:: Strange Times

Erica Jong has a repulsive column up at the repulsive Huffington Post. Ms. Jong is participating in the "just who do those ignorant hicks think they are" message strategy. The highlights are:

"Like Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin calls up memories of tough nannies, nurses, governesses and mommies.... If you think the real America means guns and motorcycles, snowmobiles and beauty contests, this pistol-packin' Momma's for you. Irving Berlin was wrong: you can get a man with a gun....White trash America certainly has allure for voters. Some people think rednecks are more American than Harvard educated intellectuals of mixed race."

But I quote this not to disgust you; rather, I do so to provide the context for an awesome comment I saw in response to the article (not at HuffPo, of course; at The Reclusive Leftist.

Mike J. says:

I read the article and my reaction to it was not nearly as restrained. I doubt it will be cleared by the moderators.

This is absolutely the craziest political year ever. The Clintons being accused of racism. Conservative base of the GOP rallied by a woman. Republicans rallying against sexism in the media. Feminists telling women they should stay home and raise babies, not run for office.

If I were into the Book of Revelations stuff, this would definitely look like End Times to me.

And it is only getting stranger. Read more!

:: Right Back Atcha

I watched Governor Palin's speech last night. She rocked. I cannot believe this woman is not on our side. She was strong, smart, confident, funny, tough and likeable. There probably is not a single policy position of hers that I agree with.  But I was rooting for her when she told all the smarmy, sneering jackwipes to go scratch. I was rooting for her when she made them look like the scared little boys they are. 

And I was rooting for her when she handed Obama his ass.

Why can't she be one of ours?  Why does she have to be so conservative? Why, I ask you, why, Doggamit!

There aren't any poll numbers yet that reflect the speech; I don't think we'll see those until Sunday or Monday. But there is data from Nielsen:

More than 37.2 million people tuned in for coverage of the third night of the 2008 Republican National Convention, which featured Sarah Palin’s much anticipated national debut.

Wednesday night’s RNC broadcasts attracted just a 1.1 million fewer viewers than Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech on day four of the Democratic convention.

Coverage of day three of the GOP convention drew a large female audience (19.5 million) — 5.2 million more women than tuned in for day two of the Democratic convention, when Hillary Clinton addressed the delegates, and 6.9 million more women than watched Joe Biden accept the Democrats’ vice presidential nomination last Wednesday night.

I think that's the first evidence that the Dem leadership screwed up royally by unleashing the viciousness they let run rampant during the primary.  Here's where the brain trust went wrong:

1. They drove interest in her speech sky high. Surely a good many of the viewers were like me, curious to see how she would do. I'd have been less curious if the Dems hadn't made such a spectacle of her.


2. They set the bar for success ridiculously low. If the Dems had prepped the media and the public that Palin was a vicious attack dog and a formidable speaker, the response to her speech might have been "huh, she wasn't that big a deal." Instead the headlines were "Palin the Rising Star."


3. They set themselves up to be seen as the sneering elitists they are.  They actually built with their own actions the paradigm of Ivy League Snob vs. Real America days before the Republicans went for it at their convention.  


4. They revived the problem of Obama's lack of experience. They bought right into an Obama-Palin deathmatch, with McCain hovering above the fray.

Has the Dem leadership learned a lesson yet?  Are they going to get their shit together?  I don't think so.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - a guy who is supposed to be on our side - had his press guy make the following statement in response to last night's speech:

"Shrill and sarcastic political attacks may fire up the Republican base, but they don't change the fact that a McCain-Palin administration would mean four more years of failed Bush-Cheney policies."

Shrill.  Everybody gets the implications of that word.  So I guess this was Reid's way of signaling that Dems should be comfortable using low blows - because hey, she *deserves* it, right?  And sure enough, right in the first handful of comments, we see Our People having a good ol' hatefest:

- I guess the lady at the check out counter in Wal Mart should be groomed to run for Secretary of State…….. this is becoming pitiful and beyond a joke

- So how is this going to fix the domestic and international problems we face? She brings to the table NOTHING. Quite pathetic.

- I don't think Senator Reid should dignify this parasite by responding to her laughable attacks.

Over at the Democratic Strategist, some people are doing their bit to keep the Democrats in the gutter:

But the bigger question is whether Sarah Palin herself, in her acceptance speech tonight, does some tastefully delivered whining of her own. To put it another way, does she cast herself as Everywoman--a highly sympathetic "hockey mom" who's being beat up on by elitist Democrats and media figures--or as Superwoman--a highly acccomplished executive whose slim resume disguises a deep knowledge of public affairs and a demonstrated commitment to "reform?"

That's right, she's just whining. Cause that's what women do, whine whine whine.  They don't have serious concerns, real concerns, like men do.  

[Seriously, how does "whining" fit into the "Everywoman / Superwoman" dichotomy?  Being a hockey mom is whining? Or being an executive is whining? Or perhaps its RWF (Running While Female) that constitutes whining?]

Of course there have been plenty of completely inappropiate charges hurled around the media - that Palin can't be a good mother and run for high office, that she should be too scandalized by having a pregnant daughter to even think of joining the ticket, and that she's a bad person because of her own reproductive choices. Not to mention the characterization of an elected Governor as a "joke" and a "stewardess" (Bill Maher). And of course, according to Senator Reid, she's "shrill."

These are serious matters to women who want to succeed in politics and other spheres. Responding to them isn't "whining," regardless of whether the target is a Republican or a Democrat. It is important to address the use of stereotypes, constrictive gender roles and shaming as political tools against a female candidate. The deployment of stereotypes - even against an "enemy" - reinforces their validity and normalizes their use.  Words like "shrill" or "bimbo" or "beauty queen" don't just criticize an opponent for being harshly negative, unintelligent or lacking in substance.  They invoke the opponent's gender, making gender a part of the problem.   If someone wants to say that Governor Palin is inexperienced or too negative, so be it.  But calling her a "bimbo" or "shrill" is like saying the problem is that she's an inexperienced woman, or a harshly negative woman.  

Gender equality is supposed to be a core Democratic value. But you won't see this kind of essay at the Democratic Strategist.   It is a terrible thing to hear slimemasters like Giuliani scoring points on this issue.  Because he wouldn't have the opportunity to score those points if the Democrats would have just stood up for women in the first place.  Reid and Dean and the Obamabots created the opportunity that Giuliani et al are now exploiting.

Who will save the Democrats from themselves?  I don't have the slightest idea.

.

Read more!

:: How To Be An Asshole, Obamastyle

Clinton's primary ad addressing Obama's inexperience with emergencies of any kind was called "3 am."

Obama's text message announcing he picked someone other than Clinton for VP was sent at:  3 am.

Obama's superficial message: "take that, bitch."

Obama's deeper message: "I lack the maturity to be president. Elect me if you want important national decisions to be made by an arrogant prick whose ego will always come first."

To be clear:  the grave problem that this stunt highlights is not a matter of one candidate insulting another.  It is the Obama campaign's insistence on insulting the millions of Democratic voters who prefer someone else even while his numbers in battleground states are deflating.  He needs these voters, but he can't get past his own bitterness.  Instead he does something that will enhance their antipathy toward him, right on the eve of the Convention.

So where does that leave us, chitlins? We can vote for:

(1) a man with a terrible temper, who will sell out the Constitution for political gain, and who may stumble us into disaster, or

(2) a man who is a shallow and arrogant prick, who will sell out the Constitution for political gain, and who may stumble us into disaster, or

(3) none of the above; we need some real change and continuing to enable the Democratic party only stands in the way.

I'm going with 3.

Read more!

:: The Massive Tool(s) Report

Oh my god. These people are such massive tools.

First: the geniuses at Slate's "XX blog" - who have been bashing Hillary for months on end with every anti-feminist talking point to come out of the Obama campaign, but still call themselves feminists - are doing a live-interactive-web thingy at the ever-repellent (sorry, Buffy) Washington Post. I'll cut to the chase - check out this exchange, with a few formatting changes added because I can't help myself:

Edwardsville, Illinois:

I'm a big fan of Meghan O'Rourke's writing, but when she wrote that "Clinton's relationship to gender seemed at turns angry and deeply ambivalent" in contrast to Obama's relationship to race, I had to laugh.

Meghan, have you read "Dreams of My Father" or "Audacity of Hope"? If so, do you really believe that Obama's relationship to race is anything but "angry and deeply ambivalent?" I think the whole controversy with Rev. Wright arose from just that anger and ambivalence, and my Senator's quest to reconcile himself with race.

I also don't think his anger and ambivalence (or hers) ought to be counted as a negative. Shouldn't we all be angry about the role of race and gender in our society, still, after all this time? Aren't women all amibivalent about the impact our gender does or should have on our life choices? What do you think?

Meghan O'Rourke:

That's a really good point, and my only excuse is that I was writing overnight on deadline!

What I was trying to say, more precisely, was that in her demeanor on the campaign trail, Hillary (to my eyes) didn't manage to seem as open and humble about her situation as Obama did.

Obama is deeply ambivalent in those books: you're totally right. But on the stump he seemed willing to admit how hard it was for him -- and to have chosen to let people see how hard it was for him. So there's an ambivalence there, yes, but he managed to project a somewhat unified front ABOUT that ambivalence.

Whereas I felt Hillary switched back and forth more. Part of what I was getting at, or wanted to, IS that women do feel ambivalent and angry. And I nderstand Hillary's ambivalence and anger -- I really do. And I feel I've acted the way she has, writ small, in situations where I've felt chagrined that men seem to be given more authority by default.

But I do think it's the real challenge for women: how to care deeply about women's rights and equality while not becoming embittered.

And let's face the unfair, bitter truth: I, like many women, probably hold Hillary to a higher standard than I would many men. I wish that weren't the case, and I strive against it. But I'm sure I'm complicit in the double standard.

Like I said - what a tool.

Our next entry comes from yesterday's New York Times "Caucus" blog. Its the very patronizing item "For Clinton's Women Fans, Mourning and Anger." Here's your sign:

For many of these women, it was not just a matter of politics, but of identity. Older, more affluent, and often business-minded, Mrs. Clinton’s live audience last night resembled a more mature version of the cast of “Sex and the City.” Still, while they may be wearing Donna Karan and look as if life has treated them well, many said her struggle to gain the nomination -– and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way – mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world.

I can't muster anything more articulate; these fools have plumb worn me out. Please, someone else do it. Read more!

:: The Curious Case of the Contradictory Comments

A Tiny Mystery at our Very Own Doorstep

[New! See update below!]

I just want to point this out in case you missed it. Take a look at the two comments posted in response to the previous blog entry.

At 2:57pm, "onelight321" makes a critical but entirely rational-sounding and polite comment.

He even writes, "if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic human and connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign."

At 3:19pm, "onelight321" is a total freak.

As in "I'm sorry your deeply flawed, unscrupulous, despicable candidate lost. Ok, I'm not really sorry, as she is an insane sociopath."

So here's the mystery.

What could have happened in the intervening 22 minutes?

- Could a fellow student at the computer center, or a fellow inmate at the prison library, have jumped on, read the screen onelight123 left open, and taken advantage of onelight321's still-logged-in blogger identity?

- Did he post a comment before reading the item, only to read the item and become angry as all get-out - prompting the second, crazy comment?

- Is it a case of subconscious rage breaking free of the chains of repression? A Jeckyll and Hyde kind of thing?

- Might Obama have distributed different talking points during those 22 minutes, and onelight obediently switched gears?

- Crack? That stuff works pretty fast. Or so I'm told.

- Could both comments have come from two members of the same family? Meaning, perhaps onelight #1 is the mother, and #2 is her drain-bamaged 22 year old son? I'm talking likely demographics here people.

I fear this mystery may never be solved. Cool beans, though. I'd love to hear your theories (all three of you).

And no, of course I did not miss the irony of a guy posting two comments that actually demonstrate precisely the point I'm trying to make. Comment #1: how to blame Hillary for everything but in a polite and conciliatory manner. Comment #2: how to blame Hillary for everything in a way that confirms why I don't want to be part of a club that has people like that as members (and neither should you).

Feeling rather smug, I am.

UPDATE: As much as I don't want to spoil the fun, I think I've figured out at least one thing that happened in the past 22 minutes. It seems our new, demented friend spent time reading the rest of the posts, leaving comments similar to #2 (above) hither and yon.

So this what I think happened.

The Obama campaign sent out new talking points to their little blogger buddies telling them to be nice and giving them some suggestions. Phrases like "authentic human voice" sound exactly like what you'd get from a media hack. But onelight123 couldn't hold it together, for the very reasons I point out in my post. He couldn't stand to see someone - a girl, no less - disagreeing with him. He had to assert his moral superiority.

And that's what so much of this all comes down to, isn't it. Narcissistic - or insecure - guys who can't stand it when girls 'refuse' to agree with them.

Well, sucks to be them.

Read more!