Sunday, August 31, 2008


The Democratic Party primary revealed it was open season on all women.

It was never just about Hillary.

She wasn't attacked with one sexist insult after another because she was Hillary.

There were no examples of Hillarist statements.

It was sexism pure and simple.

And in the face of these attacks, women like Betsy Reed and Laura Flanders not only added to them, they offered that women shouldn't be bothered by it.

Can you imagine the same two women telling African-Americans that they shouldn't be bothered by racist attacks? (Stick with African-Americans because The Nation hasn't done s**t for Latinos or Asian-Americans and, in fact, shortly after winning an award from the Arab-American community, they were running propaganda against Arab-Americans that Katrina vanden Heuvel finally had to 'defend' as 'If they pay for it, we'll run it!')

But to allow the sexism to run free, Sell Outs had to step up to the plate and declare it didn't matter because it was just Hillary, don't worry, it's just Hillary.

And any woman who dared to stand up for all women had to be trashed and smeared. So Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan were viciously and repeatedly trashed. They were far from alone but it was really important to put question marks by both women's names. If they couldn't do that, they couldn't 'win' it for Barack.

He had no qualifications (and he still has none). So they had to ridicule and dismiss Hillary's experiences. They had to take her out for Barack to win.

Which goes a long way towards explaining why various outlets (The Nation, Bill Moyers Journal, The Progressive, et al) could wax on and on in 2008 about the breakthrough of the first Black (he's bi-racial) man throughout the primaries while the first women couldn't and wouldn't be treated as anything to celebrate.

How many bad segments on race did Bill Moyers do? It started to feel like it was every week.

How many segments did he offer on gender? Zero.

But they weren't tilting the scales, they insist, they weren't showing any bias or favoritism. They weren't pulling for any one candidate but, hey, let's talk about race again and maybe we can all laugh as Bill Moyers refers to Hillary Clinton as "moisty"?

That s**t didn't cut it.

The warning sign for all should have been when BuzzFlash's Mark Karlin launched an attack on women after Hillary won New Hampshire. (Yes, Mark Crispin Miller and all you other nut jobs, she won New Hampshire.) Mark Karlin wrote an editorial for the 'little ladies' telling them they shouldn't vote their gender. He was never concerned about 'identity politics' when it came to race, but gender bothered him.

Few bothered to call his crap out.

Which brings us to 'feminist' Katha Pollitt. Consider her women's sometimes and reluctant champion.

As one of the most high profile 'feminists' in the country (it's not difficult to be that, just get a job at a non-feminist mag and keep your mouth shut about the mag's sexism, you'll go far) Katha decided to come out for Barack. And apparently that ended her concerns with sexism. When Tom Hayden's sexist garbage went up, Katha did call him out. But read that post she wrote and grasp how it's all about how she didn't want to have to deal with this and blah blah blah. Tom-Tom ''pushed her over the edge" after she had already decided, "I want to do my bit for Obama, so I vowed I would give up attacking Obama-supporting progressives for the duration of the presidential campaign." Golly, gee, Katha, we didn't realize feminism was like a water faucet, that you could turn it on and off.

We thought feminism was what a person lived. But there's 'feminist' Katha confessing she didn't want to tackle it.

How fortunate the movement is to have her -- between her stalkings.

Katha thought Hillary attacked launched "vile" "attacks" on Barack "for guilt by associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers". Did she really believe it or was those lies she tossed out to say, "Hey, go easy on me, I got in some false slams on Hillary." (When asked, Hillary stated she would have left Wright's church if it had been her church. Bill Ayers has admitted to activities that are illegal and criminal. He stayed undergound for over a decade to avoid prosecution. For the crowd that wanted to scream "Marc Rich! Marc Rich!" over and over, their sudden cozyness with Bill is rather strange.)

But there was Katha confessing to her own actions: Deliberate silence.

Not by accident, not because she'd found another dull topic of little interest to America but fascinating to her. She made a deliberate decision to stay silent. She made the choice to not call out the sexism.

And she wants to be considered a feminist?

Previously, we thought the biggest laughs Katha could get were from here photo at The Nation. She topped herself.

Feminism no longer was the issue to Katha, as she admits. It was all about doing her "bit for Barack."

Remember that. When women need support and Katha's not there, remember that.

Remember it and check to see if there's some man she's yet again decided trumps feminism.

To be clear, her deciding to support Barack was her decision (a misguided one, read her own reasons in her Feb. post and see how wrong she was -- hindsight, like her ass, can be huge). It was not acceptable, as a feminist, to make the decision that she wouldn't call out sexism. It wasn't acceptable and she knew it which is why she didn't reveal her decision to her readers when she made it. Only when it was time for her to have her brief Popeye movement ("I can't stands no more!") did she inform that it had been a deliberate decision.

And, thing is, most people never noticed and Katha probably didn't grasp what she was revealing either.

The first half of 2008 was all about disrepecting women. And a number of women joined in. (Michelle Obama's comments at the end of 2007 were sexist and they have not been forgotten.)

The sexism couldn't have worked without some women selling other women out. Which is how you got two butt-ugly non-Democrats writing "Feminist Ultimatums: Not In Our Name." (Eve, Lee Grant wants her hair back and Elvira asking that you return her make-up.) The two faux Democrats, Eve Ensler and Kimberle Crenshaw, wrote an attack on Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan and so many other women which included:

In seeking to corral wayward souls into the Hillary Clinton camp, the new players of this troubling game are no longer the hawkish Republicans but "either/or" feminists determined to see to it that a woman occupies the Oval Office. Drawing their feminist boundaries in the sand, they interrogate, chastise, second-guess and even denounce those who escape their encampment and find themselves on Obama terrain. In their hands feminism, like patriotism, is the all-encompassing prism that eliminates discussion, doubt and difference about whom to vote for and why.

Yep, that's Gloria, rounding up women on the streets and interrogating them. We're surprised Eve and Kimberle didn't invent detention centers since they were already being so creative. (Far more creative than anything Eve's offered in her 'artistic' life.) Here's an either/or for the writers, you're either a Democrat or you're not. So how about letting America know the truth on that?

The non-Democrats (writing Feb. , 2008, early in the Democratic Party primary season) continue:

While denying any intention to square off racism against sexism, the "either/or" feminists nonetheless remind us that the Black (man) got the vote before the (white) woman, that gender barriers are more rigid than racial barriers, that sexism is everywhere and racism is not, that a female Obama wouldn't get nearly as far as a Barack Obama, and that a woman's vote for Clinton is scrutinized while a male vote for Obama is not. Never mind of course that real suffrage for African Americans wasn't realized until the 1960s, that there are any number of advantages that white women have in business, politics and culture that people of color do not; that all around the world women's route to political leadership is through family dynasty which is virtually closed to marginalized groups, and that the double standard of stigmatizing Obama's Black voters as racially motivated while whitewashing Clinton's white voters as "just voters" constitutes the exact same double standard that the "either/or feminists" bemoan.

First off, African-Americans in the US were not disenfranchised "until the 1960s." The United States is fifty states, ladies. Jim Crow laws on voting were then in existance in the south. It is a historical fact that African-American males got the vote before ALL women. The non-Democrats are playing their race card, it feels like the 1940s all over again. Voter disenfrachisment continues (2008 may have taught us more about that than 2000 did). It is true that "white women" sometimes have a leg up. For example, we can't imagine a man producing the stitched together, badly written Vagina Monologues and getting praised for it. Then again, maybe if he had 'movement' comrades to do his advance work in the press, he might have?

By the time the two get to "whitewashing," they aren't even concerned with facts or appearing sane. African-American voters were never lectured not to support Barack by the White press. The White press had no problem lecturing women who supported Hillary.

The "either/or" crowd surprisingly claims that the two Democratic candidates are more alike than different, yet those who gravitate to Obama find their motives questioned and their loyalties on trial. Even long standing allies of the women's movement have been unable to escape the label of "traitor" for opting to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

The two "candidates are more alike than different"? Then why did you both support Barack? That's your decision but if there's a reason for the support, you never outlined it. And, Eve, you are a traitor. You're a dumb traitor on top of that.

You wrote a bad, bad play. But it finally gave you, the failed actress, a minute or two of fame. Your follow up efforts have provided you with nothing and will provide you with nothing. It's really hard for you to energize a lot of women into coming to stare at your plain face for hours as you dither on stage at this point. The selling point of your awful play was that "This is women supporting women!" And you not only attacked Hillary, you went after Gloria and Robin and so many more. Women are aware of what you did. Your V-Movement is about as wanted these days as a bowel movement. Flush it down, Eve, flush it down.

The Two Politically Closeted Writers sure toss "racism" around but never stumble across "sexism." How is that? How do you write what feminism means to you and what it means you are against and never use the word "sexism"?

You do it because feminism isn't your first concern. You do it because you're a fool. Eve and Kimberle can't shut up about Afghanistan and they're left having carried the water for the candidate who can't shut up about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Ladies, you said "Not in our name!" But your actions brought it about. Soap won't wash away the blood on your hands if Barack's elected but we might suggest you use it on your mouths.

The two fakes try to sell not voting for the female candidate as a sign of feminism. Yeah, we heard that talking point repeatedly. We just never heard any similar point made to African-American voters about Barack.

Why didn't we hear it? Because it's offensive, sell-out device.

So there were the two useless 'writers,' offering their 'useless' 'thoughts' and indicating their sell-by-date had long expired. Probably explains the curdled look to Eve's face.

Or maybe that was due to the press silence on her last 'big' event?

Could a feminist have supported Barack?

If she knew the record, it's doubtful that she could have acting on feminist principles. But it is possible. And, for those who did so with no more acknowledgement than, "I'm supporting Barack," we think it's possible.

But for idiots like Eve and Kimberle who felt the need to flaunt their crap in public, no. Barack Obama put homophobes onstage in South Carolina. There's nothing feminist about that. Barack Obama (despite the right-wing meme today) did nothing to support abortion rights while in the Illinois legislature. We knew where Hillary stood on both of those issues.

Here's where the logic always fell apart. They would put pressure on Barack to make him into who they wanted him to be. Female, male, all the loons said it, sounding like the stereotype of a woman who's going to change a man. Their illogical argument was that they could bring to pressure to bear on Barack.

They were never asked why they felt pressure couldn't be brought on Hillary?

Were they saying they believed Barack was so weak-minded they could push him around?

They say they want to end the illegal war. (Eve's own actions in 2007 and 2008 demonstrate little to bear that out and Kimberle's too busy covering state Republicans to write about Iraq.) If Hillary is all the evil they think she is (they seem to forget the talking about those 'polling Clintons, always watching the poll numbers!') and they wanted to kick start a real movement in this country, why not elect Hillary?

The alleged movement wouldn't need to regroup after Barack disappointed them. It would be in place (fueled by sexism) and ready to take on Hillary from day one.

If their actions were supposed to promote their strategic capabilities, all it demonstrated is they lack the skill to even plan a child's birthday party.

So the men attacked and you had Queen Bees joining in and never was it supposed to be noticed that gender would never be celebrated.

Now the sexism has bit the Barack campaign in the ass. And you see women coming forward to the public sphere with talking points (lies) that they did support Hillary early on but then decided to go for Barack. They beckon (like ugly sirens) saying, "Come on, girls, I did it. You can too! It's so soft and comfortable crashing on these rocks!"

That's really not working either.

So last week, the point was to try to corral feminists (all Hillary voters but especially feminists who have been overly loyal to the Democratic Party) as much as it was to shore up Barack. They failed at both aims.

As Ava and C.I. point out, Michelle Obama couldn't stop loving that man -- whether it was Barack, her father or her brother. And that was pretty much all the primetime speeches from the 'beloved.' (The Clintons were not beloved by Barack or Nancy Pelosi.)

This was where the party was going to finally note the historic run by Hillary. And yet . . . they wouldn't even allow a roll call vote. And yet . . . Barack didn't know about the enacting of the 19th Amendment. We were surprised by that. Usually, he comes up with a good lie for anniversaries. Like how he was conceived due to the Selma March . . . conceived five years before. We were expecting to hear a tale of the courtship of his parents at Seneca Falls!

They threw out sop. And it was often aimed solely at women. It was as bad as the GOP 'strategy' that Dan Quayle would be on the ticket because he'd appeal to women due to his 'good looks.' It was insulting, regardless of whether it was coming out of the mouth of his wife (he's still the man I love, 19 years later!) or out of the mouths of a bunch of women the feminist movement really doesn't need to hear from. (You know who you are.)

But to have speakers (not Barack) repeatedly note "the 88th anniversary of women winning the vote" in the same convention in which you deny Hillary's roll call vote? It was sop. It was crap.

Feminists aren't buying it. And they're already calling out the garbage aimed at John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin. Not because they're going to vote for her but because we're all damn sick of a woman being unqualified because of her gender. We're all sick of the gender attacks against women in order to disqualify them.

The device used was not Hillaryism. It was sexism. And it hurt all women.

Palin's got numerous areas to hit upon. Attacking her for her gender? Not one of them.

And not one that will work.

Now the useless and stupid (see Eve Ensler) convinced themselves that women were supporting Hillary because they were "either/or" -- if the useless and stupid really believed that lie, they should especially be worried about the attacks on Palin. They should fear that these attacks would fuel the same 'non-thinking women' that they think only supported Hillary's run out of 'solidarity.' They should fear unleashing those 'unthinking women'.

Support for Hillary, those eighteen million voters and those voters who chose someone else when it was still more than a two-candidate race but came to Hillary after (check the donations, a lot of people in states that had already held their primaries began donating to Hillary for the first time long after their state held the primary), was about a great deal more than gender and, for many, gender didn't even factor in.

But you all told your lies of how Hillary was evil and unlikeable and unqualified so often, you started to believe in them and never grasped just what a powerful candidate Hillary was.

Attempting to be a good sport, Hillary asked last week if her supporters were just in it for her or what the Democratic Party stood for? It was a good pitch. It wasn't successful, but it was a good pitch. And you had bullies pick up on it and start repeating it.

For Hillary's base, Barack is not the Democratic Party. He does not stand for anything. He never has. He has no specifics. He has no plans. He is airy and gossamar. Fine, toss him back on the cover of Men's Vogue. But don't turn around and pretend he represents what Democrats are supposed to stand for. Hillary stood up for MoveOn, Barack condemned them. Hillary stood for fighting for what was right, Barack wants to hold hands from across the aisle. Hillary stood for equality, Barack stands for sexism and homophobia. Hillary stood for working class Americans, Barack ridiculed them in San Francisco.

Barack ridiculed small town America. It caused a huge uproar. Demonstrating just how inept the campaign is, all these months after that error, when Palin was announced, they insulted her for once being the mayor of a . . . small town. Still making the same mistakes all this time later and still sliming a woman.

People supporting Hillary's run were supporting what she was proposing. Barack's not proposing that. Barack and Hillary were never just alike. And those who supported Hillary were supporting what she stood for and proposed.

Last week was supposed to be the damage control for the rampant sexism. But all it was attack Hillary, attack Bill, attack them again and again and again. No lie was too far of a reach. People could peer both inside Hillary's head and the future. Or so they'd have you believe.

It was insulting to listening to the gas bags. It was insulting that all this time later, they still only had one way to build up Barack: Tear down Hillary.

He and his campaign are not just getting stale, they're damaging him with all the leaks and whispers to the press about the 'evil' Hillary. She conceded publicly in June. She was never going to have a floor fight, she was saying that privately in June. Hillary's race ended with another stunning win (Puerto Rico). All these months later, it was still drag the woman through the mud to justify why Barack's non-experience, non-qualifications warrant a vote for him. It's become pathological.

Forget Barack and the DNC convention, where was the coverage of the 88th anniversary? Where was the celebration of that? There was no time for it because it was Barack, Barack, Barack and then Hillary Won't Go Away! Lot of public affairs programs (radio and TV) and who thought the anniversary was worth discussing? Who did a segment on it? Who celebrated that moment?

And they still want to pretend the media wasn't sexist. And they still want to pretend it was about Hillary only and not about women.

They disrespect women. They hissed "gender card!" and "identity politics!" over and over. And now they want to push Roe v. Wade as a reason to support Barack?

Do they not see how laughable they are? BuzzFlash was posting their a vote-for-Barack-is-support-for-Roe V. Wade on June 3rd. Considering the low number of men who ever have abortions (that would be: zero), what exactly do they think they're pushing?

Wouldn't that be the same "gender card" and "identity politics" that they screamed against when Hillary won New Hampshire?

How stupid do they think women are?

Start putting together all the lies they told in the primaries and there's no reason to support Barack. African-Americans couldn't vote until the 1960s! News to African-Americans outside the south. But, hey, abortion? It's not available everywhere. In fact, for most of the country, it's really just a right on paper and not in practice. What's Barack planning to do about that, besides insult women who have abortions and hob-knob with anti-abortion fundamentalists?

So if the Constitutional Amendment giving African-American males the right to vote is meaningless and inaccurate to raise because Jim Crow denied votes to African-Americans in the south, then certainly a Supreme Court case verdict that no longer allows women access to abortions in their own areas of the country is pretty meaingless as well.

In attacking Hillary and her supporters over and over, they acted like Republicans. And having presented all these arguments for why someone shouldn't support Hillary, those same arguments not only go to why someone shouldn't support Barack today, they also reveal how empty a candidate he is.

In the primaries he had nothing to run on but "I'm not Hillary." Now he wants to win the presidency by arguing "I'm not Bush." All this time later and he still hasn't established who he is or what he stands for. It's pretty damn embarrassing, but not at all surprising. Hillary was winning the electoral college. Team Obama was saying, "We will remake the map!" Those plans long ago got shelved and the reality is the campaign's in a panic because the 'new math' doesn't add up and he never closed the deal.

'Dynasty' hissed Eve and Kimberle (along with so many others); however, they never took offense to Ted and Caroline Kennedy trying to rub whatever's left of their images onto Barack in order to shore up his thread-bare credentials.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }