home

Monday Morning Open Thread

To discuss what you like.

I do want to make a point that my concern (or the pejorative PC-ness) about sexism long predates what I saw in this campaign. See this 2005 post (one of a series) on Lawrence Summers' remarks on women in the sciences. I battled Andrew Sullivan's sexism then too.

BTW, I delete off topic comments in my non-Open thread posts. If you were wondering what happened to your brilliant comment.

This is an Open Thread.

< Hillary On Sexism And Misogyny In The Media | Luke Russert Talks About His Father >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not Over Yet (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM EST
    I was over on Kos then, too - and you are correct.  You did use your influence there to keep the Summers issue in the forefront of discussion.  I participated in many of those discussions, particularly as a woman in the sciences.  

    The campaign has illustrated the willing indifference on the part of many bloggers to a full progressive agenda - because then they would have to take gender issues seriously, rather than dismiss with ridicule and derision.

    I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Gabriele Droz on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    Larry Summers (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    After that incident, most of the men in my academic department (science) were on his side, and only said that he was stupid for saying these things out loud when he should have kept them to himself. You see, it wasn't bad that he THOUGHT those things about women, just that he said them out loud.

    One even said to me:  "But, you know, he's kind of right. You know - you have a little boy like me, and you must know that they instinctively gravitate towards math and science, it's just different for girls." There he was, surrounded by successful female scientists and engineers, and that's what he thought.

    Natural All Right (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    They instinctively gravitate?  And are urged and pushed and rewarded.  I've watched men in power eagerly clone themselves through their male graduate students.  

    It's as natural as partriarchy itself.

    It's a little like the 3rd base and hit a triple analogy - somehow I just woke up a Nobel Prize Winner! - ignoring all the encouragement of the fathers to their symbolic sons.

    And women - who?

     

    Parent

    We had a relative like that.. (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    thought little girls needed EZBake ovens, not chemistry sets. So he gave us one. We used it to bake the concoctions we put together with the chemistry set that our parents gave us. We managed to not burn down the house or explode anything, although some of the smells were memorable. Also a great way to inspire eating out. Let Dad come home to a house that smells like sulphur and brimstone and the first thing he wants to do is take us all out for dinner. Heh.

    We also made inks of interesting and varied colors, potato batteries, and lots of chemical compounds we never did figure out a use for. But we had fun, and ended up with a good basic understanding of how chemistry works. Thanks in part to an EZBake oven. So, give your daughters toy ovens, but be sure to give them the chemistry set to make the oven interesting. Heh.

    Parent

    My theoretical physics prof (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    husband was always proudest of his female students.  A male grad student tried to make a donation in honor of my husband.  But when I suggested the annual award (just a book) go to the top-ranking female student, the dept. managed to misplace the money in a general fund.

    My son was dearly loved, but never fully allowed to be himself (he was very good in physics).  The girls managed to butt heads more successfully with their dad, and the one granddaughter was adored.

    This may go back to being raised by a very determined widow.  Too bad he chose another very determined female as his wife!

    Parent

    got a cool new friend over the weekend (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    meet Marijuana the Arowana

    he (I use the term loosely since I really have no idea) is about 20 inches long but should be MUCH larger.


    I have a site to recommend (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    KITTIES!11!!!1!!

    It's a live video camera on a lioness and her four cubs in what I believe is a Norwegian zoo.

    Parent

    that's kewl (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    been haveing great fun (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    catching and feeding him bugs.

    Parent
    Ah, Boys Will Be Boys n/t (none / 0) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    And look what happened to Lawrence Summers (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nulee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    in the end...lost his job as Harvard's prez.

    Just underscores how important it is to blog about this, even when it seem like the sexism never goes away.  Slowly and steadily change for the better is taking effect.  I don't think the last chapter on the sexism in the Democratic primary has been written yet.

    Now ...Harvard has its 1st female (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    president....Drew Faust.

    Parent
    I had so much fun with that... (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    my dad is a Harvard graduate, who married a third generation feminist and had four daughters. He used to joke that he was a feminist too because he was outnumbered, 5-1. But in truth, he was a fair minded man who didn't see his daughters as the sort to take second place to anyone, including their husbands. When Larry Summers lost his job, I did mention it in passing, and he wondered why it took them so long to get rid of him after those remarks. But when they named the replacement, I got to call him and have a good chortle. I can't tell you how much fun it was to call him and tell him that the new Harvard president was a woman, with the name Dr. Faust. He roared with laughter, he appreciates a good joke. He also said that making a deal with the devil, or something similar, would be what it would have taken to get a woman in that position "back in the day". Then he said, "Isn't it nice that things have changed." He isn't following the campaign due to short term memory problems, but I know he would be as appalled by the sexism in it as I am. My sisters are Obama supporters and choose not to see the sexism. They all have daughters too, so they should know better.

    Parent
    Can Anyone Explain The Difference (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    between sexism and mysogyny?

    ( I have an IDEA, but want to hear other's opinions )

    2 Cents (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    I believe that misogyny animates sexism - the underlying antipathy is expressed in disparate and unequal treatment.

    Parent
    Per Miriam Webster (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    Sexism:  2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.   (boys are better at math, girls must be 'nice')

    Misogeny: a hatred of women (see Chris Matthews)


    Parent

    sexism vs misogyny (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    I remember when the debate here was w/ BTD being willing to call Kos sexist but not misogynist. I thought both because Kos's dismissals of women's issues were more than just based on stereotypes. And because he did nothing to tone down the hate on his site.
    I didn't like the Obamalove/Hillaryhate there before the primaries got going but the galloping sexism with no holds barred made me leave there all together.

    Parent
    BTD, is there a personal history (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:37:05 AM EST
    that motivates your activism regarding sexism?  

    Just wondering, because many men couldn't give a care, and it's often quite surprising when they do.

    I like to think (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    it comes from me but I do have daughters.

    Parent
    Well thank you (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    and thanks to your daughters (for any motivation that comes from them)! ;-).

    Parent
    It comes from you (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    Plenty of men have daughters but still don't care how women are treated.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    My husband cares (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    I still don't understand exactly why but his mom was deceased when we met, breast cancer.  His dad is no good with household repairs while his mom did most of them.  His father also didn't like sports much but his mom's family are natural athletes and both my husband and his sister are amazing athletes.  His mom signed them up for everything they did athletic and was in the stands for everything they did.  His sister ended up attending the Air Force Academy due to her cross country running abilities.  I think all of that may have been a factor for him somehow but it mostly remains a mystery.

    Parent
    I would (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    say, not all, but there are a lot of men who do care who have immersed themselves in environments where speaking out would be ridiculed.


    Parent
    Isn't it kind of sad that ... (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    this question needs to be asked?

    Shouldn't we all just believe MLK's famous quote:  "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

    In 2008, should anyone need to explain why they're against sexism, racism, homophobia, antisemitism or xenophobia?

    Parent

    We shouldn't.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    but I fear all the boys and girls crying wolf clouds the issue.  

    If we only concerned ourselves with injustice we'd be ok, everyone agrees in equality under the law (I hope)...but some people have taken to considering calling an individual a name or merely using certain words/phrases alone as sexist/racist/what have you...and that's where we run into trouble.

    Parent

    Feminism 101 (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    Shakespeare's Sister

    On Divorcing Slurs from Their Contexts: There are men (and women) who would swear up, down, and backwards that they're not homophobic, and may even genuinely be supportive of full LGBTQ equality, but nonetheless continue to use the word fag to malign other men--or use "gay" as a negative descriptor. They just like the words. They don't want to give them up, because they haven't found anything else that feels quite so good rolling off the tongue as "What a fag!" and "That's so gay." Who's it hurting? I totally don't hate gay people! And that's why we get these tortured explanations of how they're not using them "in the gay way."



    Parent
    Ya got me.... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    I want the whole english language, slang and all, at my disposal to express myself.  Guilty as charged, your honor, guilty as charged.

    I guess it is too much to ask to look at the context before getting offended...fair enough.

    Parent

    This context? (none / 0) (#135)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    some people have taken to considering calling an individual a name or merely using certain words/phrases alone as sexist/racist/what have you...and that's where we run into trouble.

    Or was there something I missed?

    Parent

    Not that context.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    I meant the context where a supposed offensive term is used.

    Parent
    Give me an example, please (none / 0) (#147)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    of a term used in context that renders that term non-offensive. Something other than the obvious, "(term) is an offensive word."

    I'm really curious.

    Parent

    Sure.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    I've heard people get bent outta shape over the use of "pimp", which I might use in the sentence "Damn I'm wiped, my boss pimped me hard today."  

    IMO, if you look at the context of that sentence there is nothing to get offended over.

    Parent

    Obama's Priorities (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn't want to reschedule tonight's fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: "We don't need the people. We just need the checks."
    USA Today


    Exactly the information I was provided (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    when I once signed up to host a "coffee" for a political candidate.  The powers that be informed me not to expect anyone to show up, as people send donations and that's all the candidate really is looking for.  

    Parent
    Ah, People Powered Politics At Its Best n/t (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    Yikes, that is awful (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    Obama's campaign will never see a bloody penny from me.  What an awful perspective.  He just wants the money to spread his inspiration and hope.  

    Parent
    He doesn't think he needs FL or Ohio (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    either. Check out this story.. Obama and Plouffe seem to think they can make up the difference in the red states. I read the ticker every day and one thing I have noticed is that the tone of the comments have started to change from mostly fanatically pro-Obama to varied from pro-Obama to "what were they thinking to nominate this guy!!" The worm turns. Heh.

    Parent
    Sorta took the quote out of context (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    Don't you think.  Here is the rest "But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn't want to reschedule tonight's fundraiser."  


    Parent
    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    He did quote that part.

    Parent
    I included that part in my quote (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    so I don't think I took it out of context at all. Obama is suppose to be a walking ATM machine able to generate millions on a single day. Don't see why money is so urgent that a fundraiser cannot be scheduled when people are able to attend.

    Parent
    You are right. I am sorry I missed that (none / 0) (#56)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    My eyes went to the bold.

    Parent
    According to article in NYT Sunday, (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    at the beginning of the campaign, on of the issues Obama was bird dogging was how the fund raising was progressing.  Then he relaxed a bit when it looked good.

    Parent
    The Explanation For This (none / 0) (#91)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22:26 PM EST
    Don't see why money is so urgent that a fundraiser cannot be scheduled when people are able to attend.
    is in Obama's own words.  "We don't need the people..."

    Parent
    I'm surprised ... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    Bernie Sanders "collapse of the Middle Class" hasn't gotten more attention from Proggy Blogs.

    You can read about it here.

    The proggy blogs once more prove that they're not progressive at all.

    I understand the powers that be (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    don't care.  They have a profit incentive.  Weakened social/financial standards allow the powers that be to maintain control over the working class.  To them the further depressed the worker is, the greater the opportunity to offer lower pay and benefits.

    The progressive blogs have completely dropped the ball on this one.  You need a wage base for taxes and spare money to donate to different causes to uplift all people.

    One reason I watch Lou Dobbs.  sigh.  Seems to be only talking head that addresses this issue.

    Parent

    Waldenpond, I'm not sure ... (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    the progressive blogs were ever holding the ball on this one.

    The list of issues that the proggysphere doesn't seem to care about is getting longer and longer.  What have we got this year?  They don't care about sexism, nuclear power, gay rights, healthcare, the poor, and ... ?

    They seem less progressive than the Democratic Party.  And that's pretty sad.

    Parent

    The prog-blogs do care about health care; (none / 0) (#111)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    they are just completely out of touch about it. They expected democrats to pass single-payer health insurance even though it has no chance whatsoever at passing. And since none of the major candidates went for single-payer, they bought the dumb arguments that mandates don't matter (probably because they were wearing their pro-Obama goggles).

    Parent
    On the other hand.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure that most of them do not care about the gas prices. I read an opinion on one of the sites that high gas prices will help fight global warming, even though the high prices are horrible for the middle class.

    Parent
    He does look at it (none / 0) (#50)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    In a xenophobic sorta way.

    Parent
    You are referencing mmigration (none / 0) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    He focuses time on outsourcing manufacturing jobs, outsourcing military manufacturing etc. not just immigration.

    He has good ideas on immigration also... increase the number of persons who process applications so people don't wait so long to come in to the country, improve public education so that immigrants are more successful, allow more legal immigration, reduce the number of visa categories as it is too complicated, etc.  I don't find him as xenophobic as some.  It's odd his hispanic wife (her hispanic parents live with them) thinks he's not tough enough on that issue.  I'm unusual for this site in that I want the border shut down.  There is too much crime.... human and drug trafficking.  I was very offended when traffickers ran a wire across the fence to knock atv patrollers off of their vehicles.

    Parent

    I don't watch him relgiouslly (none / 0) (#113)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    But when I am flipping back and forth betweeen idiot pundants on NBC, FOX, CNN, I noticed that he only has young attractive female correspondance working for him.  Which isn't a issue (good someone is giving them a chance), but it strikes me as some old guy fantasy.  

    Parent
    Well, some of us have (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    no more money for the Presidential election.  

    I though Obama's father's day speech was great (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    If nothing else, I love the fact that I see so much more excitement in the AA community about politics.  

    So many of our problems stem from absentee fathers.  I also think it is great that Democrats are starting to retake these family centered issues.  I never understood how Republicans could hold sway over these issues, when their entire goal was to defund them.

    Some of us (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    support DIVIDED GOVERNMENT.  As in, some of us trust neither party now and feel that they each need to check and balance the other.

    Saying that those who support DIVIDED GOVERNMENT support McCain is a strawman.

    So you will not be voting for McCain? (none / 0) (#72)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    Good for you.  And there are loads of Dems down-ticket who we can agree to support

    Parent
    How do you know I won't (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    be voting for McCain?  I said I support DIVIDED government.  A way toward that end is to vote for McCain.

    You can know for certain, you can stake your life on the fact that I won't vote for Obama.

    But I haven't decided for certain regarding McCain, third party or abstain.

    Parent

    for the zillionth time (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    Hillary supporters for the most part don't support McCain. Many despise him. They agree he would be a horrible president. And many will not vote for him but will just not vote for Obama. But some will vote for him, not because they want him as president, but because they'd rather have short term pain to try to save the democratic party. That's the reasoning. So saying how horrible McCain is doesn't change anything. They know how horrible he is. Just my opinion though. Your mileage may vary.

    many people also thought (none / 0) (#81)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:59:51 AM EST
    four years of Bush would be a good thing for the Democrats. That didn't work out so good.

    The thing is, we've already lost too much time in terms of global warming, the housing crisis, the oil/energy crisis, the rebuilding of New Orleans, the assaults on our civil rights, the shredding of the Constitution, the hunt for Bin Laden and Iraq.

    Four more years, (and it could be eight... Or sixteen if he has a decent VP...) might, MIGHT be good for the Democratic Party. But it would be disaster for America. Country before party, right?

    Parent

    good point indeed (none / 0) (#85)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    which makes it really difficult for people that didn't like the cheating and party power fix that was this primary election. They'd like it to be fixed else things will just continue to spiral downward. But they don't want the country to turn into sh*t either. It's a heart breaking choice to be sure.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    I could argue about the party "fix" since I don't actually believe this was a grand conspiracy... But your larger point is valid. I've long said our primary process needs major reform and I was disappointed by the MI compromise.  So I completely sympathize with the anger.  

    But I think the answer is a grassroots to reform the party from within, not to cast a vote to tear down the country in hopes that we can pick up the pieces in 2012.

    Parent

    winning over Clinton supporters (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    Since Obama supporters keep harping at Clinton supporters that may not support Obama, I thought I'd give them a few pointers.

    Telling them they should not vote for McCain because he's horrible doesn't do it. They know how horrible he will be.

    Similarly, telling them Obama is about the same as Clinton on the issues doesn't do it. If a Clinton supporter either has a feeling they are similar, or things because Obama is in the party, he'll be pushed to be similar, then that's not the issue. If a Clinton supporter has doubts that Obama supports the same issues, then that's Obama's problem (see below).

    Telling them how stupid, or emotional, or racist, or uninformed, or clingy, or whatever other put down, believe it or not, does not win someone over to your side. Shocking I know.

    Telling them they were never democrats in the first place, or "so called democrats" or slimy republicans or whatever, believe it or not, also doesn't work.

    OK, so that's about what not to do. Here's what to do.

    Obama has to earn their votes. Just because someone might be in the same party does not automatically mean they'll vote for you, or even not vote against you. And yes, that includes "real democrats". That means he has to be sincere and believable in what he says he'll do. Oh, and he has to say what he'll do. He has to do a bit of a flip flop and change from his non pro choice stance to a real pro choice stance, that is, he has to come out and say when he believe life starts (not at conception), or say something like what Hillary said. But to say he hasn't decided yet when life starts is a show stopper.

    Obama has to right the wrongs of the dnc, or get close to it. He has to fix the count in MI and FL even though it's too late. But every little bit helps. And that means take no votes from MI. Well, if you want to know and want those votes. Sorry, bitter pill I'm sure.

    As for the VP slot, if he wants to be sure to win, he should offer it. But I don't want him too myself because I don't want her to take that position. But that's just me. Many Clinton supporters would like that I think.

    And finally he has to unequivocally throw and and all of his supporters that are bigoted towards Hillary. That means msnbc, that means those church leaders he likes, that means a lot of blog supporters, etc. I'm not sure how best to do this, but some statements about it and being consistent about it could help. That includes at least naming a few names (like TPM, some Orange posters, Matthews, Olberman, etc.). Once KO and others are tossed under the bus, we can talk.

    That's all. Nothing hard.

    Never mind (none / 0) (#80)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    But thanks for the thoughts.

    Parent
    thanks DandyTiger (none / 0) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    If all that were to come to pass, I might even consider relenting on my non-vote.


    Parent
    Anyone read the "Next" articles (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by anniethena on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    that followed the article linked to in the last threads?
    Lowbrow Sinners

    But this time out, as the Democrats got ready to embark on another of their periodic self-purifying rituals, she turned out to be the designated sacrifice, the past life that needed to be cursed and stoned by the tens of thousands of low-cholesterol, high-tech progressives gathered to have the new prophet wash away their sins in the Willamette River. What was left for her to do? Only to accept the love of the lowbrow sinners who didn't want to repent. She could tumble into bed with the less educated and more prejudiced and just plain tasteless, the way Bill had spent a lifetime seeking relief from Hillary Clinton with girls who looked like Paula Jones.

    ick.

    And for more evidence of FITH (see Corrente), check out The Real Mick Jagger of Politics

    None of these camps, however, can compellingly defend Clinton's recent moment of wondering aloud about the RFK assassination.

    Back to the Scene of the Crime
    And her undeniable and sometimes inexcusable mistakes. Her invocation of the assassination of Robert Kennedy. How could we not interpret this, in Freudian terms, as an expression of her daydream, her unconfessed desire? And therefore the manifestation of her subconscious in broad daylight...

    Actually that one is chock-full of other ickiness.

    I thought Michael Kinsley had proudly admitted that her remarks were "willfully misinterpreted"...

    Keep following the "next"...

    I don't have cable, so I will never see it, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22:19 PM EST
    but I understand that there is a new show premiering on Showtime called "Secret Diary of a Call Girl," in the time slot right after "Weeds."

    Isn't that just great?  One show about a woman maintaining her family's standard of living by selling pot, and another about a woman paying her bills with sex.

    What next?  Hey, I know - a show about a mom who kills people for money - she can do bake sales and car pools and hit jobs all in the same day - how cute and interesting and compelling would that be?

    Gosh, is it any wonder people think it's all just peachy to demean and belittle women when this is the entertainment industry's idea of what we should be watching?

    Yes, it's just TV, it's not "real," but how women are portrayed in the imaginary world has a lot to do with how we are seen in the real one.

    Maybe I am just highly sensitized these days, but it irked the cr@p out of me when I read about it this morning.

    Are you saying.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    women who choose sex work or work in the drug trade don't exist?  Because they do.  Would you prefer that every woman on tv be a June Cleever clone?

    I don't get your beef here...I think it's kinda cool that every woman on tv isn't a housewife anymore...no?

    Parent

    Yeah - of course that's what I was (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    saying - that all I want to see on TV is June Cleaver...there's nothing in the middle for you between June Cleaver and drug dealers/call girls?

    That's just sad.

    I will grant you that there are women in the sex trade and women dealing drugs, but I don't know how many are choosing that line of work, and I'm not sure we want to make it seem like fun or so normal that we would encourage our daughters to pursue it.

    I guess there's just no market for another show about women who are doctors or waitresses or lawyers or factory workers or accountants or cashiers or bus drivers or athletes or teachers or nurses or mental health aides or business owners or designers or cooks or moms or...well, you get the idea.

    Or maybe you don't.

    Yeah, I'm thinkin' you don't.

    Parent

    I get it... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    there are lots of shows with women doctors, lawyers, cops, executives and everything in between...which is why I was wondering why you have a beef with a show about a single mom reefer seller and a call girl.  Seems to me women are depicted with plenty of diversity on television and we've come a long way from June Cleever.  

    Unless you want each and every depiction of women on television to be positive (in your estimation anyway, I see nothing inherently negative about selling ganja or being a call girl if that's what you wanna do....I certainly don't look down on my reefer connect, in fact I look up to them:)

    Parent

    Well, I'm sure when your (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    daughter sets up her out-call service, you will be handing out her number to all your buddies - or at least making big mention of it in your holiday card, right?

    I don't think this is about "diversity" - at least it's not for me.  Most of the women in the sex trade are not high-priced call girls like the ones Spitzer availed himself of - and even if they were, would that make what they do something we would want our daughters to be setting as a goal in life?  Take a ride through the worst part of wherever you live and then come back and tell me those women - some of them very young - you see on the street have "chosen" that life.  Even if you can dress them up and put them in fancier digs, it doesn't change the set-up.  

    Is that a profession you would want your daughter to aspire to?  From some of your comments, maybe you would be fine with that.

    To each his own, I guess.

    Parent

    I don't have kids.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    but if my sister or one of my adorable nieces wanted to be a call girl I would accept it, sure.  It is their life to lead as they see fit.

    I agree the sex trade is ripe with exploitation and the mistreatment of sex workers, female and male...but I think that has more to do with the prohibition on sex work and the associated black market than the sex work itself.

    And what's your problem with "Weeds"?...I would think any feminist would applaud the character for being a trail-blazer in what is still a predominately male field...the drug trade.  Women can flip a couple pounds just as well as a man can:)

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#149)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    Anne, you're so right! (Don't even bother here, BTW.)

    I once worked for an organization that helped prostitutes get off the streets and get therapy and get back into a healthy and productive life. It was truly heartbreaking to see the emotional and psychological and physical destruction that such a life entails. Anyone who tells you it's just another career choice is lying or just doesn't care.

    People tend to view these things in abstraction instead of looking at the very real human beings that are being harmed. It's easy to sit around and get high and muse about these things when you've never done anything to help actual people in pain.

    The new euphemisms like 'sex work' and 'career choice' are just the new way to turn a blind eye to exploitation. Ask anybody who tries to tell you that 'sex work' is a great career choice if they'd like that choice for their daughter, sister, mother, or even themselves. Of course the answer is no. Why? Because it's debilitating and it's dangerous and it's exploitive. Duh. But somehow, in an abstract way, it's a great 'career choice' for others.

    But, then again, choosing that career over, say, running for a high political office, does mean that guys can call you the b-word, the c-word, and the w-word with impunity and no one will object. So, I guess that's the up-side!

    Parent

    There is a famous.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    call girl blogger from London who would disagree with you, as do I.

    Parent
    Good for her and good for you (none / 0) (#154)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    Get back to me on the healthy lifestyle after you've spent a year giving BJ's in an alley for $20 a pop and getting beat up. Otherwise, go back to your fun life.

    Parent
    And good for you my friend.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    Street-walkers have some of the toughest lives around, nobody is arguing with that.  Prohibition ain't helping though...on top of their normal worries, prohibition adds the threat of arrest, police harassment, and police abuse to an already crowded mix.  

    You seem to want to willfully deny that there are people who choose this line of work, that aren't on the street, that are making a helluva lot more than 20 dollers a pop, and are happy with their choices.  We can agree on this truth and the fact that street walkers suffer...no reason to deny reality.

    Parent

    Secret Diary of a Call Girl (none / 0) (#118)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    is a British property based on a book by a real prostitute who calls herself Belle du Jour. It was a huge seller in the UK. Before the book, Belle wrote a blog (she still may, I'm not sure) It's based on actual events from Belle's life. Of course she's a university educated high class type rather than a street walker and played by the much beloved Billie Piper so it's hardly going to be gritty or depressing.

    Billie Piper's met with the real Belle and apparently she's quite an interesting woman who is very happy and unrepentant in terms of what she does for a career. I suppose it's  not the world's oldest profession for nothing.

    Parent

    Hardcore feminists.... (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    must be none to fond of Belle with an attitude like that.

    Sun god bless her.

    Parent

    I'm a hardcore feminist (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    but I'm not in the insane Andrea Dworkin/Catherine McKinnon camp. Personally, I think that prostitution should be legalised, that sex workers of both genders should have access to health care and regular checkups for STDs and that if someone choses to do this for a living, it is their choice. It might not be something I'd want to do, but other men and women do.

    While I think that women like Belle are rare and make that world more glamourous than it ought to be, they still exist so to ignore them or pretend they don't is ridiculous.

    Not to mention Belle is prostitution what all those whiney women doctors on Grey's Anatomy are to medicine or Allie McBeal was to lawyers. It's all fictionalised, glamourised and entertainment.

    Parent

    That's good to hear.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    I agree about legalizing prostitution...it's better for the workers.

    Parent
    No doubt about it (none / 0) (#159)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    sex sells. Whether people like it or not. It's been around for centuries and no sort of prohibition's going to make it go away. So why not make it a legal, regulated a commodity which would mean better working conditions for the workers as well as better health benefits and protection for their clients?

    While I neither glamourize people in that profession or have any false belief that it's empowering or feminist (i.e. friends of mine who seem to think that being a stripper is some sort of feminist statement), it's ridiculous to think that it's going to go away any time soon. So might as well make it safe, sane and legal.

    Parent

    Safe, sane, legal..... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
    I like that.  We should do the same with drugs....as they've been around just as long as the oldest profession and ain't going nowhere either.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#165)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:54:00 PM EST
    Again, I'd rather people be able to have regulated presumably safe (although knowing pharmaceutical companies, that's questionable) drugs than buying it on the street laced with god knows what and cut with god knows what. And think of the revenue potential in both.

    Parent
    Hillary store (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nellre on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    I just bought a tee. I'm going to frame it.
    I wish they offered a collection.

    A commenter wrote this yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    How can Obama reach out to you? What things can he say/do that would raise your comfort level with him? I ask this with all sincerity, because I am going to work for his campaign, and voters just like you are the ones I want to speak with.

    So, how do we talk to you? What do you want to hear?

    Independent Voter wrote this yesterday but the Gallop thread was closed. I thought about this and have an answer:

    The only way that Obama can reach out to me is to put Hillary on the ticket. I will hate that she has to be the water bearer, but of the 3 top candidates, she is the only one who I believe can actually get something accomplished in the next Presidential term. Yep, that will do it IV. As for what do I want to hear and how do you talk to me? I believe for me, it is too late. I keep thinking of that finger, brush off, dust off, etc that Obama used in regard to Hillary. What kind of leader (Except GW) would use those hand jestures when they are suppose to be such a eleoquent speaker? Did someone tell him to do that or was it his usual way of dealing with people? The finger bothers me. Try scratching your face right now. Do you use just the middle finger? This was crass. Like the good Rev humping the podium. So Obama pulls the chair out for Hillary and flips her off for the crowd. I would have liked to have heard an apology like I was just funning for the crowd. Too late now.

    Leaving the Obama supporters out of this, Obama should have said to the media. Be Fair. Obama should have realized that the woman's vote is needed. And knitters and working class wonam too. So to answer your question, except for Hillary, I do not know what he could say. Maybe that he is dropping off a check for a mil. That would work.  

    I'd be happy (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by nellre on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    if he just dropped out, claiming he needed to spend more time with his family.

    Parent
    David Sirota (none / 0) (#114)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    has an anti-Clinton guest editorial in the Seattle Times today re who should be the veep choice.

    Dreadful.

    Parent

    Your readers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    are grateful to you for that BTD. And for much else you hold forth about.

    All of this sexism talk... (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarissa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    Why wasn't it more evident or at least more discussed during the actual meat of the campaign?

    It was discussed here (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    Would you dispute that it (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarissa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    was discussed a lot more towards the end?

    Overconfidence, bad strategy, and a (relative)lack of money killed the campaign not sexism.

    Parent

    Do you believe (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST
    that everyone concerned and involved in discussing the sexism which occurred during the primary is only doing it because they believe sexism "killed the campaign?"  

    And you are wrong.  It was discussed earlier but apparently you and many others were not paying attention.  

    Parent

    If you are talking about here, (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    ...yes I would dispute the statement that it was talked about more at the end. Check the archives. BTD has been great, but also Jeralyn is no slouch when it comes to calling out sexism. As for the rest of your comment, it strikes me as if you are suggesting that sexism was used (by Hillary or by her supporters?) as a convenient excuse for losing the campaign. If you read the articles to which BTD link in previous threads, you can read Hillary's own reasons for not painting herself as a victim of sexism throughout the campaign. I think it is more than appropriate for her to talk about it now.

    Parent
    Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM EST
    I have never seen Hillary acting like a victim or whining about the sexism or her treatment. I have been actually amazed by how she is able to keep going and ignore the slings and arrows I couldn't do it.
    I believe the sexism in the media and by Obama supporters hurt in votes - but that didn't keep 18 million of us from supporting her. IOW it wasn't the voters who were sexist.
    OTOH Obama whiled about Hillary constantly and no one called him on it.

    Parent
    I deleted a response here (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    And I apologize. I thought this was in another thread.

    My apologies/

    Parent

    Um...Just Guessing (none / 0) (#96)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    You're new here, aren't you?

    Parent
    I almost felt sorry for you during Pie, Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    The internet is no friend in that someone can post all sorts of things without having to look me in the eye after they've dropped the bomb.  It can be very freeing while also being very STUPIFYING.  And poor Armando would try to tap a few people on the shoulder from time to time while the pies flew threw the air during the bombing raids and he was told consistently to STFU.  You poor dude, those must have been some long blogging days :)

    I remember the fight I had (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    when I banned the C-word. I was amazed.

    Parent
    What?????? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    Are you kidding me?

    I am so confused, or naive, or something.

    How can the c-word used against women be part of a progressive blog? Have I been blind and dumb forever, and never realized that progressivism includes toleration for the demeaning of women?

    Parent

    where's Kathy? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    Anyone know what happened to Kathy? Driven off after the primary was over? Too depressed to come back? Just on a long vacation? I hope the latter...  Been worried.

    Vacation. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    Is she really? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    I hope so and after that I'm jealous :)

    Parent
    Well, that's what she sd. here. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    OF course, we have no way to "fact check" that info.  What is truly amazing is she manages not to check Talk Left.  I didn't manage that!

    Parent
    I can manage a couple of days right now (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    but that's about it.

    Parent
    I still don't get it (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    we are here, and now it's just boring.  Same old Republican and same old Democrat running.  Wonder if the "inspired" will stick it out?

    I'm shocked and disappointed you (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    are not intrigued by what the Obama family had for Father's Day breakfast.

    Parent
    Is there really any doubt (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    as to what tasty deliciuous syrupy treat is served up at the Obama breakfast table? Do I have to say it?

    Parent
    But news coverage reported pancakes. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    oh no, he's a flip flopper with flap jacks :-) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    Oh, no, what happened to the waffles? n/t (none / 0) (#122)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    I hope that doesn't happen in future (none / 0) (#134)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    Imagine if there was a national crisis? Can't bother the President! He's eatin' his waffles, man!

    No wonder he idolizes Ronald Reagan.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    And you apparently "idolize" Coulter, judging by how you're imitating her style.

    Where's your proof that he idolizes Reagan.

    Parent

    This to me is idolization (none / 0) (#140)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.


    Parent
    That to ME is (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    a quasi-compliment that dosnt prove in any way shape or form that he "idolizes" Reagan.

    But, one blind man said "this elepahant feels like a tree to me.." etc

    Parent

    Well considering (none / 0) (#155)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    the fact that you missed the snark in the first comment, I'm not surprised that you'd miss the sincerity of the second one.

    As for my comparison to Ann Coulter, I should be so lucky as to sell as many books as she as well as have so many adoring fans, whether I agree with her point of view or not.

    Parent

    How lucky is it (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    if after all that you're still Ann Coulter?

    Parent
    Btw I love that (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:57:28 PM EST
    "He's just eatin' his waffels, man" (Dontcha know they all talk like that).

    Im suprised you didnt say he was eating collards.

    Parent

    I was imitating (none / 0) (#157)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    Donna Brazile. But whatever.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    Two GUYS are running for president....AGAIN.

    Transcendent?  Not.

    Parent

    And the fact that one is African American (none / 0) (#76)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    still means that it is just more of the same?  Really?

    Parent
    You have to pay attention (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    to the fact that the 'white guys' drafted him to take out the woman candidate.  You have noticed, I assume, who his spokespeople are on the tee and vee?

    Umm...Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Axelrod...yadda, yadda...

    Add the cynical fact that they needed an AA candidate in order to take that vote from a Clinton...and they found one.

    Parent

    Color is not (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    an issue for me.  Is it for you?

    Parent
    Is gender an issue for you (none / 0) (#117)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    but race not?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    I was told he is not the "black candidate"  saying that is racist.  

    Parent
    So having an nominee (none / 0) (#127)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    who is a woman is transcendent, but having a nominee who is AA is not?  Just want to make sure I am understanding your point.  

    Parent
    Just another guy (none / 0) (#131)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    yep.  He told us he was beyond race, he is transformed.  So, I take him for his word.  Those were the culture wars of the past.  

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#62)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    You have no limits when it comes to going as low as one can go.  Is it really your intent to suggest that supporters of Hillary thinking of voting for McCain condone any suggestion that a woman could enjoy rape?  

    My intent (none / 0) (#68)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    was to show the stark contrast between the mindset of McCainiacs on the one hand, and Dems on the other.  The fact that McCain has not chosen to cancel the fundraiser with this miscreant, but only to postponement, speaks volumes.

    Parent
    You misunderstand the opposition to Obama (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    Your post implies we do not understand how 'bad' McCain is.  And that we are ignorant, and all we need is for some more informed person to show us the light.

    We are not uninformed.  We know how bad McCain is.  The people who are voting for him or just not voting for BO (like me) have decided what we will do on bases entirely apart from how bad McCain is.

    Until you address those bases, you're just annoying those who you're trying to influence.  This is the new version of SCt armageddon.

    Read DandyTiger's post on productive alternatives.  Or discuss Obama's record or his policies in a positive light to give some people a reason to vote for him.

    Parent

    You failed (none / 0) (#71)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    There was no contrast but a simple statement that you understood "x" because of "y."  

    Parent
    Now that you understand my intent (none / 0) (#73)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:48:25 AM EST
    you agree that Hillary supporters should not be supporting McCain?

    Parent
    Do me a favor (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    Let me do the persuading of Hillary supporters to vote for Obama.

    You are making it more difficult for me.

    Parent

    Thanks BTD (none / 0) (#119)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    Feel free to start any time now.

    Parent
    And good luck (none / 0) (#120)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    That's not a game you can win (4.80 / 5) (#79)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    Both Obama and McCain have supporters that I can't abide. It's not as simple as pointing out some of them and then equating our vote for a candidate with the views of the offensive supporters.

    I find Donnie McClurkin every bit as noxious as the McCain supporter you discussed. What's a Clinton supporter to do? This Clinton supporter has better things to do on the first Tuesday in November than vote for either one of the choices currently on tap.

    Parent

    We could have a (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    National Day of Knitting on November 4th. ;-)

    Parent
    I haven't done any knitting (none / 0) (#163)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    since I was 12, and that was a looong time ago.  However, I have a pound of yarn, some size 9 needles, and a video that teaches knitting. I hope to have a scarf by election day.  I thought I send it to Hillary unless it comes out really awful.

    Parent
    I feel pretty strongly (none / 0) (#164)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    that it is up to each individual to examine each candidate, where they stand on the issues to make a decision on who to give their vote.  If someone chooses to vote for McCain, I respect that as that person's choice.  I might disagree with the choice but I respect the right to make that choice.

    Parent
    If my intent (none / 0) (#69)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST
    to make a point about the nature of McCain supporters was misunderstood (as opposed to being misconstrued), I apologize.  My point was that I am flumoxed that Hillary supporters could possibly consider supporting McCain with miscreants like this supporting him.  

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    could possibly consider supporting XXXXX with miscreants like this supporting him.  

    Gee, I could take that argument and run with it from now until November.

    Cherry Picking 101

    Parent

    ouch, good one (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    think he gets it? :-)

    Parent
    When you find someone (none / 0) (#125)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    in the Obama campaign comparing rape to the weather, get back to me

    Parent
    One certain Obama supporter (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    named Keith Olbermann said once that Hillary should go in a room with a Superdelegate and only the Superdelegate should come out.  I'm not certain what form of violoence Olbermann was intending for Hillary.  I wrote and asked him what exactly he envisioned in that room, but I got no response.

    So if you're saying the nasty supporters should be the reason not to vote for a candidate, then don't you think Olbermann's statement is a good reason to avoid voting for Obama?

    Parent

    I dont remember Obama (none / 0) (#123)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    requesting Olberman to do a fundraiser for him or to be part of his campaign.  Little details, I know.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    Obama's campaign only took KO's screed about the RFK non-issue and sent it out to all the Superdelegates as propaganda. So I guess he'd be considered an unpaid operative.

    Parent
    IIRC "Gays Are Killing Our Children" (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    McClurkin did do a fund raiser for Obama.

    Parent
    And yet (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    if I say I won't vote for Obama because his supporters repel me, I'm called irrational for letting a bunch of random posters on DKos determine my vote for me.

    Funny how that works.

    Parent

    Patti Solis Doyle (none / 0) (#86)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    is joining the Obama campaign.  She is joining as chief of staff to the VP Candidate.  A couple of questions...

    1. Shouldn't the VP candidate have the opportunity to choose his or her own chief of staff? Unless there already is one (see question 2 below).

    2.  Does this make it more likely or less likely that the VP candidate will be (or already is) Hillary?  On the one hand, Hillary fired Solis-Doyle from her campaign and this could be just an attempt to appease Hillaryland by chosing one of her people (if they aren't going to choose Hillary)--on the other hand Solis-Doyle remained loyal to Hillary after the firing and a lot of people saw her firing as the hand of Mark Penn more than Hillary's doing.

    Not (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:35:42 PM EST
    1. Shouldn't the VP candidate have the opportunity to choose his or her own chief of staff?
    in Obamaland.  All is done for/by Barack.  And if you don't like it, they don't need you.

    Parent
    I remember them talking about (none / 0) (#92)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:24:54 PM EST
    her joining the staff before the primary was even over. So maybe it is just another strange thing.

    Parent
    Sounds ridiculous (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    In what way? (none / 0) (#98)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    Do you mean it sounds like a ploy by the Obama camp or it is ridiculous for Solis Doyle to join Obama's campaign or ridiculous to have a VP candidate chief of staff before you have a VP candidate or all of the above?

    Parent
    Not only ridiculous (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    but I've read that PSD and HRC haven't even spoken since the latter fired the former months ago. So I can't see what the point of this is.

    Parent
    Teen on media's Obama bias (none / 0) (#105)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:48:39 PM EST
    influencing voters --
    http://tinyurl.com/47j9zr

    US Open (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    here.

    Rethug trolls (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    pretending to have feminist symapathies. I get it.

    Parent
    Can you explain it to the rest of us? (none / 0) (#153)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST
    Have to read the series before commenting further (none / 0) (#144)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    but the linked post is mostly based on hearsay and as shown by the actual transcript presents a plain false picture, and then fails to engage the actual arguments of the remarks when available.  It's the quality of work you justly rail against all the time.

    Stan Winston has passed away (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM EST
    I hear you.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:42:12 PM EST
    Believe it or not I have a sense of decorum, albeit warped.  I curse like a sailor but I don't aim to offend:)

    The Schuster "pimp" brewhaha wasn't offensive to me, because every candidate is pimpin' somebody, it was just stupid to single Clinton out when they all do it.  Was it sexist to pick on Clinton?  Maybe.  But people were freakin' out over the mere use of the term (as is their right:), and I ain't down with that.  Attack the context, not a word.

    No (none / 0) (#169)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    It was not "just" the word. (Did you follow the links? Read the posts? I'm guessing you didn't)

    Did you get what I said? You can say you're being pimped (as long as your boss doesn't know/doesn't object). You can't say you're pimping, because that denigrates another person.

    Correction: you CAN say it, but you look like a jerk. There are both sexist and racist implications in that word.

    The reason Schuster's comment was offensive was not the word pimp. You can say "pimp my ride" and talk about "pimping out" inanimate objects. That is not offensive. You can't offend inanimate objects.

    He was CLEARLY using the word to denigrate Hillary and Chelsea. There is no possible way you can interpret it otherwise. The context is what made it offensive, not taking the word out of context. The fact that no male candidate has ever been accused of pimping out his children or his wife makes it sexist, as well.

    Here's the thing - which I presume you would have understood by now if you'd followed the links - if a word has been used to demean a woman (or a black, or a gay, or whoever) you can't use it against those people and say it's not offensive. A woman, or a black, or a gay, or whoever MAY use that word ironically or to defuse the offense (you call a woman a c*nt, and she says "I'm Queen C*nt of F*ck Mountain, son") - that is reclaiming the word.

    Parent