You don't know me, either. But y'all have slandered me as a racist hate-speaker and mocked me as a starry-eyed fanboy for Hillary.
I have not been so quick to jump to any such conclusions about you and Steve.
I have merely defended myself against scurrilous accusations and pointed out that Steve's post that properly criticized vile racism whitewashed the clear and present problem of misogyny, because, y'know, it did.
I do see you folks succumbing to the prevailing winds that see any strong criticism of Obama as being an act of Klan-inspired party disloyalty and fairly strong support of Hillary as being somehow suspicious and uncalled for. Past that, I don't presume to define you in the way you've taken it upon yourself to define me.
Frankly, I'd rather we all took a "free to me you and me" attitude, but when I'm maligned in public and when the palpable problem of misogyny is disregarded, I'm moved to speak up. I'm funny that way.
Vast Left: You don't know me. You don't know what color I am, what gender I am, what race I am.
But all will be revealed in a future post. Stay tuned.
Alrighty, then. In addition to being a hate-speaking racist, I'm now "deliberately... obtuse."
So, look at what you were shocked by:
1. A lot of people who frequent Corrente don't think highly of Obama's candidacy (the fact that they have substantive reasons for this isn't important)
2. A lot of people who frequent Corrente are pro-Hillary (ditto)
3. A lot of people who frequent Corrente think she's been shat on during this campaign
I can see how that would send anyone to the fainting couch!
Yes, in a few corners of the internets are people who are -- as you so kindly claim to allow us to be -- proud of Hillary. Apparently, in the new politics, only Obama fans are allowed to be partisans, people who can still be listened to if they aren't deeply invested in writing negatively about him. The fact that Lambert and I and some Corrente visitors dare criticize Obama and aren't part of the massive cross-party industry that tears Hillary down has rendered us beyond the pale in your eyes.
Now that I've hung up my political blogging shoes, to the best of my knowledge there is now one, and only one, Corrente Senior Fellow who is officially pro-Hillary, two who are pro-Obama, and the others are either undeclared or haven't re-affiliated since pledging support for John Edwards (who was the more-or-less consensus choice for Correntians).
It's farcical that you chide me for my debating tactics, when you consistently ignore my clearly and politely written rebuttals and belittle me with highly derogatory terms.
You're the one who:
a) Made it your business to slander me as a perpetrator of hate speech
b) Wrote a post that properly criticized racism but inaccurately and demeaningly whitewashed the clear and present problem of misogyny
It seems that today's definition of political correctness includes admiring Obama and badmouthing Hillary (and, by extension, being concerned about racism but not about misogyny).
Because I have failed at the mandated groupthink, I've renounced the bully pulpit that gave me 5,000 daily readers. That wasn't enough. I guess this is the "rehabilitation" phase.
VL:
I feel you're deliberately being obtuse, so I'll try again.
When I visited Corrente for the first time in a while, I was surprised to see that it seemed, to me, to be Obama sucks, and Hillary is our candidate, and she's been shat upon by the press/other candidates.
Certainly I have seen the misogyny in the so-called MSM, and yes I find it very awful. But that doesn't mean she has run a totally respectful campaign either. As I've tried to say, both sides can be criticised, you just seem to accept no criticism of HC, and that's just not fair.
Be a proud advocate of your candidate, that's fine, even be zealous, but to respond to my criticism of HC by saying "But Obama...!" is not debate.
And even tonight, in a post at Corrente that seemed to link back to me, there were some, at least one, who said they wouldn't vote for BO. That's just stupid. Just as in 2000 when a vote for Nader was a vote for GWB, today, a vote against a Dem is a vote for a Repub.
So I'm glad you're going to vote for BO, if he becomes the candidate. I would vote for HC in a heartbeat if it was her. I just don't think it will be.
Wow, this just gets curiouser and curiouser.
First, Steve freaks out over a post I wrote -- which indicated with considerable linky detail -- why I am seriously dismayed with Obama's candidacy but will vote for him anyway.
For my trouble, Steve accuses me of "hate speech." Then he follows up and says (without even the barest of cause or documentation) that I am guilty of the following: "Misrepresenting or blatantly mis-interpreting a candidate's speech and positions" and that that "is hate speech by virtue of its dishonesty."
In this post, he decides it's a healthy idea to do a bake-off of racism vs. misogyny, and he makes the unsupported and absurd claim that "no one in today's society, except for sociopaths, hates women. Yet there are still those in this country who hate black people."
I respond with links that amply demonstrate that woman-hate is alive and well (as, I note, is racism), and I'm greeted with the following straw men:
That I'm "attack(ing) the messenger." How? Where?
That I think Hillary (whom I've acknowledged was my least-favorite candidate when the campaign began) is "perfect," and that I treat her with "blind adoration."
Now, I've got The Sailor barking at me for supposedly interpreting Steve's post as an "attack" on Hillary. How, where do I say that?
I make the point that misogyny is (contra Steve's denial) a clear and present problem, and as usual I document with links, but none of that, or any aspect of rational analysis or discourse matters.
The fact that I've retired from political blogging rather than post unconstructively about the Democratic candidate means nothing. The fact I've never done anything remotely close to "hate speech" means nothing. The fact that I'm not remotely close to being a racist (which is the obvious implication of the "hate speech" claim) means nothing. The fact that I am a loyal Democrat means nothing.
I remember when the left represented the reality-based community. Those days are gone forever, over a long time ago. Oh, yeah.
Vast Left: I'm not sure why you chose to respond to SteveAudio's post as if it were an attack on Hillary.
As I understood the post it was about racism coming from racists and right-wing hypocrisy. (BTW, Mr Norman also has a "I wish Hillary had married O.J." line.)
How Steve's post translates to an attack on Hillary escapes me.
We've stated several times on this blog that Dem v. Dem attacks are bad for everybody, (and I mean the whole country, not just for Dem politics.)
And for the record neither SteveAudio nor I had Hillary or Obama as our first choices, (I can't speak for the rest of my co-bloggers.)
We've never engaged in epithets or misogyny in our posts, (besides, SA's wife and my GF actually rule the world, ya'll just haven't figured that out yet!)
I personally will get wholeheartedly behind whichever Dem gets the nomination. I won't vote for McCain, a 3rd party candidate or refuse to vote becwause my fweelings is huwt.
This election is just too damn important and how folks didn't keep their eye on that ball will always escape me.
For the 1st time in 8 years of bushco rule, the lies, evasions, invasions, death, destruction and pestilence that repubs have brought to America and the world can be halted.
And we're not going to get there by thinking that an attack on racism is an endorsement of misogyny.
Just my 2cents.
I'm sure Lambert has more, and you can attack the messenger all you want. Thing is, HRC's not perfect, there are plenty of things to criticize her about, and you guys don't seem to want to talk about that.
It all seems like blind adoration of one, raging dislike of the other. I don't see it as that black & white, sorry.
Lambert has more.
The Obama camp hasn't been trying to manipulate superdelegates?
How about threatening civil rights hero John Lewis with a primary challenger if he didn't knuckle under? How about spreading the meme that delegates are obligated (even though they're not) to vote for whoever won in their local primaries (but strangely not caring when Teddy K. and Bill Richardson endorsed Obama).
I agree, misogyny is terrible, and has been present in this campaign.
But that doesn't preclude me from thinking HRC isn't the best candidate, nor does it cause me to want to help and support her just because people are picking on her.
And now we'll start to really see the overt racism against Obama, starting with the odious Tony Blankley, dissected by the Sadly, No! crowd.
And I think some of her tactics and positions are deserving of reasoned criticism, including her attempt at manipulating the Super Delegates.
Seems to me that misogyny is alive and well.
In this campaign, I've seen so-called Democrats frequently trading in misogyny, in far more blatant and unmistakable ways than any manifestations of racism.
That's not to assess the relative roles of misogyny and racism in our culture. Both are sins that diminish our collective humanity, both persist, and both suck.
Commenting by HaloScan
