So the Rev. Wright is all over the place now, explaining himself, defending his beliefs, proving conclusively that, why yes, he is a fucking moron. What interests me in particular is the way the press is covering this trainwreck. Wright’s insistence that Louis Farrakhan is a great man — “one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century” — is understood to be toxic because Farrakhan is anti-Semitic. Which he is, of course, but that’s not all he is.
Really, how many times have you read a piece about Louis Farrakhan that mentions anti-Semitism as his main flaw, or even his only flaw? I’ll bet a bunch of times. And how many times have you seen a piece on Farrakhan that nails him because he’s a goddamn raving misogynist who thinks women should be subservient to men in every area of life? I’ll bet almost never.
Mr. Farrakhan urged the women to embrace his formula for a successful family. He encouraged them to put husbands and children ahead of their careers, shun tight, short skirts, stay off welfare and reject abortion. He also stressed the importance of cooking and cleaning and urged women not to abandon homemaking for careers.
“You’re just not going to be happy unless there is happiness in the home,” Mr. Farrakhan said at the Mason Cathedral Church of God in Christ in the Dorchester section, not far from the Roxbury neighborhood where he was reared by a single mother. “Your professional lives can’t satisfy your soul like a good, loving man.”
I propose a Clockwork Orange-style intervention for all those deluded Obama supporters who still think Barry gives a rat’s ass about any Democratic values. A chair, some restraints, whatever those things are that keep the eyelids propped up, saline drops so the eyeballs won’t dry out. And we’ll force them to read this.
Obama has not had any difficulty pulling white voters, per se. Where he can’t crack the nut is with the working class, whether they’re white, Latino/Latina, or something else — anything but African-American. The reason AAs are the exception is obvious: Obama has tremendous support from the entire African-American community, understandably so. AAs from every economic stratum support his candidacy. But if Obama weren’t black, working-class AAs wouldn’t vote for him either.
And no wonder. Working people need health care and Social Security, not a goddamn Unity Pony and a speech.
I’m moved to remark on this because the meme is circulating that Obama’s problem is that white working-class voters are all a bunch of Archie Bunkers who are too racist to vote for him. This meme is being pushed aggressively by the Obama campaign, especially after the huge Pennsylvania loss. Straight from Axelrod’s mouth to the pages of the New York Times, where it’s dressed up as thoughtful analysis.
The purpose of the racist meme is fivefold:
To distract from Obama’s real weakness — that he has nothing to offer working people and can’t get them to vote for him to save his damn life;
To excuse his failure by instead blaming the voters;
To imply that the only reason people vote for Hillary is because they’re racists, which just goes to show how nasty and icky Hillary is;
To subliminally remind people that the Clintons themselves are racists, at least according to the Obama campaign;
To once again mine the seemingly inexhaustible vein of white guilt that sends shivers up the legs of the liberal elites.
The constant repetition of the phrase “white working class” (or variations thereon) is crucial to propagating the meme. And it’s false, because it erases Latino/Latinas along with every other non-AA ethnic group, and shifts the focus away from “working class” (which is where it belongs).
So please, stop saying white working class. Don’t play into Axelrod’s game.
One of the first political facts I learned was this: winning the California primary in June 1968 meant Robert Kennedy had a serious shot at taking the nomination, even though he’d entered the race late and was behind in delegates.
But of course Bobby was murdered a few hours later, so that was the end of that.
I learned about this as a child because my parents were trying to explain to me why another Kennedy had been killed and what it meant for the election.
“Why did California matter so much?” I asked them. “How could he have gotten the nomination if Humphrey already had the party behind him? And what about McCarthy?”
It was thus that I learned about the realpolitik of nominating contests. A lot has changed in the process since 1968, and all to the good. More actual voting, fewer smoke-filled rooms. But what hasn’t changed is the purpose of the whole thing: to settle on the candidate with the best chance to win in the general election.
If I had a time machine and could go back to 1968 or 1972 to chew over a thought experiment with one of those old pros, the conversation might go like this:
Violet: Okay, hypothetical situation. Let’s say we’ve got two strong candidates. Candidate A wins the Iowa caucus. Candidate B wins New Hampshire. Then Candidate A catches fire and in February wins a bunch of caucuses and small primaries in mostly Republican states. Racks up the lead in delegates. But then Candidate B comes roaring back and wins New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania. Who’s the front-runner? Old Pro from 1968/72: Are you kidding me? Violet: No, really — who’s the front runner? Old Pro: Candidate B, of course. What’s the matter with you? Violet: But Candidate A leads in pledged delegates! Old Pro: Candidate A is the guy who had a good February? But then loses in all the big states? Violet: Right. Old Pro: You’re actually asking me this question? Violet: But don’t the pledged delegates count? Old Pro: You’re talking about nominating the guy who lost New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Florida? Jesus! You’re outta your mind! Violet: But what about his delegates? Old Pro: Fight it out at the convention if you have to. Geez. That’s what conventions are for. Look, you don’t get to be the nominee because you were popular in February in Utah. For chrissake, if you can’t win the Democratic primaries in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, you don’t get to be the Democratic nominee. Unless you’re Hubert Humphrey. Wait a minute, Humphrey isn’t still alive, is he? Violet: No. But the party bosses really love Candidate A. They say Candidate B needs to drop out so Candidate A can be the nominee. Old Pro: They want the winner of all the big states to drop out so the party favorite from February can be the nominee? Goddamnit, it is Humphrey, isn’t it? Christ, he must be like 100 now. Violet: No, he’s dead. See, the two candidates we’ve got are both strong. They both have a lot of devoted supporters and they’re really close in pledged delegates and popular votes. Old Pro: What do their numbers look like against the Republican? Violet: Close, though when you look at the state-by-state polls and the exit data, Candidate B looks stronger in a match-up against the Republican than Candidate A. Old Pro: And you’re still asking me who the party needs to nominate? Violet: Well, the supporters of Candidate A say that if Candidate B will just drop out, then the party will be able to get behind Candidate A. Old Pro: It is Humphrey!
And so on.
Look, I’m not ignoring the fact that Obama has fervent support. I’m just trying to get at the sheer freak factor of the insistence that he is the de facto nominee, even after losing all the big states. I’m too old and my head is too full of memories for me not to recognize the surpassing strangeness of it.
Maureen Dowd is, of course, an emotionally disturbed individual, but she does provide a window into the babbling stream-of-consciousness irrationality of the Hillary Haters. As such, her recent Dr. Seuss column is noteworthy. Hillary has just won Pennsylvania by 10%, capping a streak that’s seen her take every single major state and swing state (except Illinois). And MoDo’s response is to beg Hillary to quit. Please drop out, O Winning Candidate, so we can nominate the guy who keeps coming in second.
You know, after 2000 I didn’t think American politics could get any weirder. But I was wrong. Weird? Hell, we live here now. Weird City. Permanent residence.
I wish I had a full transcript of Hillary’s victory speech tonight. It was wonderful. Pure Hillary: smart, down to earth, classy.
The most moving part of the speech was when — and I wish I had the transcript — she talked about how this Presidential race is a landmark in the two-century-long project of moving America forward. She said that when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia 200 years ago, “neither I nor Senator Obama nor many of you” were part of their dream. But through the efforts of so many over so many years — the abolitionists, the suffragists, the progressives, the civil rights heroes, etc., the American dream has expanded. Because of them, she said, she grew up taking for granted that women could vote. Because of them, Chelsea grew up taking for granted that children of all races could attend the same schools.
And now, she said, “because of you,” today’s children will grow up taking for granted that either a woman or an African-American can be President of the United States.
The crowd went over the moon. I actually blubbed.
I don’t know what kind of cognitive dissonance is required to watch this woman and hate her. It is beyond my understanding.
I’ve been watching politics since 1972. And this is the first campaign I’ve ever seen where winning wasn’t enough. I’m using, of course, the quaintly old-fashioned definition of winning, which means “getting more votes than your opponent.”
The new-fashioned definition of winning, as applied exclusively to Hillary Clinton, means something like “getting n more votes than Obama, where n represents an unattainably high number extracted from the asses of the media/Blogger Boyz in order to make sure that Barry is never seen to be losing.”
This morning the LA Times did its bit with an article helpfully entitled, “What to look for in the Pennsylvania primary.” (A pony?) Bottom line: unless Hillary wins by at least 10%, she will have lost!
How did they come up with 10%? It’s simply the biggest number they think they can get away with. In the past n for Pennsylvania has been much higher — I’ve seen 20, 30% bandied about — but that figure’s been reduced by the fact that everybody knows Barry’s spending something like a quadrillion dollars a day on campaign ads. The ass-extractors have got to at least give a nod in that direction in order to maintain credibility with the other ass-extractors. So now we’re down to 10%.
The Obama campaign/mainstream media/Blogger Boyz consortium has been spinning this kind of nonsense for so many months now that it’s started to seem normal. But it’s not normal. Sure, analyzing the strength of a particular win to gauge a candidate’s overall potential is standard practice, but that’s not what’s going on here. What’s going on here is that no matter how many states Hillary wins, no matter how many BIG states she wins (all of them at this count), no matter how many times she wins despite extravagant outspending by the Obama campaign (two to one three to one in Pennsylvania, I think), it’s never enough.
These aren’t just Clinton Rules. Clinton — the male one — was in Obama’s situation early in 1992. He lost New Hampshire, but it was still counted as the political equivalent of a win because he didn’t lose too badly.
No, these are Hillary Rules. She’s the first serious candidate for President to get this treatment, to have her entire string of wins counted as losses because they weren’t big enough wins. She’s also the first serious candidate for President who’s also a woman. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Backwards and in high heels, folks. Backwards and in high heels.
A list is taking shape of those political bloggers who are either pro-Hillary or at least fair in their coverage of the candidates — in other words, bloggers who aren’t raving Clinton-hating Obamabots. Versions of this emerging blogroll are popping up here and there; the one below is cobbled together from lists at Tennessee Guerilla Women, The Hillary 1000, and a couple of other places.
Why does this list matter? It’s not merely a question of knowing where to go for misogyny-free political commentary. These are the seeds of a new progressive blogosphere in the making. The Obamabots are poisoning the original netroots, transforming what used to be an arena for progressive politics into nothing more than a rabid, mindless He-Man Woman-Haters club. The Democratic Party — or at least the high-visibility Obamabot segment — is morphing into the Young Republicans: all the misogyny and callowness and ignorance and blind hero-worship of the old GOP, but with a self-congratulatory aura of imaginary cool to make the YouTube generation feel at home.
And where does that leave the women of America?
I’m going to have more to say about that in the coming days. But right now I just want to get a start on that list. It’s very much a work in progress, so feel free to help me out with suggestions. Who else should be here? Who doesn’t belong?
It’s better than being an emotionally-arrested under-educated Cheeto-stained dweeb.
Via Corrente, here’s one Obamabot’s reaction to Our Lord’s gesturally enhanced speech the other day:
Dude, I nearly swooned — SWOONED, I tell you — when I saw that. That’s one of my fave Jay-Z joints of all time. HUGE SWIRLING VORTEX OF LOVE. I could not pink-fuzzy-heart Barack one iota more.
So, you know how Obama got creamed in the debate the other night? How everybody from the focus groups to the media called it for Hillary? How the press coverage included lines like “there’s no way Obama could have fared worse”?
I know I’m impressed. I congratulate Lord Obama on his magnificent accomplishment. I hope he’ll branch out into other areas of passive achievement. For example, perhaps he’ll consider becoming elected President by not running. That would be wonderful, I think. He could just stay home in Chicago, not running for President, and come November all the Obamabots could joyously congratulate each other on what a brilliant job he did of not losing.
And while they’re doing that, those of us in the real world could look forward to years of peace and prosperity under President Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton hit one of the hottest shows on TV tonight — taking on TV talk parody artist Stephen Colbert during his week in Philadelphia, and displaying a surprising knowledge of TV tech speak.
When the big screen behind the Comedy Central host went down at the top of the show and couldn’t be fixed, Colbert asked “are you telling me there’s no one in this theater that can fix the mess were in?” Cue the candidate with “Solutions for America” — who strode on stage saying “I can, Stephen.”
Talking with the disembodied voice of Colbert’s director, Jimmy, Clinton went on to ask whether the show was “using a digital or analog production truck,” and if the feed was sent out “Through the router or the aux bus on the switcher.” Suggesting that they “try toggling the input,” Clinton watched as the screen roared back to life — and the crowd roared its approval.
But Hillary wasn’t done making improvements to the show — calling on makeup to bring out “some translucent powder” for Colbert’s shiny forehead. “Wow, Senator Clinton, you’re so prepared for any situation,” said Colbert. “I just don’t know how to thank you enough.”
“That’s OK, Stephen, I just love solving problems,” she said. “Call me any time.”
“Really?” he asked.
“Sure. Call me at 3am,” she quipped, exiting stage right to laughter and applause.
“I’m going to call her at 3am,” said Colbert. “I’m sure she left her cell phone number.”
Barack Obama and John Edwards are both set to appear on the show tonight as well; in fact, Clinton chatted with Edwards for a few minutes as both waited backstage for their moment in the spotlight.
It’s increasingly clear that for a significant number of people, a vote for Obama is a vote for misogyny. If you despise accomplished women like Hillary Clinton, if you long to smack them down and shut them up, if the very sight and sound of a powerful woman makes you want to “punch her in the face” or flip her the bird — then Obama’s your man. And the great thing is that you can pretend you’re just supporting your candidate.
DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.
Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.
Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.
“They’re in discussions,” a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. “Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.”
I have to wonder, though, if this isn’t just an across-the-pond version of the usual Obama haka we know and loathe. That bit about falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders — what the hell? That’s describing Obama, not Hillary. The man has become a walking disaster.
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
There goes Pennsylvania!
What’s even more damaging about this comment is that it was delivered in a speech to California billionaires, and by a Democrat who publicly opposes NAFTA but has been reported as conveying private assurances to Canada that nothing would change if he were elected. Extra points for dissing the Clinton Administration, which most working-class people remember as their most positive experience with Democrats.
Barack Obama said anti-abortion Democrats are backing him because they feel he respects their opinion on the issue despite disagreement on it. ….”It may be that those who have opposed abortion get a sense that I’m listening to them and respect their position even though where we finally come down may be different,” he told reporters at a news conference.
“The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it,” he said.
No. Just: no. That is a typical anti-choice line and it’s worse than false; it’s hugely offensive. It’s the kind of thinking that brings idiot men to my blog every time I post on abortion, trying to explain to me that it’s about bay-bees. “Don’t you unnerstan, it’s a bay-bee growing in there?” they plead. As if women thought abortion was like deciding whether to get mushrooms or extra cheese.
But hey, it’s good to know Barry respects the position of people who don’t think women should be entrusted with decisions over their own life and health. It reminds me of his man-crush on John Roberts, and how it pained him to think that a little thing like “ideology” might stand in the way of confirmation to the Supreme Court. “Ideology,” in this instance, referring to Roberts’ belief that women have no right to abortion and don’t even deserve equal pay for equal work. Hey, what’s a little ideology between ex-Harvard Law Review guys?
If Barry does become the nominee, I’m wondering who’ll still be around in November to vote for him. How many electoral votes does DailyKos have?
