Punching the Frog [Update]

On the trail in South Dakota today Hillary Clinton referenced her campaign with an old Arkansas saying:

You can't tell how far a frog will jump until you punch him.

[Update at end of diary shows what happens when you punch the frog too hard...]

I don't know if she feels punched. I know I would feel that way if I were her.  And in fact I do. Every blow she has taken has landed on me personally. Never felt this way before and probably never will again. But Clinton is Me.

There I have said it. My identity with her is way beyond politics.  It is absolute. She is Everywoman.  And many of us-- millions to be precise-- look at each other now and frown because during this campaign we have lived some version of her  travail across a bed of nails laced with sexist ire.

The list of women who understand this stretches from Maya Angelou to Democrat Pat Schroeder, the most famous woman politician of her era, to Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman candidate for Vice President of the United States,  to Gloria Steinem to Tina Fey to lil ole me.

But is also includes some surprising men too like Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson and Steven Spielberg.

And here is the nation's most famous frog jumping contest. It is hard to predict winners--looks a lot like the Dem campaign to me :)

None of us Hillary supporters hate Obama. But by supporting Clinton it seems we are tarred with this brush. It is Wrong.

Can't we believe Clinton is the better candidate? Period. Can't we say that while we have seen little racism in the campaign, the sexism has been vile and obvious and widespread particulary in the media and from pundits?

Can we also not say that until this is acknowledged, and a commitment is made to see it stops, that we are unclear how we are supposed to whole heartedly endorse a candidate who simply will not ever say it is not ok.

Barack Obama had the opportunity to say that Father  Pfegler was out of line in his remarks about Hillary. He had the same opportunity with the Rev. Wright. He had the opportunity to take the high road and condemn MSNBC for Schuster's remarks that  Hillary was "pimping out" her daughter. He never did. Not once.

So how can a woman do anything but conclude that he is no friend of women's rights? You can parade out his voting record here, but I what I want to know are things like this: how many women will be in his cabinet? Is he willing to have a female as vice president and running mate?  He doesn't have to do that, but why not?

So far what women are getting from him is that in their struggle he is no ally. Because if he was an ally, because if in his heart he knew it was wrong, wouldn't he condemn it?  

I mean Why not? What does he lose? Would some of his supporters be disappointed? Do they support him because he smiles when women are insulted. Was his "sweetie" reference indicative of a man who simply doesn't get the women's movement. I dunno. But when I feel as if I am Hillary and millions of women do feel this way, he is making a Huge Mistake.

Jerome Armstrong pointed this out a while ago and I couldn't agree more. Much has been written now about the divide in the Democratic Party, about women taking their marbles and going away, about his general election electability  and how the women's vote could be crucial.

He isn't listening. And that makes me wonder why not? You cannot stand by and watch a major constituency of the Democratic Party--via attacks on Hillary as a woman--get slimed and assaulted by your friends without saying,  `Enough!! I do not endorse this. When Hillary is insulted this way, all women are insulted and disrespected and I will not allow it.'

He certainly knew how to say it about his wife, didn't he?

Finally I do now think there is a generational divide in women [and men] who see the sexism and younger women [and men] who don't see it-- or at least don't credit it with being as awful as it is.

There  is an obdurate refusal on the part of both Obama and his supporters to acknowledge the particular challenges Clinton has faced.

While Obama reaped a whirlwind of goodwill and support based on race. Clinton reaped a whole lotta hate and derision. The latest hateful, ridiculing attack by Obama's longtime friend and preacher Father Pfegler is beyond comprehension. It is truly hateful towards women, and in particular white women. As if we single handedly are responsible for racism and privilege.

I very much fear that if Obama does not speak out against this vile sort of attack on his opponent, he will lose her constituency--and there goes the election.

That is why his refusal to stand up is so completely confusing.  

Update--
Obama's diminished popularity and support among white women may in part be an indication of a growing backlash against him among Clinton's women supporters. The survey finds that as many 39% of Clinton's female supporters believe that her gender has hurt her candidacy. In turn, favorable opinions of Obama have tumbled among women who support Clinton -- from 58% in March to 43% currently. By contrast, there has been a slight increase in positive views of Obama over this period among men who support Clinton (from 42% in March to 47% currently).
from war room quoting Pew http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/clinton_obama/index.html?source=newsletter

Tags: Barack Obama, Calaveras county, father pfegler, Hillary Clinton, jumpin frogs, Mark Twain (all tags)

Comments

233 Comments

It's all Obama and his supporters fault.

We are to blame.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-30 10:51AM | 0 recs
you

are not helping much.  What, the priest was right?

by linc 2008-05-30 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: you

That's just a small part of this diary. The priest was wrong. Obama said so himself.

I have troble with alot of the rest of this diary. Especially when it comes from this specific author.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-30 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: you

*trouble

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-30 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: you

The martyr complex is getting old.

by kasjogren 2008-05-30 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: you

I don't know.  When Clinton was proven to have lied through her teeth about the Bosnian sniper fire, I felt like I too was being raked across the redhot Bosnian sniper fire BS detector coals.  It still burns.

by deminva 2008-05-30 03:27PM | 0 recs
Overidentifcation

with any political or public figure is not healthy.  You are you.  Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.

by TomP 2008-05-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
Well

thank you for the diagnosis.  Are you so kindly sharing your wisdom with your Obama fellows?

by linc 2008-05-30 11:35AM | 0 recs
I am not, nor have I ever been

Barack Obama.  Who tries to emphasize that the change we crave is in ourselves, not in him or his background.

I don't yell "racism!" every time Obama is insulted, I don't feel like attacks on him are slights to my identity.  I can see his flaws.

I see the Presidency as primarily the ability to make the right judgment calls at the right time (things like going to war but especially appointing the right people to advise you and knowing when to listen to them), and being able to inspire every citizen to do THEIR duty.  You can't fix a broken education system with a bill from Washington unless parents, teachers and students feel motivated to go the extra mile.  Federal Agency employees will do better jobs if they perceive their leadership as competent and if they feel like they are making a positive difference.

Obama seems to have the ability to inspire and make the right calls in difficult circumstances, so I'm supporting him.  But he is no Messiah, he doesn't have all the answers and my hopes and dreams do not rise or fall with him.

by corph 2008-05-30 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not, nor have I ever been

Well said.  Thank you.  I'd give you ten more mojos if I could.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-30 03:16PM | 0 recs
Yes, see below in your diary.

In fact, people who know me have read many critiques of Obama supporters who went overboard.

As for "diagnosis," that strawman does not stand up.  

You wrote silliness.  

by TomP 2008-05-30 01:14PM | 0 recs
Bullshit
you implied, quite directly that I was identifying myself with HRC.  Is this the game you play- supposed neutral?


I could care this much about your history, your comment was assuming and asinine.  
by linc 2008-05-31 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

TomP is one of the very few genuinely unbiased posters here.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-30 02:19PM | 0 recs
I am not Obama

I'm just hoping he'll win.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-30 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Overidentifcation

It's always struck me as odd that it's Obama followers who have labeled 'cultists' this election cycle.  

"Hillary is me"?  Sheesh.  

by cato 2008-05-30 12:37PM | 0 recs
I pay so little attention to this

anymore.  wow, such a response to such an innocuous comment.  And btw, whatever you are quoting, I didn't say or write- freaky.  Group think.

by linc 2008-05-31 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: you

Yeah the priest was right.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
No matter what you post

it gets trashed these days.  No discussion's even possible.  Sometimes I agree - sometimes I disagree.  What I want to do is discuss it.  Not anymore - its instant negativity - instant pile on.  I'm really sorry.  MyDD used to be open.  Now......  

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-30 02:37PM | 0 recs
This comment is to Linfar, by the way

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-30 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This comment is to Linfar, by the way

I think people are engaging her just find - you have a loose definition of "trashing".

I think people would be MORE likely to engage her on Hillaryis44, where the mask is off.

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:57PM | 0 recs
I don't go there - I go here

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-30 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: It's all Obama and his supporters fault.

The first step to healing is recognizing a problem.

So stop being hateful and personal as your first response.

by redwagon 2008-05-30 12:19PM | 0 recs
He believes his own speil about women coming

home to him because of Roe vs Wade. He'll learn in November that this argument held no water when he loses because women either voted for McCain, Nader or simply stayed home by principle of their convictions and to teach the party that women can no longer be taken for granted!

by suzieg 2008-05-30 08:57PM | 0 recs
With all due respect...

I know you hang out at hillaryis44 -- you know darn well this isn't true:

None of us Hillary supporters hate Obama. But by supporting Clinton it seems we are tarred with this brush

You know as well as I do that there are plenty of posters there that have said PRECISELY that - and worse.

If you want the understanding and the empathy - I think you need to start by meeting us half way with honesty.

by zonk 2008-05-30 10:52AM | 0 recs
I've read more closely

and intended to respond to the questions point by point, but it's... well... pointless.

Instead, let me instead just retract most of my "due respect".

There are so many outright lies (Obama never denounced Pfleger?  Really?  Do you pay any attention to the news?), distortions, and blind tunnel vision, one-sided accusations that it's pointless.

This a stuffing of bull wrapped in a pity tortilla.

by zonk 2008-05-30 10:58AM | 0 recs
Bull fajitas!

Something I haven't tried before.  Oops, I'm not supposed to think about food. Trying to diet.

by GFORD 2008-05-30 11:21AM | 0 recs
Bull fajitas should put you off dinner, surely?

by Wee Mama 2008-05-30 03:12PM | 0 recs
Standing Up

Obama repudiated Father Pfleger's remarks on Thursday, as soon as they came out. So there's no use pretending, like Jerome did earlier today, that he hasn't stood up or spoken out.

by Hatch 2008-05-30 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing Up

This is becoming a pattern with Obama. Maybe he ought to reject Trinity church. That really would impress me.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing Up

At least Trinity doesn't lobby politicians and corporations:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/eh renreich

I HOPE Obama doesn't let these people suck him in as they seem to do with ALOT of DC politicians.

I personally think religion is the weakest point in any candidate, we do live in a secular country.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-30 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing Up

Yep. It's a joke that Clinton supporters "care" about Trinity but not The Family.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing Up

Let's get real...This is Obama's church we're talking about. The racist rhetoric coming out of Trinity is offensive to many Americans.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 11:07AM | 0 recs
There's a difference

The Family's pro-fascist rhetoric is better because nobody ever hears about it?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

You used this same argument with Haggee/McCain. Haggee isn't McCain's pastor and this is not Clinton's Pastor. Why doesn't Obama just reject Trinity church? I really would respect that.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

And Fr. Pfleger is not Obama's pastor.

by mistersite 2008-05-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

...but trinity is his church and the church preaches hate/racism.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 11:20AM | 0 recs
No, it doesn't.

That's a baldfaced lie.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it doesn't.

Oh really? How about this statement?---> Sometimes Trinity Church preaches hate.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 12:16PM | 0 recs
Also not true

At least not racial hate.

They don't like the government much, but the last time I checked, the government wasn't a person.

I'm not going to get behind everything Wright said, but you can't just dismiss everything he said as hate speech.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Also not true

At least not racial hate
Wake-up. Trinity teaches racial hate.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 01:17PM | 0 recs
Nah

They are perfectly happy with white folks joining the congregation.

I mean, isn't the controversy this week about a white guy guest preaching there?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Nah

They are perfectly happy with white folks joining the congregation.
Notice how you assume that I'm talking about "white folks." What does that tell you?

I mean, isn't the controversy this week about a white guy guest preaching there?
Pfleger was pandering to the crowd; he's giving them what they want to hear.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Nah

I can assume that because it's correct to assume.

The congregation is mostly black.

A mostly black congregation does not equal a racist congregation.  

In short, you are trying to be a jerk, but you're bad at it.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 01:56PM | 0 recs
You're either....

blind or naive.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: You're either....

And you cry "racism" whenever it's to your political advantage.

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: You're either....

Michael Pfleger panders to Trinity using divisive tactics and the congregation loved it.

And then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' and she said, 'Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

by soyousay 2008-05-30 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Also not true

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MY EYES ARE OPENED.

HILLARY CLINTON IS NOW ME.

(and yes, CAPS LOCK is cruise control for cool)

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-30 01:45PM | 0 recs
Fine

A lot of us think the same way about Geraldine Ferraro.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

They preach social justice just like all civil rights activists have. Pretending that there is no injustice, something many Clinton supporters seem to want to do, doesn't bring the oppressed justice.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

They don't say anything close to "white people are evil."

What is it about a group of black people together that makes you hear that when no one says it?

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:26PM | 0 recs
See you hear white and you think all white people

so that's your problem. Pfleger was talking about entitlement and the admitted racists who won't vote for Obama. Nothing in that has anything to do with "victimhood".

You call it racism but it doesn't fit the definition of racism. You call it hatred but it's not. It's ridiculing the ridiculous. You call it nasty. I call it right.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: See you hear white

Actually he was talking about Hillary Clinton as well ~ did you miss that part?

by Mags 2008-05-30 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

Does it?

Wouldn't the people who know best be the community that surrounds Trinity?  Go to 95th St in Chicago and ask some people there whether Trinity is preaching hate and racism.

by mistersite 2008-05-30 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

No, it does not, based on what research I have done.

It does cater to anger from time to time, yes, but that's not the same thing.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-30 11:59AM | 0 recs
It does not.

One retired preacher making a few weird comments that have been taken out of context does not make Trinity racist.  It is disgusting how some people are insulting an entire congregation in attempt to score political points against a candidate.  A preacher's sermons can not be summarized in a few sound bites, and a church is much more than its preacher.  There is no reason for Obama to renounce his church, certainly not now that Wright is now retired.

by protothad 2008-05-30 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: There's a difference

Why should he?

According to you storm troopers should invade and shut down trinity, Haggee, Parsley, 700 club, etc etc.

So soyyouusea  what are you feeling of the Family, do you hope Obama joins their ranks?

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-30 11:20AM | 0 recs
Clinton has been

a member of The Family for 15 years and calls Doug Coe a spiritual guide.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:20AM | 0 recs
I did?

Regardless, The Family is Clinton's religious identification.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing Up

It may be when you edit hours and hours of sermons to three or four clips, without once reading or listening to entire sermons or anything else. Without you doing that and understanding the whole of what you're hearing, and representing the whole fairly in your presentation you're being  maliciously fraudulent. It is simply not the case that anyone has the right to take fierce action on that kind of radical and malicious clipping, particularly in a church matter.

I would have thought by now some folks had learned something from the last round of this in the same campaign and the same building, which didn't work that well either except for those looking for a more socially acceptable excuse for not voting for Obama than the one actually moving them. I ask you, when outside of this campaign have you ever discussed publicly and loudly a few clauses from a sermon you didn't listen to personally as a basis for exercising your divine and rare in this world right to vote!

The clip this time is unusually offensive, a combination of a disrespectful story about HRC which unpleasantly parallels what a NOW representative in Ohio made the mistake of saying to the New York Times, and a small part of a much larger presentation of why present day white folks cannot claim they didn't do slavery so don't bother them with its aftereffects, which was probably interesting if I could have heard the whole thing. But showing the whole thing is not the point. It is taking a clip from a long argument about the benefits of racism and tying it to a disrespectful story with HRC's name in it at a time when all disrespect for HRC stirs up her followers. Hunthing for prejudicial clips for the purpose of stirring up fear and hatred.

What you are attempting to create is a national church, whose believers and attenders alone shall be considered legitimate, and all others alien, strange, foreign 'other',  as long as nobody in that church or who visits it ever does or says anything you disagree with. In the case of Fr. Phleger, you are after Obama for something someone other than his or his former minister said, only  and solely because he was in Trinity saying  it. A white Roman Catholic no less. And Pat Buchanan called him a radical socialist for doing it, looking for the dirtiest mud he can think of, not having a very original mind. You'd probably throw it too if you could find it. Shame on you.

Got news for you. Churches (and synagogues and mosques and temples and . . .whatever else) in fact do not serve nationalism (what you are pushing when you push "patriotism") or your own ethnic group's notion of what is rightand proper, or your notion of what is right and proper. They in fact all serve a higher authority, and a good part of their task on a daily basis is to criticize life as we live it because our life is not in fact faithful to the teaching of that higher authority. Their job is NOT to avoid saying things that offend little old me or little old you, particularly if that is what it takes to get the message across so we will stop doing it. Sometimes they get it wrong, Hagee being this fortnight's most notable example, but they take the risk of that.  They've done it that way for thousands of years. This means you, too. And me. And Jerome, mentioned here only because he's getting pasted a lot today and runs the place and is therefore an authority figure here, whether or not he deserves a pasting today for whatever he has written today . . . and Kos, and Allegre and . . . And Obama and Clinton and everyone else, too, the more public, the more entitled to be pasted by them if not acting rightly. By name if they think it necessary.

This business with Pfleger would not be here if those who post and whisper about it and ask "Does Obama have another pastor problem"(Matthews) are trying to stir the Wright kettle again with all of its nastiness about african vestments, drawly language, passionte preaching, talking to Rev. Farrakhan  and general non white middle class conduct and expectations, as a way of attacking Obama for having them despite his downright boring demeanor, words and delivery (although the taped Rendell ecomium to his face never gets mentioned), one more time. Who knows, maybe the nastiness will work this time although it didn't last time.  

I am so very tired of those in this campaign trying to demonize candidates for having anything to do with religion, because the speaker is also demonizing religious practice or the edited version of it they've chosen to hold up to scorn and ridicule. The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon approach to what to criticize candidates for is now about Eight Degrees, and we've still got five months plus of this to go. (Fair Disclosure: Not only am I a crabby, old, mostly white, woman professional, but I am also the holder of an ordination level seminary degree, a M. Div. and am probably a whole lot more critical of bad preaching than you are, having both heard and perpetrated a whole lot more of it. And yes, when I heard some of this over in the Orange place, I gave them whatfor as well. I was longer there, if such a thing is possible.)

by Christy1947 2008-05-30 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Standing Up

Second try - I can't find my first one got posted because of a key punching error. I checked and didn't find it.If it got posted anyway, I apologize for duplication.

You punched the wrong frog, soyousay. The slurs about racism and hatred  and Trinity, and those who preach there, are way off. I am not attacking you but your ideas and those loose this night.

First, you  and those doing it this evening have no business taking a couple of clips from a longer sermon or sermons and making a malicious and fraudulent  slander clip from them. Not for Wright, not for Pfleger, and then screaming about a church of racism and hate. The first thing you must do to criticize a sermon  or any portion thereof is listen to the whole thing, and then present the whole sermon, not just the joyfully selected offending clip which allows you to trade on paranoia stirring followers of HRC and a pass at a racism issue you have not bothered to discuss. Which hasn't been done here and wasn't done with Wright either. Just tagged the Church and everything and everyone having anything to do with it, including the building, as hateful and racist.

Second, in thread, you have no business criticizing Obama because the offending clips were part of a sermon delivered in a building he attends church in when in town, although he had nothing to do with the creation of this one, and it wasn't even delivered in his presence or  by his minister or former minister, but by a visiting white Roman Catholic Priest.(You got a problem with Pfleger, take it up with his archbishop or the Vatican) Now he is chewed out for going to a wicked piece of architecture!

What you and those like you are trying to do is to create and validate a sort of nationalist church, which only says things  and does things, and lets people inside the door that you  personally approve of, else it is racist, hate-filled, foreign (love those African vestments for making  this easy with Wright) and free to be denounced along with a candidate, because the two minutes of video were filmed there. The clip so good for this  because it combines with an edit between, a story about HRC which her followers will find disrespectful (although something very similar appeared in NYT as to  NOW volunteers working for her in Ohio), and a bit about the benefits of slavery addressed to people who say they didn't do slavery themselves and therefore are not racists, so stop bothering them.

Got news for you. Churches don't work for you and your views and are not there to make you feel good about yourself when you aren't being good. They work for a higher authority and always have. Their job is to tell the rest of us that we are not acting in accordance to the wishes of higher authority and we need to shape up. Sometimes they get it wrong- this fortnight's prior example is Rev. Hagee, until this.  They have been doing it that way for thousands of years and offending people, who often killed them for it, for thousands of years. If they feel they have to say things offensive to some people, they will, with brio, to get the message across. To me. To you. To the posters here. To Obama and Clinton and anyone else in authority. Every public figure is liable to be incorporated in what they preach, having given up the right not to be named by making themelves public figures.

You seem to think you can denounce Trinity categorically because you think it is a hate-filled racist. .  I don't know . . separatist black church or some such. You may have first amendment rights to say foolish things (there are several versions of the same idea in this thread), but that does not give you exemption from others criticizing you for doing it. And you are just trying to stir the Wright thing again, coming around for a second hit because the first one did not have the effect desired. To make eight thousand people gathered to do religious work and work on their religious lives a one word reference for disgust. I call you out on that.

Fair disclosure: Not only am I a crabby old white woman, but my seminary degree (M.Div.) is twenty years old doing urban ministry the whole time, and I have both heard, and written, more  good and bad preaching  in all traditions than most people here, as a basis for judging,)

by Christy1947 2008-05-30 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Standing Up

We live in a secular country but that does not mean that we can't admit that religious beliefs play a role in our lifes.

I would rather a canidiate be honest about whether or not he believes. That way, when people like Bush, who claims to be a Christian, doesn't act like one in his policies, their hypocracy only becomes more self-evident.

by JENKINS 2008-05-30 10:18PM | 0 recs
Hm. Would you repudiate the man

who made the statement reprinted below?

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all it ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light injustice must be exposed with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion, before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:04AM | 0 recs
What's your point

"in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality."
Trinity church isn't teaching that.

by soyousay 2008-05-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
You didn't understand what you read eh?

We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
Bullshit

Try actually listening to their sermons and not just the soundbites that the talking news box spits at you.  Better yet, go to Chicago and attend a service and talk to a few paritioners.  You can't know a church from soundbites and biased spin.

I'm a white guy who has lived above a black Pentacostal church for five years.  I could pull the occasional soundbite from their sermons that would paint them as extemists also... but I know from hearing the ENTIRE sermons, from talking to the people, from watching their community outreach, that these are good people and not in any way extreme.

by protothad 2008-05-30 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's church

I stand by what I posted earlier today:

[O]ur relationship with our religion and place of worship is complex.  We may find parts of our religion and place of worship offensive, but the religion and place of worship as a whole has brought much joy to our lives.

I, for example, have my entire life attended places of worship where only 10 men -- women do not count -- can begin a service.  [You probably know my religion by now.]  I find this incredibly offensive.  Does that mean I will stop attending such places of worship?  No.  For all that I find offensive at my place of worship, those places of worship where I pray have brought much joy to my life.  Those places have taught me about my social responsibility for the greater good of mankind; that to whom much is given, much is expected; that peace is better than war because life is better than death.  That is why I have continued to attend those types of places of worship -- my disagreement with some of their practices notwithstanding.

by Brad G 2008-05-30 12:43PM | 0 recs
Got to love a fellow member of the tribe...

Very well said.  I've always disliked the fact that a minion only happens with men and not women.  It's one of the most backward parts or our faith.

by nklein 2008-05-30 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair

I've actually been a reform Jew -- which doesn't have the minyan requirement -- since I was 18.  But I don't want conservative and orthodox Jews judged in the manner that Barack Obama's former church has been judged.

by Brad G 2008-06-02 10:23AM | 0 recs
This is where I am different

From the person who wrote this.

I would refuse to attend a church like this.

In fact, I have refused to go to any gatherings that excluded MEN also, because to me discrimination goes all ways, and I refuse to attend ANYTHING that practices this. I have for DECADES now.

That is the ONLY way it will stop. When people refuse to support discrimination.

by splashy 2008-05-30 08:23PM | 0 recs
I call ratings abuse

You troll rated me upthread for directing a comment specifically to the diarist.  I was lamenting the lack of civility that often permeates diaries these days.  You proved my point.  You troll rated me against MyDD guidelines.  I've been a registered user here since this place was known as "My Due Diligence".  Dilettantes should go troll other waters.    

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-30 08:47PM | 0 recs
Maybe Obama believes

that individuals are individuals who think for themselves.  

Maybe he's completely baffled by people who project their identities onto a politician they've never met and doesn't know how to respond to such bizarre emotional attachments.

And maybe he shares Clinton's belief that it isn't a candidate's job to rush to the defense of their opponent when third parties attack.

by JJE 2008-05-30 10:55AM | 0 recs
I believe they call it

being a fighter.

by Lost Thought 2008-05-30 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

In all fairness -- and fairness is what you are asking for here -- it's paramount that you acknowledge that you come at this with bias. You are entitled to this bias, but you must also recognize it. I am a Clinton supporter, and I acknowledge that I can also be biased. At the same time, a lot of what you said is not true. For one thing, there are plenty of Hillary supporters on here who absolutely detest Obama for whatever reasons.

And your post also falls into the same trap of attributing the few comments you may see on here written by Obama supporters to all of Obama's supporters and to Obama himself. You know this isn't true. Just like the most crazed Hillary supporters don't represent anyone but themselves.

I understand how you feel, but you've got to realize that only a small minority -- a miniscule amount -- actually espouse those views. So don't tar all of his supporters, the same way you wouldn't want the Clinton fanatics to represent all of her supporters.

by VAAlex 2008-05-30 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

Thanks Alex for being fair about this. It is appreciated.

by venician 2008-05-30 11:19AM | 0 recs
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

And, in fairnes, I will add that, as an Obama supporter, I think it is a perfectly valid criticism of him that he does not speak out againt these things more forcefully.  I attribute it largely to his usual understated communication style when not delvering a speech in front of a live audience.  But I think it is a valid criticism.

Other than what you identify, the other issue I'd take with the diary is that whileObama and his supporters have perhaps not sufficiently acknowledged the obstacles Sen. Clinton has had to overcome in this race, it is also true that she began it with what should have been overwhelming advantages.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-30 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

Very well said, and thank you for saying it.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-30 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

A thousand points.

by really not a troll 2008-05-30 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

She was the early on favorite. The nomination was hers to lose, and she did.

She ran a lousy campaign and lost to an unknown. Great campaigners don't do that.

Time to heal.

by IowaMike 2008-05-30 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog


None of us Hillary supporters hate Obama. But by supporting Clinton it seems we are tarred with this brush. It is Wrong.

Um.... no... you are not said to hate Obama because you support Clinton. You are said to hate Obama because you have openly smeared  him with baseless allegations and character assassination.

by Casuist 2008-05-30 10:59AM | 0 recs
To my fellow Obama supporters

Try to be civil, if we think the race is all but over what good does it do to bash and annoy Clinton supporters.  John McCain's positions need to be clearly defined so the American public can see what a hack John McCain is.  For instance John McCain opposed the increase in the minimum wage which hurts a lot of men and women across this country

To linfar:  I would like to apologize for my statements I made in your previous diaries.  I can admit that I fly off the handle easily when provoked, but I also can admit once I've calmed down when I've been wrong.  I can agree with you that there has been sexism instilled by the media.  I do think you are being overly harsh on Obama about this since he condemned the statements and the Priest apologized, but that is my opinion.

by Student Guy 2008-05-30 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: To my fellow Obama supporters

Excellent comment, Student Guy.  Exactly right.  We will unify to defeat McCain.   Linfar may not join us.  That's his or her choice.

But when there is a nominee, we will unify and defeat McCain.

Both Obama and Clinton will work together for the election of the Democratic nominee, whichever one that is.  

by TomP 2008-05-30 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: To my fellow Obama supporters

As both Bill and Hillary have said, politics can be a little rough sometimes.  We all have our own views as to who has thrown the sharpest elbows or low blows, but in the end all good Democrats will support the party's nominee.  I have no doubt Hillary Clinton will be at the forefront.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-30 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: To my fellow Obama supporters

Student Guy-- I sincerely and heartily thank you. I don't understfand why so many Obama supporters do not see that this is imporant, even critical if we can ever hope  to unify the party. Women are deeply, serously offended. They aren't making it up or feeling snarky or just wanting something for nothing. They are outraged. The hopes and dreams of decades is being just slimed by Flegler and Wright, et al. Anyway, glad to see we are still talking instead of screaming at each other :)

by linfar 2008-05-30 11:49AM | 0 recs
Thanks for accepting my apology

I am guessing that there are some Obama supporters here who are still in the thick of fighting a full out primary battle when it has almost moved beyond the voters and onto the delegates and super delegates.

Polls show some insight into what is going on and that poll for Obama is not good news.  I hope that if/when (you know my feelings on this but I am being polite) he gets the nomination he is able to mend the fences with the people who are offended.

Likewise if/when Clinton gets the nomination I hope it doesn't offend too many Obama supporters as John McCain is not a good choice because of many reasons.  (I included the last bit so I could get in an embedded link against John McCain.

by Student Guy 2008-05-30 12:31PM | 0 recs
Gppd essay - 'p' in jumping

"famous frog juming contest" it should be "jumping".

It's a combination that there is so much talk of how many hurdles blacks go through, and little acknowledgement of institutional patriarchy and sexism. Combine that with extremely biased coverage of the male-dominated media (MSNBC especially) in favor of a male candidate who is the least experienced in history.

Maybe Father Pfleger can explain it better than we can.

by catfish2 2008-05-30 10:59AM | 0 recs
Good, not Gppd. n/t

by catfish2 2008-05-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Good, not Gppd. n/t

Irony ++

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-30 12:02PM | 0 recs
Well my SO disagrees so she's not Everywoman.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Well my SO disagrees so she's not Everywoman.

To add to that, my SO specifically sees no difference between Clinton's policies and actions and some random male center-center-right politician.

She would love a woman to be President but not Clinton. She's white & Jewish & loves Israel so go figure.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

Linfar, you're right. This is all about you.

This is about pimping your diaries out on Hillaryis44, a site with some of the most disturbed, angry, paranoid, hateful rants I've seen.

#  linfar Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

great post admin, thanks.

Here's another wee diary for your consideration. It is called Punching the Frog-from a statement by Hill.

Drop by mydd and check it out :)

www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/30/144916/548

Its quite obvious you've internalized Clinton's campaign. Its also quite obvious that you're desperate for the attention you're getting from lost lonely people that don't know any better. I hope you find something else to meld yourself with after June 3rd, hopefully something a little more productive and less associated with the sludge at Hillis44.

by upstate girl 2008-05-30 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

This is the title of the work Linfar was congratulating admin on.

A New Birth Of Freedom

The Democratic Party is in the first stages of a Civil War.

Go over to Hillis44 and take a peak at the filth.

That's why I have trouble with this.

None of us Hillary supporters hate Obama. But by supporting Clinton it seems we are tarred with this brush

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

*peek

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

upstate girl, lol--it is not hard to see why you can't rate or rec. Reason is not your friend. ROFL

by linfar 2008-05-30 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

Are you going to update your diary to say that "some" -- rather than "none" -- "...of us Hillary supporters hate Obama"?

Or are you too busy correcting your friends at Hillaryis44 and making the same plea over there to take a more measured tone and cut down on the hate?

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

If you're relying on pimping your diary out at Hillaryis44 - with all the lies and hate and pure vindictive stupidity espoused there - I think reason isn't something you're able to rely on too heavily, linfar.

by upstate girl 2008-05-30 11:31AM | 0 recs
Remember why you were banned?

Have a "1".  Try to make your toss-offs more sophisticated than "reason is not your friend" next time.

by corph 2008-05-30 12:42PM | 0 recs
Hypocrite.

You can say this:

Can't we say that while we have seen little racism in the campaign, the sexism has been vile and obvious and widespread particulary in the media and from pundits?

But you can't expect anyone to be sympathetic to your claim when you flatly dismiss the exact same view expressed by Obama supporters.

Discrimination doesn't only happen when it happens to you.

by Drew 2008-05-30 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrite.

Drew, even media pundits who have engaged in the sexism admit it has been over the top, unstoppable, etc. Denying it doesn't help anything. How can the dem party come together if one half doesn't want to admit what  happened to the other half. It would be so much easier to be comrades in arms if Hillary supporters felt as if Obama supporters adctually supported them. Denial will not help. It just infuriates people--and make them determined to make you [figuratively] see what they are talking about--by walking away from Obama. The anger is real. It is justified and it isn't going to go away without help

by linfar 2008-05-30 11:25AM | 0 recs
See....

Like the Clinton people that act like African-Americans (and some non-African-Americans) are ridiculous to see racism in the words of the Clinton campaign or from some in the media?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:27AM | 0 recs
What's to deny?

Hillary has been the victim of sexism.  That's been true since 1991 at least and undoubtedly stretches back to her public life in Arkansas and, I'm sure, her private life as well.  Perhaps there are Obama supporters who would deny that, but I'm not one of them and I don't believe that there are many who would.

Is the problem really that Obama's supporters deny that Hillary's been the victim of sexism, or is it their refusal to agree with you - specifically, their refusal to share your belief that Obama is an objectively inferior candidate who prevailed primarily because of his identity?  Or that Hillary is an objectively superior candidate whose identity played no significant part in her success?  If it's the latter, then I doubt you'll ever get the "support" you want.

Otherwise, you're right, it will be difficult for the Democratic Party if "one half doesn't want to admit what happened to the other half" - but really, I think that statement could apply to either half of the party, right now.

by Drew 2008-05-30 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: What's to deny?

Drew, Yes, yes, it is the denial of sexism. I am a big girl. I can support someone and live with it if they get defeated. I don't think Obama is an inferior candidate. Never have. And I don't think he prevailed primarily because of his identity. I just want to feel as if Obama supporters are as outraged about the sexism as Hillary supporteres are. Maybe that is too much to ask. I dunno. But it feels as if Obama endorses it when he doesn't stand up about it.

by linfar 2008-05-30 12:41PM | 0 recs
Okay.

I don't share the visceral sense of outrage that Hillary's supporters seem to feel, nor do I feel it as intensely.  It may be that the well of outrage has run dry for me.  It's been a long primary.

That said, I do agree that Hillary has had to deal with sexism that Barack has not, that said sexism is worthy of outrage, and that the primary as a whole has revealed a level of anti-woman hatred that I did not expect.  

I don't think that Obama endorses it.  He's married a feminist woman, they've undoubtedly raised their daughters to expect and demand equality.  And I think that he'll fight for that as president.  

If he hasn't persuaded you of that then, clearly, he has some work to do.

by Drew 2008-05-30 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: What's to deny?

Are you outraged about the racism Obama faced or did you take part in deny its existence?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: What's to deny?

I think much of this is generational, as you said.  For seventeen years there have been more women in college than men.  That proves nothing, but it is indicative--younger people simply haven't experienced as much sexism as older people have and probably still do (since they continue to interact mostly with people in their own generation).  Obama's support amongst young women, which is substantial, is not because younger women are blind or willfully ignorant.  It is because they are the beneficiaries of all of feminism's struggles.  Shouldn't that be celebrated rather than ignored or condemned as naive?

And yeah, there's been sexism in the campaign.  You'd be stupid to think it doesn't matter in both coverage and votes.  Of course, when you at once maximize sexism and minimize racism you lose a lot of credibility.  I mean, jesus, did you see the exit polls from West Virgina?

by leftneck 2008-05-30 01:50PM | 0 recs
Younger women don't experience

Sexism nearly as much. I didn't when under 30. It's after they reach 30 and are no longer so young that it starts being seen by them. Before that, men are much nicer, in hopes of gaining "favors," or just because they think the women are more attractive.

After 30, it starts to be another story.

Oh, and I should mention that women and men start out on the same rung of the ladder in their careers, but men tend to go up faster than women, so by the time they are over 30 the discrimination becomes more apparent. Look at the women that the right wing male side of the Supreme Court figuratively slapped in the face because she did not do something earlier, when she DID NOT KNOW she was being discriminated against. This is the typical kind of thing seen, a can't-win situation set up.

by splashy 2008-05-30 08:43PM | 0 recs
Don't doubt it for a second

I almost threw in something about that, but my post was getting a little long and I'm more than a little out of my element here.  I do feel that feminism often fails to explore how nuanced sexism can be--they way it hurts some women more than others, and benefits some men more than others.  I'm love to read a feminist piece that explored how and why that despite all their advantages, men fill the lowest rungs of society--prisons, homeless populations--at hugely disproportionate numbers.

Of course, there's a good chance that those subjects have been dealt with and I just don't know it.

by leftneck 2008-05-31 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrite.

I have seen the sexism, and I agree with you. It is time we all step back and decide how we are going to get a Obama elected President and increasing Democratic power, and address the hate and identity politics that will only hurt us all in November.

Obama needs to step put and step up on this issue and help this process along, and him and Hillary need to talk about this.

WE cannot be the party of victims anymore, we have to acknowledge that sexism and racism are too easily used to divide people who would be friends.

So Linfar, no matter what I have seen of you, take a step and join us, and we will take step toward you and call on Obama to talk on this, to the American people.

by blue2008 2008-05-30 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrite.

blue 2008, after he actually wins the nomination-- if he does --I will have this discussion with you. But I think your saying that racism, classism and sexism are often what is used to divide people is very important. And its been done in this campaign and a whole lotta peeps are upset about it.

by linfar 2008-05-30 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrite.

Many (not all) Obama supporters feel the racism has been right out there as well. It did not help when HRC said last Sunday that sexism was all over the campaign (it has been) but there was no racism affecting the campaign (simply not true). There are a lot of walking wounded on all sides here because the 'first' qualities of the campaign were not thought about clearly enough and early enough. There should have been a sexism speech like the Philly racism speech, but for what may be different reasons, neither candidate delivered it.  

by Christy1947 2008-05-30 05:47PM | 0 recs
Took me all of reading through ten posts

on the most recent item at Hillaryis44 to find this gem:

The disgusting story of Obama and his crazy men of the cloth is no doubt one of the worst in our election system history.In every human regardless of race or color there is a well of good and evil that exists and we humans must control what we release each and every day of our lives.We tap into this well and release the milk of human kindness as we go through life and suppress the sour milk of hate,raceism,sexism and violence in order to enjoy the fruits of peace,tolerance and understanding the needs of all humans. This shocking entrance of Barack Hussein Obama into our political arena and the hatred he brings to our country,must be stopped now.He presents the dark and evil side of a man with an overwhelming and dangerous lust for power.Wake up America.We are about to lose our freedom of speech,worship,voting privilege and our respect in this world that had envied and respected us since established this nation just a few hundred years ago.Obama and his supporters would have us revert to just another third world country with a Black system of government based on payback,reparations and violence.

On MSNBC Joe this morning,Barnacle mentioed the fact that this crazy fr.Pfleger has two adopted children living with him and Mike found that shocking.All of this minstrel show in the video of rev Pfleger with the cheering,dancing,screeming,laughing of the cult members is a disgrace to the human race.Just remember that OBAMA,MO and Axlerod started all of this in hopes of gaining control of our political freedoms.

In reality,Obama's well of the milk of human kindness is dry.An old Army guys reflection of this is "His well is as dry as a popcorn fart on a windblown desert".I have no apology for this phrase because I am 90 and mad as hell at what the MSM has done to Hillary and all of us who recognize aa conspiracy when we smell and see one.

The particular poster is a long-timer at HI44 - certainly not a stealth troll.

So tell me again, Linfar -- tell me again how "None of {you} hate Obama".

I'm waiting...

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:04AM | 0 recs
That commenter, by the way

has engaged in far greater racist attacks.

His bitching and moaning that Obama would do the state of the union "in rap" was particularly amusing in its blatant stupidity.  He fears Obama's "affirmative action" "hip hop presidency."

And yes, his words go unchallenged at HI44.  Why?  Because they all agree.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-30 11:10AM | 0 recs
Just a matter of time for this site.

Don't forget at least a dozen or so members of MyDD are also active participants in H44.

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:12AM | 0 recs
HillaryIs44 is a propaganda site...

...set up by a guy that supported Perot.  Interesting connection, I say.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
"A matter of time"? heh, too late

You have highly rec'd members here who have called Obama "uppity."  You have accusations of an "affirmative action" nomination.  You have not-so-subtle use of Obama's scary middle name.  You have people "concerned" about Obama's "mysterious" Muslim past.

The main difference is that the racist stink at MYDD is offset by reasonable Clinton supporters (none speak up at HI44, if they exist at all) and Obama supporters.  I.E. real Democrats.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

You know, I've never really gone over there, but my God ... I couldn't get through three paragraphs on the front page without wanting to throw up. It's really sad actually.

by VAAlex 2008-05-30 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

NO Quarter is worse - I only read one thread, that compared Obama unfavourably with Hitler and Stalin - apparently Hitler is better because at least he was concerned about public opinion.  Apparently Obama is a sociopath - this is from the late and unlamented SusunHu of this parish.  At least one regular poster here was commenting in the thread, apparently completely happy with the Hitler comparison - yes Anna Shane, take a bow.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-30 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

zonk--I don't know why you think posting partisan posts from another website helps your cause. What would help is if you made even an iota of effort to understand what is being said here. But you either won't or can't. And that is going to hurt all of us democrats. the democratic party isn't just one point of view.

by linfar 2008-05-30 11:27AM | 0 recs
You solicit recommendations at a hate site.

What would Hillary do?

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

Please...

You cannot participate in that pit of bile -- indeed, actually campaign THERE for folks to come HERE and rec your diary -- and not expect me to call you on it.

Like I said - I've got all the understanding in the world waiting... you need to meet me halfway with a little honesty.

Or are you a different linfar than the regular at Hillaryis44?

I think it was Hawthorne who said it

"No [one], for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude without finally becoming bewildered as to which may be true"

So which is it, Linfar...

Are you the poster who wants to build bridges and bring understanding?

Or are you the poster that happily participates in some of the disgusting, violent, outrageous, and beyond the pale hit jobs that come up at big pink?

You cannot be both.

Make your choice.

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

Unfair to call Linfar's reccing source a "pit of bile."

XXXXX Says:
April 27th, 2008 at 4:59 am
I would NEVER, EVER vote for Barack Hussein Obama he is an anti-American communist! He goes to a Marxist Chursh, his Friends are Anti-American Marxists and he is currently using his Campaign website as a recruiting tool for Marxists and Anti-American terrorists. This is a FACT!!!

by catilinus 2008-05-30 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

Because it's impossible to take what you write here seriously, when we see the filth you are happy to roll around in on these hate sites.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-30 11:34AM | 0 recs
Linfar, address this statement

Linfar, if you really are a Democrat, and even a human being, you and all the Hillary supporters here have to condemn this stuff and stop it, otherwise you agree with it.

by blue2008 2008-05-30 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Linfar, address this statement

With all due respect, no. Neither candidate is the cop of all of his or her supporters, or HRC of all women or O of all AAs. Neither should be spending all or most of their time apologizing for this silly one over here  or that one over there said. Or we'll never ever get to either Health Care or McCain.

by Christy1947 2008-05-30 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

Zonk, zonk, zonk--didn't anyone ever teach you that you cannot condemn someone because they belong to a website or email list, etc. Imagine if I took posts off this website and asked you to defend them. Your whole tactic here is so off base. It reminds when I lived in China and people attacked me for the latest thing that happened in America. Why don't yu exercise that obviously good brain and discuss the issues raised by the diary. I belong to email lists and websites that support Hillary. Get over it.

by linfar 2008-05-30 12:48PM | 0 recs
Hell yeah!

Linfar used to live in China!

by Mobar 2008-05-30 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

I belong to email lists and websites that support Hillary.
That is all well and good; but saying one supports Hillary is far different from posting utter garbage that makes her look bad.  I do not agree with, nor would I condone the behavior of an Obama supporter who used despicable tactics or language in support of my candidate.  Such a person would not IMO be helping Obama.  Sites such as H44 are doing more harm than good for HRC by actually  inviting dislike for her vicariously through her so-called supporters.

Now, I know I am no more responsible for the content of this site or the GOS than you are for H44; but we are judged by the company we keep and as much for what we fail to oppose as for what we say ourselves.

by rb608 2008-05-30 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

Belong to it?

You POST REGULARLY THERE.  You panhandle for recs HERE over THERE.

You know damn well some of the nasty things said there.  Find me one - just one, linfar, find ONE instance where you've told someone there that they've gone too far.

Sorry - I cannot put it any nicer than this, but I think you're a fraud.  

You come here preaching "understanding" - but you stand by -- and contribute -- to a community that is worse than anything this side of the troll reserve at Noquarter.

by zonk 2008-05-30 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

"...you cannot condemn someone because they belong to a website or email list, etc."

Does that "et cetera" cover churches?  'Cos it seems like you've just undercut the foundations for your whole post.

by jere7my 2008-05-30 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

Zonk, these comments refer to Obama's campaign, which has been one of the most divisive and hateful in recent memory.  All you have to do is read the vitriol from Obama's hateful gang of bloggers-thugs. Anyone who thinks that Obama is in this to "unite" isn't paying attention and certainly hasn't done his homework. He is a garden-variety dirty Chicago pol, fully sponsored by the Chicago mob - uh, er - machine.

The "unity talk" is just that - he has agitated, divided and conquered to get where he is - he learned the lessons of his training in the "Saul Alinsky Method" during his short stint as a "community organizer."  He's the same "uniter not a divider" model as Bush, in a different flavor.

Americans are finally paying attention - they are catching on to what a mismatch exists between Obama's lofty words and his actual deeds, record, and choice of associates.  

by Informed in Illinois 2008-05-30 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

You want me to find others?

There are plenty worse than this - as I said, I didn't make it HALFWAY through the very first post on the page.

And what's more - there is ZERO - ZERO throttling back of any of the awful shit hurled there, not even by linfar.

It's utterly preposterous - no rational human being with a smidgen of objectivity would say it is - to accept linfar's statement about "not hating Obama".

I said it before and I will say it again - I'm more than willing to rationally discuss the primary as it was, as it is, and what I expect it will be.

But my "understanding" is conditional with more honesty than this.

by zonk 2008-05-30 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Took me all of reading through ten posts

Here' another one that recs here...

XXXXX Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
.. I've been saying the same thing. The AA have made a political statement .. they are going to vote for him no matter WHAT. The exit polls have been WRONG on every count. The whites need to step up or be shit outta luck with this dude and his creepy anti American background and his hateful wife.
I think it's time we started an organized effort against him if Hill isnt the nominee. We need to figure out how to effectively work to keep him OUT of the white house. He is dangerous.

That site DOESN'T represent Hillary or her the vast majority of her supporters.

by catilinus 2008-05-30 02:29PM | 0 recs
And more

Here's another - just a few comments further down:

Agreed. The thought of this fraud getting elected is scary.

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:06AM | 0 recs
Of Wolves and Linfar

So much for the fuzzy-wuzzy-wolf dairy lovefest.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-30 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Of Wolves and Linfar

ETS, we got to relate to each other outside this primary fight which inflames passions like nothing I have ever seen or lived through. I support a different candidate than yu. Nothing else has changed. And I do think she has gotten a raw deal. And I do identify with her. And so when flegler goes after her so shamefully and Ob ama says, "Whoa, but does not say that the attack on Hillary and white women specifically is Not Ok. I am just left out in the cold here. Get outside your own frame of reference. Try walking in a hillary supporter shoes for a day. I mean it. Try it. You might develop some compassion and understanding.

by linfar 2008-05-30 11:32AM | 0 recs
If all Hillary supporters walk the walk of

hate sites, I'd rather not.

Fortunately, the majority of Clinton supporters don't post at racist pieces of garbage like H44.

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Of Wolves and Linfar

Quite a few of us here, myself included, started as supporters.  I migrated to Obama in dismay at Hillary's behaviour.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-30 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Of Wolves and Linfar

linfar, believe me I am  trying to walk in your shoes. I do see what is happening, I only ask that you see our side too. I know we can do this if ALL of us just take a few steps backwards and not let our emotions get the best of us. I know it's hard, but I am trying. Will you join me in that exercise?

by venician 2008-05-30 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Of Wolves and Linfar

Women supporters of both sides walk the walk this year. It is no more comfortable on one side than the other.

by Christy1947 2008-05-30 05:56PM | 0 recs
whoops

"diary" not "dairy"

I guess I've lived in Wisconsin too long.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-30 11:58AM | 0 recs
There are none so blind

as those that will not see.

Very next Hi44 comment:

Always eager to hear from G. Ferraro, but she said 2 things that bother me.
One, "Did she lose a close election because of sexism?"
... Is it lost?
Is she saying it's all over?
And two, "The truth is that tens of thousands of women have watched how Clinton has been treated and are not happy."
... Not happy?! Not Happy?! They are FURIOUS! And not likely to get over it for years! They are going to war against sexism, racism, Obama and his diseased view of America, and the corruption of the DNC. It's going to be a long long war, long past this election

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

Barack Obama had the opportunity to say that Father  Pfegler was out of line in his remarks about Hillary. He had the same opportunity with the Rev. Wright. He had the opportunity to take the high road and condemn MSNBC for Schuster's remarks that  Hillary was "pimping out" her daughter. He never did. Not once.

What the heck?

Obama came out right away and said that Pfleger was out of line... and Pfleger realized it, too, and apologized.  He addressed the Wright issue with surprising restraint but also respect for Clinton, denouncing the offensive words.

As far as Chelsea goes... that had nothing to do with him.  Schuster isn't an Obama supporter now or ever.  Schuster also didn't mean the term as offensively as it was taken... gee, where have we heard that before?

If Hillary Clinton is truly the icon of feminism that people seem to claim she is, she wouldn't need a man to defend her from unrelated attacks.  She hasn't owned up to the offense that her campaign has caused, whether intentional or not, over remarks over race, patriotism, qualifications, or assassination insinuations.

If you're going to expect Barack Obama to come to bat for Hillary Clinton on matters that don't involve him, you're going to have to allow that Hillary Clinton should own up to the hurt feelings that she and her husband have themselves caused, at the very least.

All this sexism stuff is a strawman... sorry, strawwoman argument.  You say, "he's not listening," but how could he not not hear it?  The most important people in Barack Obama's life are all female: his mother, whose death drives him to push for health care reform every day, his grandmother, who both served the country and helped raise him, his wife, who is more impressed with his ability to take out the garbage and have a neat desk than she is with his presidential ambitions, his sister, who helped deliver Hawaii for him in the primaries, and his daughters, who are the sunshine of his life.

Barack Obama is a feminist.  There, I said it.  He believes strongly in women's rights; women's rights are civil rights, after all, and that's what he's dedicated much of his life to.

What do you really want from him?  Seriously?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 11:08AM | 0 recs
Leadership.

What do you really want from him?  Seriously?
Leadership. Less of "it's not my job" attitude.

by catfish2 2008-05-30 11:14AM | 0 recs
Isn't that what he's doing?

How is he not leading?  Are you saying that he should usurp the leadership of Clinton's supporters from her?  Do you think they'd go along with that?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Leadership.

He denounced Pfleger's remarks. Clinton has stood by and merely watched her campaign supporters say bad things and done nothing.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-30 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

Drac, feminism doesn't mean you don't want and need allies. It isn't about doing it alone. It is about seeing hatred of women based on the fact they are women. Obama truly has to say the attacks of this kind on Hillary are Wrong. Because it is attacking her for being a white woman. Period. No other reason.

so, yes, I want him to say that Flegler was wrong in attacking Hillary that way. I want him to say Wright was wrong about white women. I want him to say Schuster was wrong. I want him to repudiate the sexist remarks and putdowns and diatribes against Hillary and white women.

I don't understand why he doesn't do it. I truly do not. Any feminist, male or fenmale, would do it in a heartbeat.  

by linfar 2008-05-30 11:37AM | 0 recs
How do you defend feminism

while posting on hate sites like H44 where the future first lady (Michelle Obama) and Donna Brazile are described in ugly, racist, derogatory terms?

Are black women not women too?

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:39AM | 0 recs
Feminism

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human. Equals to men.  I could get into radical feminism, but I don't think it applies here.

Much of what you're suggesting is that somehow Obama should not only denounce the ill-advised (and apologized for) remarks, but denounce them in such a way as he's recorded on video repeating the offensive words.  Forgive me for the cynical view that a highly partisan Clinton supporter who posts on HillaryIs44 would want Obama saying "All the white people got scared" on tape somewhere, for later use in destroying his canidacy with swift-boat attacks.

The Chicago black church community has been under a lot of heat lately.  Pfleger has seen his friends practically tarred and feathered, all the good work that they've done over the years denegrated, their congregations reviled as racists over a few angry words that aren't that much different than things that they've always done, that have never been looked at twice before.

Hillary Clinton could've taken the high road over Trinity.  She could have let the issue slip into oblivion, but she brought it up after weeks of saying "no comment."  She pitched Wright as a spoiler to superdelegates.  

Now tell me, can you REALLY blame people at Trinity for being angry with her, for wanting their spiritual guides to explain it to them in their terms... terms that might seem crude to people outside their subculture?  Can you HONESTLY expect Barack Obama to go out of his way to criticize Pfleger in detail when Hillary Clinton has shown almost no willingness to go to bat for him?

Can you PLEASE give to me some sort of sign that the cognitive dissonance hasn't completely consumed you and that you acknowledge that everybody has equal rights and responsibilities in these affairs?  That the golden rule is NOT "Hillary Clinton makes the rules?"

Until I hear some egalitarian talk from you, I'm afraid I'm not going to give much benefit of the doubt.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 12:00PM | 0 recs
Another one

is here

grape and birdgal....... i agree!! this is war against not only bambi but also the diseased DNC

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Another one

what is the purpose of giving them traffic and bringing the hate here?

by alyssa chaos 2008-05-30 11:15AM | 0 recs
Are you kidding?

The DIARIST cross-posts at MyDD asking people to rec his/her diaries HERE.

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
Exactly.

Why not complain about that?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-30 11:23AM | 0 recs
They're already here

Actually -

The reason I post these - beyond pointing out the blatant disregard for the truth by linfar - is that when folks at that garbage site get called on their BS by having the light of day shined on it - the admin does start deleting some of the more hateful crap and a few of the posters make a half-hearted attempt to police their own because "people are watching".

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:20AM | 0 recs
Nor is the supposed

lack of hate limited to Obama:

Like this lovely bon mot

Notice how the MSM is now taking on the "who me" attitude when the issue of sexism and pro-Obama bias has clearly been established. I watched that prick Chris Mathews act like he is an innocent choir boy when he was the first one who started that Bradley crap after NH. Also notice how "nice" botox face Pelosi is now towards Hillary as she senses her "man" is going to win. Pelosi is the greatest disappointment along with Reis. They have squandered the power given to them and back a guy with liittle experience because it serves their ulterior motives.

Everyone's a sexist -- even the first female Speaker of the House!

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:12AM | 0 recs
Indeed.

And note how the poster condemns sexism in one breath, even as they deride Pelosi's "botox face" in another.

And then there's the inevitable assertion that Pelosi's supposed preference for Obama is due to some desire to be the queen bee, and not because, you know, she's a bona-fide liberal who views Hillary's Clintonism with skepticism, or some other non-sexist reason.

by Drew 2008-05-30 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

There I have said it. My identity with her is way beyond politics.  It is absolute. She is Everywoman.

And yet, it is Obama supporters who are accused of being cultists...

by mistersite 2008-05-30 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

I still remember that Mother's Day diary when one of the wreck list favorites wrote "Hillary is everyone's mother."

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:16AM | 0 recs
Overidentifcation

by supporters of either candidate with their favored candidate is not healthy.  

by TomP 2008-05-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

No. Identity politidcs!! When blacks do it to the tune of 90% people just smile. The double standard between race and sex is what is galling and appalling.

by linfar 2008-05-30 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog

Did you have a problem with "blacks" when they supported the Clintons at a 9-1 margin in the '90s?

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:41AM | 0 recs
*crickets*

by shalca 2008-05-30 03:18PM | 0 recs
I haven't even made it halfway through

The most recent post at Hillaryis44... although, kudos -- it did take about 30 comments to make it to the first Nazi reference

But the concern is broader than just Michael. What mainstream media is promoting today is the BIG LIE, and even though their objectives are different their methodoloy is all too reminiscent of Josef Goebbels. As a result, the American people are denied the information they need to make intelligent choices at the ballot box on matters that affect their future. Or in the jargon de jour they are being "bamboozled".

The BIG LIE that Big Media is promoting in this election can be summarized as follows: i) Obama is a new kind of politician, ii) he will unite the country, iii) this race is over because he he is within 43 votes of the required threshhold. This lie is repeated without challenge by the pundits of our day. Seig heil!

First, it is patently absurd to suggest that Obama is a new kind of politician-unless you are also prepared to argue that the Daley machine is a new kind of politics. His 17 year connection with reszko dispels any notion that he is the product of immaculate conception. And, if you want to know who he really is just look at who his friends are. . . . . .

Indeed... should we infer from her supporters who Hillary Clinton is?

I certainly wouldn't do that.

by zonk 2008-05-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
That's that, then

They Godwinned the primary.  We have to start over.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-30 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: That's that, then

None of us Hillary supporters hate Obama. But by supporting Clinton it seems we are tarred with this brush

Kind of takes the wind out of her sails a bit.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-30 11:25AM | 0 recs
Obama doesn't speak out

against the sexism directed at Hillary (and indirectly against all women) because as he said in one of the debates, "You're likeable enough."  Head down.  No eye contact. Probably with crossed fingers behind his back.  He's a travesty when it comes to acknowledging sexism or doing anything to fight against it.  Oh that's right---sexism is too old school.  One of those battles from the 60's we have to forget.

by izarradar 2008-05-30 11:25AM | 0 recs
LOL.

Probably with crossed fingers behind his back.

I heard he twirled his invisible mustache, too.

by Firewall 2008-05-30 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't speak out

Please present at least five links in which Hillary Clinton speaks out against the racism leveled at Obama during this campaign.  Be sure to include the following:

  • At least one statement in which Clinton defends TUCC and the black church tradition
  • At least one statement in which Clinton says she doesn't want the votes of people who wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race (a statement Edwards made)
  • At least one statement in which Clinton criticizes the racist media coverage of Reverend Wright, and defends him as he stood up for her husband in 1998
  • At least one statement in which Clinton decries the "Is he black enough/is he too black" double-bind Obama is experiencing

I won't hold my breath.  If you're expecting Obama to decry sexism, you must necessarily demand that Clinton similarly decry racism.

by mistersite 2008-05-30 11:32AM | 0 recs
Tit for tat?

Please deal with the tit before dealing with the tat.

And I'm not saying that literally.

by izarradar 2008-05-30 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Tit for tat?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that Barack Obama was responsible for the words and actions of people not connected with his campaign.

Every time - every single time - something sexist has come out of the campaign (and I don't include arguable things like "fingergate" or "you're likable enough", but overt things like the Glenn Close comments or "sweetie"), the campaign or Obama personally has been very quick to apologize and ensure that the problem was dealt with.  There were, quite frankly, very few instances of this happening.

But to expect Barack Obama to take responsibility for and apologize for words that aren't his - which I think is essentially what you're asking here - is way too much.  You aren't going to see Barack Obama stand up and say "I'm winning because of sexism" - mostly because it isn't true, but also because it would be a boneheaded thing to say, and given the tenor of the Clinton campaign would only be trashed by them as patronizing and presumptuous.

by mistersite 2008-05-30 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Tit for tat?

It's called "leadership," mister.  It is called taking a position on hateful, sexist actions and language.  

Sen. Obama did not take responsibility for the unfortunate choice of "I've got 99 problems..." at his Iowa victory party.  It did not go unnoticed and told many people everything they need to know about Sen. Obama's, his campaign's and his supporters' lack of respect for women.  This is an unattractive characteristic of hip-hop culture that the Senator embraces and is will not resonate with the majority of Americans.

by Informed in Illinois 2008-05-30 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Tit for tat?

That was a hoax - the unedited audio without the song dubbed over is all over the internet.  Sorry you believed it.  You must have wanted to.

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tit for tat?

It's called "leadership," mister.  It is called taking a position on hateful, sexist actions and language.  

And again - where has Hillary Clinton demonstrated this "leadership" on the issue of race?  Where are her bold statements renouncing the support of anyone who would vote for her because she's white?

Sen. Obama did not take responsibility for the unfortunate choice of "I've got 99 problems..." at his Iowa victory party.

Let's see you cite a reputable source demonstrating that it happened.

by mistersite 2008-05-30 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Tit for tat?

Is likeability a sex specific characteristic - if that phrase were used to describe a male candidate would it be sexist?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-30 11:43AM | 0 recs
Nevertheless

I have not heard ONE word uttered by Obama where sexism is mentioned.  Quickly now, go find those quotes, links, etc....

by izarradar 2008-05-30 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Nevertheless

So the answer is no then?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-30 12:03PM | 0 recs
Crickets

I guess when it comes to any statements by Obama against sexism.

by izarradar 2008-05-30 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Crickets

I don't do my kids homework for them, and I'm not taking assignments from you either.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-30 12:39PM | 0 recs
Hahahaha!

Good one.

by izarradar 2008-05-30 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't speak out

Obama has not been subject to racism in this pilitical season. On the contrary, any time a criticism is leveled at him for his policies, political strategy, or exit polls, his surrogates and the press simply call the critic, "racist!" and whoever was trying to open a discussion of his qualifications, positions, associates, or whatever are cowed into submission, knowing they are in fact not racist and not wanting to be labeled such.  This is not the act of someone who wants unity and reconciliation and the very Rev. MLK is surely spinning in his grave.

by Informed in Illinois 2008-05-30 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't speak out

I'd like one example.  Just a single example of that.

One.

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't speak out

No racism? Am I supposed to think that all the "Go back to Africa" and "He's a Muslim" and "He's a terrorist" and the phony dialect postings, and the false suggestions of a hunt for reparations,  and all that just didn't happen. There have been grave sins on all sides here, not just one.

by Christy1947 2008-05-30 06:10PM | 0 recs
Big problem with your argument

You state: "My identity with her is way beyond politics.  It is absolute. She is Everywoman.  And many of us-- millions to be precise-- look at each other now and frown because during this campaign we have lived some version of her  travail across a bed of nails laced with sexist ire."

You seem to be contending, therefore, since "millions" of women like you identify completely with Hillary, therefore any perceived attack or affront to Hillary is an affront to millions of women.  

I'm sure some people like you really believe this.  However, the reverse is not true.  Obama, his campaign, nor most of his supporters think of an attack on Clinton as an attack on women in general.  Any criticism of Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton is a criticism of Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton.  

That's not to say some people may make generalizations about women based on their evaluation of Hillary, but, I've rarely come across such sexist generalizations at DKos or any other pro Obama blog.  99% of criticisms of Hillary are just that, criticisms of Hillary.

That's why tens of millions of women, including feminists, support Obama and don't see him as being hostile to women's rights or issues.  They don't think of Obama's criticisms of Hillary's policies or campaign tactics as an attack on all women, and well, they're right because they're not.  

Does that mean I'm suggesting it's wrong for women to personally identify with Hillary so that any attacks on her is an attack on women like you?  I don't think it's something you can answer as right or wrong, but, at the very least, you should understand that one does not have to identify with Hillary so personally as you have.  It's a choice to do so.  Then, the question is, what's the purpose behind that choice, and what purposes are served when choosing to personally identify yourself with Hillary Clinton?  

In my opinion, we all personally relate to, feel empathy with, and feel that a shared understanding exists with people we admire and support.  That's what makes them our personal heroes.  I think, though, the trick is not to lose perspective and totally conflate one's identity with the identity of another person, because, of course, the reality is, that other person is not you or me, and the reality is, a criticism of another person is not necessarily a criticism of you or me.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-30 11:29AM | 0 recs
Engaging in guilt-by-association attacks

while associating with the racists over at HI44 is.................. HILARIOUS!!!

You win the internet.

Oh, and NEVER throw in a sexist "botox face" reference about Pelosi while complaining about sexism --- this website can only handle so much Irony Bandwidth.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-30 11:37AM | 0 recs
Again with the "racist" label

How many ranting racist preachers has Obama had to disown -- about one a week?

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-05-30 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Again with the "racist" label

When Hillary Clinton condemns NoQuarter, we'll talk.

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:48PM | 0 recs
Nope. Snark is:

You mother should've said no that night.

by cosbo 2008-05-30 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope. Snark is:

Maybe she did.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-30 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope. Snark is:

That would explain it.

by cosbo 2008-05-30 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope. Snark is:

Rape jokes in the first set of comments. So funny.

Feel the hoof of the unity pony.

by redwagon 2008-05-30 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope. Snark is:

So, when I make fun of the comment above mine (the one about saying "no") I could probably make it more obvious.

I don't think rape is funny.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-30 12:21PM | 0 recs
Violence against frogs is not funny

It is a shame that some must be so insensitive to the lives of animals just to get a point across.

http://www.peta.org/feat/lifescienceskil l/

Each year, college and university "life sciences" programs consume thousands of animal lives in cruel, crude, and unnecessary physiology demonstrations. Despite the availability of humane and more effective methods of teaching physiology, a number of institutions continue to force inexperienced students, who have no medical or veterinary training whatsoever, to conduct highly invasive and ultimately deadly experiments on frogs, turtles, rabbits, and rats.

Try and use a kinder metaphor in the future.  

by libertyleft 2008-05-30 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Violence against frogs is not funny

Jumping frogs are sometimes pets. Sometimes it is true kids pull them out of creeks, make the jump, and abandon them. And that is cruel.

In any case, they are not part of the industrial exploitation of animals in laboratories.

by redwagon 2008-05-30 12:29PM | 0 recs
...and they are tasty...

:~)

by chrisblask 2008-05-30 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

Words matter, Linfar, whereever you post them. Congratulations! You continue to make significant contributions to the Progressive Movement.

by Iago 2008-05-30 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

I totally agree.
Obama has had many opportunities to stand up against this, and he hasn't.

Why doesn't he just say, "There have been a lot of sexist remarks made against Hillary Clinton, and I think it stinks.  So does the sexist merchandise.
If you are of this mind, then I don't want your vote.  If you believe sexist insults are appropriate against her, then you probably believe that is a valid weapon to use against any female you don't like.  And that is WRONG.  So just don't vote for me if that is your state of mind; I don't want it."

Then he could have been a bit of a hero, instead of a passive sexist.  That's what his silence on this issue makes him, doesn't it?

by mbolack 2008-05-30 12:02PM | 0 recs
if so then Hillary is a passive racist

since she's said nothing on that subject.  think a little bit before you type such foolishness.

by JJE 2008-05-30 12:24PM | 0 recs
So all these years

That she has worked to advance health care for children, ALL children, and other things she has done to help those that are have-nots, who are disproportionately black, are nothing?

Okaaay.

by splashy 2008-05-30 09:20PM | 0 recs
read again

read what i responded to again and try to understand the point better.

by JJE 2008-05-31 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

I can not, and will not sit and speak as if among friends with someone who participates in the ungodly, unholy, mentally-deranged rickroll that is Hillaryis44.com.

You need help.

You are absolutely welcome to post there.  You are absolutely welcome to post here.  I am not trying to silence you.  You can support whomever you like for whatever reason you like.

But don't imagine for a moment I think that what you've done is intellectually honest, or indeed very human.

You have internalized the ultimate externalities and turned yourself into a caricature of humanity.  What's more, you cannot, you will not read any of this post fairly.  You will see me as the existential "other."  And as such, I am wholly alien to you.

My alien-ness is manifest to you because I do not immediately see those injustices that anger and embitter you so.  That I do not take up the fallen battle standard and march into the breech with you right now means I am among those forces arrayed against you.

I could, indeed, sit with you and speak as though among friends.  I could, if you could stop hating.  Stop compounding the hate upon more hate.

Barack Obama is no more the reason that Hillary Clinton lost than Hillary Clinton is!

There are other women.  I am hungry to vote for a woman as President.  But I cannot stand this woman and you are out of your mind if you think you will dictate to me that I must somehow ignore nearly two decades of simply not liking how she operates so I can help get you what you want.

If she had won, I'd have voted for her.  That should be enough for you.  That you demand any more makes you, frankly, a very confused person.

I wish you well.  I truly do.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-30 12:14PM | 0 recs
Punching the frog or

...punching the munchkin?  This post is the latter.

by JJE 2008-05-30 12:21PM | 0 recs
Empowerment

The list of women who understand this stretches from Maya Angelou to Democrat Pat Schroeder, the most famous woman politician of her era, to Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman candidate for Vice President of the United States, to Gloria Steinem to Tina Fey to lil ole me.

Add me to the list. Thanks for the diary.

I think the point that people miss is that this isn't about victimhood. It is about empowerment for all women. Gender-based bias (bias of any kind) should not be tolerated. Cracking jokes or encouraging the behavior (for political gain) legitimizes it. Ignoring it makes us complicit. Saying the attacks against Hillary were solely because she is "Clinton" is just a way to further attack her and discredit any real and honest discussion of gender bias in the primary.

So, yes, an attack on Hillary is also an attack on me. Like it or not, in this primary, the political has become very personal.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-30 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Empowerment

Well said. Very. It couldn't be clearer. thanks grlpatriot.

by linfar 2008-05-30 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Empowerment

I write this as someone who has never been a Hillary Clinton supporter, but who would vote for her if she were the nominee.

As someone whose mother was a second wave feminist and who herself is part of the so-called "third" wave, what's been most terrible for me about the second wave feminist support of Hillary's candidacy has been the revivial of the gender first issue of white feminism, something which a lot of us hoped had been left behind in the 1970s and 1980s.

I've tried to put the remarks behind me, but it's going to take a while to put the accusations of traitor to gender made by feminists like E. Jong or the beliefs of Robin Morgan that sexism is more powerful somehow than racism, behind me.  

No matter which candidate gets the nomination or who wins the Presidency, the chill between me and my white feminist department will still be here.  Maybe the sad truth is I was never really one of them.  Myself and my African American collegues just thought we belonged.

by mijita 2008-05-30 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Empowerment

"Goodbye to all that 2" swept away the opinions of all black women in a single sentence.  Robin Morgan basically said "finally we'd get to address the dual problems of racism and sexism by giving African American women much deserved voices.  But since they didn't vote for Our Girl, goodbye to...."

I've stood up for second wavers for so long, while I identify mostly as a third waver.  But this primary has truly opened my eyes.  It's a white women only movement that I want nothing to do with.

I'm in solidarity with all women.  Including black women.  If that makes me a traitor to my gender or whatever, so be it.

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:52PM | 0 recs
I guess that makes my daughters "4th

wave", but I hope they never even learn the label.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-30 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Empowerment

mijita, I hear a lot of pain in this comment, and I am sorry for it. Many AA women do support Hillary. And they do so because they feel that the abuse they took as women outweighed the abuse they took for their race.  That said the deep divisions between white and AA women over feminism is something that will not be laid to rest for a long time. AA women have to struggle with a choice I never did--the choice as to which oppression should take precedence. Race or Sex. [I do struggle  as well over my class background.] But I have never condemned AA women who chose race first. I don't think it is my place to do that. And frankly, I don't think Hillary does either. More than any other person in this contest I have seen her address the issue of identify politics and she has come down on the side of it's ok. Now, in case I haven't pissed you off totally yet--there is no third wave--just a bunch of kids reaping the benefit of the second wave thinking because they don't have to struggle so hard that they make up some new movement. The  actual third wave will come along a couple of generations from now, just like the second wave did after the first. And that wave will reinvent the wheel just like we did because discrimination towards women is enduring and powerful and comes back stronger than ever. If you haven't read Backlash yet by Susan Faludi, I recommend it.

by linfar 2008-05-30 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Empowerment

The fact you don't even know what the third wave is speaks volumes.  The third wave was and is a movement that came out of the early 1980s and was/ is lead by women of color, largely lesbian -- women like Audre Lorde, Gloria Anzaldua, Cherrie Moraga, bell hooks, Maxine Hong Kingston.   Women who were explicitely and implicitely excluded by the second wave.

The third wave of feminism a movement against essentializing oppression by race, gender, sexuality or class but rather addresses them all at their source(s).

I'm 40 and by no means represent the oldest part of the third wave.  That you see us as spoiled kids reaping the benefits of those who came before us offensive and inaccurate.  What the third wave is is feminism of women of color.  That we remain invisible to you is sad.  

Where have you been the last 25 years?  Still clinging to your copy of "Sisterhood is Powerful"?

by mijita 2008-05-30 03:13PM | 0 recs
Puncturing the illusion

I'm glad you wrote this diary, Linfar, there's an emotional honesty here which is telling and true

One day we'll all look back on this and realise - these primary wars were a titanic struggle for the soul of the nation, and the last manifestation of the culture and identity wars of the  60s-90s.

When you say

But Clinton is Me

I actually believe you completely. You've a total emotional identification with her public life, her struggle. I've got this from the beginning, and it's played out in every poll indicating massive support for Hillary consistently in her own demographic: women over 50.

But here lies the first problem. We don't vote for icons. We vote for politicians. Representative democracy is ultimately about reason, not emotion.

And the second problem is the hate for Obama. I've never had a problem with avid Hillary support. Positive diaries have never offended me. What is fascinating is that by identifying with Hillary, many of her vocal supporters here identify Obama as the enemy

Of course he isn't. He's ultimately an ally in the same party. But this hatred of Obama speaks to the other side of excessive identification with one candidate. Hillary is you, everything you love. In this binary universe of emotional attachments, in this near oedipal triangle, Obama becomes the Other, the intruder, the usurper, the violent violating male.

That's the danger of these mythological struggles, and inevitably they have played out in this campaign, with race and gender vitiating the competition between these two formidable democratic candidates.

But they are human beings. They are not symbols. Hillary is no witch or demon (as some psychologically challenged supporters of Obama have maintained). And if your attuned to the sexism and god know what else projected on her, please be aware of the other problematic emotional material projected on Obama.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that Hillary represents a whole generation of women who have struggled and waited for power. They have been let down many times in their lives, but more than anything, they have been let down by their partners.

There you go. I've said. I think a lot of anger towards Obama is an oblique blowback from all those years dealing with Bill.

But this gets us nowhere...

We have to get beyond identification towards something else. Representative politics. Reason. Debate. Flawed human beings. And self knowledge of our own historic prejudices.

by duende 2008-05-30 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Puncturing the illusion

Well, I was with you for awhile :) I am glad you get the identification. But I need to make something crystal clear. I Do Not Hate Obama. This is exactly what I describe in the diary. I like Hillary and I do think she would be a better Pres. I have made a choice. It doesn't mean I hate the other guy. But Ob ama supporters always seem to think it does.  I have also  posted forever it seems  about the way the fact of a woman President would be extraordinary. It would be monumental. I won't vote for a woman just because she is a wopman. So Hillary is like A Once IN A LIfetime Phenom. She can do it! As for Obama, I dunno. I have had some real issues develop in the course of the campaign--nothing to do with bill tho :)

by linfar 2008-05-30 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Puncturing the illusion

Fair enough. If you don't hate Obama, then the second part of my post is less relevant. But there are some to whom love for Hillary is balanced by a hatred for Obama.

But thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

by duende 2008-05-30 01:13PM | 0 recs
Depends on how long a lifetime ya' got

but I hope not. I have two very bright daughters growing up, and while I wouldn't wish Presidency on either of them (nor my son), I hope in their lifetimes things like Presidencies reflect the flat demographic numbers that represent their country.

I'm 43.  Assuming I get another 40 years, there may be only five more presidents, so the sample size remains small in absolute terms.  But I would hope not only that there is a female president in there somewhere, but (a truly unlikely goal) a non-Christian.  But these things have more to do with who runs for the office than my personal desire for us to set precedents, so while there seems a good chance I will see a woman in the White House, I fear we will be a Christian-dominated country by all measures as I draw my last breath.

Anyway, I do appreciate the identifying with Sen. Clinton - not only the first truly viable female presidential candidate but one who all expectations had been set in advance (mine included) to win.  I feel (deep down below my support for Sen. Obama) a similar twinge as the deep disappointment I felt as a young man watching Ferraro fade from her potential precedent setting.

So I understand the emotions, but as above I still don't see the sexism or racism behind the current state of the race.

-best

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-30 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Puncturing the illusion

Excellent analysis, duende.  A symbolic recommendation.  

One point - Obama has been consciously anti-identity politics, and that's consistent with his theme of unity.  Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped people from attributing identity politics to him, mostly indirectly through deceptively conflating Obama's views with people with whom he has associated with - Reverend Wright, for example.  

It also hasn't stopped some people like Geraldine Ferraro from just making up stuff and accusing Obama of being a sexist and reverse racist without any real basis for such strong allegations.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-30 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Puncturing the illusion

Couldn't agree more. Identity politics is dead, thank goodness. We can see where it leads to, for example a so called feminist who posts regularly on this site  flagrantly announcing a bounty for tapes of Michelle Obama...

Identity politics means we end up salami slicing ourselves.

by duende 2008-05-30 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Puncturing the illusion

Okay, reading that was scary.  If that isn't an expression of strong hate for Obama, I don't know what is.  

To me, it's also very disconcerting that the push back on Obama by some extremists is racial in nature.  TexasDarlin makes some broad brush generalizations about the black churchgoers at Trinity Church as a reason for not supporting Obama, based on seeing a few 30 second clips of sermons held there and perhaps based on perusing the church's website.  

What's most discouraging is that that blogger still actively wants to dig up "dirt" on Barack and Michelle to prove that they hate white people, even though I assume she's a democrat.  If she's a republican, then I can understand why she'd want to find dirt on the Obamas, but couldn't understand that behavior from a fellow democrat, unless she really does believe Obama is lying about his unity and post-racial message and would become President Malcolm X if elected into office.  I just hope that her sentiments do not reflect the views of many others.
 

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-30 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

So how can a woman do anything but conclude that he is no friend of women's rights?
With great ease.

by juliewolf 2008-05-30 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

You'd have to go out of your way to conclude that he's no friend to women's rights.

by Jess81 2008-05-30 02:54PM | 0 recs
So sad.

Do you think sexism is a joke? There are women in this country who actually feel real effects from sexism. They work every day with less pay because of their gender. They are sexual harassed because of their gender.

Sure, Hillary's lost some votes because of sexism. You could even make the argument that there are just as many sexists as racists that allowed it to effect their vote.

But to claim that everything is about sexism. To claim that Obama is sexist. To claim that Hillary Clinton, embedded in the political establishment and who walked into this as the heir apparent, struggled throughout her campaign because of her gender should be insulting to women.

Stop using sexism as a crutch to attack Obama and his supporters. It doesn't advance any causes. All it does is attempt to rip the party apart because of your own selfishness.

Obama has lost support among women because of Hillary Clinton. She had a lot of support among women, for obvious reasons. She claims sexism, and peels of his support. Its that simple.

Enough already.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-30 01:42PM | 0 recs
I must be blind

Because I have seen little sexism and little racism in this entire campaign.

I have seen:

a lot of discussion of sexism and racism
a lot of accusations of sexism and racism
a lot of discussion of gender and race

But very little of anything that I would point to and say "that is sexist/racist!".

I lost my rec/rate because I got sick of the whole debate and TRed everyone who accused anyone of either.

Not being either female or non-white maybe I am not atuned to it when it happens.  Maybe I'm not over-sensitive to anything that can be read as sexist or racist so I don't jump to those conclusions.  Maybe I'm just blind.

It's not that I have never thought about these things.  I've argued against both of these things extensively in public and private - I have been publicly attacked by actual unapologetic racists (two White Supremacist leaders and their cronies) and had my physical address tracked down by them.  

I've asked these questions about this primary race of women and black folks and gotten both "yes" and "no" answers in both cases to both charges. Both candidates have women and black folks supporting them fervently at all levels of their campaigns.  I would think that the women supporting Obama and the black folks supporting Clinton would flee en-masse if these accusations were overtly true.

My biases I have stated many many times - I have liked Obama for years, I have not been fond of Clinton for longer.  Still, I had not expected Obama to be viable and he has proven me wrong, I had expected Clinton to be viable and had expected to vote for her.

Maybe being raised by non-sexist non-racist parents I don't have the memes in my head to help me recognize the subtler forms of sexism and racism that incense others.  I don't know why I don't see what others do, unless my supposition that the hints of both have been blown completely out of proportion is correct.

Frankly, imho I think that if both these candidates were the same (white men, black women, black men, white women) the results would be the same as they are today.  If you were race and gender-blind and just looked at the campaign strategies that were executed (I understand, she was First Lady and he is in fact half black, so it's not entirely possible to extract), I think that the current state of race would not be at all surprising.

But maybe I am just blind.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-30 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

Linfar's comments about Obama refer to Obama's campaign, which has been one of the most divisive and hateful in recent memory.  All you have to do is read the vitriol from Obama's hateful gang of blogger-thugs. Anyone who thinks that Obama is in this to "unite" isn't paying attention and certainly hasn't done his homework. He is a power-hungry garden-variety dirty Chicago pol, fully sponsored by the Chicago mob - uh, er - machine.

The "unity talk" is just that - he has agitated, divided and conquered to get where he is - he learned well the lessons of his training in the "Saul Alinsky Method" during his short stint as a "community organizer."  He's the same "uniter not a divider" model as Bush, in a different flavor.

Americans are finally paying attention - they are catching on to the mismatch between Obama's lofty words and his actual deeds, record, and choice of associates

by Informed in Illinois 2008-05-30 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]
I strongly object to this base anti-frog comment.
by french imp 2008-05-30 02:11PM | 0 recs
Hillary is me

HRC has been playing identity politics this whole primary season.  AND ONCE YOU ADMIT IT - THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM.

Hillary 'since I was a little girl' Clinton has played WOMEN-identity politics the whole primary season.  So?

Well, that speaks to my point: BO cannot play identity politics because he is a black male and 60% of the Democratic primary electorate is female and less than 25% of the Democratic primary electorate is black.

So, when HRC continually played identity politics it virtually forced some of her followers into thinking that BO was 'against them' and 'anti-female'.  I really, really think that part of the evangelical zeal of HRC's supporters stems from this identity politics and HRC has continually stoked their fires.  It also explains the whole 'with us or against us' mentality of the Hillis44 crowd.

I have NEVER doubted that the media is sexist.  Chris Matthews is exhibit A and Olbermann is pretty damned biased as well.  BUT, that said, I also believe the HRC campaign had a huge hand in that.  When the primary season started and the HRC campaign was in 'inevitability' mode, I really did not see that much sexism.  However, as time went by and as HRC started to use some of the more 'stretched' versions of the truth such as:

'I have the most votes';
'Florida and Michigan should get punished' to 'we MUST stop those voters from being disenfranchised!';
'2025 is the magic number' to '2269 - or whatever number they said - is the REAL number'

And continually parroted these lines, Olbermann (especially) got a little bit pissed off at the HRC campaign.  

So, when I got angry at the HRC campaign for pissing on my leg and telling me it was raining, combined with her identity politics, I voiced my opinion.  However, my opinion was construed as NOT ONLY ANTI-HRC BUT ANTI-WOMAN thus festering this sexism sore that really wasn't at the core of my anger.

by yankeeinmemphis 2008-05-30 02:19PM | 0 recs
"None of us . . . hate Obama"?

Really?  

And yet the diarist promotes this diary at Hillaryis44, saying "great post" to a diary that calls Obama

a Big Media tool Chicago thug who has used sexism, race-baiting, and gay-bashing to trash Hillary and her supporters in order to implement a vision of the Democratic Party which we find repugnant

Here's another part of what this darist calls a "great post":
Obama, his allies, and his ugly vision for the Democratic Party must be fought and defeated - only then will there be an opportunity for "healing" - however long it takes - however many election cycles are required.

Another sign of a "great post"?
Hillary supporters are not going to fall into the "healing" or "unity" trap.

These were all in bold in the original, so it's highly unlikely the diarist overlooked them.  

Now, where would we ever get the idea that some Hillary supporters hate Obama?  Why, that's crazy talk!  

by kellogg 2008-05-30 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

One of the most upsetting things to me that came from this  campaign season was the millionaire PAc, WomenCount's nerve putting out messaging stating that all women's voices were supposedly squelched (51%). I am not powerless. I am not a victim. They do not speak for me. I voted in my state for Obama. It was a vote I cast with conviction -- a careful choice I made based on reason and logic, not gender, race or emotion. The reason Hillary is losing is she ran a strategy that overlooked the possibility of any real competition. She is not losing because she is a woman and to suggest otherwise sets women back.

by grasshopper 2008-05-30 02:54PM | 0 recs
With respect

I haven't really heard much from Hillary where she defended Obama from racist commenters.  

by ottto 2008-05-30 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

linfar...
what Democratic candidate will you support after 6/3?

Perhaps I have missed your commitment...

by nogo postal 2008-05-30 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

Punch the frog? Nah.
Spank the monkey? Well, I'm not gonna lie...

Boycott the silly? Oh, yes. That's a BIG 10-4.

by xdem 2008-05-30 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

"Barack Obama had the opportunity to say that Father  Pfegler was out of line in his remarks about Hillary. He had the same opportunity with the Rev. Wright. He had the opportunity to take the high road and condemn MSNBC for Schuster's remarks that  Hillary was "pimping out" her daughter. He never did. Not once."

Okay, I've heard versions of this argument before, and I still don't get it.  It's as if Obama is being held responsible for every negative thing said about Clinton by other people.  He's already condemned Wright and Pfegler.  I can kind of understand that.  

But, why would Obama have to condemn David Shuster's remarks in order to prove that he isn't sexist or doesn't care about women's issues?  Must he condemn every single sexist or perceived sexist remark uttered by any journalist?  Must he also condemn Chris Matthews says something stupid about gender?

Aside from the extreme rhetoric, I do think the good thing about the raising of gender issues is that Obama is making that a more explicit part of his campaign.  I'm fine with it and wish he had done it earlier.  It's just too bad that rhetoric about sexism has been so overheated that a lot of white women democrats do in fact perceive Obama as an enemy of sorts who must now somehow prove he's not a sexist by condemning the remarks of people with whom he has no association with at all.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-30 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

"She is Everywoman."

well..maybe not..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCYFpUAJ 2Q

by nogo postal 2008-05-30 03:10PM | 0 recs
Obama hate: the "scum" category

Hillaryis44 has an active tag category called "Scum."  That's right.  Scum.  It's "Category 9" in their list of tags:

http://www.hillaryis44.org/?cat=9

There have been 12 posts with the "scum" tag in May alone.  Every one of those 12 posts was about Obama.

FYI, the first ten tags on Hillaryis44:

1. Hillary

  1. not found
  2. Edwards
  3. not found
  4. Healthcare
  5. Iraq
  6. Obama
  7. Polls
  8. Scum
  9. Fundraising

Ranked in terms of number of posts in May, it goes:

Hillary (34)
Obama (26)
Scum (12)
Fundraising (2)
Edwards (1)
Healthcare (0)
Iraq (0)
Polls (0)
Republicans (0)

On Hillaryis44, "sum" is a popular tag.  And it's applied to Obama but not, interestingly, to Republicans.  

by kellogg 2008-05-30 03:14PM | 0 recs
sick twisted ugly disgusting analogy about cruelty
to animals. pathetic.
like this diary. like the diarist's absolute seething bitter hatred towards barack obama.
what?
did you think anyone could not just click on your history here?
did you not thing your racist hard core rants against obama on hilliary is 44 were private or something?
the title of this diary is beyond despicable.
yeah. like the contents themselves.
by TheFullBerry 2008-05-30 03:17PM | 0 recs
You get props

While I don't necessary agree with the content of your diary, you get props for one of the more intriguing titles that I've seen on this blog in a while.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-30 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Punching the Frog [Update]

But Clinton is Me. There I have said it. My identity with her is way beyond politics.  It is absolute. She is Everywoman.

This is where your flaw is. It's great to have heros, but it's so risky to have them be your political candidates. You will not find solace in this route. You've created a god out of her, and there's no way our political process will allow a happy ending to come out of this. And it skews your perspective. Everyone has flaws, and the best candidate doesn't always win. Being this emotionally invested in a candidate serves no good purpose.

detach!

by Metrobot 2008-05-30 03:57PM | 0 recs
How many women will be in his cabinet?

Likely at least this one:
Dr. Susan Rice
http://www.nysun.com/national/meet-obama s-tenacious-take-charge-dr-rice/70254/

I expect Samantha Powers will return to the administration.

It is fairly uncontroversial that the media has demonstrated a disgusting level of sexism in this campaign season, as well as an unfair amount of general anti-Clinton bias. However, the attempts to tar Obama as sexist are unwarranted. Though we would all appreciate his taking a more active step to denounce sexism in the campaign, and give greater attention to women's issues, it seems that Hilary is the more marked failure on both of those fronts.

I guess I'm just disappointed that a woman who was nearly our next President decided to invoke the cause of the suffragettes, but felt she could leave registering new female voters largely up to her supporters' independent efforts.

by anku 2008-05-30 04:00PM | 0 recs
Sexism? Racism?

Is he a magic negro?
Is he secretly a muslim?
Is he black enough?
Is he too black?
Did he go to a Madrassas?
Wright?
Ayers?

Hillary has not had to face one 1/100th as much sexism as Obama has racism. Sorry--but it's the truth.

You can point to all the Hillary Clinton nutcrackers which were apparently sold in some airport giftshop briefly, but the fact is that 60% of the Democratic electorate are female. Being female has only helped Hillary Clinton.

She's had an easy time of it, and this constant whining about imaginary sexism, unfortunately, just plays into negative sexual stereotypes.

Get over it. She lost because she ran a campaign based on smoke and mirrors. She claimed "experience" she didn't have--she gave an excuse for her Iraq war vote that insulted the intelligence of all Americans--she tried a purely BS semantic argument against Obama's UHC plan--she made up fantasy stories about "ducking under sniper fire" when she's never in her life been shot at--she pandered to voters about the gas tax and most people, thankfully, saw through it--she ran a campaign of hubris and expected to have it all sewn up by Feb. 5th.

And now that she's lost... of course the only explanation is sexism.

Right.

by Mystylplx 2008-05-30 06:44PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads