That I’m loving how the convention is making the case that this election is about women and feminist issues---equal pay, violence against women (the VAWA is a big plus for Biden), and the whole buffet of issues that feminists push for, not just the right to abortion. It’s smart. “Women’s” issues are often just a way to describe the economic and social issues that hit right at home, which is where Americans, male and female, are feeling it the worst. And it really shows how little McCain gives a shit about everyday people.
And thanks to Senator Clinton for this move. Very, very classy.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
It’s a little sad to say - but this probably wouldn’t be happening without Hillary’s strong primary run. It’s good to remind the Democratic party that they don’t win without women and they can’t take them for granted.
As staged as it was, I was very moved by Hillary Clinton standing with the New York delegation and being the one to “officially” close the roll call and declare Obama the nominee. I haven’t been following the MSM reaction much, but I hope this gave them the Big Dramatic Resolution they’ve been waiting for and they’ll move on to another narrative. *crosses fingers*
Senator Joe Biden proudly proclaims that he was regularly and severely beaten by his older sister as a child and as an adolescent. This same sister raised his two sons after his wife and daughter were killed in an auto accident.
Biden has often claimed that the Violence against Women Act is the greatest achievement of his career. He also claims that a woman cannot be a perpetrator of domestic violence, despite the fact that hundreds of studies show that women commit acts of domestic violence as often or more often than men. Many studies also show that lesbian women physically attack their intimate partners at higher rates than heterosexual men.
As a result of Biden’s Violence against Women Act, the federal government pays states to create laws effectively requiring that innocent men be removed from their homes and families without even an allegation of violence, with no legitimate standards of evidence, when a woman makes a claim that she is afraid.
Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association (1999), has said “the facts have become irrelevant… restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply. Regarding divorce cases, she states “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage”. According to Epstein, who is also a former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out “like candy” and “in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.” Cathy Young reports on the Elaine Epstein quote and the broader issue at Salon.com here:
Joe Biden was knocked down by his sister, and got back up, over and over again. Now this former stutterer thinks it’s time to use his feminist sisters to knock down American fathers and husbands… by the millions.
This report from RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) provides much insight into the situation brought about, in large part, by Joe Biden.
State restraining order laws are starting to fall because they’re unconstitutional. The federal law behind them, written by Joe Biden, is likely to fall as well, not because it isn’t popular, but because it is clearly unconstitutional.
There is a rapidly growing activist community dedicated to addressing this issue. One of the focal points of this community is the Glenn Sacks blog, http://www.glennsacks.com .
I personally still have reservations about Biden, largely because of his connections to MBNA and his role in passing the 2005 bankruptcy reform. It’s good to hear some genuinely positive and progressive actions he’s worked towards, and nice to see his ability to deliver ascerbic soundbites is being added to the arsenal.
That said, I have reservations about Obama too, but hell, it’s politics. You vote for the best _available_ outcome. And hell, I was willing to vote for Dodd in the primaries.
This convention… has gone just absolutely, fantabulously, swimmingly well. The Clintons - BOTH of them - have hit it way out of the park in their speeches. Same goes for Michelle and Joe.
And John Kerry… wow, I never knew he had it in him.
This is a Party United.
Period.
Barack, you’ve got a really tough act to follow tomorrow night at Mile High Stadium (and as pointed out by Olbermann, Obama got it right - it is never, ever, ever to be called the vile corporate name “Invesco Field")…
By the way, that doesn’t mean I won’t be happy enough to vote for him, just as I would have been happy enough to vote for anyone in a similar position who supported the bankruptcy bill (while being correct on basically everything else).
Once he’s not representing Delaware but instead the United States as a whole, I expect he will take a harder line towards the credit card companies while whoever fills his Senate seat (regardless of party) will continue to give them a reach-around.
I can tell Pat Buchanan is ready to concern troll over the fact Obama (horror of horrors!) will accept his speech in a football stadium because (OH NOES!!) people actually want to hear him give a speech.
But, Ben, haven’t you heard? When people want to hear someone give a speech, that can only mean one thing—that person is a vile fascist eager to usher in a cruel authoritarian regime! Keeping politics boring and out of the reach of the few extremely nerdy ordinary people who are interested (bunch a pre-verts and pinkos, if you ask me!) is the only way to keep America free.
I appreciate and applaud my Senator’s graceful actions to further the progressive cause of the American People in this critical election, and look forward to her energetic assistance to the Obama Administration in the years to come.
I remember a while back (maybe up to four years? I’m blog-old!) there being a test going around which purported to predict whether you would have been a Nazi or not had you been a 1930s German. One of the big predictors was supposedly whether you found yourself moved emotionally by good public speakers.
The great thing about gutting the educational system and putting history lessons on cable TV where they belong is that this makes it much easier to pretend that the official dictionary definition of fascism is “pretty speeches”. That way the huddled masses don’t know what they should really be looking out for.
I’m emotionally moved by good public speakers if they share the things I agree with.
I’m SCARED by good public speakers that share views I find abhorrent.
Therefore, I totally would not be moved by a good public speaker who talks about how its a good idea to kill Jews or throw liquidate the kulaks as a class.
I’m pretty sure Obama doesn’t share either of those views.
(The above will go right over the heads of Republican Party members)
Well, no, see, because the kulaks were obviously just hard working white people who Elitist B. Hussein Os/bama STALIN wanted to enslave by taking away their guns and religion. See, it’s exactly the same! NObama is probably building gulags in Vermont and Massachusetts and the Pacific Northwest as we speak!
I try, Ben, I really try. Both luckily and unluckily, I will be in Louisiana for most of the RNCC, which is good because it’s Louisiana and there will be tons of liquor (and a hurricane which will at least distract us and hopefully spare us by cutting the power). But bad because it’s Louisiana and there will be tons of kool-aid, and plenty of people with lovely red mustaches from long years of gulping it down.
He also claims that a woman cannot be a perpetrator of domestic violence, despite the fact that hundreds of studies show that women commit acts of domestic violence as often or more often than men. Many studies also show that lesbian women physically attack their intimate partners at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Not at all. What’s the next best thing to being the Democratic nominee? Being the next Democratic nominee.
Hillary will either be 64 or 68 at the next oppotunity. Barring health problems, I’m pretty certain she’ll be there to answer the call. I thought the best part was the “don’t look back” quoting of Harriet Tubman. She was able to make sure that Obama got the full benefit of her speech, but she also was able to remind everyone how inspirational she could be on her own terms.
Of course, four or (hopefully) eight years is a very long time in politics, but it’s hard not to remember her speech and think “damn, she can really lead!”
And if it “killed"* her? So what? It’s called good sports(wo)manship. Even if you didn’t really lose graciously, you put on a pleasant face and go say “good game” to your opponent. Anybody who can’t do that doesn’t belong on the school board, let alone the senate.
* In the sense of “It kills me to have to do this, but...”, not in the sense of it killing her political career, which you would have to be stupid to think was the case, since it’s pretty obvious that she’s cleaned up her act to salvage her future chances in the party.
So the big talking point from Rush et al. tomorrow is going to be about the STAGE that Obama will be speaking from at the stadium, because it has… get ready for it…
COLUMNS!!!!!
OH NOES, NOT TEH COLUMZ!!!! GREEK COLUMZ, AT THAT!!!!
Kinda ironic… I think this one Republican guy once had some columns of his own as a backdrop at his party’s convention:
matt, matt, matt… “Obamabot or MRA asshole?”, that is the question.
Sen. Clinton is a pro, she’ll do what needs to be done.
Now, I can’t figure if “gwangung” is being ironic, or is matt’s sock puppet. It’s TEXT, children, give us a few hints, or risk being as crap a writer as Jesse Taylor.
Of all the irritating things YouTube has brought to the Internets, I think the most irritating is the lazy habit many bloggers now have of writing posts like this: “Wasn’t THIS great?” and then instead of outlining what you mean by “this”, posting a link to Youtube.
As well as would be fine. Instead of is just lazy and irritating.
I’m listening to Ted Kennedy on YouTube right now. Then I have to go to work. Would it have killed Amanda to write two sentences describing the YouTube video?
Joe Biden was knocked down by his sister, and got back up, over and over again. Now this former stutterer thinks it’s time to use his feminist sisters to knock down American fathers and husbands… by the millions.
Please keep displaying your twisted sense of self-pity for everyone to see. Get as many converts as you can. I want all the men with deep issues against women to be in one group, where they are easy to keep tabs on.
there are some troubling issues with the wording of the VAWA and the way its being applied, no harm in admitting that. Just because it overall is a wonderful thing and was sorely needed does not mean we need to blind ourselves to any negative issues with it. some fascinating reads out there on it, the ones listed above and a lot of others. To the unititated, calling something the violence against women act seems to give it as complete a cover as the clear skies act, people usually dont look into it very much. Intention is good, application not so much.
Ben D: Oh, naturally. But that bankruptcy bill crossed a serious line for me. I’m just holding him to the fire he lit, not going PUMA.
danicannddan: If there’s a subtle and nuanced opinion to be made about VAWA, HumanRights’ MRA screed was certainly not it. It’s nothing that has not been heard before, and picked apart repeatedly over the last few years here.
Biden could have done better—his support of the late-term abortion ban tells me that he’s willing to play politics with women’s lives in order to appear to sentimental, judgementals shits like Stanek rather than take a principled stand on something important.
Nope, not going to let the “But I have a RIGHT to beat my wife” assholes in here. Sorry, but some people are too pathetic to live, much less participate in decent blogs.
Jer, I could easily point out that it’s just as, if not more, lazy to not click the link, which takes far less keystrokes than describing what happens in the video.
I think Hillary Clinton, if she doesn’t run in 2016, can kind of become the spiritual heir to Ted Kennedy. The Liberal Lioness, if you will, especially because she no longer has to triangulate to get elected.
I remember a while back (maybe up to four years? I’m blog-old!) there being a test going around which purported to predict whether you would have been a Nazi or not had you been a 1930s German. One of the big predictors was supposedly whether you found yourself moved emotionally by good public speakers.
Auguste, I hate to tell you this, but...if you took that test, I think you signed up to become a Scientologist.
I always knew Hillary was going to come through. She had to; that’s just politics, and she KNOWS politics. As I said on another blog, Hillary has her flaws, but pettiness isn’t one of them.
Ben, I agree that she could be a Ted Kennedy in the senate for as long as she wants. It’s not like the NY Republican party can get anyone (sane) to run against her.
I am a Delawarean, and I must say, I love me some Joe Biden. He knows everyone in this state, I swear it. It’s a small state, but no mean feat to meet somebody on the train tracks (the man takes the train to DC! How can you not love him? I hope he continues using the train as VP) and shake their hand and jump on the train. It’s quite another to see that same person in a completely different context years later and come up and shake their hand and SAY THEIR NAME. This man....I love him. And not just for the VAWA.
As for the MBNA kerfuffle, yeah. MBNA was the single biggest employer in this entire state before Bank of American bought it out. So...he kinda wasn’t just kowtowing to the company. He was, in a roundabout way, doing the best he could for his constituency. I mean, you couldn’t swing a dead cat in this state without hitting someone who depended on MBNA for either a job or the volunteer work they did or the charities they gave money to.
Jer, I could easily point out that it’s just as, if not more, lazy to not click the link, which takes far less keystrokes than describing what happens in the video.
And, of course, people at work who can’t be listening to audio, people with hearing impairments, blind people who are reading this blog with a Kurzweil reader, people who are multitasking and trying to watch the convention or a TV show while also reading the blog, and people with old computers whose ability to play video is just broken are all lazy.
Sorry, I agree with Jesurgislac. I *hate* this new trend of just posting the video with a comment about how great it was, instead of actually describing the thing. Feministing does it all the time, and it drives me nuts. At home, my broken-ass old laptop *can’t* play video, and at work, I can’t have audio running, which makes any video without closed captioning pretty worthless.
And given that both the blind and the deaf have the technology to read blogs, but not the technology to see video/understand video that lacks closed-captioning (and most YouTube videos do not have closed captioning), it’s kind of ableist.
I heard this on the radio yesterday as it as happening. It was 10x more moving when all you heard was Clinton, Pelosi, and the roaring crowd. All those stations, FOX, CNN, etc need to cut their stable of pundits by half and STFU once in awhile.
When I can’t listen to a video, I double click it to bring up YouTube and read the description. I’m sure that people who are strongly opposed to laziness can do the same.
Regarding VAWA and violence against men: I would be far, far more inclined to believe that MRAs actually give a shit about men and violence against them if, instead of constantly whining that laws that protect women from male violence don’t protect men against female violence (which, in fact, they DO, if not as vigorously as they protect women—*male* DV victims make use of anti-DV laws too), they addressed the fact that 80% of all murder victims are male… and 90% of all murderers are also male.
Violence against men is much, much, MUCH more prevalent than violence against women, when you consider all types of violence and don’t concentrate on rape and DV. It is so much more prevalent that the reason we even talk about “violence against women” is that “violence against men” is just violence. It’s normalized. No one thinks about the gender of the male victims. But, importantly, there is one great similarity between violence against women and the much more common violence against men: ALMOST ALL OF IT IS COMMITTED BY MEN. So the issue of violence, particularly murder, is almost a male-on-male issue. You’d think that advocates for the rights of men would be very, very interested in stopping the plague of male-on-male violence, which claims far more male lives than female-on-male violence. The fact that they don’t appear to have any interest in it at all speaks plainly that they are not *for* men, but *against* women—they create an imaginary parity between men and women in terms of violent behavior and live in a fantasy land where men have as much to fear from women, and as little to fear from men, as women have to fear from men and as little to fear from women.
By the way, I’ve done extensive research on this. There are no studies whatsoever that show that women are *more* violent than men. There are some studies that show that women initiate violence as often as men, but those concatenate pushing and slapping with punching and shoving, so they interpret a woman pushing a man (and making him take a single step back) as equal to a man shoving a woman (and making her fall to the ground.) Size matters. It’s certainly not true that there are no male victims of female-initiated DV—seven times as many women as men end up in the hospital for DV, which means that men are 12% of the population that suffers DV injuries badly enough to go to the hospital, and since most stats on the prevalence of men in gay relationships put it at about 5% that isn’t likely to be all men abused by male partners. But while 12% is not a number that should be ignored, it’s also not 50% or even close to it.
Regarding VAWA and violence against men: I would be far, far more inclined to believe that MRAs actually give a shit about men and violence against them if, instead of constantly whining that laws that protect women from male violence don’t protect men against female violence (which, in fact, they DO, if not as vigorously as they protect women—*male* DV victims make use of anti-DV laws too), they addressed the fact that 80% of all murder victims are male… and 90% of all murderers are also male.
That’s a good point about domestic violence laws applying to everyone. If they’re so terribly, terribly concerned about female-on-male domestic violence, shouldn’t they be pushing for stricter laws that will extend those protections to everyone? Instead, they only seem to be interested in weakening the laws, which means that male victims of domestic violence will lose the few protections they do have.
You’d almost think they’re not interested in protecting male victims of domestic violence at all, wouldn’t you?
Amanda: Jer, I could easily point out that it’s just as, if not more, lazy to not click the link, which takes far less keystrokes than describing what happens in the video.
Oh, you provided a link in your post - I mean, besides the video? I have to say, then, your post has been hacked - the only “link” is to YouTube, so the link you wanted me to click has been removed without your knowing it. So sorry.
Amanda, further down, annoyed by Alara: When I can’t listen to a video, I double click it to bring up YouTube and read the description. I’m sure that people who are strongly opposed to laziness can do the same.
Eh. It’s your post, Amanda. You do the work of making it intelligible. Let me repeat it: I was listening to Ted Kennedy’s speech. I did not have time to listen to another speech afterwards, and I could not listen to them both simultaneously. You didn’t have time to write two sentences (or, hell, if you’re that lazy, c/p the description from YouTube) but you have time to berate me for being “lazy” for not clicking on the link and reading the description that you couldn’t be arsed to repost on your blog?
Regarding the response to the observation that the current link was ableist… The better response would have been a pledge to try to do a bit better. On Shakesville they often have transcript as well as video.
It’s a little sad to say - but this probably wouldn’t be happening without Hillary’s strong primary run. It’s good to remind the Democratic party that they don’t win without women and they can’t take them for granted.