Obama supporters are easy to fool

Monday, March 22nd, 2010 · 80 Comments »

We knew that already, of course, but I’m struck today by the extent to which it continues to be true. If I were a con artist or running one of those Nigerian letter scams — or, hell, even a tooth-whitening or acai berry racket — I know where I would be targeting my efforts. These people will believe anything.

Like yesterday. Healthcare for Men passed because President Obama issued an Executive Order endorsing and enforcing the sweeping anti-abortion Nelson amendment provisions in the bill. The White House’s amazingly effective mind-control tactic to obscure what was happening was to use the words “longstanding” and “status quo” throughout the language of the Order and the accompanying press statement. No change here, nope. Longstanding…status quo…you’re getting sleeeeeepy….

And damn if the Obama worshippers at Talking Dicks Memo didn’t fall for it. “He’s just reaffirming the status quo!” they cried happily.

Well, no. NOW came out with a blistering statement spelling out just what a massive clusterfuck this really is:

Fact: The bill contains a sweeping anti-abortion provision. Contrary to the talking points circulated by congressional leaders, the bill passed today ultimately achieves the same outcome as the infamous Stupak-Pitts Amendment, namely the likely elimination of all private as well as public insurance coverage for abortion. It imposes a bizarre requirement on insurance plan enrollees who buy coverage through the health insurance exchanges to write two monthly checks (one for an abortion care rider and one for all other health care). Even employers will have to write two separate checks for each of their employees requesting the abortion rider.

This burdensome, elaborate system must be eliminated. It is there because the Catholic bishops and extremist abortion rights opponents know that it will result in greatly restricting access to abortion care, currently one of the most common medical procedures for women.

Fact: President Obama made an eleventh-hour agreement to issue an executive order lending the weight of his office to the anti-abortion measures included in the bill. This move was designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women’s access to abortion. This executive order helps to cement the misconception that the Hyde Amendment is settled law rather than what it really is — an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. It also sends the outrageous message that it is acceptable to negotiate health care reform on the backs of women.

Fact: The bill permits age-rating, the practice of imposing higher premiums on older people. This practice has a disproportionate impact on women, whose incomes and savings are lower due to a lifetime of systematic wage discrimination.

Fact: The bill also permits gender-rating, the practice of charging women higher premiums simply because they are women. Some are under the mistaken impression that gender-rating has been prohibited, but that is only true in the individual and small-group markets. Larger group plans (more than 100 employees) sold through the exchanges will be permitted to discriminate against women — having an especially harmful impact in workplaces where women predominate.

The response over at Talking Dicks Memo? “Oh shut the fuck UP you stupid whiny feminist bitches! Don’t you understand that all Obama did was sign off on the status quo, just like the White House press release told us?”

I really encourage you all to read the thread for yourself. I mean, just in case you were in any doubt about whether so-called “progressive” men really hate women as much as the freakazoids on the right do. They do. They despise us. They think we’re morons. They want us to shut the fuck up so they can get back to gazing adoringly at the giant Obama poster on their bedroom wall.

Okay, here’s my new get-rich-quick scheme: build a scraper to harvest the email addresses off the TPM blog threads….

Filed under: Healthcare Reform, Reproductive Rights · Tags:

80 Responses to “Obama supporters are easy to fool”

  1. Just to be clear – updated « Blue Lyon says:

    [...] Violet’s take: Obama supporters are easy to fool - read it all. She links to NOW’s reaction to the bill and Obama’s executive order. [...]

  2. lambert strether says:

    Chris Bowers, who virtually defines the term “access blogger,” has this to say about the historic HCR (High Corporate Returns) bill:

    I feel sad that it came at the cost of throwing reproductive rights under the bus. Any win that means hurting some of your friends is not a full win.

    (Via). There. See how unfair you are, Violet? Bowers is sad. Never let it be said that our career “progressives” colleagues are without integrity!

  3. votermom says:

    Coathanger Dems.

  4. Morning Coffee – Healthcare Reform Passes…#DANG | Speak to Power says:

    [...] opinions on the whole “Stupak embroglio”. What’s most interesting is that these two posts [...]

  5. gxm17 says:

    The truly sad thing is how many “women” (okay it might be guys calling themselves women) are making anti-women comments. It’s insane. I can’t believe how ignorant these yahoos are.

    Gee, I wonder if Obama will now sign FOCA to show women that he really does support reproductive rights. (As if!)

  6. Alison says:

    I don’t understand this bill on so many levels. The pre-existing condition thing seems like a farce. And doesn’t it force businesses to buy private insurance for their employees? What if a small business cannot afford to do so? Also, forcing citizens to by private insurance? Why-oh-why didn’t they just simply expand Medicaid?

    And the abortion thingy. What if I were to get pregnant, wanted the baby but then something came up where I felt the need to terminate…. Oh, let’s just say my life is in danger, or the fetus is abnormal and I don’t want to have a child with severe disabilities who is likely to die at a young age… What about that?

    Yes, votermom. Coathanger dems indeed.

  7. tinfoil hattie says:

    No surprise here. “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them” (Germaine Greer)

    Yeah, I actually have the full idea.

  8. anna says:

    It’s nice to see NOW actually working to help women again and not blindly worshipping Obama anymore. (Yeah, where were they in 2008- but you can’t blame their newly elected leadership for that one. It’s good to see them back on track.)

  9. ErikZ says:

    The “freakazoids on the right” may hate women, but not a single vote for this bill came from them:


    If you’re really starting a political party, you might want to stop insulting the people who are on your side of an issue.

  10. quixote says:

    I just keep flashing back to your series, Violet: If you vote for Obama, this is what you’re voting for.


    But I have to say the Executive Order to coathanger women surprised me. Not that he’d do it, but that he’d do it so openly.

  11. Lori says:

    James Roosevelt, who is CEO of Tufts Health Care, was also chair person of the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee that chose to dock Florida and Michigan – states Hillary had won – of half their delegates because of bills written and passed by Republican majorities. In Michigan, after court challenges, the law which moved their primary up, passed without a single Democratic vote. In Florida, the Republicans added a clause to win Democratic votes, that mandated paper trails for all electronic voting machines. And the CEO of a health insurance company used those historical actions to dock Florida and Michigan of half their delegates. In Michigan, Obama had taken himself off the primary ballot, and Roosevelt used that as a justification for awarding Obama four of the delegates Clinton had won in that state, and assigning all of the uncommitted delegates to him. These actions cost
    Clinton the nomination. Roosevelt then went on to publish an opinion piece calling for the exact health care plan that has just passed.

    This is a victory for corruption. If you want links to document any of this, I’m happy to provide them.

  12. Alison says:

    Lori, that is fascinating. Do you have a link?

  13. gxm17 says:

    It’s almost funny if it weren’t so tragic, these idiots who are proclaiming that all Obama did was stick to the status quo. Maybe my memory’s not so good but I thought Obama was supposed to be all about Change (with a capital C), which is kinda the opposite of upholding the status quo. Innit?

  14. littleisis says:

    Yeah, Lori, that is fascinating. Give us a link, baby!

  15. Lexia says:

    And by a strange and wonderful coincidence, passport day is March 27th:


    Always useful things to have about the house. Along with vacuum aspirators, cannulas and a few years’ supply of Plan B.

  16. myiq2xu says:

    Good thing McCain/Palin didn’t win, or reproductive rights would be in danger.

  17. Alison says:

    myiq2xu – LOL! I think I’m going to steal that line : )

  18. DancingOpossum says:

    On the plus side, the Democrats will no longer be able to use the Roe stick to beat recalcitrant women over the head with. My only question is whether enough women who still call themselves Democrats will continue to vote for a party that hates them. Sadly, my guess is yes.

  19. Swannie says:

    MICHELLE OBAMA wants to promote health , but HER HUSBAND STILL SMOKES

    now can she?

  20. Monday Link Love: Health Care Reform « The Feminist Texican says:

    [...] March, 2010 Reclusive Leftist: Obama supporters are easy to fool These people will believe anything. Like yesterday. Healthcare for Men passed because President [...]

  21. Kiuku says:

    Yea I guess American Women will have to go back to drowning themselves to kill the fetus. It’s not just abortion women have to buy “riders” for, I’m not convinced. It’s probably a whole array of reproductive care. I’m sure I can’t get birth control on it without spending more money than a man, while his viagra is covered. I’m sure his viagra is covered. I’m sure the problem with communal health insurance, making it communal, has always been that men percieve health care as a way to control women. They would never make health care communal, because they want to make it appear as if you need a man in your life to have your own kid. They get around everyone’s need for communal health care, by making a wordy document that in effect only makes health care communal -for men-. So we still, under the guise of communal healthcare, have to get it through men somehow. By making women’s health care more expensive than men’s, it is again a choice of poverty or servitude to men.

  22. FembotsForObama says:

    LIVID. Livid is all I can really say. Thank goddess that NOW is finally calling this crap and the crap-makers to task.

    Think men would have a different viewpoint if both Viagra and vasectomies were put in the EO. Do they really believe that they would be saying that EOs don’t really count because they aren’t legally binding, they are just like signing statements?

    Please Lori post those links.

    I need to post it to my Facebook page because many of my male friends who I went to Madison with are just like Bowers. Then they called me “whiny” today because I couldn’t bask in the glow of the joy of the lightbringer. pfft.

  23. FembotsForObama says:

    And just to share — here’s what Sen. Feingold is saying today:

    “Today, our country took an historic step toward fixing our broken health insurance system. The House has now taken an up-or-down vote on the Senate reform bill and it passed with majority support.

    Without your sustained efforts, the insurance companies would have won. But they didn’t. A lot of people in Wisconsin and across the country won because we didn’t walk away from this fight.

    President Obama will now sign into law health insurance reform that gives people more control over their own health care. If health insurance companies had won, they would have been able to continue denying coverage to people when they get sick; costs would have continued to increase for small businesses; and higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs would have continued to break the budgets of working families and seniors.”

  24. dandelion says:

    I was both a feminist activist and — yes, for money — a health insurance executive. Until 1979, when federal law mandated it, health plans didn’t cover expense for normal pregnancy and delivery AT ALL. All prenatal care and labor costs were paid by women out of pocket.

    Then in 1979 the law said normal pregnancy had to be covered as an illness. A victory for feminist activists.

    In the 1980s plans did not cover birth control or abortion. That became the new focus of our activism. Most plans didn’t begin to cover these expenses until the 1990s, and some not until the 2000s, when the fact that they covered Viagra but not contraception became too glaring a contradiction.

    So yay! By 2008, after nearly 30 years of pressure on this particular issue, most health plans covered the full reproductive needs of women.

    Now we go backwards. It’s not just the rollback of rights — it’s the spit in the eye to the women who worked very long and very hard to get that coverage that pisses me off.

    Chris Bowers at Open Left feels “sad” that women’s rights had to be thrown under the bus.

    I’m so angry I could spit nails.

    Would progressives countenance HCR if it also had to come with, for example, exclusions on HIV-related expenses, or exclusions on Tay-Sachs expenses, or sickle cell anemia expenses? Would they holler at the unjust segregation and othering of a group of people? I’m damn sure they would.

    But the loss to to women — oh, it’s just sad. I’m sure Chris Bowers wiped away a small tear or two for women. And then forgot about it.

    And now I see they’re placing all blame on Stupak. But as I read it, the EO has Obama’s name on it.

  25. datechguy says:

    The two questions are this:

    1. If you think that Obama and the democrats are using you, are you prepared to vote for a different party or sit out in 2010 and/or 2012?

    2. If the answer to the previous question is “no” then why should they care what you think?

  26. gmanedit says:

    Impressive argument that poor women don’t need abortions. Theda Skocpol said: “Abortions are far from the most important health service women and their families need. . . .” (bluebell replied, “Even my Catholic mother of six aunt (a social worker) could tell you why a 12 year old girl might find an abortion to be the very most important healthcare service she needs.”)

    They refuse to acknowledge that pregnancy isn’t a one-day wonder. Did these (alleged) women never miss a period?

  27. Sameol says:

    I’m trying to wrap my head around the phrase “some of our friends.” What does that even mean? It means, of course, that Bowers has a completely male-centric worldview where progressives are men and leaders are men and everyone who matters is a man, but it sounds as if the Amandas and Jessicas have been demoted from the ladies’ auxiliary to abstract concepts who may or may not even exist. Odd phrase.

  28. dandelion says:

    Debcoop, a poster at Open Left, says that Obama tried to get Pelosi to add Stupak into the HCR bill via a side maneuver. The pro-choice caucus revolted, and that was scrapped. The Stupak bloc was crumbling at Pelosi’s whip count, and then Obama stepped in and offered Stupak the EO, something the pro-choice caucus could do nothing about. The poster says she personally was there as this was happening.

    This is ALL on Obama. ALL of it.


  29. Violet Socks says:

    Sameol @27, I had exactly the same reaction. “Our friends.” Makes it clear who “us” is — and isn’t.

  30. Carmonn says:

    “something the pro-choice caucus could do nothing about”

    There was plenty the pro choice caucus could have done about it. They could have followed through on their threat and torpedoed the bill. It’s not as if they made a deal and Obama went back on it and betrayed them after they’d held up their end. It wasn’t a secret, it was being openly discussed in the press 3 days before the vote. They knew very well that passage of the bill would be followed by the Executive Order.

    In fact, there are conflicting reports about this, but some are saying that the caucus members acually came up with the idea of removing the amendment and substituting the Executive Order, even helping to write it, so they could claim it was out of their hands. I’m not one to blame the women more than the men, and there’s certainly enough blame to go around here, but whatever the circumstances they didn’t exaactly cover themselves in glory. There are probably more anti-choice than pro-choice votes in Congress, they’ll never win a straight up-and-down vote on reproductive rights. If they don’t leverage their power in other ways when the opportunity arises, they’re going to get rolled every time, even without their own active collusion.

  31. gxm17 says:

    datechguy, I used to be a lifelong Democrat but I stopped voting for the “D”s in 2008. I’m not sure if I’ll sit out 2010 like I sat out 2009 (and, lo and behold, the Dem candidate for VA governor lost), but I know one thing for sure: I will NOT be voting for any Democrat. And if I’m as disgusted as I am today, I will be casting protest votes for Republicans. Hey, at least I know where you guys are coming from. I’d rather deal with someone who wants to attack me head-on than a lying POS who wants to stab me in the back.

  32. Kiuku says:

    I’m pretty sure we voted for hillary. I’m pretty sure Hillary had the majority of votes and Obama was still the card played, because of men, who then got around the problem of communal healthcare covering women too, by making health care only for themselves.

  33. Shez ZK says:

    Let’s make sure we ask Chris Bowers when the last time is exactly that he worried about missing his period or had his pap smear come back positive. While he makes 23% less on the dollar. Asshat. Buy him a cluebat.

    I’ve been enjoying the threads over at Thus Spake Zuska on *Mansplainin*. Normally I don’t like it when people use the word douche as a slur, but they use the word dOOdche. Cracked me up. Fits for Bowers and his dumbass ilk.

    Time to put in some bills on the menz, for us to control their reproductive medical issues and decisions for them. We could call it Stupak’s Scrotums or some such, and flood Congress with these parity fuckover bills. Not for *some* of our male “friends” but for all of them. Their pissin and moanin would be ear splitting.
    Some claim they understand but they won’t truly get it until it is a real law, like we have to suffer through.

    Oh for cripes sakes, watching the news. A Repub from TX yelled out “baby killer” about the health bill on the house floor and he ended up having to apologise to Stupak as he took it personally? That logic doesn’t compute.

    The MI prez for NOW was on a BlogTalkRadio show the other night. I asked about Connie Saltonstall that is running in MI-1 against Stupak. She said they had a press release ready or just sent out to support Connie, so they are on it. My tribe is located in his district and all my maternal relatives live up there. I just might be spending some extra time up in the Upper Peninsula this summer and fall to make sure I can help him lose.

    And Lynette Long was the Guest last Monday night, so we got a preview of the new EvE site then. Love it. As soon as I saw the site I wondered if it was your handiwork. I was delighted to find out on here this was the project you’ve been working on Violet.

  34. Suzanne says:

    “On the plus side, the Democrats will no longer be able to use the Roe stick to beat recalcitrant women over the head with….”

    Don’t you believe it, Dancing Opossum. The chutzpah of the righteous liberal male knows no bounds, and the Roe scare tactics will be back in 2012.

  35. lambert strether says:

    Violet, the Obama loyalists aren’t fooled at all. They want to throw women and elders under the bus, and so they are. This is a feature, not a bug. Didn’t the primaries teach you anything?

  36. octogalore says:

    Datechguy has a valid point. I think liberal women are very likely to vote Democratic no matter what — even if they are fiscally conservative or moderate but socially liberal. I voted Republican for the first time in 08 but because of Republican social policies (strangely, not looking all that different from Dem ones these days) I don’t identify as a Republican. Given how most other socially liberal women are more fiscally liberal than I am, I can only imagine that as hard as it was for me to justify my defection (no problem with that now however), it would seem unconscionable to many others.

    BTW, I love the EVE concept and site, Violet. A worthy initiative for your considerable skills. I cringe every time my daughter drags home her history book with the array of male president headshots. We left halfway through the tour of a school that had all male scientists pictured in the science classroom and a signup for lunch duty inviting “moms” to sign up (of course, the other half had to have these things pointed out).

  37. Sameol says:

    Has anyone noticed that a meme that seems to be popping up here and there is that the progressives really “owe” Bart Stupak? Because clearly, he hasn’t already been rewarded nearly enough. I’m afraid to wonder what they’re setting us up for now.

  38. octogalore says:

    When Obama opined that the choice issue was “above my pay grade” during the primaries, it should have been eyes wide open for the NOW crowd. I’m underwhelmed at the sudden discovery that he isn’t exactly Feminist of the Year. They can make up my donation from the dudes at Daily Kos — good luck with that.

    Obama has said that this bill is a stepping stone to government dominance of healthcare. If government cannot fund abortion, then logically the end result is that no women will have funding for abortion. That doesn’t sound like status quo to me. Well, he did promise change…

  39. Violet Socks says:

    lambert, maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I think what goes on is a kind of willing self-delusion. Progressive dudes like to congratulate themselves that they’re “pro-feminist,” and so they willingly glom on to any convenient fiction that maintains that illusion. Deep down they hate our fucking guts, of course, which comes out very clearly when we dare to complain that they’re screwing us over. But this is how deep-seated misogyny co-exists with a top-of-mind self-delusion that one is oh-so-feminist-and-progressive.

  40. datechguy says:

    In fairness I should point out that we on the anti-abortion side believe that Mr. Stupak bought a pig in a poke so one of us is wrong in our opinion on what the order means.

    But #31 I do agree an honest disagreement is always better, honestly fosters respect and when one has respect then you can have dialogue.

    One of the reasons I like coming here is I’ve always been treated with respect even though I am on most issues (particularly abortion) as far on the other side as you can get. It speaks very well of Violet and all who come here.

  41. Kiuku says:

    “Deep down they hate our fucking guts, of course”

    Of course. You see the effort they put into maitaining the illusion that they do every-fucking-thing, and then are dumb enough to believe their own fantasies, thus fueling the cyclical nature of their hatred of women. I hate women, therefore I erase women from everything, and pretend I did it, and then I believe I do everything, therefore women are worthless complainers and I can hate them, because I do everything, when really I do nothing at all.

  42. octogalore says:

    Sameol — I would bet that Connie Saltonstall, the pro-choice Dem who is primarying Stupak, will mysteriously back down after an agreed-upon period of time. And no, I don’t think it will have been voluntary. Hopefully, I’m wrong.

  43. Adlai\\\'s Cousin says:

    octogalore says:
    Obama has said that this bill is a stepping stone to government dominance of healthcare. If government cannot fund abortion, then logically the end result is that no women will have funding for abortion. That doesn’t sound like status quo to me. Well, he did promise change…

    No abortions? I remember that era. Time to stop having sex, ladies. :)

    Or maybe we should contact the Mexican drug lords and point out to them how much more lucrative it would be if they switched to the abortion business. After all Mexico allows first trimester abortions…

  44. angie says:

    “Deep down they hate our fucking guts, of course”

    Sadly, Violet, it isn’t that “deep-down” anymore.

  45. Artemis March says:

    in response to the continued “surprise” and “shock” of the pro-choice delusionals about ozero being their friend and ally, I posted this comment at women’s media center which featured an article by jen nedeau

    This is what i said in my comment still awaiting moderation:
    I have never understood why Obama is misperceived by the Right as so extremely pro-abortion, or why so many women and women’s groups like NARAL believed for one second that he would be an ally for women’s health, rights to bodily self-determination, or anything else that underwrites women’s being human beings instead of the property of men or the state. If they wanted progress for women, they should have stood up en masse for Hillary, not been seduced by her opponent who gave her the finger.

    The only “right” on which he has spoken out firmly is Muslim women’s “right” to wear hijab. In Cairo he told us that women’s rights are something to be debated, and condescended that daughters could contribute just as much as sons. Women’s rights are debatable? His choosing Rick Warren (physical abuse and battery is no excuse/grounds for women to seek/get a divorce) for his inauguration should have opened the eyes of these foolish liberal women. Choosing the anti-abortion, anti-contraception Alexia Kelley to oversee HHS faith-based gran-tmaking should not have caught the pro-choice movement by surprise. I wasn’t surprised, why were they? Because I see him clearly, and they do not.

    Over and over again, Obama’s behavior has sent a clear message: he is deeply and emotionally aligned with fundamentalist Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims who deny women the basic rights of bodily integrity and self-determination.

    Obama has been consistent in only one respect: repeatedly throwing women under the bus. In obamaworld, patriarchal religion and patriarchal culture always trump women’s rights, needs, and dignity. Bro’s before ho’s. Got it?

  46. cellocat says:

    I got into an argument with a friend today, the same one who told me that if I voted for McCain I shouldn’t tell her, because it might end our friendship of almost 3 decades. She told me that when I described the HCR as a “stinking pile of shit” I was being disrespectful, and was clearly not open to compromise.

    I don’t know what to say to her. How is it ok to sacrifice women’s rights for anything? And yet, she is liberal, calls herself a feminist.

    I am, again, depressed and enraged. Even though I saw this coming and knew it was so likely.

    The EO is a huge middle finger in the face. And almost no one cares.

  47. Violet Socks says:

    Artemis, never underestimate the mighty power of self-delusion. The Obama-worshipping feminists are still at it. The latest? The Executive Order is okay because Obama didn’t really mean it.

    No, I’m not shitting you. This was in my feministblogs reader this morning:

    Stupak and company may have been satisfied by dunking Obama’s head in the toilet until they obtained a symbolic gesture of woman-hating from him that they and we know he doesn’t mean, but let’s face it.

    No surprise, though. When one has completely abdicated one’s feminist ideals because of a crush on My Pony Barack, to the point of explicitly advocating sexism as an appropriate tool against other women, then one’s psychological investment in preserving the illusion that Obama was worth it is, shall we say, overwhelming.

  48. lambert strether says:

    Violet writes: lambert, maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I think what goes on is a kind of willing self-delusion.

    OK, doublethink (and my comment was partly snark). But I’m not sure whether we need to reverse engineer doublethink out of the doubletalk, or not. It’s at least simpler to model the motivations as fear and disgust. I’d also bet that the higher up one goes in the career “progressive” heirarchy, the more conscious the motivation.

  49. Nessum says:

    Re Lori’s comment @ 11, did anyone ever find out what led to giving Obama 4 of Hillary’s votes in Michigan? Why 4? To me it didn’t seem like a random number. Anyone knows?

    To realize how Obama really feels about women, just take a look at how he treated the two women who brought him up. Or how he mentions them only when he can use them to his own advantage. I believe Hillary Clinton has praised his mother more often than he ever has!

    And when he told the press to back off Palin’s single-mother-to-be pregnant daughter, he didn’t do it out of concern for the young woman. I’m sure it had more to do with his own background. It somehow came too close to home.

    Or listen to his dumb-ass, and in effect condescending, cocky remarks about his wife, when she is standing right next to him. It is none of my business how those two communicate in private, but I cringe when the POTUS officially makes such remarks about (as if she isn’t even present!) his own wife. And it tells me plenty about his view of women.

    Or what about his continuing preference for photo-ops while eating fast food? Telling the media exactly what he is eating french fries, mayonnaise etc. Isn’t that like giving Michelle, and her project fighting obesity, the finger? To me that’s exactly what he’s doing. Diminishing the importance of the “little woman”‘s “sideshow”.

    Apologies for the rant, but I’m so pissed about the blindness of so many women!

  50. gxm17 says:

    Artemis @ 45, you are right on. As I posted on TC, Obama began his (national) war against women in 2008, and his has not shown any sign of letting up. He tapped into America’s undercurrent of woman-hate and his followers see nothing wrong with their misogyny, as a matter of fact they appear to relish it.

    A woman voting for Obama is as misguided as an African American voting for David Duke. Unfortunately there are way too many women who don’t realized that embracing woman-haters does not get you a pass. They are digging their own graves and just don’t realize the hole is for them too.

  51. gxm17 says:

    Violet @ 47, someone needs to remind Amanda that if Obama “doesn’t mean it” then maybe he’d do something constructive, pro-woman and pro-choice like, say, sign the Freedom of Choice Act while he still has a majority. Dayum, but her level of delusion must require an extraordinary amount of effort.

  52. votermom says:

    Ugh. I was just explained to on lj that since I am a Filipina I don’t know sh*t about the bill and am just parroting.

  53. Delphyne says:

    OMG votermom – whoever said that to you is a fucking imbecile.

  54. votermom says:

    Oh, apparently it’s a Filipino GUY. Probably trying to rein in his race’s wimmenz.

  55. DancingOpossum says:

    “The chutzpah of the righteous liberal male knows no bounds”

    Indeed, Suzanne, you are right. The rhetoric from the boyz on the blogz has been mind-blowing, and I thought I was immune to most casual, mindless, unthinking misogyny. The vitriol they are dishing out to us for daring to object to our rights being taken away is unlike anything I’ve ever witnessed. Since the primaries, anyway.

    “Bro’s before ho’s. Got it?”

    Yup. We ALL saw it in Obama, from day one. We were RIGHT. I do not want to hear one g**damn f***ing word from Katha Pollitt, Naomi Wolf, Digby, or any one of these supposed “liberal” and “feminist” women who shilled nonstop for Obama and for this rotten bill, not one.

    Nor do I want to hear one word about it when we go to war with Iran, or discover that our Nobel Peace Antiwar Preznit is actually a bloodthirsty warmonger.

    Chris Floyd links to this heartbreaking article from the Times UK, showing what a masterful job Obama is doing bring peace and democracy and equality and all that other good stuff to the men and women of Afghanistan:

    Covert troops who killed two pregnant women and a teenage girl in eastern Afghanistan went on to inflict “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” on the survivors of a botched night raid, a report by the UN said.

    The family of the victims in Paktiya province have accused Nato of trying to cover up the atrocity after an investigation by The Times revealed that two men, who were also killed, were not the intended targets of the raid. One was a police commander and his brother was a district-attorney.

    …The report, written in the aftermath of the February 12 attack, states: “As a result of the operation, five people were killed, two men and three women, all belonging to the same family.” There were about 25 guests and three musicians at the house on the night of the raid. They had gathered to celebrate the naming of a newborn child.


    Read it and weep, Obamabots.

  56. octogalore says:

    Cellocat, anyone who would end a friendship over your vote isn’t really a friend and the only loss is hers.

    As long as both of you feel that you are people of conscience who basically want many of the same things, disagreeing about the best methodology isn’t the reason a true friend should walk away.

    For all that faux internet friends gave me shit about my vote, all but one of the people I viewed as my true friends (most offline, some online) stuck. And, most of them are liberal in all respects.

    Interestingly, the majority of my liberal friends are now so jaundiced about Obama that, while they typically reluctantly side with him, they don’t have the same issues with my not doing so on various occasions that they had during the election.

    Don’t be depressed. She’s no feminist if she doesn’t understand your logic and if she would cast off a strong woman ally and friend over something like this.

  57. tinfoil hattie says:

    If you’re really starting a political party, you might want to stop insulting the people who are on your side of an issue.

    Someone who was against this bill’s passing is not necessarily on my “side” of the issue. Republicans have entirely different reasons for opposing the bill than I did.

  58. scott says:

    One of the really maddening parts about all this is that it was so unnecessary. People were mad as hell in 2008 about how our political and economic “leaders” had badly served us. If the administration and Congress had held hearings and made the case that the insurers and providers were looting us relative to any other indistrialized country, and that the government needed to step in to stop the looting, we might have had a shot at genuine reform. A genuine moral case for reform that would have energized lots of people and that would have made it unnecessary to sell out to the anti-choice folks, Big Phrma, the insurers, etc. They didn’t have to do it this way, at all. But they did. Why?

  59. alwaysfiredup says:

    Someone who was against this bill’s passing is not necessarily on my “side” of the issue. Republicans have entirely different reasons for opposing the bill than I did.

    March 23rd, 2010 at 11:15 am EST

    Very true. But occasionally, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Today we are allies. If government does not control all healthcare, then it cannot arrogate to itself a woman’s right to choose.

  60. Alison says:


    I got into a similar argument with a FB friend. She is very angry with me for linking to a FireDogLake article that goes through the myths and reality of the bill. I was told it was “fuzzy math” and that in showing my disdain for the bill I am attempting to deny health coverage to millions of americans and thus risking lives and causing death.

    I was also told that the bill has no “real” consequences for women.

    Oh, and I was accused of being a Republican!

    Find day it has been. Now off to schedule a root canal. Oh joy.

  61. Nadai says:

    They didn’t have to do it this way, at all. But they did. Why?

    Because they wanted to do it this way. Because they’re bought and paid for by the insurers, the pharmaceutical industry, the major hospital chains, the money men on Wall Street, etc. The whole damned lot of them are bought and paid for. We aren’t their true constituents – the corporations are.

  62. sharon says:

    I knew I could count on Violet for a scathing commentary on our country’s anti-women-dressed-up-as-healthcare-for-all shenanigans. Unfortunately, at the end of it, I am left with the question of who really does advocate for women? It’s been a while since I had my baby, but my company gave me ‘maternity leave’ that was actually 6 weeks of disability pay. I was disabled from having a child. I have health insurance now, but am one of those in California that has Anthem, so my premiums went up 30% while I have no coverage for breast cancer (need a rider for that) or maternity, should I get pregnant again (need a rider for that too). I guess I’d better stock up on Plan B (not covered under my insurance). However, I am still stuck on who advocates or me, or millions of other women? NARAL – no. They endorsed Obama, as did NOW. I appreciate them calling out the Boyz now, but it’s too late, isn’t it? Dems turned their backs on us in 2008, openly, so I can’t go there. Conservative women, in the form of Palin, don’t offer women many alternatives.

    Darn it, where’s the women’s party? Where’s the place we can go to ensure that whether we need maternity care or pregnancy prevention, it will be there for us? Where’s the place where we can go to stop society from training our girlz to be parts for boyz? Where’s the group trying to help out working moms and single women to advance in the workplace without penalizing us on ‘qualifications’? I love this notion that if only women were more qualified, they’d achieve equal status with men. That notion keeps us from achieving office too, didja notice?

    Where’s OUR party?

  63. tata says:


    And if I’m as disgusted as I am today, I will be casting protest votes for Republicans.

    A protest vote for a Republican candidate is indistinguishable from: a vote for a Republican candidate. It accomplishes the same result: electing a Republican. If you vote Green or Socialist, which is where your beliefs probably lie anyhow, that is clearly a vote in protest of and to the left of Democratic policies.

    Walk away from the Democrats. They have shown you everything you need to know about their priorities.

  64. votermom says:

    Because they wanted to do it this way. Because they’re bought and paid for by the insurers, the pharmaceutical industry, the major hospital chains, the money men on Wall Street, etc. The whole damned lot of them are bought and paid for. We aren’t their true constituents – the corporations are.

    This is the most important object lesson for me. Nothing good can come from DC unless and until we fix the K Street problem.
    I think McCain was the only one to ever bring it up in 2008; not saying he’s sincere.

  65. Lori says:

    Okay, here is the link as to how the primaries got moved up. It will make you sick to your stomach:

  66. Lori says:

    Here’s an article on the ghastly Rules and Bylaws Decision:

  67. Lori says:

    And here is James Roosevelt giving Obama his marching orders:

  68. myiq2xu says:

    a symbolic gesture of woman-hating from him that they and we know he doesn’t mean

    Kool-aid is a helluva drug.

  69. purplefinn says:

    “Obama supporters are easy to fool”

    Violet, this is a brilliant title. While one might be tempted to say something harsher, this is scathingly accurate.

  70. tinfoil hattie says:

    Today we are allies. If government does not control all healthcare, then it cannot arrogate to itself a woman’s right to choose.

    We’re not allies. I believe health care should be provided through Medicare for everyone.

  71. myiq2xu says:

    this is scathingly accurate

    And self-evident. If they weren’t easy to fool, they wouldn’t be Obama supporters.

  72. FembotsForObama says:

    @46 cellocat — I fear this is coming up for me too. I’m just gonna have to point out to them that Obama had a choice about Stupak, and he chose to f**k women over. I’m starting with the promise of FOCA which still hasn’t happened (and what I think some feminists are still “hoping” for to happen), and then, explain clearly how Obama did take the time, and without haste, to do the F**k Women’s Rights Act and ensured that he used the word “segregation in it, effectively regulating us to “chattel” status. This is all I can do at this point besides show them NOW”s statement.

    Alison @60 — don’t stop with the FB posts. I’m finally getting through to some blockheads after I posted The New REpublic’s article confirming that ObamaCare is RomneyCare.

    OT, sorta — One personal victory, I was able to explain and convince my hubby why Obama’s signing of an EO was a middle finger to feminist women. This was after I explained to him the history of feminism and the inherent struggles over the decades mostly for healthcare coverage and prochoice issues to the current assault by prolifers to ban birth control. Especially, pointed out the double whammy on women who can be charged more, and the elderly (who are mostly women). He had voted for Hillary, but he really didn’t get the “women’s issues” stuff. Now he does, and luckily for me he is pissed off about the EO and the health insurance bill too. It’s making dinnertime much easier. Now I vent, and he agrees instead of silently sinking into the paper reading.

  73. Back Bay Style says:

    No, Violet I actually didn’t have any doubt that “fauxgressive” men hate women more than traditional men. They simply think our issues are not important. These are the guys who spawned the “second wave” by making the antiVietnam era women get them coffee, so why should we be surprised? Feminism is an issue they simply skipped over.

  74. AliciaP. says:

    I am horrified about what this E.O. will mean for women in domestic violence situations. These “extra” riders that need to be purchased are not going to be available to them. Abusers control, that’s what they do. They control the money and if at all possible they try very hard to get a woman pregnant before they really start to abuse full swing. This is going to make it SO much harder for women to leave, to get out of these situations.

    More women WILL die because of this. I saw someone say in a comments section today “oh big deal! An abortion is 250 to 650 dollars.” Do they have ANY idea what happens in these situations where a woman is so controlled. Hell, they compare what women go through in these situations to cult control. You have NO say so over money or even your own thinking process after a while.

    So many horrifying remarks about this without any thought to the far reaching implications and lives impacted. Volunteer in a shelter this year or donate. It’s going to get bloodier and harder out there for these women who already had zilch going for them at home, in the courts, and now this.

    This is not an accidental feature of the bill..this is the point. Ignore inequality, make it worse on purpose and then by god celebrate what you have done. Obama you fucker, you might as well have signed this bill in women’s blood.

    Kristof, touting this bill was a shocker. Is he that stupid to think that the very women he says he defends will not be harmed unto death in some cases by this? This is letting men control a woman’s body even more in the most horrific situations.

  75. tinfoil hattie says:

    @sharon62: Congratulations on the baby! Hope you are both doing well.

    I too had the “6 weeks disability leave” crap. And, it was really on 5 weeks (I forget why).

    In my dream world, the Women’s Party also advocates for women to have HELP at home after giving birth. For MONTHS.

  76. Adlai\'s Cousin says:

    Sharon asks, “Where’s OUR party,” the pro women’s party.

    We are here on this board and over at the Confluence. That’s a start.

    Women are over 50% of our population.

    We need to take a lesson from the crusaders of the 1970s and get to actively networking to change the laws, the proportions of corporate heads, the numbers of women in the House and Senate (while screening out the sell out women’s rights Nancy Pelosi types) and the kind of persons needed in the White House and the Supreme Court.

    Women need an active recognized voting PARTY. In other words, we need to use our numbers to take over.

    The men can’t fix our country and they’ve had 200 years to do it. Maybe the women can mix and fix.

  77. Swannie says:

    My friend Carol , being a songwriter ,is often succinct. She just tweeted …
    If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, if you don’t like your healthcare plan, you still have to keep it .

  78. gxm17 says:

    AliceP. @ 74, The trivializing of women’s health care is just one more way they control and disappear us. And these notions (it’s easy to get an abortion, it’s cheap, etc.) thoroughly infest our androcentric culture. The idea that women’s health, women’s bodies and women’s lives are expendable is toxic. And this bill puts it into law. Which, as Terry O’Neill rightly pointed out, is tragic.

  79. cellocat says:

    Octogalore, I hear you, but I can’t just write this particular friend off. I love her deeply; she’s family, more or less. But this does feel eerily similar to a decision a friend of mine and I made quite a number of years ago to avoid discussions of religion, as they went nowhere good. The zeal for optimism expressed by this friend and other Obama supporters I know is not really answerable. She said to me, “I just can’t share the rage”, like I WANT to be feeling this way and for her to feel it too, like it’s a drug. *sigh*

    On the plus side, my husband now says that he agrees that voting for Obama was a mistake. And he, like FemBotsforObama’s hubby above, no longer sinks into his computer when I rant. And he’s starting to see sexim in the world more clearly and to take it personally on behalf of our one year old daughter. So, feeling on more or less the same page with one’s partner helps.

    But I still am astonished that we can be living in this world, where supposed feminists dismiss the EO as no big deal, or as another move in the mystery chess game being played in the White House.

  80. Cranky Old Coot (Bob Doublin) says:

    I read Andrea Dworkin’s Right Wing Women around Christmas. When I got to the part where she discusses how Left Wing men use the issue of abortion to keep women in line and how when it’s to their advantage they won’t hesitate to do away with it, I immediately flashed on “the Stupak Amendment”!!She was right about so many things.Leave it to the Left to use the importance of accessible healthcare as the wedge to screw over women.Why,it’s almost as if it were planned that way.