Unable to save comment (key failed)
Jeff, I swear to Maude, if I see one more person lying about Hillary "hesitating" to repeal DOMA, I am going to fucking lose it. She used the part of DOMA a bunch of clueless idiots want her to get rid of in order to preserve marriage as the states' business - which it is - as part of a strategy to fend off the Federal Marriage Amendment. And I would love it if people could stop acting like she wants to keep DOMA because she thinks it's important to keep gay people down. Her position on it is well-thought-out, strategic, and there for the EXACT OPPOSITE reason you're implying it is. As a gay person, I appreciate her take on the issue.
And yes, skepticism is valuable. So is honesty.
I understand why Clinton is hesitant to repeal DOMA, and I disagree with her on it. At some point, the Democrats are going to have to go straight into the teeth of the FMA. Frankly, as long as the Democrats hold Congress, the FMA isn't going anywhere anyhow. In the current climate, there's no reason to keep DOMA on the books, other than that it allows Clinton to move softly to the middle.
"We need to recognize that the issues we support are bigger than the candidates."
100% right.
Push, push, push. Write letters to the editor. Go to town hall meetings and ask the candidates about the issues you care about. When a campaign calls for your support, ask how the candidate supported your issues. Birddog!
When candidates talk about their experience, say, "Wait. First tell me what you will do about issue X. Then tell me how your experience will help you address issue X."
Keep the candidates focused on what's important to you.
Hillary must be perfect or she is no better than the rest and if she becomes perfect she will be too perfect for the rest. I'm so sick of it.
Hillary must be perfect or she is no better than the rest and if she becomes perfect she will be too perfect for the rest. I'm so sick of it.
Kitty Glendower | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 9:27 pm | #
Kitty, you can flatly disagree with me about Obama, and that's totally fine. I'm not suggesting you change your vote. I'm suggesting that you be willing to challenge Clinton when she needs it -- just like I need to challenge Obama when he needs it. And he needs it, beyond question.
I think the "elitism" framing is particularly powerful because it's much more convenient than calling someone on classism - and I do think the dust-up this weekend is happening because of a deeply classist comment. It brands a legitimate and important criticism as a right-wing frame, and I totally agree, we need to be a lot more careful about using those.
And CE, FWIW, I totally agree about DOMA.
Frankly, as long as the Democrats hold Congress, the FMA isn't going anywhere anyhow. In the current climate, there's no reason to keep DOMA on the books - Jeff
Are you kidding me with this shit, Jeff? You must live in an entirely different political climate from the rest of us, the gay rest of us, or even just the politically astute rest of us, in a place where no Democrat supports the FMA and where, "in the current climate," DOMA is not necessary. What climate is that, exactly?
In this climate, there are plenty of Democrats in both the House and the Senate who approve of the FMA, and who voted against it solely because DOMA would have made it redundant. In this climate, we need a pragmatist, and one who sees the political winds and currents for what they are, nor for what they wish they were.
The audacity of your "facts" is astonishing.
I know a number of people in the GLBTQ community who would disagree with you, Grey, but that's beside the point. I will change the DOMA line, because people are seizing on it and ignoring the point of the post. So Clintonites, I'll put it to you: what should I replace the line with? What would you criticize Clinton on?
And Obamaphiles, if you have additional criticisms of Obama that I didn't get to, let's hear them. Because the fact is that it's easy to take potshots at the candidate you don't like. I want to hear criticism of the candidate you do.
Sincerely, I am exhausted. At this point I am considering abstaining my vote.
I'm surprised that a post like this had to be written. Of course none of the candidates are perfect. Frankly, anyone who wants to run for president and put themselves through the media and primary hell probably has a few screws loose and an ego bigger than the moon.
Jeff is right. Whoever becomes president will need constant reminders and nudges that he or she can't just take the party for granted.
Each of the candidates have disappointed me from time to time. But I firmly believe that they're both good people with flaws. To argue otherwise is to argue in bad faith IMO.
I wonder if the most enthusiastic Clinton and Obama supporters ultimately intend to be citizens or cheerleaders. Because I've had quite enough of the latter in the last seven years thank you very much.
I will change the DOMA line, because people are seizing on it and ignoring the point of the post.
Jeff, I wasn't ignoring the point of your post, though I am sorry I did not address it in my first comment; in fact, I think what you said is mostly spot-on. I should say, though, that it's not cool to say we're "seizing on it." It's disingenuous to imply what you did, and it's not wrong to call you on it, even to the exclusion of the other things you said. If you disagree with Clinton's strategy on DOMA, that's fine, but I'd really like it if we could stop pretending she doesn't have one, and that her "hesitation" to repeal it in full isn't part of a progressive strategy that is, sadly, still necessary.
I think the point about skepticism is good. I, for instance, am left of Clinton on trade and generally a skeptic on globalization, and I have my doubts that she'll make me happy on those issues. But she's quite good on most of the things I care about, and great on some of them.
her "hesitation" to repeal it in full isn't part of a progressive strategy that is, sadly, still necessary.
I'll concede the point, and apologize for using "seizing," as I don't think people were using the line to avoid discussion of the post. More like "fixating" -- the line was objectionable enough on my part that it forced Clintonites to feel they had to defend her -- which I can understand and appreciate.
At any rate, I've changed it to troop withdrawal, which is something both candidates are lousy on.
At any rate, I've changed it to troop withdrawal, which is something both candidates are lousy on.
I appreciate that, Jeff, and I promise it's not because I can't take criticism of my candidate. 
I just prefer it when she's criticized for things she's actually doing wrong.
I just prefer it when she's criticized for things she's actually doing wrong.
Fair enough. :D
I know a number of people in the GLBTQ community who would disagree with you, Grey
Not only are we fabulous, but we have lots of different opinions, too.
As noted above, it is depressing that this post even needed to be written, but it did. Most people don't have my geekish fixation on history, and so this is the most vigorous, vicious, and longest campaign they know of. Kennedy v. Johnson in 1960 was much more vicious, and they ended up on the same ticket! And the 1924 Democratic convention ran to 103 ballots.
Welcome to a competitive race, my friends. Anger, passion, desperation, distortion, lies ---- these are all things that naturally flow from it.
In this climate, there are plenty of Democrats in both the House and the Senate who approve of the FMA, and who voted against it solely because DOMA would have made it redundant. In this climate, we need a pragmatist, and one who sees the political winds and currents for what they are, nor for what they wish they were.
There may be some, but 1) I seriously doubt there are enough to get any amendment to the necessary 2/3 threshold and 2) I seriously doubt that Pelosi would allow it to come to the floor, and as Speaker, she has that kind of power. It's really, really difficult to get an amendment passed, and for good reason. And Massachusetts is a good example of why all people who favor same-sex marriage have to do is get it out there and delay an immediate backlash--the more people see it and experience it and realize the world isn't coming to an end, the less they worry about ending it. We'll never convince everyone, but we don't have to. We just have to keep 1/3 +1 of either the Senate or the House convinced, and if we can't do that, then we've got much bigger problems on our hands.
When Obamaphiles attack Clinton ... we're / When Clintonites rip Obama ... they're
So I guess you've officially come out for Obama then?
So I guess you've officially come out for Obama then?
Well, I don't think I was fooling anyone...and besides, I think it's important to own this. I've been as guilty of going after Hillary Clinton while accepting right-leaning frames as anyone has. I will say, as I have since last year, that I can absolutely understand why one would choose Clinton over Obama, and that my support for Obama is not based on deep-seated antipathy toward Clinton. I have my issues with Hillary (if I didn't, I'd be backing her), but they're only slightly greater than my issues with Obama, and frankly, there are days when the only thing keeping me from switching is my general belief that the race is over anyhow (which, let me say, is my belief -- I know many others here disagree with that assessment, and I'm not trying to argue it), and I need to just accept Obama, warts and all. And if I actually become convinced that I'm wrong and the race isn't over? I could see myself reversing, especially if Obama keeps insulting the GLBTQ community and women, even if it's primarily due to general cluelessness.
You are right, Kate wrote a very good column. But I am not sure you read it well. What evidence do you have that holding a Democrat's candidate's feet to the fire is going to make them more progressive? That does not seem to be happening. The party wants to pander to people who might otherwise vote republican and that means staying to the right of centre. Why do you keep pretending you can make any significant change by staying within the two parties?
Why do you keep pretending you can make any significant change by staying within the two parties?
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's because I've done my time in the third-party movement, and while in a sane political system that would yield something positive, we aren't in a sane political system. I think that we're more likely to succeed in dragging the Democratic party left from within than trying to push it from outside. That doesn't mean I'm always thrilled about it, but the U.S. hasn't had a long-term, viable third party since the Civil War.
YMMV, and I can understand the impulse that says, "To heck with it, I'm out of here," but I don't see it actually working. If anything, third parties end up being even more dysfunctional and neurotic than the major parties do.
Excellent post, Jeff.
Hey Jeff Fecke, what state do you reside in?
I'm a huge douchebag! Wheeeeeeeeeee!
[This comment has been replaced by the moderators with a paraphrase as per the Shakesville Comment Policy.]
It's baaaacckkkk....
I'm a huge douchebag! Wheeeeeeeeeee!
[This comment has been replaced by the moderators with a paraphrase as per the Shakesville Comment Policy.]
I'm a huge douchebag who says nasty things about fat people! Wheeeeeeeeeee!
[This comment has been replaced by the moderators with a paraphrase as per the Shakesville Comment Policy.]
Man, now I *really* feel like voting for Nader! Good job!
Anyway, I was just going to say that Melissa really has assembled an awesome group of people. Or summoned or whatever you would call so many really good folks* coalescing around her blog into the community that is Shakesville. Sure, sometimes I've been taken aback by the temperature of some back-and-forth, but I read threads like this and I just get impressed at the willingness to hold one-another to account without breaking (what I take to be) the friendship. I wish I was more like that, both in terms of being willing to bluntly take issue with my friends' prejudices and in terms of receiving similar criticisms of my own.
I think watching you makes me better, even if I'm not really a very good participant.
*Trolls notwithstanding, of course.
I eat my own poopy!
[This comment has been replaced by the moderators with a paraphrase as per the Shakesville Comment Policy.]
But push them. Push them. Push them. Should Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton take the oath of office in January, they will be President of the United States, and on many issues, we may agree with them. But we are not their subordinates. They work for us.
It is this which keeps me going. If I didn't believe that either Obama or Clinton would at least pretend to listen to our concerns, then I'd just give up and not vote. McNasty won't listen to anyone. He's going to be as much a tyrant as Bush has. He thinks he has put in his time and is owed the presidency... Grrrr.
I could see myself reversing, especially if Obama keeps insulting the GLBTQ community and women...
This makes me sad. I wonder how much more hateful Obama has to be to disenfranchised groups -- women, LGBTQ, non-rich people -- for it to be "enough." Why is our standard "Well, we'll take this much misogyny and homophobia and elitism from him, but he'd better watch out! Or we'll draw our line in the sand! Soon! Any day now!"
As a member of one of those disenfrancised groups, I just wonder where that line is, and why it's so far away from where it needs to be.
May I request someone do a post on why so many people troll? No, hear me out; I'm serious.
I have observed here a lot of different trolling, from the relatively well-behaved to the truly hateful and nasty. I do not comprehend why anyone would find it fun to troll. It is a point of personal pride with me that I've never knowingly outstayed my welcome anywhere, so I don't understand the mindset that deliberately crashes a party. In truth, I'd rather be alone if my only other option was to be with people who I was annoying. Any thoughts?
Good post, Jeff. And Kate's too (I didn't read it until today.)
I think we need to start promoting every progressive candidate we can find at the state and congressional level to change the party from the ground up. And also start arguing progressive ideals/ideas, as blogs like this are doing.
I think we all need to understand that all of the people who have or in this case are running for President (those with a real chance to win) will throw any of us under the bus in a heartbeat to win.
May I request someone do a post on why so many people troll? No, hear me out; I'm serious.
Nightshift, I've actually thought about that. I'm baffled and fascinated by troll psychology. But I don't really feel like I've got any solid insights into it, on accounta the baffled part.
To the people saying Clinton's DOMA strategy is wrong because there aren't enough Democrats who would vote for the FMA, and because Pelosi won't allow it:
This is great, until the balance shifts to the Republicans or Democrats who would vote for the FMA! SUre, it might not pass RIGHT NOW, but who says that won't change with the next election, or the one after that?
More on topic, I agree with this post.
Skepticism is something liberals usually do better than conservatives, and it's really at the heart of a progressive view of politics.
This is great, until the balance shifts to the Republicans or Democrats who would vote for the FMA! SUre, it might not pass RIGHT NOW, but who says that won't change with the next election, or the one after that?
I think I'm the only one who said it, but here's my reasoning. The demographics are with us right now in two ways. The first is that the younger people are, the more they want equal rights for same-sex couples. They've been raised in a society where gays aren't in the closet. Most of them have probably seen gay-straight alliances in their high schools, even if they weren't part of them, and that familiarity is turning into support. Inside the next ten years, I think we'll see popular support for full marriage rights even if we do nothing about DOMA, simply because today's kids want it, and the major bastion of opposition is in people over 60.
The second is, as I mentioned above, the Massachusetts experience. When MA first instituted it, opposition was really high, and there was a terrific fear among gay activists that a constitutional amendment banning their marriages would pass. The system required a long time for that to happen, however, and during the time between the start of the weddings and the actual votes in the legislature, people got used to the idea of same sex marriages, saw that it didn't end the world, and grew to be in favor of it. The polls now show that a majority in MA are not in favor of the amendment, which is good because the legislature killed it anyway.
My point is that people get over their boogeymen when they're confronted with them, and it can happen nationwide as well. We just have to win long enough to make sure that tide turns. I understand that that's what Clinton's strategy is as well; I just think that her strategy will make the problem stick around longer.
Some trolls are True Believers, who want to spread their personal gospel. These tend to be argumentative, but don't purposefully try to be offensive (although they may well succeed at it unintentionally).
The majority, however, are simply doing it "for the lulz". There's a dark humor in getting people worked up over what amounts to (in the troll's mind) absolutely nothing, along with a general sense of power. Combine internet anonymity with a sense of entitlement, boredom, and aspects of internet culture that flat-out *encourage* doing nasty shite simply "for the lulz", and you get trolls. They're a small percentage of netizens in general, but their effect is... disproportionate.
If anyone with a strong stomach (trigger warnings everywhere; NSFW by the love of Ceiling Cat; rape, racial, sexist, fatphobic, gay, you-freakin-name-it jokes abound) wants to observe these creatures in their own habitat and hear their logic, the 'safest' way to do this is to google Encyclopedia Dramatica and search within for "lulz" and "troll".
(Although I do give ED props in that they actually get and lambast (surprisingly enough, given their target audience of basement-dwelling internet nerds) the classic Nice Guy syndrome).
When I'm feeling optimistic I want to agree with you, Incertus. But optimism is hard to come by lately.
The majority, however, are simply doing it "for the lulz". There's a dark humor in getting people worked up over what amounts to (in the troll's mind) absolutely nothing, along with a general sense of power.
Yeah, Falyne, the part that baffles me is how that's enjoyable. 
if you support Obama for the Democratic nomination, as I do....
His health care plan is mediocre at best. His support for GLBTQ issues is half-hearted. He has a decent record on choice, but some of his statements have been less than heartening. In short, as Kate said eloquently, Barack Obama isn't progressive.
These things just plainly do not add up.
I think it's related to why I read crank.net and Fundies Say the Darndest Things. Humor can be found simply in watching people make fools of themselves, and the definition of "fools" is entirely subjective. I personally only watch free-range folly, along the lines of Kent Hovind's arguments against evolution and random cranks building ostensible warp drives, and eschew considering valid emotional responses as 'funny', but I can see how the same impulse can lead into trying to create such 'foolishness' in the form of just getting riled up in general.
This is why I love the troll comment policy around here. Rewriting the comments turns the ridicule back on the troll, without giving them the satisfaction of 'amusing' righteous anger.
Part of it's also a half-immature, half-Forbidden Fruit response, too, where trolls are gleeful at saying inappropriate things purely *because they are inappropriate*. It's the same sort of impetus as Dead Baby jokes, which are only funny insofar as they are completely horrible. :-P
Thank you, Falyne. Although like Kate I'm still baffled regarding why that behavior triggers dopamine releases for the trolls, you've given me some solid analysis of the behavior.
wiggles,
Speaking only for myself, I have concluded that among my available choices, supporting the Democratic nominee is the one which is most likely to promote policies with which I agree. Even though that will leave me with a flawed candidate who holds some positions I do not support, I conclude that it beats my other options, which are:
(1) Disengage from politics. While this might give me a feeling of moral superiority for not contaminating myself with bad policies, it also removes any influence (however small) I might have on the process or on the candidates; or
(2) Support or create another party. Given how institutionally entrenched the two major parties are, I do not consider that to be even a long-term solution. The decision certainly removes any influence I might have in the foreseeable future on politics.
nightshift66
That all sounds like a lot of convoluted bullshit.
And here thought I'd made a cogent and coherent statement of possible responses to the existing political system. Perception is a funny thing.
Blogwhore alert! ^_^
http://falynes.blogspot.com/2008.../on-
trolls.html
(3) Support the candidate who's actually strongest on the issues you care about.
wiggles, I believe nightshift66's point is that he thinks 3) collapses to 2). Considering that there's literally hundreds of candidates besides those from the major "third" parties, it seems unlikely that the most perfect candidate would even be on any ballots. Of course, that's taking it to extremes, but I'm just sayin'...
Kate -- I did a whole three-part series on Trolls last Summer (in response to "the Thread That Shall Not Be Named").
On-topic: I'm of the opinion that the Democratic party will continue to drift right until/unless a) there is a concerted effort by hard-core liberals and progressives to take back the party, or b) a third party with a top-to-bottom progressive platform begins to do active recruitment of disenchanted progressives. The Greens could do this, but because of the focus on local/grass-roots activism, the party really does not have the national profile it needs, imo. There are still many people who don't know what the hell you're talking about when you mention the Party (yes, really -- I've talked to them).
When I say a concerted effort by progressive Democrats, I mean aggressive and unrelenting -- organized rallies and actions that let the Party know that we will not ride along in the slow boat to Hell with them as it drifts ever starboard.
The Democratic party didn't come by its reputation as progressive because people sat back and watched that unfold -- it came out of the Great Depression, the Labor Movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Gay-rights movement, the Feminist movement -- it arose from troubled times, and generally managed to elect presidents because enough people got sick of the shit.
If we want our party back, we're going to have to take it back.
Personally, I think that both Clinton and Obama are making a huge mistake in attempting to be centrist during this time in the country. If they could garner the votes of the people who were fed up, we'd sweep the presidency. As it is, they've both pissed off natural allies in the attempt to court doubtful allies. Dumb.
our party's nominee
Just a little nit-pick, and then I'll go back to preparing for class...
Don't forget that some of us aren't Democrats.
Allies, yes. Fellow travelers, yes. Possible pool of voters for Democratic candidates, yes.
But not Democrats.
If you want us on board with supporting either Clinton or Obama - as opposed to abstaining from voting or holding our nose and voting reluctantly - it'd be nice not to be taken for granted and rendered invisible until it comes time to demand our votes or blame us for not voting for "our" (your) party's candidate.
It's bad enough that the Democratic leadership fails to acknowledge the role progressive Independents and third-party members play in their success unless we "spoil" their chances by - gasp - voting for our own candidates.
It'd be polite to at least acknowledge that some of us do have to jump party lines and abandon our own candidates in order to support what you (and others - I'm not singling you out) call "our party's candidates."
Commenting by HaloScan
