Well, okay -- that Matthews link is good -- apparently he's a sexist loon. I would also argue that he's not quite a real journalist, that generally what he does is (in the words of Jon Stewart) "bad for America" -- and that I was unaware of all these quotes because I haven't watched him in years. So I accept that Matthews is sexist -- but it's a huge leap from there to saying that a candidate's wife deserves to be slandered.

Something you (dijamo) said in yesterday's version of this thread bothered me, and I replied to it then -- you were upset at Michelle over her perceived attack on Hillary back in August '07. Let me relink now because I find this account of that event persuasive, and maybe it will turn down the heat on your feelings in some small way:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/obama-nothing-p.html

Posted at June 13, 2008 8:10 PM in response to Will White Feminists Speak up for Michelle Obama?

too true.

Posted at June 13, 2008 4:40 PM in response to Will White Feminists Speak up for Michelle Obama?

What just happened? The above post by me was supposed to appear as a reply to dijamo's post of June 13, 2008 12:32 AM.

Posted at June 13, 2008 1:46 PM in response to Will White Feminists Speak up for Michelle Obama?

Hi dijamo. Any citations for all those quotes? Source and context matters.

Saying bad things about Hillary's voice is not sexism (it can get screechy -- a fact as much caught on tape as Dean's campaign-busting "Yeeha"). If I say Bush's voice has sounded like moronic, faux-macho, and panicked put-on since Day One, does that make me a man-hater? No. You can't read a bigger agenda into it.

If Michelle takes lumps for saying something stupid, fine -- taking her to task over her remarks about being proud of America is not a line of attack I like, but it is fair game. Attacking her as nothing but a baby mama making terrorist fist jabs? That's something else. That's unconscionable, close to dehumanizing. Such attacks are exactly the reason we need to elect Obama -- to send that style of politics to its room.

And your approach of "too bad for her because people said Hillary has a screechy voice" seems pretty empty.

Posted at June 13, 2008 1:42 PM in response to Will White Feminists Speak up for Michelle Obama?

It ain't democracy if it ain't got rules. FL & MI voted to hold elections that violated party rules, therefore the party should not count the election results -- QED. How is that contestable?

I understand people want their "voices heard," but they should make 'em heard by voting out the state legislatures and governors who put them in this mess.

Neither Hillary nor Obama "disenfranchised" anyone.

Posted at May 22, 2008 2:15 PM in response to Obama Suggests Half-Sized Florida Delegation As Compromise

To say that taking out Bin Laden is an absolute national priority is not fear-mongering. And it is not the same thing as Bush declaring there exists an "Axis of Evil," demanding all other nations commit to being "with us or against us," then invading Iraq, occupying it, authorizing torture, and instituting a bizarre color-coded national "alert system" that hardly seems useful to the average citizen except to make us feel nervous.

If ANY President gets "actionable intelligence" about Bin Laden's location and chooses not to act, that President is probably guilty of betraying both the public trust and US strategic interests. Obama position is justified.

It is not arrogant to take out Bin Laden.

And as the world is not so simplistic that every nation is either with us or against us, so too it is not so simplistic that our only choice in acting is either A) love or B) bombs. We have strategic interests and in their pursuit we need to be relentless -- but not a**holes. In Obama more than in Clinton I see a return to the ideal that Teddy Roosevelt established for us, of carrying the big stick but speaking softly.

And speaking begins with, you know -- speaking.

Posted at May 21, 2008 6:10 PM in response to Billy Glad & Bush Trapped In Prevailing Morality: A Critique of the Pre-Conditions Prequirement

Sure. "Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support. ...And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

Posted at May 21, 2008 4:13 PM in response to Billy Glad & Bush Trapped In Prevailing Morality: A Critique of the Pre-Conditions Prequirement

Prove what? That something that hasn't been tried yet will definitely work? What is proven: the tack we're currently on is a failure. So it's materially and perhaps morally bankrupt to keep at it.

Setting aside the new-agey love & sympathy wording in the article above, I agree that we need an image makeover in the Middle East; it is in our national security interest. Do we gain in this area by meeting with that loopy little suit in Iran? Maybe yes. Do we automatically lose ground by meeting with him? Doubtful. Most likely: either nothing comes of it or something does that benefits us. I don't see a President Obama opening Tehran only to make material concessions there for no gain -- but at the outset, we're better off if we have a president who's not seen by millions simply as a distant, cold foreigner. Image has material consequences. Obama has stated he will bring an improvement in that area -- he has not said he'll give away the farm.

Posted at May 21, 2008 3:20 PM in response to Billy Glad & Bush Trapped In Prevailing Morality: A Critique of the Pre-Conditions Prequirement

"You can't talk about Obama strictly on his own merits because he doesn't have any. ... if this is how you must convey that message: through belittling fellow bloggers."

Readyto -- wow. The article above has little to do with Billy Glad or other bloggers. Your point about the Billy = Bush tautology is clever (as is the tautology, perhaps), but this article doesn't rest there.

Here's a fact: It's crazy to keep trying the same thing and expecting a different result. Obama is the only candidate looking for a way out of that brand of crazy in the Middle East. I call this a merit -- and strictly Obama's own.

Posted at May 21, 2008 1:32 PM in response to Billy Glad & Bush Trapped In Prevailing Morality: A Critique of the Pre-Conditions Prequirement

I see what you mean based on her poor phrasing, but I don't think that's exactly what was meant, so I'm not going to get riled.

The point she IS making, though -- that African-Americans can be taken for granted in the General Election, but white people can't -- is insidious.

Although, come to think of it... the implication is that black people are smarter than white people!

Now, if I knew there was a segment of the population that was smarter than other segments, would I support the candidate they favored with 90% of their vote? Why, I think I might!

This just in: "Hillary Says Obama's Supporters Smarter, More Patriotic Than Hers."

(apologies to all Hillsters. just a little sarcasm about your candidate here, not you.)

Posted at May 8, 2008 4:42 PM in response to Hillary Clinton Says Only Whites Matter