Wow, Jesse for a moment I thought I was on Pandagon. Well said if he wants to be POTUS he must treat All the people with respect. This reminds of that moment of Bush with Angela Merkel.
Maybe her name was Sweetie 
Equating "sweetie" with "boy" is really a bridge to nowhere. You could equate it to her calling someone "hon" or ..... well, like that time she sashayed across the set to chris mathews, even rubed his face in a rather sexually suggestive manner, while saying simlar "hon" type language. That would be more equal in a comparison I think.
So he actually apologized then? I don't recall if hillary did when she did that to chris mathews..... not to him but to women everywhere for acting so unprofessionally. I don't think she did. hmmmmmmm
Men don't get to call women "sweetie", "honey", or "darling," and they sure as hell don't get to do so as nominee presumptive for POTUS.
They might if they actually know the person or are somewhat friendly with them, or if the person is friendly enough with them to be able to say "Cut the 'sweetie' shit, pal." Not, though, if it is the arms-length relationship that candidate/reporter ought to be.
Thank you, Jesse.
humm, it seems whenever I am in a resturante every watress calls every one sweetie...soem peole do that ...big BIG differeance between that and callign an african american "boy", lots of baggiage connected to the second phrase, not so much to the fitrst. "sweeite" is often used as a genaric honorific by lots of folks....sorry if that dosn't fit YOUR regional snesabilities...the countrie is more then the coasts.
Myrtle June -
It was a bullshit apology in my view, because he didn't promise to stop using the language with other women.
Sincere apologies include commitments to clean up the underlying issues which allowed the breakdown to occur.
This is the problem people have with Clinton's attempted turn-around on the war. She hasn't ever committed to cleaning up her underlying commitment to doing the expedient act in the moment. So she isn't trusted when it comes to "optional" wars, by many of us.
In the same way, I need to see Obama stop dismissing the left wing of his party when it is politically easy to do so. Sorry, let me say that again.
I don't have an issue with him moving to the center and ignoring us in terms of wining the election. I have a HUGE problem with him acting in a sexist manner, or behaving in a way which is not liberal.
This would be an example of that.
I'm trying to think of any time where I'd say something like "sweetie" or "honey" or some similar diminutive, and I just can't do it. He really needs to cut that crap out.
I do like how as jesses girl is finaly hit the end of the line he has to dreg up none stories liek this crap....way to hold true to form jesse.
Thank you for this piece, Jesse. And it is not a "non issue" - it goes to the heart of the way women are generally treated in our culture: With a pat on the head, treated as subordinate, expected to eat sh*t. And please don't toss up the rare Congressperson or Senator - most women at all levels/walks of life are viewed generally as somehow "less than".
We won't even go into the way women are still objectified by the culture, or paid less than men for doing the same job, still don't have access to the levers of power here, etc., etc.
(Obviously, those of you who don't behave this way are the exceptions - I'm not talking about you.)
And wrt waitresses: They are in a subordinate (serving) position, so their friendliness/casual use of "sweetie" does not diminish the person to whom they speak.
What Seitan said. My own boss is about 5 years younger than me, but get so much as one drink in him and all of a sudden it's arms around the female employees that he deems "femme" enough (did I mention that I am also about 3" taller than him, and could fit him in my Timbuk2 Messenger Bag?). I mean, at least he cut out the "arms on the shoulder" thing for this one girl when, drunk, she came out as a lipstick lesbian (and boy was he horrified). However, I digress...the point being that I the tables were turned; if I slung an arm around a younger male subordinate the rumor mill wouldn't stop; I'd be this aggressive cougar pushy oversexed bitch.
I support Obama, but that doesn't mean that his shit doesn't stink.
"Can you imagine Senator Obama pulling this crap on a male reporter?"
Sure. But I guess he would call him "buddy" instead.
Imho not evidence of rampant sexism by Obama, but another example of political correctness running amok. Yawn. And I'm sure nobody will accuse me of being a fanatic Obama apologist...
Seitan Worshiper: you are being too spacific, all minorites in this countery are seen as lesser creatures. It anit just a women thing...and yes minoriteis crap all over each other as they climb the ladder t obe seen as white (it worked for teh italians and the irsh).
that still dson't make obamas use of a ganaric honorific a major issue.
Obama called her "sweetie."
He apologized on her voice-mail.
End of story.
I don't have a problem with it, but I can understand how others would.
"It was a bullshit apology in my view, because he didn't promise to stop using the language with other women."
-And IF he had said it, you wouldn't have believed him.
For the record, I don't generally call anyone Sweetie. Or honey. Or boy for that matter. But I offer a few thoughts.
First, I get called sweetie on a regular basis here in Ireland. No one would mistake me for female. If getting called sweetie upsets you this much, would you mind never visiting this country? We Americans have a bad enough reputation as it is.
Second... well, I'll let The Onion make this point: http://www.theonion.com/content/
...ceptable_things
(as an aside I find "God bless America" to be offensive since I'm an atheist, so it's really down to three phrases)
Third, my grandmother, born in the late 1890s, lived her live in Illinois and Kansas. She would have been around the same age as Obama's grandparents. She called loads of people sweetie - including grown women. She's no longer alive, but if you want to call her sexist feel free. I'd only ask that you also thank her for the right to vote as she was very active in the suffrage movement.
One other stray thought -- if Sen. Obama was really a sexist, do you honestly think that Mrs. Obama would stand for it?
You're correct, Jesse, although the histrionics are a bit much.
Calling a woman you don't know personally "sweetie" in a work situation (unless she calls you "dear" first, as many waitresses do) is unacceptable and unprofessional. No excuses in PC America ca. 2008, especially for a politician. Obama has to get used to the fact that, for the next four years, all of his time in public and most of his time in private is going to be a work situation.
By his apology (which is a foreign word to Hillary) and promise to do better (which I will hold him to), I think he gets that. I don't read the "bad habit" comment as downplaying the sexist nature of the comment, but rather an acknowledgment that sexism is indeed a habit of the the mind, one that's negative and self-destructive, and one that he needs to break.
And regarding "deliberately" calling her voice mail, give me a break. I know you want to pump this up a little, but that speculation is just silly. You call someone, sometimes you get the person, sometimes you get voicemail. Even Obama, with his mighty psychic powers and non-private Caller ID, could neither guess which would happen, nor force the reporter to share the tape.
as a personal note my wife and I had anotehr kid last week....3 long hours of labor, during wich the nurses and doctors(one male one female) called my wife Sweetie constently...are tehy also in "subordinate" positions? (peorsoanly Idon't see any line of work putting one in a lessser position to the rest of us outside of politition. they are public servants after all).
its a midwestern thing, its a genaric honorifc used in many situations....there is more to the country then the west coast, language is used diffrently...yes obama needs to genarcise his language a bit, but this sin't a big deal...definatly a nonissue.
I do liek how all the useual suspects are tryign to push this into beign a story....your girl is done, its tiem to move on.
"Sure. But I guess he would call him "buddy" instead.
Imho not evidence of rampant sexism by Obama, but another example of political correctness running amok. Yawn. And I'm sure nobody will accuse me of being a fanatic Obama apologist..."
It's definitely a cultural difference between America and other countries. I'll agree that very often in American society, it is PC run amok. But in the workplace, where women have worked so hard to achieve senior positions and the respect that goes with them, the term "sweetie" is freighted with gender, where "buddy" isn't. In those situations, it's less about PC than respect and professionalism for individuals.
As people get to know each other in the workplace, they get less prickly about these things, and the diminutives become accepted as they're intended: casual signs of mutual affection or familiarity. It's still not a good idea to call the senior managers "buddy" or "sweetie," though. 
"as a personal note my wife and I had anotehr kid last week"
Congratulation, moonglum.
"Usual suspects?" There are many of us who are Obama supporters included upthread, which is why some of us may be disappointed (if that's the word I want - perhaps surprised) by his choice of verbiage.
And regarding "deliberately" calling her voice mail, give me a break. I know you want to pump this up a little, but that speculation is just silly.
And criticizing Obama's cowardice by saying he lacked the "ovaries" (as opposed to an idiom for the male genitalia) to call her in person? I hope you have the stones to forgo criticism of Maureen Dowd the next time she describes Obama in feminine terms.
PS to OTD: Thank you for "getting it."
thanks...little girl this time
as a personal note my wife and I had anotehr kid last week....3 long hours of labor, during wich the nurses and doctors(one male one female) called my wife Sweetie constently...are tehy also in "subordinate" positions? (peorsoanly Idon't see any line of work putting one in a lessser position to the rest of us outside of politition. they are public servants after all).
-Congratulations, moonglum.
thanks...little girl this time
moonglum
-Be careful.
DON'T call her "sweetie"
Seitan: you are missing my point. there was probably no sexisim behind Obamas use of the word. face it there are cultural diffrences insdie america as well as outside...in large sathws of the country the use of sweeti is exactly on par with buddie.....Obamas only faiure on thsi one was to speak midwesterner instead of ganariciseing hsi language for a natioanl stage.
I tend to call them "little monsters"
-Be careful.
DON'T call her "sweetie"
Haw!
Congrats moonglum!
My sister calls hers "little monsters" too.
I don't use "sweetie", or "hon", or "sugar" much, being a taciturn New Englander. Usually, it's my mother or sister - and if ANY disrespect or subordination was involved I'd be spitting teeth(or worse - nurses and microbiologists are not to be trifled with). It also applies to other relatives and friends.
In many cases I'll respond that way to someone who has already used those terms with me and only if merited by kind, generous, or otherwise good-natured behavior.
Each of those words in some way can be construed as referring to sweetness - on a taste scale it's the opposite of sour or bitter - you've probably noticed that people can act in a way that can leave that sort of taste in your mouth.
Obviously, any male who is decent, generous and good-hearted(say, a "sweetheart") is a nancy-boy, like unto a woman in character (stereotypically speaking), and obviously inferior.
Which would suggest that anyone who is a manly-man is an asshole, fuckhead, or otherwise unpleasant and disagreeable in character, and consequently superior.
Have I got the gist of that right?
Do you actually believe that? If not, are you sure you want to keep forcing that usage by disavowing any other?
Jesse, that may be how you use those words and it may even be how Sen. Obama uses them, but if you don't mind - don't fucking tell me what I mean when I use them, either of you.
DJ: Actually on the Savage Love podcast there's a long running discussion about whether balls or stones are a sign of bravery - or if p***y is a sign of weakness. If you think about it, balls crawl up into their owners body to hide from extremes whereas a vagina is used to shove out an entire human being.
So calling someone a p***y should be a way of saying someone is strong and saying someone has balls should be a way of saying they're weak.
Where ovaries fit in I'm not sure.
Of course all of this is an exercise in over-thinking things to death. ;^)
Kevin, my point was to criticize the use of feminine imagery to describe a male person (or vice versa). That point made a bit clearer, I'd agree with your post.
Look, Jesse, the really hard core Obama supporters are going to deny, deny, deny that this was (a) intentional or (b) a problem, which is in itself a problem, because it means that they will never push him to be better.
I work in a male-dominated company in a male dominated business, and I can tell you that if I had been the reporter, my immediate response would have been "Who the fuck you calling sweetie, sugarlips (or pookie-bear, or any of the other utterly ridiculous DIMINUTIVES I could choose from)?" It would have popped out before I even thought of it, because I have heard THAT particular "sweetie" too many times before, and if you don't smack it down hard and immediately, it grows...And that is EXACTLY how that particular "sweetie" was intended. He was dismissing the reporter. That part is just fine - she didn't get the interview, whatever, she can deal with it. The "sweetie" elevates this to something that he desperately needs to address. If he is well and truly in a situation where he is now trying to coalesce the Dems around him as a candidate, dismissing half of them just *might* not be the way to go around it. I would imagine that Mrs. Obama would give him a rap upside the head for that...and maybe she did. I don't imagine she puts up with crap like this from men she enounters.
Look, plugging your fingers in your ears and doing careful semantical hair-splitting about dominant and subservient positions ain't gonna do anybody any good, including Obama, and makes you sound like right wingers arguing. You are too smart for that. He is NOT a perfect man, but he is an intelligent one, and he can learn from this...if he isn't insulated from the issue.
He isn't your grandma, or a diner waitress, and this wasn't a term of endearment between close friends or lovers. It was, as I mentioned earlier, a diminutive; a way to make her *smaller* and if it is a habit with him, his handlers need to break him of it NOW.
On the plus side, I am very pleased to see Edwards come out for him last night, and the orchestration of the timing for that even was masterful. I sure would like to see them link up - I would have preferred it the other way around, but any way I can get Edward's anti-big business populist influence in to the next administration I will happily take.
Who cares?
Where I hail from 'sweetie' is a respectful term and is in no way derogatory or demeaning...
Congratulations moonglum. And I always appreciate your comments.
I moved to Southern Illinois about six years ago. I frequently have women sales clerks call me "sweetie", or something similar, here. I'm 67 years young. So I don't think they are interested in me as a sex object. It seems to be a cultural thing since this has never happened to me at any other place I have lived.
So get over it and move on to something important like runaway inflation or our endless wars.
someone wake dirffty up, "sweetie" is a big tiem chicago thing as well.
I have had a life-time of being called sweetie (which is mind-bending given my politics) ....It sucks, it's diminishing, it makes you feel like you're 5 years old and in kindergarten.
Obama's use of the word can only pass muster if he calls the male reporters "sweetie" as well.
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Punkster: there is more to this country then the coasts...in a large swath in the middle sweetie is jsut a genaric honorific, a little mroe familier then mama but along the same lines.....yes he needs to drop the clloyucalisms, he needs to antionalize his langauge, but htis is not a sexist statement.
not mama....any one no how the hell to spell that word im lookign for....stupid lasy spelling...oh well.
congrats moonglum... thats another beer you owe me at netroots...
not mama....any one no how the hell to spell that word im lookign for....stupid lasy spelling...oh well.
That's like asking to pick up a grain of sand on Oak Street Beach.
Yeah, I'm aware of our geography, Moonglum; I was born in Montana and grew up in the Deep South, where the term "sweetie" has more syllables than it should and is frequently used as a term of endearment. That's not what this was. All of that is just spin and it is particularly vexing to hear it coming from people who know better. This man is on a very long and arduous job interview for the most powerful position in this country (and certainly ONE of the most powerful positions in the world) and he needs to clean up his fucking act or it ain't gonna happen. And since that fact will affect me personally, and you, too, then accepting that there is a problem that can be rectified and holding his feet to the fire until he does benefits us ALL, and will benefit Obama, too. You can't fix it if you won't acknowledge it exists. We keep saying "more, better Democrats." Doesn't that also apply to the presidency?
as far as the acceptability goes, we are not in ireland. personally, i find it a bit charming when an irish singer i work with often calls me "stevie darlin'." (note: he's a straight guy, but the irish are big on casual endearments)
the only guage for the attitude and effect demonstrated by obama's remark is the target of those remarks. if she felt belittled, demeaned, or otherwise slighted, then that's where the offense stands. i often hear the put upon folks who ask me "how am i to know what i can say anymore?" i tell them that since i am a notoriously touchy hothead on the issue of race they can feel free to try it out on me. if they are able to walk away without bloodshed, chances are they are not being offensive. also, the level of offense is easily measured by the number of stitches they need.
see folks? the race issue is really that simple. so is the sexist issue.
obama started off well with, what i hope is a sincere apology. in AA though, we regard that as merely a starting point. apology without changes in behavior is as dead as faith without works. i hope he does work on this, i hope he does change. speaking as somebody who knows how difficult the inside job of changing outlooks and habits can be, if i see changes in obama in the future along this path, i will be very impressed.
Not sure if anyone has said this yet or not, but I consider 'sweetie' to be like 'darling' and maybe even 'honey'. As Moonglum said, sometimes people use it; in diners for example. Frankly I find it kind of endearing when people (women) use it with me (a man).
Would it have been as big of a deal if he said 'darling' instead? I doubt it.
see this is why i dont' mention things HS I knew you would remember stuff....
I think this was a horrible thing for him to say, BUT I did not think his apology insincere.
And I did not hear similar apologies from Clinton for the hard-working white folks comment.
anyway, holding feet to fires is important... but It is also important not to overstate mistakes on the campaign trail. on either side.
Billy Joe.
its an issue of location, an unwillingess to acept that those of us in fly over country speak and act difrently the nthe coasts.
LGT...your barking up the wrong tree, every moel hill is goign to be a mountian as soem die hard folks desperatly look for a live boy or dead girl to hang on obamas neck.
jsut one more nonissue, an unfortunate coloqualism from a canadate that needs to nationalize his language...no big deal at all...espicaly when you consider that teh guy he is runnign agenist likes to call his wife "cunt" and "trollop".
you are so right I see women leaveign in droves to john "my wifes a ****" Mccain
Edited By Siteowner
Moonglum -- That word is not used on this site. I've edited it out. --Jesse Wendel, Publisher
Moonglum
Congrats on the kid and to answer your question - colloquialism
no not that one......mamma? mame? maame?im lost here...dammit ill stick with Ms
Ma'am. I think. That is not a diminutive, it is used, like "sir" to show respect (since the English language does not build those things into the language like the Latin languages do). The only reason that makes women cringe is that most of us were raised to use the term to show respect for people OLDER than we were, so hearing it said TO you means...well, shit...that yer gettin' up there! Damned whippersnappers, get the hell off my lawn!
To Queen Elizabeth II: "Nice tiara, Sweetie"
To Margaret Thatcher: "Yeah, Sweetie, you were a great Prime Minister"
To Nancy Pelosi: "Hey you're rockin' that Speaker of the House position, Sweetie"
Congrats Moonglum on your daughter... and on topic, I think that bringing another non-speller into the world is a bigger story than this one. I've worked with a variety of people, male and female, who have used the word "Sweetie" to no ill effect on the speaker or listener. It is a Midwestern "folksy" kind of thing more than an attempt to subjugate.
I think if you reread Jesses frantic post you will he see he goes out of his way to try and insult Senator Obama on issues of being male, which sort of negates the criticism in my book.
"Ma'am"? Moonglum was trying to say "ma'am"?? Normally, I think of his "spelling" as akin to performance art (the only way I can think of to not go insane), but this is a case where it renders communication impossible.
I was laughing about this because I assumed that our elitist Presidential candidate watched too much "Absolutely Fabulous" and was apeing Patsy and Edwina. Hell, he smokes Marlboro Reds -- can swilling Bolly and Stoli be far behind?
Seriously, given that the Boy King has made a habit of derisive nicknames for the press, and St. John the Vain has rage issues with them, this seems like a non-issue.
weak tea, very weak...from the tone of your post Jesse, you'd think he called her "sugar tits" or something...are people really this up-tight? yeesh...
& congrabulations moonglum!
IMHO, it was a Midwestern instinct ... but, now he is the Presumptive, all he has to do is lift his finger and shit will fly. Obama supporters - even Hillary supporters who are resigning themselves - better get used to it.
He does learn fast, I've observed.
And we should also stay vigilant about what social uglinesses are ignored in McCain and Bush. Please.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's offensive because the woman addressed as "sweetie" didn't like it.
It's a simple courtesy not to use such a word if the recipient doesn't like it.
If Obama is smart he'll not do it again charming midwestern thing or not.
As for the African-American male "boy" analogy that was made that to me is not even close because while both "sweetie" and "boy" are offensive I can't remember where calling a woman "sweetie" was a prelude to an attack like using the word "boy" to describe a black man.
I think we can acknowledge that what Obama said was an overstep without tossing out the degrees of difference.
Health-care is an issue ... bundling funds from lobbies is an issue ... Iraq is an issue. Sweetie is a VERY tame term & will only offend the easily offended. I do not see a "Sweetie-Gate" issue - female Clinton supporters are MUCH more angry at him for beating their candidate than they are likely to be for what he calls a reporter. At this point, suspecting that the media is gunning for Clinton, they themselves probably call reporters MUCH worse names in private.
The comparison to McCain speaks volumes - St. BBQ is a living fossil when it comes to either language or conduct - so how any self-respecting woman can say if Clinton doesn't win she'll cross over from Clinton to that man is a mystery to me, & I hope those threatening to do so are smart enough to rethink that idea.
I have relatives in IL from Springfield to Chicago. My Aunts call me 'Sweetie', my Grandmum called me Sweetie. Heck, nearly all my female relatives have at one point called me sweetie. Maybe it's a midwest thang?
I'd rather be called sweetie than 'Sugar Tits'
at any rate, this rates at least three yawns, and a stretch. wonders WWMD?
(what would Molly do?)
"There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity. Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, "Poor dear, it's probably PMS." Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, "What an asshole." Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an asshole." [Molly Ivins about Camille Paglia]
"Maybe her name was "Sweetie"."
:o) :o) :o)
At least he didn't call her a c**t, as one of the other candidates (who shall remain nameless:o) ) referred to his WIFE.
I will agree, it's a habit he needs to break, but it sure sounds like he's workin' on it.
Now, if we can just get John McCain's head out of george bush's ass, we'll have the "degrading token affection" issue pretty well taken care of. :o)
Moonglum,
Congrats on Little MG 1.3!! :D
Punkster wins the prise...I apologise if any of my typos have caused you any incontonence. (ive been makeign eyes bleed sence FIDONET)
skuquesnails it...its a midwestern thing..it is very much an il thing....but it pops up all over the midwest...we in flyover land have our own way of speaking on occasion.
this is nonissue, compleatly made up outrage, one last desperate grasp at findign that dead girl/live boy in obamas closet.
He has spoken like this for as long as i have seen his political caree, im sure you could find other instances in past press confrences adn debates...why is it a world endign issue now???? I like how the outrage lined up with soem mroe aligator teers from clinton...jsut more red meat for the authoritarian feminists. (no not all feminists are authoritarian, but a large subgroup is....as well as a subgroup of liberals..im lookign at you jesse, very strong authritarian juju gopign on there....jsut like right wing authroitarians there chosen leader can do no wrong, the other person is evil incarnate....hillary attracts a lot of that type it seems)
thansk jen....if you care get my email from HS and drop me a line I can send pictures.
moonglum - Congrats on the new littlest moonglum!
Jesse - I am a 46 yr. old female and this just doesn't register that high on my richter scale. It was inappropriate but it wasn't "sugar tits." (uggghhhh...)
He apologized and that's that.
I guess I'm a "hard core" Obama supporter, and I think he was right to have apologized. I'd prefer that he never called her by anything other than her name, but that ship had obviously sailed.
As others alluded to, it seems that this is only really a serious sign of sexism if he doesn't talk down to male reporters similarly.
I suspect that this is more of an indication of a massive ego. And if you think anyone who will ever run for President doesn't have a gigantic, gravity-warping ego, you're nuts.
Jesse - Myrtle June -
It was a bullshit apology in my view, because he didn't promise to stop using the language with other women.
I think the only apology from Barack Obama you want to hear that you would not classify as "bullshit" would be "Hi, this is Barack Obama. I'm not Hillary Clinton and for that I apologze".
Yes, he was, at the most, not professional in his remark and more importantly in his dismissive action. However, I do believe his apology was sincere and immediate.
I've experienced that men and women alike tend to treat others in the work place in this fashion when they have young children at home. Its some parental thing that kicks in they can't help it. They do think its being kind because that's how they are with their young children.
He should not have said that. Indeed, it was unprofessional. I'm sure he'll be more aware in the future.
There was a point in JE's speech last night that I wish he would have said differently. When he was saying "There's one man..." several times there..... I would have been happier had he substituted "person" for man. I don't think it was sexist but I do think he might have been a little more aware. Or he was saying "man" deliberatly because hillary's contention that "sometimes the best man for the job is a woman" sexist shit. I'm not sure. I just think "person" might have been a better choice.
I'm also not going to fall on the floor and kick and scream and demand an apology worded in exactly the text I want someone to say. But that's just me. Mistakes are made, apologies are given, we move on.
Have a great day
- moonglum!!! Congratulations on your new little sweetie!!!
In the same way, I need to see Obama stop dismissing the left wing of his party when it is politically easy to do so. Sorry, let me say that again.
I don't have an issue with him moving to the center and ignoring us in terms of wining the election. I have a HUGE problem with him acting in a sexist manner, or behaving in a way which is not liberal.
Errrr Jesse... I hate to point this out to you but having John Edwards, who kept everyone from moving right throughout this primary, endorsing Obama rather negates your false premise that he's moving right. He's farrrrrr left of la Clinton. And you don't have to reiterate your point to me with an apology ..... that's condescending and sexist.
I know your candidate didn't get the nom, and I'm fully aware there will be grace period for the grieving process. I saw that when I was for Edwards and he dropped out and his blog went into meltdown mode for a time. I'm fine with the grace period for the grieving process... but there will come a time when we will have the expectation from all the clintonists to get over it and get on with "supporting the nominee". That rally cry that was forwarded way too early in the process by many is one that will be coming up shortly. Appropriatly. I hope to see those who forwarded it prematurely be the same people who forward that at the appropriate time in ernest.
When my candidate got beaten very early on, it was devastating but I switched immediately to the next best candidate for me. I'm fully supportive of him. We've got work to do and I'm sure we'll all get about it together.
Myrtle, the hes moving right attack is just calssic considering the clinton supporters are also attacking Obama for beign too far left to win the general election...
If any one truly wants to see them drop HS a line, jsut sent him the baby pictures...ya HS im useing you as a go between suck it up, I'll get you two beers assumeing the bar dosn't run out this time
Thanks, Jesse.
Obama has my vote in November, that's a given, but man this kind of stuff pisses me off.
Quick! Call all the superdelagates! This changes EVERYTHING!
Ok, mistakes are made. And so are apologies. As a matter of complete suprise to me, Hillary actually backed down from the "hard working white people" gaffe.
Speaking of... I still find that one worse. And I am white. Hard working. A person.
Occasionally I am sweet. So I'm glad that apology was made as well.
This kind of shit is exactly why we need a woman president. Is it NOT about time that we are treated as human beings instead of "sweeties"?
The "boy" analogy is spot on.
I am not a big fan of Hillary, but goddamnit, women have put up with this shit for 10,000 years and what do we get? "Oh, sorry sweetie."
patronizing, denigrating, and ugly, no matter what color of person it comes from.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama is just "business as usual" -- same as "Let me put my arm around you" Bush....
I wonder if this will prompt another,"Obama Girl" video? The "sweetie" may or may not come from a sexist place but if it was a glaring character flaw I can't imagine Hillary Clinton not reminding everyone on a daily basis. Her campaign has no problem implicitly or explicitly pointing out the obvious, his skin color. I suspect being a raging sexist would have been thrown along with the kitchen sink when she was trying to make something, anything stick.
"Sweetie" and "Boy" comparison is somewhere between insulting and absurd. That alone suggests overreaction. Baltogeek's right.
"Sincere apologies include commitments to clean up the underlying issues which allowed the breakdown to occur."
In his apology he mentioned scheduling an interview. I'm confident that during the interview he will address the Sweetie comment again with her whether it's on the record or off. Leaving a protracted message pledging oaths and declarations on how his future interactions with half of humankind will forever be altered might come across as pandering if the voicemail was made public like the message he did leave.
If he does become POTUS he'll be the 1st African American and 44th imperfect Commander in Chief. It's the White House not the Vatican.
Maybe its' because I started visting sites like Shakesville & Feministe that I find such behaviour not progressive. I was not aware before of how so much msyogyny is engrained in the popular culture. As a black man its' very easy for me to pick up racism so as I have learned how women can be marginalized I have to be able to admit to myself when it does happen.
Just like I don't believe that Hillary is knowingly racist I can believe that Obama does not do these things because he despises women. I think its' fine to wish better behaviour for our candidates.
I don't think that Hillary or her people should get a pass when they say some dog whistling racist shit, and I don't think that Obama should either. They are both as American as lynching so they both have a lot of work to do.
Mark Slackmeyer (to Senator Lacey Davenport, whom he is about to interview for radio): And try not to call me "dear heart" on the air, OK?
Lacey Davenport: All right, lovey.
Just like I don't believe that Hillary is knowingly racist I can believe that Obama does not do these things because he despises women. I think its' fine to wish better behaviour for our candidates.
I don't think that Hillary or her people should get a pass when they say some dog whistling racist shit, and I don't think that Obama should either. They are both as American as lynching so they both have a lot of work to do.
tenacitus --
SPOT ON.
Well, well said.
Everyone who keeps up the (frankly offensive) bullshit that I'm saying this because it must be all about Hillary Clinton for me, 24/7, my comment to you is, your need to shove this off on me, rather than deal with the sexism of your candidate, is telling.
Same thing for those people who refuse to even deal with the issue.
Sexism is DEEPLY ingrained in our culture. In much the same way that "cock-sucker" as an insult reveals homophobia, people's reaction to what Obama does, demonstrates how many people are unwilling to see or grapple with sexism.
I do not think Obama is intentionally sexist, just as I do not think Clinton is intentionally racist.
That does not mean I don't think when he does something sexist, he shouldn't be called out. Same goes for Clinton.
Anyway if the man apologized and said he will make an effort not to do it again what more can be asked of him.
"This kind of shit is exactly why we need a woman president."
So you're saying sexism has been wiped out for decades in India, Israel, Germany, the UK, the Phillipines, etc, etc?
Don't get me wrong, it would be a great and long overdue thing for the US to have a woman President. But gender identity is down at the bottom of the list along with racial identity when it comes to my criteria for who'll occupy the Oval Office. And having a female President won't substantially change the problem of casual misogyny any more than President Obama will substantially change the problem of casual racism.
Extremely unprofessional and denegrating to women...... no apology.... to women for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...h?
v=gjsqDrdvIPw
Jesse. so you accept there was no intent of sexism and yet you attack obabma for beign sexist...
hillary pulls the same shit with race "hard working white people" ect. and you not onyl give her a pass but you come down on any of us who point out hillarys racism.
I think its intentiona, you don't but even if you are correct and its unintentional, by the standared YOU JUST SET it is still racism.
then yo wonder why a lot of us fell that you are carrying clintons water.
I dug through the archives today, didnt' find you make one negative remark about clinton, all of your psots defending her even as she whent further and further into the rove paly book, even as ashe proved my republican lite statement true over adn over again......
you ahve on hell of a doubble standared, it may well be unintentional in wich case you need to open your eyes. It may be intentional, i nthat case you better damm well come clean or we have an issue.
Having a woman president won't change that, btw.
You can lack intent of sexism, and still act in a sexist manner.
This is why LM wrote about Clinton's dog-whistle racism. He said -- which I agree with (you'll note in at least one of those articles, I'm quoted) -- that in his view, Clinton is not a racist, but her actions were. (Paraphrasing.)
I agree.
Same here.
The point is, sexism is not as obvious to most of us as racism is. It is more easily dismissed.
Why?
Because more of us benefit from sexism than benefit from racism.
This was BAD. For those of you who are unclear as to why, let me explain.
Yes, it's true that gentlemen and ladies of a certain generation used endearments like "sweetie" and "hon" frequently. It's also true that some of us find this utterly charming when we encounter these folks -- which is good, because at their age, we're not likely to break them of the habit.
It's also true that many of us use these terms liberally in our private lives. (My son has been my "sweet boy" since he old enough to call me "Mom.")
But those of us under, say, 65, have no excuse at all for using these words in public, when we're addressing people with whom we have no personal non-work-related relationship. Obama's use of "sweetie" in this context is related to Moonglum's wife being called the same thing in the delivery room: it's a statement that these powerful people can't be bothered to get someone's name, and use it. (Obstetrics teams often call women "Mom" for the same reason, which is less offensive, but it still makes me feel like I'm just sort of Generic Mom #28 they've seen today. This is one of the defining days of my life; Jesus, people, can't you at least be bothered to get my name?)
It's the same power-over language trip that Bush runs when he makes up nicknames for his cronies. He's seizing the power over their very names, which is the power to define who they are.
"Sweetie" isn't quite as flagrant as that, but it's coming out of the same spirit: I'm powerful, I'm busy, and I can't be bothered to care about you as anything more than some generic chick who wandered into my field of view. It's incredibly demeaning, and beneath the dignity of anyone who aspires to lead progressives.
And I'm with punkster: I can easily imagine myself getting all up in his face had it been me. (And boy, would have have been an interesting piece of video.) It usually doesn't take more than one or two such instances to break a man of this kind of thoughtless condescension for good.
I once had a young co-worker who tried to get away with calling all the women in the office "honey" and "babe." I didn't get my feminist hackles up -- but I did put a quick end to it.
I simply started cheerfully calling him "Junior" in return. "Hey, babe, would you X?" "Sure thing, Junior. No problem."
The first time we had this exchange in the presence of senior executives was also the last time he ever did it to anyone.
jesse your comments here don't mesh iwth your reaction...we jsut had more racist statemnets from hillary...no reaction at all from you, obama uses a coloqualism, and you exploded...the reactions don't seem to mesh.
You have never made a post calling out hillary on her racism. more over in this post you do not make the distction that your comments just made.
You did not just accuse obama of useing a sexist term, you accused him of being sexist, all the while giving the clintons a pass for racism. that is where my problem is.
obama used a commonly used phrase as a genaric honorifc, unfortuinatly in some parts of the country it is not seen as such...his use was innocent but a mistack he needs ot nationalize his language. The clintons explicitly used racist language to attract a certin class of voter, they knew what they where saying and what the inteded reaction was..they where fully aware of which dog wistle they where blowing and did it anyway for craven political gain....one action in my eyes is far worse then the other. Your eyes as well i guess Jesses unfortuinatly we disagree as to iwch action was worse.
My two cents,
Another issue that can be classified as trivial. Was it inappropriate? Yes. Did he apologize? Yes. If it's bad habit, should he resolve it? Sure.
Is it worth dwelling on? NO.
Does it suggest that Barak is a misogynist? Please, enough already, can we move on!
sorry rob, see we are deluded and evil if we point out that hillary is acting racist(cause youknow its only acting or something) but obama makes an innocent remark and we need to drag him out and shoot him. We need the made up contorversies so we can sink obama and have our girl hillary ride to the rescue.
why am i harping on this so much..well we jsut had the clintons in full race baiting mode for at least a week (i was out of communication for a while it may have been longer) not a peep form jesse. an offhanded innocent comment from obama and we need to go into all out attack mode....all im asking is droping of the flase nutrality form jesse..I like to have my news sources biasis in the open, makes the filtering easier.
Oh and I perosnal don't think that sexism is any more or less of an issue then racism, too me both are a very bad thing, too bad you don't agree jesse. Guess white women are more improtant to you then us minorities
"sorry rob, see we are deluded and evil if we point out that hillary is acting racist(cause youknow its only acting or something) but obama makes an innocent remark and we need to drag him out and shoot him. We need the made up contorversies so we can sink obama and have our girl hillary ride to the rescue."
moonglum
-Not to mention part of a cult
(Oops, I did mention it.)
right I forgot that one...remember scientlogy is definatly not a cult, any one who prefers obama over hillary is a cultist....lets make sure all of our facts are straight here folks.
hey remember when obam supporters saying that they would never vote for hillary where horrible people and not true democrats that jesse didn't have time for...hillary supporters sayign the same thingshow that obama has a serious issue that he needs to resolve by putting her on the ticket.
Mrs. R. - yes it was "bad" but he caught it right off and apologized. She handled it right..... and included it on air.
Again, he should be more aware that he's not talking to his little girls, he's talking to a grown woman in a professional setting. You raise an excellent point in that he really should have just taken a moment, gotten her name, used it, and said they have something scheduled for the media later.
I don't think this is quite deserving of response and I do believe the clintonists will seize on anything at this point. I don't think its going to be worth overturning his lead and presumptive nomination like they'd like to see happen here.
I don't think its anywhere even close to, as Jesse suggests, had hillary called him "boy". Now that would be exactly racist. No question.
I see her racism and have for awhile. Her very attitude that when Obama took the lead in pledged delegates in Feb. she still acted and insisted they were ahead. In reality that's not true. Then again today, she's saying they are ahead in the popular vote.... again that's just not true. And the only way they can say such a thing and for it to be true is if hillary clinton is counting the votes for Obama as 2/3 of a vote. Whe she says "He can't win....", I hear... "because he's black" tacked on to her words. There's no other premise she has to say that other than "because he's black". They're not all that far apart really in issues. I'm sick and fed up with that. These are not dog whistles, they are flat out ingrained racist premises she's forwarding..... yet there's no acknowledment of that. Its the giant pink elephant on the clintons' kitchen table.
Obama really does need to be more aware of how he's treating people, men and women, in these situations. I think he will. I hope men and women in workplaces everywhere will take note of how unacceptable this is. That's not a bad thing if they do, I think.
It's also interesting that the MSM has spent days (if not weeks) talking about Obama's problem getting the white vote but they will not talk about Hillary's problem getting the black vote.
Myrtle Hussein Sweetie June: brigns up a very good point that i missed....jesse askes us how the MSM would react if clinton had called a reporter "boy"...well seeing that they have been droping racist dog wistles for the last few weeks rather constently and hte media has been joining clinton in it instead of calling her on it I guess we have our answer don't we.
Moon,
I believe that Bill did call Obama a boy.
I wasn't spitting mad because I don't think Bill is a racist and it's a southern thing.
Congratulations, moonglum! I wish I had a little girl. But, I still call my boys "sweetie"!
Anyway, much ado about almost nothing. Call me when he votes against women's interests. That would matter.
Look, this whole thing is sort of like art appreciation or sexual harrassment - hard to define, but 'you know it when you see it.' Mrs. Robinson, as usual, gets the closest to the bullseye.
As I said, I work in a male dominated business, and always have. I have walked this walk by using intent as the litmus test for whether I needed to laugh it off or crush it at it's origin. Sometimes an off-color joke is funny - hell, sometimes it is hysterical. Sometimes an off-color joke is either overtly or covertly agressive and it needs to be choked off at it's source. If you do it properly, everyone is happier and better off. This is the same thing. Sweetie, darlin' honey, sugar, hon - they are all the same. Rolling off the tongue of your mother or auntie or grandma or the waitress at the diner with the pie, well, that's fine. One half of my family is from the Deep South and I speek zee language. From the lips of your boss, or your doctor, or a professor, or the guy angling for the position as the President of the United States, um, well, come ON. This isn't rocket science; it should be common f-ing sense. Don't piss off 60% of your electorate. And I can't believe that a half-black man hasn't had AMPLE opportunity to experience "less than" language directed at him in this country; hell, he ought to be doubly sensitive to it. He is no colloquillism-spouting midwest country bumpkin; he is a highly intelligent, sophisticated, worldly man who uses the English language like a laser beam. He needs to focus some of that on not coming across like someone who thinks he is superior. Of COURSE he thinks he's superior - he's running for president! He better be superior! But he better learn not to look like it or we are going to have a big problem...
Moonglum, congrats on your little girl. I would hope she doesn't have to deal with this crap, but I've been an adult for some time, and have seen very little improvement - it just sort of went on the down low. Maybe the next generation will stop this nonsense. While riding on their flying pigs.
Now I must go play the "cover-my-head-with-both-hands" game with Bongo, one of my Senegal parrots. As you of course know, North American rules for this require both hands...
Cee tuche'(ya I wasa nationly ranked fencer...no i can't spell..hell thats even hte wrong spell) I conceed your point, well played....I guess jesse isn't the only one who needs to look at subconcious biases. I do fell that my greater point stands, he did aplogise and stated that he would od better in the future, he has never shown me a reason to not accept his word. Has hillary backed off her deification of "white america" yet?
Marek: I got three of them little boy monsters as well...ya my house is a zoo..why the hell do you think i left chicago for the armpit of america, cheaper living down here.
Will "Sweetiegate" be the camel's straw that finally brings down the monster, Obama?
I can see it now: A week after the election, President Hillay Clinton (and her running mate, Vice President John McCain) declares war on Iran, while simultaneously sending more troops to Iraq, and appoints Joe Lieberman to the Supreme Court. This while Bill Clinton appears live on CNN to allow Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh and Richard Mellon Scaife to urinate in his mouth, in between kicking repeatedly him in the face and crotch. ( there is tv footage of Hillary watching, smiling in approval, live via a satelite link!)
Meanwhile, Katha Politt writes in the Nation that the important thing to keep in mind is that Hillary has never used the term "Sweetie" while talking to her social inferiors (i.e. Americans, liberals), so it's not all bad news! And Maggie Jochild nods her head sagely in approval, while Hillary launches the first nuclear strike against Iran. The end.
John D. --
You just made a personal attack on a commenter (in your immediately above comment.) No pass. Don't do it again.
Strike One. This is a warning.
Arguing a Strike either here or by email, gets a commenter an automatic called Strike (which would be Strike Two.) One can also get Strike Two in the normal course of events. Getting Strike Two results in being banned for at least one week, perhaps more, depending on the offense.
Strike Three results in a commenter being banned from GNB for good.
Everyone
Sometime in the last weeks, I gave someone a First Strike. That was it as far as I was concerned. He'd crossed the line; I warned him. No problem.
Three, four hours later, I received a piece of hate mail. Not the worse piece by any means, but pretty nasty. Plus he left a parting gift in the comments. I banned him on the spot. He's never getting back on this blog.
All he had to do when he got the First Strike, just like a baseball or softball player who gets a call from the umpire, is take the Strike and wait for the next pitch. Arguing balls and strikes with the umpire is ALWAYS pointless and ALWAYS gets you thrown out of the game. If he'd done what I told him to do -- I will ALWAYS tell people very specifically what they did wrong and what they need to do/stop doing -- he'd still be here. But he decided to attack me instead. Buh-bye.
To say this more bluntly (again, this is for everyone's benefit...) If you get a Strike, I strongly recommend you exercise self-restraint. (And no, I don't care how hypocritical you think I'm being, thank you very much.)
Imagine the ballplayer at the plate who just got a call he or she disagrees with. He may disagree all he wants. He might have steam boiling out his ears. But if he says one word; hell, if he even mutters something to himself walking away and the umpire misunderstands it (umpires are sensitive sorts with huge ears when it comes to imagined slights against their character) that batter is OUT OF HERE.
Same here. Either don't say anything -- your best best -- and don't ever cross that particular line again, not even close, Or, if you must, say "I won't ever do that again and I apologize for x." Because if you argue with me in my umpire role AT ALL -- and oooooh, when I'm being umpire I am a sensitive sort with huge ears when it comes to imagined slights against my character and those of other bloggers or commentators -- I will construe a misplaced semi-colon or word against you as I call a Second Strike on you so fast it makes your head spin. You'd best not come close to anything resembling a protest or argument in any way, anything that questions what I did.
Really, your best bet is just to not say anything. And not cross the line again. My lines are clear. If you authentically don't understand the line (like a rule-book interpretation), ask. If you're jacking me around, I'll throw you off the site for good.
I have enormous patience with people. But my patience is not forever. I'm fast running out of patience with two or three people who keep attacking me over and over again. They need to listen carefully to this message... NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. THIS MEANS EVERYONE.
This is my blog, and these are my rules.
Jesse Wendel, Publisher
Group News Blog
love Obama and i know it was a slip of the mouth b/c he even said that it is a bad habit of his. Nobody talks about the NASTY things that comes out of Hilary's mouth. (& she didn't have slips of the mouth).
Yawn. Condi darling, will you tell your boss to please shut up? It just won't do for POTUS to go around calling U.S. Senators Nazi appeasers. (Although, maybe it takes the grandson of one to accuse one?)
Is it okay to call James Guckert "sweetie"?
moving on. let's celebrate--- Gay Marriage, No funding for the damn war, and the MSM beating up on stupid radio talk show hosts-
we agree on so much,
- we agree that race baiting is bad
- we agree that sexism is bad
- the war sucks
- bush sucks even worse
- we need to deal with lots of painful issues in our culture to keep on keeping on in the effort to promote real progressive thought.
let's go do it.
For my part, I wrote a nice letter to my chosen candidate saying that as a woman I was offended by what he said, happy that he apologized and hopeful that he will make ever effort to change his thinking and behavior in this area.
What have you done?
we can solve a lot by being
1. strong
2. respectful
3. smart
4. determined
5. hopeful
onward and upward
The point is, sexism is not as obvious to most of us as racism is. It is more easily dismissed.
Why?
Because more of us benefit from sexism than benefit from racism
Stupid statement, Jesse.
First and foremost: Obama's off-the-cuff statement reveals that he has internalized a lot of the inherent sexism running through our society.
SURPRISE! Gosh, I am shocked and appaled. Knock me over with a feather.
American men, nay nearly ALL men are in one way or another sexist. It's inherent in modern society, and has been inherent in society for the last 10 millenia, probably since the advent of agricultural societies. It sucks, it's not going to change fast or easily, and it's something we're just going to have to deal with over a long period of time as we keep up the pressure to change it as much as we can.
Part of that is recognizing when it happens, and trying to rectify the situation when it does. The fact that he explicitly called, apologized and recognized that he went outside the proper boundaries of professional and personal propriety says a lot about both him and his campaign/advisory team.
Third, your statement is simply moronic. "More of us benefit from sexism than from racism? Are you crazy? There is little or no priority or hierarchy in the world of oppression. Trying to claim that one form of repression is "better or worse" than another is simply inane.
Fourth, I note with interest the lack of statements from you regarding "Hard Working, White hard working middle class".
Get your shit together.
"Will "Sweetiegate" be the camel's straw that finally brings down the monster, Obama?"
-It will be if the MSM loops it and plays it ad nauseum the next three weeks.
Political correctness run amock. Sometimes its no wonder liberals get tagged as fascists. Folks need to relax. The younger generations - of which Obama is a part - have had it pounded into our heads about how its NOT ok to be misogynistic. The inference here is that Obama is a women-hater or does not show the necessary servility to the Grand Dames of Feminism amongst us. As a queer guy I say get over it, honeys! You all are in the process of shattering all sorts of glass ceilings, and there are alot bigger fish to fry this year.
Gramma called everyone sweetie, because she was sweet, and it was no big deal, ever!
A cultural note about Baltimore. In Baltimore, it is common for blue-collar whites to use the term of address "Hon", serving as roughly the same as "cher" in Cajun country. Men rarely use it to other men but women use it with men and women and hear it from men and women routinely. The classic use of the term is between a diner waitress and a mixed-gender table, both directions.
Black people almost never use it and college educated people almost never use it. In Washington 40 miles away, it's unknown, largely because blue-collar white people don't exist in meaningful numbers.
I bring this up not to let Obama off the mat - he is sociologically far removed from the Hon fest, and stands guilty - but to note that sometimes what looks sexist (as "Hon" did to my New York-raised law professor in a Women and the Law class 15 years ago) may reflect a more subtle demographic/cultural reality. Sometimes. Not in this "sweetie" condescension that Obama has permitted himself from sexist privileged.
RedDan --
You have ZERO clue what kind of work I really do at GNB; at best, you have one-sided assessments from a clearly partial party. I however, likewise note with interest how you show up to make attacks on me. You were one of the ringleaders back during the Obama "con" mugging I took.
Stop it.
I'm the Publisher of this blog. You can treat me (and everyone else on this blog) with respect, you can lurk, or you can stop coming here. I don't care which. Those are the alternatives everyone has; you're not being given special treatment.
I'm accountable for everything that goes on the front page, for better or worse.
When LM publishes a piece calling out Clinton for her dog-whistle racism, I'm accountable for that piece -- and odds are incredibly high I've talked about it with him extensively before he wrote it.
Sara and I talked earlier this week, and just exchanged emails about our plans for GNB writing happening weeks from now, all the way down to the tone of the piece and the precise time of day it is going to be published. TLG and I were chatting on IM sometime in the last day or so about her writing. I'm responsible for what Hubris Sonic puts up, as well as for what Evan Robinson posts.
Am I claiming credit for their writing? Of course not. Their words are their words, just as my words are my own. But as Publisher, I'm accountable for everything, pay the bills, file the tax returns. Here's a way to tell about who is truly accountability -- if GNB gets sued for defamation, who does the lawsuit go to? Hint: GNB's office is in Bellevue, Washington, just outside Seattle. Not in Vancouver BC, not in New York City, and not in Tokyo.
I don't put up election statistics -- Hubris does. I don't post on New York City politics -- LM does. I don't write about Canada's health care -- Sara does. I have my own areas which are mine (the law, comes to mind, given this morning's breaking news from California) as do we all. And we all have areas where we cross over.
Pretty much all of LM's stories on Clinton's dog-whistle racism stories, he and I discussed extensively ahead of time. Just as he and I frequently discuss political stories I am going to write. But he's the better writer to write those stories. Just as I'm the better writer on these stories.
Not that how we split up assignments inside of GNB is any of your business. Interesting though, that you assess you know my current political convictions in the presidential race, based on the stories I'm currently writing. Talk about cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.
I'd have more respect for your opinions if you showed up in my threads and made a contribution, other than attacks. Which, as I pointed out at the beginning of this comment, stop now. You're welcome to attack my ideas. Politely. But I'm only dealing with you here, frankly, for two reasons. 1. As a courtesy because i) you are friends with x whom I do respect, and ii) you've been around for a while, and 2. To tell you the free ride on attacking me is over; you can be polite, or you can leave.
I've now done both, and you and I are done. In the future if you want my attention, try coming on my threads and saying something nice now and then, instead of playing hit and run. As far as other threads go, I'm not out there looking for you; I'm not out looking for anyone. But I do expect you and everyone, to be polite, and not engage in personal attacks. I wrote about it a few comments above your post. I recommend it to your attention.
Take care,
Sigh.
There's a strike system now?
Step 1:
Write a post that takes personal observations and comes to a fairly controversial conclusion.
Step 2:
Stand back and watch as people say very predictable things in response to the post.
Step 3:
Step in and start threatening to shut down debate when it gets hotter than you like, causing and inevitable chill effect on people who want to talk about the issue in a free and unobstructed way.
I'm sure there is a good way to keep a conversation on track, but this way ain't it. If you compare Obama supporter to a cult before, and then get angry when people say you called him a cult leader, and now comparing his supposed sexist remark to a racist remark and then getting flak over it.
Sigh.
Whatever...you're right. It's your site do what you want.
If Obama gets us out of this damn war he can have a whole cheerleader brigade of "sweeties" right outside his door and I could care less.
I cast my vote on three criteria:
1) Issues
2) Decision-Making Process
3) Organizational ability
Basically what you believe, why you believe it, and how you are going to make it happen. Obama scores much higher than any other candidate still running on these criteria in my opinion.
Using this term was totally unprofessional and lacked a certain decorum that a Presidential candidate probably needs to carry on his or her shoulders all the time, but unless it pushes into a construct or frame that has already been created(this time is the wholly unsubstantiated "Obama is the biggest misogynist ever born!" out of TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, Hillaryis44 etc.), it doesn't do much to convince me of anything. Obama's campaign has not been anti-woman, possibly for the fact that pissing off half the electorate is an incredibly stupid idea.
But whatever...people see what they want in this Rohrschach Test masquerading as primary campaigning.
I have made about 8 comments on ANY blog in the past several months
A large proportion of those comments are here, and many of them were in response to your writing.
A lot of them were harsh.
Please note that the above comment was in part agreeing with you - Obama's statement was sexist, and was not appropriate in anyone, much less the putatative leader of the US.
On the other hand, there is a lot of what you write that I find illogical, irrational, and divisive.
I say so.
You have a problem with that?
Fine.
But don't come into my face with your "I am the Capital P Publisher" bullshit, and don't try to hide behind what other people write in order to defend your one-sided, baiting, passive aggressive commenary...commentary that appears to and has the effect of not just sparking discussion and argument, but, rather offending and angering large swaths of reasonable, progressive, forwrd looking allies in the fight against the creeping fascism that has infected our nation and the world.
I don't CARE what LM wrote about dog-whistle racism. YOU wrote about Obama's sexism in a way that is, in my opinion, incorrect, illogical, divisive, and blatantly self-justificatory. I don't CARE what Hubris wrote about statistics or the war. I was responding to YOU.
And you DO NOT get to declare when the conversation is over, just because you say so.
You want to ban me? Go right the fuck ahead.
You want to play like I get special consideration because I am friends with X, go right the fuck ahead - I argue with X, and Y, and Z, and YOU all the time, and I will not be silenced just because your feelings got hurt by the fact that you wrote transparent bullshit and got called out on it by not just me, but by a LARGE number of your own, more regular commentariat.
Sir Edward: "Don't call me 'sweetie'!"
Interviewer: "Can I call you 'sugar plum'?"
Sir Edward: "No!"
Interviewer: "'Pussycat'?"
Sir Edward: "No!"
Interviewer: "'Angel drawers'?"
Sir Edward: "NO YOU MAY NOT!!!"
(Sorry. You guys know I just can't help it, when something cries out for a Python quote.)
Continuing in a more serious vein:
Having all too often seen how this sort of thing goes down in the workplace, depending on the circumstances I can understand how the recipient of this casual endearment might greet it with anything from mild annoyance to fury to being really creeped out. Calling that reporter "sweetie" was at the least extremely unprofessional. So I see nothing wrong with dressing Obama down for that.
But he apologized, and acknowledged it's a bad habit. Beyond that, I don't see what more he can do, except try his best not to repeat the behavior.
However, Jesse, I have to say I agree with others here who've pointed out that your assumption of cowardice because Obama delivered his apology via voicemail seems kind of unwarranted.
Obama called her at 3:17 in the afternoon. That is, at a time of day when there was a reasonable expectation she would answer her cell phone. I have to admit, if I were in Obama's place, I'd probably feel a bit relieved if she didn't answer, but he could hardly have known that in advance.
Again, the important thing was the apology; the only way to judge his sincerity is how he behaves in the future. Real cowardice would have been to leave it up to a staffer to make excuses for the boss, but he delivered it personally, in as direct a manner as circumstances permitted.
Out of my respect for you, I'll do you the courtesy of believing it was justifiable concern over our presumptive nominee's thoughtlessness (at the same time Obama's living every waking moment in the campaign goldfish bowl and will need every vote he can get) that prompted you to go a bit overboard on the voicemail thing.
Well, that, and your rabid covert Clinton partisanship. (ducks and runs for cover)
RedDan,
My problem with you is, every comment you've ever had with me which I can remember, at least part of it has been an attack.
I'm not hiding behind anything, including I'm not hiding behind being the Publisher. I'm explaining to you stuff I'm sure you don't know, because I know that x doesn't know it, so you wouldn't/couldn't have got it from x. Much of what happens on this site happens with my input, regardless of if it has my name on it. That's the way it should be. My job is to nurture people, to provide a place for great writing to occur, for people to become better writers. Certainly that's been true for me, and it's been true for others as well. I'm a vastly better writer than I was a year ago, and so are several others of us.
The point I was making is this -- you absolutely can not tell who I am supporting right now for President from my current writing or what I am writing about, and if you think you can, you are wrong. You do NOT know who I support for President. You don't. I know you think you do. I know lots of people think they do. But you don't. You're guessing.
I don't care that you find a lot of what I say "illogical, irrational, and divisive." That's fine. You're welcome to comment or not as you choose. My problem is, why we're having this chat, is that when you comment about my work, it has mostly been an attack.
This above commentary is what I'd call "harsh," which is how you've characterized your own comments. But your comments in the Obama "con" post weren't "harsh," RedDan. You were one of the ringleaders in a freaking mugging. You weren't arguing a policy position. You and a host of others were hitting me over the head and you didn't stop for days. It was the same kind of cyberbulling which had Digby shut her comments down. There were moments where I was tempted to shut GNB itself down. I was receiving hate mail in email, by IM, as well as phone calls. My life was DISRUPTED FOR DAYS in a brutal, vicious, ugly way, and you, RedDan, were one of the ringleaders.
Some people on this blog kept hitting me about that event for (literally) over a month. One person on this blog STILL brings it up, whenever he's in the mood to take a whack. He's likely to be bounced sometime in the next several weeks if his behavior doesn't shift radically.
I am no longer putting up with being a target.
People want to argue what I SAY, fine, argue away. People curse at me, even indirectly, they can take it elsewhere. People call me a moron or tell me I'm stupid, they can take it elsewhere. I don't need to grow a thicker skin. Life is too short and I'm not going to get over it.
I understand different people have different styles. I used to have a different style. People can go back to posts I wrote last fall and wow, I was a different person, thus a different writer. I don't write that way anymore. Period. The post I wrote where I called out anyone who wouldn't vote for whomever won the nomination -- it was a mistake for me to have done so then in such harsh language about our own commentators. I regret having done so. It isn't something I would write today, having now been on the receiving end of that kind of vitriol and much worse.
Hate speech is violence. I won't have it on this blog. I won't have anything approaching it. We simply don't tolerate personal attacks at GNB. You -- and by you, I mean, any commentator -- have my word: I won't make personal attacks on commentators, either.
Three Strikes, people. I've been having the Three Strikes conversation in comments -- not on the front page; I'll have it on the front page, after Austin, after all of us are in a room together and hash things out in person -- for a few months.
It isn't here to shut-down people whose opinions I disagree with. It's designed strictly to keep people civil. You can disagree with me FOREVER and so long as you are civil to me, the other bloggers, and the commenters, you are welcome.
There are very few rules here. No personal attacks. Don't use the "C" word. Don't link to your blog routinely in the text of comments. There may be others, but those are the only ones I remember right now.
Occasionally I've made reasonable requests of specific people based on their individual actions, designed to keep the balance. But those weren't general rules. We reserve the right to edit or delete anything we want at anytime. We ask people to pick a username and stick with it.
Simple. It's all designed to keep the space safe for people to be able to communicate. Attacks, what you call "being harsh" discourage that.
I'm taking the time to explain why I'm doing what I'm doing, not just for you, but for everyone.
Again, expect a general post about all of this in late July, after Netroots once our entire staff has met in person in Austin. Trying to sort out some things via long-distance simply doesn't work; we need to be face to face.
Hope all this helps. Take care,
wengler -
I'm getting essentially what I consider -- for one of my posts *cracks up* -- to be not a lot of flack for the post itself, except a) from men, and b) from Obama supporters who are SO committed to their candidate they believe every post about Obama which is negative, MUST be about giving Clinton some primary advantage. (They must have missed the part of my post where I said I see no realistic way she can win. *laughs*)
My problem with what RedDan had to say had nothing to do with his argument (which I didn't address in any way.) It had everything to do with HOW he was speaking to me and our shared history (which I addressed in my comment to him above.)
He said it was a stupid statement.
Then it was a moronic statement.
Next he impugned my integrity.
Finally he told me to "get my shit together."
It isn't worse than anything moonglum said in the thread. Moonglum said much worse, actually. Moonglum got a pass from me today because he's celebrating the birth of a child. Were he not, I would have given him Strike One.
I have patience. But not forever.
The point again is simple. I have ceased to be a target for anyone. People will adapt to not making personal attacks, or they will go to a blog which allows them.
We don't.
Jesse,
The tone comes from impatience.
You have a history of making arguments that consist of equal parts excellent points and equal parts bad juju.
1) The point about Obama exhibiting sexism is quite correct. The point that such behavior is unacceptable in anyone, much less a presidential candidate, even MUCH less a presidential candidate running on a platform of hope, unity and change...and that such behavior and statements should be identified and called out...is a great one.
I agree!
but, 2) (and you always do this...) suddenly, what started as, IMO, an excellent argument, and a well-deserved calling out, turns into a broadside against anyone and everyone who supports the man, a pre-emptive "you're not progressive and you're blinded by your slavish support for the man if you do not agree with me 110% and immediately renounce and denounce him!!"
and the 3) Any and all who disagree with me, or argue with me in ANY way (and yes, I get harsh, sorry), are toeing the line, carrying water, unable to see how incredibly damning and damaging this terrible incident truly is.
and then comes 4) The hyperbole: X is the worst thing in history, worse than anything else in the world, and everyone who does not agree or recognize this proves the point I am making because they benefit from X, or suffer less from X than from Y.
My vociferous and rude disagreement with the latter 3 statements is a matter of record, my reasoning for that disagreement is clear, and my nastiness comes from the fact that you always deal in categoricals and absolutes, and refuse to admit or deign to condescend to entertain the notion that honest and allied progressives can, gasp, disagree with you and still be strong comrades in the fight against BOTH the tendencies in our own that disgust us (racism and sexism are endemic to all modern societies and all members of those societies)...and against those who welcome and revel in those tendencies (the rightwing freaks).
Repeat after me: Obama supporters are not blind. Obama supporters are not cultists. Obama supporters are not hypnotized goons.
Also repeat this: Obama is a man. Obama exhibits all the positive and negative traits that a man from his generation raised in his culture (ours) learns. The same can and should be said about clinton.
Having a black or white penis, or a black or white pudenda does not exempt one from internalizing all the racism, classism and sexism inherent in our society. Nor does it prevent one from yearning or striving to change those things, even as one exhibits the very behavior we wish we could eliminate.
I have zero problem with you disagreeing with me. If I think the disagreement is massively ungrounded, I may say something. Or not. (Speaking to everyone just for a moment now...) It depends on if I take you seriously or not. (Here I mean "you" as "commentator.") And not in every case. Sometimes I just post and walk away; I'm busy. Or tired. Or don't have time. Or need to take a kid to the doctor. There can be 50 reasons why I don't read a thread. But if I do a point-by-point, it means, usually, I have at least some respect for the person talking. There are people whose opinions I simply could care less about; I never respond to them, no matter how ungrounded (in my view) their comments are. I just don't care.
My initial problem during the cult fiasco, was people not understanding me. That was my failing as a writer. When only 1 out of 10 people gets what you're saying, you've blown the communication.
I agree with you about my writing in categoricals and absolutes. I don't do it 100% of the time, but I do it a lot. It's a rhetorical style designed to provoke. In your same paragraph... I haven't said at all that people can't disagree with me and still be on my side; that's your interpretation of me. I strongly disagree with the interpretation, although I can see how someone who doesn't read me carefully could draw it.
I don't at all think all Obama supporters are blind, etc. I think the number is probably about 1 in 20 in the larger world of people likely to vote for a Democrat this fall, perhaps 1 in 15 right now. Of people in the blogs, it's higher; I wouldn't want to speculate.
Both Clinton and Obama have serious faults to my view, as people, and as politicians. I give them both credit for putting themselves in the arena at all. Obama in particular, much more than Clinton, gets credit from me at this moment; I think the risk to his life is enormous. I am constantly afraid for him (perhaps more than most, given my background.)
Look... we're talking. In complete sentences and everything. *smiles*
I'm wiped out. It's almost 1:30 at night here.
Thanks for taking the time to work through this. Both for doing it, and as a demonstration to everyone else that it can be done.
Seriously, I appreciate it very much. It's what adults do.
Goodnight.
Fair enough, and peace.
You work on yours, and I'll work on mine...and when the revolution comes, we'll still be all fucked up.
tsukareta...
hontoni.
kono hanasu wa sugoi nagaii to yasashikunai... zannen.
shoganai desu keddo-- mo chotto yasahi no hanasu ga hoshii.
onegaishiamsu.
**************
practicing my Japanese
exhausted
this discussion has go on soooo long and is not nice at all. That is unfortunate. and seems like it can't be helped
But I honestly hope we can have a more kind discussion. please
(how's that for a distraction technique)
comments in Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Gaelic, Italian, Greek, Chinese, whatever-- unity through exhaustion and foreign language study... and yes I am getting a bit punchy.
Well all the air is sucked out of this otherwise decent discussion.
It's a rhetorical style designed to provoke...... I think it is designed to manipulate but that's probably close enough. Exhausting ...... drained.
Oh, and.... I'm fully aware of my persona non grata/"you're stupid" status at gnb Jesse. No need to run it down again. Save you and the others some time
Myrtle June --
You're not one of the people about whom I was talking.
*smiles sweetly*
The way you can tell is, I talk to you.
You, in my view, are obviously, solidly behind Obama. But outside of that, you listen to other conversations. Good for you.
There are a number of different audiences we're writing for. Only one of them is the relatively small group of people who routinely comment. There is a LARGER group of people who only occasionally comment. Plus there is a VASTLY larger group of regular readers who never comment.
Then we get into organizational readers, from the campaigns -- national, federal, state, and local -- to the press -- again, national, state, and local; broadcast, radio, newspaper, magazines, blogs, weekly, periodicals, book authors, and much more -- as well as elected officials and their staff -- federal, state and local. All of these are readers of Group News Blog. And that's in the United States alone. We have readers in over 140 countries. Not to mention corporate readership, and more.
Put it together, and it starts to make sense why a) I'm dealing with the issue of civility and no attacks, and b) why you're not one of the two or three people whom I'm speaking of as having been an issue... If you look back at your comments, yes, you've strongly disagreed with me and often -- as have many others. But you haven't attacked me personally. Personal attacks are the key distinction. Stay on the good side of that line, and I don't care how much you disagree with my opinions.
For Buddha's sake, my opinions are only opinions. No one made me King of the opinions. *laughs* (Sara is MUCH better at getting her opinions right.) All I'm enforcing is certain minimum rules of play.
Again, after Netroots, I'll spell them out clearly for everyone and front-page them. But I want to make sure all of our masthead bloggers have a chance to sit down together and have their own change to agree/disagree and (respectfully) fight with me over what the rules should be. *laughs* That HAS to be done face to face. Till then, I'm keeping this more or less low key; think of it as spring training games. I'm very serious about it, but the whole team (all of we masthead types) won't get serious till after Netroots.
Okay. I'm home. Have my dinner here. Going to watch a movie and fall asleep.
Anyone trying to comment something to my attention -- I'm probably going to miss it till tomorrow. I'm really wiped out.
Good work today everyone. Well done in this thread. Thank you to everyone who participated.
I remember all those times Steve started talking about "Strikes".
Oh wait. I don't think he ever did.
Why don't you just rename this "Jesse Wendel's Blog" and stop trying to pretend like you're living up to any standards that man set. I don't think I ever remember Steve throwing a temper tantrum like you repeatedly do.
"Veteran" indeed.
Anonymous -
In April I wrote “Steve Would Have...”
As I said then, I'll take your comments as meaning, you miss Steve too. So do the rest of us.
If you don't think Steve Gilliard threw people off The News Blog, you weren't paying attention. He deleted comments, banned people from the site, laid in to trolls, and lambasted right-wing pundits brutally.
GNB is not The News Blog. I'm not trying to imitate Steve Gilliard. Wow, would that be silly. I'm doing what works for me and I'm learning as I go. What I've learned does not work, is me yelling at commentators, either from the front page or in comments, or commentators yelling at each other or at me or other bloggers.
If you don't like that, don't be here. There are LOTS of blogs on the Internet where people tearing into each other is not only tolerated, it's encouraged. Try Daily Kos -- it might be more your style. Or start your own site. But here, we have a few simple rules.
People who make personal attacks, get to go elsewhere. No big deal.
jesse you jsut don't get it....blowign up at an innocent offhanded remark, while letign weeks of racism go relfects very badly on you...espicaly considerign your post history wit hteh two canadates (allways pumping the hilary party line, allways attackign obama...damm the hilalry camp starts pushign for the VP this week after weeks of racebaiting adn you fall in line like a good soilder)
I get it, yo have a high authoritarian streak in your personality makeup, hillary is seen by you as an Authority figure. you should be able to move past taht in your writing..or let one of your coblogsrs handle these stories. this criticism would have come much better, more even keild, and better recived comeign from LTG(we know whose camp shes in, erveald bias makes her more trustworthy) or Sara(she SEEMS truly nutrial, I honestly don't know if she is but that is the point).
You have a very clear and obvious bias, this makes all of your writeign on the election suspect, write feel good hillary pices (like LTG dose with obama) that fine...but hit piceis on obama.....taht brings up a lot of questions from us cultists.(man i remember those days...remember the "thinking people" supported hillary, and niave cultist supported obama....damm i guess all the thinking people couldn't get into college and all of the advanced degrees whent to cultists)
I love this blog but everyone on this thread NEEDS to see David Mamet's Oleanna. Words are what we MAKE them. I was at O'Hare airport yesterday and five black women who work the passenger carts were calling each other "girl" back and forth as a term of endearment as co-workers. If I, as a white customer, had walked up to them and said, girls, could one of you take me to gate F-4? That girl word would have taken quite a different context. Did Obama mean for it to be demeaning? I for one don't think he did. The general societal context for "boy" addressing a black man is completely different than "sweetie" towards women. There is no comparison on that score.
Jesse,
Part of the problem that I and others see comes from a categorical misunderstanding of the online medium on your part. The use of terminology like "publisher" and methodology like story meetings are useful only insofar as they contribute to real, functional media professionalism. However, when you start adapting the MSM's worst "professional" habits along with the good, you start undermining the benefits of blogs.
What are those bad habits? One is attempting to provide a "safe" environment that treats all opinions with equal value and respect. That sort of thinking inevitably produces debacles like the ABC News debate, and just about any cable news talk show you can name. They do it because they think that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. On a blog like this, you don't have to think that way.
Frankly, not all opinions and contentions are worthy of respect from educated and reasonable adults, Maggie's core thesis above being a clear example. An attack on her thesis, rough though it may be, is not equivalent to a personal attack, even when it's suggested that such a wild and unsupported allegation could only come from a person who's angry and frustrated to the point of abandoning their own intellectual integrity.
A second bad habit, related to the first, is a MSM-like claim to impartiality while promoting, through lack of comment and other sneaky methods, a particular viewpoint. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" slogan is a joke, but all of the top-down MSM outlets are guilty of this practice.
We understand that the Group News Blog is run by adults with differing viewpoints, and it does no service for one of the blog's owners to claim impartiality on the primary while he's obviously (and I'm sorry, but it was obvious) biased. Your colleagues, except for the cagey Mrs. R, made their preferences clear very early on, but you've even gone so far as demanding a ridiculous disclaimer (which the others thankfully ignored) to play out the "unbiased" charade.
You're obviously a thoughtful guy, and if you had been as straightforward as HS or TLG or LM about why you support Hillary (or oppose Obama) instead of hiding your opinions behind a bogus neutrality policy, it would have made for a more interesting and honest debate.
I won't comment on the banning, except to say that it's also a characteristic of Web comment sections on MSM sites. If they want to give into the chilling effect of the Scientology cult and ban comments, it's because they're a large and influential target. GNB, as much as I like it, is neither, and even in the online world the space cult has larger targets than the comments section of a blog. That Scientology episode was cringeworthy.
I know you banned jimbo in connection with my response to his racist idiocy (among other things), but I took his threat to kick my ass for what it was: ridiculous and empty bloviation from a Y2K-vintage troll. As with many empty rejoinders on this site, it was more amusing than hurtful.
The Internet is the only mass media sector in America now serving as a bastion of free speech. The frank and open nature of the Web is the reason most of us here have abandoned television, radio, and even newspapers, and use the Group News Blog as a source of news and reality-based analysis. I'd ask you to think about how the policies you've pushed in your GNB posts regarding the Dem primaries and the Cult of Elron have been at odds with that goal.
OTB..i think the issue with maggie goes a little beyond that, there is a pattern to her behavior...she tends to only popup in positive obamb stories, screams mysoginay, misogany, your all sexist a lot and then vanishes....I am willing to give her the benifit of the doubt, these are either arguments unkowningly detached from reality, or shes is beign perpousfly decitful in an attempt to furterh her own cause while tryign to tear down the presumtive dem nomine. T othink her actions are konwingly perpousful is a little to far, so I hope that she is just temporarily unhinged.
Just out of curiosity, what is is when woman calls me sweetie? Cause it happens all the time. I mean I realize that the kind of person that would be offended by being called sweetie would probably never lower their standards and enter a place where that kind of language is common between both men and women, but believe me that it does happen.
"This is my blog, and these are my rules."
Then why is it called the "Group News Blog"?
If you start a conversation, clearly displaying a strong point of view, then those views are tied to you whether they are yours or not.
And you should know: in this crazy world, there are no safe places.
Cries of "I can take my ball home and not play anymore anytime I want" doesn't reflect well on you. You can do better than that.
And yes, while Steve did ban people, it wasn't because they disagreed with him or his proxies. Or even for being obnoxious. Dear old "Bloomie" (or was it "Blo-me"?) is a perfect case in point.
Moonglum --
Strike One.
I'm not kidding around. I'm tired of you making personal attacks on me. Your comment above was full of them, from psychological analysis of who I am, to questioning my integrity.
Stop it.
You are free to attack what I say on policy grounds all day long and I won't say a word. Make it personal, that is, attack me personally, and you have only three tries to get it right. You have just used up one of them.
Argue with me about it, you get a called Second Strike and are banned for one week.
A Third Strike will get you banned from GNB. That you were associated with Steve since a long ways back, isn't going to cut it. Writing my co-bloggers isn't going to cut it. This is the way it is going to be.
I realize some people are not able to take a Warning and just accept it. If you find yourself arguing and tempted to press the Publish button -- which will get you banned for a week and on the bubble of being banned for good -- remember this is why I used a baseball methaphor... arguing strikes with the umpire WILL get you tossed.
Anyone who seriously thinks moonglum doesn't regularly engage in personal attacks on me should go back and read his comments. This thread alone is filled with them.
Everyone --
There are not going to be personal attacks on people on this blog. That's it.
Don't do it. Don't test me. If I have to ban long-time people and piss off a lot of people over it, so be it. THERE ARE NOT GOING TO BE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THIS BLOG.
If you are someone who desperately needs to make personal attacks, go somewhere else. This blog is no longer for you.
ceabaird -
I'm not banning anyone for disagreeing with me. Disagree with me all day long. I could care less.
Tell me I'm STUPID, that I'm an IDIOT. Tell me I'm fucked up, or that I'm an authoritarian asshole. Call me a liar (question my integrity.) That I wrote such-and-such because I'm obviously a liar and in the can. (Again, an attack on my integrity.) And so on. Those are the communications that will get people tossed.
You're welcome to think anything you want about me. I think a lot of things about a lot of people myself. But I don't use my position to say, "so and so is a fucking asshole who couldn't find the truth if you spotted him the two "t"s and the h." The second someone turns their policy disagreement with me, with any other blogger, or with any other commentator, into a personal attack, they're done.
This is not Daily Kos. And I am no longer tolerating attacks on people.
As to why it's called Group News Blog, it's because that's what I registered the domain name as. I felt it honored the past, but spoke to the future. Our bloggers post pretty much as they see fit. We ask them to try and get the spelling and grammar right -- that's a professional thing -- but not all of them even do that. Much of what we do is done by consensus. But not everything.
Having people not attack each other on the blog... seriously, this is just how it's going to be. There are literally hundreds of thousands of blogs people can go to if they feel the need to interact on the web and attack other people. This is simply no longer one of them.
Wow.
I looked, and the only place I saw "Liar" was just above in your comment. I think your "Daily Kos" comment is off base.
I would have picked a blog that engages in nothing but ad hominem attacks: Taylor Marsh, No Quarter, etc. They routinely ban people and delete comments. And continually piss from a great height on DKos.
DKos has over 150,000 people commenting daily, and if you think in a population like that, you're not gonna get some loons (e.g. Susan) you're dreaming. As enthusiastic as the DKos blog is for Obama, they have quite a few recommended posts positive for, and supporting, Hillary supporters.
But that's not what this is about. I think pretty much everyone here said that they agreed that what Obama said was stupid, and wrong. But then you pulled what you accused a lot of people in this thread of doing: You decided that you knew what Obama's position was on this:
He issues an apology. An obviously insincere apology at that, one in which he makes zero commitment to changing his behavior, excusing it as a “bad habit” and whamo, he's off the hook. Not to mention way too few liberal blogs calling him on this obviously sexist bullshit.
(Incidentally, note that Obama didn't even have the ovaries to call the reporter directly. He called her voice mail, which is what you do when you want to make sure your “apology” sounds totally sincere on her tape, leaving her the tape to play for everyone as proof of “like totally” how sincere you are, and most important, making certain you don't have to confront in any way the woman whom you demeaned, overlooked, and made less than, her male counterparts. Don't actually deal with the issue; this way, you can keep your “bad habit.”)
Calling Obama out on this is great. And it weirded me out. Pointing out how unacceptable this behavior is, also great. Saying that an apology, all by itself, isn't enough - change is, also great.
Deciding that you know what his motives and thoughts are on this -- wrong, dead wrong. Especially since this seems to go against his persona and personality as we've seen it so far.
This is what people responded to.
Calling out people in public on this thread, as you've done, doesn't look good. Even friends call each other "idiot" from time to time. Especially when they feel their friend needs it. Because they're friends.
OTD -
The only part of what you had to say on which I'll comment is the Cult part of the Scientology article.
It was driven by Scientology's practice of lawsuits against organizations and people who call their Church a cult.
I MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW DEALING WITH DEFAMATION. I won't get into the details or backstory of how on-line defamation law works, but I had what I considered at the time a good understanding of the law as it applied to us. As it turns out, I'd missed one law which had been passed, which changed everything, and let me as GNB's owner, off the hook for everything our commentator's say.
I (and my co-bloggers) still have to not call Scientology a cult. I am still liable for what they say and what I say. But I am not liable for what YOU say.
YOU are liable for what you say. I am only liable for cooperating with valid Court orders such as providing IP addresses, your user names and comments, and so on, to the extent we maintain them.
It was a mistake on my part, but one made from an understandable position of not wanting to get sued -- and I've personally watched them and similar organizations sue people and small media blogs our size and much smaller, for much less.
Next time we do a story on Scientology, there will be a sidebar linking back to the original story and EFF, which explains the actual law. We bloggers still have to NOT call them a cult, as GNB can be sued for what we say. But you folks can say whatever you want -- as it is your personal risk to do and say as you want. If Scientology wants to sue you for defaming them, well, it can.
Hope that clears that up. It was a mistake on my part, but an honest one. I regret the error.
ceabaird,
I can't stand Taylor Marsh.
Used to be a good site. Now it's the fucking cult of Clinton. Same thing with No Quarter. They suckered me in -- I didn't know who they were, 'cause I'm not well-read that way -- during the cult fiasco, and asked to reprint my cult piece. I said sure, because back then, I just let everyone reprint anything from any blogger on request. (Now, not so much.)
As you might imagine, when my piece hit No Quarter, the shit truly hit the fan. Yes, I got played.
So yeah, I can't stand either site. The level of vitriol dripping from the both is past offensive.
I picked Daily Kos simply because it's SO big that everyone knows it. No other reason. I agree with you there are much larger attacks.
Violent words hurt. If a friend calls me idiot in private, that's one thing. There were a lot of people, frankly, whom I thought were my friends, before the cult incident. But that didn't stop them from piling on to what I experience as a mugging. A brutal, violent, mugging.
It had real world consequences. I think I posted maybe once or twice in the next month. Got attacked each time, too. By the same four or five people. One of whom, as I've said, still attacks me to this day, at least once a week over that piece. Uses it to make repeated personal attacks.
Sure, I consider the source and all. But the people involved in the cult mugging, many of them were people I did consider friends, wrongly as it turned out. Friends don't attack you when you screw up. Friends don't beat the hell out of you. Friends remember there is a real person there, who gives six to eight hours a day to make this opportunity even possible, and thousands of dollars of their own money. (Yes, we're doing our first fund-raiser in July at our one-year mark, although perhaps, this isn't the best time to mention it. *laughs*)
I got very clear who my friends were. They were few and far between.
I understand why Digby closed her comments.
Words hurt. They hurt a lot. I'm tired of being beat up in these threads. I'm tired of people who have no clue who I am, taking cheap shots at me. I'm tired of my progressive partners, sitting back not attacking my arguments, but attacking me.
And I'm just not going to take it anymore.
If someone is genuinely my friend, of course they can point out to me when I've screwed up. Hell, anyone can point out when I've screwed up. I don't have a problem with that.
My problem is when people call me names when telling me I've screwed up, tell me I'm an asshole or fucked up or an idiot. Or only someone with no integrity could such and such. Or when people do this to other commentators whom they disagree with. That's what I'm no longer willing to put up with.
"As it turns out, I'd missed one law which had been passed, which changed everything, and let me as GNB's owner, off the hook for everything our commentator's say."
Glad you're now aware of that legal precedent. It ranks with Net Neutrality (not a law ... yet) as a key concept that any Web site owner should be aware of. I'm also glad you're putting up the EFF link, so more people will be aware of the law.
"YOU are liable for what you say. I am only liable for cooperating with valid Court orders such as providing IP addresses, your user names and comments, and so on, to the extent we maintain them."
These days, it's also good practice for a political blog that respects user privacy (i.e. a liberal or progressive one ) to purge its IP logs on a regular basis. Things may get better under President Obama and a Dem majority Congress, but if Haloscan allows you to purge the records, better safe ...
I didn't expect any response to the rest of my comment. Just food for thought for you and the GNB's co-owners. Have a good weekend.
We can't actually purge the IP logs. They're part of HaloScan, our commenting system.
Something for people to know. So long as we maintain copies of people's comments -- and we maintain them indefinitely, as does HaloScan, we have a copy of your UserName, and your IP address. At some point -- I guess I'll do this along with writing up the Three Strikes thing after Austin once all of the Masthead bloggers have sat down and hashed it out in person; I'm not going to go into Hubris Sonic's threads, for example, and go looking for people. I'm not going into any threads and go looking for people. This isn't some vendetta or holy mission on my part -- I'll also put up a Privacy Page along with our Terms Of Service.
In theory, we could scrub OUR copy of people's comments of the IP address, after a certain time. Let me talk that over with everyone else, see if they think it's a good idea. I think you're probably right; we should do it on our copy of the records we maintain. Now it doesn't change anything -- HaloScan still keeps the IP record, and the Court could still order HaloScan to release the record directly. Worse, we'd likely not even know of the request. Still, it's worth doing I think.
Good idea. Let me run it by everyone, see what the group thinks, and if they agree, I'll have someone write a program to process our log files and do this. *smiles*
One mistake in what you just said (and you've said it twice, which is why I'm correcting it.) You talked about GNB's co-owners.
No. I own Group News Blog outright. It is a sole proprietorship. I'm likely going to convert it to an LLC in 2009, but right now I simply don't have enough assets to protect to make it worth the trouble. *smiles*
That I own GNB, isn't to say if there's ever a profit, it wouldn't be shared appropriately. *smiles* The details of those conversations are still being worked on; right now we're losing money every month and I expect that to continue for quite a while. But the ownership is straight-forward.
One step at a time. We've not even been open a full year yet (July 1.) We're not even to June 2 yet, which of course, is popping up for each of us over and over again as we get closer. *sighs*
*breathes*
Hope you have a good weekend as well. It's 80 degrees here in Puget Sound, and they say it will hit 90 in spots. First time this year it's got to this point.
Well ok, "sweetie", I guess we'll hear about that later. 
*rolley eyes*
jesse. if you are going to scrub ip adress make sure its clearly writen policy beforhand..i scrubing is a clearly spelled out plicy you will be much safer....you could be liable if it isn't a PUBLIC policy.
I relize my style is problably as confrontational as yours, and could be seen as an attack, its more of an attempt to open eyes...in an online world perceptions are reality...your actions leave a difinate impresion of nonnutrality.a good example is how the "i wont vote for" cooments are handled..when they where targeted at clinton you wrote a long artical (take my ball home thread)on how the obama supporters wher not true democrats and had better fall in line.
as hillary supporters have been pushing that idea lately you wrote a long artical on how for the good of the party obama HAD to choose her as VP so he didn't lose her voters, it may have not been your intention but it came accross as obmam supporters you better fall in line, oh and we need to bend over backwards to appise the hillary supporters.
while it may not have been your intention, this gives the perception of a bias and doubble standared on your part, all we are asking is that acknoladge that.
Agian my stlye is agressive, combined witha nasty day at work, i probably unfairly unloaded on you, i deserve this strike, mea coulpa.
On the other hand, at the risk ofa second strike, I do not back off of what I said about maggie in LTG's thread, she posted a falsehood laden attack on Obama and his supporters in what should have been a feel good pro obama thread (edwards finaly endorsed)...to me that is trollish behavior, the only out come of that post would be a pie fight. She must have know the reaction she would get you act like a troll and I will treat you like one.are far more apropriate place for her comments would have been the west verginia results thread or better yet the sweetie thread it would have been actualy on topic, I would have disagreed with her premis, pointed out hte false hoods, but not seen the post as a attack....in hte obama edwards thread it could only be seen as an attempt at starting a pie fight.
why do i bring this up...back to perception. Some of the more enthusiastic obama supporters have been at the reciving end of strikes(some of us, like myself desirved it) but the clinton supporters, even when clearly breaking the rules get a free pass..perhapse you didn't notice it, but in the end it adds to the PERCEPTION of a doubble standard, it adds to the PERCEPTION of a bias. that is an issue.
oh and i have a peral script built to pull ip address out of logs laying around somewhere. drop me a line if you want it
Land sakes, it looks like the first victim of "Sweetiegate"...is me.
Well, I shan't kick up a fuss, Jesse. As you say, your place, your rules, and I respect that. I don't happen to think my admittedly snide reference to Maggie in my last post was an "attack", but I won't argue the point.
The problem with something like "Sweetiegate", IMO, is the almost ridiculously out of whack attention paid to something that's nothing more than a mere gaff while out-and-out disaster is hovering on the horizon. Ironically, I don't much care for Obama. As I've said here before, I wish I liked and/or trusted him a lot more than I do. I'm still angry at him for his canoodling with that self-loathing piece of filth Donnie McClurkin. But to me, this election is, unfortunately, entirely about the usual Lesser of Evils choice, and Obama's campaign has been far less destructive than Hillary's, even with the not inconsiderable missteps he's made. Let's face it: Comparing his record to the Clintons' is like comparing some teenager shoplifting gum to a James Bond villain.
Yes, "sweetie" is sexist, but even then, there are levels of varying degrees when it comes to this sort of thing, and I'm sorry, but "sweetie" just doesn't happen to strike me as the most vicious hate-mongering you're ever going to see. And all this fuss while your country is literally falling apart. The term "political correctness" actually meant something before it was highjacked by the right, and I think we're seeing it at work here.
All that said, I'll try to avoid snarling at other posters here in the future.
John D. & moonglum --
Thanks to both of you for taking your Strikes straight up. Well done.
I don't want to issue Second Strikes to anyone.
The intent here isn't to give me permission to go around being some kind of top-dog jerk. It's to set up an understood structure to stop stuff which is clearly over an understood line. It will give people a cleaner space in which to work, which is a good thing for everyone.
At some point... and it may not be a number of days, weeks or months ...but at some point, the count will get reset on people, just like in any ballgame. I picked the metaphor with care. *smiles*
As for Maggie, moonglum. I didn't give you a strike on her. You got yours strictly for your interactions with me. The instruction to you is -- and to everyone -- don't make personal attacks. Separate your attacks on policy, from people.
You may disagree with what I say all week long, no problem. You can even say, politely, that you think I'm biased in how I'm reporting something. That's a legitimate potential complaint. But question my integrity -- call me a liar about something, even implicitly, and we've got a problem. Or call me names? Same thing goes. I'm just using myself as an example, since I'm a big target. Obviously, the same rules apply to targeting any other blogger or commenter.
The "take my ball home" thread back last fall, I've already acknowledged -- above, somewhere in this thread, actually -- is an example of a mistake in style. It was confrontational in a way I would no longer write towards anyone on the blog. It hurt people, and is precisely the kind of writing that if I were to use now, I'd call a Strike on myself. *laughs*
Got to go. Good weekend everyone.
"jesse. if you are going to scrub ip adress make sure its clearly writen policy beforhand..i scrubing is a clearly spelled out plicy you will be much safer....you could be liable if it isn't a PUBLIC policy."
Abso-fraking-lutely. Making a public statement of the data retention policy not only inspires confidence in your community and gives you an SOP to follow, but can also save you a world of grief if someone comes knocking with a nuisance subpoena. They try to pull that crap, you show them the EFF link for the law that shields you, you show them the privacy policy that shields your users, and tell them to go fuck themselves on anything that's covered.
And don't be afraid to discuss the issue with Haloscan. The more that customers like you make privacy a priority, the more responsive they'll be.
Jesse I think you are very wrong when you claim that more people have benefited from sexism than racism. In that case you might as well say that sexism is more important than racism. You can believe that if you want to but I think you are clearly wrong and your opinion is uninformed
Commenting by HaloScan
