I don't think this one passes the Bechdel Test, benny boy.
I guess he does beat the old record holder.
i watched 5 seconds of that. it was too much.
The link, or the original?
I kinda liked the link.
These been linked here yet? Not jokes.
Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President
6: Wow. So sad to see such psychological lynching and ultimate betrayal of black people everywhere.
That's so appalling that I thought it was a hoax, but it's up at Huffington Post, and the NOW-NY link looks real. Common Dreams may have taken it down.
10, 11: no, sexist would have been calling it "hysterical."
6 is the kind of thing that gives crude identity politics a bad name.
Marcia Pappas has gone off the rails. Especially when she says that "Indeed we have witnessed almost comical attacks by John Edwards who in turn sided with Barak Obama as both snickered at Clinton's "breakdown," which consisted of a very short dewy-eyed moment." Dude, um, that didn't even happen.
Luckily, I think pretty much every feminist blogger will disavow the sentiments expressed in 6, so, there's no need to go associating it with us, now.
Wait, there are feminist bloggers? Where are they all hiding?
I think pretty much every feminist blogger worth reading will disavow the sentiments expressed in 6
I'd be surprised to find people saying they agree. It'll happen, sure, but I doubt anywhere where anyone'll read it.
I thought that Edwards' snark about Clinton was over the top, and it seems to have cost him and helped her in NH. But lumping Ted Kennedy in with that is ridiculous.
[BOLD DISCLAIMER THAT I AM NOT ATTRIBUTING THESE WACKJOB PRESS RELEASES TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN]
You know, the Clinton camp's really gone haywire in the last few weeks. What with the Florida and Michigan "Obama and Edwards think that the people of Florida don't matter!!!", Bill's Jesse Jackson/Obama comments, and, well, Bill Clinton in general, they keep making stupid decisions.
They should have KNOWN from the get-go that attacking Obama is not a good strategy; it's nearly impossible to make the guy look sinister, and he has basically no dirt on him anyway. The "some of us are ready, and some of us aren't" stuff is just nonsense. I doubt even she believes that's true.
If the pundits and the columnists would stop making sexist attacks on Clinton, that's really the best thing they could do for the Obama campaign, because seeing her dismissed and patronized because of her sex is basically the only thing that ever made me want to vote for her. And a lot of other women too, I imagine.
For identity politics voters, except for black women, this really has to be zero sum. Identity politics doesn't work at this level. At the issues level, sometimes it can be a good thing.
I didn't click the link. I'm waiting for 2 Girls 1 Cup: The Musical! by Joe Drymala.
Man, I was pretty happy being totally unfamiliar with "2 Girls 1 Cup".
NOW can't even get Obama's name right. And I'm supposed to support Clinton because politics is like gang rape? Or because she was owed Kennedy's endorsement? The fuck?
I agree with m. leblanc. I can't see any feminist taking this tripe seriously. It better be a hoax.
Not a hoax. The woman is unhinged.
CNN:
Meanwhile, the national chapter of NOW sought to distance itself from the state chapter's comments, issuing a statement Monday evening that praised Kennedy's record with respect to women's rights.
"Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote."
Kennedy's office has not returned CNN's request for comment.
Can just anyone start their own NOW chapter?
Pappas doesn't seem to be getting much support, but it's troubling that she couldn't see that Democrats really, really, really don't want to sharpen this particular very obvious contradiction. It's like she drove off the road and aimed her car at a tree.
And apparently she is and remains head of NY State NOW.
I have a long-time grudge about gender politics going back more than two decades to Sen. Packwood of Oregon, who was a very bad Senator except on f=gender issues. I try to keep it suppressed, but NARAL roused it again when they supported Chafee awhile back.
And now this. It goes far beyond just supporting Hillary; it waves the bloody shirt and does no one any good, including Hillary.
27: You looking to start your own, Tim?
Emerson, the lunatic ramblings of this woman are not much of a stick with which to beat supporters of gender politics (also known as "politics").
29: Don't you psychologically gangbang me, Apo.
Might be a good way to meet chicks.
Starting your own NOW chapter, that is. Psychologically gang-banging SCMT, maybe not so much.
Come on, this lunatic is the head of one of the largest state NOW organizations.
Gender politics is a subset of politics, but not identical to "politics". I'm not against it per se, but in this case it went over the top.
The national chapter must be tearing their hair out. So frickin' embarrassing.
They should have KNOWN from the get-go that attacking Obama is not a good strategy; it's nearly impossible to make the guy look sinister
It's nearly impossible to make the guy look sinister in the eyes of Democratic primary voters under 50.
And a lot of other women too, I imagine.
This is one of the bad fruits of our hideously irresponsible national press behavior these last 16 years. Between their complicity in the batshit insane anti-Clinton narratives of the '90s and their overwhelming problems in dealing with gender, race and Dems not named Lieberman, it is impossible to even have a straight thought about HRC (or any Dem candidate for that matter). My anecdotal read among friends and family is that a number of folks who were on the fence or leaning Hilary to punish the press are leaning Obama right now.
I love how the age of 'those damn youngsters who shouldn't be allowed to vote' keeps getting higher and higher. It started with grumbling about the 18-25 demographic. Then it was the under-30s. Two days ago, it was the under-40 vote. Now, 50 is the new 18.
Obama's magic power apparently is to make the electorate younger.
but in this case it went over the top.
Now come out against Osama.
This is cute story about Bill Richardson:
he said he likes Obama, telling a story about how Obama saved him during one of last year's Democratic debates:"I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"
it's nearly impossible to make the guy look sinister
Tell that to all the wackos at my site convinced that he's the antichrist.
37: You know, and that sucks. I am not a fan of Clinton, because she keeps saying things like 'no legal process', but I'd rather people not vote for her because of that, and not because of what some drunken NOW-NYS person wrote. ("Drunken" is the charitable explanation.)
oops, link
On the NOW thing, you know, the Steinem op-ed was a very legit. source of complaint about gender politics in general. But the main lessons you can take from this are: "wow, that chick's crazy," and "wow, NOW's NY chapter really doesn't have its act together." State affiliates of nat'l organizations often vary wildly. There are some non-profits with a D.C. office, an L.A. office, a N.Y. office that are basically one operation, but others work quite differently.
damn it: actual link to the Richardson story.
The Kennedy anointment on TV last night wasn't sinister, but it was weird as hell. It turns out that Obama's Kenyan father came to the U.S. on a scholarship funded by a Kennedy foundation (or something like that).
Has someone linked to this? Habeas Lawyers for Obama. Impressive list. Nice to see I'm not the only crazy dreamer to trust him on these issues.
42: My impression isn't that they are switching back entirely due to the NOW thing, but rather the overall zeitgeist of the last few days of the campaign. And to be frank, almost none of them give a fig about claimed policy differences between the candidates, it is almost entirely based who they think can win.
45: Barack Obama is actually an android designed to appeal to sappy liberals with overly romantic views of U.S. politics. He's not faking, they planted him with false memories & everything. Sort of a combination of Weird Science & Battlestar Galactica.
Teddy, unbelievably, swung my mom. Irish Catholics etc. etc. This is the first election ever where my own family has to some degree reflected the overall electoral trends, so hopefully it's a good sign that a bunch of NY, Mass, & IL liberals are now overwhelming solid for or leaning towards Obama.
This is from a press release by the Clintons yesterday. I'm still laughing.
The Clinton campaign today announced the launch of the Rapid Responders, a national group of truth tellers who will respond to inaccurate or misleading attacks directed at Senator and President Clinton....
47: almost none of them give a fig about claimed policy differences between the candidates, it is almost entirely based who they think can win.
They don't think that policy differences would have an impact on who has a prospect of winning?
I haven't noticed policy playing much of a role in Americans' voting choices.
41: I'm not suggesting anything, you know, sinister, but I'm thinking maybe it would be OK to get them really worked up, leave out a big jug of Kool-Aid and let nature take its course.
49: Laugh all you want, but the Clintons are good at this, and she should still be considered the significant, if not prohibitive, favorite to win it all.
They don't think that policy differences would have an impact on who has a prospect of winning?
No, there's little reason to think it would.
51: Seems to me the recent wave of Ron Paul fashionability stems from his willingness to talk plainly about policy issues where most Dems are anemic or absent. Get out of Iraq now, military tribunals are un-American, attacking Iran would be insane, that sort of thing.
For that matter, many of the successful Dems in 2006 were successful on the strength of growing some stones about issues like the war. (Those stones precipitously vanished as soon as they were in office, but still.)
48 - my parents, heretofore Edwards supporters (and my mom seriously dislikes Obama - she thinks he's airy and without substance, and not experienced enough to be president, even though she likes Edwards, who has less experience), were both impressed not by the Teddy Kennedy endorsement, but by Caroline Kennedy.
I find this impossible to understand.
Right, but this is the same country where the Clintons are leftists and McCain is a moderate straightshooter and the press spends most of its time wanking on about hairstyles and grand narrative.
The Democrats are so afraid both of populism and of opposition to war that they've allowed the Republicans to appropriate them purely by default. As I keep saying, Republican populism is fake, but Democratic elitism is real.
49: I'm not laughing at the Clintons, I'm laughing at the notion of the two of them releasing some pack of feral "truth tellers" whose innate instincts for honesty and fair play will naturally turn against their opponents.
As I keep saying, Republican populism is fake, but Democratic elitism is real.
...And don't get me started on the so-called "moon landing."
the recent wave of Ron Paul fashionability
Pretty small wave there. I know there are people who pay attention to issues (like the folks here, for instance) but best I can tell, most Americans view politics as a less interesting version of American Idol.
Y'know, the who-would-I-rather-have-a-beer-with primary 'n all that.
And to be frank, almost none of them give a fig about claimed policy differences between the candidates, it is almost entirely based who they think can win.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaugh
I would say that I don't give much of a fig about claimed policy differences expressed by the candidates in the primaries - that's all nonsense. But a) their records; and b) the broader themes of their campaigns - are important. I'm not going to vote for Hillary because her health care plan is slightly leftier than Obama's, and I think anyone who did that would be a fool, since neither of those plans is actually getting enacted.
50: Oh they might think that policy differences might matter some in the election, but they certainly don't lead with it. But what I meant is that they explicitly are not basing their support on which of the Dem candidates will have better policies for either their interests or the country's, other than the perception that any Dem >>>> any Repub. Not saying this is good or bad, it is merely a report of what a a small sample of medium to high information voters are representing to me. Includes my Mother, wife, friends and politically safe co-workers.
Pretty small wave there.
Excuse me, that's a pretty small wEVOLution.
I note that the oldest, most conservative Democrats are the only ones among whom Edwards has consistently done well. Also that McCain, the only candiate other than Duncan Hunter who has straightforwardly presented Iraq as an epic struggle in which we must not back down even a little over the next several decades, has been receiving the votes of the sizable minority of Republican voters who are sick of the war and want it to end, presumably because they associate him with being the opposite of Bush, whom they are tired of.
I note that the oldest, most conservative Democrats are the only ones among whom Edwards has consistently done well
He's gotten consistent support from the Daily Kos crowd, which surely aren't the oldest, most conservative Democrats.
Actually, for the same reason that I think people shouldn't exaggerate the Obama-Clinton difference to the extent of denouncing one or the other candidate, and for the same reason that I think that Pappas should never have said what she did, probably we also shouldn't keep the Pappas statement alive by attacking it. Hopefully it will sink without much of a trace, though it certainly will bounce around the wingnutosphere forever. Comity!
66 - Sadly (or not, actually - Daily Kos sucks), the Daily Kos Primary is only a beauty contest, sending no delegates to the National Convention
the two of them releasing some pack of feral "truth tellers"
‹Mr. Burns›"Release the hounds!"‹/Mr. Burns›
61: Pretty small wave there.
Depends on your perspective. Pretty incredible wave when you consider he's a former stalwart of the "Patriot" movement that most people (liberal or conservative) now supporting him would absolutely shun in normal circumstances.
Otherwise, see 55.2.
65: But what I meant is that they explicitly are not basing their support on which of the Dem candidates will have better policies for either their interests or the country's, other than the perception that any Dem >>>> any Repub.
Are any of them explicit about why they expect this approach to work out better than, say, the whole John Kerry thing?
press spends most of its time wanking on about hairstyles and grand narrative
The narrative of 'POW straight-shooter who occasionally challenges Republican wing nuts versus the first black presidential nominee who destroyed the Clinton machine' is a wet dream.
17: MMMhm. And any Muslim worth listening to will disavow whichever nutcase claiming to speak in the name of Islam you want to trot out?
That said, yeah, those two press releases are totally embarrassing and indefensible.
He's gotten consistent support from the Daily Kos crowd, which surely aren't the oldest, most conservative Democrats.
Those aren't voters.
73: "Disavow" is a terrible word for which I put the blame entirely on m. leblanc. "Not repeat" more accurately captures what was being driven at there, I think.
Teddy, unbelievably, swung my mom.
I gotta say, Sebelius's endorsement certainly made a difference to me.
76: Fair enough. Yeah, I'll be pretty mortified if anyone feels like they have to defend this.
The "some of us are ready, and some of us aren't" stuff is just nonsense.
Every centrist Dem I talk to (mostly relatives) seems to agree with it. It's effective nonsense.
Teddy, unbelievably, swung my mom.
Your mom's a swinger?
I mostly meant "not endorse and/or say WTF?"
71: Are any of them explicit about why they expect this approach to work out better than, say, the whole John Kerry thing?
To the extent that it has come up, the view is that the top 2 candidates are stronger and more appealing than Kerry. (I just cannot seem to get any traction for Edwards among most of these folks.)
82: Did YOU disavow it? Huh, huh? No, you left it for me to do!!!
It's the ultimate betrayal. Felt by co-bloggers everywhere.
I thought this thread was going to be about 2 Girls 1 Cup!
Don't you have your own blog where you can start threads about that?