Voices in their heads

From the annals of WWTSBQ, senior editor Michelle Cottle at The New Republic published an attack-Hillary campaign column, "Voices in Her Head, Inside Hillaryland's fatal psychodrama."

Can the faux press present themselves more obnoxiously and with more blatant bias? Note the side order of misogyny. Wooo! Hillary is not in control of Team Clinton and not suitable for the Oval Office. And yet, voters keep voting for Hillary Clinton. Oh, the enigma!

Cottle leads off her column:

By the time Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle finally packed up her lovely corner office ... [blah, blah, blah...] ...Penn had attended a March 31 meeting with the Colombian ambassador... [blah, blah, blah...] ...resembles an unruly rock band plagued by dysfunction and public infighting... [blah, blah, blah...] ...insiders acknowledge that the former president has never been wholly manageable... [blah, blah, blah...] ...has publicly admitted his wife gave him a talking-to about keeping his yap shut on the matter.... [blah, blah, blah...] ...it's a wonder Hillary could keep a grip on her message at all.... [blah, blah, blah...] ...even as Hillary's chances of capturing the nomination grow ever more remote... [blah, blah, blah...] ...Whether driven on by dedication, desperation, or delusion, some of Hillary's not-so-happy warriors find themselves unable to give up the fight--not just against Barack Obama, but also against each other.

See? I saved you from wasting your time with mind-numbing, yawn-inducing piffle. And why should you waste your time reading TNR? As the General summed up:

It's not easy to market yourself as a magazine for progressives when you consistently offer yourself up to the neocons like a gaggle of strapping young Republican men at a Patrick McHenry "greek night' party, but somehow you've managed to pull it off.

...it's much harder to see why your right-leaning Democratic subscriber base would continue to support you when you attack their candidates. And that's exactly what you did when you skewered both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in your latest issue.

But then again, it's not really their politics that bothers you, is it. It's more than that. Looking at the Clinton piece, it's obvious why you went after her. The cover, article, and photos were a celebration of misogyny. All of the best old stereotypes were there. She's hysterical. She's a slave to her hormones. One is left wondering whether you believe that she should be forced to prove she's post-menopausal, lest she nukes Kansas while under the spell of a menstrual rage?

'Nuff said.

TNR nausea scale: 10.

Dukakis-Obama watch

With Clinton's 10-point victory over Obama in Pennsylvania, the specter of Gov. Michael Dukakis has arisen and attached itself to Obama. Dukakis, whom Poppy Bush defeated in PA in 1988, was the last Democratic presidential nominee who didn't carry the state in the general election.

Checked in at Google News and abracadabra! The name, Dukakis, popped up like a rabbit out of Obama's hat. A few articles and op/eds (Dukakis name emphasized.)...

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's conservative columnist Jim Wooten [Bleh!]:

It is noteworthy, as others have pointed out, that Democrats are about to nominate another candidate in the mold of John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore — and one who’ll get the nomination by winning smaller states, like South Carolina, that the party has no hopes of winning in November. Except for his home state of Illinois, Hillary won the big states: New York, New Jersey, California, Texas, Florida Ohio and others essential to Democratic success in November.... ...[Obama's] base is blacks, liberals and young voters. Blue-collar workers making less than $50,000 a year, older women and Hispanics — key constituencies the party needs — aren’t with him yet.

Another conservative, David Frum at NRO, Obama = Dukakis?

Back in 1988, the elder George HW Bush defeated the Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis by convincing America that Dukakis was radically unacceptable: too left-wing, too weak, too out of touch with the values of ordinary voters.... ...So, the thought is spreading – can McCain win by doing to Obama what George HW Bush did to Michael Dukakis? If so, then his lack of a domestic platform may not matter much. Who remembers George HW Bush’s 1988 platform?

Frum concluded that Dukakis-izing won't work this time; 2008 is very different than 1988. M'yeah. But GOP smear tactics aren't.

TIME's A Willie Horton Hit on Obama?

Starting Tuesday, a group of conservative activists led by Floyd Brown, author of the famous Willie Horton ad used so effectively against Michael Dukakis in 1988, will begin a campaign to tar Obama as weak on crime and terrorism, a strategy that aims to upend Obama's relatively strong reputation among Republican voters.... ..."The campaign by Hillary Clinton has not been able to raise Obama's negatives," said Brown on Monday. "It is absolutely critical that Obama's negatives go up with Republicans."

Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Obama's patriotism:

Barack Obama believes his patriotism can't be challenged. Maybe he should talk to Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry.... ...Obama wants the race for the White House to be about hope. It probably won't be.... ...In 1988, Dukakis said the campaign was about "competence, not ideology." His opponent, George H.W. Bush, made it all about ideology. The GOP turned Dukakis into a civil liberties-loving elitist who let convicted felons free to strike again.... ...But Obama should be ready to face the political reality that accompanies some controversial choices... ...They include his decision to stay in a church whose pastor blamed America for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; and his association, however tenuous, with a Vietnam-era radical named William Ayers.

John Dickerson at Slate, She's Got a Friend in Pennsylvania:

Clinton has some useful data to mine in the exit polls, particularly about those blue-collar voters we've been watching all election. Obama just can't get to them. He's tried everything: policy changes, bowling, drinking beer, and shelving all talk of arugula. He still lost to Clinton 54-46 among that group. The Clinton team will argue that without these voters, Obama will be like Michael Dukakis, a liberal favorite unable to compete against Republicans in Ohio and Pennsylvania because he can't woo regular people. Obama did win these voters in New Hampshire and Missouri but hasn't won among them since the Wisconsin primary in mid-February.... ...For those still debating whether Obama's remarks about small-town voters harmed him, the data suggest he hurt himself. Among gun owners, Clinton won 60 percent of the vote. Among small-town voters, she won 59 percent of the vote to Obama's 41 percent. In previous contests, Obama's had a slim 49 percent to 45 percent edge among small-town voters. Clinton also won among religious voters.

We don't really know what the Clinton campaign will argue. Dickerson speculated. However, if Hillary ends up with the popular vote edge including MI and FL coupled with the fact that she has won the big states critical to an Electoral College victory, then superdelegates need to weigh who can beat McCain in November.

Consider this from Sean Wilentz at Salon, Why Hillary Clinton should be winning:

Apr. 07, 2008 | The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot. [Emphasis added.]

An aside worth mentioning: no one--Obama or Clinton--can win the Democratic nomination without superdelegates. The Obamasphere likes to disregard this fact as if Obama's pledged delegate lead is the Holy Grail, an idea propagandized by Barry's campaign and NBC. Nonetheless, it is true. The superdelegates will decide the nominee. Like it or not.

Paul Lukasiak at Corrente--an excellent blogger with both feet firmly grounded in reality--presented Survey USA polling analysis of nine states surveryed in April--CA, IA, MA, MN, MO, NM, OH, OR, and WI--compared to the SUSA 50-state poll conducted in February. Obama's ability to beat McCain is weakening. Hillary is getting stronger:

Barack Obama is hemmorhaging support against John McCain in states where Democrats can/should win in November.... ...In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support, while Hillary Clinton has gained support, when matched against McCain. Much of Clinton’s additional support is from voters who were undecided in late February, and Clinton essentially “split” the “recent deciders” with McCain; as a result there is little change in her margins against McCain. But people who were undecided whether they preferred Obama or McCain are also making up their minds – and choosing McCain. As a result, Obama’s margins against McCain are looking much worse.

Democrats may think they have the presidency sown up after the carnage and incompetency of Bush-Cheney. The GOP brand is in the tank. M'yeah. I thought only an idiot would vote GOP in 2004. So color me skeptical.

Clinton-Obama 2008. That's the ticket to decisively beat McCain.

Hillary wins Pennsylvania!

Woo hoo! Hillary is a heavyweight who can take a punch and win the big matches.

With 99% of the precincts reporting, Clinton won 55% to Obama's 45%. PAers went double-digit for Hillary. In big-swing state PA, Obama outspent Clinton 3-to-1 with $12 million in advertising and he campaigned in PA for six weeks. But she still took the state. She's a tough fighter. White blue-collar voters love her, having voted for her in large numbers, and I think they did because they identify with her grit, feel good about Clinton's strength on the economy. I don't accept the spin that these voters are largely racists.

During CNN's primary coverage John King compared Obama to Democratic nominee Gov. Dukakis, whom Poppy Bush defeated in PA in 1988, the last time a Democrat lost the state in a general election. Uh-oh. Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler predicted the media would Dukakis-ize Obama. King also said Hillary "thumped Obama" in PA. "She won the elderly vote, she won the Catholic vote... an impressive demographic and geographic sweep." She won lunch-bucket Reagan Democrats. Oh, my... that reality must have gotten superdelegates' attention.

Bucks County, where 5% of PA's population lives, broke large for Hillary. Montgomery and Lackawanna also boomed for Hillary. Bill Schneider of CNN related Hillary's win to neighboring NJ and OH, states she also won by 10%, perhaps a harbinger of what may happen in adjacent IN, WV, and KY.

The dang CNN pundit heads, David Gergen et al, said if the superdelegates give the nod to Hillary, the decision would mobilize African Americans to leave the party and anger young voters. Puh-leeze. Thank goodness Clinton supporter Paul Begalas weighed in and said, nah! Oh, no. That won't happen. Gergen later came back saying Obama's "bitter" comments hurt him in PA. What the heck do pundits know? They have written Hillary off... how many times now?

When Hillary took the victory stage, she was welcomed by chants of, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!" During her speech, Hillary said the "road to Pennsylvania Avenue runs through Pennsylvania!" She's "ready to lead on Day One." And the crowd roared, "Yes, she can! Yes, she can! Yes, she can!"

A few of Hillary's remarks: "You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out. But the American people... the American people don't quit, and they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either.... And you deserve a champion who stands with you.... And, of course, all across the world, our men and women in uniform, some on your second, third, or fourth tour of duty, you deserve a commander-in-chief who will finally bring you home..." An inspiring speech, the transcript is here.

CNN reported at 12:13 AM that HillaryClinton.com had raised more than $2.5 million within the past two hours.

Counting both FL and MI, Hillary moved ahead of Obama in the popular vote tally. She garnered 200,000+ in PA--1,250,193 to Obama's 1,035,361 votes--with 1% outstanding.

Still more primaries ahead in NC, IN (May 6), WV (May 13), KY, OR (May 20), Puerto Rico (Jun. 1), SD, MT (Jun. 3), and a caucus in Guam that comes up next (May 3). So send Hillary some love.

Yaaaaaaaaaa-hooooooooooo! The nomination is still up for grabs. Obama may have the pledged delegate lead, having won a lot of small states (some of which won't turn Democratic), his home state, and caucuses that disenfranchised working-class voters... but he can't close big battleground states like PA and OH. And don't forget MI and FL.

Superdelegates and the DNC need to reconsider the Cuomo Dream Ticket proposal with Clinton at the top. Obama is still too green. He would, however, make a great choice for veep helping to rebuild the damage done by Bush, working to win over voters who are Hillary supporters. Democrats could possibly hold onto the WH for 16 years.

OMG! What a history-making ticket: Clinton-Obama 2008. Democrats would win by a landslide, IMO, and shore up down-ticket races. Sure would love to see the number of Senate Democrats rise to 60.

POSTSCRIPT: Newsmax/Zogby poll was wrong unless one gave credence to John Zogby's conditional footnote as I did. H/t to TalkLeft for PA county info.

UPDATE: Heard conflicting reports about how much Obama spent on ads in PA. NYTimes reported: "In March, in the run-up to the Pennsylvania vote, the Obama campaign spent $31 million, compared with $22 million by the Clinton campaign. A large part of that went into television advertisements. According to CMAG, a firm that tracks television advertising, the Obama campaign spent $11 million on campaign commercials from March 18 to April 16, compared with the Clinton campaign’s $4.5 million."

Nora Ephron's white people

The white people of Nora Ephron's movies.

Joseph alerted me to Nora Ephron's insipid column on "White Men." The Ephron excerpts that he quoted:

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men.

Hillary's case is not an attractive one, because what she'll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can.

Oh, gawd. Go read Joseph for his political viewpoints and to get the link to Ephron's column. He's absolutely right about Ephron's implied threat, Vote as I tell you to vote, or I'll call you a racist or a sexist.

What nauseates me about Ephron? Her blindness to her projection onto Hillary of the very criticism of which she's made a career: white woman meets white man, relationship unfolds toward commitment. M'yeah. Meg Ryan, who played the romantic lead in Ephron's movies, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, represents a white female who isn't happy without the white man of her dreams played by actor Tom Hanks. Has Ephron considered how she's contributing to the sexist, racist storyline she now decries? She depicts a world in which her main characters are all white. Have Pennsylvania voters become influenced by all the Hollywood movies that reinforce white racial hegemony? Has Ephron considered the underlying racist narratives in her films? Silly idea, isn't it?

Of course, it ridiculous in Nora's mind to entertain the possibility that PA voters prefer Clinton's policy positions over Obama's. Or maybe PA's white male voters have been repulsed by Barry's negative and dubious campaign attack ads against Clinton. I dunno. But I can say with confidence that skin color doesn't qualify a candidate to solve the economic worries that voters say are their top concern. I support Hillary because she offers solutions I prefer. Perhaps Obama hasn't convincingly persuaded PA voters on the issues more than Clinton. But to Nora, those white men in PA are racists and so is Hillary. Disregard that their voting preferences may be predicated on their wallets and who can best fill them with job income and better economic conditions.

I'll set aside the anti-feminist argument that a woman needs a man for her self-fulfillment because humans do crave companionship. How Nora represents these human yearnings irk me as a feminist. Simply, she infers sexist stereotypes. Funny that Nora hasn't discovered the log in her eye.

There's another reason to discount Nora Ephron's ramblings: she mishandles facts. In her column she stated (with emphasis):

Even around the time of Ohio, when there were primarily three candidates, the outlines were murky, because Edwards was still in there, picking up votes from all sectors.

Edwards dropped out of the presidential race before Super Tuesday on Jan. 30, 2008, when he declared, "It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze it's path." Ohio's primary date was March 4. Hello! Earth to Nora. Edwards was not in the race "around the time of Ohio."

So pardon moi if I open a can of bwahahaha when Ephron makes an fallacious, inflammatory assertion without any proof that Hillary is saying although very carefully that "she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can." Proof, Nora, present your evidence if you can without mangling the facts. When a pundit undertakes the serious allegation to smear a candidate implying racism, it's her job to present evidence. Subjective propaganda and opinion isn't acceptable. Show me the proof to substantiate the claim or to my thinking, the accuser is an unmitigated slanderer or a hopelessly irresponsible ninny.

Historically, white racists vote Republican (see the Southern Strategy). Why would they turn out for a Democratic primary? I can think of a reason: vote for the unelectable candidate, the one they think their GOP candidate can beat in the fall. I could speculate that spoilers are crossing over in open primaries to help Obama beat Clinton so they can vote against him in November since Clinton is more likely to defeat McCain.

Secondly, Ephron evidently lacks a depth of political knowledge to realize that playing the race card isn't a new invention used against a Democratic presidential opponent. Bill Bradley maligned Al Gore in 2000 when he "ripped the vice president for injecting racism into the 1988 campaign by raising the Willie Horton case against Michael Dukakis.” It wasn't true--Gore is not a racist--but our mindless press corps picked up the racial theme against Gore and spread it, just as our biased media have painted the Clintons as slobbering racists in this campaign. [Ed. note: Al Gore never mentioned Willie Horton in case you don't click the The Daily Howler link. H/t to Joseph Cannon in comments.]

Why liberals fall for this specious propaganda, one can only speculate, but none of the answers are good when allegedly intelligent people follow the plot lines our morally-bankrupt news media concoct. If the Clintons are such super-smart politicians, why the hell would they commit electoral suicide undermining Hillary's chances of winning? It defies logic, but don't expect to find sound reasoning in Ephron's column (or from rubes who swallow such drool).

Based on Nora's own "insights," how has Ephron exempted herself from the fact that she devises a world on film that is predominantly white-skinned? Are we to assume, based on Nora's suppositions, that she is saying she can attract more racist white movie-goers than Spike Lee can (and has been saying, although very carefully)? Goose, gander, sauce, Nora.

Ephron bemoans, "after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are. . . after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power." You know what's ironic? The swooning of Nora's female characters into the arms of men in her cinematic works. In You've Got Mail, the Hanks character owns a bookstore chain that eventually puts our struggling heroine's independent bookstore out of business. The female lead played by Ryan can't stand the powerful businessman who precipitates her company's demise. Yet, in the end, they fall in love. Cue soundtrack, Over The Rainbow. Can you believe it? Maybe it's time to start boycotting her sexist movies where men "turn out (surprise!) to have all the power."

Why Nora continues to churn out intellectually-shallow polemics is a mystery. In her "White Men" column, I wonder if she's attempting to assuage her white guilt for having been racially insensitive in casting and writing screenplays that tell stories about white people. Just a guess. I have no proof other than her filmography, which relegates African-American actors to bit parts. To foster such an argument is as overly-simplistic as Ephron saying that Hillary can "attract more racist white male voters than Obama can."

Maybe Nora hasn't paid attention. Obama is attracting more African American voters than Hillary, but I wouldn't particularly assign a racial component to Barry's voting bloc. History-making and enthusiasm? Yes. Racist? No. Sexist? Maybe. Of course, there are racists, sexists, and homophobes. But are we to blame the candidates for how bigots vote? Not if they don't pander to them. What's also troubling is Ephron's judgment that "white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them." Ahem. Making judgmental generalizations isn't helpful in healing whatever divides men, women, ethnic groups, or any segment of our society.

I don't have time today--aren't you lucky--to analyze why women like Nora dislike Hillary enough to slime her. But there's something deeply pathological and psychologically disturbing going on. Using racial smears is ugly business. Doing so without facts is libelous.

One thing you can bet: Winged Tasmanian wombats will fly out my bum before I waste one dollar on any Nora Ephron enterprise past or future.

POSTSCRIPT: One key observation from Joseph that I failed to mention: "People like Nora Ephron do the Republican Party's work so expertly that I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a covert GOP pay-off."

IMAGE: Cropped from a movie poster of Sleepless in Seattle. Poll graphic from Yahoo! News.

UPDATE: Edited for clarity.

Dear Senator Obama by a lesbian Christian

Obama's quote from the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 25, 2007:

I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.

In response, Ann Canas, lesbian, writer, producer/actor, media host and member of the Metropolitan Community Church of LA, wrote an open letter to Sen. Barack Obama at The Advocate on why his speech "sends a subtle message that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive." A few excerpts:

Your and Senator Clinton’s voting and legislative records are for the most part identical on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues and are generally supportive of basic GLBT civil, social, and legal rights and protections. Although both you and Senator Clinton decline to support gay marriage per se, it is your statements on this issue that seem alienating, divisive, and uninformed and that subtly contribute to the persistence of one of this country’s worst forms of religious persecution and social bigotry. Even the possibility that you and your platform -- wittingly or unwittingly -- may contribute to the perpetuation of bigotry and prejudice in any way against anyone is, to our sensibilities, unthinkable.

While you are careful to appear to uphold and defend the GLBT community’s basic safety and legal rights, in a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune story that referenced comments you made during your 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, you led off your objections to gay marriage with the statement “I'm a Christian” [Ed: see above quote]. On its own as a part of your personal profile or in answer to a query about your personal beliefs, this statement is both appropriate and informative. But linked to your objections about gay marriage and by extension the gay lifestyle, it serves to entrench modern attitudes of religion-based bigotry and persecution and effectively implies that “gay” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive. This is not only wrong and uninformed but also flies in the face of the most basic Christian values and beliefs of unconditional love and acceptance. There are over 500,000 GLBT Christians attending over 200 churches like my church, Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, as well as hundreds of similar open and affirming churches all over America and around the world. We do not believe that you or anyone in thought, word, belief, or action can separate us from our religion, our faith, and our rightful place within the heart and love of Jesus Christ.

And while we recognize the sensibilities of many of our fellow Americans concerning the traditional configuration of the institution of marriage, our loving and lifetime commitments to our partners, our families, and our children cannot be diminished in heart and spirit and are fully as valuable and sacred as your own. Regardless of convention and interpretation of the word marriage, your brave new American Dream must embrace us and our loved ones as sincerely and unconditionally as you have extended it to all other segments of our society.

Considering that you represent and are clearly the preferred candidate for a majority of African-Americans, we are also concerned about the quiet but pervasive problem of homophobia among blacks -- a problem that is deeply rooted in the Christian fundamentalist context of many black churches and denominations. This undercurrent of belief-sanctioned fear and ignorance continues to divide families, separate loved ones, break hearts, and exacerbate the pathology of rejection and social alienation within the black community....

...You of all people cannot forget that once upon a time not so long ago, many of those who made the case against civil rights for blacks and who condemned interracial marriage also cited religious beliefs as their justification for separation and conditional treatment.

You and your presidential campaign are living proof of an evolution in the consciousness of a nation. We are living proof of an evolution unfolding in human consciousness: namely, the awareness that love transcends gender as surely as race and that spirit is not contained by black or white or male or female or any other characteristic of human condition or appearance....

Mr. Obama, you have clearly stated your reluctance to allow your private religious beliefs to shape your public policy. This is wise in theory but difficult in practice, because while you are free to interpret your personal religious beliefs in any way you choose, as a talented orator you realize that words are powerful and can also crucially shape both public policy and public opinion. This letter is not an attempt to change your personal opinions or religious beliefs on this or any other issue, but it is an invitation for you to reexamine your spoken expressions and public statements toward a segment of Americans about whom you clearly evidence a lack of knowledge and experience.... [Emphasis added in bold.]

Well said and beautifully written.

The subject of being LGBT and the bigotry of Biblical literalist interpretations at odds with what Jesus taught has been my mission as an artist, to expose hypocrisy and contradictions, reintroduce the sacred feminine that's been edited out of the Bible, and offer a more inclusive, unconditionally loving deity in my artistic narratives. And I am not alone.

Many LGBT folk have spiritual leanings as do I. As Ann Canas does. Some of us express artistic visions that incorporate queer theology--painters, sculptors, and photographers--as can be seen in the illustrated book nominated for a LAMBDA Literary Award, Art That Dares, written by Kittredge Cherry. And Cherry as author has written two ground-breaking novels about a queer Christ, Jesus In Love and Jesus In Love: At The Cross.

There's a teeming spiritual LGBT community that's risen up to say Jesus embodied unconditional love and never did he condemn LGBTs for being LGBT. Why does the traditional church? We have formed our own churches or gravitated toward those that delivered a more universal belief than a strictly Christian one. Or abandoned religion all together. Individuals and orgs like Mel White and Gary Nixon of Soulforce, the CLOUT sisters, Rev. Irene Monroe, Bishop Gene Robinson on the LGBT side, and John Shelby Spong, Rabbi Michael Lerner of the Spiritual Progressive Network on the non-LGBT side--to name only a few, there are many--minister to us through their work and their words. There are also a few LGBT-inclusive churches that have embraced us realizing that sexual minorities are part of the natural tapestry of life.

I hope that Sen. Obama will reverse his beliefs--for they underpin his words--and awaken from what I have perceived as his own religious-based homophobia. But I'm not optimistic. He turned his back on us over the objections of the LGBT community when he invited Donnie McClurkin to fundraise for him. And he has behaved in other ways that have been disappointing (see related below). IMO, I think he values winning more than risking the alienation of a portion of the African American community and people of all colors who judge us LGBT people as against God's will and living in sin. I would love to be proven wrong about Obama by Obama.

The subject of Obama and the LGBT community causes me a bit of grief in remembering how much I miss Coretta Scott King. I truly wish she were still alive to show Obama the way. She understood completely that unconditional love, courage, and justice are intertwined as the beautiful soul who graced us with her mighty presence here on earth.

In the meantime, let me say, thank you, Ann Canas.

RELATED:

• 13 essays on Christian mythology and taboos
• Back to the crossroads
• Hillary for gays, lesbians--Obama not so much
• The Advocate: Obama's interview
• A campaign of hate
• Gays love Hillary now Chelsea

Spinning a swan song

Pam Spaulding noted the latest Zogby poll, margin of error +/- 4.1%:

There are 8% "Not sure" with a 4-point margin of error but Pam uses this poll to question Clinton's potential success in PA: "You pair [the poll] with the fact that over 35,000 attended an Obama rally in Philly yesterday, and there has to be a certain level of panic in the Clinton camp. " Ahem. The Zogby poll was conducted in partnership with Newsmax. Newsmax!?

Also read John Zogby's footnote about the "Not sure" cohort, which he asserts are white/Catholic Democratic voters who prefer McCain in the general election. They don't like Hillary and "aren't breaking for Obama." But if they do vote, "then they will probably vote for Clinton and she can conceivably meet the 10-point victory threshold that meets pundits' expectations."

Let's review: Zogby was wrong about New Hampshire when its poll showed Obama ahead by 4 points and with 22% "Not sure." Who won NH by 3 points, a 7-point swing over Obama? Clinton.

Zogby was wrong about Ohio showing Clinton and Obama tied at 44% apiece and 8% "Not sure." Hillary won Ohio by 10 points: 54 to Obama's 44.

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll showed Obama ahead in California with a narrow lead and "Obama and Clinton were deadlocked in New Jersey." Clinton won CA 52% to Obama's 43%, and Hillary won NJ 54% to Obama's 44%.

PA is a state where Obama is outspending Clinton 3-to-1 in advertising and with misleading health care attack ads and a deceitful lobbyist ad smearing Hillary when Mr. Obama himself is hooked up with Wall Street, Big Oil, and K Street. Jeebus! The denial in the Obamasphere about Barack is breathtakingly pathological, a symptom of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

The difference between Hillary and Barry--they both accept corporate cash--is Hillary can beat McCain in November. Obama can't, IMO. Go look at what's available most recently from SurveyUSA in state-by-state match-ups between Clinton and Obama vs. McCain, a better measure than national polls unless you diss politics is local. If I get a chance, I'll post an update for folks daunted by going through each of the recent polls on NM, MO, NY, OH, OR, VA, MN, WI, KS, AL, CA, IA, KY, and WA. One swing state worth mentioning is OH: Clinton clobbers McCain, 53 to 42, and 4% of undecided voters can't make up the gap. However, Obama loses to McCain by 2 points with 8% undecided. Hillary is much stronger candidate to win OH with its 20 Electoral College electors.

In big blue Massachusetts, a primary state that Hillary won, Clinton beats John McCain easily, 56% to 41% with only 3% undecided. But Obama barely beats McCain by 2 points--in Massachusetts!--with 7% undecided voters predominantly women. Democrats solidly support Clinton, 86% of them, with a 21-point advantage over Obama at 65%. In an Obama vs. McCain match, 28% of Democrats switch to McCain. Hillary engenders more loyalty: only 12% of Democrats defect. Massachusetts is a gay and lesbian stronghold and maybe part of the Obama-McCain undecided group. What if they won't vote for the guy--McCain or Obama--with a sweet spot for homophobes? Twirl on that.

Regarding PA, take the Zogby poll--all the PA polls--with a great big shaker of salt. Pam asked in her wrap-up:

If Clinton only wins by single digits, how will that be spun?

If she wins the popular vote in PA, but the delegate split doesn't close the gap at all, how can that be declared a victory?

If she somehow manages to lose PA, how on earth will her camp explain that away?

Once upon a time, winning the popular vote was something Democrats valued as a "victory." What's changed? Seriously. WTF has changed? PA offers 21 electors via the Electoral College determined by... wait for it... the popular vote. Have a go at Fun with the Electoral College.

The question I have: how is the Obamasphere going to spin a single-digit Clinton PA win if that happens? Will they shriek their fauxgressive anthem, WWTSBQ?

Pam has applied the nicknames sHillary, "sHill," and "DOMA-wife" to Clinton for years. M'yeah. Guess we can speculate who Pam's voting for in NC, a southern state that hasn't voted for a Democratic president since 1976. I also live in a southern red-state but I cast my ballot for Hillary because I was, and still am, more confident in Clinton beating McCain in the general election especially on the economy. I considered the positive rub-off of "Clinton-era prosperity," to borrow a descriptor from Krugman--OH, PA, MI, WV, MO, AR, NM, IA, for example, voted for Bill Clinton twice, FL in 1996--and Hillary has done her own homework, differentiating herself from Bill, offering more details about her plans than Obama.

Why Democrats discount the clout of the states that can deliver an Electoral College victory and are leveraging their votes to pick Obama, a nominee who can't win the big swing states such as Florida, is as mystifying as why Hillary-hating lemmings blindly follow "The Precious" to step off the cliff. For a reality check, Anglachel offered her typically super-smart analysis on Saturday. Two brief insights: "[Obama] is as mainstream as anyone else within the party power elite, which itself is a fairly narrow slice of all possible political stances," and she described the "trial balloon sent up by the DNC" in seating the FL/MI delegation via TalkLeft. Go read both and ponder the behind-the-scenes manipulation.

For bloggers who haven't noticed or have been preoccupied due to a terminal case of CDS or OFB cha-ching euphoria, the mainstream press corps is once again playing favorites as they did in 2000 and 2004. Our clueless so-called liberal blogosphere has ignored the carnage of influencing the Democratic nomination that began Oct. 30, 2007, through November and February (see subhead, Red Faced With Rage, and for background here, also here and the media racist storyline that the fauxgressive blogosphere swallowed like candy packaged with Bill's Jesse Jackson remark here).

Did the media give John Edwards a fair shake? No. And they have treated Hillary Clinton abysmally. Now that Obama has been getting his ax Gore-d... oh, how the Obamasphere has screeched its disapproval. The liberal blogosphere should have been howling all along, a disquieting non-reaction I will never forget. When the media smears Obama, one must call it out as the despicable crap that it is. Same goes for any Democrat including Hillary. Props to Media Matters on that score. What was the A-List Blog Boyz response to the sliming of Hillary and Bill Clinton by the press? They piled on or hung a Do Not Disturb sign on their blogs and took a nap. The SCLB has failed to understand that the media hates Democrats, all of them. Look at who owns the media? When media savage any Democrat, the long-term impact undermines the Obamasphere's "Precious."

When media darling McCain takes the oath of office because Democrats allowed a flawed caucus system to disenfranchise working-class Democrats, hyped the "Holy Grail" of pledged delegates, and other silliness like punishing FL and MI to eventually crown Obama as the nominee--unforgivable if Hillary ends up with the popular vote edge--remember who's to blame. It won't be Hillary. Look in the mirror.


POSTSCRIPT: Corrente offers a glossary of acronyms like WWTSBQ.

UPDATE: If only I had checked my RSS reader before posting. Jeralyn comes through with Why Hillary Is More Likely to Beat McCain with analysis by a veteran Democratic party activist, William Arnone.

Attacking health care

Gawd! When Barack Obama appropriates propaganda mimicking "the vile smear campaign the insurance lobby waged against health care reform in 1993," one wonders whose side is he on? Via Lambert, BTD at TalkLeft:

Petey points to Obama's last PA ad - he's going Harry and Louise again on health care:

[Obama] ad attacks Clinton’s health care plan, saying it “forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can’t afford it."

I've lost count of how many times Obama has conjured up Harry-and-Louise style attacks on Hillary's universal health care plan. Is this the third wave? Hillary Clinton's campaign responded:

1. The Obama ad claims that Hillary's "plan forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can't afford it." Health policy expert Ken Thorpe reviewed this claim and found it to be false. Under Hillary's plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage.

"Ken Thorpe, a health-policy expert at Emory University who has advised all three major Democrats, said he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all." [Wall Street Journal, 12/5/07]

2. The advertisement also claims that that Hillary's plan would make people who fail to enroll "pay a penalty." Sen. Obama's own plan would fine parents who fail to enroll their children and he has said he will consider imposing penalties on people who don't enroll.

Hillary would consider a range of ideas, including automatic enrollment, to ensure everyone is covered. Sen. Obama's plan, would, experts agree, leave 15 million people out.

3. The ad also claims that Sen. Obama's plan reduces costs more than Hillary's plan. There is no citation for this claim because it is false. Hillary's plan has more aggressive cost cutting measures and has more generous subsides [sic]. Because Sen. Obama's plan leaves 15 million people out, it would drive costs up, because everyone would have to subsidize emergency care for the uninsured.

The last link clicks to Paul Krugman who has repeatedly taken Obama to task over health care, for "attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points," and ringing the alarm bell unnecessarily on Social Security. Melissa McEwan questioned why Obama distances himself from liberalism awhile back. Wise to listen. Also smart to remember what has worked previously in presidential politics to the detriment of our country. From 2001:

Television is a medium of propaganda, of the sub-rational suasion of advertising. The essence of propaganda is reason-obliterating repetition. Bush got his message across in the campaign through incessant repetition. His use of the same words over and over again in the same sentence, seen in this light, is not a handicap; it shows his affinity for TV and matches our expectations, built up over the decades, for "message" communication of the "Great Taste, Less Filling, Great Taste, Less Filling" order. As Ryan Lizza reports in The New Republic, Bush's handlers have him say the same thing so often that it is difficult for the TV cameras to catch him saying anything else. On August 7, during his "working vacation" at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, Bush used the word "home" six times in a minute of conversation with reporters: "It's nice to be home ... This is my home ... It's good to be home ... This is where you come home ... This is my home," etc. In fact it is not his home. "The Crawford ranch does not precede Bush's life on the national stage," Lizza writes. "It is a product of it." Bush lived in the Texas governor's mansion and vacationed in swank resorts and at Kennebunkport before the campaign began. Never mind. Bush got his message across: unlike Bill Clinton he has a "home." . . ."And the repetition works," Lizza writes. . . His job approval rating went up during the Crawford propaganda-fest. TV has finally found a President willing to sound like an idiot in order to exploit its inherent properties, to master its baldly manipulative code. Bush, the verbal bumbler, is the Great Communicator of the age. [Emphasis added.]

Obama is no bumbler of words but his repetition tactic on TV works. He's hacked away at Hillary's double-digit lead in PA. How?:

What's behind the shift? . . . "Obama has outspent Hillary Clinton three to one just on television advertising in Pennsylvania. He spent more than $3 million trying to get his name out and his message out to Hillary Clinton's $1 million," said Mark Preston, a CNN political editor. [Emphasis added.]

Repeating the same old misleading information in attack ads imitates the same old Washington politics that Obama promises over and over and over again that he will change. M'yeah. Pardon moi for noticing the fraud.

UPDATE 2:42 PM: Republished with the correct time stamp. I inadvertently didn't notice it was set for PM since I had started the draft last night, but in fact, the post published this morning at 11:32 AM.

As the Blog Boyz twirl

The first panel of a cartoon by Joseph Cannon.
To enjoy the full cartoon strip, visit Cannonfire. Funny!

Totally slobbering:

Liberal bloggers continue to slam Clinton for her attacks on Obama during the ABC News debate:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Clinton has chosen her side, and it's of the corporatist status quo. That's no surprise. There's a reason she's in the leadership of the DLC. She may think that economically distressed Americans are 'optimistic' and 'resilient' and oh-so freakin' happy to lose their jobs and face few economic opportunities. All she's had to do is throw in a nice dose of San Francisco bashing (you know, the place where those gays live!), and her message is now indistinguishable from John McCain or Sean Hannity."

First, probably because I'm a lesbian, I wonder why the king of the Orange Sippy Cup™ tied SFO with "where those gays live!" Says more about *cough* him than it does Hillary Clinton who is far more LGBT-friendly than Mr. Homophobe as you can read here, here, here, midway down here, and LGBT irony alert, blast from the Hillary Haters Club past here.

When Hillary mentioned Obama's SFO fundraiser, I heard her tying Obama to Pelosi, who favors the Illinois senator. Where's Madam Speaker's congressional district? Ooooh, will I be slobbered on if I say, San Francisco? Well, I'm not homophobic and unafraid to name that city but some people seem to automatically associate it with gays and lesbians. Why is that?! We live all over the United States. Can you believe it?! I could rattle off lots of lesbian and gay hotspots--LA, Santa Fe, Miami, NYC--but the Damron City Guide already has and it covers 75 cities.

Is the Blog Boy inventing a storyline--"San Francisco bashing"--out of thin air from his perch on the pique peak of Mt. Orange Sippy Cup™? Gays and lesbians love Hillary. She has marched in our Gay Pride parades. Chelsea campaigns at our gay bars. And Hillary Clinton has not invited an ex-gay homophobe over the objections of the LGBT community to fundraise for her. But Obama did.

Is the kiddie king trying to twist the truth to undermine LGBT support of Clinton in a big state like California that delivers a lot of electoral punch? 'Cause a large number of self-respecting gays and lesbians like moi won't GOTV for Mr. Homophobe if he's on the November ballot. Or is he just slobbering? Could be both.

As to the "corporatist status quo" smear, smell the Obama hypocrisy here. Are facts out of fashion at the Orange Sippy Cup™? Or are they embargoed, shut up in a deep freeze to benefit The Precious?

And this drool dripping in sarcasm:

She may think that economically distressed Americans are 'optimistic' and 'resilient' and oh-so freakin' happy to lose their jobs and face few economic opportunities. . .and her message is now indistinguishable from John McCain or Sean Hannity.

*Sigh* It's sad to see someone so in need of intervention from disingenuous BS.

Maybe the Orange Sippy Cup™ king can find a Unity Pony in all the pony sh*t he's wading in but he's delusional to suggest that it exists. Blaming Hillary for voters disliking Barry the Unelectable, sweetie darling, just makes us appreciate Clinton more.

Keep it twirling, boyz. The faux outrage just makes the Democratic leadership appear inept or corrupt for selecting big bucks over competence if they pick The Precious over Hillary Clinton.


CREDITS: Cartoon added with permission by Joseph Cannon of Cannonfire. Go see the full strip. Worth the click!

I don't know who coined the "Unity Pony" but I see it most often at Lambert's blog at Corrente. And "The Precious" by Anglachel.

Gays love Hillary now Chelsea

Oh, how divine!

It's no secret that more than a few gay men have harbored a crush on Hillary Clinton ever since her days as First Lady. But Chelsea is now emerging as a close runner up in her own right. It all started in Dallas, TX when she attended last-minute events at JR's and Sue Ellen's (the two gay bars in town ... for real!) with Gloria Steinem and Rob Reiner. The trio drew nearly 1,000 people total at the two events (not bad for 24 hours notice). Since then, Chelsea has really come into her own, attending Portland's Red Dress party, and a couple weeks ago she head-lined a town hall meeting organized by the Liberty City Democrats at Woody's, a local gay bar in Philly.

New York LGBT activist and Clinton supporter Jon Winkleman has volunteered for Hillary in several states and he summed up Chelsea's evolution this way: "Early in the primary she was very quiet and reserved -- never really spoke at events in Iowa and New Hampshire. When I waited on her at the Four Seasons and told her I was going to both states for her Mom, she simply gave a thumbs up but didn't really speak. But over the course of the campaign, she really found her voice and comfort level. She gets a great response from gays. And with the response she's getting, I'm suspecting that she is really enjoying us. I liked her in December. In April, I'm in love with her. As Chelsea finds her voice, she is becoming a better secret weapon for Hillary than Bill." [Emphasis added.]

Tonight, Chelsea will join Gov. Ed Rendell of PA for "his traditional pre-election LGBT pub crawl." How divine is that! They will gay-bar hop in Philly from "Bump and Woody's to Sisters and Tavern on Camac." But I hadn't thought about Chelsea's name, which she shares with "one of New York's most legendary gayborhoods."

It's so encouraging to see Hillary and now Chelsea fully out in the open with LGBTs. No homophobia there. Heart-warming. And in stark contrast to Obama.

Stereotypically wrong

Krugman's column today revisits Barack Obama's "bitter" remarks about small-town stereotypes with facts and figures.

Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.

First, Krugman examines the economics, which exposed how Obama's claim was "deeply misleading." (The numbers.) Gotta agree with this advice: "But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress."

On sociology, the operative word is "cling," not "bitter":

Does economic hardship drive people to seek solace in firearms, God and xenophobia?

It’s true that people in poor states are more likely to attend church regularly than residents of rich states. This might seem to indicate that faith is indeed a response to economic adversity.

But this result largely reflects the fact that southern states are both church-going and poor; some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes. (The correlation runs the opposite way in rich states.)

Over all, none of this suggests that people turn to God out of economic frustration.

Finally, Mr. Obama, in later clarifying remarks, declared that the people he’s talking about “don’t vote on economic issues,” and are motivated instead by things like guns and gay marriage.

That’s a political theory made famous by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton. [Emphasis added.]

Problem is Frank was "mostly" incorrect. The evidence shows:

...small-town, working-class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values. Nor have working-class voters trended Republican over time; on the contrary, Democrats do better with these voters now than they did in the 1960s.

It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent. [Emphasis added.]

The reason, Krugman explains, that Republicans win is because " 'the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement' explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story."

Living in the South since the early 1970s, I have witnessed the transition. Anyone who's studied migrant patterns knows that the poor states of the South have been booming with an in-flux of new residents headed for white-collar professional jobs boosted by corporate relocations. A major hub, Atlanta, for example, has ranked third for Fortune 500 headquarters nationally for the sixth year in a row, up from its former fourth place position. In the 1990s, the Atlanta MSA, America's ninth largest metropolitan statistical area, grew at a rate of 100,000 newcomers per year over the entire decade and continues to swell in suburban growth deep into exurbia. The greater metro's demographics, particularly in the sprawling burbs, is highly-affluent, well-educated, and upwardly mobile, plus the city hosts dozens of evangelical megachurches. Birmingham, AL, is another professional boomtown as is Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte, NC. I don't want to digress into a socio-economic analysis of the South, but I can personally testify--living amongst its wealthy, church-going Republicans, and having grown up in a rich northern state from a family of poor evangelical Democrats--that Krugman is correct.

He concludes with a relevant point from Frank's book, which issued:

...a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?

Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.

And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

Are you listening Howard Dean? Trashing the Clintons isn't smart during these troubled economic times and I'm willing to bet that a ticket with Candidate Obama and without Candidate Clinton will have a chilling effect on GOTV in November.

UPDATE: Last night, Anglachel weighed in with two fan-tast-ic (such a gay word and I am) posts that add more flesh: Myth of the Bitter Working Class that reinforces what Krugman said but with more political prose attached, and second, Stereotypes, Facts, and Ideals. Check her last grafs on the "the Blogger Boyz and The Precious." You know who The Precious is, right? I wish I had more time to write more about the South, my home of exile as a left-of-center liberal and lesbian feminist artist but... have to make some donuts, which means getting pantsuits dry-cleaned and prepping for a professional gig.

Obama, Juvenile-in-Chief

Barack Obama talks about how he's got the leadership qualities to change Washington politics. M'yeah, Mr. Big Talk showed what he means. Watch him flip the bird when he mentions Hillary Clinton during yesterday's rally in Raleigh, NC. Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women posted the video and a bunch of links to blogs talking about it for you to peruse. Saw the YouTube link first on a comment thread at The Confluence.

If you think the flick of Obama's middle finger is a benign gesture, view a longer video version--Obama fingers a 'gotcha' debate--that also shows him making a fist and thrusting his arm in a "get a dig in there" motion. Check another angle from CBS News video. The dude's got a 'tude. Why does he continue to alienate Hillary supporters? Not real smart or mature.

Hard to believe that people have fallen for Obama's post-partisan unity spiel but it wouldn't be the first time that folks believed in someone who made that promise.

A blast from the past from another finger-flipper (video).

Comment moderation

A CDS-suffering twit using the handle Byrdeye from Chrysler Technologies Airborne Systems of Waco, Texas, showed up earlier today to hit my comment threads with a series of sexist, noxious spittle. Byrdeye is or was a Ron Paul supporter from what I could ascertain from his complaint that Paul was "smeared for accepting a measly $500 token donation from a White Rights advocate." He also has a blog--nasty sexist tripe--but I deleted the link from Haloscan. So sorry. Not.

I have since employed a technique that Boing Boing calls disemvowelling. So if you come across some jibberish, perhaps it was Byrdeye's droppings or a new offender who was edited.

I'm fairly tolerant of dissenting opinions but abusive, sexist, racist, or inflammatory language that annoys me, I will not tolerate. If you don't like it, exercise your First Amendment rights at your own blog.

Asking for your patience, if you come across an unseemly comment, give me time to disemvowel.

UPDATE: Add cyber-stalkers who annoy me to the list as well.

Clinton, Obama and the P-word

Don Imus is hopelessly sexist. And, hey. Misogyny isn't just for women anymore. The uncouth, ever-offensive Imus aims his seething piehole to spit at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with one sexist shot:

During the April 17 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is "almost a bigger pussy than" Sen. Hillary Clinton. While discussing the April 16 Democratic debate, Imus said he thought that co-moderator George Stephanopoulos was "great" and that the debate was "fine," adding: "I thought Senator Obama was on the defensive most of the night. But they're both sissy boys or sissy girls, or whatever. Because they talk big when they're out on the campaign trail, wolfing on each other." News anchor Charles McCord interjected, "But then," and Imus continued: "And then when they show up at the debate, they fold up like a couple of cheap lawn chairs. I mean, I don't understand that. And he's almost a bigger pussy than she is."

As Media Matters for America noted, on the March 7 edition of Imus in the Morning, Imus asserted that Clinton won her campaign for a U.S. Senate seat due to "a sympathy vote," adding, "She came here, everybody felt sorry for her 'cause her fat ..." At that point, guest and Fox News host Alan Colmes interjected, asking, "[W]hy did she get re-elected?" Imus continued: " 'Cause her fat, stupid husband was getting BJs from the poor little intern there in the Oval Office."

Despite his being fired by MSNBC and CBS in April 2007 -- his show is now syndicated by ABC Radio Networks and simulcast on RFD-TV -- Imus continues to attract prominent guests. From April 1 to April 17, Imus hosted Sen. John McCain, NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer, Washington Post media critic and host of CNN's Reliable Sources Howard Kurtz, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford. [Emphasis added.]

The morally bankrupt media continues to deem the blatantly sexist and reprobate behavior of Imus as acceptable in the marketplace of ideas. Look at who's still patronizing this unrepentant sexist dinosaur: a presidential candidate and leading media personalities. What's their excuse? Gotta email, express my disapproval, and ask what are their reasons for appearing on Don Imus' show. I want to know. What are they up to?

It's bad enough to hear the B-word thrown around as if it's a normal term for people to use--and it's not--but the P-word rates up there with the ugly group of demeaning epithets that dare not be spoken aloud, not in civilized circles or in the public arena. In Imus' cesspool of imagination, it's OK to use the P-word. In fact, it's fun, completely spot on. Never does he think of the denigration of femininity inherent in the P-word or its power crudely hewn to dismiss and devalue men and women.

Don't you wonder what advertisers are sponsoring Imus? I do 'cause I will cease to buy or recommend whatever service or product they offer in my sphere of influence.

I may be a Hillary supporter, but it is not ever OK to use misogyny against anyone. Ever.

The contacts to complain via Media Matters:

ABC Radio Networks
customerservice@abc.com
ABC Radio Networks

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

While I'm thinking 'bout it, send Media Matters some love. They provide an incredible service keeping the media in their sights and holding them accountable. God(dess) love 'em for the heavy-lifting they do regularly.

NOTE: You can watch it on video at the link.

Debate atrocity

Compare and contrast last night's debate to the Oct. 30, 2007, debate in which, to quote Bob Somerby, "Two of Jack Welch’s most famous 'Lost Boys' had been banging away at Candidate Clinton for about forty minutes. . . much as they’d done with Candidate Gore just eight years before. . . Has there ever been a debate like this? A debate where the moderators so plainly intended to spend the evening trashing the character of one of the candidates?"

That one candidate was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Now here's Atrios' reaction to last night's debate starting from the top with the latest to the earliest post at the bottom. Note the outrage over the "atrocity" (condensed depth-wise):

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Deep Thought
DC journalists are obsessed with serious policy issues.
-Atrios 23:20
Comments (560) Trackback (0)

wuh?
I've rewound the tivo 8 times and each time I hear Pat Buchanan saying:

I think Obama sounded very defensive when he talked about the cookies.

??? I've obviously missed something.
-Atrios 22:42
Comments (329) Trackback (0)

Embarrassing
Indeed.

NEW YORK In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate this year, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.

ABC Switchboard: 212-456-7777
-Atrios 22:28
Comments (156) Trackback (1)

Switch to MSNBC
Keith not happy with debate.
...switching between Tivo tuners, Rendell is blasting the questions on the local ABC.
-Atrios 22:03
Comments (213) Trackback (0)

Light'Em Up
Complain about this atrocity.
Main ABC switchboard: 212-456-7777
...complain here.
-Atrios 21:31
Comments (262) Trackback (0)

So Stupid
..."Gibson and Stephanopoulos shame media, America". Indeed.
...My God. It gets worse and worse. Just move the whole thing to Fox.
-Atrios 21:01
Comments (273) Trackback (0)

So Stupid
Aside from the lack of policy questions, so far this "debate" has been played entirely on wingnut ground. If BillO and Sean Hannity hosted it the questions would've been the same.

In a general election debate it would make sense to get questions from the right like that, but in a democratic primary it's just fucking stupid.

I hope I have a superpowered liver.

...53 minutes in, policy! Though corrupted by Charlie Gibson's dream of a military coup.
-Atrios 20:48
Comments (54) Trackback (0)

So Stupid
29 minutes in, not one policy question.
...32 minutes in...
...35 minutes in...
...38 minutes in...
...41 minutes in...
-Atrios 20:29
Comments (270) Trackback (0)

So Stupid
17 minutes in, no policy questions yet...
...West Coasters can watch here.
-Atrios 20:17
Comments (131) Trackback (0)

Jeepers! Was he not happy or what?! Now begin here on Oct. 31, 2007, and see if you can detect any Eschaton outrage as you scan downward to and through Oct. 30, 2007, the day of the debates when Clinton was savaged by Russert and Williams.

Notice any? Even a hint of indignation at the stupidity of the inane and relentless interrogation of Hillary? I saw one post referring to Paul Waldman's critique of Russert on Oct. 30 and an Oct. 31 remark: "Our very serious policy debate is driven by impotent racist old men." But that's the extent of the mighty Atrios wrath. Hmmm, curious, isn't it? Well, maybe he was too busy last October to pay much attention, and after all, it was frontrunner Hillary who was then getting Gore-d. Now that the primary has arrived in his neck of the woods with Obama in the lead, last night's debate was an atrocity!

Of special note: Bob Somerby observed of Tim Russert during the Oct. 30, 2007 debate:

Russert was rather slick all night, as has long been his wont. His July 2000 Meet the Press with Candidate Gore remains the most disgraceful hour we’ve ever seen a broadcaster offer. That same year, his gruesome work in the Clinton-Lazio debate was recalled by Media Matters, just yesterday. Yes, he was playing some slick/silly games with about “recent” statement by Kennedy. And yes, he let Clinton’s opponents play fast and loose with the truth (examples below). But at last, the gentleman couldn’t help it; on such occasions, it feels good to lie. Well, let’s scale back our language a bit: It feels good to play the voters for fools, knowing you’ll get a pass in the press—and, almost surely, on the web. Here’s a question the man from Buffalo asked mid-way through Tuesday’s witch-burning. As always, he was concerned about Clinton’s honesty. Just like Gore before her! [Emphasis added in bold.]

Our SCLM has discredited Clinton for a long, long time and her honesty was fodder in last night's debate pertaining to her low poll ratings. And no wonder they're low. The refs have been working this angle for ages. On the sniper fire story in Bosnia, she 'fessed up, said she was embarassed, and apologized. But you darn well know, the harangue won't stop. Pay no mind to the other pols who embellish. They're precious.

If you click the Somerby link, you can read further about the "examples below" that have little to do with "policy questions." A few relevant excerpts:

Russert’s concerns about “credibility” and “consistency” extended to no one but Clinton. In the night’s second question, Russert invited Edwards to orate about Clinton’s troubling “double-talk.” As he ended, Edwards misstated a fact. And Russert was happy to let him...

[snip]

The agenda this night was to slime Clinton’s character, as Gore and Kerry were slimed before her. So Edwards was allowed to misstate. Meanwhile, when Obama was challenged, just one time, about his own “consistency,” high comedy quickly transpired...

[snip]

...when Obama was asked to explain his change, he uttered one unintelligible sentence, then went right back to bashing Clinton for her lack of “straight talk.” But did Russert, so filled with concerns about credibility, ask his question again in his follow-up? Of course not! After Obama finished waxing about Clinton’s “convoluted answers”—thereby failing to answer Russert himself—the Head Raccoon offered this “follow-up:”

[snip]

RUSSERT: But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.

OBAMA: What I said is that she has not been truthful and clear about this point that I just made...

Wouldn’t you know it? Obama completely avoided Tim’s question—but Tim was back to Clinton being untruthful by the time his answer was done! In that answer, by the way, Obama embarrassed his party again with this hopeless statement...

Read Somerby for the whole enchilada and the omitted snips.

The press, our wonderful liberal bloggers, and Democratic colleagues have bashed Clinton's credibility ad infinitum, but now that frontrunner Obama has been getting a taste of the sauce he's helped serve to the goose, oh, the squealing and the shrieking--Waah! Waah! Oh, the horror!--that's coming from the allegedly enlightened blogosphere. GMAFB. (via)

UPDATE: Bob Somerby today on our "hopeless" media: "In the real world, some questions are more equal than others. And some questions reflect the broken-souled culture of a broken, multimillionaire press corps. A press corps which our liberal journals have accepted, without a peep of complaint, for a good many years."

I've given up on expecting the media to behave un-assholish. Sure, we must protest and fight. But I have been extraordinarily surprised by the behavior of liberal bloggers toward Hillary Clinton. As far as the debates go, my gawd! Can we get the League of Women Voters to take over? The media can't be trusted.

Smell the Obama hypocrisy

Via Donna Darko, Roseanne:

Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry."

Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Senator Obama has made the following statement," I don't take money from oil and gas companies and I don't take money from lobbyists." From the Center for Responsive Politics he accepted $160,000.00 from major oil companies, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and others. Two of his top bundlers George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar are CEO's for major oil companies. Last month, Obama accepted another $8400.00 from ExxonMobile, $12,370.00 from Chevron and $6500.00 from British Petroleum.. These are the funds and contributors for 2008 Finance/Insurance $15,087,469.00, $7,035,249 Communications, $6,715,680.00 Securities, $5,069,186.00 $10,261,541.00 Education there is a little more than $8,000,000.00 undisclosed. . .

From Donna Darko:

Rosanne wasn’t kidding. Popular progressive website, opensecrets.org, confirms it. According to Rosanne, Obama’s top contributor is Goldman Sachs ($523,478), a major proponent of privatizing Social Security and legislation that would deregulate the investment banking/securities industry (Center for Responsive Politics). Eight of Obama’s top twenty investors are securities and investment firms and one is a leading privatization advocate (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

When Obama parroted GOP talking points about the crisis of Social Security, liberals who fought Bush's privatization scam were taken aback. Of course, some of 'em were soothed by BO's baritone explanation. Others more qualified, Paul Krugman, recognized it's a sucker's game. Like Krugman, I don't believe Obama supports the privatization of Social Security. Barry declares as much on his website. And we can trust him, can't we? *cough*

But something is afoot with such sizable donations from Wall Street and Big Oil donors. Maybe his automatic workplace pension plan and savings incentives are the reason for the investment and banking moolah. M'yeah, that's it. What else could it be? Factoring in how he's hectored Hillary for accepting money from lobbyists as if he doesn't cozy up to K Street... whassup?

To outspend Clinton 3-to-1, sometimes 4-to-1, in advertising requires some major cha-ching. And he's got a new ad attacking Hillary Clinton for taking lobbyist money in contradiction to his own lobbyist network.

Can't you smell it?

Irresponsible journalism at work

The headline reads, McCain even with Obama, leads Clinton: Reuters poll.

The article reports on the latest poll release from Reuters/Zogby.

What the article doesn't say: In the four-way match-ups of Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain, no where in the reporting is the percent of "Other/Not sure" mentioned.

Screen grabs from Zogby below

In the two-way match-ups, just try and find the cohort that's "Other/Not sure" at the Zogby link. At least the article designated the margin of error: 3.1% among likely voters and 4.3% among likely Democratic voters.

IOW, take the poll with a big shaker of salt.

Makes the headline and the report a wee bit misleading, doncha think? Now Reuters wouldn't have a bias, would it?

November surprise

Hillary's Bloggers:

I have a feeling Dean et al, will get a real eye opener in November if they continue to piss women off and force Hillary out of this race and do not count Florida and Michigan.

We may feel helpless in June July or August or September or October, but when November rolls around, women will get even and they won't even know what hit them.

P.S Love to all my male Hillary supporting friends! You guys are what makes this bearable!

Hillary keeps me hanging in with the Democratic Party that appears to have decided on self-destruction by favoring Obama.

Watching the primaries more intensely than I ever have previously has opened my eyes. Can a political party be more out of touch by employing an antiquated caucus system that disenfranchises the working class? There are so many things wrong with caucuses: peer group pressure, an inconvenient schedule, fear of retaliation of publicly siding against someone who affects livelihood or home. These are only a few examples. The Democratic primary system needs a major overhaul, that is, if the party wishes to live up to its name.

If Clinton is shut out of the nomination, I'm done with decades of sacrificing my vote for the good of everyone else. We voted the Democrats into the majority in 2006 but have they stopped the war by refusing to fund it? Have they impeached Cheney or Bush?

The sexism that's reared its ugly head in this campaign season has reawakened me to never again settle for second-class status or enable it by rewarding a political system that has stood silent against misogyny. I'm done with supporting the party's candidate. I'm voting for the person who best represents progressive policies. There are real progressive alternatives for a self-respecting lesbian feminist to chose on the ballot in November. Obama is not one of them.