Craig, I can’t wait to read what you have to say when you open up that lockbox. Between you and rikyrah and anyone else from the JJP crowd saving up — something to hang onto when I read the crap in the mainstream about “women” voters and all.

Have a great afternoon and evening, everyone! See ya tomorrow for the Primary.

Machine politics in the big primaries is so different from caucus activism in the smaller states.

Open primaries and semi-open caucuses test candidates appeal to Independents and Republicans; closed primaries and caucuses test the candidates strength in the Democratic base.

Proportional assignment of delegates disallows a candidate from ignoring the smaller states.

We took it a step further and bypassed the threat we went straight into war. Why? McCain said as recently as 2 weeks ago — because of their oil.

And there you have it.

IMO Feminist movement plus Civil Rights achieved their main and necessary goals 20+ years ago. At present, both groups don’t know of a purposely useful next agenda. These groups have devolved into who’s-the-most-victimized competitions. I ignore both.
___

After this nomination battle, I bet DNC will change superdelegate rules and primary schedule. Will they establish a shorter per region primary voting cycle?

A shorter cycle assists a more established, or well-known candidate. A long cycle sometimes helps a challenger. A long cycle also shakes out weaknesses that could cripple a candidate during the GE.

I’ve got a slew of my own I’m holding in lockbox till it makes more sense to roll them out.

I read the details, on occasion. :)

Here’s a pretty good essay on this issue, titled “Hillary is White”, by Zillah Eisenstein.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/18/9031/

Iran did not threaten the existence of Israel. This is one of those right-wing memes that people such as yourself repeat without actually assessing its veracity. If you know any Farsi (i.e. the Persian language), you would know that this meme is a purposeful, manipulative mistranslation of what was actually said.

Also this: the one country that *has* been a real threat to the existence of its neighbours in the Middle East is Israel. (In case you’ve conveniently forgotten, Israel pretty much destroyed Lebanon almost two years ago.)

I got sort of caught up this weekend in the discussions at the NARAL blog — not the initial long thread but a couple of more recent ones. That is some crazy stuff over there!

It’s weird to have Clinton-supporting women claiming “women” should support other “women” — who then go ballistic nasty clearly not respecting the basic humanity and intelligence of any actual woman who doesn’t agree with them.

If we don’t agree it’s because we don’t see it like they do — according to one Clinton supporter, I was in fact insulted by NARAL’s decision even if I say I wasn’t, because “all women” were insulted and if I say not me, it’s because I don’t know when I have been insulted.

The push-back against any discussion of white feminist racism is the most overt shit I have seen, and I have seen a lot of push-back when white feminist racism comes up. But in my experience it’s usually more subtle or covert than what I see over there. Maybe it’s just the situations I travel in or something.

One other poster — who assumed I was a woman of color simply because I was agreeing with what a black woman had posted (and then gotten attacked for) and myself talking about white feminist racism — literally told me to “sit down and shut up” (I think there was a fuck in there too but not 100% sure and don’t want to re-read it to find out).

And I am really struck by this thing about loyalty & betrayal. I know it’s a Clinton thing but I think it’s not just that when it comes to the white feminist outcries. One of the commenters over at the NARAL discussion actually used the phrase “traitor to the cause” for those who don’t agree with her/support Clinton. (I remember even NY NOW saying this about Ted Kennedy that he had betrayed women or the women’s movement or something like that, when he endorsed Senator Obama).

I’m trying to understand WTF specifically this is all about.

I just wrote out some of what I’m thinking, with the idea that I would post it here in this comments section, but I saw rikyrah’s comment to b-serious (Mon May 19, 09:24:00 AM 2008) and decided to not post it in case it’s un-strategic to publicly say the things that are on my mind about this right now (it’s pretty harsh).

And now I see this today:

Geraldine Ferraro, calling Barack Obama “sexist,” may not back him

I am extremely extremely hungry to read good sharp pull no punches analyses of this whole white feminists going off about sexism thing as it is coming up now and linked back through the whole campaign.

And my own thoughts about all this are — well, as I said, pretty harsh and rikyrah’s comment gives me pause about posting them right now.

He’s got my post, a post from Big Man and a recent post from Field Negro under his name.

He lists Field Negro’s and Big Man’s websites for attribution (at the tale end).

He doesn’t attribute me whatsoever.

Once again. I AM NOT the “Bserious” over at TPM.

Does anyone know who this person is? It would help to avoid further confusion in the future.

And I am LOVING the anon comments with their unbalanced rhetoric that nobody’s buying. I think they’re trying to convince themselves. As long as it’s respectful I can scroll over it to the next comment!

PLEASE give me a link to that post.

I HAVE NEVER posted on Talking Points Memo. That “Bserious” guy is NOT me.

Don’t get me wrong, I DID write that particular post “Poor Hillary,” a couple of months ago. But I never put it on TPM.

That “Poor Hillary” post was written in the comments section on this (JJP) website. I re-posted it on my blog and encouraged others to pass it around (as some did).

But I have a problem with someone using my screen name and posting as though they are me.

I just had this conversation with “Big Man” from the blog, Raving Black Lunatic. That other Bserious guy posted one of Big Man’s posts and he thought I did it.

Once again, I didn’t have a problem with people re-posting that “Poor Hillary” comment. But that “Bserious” guy over at TPM is NOT me, and I’d hope that he’s not trying to assume my blogging identity.

Please give me the link if you can.

Right on time!

By Bserious – May 19, 2008, 1:31AM
After reading this BS in the nytimes about Hillary losing because of sexism, I had to repost this. Had to.

The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums and her claims that the media is pro-Obama. They’re spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, “bi*ch.” You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).

Now, I won’t deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. Guess what, that “double standard” theory doesn’t fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she’s not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success? Why doesn’t the media focus it’s attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won’t acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, “cheap,” defends McCain. The list goes on and on. I don’t care if she’s a woman, man or whatever . . . when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

“Shame on you Barack Obama”?!?!?! Who is she to talk to him like he’s some 4 year old? This ain’t pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast. Senator Obama is a grown man. He’s just as accomplished as she is, (check their senate records) yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie?

She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had. It’s never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 70,000 but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states, have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that he’s just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.

It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don’t like negative politics . . . it’s as simple as that. This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I’m not saying that they’re better or worse, just different. I’m just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it’s still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can’t forget those double standards, right? Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to fear black men.

Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done ? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?” Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he “invaded her personal space.” If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama the second he steps out of line. Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media.

There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her “Scarlett O’Hara” routine. It’s a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it. You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004.

He knows he can’t do or say certain things because he can’t afford to make white people uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman. Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it. But I also know that there are many “oppressed” white women who would never trade places with my black ass. All I’m saying is that it’s more complicated than the media would like to suggest. So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don’t make excuses for Hillary’s poor and divisive behavior. And don’t pretend like Obama doesn’t walk a tight rope everyday as well.

Obama caught hell just for saying, “you’re likeable, enough” because people didn’t like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the “snub” because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn’t looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!

I can’t make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the “black candidate.” It’s the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace “girl power” in ways Obama could NEVER embrace “black power.” Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown woman who knows exactly what she’s doing.

She conveniently plays off of gender oppression every chance she gets. Some of us don’t see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to “POOR HILLARY”

I get what you’re saying, and if you noticed I didn’t list China and N. Korea in the parentheses.

As far as Iran, how is their threatening Israel’s existence any different from Bush’s saber rattling or Hillary’s “obliterate” comment? Aren’t we threatening Iran’s existence? I’m not trying to be a smartass, I’m just trying to understand the difference.

Kitty,
China’s got nukes and they’re not necessarily our ally. North Korea may well have them, and they’re damn sure not.

The difference here is that Iran has openly threatened the right of another country to exist. Take whatever side you want to in the Israeli/Palestinean conflict, but ANY country that would threaten another’s existence should not have weapons that would allow them to do that in the space of minutes.

And, generally speaking, the UN Security Council takes the same view.