home

Seeing The Light Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:34:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While I think very little of the dkos diary Jeralyn admired, I think this one is worth considering. It is a shame that it took blatant sexism for the diarist to see the problem, but it is great that he now see the problem.

Post Script - Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I thought the diary was quite admirable. I salute prose for it.

Our friend Ben Masel has a good action diary on FISA.

This is an Open Thread.

< Flexible | A Thoughtful Look at the Death Penalty >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Seeing The Light Open Thread | 214 comments (214 topical)
    I'm Baffled (5.00 / 16) (#1)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    Hundreds of comments praising the diarist on a site that trashed Hillary worse than any other, except Republican sites.

    Nice to know he gets it.  The barn door is fixed.  Now, where are those horses?

    Hollow (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
    How utterly remarkable to "see" sexism after piling on in the savage sexist romp with the Orange mob.  What part of denigration, snickery, mockery and dismissal did you not understand?

    How utterly redeeming.  How utterly BS.

    Parent

    I was thinking the same thing in the (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    back of my mind when I read the diary.  But I stuffed a sock in it and thanked the diarist for his forthrightness.

    He did seem sincere and that's pretty rare these days.

    Parent

    And it was so "truly healing" for him (5.00 / 8) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:02:29 PM EST
    to have this epiphany now.  How nice for him.

    And this is after years of training as a counselor -- exactly the sort that Obama says is where our daughters ought to seek advice about abortions?  Thanks, no, the seminary doesn't seem to be doing much of a job in gender sensitivity training, so such a minister might be the absolutely worse person to ask for advice in such a gendered situation.

    The piece became increasingly unpalatable as I went along, but that last "update" line just was the worst.  

    Parent

    I created a new account, just to respond to... (2.20 / 5) (#135)
    by prose on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:51:33 PM EST
    your unfair personal attacks.  

    My "epiphany" was not about the sexism, but about the effect of it.  What had seemed to me to be petty, in the political world and on our trip, has genuine impact.  That is what I learned.  That many at DKos and MYDD (especially those like sricki and canadiangal) were willing to accept my apology and understand my realization was indeed healing for me.  

    Your ongoing mean-spiritedness is much more what I anticipated.

    As to my being a "man of the cloth" as you put it, I am not perfect.  No counseling class taught me how to handle complicated issues regarding gender in public or private discourse.  You seem to assume that I have made derogatory comments about Hillary, and I assure you that any jokes I made were no stronger than statements made here regularly about Obama.  My greatest sin, as I understand it, was that I did so little to recognize the genuine pain the media's comments could cause.  

    If you choose to make this all about Hillary and to drag me over the coals, go ahead.  Just know that the predominant response that I have gotten from women of all political perspectives and from Hillary supporters in particular has been empathy and support.  You may consider asking yourself why you are still so unable to forgive or seek unity.

    Parent

    Pathetic. And why in the world (5.00 / 7) (#148)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    would you apologize to DKos and think that an acceptance of an apology from those at that awful place, the epitome of sexist and misogynist attacks,  has any meaning at all?

    And you point again to media, after you admit that you joined in sexist jokes.  You clearly have a lot to ask yourself, still.

    As for forgiveness, it has not been asked from me.  You certainly aren't asking for it here.  And as for seeking unity, your candidate has not asked me for that yet, either.  We'll see if he knows how.  You do not.

    Parent

    I mostly wrote... (none / 0) (#164)
    by prose on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:19:00 PM EST
    that diary for the MYDD community.  In that context it makes a lot of sense for me to apologize.  It was cross-posted at DKos at the request of some from MYDD (where it is still on the rec list, if you'd like to see the comments there).

    Parent
    you addressed your audience (5.00 / 7) (#157)
    by boredmpa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    and the parent poster addressed this audience.  Cream City at least understands the context of the
    conversation and clearly you do not.

    You came here looking to fight, not to respond to personal attacks, which are largely non-existent.  You are making this highly personal, especially with your post here.  Like it or not, this isn't about you anymore, it's about you as an example of sexism and awareness.  Welcome to blogging. Welcome to politics.

    And your coming here with assumptions doesn't help that example.  I mean: "your ongoing mean-spiritedness is much more what I anticipated"  doesn't exactly plead your case.  Did you come here looking to rant at people that disagree with your understanding of sexism?  

    Parent

    No... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by prose on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:17:48 PM EST
    I came here because someone told me it was linked here.  And I found what I had expected at MYDD.  Anger.  What was healing to me at MYDD was the forgiveness of people I had hurt.  I am not here to start anything.  I will speak up for myself though when my professional ability and character are questioned.

    Parent
    You know what might help (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:22:38 PM EST
    in the future?

    A counseling class that taught you how to handle complicated issues regarding gender.  I'm frankly surprised it wasn't included in your education.

    Wonder why?

    Parent

    Blind cleric (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    You saw and learned nothing until it had a personal effect on you, through your own young charges.  That's hardly an epiphany and not worthy of praise.  Go away and live your life better in the future for your reward.
     

    Parent
    your own post (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by boredmpa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:36:35 PM EST
    states that you had expectations here and are looking for forgiveness.  You have an agenda.

    At to your professional ability and character, I'm happy you're more aware of sexism, but you are here, on this board, mixing ministerial rhetoric and political behavior by demanding forgiveness from others.  That is inappropriate and digging a hole.

    And just like any issue that you're learning about or trying to process with, seeking the right audience for growth is essential.  There are certain things that ministers only discuss with other ministers, and other things that feminists only discuss with card carrying feminists.  In all due respect, I'd suggest that this blog isn't the best place to post about a newish understanding of sexism when you have an agenda you're pushing.  

    Parent

    You misunderstood... (3.50 / 2) (#184)
    by prose on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:42:58 PM EST
    I said I expected anger at MYDD.  I didn't find it there.  Instead I found forgiveness.  I found anger here.  I came here excited that BTD had linked to my post and hoping to find some common ground with folks here as I did at MYDD.

    I did find some of that.  But I also found Cream saying that I had scarred my students and questioning my integrity.  I chose to speak up about that.  I have maintained a posture of listening at other sites (like MYDD where I am really plugged in).  I only came here to voice my objection to the content and tone of Cream City's comments about me.  

    I'm probably taking all of this too personally, however.  I'm not used to the attention that comes with this sort of thing.  I didn't come here to argue, just to state my concern about Cream's comment.  I don't demand your forgiveness, and I didn't come expecting your anger.  My only agenda has been to raise an objection to what I viewed as a series of personal attacks against me (at a site that I used to frequent).

    Parent

    Making it about you, you, you (4.88 / 9) (#200)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:10:10 PM EST
    continues to not impress.  

    So you got all excited about the attention, and you expected more forgiveness, since you didn't expect anger here, but instead -- you got anger here, which you expected there, where it was okay, but it was not okay here.   So  I do not measure up to your expectations because you don't find forgiveness from me, and that really hurts your feelings.  And to top it all, you don't like my "tone" -- hmm, who infamously used that term in this campaign? -- in reply to my not liking yours.  

    But gosh, you're so good as to not make demands of me.  Jeesh.  This is a classic.  

    Btw, it's not personal.  I don't know you, you don't know me.  After all, your joining in jokes about women were not personal about me, just because I happen to be a woman.  So none of my comment was about you, just because you happen to be a commenter.

    Parent

    Okay, Prose (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    You had an epiphany. You were forced to confront the damage your sexism caused. Now, what are you going to do? To what use are you going to put this newfound knowledge and insight? Will you start speaking out against sexism and misogyny wherever you may see it? Will you incorporate this new information into your pastoral duties? Will you be confronting members of your congregation and your fellow clergy when they exhibit sexism?

     I believe you said you were a youth pastor. So, are you now teaching the young men and women with whom you interact to recognize and oppose sexism in all its forms, wherever they may find it? Will the young men with whom you work learn from you about the incredible male privilege they enjoy, and will you help them to understand why that male privilege is something they should fight against?

    If these things are the result of your new awareness of the evils of sexism, then you will be well on the way to earning the forgiveness you seek.

    Parent

    Leave Prose Alone (4.73 / 11) (#214)
    by MonaL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    He's apologized, accept it or don't.  At least it's a step in the right direction for someone.

    Prose:  glad you achieved your epiphany, unfortunately it was too late for Hillary Clinton.  The frustration and anger your young charges felt is nothing compared to what we Hillary supporters have felt for quite some time.  We thought we were part of a community that understood the ugliness and hurtfulness of sexism.  We thought only republicans played that way.  The realization that that ugliness was coming from our own side really really bites. Old wounds, etc.

    Parent

    You many consider asking yourself why (5.00 / 10) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:43:10 PM EST
    you think forgiveness must come about on your timetable.

    An automatic response of forgiveness has as much worth as an apology that spends more time justifying the initial action than admitting the wrongdoing.

    I, for one, will save my empathy and support for those who were harmed by the the nastiness that was a daily occurrence in the media and on Dkos. I don't think you merit any empathy or support as you were not the injured party. It is nice that you made a personal discovery but not exactly praiseworthy that you had to have an "epiphany" to recognize what was there for all who wished to see.

    Parent

    I read your post at DK (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:45:24 PM EST
    and wrote to thank you for it. I think it was sincere. You apologized and I appreciate it.

    I was one of the people who left that site because it was so painful to be abused verbally for supporting Hillary, for being a woman over 45. It was really a terrible experience.

    I hope you remember the women you wrote about.

    M

    Parent

    Pastor Reverend (4.89 / 9) (#202)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    I am amazed at your disconnect in the difference between asking forgiveness and receiving it. The intent of making amends is to heal the person who was harmed, not make the one guilty of bringing pain and harm feel better about what he did.

    If you've been educated in theology, how can you not know that?

    When you ask for forgiveness, you must be prepared to be denied. And, you must try again to ask the injured party what you need to do to gain their forgiveness.

    Besides, you didn't ask it of the TLers and you only came over here to see if you were given guilded praise for your prose.


    Parent

    Of course it is (4.85 / 7) (#152)
    by Nadai on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:11:15 PM EST
    You posted on DKos - which ran off the vast majority of the hardcore Hillary supporters with the sort of vile commentary you didn't have a problem with until your little epiphany.

    My heart freakin' bleeds for you, having to suffer our mean-spiritedness.  I've been called every name in the book, along with a sh!tload of names I'd never even thought of before, for months on end.  So so sorry I can't muster up forgiveness on your schedule.

    Parent

    I cross-posted at DKos (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by prose on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    My original post was at MYDD.  MYDD was a very pro-Hillary site and my predominant blog community.  I posted in the context of on-going debates about sexism there.  Someone suggested that it'd be good for DKos'ers to hear what I had to say, so I posted it there as well.  It just happens that BTD linked to the cross-post and not the original.

    As for your lack of forgiveness, you can withhold that if you'd like.  But grudges are good for no one.

    Parent

    Well, either are sexist jokes, (5.00 / 6) (#183)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:39:30 PM EST
    but you didn't always believe that, did you?

    Healing and forgiveness aren't going to happen overnight; in some cases it may take a very long time.

    Glad you saw the light.

    Now go forth and do some good with your newfound knowledge.


    Parent

    Here's a clue (4.90 / 10) (#191)
    by Nadai on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    People who make true apologies don't pout when they aren't accepted, because those people understand that they're the ones who are wrong.  They understand that the people they hurt will come to forgiveness in their own time, or not at all, and in any case, bearing the lack of forgiveness is part of the penance for wrongdoing.

    Coming here to whine at those meanie Clinton supporters who don't immediately cry "Oh, thank you, kind sir" tells me that you're not making an apology, you're putting on a display of righteousness, now when there's conveniently no cost to you for doing so.  Forgive me if I am unimpressed.

    Parent

    That is not (2.00 / 1) (#217)
    by MonaL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:27:53 PM EST
    what he is doing, imo.  He's explained himself.  Leave him be.

    Parent
    And defending the sexism (5.00 / 13) (#25)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    I actually posted a few comments. It's probably a waste of pixels. The people on that site are so tied up with hating Clinton that they can't see that sexist attacks on her are NOT acceptable. As far as they are concerned, it was "just" attacking Clinton, and no more than she deserved. Now I'm getting all angry again.

    Parent
    And, as usual. (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:19:04 PM EST
    a few troublemakers have to inject charges of racism into the mix to try to diffuse the sexism.

    How perfectly predictable and pathetic.

    Deep, deep holes mean trouble in November.

    Parent

    Pattern and Practice (none / 0) (#70)
    by santarita on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:12:37 PM EST
    The "progressive" blog of record has been full of sexist language directed at any female political figure that does not share the same philosophy or does something contrary to the wishes of the mob.  The use of crude sexist language when talking about Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Condi Rice, Ann Coulter, etc. is condoned.  

    Parent
    And sexism and misogyny (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:19:17 PM EST
    have been condoned at that site for a long time.  Can we in the "women's studies set" say "pie fight"?  Can we say support Casey, the anti-abortion candidate?  Can we say attack NARAL for not doing so -- although I imagine that NARAL is fine with Markos now.

    I foolishly thought, though, that Markos meant what he said about supporting Dems, sufficiently for him to get past a Dem candidate's gender.  He cannot do so, so he encouraged the most appalling display of hate speech for months, to the point that it contributed astronomically to the divisiveness among the Dems today.

    If I were a grassy-knoller, I'd see this as the result of a long-term plot to plant allegedly former Republicans in our liberal midst. . . .  It would make a great movie about a bunch of guys -- let's call them "gatecrashers"! -- who get on a bunch of computers . . . and, well, you know the rest.

    Parent

    Kos, Arianna, Sully (5.00 / 5) (#222)
    by MonaL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    all former or current republicans... hmmm

    Parent
    Exactly (4.93 / 15) (#15)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:16:07 PM EST
    I'm glad some of them get it. But it is a little too late for me to forgive. I'm sure they will use their newfound sensitivity to come to MO's defense. And they should. I will too. But I'm still not voting for their guy.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:19:43 PM EST
    That's gonna bug me.

    Of course they're going to cry sexism when Michelle is attacked.

    Parent

    It bugs me that you don't cry sexism when she is (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    Attacked. Yes I know your come back, she didn't support Hillary.  She isn't supposed to support Hillary, she is married to Obama.  

    Parent
    I think many people feel that (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:52:37 PM EST
    what goes around comes around. Where were Obama and Michelle when Hillary and her female supporters were on the receiving end of the most vile and disgusting misogyny I've ever experienced in my life?  Did they speak up? Please tell me when?

    It's just too convenient that now that Hlllary is out of the race that the MSM and Daily Kos suddenly discover that there was sexism  used against her. What news!!!  I'm afraid I remember too well being driven off the kos site by vicious attacks on the part of those now making nice.

    Sorry about that, but I'm not going to concern myself about Michelle's problems.  But don't worry. I'm sure those guys on the lefty blogs will be sure to speak up on her behalf.

    Parent

    And some of the nastiest (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by vigkat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:37:17 PM EST
    sexist attacks were launched by women, which I found particularly noxious.  I didn't see any comments in the linked diary noting that fact.  

    Parent
    So all I have to do then (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:55:39 PM EST
    Is marry Hillary and then I don't have to be held accountable for not speaking out against sexist attacks on Michelle, is that it?

    Actually, that wasn't going to be my comeback.

    I don't think what attacks I've seen on Michelle are of a sexist nature simply because she doesn't aspire to the same kinds of things Clinton did.


    Parent

    I guess (1.00 / 3) (#44)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:18:20 PM EST
    The Clinton's are in the same boat.  If they had called out all the racism there wouldn't be people calling them racist.  Maybe this is why black and white don't see eye to eye so much.  

    Parent
    All the racism? (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:27:01 PM EST
    Seriously, what "all the racism"?  The racism that we all know is there is well undercover and not spoken publicly.  YOu will have to enlighten me, at least, on what Hillary and her supporters said about Obama that was racist.

    The misogyny against Hillary, by contrast, was frank and open and omnipresent.


    Parent

    What racism? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:33:57 PM EST
    Of course racism exists, but I remember Spy magazine covers going back to 1992, and I'd like to know if you think Obama has been treated as unfairly?

    I can't bring up hypothetical examples of things I think would be equivalent because Jeralyn doesn't like that.

    Parent

    If she wants to avoid (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    sexism for herself, she needs to defend ALL women under attack BECAUSE she's Obama's wife and he wants to be president.

    Parent
    She/Obama/They (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    did not have to specifically mention Hillary or her lady supporters to defend them and push back against the sexist commentary.

    He, having a gift if making speeches, could have given a short and swift message saying neither he nor his wife appreciate it, just as no one likes racism.

    A simple show of effort to say, "Hey, please stop that" would and could have gone a long way to making the road towards Unityville less bumpy.

    Parent

    Why would they do that (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:24:27 PM EST
    when they were benefiting from it?

    Parent
    As parents of two daughters themselves (5.00 / 9) (#102)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    their perfect moment to speak up was the one time, the one time, that the Clintons spoke out against the media crap -- when they were called pimps and thus their daughter Chelsea was called a whore.

    I thought then that it was a political opportunity for the Obamas to stand by them, as parents -- and fully expected that they would do so not only as a golden political moment but because I still thought that they were nice people.

    But nothing, nada, on that -- and even worse from them, which meant that the only opportunity they saw was to join in the pile-on without criticism for doing so, either.  Nope, not nice people.  And so much both Obamas have said and done since just reaffirm that assessment.  So what, they're pols.  Fine.  But they decidedly are not anything new in politics, which is full of nasty people.

    Parent

    It doesn't matter who she's married to (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:58:57 PM EST
    You don't condone sexism no matter who it is. You don't condone racism or any form of bigotry, no matter who it is.

    Michelle and Barack Obama condoned sexism because it benefited them. They decry racism only when it benefits them.

    They are hypocrites.

    Parent

    If attacks are owing to sexism, then (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:59:31 PM EST
    they will be denounced.  But so far, I haven't heard of any attacks on Michelle Obama owing to sexism.

    Other attacks, sure -- after all, she said, and said twice in one day, that line about not being proud of her country (that treated a Princeton and Yale grad pretty darn well, all in all).  And there's nothing wrong with criticizing that comment, because it was not based on sexism.  You do see that, I hope.

    Just as there was nothing wrong with Clinton raising questions about the inexperience of, well, a very inexperienced newbie to the Senate.  And just as there was nothing wrong with him raising questions about Clinton's stands on issues.  That's politics.

    Except, of course, periodically when he's down because he's only likeable enough, and maybe he sees himself being treated like dirt on a shoulder and dogshi*t on a shoe, if that brings out his claws, catty thing that he is.  Appropriate?

    Parent

    When she is attacked in a sexist way... (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:42:41 PM EST
    ...a lot of us do cry sexism. But she has not been attacked very much in sexist ways. The biggest criticism levelled at her was over her comments on pride in her nation, and that wasn't even remotely sexist. So far, Michelle Obama has avoided being "the kind of woman" who subjects herself to sexist smears.  She wears skirts most of the time and makes sure to be home to tuck in her daughter every night (and heavily publicizes the fact). She has original recipes ready for publication. She stands by her husband loyally and doesn't put her own needs ahead of his. What is there to criticize?

    Parent
    I've defended her on this very blog (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:39:24 PM EST
    I've defended her here and elsewhere when people have talked about her being too strong--code for bi**h, IMO.I will defend her against such charges not because I support Sen. Obama, but because those kind of remarks hurt all women.They are wrong and deserve our condemnation. I wish MO saw things the same way.

    I'm not a great fan of Laura Bush, but I remember when she stood up for Teresa Heinz during the 2004 campaign when Heinz was being criticized for some remark and Mrs. Bush said something like it was a pressure cooker and people were just waiting to pounce on everything you said. It was the right thing to say, and I liked her a lot more after that.

    Parent

    I'll call out sexism... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    if I see it used against Michelle. In a heartbeat.

    Have they pulled it on her yet? Since Hillary has closed down shop, I honestly haven't been following as much as I used to.

    Just need a little break.

    Parent

    Obama crying sexism now (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:29:18 PM EST
    All sexism, regardless of the target, must be called out and condemned. When I hear sexism directed at Michelle I will call it out. However, by refusing to take a stand against the sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary and her supporters Barack has created a situation where it will be very hard to get folks to listen when the inevitable attacks on Michelle start.

    By allowing to stand unchallenged the idea that "it's not sexism about Hillary if she really is a b'%$ch," Barack and his supporters leave Michelle open to the same narrative.

    Parent

    The horses are hither and yon....and (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    trying to be strong-armed into the obama corral...many of the horses have dug in and will not go.

    Yes. I certainly won't go there. Nor (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    will I visit Kos for any reason anymore.

    Parent
    Okay. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    That made me get teary-eyed.

    Reason, good sense and compassion for and understanding of another human being appear.  It feels like seeing the sun after forty days and nights of rain.

    Are you talking about (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    prose's post at Kos and MyDD?

    If you are, he sort of blew it to pieces with his decision to demand everyone accept his apology over here despite the fact he didn't address his apology to the TLers.


    Parent

    Trying to accept it. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    Having a hard time.

    Maybe I am just not feeling very forgiving today, but perhaps the diarist should apologize to the COUNTLESS folks who brought up the blatant sexism and were mocked? But I guess that won't happen because he admits to keeping silent.

    So he knew about the blatant sexism against HRC, kept silent by his own admission, and was recently awakened to something he knew about?

    Sorry, I am voting for his preferred candidate this fall, but can't buy in to that diary or apology.  

    Well, he doesn't need to appeal to you then. He's (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    already got you.   As for me, nothing he could say would cause me to vote for Obama.  I don't know anyone who's on the fence. So, he might as well just not bother. The time to have spoken up against sexism has passed. They're probably just doing it now so they can attack people who criticize Michelle.

    Sorry to be so cynical. I can't imagine how I got that way.

    Parent

    He certainly doesn't have me. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    But I can't allow McCain to get his fingers around me and my country.

    I certainly won't forgive and forget because I cannot forgive and forget.

    Parent

    I don't know if you remember this, but before (4.68 / 16) (#22)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:41:24 PM EST
    McCain went into his crazed love affair with George W. Bush and the 100 year war, Democrats wanted him to be John Kerry's running mate. And, apparently, even John Kerry wanted that.  One thing about McCain is that he has a demonstrated history of working with Democrats on issues like campaign finance reform and of voting against vile bills like the 2005 energy tax giveaway to the oil companies, that Obama voted for (but neither McCain nor Hillary did).

    I'm not saying I want McCain. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm a lifelong Democrat and have NEVER voted for a Republican in my life. I couldn't stand Kerry but nevertheless I  sent him money and spent countless hours driving around the backwoods here in Appalachia where I live (and teach college) canvassing and trying to talk people into voting for him.

    But I draw the line at Obama. He has a very bad history of not standing up for things that he says he is for.  He has a very bad history of being a go along to get along politician in Chicago who isn't very concerned with where his money comes from or who is hurt by his getting it (Pension funds, subpar housing anyone?).

    I've been researching this for almost six months.  I was not originally a Hillary supporter and briefly gave money to Obama, thinking him a breath of fresh air.  But I quickly became disillusioned and went to Edwards. I would have been happy with Dodd or Biden and reluctantly turned to Hillary only after she was the last person standing that I felt I could vote for.  However, I came to admire her and I believe (cause I'm old and I remember it clearly) that another Clinton administration would be a good thing (in spite of NAFTA, which I didn't support at the time and still don't).

    However, it's not about Hillary for me now. It's about keeping this unqualified, unsavory, immature, uninformed guy from becoming our President.  I think he will continue to stab all progressives in the back.   When he used accusations of racism against the Clintons to take away the black vote, I knew he would stop at nothing. When he denounced universal one-payer health care (that he supported when running for the Senate until he no longer supported it when running for President), I began to suspect he stood for nothing.  When he ran "Harry and Louise" ads, that mimicked the ads that the drug companies used in the 90s to demonize Hillary's health care plan, I knew he was planning to sell us down the river on health care. When he said he didn't see anything wrong with voting for Justice Roberts for the Supreme Court based on mere "ideology," and that the only reason he didn't do it was because he wanted to run for President, I saw a man with no principles and who would not be worried about Roe vs. Wade or any other possibly "ideological" reason when he had his turn to make SC appointments.

    As far as I'm concerned, Obama is worse than McCain. McCain has a lot of problems. No kidding. But these are the choices we now have -either that or not voting for President and voting downticket or voting for Nader or Cynthia McKinney.

    If you had asked me a year ago if I would ever have taken such a position, I would have been appalled.  If you had asked me if I would ever vote for a Republican, I would have said absolutely no way.

    But I think McCain is the lesser of two evils.

    For other views on this you should check out the Blackagendareport, Cynthia Pringle (google her) and Rosemary Regello of the San Francisco  cityedition.com

    You will find some compelling reasons not to vote for Obama.

    Parent

    If you truly feel... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:53:58 PM EST
    you can't vote for Obama and prefer McCain, that's fine. I truly disagree but that's your right

    However,the McCain of 2004 wouldn't recognize this John in 2008. Not for a moment.

    Parent

    A lot of people have turned out to be (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    quite different from what they seemed, not so long ago.

    Parent
    Maybe McCain's (4.83 / 6) (#224)
    by MonaL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:34:48 PM EST
    just pandering to his base in order to get elected, but has a secret plan to move to the middle after he's the Pres.  Sound familiar?

    Parent
    I agree with you completely (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:53:24 PM EST
    and will vote the same.  This time it's really a vote for country over party.

    Parent
    Riveting Post (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    I Respect (5.00 / 13) (#20)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    Your right, and everyone else's right to vote or not vote for whomever they choose. But, you say:
    Sorry, I am voting for his preferred candidate this fall, but can't buy in to that diary or apology.
    It is just my view that by voting for someone or some cause, you are effectively endorsing their words, behaviors, actions and those of their supporters.

    My reason for not voting for Obama (or McCain for that matter) is my vote tells them I am forgiving them for their words, behaviors and actions and those of their supporters, and endorsing them.

    Speaking for me only, I am not voting for Obama because I do not accept or endorse him for:
    (1) his paper-thin resume;
    (2) his questionable voting record;
    (3) his flip-flopping on several important issues I care about;
    (4) his comments about white-working class;
    (5) his relationship with divisive folk;
    (6) his non-existent efforts to stop the hateful speech against Hillary Clinton, and his own childish behaviors during his rallies;
    ad finally,
    (7) his extremely disrespectful insinuations that the Bill Clinton Presidency was one riddled with faults and misjudged measures that he would either eliminate, correct or never make himself because he's too good to do that.

    No, just because he calls himself a Democrat, and says he is not running for a third Bush term does not mean I'd fall in line and vote for him.

    Parent

    Obama was always my... (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    second choice. McCain among my last choices (and a choice I'd never make anyway).

    Obama, Hillary and myself are closer on issues than I am with McCain.

    With my vote, I am endorsing Obama as the one who can do the job best of my current choices. My vote certainly does not endorse anyone smoking Marlboro Reds anymore than it does dissing the Clintons or the other issues you brought up. If I could vote for Hillary this November, it doesn't mean I endorse a gas tax holiday as she did.

    Simply, if Hillary can get behind him, I can.  What I can't do is throw my arms around the Orange Julius folks, and accept a McCain presidency.

    Maybe my vote is less for Obama than it is against McCain. Whatever, I can live with that. Obama is getting it anyway, as he is getting the Clintons' votes.

    Parent

    I wish I could figure out what Obama's (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    stand is on the issues. It seems he doesn't even know what they are. For that reason, I can't say I share his views.


    Parent
    Sure, you share his views (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:23:51 PM EST
    although maybe you meant his views a few weeks ago?  I mean, Obama has had so many flipflops now that you must share some of his views, former if not current.

    But if not, hang in there -- he'll change his views again, so that you'll have a shot at sharing them at some point or t'other.

    Parent

    Indeed....at some point during the campaign (none / 0) (#204)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:16:27 PM EST
    every voter will have the opportunity to state that they share Obama's view on the issues that matter most to them :)

    Parent
    No one has done more for diversity (5.00 / 7) (#211)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    of viewpoints on the issues than Obama.  I say, no one. :-)

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#225)
    by MonaL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:37:12 PM EST
    very funny

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:02:15 PM EST
    There has been no allocution.

    In law, it is generally meant to state specifically and in detail what one did and for what reason, often in relation to commission of a crime.

    It reminds me of Edwards' and Kerry's apologies.

    There is no allocution.

    Parent

    Had To Look It Up (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    allocution
    n.   A formal and authoritative speech; an address.

    Something on the order of "this sexism on the part of the media and even my own supporters is wrong!"

    Instead of standing on the podium decrying the the misogyny, Obama and his supporters worked the crowd, gathering votes while they could.

    No...no allocution at all.  


    Parent

    Aha, that's the term I was trying (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    to think of -- and me a longtime Law and Order fan.  That's my problem with the pastor making it a parable.  Thanks.

    Parent
    What is this (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:56:40 PM EST
    mea cupla day at the great orange satin. Thank goodness for Ben Masel and Krago X and mcjoan.

    Ha. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    That crappy Chicago song "Hard for Me to Say I'm Sorry" should play every time someone opens up that Kos diary.

    Parent
    It all gives me the distinction impression (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:59:00 PM EST
    They knew it was wrong while it was going on.

    It is hilarious to read in print & pixels (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:15:08 PM EST
    the statements of racists, sexists, & other bigots who pretend to have been obtusely un-aware of their bigotry during the practice of it.  The proof of that pudding was in the "sweetie" comment; apologies afterward don't matter; it's the source, the origin of the opinion or attitude or behavior & as Edgar 08 implies, it would be helpful to understand the background to that & whether it will change.

    Maybe not.

    My experience, in real life, is that each & every bigoted jerk is fully aware & revels in it; it's a source of bragging.  That's usually the point, after all, to make oneself appear to be bigger or better by belittling the "other."

    Now, I might be able to help remove that mote from your eye if I could just get the beam out of mine.

    Parent

    Remember the old adage (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:38:48 PM EST
    Easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

    "I'm sorry I hit you baby; I'll never do it again! I'm a changed man!"

    I really don't believe it; not for a second. I don't doubt the diarist is sincere, so I won't attack his effort, but I don't think he represents even .01% of Dkos readership.

    This will happen again if the same circumstances arise.

    Nice summation of the primary season.

    Parent

    Since this is an open thread (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    I'm on my way into the city to see Ken Howard in "According to Tip". Decided my politics this evening needs to come with a laugh or two.  I wonder how this play will play in Tip's hometown?

    Ah, that's the hometown of some family (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:37:11 PM EST
    of mine, and my gramps even knew Tip.  And if that wacky Irish side of the family is a tipoff, the town will like it fine.  How I wish my gramps was still here to see it -- so that I could see him doff his Irish newsboy's cap he wore everywhere, take the corncob pipe (where did he still find them?!) from out of his mouth, so that he could double over in his great guffaw at some of the lines Tip said.

    Btw, with a newsboy cap and a corncob pipe for Tip, they could have been twins.  That's how they met.  Long story. . . .

    Parent

    Blatant sexism against Hillary ruled for months (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Maribelle on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:18:36 PM EST
    It is a shame that it took blatant sexism for the diarist to see the problem

    I don't believe it was the 'blatant sexism' that made him realize anything - - for it was blatant against Hillary many times over.  

    Perhaps it was merely seeing first hand and up close the pain in the eyes of the young ones that his 'blatant sexism' caused that hit him over the head like a ton of bricks.  But he can rest assured that those hurt eyes he looked into will be much tougher the next time around, thanks to him.    

     

    And in those eyes, there will be (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:47:16 PM EST
    distrust.  Sadder but wiser girls now, as the song goes.

    But that diarist will not see the distrust, I bet.  After all, the experience of apologizing -- and on DKos, yet, so widely read by those he joyously joined in harming -- has "truly healed" him.  

    The guy is thinking of parables of forgiveness, I would bet, but they don't apply.  Heck, he's healed now, anyway.

    Parent

    I guess I just... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    question the sincerity since he said he was awakened to how sexism is so hurtful through his working experience but then said he knew of it all along in regards to Hillary but kept silent.

    That's how I read it anyway.

    Haven't you ever had an "aha" moment? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:19:53 PM EST
    A moment when things clicked into place and you realized that you knew something and that you knew it all along, but you had never put together all of the pieces so it made sense? I think that we all know about sexism and sort of passively accept it like Pelosi said - she knows it exists, but she just doesn't think about it. We all see sexism, we just don't take it seriously. Both male and female children grow up in a world where men hunt and women gather. How many times have you been to a potluck where the men cooked most of the food? Or a barbecue where the women held sway over the grill while the men were in a hot kitchen making salads? Those are petty examples, but I think you get the idea - the limitations placed on us by our genders are so built into us that we see them, but we don't see any harm in them. Then we realize that it does hurt young women to not be able to get sports scholarships, and we pass Title IX. And we start making girls take shop class along with the boys. And we let men take time off for "maternity leave". And we pat ourselves on the back for being so progressive, but we accept other limitations blindly because we simply don't recognize them as limitations. That's why we have men's only clubs in which men can build relationships that help them professionally, and far more male executives than female, and a glass ceiling that a few women have managed to bypass, but most don't. We just get to look up through it and wonder what we're doing wrong. Why is it that when we do what we're supposed to do: put ourselves forward, be assertive, work hard... we still don't get promoted, but the guy who goes hunting with the boss does.

    Parent
    The Hillary Clinton Nutcracker (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:16:07 PM EST
    was hardly veiled sexism.

    You say he's trying.  Well, why wasn't he trying for the past six months? After half a year of misogyny you want us to kiss and make up on the basis of a few comments that indicate he might...MIGHT...believe there was a little sexism in the campaign.

    I don't for one moment buy the idea the Barack Obama has had a sudden epiphany about sexism.  He used it to his benefit, just as he used racism. Those are not the actions of a honorable man.

    Parent

    I'm not defending Obama (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:31:28 PM EST
    I'm suggesting that the author of that diary on dKos was sincere and it's worth accepting his apology. I'm unaware of any significant comments Obama has made regarding sexism, other than his stump speech "my daughters have learned..." (imo, patronizing nonsense) and some talk about equal pay, which doesn't even begin to address the issues women face in America.

    Recognizing the sexism is the first step, and this man has taken that step. I'm not going to reject people who didn't do enough. I'd rather work with people who want to change the future. Recriminations get us nowhere.

    Parent

    Honestly, that's not how... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST
    "aha moments" work - at least for me.

    He knew he was wrong the entire time. It was just okay because it wasn't toward anyone he personally knew, just whipping post/Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    Worse, he did not keep silent -- nope (4.88 / 9) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:33:09 PM EST
    as he said he joined in the jokes against Clinton.  While knowing it was wrong.  And this from a man of the cloth, with many a course in counseling if he went through a standard seminary curriculum.

    And now he's had his day of atonement on the public confessional of DKos.  Sorry, that reeks of insincerity, too, as does so much of what he writes. Neither DKos nor Clinton is the One to Whom he ought to be confessing.  But then, I've never been a fan of those faiths that put their faith in public "witnessing" to feel, as he does now, "truly healed."

    He's not the one who was wounded, so he's not the one to need healing from his harm.  He joined in the pile-on to hurt women, when he joked about one woman -- that's what sexism does, as its poison spreads.  And he's not gonna reach the ones he harmed by apologizing to DKos, for pity's sake.

    His "witnessing" just seems like so much posturing for an appreciative audience that now can all feel "truly healed."  Without having done a darn real thing to heal the harm they have done.  Nice, how that works.  For them.

    Parent

    This: (4.85 / 7) (#175)
    by Nadai on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    And now he's had his day of atonement on the public confessional of DKos.

    is the part that makes me the most furious.  He goes there to post his "confession" - not here, not at The Confluence, not at Shakesville, not at any of the blogs the Hillary supporters fled to in the wake of his and his friends misogynist attacks.  He posts where he feels safe, where he'll get an 'attaboy' instead of a 'why the he11 did it take you so long?'.  And as he shows above, he resents not getting his 'attaboy' enough to create an account to whine about it.

    He didn't apologize.  Apologies are made to the people you hurt, not to your co-conspirators.

    Parent

    Ayup, 'zactly. (5.00 / 4) (#219)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    I think I'm going to go apologize to my cat for thinking bad thoughts about the driver of an obnoxiously noisy car that just went by.  My cat is a great and understanding confessor, if entirely incapable of anything but being oblivious to what I say.

    But I'll feel all warm and fuzzy and better about what a great person I am to absolve and forgive myself of my bad thoughts about the driver of the car who has nothing at all to do with my cat.

    Parent

    P.U.M.A. is not just women. (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:05:22 PM EST


    P.U.M.A. (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    seems to be both men and women getting together to act on their principles.  That's a good and healthy thing for any democracy.


    Parent
    Does anyone feel it's (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    ... worth summarizing what the links say? I'm never going to that site again.

    Um, okay (5.00 / 10) (#76)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:20:47 PM EST
    A very young male pastor was leading a mixed gender group on a mission event that included working at a construction site.

    Over the course of a week, he repeatedly witnessed and participated in the standard treatment for women at construction sites, namely, some version of "try to stay out of the way, honey."

    Towards the end of the week, two of the young women had a crisis moment when they got sent out of the way one time too many.  The young pastor had an epiphany . . . he saw that their frustration was real and pretty deep.  He did what pastors are paid to do and listened closely to them.

    Breakthrough moment for young pastor!

    Women don't like to be treated as if they're not fully human!  Sexism is real!

    He's very sorry for all the things he read and wrote about HRC during the primary.

    Then, about 200 comments arguing over whether or not (a) there really was sexism at DK, (b) if there was, did it matter in her campaign, and (c) if there was, wasn't it just a few bad apples here and there.

    Ahem.

    Any lurkers from DK, here's what I think.  Not surprisingly, both the diarist and the commenters mostly miss the point.

    The diarist is earnest in that cloying way so many DK posters seem to be.  He wants to be good, and to do good, and he's really, really, really a kind person.  But it's ridiculous in the extreme to read his promises about doing better next time.  I'm old and cynical, I guess . . . my advice to him would be: less talking, please.  We don't need your confession, just action when it counts.  And please don't be proud of making the rec list at DK, good Lord.  It used to mean something, but that's long gone.

    Aside from dianem, only one commenter caught my eye . . .

    The criticisms of Hillary often centered on her centrism. I think it's very interesting that Obama went back on his stance about handguns and about fisa. Not just one issue mind you and the campaign is very young. Will those same dissenters criticise him in the same way. Will they have the same hatred for him?

    I have said all along that Obama will commit the same sins she did and that he and his wife Michelle will likely look as bad as the clintons (but will survive it like the clintons did) and will likely crack under the pressure at time and make mistakes.

    The difference here is that I never hated Obama. I liked him. But lots of folks on this site especially "hated" her and hated her for things that Obama is about to do himself. Only time will tell, but for me, that hatred, that energy was about something besides the issues.

    Well said.

    Parent

    The DK poster (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    also didn't "get" anything until he saw it affect two young women of his own acquaintance and under his care.  Hardly an epiphany.

    Parent
    Young women (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by vigkat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:14:20 PM EST
    to whom he continued to refer as "girls."

    Parent
    One more thought (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:44:08 PM EST
    How exactly did the young pastor make the leap from two frustrated-to-tears would-be construction workers to Hillary Clinton?

    I would appreciate seeing a genuine I-see-sexism diary from someone over there.  As in, here is a thread in which we, the DK community used a candidate's gender against her. This is how we did it.  This is what was wrong with doing it.  Here is why it matters.

    Parent

    Thank you. Yes, the parable from the pastor (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:51:11 PM EST
    is so pretentious and patronizing itself that, as you can see, I'm over the edge into alliteration.:-)

    The rev ought to address the problems to which he contributed in the campaign, directly.  Period.

    (He's picked up that Pastor Dan tone, ugh.)

    Parent

    There are several men in leadership (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:08:45 PM EST
    roles, as well.

    Figures.... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:12:10 PM EST
    consider me unimpressed.

    On the plus side, I finally figured out a path out of my novel's Great Swampy Middle.

    An elected representative (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    from TN.

    An elected representative and son of a former presidential candidate.

    Donna Brazile...

    Shall I keep going?

    Yeap, Men Too (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:17:05 PM EST
    And amazingly, P.U.M.A isn't relegated to the Internet community.

    There are permutations of PUMA among people who use the Internet just for e-mail and work purposes, and don't frequent blogs and message boards that mention it.

    Oy. (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:19:52 PM EST
    Alec, pretty soon you're not going to be able to get out of that hole you're digging for yourself.

    You call it digging a hole...... (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:52:19 PM EST
    ....I call what you're doing building a myth.  We have a difference of opinion.

    Parent
    I have brought this up several times (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    And will continue to do so, I think Obama himself crossed a line that exists for me.

    So I will simply ask you, what would you say and think about me if we saw in the media a stereotypically black and negative representation of Obama (i won't use an example cause jeralyn doesn't like that), and my response to that negative and stereotypcally black representation of of Obama was:

    "It's not Obama's fault.  But that's why I don't think he'll be able to unite the country."

    Does this even make sense to you.  I know it makes sense for others.  If you'd like I can spell it out even more clearly.

    But the question to you stands.  I repeat.

     what would you say and think about me if we saw in the media a stereotypically black and negative representation of Obama (i won't use an example cause jeralyn doesn't like that), and my response to that negative and stereotypcally black representation of of Obama was:

    "It's not Obama's fault.  But That's why I don't think he'll be able to unite the country."

    That is my question to you on this issue.

    I do think Obama crossed a line.  Passive aggressively.  But the line was crossed.

    Smart politics (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:47:49 PM EST
    No different, really, than saying a black candidate can't pull in enough white working class voters to win an election.

     BTW, I would have to see the quote you are talking about, along with which media representation you are talking about. Was he responding to a particular media representation? Which one?

     I'm not trying to be dense but some people here cry sexism left and right.  Pointing out that she has media and voter negatives is not equivalent to sexism.  I would need to know the context.

    Parent

    Just smart politics (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    Well OK then.  Then don't expect anyone to ever say it's wrong when you think it's smart politics.


    Parent
    'Smart' politics or 'just' politics: Bush/Rovisms (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:03:53 PM EST
    Like that crap they pulled on McCain in the 2000 Repug primaries.

    Dude's crazy BECAUSE he was a POW -- PLUS he sold out his country and fellow prisoners.

    And hey, potential voter, how about the guy's secret black kid?

    You know his wife? She was a drug addict so let's play that up. (NB: same crap Bush ran on Michael Dukakis' wife IIRC).

    The different spin the use of these "smart" politics are getting from those who admire using them doesn't excuse the nature of how low they'll go.

    Defend attacks, yes. Go after records, stated positions, statements and related character issues, yes.

    But please, don't pretend that attempting to increase attacks on Cindy McCain because of social injustice relating to drug use and penalties of black people is just "politics".

    It's not smart. It has no relevance to excusing anything Obama is doing now or that he has in his personal history.

    It will blow back badly on him and his family, and on the Dems.

    Parent

    Your comment... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:08:52 PM EST
    ...verges on incoherence.  What are you talking about?

    But please, don't pretend that attempting to increase attacks on Cindy McCain because of social injustice relating to drug use and penalties of black people is just "politics".

    What???! What does this have to do with the thread, or anything we've been talking about?

     Incomprehensible.

    Parent

    My comment (and context) was explicit and specific (none / 0) (#220)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:30:38 PM EST
    ... and responding that it "verges on incoherence" to "incomprehensible" is just babble on your part.

    I gave a much narrower context than you did above talking about 'sexism left and right'.

    Parent

    Without knowing more... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    ...that's all I can say.  You provided no context.  I provided an example where I thought Senator Clinton did something similar...and it made sense, because she was making an electability argument.

     What you're talking about is the same thing, really.  Again, without knowing more.

     BTW, do you think overt sexism was Obama's strategy? Or that he would even take that risk, in a Democratic primary, of all things? Senator Clinton repeatedly played the gender card (in a positive way) and Obama did the same thing with the African American vote.  They tried very hard to be careful about alienating any significant voting blocs.  They had to.  

     

    Parent

    When asked about (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    how Clinton was attacked during the 90s Obama said it wasn't her fault but it's why she won't be able to unite the country the way he can.  The conclusion being that she was now too polarized to unite the country.  We need to move on.  Real change.  I bet you agree with that.

    But.  now remember, because most of the attacks on Clinton from the 90s were of a sexist variety, (ever see the Spy Magazine covers?) I read Obama's statement like this:   a woman can't be president because a woman will be attacked too much and thus distract people from the real job of progress.

    Sorry.  That's how I see it.  And that crosses a line.  

    And frankly, that's the lens through which I now view every attack on Obama, racist or otherwise. While it's not his fault, It's just Obama being a distraction and keeping us from the real business of progress.

    Now I bet you don't agree with that.

    But that is how I'm going to view every attack on Obama going forward.

    I think it's what Obama himself would want me to do.

    Parent

    Obama CAMPAIGNED on it being her 'fault' (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST
    He called her 'divisive' and presented that past opportunistic targeting of her by political enemies as her fault and his (Obama's) virtue.

    He presented that as her own innate "negative" characteristic, ie, she "drew" the attacks onto herself.

    Sorry, Club Obama, this is no more smart politics than are the racist buttons the knuckleheads are passing around about Obama.

    The one notable difference: the bobbleheads in pundistan, whether on the networks or cable, haven't been passing the racist buttons around and laughing their asses off for almost a year and a half.

    Parent

    Yes, The Media and Bloggers (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the media had, still has, and will always have TREMENDOUS sway in how elections or anything is perceived and turns out.

    What would it have taken for the major players (Obama, the DNC top brass) to have spoken up against it? Isn't Hillary Clinton under the DNC's umbrella too? Why was she left standing under the rain of sexist commentary and skewed reporting alone?

    All these politicians have mouths. They use it so well to ask for contributions and votes, why couldn't they have said something about the media's behavior? Because it did not concern their Golden Boy, as far as they were concerned.

    The only politicians and public figures speaking up for her were her own supporters (Ferraro, Rendell and a few syndicated collumnists with hearts and guts) while his supporters (Richardson, Pelosi, and shameless media people like Olbermann, Cafferty, Dowd, Matthews) piled on.

    I know. I've lost all respect for (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:10:05 PM EST
    Richardson. I used to live in New Mexico and I really liked him.  Now I just wonder what Obama promised him to get him to sell the Clintons out. He would be nobody without them. They were the ones who promoted him in the first place. He was just an obscure New Mexico politician.

    Parent
    Someone just sent me: (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by delacarpa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    It is nothing to have over 650 comments to some of the lead offs.

    Welcome to the ranks of Independents (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    where I never thought I'd be, either.  Reminds me of the term "fallen away" for folks who leave the Catholic church.  Friend of mine used to say, no, she was pushed away by the changes in the church -- she held to what it always was, but then it wasn't. :-)

    Parent
    His Character? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:08:04 PM EST
    So how exactly do you define his character then that sets him apart and makes him such a viable contender for POTUS?

    For me, I'd much rather judge him by his actions (or inactions) for that matter, because in my view, all that he's got going for him in terms of character is fortitude, a real knack for taking risks.

    He believes in words. I believe in actions.

    He's said A LOT in the last 18 months. Done little.

    Platitudes and promises don't make change. Actions do.

    A myth? (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:17:07 PM EST
    Many bloggers - "Is Clinton Your Psycho Ex-Girlfriend?"  MSNBC.  The portrayal of Clinton as Sybil.  Clinton's laugh.  The nutcracker, which got play on every network.  I realize there were some horrible Obama puppets and things like that, but they were not coopted by the MASS media.  It is simply not a myth that our mass media affirmed and utilized sexist attitudes to undermine Senator Clinton.  

    The mass media - massive broadcasts of this stuff.  This was not an underground thing.  

    Never said the media treatment of Clinton... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM EST
    ...was fair.  The insinuation here is that it was also the DNC and Obama.  I don't buy that one bit, if only because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in sexist smears.

     The nutcracker manufacturers sold to Clinton partisans on both sides, btw.  On their site they said that many supporters of Senator Clinton liked it because it evoked a tough image.  I don't see it that way, but whatever.

     It is also a little hard to swallow some media commentators on this issue.  First, Dowd uses gendered terminology all the time.  Second, those who complained about sexism often partake in it...or if not sexism, just Hillary hatred.  See, e.g., Couric's question to Obama about working with Senator Clinton (the tone of that question would have been very different if she was talking about another potential VP).

     I'm kind of tired of these identity politics, but it was pretty clear they would be unavoidable once the frontrunners emerged.

     One last thing: I would have been much harder on the "coronation" comments (veiled reference to "Queen Hillary" imo) if inevitability and entitlement hadn't been the campaign strategy.  

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:44:38 PM EST
    I am not surprised that the manufacturers of the nutcracker claim that Hillary supporters favor it.  

    With the DNC, I think people are upset that Howard Dean, only near the very end of the primary, said sexism is a problem and needs to be a major conversation in this country.  Did he only realize it then, or was he waiting til it was over?  I think people have a right to be quite skeptical of his leadership.

    I'm not a big fan of Katie Couric.  Her interview with Hillary played into stereotypes of an intelligent woman quite willingly.  She's part of the problem, but at least she saw there was a problem.

    Parent

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#90)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    Never said the media treatment of Clinton was fair.  The insinuation here is that it was also the DNC and Obama.  I don't buy that one bit, if only because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in sexist smears.

    It's the fact that they chose to stay quiet about it, is really what was and still is infuriating.

    They didn't have a direct role in it, but a passive role. They were complicit in how Sen. Clinton was portrayed by the media and his surrogates and supporters perpetuated the nonsense and lies.

    And let us not forget the underhanded means by which Obama himself made his displeasure with her known.

    1) Tending to that supposed itch on his face with his middle finger at a rally, followed by approving cheers from his supporters (All the proof's on YouTube.)

    2) Playing Jay Z's "99 Problems" at his rallies after New Hampshire with the loaded line, "I got 99 problems but a b*tch ain't one. (For starters, what kind of song is that to be played at a political rally where there definitely would be young impressionable minds present?)

    3) Brushing "dirt" off his shoulders and wiping "muck" of his shoes on stage at a rally, in an obvious diss to HRC

    Parent

    The 99 problems thing (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:13:25 PM EST
    was totally uncomfirmed and just a rumor, as far as I am aware.

    Parent
    Can someone explain to me (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by atddoug on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:31:16 PM EST
    why women join in the sexism?  I just watched a female, (supposedly) liberal guest on CNN's This Week In Politics sneer and say she saw no evidence of sexism in the primaries. I saw soooo many instances during the primaries when Obama supporters were the source of sexist insults toward Hillary, especially in the blogs and on cable political shows.  Sadly, much of it came from women, as well as the so-called "liberal media", and it sounded like the same old, toxic,'90s-era b@llsh*t.

    And on the racism charges, forget that it's the ultimate low-blow to accuse your fellow Dems of racism (a great way to drive people out of the party - or was that the purpose?). But to accuse Bill Clinton, who was second only to LBJ among American presidents in his empathy for the plight of African-Americans, on the basis of some ridiculously benign statements.  That was sad. I saw so many white guests on cable news shows dissecting every word the Clintons ever spoke to "prove" racism while the black guests timmidly defended the Clintons.  Folks, when blacks say it's not racism, it's not racism.  End of story.

    But to hear Tim Russert confront Obama with the fact that pulling the race card was a campaign strategy prepared in advance to neutralize Bill, and Obama's admission that it was a mistake - that was pathetic.  That's the problem with Obama - he's surrounded by people who are not only leading him down the wrong path, they'll likely become members of his administration and lead the country down the wrong path.

    I think the real question is - is there really any difference between the far left-wingers that took down the Clintons and the far right-wingers that took them down in the 90's?  And does anyone in the Obama camp believe the Obama's won't be the Clinton's replacement in the late night talk show jokes?

    If he's that easily led, (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    how can he be Commander in Chief?

    He's not led. He just lies.  

    Parent

    They are different.. (4.50 / 2) (#178)
    by rjarnold on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:33:04 PM EST
    The right-wingers attack the character of the leaders of the other party, while large segments of left-wing activists and the net-roots attack the character of their own party leaders.

    Parent
    Differecne between left-wingers and (none / 0) (#86)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    the right-wingers here?  No, there is none!  Each is as rabid as the other.

    In my view, political views are not a straight line from left to right.  Rather the positions are best represented as a circle, and in the spot on the circle where the far-left and far-right converge, they are indistinguishable from one another.

    Parent

    Unless Clinton is on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cawaltz on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:43:31 PM EST
    I'm not forgivingthe misgyny and I certainly have no intention of defending MO from it. As far as I'm concerned, what comes around goes around.

    Who crossed the line (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by delacarpa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:46:33 PM EST
    No Fox isn't the only media outlet aware of what PUMA stands for. It is everywhere.

    Sexism is being slamed from either direction with things that you just wouldn't do to the opposite sex. How about crossing your arms and turning you back on someone in the senate. LOL I could just see two men doing that to one another.

    Yes, Sam, you do think both Clintons (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:54:51 PM EST
    crossed the line.  Those were your exact words in an earlier thread today.  If you didn't meant that they were racist, then just what line is that?  Sounds like waving the race card with deniability, being able to claim later that it was only, what, a "rude" card?

    You want to talk about inappropriate, we can talk about "ain't no black people in Iowa."  Who said that, hmmm?  Or "typical white person," hmmm?

    Instead, let's stay on topic.  And there's still room in the other thread to answer the question asked, rather than for going off topic again.

    You're right. (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:02:39 PM EST
    Obama's New Hobby is Race-baiting:
    The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?

    -- Barack Obama, 5:20PM EST, Jacksonville, Fla.

    Really, why did he have to add that last line?

    And let us also not forget how he used key terms for negativity in the black community prior to the Mississippi primary, during a rally of mostly black voters. Terms like "bamboozle" and "hoodwink" and "okie-dokie."

    Parent

    Let us (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:04:18 PM EST
    Take a look at the typical white person line.   Let us take a line completely out of context, about a speech that discussed how white Americans have legitimate racial grievances towards blacks and visa versa.  I am sorry I don't know about the other comment

    Also I do think that the Clinton's did cross the line.  It was wrong and hurtful.  Do I think it was racist, no.  I define racism/ racist; as take a swipe at someone or a group based upon race that tries demean and lower that person or group.  Or as an insentive comment that a person repeats over and over again after one has been told it is offensive (e.g. the "race card").  As an example of what was hurtful, but not racist, was "hard working americans, hard working white americans".

    Parent

    The context is that his grandmother's (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:11:24 PM EST
    privately expressed racism (for which we have only Obama's word) is equivalent to Wright's public, fulsome displays of racism.
    You think the context improves things?!

    Parent
    Sam, the "typical white person" line (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:17:12 PM EST
    was not in Obama's speech.  You are the one claiming the incorrect context.  Look it up and then come back to try to justify it within correct context.  And the other line was from Michelle, way back before the first primary, and you can look it up, too -- since it seems you have a prodigious memory for what one candidate and her spouse said, you might do well to catch up with what your candidate and his spouse said.

    But instead, you again and again claim there were many racist comments without specifics -- except for, finally, your last line.  But the context for that was that it was a line from an Associated Press story, and actually a standard demographic description from a pollster in the story, which  Clinton was quoting -- so if that was racist, it was not her but the wire service that was so.  

    That means you still have not come up with racist comments from them, you claim not to even have known of a comment by Michelle, you claim a context for her husband that was not so -- and you still have not explained why "fairy tale" is racist.

    That makes it O and 5 or so now, Sam.  C'mon.  I have full faith that you have heard something that you can cite and that you can correctly claim as racist.  What is it?

    Parent

    Sam thinks that (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:29:54 PM EST
    Clinton's comment that the idea that Obama had always been steadfastly opposed to the war was a fairy tale is racist?

    Sam, say it isn't so.

    Parent

    I have never said racist (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:30:11 PM EST
    Secondly.  I have given you the lines many black people have thought were offensive.  If you don't think they are that is fine.  So be it.  Just next time you talk about some guy discounting sexism, pause for just a second.

    Parent
    I saw one. (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:42:39 PM EST
    I have given you the lines many black people have thought were offensive.

    Parent
    BTW all racist comments are offensive, (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:47:15 PM EST
    but not all offensive comments are racist.

    If you're offended that people don't think Obama is qualified to be president, that's because you support him and disagree with their assessment.

    But that comment is not racist.  It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

    George Bush isn't qualified to be dog catcher, let alone president.  I'll bet you're not at all offended by that statement.

    Parent

    This is such a vague argument it makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    Someone or various people reacting, on your word, to disembodied phrases do not equate with a quite explicit, virtually daily on the record barrage, MOSTLY sexist in nature.

    I'm sorry, Sam, but as you seem more well-meaning among the Obama supporters you'd need these to be in the same ballpark:

    (1) number of explicitly racist attacks by news media on Obama
    (2) number of explicitly racist attacks by Senator Clinton herself on Obama (and ginned up stuff like monitor outrage or already-public photos appearing on Drudge DO NOT count)
    (3) number of explicitly racist attacks by the Clinton campaign (including family) on Obama
    (4) equal degree of intensity and/or intent to encourage racism in media, crowds or on the blogs to go after Obama.

    There's simply no comparison and to pretend in hindsight that there is makes me almost feel sorry for you.

    Parent

    This discussion morphed into something else (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:26:29 PM EST
    First this started by talking about the need to defend a black women.  I did, and will always do it.  Then it got racialized by OJ comments (damn OJ- setting back race relations with a couple of stabbings).  Then it moved into comments about what the Clintons said was racist, are they racist, etc.  I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY SAID WAS RACIST.  I think it was racially insentitive.  That doesn't make it right, it just makes it what it is.

    Hillary got screwed most by the persuit of ratings and readership.  What hillary got screwed with, is that she did say these things or her husband did, and since there is not a bigger crowd/ rating increasing story line as black guy vs. white women in the history of this country, it got played up.  And it got played up big, and in a way it shouldn't have been.   This story line ontop of a bizzare anti strong woman current that Clinton certainly has made visible screwed her, plus  the fact that she was running against an amazing politician (you can argue the statemenship all you want) led to her defeat.

    Parent

    No, Obama isn't an 'amazing' politician (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    ... for using these divisive (and frankly ugly) measures and opportunities.

    I read the entire discussion here before commenting, btw, so I did see the other references.

    That doesn't mean Obama should be given a free pass for what he did throughout the primaries.

    I hope you stay engaged in the political process beyond this point and if you don't apply the honesty yourself, the election will help you along in that respect (and more rudely than I would right now).

    Parent

    I didn't understand your last paragraph? (none / 0) (#186)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    I am sorry.  Can you write it again, I just missed the meaning.  

    P.S.
    When I say amazing politcian it has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with mobilization.  Examples of amazing politcians I disagree with: McCarthy (re-wrote the book on electoneering before he re-wrote the constitution to suit him).  Regaen (Genious).  Hitler (obviuosly amazing politician and captivating man that was morally bankrupt to say the least).

    P.S.S.
    Without going into it, what were the disgusting things the Obama CAMPAIGN did?  Can you point me to a link.

    Parent

    Do. Not. Threaten. Me. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:58:20 PM EST
    and answer the questions you have repeatedly, specifically, been asked, if you want to redeem yourself from your comments.

    Parent
    Here are some lines (2.00 / 1) (#151)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:10:14 PM EST
    1. Arguing that it was Johnson, and not King that got the Civil Rights act passed.  Insulting, it was the people who died for this cause and the movement that was embarrasing this country. As well as the fact that it got Blacks out to vote for Dems.

    2. The Fairy tale line

    3. Jessie Jackson line

    4. the simply stating the"demographic line"

    Those are 4 pretty big ones.  

    Parent
    Just to start with No. 2, I ask again (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:25:01 PM EST
    and again, as others also have asked, what is racist about "fairy tale"?

    I didn't ask for a list.  I know the list.  I asked for an explanation of just the first comment, chronologically, that was called racist.

    We'll work through the rest once we figure out the first one -- as the chronology was crucial to the momentum of the escalating attacks on the Clintons as racist, all tracing back to this first instance.

    So please don't list.  Explain.  Thanks.

    Parent

    No I don't need to go further (2.00 / 1) (#177)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    You know what I think about these statments. You have argued against the feelings people have had about them before. I have no desire to convince you of the merits of them.   We as a people will always be very sensitive to race comments, and should be.  And that is that.

    If you have an honest question, and want to understand why many people in the black community were offended, I will gladly answer.  But I have no desire to hear that we are wrong for how we FELT (past tense).

    Parent

    OMG. (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:27:10 PM EST
    I've been reading your writing tonight and trying to think who it reminds me of, because I've seen it before a lot from a poster at Eschaton.

    It just hit me.  He is not young and definitely not black, although he regards himself as some sort of champion for poor black children.

    He's extremely full of himself and quite a boor.

    But you couldn't possibly be him.  

    That would be hilarious.

    Parent

    How would I know what you think (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
    about a list, when what I and others repeatedly ask for from you is an explanation?

    And no, I have not argued or even raised this question before these threads now with you.

    Nor have I said you were wrong for your feelings.  Why would I, as they're your feelings?  Go back and show me, just try, where I said you were wrong on your explanation of the term -- since you never have explained the term!

    I am asking not for your feelings, which are all too evident, but for your thinking, your thoughts, about exactly what you promise again here but do not deliver yet again:  Exactly why the term "fairy tale" is offensive, racially insensitive, crossed the line, etc. -- any or all of your euphemisms for racist.  Whatever.

    Just.  Answer.  The.  Question.

    Parent

    The fairy tale thing... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:25:14 PM EST
    ...is nonsensical as a racially insensitive comment. It was about Obama's position on Iraq.

     The LBJ thing...maybe African Americans found that insensitive, it is an area best not wandered into, but as a matter of historical record LBJ was very important.  

     I agree with the other two.

     But...this is just a rehashing.  The posters on this site have gone over and over this already.

    Parent

    SNL Tonight: 1975 broadcast with George Carlin (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:56:28 PM EST
    George Carlin; Janis Ian; Billy Preston
    Tonight at 11:29 pm WNBC-DT (ch 704) All Upcoming Airings

    The October 1975 premiere, with host George Carlin, Andy Kaufman, and music guests Janis Ian and Billy Preston.

    If you don't know about the SC memo, (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    you shouldn't be charging the Clintons with racism. Don't forget Jesse Jackson Jr's repellent remarks either.

    Sweetie... (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:02:33 PM EST
    if you need to ask what was all the sexism that bothered people, you weren't paying attention.

    Yeh, Obama threw the kitchen sink at her (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    and Alec comes up with a comments of hers that was attacked, but not by any means because of sexism.

    There have been dozens and dozens of examples of outright, overt, blatant, over-the-top, undeniable sexism and misogyny aimed at Clinton, but thus attacking every woman, that have been discussed on this blog.  And Alec has been here throughout that.

    Don't engage.  Some do not opt to be educable.

    Parent

    Actually I hate stupid people. (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:09:31 PM EST
    Race memo

    and


    In an appearance today on MSNBC, Jackson said that Clinton's "tears" -- none actually fell from her eyes -- are something that "we're still analyzing within the Barack Obama campaign." "Those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

    Jesse
    I Must Have Been Under A Rock (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:24:17 PM EST
    'Cos even I didn't know about this memo.

    It's utterly disgusting!!
    And totally reprehensible..

    I certainly didn't need another reason to dislike that man and his morals, or lack thereof.

    Parent

    Your memo (2.50 / 2) (#111)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
    Is a memo of Obama documenting the Clinton's comments that were racially insenstive.  Are you really blaming the black guy for noting comments that he found offensive.  I guess black people really should just shut up and take it, otherwise if you comment on it, and make it known that you find comments unaccetable you will be race baiting.  

    That is just so sad that that is your memo.    

    P.S.
    The Jessie line was idiotic and went way to far

    Parent

    So are you going to take back your (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:26:02 PM EST
    accusation that there was no memo??
    Of course, your defense of it is laughable; furthermore, the way you inject race into your comments about me is despicable.

    Parent
    Yeah sure (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    racially insensitive words like "Fairy tale".  Bullsh!t of the very first order and prime race baiting.


    Parent
    First of all (none / 0) (#126)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:42:16 PM EST
    Obama rejected that memo in the SC debate.  He wasn't personally responsible for it.  Secondly, putting together an official memo released to the public of that nature is certainly a political move.  Of dubious nature, due to the examples used within it.  The Fairy Tale comment is taken COMPLETELY out of context, the Nelson Mandela comment is completely ridiculous - how on earth is that offensive?  It's a little saccharine, but not offensive.  

    Obama commented when he wanted to.  But this memo seems a little inflammatory and I think it was a rather dumb creation.

    Parent

    He rejected it (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    because he got caught,

    Parent
    Of course he was responsible for it (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:55:48 PM EST
    as it's his campaign.  A candidate doesn't have to do something themselves to take responsibility -- that's what a president does.  And that's what Obama doesn't do, apparently cannot do, over and over again.  It's always his staff's mistake -- even in a case when it was in his own handwriting.

    Not ready for day one.

    Parent

    While it's true that Obama wasn't directly... (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by rjarnold on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    responsible for that memo, it is part of a pattern that I really don't like.

    His campaign sent out character attacks to the media, then they sent the race-memo to the media, and then they were pushing the dumb intrepretation of the RFK remark to the media. And all the time Obama was acting like he above it all or "transcended" negative politics.  

    Parent

    Sam (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    you can read the memo here -

    Huff Post SC memo

    The Jesse Jackson thing was at the very least unwise.  

    But some of the comments in this thread are definitely racist.  Grow up people.  Knock it off.

    Speaking of racist, I just visited the Washington Post site, and a banner above the article, sponsored by John McCain, features an opinion poll - "do you think it is okay to meet unconditionally with foreign leaders?" picturing the President of Iran and Obama side by side.  Check it out if you can.  It is certainly playing on race.

    I REALLY disagree on your assumption (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:12:03 PM EST
    Before I went to the Wash Post site, when I first read about the Iranian President and Obama's picture being side by side and the question,
    "do you think it is okay to meet unconditionally with foreign leaders?"
    RACE did not even come to mind. My first thought was to the question that came up in the debate. Obama said he would immediately meet with all said leaders. Hillary said she would not. And that is the only thought that came to my mind. So please leave the race baiting out as this was not the case.

    Parent
    Did you see the banner though? (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:19:03 PM EST
    I agree, the question itself is not out of bounds, nor is the comparison.  But the imagery was very dramatic.  Obama facing an angry Ahmadinejad.  

    Parent
    Oh for gawds sake (5.00 / 7) (#140)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:54:39 PM EST
    The primary is allegedly over and people are still calling Hillary and Bill Clinton racebaiters and their supporters racists?

    Isn't it enough to have burned the Democratic Party to the ground once?

    heh... (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:17:53 PM EST
    Once? What did you call the thumpin' the party brought upon itself in the 90s? The 70s? The 60s?

     The primary is over and people are still calling Obama and his supporters sexists?

     I mean really...it is too much to stomach.  All of these posts are just fanning the flames of people who feel that half of the world was slighted by the Obama camp, and Obama himself.  It isn't about the media, it isn't even about dissecting the sexism.  Just Obamabash '08, and then when someone is reminded of questionable practices in the primaries (which, btw, this post obviously alludes to, since Clinton is no longer in a race) you start with "the primary is over get over it."

     If the primary is over and that does it, why are we dissecting the sexism of the media in the primaries?  

     Just sayin'...

    Parent

    Why would the end of the primary (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:28:46 PM EST
    make someone, anyone, not sexist anymore?  That's like saying that the end of the football season means that I'm not a Packers fan anymore.

    Parent
    Here's a better question: (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    How about a post about sexism in the media that is unrelated to the primaries or Senator Clinton? Perhaps sexism on MTV?

     I doubt you're really interested in that discussion.  Like I said, it is Obamabash 08 whenever anything related to the primaries, the GE or Obama is posted.

    Parent

    Well that would be difficult (5.00 / 5) (#213)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    since I haven't watched MTV for over a decade, and don't remember much of it before that.  I'm guessing TL doesn't have a big MTV demographic.

    However, I and many others are perfectly capable of discussing sexism across a range of professions and arenas.

    A couple of reasons it keeps coming up here are because 1) some posters deny/belittle it; 2) as soon as it comes up, some posters immediately start talking about racism, as if the existence of the latter negates the existence of the former; and 3) because we've so recently witnessed pervasive, raging, and severe proof that sexism is alive and well in the US and those who suggest otherwise are eminently mockworthy.

    Parent

    If one was just talking about sexism (none / 0) (#221)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:31:21 PM EST
    ...one wouldn't devolve into Obamabashing.  That's why I don't take many of the posts on sexism very seriously, to be honest.  I think both sexism and racism played a role in the primary.  I would be happy to rationally discuss that.  But I see no reason to enable Obamabashers.  That lot is as bad as Hillary haters.

    Parent
    I agree. (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by rjarnold on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    It would have been one thing if it was just a whole lot of commenters, but the whole thing was encouraged by Markos. He accused the Clintons of using racial tactics because they made Obama darker in an ad. Even right wing sites wouldn't go with that bogus story, and Markos still hasn't apologized for it.

    And then when the comments got really, really negative against Hillary, he said that the whole site didn't have to be fair to Hillary because she didn't represent their values (whatever those may be). Markos has become almost as mockable as Olbermann.

    Oil at $250 a barrel? (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by magisterludi on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:56:24 PM EST
    Obama or McCain are going to face a world on fire, and much of it brought on by the good old USA. We don't have four years to start getting things right- we're behind the 8-ball NOW.

    We can only hope and pray that one of these boobs actually cares more about keeping a livable world than keeping the corporate coffers full.

    I wonder how "free trade" will fare with the skyrocketing price of transportation? More unintended consequences, I suppose.

    we, the people, will bear the brunt. (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:10:22 PM EST
    as usual.

    Parent
    Not enough but a start (none / 0) (#223)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:34:36 PM EST
    can be found on McCain's website in his Lexington Project for energy independence.  I would imagine Obama has something similar.  So the question becomes, who do you trust?

    Parent
    Sexism was only one of the weapons (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by WillBFair on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:38:13 AM EST
    of the Obama camp. I saw ageism, race baiting, false accusations, childish sneers and insults, and nonstop rhetorical tricks, like cherry picking the Clinton's failures to distract attention from the most spectacular governing record of our time, and really too many others to list. That's not counting the media smear campaign and unspeakable acts of the dnc.
    It was startling to see all this in the democratic party, and though I'll vote for Obama, there's a cultural divide between us a mile wide; they've turned the party into a rube fest that other dems wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
    As for prose, his mea culpa looks to be strategic. Probably kos is trying to mend fences with puma. That he's late, doesn't offer to make ammends, and only notices the sexism is all a bit too suspicious for me.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com  
     

    I'd like an answer once and for all: (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:59:50 AM EST
    Please tell me how Jesse Jackson is not one of the good guys.  I still see remarks here about Bill having dissed Obama in SC by comparing him to Jesse Jackson.  So I did my homework with this result:

    Clinton's statement on January 26 that "[Rev.] Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator [Barack] Obama's [D-IL] running a good campaign."

    And I keep trying to say that Jackson is no small figure in American history.  Read Wikipedia for his internation exploits,  But about the campaign issue. this:

    Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, prompting R.W. Apple of the New York Times to call 1988 "the Year of Jackson". [17]

    He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).[18]. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.[3]

    Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

    And also:
    Jackson started the "Rainbow Coalition" of various minority groups, including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Arab-Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, family farmers, the poor and working class, and homosexuals, as well as European American progressives ....

    Is Jackson a figure of fun for not having succeeded back then?  Should he not have run while we waited for Obama?

    Call Me Cynical (4.90 / 10) (#13)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    But I just don't buy it.

    Why is everyone coming out of the woodwork now and admitting (and barely apologizing) for the hateful rhetoric and bile they, and their fellow Obama supporters threw at HRC? Why?

    It's like suddenly, they woke up from a coma and saw how damaging all that hate-speech was, and we as her supporters are supposed to pat them on their backs and say things like: "Oh finally, but better late than never!" and "It's alright, we all make mistakes and you're forgiven!"

    No! It doesn't work that way. In fact, it makes me even more furious. It's like someone slapping you across the face and then minutes later, apologizing for it and offering to ice the bruise.

    We weren't blind supporters (or followers, some would say) of Sen. Clinton. We believed in her ability, her strength, her character, her leadership, her experience, her intelligence. I am a 26 y.o. male, and I know there were millions like me and older who supported her. We were not her core group (older women) that the media loved to say she had in the bag.

    But these idiots (media, and Obama supporters) trashed us along with her, and now they want to apologize and say they "see the light?" WTH!

    I'm not a full-blooded PUMA, as I won't be voting for McCain, but I'll only be voting downticket. I just don't buy and appreciate the sudden conciliatory language and outpouring of unity. Not now, not ever. I'm not even a Democrat anymore, sad to say.

    On a sidenote, I had to do a double-take as I was driving eastbound into D.C. on I66 this afternoon, when I saw a gigantic sign hanging next to an American flag on a bridge that said, quite plainly, P.U.M.A. with tick-box next to it. Has the movement really evolved that much or is it something else; something coincidental?

    Post Unity Confession is good for the soul (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    As David Lightman says
    Unity is a lush green blip on a hilly highway, easy to miss.
    P.U.M.A. it seems is easily accessed via the Interstate.

    Parent
    It means that Obama and his supporters (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    really will "say anything to win".

    Parent
    This discussion on this site (1.33 / 3) (#121)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:33:19 PM EST
    Makes me sick.  Obviously for many in the TL community you must be wearing a white sheet to be considered racist.  This is a white progressive site.  There is no place for color.  

    I see that the (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:08:54 PM EST
    OJ comment was deleted.  Good.  "What is the African American community thinking" is totally inappropriate.

    I am sorry you feel uncomfortable here, Sam.  I agree with you that Michelle Obama needs to be defended as rigorously as Hillary was.  And potshots against Obama have to stop.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:12:57 PM EST
    I agree with you that Michelle Obama needs to be defended as rigorously as Hillary was.

    Defended by Obama supporters?

    Parent

    By everybody. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    I think if you care about sexism, you should defend Mrs. Obama when she is attacked.  I don't think supporting Senator Clinton and fighting attacks on Mrs. Obama are mutually exclusive.

    Parent
    Nice sentiment. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    I think if you care about sexism, you should defend Mrs. Obama when she is attacked.

    Too bad Obama supporters didn't think of it sooner.

    Well, some of them, like Alec, will find out what sexism finally is when Michelle Obama becomes its target.

    Then maybe we all can decide that it's not good or right, no matter who's at the center of it.

    Parent

    If Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:55:26 PM EST
    being attacked in a sexist manner brings some of the Obama supporters to the light, then that will be a great thing.  

    Parent
    You are showing your lack of knowledge (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:18:20 PM EST
    of this site. Several of the site's regular community members are African Americans and quite a few others are Latinos. For a relatively small site, TL is a pretty diverse group.

    For something to be considered racist it has to be based on a valid argument that what is said is racial in context. To stretch the MLK statement, "fairy tale" and discussing demographics into a racial slurs IMO dilutes the very meaning of "racial slurs."  

    Parent

    These accusations are way over the top. (none / 0) (#141)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:55:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, go on over to the Black Agenda (none / 0) (#160)
    by derridog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:16:52 PM EST
    Report, where they share many of our views of Mr. Obama.

    Parent
    I always thought it was silly (1.00 / 12) (#63)
    by roadburdened on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:02:53 PM EST
    to bring her gender into it, even when Carville turned her into a tranny. Watching the Clinton entitlement shatter was the real fun.

    I always love when the pigs (4.66 / 12) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:14:06 PM EST
    reveal themselves so clearly.

    You are suspended from commenting in any thread of mine EVER.

    Jeralyn and TChris may have a different view.

    Never comment in a thread I author again.

    Parent

    Name some (none / 0) (#89)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:45:42 PM EST
    and see if you can come up with something on the order of the SC campaign memo where the Obama camp laid out how to play the race card against the Clintons.

    Bet you don't find a comparable example.

    I'm curious what you all think of (none / 0) (#137)
    by NJDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    this

    Ed Rendell's new group to rival PUMA.

    I hope it's ok to post it here, as I'm looking at it from a purely 'political-maneuver' standpoint.  Is it just me or did he now only legitimize and call more attention to them?  

    Sounds like Rendell wants (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    some more media time.

    Parent
    From the comments I've read, (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:04:09 PM EST
    the PUMAs aren't going to go quietly.

    I see them digging their heels in even more.  Rendell doesn't get it either, apparently.

    This isn't going to go away.

    Parent

    At least he's recognizing it (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:22:51 PM EST
    and trying to do something. Many O folks just think it's a handful of womenfolks and "they'll get over it". . . . heh.


    Parent
    Yes, but the marginal improvement (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:09:52 PM EST
    isn't enough to count for anything.

    The comments from PUMAs indicate they've not been convinced.

    The last line about hounds being smarter -- that was just stupid and bad politics.  I think it was supposed to be a joke, maybe?  But it stuck out as very odd, at a minimum.

    That said, Ed's essay is much closer to real reaching out than the various messages aimed at non-Obama supporters of 'get over it', 'if you weren't so ignorant you'd realize you have nowhere else to go', 'you're not a real Democrat', 'But but but the Supreme Court!' etc etc.  I found it worth a read.

    Where he loses the argument, or fails to be persuasive, is when he says he/they "agree with many of your grievances", particularly concerns about the caucuses etc, but has no proposals or indication of changing them.  Without addressing the PUMA concerns, I don't see how HOUND is likely to bring about unity.

    PS -- I'm really, really sick of all the 'no one has done more for __ than me' bragging.  Even if it's true, hell, I'm just sick of it.

    Parent

    Recognizing it, yes. Maybe mocking it? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    That would be unwise.  But Rendell cracks me up, and I've read the Pumas site but only glancingly, so it's not my call.  Just wondering about whether he has taken sufficient care in walking a fine line -- as if it is crossed, that could be incredibly counter-productive to his apparent purpose.

    Parent
    I don't think he's fool enough to (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:08:25 PM EST
    mock it. In the end it would just hurt Hillary and the Dem party.

    I also only do the glance/read over there at the moment, so I don't know if he's crossed a line. Personally, I think he was a bit hard sell on the unity, but also echoed Hillary. I think many of the Dems who are urging unity and saying that Obama and Clinton stand for the same on UHC and other Dem issues need to sit down with Obama and get HIM on that page. Or else we won't be buying that line. He trashed health care, lied about NAFTA and on and on . . . Fixing the primaries is but one issue. Obama needs a Dem platform to stand up and fight for . . . IMO  :)

    Parent

    Ed and the rest of the Dems (5.00 / 6) (#205)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    are fulfilling their own Unity quotas, I think.  After watching Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Larry King the other night, and a few other choice media appearances by Dems recently, I don't think any of them give 2 flips whether they persuade PUMAs or anyone else to 'unify' as long as they're seen to be trying.

    There's some sort of cheerleading quota they all have to fill, the former Clinton supporters most of all, and they're trying to fill it.  First step after the loyalty oaths, I imagine.

    Parent

    Good for PUMA (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    Don't really see HOUND being an effective counter.  In fact, I don't think there is an effective counter to it, since it just sprung up out of virtual nowhere.  It may be the only real grass roots activism I've seen in this whole campaign.


    Parent
    lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:15:26 PM EST
    While the PUMA may be more swift and athletic, the HOUND is smarter and more perceptive.

    a hound perceptive?! As Bill would say . . .

    Give. Me. A. Break.


    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 5) (#194)
    by Nadai on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    doesn't he just name it B!TCH and get it over with?

    Parent
    HOUND? (none / 0) (#147)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST
    I'm sorry, Gov. Rendell, but that's just laughable.

    I wish he didn't put his name to such a thing. I really like him as he, in a lot of ways, has the best (some not so good qualities) of Hillary and Bill.

    He is intelligent, tenacious, loyal and goal-oriented. And he also says and does more than he should (like Bill) sometimes which can put him in hot water. i.e. like this HOUND group.

    You can bet this is gonna be news, if it already isn't, on the cable newsers.

    Parent

    I know the phrase was inappropriate (none / 0) (#153)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:11:56 PM EST
    but I think considering the OJ comment, it is understandable.  I hope you will not ban samtaylor2.

    well, that's what I thought--seems like (none / 0) (#169)
    by NJDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:25:11 PM EST
    we're all on the same page--pretty stupid move...

    And no, doesn't seem like this will silence the PUMA, most likely does the opposite.

    Big Tent... (none / 0) (#228)
    by prose on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:39:53 AM EST
    thanks for the kind words.  This exchange has been a lot different than things were a few months ago.  Its hard to believe the way a heated contest can effect a person.  I said things to and about you in the primary season that were uncalled for.  While I regret that many on this site are still angry against Obama supporters like me, I'm glad you have graciously recognized my efforts in diaries today.  

    The Shepard lost his flock. (none / 0) (#230)
    by The Realist on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:15:54 AM EST
    This guy is an associate youth minister? i'm inclined to question his pastoral abilities if he even, admittedly, bit his tongue while others joked and participated in the sexism of his flock.

    Perhaps, he did not know the definition of "sexism" but, as a pastor, he should be well informed of the basic concept of right and wrong. I'm not inclined to hoist this guy on my shoulders and praise him for seeing the light. He should have BEEN the light.

    Everyone has their own path to the light (none / 0) (#231)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:45:00 AM EST
    I'm glad prose shared his experience.  I believe he was sincere, and I posted him a comment - first one over there in over 6 months.

    stilted empathy (none / 0) (#232)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM EST
    one's sensitivity to sexism in others and oneself comes from the same personal source as ones sensitivity to racism: ones capacity for empathy.

    That the diarist thinks he has been sufficiently concerned about racism in the media while being blind to sexism raises several considerations:

    • he probably understands neither racism or sexism
    • if he does see the light on sexism, he still needs a gut check on his incomplete capacity for empathy
    • he needs to check his biases in his personal life, not just the media. Seeing bias in others is far easier than seeing it in oneself.


    Prose's comment # 228 (none / 0) (#234)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:00:23 AM EST
    I still think he just doesn't get it.

    "While I regret that many on this site are still angry against Obama supporters like me, I'm glad you have graciously recognized my efforts in diaries today."

    Don't regret the anger. Address it, or is one Kos diary supposed to heal everything?  


    Actually spoke too soon. (none / 0) (#235)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    Sorry. prose did a few responses to defend himself here and ends up surprised there is still angry and no unity (from some) after a weak apology.

    Credit for posting, but my verdict remains the same.

    Doesn't get it.

    Molly Pitcher: that's not it (none / 0) (#236)
    by BoGardiner on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    Molly,

    The rationale by those who cynically twisted Bill Clinton's SC remarks to fan racial divisiveness was not so much that Jesse Jackson isn't a good guy.

    Clinton inarguably was referring to Barack's color doing in making the Jackson analogy.  He responded, as might any pundit, to whether  Obama's SC success was surprising by noting Jackson's success in SC.

    But Obama supporters, and now Obama himself, tell us that any time a reference is made to Obama's color, it's a racist, coded effort to remind people of his color.  Because, you see, we keep forgetting his color.  And as Obama now explains,  any noting of his color is a deliberate effort strike fear and loathing in our hearts.

    Keep in mind this works only for race.

    Thus, Obama supporters tell us, it's not sexist for their beloved Andrew Sullivan to call Hillary "Nixon in a Pantsuit," but it is racist to call Barack "John Kerry with a tan."

    Got it?

    Me neither.

    Alot of people (none / 0) (#237)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    seem to need to be reminded again (and again), that HRC somehow managed to take good care of herself for the last twenty years without too many people's help. And this ongoing outrage-fest is really starting to smell badly of typical, cowardly American, guard-the-powerful-at-all-costs morality (for lack of a better word.) I mean, I get it: it's a scary world and alot of people need someone to look up to and sometimes to hide behind, but it's still a pity that so few could muster the guts to channel some of that outrage and  of Iraq -- who've already defended HRC's honor (and "bad intelligence") with their blood -- rather than investing it in pretending that they never existed. Nothings more "unprecedentedly sexist" than a cluster bomb landing in the middle of a playground, however offensive that brute fact may be to tender sensibilities.

    Channel some of that outrage (none / 0) (#238)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    into defending the women and children of Iraq, should say.

    BoG (none / 0) (#239)
    by lynnerkat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    brava!!

    Seeing The Light Open Thread | 214 comments (214 topical)