Dear Editors

Reprinted with permission from the author.

Dear Editors:

I would like to respectfully point out that the mainstream media is missing a huge aspect of what is offensive about Rev. Wright's message.

I'm a woman, and like every woman I've discussed this with, I was astounded by the Rev. Wright's assertion that women have never had to work twice as hard to prove themselves, have never been considered less than persons, have never suffered any discrimination at all. He says Hillary Clinton "fits the mold" of a U.S. President because she's white.

No woman has ever been President of this country, as we all know. Women only gained the right to vote in the past century. And it's only been in my lifetime that university doors and career opportunities have been fully opened to women.

And as for cabs whizzing by a black man, this is true and shameful -- but women are afraid to be on the streets, period, because of the threat of rape. Women are subjected to sexual and domestic violence in huge numbers. And women all over the world are struggling for the most basic of civil and human rights.

Rest assured, my voice is only one of countless women who are appalled by Rev. Wright's misogyny. The anger is bubbling up all over the internet. It isn't only white women whom he insults. All women bear the brunt of sexism, and African-American women suffer doubly from both racial and gender prejudice. To ignore this, as Rev. Wright does, belittles us all.

Please cover this. The women of America deserve to hear this.

Thank you.

Violet Socks
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com

Fleaflicker's Note:

I encourage EVERYONE to copy this letter and send it to every news outlet in the country. The truth of it could not be any plainer.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary, misogyny, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, sexism (all tags)

Comments

175 Comments

Re: Dear Editors

The rape card? Seriously?

Jesus effing Christ.

by Zorro the Greek 2008-03-17 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re:

Please delete this guy's comment. pathetic.

by moevaughn 2008-03-17 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re:

Done.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:42AM | 0 recs
its proper to have a

and Update lien when you change the diary.

Otherwise you can write one diary, have people comment on it and the change it completely.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-17 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re:

I think this letter is much more pathetic. How about some messages of empowerment instead of this perpetual game of who is the bigger victim. That's the definition of pathetic.

by Zorro the Greek 2008-03-17 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re:

A woman sticking up for women and demanding equality. That is apparently your definition of pathetic.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re:

How about killing the bold type - its very loud.

by Newcomer 2008-03-17 11:08AM | 0 recs
bold type - its very loud

Flick, I agree. Can you put it in blockquotes?

by grlpatriot 2008-03-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Rape card comment

No, let's not delete the comment, let's not hide it, nor troll rate it. Let it stand as a shining example of ignorance in all it's splendor.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-17 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

OK, you convinced me. Change made.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

I stand by what I said. Fleaflicker can pretend this is something it's not, but it's another pissing contest over victimhood. Should we start down the "young black men more likely to be murdered" and then we can pit that against "the streets run red with rape" letter. This is exactly where we don't want the Democratic party to be headed.

But go ahead, don't just turn it into a game of victimhood oneupsmanship, maybe you can tar me as a misogynist too.

by Zorro the Greek 2008-03-17 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

I don't buy into your perspective. But if that is what you see so be it.

This letter is about EQUALITY. And it is about setting the record straight about women.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

Unless you apologize -
And apologize now -
I suggest that you get the hell off this website.

Your initial comment is absolutely revolting!

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

threats and intimidation...nice. TR'd

by roseaupensant 2008-03-17 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

Yeah, right.
As a survivor of rape -
I take your defence of the initial comment -
And your troll-rating of me to be nothing short of vulgar.
As if using the term "Rape Card" isn't the MOST extreme form of intimidation there is.

I see that you are an Obama supporter.
Sure - go ahead and defend someone who mocks rape.
And Obama supporters have screamed about all the racial overtones.

Gawd, you guys make me sick.
Even though I said as late as this morning that I'd vote Obama -
I've changed my mind.

I will no longer consider voting for, supporting, or assisting Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.  Not only is he a mediocre candidate who will lose, his supporters have shown themselves to be anything but examples of the "audacity of hope".  They are arrogant, hostile, and conceited in the extreme.

I guess it would be O.K. for a person to call someone who criticized Clinton a "N----- Lover" and then troll-rate anybody who said that such an expression was absolutely unacceptable.  Actually, "N----- Lover" doesn't even come close because it does not include the element of violence and dehumanization that "Rape Card" implies.

You are, truly, pathetic.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

Good luck with McBush.

by Newcomer 2008-03-17 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

I got your back any time one of these neanderthals starts their sexist bullshit. I can see you can handle yourself fine. Just know that you aren't alone.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

It's good to know your presidential voting decision can be made for you by morons and trolls.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-17 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

If it were only one ot two.

But it is the same at every political blog.
One of my county's Obama delegates regularly refers to Hillary Clinton as "that bitch" even though she just happens to be a woman herself.  She is highly educated and one of the most prominent persons in the county.  It does no good to say that using terms  like "bitch" only reinforces the many forms of discrimination - gender and racial.

This attitude seems to be widespread in the Obama camp.
On top of everything else that makes Obama a weak potential nominee, the "our way or the highway" mindset is disastrous for any coalition building.  I am reminded of how Lamont supporters all the way up to Lamont's campaign director gleefully disparaged Lieberman Democrats - most famously in the comments calling Waterbury "where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil".  Of course, Lamont needed Lieberman Democrats, or at least a large portion of them, if he was going to win.  Surprise, surprise.  He didn't get them and he lost.

So, since it's happening all over again whether or not Obama gets the nomination is a moot point.  I do not want to be associated in any way with a campaign that advocates this kind of behavior.  

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

Okay, so we just went from "I find many of his supporters to be rude and offensive" to "the Obama campaign itself advocates its supporters to be rude and offensive."

That's quite a leap in logic, and a doozy of an allegation. Can you substantiate that the Obama campaign has anything to do with it?

I don't know enough about what you've said regarding Lamont supporters, so I'm not in a position to debate it. However, I do know that he was doomed from the moment Lieberman ran as a third party.

There was never a slide in poll numbers that would indicate Lamont "did" something to cause voters to abandon him. To the contrary, Lamont was dismissed by the media from the onset as a mere curiosity puppeteered by those crazy anti-war hippies

Now combine that kind of marginalization with an inexplicably popular Connecticut "institution" supported by Lamont-hating republicans, and you see what happens. This epitomizes why states have "sore loser laws" that would've prevented Lieberman from crapping on the primary system as he did.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-17 08:04PM | 0 recs
Nice rant!

People who use the term "rape card" should be TR'd into oblivion.

Not only is he a mediocre candidate who will lose, his supporters have shown themselves to be anything but examples of the "audacity of hope".  They are arrogant, hostile, and conceited in the extreme.

And I'm telling you, the longer this goes on, the more worried I become that this sort of mentality comes from the top down.

by sricki 2008-03-17 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

It was a suggestion to leave. Not sure in what universe a suggestion to leave is a threat but in this diary it ain't. You get troll rated for abusing the rating system here.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:09AM | 0 recs
I don't think

Rev. Wright is misogynist, although he may be insensitive about the struggles of women in his comment.

by TomP 2008-03-17 11:19AM | 0 recs
I agree he's not actively misogynist

but he was very unwise to preach about political candidates from the pulpit.  He made plenty of good points about racism and about how America is the only country ever to use an atomic or nuclear weapon against another country, but to say Hillary "fits the mold" is ridiculous.  Neither Hillary nor Barack fits the current mold for a president.  Hillary's never been called a nigger, but Barack's never been called a cunt.  

Wright got himself caught in the absurd theme of "who's the bigger victim?"

by Montague 2008-03-17 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

Agree, patriot...the man doesn't have a clue...great post. Thank you. Hillary 08!!!

by susanclare 2008-03-17 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

Whoever it is doesn't have a clue. That's for sure Susan.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Rape card comment

There's no shortage of those, though. I really don't think we need to have one on display.

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-17 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

let me guess, Zorro, you're a guy under the age of 30

by Zebra01 2008-03-17 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

I'm a 45 year old black woman whose son was killed by a stray bullet.

by Zorro the Greek 2008-03-17 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

My sincere sympathies.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Black men were allowed to vote and hold public office decades before ANY women were allowed to vote.

Males control the media, Congress, Wall Street, the White House, etc. - and they want that tradition to continue.

by annefrank 2008-03-17 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

There are 16 women in the senate.

There is 1 African American. There have been 3 since Reconstruction.

Let's just be adults and opt not to play the Steinem/Ferraro/Wright escalating victim game.

by Zorro the Greek 2008-03-17 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

What does your point have to do with the subject of this diary?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Actually this is not true. Black men had the right to hold office, but because of Jim Crow laws, this was not a real right.  People died in the 1960s to get black people to right to vote.

And women started voting in any number of states before the passage of the 19th amendment, which made voting a federal right.  Wyoming women could vote in 1870.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Jim Crow laws existed in the South, not every part of the country.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Exactly!
And my cars and houses have been egged numerous times for political yard signs advocating for AA politicians who were more qualified than their white opponents.

by annefrank 2008-03-17 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Hell, I live in John Boehner's district and still keep my Hillary sign out proudly on the lawn, just to piss the clods off.

BTW... we beat Obama by 15% here... better than Hillary did statewide.

Tell me we didn't work hard for Hillary.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Sounds like Boehner supporters like Hillary... Wierd

by hdaman 2008-03-17 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Take a look here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/4/17153 0/6402

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Yes, and women could vote in many parts of the country before the 19th amendment.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Not in federal elections!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

9 recommends for a "who's the bigger victim" post?

This is ridiculous. Black people and women both have it pretty crappy in this nation. There's two groundbreaking candidates, and you want to devolve into this?

And don't even say "he/she started it first." I'm tired of Ferraro and Wright and this race to the bottom. Newsflash: people associated with our candidates will say some extremely dumb things.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-17 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

What you and apparently several other Obama supporters don't get is that this diary is not about Barack Obama. Perhaps that is why so many of you are in a snit.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

No, of course not. It has nothing at all do with Obama. You would've been discussing this random kooky pastor anyway, and it's just one of those wacky coincidences that he can be tied to Obama.

I mean, it's not like you implicitly
made
a guilt-by-association charge or anything:

Right. I mean Wright!

Perhaps if Senator Obama had not written so glowingly about his racist and sexist pastor and referenced him as his spiritual mentor none of this would be necessary.

But whoops... he did.

And his spiritual mentor is a monster.

Yes, nothing to do with Obama. Maybe the latte steam is getting in my eyes or something.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

It is actually about his racist pastor. His spiritual and moral character reference.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Because we all know that our morals can only come from our religions and churches, right?

by midvalley 2008-03-17 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Blacks were permitted the vote under the U.S. Constitution earlier than women were, but under state law most blacks were prevented from voting from the end of Reconstruction through the 1960s. The history of blacks and women competing for who was more entitled to civil rights is a complicated and ugly one...something that does not need to be re-enacted.  

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-17 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

When you say that most blacks were unable to vote because of state laws, this occurred in the southern states. Not throughout the country.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

I really deplore the fact that ANYONE seems intent on making this important primary more about "Who has it rougher - women or African-Americans" than anything else.

It would be wonderful if we could just have a single week without the victim card being played as trump.

by zonk 2008-03-17 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

You completely miss the point of this letter. I think it is probably fair to say you unintentionally miss the point.

Does the letter say ANYWHERE that things are rougher on women?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

I was going to repeat passages from the letter you posted in response -- but it seemed I was repeating the whole letter sans the salutation and closing.

Why don't you re-read what you posted - then re-ask the question....

by zonk 2008-03-17 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

I really don't have time for stupid questions. Either provide evidence to back up your assumptions or take a hike.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Me neither...

So I guess our little e-conversation is at an end.

by zonk 2008-03-17 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Does it get in better than this?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

I agree with you absolutely.  I am so sick of the race-victimhood-card being played time after time after time after time so that Obama gets 92% of black voters in the last election.  I suppose he probably is interested in giving it a little rest now since there are no more southern states where it stirs the emotions of every black voter that he reaches.  Now, of course, he is worried about the backlash.  I can see why he is so worried at this time and has spent so much poltical currency trying to force Hillary to concede.  Thank god she is not a quitter.  We really need a competent candidate to run against McCain in the general election.

by macmcd 2008-03-17 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Right On.

Love your sarcasm. First rate stuff. Olympic class in fact.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Yeah... I mean - Obama has woven his entire month around an SNL "poor, poor me" skit... oops- wrong candidate.

by zonk 2008-03-17 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

thank you for your white male, obamabot, postpartisan, apolitical perspective.

by truthteller2007 2008-03-17 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Yeah because you know... looking at my comment history here and all over the internet (I post under the same online name) - I have a long history of crouching my advocacy for Obama around sex and race.

Thousands of comments this primary season... and your evidence?

I'm white Obama supporter.

You're pathetic.

by zonk 2008-03-17 09:06AM | 0 recs
I'm a black woman


Rascism far more alive and far more hurtful in our society today then sexism. Why do you think the black female community is not in the Clinton tank? Because they know their race is holding them back far more then their gender is. Because they know, because they feel.

I don't think people should vote for a gender or a colour though. Vote for the person who is better able to lead the country, which is of course Barack Obama.

by Obamagirl2327 2008-03-17 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a black woman

This isn't about which is worse. It is about what is left out of Wright's assertions. And the narrow minded race based viewpoint he espoused.

Rascism far more alive and far more hurtful in our society today then sexism. Why do you think the black female community is not in the Clinton tank?

Based upon these two sentences it seems you are stating that Obama is getting his popular support BECAUSE of his race.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a black woman

Who freaking cares what Wright asserts? You act as though Wright is some distinguished establishment truth-teller, and that you just NEED to correct the record.

While republicans are out there degrading women and keeping them from earning equal pay, the kooky pastor from Chicago is the one who compels you to start a media campaign?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-17 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a black woman

link?

by truthteller2007 2008-03-17 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Racism Is Far More Visible

Sexism and violence against women is more pervasive.
Like a frog who is cooked in slowly heated water,  many Americans are just used to the sexism.  Didn't Stokely Carmichael say about women in the movement "There only place is prone."?

How many African Americans are killed by racial violence every year?
How many women are killed by "domestic violence" - a euphemism for murder behind the front door?

About a third of all women homicides victims are killed by an intimate - and a third of all cases do not report relationship.  Even so, more than 1000 women are killed every year an intimate.  If a thousand African American were killed every year in racial attacks there would be a civil war.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/in timates.htm

I wish the term "lynched" was used to describe women killed by their husbands/boyfriends because that is what it is.  Lynching was used as an extreme measure to keep African Americans in their place and to serve notice to others who might choose to act against the racist system.  Women who seek personal autonomy are attacked for the same reason that African Americans were when they sought to register to vote.  Both of these actions  challenge the system of oppression.

I don't think there should be a "who did more of what to whom" argument either, but it seems that there is FAR more attention paid to any and every possible racial slur and very little given to the dismissive sexism which is rampant.  The media laughed with men appeared at Clinton events with "Iron My Shirt" posters.  What if someone showed up at an Obama event with a "Shine My Shoes" poster??

I repeat, to discount the severity and pervasiveness of sexism and violence against women in our society is to defend the status quo and to perpetuate the structures of abuse.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 09:26AM | 0 recs
Well said

The reason we don't hear more about sexism is that it is a more widely held form of bigotry, and one which permeates our national media.  So of course they don't report on it, except in a dismissive way.

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Well said

That and it is considered more socially acceptable. It's the silent bigotry few dare speak about. And one reason they don't is because they face these insane immoral attacks every time it is brought up, unless they happen to do so with women that have experienced it their selves. It is a glaringly obvious double standard that a majority of people don't take very seriously. It is a reinforcement that women's concerns aren't real concerns worthy of the same consideration as a man.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Racism Is Far More Visible

I fully support everything you have said. 1000%!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Racism Is Far More Visible

Excellent comment, johnnygunn.  Sexism is far more acceptable in our society.

by TomP 2008-03-17 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a black woman

I also am a black woman and I am firmly support Sen. Clinton, not because she is a woman, but because she is the best candidate for me.

by LadyEagle 2008-03-17 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a black woman

 Hon, if you honestly believe this then I think you might want to check out HIllary's site before you go any further-at least get all the facts, and then compare then you can decide.
 I was a supporter of his-but then I decided to look elsewhere-she really is "The Smartest One in the Class."

Here's a list of Articles from her site to get you started:

Hillary Clinton Delivers Remarks on Ending the War in Iraq
3/17/2008

Here's another:
 MEMO: Just Words for Five Years 3/17/08

(this is an exerpt from this post from her site:)

"Senator Obama gave an anti-Iraq speech in 2002 that he removed from his website in 2003, calling it "dated." When he got to the Senate, Senator Obama failed to take advantage of the opportunity provided by his new position and did little to turn his words into action until he became a White House candidate. In fact, he voted for over $300 billion in funds for the war and waited 18 months to speak on the Senate floor about Iraq, delivering a speech AGAINST the Kerry amendment that set a hard deadline for withdrawal."

And  From her "Fact HUB" section of her site under Newsroom:

Obama Factcheck Proves Hillary's Point On Military Contractors
3/17/2008 5:49:57 PM

During her Iraq speech today Hillary said the following:

In addition to removing American troops from Iraq, I will also work to remove armed private military contractors who are conducting combat-oriented and security functions in Iraq...Now, Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won't rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the U.S. military or government personnel.
In response, the Obama campaign put out a "fact check" noting that Sen. Obama supports increased oversight of military contractors. This only underscores the policy difference between Sen. Obama and Hillary. Sen. Obama supports increased oversight of Blackwater and private mercenary firms in Iraq. Hillary supports legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq. Sen. Obama does not.

Then of course is this one:
Sen. Obama Offers 5th Explanation of NAFTA-Gate
  3/10/08

 This is just a smattering-(sorry folks but I don't know how to highlight when posting.) But if you do go to her site there are many places to read what she has planned since you won't find it or hear about them in the MSM.
 I would suggest the ISSUES and NEWSROOM sections once in NEWSROOM section you can paruse the PRESS RELEASES and FACT HUB.

 The problem I have is that he has tauted himself as being above all of this it's the right wingers who taut themselves as being morally beyond reproach only to find that themselves are having the affairs. And so it would seem it's "politics as usual with Mr. Obama." So in this vein I  thought I should add these links as well:

http://inyourface.info/ArT/Theta/PaM.sht ml
progressive.
Hank Roth
Obama's Money Cartel
How he's fronted for the most vicious firms on  Wall Street
February 23, 2008

By Pam Martens

And one last article for now:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/263/263_ cover_1_keeping_it_real_obama_euphoria.h tml

So before one leads others to believe he or she does they really should make certain that they really do.  

I hope this helps.
  Namaste.

by artsykr 2008-03-17 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Petty, devisive, and not issue-oriented.  

Is THIS what it has come to?  The economy is in the tank, the war(s) continue, and THIS (depsite the strong denouncement by Obama) is what you want ot focus on at mydd?

With every delegate and every superdelgate the Obama gains, this sort of movement from issues to divison and fear GROWS.

Who have we become?

by a gunslinger 2008-03-17 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

So nice of you to further demean women by not even acknowledging the error of Rev Wright's assertions. Just change the subject.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Bull, FF.  THIS diary is just an attempt to remove issues from the equation and keep the cameras focused on issues that divide us. Somehow the Zealots seem to think that the nomination is worth winning this way.

Iraq

The Economy

THESE are ISSUES worth discussing.  Not Wright, not the foibles of the clintons, not Vince Foster... NONE of it.

by a gunslinger 2008-03-17 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Right. I mean Wright!

Perhaps if Senator Obama had not written so glowingly about his racist and sexist pastor and referenced him as his spiritual mentor none of this would be necessary.

But whoops... he did.

And his spiritual mentor is a monster.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

This is the result you GUARANTEE by continuing down a road of attack versus discussion:

March 17, 2008
Hillary's Plan to Elect McCain and a Right-Wing Supreme Court (Brent Budowsky)
@ 8:17 am
*As someone in regular contact with major superdelegates in Congress, let me explain why there is a near-panic among the supers which I predict will lead to a major move to Obama fairly soon.

Setting aside motive for now, there is one mathematically provable and irrefutable impact of the campaign of personal destruction that Hillary Clinton is waging against Barack Obama. It is this: The road of her campaign leads to helping to elect John McCain and hurting every Democrat on every ballot throughout America.

Here is why. What Clinton is doing, which I believe is deliberate but in any event is happening, is to seek to drive many of her supporters to McCain in a general election.

The best example is her false and destructive claim that she and McCain are qualified to be president and Obama is not. There are other spurious and malicious attacks from Hillary that readers are aware of, which need not be repeated here, which all have the same effect.

From the point of view of superdelegates, and especially elected officials and supers who want Democrats elected and not defeated, here is how it looks and why they will make their move for Barack sooner than pundits expect.

Hillary's negative attacks have some short-term impact that does not help her against Barack, but does hurt Barack against McCain. Hillary may be running the only negative campaign in Democratic political history aimed to persuade her own voters to support a Republican in a general against her Democratic opponents.

In Hillary's scheme, if Barack is nominated, some of her supporters would theoretically support McCain or stay home. Similarly, as Obama's supporters become (correctly) enraged by Hillary's campaign of personal destruction against the candidate (Barack) with the most elected delegates and popular votes, Obama supporters become so embittered by Hillary that a number of them would stay home with Hillary as nominee.

In Hillary's scheme, no matter who is nominated, there would be Democratic and independent voters who have Democratic-leaning views who would stay home, which hurts all Democratic candidates.

If a Democratic voter or Democratic-leaning independent stays home because of the Hillary onslaught of personal destruction while she is losing the battle of elected delegates and popular vote, aimed against the Democrat who is winning, those stay-home voters by definition do not vote, either, for the member of the House or Senate, or governor or alderman running as a Democrat.

My personal opinion is that Hillary would rather elect a one-term Republican of advanced age than a two-term young Democratic leader as president. Of course, the corollary of the Hillary scheme is that a President McCain would give America the most anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-environment Supreme Court in history. But that is not Hillary's concern in her campaign of personal attack and destruction.

Even if this is not Hillary's intent, this is the inevitable, mathematically irrefutable result of Hillary's campaign as she is running it.

Privately, the superdelegates can do the math, and while many lack the courage of conviction and common sense to stand against this, they know it is true.

For these reasons the supers are in a stone-cold panic and will make their move to end this, and sooner than pundits expect. *

From Guns:  Ff...this IS what is on the horizon for HRC.  Between Pelosi coming out on Sunday, ans whaqt Brent has seen...you can bet that the Politics of presonal destruction is going to cost Hillary dearly.  

*Why else do YOU think Pelosi came out WHEN she did? *  

by a gunslinger 2008-03-17 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

If McCain is elected, Obama followers will have only themselves to blame.  They have a racist candidate.    He has used the charge over and over to further his campaign.  He uses it whenever HRC has a success.  He stirs it up and then says OH NO I didn't say that...  I don't agree with that...  

The Wright business is the smoking gun.  Obama belonged to that church for 20 years, was married by that pastor, had his kids baptized by him, got the title of one of his books from him, put him at the head of one of his campaign committees.  Obama got away with making light of the Farrakhan connection, and now that questions are finally being asked (no thanks to any investigation by the media), he wants us all to believe he was never present when any of the hate sermons were delivered and that he just wasn't aware of them.

Well, if that's the case, Obama is way too foolish and inattentive to ever be President.

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

"If McCain is elected, Obama followers will have only themselves to blame.  They have a racist candidate."

Are we really down to this?  I don't know what Obama supporters called Clinton racist.  I definitely haven't seen it on MYDD, and if it's on DKos, it hasn't been on the rec'd list when I've been there.  I don't believe it.  More than belief, I say it's a fact that Clinton is not racist.  But now we have people like PlainWords calling Obama a racist candidate.  Guys, this has gotten past being ridiculous.

by shalca 2008-03-17 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Yes, it has really come down to that. Expect Jerome to soon post a front-page article declaring it to be true.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-17 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Shalca, please look at the facts.

I'll grant you that Obama has not made the exact statement "Hillary Clinton is a racist."  But his campaign has been riding on allegations and innuendos of that all along, and he himself has fueled them.  I don't think there can be any doubt that branding Hillary Clinton a racist has been a deliberate tactic of his campaign.  I'll leave others to make that case.  There are a number of detailed posts about it right here on MyDD.

As for me calling Obama a racist, I think his relationship to the Rev. Wright makes that pretty clear.  He never spoke out, and he had 20 years to do so.  But now that he is running for President, all of a sudden he finds those hate sermons abominable.  

Just try to reverse the situation in your mind.  Imagine to yourself that Hillary Clinton belonged to a church for 20 years, that the minister of that church had married her and baptized her children.  Imagine that she wrote about her close relationship with him, named one of her books with a phrase he gave her, and put him at the head of one of her campaign committees.  And imagine that her minister had for years been preaching naked hatred of all black people and blamed them for everything wrong in the world, from all the wars, to AIDS, to 9/11, to all poverty everywhere, and even blamed black people specifically for killing Jesus.  Imagine that this minister, HER minister, had recently named Obama personally as responsible for all that -- because he is black.   Imagine that she had recently tried to downplay all this by saying that her minister was like the crazy uncle whom you love.  And then imagine that all this finally came out in the major media, and she then changed her story and said she never attended any of those sermons or was even aware of them, and that she didn't agree with them at all.  Would you believe her?  Or would Obama's campaign and his followers be calling her a racist?

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

"I don't think there can be any doubt that branding Hillary Clinton a racist has been a deliberate tactic of his campaign.  I'll leave others to make that case." - Yet, when others make the case, the only tangible evidence they can point to is a one time statement by Jesse Jackson Jr. who has been pretty much silenced, and a memo listing referenced quotes from the mass media.  If there was ever a campaign of allegations and innuendo it's the one about the Obama campaign race-baiting the entire Black American electorate.  Clearly those people can't think for themselves.  Someone says hoodwinked and all blacks will vote against whitey.  Any offense they took to statements they say in the news were just percieved through the twisted lens of the Obama campaign.  That argument holds as much water as the argument that Clinton is a racist.

Further, I cannot hold Obama responsible for someone else's words.  My mother is pretty anti-semitic.  She doesn't hate jewish people, but she holds some very wrong headed views of people because they are jewish, and in the decades of my knowing her, she has made a couple of surprisingly digusting statements that I called her out on.  So am I supposed to never speak with my mother again, because she's made 30 seconds worth of prejudiced comments over my 30 year relationship with her?  Am I supposed to denounce her, instead of just her words, even though I've witnessed her have far more compassion for strangers than I've seen in many people?  Am I supposed to never run for office because if asked under oath my mother may have to admit that she said something less than politically correct about jews in a public place?  I called her out on her statements and I judge her on all that she has done.  More importantly, I don't expect anyone to judge me on my mother's opinions.

Having said that, I disagree with a lot of what Rev. Wright says, but not all of it.  I understand that I've heard about 2 minutes of a nearly 40 year career.  I understand where some of that anger speech comes from.  And more importantly, I understand that because Wright made those comments, NOT Barack Obama.

by shalca 2008-03-17 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Wright isn't really Obama's uncle. You know that, right?

The comparison isn't applicable.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

The comparison is not about family, but applying someone else's words as another's beliefs.  Obama did not say what Wright said, and in fact, denounced them.  At the same time, he has had a 20 year relationship with the man, and I doubt, given Obama's stances, that their relationship was based on hatred for the white man.

by shalca 2008-03-17 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Only after those words

 came back to bite him in his ass! What's next? The MSM really has alot to answer for letting this slip by-it's a good thing for the bloggers that's all I can say.

 

by artsykr 2008-03-17 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Then you haven't been looking very hard.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

First of all your name is "a gunslinger" Secondly you have little credibility acting as if you are an unbiased observer of fact. You don't even pretend.

But let's get to the meat of this shall we?

Hillary Clinton has NO plans to elect John McCain in the fall. Hillary Clinton plans to have Hillary elected as our 44th President.

Hillary's campaign has made it VERY clear to her supporters that she does not support the attacks on Senator Obama that are not based in fact. She doesn't find smearing an opponent to be a worthy tactic of someone qualified for the Presidency.

Hillary is running a POSITIVE campaign. She talks about our problems and she offers SOLUTIONS.

Senator Obama is the one running a smear campaign. Not only did he lie to the people of Mississippi about the source of the Somali dress photo, he is now repeating that SAME LIE in Pennsylvania. Senator Obama is very well aware that Hillary's campaign is not responsible for circulating that photo and yet he finds it to his advantage to LIE about it because it stirs people up against Hillary.

I will not get into the multitude of lies perpetrated by Senator Obama because for one thing it would deserve a diary, but for another I am sure none of it matters to you.

I do not work for the Hillary campaign. I am not paid for anything I write nor do I have any association with her campaign. In fact BECAUSE I write the things I do, the campaign wants nothing to do with me. And that's ok with me.

I am an American citizen and write as a citizen alone. And as a citizen I will state quite plainly that using  scare tactics like you have posted here. Using Rovian arguments that if you aren't for us you are against us, you have demonstrated VERY clearly whose side you and your candidate are on. And it isn't the American people.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

fleaflicker...what does my username have to do with ANYTHING?  

The reason I selected the name was for my admiration for a Stephen King character.

Secondly Ff, I never claimed to be UNALIGNED with a candidate.  Everyone KNOWS that I am an Obama supporter.  What I am unbiased about, however IS the role of data and math to describe and reason out the future.  

Hillary MAY have no plans to elect McCain in the fall, but given the FACTS of the math, the primary/caucus delegates, and the supers, one HAS to deduct that she has OTHER plans than investing time, effort, and the feeling s of her supporters in an effort that most everybody understands is beyond credible reach.

Hillary's campaign has made it clear that she doesn't support attacks that are not based in fact? That is true...as far as I know. Hmph.

Hillary is running a positive campaing alright... positively nasty and bitter.  Look, both canidates have a habit of distorting positions and that sort of dreck...but only Hillary has:

1) Not conistently congratulated Obama on his 26 wins.

  1. Said that she and McCain were the only qulaified people to be C-i-C.
  2. Used race as a wedge.  She is not a racist..she is merely USING race.

I have no idea what you are defending or not defending with your talk about working/not working for the campaign.

As for your charge in the last sentence, I defy you Fleaflicker to demonstrate via fact not opinion, what the hel* you are talking about, especially when attaching Rovisn tactics, when I am consistantly one of the ONLY posters in this mess of a site that has been using a moderate line and looking for unification...YES unification behind mhy candidate...but as I have said..the MATH, the party, and the SDs all point to a VERY predicable end game.  Facts and reason do not a Rove make.  But DEVISIVENESS DOES make a ROVE. And race has been used by HRC's surrogates and those HERE, too.  Lastly, If I understand you...you are suggesting that as a strong Obama supporter I am somehow unamerican, which if this is true...you may rest assurred that i will be writing a letter to the mods.

by a gunslinger 2008-03-17 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

well, fleaflicker?

by a gunslinger 2008-03-17 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Hillary MAY have no plans to elect McCain in the fall, but given the FACTS of the math, the primary/caucus delegates, and the supers, one HAS to deduct that she has OTHER plans than investing time, effort, and the feeling s of her supporters in an effort that most everybody understands is beyond credible reach.

You may suppose whatever you like. That does not make your beliefs truth.

I am not going to bother answering your last challenge. The whole article you cite is Rovian by nature. It essentially says that because Hillary doesn't give in and anoint Obama she is hoping to elect a Republican. If you don't see the Rove there I advise visiting an optometrist.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:55PM | 0 recs
Well Flea...

I notice that you are unapologetic for your implications regarding my user name as well as what believe to be my alterior (unamerican) motives, which is regrettably none too surprising.

I aqlso note that you are not able to refute my assessmnet of Hillarys campaign's tenor these days, specifically "...but only Hillary has:

1) Not conistently congratulated Obama on his 26 wins.

2) Said that she and McCain were the only qulaified people to be C-i-C.

3) Used race as a wedge.  She is not a racist..she is merely USING race.

I have no idea what you are defending or not defending with your talk about working/not working for the campaign.

Lastly I wish to reassert that there is nothing ROVIAN about using data to reach a conclusion or to opine a theory...WHAT IS ROVIAN is using race as a wedge, ad hominene attacks, and other assorted ditractions.  Unlike you flea, I will however, not go so low as to suggest that YOU yourself are rovian.  I do pity the sheer desperation and bitterness that you sometimes exhibit.  For the record, i think you DO owe me an apology.

As they say...facts are stubborn things.  While i am glad that Obama has the facts on his side, I am sorry that this thing hasn't yet been resolved so we can all move forward.  

In retrospect, i wish that either Obama had beated HRC in NH rather than posting a 3% loss...OR that Hillary hadn't been blown out in SC...in either event the other candidate would have been knocked out...and we'd be friends.

by a gunslinger 2008-03-17 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please divide us further....

Pelosi surrogates came out before NV and that's her right. She has now lost the right to be an impartial broker. Hopefully your candidate won't continue self-destructing.

Hillary needs to continue in the race until the final state is counted. If you notice the Obama campaign is holding up the re-vote process because she would be more competitive.

Is this how Democrats want to win the primary, by disenfranchisement?

by LadyEagle 2008-03-17 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors, please drop the sexism....

Whenever Obama takes a hit, he drags out the racism charges.  It's not accident that right after Ohio, DailyKOS came out with the utterly ridiculous charge that Clinton ads were darkening Obama's skin.

This continuing racist drumbeat from the Obama campaign has poisoned the election.

The question you should ask yourself is about who YOU have become.

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 10:25AM | 0 recs
Dear Democrats,

Powerful. Socks spells it out. It just cannot be any plainer than this. Thanks for reposting, Flick.  

by grlpatriot 2008-03-17 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Democrats,

Just doing my part. And gladly taking the flak for it.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Democrats,

Thank you.  You do a great job of just doing your job.  You are an inspiration to those of us who are primarily just lurkers and learners.  Thank you, again.

by macmcd 2008-03-17 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Democrats,

Thanks. But Violet Socks deserves all the credit. It just seemed important enough to me to pass along. Anyone could do that.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 08:14AM | 0 recs
Wright's a dumbass

and he's wrong to belittle women's hardships, but I don't think it's fair to call him misogynist (at least not in this case).  I do think it's wrong to play the escalating victimhood game.

Do you remember Obama's response to Ferraro?  He called them "ridiculous" but there was no whining about belittling what african-americans have achieved despite being oppressed for... etc.

I hope the Hillary campaign isn't putting forth the argument that she deservesm more votes because her gender has suffered more than his race.

by corph 2008-03-17 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Wright's a dumbass

Have you heard a SINGLE Hillary supporter make such an absurd suggestion?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 06:59AM | 0 recs
Well, if you aren't

what's the point of circulating this letter?

"Obama's preacher is insensitive to women's struggles".  Okay, so...I should vote for Hillary why?  Because she's the alternative to Obama, who'se displayed poor churchgoing judgment?  Or because she's a woman, and women have suffered enough?

Neither argument I find particularly convincing.  And they're the only two I can deduce from this post.

by corph 2008-03-17 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, if you aren't

If you read the letter, it goes to Obama's judgment.  Wright and Rezko are exemplary of Obama's judgment.

by macmcd 2008-03-17 07:57AM | 0 recs
Unlike, say

votes on giving George Dubya freakin' Bush authority to use military force?  Not to mention refusing to admit it was a mistake.

Who among us does not have any shady acquaintances?  As far as I can tell Obama has been candid about his involvement with Rezko, which is all we can ask for.

by corph 2008-03-17 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Unlike, say

"votes on giving George Dubya freakin' Bush authority to use military force?  Not to mention refusing to admit it was a mistake.

This has been wonderfully debunked by Joe Wilson in a piece called "Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson /obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html&nbs p;  

But most people are ignorant of the facts so his supporters always drag this out as their last resort when they are losing an argument.  

Who among us does not have any shady acquaintances?  As far as I can tell Obama has been candid about his involvement with Rezko, which is all we can ask for.

No he hasn't been candid, and we can and should ask for a whole lot more from someone who wants to be President on the basis of his "judgment."  What he did was a lot worse than "boneheaded."  He approached a shady lobbyist who was already under investigation, and asked him for help in buying a $1.9 M house.  Obama to lobbyist: "I want to buy a $1.9M house but can't because they want to sell the lot next door at the same time and I can't afford it.  Will you help me?"  Rezko does, and then sells 1/6 of it to Obama and puts the rest of the lot, which he obviously never wanted in the first place, back on the market.

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 01:45PM | 0 recs
No, it does nothing

of the kind.  One particularly bad quote:

Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

That's Clinton's own rationalization of a horrible lapse in judgement.  So she voted for inspectins only?  Then how come Bush recalled them and invaded?  Yeah it was his war, but how could she not see that coming?  All Obama said was with the information he had, the case hadn't been made and nothing Joe Wilson or any other Clinton-supporting authority figure says will change that.  She voted for a war out of political expediency, and didn't even do her homework first.  So did Kerry and Edwards, but at least they've apologized for it.

You know a lot about the Rezko stuff; I'll have to take your word about the private conversations between Obama and Rezko.  Still shows that he's been pretty open about his association, no?

by corph 2008-03-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it does nothing

You believe the lies you want to. Nothing anyone can offer will change your view.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it does nothing

Let's Obama has gone from just doing "5 hours of legal work" for Rezko to having accepted $250,000 in fundraising, and the house thing. Hmm big difference-oh btw it did take quite some time for Obama to actually come clean about how much money it actually was.

Oh yeah- and John Kerry who is on Obama's team voted for the very same resolution, and Obama himself said in 2004:

Obama in July 2004: 'There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position [on Iraq] at this stage.' In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. [...] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

 namaste.

by artsykr 2008-03-17 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, if you aren't

This letter is in response to statements made by a supposedly Christian preacher. At no point in the letter is Obama's name mentioned. Did you even read it?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 09:02AM | 0 recs
Of course I did.

Are you contending this has nothing to do with the presidential campaign?  As far as I can tell this woman wasn't even a parishoner.  Why does she care what some random preacher thinks?  There are plenty of preachers who say more offensive stuff than this.  But lo, somehow she picked Obama's.  Does her partisanship and appeal to emotion vanish simply because she didn't mention Obama by name?

She's writing to support the Clinton campaign (which is fine) by appealing to victimhood and by highlighting Obama's preacher's comments (which is annoying).  There is no other substance to this letter.

by corph 2008-03-17 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course I did.

Wright is not some random preacher.  He's a racist, misogynist, America-hating minister of hate, and he is Obama's preacher and acknowledged spiritual guide.

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course I did.

Thanks for the clarification.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Wright's worse than just a "dumbass"

Are you kidding?  Of course he's a misogynist.  Listen to his sermons.  It's only black MEN he's concerned about.  The black man this and the black man that.  Once in a great while he mentions women, as if he has to throw in a reference to the people who (sadly) make up more than half his congregation.

As for your absurd statement that the Obama team hasn't whined about racism, you could not be further from the truth.  It's a cornerstone of his campaign.  He uses charges of racism whenever he needs to counteract a success by Clinton, but if any Clinton supporter even indirectly references the overwhelmingly sexist press coverage, Obama's followers are right there to call it whining.

Stop fooling yourself.

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 10:33AM | 0 recs
You know the word "man"

can be used in a gender-neutral sense right?

YOU are the one whining about sexism and racism (and media bias) everywhere, not Obama's team.  Remember he didn't call Ferraro's remarks "racist", only "ridiculous".  She likes to use platitudes like "women's rights are human rights", on the other hand.

Clinton had all the advantages. She has run a contemptuous, petty and inefficient campaign.  Which is why she's losing.

by corph 2008-03-17 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: You know the word "man"

You're getting pretty hard up, resorting to coded words like "whining,"  bringing up unrelated lines of argument to change the subject, and making schoolyard charges.

Why don't you just say what you mean:  HRC should stop trying to be President because you don't like it and are afraid she might win.

Can you tell I'm laughing at you?

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 01:49PM | 0 recs
Right back at ya.

Now "whining" is a code word?  For what?

I was worried about Clinton becoming president because, well, she's compromized her ethics, run a horrible campaign and is not a very good politician.  But to you I'm sure that's code for "I hate women".

Thankfully, I'm not worried anymore (details of the MI and FL question became clear this morning).  I used to feel guilty about experiencing so much schadenfreude over Hillary's demise, but you and pretty much every other supporter of hers, by you "laughing at you" contemptuous language, have absolved me.

Hillary is now all but certain to lose.  And you, PlainWords, definitely deserve your candidate's now inevitable defeat.  I'm embarassed to even be in the same party as you.

by corph 2008-03-17 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: You know the word "man"

 Ya know I think it's more that it's his ego that is really the problem, if she wins then all of the men including the media will have to admit that they were wrong and that a woman really can run things better than a man.

Imagine what it must feel like to them to think that ONE woman can do in 4-8 years what 43 men have not been able to do over 200! Hmm I guess that really would be a scary thought, could bring up some deep emotional turmoil.
 Talk about "victim hood' I do believe these guys who just can't bring themselves to see a woman in such a postion are actually the ones playing victim. Hillary just keeps on going and rightly so-as these guys would much rather discount all of the rest of the states -Hmmm how Patriotic of you.

See what I'm thinking is that Obama et al are hoping she would end it so that then they could say "see she just couldn't hang in there, she couldn't take it" but allas every woman knows that we are actually the ones who can go the distance. Think about it folks....

So what's the problem? Are you boys getting tired? Just can't take it? A little out of shape are you.... geez talk about vicitms....This ain't no sprint honey-this is what we call a marathon.
 She ain't the  "wham bam thank you maam" type and neither are the rest of us.
  So boys get over it and stop playing victim. Man-up or shut-up.

namaste.
 

by artsykr 2008-03-17 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: You know the word "man"

Really, you should just stop commenting while you can escape here without making a total fool of yourself. Do you even have a clue what you are saying?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Wright's a dumbass

At least you got the title of your comment right.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 12:55PM | 0 recs
Mmm.

Yes, I am able to see flaws in the candidate I voted for and his supporters.

Dunno what I would have done if I'd heard that sermon.  Probably found another church.

by corph 2008-03-17 02:13PM | 0 recs
I have heard way more absurd suggestions then that

Wright is right even though its not something that white people wanting to hear, he speaks from the soul.
by Obamagirl2327 2008-03-17 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I have heard way more absurd suggestions then

You mean the soul he shares with his body double and BFF Farrakhan?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 07:03AM | 0 recs
If it was falwell or another saying similar things


If Wright was a white minister no one would have taken it seriously.

When Ron Paul says similar things about the U.S. foreign policy, no one is "shocked" or "disgusted".

If this was a white minister saying similar things, you wouldn't have compared him to david duke.

by Obamagirl2327 2008-03-17 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: If it was falwell or another saying similar th

Actually, not only would have I but the vast majority of Americans would.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 07:30AM | 0 recs
Actually, Falwell, Dobson, Robertson

Hagee are white and I don't listen to or like them.

Ever see ANY ONE of those stand up in the pulpit and thrust his pelvis while saying that Clinton did the same to AA's that he did to Monica.  

If he were to make that gesture in his office, at his home, with his friends and colleagues, that's one thing, but to stand in the pulpit in front of his congregation and do that is nothing I could condone - white, black, pink, purple, Christian, Muslim, Hindu ....  It's not only ridiculous, it's disgusting.  The audience may have thought that appropriate "church" behavior, but not me.

I've seen defense after defense of Wright's actions and statements.  It is hard to believe.  FURTHER, I will have to see it with my own eyes to believe that the vast majority of AA's agree with the Reverend's remarks.

And bull crap to the notion that Wright is "just another surrogate".  Best I can tell, they have him in a corner somewhere trying to keep a lid on his statements for fear of further damage.

Wright is his "spiritual mentor" - one of 20 years.  I cannot believe that the same sort of angry ranting against the white man hasn't been going on for some time.  And for Obama to say, "I never knew the man" is .... whatever.  

I've walked OUT of sermons that I didn't/couldn't agree with.

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-17 09:37AM | 0 recs
the difference between white and black radicals


Is that white radicals become distinguished guests and hosts, like fallwell or Buchanan.

Black radicals immediatly become dangers to their society and anti-americans.

by Obamagirl2327 2008-03-17 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: the difference between white and black radical

Not in the DEMOCRATIC party they don't.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: the difference between

Actually, white racists appeal to their constituencies just like black racists appeal to their constituencies.  That is what is so troublesome about Obama having been a worshiper in the church of this particular racist for the past twenty years.

by macmcd 2008-03-17 08:00AM | 0 recs
Black Supremacy
And black supremacy is just as ugly as white supremacy.
by Bella 2008-03-17 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Black Supremacy

Racism is ugly on the face of it.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I have heard way more absurd suggestions then
Wright is a black supremacist, and a racist. I may come from his soul, but it ain't pretty.
by Bella 2008-03-17 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I have heard way more absurd suggestions then
It may come from his soul, but it ain't pretty.

sorry

by Bella 2008-03-17 08:20AM | 0 recs
So blacks aren't victims?

Listening to Wright's speech I'd say that was the brunt of it-so who's playing the victim card??

Call a spade a spade why don't cha?

Hate speak is hate speak regardless of those of us who have been victims.
I'm a white woman and I have been raped. Would that there were no victims anywhere in this world but there are millions of walking wounded so flaming hatred is just adding to the fuel.

Plenty of blame to go around. Obama's affiliation with Wright is negative to his campaign. Not Clinton's fault or women's fault.

by roseeriter 2008-03-17 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: So blacks aren't victims?

I wish I could give you a double mojo for your comments.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 07:04AM | 0 recs
Another "victim"

also known as survivor ... of rape and of childhood molestation.  Having a wonderful time with men myself.  And yet, with therapy and church and God and prayer and support and love, I have been encouraged to

> forgive the perpetrator and not let him have the "rest of my life" by holding on to resentment.  <

Rev. Wright is the hurting himself with his anger and hatred.  Those who are Christians should pray diligently for this man.

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-17 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Another &quot;victim&quot;

We aren't all like the men that did those horrible things to you despite how despicable some of these clods have been in here. Some of us respect women as equals.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:49AM | 0 recs
Oh, I know ...

I also had wonderful brothers whose relationship I cherish.

For me personally, dealing with a male when he has the dominant role - as in boss or husband - is where I run into trouble.  As long as we're "equal" in our roles, I really enjoy men's company.

I think the victimization has helped me have empathy for those who are victimized.  Of course AA's have been victimized and I admire the heck out of them for being able to not only survive such cruelties, but to do so with such love.  

When I see Wright, I both understand the anger and reject it as venting.  Venting, in my experience, does get rid of the anger just let's a little pressure off for a short duration.  Plus, in me it perpetuated the anger in lieu of  trying to find a way to rid myself of its destructiveness in my life.   I'm doing really good actually - married for 30 plus years and find myself more at peace each day.

When I converse with other women who have been victimized, some don't like my "forgiveness" of the perp.  To some, I'm saying that it was OK.  For me, it was NOT OK, never will be - but it was not me who did it, I'm not responsible for his behavior; I in no way caused it to occur; I CAN forgive him of the debt that he owes me - if I have to do it every day for the rest of my life.

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-17 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I know ...

Forgiving allows you to let go of it. I get that.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: diversions and division

Obama needs to divert the public's attention away from his pastor's awful statements; and he needs to divert attention away from the fact he has been caught lying about his Rezko money (although this story has been pretty much buried by Wright story).  So what does he do?  Here's the banner, top-of-the-page headline from Huff Post:  

OBAMA PREPARES FOR FULL ASSAULT ON CLINTON

no comment.  well, except I'd like to see this headline somewhere in the press:

OBAMA LIED ABOUT REZKO MONEY

by moevaughn 2008-03-17 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: diversions and division

Except that Rezko is is basically dead:

The Tribune, which is hardly a left-leaning paper, just grilled him and said Obama set a new standard in openness and accountability:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/ch icago_tribune_obama_sets_a_s_1.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini on/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

And, to be fair:  Huff Post ran Clinton's "kitchen sink" headline as well.  

by thewrath 2008-03-17 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: diversions and division

If I wasn't busting a gut I would answer this comment.

Yeah, he finally comes sorta clean on Rezko after what a year of lies and suddenly he is the golden one?

LOL!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 05:29PM | 0 recs
Dear Rev. Wright

There has been 8 women U.S. Presidential candidates for nomination since 1960.  I'm only talking about the serious candidates from Republican and Democrat Party.  Eight! Rev Wright!.  Only eight of them since 1964.  Have you heard of them?  

They had to work 2 times,or perhaps 3 or 4 times, harder than the male candidate.  And we never talked about them.  They are just the insignificance that decorate the border of our history book.

So I strongly disagree with your statement that Hilary as a woman doesn't have to work as hard to get the recognition she deserves.  

And regarding your statement that Hillary has never been called a nigger, I also strongly disagree.  A nigger is a word used to
insult an AA.  Hillary has been called by many words used to insult a woman.  Does a Bitch sound familiar to you?

In 1972, John Lennon wrote a controversial song "Women is the nigger of the word".  And an AA congressmen(D) Ron Dellums who was revered on both sides of the aisle because of his integrity and his commitment to progressive ideas made a statement of support to John Lennon's song.

Congressmen Dellums said

"If you define 'niggers' as someone
whose lifestyle is defined by others,
whose opportunities are defined by others,
whose role in society are defined by others,
then Good News! You don't have
to be black to be a 'nigger' in this society.
Most of the people in America are 'niggers'."

Lennon said women are slaves of slaves.  Many wives (white,AA, or Asian) are being treated as slaves by their husbands.

Rev. Wright your preaching was beneath contempt.  You said those things with intention to stir hate among AA toward Hillary.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-17 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Rev. Wright

Thank you Joey. This is about the most passionate I have read from you. Totally ROCKS!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 08:17AM | 0 recs
I can't remember most of them

which means most of these eight were candidates in name only and never got very far in the primary process.  Honestly, prior to Hillary, the furthest I remember a woman going was Carol Moseley Braun in 2004.  She stayed around until the primaries started which is actually a much longer time than it would have been 20 years ago.

by lombard 2008-03-17 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Rev. Wright

Thanks for this Joey.  I can't add a thing.  Well said.

by PlainWords 2008-03-17 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Rev. Wright

Just one more reason to lament the absence of Rep. Dellums from Congress.  He was the real deal.

by Trond Jacobsen 2008-03-17 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Rev. Wright

Totally agree.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Women having to work harder

Here's an exerpt from HIllary's site:

Today, despite the progress women have made, they earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn -- and women of color earn even less. Hillary is leading the charge in the Senate to strengthen equal pay laws and end pay disparities between men and women. She introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the penalties associated with wage discrimination, to ensure that the federal government sets a higher standard, and to increase oversight of employers. Hillary has also worked to increase access to capital and other support for women-owned businesses.

Here's another really piece of info from a SPEECH of hers entitled:
October 16, 2007
AGENDA FOR WORKING FAMILIES: Helping Parents Balance Work & Family, and after you've read this you can
  "Click here to read Hillary's agenda for helping parents balance work and family."

There was also a breakdown somewhere on her site where I had read that the financial discrepencies can cost households up to $4,000/yr. Hence the Paycheck Fairness Act.  I'm sorry but I just spent more 15 minutes wading thru alot (but not all) of the archived material and just can't find it. Maybe someone else knows of it and can post it.

Again, all of you Obama supporters- "Me thinks thou dost protest too much" As I recall with the OJ Simpson trial-when they had nothing to prove he was innocent they reverted to tearing down their opponents.
  It would appear the same is happening (and i have read it elsewhere as well) that Obama does not have nearly half as much in regards to issues and their solutions as Hillary does.

If he does, then enough with the emotional diatribe and please do post exerpts as well as just where on his site I/we can read them, otherwise I would have to surmise that he has none and is in fact the one playing the "victim card."

 Namaste.

by artsykr 2008-03-17 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Thank you for posting this.  It is frustrating how little attention is being paid to the gender insensitivity of Wrights statements. It is not about whether sexism or racism is worse.  They are both awful.    

by proudliberaldem 2008-03-17 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Very well put. Thank you!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

So the comments made by Rev. Wright were offensive and should be condemned...but we're also really concerned because, while making his offensive comments, he left out inequality as it pertains to women?  

This is just silly.  

by freedom78 2008-03-17 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

You either didn't read this diary or you did and are intellectually challenged. I don't have time now but perhaps later we will hold a remedial readers session here to make sure you can comprehend what is apparently too complex for you to grasp.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:54AM | 0 recs
dear strikers

Hey, strikers who left dkos purportedly because people called others names - what do you have to say about this comment?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: dear strikers

Intellectually challenged is being polite.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 04:01PM | 0 recs
You're right. He's not just insulting white women

He's insulting whites of any gender.  I suspect if you dug deeper into Wright's background you might find some choice words for Asians and Latinos, too.  Anyone who has this much invective for one group usually has a little left over for others.

by lombard 2008-03-17 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right. He's not just insulting white w

I think he is mainly anti-white.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:55AM | 0 recs
I disagree with you.

Rev. Wright is not a racist.  What you are doing is exactly what many Clinton supporters claim was done to Clinton: false accusations of racism.  

DFA is right:


The Democratic race for President has lost its focus. We have John McCain to beat in November, instead we fight each other.

Geraldine Ferraro. Reverend Wright. Rezko ties. Secret tax returns. If you're like me; you're sick of it.

We have a war to end, an economy in trouble, and $4 gas.

With hundreds of progressives to elect at all levels of office, it's time to leave the character attacks to Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly.

America needs to know why our candidates are better than John McCain and we need to hear it from Senators Clinton and Obama.

Fight McCain, not each other. Join me in signing an open letter to the candidates now:

www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/OpenLetter

by TomP 2008-03-17 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with you.

This comment was for lombard.

by TomP 2008-03-17 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with you.

So it's ok with you if he demonizes the whole white race? And by your definition that isn't racism? I am no expert but I am fairly well educated and it sure seems like the very definition of racism as I understand it.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with you.

The definition of racism which I am familiar with, and which many liberals recognize, is that "racism" represents race prejudice on the part of the group in power, or the group that is more powerful. Racial resentment from the less powerful group tends to get a special name, i.e., "black separatist" or "black nationalist" in the case of African Americans. Still, race hatred is ugly no matter where it's coming from....

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-17 01:30PM | 0 recs
RACISM DEFINED

 1  : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race  

2  : racial prejudice or discrimination

Your definition is not the commonly accepted meaning of the word. I have been a liberal for nearly 4 decades as an adult. I think I know what the meaning of the word is.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Why don't you go read Wright's speech, The Audacity to Hope (http://www.preachingtoday.com/sermons/se rmons/audacityofhope.html) and then come back and reiterate that the man is a misogynist.  He may be many things, but I don't think woman-hater fits the bill.

This diary does not help get the democratic party get past the politics of victimhood, or past the politics of judgement by association.

by shalca 2008-03-17 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Yeah, just like Obama's hoodwinking comments are leading us toward unity.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Hoodwink is a word.  The only people that say it's somehow a dog whistle comment are the same people that say Obama is race baiting.  In fact, the word was never used by Malcolm X when referring to white oppression, only in the movie by Spike Lee.  I'm black and didn't find myself unwillingly enflamed by the white race when I heard Obama utter "hoodwinked."  As Bill Clinton would say, give me a break.

by shalca 2008-03-17 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

No, Malcolm X called us white devils and he believed all the lies of the Nation of Islam and preached against white people until he actually went to Mecca and discovered that he had been taught lies. And when he spoke out against what he was taught he was assassinated.

Hoodwinked occurs in the Spike Lee movie. Yeah, I know that. I saw the movie the night it premiered nationwide. I know what the word means. And so does Obama. That is why he only repeats it when he is around predominately black audiences. And he smiles and laughs as he says it.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

So you're saying he uses it around predominately black audiences (the national new media isn't there at all, right?) and black people, with no discernment of their own, immediately think that the white man has done them wrong in this campaign?

by shalca 2008-03-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

No, I watched a speech on C-Span where he said the same thing in front of a predominantly white audience in Wisconsin.

Also, I'm just wondering how  you could possibly know where Obama says what. Do you watch each of his speeches and keep a tally of words said, for what audience?  If not, you have no evidentiary basis for your claim.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Source your claim.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Actually the news media was there. There are several videos of it. I didn't say what you did. Not at all.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 04:08PM | 0 recs
What this diary is really about

is destroying any hope of a Democrat in the WH this year.  Keep up the hate - you are doing McCain a big favor.

by Moonwood 2008-03-17 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: What this diary is really about

I fail to see how this diary is about hate. Can you please quote something from the text of the diary that is hateful?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: What this diary is really about

Its hateful and racist to say anything that might reflect badly on Obama's campaign.

by liberalj 2008-03-17 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What this diary is really about

You're joking, right?  Please tell me you are.

by mlr701 2008-03-17 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: What this diary is really about

Don't worry, i was joking. Credit to the Obama campaign and some Obama supporters for making my joke seem plausible.

by liberalj 2008-03-17 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: What this diary is really about

Oh, that's right I forgot. My apologies to the Obama followers.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

I'm the author of the letter, and I'm disappointed (but not all that surprised) that people think my point was to minimize racism, claim that sexism is worse, or anything else.

Listen:  if the shoe were on the other foot and a preacher delivered a sermon all about how women have suffered and how Hillary represents a breakthrough, and this minister pointed to Obama (or any black male politician) and said, "he'a a man!  Men have never been discriminated against!  He fits the mold!"  -- wouldn't you just about fall off your chairs?

Wouldn't you say, "hello -- racism?  The fact that black men (and women) were enslaved, segregated, denied the vote, denied civil rights?  Ever heard of any of that?"

As a woman, listening to Rev. Wright claim that any woman "fits the mold" of 43 white MALE presidents, that a woman has never had to work twice as hard, never been discriminated against -- well, I just about fell off my chair.

Denying sexism is as insulting as denying racism.  It's dishonest and counterproductive.  And it certainly doesn't "unite" us or move us forward.  

by Violet Socks 2008-03-17 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

Thank you for your words of wisdom. And thank you for allowing me to repost this here.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-17 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors

I hear you, but Obama has explicitly rejected the idea of saying that one group has been more injured than another.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Editors
Those who are still doubting should check here:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/1924 39/771#commenttop
by HillaryKnight08 2008-03-17 04:36PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads