Thanks to you the great majority who have been so tolerant of this Brit getting involved. I'll miss you. And thanks for the 'others' for coming out of the woodwork here, and reminding me of what I won't be missing.

Update [2008-11-6 2:26:40 by brit]: My last comment - finally I get to say it

Great thing is, now the election is over, I don't have to bite my tongue anymore for the sake of unity, and I can finally let loose some home truths to the venal, glib and hopeless posters here who have ended up on the wrong side of history.

With no need for diplomacy anymore, can I just say Jerome, Chitown, and all you dozens of others who have decried Obama's movement from the beginning, and piled on at what you conceived to be the merest slip; all you so called oppositional seekers of truth, who either banned people or hide rated them when they called out your bad faith; to all those far right wing loons and Obama haters who used to dominate the rec list here; and to everyone else, who might have observed all this, and wondered if progressive political debate always descends into this, I say:

We were right. You were wrong. Enjoy eating your own hats for the next eight years.

Tags: Barack Hussein Obama, Dream, Fatherhood, GBCW (all tags)



Tips for...

A beautiful morning

by brit 2008-11-05 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for...

It's a grand moment, and his speech was so adult and so healing after the last horrible eight years.  He is like the good dad, he sets an ideal that can't be fully achieved but can be forever aspired, he represents the ideal of the father.  Much that is good will come from this.  And, we can have fun now.  There is an adult in charge.

by anna shane 2008-11-05 05:25AM | 0 recs
My brother was a very skeptical supporter

and we spent an hour after the speech talking about it, and about the implications of American electing someone capable of delivering such a statement.

"There is an adult in charge."  Indeed.

by chrisblask 2008-11-05 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: A New Kind of Father

   Carrying a majority of the popular vote, Obama did especially well among women and young voters, who polls showed were particularly sensitive to the current climate of everything being fucked. Another factor contributing to Obama's victory, political experts said, may have been the growing number of Americans who, faced with the complete collapse of their country, were at last able to abandon their preconceptions and cast their vote for a progressive African-American.

   Citizens with eyes, ears, and the ability to wake up and realize what truly matters in the end are also believed to have played a crucial role in Tuesday's election.

The Onion says it better thatn anyone I have read this morning...


by QTG 2008-11-05 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: A New Kind of Father

It's a generational change. All those young people, not only turning out, but involved on the ground, organising, debating, believing. That passion will outlive one president, and inspire millions of others throughout the world

by brit 2008-11-05 03:08AM | 0 recs
The only downside... that I'm not sure my son, now recovering in Harrisburg PA, will want to come back to the UK!

by brit 2008-11-05 03:09AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father

The Daily Star made me giggle... if for no other reason than that it's exactly what I expect out of the daily star.  Giant picture of a buxom women, tiny little picture of Obama and McCain.

by mistersite 2008-11-05 03:10AM | 0 recs
Typical pun too

Man, we Brits can limbo dance under any journalistic standard when it comes to newspapers

by brit 2008-11-05 03:17AM | 0 recs
Wow 10p cheaper, and 10 times more fun?!?

Sign me up :) !!!

by iohs2008 2008-11-07 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father

You used Hussein in your post ... multiple times.   Is that okay now?   A week okay you'd have been blown away for doing that.

by RichardFlatts 2008-11-05 03:33AM | 0 recs

Now the bigots have been blown away, we can CELEBRATE it

by brit 2008-11-05 03:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Yup

I hear you. The N.Y.Times did the same thing ;)

"Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, sweeping away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive." itics/05campaign.html?_

by phoenixdreamz 2008-11-05 03:52AM | 0 recs
Fuck the fucking fuckers.

"You don't like the name?  Get over it."


by chrisblask 2008-11-05 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Yup

The Times has to btw: their style guide dictates you use the full name in a lede like that.  If McCain had won they would have done it with him.

by Jess81 2008-11-05 08:10AM | 0 recs
It's extremely appropriate

When a guy becomes president, you use his full name.

Frankly, they should've added "II" at the end of his name.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: It's extremely appropriate

not necessary. James Earl Carter was pretty much known as Jimmy. William Jefferson Clinton was widely known as "Bill." and how many people knew what Ronald Reagan's middle name was?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-06 04:19AM | 0 recs
they still used jefferson for the swearing in

he sounds awful pompous with that kind of name, don't he? ;-) figure that's why he asked to be called Bill.

by RisingTide 2008-11-06 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: they still used jefferson for the swearing in

Exactly. Actually, Bill's given name was "William Jefferson Blythe IV, which sounds even more pompous. Ironic considering his mannerism and humble background.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-06 05:20AM | 0 recs
it's cute how paranoid he was of seeming
hickish. with a name like that!
(hey, at least he knew how to dress to play the president)
by RisingTide 2008-11-06 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: they still used jefferson for the swearing in

he actually legally changed it to William Jefferson Clinton when his mother Virginia Kelly married Roger Clinton. His bio father was Bill Blythe III. Its not like Clinton just went by something different.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-06 03:14PM | 0 recs
I'm not talking usually...'s just, on the day a guy wins the presidency and on the day he's sworn in, I just think you should use his full legal name.

Just seems right.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-06 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not talking usually...

Plus it irks the right wingers

by Skex 2008-11-06 11:29AM | 0 recs
The real news today ....

I would say the real news today, or the more interesting news today, is Abby Clancy in thigh high boots!

by RichardFlatts 2008-11-05 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Our Better Angels

I found someone who says it even better that The Onion

This administration will be leaving office, dumping in our laps the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis. Our house of dreams has been abused, looted, and left in a terrible state of disrepair. It needs defending against those who would sell it down the river for power, influence or a quick buck. It needs strong arms, hearts and minds. It needs someone with Senator Obama's understanding, temperateness, deliberativeness, maturity, pragmatism, toughness and faith. But most of all it needs us. You and me. All a nation has that keeps it from coming apart is the social contract between its' citizens. Whatever grace God has deemed to impart to us resides in our connections with one another, in honoring the life, the hopes, the dreams, of the man or woman up the street, or across town. That's where we make our small claim upon heaven. In recent years that contract has been shredded and as we look around today, it is shredding before our eyes. But today we are at the crossroads. ngsteen/hello-cleveland_b_141148.html

by QTG 2008-11-05 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: "So how does it feel America?"

I for one am feeling a HUGE sense of relief this morning, just to know that the Bush & Republican neo-con era is over, dead, and utterly repudiated.

I feel like I can breathe again. I feel a palpable peace invading my soul which was robbed from me. I feel proud to be an American again.

Our long national nightmare is over. O What a Beautiful Morning indeed.

Congratulations President Barack Obama!

by phoenixdreamz 2008-11-05 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father

I want our tomorrow to start today.  Obama cannot be sworn in fast enough to suit me.

I have been angry for so long, I don't know how it is going to feel not to be disgusted every time I hear a presidential speech.

by Sychotic1 2008-11-05 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father

It is a major gear change, it it not?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-11-05 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father

Thanks Brit for all your passion. In Canada we were celebrating all night and this morning people were all talking about Obama and how different it feels now.  REC It's a new day!!!

by canadian 2008-11-05 06:40AM | 0 recs
Thanks, we're glad he won!

and pleased to see our allies across the world feel the same way.

As for the father thing - no thanks, I'm not into patriarchy.  I doubt Obama is either.

by Betsy McCall 2008-11-05 07:04AM | 0 recs

A father of an absent father who isn't into the same patriarchal norms.

What part of that is there not to like?

by brit 2008-11-05 07:33AM | 0 recs
To unpack this further...

...which I failed to do due to my post party addled state, Chris Blask expressed it best in reply to my cross posting on the the Moose

I think what it is is a new kind of masculinity, (2.00 / 4)
neither the "Soft Male" of the post-60s Liberal nor the "Swaggering Male" of the post-60s Conservative. An emotionally connected man does not have to be weak.  A strong man does not have to be cold.

I could not agree more with the need for this.

While the Feminist discussion has done much to redefine Femininity (with still much to be debated, as we all know) and to provide positive guidance to our girls, I have always felt that we have not done little - frankly I think we have done less than nothing - to provide positive guidance to our boys.  There was nothing wrong with my girls when they were born, there was nothing wrong with my boy when he was born.  But for the girls there was a well-developed raft of positive memes that they could consider to help them find their strengths while for my son there were really only sets of either negative or simplistically cartoonish characterizations more apt as hurdles to be dealt with than as anything beneficial.

Look what we have for girls.  You can be strong but caring, you can nurture and you can fight.  A show of strength does not reduce your femininity, a display of emotion does not reduce your power.  Young girls can explore their sexuality in any manner and they are just experimenting.

Look what we have for boys.  Big boys (still) don't cry, if they do they are weak (heck, they'll probably end up repressing their latent homosexuality all their lives).  Simultaneously, boys that show strength are simply showing their latent thuggish stupidity (probably as a way of suppressing their latent homosexuality).  Young boys who explore their sexuality in any manner that is not strictly prescribed have proven their latent homosexuality and should just stop hiding it.  The stock analysis accepted  ubiquitously in our society of anything not strictly within the allowable bounds of Real Male Behavior is, "that's just gay", which is also the descriptive to be most feared and avoided at any cost, however steep.  Even from strong feminists on the left, "grow a pair!" is a not-uncommon retort to perceived weakness on the part of a man.

What was the most inflammatory accusation against Sen. Obama?  Larry Sinclair, which if proven true would have been nearly universally seen as an out-of-hand disqualification for office.  At the same time, widely believed rumors of homosexual tendencies on behalf of Hillary Clinton are not seen as any impediment at all.

And we wonder why our men are so dysfunctional?  We wonder why the frenzy to support atrocities like the anti-gay-marriage amendments in Florida, California and Arizona are so intense?  Why, if you speak out against these things you must be weak, you must not be a Real Man!  "Grow a Pair!!" You are, in fact, probably just suppressing your latent homosexuality and should just put on a dress and take what you have coming to you...

Yeah, we need a new kind of male leader.

by brit 2008-11-05 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: To unpack this further...

well put

by bluedavid 2008-11-05 08:06AM | 0 recs
Who's your Daddy?

Great Diary, ya bloody Brit!


by fogiv 2008-11-05 07:12AM | 0 recs
President Obama: A new kind of Leader

Your update notwithstanding, your monarchy is showing. Americans aren't particularly fond of partiarchal (or matriarchal) terminology to describe the people we elect to run our country. We fought a Revolution because we don't like that kind of government. We're citizens, not subjects.

We have elected a President who is a new kind of leader.

(As far as being a good father, Sasha & Malia's votes are the only ones that matter.)

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 08:26AM | 0 recs

For a matter of fact you are in a minority of TWO who have responded this way. So I take your claim to represent all Americans on this issue as rather weak.

Tired ad hominem about monarchy (which I detest) but that breakage is often theorised as being the origin of the prevalent  absent/abusive father in American mythology and literature -  I'll send you some links to the extensive literature on this if you want.

Read Obama's first book if you doubt the role of a proper modern fatherhood has a central importance in his world view - probably more important than race.

And though the personal is not political, in the Presidency personal attributes actually do matter to millions, if not to you.

by brit 2008-11-05 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

Thanks for explaining just what I need in a President. Why did I bother to vote? Why did we bother to revolt when we could have just let you tell us what we need in a leader?

If breakage from monarchy is the origin of absent/abusive American fathers, how do you explain absent/abusive fathers in your country? Last time I checked, we didn't invent that trait.

Obama's personal attributes are important. But he's not our daddy, nor does he want to be. He ran for President and we elected him to be the leader of our government, nothing more, nothing less.

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 08:55AM | 0 recs
Sad to see...

...your yawns didn't stop you replying.

Your obsession with 'explaining what you need in a president', your touchiness about me having the temerity to comment on 'what you need as a leader' is all part of the xenophobic baggage you brought to the table on a different diary, at a different time, about Colin Powell. Having lost the argument then you reverted to calling me a pompous British ass. It now looks like you're just playing the same xenophobia card.

Seeing monarchist or colonial intentions in everything I say because I am British, and live in a parliamentary system with a very weak constitutional monarchy, is as daft as accusing you of being ignorant, myopic and incompetent because your current president is.

Oh wait...

PS. Read my post. I talked about the  abusive/absent father in literature and mythology, a famous theme of US literature from Huck Finn, to Hemingway, Faulkner and Arthur Miller. Did you not know that?  

PPS. Memo to self - never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man

by brit 2008-11-05 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

Yes. MY obsession with knowing what I need in a President and rejecting other people's notions about what is best for ME. Guess what, I have that same obsession about just about everything in this world.

Don't need a paternalistic President. Don't need a paternalisic Brit telling me what I need. Don't need to be lectured about American literary classics. Perhaps we should explore all of the of the elitist, class-based themes in British literature that seem to shape your world views?

But none of this is a surprise coming from a subject who never gets to vote for the highest office in their land. You clearly need a daddy to tell you what you need because commoners can't be trusted to make those kinds of decisions.


by LakersFan 2008-11-05 02:12PM | 0 recs
Great - my last comment here can be


Thanks for confirming your bigotry and prejudice in that little outburst. I'm also glad they're on a public thread so all can see. I always suspected you were bearing some kind of racial grudge, and now you open your mouth and remove all doubt.  

by brit 2008-11-05 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Great - my last comment here can be

"racial grudge"? What's racial about anything I said?

No. I am just vehemently anti-paternalistic about all things.

Thanks for playing.

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 02:34PM | 0 recs
This is really egomaniacal

It's hard to imagine what inspires you to celebrate Obama's victory with a boast to Hillary Clinton supporters, a GBCW, some insults, and a few comments here designed to showcase your "flawless!" analytical skills and writing ability.  

If you want to interpret the United States election as, of all things, a vindication of you, by all means go ahead.  I think there's a little self-importance going on here.  

Nevertheless, thank you for leaving us with a protracted acedemically guised "ZOMG I wuz rite; u were rong! na na na na na ZOMG hehe I am so smart LOLxxors"

by BPK80 2008-11-06 12:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

it's time to give up this individualism, this specialness which makes some demand to be addressed only in the way they have defined as 'true to themselves.'  Making these "I am" statements is so 80's, it's a new tomorrow now, we're in this big mess together. So, if you don't agree with someone, keep mum, who cares, it's just divisive to argue over names, or even facts.  We each have our own minds but we don't all need to insist everyone sees us as unique?  You're not alone, a whole lot of people need to get over themselves if we're to swim together.  

by anna shane 2008-11-05 03:39PM | 0 recs
Are you kidding me?

"If you disagree with someone, keep mum"

No thanks. No reason for that ever. Especially on a poltical blog. If people can't handle having their opinions challenged, then perhaps they're the ones that should their opinions to themselves.

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 03:46PM | 0 recs
Last refuge of the lost argument

It's not my opinions you've been challenging - it's some faux villianish image of the British which I think could rightly be described as racist. Try to shift it back to some debate about paternalism, but your words upthread are visible for others to see, and draw their own conclusions.

And with that - off to some real debate. Goodnight and god bless.

by brit 2008-11-05 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Last refuge of the lost argument

"racist" again? Last refuge indeed.

My villainish image is not of the British, it's all about you. You are the one who keeps telling me what's supposed to be important to me in my elected government officials, and keeps trying to make some faux literary reference about absent/abusive fathers as a unique American phenomenon. (And I wouldn't even know you were British if you didn't advertise it.)

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 04:35PM | 0 recs
yes, you wouldn't know it

But you do, and you chose to attack based on that fact alone.  That's what makes your comments divisive and personal in their attacks.

You chose to parse words and assume meanings based on your own connotations, and then blast the person who said it.  You assumed the worst, attacked personally, and then kept at it.

Obama is not the first candidate to talk about our founding fathers, and history will place him in the category of founding African American fathers.  The imagery is not the problem.  Neither is your disagreement on the use of the imagery.

The problem is your willful misunderstanding and personal attacks.  There are enough people out there trying to destroy the Democrats and Obama supporters, whether American or world citizens.  They don't need any more to add to their clan.  Progress, not personal attacks.  Intelligence, not ignorance.

by NavyBlueWife 2008-11-05 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: yes, you wouldn't know it

I view all the talk about the "absent/abusive" father being unique to Americans as an attack on our culture. I fight fire with fire.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: yes, you wouldn't know it


Get over yourself.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

you can disagree without being disagreeable. You can ask what's meant rather than assume and then come out punching.

If we're to come together it starts with us, giving respect to different opinions, seeing what we have in common more than what divides us (weren't you listening?).  

You could assume that what's said is what's meant, not what you read into it.

It's this petty bickering that makes things unpleasant.  If you disagree strongly and have a counter point than that's conversation, but you need to say what you're saying, not what's wrong with the other guy.

Just saying.  

by anna shane 2008-11-06 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

I can absolutely disagree without being disagreeable. But I don't even try when people are being condescending, especially when they're pushing patriarchal views. I have no patience for that at all, and I have no plans to work on becoming more tolerant of that behavior.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

that's the challenge.  Patriarchal isn't the same as paternal.   There are a lot of kids who don't have dads at all, or have dads who are more like mean older brothers, who berate their sons and daughters, who abuse them, and you can see them in school, scared or angry, unable to think or violent.  

What's the role of a father?  Isn't it to protect those who are weaker if they can, and to teach the personal skills needed to make a go of it in the real world, not just in the family?  To accept their own limitations and make the best they can of their lives and to provide the most opportunities for their children.  To respect and love the moms but to be a 'different' voice, to encourage independence and to set necessary limits on behavior?  

It's a language problem.

For you it's probably a tolerance problem, or maybe one of assumptions. It's easier if you assume that there is more likely  a difference in understanding and not jump to a fight. What are you defending? What is your idea of fatherhood?   On this one I daresay you probably would agree if you hadn't been put off by the father metaphor.  

by anna shane 2008-11-06 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

Ummmm. That's all very interesting on some sort of psychological level, but we're talking politics. He's our President, not our father. If anyone is in need of a father figure, I suggest they find it in someone who is not a political leader.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

you are quite wrong, it's not about the biological father at all, or about being seen as a father, it's about a man that younger men can look up to who happens, and in history quite unusually, to be a decent guy.  

by anna shane 2008-11-06 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

I think people who need a father figure (biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise) should find one someplace other than in a political figure. If you want your President to represent your daddy, you're welcome to it. But that's not why the American people elected him.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

not my daddy, although my late dad would have been proud to be compared with him, but the father of those kids who's fathers aren't there. A father figure is a model, and an ideal one, not any one person but what a father represents.  

by anna shane 2008-11-07 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

And laker fan, you clearly need a therapist to deal with your loss.

by venician 2008-11-06 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

you're way out of line here.  Brit and lakersfan are big boys and girls and can argue this on their own without others chiming in to add their own personal insults into the mix.  highly dissapointing.

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

And those two don't need Mom to come in to break up the fight, either.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-06 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

sorry?  do I know you? mydd is about to lose a prolific blogger and is having a POLITICAL disagreement with another highly respected blogger.  they don't need you, I or anyone else getting into the mix - especially with personal insults.  but it's nice to meet you.

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

You may not know me (I've been through a couple of usernames here), but I'm pretty familiar with you.  Your M.O. is  to wander into threads and act like only the cool-headed reasonable voice.  While this, in and of itself, isn't a problem, it seems like you only target your "chill out" talk towards Obama supporters (and supporters of Obama supporters).  Meanwhile, you largely ignore the PUMA/Republican trolls.

In general,  you tend to criticize the (sometimes overheated, sometimes out of line) discourse of Obama supporters and completely ignore the utter ugliness that sometimes comes from the other side.

Today, brit wrote a great diary that is being plagued by the worst kind of trollish nit-picking.  Someone stuck up for brit and you're trying to tell them to chill their discourse.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-06 09:06AM | 0 recs
you're right.

i do not know you - and so far that doesn't seem like a bad thing.  i am v. familiar with brit and with lakersfan both of whom i was/am cobloggers with at the moose and clintonistas for obama respectively.

both are highly respected bloggers here and elsewhere and are in a disagreement in which people like you are tryig to flame - chaos trolls i think they are called.  people ae certainly allowed to disagree with brit and i believe some have made those disagreements clear.

as to your characterization of me - i have no interest - the days of me engaging people's PERSONAL attacks are over.  

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

Thanks cg. That poster continually makes nasty comments to HRC supporters. He/she cannot get over the primaries -- even now.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

hey lakersfan - this thread sadly has delved into a crapfest which is sad since it is actaully, while controversial, quite a good diary.

that said - personal attacks are not good and i tried to stay out of the ones both you and brit hurled at eachother.  you are both good peeps and i hate to see you both (with the help of the chaos trolls) really go there.

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad to see...

I was trying to stay away from the personal, but got a bit fired up. As you can probably tell, there's almost nothing I dislike more than paternalistic governance (or paternalistic attitudes of any sort really). I think that's what's responsible for most of the problems in this world. And I see Obama as quite the opposite of the paternalistic leader. He seems like a cerebral, methodical, consensus guy to me.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 01:05PM | 0 recs
Trying to stay away from the personal?

Your update notwithstanding, your monarchy is showing.

This was the first sentence in your first comment in this diary.


by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Trying to stay away from the personal?

Being a subject of a monarchy begets a paternalistic view of the world. Americans have a more advanced world view when it comes to leadership and democracy.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Trying to stay away from the personal?
This is ridiculous on so many levels.  Between the US and Canada, which one has a more paternalistic view of the world?  (Hint:  It's not Canada.)  Yet it's Canadians who are technically subjects of a monarchy.
And for all that's good about US democracy, you still only offer one of two choices for your elected leadership, so maybe you could put down your rock and we can all work on our own glass houses.
by bottl4 2008-11-07 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

by BPK80 2008-11-06 12:09AM | 0 recs

I hit "post" before writing.  Oh tis late...

by BPK80 2008-11-06 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: A new kind of Leader

Americans aren't particularly fond of partiarchal (or matriarchal) terminology to describe...

Totally, the Founding Fathers would be pissed.

by fogiv 2008-11-05 05:12PM | 0 recs
You're better than this LakersFan.

Your update notwithstanding, your monarchy is showing.

This is out of line man.

No need to attack a commenters argument while basing him and his country instead of the idea he presents in his comment and diary.

C'mon dude. I have a lot of respect for you and am a bit surprised by your line of thought in these last few comments.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 08:54AM | 0 recs
No justification for troll rating this


by Sumo Vita 2008-11-06 12:13PM | 0 recs
It's Chitown being the child he is.

He'll probably come into this thread whining and crying about people not taking him seriously.

As I said. A child.


Maybe some day you'll get out of your mothers basement.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Chitown being the child he is.

I can think of no other eloquence except to say FUCK YOU.  Now you can legitimately moose rate me.

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-06 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Chitown being the child he is.

Oh, you're the first to get that reply from me.  I would mojo you for your success, if it didn't go against every grain of discourse I usually maintian!

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-06 12:33PM | 0 recs
Wha- What?

Did you say something child?

Every grain of discourse?


Child. Everybody reads your comments. We all know about your "agenda".

How can I put this. You're a joke Denny. Grow up. You are a whiny spoiled brat.

Thanks for lurking over at the Moose though!

We love getting your page hits!



Bwahahaha! Get a real job and a life and someday you might get out of your moms basement. For now, I'm glad trolling progressive sites "completes you."


Grow up Denny! GROW UP!

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Wha- What?
Dude, take your meds.  This coming from the basement of my mother's home, who passed when I was 5, and is shared with you from my Chicago Gold Coast condo.  But that's not important.  What's important is for you to check your blood pressure.  Oh, and to FUCH OFF!  
Go ahead, moose rate me...  Can't make it any easier.
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-06 01:12PM | 0 recs

You're funny.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: It's being the child he is.


What's with calling out other posters by name in your subjects? Now you've done it to two of us. Neither of us have done it to anyone.

You are better than that.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 01:13PM | 0 recs

Is this snark?


I've got to get up to date with the PC Police rulebook.

No writing in others commenters name in the subject line.



Sorry if you're mad at my post, but I don't see how building a "you called me out in your subject" (wtf? Are you even being serious?) strawman equates with your petty name calling and xenophobic rantings upthread.

I view all the talk about the "absent/abusive" father being unique to Americans as an attack on our culture. I fight fire with fire.

Chill out dude. This thread has not been your best moment and this "culture war" you are fighting is divisive and obnoxious.  

If you're going to be condescending, at least try to go after people who haven't defended you even when it's clear you're hitting all the wrong notes.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 02:22PM | 0 recs

This isn't about any "culture war". This is about someone who doesn't understand the American experience trying to tell us what we "need" in a President.

They are flat out wrong, and they're basing they're opinions on a notion of the "absent/abusive father" as a unique American phenomenon, which they "learned" about by reading American fictional literature (most of it written a long time ago). These views are off-base, paternalistic, and indicate that they know a lot less about Americans than they think.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Spiffy

Sorry, I guess no one here realized that you were THE expert on the "American experience" and thus THE only one who decides what that "experiece is.

by venician 2008-11-07 07:05AM | 0 recs
Way to miss the point


by Skex 2008-11-06 11:42AM | 0 recs
Way to be a ratings abuser!

Troll rating my comment because you disagree with it is against the guidelines.

On the other hand, I have every right to troll or hide rate your comment.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Way to be a ratings abuser!

I troll rated your comment because it was troll worthy. You posted an intentionally inflamatory personal attack on the author which is the very friggin definition of being a fucking troll. So wear the label which you have attached to yourself.

by Skex 2008-11-07 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father UPDATED

A daddy?  Please.  A leader is not a daddy.  I find this pretty paternalistic, something we have had enough of in this country.  He is his daughter's father figure.  And that is all. Hopefully, he will be a good leader, but leave the needy stuff out of it.

by Scotch 2008-11-05 10:11AM | 0 recs
I think this is technically called...

... a wilful misreading. But since you project your own personal straw men in what I write, I'll leave you to do battle with them alone.

by brit 2008-11-05 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is technically called...

Cute comeback, but it was not a misreading.  

by Scotch 2008-11-05 01:33PM | 0 recs
Absolutely a misreading...

I didn't say he was YOUR DADDY.

What I said is:

That a man who never really had a father, is clearly such a brilliant father to his own daughters, and is now a kind of father figure to a whole nation, nay to the world, I find that infinitely telling and touching.

You've ripped out one phrase 'kind of father figure' and tried to make that a personal demand.

I stand by three images of fatherhood I put there, because whatever your delicate sensitivities and your historic dislikes, and whatever the misty eye idealism of this election day after, he is a role model for millions.

Sorry. He's not your daddy.

by brit 2008-11-05 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is technically called...

in the usa it's called purposeful misunderstanding.  Just reaching across the pond, isn't it fun?  

by anna shane 2008-11-05 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is technically called...

Thanks Anna. You'll be one of those I miss. Unless, unless...

I know others have asked you. But join us on the Moose.

by brit 2008-11-05 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is technically called...

okay, I need to find a new home. I write some weird stuff though.  I did register.  

by anna shane 2008-11-05 03:51PM | 0 recs
A lot of us have read your stuff

And we like weird. It's better than predictable. See you there soon I hope

by brit 2008-11-05 04:26PM | 0 recs
would be nice to see you on the Moose

weird is good when it is thought provoking and conversation oriented...or just plain funny...The Moose is a good place for progress.

by NavyBlueWife 2008-11-05 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is technically called...

Right annie.  I purposely "misunderstood".  Bullshit.  You need to look into the psychology of language and the part language plays in sexism.  It is so institutionalized people don't even recognize it for what it is.  Perhaps you are purposely "misunderstanding" the issue.  And in your effort to reject everything said by people you decide are previous friends, you can leave me out of it.

by Scotch 2008-11-05 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is technically called...

it's just language, there is a difference between paternal and paternalistic.  Paternalistic refers to the kind of father figure who's the phallus, who knows all and makes the rules.  Like the kind of Roman father who owned his family, the paterfamiliar I think it's called.

Paternal means protecting and setting an example of someone who can tolerate not always winning, not always being in charge, being as weak as we in fact are but not minding so much, making the best of things.  

by anna shane 2008-11-06 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father UPDATED

So now to speak and opinion about something in a diary is not allowed.  F you skex.

by Scotch 2008-11-06 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father UPDATED

They are free to say what ever the hell they want. I'm free to give my oppinion of it.
Intentionally twisting the meaning of what the diarist was pretty obviously saying is contemptable and in this case trollish since it was obviously intended to and succeeded in derailing the discussion.

To assume that Brit's point was that the image of Obama and his daughter was intended to re-inforce some Patriarchal strict father ideology is out of line and not consistent with the context.

Would you argue that Obama doesn't set a good example for fathers to follow? Should we ignore the role fathers play in their childrens lives?

As a person who grew up with out a father I know that said absence has a profound affect on my relationship with my children and so I get his point.

That you can't get beyond your single issue tunnel vision is your problem. But it was your attack on the diarist that I troll rated.

And I dare say that both you and Lakerfan both know your in the wrong here. You are simply too prideful to admit it.

by Skex 2008-11-07 09:37AM | 0 recs
highly rec'd here and at the MOOSE

Obama's election is a great big crushing blow to a lot of stereotypes, including the "paternalistic" one.  He makes many connotations of stereotypical adjectives more human.  We need to take back ownership of many things in this world that the Rethugs have stripped away and stolen from us, and Obama is going to be a great leader and role model in that respect!

by NavyBlueWife 2008-11-05 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: a New Kind of Father
Your passion for our president is admireable, but please take hold of yourself.  We don't vote for father figures.  We vote for elected officials to effect results.
Actually, not much different in your country's elctions.
Your updates are appreciated.
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-05 01:10PM | 0 recs
And please read my diary in full...

...before you leap to ridiculous conclusions. Why bother to chime in when my updates had already made any potential misreading obvious, even to you?

Oh. Of course I remember. The french have a word for it - rassentiment.

Of course, you're not voting for Obama as your daddy. Don't be so daft...

But actually your system IS very different from the UK, where (unfortunately) we do not elect the head of state.

And if I remember correctly, the President has ceremonial and indeed symbolic functions different to other elected officials, one of those being some kind of representative of the nation, and role model to it.

So I would say you're wrong on the last two  counts, and on the first, just putting up strawmen spoiling for a fight. If this is another one of your famed attempts to engage in 'dialogue' (as I have foolishly just tried to do in your diary) then it is in bad faith, shows a lack of generosity and all round 'rassentiment'.

I won't miss those qualities now the election is done and Barack has won.

by brit 2008-11-05 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: And please read my diary in full...

You did engage in my diary, and I've engaged in yours.  Must engagement (discourse in my words) alsways be in agreement?

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-05 01:29PM | 0 recs
Dialogue requires...

...that you listen to what the other person says. I never said you were voting for Obama as your daddy. End of story. End of dialogue. Bye.

by brit 2008-11-05 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Dialogue requires...
No problems.
Have a good day.
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-05 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: And please read my diary in full...

So CHi your come back is, I know that's you but what am I?  ROTFLMAO

by venician 2008-11-07 07:09AM | 0 recs
New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

As much as I hate to say it, Brit, the passage that I think is somewhat offensive to people (I wasn't offended, but I will disagree) is this one:

That a man who never really had a father, is clearly such a brilliant father to his own daughters, and is now a kind of father figure to a whole nation, nay to the world, I find that infinitely telling and touching.

He's not a "kind of" father figure to our nation, nor to the whole world.
He's a leader with a brilliant mind, a calm spirit and an ability to see things from many sides, and make reasoned judgements.
A father figure tends to be viewed as someone who thinks they know what's best for you (IMO, anyway), and often don't consult you when they make decisions based on "what's best" (sounds like the last 8 years, doesn't it?)- do you see why that comparison might ruffle some feathers?

by skohayes 2008-11-05 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Beat you to it. I replied to Scotch (o handle of ominous primary war memories) on exactly that point.

I notice you too decided to pick on a sub clause and create an issue of it, and of course I personally agree: he's no father figure to me. But I do think, as I also say in other replies

1. That the head of state has a representative and symbolic role

2. He is a role model to millions regardless of what politicos think

In retrospect, I wish I hadn't been so hungover, and added the word 'improved kind of father figure'

We had a much more productive discussion about this on the moose - with people disagreeing and without pointless point scoring.

But typically here, even on a day of celebration, some mild observations are taken out of context to restart another version of the culture wars.

Take it in the spirit it was intended. Or pull it apart. I don't mind anymore. I've done what I set out to do - advocate for Obama and how he would change international relations. It's been interesting posting here, but too nasty and pernickety for me to continue. I will enjoy the reduced stress levels, and though the overwhelming majority of you have been welcoming, I've also encountered the darker less tolerant parts of the democratic party, which I will be glad to escape.

by brit 2008-11-05 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Guess I'm not the only one who takes exception with the paternalism, huh?

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Your constant need to point score looks very paternalistic and macho

by duende 2008-11-05 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

as in father knows best?  

It's a definition problem as much as a concept problem.  Father's aren't respected here, no more than mothers. I wrote something back in the primary where I said I wanted a mother figure more than a father one, and I meant both in the ideal way.  Barack is asking us to do too many chores, said I, we need to pitch in and help him. I said I preferred the mother one, I wanted my laundry washed and folded for me, and I didn't want to attend any funerals.  If this makes any metaphoric sense?  

by anna shane 2008-11-05 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Makes complete sense. I like your way of thinking. We've got to break out of these stereotypical ways of thinking. And identity politics has somehow got fixed, and fixated, on the same polarities it purports to oppose.

Like I said upthread - would be great to carry on these conversations in a less toxic and point scoring environment

Will we being seeing you on the Moose?

by brit 2008-11-05 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

I'm honored, thank you.  

by anna shane 2008-11-06 06:17AM | 0 recs
Hey anna.

Look. I know I've been hard on you around here and the reason is simple. I don't know if you recall, but I mocked the PUMA's in one diary when you came back on MyDD.

You went out of your way to call me a pug troll.

Why you went there, I have no idea. I would like to think you did not recognize my handle. I don't want to believe you have any personal vendetta against me. I was pretty hard on a lot of people around here and I don't apologize for that. But I do want to apologize to you for not believing you really had come around to our side. As I said, my beef with you was more personal than political at this point and I want to leave that behind.

So if you're (or anybody else) is worried about posting at the Moose b/c of me, don't be.

I've learned a lot from this whole process. I apologize to those I've offended.

A big fuck you to those who still insist on trolling though.

We all know who you are.

So, I hope to see you posting at the Motley Moose soon. Some great discusson goes on over there and you would be a great voice and addition to the Moose family.


by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey anna.

I don't pay attention to names, my point probably was trashing puma's kept the old memories going and we needed to stop the hate, ignore it, minimally.  There were legitimate hurt feelings that got stirred up all over again.  But I'm sorry for calling you a pug trool, I was probably in my crabby mood.  I probably needed to pet a warm puppy.  But hey, nobody's perfect?  (and I didn't remember your name afterward either, which is probably the real reason I don't hold grudges, not smart enough).  

by anna shane 2008-11-06 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Very sexist assumption there.

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2
You're sounding a bit persnickety yourself, if I may say so.
Maybe you're still hungover.
by skohayes 2008-11-05 03:16PM | 0 recs
Maybe - Maybe not

But it's detox time! At least from here - GBCW, HBNW. It's been fun. And we won!

by brit 2008-11-05 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Brit, when numerous people take the same thing from what you write, it usually means that you need to examine your writing and what you really were saying, not that they are the ones being choosy.

by Scotch 2008-11-05 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Not when those comments were written by bitter dead enders!

by venician 2008-11-06 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2

Exactly.  I had just copied that same phrase to point that part out to her, and found that you noticed the same thing. That this diary is about just Obama's children is backing out of what I believe the diary was really saying if not subconsciously and that sentance goes deeper into it.  

Just because there was an election doesn't mean that I am not going to still recognize and identify what I feel is language and thought contributing to paternalism.  I don't think the diarist recognizes herself, what the overhanging symbolism is in what she writes and how language is built into a system of oppression that is institutionalized sexism.  Perhaps she does.  I don't know.

by Scotch 2008-11-05 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: New Kind of Father UPDATEx2
But isn't that the whole point of having an elected leader?  Ultimately they are the ones making the important decisions and of course they're going to base it on what they believe is best.
The good ones will accept input, but they're not going to put every decision up to a vote by the electorate.
by bottl4 2008-11-07 07:24AM | 0 recs

I'm against suggestions that you being British somehow comes into play here. but I agree that the bit about fatherhood is a bit off putting.  sorry for the typos, but I'm on my phone.

by canadian gal 2008-11-05 03:23PM | 0 recs
Another canadian disagrees with you...

But I won't miss this identity politics and culture wars. Goodbye, CG. Nice knowing you.

by brit 2008-11-05 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Another canadian disagrees with you...

haha so you mean politicalslave that jacked my handle above?  I'm not sure why you are getting so shook up about this.  comparisons to parental figures on a political blog may not go over well.   no identity politics here friend.

and btw I'm sure I'll see you at the moose considering you k ow that I'm a charter :)

but I am sorry to see you go from here and that some of the comments here have taken such an unfortunate tone.

by canadian gal 2008-11-05 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Another canadian disagrees with you...

I was always going to leave today CG. But this over-reaction about the word 'father' is a perfect way to go. Too much democratic politics is stuck in the name calling and gotcha catechisms of the 80s. Look at the diary again - a celebration. One mention of the word father and the bees are buzzing round the pot. It's not constructive, never was during the primary wars, and now its time to build a new dialogue, and a new way of conversing. I won't miss it one bit.

Shame that our last interaction here had to be that drive-by 'off putting' comment. Maybe we'll have better luck on the moose, though to be honest I've only seen you there once in the last three months.

by brit 2008-11-05 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Another canadian disagrees with you...

with due respect Brit, it seems that you are looking for a fight here.  you did not just use the word father, you made a v. bold analogy.  and I know that I don't have to tell you this, but blogging is about getting called out on your opinions whether people agree with them or not.

and since you mention my absence at the moose I'll say that your assertion is incorrect, I have been there more often than that.  I have been blogging less for several reasons, including the need to remove myself from nastiness.  fitting no?

by canadian gal 2008-11-05 04:33PM | 0 recs
Not looking for a fight, CG

Check the first half of the thread. Things only became vituperative when certain posters, with consistent histories, chose to seek for one over one tiny phrase 'father figures' - and the posting history of these people are plain for all to see.

I've also been a member here for four years, been banned once, had my privileges removed many times: I'm sure you know that I have had my opinions called out more times than I've had hot dinners. But since I have no great need or belief in 'father figures', no one is calling out my opinions. They're trying to put words in my mouth.

I must have missed those other occasions on the Moose, and certainly look forward to seeing you posting there more often. This place has developed a toxic way of debating, I agree, so I can well understand why you kept clear. Perhaps because you're blogging on a phone you couldn't see that it was aligned as it was with old enemies from the primary days. And when you get a mojo from Chitown Denny, that's usually a sign that something is deeply wrong :-)

Great thing is, now the election is over, I don't have to bite my tongue anymore for the sake of unity, and I can finally let loose some home truths to the venal, glib and hopeless posters here who have ended up on the wrong side of history.

With no need for diplomacy anymore, can I just say Jerome, Chitown, and all you dozens of others who have decried Obama's movement from the beginning, and piled on at what you conceived to be the merest slip; all you so called oppositional seekers of truth, who either banned people or hide rated them when they called out your bad faith; and to everyone else, who might have observed all this, and wondered if progressive political debate always descends into this, I say:

We were right. You were wrong. Enjoy eating you own hats for the next eight years.

Bye guys.  

by brit 2008-11-05 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Not looking for a fight, CG

yes it is rather hard to follow comments through my phone.  that said, I am unsure why (and maybe it's because of that) why your tone is seemingly hostile or rather others are hostile you you.  anyway Brit sorry to see you go, and I guess now is the best time to gloat anyway.

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Not looking for a fight, CG
Brit, you flatter me.
You've put me in the same light as Jerome, whose poltical insight and ability to put such insight into words I can onyl aspire to; and singling me out amongst all the other users on this site tells me my words have moved you.  Yup, you flatter me.  
Let's see, in the short time I've contributed to the political blogoshpere, primarily through this site, I've been front paged, interviewed by PBS, and now acknowledged by you in the same sentence as Jerome.  I love the blogs!
But something tells me you are the Cher of MyDD. (How many times has she reincarnated and how many times did she retire?)  But I loves me some Cher, and I think your pretty cool, too  (gosh, did I actually write that?).  
Looking forward to the next incarnation or un-retirement.
P.S. to BPK80.  You're comments are hillarious!  :)  
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-06 10:41AM | 0 recs
Mojo for that!

Holy COW!

Let's see, in the short time I've contributed to the political blogoshpere, primarily through this site, I've been front paged, interviewed by PBS, and now acknowledged by you in the same sentence as Jerome.  I love the blogs!

That is...

That is...



I've been frontpaged on a blog. Tee hee. I was interviewed by PBS right after Harriet Christian and before the worlds fastest clapper.


Denny! It's so easy to make fun of you because what you believe to be important is well...


Mojo for making me laugh.

You are hysterical!


I was interviewed on PBS.

HEAR ME ROAR!!!! Bwahahahahaha!

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 12:50PM | 0 recs
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!


by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 12:51PM | 0 recs
So friggin dramatic

The thing about "GBCW's" is that they're predicated on the assumption that people really care whether you post here or not.  

In my experience, something always brings the posters back anyway (like Hurricane Katrina), so it's best to eschew melodramatic GBCW's and afford one's self the liberty to return without inconsistency in behavior.  

When I leave a forum for a few months, I do it quietly.  Then I come and go.  There is no drama about it.  

by BPK80 2008-11-06 12:21AM | 0 recs
Re: So friggin dramatic

Clearly, quite a few of us do care whether Brit posts here or not. The predicated assumption was quite valid in his case.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: So friggin dramatic

When you assume, you make an ass of you and..., well, just you.  This diarist, and others, seek to bring traffic to their site from users of this site.  But no need to tell you that, right?

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: So friggin dramatic


by fogiv 2008-11-07 02:02PM | 0 recs
actually chitown...

i have tried to be polite here but you are way off base.  just so you know - it is MY site too.  so by your reasoning brit and i faked a disagreement to drive page hits to the moose?

i have to agree with the above - FAIL.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: So friggin dramatic

Fair enough.  You deal with him/her, then.  ;-)

by BPK80 2008-11-07 02:55PM | 0 recs
Brit, it is pretty sad to see you leave MyDD.

Folks, on this day, can't we all just go along please? .

by louisprandtl 2008-11-05 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Brit, it is pretty sad to see you leave MyDD.

Agree, and agree. It takes a pound of common sense to utilize each ounce of intelligence.

Why not just look past the patriarhical reference that has a few in such a snit, with the understanding that the British think in a slightly different way than us due to their long history of having a monarchy as national familial figureheads, and leave it at that.

IMHO, there is nothing more damaging and ultimately self defeating than hypersensitive activist types who are so wrapped up in their causes, that they lose the ability to maintain a rational perspective.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-11-06 05:08AM | 0 recs
I think Brit wants you to read him at MM...:)

by louisprandtl 2008-11-06 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

Well written Brit.

P.S. Sorry comment so short but first cup of morning coffee is still in hand and my thoughts simply won't form themselves into sentences.

by GFORD 2008-11-06 02:37AM | 0 recs
First off Brit, I agree

with your argument that Obama is a leader with paternal qualities. This is important, and while many here have already rejected your opinion, I for one think this is part of every president's job (even if they don't always do it well).

Part of the nature of leadership is offering advice, just as a father does. When Obama tells parents to turn off their tv and read with their kid, he's acting like a father. And he's damn right, the country would be better off if more parents focused on their children. It is important to have a president who treats us like we're part of his family. That is what patriotism is SUPPOSED to be. In the last few years, its been all about our superiority and need to be the best.
But in reality, patriotism is a love of our country, like a family, and our president should reflect that.

As for your GBCW, I support you on that as well. I for one am staying here, just as I've done throughout this election. I kind of like this environment sometimes as much as it pisses me off. But I completely understand anyone who wants to leave.

This place is no daily kos. The best example of that is how many people will now flame me for saying that. People here still, long after the primary, talk about kos and dailykos as if they are writing on a wingnut blog. Most of the frontpage stuff is a good read, even Jerome seems to be coming around.

But while a lot of people here claim to be over the primary, and they might be, nevertheless there is still some things that just make me wonder how they could have ever been progressives.

Just as an example, go for a minute back to the primary. One of the two most prominent non-front pagers was "Texas Darlin."
All you need to do now is read her blog, and you will understand what I am talking about. She is a sick individual, far worse than most on the right. She has been dealing with the issue of Obama's citizenship all along, and now her posts read like they were written for some white supremacy website.

Take a look and you will understand what I mean:

Some highlights:
"I believe that Obama's core philosophical values are extreme, and rooted in the teachings of Marx, Alinsky, and other radical revolutionaries."

"I question whether Obama is patriotic, and whether he would automatically put "country first."

"John McCain and Sarah Palin have asked for, and fought for, my vote. They have demonstrated the utmost respect for, and humility towards, ALL citizens and voters. "

"Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton conducted honest campaigns"

There are many more. This is someone who used to be at the top of the rec list here.

People here who trash dailykos don't realize that the reason there are shit diaries is because there are so many. But very few, if any, ever make it to the rec list, most people just tell them to delete it and troll rate them.

Here, there is a lot of good, but its small size allows for some to have a louder voice.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-11-06 07:10AM | 0 recs
I agree with this.

I would just like to add. That many trolls have taken the time to jump into this thread and attack brit on a personal level.



LakersFan is not one of them and it sucks how easy it is to get the reasonable people mixed up with the ones drinking the haterade.

So if you're reading this bro (brit), I know you're mad, but let's try to chill out a bit and talk this out.

Some people might have taken your words out of context but I'm not sure they did so on purpose. Some obviously went for the jugular but the majority of regulars commenters are people who have rec'd your work and mojo'd your comments before. We are all part of this great victory.

I vouche for LakersFan anywhere I blog just as I do the same for you.

Obama 2012! We've got work to do!

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with this.

super mojo for the awesome spacey.

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 08:48AM | 0 recs
I clicked the link to see what kind of crazy was going on over there. A fraking ton of crazy to be sure.
I do have to admit though, I lurk at alegres place which bears no comparison to the above linked site, NQ and the big pink.
by Drewid 2008-11-06 09:26AM | 0 recs
Brit, it's been great having you.

I've really enjoyed your eloquence and your insight.

It's too bad a few here have chosen to take umbrage at your harmless characterization. While I don't think someone as young as Barack is likely to be viewed in a paternal fashion, I daresay there were others (Reagan, for instance) that were viewed in that light - just maybe not by those of us on the left.

Regardless, the need of a few to split hairs on this trivial and petty a matter says more about their need to be critical, than it does about any misunderstanding on your part. Having had my share of run-ins with this sort in the past, I can't say I'm especially surprised. Dust their bad vibes off your shoulders, old chap, as Barack did. My .sig was selected with this very sort in mind.

And happy posting at the Moose.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-06 12:02PM | 0 recs

I've enjoyed and appreciated your contributions here. It helped produce the kinds of dialogue that kept us engaged, focused, and determined to win this election.

Some twenty-odd years ago, a great old Two-Tone band sang "this is the dawning of a new era." Well, the sun's finally come up. Enjoy it!

by BobzCat 2008-11-06 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell


You also miss the point, brit. You may very well say be accurate in calling the President "a kind of father-figure", that many people seem to elect him or treat him or consider him such.

But you also keep missing the point that he oughtn't be. He really REALLY oughtn't be. And "who do you want for your daddy" really REALLY oughtn't be a criterion voters ought use when they select a president, same as those people voting for Palin oughtn't have as a criterion who they'd like to be their big sister.

Am not an American and I am not insulted on behalf of the American nation because of what you wrote. But you keep missing the point: If Obama's seen as a father-figure that's a NEGATIVE. No matter how nice a father-figure he's seen as.

See (the third section in particular) for some relevant thoughts on the topic.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-11-06 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

You may not be an American, but you clearly get where this American is coming from.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

Aris, I fear it's you and several others that have missed the point, if not this diary in its entirety.

Brit never suggested that "who do you want for your daddy" was ever a criterion voters ought to use. He merely referred to Obama's future leadership role as perceived by the US as well as the rest of the world, and if he chose to blur the distinction between a leader and a father figure as he perceives it, that's his prerogative as citizen of a world that's had to bear the brunt of our past two election choices. All this "daddy" nonsense is some seriously hysterical over-reaching.

On a related matter, I read the link you referred to for what you said were relevant thoughts on the matter, and found the article woefully lacking in substance on this subject. Other than a tirade against constitutional monarchy, and the reference to the Bush voter that felt that Dubya's mama would keep him in his place, there was little explanation for the view you appear to project as obvious fact. Some further clarification on this point would be most welcome.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

It wasn't a tirade against constitutional monarchy, it was actually a tirade in favour of constitutional monarchy as useful in providing something to the idiots who seek "father-figures" and "mother-figures" in their leaders, while letting the actually intelligent people pick the prime ministers with actually sane criteria.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-11-07 08:55AM | 0 recs
Notwithstanding which:

I'm still curious about the rationale behind this apparent knee-jerk reaction to an individual's perception of an elected leader in a quasi-paternal sense. I stress  "elected" because I don't wish this to devolve into a debate over the merits of a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise.

There's a larger issue being broached here. The popular notion is that issues-based choices are the domain of the intelligent, causing many to adopt and frame their preferences in those terms. Yet I believe that there's a significant gut-level component feeding our electoral choices, that's far more influential than an objective analysis of the issues alone.

An example of this influence was evident during the primary wars, where the wildly oppositional passions of the two candidates' supporters hardly reflected their few perceptible differences on the issues. It's likely that many attributes feed into this visceral component: background (intellectuals being more willing to trust another intellectual, for example) or optics (a favorable perception based on how candidates present and conduct themselves). But as either an aggregate of these attributes, or independent of these, I'd argue that a visceral level of trust in the candidate's character would rank pretty high on the choice scale.

To the extent that this trust could overlap that felt by those with strong parental bonds, I fail to see the damaging implications of such an impression. Obama isn't a father figure to me, certainly he isn't sufficiently old - but any such association made by another, for the reasons mentioned above, would appear to be sanguine enough.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 12:59PM | 0 recs
Good but strange days....

The last few days have been very odd.  The election was a success for all Democrats but the most die-hard haters.  We did well, very well and shared a hell of a campaign and a great night.  

There is this colossal, post-election letdown going on (was almost going to write post-partum because it almost seems like that is what is going on) and folks are a bit nuts, floundering, trying to find the solid ground on which to take the next step.

Everyone wants to claim some ownership of the near-miracle that has just happened in this country.  Everyone also has an agenda.  We are not fighting the GOPs at the moment, but are looking for little battles to fight among our own.  

I would hate, hate, for Brit to leave this site.  I think the voices here to just disrupt will go away at some point or be overshadowed, as they usually tend to be, in the long run by saner ones.  I think as any of us say anything right now we need to consider what brought us to this, where we are, and the massive job that needs doing now to fix the country and to heal the wounds of the  primary (a lot of genuinely important issues that came out of that were put on hold but not addressed) as we continue to revel in what has happened, and how all of this is going to kind of be splattering all over the place.

I am speaking to myself first and then anyone reading this, forbearance and patience for the moment.  All that rational exuberance needs to die down and we can get to the point where this is about how we are doing as a party, governing, but right now, well stress comes with major life events, the good and the bad and folks are kind of frayed.

by mady 2008-11-06 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

Wow, this thread really went to shit.  

by fogiv 2008-11-06 02:22PM | 0 recs
great assessment!

im actually after reading this thread, rethinking my blogging reentry.  seriously - i think mady's assessment above is spot on.  people really need to chill and stop carrying around their personal baggage to political blogs.

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: great assessment!

Thanks.  I've been doing my share of foot in mouth lately and really had to examine what was going on.  Oy.

Please don't stop blogging CG.  

by mady 2008-11-06 03:25PM | 0 recs
its been a trying year hasn't it?

i have been working on a diary for months now about the dark side of blogging and its affects on both the media and on culture.

but although people are particularily jumpy right now, this nastiness in the blogosphere is nothing new.  i have always had a distaste for the tone in which the majority of bloggers talk to each other.  oh well.

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 03:46PM | 0 recs
Don't stop blogging CG.


It was hard enough when you were gone.

The blogosphere is a lot like the real world. It has its fair share of douchebags and assholes. The bullies and the smear merchants are the worse though. I try not to get to worked up over it. Ignore and move on. Just want you to know that some of us care and look forward on your thoughts. So please, don't stop blogging!

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-06 04:30PM | 0 recs

you know that you hold a v. special place in my heart.  truth be known - you (and a few others) were the real reason that i returned.  

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: great assessment!

Including their paternalistic attitudes? That's personal baggage too.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: great assessment!

this was not directed at you or anyone in particlar.  rather, that its been a while since i have properly engaged in the blogs and people seemingly are bringing back primary shit into every diary.

say for instance - right now the usual suspects (plus a few new ones) are in the women cabinet diary and bashing clinton - shocked?

by canadian gal 2008-11-06 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: great assessment!

Haven't been to that diary....and now I don't think I want to go there. But I'm not surprised.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

A cathartic diary for me. I wonder how many of all those people who ranted that Obama "could not" possibly win still even visit. Where's ClarkIn08? I win the bet; I want my money.

by mattw 2008-11-06 04:07PM | 0 recs
A lesson in gracious winning

My God, what a jerk.  So many people worked so hard on this campaign, including Clinton and Edwards supporters who, like Hillary, worked their asses off after the primaries to get Obama elected.  Why on earth would anyone with any emotional maturity need to go Nyaah! Nyaah! to people in the same party who are also celebrating a victory?

Just pathetic.

by Thaddeus 2008-11-06 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: A lesson in gracious winning

World ≠ Cruel.  Not these days.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-06 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A lesson in gracious winning

Denny has, I'm sure, many redeemable qualities. Working to get Obama elected is, I'm just as sure, not one of them. "Celebrating a victory"? I seriously doubt that.

I've never been in favor of Jerome bashing, if only because this his his site, and his posted opinions are, ipso facto, his prerogative. On the other hand I haven't had my posting privilege yanked as Brit has, for reasons that appeared to defy all logic or fairness - so I won't pretend to have walked in his shoes either.

It is possible to focus on the many merits of this diary without getting mired in individual phrases or footnotes. Let's try to lay off the gratuitous name-calling and chill, people!

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: A lesson in gracious winning
With no offense intended, STFU.  You do not know me so I would recommend you stick to what you know, whatever that may be.  
And in case you haven't noticed, I'm plenty equipped to speak for myself!
Have a good day.
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 08:29AM | 0 recs
Precious little of my comments

have anything to do with you - nor was I responding to you.

As for your being "plenty equipped" - no, I hadn't noticed. I'm glad you pointed it out.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Precious little of my comments

Click my username.  You will notice.  Otherwise, stick to what you know.  eom!

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Precious little of my comments


You've been quite blunt in the past with your assessment of the Democratic candidate, and with the reasons why you couldn't support him. Based on which, it doesn't require a leap of logic to conclude that you didn't "work your ass off" for him. If this statement is factually incorrect, then set the record straight. If not, I fail to understand your apparent indignation at being cast in this light.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Precious little of my comments

You define "work your ass off".

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 01:18PM | 0 recs

You set the record straight if you feel you've been maligned. Otherwise, I'm done with this exchange.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: No.
Your response proves my point.
Now I ask, you define "troll".
This point I'm making is just about concluded.  
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: No.

If you worked your ass off for him just say so.

by Jess81 2008-11-07 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama: GBCW and Farewell

Good bye and good riddance.  Anybody who chooses to celebrate Obama's victory by childishly taunting other Democrats is not contributing to what he hopes to achieve.

by markjay 2008-11-07 05:28AM | 0 recs
One of the Rev. Wright smear merchants speaks.

Surprise. Surprise.

I've seen you around MyDD telling people what they can and can not say. Brit did not mention you in his update but it's plainly obvious why you would take it personally. People like you actively worked to push a bullshit narrative and now pretend like nothing happened at all. You have the nerve to be "offended" when people question your motives and agenda.

Do you see any similiarity between all the commenters who are attacking Brit on this thread? This has got to be the longest and most rec'd diary on MyDD and a bunch of people who haven't gotten over the primaries shit all over it. Yeah, it's always the Obama supporters who are wrong. The Obamabots. We are ALL Democrats here but the manner in which most of you have gone after Brit proves that those who haven't gotten over their hurt are people like you.

Take a look. Chitown "Wailing Wall" Denny is handing out the mojo like candy.


You went where even the McCain campaign wouldn't go. /91750

Defenders of Obama will say that Obama does not share Wright's views, and with that I of course agree.  That is not the issue.  The issue is what Obama will countenance, and do, in his political ambitions.  I do not fault the politically ambitious.  Every single candidate for U.S. president obviously has enormous ambitions. But when all you are about is your ambitions, then you cannot be trusted.  Obama has accomplished almost very little in the U.S. Senate.  In the Illinois State Senate, he also had a very thin record, with his supposed legislative accomplishments actually achieved by others, with credit unfairly bestowed upon Obama by one of his unseemly mentors. Even Obama's supporters have difficulty pointing to his political achievements.  A vote for Obama is thus largely a vote on trust of character, rather than on record.  This whole Wright affair strongly suggests that there are serious questions about Obama's credibility, trustworthiness, and value.

As I said.

You went where even the McCain campaign wouldn't go.

So spare me the "taunting other Democrats" bullshit.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-07 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: One of the Rev. Wright smear merchants speaks.
Looking forward to your GBCW diary.  In fact, no need to bore.  I think you get my drift.  But I'll see you on that moose.  NOT!  ;)
Thank you, moosers, for all the ratings.  Discourse is alive on MyDD.  But nothing's changed by any of you.  Just check out the "Wailing Wall" diaries.  My call for discourse resulted in..., well, just check it out.
by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: One of the Rev. Wright smear merchants speaks.

Your calls for discourse have become parody.  The "discourse" you seek is nothing more than the freedom to push falsehoods, innacuracies, and/or outright lies, even after they've been demonstrably dismantled.  Then, of course, once your arguments lay in smoldering defeat, you lament the lack of "discourse".

It used to be annoying, now its just kind of sad.

by fogiv 2008-11-07 09:22AM | 0 recs

He's become a Moose stalker.

I think the child has an antler fetish.

Drop some 1's Denny! Do you really think people on this blog (besides your mojo buddy LakersFan) give a fuck what you say or do?

Mostly we just laugh at you.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-07 09:42AM | 0 recs
By the way Mommy's spoiled child...

... keep waiting for my "I'm not going anywhwere" diary.

That goes for the rest of you trolls.

Drop the 1's Denny!



by spacemanspiff 2008-11-07 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: By the way Mommy's spoiled child...

I can't express enough to you the offense I have that you continually bring up my mother, who is deceased and has been so since I was 5.  You obviously have no decency since I've already informed you of this yet you continually reference my mother.  Please stop!

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 09:59AM | 0 recs
guys - please.

enough of this.  

let's all get out of this thread and call it a day on this one.  you know the place is swarming when i have been called a troll 4 times now in 1 day.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: guys - please.

MOJO and End Of Message!

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 10:09AM | 0 recs
CG - Denny is a troll

Watch him whine and cry.


It's a blog so you MUST be telling the truth. (right)

Such a joke Denny.


He turned this diary into a flame war and with all due repect (of course) please don't mention me in the same sentence as his spoiled brat ass.

I know you haven't been around much, but trust me when I tell you that Chitown Denny is MyDD's most lovable asshole. So call him out if you must, but don't lump me in with the douche.


You say the place is swarming with trolls.

Denny "Tom Hanks in Big" is  the ringleader.

He is THE TROLL. A funny and pathetic joke, but still a troll.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-07 10:20AM | 0 recs

i am not lumping you with anyone.  

i just see you both sniping back and forth for nothing.  and this place is swarming, i have been called a troll several times in the past 24 hours.  im not sure what is going on here, but yesterday a good bud of mine gave me some advice about assholes, etc - and i hope to follow it.  know what i mean?

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 10:24AM | 0 recs

This place IS swarming. Chitown is one of the main actors in that one.

But when you speak of trolls, and us sniping at each other, it seems as if you're talking about 2 equals on a blog when it's anything but.

Denny is a troll. I mock trolls.

Denny is a joke. I laugh at jokes.

Call out Denny for trolling. But don't call me out for making him cry.


p.s. with all due respect of course ; )

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-07 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Canada.

let me be clear spacey.  then is no comparison between you and denny and the main. reason for this is because you are one of my closest buds on the blogs.  I have your back always.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: One of the Rev. Wright smear merchants speaks.

"The "discourse" you seek is nothing more than the freedom to push falsehoods, innacuracies, and/or outright lies,..."  You may complain about the MSM and their misgivings or thier Obama bias (pro or con), but you may NOT complain about my posts and comments regarding Obama, unless you, agian, seek to complain about the MSM.  In fact, I, as a former Hillary supporter, have gone to great lengths to point out some attributes of Obama I've found encouraging and positive, especially when so little was known about him (and I'm from IL!).  However, you, and the other moosers, are still fighting the primary wars because many Dems didn't drink Kool-Aid.  That's your problem, as evidenced by your history and as is evidenced by the history of the other moosers.  It's not enough that Dems overwhelmingly supported Obama.  What's enough is we drink Kool-Aid.  Ain't gonna happen.  I never have.  I never will.  I suspect many other Dems are of like mind.   Get over it!

by ChitownDenny 2008-11-07 09:43AM | 0 recs
Antler fetish much? n/t

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-07 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: One of the Rev. Wright smear merchants speaks.

Heh.  If attacking strawmen were sport, you'd be Van Damme.  No, I take it back.  Chuck Norris.

Denny - Chitown Ranger

by fogiv 2008-11-07 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: One of the Rev. Wright smear merchants speaks.

I supported my candidate in the primary, and I won't apologize for that.  Any criticisms that I made of Obama were quite mild compared to the criticisms that were made of the candidate that I supported, both on MyDD and elsewhere in the netroots.

After the primary was over, I considered the matter and, in the end, I came to enthusiastically support Obama.  When Obama was elected, he went out of his way to call for unity--not only among Democrats but with Republicans.  He stressed how he would reach out to those who didn't vote for him.

Yet here on MyDD, those who are supposedly supporting Obama are trying to dig up old primary fights.  For what purpose?  I didn't start this discussion.  I haven't been tracking Brit or any others down to insult them.  Brit started a thread in which he nastily attacked other Democrats.  How did he expect people to react?

Obama got about 18 million votes in the primaries.  That's more than anybody had ever gotten previously, but it's still only about 6% of the U.S. population, and maybe 10% of the U.S. adult population.  If you think anybody's going to build a progressive movement based exclusively on that 10%, viewing those that didn't support Obama in the primaries or maybe even supported other candidates as the "enemy," then it is you who is aggressively working against Obama's intentions.

by markjay 2008-11-07 05:30PM | 0 recs

Not in the mood to read bullshit talking points.

Fuck off.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-08 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn.

Are you six years old or do you only act that way?

by markjay 2008-11-08 11:40AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads