Menu:

Recent comments

Links:

- The Mothership
- The old Wordpress site
- Our RSS feed
- Recent comments RSS feed

Version: 1.0
(July 25, 2005)

Being the post about anger, ridicule, sexism, Palin and the conservative presence at the mothership

Sep 10, 2008 by libjpn
I want to try and tie some threads together. The first one was the discussion of sexism. To paraphrase the question, how do people who claim to uphold progressive/liberal ideals end up tossing off sexist cracks about Palin? (or previously Hillary)

Say you want to buy some t-shirts. Before you go to the store to pick up some new t-shirts, you read something like this (which I agree with btw), and you think, well, i better simply make my own clothes. And you find that making your own clothes doesn't quite work because the materials are also sweatshop produced. So you decide to weave your own material, in order to make your own clothe. But they you find that the raw materials are often obtained in terrible conditions, so you decide to grow your own cotton, and dye it, and weave it and then sew it together to make your own clothes.

I'm obviously exaggerating, but the parallel is this. You are angry and you want to express your anger. Simply saying X gets me mad doesn't cut it, cause you want to ridicule Palin, you want to slip the shiv in rather than go berserk and scream imprecations. So you reach for an insulting frame that is within everyday discourse, be it uncaring mother/spouse, or fashionplate woman or some such. The fact is that trying to create a frame that is insulting but avoids plugging into notions that are carried around by society is nigh impossible, because frames have their power because they are easily accessible to the listener. So when someone complains of sexism inherent in those frames, it feels like you are told that you are supposed to disarm yourself. I suggested posting something about Obama or Biden, but there are no number of 'change we can believe in' videos that are going to match the sensation of delivering a cutting, sarcastic remark that other people will nod their heads to.

That links sexism and anger, and what I see is that there are a lot of angry liberals. And the anger is profound. So, as I have tried to point out, these comments shouldn't be taken as sexism on the part of the commentator, but as anger. It's like the scene in 12 angry men, where Lee J. Cobb, after previously asserting that the angry words that the defendant was heard to say show that he was a killer, ends up having this dialogue with Henry Fonda

    Juror # 8: I feel sorry for you. What it must feel like to want to pull the switch! Ever since you walked into this room, you've been acting like a self-appointed public avenger. You want to see this boy die because you personally want it - not because of the facts. You're a sadist! (# 3 lunges at # 8 but is held back)
    Juror # 3: Let me go! I'll kill him! I'll kill him!
    Juror # 8: (softly and defiantly) You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?

Now, mentioning no names, you can see the pattern above play out at ObWi when accusations are thrown, and I really dislike that, which is why I try and stick up for OCSteve and to a lesser extent, DaveC. And across the aisle in this thread, you see an ur-troll named Adam keep trying to get people to take a swing at him. The basic principle is the same.

But the anger that I am thinking of is the anger that I think is building up among the majority of liberal regulars at ObWi, and for liberals (this is just a cover term, glossing over various differences of position, I should add) the way that rage is often sublimated, I think, thru ridicule. After rewatching last week's episodes of the Daily Show, I am thinking that the ridicule is going to keep coming, increasing in both volume and shrillness, with the aim as not simply laughing at the foibles of the Republican party, but really trying to cripple them. And how do you cripple a party with ridicule? The same way you do it with the outsider in high school. You don't acknowledge any of the circumstances that may have given rise to the outsider's characteristics. You tease them for not looking like everyone else, and then trying to look like everyone else. You take every action and you use it, regardless if it becomes contradictory. You might get busted, but if, like a high school, you are able to get a large enough population going for it, you won't. The hits will keep on coming.

I'm not saying that we need to be nice to Republicans, but I am saying that we are going to, despite our better angels, stop being fair to Republicans. Some may suggest that the Dems and the liberal commentariat have never been fair to the Republicans, and my response is if you think you haven't seen fairness, you really ain't seen nothing yet. (I feel like I have to say that this is not a threat on anyone here or at ObWi, this is how I see things evolving) And it's not going to be manifest in Malkin-esque things like publishing people's addresses, it is going to be manifest in constant ridicule. And people who try to defend it are going to get ridiculed as well. It's not going to be 'perhaps you aren't as familiar as you should be with X', it's going to be guilt by association, guilt by referencing. Ideas are not going to even come close to the light of day.

This can be a tactical problem, because the Republican Right, especially the Christian phalanx of that grouping, thrives on ridicule. The ridicule binds them together, and stands as proof that they are on the right track. It encourages them to be even less understanding, which is why they can see no contradiction with Rudy Guiliani complaining that Obama thinks Republicans aren't 'cahsmapalitan' enough.And the Republican defense is going to be sniffing at the nature of the attacks. Here's out newest troll Adam

First, I must say that I'm loathe to try to discuss anything one someone who's so eager to pepper posts with references to child-beating and "buttplugs."

Second, the appropriation couldn't have been spent on (I can't believe I'm typing this) "buttplugs. So your hypothetical is inapt.

After pushing the buttons, Adam wants to retreat behind a cloak of civility. This is like the ombudsman for the WaPo, Deborah Howell, complaining at how darn rude the emails to her have been. But we come to find that in some transcripts, she swears like a pirate.

But stepping past that hypocrisy, this is why, I think, we have so many people telling us 'be careful about ridiculing Palin', There is some truth to the warning, but there is also an acknowledgement that this may be the most powerful weapon in liberal arsenal.

Any number of pundits have begged the Obama campaign to be more hard hitting, match accusation for accusation. But hard hitting, when it comes from the liberal side, is going to be wrapped up in gloves of ridicule. This may leave some people really horrified because ridicule relies on traditional frames, and because the ridicule will embolden the right. There will be less and less discussion. Already, Obama's stump speech is getting more and more caustic, and the phrase 'They must think you are stupid' is delivered with the timing of a borscht belt tummler. The whole purpose will be to make everyone laugh at the Republicans. 

I don't know if it will work. But if it does or even if it backfires, it will be more, not less, uncomfortable to be anywhere near the Republican camp on ObWi. If there are any people who fit that description reading this, you might really want to think about stepping up and pointing out the contradictions of people like Adam, kenb ken and others. Relying on liberal goodwill is not going to cut it, I think. 

updated with a maxima mea culpa. I accidentally typed kenb, when I meant to type ken in the last paragraph. 

Comments

Sep 10, 2008, 11:55:28 kenB wrote:

Interesting comments -- things always seem to get more heated around election time (IIRC it was around this time in 2004 that Moe left, when a number of the libs at the site decided that they couldn't even be friendly to someone who would vote for GWB).

I've pretty much had my fill of meta for the day, but before I sign off, I'll express my mild hope that you meant "ken" and not "kenB" in that closing sentence.

Sep 10, 2008, 12:11:06 libjpn wrote:

Dang, you are absolutely right. I will sneak back in, change it and note it.

Sep 10, 2008, 12:42:04 Turbulence wrote:

In some ways I think you give the sexism accusers too much credit. The accusation wasn't that some random people made sexist comments -- that's trivial since on the internet some people are jerks and some otherwise great people are insensitive about sexism/racism/other-isms. The accusation was that the community itself was sexist and the comments that dutchmarbel assembled were merely one part of the dossier proving that.

But most of the comments weren't sexist at all: people like dutchmarbel and Jes perceived nonsexist comments as sexist because they already believe that OW is sexist community from the ground up -- including hilzoy. If you're convinced the community is sexist, then damn near every comment will seem sexist to you. And when people point out that many (but certainly not all) of the alleged sexist comments are not really sexist, well, there's no need to explain where the sexism is or reevaluate your theory about OW being sexist. No, doing so would imply that you respected other commenters or something.

This sexism critique is a direct result of the Clinton-Obama nomination struggle. In the eyes of dutchmarbel and Jes, the OW community became so infatuated with Obama they tried to destroy Clinton at every turn, adopting right wing lies against her. At the end of the day, I think you can reduce this issue to a simple question: was hilzoy a crazed irrational partisan when she criticized Clinton for her running under her sniper fire? Or was she on target? As far as I know, dutchmarbel and Jes believe the former. To me, that suggests that their credibility regarding sexism is shredded, but YMMV.

Sep 10, 2008, 12:52:37 libjpn wrote:

Well, I think that Jes and DM are separate cases and I got the impression that Jes jumped on the bandwagon after Dutch got it started. I also think that your observation of the valuation of contrarianism is also a big part. I'm also very careful to grant 2nd language speakers a lot of leeway. I remember trying to write a critique of an article in Japanese, and when I took it to my wife, she said that actually, the point the author was making was the opposite. That's precisely what tripped up Dutch with some of the comments.

This doesn't make the accusation more credible, but it does make it more understandable, I think.

Sep 10, 2008, 12:58:03 libjpn wrote:

I also see your point that it may be granting too much to accept the comments as sexist. My analysis started with 'let's assume that you are correct, but at least 50% of the comments are from non-regulars, so you can't use that to judge'. You took the individual comments and tried to get at the underlying meaning. While I think that your method was more effective, my point was that by failing to address who was saying what, she made unfair assumptions of the entire community, and if she had problems, she should take them up with the individuals who wrote them.

Sep 10, 2008, 13:00:36 Turbulence wrote:

LJ,
Sure, non-native speakers deserve tremendous latitude given the difficulty involved. But the obligations cut both ways: if you're going to make the accusation as a non-native speaker and then other people explain how your interpretations don't make sense, you have to come back and re-evaluate them. Note that that has not happened.

And while the non-native speaker issue might play a role, I don't think it is significant here. dutchmarbel has been clear in asserting that the whole OW community has lost it regarding Obama; she's been saying that for at least the last 6 months. That belief of hers is not premised on the precise interpretation of a few confusing statements. Rather, it has its base in lots and lots of threads. For example, hilzoy's posts about running under sniper fire or the Clinton-related voter registration group that suppressed likely Obama voters. This isn't a question of parsing.

Having said that, I do think your post here is interesting if a little depressing for what it portends of the future. Very insightful, as usual.

Sep 10, 2008, 13:13:27 DaveC wrote:

[i]In the eyes of dutchmarbel and Jes, the OW community became so infatuated with Obama they tried to destroy Clinton at every turn, [b]adopting right wing lies against her.[/b][/i]

I don't think "right wing lies" were the issue. It really was a case of enforced consensus, where Hillary supporters were shouted down. Look, hilzoy, publius, and Eric all were anti-Hillary. There was just no way of going against that. ObWi isn't even a shadow of when there were many different front page opinions.

How could this blog have ever started, were it not for a little variety? "Hating on bril" or "Hating on toml" probably would never even have batted an eye.

So, I'd better hate on somebody here, and will pick OCSteve.

[i]which is why I try and stick up for OCSteve and to a lesser extent, DaveC.[/i]

I cannot figure out why OCSteve voted against Michael Steele, who is quite an affable guy and from what I know, as LT Governor, was more qualified than his opponent. I would never vote in order to please other people, and if that is what Steve did, it was probably a mistake. This is why we have secret ballots. I don't vote to please my friends or relatives. I'm certainly not going to vote or change my opinions for the sake of my intertubes friends.

Sep 10, 2008, 13:23:06 Turbulence wrote:

[i]I don't think "right wing lies" were the issue.[/i]

Then you weren't paying attention. Jes in particular repeatedly explained to us that we believed bad things about Clinton because we had internalized right wing smears propagated by the right wing news media. I've gone back and forth with her over this more than once. I'm not certain that dm shares that view, but she does clearly believe that OW was in the tank for Obama and had it in for Clinton.

[i]Look, hilzoy, publius, and Eric all were anti-Hillary. [/i]

Yes, they were. But they had clear reasons for that. It wasn't some crazy unjustifiable collective mania that took hold of them. They even wrote long posts explaining why they decided that Clinton was not the best choice for President. But many people don't want to talk about the actual reasons why hilzoy et al might vote against Clinton; tis much easier to just imply that they're all irrational or stupid or in love with Obama.

Sep 10, 2008, 13:37:22 JanieM wrote:

lj, this is a great post. Very insightful ... and depressing.

It also seems to me that for a lot of people (me, for one), the anger is accompanied and made even more intense by an almost unbearable incredulity in the face of the fact that after the last eight years, this election is even slightly in doubt.

I think you're very right that the anger and ridicule may end up hurting our chances of getting Obama elected. It bypasses any kind of rational process of trying to figure out how to talk so people will listen: not the people on the far right who have never wavered, but the undecided ones in the middle who I would have thought would move farther from McCain because of Palin: both because of the manner of his choosing her, and because of who she is in her own right.

Lots to think about.....

Thanks for the post.

Sep 10, 2008, 13:41:21 libjpn wrote:

[i]I would never vote in order to please other people, and if that is what Steve did, it was probably a mistake. This is why we have secret ballots. I don't vote to please my friends or relatives. I'm certainly not going to vote or change my opinions for the sake of [b]my intertubes friends[/b].[/i]

Dave, I know you want and perhaps need the shoot from the hip vibe that you consciously try and cultivate, but this is a really nasty thing to imply, that OC is just voting because he wants the rabid liberals at ObWi to like him.

I admit that the Murdoch thing I posted suggests that he changed his outlook because of the people he hung out with, and maybe you got the idea from there, but my point was that being a community was a lot better way of trying to change opinions than piling up on people. If you took any kind of hint that I was suggesting what you seem to be suggesting, you are not simply off base, you are outside the stadium without a ticket.

Sep 10, 2008, 20:09:23 OCSteve wrote:

LJ: Reset as you suggested. This is a thoughtful and interesting post.

I wonder how you see Obamaís ďlipstick on a pigĒ remark within this framework. You can guess what I think Ė big mistake. As you noted, ďThe ridicule binds them together, and stands as proof that they are on the right track.Ē That is [i]exactly[/i] how it is playing out. As I see it, Palin has the Obama campaign pretty rattled. They need to take a deep breath and regroup.

DaveC: Itís kind of silly to think I would vote based on gaining some approval of (mostly) anonymous people on a blog. I actually think quite a lot of Steele, and said so at the time. My main reason for voting against him is that I had pretty much decided that I didnít want Republicans in power any more. I didnít want McConnell in charge of the Senate. But the final straw was bussing in out of state homeless people to distribute misleading flyers. If he canít win honestly then he doesnít deserve to win. I hope he learned his lesson from that fiasco, and that in 4 or 8 years, when the Republicans have also learned a lesson, he will run again for national office.

I think itís time for Republicans to be out of power for a while. They havenít upheld [i]one single god-damned principle that I hold as a conservative[/i], and theyíve managed to fuck up everything else from top to bottom. That doesnít mean that I approve of Ben Cardin. It doesnít mean I like the thought of what Democrats in control of the WH and both houses of congress will get up to. I [i]know[/i] Iím not going to like it. But Republicans have proven themselves incapable of running the show. Hopefully 4-8 years out of power will cause them to regroup, clean house, and come back as a party I can once again respect.

Sep 10, 2008, 20:48:33 DonaldJ wrote:

I think there is a bit of groupthink at ObiWi in the pro-Obama direction, which is not the same as saying that it was anti-Hillary in a sexist way. There were some unfair criticisms of the Clintons in the campaign, and considerable sexism, but I just don't think that there was sexism in what hilzoy or any of the other posters at ObiWi said about HRC. I can't and won't speak for all the commenters--there might have been some sexist remarks last spring, as there were in the recent thread. But I also agree with Turbulence that some remarks were tarred with the "sexism" label that weren't sexist.

I have to say that in OC Steve's shoes I'd stop commenting at ObiWi--I often disagree with him (on the value of that Patterico link on the LATimes, for instance), but OC takes a tremendous amount of unfair crap from people and I would lose my temper in his situation.

Sep 10, 2008, 22:00:15 libjpn wrote:

[i]I wonder how you see Obamaís ďlipstick on a pigĒ remark within this framework. You can guess what I think Ė big mistake.[/i]

Here's the thing, when the tempo of ridicule kicks up, you aren't going to able to sort out the mistakes. As I believe Faulkner wrote, if you back your butt up into a buzzsaw, you don't know which tooth hit you first. The tempo is going to increase, is already increasing, so you aren't going to be able to classify things as 'mistakes' and 'non-mistakes'.

It's always dangerous to assume my feelings are a stand-in for the Obama campaign or for Democrats or some other group. But I really don't think Palin has got Obama, or the campaign or the Dems rattled, I think it has got them seriously pissed. I admit I am and when someone says 'oh, aren't you worried that you are taking X out of context?', my reply is 'like I fucking care'. For folks who I know, I hope that I'm able to keep that thought down, but with newbies, it becomes more and more of a task to start off assuming that someone who argues that the Dems are making a mistake is someone I should give the benefit of the doubt to. And when it comes to someone like Palin, as harsh as this sounds, I have the urge to say "excuse me, but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit". And I can see that attitude spreading out to her family, to the surrogates the McCain camp fields, and the journalists who flip get out of jail free cards to the McCain camp.

I'm not able to keep track of things very well, but I see some pundits seem to be picking up on this vibe and you can see them sort of moving off to the side, like those guys who do the running of the bulls in Pampaloma who aren't fast enough to run away, but really really don't want to get gored.

Talking about the political when there is the dimension of the personal is fraught with danger. And along the lines of what DJ said, and I say this as a friend, don't get gored.

Sep 10, 2008, 22:33:01 DonaldJ wrote:

No time to post a link, but the "lipstick" remark by Obama was just about McCain's policies in general. The NYT wrote about this this morning and said it was clear from context that he wasn't talking about Palin, but of course the McCain camp jumped in and demanded an apology and now this alleged insult will become a fact.

I'm not blaming or criticizing OC for mentioning this--I suppose one could argue that Obama should anticipate such lies, but here my sympathies are entirely with Obama.

Sep 10, 2008, 22:35:01 DonaldJ wrote:

"alleged insult will become a fact"--That is, I expect that it will now become accepted by some that Obama was deliberately insulting Palin, that it's more sexism, etc...

Sep 10, 2008, 22:41:34 Turbulence wrote:

Hey! Why is everyone talking about Obama calling Palin a pig when he also called McCain a fish? Do you all agree that McCain is a fish? That he has scales and lives in the water?

Honestly, this is so patently ridiculous I just don't know what to say. I'm sure the fundies and Republicans who have fallen in love with Palin will get very very upset, but the truth is these groups have no problem getting upset over nothing. I mean, if a Christian in the US can convince themselves that Christians are an oppressed minority, there is simply nothing Obama can do that won't convince them he's mocking them or planning to execute them or some such. Just like if you're convinced that OW is a sexist community, then even comments mocking sexism will be read as sexist.

Sep 10, 2008, 23:04:26 JanieM wrote:

If I can extend what I think youíre using in an individual and personal sense (specific commenters at ObWi) to the country at large, then whatís happening right now is that the political is becoming personal to a lot of people for whom it has not been so in the past.

What that formulation is making me see is a parallel: the political-as-peronal is exactly whatís been happening for years already with the (especially the religious) right. They are angry; the radio mouths keep whipped up a constant stew of resentment, victimization, and hatred of the ďotherĒ in the culture war context; people feel that ďtheirĒ country has been taken away from them by various brown people, gay people, the entertainment industryís sleaze, abortion rights....

So the last 8 years, the stupid destructive unnecessary war, oil prices, the economy, the attack on the Constitution.... none of this matters because itís [i]their[/i] anger (regardless of how (un)justified the anger may be from my point of view) that is the driving force, and none of that stuff is what theyíre angry about. That stuff is a complete irrelevance in the context of the personal and emotional roots of the decision-making process about which candidate to vote for.

Aiy -- while Iíve been writing this, the conversation has turned to the pig/lipstick topic, and Iíve got to go to work with uncompleted thought trains dancing in my head. Nothing new in that. ;)

Sep 10, 2008, 23:08:21 OCSteve wrote:

I donít know that he intended it as an insult. Itís an old line, one I use myself. But given that Palin has branded herself with the lipstick joke, if he didnít mean it that way then it was incredibly naÔve not to realize that McCain would jump on it in any case. It took McCain less than 12 hours to have a new ad out using the remark.

In the context of your post LJ Ė the GOP is just better at the strategy youíre discussing. Theyíve just had more practice. Youíre talking about taking the gloves off now Ė but the GOP never put them onÖ

I'll take your advice on not getting gored however.

Sep 10, 2008, 23:18:59 Turbulence wrote:

[i]it was incredibly naÔve not to realize that McCain would jump on it in any case.[/i]

Then I'm naive. I never would have seen it coming. Even now, this makes zero sense to me. Palin does not own all phrases that include the word lipstick. Common use idioms do not change their meaning simply because Palin gave a speech a few weeks ago. The fact that McCain's ad shop reacted quickly tells us nothing other than that they're set up to react quickly: I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that they were waiting for Obama to say exactly this are you?

I say that some idiots will buy into the faux outrage because they won't see the remarks in context. But McCain will also alienate his real base, the media. I don't think his campaign can survive if a media narrative takes hold that says he's a liar or reckless or too old and sick to be President.

Sep 10, 2008, 23:52:41 libjpn wrote:

<i>this alleged insult will become a fact. </i>

And you are going to see Obama incorporate this in the stump speech, something like 'these people are worried about pigs on lipstick, while the country is hurting. You tell me who is serious about the future of this country, the campaign that has put forth detailed policy proposals or the one that doesn't? We aren't playing with pigs here?'

Obama will be more adroit, but it is going to get to the point where 'pig' is going to be a punchline and it's going to get linked as sexism.

Are women going to believe the Palin truth squad (there's an oxymoron) that this is sexism and therefore support McCain? I don't think so. It only solidifies the base, it doesn't reach out to undecided women. The polls suggest that women are a lot more skeptical about Palin than men, and I don't see women hyperventilating about this, unless they were already in the tank for McCain/Palin.

Furthermore, Palin's per diem problem in the WaPo
http://www.washingtonpost.c...

and the trooper gate problems documented in Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/...
are looming, even as the WaPo has increasingly vapid editorials by people in the tank for McCain. As the McCain campaign pulls this stuff (and the [url=http://tpmelectioncentral.t...]newest McCain ad[/url] is a piece of garbage that carries racist overtones), the media is going to join in and some of the mud is going to stick.

As Josh Marshall wrote in TPM

[i]One of the interesting aspects of this campaign is watching the scales fall from the eyes of many of John McCain's closest admirers among the veteran DC press corps. I'm not talking about the freaks on Fox News or any of the sycophants at the AP. I'm talking about, let's say, the better sort of reporters and commentators in the 45 to 65 age bracket. To the extent that the press was McCain's base (and in many though now sillier respects it still is) this was the base of the base. And talking to a number of them I can understand why that was, at least in the sense of the person he was then presenting himself as.

But over the last ... maybe six weeks, in various conversations with these folks, the change is palpable. Whether it will make any difference in the tone of coverage in the dominant media I do not know. But it is sinking in.[/i]

Now, you can dismiss Josh as being partisan, but if you accept that he is any good at taking the temp of journalists, I think you are seeing just the thing I am talking about. Already, UPI has "GOP squeals over Obama's 'pig' comment" and the LATimes has "Obama and McCain campaigns go from pork to pigs". This is the tip of the iceberg. If you don't like the groupthink at ObWi, you are going to be appalled by the way this plays out like Lord of the Flies.

Sure the GOP has had a lot more practice playing the bully, but like most bullies, the GOP is going to be unpleasantly surprised when the shoe is on the other foot. The fact that Trent Lott retired and others (Domenici, Allard, Hagel but zero Republicans) have said that this is their last term says a lot. Bullies are never equipped when the victim fights back. The GOP may have to reach down deeper in the sewer than it ever has before (Turb's point that McCain readiness to do this says nothing other than they are committed to fighting the same way they always have, with more desperation than ever before), and they may be able to win by doing that, but if you are a honest conservative, you are going to find you are given no slack.

Sep 11, 2008, 00:29:53 libjpn wrote:

Sorry to pile this on, but this is ABC reporting on Palin's tenure as mayor and the librarian from BalloonJuice

http://www.balloon-juice.co...

And you now have Biden saying essentially that if Republicans are so worried about special needs children, why don't they support stem cell research?

http://online.wsj.com/artic...
[i]
"I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both...the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect," Sen. Biden said at a rally in Columbia, Mo., on Tuesday. "Well, guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem-cell research?"

The McCain campaign responded quickly. "Barack Obama's running mate sunk to a new low today, launching an offensive debate over who cares more about special-needs children," said McCain spokesman Ben Porritt. "Playing politics with this issue is disturbing and indicative of a desperate campaign."[/i]

That is as good a counterpunch as you are going to see, and it is going to highlight the split between Palin and McCain. We will see some focus on the fact that Down's syndrome is not something that is going to be treated with stem-cells, and we might get Wikipedia supported dissertations on explaining Down's syndrome to everyone, or questioning Biden's Catholic faith and it's going to be like Powerline trying to make every controversy something to do with kerning.

I'd also point out the some of the recent comments on ObWi at the Cub Scout thread by three newbies. SteveNS delivers snark, ElCid says "Let's see how they like it. Seriously. We need to do this. F*** this stuff about 'the high road,' tell it to President Kerry." and Jim W sketches the image of McCain as a pedophile. As an experiment, let's see whether anyone says anything especially about the last comment. While I'm sure that DaveC would take this as more evidence of the hypocrisy of the commentariat, I see people seeing the bully get the shit knocked out of him, and they aren't going to step in to stop him. If no one intervenes, it would prove that either ObWi is showing its true colors, or my thesis. Yet, it would be very hard to explain why Warren Terra objected to my linking to Firedoglake, so the takeaway is that we are going to enforce norms on members of the group, but if the posse rides thru town, we aren't going to say anything. You may view this as hypocrisy, but I really do view it as the chickens coming home to roost.

Sep 11, 2008, 01:34:57 nous wrote:

I thought we just had this conversation.

I don't think it's that hard to figure out where the feminists are coming from. I think the outrage and backlash on this, as always, is proportionate to the threat that 'progressive" (on gender issues) men feel to the privilege they have unconsciously enjoyed while imagining that their progressive attitudes somehow cancel out everything else.

They don't.

Sexist frames are sexist frames. Patching the code only does so much. At some point you have to go in and rewrite the source code from the ground up, rather than just complaining that you are busy trying to keep the buggy version functioning and that all the bitching about your bad coding doesn't keep things going.

Sep 11, 2008, 02:38:49 Turbulence wrote:

[i]I thought we just had this conversation.[/i]
We did? I don't remember dutchmarbel or anyone else explaining where the sexism is in most of the comments I suggested were not sexist. I do recall you explaining that most comments were written from a sexist frame, but you never explained why that was bad or how that was related to the point that the OW community is sexist.

[i]I don't think it's that hard to figure out where the feminists are coming from.[/i]

I'm a feminist. There's no reason to believe that dutchmarbel and Jes speak for all or even many feminists when they write. Besides, aren't there many feminisms?

[i]I think the outrage and backlash on this, as always, is proportionate to the threat that 'progressive" (on gender issues) men feel to the privilege they have unconsciously enjoyed while imagining that their progressive attitudes somehow cancel out everything else.[/i]

I think the outrage stems from the fact that a lot of people were slandered because Jes and dutchmarbel didn't get the presidential nominee they were hoping for, and the slanderings have continued long after the nomination process has concluded. There has been a consistent failure to substantiate accusations of sexism here and you are continuing in that tradition. I don't really care for your mindreading. You don't actually know what other people here feel, and your attempts to project your own guesses seem to have been unsuccessful.

[i]Sexist frames are sexist frames. Patching the code only does so much. At some point you have to go in and rewrite the source code from the ground up, rather than just complaining that you are busy trying to keep the buggy version functioning and that all the bitching about your bad coding doesn't keep things going.[/i]

Repeating the phrase "sexist frames" over and over does not constitute an argument. If you want to make an argument about what "sexist frames" are, who has used them, what effect they have on the community, and why no one ever deigns to mention them except when dutchmarbel has made unsupportable accusations, please go ahead.

Sep 11, 2008, 02:40:25 moe99 wrote:

OC Steve: As TPM noted this morning, McCain himself has used the 'lipstick on a pig' imagery while on the campaign trail.

What's sauce for the goose...

Sep 11, 2008, 02:53:29 nous wrote:

Nah, Turb, you just go ahead and knock yourself out with your own version of the conversation rather than reading or thinking about what's already been written. Wouldn't want to discomfort anyone.

Sep 11, 2008, 03:40:16 kenB wrote:

My first reaction when I heard that the McCain campaign was complaining was "you've got to be kidding me!". But having thought about it a bit, I think it's possible (not certain, but possible) that this was a sly, fun reference to Palin's comment -- not that he was subtly calling her a pig, just that he was playing with the correspondence.

moe99, it seems to me that just because McCain, and Obama himself, have used the phrase before doesn't immediately vindicate Obama -- Palin's lipstick joke created a new context for the remark.

An analogy would be the phrase "call a spade a spade" -- even if you've used it before in innocent contexts, as soon as you use it when talking about a black person (even tangentially), you're immediately suspect.

Sep 11, 2008, 04:18:08 tgott wrote:

DaveC: "It really was a case of enforced consensus, where Hillary supporters were shouted down."

I felt this during the primary.

My feeling was that as a Hillary supporter you'd better come to the table with something indisputable, whereas it seemed like an Obama supporter wasn't held to as high a standard: after all, they were preaching to the choir.

(Let's remember the Democratic electorate was essentially 50-50 on Obama and Clinton.)

At the time, there was no FISA or cave-in to drilling (however slight) on Obama's part. I'm not holding that against him -- he's a politician after all and expediency is part of the game -- but in the primaries I felt his supporters views him as much as an ideal as a candidate.

All that said, I never got a sexist vibe toward Clinton at ObWi -- then again, I think Hillary and her supporters learned the need for a thick skin over the years.

---

OCSteve: "As I see it, Palin has the Obama campaign pretty rattled. They need to take a deep breath and regroup."

Someone on Anderson Cooper's panel -- I believe it was David Gergen -- made this exact point last night and I couldn't agree more.

For starters, the Obama campaign and Obama himself seem to be addressing Palin as much as they are addressing McMain.

Anytime Obama takes on Palin it raises her stature and lowers his. That's what Biden is for.

Team Obama also seems stuck for the first time in getting out its message -- the attention being poured on Palin (name a VP candidate where this has happened) is astonishing and unprecedented.

One thing I would do is keep Obama outdoors. McCain/Palin's enthusiastic crowds are too reminiscent of when Obama had the momentum; meanwhile, Obama has been giving these indoor addresses where he looks every bit as confined as McCain used to.

Other than that, I'll leave it up to Axelrod and his ace crew to figure out what's needed.

---

As for this sexism stuff, I'm fed up with it after the McCain camp has manufactured a controversy about the "lipstick on a pig" remark, a common way to say "do or say what you want, but it is what it is" (and as Obama was noting, it certainly ain't change regarding McCain's record).

I wrote something yesterday wondering if Palin has "legs" after saying the public and media tends to fall for the latest Hot Thing. None of that was or intended to be sexist, but after I hit the post button, I was like, "Uh-oh."

So I hope everyone lightens up.

I am off on Wednesday and Sunday -- and my linking cheat sheet is at work -- but Newsweek was in my mailbox when I got home last night and Anna Quindlen's back-of-the-book essay sums up the whole sexism issue brilliantly.

---bedtimeforbonzo

Sep 11, 2008, 05:13:10 Turbulence wrote:

[i](Let's remember the Democratic electorate was essentially 50-50 on Obama and Clinton.)[/i]

Let us also remember that OW does not draw participants randomly from the Democratic electorate. The people who end up at OW tend to be people who are better educated, familiar with technology, and have an interest in foreign affairs. Those people broke disproportionately for Obama, so the 50-50 number isn't really relevant.

Sep 11, 2008, 06:55:13 OCSteve wrote:

Jeebus. Are they even trying to coordinate a message or is everyone just running around out there spouting off? (vvvia Insty)
http://www.politico.com/blo...

[i]South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasnít had an abortion.Ē [/i]

Sep 11, 2008, 06:58:42 OCSteve wrote:

Iím sorry for those who donít want to believe this Ė but that is a rattled campaign. The candidates are having a rough time. Surrogates are saying stupid shit. There is no central message and no coordinated pushback. They need to get their shit all in one bag soon.


Once there is a tipping point it becomes self-reinforcing.

Sep 11, 2008, 07:02:40 Turbulence wrote:

OCSteve, I'm having trouble seeing it. The SC chair was stupid, but do you think the campaign told her to say that? And what exactly are they supposed to push back against? I mean, Obama dealt with the pig/lipstick attack and folks in the media are laughing about what a joke it is...How much time and attention do you think Obama and his surrogates should devote to this?

The funny thing is that if Obama was spending a lot more time on it (his response so far seems plenty aggressive), then I'm pretty sure you'd say 'ZOMG! This is clearly a rattled campaign! They're freaking out and that's why they're talking about it ALL THE TIME. If they weren't rattled, then Obama would address it in his stump speech once or twice and that would be it, but by defending it, they're actively playing on McCain's turf'.

Sep 11, 2008, 07:39:58 OCSteve wrote:

Turb: Iím not saying they should do more Ė Iím saying they should do less. And at least for a news cycle or two just take a deep breath.

And I guess one difference between R and D is that R seems to be better at deciding on a message and getting everyone on that message. Dís have a bunch of loose cannons running around. That just leads to denouncing oneís own surrogates, etc.

So by rattled I mean uncoordinated and generally looking less polished than they have in the past.

Sep 11, 2008, 08:31:16 marbel wrote:

[i] You are angry and you want to express your anger. Simply saying X gets me mad doesn't cut it, cause you want to ridicule Palin, you want to slip the shiv in rather than go berserk and scream imprecations. So you reach for an insulting frame that is within everyday discourse, be it uncaring mother/spouse, or fashionplate woman or some such. [/i]

But why choose those??? There are so many things to ridicule Palin with. Her lies about the bridge to nowhere (repeated 27 times last time I saw a count), censorship in the Library, allowing the police to charge rape victims for the rape kit used to collect evidence, etc. Why do you choose to attack wether she is behaving as the appropriate female when you are angry about the appropriate VP?

I can understand the anger. No one can be held accountable for what they feel - but the CAN be held accountable for how they express it. And it is often counterproductive if you just say anyting that you can think of as long as it hurts or ridicules. One thing that the long discussions at ObWi has tought me is that the people with less snark and more arguments achieved their results and won the discussions more often than those that were so hampered by the rage that they could not address the facts anymore. Carefull formulating doesn't equal disarming, it equals arming better.

[i]So, as I have tried to point out, these comments shouldn't be taken as sexism on the part of the commentator, but as anger. [/i]
Why? Does the motivation change what is said? If a wingnut calls Obama an 'uppity ape' is that less racist when that person is angry? Does that change what is said?

[i] I remember trying to write a critique of an article in Japanese, and when I took it to my wife, she said that actually, the point the author was making was the opposite. That's precisely what tripped up Dutch with some of the comments.[/i]

That might be the case. But it might also be true that I am way more sensitive to subtle sexism than you are. I have worked in a man dominated environment (ICT industry) and I usually got on really well with people. But the (unintentional, unnoticed, denied) sexism was really scary. Not because the men were bad rightwing rednecks who felt that all women should stay home and cood - that kind of sexism is so obvious that the discussion is easier. It's the well ment unintentional sexism that hurts and that really has an impact. What makes someone sexist is not always that they make the remark, but that they are told that it is insulting or wrong and still want to do it because they feel justified. Saying "it was a joke", "it was sarcastic" or "I was so angry I just wanted to lash out" does not change what you said. And "but I am no sexist" is a rather bad excuse, since I didn't say anything about a specific person - only about their statements.

In the primaries I actually stayed out of most threads. For me the candidates were much of a muchness and I had no influence what so ever. I actually would have liked to jump on the Obama bandwagon, since being in agreement with a community you participate in is much nicer and more agreeable. The only time I chimed in with a 'sexism warning' was when people said that Clinton wouldn't be anything if she hadn't been married to Bill. I said that that was a sexist argument, that there were plenty of arguments against Clinton that could be made for those who didn't fancy her, but that shey should not use that argument. More or less what I say about Palin now.

Frankly, I thought Bidens remark about stem cell vs special needs children was dumb. It's like saying 'you say you want to improve the live of special needs kids, but why didn't you fund cander research?' So yeah, it would have been smarter to address that properly. For instance by pointing out that Palin cut the budget for special needs children in Alaska. 'Cause... you know... that is true AND completely non-sexist.

The lipstick on a pig comment is clumsy. It is not sexist, calling someone a pig is only sexist if you refer to the male chauvinist pig, but since Palin started to use the 'lipstick' tag to describe herself it became contaminated. In Dutch there is a proverb 'a monkey might wear a gold ring, but it will still be an ugly thing'. It is a well used, very common proverb. If it was as well known in the US I still think it would be stupid to use it when describing Obama.

For the sexism culture thing I recommend [url=http://anglachelg.blogspot....]this piece from Anglachelg[/url]. I don't always agree with her, but she writes thoughtfull posts.

Sep 11, 2008, 08:31:58 libjpn wrote:

Nous, your analogy of rewriting the code makes my point. How many people are going to be able to rewrite the code? Especially when it is something like Microsoft Word that everyone uses everyday even though everyone agrees it suxs? Constructing a frame that avoids sexism and is still able to insult is going to be impossible. What is going to happen is that the insulting frames are going to get extended as liberals get more and more angry. And, not to defend it, but at this point calling people out on sexism is not going to make any difference.

As far as the rattled stuff. Again, what you see as rattled, I see as pissed. Pissed like a bear. Rattled is the old frame of 'OMG, maybe they might be right' Pissed is 'WTF are you talking about, you rightwing bunch of turds?' The turds are, at least initially, the McCain campaign, but turdom is going to spread to people who defend it. 'Oh, she didn't really ban books, they are still on the shelf' 'Oh, she didn't technically tell a lie with thanks no thanks'. It may look like being rattled, but it isn't, and you've internalized a frame of Dems always being concerned when people complain that they have been insulted. The frame is now 'I'm sorry you've got such a fucking thin skin that you can't figure out what a point is and what isn't' Obama's territory, McCain's territory, it doesn't matter. Take a look at this
http://edgeofthewest.wordpr...

and look at the first comment and how it is taken. That complaint about hey, you are insulting me is getting no traction. No one is even going to pause and say 'well, I don't agree, but maybe you have a point' Why even bother? 9 times out of 10 or 99 times out of 100, it's just a ploy. It's the guys like you who are the 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100 you are going to be savaged.

Again, it may backfire. I don't know who is going to win. But what the Republicans have been able to do previously is modulate those demands for apologies with points about Democratic problems, real or perceived. Now, it's all 'they insulted me', all the time. I do think that the Republicans are overplaying their hand and they are going to regret it. Insty is a good example of this. Whereas before he could get away with a single link and a 'heh', now he's virtually giving dissertations.

It's fun, from a personal standpoint, to be able to be contrarian and say 'gee, y'all are missing the most important point' Indeed, it's some folks entire blog personality. And for some folks, I believe that they honestly think that by being contrarian, they can move other people to a higher understanding. But at this point, you don't try to argue with the hurricane, you just drop everything and run for cover.

There's a great article about being a butcher in Esquire
http://www.esquire.com/feat...

and it has this

[i]"Look, the rule is, if you feel anything tug, anything at all, you hit the button and run." He poked the rubber-covered stop button with his thumb. We stood in the walk-in, the compressors humming like a train. "You put your hands in the air and you run," he said, "like a little girl. I'm serious as a sock. This stuff will humble you. Get away from it. You always run away from trouble in a butcher shop."[/i]

This is a butcher shop. It might go back to a salon after the election, but trying to get it to change now is just going have you gutted and skinned.

I could see some taking this as an acknowledgement that the Dems have lost, because that 'omg, I didn't mean to insult you' seems to be such an integral part of the Democratic identity. But that characteristic is something that Dems use to keep themselves from going overboard. That is part of the better angels of the Democratic nature, like the little angel/little devil that pops up when cartoons want to show the mind wrestling over temptation. The Republicans are succeeding, or maybe have succeeded in taking that little angel and gagging it. What you see as rattled is the Dems saying I don't give a shit, I'm not backing down. Welcome to a brave new world.

Sep 11, 2008, 08:33:22 libjpn wrote:

Dutch, I wrote this and saw yours after I posted. I have to take my daughter to school, so I'll try to get to your point a little later. Thanks

Sep 11, 2008, 08:48:57 marbel wrote:

Oh, LJ, and I buy quite a lot of my cloths from [url=http://www.corakemperman.nl...]Cora Kemperman[/url]. Making my own cloths is not feasable, but I do try to take care of what I buy, from whom and wether the people who actually suffered for it will share in the profits. When possible I buy fair trade products, Max Havelaar products, [url=http://www.chocolonely.com/...]slave free chocolate[/url]. I can not change the world on my own, but I can take account of what happends in my own backyard and try to make a small difference there.

Sep 11, 2008, 08:49:58 marbel wrote:

I say your comment just now LJ. Have to go to bed (almost two in the morning) and tomorrow my oldest has his 10th birthday, so I'm not sure when I can reply.

Sep 11, 2008, 09:38:01 DaveC wrote:

The post about McCain having no honor because he doesn't want children to be warned about pedophiles seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I don't get that wanting children to be abstinent means that you want them molested. Sure, kids need to be taught how not to get into uncomfortable situations, but middle schoolers don't need to know all about "Dirty Sanchez" and "rusty trombones"*, etc.

(*terminology that I had never heard of before watching "The Forty Year Old Virgin")

Sep 11, 2008, 09:42:50 DonaldJ wrote:

I looked back at LJ's list of marbel's list of sexist comments. Without actually doing a count, I'd guess the bulk of the remarks were sexist and shouldn't have been made. I don't think anger is an excuse.

Some, I think (Russell's, for instance) were meant to be descriptions of the sexist reactions of other people. Some I wasn't sure about.

I was initially angry in several different directions, but now that I'm calm (I think) I agree that marbel has a good point. There were a lot of disturbingly sexist things said. I think she overstates it a bit, because she misunderstood the intentions of some people (Russell, for instance), but overall, she's right about the sexism.

I'm not sure if marbel is claiming that sexism is why people at ObiWI rejected Clinton and preferred Obama. If you're claiming that, marbel, then I think you're wrong. I certainly don't say that as a fan of Barack--I'm not. I preferred him to Clinton, on the grounds that he was better on Iraq, but I think a lot of the alleged differences between them seem to have evaporated in Obama's race to the center. But last spring the differences seemed larger to many people and maybe still do, though not so much to me. (Right now I'm wondering if Clinton would have done a better job fighting back against McCain.)

Sep 11, 2008, 09:59:01 DonaldJ wrote:

I'm hastening to add here, to prevent misunderstanding, that I thought and still think Hillary Clinton is a jerk (like most politicians who rise to national prominence). For instance, it was creepy of her to put McCain's national security credentials above Obama's (especially when she and McCain were both wrong about the war and Obama was right). I'm hastening to add this because I just visited a pro-Hillary website and the way people talk about her there, as someone who would have united all the people who dislike Obama, is very strange.

But that said, I am wondering if she'd be the better counterpuncher against McCain. Hopefully Obama will prove me wrong.

Sep 11, 2008, 10:36:38 DonaldJ wrote:

BTW, anybody have any problem with "naked David Broder"?

I think there's something in us humans that makes us like to mock people we don't like in very personal terms, usually involving their appearance. When it is done to women this is called sexist (and rightly so). When it is done to men I don't think it's noticed and in fact I didn't really think about this except just now, by accident, when I went to see what Gary's latest comment was and the title suddenly hit me. I'm not equating the objectification of men's bodies with the objectification of women--it's like racism. Black racism against whites in this society simply isn't the problem that white racism is against blacks. But still, isn't "naked David Broder" kind of degrading? I didn't see any objections, though someone towards the end of that thread objected to the awful picture that it put in his head, which of course is not an objection, but just an elaboration of the insult.

Not that I feel any outrage about this, but I think that's because I haven't been socialized (yet) to feel outrage about this kind of insult to the unattractive bodies of aging male pundits.

Sep 11, 2008, 10:47:58 libjpn wrote:

Donald, I have a long comment, but checking back, I see your last comment. I'd take it as proof of my thesis. People are going to get mocked and when they do, it is going to be utilizing the common frames. Broder as a shrunken old man, McCain as a lecher, that sort of stuff. Folks might leap back in horror, but this is the whirlwind that has been sown.

Sep 11, 2008, 10:49:57 libjpn wrote:

Well, I'm back and this is going to be a bit long, but I'm not expecting an immediate response.

First, while I'm happy to try and facilitate communication, with Turb taking issue with my defense of you and with you dealing solely with what I write, I'm less a facilitator and more like a badminton shuttle or a tennis ball, only with rudimentary awareness. At some point, I might just step back and let you two go at it.

Now, a couple of initial points. The post is not in response to you, it is trying to look at the entire situation, so when you ask why we can't go after Palin on the issues that you feel are truly substantive, you are missing the point.

But even in your criticism of how Palin is being attacked, all of the things you list came out AFTER you argued about sexism. While the information may have been out there in some form, the accusations did not exist when you were complaining about ObWi commentators. So this is post hoc reasoning.

Second, there are two arguments that you are tangling up. The first, that Western society in general and US society in particular has a problem with sexism is something that I don't think you would get any disagreement with from anyone at ObWi. The second is that ObWi has some unthinking sexist reflex, something that you know because you are more sensitive to it than I am. There are two ways to address that. The first, the more aggressive way (and to me, less optimal), would be to pit my sensitivity to native English prose and then have a battle royale as to whether your super powers or mine are stronger. For example, I'd point out that my analogy was not expressing the way I choose clothes, it was expressing how it is difficult, if one completely rejects the framework on offer, to devise another one. And since misreadings are going to happen, you are going to come out on the short end, if only because you have to defend your readings.

But a second avenue, and the one I would take, would be that with your sensitivity, you should be identifying the problematic aspects rather than painting with a broad brush. If you go back, you will see that rather than say 'oh, you have to be wrong' I was saying 'well, I don't see that, so let's see the ones that you identify and talk about them' And when we looked at the last list, we find that half of them are non-regulars. So the point that I would make is not that you are imagining things, but that you are drawing the wrong statistical conclusions. This has nothing to do with sensitivity to sexism, this has to do with the composition of the authors of the comments that you are taking as sexist and is independent of any complaints about sexism.

I see that this comment is too long, so part 2 is below

Sep 11, 2008, 10:50:02 libjpn wrote:

Donald says:
<i>I looked back at LJ's list of marbel's list of sexist comments. Without <b>actually doing a count</b>,</i>

which is the crux of my argument. If you are getting an impression based on everyone who happens to stop by the bar and ignore what the regulars order, you will get a mistaken idea of what sells and what doesn't. If the bar is open during some festival and the town is filled with visitors, regardless of how well you calculate what sells and what doesn't, you are going to have a mistaken idea of what supplies the owner should buy. I didn't try to get to the readings of the comments, I said 'let's not challenge the sexism of the remarks, let's look at the relative 'regularness' of the comments you cite. Are these comments a fair representation of the regular ObWi commentariat?' If you want to argue that it is, you will have to explain why half of your comments are one shots or people who have started participating since August. And you will have to discount the explanations that the regulars have given for their comments.

Also, to underline Turb's point, I'll quote Spiderman: With great powers come great responsibility. If you are better at ferreting out sexism in comments, you can't wave your hands and say 'there are lots more examples and I don't have time to list them' If you want to change people, you don't do it by making some general comments on how they need to change, you do it by pointing out specific problems and suggesting better ways of doing it. Now, I know this runs into the problems of time and commitment, but if you want to level such a powerful charge, then you need to back it up with specific examples. If that's absolutely impossible because of time commitments, I'm not sure what to suggest, as I value your voice there and here, but if you don't find a balance point, your voice is going to be lost regardless, cause you are going to have people put their backs up. And, to plug into the point that I am making to OCSteve, you may have some points to make, but, in the face of the anger that I see, you are going to have to choose the points to make your arguments. In a sense, you are in precisely the same situation that many Democrats were when there was a Republican majority. I'm not happy about that, but this it not the Rapture, where the people with good in their heart will be pulled up into heaven, this is the tidal wave that isn't going to care if you expressed concern about your disaster preparation.

To pull Donald in here again, he says:
[i]I'm not sure if marbel is claiming that sexism is why people at ObiWI rejected Clinton and preferred Obama.[/i]

I'm not sure either, so I ask. Do you think it was sexism? And do you think what is happening to Palin is just an extension of what happened to Hillary? You asserted that Biden had done nothing for women, which prompted Gary to point out the Violence Against Women Act authored by Biden. If you make an assumption like that, it suggests that your sensitivity for sexism is unbalanced.

Again, apologies for the long comment. But I think that a careful discussion is important, so I hope you'll take the time to read this and reply.

Sep 11, 2008, 18:56:25 marbel wrote:

[i]I'm not sure if marbel is claiming that sexism is why people at ObiWI rejected Clinton and preferred Obama. If you're claiming that, marbel, then I think you're wrong.[/i]

I never ever said that and I denied that quite a few times I think. All I said is that progressives should not use sexist arguments - and that there were plenty of non-sexist arguments to rally against Hillary if you wanted to do that. At a certain point I had [a [url=http://obsidianwings.blogs....]an interesting discussion[/url] with FlyontheWall about implicit and explicit racism/sexism that summarizes a lot of what I said in other threads.

about David Broder: I'm not familiar enough with him, but I took the 'naked' to be a methaphor for 'without defense', as in that the dreamer saw him for the first time for real, as he really was.

@LJ: [i]with Turb taking issue with my defense of you and with you dealing solely with what I write, I'm less a facilitator and more like a badminton shuttle or a tennis ball, only with rudimentary awareness. At some point, I might just step back and let you two go at it.[/i]

As Cleek would say... pie pie, lovely pie. I really don't read Turb. It is the first time in many years that I put a poster on 'ignore', but I am not going to spend effort on someone who does not debate honestly and who falls back on personal insults by default. I tried honest discussion with him in which he always asked for links and cites but didn't read them when I provided them. He distorted my words and questions my integrity, called me morally inferior and linked that to the Dutch colonial past. Even though our political viewpoints regularly coÔncide I can not respect him. If he is the best source about sexism you can come up with I'd say you have discovered a perfect area to educate yourself ;)

[i]But even in your criticism of how Palin is being attacked, all of the things you list came out AFTER you argued about sexism.[/i]
But I had a few examples in that same thread too. Anyone doing any research on her viewpoints finds loads of things to disagree with. If people decide to go for sexist ones because that is easier since it doesn't require any kind of digging for facts that is not really an excuse is it? I'd be more inclined to see it as an affirmation of the fact that progressive feminists still have a lot of work to do within the Democratic party.

If we have a battle Royal about interpretations of metaphores, it mainly proofs that the metaphore was unclear. Which is why it is often unwise to use them. My reply was framed in kind and intended to show that you didn't have to discard the framework, that you could try to work within it and change things step by step.

[i] So the point that I would make is not that you are imagining things, but that you are drawing the wrong statistical conclusions.[/i]
I didn't draw statistical conclusions, I said I collected quotes from people whose names I recognized. To pick quotes from the crowd coming via a link to one specific post seemed unfair. Someone who has commented a few times over the past few months may not be a regular but I would call them part of the community. There are quite a few people who don't comment often but whose names are familiar enough to take them serious. And I don't think setting a border like "comments only count is that person has posted more than 50 times" has relevance to wether the comment is sexist or not.

<cut 'cause the comment is too long, part 2 follows >

Sep 11, 2008, 18:56:36 marbel wrote:

[i]If you want to change people, you don't do it by making some general comments on how they need to change, you do it by pointing out specific problems and suggesting better ways of doing it.[/i]

Last time I did that three regulars said the didn't understand my English. Jes and Thomas Nephew rephrased it, because they didn't seem to have problems, but that still didn't work. It's like when I said that I felt ObWi was strongly slanted towards Obama and people wanted me to prove that with links. Me asking for one link to a positive post about Hillary on ObWi didn't count. In cases like that I feel that asking for quotes and links is a default defense, to justify not thinking about it.

I made a draft list with quotes 'cause someone asked for it in another thread. I posted it. Your main reply is that you feel a significant portion of the quotes are from people who don't post often enough & the mitigating circumstance of your anger. But even if I would agree with you on both points you still do not address the sexism or even state that those remarks shouldn't be used.

[i]ou asserted that Biden had done nothing for women, which prompted Gary to point out the Violence Against Women Act authored by Biden. If you make an assumption like that, it suggests that your sensitivity for sexism is unbalanced.[/i]

I don't think I said he had done nothing for women, since I was aware of the Violence Against Women Act. I don't have the thread open anymore, but as I recall it I said something about how he isn't great in women issues. He is against federal funding for abortions, in the first speech about being Obama's running mate he said "Ladies and gentlemen, my wife, Jill, who you'll meet soon, is drop-dead gorgeous. My wife, Jill, who you'll meet soon, she also has her doctorate degree, which is a problem.", he [url=http://www.ontheissues.org/...]supported the "partial-birth abortion" ban[/url] even without protections for the health/life of the mother, his naral score (whatever that is worth these days) is [url=http://www.votesmart.org/is...]not great[/url], one of his first quotes about Palin was "&#8220;There&#8217;s a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent; she&#8217;s good-looking&#8221;...

Not to mention the number of other gaffes that even I had heard of (and I don't follow US internal politics much). I'm still waiting for the first speech to state that Biden must be pleased that he runs with a clean and articulate candidate...

It is nice that he authored the VAWA, kudo's for doing a good thing, but that hardly makes him the preferred option for someone who cares about women issues.

Long reply, but that's what you asked for ;)

Sep 11, 2008, 21:10:57 OCSteve wrote:

[i]I'm not sure either, so I ask. Do you think it was sexism? And do you think what is happening to Palin is just an extension of what happened to Hillary?[/i]

Not addressed to me but Iíll bite.

I think that some degree of sexism became acceptable because HRC was not the desired winner of the hive-mind. Imagine for a minute that the primary came down to a man and a woman, but the man was clearly undesirable for most at ObWi. Say somehow it was Lieberman v. Clinton. (I know, unlikely, he would have had to at least still be a Democrat Ė but work with me here.) If Clinton had been the clear choice of the community then I think that the community would have been [i]hyper-alert[/i] for any hint of sexism coming from any corner. The community would not have tolerated even a hint of it. But because the man was the clear favorite, the community tolerated some amount of sexism against the undesirable candidate. And certainly if it was tolerated when it was used against someone in your own party then it becomes more acceptable when the target is an evil Republican. IMO, thatís part and parcel of the scorched earth tactics youíve been talking about LJ.

Sep 11, 2008, 22:25:09 Turbulence wrote:

LJ says: [i]I'm not sure if marbel is claiming that sexism is why people at ObiWI rejected Clinton and preferred Obama. If you're claiming that, marbel, then I think you're wrong.[/i]

To which dutchmarbel replies: [i]I never ever said that and I denied that quite a few times I think. All I said is that progressives should not use sexist arguments - and that there were plenty of non-sexist arguments to rally against Hillary if you wanted to do that.[/i]

This confused me greatly, because I recall dutchmarbel saying quite clearly that sexism was the reason that people at OW rejected Clinton. For example, [url=http://obsidianwings.blogs....]here[/url] is dutchmbarl endorsing Jes' comments:

[i]I try to do the same, but it is hard at times. I agree with everything you've said on this thread so far (ah, see, it DOES happen) and have tried to say the same thing but it just doesn't seem to come through, people just don't seem to understand or see what you (and in previous threads I) mean. [/i]

What did Jes write in that thread? she wrote beautiful things like this:

[i]Everytime there's a mass pileon to claim that Hillary Clinton is greatly exaggerating or lying, yeah, I do think they're doing this because she's a woman.[/i] and

[i]Or does it really matter that everyone should pile on and mock at the notion that a mere woman could possibly have ever been under fire? (Which is a fairly standard reaction, Ginmar has written, among male bloggers who have not themselves been in the military: their notion of courage is such that they can't stand the idea that a woman could have experienced something they themselves never have.)[/i]

Maybe dutchmarbel doesn't really understand the complex english phrases "I agree with everything you've said" or "Everytime people accuse Clinton of lying they're being sexist".

Sep 11, 2008, 22:55:42 kenB wrote:

I have no dog in this fight, but I think it's worth pointing out that "Everytime there's a [b]mass pileon[/b] to claim that Hillary Clinton is [b]greatly exaggerating or lying[/b]" is not equivalent to "sexism is why people at ObiWI rejected Clinton and preferred Obama". I think Jes in those quotes was noting the [i]vehemence[/i] of the responses to Clinton.

Sep 11, 2008, 23:13:07 Turbulence wrote:

kenB, in the context of a thread where Jes was criticizing the fact that OW posters and commenters had noticed that Clinton's sniper fire story was garbage, I think it is relevant. Read the thread: Jes was talking about abstract media pileons but was rather talking about what was happening at OW.

Sep 11, 2008, 23:33:37 kenB wrote:

Well, regardless of what I might think of Jes's comments in general, their surface text certainly doesn't match your claim regarding "sexism is why people at ObiWI rejected Clinton and preferred Obama". If you think the subtext does match that claim, and you think it does so clearly enough to justify your sarcastic jibe at DM, then IMO you need to provide more detail on your reasoning.

Sep 11, 2008, 23:35:50 tgott wrote:

OCSteve: "So by rattled I mean uncoordinated and generally looking less polished than they have in the past."

OCSteve and I seem to be in the distinct minority in seeing things this way.

Just because you're going to vote for Obama, as I will, doesn't mean you have to be in denial by this sudden downturn in the campaign (that, after all, still seems to have things at a tie).

We've been used to seeing Obama get the star treatment and driving the agenda. During his battle with Clinton and immediately after, the Obama campaign was particularly adept at driving the agenda; they need to get that mojo back.

I was practically laughed off the stage when I questioned Obama's 50-state strategy. Now it's going to come down to a handufl or so battleground states as usual.

I definitely think Dems are in trouble if we get bogged down in a sexism debate, especially when McCain/Palin will try to provoke us into one at every turn. Hillary Clinton will be the first to tell you that.

P.S. Hillary has been on the stump this week showing a lot of heart. I'd like to see her team with Obama for a spell.

---bedtimeforbonzo

Sep 12, 2008, 00:02:44 libjpn wrote:

Hmmm, first let me address dutch's comments. Sorry, I was out at a party this pm

First, I have a pretty good memory for threads, but the one you are talking about does not ring a bell. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or I am doubting you, just that I don't remember it. Because of my job and where I am, I try to stick up for non-native speakers, so if I didn't, I'm sorry. Unfortunately, I tend to not say much when Jes is posting multiple comments cause I just don't want to deal with it, so I may have not said anything because of that.

I am really confused about this:

[i]Your main reply is that you feel a significant portion of the quotes are from people who don't post often enough & the mitigating circumstance of your anger. But even if I would agree with you on both points you still do not address the sexism or even state that those remarks shouldn't be used.[/i]

I sat down, looked up all the threads and tried to determine if the people were regulars or not and gave links. I didn't eliminate any, and I simply accepted at face value that you felt they were sexist. To argue that I should have also said something about the sexism, when the post was titled 'An accounting' i.e. a place for us to talk about it, this is really strange. I didn't say any of those things, and I was hoping that the people who did write them would step forward. We had two people explain why they weren't sexist and one person apologize. I'm not going to rail at people who are not regulars and I'm not going to rail at regulars who don't come over here. OCSteve has said that he is not comfortable talking about people over here unless they actually show up, and I think that's a good rule of thumb. If you think that makes me sexist, so be it, but I really don't see it.

I also again extend the invitation for you or anyone else to post something here. Do say something in the comments, so I can make sure to check my gmail.

If you'd like to express your problems with Biden's speech or his record, that would be a great topic. I personally think that he's damn good on feminist issues for a 66 year old man, given the environment he was raised in and the times he grew up in. And I'm waiting for Gary's post on Obama and feminist issues. But I am certainly not going to list up what I think are feminist issues, cause I can see me being told that I'm not sensitive enough to what is or is not a feminist issue...

OCSteve, that's a fair assessment, but I was saying at the time that there was anger that Hillary did not step aside. The Michigan/Florida delegation spat, the praising of McCain's experience, the comparison between the two campaigns, one tight, the other leaking like a sieve, PUMAs, those things generated a lot of anger. Some of it was unfair, but it is understandable, even if some say they cannot forgive.

Turb, I generally agree with your points, and I think that kenb is missing how vehement Jes was in that thread, but if you could turn it down from 11, it would be a lot easier.

Sep 12, 2008, 00:21:06 kenB wrote:

[i] think that kenb is missing how vehement Jes was in that thread[/i]

Not at all -- I wasn't defending her statements, just saying that her message was not "People at ObWi are voting for Obama because of sexism" but rather "People at ObWi are going over the top trashing Hillary because of sexism".

FWIW, I don't agree with her in any case -- I think the ObWi mob was treating Hillary pretty much the same way it treats any other disfavored candidate. Some specific comments may have been sexist, but the overall motivation was the usual demonization of one's opponents.

Sep 12, 2008, 00:28:48 libjpn wrote:

Whoops, and kenb and btb/tgott slipped in there while I was writing that.

kenb, OC has requested that we don't trash people who aren't here and Jes has given up on this place. If analyzing Jes' rhetoric in that thread is absolutely necessary to evaluating dutch's claim, I'd prefer that we just agreed to disagree and left it at that. Not an order, just an opinion.

btb/tgott
[i]I was practically laughed off the stage when I questioned Obama's 50-state strategy. [/i]

I think the 50 state strategy is still the way to go. The demographics that the Dems are appealing to are going to grow, so it's important to set up a network in states where they may only just be beginning to get in. Even if the Dems lose, they will be in better shape if they have a full organization rather than just organizations in battle ground states.

Again, my thesis is that the pent-up anger is there, and it is not Obama or anyone else who can control it. You've reached a point where hilzoy is fuming and russell, for god's sake, sounds like Krakatoa.

I don't know if the Dems will be in trouble if they don't go back to 'we are the party of ideas, so we aren't going down in the gutter'. But I don't think it's a choice for anyone to make. TPM has two posts on the verge of a series entitled '[url=http://talkingpointsmemo.co...]Embrace the Pig[/url]' Matt Damon is calling McCain-Palin '[url=http://www.youtube.com/watc...]something like a bad Disney movie[/url]' and wonders 'does she believe in dinosaurs? That's all I want to know'. And the dinosaurs thing seems to be fake, but it is an example of the sort of critical mass that is going to be like a daisycutter. Steve Benen explains how to [url=http://www.washingtonmonthl...]lie about McCain[/url]. Though it's not like he's going to do it, that he can sit down and come up with a simple example off the top of his head suggests that others are thinking about it too. And after watching the whoppers the McCain campaign puts out, and after watching the stream of pathetic trolls come over to ObWi to find someway to explain why Palin should get a pass on the librarian issue, or how 'Thanks but no thanks' was actually true, why should I or anyone else use their street cred to say 'gee, I think that is misrepresenting McCain's position?'

Sep 12, 2008, 00:30:13 Turbulence wrote:

[i]
FWIW, I don't agree with her in any case -- I think the ObWi mob was treating Hillary pretty much the same way it treats any other disfavored candidate. Some specific comments may have been sexist, but the overall motivation was the usual demonization of one's opponents.[/i]

Ah, then we're closer than I thought. The only area where I'd disagree is with the phrases "disfavored" and "demonization of one's opponents". I'm not entirely sure by what you mean, but I usually associate those phrases with unthinking denunciation that implies no justification. I think one can demonize Clinton by simply talking about her foreign policy but I don't think that's unfair: the truth hurts. Maybe you agree or maybe not, I just thought I'd clarify.

Sep 12, 2008, 00:39:38 Turbulence wrote:

[i]I was practically laughed off the stage when I questioned Obama's 50-state strategy. Now it's going to come down to a handufl or so battleground states as usual.[/i]

That might have been because you didn't understand what the 50-state strategy meant. You seemed to have some really bizarre ideas about it. It does not mean that Obama will devote equal resources to every single state or devote resources based solely on population. It doesn't mean that Obama expects to win in all or even most states.

What it does mean is that Obama is going to contest more states than Dems have in the past requiring McCain to pump money into otherwise safe republican states. Even if Obama doesn't win any states except the usual blue states and some battleground states, this strategy is still a win because it forces McCain to waste cash that he could be spending on battleground states. This is a great short term strategy for elections where the Dem has more money and a better get-out-the-vote operation than the Rep. It also has long term benefits, but even in terms of short term tactics, this a great strategy.

Do you understand how your criticism that "it will come down to a handful of battleground states as usual" doesn't make any sense? Do you understand how it is better for McCain to have less cash in those battleground states than more cash?

Sep 12, 2008, 00:46:38 Turbulence wrote:

LJ, sorry for the 11. I'll turn it down to 10.5, but only because I like you ;-)

Regarding the concerns about talking about people's comments when they're not here, I'd like to suggest that Jes' comments in that thread should be treated specially. I have no interest in criticizing the contents of those comments -- my point in linking to them was to show that dutchmarbel is being inconsistent in what she claims now. In that sense, I don't really care whether Jes' comments in that thread were correct or incorrect: they're clearly at odds with what dutchmarbel says now.

Sep 12, 2008, 00:49:02 kenB wrote:

[i] I usually associate those phrases with unthinking denunciation that implies no justification[/i]

Well, I didn't mean it that strongly. What I had in mind was unconscious selection bias and confirmation bias -- the ObWi crowd as a whole is apt to notice, and magnify the importance of, the positive things done/said by their own candidate and the negative things done/said by the opposing candidate; and to miss, or downplay, the opposite.

It's hard to "prove" to anyone's satisfaction because the actual facts that are presented are all true enough -- it's just a matter of (perceived) emphasis.

Sep 12, 2008, 00:59:23 Turbulence wrote:

kenB, I think your last comment is very wise.

Sep 12, 2008, 01:07:17 libjpn wrote:

OK, group hug.

My work is done here...

Sep 12, 2008, 01:27:22 tgott wrote:

Kathleen Parker, both of USA Today and the Washington Post, <A HREF="http://blogs.usatoday.com/o...">weighs in on the sexism debate here.</A>

Some highlights:

"The quintessential woman was pro-choice, interchangeable with any man ó and her name was Hillary Rodham Clinton. Feminists necessarily have viewed Clinton's defeat as a sexist manifestation of patriarchal betrayal because, really, what other explanation could there be? Clinton was perfectly molded according to the feminist template. Clearly, she lost because she's a woman, disappointed women told themselves.

"But the greatest insult was yet to come. Republicans ó those anti-woman, patriarchal Neanderthalian gun-clingers ó nominated a woman whom Democrats would call a 'Stepford wife,' except she'd beat them to a bloody pulp with a moose antler."

---

Turb: "Do you understand how it is better for McCain to have less cash in those battleground states than more cash?"

Right now, I would be more concerned about the message wars than the money wars. And McCain's "Change and Reform" seems to be resonating as much as Obama's "Change," which has been around so long now it seems old.

Frankly, I don't care what strategy is employed as long as it puts the Dems back in the White House. And you can tell by which states Obama and Biden are frequenting these days that they are honing in on the battleground.

---

DonaldJ: "(Right now I'm wondering if Clinton would have done a better job fighting back against McCain.)"

Thanks for giving her that much, DJ.

I can't speak for all Clinton supporters, but I think most of them felt all along that the GE would not come down to the Big Ideas and, most especially, Hope that were Obama's hallmark in the primary.

I never for a minute thought Republicans would abandon the Karl Rove playbook that won them the past two GEs (even pre-Palin). And Obama never showed much interest in getting-down-in-the-mud politics.

As OCSteve has noted, Obama and his campaign seem to get rattled when they can't take the high road.

---

lj: "Again, my thesis is that the pent-up anger is there, and it is not Obama or anyone else who can control it."

You better believe that anger is out there and the only way to get rid of it is to win this damn election and not hold a single card for "next time."

---bedtimeforbonzo

Sep 12, 2008, 01:43:20 Turbulence wrote:

[i]Right now, I would be more concerned about the message wars than the money wars.[/i]

OK....then why did you bring up the 50 state strategy. And regardless of what you're concerned with, don't you think the campaign should be thinking both about how to allocate resources and how to message?

[i]And McCain's "Change and Reform" seems to be resonating as much as Obama's "Change," which has been around so long now it seems old.[/i]

How do you know?

[i]Frankly, I don't care what strategy is employed as long as it puts the Dems back in the White House.[/i]

You certainly cared in the past. And it seems like questions about how to allocate money and volunteers have a large effect on elections.

[i]And you can tell by which states Obama and Biden are frequenting these days that they are honing in on the battleground.[/i]

Again: even if Obama and Biden spend all their time in battleground states, it does not mean that they're spending all their campaign resources there.

Sep 12, 2008, 02:41:00 tgott wrote:

Turb: "How do you know?"

Pre-Palin, McCain didn't lead in a single poll.

For that matter, McCain didn't seem to have much of a message. He's gained confidence and suddenly seems comfortable -- the crowds they are attracting certainly do -- calling himself a maverick again.

McCain seemed like a bad convention or a bad VP pick away from becoming irrelevant.

He certainly had a good convention, evidenced by his post-convention bounce -- and even before that in the way the GOP was energized.

And, for now, the Palin pick seems soley responsible for making this a neck-and-neck race.

Of course, I say "for now" because Palin is truly a phenom -- and while I think she is here to stay -- phenoms, by their nature, leave as many questions than answers in their wake.

Once again, I'll side with OCSteve and cite that I perceive the Obama camp to be rattled at the moment. Surely, though, I expect them to regain their footing.

The Obama campaign pulled all of the right strings in the primaries. Yet it's important to remember that it benefited greatly from blunders and mistakes by the Clinton camp -- these blunders and mistakes came regularly.

Love them or hate them, since the Rove people took over the McCain camp, I can't really remember any blunders or mistakes other than, notably, McCain not knowing how many houses he has -- and Palin wiped that controversy off the map, too.

---bedtimeforbonzo

Sep 12, 2008, 02:52:15 Turbulence wrote:

btfb, polling doesn't tell us whether or not McCain's change message is resonating with voters, which is what you originally claimed. For example, voters might just really like Palin and have no interest in change.

Sep 12, 2008, 03:23:50 tgott wrote:

Turb: "polling doesn't tell us whether or not McCain's change message is resonating with voters, which is what you originally claimed. For example, voters might just really like Palin and have no interest in change."

I'd correlate Palin with the McCain's change -- and reform, mind you -- message since that's what their campaign is explicitly doing.

The big thing Palin does is she allows McCain to separate himself from George W. Bush. She's a new face -- and a woman, which is change unto itself, as the link I provided about Kathleen Parker's column goes into detail about.

Ironically, Palin seems more like Bush than McCain. But as publius wrote the other day, this race is about surface politics right now.

Also, I made the distinction between Obama's "change" them and McCain/Palin's "change and reform" for a reason.

The GOP is belittling Obama's change theme. McCain/Palin is saying they will provide change by reforming Washington.

Again: surface politics.

---btfb

Sep 12, 2008, 03:59:21 Turbulence wrote:

[i]I'd correlate Palin with the McCain's change -- and reform, mind you -- message since that's what their campaign is explicitly doing.[/i]

There's no reason to believe that any one campaign effort is effective though. I mean, you see commercials everyday but you don't go out and slavishly buy every damn thing for which you've seen advertisements, do you?

[i]The GOP is belittling Obama's change theme. McCain/Palin is saying they will provide change by reforming Washington.[/i]

The average person has no idea what the difference is between "change" and "change and reform" in a political context. I have no idea. So almost everyone will hear "change" and "change and reform" as the same damn thing. That sounds like a mixed message to me. Their messaging (the way you describe it) is so confused, that I think the campaign must be rattled. Yeah, that's it.

This is why I don't like talking about rattled campaigns: there's no way to ever know, so people just assume stuff based on zero evidence. I'm sure you don't think McCain's camp is rattled, but you can't prove it and you have no more evidence disproving it than you do for the claim that Obama's campaign is rattled.

Sep 12, 2008, 04:18:06 tgott wrote:

Turb,

I, like many people who cared to notice or comment, felt the McCain campaign was worse than rattled -- it was grounded -- pre-convention, pre-Palin.

To notice it's turnaround isn't just being fair, it's being realistic.

But you certainly don't have to agree with with my opinion or OCSteve's opinion or even David Gergen, who's made these same observations, and who certainly has a better pedigree to make them than me or probably OCSteve.

I think where we fundamentally differ is I see no problem with giving the McCain campaign credit for something real or imagined even though they most certainly won't get my vote.

--btfb

Sep 12, 2008, 04:33:35 Turbulence wrote:

btfb, I recognize that McCain's campaign is doing much better in the polls these days. I just don't think we have tons of insight into either campaign organization right now. Does Obama's team care about the national polls that you and the media are fixated on? Maybe, but there are some indications that they don't. And to be honest, Obama's team has a much better record of winning elections than you or me or anyone else in the media does. At the same time, I don't think McCain is really rattled or necessarily was rattled pre-Palin. I mean, maybe he is/was, but there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that, and I'm also skeptical that his campaign team are paying nearly as much attention to the publicly released polls as you and the media are.

What I see is that a bunch of people in the media are freaking out or getting excited and are projecting their own emotions onto the campaigns. Media people, who are generally not smart enough to run a campaign or understand complex issues or understand simple issues even, are trying to analyze this very complex phenomena where they just don't have the data they need.

Electoral prediction markets, which basically incorporate conventional wisdom dished out by the media, have a lousy track record for predicting elections. That suggests to me that most people lack either the skills or knowledge to understand electoral contests well.

Sep 12, 2008, 08:53:51 libjpn wrote:

turb, btfb, not meaning to bust you two, but it seems that [b]everyone[/b] is caught up in predicting what is going to happen. Calm down!/I knew they shouldn't have picked Biden!/Obama has things under control! I knew they should have picked Hillary!

I cop to doing the same, but arguing over whether or not things are fine misses the point. I'm going to simply deal with criticism of Obama/Biden and inflated claims for McCain/Palin.

Frex, I invited dutch to write up her complaints about Obama and Biden's stance on feminist issues. If she does, I hope it will include explaining why anything they do would be equal to [url=http://www.adn.com/sarah-pa...]this[/url]

If that makes me less of a liberal for not holding Obama/Biden's feet to the fire, so be it.

Sep 12, 2008, 09:26:07 tgott wrote:

Yes, lj, it is hard not to get caught up in the horse-race thing, especially when we are 50-some days out.

I, for one, wasn't expecting the GOP to stage such a successful convention, especially after the Dems threw quite a party.

Moreover, I was almost expecting McCain's VP choice to be so ho-hum that it would practically end the race by default.

Gergen said last night on CNN -- while waiting for her airplane's televised arrival to Alaska as the clock approached midnight -- that Palin's two-week domination of the news cycle has become so extreme as to be bizarre.

Not sure I've ever heard him use the word "bizzare" about anything.

This is a veteran, veteran political analyst -- an adviser to several presidents -- who is at a loss for words trying to explain the Palin phenomenon.

By the way, I share your view that Biden -- for someone of his generation -- is quite strong on women's issues.

---btfb

Sep 12, 2008, 17:34:54 crionna wrote:

What a freaking joke OW has become. All Obama all the time now, all Rs are idiots all the time prior to that. No wonder conservatives never seriously comment. "Voice of moderation" my foot. The very idea that interesting subjects can be discussed by people of different persuasions went out the door LONG LONG ago. And fun? Pishaw. Seriously, whereís the Haiku? I canít remember the last time I saw a decent discussion about food, or beer. I miss that one guy bitching at me to try East Bay BBQ and convincing me that Old Potrero is still too young a whiskey to drink seriously.

I canít believe that OC bothers to comment any more. Frankly, it seems to me that he must get off on the attention or the occasional support from LJ or others because there is a 0% chance that heíll change any mind there. Hell, heís barely lucky enough to get out alive (figuratively) after making most comments. One thing I agree with him on, the Rs have totally gone off track fiscally. Greedy bastids, the lot of them.

IMO OW as a whole now seems to me a group of people of a generally left-wing viewpoint who come to read what they want to hear. They yearn for a dissenting yet somewhat anonymous voice so that they have a place to target their anger because their off line friends and family are tired of hearing them rant and that circle is so like them they have no one of a differing viewpoint to discuss things with.

I am so tired of it. You want anger LJ, hereís some. Obama is an absolute IDIOT if he didnít think that people would look at his ridiculous lipstick comment, then read the rest about an ďold fishĒ and not think that heíd get hassled for insulting Palin and McCain. Does it matter? Some commenters might say that as President, he canít indulge in that type of subtle dig on the national stage. Others might say that him not realizing that it would be taken wrong is a notion of how unprepared he is for the office (seriously, imagine how a similar type of comment would be read by the Iranians). I would say that it was childish of him to make the statement and idiotic of McCain not to just scoff at it and move on. But thatís just me.

End Part one

Sep 12, 2008, 17:35:11 crionna wrote:

Begin Part Two

Quite frankly I donít believe anything I hear from any candidate anymore. I think that part of the D gameplan is to have underling Ds say something ridiculous so that Obama can be magnanimous in slapping them down or firing them. Unfortunately, thatís backfired now that he needs to be able to fire back himself and hard.

You want some more anger? Iíve got some. I don't care where Obama went to school, what color he is, nor what theology he believes in. I do care that he is friends with an unrepentant, American-killing, building bombing terrorist. I care that he spent decades at a church run by a racist. I care that he supports a ďpro-choiceĒ platform and pro-choice is actually pro-murder. I care that if he could get the votes in congress he would shred 2A. I care that his vote for FISA shows heís just as wiling to wield tyrannical powers as Bush is. I care that his earmark-love show him to be just another politicioan at the trough for he and his buddies. And I care that heís left his half-brother to live in poverty in Africa while he lives as a millionaire.

Is McCain any better? Hell no, but at least he wonít shred 2A so weíve got a fighting chance to take a few with us when they come to take us away in a no-knock raid.

I used to learn things at OW. I learned the value of a progressive tax system (from a Centrist or an R I think - maybe even Von). I learned that I support the death tax; not to raise revenues but to try and hold the encroachment of a rich ruling class at bay. I learned that Iím lucky to be healthy-ish and supporting universal health for meat-eating, gin-swilling, smokers (much less children, the poor and the elderly) is the right thing to do (although Iím still scared that it just wonít work). I learned that even though I think that a pro-choice stance is pro-murder, I should still be pro-choice because the decision is harder on the woman to make than it ever will be for anyone else to deal with (except the murdered child of course) and in the end, sheíll have to live with it (although Iím still concerned my stanceíll get the ďdownĒ lever pulled at the pearly gates). I learned that despite my anger with Bin Laden and Hussein I am truly against the death penalty for any crime.

All I learn now is that Iím an idiot for not thinking Obama is the new savior on earth. Puhlease. Man how Iíd like to hear him say that heís going to make the system even more progressive so that people will pay 95% of their earnings from $2M+, because, well, thatís REALLY REALLY Rich and they should pay their fair share. But of course I wonít. Itís easy to claim that the family in Walnut Creek earning $250K is rich and tax the crap out of them, but he sure wouldnít want to alienate his rich Hollywood and Silicon Valley pals with some REAL taxation.

So LJ, you give those mean Ďole righties all the anger and ridicule you can come up with, but it really wonít matter. Both sides are pigs and fish and no amount of lipstick will make them easier to kiss. We just all gotta hope they donít run out of breath mints.

End Rant. Whew, thank goodness for TiO. I'm going to hit the rack.

Sep 12, 2008, 19:07:31 libjpn wrote:

[i]So LJ, you give those mean Ďole righties all the anger and ridicule you can come up with, but it really wonít matter.[/i]

Especially when Palin thinks that [url=http://www.washingtonpost.c...]Iraq was responsible for 9/11[/url]

You don't like being attached to the positions of McCain/Palin, you might think about rejecting them. Otherwise, all those nuanced positions you price yourself on are going to get lumped in the a neocon Armageddonist worldview. I will shed a tear when people call you an idiot.

Sep 12, 2008, 22:42:27 kenB wrote:

[i]You don't like being attached to the positions of McCain/Palin, you might think about rejecting them. Otherwise, all those nuanced positions you price yourself on are going to get lumped in the a neocon Armageddonist worldview. I will shed a tear when people call you an idiot.[/i]

Holy crap. This is beyond anger, it's a purity test -- tell us how much you hate the Romans, or you can't be in our group.

ObWings needs to be re-branded -- get a new name (no one here even knows what the name is from -- that was Moe's), get a new subtitle, rest comfortably in a new mission statement as a liberal blog. That way y'all won't have to deal with us oldtimers coming back to complain anymore.

Sep 12, 2008, 23:02:08 Turbulence wrote:

kenB, Why does OW have to do anything just because LJ has a particular opinion? Does LJ now speak for all of OW? Is he the master of OW?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by purity test -- your comment implies that it is always a negative. And yet I'm perfectly fine with many purity tests: I don't mind banning Nazis from polite discussion, do you? The poisonous ideology of modern Republicans brought about a pointless war that killed a million people for no reason. I have trouble seeing a large moral difference between that and Nazism but perhaps you could educate me on the fine points about how bringing about the deaths of a million people through stupidity because you just didn't care differs from intentionally destroying a few million people. As long as Palin and McCain are willing to talk about how we're in Iraq to fight the 9/11 perpetrators, they're part of the same poisonous Bush ideology and everyone associated with them should be purged, IMHO.

Sep 12, 2008, 23:12:09 kenB wrote:

[i]Does LJ now speak for all of OW? [/i]

That attitude seems pretty representative of OW at this point. Not everyone certainly, but enough.

[i]The poisonous ideology of modern Republicans brought about a pointless war that killed a million people for no reason. I have trouble seeing a large moral difference between that and Nazism[/i]

This is what I'm saying. Why would you even bother being polite to anyone who even hints at supporting the Republicans when you believe that?

ObWi is now a place for people who feel that same way. Which means that its founding idea has been obliterated. Which is not the end of the world by any means, but it's irritating to see the old signage there still. Rebrand the site and you won't have to deal with cranks like me and crionna and von anymore. Isn't that a win-win?

Sep 12, 2008, 23:29:20 crionna wrote:

Wow, drunk blogging. Never a good idea. Sorry y'all.

OTOH, I'll say with a reasonable amount of certainty that in a Spock-has-a-beard world where the opposite viewpoint had won out at OW, I would've written closst to the same thing only with McCain and Palin as the targets, cause goodness knows they're no better and in some cases much worse.

Sep 12, 2008, 23:32:47 marbel wrote:

butbutbut..... you're either against us or with us kenb, didn't you know?

I thought Crionna's post was heartfelt and touching, I was gonna recommend making it a full post. It is what I always felt about ObWi. I already posted about that [url=http://obsidianwings.blogs....]in april[/url]. I could actually cut and paste that whole comment into this discussion, but I'll stick to the beginning and the end.

[i]Next November 13th ObWi will be 5. Founder Moe started it with two fellow posters, stating that he wanted it to be a centrist blog with him for the right wing and two more people to his left. &#8220;While I carry my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy card with pride, my fellow-bloggers do not. They aren't froth-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, mind you - which will probably disqualify them as being on the Left for a very small yet vocal group of people - but they are most assuredly not Republicans. I look forward to their insights and challenges to my own ideological leanings.&#8221;

Poster number two, Katherine, quotes Camus to show that there should be discussion between different sides: "In this way the Right abandoned the monopoly of the moral reflex to the Left, which yielded to it the monopoly of the patriotic reflex. The country suffered doubly. &#8220;.

The third poster, Von, puts it more explicitly when he describes a blog he no longer likes: &#8220;It is now a place where the like-minded gather to chat about like-minded things, or to analyse exactly how stupid the unlike-minded are. Consequently, the unlike-minded seldom go there, and the quality of debate has declined&#8221; and &#8220;But I do lament the loss of something special in DKos. It used to contain that rarest of blogosphere attributes: actual, honest, fair-sided debate among all members of the political spectrum. No longer.&#8221;[/i]

Crionna says he misses the ObWi of old, and so am I. The end does not always justify the means, tolerating bad behaviour is tolerating a decline in civility and scorched earth tactics lead to a very hostile and grim place to live.

end of part one

Sep 12, 2008, 23:32:55 marbel wrote:

part two:

[i]There used to be a time where I could follow those discussions here and gain new insights, learn new things. But now even my own comments get distorted. In this thread people have said that I believed that Hillary Clinton is wonderful or that I intending to say that Clinton should be elected. People implied that I called people who disagreed with her sexist or that the act of criticising her was sexist. All I have ever said (several times) about Clinton and Obama is that I don't have a real preference and that neither is perfect. In another thread about the elections I have said that one specific kind of argument against Clinton was sexist and that there were plenty of non-sexist arguments available so people shouldn't use the sexist ones.

Either my views are misrepresented on purpose, which I don't hope or assume, or people really translate my carefully worded comments like that. Though I am perfectly willing to blame my English for being misunderstood it does make me suspicious when my comprehensibility seems to depend on the partisanship of the reader.[/i]

What [url=http://obsidianwings.blogs....]I said[/url] this month was:
[i]Sexism is always wrong. I don't expect much better from the redneck rightwing, but the lefties and progressives are supposed to agree with that. Or rather that is what I assumed till the beginning of this year. But even now I still think that progressives (Democrats) ought to strive for economic independence of women, equal treatment, creating an environment where women and men can have a family and have a career. Trashing that to make a cheap politial point is bad behaviour - trashing that when there are many more honorable options to make that political point is both bad and stupid.[/i]

And further in that thread:
[i]I thought I might have to expand a bit on why I think it is stupid.
Democrats usually profit from high voter turnout. If you want Obama to win (or want McCain to loose) you want as many people as you can reach out to vote for the democratic party. Especially women, since the majority of Democratic voters is female. You may assume that women will on the whole vote for Obama because the alternative is worse (OMG Roe, Scotus!). But it would be much better and reliable if they were actually enthousiastic and wanted to vote *for* the Democratic ticket.

Both Obama and Biden are not great in feminist issues. The Obama supporters have been worse the past months. Voting in the US allready is harder than in a lot of democratic countries. Do you really want to help the right-wing discourage as many women as you can to vote?[/i]

And no, I'm not going to "write up complaints about Obama and Biden's stance on feminist issues.". You asked me to explain why I though that Biden was not great on feminist issues, I gave a number of examples and your reply is that you think he is pretty good for a man his age. Maybe you could just accept that they are not great on feminist issues and try to get them elected in spite of that. For instance by making them MORE appealing for women and a very easy way to do so is creating an environment where sexist framing, sexist arguments, are not tolerated. Instead of arguing that the comment was made by someone who wasn't a sexist, made by someone who only commented 56 times in the past two years, made by someone who has to be forgiven because he is really angry or by someone who has to be forgiven because you cannot expect a 66 year old to refrain from making sexist remarks.

With Palin it should be soooo easy to find non-sexist arguments to critizise or even ridicule her with. I don't really want to defend her any which way, you know. I think she is horrible and the thought that she might become next in line next year horrifies me.

Sep 12, 2008, 23:39:33 OCSteve wrote:

crionna: That was a hell of an impressive rant. FWIW, I donít know why I bother commenting any more either. Habit I guess. Plus itís a good distraction from some other stuff I donít want to think about 24/7.

Sep 13, 2008, 00:08:01 Turbulence wrote:

[i]What a freaking joke OW has become.[/i]

What a freaking joke you've become. Talk about pathetic. Most people at least get funny when they're drunk.

[i]All Obama all the time now, all Rs are idiots all the time prior to that.[/i]

Wait, I thought it was all Palin all the time...I'm confused. I don't recall anyone saying that all Republicans are idiots all the time, but you have to admit, lots of Republicans in government are in fact pretty stupid. Heck of a job crionna, heck of a job. Exactly how many American cities do we have to watch drown with no real rescue effort before we're allowed to conclude that the Republican party sucks at governing? One is obviously not enough, so 3? 5? How many other countries do we have to destroy for no real reason? Again, one is obviously not enough, so is it 3? 5? 37?

[i]No wonder conservatives never seriously comment. "Voice of moderation" my foot. The very idea that interesting subjects can be discussed by people of different persuasions went out the door LONG LONG ago. [/i]

I like to discuss whether child rape is OK with people of different persuasions myself....that's always an interesting subject. I've heard this same rant before and it is still bone shatteringly stupid. Merely having different opinions isn't a good thing in and of itself. Having different opinions that end up killing or torturing lots of people for no reason is really really bad and is not something that we should encourage.

[i]And fun? Pishaw. Seriously, whereís the Haiku? I canít remember the last time I saw a decent discussion about food, or beer. I miss that one guy bitching at me to try East Bay BBQ and convincing me that Old Potrero is still too young a whiskey to drink seriously.[/i]

Well, a lot of things stopped being fun after Abu Gharib or after we decided that torture was awesome or after the Iraq war killed a million people or after New Orleans drowned. Maybe you don't give a fuck about a bunch of darkies and black folk and rule of law, but the rest of us do, so you'll forgive us if we won't all be your monkeys and dance on command for you.

[i]I canít believe that OC bothers to comment any more. Frankly, it seems to me that he must get off on the attention or the occasional support from LJ or others because there is a 0% chance that heíll change any mind there. Hell, heís barely lucky enough to get out alive (figuratively) after making most comments.[/i]

You know, it is really creepy to speculate on someone else's motives like that. Last time I checked, he gives as good as he gets, and he gets defended pretty regularly. I suppose that Jes is a real jerk to him at times, but that's hardly a problem that he suffers from uniquely.

[i]One thing I agree with him on, the Rs have totally gone off track fiscally. Greedy bastids, the lot of them.[/i]

Yeah, the biggest problem with killing lots of people for no reason or watching a city drown is the pork. I'm sure you'll agree with me on the need for significant cutbacks on the DOD budget, right? I mean, we have to cut spending, right? Or are you one of those conservatives that believes that defense spending doesn't count?

[i]IMO OW as a whole now seems to me a group of people of a generally left-wing viewpoint who come to read what they want to hear.[/i]

Question: name for me one group of people that don't share a common interest. Now, explain to me how that differs from a blog based on people who read what they want to hear. Do you know what the word tautology means?

[i]They yearn for a dissenting yet somewhat anonymous voice so that they have a place to target their anger because their off line friends and family are tired of hearing them rant and that circle is so like them they have no one of a differing viewpoint to discuss things with.[/i]

crionna, you're not smart enough to figure out what is going in anyone else's head, so please stop trying. You just don't have the knowledge or skills to get it. You are completely wrong.

[i]I am so tired of it. You want anger LJ, hereís some. Obama is an absolute IDIOT if he didnít think that people would look at his ridiculous lipstick comment, then read the rest about an ďold fishĒ and not think that heíd get hassled for insulting Palin and McCain. Does it matter? Some commenters might say that as President, he canít indulge in that type of subtle dig on the national stage. Others might say that him not realizing that it would be taken wrong is a notion of how unprepared he is for the office (seriously, imagine how a similar type of comment would be read by the Iranians). I would say that it was childish of him to make the statement and idiotic of McCain not to just scoff at it and move on. But thatís just me.[/i]

Ah, the great substance we've been longing for! Tell me more about McCain's policies!

Sep 13, 2008, 00:13:15 libjpn wrote:

kenb,
I haven't been notified that my opinion is completely and totally representative of ObWi, but I imagine the letter is in the mail. It's interesting that you complain about conservatives being judged by the stupidity of the current crop of Republicans and then you go and judge ObWi by my rantings. I'm also responding specifically to crionna's self proclaimed rant. Do you stand by everything that crionna says? Do you want to say 'I'm a pro-choice Republican who understands that invading Iraq was a mistake and the economy is in the toilet, so you should be nice to Republicans because I still want to identify with them?'

Somehow, it's fine for conservative trolls to drop by and all you folks who identify as conservatives feel no obligation to fact check them, ask them to pull back, stand up for anyone over there. Somehow, it's the liberals' responsibility to keep the conversation on target and on task, and correct for any mistakes, as well as apologize to the poor sensitive conservatives for hurting any conservative feelings. But I'm trying to remember any defense of a liberal regular, any suggestion that someone identifying from the conservative side is trolling. Blogbudsman (an ironic nickname if there ever was one) is back, and all of you mourning the loss of the founding ideals but can't spare a comment to either say 'don't respond, he's just trolling' or to even say that while you may agree, you don't think they are adding anything to the conversation. The only time I see a conservative complain is when they something to the troll along the lines of 'you aren't helping me', which means that the troll is proving the liberal point. I haven't seen anyone other than OC point to how the Republicans have fucked up totally and don't deserve to be in office.

Crionna doesn't want to be seen as being an Obama supporter. Fine, especially if this election boils down to 2A. (and if I accuse a religious like passion for the 2A like the accusation of thinking that Obama is the messiah, I can imagine the shit I would get) Like all of America's problems stem from problems with second amendment jurisprudence. And crionna's plaint that I paraphrase as "Obama should have realized that the comment would be taken out of context. So he was asking for it. And he might say something stupid to Ahmadinejad, so god forbid that we elect him." Note that crionna can't bear to admit that Obama wasn't talking about Palin, but neatly skips over it. Why is that?

It's not just the stupidity of blaming the victim, it's the stupidity of thinking that there is some sort of equivalence between how Obama will deal with McCain and how he might deal with Iran. This is nuanced?

Point me to any conservative who took issue with von on the Fedex overnite vetting. Point me to one, just one conservative who said that yes, it was disturbing that McCain changed from Obama has not experience to aren't we fresh. Point me to one conservative who expressed some distress at Palin's use of her office to intimidate, both as mayor and as Governor. Why give Larison a rec over here, but not mention it over there? Is it too frightening to imagine that you might have to line up with liberals and puncture your plastic bubble?

For all the crowing about how the ObWi conservatives are so brave and openminded for wading in to liberal waters, explain to me why I don't see anything like the above. That I point out that you are going to be in the same position that liberals have been in, and it's not going to be pleasant, as an observation, it suddenly becomes a problem for the liberals to solve. It's very strange for a creed that preaches responsibility for one own's actions.

If you and crionna are cranks, it is not because of your opinions, it is because you define yourselves completely separate from the notions of the liberals at ObWi. In the final analysis, you have exiled yourself.

Sep 13, 2008, 00:26:27 Turbulence wrote:

[i]Trashing that to make a cheap politial point is bad behaviour - trashing that when there are many more honorable options to make that political point is both bad and stupid.[/i]

Ah, dutchmarbel is our very own [url=http://www.salon.com/opinio...]Tom Raum[/url] -- someone who thinks that the Obama campaign has trashed Palin's family credentials or maybe someone who thinks that random OW commenters speak for the Obama campaign.

Sep 13, 2008, 00:30:28 libjpn wrote:

Well, serves me right for not figuring out how to do preview in the blog engine. Crionna, I appreciate the notion you'd be doing the same for McCain/Palin in the bearded Spock world, but I would like to see some more consistent tamping down of the plague of trolls that, while nothing like other blogs, is still disturbing in this world.

And Dutch, things have sort of exploded, so I'm going to pass on responding to your comment. I don't agree with your point about Biden, and to adduce sexism in someone referring to his spouse in a way that obviously indicates the deep love that he has for her seems that you are trying to find things wrong with Biden, especially when you have McCain doing [url=http://rawstory.com/news/20...]this[/url].

Sep 13, 2008, 00:35:13 OCSteve wrote:

LJ: [i]Somehow, it's fine for conservative trolls to drop by and all you folks who identify as conservatives feel no obligation to fact check them, ask them to pull back, stand up for anyone over there. Ö But I'm trying to remember any defense of a liberal regular Ö[/i]

Come on now. Iíve defended hilzoy and other regulars many times from RW trolls. Not just trolls Ė just last week I supported you in your tiff with von.

[i]Even as a conservative, a longtime Republican, an ardent supporter of the military, and someone who greatly respects McCainís story Ė if there was one overriding theme I saw in this weeks convention itís the one that has hilzoy angry. Every night just reeked of holier-than-thou patriotism.[/i]

Slarti is very quick to jump to jump to a regularís defense. I can understand that you honestly canít recall the occasions Ė but really Ė it does happen.

Sep 13, 2008, 00:52:58 libjpn wrote:

No, OCSteve, I don't think you count. Not that you aren't conservative, but note that DaveC, crionna (admittedly drunk blogging) claim that you are altering your opinions because you want to be friends with us liberals.

While I wasn't clear, this is why I specifically noted
[i]I haven't seen anyone other than OC point to how the Republicans have fucked up totally and don't deserve to be in office. [/i]

Obviously, that wasn't clear enough, but it was meant to suggest that if we had a few more folks from the other side who were willing to stand up, things would be different.
I'm not sure if Slarti counts or not. And he also has the keys to the blog. And that's more the topic for the most recent rant.

Sep 13, 2008, 01:00:23 DonaldJ wrote:

I accidentally posted this in another thread--

I sympathized with a few of crionna's points, but it's all mixed up with large helpings of bullshit. For instance, on Obama's brother--

<a href="http://mediamatters.org/ite...">Link</a>

It's not worth going through most of the rest. I will say that as a non-self-hating white person I'd have been happy to go to Obama's church. Wright said some dumb things, but I don't think his church is "racist" for adhering to liberation theology--I think that's white person talk for "righteous anger from black people makes me uncomfortable." It's fun to hear someone complain about Republicans being unfairly branded doing a little branding himself. But anyway, when someone says he's drunk it's a little hard to tell what he'd be willing to stand by when sober.

I do agree that conservatives like OCSteve get picked on unfairly. I don't mind him getting mobbed about things he says which others disagree with, but sometimes he gets mobbed for positions he doesn't hold--it's like people want a LittleGreenFootball type to attack and if one isn't handy, OC will do nicely.

ObiWi would probably still be a good place for lefties and righties to argue about domestic economic issues. Most of us lefties have no interest in being gentle to American war criminals, however, and tend to get shrill about it.

Sep 13, 2008, 01:30:20 tgott wrote:

dutch: "With Palin it should be soooo easy to find non-sexist arguments to critizise or even ridicule her with."

Given that she just did her first substantial interview -- which happened to be her only interview to date with the press -- we are already seeing real criticsms, real arguments, and I think it's just the beginning.

---

cironna: "IMO OW as a whole now seems to me a group of people of a generally left-wing viewpoint who come to read what they want to hear."

Given that I'm still in my introductory period at the mothership -- seven months and counting -- I read with interest about the "good old days."

It does seem as if ObWi will continue to bill itself as "the voice of moderation" it needs a conservative front-pager -- which hilzoy has said she wants.

That said, cironna's critisms seem harsh, but I understand some of them.

I hate being grouped as part of a "left-wing viewpoint." Now -- if a Republican were defining me -- I'd expect that person to say I was a liberal or left winger.

I simply prefer to define myself as a Democrat, and it would be nice if we got back to a time when being a Democrat didn't mean you were a liberal or a left winger (not saying I don't hold liberal views, but they are balanced by conservative views).

I'm a Democrat -- a Clinton Democrat --and proud of it.

And after seeing Palin's interview last night, I see that it is more important than ever that the Dems re-take the White House.

--bedtimeforbonzo

Sep 13, 2008, 10:28:47 OCSteve wrote:

89 comments? What the hell do we have to do to break 100 here? OK - back to the sex-ed thread...

Sep 13, 2008, 17:28:58 crionna wrote:

<i>Maybe you don't give a fuck about a bunch of darkies and black folk and rule of law, but the rest of us do, so you'll forgive us if we won't all be your monkeys and dance on command for you.
</i>

Now who's mind reading? What a vile person you are Turbulence to think that my support of the war's aims means that I support torture. Or that I wasn't sickened by the plight of New Orleans. Or that I'm happy about how the post-Hussein period moved forward. Fuck you and your indignation. Maybe you weren't around when my support of the war came down to the Unicef report of how many children were dying each month under Hussein. It pisses me off that things haven't gotten better there. That I'm not convinced that just pulling up stakes is what will fix things doesn't mean that I think we should stay there for 100 years.

<i>wonít all be your monkeys and dance on command for you</i> What kind of horseshit statement is that? Like it would be such a bummer to have a thread once in a while that allowed people to agree or disagree on something besides the election. IMO those type of threads are what make the place more congenial on all the threads. Otherwise its all just getting stuff off our chests, which is what itís kind of devolved to. Seriously, in the abstract and not purporting to speak for her, do you think that counting Palinís bridge statements is a good use of Hilzoyís abilities? And even if deemed important, how many people will it surprise at OW; really?

And frankly, I think you'd be surprised at my ideas about what the DOD ought to be doing. Pulling all of our soldiers off foreign soil in an appropriate time period is just a start. Shutting down all of our nuke subs is another. Talking to everyone without preconditions goes too far in one direction but branding some as an axis of evil and not talking at all goes too far in the other.

Jeebus, at least I admitted to being hammered when I wrote my screed.

Sep 13, 2008, 17:29:32 crionna wrote:

<i>Well, serves me right for not figuring out how to do preview in the blog engine.</i>

Nope LJ, this ainít on you, this is on me, drunk or not. So letís talk about it.

<i>Crionna doesn't want to be seen as being an Obama supporter.</i>

LJ, you know I live in SF. being seen as an Obama supporter would make my life easier, not harder. Besides, any R vote I might make only counts in supervisor races. In the end, A) there's no one out there for me to support fully. and B) no matter who I pull a lever for, my district is going Obama, Pelosi and Boxer/Feinstein.

Itís not that I donít want to be <i>seen</i> as an Obama supporter, its just that Iím notÖon certain things, and amÖon others. Likewise with McCain.

And I'd be happy to chime in on R idiocy, but I don't get to OW as often as I could when Moe kicked it off and I worked from home. Part of that is choice (choosing lots of Bulleit at the Phone Booth over a sober early evening at OW), but mostly its because I'm usually in start-up hell. So, by the time I see something like that ridiculously stupid McCain crap about the sex ed for kindergarteners thing, there are already a number of posts above it. People have moved on it seems. And as far as the trolls go, others get there first. Should I chime in on those things to create some cred? That seems disingenuous.

<i>I haven't seen anyone other than OC point to how the Republicans have fucked up totally and don't deserve to be in office. </i>

First, I apologize to OC for my comments. Mind-reading your reasons for commenting was totally out of line. And I donít think you alter your opinions because you want to be friends with them liberals. Your opinions are your own. I just wonder sometimes why you bother to offer them up when you can predict what the response will be, for, perhaps, the last couple of <i>years</i>. But, in the end, not my business. Second, I don't want to judge people by their parties in this race. Even drunk I didn't tie Obama to any D of the past. In fact one of my few comments at OW bemoaned his choice of Biden specifically because he did kind of tie Obama to the D (or maybe the politics is a better way to put it) of the past. Frankly I think that Obama's either honestly mystified that people attribute bad intention to some of the things he says, tying the comments back to assumed D positions of old, or he is just very good at playing "Who me, c'mon, get serious" while he meant everything he said in the meanest way possible. It sometimes seems that he really just wants people to look past his past and any gaffes (intentioned or not) and trust him to do the correct thing once in office. His whole campaign seems to be about just that, and some people buy it and some don't. And the Palin choice threw a bit of a monkey wrench (for whatever reason) into the works. A wrench he's having a tough time removing.

And yeah, Iíve got a thing for 2A. But itís the same thing that lots of folks have for choice. Anything that can be seen as an assault is seen as a possible chink in the armor that could bring the whole thing down and cannot be tolerated. Having said that, Iím for instant background checks and stiff penalties for gun crimes (along with making having your firearm stolen (should it not be well secured) a pretty serious crime in and of itself).

You know LJ, a couple, hell, maybe three, years ago when I split OW it was because things had gotten so bad there (to my eyes) that you and I argued over really nothing. I didnít even look at OW for a long while, maybe 18 months. Perhaps my detachment has made it easier for me to see what has happened, or maybe its just created a false sense of what once was. Things change. In my eyes, it hasnít been for the best and Iím disappointed that 1) others may not see the change and 2) that I donít have time to be part of the solution.

Sep 13, 2008, 18:08:00 libjpn wrote:

Crionna,
thanks, and I really appreciate you stopping back by. I obviously didn't make it clear, but I have and will continue to try and defend regulars at ObWi, as I have with OCSteve, von, slarti, sebastian and others, if I can keep my temper down, which, as I note, is getting harder and harder. And as my temper rises, I am more inclined to say screw it, especially if it is someone who doesn't really know me, except to deliver a backhand to some idiotic comment about needing to compare Wasilla charging for rape kits to a full examination of Chicago under Daley or some such troll. And when there are lots of those kinds of trolls, it emboldens people whose commitment to exchanging idea was questionable at best.

And, as I said, I tend to just back up slowly when Jes gets her dander up, cause it just isn't worth it, so one could accuse me of being hypocritical in that regard, but I think it is understandable.

But to lay this at the feet of the regular liberals at ObWi is really mistaken imho. Hilzoy's profile, with going to Washington Monthly and getting linked to Insty at least 2 times and possibly more, has flooded the place with lots of people and the conservative trolls has gotten the stick while the liberal ones have just been ignored. Gresham's law

I also repeat, the choice of Palin is a big fuck you not only to liberals but to anyone who cares about how we elect people, and failing to understand that anger (and there are a lot of liberals who fail to understand how angry other liberals are or how angry they are) gives a skewed view of what is really happening. And I'd advance the argument that failing to get angry can be viewed as a bit of a litmus test for intelligent participation. I think it is no surprise that Republicans voices in the media who might be the source of some reasonable points have gone underground on the Palin pick, but in the more intimate atmosphere of ObWi, that option doesn't really exist.

It occurs to me that one could accuse me of concern trolling all of you, but I assure you, this is my opinion. The thesis started out as an attempt to explain to Dutchmarbel why you saw people reaching for insulting frames, but as I watched what has happened since the nomination of Palin, I become more and more convinced that the thesis is more generally applicable. Yet people don't seem to see how atypical it is to see people like Russell and hilzoy writing in obvious anger.

In the old OW, I think someone could throw out an idea and it might get dismissed and even laughed at, but the person would be at least left alone. As that distinction between what is proposed and who the person is is lost, the side with the most people wins.

Sep 13, 2008, 21:29:05 DonaldJ wrote:

Crionna, it's a little hard to see what you're complaining about if you agree that Bush is responsible for torture and criminally negligient with respect to Katrina. Okay, you're appalled like any decent person should be, but then what the hell was your stupid drunken rant about? Apparently three years ago when it was clear that Bush was responsible for torture and Katrina hit, that's when ObiWi got really bad in your eyes. I can't think of anything polite to say about your sense of perspective.

Log in here

Add Comment


Allowed BBCode:[b] [i] [u] [s] [color=] [size=] [quote] [code] [email] [img]