A mother of three

I keep hearing that one of Caroline Kennedy's qualifications for the senate is being "a mother of three".
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other -views/story/820476.html

Wasn't it just a couple of months ago when we were told that being a mother of five was a disqualification from higher office?

So, is three the perfect number? One or less, and you're not woman enough. (See Rendell on Napolitano) Five or more, and you'd be too busy taking them to hockey games.

It's like the old episode on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show", in which they were discussing how many lovers makes a woman "that kind of woman", and they decided it was six.

I'll say it again. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make ANY choice, not just the politically correct ones. Or, the choices of those you support, at the moment.

By the way, I wonder how these people handle the sudden, constant reversals of their positions on all these issues. One day, against dynasties. Next day, advance Caroline, Jesse, Jr., and Beau. One day, McCain's twelve houses, no good. Next day, Caroline's six + houses, no problem. One day, picket his church. Next day, invite him to give the invocation. What is it? Convenient amnesia? Ambien? Or, callow hypocracy?


Tags: Caroline Kennedy (all tags)



But political correctness is convenient

It's convenient to engage in hypocrisy without shame and switch one's standards from one politician to the next!

by Beet 2008-12-20 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

CK has never held a job in her life ( NEVER earned a paycheck) and guess what I forget which but a national paper came out yesterday that upon checking records in New York  " MS Kennedy NEVER BOTHERED TO VOTE IN SEVERAL ELECTIONS from 1988 onwards"

Is this not the bedrock of our citizenary ( my new word), how do you run for office and you yourself skip out on / not bother to vote in several national and local elections?

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

Found it on the wires:

Caroline Kennedy sat out several elections (AP)
Yahoo! News Made Popular: 22 hours 39 min ago - AP

- Caroline Kennedy, who is seeking to fill Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat, has not voted in a number of elections, including at least one race for the very job she's seeking.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 05:47AM | 0 recs
Be fair.
It's understandable.
Many forget it's an ELECTIVE position.
Don't you notice that in the comparisons they make between Caroline and the other celebrity politicians, all of which neglect to mention that Bono, Franken, Arnuld, etc. RAN FOR OFFICE the first time?  That they achieved great things in other fields, and then won high office?  That none of them inherited high office?  Or bought it in exchange for an early endorsement?
Conceptually, how is the Kennedy clan trading their "early endorsement" capital with the Obama crowd for Caroline's senate seat any different from what the Illinois governor is accused of doing?
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_ wings/2008/12/why-the-carolin.html
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

I'm not a huge Kennedy for Senate fan, but the first part of your post reeks of sexism.  The reason she's "never earned a paycheck" is because she's never needed a paycheck - and she's devoted her life thus far to using her fame and her intelligence to support public education, the arts, Constitutional law, and some of the philanthropic organizations founded by her father or set up in her father's memory.  I see where the PUMA troll who wrote this is going with it - "see, she's just like Palin!" - but both his/her post and yours are an insult to our intelligence.  Kennedy has had a lifetime of achievement.

by mistersite 2008-12-20 06:13AM | 0 recs
"a lifetime of achievement"?
She's a centi-millionaire who has done good centi-millionaire-type deeds.  
I give her much credit for her charitable work (one or two days per week / two or three weeks per month / part time), and for keeping a stable home and family,  and for not going the Paris Hilton route (which would have been very easy with a couple of hundred million in assets).
But, "a lifetime of achievement"?  Her most ardent admirers admit she's a legacy admission at best.
And, when did everyone lose the "McCain has 12 houses!" working class hero outrage, which was evidently sandwiched between the 2004 John Kerry / late 2008 Kennedy family "no-big-deal-how-rich-they-are" blase attitude?  Can't you at least acknowledge the hypopcracy?
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

Not holding a job is not sexist statement.  It applies to all ( where is it that i say its only applying for a woman).  How can you represent the people when you have not worked one day in an honest job in your life?

Philanthropic deeds she did? so did half of the upper west side in NY ( including Bernie Madoff's wife). John John was in the mix w/ folks. She only hung around her elites.

and what about not bothering to vote.. aint like she had to work that day(s). how do run for office and not even vote in elections for that same seat? is this the civic lesson you want to impart ?

And how does this woman know a single thing about the non west side citizens of NY? she spent her whole life maybe doing 2-3 fund raising in NY ( phoo phoo deals among her kinds/ fortunate ones)

How can you not work being the daughter of JFK. Mind freaking boggling! A grown woman to top that.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

LET ME ADD   there are several millionaires and billionaires in govt who work for $1.00 paychecks now and who worked prior to running for office. They did not sit on their ass just because they had family money.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 06:51AM | 0 recs
A mother of three- work or not work?

Anyone who thinks a minute about it knows that raising decent, intelligent children is physical and mental work, sometimes harder than many paying jobs.  Is it qualification for national office? - That's another question, though I would say, surely that part of the population should be represented in Congress, if not the Senate.

On the other hand, Caroline Kennedy's mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, did earn a paycheck, if I recall, as an editor at a publishing firm.  Surely, as the widow of JFK and Aristotle Onassis, she did not need the money.  

by susie 2008-12-20 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three- work or not work?

It's one thing to come into office being elected by the people vs by just ONE of the people.  

JFK would turn in his grave knowing his daughter chose to have her GPS only show the streets within the upper east/ west side of NY.

His other kid was all about being among the regular folks in NY.  Caroline could not bother.  

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

She's a resident of New York. In fact, she became a resident of New York for reasons other than seeking a Senate seat. If she does get appointed, I'm certain she will be both an effective advocate for NY and an inspirational leader for the country.

The diary is bait. Everyone with a brain knows that being a Mother to Five is a serious and difficult job. CK has done nothing deserving of this kind of abuse.

by QTG 2008-12-20 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

 Palin was never attacked for being a Mother, but rather for being a clueless spectacle spewing a continuous stream of non sequiturs while winking and not thinking.

by QTG 2008-12-20 06:32AM | 0 recs
Not true.

She was mocked for many things, including being a "baby factory" (See Maher, Bill) and columns were written "asking" whether "anyone" could handle 5 kids, an infant and the vice presidency.  Wasn't Andy Sullivan on the warpath for her ob/gyn records, because he doesn't believe you can travel, look good, be governor and bear a child simultaneously?

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Not true.

Your question was:
"Wasn't it just a couple of months ago when we were told that being a mother of five was a disqualification from higher office? "

I didn't know you were referring to Maher, Bill (the satirist) and Andrew Sullivan (the curmudgeon), since you seemed to be implying more widespread or authoritative sources.

Have these sages weighed in on Caroline? Do you agree with them if they have?

Most of the criticism of Palin had nothing to do with her gender, and all of the criticism of her incompetence was plainly evident to anyone who listened to her for 10 seconds. She is a bad joke.

How far right does a dem have to be to view Palin favorably and Kennedy so scornfully? Can someone so situated really be a dem?

by QTG 2008-12-20 06:55AM | 0 recs
IMHO, if someone can't admit
the hypocracy, be it as to family size, wealth, dynasties, etc., than they're no different than Limbaugh's ditto heads, just the mirror image.
Did we object to Fox, et al. because they were UNfair and UNbalanced, or because they weren't biased our way?
Stay reality based!
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: IMHO, if someone can't admit

Sure people said having 5 kids was a lot, but that was not a reason for palin's deterioration in veiew of the electorate, it was her polcies (fascism, racism, hate mongering, incitement of violence, against women's rights, abuse of power).

And as to CK's houses, I don't beleive I've heard her proclaim to have the economic plan to fix our country for the lower and middle class, while forgetting how many houses she owns.  And if you think that was inappropriate for Obama to lose against his opponent, I'd say for someone who had been elected to a government position, you missed a few classes in campaign strategy.
I wouldn't say that CK is "in touch" with lower and middle classes, solely for the fact that she is loaded, but she seems to have her heart in the right place helping out those less fortunate, a key agenda overlooked by Republicans in modern times

by KLRinLA 2008-12-20 02:32PM | 0 recs
"she seems to have her heart

in the right place" - - What basis do you have for saying that - - her only public record is that she always endorses the democratic nominee, and she fundraises for public schools, and she's co / ghost written a few books - - good, but proves nothing.  Whats the basis for that statement?

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: IMHO, if someone can't admit

Holy crap, I should really spell check my work before I post

by KLRinLA 2008-12-21 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

QTG wrote: " Mother to Five is a serious and difficult job"

Let's understand you and your new fatwa " look women you can have up to 3 kids and be allowed to work". " After that and anymore - stay at home barefoot and pregnant"

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

 I said nothing of the sort.

by QTG 2008-12-20 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

Quote from you bud

The diary is bait. Everyone with a brain knows that being a Mother to Five is a serious and difficult job

Whats up w/ the difference in CK with 3 kids vs palin w/ 5 ?  

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

OK, I'll try to explain this in a way you can understand. The important concept to grasp is that being a mother is a real job, and that saying that someone who has not worked outside the home has 'never held a job' is a lie and a slur. The number of children (I picked 5 so everyone carefully reading would know that I was not disrespecting Palin) is not relevant. Although the workload increases with the number of children, the difficulty varies with other criteria, and the responsibility is absolute regardless of the numbers.

Understand that none of my criticism of Palin is gender based or parenting related, nor is my glee at the potential of a new Kennedy in the Senate.

Palin is a bad joke. Kennedy is the real deal, the total Senatorial package. If it pleases some that she is a woman, so be it. I don't approve of gender bias myself.

by QTG 2008-12-20 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

Don't waste your time.  The poster you're responding to becomes deliberately obtuse from time to time.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-12-20 07:16AM | 0 recs
Unlike you

Who remains unconsciously obtuse ALL the time

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Unlike you

what so now all of the PUMA's from Alegres asylum are crawling back here. Noticed you've been posting there zero.

by venician 2008-12-20 01:55PM | 0 recs

You missed us. Cute. You need someone to keep you honest

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah

Nah, more deadenders who can't get over their loss is the last thing we need around here. But hey if you're still having problems getting on with your life a can recommend a good therapist.

by venician 2008-12-20 02:32PM | 0 recs
Who? Yours?

He/she hasn't had much success so far. In fact i would say you're having a panic attack now

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Who? Yours?

The only thing I'm afraid of is that your bitter hot breath will fog up my computer screen.

by venician 2008-12-20 03:12PM | 0 recs
Is that your idea of a pick up line?

Because you're getting a bit overexcited. Try a cold shower

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Is that your idea of a pick up line?

Overexcited that Obama will be our President of the United States, guilty as charged.

by venician 2008-12-20 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Is that your idea of a pick up line?

YOUR MAN of course

Freud would have a field day

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Is that your idea of a pick up line?

what does it have to do w/ obama being president? this is a NY senate issue.

Got to separate your man crush on Obama. We are all excited he is our president but we don't go around chanting " O" "O" "O"  and being blind to the issue at hand. then again it would mean you venician would have to have a thought besides your fab fav words you reach into on every comment you make?

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 04:11PM | 0 recs
venecian trolls for Obama Mumbai

It is ok to be a troll as long as you only trash the Clintons and do nothing but post attack after attack. That is all venecian does. Check out his posting history. Of course his friends on this board let him get away with it because he is defending " his man".

Please provide a link venician to a post of yours that isn't and attack against trolls. Even Jerome has called you out as a troll. You go after great PUMA's like canadian gal in every diary. Shame on you.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-20 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: venecian trolls for Obama Mumbai

But even she has been silenced recently by the oppressive censorship here

Where is Jerome. Only he kept this site honest. Even brave chitown denny has been worn to a little nub of silence by the lock step triumphalists

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: venecian trolls for Obama Mumbai

I think denny was run off by the bots a few weeks ago. I hope he comes back. I also saw linfar a few times. This place is better now than a just a month ago so I am hoping that those who are not posting anymore can see that they can post again. I am also wondering where Jerome is. I think he got tired of being attacked by the usual goons on his own blog.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-20 04:52PM | 0 recs

What is wrong with you?  That's a serious interrogative, not a rhetorical question.  Can you articulate a position without blanket character defamation?

You hang out at Alegre's rearguard retreat where NO dissent is tolerated and come here crying you and your friends have been persecuted?

What a massive tragedy.

Very few posters here agree with Obama about everything.  The difference between us and the crowd you seem to feel most comfortable with can be located in an ability to engage complexity.  We are members of a complex coalition.  We by and large support a complex politician who is engaged in complex political circumstances in order to address complex problems.  Thus many of us see no contradiction in criticizing some issues and some decisions while supporting others, and demonstrating basic respect.  This does not entail apologizing for those things we disagree with.  

You, on the other hand, seem fundamentally incapable or unwilling to write a single sentence that does not involve wholesale condemnation of a figure or a group.  It's a monstrous manichaean world view that divides everything and everyone into camps of good and evil.  You use it to justify anything and everything and everyone you like and condemn everything and everyone else.  HRC is a saint.  Obama is a satan.  Her supporters are devoted and critically engaged progressives.  His are dupes, minions, and goons.

But around here, many of us support both of these politicians and have misgivings about both of them at times.  Around here, many of us are cautiously optimistic about the incoming administration, in which both will play leading roles.  You have proclaimed failure and evil before they have even begun to govern.

What a tragedy.

I will oppose this approach as I think it lies at the root of much of what is wrong with this country.  Structurally, the similarities to Bush and his crew are stark and disturbing.

I challenge you to write a single diary, or comment for that matter, that does not require us to agree or disagree with a blanket judgment.  I challenge you to write ONE THING that articulates a position with regard to a specific issue or circumstance that does not extrapolate to either radical goodness or radical evil of anyone involved.

Can you do that?  If you can, I welcome your involvement and will support it, even if I disagree.  If all you want is to continue to accuse, slander, cast aspersions, and blast us with obfuscating ad hominem attacks, then anyone who attempts to marginalize you for the sake of a healthy discursive atmosphere is correct in doing so.

by Strummerson 2008-12-21 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: venecian trolls for Obama Mumbai

This from someone who was banned here, how many times now? AND was banned from Taylor Marsh for hateful and insensitive comments about Tim Russert when he died. How low can you go attacking someone who just died!

by venician 2008-12-21 08:31AM | 0 recs
Stop with the insulting strawmen

The people who attacked Palin for having five children were conservatives, in Dr. Laura Schlesinger in fact led the charge.

Why are you using attacks from the Right to undermine a Democrat? Or is this just more stirring the pot?

by Neef 2008-12-20 09:52AM | 0 recs
Please - -
Palin, like Hillary before her, was subjected to unnecessarily sexist attacks, and few 'progressives' distinguished between legitimate and sexist attacks upon her.  That was the modus operandi of "sexism when it works".
Or did I imagine Obama's chief speech writer (who I believe is still employed) play-acting forcing liquor and himself on a Hillary cut out?
If it was a McCain guy doing it to Michele's picture . . .
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 09:58AM | 0 recs
Of course you make a valid point about sexism.

No dispute.

That being said, I reiterate that your first two sentences are disingenous in the extreme. "we were being told.." By whom?

You aren't attacking a sexist stance of Progressives, you are picking the MOST sexist stance regardless of source and conflating it with Progressive views.

You're not defending an injustice, you are manufacturing one for effect. For effect being the key point, and I get that. But it was dishonest.

by Neef 2008-12-20 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

Great diary as usual kosnomore. I am glad we have such a strong voice here. Don't listen to the hypocrites and the haters. REC

by KnoxVow 2008-12-20 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: 'we'

Which 'we' would you be referring to? Serious question.

by QTG 2008-12-20 07:27AM | 0 recs
I assume 'we' is the mydd community,
which, as far as I can tell, does not require ideological uniformity or lock step thought.  Actually, a refreshing change from most mono-opinion political blogs!
Admit it - - my diaries get your juices flowing and stir up thought and discussion.  Disagree all you want, but I do force you to clarify and express your opinions, rather than posting "Awesome! I agree!" 100 times per day.  And, that is the purpose of politial debate, right?  To challenge and force you to think about your positions  Maybe even see from a different perspective?
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Awesome

But when I disagree you get mad and accuse me of being hypocritical or worse. It seems to me that your diaries, this and recent ones are good examples, are not so much about political debate as they are about political retribution for imagined slights (Kennedy endorsing Obama) and faux outrage at the treatment of Sarah Palin as though she suffered from sexism (rather than her being a doofus Republican who made us laugh.)

Your thinly veiled hatred for Obama and contempt for all who support him sets the criteria for who fits into the 'we' that your fan claims 'you speak so strongly' for.

by QTG 2008-12-20 07:56AM | 0 recs
Project, much?

Didn't you just defend calling Palin "retarded"?  See below.

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Forget much?
 We are all very well acquainted with your history of colorful descriptions of our new President, childish games you played with his name, prevarications you fanned about his religion, and more - I'd quote them to you except that someone has deleted them.
 What you refer to below is not a defense of the word 'retard', but rather a dismissal of your 'outrage' because given it's source, it is specious or disingenuous or both.
by QTG 2008-12-20 08:42AM | 0 recs
"We are all very well acquainted . . "

You sound like a commissar, interrogating someone accused of deviating from the party line.  Later.

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Commisar'

 And you chide people for name-calling?

by QTG 2008-12-20 09:11AM | 0 recs
'Commisar' is name calling.

'Retarded' is cruel, insensitive, juvenile, derogatory and no different than spic, kike, the n word, etc.

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 01:52PM | 0 recs

But why are you telling me? I didn't call anybody a name. You called me a name. Are you feeling OK?

by QTG 2008-12-20 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I assume 'we' is the mydd community,

The 'we' referred to is the silent majority who have been censored in the last few months by obama groupthink.

Luckily some of us still have independant minds

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 01:42PM | 0 recs
Censored? This is MyDD you're talking about?

Refuse of the endless Kennedy pissing contest diaries...

MyDD, where ever other diary is by a Puma, some whine about the Clintons, or some sleazy shot at Obama?

Forget the multiple Pyscho Nancy K. diatribes.

Yeah, you folks all have independent minds...

Independent of what is the question?

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-20 01:50PM | 0 recs
If you can't take the heat...

..go back to the moose.

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: If you can't take the heat...

heat is no problem, but you don't bring heat. Sour Grape Whine is no problem either, except for its nastiness, predictability, and uselessness - even as a futile exercise.

by QTG 2008-12-20 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: If you can't take the heat...

The old cliches are the best

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: If you can't take the heat...

Old cliches like "under the bus"?

by fogiv 2008-12-20 07:12PM | 0 recs
Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury

"The Silent Majority" always was, and remains Republican bullshit. The charge of censorship is specious. The Obama reference makes the case for what the motive for Caroline bashing is about all the way to it's rotten core: sour grapes.

by QTG 2008-12-20 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I assume 'we' is the mydd community,
Oh please, could the drama be toned down around here?
The very fact that you are posting here, along with all the other sad faced whiners shows that  you aren't silent or "censored".
How do you explain you own troll rating of other posts? Are you trying to silence people?
by skohayes 2008-12-20 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I assume 'we' is the mydd community,

Independent?  Yes.

Wired to code?  No.

by fogiv 2008-12-20 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I assume 'we' is the mydd community,

Maybe we shouldn't have had "Joe the Unlicensed Electrician" do the wiring...

by mistersite 2008-12-21 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I assume 'we' is the mydd community,

I agree that many on this blog demand ideological purity.  I, myself, have been criticized numerous times for my positions on various issues here.  This diary, however, comes dangerously close to an attempt to revisit the primary battles, and also includes some Palin love.  Thats unacceptable even to a lean-left Democrat like myself.

by XoFalconXo 2008-12-20 02:04PM | 0 recs
I actually

Do find some of your diaries intellectually challenging, KNM, despite the rather petty disagreement we've had in this one. What you say about "clarifying and expressing" has a great deal of merit, and I have never seen you back away from discussing an opinion you put on the table.

If I comment in this diary again, it will be about your main point.

by Neef 2008-12-20 09:00PM | 0 recs
The Group We!

Since Knowvox speaks for about 33% of the posters here in her various sockpuppets, this site really need a name change to


by WashStateBlue 2008-12-20 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The Group We!

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

Meet the Larry, Curly, and Moe of the "far right" democrat party. So far right.... they're always wrong.


by venician 2008-12-20 09:59AM | 0 recs
How McCarthy-ite of you !!!

You keep and publicize lists of names!  

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: How McCarthy-ite of you !!!
The list is available to anyone who wants to click on the button "Who's recommended this diary" just below the Recommend button.
Have you not seen it?
by skohayes 2008-12-20 04:35PM | 0 recs
I can't stand Sarah Palin

or any defense of her.  Her selection on the ticket changed my support from McCain to Obama.  

Palin looks Kennedy look super qualified.

by ClintoniteNoLonger4McCain 2008-12-20 07:27AM | 0 recs
How is this a defense of Palin?

I'm just pointing out that 'pro choice' Goodman said nothing when Palin was told 5 is too much, but thinks 3 is just right, which hardly seems pro choice to me!

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 07:46AM | 0 recs
its not that

being the mother of 5 is a disqualification from holding a higher office; its being the retarded mother of 5 that many of us saw as said disqualification.

by citizendave 2008-12-20 07:38AM | 0 recs
"the retarded mother" ?????
You toss around that term as an insult, and YOU'RE the progressive?  How dare you.  "Retarded" is the same as kike or spic or fag or the n word or any other perjorative.  Shame on you!
And, frankly, you should have increased your vocabulary since 5th grade.
By the way, you call the mother of a child with Downs "retarded"?  Tell me again who should be banned!
And, to those who will say I'm defending Palin by objecting to the "retarded" comment - - if you don't think that comment is out of line, you need to check yourselves.
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Speech, choice of

Freedom of choice means the freedom to make ANY choice, not just the politically correct ones.

by QTG 2008-12-20 07:59AM | 0 recs
Defending the use of retarded as a put down?
My, how progressive!
Tell me again, who should be banned?
It's that kind of "defend our own" attitude that causes the downfall of political movements.
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Using 'outrage' as a bludgeon

 is certainly a familiar tactic, but more suited to the shouting matches on FOX.

by QTG 2008-12-20 08:13AM | 0 recs
And using the word "retarded"?

Where is that well suited?

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: And using the word "retarded"?

 You tell me. I didn't use it.

by QTG 2008-12-20 09:13AM | 0 recs
You defended it . . .

embarrassed now, I hope?

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You defended it . . .

I did nothing of the sort. Ashamed of yourself, now?

by QTG 2008-12-20 10:54AM | 0 recs
I should have known the answer to my own question.

First they came for the women. Then they came for the gays. And who next?

Of course, the mentally infirm or those with psychiatric diseases you call 'retards'

How can you call yourself a progressive with such hate speak?

You'll be fondling cardboard cut outs of women next

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:42PM | 0 recs

To clarify:
 For those who didn't read the diary above, this is a direct quote:
Freedom of choice means the freedom to make ANY choice, not just the politically correct ones. [kosnomore]


by QTG 2008-12-20 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: "the retarded mother" ?????

my 5th grade vocabulary gets my point across with fewer key-strikes.
you and everyone else understand that my post illustrates that i and millions of others sat wide eyed and jaws agape every time ms palen spoke (and continues to speak). if you were not befuddled by her circular illogic then you may, in fact, be mentally challenged yourself.

i still prefer the streamlined approach of my earlier post.

by citizendave 2008-12-20 08:27AM | 0 recs
Plese don't use the word retarded again

as a put down.  It's ill mannered and shows a nasty lack of sensitivity.

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 09:01AM | 0 recs
Sorry, KNM

you are the resident provocateur, which is fine - immensely entertaining in fact. But you don't get to confuse that position with moral hall monitor, especially after all the "freedom of speech" brouhahas we've had here.

It's particularly retarded for you to accuse someone of lack of sensitivity when your whole shtick is based on pricking sensibilities, the sort of mild sadism that likes to masquerade as teaching.

by Neef 2008-12-20 09:26AM | 0 recs
My favorite post of the day

Nailed it...

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-20 09:43AM | 0 recs
Wash, you agree with the use

of 'retarded' as a put down?  Wow.

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 09:49AM | 0 recs
I agree that you calling for insult purity

After your history here is just a bit off the mark.

Canadian Girl, some others here, do have legs to
stand on.

I readily admit my sins, and when folks call me out for it, guilty as charged.

But, you're trying to switch the subject, instead of answering the issues.

This is a diary of provacation, and legit points have been raised and deflected.

Typical these days for MyDD though.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-20 09:56AM | 0 recs
*I* generally object to the term

I simply find it more irksome that you, of all people, would assume the role of censor.

by Neef 2008-12-20 10:09AM | 0 recs
"Censor" is forbidding speech.

"Manners" is pointing out that the use of the word "retarded" is never appropriate, is insensitive and causes others pain.

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: "Censor" is forbidding speech.

Actually, the word you're thinking of is "retard". To call someone a "retard" is a slur.
Calling Palin "retarded" is a slur, not because of the word itself, but because of what it implies.
Retarded is still a medical term, though it has been replaced by the more PC "mentally handicapped":

adjective 1. characterized by retardation: a retarded child.  
-noun 2. (used with a plural verb) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the): new schools for the retarded.

So please calm yourself, you're getting worked up over nothing.

by skohayes 2008-12-20 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: "the retarded mother" ?????

not the same at all:

kike, spic, fag and you dare to elude to but won't type out nigger.  
are nouns.

my use of the word retarded is an adjective. i learned that in the 5th grade but i learned this gesture in the third grade. (can you guess what it is?)

by citizendave 2008-12-20 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: its not that

Much as it pains me to agree with this PUMA troll posing as a Democrat, and despite the fact that I think his/her objection to your word choice is another disingenuous attempt to undermine this community, I'm going to have to agree with kosnomore here.  Please don't use "retarded" as a pejorative.  It's completely inappropriate.

by mistersite 2008-12-20 09:35AM | 0 recs
Too late --

see above - all the self appointed troll hunters are defending him - - nice company you keep!

by kosnomore 2008-12-20 09:48AM | 0 recs
Maybe you should check who is rec'ing all your

diaries these days, before you comment on the company others keep.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-20 09:58AM | 0 recs
I have no control over that - -
But you have control over rec'ing as "the best of the day" a comment that uses "retarded" as a perjorative.  Shame on you.  Some things are right / wrong, moral / immoral, regardless of who's on offense or defense.
Shame on you.
You're no better than a Klansman, giggling over the use of the n word.
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 10:07AM | 0 recs

"no better than a Klansman"

You do not disappoint. Can you, with a clear conscience, compare the using word "retarded" with being a member of the Klu Klux Klan?

Where is the morality line when you're slinging the heat, kos?

by Neef 2008-12-20 10:15AM | 0 recs
The n word is to black - -
as retarded is to the mentally challenged.
You really don't know that?  Really?
How sad.  And uneducated.  And insensitive.
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The n word is to black - -
As someone with a family member who is mentally handicapped (please get your terminolgy right- Palin is mentally challenged, my sister is mentally handicapped), I can assure you that using the word retarded is not insensitive, and in no way compares to calling a black person a n####r.
Had citizendave said Palin was a retard, then you'd have something to complain about.
by skohayes 2008-12-20 04:50PM | 0 recs
No, I didn't know that

And neither does the The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry:

So I suppose we both stand corrected.

by Neef 2008-12-20 08:45PM | 0 recs
Ok, my SECOND favorite post of the day...

Very nice hyperbole, but I can only give this 6 out of a possible 10.

You need to study up a bit more for the feigned outrage approach.

Try some Marjoiest posts. She is particularly good at going into the shamefest diatribe.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-20 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Too late --

Yes,  far nicer then the sockppets you hang with.

by venician 2008-12-20 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Too late --

Here comes venician to troll rate me downthread. Yours was a content free post buddy. Come on. More censorship please

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Too late --

What, have you grown tired of the deadend gang over at that Obama hate site?

by venician 2008-12-20 02:26PM | 0 recs
Have you grown tired of your anger yet?

Or is it disappointment? Who so sensitive about an honest debate? Or are you feeling vulnerable? Having second thoughts?

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Have you grown tired of your anger yet?

What do I have to be angry with, my guy WON and is now your President.

by venician 2008-12-20 02:36PM | 0 recs
Only you can answer that question

YOUR MAN has won. So why are you so angry? I don't get it. Look in your heart.

Is there something you're not telling us

Your man

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:48PM | 0 recs
TRed for gay-baiting

by JJE 2008-12-20 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: TRed for gay-baiting

Gay bashing? I was talking about idolatry? You're the one with homophobic mind

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:57PM | 0 recs
A suggestion

Down the road, not across the street.

by JJE 2008-12-20 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: A suggestion

Threaten violence when all else fails.

Obama would be proud of you.

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A suggestion

Are you telling a MyDD community member to kill himself? This is way over the line buddy. I can't believe the people on this board will put up with this. A new low even for you.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-20 04:41PM | 0 recs
Cry more

by JJE 2008-12-20 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Cry more

You think telling another person to take their life is funny? That is sick.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-20 04:54PM | 0 recs
Not a sick as I'll get

from drinking too much of your sweet sweet tears.

by JJE 2008-12-20 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Too late --

no one needs to defend my post. i am not offended by words and i never claimed to be PC. actions offend me.

the position that several diarists have taken here in defense of this anti-intellectual, moose gutting, winkin' at'cha, intelligent design cheerleader is an action that offends me.

now i've used "cheerleader" in a derogatory manner.... seems like another spanking is in order.

by citizendave 2008-12-20 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Too late --

No, it looks to me like the Democrats here aren't so much defending him as they are attacking you - which is wholly appropriate given that you're a PUMA troll whose only purpose here is to undermine the Democratic President.

And apparently, this bilious diary has attracted some others back from the racist cesspools they retreated to after this place became unwelcome for disloyal haters.  And they're using rather transparent sockpuppets.

I do so wish the administrators of this site would actually enforce it when they banned someone...

by mistersite 2008-12-20 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: its not that

Completely inappropriate, cd.  I've worked with many people with many disabilities.  For many of them just getting up, dressed, and holding a 10 hour a week job takes a massive effort.  Using a disability or medical condition as an insult is terribly callous.

by SuperCameron 2008-12-20 01:51PM | 0 recs
It's truly ignorant and insensitive.
Juvenile, ignorant and insensitive.
And he's PROUD of it.
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: its not that

so, moron and idiot are both clinical terms but who except kos and nan-k would be offended if spewed either of those endearments in the direction of SP.

btw... i work with examples of both.

PC dujour lets you all ride your high horssy for a few moments at my expense.... thats ok, but at least my post was on point.  you should thank me for making you feel so good about yourselves.

by citizendave 2008-12-20 02:30PM | 0 recs
How sad that you can't just say:
"I was wrong, poor choice of words, sorry if I offended anyone by my use of the word 'retarded'."
It's not P.C.
It's not censorship.
It's simple manners.
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 02:55PM | 0 recs
if you don't

like my manners then don't invite me to your tea party, but if you are here spewing palin glorification bullshit, i'll say what i think.... unapologetically.

by citizendave 2008-12-20 02:59PM | 0 recs
Where in this diary did I glorify Palin?
And, even if I did, how would that enpower you to offend and hurt the mentally challenged and their families?
Do you really not see whats wrong with: (1) using the word 'retarded' as an insult or (2) calling the mother of a Downs child 'retarded'?
Seriously, I can't believe you don't know any better.
by kosnomore 2008-12-20 03:07PM | 0 recs
i stand behind this statment:

anyone claiming to be hurt  by my post is full of shit.

are you one of them?

by citizendave 2008-12-20 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: i stand behind this statment:

You're really not helping your cause here.  I know that most of the people attacking you are trolls who are doing so for completely disingenuous reasons related to their prejudicial hatred for our President-Elect and their desire to sow dissent among our ranks, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.  It might be easier for you to just admit you were wrong to use that pejorative and let it go.

by mistersite 2008-12-20 03:37PM | 0 recs
my cause
thank you mistersite for bringing the attention back to my cause. what is my cause?
my cause is to employ slang, snark and hyperbole to call out hypocrates, trolls, and hawks with great attention to syllabic conservation...... damn, you're right this isn't helping my cause.
by citizendave 2008-12-20 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Manners,


by QTG 2008-12-20 02:59PM | 0 recs
Just FYI

No one really cared how many houses McCain had. It was simply a convenient tactic to turn public opinion against him. In the same vein, I doubt anyone on the Right really thought Obama's energy plan was equivalent to a tire gauge. I think most of us can distinguish between political maneuvering (which is often misleading) and honest belief.

One useful definition of hypocrisy is "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess". By that definition, the lion's share of politics is hypocritical. It is simply an unworkable proposition to demand that a modern politician operate, effectively, under a truth serum.

Obviously there is a balancing act here. We want to be able to predict what our elected officials will do, and in that, it's useful to know what they believe. Unfortunately, knowing what a person truly believes is a huge amount of power, and demands a certain amount of responsibility on the part of the electorate and the media.

And we're not there yet. For a pol to be completely truthful leaves him defenseless against outside forces without such an ethical stricture. AS we saw over and over in the elections, if you don't define the narrative, your opponent will. To put it bluntly, if Democrats always told the truth, Republicans would always win - and vice versa.

And so we're left with yet another of the myriad compromises necessary to run a society. People have to go to jail, wars have to be fought, and pols...pols have to be adept at concealment.

by Neef 2008-12-20 10:54AM | 0 recs
Freedom of choice

The hypocrisy round this place is stunning. Freedom of choice now means 'whatever Obama chooses'.

First they came for the women, and then they came for the gays... who next?

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 01:31PM | 0 recs
A classic of feigned outrage....

Leaving the E out of your handle has allowed you to step up to the next level.


by WashStateBlue 2008-12-20 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: A classic of feigned outrage....

Leaving the tat out of your name would help us all

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: A classic of feigned outrage....

How many more of Alegres minions will come flying back here now?

by venician 2008-12-20 02:11PM | 0 recs
More, probably

As Obama proves what so many of us predicted, you'll find that a lot of people will revise their  opinions

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: More, probably

You predicted Obama was unelectable and would lose, so your predictions are about as reliable as texasdarlings.

by venician 2008-12-20 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: More, probably

Oh go and fondle some cardboard cut outs with your frat buddy favreau

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: More, probably

Even carboard cutouts would reject venecian the obamabot troll.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-20 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Freedom of choice

They haven't "come for" anyone yet, what are you going on about?

by skohayes 2008-12-20 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: revision of opinions

examples, please.

by QTG 2008-12-20 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: revision of opinions

 (addressed to zerosumgame)

by QTG 2008-12-20 02:28PM | 0 recs
One example

You can't buy a senate seat in Chicago it seems any more, but you can in New York

Doesn't anyone in this day and age find it despicable that Caroline Kennedy can nab a senate seat - one of the highest and most prestigious offices in the land - just by inheriting a name??

Chelsea Clinton would make a much better standard bearer and a great example to women everywhere

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: One example

Chelsea Clinton would be a terrible choice, as she's Constitutionally ineligible to be a Senator for another year and three months, and thus New York would have only one Senator seated.

But of course, that's not your point.  Caroline Kennedy supported Obama, our President-Elect, for whom you bear nothing but seething prejudicial hatred.  That is your problem.  Please go back to your racist PUMA cesspools and leave the adult conversation to the adults.

by mistersite 2008-12-20 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: One example

So your dynasty is just better than mine

Pathetic level of discourse here. I remember when people used logic instead of misogynist hate.

by zerosomgame 2008-12-20 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: One example

Please indicate to me where I said I supported Kennedy for the seat.  I'd like to see a link.

And it's rather humorous that someone so filled with prejudicial hatred as you should say even a word about the level of discourse here.  In several short hours, you have left a rather impressive trail of trollery, hatred, unsubstantiated claims, and bile.

Please go away.

by mistersite 2008-12-20 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: One example
She's constitutionally educated lawyer, who worked for 2 years as the director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships, which raised money for the New York city public school system. Under her directorship, she was able to raise $65 million for the schools. She's also held board positions for various institutes in NYC. She has co-written two books about civil liberties, which at this point in our history might be important to the new administration.
Your implication that she is somehow buying the seat from Paterson is simply ridiculous, since every poll I've seen show that the voters of New York support her over other candidates. A special election is simply not affordable right now, the state of New York is in a budget crisis.
If she doesn't work out, the voters will have a chance to boot her out in 2010.
If her family's history is any guide, she will be a good junior senator that supports progressive causes.
by skohayes 2008-12-20 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

From Time Magazine's interview with the Person of the Year:

And outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim.

We are so goddam lucky to have elected this man President! Hooray for us!

by QTG 2008-12-20 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

For someone with a spotty voting record who has made a career out of shunning public life to suddenly step into the limelight one month and actively campaign for an important government appointment to elected office the following month is ludicrous, imho. If her name was anything other than Kennedy..

by phoenixdreamz 2008-12-20 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

Are we going to start holding people's missed votes against them? Shall we go through everyone's prior voting records to make sure they're pure enough to hold office?

by skohayes 2008-12-20 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

No, but in light of a near absense of public service combined with a near absense of doing much of anything to help elected officials prior to Obama, at least having a solid votiong record would be something, and provide an indication of where someone stands on issues. Caroline hasn't done spit to merit the job, and it would be a travesty of democracy to pass over others who have invested considerably more of themselves, and are more deserving.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-12-20 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three
Absence of public service? She raised $65 million for NYC public schools over two years, she sits on several boards in the city, and is the president of the Kennedy Library Foundation.
And again, her "absence of doing much of anything to help elected officials prior to Obama" really doesn't mean anything, we have elected Democrats who hoarded money over the GE rather than give it to candidates running in tight elections. Unless you have a list of her campaign donations, there's very little proof of your assertion.
What exactly qualified Al Franken to run for Senate?
by skohayes 2008-12-21 01:57AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

"What exactly qualified Al Franken to run for Senate?"

He's good enough, he's smart enough, and gosh darn it people like him.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-12-21 07:29AM | 0 recs
Cleaning the egg nog off the laptop

Purple, at times, you just slay me.....

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: A mother of three

LOL, good one!

by skohayes 2008-12-21 11:21AM | 0 recs
Time to call Supernanny...

This family is way out of control.

by susie 2008-12-20 08:21PM | 0 recs
Either that, or Survior MyDD

And vote some of these sock-puppets off...

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 05:22AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads