Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIs Maureen Dowd obsessed with Hillary Clinton or what? Last week, she complained that Hillary spoke "girlfriend to girlfriend" to women voters while refusing to share the pain of being married to a sexually exploitative monster who had made her violate all her beliefs and principles, as Caitlin Flanagan opined in the Atlantic. This week, Dowd accused Hillary of "playing the woman-as-victim card" because her campaign put out a humorous video portraying the last debate as a masculine pile-on (never mind that Hillary herself said she was the focus of tough questioning because she was the front-runner): "If the gender game worked when Rick Lazio muscled into her space, why shouldn't it work when Obama and Edwards muster some mettle? If she could become a senator by playing the victim after Monica, surely she can become president by playing the victim now."
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who quotes Caitlin Flanagan approvingly has lost their bona fides on gender issues. Flanagan, after all, is the woman who calls herself a homemaker while acknowledging that she's never changed her own sheets, who insists that children don't love working mothers as much as they do stayhomes, and who says women have a duty to have sex with their husbands at least twice a week. As for playing the woman-as-victim card, can this be the same Maureen Dowd who wrote in her last book, Are Men Necessary?, that men don't ask her out because she's too smart and successful and will never see 35 again? How's that for painting yourself as a victim of sexism-- which, I hasten to add, Dowd probably is!
You don't need to be Simone de Beauvoir to recognize that lots of middle-aged men would find Dowd too challenging and too old -- i.e., their own age. For applying this rather obvious sociological observation to herself--for permitting herself one unguarded moment and writing what women say to each other all the time--she was publicly taken to task all over the media. Unlike Hillary, Dowd backed down. I turned on the TV late one night and there was Dowd, all sultry red hair and fishnet stockings, gaily insisting to some male interviewer that her social life was terrific, no problems in that department at all.
The more people insist that sexism plays no part in the primary campaign or its media coverage, the more likely I am to vote for Hillary Clinton and I'll bet I'm not the only one. Her poll numbers with women are rising, after all. I think a lot of women are just fed up to here with the sexism they see around them every day at their own workplaces and that their male colleagues just don't notice as they ride the testosterone escalator upwards. Six male politicians salivating to score points, two super-self-satisfied male journalists asking the questions (and what questions!), one woman who has got to know the world is just waiting for her to set a foot wrong--it makes a picture. If you've ever been the only woman at the meeting, on the panel, with your job, at your level, you see that picture all the time, and it's a self-portrait.
While on the subject of Dowd, let me add that I am sick of Hillary being tagged with the adventures of Bill's genitals. What's it to Dowd or Flanagan that Hillary ran for the Senate instead of filing for divorce? At least Hillary isn't a sad doormat like Wendy Vitter and countless other political wives. As long as we are looking at candidates' spouses, what about Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards, smart lawyers who quit work to promote their husbands' ambitions? Nobody criticizes those choices, or says nasty things about those relationships. In fact, we are constantly being told how warm and wonderful these marriages are. Fact is, none of us knows a thing about what really goes on with the Obamas, the Edwardses, or any of the other candidates and their wives. And if it weren't for Kenneth Starr, we wouldn't know about the Clintons, either.
Share this article
Katha Pollitt
Strongly held opinions on politics, feminism, culture, books and daily life.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
all i have to say is: what a waste of a web page!
who f*cking cares about any of this. does this have anything to do with:
1. the economy
2. iraq
3. global warming
????
although i consider myself a feminist, and highly educated on issues of sex/gender (yes, i've read kyra sedgwick)........i have to state that this article is soooooo beside the point. clinton and dowd are just spoiled celebrities, and that's it. just because they are powerful says less about their qualifications, and more about other people who like to gossip about meaningless issues.
Posted by darladoon at 11/07/2007 @ 02:04am
i'll repeat what i've said before:
there is no principle which hillary won't sacrifice in order to get elected. she is the most cynical, two-faced, manipulative presidential contender.......and by a longshot! americans should do whatever they can to prevent her election.
to even address issues such as sexism within the campaign is to willfully and deliberately succumb to the most debased form of critical delusion. as if her gender/sex has anything to do with her qualifications!
she's a shill for more or less center-right policies of the worst kind.
god i hope she doesn't win....
Posted by darladoon at 11/07/2007 @ 02:09am
has anyone else noticed that clinton has not taken a stand on ANY of the most critical issues facing our country over these last 6 years?
is The Nation a progressive journal? well, then, why the overt support for "cheney in a pant suit"?
Posted by darladoon at 11/07/2007 @ 02:15am
Great artice, Katha. It is easy to say that the Clinton campaign is crying wolf about sexism, but too many of the utterances against her betray the sexism just below the surface. And the point about tagging her with her husband's peccadilloes is spot on!
Posted by oneworld at 11/07/2007 @ 06:37am
This is my first message here and I noticed the warning Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Ironic considering so many tirades against Maureen Dowd focus on her status as a single woman as if her inability to land a man negates her right to criticize a political opportunist who has used a man to jumpstart a political career. As I say in this blog post [dowdreport.blogspot.com], Dowd is just saying that Hillary will say or do anything to become President. Maybe some people don't see that as a bad thing.
Posted by Mo MoDo at 11/07/2007 @ 06:56am
Yes, forget all this feminist crap. Will Hillary avoid or seek a war with Iran? That's what counts.
Posted by torquemada at 11/07/2007 @ 08:19am
I find it amusing that:
Anyone could think of wimpy Bill as a "monster" in any sense.
Anyone could ever think of Hillary as a "victim" in any sense: She is a cold, calculating determined elitist. She puts up with her "monster" because he has become her ticket to a possible presidency, along with her own determination to achieve that power.
Anyone could consider Maureen Dowd relevant.
Anyone still buys the notion that men aren't attracted to women like Dowd because they are afraid of the woman's smarts. Thats their excuse. Did it ever occur to some that maybe people like Dowd, with their aggressive nature, defensiveness that demands rejection of ANY assertiveness on the part of their partner as some attempt at dominance, simply turn men off?. Perhaps Maureens suitors are more intelligent then THEY are given credit for, take one look at the chip on her shoulder and decide to seek more pleasant pastures.
As far as ol' Hillary goes, the worst thing that could happen to this country would be her election as president, and it has nothing to do with her gender. Machiavellians come in all guises.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 09:07am
Well, three points...
1. Ms Pollitt's colleague, Ari Berman said as well that the Hillary Campaign (if not directly Her Majesty) was pulling this "sexist attack" thing. (CRITICIZE HILLARY: YOU'RE SEXIST!--- Posted by Ari Berman at 11/02/2007 @ 11:53am).
No doubt if it's useful, they'll use it.
2. Anybody who says "Hillary would have won a Senate seat even if she had never been First Lady" is being a bit optimistic. Her fundraising base for the 2000 Senate run was pure Bill and built from 8 years in the national spotlight.
3. Maureen Dowd needs to get laid....by somebody famous. Maybe by Bill Clinton.
And I don't care if she was a male or female. She's the equivalent of Chris Matthews (who also needs to get laid by somebody famous too).
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 09:13am
She is a cold, calculating determined elitist
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 09:07am
Ok Chip, here's your chance to do hamsterland proud. What were the actual events or actions that you believe earned Hillary the above description.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 09:15am
And I don't care if she was a male or female. She's the equivalent of Chris Matthews (who also needs to get laid by somebody famous too).
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 09:13am
lucky him, his wife is famous
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 09:18am
Chris Matthews (who also needs to get laid by somebody famous too).
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 09:13am
¿Maureen Dowd?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 09:18am
So gender isn't Hillary's biggest problem. Those who don't like her said it was because they don't trust her, or don't like her values, or think she's too politically expedient or phony.
MAUREEN DOWD
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 09:28am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 09:18am
Actually that might work, FZ. They'd feed off each other's desire to be a star-f***er!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 09:44am
"Everyone tries to define Hillary. If you want the ultimate definition, read her auotbiography."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/07/2007 @ 09:38am
No.
Thank you.
Posted by drhammer at 11/07/2007 @ 09:49am
This is , should I say, a rather catty piece.. and I am a woman, btw. Of course, Ms Pollitt postures as if to speak for all women as strategy to prop up her personal pick who used her husband to get her foot in the door as opposed to her own volition, conspired to smear women her husband harrassed--(you know the ones that leading institutionalized feminests refered to as "trailer trash"), who 'stood by her man', with her idiotic nodding and adoring gazes...Who muddies her position on abortion rights, and who postures as a tough macho NeoCon, instead of offering a wise woman's alternative perspective. You know, ms. Pollitt, say like Cindy Sheehan, who you recommend should mind her P's and Q's and stay in her place. Got to say it, woman to woman, you and your elitist defense of the members of your class, make me sick.
Posted by Lil at 11/07/2007 @ 09:49am
it's always makes me laugh how in hamsterland a tiny lie about a little oral in the oval with an other makes you a monster. But a lotta big lies about torture and terror and weapons and war makes you a hamster hero
only the evangelic conservative mind could make that come perversion true
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 09:51am
correction... come true
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 09:53am
i have three specific sexist reasons i cant support her...
1. she authorized bush to go into iraq and has arrogantly refused to take any responsibility for it ("they lied to me." aw...poor emotional female...got scared and forgot to apply reason and that famous woman's intuition? funny how i and many others out in scmukland saw the truth but she supposedly di not.)
2. she voted for the usafascist act - no questions asked...did she even read it? or did she just do what was popular at the time when almost everyone (including her) had lost their heads...
3. as if to show for certain that she is either incapable of learning from history or just plain bought and paid for...she voted to give mushmouth sanction to start another war!
wow! i guess i need sensitivity effin training cause im soooo sexist!
grrrrl power!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 10:21am
Posted by ZERO 11/07/2007 @ 10:26am
here's a couple excerpts from that bill that didn't make it to the TV news
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
I'll bet you a dollar that Jim Webb supports that language too. As do I. Actually ZERO the thing that I'm thinking about at this point in the bush administration is how to temper the backlash. The danger our country faces right now is a such wide swing away from the abuses of evangelic conservatism that we forget that our government still has legitimate responsibilities as described in the above language. In this case the language is focused on Iran but it really applies to any country. Part of the liberal agenda is providing for the common defense and doing so using the mechanisms laid out in the articles. That's not going to stop after the secret service drops the chimp on the white house lawn for the first and last time in Jan of 2008.
As for Hillary, she is calculating, as would expect any successful person to be. All that means is they think the problem through. Face it, she's the first American woman that actually has a chance at the white house. She has that chance after thirty years which were known for a lot of false bravo and fake tough guy bullshit coming out of the republican party. And the last time I checked, if she wins the democratic nomination she has to run against that very same republican party who would be more than happy to continuously point out that a skirt isn't tough enough to man the post.
So trust me bro, I understand why it pisses you off that Hillary does some of the things she does, but I also understand why she does it. It's classic art of war. Know your enemy and know yourself. She's choosing the ground she's going to fight on and she denying her opponents all their usual advantages.
and in the end when all that hamsterland has left to argue is travelgate and vince fosters suicide.... they lose.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 11:03am
And that's a good thing.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 11:03am
Here you go WILL C
In the early 90's, she claimed her medical plan was "not about money, but about helping people" This shows either ignorance of how the system works (unlikely) or a penchant for insulting the intelligence of the average person, since the medical profession, like everything else, is very much about money & subject to market forces.
When confronted with the problem of smaller businesses not being able to survive under the weight of her programs, she said (roughly) "we can't be concerned about the problems of some of these smaller businesses. That SHE would be a substantial part of the problem either never seems to have occured to her.
Her most recent revealing comment was in San Francisco when she told everyone that taking their money would be what was best for them.
Ironically, her refusal to apologize for ORIGINALLY supporting the war is the one thing about her I admire. In this apology obscessed society of ours I found her defense of her actions in the face of all the whining rather refreshing.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 11:21am
It is also perplexing that so much progress has been made in the attemps of women to achieve equality in status respect and pay while the Katha Pollitts of the world continue to complain that the battle needs to go on. Perplexing, that is, untill one realizes that, like an environmentalist in a sterilized world, victory would reduce her purpose to zero. So the battle will ALWAYS need to be fought, long after the war has been won.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 11:28am
Here you go WILL C
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 11:21am
In the early 90's, she claimed her medical plan was "not about money, but about helping people" This shows either ignorance of how the system works (unlikely) or a penchant for insulting the intelligence of the average person, since the medical profession, like everything else, is very much about money & subject to market forces.
So chip, you just said she was ignorant. That would be antithetical to being an elitist. Her desire to proved health care to all Americans would be warm as opposed to cold, and as to insulting the intellegence of the average person, before I comment further perhaps you could explain how market forces effect the illness that takes me to the doctor today.
When confronted with the problem of smaller businesses not being able to survive under the weight of her programs, she said (roughly) "we can't be concerned about the problems of some of these smaller businesses. That SHE would be a substantial part of the problem either never seems to have occured to her.
she said "roughly" the same things that hamsterland says every time you discuss globalization. Now chip, quick question. How would you describe yourself?
Her most recent revealing comment was in San Francisco when she told everyone that taking their money would be what was best for them.
was that also a "roughly" or can you actually source the quote?
Ironically, her refusal to apologize for ORIGINALLY supporting the war is the one thing about her I admire. In this apology obscessed society of ours I found her defense of her actions in the face of all the whining rather refreshing.
Can you site that refusal also?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 11:56am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 11:28am
ever been a woman?
discrimination goes way beyond numbers.
are you white?
go live somewhere where everybody is brown.
maybe then you'll be able to feel a smidgen of empathy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 12:01pm
erplexing, that is, untill one realizes that, like an environmentalist in a sterilized world, victory would reduce her purpose to zero. So the battle will ALWAYS need to be fought, long after the war has been won.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 11:28am
So would you characterize that she is saying progress is being made?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 12:11pm
Frosty
Yes I am unapolgetically white The last time I checked I was not a woman I have spent many days in places where the population is Brown. I have empathy-up to a point. For example, I spent some time working for Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc, once, which explored complaints of racial discrimination in housing, mostly apts, later expanded to clubs, etc. I found the work rewarding (it was volunteer,) UNTILL the outfit got to the point where "business" trailed off and instead of responding TO complaints they went out LOOKING for them. From there its a small step to "inventing" them, I felt, to justify their existance, the point I tried to make above, so I told them I'm out. I'm not into Social Justice, Frost, just real justice. So, yes I know a little of where your coming from.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 12:18pm
I have spent many days in places where the population is Brown.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 12:18pm
the beach doesn't count chip
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 12:21pm
It's evident some posters here believe Hillary to be a phony. In truth, they're ALL phonies. Do any of these candidates honestly have anything in common with the average americano? Are their thoughts truly organic, palavers unscripted and unpolluted by pathetic cant, images natural, strategies free of subterfuge? Do not each and every one of them carry a rubber sword that they unsheathe the instant one of the other moneyed marionettes lets loose a two-bit parry, always ready with an equally pointless riposte? Are they not all for sale and governed by the dollar, which destroyed true democracy the moment it entered the arena of politics? Are the histrionic talents of the clowns on display not obvious to the civilized segment of society, who must see more than a few coincidences between reality TV and political debate? Do we see more chaff or grain when the candidates spar before the lights and cameras? Does the absence of an apotropaic American flag lapel pin signify a man's lack of patriotism? When one of the cast stumbles during a response does it truly indicate their inability to continue with the charade? (Are any of you even aware that Bush is the greatest American master of malapropisms?)
You are taking things way too serious. All of these candidates are for sale, no matter what side of the aisle they come from and their guns are loaded with blanks. They will adopt the most idiotic ideas if by doing so it translates into more votes and cashier their most cherished convictions if there is even the slightest chance they may diminish their appeal. Is it not pathetic to see these millionaires kowtowing to peasants and yahoos, embracing their most infantile emotions and fostering their innate nescience? Is it not tragic to see these self-proclaimed saviors (mostly the Tories) exploiting the worries of the unwashed masses while haunting them with more fears before promising them that you can in fact make a silk purse from a sow's ear? Instead of bringing the truth to light they make every effort to maul, subvert and inter it. And when not running from the truth or evading a question aimed at uncovering it and seeking to discover their interpretation of it, how it applies to the issues of the day and how best to remedy the crisis that have been sowed by the rampant dishonesty, jobbery, logrolling, outlawry, knavery, thievery and other nefarious ingredients causing the Decline of L'America, they simply promise the impossible - and the plebian mob believes it.
Some of these clowns are craven nonentities, others are brown shirts with American flags. And among their allies are browbeaters with Bibles, Puritans with a fear of shadows and an aversion to human joy, bankers who see a silver lining in atomic bombs, freelance creators of insecurity, condottieri well-schooled in racism, avarice, deception and rough-house, prostitute economists and journalists, payrolled pundits, crass cheerleaders equating any unorthodoxy and dissention with treachery, and a gendarmerie of premier morons, who, despite their idiocy and ineptitude, keep the people from actually doing anything significant (like participating actively in government) by bombarding them with threats of and endless array of hobgoblins on the horizon. As a result, chemical consolation, apathy and mindless consumption become the prime occupations of al-Amriki. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, for not all the Little People submit to such a farce. Hence the unleashing of gripes here, many possessing lousy aim, if any at all. There are no doubt moments of well-articulated clarity and sagacity from the depths of the peanut gallery, but the circus goes on without a hitch.
You've got a ticket to the show, so just enjoy it. While participation from the audience is encouraged in the form of applause and allegiance (and enlistment welcomed for the acts of destruction needed to keep the show from being cancelled), no further interaction, involvement or question is asked for beyond the superficial. There is a script to follow here. You are not, and will never be, a contributing writer...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2007 @ 12:22pm
WILL C
About six months ago, and again I paraphrase, I heard NPR report that she acknowedged she was wrong (or duped, thats another arguement) about the war, went with her best judgement at the time, and if people had an issue with that, well, there were "other people to vote for". I don't have exact dates and whatnot but I assume you know I'm not making this up :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 12:22pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 12:22pm
Ok, so when did she refuse to apologize.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 12:33pm
I understood her comment to be in response to those who were expecting such a thing.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 12:44pm
I understood her comment to be in response to those who were expecting such a thing.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 12:46pm
so then Hillary never refused to apologize did she chip?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 12:47pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/07/2007 @ 12:22pm
isn't that true for every nation?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 12:47pm
Sorry for the dupe, BTW yes I know the beach doesn't count as a brown area LOL, and I assume Katha would admit some progress has been made. Have to ask her.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 12:48pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person
Yes, in many it is, but in the US people actually believe they can change the world. It is admirable, but there's a forest out there, not just a few trees. How long until you can text your vote for president?
Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2007 @ 12:50pm
Try to get her to do it, WILL. C'mon man, if you're going to take everthing that seriously, then no, she did not say "I refuse to apologize for my vote on the war". There is such a thing, however as implication: I don't have to watch a dropped orange hit the ground to know its fallen.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 12:54pm
Would it really bother you if she HAD said it specifically instead of via implication?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 12:56pm
Try to get her to do it, WILL. C'mon man, if you're going to take everthing that seriously, then no, she did not say "I refuse to apologize for my vote on the war". There is such a thing, however as implication: I don't have to watch a dropped orange hit the ground to know its fallen.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 12:54pm
so before the orange fell was it refusing to fall and after it hit did you it need to apologize?
I mean what is the implication here?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:01pm
besides that there's an orange on the floor
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:01pm
and somebody should to pick it up before it really gets damaged
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:02pm
Heh Heh Perhaps it is I taking things to seriously. Touche!:)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 1:21pm
Perhaps it is you embellishing to fit hamsterlands stereotype of Hillary.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:24pm
CHIP, what you must understand is....when Hillary voted for war with Iraq...it was part of the "Liberal Agenda"....WILL said so!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 1:31pm
the power to declare war is laid out in black and white
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:34pm
of course a minimal reading ability is required
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 1:34pm
Right...and declaring war is part of the "Liberal Agenda"?
Right?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 1:45pm
Someone gave me Marreen Dowd book called "Bushword" as a gift. I had never read her, and thought I'd like it as I usually do with anti-Bush rhetoric. It was horrible, and full of self-congratulatory little attempts at humor. She was critical of Bush for all the wrong reasons, and came across as pompous and elitist.
But if she needs to get laid, I'd volunteer. For an older lady (by my standards), she is SMOKING!!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/07/2007 @ 1:47pm
WILL, Not that I consider myself one, but what in hell is the origin of Hamsterland anyway. I know rightWINGNUTS, and I made up, if I do say so myself, Leftnuts, but what is "hamsters"?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/07/2007 @ 1:48pm
It's evident some posters here believe Hillary to be a phony. In truth, they're ALL phonies. Do any of these candidates honestly have anything in common with the average americano?
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/07/2007 @ 12:22pm
in truth everyone, including "the candidates" are phonies...you and me included, latinos, gringos, a-rabs, euro-peons, etc, etc...
time and circumstance make liars of us all. the world is perfect in its imperfection and it is the duty of all to perfect it further. perfect in its virtue and perfect in its iniquity! perfect in kindness and perfect in cruelty!
the very process of raising one's self above others, even if endeavored in the purest of democratic ideals by definition seperates one from the comonality of the masses...
what you seem to call for is an impossibility and what you decry is the unavoidable. i guess its all a matter of degree and contextual relativity...beware the fallacy of absolutes...
but then in a country in which "the norm", or "the standard", in terms of consensus of opinion, is indeed a consensus of a dizzying multitude of often exclusively conflicting opposites (DEMOCRACY!), what do you or anyone expect? why not give up on democracy copletely, since it never works the way you (or i) think it should and surrender to nihilistic ayn rand levayan objectivism? plenty have throughout history including most of the neocons...
but i understand, chimi-che...believe me, i understand, comrade...
lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 1:49pm
Right...and declaring war is part of the "Liberal Agenda"?
Right?
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 1:45pm
How else do you defend a liberal democracy against naked aggresion if your prohibited from declaring war?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:52pm
WILL, Not that I consider myself one, but what in hell is the origin of Hamsterland anyway. I know rightWINGNUTS, and I made up, if I do say so myself, Leftnuts, but what is "hamsters"?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/07/2007 @ 1:48pm
hamsters are conservatives, immortalized in story and song by tom "The Hamster" delay. His nick name, a product of his penchant for corruption and sleaze, is best summed up by his own political motto...
If you wanna ride the wheel... You gotta pay the hamster
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:57pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person
I'm saying that it's a sham, no matter how well you think it works. There is no such thing as majority rule. More, it is a terrible idea knowing the characteristics of the majority. But to believe in fakirs and myriad imposters and to think one might actually emerge from the wealthy bunch and do more for the rabble (whose vote means nothing) than for the clients and lobbyists who bought the votes, purchased the air time, scripted the smear campaigns and expect returns for their support, which is a lot more than the simple pulling of a lever. Dollars trump ballots every time, which is why profits take precedence over people invariably.
But what is democracy? The way I see it in Iraq it's about unlawful invasion, killing people, installing permanent military bases, threatening the neighbors and making sure the "democratic government" is obedient to the invader, er, I mean liberator and that the invaders business agents can operate without being hassled by anyone and send their profits back home without restriction. This then becomes a "model for the region". The people living under such a system - in this case the diverse millions of Iraq - are the last ones to have their opinions heard when contemplating the whole enterprise. Why? For obvious reasons...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2007 @ 2:19pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 1:52pm
Again, WILL...good to know where you stand today---
1. You oppose impeachment.
2. You think Hillary voting for the authorization for force against Iraq was "part of the 'Liberal Agenda'".
and 3. You have to defend neo-Nazis like MARKCANYON from my "selectively edited" misconstrueing of his support for the Holocaust.
This is turning out to be great day....heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 2:26pm
I find it interesting and/or sad that Darladoon's replies were more interesting and more prescient than those of the person being paid to write the column. I think on the subject of Hillary, Ms. Pollitt is a knee-jerk reactionary, to the detriment of her otherwise usually enlightening commentary.
Posted by Steve1us at 11/07/2007 @ 2:35pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/07/2007 @ 2:19pm
indeed, chimi che! but in beyond the well deserved cynicism there is yet hope. amongst the pandering gamers who vie for the imperial purple there yet exist a few honorable souls, some of whom have indeed been forced to sell little chunks of theselves from time to time in hope of getting the opportunity to brave the assasin's bullet or slanderer's lies and endeavor to do something, if only one great thing, to change things for the better, to sit in the palace throne an shout out "free at last" and turn on his tormenters to laugh once and heartily before darkness descends...
such has it always been to one extent or another - camelot is a sweet lie, the fantasy of some dimly remembered fairy land from before we were born that never existed outside our dreams and never shall.
all the more reason to redouble efforts to bring it into being!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 2:37pm
Posted by STEVE1US 11/07/2007 @ 2:35pm |
actually ms pollitt's blog contributions are usually top notch if infrequent. i disagree with here premise here (for the first time i can remember) but still...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 2:44pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/07/2007 @ 2:19pm
sure, things are messed up in the u.s. and here, too.
but hey, they still made #8 on the U.N. Human Development Index.
canada #6
cuba #50
colombia #70
china #81
pakistan #134
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 2:59pm
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 3:17pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 2:59pm
FZ, CHIMI is the exception that proves the rule on "Hate America" stereotypes thrown at the Left.
He does.
He claims he doesn't, but then goes on for paragraphs about how rotten Americans are (not just Bush or the present governmental system, but the WHOLE culture).
Of course he keeps his American citizenship...Colombia goes to the dogs or the trust fund runs out, he has to have his "escape hatch"!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 3:59pm
It would be wonderful for Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh.---Posted by FREIHEIT 11/07/2007 @ 3:56pm
I've said that too. FRANKGRITS, like the Ditto-heads, thinks that Rush would "hate" having Hillary win in 2008, while the truth is the exact opposite. His ratings, slumping from 7 years of "playing defense" (of Bush and the GOP Congres) would get a boost.
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 4:01pm
Ms. Dowd is hot, period. The Sultry red hair and fishnets line was especially pleasing, thanks. I take nothing else away from this silly piece, but thanks again for the imagery.
Posted by phillymark at 11/07/2007 @ 4:20pm
Yes, I meant to say silly piece...
Posted by phillymark at 11/07/2007 @ 4:21pm
it is hard to figure out Pollitt. defending Hilary 'cause not only "the boys", but, God help us, other distinguished female members of liberality/progressivity are out to get her "'cause she's a woman". what? is she going to come to the defense of Ann Coulter too 'cause she drives all the men on the left crazy and they attack her with an all out frenzy bordering on rabidness?
fine, she can defend who she wants, all the while wasting valuable Nation space at the same time. if she thinks this election is all about "can a woman reach the top political office in the land over the inherent sexism of everyone?" rather than "who will be the best at leading us out of this apocalyptic mess we're confronted with?", she needs to resign her job immediately, and go back to the ghosts of Friedan and Simone de B to talk about the new "medieval" days, and how they're so much like the old "bad" days. at least then her point of view would be appreciated.
or maybe Pollitt should just go ask her boy, Hitchens, how he & the godless crowd see it. i suspect Christopher would rip Hilary such a new one that Pollitt might even be scared enough by it that she would turn to God itself. you know, that ultimate sexist pig himself.
now then we might have something...
Posted by Scrub at 11/07/2007 @ 4:39pm
MASK,
You are a licensed idiot.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2007 @ 4:39pm
FFFFRRRRRRrrrr. Saucer of milk for Table 3!
Posted by J. Felix at 11/07/2007 @ 4:43pm
i actually agree with mask that rush would like hilary to win. it would reenergize his whole schtick. i turned into rush this morning as i do from time to time just to keep track of him a bit, and...lo and behold...rush was still talking about hilary's performance in the debate OVER A WEEK AGO. rush is obsessed with the clintons, talks about them ALL THE TIME. it keeps his base roused up and ready for war. with hilary in power, his ratings (and his money & wealth) would zoom straight back up the charts.
Posted by Scrub at 11/07/2007 @ 4:46pm
Katha sinking her claws into Maureen Dowd because of Dowd's fork-tongued skewering of our potential new Queen of Mean, "Bitch Clinton", is priceless.
I fully concur with the comments of Darladoon:
there is no principle which hillary won't sacrifice in order to get elected. she is the most cynical, two-faced, manipulative presidential contender.......and by a longshot! americans should do whatever they can to prevent her election.
to even address issues such as sexism within the campaign is to willfully and deliberately succumb to the most debased form of critical delusion. as if her gender/sex has anything to do with her qualifications!
she's a shill for more or less center-right policies of the worst kind.
So Katha, how about sinking your teeth into something more meaningful than Dowd's derriere?
And another thing.......
I love the vitriol-filled treats that are occasionally sprinkled here by the inimitable "Chimichenga", but I'd like him even better if he'd share more of his knowledge on the topic of US imperialism etc... instead of his typical ejaculations of inspired rage against "al-Amriki".
Come on Chimi, tell us more about the documentaries of Adam Curtis, or other valuable sources that alert us all to the larger reality of the age of propaganda in which we all live, not just L'America.
If you can work them into your passionate pastries of prurient, peurile pathos --if I may infer some sympathy for us poor Americanos-- you may discover a more balanced confection of bitterness and light.
Bring it on you deliverer of delightful delicacies of detriment.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/07/2007 @ 4:58pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 3:59pm
i love che's america hating and insulting rants...especially when he goes too far.
i think we have indeed devolved into arrogant self important trivialized morons who worship our own stupidity and need constant psychic slapping of the chimi variety.
like those idiot appealing hardees comercials glorifying male stupidity narrated by that guy who sounds like a stoner taking a crap...jeez that crap irritates me. where's a terrorist bomb when you need one? (like at a britney concert or american idol taping?)
and as long as we can do our jobs and continue having champagne dreams and caviar spoogings...our murdochian neocon overlords are happy and plotting to send our dumbass patriotic dumbass kids to die for their profits, marching off to some dumbass country music "gawd bless the yu...esss...aayyyy!"
oh god that felt good!
yeah, we need more america hating lefty rants!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 4:59pm
Chris Matthews (who also needs to get laid by somebody famous too).
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 09:13am
¿Maureen Dowd?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 09:18am
NO, ANGELINA JOLIE...
In "Alexander," she's the mother of a megalomaniacal warmonger/dictator. In "Beowulf," she's the mother of the monster....
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/07/2007 @ 5:00pm
Maureen Dowd's relevance ended for me long ago. I place her in the same self-important category as I do Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Give me Gwen Ifil, Katha Pollitt and Amy Goodman. And give me President Hillary Clinton.
Posted by bbl at 11/07/2007 @ 5:03pm
How else do you defend a liberal democracy against naked aggresion if your prohibited from declaring war?
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 1:52pm
THE ONLY "NAKED AGRESSION"...
Is what's being perpetrated by our Emperor with No Clothes....
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/07/2007 @ 5:08pm
I've bloviated plenty about my views of US domination of the world, forcing its decaying hand into every nook and cranny possible if only to extract more fodder for the Northern Fiesta to the detriment of humanity, which it often blackmales with the threat of war should it not truckle and bow down before the Great Colossus. While there is much that amuses me about the US, the hypocrisy and absurdity have reached new heights (lows) and revolt against - even disaffection with - the rudderless nation constantly reminding the world in words of its greatness and puissance (instead of by deed and example) only remind us it's a slowly falling star in the vast and infinite sky.
I think the American people have failed miserably in their role as citizens of such a powerful and putitively free nation. The top 1% of the land control almost 90% of the wealth, yet people still talk of equality. Peace is apparently desired by all, yet war (often slapdash) is the only panacea being produced by Washington these days. The country is amusing itself to death while their very existence is being dismantled piece by piece, all in the name of freedom and security. The US is a nation asleep behind the wheel - nay - it is a nation that's riding shotgun with the devil, though of couse there's a Bible in the glovebox. When half the people between the ages of 18-24 can't find New York on a map of their Great Republic, you can't expect much else in the form of wisdom and awareness. This is what most disturbs me - that the next generation is going to be even more ignorant, individualistic and destructive when not getting its way. For the US MUST have its way. American Privilege is a divine right...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2007 @ 5:23pm
Posted by BBL 11/07/2007 @ 5:03pm
yeah, i love her vote that enabled bushco to invade iraq, implement the usafascist act, and then all these years later...authorizes moron to attack iran...
yeah...hilly is the big answer...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 5:28pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/07/2007 @ 5:23pm
if you can find a good pirated version of it - find and watch mike judge's idiocracy...
satirizes american stupiity...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 5:32pm
Again, WILL...good to know where you stand today---
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 2:26pm
1. You oppose impeachment.
you were quite confused about that. Glad I could help
2. You think Hillary voting for the authorization for force against Iraq was "part of the 'Liberal Agenda'".
nothing new there. except maybe for you cumbuckets.
and 3. You have to defend neo-Nazis like MARKCANYON from my "selectively edited" misconstrueing of his support for the Holocaust.
I just thought maybe you could come up with something more original then Mark Goebbels. While yes it's true that you habitually make shit up to get out of actually defending a position cumbuckets. Your just not very good at it
so thanks for making my work here easy. This is turning out to be great day....heheh
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 5:56pm
Is what's being perpetrated by our Emperor with No Clothes....
Posted by W_M_BEAR 11/07/2007 @ 5:08pm
yup, a clear crime against peace
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 5:57pm
futureamerica [tinyurl.com]
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 6:03pm
Could you please stop with the goddamn anti-male hysteria?
Lil' Katha whines about how men thrive on the job, etc., but does she ever take stock of the other inequalities in male-female relationships?
It is the guy who still, at this late date, is expected to ask the woman out on a date. It is he, not she, who risks rejection. (How about a little equality in that department?)
It is the woman who has sexual veto power, the woman who has power to deny pleasure. Caitlin Flanagan (and Laura Schlesinger, for that matter) are right: women should put out a little more often. We all do lots of things we don't necessarily want to do, but we do them to facilitate harmony in relationships.
Men, not women, are judged by how much money they have in the bank. Men, not women, are "success objects."
A beautiful woman has the whole world kissing her ass. She only needs to giggle, to smile, to get ahead in this world. The man has to have brains and talent, invent something or come up with the theory of relativity.
You see how this little game of interminable whining can be played out?
Posted by Adscititious at 11/07/2007 @ 7:26pm
Maureen Dowd is sometimes right on target, but more often than not her sarcasm gets the better of her and she ends up doing more harm than good. I think Katha Pollitt correctly calls her on the overkill evident in her piece in the Times about Hillary.
As many of the commenters point out, Hillary is far from the ideal candidate for most progressives, but it now seems pretty clear that she will be the Democratic candidate for President. That means, I think, that Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, and all of us who realize that any of the neocon-spouting Republicans would be far, far worse than Hillary, need to start lining up behind her, maddening as that may be to some among us.
In 2000, Maureen Dowd decided Al Gore wasn't cool enough for her and wrote many nasty columns about him. I don't think the many nast columns she has written about Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld in the intervening years quite absolve her for having helped put that crowd in office.
Posted by Bob Carmody at 11/07/2007 @ 7:27pm
There is EVERY reason in the world to despise Hillary Clinton.
1. She wants everyone to be forced to give HMOs & insurance companies all their loot. (Remember Little Miss "Managed Care"?)
2. She voted for the Iraq War.
3. She smooches the buttocks of the Israeli Lobby.
4. She "stayed with her man" in a most shameful way.
5. Big corporate money & big corporate media want her to win.
If The Nation had a shred of decency it would write an editorial telling her to fuck off.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/07/2007 @ 7:31pm
ourfate [tinyurl.com]
mike judge is a genius!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 7:32pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 4:59pm
I wouldn't mind it either, IBB....if the guy lived up to his OWN standard.
But as he sits around lounging in Medellin, ranting about how "Americanos es muy stupido"....all the while holding tight to HIS American citizenship as a "back-up plan"....I smell a big heaping loaf of HYPOCRISY pandebono!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 7:38pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 5:56pm
Anybody is free to go to "Five Questions for Clinton" and see if it's as simple as WILL didn't like my little nickname for MARKYMENGELE....
or if he tried to say that I somehow "selectively edited" CANYON's endorsement of the Holocaust, thereby trying to make ME the bad guy for calling a Nazi sympathiser what they are.
WILLogic simple...Oppose all MASK posts, even where he goes after anti-Semitic bigots!
Brilliant as usual, WILL!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 7:41pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 7:38pm
yeah sure...hypocrisy...
but thats whats so great about this country, mask!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 8:13pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 7:38pm
enjoy your...EXTRA BIGASS FRIES!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 8:16pm
MASK,
You really are a hangdog. While I can tolerate a circus, I don't care to live in one. Maybe I see impotence in your genteel lifestyle and crass desires to mimic some kidney of cinematic fantasy. Maybe I don't want to live a life of intermediate death -keeping upset with the Jones' in a place where everything has a price tag and the market rules supreme.
Call me a professional grouser, but you can keep your little realm where security lurks in the shadows and lays waste to your laws - and the liberties those laws once protected. You are a nation frightened by shadows, fearful of betes noires and burglars in the closet. And to distract you from the dismantlement of your country which is occuring while you lock your doors and close your curtains infested with fear, you are sated with every species of bauble that not only often undoes your capacity to think, but aims to provide pleasure, another repressive force. You are the society Aldous Huxley depicted in Brave New World.
When you and others like you speak here I feel like I'm in a zoo where the caged anthropoids can talk - often boasting of the kindliness of the cagers who clean up after them and feed them three times a day, not to mention provide a tire hung from a rope to swing on when the urge presents itself. What is worse, there are others worse than you who boast even more, going so far as to clamor for more power to the cagers so that they can take better care of their menagerie.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/07/2007 @ 8:19pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/07/2007 @ 8:19pm
check out my links above - esp. the first one...
i think you will appreciate...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 8:42pm
I agree with you 90% of the time, however, can the other Democratic contenders (male) criticize Hillary about her sometimes obvious pandering, and not come off as "pilers on"? Thank you. Howard Ehrlickman
Posted by howie at 11/07/2007 @ 9:09pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/07/2007 @ 8:19pm
CHIMI, you're like the former Catholic atheist...who keeps is old priest's phone number handy to give to the paramedics in case you need last rights.
Lots of talk about the idiocy of the believers, the fallacy of theism, corruption of the Church, etc., etc., etc.
But the number of Father Brian...still in your wallet.
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 9:36pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 7:41pm
Anybody is free to go to "Five Questions for Clinton" and see if it's as simple as WILL didn't like my little nickname for MARKYMENGELE....
I encourage it...
or if he tried to say that I somehow "selectively edited" CANYON's endorsement of the Holocaust, thereby trying to make ME the bad guy for calling a Nazi sympathiser what they are.
just so you can see how a neo-nazi magically become a nazi sympathiser...
WILLogic simple...Oppose all MASK posts, even where he goes after anti-Semitic bigots!
and then rapidly degrades into an anti-semetic bigot...
Brilliant as usual, WILL!
the later of which cumbuckets could have accurately stated in the very beginning if she weren't a pathological liar.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 10:35pm
better luck next time cumbuckets
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 10:35pm
Sorry, but Dowd is more right than Hillary. All this crying about gender is enough to make independent women like me puke. I would ask the writer to imagine Nancy Pelosi carrying on the way Hillary has. It is a real problem that Hillary refuses to answer questions and plays these cute little 90s style games and then expects to waltz to the nomination. And why should she. she has yet to prove why other than nepotism. and we all know how things have turned out the last time we elected someone on nepotism alone and did not press for answers to hard questions. Hillary is widely viewed as having an easy ride by the media the whole campaign. Nothing is done to make her wrinkle her brow. She gets one night where she is pressed to answer questions she insists on playing games of duck and dodge with. Her rivals press her on issues and substance legitimately. So, she fluffs one question. the whole thing would have been forgotten in a day. Her actions for a week following this is what makes people question her ability to be president. If she gets this rattled over one question on one night, what will she do if nominated and facing the gop? Is she going to send bill out to beat up on some hard case foreign leader who does not bow down to her majesty? Shame on you for hiding behind gender as well. any self respecting woman who is successful and intelligent should be appalled by the cheap gender games she played this week. she made herself look weak. And she doesn't handle pressure with the grace and elan that Pelosi would have. You know nancy pelosi, the most powerful politician(who happens to be a woman) in Washington???
Posted by vwcat at 11/07/2007 @ 10:49pm
mike judge is a genius!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 7:32pm
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 10:54pm
Yeah, we know Nancy Pelosi. The one who doesn't believe in the impeachment provision of the Constitution. The one who has done almost nothing to force the troops out of Iraq. The one who opted for facial cosmetic surgery. The one who lives in the nicest section of San Fran because hubby is a successful financier.
You're right about Hillary Clinton, though.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/07/2007 @ 10:58pm
It's a real shame that there is a coterie of dopey posters here -- one suspects that this message board is their first home. Really, someone should tell them to carry on their private chatting elsewhere.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/07/2007 @ 11:00pm
And she doesn't handle pressure with the grace and elan that Pelosi would have. You know nancy pelosi, the most powerful politician(who happens to be a woman) in Washington???
Posted by VWCAT 11/07/2007 @ 10:49pm
Dear V-dub,
Your post was going along quite smoothly I thought until that last bit. Let's see, you've got "Pelosi", and "powerful politician" in there......
....how about "principled".....No?
Exactly, she lacks principle. Like that which is required to uphold her sworn oath to the highest law of the land --i.e. that dusty old document "The US Constitution".
But you were doing beautifully for a moment there.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/07/2007 @ 11:07pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 10:54pm
EXTRA BIGASS TACO!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 11:09pm
katha pollit is the guest on tomorrow's "fresh air" on npr.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 11:11pm
>
What's the topic? "Misandry in America?"
Posted by Adscititious at 11/07/2007 @ 11:18pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 11:09pm |
that's a movie i may even watch (usually just watch toho's godzilla fare)
your clip reminded me of this [youtube.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 11:22pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/07/2007 @ 11:22pm |
oh man...thats a great one...just not on certain "college substances"...lol, though better than eraserhead...whew!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 11:54pm
by the way...idiocracy is a very subversive film...produced by 20th century murdoch fox, then kind of underpromoted once they realized how subversive it was...
makes me want to own a copy!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/08/2007 @ 12:11am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/07/2007 @ 11:54pm
oh, no. pure genius.
Brasil
Meu Brasil brasileiro
Meu mulato inzoneiro
Vou cantar-te nos meus versos
Ô Brasil, samba que dá
Bamboleio, que faz gingá
Ô Brasil do meu amor
Terra de Nosso Senhor
Brasil! Brasil!
Prá mim... prá mim...
[daniellathompson.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 12:35am
Thank you for this commentary. I love some of the reactions - first when another blog implies that the Clinton campaign is using gender the reactionaries cheer, then it's pointed out that she's really not playing that card and the same crowd calls it a waste of our scarce journalistic resources.
It was quite a buzz that the media manufactured after the debate and the "pile-on" video, but that video (and the accompanying campaign e-mail) did not assert anything about gender; its brief point (in humorous clip, with string orchestra) was that the other candidates were primarily there to talk about Hillary (which is a pretty apt narrative of the debate). I'm sure some supporters mentioned gender afterward, but that's hardly Hillary "playing the gender card." I don't think there's anything wrong or surprising with Geraldine Ferraro championing Hillary as a women fighting a crowd of men, but that shouldn't be confounded (or reported) as Hillary's position on the debate or the campaign. Dowd's voice in this chorus is bizarre if not surprising but there were plenty willing to hum along.
In all of the hubub the only actual reference to any statement of Hillary's I heard made (which was early-on obscured by the general hyper-spin) was a lighthearted comment made when she was speaking to a predominately female audience at Wellesly, and even in that context I do not think she linked anything about gender to the previous night's debate.
I'm not sure there's any way to prevent little mis-info-storms like this from spawning and spinning out but it's nice to see Ms. Pollitt identify the facts. If anything shows that sexism is playing a role in this election it's how many pundits and bloggers were (and are) climbing over one another to blame Hillary for a gender-related statement she didn't even make.
Posted by ccorbell at 11/08/2007 @ 03:00am
I'm not sure there's any way to prevent little mis-info-storms like this from spawning and spinning out but it's nice to see Ms. Pollitt identify the facts. If anything shows that sexism is playing a role in this election it's how many pundits and bloggers were (and are) climbing over one another to blame Hillary for a gender-related statement she didn't even make.
Posted by CCORBELL 11/08/2007 @ 03:00am
maybe,
but her people press-released to their people after having focused grouped 93% of pollsters.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 08:10am
"being married to a sexually exploitative monster who had made her violate all her beliefs and principles"
Like Hillary has any principles.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/08/2007 @ 09:06am
Like Hillary has any principles.
Posted by ABELL12CT 11/08/2007 @ 09:06am
sure she does,
principals with interest.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 10:37am
::Posted by CCORBELL 11/08/2007 @ 03:00am | ignore this person:: Thank you!! I thought I was taking crazy pills or something...this whole "gender card" thing has been fabricated by the media and pundits alone. Not that Hillary has my vote...but let's be real people.
Posted by jro555 at 11/08/2007 @ 11:36am
http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/08/15/cfr-stacks-the-deck-with-both -democrat-and-republican-presidential-candidates
Posted by chimichenga at 11/08/2007 @ 11:44am
I keep reading a lot of allegations of sexism...I watched the last debate, and didn't see a single smidgeon of sexism. HIllary herself admitted she was being attacked because she is the frontrunner (according to biased media and meaningless national polls with error margins too embarassing to mention, but hey, whatever!). I get the feeling that there are a large number of women out there who feel that any criticism of her candidacy amounts to sexism, and that really worries me. I have yet to read anything from a major outlet alleging racism against Obama's critics...why does it work that way for Hillary?
She is not the best candidate. As someone else mentioned, she is basically "Cheney in a pant suit." (Is that a sexist statement? God I hope not!)
Posted by nicholasR at 11/08/2007 @ 12:01pm
DARLADOON wrote- >>i consider myself a feminist, and highly educated on issues of sex/gender (yes, i've read kyra sedgwick)...<<
One suspects DARLADOON's dismissive name-check was supposed to be of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, the gender studies and queer theorist, perhaps best-known for her essay "The Epistemology of the Closet."
If actress Kyra Sedgwick has authored critical theory texts of which I'm not aware, please edify me--and all of us. Or, if that's not the case, maybe next time think twice about trying to take Pollitt to task for a focus on "spoiled celebrities" when you can't even tell your movie stars from your distinguished professors.
For more on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, whose work remains powerful and important despite never having appeared on a red carpet, try starting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Kosofsky_Sedgwick
Posted by MAXIMUMETC at 11/08/2007 @ 12:49pm
http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/08/15/cfr-stacks-the-deck-with-b oth -democrat-and-republican-presidential-candidates
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/08/2007 @ 11:44am
Thanks for the link, "Che".
Excerpt:
"The 2004 Democratic National Convention may be remembered most for a young and energetic senator that immediately drew comparison to the Kennedys. Obama's speech launched his name and image into the public spotlight, and his fresh style of rhetoric filled a growing anti-war political void - He voted against the Iraq war and wasn't afraid to criticize it's handling. Excitement and support for the senator eventually snowballed into his current presidential campaign. He enjoys a popular image as a liberal democrat, and his harsh criticism of the Iraq war has earned him support from a population united in it's discontent with the current government. To a select crowd of Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. To other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new middle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with several lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US militarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obama makes his foreign policy goals clear - and he is not anti-war....."
In perusing the book store I've noticed the series of ring-kissing essays that's been appearing in Foreign Affairs by a cluster of the front-running candidates including the one by Obama.
It has become, of course, a virtual prerequisite to quietly pay your respects to the Corleone's of the Capital.
What is new of late is the astounding rapidity of the privatization of critical government functions including a huge chunk of homeland security. Those who discount the danger of such crude figures as former CIA rendition champion, Cofer "the gloves are off" Black, heading the newly formed intelligence branch of Blackwater Inc. are either incomprehensibly naïve, purposely deceptive, or just plain dirt-stupid.
The terrain we're now entering is something new in the annals of human experience because of the convergence of big corporate power on an unprecedented scale in conjunction with the explosion of electronic surveillance technology.
Add to the mix growing geopolitical instability due to dwindling oil supplies, and the spectre of unexpectedly rapid ecological devastation due to the effects of global warming --e.g. the latest data on the shrinking Arctic icecap-- and the puzzle pieces for a dystopian future are accreting almost magically before our eyes.
No one should be in panic mode, but neither is denial an option at this critical juncture. As the infamous ice queen, Condi Rice, is so fond of saying, "the Chinese character for crisis also means opportunity."
The question for us is "Whose opportunity exactly?"
As John Perkins says at the end of his critically important and fascinating book, 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman', "We must commit ourselves absolutely and unequivocally to shaking ourselves and everyone around us awake."
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/08/2007 @ 12:51pm
One suspects DARLADOON's dismissive name-check was supposed to be of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, the gender studies and queer theorist, perhaps best-known for her essay "The Epistemology of the Closet."
If actress Kyra Sedgwick has authored critical theory texts of which I'm not aware, please edify me--and all of us. Or, if that's not the case, maybe next time think twice about trying to take Pollitt to task for a focus on "spoiled celebrities" when you can't even tell your movie stars from your distinguished professors.
Posted by MAXIMUMETC 11/08/2007 @ 12:49pm
I'm absolutely certain that you're not the only one who noticed that amusing hiccup. But I'd also wager that it is significantly more probable that Darladoon is aware of her faux pas than you are of your snobbery.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/08/2007 @ 12:59pm
Ms. Pollitt - That article was dead on! Keep up the good work. You are brilliant. Yes, of course there would be issues with a Hillary Clinton presidency and she wont necessarily be getting my vote in the primaries. However, the sexism and invective should be analyzed and addressed.
Posted by citylady at 11/08/2007 @ 1:19pm
Correction:
Blackwater Inc should have read Blackwater USA.
The name is, of course, a bit of not so subtle propaganda, giving one the impression of a patriotic American firm and paving over the fact that many of the hired gun mercenaries --the firm's central mission is, above all, to profit from disasters and the new climate of fear-- hail from places like Chile and South Africa for example.
It's prime time to wake up and smell the fascism, people.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/08/2007 @ 1:24pm
Why do I usually see the same posting names here over and over?
Posted by Lenny Bruce at 11/08/2007 @ 1:50pm
Why do I usually see the same posting names here over and over?
Posted by LENNY BRUCE 11/08/2007 @ 1:50pm
It's not the frequency that counts, but the quality.
I would encourage anyone with some interesting insights to pen some posts here, Lenny. Admittedly, stale air often accumulates here on these Nation blog comments much like it probably does most anywhere from time to time.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/08/2007 @ 1:59pm
Lenny, perhaps you see the same posting names because these people have no life?
Despite what Mr. Kool writes above, there are a few very thoughtful comments on this thread; the problem is they're overshadowed by the inane ramblings of the frequent visitors.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/08/2007 @ 4:18pm
aw man - the idiocracy vids have been taken off! wonder if it was mike judge or 20th century fox! lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/08/2007 @ 5:03pm
Who needs the "idiocracy" vids when we have your posts?
Posted by Adscititious at 11/08/2007 @ 5:05pm
Genitalia and marital history aside, Hillary Clinton is a hawk and a reliable servant of the corporate world. In my book, that makes her undesirable as President. That many women are willing to overlook these glaring flaws is perhaps understandable, but unfortunate nonetheless. That one as enlightened as Katha Pollit might do so is also puzzling. Does the fact that Rupert Murdoch has bestowed his blessing upon her not raise a gigantic red flag? If you are alarmed by the media consolidation that we got from Bill, wait until you see what President Hillary will give us. Murdoch is betting on it, and he doesn't lose many bets.
Posted by robgo2 at 11/08/2007 @ 8:10pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/07/2007 @ 7:26pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/07/2007 @ 7:31pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/07/2007 @ 10:58pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/07/2007 @ 11:00pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/07/2007 @ 11:18pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/08/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/08/2007 @ 5:05pm
Despite what Mr. Kool writes above, there are a few very thoughtful comments on this thread; the problem is they're overshadowed by the inane ramblings of the frequent visitors.
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/08/2007 @ 4:18pm
welcome to the funhouse, mr. ads.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 9:16pm
adscititious |ˌadsiˈti sh əs|
adjective rare
forming an addition or supplement; not integral or intrinsic.
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Latin adscit- ‘admitted, adopted,’ from adsciscere, + -itious 1 , on the pattern of adventitious.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 9:20pm
Frosty, good eye! You're the first to see that my name is derived from the Latin.
The man who taught me Dante as a freshman also gave me an independent study in Latin. He was almost as extreme a feminist as Little Katha. He and I used to argue fiercely about the common gender. He denied that such exists. "It's the invention of male grammarians with a vested interested in maintaining their social advantage," said he. "Nonsense," said I. The common gender is often employed -- or used to be employed -- to show agreement in number. I still can't bring myself to write, "Everyone should make up THEIR own mind." Correct is, "Everyone should make up HIS own mind."
Posted by Adscititious at 11/08/2007 @ 9:53pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/08/2007 @ 9:53pm
but wait!
i've come up with a whole new set genderlessful pronouns.
subject pronoun: heesh
a human should eat well, so that heesh willn't turn into a nebulous blob
object pronoun: shim
"to everyone out there, i say to shim, go forth and plant a whole bunch of trees wherever you've got space and zoning by-laws permit!"
possessive adjective: shiz
one must be mindful of shiz grammarammer.
possessive pronoun: hizzer
the modern human should understand that the responsibility of unstinkifying el planeta is hizzer alone.
reflexive pronoun: hizzerself
heesh who seeks only madeinchinastuff in their quest for happididappidiness, is alas, regrettably burying hizzerself into an planet-crunching lifestyle that will ultimately make the entire orb fry like a ball of breaded ice-cream or coat itself with slime like last week's rotten orange.
btw ironic the offtopickedness considering the timbre of some preceding postofferings.
one must practice, what heesh preaches.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 10:25pm
ROBGO2, you make a couple of excellent points.
I don't think it matters to someone like Pollitt whether Hillary Clinton hangs out with Rupert Murdoch, or whether she casts awful votes such as the ones for the Iraq war and bankruptcy "reform," or whether she's like her husband, a total opportunist and hypocrite.
All that matters for Pollitt is that Clinton's a woman.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/08/2007 @ 10:30pm
Excellent list, Frosty. Well done. I have only one gripe: there's no such thing as a possessive adjective!
In your example, "shiz" is a possessive pronoun acting adjectivally.
So many existing feminine pronouns/nouns already contain the masculine form: e.g., s-he, he-r, wo-man, wo-men, etc.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/08/2007 @ 10:41pm
All that matters for Pollitt is that Clinton's a woman.
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/08/2007 @ 10:30pm
well cindy sheehan's a woman, and madame pollitt seems to find the ms. sheehan's declarations bothersome.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 10:42pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/08/2007 @ 10:41pm
thanks.
and thanks for the clarification. it's been a while since i've delved into the labyrinth of obscure gramatiquitas.
yes, possessive pronoun is the term.
shukran
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 10:46pm
Frosty, Sheehan is running against a female incumbent, the current crappy speaker of the house. If I recall correctly, Pollitt is not necessarily opposed to Sheehan's positions; she's opposed to her running against Pelosi.
I don't see how that example applies.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/08/2007 @ 10:49pm
o.k. how's this?:
ann coulter's a woman (if confirmed human).
"All that matters for Pollitt is that Coulter's a woman."
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 11:29pm
o.k. how's this?:
ann coulter's a woman (if confirmed human).
"All that matters for Pollitt is that Coulter's a woman."
Ann Coulter is 1) neither a Democrat nor a nagging feminist, and 2) she's not running as a presidential candidate.
You have to read what I wrote earlier in context.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/08/2007 @ 11:54pm
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/08/2007 @ 11:54pm
but that would mean scrolling!
'scuse any confusion.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 12:04am
Generally I agree with KP and could care less about the dynamics of a candidate's marriage and family affairs. However, how can KP say something as utterly ridiculous as "if not for Kenneth Starr we wouldn't know about the Clintons"? Now I'm a bit younger than Katha but I am old enough to remember a certain 60 Minutes interview at least 5 years before anybody heard of Monica or Paula and the resulting "investigation". You can blame Starr for a lot of things, but a little historical accuracy is in order.
Posted by ricegol at 11/09/2007 @ 11:33am
Maureen Dowd is your typical 'hate myself and those like me' person. While I'm not a fan of Clinton, Dowd will attack her and all other women, because Dowd doesn't like being a woman herself. What she rights or says can be ignored, or is irrelevant, due to her particular pathology. She could use a lot of retrospection and identify why she hates women.
Posted by nervine5 at 11/09/2007 @ 11:55am
Posted by LENNY BRUCE 11/08/2007 @ 1:50pm |
arent you dead?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 1:26pm
M. Dowd is another 'Taylor Cadrall' spelling of her name is not right, but the sentiment in all her books is the same, Ms. Dowd doesn't like being inferior. Thus she attacks all women, especially those in 'power' positions.
Posted by nervine5 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:37pm
She is irrelevant because she has not dealt with her problems of being a women. Like Taylor Cawdwell she hates who she is.
Posted by nervine5 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:41pm
Just learned that the great Norman Mailer died today at the age of 84. We all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for his many just insights into the feminist mind and temper.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/10/2007 @ 10:44am
i don't really think it's sexism, per se, against which pollit is forming her criticisms here. yes, as zero points out, women have made tremendous strides within the workplace, in this country, over the last 30 years. but are reaching a majority of managerial positions a sign that women have become equal to men? how much are women actually getting paid compared to men? how much more is expected of women compared to men? do they have to wear dresses or pant suits to get ahead? do they have to behave a certain way?
i highly doubt that sexism doesn't exist anymore, as zero proclaims. but, with respect to hillary, i don't think we should be discussing it.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2007 @ 11:33am
in fact, zero's rants look so pathetic, that's it's difficult to understand his point. does he have any first hand experience with being a woman?
(i'm almost certain he has an aggressive, uppity, petite, backstabbing, pant-suit wearing wife who, just because she has excelled in the workplace, believes all other women should do the same with ease......)
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2007 @ 11:41am
Of course it is sexist to support a candidate on the basis of his/her gender. But support for one particular candidate of either gender, such as Hillary Clinton, does not imply support of any other candidate of that same gender, such as Ann Coulter, to use an example that has been cited in this thread. Hillary is very worrisome, but she is not a maniac, and one should take care to make that distinction.
Posted by robgo2 at 11/10/2007 @ 6:05pm
There are many good reasons to despise Hillary Clinton.
1. She (unlike John Edwards) is unrepentant about her Iraq war vote. She has yet to give a clear, unequivocal answer about her intent to withdraw troops from Iraq.
2. She voted for bankruptcy "reform" despite knowing what great harm it would do to American families. (Go google Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren on the subject).
3. Marriage, not any great talents of her own, have gotten her where she is.
4. She's a "managed care" enthusiast (translation: she's received lavish sums of money from HMOs and insurance companies).
5. She's chummied up to Rupert Murdoch and taken money from him. (Should this not inspire revulsion in people?)
And on and on. But for extreme feminists, such reasons do not matter at all. Darling Hillary is a Democrat and a woman; therefore they will support her.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/10/2007 @ 6:59pm
the important thing to note about american politics is that it's a top-down, binary, winner-take-all system. in other words, hillary is doing whatever it takes (including sacrificing true liberal principles) in order to get elected.
this may be an intelligent strategy that liberals need to understand before criticizing her.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2007 @ 8:09pm
the reality of the campaign is this:
if you adopt a kucinich-ian strategy, of aligning oneself with only core liberal policies, you are doomed to fail (in america, at least).
hence, the clintonian policy of adopting some core conservative policies.
the inability of people, like zero, to admit this reality is the primary reason why liberals have been losing for so long.
sad, but true.
now, if the media did a better job? perhaps things would be different, but alas, they are not.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2007 @ 8:14pm
We really need to ask ourselves whether a candidate who would ditch her "principles" to get elected is a candidate worthy of our support.
I imagine the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in Iraq would be glad to know that their death was in the service of a higher cause: viz., the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton to the presidency.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/10/2007 @ 8:15pm
We've had so-called "moderates who can win" before. Remember Mike Dukakis? Remember Al Gore? Remember John Kerry?
Time after time Democratic Party types have insisted that "center right" is the way to go, and time after time they're wrong.
(Oh, lest this example be brought up, Bill Clinton only won in 1992 because millions voted for Ross Perot. Had Perot not run, GHW Bush would've been re-elected.)
Posted by Adscititious at 11/10/2007 @ 8:19pm
We really need to ask ourselves whether a candidate who would ditch her "principles" to get elected is a candidate worthy of our support
it isn't question of who's "worthy"; it's a question of electability. clinton is a lock, and everyone knows it.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2007 @ 9:18pm
>>
Just like Howard Dean was a lock. Just like John ("I Can Beat George Bush!") was a lock in the general election.
Granted, the corporate media are doing everything they can to get her elected. They've all but fellated her. But voters (presumably those with an open mind) still have to be heard from.
Even if Clinton is the nominee, the odds are quite good that she won't do as well as either Gore or Kerry. She has way too many negatives. Way too many.
Posted by Adscititious at 11/10/2007 @ 9:47pm
Jo: Moderates? Maybe to someone on the far l;ft as on this blog...buy not to most midddle Americans in the center...left or right.
You'll forgive me if I have trouble distinguishing John Kerry from just about any Republican. Let's see:
1. He voted for the Iraq war. 2. He's voted for corporate trade deals like NAFTA. 3. He told Tim Russert in 2004 that if Ariel Sharon wants to build a huge wall across the West Bank, it's okay with him. (This despite the fact that Israel continues illegally to occupy Palestinian land.) 4. He said mandatory drug-testing in the workplace is okay with him. 5. He opposes single-payer healthcare. 6. He, like everyone else in Congress, supports obscenely bloated Pentagon budgets. 7. He believes heart & soul in American exceptionalism.
Only someone duped by ideology would claim that such a record is "far left" or "liberal".
Posted by Adscititious at 11/11/2007 @ 11:37am
Only someone duped by ideology would claim that such a record is "far left" or "liberal".
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 11/11/2007 @ 11:37am
dupe'd be they.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/11/2007 @ 12:28pm
I like Dowd but I think this is much ado about nothing.
Posted by kevin99999 at 11/11/2007 @ 2:01pm
I agree with DARLADOON. Bummer, yawwwwwn!
Posted by chinpoko at 11/13/2007 @ 01:21am
Why is the question of gender always less important than everything? And why does Maureen Dowd need to get laid? Does anyone else find it ridiculous that this joke is even made anymore? Not Funny. Yes, I will be that feminist with no sense of humor. This is no longer entertaining, and Ms. Pollitt is right to point out that, Hillary Clinton aside, the rhetoric surrounding her is annoying and her treatment recognizable to all women who have ever held a job from waitress to executive. The fact that she is rich and rather evil doesn't exempt her from sexual discrimination and if someone that calculating has to put up with this bullshit then perhaps the issue of gender is not so minor after all.
Posted by R. Lossin at 11/13/2007 @ 11:07pm