Someone on Ezra Klein’s blog recently linked to this post by a Hillary Clinton supporter, detailing why Hillary supporters should not support Barack Obama.
And, well. Here we go.
Several of us have tried over the past couple of months to explain why that won’t happen, but the Obamabots don’t seem to understand. And I know why: it’s because they don’t take sexism seriously. When women say we will not reward misogyny, we’re laughed off. The Obamabots just tell more jokes and hurl more insults and write more crass articles about how the little lay-dees have their little pan-tees in a twist.
By and large, the pro-Obama sites I’ve seen have been either civil towards Hillary Clinton or denigrating in a non-gendered way. (John Cole at one point notably got drunk and lost his shit with Clinton for a few posts, but then the next day regained his temper and said he would vote for her were she the nominee.) I will, however, freely accept that there are sites out there that are both pro-Obama and misoygnistic in tone; after all, it’s far from unrealistic to assert that there are anti-HRC voters who “just don’t want that bitch in the White House,” and will vote for Obama or McCain or Nader or Larry Flynt or Happy the Magic Elf rather than vote for Clinton.
But even if those Obama supporters exist, to refuse to vote for a candidate based on supporters who are quite obviously fringe is ridiculous. Believe me, when I vote NDP, I do so knowing that there are elements within my party who desperately need to be punched in the face. But that’s the nature of big-party politics.
Imagine this scenario:
The shoe is on the other foot, and Obama, not Hillary, is the punching bag of the media — a media that is blatantly and unapologetically racist. And I do mean blatant. Jokes every night on the cable news shows about Obama’s hair and his fondness for fried chicken. Pundits laughing about what a problem uppity Negroes are.
Across the country, racists openly ridicule Obama and his candidacy. In mainstream stores there are gag gifts playing on racist themes: maybe a (water)Melon Baller with Obama’s head on the handle, maybe a Barack Obama Shoeshine Set — you get the picture. 501c groups invoke the most grotesque racist slurs with their advertising; T-shirts say “Quit Running for President and Shine My Shoes!” Anybody who protests is branded a fool and a spoilsport.
On the one hand, the media treatment of Hillary Clinton has been unapologetically and blatantly misogynistic. Chris Matthews’ behaviour alone would confirm that, but yes, the repeated attacks from the right wing based purely on a combination of Clinton’s gender and the strange, fervid fantasyland Rush Limbaugh inhabits have been disgusting.
On the other hand, although the racism pointed at Barack Obama has been less blatant and phrased more in terms of codewords – mostly because social norms have evolved to the point where open racism is worthy of condemnation and open misogyny can still be gotten away with, more often than not – it has not been any less constant nor any less virulent on the part of the media, particularly so for the last two months.
Online, Hillary’s supporters constantly refer to Obama and his supporters as n—–s and c— -s and all the other epithets I refuse to type out. Blogger Boyz blog about those stupid lazy Negroes who are still wallowing in memories of the Civil Rights era, too dumb to get with the program and vote for Hillary.
Again, with the exception of message board/blog trolls (who, by their behaviour, lose the right to any protection the presumption of civility might otherwise afford them), I’ve never heard Hillary Clinton’s supporters so denigrated, not once, without it being followed up with condemnation from myriad other Obama supporters not wanting their support to grow ugly.
Again, I concede that there are potentially hordes of openly misogynistic pro-Obama blogs and boards I have missed. But look – I’m online a lot. Like, just about constantly. I write for three separate blogs, all of which essentially force me to be reasonably conversant with current events from a multitude of perspectives, and I purposefully try to avoid surfing exclusively in likeminded areas. I think I say with some authority that the major pro-Obama sites have been by and large extremely respectful of Clinton’s supporters.
And the lies: Obama is constantly lied about, belittled, demeaned. His record is distorted, his character impugned. Every day the pundits and the Blogger Boyz urge him to drop out of the race, to remember his place, to give up his seat to the white woman. All in the interest of “party unity.”
Firstly, you don’t have to create an ironic fantasy where Barack Obama has constantly been lied about, belittled, impugned and demeaned, because it happened. Intensely, and with great frequency.
Secondly, the calls for Clinton to drop out of the race again have had little to do with her gender, and more about the fact that she is behind in the pledged delegate count, the overall delegate count, the number of states won, and the popular vote, and that it has been evident since early March that she would not be able to come from behind on any one of these metrics – not due to her abilities as a candidate, but simply by virtue of sheer numerical impossibility.
I freely admit that even then, there was still a rationale for continuing her candidacy – that, in the face of devoted media scrutiny, that Obama’s campaign would collapse. This was, much as some might not like to admit it, a valid reason for extending a campaign that otherwise had no real basis for victory: if Obama faltered, someone had to be there to pick up the pieces. (I would respectfully submit that if Clinton had dropped out and Obama become damaged goods to that extent, that the Democratic party would have turned to HRC anyway, because really, who else would they go with? John Edwards? Whatever, not happening.) But as the campaign continued and Obama didn’t collapse, that rationale grew progressively flimsier.
And nary a word of reproach from Hillary herself. No denunciation at all of the relentless racism. In fact, she actually cracks a few racist remarks herself, albeit subtle ones.
I wonder if this is a reference to the “periodically” scandalette, probably one of the weakest and most overstretched attempts to seek offense I’ve ever seen in any political campaign ever. Or the “you’re likeable enough” flap, similarly pushing the boundaries of sexism to new levels. (The “claws out” comment caused offense that was, I think, entirely valid – but to dub Obama a “misogynist” for one poorly-chosen comment is hyperbolic to say the least.)
Regardless, this bit of the passage is perhaps the most telling, because when frenetic discussion of Barack Obama’s “lack of patriotism” and “elitism” – which were extensively codeworded for “angry black man” and “uppity black man,” respectively – Hillary Clinton didn’t just refuse to denounce such idiocy. She jumped in feet-first and encouraged it. When asked if Barack Obama was a secret Muslim, she responded with “There’s nothing to base that on – as far as I know.” When you denounce something, you don’t offer a backdoor like that, which disavows responsibility and just encourages the rumour.
You saw the ABC debate – for every question about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and every other stupid bullshit non-issue that came up, Hillary Clinton was ready and willing to state that these were indeed grave issues and maybe a reason not to vote for Obama. Just for the sake of comparison, at that same debate, when Hillary Clinton was asked about the Bosnia sniper “scandal” (which, while a stupid – and, let’s be honest, entertaining – mistake on her part, is far from being a reason to not vote for her), Barack Obama’s response was thus:
“But, look, the fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we’re delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered because we are recorded every minute of every day. And I think Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while.”
Incidentally: it’s worth remembering that by all accounts, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton didn’t like one another much before this campaign started, and the campaign has likely only exacerbated that dislike. They do their best to hide it in the name of party unity and their own respective electability. But it’s worth remembering: they don’t like each other, and the the occasional ill-chosen word from either party has its roots in that, not because Obama is a sexist or Clinton a racist.
And when she makes speeches about American values, she talks a lot about women’s rights but never mentions civil rights. She’s strikingly silent on the subject.
Except when asked point-blank at the Compassion Forum about his views on abortion, at which point he says plainly that he supports a woman’s right to choose and to have access to contraception and that there should be safe-sex education in schools. It’s almost like he has a position on the issue in question.
Even when she delivers a major address on the importance of rooting out bigotry, she neglects to mention racism at all.
Other areas of discrimination not mentioned in Barack Obama’s historic speech on race: sexual orientation, physical disabilities, mental disabilities, age, sizeism, anti-furry-fandom. Clearly, Barack Obama is a homophobic ageist who hates fatties, cripples, furries and Corky from “Life Goes On.”
Just to make the analogy even more apt, let’s further imagine that some key civil rights issue is on the table — say, voting rights. For forty years the Democrats have been on the side of the angels with that one, but Hillary goes out of her way to say how much she admires and respects those Republicans who don’t think African-Americans should have the right to vote. She says judges with a record of opposing voting rights are good candidates for the nation’s benches — even the Supreme Court.
Again, from his site:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.
Alternately, you could go watch this interview, where he cites Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter (all pro-Roe) as the sorts of justices he would seek to appoint as President, and expresses strongly the conviction that Supreme Court justices must be able to sympathize with the powerless – kind of the opposite of, say, Samuel Alito. (Interestingly, Jeffrey Toobin predicts that Obama would name either the dean of Harvard Law School or the dean of Yale Law School, but that’s just a ballpark guess.)
If Barack Obama and his supporters become the new Democratic party, then the Democratic party will no longer be the party of women’s rights. There will still be women in the party, naturally, but basic respect for women as citizens will be a dead letter. It will be the party of John Roberts and anti-choicers and the most virulent outbreak of public misogyny I’ve ever seen.
(It is worth noting that Barack Obama voted against John Roberts.)
And it’s not just women’s rights at stake. Social Security
…where Barack Obama is on record as wanting to increase the payroll tax cap so that rich people pay more into the system, in the hopes of stabilizing it. This isn’t a terribly controversial position among progressives, you realize. (The Cato Institute hates it, big shock.)
health care
…where the difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s respective healthcare plans, as laid out currently, is that Clinton wants a mandate (without any provision for enforcement, mind, but) and Obama doesn’t.
Speaking as someone who’s read a fair amount on healthcare policy, both of their plans are mediocre at best, and I have no doubt that this is intentional as an electoral tactic for both candidates: a truly progressive and universal plan, like Germany’s care funds, France’s two-tier system, or even Canada’s flawed-but-still-better-than-the-US pure single payer system would all give John McCain a lot of room to attack. Most of it would of course be on spurious grounds, but that’s mattered when exactly?
Complaining about healthcare policy proposals now, before the inevitable mashup that’s going to happen in Congress, is asinine. What matters is this: both candidates want to achieve universal health care. They simply disagree on the best way of getting to that goal and selling it.
sticking up for the working class
Oh, lord, please tell me this isn’t about the gas tax holiday bullshit.
Because it was bullshit.
EDIT TO ADD: You know, it occurs to me that I completely forgot about Andrew Sullivan when writing this. Fair is fair: his insane dislike of Clinton is, well. Insane. But not unmatched on the other side by similar.
Related Articles
35 users responded in this post
The sad part is all the commenters agreeing with him and NOT raising the point that Obama hasn’t said anything sexist.
I mean, I don’t know this blog, maybe it’s very echo chamber-ish, but ew.
im with you on the whole obama supports women thing. did you also notice how all the comments are just masturbatory back slappings? no one is trying to refute any of the claims. granted its early, and i am one of the first comments here and all…but someone really should be refuting those comments if they want me to try to take it seriously. if her and her 7 friends go play sock puppet, i cant be expected to believe it. especially the 4 or five women who are saying that their husbands wont be voting obama.
also, why do they get to focus on one issue of reproductive rights and ignore the entirety of john mccain and his much more terrible stance on the issues?
random final question for you (or anyone really, as i dont know how much you follow american economics) i know i feel pretty liberal on social and political issues, but where do i go to educate myself on america economical issues?
RNH, I’m a big fan of Angry Bear for economics commentary, although The Cunning Realist (in my sidebar) is good as well.
EW, but the media have. and you know theyre entirely in Obama’s pockets. His deep, he-man woman hating pockets.
“Other areas of discrimination not mentioned in Barack Obama’s historic speech on race: […] anti-furry-fandom.”
I lawl’d muchly at that.
And I may just print this post out for (and e-mail the link to) a few people I know; they talk all the time about not voting for Obama, but they refuse to come up with a good reason why, which leads me to believe that they don’t want to vote for him because he’s black. Yay for the South.
hey
stole some of your ideas, some of mine, threw them in the comment thread. hope you dont mind, i’m at 55 if my comment makes it past moderation. if not, screw them.
While I greatly appreciate you lengthy analysis of this, for me it’s far simpler. These people are basically saying, “If Obama is the nominee, we shouldn’t vote for him because some of his supporters have been mean to Hillary.” At what point did it start making sense to decide who should be the next president based on who the SUPPORTERS are? I guarantee you Hillary’s got some fringe, nutty supporters, too. But I sure don’t plan to hold that against her. And if she’s the nominee, I’ll back her 100%. Because even if she isn’t as in line with my ideas on policy as Obama is, she’s a hell of a lot better than McCain, who terrifies the bejeesus out of me.
All the comments posted in response to that blog are in line because the responses are moderated. Don’t agree and it doesn’t get approved.
Hey, I understand their fear, but the reality is if they get their way we’re guaranteed four more years in Iran
IRAQ! I DIDN’T SAY IRAN! NOPE NEVER HAPPENED!!!
(Is my mic off?)
I am not a big fan of Obama for various reasons, but really, once you break out the playground bullshit and come up with little denigrating names like “Obamabots”, you lost me, even if I secretly suspect that Obama IS going to sell us all out to the robot hordes. Come on, let’s at least pretend politics isn’t basically all about who gets to sit at the cool table.
Perhaps I’m just hopelessly naive, but while the unpatriotic criticism of Obama does seem to be a part of the “Secret Muslim Manchurian Candidate with America-Hating Angry Black Pastor” narrative, I don’t believe the elitist criticism is a secretly racist criticism. The man was president of the Harvard Law Review, for chrissake. His wife also went to Harvard Law. The stereotype of Harvard People as elitist assholes alone would make that line of attack plausible. His home is in Hyde Park, known cesspit of condescending out-of-touch lefty intellectual snobs (sarcasm, in case that wasn’t obvious). It cost $1.65 million to buy (and this was $300k under the asking price). Of course, these weaknesses became easier to attack after Obama’s Arugula gaffe (dunno HTML so link here: http://www.nationalpost.com/life/story.html?id=496521 ), Michelle Obama’s talk about the costliness of student loans (one conservative hit on that here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTViZjhhNGI1Y2QxYjE0ZDc0YmMwMjJiNmUyZjQ3MmU= ), the score of 37 in bowling (which I didn’t see to be that harmful, but it got the media to talk about how it would look condescending so it probably hurt) and most importantly “Bittergate”. Perhaps there is an “uppity black man” subtext, but were Obama white they’d be hitting him just as hard on this, as they did with Kerry (windsurfing, billionaire wife) and Edwards ($400 haircut, became rather rich as a lawyer), and as democrats are beginning to do with McCain (his wife’s fortune).
I left this there, don’t know if it’ll get approved. Jesus, I’m pissed. I need to vent.
a) Obamabots = sexists (all, obvs. Fuck it, even if just some).
b) I boycott your Obama-shake.
c) ??????
d) “Feminist” Profit!!!
and/or
e) McCain possibly criminalizing sex education and reproductive control and create “call your wife a c-nt” month (and all that comes with it). Maybe putting the bar higher on what constitutes rape inside the marriage, maybe lowering standards to equality in women’s wages etc. “Profit”.
Yeah, that’ll show them. THAT WILL SHOW THEM ALL!!!! They’ll totally be blown away by me! By us all! Obamabots’ll say “oh no, Obama lost, obviously because of all that disgusting sexism and because we didn’t listen to some of those women calling themselves feminists” and I’ll totally laugh at them from jail as they plead “oh noes we’re totally sorry! We’ve learned our lesson!”… How fucking dare, this Obama. Not to pander to my identity politics slogans at every single moment like HILLARY FUCKING DID (oh you didn’t see her saying anything at any point? Well, she said it 29-7. Yup, “29”, suck on that — and on her gunned testicles, that prove she’s worth it! Balls is where the girl power’s at!), instead of that bull talk of education, war, recession, jobs, houses, environment policies, oil dependency, ending “war on _____” mentality, strenghtening and foccusing the military, veterans care, criminal justice system, healthcare and all the other crap (LOL “hope”! What a la la land unexperienced fag-o!).
—–
Im playing in ur feminism, “obliterating” it to the fucking stone age, thinking vagina is a team jersey, regardless of policy.
No thought whatsoever to the idea that threats from America is exactly the sort of thing that a authoritarian government like Iran’s prays for every day (an “enemy, we must stick together. Obey”) in order to justify the repression of their population (including, wait for it… women!!! — remember that tiny thing where we created Saddam to fight Iran, and what was already shitty was amped up to eleven… thousand? Yeah, that. That’s something of a good example to keep in mind on feminist concerns about the Middle-East).
Really, “if my dem candidate isn’t selected, I’m going McCain (you know, because they’re just so fucking alike)/ Nader” is just…. ARGH!!!! Spice Girl’s “Girl Power!” generation is here. Lovely (see how childish insults are a pain? So yeah, stop the “Obamabots” crap).
I guess one could be almost forgiven if they thought “well Clinton’s a experienced cynic, she’s saying/doing that stuff because it’s politics and the end justifies the means” and the ego-pride/ Bush-type identity politics bull line of “well she can’t show weakness and must stay on” (“screw that ‘dividing the party’ lie even if I’m living proof of it — she should kick Obama’s image even if he turns out to be — or already is — the final candidate. That is TOTALLY NOT destroying the party!!”), but at this point… I really wanted HRC right about until January. But, really… Just flat out a hellspawn of Bush and Lieberman. If you wanted, as a “leftist”, Clinton and not just as a ‘wominz rulez!’, then honey… wow…
Obama’s waaay to the right of what I consider “center” (and so is Clinton — but her rethoric moved further to the right of what I’d consider acceptable, but I’d still vote for her just for the sake of that little almost-meaningless-by-now title “Democratic Party”, so they could foccus a wee bit more on social programs with the house majority). But in our crazy-ass country, where the current administration moved the goalpost of “center” to the extreme right, well… Sorry, but I’m forgiving myself in thinking you don’t remember the “how can it get worst?” line of thinking when people went voting for Nader or Bush because (urgh) Kerry wasn’t enough. And it got worse beyond what we could imagine at the time.
So how about we cut the “I’ll take my ball and go home” stuff? I know it sounds like asking to swallow s-it you don’t have to and conforming to unecessary lack of conscious thought on women’s issues (trust me, I feel that way at times), but it can get worse. Obama won’t really change much at all. But the glorious hero McCain… ‘my friends’, he will.
So…as a female voter they suggest I vote for Clinton because, as Obama is male and will not look out for my “female” interests, as a woman, she will?
Regardless of her ineptitude, I should vote Clinton in solidarity for women.
THAT is the most misogynistic thing I’ve ever heard, and it certainly wasn’t suggested by either “Obamabots” or Republicans…
I love how they try to fight for gender/sex equality by buying wholesale into the current ideology (women’s rights – don’t pick on Clinton because she’s a girl!) Thanks folks, you make female voters look hella backwards.
You forgot to mention Keith Olberman suggesting that Hillary be snuffed — you know, a superdelegate take her into a back room and only one of them come out. Although there was an “apology,” there should have been a sacking. There certainly would have been if it had been a comment about lynching a black man…
Thank you, anyway, for discussing this issue openly. It has been a turning point for many of us. I am one of those women who will never vote democratic again because of this election. The party I have voted for for 30 years was one of the first champions against hate speech. Yet I have been called a racist, a whore, a bitch, a wrinkled old woman afraid of black men, and more for supporting the candidate of my choice. The candidate of my choice has been threatened with violence, rape and murder — all in a humorous spirit, of course! She has been denigrated for her wrinkles and her arm flab.
Obama wants to be a leader — but he has never led anything. This was his opportunity to get off his fanny and say something about hate speech. This was his moment to lead. He was silent, passive-aggressive — letting others make the jibes and saying nothing while he benefited from hate. This is why Jeremiah Wright is most relevent — Obama appears to be a man with a high tolerance for hate speech, though he gets out the fainting couch for anything he views as racist (usually no more than criticism of him, as of any candidate).
I can’t be wooed back — there are thousands of women like me. I can no more be reconciled to the party than I would be reconciled to a man who broke my ribs, then brought me roses in the hospital the next day.
With Obama’s comments last night about McCain “losing his bearings” I see we are now moving on to his personal brand of ageism. Make a snidey remark, then back away from it and say you didn’t mean it that way. Passive-aggressive stuff.
Now we are being told the party no longer needs working class whites, Latinos, old people — they’ll make a coalition without us, thank you very much. Only the young and the strong for this party.
This is starting to sound like Germany in the 1930s.
You forgot to mention Keith Olberman suggesting that Hillary be snuffed — you know, a superdelegate take her into a back room and only one of them come out.
The inside of your head is pretty scary, by the looks of your projections of violence into the words of others, when it was obviously an (already old at the time) presumption in political discourse of the current narrative that the delegates would take one of them out on behind the scenes (like a principal or a boss firing/ giving hir a detention. Two come in, one comes out — assuming the other is left recomposing hirself/ taking their time).
Now we are being told the party no longer needs working class whites, Latinos, old people
Oh yes, I remember that…
And…
DING! DING! DING! WE GOT A GODWIN!
MGK: I go to Paul Krugman and (to a lesser extent) Brad DeLong for economics commentary.
Yeah, I forgot how much the Republican Party stands for women’s rights. Silly me.
“This was his opportunity to get off his fanny and say something about hate speech. ”
I’m sorry – what was his opportunity? Keith Olbermann? Some blog comments? What are you talking about? Do you really want a presidential candidate trolling around blog comment boards all day, scolding people who say they support him but who insult his opponent?
“With Obama’s comments last night about McCain ‘losing his bearings’ I see we are now moving on to his personal brand of ageism.”
So, if this is ageism, then you must agree that discussing Obama’s “elitism” is a code for discussing him being uppity. Because “losing one’s bearings” generally tends to be synonymous with losing one’s moral compass; and if you’re willing to read that much into “losing his bearings” then you must be willing to extend that kind of metaphor stretching elsewhere, right?
Christ, am I just engaging a troll?
I find the comparison of abortion rights to black voting rights apalling. It seems to go along with the idea that “pro-choice” = “women’s rights”. It seems to me that there are as many women who are pro-life as there are those who are pro-choice, maybe it’s the circles in which I tend to socialize. Those who are pro-life aren’t against women’s rights, they are FOR the rights of the unborn. They just happen to believe differently than the pro-choicers about the definition of when life begins and when it needs to be defended (the comment about SC Justices needing to be able to sympathize with the powerless would seem to support pro-life; who is more powerless than an unborn child?!?).
But I digress…as I said, to compare this to black voting rights, as that post seems to do, is apalling. As I first read it, I was confused, until MGK pointed out the that it was a comparison to abortion rights. As I’ve stated, the abortion debate is not women vs. misogynists. It comes down to a question of when life begins and who has the right to end that life. I don’t think anyone would argue that any debate against black voting rights would be racist.
Anyway, I just wanted to express my opinion (yes, probably very much more to the “right” (as in “right vs. left”, not necessarily “right vs. wrong”) than what is normally expressed in the blog.
It’s bullshit like this that completely obliterates any chance that what innate misogyny left will never be dealt with. Because it seems anyone who mentions the word is completely insane.
Of course, I’m sure feminists would say I’m a discredit to my own gender, because I think that we’ve (mostly) achieved equality.
Quinctia: I don’t think women have achieved equality with men, not even “mostly,” and I live in a country where the Supreme Court is currently nearly half female.
Greg: I like both Krugman and Delong as well, but both tend to address issues more sporadically than Angry Bear does (one of the advantages of it having a lot of guest posters). Krugman’s gotten better since he got his blog, though, to be sure.
db: The problem with a pro-life position is that it inevitably conflicts with a woman’s civil rights, by its very nature. Furthermore, the vast majority of pro-lifers have positions inconsistent with the reduction of abortion (access to contraception, for example), but completely consistent with an interest in subjugation of women’s sexual freedom.
Anna: That have you have been called such things is unjust, to be sure. However, blaming Obama for the words of his supporters – and not even high-profile supporters – is ridiculous, just as it was ridiculous when conservatives were blaming John Edwards for hiring Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan as blog maintainers for his campaign about things they had written not even as a part of the campaign.
You’re correct that it doesn’t take much for a candidate to offer support against these things, but by being offended that Obama has not while simultaneously ignoring that Clinton has not only refused to offer support against the racism and xenophobia that has been steadily directed at Obama throughout the campaign but has in fact encouraged it on multiple occasions, you come off as simply hypocritical.
And if you’re going to get offended by Obama saying that McCain is confused and out-of-touch on the basis that it’s ageist, rather than the fact that McCain is frequently confused and out of touch – remember, this is a candidate campaigning on his foreign policy experience who less than a month ago couldn’t remember the difference between Sunni and Shi’ite – then I’m afraid to say that you sound like you’re seeking offense.
MGK once again attempts to stamp out ignorance under the boot-heel of strong, reasonable logic and evidence. Unfortunately for him, whacko fringe extremists have now begun asking why he hates America so much. Big surprise.
I personally don’t support any of the current candidates 100%, for various reasons, but Obama seems to be running the clean(est) campaign.
On a side note, I lose faith in humanity when I hear the words “I’m an American. I don’t need logic.”
I love how she attributes all the offensive Anti-Clinton shirts as having something to do with the Democratic Party and Obama. Those shirts were made by dedicated Clinton haters for years, (mainly conservatives) and even if Obama supporters have been wearing them, it has nothing to do with what Obama himself stands for. Feminists, listen VERY CAREFULLY. Centrist Independents won’t vote for Clinton in a general election. Correct or not, they believe her to be Uber-left-wing, and see McCain as a Moderate Republican (correct or not.) If the race ends up being McCain vs Clinton, Clinton WILL LOSE. We’ll have a conservative Republican in the White House who has no interest in women’s rights, gay rights, environmental protection, universal health care, or regulation of corporate America. If you want McCain in office, keep voting for Clinton. I’m sure McCain will thank you when Roe vs Wade gets re-examined.
Matt: There’s no need to conflate “feminists” with “Clinton supporters” and use both in a pejorative sense.
I know that, if I were an America (and I’m not, and THAT’s why I’m not voting for Obama), I’d vote for Obama if he were openly anti-furry.
Seriously. Marriage is between a human being and a human being. Not a human being and a squirrel costume. What are we teaching out children?
Hey, Claudia! You want a Godwin? I got yer Godwin right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc
Atrios FTW:
“Still it’s important to remember that the outcome of the Internet Asshole Olympics really shouldn’t have much bearing on who you vote for either now or in November.”
You mentioned furry hate (or as I name it, Antifurrism)! I am glad to know that there is a sympathetic mainstream person out there. Is that what you are?
I don’t hate furries. I don’t see the point, and I think the whole thing is kind of silly, but hey, if it works for them…
I want to make a “wait a minute, aren’t you Canadian” joke, but it has both been overdone and I respect your points too much.
Man. I think what frustrates me the most is that, barring a really spectacular flameout on Obama’s part (like, on the level of Jack Ryan’s flameout that got Obama to the Senate in the first place) the numbers are *not going to change*. I realize the Democratic Party is a herd of cats– hell, I am usually proud to be part of the cat herd– but this is one of those times when it would be really nice to unify around the candidate who is in the lead, shows no sign of losing said lead, and consistently polls better against McCain than Hillary does.
Instead, the herd of cats mills around and gets in fights with itself. Meanwhile, on the other side of the isle, the sheep are all moving in the same direction– but who can blame them? They’ve got gay marriage and terrorism nipping at their heels, and those dogs really know their jobs.
MGK– just out of curiosity, which elements of the NDP need the mouth-punching?
I have discovered why that blog sounds like an echo chamber, because many of the posts that disagree are deleted. I know mine was moderated out of existence (clueless_in_NC). It does seem like its a cut off my nose to spite my face sort of thing.
I have found that I have done them a disservice, it appears that it just takes time for comments to show up.