Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a “Media Hall of Shame,” starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton’s rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.
Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, said: “I have not had a lot of regretful conversations with high-ranking media types and political reporters about how unfair their coverage of the Hillary Clinton campaign was.”
Among journalists, he added, the coverage “does not register as a mistake that must not be allowed to happen again.”
Some are calling for boycotts against MSNBC and CNN, and many are urging Mr. Obama, who addressed racism in a major speech, to address sexism, too.In response, the Obama campaign directed a reporter to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who supported Mrs. Clinton but who is now speaking for the Obama campaign. She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporates themes of discrimination as a societal problem into his speeches.
Er.
I guess misogyny is just a "woman's issue," then?
NOTE Best EVAH throwaway line on this from Rachel Sklar: "Not Even Close To Exhaustively Related:", which includes Shakes's List. For starters.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Bill Richardson his getting his for his arrogance and disloyaty
Bill Richardson’s Star is Falling with a BIG THUD
I guess people are saying NO DEAL to Bill Richardson!
All is not happy in Bill Richardson land of disenchantment…
“Bill Richardson’s Star is Falling with a BIG THUD (Not on VP Shortlist, State Legislators FED UP with Him)”
http://tinyurl.com/4mogb7
You can't see it, but there's a big smile on my face down here in Las Cruces, NM
Rep. Wasserman Schultz might want to watch her back, now that
she's flacking for Obama. May not help her with her own constituents.
Oof, not a good response, Rep.
Especially after this...
Obama spreads his unity magic in FL.
There's nothing anyone can say that will somehow justify the bigotry Obama exploited throughout his campaign. Just as race-baiting stained Reagan's win in '80, the gender-baiting and overt incitement of hate should taint Obama and the Democratic Party "leadership" in '08. The whole point was to benefit from it and secure the nomination--check and check--so any "talk" about it now is just bullshit anyways.
When push comes to shove we know where they stand.
Same happened in TX IIRC
Already accepted delegate replaced with Obama delegate. Looks like I called my shot...
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Lead?
Obama leading on this issue would be about as convincing as George H.W. Bush leading a national conversation on race after the '88 campaign.
Policy not party!
Oh, my snark detector
must be on the fritz today.
Policy not party!
Well focused and spot on
What was done to Clinton was wrong on every level. Needs to be condemned widely and loudly and for as long as it takes to get a response. Obama needs to walk this back, and actually say sorry. Right thing to do.
Don't agree with Sklar on everything, but net-net she's one of the good ones. I would be pleased to see her with a bigger platform. And spunky for a Canadian too, eh?
I'm guessing that its coming
The Hill: Obama campaign reaches out to female lawmakers
Obama also recently spoke to Emily's List founder, Ellen Malcolm, who was quoted in the Times article (btw, I think your link needs fixing).
I think Obama (wisely)is planning to address issues of sexism and misogyny, even if it doesn't take the form of a formal speech.
Is there a part in there about taking responsibility...
The truth part of truth and reconciliation?
So, nods and winks are OK? No formal speech needed?
Why would that be?
I seem to recall other formal speeches, on matters of equal weight, so it would seem odd for Obama not to use his considerable oratorical powers on behalf of this cause. Eh?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Me, too!
I want dinner and roses.
But first let me tatoo the number of the local battered women's shelter on my forehead.
[Sarcasm, sweeties.]
What's with all the unity dinners?
NovaM's pulling the same type of crap, holding a Unity
Party as if the only thing we need to have our questions answered are a few plates of hot hors d'oeuvres. Yes, hospitality is a start, but so is some truth and reconciliation work about what actually happened -- and I don't see that as bloody likely.
Excuse me, I saw the semi-season finale of BG, and I'm still cranky as hell....
this will likely bring on serious flamage, but:
Michelle Obama is a true "Black Woman," and i have a very hard time believing that she would tolerate any sexism from her hubby.
to me, the hardest part of watching all this dem-on-dem primary season violence is this: can't people understand the difference between what supporters and volunteers and workers say, and what the candidate says? although i've not at all followed things closely, it seems to me that much of what pisses off people who aren't on board the o-bus comes from what they read that his supporters have said, not what he has said. he's actually rather tight lipped and doesn't say so much of substance, in any sense.
now, i'm in no way disagreeing with the basic point of this post. obama still has time, he can do a lot more to make up with HRC supporters and women in general. he should, if he wants to win. as in, the on his knees, tearful, roses and chocolates in hand, "honey i'll never do that again" sort of begging. i doubt he will. but speaking as someone who knows a thing or two about the kind of woman MO is, and must be to make it in the way that she herself has made it....no, i don't think she puts up with much sexist bs at home. and i think like elizabeth edwards, there are some discussions we're never going to be privvy to until it suits them to share.
short version: most of the time, the woman is the better liberal in the couple. MO is no exception, imho.
I don't buy it, CD
One aspect of the Obama campaign that's been repeatedly commented upon is its online presence (a presence which, for example, with the cooperation of the sysadmins, purged Kos of Hillary supporters). Further, if there's one thing the Obama campaign has shown, it's the tendency to be, er, unitary (see 527s; move of DNC to Chicago). So, I see little reason to differentiate between the campaign and the online presence; quite the reverse, in fact. Plus, it's the old question of Hillary Rules vs Obama Rules. Since Hillary's responsible for everything her supporters say, ditto Obama. The differences being (see above) that there's some reason in the latter case.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I can't believe...
So, I see little reason to differentiate between the campaign and the online presence; quite the reverse, in fact.
...that if Obama had spoken up loudly in a diary on Daily Kos against the misogyny and hatefulness toward Hillary and her supporters, expressed utter disgust with those who engaged in it--and done so, if necessary, more than once--it wouldn't have made a difference in the tone there, and probably on other pro-Obama blogs as well as word got around that the One was not happy with what was going on.
You never know, it might even have filtered out to the pro-Obama media that He was displeased.
If the man is applying for the most powerful job in the world,
with the largest military budget, largest grasp on natural resources, etc., and he cannot control the handful of people who speak for him during his campaign, why the fuck should I be impressed with either his management or persuasive skills?
If he sees a campaign strategy is toxic with a group of voters he wishes to be perceived as desiring, shouldn't he be bothered enough to use his power *within his campaign* to make his wishes -- not tepid statements, his concrete wishes -- known?
Sounds like a pretty powerless man to me, to not control the aspect of his campaign he's supposedly the strongest on: Its message.
whale, lb:
you're so lucky i really need to get in the gardens now.
whale, i hear you, i'm just trying to find some Hope to inject into our conversations. see, i'm a Cultist now, it's expected of me. anyway, i learned something when i met Elizabeth Edwards, and i stand by my claim that "it's the wimmin who make liberalism happen."
lb: that's fair. but perhaps: not helpful in beating down mcstain? again,that's really the only place i'm coming from. not now, but later. later you will have all the shadenfreude and toldyaso moments you could ever want. but for now, and for future generations who will wish they had free choice and a Constitution and no endless war.
i guess i'm just going to have to blog more. just not at this moment.
Huh?
In what sense is that comment either schaenfreude or toldyaso, pray tell?
It's setting the record straight. If that isn't done now, it will never be done. Period. And somehow, I have a very hard time seeing how McCain is going to make the online behavior of the OFB
an issue. Eh?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
There are two ways
to beat down McCain. One is to beat him down; the other is to convince folks to vote for his opponent.
There's room between winks and speeches, no?
Are you suggesting a speech on sexism in America, ala his race speech? I'm afraid that doing so would be perceived as contrived and the messages of both would be diluted in some sort of process narrative. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and he should do it.
OTOH, I might suggest a prime time interview with, say, Katie Couric, focused on sexism in the media. Wouldn't you rather have a situation of Obama answering direct questions; not being in total control of the content?
Anyway, my point was that signs indicate that the campaign is actively seeking advice from congresswomen, women's groups, et al on the most effective ways to proceed.
Side note. I'm not sure I understand that Obama is that responsible for answering to/apologizing for/addressing the media's role in misogynistic coverage of Clinton... but, McCain has shown that he plans to hammer this wedge, so Obama would be wise to get ahead of it.
I'd would be really nice not to have to read tea leaves...
... and look for "signs" and make deductions about this or that personnel move or whatever Inside Baseball stuff is going on, and instead have a full-force, open-hearted commitment that yes, misogny is a real problem, and that it needs to be addressed.
Typically, to get a politician to change behavior, one inflicts pain. That's what happened to Obama on Wright, and we got the speech on racism. So, I don't blame people one little bit for trying to show Obama there are real opportunities to lead on this issue. Might help with the Unity
thing, too, right?
Could there possibly be a downside here? And if so, what would it be?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Gotcha.
Just pointing out where you might find reason to be optimistic that your wants will be met; lest your pushback turn to contempt.
Downside? No. Like I said, Obama should get ahead of this issue before he loses it (I realize, even if don't understand, he has already lost with some/many voters).
Now, let me say, I agree that sexism and misogyny are problems in our society that need to be acknowledged, confronted and dealt with. And as the nominee of the Democratic party, Obama certainly has a lead role in this.
But, whatever the number of 18 million who demand it, Obama would be wise to maximize the effect of the message. Not just the vehicle for his addressing woment; also the timing. No doubt there are many who are not yet receptive to these hypothetical amends. We are only a week removed from the primaries. I'm guessing an optimum opportunity will arise for Obama to seize these issues. Maybe its attacks on Michelle (ratcheting up already) or a McCain gaffe or something else.
This is why whatever he says will be met with skepticism
He'll do it when the opportunity is right. Not because right is right.
For some of us it'll never be right
- he can't win. The only thing that would convince me is a loud, thorough apology, but he can't afford to admit wrongdoing in the middle of a campaign.
Any attempt to "lead", whether prompted by attacks on Michelle Obama or anything else, can provoke only laughter from me.
Any such attempt by Michelle Obama will leave me utterly cold, after her "if you can't run your own house you can't run the White House" moment.
Policy not party!
Uh, no.
It isn't just that "sexism and misogyny are problems in our society that need to be acknowledged, confronted and dealt with"; it's that he *exploited* those problems to gain the perception that he won a close primary campaign. His participation in this process was not passive, and neither should be his direct and public expiation about strategies that were undertaken on his behalf.
VL
Or both.
Michelle Obama takes her young daughters to see
Reverend Wright speak - she's not a feminist. She's not a good mother - no one who exposes young girls to the likes of Wright is a good parent. She's participating in inculcating her young daughters into the notion of second class status.
I used the analogy earlier in another post, so I'll continue. She's the second wife who gets together with the new man to help deprive the first wife of custody and/or child support. Her rhetoric against Clinton - the nasty "if you can't run your own house" line - was just as misogynistic as Obama's "periodic" comment. They're both misogynistic creeps.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
i still want to know who watches their kids every day--
seriously.
Wow. What sort of black church service would be acceptable to
you?
One that simply Hoovers the tithes out of pockets, without any mention of the need of attendees to particpate in social justice and other good works?
There are thousands of churches glad to keep their congregations asleep. Liberation theology was only a bad concept to the reactionaries of the Catholic Church and the CIA troops that liked killing activist nuns.
I guess what my larger question is what, in your view, is a proper leftist church's theology? Are all imprecatory actions and prayers banned from it? Do people pray over Bush and Cheney so that they're slightly less worse than the day before? Is religious fervor a no-no?
I'm sorry I was so silent during the Wright mishegas, but I separated out Wright's own hunger for the spotlight with his church's obviously popular message.
One possible factor in future news coverage:
MSNBC will change, positively or negatively, because their lead political commentator has died:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/
Once they mourn, the producers and anchors might have a moment to listen to people who might say, respectfully, that we're in a lot of trouble out here, too.
Timmeh Death
Will only strengthen the MSM's resolve.
It will be tantamount to heresy to say something "bad" about his conduct now.
Tweety might be on suicide watch.
Watch how Olbermann treats Russert tonight.
the ultimate "gotcha" ?
(yup-i'm evil) ; >
Now now, Amberglow
If you've got nothing nice to say... (that's why I'll keep quiet on this). ;-)
Go Global!
nah---
i didn't keep quiet when Reagan died or Atwater or many many many others--why now?
LMBAO!!!
Cafe Press is beggin for a visit.
LOL
but who wants pumpkinhead's gigantic mug
on their chest?
*shivers*
manamah - if he objects to misogynist attaccks
while never having said a word about Randi Rhodes calling clinton a fucking whore and all the other crap that was dished her way - he'll lose more voters. I can't tell you how hurful that would be to a lot of us.
In fact, the most important thing for those two is to suck it up when the racism and the misogyny come their way. They've dished it out. they need to prove they can take it.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Um, no.
later you will have all the shadenfreude and toldyaso moments you could ever want. but for now, and for future generations who will wish they had free choice and a Constitution and no endless war.
It's Obama's job to convince those voters who are unhappy with him to vote for him, not the job of those voters to get in line and just accept the shit sandwich that's been the only thing on the menu for generations.
Also?
Really, really tired of my uterus being used as a political football. If the Democrats really gave a damn about free choice, they'd have been doing something to prevent Roe from becoming no more than a coat hanger with which to beat women into line every four years.
Women have no effective choice now in huge swaths of this country. What have the Democrats done to prevent that?
Zuzu, I'm just asking here
not looking for a fight, but to understand what is (or rather, what is not) happening.
"Women have no effective choice now in huge swaths of this country. What have the Democrats done to prevent that?"
True, and awful, and a good tough question. Played it for political gain, but then that is what political parties will do. Both sides have used Roe as a bludgeon and a fundraising tool; probably they will always do that, with pretty much everything.
What puzzles me, though, is another question: Women have no effective choice now in huge swaths of this country. What have Women done to prevent that?
It seems to me that when the ERA failed the wind went out of any sort of issue-oriented women's movement. Lots of talking still but not much doing. Not being critical, just observing - but it seems to me that the lesson from women's sufferage is that unless there is a substantial organized and relentless push for an issue, it is unlikely to happen.
If women want to preserve the right to privacy within, the right to control over, their own bodies, then women will have to mobilize and secure it. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I do mean to be blunt. As much support as there will be from men, and there will be considerable, I can't see any path other than one forged by women.
(And I know women shouldn't have to, and yes it is all wrong that women do have to, and it should just be there because it is right and reasonable and fair and all, but still; reality is what it is.)
Does this make sense?
makes perfect sense
you got an invitation to the party. turned it down as i recall. as did lambert.
1912-1920 -- 8 years, got the vote
1921-1997 -- 76 more years, an entire lifetime [that's longer than you can expect to live] of testiculan 'support' yah, go get em, tiger! and while you're up would you bring me another beer, sweetie?
btw, that would be suffrage you were thinking of, although sufferage describes it well enough.
Suffering Suffrage
One would think that there might be some slack cut for spelling errors committed in the midst of perfectly good intentions, but no. I'll try to do better, but with my massive editorial and research staff on holiday I'm struggling here on my own.
Eight years focused, objective obtained. Since then, not much; sounds like an attention span issue. If women, as a block, took 1/10 the time expended on the intricacies of accessorizing and applied it instead on women’s issues, they would all be solved – with or without testiculan support. If women want it done, they need to take responsibility and do it; waiting for others, especially those who see themselves threatened by the desired changes, will not work.
I declined to join your NWP or NFP or whatever because I only have so much effort available, and I want to spend what I have on a broader-based, humanist approach. For what you propose I say go get ‘em, best wishes, hope it all works well for you. Consider me a moral supporter.
We’re all sweeties, now.
With all due respect and friendship, BIO
These 3 paragraphs of yours are one big pile of bullshit. They just reveal your ignorance of what women have been doing at grassroot levels (in the US and worldwide) for their own survival. There is a lot being done that is invisible to the privileged groups, never counted as economic / social productive activity (see my post on solidarity economics). And so, if it's not counted in the dominant measures, it means it does not exist, right?
The problem is that women ARE a minority and therefore getting anything done requires a lot more effort, money and presents many more obstacles. And it pisses me off when women work their asses off (remember the second and third shifts??), and some jackass (in this case, yes, you) shows up and proclaims "well, why don't you ladies get off your asses and get it done??".
Well, screw you, BIO, we're trying but when even our side of the political spectrum does not recognize the major obstacles women face (misogyny and sexism) even exist, it makes everything all the more difficult.
Oh, and as for having so much effort available, pal, women have way less leisure time than men in ANY societies, and yet, we find the time and effort and energy to get shit done.
So keep your pontificating for when you know what you're talking about, 'kay.
Go Global!
thufferin' thuccotath
One would think that there might be some slack cut for spelling errors committed in the midst of perfectly good intentions, but no. I’ll try to do better, but with my massive editorial and research staff on holiday I’m struggling here on my own.
[mad proofreader skillz, i has them, also copyediting skillz. your staff wanted to hire me to fill in while they were on vacation, but they couldn't afford my ratez. you're in luck, i've got a distinct weakness for bloviators, so here's a free sample. --ed]
Eight years focused, objective obtained. Since then, not much; sounds like an attention span issue. If
women, as a block, took 1/10 the time expended on the intricacies ofaccessorizingbaseball/basketball/fooball/soccer/bloviating/ogling women on the beach and applied it instead on women’s issues, they would all be solved – with or withouttesticulanovarian support. If women want it done, they can just kill all the men who stand in the way. if instead, men want to survive the process, they need to take responsibility and do it; waiting forotherswomen, especially those women whosee themselveshave been marginalized/patted on the head and dismissed/outright threatened by men, to ask sweetly for the desired changes, will not work.I declined to join your NWP or NFP or whatever [dismissive much? --ed] because I only have so much effort available, and I want to spend what I have on
a broader-based, humanist approachanything but mere women. For what you propose I say go get ‘em, best wishes, hope it all works well for you, now get out of the way of those of us who have real goals to pursue. Consider me a moral supporter [we need moral supporters like we need athletic supporters --ed].We’re all sweeties, now.
.......................
seriously, this demand [and it's not just you] that the poor/weak/afflicted/downtrodden/been kicked in the teeth/fell in tiger pit need to go to extraordinary lengths to prove their moral worthiness before being allowed to beg for help -- that's a republican value, not a democratic one, not a liberal one, not a progressive one. it's not even a conservative one, fer cryin out loud.
you've got humanist goals you want implemented and only limited resources avialable? with just a small expenditure of your precious capital you could literally have half the population fighting alongside you to reach those goals. we have the same goals as you, actually, surprise surprise, but we can't get a whole hell of a lot done as half-persons.
not to mention that we're just fucking tired of being half-persons.
woman on top, you should try it for a while, spice things right up for you. sweetie.
Hipparchia, you misunderstand
See Here.
I didn't "turn it down" -- I wanted to reframe it.
National Human Rights Party? Hell, yeah.
And "natural" successor to NWP, IMNSHO. That's what the third ("????") option in my sig means: If there were a genuine alternative, and not Naderite self-indulgence, I'd go for it. (And I'm in a state where the Greens are supposedly big, but I don't see anything from them, so it looks like whatever the angle is, the Greens don't have it.)
I have to say, also, that I found the "Rivers of Blood" title a little offputting. Seems to me that with the examples of Ghandi and MLK before us, we don't need to equate violence with success.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
no i don't misunderstand. i just reframed your reframe.
national human rights party? oh hell yeah, with ya 150% on that, i really am, and yes, you're absolutely right, it's the logical successor to the nwp.
one small problem, the nwp didn't get to quite finish its mission. the era came this || close to being passed, but didn't make it. we got more pay, more maternity leave, more child care, more steps on the corporate ladder, we're allowed to play in more sports in schools, we got all kinds of goodies, but ...
oh look, you women care about racial inequality, we need to work on that! [we do] and kids! we need to do more for our kids! y'all care about kids! [we do] and animal rights! [you bet] and iraqiranafghanistanabughraibguantanamo!
lots of people [and animals] are getting lifted up out of hopelessness and moving up the ladder to where you are, and thanks to the god/dess/e/s and a lot of individual humans it's happening, but the default 100% fully human with all rights, repsonsibilities, and liberties that go along with the position? that's still white+male.
and that includes your reframe of my proposed party. you could just as easily have jumped in and said adopt your priority and make it my first priority too? oh hell yeah! we get that taken care of, i know we'll have half the population on our side when we take on my priorities!
----------
heh. the title was more than a little offputting.
all those events [and they're timelines, really, not discrete events] can be interpreted several ways --
interesting breakdown, more or less along gender lines, in which commenters on that post made which interpretations.
I remember a story I read as a child...
... about a child who was in the business of cutting lawns for the neighbors, and started out doing a cheap, lousy job, until one of the neighbors said "Why not try to do a $3.00 job?" instead of the $2.00 job the kid was doing? And so they did, and did better with a $4.00 job, and a $5.00 job, and they got stuck at a $7.00 job and after trying and trying and trying, couldn't do a good enough job to charge $8.00. So then the neighbor suggested, "Why not try to do a $10.00 job?" Which worked....
Meaning -- and I like the story because I did that when I was a kid -- maybe the work of the NWP isn't finished because it takes more than the NWP to do it?
Very happy to have this discussion, it needs to be had. Depends, to a degree, on who you think "the real enemy" is?
FWIW, I think the answer has to be along the lines of "there will be violence" but not from us. One of the nice things about MLK and Ghandi is that they didn't lead movements that turned into the Jacobins, say.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
$10.00 job, that's the one i want
you give us $10 worth of work on women's rights, we'll give you $10 worth on any number of other issues that are dear to your heart.
you put $2 into women's rights, promise more to come later, and ask us to spread ourselves out so thin on issues of your choosing that we can only put $2, $4, 7$ worth into any of them....
defining the enemy is easy. the problem is figuring out who among your friends will hold you back while seeming to help: some of them will do so inadvertently, some of them will do so subconsciously, and some of them will only be your friend just so long as you don't seek admission to the secret clubhouse.
non-violent civil disobedience, i'm all for it. i've been trying to get myself arrested since before i got my drivers license. started by chaining myself to trees to keep them from getting cut down and once even belonged to a group that helped women get safe abortions back when they were illegal.
so here it is 30+ years later and where are my pet issues? era never made it, we got roe v wade but it's relentlessly being chipped away bit by bit, and dick cheney is effectively running the epa [and almost as well as he's doing with iraq].
i. am. pissed.
i see right now as a really good time to revive serious work on women's issues [hillary is also on the environment committee, yay! bonus!], and i see splitting off a sizeable portion of the democratic party, with hillary at the head, as an expedient way to do that. you want to talk me out of doing anything that drastic, so i ask your question:
and we get... ?
Good Luck With That
Sincerely.
"i see right now as a really good time to revive serious work on women’s issues [hillary is also on the environment committee, yay! bonus!], and i see splitting off a sizeable portion of the democratic party, with hillary at the head, as an expedient way to do that."
I disagree. I do not share that vision, either from a practicable standpoint or from a philosophical one. If I were to plot taking a chunk out of the Democratic Party to form a new one, I would not count on Hillary being willing to join it, much less head it. From a standpoint of political philosophy, I do not see a fragment of the size of the "Clinton faction" as being a viable entity by which to achieve electoral victory. Rather, I would see it more likely to end up facilitating the continued dominance of Republicans in the White House, and putting the Congress at risk; quite the opposite of what I want to occur. That's what I see happening; your vision may reasonably vary.
"you want to talk me out of doing anything that drastic"
Disagreeing with you, and telling you why I do, is not the same as trying to talk you out of it. By all means, proceed according to your best judgment. I wish you good fortune, and all success; may everything you desire come true.
Shakespeare's Sister has the NYTimes photo accompanying the
"Was there really sexism?" article in a post.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2...
A photo of Hillary from the neck down to just about waist. Honest. Head cut off (symbolic, what?). Microphones and taperecorders surrounding her torso. Focus: bosom.
Objectifying her? Depersonalizing her? Some photo editor's snark, either against the MCM's protests or against her? Very weird.
And shocking. Infuriating.
A real grabber--in the most groping way imaginable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/pol...
Times link, bcz posted one seems wrong.