How Can You Be So Obtuse?

When I read articles like this one, I'm not surprised by the post-Super Tuesday flameout of the Clinton campaign. Since I'm not a Serious Columnist like, say, David Broder, I can only speak for myself, but when Hillary's campaign started floating the idea of challenging the DNC's decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, it made me less likely to vote for her. The kicker is that they started with that talk before things really started spiraling away from them...so if I were, say, David Broder, I might say something like, "To everyday Americans, and especially the salt-of-the-earth backbone of the old Democratic machine, this sort of legalistic noisemaking served as a not-so-pleasant reminder of the Clintons' propensity to seek victory by any means necessary." I'm also partial to this one: "One friend of mine, a lifelong Democrat, emailed me last night to say that she was starting to see what her Republican friends have always found so infuriating about the Clintons."

Like I said, though, I'm not a Serious Columnist, so I'm stuck with just my opinion, which is this: by threating to challenge the Texas system in court, before the Texas primary even happens, the Clinton campaign is likely to drive a fair-sized number of voters into the Obama camp by driving home Obama's argument that we need a new kind of politics for him. At the end of the day, the only people in the Clinton campaign who would benefit from a lawsuit would be the lawyers (curse our oily hides!), who get paid win or lose.

I guess desperate is as desperate does.

[EDIT: h/t to memorandum. Where are my manners this morning?]

Bill Kristol: Playa Hatin'

Wow. Could someone please explain to me how The Very Serious Opinion Leader Bill Kristol has a job writing a regular op-ed column in The Paper of Record? FFS, this has to be a joke, right? Please, tell me some intern is covering for Kristol, and seeing just how far he or she can push the envelope without The Times deciding not to run the column. I mean, something like this just has to be parody:

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

So, uh, what exactly is an appropriate reason for not wearing a flag pin? Please, I'd love to know, since, you know, I've never worn one, and my reason has always been that I'm better than Bill Kristol, but since that's apparently the height of moral vanity, I guess I need a new, less "grandiose" explanation.

What kills me about Kristol's NYT columns is that he's clearly either not even trying (phoning it in like Jack Nicholson in whatever "poignant" romantic comedy he happens to be in this month), or he's even more dense than I thought. It's so paint-by-numbers. Personally, I figured it was just laziness, but then a little research turned up this column from Kristol's high school newspaper:

Last October, a reporter for the school paper asked Timmy Johnson why he had stopped wearing the varsity letter sweater that he, like many other football players, had been sporting on Fridays since the beginning of the football season. Johnson could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

But Johnson chose to present his letter sweater removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after the school year started, I had a letter sweater. Shortly after Homecoming, particularly because as we’re talking about the football season, that became a substitute for I think true school spirit, which is participating in the extracurricular activities that are of importance to our community, I decided I won’t wear that sweater.”

Leave aside the claim that “participating in extracurricular activities” constitutes true school spirit. What’s striking is that Johnson couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Johnson's unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a letter sweater. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too imbued with school spirit! — to wear a letter sweater.

Fast forward to last Monday's pep rally. Michelle Simmons, Johnson's steady girl, visiting from a local girls' school, in the course of the rally, remarked, “For the first time in my high school career, I’m really proud of the Collegiate School. And not just because Timmy has done well, but because I think people are hungry for a state championship.”

Michelle Simmons has been in high school for over three years. Can it really be the case that nothing the the Collegiate School achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular students has gotten worse over the course of my time in high school, through football, basketball, and baseball seasons. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

Now in almost every empirical respect, Collegiate students' lives have in fact gotten better over the last three years. And most students — and most of their steady girls — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Timmy Johnson hastened to clarify his girlfriend's remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of Collegiate's school spirit,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about pep rallies, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Simmons further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Collegiate students are engaging in the pep rally process.”

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the pep rally speech, Collegiate's illness goes far beyond a flawed pep rally process: “Timmy knows that at some level there’s a hole in our trophy case.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier in the season: “Timmy Johnson is the only person on this football team who understands that, that before we can win states, we have to fix our school spirit. Our school spirit is broken in this school.”

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance: “Timmy Johnson ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your chocolate malted. That you come out on Friday nights, that you go to a football game. That you push yourselves to cheer louder. And that you engage. Timmy will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, not going to games.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our school spirit. Our broken school spirit can be fixed — by our cheering for Timmy Johnson. We don’t have to play football or put up decorations for the sock hop to help our school. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our cheering for Timmy Johnson. Collegiate can become a school to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Timmy Johnson.

Bobby "Shooter" McGavin, to whom Johnson is sometimes compared, challenged Collegiate students to acts of school spirit and athleticism. Timmy Johnson allows us to feel better about ourselves.

Johnson likes to say, “we are the team that can win states” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Johnson's athletic ability makes his skill on the field appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his teammates. But the effectual truth of what Johnson is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

Timmy Johnson is an awfully talented quarterback. But could Collegiate students, by November, decide that for all his impressive abilities, Johnson tends too much toward the preening self-regard of [homecoming king] Darren Thompson, the patronizing jockism of [star basketball player] Thomas Astor and the haughty bookishness of [class president] John Higgenbotham?

Taylor Marsh: Trying To Prove That Like Cures Like

Another gem from the self-proclaimed "Antidote to Right-Wing Talk," wherein The Antidote demonstrates that the answer to the classic Right-Wing Talk technique of using hyped-up charges that a political opponent is Unpatriotic and has Deeply Offended Real Americans to portray them as Unserious and otherwise damage their credibility is to...use hyped-up charges that Michelle Obama is Unpatriotic and has Deeply Offended Real Americans:

When it comes to talking about your country, especially when representing someone who wants to be president, you shouldn't have to have an interpreter put out a press release to explain what you actually meant, when what you really said was an insult. Why do Republicans always get this stuff, but Democrats come across like amateurs? Point to McCain.

Excuse me? I suppose Republicans "got this stuff" when they Swiftboated John Kerry, or when they portrayed Max Cleland as a Freedom-Hating Terrorist Lover. This type of bullshit is a classic wingnut ploy, and as The Antidote clearly demonstrates, it is not a ploy that is limited to the right wing. I expect that The Antidote will update the rather odd photo on the top of her page shortly to make sure we can see the flag pin on her lapel.

Whether or not you agree with Michelle Obama's statement (and most Americans probably don't agree, but hey, it was a free country until recently, so you're still somewhat entitled to your own opinion), if you really are sincerely and deeply offended that someone publicly said that they haven't been "really proud" of their country their entire adult life, until recent political events raised their spirits, you have some serious growing up to do. For my part, I'm just sick of mock indignation as a political tool.

Taylor Marsh's Commenters Strike a Blow For Feminism

You know what's really great about the comments over on Taylor's "Michelle Obama is an America-hating traitor" post? All the comments comparing Michelle Obama (unfavorably) to dogs. Wow, way to go, ladies! I'll be so thankful if Hillary wins - what a victory for feminists everywhere! Huzzah!

As for the post itself, well, it's chock full of Malkinesque gems. Here's a good one:

The love I have for my country does not include following yet another political huckster down a path where he gets the glory he craves, while my blue collar family gets the shaft... again.

Oh well said, Taylor. All hail, your blue collar family, and their American pride...how dare some nouveau riche social climber (whose not-so-distant ancestors may well have arrived in this country wearing actual iron collars) show any disrespect to The Homeland?

FFS, this drivel is from a site that describes itself (right up there at the top of the page, no less!) as "The Antidote to Right-Wing Talk."

It gets even better: The quote from Michelle Obama was this: "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." Not "For the first time in my adult lifetime I really love my country." Of course, Taylor's entire post is a list of things that her More-Patriotic-Than-Thou love of the Homeland does not depend on. Like this: "The love I have for this country does not depend on ignorance of what patriotism requires to serve a personal goal." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigt. Listen, Taylor, honey, I hate to break this to you, but it's possible to love something, and not be proud of it. Ask just about any parent out there - there are times in nearly every child's life when his or her behavior is nothing for a parent to be proud of, yet parents keep loving their children all the same. Pride and love are not the same thing.

And as for this: "My uncle Dick certainly didn't serve his country and get battle fatigue in WWII so people could pick and choose pride in this nation based on personal association to some politician, forgetting the greater glory we all serve through our country's ideals."

I hate to break it to you...that's exactly what your uncle Dick served his country for - to preserve for those of us who came later the right to express their disappointment in their country when they see it veering off track. Not so that future generations could be forced into public expressions of "pride" when the Commander-in-Chief orders the torture of prisoners and the destruction of the evidence of that torture, or the illegal surveillance of citizens, and so on and so forth.

I haven't been proud of a lot of things our country has done these past seven years. Got a problem with that? Well, that's your right. But accuse me of not loving America, just because I'm, you know, ashamed of little things like war crimes, and you can fuck off along with all the other authoritarian nutjobs.

(h/t: John Cole)

ZOMG! Marilyn Fitterman Was Right!

It may be even worse than Ms. Fitterman had feared: Women "Falling for Obama"

My god...she tried to warn us...but...but I didn't know! I didn't know, damnit! Oh my god, WHAT HAVE WE WROUGHT?!!!

New York State NOW...NOW With Even More Crazy!

Courtesy of a friend, the latest press release from our pals at NYS NOW. Feel the crazy! I seriously think Marilyn Fitterman has a lucrative second career in front of her as a writer for the WWE (the erstwhile WWF...or is "erstwhile" sexist, as it implies that the WWE changed its name when it got married?). Just check out the gem of a lede! Race vs. Gender! Oh yeah! Feel it coming! Can you smellllllllllllllllll what BARAK is cooking?!!!! No you can't, because he doesn't cook, since he's such a womyn hater that he thinks only womyn should cook! RACE WAR! GENDER FIGHT! Only on PAY-PER-VIEW!!!

EDIT: I posted this as soon as I got it, just 'cuz I like to scoop Drudge whenever I can, but for your benefit, I've now gone through and bolded some of my favorite passages:

Deja vu: Race vs Gender 1870-2008

By Marilyn Fitterman
NOW NE Regional Director & Past President NOW-NYS

The press, the media, the pundits, everyone is saying the Democratic presidential race should not be about race vs. gender. How ridiculous is that? We look at Hillary Clinton and we see a possibility of the first woman in the white house. We look at Obama and we see the first man of color in the white house. Therefore, to say it is not about race vs. gender is to deny reality. Let’s get real, and from there it will be easier to make the right decision, which of course is to put women first in a women’s organization. We must, as women, unite.

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when? [You forgot the rest of the quote! "If not.. I'm sorry, Pat, what was that question?"] Back in the early 1820s and 30s there were numerous women fighting for and speaking up for abolition. Women saw the inhuman cruelty of slavery. Lucretia Mott, Maria Chapman, Lucy Stone, Sojourner Truth and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, to name just a few, spoke up against slavery at the very real risk of physical violence. In 1833 the American Anti-Slavery Society actually barred women from speaking. So what did women do? They started their own anti-slavery society throughout the country and even had conventions in 1837, 1838, and 1839. In 1840, when some of these women went to England to attend the International Abolition Convention, they were barred from attending and, after fighting to get in, were barred from speaking even though some were there representing an American Society of Abolitionists. It was not long after this that Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton realized that women had to unite and fight for themselves. They met to discuss a movement for equality and suffrage, and this historic meeting was the impetus for the 1848 first Women’s Rights Convention in Senaca Falls. Those women asked:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

In that period married women had no right to their paychecks, their children, or their property, let alone the right to vote. For a time the women’s movement and the abolition movement worked together. In fact, Frederick Douglas, a freed slave, was a frequent speaker at women’s conventions. While women were struggling to attain the vote, Douglas spoke for them and sided with them that women and Black men should have suffrage.

However in 1869, when Congress offered up the Fifteenth Amendment giving only Black men the vote, Douglas betrayed women by making the concession. Some women even agreed with Douglas that it was o.k. for Black men to leave us behind instead of holding fast for suffrage. In much the same way today, some think it is o.k. for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et.al. to support Obama. [Ummm...what? I mean, I'm not going to sit here and defend the fact that women didn't get suffrage until 1920, but the fact that the 15th Amendment passed in any form in 1869 is pretty impressive...also, I don't seem to recall women having to deal with more than a century of Jim Crow after being granted the vote.] Back then, because of that betrayal [You keep saying this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.], women had to wait another fifty years. Not until 1920 did we get the vote. That betrayal caused a split in the suffrage movement which is mirrored in today’s race vs. gender situation in the Democratic Party and in our current women’s movement.

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Recently, a famous TV personality declared that the United States owed more to Black men than it did to women, this being his reason for supporting Obama. I found that to be one of the most repulsive reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton.

Women have been second class citizens since recorded history. The internalized misogyny that rears its ugly head and so insidiously creeps into our everyday lives will never end until women stick together as do other oppressed groups. Recently I was reminded that pre Roe vs. Wade women had a great uniting force in that all could be forced to complete unwanted pregnancies. I remember how women who were strangers would help and support other women to find a doctor or a back alley abortionist. Women then understood the importance and the value of joining together to help each other control their own reproductive lives. However, since Roe vs. Wade many young women don’t have that very common problem of forced pregnancy, a problem which crosses all economic and social lines. They have forgotten the importance of uniting for each other. And with the loss of this camaraderie we have apparently also lost the knowledge that forced pregnancy could return with a single US Supreme Court vote. And to get Hillary elected, we could sure use a revival in some of that old girls’ club camaraderie.

The current circumstances of race vs. gender are very much alive in spite of media denials. Just looking at the results of Super Tuesday one can see that Black communities were hands down for Obama. Meanwhile women, who are more than fifty-two percent of the population, did not do the same for their sisters. The charisma and preacher-like emotional speeches that Obama gives enrapture the younger generation. [That...that...that snake oil salesman! "And all week long your River City youth'll be frittern away, I say your young men'll be frittern! Frittern away their noontime, suppertime, choretime too!"] But there is very little information in the rhetoric. Were Hillary to show this same agitated style, she would be ridiculed for excessive emotion. She is caught between a rock and a hard place. If she shows emotion, as does Obama, she is vilified, as was recently demonstrated. So even though she is enormously qualified and experienced [especially counting those eight years as the president's wife, no?] for the presidency, all that goes by the wayside when Obama enchants the youngsters with charming rhetoric that says little. [What is he, the freaking Pied Piper? And wait, are you suggesting that young people, including young women, who are Constitutionally granted the right to vote, actually shouldn't be allowed the franchise, because they are too emotional and impressionable? How very forward-thinking and non-paternalistic of you.] If Hillary were to be “charming” she would be disparaged. Women just can’t get it right, can we? [Well, some women can...but judging from this press release, not all of them are capable of getting it right all the time.]

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Many young women today have forgotten or do not know of the sit-ins, the hunger strikes, the marches, the tears as we lost the Equal Rights Amendment, the thousands upon thousands of women, mothers and grandmothers who died having illegal abortions. Those many young women have forgotten the women’s movement and all the gains we have made. They have abandoned us and instead have fallen for the charisma and charm of a Black male instead of the experience, dedication, and proven life’s work of a White female. ["Oh laws, massa! The missus done run off with that bad negro Catcher Freeman! When will them White Women learn!"] Will it take losing Roe vs. Wade to get back that old camaraderie? We’ve got to realize that and ask:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

But, it’s not too late. It’s up to all of us who care about women’s equality to educate each and every young woman we meet, and remind her that all the freedoms she has can easily be lost if women don’t unite for full equal rights. We should remind young women that we have a long way to go because even today women are only making seventy-seven cents for every dollar a man earns. This pay inequity hits single mothers and retirement-age women. They should know that it’s about time young girls had the role model of a woman in the White House. Yep, women’s equality is very important and we’ve got a long way to go.

DAMN IT, we woman have been at the forefront of every progressive movement in this country. It’s about time we stand together for ourselves and stand together at the forefront to elect the first woman president. After all:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

We must unite for Hillary.

SHAME

Senate Votes to Give Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms.

A Kangaroo Court in a Star Chamber

So those sham military tribunals we set up down in Gitmo? Now we're going to be trying folks and possibly subjecting them to the death penalty in these abortions of justice. Not that I'm a fan of KSM or anything, but if he's guilty, what's the problem with hauling him into a real courtroom in New York or Alexandria and letting the evidence speak for itself? Oh, wait, that's right, we tortured him, and we don't want any evidence of that to come out in a U.S. courtroom, or the torturers, their bosses, and their enablers might actually face some accountability for their war crimes.

Oh yeah, and most of the evidence would get thrown out. Because the Bill of Rights frowns upon confessions and other evidence obtained through torture. It would be kind of embarrassing if the government botched the prosecution of several high-ranking terrorists. Embarrassing indeed.

So instead, we face the prospect of our government trying and executing prisoners based on evidence that they won't be allowed to hear (for "national security" reasons), on the testimony of witnesses they won't be able to confront, and on confessions that were tortured out of them. James Madison bloody wept.

Hillary vs. Shuster

Assuming (and it's a very safe assumption) that Hillary's calls for NBC to fire David Shuster are a calculated ploy to win over voters, I don't see how it really helps her. At this point, the portion of her base that would be inspired by Hillary standing up for her daughter against a stand-in anchor's insult is already rallied, and folks who might be on the fence about another Clinton administration might see an attempt by Hillary to cow the press as a reason to vote against her. For what it's worth, I think Shuster's comment was out of order, but would likely have passed without notice had it been delivered on FoxNews, where Hillary is apparently eager to debate. Not that FoxNews should serve as a bearer of journalistic standards, of course.

Did Shuster deserve to be suspended. Yeah, probably. Is he taking the heat because notorious Hillary basher Chris Matthews is untouchable? Yeah, probably. Does he deserve to be fired? No, not really.

Will the spectacle of the Clinton's bashing (MS)NBC while cozying up to FoxNews help win over undecideds in the upcoming primaries and caucuses? I doubt it.

There Will Be Milkshakes

Just in case someone ends up drinking someone else's milkshake on this Superest of Tuesdays.

Not My Space, Apparently

Looks like the Christianists over at myspace have seen fit to delete their atheist and agnostic user group. Apparently, atheists are offensive to some Christians. Boo-freaking-hoo. You know what? Plenty of "Christians" (usually ones who don't have much use for Jesus' actual teachings) offend the hell out of me, but I'd never try to shut them up. This is (or used to be) the United States of America, where you're free to believe (or not believe) whatever you want. Guess I should buy extra locks for my doors for when the Inquisition comes knocking.