Wow! Women Writers CAN Be Total Utter Sexist Pigs! Who Knew?

It's late. I shouldn't be writing this.

But really, one just CAN'T MISS this here article in Slate by Dahlia Lithwick:


THE DISTURBING RISE OF THE HILLARY HARRIDANS

To which this here blogger, who is clinging to PUMA Obamism by the very very very very slenderest of threads, a thread made only way way more slender-er by reading articles like this, replies with this historic trifecta:

BLUDGEON ME NOT WITH ROE V. WADE.YOU DON'T OWN ME

And the ever-popular: IT'S MY PARTY AND YOU'LL CRY IF I WANT 2 . . .

Why?

Because I've said it all before, and (sigh) I guess I'm saying it all again.



("Yo, Dahlia Lithwick. Harridan here. You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?")


Don't forget the divine Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy on Obamawin's Law.

No VP For You, Hilly -- AND It's All Your Fault!!

Oh, lookee, boys and girls!

Here's a great -- and so WELL-TIMED -- hit-piece on Hillary!

Wow!

It's like Golden Oldies Night, replaying the top ten Obamist anti-Hillary smears!

I have like SUCH nostalgia happening!

Gimme some spin.

You want Hillary for VP? No way!

She's -- RACIST.

She's -- INCOMPETENT.

She's -- TOXIC.

She's -- TOTALLY OUTTA CONTROL.

Just in case you were wondering why presumptive nominee Barack Obama, who is not man enough to run with Hillary, is still not man enough to run with Hillary.

; )



----
Plus: "If the witch is dead, why is The Atlantic trying to drown her?"

And a reprise: Fucked In The Head
Watch

Kudos to Vast LeftWing Conspiracy.

Update: So maybe they'll "let" Hillary be nominated after all? Isn't that the rulez? Or are they just flogging a Dead Unity Pony?

Obama: Just Not Man Enough to Run With Hillary

It's pretty stupid for a presumptive nominee not to run with someone who would pretty much guarantee a Democratic landslide in the fall, don't you think?

So, why is Obama being stupid?

Why is Obama not happily, eagerly, throughtfully, planfully, excitedly, passionately offering Hillary Clinton the VP spot?

It makes no sense, does it?

He doesn't need 18 million votes?

His ego is too fragile?

He's scared that Hillary Clinton might, periodically, both outshine him and outthink him?

And he just doesn't want to be out-shone nor out-thunk? So he's willing to put the outcome of the election at greater risk to prop up his (male?) ego?

That would be a sure sign of Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome, sweetie. A troubling thought. Makes him look weak. Makes him look like a Schwartzenegger girlie-man. Makes him look like a total, well --- pussy.

Barack Obama needs to cowboy up for the good of the Democratic Party.

He needs to clean up his act.

Obama's current behavior is completely unacceptable. The pandering to the right, screwing up on FISA, backpedalling on choice, calling the Clintons racists, failing to address his sexism, not backing single payer health care, etc. etc.

Wimping out on naming Hillary VP is the worst of his worst, and this failure alone may cost the Democrats the election.

Look how things are shaping up:

In the two months since Barack Obama captured the Democratic nomination, he has hit a ceiling in public opinion polling, proving unable to make significant gains with any segment of the national electorate.

While Obama still leads in most matchups with John McCain, the Illinois senator’s apparent stall in the polls is a sobering reminder to Democrats intoxicated with his campaign’s promises to expand the electoral map beyond the boundaries that have constrained other recent party nominees.

That gap between expectations and reality comes as Democrats enjoy the most favorable political winds since at least 1976. At least eight in ten Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. The Republican president is historically unpopular. From stunning Democratic gains in party registration to the high levels of economic anxiety, Obama should have a healthy lead by almost every measure. Yet, in poll after poll, Obama conspicuously fails to cross the 50 percent threshold.

ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer asked, “If everything is so good for Barack Obama, why isn’t everything so good for Barack Obama?”

Will Obama be getting over himself anytime soon?

Will Obama be growing some cojones anytime soon?

And if not, why not?

.

------
And here's Big Tent Democrat on Another Reason Why Obama Should Choose Hillary as VP.
Here's VastLeftwingConspiracy on the Huge Unseen Elephant in the Democratic Party Room where Unity Pony was supposed to be.
Here's Alegre on why this race is so close when it shouldn't be.
Here's Anglachel on male privilege and the Edwards story: Yes, it is about the f*cking.
And here's Obama backpedalling on choice. Let's do fill the universe with more unwanted children who can grow up to be miserable and/or criminal and/or murderous like Ted Bundy, Osama, and Dirty Bush, eh?

Lock 'Em Up At Gitmo,and Throw Away the Key (Along With the Constitution Which Is Just A Piece of Paper)

GITMO DETAINEES SUBJECT TO DETENTION EVEN IF ACQUITTED

Some detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will likely never be released because of the danger they pose, and those tried and acquitted will still be subject to continued detention as enemy combatants, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, made the remarks as Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni, awaited a verdict in the first war crimes trial to be held under a special regime created for "war on terror" suspects.

Morrell said Hamdan, a former driver of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, could appeal the verdict in US courts.

"But in the near term, at least, we would consider him an enemy combatant and still a danger and would likely still be detained for some period of time thereafter," he said.

Morrell said there were plans for at least 20 more such trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba but he said a significant portion of the detainees being held there would neither be tried nor released.

He said efforts were being made to reduce the size of the population through transfers of prisoners to their home countries for incarceration or release.

"But I think, you know, there are still a significant population within Guantanamo who will likely never be released because of the threat they pose to the world, for that matter," he said.

Yes, Hitler's driver, too, was a horrible threat to world peace. As is the whole concept of the um, rule of law.



More here.

It's All Our Fault If Obama Loses, BTW, Sweeties

Yuh, in case you were wondering.

They're so cute, the Obamists, are they not, when they're trying to shove Party Unity Pony, spandex spangles and all, down your throat?

How about this lil' lady's piece, right , here, from The New Republic.
Watch out. It's proudly sexist and ageist, which seem to be hallmarks of the New Faux Liberalism.

She calls it "Clinton Dead-Enders and the Crisis in the Women's Movement."

"Clinton Dead-Enders"?

What a charmer!

Why would I not support your boundless contempt, eh?


Oh, and here's CNN covering up Obama going golfing while the stupid bitch finally calls it quits. CNN tried to cover it up, because, you know, maybe it makes him look, well, you know, insensitive or Bush-like or something?

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Hillary Electability Tsunami?

Via Hominid Views.

Hillary Trounces McCain Who Beats Obama.


Hillary Clinton v. McCain
100.0% Probability of Winning of Clinton winning against 0.0% Probability for McCain


Obama v. McCain

51.8% Probability of McCain winning against 47.4% Probability for Obama


Yes, yes, yes. I know. "Winning isn't everything!"

WWTSBQ?

Thanks -- For The Vitriol

Let's talk a bit about what really makes us angry, boys and girls.

And WHO makes us really really angry.

And guess what --it's NOT the person(s) who are responsible for a war based on lies that killed 700+ sentient beings, for morally and fiscally bankrupting the country, for shredding the constitution, for deliberately drowning competent government so that more actual people actually die, and for making torture socially acceptable, among other things.

No, we're actually not hot under the collar about any of those things. Sadly enough.

No, someone ELSE makes us really really angry.

Let's talk a bit about Faux-Liberal Manichean Hysterical Vitriol Syndrome, ok?

It's the Faux-Liberal version of Ebola.

See, while the Ebola virus just makes you bleed out through every pore of your skin while you puke out your guts, sh*t yourself, and die in agony, the Faux-Liberal Manichaean Hysterical Vitriol Syndrome makes every thought you ever had SUDDENLY COME OUT AS IF YOU WERE TYPING IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME.

as in -- WWTSBQ HILLARY RACIST BILL RACIST WORSE THAN BUSH RFK RFK PLOTTING ON OBAMA B*TCH TEMPER TANTRUMS RUINING THE PARTY BOO HOO NOT VP BAD BAD PERSON B*TCH WHY WON'T SHE SHUT UP ROLL OVER AND DIE THAT B*TCH BIG F*CKING WHORE HILLARY

HILLARY STEALS OUR DEFENSELESS YOUNG AT NIGHT AND GOES TO HER LAIR AND PEPPERS THEIR INNOCENT BODIES WITH SALT AND PEPPER AND OLIVE OIL AND AND FANCY FRENCH SPICES OH GOD AND SHE ROASTS THEM AND TOASTS THEM OVER AN OPEN FIRE ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT TILL THEY'RE DONE JUST RIGHT AND THEN THE B*TCH STARTS EATING THEM FOR BREAKFAST ESPECIALLY ENJOYING THEIR CHUBBY LITTLE FINGERS WHICH TO HORRID FIENDS LIKE HER SEEM SO EXCEPTIONALLY SUCCULENT.


I have to agree.

The True Believers have every right to be furiously angry.

Obama's tanking, and it's all her fault.

Why can't she stop being so reasonable and so competent, out-classing her weak centrist opponent at every turn?

Why can't everyone see what they see through their viral Maenad filters, she's a racist classist tantruming hormonal periodicallydisturbed unlikeable ambitious thick-ankled hard-nosed-c*nt-assassinationist!

It isn't fair!

Why aren't all these irrational vile swiftboat smears working?

[insert foot-stomping here]

Why won't the stupid bitch quit?



Love and kisses to Kos, Johnny A, Soto, Arianna, KeithO, JoshMM, and all the rest whose outrage is endless against one of their own while letting the actual Bushist fascist pro-torture crowd totally off the frickin' rage hook, eh?

Clinton Trounces McCain Who Trounces Obama; Aravosis, Kos Suffer From Acute & Chronic PMS

Hi there, boys and girls! You enjoying the socio-political atmosphere these days?

I sure am.

Oh, and while we're having fun, let's check out the electability tsunami for today at Hominid Views.

Hillary.

CLINTON BEATS MCCAIN WITH NEAR CERTAINTY

99.9% probability of winning in a Clinton/McCain match-up?

w00t! Let's make sure the superdelegates don't know about that!

Obama.

MCCAIN GAINS ON OBAMA.

80.7% probability of McCain winning against Obama. But who really cares about winning, eh?


O-kay.

Let's make SURE we nominate the guy who's going to lose to McCain, because that really demonstrates party unity!

Now let's check on Aravosis/Kos, bloggerboyz who are SO dedicated to Democrats losing the election in November so that Dem Party Unity Pony stays alive? (Or do I mean so Dem Party Unity Pony dies a horrible death? Um, whateverrr.)

God, they just can't frickin' help themselves, can they?

The Democratic Party is imploding, women are leaving it in droves, men who support Hillary are leaving in droves, and these loudmouth sexist sniggering rabid fratboys just can't shut down their Pieholes of Misogyny Syndrome.

You can get the gist via Corrente, "Well, women are childish. We know this." I'm not linking to them. They just SO suck. AND -- they're destroying the Democratic party and making Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove smile.



[And here's The Great Purge, "Daily Kos Is a Nappy-Headed 'Ho'"]
[Here's my prescient post from April 2007, before The Great Purge "Markos Moulitsas Is A Nappy-Headed 'Ho'"]
[And here's Aravosis's own memorable horrible person terrible twos temper tantrum.}

It's the Sexism, Stupid! (Part 2 -- or is it 3?)

.Great article by Andrew Stephen at the New Statesman (via Corrente/Talk Left).

I can't really comment now, but it's worth a careful and complete reading. Someone quick send this to Keith Olbermann and Markos and all the rest of them.

HATING HILLARY

by Andrew Stephen

"Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama."

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target . . .

Read on gentle readers, read on. Up to the part where we wind up with a weak candidate against McCain, who gets elected.

Yeah. What he said.

Obama: A Tale of Too Tepid Momentum

There's rustling in them thar hills.

Yep. There's rumblings.

Buyer's remorse? (Note pic from Obama mailer pushing Republican talking point anti-universal health care frame. Ooh, we don't want to be forced, do we? Universal health care = assault?)

Post-slick-salespitch need for cooling-off period?

And what's with the tepid finish?

"Momentum has disappeared," said Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire. "Except for that one stretch between February and March where Obama won 11 in a row, momentum has really taken a backseat to the demographics . . .

"I think there's concern . . . that his coalition has big holes in it. He hasn't consolidated the Democratic Party and he isn't any closer than he was after, say, Super Tuesday. That voter bloc, the white working-class voters, they are in places that Democrats need to win. Without Pennsylvania, without Ohio, the electoral-college map gets difficult for Obama . . .There are general election concerns there."

Yuh, I'd be worried, too.

McCain Takes the Lead Back From Obama, at Hominid Views.

Clinton Holds Her Lead Over McCain, at Hominid Views.

A great post by Anglachel on "Legitimacy, Not Unity."

The increasing rejection of Obama by voters is a measure of his declining legitimacy. People who once thought they would gladly vote for him, like me, are now implacably opposed to him. He is no longer legitimate in our eyes. He has not sought legitimacy, which would mean facing up to oposition and allowing himself to be challenged, questioned, and probably be found wanting by some people, but has opted to pursue power at any price.

Participating in and profiting from the media hatred of the Clintons, throwing out accusations of racism to try to forestall criticism and inflate AA vote counts, encouraging people to be "Obamacans" not Democrats, the "Democrat for a Day" strategy, engaging in intimidation and threats to extract caucus votes, aggressively trying to monopolize money specifically to silence alternative voices, and treating voters who do not choose him first with contempt.

Lack of legitimacy means relying on force to win. If you have to bully people to make them be quiet, you have lost legitimacy. If you have to remove votes from the contest in order to win, you have lost legitimacy.

From Corrente, "Gene Lyons Finds Uncreative Racists Who Spurn Obama Surprisingly Articulate and Informed."

And the most recent Quinnipiac Swing State poll.

Not happy news for Obama. Are the superdelegates listening?

May 22, 2008 - McCain Leads Obama In Two Of Three Key Swing States, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds;
Clinton Has Big Leads In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania ---

FLORIDA: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 45 - Obama 41;
OHIO: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 44 - Obama 40:
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 50 - McCain 37; Obama 46 - McCain 40

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads About It, Sweeties

From Jeralyn at TalkLeft, "I Won't Back Down."

Obama Slips Against McCain, at Hominid Views. Obama 55.1% probability of winning vs. 41.9% probability of winning for McCain.

Clinton 89.7% probability of winning vs. McCain 10.2% probability of winning at Hominid Views.

Obama's "Sweetie" Challenge.

From Jeralyn at TalkLeft, "Who Had The Bigger Win Tonight?"

"Stages of Death -- The Obama Campaign" from garychapelhill at The Confluence.

Department of And Now For Something Completely Different

THE RADIANCE

I talk to my inner lover, and I say, why such rush?

We sense that there is some sort of spirit that loves birds and animals and the ants.

Perhaps the same one who gave a radiance to you in your mother's womb.

Is it logical you would be walking around entirely orphaned now?

The truth is, you turned away yourself,

and decided to go into the dark alone.

Now you are tangled up in others, and have forgotten what you once knew

and that's why everything you do has some weird failure in it.


By Kabir, version by Robert Bly

Say, Is That Groundswell a Rising Electability Tsunami, or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

Now, remember, boys and girls -- it's all about beating the Bushist fascists to a pulp in November, is it not?


From Corrente, "Clinton Election Juggernaut Accelerates."

From Hominid Views, stats suggest an 89.1% Probability of Clinton Winning Against McCain' 10.9%.

Update: From Hominid Views, Clinton continues strength against McCain: now 89.3%.

And yet more from Hominid Views, here.

From Anglachel, "Fear and Loathing."

From Big Tent Democrat, "Is a Funny Thing Happening On the Way To Obama's Coronation?"

My current personal favorite -- from TPM, an actual Obama supporter reports on Weekend Electability Simulations.

"This week I ran 100,000 trials for both Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain matchups.

The results:
Obama wins 37.1%, averages 264.7 EV
McCain wins 61.3%, averages 273.3 EV
Electoral tie 1.6%

Clinton wins 99.0%, averages 290.7 EV
McCain wins 0.8%, averages 247.3 EV
Electoral tie 0.2%

This week is both the strongest Clinton has been, and the weakest Obama has been, since I've started running this simulation."

These numbers were run this weekend, May 17, 2008.

Tide? Turned?

In Oregon, Clinton Blasts McCain at Portland Town Hall Meeting That Obama Turned Down


Then, there's WomenCount PAC.

And let's never ever forget, "Go Away, You Horrible Human Being," by fellow Democrat John Aravosis, because that's what intra-party amity is all about, is it not?
.

It's the Sweetie Rebellion, Sweetie!

Uh-oh.

Hell hath no fury like -- damn!

Why won't those uppity bitches just shut up, roll over, and die?

Why?

Why?

Why?

"Women Threaten Obama Boycott," More here.

Obama sends out paid schmooze-trolls to hypnotize them bitches and bring 'em back into line, here.

HillBuzz on the 400 bloggers, here.

Red Queen on "It's Too Late for Flowers and Candy, Blogger Boyz," here.

Sweeties Against Obama, here.

A Pre-Nup for Obama, via" The Confluence.

"We have something the Obama boyz want reaaaal bad. And it’s going to take more than sweet talk to get it. Oh, yeah, baby, baby, baby, we can keep this going for a long time but you’re not getting our votes until we get a weddin’ ring.

You have to marry the old, uneducated, working class, sino-peruvian lesbians or you can just go home with Rosie. And here’s what we want in a pre-nuptual agreement (courtesy of FrenchDoc):

Seat Mi/FL

Now, on to the policy questions, because, as racist, bitter, old, low-info, etc., . . . as we are, we actually care about substance:

- take privatization of SS off the table
- prosecution of the Bush crime clan
- promotion of women’s and LGBT’s rights
- progressive economic policies
- universal health care
- repeal of no child left behind, no merit pay plan
- out of Iraq / no bombing of Pakistan
- reinstate habeas corpus
- commitment to appointing progressive judges on SCOTUS, no waffling
- commitment to repeal the partial birth abortion law, no waffling
- no telco immunity

Have I forgotten anything?

Oh yeah, stop abusing / insulting us . . . incredibly, it does not endear BO to us.

Yeah. What she said.

---------------------------------------

Get well soon, Teddy Kennedy. He's a good and responsive Senator, and imho his heart has always been in the right place.

The Chosen One Fearmongering on Social Security: What's Up With That, Sweetie?

Remember when Senator Obama attacked Senator Clinton about Social Security? Using a Republican frame?

I do.

I'm not the only one who does.

A while back, Matt Stoller pointed out:

One, there is no crisis with Social Security, which is something progressives understand. There are many crises around the world, including fiscal ones in this country. But Social Security is fine.

Two, politically speaking, Social Security was the issue upon which Bush's momentum in 2005 crumbled because of a large progressive organizing effort.

That Obama is using the need to shore up Social Security as an attack on Clinton, well, this makes me want to say that I'm disappointed that Obama is abandoning the politics of hope.

On another level, I just feel bad for progressive Obama supporters. It's simply awful to watch a person that you thought was great and progressive betray and embarrass you for political gain, and move into a more authoritarian direction.

A lot of Obama supporters at this point will become much quieter since there's little that is positive to say, which will allow the more ardent types to occupy more of the conversation. That's really unfortunate, but it's just a reality that Obama has given up his role as a participant in the progressive conversation.

He'll be back as he's too giant a figure to leave permanently. But his campaign at this point is leaving him not just scarred as a Presidential figure, but as a political figure in general. He has just shrunk dramatically in stature.

Okay, that was last fall.

Josh Marshall, before his transformation, thought that Obama was wrong about Social Security.

Obama was (and is) wrong about using Republican frames to attack Hillary Clinton.

How did The Chosen One get away with it? With passing himself off as a progressive, without actually being progressive?

Why is he still getting away with it?

Oh, right. Because that's what being The Chosen One is all about?

Way too Kwisatz Haderach for me, sweetie.

(Or should I say, "cutie"?)




PS: Interesting stats via Hominid Views, here.


.

Wonderings About The Chosen One: Clean Up Your Act, Sweetie?

Isn't it ironic.

This ironic picture of Barack Obama mystically rising from the Willamette River appeared in Willamette Week, accompanying an article which endorsed him for President of the United States, in a non-ironic (I am led to believe) endorsing kinda way.

And yet -- somehow -- there seems to me to be a certain aura of, well, unicorns, sparkles, and strewn roses that pervades (perhaps perfumes?) the non-ironic portion of the socio-political air.

But anyway, last night I (or rather my Pariah Clintonista av) listened to WA-08 Congressional candidate Darcy Burner at SL's Virtually Speaking; she impressed me with her intelligence, insight, and her energy for --well, change. Non-ironically speaking.

She also impressed me with her enthusiasm for Barack Obama. Which was almost infectious.

So this morning, I read my morning newspaper.

In it was an article about Bush's appeasement slam of Obama. I read about Hillary Clinton defending him against Bush, saying, "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers if offensive and outrageous, especially in the light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address."

So far, so good.

But at the article's end was this:

Mr. Obama has likened his foreign policy approach to that of the so-called pragmatists in the administration of the first President George Bush, which carried out the first American invasion of Iraq, in 1991, and he has shared those sentiments recently as he has sought to woo independent voters in swing states. “I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush,” he said. “I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

Oh good.

Obama's down with a Ronald Reagan who singlehandedly huffed and puffed and blew down the Berlin wall?

Obama has enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of Bubble Boy's father?

A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet as a Republican foreign policy can smell.

How sweet is that, really, sweetie?

On Wearing The Scarlet 'Hillary' [from 5.2008]

So much anti-Hillary hysteria.  Intra-party rancor. It makes me want to throw up. (Not to mention that I don't deal well with rancor in general, which I won't mention.)

All this name-calling and intra-party partisan hysteria, in addition to making me want to throw up, makes me want to call up Tony Benn, my social democrat hero, and ask if I may please, please throw myself onto his lap, sobbing, while he pats my hair paternally and reassures me that, sooner or later, everything's going to be alright.

Which may or may not be the case. And may or may not be what he would say. It's, you know, a fantasy.

Meanwhile, besides work, I try to amuse myself making green curry of duck, endless steaming pots of chicken soup, and digging in the garden, and indulge in aimless streams of thought: "Windy today, by the way. I like that poem by Czeslaw Milosz. I don't think anybody read it. People don't like poetry. Well, Americans don't like poetry much, certainly. South Americans do. In my experience, everrrybody in South America can quote Neruda. Here it's such an egghead thing. Why do Americans hate eggheads? Why do they hate intelligence? Why did they elect Bush? Why do they hate Hillary?"

My political head hurts.

Using Cheney's adjective: "Big-time."

Ok, then, why do they hate Hillary Clinton so? In particular, why does the so-called left wing of the Democratic party hate Hillary Clinton? Why are they aligned with Karl Rove? Beats the crap out of me.

Not in RL, but in blogtopia and SL, I belong to a shockingly despised minority because of this.

It's been very unsettling. I am one of the many commenters at Kos who fled after the Great Anti-Hillaryist First Purge.

Seeing my dendrobium send out a pre-bloom shoot this morning, I was reminded of John Aravosis, fellow orchid-fancier, whose blog I regularly visited, commented at, and really enjoyed until his Great Anti-Hillaryist First Purge. (Now John's written a charming post entitled "Go Away You Horrible Human Being," and he's NOT talking about Dick Cheney.)

Ditto Democratic Underground and BuzzFlash and HuffPo and on and on. Oh, and now we have John Edwards and NARAL throwing Hillary under the bus. Way to offend people you really don't want to keep on offending, people. (Or should I say, "sweetie"?)

In SL, though friend avs remain friendly (I think), once I'm in a larger political social grouping, the slightest show of Hillarysupport from me results in an automatic "INCOMING!"

I've toyed with the notion of making a little sign above my avatar saying "Pariah Clintonista," just to get it over with.

I think it's important to be supportive of whoever one's supporting, but there's an edge of virulent hysteria here with which I'm both suspicious and uncomfortable. Now it's starting to spread over into virulent anti-Obamania, and I just can't go there, either. Not at all.

So, Tony, dear -- you once called yourself a "biological Buddhist."

Where is the Middle Way?



---

Arthur Silber needs money. Send him some if you have some.

Is It Time to Euthanize the Democratic Party's Magical Unity Pony? By Which I Mean The Magic Pony Of Intra-party Civility!

I dunno yet.

I have my doubts. I have written about them at length. Well, part of me has doubts. Serious ones.

(Please note that I am using "Magical Unity Pony" not as a reference to a single campaign, but to highlight the magical possibility that Democrat versus Democrat conflict will not result in a continuing shrieking bloodbath, as it so far is doing. I am sorry that there are, and have been other interpretations of the the Pony Thing, my bad, but the Pony here under discussion of being put down is now and only the Magic Pony of Intra-Party Unity & Civility.)

And yet -- this morning another part of me awoke and came to the keyboard.

I found that today I cling to hope that, horribly broken at both ankles as poor Magical Party Unity Pony is, we might find a way still to save her.

With the thought of her foremost in my mind, today I Googled "The Southern Strategy," in search of a cure for our poor ailing Magical Party Unity Pony.

I found quotes about Nixon, and that part I knew about, but at the bottom of the Wiki article was a section that was all about "The Southern Strategy in the 2008 Democratic Primary."

Aha. That is what I was looking for. Because, at first glance, I couldn't figure out what Nixon's Southern Strategy had to do with the 2008 Democratic Primary.

It read:

"Pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Roland Martin have suggested that the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton would use a "Southern strategy" to suggest that African-American support in South Carolina for rival Barack Obama was related to his race and not his individual appeal to voters.

Limbaugh said they will be "[g]iving nothing to Obama, blaming it all on racial identity politics, or crediting it for that. You watch. They'll do something." In [Limbaugh's] view, subsequent primaries would be affected by the introduction of race and follow the pattern of the Southern strategy."

Now, gentle readers, I don't know where you come from, but where I come from, Magical Party Unity Pony definitely dies when Democrats hear and believe in frames cooked up by Rush Limbaugh, the man who created the great American concept, "feminazi."

Is that true for you as well, fellow Democratic Party Magical Unity Pony of Intra-Party Civility And Working-Togetherness enthusiasts?

.

-----------------------------------
There's this.

Then, there's this.

And especially, there's Hillary vs. The Haka, an exercise in bluffing and intimidation.

It's Not My Party & I'll Cry If I Want To

O-kay. Here goes:

.1. My support for Hillary Clinton has zero to do with her gender, and everything to do with her policies. Her policies are significantly more liberal than her primary opponent's weak centrist positions are, and thus are closer to my own. (She's still to the right of me, but is well to the left of her opponent).

2. My unhappiness with Senator Obama's campaign is of relatively recent vintage. In December, I felt pretty much that any Democratic candidate would do. I no longer think that.

3. My unhappiness with the unbelievably sexist attitude of members of my own (or so I thought) party is what is driving me to get away from it just as far and as fast as I can. (There are some other factors in play as well -- for example, the Faux-Left Manichaean Naderite demonization of All Things Clinton. Hunh? Peace and prosperity for 8 years was so bad, Mickey Moore?)

Which brings us to our Leftist Sexist Du Jour.

This morning's insulting, sniggering, disparaging delectation is from Nicholas D. Kristof, writing his most recent version of "Why Don't You Just Shut Up And Die, Bitch," as part of the ongoing Hillary DeathWatch.

In this charming column, "The Too-Long Good-bye," Kristof tries to Swiftboat Senator Clinton by comparing her to Katie Couric.

Yes, yes, you heard it right.

He really says that. No, really, he does.

Hillary = Katie. Katie = Loser = Hillary = Loser = Wanting a "man's job" = Loser = Just Shut Up & Die, Bitch

What, you think I'm making all this up? You think this is just me, getting, oh I dunno, all periodically emotional, as The Man Who Would Be [Prom] King once said?

No, no. Let me find the link. Ah. Here.

"One of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton is resolved to keep fighting is, I think, a resentment that she and many of her followers feel over sexism in the campaign. On that issue, she has a point. One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate.

It’s interesting that two strong women — Katie Couric as well as Mrs. Clinton — have foundered this year in roles that are stereotypically male. Granted, the presidency is very different from the job of an evening news anchor, but some psychology experiments suggests that one factor in each case may be public resistance to a woman in a position in which we are accustomed to seeing a man. . . . . So Mrs. Clinton’s frustration is understandable." (Then he tells her to shut up and drop out so that The Man Who Would Be [Prom] King can get on with his important work.

So, boys, and girls, let's deconstruct.

Nicky Kristof imputes an attitude to Senator Clinton that is fact-free -- that she feels "resentment" over sexism in the campaign. He later baselessly asserts that Senator Clinton feels "frustration". (Playing so nicely into the gender stereotype, is he not? It fairly puts my panties in a twist!)

M. Kristof briefly admits to campaign sexism, but then spins it that the real problem is that the "bar" is set "higher" for a woman candidate than a black candidate (wrongly interpreting the data by implying that females inherently aren't "up" to the task, rather than seeing sexist attitudes as being more pervasive than racist attitudes).

He then spins vapid perkmeister Katie Couric as a "strong woman," and that Senator Clinton is a strong woman, too. What a nice compliment, Nicky. (Kristof here cleverly refers to Senator Clinton not as Senator Clinton but as "Mrs. Clinton." You know, Bill's wife. He then "Mrs. Clinton"s her all the way to the article's end.)

Nicky asserts that vapid Katie has foundered this year -- which is true.

Then he says she foundered because she, Katie, is female, not because she, Katie, is a vapid perkmeister unsuited to the job in which she was placed by network execs looking to make evening news even stupider than it has been.

Kristof asserts that, just as Katie Couric has foundered in a role that is stereotypically male, Senator Clinton has foundered in a role that is stereotypically male.

Hel-lo?

She's the last woman standing in the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States, and that's "foundering"?

Well, of course it is!

That girlie-bar is just set so high!

Then he tells her to get out of the race, and that it will be all her fault if Obama loses to McCain.


Well, no, dear. It's not really like that.

If Obama loses to McCain, that's Obama losing.

If people like you are alienating people like me, that's your bad, Nicky-boy.

And the bad of Faux-Lefties, people like Keith Olbermann, Mickey Moore, Mickey Kaus, Kos, Frank Rich, HuffPo, all those sniggering fratboys and fratgirls who ride wild with the Hillary DeathWatch Posse.


Is there any difference between their sexism and John McCain's?

I can't see any. Can you?

.

It's Your Party & I'll Cry If I Want To.

.




I attended a SL Democratic Primary social event last night where there was so much mud being slung at Hillary Clinton you'd have thought I'd infiltrated SL Republican Party Headquarters by mistake.

But no-o-o, it wasn't coming from "them," it was coming from "us."

Well, no, the slung-mud was not from the part of "us" that includes "me."

That was not my party. That's your party, maybe, dudes, maybe it's Keith Olbermann's party and his ilk's, but it sure ain't mine.

I don't seem to have one anymore.

It was no mistake, last night, this is how things are now: one must assume that Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove is laughing his chubby pink butt off.

--------------------

Quitters Never Win, WaPo.