Obama’s Man in Virginia, and the state of feminism

Friday, April 3rd, 2009 · 85 Comments »

This week Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia signed a bill that includes state funding for “crisis pregnancy centers,” which are basically anti-abortion propaganda bunkers. Now here are a few interesting things to think about:

  1. Tim Kaine is the chair of the Democratic National Committee, a post to which he was appointed by his good buddy Barack Obama. That’s important, because Tim Kaine is anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage, pretty much anti-everything having anything to do with people’s hoo-has. But Obama thought it would be great to appoint this guy to the DNC. In fact, Obama almost picked him as his Vice-President.
  2. NARAL is all upset now with Tim Kaine. But Tim Kaine was appointed by his good buddy Obama, and NARAL’s Nancy Keenan endorsed Obama during the primaries, even though Hillary Clinton — who has a far stronger record on abortion rights — was still in the race. NARAL, of course, is the National Abortion Rights Action League. All they do is abortion. It seemed kinda funny in the first place that they would endorse the candidate with the poorer record on abortion. It seems even funnier that they should be disappointed when that candidate starts appointing his anti-abortion cronies to major positions of power, or when those cronies start doing things like funding crisis pregnancy centers.
  3. Tim Kaine is every bit as conservative as Sarah Palin. He also has the same amount of political experience as Sarah Palin. Yet for some reason, last year Sarah Palin was vilified by alleged feminists, while Tim Kaine continues to escape scot free. Not a word on him. Pandagon, for example: Amanda Marcotte wrote a series of posts on crisis pregnancy centers a few years ago, and you’d think she would be pissed at Obama’s man in Virginia right now. You’d think she would have objected to Kaine being appointed to the DNC. But nope — not a word. Amanda did, however, write a lot of posts last year ridiculing Sarah Palin for being conservative and relatively inexperienced — just like Tim Kaine, though Amanda never mentioned that. Amanda and her third wave cohorts also slandered Palin, and I do mean slander. Lies. Untruths. She knowingly published falsehoods about Sarah Palin, even though I personally furnished her with documented evidence of Palin’s actual positions. But Amanda’s just one example: there was a regular horde of blogger twits last year doing the same thing.
  4. Tim Kaine is a man. Sarah Palin is a woman. Same experience, same political positions. And who did the third wave feminists attack?
  5. Barack Obama is a man. Hillary Clinton is a woman. Candidate Clinton had more experience and a better record on feminist issues. And who did NARAL abandon?

It’s a funny old world.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

85 Responses to “Obama’s Man in Virginia, and the state of feminism”

  1. tinfoil hattie says:

    Yes, but he’s a Democrat. That makes up for everything!

    I live in Virginia, and this SUCKS. Kaine is a Catholic. Religion = misogyny. Kaine said he would keep his religious views to himself when elected. Bullshit.

    I’m so tired of these fucking idiots toying with women’s lives because they know so much better what we need.

  2. gayle says:

    Those same twits also attempted to convince their readers that Hillary Clinton was a risky bet on abortion rights because Hillary made the same “Safe, Legal and Rare” comment ALL Democrats use.

    I know there are different standards for women candidates, but I always thought women who claim to be feminists fought against that– HA!!

  3. DaTechGuy says:

    As you might guess I have a totally opposite view of Mr. Kaine’s moves as both you and your other likely commentators.

    However you are quite correct about the double standard and I give you full marks for the consistency and your willingness to say what others are unwilling to.

  4. Ciccina says:

    Excellent, as usual, Violet. [But, as an HR person once told me, if your normal performance is excellent, then doing excellent work, for you, is just average. And you don't get bonuses for just average performance..!]

    The NARAL endorsement of Obama was an act of suicide. NARAL had been limping along since Kate left; while I’m not a fan of Kate, she was exponentially more skilled and astute than Nancy. That endorsement was the coup de grace. (pretend you see a circumflex).

    Its funny that you say all NARAL does is abortion. That’s my feeling too, even though I know programmatically they take on other issues. No matter how many times they change their name – from National Abortion Rights Action League to National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League to NARAL Pro-Choice America – their roots are in the fight to legalize, and keep legal, abortion.

    Between the revolving brand name and the Obama endorsement, I think they’re an object lesson in how an advocacy organization can go off the rails when they step away from their core competencies [*shivers*] and try to eat off of other peoples’ plates. For a long time I’ve felt like saying, “stop picking at other peoples’ food, and finish your own meal already!” Don’t shop around for new issues and identities when you’re not fulfilling your primary mission.

    As for Amanda, I listened to her presentation at the Fem 2.0 conference about ‘where we go now that Roe’s safe.’ It was clear she had painted herself into a corner. On the one hand she’s well aware that SCOTUS eviscerated Roe with the Carhart decision; on the other hand, she believed Barack the Magic Pony would ‘save’ Roe. Now Obama’s elected, and he’s slowly doing the bare minimum on reproductive rights and family planning – and moving us backwards by tapping people like Tim Kaine. It was interesting to see her try to articulate the conundrum without acknowledging that her two contentions were mutually exclusive: it is either true that electing Obama would “save Roe,” and thus now that Obama is elected, Roe is “safe”; or it is true that “Roe is in jeopardy,” as we heard before the election, in which case electing the Pony did not substantially affect the status of Roe.

    It was a shame to see her like that, because she does such great work over at RH Reality Check.

  5. Amanda Marcotte says:

    You’d think, wouldn’t you? It’s almost as if you were telling the truth, but alas, you’re not:

    http://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/1421112283

    Not that the truth matters when you’re on a completely childish mission of playing the victim instead of actually giving two shits about feminism.

  6. Violet says:

    Not that the truth matters when you’re on a completely childish mission of playing the victim instead of actually giving two shits about feminism.

    Talking to yourself again, Amanda?

    So you twittered it. Okay, great. Yay! You twittered a fuck you to Tim Kaine. Way to go, Amanda. Totally makes up for your behavior last year with the lying and the slandering and the gross sexism and misogyny hurled at other women, all in the name of your personal brand of “feminism” (aka “I lurve Barack the Magic Pony and any bitch who gets in the way can fuck off and die”).

  7. Lori says:

    Amanda,

    This is sadly hilarious. You can’t possibly think that Twittering counts as taking a stand?

    Pathetic.

  8. Sis says:

    Not long ago, Amanda wrote a fascinating article about right-wing Christians and their interest in anal sex. Ooops.

  9. Amanda Marcotte says:

    Oh, I knew you’d say that. But people who think “feminism” is supporting Rush Limbaugh in his desire to get Barack Obama are not exactly the sort of people who are in a position to make judgments on what a proportional response to anything is. It’s like asking the black helicopter set to define paranoia.

    But you made a factual assertion—that I don’t care—and it was factually disproven. Not that this matters, because your approaches, behavior, and maturity have morphed you into wingnuts.

  10. Violet says:

    But people who think “feminism” is supporting Rush Limbaugh in his desire to get Barack Obama are not exactly the sort of people who are in a position to make judgments on what a proportional response to anything is.

    What on earth are you even talking about? Rush Limbaugh? What? Can you even try to make sense, or is that beyond you now?

  11. Violet says:

    But you made a factual assertion—that I don’t care—and it was factually disproven.

    I don’t follow you on Twitter — jesus, who would? — so I was unaware of your two-word tweet on Kaine. I checked your blog and saw you had not written a post. But yes, I was mistaken that you had not said “a word.” My bad.

    Now, have you given any thought yet to the slanders you published repeatedly last year about Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton and the PUMA groups? You were spreading lies even after I wrote you and gave you unambiguous facts. Not just little tweets, either. Actual posts and articles and even tips to people like Katha Pollitt, which got promulgated in the national media. Lies, Amanda. You fucking lied, repeatedly, and you knew it.

  12. gayle says:

    I guess I missed your “I now support Rush Limbaugh to get at Obama” post, Violet.

    Perhaps Amanda can link it for us?

  13. quixote says:

    “Funny old world”? I guess. But definitely not “funny” as in “ha-ha.”

    :-<

  14. Violet says:

    I guess I missed your “I now support Rush Limbaugh to get at Obama” post, Violet.

    I missed it too. Maybe it was my doppelgänger.

    You know, I think what I said before about Amanda’s feminism was even more true than I realized. I’m puzzling over the Limbaugh reference, and all I can figure is that she is so fixated on Obama that in her mind, anyone and everyone who criticizes My Dream Pony Barack is the same — Greens, Democrats, feminists, Rush Limbaugh, the Scaife foundation… Oh hey! Maybe she read “My Life as a mole”?

  15. anne says:

    I think Amanda has long confused being a Democrat with being a feminist. So if the boys at Democrat HQ approve of something therefore it must be feminist.

    Most of what I have seen from her has been in support of Democratic, anti right-wing politics, not in support of women per se, even if the two interests do sometimes collide. Which is why Obama, who the Democratic boys loved, got her support, whilst Hillary who is both progressive and feminist (and is able to get things done) was lied about and treated like shit. That’s what the Democratic boys wanted so that’s what they got.

    I don’t think she’s the only US woman calling herself a feminist who has made that mistake of course.

  16. RKMK says:

    I remember, once upon a long time ago, I respected Amanda Marcotte a great deal. I feel so dirty.

  17. Sandra S. says:

    Dude, I twitter about the eating habits of my mice. That doesn’t mean I’m taking a fucking stand on an issue.

  18. Lynnerkat says:

    Amanda and Jane (Firedoglake) sold women out to play with the “A” lister blog boys.

  19. octogalore says:

    Violet, clearly you have not kept up with third wave lexicon! To elucidate:

    “Wingnut” =
    (1) willing to work with women on mutually desired women’s rights issues who might not see eye to eye on every political issue;
    (2) a woman who believes in gender equity but holds fiscally conservative views;
    (3) a woman who chose not to vote for Barack Obama.

    “Feminist” =
    (1) someone who sees eye to eye on pretty much, I mean every, issue with Kos and other BloggerBoyz;
    (2) someone who refuses to slavishly focus on women’s issues in her blogging, but instead prefers a site that is pretty equivalent to a BloggerBoy blog, with maybe a sprinkle of women’s issues here and there to add some flavor but nothing too extreme.

    Get with the program!

  20. Briar says:

    That’s what way too many women do – because male positions and postures have power in our society, they adopt them. But that sells out not just other women, but all the other possible positions and solutions available. There really are alternatives to the male dominated society we have now, real, positive, hopeful alternatives. We just have to change our perspective and stop cosying up to the enemy in order to share his privileges.

  21. Anna Belle says:

    Awww, come on, folks, this is Amanda Marcotte. The patriarchy slapped her ass with the Edwards campaign last year and she actually asked for more. She’s not a feminist anymore than Joan Rivers is a feminist. She’s vagbot on the hunt for a better job. That’s why she felt so perfectly comfortable slandering Palin last year and it’s why she lurves the Democrats and tries to sell them her feminist-lite schtick. That’s her corporation. She’s auditioning for the next rung. If she keeps at it long enough, maybe nobody will remember the Edwards fiasco, wherein she was treated like the woman she is and then failed to take a stand over it. “I was fired, but I quit!” For fuck’s sake.

  22. Anna Belle says:

    Just had to add:

    “Not that this matters, because your approaches, behavior, and maturity have morphed you into wingnuts.”

    This is dKos territory. She’s been fully assimilated now and can no longer tolerate a differing point of view. Of course, if you attack character, you don’t have to deal with the argument at hand, do you? What an Odiot.

  23. donna darko says:

    We’re the real feminists and Democrats. The rest of the country sold out.

  24. donna darko says:

    Feminists and the netroots sold out but Obama threw them under the bus. He has zero respect for them

    Whereas deep down he respects us and gave in to our demands:

    WH Council on Women and Girls

    Democratic primary reform

    Obama did not give in because of the 50 groups pressuring him to create the Council. He has no respect for fluffers. I credit The New Agenda:

    The New Agenda has been speaking out since Election Day and demanding better representation in Obama’s administration. TNA was the only national women’s rights group to continually speak out against Larry Summers. TNA was the only national women’s organization to consistently speak out about the lack of women in Obama’s cabinet. TNA was the only national women’s organization to continually demand better representation for women and better treatment in the Stimulus Package. So maybe, just maybe, our voices have been heard. We said in our CNN interview that “Obama does not take this constituency (e.g. women) very seriously.” Maybe, just maybe, he realized that he does need us after all!

  25. Violet says:

    (3) a woman who chose not to vote for Barack Obama.

    That’s hilarious. So not voting for Obama = you’re not a feminist.

    I’ve been a feminist since 1971; I’ve lived it, worked for it, studied it, fought for it. And now all of a sudden Obama, this sexist chump, this machine politician from Chicago, is the sine qua non of feminism. He’s the gold standard. He IS feminism. And if you don’t like him, then you’re not a feminist.

    These girls are so fucked. It’s like they all have giant life-size posters of Obama on their bedroom walls and they talk on their princess phones about how dreamy he is. And they think that’s feminism. It makes me laugh.

  26. Violet says:

    Though I should add here that I continue to wonder if Amanda’s peculiar Obama crush is typical. She is really an extreme case, which is why she was written off last year as a serious feminist (though I don’t think she’s realized that yet).

    Amanda would lie to her own mother for Obama, and in fact she really DID lie to her own mother. She wrote a post about “explaining” to her mother that Sarah Palin forced rape victims to pay for their own kits, which of course was a lie started and relentlessly pushed by the Obama campaign. Maybe it’s because I am a big family person, but the thought of lying to my own mother to trick her into voting for someone is just mind-boggling.

    Amanda is also the blogger who wrote a post last year about how Obama was sending secret dog whistles that only special people like her could hear, dog whistles to the effect that he was such a pacifist that once elected, he would clear out the ranks and fill the State and Defense departments with people who had never had anything to do with war. I imagine she went into a psychic fugue state when Pres-Elect Obama announced that he would be keeping Robert Gates.

    I mention this just to point out that Amanda is really way off the deep end and has been for some time. I wonder how much of that is political expediency and how much is just, well, something else, but what I’m not sure.

  27. anne says:

    Amanda needs to tell us the story of how and why she got into feminism. She once said in passing it was through music, but she didn’t say what music it was or why on earth that would make her decide to fight for women’s rights. As far as I can tell she’s never read any or at least many feminist books, which is what a great deal of feminists do when they first realise the world isn’t quite the way men keep telling us it is. I’ve seen her spouting bollocks about Andrea Dworkin but I’ll eat a copy of Amanda’s book if she’s ever actually read anything by Dworkin.

    I’d like to know what she thinks makes her a feminist apart from the letter she got from Democratic HQ telling her that was her new job.

  28. Lori says:

    I honestly think that we need to begin a discussion about what bigoted rhetoric is. I keep pointing out to people that bigoted rhetoric is rhetoric that engages the use of demeaning cultural stereotpyes for its punch. I also think we need to begin addressing that we we can say about one person cannot necessarily be said about another without invoking cultural stereotypes. That’s an easy one to address – all you have to do is point out that calling John Edwards “my boy” isn’t a problem. Calling Obama “my boy” is a very big problem. And there is no point to be made, other that furthering the insult, in claiming that they are the same thing. The same thing with Obana’s “periodically gets down” comment – which was ghastly on more than one level. You could say that John Edwards periodically gets down – hell, his sixteen year old son died. Of course, he does. but there aren’t millennial old stereotypes about men going batshit to be sorted through. But he pressed that button in men that is scared shitless that women are completely irrational once a month.

    I think, considering the campaign we saw unfold, that’s where the dialogue must begin. There are a lot of Obama supporters who think bigoted rhetoric is a subjective thing – they don’t know that it can be quantified by and large. And that Obama’s rhetoric was very typical, old-school, misogynist rhetoric. He even called women he didn’t know, “sweetie”. He’s a real belch from the fifties – the last hurrah of racism. Isn’t that ironic?

    Saying that Clinton’s foreign policy experience is limited to “tea with ambassadors”, is no different than reducing Obama’s speeches to “shucking and jiving”. Both are incredibly offensive. One would never be tolerated by the Democrats. The other was applauded.

    What is it Julie Andrews sings? “Let’s start at the very beginning. A very good place to start…”

  29. anna says:

    “These girls are so fucked. It’s like they all have giant life-size posters of Obama on their bedroom walls and they talk on their princess phones about how dreamy he is.”

    I don’t think Obama is a feminist, and I don’t think feminists should support him. But let’s not be sexist toward women who do. Explain why Obama is a sexist; call women greedy stupid traitors if they still support him. But referring to grown women as “girls” and talking about how they act like a stereotype of teenage girls (do you say that about male Obama supporters? even if you do, do you see how it rests on the idea that teenage girls are simpering morons?) does not seem feminist to me.

  30. Violet says:

    Yes, I do talk about male Obamabots in the same fashion: they’re fanboys. When Obama supporters behave like simpering teenage morons, I’m not going to sugarcoat it by pretending otherwise. And no, in my opinion it’s not sexist to point out when a grown woman is behaving like a goddamn 13-year-old with a crush.

    I don’t think Obama is a feminist, and I don’t think feminists should support him. But let’s not be sexist toward women who do. Explain why Obama is a sexist; call women greedy stupid traitors if they still support him.

    You misunderstand. I am not criticizing Amanda as unfeminist for supporting Obama. I know lots of feminists who supported Obama. The issue is that Amanda’s behavior last year was grotesquely sexist and misogynist towards the women running against Obama. She went far beyond political support for her preferred candidate and well into the territory of pure woman-bashing. That’s the issue.

  31. MojaveWolf says:

    RKMK,

    I too used to be an Amanda/Pandagon fan. I even remember how I found her; I was reading a magazine called Earth Island and she had a really terrific essay in it about why environmentalists needed to quit using the phrase “raping the earth” and explaining in detail why use of said phrase was a bad thing. I agreed, loved the article, and looked up her site.

    I actually started reading her at least a year before I found and started reading Violet, though I finally had to abandon Pandagon during the primaries last year. Even after it was awful I kept reading just to see the Hillary-hating, Obama-worshipping point of view and because some other things there were still occasionally good, but at some point it just got beyond bearing. (I just looked over there again and sanity would seem to have returned, except after the distortions and lies she just threw at Violet in this thread? errr, no thanks, I’ll stay gone)

    Amanda is also the blogger who wrote a post last year about how Obama was sending secret dog whistles that only special people like her could hear, dog whistles to the effect that he was such a pacifist

    I think I remember this. Sadly, she was far from the only one who thought that way, though the levels of buyer’s remorse seems to be ratcheting up across this particular spectrum. I no longer read the feminist sites that went all “Obama Rulez and Hillary is the most evil person Ever!”, but I did follow a Corrente link to a post at DKos and looks like a whole lot of people are surprised and furious that those top secret coded whistles they thought they were hearing turned out to be imaginary . . . though they sadly but unsurprisingly were *not* bringing up the Kaine garbage very much over at DK.

    Totally agree w/Donna Darko that, for all that he hasn’t been anything resembling feminist, women’s rights is one of the few areas where Obama has been better than I expected, and I think this is exactly because of the pressure put on him by places like this one.

    & Lori– great post about bigoted rhetoric, that it’s not just defined by what people randomly decide they want to read into something; I think that would be a great thread!

  32. madamab says:

    Great post, Violet!

    I continue to be stunned that anyone equates one political party or the other with feminism. They are both awful.

    Let’s put it this way. I’ve voted for Democrats since I turned 18. Where’s my ERA? Where’s my equal pay for equal work? Why can’t I breastfeed in the workplace? Where is my fully-paid maternity leave? Why is “domestic” violence taken less seriously, from a legal standpoint, than other types of violence? Why do women make up only 17% of my country’s government, and where the hell is my female President?

    Sorry, Amanda and other female Obots. A pat on the ass from the so-called Democratic Party won’t cut it for me any more. I’m not voting for anyone who doesn’t get how important this issues are to me and to my fellow American sisters and brothers.

    If that makes me a wingnut, so be it. But somehow, I don’t think Rush Limbaugh would find my list of priorities very appealing.

    Sadly, neither would Barack Obama.

  33. Violet says:

    Politically, I’m a Green. If Obama fans can’t tell the difference between criticism from the left and criticism from the right, then “kool-aid” doesn’t even begin to describe what they’re drinking.

  34. Sis says:

    Lori I too would love to hear more on bigoted rhetoric. How about a thread?

  35. Sis says:

    I don’t agree with Chrisianity, being a member of one of the races they’ve nearly obliterated in the name of their saviour. But even I cringe at Amanda’s major work; she’s insanely obsessed with Christians, sex, and Christian sex. I don’t think she’s even a Democrat anymore, if I understand what that is from my ferengi perspective.

  36. Lori says:

    Does it ever occur to anyone besides me that maybe a lot of these blogs were simply paid off to support Obama? I’m certain Kos and Josh Marshall were paid. I have no evidence to support that other than just how awful their behavior was. And, otherwise, it’s really hard to make sense out of everything that transpired last year.

    Obama clearly went after feminists in a big way. I hear that the *awesome Obama fundraising list* was being used as enticement with certain women’s organizations as well as elected officials who were inclined to support Clinton. At the same time the message was delivered that the list would go to their opponents or competitors if they didn’t endorse Obama.

    Why would the candidate who had his chair go on national television and threaten elected officials with a primary challenge if they didn’t support Obama hesitate to pay off blogs?

    Honestly, I think we’re still lying to ourselves about how brutal last year’s primary was.

  37. Violet says:

    Lori, I know that money was the grease with the women’s organizations; there is no question about that. If you remember, last year Obama’s organization pretty much took over the Democratic Party apparatus, and began a move to funnel all money through them. It was made very clear to the women’s groups (and other groups) that they could either get on the O train or be pushed out in the cold permanently.

    As for political payoffs: yes, just check the rundown of payoffs to the superdelegates from the O campaign and PACs associated with him. It was egregious. Vastly more money than Hillary spent — O and his team simply threw piles of cash at superdelegates.

    As for the netroots, Axelrod deployed a massive astro-turf operation, but I really have no idea if established bloggers were paid. My personal guess is that it was more a question of looking for the main chance. And that’s Amanda up and down, of course; well before Obama came along, she was trying to cozy up to the boys at DailyKos, etc., and bullying the shit out of any feminist bloggers who questioned it.

  38. Violet says:

    Honestly, I think we’re still lying to ourselves about how brutal last year’s primary was.

    As for that, no, I’ll never forget it. Having worked on the caucus fraud investigation last year, I’m well aware that Obama ran the most corrupt national campaign we’ve had since Nixon. The discrepancy between the Obots’ fantasy of him (The Lightworker!) and the reality (a corrupt machine politician busing in ringers from Chicago and staffing the caucus halls with enforcers) is so huge I’m tired of even thinking about it. I just class it with the way Republicans fantasized that Bush was President Jesus. There’s no way to deal with delusion on that level.

  39. anne says:

    The money to support Obama came in a large part from George Soros who poured cash into the Feminist Majority Foundation, NARAL, Move On amongst others, who in turn all came out in support of Obama. Nothing like being a billionaire if you fancy buying yourself a little democracy.

    Obama was advertising at Daily Kos all the time. There must have been huge wads of $$$ in it.

    What’s funny is that the so-called progressives were too stupid or politically ill-equipped to notice it.

  40. Violet says:

    You know, Ronald Reagan was a great big phony can of processed cheese, and people totally fell for it. He was an empty suit backed by vicious, mean men, but people bought the fantasy. They voted for him in droves. And christ, the fantasy lives on — I’m sure you can still buy Peggy Noonan’s books, and there are airports and battleships and god knows what else named after the creep, and at least as long as Grover Norquist lives the propaganda will keep rolling.

    Obama is the Democrats’ Reagan. Totally phony, an empty suit powered by money and corrupt Chicago politics. But people fell for it. There’s no question that huge numbers of people (including many of the bloggers we’re discussing) really believed he was The Lightworker. Or The Lightbringer — whatever the fuck it is.

  41. Lori says:

    Sis,

    I’d love a thread on bigoted language, but I’m not an academic and probably don’t have the chops to handle it. I do think that feminists need to begin to have this discussion about language AGAIN and push it outward. Until we root our objection to his campaign rhetoric, and the rhetoric and tactice engaged in by his supporters, in a substantive, quantifiable theory, then everything remains subjective. Tying his rhetoric to the bigoted rhetoric of American racists gives people a framework that is immediately understandable.

    Violet – yes, I think there were a lot of people pushing to get ahead and make their name with him. Little did I know when so many of our ilk objected to the power the right had with the media, they weren’t objecting to what was done with that power and control, but that they didn’t have similar access.

  42. Nina M. says:

    “Obama is the Democrats’ Reagan.”

    Couldn’t agree more.

  43. Carmonn says:

    Amanda has a blind spot a mile wide, and it’s accompanied by a defensive streak a mile long. Every legitimate criticism of her is deflected with cries that jealous people in league with Bill Donohue are trying to bring her down, it’s not surprising that she’s trasferring that bit of genius to Her Savior and Limbaugh.

    Maybe some of tehhe feminist bloggers were paid off, but with most of the liberal blogosphere it looked like sexism plain and simple. They passionately disliked Obama for his crappy record, but then forgot all that and embraced him wholehertedly as soon as it became clear that he was the only person who could stop the woman. If he could stop her, it didn;t matter how much he loved Reagan or resembled Bush, he was the glory and the light. It was either ignore his actual record they’d just been complaining about and pretend he stands for all things good and true, make a virtue of things that he’s as or more guilty of than Hillary while continuing to slam her for those things at an apoplectic level or, like violet says, assert that if she does something wrong it;s because she’s innately evil, while it only LOOKS like he has a horrible record because all along he’s being trying to sucker the Man into thinking they’re on the same side; when he rips off the mask, watch out! And double damn that Hllary for casting the correct vote on a bill when he casts the wrong one, she doesn’t mean it and is only trying to make him look bad.

    Maybe it’s just me, but there are too many old familiar double standards there (in addition, of course, to the gross outpouring of gender based hate) for me to believe anything but simple sexism is the driving force.

  44. donna darko says:

    Obama threw the netroots under the bus over and over. He FINALLY reached out to them about last week because they’re doormats, battered women asking for more. Obama was the only one who didn’t hold blogger conference calls. McCain and Clinton had blogger conference calls.

  45. Lori says:

    Carmonn,

    Misogyny isn’t the reason Clinton was brought down, it was the tool that she was brought down with. If you go back to the early days of the primary, misogyny was introduced very deliberately into the mix. I remember Josh Marshall linking the 1984 video and saying that it struck him as “clever”. Josh isn’t stupid. He knows it wasn’t clever in the least. Over at DK, Brooklyn Bad Boy was explaining to me that Obama empowered his volunteers to chose how Obama would be presented to the community – iow, the thugs got the word from the top to go at it.

    What it was about, no doubt, was covering up the fraud in the financial industry. The financial community paid money to infect the blogosphere with that level of misogyny and it worked. That’s why we must quantify the bigoted rhetoric. As long as it remains subjective, we cannot move the marker down the board. Once people understand why “periodically gets down” and “tea with ambassadors” was misogynist rhetoric, the whole thing will begin to open up for them.

    Wall Street went looking for a candidate to buy and Obama sold himself. When hundreds of powerful people are looking at decades in prison if a vigorous president is elected, gender is irrelevant.

  46. Violet says:

    Politics are always a money game. There’s always corruption. Jack Kennedy bought West Virginia, Hubert Humphrey paid off Daley for Chicago in ’68, the ’72 campaign was an abyss, on and on. There are always people willing to pay and do a great deal for the White House.

    A signal problem with the Obamabots is their extreme political naivete. I really don’t think they understand American politics or how ugly it can be. No sense of history, no knowlege of past campaigns. It’s standard, for example, for them to react to the Obama caucus fraud evidence with talk of “conspiracy nuts” and so forth. I mean, how outrageous to think that a Democratic candidate could cheat! They never heard of such a thing! Unless it’s Hillary…and of course she has the Mark of the Beast, she eats babies, she really would do anything.

    It’s like dealing with children.

  47. tinfoil hattie says:

    I don’t care for Amanda Marcotte’s blog since she defended the horribly racist cover of her book, It’s a Jungle Out There.

    And, I have to say, it is sexist to refer to grown women as “girls” and mock their use of princess phones — sexist stereotypes. And mocking men isn’t the same thing, because men are the oppressors and therefore are not susceptible to sexism the same way women are.

    It’s like calling Palin a bimbo or a hottie or whatever. If someone had made a parody of Palin calling McCain on a princess phone, I would have called that sexist.

  48. Violet says:

    It’s like calling Palin a bimbo or a hottie or whatever. If someone had made a parody of Palin calling McCain on a princess phone, I would have called that sexist.

    No, it’s not. Calling Palin a bimbo is simply pulling a sexist epithet out of thin air. And it would make no sense to refer to her calling McCain on a princess phone, since she has never carried on in that manner.

    The Obama Girls — and after a year of their crap I’m all too familiar with it — carry on like readers of Tiger Beat. Have you missed it? The Obama pictures, the pink fuzzy swirly hearts, the swooning, the vicious attacks on any woman who doesn’t appreciate him, the “he’s my guy”? It’s a pretty striking pattern of behavior. I’m not the only person who’s reminded of teenagers.

  49. Carmonn says:

    Lori, the reason I disagree is that Obama didn’t just become a corporate tool–he’s been that for a long time, and he still couldn’t get any love. He was a very, very unpopular figure. I know that Axlerod was out there astroturfing and I don’t doubt lots of money was poured into that, but nobody had to infect the blogosphere with misogyny, it’s been a cesspool since forever. They used it there because they knew it would be a slamdunk with their target audience.

    Maybe some of the more prominent bloggers were paid off, and I’m sure a significant percentage of commenters were and are paid astroturfers, but the levels of hysteria against Clinton were building for years, and the support for Obama didn’t coalese until it was clear he was the only viable option to stop her. At root, it really had nothing to do with him and everything to do with her imo–just ask our friend Amanda, I remember her doing a lot of strategic hand wringing about tactical voting between the other options in different states to try and find the best formula to stop Clinton, regardless of who ended up winning. They may not have known why they reacted much more viscerally to her than to anyone else in the long line of tools they’d been blessed with, or why her vote for the war was worse than Edwards’ or Kerry’s, but it doesn’t take too much deep psychoanalysis to figure it out, especially in tandem with all the other casual and gross sexism you encountered on a daily basis at these sites going back years and years.

    I just can’t believe that every or even most known quantity who participated in this stuff was paid off, not because I believe they’re too good to take money or Obama’s too virtuous to pay–just because there’s no need for them to buy the cow when they can the milk for free. You can be pretty sure your rape apologists and all the other assorted tools who find happy acceptance in the liberal blogsophere will be lining up for the Last Man Standing, whoever it is, for free.

    But, it’s not like it really matters, the blogosphere doesn’t have that much influence. They didn’t being her down. As far as the influence of Obama’s $$$$$$ on organizations who should know better and the superdelegates who did bring her down, I agree 100%.

  50. Lori says:

    With bigoted rhetoric, not only does it matter aginst whom the specific language is deployed , it also matters who deploys the language. Jesse Jackson using the word “boy” in reference to Obama does not carry the same baggage that it would if Jesse Helms used it. The same thing here – Violet cannot deploy sexist rhetoric against Amanda because she is not a part of the power structure, nor is she aligning herself with the power structure, that deprives women of equality. Equals have more room for mockery than unequals have.

    You can make the case that it is unwise to use that kind of rhetoric, but I think that’s just a matter of opinion. Violet mocking them as girls on their princess phones doesn’t make it acceptable for Kos to talk that way.

    And further more, Palin is a governor and as of yet, the Obots have not been able to admit that she is anything other than a house frau with unruly, promiscuous teenagers who spends her weekends in bikinis getting drunk and shooting off guns at Beverly Hills pool sides. When men, who have held the vast majority of elected positions in the nation since it’s inception, characterize a woman who has made it as far as Palin has in the terms that they relentlessly portray her with, they are doing actual damage to the ability of women to get ahead. It seems unlikely that the anti-partriarchy crowd to which Violet belongs, will be in any position to discriminate or deprive the pro-partriarchy crowd of their civil rights anytime in the immediate future.

  51. DaTechGuy says:

    You know between twitter, facebook and everything else that is here and is coming it is almost impossible to keep up with what everyone says unless you want no life.

  52. Violet says:

    At root, it really had nothing to do with him and everything to do with her imo–just ask our friend Amanda, I remember her doing a lot of strategic hand wringing about tactical voting between the other options in different states to try and find the best formula to stop Clinton, regardless of who ended up winning. They may not have known why they reacted much more viscerally to her than to anyone else in the long line of tools they’d been blessed with, or why her vote for the war was worse than Edwards’ or Kerry’s, but it doesn’t take too much deep psychoanalysis to figure it out, especially in tandem with all the other casual and gross sexism you encountered on a daily basis at these sites going back years and years.

    I remember Amanda claiming that the central issue of the election was the war. It was a ludicrous assertion, since all the candidates had exactly the same position on the war. Everybody wanted it to end, everybody was equally cagey about exactly when and how to withdraw troops. There was no debate over the war at all. In fact, even if McCain had won, I suspect things would be pretty much the same as they are now: trying to figure out how to withdraw, while meanwhile dealing with the real international crisis, which is the financial one.

    So why did Amanda and others pretend that “the war” was the big looming issue? Because that was their stick to beat Hillary with. According to Amanda and the Blogger Boyz and the other Hillary haters, Hillary’s vote-with-reservations for the AUMF was the central crime against humanity of the 21st century, while Obama’s identical support for the war effort (with the sole exception of a mythical speech he made while a state senator in Illinois) made him the equivalent of Mahatma Gandhi. The deep misogyny at work, and the sheer desperation to find a male alternative to the terrifying Hillary, were transparent.

  53. Carmonn says:

    And of course, Amanda and the blogger boys mostly supported Edwards, who managed to also be the equivalent of Gandhi despite supporting AUMF. And they didn’t seem to have much of, or indeed, any problem at all when Obama picked Biden, they seemed quite joyous and relieved about the lack of war mongers on the ticket actually, so I’m assuming he’s also in that category. And I know that Kerrys people were telling numerous people that Clinton’s AUMF vote disqualified her as the Democratic nominee–how lucky we are to be absolutely surrounded by Gandhis.

  54. RKMK says:

    So why did Amanda and others pretend that “the war” was the big looming issue? Because that was their stick to beat Hillary with. According to Amanda and the Blogger Boyz and the other Hillary haters, Hillary’s vote-with-reservations for the AUMF was the central crime against humanity of the 21st century, while Obama’s identical support for the war effort (with the sole exception of a mythical speech he made while a state senator in Illinois) made him the equivalent of Mahatma Gandhi. The deep misogyny at work, and the sheer desperation to find a male alternative to the terrifying Hillary, were transparent.

    Most here have probably read this already, but for anyone new to the party: the Bad Mother analysis.

  55. yttik says:

    When advertising or astroturfing, what you do is try to trigger people’s subconcious fears or other intense emotions. And you make it just subtle enough that is doesn’t register in their rational brain and get reasoned away. That is how the misogyny and Hillary hatred was exploited during the past election. That’s why it was so difficult to debate actual facts, like Obama’s hawkish war stance, where he wrote in his books about increasing funding for the DOD or the speech he gave that endorsed pre-emptive strikes against countries like Pakistan and Iran. It was like trying to talk people out of buying their favorite brand of product. They have information imbedded in their brain that isn’t easily challenged because half the time they aren’t even aware of it. Violet mentioned children, well it is kind of like children jumping up and down and trying to force you to buy some crappy toy they don’t even know if they like but they’ve watched a commercial for it every three minutes for the past week.

    I don’t think people like to discuss how easy it is to brainwash human beings, to convince them they want something they really know nothing about. Everyone wants to believe they are always making informed and rational decisions. But if that were true, nobody would be investing millions of dollars into selling us sugary cereals or political candidates.

  56. tinfoil hattie says:

    Violet cannot deploy sexist rhetoric against Amanda because she is not a part of the power structure, nor is she aligning herself with the power structure, that deprives women of equality.

    Not buying it. By that logic, any sexist statements Amanda Marcotte or any woman made against Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton “don’t count.” And all of us align ourselves with the power structure, every day. To pretend we can be pure feminists in a patriarchy is self-defeatist.

    It is sexist to deride women as “girls.” It is sexist to mock grown women for using “princess phones.” This is not an image that conjures men. It conjures girls who are scorned and derided for reading Tiger Beat and talking to their friends on the phone about who they like.

    Look deeper, and I think you have to admit that this is doing the exact same thing we all accused Palin haters of doing, and I’m disappointed that people in this forum would stoop to it. There’s plenty to crticize about Marcotte’s writings without resorting to personal attacks tinged with sexist stereotypes.

  57. anne says:

    I don’t think misogyny was that much of a conscious choice for the Obama gang and those that wanted him in power. It comes naturally to them. Faced with a woman challenging their power it’s going to be their first response.

    For example John Favreau didn’t need some kind of Machiavellian thought process to grope a life-size photograph of Hillary Clinton, it’s just what he does. Same as feeding Obama lines like “the claws come out” and “periodically when she’s feeling down”. These people are committed misogynists at their most fundamental level. Without misogyny, male supremacy wouldn’t exist and they’d lose their privileged position. It’s their raison d’etre, not the side show.

  58. Violet says:

    Look deeper, and I think you have to admit that this is doing the exact same thing we all accused Palin haters of doing, and I’m disappointed that people in this forum would stoop to it.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree. Not all speech is the same: intention, context, and content all affect the meaning.

    Sexist stereotypes are fundamentally about concealment and reduction. Their job is to conceal the real person and reduce her to a small labeled box. Calling Palin a “bimbo” has nothing to do with who she is as a real person; the job of that epithet is to obscure her reality and replace it with a convenient patriarchal label. All sexist (and racist) stereotypes work that way.

    On the other hand, rhetorical imagery, such as I was employing, is designed to expose and enrich. Instead of giving you less information, it’s giving you more. With that single sentence about teenagers with bedroom wall posters and princess phones, what I’m doing is evoking an image. I’m sketching a pattern of behavior, giving my readers a way to picture what I’ve observed. If I say that my cousin and her six children poked among the gravestones like a hen with her chicks, I’m not stereotyping her as a chicken (nor am I impugning the character of any members of the fowl family). I’m evoking an image to describe behavior.

    That was my intention with the sentence about princess phones. It was a rhetorical device.

    If you disagree, fine, but we’ll just have to disagree. Though I don’t really think it’s up to you to tell me what my intention as a writer was.

  59. tinfoil hattie says:

    We can certainly disagree, as we obviously do, and I deny your assertion that I am telling you what your intention as a writer was. I’m telling you how I read it, and why. And one other commenter here had the same initial reaction. And frankly, I also believe that you don’t get to tell me what is sexist and what isn’t.

    Also: in discussions of sexism, racism, and privilege, it’s generally agreed that “intention” doesn’t matter when someone is offended. Barack Obama didn’t intend to demean Hillary Clinton all those times, remember? We were making things up. We needed to lighten up. We were reading things into it that weren’t there. So it wasn’t sexsit. Amanda Marcotte didn’t intend to offend people with the cover of It’s a Jungle Out There. So it wasn’t racist.

    So, yeah, we disagree on whether it was sexist, and clearly we aren’t going to change one another’s minds.

  60. Violet says:

    Also: in discussions of sexism, racism, and privilege, it’s generally agreed that “intention” doesn’t matter when someone is offended.

    That’s a general agreement I don’t agree with. In fact I find it completely absurd. Bob Herbert hallucinates that a picture of the Siegessäule is racist, but I’m not buying it. By allowing racism or sexism to be defined solely in terms of the reader’s or observer’s declared experience, we come unmoored from reality. It’s solipsistic. The Siegessäule is a giant black phallus, “fairy tale” is racist, it’s racist to joke about Obama’s PR gaffes with the Queen, and on and on.

    Accusations of racism and sexism and other isms have to be grounded in a shared reality. You have to consider whether the stereotype in question is widely understood to be offensive, whether it’s even a recognized stereotype for that matter, what the intention of the writer/speaker was, and so forth. But this isn’t math, so there are always gray areas.

  61. Violet says:

    The other issue, which you seem to miss, is that when I’m describing the Obama fangirls as teenagers, I’m not reaching for a stereotype out of thin air. I’m describing actual behavior. Teenagers are, on the whole, different from adults. I think most of us recognize that. Obsessive infatuations, irrational crushes, lack of perspective — these are generally recognized as immature traits. If people are behaving immaturely, it is simply accurate to point that out. When particular adults carry on like immature teenagers, pointing it out isn’t a sexist slur; it’s an accurate description. If my 30-year-old cousin gets obsessed with a guy and starts behaving like a teenager, it’s not “sexist” for me to tell her that she’s behaving like a teenager and for her to grow the hell up.

    Now, I’m tired of talking about this. You’re welcome to your opinion, but we disagree.

  62. Lori says:

    Tin Foil Hattie,

    So, you’re saying that if Jesse Jackson or James Clybourne had turned around to obama during the campaign and said, “get over here, boy”, that would exactly the same thing as if John McCain had called him “boy” during a debate. I don’t think you’re going to get many takers on that. Because if that is the case, African American rappers using the “n” word is as aggressively racist as overt white racists using it. Bigoted language is only relevant when it is deployed by the powerful to curtail the lives of the less powerful.

    The question is whether it is advisable to engage in that kind of rhetoric, because, as have seen with rap, it does tend to legitimize the use of bigoted language.

    Power is relevant to whether language is bigoted because the purpose of bigotry is to limit freedom and curtail access to wealth. Amanda was part of the power structure when she was going after Palin. Anyone who was campaigning or advocating for Obama, who is as clear a representative for establishment power as I have ever seen, was working on behalf of the establishment. Obama was not campaigning to empower to poor or expand freedom in our nation. He received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in the race. So this was the wealth of Wall street firing up the troops against Clinton and then Palin for reasons that become clearer everyday.

    Anne – with all due respect, you are wrong about this. This was a very well-thought out campaign strategy designed to allow a completely inexperienced senator to attack and bring down a liberal,well-funded, deeply beloved, and well-qualified woman who happened to be the front runner. Remember those heady days of Clinton being the first choice of over 50% of the Democrats? How else was Obama going to win? From the very beginning of that campaign – and that campaign in particular – the rhetoric coming from their ranks was bizarrely hostile, sexist and demeaning. The other candidates, at least in the beginning, went after Clinton on pretty much the grounds that you would expect them to. But Obama’s campaign, from the very start, used very bigoted language and demeaning sterotypes when addressing her or her supporters. Most Dems would be scared shitless of alienating the type of supporters Clinton had. Indeed, there was a presentation towards the end of the general election that talked about Obama’s abysmal numbes with women over the age of 50. Most candidates wouldn’t dream of alienating that demographic. Obama saw it as his way to win and shamefully, it worked for him.

  63. Violet says:

    I would really like to end this conversation about whether a single throwaway sentence in one comment in this thread is equivalent to Amanda Marcotte’s sustained months-long campaign against Sarah Palin PLUS her deliberate knowing slander of Palin PLUS her deliberate knowing slander of me and every other woman with PUMA sympathies.

  64. tinfoil hattie says:

    Actually, Lori, that’s not at all what I’m saying, and that was a prety big pile of straw you threw down.

    Violet, I should have started my initial comment by saying that this piece is EXCELLENT in its comparison of Kaine and Palin, and spot-on, and I live in Virginia so it resonates with me on that level too.

    I don’t want to just argue back and forth with you. I love your writing, I love this website, I come here every day hoping there’s another post about something. I can live with this disagreement, because I have the utmost respect for you, and even feminists disagree sometimes. It’s because I feel so familiar and comfortable here that I carried on this “dialogue” with you, but since you don’t know me from Eve, that was unfair on my part. Assuming facts not in evidence, as they say.

    I’m sorry for any of my responses that sounded rude toward you, and I want to emphasize how thankful I am for you and this blog.

  65. RKMK says:

    I would just like to say that I admire greatly both Tinfoil Hattie and Violet, and I understand both of their perspectives on this particular issue. I know what THF is talking about – I know I’m trying to be avoid relying on stereotypes that could be construed as sexist I criticize other women…. but I also think that the description of Marcotte’s downward spiral is unfortunately dead-on accurate.

    I think ultimately we’re mostly on the same page here, though.

  66. RKMK says:

    When I criticize other women.” (Proofread before you hit submit, RKMK, eesh.)

  67. tinfoil hattie says:

    What RKMK said — well, about admiring Violet & all the rest.

    And now, I think I’ll go choose to live in Afghanistan with good ol’ Geraldo.

    Now, HE’S my hero!! I think we can all agree he’s a big ol’ feminist icon, yes?

  68. donna darko says:

    Overcompensation is all I have to say about the netroots.

  69. Sis says:

    If Vi is not a parent or a teacher (or a dog trainer) hehe she should have been. Admirable.

    On perspective.

  70. tinfoil hattie says:

    Well, I have to keep reminding myself that everything – EVERY SINGLE THING – really means “something men have invented to further their own interests.” So “netroots” really means “Stuff men care about politically, much of which has to do with being popular and with the ‘in’ crowd.” You’d think I’d stop being shocked and dismayed when women are written out of everything, literally and figuratively.

    I guess you can’t teach an old feminist new tricks.

  71. anne says:

    Lori, I know it was a well-thought out campaign of negativity. My argument is that the root of it was misogyny, it wasn’t just a tool they picked out at random because they thought it would work. They are misogynists, it’s what they do. Obama has been attacking and undermining women throughout his political life. His first memorable political move was to take the seat of the incumbent woman, Alice Palmer in the Illinois Senate, a woman who had previously supported him as Clinton similarly did some years later.

    Obama’s rise was planned for years by people like Howard Dean et al because they knew that Clinton was planning to run in 2008. He was groomed for power to stop the woman getting in. They didn’t want a woman so they did what misogynists do and turned the misogyny on her. Misogyny has always worked against women, it’s why there has never been a female US president and Hillary has always been the target of it. I completely disagree that Democrats would necessarily be frightened of using it – I think those opponents of Clinton that didn’t use it weren’t frightened, they just weren’t raging woman-haters like Obama and his crowd are. I don’t know how old you are but Hillary has faced exactly the same thing for as long as she has been on the political stage even as First Lady.

  72. Nina M. says:

    I vote for the theory that the blogger boyz were not paid to be Obamabots. They did it for free, for the following reasons:

    1. They hated Hillary because she’s a woman who didn’t know her place and was ‘selfishly’ trying to take a job that should go to a man. She’s also a stand-in for the mothers, girlfriends, wives, bosses – female authority figures they resented and wanted to lash out at. Obama became their avatar; every punch he threw against Hillary felt like their own hands punching. Obama became an extension of themselves, but better: smoother, more ruthless, more powerful, more in control.

    Through Obama they were able to vicariously punish and cut down every woman they resented or feared. To use a favorite phrase of Obamabot commenters, this was the “beat down” they had been waiting for, and Obama was making it happen. Thus the intense loyalty – he reached these guys on a deep (for them) psychological level. When they praised and defended Obama, they were praising and defending themselves.

    2. The traditional way you control the press – by doling out access and exclusive tidbits to favorites, and excluding those who criticize you. Which leads me to say:

    We should keep in mind that a lot of these guys aren’t very bright. I don’t think some of them are capable of examining their own double standards, their own faulty logic. The truth is that you don’t need to be brilliant (like our Violet) to be a journalist or a pundit, or even a blogger. A lot of people who work in politics and the media have their jobs because they are excellent socializers and networkers; that they are stone cold stupid is beside the point.

    Because of this I think that some of what we perceive as willful bias against Hillary – the purposeful misrepresentations of her record, the double standards applied — is actually just the product of inferior minds. Minds that are biased against women, to be sure, but also ones that can’t grasp notions like consistency, logic, and doing some damn research.

    For example, its no good pointing out to some of them that continuing to attack Governor Palin, while staying absolutely silent about McCain, reveals a double standard (McCain can be forgiven for running against Obama, and no one calls for him to resign; Palin can never be forgiven, and should be banished from politics forever). Its too much thought for them. Their brains blow their tiny fuses.

  73. Violet says:

    Tinfoil hattie, I like you too, and no offense taken at all. Disagreement is fine. I understand what you’re saying and I just see it differently. I also apologize if I came across as short; I mostly didn’t want to get bogged down in a tangent.

  74. Violet says:

    Just have to say that I pretty much agree with everything Nina says in #72. That’s how I see it too.

  75. Toonces says:

    I think the strategy of misogyny was definitely a strategy. It was a willful decision made by Axelrod. I do not think every participant in the scheme was aware of their place and I definitely think the misogynists manipulated by astroturfing and coded messages were sincere in their own misogyny, but …let me put it this way: the internet is like one big focus group; people are spilling what’s in their minds all over the place. And pretty much anywhere on the net where men between the ages of 0 and 100 are congregating, you’re going to find a big ol’ pile of sexism/misogyny (multiplayer video games count, too). It doesn’t take a marketing genius to take advantage of that in a race against women. When it’s your business to know how to shape opinions or sell things to people, you’re going to be well aware of trends, even distasteful ones. And seriously, it’s like a fecking religion. The men get together weekly (or more often) and 50% of what they do is hate women. It’s what brings them together and it’s the glue that keeps them together.

    So, I’m just saying the misogyny was both sincere and tactical (whether paid or not). Like when Reagan used racism to win. It wasn’t some kind of happy accident for him that he happened to play to peoples’ fears and it wasn’t a happy accident for Obama either. There were lots of people spending lots of time working out how to covertly codify the messages. That’s why Favreau took those pics. It was out in the open, part of the culture of the campaign, encouraged, etc. And why would Obama’s well-oiled machine suddenly NOT be in control on that one part of the campaign?

    The more I think about it, the more I become convinced this plan had been coming together against Hillary for probably the last decade. People were probably paid to study the “Hillary problem”.

  76. tinfoil hattie says:

    Violet, you weren’t short. And thanks for your understanding.

    I agree with Nina. Especially this:

    A lot of people who work in politics and the media have their jobs because they are excellent socializers and networkers; that they are stone cold stupid is beside the point.

    Sometimes it seems the only qualification for any media job is, you have to hate women and be willing to put that out there. Rachel Maddow is the crumb they tossed so they can say, “What are you bitchez whining about NOW? Look! A woman! She’s even a lesbian!”

  77. M. A. Liginter says:

    Hello Violet: we wrote a scathing report on the DNC and Tim Kaine and have been doing so since his appointment.
    For our April 2nd report and the number to call at DNC to protest here is a link:
    “DNC Chairman funds anti-choice legislation; DNC silent on this massive slap to women.”
    http://www.femisex.com/content/dnc-chairman-funds-anti-choice-legislation-dnc-silent-massive-slap-women
    p.s. women who call may want to protest the use of Ludicris as a get-out-the-vote tool by Dems, after he called HRC a bitch whose sell-by date had passed. I hope more folks will call the DNC’s office and annoy them at the very least.
    best to you!!
    M. A. Liginter of Femisex
    I adore your smart posts!

  78. ReaderOne says:

    If the Blogger Bully Boyz WERE paid to advocate for Obama (or anyone else) it would not be the first time:
    http://archive.prospect.org/archives/archives/2005/01/index.html#005248

  79. anne says:

    I also agree with you Nina, apart from the idea that the blogger boyz weren’t paid. They would have done it for free most certainly, but there are great rewards in the patriarchy for men who attack women, and its pretty clear that a lot of them were rewarded for it.

  80. Edgeoforever says:

    Obama is the Democrats’ Reagan

    You said it, Violet. And it was by design too – right from the start. Clinton was loved in spite the media attacks. Obama is admired solely because the media sold him as such for 2 years now.(like they did with W before)

  81. donna darko says:

    There were lots of people spending lots of time working out how to covertly codify the messages. That’s why Favreau took those pics. It was out in the open, part of the culture of the campaign, encouraged, etc. And why would Obama’s well-oiled machine suddenly NOT be in control on that one part of the campaign?

    The beard was part of the campaign too. He can grope Clinton, get away with it and date a lingerie model. They are no longer “dating”.

  82. donna darko says:

    After Obama made his statement “(Jessica Simpson)… who’s in a weight battle, apparently”, Simpson “triumphed” according to a magazine by losing weight and fitting into her Daisy Dukes again. And him patting Michelle’s ass in public at a rally. Obama is deliberately making misogyny acceptable in our culture.

  83. Davidson says:

    I know I’m days late, but I just wanted to add: I have always been amazed that acknowledging that women and girls are, in fact, human beings entitled to the most basic of rights and civil liberties is either regarded as pure evil or a technicality. The so-called “progressives” (of both genders) usually see it as the latter, but deep down it’s the former for them (see: Primary ’08 Hate Fest).

    Thanks for this amazing blog. I must admit I try not to read it though because it’s demoralizing, if not maddening, to read about how truly extreme the world is. Just today, I had to listen to (women) friends of mine rationalize and defend Eminem. Mind you, these are the very same types who angrily denounce Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Savage, and Sean Hannity and yet Eminem is “harmless fun”/a genius (Note: his hate can’t be trivial and yet deep, with a message at the same time). I didn’t understand how anyone could excuse his violent anti-female and anti-gay hate 10 years ago, when I was a kid, and I sure as hell don’t now.

  84. gxm17 says:

    Great post. I live in Virginia and being a good little Democrat up until last year, I am ashamed to admit that I voted for that a$$hat Tim Kaine. Never again.

    The reason that Palin is being attacked and McCain is not is simple: Palin is still a threat. She has formed a PAC and I think it’s likely she’ll make a run in 2012.

    I’d love to see a concerted effort to address the sexism and misogyny that is permitted to pass in the MSM. We need to work to ensure that female candidates get the same respect as male candidates. It’s absurd that they don’t, but that’s the short end we’re stuck with right now.

  85. gxm17 says:

    Toonces, I totally agree with you! And, IMO, part of the way they got away with the misogyny tack was to combine it with the rap/hipster image, Obama’s campaign music and his gestures (the brush off) were all part of playing to an aspect of our culture that is viewed as “cool” and where demeaning and diminishing women is often acceptable. It was, and still is, downright scary how many so-called “respectable” talking heads quickly embraced the hate. And they have yet to let it go. Scary, and sad.