"I was in Canada in the 1960s and 1970s . . . the place was full of war resisters and they were accepted by Canada and I've loved Canada ever since then. The fact that he's turned that around, and the cruelty of that and the meanness of it, it's put a little edge on my love of Canada."
-- Oscar winner (and nominated again for tonight's awards) Julie Christie. "He" is Stephen Harper. And she is still gorgeous on the outside as well as where it really counts: on the inside.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Truest statement of the week II
He had to (TRY TO) destroy her...
… because that licenses Hillary hatred, which has the additional beneficial result of "firing up" Republicans to cross party lines in open primaries and choose our candidate for us.
-- Lambert, at Corrente, speaking of Obama. (Note Lambert posts regularly at Corrente. The above is a comment Lamber left on a very stupid post. We are linking to Lambert's comment and are in no way supporting the sexist b.s. that "Liberty" scribbled in "Why People Hate Hillary... and other democratic women politicians of a certain age."]
… because that licenses Hillary hatred, which has the additional beneficial result of "firing up" Republicans to cross party lines in open primaries and choose our candidate for us.
-- Lambert, at Corrente, speaking of Obama. (Note Lambert posts regularly at Corrente. The above is a comment Lamber left on a very stupid post. We are linking to Lambert's comment and are in no way supporting the sexist b.s. that "Liberty" scribbled in "Why People Hate Hillary... and other democratic women politicians of a certain age."]
A Note to Our Readers
Hey --
For us, this is early!
Here's who worked on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
We thank all of them for helping us and we thank Dallas who always helps, locating links, acting as a soundboard, fact checking things we're only 92% sure of and more.
Special thanks need to go to Betty, Dona and C.I. who worked very hard Saturday morning. It was Saturday morning (3:00 a.m. for C.I., 2:00 a.m. for Betty and midnight for Dona -- all were in different time zones) when they decided to outline the edition and come up with a set list of features we'd cover. One thing we never got to, AOL's continued sexism. If we're able to, we'll get to it next week but it ticked off Ava and C.I. during the summer "swimsuits" and a reader e-mailed to complain about a story they were featuring over the weekend. If there's time, we'll grab it next weekend. Otherwise, we'll grab it the next time they flaunt their sexism.
Here's what we've got:
Truest statement of the week -- Julie Christie. Root for her tonight because she knows an illegal war is taking place and she's not afraid to speak out. Also root for her because last week, she managed to mention war resisters in one comment more than Amy Goodman did in an entire week's worth of Democracy Now!
Truest statement of the week II -- Lambert at Corrente. This is one of the truths that people probably don't want to face but it is reality. Again, we do not endorse the post Lambert was commenting on (nor did Lambert, as made clear in an earlier comment to the post).
Editorial: Reality on Iraq votes -- Outside of Ava and C.I.'s writing, this is our only feature that addresses Iraq this week. That isn't "we're backing off!" The theme this edition really is the treatment of Hillary. Rebecca wanted an article last week and not only did we not get around to it, we forgot about it. She really wanted that article and pitched it hard. We all agreed to do it and we never did. She called as things were going up Sunday (there's a long delay after we tell everyone helping to go to sleep and while we edit and smooth over the pieces completed so that they can post) and Kat, Dona and C.I. pulled together a quick piece. As a result of that, we were more than willing to do a Hillary feature this week and had urged everyone to think up a piece or two. Betty, Dona and C.I. thought up a theme.
TV: The strong and the weak -- Ava and C.I. writing as only they can. They planned to do a cartoon this week but forgot to ask us to TiVo something here while they were flying back on Saturday. For those who enjoyed their commentaries on news shows and public affairs programming but longed for the return of entertainment TV, this week is a mix. ("Next week, we return to entertainment television," says Ava right now.) It's a state of the world, state of feminism piece. It's powerful, it's funny, it may get the most fan mail this week or it may lose out to . . .
Radio: Panhandle Media -- Ava and C.I.'s second piece. I wrote an intro on this because we had problems with Flickr and weren't sure how quick pieces would go up. I wanted to reassure anyone checking and finding this but no TV that this was a bonus piece, not a replacement of their regular TV commentary. What happened is that they wrote a hard hitting piece for today's El Spirito on how KPFA's debate 'coverage' betrayed Latinos and Latinas. It was so hard hitting that as soon as Francisco read it Saturday (he, Maria and Miguel do El Spirito), he called to tell them how much he appreciated it. They were out and the more I heard Francisco talk about it, the more I wanted to read it. So I booted up C.I.'s laptop and read their copy on it. They write their El Spiriot pieces on the plane ride back each Saturday along with their piece for Hilda's Mix. So I immediately looked for that. (They cover radio for Hilda's Mix.) That was also a hard hitting look (from another angle) at the KPFA broadcast. I would have loved to have stuck a flag in either piece and claimed it for Third. Instead, as soon as they got back, I asked them, "Could you write something on KPFA?" No. No. No. I waited until the writing edition and brought it up again. No go. I then bribed them with, "We could all be done by eight if you did." It's now nine o'clock, so obviously I lied. But what a powerful piece. They covered it from another angle while touching on few points that you can read in El Spirito and will be able to read Tuesday in Hilda's Mix. This really is amazing and will probably battle with their TV commentary for favorite of the week.
How Little Media Operated -- The untold story it seems because no one wants to tell it outside of this community. No one wants to talk about how Little Media, excuse me, how Panhandle Media (they coined the term for their radio commentary and we'll all be using it now) stacked the deck and trashed Hillary to build up the scant credentials of Bambi.
Trashing -- This comes before the feature above. It's the first thing we wrote and it shows up on Saturday because that's when we wrote it. When we fixed the time so everything would be in the right order, we forgot to change the date to "24" from "23." This is the feature the two that run after it leads into. Trashing is a feminist term and this deals with how Hillary has been trashed.
Bash the Bitch -- Not all criticism is trashing. That points is made throughout. It's equally true that when it's time for a round of Bash the Bitch, people need to stop and self-check on whether they're offering criticism or participating in a public stoning.
Rubbing the feet of the powerful -- Amy Goodman disgracing herself again. It's too bad no war resister is a cabinet possibility in a Bambi White House. If they were, Goody might have them on her show.
Dumb Ass of the week -- Some people can't pass a basic fact check. When you want to create a narrative that "last week" everything changed, you better be damn sure that the things you are offering as proof of your narrative did indeed occur last week.
Mailbag -- No roundtable so you get this. Thank you to Elaine for her kind comments. I almost said that in the feature but stayed silent to keep us moving on time. But here I will say thank you, Elaine. As Rebecca said, after the feature, "I was just about to make that point." Like Rebecca points out frequently, she and I (Jim) are a lot alike. So coming from her I still would have felt thankful but coming from Elaine I was thankful and surprised.
Highlights -- Mike, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Wally and Elaine wrote this and picked all highlights except where noted.
KPFA Blog from their debate coverage -- The blog was edited. By KPFA. It's supposedly been edited even more if you find it (it's hidden under the link in Ava and C.I.'s radio commentary -- the link in the first paragraph). When the 'editing' of it began, a friend at KPFA passed it on to us. We thank them.
And that's what we've got to offer this week. Hopefully you found something to make you laugh or think or get angry. Ideally, you found all three. See you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
For us, this is early!
Here's who worked on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
We thank all of them for helping us and we thank Dallas who always helps, locating links, acting as a soundboard, fact checking things we're only 92% sure of and more.
Special thanks need to go to Betty, Dona and C.I. who worked very hard Saturday morning. It was Saturday morning (3:00 a.m. for C.I., 2:00 a.m. for Betty and midnight for Dona -- all were in different time zones) when they decided to outline the edition and come up with a set list of features we'd cover. One thing we never got to, AOL's continued sexism. If we're able to, we'll get to it next week but it ticked off Ava and C.I. during the summer "swimsuits" and a reader e-mailed to complain about a story they were featuring over the weekend. If there's time, we'll grab it next weekend. Otherwise, we'll grab it the next time they flaunt their sexism.
Here's what we've got:
Truest statement of the week -- Julie Christie. Root for her tonight because she knows an illegal war is taking place and she's not afraid to speak out. Also root for her because last week, she managed to mention war resisters in one comment more than Amy Goodman did in an entire week's worth of Democracy Now!
Truest statement of the week II -- Lambert at Corrente. This is one of the truths that people probably don't want to face but it is reality. Again, we do not endorse the post Lambert was commenting on (nor did Lambert, as made clear in an earlier comment to the post).
Editorial: Reality on Iraq votes -- Outside of Ava and C.I.'s writing, this is our only feature that addresses Iraq this week. That isn't "we're backing off!" The theme this edition really is the treatment of Hillary. Rebecca wanted an article last week and not only did we not get around to it, we forgot about it. She really wanted that article and pitched it hard. We all agreed to do it and we never did. She called as things were going up Sunday (there's a long delay after we tell everyone helping to go to sleep and while we edit and smooth over the pieces completed so that they can post) and Kat, Dona and C.I. pulled together a quick piece. As a result of that, we were more than willing to do a Hillary feature this week and had urged everyone to think up a piece or two. Betty, Dona and C.I. thought up a theme.
TV: The strong and the weak -- Ava and C.I. writing as only they can. They planned to do a cartoon this week but forgot to ask us to TiVo something here while they were flying back on Saturday. For those who enjoyed their commentaries on news shows and public affairs programming but longed for the return of entertainment TV, this week is a mix. ("Next week, we return to entertainment television," says Ava right now.) It's a state of the world, state of feminism piece. It's powerful, it's funny, it may get the most fan mail this week or it may lose out to . . .
Radio: Panhandle Media -- Ava and C.I.'s second piece. I wrote an intro on this because we had problems with Flickr and weren't sure how quick pieces would go up. I wanted to reassure anyone checking and finding this but no TV that this was a bonus piece, not a replacement of their regular TV commentary. What happened is that they wrote a hard hitting piece for today's El Spirito on how KPFA's debate 'coverage' betrayed Latinos and Latinas. It was so hard hitting that as soon as Francisco read it Saturday (he, Maria and Miguel do El Spirito), he called to tell them how much he appreciated it. They were out and the more I heard Francisco talk about it, the more I wanted to read it. So I booted up C.I.'s laptop and read their copy on it. They write their El Spiriot pieces on the plane ride back each Saturday along with their piece for Hilda's Mix. So I immediately looked for that. (They cover radio for Hilda's Mix.) That was also a hard hitting look (from another angle) at the KPFA broadcast. I would have loved to have stuck a flag in either piece and claimed it for Third. Instead, as soon as they got back, I asked them, "Could you write something on KPFA?" No. No. No. I waited until the writing edition and brought it up again. No go. I then bribed them with, "We could all be done by eight if you did." It's now nine o'clock, so obviously I lied. But what a powerful piece. They covered it from another angle while touching on few points that you can read in El Spirito and will be able to read Tuesday in Hilda's Mix. This really is amazing and will probably battle with their TV commentary for favorite of the week.
How Little Media Operated -- The untold story it seems because no one wants to tell it outside of this community. No one wants to talk about how Little Media, excuse me, how Panhandle Media (they coined the term for their radio commentary and we'll all be using it now) stacked the deck and trashed Hillary to build up the scant credentials of Bambi.
Trashing -- This comes before the feature above. It's the first thing we wrote and it shows up on Saturday because that's when we wrote it. When we fixed the time so everything would be in the right order, we forgot to change the date to "24" from "23." This is the feature the two that run after it leads into. Trashing is a feminist term and this deals with how Hillary has been trashed.
Bash the Bitch -- Not all criticism is trashing. That points is made throughout. It's equally true that when it's time for a round of Bash the Bitch, people need to stop and self-check on whether they're offering criticism or participating in a public stoning.
Rubbing the feet of the powerful -- Amy Goodman disgracing herself again. It's too bad no war resister is a cabinet possibility in a Bambi White House. If they were, Goody might have them on her show.
Dumb Ass of the week -- Some people can't pass a basic fact check. When you want to create a narrative that "last week" everything changed, you better be damn sure that the things you are offering as proof of your narrative did indeed occur last week.
Mailbag -- No roundtable so you get this. Thank you to Elaine for her kind comments. I almost said that in the feature but stayed silent to keep us moving on time. But here I will say thank you, Elaine. As Rebecca said, after the feature, "I was just about to make that point." Like Rebecca points out frequently, she and I (Jim) are a lot alike. So coming from her I still would have felt thankful but coming from Elaine I was thankful and surprised.
Highlights -- Mike, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Wally and Elaine wrote this and picked all highlights except where noted.
KPFA Blog from their debate coverage -- The blog was edited. By KPFA. It's supposedly been edited even more if you find it (it's hidden under the link in Ava and C.I.'s radio commentary -- the link in the first paragraph). When the 'editing' of it began, a friend at KPFA passed it on to us. We thank them.
And that's what we've got to offer this week. Hopefully you found something to make you laugh or think or get angry. Ideally, you found all three. See you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Reality on Iraq votes
"As a long time reader," Cathleen e-mailed last Tuesday, "I'm distressed to see that you are ignoring the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war." Well, first off, Howdy neighbor, happy harvest! (As they sing in Summer Stock.) Second of all, Cathleen, we've never heard from you before despite your claim that you've "been reading since the start." May we assume that everything else we've ever written you've agreed with?
Cathleen's not a long-term reader, she's a short-term liar. Her beef is that her personal savior (yes, she attends the Church of Obama regularly) is getting held to a standard.
We've called Hillary Clinton out for her votes on Iraq many, many times. That's really not our concern these days and not just because we've done it for years now. It's because, unlike Panhandle Media, we do have standards. Hillary Clinton's votes are well known, very well known. Now she's running against a candidate in a narrow race and it's interesting how there is no standard for him at all.
Katrina vanden Heuvel has Peter Rothberg currently pimping an event this week that will find vanden Heuvel speaking out for Bambi. That may be a surprise to those who don't read The Nation or to those who read it and take it at it's word. Remember the whole "We won't endorse anyone who doesn't call for an immediate withdrawal" crap editorial? The Nation's hoping you don't.
Bambi's not calling for an immediate withdrawal. He's not even calling for a full withdrawal at a specified date. He's calling for the withdrawal of "combat" troops only. That leaves behind thousands and thousands of other troops. These US service members will be doing "police" operations, they will be handling "training" and they will be going after "terrorists." They'll be using the counter-insurgency text book (and worse things that didn't make the book) to do that. Quick, whose campaign has advisors who support (and some who helped write the current book on) counter-insurgency?
If you answered "Hillary Clinton," you were wrong. That's Bambi, Senator Barack Obama. The newbie senator yet to finish his first term. He is the candidate that lies built, ya'll, remember those lies.
And the lies came from Panhandle Media which got in the tank with him long before Real Media. They've lied and covered for Bambi so much that even they probably couldn't tell themselves the truth at this point.
Their lies were driven home Thursday night.
That's when KPFA broadcast a debate special featuring clips from the debate in Austin between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (see Ava and C.I.'s commenatary). As part of the 'special,' KPFA promised "your calls" (they offered up only one call -- singular) and a blog for listeners to post at during the debate. Unlike the broadcast, the blog actually featured Hillary supporters as well as Barack supporters. (The broadcast only featured Bambi supporters who were never disclosed on air to be that.) Presumably, those posting to the blog got their information from KPFA. If so, that's a huge indictment of the quality of information KPFA is providing.
A poster named "organic mechanic" is presumably a KPFA listener. So why doesn't o.m. know the basics? Early on, o.m. posted:
Obama voted against the War on Iraq when it wasn't popular to. Yet, folks continue to find fault w/ every single little thing. That vote alone clinched it for me. What about you?
No, Bambi did not vote in the US Senate in 2002. He was not a member of the Senate then. That's very basic. O.m. can be slightly forgiven because that lie has been pimped on KPFA since Andrea Lewis interviewed Professor Patti Williams on The Morning Show last summer. Professor Patti repeated that lie and, when a MidEastern woman phoned in to correct her, Professor Patti got nasty.
The lies been pimped since. Stephen Zunes -- another professor -- likes to pimp it as well. So o.m. might be forgiven for getting it wrong were it not for the fact that other posters repeatedly attempted to correct him and he repeatedly insisted that Obama was in the Senate in 2002.
organic mechanic:
Fact: Obama did vote against the war as a Senator.
and
Didn't you listen to the debates? He's always been able to take the honorable road because he did vote as a Senator against the war. Shall we just click our heels and say: there's no one good enough, there's no one good enough....
KPFA was monitoring the blog. That's why they stripped out comments noting that someone at KPFA was posting repeatedly throughout the broadcast -- you could hear the click-click of the keyboard and the ding you'd hear at home if you were posting comments -- you could hear that during the broadcast. Dallas listened to it during the writing of this edition to check points for Ava and C.I. (points they were making in their commentary) and says he couldn't hear the clicks. They were there in real time. (Jess, Jim, Dona and Ty heard it over the airwaves and Ty was looking at the blog and saw the comments by posters who noticed that someone at KPFA was obviously posting to the blog -- not when KPFA announcements went up, but as if they were a listener). At 7:23 KPFA posted, "Larry B will read some of your comments at the first break." That did not happen. That, in fact, never happened. Anyone posting before 7:23 was not quoted on air. That's a shame because four different posters were commenting on the use of homophobia by the Obama campaign and seems like KPFA, of all stations, could have found time to address that issue. Instead, they went with a little kiss-ass posting under the name "bmagical." At 8:13 the kiss-ass wondered of the two candidates, "Will you fund the department of peace?" That was a waste of time. That's Dennis Kucinich's pet program and he's out of the race. Though both candidates borrow from John Edwards, neither's taken to borrowing from Kucinich.
As silly as it was stupid, it did get noted by Larry Bensky. It was the only thing that did. But stop a second to grasp that one poster seriously believed that Bambi was in the Senate in 2002 and that he voted against the Iraq resolution. With KPFA monitoring the blog, shouldn't that issue have been raised? Seeing that a listener had no clue, shouldn't a responsible radio station have taken a moment to say, "There seems to be some confusion about 2002. To be clear, Barack Obama was not in the Senate in 2002."
They didn't do that and, in fact, KPFA has regularly promoted that falsehood. They've regularly (often leaving themselves weasel room) presented it as: Hillary voted for the 2002 resolution and Barack didn't.
Is that how it works? Well then we think Americans should certainly be informed that Barack Obama did not vote to ratify the Constitution. He did not vote in favor of US involvement in WWII. He did not vote for the Civil Rights bill.
If he's going to credit for not voting on things he wasn't in the Senate to vote on, then let's give him blame for all the other things he didn't vote on.
Barack Obama was not in the Senate in 2002. He is in the the third year of his six-year term, having been sworn in to the United States Senate in January 2005 after being elected to it in November 2004.
KPFA loves to gas bag about what the 'public' has wrong. It's a rare month when one whiner doesn't offer up that a segment of the population still believes in the false link between Iraq and 9-11. They had a listener not just sure that Obama voted against the 2002 resolution, but blogging that on their site repeatedly. They were monitoring the blog. They had an obligation to correct the record on air -- not to embarrass "organic mechanic" (we will) but to make sure the "public" had the facts.
But that's a fact no one in Panhandle Media wants to stress too loudly. Just like they don't want to stress that, once in the Senate, Barack repeatedly voted to fund the illegal war.
If we're six-years-old and touch a hot stove not knowing it will burn us, you wouldn't think we were stupid. You'd think, "They didn't know better." If we'd burned our hands doing that and continued to do it, you'd think we were stupid.
Bambi wants credit for being against the illegal war before it started. He went into the Senate, by his account, opposed to the Iraq War. So why the hell did he keep authorizing the funding of it?
Someone who wants to (falsely) claim that he was always against the illegal war has no excuse for voting to fund it.
Which brings us back to Cathleen.
Cath, we've held Hillary accountable for her votes. We've done so repeatedly and from the start of this site. Any real "long time reader" would know that.
In addition, Hillary's voting record is well known. By contrast, Bambi's record is a fantasy. One that's not called out, one that's not addressed.
Neither Hillary or Barack has pledged to end the illegal war by 2013 when they had the chance to. Bambi gave a speech in Houston, Texas where he claimed (last week) that he'd end the war by next year. He's talking "combat" troops only.
We're not going to be part of the lies and the spin. If there's a difference on Iraq between Hillary and Barack it's that Barack sold out his own beliefs when he got into the Senate (and might if he got into the White House) because someone who is opposed to the illegal war doesn't turn around and repeatedly fund it.
Unlike Tom Hayden, we don't believe that step one to ending the illegal war is electing either Hillary or Barack. We believe the people will end the illegal war. We believe they are doing that. And doing it without the help of the likes of Tom Hayden who offer up endorsements to Obama and then want to claim that the rest of us, the 'public,' need to hold the candidates feet to the fire!
We're against the illegal war and, unlike Cath's personal savior, we haven't flip-flopped on that issue.
Cathleen's not a long-term reader, she's a short-term liar. Her beef is that her personal savior (yes, she attends the Church of Obama regularly) is getting held to a standard.
We've called Hillary Clinton out for her votes on Iraq many, many times. That's really not our concern these days and not just because we've done it for years now. It's because, unlike Panhandle Media, we do have standards. Hillary Clinton's votes are well known, very well known. Now she's running against a candidate in a narrow race and it's interesting how there is no standard for him at all.
Katrina vanden Heuvel has Peter Rothberg currently pimping an event this week that will find vanden Heuvel speaking out for Bambi. That may be a surprise to those who don't read The Nation or to those who read it and take it at it's word. Remember the whole "We won't endorse anyone who doesn't call for an immediate withdrawal" crap editorial? The Nation's hoping you don't.
Bambi's not calling for an immediate withdrawal. He's not even calling for a full withdrawal at a specified date. He's calling for the withdrawal of "combat" troops only. That leaves behind thousands and thousands of other troops. These US service members will be doing "police" operations, they will be handling "training" and they will be going after "terrorists." They'll be using the counter-insurgency text book (and worse things that didn't make the book) to do that. Quick, whose campaign has advisors who support (and some who helped write the current book on) counter-insurgency?
If you answered "Hillary Clinton," you were wrong. That's Bambi, Senator Barack Obama. The newbie senator yet to finish his first term. He is the candidate that lies built, ya'll, remember those lies.
And the lies came from Panhandle Media which got in the tank with him long before Real Media. They've lied and covered for Bambi so much that even they probably couldn't tell themselves the truth at this point.
Their lies were driven home Thursday night.
That's when KPFA broadcast a debate special featuring clips from the debate in Austin between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (see Ava and C.I.'s commenatary). As part of the 'special,' KPFA promised "your calls" (they offered up only one call -- singular) and a blog for listeners to post at during the debate. Unlike the broadcast, the blog actually featured Hillary supporters as well as Barack supporters. (The broadcast only featured Bambi supporters who were never disclosed on air to be that.) Presumably, those posting to the blog got their information from KPFA. If so, that's a huge indictment of the quality of information KPFA is providing.
A poster named "organic mechanic" is presumably a KPFA listener. So why doesn't o.m. know the basics? Early on, o.m. posted:
Obama voted against the War on Iraq when it wasn't popular to. Yet, folks continue to find fault w/ every single little thing. That vote alone clinched it for me. What about you?
No, Bambi did not vote in the US Senate in 2002. He was not a member of the Senate then. That's very basic. O.m. can be slightly forgiven because that lie has been pimped on KPFA since Andrea Lewis interviewed Professor Patti Williams on The Morning Show last summer. Professor Patti repeated that lie and, when a MidEastern woman phoned in to correct her, Professor Patti got nasty.
The lies been pimped since. Stephen Zunes -- another professor -- likes to pimp it as well. So o.m. might be forgiven for getting it wrong were it not for the fact that other posters repeatedly attempted to correct him and he repeatedly insisted that Obama was in the Senate in 2002.
organic mechanic:
Fact: Obama did vote against the war as a Senator.
and
Didn't you listen to the debates? He's always been able to take the honorable road because he did vote as a Senator against the war. Shall we just click our heels and say: there's no one good enough, there's no one good enough....
KPFA was monitoring the blog. That's why they stripped out comments noting that someone at KPFA was posting repeatedly throughout the broadcast -- you could hear the click-click of the keyboard and the ding you'd hear at home if you were posting comments -- you could hear that during the broadcast. Dallas listened to it during the writing of this edition to check points for Ava and C.I. (points they were making in their commentary) and says he couldn't hear the clicks. They were there in real time. (Jess, Jim, Dona and Ty heard it over the airwaves and Ty was looking at the blog and saw the comments by posters who noticed that someone at KPFA was obviously posting to the blog -- not when KPFA announcements went up, but as if they were a listener). At 7:23 KPFA posted, "Larry B will read some of your comments at the first break." That did not happen. That, in fact, never happened. Anyone posting before 7:23 was not quoted on air. That's a shame because four different posters were commenting on the use of homophobia by the Obama campaign and seems like KPFA, of all stations, could have found time to address that issue. Instead, they went with a little kiss-ass posting under the name "bmagical." At 8:13 the kiss-ass wondered of the two candidates, "Will you fund the department of peace?" That was a waste of time. That's Dennis Kucinich's pet program and he's out of the race. Though both candidates borrow from John Edwards, neither's taken to borrowing from Kucinich.
As silly as it was stupid, it did get noted by Larry Bensky. It was the only thing that did. But stop a second to grasp that one poster seriously believed that Bambi was in the Senate in 2002 and that he voted against the Iraq resolution. With KPFA monitoring the blog, shouldn't that issue have been raised? Seeing that a listener had no clue, shouldn't a responsible radio station have taken a moment to say, "There seems to be some confusion about 2002. To be clear, Barack Obama was not in the Senate in 2002."
They didn't do that and, in fact, KPFA has regularly promoted that falsehood. They've regularly (often leaving themselves weasel room) presented it as: Hillary voted for the 2002 resolution and Barack didn't.
Is that how it works? Well then we think Americans should certainly be informed that Barack Obama did not vote to ratify the Constitution. He did not vote in favor of US involvement in WWII. He did not vote for the Civil Rights bill.
If he's going to credit for not voting on things he wasn't in the Senate to vote on, then let's give him blame for all the other things he didn't vote on.
Barack Obama was not in the Senate in 2002. He is in the the third year of his six-year term, having been sworn in to the United States Senate in January 2005 after being elected to it in November 2004.
KPFA loves to gas bag about what the 'public' has wrong. It's a rare month when one whiner doesn't offer up that a segment of the population still believes in the false link between Iraq and 9-11. They had a listener not just sure that Obama voted against the 2002 resolution, but blogging that on their site repeatedly. They were monitoring the blog. They had an obligation to correct the record on air -- not to embarrass "organic mechanic" (we will) but to make sure the "public" had the facts.
But that's a fact no one in Panhandle Media wants to stress too loudly. Just like they don't want to stress that, once in the Senate, Barack repeatedly voted to fund the illegal war.
If we're six-years-old and touch a hot stove not knowing it will burn us, you wouldn't think we were stupid. You'd think, "They didn't know better." If we'd burned our hands doing that and continued to do it, you'd think we were stupid.
Bambi wants credit for being against the illegal war before it started. He went into the Senate, by his account, opposed to the Iraq War. So why the hell did he keep authorizing the funding of it?
Someone who wants to (falsely) claim that he was always against the illegal war has no excuse for voting to fund it.
Which brings us back to Cathleen.
Cath, we've held Hillary accountable for her votes. We've done so repeatedly and from the start of this site. Any real "long time reader" would know that.
In addition, Hillary's voting record is well known. By contrast, Bambi's record is a fantasy. One that's not called out, one that's not addressed.
Neither Hillary or Barack has pledged to end the illegal war by 2013 when they had the chance to. Bambi gave a speech in Houston, Texas where he claimed (last week) that he'd end the war by next year. He's talking "combat" troops only.
We're not going to be part of the lies and the spin. If there's a difference on Iraq between Hillary and Barack it's that Barack sold out his own beliefs when he got into the Senate (and might if he got into the White House) because someone who is opposed to the illegal war doesn't turn around and repeatedly fund it.
Unlike Tom Hayden, we don't believe that step one to ending the illegal war is electing either Hillary or Barack. We believe the people will end the illegal war. We believe they are doing that. And doing it without the help of the likes of Tom Hayden who offer up endorsements to Obama and then want to claim that the rest of us, the 'public,' need to hold the candidates feet to the fire!
We're against the illegal war and, unlike Cath's personal savior, we haven't flip-flopped on that issue.
TV: The strong and the weak
"Bitches get stuff done!" exclaimed Tina Fey on her triumphant return to Saturday Night Live last night. Fey, the headwriter who returned the series to glory and then left to star in and write 30 Rock, was back as the host. Friends with the show were begging us to review the broadcast ("or at least note it") because this is the return of Saturday Night Live after the long hiatus due to the writers strike and is the first of four Saturdays of live Saturday Night Live. As noted, we are accused of being "Tinasters" so we agreed we could work it into today's commentary somewhere, probably at the end, maybe higher up due to the planned opening sketch.
But we'd mention it gladly. As Bambi Haggins observes in "Funny Women Are Finally Back On TV and Revitalizing The Sitcom" (Ms. magazine's winter 2008 edition, on sale now, pp. 52 -54), "The very existence of Fey -- formerly Saturday Night Live's head writer and now creator/writer/star of the Emmy-winning 30 Rock -- encourages other young women to try their hand at television comedy. I must confess I share a kinship with these future funny women, along with a not-so-secret desire: When I grow up, I too want to be Tina Fey."
What a friend at Mad TV wanted was for Tina to fall flat on her face. "She didn't do sketches," he declared meaning that Fey wasn't really an actress among the cast while with Saturday Night Live, "so she's going to fall flat on her face trying to do them now."
That was his hope and one dependent upon ignoring the acting Fey demonstrated in Mean Girls (which she wrote) or each week on 30 Rock. She wrote funny but in terms of being on air herself, Fey mainly handled the anchoring duties for Weekend Update (originally with Jimmy Fallon, later with Amy Poehler). It was no surprise that she'd have a strong bit on Weekend Update last night. Brought on to discuss "Women's News," Fey offered the humorous riffs on news and popular gossip topics and, from the first head tilt reaction to a Lindsay Lohan joke that didn't get as much of a laugh as might be expected, had the audience eating out of her hands. The last section of her segment focused on Hillary Clinton: "We have our first serious female candidate in Hillary." She noted that some people don't like Hillary and "women today feel perfectly" comfortable making "whatever choice Oprah tells them too." Before the laughs died down, Fey was explaining how Hillary's called a "bitch" by some and making the obvious point, "Bitches get stuff done." It was an important point and one that was well received.
It's also one that needs to be made. Now more than ever, you could say and should say at a time when the left has taken to so demonizing Hillary Clinton online that they use the term "c**t" to describe her. Of course, that description tickled Smut Merchant Matthew Rothschild to pieces. Sadly, last week also saw a site run by a woman (Maryscott O'Connor's My Left Wing) allow a man to post a lengthy, trashy and sexist post on what a "c**t" Hillary Clinton allegedly is. How proud Maryscott O'Connor must be of herself and what a (bad) example she sets for all other women -- today and in the future.
Friday's NOW on PBS offered Maria Hinojosa speaking with Letty Cottin Pogrebin and her daughter Abigail Pogrebin. Letty Cottin Pogrebin not only helped found Ms. magazine, she wrote a seminal article for the magazine: "Have You Ever Supported Equal Pay, Child Care, or Women's Groups? The FBI Was Watching You." It's an often overlooked fact of history that among the groups spied on by the FBI was the feminist movement and, outside of Ruth Rosen, it's been years since we've heard anyone talk about how the FBI spent more time and money spying on the feminist movement than they did spying on other movements such as the Black Panther movement. It's one of those details not judged as 'important' because, what the hell, we're only talking about all women, right? And how important can they be?
That's the same attitude that's allowed many women to take part in the trashing of Hillary Clinton. The PBS segment didn't focus on that. Instead it focused on how mother and daughter are in different camps on the issue of who to support for president in the Democratic primary. Letty's supporting Hillary and Abigail is supporting Barack. Letty, as sweet as she is wise, tried to put a happy face on the split by stating that it was proof of the power of the women's movement that women were free to make their own decisions.
Love Letty though we do, we beg to differ. We think it's important not only for feminists to make decisions but also for them to make informed decisions. And we think it's a failure of the women's movement that certain facts are not addressed or widely known.
We've long noted Barack Obama's use of homophobia in South Carolina and, for any still confused, no feminist supports the use of homophobia. Those who are supporting Barack Obama and claiming they are feminists need to step up to the plate and explain why they've been silent on his use of homophobia. Maybe they'd argue that lesbians and gays, like all women?, just don't matter? Maybe they'd explain away their silence by declaring that it had nothing to do with their own lives? If it's the latter, feminism has always been about the lives of all.
The women's movement has failed to hold accountable liars of their own gender. On Super Duper Tuesday, Laura Flanders wrote a rebuke to Robin Morgan's "Goodbye To All That (#2)" (Women's Media Center) that repeated lies and distortions about the women's movement in the United States. Now with her recent commentary on KPFA about George McGovern, Flanders ripped off one of us (C.I.). We have no idea who she ripped off for her lies about the feminist movement but the truth is, Flanders not only wasn't in the United States during the period she's commenting on, she also wasn't even old enough to have followed it from Europe. What she did was what she does best, pretend to be speaking reluctantly while tarring and smearing. Flanders' ass should have been called out loudly by feminists. When we asked one NYC feminist (where Flanders is based) why she wasn't, the reply was, "Well, she's a lesbian and maybe she sees things differently." That's not a pass we're willing to give a woman who ignored the use of homophobia by Barack Obama.
The women's movement has been highly ineffective throughout this campaign season. Gloria Steinem's strong and powerful "Women Are Never Front-Runners" (New York Times) led to Barack supporters tarring and feathering Steinem as a racist. It was and is a false charge. Women who were 'amused' by it (such as Katha Pollitt and Nickled and Dimed "Stab") shouldn't be considered feminists anymore or even 'friends of.'
A lesser offense, but an offense none the less, was Kim Gandy and the national NOW feeling the need to disassociate themselves from press releases issued by the NYC chapter of NOW. Considering that the press repeats as truth (it's not true) that NOW (national) endorsed Hillary Clinton and Gandy's not up in arms correcting that (she should be, NOW can't endorse anyone without risking their tax status, NOW PAC endorsed Hillary), the rush to say, "We're not NYC NOW!" was disgraceful. There was no reason for Gandy to get invovled with what a local chapter did. There was no need for NOW national to issue a press release.
What did NYC NOW do? They acted like feminists. Real feminists. Loud feminists. Proud feminists. They didn't back down. They called it like they saw it and, whether you agreed with their call or not, there was no denying that they were embodying a living feminism at a time when many others played timid and scared.
Look at some of their press releases and you'll quickly see that while feminism is too often treated as a dying ember -- one that means we must all not do or say anything too strong because it might cause the ember to die out; NYC NOW hasn't played that game. They've lived feminism and living it is the only way it stays alive.
Maria Hinojosa's segment of NOW on PBS wasn't about life. It was dead on arrival. It was the sort of thing Charles Kuralt made a name for himself with. It played like a video broadcast of True Confessions. We watched in shock waiting for someone, anyone (Abigail is exempted because she supports Barack and may not be aware of it) to bring up the record Hillary Clinton has on women's rights and issues. It never was brought up.
Last week, a breast cancer survivor posted "My Right Breast, Michigan Healthcare and the Presidential Primaries" (No Quarter). The survivor, while recovering, began checking out both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's statements and plans for health care and found one candidate sharing her concern and another not. Maybe when he can find a pretty and convincing way to speak of breast cancer -- a disease that took his own mother's life -- he may have something to say? Breast cancer is very much a woman's issue and as more and more studies find that where you live, what regions of the country, puts you at greater risk of whether or not you develop breast cancer [see Francesca Lyman's "The Geography of Breast Cancer" (Ms. magazine)], it has also become an environmental issue. The breast cancer survivor concluded her post with this:
In the end, the differences were clear one candidate’s solutions were concrete and specific. The other candidate relies on employers to pass on the savings for reduced healthcare premiums to employees and challenges the medical system to fix it’s own inequities instead of coming up with a plan to address them. Based on what I have learned, I donated money to the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton.
That is one of many issues directly effecting women that Hillary Clinton is stronger on though we're sure Laura Flanders would trot out the usual lie she falls back on whenever Hillary has a strength which is "there's no difference between them." There is one area and only one area where there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- neither pledges to end the illegal war. (Barack's statements are about "combat" troops only -- and are dealt with elsewhere this edition.)
That a segment, on PBS no less, wanted to deal with a family split on the candidates, a split between two feminists, but didn't think to offer up where the candidates stand in terms of women was at first shocking and then became appalling as we realized the segment was over without the issue ever being raised.
That issue hasn't been raised. Instead we've gotten lies from the likes of Katha Pollitt that "both would probably be equally good on women's rights, abortion rights and judicial appointments." Barack voted "present" in the Illinois legislature on the issue of abortion and the rights for sexual abuse victims. The spin has been loud and fierce stating that Planned Parenthood wanted him to vote "present" and so did the local NOW chapter. Reality is that the local NOW chapter can be seen as a feminist organization and they were, despite lies to the contrary, opposed to the "present" vote. Planned Parenthood has historical roots but it is a medical organization, it is not a feminist organization. (The country is pro-choice and that's a good thing. But extrapolating that being pro-choice means being a feminist is a dangerous leap to make.)
Records, not pretty speeches, is how you judge a candidate. Barack Obama elected to leave no record on abortion rights. Lies -- such as from the Liar claiming to speak for the Chicago chapter of NOW when she wasn't even a member of the organization when the present votes were being taken -- can confuse some but they cannot alter reality, only perceptions.
The issue of holding Hillary Clinton to a standard but having none for Barack Obama was addressed on last week's To The Contrary (PBS) and the comments by Irene Natividad should be heeded by the press.
Ah, yes, the press. In a surprisingly strong return, Saturday Night Live opened with a must-watch segment parodying the Austin debate last week between Hillary and Barack -- or, rather, parodying the press. It was hilarious and greeted with tremendous laughter -- we hope the laughter came both from the funny lines (and movements) as well as from the observations because this was observational humor at its best.
Playing Campbell Brown, Kristen Wiig captured fanatical devotion long before declaring that she and the panelists were "totally in the tank for Obama." She explained that CNN's "John King" had just "suffered his third Barack-attack" and "Jorge Ramos" got the opening question, which was long-winded (again, observational and true humor) before getting to the point: "Are you comfortable and is there anything we can get for you?" That question went to Obama (surprisingly well played by Fred Armisen). "John King" got the follow-up and, after apologizing for his lengthy note and being parked outside Obama's car, wanted to know of Obama, "Are you sure" you're comfortable?
"Obama" would go on to applaud the chorus he hears from the media ("I'm hearing the same sentiment from everyone") that, as he put it, "Yes, you can. They're saying, 'Yes we can take sides! Yes, we can!'" We laughed loudly but doubted the press corp was laughing.
The skit included humor aimed at Hillary as well but that wasn't well handled and goes to the fact that Amy Poehler plays every character the same. She uses the same mannerisms for Weekend Update that she does for any character she plays including Britney Spears. There is no character, only Poehler acting goofy. She played Hillary mainly due to the fact that SNL really doesn't have female cast members this year. 8 of the regulars are men, two are women. Someone thought that was the way to cast? Someone thought that you could capture and parody a week in the US with a top-heavy cast of men?
While the acting was weak in that aspect, the writing was strong and Wiig managed to save the moment the sketch built up to, when CNN went to what Wiig, as Campbell Brown, informed us was an average citizen picked totally at random to ask a question: Obama Girl.
She sang her song while "Campbell," "John" and "Jorge" got lost in the groove. At the end, "Hillary" noted the selection didn't see random and asked where the question was? "Campbell" flew up in arms telling "Hillary" that Obama Girl had not finished, accused "Hillary" of assorted things and told "Hillary" that she owed Obama Girl and America "an Obama-apology."
The skit perfectly captured what passed for journalism from Real Media and also could be applied to Panhandle Media as well. And if you doubted that, you should have checked "Hillary" reacting to "Barack" touching her.
That skit brought home what none of your gas bags -- in Real or Panhandle Media -- bothered to note of the debate: Barack disrespected Hillary. She is not a "girl" on the campaign trail. She is a US Senator running for president and damn well better be treated as such. When the field was more crowded, Barack never felt the need to invade the space of Bill Richards or John Edwards or Chris Dodd or . . . Get the point? Hillary was making strong remarks and there was Barack invading her personal space and sending the message that HE THINKS a woman needs 'comforting' or 'humored' or 'reassured.' Hillary is a candidate and a senator. Someone tell Barack Obama to keep his mitts off her. It was a degrading moment and an offensive one. You didn't hear about it because the male mind set didn't want you to. They saw it as 'touching.' It was inappropriate touching and an attempt at scene stealing that even Joan Collins would have been reluctant to go for. In one skit, SNL offered you more useful commentary about the debate than all the hours and pages from Real and Panhandle Media last week.
Other sketches on the broadcast included a new medication that could reduce your period to once a year. ("Your"? We're doing like the male writers do and making our own gender universal, live with it. Don't worry, though, there will be no "and then at the big game, I learned, as we all have . . ." crap in our commentaries.) There was a reality based contest where Poison's "Brett Michaels" selected the sleazes of his dreams. A funny short involving the strongest current cast member (Andy Samberg) and a lot more. Forget the "for a hastily pulled together" qualifier, it was a strong show (and Poehler was strong during Weekend Update).
What wasn't strong was what preceeded it (interrupted by local news). We'd just landed when a friend at NBC called yesterday and asked, "Are you really going to review a cartoon this weekend?" No, we weren't but only because we'd forgotten to ask that TiVo be set. (We were in the air Saturday morning and not near a TV.) Then, he suggested, we should review the two-hour Night Rider. We were reeling from the thought that times were so tough due to the writers strike that NBC was putting on a two-hour concert by the one-hit wonders famous for "Sister Christian." Fortunately, that time hasn't come. He meant the TV movie/pilot for an update of Knight Rider, an eighties TV series that neither of us has ever felt the need to watch. We were about to pass on his kind offer (he stated that he could get a copy of the show to us) when he explained that the problems NBC had with Bionic Woman weren't "in this show." Right away, we were curious.
We didn't expect to see anything different because the two were filmed at the same time. We did expect to find out how much NBC hates women. He was telling the truth. The two-hour pilot wasn't as offensive as Bionic Woman. In that series, a strong woman was reduced to a simpering fool with both Daddy issues and a Mommy complex. In fact, it was so awful that they had to create a "kid sister" for Jamie to look after. If you don't get how offensive that is, you don't remember or know what went down on Shirley's World in the early seventies. To make that show, Shirley MacLaine had to go up against a great deal including the edict that her roving correspondent character (also named Shirley) should look over an orphanage to "humanize" the character. Otherwise, Sheldon Leonard explained, the character would be seen as 'too strong' and the audience would reject her.
Knight Rider offered no "kid sisters" or "orphans" in two hours. It mainly demonstrated that NBC could return somewhat to their nineties attitude where women were at least acknowledged in dramas if not starred in them. Early on, we grasped that Sarah (Deanna Russo) was not, despite being in the computerized talking car, going to be the new "Knight Rider." When we saw Mike (Justin Bruening) in bed (didn't really see his body, not even his chest -- the camera appeared skittish, in fact) with one woman while his male roomate attempted to alert him to angry visitors, we suspected he would be the new Knight Rider and we knew it for a fact when, seconds later, another scantily clad woman climbed in bed with Mike and the woman already in his bed.
The "bed scene" was how the NBC friend had mentioned that. He didn't tell us Knight Rider was in it, he just advised to wait and see on one "bed scene" because there was another one which, we'd see, proved that it wasn't just a "tits and ass" pilot. We waited. There was Sydney Tamiia Poitier (an actress so talented that famous relatives need not be mentioned when noting her) on the beach with the camera work providing lots of T & A long before she stepped under the outside shower. (Where, of course, the T & A continued.) She then steps inside her beach house and we're guessing we were supposed to be thrilled that she had a conquest in bed as well. It was another woman and, like we said, NBC seems intent to demonstrate that they can go back to the 90s in terms of today. (For visitors, NBC has been one of the worst offenders when it comes to portrayals of women this decade. The 90s were a better time for female characters at NBC. This decade found them trying to ape ABC and CBS and sinking lower than even those two networks did.) What did the scene say?
We thought very little. But for an African-American actress to get a role of prominence, we were willing to wait until the thing ended to make a judgement. In a scene following a shooting, near the end, Poitier's Carrie will be left with nothing to do but crouch by a corpse while everyone else -- the good and the bad -- rushes off. We remembered that Carrie was an FBI agent but wondered if the director and writers had forgotten?
The bad guys were with Black River. Mike explains that they are a "private security firm. I spent time with some of their men in Iraq. They're just after the money." Yes, you are supposed to think of the mercenaries of Blackwater. And we'll give it credit for that.
We'll even give it credit for the fact that Carrie's a lesbian despite the fact that, while Mike rolled around in bed with two women, we never saw anything similar between Carrie and her unnamed lover. We're told that the original Knight Rider featured only one female on the team ("team" -- think of it as the pit crew, the man always drives in these shows because there's apparently something desirable in seeing a man grab and stroke a stick shift as if it were a penis), two women were on the team today (Carrie and Sarah). But in the end, it's still true that while cheesecake was on non-stop display, we never saw Paris, we never saw France, we never saw Justin Bruening clearly in his underpants. And, considering his female and male daytime following, that might have been the only thing that could have made the show a hit. See, in the 90s, NBC would have grasped that fact.
They also would have found a little more for the women to do because, as Tina Fey noted, "Bitches get things done." The shy and the timid do not. Nor do idiots as the Village Idiot of the Water Cooler Set (falsely called a 'feminist' by some) demonstrated when she took time out to praise the female bashing Jericho. Yes, that would be the Idiot Bellafante who could marvel of that tired crap in last week's New York Times, "The series reminds us that people are people no matter what happens, that epic tragedy doesn't get a man to stop cheating on his wife, or the woman he's been dallying with to wonder why he hasn't separated. This feels like both folly and truth." She sounds like both folly and fool. At this late date, it should occur to even the Idiot Bellafante that a show that reduces women to props in need of rescue is nothing to blather on about. But there she is blathering on about a do-nothing, New Age female and praising the "progressive softening" of her character.
Yeah, Idiot Bellafante, that's what America needs right now, half-baked female loons who go on to be 'softened.' No, "Bitches get things done." It's a point that today's feminist movement needs to grasp and grasp quickly.
For some strange reason, a male candidate who has promised women voters nothing has garnered a sizeable number of endorsements from women. It's disgusting that this has happened while the female candidate's own accomplishments have been ridiculed, reduced and dismissed -- a female candidate who actually is aware of women's issues. Should Barack Obama get the nomination, exactly what do the "Feminists" for Barack plan to do next?
Katha Pollitt, The Banshee of The Trivial, usually shows up each presidential election year, shortly after the summer conventions, to bemoan that the Democratic candidate is ignoring women voters. Since she has a very sleight catalogue which she insists on regularly recycling, chances are she'll try to again pass that column off as 'new' this year. If and when she does, feminists need to remember that it was women like Pollitt who not only refused to make demands during the primary but also elected to go with the candidate with no record on women's issues while ignoring Hillary Clinton's very real record. Bitches get things done. The sad state of today's women's movement goes to the fact that there's too much 'niceness' and not enough fire.
Radio: Panhandle Media
Jim note: This is one of two pieces by Ava and C.I. Francisco called Saturday afternoon to thank them for their commentary in today's El Spirito. I hadn't read it so I was hearing about it for the first time. They were out so I got on C.I.'s laptop to find the piece. It was wonderful calling out all the Latino issues KPFA ignored Thursday night. I then saw the piece they'd written for Hilda's Mix this Tuesday, also on the KPFA broadcast. I begged and pleaded with them during the writing edition to please, please, please consider tackling KPFA for us. They relented. Finally. So they offer this as well as their TV commentary this edition.
Thursday night, KPFA presented "Obama-Clinton Debate." The two-hour special should have raised eye brows just from the title. Chilvary died long ago but who knew alphabetical order had as well?
In Austin, Texas, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took part in a debate as they sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Despite being the home of free speech radio, no one -- including host Larry Bensky -- bothered to note that Mike Gravel remains in the race and was uninvited.
The first minutes were Bensky speaking with KPFT's Ann Rayburn as both pretended to know something about what they were talking about but neither did. Bensky piped up that Bambi "filled a sports arena" in Dallas. Sports arena? If Benksy knew half what he thought he did, there could have been a real discussion. Reunion Arena is the venue Barack Obama rented. Reunion Arena is nothing but a glorified convention hall. And a real news broadcast could have addressed that. Years ago, it was the home of sports (Dallas Stars, Dallas Mavericks) and big concerts. The City of Dallas government made a deal to build America Airlines Center and, as part of that deal, agreed not to book Reunion Arena for concerts and other big events. That's why Dallas has very little concerts today. Tori Amos goes to Dallas? No, she goes outside Dallas as do most concert tours. If you can't get in the America Airlines Center, you don't play Dallas when you're a top act unless you go the shed route or risk the Granada which has the most offensive and rude 'security' staff -- an outsourced staff that does not check tickets. Not only does it not check tickets inside the hall, but should you find that your seat is occupied with someone not holding a ticket, you're attempt to address it with security will lead to your being yelled at by the little thugs. (A Joan Baez concert this decade is notorious for the way the security bullied and yelled at a man who had a ticket to the more expensive seats and was told to "get out" by the thugs yelling so loudly that Baez' "Rexroth's Daughter" was drowned out for several rows.) Reunion Arena today is nothing but a glorified convention hall and Bensky didn't know what the hell he was talking about but did offend people listening in the Dallas-Fort Worth area who take the issue of what was done very seriously.
Early on Bensky plugged the KPFA blog for this 'live' coverage. Bensky and KPFA both seemed to be unaware of what a message board or blog is and of what free speech is. An effort was made to impose a topic: Write the question you wish the candidate had been asked. They dubbed it a "Live Blog" and expected those listening to the two hour special to contribute nothing other than, "Oh wow, if I could, like ask one question to the groovy candidates, wow, I guess I would ask them about . . ."
That's not free speech, that's not what a blog or a message board is. The debate was the topic and those posting comments confined themselves to the candidates, their records and the debate. That wasn't good enough for the screeching monkey Larry Bensky who repeatedly felt the need to constantly 'remind' posters to stick to the topic. That's not free speech radio and it's not KPFA. Listeners -- for the two hour event -- were supposed to do nothing online but think of a question that should have been asked. Bensky and his guests weighed in on whatever they wanted to -- often offering the most useless and banal of 'information.'
But the event was promoted with the promise that listeners would be able to call in. And, in fact, a listener line was created for just such a thing, a toll free number. There was no point to offering it, we'll get back to that.
Twenty-five minutes in, Barack supporters Laura Flanders and Clarence Lusane will join the broadcast and comment throughout the first hour and the second hour. Larry Bensky will never note that they are Barack Obama supporters despite the fact that both have published repeated columns on just that fact. KPFA will, however, do everything possible to create an echo chamber that spins everything in Bambi's favor. Not surprising when you only invite Obama supporters, is it? While not surprising, that action is the sort of thing that can get KPFA in trouble when it attempts to renew its FCC charter -- can get and, in fact, should get KPFA in trouble.
Though they presented nothing of value, we should note Clarence Lusane offered up one of the most girlish and feminine voices a grown man may ever posses. Laura Flanders may have been handicapped by the fact that she was on radio and not TV so not able to resort to her usual "tight t-shirt, no bra, make my aggressive points with my thrusting nipples" approach. Lusane tittered and Flanders just came off smug.
Did Hillary get done what she needed to get done tonight, Larry Benksy pretended he wanted to know. But if he, or KPFA, really wanted to know that, they wouldn't have invited on only Barack supporters, would they? For any who've forgotten or don't know, KPFA is a California radio station and Hillary Clinton won the California primary. So it was twice as troubling that Bensky's tired act (which always includes sexism) was hauled out of mothballs. Along with being amused with himself on air, at this point, sexism is all he has to offer. He pimped a single poll, one poll, a Washington Post-ABC poll, found Clinton and Obama "essentially tied in Texas". One poll. Laura Flanders -- who was Whoring big time and that's the only word for it -- would inflate it to "those latest polls" because she never knows what she's talking about. It's how she also got it wrong on when early voting in Texas would start (it had already started on Tuesday). How a poll is news, a single poll, goes to the problems with media -- the problems FAIR regularly criticizes MSM for.
You can be sure that if the poll had found Hillary in the lead, KPFA wouldn't have pimped it Thursday night. Just as they ignored all the polls with Hillary in the lead on Thursday night.
Clarence Lusane, a reported academic (and don't most academics pursue the intersection of jazz music and international relations?) immediately replied to Bensky's query of whether or not Hillary achieved in the debate, "No, she didn't." Lusane would go on to declare "she lost" and when it was Flanders' turn she would begin with, "Well, you're absolutely right." Of course, two Little Media Whores agreed, they are both supporting Barack. This wasn't a discussion -- informed or otherwise -- it was a fan club meeting for Obama groupies aired on free speech radio under the guise of being fair and free wheeling.
The news at the start of last week, even making it onto ET, was that Barack Obama was passing off the words of Patrick Devlin (aka Governor Who -- another pretty talker who can't deliver) as his own. That's plagiarism. Laura Flanders -- the lesbian who couldn't call out Barack's use of homophobia as a campaign strategy -- disgraced herself further (there's funny graffitti throughout the Bay Area on Laura Flanders these days, by the way, and our favorite is "Gay when she wants to be"). She shamed herself by dismissing ethics with her silly excuse (it's the Obama's campaign's excuse too but that's where the Uncle Tom of the LGBT set gets all her talking points) that it's okay for him to use other people's words without crediting them because Barack's friends with ("his very good friend") the man he stole from. It should probably be noted that KPFA broadcasts from California -- which went to Hillary -- and neither Lusane or Flanders is in California. It should probably be further noted that when Lusane's name-checking American Idol, he never needs to be invited back on as an expert for anything.
And Larry Bensky never needs to be invited back as a host. He loves his voice, true. But he's out of date, he's hopelessly sexist and he is KPFA's past. (Bensky retired last spring.) Though a pro-Hillary voice wasn't allowed on the two hour special, we could hear Benksy yet again whine about changes in Pacifica as he does every time he's given the mike. On this special he got in his dig about the 'decay' of Pacifica by lamenting how they used to report -- "when we did such things" -- and he always gets those digs in. Everyone's tired of it. Everyone's tired of his self-glory and his self-love and his pretending that he did something groundshaking in the last decade at Pacifica when all he proved is he knows how to read The New York Times and The Washington Post and accept both as gospel while wanting to be considered "independent" media.
Back to the 'experts.' Maybe Laura Flanders' f**ked up sense of right and wrong allows this as a 'disclosure': "I've not been a Hilliary supporter"? No, it wasn't 'disclosure.' Self-disclosure is disclosing on air that you endorsed Barack Obama on Super Duper Tuesday. Flanders didn't offer that up and many listeners may have assumed she's the typical a pox-on-both-their-houses KPFA guest. That is not truth. And truth is not what Laura Flanders (or KPFA) offered up Thursday night. Whora Flanders wanted to offer that even though she's not a Hillary support (she outrights hates Hillary Clinton) "I felt sad." Whora Flanders has engaged in non-stop trashing of Hillary.
She wasn't "sad." A sad person doesn't cackle gleefully (as she did) when she twice mentioned -- in one response -- that Hillary was "booed." That's one of the reasons that the Whores are out in full force, by the way.
See, if you actually saw the debate, you saw that when Hillary pointed out the shallowness of Bambi, she was booed, yes, and she was also applauded. (Both for the line that Bambi offered "change you can Xerox.") You probably didn't hear about the applause after, did you?
Because for those who've Whored Out for a candidate, it's not about what actually happened, it's about what they can push, what they can spin. After a debate ends, that's where the battle lies and that's where the LIARS peddle it. Which is how applause and boos is reduced -- twice -- by Flanders to "boos." She pushes that lie and tries to dab a concealer around it by claiming to be "sad." It was evident when Larry Bensky asked her specifically what grand design was missing from the Barack Obama campaign and Flanders immediately went to, "I'll tell you what grand design is missing on the Hillary Clinton side . . ." Later on Flanders would cackle again to mock Hillary as she tossed out, "Can you tell the difference?" Yet we're supposed to believe she felt "sad"? (We gladly agree she is sad. And embarrassing.)
Three minutes into the second hour, Tom Hayden joins the proceedings for a bit. That would be the same Tom Hayden who endorsed Barack Obama in the leadup to Super Duper Tuesday -- as did his 'organization' Pathetic Democrats of America (despite the fact that the actual members of Progressive Democrats of America weren't supporting Bambi -- but 'leadership' makes the call 'for them' when they want to). Hayden blathered on non-stop and none of the allegedly Iraq remarks were worth hearing. The 'anti-war' Hayden has blown his credibility repeatedly on the issue of the Iraq War.
Last week, he hammed another nail into his own coffin as he pimped in a column that Bambi had given a strong statement about ending the illegal war. Wow, Bambi was calling for something different? No. Bambi said, in a speech in Houston, Texas, "I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009!" That's no shift. Bambi has identified ending the illegal (he calls it "dumb") war as withdrawing "combat" troops. When they are withdrawn, he has made clear he would still leave "police" troops, "training" troops and troops to go after "terrorists." Hayden was a joke. To end the illegal war, he argued two things must happen (a) one of the Democrats must be elected president and (b) the public must be educated (they're so stupid apparently) that counter-insurgency strategies are not ending the illegal war.
If Hayden is serious, one might want to add up the pieces he's written on the two topics. He has written non-stop to praise Bambi. He has written one and only one article about the counter-insurgency tactics. Equally amazing is that he places a November election ahead of addressing counter-insurgency in his on-air remarks Thursday night -- the same way he emphasizes it above the counter-insurgency in his writing.
Now, think for a moment, what happens if a Republican -- or a third party candidate -- gets into the White House. By Hayden's two-pronged strategy, the peace movement is over. It's time to pack it in if, that is, if you consider Tom Hayden to be a 'leader' or 'leading light' of the peace movement. (No, he's not.)
At one point, Flanders attempted to steal points made here last week. But those points were not made here to slam Hillary. In fact, Hillary has proposals. But Flanders 'borrowed' to slam Hillary. No, Flanders is not a "very best friend" -- (to steal from the late, great Cass Elliot, neither of us would piss on her if she was on fire).
Where did the debate take place? Texas. Austin. But we had ten minutes on Bob Fritakis and Larry Bensky fretting over verifiable voting in Ohio. Now Ohio will also hold their primary on March 4th but that's not "Ohio coverage." It's not about the people of Ohio, who they are supporting, or what the candidates have done in Ohio. What about Texas?
After the introductory segment from the KPFT reporter was quickly dismissed with, you couldn't find Texas -- despite the blathering. Lusane said young Latinos in Texas were for Bambi -- he can see that from DC apparently. Lou Dubose was brought on for a few minutes to offer musings from Austin. Austin is the latte area of Texas, Austin is not reflective of the state (Molly Ivins, Dubose's one-time writing partner, used to note that very often in her own writing and commentaries). What Dubose claimed to see in Austin was typical of what one always sees in Austin during election years. It was pure garbage that pimped Bambi but then Dubose is supporting Bambi.
Which is why he insulted "Mexican-Americans". He was dusting off his old comments from when he lived in the state. A thing happened while he was out of the state, he doesn't appear to know about it (not surprising, his focus is White Anglo men). That would be the 2006 march in Dallas for immigration rights which is the largest march that has ever taken place in Texas. Dubose seems unaware of it. But it doesn't matter, apparently, because Dubose asserted, "Mexican-Americans voters don't turn out as much."
We're unaware why, if the Latino vote's being discussed (we'd say mishandled), by the African-American Lusane, the White Flanders, Dubose and Bensky, that there wasn't an actual Latino or Latina brought on to discuss the issue. Over and over, listeners were given the unsupported claim that young Latinos were supporting Barack Obama. Really?
We were speaking in Texas last week and what we saw was far different. Take, for example, Dallas. The image is the cover of the Thursday Quick (local freebie that's put out by The Dallas Morning News) which we grabbed late Thursday as we arrived in Dallas. On Friday young Latinos showed up at Hillary events. We were on campuses all day and the Latino students were bringing up that event, they were speaking of how it was the first time they'd gone to see any candidate, they were showing the fliers they'd taken (pledging to turnout for Hillary). Or take San Antonio early in the week where we saw nothing but Hillary supporters. We're not Hillary campaigners. Our talks are about the illegal war. El Paso? We saw the same thing. We saw huge support for Hillary among young Latinos on campus after campus.
Now it doesn't fit with the 'wrap party' 'insight' Dubose offered but that's because (a) a 'wrap party' never indicates anything and (b) Austin is not reflective of the state of Texas and never has been.
And the KPFA broadcast was not reflective of the debate and never could have been when every guest was a declared Barack Obama supporter -- just not ever declared or identified as such on air. It's called stacking the deck and Little Media's been doing that for some time proving that their ethics are about the same as a garden snake's.
Whatever the outcome of the Democratic nomination, it's going to be very difficult for Little Media to ever try to claim the high ground again and be believed. The latter actually. Little Media will of course claim to have ethics -- and ethics greater than the MSM -- because they always shovel that s**t -- especially when it's time to beg people for money. In fact, we're not using "Little Media" again. We're replacing it with "Panhandle Media." That's what it is. It's beggars who couldn't get employed as journalists in the real world. It's beggars who offer up a con job while they try to take your money.
Twenty-three minutes into the second hour, Larry Bensky appeared to (briefly) remember that the special promoted itself as a call-in and stated it would feature "your calls." So he noted that calls would be taken. Then quickly moved on. Over 42 minutes into the second hour, he again remembered and this time actually noted the phone number (1-800-958-9008) for listeners to call. "And the rest of this hour we're going to open up our phones," Bensky claimed. Only that never happened. Around 48 minutes after the second hour, KPFA took the one and only call. It was not the only call they received. They screened and judged only one caller "acceptable." It was "Tom from Berkeley." As the sole caller what issue did Tom press? None at all.
He wasted his time (and everyone else's) asking what the 'experts' thought the campaigns should be doing? Had he not listened to the last two hours? There were serious phone calls that went into KPFA and those people were shot down, they were shut out. One of the callers wanted to ask a question of an 'expert.' She wanted to ask Laura Flanders how a lesbian could stay silent on Obama's use of homophobia?
Obama's use on homophobia? The topic no Pacifica Radio broadcast ever wants to touch. But it was an issue.
It was one raised on the blog. When Larry Bensky wanted to avoid callers, he began to chuckle over comments left on the blog. He should have choked on the chuckles because the blog was more representative than anything KPFA aired for those two hours. Asking a gay woman to explain her own shameful silence on the use of homophobia was not one of the comments he mentioned. How do you broadcast from the Bay Area and ignore repeated comments on the blog and repeated phone calls asking about Obama's use of homophobia?
You do it because you are not about media, you are not about the free flow of information. You are about pushing one candidate and punishing the other. So you stack the deck by inviting on only guests who are supporting Obama. You further stack the deck by never telling your listeners that the guests have publicly endorsed Obama. You let them think that 'independent' people are making observations (harsh ones against Hillary, valentines to Obama) just because that's how they see it in their 'impartial' eyes.
Panhandle Media has no standards, just beggars who beg non-stop and have their rap down as well as any other professional hustler. What aired wouldn't pass for journalism in a real media system but Panhandle Media couldn't work in real media. Any who ever doubted that only needed to listen to KPFA's broadcast.
Thursday night, KPFA presented "Obama-Clinton Debate." The two-hour special should have raised eye brows just from the title. Chilvary died long ago but who knew alphabetical order had as well?
In Austin, Texas, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took part in a debate as they sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Despite being the home of free speech radio, no one -- including host Larry Bensky -- bothered to note that Mike Gravel remains in the race and was uninvited.
The first minutes were Bensky speaking with KPFT's Ann Rayburn as both pretended to know something about what they were talking about but neither did. Bensky piped up that Bambi "filled a sports arena" in Dallas. Sports arena? If Benksy knew half what he thought he did, there could have been a real discussion. Reunion Arena is the venue Barack Obama rented. Reunion Arena is nothing but a glorified convention hall. And a real news broadcast could have addressed that. Years ago, it was the home of sports (Dallas Stars, Dallas Mavericks) and big concerts. The City of Dallas government made a deal to build America Airlines Center and, as part of that deal, agreed not to book Reunion Arena for concerts and other big events. That's why Dallas has very little concerts today. Tori Amos goes to Dallas? No, she goes outside Dallas as do most concert tours. If you can't get in the America Airlines Center, you don't play Dallas when you're a top act unless you go the shed route or risk the Granada which has the most offensive and rude 'security' staff -- an outsourced staff that does not check tickets. Not only does it not check tickets inside the hall, but should you find that your seat is occupied with someone not holding a ticket, you're attempt to address it with security will lead to your being yelled at by the little thugs. (A Joan Baez concert this decade is notorious for the way the security bullied and yelled at a man who had a ticket to the more expensive seats and was told to "get out" by the thugs yelling so loudly that Baez' "Rexroth's Daughter" was drowned out for several rows.) Reunion Arena today is nothing but a glorified convention hall and Bensky didn't know what the hell he was talking about but did offend people listening in the Dallas-Fort Worth area who take the issue of what was done very seriously.
Early on Bensky plugged the KPFA blog for this 'live' coverage. Bensky and KPFA both seemed to be unaware of what a message board or blog is and of what free speech is. An effort was made to impose a topic: Write the question you wish the candidate had been asked. They dubbed it a "Live Blog" and expected those listening to the two hour special to contribute nothing other than, "Oh wow, if I could, like ask one question to the groovy candidates, wow, I guess I would ask them about . . ."
That's not free speech, that's not what a blog or a message board is. The debate was the topic and those posting comments confined themselves to the candidates, their records and the debate. That wasn't good enough for the screeching monkey Larry Bensky who repeatedly felt the need to constantly 'remind' posters to stick to the topic. That's not free speech radio and it's not KPFA. Listeners -- for the two hour event -- were supposed to do nothing online but think of a question that should have been asked. Bensky and his guests weighed in on whatever they wanted to -- often offering the most useless and banal of 'information.'
But the event was promoted with the promise that listeners would be able to call in. And, in fact, a listener line was created for just such a thing, a toll free number. There was no point to offering it, we'll get back to that.
Twenty-five minutes in, Barack supporters Laura Flanders and Clarence Lusane will join the broadcast and comment throughout the first hour and the second hour. Larry Bensky will never note that they are Barack Obama supporters despite the fact that both have published repeated columns on just that fact. KPFA will, however, do everything possible to create an echo chamber that spins everything in Bambi's favor. Not surprising when you only invite Obama supporters, is it? While not surprising, that action is the sort of thing that can get KPFA in trouble when it attempts to renew its FCC charter -- can get and, in fact, should get KPFA in trouble.
Though they presented nothing of value, we should note Clarence Lusane offered up one of the most girlish and feminine voices a grown man may ever posses. Laura Flanders may have been handicapped by the fact that she was on radio and not TV so not able to resort to her usual "tight t-shirt, no bra, make my aggressive points with my thrusting nipples" approach. Lusane tittered and Flanders just came off smug.
Did Hillary get done what she needed to get done tonight, Larry Benksy pretended he wanted to know. But if he, or KPFA, really wanted to know that, they wouldn't have invited on only Barack supporters, would they? For any who've forgotten or don't know, KPFA is a California radio station and Hillary Clinton won the California primary. So it was twice as troubling that Bensky's tired act (which always includes sexism) was hauled out of mothballs. Along with being amused with himself on air, at this point, sexism is all he has to offer. He pimped a single poll, one poll, a Washington Post-ABC poll, found Clinton and Obama "essentially tied in Texas". One poll. Laura Flanders -- who was Whoring big time and that's the only word for it -- would inflate it to "those latest polls" because she never knows what she's talking about. It's how she also got it wrong on when early voting in Texas would start (it had already started on Tuesday). How a poll is news, a single poll, goes to the problems with media -- the problems FAIR regularly criticizes MSM for.
You can be sure that if the poll had found Hillary in the lead, KPFA wouldn't have pimped it Thursday night. Just as they ignored all the polls with Hillary in the lead on Thursday night.
Clarence Lusane, a reported academic (and don't most academics pursue the intersection of jazz music and international relations?) immediately replied to Bensky's query of whether or not Hillary achieved in the debate, "No, she didn't." Lusane would go on to declare "she lost" and when it was Flanders' turn she would begin with, "Well, you're absolutely right." Of course, two Little Media Whores agreed, they are both supporting Barack. This wasn't a discussion -- informed or otherwise -- it was a fan club meeting for Obama groupies aired on free speech radio under the guise of being fair and free wheeling.
The news at the start of last week, even making it onto ET, was that Barack Obama was passing off the words of Patrick Devlin (aka Governor Who -- another pretty talker who can't deliver) as his own. That's plagiarism. Laura Flanders -- the lesbian who couldn't call out Barack's use of homophobia as a campaign strategy -- disgraced herself further (there's funny graffitti throughout the Bay Area on Laura Flanders these days, by the way, and our favorite is "Gay when she wants to be"). She shamed herself by dismissing ethics with her silly excuse (it's the Obama's campaign's excuse too but that's where the Uncle Tom of the LGBT set gets all her talking points) that it's okay for him to use other people's words without crediting them because Barack's friends with ("his very good friend") the man he stole from. It should probably be noted that KPFA broadcasts from California -- which went to Hillary -- and neither Lusane or Flanders is in California. It should probably be further noted that when Lusane's name-checking American Idol, he never needs to be invited back on as an expert for anything.
And Larry Bensky never needs to be invited back as a host. He loves his voice, true. But he's out of date, he's hopelessly sexist and he is KPFA's past. (Bensky retired last spring.) Though a pro-Hillary voice wasn't allowed on the two hour special, we could hear Benksy yet again whine about changes in Pacifica as he does every time he's given the mike. On this special he got in his dig about the 'decay' of Pacifica by lamenting how they used to report -- "when we did such things" -- and he always gets those digs in. Everyone's tired of it. Everyone's tired of his self-glory and his self-love and his pretending that he did something groundshaking in the last decade at Pacifica when all he proved is he knows how to read The New York Times and The Washington Post and accept both as gospel while wanting to be considered "independent" media.
Back to the 'experts.' Maybe Laura Flanders' f**ked up sense of right and wrong allows this as a 'disclosure': "I've not been a Hilliary supporter"? No, it wasn't 'disclosure.' Self-disclosure is disclosing on air that you endorsed Barack Obama on Super Duper Tuesday. Flanders didn't offer that up and many listeners may have assumed she's the typical a pox-on-both-their-houses KPFA guest. That is not truth. And truth is not what Laura Flanders (or KPFA) offered up Thursday night. Whora Flanders wanted to offer that even though she's not a Hillary support (she outrights hates Hillary Clinton) "I felt sad." Whora Flanders has engaged in non-stop trashing of Hillary.
She wasn't "sad." A sad person doesn't cackle gleefully (as she did) when she twice mentioned -- in one response -- that Hillary was "booed." That's one of the reasons that the Whores are out in full force, by the way.
See, if you actually saw the debate, you saw that when Hillary pointed out the shallowness of Bambi, she was booed, yes, and she was also applauded. (Both for the line that Bambi offered "change you can Xerox.") You probably didn't hear about the applause after, did you?
Because for those who've Whored Out for a candidate, it's not about what actually happened, it's about what they can push, what they can spin. After a debate ends, that's where the battle lies and that's where the LIARS peddle it. Which is how applause and boos is reduced -- twice -- by Flanders to "boos." She pushes that lie and tries to dab a concealer around it by claiming to be "sad." It was evident when Larry Bensky asked her specifically what grand design was missing from the Barack Obama campaign and Flanders immediately went to, "I'll tell you what grand design is missing on the Hillary Clinton side . . ." Later on Flanders would cackle again to mock Hillary as she tossed out, "Can you tell the difference?" Yet we're supposed to believe she felt "sad"? (We gladly agree she is sad. And embarrassing.)
Three minutes into the second hour, Tom Hayden joins the proceedings for a bit. That would be the same Tom Hayden who endorsed Barack Obama in the leadup to Super Duper Tuesday -- as did his 'organization' Pathetic Democrats of America (despite the fact that the actual members of Progressive Democrats of America weren't supporting Bambi -- but 'leadership' makes the call 'for them' when they want to). Hayden blathered on non-stop and none of the allegedly Iraq remarks were worth hearing. The 'anti-war' Hayden has blown his credibility repeatedly on the issue of the Iraq War.
Last week, he hammed another nail into his own coffin as he pimped in a column that Bambi had given a strong statement about ending the illegal war. Wow, Bambi was calling for something different? No. Bambi said, in a speech in Houston, Texas, "I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009!" That's no shift. Bambi has identified ending the illegal (he calls it "dumb") war as withdrawing "combat" troops. When they are withdrawn, he has made clear he would still leave "police" troops, "training" troops and troops to go after "terrorists." Hayden was a joke. To end the illegal war, he argued two things must happen (a) one of the Democrats must be elected president and (b) the public must be educated (they're so stupid apparently) that counter-insurgency strategies are not ending the illegal war.
If Hayden is serious, one might want to add up the pieces he's written on the two topics. He has written non-stop to praise Bambi. He has written one and only one article about the counter-insurgency tactics. Equally amazing is that he places a November election ahead of addressing counter-insurgency in his on-air remarks Thursday night -- the same way he emphasizes it above the counter-insurgency in his writing.
Now, think for a moment, what happens if a Republican -- or a third party candidate -- gets into the White House. By Hayden's two-pronged strategy, the peace movement is over. It's time to pack it in if, that is, if you consider Tom Hayden to be a 'leader' or 'leading light' of the peace movement. (No, he's not.)
At one point, Flanders attempted to steal points made here last week. But those points were not made here to slam Hillary. In fact, Hillary has proposals. But Flanders 'borrowed' to slam Hillary. No, Flanders is not a "very best friend" -- (to steal from the late, great Cass Elliot, neither of us would piss on her if she was on fire).
Where did the debate take place? Texas. Austin. But we had ten minutes on Bob Fritakis and Larry Bensky fretting over verifiable voting in Ohio. Now Ohio will also hold their primary on March 4th but that's not "Ohio coverage." It's not about the people of Ohio, who they are supporting, or what the candidates have done in Ohio. What about Texas?
After the introductory segment from the KPFT reporter was quickly dismissed with, you couldn't find Texas -- despite the blathering. Lusane said young Latinos in Texas were for Bambi -- he can see that from DC apparently. Lou Dubose was brought on for a few minutes to offer musings from Austin. Austin is the latte area of Texas, Austin is not reflective of the state (Molly Ivins, Dubose's one-time writing partner, used to note that very often in her own writing and commentaries). What Dubose claimed to see in Austin was typical of what one always sees in Austin during election years. It was pure garbage that pimped Bambi but then Dubose is supporting Bambi.
Which is why he insulted "Mexican-Americans". He was dusting off his old comments from when he lived in the state. A thing happened while he was out of the state, he doesn't appear to know about it (not surprising, his focus is White Anglo men). That would be the 2006 march in Dallas for immigration rights which is the largest march that has ever taken place in Texas. Dubose seems unaware of it. But it doesn't matter, apparently, because Dubose asserted, "Mexican-Americans voters don't turn out as much."
We're unaware why, if the Latino vote's being discussed (we'd say mishandled), by the African-American Lusane, the White Flanders, Dubose and Bensky, that there wasn't an actual Latino or Latina brought on to discuss the issue. Over and over, listeners were given the unsupported claim that young Latinos were supporting Barack Obama. Really?
We were speaking in Texas last week and what we saw was far different. Take, for example, Dallas. The image is the cover of the Thursday Quick (local freebie that's put out by The Dallas Morning News) which we grabbed late Thursday as we arrived in Dallas. On Friday young Latinos showed up at Hillary events. We were on campuses all day and the Latino students were bringing up that event, they were speaking of how it was the first time they'd gone to see any candidate, they were showing the fliers they'd taken (pledging to turnout for Hillary). Or take San Antonio early in the week where we saw nothing but Hillary supporters. We're not Hillary campaigners. Our talks are about the illegal war. El Paso? We saw the same thing. We saw huge support for Hillary among young Latinos on campus after campus.
Now it doesn't fit with the 'wrap party' 'insight' Dubose offered but that's because (a) a 'wrap party' never indicates anything and (b) Austin is not reflective of the state of Texas and never has been.
And the KPFA broadcast was not reflective of the debate and never could have been when every guest was a declared Barack Obama supporter -- just not ever declared or identified as such on air. It's called stacking the deck and Little Media's been doing that for some time proving that their ethics are about the same as a garden snake's.
Whatever the outcome of the Democratic nomination, it's going to be very difficult for Little Media to ever try to claim the high ground again and be believed. The latter actually. Little Media will of course claim to have ethics -- and ethics greater than the MSM -- because they always shovel that s**t -- especially when it's time to beg people for money. In fact, we're not using "Little Media" again. We're replacing it with "Panhandle Media." That's what it is. It's beggars who couldn't get employed as journalists in the real world. It's beggars who offer up a con job while they try to take your money.
Twenty-three minutes into the second hour, Larry Bensky appeared to (briefly) remember that the special promoted itself as a call-in and stated it would feature "your calls." So he noted that calls would be taken. Then quickly moved on. Over 42 minutes into the second hour, he again remembered and this time actually noted the phone number (1-800-958-9008) for listeners to call. "And the rest of this hour we're going to open up our phones," Bensky claimed. Only that never happened. Around 48 minutes after the second hour, KPFA took the one and only call. It was not the only call they received. They screened and judged only one caller "acceptable." It was "Tom from Berkeley." As the sole caller what issue did Tom press? None at all.
He wasted his time (and everyone else's) asking what the 'experts' thought the campaigns should be doing? Had he not listened to the last two hours? There were serious phone calls that went into KPFA and those people were shot down, they were shut out. One of the callers wanted to ask a question of an 'expert.' She wanted to ask Laura Flanders how a lesbian could stay silent on Obama's use of homophobia?
Obama's use on homophobia? The topic no Pacifica Radio broadcast ever wants to touch. But it was an issue.
It was one raised on the blog. When Larry Bensky wanted to avoid callers, he began to chuckle over comments left on the blog. He should have choked on the chuckles because the blog was more representative than anything KPFA aired for those two hours. Asking a gay woman to explain her own shameful silence on the use of homophobia was not one of the comments he mentioned. How do you broadcast from the Bay Area and ignore repeated comments on the blog and repeated phone calls asking about Obama's use of homophobia?
You do it because you are not about media, you are not about the free flow of information. You are about pushing one candidate and punishing the other. So you stack the deck by inviting on only guests who are supporting Obama. You further stack the deck by never telling your listeners that the guests have publicly endorsed Obama. You let them think that 'independent' people are making observations (harsh ones against Hillary, valentines to Obama) just because that's how they see it in their 'impartial' eyes.
Panhandle Media has no standards, just beggars who beg non-stop and have their rap down as well as any other professional hustler. What aired wouldn't pass for journalism in a real media system but Panhandle Media couldn't work in real media. Any who ever doubted that only needed to listen to KPFA's broadcast.
Trashing
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.
That's Eve Ensler hiding behind Kimberly Crenshaw (who should damn well know better) in their "Feminist Ultimatums: Not In Our Name" (The Huffington Post, February 5, 2008 -- no link to trash). The two women want to lie -- it takes female liars to destroy women, men have never been able to do it on their own. Crenshaw and Ensler want to claim that unnamed feminists have said that Obama's voters are "racially motivated" -- the claim doesn't hold up. They also dismiss the reality that women's votes for Clinton are scrutinized.
At the online cesspool BuzzFlash, Mark Karlin felt the need to weigh in early on. Not after Iowa, mind you. Barack Obama won Iowa (with the help of backdoors deals such as the one that killed Dennis Kucinich's run for the Democratic nomination). When that happened Little Marky had no need to editorialize. Hillary won New Hampshire. Suddenly it was time to offer up "Did Identity Politics Carry the Day for Hillary in New Hampshire?" (January 10, 2008 -- again, no links to trash) where he needed to have a heart to heart with the ladies who were so 'emotional' and so far from 'rational' that they just voted for one of their own without any thought put into their vote:
Yes, ironies abound, but the choice for the nation is a serious one, all too easily manipulated by television images and moments.
I am personally a Jewish male, but you couldn’t drag me with wild horses and force me to vote for Joe Lieberman.
I value what is good for the nation over making a first for someone who happens to share my religious identity.
We are all in this together.
Let’s make our choice on what is best for the nation, not what is best for us personally.
That wasn't the only Voters Guide For Women offered up after Hillary won New Hampshire. Crenshaw and Ensler ignore it and the rest because they want to TRASH.
Trashing is feminist term for very public attacks on one woman. Trashing what's been going on. Had a set standard been applied to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, that would be one thing. But there was no set standard. There was a standard Hillary was held to and Bambi got to smile that toothy smile and say those pretty words as he batted those long eye lashes while the likes of Ensler and Crenshaw made like Valentino groupies at the funeral procession.
Early in the second wave of feminism, Jo Freeman penned "Trashing" which quickly became a classic piece of feminism literature. In it, she notes:
Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occassionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not done to expose disagreements or to resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy.
How does anyone know when they're engaging in trashing? A good indicator is if a pile-on's taking place. If a pile-on of one woman is taking place, you can be pretty sure a trashing is going on and feminists need to step away from it. If they lack the spine to insist that it stop, they can at least be silent and not take part in it.
Ensler and Crenshaw rushed to participate. The pile-on was fully evident by the time they showed up. By the time they decided to publish their nonsense, it was obvious that there was a standard for a woman and no standard for the men. John Edwards and Barack Obama had already done their little tag-team dance on what they hoped was Hillary's grave in a very public debate. Big and Little Media had signaled that pieces on Bambi would be the sort that you could find in 16 or Tiger Beat while it was no holds barred on Hillary. The Hillary "nut cracker" items were already being sold and advertised. The Progressive had already recommended the neocon bible The Weekly Standard ("The Editors Recommend") because it allowed them to link to an article (without calling out the group in question) on a group whose initials were an acronym for a slur against women. Most importantly, Barack Obama had already utilized homophobia in South Carolina, at a public event, by putting known homophobes on stage (over the protests of gay rights groups) and allowing homophobia to be spewed onstage.
For the record, Eve Ensler and Kimberly Crenshaw never penned a joint-column (or a solo one) calling that out. For the record, to this day they have never called it despite the fact that the feminist movement (thanks to the work of people like Gloria Steinem) has refused to practice homophobia. (Had "The Ego Of Us All" had her way, homophobia would be part of the feminist movement and, of course, Gloria Steinem would be dead because The Ego Of Us All trashed Gloria every chance she got.)
Already, Gloria Steinem had been tarred and feathered with the ludicrous charge of racism. And Ensler and Crenshaw didn't rush to defend Steinem from those false charges. As alleged feminists, it was incumbent for them to do that. More incumbent upon them than endorsing any candidate. But those LIES about Gloria needed to stand because, to ensure that Hillary would be trashed, her supporters had to be silenced.
Silencing Gloria is silencing the movement. Now a dabbler in feminism like Eve Ensler who ferries off to this 'cause' and that 'cause' but never sticks with any (March for the women of Juarez! one year and then forget them every year after, eh, Eve?) doesn't appreciate the women's movement. She never appreciated it until she found a way to make a buck off of it.
You had two distinct silences -- a refusal to speak out against homophobia and a refusal to defend women from false charges.
You had vocalization and that's how you know it was trashing: "either/or". Ensler and Crenshaw felt the need to take 'some' feminists to task for "either/or" thinking.
Yeah, you tired and boring gals, we all know the dualism debate about society, we all know the "both and". But there is either/or thinking.
And sometimes it's correct.
The February 15th broadcast of Bill Moyers Journal featured Susan Jacoby as a guest for the second segment. Jacoby, the author most recently of The Age of American Unreason, rightly noted sometimes there are not many sides, sometimes there is just right and wrong. And when it comes to trashing, you are right or you are wrong. Ensler and Crenshaw were wrong. Trashing was already public, trashing was already being commented and the two elected to participate in it. Ensler (who got Hillary to write the foward to one of Ensler's published plays) and Kernshaw elected to participate in it. They elected to trash feminists and they elected to trash Hillary. They also demonstrated how little they know or how willing they are lie repeatedly.
Either you have a consistent standard you hold all to or you don't. The two women didn't have a consistent standard.
They were happy to lie and accuse other women of racism (when we've seen none and they offer no evidence of any). They were happy to lie and accuse other feminists of racism. (We're not sure if "other" should be in that sentence after their column.) They were happy to present themselves as of-the-moment while casting the ones they have a dispute with as retro and passe.
That's trashing. They trashed.
It's cute that Crenshaw elected to wait until after Ms. magazine was promoting her so-so article to co-launch an attack on feminism. That's what it was. Maybe someday she'll find out that either she's published by Ms. or she's not. (Of course that could also mean, either she's published period or she's not because, let's be honest, there are not many outlets that would publish her writing.) It's typical of Eve Ensler -- the Whitest of American playwrights -- to want to falsely point to racism in others.
Trashing also includes pretending to be sympathetic while trashing. That would mean Laura Flanders (who is dealt with in a separate feature by Ava and C.I. this edition) and Joyce Marcel who authored "Hillary Clinton: Bridge Woman" (Common Dreams, Feburary 21, 2008) -- and ought to be embarrassed for it.
Marcel tries to play clever -- "Look at me! I invented a term: bridge woman!" Joyce, we saw Tootsie too. "Breakthrough lady." The term the character based on Gloria Monty uses. We think it says a great deal more than you intended that, to write about Hillary, you rip off a comedy about a cross dressing male. We also think your faux sympathy is as ridiculous as your analysis. Hillary has never admitted she's wrong? On anything, Joyce? Could you also tell us what she had for lunch March 12, 1994?
Joyce explains, "Her tragedy is that she never really rebelled. She never really changed." Can we get some backing proof on that because that's a huge claim and doesn't appear backed by the public record.
But if you want to trash Hillary, as Joyce does, there's no better place to go than Common Dreams which can only offer up these "we're sad for Hillary" pieces because they damn well know they crossed a big line with their non-stop hatred of women posts. They've treated Hillary like a pinata and you only have to visit their archives if you aren't already aware. Last week, we pointed out reality, that a lot of women who try to pass for feminists better be ready to live with the fallout that will never go away from their actions. Apparently thinking they can get in just under the wire, a number of posers and fakes (like Joyce) show up to say they're saddened.
Joyce was so saddened, she had to repeat an insult involving Chelsea Clinton -- an insult well over a decade old. It's as convincing as Maureen Dowd pretending she didn't really want to quote the joke calling Hillary a bitch in her column. There was no reason for that. There was no reason to hold Hillary to a standard that doesn't apply to Barack but Joyce did that throughout. She took Hillary to task for her advisers but seems unaware that -- so concerned about the illegal war -- Barack Obama has the counter-insurgency manual pusher on his team or that he has the man who turned Afghanistan into a killing field that allowed the Taliban to rise. That would be the same Taliban that stripped women of their rights. Somehow that's not an issue to 'feminists' like Joyce or Katha Pollitt. Joyce is trashing, she's trying to pose as saddened, but she's trashing.
If they're not aware of how pervasive the trashing is, they should have caught Law and Disorder on WBAI during the pledge drive two Mondays ago. Heidi Boghosian and Michael Ratner kicked it off with Michael Smith joining them late. He made up for being tardy rather quickly as he quickly brought up Hillary Clinton for no reason other than to slam her. And to chuckle as he did so.
By contrast, last week Margaret Kimberly shared that she was a bit saddened for Hillary. Kimberly has held Clinton up to standards. But she is genuinely sad and that's because, unlike Flanders and Marcel, she held both Clinton and Obama up to the same standards.
Trashing, as a group action, isn't criticism. Trashing isn't about tone. Trashing is a pile on. And that is what's taken place with Hillary as a stand-in for all women who want to strive for something. It really boils down to, "Who the hell does she think she is?"
Believe it or not, in 1992, she excited a lot of people in the Democratic Party. Truth is, she still does. Truth is, the trashing is coming from a lot of non-Democrats who really shouldn't have a say in what happens in the Democratic Party since they are Republicans, Socialist, Communists, Greens or registered independents. But were it not for them, the trashing wouldn't have had the fuel it needed to turn into non-stop rounds of Bash The Bitch.
Here's another truth for you, one we pointed out last week, a lot of the women engaging in Bash The Bitch think they'll get off scott-free but they won't. Their real-time actions will not be forgotten by history. Accountability lies in the very near future. Like Rock & Roll, feminism never forgets.
How Little Media Operated
In 1988, there were a number of candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. The race came down to two. One was nationally known for two decades, a proven fund-raiser and a "star" of the Democratic Party trotted out whenever a race was close or money needed to be raised. The candidate was very popular with members of the Democratic Party. The other candidate was serving his first term in the House of Representatives and had given a speech at the Democratic National Convention that caught some attention. Even though the race had made him a national name, people still didn't know what he stood for and they still didn't know much -- if anything -- about his past.
In 1988, were the two held up to the same standard.
No, because that wasn't the case in 1988. It is the case in 2008 and one of the candidates is a woman. It's the woman who has experience. It's the woman who has been popular with the Democratic Party for years. Her name is Hillary Clinton but a funny thing happened during the race for the presidential nomination.
Hillary has 'negatives'. That's what we were told. Republicans don't like her, we are told. She is, they say, divisive.
"They" are the same non-stars of Little Media who spent years lecturing that Democrats needed to lead. They lectured that Democrats needed to stop worrying about how they were seen by the Republicans and take actual stands.
Yet their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, has a run a campaign that has disrespected the Democratic Party repeatedly. He's praised Ronald Reagan, fawned over him. The closest thing to a 'plan' or 'platform' he has is the claim that he will put 'divisiveness' behind us.
How he plans to do that is never addressed. Judging by his actions thus far, he would most likely do it by attacking Democrats (as with his sneer at "Tom Hayden Democrats") and his praise for Republicans (Ronald Reagan, party of ideals, etc.). But maybe he has another approach? Maybe he thinks he can brainwash Republicans the same way he has brainwashed so many Democrats?
Basic realities are that Hillary Clinton is a fighter and Barack Obama has never demonstrated once that he's capable of a fight.
Which makes him the perfect choice for Little Media because they can't fight for anything. It's not just that they can't fight for an end to the illegal war, they can't fight period. Along comes the candidate they created a cult of personality around and they're banking that, like the current White House occupant, he can breeze into office. They're banking on that because they think it's the easier road.
Last week, Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, declared that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. Instead of immediately issuing an apology, both she and her spouse attempted to weasel out of the remarks with Barack Obama taking to the airwaves to explain that what she said wasn't what she meant.
That's been a pattern in the Obama campaign. Meeting with a conservative editorial board, he praises Ronald Reagan and then, as the should-have-been-expected reaction among Democrats takes hold (outrage over his comments), there are various excuses offered that all boil down to, "I know what he said but what he meant was . . ."
It's a hallmark of the campaign. Ignore what we said and give us a do-over!
And damned if Little Media hasn't been more than willing to do so.
Over and over.
They stomp their feet, they utilize their echo chamber, they villify those who point out that Barack Obama is a lousy candidate (which he is) and people fall in line or fall silent.
That's not how it's going to work with Republicans. That's not how it will play out in a general election.
They argue that Hillary Clinton is the one the GOP wants the Democrats to pick. To believe that, you have to be a fool or practice prolonged supension of disbelief.
Hillary Clinton is a fighter and has always been a fighter. She walked through all the mud the GOP flung at her. You might have forgotten that mud were it not for the fact that Obama's groupies in Little Media keep flinging it at her today.
Maybe you missed that? If so, you missed a great deal such as the worthless opinions of Farzan Versey which CounterPunch elected to publish under the title "Hillary's Harem" (January 23, 2008). Versey crapped on her keyboard in Mumbai, India. Exactly why the hell should anyone care what someone who won't be voting in the election has to say? Why the hell should anyone care what 'insight' Versey gleens from far, far, far away?
Versey's 'insights' are questionable in every regard including her claim that Bill Clinton "became the reigning sex symbol due to her" -- her being Monica Lewinsky. Though Versey's body lives in India, who knows where her mind lives? An outpost many galaxies away for her to claim that Bill Clinton was ever "the reigning sex symbol" for any reason.
On Paula Jones, Versey 'shared' this 'knowledge': "Paula Jones, another one of his trophies, later tried to cash in on the liaison by posing for a centrefold; she said she did it for her kids. The moral brigade was out with their 'tsk, tsk', quite forgetting that Linda Tripp squealed, the lawyers got a good deal, books were written, and Bill continued to be president." Linda Tripp squealed?
Versey doesn't know what she's writing about. That's not surprising since she's not a writer living in America. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Claire (longtime, malignant Clinton Haters) were happy to print it -- remember that the next time Cockburn decides he wants to lecture Truthout about journalistic standards. Linda Tripp didn't "squeal" a thing on Paula Jones. Jones outed herself after an American Spectator article (with no known connection to Tripp) mentioned a "Paula." She wanted to sue for defamation of character. Linda Tripp had nothing to do with Paula Jones. Versey doesn't know what she's talking about and so low are the standards at CounterPunch that actual facts and knowledge didn't matter. It just mattered that they had a woman to smear Hillary Clinton with. It just mattered that some idiotic female was willing to say Hillary "owes" any future as president to "these women" (Jones and Monica Lewinsky). It's the craziest pile of stink you've ever read and it doesn't even pass the most basic of fact checks but the column runs because it's a way to slime Hillary with right-wing talking points.
From time to time, one of the Little Media 'voices' who couldn't get work in a real profession (we know that doesn't help you narrow them down since the bulk could never work in real journalism) will say, "We don't want to relive the Clinton era."
And they usually then proceed to do just that by repeating right-wing negatives and lies. They don't want to 're-live' it. They didn't live through it in real time. In real time, they were carving up Bill and Hillary Clinton. They plead that they don't have it in them to go through defending another Clinton -- so weak are they.
And then they want the Democratic Party to stand up and fight. They want the Dems in Congress to take action. But they choose a candidate (Obama) who is not a fighter and they choose him because they think (hope?) he will be the easier path.
Hopefully you grasp the inconsistency at play. "We don't want to defend Hillary! Stand up Dems in Congress!"
They want Dems to stand up but they can't stand up themselves. They can't even bother to work up their own attacks on Hillary and, instead, fall back on the GOP slurs of the 90s. They want other people to be fighters, they just don't want to fight themselves. And they don't want a candidate who can fight. They want pretty words -- even if they are purloined words.
They run from anyone who fights (always) and claims a "fresh start" is needed while also lamenting the lack of strength in Democrats.
This year they've bet the farm -- and it's always someone else's farm, never their own -- on the "fresh start" of Obama. This is the same 'independent' media that runs like cowards whenever strength is needed. Sometimes, if Noam Chomsky has endorsed someone, they'll rush to offer some sort of weak ass defense. Ward Churchill, without an endorsement, is left on his own.
You need to grasp how pathetic these beggars are and you need to grasp it when they're begging for your money. What do they do with it?
What they did with it in 2007 and 2008 was slant the coverage and try to rip apart a woman.
There's nothing wrong with people holding Hillary Clinton to a standard -- if it's a fair standard. But the same ones willing to trot out everything (including the lies about the death of Vince Foster) to destroy Hillary rush to tell you that Obama stealing the words of others is "okay" because he only stole from a friend. (A friend and a Democrat, something that should give all voters pause.) They want to insist that Antoin "Tony" Rezko is a non-story while even going to the well on the faux scandal of Whitewater. They want to insist that Obama's "present" votes -- used on difficult issues -- in the Illinois legislature don't matter. They want to insist that even when he has not only missed many votes and failed to chair his committees in hearings.
They want to argue that the Iran resolution this summer proved something. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. They argue it's the same as the Iraq resolution in 2002 (it's not). And it's there that you find most clearly that lack of standards. The increasingly loony Stephen Zunes is the best example but they've all repeated this pattern: "Hillary bad to vote for it! Barack opposed to it!"
That's not reality. It is a double-standard. Obama ducked that vote. He was in DC and he was given a reminder of the vote. Obama elected not to vote. But Zunes and the other liars of Little Media leave that point out.
It's a double-standard. It was so successful that Obama was able to use it publicly. He was able to point to that vote in debates. And the very obvious fact that he'd missed the vote, that he'd chosen not to cast a vote flies out the window.
Had Obama voted against it, there might be a case in the "Hillary bad to vote for it! Barack opposed to it!" nonsense. But they can't do that. So they leave that out or, if pressed, state that Barack Obama spoke out against it. If it mattered to him, he would have voted.
It's a double-standard and they've practiced it non-stop.
In 1988, were the two held up to the same standard.
No, because that wasn't the case in 1988. It is the case in 2008 and one of the candidates is a woman. It's the woman who has experience. It's the woman who has been popular with the Democratic Party for years. Her name is Hillary Clinton but a funny thing happened during the race for the presidential nomination.
Hillary has 'negatives'. That's what we were told. Republicans don't like her, we are told. She is, they say, divisive.
"They" are the same non-stars of Little Media who spent years lecturing that Democrats needed to lead. They lectured that Democrats needed to stop worrying about how they were seen by the Republicans and take actual stands.
Yet their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, has a run a campaign that has disrespected the Democratic Party repeatedly. He's praised Ronald Reagan, fawned over him. The closest thing to a 'plan' or 'platform' he has is the claim that he will put 'divisiveness' behind us.
How he plans to do that is never addressed. Judging by his actions thus far, he would most likely do it by attacking Democrats (as with his sneer at "Tom Hayden Democrats") and his praise for Republicans (Ronald Reagan, party of ideals, etc.). But maybe he has another approach? Maybe he thinks he can brainwash Republicans the same way he has brainwashed so many Democrats?
Basic realities are that Hillary Clinton is a fighter and Barack Obama has never demonstrated once that he's capable of a fight.
Which makes him the perfect choice for Little Media because they can't fight for anything. It's not just that they can't fight for an end to the illegal war, they can't fight period. Along comes the candidate they created a cult of personality around and they're banking that, like the current White House occupant, he can breeze into office. They're banking on that because they think it's the easier road.
Last week, Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, declared that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. Instead of immediately issuing an apology, both she and her spouse attempted to weasel out of the remarks with Barack Obama taking to the airwaves to explain that what she said wasn't what she meant.
That's been a pattern in the Obama campaign. Meeting with a conservative editorial board, he praises Ronald Reagan and then, as the should-have-been-expected reaction among Democrats takes hold (outrage over his comments), there are various excuses offered that all boil down to, "I know what he said but what he meant was . . ."
It's a hallmark of the campaign. Ignore what we said and give us a do-over!
And damned if Little Media hasn't been more than willing to do so.
Over and over.
They stomp their feet, they utilize their echo chamber, they villify those who point out that Barack Obama is a lousy candidate (which he is) and people fall in line or fall silent.
That's not how it's going to work with Republicans. That's not how it will play out in a general election.
They argue that Hillary Clinton is the one the GOP wants the Democrats to pick. To believe that, you have to be a fool or practice prolonged supension of disbelief.
Hillary Clinton is a fighter and has always been a fighter. She walked through all the mud the GOP flung at her. You might have forgotten that mud were it not for the fact that Obama's groupies in Little Media keep flinging it at her today.
Maybe you missed that? If so, you missed a great deal such as the worthless opinions of Farzan Versey which CounterPunch elected to publish under the title "Hillary's Harem" (January 23, 2008). Versey crapped on her keyboard in Mumbai, India. Exactly why the hell should anyone care what someone who won't be voting in the election has to say? Why the hell should anyone care what 'insight' Versey gleens from far, far, far away?
Versey's 'insights' are questionable in every regard including her claim that Bill Clinton "became the reigning sex symbol due to her" -- her being Monica Lewinsky. Though Versey's body lives in India, who knows where her mind lives? An outpost many galaxies away for her to claim that Bill Clinton was ever "the reigning sex symbol" for any reason.
On Paula Jones, Versey 'shared' this 'knowledge': "Paula Jones, another one of his trophies, later tried to cash in on the liaison by posing for a centrefold; she said she did it for her kids. The moral brigade was out with their 'tsk, tsk', quite forgetting that Linda Tripp squealed, the lawyers got a good deal, books were written, and Bill continued to be president." Linda Tripp squealed?
Versey doesn't know what she's writing about. That's not surprising since she's not a writer living in America. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Claire (longtime, malignant Clinton Haters) were happy to print it -- remember that the next time Cockburn decides he wants to lecture Truthout about journalistic standards. Linda Tripp didn't "squeal" a thing on Paula Jones. Jones outed herself after an American Spectator article (with no known connection to Tripp) mentioned a "Paula." She wanted to sue for defamation of character. Linda Tripp had nothing to do with Paula Jones. Versey doesn't know what she's talking about and so low are the standards at CounterPunch that actual facts and knowledge didn't matter. It just mattered that they had a woman to smear Hillary Clinton with. It just mattered that some idiotic female was willing to say Hillary "owes" any future as president to "these women" (Jones and Monica Lewinsky). It's the craziest pile of stink you've ever read and it doesn't even pass the most basic of fact checks but the column runs because it's a way to slime Hillary with right-wing talking points.
From time to time, one of the Little Media 'voices' who couldn't get work in a real profession (we know that doesn't help you narrow them down since the bulk could never work in real journalism) will say, "We don't want to relive the Clinton era."
And they usually then proceed to do just that by repeating right-wing negatives and lies. They don't want to 're-live' it. They didn't live through it in real time. In real time, they were carving up Bill and Hillary Clinton. They plead that they don't have it in them to go through defending another Clinton -- so weak are they.
And then they want the Democratic Party to stand up and fight. They want the Dems in Congress to take action. But they choose a candidate (Obama) who is not a fighter and they choose him because they think (hope?) he will be the easier path.
Hopefully you grasp the inconsistency at play. "We don't want to defend Hillary! Stand up Dems in Congress!"
They want Dems to stand up but they can't stand up themselves. They can't even bother to work up their own attacks on Hillary and, instead, fall back on the GOP slurs of the 90s. They want other people to be fighters, they just don't want to fight themselves. And they don't want a candidate who can fight. They want pretty words -- even if they are purloined words.
They run from anyone who fights (always) and claims a "fresh start" is needed while also lamenting the lack of strength in Democrats.
This year they've bet the farm -- and it's always someone else's farm, never their own -- on the "fresh start" of Obama. This is the same 'independent' media that runs like cowards whenever strength is needed. Sometimes, if Noam Chomsky has endorsed someone, they'll rush to offer some sort of weak ass defense. Ward Churchill, without an endorsement, is left on his own.
You need to grasp how pathetic these beggars are and you need to grasp it when they're begging for your money. What do they do with it?
What they did with it in 2007 and 2008 was slant the coverage and try to rip apart a woman.
There's nothing wrong with people holding Hillary Clinton to a standard -- if it's a fair standard. But the same ones willing to trot out everything (including the lies about the death of Vince Foster) to destroy Hillary rush to tell you that Obama stealing the words of others is "okay" because he only stole from a friend. (A friend and a Democrat, something that should give all voters pause.) They want to insist that Antoin "Tony" Rezko is a non-story while even going to the well on the faux scandal of Whitewater. They want to insist that Obama's "present" votes -- used on difficult issues -- in the Illinois legislature don't matter. They want to insist that even when he has not only missed many votes and failed to chair his committees in hearings.
They want to argue that the Iran resolution this summer proved something. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. They argue it's the same as the Iraq resolution in 2002 (it's not). And it's there that you find most clearly that lack of standards. The increasingly loony Stephen Zunes is the best example but they've all repeated this pattern: "Hillary bad to vote for it! Barack opposed to it!"
That's not reality. It is a double-standard. Obama ducked that vote. He was in DC and he was given a reminder of the vote. Obama elected not to vote. But Zunes and the other liars of Little Media leave that point out.
It's a double-standard. It was so successful that Obama was able to use it publicly. He was able to point to that vote in debates. And the very obvious fact that he'd missed the vote, that he'd chosen not to cast a vote flies out the window.
Had Obama voted against it, there might be a case in the "Hillary bad to vote for it! Barack opposed to it!" nonsense. But they can't do that. So they leave that out or, if pressed, state that Barack Obama spoke out against it. If it mattered to him, he would have voted.
It's a double-standard and they've practiced it non-stop.
Bash the Bitch
Bash the bitch is as American as apple pie and rush to judgement, so who are we to complain?
If it makes us "America haters" to say "Just a minute now" then so be it. Let all the ones partaking in bash-the-bitch wrap themselves in Old Glory, we'll call it the way we see it.
Here's what we see. A woman's trashed. For what she did?
Oh cookie, please, it's for being a woman.
Ava and C.I. explaining the basics in "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader." Bash The Bitch is a popular game in America, it's a pile-on and it always revolves around women.
No one's ever supposed to notice.
It's not about criticism -- constructive or otherwise -- it's about a pile on. And it's so much fun to pile-on a woman, apparently, that once a few stones are being tossed, the whole country's searching for rocks to hurl. You saw it with Katie Couric whose "crime" was becoming an evening news anchor.
None of Couric's actions have been as embarrassing as Charlie Gibon's. But somehow there's been no move to pile-on with Charlie though, goodness knows, he's provided many reasons to. Charlie's a man and he's therefore immune to the pile-on.
Don't believe it? Well let's move away from Couric and note another woman, Judith Miller. No question, Judith Miller's 'reports' do not stand up. They didn't when they ran. She was a very bad reporter, to put it mildly.
But how did she become the stand-in for every 'journalist' who pushed the illegal war. Most were men, but they blend into the woodwork and their journalistic sins are largely forgotten. Miller's sins not only are not forgotten, they are inflated. If you doubt it, check out any blog that mentions Miller and wait for the comment to come in on her articles outing Valerie Plame. No such articles ever ran but the mistaken belief exists to this day. Just as the myth exists that Judith Miller single-handedly sold the illegal war.
As C.I. often wondered (such as in November 2006) were any of the others responsible ever going to be held accountable -- even at her paper -- "or are we all going to act as though Judith Miller wrote, edited, printed and delivered the paper of no record to every front porch?" Or, in September 2006, "No matter how much you hate Judith Miller, you can't pin it all on her. Not just because there were a lot of people aping her lead (in print, on TV, on the radio -- and she was not the Queen of All Media) but because Judith Miller was out of Iraq fairly quickly. The Times pulled her and put her on UN duty (around the time her friend David Kelly died). The so-called cakewalk walked on without her." If it were just Judith Miller, the illegal war would never have started. That much weight is never put behind one person's words, let alone one woman's words.
Miller deserves criticism. She deserves calling out.
Bash The Bitch isn't about that, though. It's never really about that.
It is about targeting women. One woman will be singled out and become the pinata. Her actions will be called out repeatedly. Look at any movie starlet in recent times. They're generally under 25 and their escapades are cause for national concern. But note that when an actor over 40 was arrested for being intoxicated, even when his series was shut down due to those troubles, it was never the source of commenting to the degree that a Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton was. In fact, some of you may be scratching your heads and wondering, "What actor got busted?"
Bash The Bitch was at play with Elisabeth Bumiller whose work in those New York Times columns ("White House Letter") was embarrassing. But embarrassing also describes the work of her male peers 'reporting' from DC. "Knee pads" and Bumiller were forever joined but what of her male colleagues? They skate away scott free.
Bash The Bitch involves a focus on misdeeds that is only applied to one person and that person is a woman. When that takes place the nation engages in group trashing.
Judith Miller? The Christ to be crucified for the sins of all journalists? Miller wasn't even the first reporter for the paper of record to offer up a non-existant link between Iraq and 9-11. That would be Chris Hedges in a front page article from October 2001. [You can also refer to Jack Fairweather's "Heroes in Error: How a fake general, a pliant media, and a master manipulator helped lead the United States into war" (Mother Jones).]
Bash The Bitch is taking place currently as well and the woman being singled out is Hillary Clinton.
As C.I. and Elaine have noted, Barack Obama is supposed to be the Sky Father come down to save us and you can't turn a meager resume holder into Big Daddy without tearing apart the woman vying for the same position. So it was Kill Mommy time. Not to do so would leave the impression that Barack was about as effective of the bulk of TV sitcom Dads.
Hillary had to be torn apart.
And the tearing started early. We've held Hillary accountable here. We've held the same standard for all. But what's very clear now is that certain elements had no interest in doing that from the beginning. Think of Cindy Sheehan being 'fixed up' with a meet-up of Hillary. When were Cindy Sheehan's 'peace' 'movement' 'friends' urging her to have a face-to-face with Barack Obama?
They weren't. And, looking back, that's very telling. To be clear, that's not a criticism of Cindy Sheehan. It is a criticism of those around her at that time who really weren't interested in ending the illegal war.
The Peace Mom goes to Washington. Shouldn't she have had face-time with the "Anti-War" Senator? Barack Obama was in the Senate then. He was supposedly against the illegal war. As important as it was for Sheehan to meet up with Hillary, shouldn't a meet up with Barack Obama have been arranged?
It wasn't. There's a reason for that. Before he got into the Senate, while still campaigning, Barack Obama was very clear to Elaine and C.I., at a fundraiser for his campaign, that he wasn't calling for US troops to leave Iraq. (They left without contributing after that exchange.)
The myth/fairytale is that Bambi was against the illegal war before it started and all the way through it. That's not reality. But for those who can't face reality, ask yourself how Hillary's record is worse than Barack Obama's?
The lie is he was always against it. His 2002 speech says it's a "dumb" war. If he believed the war was wrong when he got into office, then wasn't it a greater disgrace that he would repeatedly vote to fund the illegal war?
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to courts of law. In every day dealings, we often offer a pass for someone with the comment that they didn't know better. But Bambi's campaign rests on his "anti-war" stance. To buy into that unwavering stance, you have to accept that he was against the war all along. So knowing it was wrong, he has no excuse for consistently voting to fund the illegal war. If he came in opposed to the illegal war, it's a greater shame that he would vote to fund it. Buying the lie means buying into the belief that he knew better but still voted to fund it.
You don't hear that argument made -- though you should -- and it goes to the trashing of Hillary. She can and is ripped apart and he's given a pass. He votes in favor of what he allegedly knows is wrong and he gets a pass.
It's a trashing. It was meant to be a trashing. A few misfits in the 'peace' 'movement' wanted to take down Hillary. They wanted that long ago and they set the stage for it. That's why they never paired the Peace Mom up with the "Anti-war" Senator. If they were trying to accomplish something -- besides breed ill will towards Hillary, don't you think they should have set her up with Obama? Don't you think a joint press conference with the Peace Mom and the "Anti-War" Senator would have caught media attention?
Wasn't that the point?
It doesn't appear to have been the point when you look back. And maybe you should ask why that is?
Bash The Bitch only requires one woman (to be targeted) and a lynch mob mentality egged on by the gas bag set. Criticism of a woman does not translate into Bash The Bitch. It requires a feeding frenzy, an out of control mob among the gas bag set who are willing to churn out there "Off With Her Head" commentaries.
Being opposed to Bash The Bitch does not require that anyone stop critizing women or that they only criticize with the appropriate 'tone.' It does require that when you see the angry mob gathering around one woman, you step back to reflect on what's going on? You ask yourself whether or not the standard this one woman is being held to is a standard her male peers are also being held to?
If the answer is "no," then Bash The Bitch is being played.
If it makes us "America haters" to say "Just a minute now" then so be it. Let all the ones partaking in bash-the-bitch wrap themselves in Old Glory, we'll call it the way we see it.
Here's what we see. A woman's trashed. For what she did?
Oh cookie, please, it's for being a woman.
Ava and C.I. explaining the basics in "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader." Bash The Bitch is a popular game in America, it's a pile-on and it always revolves around women.
No one's ever supposed to notice.
It's not about criticism -- constructive or otherwise -- it's about a pile on. And it's so much fun to pile-on a woman, apparently, that once a few stones are being tossed, the whole country's searching for rocks to hurl. You saw it with Katie Couric whose "crime" was becoming an evening news anchor.
None of Couric's actions have been as embarrassing as Charlie Gibon's. But somehow there's been no move to pile-on with Charlie though, goodness knows, he's provided many reasons to. Charlie's a man and he's therefore immune to the pile-on.
Don't believe it? Well let's move away from Couric and note another woman, Judith Miller. No question, Judith Miller's 'reports' do not stand up. They didn't when they ran. She was a very bad reporter, to put it mildly.
But how did she become the stand-in for every 'journalist' who pushed the illegal war. Most were men, but they blend into the woodwork and their journalistic sins are largely forgotten. Miller's sins not only are not forgotten, they are inflated. If you doubt it, check out any blog that mentions Miller and wait for the comment to come in on her articles outing Valerie Plame. No such articles ever ran but the mistaken belief exists to this day. Just as the myth exists that Judith Miller single-handedly sold the illegal war.
As C.I. often wondered (such as in November 2006) were any of the others responsible ever going to be held accountable -- even at her paper -- "or are we all going to act as though Judith Miller wrote, edited, printed and delivered the paper of no record to every front porch?" Or, in September 2006, "No matter how much you hate Judith Miller, you can't pin it all on her. Not just because there were a lot of people aping her lead (in print, on TV, on the radio -- and she was not the Queen of All Media) but because Judith Miller was out of Iraq fairly quickly. The Times pulled her and put her on UN duty (around the time her friend David Kelly died). The so-called cakewalk walked on without her." If it were just Judith Miller, the illegal war would never have started. That much weight is never put behind one person's words, let alone one woman's words.
Miller deserves criticism. She deserves calling out.
Bash The Bitch isn't about that, though. It's never really about that.
It is about targeting women. One woman will be singled out and become the pinata. Her actions will be called out repeatedly. Look at any movie starlet in recent times. They're generally under 25 and their escapades are cause for national concern. But note that when an actor over 40 was arrested for being intoxicated, even when his series was shut down due to those troubles, it was never the source of commenting to the degree that a Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton was. In fact, some of you may be scratching your heads and wondering, "What actor got busted?"
Bash The Bitch was at play with Elisabeth Bumiller whose work in those New York Times columns ("White House Letter") was embarrassing. But embarrassing also describes the work of her male peers 'reporting' from DC. "Knee pads" and Bumiller were forever joined but what of her male colleagues? They skate away scott free.
Bash The Bitch involves a focus on misdeeds that is only applied to one person and that person is a woman. When that takes place the nation engages in group trashing.
Judith Miller? The Christ to be crucified for the sins of all journalists? Miller wasn't even the first reporter for the paper of record to offer up a non-existant link between Iraq and 9-11. That would be Chris Hedges in a front page article from October 2001. [You can also refer to Jack Fairweather's "Heroes in Error: How a fake general, a pliant media, and a master manipulator helped lead the United States into war" (Mother Jones).]
Bash The Bitch is taking place currently as well and the woman being singled out is Hillary Clinton.
As C.I. and Elaine have noted, Barack Obama is supposed to be the Sky Father come down to save us and you can't turn a meager resume holder into Big Daddy without tearing apart the woman vying for the same position. So it was Kill Mommy time. Not to do so would leave the impression that Barack was about as effective of the bulk of TV sitcom Dads.
Hillary had to be torn apart.
And the tearing started early. We've held Hillary accountable here. We've held the same standard for all. But what's very clear now is that certain elements had no interest in doing that from the beginning. Think of Cindy Sheehan being 'fixed up' with a meet-up of Hillary. When were Cindy Sheehan's 'peace' 'movement' 'friends' urging her to have a face-to-face with Barack Obama?
They weren't. And, looking back, that's very telling. To be clear, that's not a criticism of Cindy Sheehan. It is a criticism of those around her at that time who really weren't interested in ending the illegal war.
The Peace Mom goes to Washington. Shouldn't she have had face-time with the "Anti-War" Senator? Barack Obama was in the Senate then. He was supposedly against the illegal war. As important as it was for Sheehan to meet up with Hillary, shouldn't a meet up with Barack Obama have been arranged?
It wasn't. There's a reason for that. Before he got into the Senate, while still campaigning, Barack Obama was very clear to Elaine and C.I., at a fundraiser for his campaign, that he wasn't calling for US troops to leave Iraq. (They left without contributing after that exchange.)
The myth/fairytale is that Bambi was against the illegal war before it started and all the way through it. That's not reality. But for those who can't face reality, ask yourself how Hillary's record is worse than Barack Obama's?
The lie is he was always against it. His 2002 speech says it's a "dumb" war. If he believed the war was wrong when he got into office, then wasn't it a greater disgrace that he would repeatedly vote to fund the illegal war?
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to courts of law. In every day dealings, we often offer a pass for someone with the comment that they didn't know better. But Bambi's campaign rests on his "anti-war" stance. To buy into that unwavering stance, you have to accept that he was against the war all along. So knowing it was wrong, he has no excuse for consistently voting to fund the illegal war. If he came in opposed to the illegal war, it's a greater shame that he would vote to fund it. Buying the lie means buying into the belief that he knew better but still voted to fund it.
You don't hear that argument made -- though you should -- and it goes to the trashing of Hillary. She can and is ripped apart and he's given a pass. He votes in favor of what he allegedly knows is wrong and he gets a pass.
It's a trashing. It was meant to be a trashing. A few misfits in the 'peace' 'movement' wanted to take down Hillary. They wanted that long ago and they set the stage for it. That's why they never paired the Peace Mom up with the "Anti-war" Senator. If they were trying to accomplish something -- besides breed ill will towards Hillary, don't you think they should have set her up with Obama? Don't you think a joint press conference with the Peace Mom and the "Anti-War" Senator would have caught media attention?
Wasn't that the point?
It doesn't appear to have been the point when you look back. And maybe you should ask why that is?
Bash The Bitch only requires one woman (to be targeted) and a lynch mob mentality egged on by the gas bag set. Criticism of a woman does not translate into Bash The Bitch. It requires a feeding frenzy, an out of control mob among the gas bag set who are willing to churn out there "Off With Her Head" commentaries.
Being opposed to Bash The Bitch does not require that anyone stop critizing women or that they only criticize with the appropriate 'tone.' It does require that when you see the angry mob gathering around one woman, you step back to reflect on what's going on? You ask yourself whether or not the standard this one woman is being held to is a standard her male peers are also being held to?
If the answer is "no," then Bash The Bitch is being played.