• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Niles on WTAF, Jim??
    william on WTAF, Jim??
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on WTAF, Jim??
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on WTAF, Jim??
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on WTAF, Jim??
    pm317 on WTAF, Jim??
    pm317 on WTAF, Jim??
    wynne05 on WTAF, Jim??
    HerstoryRepeating on WTAF, Jim??
    Catscatscats on WTAF, Jim??
    Catscatscats on WTAF, Jim??
    Catscatscats on WTAF, Jim??
    Gregory P on WTAF, Jim??
    Gregory P on WTAF, Jim??
    Gregory P on WTAF, Jim??
  • 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

    June 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « May   Jul »
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Is The Afghan War Lost?
      Danny Sjursen makes the case at the American Conservative. The piece as a whole is worth reading, but the bottom line is that the Afghan government’s own military and police are hopeless: losing to the Taliban.  The US military, with current force levels, cannot hold most of the country. Unless the US is willing to […]
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Irony is not dead

Digby seems surprised by the White House’s hubristic gloating and chastisement of union money spent in Arkansas:

Honestly, this is beneath the White House and they need to put a muzzle on it. Primaries are a legitimate part of the democratic process and no president (or his men) should ever, ever dismiss them publicly or imply in any way that members of the rank and file shouldn’t have a voice in these decisions. It’s truly embarrassing and offensive to see the Republicans responding with more class to their crazed teaparties than the White House does to its labor union and netroots allies.

It *almost* feels like the Obama administration has discovered from past experience that primaries don’t count, or that their results can be invalidated, so that the party can operate with impunity and ignore the voters. But that could only happen if the activist base let the party get away with it and failed to hold them accountable. But that would be stoopid because then the activist base would have thoroughly emasculated itself, becoming completely ineffective as a political force. Where would the White House get such a crazy idea?

Drive slow children.

Advertisements

118 Responses

  1. Wow, I really am losing it.

    I don’t even remember writing this post.

  2. That’s weird. How did you become the author?

  3. Tina Brown thinks it’s bad for feminism when women win elections:

    • That’s sort of an unfair remark, myiq. Brown’s point was that the women who won, in her opinion, were not individuals who supported the classic issues of feminists.

      I’ve made this point before, but I think it bears repeating: when Hillary was in the Senate, she was the only senator to have a Women’s Issues page on her website. She didn’t try to pretend that she wasn’t a woman or that women don’t have issues that are separate and distinct in this country because of childbearing, lower wages, etc.

      Personally, I admire a non-apologetic woman, rather than those women pretending that they’re “just one of the boys”.

      • Well, the so-called-feminists proved that they eat their own, so it was a smart move on the ambitious women to join the GOP. Honestly, if you were a women with political ambitions, do you join the party that rips you to pieces with sexism or do you join the party that encourages you to run?

        • So-called-feminists is certainly true. However, I suspect that the number of women running as Repubs has more to do with the lack of depth on the bench of Repub males. Honestly, is there a viable Repub male who isn’t under the age of 60?

          • When a company has bad news to impart , 9 times out of 10 they send a woman out to face the music as “spokesperson” If there is good news, it’s a guy. Looks like bad news ahead.

          • Maybe Hillary should run as a GOP. I think she’d win.

          • I think the number of GOP women running is strategic and a deliberate reaction to the open sexism Hillary & Sarah faced, and their high approval ratings despite it.

          • Maybe Repubs really don’t have promising men to run or maybe it is opportunistic to run women with the sexist climate the “progressives” have created, helping draw new voters.

            Mostly, they are running the kind of women who act more like men than the men themselves. They don’t support women’s “issues” and they are ass kickers (as my husband would say).

            I still think it is good to get more women into elected office if for no other reason than to make the presence of women look natural.

          • I’ve already said a lot about the GOP women the other day so I’ll only say this…

            psssst remember when Hillary was referred to by rightwingers and leftwingers as “a woman just trying to be a man”? Or how it was popular in left blogistan to refer to her as “Joe Lieberman in a skirt” ? What about when Jane Fonda referred to Hillary as a “ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina” ?

            This seems to be a common trope for how people–from both the left and the right and everywhere in between–relate to women vying for power that men have traditionally held.

          • (or “Lieberman in a pantsuit”)

          • I agree with votermom. I think this is a direct result of the sexist abuse heaped upon both Hillary and Palin. And as an old school lefty, I am deeply saddened that the Democratic Party seems incapable of entering the new millennium and embracing women candidates and women’s issues. It’s heartbreaking. But it is what it is.

      • Women winning elections is generally good for feminism, even if the specific winners are not.

        When women reach the point that their gender is not an issue then feminism will have won. The same thing applies to minorities and LGBT’s

        That’s why RD could be happy for that we finally elected a minority POTUS without being happy that Obama won..

        • Remember Hillary’s reaction to the selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP VP candidate?

          She didn’t say anything negative, she just pointed out the historic nature of the pick (second ever) and praised it as a step forward.

          Hillary has class and smarts.

        • Generally, I agree with what you’re saying. I guess my concern is that if women have to pretend that they’re just males wearing a skirt, or if black candidates have to be worried about being “too black”, or if gays have to hide in the closet, then just saying “Oh, look, we elected that person” isn’t enough. To me, it was the people on this website, and a few elsewhere, who truly ignored the barriers by insisting on competence rather than a specific race or gender. But yes, the election itself is a step in the right direction.

          • Sandra Day O’Connor broke through the SCOTUS gender barrier. Yeah, we all wish she was a liberal and that a Democrat had appointed her, but somebody had to be first. Reagan’s motives for appointing her weren’t pure and innocent either – but he still appointed the first woman and she was confirmed and sworn in.

        • Yes, indeed. Sure wish Digby had noticed that 2 years ago.

          These WH dudes were her peeps, then.

          Go away, Digby. You’re tarnished. You’re OVER.

      • All women deserve equality. Until we embrace and defend women who happen to be republican and disagree with us, we can NOT call ourselves feminists. I would rather have a republican woman in office than a democratic man. The later has proven over the last 20 years to have no respect for women and take our votes for granted. You want to continue to support them and they will continue to take you for granted. So if a woman who is a republican, in order to get elected, needs to play the game, I am not going to blame her for that.
        Remember women are NOT in charge of much and certainly not the political system. When we have partity in government you will see a lot less women having to go along to get along.
        Or you can continue to let men divide us and women will never own 51 percent of the political power as they should.

    • Check this out:

      The Department of Homegirl Security

      Tina Brown & The Outrageous Green Monster

      April 15, 2010 by still4hill

      The History

      Although she claims to have been a Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, in the past year we have seen a few articles and comments from Tina Brown that ring odd coming from a self-proclaimed admirer. In summer of last year, for example she published her much circulated article Hillary, Take Off Your Burqa , AKA Obama’s Other Wife. in which she suggested that Obama was keeping Hillary in the shadows, eclipsing her, as it were, and that for sundry reasons that amounted to left-handed compliments to our Homegirl, he should let her take off her burqa. A link to The Daily Beast article by Brown appears in this post: Mean Season at the All-Star Break.

      Tina Brown was later known to comment that Hillary was “…hot, feeling fat, and needed to go to the gym.”

      http://departmentofhomegirlsecurity.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/tina-brown-the-outrageous-green-monster/

      TIna Brown is a FeMANist!

      • Tina is an upper crust media water carrier in good standing. Sort of like Peggy Noonan with a Brit accent and better clothes. She produce whatever is needed with a fast turn around too. What she actually thinks about anything is anyone’s guess.

        • She’s also BFF’s with Arianna–nuff said.

          • Makes sense they would be BFF. They are at the same media/ poltical level…two steps from ” get us some coffee will you girly? ” …I said two steps cause I’m feeling generous today

      • Tina Brown was later known to comment that Hillary was “…hot, feeling fat, and needed to go to the gym.”

        I’ve got the video of Tina Brown saying this here (scroll to the bottom), it’s actually even worse than just that snippet:

        http://letthemlisten.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/psychobabble/

        • Tina use to say she was an admirer of Princess Diana’s as well, as she drove in the knife. An attack is more effective if you say you like the person as you hack away. Tina’s job is to make it all believable & saying you” like ” someone is part of that.

          • What’s wrong with my former ex-girlfriend Hillary Clinton … I will pay Pat Buchanan for a ticket to get her home, because I want her to be my girlfriend again. Joe

            😯

            Tina Brown sat silent while Joe ‘morning nut’ said all those insults.

          • my impression is that they english media is even more viciously stupid than the American. and that is quite a task.

      • I remember Browns anti-Hillary slant quite well.

        Let’s keep it in the fore. And not allow her to backtrack….

    • Spammy got me…whaaaa! 😥

  4. Primaries are a legitimate part of the democratic process and …

    Look a that, Digby went and joined a paranoid band of shrieking holdouts.

  5. Obama’s emulating his hero, Reagan…. he’s determined to bust the teacher’s unions and he doesn’t care much for any other union either.

    • Only thing Obama is determined to do is eat waffles his busting unions is his handlers agenda. Bush had Cheney pulling the strings, I haven’t figured out who is manipulating Obama.

  6. The women were allowed to win cause they will do as they are told, are GOP and dammit, tokens are needed…. stat.

    • Maybe, but didn’t the Democratic women do as THEY were told in the Healthcare Bill?

      Stupakistan ring a bell?

      • Of course by in large Democratic women , as most pols, do as they are told….and not just in the health care bill either . But the GOP needs women now to repair the brand and so they are allowed to be there.imo.

    • Actually, I think it’s that conservative women appear less threatening than liberal women. Their brand of conservative feminism is adapted to fit inside the patriarchy box, while the more liberal feminist viewpoints are often in direct conflict with it. FWIW, I consider myself a more liberal feminist and I’m not knocking that viewpoint. I just think that we liberal feminists have a tougher hill to climb. Still, I’m very happy to see more female candidates, and even better, more women winning at the polls.

      • I think it cuts both ways– I see the GOP women’s detractors say the same sort of trope about them that Hillary’s detractors have said about her, and it comes from all directions, not just one side of the aisle (anytime a woman vies for power traditionally held by men, they get bombarded by the accusation of a woman trying to be a man, just being a tool of the patriarchy or a politcal party, etc. ). Pelosi, who is past the point of vying and has already achieved that power, has actively used that power to sell women out– but I still wouldn’t call her so-and-so in a skirt. Yet, that’s all we hear from the career feminists– Palin is Bush in a skirt, Hillary was Lieberman in a pantsuit, etc.

        What is it about GOP women winning GOP primaries that is so threatening to the Tina Browns? (Rhetorical). Liberal women aren’t going to win GOP primaries, so I don’t know where all this “blow to feminism” idea is coming from. It’s a no-win situation. Would they have been happier if the GOP women’s male opponents had won? (Again, rhetorical; it seems to be the answer is yes.)

        Feminist pundits were far more willing to see a feminist in Obama and have been far more critical of both Hillary and the GOP women for not being the kind of woman who they want to extend power to. Hillary wasn’t the right woman, Palin in particular was no Hillary (not sure why that matters if Hillary wasn’t the right woman), and the GOP women are all the wrong women more generally. (Meanwhile, you’ll hear Chris Rock saying “true equality is the equality to be as bad as the white man.” I don’t agree with that, but at least he’s got a standard that’s achievable.)

        Feminists are writing off real women because they’re expecting them to be hypothetical women. Hillary wasn’t good enough for them, so how is Firorina, Whitman, Palin, or Haley or anyone ever going to be good enough for them? We don’t have to vote for them to be happy when they break a ceiling.

        • I agree with you, Wonk. The problem isn’t that GOP women are running and winning. The “blow to feminism” is that so-called liberals don’t support women or women’s issues. I’m just pointing out that voters seem to be able to look past the misogynistic propaganda the pundits spew when it comes to conservative women, and they vote for them anyway. Whereas Democratic and liberal women seem to take a harder hit from anti-woman propaganda.

          I really don’t understand where people like Tina Brown are coming from. They shouldn’t be complaining about the GOP women winning their primaries. They should be complaining that the Dems keep running the same old white men who don’t support women’s issues and reproductive choice.

          • I’m just pointing out that voters seem to be able to look past the misogynistic propaganda the pundits spew when it comes to conservative women, and they vote for them anyway. Whereas Democratic and liberal women seem to take a harder hit from anti-woman propaganda.

            Before 2008 I did see it more from that perspective, but the voters did ultimately look past it with Hillary; it was the DNC that blocked her. Meanwhile, much of the electorate fell for the smear campaign against Palin during the ’08 election. The media backed her into a corner until she resigned her governorship and started to play them at their own game.

        • Egg-xactly. You hear this all the time on the feminist boards. X is no Hillary. Y is no Victoria Woodhull. Z is no Eleanor Roosevelt. Martha Coakley dies for everybody’s sins so Sestak and Kucinich can get free passes for the same transgression. Nikki Haley is a slap in our faces, we’d be better off with Bsrrett, somehow. He’d be much better for women. This is just not how to achieve influence. Nobody has ever done it this way. Waiting on the world to change and hoping for the day that the One Acceptable Woman rides out of the sea on a giant clamshell while getting the vapors everytime the percentage of female reps threatens to go from 2-3 %, desperately searching under rocks for the one woman in the vicinity to scapegoat and throw every double standard on when we live in the land of Rand Paul and Scott Brown and Barack Obama is only reenforcing the belief that “b—— ain’t $&@$ and we can play them like violins.” And then Tina gets elected to the Senate and amazed that it’s frozen in time and she’s treated like the girl from the 1950’s steno pool. Well, Tina, you’re not from around here, but guess what, that’s how it is for millions of us all over the US who don’t know a single female doctor or lawyer or professional. Yeah, in 2010 little girls, lots of ’em, still grow up like that. Our problems aren’t caused by Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton or Nikki Haley, would be hard considering what a tiny percentage of our political class they represent, and you’re not helping.

    • unfair, you have not given these women a chance. They have to be an improvement over the republican men.

  7. Primaries are a legitimate part of the democratic process and no president (or his men) should ever, ever dismiss them publicly or imply in any way that members of the rank and file shouldn’t have a voice in these decisions.

    LOL! I think the issue for her it’s being done publicly. They are making her job of selling the O shit harder . Really I have only seen press people complain about the media darling du jour when the darling’s actions make mopping up after them a more difficult job. Jane complaing of the extra work Mr. O is giving her . imo.

  8. another reason for this WH to show boat gloat ( which they do sooo well) is their abysmal “coat tail ” track record. They finally have a “win”. But don’t look now, what got her over the line was Bill Clinton and perhaps the fact AK is not a hot bed of Union fever

    • AK is Alaska. AR is Arkansas.

      This is slowly, but surely, becoming a pet peeve of mine.

  9. “Irony” is needed to smooth out the wrinkles. Tuesday night was a good night for women- all women.

  10. Welcome to Obama’s Democratic Party. Where women and working people don’t count and primaries are just one more thing to be manipulated. Where we are none of us American citizens we are corporate citizens.

    • Indeed. Very proud of the Pennsylvania Democrats who figuratively told the WH BOYS (and I mean that in the worst way) to buzz off.

    • I pledge allegiance to the corporate states of America….

      Are we corporate citizens or corporate serfs?

  11. How tone deaf can BO be? It’s mind boggling.

    Why on Earth Hasn’t Obama Spoken with BP’s CEO?

    This is not some run of the mill crisis, of course. It is a catastrophic event, the largest environmental disaster in American history. To add even more context, within roughly 48 hours of the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon it became abundantly clear to everyone involved that because of its equipment and expertise, BP would be intimately involved – functioning, in effect, as a contractor for the United States government – in the effort to cap the well.

    And yet the President, who is the ultimate authority for the federal government’s response to the disaster and who claims to have been on top of this issue from day one, never picked up the phone to speak directly to the man responsible for running BP’s operation. Not once. In fifty days.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/10/why_on_earth_hasnt_obama_spoken_with_bps_ceo_105917.html

    • Looks like BO is voting “absent.”

    • Just another day where Obama tries not to talk to people who are more accomplished than him.

    • I don’t see the issue as whether or not Obama has “spoken” to BP’s CEO.

      I see the issue as whether or not Obama has shown command of the situation and actual leadership.

      And he hasn’t.

      See Jon Stewart of Obama’s handling of the Gulf Gusher and so many other issues. “He tells the public they’re “complicated” and “hard.” What he’s doing is showing us he doesn’t have enough grasp of the issues to explain them to the public.

      Sheesh. Just words. Others’ words….

  12. Obama & friends got away with dissing large parts of the Democratic base in 2008 – mostly because of the Rs reluctance to vote for McCain (He drew 10 million less voters than W).
    So they are now more arrogant and have more sense of entitlement than even W had. The absence of coattails, bad ratings is not phasing them. After all, Obama doesn’t care if Dems lose in November – that will only make his shilling for his handlers easier to justify.
    The Big Pink unearthed a relevant quote

    “Let’s be clear — these are not Democratic voters,” Cornell Belcher, the Obama campaign pollster, cautioned me. “They’re Obama voters.”

    • “Let’s be clear — these are not Democratic voters,” Cornell Belcher, the Obama campaign pollster, cautioned me. “They’re Obama voters.”

      Then those Obama voters should form their own party like Liebermann did.

    • Well, his actions are fazing me! And destroying the Dem brand.

      But, he seems to think he’s all that’s necessary. Grrrr.

  13. Interesting how quickly the tide is turning

    http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/polling-shows-president-obama-isnt-inspiring-much-hope-these-days/19506822?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Farticle%2Fpolling-shows-president-obama-isnt-inspiring-much-hope-these-days%2F19506822&sms_ss=email

    😯

  14. The error for them is that they actually believed, I think, that Obama would only diss the constituencies that THEY also don’t like (e.g. those Hillary dead-enders). Since the bloggers were members of the COOL class, they and the groups they believed in, would never be dissed.

    LOL, all I can say is welcome aboard, SUCKERS!

    • You mean “Welcome under the bus, suckers”

      • I don’t wanyt them under my bus please.

        Any of the buttheads who helped with health care should get to lay in front of the bus IMO.

    • Bingo.

    • Heh, heh, you weren’t cool enough, creatives! Excellent observation. This whole adulation was based on arrogance, sense of entitlement and hatred. Now the chickens are coming home to roost to quote some good friends of their idol.

  15. Oh the squeaky Obama apologist is out in force again over at TL. I want to know when is her (his?) president is actually going to become….well…. the president, you know, the person in charge, the person responsible. Two years obviously isn’t enough.

    But the squeak-mobile is the master of hyperbole and strawmen. It’s quite entertaining. How creative he/she must be.

    What I want to know is, is the horrible cleanup job, the sitting on the ass while Rome burned, and the efforts to suppress the press from the area also Bush’s fault?

    • Whoops, apologies for poor editing that leads to poor verb tenses and conjugations. But hopefully my meaning still comes through.

    • A few of them are obviously bots/trolls. I ignore them. Squeaky (and his other friend)’s mission is to derail discussions and distract from BO’s incompetence.

      • While themselves looking like uninformed ignoramuses. The notion that Obama dropped the ball (either purposefully or unintentionally) is NOT a Karl Rove talking point. It’s for anyone with half a brain to see….of course, that might explain Squeaky’s ignorance.

      • That would likely be the good Cap’n.

  16. Fareed says the WH is “overreacting” to the oil kill and Carville goes off…

    • He’s been such a true voice for LA! Good for him!

    • I see Zackaria is not alone. A meme is born
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061002635.html
      Don’t expect Obama to be Superman
      It ends with “America, grow up! “

        • “Sent here by my father Jor-El to save the planet earth.”

          Postman, please return to sender. Product does not perform as advertised.

      • Expecting Obama to do anything is unreasonable. Please, just let him finish his waffle.

      • Who expected Superman?

        I expect a President to have ideas. Really good ideas.
        Ideas that come from working on issues hard for a long time.

        I expect a President to have Executive experience.To know the ins and outs of how to make everything run smoothly. To pre-empt problems because experience teaches you how to do that.

        And finally, I expect the President to be honest…or at least more honest than the rest of us.
        O fails on all 3.

    • I’m sick and tired of pundits, other MCMers, and Obama backers setting up this ridiculous strawman: that Obama can’t dive to the bottom of the Gulf and fix the leak, etc., and people are being immature and unrealistic to expect to do that.

      Get real: People damn well know no one can “dive down” and “fix’ the leak.

      They do know they have right to expect leadership from their president. A right to expect him to comprehend the nature and extent of issues and to work on making things better. And, if he can’t, to get expertise which addresses the issues.

      But, as we saw with Big Banksters’ and their Meltdown, with Big Health Industry Players and his nice present to them of his insurance reform and profit protection plan, and now, this almost rote reaction to a huge environmental, economic, and societal problem, he just seems unable to manage big issues, make his actions about them clear, or make the issues clear to the public.

      They get it; he doesn’t.

      Zakaria is playing Goor Versailles courtier. He’s also trying to make a bit so sense, but still bobbing, weaving, while bowing and scraping.

    • I guess next they will say what a bunch of whiny people we all are to expect some attention or God forbid some solution. Excuse me, but don’t we need the oceans to breath? Ayup!

  17. Well said, Riverdaughter!! I have not been over to Digby’s since the Kool Aid drinkers took over, but I thought I would check out the comments to the referenced post. About 150 of them and 98% percent were from people who never drank then-candidate Obama’s Kool Aid or who are now definitely off it. Oh, the buyers’ remorse! The hangovers!! Of course, if only the buyers were the only ones suffering….

    djmm

  18. I personally am glad they are being overt about their disdain. At last, the transparency we were promised!
    Too bad it doesn’t have anything to do with policy. Here’s to hoping the unions join the 40% who say a pox on both your houses.

  19. Ha!Ha! I don’t know who “guest” is over there, but good writing

    Come on, everyone. Obama is presented with a historic opportunity here and I don’t think he’ll miss it. He has the potential to disenchant an entire generation of young people through four years of cowardly, non-confrontational kabuki dancing with destructive corporations and insane conservatives. Now sit back and watch the fierce urgency of a man who does not believe in anything but himself.

  20. When Fleet Street talks, Wall Street listens. Bow bloomie defends BP!
    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/bloomberg-leave-bp-alone/

  21. Lol *applause*

  22. RD & Conf & Co. Do I ever have an article to share with you. This is a must read. I stayed up all night twittering my thoughts because what has happened here in CA really does bother me as Dem feminist — ya know?

    I am pissed as you know after years of sending the leading Democratic Women to Washington as a Californian. I am pissed as a feminist that Hillary didn’t get her glass celing and a man won. You know the drill. We all do. But mostly what I am most pissed about?

    Republican women are not what I expected at all. Even though I am very disappointed in Boxer et al for non-support of Hillary and Brazile et al for those comments toward the PUMA group who were dismissed and disrespected — each one of us knew what Hillary went through. We did. As women. To have the courage to get to that place, that stage, that moment when it could have been hers.

    In my state? Jerry Brown knows what Hillary went through. Pelosi screwed him over once. I read about it. It’s snaky out there in the year of the FEMINIST BITCH. Isn’t it?

    The feminist bitch has fucked up the gains post Seneca Falls for guess who? WOMEN.

    In California in the 70’s post Wade — Hillary’s gen worked on that as a cohesive unit. But our gen was divided into feminism by race. Because it was all about getting power — for minority women. As white women it may be that we trailblazed in the workforce because we had gone to college, no? RD and I did. Childbirth and family were not first on the agenda for my gen. (O’s gen) — were they?

    Career and College and Workforce were. How many relationships have we had? Men and Women in our gen? Half our gen wasn’t straight was it? No. But everyone was happily “out” by the late 70’s. See the film “Running With Scissors” and you will recognize tail end BBoom immediately…

    Well? Wonk and RD? I suppose I assumed that Republican Women in our gen struggled with the same issues we did post Roe.
    These included unplanned pregnancies, didn’t they? Those “mishaps” literally MILLIONS of American women and European women went through, no?

    The rubber that wasn’t worn. The choices of birth control? The who what and where of that, no? YES.

    I watched Fiorina flip off Barbara Boxer’s hair. I did. Last year I was appalled at what happened to Hillary. And then again at those C T-shirts. But you know what RD? You might not remember how I told you post-Brazile I was going to investigate the other camp. I did RD. For stances. Stances I felt were universal.

    Not some insane position such as the one Palin took about incest and rape as part of the Lord Almighty’s plan for women that they should give birth anyway. I had to do a lot of diagnosing last year and the year before. Like Boston Boomer — MA Depth. Not Clinical. But, let’s just say that we know whereof we speak?

    In my training? Only a possible incest victim could have made such statements due to a lack of boundaries based on well. Who knows.
    I wrote once about that here — so Conf can see. If anyone remembers that series on the “egg.”

    http://vbonnaire.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/ecopsychology-boundaries-trauma-the-incest-wound-and-shattered-egg-of-the-self-part-3/

    Ask Boston Boomer.

    At any rate I am incensed by the article i blogged about yesterday off the LAT between Boxer and Fiorina on this issue. Incensed at this fight when both Meg Whitman and Fiorina are my gen. Just like Obama. Isn’t it interesting? It is. As regards the tokenism we spoke of yesterday. In Wonk’s piece on “the cracked ceiling.”

    Well it looks like the boundaryless C has attacked one of my fav Dems ever today. Jerry Brown who called Whitman’s hausfrau media blitzkrieg not unlike Goebbel’s form of propagandistic takeover. Well we saw that two years ago too, didn’t we? We did.

    Both of these candidates used the same tactics of target-marketing. They did. It just looks different in its execution and slick packages. Two years later. RD & Conf & Co. This is very problematic for our country, no?

    It is.

    Anyway, i came across an amazing article by chance that I want the Confluence peeps to see. It is actually an analysis of tea party thought? By a great writer. As i read it, my god. It was California PUMA thought. It was! Everyone is going to recognize this, I think. From MIQ on down the line — lurkers and old Conf friends and posters too, like Gary who I miss, dearly. Anyway. Here goes:

    You have to read this RD. OMG. The themes!

    http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/06/californias-angry-tea-party-may-elect-democrat-jerry-brown-as-governor/

    MIQ and I can tell you how fab our Jerry Brown is. We can. He may not be Hillary by god he is ethical. Damn straight. One Dem to another.

    I’m exhausted.

    Love you RD & Conf. fiercely, so. But you guys know that or you should by now.

    The bigly something wrong right now needs a correction by just the pumapeople we have always been.

    This is Dem feminist history we are talking about. For real.
    And we have Viole Socks. Frankly? All Dem women need to get quite loud in this mo. Our party carried Seneca Falls forward.

    ps, Dak — hope all is well, there.

    sends hugs to the fiercest women I know. Confluence women.
    and MIQ hugs, and Rico, and everybody.

    • Whoa.

      There is a lot there and I didn’t follow that whole thread of info.
      Can you condense and get to the nuggets?
      What are you saying?

      • I am not sure, insanelysane, but I think Valentine is saying that voting for Jerry Brown is a feminist vote.

        I agree.

        djmm

      • I am a therapist and Second Wave CA feminist. We had something we thought was called the sisterhood — dissing other women was not part of us? Hillary was milestone for us. Palin/Obama I assesed? For probs early on that we are now seeing. I thought Pepub women played by our code. No. Fiorina in the LAT piece Boxer says wants to jail women and doctors for abortion? The second article.is about repub strategy as in plotting how to win CA? Read it and you will see.
        Hope you got all that. Sometimes I leave one liners and sometimes big research here at Conf. hope ya got my meaning.

        • supporting men over women is not feminist. It’s not. You supported Obama over Hillary didn’t you? You did. I will never forget your writing style. I won’t.

    • I could not get your point and I read the piece twice. Short and simple, what are you saying?

      Didn’t you used to be Icebergslim on dkos?

      • I voted McCain to advance a woman.
        I have never been to Kos?
        Here, NQ an Uppity’s?

        Ask RD.

        I don’t hang out and chat, much. But I read Conf. I met RD when media did what they did to Hillary. Ask around.

        I won’t make that mistake again, Teresa. Like many Democrats we wanted Hillary for all the right reasons. And we are so sad to see what has happened.

        • I recognize your writing style. No one else writes like you do. If not kos, then DU. Perhaps it was Dean/ Clark we disagreed over.
          Glad to hear you supported women, Whitman is a pro-choice moderate. I hope you will consider supporting women again in November.

          • Cheney endorsed Whitman? Nope,
            her media blitz out here is just like what O’s was?
            who is backing her oil $$$$?

            Jerry is an environmentalist and why we love him out here.
            Maybe Whitman can run in PA if you have oil?

  23. you guys — o & whitman target-marketed to “buy” their places?
    big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    do we allow that? no. this is first! it is. our races are not for sale from now on if we are smart.

    I used to work for newspaper? for a long time we have few things i am investigating so sorry if it was wordy/rushed

    xxoo!

    oh what a mess RD & Co.

  24. Teresa O bought the election. Whitman profited off Katrina Goldman Sachs?

    I don’t think CA will accept her Millions as she tries to pull what O did.

    Watch the LAT if you want or the Chron.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: