I was surprised that this actually received a generally warm reception over at the Orange Satan. Curious to see what y'all think...
I think the term "Orange Satan" does nothing but divide we who are essentially on the same side.
Does the term "circular firing squad" mean anything?
it is a mocking reference to how wingnuts think Kos is pure evil.
But it's a reference that some here at MyDD have internalized. They really do think DK is a bad, bad place, as opposed to part of the new Dem party.
DKos is my enemy. They chose to be my enemy and that's fine with me.
Exactly.
They ran me out there, didn't want me in their party, so they can now face the consequences.
Circular firing squad, indeed. Who fired the first shot?
it wasnt me, thats for sure.
But I'm firing back.
And you didn't choose to be their 'enemy'. Boy that is pretty petulant, to say it kindly.
Ah, victomhood! The rally cry of clintonites.
There is a certain immaturity present in the hatred that erupted. There should be a rational debate but when it decends into petty name calling logic gets lost. We should be making well reasoned arguments not trying to make catch phrases like the big league spinners. Honestly I found Great Orange Satan kind of amusing it gave Daily Kos such stature. How rarely MyDD is mentioned on Daily Kos they have moved on to the General. In fact I am not worried about haters in these blogs they are few the people are many. So you can vote for McCain if you like I dont care. You can give McCain money I dont care. I think you and this country will get what it deserves in November no more no less.
I was under the impression that it was a self-deprecating joke over there.
Not intending to be divisive. I take issue with DKos, but I still participate there (in the hopes that they will return to a more balanced state of mind).
Really, that wasn't intended as a knock on DKos.
I find myself in agreement with you on sexism. But I find it strange coming from you. As I recall you came to Kos and pretended to support Hillary. Then it seemed only moments later you had a diary on the wreck list declaring your support for Obama.
Now I realize you can decry sexism and support Obama but something just doesn't feel right here. Perhaps I'm influenced by the rumors that Team Obama has encouraged their bloggers to make nice with Hillary supporters and tone down the hate meme.
I never pretended to support Hillary. I DID support Hillary. And I still think she'd make the better president.
I did write a diary about a month ago, after FL and MI made clear that they would not do revotes of any kind. I stated that I no longer believed it was possible for her to win the nomination in a way that would not be destructive for the party, and that I was ready to support Obama as the nominee, despite my several reservations about him, and despite my preference for her.
I would not describe myself as a member of Team Obama. My feelings about him are lukewarm at best. There is still a lot I don't like about him.
But frankly, I don't care. I want to win in November. I want to see a Democrat in the White House. If it's not going to be Hillary, well, fine, I guess it'll have to be Obama.
I am trying to focus on what I like about him. It makes it easier to support him. I have not donated time or money to his campaign, and believe me, if by some miracle, Hillary gets every single last remaining vote and manages to win, I'll be doing my happy dance.
But please, please understand that my heart has always been with Hillary (well, since fall of last year), and I am certainly not one of those Obama people.
I don't like Kool-Aid. ;-)
As biting as some of my comments have been on this site, I have never accused any Hillary supporter of being some sort of zombie, or cultist. I have never said that their support for her was somehow abnormal.
You may not even realize it that you still call Obama supporters Kool-Aid drinkers, but I find it offensive and I'm sure that many others do too. It denigrates my support of Obama which came after long, hard evaluation. It pushes people away and gets their guards up, and the first reaction to an attack is to attack back. That is not conducive to unity here.
I realize that Obama supporters, given our candidate's likelihood of being the nominee have a greater responsibility to be gracious. However, that does not mean that Hillary supporters have no burden for that cause. If you truly mean this:
I want to win in November. I want to see a Democrat in the White House.
That's all it was. Chill.
The context didn't seem snarklike to me, but I'll take your word for it.
I would rec this diary if I could, and I completely agree with the thrust of it. But I think there are two big issues relevant to this site more than any others mentioned up thread.
I have persistently asked a number of prominent Hillary supporters and avowed feminists here (I won't name names for obvious reasons explained in the user guidelines) to counter some disgusting sexist remarks about Michelle Obama. Some of these diarists had even mo'joed such remarks.
As someone who is surrounded by real feminists, I find this partianship a complete betrayal of everthing feminism stands for. To apply these principles selective, just to your own candidate and not the wife of the other, traduces everything that feminism is.
You know, it's interesting that lately, I've seen an increase in articles on the web about Michelle, and specifically, how she is being attacked. I think I've even seen the term "Hillarized."
And yes, I fully agree that such treatment of her is out of line -- the way it was with Hillary 16 years ago.
I suppose, sadly, that perhaps watching Michelle get abused might provoke Democrats to recognize the issues of sexism, even if they've turned a blind eye when it comes to Hillary. This doesn't mean I hope Michelle will be mistreated -- I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I guess I would just hope that some good would come from it.
I feel for Michelle, because we know she's about to face some real ugliness. The irony, of course, is that the one person on the planet who would understand best, and be able to advise her best, is, of course, Hillary Clinton.
I know. That is a tragic irony. And one some of the more extreme Hillary supporters (maybe they're not even supporters but trolls) seem unaware of.
I rarely go over there, but some diarist here linked to NoQuarter today and Larry Johnson is inciting some disgusting comments about her. Please, tell me these people are republicans
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/16/ will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/
I admit, I have taken a look at the more extreme pro-Hillary sites on occasion, but I don't understand those people. Their total hatred of Obama really puts me off -- and I'm someone who doesn't much care for the guy.
And some of the delusions just make me laugh. I'm all for keeping your chin up and fighting to the last and all that good "Hillary will never give up" stuff.
But the reality is that she's not getting the nomination. And to continue to put forth diaries that suggest Obama is going down, or crashing, or (as I think I saw on this site), "readying to concede" totally undermine the credibiilty of these supporters -- and all Hillary supporters.
I really hope that when the primaries are over, Democrats will find a way to come together again. I think it will be a lot harder than some people are willing to admit. I think it is a huge responsibility for Obama -- and I hope he can live up to it.
But we shall see...
Obama is only the presumptive nominee. He can help, but it's up to democrats to heal the wounds. It takes brave and tough actions by someone like yourself, a true democrat who has realised their favored nominee is unlikely to make it, trying to build bridges between both sides.
On the other hand, I'm completely convinced - in fact I've had posters here confess to me on three occasions - that there are a lot of republicans who, after it became clear McCain was going to win, came to sites like this and Noquarter and Hillaryis44 to cause trouble. And out and out white suprematicist posting with the name of Pagan Power here the other day about blood purity etc.
So all of us have a duty to expose these trolls, and the kind of undemocratic thinking they espouse. They've posed as Hillary supporters - I suppose it could have been the other way round had the primary race gone a different way - but they have no real loyalty to her, and certainly not to liberal progressive causes.
duende.
You're British correct?
You're not an ex-pat.
I was marveling at your interest in our elections.
Just curious what your political background is in England? Also what do you hear folks in GreatBritain say about this election.
Thanks,
12 dogs
Gosh. How long have you got?
Yes, British living in London. Though I have lived, worked and married in the US. I wish I knew why I was so addicted to this election: I'm hoping it's because it will be seen to be a watershed in US history, and thereby world events. I first got involved here in 2004. I also have several close friends involved in these election
Though a fiction writer and dramatist by trade, I've always been a Labour supporter, activist and occasional speechwriter. From that perspective, it's not hard to see who my favoured candidate is, and why I favour him.
The UK, as much of the world, has been fascinated by these primaries. After the long onslaught of the last three months I would say the two big themes are:
1. POSITIVE: How amazing the US has the openness and mobility thrown a biracial candidate with the stature of RFK or JFK.
2. NEGATIVE: how typical that he is being destroyed by the press/Hillary Clinton/american close mindedness.
One of the reasons I persist on coming here, despite having my privileges removed, is to explain - nicely if I can - to Hillary supporters, that the rest of the world is REALLY excited by Obama's candidacy. Not so much by Hillary's. And this isn't because she's a woman, but because she's part of a dynasty.
Fiction writer and dramatist?
Would we have an oportunity to read your work here in the US? I'm all for giving a writer a chance to talk about their work. Not an easy profession and one where the author should get lots of chances to promote their work.
Besides if you are or become well known we can all pat ourselves on the back for having virtually "met" you and have you as a fellow writter on myDD.
I've never supported Clinton for President yet have been critical of the misogynistic attacks made against her. If I went back into my history here and at kos of using troll and hide rating points, I suspect it's been more for that than anything else.
There are plenty of good reasons for not voting for Clinton. Her gender isn't one of them.
first - change the subject, it's not sexism, it's not about the experiences of women, it's about someone calling the kos site a dismissive name. What is the plight of women when it comes to defending kos from being dismissed.
were discussing this very same subject just today - how we've actually gone backwards. It's gotten much worse for women - in every conceivable way. My sister's a teacher. Boys in her class see noting wrong with calling her a bitch and a ho - they make lewd references, saying she holds no sway over them because of her gender (according to them she's inferior).
This is a real-time problem folks. It goes way beyond politics - Clinton's running for president just brought it into sharp focus - just like Obama's candidacy brought out all the racists (something I predicted would happen). Looks like we've got a longer way to go than anyone realized (and that's not blowing smoke).
Well... I would only say that, to a certain extent, women themselves are complicit in this... We are the ones that patronize the meme that it is better to look good than to be good, as evidenced by the billion dollar beauty industry... we turn on each other over the least offense... and we have allowed ourselves to be objectified...
Definitely, let's blame the victim.
Gosh you almost make me want to burn my bra.
oh yeah, never mind, I hate to have my boobs hanging down to my knees when I walk. I guess I will have to continue to contribute to the sexist industries that supply our undies.
no, too, we've brought it on ourselves. When discrimination, and the rise of ugly hate speech against women, is acknowledged, well, we brought it on ourselves.
It did because there is truth to it. IMHO, sexism was not why Senator Clinton lost. But the campaign revealed a dark underbelly of latent racism and overt sexism. Hell yes it's a problem.
Hillary lost back in 2002 with her cynical vote for the War in Iraq.
If not for that, she would be the nominee now.
they know it is their children that will be sent off to die.
And they stand in solidarity with Iraqi mothers who know that their children will be killed also.
If Hillary had wanted to elevate the dialogue on sexism, she could have, instead of making up slights about sexism for pure political gain.
Hillary's campaign strategy was a cunning stunt. Pretending that because Obama was taller and had to look down at her, that he was a sexist pig.
The worst was the cynical use of race and religion for political gain. Ask Pennsylvania and ask West Virgina.
Hillary hasn't lost, and calling me delusional or telling me I'm hurting Barack's chances in the GE by not acknowledging his superiority won't change that. Most Americans were actually in favor of that war, there aren't enough of us who opposed it to elect a president, and I'm for her. Go figure.
with that cynical vote. Ironically at the time it was seen as the politically safe vote. Hillary wasn't about to swim upstream to do the right thing.
People like that don't deserves my vote.
Most Americans were actually in favor of that war
There was in fact almost universal belief in America that Saddam had WMD. A CBS News poll in Feb 2003 following Colin Powell's "evidence" delivered to the UN, found that only 5% of Americans didn't believe in the WMD. But although 66% of Americans said they would approve of military action to remove Hussein, less than half of Americans believed that the WMD was an imminent threat requiring military action. According to the poll,
Americans want the U.N. inspectors to keep trying: 59% say they should be given more time. Despite the new evidence presented last week by the Bush Administration, this feeling has not changed very much since last fall.
At the time, the economy was polling as the number one issue, not Iraq. Of course, once Bush launched the war, and Americans were concerned about and proud of our soldiers on the ground, support for both the commander-in-chief and his war naturally rose.
from The Nation written by Katha Pollitt 01/07/08
thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=256 ped=26736
John Edward s just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power. ABC's Political Radar blog reports:
"Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, 'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.'" nyone remeber this:
The reason why there was a major speech on race is because Obama gave one. Should someone else given one on sexism?
she went to New Orleans and spoke to it, and he didn't. He rightly wished to avoid addressing racial issues and he ducked them until the Wright controversy. Then he later had to go back on some of what he'd said. The media loves him, his supporters love him, I just think he's the least electable of the two remaining candidates and his weakness in the GE is the only thing about him that's gaining momentum.
We don't need a public speech on sexism, it exists, we live with it, and when we have the energy we call it out. We're offended when it's denied and dismissed, and in particular by men who claim to tell us our own reality. That's cause it's offensive. It's reality based offense. But it does prove the Barack's bloggers haven't had an in-service in charm. There may be some women who also deny it and what i say annoys them, but I'd say that even denied it's experienced.
