(caution: rant zone ahead)
Last night I finished up six days in Wonderland.
You see, last week I agreed to allow Part 4 of my “Sexism and Misogyny” series to be serialized at FDL. That was a mistake. Part 4 was really just one big fat footnote to the rest of the series, that explained a nice big chunk in the variance in the levels of evidence of sexism. The only reason it wasn’t a footnote is because it took too long to explain that while the variance was related to the percentage of black voters in the electorate, the cause of the variance was the “shift” in the white vote that occurs in conjunction with the increase in the percentage of the black vote.
Now, even my eyes glazed over while writing that last sentence, so I’m assuming that most of yours did too while reading it. And everyone over at FDL whose reaction to the atomization of the evidence supporting that sentence was “What the fuck is this?!?!” was fully justified.
(And this was my mistake. I’m old enough to know that even if I think I know what I’m talking about, that doesn’t mean anyone else will.)
But that isn’t the only reaction it got. While more than a few people “got it”, a whole bunch of Obama supporters started displaying behavior that can best be described as “infantile.” And this behavior is widespread. When Melissa McEwan does a very short post over at Shakesville positing that “feminism is an integral part of progressivism” and it becomes the most controversial thing you’ve ever written, you know there is something very weird going on. And you can see it just about anywhere that gender issues are raised, and there is an Obama supporter nearby.
The minute you mention sexism, or feminism, or anything related to gender as a stand alone topic*, a large number (not all, okay) of Obama supporters immediately go into a what appears to be a defensive crouch. And it doesn’t matter if it has nothing to do with the choice between Clinton and Obama (like what I posted at FDL), or provide specific examples of clearly sexist behavior from Obama supporters (as does Amanda Fortini in her brilliant “Feminist Reawakening” piece in New York magazine), or doesn’t even mention Obama or Clinton (as McEwan didn’t), the reaction is always the same: “There are good reasons to hate Hillary Clinton, and here are mine” and “You’re just a shill for Clinton.”
Even when no one is discussing the relative merits of Obama or Clinton, the minute gender issues are raised, Obama supporters feel compelled to justify that support. Moreover, even when it is explained to them that you are not talking about them, they still don’t get it. They continue to insist upon trashing Clinton, and will even do so in an unmistakably sexist manner (as in the old “she only got where she is because of who she is married to” trope.)
After spending a couple of hours a day for the last six days watching this happen, I’ve come up with a theory. This has nothing to do with gender related issues, and its not a denial of sexism, or a rejection of feminism as a progressive value. And what appears to be unwarranted defensiveness and paranoia isn’t. Those are just the “adult” manifestations of an Infantile Id being denied what it wants.
On a subconscious level, Obama’s supporters recognize the “fraudulent” nature of his candidacy – that he hasn’t “earned” his delegate lead, and has done nothing to deserve their support – other than not be Hillary Clinton. The reaction you get from Obama supporters looks like an avoidance mechanism – a means of not confronting on a conscious level what they know to be true on a subconscious level, that not merely that Obama hasn’t “earned” the nomination, but that if he gets the nomination, he’ll lose the general election.
Now, these are smart people – and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize what is going on here – that Obama’s “success” is based primarily on two things
1) Overwhelming support from the African American community that no white candidate with Obama’s “message” would come close to getting
2) “Hillary-hate” and “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” – a phenomenon that has its roots in sexism and misogyny.
They know this. They will argue that Obama won in Iowa, but they know that he got only 37% of caucus goers there, after spending a year of doing the “face – to –face” campaigning in Iowa that just isn’t possible in a general election. They know that he won throughout the South based not on his message, but on his race. They know that he won in the caucuses in the Mountain and Plains states not because of his message, but because of Clinton didn’t campaign there, and because there is a lot of Hillary-haters in that part of the country.
And they know that McCain isn’t going to abandon the Western states like Clinton did, and that CDS isn’t going to be a factor in November. And they know that in the Southern states that Obama dominated, there simply aren’t enough black voters to overcome the general antipathy toward Democrats found there, let alone compensate for the effects of the racist ‘dog whistle” campaign that the GOP will be running.
And then they look at the rest of the map, and realize that in most every state the Clinton campaign focused on, she won by a substantial margin. A few others were close one way or another, thanks to overwhelming African -American support. (And they console themselves with the fact that, in states where Clinton did not run a credible campaign, Obama was able to do really well.)
Finally, they know that Obama never really connected with working and middle class white voters – that Clinton won those by substantial margins wherever she competed for them, and even in most places that she didn’t compete. They know that even with the media, the money, and the momentum in his favor, he could only get 44% of the “White” vote in the Texas Democratic Primary, and only 34% of the “White” vote in the Ohio Democratic Primary. They know what it means if he can’t do better than that when its Democrats voting, and not the “general” electorate. And they know that when given every advantage, and an opponent with such “high negatives” as Hillary Clinton, that getting only 34% of the White vote in Ohio is an electoral college death sentence.
The last thing that Obama supporters want is for people to start thinking seriously about how he really got where he is, and what that means for November. Raising “gender” issues is a threat to them, because it means that people might start thinking about how dependent upon the “Hillary-hatred” that springs from sexism and misogyny Obama’s “success” really is – and it they start thinking about that, they’ll start thinking about everything else.
So when the subject of gender issues is raised, it must be changed, and the messenger attacked. It’s the reaction of the infantile Id to the certain knowledge that it will be told “no.” They want their Obama, not a Clinton or a McCain, and just like an infant that is being denied, they are going to make everyone’s life a living hell unless and until they get what they want, or they run out of energy and finally fall asleep.
This pretty much explains everything that has been happening since March 4. The pressure on Clinton to quit – and the failure of the super-delegates to rally around Obama (they can read exit polls too.) The biliousness of the attacks on Clinton for supposedly “using Republican talking points” against Obama. And the outrage that has accompanied coverage of Obama’s “bitter/clinging” remarks has been especially telling.
The infantile Id wants what it wants, and it doesn’t care if it is “good for them.” To the Infantile Id, the world is a “magical” place – the kind of place where you can have your competition thrown off the ballot by waging a last minute “nominating petition” challenge, and where other opposition implodes in sex/drug related scandals. The teat is just there – its how the universe is ordered, and the milk is always flowing. And its that “magic” that Obama’s supporters are desperately clinging to… while the Id screams, the “Adult” Superego goes into denial about the nature of reality.
So while the bizarre reactions of Obama supporters to gender issues being raised is disconcerting, they really aren’t anything to worry about. The baby will cry itself to sleep eventually, and then wake up and act as if nothing happened, because that is what babies do. Right now, the only question is whether the parents will give in to the infant’s demand for its “Obama” rather than put up with the tantrum.
And what worries me is how we progressives often tend to spoil our kids.
*as opposed to say, trashing Chris Matthews
Front page
Not this parent
I am always being told how harsh I am as a parent, though I am fair. I’ve always ridden out the tantrums and the fits and pouts, because they have to learn to deal with their problems in a rational matter.
My daughter has learned this, she doesn’t throw tantrums, if she has a problem with a restriction, she explains to us clearly what her problem is, and if she can make a good enough case, we may relent.* She learned quickly that continued fits only resulted in more restrictions.
*Case in point, Friday evening my daughter asked if she could watch the new Spongebob episode.
My response “No, you’ve had an hour of TV today, that’s enough.”
Her response “But Mom, you told me on Monday that I could watch it, and I didn’t ask to watch TV for an hour, you put the TV on my shows(so I could cook dinner).”
So I let her watch it. But if her response had been to flop onto the floor and pout, she would have had an entertaining hour watching the walls in her room.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Great story...
Her response “But Mom, you told me on Monday that I could watch it, and I didn’t ask to watch TV for an hour, you put the TV on my shows(so I could cook dinner).”
and a really smart kid!
Just a small addition Paul
They know that he won in the caucuses in the Mountain and Plains states not because of his message, but because of Clinton didn’t campaign there, and because there is a lot of Hillary-haters in that part of the country.
He won the delegates there with a relatively small number of voters supporting him. Hillary’s margin of victory in any one of the bigger primary states outnumbers the caucus voters in the small red states combined, doesn’t it?
————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?
Pretty much anything I wanted to!
Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)
Aeryl: Kids are
natural litigators.
————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?
Pretty much anything I wanted to!
Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)
Yes, her smarty-ness makes it hard some times
I kinda hope she’ll be a lawyer, she finds the loopholes in everything. But, probably not, I mentioned to her that she could be president, and she said, “But then I can’t be a veterinarian”, so oh well.
But this strict parenting is a must for our immature Democratic cohorts.
So everyone repeat after me,
“No, you have to do your homework and eat your vegetables, then you can have your leader of the free world.”
And this is an excellent analysis, Paul. Thanks for all your effort on this. I tried to plunge into your Pt 4, but the charts hurt my eyes, and had to settle for the summary at the end.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Amazing
This is just amazing, Paul. I love it.
phat
myiq2xu
I would say kids are natural litigators, if encouraged to be. I know too many kids who rely on the tantrums and emotional blackmail to get what they want, but that is because their parents unwittingly encourage that behavior.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He won the delegates there
He won the delegates there with a relatively small number of voters supporting him. Hillary’s margin of victory in any one of the bigger primary states outnumbers the caucus voters in the small red states combined, doesn’t it?
true. But the issue isn’t the number of votes cast in those caucus states, the issue is their complete and absolute irrelevance to the general election — and that there is something weird going on with Obama supporters. When progressive simply can’t acknowledge the existence of sexism, well, there is no way to explain it using anything but “non-rational” criteria….
Paul: But . . but . . . it's the delegates!
So what if those states will vote red in November. So what if each delegate represents 2000 voters instead of 20,000!
So what if Obama can’t win the important swing states like Florida and Ohio.
He has more delegates than Hillary!
I WANT A PONY!
/end snark
————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?
Pretty much anything I wanted to!
Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)
That "Unity Pony" meme turned out to be right on the money...
… though we didn’t understand that at the time. Just the general sense of I wanna, I wanna came through with such clarity…
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Doug Wilder
And they know that in the Southern states that Obama dominated, there simply aren’t enough black voters to overcome the general antipathy toward Democrats found there, let alone compensate for the effects of the racist ‘dog whistle” campaign that the GOP will be running.
Frankly, I think there is an excellent chance that Wilder will carry VA, NC and TN, probably not any other southern state, but then other than Arkansas, and Florida, which southern state will Clinton carry?
Obama
Should have said Obama could carry VA, NC, and TN
Excellent Rant, Paul
I agree with nearly all of it. I keep waiting for the responsible adults (the parents) to step in, but I’m beginning to wonder if there are any left in the democratic party. Perhaps they will yet emerge if Hillary pulls ahead in the popular vote.
I do think misogyny plays a part in their screaming infant routine (and I know you weren’t saying it didn’t). If they are forced to look at why they want Obama so badly, some (not all) Obama supporters will be forced to examine why they dislike Hillary so much and why they’ve allowed themselves to not only be won over by Obama but to be won over to such an extent they are willing to risk a McCain victory in November. Part of that answer is their own discomfort with women, especially powerful women.
Obama plays into the image that many of these people want to see when they look at themselves, they are not racists like so many other Americans (this is also why they are so anxious to label non-Obama supporters as racists, it plays into their own feelings of superiority). But to acknowledge the sexism aimed at Hillary requires them to look at their own role in it and, by extension, their own sexism. So they must deny any sexism exists because if it exists then it might be a problem they have to care about and, worse, they might be part of that problem. It cuts directly against their self-image as good progressives. That is not something any liberal wants to see in themselves.
BDB: Ever notice that the OFB
don’t talk about him as much as they talk about Hillary?
I’d estimate it to be about 80/20, but I’m no good at math.
That would be a project for a number cruncher with a strong stomach.
Paul?
————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?
Pretty much anything I wanted to!
Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)
DC, I think
She has a good chance at carrying KY, we went to B. Clinton in 92 & 96. We are those bitter rubes who cling to our guns and religions, but we have started waking up to the dog and pony show the Repubs have been putting on for us(one reason why I hate his remarks, because these are people who were leaning to our side, but not now, though the Obamabots are in force in the local editorial pages.) KY has always voted for the winner, and we are actually a majority Dem state, but the Repubs have suckered us for the past couple of years.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Interesting data point on Obama's staffing
Via Confluence:
Well, let’s be reasonable, here. It’s a just a matter of who he’s comfortable working with.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
why do I get all the dirty jobs?
That would be a project for a number cruncher with a strong stomach.
Paul?
its doubtless true that the Obots spend more time on Clinton than their own candidate, but then so do the Clinton supporters spend more time on Obama.
Actually, while Obama supporters spend their time trashing Clinton, Clinton supporters spend their time trashing Obama supporters.
"They're Trying to Get Me Because I Bring You The Truth!"
[Stickies post, ducks….]
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Kentucky
Obama has no chance of carrying the state, I don’t think Clinton is likely to win it, but I agree she has a chance. The primary campaigning there will help, it will give Kentuckians a chance to see her in person, something that rarely happens there in primaries or general elections. The excitement will lead to more registered democrats and better voter databases. Add in the fact that Kentucky has a new democratic governor (is he popular there, Aeryl?) who took over from a corrupt Republican and that could help. There will also be some money and effort poured into the state to try to unseat McConnell.
The Democratic machine started falling apart in Kentucky while I still lived there and a lot of it was caused by institutional corruption and laziness on the part of Democrats. Everyone thinks of Mitch McConnell as this hard right-winger, but when he beat Ford he didn’t run an ideological campaign. His big ad showed a hound dog tracking Ford because he had missed so many House votes. The rot has already set into the Republican party machine there. So that’s an opening.
Finally, I suspect Clinton has a chance because she might actually try to win it. Gore - or rather Brazile - made a huge mistake, IMO, in limiting the playing field. He should’ve made more of a pitch to KY and TN.
"Young Obama Backers Twist Parents’ Arms"
This fits right in:
I didn’t have a frame of reference before.
C’mon, parents! Be parents, for pity’s sake!
Here’s a song some of whose lyrics are surprisingly a propos:
You keep seeing new things in great songs…
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.with all the usual caveats...
concerning how ridiculous it is to predict november results based on polling this far out…
Should have said Obama could carry VA, NC, and TN
right now, in terms of polls, there isn’t much difference between Clinton and Obama when matched against McCain in those states.
One trend I think is there (not going to swear to it, but it looks pretty consistent) is that there are consistently fewer undecided voters in McCain v Obama than McCain v Clinton.
Another problem for Obama is the nature of the undecided vote. Take VA for example… where in the latest SUSA poll (almost a month ago, but it has the crosstabs) http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo…
Obama is leading McCain by 1 point, Obama is doing well among non-white voters, but there aren’t any undecided left. He’s getting killed by McCain with white voters, though…and that is where the undecided vote is.
Clinton on the other hand, is down by 1 point to McCain, and isn’t killed by McCain with the white vote — she’s just on life support. But there are a whole slew of black voters “undecided”, and McCain isn’t going to get that 25% of the black vote that is there come November. So, if I had to bet on who would do better against McCain in VA, I’d say Clinton… she’d lose, but by less than Obama.
Can ya hear me?
Here’s a song whose lyrics are surprisingly a propos:
c’mon. if you’re gonna site a who song with lyrics appropriate to Obama, its gotta be “We’re not gonna take it”
I mean, the Obots have put in their earplugs, put on their eyeshades, and they sure know where that cork goes….
Weak Candidates
Somewhere, too lazy to look where, Yglesias said that part of the bitterness of the contest had to do with the fact that we have weak candidates. That is partly why people are so negative, they are deciding because one of the candidates really puts them off.
somewhere, too lazy to look where, Avedon Carol pointed out that Clinton’s most determined opponents are those who initially supported the Iraq war and decided only in spring of 2003, or after it began, that it was a really bad idea.
I think we forget how weak the Republicans are, they have the press and nothing else. Nobody was showing up for the Republican primary. McCain must be glad he has it wrapped up, because now he is spared the spectacle of millions showing up for the Dem primary with only a desolatory turnout in the GOP primary.
Moreoever both Dem candidates are way out fundraising McSame. Same with DCCC and DSCC. That is an indication that they business community has already written off the Republicans and are now moving to plan B.
Maybe because I remember Wilder’s campaigns in ’85 and ’89, but I think Obama can win. The sorts of things that would destroy him in any other year just won’t cut it in the current environment.
If Obama is nominated the only thing that could stop him is a really bad VP choice. The sad thing is, he is being pushed in the wrong direction.
The only that could stop Clinton is her preconceived idea of what is possible.
Paul, I had more in mind...
I wannit, I wannit, I wannit…
You can’t have it!
And of course, The Who and the id are closely related…
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Virginia
The VA GOP is in meltdown. Democrats have a senate candidate with approval ratings in the stratespehre, Republicans are choosing between two trainwrecks. The VA GOP will have no ground game. The Democrats will have a far better ground game than the one they had in 2006, which was pretty good. I feel confident that the Dem nominee can win in VA. The only thing that might be a problem is if Clinton is the nominee. Most of the VA establishment is proObama. If Clinton is the nominee they might not even try. These are the kinds of things you cannot poll for.
If ever, oh ever, an Id there was...
If ever, oh ever an Id there was
Obama’s cult has one because, because, because, because
Because of the awesome things he does!
We’re off to be a winner
A wonderful spinner of Odds!
++++
KY
I don’t know if Beshear is popular, but residents are very understanding(at least for now) that he got handed a mess in Frankfort.
He was just recently handed a real stinker of a budget, had to use his line item veto on some cuts, because the Republican run Senate wouldn’t increase tobacco taxes(I am sick of legislatures using tobacco taxes as a stop gap measure for funding holes, but something really has to give here, with the cuts that are being made) even though we have almost the lowest tobacco taxes in the country.
His proposal for expanded gaming is popular(every state around us has casinos, so we are losing money that we could use) but once again, the Senate won’t allow it. He hasn’t yet taken a stance on raising taxes on the upper class, which must be done, because the lower and middle classes are really hit hard by their taxes, but said that if the economy continues to tank, he will call a special session to get revenue.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Thank you
Can I hog on your rant. The one that pisses me off to no end, is that we have to elect Obam so that they don’t get disappointed. Really? What in God’s name does that mean? They try one time, if they don’t get it they will go back not being inspired? What has this inspiration done for us as a nation?
I feel that we have unleashed the gangs from Clockwork Orange, their boots are their keyboards and venom.
Insightful comment, DCB
I agree:
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
MJS, that comment is screaming out for the full post
Speaking of songs that are a propos.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Wicked
Speaking of Oz, I’ve often thought of this campaign when my Wicked soundtrack gets to the end of Defying Gravity, where all of the townsfolk sing “So we have to bring her down!”
It may just be some sort of mental imbalance caused by reading too much about the campaign and listening too much to the Wicked soundtrack, but I know there’s some brilliant YouTube video that could be made about this campaign with the songs from Wicked. Yeah, I need help.
IIRC: Back in the Spring of 1992
The Big Dawg was running third behind Bush and Perot.
Predicting beyond the primaries is a truly dismal science.
————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?
Pretty much anything I wanted to!
Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)
x
DCBlogger, I’ll tell you the big thing that will kill Obama, and it ain’t a bad VP choice: it’s the deliberate trashing of Clinton supporters by both him and his deranged supporters. McCain won’t need the GOP to knock him off. He and his supporters have already done the job for him, and the dem leadership has been helping by flushing FL and MI.
I went over to FDL
to see what kind of comments you got, Paul.
Some nasty sexism over there. These remarks from KayinMaine really struck me re: the internalized misogyny I unfortunately see in women…think MoDo. Here’s the comment:
Does Kay have a clue how her characterization is anti-feminist and homophobic and/or sarcastically toxic like MoDo?
What’s wrong with a woman carrying a gun, drinking whiskey, and going hunting?! Kay’s off-color bon mot… the “loaf of bread down her pants” to impress…wait for it…men? WTF
is that? I can’t help but wonder if that’s a Hill is a lesbian inference, a GOP talking point, and definitely mockery… although the “bread of loaf” is something a drag king might do to camp it up onstage in a comic routine. Or is Kay implying that Hillary was trying to act uber-manly, which is simply ridiculous, as if human beings aren’t a mix of both masculine and feminine. Sheeesh! There’s so much projection in Kay’s comment, it’s hard to unwrap it all. Helluva lot of gender issues with KayinMaine. She evidently doesn’t know any women who hunt, drink, and shoot and she’s not exactly accepting of females who do things that break the gender rules in her silly narrow mind. Maybe she’s a terrible closet case, an emasculated female envious of powerful women (the alpha in her monkey mind), or a resentful daughter taking out her anger on a older female substitute.
Then she flips from ridiculing the stereotypical “butch” to shaming the alleged subservient female role she attaches to Hillary …and closes by admitting she doesn’t see Hillary as a feminist. Jeebus!
Sad, sad, sad. We’ve got some sick puppies on the Left in desperate need of therapy and a whole lot of growing up to do. I’d guess this person was a College Republican if I didn’t know that FDL moderates comments.
I know that Avedon link
Avedon via moi’s blog citing Anglachel:
Title of Anglachel’s post is The Bad Mother aka Hillary.
Plus, Kay gives herself a LOL...
to celebrate her own lame, misogynistic comment. OMG!
postrace/not racist/etc vs. racism of voters and Clinton is
more important and more personally rooted than people think, i believe—esp among white educated Dems—and it’s related to sexism.
Us white Dems who are supposed to be the more advanced, non-racist ones— the GOP are the racists. Which makes it natural to paint Obama’s opponents- Clinton and those who vote for her—as racist.
Obama has played on that enormously — his own branding was about transcending race earlier, and specifically not being like other Black politicians and leaders we all know, and about making whites comfortable by not ever getting angry or preachy or talking about poverty or “black issues”, etc. He sold himself as a cool Tiger Woods/Denzel/Will Smith/etc type—and not a Jesse or Sharpton or whatever.
This validated the very common —and very reductive and damaging— existing beliefs among whites that there are “good” and “bad” blacks, which is reinfored by the enormous media love for all the “good Blacks” who don’t act like Sharpton or Rodman or rappers or criminals, etc.
This distinction and deep need for Obama to be a “good” one is totally tied up in the great and deep personal pride many white Dems have—and value. (I have it too—i’m a better person than racists-but i don’t need it demonstrated in a politician or star or talking head, etc)
Even hints of Obama’s associations and connections to “those other ones” or that he might actually not be how he sells himself is a constant worry bec many actually need it reinforced constantly—and always need it proved to them overtly.
That was longer than i thought—sorry—but—
it’s totally related to sexism because these same educated white Dems compete with women every day in every way and most 50 and younger always have—they’re more of a real presence and always visible in ways blacks aren’t—ways that directly impact lives and careers in vital ways—they don’t compete with blacks that way. 1/2 of their offices are not black, and 1/2 of the bosses aren’t, and 1/2 of their schools/colleges weren’t—and most are straight so women are objects and targets and potential mates as well.
They need Obama as a living symbol and as proof of things that aren’t as present, but that need to be validated for self-worth stuff.
Hillary running—to be boss!— is a real threat to some precisely bec self-worth stuff like jobs and mates is always an issue everyday.
(does that make sense?)
yes, it does.
yes, it does.
dc blogger,
i’m sorry, but i have to laugh. what makes you think obama can take NC and VA? or even TN for that matter, considering HRC won the primary there—and gore couldn’t even carry it, his own home state, in 2000? sorry to break it to you, pal, but NEITHER of them are going to win NC, VA, AL, MS, OK, SC, or TX. and BOTH of them can win DE, DC, and MD.
so why don’t we move on to the southern states that are actually IN play for the GE, shall we? 2 of them are pink (FL, GA) and 5 of them purple (TN, WV, AR, KY, and LA).
of the pink, hillary has already carried FL and has a good chance of carrying GA. unfortunately, i can’t say the converse is true of barry. and of the purple, hillary has either already won or is polling far ahead in 4 out of 5. and the 5th is LA, where again, she has a good chance in the GE as well. but yet again, i can’t say the same for barry.
unless you’re looking for a reason to get depressed, don’t bother getting into the electoral map. sooner or later you’ll see what the rest of us do—that barry’s totally fucked for the general. don’t say we didn’t warn you.
This needs to be developed into a full blown post
Obama has played on that enormously — his own branding was about transcending race earlier, and specifically not being like other Black politicians and leaders we all know, and about making whites comfortable by not ever getting angry or preachy or talking about poverty or “black issues”, etc. He sold himself as a cool Tiger Woods/Denzel/Will Smith/etc type—and not a Jesse or Sharpton or whatever.
This validated the very common —and very reductive and damaging— existing beliefs among whites that there are “good” and “bad” blacks, which is reinfored by the enormous media love for all the “good Blacks” who don’t act like Sharpton or Rodman or rappers or criminals, etc.
This really needs to be developed into a full blown post, IMHO.
I hadn’t thought about the underlying racist message that Obama himself was sending…the “I’m a new kind of black politician” theme is a means of “blaming” the black political establishment for the failure of AA to make all the progress it needs to make — one that has appeal to whites because it frees them from guilt as long as they embrace Obama.
And the worst part is that it hasn’t worked, except among the journalistic establishment and boiz club blogosphere — you know, the people who think racism is bad, and want it to go away, but don’t really want to deal with it? The ones who avoid the Maxine Waters and John Conyers and John Lewis’ at all costs, because sometimes they refuse to play “house slave” to the media elite?
If any white politician framed racial issues in the way that Obama does (“sure, I understand why AAs are angry and frustrated with having to deal with the legacy of 400 years of racist oppression — but its time to forget the reality of your daily lives and get over it”) does anyone think he’d be getting support from the AA community?
And while this transferrence of guilt theme works for the media and the boiz club bloggers, it doesn’t work with “average white voters” because they don’t feel any “guilt” in the first place. “Dealing with the race issue” isn’t on the list of priorities of the average white voter, because the average white voter doesn’t have a professional obligation to acknowledge racism when it becomes too obvious to ignore, and call for “more dialogue on racial issues” before dropping the subject in order to talk about missing white women and flag lapel pins.
I think what you wrote explains the disconnect between the white media and the white boiz club progressive blogosphere, and the “average white voter.” Obama addresses a need that only white “opinion-makers” have — so when Obama goes to working class white communities, and offers up the same absolution from responsibility for “dealing with the race issue” that the white elite so eager latch onto, he draws blank stares.
thanks--
but it’s really hard to find links supporting it—it’s almost always only rightwing people who actually openly state this kind of thing—and always derisively and negatively and solely as an attack on liberals and Dems (and ’elitists’ too)
and the class issue tied up in all of it feeds it too—and that’s rarely talked about either.
Obama has been enabling and validating racism and stereotypes all along—he defines himself as “Not like them”—where “them” is exactly those stereotypes.
And it’s also why he continues to lie about not hearing Wright’s rhetoric, and downplaying their relationship, etc—and why his campaign so ferociously attacked Bill over the Jesse remark—these things connect him to the negative stereotypes he’s been running away from and deriding—but also relying on as a contrast.
And this is key too—”… Two thirds of whites believe that blacks have achieved or will soon achieve racial equality. …”— http://www.theroot.com/id/45302 — this is a source of great pride, but it’s not true.
Average and working class and smalltown Dems vote on practical issues—Obama hasn’t run on issues, but on persona. — “… it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites. …” — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinio…
"forget the reality of your daily lives and get over it"
—that goes for many voting groups too—he’s used that premise to describe and dismiss all who are still fighting—for rights and equality and progress and on vital issues like universal healthcare, etc.
this explains that it can't be stated openly--
but it’s about how the GOP uses race, not us.
“… It’s not that people should vote against Obama just because he’s black, they’re saying, but you know, he’s that kind of black. As Rush Limbaugh said on Friday, “It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.” Ladies and gentlemen, your “moral values” party.
Not saying it, as LaCivita noted — whether “it” is that Obama hates America, or that he’s just too black to be trusted — is actually crucial to making the argument effectively. …
voters presented with racial appeals have two competing forces tugging them in opposite directions: the feelings they carry with them on at least a subconscious level, and their more conscious belief in equality and desire to not think of themselves as racist. In order to convince them to vote their racial fears and animosities, you have to give them a story they can tell themselves that acquits them of any accusation of racism. …” — http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti…
Rush, Race, and Undefined Identity
Rush knows exactly what he is doing.
Its not just a direct appeal to racism — people will see that, and reject it.
Its that Obama hasn’t defined himself — and the right wing doesn’t have to “define” Obama so much as point out that voters don’t know who he really is. And every time Obama downplays his relationship with people like Ayres, every time he says “I never heart that statement” about Wright’s rhetoric, he raises questions about his own authenticity.
Wright is now a massive, unresolvable problem for Obama, because of Obama’s “specific statement” answers. Wright has spent his entire career making “specific statements” that are either controversial, or can be “spun” as controversial, and Obama’s “specific statement” defense allows the Republicans to ask “well, what about THIS statement? You didn’t hear that one?”
And Obama gets put in the position of denying that he heard THAT statement and the next statement and the next statement until the whole world knows that he’s been “lying”, because the essence of Obama’s answer is that he didn’t know Wright was said controversial stuff — and there is way too much “stuff” out there for Obama not to have known.
American isn’t going to put its future into the hands of someone they don’t know. And the more that Obama tries to run away from his past, the more people realize that they don’t know who he really is, because he won’t tell them who he really used to be.
the GOP is defining him now, i think--
and Obama’s failure to clearly answer questions and concerns —because he’d rather complain about being asked about those things— makes their job that much easier, and keeps all those concerns and issues alive.
BDBlue.... I think you've just created the HRC campaign meme.
WICKED is popular, worldwide. Its plot encapsulates everything we hate about the Village, in Glenda — “Popular” is their theme song, for Pete’s sake!
HRC has been demonized as badly as the WWOTW, except the GOP dasn’t dare use that image, because WICKED has reclaimed it for revision and complication. When is a witch not wicked? When she’s fighting prettier, more popular people who let evil run unchecked, for the sake of normalcy. If Clinton’s campaign could afford to show a glimpse of irony, they’d play “Defying Gravity” during every primary and caucus win from now on. And, the female duet? Neutralizes the image of Obama’s female supporters and the overall debate over fourth-wave feminism (in which wave we’re now in, if you haven’t noticed).
perfectly stated, cg--
it’s a great show (and was an amazing book).
DO I EVEN HAVE TO POINT OUT THE FIYERO ANALOGY?
I think not.
use your indoor voice, cg
and wtf is fiyero?
[x] any (d) in the general. [ ] any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of cthulhu, bless his (r) heart.
he's the blue lover....Elphaba goes to live in his castle
and has his baby : >
After reading about McCain's drunken bouts and the strippers..
here
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040408.shtm…
… I’ve decided on the perfect analogy for McCain:
Colonel Saul Tigh.
He did his duty, was tortured and brutalized, sacrificed relationships, came out barely whole, demons swimming in his glass… and in order to keep in the game, day after day, he sides with the destroyers of his people. He can’t tell his best friend, or his people, just how irreparably wrong he really is. He was broken to it; he was built toward it. He can’t help being a Cylon. And he knew he was one the moment he hugged the man who slandered his daughter.
Damn, I love BG so.
Fiyero Dances Through Life
Obama is Galinda
I don’t care if its feminizing, that’s the only way the metaphor works — and it REALLY works. The townsfolk are just that… the American people. Bush is the wizard, the mainstream media is Fiyero, whom everyone wants to seduce, and Madame Morrible is the right wing smear machine.
OF course, the metaphor really only hangs together for the first act, but still…
Galinda It Is
You’re so helpful, Paul. Good at numbers and broadway musicals, a true Renaissance man.
And Obama as Galinda, makes “What Is This Feeling?” work so much better. Because I do believe Clinton and Obama do loath each other by now.
I'd still say no.
Because Obama really isn’t forward enough to be distinct from his supporters. I still see Galinda to be the consultants, the tastemakers, the pundits and advisors who’d place any candidate in the Elphaba position — vulnerable to take their advice, indebted to them enough to keep using their services.
If Obama hewed his own path prior to 2004 (where his convention speech signaled the beginning intensity of Village involvement), he’d be as reviled as Jesse Jackson was, 20 years earlier. It’s just that easy to fall out of favor with the kewl kidz — which is why Obama might have progressive instincts that will remain unexpressed as long as he needs cash to run.
I’m not exempting Clinton from this, by any means. It’s just that Hillary knows that the attentiveness and favor of the Village only lasts so long, before they turn on their creations, just to prove their power.
but since we're always painted as very liberal, it's
asinine not to go bold and big —and actually liberal—on policy.
it’s the mistake we make over and over. Obama’s policies are weak and tepid at best, and Clinton’s only a little better—it sucks.
Obama is Nessarose--
Maybe Morrible/Wizard is the permanent DC crowd, and Galinda is a Josh Marshall or Ezra Klein or Markos wanting in, and wanting to be a player—then (going by the book) Obama is Nessarose, who is used by everyone and manipulated along with Galinda by that DC crowd?
These are the primaries
This is when candidates are supposed to tack to the left. Clinton, understandably can’t, she understands how the GOP could demonize her, so she plays it safe, and she truly is a centrist.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
very interesting flowchart--NYT--
Decision Tree- The Obama/Clinton Divide — http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/0…
All right
You guys are making me crave reading that book by Gregory Maguire(I’m not a big fan of musicals, but read constantly). I saw there is one about the Wicked Stepsisters, too, and I want to get that one as well. I am always hesitant to read new authors(my reading expenses are limited), unless I get raving reviews from people who share the same interests. But reading this thread tells me I need to pick it up.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Ohh, Flowcharts
20 Insane Supervillian Flow Charts
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Don't Read The Book, See the Musical
The book sucked, IMO. Couldn’t get through it. It’s a great idea - that Dorothy landed in the middle of political unrest in Oz, an animal rebellion against the tyrant Oz - but the writing is, IMO, awful.
The musical’s book is written by Winnie Holman, who is best known for her work on My So-Called Life and Once and Again, and it totally rocks. Even my friend who hates musicals loved it. It’s funny and moving and fantastic. And if you can’t afford to see the musical, then read the synopsis and buy the soundtrack.
aw--i love the book!
i didn’t like how it was changed for the musical, actually—i rarely like repurposed stuff like that tho—it should have just been a big sweeping epic movie if they were gonna do anything—like a Harry Potter but adult.
yup--read those, and the Snow White one too--
here— Mirror Mirror — http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Novel-Grego…
Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister — http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Ugly-S…
(Wicked and the Stepsister one are amazing—Mirror Mirror is really good but not as crisp)
Okay, So Read the Book and See the Musical
Then come back here and tell me I was right. :-)
it's not natural musical material--
it’s too political and dark, i think—and there’s so much they had to ignore to make it flow on stage…
When I think Musical
I think Oklahoma, and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. But I was subjected to a horrible middle school musical education, and should probably expand my horizons. I recently watched Sweeney Todd, and definitely like musicals with a more darker sense. If they made a movie I would totally see it.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Sweeney Todd
really gets good only after the 3rd or 4th listen… you only have to see the show once, but you have to hear it a few times before the studied virtuosity and darkness fade and its beauty and complexity come through.
If you have the chance, see the PBS verion of COmpany — while the central conceit gets tired after a while, the show is still amazing…
as is Sunday in the Park…
but Sondheim and other stuff was created
specifically to be a musical—that’s the essential diff—they were made as musicals, not books that were turned into musicals.
repurposing books or dramas into musicals is an entirely different thing, and necessarily has to omit and change stuff because the format is so different.
and of course, there is just no way to dramatize some things at all—the time limits and physical limits, etc, of plays and musicals demand a very different sort of flow.
Into the Woods is actually my fav of his--
(that whole genre of fairytales/fables/existing stories being re-examined and taken elsewhere i just love.)
I'm a dork
But I can’t tell you how happy I am that they are going to break the final Harry Potter book into two movies. My first thought when I finished the 7th, was worry over how were they going to slaughter it to make it a movie.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Royalties, or props, pls.
http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/05/0…
“First of all, we have a secret Cylon aboard the Battlestar Galactica. Colonel Saul Tigh was revealed as a skin job at the end of Season 3, Crossroads Part 2. He also bears a striking resemblance to presidential candidate John McCain – in more ways than one…”
At least someone listens to the voices in my head.