Hey! I think I know that guy!

I'd agree that there's a fair amount of sexism being thrown at Hillary, though I think it's blown far out of proportion. But setting that aside, what "tremendous unfairness" are you talking about? (Since you say that only some of it is ugly, hysterical, or sexist.)

I'd disagree with "everyone who makes it to the top is a monster." Internationally there are several prominent exceptions, but even domestically this time around, Obama isn't a monster; he's refreshingly sane, rational, and decent. That's just why he's so dangerous.

Yes, I especially like the way he sanely, decently and rationally said he would bomb Pakistan.

I haven't seen any examples of people blowing the sexism "out of proportion." But I have seen plenty of sexism. It's a shame that, of all the things to criticize Hillary for, so many people decide to make it about her gender.

This is scary. LadyVetinari is reading my mind and transcribing my thoughts. And I am not Vimes!

LadyVetinari, I don't know that Obama said he would bomb Pakistan. I think he was saying that he would bomb Bin Laden & Co even if they are in Pakistan. Of course, it might amount to much the same thing since there always seems to be "collateral damage".

John Caruso, do you mean that Obama is more dangerous than Hillary or John McCain and, if so (or not), how so (or not) and to (for) whom is he so (or not so) dangerous?

cemmcs - What was really obscene about Obama's comment about bombing the tribal areas if he had intelligence at that time was that the US had actually been doing that. Several times they had bombed the tribal areas when the Pakistanis had demurred and had mainly succeeded in killing innocents. Obama I am sure was aware of this and given that he seems to be reasonably intelligent the main purpose of the comment it seems was to burnish his macho credentials. Which brings us back to Jonathan's point.

You "hate" HRC. She is a "monster". Apparently she has killed many babies and eaten many puppies to get where she is?
No. How about a life of public service? You decry all kinds of injustices on this blog but here you are displaying the worst kind of behavior - toward someone who's done nothing more wrong than run hard to be our next President. She hasn't hurt anyone, nor damaged any party.
It's assfaces like yourself who so willingly buy into the media's narrative when it's against someone you feel threatened or challenged by. I don't see you taking the storyline so easily any other fucking time when I come to enjoy your blog. Only when it's directed against HRC...hmmmm...Isn't there a word for someone with an irrational hatred of a female?
Why don't you go suck on the Big Orange Schlong for a while and just get the TP's straight?
Oh well, I guess it's just another fauxgressrive blog I will delete from my Favorites.

cemmcs: Yes, I mean he's more dangerous than the other two presidential candidates, because by virtue of his sane, rational decency, he'll be that much more effective than them at selling policies that differ only marginally (and only within the narrow frame of the mainstream). And when the only hope for the future is a radical departure from the past, that way lies disaster.

darrelplant: I don't think it's that sexism is just one reason that people choose to deride Clinton, I think it's pretty much the only reason most people have to dislike her.

This statement was a real jaw-dropper for me. Do you really like HRC so much (or at least find her so unobjectionable) that you can't imagine how many people might disagree, short of a secret hatred for her gender?

You "hate" HRC. She is a "monster". Apparently she has killed many babies and eaten many puppies to get where she is?

To my knowledge she hasn't eaten any puppies. But to get where she is she certainly has helped kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, both as First Lady and by her support for the invasion of Iraq. She's also contributed significantly to killing about a thousand Palestinian children. Plus many, many other children in many, many other countries.

Empty, I do not support or defend what Obama said. I do not endorse his candidacy nor do I intend to vote for him. I only questioned if he had actually said he would bomb Pakistan. Maybe I am just quibbling.

John Caruso, if "the only hope for the future is a radical departure from the past", Obama might be the least dangerous of the three. If there is going to be a radical departure from the past, it's not going to originate with the President (whoever that may be). It's going to come from from a people's movement and Obama might be the one of the three least likely to fight it. As for the argument that he'll be "more effective than them at selling policies that differ only marginally", that might be true but only slightly more effective and not effective enough to stop a people's movement if it is going to come. What's more, everybody knows Hillary and McCain represent status quo but not everybody knows that Obama does as well. It's possible that his election could inspire a demand for change even if that's not what he wants.

I had to give up puppy-eating because it was leaving me too little time for kitten-juggling.

Vote for Hillary, save Obama from becoming a monster.

The closest we had to a completely non-monstrous president in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter, and of course he paid a political price, both in terms of losing the 1980 election and his reputation through most of the 80s.

Otherwise, I agree with Caruso, both about the exceptions and Obama's peculiar position, insofar as so many people(who should know better) have projected so much of their aspirations, and yes, hopes upon him.

A random thought occurs to me, regarding Carter viz-a-vis Junior: If a more moral man, relatively speaking, feels a compunction towards penance that he expresses by building homes for poor folks, and if science can figure out how to instill a similar (and scale-appropriate) psychic mechanism in "43", than as long as Junior lives to be 170 or so, hale and hearty all the while, we may well solve global homelessness.

So, who do you wanna be ruled by? Nobody? Find another species. Non-monstrous rulers? Try small countries (city-state like) and a history of community and social decency. The rest: benign or vile monsters. It's a tradition. Enjoy.

Any guesses on how many times corner stone has ever actually read this blog? And if the answer is surprising large, it would suggest a lack of reading comprehension skills.

That last paragraph of yours also explains why people think we have a vibrant democracy where issues are fully and frankly discussed. There's a lot of screeching about Clinton because she put her foot in her mouth with the RFK comment, and people imagine this is what John Stuart Mill was talking about.

Issues are "fully and frankly discussed" much more so in Germany today than in the USA. For someone like me, who escaped from Hitler's Austria as a child in 1938,"what a revoltin' development."
Where did the vibrancy in our democracy go? Or, was it always an illusion, as in "The Wizard of Oz?"
Probably.

I'm voting for Michael Meyer.

I'm voting for Michael Meyer.

Hey, that dude's killed a ton of people too. But at least he confines it to Halloween and no other day of the year.

I agree about Hillary's comment. It wasn't even foot in the mouth. It was her using RFK's assassination as a mnemonic of when the primary used to be, and anyone seeing it as a call for killing is being silly.

But writing from Venezuela, I do want to comment on Obama -- he has made two speeches supporting crackdowns on this country's government. Whether that's justified or not, his statement that Colombia's military has the right to chase terrorists across borders shows that he, Obama, is a true believer in the Bush Doctrine.

It would be interesting if Hugo Chavez bought into that ideology and went after Luis Posada Carriles in Miami.

This statement was a real jaw-dropper for me. Do you really like HRC so much...

Right, right, "...why don't I just marry her?"

Did you really not bother to read the rest of that paragraph where I said that most people probably weren't aware of the "perfectly reasonable excuses" not to want her as president? Does that really sound to you like I voted for her? Or are you just knee-jerking?

My point was that I think sexism is the largest component of most peoples' dislike of Clinton. That and her association with Bill. There are lots of reasons not to trust or like her policies (for that matter, I'm not completely on board with Obama's, either) but most voters don't have any idea about them.

darrelplant: Right, right, "...why don't I just marry her?"

You're misreading me—I meant no offense. It was a straight question based on your full statement, which implied that either 1) people have solid, considered, policy-based reasons to disagree with HRC, or 2) they're sexists. You apparently see little middle ground where someone might dislike her for any number of non-sexist reasons—and that implies that you either like her yourself or at least can't see anything particularly objectionable about her. That's why I asked the question.

It's perfectly possible to dislike HRC and have not a clue about what her policies are without being a sexist, just as it's possible to dislike any other candidate, male or female, on similar shallow grounds. Judging candidates based on their looks, their height, their voice, how they make you feel, whether or not they wear a flag pin, or a thousand other trivialities is practically the national pastime. In HRC's case, though, the rule often seems to be that any dismissal has to be suitably justified or else it's really just thinly-veiled sexism (witness Corner Stone's ravings above). I've just never seen anyone assert it as strongly as you did.

cemmcs: ...it's not going to originate with the President (whoever that may be). It's going to come from from a people's movement...

Yeah, completely agreed. But what I'm saying is that it's bloody unlikely there's going to be any people's movement at all if Obama's elected, since he's the perfect salesman for the pro-corporate, neoliberal policies that have taken us to the brink of doom in the first place. Any Democrat would pacify the will for genuine change (as Bill Clinton demonstrated so well), but Obama most of all. I'd be overjoyed if it didn't play out that way, but we have mountains of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Posted 11:38: WHEN YOU MAKE A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL, you might be better off with the boogyman for a customer rep.

John Caruso: The People's Movment has already begun, its just that YOU're in it and cannot see the forest for the trees. (Obama ain't it, neither, nor will be)

Caruso - your history is way off. There were citizens' movements during the Clinton years - the WTO was beaten down in Seattle in 1999. By contrast, what has there been under Bush? Yes, millions have marched, but there's nothing like being ignored to kill a citizens' movement. People always say "just wait til it gets worse, then The People will rise up!" but the reality isn't so simple.

The closest we had to a completely non-monstrous president in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter, and of course he paid a political price, both in terms of losing the 1980 election and his reputation through most of the 80s.

Oddly, he might have avoided all this by taking a moral stand against torture by the Shah of Iran. But I get the impression he didn't know exactly what advice the CIA was giving our ally.

not to belabor this too much, but caruso, i wish you were right. problem is, you're not. citizens' movements were much more cohesive, creative and active under clinton than under bush. other than a brief spurt of creative action against the iraq war in early 2003, there hasn't been any significant protest against bush. quite the contrary from clinton.

and while he may not have said he acceeded to the popular will, nine years later, the WTO still doesn't have a new agreement, the ideas of microcredit and fair trade have taken over for generalized neoliberalism, and the u.s. has, voluntarily or not, given up its role as agenda-setter on trade. i think seattle was a victory. by contrast, the limited, quickly worn out anti-war movement has been a disaster. i'm with jonathan in terms of asking "god"'s forgiveness on my failures in that movement.

i am not going to theorize more about why people organized better under clinton, maybe it was the sense of being listened to, maybe it was disappointment with clinton (nobody's been disappointed with bush), maybe it was the burst of 90s wealth that gave people more leisure time, maybe who knows, plenty of theories, all i know is that the movements then were much more solid than now.

John Caruso

Mountains of evidence? What people's movement was going strong in the 80s and early 90s which you think Clinton's Presidency managed to undercut?

Your theory that Obama as President would be more dangerous than Hillary or McCain is plausible but it's just theory.

YOU last 3 posters HAVE proved my point---mass movements may come and go, they may be listened to or not by power, but as of 2004, may I point, NOBODY BUT NOBODY ignors the blogs anymore, nobody.

NOBODY BUT NOBODY ignors the blogs anymore, nobody.

you're just shilling for votes aren't you

empty: EXACTLY

John Caruso 1:26: EXACTLY

When Jon mentioned legitimate vs illegitimate criticism, this is the first thing that came to mind about the Clintons:

From 1998 at the height of the impeachment hysteria:
But last Thursday night, Democrat David Skaggs of Colorado took the floor and— in a speech no one bothered to report— all but called for Clinton's impeachment for the Iraq attack. "President Clinton acted in violation of the Constitution in ordering these attacks without authority of Congress," the retiring Democrat and defender of Clinton against Ken Starr said, stating the painfully obvious and blasting his House colleagues for "default[ing] on our responsibility . . . to insist" on accepting their prescribed legal role.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9851,213963,3103,1.html

Since Obama seems sure to win the nomination (and the GOP is screwed in the general election) must you conclude Obama is a monster?

It's perfectly possible to dislike HRC and have not a clue about what her policies are without being a sexist, just as it's possible to dislike any other candidate, male or female, on similar shallow grounds.

A lot of things are possible, but not very likely. If someone passionately hates Hillary on shallow grounds, the chances of this dislike having nothing whatsoever to do with gender are slim. Similarly, if someone passionately hates Obama on shallow grounds, the chances of this dislike having nothing whatsoever to do with race are slim. Somebody who hates Hillary Clinton but doesn't really know much about her actual track record is probably being influenced by sexism to some degree.

empty: *raises eyebrow*

If someone passionately hates Hillary on shallow grounds, the chances of this dislike having nothing whatsoever to do with gender are slim.

If that's your presumption, it's not surprising that you'd perceive it so frequently. Even so, your statement contains what I think is a common fallacy: that disliking Hillary (or anyone) for any gender-specific reason is inherently sexist. For instance, a man's not likely to wear a skirt, but there's nothing necessarily sexist about disliking Hillary because you think she looks bad in a skirt (laughably shallow, yes; sexist, no). Any more than it'd necessarily be sexist to dislike a male politician because you think he looks bad in a tuxedo. Now, if you're really thinking WOMEN SOMETIMES WEAR SKIRTS AND ARE INFERIOR TO MEN AND I NEVER WANT ONE TO BE PRESIDENT, then ok, you're a sexist.

BTW, if you really hadn't seen any examples of anyone blowing the sexism out of proportion, you should take a look at Corner Stone's comment above which equates Jon's use of gender-neutral language like "hate" and "monster" with some deep-seated sexist urge.

Even so, your statement contains what I think is a common fallacy: that disliking Hillary (or anyone) for any gender-specific reason is inherently sexist.

No, I think disliking someone for most gender-specific reasons is probably sexist in motive, and (more importantly) often sexist in effect. Sexism isn't just about the purity or lack thereof of people's intentions. It's also about effects, like the effect on public discourse of repeated nasty sexual or violent slurs against the sole major female candidate.

In any case: disliking a female politician for looking bad in a skirt isn't, and won't be for a long time, the same as disliking a male politician for looking bad in a tux. The cultural importance of good looks for females, more so than for males, is simply too great for that. What are the odds that this hypothetical person's dislike is unaffected by this cultural bias? Not very high.

And if you have to point to a single hit-and-run blog commenter for an example of blowing sexism out of proportion...well, that speaks for itself. Especially since Corner Stone's major point was not that Mr. Schwartz is sexist but that he is ungrateful for our wonderful public servants who sacrifice so much for the opportunity to pillage us more efficiently.

Any guesses as to how many times David Johnson has fucked his mother?
On to other things,
"Yes they kill people, they stack them up like cord wood in a secret room in Clinton's presidential library.
This is a fact, how do I know?
I have so many sources I’ll just list a few:

Freerepublic.com, Gene Robinson, Dana Milbank, Mo Dowd, Randi Rhodes, Kos,
Move on, Olberman, Buzzflash, Democratic Underground, Bob Herbert, etc. - Whew!

You might notice that all but one of these sources are democrats, so that should be proof enough. "
From Bartcop.
Suck it bitches.

Will Hillary fight for EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK? (I would concider that a plus, but I'm think George will leave it "no pay for ANY work" and I guess that's about as level a playing field as anyone can get)

And if you have to point to a single hit-and-run blog commenter for an example of blowing sexism out of proportion...well, that speaks for itself.

No, what speaks for itself is the fact that the phenomenon you'd portrayed as nonexistent is actually so common that it occurred within a few comments of you saying you'd never seen it, and in particularly egregious fashion to boot. I was curious how you'd respond to such a dramatic counterexample, and I'm disappointed to see you try to downplay it and brush it off—but it does make it clear that there's not much to be gained by hashing this out further.

I am amazed that posters on a progressive blog come up blank when it comes to Hillary's moral failures. NAFTA, endorsed by both Clintons, hallowed out the Mexican economy, increasing poverty and ensuring a wave of illegal immigration. The economists under her husband anticipated this effect, though they lied about it publicly. She is responsible for the deaths resulting from immigration attempts, as well as for the increased success organized crime gained in Mexico as the economy went down the tubes. (Not alone responsible, but who on Earth is alone responsible for any governmental policy?) People, that's just one example: this isn't remotely hard.

darrelplant's post, above, is either crassly insulting or pathetically ignorant, claiming, as it does, that we'd have to harp on gender to dislike someone who did something so obviously banally evil. Indeed, his post is the epitome of sexism: because of her gender, Clinton cannot be subjected to the moral calculations we would employ for men. After all, is the implication of his post, men alone are capable of the volition needed to even take action with moral implications. This is obviously not what the post said, but it is the only logical conclusion drawable from its absurd premise.

Both Obama and Clinton are, morally speaking, wretched human beings that I'd rather not share a species with. Their "virtue" -- and no, I'm not using the term literally -- is that they are likely to cause less harm than McCain. Voting for them is like preferring to roll about in bird droppings instead of aqua regia: it's hardly an endorsement of the practice, but a necessity in the face of an insane choice.

No One of Consequence: Write in a name YOU can trust--YOUR OWN. (when its the devil, a witch, or a corporate lawyer, then yes, insane) There are millions of people on the Net, surely YOU can find one that YOU could write in with good conscience. Thinking WE are hostage to the 2 parties IS the major problem with our elections (along with dead people voting, rigged machines, box stuffing, Absentee ballots, gerrymandering)

I was curious how you'd respond to such a dramatic counterexample, and I'm disappointed to see you try to downplay it and brush it off

You really saw that as a dramatic counterexample? I didn't. I read Corner Stone's comment about sexism as an aside, and his main point was (I believed) that Hillary Clinton was awesome and Jonathan Schwartz was a "fauxgressive."

No, what speaks for itself is the fact that the phenomenon you'd portrayed as nonexistent is actually so common that it occurred within a few comments of you saying you'd never seen it, and in particularly egregious fashion to boot.

If it occurred shortly after I said that--and I didn't see the comment the same way you did--then how does that demonstrate that it's common> Doesn't it simply demonstrate that you'll get people saying anything on the Internet?