Comment of the day
From sassysenora, who perfectly captures the mood of the week, as everyone sort of collectively goes, “Jesus Christ. We nominated this guy?”
the only upside i can see to this is that the Dems cannot beat us over the head with Roe v Wade anymore. Obama’s said twice now that he disagrees with Roe. if you care about Roe, there is NO reason to vote for Obama and plenty of reasons to vote against him.
i knew Obama was horrendously misogynistic. in addition to the points listed above, he made far too many misogynistic statements during the campaign for anyone who was paying attention to believe anything else. this is just a partial list of his misogyny (and his hypocrisy): dismissing Clinton’s foreign policy experience as nothing more than drinking tea at ambassadors’ homes, blaming her for all of Bill’s policies (as if she were just Bill’s appendage without policies or thoughts of her own) while at the same time dismissing her experience when she was First Lady, attacking Bill (while saying that everyone should lay off his own wife who is campaigning for him), “Hold on a second, sweetie. We’ll hold a press avail” (said to a reporter in Detroit), calling Sen. Boxer “a cutie”, the “wipe the dirt off my shoulder and shit off my shoes” gesture in reference to Senator Clinton, calling her “that little woman”, saying “She’s got the kitchen sink flying, and the china flying, and the, you know, the buffet is coming at me,” saying Clinton (and her campaign) was “on edge”, “Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal”, “suddenly the claws come out” “She’s (Clinton is) talking like she’s Annie Oakley?”, “You’re likable enough Hillary”, “She (Clinton) is going to be a great asset when we go into November” (as if he owned her - even though she had won more votes than he had and he did not have enough delegates to win the nomination), “What is this silly season?”, “you’re gorgeous, you look like you might be a dancer” (said to a factory worker in PA), “What do I need to do? Do you want me on my knees? I’ll give you a kiss.” (said to a female Hillary supporter at a town hall in PA)
then there was Jessie Jackson, Jr. saying that Clinton cried about her appearance (when she wasn’t even crying) but not about Katrina (when Clinton had spent far more time down there than Obama - i know that part is not sexist but the media’s failure to challenge him about it was), the Nevada ad that used a Central American colloquialism that means “fucking whore” to describe Clinton, Randi Rhodes calling Clinton a “fucking whore”, Samantha Power calling Clinton “a monster”, JJJr saying “The natural reminder here is O.J.” (really? because a candidate for POTUS is just like a woman-hating, lying murderer. well, you’re his campaign co-chair. i guess you would know. ;) )
however, until recently, i thought Obama was a centrist. i was uneasy when Obama waxed eloquently about Reagan and dissed Bill Clinton. his University of Chicago connection worried me because it is an extremely conservative school and many of his advisors are from there. (His ties to the Daley machine alarmed me as well because of its corruption). i had some concerns and knew that Obama was to the right of Clinton on many policies but i didn’t know that he was to the right of the current Supreme Court (where seven of the nine justices were appointed by a Republican).
i didn’t think he would be to the right of the current Supreme Court on abortion. i didn’t think he’d be to the right of the Court on the death penalty and want to undermine the Eight Amendment’s requirement of proportionality. i didn’t think he’d interpret the Second Amendment in an expansive way and side with Scalia and Thomas on gun control. i didn’t think he’d say (i.e., lie) that “in fact what I’ve been saying consistently (about the DC gun ban) is what the Supreme Court essentially said today.” i didn’t think he’d undermine the Constitutional separation of powers and the Fourth Amendment by expanding the President’s warrantless surveillance powers (and cutting back on the courts’ right to supervise those activities) under FISA after promising to filibuster it. i didn’t think he’d undermine the First Amendment’s freedom of association and separation of church and state by embracing and expanding Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative program.
how can anyone trust this guy? i have no idea what he stands for except misogyny and duplicity.
Sassysenora should have a blog!
32 Responses to “Comment of the day”
-
vbonnaire says:
Yes, she should have a blog! Violet, it gets worse. Much worse. I was trying to name it? Fascism ala 30’s Mussolini, Totalitarianism ala Orwell? or Marxism?
Well — here you go:
What Obama Learned From the Communist Party
any of the above sexist things happen under regimes.
at least in the past? but never in our lifetimes — the last 8 years enough without this coming onsceneJuly 9th, 2008 at 12:41 am EST -
thebewilderness says:
The linky no workie, and I hope you can repost it because I would very much like to read it.
Thanks -
Violet says:
I fixed the link, and went and read that myself.
I’m sorry, but the whole “Obama is a Communist!” thing is bizarre. The author of that piece doesn’t seem to realize that half a century ago Marxism was a commonplace among liberal intellectuals in the West. It wasn’t some secret Stalinist plot to take over the world; most “Reds” in the West were idealistic socialists. Whoever wrote that sounds like he’s just arrived via time machine from the McCarthy era.
-
Shane says:
Yeah, I never got the ‘OMG—He’s a closet COMMUNIST!” thing either. When people buy into it they’re buying into a blatant right-wing strategy, trying to suggest that anybody who doesn’t follow their ideas to the letter must hate their country, be a Marxist etc: Its all about making any non-Republican ideas look dangerously ‘radical’, so its sad when well-intentioned people buy into the idea. The ‘closet Muslim’ stuff is almost as stupid. There are many good reasons to oppose Obama (if only he was more left than he is), but those aren’t it, and only discredit the actual problems people have.
Then again, there are people who think Hillary Clinton is a total commie too, and won’t listen to any proof against it.
-
Violet says:
No offense to you, VB: I realize your point is just the danger of overly-powerful regimes. But the McCarthy-ist view of that particular piece is off-base, in my opinion.
-
GRL says:
The Newsweek blog is showing signs of life…It has decided to discuss the ‘myths” about Obama’s money…as in, what’s actually going on with Obama’s “cash cow”….
“Newsweek Blog Finally Decides to Debunk the Obama “Cash Cow” Myth”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xnv42What can you actually believe about anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth? Heck, his bio had fictionalized/composite characters in it. That wasn’t the first clue??
-
anna says:
Ok, so I agree Obama is not the best nominee. But he is the nominee. What will voting for McCain/not voting for Obama accomplish besides getting McCain elected? What is the objective of the PUMAS?
-
Violet says:
My objective is leverage.
-
K.A. says:
Anna, PUMAs are strategizing by putting women’s long-term well-being over short-term. It will pay infinitely higher dividends in terms of empowering women politically in general, as well as protecting women’s issues specifically. The majority of the problems that liberals are so terrified of republicans exacerbating would actually be off the table had women, not liberals, been equally politically empowered in the first place. You may get the same number of votes as a male voter, but you still sure don’t have as much power as that dude, plain and simple. This is about rectifying the underlying power differential that puts rights like Roe at risk, rather than just maintaining Roe for 4 years, which isn’t even a sure thing with Obama as people had blindly assumed. This is about addressing subordinating power structure instead of treating the visit to the voting booth like a gynecological maintenance program.
You understand now? A visit to the voting booth is being penciled in like a visit to the gynecologist, and that is abusive, degrading bullshit.
-
sakel says:
Perhaps this comment was left out of this litany of misogynist commentary by the Obama campaign and its Leader:
“Obama Gives the F!nger to Hillary” — the YouTube’s mega-hit starring that ultra-sexist rapper-wannabe Barack Obama! He ‘flip-offed’ (as a teenage pundit to interpret!) his fellow (female) senator, smirkingly pausing for his followers to ‘clue in’! Now, that’s Change we can believe in, eh?
The media misogynist frat-boys’ “leg-thrilling” at the mere mention of Obama pushed this incompetent Chancey the Gardener candidate to the ‘finish line’ of superdels where he did not belong.
CNN and MSNBC, especially “leg-tingling” sensation Chrissy Matthews and Olbermann’s histrionics provided the sexist ammunition for the Obamabotic Madison Avenue marketing campaign selling this anorexic resume to an unsuspecting consumer target public (not voters: they wanted Hillary!). We should remember Hubert Humphrey’s statement when JFK was running: “I feel like an independent merchant running against the big chains”. JFK’s daddy bragged about selling his “boy” like “soap flakes” and believed in “marketing the president”! Let’s hope that this aint’ contagious!
CNN, to its credit, had a segment broadcast May 25th on “Media and Misogyny” with Carol Costello and Marie Cocco that was phenomenally insightful and everyone thinking of voting Obama should view it before they decide!
Questions: Why did the media xerox Obama campaign’s race-baiting message unquestioningly? Why did Obama and the media remain SILENT during the anti-Hillary media holocaust the preceded Obama’s undemocratic anointment?
-
Happenstance says:
For me, it’s also about teaching the Fauxgressive Blogosphere that you can’t scream “Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same! Vote for Nader!” for two elections, then have the utter gall to insist that THIS time everyone must vote for the party candidate even if he actually IS More Of The Same, simply because the blind-as-bats Anyone But Clinton crowd has crowned him King Change.
It’s well past time to take things back from the Progressives In Name Only and give ‘em back to the genuinely progressive.
-
sassysenora says:
thank you, Violet. your leverage post inspired me. it inspired many of us.
here are two excellent posts that also summarize “Jesus Christ. We nominated this guy?” (note: the second has a gratuitous slam on Michelle Obama that i am in no way endorsing.)
http://www.bythefault.com/post-of-the-week/
http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.....ack-obama/i also read an article that discussed the lack of lesbians in Obama’s campaign, despite its recent outreach to the gay community. (i intentionally used gay instead of LGBT.) here’s the relevant part of the article:
In an LGBT Obama outreach call Friday (which openly gay Deputy Campaign manager Steve Hildebrand said included 1,200 participants), former Human Rights Campaign executive director Elizabeth Birch talked movingly about her pain and disappointment - not just at Clinton’s defeat and the complexities of having two role models for her two bi-racial children, but also from the perspective of the “scrappy 12 year old” she once was who dreamed of changing the world.
That resonated with a number of Hillary-supporting lesbians with whom I spoke later. “Was Elizabeth the only woman on the call?,” they asked. “Where are the lesbians in Obama’s campaign?”
This is more than just pained disappointment - it’s a belief that Obama is keyed into the A-Gay white boys network that still tends to - perhaps unconsciously but from a sense of entitlement - dismiss women.
Diane Abbitt, for instance, the first female co-president of the first political action committee - the Municipal Elections Committee of Los Angeles (MECLA) - was no fan of Obama or Clinton. She wound up supporting Clinton “based on her experience.” She said she has not heard from or about any lesbian in the Obama campaign. “From a very objective perspective,” she said, “I have to ask - where are the women? Where are the lesbians in Obama’s campaign?”
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/0.....litics.php -
myiq2xu says:
In hindsight, when you consider everything that’s happened during this campaign, it still makes no freaking sense that Obama is the nominee and Hillary isn’t.
-
anna says:
So basically, you hope that if Obama loses because of women’s votes, the Dems will care more about women?
But how will they know he lost because of women’s votes? I think they’ll just say McCain got more votes and they’ll be even more conservative next time.
Maybe there should be a drive to vote for McKinney. If Obama lost because 10% swung to McKinney, instead of McCain, that would show the Dems the voters want a move to the left.
-
ginmar says:
I dunno, there’s always the possiblity of—here’s a shot in the dark—-of writing the Dems and telling them why they lost the fucking election.
-
sassysenora says:
we can write the Dems. that will help. but even if we don’t, they’ll know if enough of us vote for anyone besides a Dem, esp if we vote for a Republican. they may be intractably stupid about many things but they know how to read polls. they pay attention when groups vote differently than they have in the past.
women traditionally vote Democratic. much more so than men, who vote Republican (except in 1992 when men as well as women voted for Bill Clinton). this is a big reason the Dems are taking women for granted now and assuming that we will come back by November.
in 2004, 51% of women voted for John Kerry, while 48% voted for Bush. conversely, men preferred George W. Bush by 55% to 44%. in 2000, 54% of women voted for Gore, while 43% voted for Bush. 53% of men voted for Bush while 42% voted for Gore.
http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=1332http://www.msmagazine.com/spri.....daLake.asp
if we can get the get enough women to vote for someone other than Obama (assuming he wins the nomination, which i think he will), the Dems will notice. if less than half of us vote for Obama, i guarantee that they’ll notice.
since women also generally play a large role in the Dem’s GOTV efforts, the Dems may notice before November if enough women refuse to volunteer. they may also notice if enough of us refuse to give them money (but, realistically, since so much of their money comes from large donors and bundlers, they probably won’t notice if women who are small donors don’t give). but they probably won’t really pay attention until after the election in November.
-
julia says:
Anna, that’s exactly what I’m hoping for!
The only way we’ll ever have a thrid party is to start voting for one. McKinney is the best candidate in the race at this point, and the only progressive. It’s amazing how little media attention ahe’s received, even on so-called independent show like DemocracyNow! and FSRN.The film ‘American Blackout’ tells her story - powerful and painful.
-
Pat Johnson says:
Bill Clinton was right about the “fairy tale” comment. Watching Obama reminds me of Pinochhio.
-
slythwolf says:
How the fuck is this man a Democrat?
-
BettyBoondoggle says:
He isn’t. And he’s no longer even pretending to be.
-
buck says:
So basically, you hope that if Obama loses because of women’s votes, the Dems will care more about women?
that may be the hope, but i doubt if it has basis in reality.
on the contrary, what is likely to happen is that even if opossum loses for any reason other than the lack of women’s vote, the democratic party will still blame the women for splitting the party rather than learn anything from it or change in any way.
this is the historical lesson from the groundless blaming of nader for gore’s loss. the main difference between the democratic party and the republican party is the ability to listen to their core. i’m trying to think of any other differences, but drawing a blank :-)
-
Violet says:
So basically, you hope that if Obama loses because of women’s votes, the Dems will care more about women?
Of course. That’s how leverage works. Politicians know that they have to cultivate voters. They know they have to avoid insulting voters and have to demonstrate that they’ve got their interests at heart, whether the voting group in question is AAs, Latinos, blue-collar workers, or women. Women aren’t some separate species.
But how will they know he lost because of women’s votes?
Heard of exit polls?
And while politicians are stupid, they’re not that stupid. Nor are they deaf. You act as if women in America are inside some glass bubble and no one can hear what we’re saying.
It’s only July and already PUMAs have made the mainstream news. By November everyone will know that women are boycotting Obama because he’s a sexist who exploited misogyny.
If you read my leverage post, I guess you didn’t understand it. Try
this post. -
Tony Kondaks says:
Do pledged Obama delegates have the obligation to switch votes at the convention if they feel that he no longer represents the sentiments of those that elected him?
The DNC rules not only allow it, they encourage it:
-
Janis says:
Anna, if they’re scared of us, that’s good for us. They cough up from now on, or their asses are grass and we’re weedwhackers.
I’ve said this on other blogs, but I can’t tell you all how happy I am that feminism finally seems to have dropped the lip gloss and the pole-dancing classes and gotten back to kicking sexism’s ass again. BOOYAH!
-
MountainSage says:
I decided in March I wouldn’t vote for Obama. The reason we didn’t hear specifics until now is he would never have been the nominee if we had heard them earlier.
-
RWR says:
Julia, I agree that they will know why they lost and it’s the best hope of reform. However, I think it’s not likely that it will have any impact on establishing a 3rd party. Unless we restructure our congressional representation or at least allow preferential voting a two party system is pretty much given.
However, the 3rd party can work as a wedge, or even as a replacement party, if big enough. Or more likely a feeder at lower levels.
But to establish a 3rd party as a practical and functional unit would require constitutional change, and given that the major parties are the gatekeepers of that change, it’s just not going to happen. Which is why reforming the Democratic Party is so important.
-
Violet says:
RWR, why would it require constitutional change? You don’t mean constitutional as in Constitutional?
-
RWR says:
I mean Constitutional, though I hope I’m wrong. Not necessarily for preferential/ranked voting. For that the biggest challenge will be that its complexity discriminates against the disadvantaged and the elderly. We see that usually as ballots get more complex. I think it’s a trade-off worth making (all these groups will gain power, even as their individuals may lose some), but not everyone will agree…at least not quickly. And they’ll be backed by the parties trying to preserve their power. But at least this change alone would make third parties much more viable.
But the regional distribution or representatives (congressional districts within states), which advantages majority groups tremendously, is going to be more difficult to change. This may not be in the constitution explicitly, but it’s certainly the upheld interpretation. And I don’t see this changing for the same types of reasons — desire to hold power, and claims of regional discrimination as certain areas have no explicit representation, even while ethnic, cultural, religious and sexual minorities gain power. And the people in power (members of the major parties) hold the gates to the courts as well as Constitutional or other legal change.
However, if the first and easier part passes, there will already be some third party members in place to help with the second part.
But I don’t see it happening soon. Well, maybe unless the parties really piss people off. But I just don’t think it will happen for long. The two party system seems pretty self-sustaining in so far as it feeds polarization and a very binary view of the world.
-
MountainSage says:
Obama is the least experienced presidential candidate in 64 years according to the article I just put up on my blog.
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
Please consider dropping by. (I know there’s an orange cheeto link-through, but still . . .)
It would be good to have PUMA voices there. Really.
-
julia says:
RWR, why is it not a good idea to just vote for the candidate you actually want? If the Green Party gets more votes this year, halleluhah! That in itself will send a message to the Dems, to everyone. We are so afraid here in America to do any independent thinking, to make a move away from the crwod, that no wonder we’re in trouble!
How much deeper can we dig ourselves?
My point: think for yourself and take a stand! -
RWR says:
Julia, thinking for myself in this case has lead to the recognition that the two-party system in this country is institutional. At best, in times of radical change, a third party might arise to topple one of the two powers, but that will ultimately lead to just a different two party system that will break down on roughly the same lines.
So yeah, I can cast my vote for a third party. It could swing the vote, but it’s really not going to change party behavior much. And there will always be opinion polls, and in a 2 party non-representational system, the two parties will simply use those polls to try to carve out their majority…making careful calculations as to who they can most and least afford to piss off.
The only way to get around this is to radically reform the election process. I personally think this is more likely to happen after a catastrophic election failure. Because memories are short and the electorate are intentionally kept ignorant of their choices with regard to forms of democracy.
In the mean time I do think there are some lessons to be learned by the DNC, and the more painful the better. The know who we are and why we’re pissed. They don’t need a vote to tell them that. I estimate that voting for McCain is most likely to act as an education the DNC won’t forget — but perhaps more importantly to scare the Obama following into asking what went wrong.
We already have the Clinton voters recognizing institutional problems — but unfortunately they mostly don’t look deep enough. They look at primary reform, and blame the media for the failure of third parties. But we’re getting there. If Obama wins it all stays the same.Nothing will really change, and the mid-line of politics will barely have moved.
But have Obama lose and the whole other half of the Democratic party may begin to question just what went wrong. That’s my hope — that’s the only hope I see. Because people have for generations been trying the same old hopeless efforts to introduce third parties and pretend we have a representative democracy. I just don’t see any other hope at this point but to really demonstrate the flaws of the system on a truly large scale.
