Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: McCain announces ‘Truth Squad’ to counter attacks on Palin Previous entry: One Mr. Thomas Brady

WTF NY NOW?

When I wrote this sentence in today’s LA Times Dust-Up, I was joking around:

The media blitz around Hillary Clinton’s campaign left the impression that “feminism” is a movement solely oriented toward electing middle-aged white women into high office. This would lend one to thinking that “feminists” would want to elect Sarah Palin vice president, no matter how bad her policies would be for ordinary women.

 

I then go on to point out that real feminists actually give a damn about policy and how it affects the lives of real women.  Then, as if the universe is out to get me and make me feel stupid, I get an email forwarded from the NY NOW from Marcia Pappas.  Yes, the very same one who threw an unseemly hissy fit when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama.  Who bitterly scolded Hillary Clinton for having the nerve to suggest that your vote should be about progress and people, not about hero-worship of Hillary Clinton.  Which proves that Clinton could do no wrong….except endorse Barack Obama.  And now this email crosses the line from being mildly funny to downright upsetting, especially since the media has managed to fix themselves another close election.  Some other pseudo-feminist who puts voting for women above voting for women’s rights has republished the whole thing.

Many years ago, I read a book called “Women Who Love too Much: When You Keep Wishing and Hoping He’ll Change” by Robin Norwood.  It’s a book to help women look at why they might find it difficult to leave unhealthy relationships. So I got to thinking, what if we exchanged “men” for “the party?” I have often used this analogy when talking about my feelings and to explain why women have such difficulty holding their “party” accountable for its actions.

In the women’s movement, we often say the personal is political. For as long as I can remember, I’ve known that abusive relationships can extend beyond our personal relationships with individuals into our political lives. So let’s re-read Women Who Love Too Much, substituting “the party” for “men.” It will show the dynamics of some current events, so I urge you to take this test I send, with love and a desire to empower women.  Women inside and outside the women’s movement, please ask yourself these questions:

1.  Do you find yourself attracted again and again to a troubled, distant, party?

2.  Do you obsess over a party that is emotionally unavailable, addicted to power, money, alcohol, or other women?

3. Do you neglect your friends and your own interests, your ethics, and ideals to be immediately available to the party?

And so on and so forth.  It’s deeply fucked up.  First of all, Norwood’s book is a classic bit of sexist self help trash that Susan Faludi expertly destroyed in Backlash.  But it’s worse than that.  To her credit, Norwood did accurately describe the helpless loop women get into when they’re entangled in emotionally (and sometimes physically) abusive relationships.  (The sexism came later in her diagnosis and solutions, which Faludi dismantles.)  Which means that Pappas is using the experience of abuse victims to concern troll female Democrats.  Which frankly, I think is victim-blaming abuse victims.  Because Pappas isn’t actually concerned about us.  She’s angry and bitter and is saying, “Nyeh nyeh you’re being treated like an abuse victim and I’m not because you’re stupid.”  Calling someone an abuse victim as an insult is insinuating that abuse victims have anything to be ashamed about, as if they did something wrong. 

This seething hatred Marcia Pappas has for Barack Obama has really crossed a line this time.  I’m usually loathe to say this, but perhaps Pappas needs to reconsider her continuing spot as the president of NY NOW if she can’t behave in a professional manner.  She’s not issuing these paranoid emails from a personal account or personal blog.  She’s speaking in her capacity of president.  And frankly, I’m shocked at the utter lack of concern she’s showing for the rights and quality of life of your average American woman, which will suffer under John McCain.

 

------

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.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:25 PM • (38) Comments

Maybe Pappas should have read Bob Herbert today. He didn’t mention choice, but he sure as hell could have when he was running down the list of things that liberals have done to make this country a better place.

Comment #1: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  09/09  at  09:10 PM

Pappas is upset for the same reason some older white men are upset: their birth privileges are being questioned!

You see, for people like Pappas, it is all about being the new boss ... same as the old boss. It is about waiting one’s turn, not about merit, not about what you will do for others. It was about having power OVER rather than power FOR.  In other words, it was about becoming a man.

Fuck that shit.  You want to know who the “liberal” “elites” are that the right wing noise machine loves to make fun of?  These are the ones - out of touch, living in the past, couldn’t give a shit for women who work and can’t hide behind their privilege when they get pregnant, lose their jobs, are divorced ... and don’t live in NYC.

I used to date a guy on my speech team - who incidently did farm chores and played football too.  His mother was heavily involved with the ERA campaigns and the NOW chapter and she would sometimes ask me if she should be fuming over shit like this ... a cross generational reality check.  That’s because she knew that I came from a long line of strong-minded working class women on both sides who worked with, for, and sometimes over the single mothers, working poor trailer trash women like us, double shift warehouse workers and waitresses who were most in need of emancipation and fair play.

Comment #2: Ms Kate  on  09/09  at  09:15 PM

Oh, and I thought it was the abusive males that are supposed to vote with their genitalia, not women.

Comment #3: Ms Kate  on  09/09  at  09:17 PM

I have often used this analogy when talking about my feelings and to explain why women have such difficulty <strike>holding their “party” accountable for its actions</strike> voting directly to destroy everything they claim to value.

Fixed that for her.

Comment #4: Auguste  on  09/09  at  09:24 PM

Let me clarify with less snarkiness, actually, now that I think about it.

There’s, as Amanda said, a LOT wrong with the analogy. The biggest thing wrong is that, UNLIKE ABUSIVE PARTNERS, parties can be changed by those who choose to remain engaged. In fact, that’s almost exactly what the most upset of the Clinton supporters complained about: That Obama swept in and changed everything to suit himself. Not true, of course, but it IS true that working within the party changes the party.

Voting for McCain/Palin - i.e. literally voting to destroy this country both from a universal and feminist point of view - is NOT holding anyone accountable for anything.

Comment #5: Auguste  on  09/09  at  09:27 PM

I’ll say again what I said in another thread a little while ago, and what I’ve said before. 

Anyone who aligns with liberal politics and has a long unbroken history of voting democratic but who refuses to throw their support behind Obama, even if it’s a “hold your nose” vote, is racist.  Period.  End of story.

Comment #6: The Opoponax  on  09/09  at  09:34 PM

In the women’s movement, we often say the personal is political.

Pappas’s problem is that she writes the above, but she means the exact opposite.  For her, “the political is personal.”  The Democratic primary this year was marked by an astonishing number of people who identified so closely with their preferred candidate it blurred the line between self and other. 

It just isn’t about her, or her hurt feelings.  That’s what she needs to understand.

Comment #7: Stephen  on  09/09  at  09:36 PM

Do you obsess over a party that is emotionally unavailable, addicted to power, money, alcohol, or other women?

The analogy shatters right here, btw. 

Could someone please explain how a political party can be addicted to alcohol and “other women”?  WTF does that even mean?  Also, I thought the goal of political parties was to attain power in the government?

To be honest, I’ve thought on several occasions that the left wing of the Democratic party ought to defect en masse to another party, perhaps the Greens.  I’ve also thought rather significantly about the fact that the US is one of the few developed and democratic countries not to have a Feminist party or something of the sort (though obviously this is because we have a two party system rather than a shifting series of coalitions). 

But this is not the election to do it.  And staying home or GOING REPUBLICAN!!!111111!!!!! is not the answer, sorry.

Comment #8: The Opoponax  on  09/09  at  09:39 PM

Do you obsess over a party that is emotionally unavailable, addicted to power, money, alcohol, or other women?

And after you break up with that guy, do you go to bed with the guy who you know used to beat up his ex-girlfriends?

Because then you might be a masochist, my friend.

Comment #9: Hector B.  on  09/09  at  09:44 PM

What did the party DO to Clinton anyway? Toss out Florida and Michigan’s delegates BEFORE the voting started because of a completely unrelated violation of rules written by Clinton partisans? Long before anyone knew that would “deny” her the nomination. The Sexist Democrat Conspiracy knows no bounds!

Comment #10: Lamenter  on  09/09  at  09:49 PM

Is there more to the email than that? Is there supposed to be a takeaway at the end? I must be stupid, because I am not getting it!

Comment #11: Mary T  on  09/09  at  10:07 PM

BTW, I’ll say here what I’ve said to friends off-blog - I would bet money that the reason NY NOW is still so, errrr, “bitter” about all this is the fact that most of the higher ups in NY NOW are also well connected within the NY state Democratic party.  Which is Clinton’s home state, in a state that is pretty much invented the concept of machine politics.  And she’s female, and supposedly feminist in that nice moderate way that NOW members tend to be. 

All these folks writing these angry screeds were absolutely sure, back last December when Clinton was the inevitable candidate, that they were going to be getting sweet Clinton Administration jobs via NY democratic machine politics.  Now that she’s not the candidate, and the chosen candidate has his own home state Democratic machine to worry about (and might even appoint, *gasp*, other black people!), their hopes of a nice cushy government appointment have been crushed.

Comment #12: The Opoponax  on  09/09  at  10:14 PM

In some places (eg Sarah Palin Facts), KMW seems to be making the Pappas-like argument that feminism pushes strongly in favor of supporting female politicians whether or not they have feminist issue positions.  You seem to be rejecting this whenever it comes up, which seems totally right—to put too much attention on the gender of the politician basically sets you up to be taken in by the other side’s token women with abhorrent views.  And then abhorrent things happen.

Comment #13: Neil the Ethical Werewolf  on  09/09  at  10:18 PM

This might be the most amazing display of immaturity in American politics since they created a bill called the USA PATRIOT ACT.

We are governed, advocated for, and informed by children.

Comment #14: Ross Lincoln  on  09/09  at  10:30 PM

It seems that these sorts of complaints are always based on the conviction that Barack Obama, with the help of the DNC, stole from Hillary Clinton what was rightfully hers.  The idea here is that the old boy network chose an unqualified male over the more qualified woman. 

In fact, Obama won the primary campaign fair and square, against an opponent who had every advantage, including name recognition and the (initial) support of the party leadership.  He won the support of more delegates than Hillary, following rules that should have been clearly understood from the get-go. The fact that Mark Penn failed to understand these rules is hardly the fault of the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, a small minority of Hillary’s supporters have convinced themselves that Hillary’s loss had nothing to do with the shitty campaign she ran, but rather must have been the result evil men trying to keep a good woman down.  Although this idea understandably resonates with the real life experiences of countless women who have been passed over for promotions at work in favor of less qualified men, the fact is that it just didn’t play out that way this time around.  Their ire should more appropriately be directed towards the media (who certainly were and are sexist and who treated Hillary terribly), the voting public, and Hillary herself (for screwing up a historic opportunity). 

The Republicans are more than happy to exploit this resentment, to the detriment of all, especially women.

Comment #15: Captain Bathrobe  on  09/09  at  11:48 PM

i second Mary T in not getting it. pappas says the questions can apply to both democrats and republicans, erm, ok, now what? it seems like strange policy to send out email to supporters that lacks an actual point.

i’m also kinda confused about all the hatin’ on obama. this will be my third time voting for president and my first voting for a democrat, in fact i was a registered green until this year, and while i was willing to pull the (D) lever no matter who won the nomination (even crazy mike gravel!), i admit obama was one of my top choices. i haven’t started getting mad crazy UTIs or yeast infections, so i don’t think my vagina is angry either.

Comment #16: jessilikewhoa  on  09/10  at  12:41 AM

Wow. That is a REALLY bad analogy.

Comment #17: maatnofret  on  09/10  at  02:30 AM

I always used to say the first woman president of the US wouldn’t be a competent liberal who at least halfway worked her way up the ranks, but a conservative demagogue who came from nowhere to destroy us all.

I am so close to being right. Sometimes I hate being right.

I do believe in some conspiracies, at least those that operate mostly in the open and have a trail of evidence for those who look. Sure, we really did go to moon. A lone gunman changed history, and possibly for the better. Kennedy would not have bailed on Vietnam and Johnson was the better president during the civil rights struggle. You think Wallace would have backed down to Kennedy? 9/11 was the result of a few committed indivuduals armed with boxcutters and more guts than you and I will ever have. But some conspiracies are out there in the open.

The fundies are penetrating politics at every level. The poor and disaffeceted are mobilized as depicted in Jesus Camp. The Moonies have influence at multiple levels. Just search “King of America” on Youtube to find out. But “The Family”, as documented by Jeff Sharlett, is going straight for the top of the heap.

But I think the fundies have more ambitious plans. They want The Bomb. For twenty years they have focused on the Air Force Academy. Their efforts are well known and extensively documented, but why so much effort there? USAF has The Bomb. Get yourself a A General Ripper there and it’s over.

The Palin pick makes me wonder. Who was behind it?

Comment #18: Bacopa  on  09/10  at  04:07 AM

First off, let me say that I’m not going to defend Pappas’ actual argument. The Republican party is clearly worse for women and other human beings than the Democrats, if only marginally so. And the gendering of her “abusive relationship” argument seems to me to be missing the mark.

In fact, liberals (female and male alike) are in an abusive relationship with the Democratic Party. And no, Auguste, they won’t ever change the party, unless they are capable of personally funding the party’s activities (George Soros seems to have made a small dent, but the rest of you slobs are working for the party, not vice versa). It is immeasurably more likely that a single abuse victim will change his or her abuser than that the liberal wing of the Democratic party will manage to wring meaningful concessions out of the pro-empire, pro-corporate behemoth that is the Democratic party.

I would have thought that having a Democratic Presidential candidate running to the right of Richard Nixon, with a credit card company shill as his running mate, would have brought this point home. But, of course, such is the nature of the abused: they refuse to see the nature of their relationship with the abuser, and react violently when anyone points it out.

So I’m prepared to get the same reception here that anyone gets when they remind you that your labor and dignity are being taken from you by someone who doesn’t care about your interests; who regularly lies to you to pacify you when he needs your support; and who behaves in a way that puts your security, your autonomy, and your very life at risk, while all the while telling you that he loves you and demanding similar declarations in return.

Please tell me how wrong I am, and how Obama is a Good Man, But You Just Make Him So Crazy Sometimes. After all, I’m just some Nader-loving freak who’s been mouthing off about Obama for the last year with with bunch of crazy predictions about how he was going to revoke the 4th amendment, reverse his anti-war stance, declare the Surge a spectacular success, call for even more troops in the middle east, and start calling for nuclear strikes on Iran. I clearly don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Comment #19: Picador  on  09/10  at  11:01 AM

having a Democratic Presidential candidate running to the right of Richard Nixon

I clearly don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

I don’t think anyone is going to take you seriously.

Comment #20: The Other Will  on  09/10  at  11:16 AM

Who was behind it?

I’d love to see an attack ad in scary black and white where Palin and McSame briefly merge and then morph into Turdblossom.

Who are you really voting for?  Karl Rove.  The same Karl Rove who ... (list various nepharious).  Do you want another shadow president (Rove morphs into Cheney)?  Or do you want to know who you are voting for ...

Comment #21: Ms Kate  on  09/10  at  11:41 AM

MW seems to be making the Pappas-like argument that feminism pushes strongly in favor of supporting female politicians whether or not they have feminist issue positions. I made the serious mistake of voting for Paula Hawkins (R) as my Florida senator because she was a woman when she was running against a yellow dog democrat, so I figured might as well vote for the woman.

I still think it was the worst vote I ever made in 30 years of casting a ballot. She was stupid, evil, not the moderate she made herself out to be. Palin’s worse—she’s not even *pretending* to be a moderate.

Comment #22: lou  on  09/10  at  11:41 AM

I don’t think anyone is going to take you seriously.

Good, that’s one in the bag.

Anyone else? Or does someone actually want to try to make an argument that Obama’s foreign policy platform is actually to the left of Nixon’s?

Comment #23: Picador  on  09/10  at  11:46 AM

You know, I posted Nixon’s platform back during the Republican Convention.

It IS left of Obama.  This country has shifted so far to the right that the current Democratic platform is more conservative than the former Republican platform.

How scary is that?

Comment #24: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  09/10  at  11:51 AM

It IS left of Obama.  This country has shifted so far to the right that the current Democratic platform is more conservative than the former Republican platform.

In 2004 they ran the 1960 presidential debate, and I remember thinking the same thing. When the primaries started to get down between Clinton and Obama (or maybe even before that) I remember thinking that if this were 1960, one of them would be the Republican and the other the Democrat…

...except, of course, for the obvious stumbling blocks to that scenario in 1960.

Comment #25: Auguste  on  09/10  at  11:59 AM

3. Do you neglect your friends and your own interests, your ethics, and ideals to be immediately available to the party?

Or do you “neglect your friends and your own interests, your ethics, and ideals” because the rest of the party’s voters selected a different nominee? Tough question.

Comment #26: paul  on  09/10  at  12:12 PM

It is immeasurably more likely that a single abuse victim will change his or her abuser than that the liberal wing of the Democratic party will manage to wring meaningful concessions out of the pro-empire, pro-corporate behemoth that is the Democratic party.


Lesson #1 you eventually learn from counseling after years of miserable ranting:  You can’t change anyone but yourself. 

It’s entirely more likely that a group of Democrats will effect more change within the party structure than a person in an abusive relationship can “change” the abuser.  No one changes unless they want to.

I suppose anybody could find a list titled “Characteristics of a Codependent Relationship” and analogize it to political dissatisfaction, but I’m not sure how that makes it interesting reading.

Comment #27: deep6  on  09/10  at  12:12 PM

From KMW’s Dust-Up column:

...encouraging strong female role models is an important part of feminism. But in a world where mainstream feminists almost unanimously backed Bill Clinton during the Paula Jones scandal and now excoriate McCain for choosing Palin, I’m not totally clear on what feminism entails—if not simply support for the Democratic Party.

Speaking of good faith arguments, Katherine Mangu-Ward either isn’t making one, or has incredibly poor comprehension skills.

Amanda’s whole point was that feminism actually means believing on,or doing something that helps women. Just being a famous woman doesn’t help, especially since it’s quite easy (and profitable) to become a prominent Republican woman by endorsing and promoting all of their anti-woman policies. Phyllis Schlaffley may be strong and female, but that doesn’t make her a feminist role model.

KMW also makes a specious comparison between feminist response to Clinton/Jones and McCain/Palin (which again ignores Amanda’s point). Feminists supported Clinton’s policies, but agreed that he acted like a cad on a personal level. They were just intelligent enough to notice that his personal behavior had nothing to do with his governing ability. Whereas feminists are currently criticizing Palin for her policies, not her private life. See? Same thing.

feminism is about seeing female humans as more than just uterus-bearing beings.

In the context of the rest of KMW’s post, I can’t help but read this as “feminism means that we don’t need to be concerned with women’s issues”, a rather dishonest twist that seems popular with Republicans and Libertarians who like to be congratulated for spouting off about women’s issues, but never actually doing anything about them.

Comment #28: mothworm  on  09/10  at  12:19 PM

BTW, I’m not the first one who brought up the Obama/Nixon parallel: it’s all laid out nicely on Obama’s own web site:

As have been noticed by the media, this lauding of former Republican presidents is an oddity in today’s environment of elevated partisanship.  This occasion is not the first time that Obama has heaped praise on George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, but another Republican president comes to mind that faced an eerily similar set of problems exactly 40 years earlier to the day that an Obama presidency would begin…Richard Milhous Nixon.

“Elevated partisanship”! Horrors! Good thing Obama is above such vulgarity, and pays due homage to our most revered statesmen: George Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Dick Nixon.

Again: this is from Obama’s own site. So I’d ask you True Believers not to shoot the messenger.

Can anyone remind me why Ralph Nader was turned into a pariah for stating this obvious truth about the Democrats in 2000?

Comment #29: Picador  on  09/10  at  12:23 PM

So I’d ask you True Believers

Still not worth taking you seriously.

Comment #30: The Other Will  on  09/10  at  12:36 PM

I would have thought that having a Democratic Presidential candidate running to the right of Richard Nixon, with a credit card company shill as his running mate, would have brought this point home. But, of course, such is the nature of the abused: they refuse to see the nature of their relationship with the abuser, and react violently when anyone points it out.

See my comment above re the idea of the liberal/left wing of the Democratic party defecting. 

I’d love to see it happen, but this is neither the time nor the place for it.  Ensuring that a republican wins the presidency is not going to create the changes we want.  And as we’ve seen in the last 8 years, the Naderites who thought that throwing the election to a conservative would mobilize apathetic moderates was an absolute failure in every way. 

Our options are to reluctantly vote   Dem or to risk things getting even more fucked up, possibly irrevocably.  And I don’t think most liberals who skew Democratic are entirely ready to throw in their lot with armed insurrection or civil war.

Comment #31: The Opoponax  on  09/10  at  12:40 PM

And as we’ve seen in the last 8 years, the Naderites who thought that throwing the election to a conservative would mobilize apathetic moderates was an absolute failure in every way.

that “make it worse and they’ll come running to us” argument never works. Notably, the German Communists tried it in 1933, with a certain notable lack of success.

The problem is that this is not a liberal country. There simply aren’t enough leftists to win electoral victory. The way you address this is the same way the rightists did to the Republican party—join the party and pull it in your direction.

Comment #32: Norsecats  on  09/10  at  02:21 PM

Notably, the German Communists tried it in 1933, with a certain notable lack of success.

Yes yes, principled liberalism == Hitler. Thank you, Jonah Goldberg.

The problem is that this is not a liberal country. There simply aren’t enough leftists to win electoral victory.

Nonsense. 74% of the electorate wants us out of Iraq, but neither party put forward a candidate willing to do it. The numbers are the same as in 2006, when the Dems took over Congress based on the lie that they would end the war.

The denial at work here is no longer surprising to me, but it continues to be pathetic.

Comment #33: Picador  on  09/10  at  04:45 PM

I’d love to see it happen, but this is neither the time nor the place for it.

“I know I should leave him, I know, if not for me then for the kids… he does get ever so violent when he’s been drinking… but, you know, he’s been under so much stress at work lately, and frankly right now with the new baby coming and all, it just wouldn’t be a good time… maybe when we have the new baby everything will be okay and he’ll stop staying out late and he won’t be so angry and… and…”

Comment #34: Picador  on  09/10  at  04:49 PM

Picador, seriously?  We’re 2 months from a presidential election.  Which, don’t know if you remember this from your school days, but they only happen every 4 years.  Whoever wins the election is going to be President of the United States for the next 4 years.   

It is important that we all work together to make sure that the winner of this election is the person who isn’t a blatant right-wing nutjob whose second in command is a theocrat. 

Once that’s squared away we can talk about third parties, mmmkay? 

Also, I have to say that your use of the abuse meme to explain why it’s necessary for us to hand the election to a Republican is offensive.

Comment #35: The Opoponax  on  09/10  at  05:15 PM

METAPHOR POLICE!!

Picador, your metaphor breaks down when you realize that the only choices are the guy who slaps you from time to time (D) and the guy who put you into intensive care (R). We HAVE to live with one of these guys. Take your pick.

As an ex-wife who was abused, by the way, I find your metaphor offensive. Obama isn’t the perfect messiah I would love to vote for, but he isn’t pushig me down the stairs or breaking my jaw. And your metaphor that he is, well, it’s childish and belittles what women like me actually went through.

Comment #36: Faye  on  09/10  at  05:25 PM

Wow, Picador just becomes more offensive by the minute.  Way to diminish domestic violence, asshole.

Comment #37: Mnemosyne  on  09/10  at  05:54 PM

Way to diminish domestic violence, asshole.

You’re offended because I compared Obama’s stated intent to ramp up a war of aggression that has so far cost a million Iraqi lives, and his stated willingness to initiate nuclear war against Iran, to domestic violence… and the reason for your taking offense is that it diminishes the seriousness of domestic violence?

I know I sound like a broken record, but the lack of perspective here is truly bizarre.

As an ex-wife who was abused, by the way, I find your metaphor offensive. Obama isn’t the perfect messiah I would love to vote for, but he isn’t pushig me down the stairs or breaking my jaw.

I am truly sorry that you had that experience.

That being said, voting for Obama is a vote for a war criminal who will put hundreds of thousands of people, at least, through experiences much more harrowing than anything you were subjected to. I would think that your experience would give you some compassion for this man’s victims.

Your statement that you’re standing by your man Obama because you can’t find a better man is one that has been addressed in more than a few popular songs in the last 50 years. You should follow their invariable prescription and leave him.

If you value your humanity, you should seriously ask yourself if you want to lend your active political support to a genocidal monster, regardless of whether his name is McCain or Obama.

And your metaphor that he is, well, it’s childish and belittles what women like me actually went through.

Again, I don’t think that comparing domestic abuse to genocide does anything to “belittle” victims of the former. On the other hand, your characterization of Obama’s stated goal to continue to murder thousands of Iraqis a month as “the guy who slaps you from time to time” strikes me as something of a trivialization of the genocide Obama has pledged to continue.

I thought that the Republicans were the masters of projection, but it looks like this election is bringing the Democrats down to their level of psychological dysfunction. Congratulations.

Comment #38: Picador  on  09/11  at  10:55 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.