the one for me, anyway. For me as a secular humanist, and I suspect all of us deep down, it’s the fundamental, biological urge to benefit my species and myself. Hope is arguably the emotion most required to ensure that we act on that urge; it is also a fundamental biological human trait, as Viktor Frankl described in Holocaust prisoners.

Maybe if one believed we’ll be safely bailed out by a spaghetti monster or whatever, one could afford such cynicism.

Don’t you think the hope vs. sanity thing may be a bit of a stretch… a false dichotomy to make a political point against progressive philosophy, while working in a few gratuitous snarks about the “fading pantsuit industry” and such?

ddjango writes:

it has already been more than adequately documented that Nobama has not moved one inch from the positions he’s held for years and has betrayed no one….

I hope we’re not talking about FISA here….

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I love this job!

What leads you to believe that we’re “gonna get both of them”? There’s 1) no indication that HRC has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the VP slot, 2) her name is being used to keep her supporters in play and possibly voting for BO and 3) I bet you my next paycheck that she wouldn’t take it anyway. Also, should the planets align and there is a joint ticket (again, my paycheck on the line), how could this be the “best that both “sides” could have hoped for”??? I don’t know what you’ve been reading but I don’t see any indication of either side hoping for a joint ticket. BO doesn’t need her (just her supporters and their checkbooks) and she certainly doesn’t need him. Much good work can be done in the senate for four more years then look out mama, you’ve got a presidential candidate that will blow away everyone.

I love this job!

“It must be difficult to be enraged at a hilariously satiric and irreverent magazine cover at the same time you’re enraged at the subject of that cover for betraying you and dashing your hope to smithereens.”

If the damn cover was funny it would be one thing. Since it’s not and it is perpetuating a stereotype about Black women it is another.

Personally, I’m not enraged at Obama because I don’t feel betrayed. Other than the FISA lie, he has maintained the same rationale for at least the past four years. I don’t expect miracle workers even when I go to church.

But as an African American woman who is going to vote for Obama because I’m not going to vote for John McCain and I made a vow, many years ago, that I would vote as long as people were dying for the right to vote (remember Zimbabwe?), I find the above quote the silliest thing I’ve ever read on this site.

How can folks go on and on about Hillary Clinton being treated in a sexist manner and not even acknowledge that Michelle Obama is being treated worse and she is not even the candidate. And because she is not the candidate, the stereotypes and sexism bleed over into the entire African American female population.

Give me a break. I used to love this site, I’ve been reading it for years. It got kind of hard during the primaries because the venom was painful even over the internets (sic on purpose). But I thought it would get back to the stuff I loved hearing expressed and that I found informative and on health care lately I’ve not been disappointed.

But I’m tired, as is probably every Black woman I know, of being portrayed as angry because we won’t take crap. And you think its funny? And you call yourselves progressives? Give me a break.

And for the umpteenth time, Obama was not my choice. The media determined that I could choose between Senators Clinton and Obama. The Senator I wanted to choose, John Edwards, was run out rather quickly. And frankly, he would have made a better president than either of the others.

Frankly, Senator Clinton was a little too opportunistic for me (not that Obama isn’t also opportunistic, he’s just a little slicker about it).

The whole dynasty thing was a too icky to go there. As someone who is currently living in a country where three families (Mitsotakis, Papandreous, and Karamanlis) have dominated politics for the past 60 years, I couldn’t bear to encourage the same mistake in my own country. The rotation hasn’t worked here and I don’t think it will work in the States, either.

And as for hope (I’m not into the whole Obama hope thing, but I get it) - after the last eight years of Bush, who wouldn’t hope for something better? Or is that as good as it is going to get?

“And you call yourselves progressives? Give me a break.”

It appears to me that the writer of this post is an opponent of progressives, who so far is not finding much common ground with the rest of us. I suspect most of us agree with you about this.

But as the one who has apparently troubled you so greatly today with my sexism rant, guess I too am an angry woman who won’t take crap. [Which on further reflection you may realize includes women of all races.] And I’m angered that women speaking about misogyny have been consistently shouted down by Democrats, to which you seem to be adding your voice.

“How can folks go on and on about Hillary Clinton being treated in a sexist manner”

Because it’s the truth.

“And not even acknowledge that Michelle Obama is being treated worse.”

I would absolutely say so in a heartbeat if I agreed with you. Please don’t say “No, you wouldn’t” because you’d be dead wrong. But I simply don’t agree. Not by a mile. It’s been night and day. The Devil vs. the Angel. Mind you, I don’t consider the “proud of America” flap as an issue of sexism, any more than, say, the NAFTA flap was for Clinton. Am I blinded by worship for HRC and dislike for Michelle? Bull. I don’t worship HRC, I admire Michelle, I’ve posted links to Shakesville noting how well they document racism and sexist remarks about Michelle, I’ve defended Maureen Dowd here repeatedly whom I despise against sexist criticism.

“and she is not even the candidate.”

Yes, and Clinton was. Thus the HRC sexism was of necessity top priority for those who believed she should be President. (What other nefarious agenda are you reading into this? Not racism, I hope.) Meanwhile, countless women are victims of sexism that we did not discuss, many with no doubt more grievous personal harm. How does it further women’s equality if we’re shouted down when we decry sexism if we haven’t satisfied the superhuman task of speaking out in specifics about them all? It’s unreasonable to expect us to show the same passion for Michelle when she benefited so greatly from anti-HRC sexism, was dismissive of it when asked, and even participated in it somewhat herself (the “Hillary can’t keep her OWN house in order” crap). Nevertheless, you’re right that we should speak up when we see it.

“because she is not the candidate, the stereotypes and sexism bleed over into the entire African American female population.”

Stereotypes would NOT have bled over if Michelle WERE the candidate? Anti-HRC sexism does not bleed over into the entire AA women’s population? I’m not following your logic, nor what point about race you’re wanting to make here.

I love this job, too!

BoG …

“For me as a secular humanist, and I suspect all of us deep down, it’s the fundamental, biological urge to benefit my species and myself.” — As an atheist myself (with a Flying Spaghetti Monster wallpaper on this puter), I happen to agree. Please read the last paragraph of my post again. I do not act responsibly because I hope, but because I care, because it is right, because it is helpful.

Amaliada …

My sense is that, yes, “that’s as good as it is going to get”. It’s actually going to get much worse, even with Nobama in the White House. Or anybody in the White House.

Frankly, I’m tired, too. Don’t we ourselves perpetuate the whole race/gender folly by wasting all our energy on a damn cover?? It. Is. Satire! Even if it wasn’t, don’t you do yourself a disservice by taking the bait?

Nobama’s policies are not so different from McShame’s. If, in spite of this, you vote for him because he’s black, is that not racism?

I, for one, will not vote in the national election. If Cynthia McKinney were to make the ballot in my state, I might consider it. We’ll see.

You haven’t been paying attention.

Many of us, like myself, or BDB, have decried the sexism aimed at Ms. Obama. We both went into a frenzy over the inappropriate “satire” from the Obama supporting Huffington Post site, 23/6(that link comes from an anti-Obama site, FYI).

Many of us just don’t have much sympathy, since she actively leveraged the sexism directed at Clinton, to further her husband’s political aims.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I don’t disagree that Hillary Clinton was treated to some of the most egregious misogyny ever to be witnessed publicly on an almost daily basis.

But so to has Michelle and still you don’t want to acknowledge this.

Michelle has also been subjected to blatant racism, from O’Reilly wanting to have a lynching party to Malkin calling her “Obama Baby Mama.” I don’t remember Senator Clinton having to face racism as well as sexism.

But that’s neither here nor there. I am a progressive and you don’t know me.

I suppose some of my baggage has to do with my earlier experiences with the women’s movement (and the civil rights movement) when Black women never got to deal with their issues or even bring them up.

And it seems to me from reading your reply that we’re still considered better if we know our place.

It is the racism that is prevalent is my point. Not the racism against the Obamas by showing all of the rumors in a “not so funny” way, but the racism shown to Black women when they speak up.

And very few people have spoken out on behalf of Muslims. Wow, and I thought Driving While Black was dangerous - flying while Muslim must truly be a risky proposition.

And the Clintons aren’t free from that racism either. As I read about Robert Bork’s confirmation hearing, it just reinforced that Lani Guinier didn’t even that much respect from her very good friends.

“But so to has Michelle and still you don’t want to acknowledge this.”

Bullshit. That has been acknowledged directly by many here, several times.

“And it seems to me from reading your reply that we’re still considered better if we know our place.”

Passive aggressive much? Where did you pull that one out? You were called on clearly minimizing what was done to Clinton. Don’t pull out this patent “you are racist” dogwhistle if you can’t back it up with specifics about how EXACTLY you are being “kept in your place”. Put up or shut up. Just being disagreed with is NOT ENOUGH FOR THAT KIND OF CHARGE!

“And the Clintons aren’t free from that racism either. As I read about Robert Bork’s confirmation hearing, it just reinforced that Lani Guinier didn’t even that much respect from her very good friends.”

We get it, Clintons=racists, Clinton supporters=racists, anyone who disagrees with your characterizations=racists.

Here we go again.

Sorry, you have to bring a lot more than that if you want to convince people that Clinton deserved what she got and Michele is pure (“That Woman can’t keep her own house, heh….”) and deserves no criticism.

——————————————-

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

… that:

How can folks go on and on about Hillary Clinton being treated in a sexist manner and not even acknowledge that Michelle Obama is being treated worse…

but it would be nice if were backed up with some evidence. Last I checked, there’s a very profitable trade in selling Clinton hatred all over the media, and has been oh, for the last decade or so, ever since the Republicans staged their attempted coup against Bill Clinton. If there is a similar industry centered on Michelle Obama, that would indeed be good evidence that she’s been treated “worse,” but such an industry has, so far, eluded my detection. Links? Quotes?

NOTE I should say that most the A list has been working actively for Obama since February and, I assume, defending Michelle as well. (Now, if they’re not, that’s another interesting story and I’d like to hear about it.) But with that particular “beat” so well covered by people far more widely read and competent than I am, I feel little need to add my little note of “me too” to their vast chorus….

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

… “keep her own house,” after I looked at the transcript. Too lazy to find the link, and in any case I’m stoned on Zinnser B-I-N-S primer.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

(Now, if they’re not, that’s another interesting story and I’d like to hear about it.)

And you will see some stuff being perpetuated about Ms. Obama(whom I will not “Michelle”, for the same reasons I wouldn’t call Clinton “Hillary”, because it belittles them as professionals), by Obama supporters, no less.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Any post I find I just must refer to “Hillary,” I usually try to say “Barack.”

is where?

about the shellacking Ms. Obama’s image is undergoing, if she gave a damn about speaking up when *Clinton*’s rep was damaged through sexist language. Ms. Obama had the chance to be honorable and say to her husband to stop his minions from Going There; she didn’t.

Ms. Obama contributed to the slurs; she did not speak up when she had the chance; and due to that silence, she conscribed the range of actions *she’ll* be able to do, should she reach the White House.

If you want to rehash the bitterness between feminists of privilege and feminists without privilege, feel free. (Nice touch, on the very vague, unsourced Guinier reachback.) But we’re dealing with a woman who is as almost as high on the ladder achievement-wise as Condoleeza Rice, and who desires more power if she can get it. (She’s really going to resign all her board posts and stop working when she’s First Lady? Really?) When there has been cause to curse Dr. Rice’s name, because of how her actions have damaged this country, I haven’t seen anyone hold back just because she’s a black woman. *That’s* non-discrimination. When Ms. Obama does something to strengthen feminism, we’ll notice that, too.

And the ’whoa, it’s dangerous out there for Muslims’ talk? Where the hell have you been since 2001? Advocating for people of Islam to get a fair break in this country, or does it only matter when apparently *black* Muslims are targeted? Seems to me your sense of justice and fair play is selective.

Nice try, though; been quiet on the concerned stranger commenter front.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007082200…

sorry for the ugly.

“How can folks go on and on about Hillary Clinton being treated in a sexist manner and not even acknowledge that Michelle Obama is being treated worse and she is not even the candidate. And because she is not the candidate, the stereotypes and sexism bleed over into the entire African American female population.”

How in the hell did you wait until now to complain, when you had the entire Clinton campaign to remind/educate people that sexism hurts black women, too? You had that chance, and I would have read your posts with interest, but you kept silent until it was the candidate *you* liked that got hurt — then you attack behaviors you passively accepted for months.

Kinda like Michelle Obama, no?

And when women get angry generally, they get derided. Ask a female PUMA supporter, why don’t you?

If you want a clearer example as to why it’s important to stand for principles for people you don’t like, this is it. The black women who stood up for Clinton even if they didn’t like her policies, because they saw that a slur against her was a slur against them? Those are the ones I listen to, now. Everyone else is a Jane-come-lately, and are in it for the game.

You will not receive one second further of my time, nor your arguments my consideration.

lambert … if you have any BINS left, I’ll pay the FedEx freight.

My friends, you are witnessing, indeed partaking in, one of the several reasons I eschew hope.

This tattered thread resembles an AA meeting at which everyone is drunk.

Listen. I’m not saying that these issues don’t matter. Just the opposite - they all matter terribly. What I am saying is that little of what I’m reading here is helpful. At the very best, I see much self-justification and self-pity. Only BoG’s original reply really addressed my issue, which is that we must take care of each other. Not a lot of that in this thread. A lot of defensive name-calling, though.

In my post, I listed eight highly probable eventualities, and maintain that hope is no solution. I see little if any constructive response.

BoG: I wasn’t gonna take the bait to …
“Don’t you think the hope vs. sanity thing may be a bit of a stretch… a false dichotomy to make a political point against progressive philosophy, while working in a few gratuitous snarks about the “fading pantsuit industry” and such?”. But you merit a response:

1. I don’t think there is such a thing as a “progressive philosophy”. I assume that most of the folks in this thread identify themselves as such. I would describe the implied philosophy as “reactionary”.

2. I mentioned the pant suit thing because of how much time has been spent on shit like that in the campaigns. You know … uh, like, satire?? Oh, sorry.

3. I do know this: progressives have developed a potentially fatal pernicious irony deficiency.

Carry on.

Frustrating when your argument is obscured by your clever wit, isn’t it? Yep, the fading pantsuit industry spells trouble for thick ankled, heavy-bottomed, bitchy old crones everywhere!

Actually we’re agreed on Progressive Irony Deficit. But there’s more context and nuance to our exchange today than you realize. I’d just posted on another thread that I thought the New Yorker cover was acceptable satire by honoring certain lines, while the media had been saturated with HRC satire that routinely crossed several lines. I’ve had a pantsuit rant building in my mind for months. Your comment was a last straw of sorts.

As for your “reactionary” comment, I have no reaction.

Indecipherable nonsense, circular, full of sound and fury, signifying a wet noodle burning on an electric stove. Unworthy of any comment beyond noting, with a crayon mark on a wall, another individual who has given up giving a shit (maybe, apparently, or maybe not, but gosh-dern it, sumpin is a changin).

Does that address your concern?

So instead, riffs occured on your Rohrshach.

Feel lucky: your post created traffic.

——————————————-

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

http://www.correntewire.com/the_idiocy_o…,

The link is in my response, it goes to the Confluence.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I clicked your link all ready to get my feminist ire all up to leap to Michelle’s defense… but couldn’t do it. Did you realize these aren’t mocking Michelle whatsoever, but the trashy, shallow MEDIA? And deliciously so, I might add. I have no doubt the Obamas privately thought these hilarious.

I think we’re all bruised and need to stock up on our irony supplements. I adore 23/6, the Onion, Stewart, and Colbert media satire. Without it I’d shrivel up and wither away. These sites have been relatively equal-opportunity offenders, which helps my enjoyment. Unlike Bill Maher and late-night comics, where at first I laughed along with anti-HRC jokes, but when it became glaringly one-sided, I quit.

Yes I’m a Clintonista, but I need 23/6! These are funny!
—23/6 outrage guide to the July 21 New Yorker cover
—Bill Clinton Sadly Folds First Lady Dress Back Into Box
—Obama not bringing blacks and whites together (his parents excepted)
—Obama and his balls address NAACP
—At the negotiation table with Hillary and Barack — WITH HOT PICS!
—Hillary to supporters: They’re gonna take my thumbs!
—Hillary Clinton Concedes That She Really Won
—Worse Fox News Gaffes Jesse Jackson Could Have Made
—Obama’s Subconscious Explains His FISA Stance

I was unhappy with Fox’s babymama crap, which I saw as racist and sexist… until I saw that the Obamas are on record publicly calling each other that. I read a rumor that Michelle was pressured into being more demure to prepare for The View, which got the old ire going, but found nothing to back it up. I remain on the lookup to make sure they don’t start the Stepford Wife crap on her that Hillary had to undergo. The terrorist fist jab thing was ugly and I’m glad the Fox anchor was fired for saying it; racist, not sexist though. The New Yorker afro would have been racist, not sexist, in another context, but here was critical to make the satirical Angela Davis connection.

No sexism pattern to these feminist’s eyes yet. But please keep us informed.

Hey, you want to post and back up what you have to say with quotes and linky goodness, then have at it, say I. That’s the only “place” anybody has here.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I found the Advocate and Cosmo covers totally inappropriate(call me a humorless feminist, though I did find some of Maher amusing, for a while), The Guns and Ammo wasn’t too bad, except for the allusion to violence against Hillary(as we had enough of that is actuality, didn’t need it in satire, thanks so much).

Good satire is supposed to make fun of today’s stereotypes, and to me, those mag covers just played into the stereotypes, instead of challenging them.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!