Dr. Socks leaves the house

Friday, November 13th, 2009 · 159 Comments »

I’m going to be traveling for the next few days, so my internet access will be intermittent. This is an awkward time for an away mission, what with the barricades going up and the citizen militias forming, but I have no choice. There are big doings afoot which I must attend.

When I get back next week, we’ll have our working session on strategy. I’m taking my notes with me on the road so I can continue to jot down various fevered ramblings as they occur.

In the meantime, use this post as an open thread. Talk about whatever you like, but I suggest a roundtable discussion on whether precognition really exists. You know: ESP, foretelling the future, all that stuff. For example, when I said this last year:

If Barack Obama and his supporters become the new Democratic party, then the Democratic party will no longer be the party of women’s rights.

how could I have possibly known that just a year and a half later, people would be writing columns like this?

159 Responses to “Dr. Socks leaves the house”

  1. myiq2xu says:

    How about this from Katha Pollitt at The Nation:

    Women Democrats have taken an awful lot of hits for the team lately. Many of us didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary because the goal of electing a woman seemed less important than the goal of electing the best possible president.

    Kool-aid is a helluva drug.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/pollitt

  2. Violet says:

    Obviously poor Katha doesn’t have ESP.

  3. Basement Marxist says:

    Is too much to ask that a third party be an actual leftist party?

    You know, atheist, feminist, socialist, and vegan?

  4. lily says:

    …because the goal of electing a woman seemed less important than the goal of electing the best possible president.

    I thought the best possible president was Hillary Clinton.

  5. cleverpostingaddy says:

    OT: He had just turned 15. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/khadr-to-face-us-military-tribunal/article1361934/

  6. scott says:

    If I hear another “liberal” lecture anyone on how the latest sell-out is justifiable based on the “perfect is the enemy of the good” meme, I will lose my s— all over them. What makes the Stupak sell-out particularly memorable is that it was done for the benefit of a bill that’s already been fatally watered down – a noodly public option that may cover 5 million, tops, with limited bargaining power, which means that we’re forcing millions to buy insurance that they can’t afford in a private market that’s looting them and everyone else. As you’ve pointed out, the sell-out is unconscionable from a feminist and a liberal perspective, but it’s also a dumb sell-out since the product we’re getting is pretty pathetci to start with.

  7. slythwolf says:

    @Basement Marxist, it sounds an awful lot to me like you’re talking about the Greens!

    Topic: I don’t think it’s strange to be able to put two and two together and get four. When people run a campaign on the back of misogyny, it’s a fair bet they’re going to do misogynist things later too.

  8. gxm17 says:

    Violet said: …how could I have possibly known that just a year and a half later, people would be writing columns like this?

    We knew because we were paying attention. Anyone who cares about women’s rights should not have voted for Obama, and they are now finding out the high price we will all pay for them not paying attention.

    As far as precognition goes, I believe that some of us were able to clearly read the situation. We had the ability to step back and ignore the propaganda so that we saw who the man standing before us really was, not who we wanted him to be.

  9. Kookaburra says:

    Since this is an open thread, I would love some feedback on a flash of inspiration I had yesterday.

    I was trying to explain to a clueless dudus collegiate honkimus last night why exactly golliwog dolls were offensive to people of color. Then I realized – women have our golliwogs too, in the form of airbrushed porn stars, Bratz dolls, and naked lady mudflaps. Do you think it’s a pipe dream to hope that some day such images will be viewed with the same disbelief as golliwog images are today? (I’m talking about the “That’s ridiculous, I mean, didn’t they notice that black people don’t look like that” level of disbelief.)

    And now back on topic:
    I am so excited at the groundswell of outrage. It’s like I can feel it in the air on campus. My peers, who were swimming in the hope Kool-Aid last year and calling for Obama’s head on a pike. A friend who has previously been very anti-gun asked me to teach her how to shoot, “To be ready for the revolution.” (I’m not sure if she was joking.) In class today I noticed the known liberal dudes casting nervous glances at the women in the room, they were more hesitant, more careful with their words. I want them scared. I want them to shake in their Teva sandals and GeoShoes at the thought of losing our support.

  10. yttik says:

    ESP wasn’t required to see the facts coming down the line, all that was needed was a little scientific observation and to take Obama at his word. Those who expected more out of Obama were practicing a faith based belief system, something even less reliable then ESP, at least when applied to human beings.

    I watched a Nat’l Geo about apes and human babies and the way people learn. Apparently 90% of human learning is not based on words at all. We gain the majority of our info thru facial expressions and how things make us feel. The actual words being said or facts being presented are not very relevant to our perceptions. This idea has certainly helped me to understand why people insist on hanging onto to ideologies and emotional talking points, even when confronted with the actual contradictory facts and words being said. It drove me crazy during both Bush and Obama that people refused to take either of them on their word. Obama wrote in his books about being a hawk, about wanting to increase the defense budget, and still people insisted on believing he was the anti-war president. Within days of taking office Obama cut family planning funds from the stimulus, flat out telling women he had no problem tossing them under the bus for what he viewed as the greater good. (Somebody needs to slap him upside the head with the fact that women are the greater good, but I digress.)

    My point being, I believe people are very cleverly brainwashed by advertising and political ploys that manipulate them into refusing to believe what their lying eyes should be telling them.

  11. angie says:

    gxm @ 9 — exactly. And I’m sick to death of the last, dying, desperate & delusional battle cry of the kool-aid kids that “McCain would have been worse!” First of all, f*ckheads, we could have had Hillary. Second, as others here have pointed out, we would have been much better off with a Dem. Congress *fighting* McCain than a Dem. Congress rolling over, showing their bellies & pissing themselves for Obama.

  12. Janis says:

    When I think of all those supposedly feminist friends of mine shitting their pants and having hysterical fits over Sarah Palin (who has never ONCE restricted a single human being’s access to abortion), and how they snivel and roll over when the Democrats do far, far worse …

    And I’m not kidding about hysterical fainting spells, either. Hankie wringing and hand-to-the-forehead fearful shitfits about taking the car up to Canada before The Monsters Get Them. Dumbasses.

    They got what they wanted. They shit in their beds, let them lie in it. Unfortunately, they also shit in mine.

    I think McCain and Palin would have been better with Iraq too, honestly. Anyone remember what Palin said about the war during that fabulous speech she gave where she let Barky have it? “Why, when victory is in our grasp, do the Democrats want to back out of Iraq?” or something like that.

    When victory is within our grasp.

    Those were here exact words. Did they strike anyone else hard, especially coming from a woman whose son was going to ship out soon? I mean, victory wasn’t anywhere NEAR our grasp. It wasn’t in the same GALAXY as our grasp.

    I’ll tell you what those words meant: The Republicans wanted out of Iraq, too. They just wanted a face-saving way to get out. If we had elected McCain and Palin, they would have made a few token advances in Iraq, then declared victory, and gotten the hell out. They wanted out BAD — they just wanted to do it in a way that could salve American pride. Declare “victory,” and get the fuck OUT.

    So now, we don’t even have that much. I guess dead soldiers are less dead when a Democrat is responsible for putting them in harm’s way.

    I lost friendships over all this, decade-long ones. And they have probably wondered why a few times, and I can’t tell them without risking screaming at them in a cold rage. Partly I’m angry at myself for thinking that so many people I had respect for were a lot smarter than they turned out to be.

  13. Melinda says:

    Re: Beinart’s column.

    So, now even the Democrats are longing for the days when women, people of color, religious minorities and other “inferior” types couldn’t interfere in the white man’s quest for wealth and power. Why am I not surprised?

    BTW, does Beinart get that the “big tent” days of the Democratic party were only possible because those who suffered the costs of Democratic power didn’t have the political, economic and social power to do anything about it? Does he really think that now that we do have power, we’re just going to lie back grinning while the party screws us?

  14. lambert strether says:

    There’s another reason Beinart’s column is breathtaking in its duplicity:

    Today, to a degree we haven’t seen since then, the Democratic Party is about economic protection first, and cultural freedom second.

    Leave aside the weasel words of “to a degree we haven’t seen since then.” And leave aside the amazing, or not, concept Beinart has that rights are about “cultural freedom.”

    Obama whipped for TARP to get the banksters $700 billion NOW NOW NOW, and the total bankster haul is $22 trillion, with Obama putting the seal of legitimacy on the largest transfer of wealth in world history. And he’s only NOW getting round to having a conference on jobs! (Perhaps there will be a speech!)

    Like yttik says, “ESP wasn’t required to see the facts coming down the line.”

    Anybody think making the big banks more powerful then ever is going to be good for women? I’m guessing no.

  15. hm says:

    What were the Obots saying — think of the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, right? Now what will they say? Apparently Stupak amendment if it passes is unconstitutional but the ruling that it is or not is going to depend on the composition of the future SC when and if the case is brought to court. Oh, the irony of this is killing me, among other things. Obamacrats made Roe v. Wade impotent but they will still reelect him.

  16. lambert strether says:

    > Obamacrats made Roe v. Wade impotent but they will still reelect him.

    It’s a two-fer!

  17. bygones says:

    Yes, and Platitude Sarah also said that the war was “God’s will” to anyone who wants to make sense out of that outrageous statement.

    If God wants a war so bad then let Him do it on his own. These religious theories are ridiculous from the withholding of equality to gays and women to the declaring of war on innocent men, women and children.

    This is not “patriotism” but it is poisonous.

  18. quixote says:

    (lambert, to be precise, a lot of that 22 trillion is loan guarantees or potential lines of credit, and the like. So, yes, if every last loan guarantee were called and had to be paid out, the taxpayer is on the hook for 22 trillion, but we’re nowhere near that. They haven’t actually “hauled” it. Yet. They haven’t even hauled the full 780 billion, since they were in a mortal hurry to pay it back so they could return to bonus-land.)

    As for needing ESP to see the future: absolutely. What else could explain the total inability of some to see the obvious?

  19. madamab says:

    Come on, that wasn’t Peter Beinart. There really is no such person. That’s just what Obama’s Teleprompter looks like.

  20. Basement Marxist says:

    @slythwolf,

    I was being subtly facetious, as I don’t believe in the bullshit liberalism that says we can make life better by working within the system rather than subverting the system entirely. The Greens, while correct on a few more stances than Democrats, are still capitalists, and therefore are subject to the same corrupting forces that have controlled all capitalist societies throughout history. As far as I know, the Greens give a nod towards feminism, but they’re far from naming the Big P as the root of all evil.

    Now, the Red Greens (Green Left in the UK), I can get behind them, albeit grudgingly.

  21. madamab says:

    Oh Goddess have mercy…the Senate is proposing its own version of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. If we don’t do something about it, this punitive, horrifying violation of women’s rights is going to end up in the final health care bill.

    Write your Senators about it
    here
    , if you’re so inclined.

  22. lambert strether says:

    quixote: Yeah, I know it’s not cash on the barrelhead. But we’re still on the hook for it, and, so far as I can tell, not even to save the banking system, but to save particular banksters. And to them it’s a haul, because now they know they can go through the exact same process all over again without consequence. “Priceless,” as the ad goes.

  23. Alison says:

    What about the Green Party? It’s already organized… is that 3rd party enough?

  24. Sameol says:

    Katha is appealing to Obama’s sense of fairness and decency–we’re home free. The toxic stew of sexism, ageism, and classism that underpins this movement so successfully will be consigned to the scrap heap immediately.

  25. Nadai says:

    Sameol, does that call for a *gigglesnort* or a *lolsob*? I can’t remember which is appropriate here.

  26. Cyn says:

    Kookaburra:

    Heidi Li, an attorney, a great supporter of Hillary and a staunch feminist had a great Misyogyny Museum

    It’s here:
    http://tinyurl.com/ydqys43

    Goddess, I miss her.

  27. TA says:

    Dr. Socks, I don’t know about ESP, but I agree with yttik. You merely took him at his word. When the speaker benefits from the misrepresentation of his words, he doesn’t correct it. And then you have to defend him, because he has the brains to say what he means, in order to criticize him. Maybe he’s a Jedi or something.

    And I do want an actual party to join. “Independent” kind of implies “between Democrats and Republicans,” because that’s how they do the TV graphics. I’m tired of explaining that I’m so far away from all the entitled old white dudes that I can’t tell them apart. Plus there’s that “rugged individualist” implication that I loathe.

  28. propertius says:

    These appeals to expediency are really starting to nauseate me. How big a tent can you have when you’re willing to kick 52% of the population out of it?????

    What’s next? Repealing the 13th Amendment in the name of economic competitiveness?

  29. Melinda says:

    propertius: You never know, the business lobby has been complaining about restrictions on goods made with child labor and slaves.

    http://www.openleft.com/diary/15912/business-aims-to-relax-bans-on-products-made-with-child-and-slave-labor

  30. Vera says:

    The Green party does name patriarchy as the root of at least some evil. This is from the Green party’s platform:

    Since the beginning of what we call civilization, when men’s dominance over women was firmly established until the present day, our history has been marred with oppression of and brutality to women. The Green Party deplores this system of male domination, known as patriarchy, in all its forms, both subtle and overt – from oppression, inequality, and discrimination to domestic violence, rape, trafficking and forced slavery.

  31. Basement Marxist says:

    Vera,

    Shit, I stand corrected. Considering that, it’s slightly amusing to me that lily at #4 above considered Clinton to be the best candidate. What about McKinney?

    I suppose I could support the US Green Party then, if I’m forced to choose from viable political parties. The SPUSA and CPUSA are kind of a mess.

  32. propertius says:

    You’re right, Melinda. It’s a good thing Swift is dead – if he wrote A Modest Proposal now, the Senate would probably incorporate it into the healthcare bill as a cost reduction measure.

    So, what bizarre planet does The Nation inhabit that they can publish this with a straight face:

    “Obama, the prochoice, prowoman candidate, won.”

    This must be some other Obama than the one I saw during the campaign. Maybe that Obama just didn’t make it out here to “flyover country”.

  33. RKMK says:

    Basement Marxist – because Hillay wrote this speech, and she had a more practical chance.

  34. Basement Marxist says:

    RKMK,

    And yet Clinton supported NAFTA and a host of other policies of economic terrorism that did damage- real, observable damage- to women’s causes in countries like Mexico.

    Do you really think that when the chips fall, when the shit hits the fan, when the cookie crumbles, that Clinton would be there for women? For the working class? For anyone other than the same elite upper-class, corporate financiers, and center-rightist warmongers that run the Obama administration (including Obama himself, of course).

    If you really think that Clinton, a Democrat (i.e. the left hand of the Business Party) would stand up for you on account of the fact that you’re the same gender and she’s supported feminist causes when it has suited her, I believe you are engaged in a pathological case of wishful thinking.

  35. angie says:

    Good lord, Violet goes away & lunatics are running the asylum.

    Please go back to the Basement.

  36. Aspen says:

    Basement:
    I say this as someone who is, I think, relatively sympathetic to your arguments, compared to the average commenter at this blog.
    I strongly suggest you read the archives during the 08 primaries and GE, and find out where these folks are coming from before you continue. JMHO.

  37. stateofdisbelief says:

    And yet Clinton supported NAFTA and a host of other policies of economic terrorism that did damage- real, observable damage- to women’s causes in countries like Mexico.

    Basement Dweller, please put down your CDS manual and go back and read the FACTS about Clinton and NAFTA. NAFTA was negotiated and ready to go before Clinton even took office. Congress, in both Houses were behind it and passed it with a veto-proof margin. Clinton decided in lieu of a theatrical veto that would only benefit his image he would agree to sign it sans veto in exchange for worker protections.

    He could not have stopped NAFTA if he wanted to. But lame, easily manipulated voters such as yourself are just too willing to embrace the BS your heroes spout without checking the facts.

    Go look. It’s all there. But I’m guessing you’re happier in your CDS stupor.

  38. stateofdisbelief says:

    It seems to suit the narrative of both parties these days to bash the Clinton legacy while simultaneously suffering from excessive fact deficits. Too bad the facts speak for themselves and just because they scream the loudest doesn’t mean they’re right.

  39. Carmonn says:

    If you really think that Clinton, a Democrat (i.e. the left hand of the Business Party) would stand up for you on account of the fact that you’re the same gender and she’s supported feminist causes when it has suited her, I believe you are engaged in a pathological case of wishful thinking.

    Basement Marxist, you’re really on to something here. This argument is so radical and cutting edge I actually believe that it originated with you and has never been heard before, certainly not by any of us–and no, the fact that I’ve been living in a sealed contained underground since birth has nothing to do with my perception. Now that this amazing insight has entered our lives for the first time, nothing will ever be the same. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    I wonder why I now feel a desire to go back in time and smack my 16 year old self in the head with a (very small) wet fish and tell her not to be such a self-righteous, condescending little know-it-all who endlessly repeats a series of banal phrases as if everyone else is somehow too stupid and ignorant to have ever considered those possibilities before and she’s constantly rediscovering the wheel? “Tis a mystery.

  40. Branjor says:

    Hillary Clinton was *against* NAFTA. It’s Bill who signed it.

  41. Sameol says:

    Yes, but Hillary is responsible for everything her husband does unless she finds a way to stop him.

    That’s rule one of the It’s Always the Woman’s Fault Handbook.

  42. Sasha, CA says:

    And yet Clinton supported NAFTA

    That was Clinton, Bill, not Clinton, Hillary. Let’s not hold women accountable for their husbands’ actions.

    But other than that, yeah, I hear ya. I’m much further to the left than Hillary or any of the presidential candidates that actually had a chance of winning last year. Many of my friends initially supported Edwards and while I agreed that he had the most progressive policies of the three front-runners (while Obama’s were the most conservative), I always considered him a complete phony. That’s how I initially began supporting Hillary (ended up voting for McKinney). Unfortunately most people in this country aren’t nearly as far to the left as me, so I don’t think the Greens will be winning any presidential elections any time soon. I believe they would be much better served by focusing their efforts on smaller, local elections in progressive districts. That way we could actually get some Green Party candidates elected.

  43. octogalore says:

    From the Beinart article, one gem within an otherwise odious comment:

    “You women had a chance to put a woman in the white house and you blew it.”

    (obviously, present company excluded).

  44. stateofdisbelief says:

    Once again, Bill signed that legislation because it was passed with a veto-proof majority (see above) and he passed on the theatrical veto in exchange for worker protections.

    Why do revisionists get away with pinning that on him and by extension hanging it around Hillary’s neck?

  45. Basement Marxist says:

    Branjor, Sameol:

    First of all, let’s clear up one thing: when I say Clinton, I’m referring to Hillary Clinton. We see fit to refer to men in politics by their last names, so until we start referring to Bill and Barack in the same breath as “Hillary”, I’ll continue to refer to Clinton by either her last name or her full name (though perhaps I should use Rodham in keeping with the ideology). Sorry for the confusion there.

    Anyway, I’m not sure why I’m catching so much flack for basically stating something that’s completely in agreement with what Violet and others have been saying recently: that the Democratic party is not the party of progressive liberalism. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the support of Clinton? I mean, it’s coming off as if people are thinking that this terrible thing wouldn’t have happened if we’d elected Clinton.

    My point is, Democrats are right wingers. So where are we prepared to stand? If the point of what we’re talking about at the moment is that we need to build an actual grassroots base for a new party in US politics (an intensely distasteful proposition to me, but fuck it I’ll entertain the idea), let’s sit down and actually hash out a statement of principles. Feminism is a given, natch. I’ll even go so far as to accept that Clinton would be with us there. What about worker’s rights? Anti-corporatism? Anti-imperialism? You think Clinton’s going to stand with you there? You think she wouldn’t have been the beneficiary of vast sums of campaign money from corporate backers, as both Obama and McCain were? Would she not be continuing the wars? Would she not be cutting deals with the pharmaceutical industry in exchange for the implicit promise that they will not run campaigns against Dems in 2010 and 12?

    Why does Clinton seem to get a pass on the rest of the terrible, horrible policies that Democrats espouse when she is right on board with the rest of them? I’m just kind of flummoxed at this point, seeing (what I assumed were) radfems supporting a Democrat.

  46. MojaveWolf says:

    I’m mostly a fan of Bill, but I was not brain dead during the 90′s, and have not forgotten that he worked his ass off to make sure NAFTA passed, and it is very uncertainto have passed, and certainly would have gotten fewer votes, without his support. He certainly did ton to sway a skeptical public in its favor. He even sent Gore to debate Ross Perot about it on Larry King; I’m one of the very few people who thought Perot won that debate; at least in the media, Gore was hailed the clear winner, support for NAFTA rose, and it went from neck and neck to winning going away.

    (side note 1: Gore wanted more controls on labor and environmental issues than were in NAFTA but went along anyway in the belief they would be put in later)

    (side note 2: Congress fought Bill as if he was Death come to drag them to Hell when he was trying to do something progressive, but always went along with him when he was trying to do something conservative; this was one of the few times where he had to actually work to get them to do so; if he had swayed the public against the bill, I think it would have gone down)

    Bill did a lot of good things, and he’s certainly my favorite president of my lifetime, but he also did some bad stuff — “welfare reform” was all his, NAFTA was one of his babies, telecomm dereg was also something he at least didn’t openly oppose, at all. And while I understand his reasons for signing DOMA — he feared the theocrats would make this a constitutional amendment if he vetoed it, and it seemed at least a 50/50 chance they would succeed if they tried, and his own party hung him out to dry with a few dozen knives in his back when he made allowing lesbians & gays to openly serve in the military a top priority in his 1st 100 days — it’s still an abomination and this is the sort of thing you fight to the death on, and he blew it.

    I could go on, but while he did a lot of GREAT things and almost single-handedly fought off the tide that later brought us Bush/Cheney, he did some lousy ones too.

    (that said, I do not share Basement Marxist’s view of Hillary, at all; though I will agree she has gone with the political flow against what I think are her own instincts far too often, and this probably cost her the election last time; most of the people advising most mainstream democrats are grossly incompetent and either personally conservative or deeply stupid and unprincipled at the same time)

  47. Aspen says:

    I’m politically in the Mohave Wolf & Sasha camp. Basement, one thing that has been addressed in the blog, and I give this point a lot of credibility, is that female politicians are held to a nothing less than angelic standards, and if they don’t live up to these, then they are a pariah. There is such an eagerness on the part of men in both parties to find women scapegoats to “prove” that women are “just as bad” as men are. HRC was def. an example of that. She gets 10X or 100X more venom for supporting the same things that many other Dem rightwingers, such as those who voted to authorize the Iraq war got. While HRC has done things I don’t support, it is really quite outraging to see how many men and male-identified women seem to enjoy and need to take turns knocking women such as herself off her “pedestal”, it goes back to the resentment we are socialized to have against “uppity” women.
    If Nafta is sh$t, and it is, then lets talk about Nafta and how sh&tty it is, not HRC and what a $%^# she is for her hubby’s involvement.

  48. Sameol says:

    Uh, thanks Basement Marxist. Both Branjor and I were fully aware of who you were referring to. So why you felt the need to clarify a nonmisunderstanding plus throw in a lecture is unknown. I can’t speak for anyone else, but the fact that we refer to women in politics by their first names and men by their last is not a revelation.

    The problem with your statement is not that you referred to H. Clinton as “Clinton.” The problem, as Branjor pointed out, is that H. Clinton opposed NAFTA. It’s not that anyone’s confused so much as that you’re wrong.

    “Why does Clinton seem to get a pass on the terrible, horrible policies that Democrats espouse”

    Are you for real? Yes. That is the lesson I’m taking out of this. And good question for you to ask right after you blamed her for a policy of her husband’s administration that she opposed. I’m having a hard time figuring out how and why so many of Clinton’s leftwing critics became vociferous supporters. It’ll come to me.

  49. Briar says:

    What I still don’t get, what I never got, was why anyone would think Obama would be the best possible president. The man was a cipher, a ventriloquist’s dummy, a huge balloon people kept blowing up with their dreams and delusions. It was perfectly obvious that the only remotely qualified candidate was Clinton. She was the only person capable of understanding what was going on to any degree of complexity. I don’t actually think she lost because she was a woman (that remains Palin’s chief handicap), nor because she was more to the left than Obama (though she may be, and it is certain the US is still not ready for genuine social democracy). I think she lost bcause she is clever and informed and immensely capable, and might actually have changed things to some degree. She presented a real challenge to the ruling elites, while Obama only wanted to join them. And most people don’t like brainy people, nor do they really want change. Scares the vast majority witless.

  50. myiq2xu says:

    What I still don’t get, what I never got, was why anyone would think Obama would be the best possible president.

    He has that all-important qualification that Hillary was born without.

  51. Nessum says:

    As this is an open thread: Go take a look at this great compilation of Anti-Aging-Ads!
    (Found in the sidebar.)

    http://stilettorevolt.com/2009/11/anti-aging/

  52. Nessum says:

    Oh, the irony!

    While doing such a good job exposing those ads for what they are, the site I just linked to at the same time allows ads for — Anti-Aging-Products!
    Tsk,tsk,tsk!

    But it’s still a site worth visiting, though!

  53. stateofdisbelief says:

    MohaveWolf@46

    I’m mostly a fan of Bill, but I was not brain dead during the 90’s, and have not forgotten that he worked his ass off to make sure NAFTA passed, and it is very uncertainto have passed, and certainly would have gotten fewer votes, without his support.

    Where is your evidence? your support? The MSM? Were you there behind the scenes? I was there also. I didn’t rely on public media sources for my perspective but those who were closer to the actual goings on. What you saw on the surface and reported in the MSM is certainly, as it is today, suspect.

    George H.W. Bush completed that treaty long before Clinton took office. His work behind the scenes on votes was already done. This stuff is not done in a vacuum. Bill Clinton was not supposed to win that election in their minds. Their plans did not include him.

  54. lambert strether says:

    I never accept the narrative of “incompetence” because it always begs the question, incompetent with respect to what goal? Bush, for example, was highly competent at destroying the last vestiges of Constitutional government, and at least as good as Obama at funneling money to the banksters. So, when MojaveWolf writes:

    [M]ost of the people advising most mainstream democrats are grossly incompetent and either personally conservative or deeply stupid and unprincipled at the same time …

    I ask myself incompetent at what? Democratic advisors and strategerists are quite competent at continuing to win contracts from clients, and raking off a percentage of the take, are they not?

    It used to be that elections provided, as they were designed to, some semblance of accountability. Now, however, with so many of our elected representatives already independently wealthy, elected office is really the millionaire’s equivalent of an unpaid internship, with the payoff to come from K street or other opportunities granted to insiders.

    The Democratic consultants and strategerists aren’t, therefore, about connecting politicians to voters; that’s not the service they provide, and so there’s no point saying they’re not competent at it. They’re about advising politicians on what to say to get money, and at that they’re quite good. (One might also note that a focus on incremental improvement fits very neatly into this overall architecture; there’s no real incentive to achieve victory, since the clients are only rarely held accountable, but there’s every incentive to declare victory to keep the contracts coming. Hence the comfort level with real health care reform after a twenty year process, for example.)

  55. Basement Marxist says:

    MojaveWolf,

    I take severe umbrage to your praise of Bill, but that’s neither here nor there since we’re talking about Hillary Clinton. Maybe another discussion for another day.

    Aspen,

    You’re right, female politicians, as all career women, are held to much higher standards than men. This is absolutely inarguable, and total bullshit. I don’t think I personally do that, and I hate the fact that some of my (legitimate) complaints against Clinton’s policies are/were also touted by the Obama camp as reasons why Obama would be the better choice. I think a lot of this argument is making it sound like I believe Obama is a better president than Clinton would have been, which is incorrect. They’re both awful. I believe every single (male) US president, post World War 2, could be convicted of war crimes if held to the Nuremburg standards, and Clinton would have been no different.

    It seems we have a pretty large point of contention regarding Hilary Clinton’s support for NAFTA. I’ll get to that in a bit, but I would also like to see y’alls opinions on the other points I brought up, with regards to Clinton’s (and Democrats at large) support of other actual leftist policies. Anti-globalisation is a big one, but not the only one. Where do you think Democrats, especially Clinton, would be on these issues?

    Sameol,

    I wasn’t trying to lecture, and I didn’t think that would be a revelation. I thought that might be a piece of our bullshit patriarchal culture that we could both get behind in criticizing, and maybe find a piece of common ground so we can realize that we’re all on the same team here.

    So, your point is that Hillary Clinton opposed NAFTA, therefore I’m conflating her with her husband’s policies (and stateofdisbelief even questions those). If she opposed it, why did she speak so often in favor of it during the 90s? And why did it take until 2008 for her to become a vocal critic of it? And more importantly, why, in her criticism of it, does she only seem to criticise it from a standpoint of “Americans are losing jobs, therefore NAFTA sucks.” Not, you know, multinational corporations feast on the work force of developing nations and exploit their working class with the assistance of governments who are reluctant to lift a finger in the direction of fair labor laws. In other words, fuck the Mexicans, NAFTA sucks because it hurts Americans.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004198705_sirota25.html

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html

    And again, as before, forget NAFTA, where would Clinton be today if she were president? Do you really think she’d be on the left of any issue? Oh, perhaps she’d make things marginally better, perhaps voicing a little more support for repealing DOMA, DADT, perhaps even passing ENDA. But now you’re talking liberalism, which is a pathetic excuse for tearing down the system. And to act as if Clinton somehow would not be beholden to the same corporate financiers that Obama is, to pretend that she would not kowtow to Blue Dogs and Republicans in Congress, to imagine that she would somehow magically transform into the Leftiest Leftist who ever Leftied the Lefty Left is, well…come on. That’s the same fantasy horseshit that Obama supporters did, convincing themselves that he’s a stealth atheist and all other manner of crazyness.

    Patriarchy isn’t going away if we elect a good Democrat.

  56. RKMK says:

    Do you really think that when the chips fall, when the shit hits the fan, when the cookie crumbles, that Clinton would be there for women? For the working class?

    In short? Without a fucking doubt.

  57. RKMK says:

    (Which is why the Democratic Party submarined her.)

  58. Basement Marxist says:

    I have a longer post awaiting moderation, but RKMK, Clinton was submarined for being a woman, not because she was to the left of Democrats.

  59. yttik says:

    “In short? Without a fucking doubt.”

    Absolutely. And Hillary has an extensive track record to prove it.

  60. m Andrea says:

    This will be in moderation until Violet checks in, but holy crap! Here’s a comment from that link Violent gave:

    “It is only women who have abortions, not men, so they should stay out of the argument.”.

    If women confined themselves to aborting women, then perhaps men would have no place to complain. But seeing as how women are choosing to abort men as well, they have every right to participate in this discussion.

    Wow, just wow.

  61. okasha skatsi says:

    Another “without a fucking doubt” here.

    Basement, thanks for reminding me why I’m a socialist, but not a Marxist. I just can’t take all that damned Puritanical earnestness.

  62. RKMK says:

    Clinton was submarined for being a woman, not because she was to the left of Democrats.

    Actually, it was highly likely she was was targeted for both.

  63. RKMK says:

    Basement Marxist, here’s a good place to start on HRC’s economic street cred: Anglachel, On Top of the Issues Last Spring. If you’ve the time on this Saturday, I highly suggest giving Anglachel’s 2008 posts a thorough frisking.

    There’s also this firsthand account:

    Now, Clinton spent over an hour talking about and answering questions about policy in amazing detail—and, throughout, she spoke the language of the labor movement specifically and progressives generally; there was no rightwing framing, no triangulation. She was impressively blunt about the Republicans playing class warfare and about her determination to raise taxes on corporations and the rich, and she was much more explicitly anti-corporate in some of her statements than I expected. At one point, I leaned over to KenBlogz to whisper, “This woman is a communist!” All of which is arguably actual news, given her reputation. (Although I suppose it isn’t news to the media which has been dutifully not reporting it.)

  64. Basement Marxist says:

    yttik, how can you seriously think that? Her track record is one of milquetoast Third Way liberalism, which is completely antithetical to the goals of anyone but liberal feminists. And considering her support of the Afghan invasion, the Iraq invasion, her saber-rattling at Iran, and her support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, are you saying it’s enough that she’ll make American women’s lives better?

    And before you start comparing me to jerkoff dudes who complain that Western feminists only care about Western women, when you’re talking about electing the President of the United States, the commander of the most powerful military-industrial complex the world has ever known, the lives and fates of women in countries susceptible to our aggressive imperialism is of prime importance.

  65. RKMK says:

    Basement Marxist, I’m sorry, I can’t even begin to take you seriously if you haven’t noticed Hillary Clinton’s work as the Secretary of State in improving women’s lives around the world. Where the hell is this basement you’re living in, Mars?

  66. yttik says:

    Basement Marxist, please go somewhere and buy a fricken clue. I haven’t got the time or the desire to help you get your facts straight.

  67. RKMK says:

    From the wayback machine, Kate Harding on Good Reasons to Vote for HRC. some of which are downright prophetic in light of the last week.

  68. stateofdisbelief says:

    The best thing to do is just not feed Basement Dweller. It only seems to exacerbate his/her CDS.

  69. Basement Marxist says:

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15996

    Cynthia McKinney giving a speech at the War Crimes Conference & Exhibition. But yeah, keep telling yourself that Clinton was the best possible choice.

  70. MojaveWolf says:

    @State of Disbelief — re: Bill Clinton/NAFTA — Where’s my proof? Were you alive and old enough to watch TV back then? I’m sure somewhere the Larry King show where Gore debated Ross Perot is archived or on YouTube or something if you don’t remember it. Gore went on this specifically to argue in favor of the administration position.

    Yes, the Larry King show is mainstream media, and all the MSM stations that broadcast Bill’s advocacy of it were on the MSM, but I don’t think these things were computer generated. Do you really not remember this?

    Bill wasn’t solely responsible for NAFTA, but he certainly helped shepherd it along. That he did so despite reservations from his wife and VP (who was a good soldier and went along w/his prez, alas) would rather strongly indicate that he was personally in favor of it, unless you think he was a helpless puppet of hidden forces and deserves no credit or blame for anything he did in office.

    “Free market” economics was accepted by the vast majority of academics back then, and he chose to go w/the Ruben/Summers cadre of advisors over the Reich (and I think Tyson) group of economic advisors, to all of our long term detriment. (though Clinton was proof that a somewhat regulated variation of this can work very well for most people; I’m well to the left of him but it’s sort of hard to argue w/results, even if I think further tinkering to the left would have almost certainly gotten better results).

    He was, on balance, by far and away the best president of the past 30 years, imo, and possibly since Roosevelt. He was a fierce advocate for choice and women’s equality, his genuinely humanitarian foreign interventions in Haiti and various parts of the former Yugoslavia accomplished an enormous amount of good without getting us bogged down in a quagmire or breaking the treasury, he turned around our economy and despite being more conservative than I liked did by far the best job there of any president in the last 40 years, minimum, and given what he inherited I think it’s fair to say the best since Roosevelt, and while doing much much less than I would have liked he was pretty good on environmental issues, but he wasn’t an infallible saint, or even close, and it’s ridiculous to complain about others being “revisionist” while trying to give him a pass on NAFTA.

  71. RKMK says:

    It’s not an either/or proposition. Both Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney would have been better presidents than Barack Obama. Unfortunately, only one of them ran as part of party with a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning the presidency, and the other represented a protest vote – which, I believe, many people here (including Violet) engaged in after Hillary Clinton was pushed out of the race.

    Basement Dweller, you’re clearly new here. Perhaps you should lurk moar before spouting off on shit you know very little about. After all, it’s better to let people think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, etc.

  72. stateofdisbelief says:

    WOW. A speech! Speechification is definitely the #1 criteria. To hell with an actual record of accomplishments. {{rolls eyes}}

    McKinney is OK. Unfortunately she has the same problem as Dennis Kucinich in that people are not quick to embrace the quirky side. But she’s no Hillary Clinton.

  73. MojaveWolf says:

    @Basement Marxist — McKinney was who I voted for in the general, as the best of various bad choices, but she torpedoed all my enthusiasm for her with some statements about prisoners in the aftermath of Katrina that were frankly nuts.

    As to why anyone would be enthusiastic about Hillary, I just dug up a post I wrote during the primaries last year.

    http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/47599.html

    To give some bullet points:

    (1) Plan B contraception. Without Hillary (and Patty Murray), this *still* wouldn’t be available over the counter. I’ve seen numerous people try to counter “Hillary is a fighter” with “What has she successfully fought for?” This is exhibit A on the list.

    (1A) Women’s reproductive freedom in general. She didn’t just support the Alito filibuster and oppose the Roberts nomination, she spoke about these things, albeit in a losing cause. For a whole list of things, (and a few other things like family medical leave and such) go here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/07/why-hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-women

    (2) Her health care plan is better. It covers everyone, it’s based on a sliding wage scale so people lower down on the ladder are paying little to nothing and people who aren’t making anything don’t have to shell out money they don’t have, contrary to the “negative, fear-mongering” ads that the Obama campaign has been running.* Also, it does a better job of keeping costs down and the insurance companies in line (see Paul Krugman for detailed analysis)

    (3) Her bill to get the mercenaries out of Iraq. Yes, her bill. That she introduced. To shockingly little coverage. Her bill to get mercenaries out of Iraq, which Obama initially opposed, tho he was waffling a bit last time I noticed. (note from the future: Obama got elected, and has done nothing to get them out, still; Al Franken the only one in DC showing leadership on this issue now)

    (4) Global warming solutions. Hillary’s clean energy plan emphasizes solar, . . She had a really good announcement back in, January, I think, about this plan and all the “green jobs” she hoped it would add. I saw it covered maybe one or two places online, heard not a whisper elsewhere, and then never heard from it again, in yet another exammple of our national press corps doing a bang-up job of focusing on the important things.****

    (5) Demonstrated competence at actually showing up for and doing her job. While she and Obama have both been campaigning for president, they are each in charge of running a committee. She has called several meetings of hers, as well as attending meetings of others she belongs to. Obama has yet to call a single meeting of his committee, with the explanation that he’s been too busy running for president.

    (6) She’s still standing. Like her, love her, dislike her, hate her, find her personality indifferent, whatever, how can anyone not admire her toughness and resilience?

    Especially see #6. This is someone who helped integrate her church in the 60′s and defended a black panther; she has a history going way back before she got into politics of fighting for things she believes in. Obama has a long history of fighting for his personal advancement. *That’s* why I think she would have fought for various causes I believe in.

  74. angie says:

    Holy Mother of God! Forget the CDS lies about Hillary Clinton “supporting” the Iraq invasion or “saber-rattling” at Iran. This has got to be one of the dumbest “pursuasion” tacts I’ve encountered:

    yttik, how can you seriously think that? Her track record is one of milquetoast Third Way liberalism, which is completely antithetical to the goals of anyone but liberal feminists. And considering her support of the Afghan invasion, the Iraq invasion, her saber-rattling at Iran, and her support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, are you saying it’s enough that she’ll make American women’s lives better?

    Guess what? I am a liberal feminist. And yes, it is good enough for me that Hillary Clinton would have made the lives of American women better, because no one else seems to care about us. And you can get off your moral high horse trying to tell me that I need to not worry about improving my own life & worry about this person & that cause and whatever the hell else for the “greater good” because I’m done with that sh!t. F*ck you. I want mine & the hell with yours. That attitude seems to be the one that all the MEN in this world have & that is the only attitude that seems to get any respect.

  75. AniEm says:

    And you can get off your moral high horse trying to tell me that I need to not worry about improving my own life & worry about this person & that cause and whatever the hell else for the “greater good” because I’m done with that sh!t. F*ck you

    Love it. This is the message that has to get out to every woman, everywhere.

  76. stateofdisbelief says:

    And you can get off your moral high horse trying to tell me that I need to not worry about improving my own life & worry about this person & that cause and whatever the hell else for the “greater good” because I’m done with that sh!t. F*ck you

    Amen.

  77. myiq2xu says:

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone threadjack an open thread before.

  78. RalphB says:

    A standing ovation for Angie! Perfect.

  79. Carmonn says:

    Holy Mother of God is right. The Third Way is really a selfish liberal feminist plot to benefit themselves at the expense of all others? I’ll be damned. Somebody in production slipped up there, huh?

    Let’s get our act together, ladies. If we’re going to convince the political establishment to arrange itself for our exclusive benefit, we’re going to look really silly if we don’t actually get much of anything out of it.

  80. lambert strether says:

    #61 HRC submarined for being both a woman and to the left (relative to Obama): Yes! Overdetermined.

  81. Basement Marxist says:

    Guess what? I am a liberal feminist. And yes, it is good enough for me that Hillary Clinton would have made the lives of American women better, because no one else seems to care about us. And you can get off your moral high horse trying to tell me that I need to not worry about improving my own life & worry about this person & that cause and whatever the hell else for the “greater good” because I’m done with that sh!t. F*ck you. I want mine & the hell with yours. That attitude seems to be the one that all the MEN in this world have & that is the only attitude that seems to get any respect.

    Firstly, I never said that you had to give up American’s women’s rights in exchange for the “greater good”. My point is that you could stand up for (via McKinney) your rights and the rights of women around the world, but you’re choosing, selfishly, your own, for some reason that I can’t quite ascertain. I mean, you are literally making an explicit Fuck You Got Mine argument, which is seriously blowing my mind. There exists no single metric, on feminist grounds or otherwise, by which McKinney would not make a better president than Clinton.

    My previous comment got tanked, so I’ll ask the pertinent question again. What are you really aiming for here? Destroying patriarchy, or is equal pay for equal work enough? Cause Clinton only gets you one of those, and you can guess which.

    I’ll leave it there, cause you seem more interested in a bullshit liberal echo chamber than discussion and planning to actually, concretely subvert the intersecting systems of oppression that threaten women along with all the members of the underclasses the world over. Maybe someday, you’ll get over your stupid, selfish middle-class American privilege and realize there are people out there who are not going to be served by Third Way horseshit. Maybe someday you’ll understand that you can help yourselves while helping everyone else, too.

  82. Sameol says:

    I don’t know what’s sadder, the fact that you think you’re engaging in ‘discussion’ or the fact that you think you’re ‘actually, concretely subverting’ anything. Aren’t you the same person who was too pure to engage with anything as tainted as the Green Party a few hours ago?

    Maybe someday we will get over our stupid, selfish middle class privilege. Whether it will happen as the result of a 20 year old male uni student, undoubtedly from a wealthy family, shouting and chest beating and condescending and not listening and demanding that everyone follow his lead with her concerns belittled and dismissed, is an open question.

  83. Janis says:

    Christ, she takes one trip to the bathroom for a second, and the zombies come out and take over.

  84. gxm17 says:

    Basement Marxist, love your nic, and I love Cynthia McKinney (I sent her money regularly along with very sincere thanks for being the only candidate who cared about the people) but you are seriously outwearing your welcome. Lighten up and don’t attack other commenters, make your point without insults. And, btw, we would not be losing abortion rights under an HRC presidency. It may not mean much to you if you are male-identified, but to women everywhere there is a chasm of difference between choice and forced pregnancy.

    Angie, hell yeah!

    And Aspen, THANK YOU! I think you have finally clarified for me just what a “feminist” is: a female-identified woman.

  85. MojaveWolf says:

    @basement marxist – I had an earlier comment to you about why people might support Hillary that is still in moderation, but to address a few of your most recent points –

    “liberal echo chamber” — This is not an echo chamber; half of us are furious with the other half at any given time (okay, probably hyperbole, but only mild hyperbole). We are almost all Hillary fans to one degree or another, though.

    & when did “liberal” become a nasty bad word on the left?

    McKinney vs Hillary — as said in my still-in-moderation comment, I voted for McKinney as a protest vote & also my clear preference among the GE candidates. But even if you think she is better than Hillary across the board on issues (which I’m not at all sure of), your’e forgetting two things, or not caring about them — Hillary had the chance to be president. McKinney never was seriously in the running. And good policies and the ability to govern aren’t remotely the same thing; Hillary would have, I think, been exceptional in that latter area, and gotten a lot more done than someone w/better policies who was less effective in wielding the position’s power.

    What are you really aiming for here? Destroying patriarchy, or is equal pay for equal work enough? Cause Clinton only gets you one of those, and you can guess which.

    As a practical matter, I think you could put Violet in as President w/(pick your personal favorite feminist as VP) and they would have very little chance of actually destroying patriarchy in those 8 years. And no one who ran on that platform would have any chance of being elected. But if Hillary accomplished equal pay for equal work, that would be a huge, massive cause for celebrity dancing and shouting in the streets. Is it enough all by itself to fix the world? No. But it’s a nice start, and anyone who could get this done in 8 years is probably going to be accomplishing a lot else for the good besides.

  86. Nadai says:

    My point is that you could stand up for (via McKinney) your rights and the rights of women around the world, but you’re choosing, selfishly, your own, for some reason that I can’t quite ascertain.

    Oh, I love that word ‘selfish’. It always means “You bitch, you’re putting your own agenda ahead of mine. How dare you?”

    There exists no single metric, on feminist grounds or otherwise, by which McKinney would not make a better president than Clinton.

    Well, there’s one – Clinton actually had a chance of being elected and McKinney didn’t.

    It’s like saying there’s a perfect anti-cancer drug – 100% success rate, no side effects, given away for free by the manufacturer – only the manufacturer is on Venus. Even if that’s true, there’s the teensy little problem that I can’t get to Venus. Given that, it would be unwise of me to reject the Earth drugs available because they’re imperfect. Politics, like medicine, is mostly a case of doing the best you can with what you’ve got.

  87. RKMK says:

    And also, Hillary Clinton is a tough-as-nails scrapper guided by enviable strength of character. I don’t know Cynthia Kinney well enough, though I imagine she’s comparable, but I know the strength of HRC’s mettle, and trust it.

  88. lambert strether says:

    #85 Hillary Clinton is a tough-as-nails scrapper guided by enviable strength of character.

    [applause] That was one of the [rather few] positive things that came out of the primaries. Doesn’t say anything about policy outcomes — Maggie Thatcher was a tough-as-nails scrapper, too — but one notices that despite all the false narratives constructed about her, the “narrative of weakness” is not one of them.

  89. MojaveWolf says:

    a huge, massive cause for celebrity dancing

    Gah, I have no idea if it would be a cause for celebrity dancing. Was ‘spose to be “celebratory”, sorry bout that.

  90. anne says:

    Hillary Clinton’s speech at the UN women’s conference in Beijing where she stated that women’s rights are human rights came straight out of radical feminism, as does her focus on ending male violence against women across the world.

    Basement Marxist is either a fool who is too stupid to see this, or a knave who wants to trick us into not acknowledging that Clinton’s work strikes at the heart of the patriarchy.

    Either way he should shut his obnoxious privileged mouth.

  91. cellocat says:

    Basement – The fact is that everyone’s lives improve when women’s lives improve. So, you want to focus on a global view of improving everyone’s lives, and you’re assuming that women’s lives will get better along with everyone else’s (an assumption so far proven false). We want to improve women’s lives, KNOWING that significant side-benefits exist of bringing everyone else along for the ride too. We know this to be true; look at what happens in countries where women get improved education, micro-financing, etc. They have fewer children, their families are better fed, and societal morale improves.

    So, would you say that it’s selfish for a woman who’s being abused to focus on getting out of that relationship, getting educated, and getting a good job rather than concentrating on ending poverty for working-class men? We wish the best for humanity in general, but we realize that no one is going to get ahead while we are being consistently, personally and as a group, shat upon.

    Our priorities are in rather good order, I’d say. And if you think it’s appropriate to come here and call us selfish, I’d say you’ve been spending too much time in your own personal echo chamber.

  92. Lori says:

    Basement,

    Clinton did not support the Iraq war. What she supported was diplomatic action. Hans Blix, who believed that Hussein could be successfully disarmed and the invasion prevented, was lobbying senators to vote “yes” on the authorization because he believed it was the only way to get Hussein to cooperate. It worked. as the date for the vote drew nearer, Hussein opened his doors to the inspections. The vote itself was scheduled two weeks before an election when Republicans were, quite clearly, going to take back the senate (which they did). Ultimately, Clinton supported an authorization that required the Bush administration to work with the UN. Had the authorization failed, it simply would have passed again in January, on a party line vote, without even the attempt to involve the UN. It was a complex vote. Clinton took a public stand against the war, and her rhetoric and actions as senator remained consistent.

    Clinton is a lefty. starting from her time right out of college where her paper “Children Under The Law” expanded children’s rights and remains one of the most cited papers on the subject, to the free legal aid clinic she opened for low income familes, to her work putting together federal funds to built health care clinics in rural Arkansas, to her work on SCHIP in the White House, Clinton has taken a stand expanding health care, education, child care and legal aid to low income Americans. Her work is always practical. She is a Democrat in the FDR mode. Ignore what people say about her, and look at what she does. You’ll be impressed.

    As for her saber rattling, remember, her husband went to war on behalf of Muslims against Christians. And she was lobbying to intercede for a couple years before he finally did. That point isn’t lost in the mideast the way it is here. She went to AIPAC and stated that nothing should be off the table when it came to Iran and then promptly scored Bush for taking diplomacy off the table. No other pol has told an AIPAC convention to their face that diplomancy with Iran is essential.

    Read up on Smedley Butler and FDR if you want to know how DC and the American business community feel about Democrats like Clinton. Clinton’s gender was not the reason she was attacked as she was. The same wankers who pat themselves on the back for electing an African American would be patting themselves on the back for electing a woman had she been a different candidate. Clinton was attacked because she was a lefty, and her ideology and her sympathies are very clear in her actions. Misogyny was used to defeat her but was not the reason for her defeat.

  93. yttik says:

    Meghan McCain has a good article out about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin

    “Maybe it’s a cliché, but no matter how many differences I may have with a woman politically, there is still a sense of kinship I feel for a woman in politics.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-09/the-goldilocks-syndrome/

  94. gxm17 says:

    What do you do when the girls can beat the boys? Easy. You just don’t let the girls compete.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1109/p17s03-ussc.html

  95. lily says:

    What do you do when the girls can beat the boys? Easy. You just don’t let the girls compete.

    You must be talking about my previous place of employment.

  96. Kookaburra says:

    Gotta love all the guys castigating her for daring to mention Sarah Palin.

    How can they be so unaware of the fact that THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.

  97. Briar says:

    I wish it were just the guys castigating anyone for treating Sarah Palin as if she were human, capable and sane. Unfortunately there are still plenty of self-identified liberal feminists out there who obsessively loathe her and join in the Hates whenever they are held. Of course, if all women got together to oppose the patriarchy in all its divisive and hierarchical forms it wouldn’t last another generation. This is about macho ways of thinking, not gender on its own. Women are the problem too.

  98. Simon Kenton says:

    It was clear what we would get in voting for Obama. All you had to do was read through his website often enough to catch positions before they were scrubbed off, and listen to him when his teleprompter was out having a coke. What I found amazing were the number of people in wink-wink mode about the guy. “O, yes, of course he said that, but we precious few, we band of brothers, know he doesn’t really mean it.” In other words, they were predicating their support on their confidence that all of us were being lied to, and that they knew the inner truth the liar was concealing. I’m naif enough to find it offensive that I’m expected to like being lied to so I can convince myself I’m part of the in crowd. I think (hope) there are others who are dismayed that their secret insider knowledge of what he really believed and what he really would do despite his public statements and public actions is now revealed to be empty.

  99. yttik says:

    Women are definitely the problem, and yes, specifically many liberal women. Many times women on the other side of the political aisle have acknowledged the gratitude they feel about Hillary Clinton’s historic run. McCain and Palin are two examples of women who let go of politics for a moment and showed some gender solidarity with Clinton.

    I don’t really don’t care who people vote for, but when a woman stands up and speaks her mind, and finds a way to grab some success in this world, women all over should celebrate her spirit. It’s a shame that so many liberal women still don’t see the value in this.

  100. Simon Kenton says:

    “It’s a shame that so many liberal women still don’t see the value in this.”
    - yttik

    I have moments where it sure seems like social class trumps sex solidarity and ideological alliance. An upstart from the wrong schools, with the wrong accent and diction, what insight can she possibly have? What have her gains to do with us? The nation’s problems need to be confronted by someone who’s ‘one of us,’ and if she’s not one of us, she’s not to be allowed an opinion or, especially, a hand on the levers of power. You can see it quite clearly in Noonan and other members of the country-club Republican set, who are far from liberal but as quick as the nastiest of liberal women to dump on La Palin. We’ll help the little people and we’ll certainly deign to accept their votes, but when one of them has pretensions of being one of the natural aristocracy and actually thinks she might … govern/i> … we’ll unite across party lines to denigrate her.

  101. roofingbird says:

    I guess we can beat a dead horse a little more. Every time we do the Clinton/NAFTA connection, we accomplish Obama’s Primary aims all over again. If you will recall in the Ohio debate, he essentially said “Me Too” through that part of the whole misguided debate. Half the world didn’t see it because they were already shutting off cable in an attempt to send the money for their mortgages. So I want to say here: Obama/NAFTA!, Obama/NAFTA! HRC had some good points about how to fix what already in place, and Obama never had to be accountable or associated.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print

  102. DarthVelma says:

    gxm17,

    I’ve been following the women’s ski jumping story for a while, and what absolutely boggles my mind is this: since neither the men nor the women have enough competitors to actually meet the current guidelines to be in the olympics, and since the record holder on the olympic hill in Vancouver is a woman, why they don’t just *GASP* hold a co-ed competition.

    Rhetorical question…they’re too afraid a woman would win…same reason they got rid of co-ed shooting in the summer games and separated the women and men. The poor menz just couldn’t handle it when women started winning medals against them.

    That was nothing new in sports, though…it happened over a hundred years ago in figure skating. All it took was one woman competing against the men at the world championships and taking the silver for them to turn it into a men only competition the very next year. And then wait several more years to even offer a women’s championship.

    One of these days they’ll figure out a “reason” to separate the men and women in the equestrian competitions and the ridiculousness when it comes to gender will be complete.

  103. LabRat says:

    Rhetorical question…they’re too afraid a woman would win…same reason they got rid of co-ed shooting in the summer games and separated the women and men. The poor menz just couldn’t handle it when women started winning medals against them.

    Fun fact: women actually have a mild physical advantage over men in many of the shooting sports. The ideal body shape for offhand rifle, for example, is to have wide hips that you can sock your elbow easily into for a more stable stance. Most of the time this is irrelevant since the shooting sports are so male-dominated the advantage washes out, but at the Olympic level of athletic elitism it would definitely matter. So there’s a legitimate argument to be made for separating the genders for the same reason sprinters are separated.

    Will you hear this justification offered by the Olympics Committee?

    I’m not going to be holding my breath, personally.

  104. Simon Kenton says:

    I don’t know much about shooting sports at the Olympics, but I run High Power matches and officiate at Long Range matches. Women compete with men, and especially at long range, often kick our asses. There is no interest in gender separation, though some in learning their techniques.

    Drag racing is another sport where women do very well.

  105. angie says:

    I just read Al Gore’s tv station (whatever the hell the name of it is) has a “cartoon” called “The Stupid Virus” in which Sarah Palin is described as a “Gun-Ho” and a “TWILF.” (like “MILF” or “VPILF” as she was “affectionately” called during the campaign — the “TW” stands for “Tweep” — what you call someone who twitters). Y’all can find your own links.

  106. cwaltz says:

    I’ll pass angie. I just ate.

  107. Violet says:

    Hey, folks. Sorry I couldn’t check in before.

    I have no idea what’s going on in this thread. I haven’t read it yet. I just released a couple of comments in moderation from people I recognize, but there are some others that are weird. What the fuck are you all talking about? Never mind — I’ll read the thread myself. When I wake up. I’ve been in the car for 37 hours. Not really but it feels like it.

  108. Violet says:

    However, if a trusted commenter wishes to give me the nutshell report on the Palin news and spare me having to slog through whatever cringe-inducing crapola is out there, I’d be obliged.

  109. roofingbird says:

    All I know is that Pacific John over at Alegre’s, picked up on a HotAir article commenting on the new issue of Newsweek’s. It shows Palin in running shorts, taken, bought or otherwise from Runners World. As you might suspect it’s recrafted, and around the story line that Palin’s bad for the GOP and bad for the rest of us.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/222786

    Then there is National Review. They started a blog around Palin’s Rogue book, and various defensive participants in the campaign are responding, as might be expected.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/rogue/

  110. Sameol says:

    Basement Marxist, since your comment is out of moderation now–Clinton opposed Nafta. Everyone who was involved in closed door WH meetings has said she opposed it. No one I’ve ever heard of has said otherwise. And come on, are you really asking why she didn’t show her disapproval by burning down the White House or something? She was First Lady. Asking the First Lady to speak out publicly against her husband seems to be a pretty heavy burden, and not just for her marriage. Anyone who did that would be treated as if she had some sort of mental illness, and she couldn’t count on support from even many Nafta opponents because of her gender (see Sheehan, Cindy, and how she was treated by the great anti-war boys of the liberal bloggosphere when she went her own way and didn’t hew to their preferred script).

    And yeah, I know, if she were truly a fighter she would have jumped right in, damn the torpedos, established an alternate White House at war with the real one, etc. Again, that’s one amazing high standard. She did what she could, she wasn’t the President.

    I didn’t say she’d be to the left of the left of the left. All I said was, don’t criticize her for things she didn’t do or things that are unrealistic. As far as Nafta hurts Americans, Nafta hurts everybody. But is it so wrong to explain it in terms of American jobs to American workers when you’re running for President of the US? You have to get people to listen to you before you can accomplish anything, once you’ve got their attention you can expand the discussion.The important thing is to change the policy, I really doubt the people of Mexico would be in the streets demanding better rhetoric if the desired goal were met.

    As far as the lecture, okay then, I apologize. And we can agree that is a bad thing, and we are all on the same side. On substance I agree with you more than I disagree, I just think you’d be more persuasive if you toned it down a bit and made more of an effort to understand where others are coming from. For example, analogies about what Hypothetical President Clinton would have done wrong may be unpersuasive to many due to the fact that she was cut off at the knees by the political class on a giant groundswell of electoral fraud and misogyny. After witnessing that, it’s harder to indict her on the basis of hypothetical screwups in an office she isn’t allowed to hold. You’re thinking of how badly she would have screwed up, they’re thinking she’ll never get the chance to show what she could have done, good, bad, or indifferent.

  111. Briar says:

    Simon Kenton says:

    “I have moments where it sure seems like social class trumps sex solidarity and ideological alliance. An upstart from the wrong schools, with the wrong accent and diction, what insight can she possibly have?”

    I agree, to an extent. I don’t think it trumps sex, but it reinforces it at least. It is much easier to see in my own country (where John Prescott, say, was mocked and sneered at because he failed his 11+, left an ordinary school for work at 16 and only got an Oxford degree by hard work and intense commitment much later in life, while never losing his working class accent), but the USA is far from the classless utopia it presents itself as. A lot of the caricaturing of Palin presents her as white female trash. There’s no doubt in my mind that there is a strong class element at work.

  112. Aspen says:

    I don’t understand this meme about the Palins’ being cast as lower socioeconomic class. They seem rich to me. Granted, I have not looked at their tax returns.
    I thought it was more that S. Palin was like GW Bush in that they both try to inflect what they (or their handlers) think is a working/lower class way of talking in order to attract the “nascar” vote (as opposed to the “latte drinking” vote).
    I don’t mean endorse these stereotypes, but this is what I observe as the public perception.

  113. myiq2xu says:

    the nutshell report on the Palin news

    Sarah Palin wrote a book.

    Palinpalooza II started.

    The usual suspects condemned the book without even reading it first.

    The book gets released today.

  114. yttik says:

    In a nutshell what’s happened is Palin went on Oprah, said some nice things about Hillary, about wanting to have a cup of coffee with her someday. The media ran to Hillary and asked her about Palin. Hillary also said she’s like to have a cup of coffee with Palin someday. Basically we just had three powerful women communicate with each other, no much wanted cat fights, no rivalry, no drama, just chatting and showing some mutual respect free of political party ideologies. They even toyed with the idea of having a coffee summit someday. As a result sheer terror and hysteria has hit the internet and the media. We’re in full blown estrogen panic.

    Never underestimate the power of women threatening to sit down with each other and plot world domination.

  115. scott says:

    Re the last comment, I think the world could stand a break from its current rulers and enjoy a spell of world domination by women, given that all the social pathologies you can think of are predominantly exhibited by men. Arthur Silber had a post on that the other day, looking at a play called “The History Boys,” with one very cutting quote:

    “History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket.”

    I have a sneaking feeling that if world domination changed hands even a little bit bucket time would be much reduced.

  116. RKMK says:

    Never underestimate the power of women threatening to sit down with each other and plot world domination.

    Love it.

  117. TheOtherDelphyne says:

    RKMK re: yttik’s comment – me, too! Great comment!

  118. teresainpa says:

    MojaveWolf says:

    @State of Disbelief — re: Bill Clinton/NAFTA — Where’s my proof? Were you alive and old enough to watch TV back then?

    TEEVEE?? You get your information from TV? MW, unfortunately you seem to have fallen for the liberal smears about the Clintons.
    I bet you also think Hillary supported the Iraq war. If so please go see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

    it is at youtube.

    To everyone concerning basementmarxist:

    People who have lived their whole lives in the USA and spout Marxism’s ten favorite talking points are dilettantes who do not deserved to be engaged. What makes them even more pathetic is that they are generally about 30, working for some union where they get to have world wide socialist fantasies without having to worry about the actual results. In reality BM is probably about 30 and his fondest desire is for a nicer car, a hotter girlfriend and a bigger salary.

    Now here is my lecture on “leftists”… they are NOT just farther left liberals. They HATE liberals. They think we are selfish. I had one idiot male pseudo Marxist tell me only poor women should be able to have abortions because women with any means were just being selfish killing the unborn. Leftist HATE, hate hate FDR. He ruined their revolution fantasies when he made life better for the American people.

    Socialism/communism has been tried and tried and it has failed every time. That is because it is a worse deal than well regulated capitalism. It is just another system where a few people get to live high on the hog while every one else is a worker bee.

    BM, you are no different than the men during the anti war movement of the 60s who told the women to shut up and go make the sandwiches.
    Women are allowed to do what is best for them before anything else and that is what is coming. So basically get lost little boy.

  119. MojaveWolf says:

    @teresainpa — I understand the “playing for time” rationales the congressional dems gave for their Iraq vote, and I think they were being honest here, but wrongheaded. Doesn’t really matter now. I also understand “We didn’t think Bush would really use this as an excuse to invade!”, which I assume is a flat out lie on each and every one of their parts, because they can’t be that stupid.

    Thus, why I think the ‘playing for time’ justification was wrong-headed; instead of taking a stand and saying “this is bullshit, don’t do it!”, they threw the ball up in the air and hoped Hans Blix would take it away from Bush/Cheney. Bad move on all their parts; I like Hillary, but this is one of the many reasons I didn’t fully get behind her until the primary was in swing and she was being more herself instead of listening to whoever had been giving her lousy advice earlier in the campaign.

    Clinton/NAFTA/television — If there had been reports of Clinton supporting NAFTA but he & Gore had never publicly done so, I’d see the point. But if I see someone saying something on television, or sending their VP who actually isn’t that thrilled with it to spend an hour debating it, that’s a little different. And if I hear later that they did this over their wife’s objections, I’m gonna assume they meant what they said. Clinton had a lot of free trade people in his cabinet and made the case for NAFTA fairly eloquently. Most leading economists then and now still favor minimizing trade barriers and it was only with the Bush disaster that regulation has come back into favor (a friend of mine in law school who had a Phd in Econ from a top school was not allowed to do her thesis on her first choice of topics, as it was pro-a particular sort of government intervention), so it’s not like he was going out on a limb here. He probably thought NAFTA was a good idea, and like Gore was hoping labor and environmental safeguards would follow.

    To a lot of people: I don’t understand why liking a particular politician seems to mean “supporting nearly everything they do and ignoring their flaws” for so many of you.

  120. MojaveWolf says:

    MEA CULPA — I really should preview posts; I normally call Hillary “Hillary” and Bill “Bill” to distinguish, but that last post I was “Hillary” for her and “Clinton” for him, dunno why I did that or why I didn’t notice before it was up, but apologies for the sexist brain misfire.

  121. Sasha, CA says:

    I don’t understand this meme about the Palins’ being cast as lower socioeconomic class. They seem rich to me. Granted, I have not looked at their tax returns.
    I thought it was more that S. Palin was like GW Bush in that they both try to inflect what they (or their handlers) think is a working/lower class way of talking in order to attract the “nascar” vote

    Well, unlike GWB, the Palins at least used to be middle class, or maybe even lower middle class (though I agree they certainly aren’t now). My guess is that what you’re sensing is that Palin’s persona is carefully constructed to appeal to a certain type of voter and has little to do with reality. Melissa has more on that. Media Matters does too.

    As for Palin’s shout out to Hillary, call me cynical but my take on this is that Palin is trying to appeal to women voters without actually adopting women-friendly positions on issues such as reproductive freedom, equal pay, health care, etc. She can’t really support pro-woman policies without alienating her fundie nutjob base, so she’s trying to win over women voters with this faux female solidarity stuff. Fortunately most women aren’t going to fall for this. We’re not going to vote for a candidate who’s on the wrong side of virtually every issue that matters to us just because she happens to be a woman. In that way we’re a lot like Palin who recently demonstrated that issues and ideology certainly trump gender solidarity for her (see Dede Scozzafava).

  122. teresainpa says:

    sasha is there some reason you can not take Palin at her word? And exactly what anti woman policies are you talking about? She’s not pro-choice, but has done NO damage to a woman’s right to chose unlike our democratic congress.

  123. gxm17 says:

    Really, I’m more concerned with Obama’s anti-woman policies than Palin’s. I’ll worry about Palin when she’s actually running for or elected to office. For now, I’ll concentrate on the misogynist-in-chief who is taking a sledgehammer to women’s rights.

    It’s totally freakin’ crazy that the woman-hate is at such a fever pitch that the Obamaganda machine is using an unseated politician as a distraction device. All the obots need is a woman to despise and they are happy as pigs in shit.

  124. lambert strether says:

    Check out this post from single payer advocate Ellen. Sounds like dealing with HCAN is just like dealing with the OFB in the primariez. I wonder why…

  125. Boo Radly says:

    angie, yttik – applause, applause, applause

    Sing it sisters!

  126. Sameol says:

    Yes, and while we worry ourselves sick about faux female solidarity and these stupid, misguided women who (horrors!) might be foolish enough to inexplicably vote on it, the liberal boy indiscriminate woman hate machine is now cranking up against Meg Whitman.

    I’m relieved that it’s against someone who’s not on our side since it goes the other way half the time, but is there anyway I can convey my support from a distance, because I’m kind of terrified to be in the same room with my liberators.

  127. MojaveWolf says:

    Sameol– I confess to having once been interested in Meg Whitman as a politician and now thinking she would be a more conservative version of the current Gubernator. On the other hand, I can’t vote for Jerry Brown, either, because of his non-handling of the De Anza case.And Gavin Newsom dropped out (also problematic, but I was gonna vote for him) and the other Republicans are worse than Whitman. Hopefully Feinstein will declare — not my favorite Cali politician by a longshot, but she’d win in a walkover and unlike Brown isn’t responsible for letting a bunch of rapists go free for “insufficient evidence” despite lots of witnesses.

    This is where 3rd parties’ of any sort could get their best traction, I think – state and local elections. State elections in California might be a bit of a reach, though I would *love* it if the Greens could suddenly get more traction here.

    @Basement, if you’re still around — That is where I would focus your efforts, if you’re really serious about tearing down the current system and putting in something better.

    I personally think the Europeans have a better mix of capitalism/socialism economically, northern europe is much better on feminist grounds, no one is remotely taking environmental issues seriously enough at the governmental level, and I like the US ideals of individual freedom even if we are increasingly tossing those into the dumpster of late, so,I’m very looking forward to Violet’s upcoming post on the topic.

  128. Carmonn says:

    gxm17, WORD. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. It reminds me of being at a local Democratic gathering and watching as the faces of Rush and Huckabee and so on were flashed on the Jumbotron to a tepid non-response; then Palin’s face came on and it was like being in a Hitler youth rally.

    It’s convenient that it doesn’t even have to be an actual sitting elected official who elicits the run for your lives response. We can purge all the women from both parties just to be on the safe side and still live in conceptual terror–150 of them still live here! What if?

  129. Sameol says:

    I’m almost afraid to think about what could happen if a conservative female Democrat ran against a conservative female Republican in this climate, MojaveWolf. Waffling Schizophrenia of the Hate Object from the Democrats, Focused, Undiluted Hate from the Republicans. How about sending all the underaged girls somewhere without Internet, TV, or newspapers until it’s over? What should be a positive civics lesson went oh, so terribly wrong.

  130. Sasha, CA says:

    It’s totally freakin’ crazy that the woman-hate is at such a fever pitch that the Obamaganda machine is using an unseated politician as a distraction device.

    Maybe I’m underestimating the vast reach and power of the “Obamaganda machine,” but I don’t think Obama & Co. are responsible for Palin’s book being published now, Palin hitting the talk show circuit, or the pro-Palin comments in this thread that I was responding to.

    Look, I have always defended Sarah Palin against sexist and misogynist attacks, and I will continue to do so. I also agree that her Alaska record was misrepresented by some on the left and that, while conservative, her actions as Governor weren’t nearly as far right as she was made out to be. Since entering the national stage, however, Palin has moved steadily to the right. Worse, she has aligned herself with the part of the conservative movement that defines itself largely through bigotry and hatred — hatred of gays, immigrants, racial and religious minorities, atheists, feminists, etc. The part that believes the Republican Party went wrong by not being conservative enough. So yes, I detest her politics and I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for her, but none of that makes the sexism directed at her acceptable. It’s actually quite possible to despise the sexist attacks on her while also despising her politics; in fact, I would call that the completely consistent progressive anti-bigotry position.

  131. angie says:

    gxm — WORD. Let’s all point at Palin & shout “witch! witch!” while ignoring what Obama & the Capital Hill boys are doing.

    yttk:

    Never underestimate the power of women threatening to sit down with each other and plot world domination.

    I want a bumper sticker.

  132. Carmonn says:

    You’re right. Obama isn’t responsible for the timing of a book written by someone who likely will never hold elective office again. Therefore, his minions also bear no responsibility for using this event as a distraction device and milking it for everything it’s worth. It’s not like there’s a predictable Pavlov’s dog response.

  133. Alison says:

    Since entering the national stage, however, Palin has moved steadily to the right. Worse, she has aligned herself with the part of the conservative movement that defines itself largely through bigotry and hatred — hatred of gays, immigrants, racial and religious minorities, atheists, feminists, etc.

    Sasha, could you explain this more? In what ways has she shown herself to extreme/ bigoted etc?

  134. Sasha, CA says:

    I can’t vote for Jerry Brown, either, because of his non-handling of the De Anza case

    Agreed, when Brown dropped the ball on the De Anza case, I decided that I’d never be able to vote for him, no matter who his opponent might be. You know, I was just thinking of the similarities between the De Anza case and the Richmond case — both are Northern CA gang rape cases in which the victim was a minor who had quite a bit to drink. Who knows, maybe the Richmond rape wouldn’t have happened if Brown had prosecuted the De Anza rapists and sent a clear message that rape isn’t acceptable no matter how intoxicated the victim may be.

  135. angie says:

    the conservative The New Democratic Party movement that defines itself largely through bigotry and hatred — hatred of gays, immigrants, racial and religious minorities, atheists, feminists, etc.

    Fixed it for ya.

  136. angie says:

    In “the sky is blue” news, Plouffe admits that the Obama team orchestrated some of the Florida/Michigan mess in hopes of boxing in Clinton.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/campaign-tactics-they-could-believe-in-obama-08-pushed-early-state-pledge.php

  137. Sasha, CA says:

    Sasha, could you explain this more? In what ways has she shown herself to extreme/ bigoted etc?

    Alison, here are just a few quick examples:
    - She picked homophobe extraordinaire Lynn Vincent to co-author her book.
    - She repeated the toxic and widely discredited racist right-wing lie that the financial markets collapse was triggered by affordable-housing initiatives.
    - She joined in with the far right to help lead the charge against pro-choice and pro-gay rights moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava.

  138. octogalore says:

    Not on the subject of Palin’s book, but on the subject of other health plan issues besides Stupak that aren’t feminist-friendly.

    I just noticed the following interesting data:

    “Daniel Kopans, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Massachusetts, said the new [federal] guidelines are ’scientifically unjustified and will condemn women ages 40 to 49 to unnecessary deaths from breast cancer’.”

    “Could that have anything to do with the CBO scoring on screening?”

  139. octogalore says:

    So if that speculation is correct… possibly all these miraculous cost savings that we’re being promised are there for the taking, are going to be taken on guess who’s backs?

  140. MojaveWolf says:

    @130 & 137 — This why it mystifies me when some people who are upset at Obama and the Democrats for, essentially, behaving too much like Republicans, begin to champion Palin or talk about embracing the Republicans.

    The Dems are getting more like the Republicans on both social and economic issues, and the conservatives keep getting more beholden every year to the Dobson & Dobbs hatemonger brigade (which also seems the segment of the populace most enthusiastic about Palin). Getting back at the Dems by embracing socially conservative Republicans will just convince both parties to keep moving right.

    The enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend, or even my ally; sometimes, it’s just another enemy.

  141. myiq2xu says:

    The enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend, or even my ally; sometimes, it’s just another enemy.

    If a bear and a lion are fighting each other over which one gets to eat you, why would you cheer for either one? Run for your life while they are preoccupied.

  142. Jeff says:

    myiq2xu said: Run for your life while they are preoccupied.

    Walking up and slipping a bridle on both would be another option. Brave, and of course, insane.

    But isn’t that effectively what our corporate culture has already done with both parties?

  143. Alison says:

    Sasha,

    I find that she chose Lynn Vincent disturbing. Also I think you mentioned another time something about a certain disgusting pro-rapist that she appointed in Alaska? This also disturbs me.

    Your other two examples I don’t find problematic. Palin is conservative so I don’t mind that she supported the more conservative candidate in New York. I don’t expect everyone to be a vagina voter even if I am (at least 85 percent).

    In regard to affording housing initiatives, I don’t really see this perspective as racist. Unless I am a racist, too. I worked for SEIU when we were all somewhat involved in the activism to bring house ownership to poorer communities. Now in retrospect, I can see we made a lot of mistakes in how we went about it. I don’t think this is the whole pie but I do believe it is a piece of the market collapse. I see it as a huge big ugly tangled web….

  144. yttik says:

    Anyone reading about these new guidelines for mammograms? What’s with that? No mammograms for women under 50 or over 74? The part that really seems steeped in misogyny is the recommendation that women no longer be taught about breast self exams. Why?? It’s non invasive, free, and involves no radiation. I’m really astounded, I just don’t get it. Tell me again, why exactly do you esteemed people believe women should not exam their own breasts?

  145. Unree says:

    yttik, there is no evidence that teaching women to examine their own breasts reduces mortality or finds tumors when they are smaller. We do know that it increases biopsies, but that’s a bad result.

    The gold standard to measure an intervention is a randomized study, and in China a cohort of 266,000 women were divided: half got BSE training and the other half did not. The researchers, who published their results in 2003, found that BSE gave women no benefit. Dr. Susan Love (who has good feminist credentials) has been banging this drum for years; she says other studies have reached the same conclusion.

  146. Boo Radly says:

    Unree – And yet, Debbie Wassermann(D) found one(BSE) not too longer after a mammogram which did not detect it. She got treatment for it. I think we should use all available tools and they should be available to all women, of course. She was in her early 40′s as were several women who are now sharing their stories on tee vee.

  147. madaha says:

    the only way biopsies are “bad” is that they might cost money that can be otherwise used to fund boner pills.

    Seriously, why is getting a lump checked out “bad”? My sister found a lump, got a biopsy, found out she was fine, case closed! What, is she NOT supposed to get checked?

    this is madness.

  148. monchichipox says:

    I was taking an internets break but decided to check in on a few of my favorite pages to see if there was any reaction to the floating of the mammogram report. Why this? Why now? It makes my head spin. Especially if you look at the very old data they analyzed to come up with these conclusions.

    And on a somewhat lighter note. “How do you solve a problem like Sarah Palin?” The Newsweek cover. I’m going to write a letter to the editor and say hmmm maybe a public mutilation of her clitoris? Some ECT? A valium prescription?

  149. octogalore says:

    Unree, my aunt found a lump in her breast through a self-exam. It was cancer. She had a lumpectomy and unfortunately now is being advised to have a mastectomy. Luckily, they feel this will remove the cancer. If she’d waited longer, it might not have. Really confused as to why would dispute the National Breast Cancer Foundation here. But for me, I don’t need stats, having my aunt alive is really all that’s necessary.

  150. octogalore says:

    yttik, re women over 74, per CNN Health, “Risks and benefits for women age 75 and above are unknown.” Hmm, how could they be unknown? Only thing I can think of is that the esteemed federal task force didn’t include them, or enough of them, in the survey. As women over 75 have died from breast cancer, surely there are enough to have formed a statistically accurate sample, had there been interest in including them.

    Could it be that the preservation of life of older women, who really aren’t still part of the sex class per the Liberal Boyz, is really not all that important a goal?

  151. octogalore says:

    Additionally, the above discussion re Susan Love misstates her findings. She found that when one group did “formal, ‘religious’ breast self-exam” and the other did “normal poking around,” there was no difference. (See: http://www.lifescript.com/Health/Conditions/Cancer/Breast-cancer/Dr,-d-,_Susan_Love_Breast_Cancer_Myths_Revealed.aspx).

    However, most people view breast self-exam as the same thing as normal poking around. Discouraging the former is going to be problematic if it discourages the latter, which in practice it would do.

  152. yttik says:

    A breast self exam can result in an unscheduled mammogram, an ultra sound, or if that still doesn’t resolve the problem, a biopsy. In many cases a biopsy can be a simple procedure, involving a small needle and a 15 minute office visit. To somehow claim that women should not examine their breasts because doing so might lead to the need for further investigation, is just madness. Well actually no, it’s not madness, it’s applying misogyny to a cost effectiveness model and giving women the shitty end of the stick.

  153. Unree says:

    Much as I hate to like the latest official recommendation, I think it makes yttik’s and octogalore’s point. Knowing your breasts: good. Being aware of their changes: good. Professionalized training to perform BSE once a month and getting dinned in how important it is? Sounds like victim-blaming to me, frontloaded division (cf. “Here’s how you can reduce your risk of getting sexually assaulted by a stranger–avoid bad neighborhoods”). If BSE training benefited women I’d support it, but it doesn’t. And biopsies have detriments as well as benefits.

  154. DT says:

    Michael Moore Blasts House Health Care Bill
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52QtplJGgzQ

  155. Topper Harley says:

    @70 Regarding NAFTA, Robert Reich says:

    a) NAFTA isn’t, in and of itself, bad policy. When mfg jobs get shipped out of the US, they don’t usually get shipped to Mexico, they get shipped to China. Reich states that the issue with free trade in general is that the burden falls on lower SES individuals because the US doesn’t have an effective retraining/job placement safety net.

    b) Hillary’s opposition to NAFTA was practical, not political: She thought the focus should be healthcare reform and that NAFTA was a distraction.

    http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-and-barack-afta-nafta.html

    I think it’s also worth mentioning that the 103rd Congress was solidly Democrat: NAFTA was passed while the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the White House.

    As to your assertion that Bill “turned the economy around”, the official recession in that time period was between Jul ’90 and Mar ’91. GDP growth took off in late ’92, well before Clinton was even elected. The economic growth seen on Clinton’s watch had very little to do with him. It was a mix of lax monetary policy on the part of the Feds, solid Republican (i.e. pro business) control of Congress, and the dot com bubble. It was the latter that created those alleged surpluses that Bush subsequently “squandered”.

  156. Topper Harley says:

    I’m going to throw out some round numbers here:

    The incidence rate of breast cancer for the worst affected group is ~ 1% The false positive rate for mammographies is ~ 10%. A positive mammography result means the subject has an ~ 8% of actually having breast cancer and that ~ 1% of women will be subject to overdiagnosis. The latter group may actually be treated for breast cancer even though they don’t have it.

  157. It’s fun to read old blog posts « Donna Darko says:

    [...] who really should know better. We’re supposed to be putting our heads together to discuss a new feminist/progressive political thingy, but how will that work when people can’t seem to see the big [...]

  158. octogalore says:

    Unree, you’re missing my point. I am talking about breast self-exams, not fancy formal training. As Love’s survey showed, some “poking and prodding” is necessary, while formal training isn’t. Same diff: discouraging self-exams is highly problematic.

  159. teresainpa says:

    As to your assertion that Bill “turned the economy around”, the official recession in that time period was between Jul ‘90 and Mar ‘91. GDP growth took off in late ‘92, well before Clinton was even elected. The economic growth seen on Clinton’s watch had very little to do with him. It was a mix of lax monetary policy on the part of the Feds, solid Republican (i.e. pro business) control of Congress, and the dot com bubble. It was the latter that created those alleged surpluses that Bush subsequently “squandered”.

    Thank you for the republican talking points, I am pretty sure most of us rejected thm in the 1990s.