OK, did everyone see that family picture of the Obamas?  Barack is there with three female humans, who obviously adore him, and whom he obviously adores.

Did he say mean things to/about Hillary on the campaign trail?  Didn’t she as well?  And didn’t she sic Bill on him, to further embarrassment?

Guess that’s why making her Secretary of State doesn’t matter—the first was nasty words, the second is actually delegating power…oh wait.

There’s more than enough of substance to attack the man on, so why the strawfeminist nonsense?

I remember that one of his first acts as president was to repeal the global gag rule.  I don’t necessarily think he’s a feminist or completely free from sexism, but he’s no worse than the average man in our society, and certainly much better than most conservatives.  Of course I wish he would do more, but it seems that Erbe is mad at him for not being perfect.

...his condescending remark that she was “likeable enough”...

A politician made a condescending remark about an opponent during an election? Who ever heard of such a thing?

...his clearly career-oriented mate who has been toned down and remorphed into a Stepford Wife…

By that standard, every First Lady in history has been “a Stepford Wife.”

Oh well. Wingnuts can attack MO for serving healthy food to children,  so why should anything surprise us?

That is the third article today about how Obama shuts out women out of sports and therefore, his inner circle.  The WaPo has one by Kathleen Parker and the NY Times has one by Maureen Dowd. 

Who’s been passing out the talking points?

Ooh, talk about burying the lede.  Good question.

Who’s passing out the brain bleach? Seriously, what in fuck does this person want? Hillary’s a revelation as SOS; she’s been kicking ass and taking names and doing so in the name of women all over. It’s amazing. And Michelle Obama? Tell me anybody makes her do anything! The fact is, she has stepped into a minefield without a map, wearing high heels no less, and made it look like ballroom dancing. She’s a walking, talking example of a black woman, a role model, an ambition for girls of all skin colors, and she’s also a lot tougher than many of the Stepford Doll First Ladies have been. I mean, the Queen of England hugged her! The Queen doesn’t hug anybody!

There’s one glaring omission here, too: How come she’s not complaining about the thing that has bugged me: why wasn’t Michelle considered a candidate? My God, I get chills thinking about it.

Am I wrong in assuming that articles like Erbe’s come out of a very facile pseudofeminism that assumes anything a man does is either sexist or neutral? It’s not quite Morton’s fork, it’s more pernicious; indeed, it gives women who call themselves feminists a chance to be sexist, because if Obama, say, appoints a man to a position, it’s because he was qualified, but if he appoints a woman it’s to hide his misogyny.

Or am I giving Erbe too much credit?

Though, Obama probably did focus on appointing a woman to the court. I’m willing to bet that of the ten people in the country most qualified to sit on the Supreme Court at the time he chose his nominee, five (give or take) were female, and the most qualified of the ten is really not much better than the least. Even if you believe that even as the court is currently constituted a woman is no more qualified than a man with an identical resume.

Of course I wish he would do more, but it seems that Erbe is mad at him for not being perfect.

No, Erbe is mad at him for him not being Hillary Clinton.

You know, if not getting your candidate elected—-and getting a different candidate who’s still a victory for the cause——is the thing that you’ve got to bitch about, dude, can we switch worlds? Because I still have Hillary out there, kicking ass, and I haven’t got John McCain as Preznit.

It’s an interesting philosophical inquiry: if Barack Obama did hate women, fiercely, intensely, and yet did all of the same stuff, Sotomayor, Clinton, Ledbetter… why would it matter? It wouldn’t say much for him as a person, but as a president, what’s the difference?

I’m not sure what the final world on LBJ is as to his alleged racism, but he got the Civil Rights Act through. He also felt apparently very guilty and distressed over Vietnam, and he still escalated.

Hell, if Michelle Bachman thought gays were going to burn in hell, but pushed for gay marriage nationwide, why would it matter?

He made Hillary Secretary of State (which I’d argue is a better prize than the Vice Presidency, and quite possibly makes her next in line since Biden is too old) and this means he hates Hillary? LOL wut?

By that standard, every First Lady in history has been “a Stepford Wife.”

Including, not incidentally, Hillary Clinton, who didn’t have a political career as anything but a First Lady (of Arkansas and the United States) until after her husband left office.

For an added bonus, read the comments, which oh-so-unpredictably morph into comments about how black Muslims hate women. 

My students would like that, as their papers would seem a million times more cogent by comparison, I imagine.

One other thing to note… by making Hillary Clinton SoS, he may have just given her a huge boost for future political ambitions, if she has them.  Sure, in winning the primaries, he prevented her from being able to become the 44th President, but there’s already a decent amount of speculation that’s she’s got a pretty good shot at winning the 2016 Democratic nomination and possibly becoming the country’s 45th President.  Yeah, she’ll be 68 in 2016 (she will turn 69 a week or so before Election Day), but I think she’s still got enough youthful vigor that it won’t necessarily get in the way.  Reagan was 69 when he became the 40th POTUS, after all.

I mean, had she remained in the U.S. Senate for the next 8 years, she could have still been a candidate, but I think the addition of Secretary of State adds something to her resume that will help set her apart from the rest of the field.  Even though he hasn’t officially said anything one way or the other, I don’t really foresee Joe Biden running in 2016 - he’ll be 73 years old, and would turn 74 right after the election.

She and Obama seem to be getting along tremendously well, and he’s has given her a lot of space in running Foggy Bottom.  I think he would likely fully endorse her candidacy if she were to run.  Granted, she would have to resign as SoS if she did run, because the rules prohibit active Cabinet members from seeking political office or doing any political fundraising.

It’s the ObamaOutrageDuJour. Honestly, everyone has a pet project and this one will run for a while and drop like the piece of crap that it is. One can only wonder what the next Outrage will be. Check the wall for shit, because they keep flinging it, hoping it will stick.

Ballast beat me to it, but I think you can make that more general.  Erbe hates him for not being a woman.  Remember the embarrassment of PUMAs supporting Sarah Palin?

I think his enemies just throw mud at regular intervals to see what sticks. I mean, please consider all the ridiculous potshots that already have been taken.

There’s one glaring omission here, too: How come she’s not complaining about the thing that has bugged me: why wasn’t Michelle considered a candidate? My God, I get chills thinking about it.

I wouldn’t mind seeing her follow the Hillary model and run for Congress or Senate.

That said, if you’re wondering why newspaper circulation is in decline and the media continues to hemorrhage eyeballs… well… add this to the list.

For an added bonus, read the comments, which oh-so-unpredictably morph into comments about how black Muslims hate women.

Well, the whole PUMA movement was always largely about race from the outset, so this is hardly surprising.  Nice if you can cloak your racism in the mantle of anti-sexism.

There’s one glaring omission here, too: How come she’s not complaining about the thing that has bugged me: why wasn’t Michelle considered a candidate? My God, I get chills thinking about it.

I wouldn’t mind seeing her follow the Hillary model and run for Congress or Senate.

I could possibly see that happening, though I couldn’t possibly see it before 2016… I think as long as her husband is president, she feels the need to be the principally available parent to their young daughters.  Granted, they both worked before he began his presidential campaign, but being a U.S. senator isn’t nearly as time-consuming as being president.  Nor is it remotely as stressful a job.

The only thing is, Hillary came into a pretty ideal situation in 2000, with Moynihan retiring.  And while she did have to overcome the carpetbagger stigma, I think it’s easier to overcome that in states like New York or California than it would be to do in most other states.  MO would almost have to run in Illinois, where she would probably be a shoe-in, but only if the opportunity arose.  Problem is, Dick Durbin isn’t going anywhere, and I doubt Michelle Obama would be willing to even think about primarying him, given his loyalty to her husband.  And while Roland Burris will almost certainly be out of office after next year, I imagine it will most likely be a Democrat replacing him, presumably somebody interested in serving more than one term.  However, if the Republican somehow winds up winning the Illinois U.S. Senate election next year, that’s a perfect set-up for Michelle in 2016.  And if she won, it would be her husband’s former seat that she would be taking over.

Jesse Helms the comparative feminist?

True to his “ideals” of misogyny, whereas Barack Obama is imaginarily dissing Hillary by hiring her as Secretary of State, and insulting all his other women hires, by um, hiring them? And the way hie holds hands with his wife on date night—obviously, he doesn’t love/like her. “Toning her down” with all her myriad work as First Lady.

Logic as twisted as a tornado.

I have to say that Hillary did a great job in NYS when she was in office. I was sorry to see her go.

One of the reasons I supported Obama early in the campaign (before the primaries even got underway) was because, reading Dreams From My Father, I knew he understood women’s issues and was genuinely pro-feminist.  And not in an aggrandizing “future political aspirations” way, or even in a politically correct way.  The way that he wrote about his mother, his wife, and other women in his life, and about women’s issues in general, scored about as high as you can score in terms of “male public figure talking about feminism without coming off like a tool”, in my opinion at least.  His conduct during the campaign and behavior so far in office have underscored that for me.  I’m pretty sure, in fact, that Barack Obama is our first feminist president.

So suck it, Bonnie Erbe.

I agree with most of this, and there is no way Obama is uncomfortable with women.

But…

I don’t really care for the whole Michelle Obama a brilliant accomplished woman who was actually the one who made the big bucks during most of their marriage and graduated Ivy League, is nothing but an old-fashioned, non-threatening mother figure who likes to grow vegetables now.

Actually, I think it really sucks.  They were trying to make sure she didn’t become a right wing target the way Hillary did when she was first ladey.  And it’s worked.  Michelle is incredibly popular.

Is that supposed to make me feel good?  It doesn’t.

That is the third article today about how Obama shuts out women out of sports and therefore, his inner circle.  The WaPo has one by Kathleen Parker and the NY Times has one by Maureen Dowd.

Who’s been passing out the talking points?
Comment #4: phinky on 10/28 at 12:48 PM

A valid question.  Me, I’m disinclined to credit it to an organized effort, though.  I believe that such nonsense is, in fact, a vivid illustration of how incestuous the chattertariat is, how they operate on a closed and sealed loop: they mix socially, they are in constant communication with each other, and so discuss the same things at the same time with the same starting points and expectations.

Indeed, while I can’t speak for Erbe it is pretty clear that Dowd and Parker are still like the mean girls in high school, too, (an era of their lives that they’ve never grown out of): it’s not enough to slag somebody, everybody must slag that person.

I’m pretty sure, in fact, that Barack Obama is our first feminist president.

Hmmm.  I agree in general that he’s been our most pro-feminism president to date, and is decidedly much more feminist than anyone before him, but something about that phrasing kinda bothers me.

I always got a little turned off by the phrase “first black president” being applied to Bill Clinton in the past.  And while I realize he was given that designation by a progressive black woman, I always thought it was a little inappropriate.  Especially since we now have the actual first black president in office.

And just the same, I do believe that we will have a woman as president fairly soon - within the few election cycles - but I think we should hold off on applying such labels until we have an actual female, feminist (Palin caveat) president in office.  That’s not meant to be dismissive of the pro-feminist things Obama has done or to suggest that he’s not at all feminist in his beliefs or practices.  I just don’t think feminism is his core, driving progressive principal.

DTG:
I can’t recall who it was but a comedian (Chris Rock? help me out) addressed that exact question, coming down on the “black president” side.  The routine, iirc, went something like:
“he likes his food, he likes to get laid and he spends half his time being rousted by white cops who are damned sure he isn’t allowed to be exactly where he’s supposed to be, of course he’s goddamned black”.

“They were trying to make sure she didn’t become a right wing target the way Hillary did when she was first ladey.  And it’s worked.  Michelle is incredibly popular.”

incredibly popular - yes
not a right wing target - no it didnt work

C’mon, Jesse, you buried the lede! Literally ...

President Obama drew heat last week for a story that surfaced outing his private White House male-only b-ball games. The story was that even though two female members of his cabinet were members of their college basketball teams, they were excluded, as were all women, from this most private of male-only clubs. The story became a metaphor for how the president views women generally and threatened to reveal some inconvenient truths about the man.

Claiming that “Bonnie Erbe is convinced that Barack Obama hates women.”
from her comment, “I just don’t get the impression this man is comfortable with women. Nor do I believe he cares about them beyond needing women’s votes is a huge stretch. Erbe’s comment is far from an extreme criticism, it’s based on actions and events that anyone can independently verify, and covers several topical stories.

WTF, I got 99 problems and Barack Obama ain’t one.

“They were trying to make sure she didn’t become a right wing target the way Hillary did when she was first ladey.  And it’s worked.  Michelle is incredibly popular.”

incredibly popular - yes
not a right wing target - no it didnt work

Agreed, but I think the point is that right-wing attacks on Michelle Obama are far less effective than they were against Hillary Clinton.  The wingnuts do love getting themselves in a tizzy over MO’s every move, but their mouth-frothing has no resonance outside of their echo chambers, as evidenced by her popularity among mainstream Americans.  It just ain’t very cool to trash the current First Lady in most moderate circles.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was also extremely demonized by the wingnuts, except that their demonization unfortunately had a TON of resonance among mainstream Americans back in the 1990s - she had some of the worst public favorability ratings of any First Lady I’ve ever seen.  A lot of moderate mainstream Americans bought into the completely irrational hatred the right had for her.  The moderates aren’t buying the hate with Michelle Obama.

Thankfully, time has largely vindicated Sec. Clinton, and she is today one of the most well-liked people in the White House - she’s got higher favorability ratings than even President Obama himself (though I think that’s largely due to the nature of her job versus his).

Cassandra, Erbe literally claimed that Barack Obama’s concern for women is akin to that of Jesse fucking Helms.  In addition to African-Americans and homosexuals, Senator Helms pretty famously hated women, based on his voting record.

Yes, I would consider that extreme rhetoric.  If you don’t think that qualifies as extreme rhetoric, you really have no clue.

“One of the reasons I supported Obama early in the campaign (before the primaries even got underway) was because, reading Dreams From My Father, I knew he understood women’s issues and was genuinely pro-feminist.”

So what you’re saying here is that Bill Ayers is pro-feminist?

As usual, Kathleen Parker is such an asshole. It seems like she just can’t wait to come up with topics that will give her an excuse to convey how much contempt she has for women.  Her theme on the Obama basketball issue is “I coulda toldja.”  (She might as well have added, “you stupid bitches.”)  She also derives great pleasure from postulating the sound of a thousand stilletos as women rush to their blogs to express their outrage while she (the sensible woman) yawns at this faux scandal.

Dowd isn’t much better, beginning her column with several paragraphs about how men just need to get away from women and children

” The wingnuts do love getting themselves in a tizzy over MO’s every move, but their mouth-frothing has no resonance outside of their echo chambers, as evidenced by her popularity among mainstream Americans”

Yeah, the only way to not be a wingnut target is to stop breathing, and even then it’s a 50-50 crapshoot

Oh, God, the PUMAS going for Palin!  “It’s our turn!” I remember seeing a former friend say. “If Barack Obama is elected, (white) women are going to be like slaves!” Um….wow. CLICK! They really do get that bad, STILL.

The description of Dowd and Parker as the mean girls, is the best one.

I haven’t read Parker as much as I have read Dowd, because I get the NY times every day, but from my limited expousure to her she’s fits the bill at least as much as Dowd.  Half the times I read Dowd’s column, and other than the fact that she has a very clever way with words and makes good use of her desktop thesaurus, she sounds like a high-school girl.  And a mean high-school girl.

That is the third article today about how Obama shuts out women out of sports and therefore, his inner circle.  The WaPo has one by Kathleen Parker and the NY Times has one by Maureen Dowd.

Who’s been passing out the talking points?

I suspect it’s a pre-emptive salvo against this weekend’s NYT magazine piece:

Magazine Preview: The First Marriage
By JODI KANTOR
It’s modern. It’s a formidable brand. And it’s an ongoing negotiation between two strong-minded individuals

Can’t have Obama seeming like a guy who respects women (including his wife) as intellectual equals, now can we? I’m sure Dowd and Parker and Erbe would prefer a POTUS with the same feminist attitudes as, hmmm, John McCain.

The story was that even though two female members of his cabinet were members of their college basketball teams, they were excluded, as were all women, from this most private of male-only clubs.

I was under the impression that these games included the President and various (lower-level) staffers, guys whose responsibilities aren’t compromised by taking the odd hour off to play a quick game.  Cabinet members don’t work in the White House, and I would imagine they have rather more busy schedules.  There’s a difference between not being involved in something and being actively excluded from it. Oh, and if Sibelius and whoever showed up for a game, shall we try to imagine the outrage over the unseemliness of the President wasting time playing basketball with Cabinet members instead of working on the People’s Business?

As for Michelle, presidential spouse has got to be a tough job.  Any outside employment could (would) bring charges of conflict of interest.  A policy role - well, the disaster of health care reform in ‘92 made that look like a bad idea for the foreseeable future (not because of Hillary, but because of the perception of an ‘unelected, unvetted’ person being given such a significant role).  Any success would be dismissed as being because of the influence of the President.  And any conflict, any perceived failure would be used against the President.  Better to take it as an opportunity to do some things that wouldn’t otherwise be available: Be more involved with your kids (just think of the places those girls have gone and the people they’ve met in the last nine months!).  Use your visibility to bring attention to things that matter to you - healthy eating, homelessness, military families. I think Michelle is doing about as much as can be done in a very constrained role.  Her day will come - in 2017 the kids will be older, her husband will be the one in the restricted role (former presidents do have some limitations on what they can do) and she’ll still be in her prime.

The timing does seem more than a tad suspicious, Gracchus.

Yeah, the only way to not be a wingnut target is to stop breathing, and even then it’s a 50-50 crapshoot

Well, that didn’t seem to help Ted Kennedy much in August, when Andrew Breitbart couldn’t even wait for Ted’s body to get cold before he started tweeting vile shit like “Rest in Chappaquiddick” and “Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement.”

I do wish harm on people like Andrew Breitbart, and I don’t feel bad about it.  I hope the racist shitstain gets into a horrible car accident and suffers an excruciatingly agonizing and painful death.

Cassandra, Erbe literally claimed that Barack Obama’s concern for women is akin to that of Jesse fucking Helms.  In addition to African-Americans and homosexuals, Senator Helms pretty famously hated women, based on his voting record.

Yes, I would consider that extreme rhetoric.  If you don’t think that qualifies as extreme rhetoric, you really have no clue.
Comment #31: DTG in STL on 10/28 at 03:43 PM

Within the parameters of the column (comfort with women’s issues, photo-ops and the political necessity of reaching out for women’s votes in these times vs. Helms’ heyday) the comparison to Helms over other Old Boys Club Politicians is a YMMV judgment call, but hardly extreme. My take was that it was more about what’s tolerable in the media (sexism/racism). Jesse’s pronouncement that Erbe was saying Obama Hates Women IS extreme and I’m driving that straight to the basket.

Use your visibility to bring attention to things that matter to you - healthy eating, homelessness, military families.

Which she’s actually doing this very minute minute in the Bronx by visiting troops in a VA hospital with Dr. Jill Biden, and tonight she and Biden will be participating in pre-game ceremonies for “welcomebackveterans.org” at Yankee Stadium before Game One of the World Series.

I do wish harm on people like Andrew Breitbart, and I don’t feel bad about it.  I hope the racist shitstain gets into a horrible car accident and suffers an excruciatingly agonizing and painful death.

I don’t necessarily want that. I’d be happy with some blogger looking him up in a decade and saying, “So you were a way minor media personality, you thought your darling Sarah Palin was going to conquer the world, and here you are now, divorced, kids hate you, living in an efficiency, and everything you ever supported has gone down to complete defeat and humiliation. What’s it like being the King of the Losers, fuckneck?”

Cassandra, funny thing: the original story never said women were excluded, simply that they weren’t present. 

And I’m sorry that you think her assertion that Barack Obama is wholly uncomfortable with women in any aspect of his life, including his marriage, doesn’t constitute an assertion that he effective hates women, but I’m sending that shot back into the stands.

I don’t really care for the whole Michelle Obama a brilliant accomplished woman who was actually the one who made the big bucks during most of their marriage and graduated Ivy League, is nothing but an old-fashioned, non-threatening mother figure who likes to grow vegetables now.

I don’t think it’s as bad as all that - think of the practical problems of having the First Lady have a regular 9-to-5.  It would be expensive and she’d probably not get half of what she got done when she was just Mrs Obama.  And she’s definitely been a very fun and outgoing first lady; she’s obviously approaching it as a real job and is clearly fantastic at it.  I don’t think there’s any danger of Michelle’s getting mommy tracked.

Of course, Obama can do no right here.  If he were out playing basketball with women, then the Right (and the MoDo’s of the world) would mock him as a wimpy Omega man who is so lacking in Testosterone that he has to play with “girls.”  And Bonnie Erbe would dismiss it as an empty symbolic gesture, or something.

Actually, I think it really sucks.  They were trying to make sure she didn’t become a right wing target the way Hillary did when she was first ladey.  And it’s worked.  Michelle is incredibly popular.

Is that supposed to make me feel good?  It doesn’t.

Yeah, I was disappointed too. Not surprised but still disappointed. The first time I saw her and read her accomplishments, I knew she was too intelligent, qualified and empowered for the traditional First Lady role. I also knew if Obama did become president she would have to play down her abilities so as not to scare the racist/sexist wingnuts. She will always be a target for wingnuts. I just wish she were a target because she took a stand for something like true Health Care Reform rather than having an organic garden and hula hooping. We know they will go after her no matter what she does. But my pragmatic side understands. Now, my idealistic side?...that bitch is pissed and won’t shut up.

From a classic Erbe column, published this past January:

On the race front, I’m not sure whether to blame the media, the Democrats, African-Americans or all Americans, but to many people, the constant allusions to President Obama fulfilling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream and some people’s claim that he is “our man” serve to deepen racial divisions, not erase them as Obama himself has sought to do. In the words of Detroit Free Press columnist and author Mitch Albom, on the meaning of Inauguration Day:

“If you’re happy because Obama is half-black, and now black issues will be moved to the forefront — then today is nothing to celebrate, because you are breaking things down by race, and once you do that, it doesn’t matter which color you prefer, it’s still myopic, and its not unity.”

I had a frank discussion about race and Obama’s inauguration with a close African-American friend. She explained that since white people did not suffer through slavery, we could not possibly understand the way African-Americans feel about Obama’s historic win. She added, for the first time in her life she felt being African-American was an advantage rather than a disadvantage and “that feels good.”

I would never prejudge how it feels to be a member of any group to which I do not belong. But I do know if any other ethnic group (Hispanics, Latinos, Jews, Italians, Arabs, etc.) were celebrating in similar fashion, nonmembers would feel excluded and divided. What we all need to feel now is united.

Wow. Erbe is SO enlightened—has “frank discussions” with her close (close) African American friend (without listening) and doesn’t see colour, because acknowledging race—and the ongoing legacy of slavery—is “divisive,” as per noted cultural anthropologist Mitch fucking Albom).

BTW, as far as I’m concerned, comparing ANY person of colour to Jesse Helms is akin to making Hitler analogies with people of Jewish descent. Highly problematic (and needlessly inflammatory). Of course, I suppose if one doesn’t “see” things in terms of race, one doesn’t see why using a fucking flaming racist fuckhat as a cheeky comparison baseline is fucking stupid as fuck.

Convenient, that.

I don’t think there’s any danger of Michelle’s getting mommy tracked

The problem is that, unlike other countries, we’ve informally developed a system where the First Lady can’t have a 9 to 5 job, as “it’s just not done” is a high hurdle even if legally there would nothing to stop any First Lady who wanted to work and not worry over any possible backlash on the part of the public.

I’d sort of hoped we were past the residual PUMA bullshit, but apparently not.

That PUMA shit pissed me off. I supported Hilary Clinton in the primaries because no matter how much I liked and respected Obama I thought she was the more progressive/liberal candidate. But those PUMA douchebags reverted to the white-wealthy-entitled-racist-asshole playbook the moment they didn’t get their way.  They made every person that supported Clinton look like a wingnut when they wouldn’t stop their whining and tantrums. Obama won because more Democrats wanted him as the Democratic candidate. They need to get the fuck over it and move on. Seriously.

CassandraConcernTroll:

Yes, comparing the first black president to avowed racist who spent decades actively and unapologetically and overtly doing his damnedest to keep blacks and women and anybody who wasn’t a hardcore conservative in their place is extreme.  And to smooth its edges with fog language like “in context of the article” (as opposed to the context of reality) is poisonous, disingenuous, deceitful bullshit.

Next up: CassandraPretendingToBeALiberal’s take on why comparing slaves to slavemasters is okay ... in the context of somebody’s bullshit assertions in an article.

I don’t necessarily want that. I’d be happy with some blogger looking him up in a decade and saying, “So you were a way minor media personality, you thought your darling Sarah Palin was going to conquer the world, and here you are now, divorced, kids hate you, living in an efficiency, and everything you ever supported has gone down to complete defeat and humiliation. What’s it like being the King of the Losers, fuckneck?”

OK, I could go with that.

I shouldn’t have wished violence upon him.  I just can’t stand that fucking guy.  I feel my blood boiling and have a visceral urge to reach through the television and slap that goddamned smirk of his fucking face everytime I see him on television (yes, occasionally I torture myself by watching brief snippets of Fox News.  I’m a media literacy student and watching what the enemy does is part of the territory).

He is perhaps, the very epitome of a rightwing new media douchebag.  Tries to look the part of a young hipster, but he’s just a worthless fuckhead.  When I read about his Twitter posts following Ted Kennedy’s death, I just wanted to explode - how can someone by that huge of a callous dickhead?

Suit yourself, Jesse @#44. I still say it’s extreme to take from Erbe’s column that she’s “convinced” Obama “hates women” as that would encompass even his own wife and daughters. I’m abiding by my interpretation that it’s more about workplace exclusivity and networking and (narrowly paralleled with the Helms example) public image and political necessities of the respective times. I also saw that sudden inclusion of a woman in his golf-quartet as an image-tweak.

I also saw that sudden inclusion of a woman in his golf-quartet as an image-tweak.

Ah, yes—if any event with Obama excludes women, it’s proof that he hates women.  If any event does include them, it’s proof that he’s just tweaking his image to cover up the fact that he hates women.

I still say it’s extreme to take from Erbe’s column that she’s “convinced” Obama “hates women” as that would encompass even his own wife and daughters.

Strom Thurmond had a black daughter that he supported for most of her life—does that mean he didn’t really hate black people?

Well, I, too have discovered the weird social phenomenon whereby anything the women do, which occurs in the vicinity of a man, is attributed to the power of the man (thus they lost their power by associating with him).  However, this only applies to positive things.  There is also the complimentary phenomenon whereby anything that a man does whilst in the presence of a woman—if it lacks judgement, self-awareness or basic humanity—is actually caused by the woman in his presence.

It’s all very intriguing.

Bypassing the logicians upstream who susbstituted namecalling tor talking to me like a real actual human (“Concern Troll” esp doesn’t fit since I’m neither). Mnemosyne@55, I’m not the one who claimed Obama hated women (nor that Erbe do so), nor am I extending far outside what’s explicit in Erbe’s short column as was done up top and in the comments. That was Jesse’s interpretation. Your mystifying stand that I now reconcile Thurmond’s view of black people with his treatment of his daughter is a non-starter, since that doesn’t concern me either.

Mnemosyne@55, I’m not the one who claimed Obama hated women (nor that Erbe do so), nor am I extending far outside what’s explicit in Erbe’s short column as was done up top and in the comments.

If that’s the case, I’m questioning your reading comprehension skills since Erbe has quotes like this right in the part that Jesse quoted from:

President Obama talks the talk a lot better and a lot louder than Helms. But Jesse Helms was so rooted in his atavist traditions, he chose to remain true to his misogyny rather than pose for cameras with faux female golfing partners. President Obama must hide the side of his personality that is clearly uncomfortable with women because he needs their votes much more than Helms ever did. (emphasis mine)

See the part where she says that Helms stayed “true to his misogyny” but that Obama “must hide the side of his personality that is clearly uncomfortable with women”?  She’s calling Obama a misogynist.  Please explain any other possible interpretation of that paragraph other than that Erbe called Helms a misogynist and then said that Obama is as much of a misogynist as Helms was, but has to hide it.

shakahi, she WAS the more progressive candidate.  (between the two choices).  I originally supported Edwards (I know, I know) but when he dropped out I ended up supporting OBama, knowing full well that Hillary had outlined more progressive domestic policies.  The reason was her hawkishness.  I couldn’t in good conscience support that. 

Of course, with Obama esculating air attacks on Pakistan and escalating in Afghanistan, that now looks to have been a miscalculation.

I wonder often if with Hillary we would have gotten same exact foreign policy, but better domestic polices, ie; she wouldn’t have fucked up health care.  On the theory that one learns from one mistakes and she was burning for a chance for a do over on health care.

Course we’ll never know.  But with all other things being equal, I would have went with Hillary simply because I was invested in having a woman President.  I didn’t think all other things were equal though.  I may have been wrong, though, it’s still too early in Obama’s adminstration to be certain.

CassandraLiberal:
I can’t speak for anybody else—and Mnemosyne did just fine at 58, for example—but I can speak for me: I am fed up to the back teeth with people on our side of the fence who want to soften out the edges of the nastiness of the other side.  They vicious-out, you soften it out with BS like isolating her article as if it has no context outside of the crap frame that the article itself set out.  Comparing Obama to Helms is pernicious, craptastic nonsense as is any attempt to put a smiley face on that particular thrown shitpie.  (`Oh, I’m sure in the context of that particular throw the pan full of ordure wasn’t meant as a real slur…’)

If you want to act like this….
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VDiRlUzEJsI/RxpSCYXG8QI/AAAAAAAAAAo/Nc2XutYZk-0/s400/mac_ed.JPG
... be my guest, but don’t expect me to put on big proud parent smile as the ugly baby that is your argument wipes its puke across my screen.  I’ve seen it a million times before and I’m bloody tired of it.  Try being an apologist for your own side, not theirs. 

BTW, just because you are “a real actual human” doesn’t magically exempt you from talking complete and utter crap.  In this case you did and I’m not going to pretend otherwise because your fee-fees got hurt.

AngelScarlett:
I doubt very much there would have been much of a substantive policy difference between a Clinton and this Obama administration.  There would have been less disappointment, because the expectations would have been lower; there would have been less patience on the left, because Obama has managed to stroke them better than Clinton was willing to; and they media would have been scaldingly unfair instead of the confused lack of clarity they have now.  But at a policy level?  Next to no light between them.

Nothing Bonnie Erbe said made any real sense.  Saying Jesse Helm refused to have his picture taken with women isn’t indicative of anyone’s misogyny but his own.  Her attempts to stick President Obama with the misogyny label are about as logical as most of the arguments put forth by conservatives now.  There doesn’t have to be any basis in reality for what they believe, it’s enough that they believe it.

The rules of debate are different for them though.  They live in a world in which Fox is a news organization, up is down and having good health care will ruin the country.  They can’t all be fools.  Some of them must know that they’re lying.

G Porgey:
The descriptor that you are looking for is “nagelist”, from..

  “What matters is not what is true or false, but exclusively what is believed.”
  –Gen. Nagel, Oberkommando des Heeres, economics branch, Sept. 1941.

Thank you seeker6079.  I’ve made a note of that.

”I know the writer has this weird belief/fantasy that conservative women are not only willing to be but fond of being super fixed-up while doing domestic shit, but, ya know, I haves me doubts.”

‘twas always thus
40-50 yrs ago the Donna Reed show was mocked for the “doing housework in pearls” crap
while the conservitives of the day lauded it as “the real america”

oooh sorry wrong thread

shakahi, she WAS the more progressive candidate.  (between the two choices).  I originally supported Edwards (I know, I know) but when he dropped out I ended up supporting OBama, knowing full well that Hillary had outlined more progressive domestic policies.  The reason was her hawkishness.  I couldn’t in good conscience support that.

Angel, upon reading my comment again I realize my sentence made it sound like I mistakenly believed she was the more progressive candidate. You’re right she was and still is more progressive than Obama. As for her hawkishness, it made me uncomfortable but that was because I cynically believed it was an act she and her advisers played up because they thought it would make her seem tougher. She was obviously trying to walk that fine line between seeming too masculine (strong) and appearing too feminine (soft) to voters; that line female politicians are forced to walk because of our sexist culture. I remember when she was asked about torture (can’t find a vid of it yet) she unequivocally stated that it was never justified. Someone then pointed out that her husband had said there might be instances when torture could be justified. Then asked if she thought he was wrong. She said yes, he was wrong. To me that meant she favors diplomacy more than her campaign of “Who do you want answering the phone at 3am?” would have led voters to believe. I think playing that game was a HUGE mistake.

Instead of trying to court blue dogs and assuage misogynists in the Democratic Party, she should have focused more on her progressive stance. She took the Democratic African American and Hispanic vote for granted early on while not focusing on lower to mid income women. OK I’ll stop rehashing the campaign which I’m sure was well covered by Jesse, Amanda, Pam and Auguste. My original point (if I remember correctly) was the wingnuts on the right and the racists/entitled blue dogs in the middle painted Obama as the lefty, mcliberal, secret socialist candidate so well even before he got the nomination that many liberals missed that Hilary was the more liberal candidate.

I doubt very much there would have been much of a substantive policy difference between a Clinton and this Obama administration.

I disagree. I think she would have started with a Universal Health Care policy, then negotiated down to the public option. I also think she wouldn’t have sacrificed all meaningful health care reform, DADT, and DOMA on the altar of bipartisanship. She’s been through the wingnut wringer on the national level before which left her with a heavy chip on her shoulder. Therefore she’d be less likely to dance to the wingnut tune and more willing to shove Rethug scare tactics and lies down their throat. But that probably would have proved her hawkishness, at least where the Republicans were concerned. But I would have been more than comfortable with that.

shakahi:
Your last para: yes, you and I disagree.  I heard an awful lot about her itching to go after the GOP after how she had been treated, but watched as she saved the shiv and the vicious politicking for her fellow Democrats.  If she had been half as ruthless to the Republicans as to Obama then he wouldn’t have been able to use mere rhetoric to flank her on the left.

I could have sworn I posted this several hours ago. Ah, well.

DTG (26):

I always got a little turned off by the phrase “first black president” being applied to Bill Clinton in the past.  And while I realize he was given that designation by a progressive black woman, I always thought it was a little inappropriate.  Especially since we now have the actual first black president in office.
And just the same, I do believe that we will have a woman as president fairly soon - within the few election cycles - but I think we should hold off on applying such labels until we have an actual female, feminist (Palin caveat) president in office

Except while we don’t allow anyone who is white to be black (and Clinton isn’t, anyway), it’s possible for a man tobe a feminist. I don’t know that Obama is one, or is the first, but to say “he can’t be a feminist because he’s a man” <strike>HMT</strike> disregards feminist work done by men.

The analogy would hold if Obama were being called “the first female president,” but even racist misogynists usually go the other way talking about black men.

Angl (59):

wonder often if with Hillary we would have gotten same exact foreign policy, but better domestic polices, ie; she wouldn’t have fucked up health care.  On the theory that one learns from one mistakes and she was burning for a chance for a do over on health care.

I suspect it would have worked the other way; the debacle before killed her credibility on healthcare, unfair as that is.

One other thing to note… by making Hillary Clinton SoS, he may have just given her a huge boost for future political ambitions, if she has them.  Sure, in winning the primaries, he prevented her from being able to become the 44th President, but there’s already a decent amount of speculation that’s she’s got a pretty good shot at winning the 2016 Democratic nomination and possibly becoming the country’s 45th President.  Yeah, she’ll be 68 in 2016 (she will turn 69 a week or so before Election Day), but I think she’s still got enough youthful vigor that it won’t necessarily get in the way.  Reagan was 69 when he became the 40th POTUS, after all.

Also, women have a longer lifespan than men and remain healthier longer. She can have the nomination in 2016 if she wants it. She will have done enough penance for her Iraq War vote by then.

I couldn’t go for Hillary last time because of her Iraq War vote and simply because Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would NOT bode well for American democracy.

Still…
Wouldn’t it have been sweet to watch wingnut heads explode if she had insisted on being sworn in as President Hilary Rodham?

Wouldn’t it have been sweet to watch wingnut heads explode if she had insisted on being sworn in as President Hilary Rodham?

YES! And she is still quite seriously my top choice for 2016 right now. She is doing great as SoS, better than I expected.

I wonder how long ‘til Larry Johnson jumps on board - this is right in his wheelhouse. God, what a transparently false and manufactured narrative. The guy passes ledbetter, appoints all kinds of women, has a happy family life with lovely daughters and wife - all female humans, notably - and even did a frigging photo-op in April where he shot some hoops with the UConn womens’ team. But hey, someone decided we should talk about this so we’re gonna talk about this amirite?

Jesse, I went and read the comments. That wasn’t nice of you to suggest.. lol. Speaking of which I have a game for you guys. It’s called You Rage You Lose. All you have to do is read the comments on the Erbe article (or anything similar) and try not to get upset.

I failed miserably…

I’m bothered by a piece about his discomfort with women bringing up Michelle’s “career woman” prior status. Doesn’t it seem like the author is trying not just to tarnish Barack’s feminist cred for her toning it down as First Lady, but also implying that if a man REALLY liked women, he’d have married someone who wasn’t so unfeminine as to want a career and have ideas in the first place?

If she had been half as ruthless to the Republicans as to Obama then he wouldn’t have been able to use mere rhetoric to flank her on the left.

Seeker, you and I completely agree on that.

Samantha, he’s such a misogynist he married a woman who acts like a man? (His boss, no less.)

“Samantha, he’s such a misogynist he married a woman who acts like a man? (His boss, no less.)”

Perfect!
Good thing you have morals, otherwise you could make you a fortune on the wingnut welfare circuit if you was willing to sell your soul for it

I need to say that Chamique Holdsclaw is one of the best names EVER.

WTF, I got 99 problems and Barack Obama ain’t one.

Is it just me, or is this a really obvious PUMA dogwhistle?