Monday catch-up, Tuesday predictions

Since I've been somewhat unplugged for the past few days, checked in with various sources for a little catch-up. As we head toward Tuesday's primaries...

SurveyUSA tracking poll in Indiana:

24 hours untill [sic] votes are counted in the Indiana Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama in the symbolically important popular vote, and possibly by enough to pick up more than a trivial number of net Convention delegates, according to SurveyUSA’s final pre-primary tracking poll conducted for WCPO-TV Cincinnati and WHAS-TV Louisville. In 4 tracking polls over the past 5 weeks, Clinton has never polled lower than 52%, Obama has never polled higher than 43%. At the wire, they finish: Clinton 54%, Obama 42%.

SUSA's tracking poll for North Carolina:

On the eve of the North Carolina Democratic Primary, with 25% of votes already cast, Barack Obama has no breathing room in his hope to defeat Hillary Clinton in popular votes, according to SurveyUSA’s 8th and final tracking poll, conducted exclusively for WTVD-TV, the ABC-owned TV station in Raleigh. On the final day of the fiercely fought campaign, it’s Obama 50%, Clinton 45%. There is no foreseeable outcome in North Carolina, regardless of which candidate wins the popular vote, where one candidate collects significantly more Convention delegates than the other. Therefore, the exact final vote totals have much more symbolic importance than real importance.

VastLeft's list laid out an excellent Clinton vs. Obama summary of why Hillary over Barry... point by point.

Jerome Armstrong put up two ads: one "closer" from Clinton and one from Obama, "probably his most negative ad to date." Jeralyn at TalkLeft offered a transcript on the Obama ad. Irony alert! Mr. New Kind of Politics uses a negative attack ad to accuse, "And what does Hillary Clinton offer us? More of the same old negative politics."

Clinton and Obama talked with local gay media in North Carolina and Indiana. The Obama interview was his first with local gay press. What took him so long? QNotes, which covers both NC and SC, posted the Clinton interview here, Obama interview here. In Indiana, the LGBT magazine, Reality, "along with bloomingOUT, The Bloomington Beacon, The Letter, Indiana Equality and The Word," asked questions of the candidates and published their responses here. (Via)

Riverdaughter coined the new term--“Mitchellism”--and defined it as: "The tendency of the media to see American politics through its own eyes and to over value its impact on the voting public."

This tendency has been noted before by other bloggers who have referred to the Washington DC press corps and pundits as The Villagers, that self-selected authority of knowledge of what the voters will or will not tolerate. High-Brodersim is another variation and is the belief that the root of the problem in American politics is too much partisanship and if the Democrats would just sell out all of their beliefs and try to meet Republicans half way, there wouldn’t be any more fights and there would be unity and much rejoicing and we could all buy the world a Coke. Barack Obama is a disciple of High Broderism.

Funny un-ha-ha how the Obamasphere hasn't noticed the similarities between "post-partisan" rhetoric and High Broderism.

Riverdaughter went on to say, "But I have noticed a curious thing happening this primary season. I don’t think the voters trust the media much these days." I agree. Here's why: from a big picture perspective, an annual report on The State of News Media 2007 stated, "The press is no longer gatekeeper over what the public knows." In its "Public Attitudes" section, the report reiterated:

...the public’s confidence in 2006 according to some indices continued to slip.

And perceptions of bias, and the partisan divide of media, appear to be on the rise.

All that comes, of course, against a background of more than 20 years of growing skepticism about journalists, their companies and the news media as an institution. As we have noted in other reports,since the early 1980s, the public has come to view the news media as less professional, less accurate, less caring, less moral and more inclined to cover up rather than correct mistakes.

I suspect the disconnect between the public, which includes voters, and the media has widened this year.

Sometimes Bob Somerby's candor tickles me when he analyzes media bias:

COHEN (2/12/08): My Feb. 5 column was critical of Hillary Clinton for supporting a bill to make flag burning illegal. I have since learned from a reader that Barack Obama also supported that bill.

That’s right, dumb-ass! Clinton supported the flag-burning bill. And Obama supported it too!

But then, more than half the senate’s Democrats supported that bill, in June 2006. It was brought to the floor by Dick Durbin, Obama’s biggest senate supporter. Everyone understands the politics of these bills–everyone but [Richard] Cohen and [Gail] Collins, that is. Because they’re two of the world’s biggest androids, they keep singing the same tired songs.

Shhhhh! Don't tell the Hillary-haters at the Orange Sippy Cup™ who criticize Clinton over the flag-burning amendment. Their CDS-suffering heads might explode with reality.

Speaking of a lost grasp on reality, a Cannonfire update on the robocall controversy involving Women's Voices, Women's Votes demonstrates that "another Obamabot attempt to do the GOP's work" is still ticking as if it's "never been discussed before!"

Yesterday at the Left Coaster, eRiposte debunked the hoopla over the gas tax holiday:

Aside from the usual jokers rending their garments over it, I don't find the gas tax holiday back-and-forth to be particularly earth-shaking. I already linked to two Paul Krugman posts that touched on the gas tax issue in previous posts; one of Krugman's posts was a specific critique of Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain's different proposals and another was an op-ed where he again mentions the gas tax issue in a broader context. I agree with Krugman's view that Sen. Clinton's proposal is "pointless not evil".

All politicians pander and I've never said Sen. Clinton is above pandering. That said, her proposal has been misrepresented or distorted by the Obama campaign (see here and here) and by some in the media (see here). Sen. Obama's own history of pandering and his repeated voting in favor of a gas tax holiday in 2000 (when gas prices were much lower) make his current pronouncements on this matter, um, amusing....

My new friend Declarations of Pride posted a rallying cry: On Tuesday, the game will change!

On Tuesday, Hillary will vastly pad her lead in the popular vote. On Tuesday voters will show momentum for Hillary by way of votes of confidence for her that were once not thought to swing her way. Voters will change the game on Tuesday because the luster of inspiration isn't enough to make change happen. The voters will change the game on Tuesday because the Senator from Illinois is becoming less consistent. The voters will change the direction of the wave of democracy on Tuesday because electability is more important that hope alone. Hope can only be fulfilled if the hopeful win. Otherwise that hope was just a dream, and it appears that democratic voters are waking from the Obama dream as it turns to a nightmare where McCain could be President.

Voters are changing the game. Voters are continuing the shift in opinion. Whereas Barack was once seen as the only option, buyers remorse has set in, and the voters are changing the game to who they see as the GE winner: Hillary! Hillary has demonstrated over and over again a winning strategy that includes more than hope for change, but details, plans and understanding of how to make change happen. The voters are changing the game because they know that hope of change alone isn't enough. For change you have to have a plan. For change you have to have an understanding of the problem. For change you need stamina, charisma, and the will to fight on in the face of your enemies. Otherwise, your only hope is to return to sleep and dream of a reality that never had a chance.

Couldn't have said it better!

CREDITS: Cropped photo originally shot by Barbara Kinney.

Comment moderation update

I've added cyberstalkers who annoy me to my previous policy on comment moderation. A reminder:

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.

For the record, there are only two persons that I have banned from Haloscan:

1) one from Texas who posted sexist rants on a few different topics using the B-word repeatedly. I disemvowelled his creepy posts.

2) a cyberstalker from Arizona who, today, used a computer from Pima Community College in Tucson and a different name while complaining about the ban. Since I've only banned two people, it was easy to figure out who he was despite the sudden name change.

My next step is to enable Haloscan comment moderation that many blogs use. Now I better understand why using moderation before allowing a comment to post has become customary.

A lesson learned.

Unbridled misogyny

Joseph Cannon reported this gawd-awful Hillary-bashing news from O-bots go psycho:

And a new O-bot post at the Daily Cheeto bears this lovely title: “Senator Obama please take your foot and step on her throat!”

What's next from the DailyKooks? A call to waterboard Hillary Clinton into submission?

Sick.

The pledged delegate sham

Super-smart Paul Lukasiak breaks out why the pledged delegate count is a ridiculous metric for selecting a nominee:

As far as Obama’s supporters are concerned, a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/23 of a voter in Alaska. In Alaska, 8,877 voters chose the state’s 13 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention, or 683 voters per delegate. In Ohio, 2,194,851 voters chose that state’s 141 pledged delegate. That’s 15,566 voters per delegate.

Or perhaps Obama’s supporters really think that a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/37 of an Alaskan voter. Based on the support of 4480 more people, Barack Obama picked up 5 more delegates to the Democratic Convention than Hillary Clinton in Alaska.. That’s 896 Obama supporters per extra delegate. Clinton picked up 7 more delegates than Obama in Ohio, based on her support from 229,873 more Ohioans, or 32,839 Clinton supporters per extra delegate.

In other words, if the Democratic National Committee treated the votes of Alaskans and Ohioans as equal, and gave Clinton an extra delegate for every 893 supporters in Ohio, Clinton would have received not 7, but 257 more delegates than Obama from that state. But thanks to the way in which the DNC allocates delegates, and DNC’s willingness to permit different states to select their Convention delegates in an undemocratic fashion, Clinton gets only 2 more delegates from Ohio than Obama gets from Alaska, despite the fact that Clinton’s combined popular vote advantage from these two states is over 225,000.

This is just one of the absurdities that lies at the foundation of the argument of Obama supporters that the person who wins the most pledged delegates during the primary season has a right to be the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. [Emphasis added.]

Paul offered a tremendous amount of information. I've clipped the opening grafs. Click over for the full picture. Part of Paul's conclusion deserves more attention than the A-List fauxgressives have acknowledged:

As of right now, Obama’s delegate lead is almost entirely from “caucus” states – states where each voter is provided with far more weight than in the primary states, and gives individual voters in heavily Republican states three times more influence than voters in crucial swing states when it comes to electing delegates.

Obama lead in primary states is only 8 delegates. Obama 8 vote lead in primary states is based on getting 71 more delegates than Clinton from states that haven’t voted for a Democrat for President in the last three elections, and where Democrats have lost by an average margin of over 16 points in the last three years. In terms of the primary vote totals, Obama is only close to Clinton thanks to these heavily Republican primary states, where he has a lead of more than 813,000 in the popular vote.

Clinton has dominated the primaries in crucial “swing states” and “heavily Democratic” states, garnering the support of over 51,000 more voters than Obama in these states, and winning 63 more delegates there....

...When Obama supporters argue that the delegate count is the only thing that matters, they would have you believe that the outcomes in Ohio and Alaska are not significantly different – only 2 delegates separate the outcome in the two states, and that is all that is important.

It is this kind of thinking that loses Presidential elections. [Emphasis added.]

I've posted previously that I had never paid much attention to the party's peculiar methods of nominating a presidential candidate. Jeebus! Eyes wide open now.

While the Blog Boyz continue their screeching about the pledged delegate count, my response to the Obamasphere is their argument is based on an astoundingly stupid and undemocratic system. UYATUPYRIO. Shame on the party. Paul asked the ultimate question: "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE?"

Friday shortcuts

T.G.I.H.

I've got a health issue I need to deal with this afternoon. I'm uninsured, one of the 47 million, so if you would like to help out, hit the PayPal button and thank you kindly.

A few goodies from the bright side...

VastLeft at Corrente posted a linked article by Prof. Adolph Reed on Obama that's a real eye-opener. Must read.

Anglachel calculated the delegate math and Howard Dean--heck, the party--is in a pickle. But you knew that, right? She articulated some ideas that are new.

Indianapolis Star endorsed Hillary via Taylor Marsh.

Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women reported: Black Group Issues Outrageous Ultimatum to Super Delegates.

Oh, dear. Obama's O'Reilly Whines by BTD at TalkLeft. And the Obamasphere got Drudged again. The doctored Kantor video that smeared the Clinton campaign by... oh, go read TalkLeft for the links and a snippet via Atrios. BTD: "Moral of the story? The Left blogs have lost their way." Unsurprise! Can't wait to see what Bob Somerby has to say about it all.

Riverdaughter explained why it's been a very bad week for Obama. M'yeah.

Paul Krugman showed no mercy and tells it like it is: "To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday. . .But I think Mr. Obama is doing much more harm to the Democratic cause by echoing Republican attack lines on such issues as insurance mandates and Social Security. And now he’s demonstrating his post-partisanship by giving Republicans credit for good ideas they never had."

Larry Johnson discussed Hillary, Iraq and Iran from last night's O'Reilly interview and gets into the details of why Clinton "understands these realities."

That's all for now, folks! Back later.

Hillary Clinton, Bill O'Reilly, part II

I agree with Taylor Marsh who posted the YouTubes from last night's interview, this is Hillary at her best:

This is how you "take on" Fox News, to use the Obama team’s words. You do it with charm, though knowing the facts helps a lot. . . Review on the Bill O’Reilly two-day interview: flawless. Obama couldn’t come close to this performance, nor could any other Democrat. It takes a woman to tame Bill O’Reilly. It’s clear he enjoyed it. So did she.

If you get the chance, go tell Taylor thanks for getting the videos online for all to view. Mucho props!

Videos below from May 1 are in two parts.

In the first video--Part 3--Hillary explained her position on Iran, deterring them from obtaining nukes, getting out of Iraq, how ending the U.S. occupation will impact the Iran/Persian-Iraq/Arab relationship, the fallacy of oil prices rising due to troop withdrawals, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Taliban, AQ, and supporting and working with the pro-democracy forces in Pakistan to reduce terrorism.


In the second video--Part 4--Hillary discussed waterboarding, how torture is wrong, ineffective, and not in the best interests of America... immigration, sanctuary cities, deporting criminals, fixing the problem with a "sensible comprehensive immigration resolution" instead of using the issue as a "political football."


To see the previous interview that aired on Apr. 30, click here.

A call for help

Melissa McEwan asked for help in finding examples of sexism specifically...

Hillary Clinton in the left blogosphere, a la Josh Marshall's gelded at TPM or Stephen Kaus' misogynist tirade at HuffPo. What other examples have you seen on lefty blogs, of either overt sexism (slurs, doctored images) or oblique sexism (criticisms of Clinton wrapped in misogynist frames, e.g. "Billary" or "cackling" or "too ambitious")?

Also welcome: Any comments threads that were completely out of control with misogynist swill and left unmoderated.

Please provide links, as only specific examples will be helpful.

So if you can help out with examples and links, head over to Shakesville and leave your contribution in comments. Obvious from what's already recorded, the A-List bloggers have serious issues with women, e.g., Hillary. A sample: "7 Reasons why I hate the bitch."

Hillary Clinton, Bill O'Reilly interview

Hillary proves once again, she's a fighter. She went toe-to-toe with Bill O'Reilly, got her shots in, never was intimidated, appeared comfortable, alert, and confident. She sometimes added a twist of humor (Faux News slogan, "fair and balanced").

The first half of the interview aired last night. Part two broadcasts tonight. The videos of Hillary's interview below are broken into two parts.

The first video includes Rev. Wright, her votes against nuclear energy and drilling ANWR, gas prices, the energy crisis and who's to blame, using the WTO to muscle OPEC, her universal health care plan and accountability, how we already subsidize the uninsured with a hidden tax in current health care plans, working to reduce those costs, and electing a president who's a fighter.


The second video covers taxes, an increase of up to 39% on $250,000+ incomes and a tax cut for the middle class... no commitment to increasing payroll taxes or lifting the cap... On "income redistribution" that conservatives dislike, which Bill-O called socialism, Hillary hit back with Teddy Roosevelt: was he a socialist? She addressed the false premise that taxes in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s were lower (than today?!). JFK reduced the tax on the wealthiest Americans from 90% to 70%... Hello! Hillary demonstrated that she is the debatemeister, ready with facts, besting Bill-O by never allowing him to get away with injecting propaganda.

When the discussion turned to Obama and how Hillary is perceived as "more polarizing" than Barack, O'Reilly said, "He seems like a nicer guy." Hillary returned fire good-naturedly. She won NY with 67% of the vote despite her "divisive" rep and "the reason is" she "reached across party lines." Clinton said:

I'm the one with the record of bipartisanship. . . .I happen to think if you want to take on the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the oil companies, you've got to be tough. And we've got to have a president who's a fighter again. Now will that create, you know, some folks who are a little upset? Yes. But if we don't get back to fighting for the American people, we're not going to recognize our country.

When Bill-O asked if Hillary had been surprised by "fairer" treatment from Fox News than from NBC or other news orgs, she quipped, "I wouldn't expect anything less than a fair and balanced coverage of my campaign." Ha!

Via Taylor Marsh.

UPDATE: Part II, the second evening's broadcast of the Clinton interview by O'Reilly is here.

The faux kitchen sink

Media invented the "kitchen sink" with help from Obama's camp
to trash Hillary for trying to drown Barack's presidential bid.

Joseph of Cannonfire explained with facts the fictional kitchen sink chapter on Hillary's campaign:

Although Bob Somerby probably does not read Cannonfire, he has picked up on the absurdity of the "kitchen sink" line, which has been the subject of two previous posts here. The "sink" motif still sees frequent use throughout prog-land and the mainstream media. First, Somerby quotes Joe Klein's anti-Clinton hit piece in Time:

Even as he spoke, the former President was in the midst of a tiny, self-inflicted absurdity, having claimed in a radio interview that the Obama campaign had played the "race card" against him. And that was the least of the damage.

That is, in fact, precisely what happened. As we have seen in many previous columns, the Clintons never -- ever -- used the race card. They had no reason to do so: Such a strategy would have no appeal to any segment of the Democratic electorate, and would serve only to alienate black voters and others. Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe accidentally deep-sixed the O-bot propaganda line when he confessed that no Democrats would make a decision to vote for a presidential candidate based on anti-black antipathy, because the racists all went over to the Republican side long ago. (The exact quote appears in a recent post; scroll down.) An internal Obama campaign memo [emphasis added] revealed that the Clintons-are-racists meme was a deliberate ploy. At the time when the Obama campaign made the calculated decision to spread this unforgivable smear, most black voters favored Hillary....

...Back in February, Clinton gave a round of speeches in which she referred to five reasons not to vote for Obama -- as opposed to, say, two or three reasons. That, friends, is the "kitchen sink."

To which I say: Big deal. I refuse to accept the O-bot redefinition of the term "negative campaigning" to mean any statement which does not acknowledge Obama as the Messiah.

If you look at what Hillary was saying in those days, her commentary was entirely concerned with policy disagreements and Obama's lack of experience. Since when are those considerations out of bounds in a political campaign? [Emphasis added.]

Go read Joseph's entire post for further history and the "highly unreliable" originator of the "kitchen sink fusillade." For now, turn attention to another Cannonfire entry about the internal Obama memo, the dirty tricks played by Barry's team on those allegedly "racist" Clintons. Of course, the Hillary-hating media hyped the race card and the Obamasphere lit bonfires to incinerate Hillary's bid for the nomination. Seriously, I wonder: does the blog of WKJM and the Orange Sippy Cup™ King have dedicated email accounts to receive Obama talking points and distribute 'em?

From Cannonfire:

This memo proves that the Obama campaign has -- since January -- been behind the vile attempt to insinuate that the Clintons are racists. Before the Obamoids embarked on this propaganda strategy -- negative campaigning at its very worst -- Hillary Clinton had the majority of the African American vote. With cool and calculated deceit, the Obama team racialized statements such as Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark.

The Obama campaign always knew that this assault was deceptive, as this interview with campaign manager David Plouffe confirms:

I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.

Plouffe was caught between a rock and a hard place here. He gave this response after being asked if America's racism rendered Obama unelectable in the general. His answer directly contradicts the Bot Party Line that Clinton has sent out "dog whistles" to those imaginary hordes of Democratic bigots.

Thank you, Joseph. I've argued repeatedly that it is Malignant Absurdity™ to accept that the Clintons are "slobbering racists." Here:

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...

And here:

See The Daily Howler on the racially-concocted dumb-assery of Patterson. Pro-Obama fans, surrogates, and Villagers have screamed race/race/race so often that the accumulated expulsions require a dumpster-sized pooper scooper. The Clintons have played the race card! Oh, puh-leeze, spare me. Think about it: "[I]ndulging in racial politics would be a sure-fire way for the Clinton campaign to shatter its own coalition," a tactic that defies logic, that would invite political suicide. For someone who allegedly "would do anything to win," the accusation makes zero sense.

I'm unsurprised that there is an Obama memo painting the Clintons as racists. Courtesy Joseph, Sam Stein in January 2008:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. [See the full memo here.]

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.

If you click the link to read Sam Stein's column at HuffPost, the entire memo falls below the fold and outlines five talking points:

1. Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising "False Hope" Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: "It Took A President To Get It Done."

2. Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela

3. Clinton's NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would "Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter."

4. Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen's Obama Drug Use Comments, Used The Word "Cocaine," Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser Joe Trippi.

5. Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale" And Said "It's An Insult... As An African-American" And That His Tone And Words Are "Very Depressing."

Have you noticed the silence in the Obamasphere about Barry's memo? Well, except that they used it to smear Hillary relentlessly. Had it not been for Joseph Cannon, I wouldn't have known of its existence in my avoidance of HuffPost, which tilts most of its commentary against Hillary, a wasteland of pro-Obama propaganda with a patch of true blue here and there.

Between the false narratives about Clinton's so-called kitchen sink, the sexist dog whistles out of the mouths of Obama and his co-chairs, the character assassination of Hillary, and the campaign secretly promoting the Clintons as racists to the press, I whole-heartedly agree with Cannon's conclusion:

Barack Obama has run the filthiest campaign in the modern history of the Democratic party. We cannot reward such tactics with success, or they will be repeated.

Can I get an amen? I absolutely refuse to be guilt-tripped into voting for Obama if--gawd forbid--he wins the nomination and then loses to McCain in the fall because people like me will not vote for The Fraud. And I'm not voting for Bush III. I will write in my candidate's name or vote for the Green Party whose candidate will likely be an African-American woman. Just try and call me a racist.

POSTSCRIPT: Obama quoted in Klein's hit piece, "She's got the kitchen sink flying, the china flying — the buffet is coming at me." Waah! What an act.

CREDITS: WKJM via Corrente. See their glossaries for the definition.

For the record

Lambert at Corrente is the author of "Chutzpah on race from Mr. Hopey." Maybe James Wolcott will update his article giving credit where credit is due.

I also don't think of lambert as a cynic. Delightfully sarcastic, yes, as is Wolcott, one of my favorite writers. Funny un-ha-ha that JW didn't notice the satire since he can certainly dish it up like "flaming shish kebabs." One other aside to Wolcott's column: he failed to mention the insidious misogyny of the A-List bloggers who propagated the WWTSBQ rift in the 'sphere. I blame the omission on that nagging shoulder hoverer called word count. The subject could consume an entire VF edition if treated fairly sans girlish soft porn on the cover.

I attempt to acknowledge bloggers who coin clever terms such as "The Precious" by Anglachel.

And moi minted the Orange Sippy Cup™ for that blog also known as the Orange Satan (don't know the author of the latter.)

If I use a blogerrific term without giving credit to the authoring blogger--and you know who originated it--just email me or leave a comment. I will gladly recognize the blogger with a special credit line.

Kiss, kiss.

The delusional based community

The Orange Sippy Cup™ King audaciously claimed he's part of the reality-based community because, yo! He criticized Obama for appearing on Faux News. Moulitsas pronounced:

"Yo people, Obama isn't beyond reproach or criticism. I want him to win the primary and the general, but I ain't gonna keep my mouth shut and carry his water when I disagree with him. If you have a problem with it, you might want to go elsewhere, because this is the reality based community, not the 'Obama can do no wrong' community...."

Reality based? Then explain why the Kiddie King got his facts all a-jumbled with Obama talking points advanced by Axelrod that are wrong, wrong, wrong. Sipping that BO Kool-Aid again, eh, Kos?

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing Clinton for supporting a gas tax holiday that she opposed during her 2000 Senate campaign:

Moulitsas slams "Clinton's shameless hypocrisy on the fuel tax": "Honestly, why take the 18 cents out of the federal budget? Why not take it out of the oil company profits? The $10 billion in revenue the federal government would lose, at a time when our roads are crumbling and bridges literally collapsing, is only a quarter of Exxon Mobil's annual profits. [...] And that's just Exxon Mobil, excluding every other Big Oil company. Add them all up, and $10 billion would be but a blip in their balance sheet. So why do McCain and Clinton want to penalize the federal government at a time of record oil profits?"

Oh, nice spiel associating Hillary with Republican McCain on the issue. Don't expect a CDS sufferer like Kos to be able to fact check himself. The 2000 propaganda advanced by--Surprise! War-profiteering General Electric's NBC!--is wrong (with emphasis):

NBC's First Read implies that Hillary's plan for a gas tax holiday contradicts her position in 2000. This is false.

Hillary's plan today is financed exclusively with a tax on windfall profits from oil companies. She opposed a plan in 2000 for a gas tax holiday because it was financed with transportation funds:

"Clinton, whose daughter, Chelsea, joined her on the campaign trail for the first time yesterday in Manhattan, contends that getting rid of the gas tax would eliminate the funding stream for important transportation projects in New York and elsewhere…" [Newsday, 6/27/00]

"While New York sends $300 million a year to Washington in gas taxes, Clinton said it gets back $477 million in highway funding annually. The first lady said Lazio's plan would have a 'damaging impact' on the state." [Associated Press, 6/27/00]

The OSCK must have a dedicated email account for Obama's chief political/media advisor and Chicago Daley's former PR strategist David Axelrod. The Kiddie King can disseminate BO's BS quicker than projectile diarrhea. The facts:

This afternoon [4/28] on Hardball, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, falsely claimed that Hillary's plan to suspend the gas tax this summer would be financed by diverting funds for federal transportation projects:

He'll invest in our infrastructure, which badly needs it. We know that. That's one of the reasons this diversion from the federal highway trust fund that Senator McCain and Clinton have proposed makes no sense.

This is false. Hillary's plan is financed by a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies. Details here.

To summarize Hillary's plan:

• Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

• Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

• Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

• Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

• Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

Details at the link with this opening line: "Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months."

The OSCK falsehoods are a disgrace to the reality-based community. Pro-Clinton bloggers deserted the the Orange Sippy Cup™ for a saner environment "sick and tired of being sick and tired over the hate, ignorance and hostility directed at Hillary and her supporters." Former diarist alegre called for writer's strike stating she would "refrain from posting [at DKos] as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution."

Distorting Hillary's record... wonder where the Kossacks got that idea? The Kiddie King sets the standard.

It's Clinton's fault

Incurable CDS sufferers see only one person to blame: Hillary.

Someone has been gulping too much Kool-Aid:

There was little doubt left in today's remarks by Obama, who recently said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community. He pretty much disowned Wright today. Obama described himself as "outraged" and "saddened" by "the spectacle of what we saw yesterday."

But now, it turns out, we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at....

who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Could someone book a few rooms the psych wing for delusional press members and Hillary-haters suffering from advanced CDS? On second thought, may need to build a hospital dedicated to 'em... a big one.

IMAGE: An alteration of M.C. Escher's Eye.

Perfect timing

Obama chose today to reject his pastor of 20 years.

Today, Obama repudiated Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial pastor whom Bob Herbert described as being on an “I’ll show you!” tour. Herbert also emphasized a few points--although portraying the pastor in an unflattering light--about Wright:

The thing to keep in mind about Rev. Wright is that he is a smart fellow. He’s been a very savvy operator, politically and otherwise, for decades. He has built a thriving, politically connected congregation on the South Side of Chicago that has done some very good work over the years. Powerful people have turned to him for guidance and advice.

So it’s not like he’s naïve politically. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Forget the gibberish about responding to attacks on the black church. That is not what the reverend’s appearance before the press club was about. He was responding to what he perceives as an attack on him.

This whole story is about Senator Obama’s run for the White House and absolutely nothing else.... ...My guess is that Mr. Wright felt he’d been thrown under a bus by an ungrateful congregant who had benefited mightily from his association with the church and who should have rallied to his former pastor’s defense....

...For Senator Obama, the re-emergence of Rev. Wright has been devastating. The senator has been trying desperately to bolster his standing with skeptical and even hostile white working-class voters. When the story line of the campaign shifts almost entirely to the race-in-your-face antics of someone like Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama’s chances can only suffer.

Beyond that, the apparent helplessness of the Obama campaign in the face of the Wright onslaught contributes to the growing perception of the candidate as weak, as someone who is unwilling or unable to fight aggressively on his own behalf.

Hillary Clinton is taunting Mr. Obama about his unwillingness to participate in another debate. Rev. Wright is roaming the country with the press corps in tow, happily promoting the one issue Mr. Obama had tried to avoid: race.

Mr. Obama seems more and more like someone buffeted by events, rather than in charge of them. [Emphasis added.]

Not so fast! Obama struck back:

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Sen. Barack Obama today strongly criticized the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, saying that Wright's comments about the United States in recent days have been "appalling" and "outrageous."

Using his sharpest language yet to describe a series of Wright performances that he said left him angry and sad, Obama accused Wright of exploiting racial divisions at the same time the Illinois senator is aiming to heal them and bring the nation together.

"When I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it," Obama told reporters in firm and somber tones. "It contradicts everything I'm about and who I am. Anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign is about I think will understand it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country."

Obama, calling reporters together for the second time in 24 hours to address an issue that threatens to weaken his campaign, said he decided to speak out after watching videotape of Wright's theatrical performance at the National Press Club, where he attacked the U.S. government and Obama alike....

..."I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That's in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding. To insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That's who I am," Obama said.

"Yesterday, we saw a very different vision of America," he went on. "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. . .There has been great damage," Obama said. "I do not see the relationship being the same after this." [Emphasis added.]

It's seemed odd to me that Wright chose the past few days to defend his brand of theology and himself in a highly-visible manner. Why not wait until after the election? What was the rush? Why provide more fodder to add to inflammatory sound bites that could come back to haunt Obama? It didn't make sense, since after all, Wright understood that Obama was a politician. He had predicted in an interview more than a year ago, "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me. . . I said it to Barack personally, and he said, 'Yeah, that might have to happen.' "

Barry needed to rid himself of a longtime association that's hurt him politically. He needed to remove the potential damage that could be inflicted in a fight with McCain. Wright's media blitz followed by Obama's rejection today brought the controversial relationship to a head, their ties now officially severed.

With upcoming primaries and questions about Obama's electability that could affect superdelegate decisions, the break between candidate and pastor was perfectly timed, no?


IMAGES: Montage comprised of AP photos by Jae C. Hong, an Obama campaign image, AP photo of Rev. Wright by J. Scott Applewhite, and stock imagery.

Working class meme

Quick! Change the subject:

...the meme is circulating that Obama’s problem is that white working-class voters are all a bunch of Archie Bunkers who are too racist to vote for him. This meme is being pushed aggressively by the Obama campaign, especially after the huge Pennsylvania loss. Straight from Axelrod’s mouth to the pages of the New York Times, where it’s dressed up as thoughtful analysis.

The purpose of the racist meme is fivefold:

1. To distract from Obama’s real weakness — that he has nothing to offer working people and can’t get them to vote for him to save his damn life;
2. To excuse his failure by instead blaming the voters;
3. To imply that the only reason people vote for Hillary is because they’re racists, which just goes to show how nasty and icky Hillary is;
4. To subliminally remind people that the Clintons themselves are racists, at least according to the Obama campaign;
5. To once again mine the seemingly inexhaustible vein of white guilt that sends shivers up the legs of the liberal elites.

The constant repetition of the phrase “white working class” (or variations thereon) is crucial to propagating the meme. And it’s false, because it erases Latino/Latinas along with every other non-AA ethnic group, and shifts the focus away from “working class” (which is where it belongs).

So please, stop saying white working class. Don’t play into Axelrod’s game.

P.S. Similar thing with older voters.

The media has been all too willing to accommodate the meme. Why are they carrying water for the Obama campaign?

From this morning, Google News search results for white+working+class

The meme continues with the latest twist toward Wright. Chicago Sun-Times op/ed from today:

Obama's key challenge in Indiana is wresting blue-collar white voters from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).... ...One Obama adviser, who declined to be identified in order to speak candidly, said Wright has become a "huge distraction. At a time when Obama is trying to appeal to blue-collar and working-class voters, Jeremiah Wright is dragging this campaign into a conversation about race . . . and that's not what white voters want to hear."

A new Gallup poll out today explains that the difference in preference between Clinton and Obama is education, but... ahem! Their survey included an "overall sample of 7,999 non-Hispanic white Democratic voters." Politico picked up the meme in a report on former Edwards supporter, now endorsing Clinton, Gov. Easley of NC:

...[Easley] does carry a popular name and a symbolic validation of her central argument: That she, better than Obama, connects with the working-class white people who are traditional swing voters.... ..."Her numbers went up in the same demographic she controlled in Pennsylvania to win – which is white male, specifically blue collar white males," said Dean Debnam, president of North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling, which found Monday that Clinton had cut Obama's lead from 25 percentage points to 12. "Obama had been pulling closer to her in the white vote, and she had regained that strongly in the past week."

However, an editorial from Vermont breaks from the script:

The implication of articles in the New York Times and Washington Post, and in the opinions of some commentators is, of course, that Hillary Clinton had better quit before she alienates African Americans by attacking Barack Obama and kills the party's chances in November....

...There is racism in America, to be sure, but are those people likely to vote for any Democrat? No, they aren't. They haven't for decades; why should they start now?

Among working class Democrats, the issues are strictly economic, stupid.... ...Working class Americans see themselves as shafted in an economy dominated as never before in the memory of most families by the upper middle classes and the wealthy. Those people — many of the college-educated liberals who favor Sen. Obama — are seen as taking an ever-widening slice of the economic pie and leaving crumbs for those near the bottom. In that sense, they are viewed almost in the same light as upscale Republicans. [Emphasis added.]

The focus on voters diverts attention from solutions. Who's the best candidate to deliver an upturn in jobs and the economy? Who's fighting for working-class Americans? The Obama camp would rather play a game than answer the question.


POSTSCRIPT: Via Lambert.

Still sexist after all these years

A larger image of the cartoon available at Cornell University Library.

Egalia of Tennessee Guerilla Women stopped by to comment on Olberman's misogynistic hate speech against Hillary. So I popped over to TGW and found this:

Who is Keith Olbermann? With the aid of the in-your-face caption: A Slut and Battery, Keith Olbermann reports in the video clip (2006) below that Paris Hilton was "punched in the face." To the laughter of the boys in the background, Olbermann opines that Paris Hilton has "had worse things happen to her face." Taking vicious shots at young celebrities is a routine feature on Olbermann's show. But there is one rule, Keith's shots are always fired at women. Cuz, just like in the 1950s, girls are sleazy sluts and boys are honorable studs.

Egalia has the KO video clip. She also quoted Sandi Burtseva from 2007. The grafs that jumped to my attention via Burtseva were her insights into KO's denigration of Paris Hilton:

Regardless of how astute his political criticism is, I am no longer willing to tolerate Keith Olbermann’s misogyny. Olbermann has a nasty habit of making sexist, derogatory statements about female celebrities. The things he’s said are shameful and should never have been uttered, let alone on television. While he is certainly not alone in his reprehensible treatment of women, Olbermann is widely admired by progressives; unlike other trashy gossip commentators, he must be held to progressive standards....

...Bloggers pointed out that he kept [“A Slut and Battery" regarding Paris Hilton] on the screen for 20 seconds of a 32-second clip, but I don’t see the relevance. Even if he’d only thrown it up long enough to read, this caption (coupled with the vitriol he spewed) tells us everything we need to know about Olbermann’s attitude toward women:

• He thinks it is acceptable to judge women for their sexual choices.
• He thinks women who make particular sexual choices are to be taken less seriously when they claim to have been assaulted.
• He thinks it’s amusing to, um “cleverly” invert a phrase often associated with domestic violence and use it to belittle women.

My former admiration notwithstanding, I dismissed Olbermann then and there, but it seems many others have been willing to give him a second chance. It is my unfortunate duty to note that Olbermann persists in his misogyny.

On Monday, Olbermann devoted some airtime to that most important of world events: Britney Spears’ hairstyle choice. (Story number two, for anyone keeping track, was a similarly distasteful, if slightly more reserved, bashing of the late Anna Nicole Smith. He began his coverage by calling Spears a “pop tart and went on to opine that “… the question now turns to what was she thinking, if not what was she on…”

In the eyes of Olbermann and his ilk, Spears made two mistakes: She dared to be overtly sexual and she dared to shed one of the defining markers of her femininity. I neither know nor care how much sex Spears has and with whom, or why she shaved her head, but I have this radical proposition: In spite of the fact that she’s made sexy music videos, Spears’ body is her own and should not be subjected to Olbermann’s disgusting views.

Both Burtseva and egalia alerted me to something I did not know, not being a KO or MSNBC viewer: Olbermann's pattern of misogyny.

More disturbing, the SCLB's A-List Blog Boyz have watched KO's sexist inclinations and either didn't notice or shrugged indifferent. Misogyny on display? Where? Last, year, Jessica Valenti at Feministing exhumed the Orange Sippy Cup™ King's brain-dead denial:

Markos on Kathy Sierra and female bloggers being harassed and getting death threats:

Look, if you blog, and blog about controversial shit, you'll get idiotic emails. Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats".

So let me get this straight: blogging about the oh-so-controversial world of software development means you should expect to get death threats. After all, nothing brings out the crazies like tech-talk. And besides, she probably made it all up anyway.

...Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work.

I mean come on, if you can't handle your address and social security number being published along with threats of rape, hanging, suffocation and death--you're a fucking lightweight.

Seriously though, it's one thing to argue--as Markos does--that a blogger code of conduct would be ineffective. Fine. But dismissing online misogyny and Sierra's experience (without even bothering to do any research on the subject, to boot) is reprehensible. Though predictable given the source.

I unplug when I paint as I did last year for an art exhibition and I missed, as we headed into the primary season, a key understanding: misogyny has been festering amongst the fauxgressive patriarchs of the SCLB. Unleashing it like a volcanic eruption, they targeted Hillary Clinton with a vengeance.

Why is it mostly up to female bloggers to call out sexism? Is anti-feminism so entrenched that fauxgressive men can't shake the legacy of patriarchy to invade, subvert, colonize, and oppress? Is it what Jeff Fecke of Shakesville reiterated in the blindness of privilege?

It takes work to see evidence of oppression when one is not the one being oppressed. It is far easier to simply ignore it, even when one knows one shouldn't.

Also at Shakesville, Melissa McEwan blogged about "a very common misperception that sexism is subjective." Go read her essay. I couldn't do it justice with a fragment.

Some progressive men get it. A few male bloggers I read regularly--Tom Watson, Joseph Cannon, Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler, and Jeff Fecke--do (and certainly more than I follow). Why can Watson, Cannon, Somerby, and Fecke identify and criticize sexism but WKJM and the Orange Sippy Cup™ King don't? Keith Olbermann doesn't but he's an imperious cog in a media machine that rewards ratings, ad revenue, and corporate profits more than truth and justice. I expect better from the liberal blogosphere. The best explanation that I've read recently came from Anglachel:

...why are so many middle and upper-middle class men, typified by the A-List Blogger Boyz, who claim to be progressives such virulent anti-feminists? My answer is rational self-interest, also known as weeding out the competition.

Another way of putting it is why, if white racism is so persistent in this nation, why does this slender sliver of America appear immune to its siren call? Why does Hillary Clinton scare the crap out of the guy who kidnapped Josh Marshall, but he feels no anxiety (that he'll admit to) around The Precious? We can go into analysis of oedipal fantasies and the pervasive influence of patriarchy, yadda yadda, but my point is that this cohort of dudz is exactly the one that claims to be "post-" all those nasty -isms.

The answer is surprisingly simple. They face a lot of competition from white women for their social and economic successes, but not very much from black men. They get a lot more payoff from bashing, dominating, and fucking over women than they do from doing that to men of any color. They can get solidarity from the guyz against the hos. This cannot fully explain the anti-feminist behavior of self-identified liberal men, but it's one hell of a contributing factor.

In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, survival trumps self-actualization. Elbows starting flying when the watering hole gets crowded. All the talk about post-partisan unity gets lost in the mud because vision doesn't address the reality of the oppressed; one must design solutions with a commitment to execute them. When those solutions undermine the privileged class that's fighting to control the watering hole, commitment evaporates. Poof!

Until women and men who love women commit to solving "all those nasty -isms," sexism will to continue to thrive. So who's ready?

CREDITS: Fauxgressive, a term I picked up from Melissa McEwan of Shakesville, where one can also read Jeff Fecke.

Media and Republicans: BFF

Must-read column every Friday: Jamison Foser at MediaMatters.org.

Yesterday's column headline sums up the present state of media bias...

The media render the RNC obsolete

The media favor Republicans. What you need to know when you watch, listen, and read... The media favor Republicans.

A side note: Tony Snow, former Faux News anchor/Bush's WH press secretary, has joined CNN. Wolf Blitzer must get exhausted acting as a press agent for John McCain.

Malignant Absurdity, Vol. I

Cropped image of The Scream by Edvard Munch, 1893.
Oil, tempera, and pastel on cardboard.

I usually scroll past comments that express outrageously sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and general wingnuttia but maybe taking the temperature of BlogHell can heighten the awareness of the Malignant Absurdity™ that's eating away people's brains with divisiveness and hatred.

Something to ponder: are the authors below incurable wacky-doodle bigots or a vanguard of a concerted ratfucking effort? If you're unfamiliar with the term, ratfucking, a Wiki definition: "...an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks. It was first brought to public attention by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their book All the President's Men. Read on for details.

IOW, are Republican operatives (who refined ratfucking into a dark art) spoofing Obama or Clinton supporters to alienate voter blocs from the candidates and Democrats in general?

WARNING--highly offensive snippets ahead.

Last night's stumbling-upon comments... Clinton-bashing, misogyny, racism, verbal violence, and Obama disinformation via a WashPo post on Clinton in Indiana at The Trail:

Clinton is st8 ridiculous. Everyone knows men and women are different. The rest of the world knows this. Muslims keep their women in check. It's time for real men in America to do the same. If your a real dude, keep your women in the kitchen. The 21st Amendment was the worse thing to happen to America. It's time to take this woman out. The politics of change is here, and we got a skirt - thanks to the liberal media - and elite white ppl who are on some messed up idealogoical sh**. Men and women are different; history does not lie, and the rest of world doesn't either. This is troubling times we're in, and we need the politics of change. Hillary get yourself back in the hot kitchen. Real dudes, keep your woman from voting (thats the only group she got along with racist white folk), and keep them and Hillary in the kitchen where they belong. Our time has come, move over. 1.

Posted by: Treyshaun1 | April 25, 2008 8:49 PM

Treyshaun1, my brother. Once again your words bring tears to my eyes. When I see your comments on various blogs, I know that there will hope and real black leaders in the future. I can only pray that my son will have half your strength. It is time for us to unite and take this woman out. We've come a long way, and we got this woman whose still stuck in la la land. Racism is alive and well in this country, and these white folk will get whats coming to them. Our time has come, hehe. Treyshaun, my brother, stay up. 1.

Posted by: Masai Hanley | April 25, 2008 8:53 PM

The next poster, JakeD, politely corrects the erroneous reference to the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition--the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote--and he also noted, "this is the second time I've seen it (mistakenly) used against [Clinton]." Hmmm, curious, isn't it? Followed by another raving wacky doodle, further descent into depravity:

I used to work hard and I used to follow the American Dream and tried to pick myself up from the bootstraps and provide opportunities for my children that I didn't have. I kept quiet and worked hard. I was accountable for my own actions, and knew that I determined my destiny. I would rise and fall by my own merits. But I have learned something from black people.

I HATE WHITE PEOPLE. Saying this, believing this, and blaming my economic situation on white people will get white people's attention. This is the lesson I've learned from black people. It works. I think I will now proceed to rob white people, kill white people, rape white people, and blame all my problems on white people.

Hard work has gotten me nowhere. I thank black people and white people stupid enough to listen to them for showing me that the American Dream is dead and traditional American values are dead. We live in a new era, and I'm ready for the CHANGE.

KILL WHITEY, RAPE WHITEY, ROB WHITEY IS THE NEW WAY OF THE FUTURE.

Posted by: Mexican President | April 25, 2008 8:58 PM

JakeD - your one intelligent white man (sarcasm added). Thank you sir, for correcting my brethren. I bet it makes you happy when we tripped up on one detail. Treyshaun is right though, we have the politics of CHANGE. And we got a racist skirt whose stopping the change for her own selfish ambitions. And its white folk like you who like focus on ever misstatement or mistake that black males make. Why don't you focus on your own pathetic life and your own inadequacies, time's are changing, and your time is done. My boy Treshaun, 1.

Posted by: Masai Hanley | April 25, 2008 9:01 PM

Mexican President,
Are you serious? No one cares about your people or Asians. I'm tired of white folk talking about how successful Asians are, or why is it that some slant-eyed dude from the Orient can do well on SAT's, get into good schools, and get good jobs without affirmative action. Or why can't blacks work as hard as Mexicans. I'll tell u what boy, we ain't like u. We're not as stupid as Latinos and Asians to be toiling for the white man and trying to assimalate into his racist culture. We live in a government of white sponsored racism. If Latinos and Asians can't see that, thats they bad. CHANGE is coming, and we'll get u fools too. Our time has come. When your white master's time is done, who you gonna run to?

Posted by: Masai Hanley | April 25, 2008 9:06 PM

[...]

Hey Treyshaun and Masai, Obama has already planted the CHANGE in Kenya when he worked so hard to get Odinga elected. I don't think a lot of people know that Odinga is not only a communist Muslim whose first order of business was going to be to replace Kenya's democracy with Islamic law, but that he shares a vision with Gaddafi to see Africa become a Pan African/Islamic socialist nation. That's why besides Obama, Gaddafi also supported Odinga's campaign. Although Odinga didn't get to become president of Kenya, he was able to do a little ethnic cleansing of around 1000 Kenyans which secured him the title of prime minister. Anyway, now that he's Kenya's prime minister, any day now he'll attempt a coup like he's done in the past and kill the president of Kenya so he can take his place and finally impose Islamic law. I'm sure you'd both be much happier living in Kenya then in the United States. There you'd be able to fully appreciate and enjoy the CHANGE and even have a front row seat watching it happen. You can probably even join in on the ethnic cleansing festivities. May I suggest giving Farrakhan a call to help you out with the airfare.

Posted by: Ijane | April 25, 2008 9:34 PM

The spittle keeps flying if you dare to read the entire thread. After I scanned WashPo's Post a Comment policy at The Trail--"User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site...."--methinks someone is falling down on the job. Aren't they? Or...? Wouldn't be the first time the Pravda on the Potomac acted as a tool for GOP propaganda.

Are the above quotes examples of Malignant Absurdity™ or ratfucking or both?

POSTSCRIPT: When Anglachel referenced the violent rape-and-murder hate speech aimed at Hillary Clinton in her commentary on Keith Olbermann, she wasn't kidding. It's far more disturbing to read it on SCLBs.

Olbermann's answer to WWTSBQ

Anglachel doesn't mince words. And neither do I in agreeing with her. Keith Olbermann's solution to WWTSBQ is to kill Hillary and it's unmitigated hate speech:

Other blog posters have stepped around the obvious intent behind Keith Olbermann's recent verbal assault on Hillary Clinton. I know why. It's a hell of a step to take. I've spoken extensively about the irrational and boundless fury at this woman who has done nothing to deserve the outrages inflicted upon her. I've blogged before on the level of violence in the reaction to Hillary Clinton. I've blogged on how the shame of the Left when confronted by her - shamed by how she has been trashed, shamed by how badly she beats their darlings - underlies the demands that she be eradicated from politics, a symbolic honor killing....

...What Keith Olbermann said yesterday is not symbolic. He flatly said a (male) Democratic super delegate should take Hillary Clinton into a room, and only the man should emerge.

Keith Olbermann is openly advocating the murder of Hillary Clinton.

We need to say this. It does not preclude talking about the other elements that may be subsumed under that final act, that she would also be battered and raped, but the clear message sent out by Keith Olbermann is he wants someone to murder this woman.

Over the months, I have read various bits of bullshit talking about how "people" are "worried" that Obama might be an assassination target. This is such an obvious line of sensationalistic crap from his campaign to try to create a false aura of danger (Quick! Flock to Barry's defense! Those terrible white racists are gunning for him!) when there has been nothing in the public realm to back it up. Let me be perfectly clear. I think it is probable that there is some nutcase out there who would like to try to assassinate Obama, and I think this because there is always some nutcase out there who thinks killing a public figure is a peachy idea. Or just some nutcase who wants attention - remember the would-be suicide bomber at Hillary's New Hampshire office? However, certainly within the liberal blogosphere and the MSM (I do not venture into the wingnut fever swamps), there is no drumbeat for violence against Obama.

This is not the case with Hillary. I have myself read comments advocating rape and murder. I have read main posts saying she was inciting violent acts against her, or saying they could "understand" the position of those who wished violent harm to befall her, her husband and her daughter. The descriptions of what Obama should do to Hillary verge on the pornographic. Not a day goes by that some prominent voice on the left or in the MSM does not demand her submission, subordination and public humiliation.

Anglachel is right to point out these attacks on Hillary for they speak to the evil--yes, it is evil--of the pervasive battering of females and the resentment of women's autonomy and authority. Violence against women in America borders on epidemic, part of the war on women worldwide. At least one in three women experience abuse by an intimate partner at some point in their lives.

For Keith Olbermann to trivialize this harsh reality with a veiled threat against Hillary isn't funny. It's dark, criminally-negligent speech implying that violence against women is OK. His words promote immoral behavior forged by old patriarchal attitudes: women who won't do what men want can be controlled through physical, emotional, and verbal abuse. In his attack on Hillary, Olbermann suggests if a female co-worker competes for a man's job, intimidate her, and if necessary, take her out. In Keith's dog-eat-dog world, the dog reserves the right to beat the b***h. Olbermann needs to go as well as the other NBC/MSNBC misogynists of Jack Welch's Lost Boys Club.

These unrepentant news men perpetrate immeasurable harm when they approvingly disseminate gender-based bashing. What kind of role models are they for anyone to see and hear and most especially for our youth to witness? I rarely watch NBC and I refuse to subscribe to programming that would bring MSNBC into my livingroom. I don't want to subject myself, my partner, or any young person to the sexist crap that flows off the chauvinistic tongues of Matthews, Scarborough, or Olbermann.

Anglachel also articulated a double standard in the SCLB: "Any blogger who fails to condemn Olberman for this blunt and unequivocal statement has no business writing a critical word about Bush and Cheney's torture policies, because you would be just cool with it being done to this individual simply to be rid of a political rival." Just as hypocritical is denouncing racism while enabling misogyny to flourish in their own commentary or discussion threads. I don't recognize the Obamasphere as being liberal anymore due to its sexist bent with the exception of a few bright spots, e.g., Digby (a woman).

The perverse idea that anything goes in politics--including an unforgivable jest that physical harm to one's opponent is an option--is never acceptable or justifiable, shouldn't be condoned or ignored. Keith demonstrated by his hate speech against Clinton that he's shameless and a sham as a "journalist."

We can collectively stop watching NBC, its local TV affiliate, and its cable TV extension MSNBC to send the message that we won't tolerate hate speech. Don't lift a finger to enrich their ratings unless it's to tune in long enough to make a list of advertisers to boycott.

If you want to change the sexist, misogynistic speech on the air waves, stop buying the advertised products or services on the offending media outlet. And tell the advertisers why you aren't purchasing. At the very least, complain to the advertiser about the media channel. The Religious Right and its minions have used this technique to attack LGBT-friendly activities such as Gay Day at Disney. Unlike them, our cause is just--not to inject discrimination--but to decry sexism and verbal violence in the news media, to ultimately foster a healthy, safe environment.

Before anyone gets up on the high horse of the First Amendment, criticizing a tactic to inform advertisers of dissatisfaction with their choice of media, a reminder: boycotting and dissent is also free speech. Shall we use the First Amendment to lift us all up or to oppress? Which would you reward? It's a choice we all have the right to exercise.

Pull the plug on Keith. We all can pull the plug on NBC/MSNBC. Let's do it.

UPDATE: A lame apology from Olbermann, "It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic 'he' gender could imply something untoward." I'm not buying it. The generic would have been superdelegate or someone. Explaining he as the generic gender reinforces the old patriarchal attitudes that empowered Olbermann to suggest taking Hillary out in the first place. Go Cheney yourself, Keith. How's that for a metaphor?

Don't ask, don't tell movie

From ASK NOT, a documentary film about closeted American service members
and activists fighting against homophobia and for the right to serve openly without retaliation. Opens Saturday, April 26, in San Francisco. Check the link for screenings.

I have no doubt that homosexuals have served and are today serving in the Armed Forces with distinction. But most of them--and this is very important--are not today openly disclosing that sexual orientation.... I also believe, however, that we must give careful consideration to the advice of our military commanders on this subject. Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that in view of the unique conditions of military service, active and open homosexuality by members of the armed services will have a very negative effect on the military morale and discipline. -- Sen. Sam Nunn, Feb. 04, 1993.

See previous post for more information on Sam Nunn's role in DADT.

The movie's website describes the documentary by John Symons:

ASK NOT is a rare and compelling exploration of the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The film exposes the tangled political battles that led to the discriminatory law, and profiles charismatic young activists determined to abolish it. As wars in the Middle East rage on, ASK NOT reveals personal stories of gay Americans who serve in combat under a veil of secrecy.

Looking forward to its release on DVD (I hope, I hope), a must-have for my library. According to David Mixner, PBS will air the film later this year or in 2009. He also notes that the film "will make it impossible for President Clinton to spin any longer that he had no choice." No argument here. Bill didn't display Truman's bravery and grit when Harry desegregated the military by executive order.

I look to Hillary to make amends. Obama, IMO, is talk-talk and more like Bill, a Triangulator.

For those interested in DADT documents on the statutes, litigation, hearings, etc., Stanford offers a comprehensive archive.

Homophobes unite!

Oh, look. A unity pony exists. Obama's website proudly displays the endorsement from Georgia's former U.S. senator Sam Nunn as Barry continues to build his coalition of homophobic bigots. Obama responded to the Nunn-Boren endorsement, "I am honored to have the support and counsel of two of our nation’s leading voices on national security, and two of our most respected advocates for national unity."

National unity? Who's he kidding?

As Chair of the Senate's Armed Services Committee during the 1990s, Sam Nunn took the lead in forging Don't Ask, Don't Tell and sided with Republicans in opposition to Bill Clinton's initiative to lift the gay/lesbian military ban. Does Obama understand the historical impact DINO Nunn had on the LGBTQ community? Let me put it another way: if Sam Nunn had stridently opposed racial desegregation of the military and Hillary began touting his endorsement on her website, would that offend Obama? African Americans? Liberals?

On Obama's website, Nunn said, "I believe that [Obama] will also attract skilled, experienced and energetic people to government and will have the sound judgment to put together an outstanding governing team, bringing people together across old boundaries." Is Obama aware that DADT has purged thousands of "skilled, experienced and energetic" gays and lesbians out of the military? A GAO report released in 2005 estimated that DADT has cost U.S. taxpayers $200 million and the loss of "valuable personnel over the last decade." So pardon moi if I don't believe a word Nunn says or Barry's commitment to LGBTQs.

I believe Sam Nunn is looking for a payday for his foundation. Plus, Nunn serves on the boards of big corporations -- GE (media, war machine), Chevron (petro-military complex), Coke (environment and health concerns) and Dell (outsourcing). He runs the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a seemingly worthy enterprise that received $3 million from the U.S. government beyond its private money. NIT advisor Warren Buffet pledged $50 million toward an IAEA nuclear fuel bank if a member state or states contribute(s) $100 million. Maybe Nunn's courting Obama with hopes of American tax dollars to answer Buffet's proposal and Obama is eyeballing more corporate donors to add to his stable of Wall Street, Big Oil, and K Street power brokers. Washington politics as usual.

What I object to most: Sam Nunn is the homophobe who gave us DADT:

Nunn, foreseeing problems of equal treatment for "hand-holding," "kissing" gays and non-gays under a new code of conduct, said that "if people keep their private behavior private, if they don't declare and advertise their private behavior," they are currently able to stay in the service as long as they perform their duties. The interim compromise "may be a pretty good place to end up," he said.

Sam Nunn espouses post-partisan poppycock but he has never made amends for the damage he's done:

January 29, 1993 -- ATLANTA (UPI) -- A coalition of Georgia gay and civil rights groups Friday urged Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., to end his opposition to President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has opposed lifting the ban and had proposed a six-month waiting period during which federal hearings would be held to consider the impact of removing the restrictions....

..."We are here today to call upon Sen. Sam Nunn to stop obstructing President Clinton's effort to end discrimination in the United States military,'' said Don George, the Atlanta field coordinator for the Human Rights Campaign Fund.

"Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter ruled the military ban against gays and lesbians to be unconstitutional,'' he said.

"Today, we ask Senator Nunn to abide with the court ruling and stop standing in the schoolhouse door and to work with President Clinton to end this 50-year-old injustice against lesbian and gay Americans,'' said George....

...Wesley Temple Jr., chairman of the Georgia chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Veterans of America, said members of his organization are testimony to the fact that gays and lesbians have never caused problems in the military.

"We strongly condemn Senator Nunn's decision to side with the same bigots who opposed integration of African-Americans into the military in 1948,'' Temple said. "Morale and discipline problems have not been experienced by 11 of the 16 NATO countries which do not have a ban on gay and lesbian personnel....

...Larry Pellegrini, lobbyist for the Georgia chapter of the Gay Political Action Committee, also asked Nunn to abide by Hatter's ruling that declared the military ban unconstitutional.

"Republicans and Republican wannabes like Senator Nunn are still fighting an election that's three months over,'' he said. "What 50 people in the line of succession died and made him president?'' [Emphasis added.]

For more details on Nunn's despicable behavior as the "architect" of DADT and his submarine episode, when he advanced the "canard that homosexuals are sexual predators, and that knowingly sleeping or showering near one would be a nightmare to which no straight man should be subjected," read ducdebrabant series of comments here.

First, Obama courted homophobe Donnie McClurkin.

Obama played us stupid with homophobe Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell and his ex-gay ministry that promoted a program for "those seeking freedom from homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, sex addiction and other habitual sins.”

Obama has made divisive remarks about being a Christian vs. same-sex marriage as if the two are somehow incompatible.

It's now 1,540 days since Obama has spoken to the local LGBTQ press.

And Obama further signals how unimportant the LGBTQ community is to him by throwing us under the bus for a Bloomberg pal with corporate and national security gravitas.

He's playing us LGBTQs and all of us stupid with his "no money from lobbyists" promise.

Does Obama cross his fingers when he speaks? Or is he flipping us the finger?

The more I learn about Obama, the more I dislike him. I would have to hold my nose for a Clinton-Obama 2008 ticket. I would do it for Hillary. But Obama+whomever? Don't hold your breath.