:: 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!

:: We Should Not Vote for Obama

If we do something, things still might stay the same.
If we do nothing, we KNOW they will stay the same.

I didn't think I could get any more disgusted. But here we go again.

This is tonight's edition of the New York Times' Opinionator, written by Chris Suellentrop. Here's the link, but I'm going to quote the whole thing here.

Emphasis added:

Maybe it was her night after all: Hillary Clinton decided not to withdraw from the presidential campaign tonight, and the liberals in blogville are not happy about it, to put it mildly.

Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic begins his blog post on Clinton’s speech by writing, “I probably shouldn’t write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I’ve found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different.”

He continues, "I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who’ve been enabling her behavior, I’d say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain’s most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton’s payroll."

At The American Prospect’s Tapped blog, Dana Goldstein calls Clinton’s speech “troublesome.” “The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary’s entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters — instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama,” Goldstein writes. “Yes, there’s a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made ‘invisible?’ Who’s supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over. Hillary tonight was a woman standing down more than half her party’s supporters and practically the entire Democratic establishment.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait uses even tougher language. “I’d say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama,” he writes at The Plank, TNR’s staff blog. Chait also writes of the speech:

“Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn’t concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he’s won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama’s campaign on its “achievements,” but barely musters a single good word about him.”

Chait’s colleagues at The New Republic are almost as exercised. Isaac Chotiner, also writing at The Plank, calls the speech “combative and petty” and headlines his post, “A Total Disgrace.” He concludes, “If Clinton wants people to believe that she cares more about the Democratic Party than her own career, she is failing badly.” Noam Scheiber says the speech was “outrageous,” “delusional,” and “inflammatory.” Scheiber writes at The Stump, TNR’s campaign blog:

“What good could possibly come of this? With Hillary proclaiming herself the legitimate winner, they’re clearly going to say “keep going.” If she actually does keep going, that’s a disaster for the Democratic Party. And if she doesn’t, you’ve just drawn a ton of attention to the fact that a large chunk of the party doesn’t accept Obama as the legimiate nominee. No, worse: you’ve encouraged them to think that, then drawn attention to it. What a disaster.”

End quote.

So, according to these geniuses, the number one priority is healing the rift in the party and bringing Hillary's supporters over to Obama. So say Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam.

In fact, they criticize Hillary for being "petty," "combative," and "inflammatory."

And yet it's Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam who go out of their way to insult Hillary, her staff and her supporters. They cannot muster one gracious word. They can't stifle one petty, combative, inflammatory comment. Apparently they just can't help it. Their nastiness - their hatred just brims over.

And that angry, angry Bill Clinton! Why, Obama's bully boys would never show anger! No, Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam are the very picture of cool and conciliatory thinking.

And they wonder why we don't want to join them.

Can they not hear themselves?

Are they stupid?

Or are they still so high off the past six months of proclaiming how much more intelligent, more ethical, more strategic, more educated and more wealthy they are than those lowly Clinton supporters that they've burnt out a critical mass of brain cells?

Are they addicted to the ego boost?

Is Obamamania the political equivalent of crack? And are these guys too far gone to be saved?

The answer to all those questions is "yes," especially #3.

These guys have breathed in - and out - the fumes from so many self-congratulatory Obama homages and ego-boosting anti-Clinton bromides that they have lost their critical faculties.

Political crackheads. That's what we're left with.

Well, I'm not having it and I don't think you should either.

As the video I posted earlier says, we loathe Ronald Reagan for having tacitly allowed the so-called Southern Strategy to drum up racist support for his 1980 campaign.

Barack Obama has tacitly allowed a - what shall we call it? Testosterone strategy? That doesn't even do it justice. Its an insult to testosterone. What do you call it when a candidate walks on stage to Jay-Z's "[I've got] 99 Problems [but a bitch ain't one]"? A Prick Strategy? Well, that will have to do.

To get elected, Reagan benefited from the racist Southern Strategy. He never denounced the racism drummed up on his behalf.

To get elected, Obama benefited from the sexist, misogynist Prick Strategy. He's never denounced the sexism and misogyny slung on his behalf.

And I doubt he ever will.

Look, we don't need to agonize over this. Obama and his supporters don't want support from feminists. They don't respect us. This is not a hard decision.

In November, I will vote down-ballot. But I won't vote for President. (Forget doing a write-in, no one counts them). And then I will look for the total numbers of votes cast, and the total numbers of votes cast for President. Subtract the total number of votes cast for President from the total number of votes cast for a down-ballot item. The remainder is the protest vote.

Say No in November.

We can do it!


Read more!

:: Kristof: We're Not Ready for a Feminist President (Part Two)

Nicholas Kristof says our country isn't ready for a feminist President... and that's okay.

The most disturbing part of today’s contribution by Nicholas Kristof to the New York Times’ daily dose of anti-Clintonism (Who Is More Electable?) is this:

Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.

And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up.

Moreover, my hunch is that a conservative woman like Margaret Thatcher may have a better chance of being elected than a feminist with a distinguished record of standing up for women’s rights. For the same reason, Senator Obama probably has a better chance than a black candidate who emerged from the civil rights movement.

Quite simply, Mr. Kristof asserts that there is too much sexism in our culture to allow a woman to become president – except perhaps for a conservative woman such as Margaret Thatcher, who would disavow feminism and actively reaffirm the traditional power status quo.

Mr. Kristof suggests something similar of Senator Obama – that an African-American candidate who lacks a history of standing up for African-American rights is more palatable to whites than one who has directly challenged the status quo. The fact that Senator Obama has no notable accomplishments with regard to civil rights (other than the fact of his candidacy for President) is apparently an asset in this election. That is backhanded praise indeed.

What disturbs me his tacit acceptance of this situation. Instead of encouraging people of good will to recognize and oppose sexism, he treats it like an immutable fact of life. If we don’t challenge it now, how will we ever reach “the right time” for a female President? We already lag behind many countries around the world.

I posted the following comment at the Times in response to the column; I reproduce it here because it never saw the light of day though a comment I posted later showed up. The Times isn’t very timely or careful about posting readers’ comments. Perhaps they are still getting used to the idea.

----------------------

After months of feeling enthusiastic about the prospect of Senator Clinton becoming president, I am finally being worn down. It may be that Mr. Kristof is correct in saying that this country is too steeped in misogyny to elect a woman to its highest office.

Only Senator Clinton is said to have “just” seven years of experience because she was first elected to public office in 2000. The assumption is that the other 28 years of her 35 year career were spent being “just” a wife, an ornament, a figurehead who “poured tea” in exotic locales. I am told that her substantial, demonstrable achievements outside of elected office simply “don’t count.” Yet no one suggests that Mitt Romney’s experience saving the Salt Lake City Olympics or Senator McCain’s experience as a soldier “don’t count” because they didn’t hold elected office at the time.

Only Senator Clinton is criticized for the personal moral failings of her spouse. I am told she should not become President because her husband’s past infidelity would tarnish the White House. But no one suggests that Senator McCain should not become President because he would bring to the White House a spouse who publicly admitted to (and apologized for) drug abuse and embezzlement at a difficult time in her life. No one suggests his moral character is compromised because of the actions of his wife.

Only Senator Clinton is described as someone who would be “nothing” or “nowhere” without her spouse. I frequently hear that her only real achievement is her marriage to a successful man. Yet no one suggests that Senator McCain, whose political career flourished only after he married an heiress whose father bankrolled his campaigns, would be nothing without his wife. No one suggests Mitt Romney would be nowhere if his father had not been a beloved governor.

Only Senator Clinton is posited as ineligible for the office of President because a family member held that office (Andrew Sullivan, for example, recently wrote a column suggesting her candidacy violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution). But members of the Kennedy family are regularly praised for their family’s commitment to public service, and Ted and Caroline are praised for “passing the baton” of JFK and RFK to Senator Obama. No one suggests that future Kennedys should be barred from office because of that family’s disproportionate representation in national politics.

Only Senator Clinton is regularly derided by commentators in the mainstream media, such as MSNBC or the op-ed pages of the Times, for being an “emasculating,” “castrating,” “cold,” “imperious,” “witchy” harridan who is injurious to male self-esteem. But no respectable commentator would dare mock Senator Obama using pernicious racial stereotypes, or suggest that his success comes at the expense of Caucasian America. Instead, such an action would be resoundingly and rightly condemned.

Only Senator Clinton is said to be a “disgrace” to other women because of her actions within her marriage (meaning, because she did not divorce her husband over his infidelity). No one suggests Senator McCain is a “disgrace” to other men because he cheated on and subsequently divorced his first wife after she suffered a disfiguring and debilitating car accident. Senator Clinton’s behavior as a wife is considered integral to her moral character, while Senator McCain’s behavior as a husband is considered tangential or meaningless.

It is has been deemed unimportant – even by certain well-known feminists – that no candidate except Senator Clinton has a track record of working on issues that pertain to gender equality such as the disproportionate level of violence directed at women by men, the dearth of social and governmental support systems for women who choose to give birth and raise children, the degradation of women in the media and the impact this has on the self-esteem and safety of young girls, the trafficking and enslavement of women to supply the demand for commercial sex work, and the myriad gender issues pertaining to human rights and international development. But the fact that a President Obama would make a positive contribution to the self-esteem of young African-Americans is regularly (and rightly) recognized as a feature of his appeal.

Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. The fact that I am learning to face is that very few people – including few “progressives” - actually care if women face prejudice, ridicule, insults, threats of violence or actual violence simply because they are female. Very few people care if women aren’t treated fairly.

Nevertheless I will continue to volunteer and contribute to Senator Clinton’s campaign and hope that she will be our next President.

Read more!

:: Kristof: We're Not Ready for a Feminist President (Part One)

Nicholas Kristof uses lousy logic to claim Obama is more electable than Clinton.

Nicholas Kristof's column today in the New York Times is called Who Is More Electable. It counts towards their quota of presenting at least one anti-Hillary Clinton opinion column per day. Mr. Kristof argues that Hillary is less electable that Barack Obama in a match up against John McCain. For the first installment of today's three part commentary (I woke up seriously early this morning), let's recount and dispatch with his main points.

It's not hard to do:

- Kristof argues that Obama is more electable because he has won more states than Hillary thus far. This is comparing apples and oranges, since caucuses are designed to determine the preferences of the party faithful, not all registered and self-identified Democratic voters. It is also immaterial, since presidential elections aren't won by a count of states; they are won by a count of electoral votes, and the states Obama won have far few electoral votes than those won by Hillary.

- Kristof argues that the endorsement of Obama by Susan Eisenhower means Republicans will vote for him. First of all, who cares about Susan Eisenhower. Ron Reagan Jr. was a Democrat while his dad was in the White House; it didn't indicate that Republicans wanted to cross party lines and vote Democratic. The fact is that when faced with a vehemently anti-choice candidate such as McCain versus a pro-choice Democratic candidate, plenty of Republican women cross party lines. Or call themselves "independents" to save the trouble.

- Kristof cites two polls that show hypothetical match ups with McCain beating Clinton by a percentage within the margin of error, while Obama beats McCain by a percentage within the margin of error. First of all, big deal - the difference is so minor as to be statistically insignificant. Second, we've already seen how off the polls can be when attempting to determine the level of support for Clinton.

- Kristof displays an alarming ignorance of presidential politics by claiming Obama is more electable than Clinton because he as done better in notoriously red states. He doesn't seem to grasp that red states and called red states because they traditionally - some without exception - vote Republican. It doesn't matter that Obama did better than Clinton in Idaho or Alabama, because he will not carry those states. It does matter than Clinton did better in the crucial battleground state (like red states, they are called "battleground" for a reason) of Florida.

- Kristof again compares Obama to JFK, a weird claim. I won't even go into that because its so deeply weird, except to say that the same claim by Teddy and Caroline (and Patrick - don't forget Patrick!) proved to be unpersuasive in the Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts (where Clinton beat Obama by 10 points).

I don't know why Mr. Kristof writes about a topic he clearly knows little about. Hubris, I guess. Lots of people think they can play "political strategist" just because they have an opinion.

He does such a good job reporting and analyzing international affairs, especially the ways policy decisions affect vulnerable people. I wish he would stick to that – it is so very needed.

On domestic politics, he's worse the useless.

... to be continued.... Read more!

:: Damnation Through Praise

As a fervent Hillary supporter, my heart sunk when I saw the title of David Brooks' New York Times column this morning: The Obama-Clinton Issue. God, no, I thought. I am just not equipped to handle a Brooks pro-Hillary column.

Luckily I could breathe a sigh of relief - the column is actually pro-Obama. But just as I feared would be the case for Hillary, Brooks' words are a classic example of the "with friends like these" principle. While I think Obama's campaign rhetoric leaves him open to this kind of, um, love letter, this is too much - the campaign version of cruel-and-unusual punishment.

Brooks praises Obama for his consistent, pensive, docile demeanor:

But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them… This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

Obama did not respond to his fatherlessness or his racial predicament with anger and rage, but as questions for investigation, conversation and synthesis. He approaches politics the same way. […] He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways.

Oy. Brooks, short version: I'm for Obama because he seems unlikely to push back hard against conservatives.

As usual, I don't agree. I think Obama would push back hard against a number of conservative demands. Whether or not he has the ability to do so effectively - and more effectively than any other candidate - is in question.

Brooks, a compulsive science-molester, adds a note of wackiness to the procedings with one of his weird analogies:

The presidency is a bacterium.

It finds the open wounds in the people who hold it. It infects them, and the resulting scandals infect the presidency and the country.

Okay, big guy. Keep hitting that 'nog.

Happily, the column ends with a short, simple sentence that makes sense of it all:

"Bob Herbert is off today."

Read more!