The Latest In The Malign Acceptance of Sexism: The Strawman Deflection

In the continuing rationalization of the malign acceptance of sexism, the latest version is the deflection -- the knocking down of a strawman argument - the unmade argument that Hillary Clinton may lose because of sexism. I have seen no one, I mean no one, make such an argument. Indeed, it is absurd to argue it. Hillary Clinton is winning white men in droves now. That is one of the concerns that smart Dem political thinkers are addressing now. But some people do not want to talk about THAT.

People like Scot Lehigh need this strawman to justify their behavior - his malign acceptance of the sexism seen in this campaign. He writes:

People are right to decry boorish anti-Clinton comments, offensive jokes, and the bilge, bile, and billings-gate of the talk-radio blowhards, as well as occasional over-the-top utterances from cable commentators. But let's not mistake the Bruegelian sideshow for the political mainstream. Even allowing for all that stupidity, the notion that sexism is primarily to blame for Clinton's woes doesn't pass logical muster.

(Emphasis supplied.) In order to justify the fact that people like Scot Lehigh did NOT decry the systemic sexism and misogyny that we have seen in this campaign (that's someone else's job in Lehigh's construct. He is here to tear down Hillary Clinton), Lehigh invents a "notion" that no one has ever forwarded. This is the latest form of the malign acceptance of sexism. It is just as offensive as what we have seen before.

Lehigh's column is ridiculous. He imagines arguments that WOULD be made but never were. He rebuts explanations that were never offered. All in an effort to diminish the very real problem of sexism, and the malign acceptance of it by the likes of Scot Lehigh.

In the end, Scot Lehigh does not want to hear about the sexism, does not want to address it, wants the issue to be forgotten. In order to deflect the issue, he creates a false narrative. It is just the latest form of the malign acceptance of sexism.

< Poor Poor Hillary? | Pew Poll: Media Should Not Declare the Race Over >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Following in the footsteps (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM EST

    It seems like you can always count on him to be wrong. . .

    the main player of the race card (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM EST
    at daily kos has a lot of nerve writing that diary.

    It Also (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by The Maven on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    demonstrates a fundamentally naïve view as to what Obama is actually all about (unless one blindly accepts the circular reasoning that Obama strongly supports progressive views because certain self-described progressives support Obama).  The laundry list presented there is laughable for its strawman points.

    Hyperbole and hypocrisy are the core principles of far too many of Obama's online supporters, who are contributing in no small part to the ill-will that threatens to damage their favored candidate in the general election.


    I'm trying to guage (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    if they were getting specific talking points blast faxed and conspiring with the media or what.

    I recall with Horror how Rachel Maddow want from being pro-Clinton to Pro-Obama as soon as she got the Analyst Moniker on MSNBC.


    Well, I Know (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by The Maven on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:27:08 AM EST
    of at least several diarists over at Orangeland who were officially affiliated (as precinct captains and volunteers, to the best of my knowledge) with the Obama campaign in New Hampshire, Nevada, Texas, etc.  Make of that what you will.

    As for folks in the more traditional media, let's just say that we've certainly seen over the duration of the Bush Administration how lazy and accepting they can be in essentially parroting "news" releases.  That they'd do much the same for Obama isn't really a surprise, then, just another severe disappointment.


    Agree, I couldn't believe that she was serious (none / 0) (#58)
    by yourkidding on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:03:53 PM EST
    Just became a rabid member of the nasty boys club that is MSNBC.

    Let's translate (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by lefty lawyer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    "there, there, dearie, your turn will come.  Be patient.  Vote for our guy and maybe next time, we'll think about voting for the girl.  But only if she behaves properly.  Run along, now."



    And this one (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    Clinton's Sexism Dodge referring to the same article and talking about the "militant feminist behaviors coming from Ms. Clinton's campaign and supporters..."  I asked the diarist for some specific examples, but haven't heard back yet.

    Yesterday, on Morning Joe, the producer read an email calling out misogyny and Mika was incredibly dismissive, actually tossing a newspaper onto the desk (which had, I assume, an op-ed or some piece she didn't like).

    The defensiveness from various places is very interesting to watch.


    Sexism is to blame (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    not for Clinton's election results, but for the general dismissive attitude towards women's concerns in general.

    It's hard to support Obama when he apparently doesn't support women.  It's almost impossible to associate with Obama supporters who overflow with condescension and misogyny.

    I almost expect to hear:

    "Oh, honey.  You know we didn't really mean it.  We were just having fun!  What's wrong with you?  Can't you take a joke(/political rivalry)?   Come on, and give us a hug.  We're still friends(/Democrats), right?   We're in this together.  We just need to work past this.   Okay, I'm sorry.  I didn't really mean those things I said.  What? I apologized!  Isn't that good enough for you?  Well, forget it then.  Go.  Go on, get out of here.  We don't need you anyway."

    I'm lousy at predicting electoral results, but I'll predict this is what Some People will say.  (/are saying.)


    odd (none / 0) (#38)
    by proudliberaldem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    that hillary clinton isn't even in the second column (it starts with bill clinton), while barack obama is at the top of the first column.  But no, it couldn't be sexism. /snark

    I can think of few people (none / 0) (#40)
    by spit on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    I would less like to see lecturing women about what is and isn't sexism.

    Also, his list of the other attributes of the two candidates is startlingly naive. I hope he doesn't actually believe his own BS on that front.


    Sexism the source (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    BTD I have a great deal of respect for you.  But doing a collective sexism blame I feel absolves the Obama campaign of two things.  First using race to purposefully malign the Clinton's and second the intentional demonization of the Clintons by the campaign, the party, the MSM, the intelligentsia and the netroots.  

    I truly feel that this is equal to the march up to the Iraq war.  I have seen the same blind acceptance of Obama as a candidate without any real questioning.  Shameful.  

    That is your view (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    but it does not, even if you believe that, negate the point I am making in this post.

    I just don't think it was (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    amorphous sexism absolves the intent of how it was used in this campaign to gain advantage.  

    How hard is this (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by lefty lawyer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    to understand?  Starting before the South Carolina primary, someone in the Clinton campaign would sneeze, and four Barack Obama spinners were on MSNBC crying racism.  The black vote went from somewhere between 3-2 and 2-1 for Obama to 9-1.  Obama folks claim this was because of the racism of the Clinton campaign.  This got absorbed as gospel by the blogs.  The idea that Hillary Clinton is a racist is ridiculous.  It was concocted by Barack Obama's spin machine and ultimately, all we can say is that he made racism work for him and he's winning.

    Sexism, however, was out and rampant from the beginning of the campaign, for all the reasons Marie Cocco wrote about and a whole lot more besides.  Nobody, not one person, from the Clinton campaign or the media, ever whined about sexism (except maybe the patronizing "you're all right" comment, which arguably was simply patronizing and not sexist).

    Nobody is claiming that Clinton lost because of sexism.  What they are doing is pointing out the overt and clear sexism of the messages and the ideas that floated through the campaign from day 1, without a peep of protest from anyone.

    It's pretty clear that this notion strikes a nerve with the Obama folks, because they're arguing about everything except the fundamental point.  Telling.

    although (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    women have the sheer numbers to counter it by voting for her. So it's strange seeing this lockstep AA vote occur and then see no opposite reaction among female voters.  Some of the most vitriolic attacks on Clinton on the blogs have come from females posters and diarists.

    Classic Rovian 'Stragery' (none / 0) (#20)
    by gaf on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    Attack the person on his strength & not weakness.

    Bush vs Kerry
    Bush - draft dodger
    Kerry - War hero.

    Kerry's war credentials were supposed to be his strength. Even at the convention, Kerry came in a boat & said "Reporting for duty, sir" or something like that. Within months, the republicans were able to convert it into his weakness with the swiftboating. The idea being even if people don't believe the swiftboating, at the very least, the war credentials no longer remain a strength.

    Obama vs Clinton

    Race Relations were Bill & Hillary's strength. If there was no black candidate, one could have bet that Hillary would taken a huge percentage of Black votes in the primary. Even with a black candidate, it was assumed that Hillary would have some support amongst African-Americans - God Damn it - Bill was the called the "First Black President". So this was Hillary's strength.

    After the swiftboating of Hillary, it had the same effect as on Kerry.


    'Strategery' not 'Stragery' <NT/> (none / 0) (#22)
    by gaf on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    'Strategery' not 'Stragery' <NT/> (none / 0) (#23)
    by gaf on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    here is Kerry's flaw (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    he wanted to be  warrior and peace protestor.

    it's a typically noble thing, but it's also deeply odd to try to benefit from your status as both.


    Kerry wasn't really a peace (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    protester, he was an anti-Vietnam war protester.  There were many soldiers and ex-soldiers in the anti-war movement then, as there are now.

    Kerry was an actual political hero then.  VVAW (Vietnam Vets Against the War) was a jaw-droppingly wonderful and effective organization when it came on the scene.


    he tried to take credit (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    for two almost incompatable things.

    African American Vote (none / 0) (#39)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:26 PM EST
    She had the African American vote until the South Carolina primary.  In North Carolina where Obama won handily, a black man running for the U.S. Senate, Marcus Williams, lost to a white woman, Kay Hagan.  Obama won with about 879,166 votes.  Hagan won with about 800, 647 votes, while Williams lost with 165, 712 votes.  This clearly showed that African Americans did not merely vote on the basis of race.  In fact the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People endorsed Hagan over Williams.  Historians will have an interesting story to tell!

    Running the Campaign (none / 0) (#43)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    She lost because the men running her campaign didn't know how to run her as a female candidate.

    i have a much simpler (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by cpinva on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    explanation for mr. lehigh's column:

    he's an idiot.

    Hear, hear cpinva....Makes Them Feel Better (none / 0) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:45:36 AM EST
    about their candidate, because many of them have
    to know obama is not a viable candidate.  I want to hope there is at least a whit of honesty on that side.

    A campaign of two halves. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    sexism was a factor in the early primaries and then it wasn't in the later primaries.

    She adapted and transcended a lot of bad stuff.

    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    Just, thank you, so much.

    Well, he leads in (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by lilburro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    by misstating Clinton's electoral argument anyway.  She may end up with the popular vote lead, first of all.  But she also is pressing the swing state argument.

    Although I agree the main point of the article is dumb, Lehigh draws attention to a salient fact.  A white woman is doing better with white working class voters than either Obama or Edwards.  Now, why is that?  Is it really just race???  C'mon.

    McCain has built his campaign on (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lilburro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    misogyny.  "How are we going to beat the b#tch?"  McCain went there very early when agreeing with that statement.  His supporters have no qualms with sexism.  I am confident McCain will reveal futher layers of sexism and racism as his campaign goes on...because that's just who he is.

    You probably know about this one:  McCain calls wife a c**t

    My only ish with Michelle is that she undercut Hillary with the "if you can't take care of your own house, how are you going to take care of the White House" line.  She's in an awkward position, trying to beat a possible female president.  

    If Hillary isn't the nominee, McCain gets to whistle innocently and seem like the good guy.  But I'm sure his happiness in embracing sexism will take the spotlight again.  Esp if Hillary is the VP.

    I will argue sexism has made a difference (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Foxx on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    Do we really think this constant disrespect and denigration, along with the bias towards her male opponent, has had no effect on her candidacy? That would be naive.

    People in general find it hard to think well of someone others disrespect. And women in particular, when they see another woman attacked, are frightened. They think it will happen to them, especially if they support her.

    Hillary's numbers would be higher if there were no sexism.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    They think it will happen to them, especially if they support her.

    Um, right.  Like it doesn't happen to us already?
    Like it won't happen to us if we are good little girls and vote for the man who is quite content to be quiet about the sexist attacks his opponent is taking?

    Maybe that's Obama's reasoning?  "Oh, I'd love to step in and defend Hillary against these blatantly sexist attacks, some of from my own delegates - BUT I'm terrified that they might go after me next!".

    Yeah, that must be it.  Obama would stand up for Clinton if only his knees would stop shaking.

    Thanks for portraying women as weak and fearful.  We appreciate it.  And we'll be sure to demonstrate our gratitude with every request for money and volunteer hours and votes. "Oh, I'd LOVE to - I'm just AFRAID I don't have the time, money or vote to spare right now.".


    Ummm (none / 0) (#54)
    by Foxx on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    Not sure where the hostility is coming from.

    So why do you think so many women, including "feminists," support Obama and are sexist towards Hillary? I don't see any point in denying that male violence affects women, that is its purpose. It's called terrorism. If it didn't affect us, we'd be running the world!

    My name is a clue to my gender.


    That would be Vixxen, not Foxx. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    What shared bigotry does is create an social acceptability for actions that wouldn't be acceptable in an objective context.

    As for "feminist", I suspect that people don't agree with what a "feminist" is.  I've argued that if Monica Lewinski wanted to be a groupie and engage in consensual sexual acts with Bill Clinton, that is a perfectly feminist thing to do.  So long as it was her own choice, that's my definition of feminism.  There is no "unacceptable" choice for a woman to make, so long as she makes it freely.  I think that there are some "feminists" who still think some things are "unacceptable" for women to do even if they choose to.

    Like it's great for a woman to do anything she wants, as long she doesn't show up any men in the process.  That kind of thinking.   I think that's part of what we are seeing now.  Hillary is great, so long as she doesn't make any men look bad.  


    This is (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:51:14 AM EST
    why we're leaving the party. It's why we won't vote for Obama. The sad thing is that McCain has actually been nicer to Hillary overall than Obama and his surrogates.

    People have voiced their concerns to the DNC but it has been met with crickets.

    Thanks for trying and I really do appreciate your effort but it's gone on too long and the excuses that do come are way too flimsy.

    For all of us who find the idea (none / 0) (#16)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    of voting for McCain, should the DNC remain on its current path, a difficult thing to do, there seems to be a rising swell of women who are "going Green" with Cynthia McKinney. Many of us do not have the option of writing Hillary in.  This choice may still give us McCain as President, but we will have supported a party with a platform that represents us. See here. I know that Jeralyn and BTD will be supporting Obama should he get the nomination, and I respect that decision.  I can't follow down that path, though. I struggled too hard for too long for women's rights to let the DNC trivialize us.  This is the line in the sand for me.  

    Because of the focus of this blog. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    I will not say what I will or will not do come November.

    I will say that "All options are on the table."


    McCain and women's rights? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Lora on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    Voting for McCain is a vote against women's rights.

    I'm expecting to see a full court press out (none / 0) (#19)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    of the McCain campaign to get the votes of women who were offended by Obama's sexism. McCain is a charming guy and he uses his charm to easily invade the territory of the opposition. How many politicians do as well on the Daily Show as he does? Very few. And he's capable of getting a laugh at Stewart's expense. He's gonna turn that on and come after women's votes. And considering his wife as opposed to Obama's wife - well, Cindy's going to be an effective weapon for him.

    Cindy's not a weapon. (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    She is completely (IMO) uninteresting.  I think women would be more interested in Michelle Obama than Cindy McCain.  And McCain has a rather ugly personal history with women.  And a politics that hurts women's interests.  

    Unless Obama further sets up a "screw Obama!" vote that wants to choose McCain over him, I don't think McCain will net many Clinton voters based on gender.


    Michelle (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    is a huge turnoff. She has a boulder on her shoulder and the GOP plans to use her in numerous 527 ads. How anyone could think that she's an asset is beyond me.

    Michelle's said some dumb stuff (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lilburro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    but by the standards of this campaign, Cindy McCain is just way too dull.  I think Michelle has more positive things to work with come the GE; her lovely family, her talent and career, etc.  Cindy is basically a non-character in this election, IMO.

    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    we'll just have to disagree on that one. Michelle comes off as arrogant which Cindy doesn't.

    Minority and Strong willed women (none / 0) (#61)
    by bison on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:36:47 AM EST
    Many minority and strong willed women see themselves in her.

    African Americans put Kate Hagan over the top. (none / 0) (#41)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    This is a repeat, but I want to share with you once again that African Americans were instrumental in securing the nomination for a white female candidate in North Carolina.
    In NC where Obama won handily, a black man running for the U.S. Senate, Marcus Williams, lost to a white woman, Kay Hagan.  Obama won with about 879,166 votes.  Hagan won with about 800, 647 votes, while Williams lost with 165, 712 votes.  This clearly showed that African Americans did not merely vote on the basis of race.  In fact the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People endorsed Hagan over Williams.  
    Let's not burn bridges!

    I have no complaints about how African (none / 0) (#44)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    Americans vote. I have issues with Obama's campaign, and the treatment the Clinton campaign has received from him, his supporters and the media.

    O.K. (none / 0) (#50)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    O.K.  gotcha--but his campaign registered many of those AA voters that put her over the top and they will come out for her in the November-- as well as other female candidates.  There is a white female candidate for governor.  I believe we are going to have more Democratic female elected officials. We may lose the presidency, but we may win the poitical landscape.  There is a little silver in the clouds!

    I think you're not accurate there. (none / 0) (#51)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    I haven't seen any evidence that Obama has brought any new voters to the table. I hear it, but I haven't seen it. Regardless, I won't vote for him if he's the nominee, and I probably won't vote for any downticket races. So, if you're trying to mollify Clinton supporters with this stuff, it won't work.

    Bev Perdue and Tracey Cline (none / 0) (#62)
    by bison on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    I have to retrive that exact number of new registered voters for NC for you, but along with Kay Hagan, Bev Perdue won the Democratic Governor's race and Tracey Cline won the Durham County District Attorney race.  All three were endorse by the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.  I am concern about the down ticket as well as who is at the top of the ticket.  Some of the down ticket people, I have to deal with on a daily basis.

    McCain not your friend (none / 0) (#56)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    If McCain is your friend, you are friendless. McCain is not your friend. McCain is a right-winger, he truly is.  If you blog on this cite, he doesn't share your interest.  Helped with the swiftboating of Kerry.  He did not speak out vigorously on the behalf another veteran. He said a little something and that was it.  He didn't go to the wall for a fellow vet.  He played politics with a veterans honor. The similarities between Bush and McCain are real.  This election about the future of theis nation.

    It's funny because (none / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    while some of these awful guffawing men say Clinton reminds every man of his first wife, Cindy McCain reminds an awful lot of us women of that most popular girl in high school we all hated.

    She may be a lovely person, but just the sight of her makes me flinch.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    yes she is the cheer leader queen bee type.

    Lehigh has written (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    many vile scornful columns on many subjects over the years.  That's what he does, scorn.  I've sent him more than a few angry emails.  He's long been the naked epitome of the worst of Washington media attitude.

    Sexism Might Decide an Election (none / 0) (#42)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    the one in November if the backlash among women voters continues to grow.  Rasmussen's latest poll says that 29% of democrats want Clinton to do a third party run if she loses the nomination.  I don't pay for the crosstabs, but I'm willing to be a lot of those folks are women.

    The refusal of party leaders and other liberals with microphones against misogyny - and the need for some to deny its existence - only alienates women voters further.  It's absolutely terrible for the party.  

    I was thinking the other day what would've happened if Hillary Clinton had condescendingly dismissed an African-American reporter by calling him boy.  There would've been screaming to high heaven.  Obama doing the same to a woman and calling her sweetie.  No big thing.  As Obama himself said in his apology, he calls "all kinds of people" that.  Of course, by "people" he means "women."  I don't see him calling Ted Kennedy or Al Sharpton that.  Yet, what do we get?  Stone silence.  

    I imagine he calls his daughters (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:42:37 PM EST

    Sweetie, Honey, Love (none / 0) (#46)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    I'm not dismissing the sweetie-- but boy and girl carries different kinds of baggage that have been proscribed in law, lynching, etc.   I must confess that I have used the term honey and I have allowed people in England to refer to me as love.  I see them as terms of endearment.  But I also know how sweetie and honey can undermine my womanhood.  There is much in our culture and language  that need to be changed, and we are moving there one baby step at a time starting with sweetie.

    It Was The Tone (none / 0) (#49)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    His remarks are worse if you watch the video because while it might be possible to be more condescending, you'd really have to work at it.  

    Gotcha! (none / 0) (#63)
    by bison on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:58:15 AM EST

    That's a joke, right? (none / 0) (#59)
    by yourkidding on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:13:45 PM EST
    If not, take thee to bed lest ye faint from the vapors.

    I deleted that insulting comment (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:13:21 AM EST
    to Michelle Obama.