Sunday, April 27, 2008

Turkey Soup, Or, Why Sexism Should Matter to Dem Men More Than It Does At Present

I'm not windsurfing.

No, really, I'm not windsurfing.

No, I tell you, I'm just NOT windsurfing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Windsurfing, I mean.

You know, it takes a lot of smarts and strength? It's kinda macho?

Unless and until it's spun completely otherwise? As one might completely otherwise spin an actual meritorious martial experience? Well, I'm just a broad so nevermind.

I'm just here making soup, as personal therapy. It might have been chicken soup, and frequently is, but today it's turkey. With vegetables and barley. As I chop, and saute, make things simmer, and str, while continuing not to windsurf, I have time to reflect.

I reflect on having been regaled in blogtopia recently with reminders of how poorly the Dems have done in general elections. I'm not sure why people are reminding me of this, since I need no actual reminders on this subject. (People remind me of a lot of things on the internets tubeses of which I am perfectly well aware, thanks so very much.)

How poorly the Dems have done . . . why would that be, one wonders?

This segues into my sexism theme since it is the Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove Bushist Fascist Propaganda Cadre that has done so well for so long by successfully branding male Democrats as -- well, pussies.


As in gurrrls. Wimps. Cry-babies. Losers. Effetes. Elites. Girlie-men. Smartypant sissies. Weaklings. Hysterics. Whackjobs. Nutbags.

Really, it goes back to the rat-f*ckers, the Canuck letters that turned Ed Muskie suddenly into a snivelling wimp.

Later, it was Mike Dukakis in-a-tank, looking like a Charles Schultz creation. Add soft-on-crime Willie Horton. Dukakis = wimp. Girly-man. Heavens!

Scandal over the insane price of Bill Clinton's haircuts, which proves he's a gurrl.

Hysterics over hysterical-Dean-scream Howard Dean.

Hysterics over the horrid girly price of John Edwards' haircuts, not to mention calling him "The Breck Girl."

Hysterics over patrician smartypants wussy effete ee-leete John "windsurfer" Kerry.

"Autumn Colors" smartypants wussy Al Gore.

You can't disparage someone in the US, at least overtly, for being of color. (You can do a miscegenation tap-dance, a la Harold Ford, certainly.)

But it's a-okay to disparage a man by labelling him as possessing the inherently inferior characteristics of the inherently inferior female class.

It's a-okay, because the belief of female inferiority is widely shared.

Not universally, but widely.

This is why all the sniggering fratboys (and their fratgirl enablers) of our media whore media continue to get away with it.

Why do we allow this to go on?

It is not unreasonable to try to portray one's opponent as weak, or stupid, or ill-informed.

It is wrong to attach a gender label to one's opponent for the sole purpose of disparaging their person.

It is sexist to do as Imus did recently, and call Obama "almost a bigger pussy than she is [referring to Hillary Clinton]."

Have we all had enough of this, one hopes? And if not -- why not?

The G Spot, here.


No Blood for Hubris said...

Yes, and don't bother to accuse me of doing the same thing to Karl Rove because I am well aware of having name-called Karl Rove in conscious solemn celebration of that ongoing sexist tradition.

Anonymous said...

Here is how Karl Rove/GOP thinks about Mr. Barack Obama:

Karl Rove will peg Obama as a do-nothing senator who talked big and achieved little

Republicans feel good about Obama match-up

How Obama Fell to Earth (Mr. Obama is rather weak in general election in key states)

One of the major reasons for Mr. Obama’s recent ascending is that he gets mainstream media’s VIP treatment while the same media have been bashing his opponent harshly almost on a daily basis. Why do the mainstream media boost Mr. Obama? They want him to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, after that they and the right-wing machine will turn against him, to burst the bubble Mr. Obama created around himself, so that a not-strong McCain can easily beat a weak Obama.

Typical examples are AP and Yahoo News: look at the headlines and AP articles at and its Politics section in the past 3 or 4 months:

AP, Yahoo biased news => Affect people’s thinking about Mr. Obama => Jack up his poll numbers while beating down his opponent’s => The polls further affect more people’s views => Boost Mr. Obama’s election results

It seems the mainstream media such as AP have partially worked for Mr. Obama’s campaign for the Democratic Party Primary, and it is an ugly example how the mainstream media manipulate the election results.

For those billions of people around the world watching the US election, what do they think about the words “fair” and “balance” in the world top democracy, the United States of America? Will the people look up the US as their role model of democracy, especially those in the communist China, Cuba or authoritarian Russian?

20 years ago, Michael Dukakis led George H. Bush by double digits, then lost on the Election day. Barack "Empty Suit" Obama will repeat the history. It is amazing how the top Democrats leaders are still in the day-dream.

Let’s look at who the core supporters are for Mr. Obama: the Blacks, young people, and elite white liberals. The Democratic Party is virtually hijacked by Mr. Obama because of fearing to offend the Black voters, while the party does not care losing the support of women voters, senior voters, Latino voters, Jewish voters, Asian voters.., they do not care losing big states, swing states...

Mr. Obama’s candidacy is mainly based on propaganda – most of the other 2008 candidates have worked very hard to serve the country for many years as national leaders, while Mr. Obama’s thin resume forces him to do the lip service for the country and American people, and he blames other candidates for not doing perfect jobs from time to time. Had all US presidents been like Mr. Obama, the United States of American would likely have been still a poor developing country.

Does anyone believe that the independent/GOP voters can be fooled by Mr. Obama’s empty talks, who has few substantial records to back up his rhetoric? Does anyone believe that the majority of voters in the general election will choose a person who has little hands-on experience (creating jobs/economy/financial, military/war, budget/national debt, healthcare, diplomacy, trading, environment, crisis handling…) to lead a country with hundreds of millions of people, the world largest economy, the most powerful military in the world …? “The Emperor’s New Cloth” is a good reading for those who believe it. It is very likely that majority of American voters are smart enough not to elect such an under qualified candidate in the general election, especially those moderate/independent voters.

Historically, Mr. Obama is much weaker than Al Gore/John Kerry in general election:

• Lack of hands-on experience, accomplishments
• There is a lot of water in his poll numbers and election results, the inflated numbers will evaporate as the right-wing machine and the mainstream media turns against him in the general election
• Mr. Obama gets extremely strong support from the Black voters, who account to about 1/3 of the overall voters in the primary, but in general election the Black voters account to less than 1/6 of the totals, the lack of diversified core voters will be Mr. Obama's clay feet in Nov. Mr. Obama is likely to lose much more white and other groups of voters due to backlash than he gains from the Black voters in the general election, which already started to show in recent primary.
• A large portion of the votes/delegates Mr. Obama gets are from the red states in the primary, but he has little chance to win these states in the general election. He claimed he gets majority of the votes - excluding Michigan and Florida. His team and supporters killed all the re-vote efforts because the polls show he can not win either state should re-elections were held, these tactics may give Mr. Obama an upper hand in the short-team, but they are definitely losing strategies in the general election
• In recent 3 contests, TX, OH, PA, Mr. Obama had at least 2:1 money advantages, but these tens of millions of dollars did not buy him a single victory, why? Because his candidacy has little substance. In term of dollar/per vote, Mr. Obama breaks all the records. The general election will be much less friendly, how much money will Mr. Obama throw in the big/key states in order to beat Mr. McCain?
• Mr. Obama gets the least endorsements from the former top military officers among the major candidates - the generals have less confidence in a junior, untested national leader, who may control thousands of nuclear war heads which are capable of destroying the entire human being many times - they have no way to know under extremely tough/stressful situations if Mr. Obama can handle it and make sound decisions. His awkward performance in a less favorable environment at the recent Pennsylvania debate does not bode well, that is why he dares not to have another debate before the North Carolina election, but it will come to light again should he debate Mr. McCain in the future. This kind of tactics is consistent in his campaign: hide all the weaknesses to at least after the primary, so that it will be too late for the Democrats to change causes when the weaknesses are exposed.
• Mr. Obama does not win the majority of the women voters, the senior voters, the Hispanic voters, the Jewish voters, the Asian voters…; he hardly wins any big states, he is rather weak in majority of the key/swing states…No Democratic presidents ever lost so many groups of voters, big states/key states in the primary, and finally won in the general election
• Other issues may not be important in the primary, but can be lethal in the general election:

a. Bitter comments about small towns; patriotism
b. Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ, Louis Farrakhan, James Meeks, Rashid Khalidi
c. Tony Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, William Ayer, Emil Jones
d. Double talk on Iraq (S. Power, Colin Kahl), on NAFTA (Austan Goolsbee); oil money falsehood; sub-prime insider: Penny Pritzker; lobbyists’ money, Excleon
e. Mr. Obama’s legislative records, which can be used to attract conservatives; voting “present”, 129 times in Illinois Senate
f. Bypass public financing of the 2008 presidential campaign

It is very likely that Mr. Obama can manage to win the primary battle but will lose the presidential war in a crushing defeat. The Democratic Party has lost one presidential race after another in the past 40 years except a few, why does not it learn the lessons, especially under very favorite conditions like this year and likely they will lose it again?

Had Mr. Obama waited for 4-8 years: accomplishing something with his hands not only his mouth for the people, getting solid experience, he will be a much stronger candidate and potentially an excellent president. What is the big deal for Mr. Obama to wait for a few years to avoid being another ex-nominee in the rest 40/50 years of his life, like John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern …?

In summary, if he wins the nomination, Mr. Obama will be the least experienced and weakest nominee in history, and he will be defeated in Nov. for sure. The party and country will suffer greatly in the next 4-8 years with Mr. McCain, the third-term Bush, in the White House, and Mr. Obama’s unrealistic ambition, short sight and selfishness will be the root reasons for that.

No Blood for Hubris said...

Sadly, yes.