• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    MsMass on He knew he was a looooose…
    riverdaughter on He knew he was a looooose…
    jmac on He knew he was a looooose…
    Propertius on He knew he was a looooose…
    Propertius on He knew he was a looooose…
    William on Thanksgiving Week Wordles
    William on He knew he was a looooose…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He knew he was a looooose…
    riverdaughter on He knew he was a looooose…
    riverdaughter on He knew he was a looooose…
    Propertius on He knew he was a looooose…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He knew he was a looooose…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He knew he was a looooose…
    Beata on Thanksgiving Week Wordles
    William on Thanksgiving Week Wordles
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

The Zombie Tribe

Obama!  Obama!  Obama!

Obama! Obama! Obama!

What’s so hard about condemning sexism and misogyny?  Does it really matter who the victim is?  John Cole gets it:

You know, I have no idea what the hell David Letterman is thinking or what he thinks he is accomplishing with crap like this, but this was inexcusable. He should be ashamed of himself.

And I’m not trying to sound like some politically correct scold, and I have no problem with comedians being comedians. There are lots of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin, there are lots of reasons to not be impressed with her leadership, her beliefs, or, well, anything about her, but when you start with the “slutty” crap, or are making jokes about her daughter getting “knocked up,” you’ve crossed a line. I have no problem attacking Palin for her idiotic proposals and all the stupid things she has said, but this just is the kind of nonsense that is no good for anyone.

Maybe I’m over-reacting, and I know I’m not always perfect, but I’m really losing my patience and tolerance for this kind of stuff. There was no place for this kind of stuff with Hillary and Chelsea, there is no room for it with Michelle and their kids, and the same standard should apply for Sarah Palin and her kids. Hell, it should apply to all women.

But some of his readers don’t:

She worked that slutty angle —and no way in hell can anyone say certain men didn’t respond. Starbursts, remember? It was an image she carefully presented and I don’t get all the vapors people here get for her getting called on it.

By the way, this whole ‘insulting to women’ chorus of protest is so fucking misplaced. You people seemed to missed that the very real and much more damaging diss occurred when Palin ran for VP using her best MILF act.

Part of the reason conservatives loves them some Palin is she is an anti-feminist. What could be a bigger diss than to get where she is because she has a vagina and men like her because she’s hot?

She made herself into the lapdance the rednecks couldn’t buy (while pushing her high heels into the face of every woman who ever fought to get their due for their competence, intelligent and capability, and not for being a hot mamma). And somehow, amazingly, a comedian joking about Palin’s carefully cultivated Fuckable Me image is the thing that is over the top.

Sheesh. Some of you really missed what Palin was up to. Palin was the manchurian candidate for feminism.

The hot fuck-me chick who can’t be fucked. Like a slutty stewardess. She’s got the fuck-me thing going on but what can you do? Bend her over one of the seats? Unobtainable Sex Object. Akin to the Hot Librarian with the Big Glasses. (Another stock male fantasy character Palin more than hints at as well). Cuz guys, you know when she takes off those glasses and lets down her hair she’ll fuck you so hard on the book stacks your dick’ll be bruised.

Sure that’s stereotype that demeans women. Hell yes. But Palin is totally reinforcing that one. She’s projecting it: This is the modern Conservative Woman.

It’s a feature not a bug that it’s undermes feminism. Why do you think conservatives love this exemplar of Woman? And where’s the vapors over that?

It’s actually interesting that Letterman said ‘stewardess’. No flight attendants for conservatives. Women are stewardesses. Waitresses in the sky.

You can get pissed at Letterman but I think he’s noticing something here. It says more about how conservatives see women than Dave does.

Letterman did wasn’t nice. But comedians often say harsh shit. A difference between comedy and a comedian making gratuitous insults is whether it was true or not. Good for Dave for calling her on it. She doesn’t get to have it both ways.

That was one of many comments in a long thread (361 comments) where numerous people defended David Letterman’s misogynistic comments about Sarah and Willow Palin.  What was so hard about denouncing something that is obviously wrong? Why would these people defend the indefensible?

The answer is tribalism

We all belong to tribes.  These are the groups we identify ourselves with.  I am part of the American tribe, and also the liberal tribe.  Although I am a white, male heterosexual, I don’t consider myself part of the “white,” “male” or “heterosexual” tribes, any more than I am part of the “left-handed,” “blue-eyed” or “balding” tribes.  Although all those things describe me, they don’t provide some common bond of loyalty to others of the same description.

To racists one of the most important tribal memberships that matter is determined by race.  They think in terms of “us” and “them” with “us” being the members of their own race and “them” being the members of other races.  Arthur Silber made these observations about tribalism:

ONE: To the degree that membership in a particular tribe or tribes is important to a person’s sense of identity, that person believes that his own tribe(s) is inherently and uniquely good. To the degree that tribal membership is a critical element of personal identity, all members of all tribes are convinced this is true of those tribes to which they belong.

TWO: Insofar as the tribe’s centrally defining characteristic(s) (race, religion, political beliefs, etc.) are concerned, all other tribes that differ with regard to these characteristics are necessarily inferior and wrong. This has an especially critical implication: at first with regard to these centrally defining characteristics, and inevitably in a more general sense, the individual members of all other tribes are necessarily inferior to and less worthy than the members of one’s own tribe(s).

THREE: The basic dynamics of all tribes are the same. This applies to all tribes in two different critical respects. It is true of dynamics within the tribe — that is, of those particular mechanisms which create and maintain tribal identity and cohesiveness — and it is also true of how one tribe views itself and behaves in relation to other tribes.

FOUR: The major mechanism by which any tribe creates and maintains tribal identity and cohesiveness is obedience: the requirement that each member of the tribe conform his thinking and behavior in accordance with the major elements of the tribe’s belief system.

Obamanation is a political tribe based upon a cult of personality.  The single most important defining characteristic of their tribe is supporting Barack Obama.  Although they may call themselves Americans, Democrats, liberals and/or progressives, those characteristics are far less important to them.

To a member of Obamanation, anyone who doesn’t support Barack Obama is inferior and wrong, even if they are liberal Democrats (or former Democrats) like us.  Because their tribe is defined solely by loyalty to and support for Obama, they are untroubled by his broken promises and flip-flops.  To criticize Obama is an act of tribal treason.

Sarah Palin is a conservative Republican.  She not only isn’t a member of their tribe, she constitutes a political threat to Obama.  So did Hillary Clinton and so does PUMA.  Sarah, Hillary and PUMA all constitute a threat to the very existence of the Obamanation tribe.  This is why they hate us, and why they are so reluctant to condemn anything that is said about us no matter how sexist or inappropriate.

This does not mean that the Obamanation tribe has no principles or policy goals, it simply means that they are secondary to supporting Obama.  When there is a conflict between loyalty to Obama and adherence to their principles, loyalty to Obama wins.  This means they have to either abandon their principles, deny the existence of a conflict or rationalize it away.

Abandoning principles is difficult because they are ingrained so deeply into us.  They are the things we define as right and wrong.  Denying the existence of a conflict is much easier, which is why Obamanation has so much difficulty seeing sexism and misogyny.  They were indispensible tools in Obama’s victory, but to acknowledge them would be to criticize Obama.

But some things can’t be denied, so they rationalize them as okay.  Sarah asked for it because she dresses like a slut.  Hillary ran a racist campaign.  PUMAs are racist Republican ratfuckers.  THEY DESERVED IT!

If you have ever attempted to have a rational discussion with a member of Obamanation you know how quickly they get angry and begin launching personal attacks.  This is because you are making them feel threatened by causing a conflict between their loyalty to Obama and their principles and beliefs.

Because it is based on a cult of personality their loyalty to and  support of Obama is irrational.  In January 2008 Obama was just beginning his fourth year in the U.S. Senate.  His record as a Senator was unremarkable and his policy proposals were virtually indistinguishable from those of Hillary Clinton.  He ran on two autobiographies, two speeches and a claim of opposition to the war in Iraq that was a fairy tale.

He denied being a liberal and praised Ronald Reagan.  He campaigned with homophobes like McClurkin and courted the anti-choice fundamentalists.  He was caught in numerous lies and flip-flopped like a fish on the deck.  His debate performances ranged from horrible to barely adequate.

Obamanation DID NOT CARE.

How many times have we heard Obamanation described as a “movement?”  Other than supporting Obama what defines that movement?  What unique policies or goals?  What was so different about Obama that it justified last year’s mass hysteria?  Nothing.

Contrary to what Obamanation believes, our tribal identity is not defined by support for a person or even a political party.  It is defined by principles and policy goals.  Our support for Hillary was based on her support for our agenda.  Her candidacy was a vehicle for achieving our principles and policy goals.

Obamanation cannot accept that our opposition to Obama is based upon principles.  To do so would be disloyal to Obama and to their tribe.  They cannot acknowledge anything that conflicts with the belief that they are “inherently and uniquely good” and that we are”inferior and less worthy.”  So in their minds we cannot be liberals and loyal Democrats, we must be racists and/or GOP ratfuckers.

They cannot laugh at Obama or tolerate anyone mocking or criticizing him or their tribe.  They desperately rationalize away the broken promises and betrayals.  They lash out angrily at anyone who challenges their denial of reality.  They stalk and harass those who criticize and oppose Obama, and defend anyone who supports Obama or attacks his opponents and critics.

David Letterman made misogynistic “jokes” about Sarah Palin.  She is an opponent of Obama so Obamanation defended him.  It’s that simple.  A final example:

Yesterday Jeremiah Wright was back in the news.  Last year Obamanation vigorously defended Wright for several weeks, then dropped him like a bad habit when Obama threw him under the bus.

This came from the same PUMA-hating asshat who thought Cinie was Brenda Lee:

I have said it a few time on DU, his comments were stupid, I do not believe that they were bigoted. He said them Jews, more than likely referring to Axelrod and Emmanuel who would never grant him access. He did not say the Jews, which would have suggested he believed in some great Jewish conspiracy.

This irony-impaired genius calls himself “thebigotbasher.”  Even the owner/operator of the Virtual Stalker Club Forum wasn’t buying it:

And that’s not bigoted how?

What Reverend Jeremiah Wright said WAS bigoted.  So why did so many members of Obamanation defend him?  Because they perceive that Wright is still part of their tribe.  Others feel free to denounce Wright because they perceive that he has been excommunicated by Teh Precious.

Beware of zombies.


Please — DIGG!! and SHARE!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

236 Responses

  1. Sarah Palin is setting us all back by being pretty and yet not allowing random dudes with serious psychological problems to ?uck her.

    Put that way, it all suddenly makes sense.

    • That also explains Obama supporting a woman’s right to choose to wear a burqua.

      • Yeah, but what if she uses the chador to hide her cankles? We can’t let b—— with cankles slide by!

    • Basically. In Obamanation a successful woman who doesn’t walk two steps behind her husband is either a frigid b*tch or if she is extremely attractive she’s a b*tch who just got where she is because she is a tease and an unattainable sex object. Cuz the male freaks in the blogosphere as well as old, ugly creeps like David Letterman can’t stand successful or young, attractive women who would never give them the time of day in the real world.

  2. “he said them Jews, more than likely referring to Axlerod and Emmanuel”

    Oh, wow. So much can be learned from the genius of Obamanation.

  3. I want to move to an island. How can our country continue to survive the burden of all of this hatred. A man hates Jewish people because they were targeted by Hitler and foolish people hate Palin because she’s pretty and wears high heels. It’s d*mn scary.

    • “illegitmati non carborundum”

      That means “Don’t let the bastards grind you down”

    • To be fair, they’d hate her just as much if she didn’t wear heels and they considered her unattractive. I think this guy wants us to get upset because he thinks conservatives only like conventionally attractive women in politics, while fauxgressives deserve praise for being egalitarian and out to get all women regardless of ideology, experience, intelligence, appearance, capability, sexual orientation, etc.

      God Bless You, fauxgressives!

      • They would hate her for being tall, short, ugly, fat, skinny, single, lesbian, childless, old, cold or humorless.

        The hatred comes first. The reasons for the hatred are rationalized.

        • They hated Hillary for being smart.

          • They hate them because they are women who think for themselves. There is nothing you can do to to conform so they will not attack you, except to sit down and shut up. It’s being female and speaking up that makes you a target.

        • That’s true. We saw it with Hillary and even with Pelosi.

  4. “”our tribal identity is not defined by support for a person or even a political party. It is defined by principles and policy goals. Our support for Hillary was based on her support for our agenda. Her candidacy was a vehicle for achieving our principles and policy goals.”

    well, this is how Americans have always voted in the past, so?

    you nailed it in this sentence, MIQ.


    I’m seeing “crowdsourcing” meet target marketing?

    because, many liberals are upset right now as things they wanted?



    great piece….

  5. Women are never really a part of any tribe,myiq. Seriously. We pretend we are but the one thing we all have in common is the way we will be cast out the moment we step out of line or express an opinion of our own Men don’t experience this on quite the same level. And half the time women aren’t even aware anymore of how they must always walk on eggshells.

    • Look how the alleged feminists in the Obamanation tribe reacted to the sexist attacks on Hillary and Sarah.

      • But look at how quick they’d be ostracized and attacked if they spoke up. They’re not really part of the tribe, they’re tolerated as long as they toe the line and act as useful idiots, whether they realize it or not.

        • Why would you want to be part of a tribe that attacks you for being yourself and being honest?
          Go out and start your own tribe.

          • I think it makes them feel special–ooh, they hate everyone like us EXCEPT us, it must be because we’re the special smart pretty ones and we deserve to be here! Hey, why are we going under the bus?

            That and being dumber than a box of hammers.

      • I have, which is part of my point. The Obamagirls are not really going to get to be part of the Obamatribe, they just think they are. The first promises to be tossed under the bus, will be the promises Obama made to women.

        Women are taught separate, divide, control, from day one. We don’t rally around gender like boys do, we find a girl who will make a good target and start attacking her for approval points. And it works, look at Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes, Katie Couric. Women learn that in order to get ahead in this world, they must disparage other women.

    • I think women form prides, not tribes. Communities to promote the common good, raise children, share provisions, protect themselves, etc.; sometimes primarily family members, sometimes not. Any woman is free to leave whenever she sees fit and form her own pride, settle with a mate, or roam alone. That’s a bit different from the “brothers for life, ride or die” mentality of modern day tribes.

      • Cinie I think you are on to something.

        Children used to be raised by a group of women and men– way back in the pre-Urban era — pre- Patriarchy — depends on the culture — back to to Stone Age — or Bronze age. Extended family was the norm — because it really did take a village to raise a child.

        Then came the age of the “nuclear” family — the patriarchy which demanded that women conform the THEIR rules.

        Some Indian Tribes are (were) matriarchies — the women owned the homes and the land — but when the “great white father” came along and stole their land — he also forced the tribes into the white/European Patriarchal stereotypes.

        It seems to me that the cultural tribe of women has been suppressed — and as others have pointed out women join in the stone throwing (virtual stones in the US so far) to keep other women in their place. There’s lots of research about how women behave different when working on group projects than male only groups — also women have different ways of speaking to each other — that most men still do NOT understand.

        Pelosi is an example of a typical back stabbing women — and she is of “that” older generation who were taught early and often to HATE other women. This next younger generation will also be another bunch of Pelosi clones.

      • Thats great! I like the pride concept, Cinnie –

        “Any woman is free to leave whenever she sees fit and form her own pride, settle with a mate, or roam alone.”

        Independence of mind, freedom of movement, and ethics before group allegiance is healthy for women and men!!

        That’s why I personally relate to the cowboy/gal metaphor too.

        Free thinkers out in Puma territory 🙂

        ps.. (unfortunately, George W. gave cowboys a bad name)

    • This is so true, yttik, and in so many different environments.

  6. Thanks for the kind words about Sarah and Willow. I’ve been waiting for a liberal blog to stand up against this blatant misogyny. Glad it came from here.

    • Me too.

      I watched Morning Joe this morning….the only one I can bear to watch…..and heard even Mika agree that because Sarah put her daughters all over People magazine, they were “fair game.”

      People sitting there and NOT disagreeing with Donnie the Douche included Arianna Huffington and Willie (who has 2 young daughters himself).

      Stunned. Mika has daughters. Arianna has daughters. Willie has daughters. Donnie’s just an arrogant douche.

      But NONE of them stood for common decency, because then, you see, they might be excluded from the MSNBC “cool crowd.”

      I have now completely removed MSNBC and CBS from my remote favorite lists. I’ll not watch anything on their channels, period.

      Have we learned NOTHING from the crap we saw in the primaries?

      Are there NO decent human beings in our media who are tired of gutter-level crap to stand for common decency?

      I’m just flabbergasted by all of this.

      But I’m pleased to know that the Confluence exists, and that it stands tall—-even if they didn’t like Sarah Palin.

      Thank you , all.

      • Oh that argument reeks.

        “She put her kids on stage with her at the GOP convention so they’re fair game”

        That was how they justified digging into the sex life of a 17 year-old girl.

      • That makes the Obama girls fair game as well. I have certainly seen them on millions of shows and magazines.

    • Sarah is no dummy. You don’t get to be governor of a state unless you a.) have a political pedigree or b.) know what you’re doing.
      She doesn’t have the former, therefore, she must be smarter than they make her sound. That’s a threat to the political aristocracy.
      Sarah’s problem isn’t that she’s pretty. Sarah’s problem is that she’s a commoner. This is class warfare by the Villagers against upstarts who aim above their station.
      I might not like Sarah’s politics but I will support her right to be taken seriously as a contender. She’s earning it.

      • Yes, she suffers from the same “affliction” that the Clinton’s suffered (suffer) from – they come from common stock.

        • You can say that again

        • And yet John Cole gets away with this:

          “There was no place for this kind of stuff with Hillary and Chelsea […] and the same standard should apply for Sarah Palin and her kids.”

          Say what!?

      • She suffers from the same “affliction” that the Clinton’s suffer from – they are of good solid American common stock

      • There was a thread on the Holocaust Museum shooter yesterday at the DUmp, in which someone referred to “trailer-park trash,” if I remember the phrase correctly, as producing the kind of person who would commit such a horrible crime. Someone else pointed out that there are plenty of non-violent poor people in trailer parks.

        Whereupon one “Oregone” opined that “poverty breeds depravity.” And not one DUfus–not an effing one–challenged it.

        I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a pristine example of class hatred in my life. And this came from a Democrat, an alleged “liberal.”

        Riverdaughter’s right. Both parties cater to the “aristocrats” and the wannabe aristos. If we want democracy back, we’re going to have to rebuild it ourselves.

        • If poverty breeds depravity how does this person explain someone like Noelle Bush or Paris Hilton? The only difference between the rich and the poor is the rich have a safety net. There are plenty of rich folks who have bad habits the main difference is that more often than not they can purchase their way out of trouble. Poor people rarely have that luxury. They start in a ditch to begin with. Any problems only make that ditch harder to climb out of.

      • Ditto RD. She IS also a testament to women’s strength, because she was not given anything–she earned her Governor’s position, and is–according to the people of AK–doing an excellent job.

        MyIq: you nailed it with the tribalism argument. The irony is, the liberal elite fancy themselves so evolved, and enlightened, but they are really functioning from the same reptilian brain as Limbaugh. Survival instincts breed hate.

        Who is this Arthur Silber anyway–he’s quite perceptive.

      • I agree with RD here? But…

        I see Sarah as pretty and powerful –and RD–that combo is deadly to the patriarchy. It’s what we all fought for,no — 80’s gen women fresh out of college and heading off to jobs.

        Oddly enough, Sarah has “made it”— on her own.
        Her positions on things aren’t mine — but, whew. I’ll never see a woman who has risen like that be put down. If she had been where either RD or I live? She’d be us — only a Dem?

        And, all women ought to know this…

        ps: what Cinie said above too — I see the Conf as a tirbe like she has described?

    • Many of us emailed, CBS, the FCC and Letterman himself- the very next morning – what he did was untolerable.

      • From looking at Letterman’s so-called half-assed “apology” he obviously hasn’t learned his lesson yet. He’s way too old for this type of childish behavior and it’s absurd that he gets millions of dollars for his idiotic jokes. I’m sure he’s at home right now pissed at the Palin family rather than regretting his actions or trying to understand why so many people found his remarks to be offensive.

        • hate to keep bringing up the Imus analogy, but can you IMAGINE the added outrage if he had gone on air and MOCKED the complainants?

          • Decent people would have been shocked, but I remember a lot of support for Imus in the liberal blogosphere, he’s on our side, don’t attack someone who’s on our side, he’s against Bush, who cares, it’s funny, suck it up, oversensitive, PC, etc. So I’m sure the same people who are so happy now would’ve been singing along then too.

          • I think you may have seen a dramatic drop in support for him had he mocked the complaint.

            What Letterman did with his recent performance was a further slap in the face. He REPEATED those jokes as part of his explanation. What amount of contempt does that take?!!

          • I hope you’re right, I just know who we’re dealing with here. If Imus mocked the team (or their defenders), then I’m afraid it just would have gotten them excited, in a siege mentality, and unleashing the usual stuff about old, fat, unf——— hags. They don’t always get concepts like respect and basic decency. In fact, I ‘m afraid that’s why Letterman felt safe in being so brazen, he knew how it would affect his crowd.

          • But *did* he know how it would affect his crowd?

            Maybe not.

    • Many of us here emailed CBS, the FCC and Letterman himself the very next morning – what he did was intolerable.

      Good grief Jack Parr said “water closet” and was thrown off the air.

      This is just too much!

  7. Believe it or not this poll is showing a majority diapproving of Letterman on this one:


    VOTE: Weigh In on Palin/Letterman Feud!

    Posted by ExtraTV Staff on June 11, 2009 9:58 AM

    • That’s strange, how come I saw so many comments among the Failbots that said “nobody cares?”

      • Because decent people aren’t even bothering to respond to the Failbots anymore. Ya might get their FILTH on ya.

        But don’t think for one moment that for regular, middle America, this won’t be a gamechanger in their own estimation of the tactics of the Failbots and their “leave my family alone” creepy leader.

        And the Democratic Party may pay for that, in the midterms.

    • Here’s another a poll that I saw this morning from the New York Daily News–the results are even more lopsidedly in Palin’s favor, fwiw.

    • I went and voted and then made the mistake of reading some of the comments. I should know better than that by now.

      What saddens me is the number of women that find Letterman’s remarks, I will never call them jokes, all right. One nitwit says that Letterman didn’t advocate rape for 14 year old Willow Palin. Well, duh, a man Rodriquez’s age having sex with a 14 year old is rape. Statutory rape.

      I’m wondering what’s next for the dirty ofd man of late nite television. Flashing children in a school yard perhaps?

  8. Where is NOW and the women’s groups? Not a peep. David Schuster was suspended for his remark about Chelsea and Imus was fired for his racist and misogynist remarks about the women’s basketball team. But Letterman will get off scot-free because the left hates Palin and her family. NOW by their silence is condoning sexist attacks on conservative women.

    • NOW doesn’t care about attacks on any women, liberal or conservative, but where the heck are Republicans on this? I mean prominent Republicans, office holders or officials. It feels like she’s being hung out to dry, I get a feeling of déjà vu from when the Democratic Establishment allowed Hillary to be thrown to the wolves.

      • The GOP establishment doesn’t like Palin – it’s the rank and file that love her.

        • I know, but isn’t there supposed to be a schism? It’s like they’ve established radio silence. It’s very unusual for virtually no one to come to another Republican’s aid over something like this IMO.

          • The con blogs have been going apeshit – but the Failbots just call them hypocrites.

            They ARE hypocrites, but that doesn’t make what Letterman said okay.

          • Of course not, and I understand the con blogs are upset, I just can’t believe other Republicans are forcing Sarah and Todd to handle this alone. They should be getting more support.

      • NOW has condemned Letterman, believe it or not! See my comment way downthread.

    • Seriously is right. I find it surprising that so many are surprised that some liberal/democrat feminists aren’t saying anything. I don’t think it is right to say that the reason they don’t is because Palin is a republican. These women are equal opportunists. They failed and still fail to do the same for democratic women so why should Palin be any different. The republican feminists are also equal opportunists. Some republicans forget that, when they put all the blame on liberal/democrat feminists. Republican feminists do not stand up for their own or for any democratic women. So laying this blame only on the liberal/democratic feminists is a double standard where democratic women are held to a higher standard than republican women. I prefer placing the blame on both sides. Women from both sides have failed to fight sexism and it is time we all acknowledged that and not place the blame only on one side for doing exactly what the other side does when a woman from a different political spectrum is attacked. Demand accountability from both republican and democratic women and not just democratic women.

      • I agree Downticket, and thats why I also think it is wrong to blame the existence of sexism on Obama’s followers!
        Sexism was there before Obama and it will remain after he is gone.

        The demeaning males – obots and otherwise – only do what has always seemed to be allowed: To denigrate women.

        • And it will take women from both sides to insist that it is not right and attitudes have to be changed.

          • And among politicians it seems like Sarah Palin is ready – and able – to fight back.
            But are there any Dem. politicians, that are as outspoken about this, as her?

    • Imus was fired because of the r¢cism in his comment, not the sexism!

  9. what was said about palin & her daughters was despicable

  10. I was going to blockquote some of the nonsense above and comment on it but i thought against it. i didn’t want to give these asshole one more bit of exposer for the nonsense they write.

    I find it amazing that some are BLAMING Sarah Palin for the attacks on her. If she wasn’t so damn pretty…the meme goes.


    What has happened to the Democratic Party? You remember…it stood for Woman’s rights and all… How the hell did it morph into the Frat boyz posse?

    • If she hadn’t worn her skirts so short, she wouldn’t have been raped?

      • It’s the old “She was asking for it” argument.

        Shallow frat boy Failbots think it’s clever.


      • It’s amazing how anyone can justify these attacks against Palin. i don’t agree with her politics but i sure as hell admire her moxy. No matter what the “Villagers” throw at her, she smiles and keeps on trucking.

        As you pointed out River, they fear her and dislike her for being an upstart. How dare she reach above her birthright. She should know better! yeah right. These are the same people that hate the Clintons for being born so low in their eyes.

        Tribalism? Who the hell needs or wants it?

        • It’s hardwired into us – that’s why peer pressure is so effective.

          But we can be aware of it and learn to step outside of it.

    • It’s not just that she’s so pretty, it’s that men are so sexually attracted to her. Which is, of course, her fault. sigh.

    • Obama enabled and quietly encouraged them during the primaries. So did Meechelle.

      They are HIS creation, and middle America will turn away him because of them.

      Hide and watch.

  11. From yesterday’s Daily Howler:

    “Letterman isn’t at NBC any more—but he’s still part of the clan. He’s also a familiar figure in our culture. He’s the smelly, 62-year-old coot who never arranged to grow up.

    Boys like Letterman never grow up. Inside their brains, hard wires keep telling them to aim naughty jokes at 14-year-old girls—and to refer to women as “slutty.” The Greenwich guy did it again Monday night. People like this never stop.

    Perhaps the most interesting part of this whole syndrome is the way the “liberal” world has accepted it.

    During the 1990s, the liberal world ran off and hid in the woods, hoping that pseudo-conservative rule would come to an end by itself. (If liberals complained, their careers could be damaged! You would have kept quiet too.) For that reason, its toleration of smutty misogyny aimed at Hillary Clinton just seemed like part of the deal.”

    Tends to support your tribal hypothesis, myiq.

  12. Letterman said that he mispoke or confused the names of Palin’s daughters. He meant to use the oldest girl, Bristol.

    Either way, badly done, Dave, very badly done. And just not funny.

    • “I wasn’t suggesting that a 14 year old girl was raped, I was calling an 18 year old single mother a whore.”

      • Without admitting, of course, that Barak Obama’s mother was an 18 year old single mother.

        Or that his own wife was an unwed mother , due to his own boyish fears of commitment.

        I’d like to know if the Morning Joes think that Obama’s mother was all over magazines as an unwed mother holding young Barak, that SHE shoulda been fair game as a “slut.”

        Nobody mentioned that, of course.

        • Well according to Morning Joe’s logic, Obama’s kids are fair game. Like all political kids, they’ve been trotted out for political purposes, if they insist on putting it that way.

        • I don’t even understand why the term “unwed mother” is even used anymore. Are we still living in the 1950s? Why is it unacceptable for a young woman to raise her child alone? I guess for guys like Letterman who still live in the 1950s, any woman under the age of 25 who had a baby outside of marriage is a whore who deserves to be ridiculed? And Letterman calls himself a liberal?

          • Some guy said the other day, “she did what she did.” I’m sorry, but what did she do? She had a baby. That means she had sex! OMG!

          • Back in the 19th century, for the folks who lived in the south of France — which was a surprisingly feminist culture for that period — getting pregnant before marriage was considered mildly naughty but not really scandalous. They would refer to the situation as “farting during Vespers.”

            Maybe we should bring back that term.

    • IMO that’s total BS. As if Bristol hasn’t been in the news enough. So in addition to being unfunny, DL is also ignorant.

    • Someone should inform him that it still doesn’t make it right. 14 or 18 there is no difference.

  13. when did low class and no class become acceptable?
    when did respect and manners stop being taught and expected?
    Nothing this old pervert said was funny and attacks on women and children are NOT acceptable.
    I agree with the actions to stop buying any product that sponsors his show. Loss of revenue is the only thing understood today.
    I am ashamed of the actions of some of my countrymen toward women and children today.



  14. Let’s see, Palin is a “slut”, Hillary is a “hag”, Chelsea and Willow are both apparently prostitutes. Michelle, however, is a feminine icon for giving up her job and baring her arms. Statutory rape is “funny”. Suggesting that the 14 year-old daughter of a sitting governor and former VP candidate would turn tricks for a disgraced former governor of another state is somehow hilarious. She’s also “fair game” because her picture appeared in People, but the Obama girls are *not* “fair game” even though they also appeared there (and even did a TV interview).

    When Bush covers up torture it’s evil. When Obama covers up torture it’s good. When Bush appoints anti-choice officials he’s against women’s rights. When Obama appoints anti-choice officials he’s a feminist.

    When Wright blames “them Jews” for everything, it’s not antisemitic.

    Freedom is slavery, I’m terminally confused, and George Orwell is weeping in Violet’s Spirit Smoking Lounge.

    It’s going to be a long four years.

    • Wow! My head is still spinning 🙂

      yes…It’s going to be a LOOOOOONNNNGGGG four years!

    • I think you covered everything there. 🙂

    • Obama also put his girls on the stages at numerous campaign stops and events….including convention.

      One would actually think Michelle would be screaming loudly about this stuff…it should feel very close to home to her.

      All BO had to do was go on TODAY with Ann Curry and tell the world that Michelle and his girls were out of bounds, and not another unkind word was spoken about them.

    • That’s why I’m a pirate. Loosen the jib and ready the cannons. We’re giving no quarter. Drink up, me hearties!

    • Don’t forget… when Bush takes over companies and increases the deficit it’s bad. When Obama does it, it’s good.

      When Bush tells the Muslim world Islam is not the enemy it’s bad. When Obama does it, it’s good.

      When Bush stumbles through the answer to a question, he’s the village idiot. When Obama can’t answer what his name is without using a teleprompter, he’s thoughtful

  15. OMFG. That one comment is un-freakin-believable. It’s so adamantly and stridently dense that it boggles the mind. The only response to such clueless misogyny is: Now that’s a load that should have been swallowed. What a waste of a few seconds of pleasure!

  16. Could someone please point me to a photo of Gov. Palin dressed suggestively?

    This attack on her appearance is so out there, it’s actually frightening. I can hardly believe these people exist.

    • Apparently there are pictures of her wearing red shoes and with her toenails painted like a harlot!

    • I think it is stupid that people even suggest she dresses suggestively. From the pictures I have seen she wears skirts and her skirt is not above the knee. I wonder what they want her to wear. When did it become a sin to wear high heels?

      • The fact of the matter is that Obama used his sex appeal much more deliberately and overtly than Palin ever did on the campaign trail. Can you imagine, for instance, Palin vamping it up before reporters of the opposite sex the way that Obama did in this video?

        The answer is of course not. But that didn’t stop false rumors from being spread about her greeting McCain staffers wrapped only in a bath towel and other such nonsense. As so many others have pointed out, she’s attractive, she’s of the commoner class; therefore she’s apparently asking for it when men project their fantasies onto her.

        Oh, yes, and then there’s the fact that she winked–politicians, particularly ones of the GOP variety–wink all the time (and that did turn me off slightly–the GOP identification–but then then that is Palin’s party; I happen to find Obama’s scripted winsome smiles equally annoying). But once again, Reagan winked, both Bushes winked, McCain winks, but of course when Palin winks, she is clearly begging the David Lettermans of the world to wank off at her.

        • I shudder to say this, but didn’t even Smarmy Smirking Mitt had some commercial with him running (maybe even shirtless, not sure) to capitalize on his so-called, I can’t even say it. Palin isn’t the jackass who asked someone if she’d vote for him for a kiss.

        • The bath towel story was distorted. True she opened the door in a bath towel but she was in a hurry, she didn’t sit and have a discussion with them plus her husband was there and she directed them to talk to him while she cleaned up. The details are always left out.

    • Don’t you understand that glasses = Hot Librarian? You always have to be aware what signals you’re sending to lunatics.

      • Thinking she looks hot is one thing, but holding it against her makes no sense.

        Since when is looking attractive a bad thing in politics?

        • They’re like skeevy old school pervs: If I am attracted to her, it’s because she’s deliberately trying to enflame me! Look at her move her leg—she knows the effect it will have on me!

          Calm down, dude, I assure you the only person thinking about you is either your Therapist or your parole officer.

      • yes, lunatics. that’s exactly what they are. and lunatics are scary fuckers.

    • I am having trouble making my new computer obey, if you google ‘palin legs’ you get tons of pictures taken at strange angles (often through her legs) that prove that she is a slut. It has nothing to do what what she is wearing or how she is wearing it, but the pictures prove the point. 👿

      • Only here can you have pervs taking leg and crotch shots to try and prove there’s something wrong with someone else. Lol Maybe the Bots should join a religious group where women are required to be covered from head to toe.

      • I don’t think there ever was a Dick Cheney inflatable sex doll.

        (I really hope not)

  17. Write CBS and local stations and voice your disgust. They do not like things like this being brought up. Advise that a boycott may be necessary if this ass is not taken off the air. Vulgar misogyny is not permitted and his sponsors need to know this also. Enough is enough.

    • Was it the sponsors who demanded Imus be terminated, or did MSNBC do that to hide from the scandal?

  18. BTW, excellent post myiq. I think you’ve nailed these zombies.

  19. The following is an actual email exchange between me and an Atlanta newspaper editorial writer that for me illustrates when I began to realize that I was dealing with a cult following – and this was the liberal media I had come to respect and depend on for sanity during the neocon, facist years. Sorry, my usual long-winded style:

    “Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxx:

    I have to tell you that your article on February 21 (2008)sealing the demise of Senator Clinton campaign was offensive to me on several levels. As an American, I’m angry that you felt it necessary to circumvent or preempt this very intricate and necessary process of nomination in our democracy. I realize that as an editorialist you draw upon your expertise to evaluate trends hopefully to give your readers/voters perspective and a heads-up, but not to rush to judgment and jump onto the Barack Obama’s bandwagon.

    As a Clinton supporter, I am angry that you as part of the “Fourth Estate”, like so many of your cable and network colleagues have (in this instance) failed to dispassionately evaluate the fitness of the candidates for the office of President of the United States. It seems that mainstream national journalism had decided to throw cold water on the Clinton campaign since day one, presumably to stir up as much controversy as possible for entertainment. It has hindered the campaign getting the word out on Clinton’s accomplishments, assets, and ability to deliver. Young people who seek good jobs and access to college, and African Americans have known no greater proven allies in high office than the Clintons.

    In many ways, I feel journalism is repeating the horrific mistakes of 2000 and 2004. Only now some in the national media have awakened to the fact that Barack Obama has no meaningful experience in life or public office that demonstrates that he has an inking of a clue on how he would implement the policies he says he feels so passionate about. Is he is equipped either to meet the demands of the office of President or the horrific challenges in the general election? Voters are increasingly starting to realize that he has been given a free ride during this leap-of-faith cattle stampede to join his campaign, and that he is in reality a big question mark with time running out. The Clinton campaign has increasingly had to assume the roll as “bad guy” to point out the differences and problems – essentially doing the media’s job. This is a time for sober evaluation by the media. There is no more room for mistakes in the White House.

    At the time of this writing, only 69 delegates separate the two with a very important set of primaries and key debates coming up. Anything can happen!

    At least let the process play itself out, you’ll have plenty of time to do a postmortem afterwards.


    Thanks for your note, but I’m not circumventing or pre-empting anything. When it’s over, it’s over.

    And it’s over.

    I would also suggest that it is possible to have a dispassionate assessment of the candidates that differs from your own. In fact, I think that’s exactly what has happened. It is all too easy to suggest that YOUR analysis is dispassionate and full of logic and rigor while those who disagree have clearly been swept away by emotion.

    You should respect the verdict of your fellow voters.

    • T4C,

      Introspection is not his strong suit. Did he write a sports column before he moved to politics?


      • Steven. I don’t know, but the entire editorial staff is still swimming in kool-aid, including the cartoonist.

    • The idiocy of the ‘bots has no bounds. “the verdict of your fellow voters” was for Hillary.

  20. Has anyone seen this – where the arrogant MSNBC host (and a woman no less) actually says what’s so offensive about “comedy” and cuts John Ziegler’s mike off at the end. How low that network has fallen – it’ll leave you speechless…


    • That was Contessa Brewer – she really did leave Ziegler speechless.

      • I called her a “clown” on my blog but i gave you an apology for dissing clowns brotha…LOL

    • Yup..I wrote a piece on my blog about it. That Contessa Brewer is really dumber than a box of rocks. She could not understand why Palin was so upset at Letterman and was more angry at Ziegler’s trashing of MSNBC than she was at letterman for what he said…..Crazy world we live in.

      I wonder if this was what the Mayan’s wee referring to when they said the end would come in 2012?

      • Contessa Brewer asks: What’s wrong with calling a public political figure a slut and her daughters whores? I’ve been called that before. I just don’t get it. …and by the way, don’t insult our channel.

  21. Bravo, myiq! Magnificent.

    “He said them Jews, more than likely referring to Axelrod and Emmanuel who would never grant him access. He did not say the Jews, which would have suggested he believed in some great Jewish conspiracy.”




    • We’d probably understand that better if we weren’t rac ists. 😉

    • It does sort of make your head spin, doesn’t it? I wonder how he would feel if somebody referred to “them blacks” in a similar context? I guess that wouldn’t be racist because it was “them blacks” rather than “the blacks”?

      I suppose we should just be grateful Wright didn’t use the k-word.

    • Wasn’t there an outrage over McCain’s “That one”?

  22. I haven’t read all the comments yet, so maybe someone already posted this, but–

    I’m in shock! NOW has condemned Letterman’s remarks about Palin’s daughter and added him to their Media hall of shame.


    Has NOW suddenly realized that they should represent all women, not just Obot women?

  23. Excellent post, myiq.

    • Oh, noes. Just give me a summary. I absolutely will not visit her site.

      This is an excellent post, myiq. Great comments, too.

      • I told you everything worth reading

        • Poor Taylor. She doesn’t know that unless toes the Failbot line, she’ll be trashed, too.

          Digby doesn’t either.

          PS Went back to her site for a wander yesterday—hadn’t been there since the primaries. Her loyal posters are verrrrry disillusioned by The One, and now complain, a LOT.

          What took em so long?

          • They will never be accepted – they will be tolerated but only as long as they behave.

            There would be no point in us swilling the Kool-aid now. We will always be considered the enemy

          • “Went back to her site for a wander yesterday—hadn’t been there since the primaries….”

            So did I.

            It had the ambiance of a GM factory.

          • I’m enjoying Hullabaloo these days. More and more of the posters are willing to criticize Brand Obama, and I enjoy mixing it up with BO’s remaining loyal Oborg. I’m “Monster from the Id” there. 🙂

    • Just visited TM for the first time since early in primary.

      Her top/first post is begging for money. Poor widdle girl…

    • Notice her waxing that she was also a ..”beauty queen.” WTF does that have to do with Palin getting the “creep” treatment? TM has totally lost it. You can tell by her tin cup jiggling for funds.

      Now far for me to not contribute to a cause but I would never give TM a dime and from the looks of it, neither are her readers!

      How the mighty have fallen!

  24. Thou shall not troll

  25. Thank you for your support

  26. What if they gave a BlogTalkRadio show and nobody came?

  27. Write to the advertisers. See HILLBUZZ for lists and contact info. It’s the only way to make a difference. Do not let this pass or they will have gotten away with it again. They did it during the election (it’s only Hillary Clinton we treat this way, no wait, it’s only Sarah Palin we treat this way–when will it end?) Hit ’em in the wallets. Women make many purchasing decisions–let them know you are withholding your dollars until they drop advertising on that perverted show.

  28. Changing your IP address is futile.

    • Why are they so stupid? You should put a hat and glasses on Capt. Spaulding so they’ll think you’re not here!

  29. Hey myiq – I assume you are aware that
    “the bigotbasher “is the person I recently warned you about who had linked from Democratic Underground to “Fight the Hate” post?

    He is an obnoxious sexist widdle wanker who obviously doesn’t get any.

    That gravedigger guy is really fun.

    • Gravedigger has fallen into the spam filter and can’t get up.

      “thebigotbasher” is clueless

      • He really has his $&@$ down, though. I never would have been able to grasp the subtle distinction between “them Jews” and “the Jews” or “Cinie” and “some random ass person without any earthly connection to Cinie” without his guidance.

  30. Jeanie Mose on CNN tonight analogized the bird in SF that is swooping down on passersby with PMS.

    was really nice. thought my husband’s eyes were going to leave their sockets.

    • God, what is going ON? Palin announced she has no intention of helping Letterman’s ratings and also doesn’t want Willow around him, so tomorrow will be “How DARE she call Dave a child molestor!”

  31. Tribalism over principles and policy. Good post. Also being cool and feeling good over principles and policy. This is the 1960s and 1970s all over again. After 2008, I believe Violet Sox when she said Second Wavers were not racist. Intersectionality came into being in the 1980s and 1990s. The MSM and netroots are not getting it so I recommend cutting, pasting and highlighting
    these three paragraphs Violet wrote whenever people say there was as much racism as sexism in 2008. Replace black men with Obama and Obama supporters and black women with former Clinton supporters:

    Feminism has always striven to be inclusive. You can read the minutes of the New York radicals in 1968, the conversations white women were having with black women. Black women were very drawn to feminism, but they were in the midst of a civil rights struggle, too, and they felt like they needed to stay with that. Which of course they did; the civil rights movement was a great uprising of a people. Unlike feminism, which is immensely more complicated because it requires us to interrogate the fundamental structures of our own families.

    At any rate, while black women were in sympathy with feminism, black MEN were not. The civil rights movement was notoriously patriarchal and sexist. Some of the first feminists I knew were black women who were in essence refugees from that movement, having learned to their heartbreak that black men had no interest in elevating women. Black men considered feminism a threat — both to their own patriarchal hegemony, and to their civil rights mythos of The Struggle of the Black Man. They accused white feminists of being racists who were trying to brainwash black women into hating their men. They accused black feminists of being race traitors.

    It was ugly and mean and wrong, but you know what? Those fuckers won the propaganda war. Those assholes wrote the history books. And now young people actually believe that the Civil Rights movement was all sweetness and light and equality for all, while Second Wave feminists were white racists.

    Just like in the 1960s and 1970s, all the focus is on racism and none on the misogyny underlying Clinton’s run for the Presidency and the ensuing race-baiting. For summer reading, I recommend Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice as the problem and Michele Wallace’s Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman, Elaine Brown’s A Taste of Power and Angela Davis’ autobiography, which combine feminism and anti-racism, as the solution.

    • Fast-forwarding to the ’90s, I would also recommend Pearl Cleage’s Deals With the Devil and Other Reasons to Riot.

  32. Sorry– this should be highlighted.

    Feminism has always striven to be inclusive. You can read the minutes of the New York radicals in 1968, the conversations white women were having with black women. Black women were very drawn to feminism, but they were in the midst of a civil rights struggle, too, and they felt like they needed to stay with that. Which of course they did; the civil rights movement was a great uprising of a people. Unlike feminism, which is immensely more complicated because it requires us to interrogate the fundamental structures of our own families.

    At any rate, while black women were in sympathy with feminism, black MEN were not. The civil rights movement was notoriously patriarchal and sexist. Some of the first feminists I knew were black women who were in essence refugees from that movement, having learned to their heartbreak that black men had no interest in elevating women. Black men considered feminism a threat — both to their own patriarchal hegemony, and to their civil rights mythos of The Struggle of the Black Man. They accused white feminists of being racists who were trying to brainwash black women into hating their men. They accused black feminists of being race traitors.

    It was ugly and mean and wrong, but you know what? Those fuckers won the propaganda war. Those assholes wrote the history books. And now young people actually believe that the Civil Rights movement was all sweetness and light and equality for all, while Second Wave feminists were white racists.

    • dd,

      Yet another post that validates being a Dr. Socks fan.


    • One of the cool things about history is that it separates the truth for propaganda and examines things with emotional detachment.

      Imagine how historians 100 years from now will view last year’s campaign.

      • Unfortunately, many people don’t like to lounge around and read history. It drives me crazy. A lot of people have this idea that Susan B Anthony was a Democrat, that the Republicans rounded up the Japanese and put them in camps. It’s like we’ve lost our ability to view the complexity of culture and politics, so we try to whittle it down to good guys versus bad guys, as if everything were always that black and white and simple.

        • yttik,

          Yes. And working off denuded perspectives of history makes us, as a society, more susceptible to sloganeering, because it is as simple as the explanatory models/perspectives that are being used.


      • If you read Wallace and Brown’s accounts of the CRM, you will see the black patriarchs were 100% at fault, black women were 100% innocent.

        Similarly, Obots are 100% guilty, former Clinton supporters are 100% innocent.

        Like Violet said, propaganda won and made the CRM sweetness and light and white women racists.

        Similarly, the netroots and Obots are 100% guilty of misogyny and ensuing race-baiting and former Clinton supporters 100% innocent, but their propaganda is the reverse.

        Here is the key paragraph:

        It was ugly and mean and wrong, but you know what? Those fuckers won the propaganda war. Those assholes wrote the history books. And now young people actually believe that the Civil Rights movement was all sweetness and light and equality for all, while Second Wave feminists were white racists.

    • Hey donnadarko, great to see you here and thanks for the book recommendations. It was Violet who pointed out how differently the MSM treated racism and sexism, with racism being condemed and sexism at best being mocked and belittled, if not joined in on. Like you have this woman on MSNBC saying what’s the big deal being called a slut, it’s happened to me. Everyone agrees that nobody should be subjected to racism in a campaign, zero tolerance as it should be, but with sexism, it’s normalized–it’s inevitable, you’re going to have to deal with it, don’t make waves about it.

      • ( Of course, it wasn’t only Violet who pointed that out, I meant I’m paraphrasing something I read there recently!)

        • We can’t let the MSM and netroots win the propaganda war like men did in the 1960s and 1970s. Those three paragraphs should do the trick. She’s written similarly before. And if you only have time to read one book, read Wallace’s. She’s a genius and visionary.

          • I’d love to hear accounts of exactly how the propaganda war was won back then. This time around, it’s almost like there was an alternative narrative ready to go from the jump. Axlerod didn’t have to wait until it was over to rewrite history, it happened minute by minute, this huge mass of denial and projection, like don’t trust your lying eyes, trust us in spite of what you see happening. So bizarre.

            I’m shocked, my local library actually has all 3 books. 🙂

    • And in my personal experience – the biggest promoter of “Second Wave feminists were white racists” is the so-called Third Wave.

      As a 2nd waver I have had many arguments with 20 – 30 year old “intellectual, academic, know-it-alls” over the issue of movement racism. During the primary I met several Hillary supporters who were self-defining as 3rd wavers. I stayed away from them. But they kept coming to me. It was if they knew something was missing from their book learnin’ or maybe they wanted to explore my racism and classism.

      By the end of the primary several of them were frustrated because they had figured out that their feminism didn’t have a mission, didn’t have any activist/political goals, the sisterhood was mostly supporting Obama and they didn’t have anything going for their wave but an in-bred academic discussion among a small number of people.

      • And honestly, I am a young person and I see Third Wave as mostly just a hipster pose. Look at somebody like Amanda Marcotte. She’s always getting called out on being racially insensitive and couldn’t care less. And as for classism, give me a break–could Obots BE any more classist? They’re not intersectional really, they just leave women totally off the priority list, which all good progressives agree is where they belong. Roe, roe–maybe, but that’s about as far as they go.

        • Seriously, this is to your comment above. I wrote about this “bros before hos”, race trumps gender business throughout the primary and election. Just pointing out the obvious was “racist”. The netroots was already so racist they were just overcompensating. Like Violet and those four books will tell you, black and white patriarchs were 100% at fault, black and white women were 100% innocent.

          Dee, the Third Wave is a product of the backlash. They believe what Rush Limbaugh said in the 90s about the Clintons and feminism. They do not care about principles or policy, they just want to feel good. They are colluders with the black and white patriarchy.

          • That is one of the things that was really weird. The netroots have been sexist as hell for as long as I’ve been aware of them, but they’ve always been rac ist as hell, too. To see them all of a sudden trying to morph themselves into the world’s great anti-rac ist champions was so bizarre. I know you remember that Tim Wise guy, it was like they viewed anti-rac ism as one big opportunity to flaunt their male privilege loud and proud.

        • Not to mention the vicious sexism that permeated Pandagon during the primaries. Which I guess we’re all just supposed to get over.

  33. myiq,


    The bots are beginning to turn. It will be interesting to see how the turn “outs.”


    • The ones that cling to Obama will get increasingly angry and bitter.

      They will also get more and more detached from reality.

      • “Who cares about Letterman? Murphy IS LATE WITH SOME PAPERWORK!!!!!!

      • What? You’re kidding right Myiq? There is no way that a Bot can get any crazier than they already are! They already live in Fruit loopville. What’s can possibly be worse…. Scientology?

        • Wait until they start purging their own ranks of anyone who isn’t enthusiastic enough in their support of Teh precious.

        • I once took a tour of Christian Science mother church, and at the beginning they were like, “we want to get this straight, we are not Scientologists.” after that, there’s an irresistable temptation to screw with them. “Are we gonna meet Tom Cruise? Do we get to go to the celebrity center?”

      • They can get more detached from reality?

        As it is these are folks who seem to believe up is down if Obama proclaims it to be. It’s hard to imagine reality could be more distorted for the saps.

  34. myiq,

    Do you mean in the sense of environmentally induced schizophrenia a la Watzlawick in The Pragmatics of Human Communication? They are, after all, faced with a doublebind.


    • My degree is in armchair psychology, but I’m guessing that if cognitive dissonance hurt they would all be on oxycontin

      • myiq,

        It’s a fun book and I believe it would support your oxycontin hypothesis.


  35. pragmatics oops

  36. You know, talk shows have been denigrating women for the last few months. How come people only complain when it’s about Palin?

    • Um…the last few months? Where have you been? Did you pay even the slightest attention to what happened to Hillary Clinton during the primaries?

      • Hillary doesn’t count dontcha know. She had the temerity to run against Obama. It’s okay t call her a stalker psycho ex girlfriend and insinuate her foreign policy is limited to tea parties with ambassabors(speaking of Obama).

      • LOL

      • Have I mentioned how aggravating it is when people make assumptions without examining the facts beforehand.

        It would probably taken all of 15 minutes to find the post that derided Gordon Libby as a pig for his treatment of Sotomayer.

        • Our trolls never bother to do searches, they pepper us with annoying questions late at night, and when we tell them to go back and look for themselves, they get shirty. It’s a pattern.

          • It’s projection. They are all about personas and hitched their principles to said persona(or tribe as myiq points out) so of course we must be doing the same.

            It must be unfathomable to some of them that we are actually opposed to misogyny in all its forms. We don’t subscribe to the notion that it is acceptable ever( whether the person it is being directed towards is someone we agree or disagree with is a moot point).

    • Uh where have you been? We were complaining when it was Clinton. We were complaining when it was Sotomayer.

      We loathed Larry Summers and his supposition that women are and were inferior at math. We loathed Jon Favreau and his drunken frat boy “prank”.

      This site has been all over misogyny in ALL of its forms.

      Anything else?

    • Former Clinton supporters have denounced every major sexist incident since the election.

    • In the Failbot world Obama is a feminist and Hillary Clinton was supported by freepers.

      • Ain’t it the damm truth?

        Failbots live in a world of their own, ignorant and stoopid like Booman.

        Frikkin idiots.

        (Whew….I feel better)

        • The reason I state the last few months and not past year is because we did not have websites like the new agenda to speak out against the misogyny against Hillary or any woman.

          Just last month I heard an extremely demeaning punch line to a joke on the tonight show. (it was so bad the audience just sort of groaned with a few laughs). The next night Leno used a different joke with the exact same punchline(this time lots of laughter, did they plant people to laugh or use a laugh track?) Not one peep from the new agenda.

          During the primaries I watched Letterman instead of Leno because there was too much misogyny directed against Hillary on Leno. Letterman was not too bad to Hillary at first but did eventually start also, albeit much later during the primaries. I just dislike it when one person becomes the scapegoat for all.

    • Oh my. One of Obama’s little squashed blossoms.

  37. myiq2xu, I agree with you that the Obama movement runs on tribalism, and this is a good post about phenomenon. But the particular comment you quoted, the one beginning with “She worked that slutty angle” — that’s not a good example. That’s not tribalism; that’s classic male sexual displacement. Almost any woman can tell you all about it. Men blame women for their sexual feelings, and with misogynist men it really becomes pathological.

    I’ve had men I was barely even aware of suddenly accuse me of deliberately tormenting them, deliberately leading them on, dressing provocatively to tease them, etc.,etc. — just unbelievable shit. I’ve always been me, just an egghead in socks and comfy pants. It is truly mind-boggling the extent to which men can displace responsibility for their sexual feelings onto women. It’s a seamless transition from “I’m attracted to her” to “she’s doing this on purpose” to “that bitch is teasing me.” Or, “that bitch is consuming me with her evil castrating vagina dentata.”

    This is misogyny, pure and simple. Sarah Palin gave leftist men an excuse to vent their deepest hatreds.

    • I see your point, but it’s more than just sexism and misogyny.

      Tribalism frees the haters to vent their worst, AND silences any critics within the tribe.

      How else do explain advocates for women defending the abusers?

      • That’s tribalism, particularly with feminists. But the particular comment you excerpted — that’s something else. I know where that guy lives, if you get what I’m saying.

        The tribe maybe gives him permission, but what’s winding his clock is deep fear and hatred of women’s sexuality.

        • It’s his way of coping with the subconscious fear that the very woman he’s IMAGINING is leading him on, doesn’t want anything to do with him, in those terms.

          He can’t cope with the fact that he’s not interesting, or attractive, or sexy…….so it must be HER fault.

          Classic defense mechanisms. They are HIS delusions.

      • It is also MOB psychology — finding an underdog to blame. The Zombies don’t have bush to blame anymore — so why not choose a good looking conservative woman who is a powerful woman in her own right??

        This is frightening because women are the underdogs — Miss California wasn’t prepared with a PC answer to a question she should NEVER have been asked in the first place. She is powerless — perhaps she can use her notoriety for future employment — but she can’t make any changes. Tyrant leaders find a underdog that the mob can displace their rage on. These jerks are displacing their inner dark vile core on the target that their leader chooses. This isn’t new — history is full of tyrants leading mobs. Woman have been the target of tyrants during the dark ages — it could happen again. With 0zero telling women they have the “right” to wear that black shroud — I don’t give a damn what the “proper” name of that shroud is — it is still a black shroud that women are forced to wear — to become invisible.

        Cinie’s recent blog entry on 0zero is right on target — he can direct his mob without really appearing to be. Just a suggestion — flip the bird — make a disrespectful remark about Palin — calling her Mayor (not Governor, or VP candidate) or deliberately mispronouncing the name of the town where she was mayor. This was enough to call out his Zombies. Palin isn’t stupid — she has put up with this crap all her life — as have other smart, good looking women.

        Anyway — I see the Zombies as a mob. We know who they are — because they show up on a regular basis on this and other like minded blogs. (The non-Zombie blogs.)

        • Yeah. There are about 9 million Republicans far, far worse than Palin on every level, but she’s the one they single out over and over.

          • And there are probably an equal number of “democrats” who are far worse than Palin. It’s sort of like a bell curve with the moderate/independent in the middle and the wing nuts thinning out to the fringe, fringe wing nutters.

        • Yes re the mob. The fact that any presidential campaign with a wink and a smile used mottos like “Bros before hos” and songs like “99 Problems, But a Bitch Ain’t One” speaks VOLUMES about the mob that campaign nurtured and quietly encouraged.

          OT: Where the HELL is Michelle Obama on the Letterman trashing other people’s kids issue?

          She’s the damn FIRST LADY now……shouldn’t she be asked, or be willing to actually STAND for something for ALL our kids?

          Doesn’t her SILENCE actually condone same?

          Oh wait….she’s become June Cleaver now, and mustn’t speak out anymore. Growing a vegetable garden and shopping in Paris promotes her man’s image.


  38. That photo of the zombies at the top is exactly how I picture the 0butt trolls look after their mainline the koolaide.

    Or they are returning from camp 0bama — ready to take over the caucuses.

    Yep that’s the ticket — where did you find the photo of the invaders of the caucuses???? bums and thugs (I’m probably insulting bums and thugs)..

  39. re: tribalism. Funniest comment – Mel Brooks as the 2000 years old men – recounting the came men times when he lived in cave # 6. “There was an hymn too…it went something like this: “Cave # 6 – it’s the best cave in the world”

  40. I don’t have a tribe. I hang out (on my own terms) with other lone-wolves, cowboys/grrls, and various life pirates that I greatly respect & admire.

    Nevertheless, when things get rough… cowboys will back each other up in a shoot out – 🙂

    Ok, way past my bed time!

  41. This is why I am tempted to think that I will vote for ANY woman in 2012. We need to get a woman in the White House.

    I don’t know what depresses me more – the moronic ramblings of that pathetic Peter Pan failed comic or the even more moronic ramblings of the Obot quoted. I presume this was a young male and it scares me that that the misogyny is so internalized that he sounds just like those psycho rapists who rape women “because they asked for it ”

    Anyone with a Vag 2012!

    • “This is why I am tempted to think that I will vote for ANY woman in 2012. We need to get a woman in the White House.”

      Hillary Clinton 2012.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: