Understanding Obamamania: the triumph of Republican-style politics
I want to talk about Obamamania. But to do that, first I need to say up front what I don’t mean by Obamamania, at least for this discussion.
I don’t mean reasoned support for Barack Obama because of his positions (his actual positions, please) or his electability or his potential as a leader. There are valid arguments to be made that Obama is more appealing on all those points than Hillary (though personally I disagree). There is also the argument that a Clinton presidency would mire the country in another four to eight years of 90s-style wingnuttery (an argument I respect but ultimately reject, because I think the exact same thing awaits Obama).
And I don’t mean support for Obama from the African-American community, a phenomenon with which I’m deeply sympathetic. Just as millions of women (of all races) see their gender reflected in Hillary, millions of African-Americans (of both sexes) see their race reflected in Obama. You can call it identity politics, but what I call it is the chance to finally feel represented after 200 years in a so-called representative democracy. I begrudge no one that yearning.
What I mean by Obamamania is the delusional fervor that Obama inspires in the blogosphere, in the media, and in the college kids who power his ground game. It’s a fervor that is impervious to truth, reality, sometimes even basic common sense.
The truth is that Barack Obama is a Democratic politician who has figured out how to harness Republican-style politics. It’s not just the right-wing talking points he embraces, but the whole emotional approach. It’s the triumph of fantasy over reality, and it has two big components: marketing and pseudo-religion.
I’ve already posted about the marketing angle. Maybe I’m particularly alive to it because I remember Reagan’s “Morning in America,” a campaign that was so vacuous that the first time I saw the commercial I thought it was for McDonald’s. That’s no joke: at the time Mickey D’s was running a very similar ad campaign for their Egg McMuffins. It was all soft focus, feel good, start your day happy kinda stuff. When “Morning in America” came out I damn near freaked. “What the hell are people supposed to be voting for?” I asked my husband indignantly. “Sunshine?”
But millions of people bought it. They looked at Ronald Reagan and saw a cowboy, a hero, a genial grandfather. I looked at Reagan and saw a great big can of processed cheese. And truth be told, that’s pretty much what I see when I look at Obama. Barack’s got a great high-concept shtick, but for chrissake, it is a shtick.
The other element is pseudo-religious fervor, something that the Republicans mastered with Bush 2. For years now Democrats have been giggling at the useful idiots on the right who put up prayer lines for President Jesus, but the same mentality is what’s driving a lot of Obamabots. Simon Woods explores this phenomenon in ‘We Are The Chosen Ones’: A new hymn to Barack Obama.
A few weeks ago, covered in Hillary badges, I approached a young couple in California and, as I was about to offer up my pearls of electoral wisdom, they just began singing at me. And they were singing Yes We Can, the song by Black Eyed Peas’ Will.I.Am, whose video has become a phenomenon on YouTube.
If you’re familiar with the religious right, you recognize this behavior. It’s exactly what right-wing Christian kids do. They sing at you. You can start talking to them about anything from the reality-based world — evolution, abortion, homosexuality, the possibility that Bush isn’t Jesus — and they start singing. They stand there with their ponytails and little crucifix necklaces and sing a batshit Christian hymn about holding fast against the devil.
The lure of religious certainty is especially strong for young people, and Obama knows it. That’s why his campaign has deliberately crafted its message to sound as much as possible like modern Christian outreach.
Obama has created the impression that Clinton supporters, like the Pharisees in the temple, are obstacles to change: “I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement but still hunger for change. They know it in their gut… But they’re afraid. They’ve been taught to be cynical.”
Straight out of the Christian playbook. You’re just afraid to let Jesus into your heart. You want to believe, but you’re distracted by the scientists and the liberals. You’ve been taught to be skeptical. But all you have to do is let go, and let Jesus in. Just believe.
To people like me, this message is worse than ineffectual; it’s repellent. I’m not fooled and I’m not interested in electing a self-proclaimed messiah. But to a lot of naive young people, it’s extremely compelling. “He’s infallible,” one young Obama supporter is reported to have said. Campus Crusade for Christ, Hare Krishnas, Obamamania: variations on a theme.
Some people on the left will argue that this is all to the good. If Democrats have figured out how to harness the useful idiot vote, what’s the problem? It’s great, right?
I’m not so sure. As politicians keep rediscovering, fanaticism is dangerous. Something about two-edged swords. A few of the more unhinged Obama fans are already talking about burning Denver to the ground if Obama isn’t the nominee — rhetoric that will play straight into the hands of the Republicans. And what happens when the Obama worshippers get a peek at those feet of clay? Jesus and Krishna aren’t around to screw up, but Barack is. Actually he doesn’t even have to screw up; he just has to start governing in accordance with his actual policy positions as opposed to the imaginary ones the Obamabots credit him with.
But a more immediate concern is this: I’m simply not convinced that Obama’s support is as widespread as his followers think it is. Like all religious fanatics, Obamabots make an amount of noise that is disproportionate to their numbers. And their noise is drowning out a big proportion of Democrats.
Which brings me to the blogosphere.
It’s no secret, I think, that most of the liberal blogosphere has become a one-note 24/7 Obama rally. People who support Hillary, particularly women, have been relentlessly insulted, silenced, even banished from sites like DailyKos. The nastiness of the Obama guys — most of them are guys — is breathtaking.
But their Obamamania is of a slightly different flavor than what I’ve discussed so far. Political junkies are not immune to the marketing stuff and pseudo-religion that captivates so many Obamabots, but they do tend to be a tad more cynical than the average bear. Cynicism, no matter what Obama says, is necessary if you’re going to analyze politics.
What makes up the shortfall for the blogger boys is a third ingredient: misogyny. Supporting Obama gives them license to hate Hillary. It’s a license to engage openly, enthusiastically, in misogyny of the most feverish kind. Hating Hillary has traditionally been the preserve of wingnuts, and the liberal boys have felt constrained (though not entirely) to stay away from too much Clinton-bashing. But now, with Hillary running against their man Obama, they’ve got their opening. Finally they’re free to engage in the crazed heart-racing hatred that only the guys on the right have been able to enjoy. Can you imagine how liberating it must be? That’s why they’re so giddy. They’ve been repressing this for years!
Go slog through the comments at the big boy liberal sites. Did you know that Hillary Clinton’s heart is a black rotting mass of pure evil? Did you know that if you sliced open her brain it would be crawling with maggots? That her crimes are unspeakable? That her lust for power is insatiable? That she is a monstrous, foam-dripping beast who won’t be satisfied until she’s destroyed the party?
Reading at places like DailyKos and Democratic Underground has become a disorienting experience. I keep wondering if somehow I’ve blundered into Free Republic by accident. Or if maybe all the commenters are really Freepers in disguise. The rhetoric is the same. All the right-wing anti-Hillary hysteria from the past 16 years: it’s all there. Apparently it’s never occurred to the blogger boys that inculcating a whole generation of new voters with anti-Clinton propaganda is an incredibly risky strategy, and pretty much the opposite of what you need to do to build broad party strength. Or maybe they just can’t help themselves.
From where I sit, it looks for all the world like a significant slice of the left has been body-snatched by wingnut-like pod people. The gullibility, the cult-like adulation, the frantic misogyny, the insistence that anyone who disagrees is The Enemy Who Must Be Destroyed — the whole batshit crazy package has arrived.
Is this good news for the progressive movement? The Obamabots think so, but then they’ve shown a marked inability to hear anyone’s voices but their own. What I’m hearing is that a whole lot of lifelong progressives and Democratic voters — people like me and my friends and family — are becoming seriously alienated. Women over 40 resent being tossed aside like so many used Kleenexes. Working folks aren’t buying the Obama Magic. And older people know that what we need is a tough fighter, somebody with the wisdom and sheer gumption to get the job done. Obama’s speeches are so much handwavium to this crowd.
If Obama does become the nominee, then his campaign is going to need some new material. You know, maybe some more of whatever it is that brings people out in droves to vote for Hillary Clinton.
89 Responses to “Understanding Obamamania: the triumph of Republican-style politics”
-
Red Queen says:
I might be able to tolerate the Obama crazies if it didn’t seem like the white boy cult of girl hate. If I am called a traitor one more time for refusing to throw my support behind a candidate who DOES NOT HAVE MY BEST INTEREST AT HEART, I will get stabby.
Working class folks get this. We don’t have time for cults. And while Bill had his problems, poor people remember the Clinton years as a time when things got better for them, even if it was just a little. But just a little means not getting eviction notices or having your heat shut off in the middle of January. We know what to expect from Sen Clinton and it looks good to us. All we get from Obama and his supports is told to shut up and vote the way they want us too. That’s not good enough.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:45 am EST -
anonymous_person says:
While the blogosphere is loud, it isn’t the end all and be all of campaigns. If it was, Ron Paul would still be a contender. ;)
Hatred of politicians (sometimes vile hatred of politicians) seems to be common, and the internet does seem to let the most vocal opponents speak. Maybe it is misogyny that’s behind the attacks on Clinton. Then again, I wouldn’t doubt that some of the attacks are due to hatred of her as a person (or, to be more accurate, as a caricature). As an example, there’s a photo montage of McCain in unflattering poses. There’s also a photo montage of Clinton in unflattering poses. Is one misogynistic and the other not?
-
Max says:
I can get behind this. I disagree with your chosen candidate, and think taking this kind of critical approach to her as well may be wise, but I don’t think Obama is some kind of superhero. He’s just another capitalist authoritarian, so far as I’m concerned. His heart just seems to be in the right place, is all. I definitely see his allure, but a great many people are eating the hype with their McMuffins (though the same can be said for Clinton’s camp to an extent) instead of taking the time to think. We’re all so desperate for some semblance of change, of something different, that we’re fucking ourselves right into another four years of the past seven.
I know you probably don’t consider me your favorite reader, but I’m with you on this, for whatever that’s worth.
-
therealUK says:
From where I sit, it looks for all the world like a significant slice of the left has been body-snatched by wingnut-like pod people. The gullibility, the cult-like adulation, the frantic misogyny, the insistence that anyone who disagrees is The Enemy Who Must Be Destroyed — the whole batshit crazy package has arrived.
Yes, it has been remarkable watching all this unfold, though the rabid misogyny does not suprise me at all. This campaign has really just shone a spotlight on it.
Btw, that Telegraph article you linked is one of the few (from the British media) I’ve seen that isn’t out and out pro-Obama and/or hateful anti-Hillary.
I like his comment “You’re not so hungry for reform when you’ve already feasted at the table of self-congratulation.” Along with the women hatred, it sums up Obama liberals to a tee.
-
simply wondered says:
can we have a sweepstake how many comments into the thread it takes before someone who doesn’t want to read your first three paragraphs accuses you of racism?
-
cdalygo says:
What a great way to start the morning. (Riverdaughter recommended your post.)
Having grown up in So-Cal I recognize the whole Campus Crusade for Christ motif. That includes the shutting off of the brain by any means possible when facts to the contrary are presented.
Months ago the rumor was that Rove had planted people in the blogosphere to cause trouble. But I no longer believe it because I recognize too many of the biggest offenders.
We have a lot of “cleaning up” to do post election.
Thanks again for writing it.
-
LuLu says:
This is a terrific essay. When I first started paying attention to Obama I was struck by his religious language. Being raised in the middle of Protestant fundamentalism it was immediately recognizable as the words of exclusion. We are good, they are bad. We are chosen, they are damned. We understand, they are ignorant. This is the exact same principles and language used to gain power over a group that feels dismissed or belittled. It is very cynical and violates everything that many of us hold dear in the Democratic party.
These trash talking supporters do not want support from others. They wish to win on their own specifically excluding others. How they think they will win in November I do not understand. But they appear to be willing to loose so they can remain pure which is another factor in fundamentalism. Their private language is hateful and cruel. Thanks to the internet and nitwits like Ms. Power, this secret attitude and venom is leaking out and being made public.
-
blondie says:
As I was reading this entry, it also brought to my mind Ron Paul’s vocal supporters.
-
Mary Tracy9 says:
Excellent post!!!
By the way, can I vote for SUNSHINE?
-
octogalore says:
Excellent points. Very few Obama supporters I’ve encountered are able to articulate why his actual positions stand out to them, or why they prefer them to Clinton’s. Mostly, they aren’t aware of what those positions actually are.
-
CB says:
It seems as if some of these so-called Democratic/progressive blogs have been reduced to adolescent males who have a limited vocabulary.
Not worth visiting these sites and giving the owners their fees with your mouse clicks.
Too bad that many of the bused-in bullies have been able to overtake caucuses and shout down people who have been party regulars.
This You-Tube video portrays the Obama marketing frenzy:
-
anna says:
Here are the advantages I see with Obama:
Hillary keeps touting her experience as First Lady, but her major experience was with health care, which failed. Beyond that, she mostly attended ceremonial functions. She also supported regrettable positions of her husband, such as NAFTA and welfare reform, which she has not repudiated.
She supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and voted for the Iraq war. Obama spoke out against the war in the state senate at the same time.
Obama has signed the American Freedom Pledge, which states, ““We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President.”
Hillary has not signed this. Obama supports dicriminalizing marijuana and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act; Hillary does not.
-
Bluegrass Poet says:
Very satisfying to read this essay and the comments and see that I’m not alone in my perceptions
CB says:
It seems as if some of these so-called Democratic/progressive blogs have been reduced to adolescent males who have a limited vocabulary.I said something similar on my blog yesterday. But in a way I think we ought not to be too surprised. I’ve noticed a tendency on lefty blogs not to differentiate between really egregious right-wing actions and small embarrassments such as could happen to anyone in public life. Mind, I love the schadenfreude as well as anybody but I also think we’ve become unmodulated over the years out of sheer frustration. It’s taken its toll.
Now I sure don’t like being told I’m old and in the way.
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Welcome, folks coming over from riverdaughter. Nice to see you.
I’ve just seen this piece at Taylor Marsh, which simply confirms what we know. Whatever you think of Linda Hirshman (and I’m well aware that many feminists don’t like her), the key thing here is what Andrew at Talking Points Memo says:
Andrew: “I’m not sure the accusation of bias is particularly helpful. For now, like I said, we’re focusing on getting our long-standing regulars and folks covering things we don’t on the blog. I recognize that you think female voters should be one of those things, we disagree.”
-
octogalore says:
From one of the feminists who IS a big-time Hirshman fan, thanks for passing that along. (Off topic: I’d love to hear your thoughts on Hirshman’s “Get to Work” at some point).
-
Davidson says:
This is so sadly true. One side of my family has been working for the national GOP since I was a boy and dealing with Obamania has been triggering eerie flashbacks to my childhood where I would dare to criticize them by using wretched facts, logic–critical thinking!–and I would be shouted down as if I were a heretic. The misogynistic bigotry has seriously been the most disturbing. If he gets the nomination, it’ll only legitimize anti-female hate even more.
Again, thanks for braving the blogosphere.
-
madamab says:
This is a wonderful essay. I consider myself a liberal and I am disgusted with Obama and his whole approach to gaining the nomination. He has been nothing but a product ever since he got Oprah to campaign for him.
I will still vote for him over McCaca. Let’s get real, McCaca is a crazy old warmonger. But Hillary is a much better choice than Obama to lead the country in this time of crisis.
We don’t have time for someone who will “surround himself with smart people.” That’s what they said about Bush! Let him learn the job for 8 years, then be President when he’s got a little more on the ball.
-
blondie says:
I don’t even have an opinion regarding Linda Hirshman, but I clicked over to the Taylor Marsh link.
I am appalled at the attitude displayed by Talking Points Memo toward female voters. I consider it both arrogant and short-sighted, but what do I know? Maybe this is just one of those periods when I am feeling down.
-
lauren says:
Absolutely brilliant essay!
If this blog is the ony place I can truly speak my mind about the election, what does that say about our country?!
I don’t own a TV so I have never heard an entire Obama speech. The whole religous tactic
makes me queasy.I think the point that now men who call themselves
progressive can bash women all they want is very true and just shows how much we have gone backwards.
If anyone out there has been to an Obama rally, I am curious as to what it’s like.I used to frequent spiritual talks. People can use group energy to their advantage and do harmful things with it. That ‘love’ energy found in some gurus is contagious, it feels wonderful, and any criticism of it is taboo, often dealt with violently.
And we all kinow what leaders can do with power that may not have been ‘earned’.Violet - this essay belongs on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times.
One last point: how can anyone call themselves progressive if they are not feminist?
-
LC says:
Anna,
Here’s part of Hillary’s resume (From Hillary’s Fact Hub):Wellesley College - chosen by her classmates to be the first-ever student commencement speaker.
Yale Law School - focused on questions about how the law affected children and began her decades of work as an advocate for children and families. As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund.
House Judiciary Committee re Nixon’s impeachment - only one of two women lawyers on the staff
Married Bill in 1975; Chelsea was born in 1980.Arkansas - ran a legal aid clinic for the poor and handled cases of foster care and child abuse. Years later, she organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.
First Lady of Arkansas - led a task force to improve education in Arkansas through higher standards for schools; served on board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital, helping them expand and improve their services. She also served on national boards for the Children’s Defense Fund, the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children’s Television Workshop.
Law firm partner: led the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.
First Lady of the U.S.- traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the idea that women’s rights are human rights. Led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly.
Universal Health Care - failed, but was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.
Wrote “It Takes A Village”, about the responsibility we all have to help children succeed, became an international best seller. Donated the proceeds — more than a million dollars — to children’s causes across the country.
U.S Senate , Hillary was elected to the United States Senate from New York.
.
First New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee,
Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittees:
Airland
Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Readiness and Management Support
For more committee information, visit websiteSenate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Subcommittees:
Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (Chair)
Subcommittee Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Transportation and InfrastructureSenate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
Subcommittees:
Children and Families
Employment & Workplace Safety
For more committee information, visit websiteSenate Special Committee on Aging
Attorney, Rose Law Firm, 1976-1992
Faculty, University of Arkansas Law School, 1975
Author
Former Staff Attorney, Children’s Defense Fund.Organizations:
Co-Founder, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
Board Member, Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Board Member, Children’s Defense Fund
Board Member, La Farge
Board Member, The Country’s Best Yogurt Company
Board Member, Wal-Mart.Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession
Chair, Arkansas Educational Standards Committee
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Co-Chair, Congressional E-911 Caucus
Democratic Policy Committee
Democratic Technology and Communications Committee
Board Member, Legal Services Corporation
Senate National Guard Caucus
Senate Rural Health Caucus
Senate Steel Caucus
Chair, Steering and Coordination Committee
Chair, Task Force of National Health Care Reform.Committees:
Armed Services, Member
Environment & Public Works, Member
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Member
Special Committee on Aging, Member
Subcommittee On Readiness and Management Support, Member
Subcommittee on Airland, Member
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Member
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Member
Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, Chair
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Member -
The Ghost of Violet says:
Hillary was a first lady of the Eleanor Roosevelt type, except that she was more closely involved with her husband’s administration than Eleanor was. It is inaccurate and sexist for Obama to pretend that she spent 8 years having tea.
Hillary’s speech in Beijing in 1995 (”women’s rights are human rights”) was one of the most prominent international statements for women’s rights ever delivered.
Here’s how the NYTimes covered it at the time: Hillary Clinton, in China, details abuse of women.
-
estampa says:
Thank you Violet, I needed to read this today.
-
Mary says:
Thanks Violet.
I use your blog as a palate cleanser after reading some other “liberal”… but sexist sites.
Even my husband, an Obama supporter, has noticed the religious/sermon-like feel of Obama’s speeches. (Yes, we are a household divided…) I feel as though Obama is invoking the style of MLK’s speeches - without the substance behind them.
-
Gayle says:
Kos was always a sexist site.
It had some good moments, pre-pie, before their best female diarists were driven off, if not banned outright. Now it’s become a women hating site and I’m not exaggerating. I just made the mistake of going over there. They have now taken to ripping a Geraldine Ferraro quote out of context to accuse her (as a Clinton surrogate) of racism.
That’s not the worst of it– although that’s bad enough. Take a read down the comments and see how many people are calling Ferraro a bitch, a rich bitch, a white bitch, etc. and so forth. See how many are mocking older women for backing Clinton ( they feel their entitled, don’t you know. Why don’t they sit down and shut the fuck up?). They are openly calling Hillary a monster and worse. They are vowing to vote for McCain if she gets the nomination.
I feel zero kinship with so-called progressives at this point. The word “progressive” is starting to make me cringe because those horrible, sexist cretins have the gall to call themselves that.
You don’t have to post this Violet. I’m venting and probably not making any sense. If she’s not the nominee, I doubt I’ll vote the top of the ticket at all.
Maybe I’ll write her in.
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Gayle, a bunch of us are feeling the same way.
It has never been clearer to me than it is now that the liberal dudes despise us. They don’t want us, don’t care about our votes — even though we’re the biggest segment of the American electorate.
If my state is a safe one I’m also going to write Hillary in if she’s not the nominee.
-
Dalal says:
THANK YOU SO MUCH! You’ve put into words what I haven’t been able to. I knew I didn’t like Obama. I have to read his second book for a class, and I absolutely hate it (even though I must admit, he knows how to string words together), but I couldn’t understand why. As a person who’s recently broken out of the grip of a religiously-crazed household, I know how damaging these sorts of things are.
It also seriously disturbs me when I hear so many people saying how they hate Hillary. I mean, I don’t hate Obama, I just hate his campaign. Hate seems to be so acceptable towards Hilary, but not towards Obama.
-
anonymous male says:
This is the best blog post I have read this year. I no longer feel so alone. The Obama movement may be the most dishonest and dangerous thing I have seen in my lifetime (I thought the Reagan and Bush cults of personality were bad but this is more dangerous).
Hillary Clinton is the only hope we have to change course in our country. I am a lifelong liberal Democrat but I cannot with a good conscience ever vote for Obama. If he becomes the nominee I will vote for McCain, or some third party (not Nader), write in a name, or stay home.
-
Pieter B says:
I have said several times in the past few weeks that arguing with Obama supporters is like arguing the theory of evolution with creationists. They throw up an argument, you refute it. They throw up another, you refute that one. Along about argument number five or six, they go back to number one. Any day now I expect to hear that the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the fossil record refutes the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees the parallel.
A week ago I asked a co-worker what he would have said if someone had told him a year ago that one day he’d believe the unsupported word of Matt F’ing Drudge over that of a fellow Democrat. I didn’t get much of an answer.
-
julia says:
Dalal- can you talk about why you hated the book?
I know, I could go and read it myself but I can’t bring myself to do it…..I’d appreciate any details.I never did read daily kos. This campaign is like turning over a smooth rock in the forest and seeing all of the mud and bugs wriggling underneath it.
MLK’s words were inspiring because they had action behind them. I heard his last speech redcently, about the sanitation worker’s strike. He was willing to die for his actions.
-
Tabby Lavalamp says:
A little something to brighten everyone’s day…
http://www.wwe.com/superstars/divas/womenshistory/
“And don’t forget the ladies of today… WWE.com has everything you need to keep up with current Playboy cover girl Maria and all of the gorgeous WWE Divas.”
I understand that next year for Black History Month, they’re going to feature Amos and Andy on their website.
-
Level Best says:
If I recall correctly, the answer to the book title’s question “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” basically is that Kansans vote in people who pander to their religious beliefs and prejudices instead of voting for people who might actually make the state’s unemployment and other problems less bad. Signs indicate Obama to be pitching the same gooey generic supernatural woo with the result that both the usual suspects AND the young folks who are already smitten with his relative youth, good looks, and speaking ability are becoming giddily enthusiastic. HRC, to her credit, is a very reality-based candidate, but there are a lot of voters who don’t relate to reality too well. She’s entirely too specific for them. Bundle in the same voters’ rampant misogyny and you get the disgusting reactions to her that you’re commenting upon. I suspect that the misogyny factor would make it impossible for her to make headway with them even if she got much vaguer and posed in front of a backlit cross.
Let’s remember as many as possible of the “progressive” blogs who’ve savaged Senator Clinton and know they are no allies of ours.
-
blondie says:
I am amazed at the venom in the attacks on Clinton coming from supposedly liberal or progressive (even feminist) blogs or their commenters. What’s their deal?
-
arf isher says:
The night Hillary won Ohio, I noticed that she did not allow the crowd to lose itself in chanting “Yes she will” even though they were ready. I wondered then if it was a mistake to deny that expression. I don’t know the answer. Like Gore against Bush in the 2000 debates, Hillary offers reason against emotion, a traditional Democratic tendency (bama’s against type there) that fails to reach the deeper (if I say reptilian is it a slur?) brain.
-
donna darko says:
Can you imagine how liberating it must be? That’s why they’re so giddy. They’ve been repressing this for years!
Like rap music? Or Norman Mailer in the 50s?
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Ha! No, I’m just talking about the Blogger Boys. How old are the netroots anyway? Didn’t it really get started in 2004 with Howard Dean?
The Blogger Boys have always been sexist but I don’t think they’ve felt entirely free before now to publicly jump on the Hillary Misogyny bandwagon.
-
donna darko says:
I’M comparing it to rap music and Norman Mailer! :)
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Like Gore against Bush in the 2000 debates, Hillary offers reason against emotion, a traditional Democratic tendency (bama’s against type there) that fails to reach the deeper (if I say reptilian is it a slur?) brain.
This is true.
I would point out though that Hillary does offer a certain emotional appeal to women my age. I’m not sure where the cut-off is — over 30, over 40 — but for us, it’s deeply moving and inspiring to see a woman finally with a chance at the White House. But it’s not the same kind of lizard-brain thing as religious fanaticism.
Still, I think Hillary would do well to capitalize on that emotion and loyalty she evokes from women. We are quiet about it in public because, well, you see how we’re shat upon for daring to support her. But privately women wink at each other and give each other little hopeful smiles. We feel it.
-
lauren says:
My question to the white blogger boys: ‘what are you doing to fight racism?”.
If they answer, ‘I’m not racist - see, I’m campaigning for a black man!” I’d tell them that’s not enough. Are they working to end the prison industry? Are they organizing to stop racial profiling in their neighborhood? If they have a business, do they actively hire people of color?
I would like to see how far they’re willing to go in their ‘anti-racism’. My guess is, not far at all… -
Julene says:
Wow, I have been searching for so long to find somewhere that I would not be forced to read the Obamamania as real political analysis such as what has happened at Daily Kos. Spot on analysis of the fervor. Thank you! I have marked you as a favorite and look forward to reading your thoughts from here on out - no matter who you vote(d) for.
-
Virginia Ray says:
It is really important to understand now that this misogyny has always been there.
This is what most of us have been able to ignore from “our side”, both the males and females who are not woman-identified, until the Hill called it forth.
This is why we do need the ERA. because we are not in the constitution and women are only full citizens for two generations. It can change again if you are asleep at the wheel. Because there is a lot of violence in the world and only two short generations of women’s rights.
How many political positions have come from analysis written by the male left (now calling it self “the reality based community)?
How many times do we really weigh objectively how a progressive male left position will affect women’s ability to be self sufficient or conversely push her into marriage or domestic partnerships because she cannot live on her wages alone? Do we actually deconstruct the social policy plans of the left?
Do we say why not pro-rate all rights - not base their distribution on marital status but rather distribute a limited number of “family” benefits by worker’s choice? If I want my cousin on my family medical insurance I should be able to do it as easily as Tom adds his wife. We both get one dependant and two children. Period.
The boys on the left and on the right both think family as the way for women and now they are using that model for gays. The sad thing is that feminist never question if these systems work for women.
Both the left and right say that the only valuable relationships follow the marriage model and only marriage may confer economic rights through sexual bondings and reproduction. This thinking was extended to civil unions.
The male left urges us to go back to a time when welfare benefits were tied to reproduction and unless a girl had a baby she could not leave an abusive situation or get job training or housing. All welfare was tied to her reproducing because her children were worth more than her adult life. The male left is still claiming that welfare system is a good one because it was –for men. Women were Married to the Man.
Would women who need to know our enemies censor speech? How often I am censored on those left websites compared to the center or even the right. Look how male left hate speech laws are used to persecute feminists in Europe protesting the Islamification of European culture.
There is a group veiling all the statutes and they have to be anonymous for the hate speech lawsuits brought by Muslim men will bankrupt them.
This is what we get when feminist politics are confused with the misogynist policies of the males and laundered to be presented as feminist analysis.
If feminist analysis were utilized in social policy and program planning, better programs (based on real needs named by women not previously included)and political platforms would result from that inclusion of feminist analysis in program planning. Solutions to problems would emerge from programs which are Not programs based on a male fantasy of what women need.
That is the promise of Hillary. That is what she represents to me. The inclusion of the woman identified feminist into the program planning of this nation. A feminist foreign policy, a feminist green energy program, a feminist education program.
I would like to see a third wave of radical feminist policy writers plan and implement feminist programs based on feminist policies not just the tired regurgance of male left policies and programs based on a male conception of what women need to suceed as single individual if they want to or have to live salone. This means any class of woman.
The war, the veil, the threat of Muslim culture to women, porn, raped children. beaten children, Palestinians - you name it. It would be cool to discuss if the US foreign policy is a feminist foreign policy. What is a feminist foreign policy? As opposed to a leftist foreign policy. The right is easy to identify - the left is not.
Even the places where the left has achieved,ie the environment. Women argue endlessly about class but the boys on the left who run the environmental agencies ignore it completely and work out their alliances with the utility companies.
The ecology movement has been an elitist section of the Progressive network. I do not think women would have delivered the message the way it has been delivered.
It is the left who think it is macho to play with the bad boys of the word and rule by the gun. These are the Islamic cultures they support. These positions are not necessarily in the interests of women.
It is not in the interests of women to have our right to carry guns limited here or globally yet that is the position of the male left.
Look at them, Gary Hart, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Soros,these are where they manifested in politics - there is Howard Zinn and the bunch of academic.
I would like the names and bios of the entire Obama team. - we should gather the names of all the men and women that make up the male left in BO’s camp and on the web. It is in getting their specific names and areas of expertise that would be interesting, god being in the details.
-
donna darko says:
No one talks about the huge vote called the white guilt vote or the Hillary Effect vote, women who are afraid to say they vote for Hillary.
He’s safe too, post-racial with a white sensibility, but technically black so they can be “hipsters” or what Mailer called “the white Negro.”
-
donna darko says:
White men coopted him all over the place so I hope he knows what he’s doing and is committed to civil rights.
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Virginia, I would just add that the religious threat to women comes from all the fundamentalist patriarchal religions. In my life, in my family, it’s fundamentalist Christianity that’s oppressing women. It drives me up the fricking wall.
I wish we had a national feminist political party. That’s why we need to scrap this mess and go to a parliamentary democracy — so other parties can get some power in a coalition.
-
Lambert Strether says:
It’s been nice to see the various non-KoolAid drinking blogs getting together after being purged from DK and finding the comment sections from the Boys on the Blogs unbearable. May I put in a word for the place I blog, Corrente?
Hey, it’s nice to be able to make a critique of Obama and not be called a racist or a shill! Takes me back to, you know, the days of the blogosphere….
And I’m with the very first commenter, Red Queen:
Working class folks get this. We don’t have time for cults. And while Bill had his problems, poor people remember the Clinton years as a time when things got better for them, even if it was just a little. But just a little means not getting eviction notices or having your heat shut off in the middle of January. We know what to expect from Sen Clinton and it looks good to us. All we get from Obama and his supports is told to shut up and vote the way they want us too. That’s not good enough.
Bingo. “We don’t have time for cults.” Exactly.
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Yes indeed, Corrente is one of the islands of sanity. I need to put a post up about that (I’m seeing the trackback now from Tom Watson).
-
Virginia Ray says:
Violet
But the doctrine of moral equivalency is not relevant to women when some religions hold women as slaves by force with death or acid in the face as the price of disobedience. That needs to be a fact of all our reality - there are degrees of submission. Some women today are held as property of men inside theocracies and the ethnoreligious Muslims. You have to acknowledge that or you cannot fight it. Women like us would be killed in Iraq, in Afghanistan or in Iran, certainly, in Saudi Arabia. I think I would survive a trip to the Vatican.
Religions are coercive and controlling but, other than the ethnoreligious Muslims, only Warren Jeffery’s, polygamous Mormon sect in Colorado City has adopted church/state law enforced by the city/county cops and DA to control the life of a girl from birth to death.
Only Muslims today combine culture, religious law and civil law to oppress women. They are the last theocracies. Only ethnoreligious Muslims use force to hold women in slavery.
Donna Hughes, Ph.d, has written essays as to why feminism is the answer to theocracy - she has the feminist analysis on her website - look for the words in articles title: “defeat the woman-haters”. Donna Hughes works with slaved women.
We should look at all religions but we should also understand that when one religion becomes the state’s religion and Sharia law prevails, that is not the same as my ex Catholic church being oppressive in the US.
Don’t get me started on my ex Catholic, witch burning, homo-erotic male bonding, tax exempt, social services take the tax money but refuse BC, church - but it is nothing to the Muslim patriarchies which hang women who do not submit and who do not die in prison. The theocracies with their militias and religious police.
I do not think all oppression is the same - there is privilege even if we live in the master’s house. I feel privileged women have to recognize and stand against the worst manifestation of women’s oppression when there is no ability for the slaves to do it without being killed.
Today that is happening in the Muslim theocracies. There is not a good war or a bad war, there is only one war.
The privileged, less oppressed, have an obligation to understand the situation of those women who are actual slaves and to realize we are all connected and must save our sisters to save our-self.
-
arf isher says:
Virginia, I am reminded of how feminism arose from within the left because the “movement” was run by the boys for the boys.
-
Virginia Ray says:
arf isher
CLICK AGAIN! Grand Coolie Dam
but this time we can see how their programs need feminist analysis and how important free speech is to the critique of their sacred cows.
but if the Hill comes to power,,,, and look at her platform–green energy job training, medical care, student loan forgiveness for community services (I want this for veterinarians) -
All Hillary’s programs are so sensible and so radical. We don’t agree about everything but I don’t agree with God on Everything either.
-
julia says:
Damn. Jim Hightower just endorsed Obama because of the phenomenon.
And George McGovern says he backs her because she is his friend.
I wish this were just a bad dream…We need a feminist left, and we need it now.
-
Dalal says:
Julia: The book is mostly about Obama talking about other politicians, never saying a single negative word about them, talking about politics, talking about what he thinks the failures of the current system are, blah blah blah. It’s the same as his speeches, a lot of “lets have hope and faith!” and hardly any… practicality. The book is even TITLED, “The audacity of hope”. Hope is in the title, and audacity too. I guess he put audacity in the title ’cause he felt like he was going to be seen as audacious for his words. Telling. Very telling.
It just left a really bad taste in my mouth.
Violet: I would point out though that Hillary does offer a certain emotional appeal to women my age. I’m not sure where the cut-off is — over 30, over 40 — but for us, it’s deeply moving and inspiring to see a woman finally with a chance at the White House.
Hey, I’m 18, and hell, I’m freakin’ HONORED to see Clinton running for nomination. :D It’s not just older women, some of us young’un’s still have our heads.
Lauren: You might be interested in this: http://sayingnothingcharmingly.....-this.html
-
Athena says:
Excellent synopsis. An orgy of male bonding is taking place under the guise of “opposing” Hillary Clinton. Only she’s been morphed from a political opponent into a deadly enemy. A sure sign of the irrationality fueled by an endless reservoir of misogyny.
-
shriekingviolet says:
Great post! My blog reading habits have definitely changed over the past year because of how awful a lot of the lefty blogs are toward Hillary. Even on the blogs where I feel the posters are pretty fair to all sides (like Crooks and Liars), the comments sections have become too toxic to read. It’s helped me find some great new reads though, so there have been some positive developments.
I would point out though that Hillary does offer a certain emotional appeal to women my age. I’m not sure where the cut-off is — over 30, over 40 — but for us, it’s deeply moving and inspiring to see a woman finally with a chance at the White House. But it’s not the same kind of lizard-brain thing as religious fanaticism.
As a woman in her mid-twenties, I’d say there is no cut-off. Maybe some women my age don’t feel the same urgency as some older women to see a woman finally in power, but I do feel as strongly affected by the possibility as many Hillary supporters I know that are twice my age. I support Hillary for reasons other than her gender, but I cannot deny how moved I am simply by the idea of having a woman sworn in to our nation’s highest office. And I knew from the moment she threw her hat in the race that while there were many very qualified people running for president this cycle who I would have been proud to vote for, Hillary would be the only one whose loss I would find devastating. (For the nomination, obviously. I’ll be plenty traumatized if a Republican wins in November!)
-
Virginia Ray says:
See Chesler’s Chronicles today.
-
julia says:
I am deeply disturbed that Phyliss Chesler supports the Iraq and possible Iran. She is not thinking about the one million dead citizens, many of whom are women and children, and the three million people forced into exile.
I liked her early books but I hate this kind of stand.What we should be screaming is that Obama votes to fund the war. He abstains on abortion votes. If he is in the White House he will most certainly follow the rule of the IMF, World Bank, oil companies, and all other corporations that control US politics. I think it is terribly naive of his followers to believe otherwise.
People love to fantasize.
How do you know what a candidate will do?
Follow the money. -
julia says:
oops , I meant Iraq/Iran invasion.
-
Virginia Ray says:
Julia
try this woman who may be more to your liking - I critique her work on my last blog entry (the green writing) but she may be closer to your world view than Chesler. I believe, all feminist must confront the gender apartheid practiced in Muslim countries OR acknowledge women as a caste are not how they approach feminism.
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/
This is important because feminist foreign policy must be imagined before it can become reality.
-
T.O. says:
When you use fair language, like you did in most of this post, you return to being the brilliant blogger I subscribed to months ago. Calling Obama supporters clowns, bots, etc. is not brilliant; it’s the same name-calling you’re supposedly arguing against. This post has encouraged me to stay subscribed to you — I’ll resume reading regularly when the election’s over!
-
ozamerican says:
You’re being way too sour about all of this.
The presidency isn’t all about ten-point plans the mastery of the arcane processes of government.
It’s mostly about leadership, which requires charisma, which can inspire people to believe in their country again.
You’re really criticizing the exuberance of youth, which is no different than it is for any other candidate with young supporters. There are just so many MORE of them for Obama.
Here’s some Hillarymania to enjoy:
-
ET says:
I think this is a well reasoned post - though let me say upfront that I disagree with it completely. It is fact that when a person begins to have an opinion about any subject they must always draw upon the first experience that is triggered before they move on to other experiences and eventually come up with a conclusion - this is how well reasoned people normally think. So I will not judge your opinions because I do not share your experiences and therefore cannot see through your eyes - but my main objection is that it seems like more of a self-serving post written out of frustration and with the purpose of cementing your views onto others that share similar experiences. My question is how does this argument help us all moving forward.
It is obvious from the onset by calling Obama supporters Obamabots and his following Obamamania that your not inviting us into this discussion. Obamamania as you call it is not a cult or a delusional following, it’s a change in philosophy from the current system. It is not new in the world and it is not new to this country. You see I have spent the last 2 years studying this very similar philosophy in another part of the world and it comes down to two major factors - Non-Violent organizing and Truth. However it doesn’t always quite play out the way it is intended as you and many other Clinton supporters might have at one time or another been subjected to some sort of verbal violence. The current philosophy in government at the time is divide and conquer and it is used by both parties (Krugman - Rove). However - what drives Obamabots to follow Obama over policy or experience is the understanding that even if this method can win elections it does not solve our most major problems. The philosophy that Obama is employing is a bottom up approach to politics - that strength in numbers and organizing a movement on the ground from individuals is much stronger and powerful than any policy paper and any political maneuvering. This has been proven time and time again from Ghandi to Martin Luther King - it is how communism fell in Eastern Europe and it’s the only way to get special interests out of our government so it can begin to start working for us and its the way to truly defeat radical Islam and Global Warming. It does however require a leader that can wake us up.
It’s interesting how College students are being ridiculed as having a cult-like adulation but go back and look at the histories of most democratic countries and you will see at the center of every major change there are students - this is still true today in places like Burma and Bangladesh that are struggling for democracy - Tienneman square in China was organized by college students. This is the future of the world and their involvement in our own democracy should be encouraged - it wasn’t that long ago that Boomers were organizing against the Vietnam war. However when their enthusiasm and optimism is met with cynicism and personal attacks of ignorance then they end up resorting to the built in reactionary responses en-grained in their societies. In America from the time we are young we have been flooded with divisions - how many times have you seen a young boy or girl make fun of each other because of gender - where did they learn it? I’ve seen tons of cartoons that have these prejudices in them. From middle school on to college you are taught to root for a team, this highschool versus that highschool, this town college versus the other college, this state team versus that team all the way onto Republicans versus democrats and Americans versus the French. So though it does not excuse the behavior it is no wonder that many Obamabots resort to name calling and have become entrenched behind a team. This is not much different however from how Hillary supporters have behaved as it is from the outset a team first fighters philosophy.
What we need to do however is realize that we are different in our philosophies, not take everything so personal that’s said on the bloggersphere (How can you tell the difference between a Rovian, a Clintonian or an Obamabot anyways!!!) and realize that our end goal is the same. If Hillary wins then let’s all hate the Republicans and go back to our lives and see what progress has been made in 4 years, and if Obama wins then get involved and become active in your societies!!!
-
Elliot Lake says:
From the beginning of noticing Obama (via the Oprah debut, I guess), I have thought there was more hype than substance, and while the guys I know who are his supporters are definitely not misogynistic, they are in the “I got mine, what’s your problem? camp–the folks that pay lip service to progressive ideals but are enamored of David Brooks and find themselves, highly paid professionals, to be poor, needy & in need of special cosseting. Retro teens.
The thing I find mose worrisome about Obama’s rhetoric is the sense of “don’t worry your little head about the details, I will handle those, just do as I say”. It feels like abuser speak. We don’t need a president to think for us, thank you very much, we can think for ourselves.
-
lia says:
Thank you for your excellent, insightful analysis.
I could not agree more. -
Kali says:
This has been proven time and time again from Ghandi to Martin Luther King
Both had a method (civil disobedience - inspired by suffragists, btw) and concrete goals (civil rights, freedom). Obama’s method is not civil disodedience, but compromising with the powerful. His goal is not civil rights and freedom, but to get elected. The similarity between Obama and MLK/Gandhi stops at the rhetoric.
-
ET says:
Civil disobedience is a tool not a method - just like strikes are a tool of a Union. The strength of people comes from unity and the divisive nature of politics takes away the power of the people and gives it to the corporations which referee both sides.
The goal is not to get elected - that’s only the means… the goal has been mentioned time and time again and that is to open up the halls of Congress for all to see who is being bought and by who - the goal is transparency in government and both democrat and republican establishments will reject it unless their is unity in the public.
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
ET –
Obamamania is not a grassroots movement. It’s a product, a very slick carefully packaged product. It’s been fed to you. And part of the product is the illusion that you and your young friends are somehow creating a grassroots movement yourselves. Actually you’re just unpaid salespeople and voters.
Obamamania has one goal: getting Obama elected. That’s it. He’s a creature of the Chicago machine who’s been groomed by Axelrod to be maximally electable. He’s not going to change anything. His positions are virtually identical to Hillary’s except where they’re more conservative. And his callow youth makes him dangerous as hell (witness how his aides had to explain to him why voting to confirm Roberts to the Supremes wouldn’t be good idea).
And no, ozamerica, the Presidency is not about charisma. The most effective presidents in the past century in terms of implementing social progress were effective because they were ace politicians. All the youthful charisma in the world means nothing once you’re in office. The system just doesn’t work that way.
Or, another way to get a lot done — a lot of very bad things — is to be a Republican shill, like Bush or Reagan, in which case your strings are being pulled by the military-corporate establishment.
Wake up, kids. Or if you can’t wake up, at least be quiet and let the grown-ups vote.
I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings, but frankly the feelings of a bunch of college students are not nearly as important as the political future of this country and the world and the people whose lives and freedom are at stake.
-
ET says:
The Ghost of Violet -
Not to worry - my feelings are not at all hurt - your just a random blogger whom I don’t know a thing about and I have far too much in my life to do then to take offense from a message in my email account - I guess it’s not surprising that you assume I’m a college student simply cause I defend them - in fact I’m 53 years old and never graduated from college (guess I should be in the Hillary column) - I’m not even internet savvy enough to figure out how to reply to you directly on this blog… What I am is a lifelong activists who has work for many different NGOs throughout my career (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch just to name the most well known)… cynicism is our adversary and getting people involved is our biggest obstacle - so you can see how I might be excited to see college students become active and how one can admire a person who can break through the cynicism so easily (obviously not yours but enough to be winning a nomination against a very popular figure)… I will say to you from experience that I know what a grassroots movement looks like, feels like and how it works and because you don’t see it that way doesn’t mean it isn’t. You are right about one thing - I am an unpaid (actually just very low paid)sales person and have always been because I chose to - helping others may not be a that slick and carefully packaged product you may think it is - try and go out on the street today and see how many people you can get to work for Darfur and you will see it’s not that easy to sell. I do it because it is right. The only reason I am writing in this blog is to give you a different perspective on what you call Obamamania - why some people support without having done the research you deem sufficient. My point is they believe and you may think that is dangerous but that is only your opinion. Charisma may not make a president but neither does experience - some of the most experienced were complete failures (Carter) and some of the least experienced have plays written films made about them (Lincoln). In my opinion the biggest problem we have in this country is the team first mentality - boys vs girls, blacks vs whites, old vs young, republican vs democrats, north vs south, east vs west - it’s ridiculous and tiring. How hypocritical of us to criticize other countries for their ethnic divisions when we have our own Sunni Shiite problems. I’ve spent a lifetime trying to ease these tensions overseas and for once I would like to see my own country stop being such babies and get over it. I mean is it really necessary for you to try to insult me because you thought I was a college student and so I can’t therefore think for myself - do you think the age limit for voting should be raised to only those who are likely to die within the next decade or two.
Grow up - you only hurt your cause when you exclude others by insulting them - how was Bush going to negotiate with Iran and North Korea after calling them evil - how is Hillary going to get cooperation from Russia after saying publicly that Putin has no soul. “Don’t become the enemy” - MLK
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
I’m not trying to insult anyone. I’m impatient with people who seem blinded to reality.
You have a right to your opinions.
By the way, Lincoln was a master politician. He worked the system mercilessly.
-
julia says:
What i love about this blog: it shows me what the media doesn’t. If i just listened to NPR and read the paper, I might be swept up in the mania as well. Since all we are fed is how great Obama is and how bad Hillary is, I appreciate getting a balanced view, and I get it here.
Our domestic and foreign policy will be about the same no matter who wins. That is, if we even have fair elections, which I do not believe we do. “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” is an expose of who really rules the country..
-
Virginia Ray says:
Julia
So you believe our foreign policy from BO and the Hill will be the same? Whew, I do not but here is a different thought - what if that is true. What if BO and the Hill have the same world view?
So are feminist women those who give in to that fatalist vision? Because you would not be voting in the next election if that is true.
Feminist seek to make institutional change to elevate the rights of individual women to be free of limitations imposed by the state. Globally because all women’s status is connected. The slave status of one woman threatens the free status of all women. Everything is connected.
First women must agree, over their political, class and cultural divisions, about what is good for all women on a particular issue. Then we must act as a political force to materialize institutional change for the good of women as a caste.
And if this is really the third wave then all feminists must begin to assume that responsibility because bitches get things done.
I believe feminists who supported the war and who opposed the war can unite on the post war reconstruction policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am calling this Feminist Foreign Policy. I have posted about this on this blog and my own.
I think you should seriously consider what I am saying and take back your power to be relevant.
-
julia says:
Virginia,
I think your point of ‘get behind a candidate and she’ll work for us’ is way off base when you look at who funds them. Yes, I will vote for Hillary in the primary, but no Democrat really cares about us ‘little’ people and they would never get this far in the race if they did.
How would Hillary end the war if she is the #1 recipient of funding from the Military Lobby? The Pharmaceutical Industry is another of her big sponsors. They also fund Obama.
Have you read ‘Economic Hitman’? Have you read Michael Ruppert, Clara Fraser, Greg Palast, or anyone who exposes the American plutocracy?
As long as we have a plutocracy the president controls very little. We as people have enormous power, we pay their salaries, we keep this country going, we could shut it down in a matter of days.
I do not see myself as cynical, but realistic.
Am I furious about how they are treating Hillary Clinton? You bet.
Do I think my situation as a woman, or the life of poor women in this country will change if she is selected? Only in that a woman will have the last word. I will still have to deal with high cost of living, no NHS, the constant threat of sexual violence and the burden of US foreign policy every single day. -
Virginia Ray says:
Julia
You totally missed the point -I am not telling you to get behind anyone. I am telling you to lead rather than accept what you are given.I am saying that feminists organize for change. That is how they improve the institutions that control their lives. That I have done so and changed the world with other women.
All this telling me I should read men’s books to understand the world is arrogant and foolish. Have you read the changes we made in the world while pigs were presidents? You should read books written by feminists.
I am saying women united to make change do what needs to be done. It is easier when there is a Hill in the white house - politicians are not all the same. It is a point Hillary also tried to make and was called racist by people who have never organized successfully.
It doesn’t make any difference who is in office is something the male left has been selling ever since Moore tried to get the girls to vote for Nader. They will say anything to bully us into doing what they want. Abortion does not matter - the Supreme Court does not matter — to the boys.
Obama is the pit compared to Hillary. He is dead to women’s issues. He will sabotage women’s organizing. The Hill will respond to feminist organizing if it is worthy. But without an organized feminist movement neither politician will be anymore than we are demanding they be.
I have read economic hit man. I think it is something written by a man who still works for the man — which man rarely matters - once a liar always a liar. It is a book with some truth and a lot of personal politics.
I have changed the world. I know it can be done but not with whiners. Women determined to make change will make change.
I say again - feminist organize together to make change and that is what matters. Take back your own power - stop thinking all you can be is a victim - all women can do is be victimized. That is what the boys want you to believe.
If there really is a third wave it should be based on theory not the age of women. I have said a little about that theory - that I think the evolution of feminist thinking is based on Caste ecology - that 3rd wave feminist organizing is global and inter-species. I will not allow it to be a lot of male left defeatism and thug gun rule supporting.
-
Virginia Ray says:
Julia — here is the perfect example on the difference between Hillary and Obama. You know what he says about withdrawal. Go listen to what Hillary says about withdrawal. You will see that it is much more in line with what I proposed in my Feminist Foreign Policy post than it is with Obama. That is because feminists think in the same directions. With a president like Hillary feminism can actualize.
HILLARY IS GIVING HER PLAN TO END THE WAR AT C-SPAN - Her plan IS democracy training and RECONSTRUCTION.
GO TO C-SPAN ON THE WEB
http://www.c-span.org/Default.aspx
AND SEE Hillary’s Speech On C-Span Video of recent programs. Under “Recent Programs” you can hear her speech.
http://www.c-span.org/Default.aspxFind Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Campaign Rally at GW Univ. (March 17, 2008) “Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) delivers a major policy address on the war in Iraq at George Washington University.” Watch the video of her speech.
If feminists would ask for it - we cold have what I outline in Feminist Policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. You can read my post on Iraqi withdrawal reconstruction with the links at: http://www.greenconsciousness.org/weblog/
I believe feminists who supported the war and who opposed the war can unite on the post war reconstruction policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am calling this Feminist Foreign Policy. Hillary’s plan articulated on C-Span video can do what I propose and the people will support it.
-
Virginia Ray says:
If you can’t find the HILL’S speech there try here.
C-SPAN programming is available to view online at
http://www.c-spanvideo.orgThe Video Library web site provides access to the collection of C-SPAN video. The site allows users to view online any C-SPAN video that has been digitized and has no rights restrictions. The site currently provides online video of all C-SPAN programming from 2000-2007.
Watch the video of her speech. Listen to what she says - if women would ask for it - we cold have what I outline in Feminist Policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. Read my post on Iraqi withdrawal reconstruction below. -
Virginia Ray says:
I found it, the video of “Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) delivers a major policy address on the war in Iraq at George Washington University.”
Here: Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy
-
Susan Mayhew says:
The Ghost of Violet’s post is heady - I’ve been wandering the web searching for some sanity. The horror that the Obamamaniacs cannot give one any concrete information about their messiah, but can spew hate-speech is very very frightening. Obama is ok - but truly no great shakes at this point in his career. Thanks for pinpointing the strategy: pump up the angry, young - especially the young men and give them a platform to vent and you’ve got it made. In this cycle and in the Obama campaign, women-hating is alive and well.
(This is a link to Robin Morgans treatise on this issue).
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.htmlThe media is in love - ‘progressive’ radio in Colorado is blinded by the light of the Obama mystic. Randi Rhode mocks Clinton’s jewelry, Ed Schulz calls me and my ilk, ‘Clintonistas’ Bill Maher mocks the shock that many felt hearing Rev Wright’s hate speech. (Which is just the tip of the ice berg of Obama’s radical past).
Shelby Steele (himself a person of mixed-race) has the key: Obama is a ‘bargainer’ - the black person who assures whites he knows they aren’t racist.. it’s like the second coming for intelligence-challenged whites, heavy with guilt.
I think Obama is a con man and this post should be saved for when the barbarians breach the gate and carry their forgiving Messiah to the Oval Office.
We’ll all be in trouble then. -
PJ says:
Obama is an inexperienced, unqualified huckster. His “transcendence” is nothing more than what has been reflected back at him by the True Believers. But his campaign has managed to alienate so many of us that a win in the general election is in doubt. A lot can happen between now and November but do not underestimate the power of the GOP to strangle his pursuit. The real Obama will be wide open to display and it may come as an eye opener when they get through. Hillary, God bless her, is the fighter we have all been waiting for and her voice speaks to us.
-
Ryan says:
Honestly I see fanaticism on both sides. It probably boils down to a pretty base requirement that a lot of people have. Support for their candidate is contingent upon their candidate being near perfect and the other being some kind of demon. The choice then becomes so painfully obvious they lose all ability to understand the opposition and the opposition simply becomes an obstacle. HRC is a politician and she is occasionally guilty of double speak. I admire her, she would be good for America if elected but I support Obama; crazy, I know. People utilize so many double standards when viewing different situations.
For example, negative ads are bad right? When Obama does one he is a hypocrite, betraying everything he stands for (unity?). When Clinton does one she is some feral beast, willing to destroy anyone or do anything to win. The reality is that politicians simply run negative ads. As far as negative TV ads go (only speaking to television advertisements) this campaign has been relatively civil in a historical sense. I’m really with you on one point, a lot of Obama supporters have bought the bullshit right wing pundits have been spewing about the Clintons for 16 years now. This is not a good thing. It makes me angry when a contested primary can (in some people’s minds) wipe out every good thing they have done.
Your take on campaign tactics is interesting. I am not sure I entirely agree (or disagree). It really seems to me that a lot of the lines have been blurred to a point where strict categorization is not really appropriate. For example, a large part of his fundraising campaign has come from web donations. When you sign up on his site he will send lots of e-mails encouraging the viewer to check out his latest speech or some other thing. Every once and a while an e-mail would ask you for money. The high frequency of e-mails that encourage the viewer to do some small thing then creates a reciprocal relationship of sorts. The best way to describe this might be social capital? You are right when you say this is not grassroots but this tactic (in my mind) defies an easy categorization into any old model. Also, it is not sinister.
-
Susan Mayhew says:
Thanks for the sanity… it has been like being the kid in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ having to stand by while the media and the Obamaniacs run the show with empty sound bytes.
I may have to vote for the con man - but have yet to hear anyone tell me what he has to offer. -
flawedplan says:
I voted for Hillary for the right political reasons, and because her work in child advocacy is meaningful to me. But I have been swept away by Barry, who uses the language of the human potential movement I’ve been steeped in since the 1980s, a few years after I hung it up as a card-carrying Jesus Freak. In one way it’s like I’ve been waiting all my life for a national leader like him, and that makes me nervous as hell. I’m not *there* yet, but thanks to this thread for the first peace of mind I’ve known in weeks.
-
Susan Mayhew says:
Your words were so prophetic and on target as usual.The link below goes to the latest Huffingon Post love fest for Obama, but this story is almost unbelievable. In courting the religious right (those who ‘cling’ to church according to the arrogant fraud)a new flier is being sent out in Kentucky (where he is not expected to win).
Obama Using Cross Flyer In Kentucky
It is almost comical if it weren’t so blatantly immoral and patronizing to people of faith; it shows the messiah BO in a church with a cross behind him (a white cross - courting the KKK?) as if preaching to a congregation. The image is ridiculous and insulting - more evidence of BO’s crass drive to win at any costs. I can only hope that the counter ad is the one that quotes him as judging people of faith as ‘bitter’.This man is sick and he’s more savvy than Bush who seems more and more his prototype.The ‘great guy’ whose unbridled ego will drive the US to complete ruin.
-
Susan Mayhew says:
Ryan - you believe this campaign is not mean? Google anti-Hillary and read the 20 odd pages of disgusting insults by the Obama crowd. See my link above where he exploits evangelicals (those he judged ‘bitter’).Just saying words do not effect anything - ‘Change’, ‘Hope’, ‘Unity’ - are meaningless when uttered by the mysogenist Obama supporters who speak for him. You are a man and can mock the destruction he’s perpetuated as over reaction - you’ve never been raped and many of us have been raped again by the hatred and disrespect heaped on Clinton.
‘Unity’? There is no unity in his campaign. I am 60 and Obama’s campaign is the most destructive I’ve ever seen. The sexism is monstrous - but it reveals him.Just the other day he put off a reporter with ‘just hold on ’sweetie”.. what ifa white man called a black reporter ‘boy’? would that sit well with you? As a man you can’t understand the impact of the sexist remarks made either by Obama or his minions - but understand this - many of us will not vote for him as a result of his and his supporters’ repellent tactics. -
James McPherson says:
I agree that many, if not most, lefty bloggers have joined the mainstream media in Hillary bashing, and have little to add in that regard. But the original post makes an interesting comparison to Reagan that I’ve explored elsewhere. Though his politics are very different, Obama actually has managed to combine elements of both Reagan and Barry Goldwater in gaining popularity.
As I’ve noted on my own blog and in my forthcoming book about the media’s role in the rise of the conservative movement: Onlookers “might compare the 2004 Democratic Convention speech of Senator Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan’s ‘A Time for Choosing’ address of forty years earlier. Both speeches attracted positive national attention, and both men found themselves in demand as speakers inside and outside their parties. Though Reagan had a sharper wit, a folksier manner, and a more practiced delivery, both he and Obama spoke on behalf of their values in direct, positive, and personal ways that connected with listeners. In 2006 Obama was one of the most popular campaigners for Democratic candidates around the country. He also wrote a popular book that might be compared to conservative icon Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative. Obama’s The Audacity of Hope offered an image for the nation’s political future, calling for, in one reviewer’s words, ‘a mode of liberalism that sounds both highly pragmatic and deeply moral.’ [review by Washington Post's Book World] Like a Reagan campaign speech, the book also was long on optimism and short on policy details. -
Rich says:
“Honestly I see fanaticism on both sides.”
I love the people on top who declare that “everyone is at fault.”
You know, like men who think that domestic violence is a dance (spurred on by women’s codependence). Or that sexism is a double sided coin.
Just like when they say that “oh, if the shoe were on the other foot, we’d fall in line and support HRC like good little Democrats.”
Only the shoe can’t be on the other foot. The popular vote is neck and neck and yet one side believes their candidate has a MANdate, that he’s a runaway, landslide victor. He has the media declaring him the real candidate, he has them pretending what he thinks about McCain or Bush is a real story (as if he’s done with the nomination). He has his friends in high places working to disenfranchise voters, jerrymandering florida and michigan out of the election while giving a free pass on “the rules” to states more sympathetic to him.
So no, the shoe couldn’t possibly be on the other foot.
Something funny, though. These dudes who are all about Obama’s farce of a “50 state plan?” This is what they were like when “red states” triumphed during the last election:
http://www.adonismirror.com/im.....hotos4.jpg
Interesting how quickly the wind blows in the masculine mind.
-
vbonnaire says:
Great post. I don’t like the doublespeak or the target marketing or the messiahville-speak. It looks fascist. Also, his energy stance? Lies.
He carries plastic bags. A no no in California. We are so green out here, so that’s what I wrote about today. I’m the sort of voter who will be VERY disloyal to the Democratic Party if he is the nominee. Strictly because of the misogyny, the plastic bags (I have proof today) and his policies on coal. Add in Brazile? Add in Dean? Add in Wright? Add in Hillary hate/disrespect? He’s non green, mean, and a audacious doublespeaking hypocrite. Add in Rezko? No thanks. -
Sapphocrat says:
Excellent post.
“Straight out of the Christian playbook” is right. My better half and I have been discussing this from day one — and, after getting over the initial shock that there could be self-proclaimed “liberals” who actually buy into this snow job — realize that the only way to deal with Teh Saved is to consider them exactly as we would any religious fundamentalist sect (or, yes, cult — a word that seems more apt with each passing day; and, with each passing day, I understand why the word “cult” sends them into a frenzy — because it is so apt).
Keeping that persepctive at the forefront has helped me resist trying to make sense of what they say and do (there is no “sense” about it); now I merely marvel at how their words and actions are the absolute antithesis of their leader’s presumed message (just as the Radical Religious Right preaches love and forgiveness, while practicing hate and intolerance).
I was reading an excerpt from Matt Taibbi’s new book, “The Great Derangement” (now at the top of my list of books to buy), during which I just kept clucking my tongue and thinking: “Just like Obama’s True Believers…”
The book is about Taibbi’s undercover adventure at a weekend retreat for new converts of John Hagee’s church; his observations of how this stuff — the confession, the cleansing of “wounds,” the speaking in tongues (after a sufficient amount of time spent casting out the “demon of handwriting analysis,” et al. — seeps under the skin of even the most rational freethinker:
“After two days of nearly constant religious instruction, songs, worship and praise — two days that for me meant an unending regimen of forced and fake responses — a funny thing started to happen to my head. There is a transformational quality in these external demonstrations of faith and belief. The more you shout out praising the Lord, singing along to those awful acoustic tunes, telling people how blessed you feel and so on, the more a sort of mechanical Christian skin starts to grow all over your real self. Even if you’re a degenerate Rolling Stone reporter inwardly chuckling and busting on the whole scene — even if you’re intellectually enraged by the ignorance and arrogant prejudice flowing from the mouth of a terminal-ambition case like Phil Fortenberry — outwardly you’re swaying to the gospel and singing and praising and acting the part, and those outward ministrations assume a kind of sincerity in themselves. And at the same time, that ‘inner you’ begins to get tired of the whole spectacle and sometimes forgets to protest — in my case checking out into baseball reveries and other daydreams while the outer me did the ‘work’ of singing and praising. At any given moment, which one is the real you?
“You may think you know the answer, but by my third day I began to notice how effortlessly my soft-spoken Matt-mannequin was going through his robotic motions of praise, and I was shocked. For a brief, fleeting moment I could see how under different circumstances it would be easy enough to bury your ’sinful’ self far under the skin of your outer Christian and to just travel through life this way. So long as you go through all the motions, no one will care who you really are underneath. And besides, so long as you are going through all the motions, never breaking the facade, who are you really? It was an incomplete thought, but it was a scary one; it was the very first time I worried that the experience of entering this world might prove to be anything more than an unusually tiring assignment. I feared for my normal. …
. . .
“By the end of the weekend I realized how quaint was the mere suggestion that Christians of this type should learn to ‘be rational’ or ’set aside your religion’ about such things as the Iraq War or other policy matters. Once you’ve made a journey like this — once you’ve gone this far — you are beyond suggestible. It’s not merely the informational indoctrination, the constant belittling of homosexuals and atheists and Muslims and pacifists, etc., that’s the issue. It’s that once you’ve gotten to this place, you’ve left behind the mental process that a person would need to form an independent opinion about such things. You make this journey precisely to experience the ecstasy of beating to the same big gristly heart with a roomful of like-minded folks. Once you reach that place with them, you’re thinking with muscles, not neurons.
“By the end of that weekend, Phil Fortenberry could have told us that John Kerry was a demon with clawed feet, and not one person would have so much as blinked. Because none of that politics stuff matters anyway, once you’ve gotten this far. All that matters is being full of the Lord and empty of demons. And since everything that is not of God is demonic, asking these people to be objective about anything else is just absurd. There is no ‘anything else.’ All alternative points of view are nonstarters. There is this ‘our thing,’ a sort of Cosa Nostra of the soul, and then there are the fires of Hell. And that’s all.”
Also (as I’ve written about several times), Chris Hedges’ book, “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America,” is an invaluable key to understanding this mindset — and the commonalities with the Obama movement are stunning (and chilling). One of many points that stick out in my mind is the common experience of the “convert” wallowing in utter despair, and being rescued by the very sort of hope-and-unity drug the Obama campaign is pushing.
This was scary enough stuff when it was being peddled only by the uber-Christians George W. Bush had eating out of his hand; it’s downright terrifying to realize that this sick perversion of “democracy” has now infected fully half of what was my own party — and which is now practically indistinguishable from the party these so-called Democrats claim to despise.
-
JudyR says:
Thanks Ghost of Violet! You get it and it needed to be voiced.
-
falstaff says:
I’m late to this party, but I’d still like to raise a glass.
Obama’s “hope and change” is just the flip side of Bush’s “stay the course.” They’re both invitations not to think.
Of course, in a world where change is so pervasive, the future so unpredictable and no handholds in sight, it’s understandable that people would prefer not to think. But after the orgy of mindless nihilism that has been the Bush Administration, one hoped for a time out. Too bad the rough beast of misogyny sniffed the air, and scented the empty vessel of this symbol’s campaign — which proved all too easy to inhabit.
-
Susan Mayhew says:
Great input falstaff.. the Obama supporters must be in love - they are still bashing Hillary with every vulgar epithet they can cough up. This is a link to Eric Jong’s article on the Huffington Post (the first critical of Barack - but I guess they think a little thought is safe now):
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/.....d81087d5f5 -
Susan Mayhew says:
Barack spoke to a Jewish group today (the other day he equated his name with Beruk - slick, eh) and with his typical ability to commit to nothing but make a speech sound like it has content, he managed a polite reception from the community
… only a week or so ago, The Huffington Post ran an article “Does Obama Even Need the Jewish Vote?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....01671.html
Maybe some of his audience read the same article above. Its as if the Obama camp believes that whatever they do disappears from the public record once it’s out there. -
Translucent Image says:
Susan Mayhew shared some info :
only a week or so ago, The Huffington Post ran an article “Does Obama Even Need the Jewish Vote?” Maybe some of his audience read the same article above. Its as if the Obama camp believes that whatever they do disappears from the public record once it’s out there.I confess, doing without Arianna’s Boys Club completely has been as easy as A-B-C for me. While she profits from yet another book and propagandizes for the ‘Obamamaniac’ camp, I’m left wondering when the teflon coating on B.O. is going to peel off.
Susan refers to his 2nd or 3rd AIPAC speech:
Barack spoke to a Jewish group today… he managed a polite reception from the communityTry the following URLs re. his March 2007 speech to AIPAC in Chicago:
remarks and original text
http://www.counterpunch.org/obama03052007.htmlHow Barack Obama learned to love Israel
by Ali Abunimah
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtmlThanks.
visit the Stick-It Gallery for free stickers:
Boycott China & the 2008 Olympics;
Wage peace to stop the war in Iraq
