Noted 'feminist' Jane Hamsher was one of the first to attack Lynn. We consider ourselves lucky to live in a world where someone who's already done a great deal of damage can go on to do further damage in other fields. Jane Hamsher, we salute you. You produced crap movies that were insulting to women and now you produce crap online that insults women. Congratulations, Jane!
Jane outlined Lynn's crimes at The Huffington Post. ObamaCare is a nightmare. We wish Lynn wouldn't support it. But we're not as simplistic as Jane. The charge sheet she offers on Lynn Woolsey has damn little to do with Lynn.
It has a great deal to do with the state of the Progressive Caucus and it has a great deal to do with a member of the Progressive Caucus who has ruled that "Barack will not be embarrassed." That woman's name is not "Lynn Woolsey." That woman, the one Jane should be raging against, is repeatedly presented as a THE progressive in Congress. Were that really the case, she would have been the media focus after Wednesday's Afghanistan War vote and not Patrick Kennedy. But she's not really that progressive. She's really not anything she pretends to be and she better hope no one ever fact checks that bad book she put her name to.
It does not matter who is in charge of the Progressive Caucus in Congress, no one will go up against the She-Monster who has ruled Barack off limits.
Now Jane may want someone else in charge of the caucus (possibly Raul Grijalva whom she appears to feel she has a relationship with) and that's fine and she can advocate for that in any way she wants, even if it means spitting on Lynn if that's how Jane gets her kicks.
But she needs to get her facts straight. The caucus is in disarray and that has nothing to do with Lynn and nothing to do Raul or anyone else who might become the next leader.
But maybe tough talking, bad-ass self-presenting Jane isn't Ripley enough to take on the Queen?
Whatever else her faults, as least Jane can work up genuine rage which puts her miles ahead of Sominex poster boy Tom Hayden. Having used his Brinks Robbery masquerading as a property settlement money to buy a seat at The Nation, Tom-Tom now uses the magazine to launch his attacks and, as everyone well knows, Tom-Tom's not happy unless he's attacking a woman. Possibly he endured too many "Beauty and the Beast" ribs in the 70s and 80s?
So he came out swinging at Lynn last week. Lynn's big 'crime' for Tommy is that she won't endorse his approved token Marci Winograd. The way Tom's going on and on about Marci, he's reminding us of the way he once carried on with a chain-smoking, 'blond' with the Dukakis campaign and we all know how that worked out, now don't we, Tom?
The insufferable bore that is Tom Hayden writes, "During the Iraq war, the congressional Out of Iraq caucus represented a bloc of 70." What? The Iraq War's over? We must have missed the grand homecoming following the departure of all US troops from Iraq.
He goes on to lament the implosion of United for Peace and Justice (while failing to disclose his own conneciton to the organization) and to whine about "the peace constituency has never turned into a permanent, organized, well-funded lobbying force in Washington--except for the brief flare-ups like those of MoveOn in the 2004-06 cycle." What peace constituency? The one you told to blindly vote for Barack Obama during the primaries? And during the general election? And the one you spent months after inauguration making excuses for?
Tom Hayden, you glorious failure, you have done more than anyone else to execute the peace movement. The blood will not wipe off your hands. Now you condemn Lynn Woolsey who actually has stood for peace. And not to sell a book or to dream of the day when she might again be invited on Meet The Press or interviewed by Barbara Walters or walk the red carpet or . . .
Poor, Tom-Tom, those days are long-long gone.
As are the days of anyone taking you seriously.
We think the comment left on your article says it all:
By McGehee, Michael at Mar 10, 2010 20:28 PMTom, the people have caught on. Enjoy.