DISTURBING MUSIC RAP VIDEO (by Lynette Long)
I have thought long and hard about posting this video because it is so disturbing. The blatant disrespect it shows toward women, not just Republican women, is alarming. It saddens me that not only are women not outraged by this video but participate in this. Again I feel frustrated by the silence that envelopes the womens groups that are supposed to protect all women not just Democratic women. The task for equality seems impossible at times. Stand tall women. Stand with me.
Dr. Long’s video link is broken. See below.—Caro
Drill Baby Drill (video)
The Lady Killers (by Anglachel)
Calling Hillary a cunt or Sarah Plain a slut only work because of the misogynistic backdrop in which we understand that these are qualities of being female, and where they are used to shame, humiliate, intimidate and justify violence against the women so named, exactly as racial epithets are used to do exactly the same on reviled minorities. These kinds of racial epithets and imagery were acceptable, even respectable, in popular culture… I remember eating at “Sambo’s” restaurants as a child, a chain marketed through racist imagery. It is now gone. Conversely, there are two “Hooters” restaurants within 10 miles of my house, where women’s breasts are the central marketing tool for second rate fried food. It’s promoted as a “family” restaurant, by the way.
What the campaign season has demonstrated is misogyny is as acceptable a weapon of social and political dominance as race demagoguery was through George Wallace’s presidential campaigns… The lady killers are no more and no less than the racists of the Left, and should be treated as such.
Please set aside time to read the entire post. It’s one of the most important essays written this year.—Caro
Yep (by Susie at Suburban Guerrilla)
What Anglachel says [see above]. Yes, I am voting for Obama - but I’m holding my nose. And this is the LAST TIME I’m going to vote holding my nose. If the country wasn’t in such a freakin’ meltdown right now, I’d be voting for Cynthia McKinney. At my son’s wedding, one of the guests (a college professor) came up to me and said, “I guess you’re working on the campaign, right?” I smiled back and said, “No.” He looked baffled and said, “Oh.” His wife, a leading consultant on geriatric policy and a former Hill staffer, came over to me later and confided her husband was one of Obama’s senior advisors on Social Security. “Are you working for him?” she said. “No,” I told her. “After what happened in the primary to Hillary Clinton, there’s no way. I’m not working against Obama, or for McCain, but I’m not helping them, either.” She nodded vehemently. “Exactly! I feel the same way.” There’s a lot of us out there. We won’t forget.
As I’ve said, I’m voting for Cynthia. I’m done holding my nose. Some friends of mine went to an event over the weekend that included some Hillary supporters who are actually working for McCain now. There are more than you might think.—Caro
Brooks calls Palin the “worst of talk”… (by Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler)
In [Wednesday’s] New York Times, Maureen Dowd quotes David Brooks, who complains that Sarah Palin “has reinforced the worst of talk-radio culture” since becoming McCain’s nominee. We certainly agree with that, though our own assessment would be a good deal stronger. But as we look at the world TDH covers, we keep thinking we’re seeing that same “talk-radio culture” infecting the (growing) world of “liberal” advocacy. We think that tendency is bad for the world, for progressive interests.
Secret Service denies report of rally cry to "kill" Obama (Hot off the Trail, McClatchy)
The U.S. Secret Service says reports that someone at a Sarah Palin rally in Pennsylvania yelled "kill him" at the mention of Barack Obama's name are unfounded.
Rainey criticizes CNN for "reheated, overwrought and misleading" Palin story
A recent CNN report "seemed designed to yoke Sarah Palin and her husband to the most extreme secessionists in Alaska," writes press critic James Rainey. He notes that no news outlets "have shown that Sarah Palin embraced the call by some in the party to sever their beloved state from 'the Lower 48.'"
Click here for more political and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
- Caro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Dual posts
I was writing about the same time you were writing this, apparently. But I still think the secret service article deserves to be discussed on its own, particularly in light of a recent charge by a Correntian.
Absolutely.
I do a roundup, and it's not meant to stifle discussion on the individual topics, as well.
It's all Hillary's fault.
I watched Bill and Hill in Scranton on C-SPAN last night, from a Monday campaign appearance for Biden. Every time they speak lately, they invariably work their hypnotic magic on me and I'm reduced to a blubbering fool who can't wait to vote for Obama.
Then these creeps show their faces in a YouTube video (or make their reliable Corrente posts) and I'm reminded vividly why I can't. (Trust me, misog-Obots - you really are not doing your guy any favors.)
The overriding message of this video isn't so much the shock of the hip, postmodern sexism and racism (and yeah, this is a white guy's video, and yeah, it's racist and sexist - deal), but the superiority complex these people carry around with them like shiny foil sheriff badges: "You're a dumbass and I know what's good for you."
Where do they get it from? Why do these people think they are clever and smart?
tons of us are tired of holding our noses each time--
i wonder what Susie thinks Obama will do? and what that believe/hope/dream/wish/etc is based on?
On purely aesthetic grounds...
... I moved the video below the fold. Gack. Time and a place for everything, and all.
And yes, gq, worthy of a post. Sheesh. Even I bought into that one. And of course, it was background in the debate, as well.
[ ] 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
Gq, I certainly am mesmerized by Bill and Hill but they can't
convince me to vote for Obama. I just love them. I'm not holding my nose on this one, I'm letting it play out w/out my vote. It's my way of saying "Thanks, Howard Dean, you fuc* up."
BTW, is there a back story to Howard Dean and his campaign of hate against Hillary Clinton? It seems like someone really didn't want Hillary to win and I'm not so sure it was just Howie. Any thoughts.
I love this job!
I love this job!
I didn't hold my nose for Kerry or Gore
I happily voted for them because I *really* believed they were the better candidates, and would send us on a more progressive path. Perfect? Meh, I don't use that metric since I personally don't know how to define it. I never bought into the Gore/Kerry were the same as Bush. When it comes to Obama, I happen to think he could do more to harm progressivism than McCain can. The acceptance of election theft and sexism/racism as weapons in politics are why I believe that. If I were to use the "lesser of two evils" formulation, I would chose McCain. But that's not where I am, I don't find any alternative acceptable, including Nader or McKinney.
If I had to hold my nose, it would be for McCain. A year and a half ago I would never have imagined I would say that.
Why couldn't Hillary have played dirty? Then we'd be in a
better place right now.
I love this job!
I love this job!
What I think...
Is that the country may move slightly more slowly toward fascism with a Democrat in the White House - maybe slowly enough for us to stop it.
I think the federal agencies will be funded well enough to perform their enforcement functions in a Democratic administration. I believe regulation in general will actually be enforced. Imagine, a Department of Labor where they actually protect workers! We haven't seen that since the Clinton administration.
There are many, many government activities that will happen as intended under ANY Democratic administration. The country is showing the results of eight years of untrammeled capitalism. We can't afford to lose this. So I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for Democratic policies and Democratic enforcement. As bad as those policies sometimes are, they're still better than an administration who openly works to steal money from working people to benefit the rich.
I don't have much "hope" about anything, other than stopping the hemorrhaging.
"for Democratic policies and Democratic enforcement."
thanks! that's the whole point---
but seriously--has he ever shown you any indication of being someone who will fight to implement these things? he's shown me that he'll fight for himself alone and will not lift a finger for basic Democratic principles--i can't find a single action of his that ever demonstrated care, devotion, or any kind of dedication to our policies or enforcement.
if he was willing to fight for Democratic policies and enforcement of existing laws that are good, i'd vote for him--i don't see it anywhere--i see exactly the opposite.
and Bush has placed their people in career positions thruout the executive branch--unless Obama is willing to get rid of them or shut them out (and he's not, as witnessed by his open willingness to keep Gates and Paulson and so many others on), it's not a realistic expectation. He's not going to reverse all the horrors Bush has implemented--and he wants to expand many of them--from faith-based funding to Afghanistan to missile defense to clean coal to privatization, etc.
there's proactive stuff needed, & reversing of the
horrendous (and structural) damage Bush has implemented.
Saying he'll continue the damage but more slowly--and not even reverse them---is not good enough if you really care about the government as a tool that we own that is suppposed to help us all.
So I should vote for the guy who will accelerate the process?
It's not as if we're designing a system from scratch here. Both parties are dominated by corporate interests. Both parties will support anything the military wants.
I don't like Obama. I think I've been pretty clear about that. But I don't believe he'll impede the kinds of progressive legislation a Democratic-controlled Congress will present.
how about not voting for anyone who will
keep that process rolling? or voting for those who won't hurt us--like a 3rd-party person?
why give your seal of approval ("mandate") to anyone who will also hurt us--just more slowly?
why give approval to this whole completely messed-up and non-representative process that gave us the least experienced and least Democratic Democrat in my lifetime?
you know how people always say that poor Repubs vote
against their interests?
why are you gonna do the same?
The election isn't about one spokesmodel.
Cleaning out the various Federal agencies and departments and regulators of their various Wobbly wingnut government-drowners is important. It really does have to be done, and it really can't wait another four years. I think the case can be made that Obama will, as a "Democrat", bring a crew of dedicated public servants along with him to clean out that cancer.
Unfortunately, I also think the case can be made that Obama is so pathologically addicted to approval from the Village
elders and their GOP enablers that he will, even moreso than Bill Clinton did, try to impress us with his "bipartisanship".
One hopes (Heh Heh, I said "hope") that he will show off his mad bipartisan skillz in making relatively unimportant appointments, and not try and impress David Broder by his SCOTUS pick.
Bottom line - we have no basis or history for believing this optimistic scenario, and there still hangs the spectre of a demolished liberal future.
But Susie's post was the first thing I've seen from a real citizen and not a professional politician that made me seriously consider voting for Obama. I think that, if I am accompanied into the voting booth with Bill, Hillary, and Susie for moral support, I might - just might - vote for Obama. Now that Bill has slimmed down, I think we could manage this.
"no basis or history for believing this"
--that's what's key for me, and why i asked her about it all.
I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt for decades now--and they all had more relevant experience and track records, unlike Obama, and we keep going backwards and getting harmed more and more--and when someone does come along and tries to repair the damage (as Clinton did with the deficit), the next Republican simply goes wild -- and even worse than the previous one.
harming us less is in no way good enough, and is not at all worthy of my vote.
WP endorses the status quo ---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con... -- "...When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel.
... A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed. ..."
So much for "change".
Well, at least the Village is sold!
And what a load of crap, to be sure.
And they're just drooling to steal Social Security, too, aren't they? Fees! Commissions!
[ ] 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
and Obama will let them do it
there's no longer much doubt about that.
he's been against mandating govt things all along, and for things that push public money out to private actors--like faith-based funding and charter schools.