Once again, there’s a time crunch this morning so this will be brief. I found some pretty good posts around the web that I submit for your approval. See if you agree.
- We’re going to hear a lot about The Bloggers on the Bus, Eric Boehlert’s new book that will be released in a couple of weeks. I am reading an advanced copy. Eric covers the 2008 campaign and blog battle in detail and makes specific note of the misogynism of some of our former favorite blogs. (We get mentioned in the book as part of the pro-Clinton contingent) BTD at Talkleft talked about the pervasive sexism of the 2008 in this post yesterday. BTW, there are comments in the thread that mention The Confluence as a “quasi-racist” blog with “retroactive, resentful feminists”. I honestly do not know what they are talking about. The person who made this comment obviously doesn’t read us. We don’t approve of racism at all and delete racist comments all of the time. As for retroactive and resentful feminists, they left.
- Natasha Chart at OpenLeft has an excellent post about political realism titled Congress Does Exactly What It Wants To. Here’s an excerpt:
I got into an argument (you are shocked, I know) with some international relations folks over the term “realism.”
They insisted that it should be understood to mean a non-ideological position, where the world is taken as it really is. You advance your cause at all costs, screw them before they screw you, always mistrust, always press advantage.
Someone named, I believe, Omar Khoury was quoted to me. He said that, “Realists tend to treat political power as separate from, and predominant over, morality, ideology and other social and economic aspects of life.”
Isn’t that special. But that’s realism.
Anything else, anything besides the pursuit of power above all else and for its own sake is “idealism.”
By international relations standards, the default human view, the unsignified signifier, the wellspring of ideas that is itself above and separate from ideology, is a view that can only be described as a blueprint for being a completely irredeemable bastard.
This is what the Serious People of our political elite call being realistic.
I guess this partially explains the email I got from Jon Corzine’s reelection campaign that crowed about being recognized by ultimate realist, Jack Welch. Disgusting. But there aren’t any decent primary challengers and I can’t bear to vote for a Republican for governor. Corzine’s going to have to renew his lease on Drumthwackit without my help this year.
Go read the rest of Natasha’s post.
- Basement Angel at Corrente has written Defining Bigotry that explains how the Obama campaign and the media used bigotry as a weapon against Clinton and her supporters. Here’s an excerpt:
Bigots offer up an exchange for their followers in order to justify pandering to their darker impulses. For the racists, they offered up the notion of patriotism and cultural fidelity. It’s okay to hate black people, or who ever, because they are polluting what we have achieved and you’re standing up for the best of what we are. The exchange for Obama supporters was pretty much identical – they justified the misogynist rhetoric and actions by portraying Clinton’s campaign as an attack on liberal values. Thus, in defiance of her voting record and professional accomplishments, she became a corporatist, a conservative, a Republican in Democratic clothing, or, for those objecting to dynasty, a royalist who believed that she was “entitled” to the office – all utterly at odds with liberal values, So you could engage in rhetoric as offensive as Claytie Williams’ rhetoric against Ann Richards, and still see yourself as liberal because you were supporting the history making candidate. Advancing African American progress justified the misogyny. The netroots took the bait. Without that exchange though, there was no singularly strong reason to vote for Obama, the dramatically less experienced candidate running for office in a most perilous time, over the candidate with a lifetime of relevant (if somewhat non-traditonal) experience and a resume of progressive accomplishment a mile long. What the netroots had to do – and what they did – was obliterate their awareness of Clinton’s accomplishments because Obama, save for his gift of winning elections, has so few accomplishments to his name. Justifying misogyny was the only way for him to win. And that is what he did.
And for the record, I don’t believe Clinton used race baiting against Obama. It would have been political suicide for her to do that. In fact, there was only one person who stood to benefit from race baiting in the campaign and that was Obama. That’s why his campaign and friends were constantly falsely accusing the Clintons of doing it.
Yes, Virginia, he really would do such a thing. After all, Obama is a realist.