I’ve decided Obama is a messenger from God
It’s today’s announcement on polar bears that has prompted my epiphany. Obama was sent here by God as a kind of catharsis-inducing hypocrisy-detector, designed to expose the misogyny of those who worship him while simultaneously reviling (in explicitly sexist terms) women who hold similar political positions. I mean, it’s gotta be that, right?
Here’s the deal: Obama’s administration has just announced that it plans to continue the Bush administration policy on polar bears, thus aligning itself with the Sarah Palin School of Polar Bear Habitat Management. As a matter of fact, Gov. Palin was quick to applaud today’s decision. In previous news, Obama has granted amnesty to the Bush administration torture crew; turned the financial mess over to the same pocket-lining Wall Street crooks and cronies who created it in the first place; expanded (yes, expanded) the Bush doctrine that the government can spy on anybody anytime and is totally immune from citizen prosecution; refused to restore habeas corpus, again moving even further to the right of the Bush administration; eliminated the funding for women’s reproductive health from the stimulus package; retained the Bush era restrictions on abortion (more on that coming in a detailed post, after I finish poring over the White House budget); vowed to increase the Bush administration’s faith-based support for patriarchal “fatherhood” programs (more on that also coming); torpedoed single-payer health care; and bombed Pakistan. And that’s just off the top of my head.
It’s about what you’d expect from a conservative Republican president, which is pretty much what Obama is. Though I note that Obama’s aggressive expansion of the Bush doctrines on secrecy and habeas corpus suggests that, on those issues at least, he is firmly to the right of even most Republicans.
And yet:
versus:
Even stranger is the intense hatred of Hillary Clinton displayed by so-called progressives, given that, unlike Sarah Palin, Hillary is actually to the left of Obama politically. Well, “strange” isn’t the right word: it’s not strange at all to those of us who understand that what’s going on is simple misogyny.
It’s like the Carrie Prejean business, she of Miss “opposite marriage” California fame. The most interesting thing about the whole embroglio is that Prejean’s opinion on gay marriage appears to be identical to Obama’s. Observe:
Carrie Prejean: “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.”
Barack Obama: “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Yet Carrie Prejean is reviled as a hateful stupid bitch, while Barack Obama is still the Savior Dude emerging from the Willamette River with roses at his feet and a goddamn unicorn prancing behind him.
Sooner or later, the Obamabots will have to recognize their own hypocrisy, right? I mean, they’ll have to. Eventually the light will dawn and they’ll realize that they’re all just a bunch of misogynistic hypocritical freaks from hell. And then the true meaning of the Savior Dude picture will be revealed, feminist enlightenment will heal our nation, and we’ll get a woman president.
Right?
60 Responses to “I’ve decided Obama is a messenger from God”
-
donna darko says:
misogynistic hypocritical freaks from hell
This is the most accurate description of Obama supporters ever.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm EST -
tpfka nycblue says:
I laughed aloud when I read the headline and first lines of this post. But the further I read the angrier I became. Hypocritical misogynists who robbed us of the one who would’ve taken the Constitution out of cold storage and supported the middle class over the banking class.
I will never forget.
-
Nina M. says:
Oh, LOL. LOL. LOL.
What else can you do? I mean, you can’t hit them on the head with a broom, can you. Can you? No. I’m pretty sure you can’t.
Add to this the spectacle of Elizabeth Edwards informing us that she knew of her husbands affair back in ‘06 (this was news to me). I don’t see any evidence that she recognizes that her part of their joint decision to keep news of John’s affair quiet misled tens of thousands of voters into writing checks to that campaign, and hundreds of thousands of voters into voting for him (who otherwise would not have). Or that maybe, just maybe, she could have been a little more supportive of Hillary (after John dropped out) for taking flak over doing the same thing.
Nor do I hear the apologies of all the peeps - feminists especially - who said “I agree with Hillary on so many things, but I just can’t get past the way she stayed with her husband” - and threw their support to Edwards. Where’s the recognition that they were wrong - that there wasn’t anything morally superior about Mr. and Mrs. Edwards? Show me one columnist who has written - gee, I guess I shouldn’t have been so smug, so dismissive of how hard marital issues are? No. Nothing. Gaaaaaahck.
Did I get off on a tangent just now? This keeps happening to me.
More polar bears, please, Violet. No - make that panda bears. Nice, fat, bouncy, fuzzy, soothing panda bears.
-
Sharon says:
OMG you have so nailed this. I am amazed how glassy-eyed liberals and Democrats and Obama-worshippers are, so that they see him with utter devotion and love, and any woman who holds similar positions as a vile creature.
Wow.
Why is it so easy to hate a woman? Will we have to go through something like the Civil Rights movement to make ourselves immune to criticism?
-
Branjor says:
How about alpacas?
OT: Violet, why is your current status “dead”?
-
angienc says:
“Sooner or later, the Obamabots will have to recognize their own hypocrisy, right?”
You’d think so, but sadly you’d be wrong. The ability of Obots to justify & deny their hypocrisy is downright frightening. I think of them as being akin to vampires — unable to see their own reflections in the mirror.
-
Violet says:
I’ve been dead for a couple of years. See About Dr. Socks. Actually I need to update that page to include all the stuff that’s happened here in the Smoking Lounge since then (more details about my spirit boyfriend Raoul and his previous life as an African Grey Parrot, the development of the Church of Tropism and my installation as the Mope, etc.)
-
Barack as “catharsis-inducing hypocrisy-detector” « Blue Lyon says:
[...] as “catharsis-inducing hypocrisy-detector” Must. Read. Violet. Now. It’s today’s announcement on polar bears that has prompted my epiphany. Obama was sent here by [...]
-
bluelyon says:
Raoul was my Jojo? That explains a lot!
-
sister of ye says:
Not sure where it ranks in your off-the-top-of-your-head list, but Obama is firing another badly needed Arabic translator because - surprise! - he’s gay and came out on national TV.
Actually read a defense of this (comment at Tennessee Guerilla Women) saying that Arabic people would be offended if a gay person read their words. Really. I was ready to pound my head on my desk.
So much hypocrisy. So many chances of giving myself a concussion.
-
Lori says:
The equation that I’ve heard expressed repeatedly, based on information pulled directly and with all due haste from the ass, is that since Hillary was to the right of Obama, she’d be even worse than he is so we should be thankful that she didn’t win.
I keep asking for a single position, based on their voting records, where she was consistently to the right of him. I’ve yet to see one.
The left has lost it’s bearings.
-
Violet says:
Hillary is to the left of Obama on spying/telecom immunity, on abortion, on women’s reproductive health, and on health care in general.
I don’t know what she would be doing as President with the other issues, but given that her salient feature is astounding competence, while Obama’s is the ability to look good and do nothing while the old boy network runs the show, I expect she’d at least be coming up with better solutions.
-
Sameol says:
Yeah, but they don’t want that. They want to do nothing and send out press releases about visiting burger joints. Remember when Hillary was offering suggestions about the economic collapse and the Democrats were ignoring her as if she didn’t exist? And before that when Kerry told her to take her health care plan and eff off?
-
salth2o says:
As soon as I read your title I thought:
“Yeah, you and Obama BOTH” -
donna darko says:
Her voting record was more progressive than Obama’s on Progressive Punch’s three criteria of lifetime, US Senate and when the chips are down meaning when she had to take a political risk for a vote. I kept bringing this up last year but no one listened. 84 out of 85 Iraq votes were identical. His anti-war speech did not involve any risk as he was speaking to anti-war activists and he quickly reneged when it was politically expedient.
-
donna darko says:
What was most important to me was her commitment to her 40 or so bloggers. She was carefully developing a relationship with us bloggers (It was probably more, I don’t know the exact number) and I felt she would listen to us throughout her Presidency. Even McCain had blogger conference calls. Obama is the only one who did not have a direct relationship with bloggers. His campaign calls were not blogger calls and certainly not with the fauxgressive bloggers. He finally reached out to them a couple months ago when the media was turning against him. It’s turned back to him so he will only turn to them when he desperately needs them.
-
emconnell says:
YES! right! it will happen–it will!
-
T.I. says:
donna darko says in #15, re. Obama’s “anti-war speech”
If you mean the allegedly anti-war speech that this messenger from God allegedly gave in 2002– we might have an easier time proving God exists than finding authenticated video recordings and contemporaneous reports of the alleged presentation. The lack thereof is more striking when we consider how much and how long Obama & Company have worked to get their product in front of the crowds + cameras.
No recording, no links, no reports, no speech.
If one does appear, it will be a manufactured fake, just like him.
You’re right of course about her, OTOH, doing things even when they’re {{gasp}} difficult. We have a good glimpse into the content of HRC’s character, esp. when the chips are down.
Speaking of which… the chips have fallen down for Pelosi. A tidbit about her, also from 2002, suddenly arises from the swamps of the CIA. Hmmm. If we subtract Obama & Biden via impeachment and/or resignations, and Pelosi bows out or is pushed to the back of the line by the unadoring public, then… SOS becomes POTUS.
I’m just dreaming.
-
slythwolf says:
This is what I think happened, okay? Seriously. This is my assessment of the election:
The old white men who run the country decided it was time to let a black man be President (so people would stop complaining about all this goddamned “racism”). So they hand-picked Obama–oh, I’m going to say years ago, years ago, and set him up to get on the Senate in ‘04 so he wouldn’t seem like a complete jackass running in ‘08. They picked him for his wishy-washy ability to pretend to be halfway moderate in front of the camera, talk out of both sides of his mouth, and otherwise do exactly what they wanted him to, which was: business as usual.
I firmly believe that they regarded the opportunity to heap steaming piles of stinking misogyny on Hillary Clinton’s and Sarah Palin’s heads as merely a happy bonus.
-
slythwolf says:
And, now that I think about it–I bet you that when the old white men who run this country decide it’s time to let a woman be President, we’ll get a woman just like Barack Obama.
And in the meantime, whenever another black person wants to run, they–and the country as a whole–will roll their collective eyes and say, “We already had one.”
-
Sis says:
A Canadian journalist opines MO is a role model for women who achieve but still put family first, because unlike Hillary, she lets us see her emotional side. Apparently MO has somewhere spoken about what makes her tear up. This is now good.
-
Kiuku says:
“Barack Obama is still the Savior Dude emerging from the Willamette River with roses at his feet and a goddamn unicorn prancing behind him.”
hahahaha funny..’til I saw the picture.
There is a unicorn.
-
propertius says:
“If we subtract Obama & Biden via impeachment and/or resignations, and Pelosi bows out or is pushed to the back of the line by the unadoring public, then… SOS becomes POTUS.”
You forgot Robert Byrd, President Pro Tempore of the Senate. He comes after Pelosi in the order of succession.
-
Nina M. says:
Byrd is still alive??? Good lord. Someone take his pulse to make sure. I suspect mummification.
-
RKMK says:
The old white men who run the country decided it was time to let a black man be President (so people would stop complaining about all this goddamned “racism”). So they hand-picked Obama–oh, I’m going to say years ago, years ago, and set him up to get on the Senate in ‘04 so he wouldn’t seem like a complete jackass running in ‘08. They picked him for his wishy-washy ability to pretend to be halfway moderate in front of the camera, talk out of both sides of his mouth, and otherwise do exactly what they wanted him to, which was: business as usual.
I firmly believe that they regarded the opportunity to heap steaming piles of stinking misogyny on Hillary Clinton’s and Sarah Palin’s heads as merely a happy bonus.
Oh, totally. They very well know that the status quo - which they know is disproportionately beneficial to them over everyone else, to the point that it destabilizes society - was becoming threatened, and they did everything they could to orchestrate the appearance of “change” while keeping most everything else exactly the same. But you also can’t forget CDS, which was created and nurtured by the same white male network because a) Clinton’s don’t play ball with the megacorporacy as much as they’d like (see: universal health care, advocating HOLC) and b) because CDS is actually HDS. tinfoil hattie, tried to explain CDS to me in an email awhle back, and explained the following, which I’ll never forget:
I really, really, REALLY believe there would be no CDS without Hillary Clinton. Had she not been so successful and prominent in her own right, Bill Clinton probably would have been given the same treatment as Vitter, say, or Gingrich, regarding his “peccadilloes.” There’s just no way that all these men suddenly became shocked, shocked! that a man in power exploited said power to get sex from the Gennifer Flowerses and the Paula Joneses and the Monica Lewinskys of the world. Men were not picketing in droves to protest the rape culture. They were not trying to dismantle the very mindset that encourages – even requires — women to be vulnerable to male predators.
Bill Clinton was punished not only because he was an outsider redneck – let’s face it, he could have charmed his way out of most of that one – but also because he came with a brilliant, accomplished woman whom he respected (well, except for the total misogyny he showed in cheating on her) and loved (well, ditto). (FTR, I do believe he loves and respects her, and while I don’t give him a pass for his behavior, I believe it was about him and not her.) It was he who coined the “two for the price of one” phrase when talking about what an asset Hillary would be in his administration. Hillary Clinton was vilified and punished from the moment she came onto the national scene. Were it not for the hatred and bile flung at her from the first moments of Bill’s campaign, we would have been voting for Hillary Diane Rodham in this past primary. She had the audacity to design and present a radical change to health care, which was shot down not because it was unrealistic or too far-reaching, but because she was a fucking cunt who didn’t know her place and thought she could actually sit at the table with the Big Boys and mouth off. Who the fuck did she think she was? She was the fucking First Lady, who was supposed to give tours of the Rose Garden and maintain her office in the east wing, not the west wing! WTF? And the women-who-hate-other-women club, brought to you by Patriarchy Inc., jumped all over that shit. She was ugly. She had buck teeth. Why would that handsome man ever go for someone like her. She was a ball-busting, domineering bitch. No wonder he cheated. Can you blame him? She was overbearing. She was a feminist – good lord, how passé can you get? She didn’t want to stay home and bake cookies (which, I have to say, was a stupid comment on her part, reducing motherhood to “baking cookies and giving teas” – see how THAT came to bite her in the ass), so she became a bad wife and a bad mother. For her penance, she had to publish her favorite cookie recipe in Family Circle or Good Housekeeping or maybe Ladies Home Journal, and it was put up against Barbara Bush’s recipe in the first “First Lady Cookie Bake-off.”
Her daughter wasn’t safe, either – Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea the White House Dog and being slapped on the back for that comment by the He-Man Woman-Haters Club is what kicked off all the rancid vitriol known as “right wing talk radio” and “fair and balanced” Fox. Once he got away with that? Nothing was off limits, not even a “news” show where three men debated: “Is it ever appropriate to call Hillary Clinton a bitch?”
CDS exists because Hillary RODHAM threatened the status quo so severely that she had to be publicly abused, over and over, to keep the status quo in place. She is brilliant, powerful, and capable. There is no way the Men in Charge can have that shit. Look at Nancy Pelosi, Condoleeza Rice, Laura Bush. They know how to play the game. They know that if women want any power, they have to continue to play by men’s rules instead of trying to change them. Hillary? Nope. She just keeps doing what she’s doing, doing what she believes is right, and never giving up.
People keep wringing their hands over the fear that someone might assassinate Obama because he’s black. Hillary Clinton? I think her risk is pretty great too, but it doesn’t get nearly the concern. She’s a woman, after all.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome has its roots in Hillary Derangement Syndrome. Because for the many years Hillary Clinton wasn’t campaigning for president, we didn’t hear much about what a horrible person Bill is. He opened his office in Harlem, and did his good deeds, and even Barbara Bush started to call him “son.” It really has little to do with Bill. It’s always and forevermore about the uppity bitch who won’t sit down and shut the fuck up and open her legs or get on her knees and assume her rightful position.
And this all gets turned around to “feminists hate men.” Yeah. Right.
-
T.I. says:
propertius at #23:
Yes, it generally would go to the Pro Temp. of the Senate acc’g to the law, but in this particular line-up of players (a hypothetical case, or just a dream of mine), Byrd would stand no greater chance than Pelosi. He already has been urged to resign from the Senate. He is in poor health and lacks– for all the best and most ironic reasons IMO– the support of his party etcetera.
HRC would provide the constancy and confidence needed at that very moment. Having been the actual nominee chosen by millions of voters is naturally another factor, or maybe a bone of contention for the blog dogs and Keith Dolbermann to sink their fangs into, but that’s another rant.
-
Lori says:
No one decided that it was time to let a black man be president. What they decided was the only way they could rally liberals against Hillary was allowing them to cloak their bigotry in an action could be construed as enlightened voting. So the powers that be in the Republican party went out looking for a pro-corporate tool whose race could legitimize misogynist attacks on Clinton and obscure her superior voting record.
I will point out, once again, that the bill that moved the Michigan primary up - the action which cost Clinton the nomination - was written by Republicans and passed on a Republican-only, party line vote. Not one single Democrat voted to move the primary up and the fact that all the Dems voted against it, did not factor in to the decision to dock Clinton of votes. You might want to ask yourself what kind of party uses the actions of the opposition to nominate the less popular candidate? What drove the Republicans to create that bill and vote for it? In Florida, the bill to move the primary up was written by Republicans as well, and used the enticement of doing away with electronic voting and offering up paper ballots instead. You would think the Democratic party would be glad to see the voting standards in Florida which cost Gore the election, changed - but no, they used that Republican-initiated action as well to dock Clinton of her delegates. Twice the Republicans interfered in the Democratic primary. Twice, the Democratic party punished a Democratic candidate based on Republican actions. That would have been a far more starkly corrupt action had the Obama supporters not been able to root for advancing historical progress by electing an African American to office.
-
donna darko says:
Good points, Lori.
But liberals were complicit and sometimes are even worse in their racism and sexism than Republicans. I know this is a definition in Urban Dictionary but I heard it in other places and the election made me believe it:
Look at the actual history of Congressional voting record. The Liberals have a bad voting history. They were the biggest opposition to the abolishment of slavery. Yes the Republicans freed the slaves. Liberals were the biggest opposition to women’s rights and they were the biggest opposition of the Civil Rights Act. Their Congressional voting history proves it. Moonbats need to pay attention to the history of the KKK. It was the so called liberals who founded the KKK. Yes that is right, it was founded by so called Democrats and they have a long documented history in the KKK.Liberals seem to have forgotten the KKK was founded in the south and back then the south was all Democrat.
-
Lori says:
Liberals drove the opposition to slavery, advocated for women’s suffrage and supported civil rights. But the Democratic party was not controlled by liberals at that time. The conflation, which I am not attributing to you Donna, is dangerous.
Liberals this time out, however, were grotesquely bigoted. Our end of the political spectrum owns this moral failing.
-
donna darko says:
Wasnt the KKK created by Liberal Democrats who also created the Stars and bars rebel flag?
That’s the irony of the whole thing, all of the racist things that the republicans have been accused of have actually been done by the democrats. You don’t have to look to hard to see who voted for the civil rights laws, and who voted against them.
Actually, the organization was created by conservative democrats (relatively speaking).
The first members were the confederate veterans who had just lost the civil war. All of them were democrats.
There are a lot of ignorant liberals here trying to get you to go to google and research your question.
Heaven forbid they should research for themselves and find out that the entire south was dominated 100% (not 90%, not 80%) for 100 years by democrats. Republicans didn’t win any offices until well after WW II in any southern state except Texas.
Democrats were the authors of segregation.
Democrats created the Jim Crow laws.
Democrats were the lynch mobs.
Democrats were the southern racists who always resisted civil rights.Democrats are terrified of their racist past and are desperate to paint republicans as racists.
After the civil war, many white supremacists and pro-Southerners became Democrats in name only, because Republicans freed the slaves. The Democratic party, in those times, weren’t nationally supporters of segregation and white supremacy, but the Southern Democrats (or later, after an official split, Dixiecrats) were.
So they were democrats, yes, but traditionally conservative democrats. The politics of those days were very different than the politics we have now; the Democrats and Republicans were once one party, after all.
The roles and policies of Democrats and Republicans have changed many times over the years. When the KKK was formed, Democrats were actually on the right side of the political spectrum. This is why it’s fundamentally wrong for modern day Republicans to claim Abraham Lincoln as one of their own.
Good point, the Republicans were the ones who ended slavery and kept the Union together. Also it was the Democratic Southern governors like George Wallace who were feverent racists who blocked school doors and civil rights legislation. Oh, but the Democrats are the ones who care about the little guys. They are the party of equality, right?
No. After the Civil War, southerners who longed for the older order (slavery) attempted to preserve it–that sounds pretty conservative in that context. They WERE Democrats, but they could hardly be called Liberal.
From Wikipedia :
Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen.
Liberalism is contradictory with white supremacy, but you are correct that the Democratic party was traditionally the pro-slavery and pro-south party.
You’re right about the KKK being startd by Dems, but back then, they were conservative, and Repubs were liberal.
back then the democrats were more conservative and pro-slavery and anti-civil rights
-
donna darko says:
That’s all on Yahoo Answers. Right, Lori, but most Democrats don’t know this history.
-
Violet says:
Those are some very confused people posting on those websites. The Democratic Party in the 19th century wasn’t liberal; at that time the Democrats were the conservatives and arch-reactionaries of their day.
-
Violet says:
RKMK, thank you for sharing that amazing text from tinfoil hattie. It ought to be a blog post.
I think there’s really something to that: that CDS was always really just Hillary Hate.
-
donna darko says:
Oh right, it’s Democrats not liberals.
-
yttik says:
“The Democratic Party in the 19th century wasn’t liberal..”
Is it now? I mean really, we’ve got pro-life, anti gay Tim Kaine as head of the DNC. We’ve got Obama in the white house being attacked for going to a burger joint and asking for grey poupon. If the man had actually accomplished something “liberal” the Right wouldn’t have to resort to condiment attacks.
-
Sis says:
“condiment attacks”
I’m falling off my chair here. You people. I love you.
-
Violet says:
I think the 1970s marked the high point of liberalism in the Democratic party, just as it was the high point of liberalism in the country. Liberalism being measured in terms of contemporary context, of course. McGovern (who was really pretty tame) was almost in Kucinich territory for the times, and yet he was the nominee. Jimmy Carter was a genuine liberal, a true progressive, one of the new breed of post-Dixiecrat Democrats.
Then the country turned wingish, and the Democratic party shrank back to the center. It’s only liberal now in comparison to the Republicans. By European standards, both our major parties are right-wing.
-
Lori says:
Donna,
I think anyone with some political awareness over the age of 45 knows about Nixon’s southern strategy. LBJ, a southern Democrat, pushed Civil Rights through Congress knowing that it would cost the Democrats the majority. Nixon exploited white opposition to civil rights and welcomed the bigots in the Republican party - and they have been running on bigotry ever since.
-
donna darko says:
Yes, Lori, but I did not know about Democratic history if this is true (it wouldn’t surprise me after this election):
Democrats were the authors of segregation.
Democrats created the Jim Crow laws.
Democrats were the lynch mobs.
Democrats were the southern racists who always resisted civil rights. -
Lori says:
Donna,
Here is the voting break down on the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. it is not so stark as you fear.
-
Violet says:
Yes, Lori, but I did not know about Democratic history if this is true (it wouldn’t surprise me after this election)
All that is true, but bear in mind that both the Democratic and Republican parties are so old they bear no resemblance to their original incarnation. None. The Republicans of the 19th century were the liberals, the anti-slavery abolitionists, the party of Lincoln. They were progressive populists. Absolutely nothing to do with the modern GOP in outlook or politics.
The identities and makeup of both parties have shifted dramatically over the past two centuries. During the 20th century the parties switched places, with Republicans becoming the conservative party of the establishment and the Democrats becoming the populist party of the workers (see FDR). From the 1930s on, the Democrats increasingly drew the progressive elements of the national political spectrum, beginning with labor and moving gradually to other social justice concerns.
The Southern Dixiecrats (Democrats) were the holdovers in that march, the old-guard racists who were at odds with the growing progressive profile of the Democratic party. They managed to hang on until the 1960s. By that time the Republican Party was thoroughly and irredeemably conservative and heavily racist (the party of Barry Goldwater, and of William F. Buckley, who opposed integration and Civil Rights) while the Democrats were the party of liberals — except for those damn Dixiecrats. When LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act, that was the beginning of the end of the racist Dixiecrat wing. By the 70s they had moved largely to the Republican party, where they remain.
-
Lexia says:
I knew them as “boll weevils” - a perjorative term that’s since migrated to “Blue Dog Dem”, according to Wikipedia.
-
Lori says:
We should add that the whites marching in support of civil rights and the whites who lost their life in the cause of civil rights were all Democrats.
The parties were far less aligned along a left/right spectrum than they are now. The Democrats in the dawning days of the 19th century were anti-federalists and the party of farmers, and such. Decades later, the Republican party was born, in many ways, because of their opposition to slavery but they were never the party of the commoners. The unions, from the late 19th century on, were Democrats and in the Great Depression, FDR’s policies made the lives of everyone, including African Americans, better. Truman integrated the military. and first JFK advanced civil rights and then Johnson, using every ounce of his legendary legislative skill, navigated it through Congress, wheeling and dealing bridges, buildings and everything else any congressman needed to get their votes.
-
slythwolf says:
Reagan and his cronies redefined what “liberal” means, or rather, where it falls on the spectrum. What the mainstream calls “liberal” in this country is moderate, what we call “moderate” is conservative, what we call “conservative” is dangerous reactionary fascism, what we call “radical” is liberal, and us actual radical leftists over here are considered fucking certifiable.
The Republicans, I would imagine, wanted to end slavery because they were the party of the Northern industrial barons. (The U.S. history course I took in college is fuzzy now and ended before the Civil War, but as I recall this stuff was already coming into play in Congress in the 1820s.) The South was prosperous because it was only cheap to produce cotton and tobacco if you had slave labor; if you wanted to actually pay people, you didn’t make much money. And the Northern rich dudes with their factories, well, they had never had to enslave people to make a shitload of money off of their labor, so they could afford to say you can’t own a human being. They didn’t give a shit about black people as people; they still considered black people stupider and more animalistic than white people, they believed all the stereotypes, they just could afford to say it didn’t matter, it still wasn’t right. Whereas the South was saying, who cares if it’s right, I have to stay rich somehow.
That was a bit of a tangent. I mean to say, both parties were the exclusive province of the white men in charge, just like now. How much they cared about the rights of people who weren’t white men and weren’t in charge was purely circumstantial based on how much they personally stood to benefit or lose from it, just like now. The patriarchy just keeps rollin’, it just keeps rollin’, it just keeps rollin’ along.
-
donna darko says:
We are aware of that. I brought this up because of Obama supporters’ misogynistic hypocrisy. See comment 28. Misogynistic hypocritical freaks from hell aka Democrats were the biggest opposition to women’s rights.
-
quixote says:
Violet, what a stark and overwhelming juxtaposition. The near-identical quotes, the pictures, the genders.
I’ve spent my life breathing fire on sexism, hating it, suffering from it, and yet the depth and reach of it can still blow me away. How can that be? I’m amazed that I’m amazed.
Lori, in comment 27, … wow. I had no idea that those were Republican actions the Democrats jumped on board with. (I don’t read the news any more than I can help.) As far as I’m concerned that puts Q.E.D. on the argument that BO is someone who can look good for the cameras while the Big Boyz do their usual thing. Slythwolf (#19,#20) puts that one nice and clear, as well as hitting another bullseye: it was essential to have some sort of smokescreen for the bigotry. A white male wouldn’t do. A proper lapdog female wasn’t available just then.
And the perfect summary? Yttik’s comment: if BO ever accomplished anything liberal, “the Right wouldn’t have to resort to condiment attacks.”
ROFLMAO.
Like Sis said. You people. I love you.
-
Lori says:
quixote,
Here is an article from Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett which details the whole sordid mess. It is ugly but the account is short. The Michigan Democrats were warned that their delegate numbers would be docked if they voted for the bill, so they voted against it. The Democrats docked Clinton anyway. What happened is bad.
-
Wanda Sykes does the White Correspondent’s Dinner « Free and fled says:
[...] in case that slop fest for Obama’s ego got you down, Violet has a an excellent post up. Posted by atheistwoman Filed in Uncategorized No Comments [...]
-
datechguy says:
I don’t think the “left” will realize they xyz.
They understand that what they are doing, they think the decisions made in most cases are going to give them more votes. In the case of Gitmo it’s sheer fear. They are (rightly) terrified of a successful attack while either prosecuting the Bush administration or after releasing terrorists.
Now as a person on the right who’s main issue was the war I approve of that decision but I do agree, President Obama and his crowd has no principle other than being elected and re-elected. I would much rather an honorable leftist (like yourself) who I can have an honest disagreement and debate with and let the American people decide what is right.
I suspect that the difference between your readers and a good chunk of the rest of the left isn’t that you recognized this president for what he was and they didn’t. I think the difference is you both saw him for what he was and they didn’t care.
But don’t despair I’m sure the supreme court nominee will make you much happier than it will me. That would be a bridge too far even for him.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
@RKMK & Violet:
Thanks for the nod! Wow!
I remember writing that e-mail. It brings the anger right back to the top. Good times, good times.
-
Elise says:
Sooner or later, the Obamabots will have to recognize their own hypocrisy, right?
I wouldn’t hold my breath. Obama’s supporters have so much invested in him and went so far over the line to support him that it’s going to be almost impossible for them to turn against him. It’s kind of like guys who “make their bones” to join the Mob: once in, never out.
Beyond that, conservatives hate Obama as much as you do and that will be enough to keep a lot of Obamabots loyal. The enemy of my enemy and so on.
-
Keri says:
re comment 25 by RKMK also the fact that Bill said it was all his fault because of his sex addiction- and then proceeded to get therapy for his addiction to sex. And faced how much what he did hurt the people he cared for the most- Hillary and Chelsea. Bill did what very few men that cheat did, really owned up that he was the problem and made an effort to make sure it wouldn’t happen again- that’s why Hillary stayed with him. And she didn’t immediately forgive him, she was pretty standoffish for a while. It was when he got so ill and had to have heart surgery that I noticed she was looking at him like she had fallen back in love with him. From all appearances he seems to be 100% faithful and 100% supportive of her now.
Compare this to John Edwards behavior and John Edward really looks like a slime, as bad as Newt Gingrich. As for Obama, considering how misogynist the man is, and Michelle’s sneering comments about Bill’s cheating, I’m waiting for the inevitable sex scandal with Barack cheating on her all over the place. A bit of Instant Karma is waiting in the wings, I have no doubts.
-
Sis says:
Those heart drugs he’s taking cause erectile dysfunction and Viagra would kill him fast. Really. But, sorry. I also think ’sex addiction’ is just another word for “my way”.
-
Keri says:
It could be, but Bill didn’t talk about it that way. He talked about it like someone who was addicted to drugs. It was something seriously wrong with him that needed to be fixed with therapy. That’s the signifigant difference between Bill just about all the other politicians who’ve been caught cheating.
-
Sis says:
Yah. That’s the get out of jail card du jour being pushed by the patriarchy with the greedy help of the medical profession. Bill’s no dummy. Addiction is an illness, and how do we treat illnesses Understanding and being not blaming toward addicts is right up there with abhoring racism among the progressive left. Trouble is, most addicts are also pushers. So’s Bill. Throwing down the pat card on sexual predation. I’m an aaaaadict.
In this case, I think chemical castration–which is essentially what the particular drug does–is a good thing.
-
The things that go through my head » Blog Archive » Is the Obama honeymoon over yet? says:
[...] intense stupidity and how he gets off the hook for being a misogynist asshat, I recommend reading Dr. Violet Socks. But he has really gone and stepped in it now! A very good friend of mine sent me an email linking [...]
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Obama backs DOMA, Dr. Socks refuses to stop pointing out that you’ve been played, suckas says:
[...] idea about feminists linking up with the LGBT movement. We can bond over our status as betrayed fucked-over outcasts that Obama wouldn’t piss on if we were on [...]
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Would a crack whore joke about Michelle Obama be funny? says:
[...] I long for the Lightning Bolt of Hypocrisy to [...]
-
rhoda says:
Furthermore, apparently free-market libertarians are On Our Side, as long as they are porn magnates. To wit: http://preview.tinyurl.com/kwcflf
-
Lessons, Losing, and Learning Curves « Blue Lyon says:
[...] Socks: Back in May I did a quick rundown of Obama’s major betrayals up to that point, and I really need to do an update. There’s so much, I lose track. Afghanistan, [...]
