• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    JMS on 20 Reasons.
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    JMS on 20 Reasons.
    Ga6thDem on Walk to work music
    Sweet Sue on Walk to work music
    william on Walk to work music
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    HerstoryRepeating on Walk to work music
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    Kathleen on 20 Reasons.
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    Kathleen on 20 Reasons.
    bellecat on 20 Reasons.
    JMS on 20 Reasons.
  • 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 2011
    S M T W T F S
    « May   Jul »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Since the last open thread has filled up, please use this one.. Facebook Twitter Google+ Share on WhatsApp LinkedIn
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Tuesday: Convergence, Ladies?

Is there a war on women?  Kalli Joy Gray asked that question of White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer at this year’s Netroots Nation.  Melissa McEwan at Shakesville documented the atrocity here.  Here’s the YouTube video.  You decide:

I like the part where she says something like, “PLEASE don’t bring up Lily Ledbetter. We’re tired of that.”  And then, almost the very next thing he talks about is- Lily Ledbetter.  BUT, Pfeiffer says, Obama is supportive of the Paycheck Fairness Act.  Yes, I can almost picture it now.  Obama, standing at the window at the White House, looking down the Mall towards the rotunda and whispering to Pfeiffer:

“Those poor little things.  That act is never going to be passed.  I wish I could do something for them.  Go, Dan, go  and be my man in Minneapolis, tell them how I, Feminist in my Heart, that I support them.  If only I knew how…  If only I were President and knew how to use the bully pulpit or had enough experience in congress to manipulate legislators like Clinton did or just knew how to exercise the levers of the executive branch with signing statements…or something.”

What I think we are witnessing in this exchange between Pfeiffer and Gray is contempt.  She’s justifiably angry but he is contemptuous.  Why else would he have offered such a lame defense of Obama’s policies for women?  He’s not even *trying*.  Maybe the White House figured that after 2008, Netroots Nation attendees were not too bright.  I don’t think that’s the case.  They just happen to have fault lines and weaknesses like every other bunch of humans on the planet.  They had just suffered through 8 years of Bush.  They wanted a hero.

Ok, nevermind.  That was stupid.

Nevertheless, they are pretty smart people in that room.  Minneapolis experienced a general increase in collective IQ when it hosted Netroots Nation and there tends to be more women at this event than the media lets on.  But Pfeiffer came to NN almost completely unprepared and fumbled when he brought out that tired old crap that the Obama administration feeds to what they think are the stupid masses.  “Lily Ledbetter.  They probably don’t even know what that is.  Whatever.  Why do *I* have to go to Minneapolis??  Everyone else is going to be drinking beer and playing pool this weekend.”

Like this:

The Politico post says criticism of the Obama staffers who showed up at a Georgetown bar to drink beer and relax was limited mostly to conservative blogs.  Well, I am not a conservative but this picture speaks volumes to me.  The shirts came off supposedly, because the staffers got caught in a rain storm and their clothes were wet.  But as you will note, there are a couple women in this pic and their tops are on.  Women don’t take their wet sopping clothes off in public no matter how cold, clingy and uncomfortable they are.  The guys just whip them off.  Not a problem.

I suspect some readers are going to get distracted by the rules of propriety for women in a public place but they would be missing the point.  If you are a working woman, and the women in this pic are colleagues of the men, you know that there are certain symbols that separate the men from the “girls”. The power tie is one of them. This kind of crap is another.  How you are allowed to dress, are expected to dress, does make a difference.  I could care less if they all got a little toasted after a hard day at work.  But when you go out with your female colleagues, you should keep your shirt on.  We can tell from this picture who has the power on the Obama staff and their professional opinion of their female colleagues.  This is what leads to the tone deafness from Pfeiffer and the Lily Ledbetter crap.  Little things, like the ability to go shirtless at a bar, make a difference in your attitude towards the women you work with.  It’s like a bunch of naked guys having a meeting in a sauna.  You can’t invite the ladies.

By the way, when did Obama last go golfing with Jan Brewer or Debbie Wasserman- Shultz?  Last week, Obama, Biden, Ohio governor Kasich and John Boener (R-Ohio) Speaker of the House, did a round of golf, presumably to hammer out some kind of deal (that for some strange reason couldn’t get legislated in public…).  Obama doesn’t go golfing with many women, or at least, *I* never hear about it.

NPR’s All Things Considered read mail from listeners defending the president’s golf meetings that are looking increasingly out of touch in these days of high unemployment and falling wages:

Now on to some other mail. Yesterday, I talked with Peter Finch, an editor at Golf Digest. This, as President Obama, Vice President Biden, House Speaker Boehner and Ohio Governor Kasich prepared to tee-off tomorrow. So, Finch offered some tips for conducting business on the golf course.

Mr. PETER FINCH (Editor, Golf Digest): I think it makes it much easier to approach somebody and to talk to them about things that you want to accomplish together after you’ve played that around.

SIEGEL: Well, Al Arismandez(ph), of Redondo Beach, California, writes to say that he has completed deals on the golf course and he offers this advice: Once you’ve cheered or applauded a successful golf shot of a playing partner, or commiserated with them in a poorly executed one, there is a quick if not deep look into that golfer’s humanity. That’s the kind of insight and understanding that can go a long way, much longer than my tee shot on hole number one.

Hmmm, seems to me that Obama is missing out on a whole lot of female humanity in his golf-business-deal making meetings.  Maybe if he invited more women, they would tell him to STFU about Lily Ledbetter.

So, what does this have to do with the “war on women”?  In one of the biggest battles of the war, the neanderthals won yesterday when in a 5-4 decision in a gender discrimination suit, the conservative men of the Supreme Court told the women of the Supreme Court, and by extension, all the rest of the working women of this country, that the women plaintiffs didn’t have enough in common to bring a class action suit against Walmart.

What’s the big deal, Scalia seems to say.

It’s dumbfounding but I guess you just have to live through it to understand what is going on in the working world.  You have to be one of the women in the department who watches her male colleagues, but NEVER her female colleagues, eat lunch with the new male director every day in the cafeteria.  You have watch your female colleague work her ass off and deliver quality work, go out of her way to stay until 9:30pm at night to get it done, and still watch one of the precious and few promotions go to a guy who essentially has done nothing in nine years.  Hmmm, was he a lunch guy?  Why, yes, yes he was!  Presumably, the manager was able to get a quick look into the humanity of his male subordinate lunch partner as they commiserated over a poorly executed stir fry chicken and vegetables. You’d have to be a female member of a department where all the other females are much more junior than any male member of the department. You’d have to put up with, but never complain about, the sabotage of your agency and authority at work. You’d have to see your promotional opportunities continually lag behind your male colleagues year after year.  You’d have to endure more critical reviews of your work, less praise and still be expected to suck it up and find some kind of internal reward system to keep on going.  You’d have to get used to living in a smaller house, driving a cheaper car and watching your money more carefully.  Don’t even think about golf.  There will be informal meetings and strategizing and divvying up of the pie that go on you will never be a party to.  Get used to it or go home.

It’s not at all surprising to me that three of the four dissenters on the Supreme Court were the only women, Kagan, Sotomayor and Bader-Ginsburg.  What’s disturbing is that the five males on the other side had the nerve to tell someone with Bader-Ginsburg’s expertise that the women of the Walmart suit couldn’t link their cases together because they had nothing in common and the company as a whole was not responsible for the decisions of individual regional managers.  It doesn’t matter that women as a whole at Walmart can’t seem to break through that glass ceiling no matter what they do or how hard they try.

Right there on the Supreme Court we see a microcosm of what’s going on in the rest of the working world.  The three women are the most junior justices; Sotomayor and Kagan because of their tenure and Bader-Ginsburg due to the unfortunate failure of her party to take the White House for decades.  The people in charge on the Court are 5 men who have the nerve to tell the three women that there’s nothing going on at Walmart.  Jeez, why don’t they just shut up and get back to work?  We have to go duck hunting with our buddies.

Well, I have a confession to make.  I hate those 5 men.  No, really, I do.  I could never act as an agent of their deaths but I can’t wait until one of them pops off from some stroke or disease or accident or impeachment.  It can’t come too soon.

And I am swearing off Walmart until they lose a couple of billion.  When the shareholders are screaming for the male executives heads, maybe they’ll institute a company wide gender discrimination policy and rigorously hold managers accountable for violating it.  The male jerks of the Supreme Court won’t make them do it so the women shoppers of America will have to do it.  Even my 72 year old mom is livid.

Unemployment is high, the wars wage on, health care continues to be expensive, people are losing their houses and Obama is still trotting out Lily Ledbetter.  And more and more of us are asking ourselves, how come we can’t have Hillary in 2012?  What better way to guarantee that when one of those five assholes bites the dust that a woman who “gets it” is appointed?  With Hillary in the White House, there are potentially eight years to wait out Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy and Alito, the conservative Catholic lockdown on American women. The way the economy is going and in light of his subpar performance evaluation for the past four years, Obama might not make the cut next year.

Do women really want to take that chance?  What say you, male attendees of Netroots Nation?  Do you want to continue to condemn your sisters to a lifetime of second class status?  Or are you all talk and beer and no shirts?  Can you get over your love affair with Obama long enough to help us even the playing field or are you going to persist in your clueless hostility for “that woman”?

Advertisements

47 Responses

  1. Great stuff. You can really tell the Obots are worried and circling the wagons because a couple of their sites (Balloon Juice and Cogitamus) are seriously policing dissent from the WH line. I made up my mind last year not to vote for BO or contribute to the Dems this year without a serious change, so they can insult me all they want (as part of their brilliant 12-dimensional theory of political manipulation/persuasion by making your opponents even angrier at you). I’d stand up and cheer if HRC or anyone who’s for ordinary people rather than the elites ran against him, so your lips to God’s ear. Thank you!

  2. great post made my day
    also Happy Summer Solstice! 🙂

  3. A righteous rant, riverdaughter!
    I haven’t shopped at Walmart for years; I don’t like the way they treat their employees, especially, the women employees.
    That yellow, smiley face can kiss my ass.

    • I haven’t shopped at Walmart in years either, for exactly the same reason. I also think the way they treat suppliers encourages all the wrong things: sweatshop labor, off-shoring, cheap stuff that ends up in a landfill too soon.

  4. Well I shop at Wal-Marts and do you know how to foil the security cameras? Do you?

    Golf gets you more points than NBL slam dunks. More refined. Cultured. White. Talk about racism!

    Beautiful post but exactly why negative criticism doesn’t work when you are no longer in linear historical time. Time for women to go back to their subversive roots.

  5. Yes. Contempt. She needs to be more contemptuous than he. McDonalds wo’t serve you or let you in without a shirt. Neither will Wal-Mart. What kind of bar is this they are at? I would consider taking my top off if I were one of the women. Now that’s subversive!

    And maybe my entire dress. They are wearing dresses not pants, aren’t they. That’s another give-a-way.

  6. The New York Times is anxious to toss a shovel of dirt on: “Sweeping job-bias suits may be gone forever”

  7. Righteous post!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have never shopped at Walmart. Every woman in America should take the pledge until their policies change. I know, it is hard, particularly when we are under such economic stress, but there are other places with better policies that offer low prices.

    djmm

  8. I am reviewing the majority opinion in the Walmart case. Look at this statement: “To the contrary, left to their own devices most managers in any corporation—and surely most managers in a corporation that forbids sex discrimination—would select sex-neutral, performance-based criteria for hiring and promotion that produce no actionable disparity at all. … In such a company, demonstrating the invalidity of one manager’s use of discretion will do noth-ing to demonstrate the invalidity of another’s.”

    First, they do not understand (willfully perhaps) how very pervasive discrimination is and how rare good managers are. We know that is not the case at Wlamart, precisely because there is an otherwise not explained discrepancy. Second, it is Walmart’s process of allowing managers too much unsupervised discretion that (thus allowing those managers to discriminate) which is at issue here.

    djmm

    • I don’t think managers themselves realize what they’re doing. Most managers are men and they gravitate and spend time with subordinates who are most like themselves. That means other men. They see their humanity.
      Women? They don’t spend enough time with them and they bring Larry Summeresque biases to their interactions. If you don’t think women are as intrinsically smart as a man, you might be more critical of their work than you should be.
      And then there are the disrespectful jerks who just don’t cooperate with women in a business setting. They tend to cost their companies in wasted time and money.

      Sexism costs more than business realizes. I’ve seen it first hand. If you’re an unaccountable subversive sexist, you can successfully set research back by 2 years. Well, alright then. Don’t complain about patent cliffs.

  9. Tweety of all people rings the alarm.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43446307#43446307

    • He creates a problem, behaves in horrible sexist ways and then points out the problem. Nice.

      Well, I guess if the message gets repeated, even by tweety, it is better than not at all.

  10. To be fair, a lot of people hate “that woman” because they see her as no different ideologically from Obama (whom they also hate and who is seen as the direct ideological successor of “her” husband who is probably the President most responsible for the current economic crisis and didn’t do a whole lot to stop the ecological one).

    Wikileaks has shown conclusively that Hillary runs State principally as a lobbying force for global corporations (to say, successfully push back against a minimum wage increase to $5 per day in Haiti, or to help Monsanto pursue policies that have now driven the suicide rate among farmers in India to one every half-hour – not exactly female friendly, no less human friendly, policies).

    It’s not like that’s a different Hillary – she’s not some kind of two-headed Janus who reverts back to progressive form when she crosses the International Date Line. If she did care, she’d resign from the administration on principle (which she could certainly afford to do), but there’s just no evidence to suggest that she does, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    The Wal-Mart case is disgusting; Wal-Mart’s disgusting for a whole bunch of reasons – but it’s also disgusting that Hillary is running around making the world more friendly for Wal-Mart’s specific non worker friendly agenda (along with Boeing, Raytheon, etc.)

    It’ll be a pyrrhic victory for women if they get the right to drive in Saudi Arabia. Though I champion the intent, it’s reported this week that fossil fuel use has brought the oceans to the verge of a collapse we (meaning actually you and me) will witness in our lifetime, and Jim Hansen has now been overheard privately telling people humanity itself has a very slim chance of making it a century if we never ever burn another fossil fuel on the Earth again starting last week.

    Is it unreasonable to suggest that making hay of Favs-Vietor at beerpong is a culturally narcissistic and silly point? Hard to believe that Haitian women give so much thought as to when men should be wearing shirts in bars on hot muggy days as to whether or not any member of their family can afford to purchase one of the shirts they make for $2 per day, and many a spouse in India would just be happy to have their mate above ground and breathing, shirted or not.

    • “. . . who is probably the President most responsible for the current economic crisis . . .”

      You do realize that Bill Clinton has been out of office for over a decade now, don’t you? I guess you think Ronald Reagan was responsible for the prosperity of the nineties, right?

      • Uhmm, yes. Thanks. Not sure why I seem like I’m unaware of my history. Perhaps you don’t believe as I do that socio-economic conditions are often rooted in decisions made years earlier (even as much as a decade or two or three or four)?

        Couple of notes:

        The “prosperity” of the nineties (and whatever prosperity the fewer have enjoyed over the last 11 years as well) was primarily based on bubbles (the tech bubble being Clinton’s gift to us) mainly courtesy of the repeal of Glass-Steagal among other neo-liberal policies pursued under his adminsitration when he quite literally sold the Democratic party to Wall Street and corporations.

        A good history of the Clintons is given by Jeffery St. Clair in his “How Green became the Color of Money” series on Counterpunch. Or you might consult Michael Hudson’s blog.

        Also, the nineties prosperity wasn’t enjoyed by everyone – many were extremely hard hit by NAFTA, they just got written out of the mainstream story.

        Interestingly, Reagan (or really the people behind Reagan) since Reagan was effectively in full blow Alzheimer’s by 1982-83, used protectionist policies (tarrifs, etc.) to help corporate management escape their own incompetence (notably against Japanese corporations) and in spite of his otherwise disastrous policies, some actual trickle-down effect followed accordingly, but no I wouldn’t cite him (or his people) as a model. It is interesting to see David Stockman (who repudiated trickle down then) argue vociferously today for more protectionist policies, or to see Paul Craig Roberts slowly radicalized (he confuses himself sometimes, but he’ll get there yet).

        Lastly it’s been persuasively argued that the inital seeds of the crisis (the swing to neo-liberalism) were laid under Jimmy Carter. (I think I deserve a little counter-snark – so I’d just point out that his presidency was 1976-80 lest you were concerned that I’d forgotten.)

        • I don’t need to read anything – I lived through it.

          The nineties were the longest period of economic expansion in our nation’s history. Although the rich got richer, most of that prosperity went to the lower end of the economic ladder. For the only time in 30 years the gap between rich and poor shrunk.

          • It was all fueled on credit. I’m not certain your lived experience was shared by everyone, but since you seem unwilling to stretch beyond it, so be it.

  11. To be fair, a lot of people hate “that woman” because they see her as no different ideologically from Obama (whom they also hate and who is seen as the direct ideological successor of “her” husband who is probably the President most responsible for the current economic crisis and didn’t do a whole lot to stop the ecological one).

    All I know is, the Powers That Be moved heaven and earth to keep Hillary from the White House….if she was just like Barry, they would not have done so imo . Breaking: Hillary Clinton is not perfect

    • All I know is, the Powers That Be moved heaven and earth to keep Hillary from the White House

      Word

    • It’s not that Hillary isn’t perfect, it’s that she herself pursues policies in service to the plutocracy that are against the interests of middle, working class and poor men and women around the globe (including here at home). America is sliding into neo-feudalism and Hillary is abetting that actively.

      I mean really, c’mon. Do you think knowingly helping Hanes to keep workers in Haitian sweatshops from making a minimum wage of $5 per day while they sew underwear can be characterized as just “less than perfect” as opposed to outright evil? Really?

      And what I really don’t get, is there’s simply no evidence (like from checking Hillary’s Senate voting record) that she’s aligned with working and middle class interests.

      Hillary positioned herself as being on the side of the working class left as a tactical strategy in the primary – but her allegiance was purely to her own win. The working class left was the only group she was pulling with any consistency (Barack was pulling youth, urban centers and the independently minded) but note her campaign didn’t start there. Nothing in her Senate record indicated that she was aligned with them in practice and there’s every reason to believe she would abandon those voters (as DLC candidates have done over and over and over and over), and as she has done subsequently.

      Don’t get me wrong – Obama’s a sociopath and Axelrod is the Democratic Karl Rove. The world would be a far better place if they weren’t in power. But the Clintons taught the Democratic party more than a thing or two about playing hard (and dirty) to grab power, so they can hardly complain because they were bested at their own game.

      The answer to Obama just isn’t Hillary. That’s a delusion that must be countered and abandoned. If you must attach to a person, then it’s Cynthia McKinney or Bernie Sanders, but really it’s to movements instead of politicians. We’ve got to make whoever is in power afraid of us – that’s why so many liberal policies – the EPA, etc. were passed under Nixon.

      • Yeah, Bernie and Cynthia are viable options.

        Do your really believe the crap you spew or are you just here to help dissipate liberal/progressive energies?

        • I believe what I speak and respond to you with fact and argument rather than stooping to gutter speak and avoiding tough questions.

          • You think very well of yourself, don’t you? I guess all of the Hillary voters were just wrong, is that correct? I suppose that justified dumping their votes in the circular file at the 2008 convention. I mean, if they weren’t nullified, Obama wouldn’t have won, right? Why was she so determined to rain on his parade?
            Look, Jake, there’s nothing you can do or say that will make us vote for an unethical, unscrupulous cheating, vote suppressor. Even if you believed they were the same in every other respect, which they weren’t, his refusal to acknowledge the primary voters of Florida and Michigan until it was too late makes a huge, yawning gap between the two candidates that no amount of time will mend.

            Your wasting your time here. Hillary was your best bet in 2008 and will be in 2012. You are free to disagree but it is OUR votes that will be much more important than yours next year. And Obama will never get them.

          • Well, I am a survivor of severe child abuse (I served as an ashtray for my mother for the first four years of my life until someone finally woke up from their delusion and removed me from her care). While drugs (further to your comment to Ian Welsh’s recent post) make my life tolerable, after 25 years of intense therapy, I don’t believe I will ever get to think well of myself.

            But one thing the experience taught me, and I guess a part of my recovery is that deluding one’s self isn’t a great way to go.

            Can I ask, is it really fair to suggest that I’m what uppity because I told someone that “spewing crap” was an inappropriate response to my post?

            Yeah, I’ll acknowledge I have a hard edge, social graces aren’t probably coming to me. But, I’m engaged, I care, I believe we’ve been lied to by the democrats equally as well as the republicans. I can’t reconcile facts about centrist democrats to their actions, and that it’s too late to settle for realistic choices – as I follow the science to the best of my ability, we are perilously on the edge of species extinction.

          • Boo-fucking-hoo.

            You want to compare life stories? I’ll bet I can beat yours.

          • I’m not interested in turning abuse in to a competition, so I’ll decline that particular invitation. It just informs my perspective about the abuse perpetrated on the populace by our politicians and their Wall Street/corporate enablers. Derrick Jensen’s books helped me to see and I guess, own that.

            I hope you have found some peace on the other side of whatever pain you have suffered/suffer.

  12. I don’t think Hillary’s perfect but she’s a heck of a lot better than Obama. She has consistenly supported a better life for women and children.

    As to Cynthia McKinney, you must be kidding.

    I like Bernie Sanders and would be happy to vote for him for president.

  13. What is it about Cynthia McKinney that you object to?

    • She didn’t win 18000000 primary votes in 2008?
      why do you seem determined to write those voters off?

  14. I’m not writing them off – I’m on this and other blogs, in conversations in my office,in my community, etc. challenging the orthodoxy every day, because I believe those very voters care and want better, and if they weren’t clinging to the lies propagated by the Obama machine or the Clinton machine, or whatever horrendous monster the Republicans intend to throw up, we all might really get the change we desire.

    I don’t believe that a true examination of Hillary’s record (of which our mainstream media is simply incapable of providing) yields a portrait of person that any reasonable compassionate human being would want to lead anything – she is in short, every bit as monstrous as Obama and the ilk that support and enable them and that they support and enable.

    And when I provide factual evidence for that claim, it’s like I’m shouting in a wind tunnel. You voted for someone in a primary whom you contend is supportive of women’s causes but that is belied by the fact that she brought substantial pressure to bear on the Haitian government to deny women (and men) an increase in the minimum wage from $3 per day to $5 per day so that Hanes and Levis and other big-name clothing companies could pay their executives and shareholders millions more dollars they don’t need. That’s simply inhuman. And it’s but one of multiple similar instances we know of thanks to Wikileaks.

    Did you know that the U.S. is pushing for savage austerity in Greece (pension cuts, job cuts, public assistance cuts, privatization of public assets like water and telephones, etc.) while insisting that they honor and actually step up contracts for arms purchases from U.S. manufacturers? Hillary is a Raytheon executive’s dream.

    How can you reconcile your claims and beliefs about her to those facts?

    I mean it’s frustrating that people can identify the problems with such precision and then throw logic out the window when suggesting that someone who is so very deeply complicit in creating (and benefiting from) the problems will offer real solutions.

    I know why we do it (so tempting to just believe), but we have to stop pretending that Hillary and other “centrist” democrats who have lied over and over and over and over again are something other than what they tell us they are by the policies they pursue in practice. Redirect our energies and passions to women (and men) of real substance (who practice what they preach) instead of the least bad or the most “realistic” choice that fracks us all over the first chance they get.

    • The “Clinton machine” you are referring to consists of millions of voters like myself who fondly remember the nineties. If you think Hillary is “monstrous” you aren’t dealing with reality.

    • Riiiiight. SCHIP is monstrous. Voting against telecom immunity in 2008 was unforgiveable. Supporting a HOLC agency and mortgage modification when the subprime mortgage market collapsed was uncharitable.
      We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, Jake. We were grownups in 1993 and we know how to read Paul Krugman’s drafts. You’re not even wrong about Hillary. And frankly, I think the country is sick of hearing from your tiny but vocal cohort.
      I know I am.

      • Seriously – how old are you, Jake?

        It really is offensive to those of us who were adults in the 80’s and 90’s to have kids telling us what “really” happened.

      • Again, I didn’t suggest that “we” = “rube”. I just think we have to stop settling. We can’t afford that, literally as a species. You’re a scientist – please disprove to me that the report this week that the oceans on the verge of collapse (in our lifetime) isn’t true. Or Fukushima isn’t worse than Chernobyl. Or the dead zone in the gulf isn’t frightening or Dahr Jamil’s reporting that morticians aren’t finding literally disintegrated organs when performing autopsies on dying gulf residents isn’t true.

        I was happy to be a realist – I grew up in D.C. and was inculcated with the understanding that a little corruption greases the wheel and that Newt ruined that in 1994 when he started allowing congresspersons to adopt intractable positions. But now, I’m persuaded something is fundamentally wrong and broken. Compromise and “centrism” aren’t even a band-aid.

        Or marginalize me. I can’t control that. I make you sick. Fine. I just have my actions, not your response. I fear you’re right that my cohort (as it were) is tiny, because I’m deeply alarmed (which is not a state I would in any way choose if I had a choice). And I ultimately hope that we few are wrong.

        • Marginalize you? You’ve been the center of attention for most of the thread.

          • Yeah, wish I hadn’t said that to give an opportunity to distract from the material questions. Any response to those?

  15. I don’t know what your point is ….I’m guessing it’s : Hillary and Obama are criminals, so vote for Obama? Is that it? One would not last an hour at their level if some accommodation was not made for the criminals elements …but Hillary would get something for the little guy while passing out some cookies to the wolves. Something besides lectures on shared sacrifice that isn’t shared

    • Actually, I think he knows the people here are never going to vote for Obama. His job is to convince people to not support a viable alternative.

      Jake is not the first commenter to show up here who only seems to care passionately about one thing – proving that the Clintons are evil.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: