Frank Rich has another kick-butt column in today’s NYT, this time dissecting the “essence of Palinism” (”emotional, not ideological”), and the meltdown of the flailing (and amnesiac) GOP that sees Sarah Palin as its last Great White Hope.
Before Super Tuesday, when all the candidates for the Democratic nomination I would have preferred to vote for pulled out, the lineup — and the order in which I would have voted for them in the primaries — was:
• Dennis Kucinich • Mike Gravel • Bill Richardson (yes, despite the LOGO debate and the maricon remark) • Chris Dodd • Joe Biden • John Edwards • Hillary Rodham Clinton • Barack Obama
Not that it even begins to compensate for my deep unhappiness with the President we ended up getting, but I am glad to see that my instincts remain trustworthy. After the three actual liberals at the top of the list, I liked Dodd for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that he made noises — not direct statements, but low rumbles — indicating he wasn’t such a hard-ass when it came to LGBT equality, particularly on marriage.
I have only one thing to say about Obama’s big announcement to “extend benefits” (as long as you don’t count health insurance, retirement, or anything else that would conflict with DoMA) to same-sex partners of federal employees:
Here’s what other folks have to say — and I’m grateful they see right through this for what it is. (If you don’t already understand what it is, keep re-playing the sound file above until you do):
I tell you, the things you find when you’re researching Prop 8 donors…
(By the way, Secret Service, if you’ve got a second, would you go look at this guy’s MySpace page and see what you think? He might just be a mean, stupid, arrogant, misanthropic butthole — or he might just be genuinely sociopathic, and dangerous. I sure wouldn’t want him to corner me in a dark alley.)
So, I’m researching this company in Lodi, California, which donated $500.00 to the Prop H8 campaign, and I stumble across this MySpace page belonging to a guy who says he’s the “Director of Programming” at this place — Beyond Words Speech Therapy, Inc. Here’s what he has to say (and I took screen caps of the whole thing, top to bottom, as such craziness usually tends to “disappear” once word gets out):
About me: Do you really care??? If you are a friend, you know me. If you are not a friend, you most likely never will be. Do not spin your wheels, go make friends with some of my other friends, as they actually like people and society. That way neither one of us has to talk to each other. Which, in my case, is a huge plus (heck, I do not really even like talking to my existing friends.) I hate checking my myspace page with all the stupid security…come to think of it, why am I even writing this…why do I have page? Oh yeah, so I can take pleasure in rejecting friend requests from you all…such satisfaction.
Who I’d like to meet: Probably not you. If we are not friends already…I would not count on much. I would have loved to meet Reagan. Would love to meet Hillary and Obama at the same time, stand them next to each other, and smack them both with a single backhand. Probably would love to pop that beach ball Michael Moore calls a head, then steal that sweaty baseball cap he always wears. Other than that, the Red Sox…Carlton Fisk, probably…Ted Williams, definitely (heard he’s cryogenic now…so maybe). Thomas S. Monson…if you do not know who that is, e-mail your address and I will send the Missionaries over to meet with you. Every member of the United States Armed Services, so I could thank them for laying down their lives for the freedoms and lives of you idiot liberals who bash them…
Talk about your good Christian love— or, actually, talk about your good Mormon love (since Mormons aren’t Christians)…
I knew this name sounded familiar — and now I’m sorry I ever studied up on PNAC, ’cause at this juncture I’d rather forget everything I ever learned in the past eight years, and live the rest of my life in blissful ignorance. But once your eyes have been opened…
Dennis Ross, a former top diplomat for the George H W Bush and Clinton administrations, will become the Obama administration’s top envoy on the Middle East, an internal email from Mr Ross’s current employer has revealed.
Mr Ross, who previously served as the US envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is set to take a wider role as Hillary Clinton’s top adviser for the Middle East as a whole. Ms Clinton herself is due to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State next Tuesday.
Executives at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the think-tank where Mr Ross works, told the organisation’s board that Mr Ross had “accepted an invitation to join the Obama administration as ambassador-at-large” in a job “designed especially for him,” covering a range of issues from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to Iran.
The email, first reported by Chris Nelson, a Washington-based foreign policy expert, adds that Mr Ross “will not reprise his previous role as special Arab-Israeli peace envoy, a post that will be held by someone else; rather he will be working closely with both the special envoy and the secretary.”
Mr Ross is likely to strike a high profile in his new job, particularly given the current Gaza conflict and mounting fears about Iran’s nuclear capacity. He served as an adviser on the Middle East to president-elect Barack Obama during the election campaign, calling for bigger carrots and bigger sticks to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons capacity. …
More at the link. And if mention of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy alone hasn’t already given you a heart attack, here’s the rest of the story on Ross, from the invaluable Right Web:
Although generally considered a political moderate, Ross has been closely associated with a number of neoconservative-led organizations and policy initiatives. A consultant for the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Ross supported the advocacy efforts of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which played a key role advocating invading Iraq in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He also frequently promotes aggressive Mideast policies in his writings and congressional testimony, and regularly teams up with scholars from organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to craft policy approaches toward Tehran’s nuclear program and other issues in the region. …
Ross got his start in high-level policymaking working under Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon during the Jimmy Carter administration, where Wolfowitz headed up a project called the Limited Contingency Study, the results of which, writes author James Mann, “would play a groundbreaking role in changing American military policy toward the Persian Gulf over the coming decades.” …
After the election of Ronald Reagan, Wolfowitz became head of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff, where he assembled a team of advisors that included a number of figures who later became closely involved in neoconservative-led campaigns, including Ross, I. Lewis Libby, James Roche, Zalmay Khalilzad, Alan Keyes, and Francis Fukuyama. Discussing this period, Mann points to Ross in arguing that “not everyone on [Wolfowitz’s] staff was a neoconservative. … The fact remained, however, that Wolfowitz’s policy planning staff turned out to be the training ground for a new generation of national security specialists, many of whom shared Wolfowitz’s ideas, assumptions, and interests.”
Also during the Reagan presidency, Ross “served as director of Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council staff … and as Deputy Director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment,” according to his biography on the website of the Harry Walker Agency, a speakers bureau that also promotes, among others, former George W. Bush aide Peter Wehner, the neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, and alarmist antiterror wonk Steven Emerson. …
During the presidency of George W. Bush, Ross continued his policy work as a consultant to and fellow at WINEP, authoring policy papers, penning op-eds, and providing congressional testimony on Middle East issues. He repeatedly joined forces with neoconservatives, signing open letters for PNAC, advising advocacy groups like United against Nuclear Iran (whose leadership include former CIA director James Woolsey and hawkish weapons proliferation expert Henry Sokolski), and joining AEI scholars Michael Rubin and Reuel Marc Gerecht in discussing Mideast policies with their counterparts at the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute…
In 2006, Ross joined a cast of neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks in supporting the I. Lewis Libby Defense Fund, an initiative aimed at raising money for the disgraced former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted in connection to the investigation into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name. Ross served on the group’s steering committee along with Fred Thompson, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Bernard Lewis, and Francis Fukuyama. The group’s chairman was Mel Sembler, a real estate magnate who serves as a trustee at AEI and has funded the group Freedom’s Watch. …
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Ross supported the advocacy work of PNAC, a neoconservative-led letterhead group that advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein in response to the attacks, even if he was not tied to the them. Ross signed two PNAC open letters on the situation in post-war Iraq, both published in March 2003. The first of these, “Statement on Post-War Iraq,” was issued on March 19, 2003, the day before the United States began its invasion. The letter argued that Iraq should be seen as the first step in a larger reshaping of the region’s political landscape, contending that the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq could “contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East.” Other signatories included Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Thomas Donnelly, Joshua Muravchik, and several other core neoconservatives. …
In the aftermath of the invasion, Ross—as well as a number of neoconservatives—expressed deep skepticism about the course of the war and the future prospects in Iraq. …
However, in critiquing Bush’s Mideast policies, Ross has limited his criticism to issues of implementation, while giving the White House high marks for its objectives. …
Ross’s approach to Iran appears to have grown increasingly belligerent over time. …
During the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections Ross participated in two study groups aimed at influencing the next president’s policies toward Iran, both of which proposed extremely aggressive approaches. …
Much, much more at the link, with lots of sourcing.
At a rally in Nashua, New Hampshire, a man in the audience told [Barack Obama’s vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.] how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary “not because she’s a woman, but because look at the things she did in the past.”
“Make no mistake about this,” Biden responded. “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight.” …
Honestly, Joe, I agree that Hillary would have been a better VP pick, mainly because Obama could have scooped up a significant portion of Hillary supporters burned by the Obama camp, and that was a really gracious thing to say — but it was really dumb of you to say it. What, are you trying to submarine your boss?
While there are plenty of reasons to praise, condemn, or experience complete indifference* at Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate, shameless schmuck Bill Kristol wins the Most Transparent Horse-Puckey of the Day Award: He’s pretending that he gives a hoot about “gender equity.” Per Media Matters:
Bill Kristol characterized Sen. Barack Obama’s selection of Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate as “Obama’s imposition of a glass ceiling.” But Kristol showed little concern for “gender equity” in the Democratic Party when he said during the primary that “[w]hite women are a problem” and attributed Sen. Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire primary victory to her “pretend[ing] to cry.” …
Details at the link.
* “Complete indifference” is my own (non-)reaction.
Normally, I breeze by the homophobic garbage on Democratic Underground, partly because I don’t haunt the halls of DU anymore (unless I’m tipped off to a particularly interesting meltdown going on in real-time), and mostly because I don’t see the point in torturing myself watching my people battle those hopelessly (and happily) entrenched in their own bigotry. I wasted six years battling the “Some of my best friends are gay, so I’m an expert on what’s homophobic and what’s not” brigades myself, and it was, indeed, a complete waste of time I could have spent doing something, anything, more productive… like trying to teach goldfish to drive.
Hearing there was something of a meltdown going on (again), I ran across a post by a gay DUer I’ve long liked and respected, who (for the umpteenth time for any LGBT DUer) pointed out the pervasive compulsion to label George W. Bush, or Karl Rove, or pretty much any right-winger as “gay.” This is different from outing a right-winger who really is gay (or at least a verifiable down-low type like Larry Craig); this is the Everyone We Hate is Gay syndrome, and it’s ugly, and extremely offensive to gay people.
After reading the usual “I don’t see any homophobia, so it doesn’t exist” replies from DUers who either have a serious memory disorder, or feign blindness to the neverending stream of homophobia right in front of their keyboards, I thought I’d ever-so-helpfully dredge up a few examples of what they’re “not seeing”… which, apparently, is too herculean a task for the Google-impaired.
Here are 1) the original post in question, and 2) two of the nastiest, most insensitive replies:
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-04-08 02:57 PM Original message
I’ve been around here for years and it just never stops. Virtually every foul Republican is referred to as “gay”. It happens over and over. It’s against the rules and the mods do try, but it never ends. Why?
They say that doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity so I don’t know why I keep expecting it to change.
I don’t know what to do, but I don’t like how DU makes me feel.
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-04-08 03:08 PM Response to Original message
15. Virtually every foul Republican is referred to as “gay” - By whom?
Quit painting everyone with one brush stroke please.
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-04-08 03:21 PM Response to Original message
22. Do you always make shit like this up?
I have been here quite a while and can’t recall a single instance of a Republican being called gay for the hell of it. Now, if they are gay AND closeted AND a homophobe, I can see that.
You probably wanna run back to FR if you wanna concoct fables out of whole cloth.
For these “I can’t recall” folks (who can never again claim that DUers just don’t do this sort of thing), here’s a memory-refresher (and this, my friends, only scratches the surface):
And the winner of the Most Offensive Asshat on DU in 2008 (So Far) Award goes to “kurtboss,” who — to the credit of the DU admins — has since been banned:
kurtboss (361 posts) Mon Aug-04-08 09:05 PM Original message
Okay, let’s just make clear that there is nothing wrong with being Gay, however employing this strategy does make use of the negative cultural stereotypes about homosexuality. It’s exploiting it…but, to a good end.
So, here’s the deal. I want opinions. I don’t know if he’s really gay, but it doesn’t matter. This is hardball politics. A war, healthcare, the economy, etc all ride on this election…so it’s probably worth getting dirty for a couple months. I believe this can destroy his chances for victory by putting this seed of doubt in the minds of bigots.
1. The GOP Evangelicals HATE gays
2. Obviously easy to exploit McCain’s obsession with Obama–it’s practically pathetic at this point and noted everywhere in the media
3. He’s in the Navy. Village People anyone? It gets awfully lonely on ships.
4. To tie this up for you…McCain is already questioned by the Evangelicals and absolutely requires they turn out for him in droves. It’s his weakness.
How to attack it? Viral email. Youtube some effete moments put together…perhaps the infamous hug?? McCain is pretty pro-gay as GOP guys on policy isn’t he??? Check out the four photos below in what my FIRST and only google image search turned of of McCain hug
As for transphobia (or: Everyone We Hate is Transgender), there are far too many references to “Mann Coulter” to waste my time listing them all; see for yourself.
Don’t even get me started on the “prison rape is funny” posts — or the “Gays will lose us the next election! / Gays lost us the election!” scapegoating that happens every two years, like clockwork.
* While Hillary Clinton is not a right-winger, she is loathed as much as Bush, Rove, and all the rest by a substantial portion of DU. Remember, the ploy is called Everyone We Hate is Gay.
Back in May, I pissed off a lot of Obama supporters (and delighted everyone else) with the Pocket Guide to Obamaniac Behavior. Since then, a lot of people have been citing the “Pocket Guide” post as if it had something to do with the unsubstantiated rumor that the Obama campaign had hired “400 bloggers” to “fan out” over the Web.
How HillBuzz made that nonexistent connection, I don’t know, but, frankly — while I don’t have anything against HillBuzz — it’s pissing me off. Sites all over the Web keep pointing to the Lavender Newswire as the source of this rumor — even though HillBuzz, thankfully, has since edited their original post to clarify that the rumor was started by a scroll at the bottom of the screen during a Fox News broadcast. Whether that’s true or not, who the hell knows? It is Fox News, after all — and yet nobody knows who first saw this alleged scroll in the first place.
Get this straight, Obama supporters and non-supporters alike: The Lavender Newswire did NOT start the “paid bloggers” rumor. Read the whole post in question yourself and see if there’s so much a remote implication of any such thing.
Tell me, where is it?
And, no, Patrick McKinnion at Yes to Democracy, the post was not “edited after the fact.” What you see in that post now has not changed, down to the last semicolon, since it was posted on May 11, 2008, at 7:16 p.m.
I’ve ignored the whole “400 bloggers” rumor since I first saw it on HillBuzz because I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire (when you deny something, that immediately makes you suspect). But when some dude I’ve never heard of starts planting the seed that one of my posts was edited to cover up an unsubstantiated rumor — and when said dude implies by association that I am a PUMA (I may share some of the PUMAs’ sentiment, and there are many PUMAs I like and admire, but I am not part of the club, and have never been) — then it’s time to set the record straight. So to speak.
HillBuzz got it wrong. And every blogger, pro- or anti-Obama, pro- or anti-Clinton, who’s ever picked up on HillBuzz’s implication that the Lavender Newswire had anything whatsoever to do with the “400 paid bloggers” rumor got it wrong. I am certain there was no deliberate malice on anyone’s part — but, goddamnit, you’ve got it wrong, and I will not stand by and allow the Lavender Newswire to become collateral damage in the war between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters.
This would also be a good time to tell the Obama-Hillary warring factions something else, too: We at the Newswire do not have a dog in this fight. Period. We can’t stand the sight or sound of Barack Obama, and we find John McCain utterly despicable. The perception that we’ve been “attacking” Obama1 because we support McCain is so dead wrong, it isn’t even funny. We would rather jam red-hot pokers into our skulls than cast a vote for that jackass.2
And the perception that we “attack” Barack Obama at all is just that: perception. All we (mostly I) have ever done is write: “This is what Barack Obama did today, and this is yet another reason I don’t want him to be POTUS” — as well as: “This is what this Obama supporter, or that Obama supporter, or this group of Obama supporters, did today, and this is yet another reason we think they’re bullies and thugs.”
The Pocket Guide post was nothing more or less than my observation of the way Obama supporters march in lockstep, “as if The Big Giant Head at Obama Central texted new marching orders to the cell phones (or perhaps directly into the brain-chip implants) of all Obamaniacs simultaneously.”
I can’t stop anyone from reading whatever they want into anything I write, but when baseless misperception casts a negative light on the Lavender Newswire, then it’s time to stop this foolishness dead in its tracks.
As for the Pocket Guide post itself, I wouldn’t write the same thing today, for one simple reason: Most Obama supporters who were roaring drunk on the Kool-Aid a few months ago have sobered up, and are suffering from a pretty ferocious hangover right now. I’m not above kicking somebody when they’re down, but the majority of Obama supporters — except for the new “converts” (and pseudo-converts; i.e., trolls) from the Republican side who are skewing Obama’s base far-right — were once my fellow Democrats3, after all, and I still remember our solidarity, B.O. (Before Obama). Simply put, there’s no point in rubbing even more salt into their open wounds now. They get it now. (Well, a lot of them do.)
It turned out just as thought it would when I wrote this on Democratic Underground back in February:
If the level of vitriol weren’t so far off the scale, I might feel sorry for those too swept up in the mania to have a clue. Not so strangely, though, I now feel some genuine pity for Bush supporters who didn’t see their big fall coming, either — because now I am observing exactly how it happened, only within my own party. It’s quite an eye-opener… and it makes me far less inclined these days to call all Bush supporters braindead idiots — or I would be compelled to call Obama supporters braindead idiots as well. And (despite what the BO lovers here will think), I don’t think Obama supporters are stupid — just swept away.
Now, Obama could get elected, and he could become a terrific president. (I don’t believe that for a minute, but let’s just say it could happen, for the sake of argument.) But no matter what he does, his supporters have set the bar so high that the first time he doesn’t walk on water, they’re going to be as crushed as… well, teenyboppers who were practically suicidal when Paul McCartney got married (or Donny Osmond, or whoever the Flavor of the Decade is).
It’s the ol’ pinprick to the bubble of cognitive dissonance, and the results ain’t gonna be pretty. I just hope I’ll be able to be big enough to help them pick up their shattered dreams, and not just stand back and say “I told you so.”
I added: “Hmm… No, I don’t know if I can be that big. In fact, I doubt it.” And I did, in fact, end up writing several “I told you so” posts here over the next few months (like this one, and this one, and this one).
A few days later, I wrote:
…should Obama lose the GE, I’ll actually feel very sorry for his supporters, who, having invested so much emotional energy into the man and pinning such sky-high “hope” on his salvation of Planet Earth, have a much longer way to fall than I do.
But it didn’t take that long for the big fall. As soon as Hillary dropped out, Obama started proving to his followers that he was never the liberal Messiah they had projected onto his “blank screen.” Hardly anyone cared that he was (is) staunchly opposed to marriage equality (if you’re not gay, why should you care? our silly little civil rights are just a “wedge issue,” or so we’re told), but when he started showing his true colors4 on issues that go right to the heart of progressive democracy (NAFTA, FISA, campaign financing, the death penalty, the Iraq pull-out timeline, etc.)… well, he didn’t need any help from me to show his followers that he wasn’t all that and a bag of chips.
By the time Obama betrayed his (progressive) supporters yet again with his offshore drilling “compromise,” I didn’t have the heart to stick it to the Obamaniacs again. Most of them already get it, big-time; just look to DU to see how blind enthusiasm for Obama has devolved into a steady round of “I’ll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, but I’m not happy about it.”
So, I’m not as angry at Obama supporters as I was a few months ago. Angry, yes, but not as angry. What made me so angry was not that Obama had betrayed me (I never believed in him enough to allow myself to be betrayed), but that my fellow Democrats had betrayed me. They were (and many still are) downright rotten and nasty and superior about it. But for those whose braggadocio has been shot to hell… Meh, why bother?
Of course, I reserve the right to kick ‘em in the slats (figuratively speaking) if they start hitting the Obama Juice that hard again.
But I digress, as usual.
The bottom line: I never wrote (or said) that Barack Obama had hired paid bloggers. Buffy never wrote (or said) that Barack Obama had hired paid bloggers. We never even implied it.
The scapegoat you Obama supporters are looking for is not here, and never was. “Evidence” of the “paid bloggers” rumor you Hillary supporters are looking for is not here, and never was.
So cut the shit, now. That means everybody.
1 Never mind that when we find a genuine, unfounded attack on Obama, we point it out. Granted, there’s only been one time I recall being compelled to defend Obama… but still.
2 Of course, some people see everything in black and white — a lot of “Democrats” throw the first notion of democracy itself right out the window when they hit us with: “Yeah? What’re ya gonna do, vote Republican?” Faced with the reply, “There are more than two choices, you know,” you can feel the disdain fly at you like a spitwad: “What’re ya gonna do, vote Green?“
Yeah, folks, I’m gonna vote Green. It’s not a protest vote. It’s not a vote against anyone, but a vote for who (and what) I believe in. I don’t believe in Barack Obama, and I certainly don’t believe in John McCain — and I’m sick and tired of voting against my own best interests. This time, I’m voting for my own best interest, and everyone else’s, whether they realize it or not.
If everyone in this country voted for what they really believed in, the two major parties would be the Greens and the Republican-Democrats (with the usual undecideds hovering between the Libertarians and the Socialists).
In the end, it’s my vote, and nobody gets to take it for granted. I wish everyone else felt the same way.
3 I haven’t done The Deed — change my registration from Democratic to unaffiliated — yet — but that’s only for a lack of time and too many other things going on in my life right now. But I am no longer a Democrat. I am a liberal (a “progressive,” if you prefer — if you’re the sort who thinks “liberal” is a dirty word), and as the Democratic Party pulls further and further to the right, I see now that the Obama supporters were right when they told me: “You’re not a real Democrat.” Seeing what the Democratic Party has become (especially under Howard Dean, who was my Obama; I believed in him with every fiber of my being until I realized he had me fooled into thinking he was something he never was: a liberal), I’m not a real Democrat — I am a liberal beholden to no party. I think for myself, and I vote true to my convictions. And anybody who doesn’t like it can go pound salt..
4 I can’t in good conscience say he’s flip-flopped on every issue; he really hasn’t changed his position on many issues — he just allowed his supporters to lead themselves, and each other, around by the nose, and think he was more progressive than he really was.
As I wrote last month: “Obama sold himself on the ideal of ‘change’ everybody wanted, and then pulled the rug right out from under those gullible enough to buy the hype without taking a critical look at the man himself. They bought into that ‘blank screen’ business.”
Frankly, I’m not sure Obama really is a conservative; I truly believe that if, for instance, marriage equality were overwhelmingly popular among whatever set of voters he was trying to woo at a given moment, he’d be 150% in our corner. I just don’t believe he stands for anything, except that which will get him the most money, and the most votes.
Just when we think we’ve seen it all, the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has drafted regulations that would undermine women’s access to birth control.
Under the guise of clarifying existing federal laws that allow health professionals to refuse to provide abortion services, the HHS draft regulations redefine abortion to include commonly used, FDA-approved methods of contraception, such as birth control pills and IUDs.
This radical redefinition of abortion is at odds with widely accepted science and with the government’s own definition — that pregnancy begins with the implantation of a fertilized egg.
The draft regulations, in fact, threaten all women’s access to contraception and severely limit the ability of health care providers to provide information and services to low-income women.
The draft regulations are also intended to trump existing state laws that protect women’s access to reproductive health care by requiring health insurance plans that provide drug benefits to include coverage of contraception, by requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape survivors, and by requiring pharmacies to fill patients’ valid medical prescriptions.
This is a shameful political ploy in the waning days of the Bush Administration which could cause immeasurable harm to the 17 million women in need of publicly funded contraceptive services.
Ironically, if implemented, these regulations could increase the need for abortion by making it more difficult for women to access the contraceptive services they need.
Join us in telling HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to abandon these dangerous and ill-conceived regulations.
Marilyn Keefe, Director of Reproductive Health Programs
National Partnership for Women & Families
Backstory:
Draft Women’s Health Regulation Leaked Yesterday Would Undermine Access to Birth Control
Statement of Marilyn Keefe, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, National Partnership for Women & Families
WASHINGTON, DC — July 15, 2008 — “A reproductive health regulation being developed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is an ill-conceived political ploy designed to win favor from those determined to deny women basic health services. The leaked draft of the regulation would put politics ahead of women’s health by allowing individuals and organizations to redefine accepted, FDA-approved methods of birth control including oral contraceptives, IUDs and injectables as abortifacients. This definition is at odds with widely accepted science, and the government’s own definition, that pregnancy begins with the implantation of a fertilized egg.
This regulation shows callous disregard for low-income women facing unplanned pregnancies. It is political pandering at its very worst. It reflects an agenda that Americans strongly oppose, for good reason. Nine in ten women in this country use birth control, and making it accessible to everyone who needs it is the best way to reduce unplanned pregnancy and abortion.
This regulation would cause real harm. Under the guise of clarifying long standing “conscience” exemptions in federal law, it would undermine women’s access to birth control services and information. It would threaten biomedical research. It could undermine state and federal initiatives to ensure access to birth control via contraceptive coverage insurance requirements and pharmacy access laws. And it seems designed to spur lawsuits against reproductive health providers who offer the only health care many low-income women receive.
If the President cared about improving women’s health, he would ask Congress to increase funding for the Title X clinics and Medicaid-funded family planning services that are a lifeline for low-income women, rather than redefining pregnancy and inviting litigation against health care providers. There is no need for this regulation, no problem to solve. It should be stopped.”
The National Partnership for Women & Families is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care and policies that help Americans balance work and family responsibilities. More information is available at http://www.nationalpartnership.org/.
Mr. No-Show actually showed up this time and voted!
Other than that, his “yea” vote is par for the course for Barack Obama (DINO-Ill.), and while we’re not at all surprised, we’re as disgusted as ever with him.
Oh, and didja hear? Hillary Clinton voted AGAINST it.
Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn’t present for any of the votes, but shared Obama’s support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly. …
With cloture approved, the bill itself then proceeded to pass by a vote of 69-28 … thereby immunizing telecoms and legalizing warrantless eavesdropping. Again, while Obama voted with all Republicans to pass the bill, Sen. Clinton voted against it.
Now, before you Obama kids start whining, “Even if Obama had voted against it, it would have passed!” that’s not the point. This is the point:
Obama’s vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama’s spokesman — in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama’s views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement — issued this emphatic vow:
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill — the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster — and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult of imagine. …
With their vote today, the Democratic-led Congress has covered-up years of deliberate surveillance crimes by the Bush administration and the telecom industry, and has dramatically advanced a full-scale attack on the rule of law in this country. …
Greenwald goes on to blast all the Democrats responsible for this travesty (hullo! Pelosi! Reid!), and rightly so.
We’re as disgusted with the lot of them, too — but even more disgusted that Barack Obama — the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and the lone “Democratic” contender for the White House — is now officially nothing more than a BushCo enabler, who did indeed flip-flop — or outright lied (you decide) to his blinded-by-the-Kool-Aid cult, who are responsible for forcing this snake-oil salesman down our throats.
Thanks for murdering the Fourth Amendment, Obama. And thanks for destroying the Democratic Party, Obamaniacs. It is your fault. You should have listened. You should have listened.
I hope your buyer’s remorse turns into the deepest shame humanly possible, so it prevents you from making such a boneheaded mistake in the future. I can’t predict the extent of the damage you’ve wrought already — but if you stay on this singleminded, simpleminded track, you’re going to destroy a lot more than the Democratic Party.
Appreciate the link to our post about “feeling jilted” but I think you missed the point a little bit — first of all, my partner, the male half of the blog, wrote that piece, and he was writing extemporaneously and applying metaphor.
Second, we didn’t support him in the primary. We both backed other candidates, and voted for another candidate in our respective primary races, and have not lost sight of the fact that more Democrats had a different first choice.
I just want to make sure that you know we are as disgustd by the “fall in love with” and “come to” Obama memes as you are. I’m going to vote Democratic in November — but I am voting against McCain.
My apologies — I did miss the point, and I appreciate the correction.
(Funny this: I found myself in the very same boat today; I caught a link to the Newswire this evening that mischaracterized ours as a pro-Hillary blog. Not that we’re anti-Hillary [we’ve never denied her failings], but I felt the need to clarify that Hillary wasn’t our first choice, either — although she’s a million times more acceptable to us than Obama. How do you like that for coincidence?)
I applaud you for voting true to your beliefs. I relate to (and respect) Republican revulsion (”against McCain”) far more than I do to Bluedog blindness (”my party, right or wrong”).
I do wish I could find the magic formula that would convince all Kool-Aid-immune Dems to make a stand, en masse, against what’s been thrust upon us (say “third party” with me a few times, and it starts rolling off the tongue easily), but I realize there’s no chance of that happening this cycle (or the next, or the next…). As I’ve often said, I’m a Greenie at heart, but I can’t bring myself to join the Greens, because I believe the party has no choice of ever being a serious contender until it comes to grips with the fact that it cannot run a presidential nominee until it builds its base from the ground up, as — yes — the Republicans did. If there’s one thing I admire about the Repubs (and it’s probably the only thing), it’s their steady patience and tenacity: To rebuild the party, post-Watergate, and spread its influence (albeit like a slow-growing cancer), the GOP worked to get their own elected to the lowest levels of government (school boards, town councils) on up (county government, state, etc.). If the Greens would hold fast to their Ten Key Values but shift gears and focus on slow growth, I’d be their biggest cheerleader — and their biggest activist, and as big a donor as I could be.
But I digress. As usual.
On the “‘fall in love with’ and ‘come to’ Obama memes,” that’s something I’ve been wanting to blog about at length: how Obamanation has (unknowingly? that’s debatable) co-opted the worst angle of born-again marketing: turning The Messiah into one’s lover (often in so many words). It’s one of those high concepts that will demand much attention, research and thought, and I myself may never get around to writing it — and I’m not sure I could do right by the concept. So I’ll just throw the idea out there, and invite those better than I at synthesizing such a raw idea to turn it into something clear and digestible. (I’d love to see Anglachel, riverdaughter, Dr. Violet Socks, and my better half, Buffy, all take a shot at it.)
Again, thanks for the correction. And hang in there — the future, for better or worse, is up in the air.
As Marilyn Monroe sang in her last, unfinished film: “Something’s got to give, something’s got to give, something’s got to give…”
I thought I made it clear that I was speaking to the Obamaniacs — the Obama supporters who have made the last year of my life as a Democrat a living hell.
A lot of us never had any hatred towards Hilary, and are pretty insulted that Hilary supporters hate us for no good reason.
Now, who’s generalizing?
First, you have to remember I’m not a Hillary supporter — merely a Hillary voter by default. At the risk of putting myself to sleep by repeating it for the umpteenth time: I am a Kucinich woman. Clinton and Obama were my last two choices.
Second, not all Hillary supporters “hate” all Obama supporters — but those who hate many Obama supporters have lots of very good reasons. Honestly, don’t tell me you haven’t seen the name-calling, the threats, the F.U.’s… all in an attempt to silence criticism of Obama?
If you have a problem with someone individual, insult them, not the group they belong to. Get it?
If I were to name every last member of Obamanation I “have a problem” with — well, the task would be akin to typing out the contents of the Manhattan phone book.
Go back over some of the hate mail I’ve received. Go find me on Democratic Underground, before I gave up the futile effort of trying to talk sense to the brainwashed. Anyone who called me a racist, who told me my civil rights were a non-issue (which goes all the way back to 2002, pre-Obama), who accused me of being a Republican troll, etc., etc. — that’s who I’ve got a problem with.
(And, no, I don’t buy the line, “It’s only a message board.” I know there are real people behind those “anonymous” usernames. In fact, I had a long, wonderful history with a good many of those very real people before they were put on a drip feed of Obamania.)
Now, I definitely disagree on Obama with this, and on other important things. But the sad fact of the matter is the alternatives were worse.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! The only alternative — and the right one — was for Obama to stand tall, against his own party. Isn’t that what he’s supposed to be all about, doing the right thing, as opposed to the politically-expedient (and cowardly) thing?
Yet all he’s done is live down to my extremely low expectations of him. Don’t make me read off the long, long laundry list of his endless sell-outs — although one I haven’t mentioned much is NAFTA; that’s another prime example of Obama selling out on progressive Democratic values (and typical of the way he operates).
In any case, I truly believe he was not forced into a corner on FISA. Re-read Unqualified Offerings‘ take; UO’s “sneaking suspicion” is my “sneaking suspicion,” too:
I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two. Nothing stopped him from dragging Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid into the same corner where he buttonholed Joe Lieberman. If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. Except if he either doesn’t consider it important enough to be worth his time and credibility, or if he’s just as happy that the measure might pass.
The man is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and he has a lot of political capital to spend — less today than yesterday, of course, but Obama could have circumvented this disaster… unless, of course, “Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won’t Come Out and Say It).” Which, I believe, he does.
I like Hilary, but she felt it necessary when she was First Lady to end her campaign for universal healthcare thanks to being bribed by the healthcare industry. So I don’t feel I could trust her to work for the wellbeing of the poor if she was bribed again.
Who mentioned Hillary (or healthcare, for that matter)? Hillary has nothing to do with this. This was Obama’s decision and Obama’s decision alone, and no amount of speculation about what Hillary might or might not have done has any bearing on that.
Did you read the post where I mentioned Godwin’s Law? You’ve got to get out of the “Hillary would have been worse” mindset (the Siamese twin of “Hillary did it too!”/”Hillary did it first!”) and focus on Obama now. The Hillary blame game is moribund, defunct, pointless, futile.
The primaries are over. Obama is the nominee now.
McCain? I won’t even get started on that sick bastard.
Neither will I. Nor did I.
So complain all you like, got any better ideas?
As a matter of fact, I do — but none of them will work now that Obama has been crammed down our throats (mine and yours). But since you asked, I’ll tell you how we, together, could have avoided this whole nightmare — although I expect you won’t like the answer:
Take the big money out of politics, and you’ve eliminated the legalized corruption of politics. Leave campaign financing in the hands of private donors, and you end up with truly excellent candidates like Dennis Kucinich, and truly decent candidates like John Edwards, dropping out. That’s the reason Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday (the day he, and not Clinton, would have gotten my vote): He was outspent. His campaign was starved to death.
Private campaign financing makes for the most un-level playing field possible. That we ended up with the two candidates with the deepest pockets should come as no surprise.
So that’s my answer: Strike at the root, before you find yourself strangled into immobilization by an out-of-control weed. (In Obama’s case, we’re being chocked to death by kudzu.)
But that’s all moot now. The problem can’t be fixed. I’m tempted to fill an entire paragraph with old sayings about putting the toothpaste back in the tube and shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped, because that’s what it comes down to: It’s too late to fix it now. Obama is the nominee, and he shouldn’t have been.
That’s why I ended my post as I did: I don’t have any solution to this travesty. The problem could have been avoided if the Obama believers had just listened to us doubters, and taken our concerns as seriously as we did (and do).
And yes, I will keep complaining all I like. I’m hella angry with Obamaniacs (the ones who spit out “racist!” like an endless loop at every criticism of Obama, no matter how valid), and even angrier at those who refuse to admit their complicity in forcing an unvetted DINO on us.
I feel exactly the way I did in 2000: I was in the minority then — the minority of Americans who saw right through George W. Bush’s snow job — and now I’m in a minority within a minority: those of us who never bought Obama’s snake oil in the first place.
My only consolation — and it is a very small consolation indeed — is that at least I wasn’t responsible for this mess. I tried to stop this, in the only way I knew how, and so did 18 million other voters, and scores of clear-headed bloggers. Nobody listened, and so here we are.
You bet I’m angry. And I expect I’m going to be raging against the machine until the day I die.
It’s just a damned shame that the party I once believed in with all my heart and soul is the machine.
House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation
WASHINGTON, DC — June 20 — Following a vote in the House of Representatives sanctioning warrantless wiretapping and handing immunity to telecommunications companies for their role in domestic spying, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage at representatives who voted for the unconstitutional legislation. The bill, H.R. 6304, or The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed the chamber by a vote of 293-129, and is expected to be voted on in the Senate next week.
The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office:
“It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.
“No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.
“More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House.”
Did you really think I wouldn’t take Obamaniacs — not mere supporters, but Obamaniacs — to the woodshed on this one?
I’m not talking about his AIPAC speech, his endorsement of (and TV ad for) warmongering, Bush-tax-cuts-loving, right-wing Democrat John Barrow, or even the appalling notion that DADT darling Sam Nunn really is on his short list of VP picks — all blogworthy topics, but all of which pale in comparison to Obama’s sell-out on…
…you know what I’m going to say. G’head, say it with me: FISA.
Grab a cold one, sit back, and get comfortable.
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA “Compromise”
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance — making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”
So, how ya feelin’, Obama supporters, now that your guy, Mister “Constitutional Lawyer,” has just peed all over the Constitution — or, more acurately, driven a stake through the heart of the Fourth Amendment?
Sorry (no, actually, after the rotten way you’ve treated me and every other non-Obamaite, I’m not sorry at all) to rub salt into your freshly opened wounds, but I told you so: He was bound to disappoint you, in a big, big way. Me, I’m not “disappointed” or at all surprised, because this is exactly the sort of behavior I — and more real Democrats than you want to know about — have expected of him. The signs have always been there. You just stuck your fingers in your ears and went “Lalalalalalala! I can’t hear you! Lalalalalalala!” — that is, when you weren’t channeling the dis-ease of cognitive dissonance into making schoolyard-bully, ad hominem attacks on the people who have been trying to force you to see Obama for what he is: just another slick, old-school politician — and worse, in my book, a gen-u-ine DINO.
Telling Americans that we have to give up basic constitutional rights — and allow rampant lawbreaking — if we want to save ourselves from “the grave threats we face” sounds awfully familiar. He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. …
Nobody should be fooled by Obama’s vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill. Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this “effort” is likely to fail and is just pure political theater: Reid said: “Probably we can’t take that out of the bill, but I’m going to try.” The article continued: “Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to ‘express their views.’”
We should continue to demand that amnesty is removed from the bill — and fight it to the bitter end — but this whole separate vote they’ll have in the Senate on whether to remove amnesty is principally designed to enable Obama, once he votes to enact this bill, to say: “Well, I tried to get immunity out, and when I couldn’t, I decided to support the compromise.” It’s almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama’s support for the bill before unveiling it.
Either way, Obama — if amnesty isn’t removed — is going to vote for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, and his statement today all but sealed the fate of this bill. There is no point in sugarcoating that, though we ought to continue to fight its enactment with a focus on removing amnesty in the Senate.
— Glenn Greenwald
I kept telling you: Obama is no liberal. Obama was never a liberal.
But you let him pull the wool over your eyes. And we are all going to pay for it.
Today, from what I’ve been observing on the pro-Obama blogs and boards, half of you are sick to your stomachs over Obama’s FISA sell-out (and those rational Obama supporters who dare to criticize Teh Chosen One are getting eaten alive by the Obamaniacs; wade through the hysteria at Democratic Underground yourself if you want evidence), while the other half are still in denial, grasping desperately at straws; i.e., “Obama probably knows something we don’t, and he just can’t talk about it publicly right now! This is all part of a big plan that’s for the greater good! We have to trust him!” (And where have you heard that kind of talk before? I’ll tell you: from Bush supporters.)
And then there’s this oft-seen apologist justification: “Obama can’t be seen as soft on terror! Once he gets into the White House, then he’ll roll back FISA, completely! We have to trust him!“
So you’re worried about being seen as “soft on terror,” eh? So the Obamapologists, like the spineless, mealy-mouthed House Democrats who passed this ugly thing, are stuck in the same old groove: always running defense, in the position they allow Republicans to put them in. Some leadership. Some change.
If you can’t hold Mr. Accountability accountable now, do you really believe he’s going to give two shits what you think when he’s the one basking in all that unfettered power he’ll have inherited from Bush? (How’d ya like the juxtaposition between “the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people” and “I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary …”?)
In short, Barack doesn’t want to forfeit all that nice, juicy, limitless power George W. Bush has right now.
I know y’all are sick to death of us gays and our silly little civil-rights “wedge issue,” but damn it anyway, I’ll say it again: Didja notice how Obama didn’t give two shits about what the gay community had to say during the Donnie McClurkin flap? That was a sign — a big sign to those of us on the receiving end of Barack’s blatant F.U. But you wouldn’t sit up and take notice then, because it didn’t impact you. Well, now, this FISA thing impacts everybody. How’s it feel to know Obama doesn’t give a damn about your civil liberties anymore than he does our civil rights?
I agree with my man Thoreau that telecom immunity is a genuine test of Barack Obama’s bona fides on civil liberties. It’s also a genuine test of the liberal side of any liberal-libertarian fusionism.
I think it’s very possibly a test that Obama has already failed. I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two. Nothing stopped him from dragging Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid into the same corner where he buttonholed Joe Lieberman. If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. Except if he either doesn’t consider it important enough to be worth his time and credibility, or if he’s just as happy that the measure might pass.
— Unqualified Offerings
Really, kids, when are you going to face reality? Obama going back on his word over public campaign financing should have been a big clue of what was to come (namely, something even bigger), but which had little effect on your insistence that Obama is the best thing to come along for democracy since the invention of the printing press. You know what I saw most of the Obamaniacs saying at DU? That public campaign financing was a non-issue. That the American people don’t care about public campaign financing. That the American people are too ignorant to even understand public campaign financing. That the MSM was creating a mountain out of a molehole. That this, too, shall pass.
But you didn’t get it. Whether or not anyone cares about or understands public campaign financing (which plenty of us do), those who don’t do understand the one thing you wish they didn’t: Obama did commit to public campaign financing, and he went back on his word. (I’d quote the headline in Time magazine that says it all, but it’s an AP source; let’s just say it echoes what I wrote two days ago: Obama decided to forgo integrity in favor of cold, hard cash.)
No matter how many months you’ve spent convincing yourselves that those of us who don’t live in ObamaWorld are just a bunch of bitter, old, hormonal morons, that right there should have forced you to realize that we haven’t just been talking out of our butts — and that our very real issues with Obama are just that: issues, and not the manifestion of Hillary worship.
“Work to remove” telecom immunity should be rewritten to “maybe show up to vote on some amendment that will surely be struck down and then whimper away.” What a colossal failure of leadership.
Obama earns a Wanker of the Day from Atrios. And it’s well-deserved. I thought he’d issue some vague statement of disapproval and then miss the vote. This endorsement of a X’ing out the Fourth Amendment is waaaay out of bounds.
— Digby
You should have known.
Today, at least, you’re not claiming that Obama’s FISA flip-flop is a non-issue, or that the American people are too apathetic — or stupid — to care about it. You’re upset, angry, and disillusioned. As you should be.
What you shouldn’t be is surprised.
Taylor Marsh (whom you Obama supporters love to hate) nails it:
Not Exactly the Change You were Hoping For
Democrats caved. Speaker Pelosi led the cave in, along with Steny Hoyer and so many others.
Including the Democratic nominee for president, with a teaser. About that telecom immunity he supports giving companies like AT&T, Senator Obama “will work… to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.” …
Not that I’m in the least surprised.
Way to go Democrats! You showed them, er… Way to stand up, um… No caving to fear-mongering from you all…eh… #*@$! Spineless, the lot of them who caved on this just to make sure Republicans couldn’t say they were “soft on terrorism.”
As long as Republicans get to lead top Democrats, including our nominee, around by the nose on national security we will forever be taking a back seat to these Spy Now No Consequences Later Republicans. Pathetic in every sense of the word.
Now we wait for Senator Obama to “work” to remove the immunity so Democrats can “seek” accountability. And when he falls short of the votes what then? I suspect he’ll suck it up like all the rest of these pantywaist “war on terror” toadies. Again, not that I expected anything different from him. But I bet his supporters are having a rude awakening of what they got from this guy right now. It’s been quite a week for Senator Obama: walking away from public financing (good move, which I predicted from the start); now a cave in of all cave ins complete with a weasel word fog of monumental proportions.
Not much change so far. Keep hoping!
So, what is there to do about it? Go ahead, write all the letters you want. Obama knows he’s already got your vote. The party is “married to Obama” now, realized one DU poster (grossing me out with the allusion to the idea of “falling in love with” and “coming to” Obama; one blogger even said she feels “a little jilted. Ick.)
If “you go to the polls with the shitty candidates you have, and not the not-so-shitty candidates you wish you had” — and you keeping voting for those shitty candidates, how the hell do you ever expect to get something better than shitty candidates?
As someone once said to me: “How are we going to hold their feet to fire if they know they’re going to get our votes no matter what they do?”
…Or how loudly we bitch — and then vote for them anyway?
So, gnash your teeth and rend your garments all you want — Obama’s still got your vote (if not your money and time), and he knows it.
Me, I don’t know how to change this. I don’t have an answer. He’s your Golden Child. You know his soul, intimately, in some arcane, otherworldly way the rest of us don’t. You figure out what works.
It’s out of my hands — and has been, from the moment I wasn’t given a choice in the matter of who will best lead us.
Too late to try to rein in the Frankenstein’s monster you created, Barry. So stop trying to look so surprised and dismayed when those street punks you call a “base” come back to bite you straight in your own arrogant arse — this is the house that you built. Enjoy.
(And, yes, Obamahysterics, I did see the video for myself, several times today. The Obamababies were, and remain, utterly revolting.)
The jeering from thousands of Obama supporters at Joe Louis Arena came after Granholm acknowledged her support of Clinton, and they seemed to take her aback. “Come on now,” the governor pleaded before finally continuing, “I’m proud to say I’m standing with her and all of you” in supporting Obama.
A few moments later the same fired-up crowd booed former vice president Al Gore when he urged Democrats to be respectful of the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. “In that case I’m glad I brought it up,” Gore dryly responded. …
When Obama took the stage, he reprimanded the audience for booing Granholm over Clinton, then went on an extended detour to praise his former rival.
“I want everybody here to be absolutely clear,” Obama said. “Senator Clinton is one of the finest public servants we have in American life today. …She is worthy of our respect. She is worthy of our honor. She is going to be at the forefront of bringing about change.”
He dismissed the speculation that Clinton backers would not support him, that his supporters would not welcome Clinton’s, and said: “Let me tell you something. We’re all Democrats.”
Pfffffffffffft! I’d laugh if I didn’t think you believed that, Barry.
Somebody tell me: What is the point of comments like the following? Do people actually believe they’re going to get me to change my mind, or shut up, or pledge my allegiance to Obama, or jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, or whatever it is they want me to do, by sending messages like this? Really, I’d like to know:
Date: Sat, June 14, 2008 11:23 am Name: Ryan emailaddress: ryanclary@ —.com
Message: This is the most humorless and nasty blog I’ve ever read. You spew vile on a nearly daily basis about Obama and his supporters but then scream at people not to “bully” you. The internet is perfect for people like you. You dish but don’t seem to want to take it.
By the way, I agree with some of the substance behind your arguments (as hard as it is to find the substance underneath all the vomit). I strongly support Obama, but was appalled by the sexism towards Clinton by the media, general public, and some in the Obama campaign. It’s too bad your point is badly lost amidst the insults and sweeping statements you make against the candidate and his supporters.
Ryan Clary
Oh, brother.
What irony: You chew me out for making “sweeping statements,” while lumping me into some vague category of “people like you.”
Who are “people like me,” Ryan? Strong women with strong opinions who won’t sit back like good little girls and let the big, tough boys tell us what to think, when to speak, what to say, and how to vote? Newsflash: I left the Catholic church when I was 15, and, more than 30 years later, I have no intention of kowtowing to self-ordained priests in the Mighty Church of Obama.
And how is the Internet “perfect” for “people like me,” Ryan? If you think I’m afraid to get out in the street for a good, loud protest, you’re sadly mistaken. I think it’s the Obama 101st Keyboard Brigade who, if forced to confront someone like me IRL, would wet their pants, burst into tears, and run home to the safe haven of Mom’s basement.
And if I “don’t seem to want to take” any more bullying, why should I? I’ve taken more than my fair share. I’m a lesbian, remember? You know — one of those middle-aged, white, feminist lesbians your camp delights in marginalizing as a bunch of irrelevant old biddies you don’t want or need in your Great New Society. And when I’m not standing up against attempts (by “people like you,” Ryan) to intimidate and silence me, I’m standing up against people who have made it their lives’ work to harass, threaten, and demonize gay and lesbian Americans.
You think I’m “dishing out” anything even remotely comparable, Ryan? Think again. In the real world, I’ve been physically shoved, pushed up against a wall, accosted with a pool cue turned weapon, and threatened with rape — all just to “prove” to me that my lesbianism (and, I suppose, my feminist uppitiness) could be “cured” by “the right man.”
Now, you tell me again how I can “dish it out,” but I can’t take it. I’ve never “dished out” half of what I’ve received. By comparison, my words are a love tap — and if you’re so upset by what I say (and it’s obvious you are; I appreciate you letting me know I’ve struck a raw nerve in you), you try living with what I get, and then get back to me.
I’ve had a lifetime of being bullied, Ryan, and I don’t need one more minute of it, from you or anyone else.
Next, about this “vile” thing: I love how you fail to tell me what you find “vile” here.
I guess, in your book, Ryan, telling the truth about Obama and his supporters is just “spewing vile.” Funny, but I don’t ever recall expressing the desire to see Obama “self-immolate on the steps of the Capitol” — which would be vile indeed. Funny, but I don’t ever recall telling an Obama supporter, “No one cares if you shove a f—ing stick of dynamite up your —.”
Or is it just that strong criticism of Obama and Obamanation is “vile,” Ryan? Is it my constant armchair psychoanalysis of Obamamania that bothers you (maybe, ’cause, I’m, like, right?)
Are your feathers ruffled because I produced the most faithful recounting of the Obama LGBT conference call available — and still didn’t buy into the “Let’s rally around the Unity Pony!” snow job? Or is it that you’re supremely frustrated because you don’t have the answers to the 14 questions I have for Barack — which you and I both know will never be addressed?
Maybe you’re just embarrassed by the fact that I call your fellow Obama supporters on their most despicable — and downright craziest — behavior, such as when Obots everywhere took Clinton’s RFK remark as a silent “dog whistle” to her supporters, or when your fellow Obama supporters express the certainty that, given the opportunity, Hillary herself would literally kill you-know-who.
Or maybe you’re mad because I was right about the Obots marching in lockstep to the orders of their Beloved Leader.
Oh, did any of those words offend your fragile sensibilities — “Obamabot,” “Obot,” “Obamaniac,” “Obamanation”? I’ll make you a deal, buddy: You get the Obamabots to stop flinging every sexist, ageist, elitist, lying epithet (”bitch,” “old,” “uneducated,” “paleofeminist,” “postsexual,” and worse) at those of us not swept away by your precious Obama, and I’ll think about striking “Obamabot” and all its variants from my vocabulary. (I don’t think there’s anything you can say or do to get me to stop using the word “cult” — at least, not until Obamanation stops acting like one.)
I will give you some credit for admitting — even if you can’t stop yourself from slapping me around in the process — that even a tiny sliver of truth in my words has managed to seep into your consciousness. But I hope you’re not reserving your ire at the sexism you’ve seen just for little ol’ me; I hope you’ve raged against the machine in which you are a cog. ‘Cause, see, Ryan, I’m the last person you need to educate about sexism; you’d be spending your time far more constructively educating the sexists in your own camp. Are you doing that? Do you “considerest the beam that is in thine own eye” as you “beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye”?
Oh, and if you want me to take your claim of outrage at sexism seriously, you might find another word to characterize my writing besides “scream[ing].” You’re getting into “shrill” and “hysterical” territory with that one, Ryan. Would you call a male blogger you disagreed with “screaming”? I doubt it.
And if you don’t like what you read here, then why are you reading it — especially “on a nearly daily basis”? Are you just trolling all non-Kool-Aid-fueled blogs looking for something to get indignant about? Did you just want to unload your anger with us non-Kool-Aid drinkers onto the first one you found, and I happened to be the lucky one?
Oh, and by the way: You’re the one without a sense of humor. Have you seen the Pocket Guide to the Obamaniac Behavior Cycle? I created that — and everybody but Obama supporters thinks it’s a freaking laugh riot. And what about “If You’re An Obama Supporter… / If You’re A Clinton Supporter…” (Part 1, Part 2)? Didn’tcha like that, Ryan? No? Well, maybe you’re just not a fan of “it’s funny because it’s true” humor.
And if you think I’m “humorless and nasty,” you’ve obviously never read The Rude Pundit (he lurrrrrves using the C-word, and he seems to be obsessed with the visual of— well, just go search for the word “skull” over there, and you’ll see what I mean) or Annotated Rant.
G’wan, I dare ya: Go read them, and then come back and tell me how “humorless,” “nasty,” and “vile” I am.
Finally, what is it you hoped to achieve with your message to me, Ryan? You can’t possibly believe that I was going to read it, sit back, and think: “Gosh, you know, he’s right. I’m vile, nasty, and humorless, and I’ve been terribly unfair to poor, saintly Mr. Obama, and to his perfectly innocent, butter-wouldn’t-melt supporters. I’m going to mend my ways right now, and throw my full support behind a ‘movement’ that, when it’s not dismissing my existence entirely, treats me like total crap. Why, I think I’ll use next week’s grocery money to make a big, fat donation to Obama right this minute — that should be an appropriate ritual sacrifice to get me started on atoning for my horrible, morally reprehensible sin of telling it like it is.”
So, there you are, Ryan: If you were looking for attention today, you got it. You got the vile, nasty, humorless old lesbian to take a few minutes out of her day just for you.
P.S. You know what’s really sad? The way you characterize this blog, while conveniently ignoring all the extremely positive pro-gay news and opinion here — and the constant, consistent, full-frontal assaults on the Radical Righties who hate us queers with a passion far more “vile” than anything I’ve ever written in my life. It’s also a damned shame you haven’t the first clue about the years I spent blogging against BushCo, when precious few dared — which brought me more “vile” hate mail (including the occasional death threat) than you could ever imagine.
You know, Ryan, you’d probably think I was a great blogger if I didn’t disagree with you, vehemently, on Obama. But I do, so you dismiss everything I write, and worse, you dismiss me.
… [Hillary] Clinton has been a one-woman industry. By my inexact count, more than 50 books have been published about her, many of them highly critical and some so purple as to be suitable as evidence at their authors’ competency hearings. One is called “Why the Clintons Belong in Prison.” Another is “Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton and America’s Demise,” and yet another is “Hillary’s Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton’s Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House.” My favorite, though, is “The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit: Stick It to Her Before She Sticks It to You!” — both a doll and a book of suggested spells. …
This is not to say that no one has written admiringly or fairly of Clinton, but the big bucks clearly went to those who wrote with a blowtorch. …
Books aside, a vast industry of bloggers and conventional old-timey columnists clearly felt compelled to write at least one Clinton column a week, usually in scorn and contempt. …
Years from now, historians will ponder the attention accorded Hillary Clinton and possibly compare her to Eleanor Roosevelt, another presidential wife who was inordinately admired and inordinately scorned. Maybe some historians will note that both are women and that maybe, just maybe, women come in for a special sort of vituperation — a kind of contemporary version of burning at the stake.
The same historians might note also that many of Clinton’s most persistent critics were women…
Now, though, an eerie silence has settled over the land. With Hillary Clinton out of the race, thousands of computer keyboards have been stilled, dozens of books have been abandoned in mid-chapter, and enormously influential bloggers, most of them unknown to me, have vanished from the Web. Some anti-Hillary obsessives (see the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) must be feeling the sickening vertigo once experienced by Vaughn Meader, whose entire show business career was based on impersonating John F. Kennedy and who, in essence, died when Kennedy did.
It’s over, ladies and gentlemen. Hillary Clinton lost. And so did you.
The OP (original post) is: “Question for people that still dislike and/or distrust Hillary … What more does she have to do to redeem herself in your eyes?”
As I noted just moments ago, conceding and throwing her full support behind Obama isn’t enough for Obamanation. Among the replies:
…support Obama’s choice of VP when it isn’t her……
Obama has to win in the fall … If that does not happen, I will ahve no chopice but to lay the blame squarely at her feet. … If he loses, I still blame Hillary 100%. She should not be campaigning via surrogates for the Veep job as it only serves to sew further division. … If he loses, it is because of teh divisive crap thrown at him by a fellow Democrat.
What does Hillary have to do? Let’s see…
1. Admit that Obama won fair and square and that he didn’t disenfranchise voters. 2. Stop lying about the popular vote; she did not win the vote. 3. Reel in her attack-dog surrogates who are provoking divisivness (e.g. Davis, McAuliffe, Wasserman-Schultz, Tubbs-Jones, Bob Johnson, and of course, Geri Ferarro). 4. Stop pushing Obama into a corner and strong-arming for the VP. Get her surrogates and supporters to stop. The VP decision is Obama’s alone. 5. Stop blaming her loss *solely* on sexism. She ran an abysmal campaign and didn’t manager her money.
Nothing… she voted for the war.
The Kyl/Lieberman bill The Bankrupcy Bill
I could forgive all her antics in the primaries, but will never forgive her for letting us all down when it was the most important.
i just dont want to hear or see her for say a year
I would like to see her directly address her by-now-infamous “supporters” who have really gone off the deep end. After all, they didn’t get that way by themselves. She really needs to deflate the huge balloon of indignation that she PURPOSELY supplied much of the air for.
What she would have to do is begin reliably voting *ON THE PROGRESSIVE SIDE* of the issues rather than on the Bush-aligned side. She could start voting for the people rather than the corporations.
Nothing surprising, right? Well, hold onto your hat:
In case you have your images turned off, it reads:
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-10-08 08:42 AM Response to Original message
15. The only thing that could possibly satisfy me is if she self-immolates on the steps of the Capitol.
Nothing less will suffice to placate me.
And they wonder why we don’t want to be associated with this farce of a “movement”? Hope and unity, indeed.
Message: Here’s the thing - part of being a strong, independent woman is a) knowing when you’re the wrong person for the job, and b) knowing when to capitulate. Hillary knows neither. She is simply the wrong person for the job - her quest for the Presidency is nothing more than a massive ego-stroke for her. She feels *entitled* to it, and that is the reason why she lost her bid. It has nothing to do with her gender - it has everything to do with her character. Feminists need to understand that there is a wide gulf between disliking a candidate because of her gender, and because of her character.
My question to you is this: Why are you still harping on Hillary? You got what you wanted — Obama.
Hillary conceded — unequivocally, and unconditionally — and has thrown her full weight behind Obama. She capitulated (like an obedient little wifey is supposed to, right?). What more do you want? Public self-flagellation? An apology for the little old lady refusing to get out of the way of the big young man?
Here’s the new rule: In any discussion of the 2008 presidential race, Hillary-bashing is now equivalent to Godwin’s Law, specifically:
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a thread has gone on too long, who’s playing fair and who’s just slinging mud, and who finally gets to “win” the discussion.
I suggest that if you want your candidate to actually win this thing, you focus your attention on November — not February, and not 1992.
I also suggest — strongly — that if you don’t want to push non-Obama-lovers any further away than you already have (if that’s possible), you cease lecturing women on what it means to be “a strong, independent woman.”
If you are a male (which appears to be the case per the name in your email address), you are no authority on the subject, and your opinion carries no weight. (If you’re a female, you should just be ashamed of yourself for attempting to tell another woman — me — what feminism means.)
If you belong to a minority group and want to tell me all about what that means, I’m all ears. If you don’t, then you have no place to tell me what feminism means — and, male or female, you have no place to judge Hillary Clinton’s motives for running.
“Entitled,” indeed. Do you know the meaning of the word “projection”? No, really — do you?
Psychological projection is the phenomenon whereby one projects one’s own thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings, and so on onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals, parents, children, neighbors, other drivers, political figures, racial groups, states and countries, also occurs). … The principle of projection is well-established in psychology. …
It is “the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable — too shameful, too obscene, too dangerous — by attributing them to another”.
Projection concerns externalizing the issues that we need to deal with ourselves. Usually we project onto others issues and problems that we need to address within ourselves, or are unable to manage properly. Projection is irresponsible behavior as we dump our problem onto somebody else. We justify these projections by blaming someone or something outside for the emotions we do not want to feel. We project our disappointments and problems onto other people, it is somehow their fault, we become a blamer. Ultimately it is the person who projects that loses, as they never really sort out their own problems. …
You’ve seen parents raging at their children demanding they meet requirements the parent has failed to achieve themselves. This is projection. The parent trains the child to do all the negative behaviors the parent has repressed for a lifetime. … They see their own behavior mirrored back in the child and then rage against their own projection trying to get the child to change what they are not yet willing change and face in themselves. We try to change everything outside us when we are not willing to go inside and do the work we need to do to change ourselves. You see this with so called progressives. They try to change everything in the world rather than do their own inner work. …
Classic racism is an example of psychological projection; “It’s all their fault that I feel they way that I do,” says the racist. I am a victim of another persons thoughts or actions.
Classic sexism is another example.
Barack Obama appeals, across the board, to a generation of young Americans who embody the word “entitlement.” The young voters so enamored of Obama are the ones who have no clue what it means to lose, and lose graciously (or win graciously). This is the first generation that grew up expecting a “participation ribbon” — a damned trophy just for showing up.
(No wonder Obama is so readily forgiven for his “present” votes — he showed up, didn’t he?)
There’s a blogger named John Hines, Jr. I don’t know anything about him — his politics, his religion, whether he loves Teh Gays or hates us — but I know I agree with him on something he wrote last year, which I bookmarked, because he sums up the phenomenon as well as anyone:
Susan is watching a bunch of losers from Seattle and points beyond make fools of themselves on the latest round of tryouts for American Idol. …
The difference between me and those people who show up at the American Idol auditions is a simple one. I have self-limiting controls based on my experiences in early childhood and adolescence. These poor contestants don’t have those controls. …
There is a disturbing trend in America. I don’t know when it started. It wasn’t prevalent when I was in school (class of 1988, baby), but it was by the time my son started school in 1997. Somehow in nine years, everyone went crazy.
I played T-ball as a very small child. I sucked at it. I couldn’t hit the ball off of the T. Just in case you’ve never seen this, what happens is a baseball is placed on a rubber pedestal in front of a youth holding an aluminum baseball bat. The child in question then gets three attempts to hit the ball from the T. After that, the rules are a lot like baseball. Run the bases, slide, throw, etc.
I think I mentioned some suckage. I’m here to admit I couldn’t hit the ball. It was presented to me on a pedestal and I could take all the time I wanted to aim, but I couldn’t do it right. I would either hit the pedestal, or the bat would pass harmlessly over the top of the baseball, having no effect except to corkscrew me around like the Tasmanian Devil in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Our team came in last place. Both years. Do you know what we got? Nothing. No trophy, no participation ribbon. Nothing. “Better luck next year.” Losing was part of the game, and no one thought anything of it. I don’t think I scored a run. I sucked, I promise. But I still had fun. Somehow, even with someone keeping score, I still look back on those games fondly. They were happy times, not diminished in the least by the fact we lost.
Today, you won’t see that in T-ball. First, no one keeps score. It damages the self-esteem of children to keep score. Second, everyone gets to swing until they hit the ball. It doesn’t matter if it takes all afternoon. Third, everyone runs all the way around the bases every inning. Everyone gets to cross homeplate, even if they were “out” by the time they got to second base. It’s a travesty. It creates the wrong expectations in children. “No matter what happens, I’m going to succeed.”
Bullshit. Everybody fails at something. Dragging kids through a life where they never have to deal with the disappointment of not being good enough doesn’t do them any favors. It creates a sense of… I’d say “entitlement,” but that’s not quite the right word. A sense of “inevitability of a positive outcome.” There, that’s better. I don’t know if there is a phrase for that condition, other than, say, “hopeful impetuousness.”
It is because of this “everyone is a winner” attitude we have things like American Idol, and the train-wreck of those first auditions. And by “first auditions,” I mean “public exposure of gross inadequacy and over-inflated self-esteem.” It’s sickening. But, at the same time, it’s fun to watch.
“Fun to watch,” maybe, if we’re talking about William Hung — but utterly pathetic (and sickening indeed) when it comes to people who cry and stomp their feet when they don’t get what they think they’re entitled to — like far too many Obama supporters, who got what they wanted, and still want more — what, I just don’t know (and I’m not sure they do, either).
Maybe down deep, they know that just by becoming Democrats, they’ve joined the losingest team around, and are setting themselves up for a lifetime of disappointment. Only twice — in 1992 and 1996 — have I ever been on the winning side; the rest of the time, I was with the losers, the Democrats. (And I’ve never gotten a “participation ribbon” — only a lot of grief.)
Obama supporters had better get used to being losers. Obama may win the general election, but he may lose — and his supporters haven’t begun to come to grips with that possibility, nor with the very real fact that even if he wins, they are going to be sorely disappointed by his presidency. I guarantee you that disappointment: The pedestal his supporters have put him on is so impossibly high, he cannot reasonably live up to half the expectations put upon him. I’d almost feel sorry for the guy, if it weren’t obvious that he’s bought into much of his own hype.
There’s a rude awakening coming — and a great deal of it will come when Obama supporters finally realize that no amount of Hillary-bashing is going to have any effect on the way Obama conducts himself as a candidate, or as a president.
Hillary-bashing is a futile exercise now — but legions of Obama supporters cannot let go of it. You lecture us about “moving on,” when you yourselves cannot.
If one good thing has come out of this endless nightmare of a primary, it’s that many of us (women, and real men) who spent our formative years watching the battle of the sexes played out on “All in the Family,” regarding Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, and Shirley Chisholm as greater heroes than Buzz Aldrin and Willy Mays, and finding newfound respect for Ed Asner as we sprawled in the sun listening to him speak at ERA rallies, have been jarred out of our complacency and recognized the pervasive, appalling sexism in our society — a cancer that should have been eradicated 30 years ago.
I’ve thought for some months that I was sensing a resurgence of feminism across the country, in response to the ugly way in which sexism, once latent and now blatant, has reemerged. And I’m seeing my thoughts echoed across the ‘Net: Slowly but surely, feminists (women and men alike) are beginning to learn the lesson of the past 15 months: The Hillary Hate movement is but a symptom of a widespread, insidious disease, and, as with any disease, treating the symptom won’t cure the illness. You can put a Band-Aid over a festering sore, but if you don’t clean the wound and shore up your immune system with antibiotics, the sickness will kill you.
The Hillary Haters want us to “move on” — but what they really mean by “move on” is “drop it.”
To me, “move on” means only one thing: Take what you’ve learned and channel your fire into positive, productive action.
As I’ve poured far more energy into fighting homophobia (which, many believe, is a subset of misogyny; while skeptical about one being the “subset” of the other, I believe they are directly and inextricably entwined), I too let my guard down when it came to sexism. I should have been more vigilant — and I should have known better, precisely because I’m a lesbian: In the 1980s, I was too relaxed about homophobia, at the very moment the Moral Majority (remember them?) was mounting a full, frontal assault on me, on my people. I’ve been paying the price ever since.
I’m not going to let that happen again. Just as I feel a sense of community with all other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people solely because of our common oppression (we’re a diverse lot, and we share precious else across the board other than our oppression), I have begun to feel a re-connection with other women in general — from Midwestern soccer moms to silver-haired hippies still living on communes in Humboldt County — in a way I haven’t felt since the late 1970s.
I want to apologize to you — to the feminists who came long before me, and to the young women now, whom I have not served well, in that I have not taught you to appreciate the advantages you have that I did not when I was young, nor to be as aware of the disadvantages you still face — nor to guard against further erosion of your status, nor how to fight back, tirelessly, vigilantly, and effectively.
The question, to you and to myself, is this: Now that we have been slapped (and I use that word deliberately) back into awareness of the real state of sexism in our society, what are we going to do about it? (Doing nothing is not an option.)
I’ll let that question simmer for a while, while I direct your attention to this video, and the people who made it:
On May 23, The Women’s Media Center, along with our partners at Media Matters, launched, “Sexism Sells, But We’re Not Buying It,” a new video and online petition campaign illustrating the pervasive nature of sexism in the media’s coverage. While Hillary Clinton’s campaign has cast a spotlight on the issue of sexism, this isn’t a partisan issue: it’s about making sure that women’s voices are present and powerful in our national dialogue. …
Let’s send a message to the media:
Sexism Might Sell, But We’re Not Buying It!
… Through our advocacy work on behalf of women in the media, The Women’s Media Center meets regularly with media executives to discuss important issues of representation in the media. Please join our campaign by signing this petition. We will present your signatures and feedback to the executives as we continue our work to make women more visible and powerful in the media. …
Hit the link to find out more about what The Women’s Media Center is doing — and, much more importantly, what you can do.
Your life depends on it. Literally.
Or do you want to spend the rest of your life being mocked and dismissed as the uppity little lady who needs to sit down, shut up, and do what she’s told?
Believe it or not, my editorializing is at a bare minimum here. I think you’ll be more than able to “hear” the tone for yourself; i.e.: “Ask not what Obama will do for the LGBT community — ask what the LGBT community can sacrifice to get Obama elected.”
Suffice to say: The O Camp has a long, long way to go to convince me of anything — and its chances of convincing me to vote for their guy is next to… oh, how shall I put it? Nuthin’.
I called in at 2:57 p.m. and, after enduring the most craptastic on-hold music until 3:05 p.m., the call started at 3:06 p.m., led by Steve Hildebrand, Deputy Campaign Manager of Obama for America.
Hildebrand began by telling us this is “a very important time for our country, and for our party, and for Senator Obama, and for Senator Clinton…” and noted that while the announcement for the conference call was on short notice, nearly 1,200 people were listening in.
There will be another conference call within the next two weeks, which Obama himself will join.
Hildebrand continued: “This has obviously been a very long… exciting… painful, challenging… historic” primary process, “very historic,” between the Democratic Party’s first female and first African-American candidates. “The fact that these two candidates raised enormous sums of money” and brought in “enormous… record numbers” of new voters and volunteers “is really quite ‘impactful’ for the progressive community, [and] for the Democratic Party… [which] bodes well as we go into the general election.”
Hildebrand expressed the hope that the Hillary Clinton supporters on the call could “wrap your head around the situation, to hopefully join Barack and his venture,” moving forward at whatever pace was comfortable, while he recognizes “the pain that goes with this.”
“Know that you have a welcome home here, and that we need your help, we want your help, and we will take you whenever you’re ready — if you get to that point.”
After explaining that the call would be limited to 30 minutes (because it was an expensive call), and there would be no Q&A (although you could still submit questions via the Web), Hildebrand introduced Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and Clinton supporter.
(Birch, of all people — I mean, I really respect the woman — pissed me off to no end. See if you can figure out why.)
Birch:
“I was asked by the Senator Obama campaign to try to articulate what the Hillary Clinton people are feeling at this juncture… I was surprised at my own reaction… On the night of June 3rd I was in San Francisco… and I burst into tears… I was so upset… and it was sort of — it was a painful moment, and it was acute, and I hadn’t expected it.
“I had come to admire Senator Obama a great deal… [but] it was extra-complex in our family.” Birch explained that she and her partner are the parents of two nine-year-old, biracial twins — “so we had to be careful about how wildly enthusiastic we were about [Clinton] in front of the children. … It was complex and emotional…
“On June 3rd, I think there were three things going on, at least for me. … [While I don’t speak for everyone], I think I speak for a lot of women, and men as well…
“[First], just the emotions that burst up, when you gave a vanquished warrior — and [Clinton] has been a warrior. Say what you will; this woman has been tested and tested and tested, again and again. …
“[Second:] And then I started to think: to know my daughter, at the age of 9, at this early and formative age, won’t get to see a woman president.
Third, Birch reflected on being a “scrappy 12-year-old” herself, and (I could only surmise from the context) having grown up during the first wave of feminism: “There was an enormous amount of estrogen operating in those days… We felt we could do anything… take the world by storm. [We didn’t want to be better than men, but] if we could just rise to these highest offices, it would set a tone for life.
“So there’s a heartbreak in [Clinton] losing — but it’s not all about [Clinton] herself. It has to do with the lives of women… who are projecting [themselves onto] this grand screen.
“As a mother, I know deep, deep in my heart, that [it’s as important] for my kids to see a woman take the helm as to see a very wise, very strong, very effervescent man, who is black and white like them, take a leadership position in this country.”
Asking for “patience” from Hillary supporters, Birch concluded: “We will be able to turn our hearts over to the other equally important dream and necessity of electing the first African-American [president].
“Most important, none of us will tolerate for one more minute a third Bush [term] — which is what McCain represents.”
Back to Hildebrand:
“A quick update… In the process of moving very quickly into general election mode, [we have] spent [about] the last six weeks putting together [plans for] a budget [and] processes to quickly move into general election mode, should we get to that opportunity.”
Hildebrand then went into plans for “state operations in all 50 states”; the Obama campaign will not be focusing solely on “battleground states,” but will be “teeing off of what Howard Dean has done” [with his 50-state strategy].
Then came a plug for the Obama Web site (for those who want to get involved on the ground), and then Hildebrand went back to the 50-state plan: “There will be extensive offices — not just one per state, [but] several hundred. We also have very quickly joined forces with the Democratic National Committee, and [with] the Democratic National Convention staff.”
Next, Hildebrand appeared to be illustrating Obama’s gay cred with a list of notable LGBT activists who had joined the Obama campaign in an official capacity (the descriptions of who these people are, are mine; Hildebrand seemed to assume that everyone on the conference call would know every one of them by name alone):
• Brian Bond, Executive Director of the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council (GLLC), will be joining the Obama campaign next week in Chicago, “not just for [LGBT] outreach, but [to head] all constituency operations.”
• Joan Garry (former executive director of GLAAD) and Kevin Jennings (founder and executive director of GLSEN), co-chairs of Obama’s LGBT finance operations, “need as much help as possible to put resources together…”
Hildebrand then acknowledged the efforts of Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, “fighting for our rights in Congress, and what they have done to be such leaders for us… We look forward to working with them.”
Then Hildebrand thanked Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor David Cicilline, head of the Democratic Mayors Association, “one of our most prominent gay elected officials.” (I’m not sure what he was thanking Cicilline for, but I’m guessing because the mayor is heavily involved with the Obama campaign.)
Then Hildebrand announced that Melissa Etheridge had agreed, about six weeks ago, to be “one of about a dozen” co-chairs of Obama’s “50-state registration and mobilization campaign.”
“We have formed teams in all 50 states to put together what we hope [will be] the most successful voter registration drive… We’ve had incredible success in… Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina… Literally hundreds of thousands of new voters want to be active, ’cause they know how much trouble our country has been facing.”
Coming back to the Clinton supporters: “I also want you to — when you’re ready — to become very involved with our campaign… We need the help — there’s no question about that.”
In his many conversations with gay people, Hildebrand said, “we certainly recognize [Clinton’s] strength with gay voters. … I think there’s a lot of information we need to provide on Barack’s… ‘rock-solid’ [positions on gay rights]… There are a lot of people who question [Obama’s commitment to the LGBT community]. … [We need] a significant education program.”
Hildebrand then turned the mic over to Human Rights Campaign head Joe Solmonese (who, to his credit, was calling in from the road, literally; he was on his bike, in the midst of the California AIDS Ride).
Solmonese started by expressing surprise that the one thing “most people” have been talking to him about this week is the LOGO debate held last summer. That the debate was attended by all the candidates (never mind, Joe, that you excluded Mike Gravel, until you were pressured to include him) illustrates the power of the LGBT community on the national stage.
Solmonese launched right into an appeal for all LGBTs to join the Obama campaign, citing “the degree to which our community has moved onto other campaigns” (meaning, as the other candidates dropped out of the race).
He praised Hillary Clinton, saying there is “no greater hero” to the LGBT community, and that he knows “many people are disappointed… but it speaks to the real power of our community that we have such an ally as [Obama],” and that Obama “has a vision of America that includes us. He sees us — he sees we are part of the fabric of America. … He has told me… that he sees it as his calling bring disparate communities together.”
Then (and it was surprising no one had mentioned it yet) Solmonese brought up Obama’s speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church, and how Obama “told the congregants that they should do a better job of embracing their [LGBT] brothers and sisters.”
Next, Solmonese rattled off the usual laundry list illustrating Obama’s commitment to LGBTs: Obama favors the Matthew Shepard Act, wants to see equality in the workplace, wants to repeal DADT, and thinks there “ought to be more funding for HIV.”
Then it was onto waxing poetic about what an “incredibly exciting … transformative moment [this is] in American politics.”
And then came the standard unity pitch: “It’s time for everyone … to show our power, and come forward and work toward a common goal.”
And then came the usual fearmongering: “The consequences could not be clearer.” Solmonese noted that John McCain opposes the Matthew Shepard Act (and opposed it when Senators Levin and Kennedy attached it to another bill to try to get it passed), opposes ENDA, thinks DADT “works just fine” — and, while he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, stating that marriage was “best left to the states,” McCain endorsed the constitutional marriage ban in his home state of Arizona.
Solmonese went back to the unity pitch for a moment (”[We have to] rally together to show ourselves to be the powerful community [we are]”), and then mentioned that the “young people” inspired to come to the polls to fight the California marriage amendment are the same young people who will vote for Obama.
Hildebrand came back to praise Solmonese for HRC’s endorsement of Obama, and then turned the call over to longtime civil rights activist (and longtime Clinton friend) David Mixner.
Mixner:
“I understand what many of you are going through. I was a strong John Edwards supporter… We [Edwards supporters] did find a home [in the Obama campaign]. I think you will find a warm home here. … Two things:
“[First:] Senator Obama has already opposed the California and Florida initiatives.
“[Second:] We’ve had moments in our history as a community where we have an opportunity to create great change. This is such a moment … with [the California and Florida anti-gay initiatives], to build a power base, to replace the Republicans…
“Probably for the first time since the ‘92 [Democratic] convention, we have the opportunity to make history as a community. We must gather and unite in our opposition to McCain … to create something special in this country.”
Next up, Tobias Wolff, civil rights lawyer and Chair of the Obama National LGBT Policy Committee:
To Hillary Clinton supporters, Wolff said he understands that there is an “issue of trust, and trust in the LGBT community” regarding Obama. “As a community, I think we have learned that we have to demand [leaders] earn our trust and earn our loyalty.
“Senator Clinton came into this race with a reputation in our community [of having earned that trust] through long years of advocacy, [while Obama’s] longstanding commitment to [the LGBT community] was less well known outside Illinois. Obama took the same approach with LGBT voters — he set out to earn their support, and earn their trust.”
Citing Obama’s “extraordinary work making LGBT equality and fighting homophobia a part of his message all over country,” Wolff opined that Obama’s appearance at Ebenezer Baptist Church was a “genuine expression to his commitment to our community, and recognition that he needs to earn our trust.”
Wolff said that in speaking with Obama “one on one, at length,” Obama “knows the issues, and he knows us, and he feels these issues in his bones. And the courage he has shown in giving our rights a prominent platform [shows that] this is a community that deserves to be courted.
“And the promise I want to make to all of you… We will continue to work to be worthy of your trust and of your support. We certainly don’t take it for granted.”
Hildebrand ended the call right at 30 minutes, with this:
“We will follow up with all of you and make sure you have contact information in the campaign. We want to invite you to get involved locally… We’ve got a lot of work to do…”
I received a message from a gentleman directing The Laramie Project, who wanted to know if he could use my video, Life, Interrupted, for the live show. (Of course, I was honored, and, of course, I gave him the go-ahead.)
For you Really-Northern Northern Californians, and close-to-the-stateline Oregonians, The Laramie Project will be at the Arcata Playhouse in Arcata, California, from June 18 through June 21, and June 25 through June 28 (8:00 p.m. curtain). See HumboldtPride.org for more info.
(I want very badly to go, but the dates are running into 1] our move, and 2] our wedding plans, so it’s doubtful we’ll make it.)
Events Calendar Coming to the Newswire
I’m putting the finishing touches on a dynamic calendar tracking major LGBTQQIA events throughout the world, and should have it ready for your perusal before the end of this week. You’re welcome to submit events we haven’t caught (just wait until the calendar goes live first, so you can see if your event has already been included).
Commenting on the Newswire
When you’re in the midst of moving and planning a wedding, you don’t get to accomplish much else. Thus, I’ve been sitting on a ton of comments I’ve been meaning to answer — mostly wonderful, supportive comments. The hate mail has died off a bit, mostly because I’m banning the IPs of abusers left and right — although I did get another nastygram from the nastyboy who told me he didn’t care if I voted for McCain or stuck dynamite up my private parts. (Hey, Jim Nacios, I’ll answer you here, when I get around to it — but you need to stop contacting me, right now. You come take a big, steaming dump in the middle of my living room, and expect me to welcome you here? You’re not welcome. Now, go away and harass someone else. If you contact me again, I’ll report you to your ISP — and to that university your email address appears to belong to. Now go away — permanently, pest.)
Because I’m so far behind in my replies, I’m thinking about reinstating actual commenting on the Newswire — moderated, of course — so at least intelligent comments will appear in a timely manner, even if I don’t have time to respond to them as I’d like to. (Unintelligent comments, of course, will either be dumped, or ridiculed mercilessly.) I’m also considering displaying trackbacks. I’m waiting to see if the backend measures I’ve taken over the past few days prove successful in cutting down the spam. (If you’d like to see what the blocked spammers see when they try to access any page on the LavenderLiberal.com domain, this is our new 403 “Forbidden” page.)
What Democratic Party?
Yeah, I know what’s going on with the presidential race, and yeah, I have plenty to say about it — but, frankly, it’s all come out the way I expected, so my opinion is practically moot now. That doesn’t mean I won’t be writing about it (me, not express my opinion? ha!) — but I don’t feel a lot of urgency about it anymore. The Blogger Boyz (somebody called them “petulant”; what a good word!) won (”Crush that defense! Kill! Kill! Kill!”) — that is, if “winning” means alienating a huge core of the Democratic base, plus ultra-liberal homos like me who will not forgive nor forget McClurkin, Meeks, Caldwell, Mary Mary, and all the rest of the homophobes contributing to this Great New Society and Realignment of the Democratic Party that 1) I don’t recognize any longer, and 2) doesn’t want me as a member anyway. As far as they’re concerned, I’m a racist, mouth-breathing member of the Bitter White Woman contingent.
Whatever. It’s Obama’s world party now — we just squirm under its bootheel have to put up with it. (But probably only until November.)
So, what’s there to say that can’t be said later, when I have time to sit down and write something long and thoughtful? Not much, really — except that I’m not looking forward to the next four years of President McCain. But, as I’ve often said, if I could survive Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, I can survive McCain.
And, anyway, I’m trying to quit my addiction to national politics, as all my earnest participation has been for naught, and my energy can be better put to use elsewhere.
If you wonder what I mean by that, take a look at one of the last long posts I made at Democratic Underground — it’s at the top of my journal there (which I’ll be reprinting here sometime, since I expect that I’m about to be purged from DU at any moment):
Tweet This Post! 
