Monday, March 17, 2008

It's Not Because You're White, Geraldine.......

It’s because you’re irrelevant. I was going to say stupid, but thought it was unkind. When you were on the Democratic ticket to be our first female Vice President it had little to do with your qualifications, Ms. Ferraro. It was because you were a woman. I refuse to research this, my memory serves me pretty well. Part of the reason you and Mondale had such a rough time was the shenanigans involving the promised but delayed release of your husband’s tax returns. And once released they were hinky enough to cause serious damage. You were a token, and not a very helpful token, at that. Once the race was over and Reagan reelected, you tried a couple of times to win a Senate seat and never made it. And your problem in the tax return area ought to be instructive to Senator Clinton. The days of secretive politicians who want to gain the public trust are over. But for you, an old, irrelevant white woman, to claim reverse racism because your comments about Barack are offensive to everyone, except maybe Hillary and the Republicans, is absurd. Your timid feminism after the heavy lifting was mostly done, made you an almost daring but, in the end disappointing choice for a running mate for Mondale. Barbara Jordan would have been a far better choice. At least she would have won the VP debate with Pappy Bush.

23 comments:

Stella said...

Bravo! I well remember that election. But, Utah Savage, how come no one remembers Shirley Chisolm?

This is implicit sexism of the worse kind. Ferraro never released her tax returns, then blames her error on "reverse racism," as you so perfectly stated. Her comment makes women look weak when they seek excuses instead of standing strong to level the playing field.

As for me, I would have loved Gov. Ann Richards (I miss her terribly) or, currently Sen. Barbara Boxer. They don't blame their errors on their gender; they get out there, roll up their shirt sleeves, and do the job.

Great post: but that's nothing new. =)

Utah Savage said...

Stella, your a real grown-up woman, not a youngster as I had assumed. Well, shut me up! I loved Ann Richards, and when I think of Ann Richards, I also think of Molly Ivans who would have called Ferraro's comments, "Pure chicken shit!" I sent a letter to the Washington Post yesterday using that particular quote form Ivans and got censored. It was in reference to the pundits claiming that prostitution is a victimless crime.
So glad to see you back. I worried a little that I alienated you with my piece on Spitzer called Strange Nookie and The Little Brain. No one has even called me names for it. For a day I thought I'd lost my reader or lost my mind.

K McKiernan said...

Always the one to be in protest here... and it obviously comes down along fault lines.... who are you for, ladies, who are you for? Rhetorical... I know the answer.

I thought what Ferraro said was brave and true. The fact that she said so in a culture so afraid to say anything offensive to one group while bashing the other (women)... astounds me and gives me a reason to think maybe I am not alone. I felt relief to hear my opinion voiced.

I was too young to vote during the time of Mondale/Ferraro but do remember being deeply offended that the only real construction of Ferraro was Tits. As in "Fritz and Titz." And now, all these years later, no one can think of any issues she stood for? Sad and says a TON about our culture.

Back to Obama... he has had a ride, darlings... an easy ride because our still racist-even-as-we-pat-ourselves on-the-back-about-not-being- racist selves are so impressed that such a man is eloquent and articulate (do I have to point out how racist this even is?). Also, the media in its zest to prove itself not racist is doing a disservice by not holding Obama to any kind of standard other than: "he is the next JFK" and "boy, can't he motivate people." They have set him up to ultimately fail. In their zeal to ensure him the nomination, they have crippled him.

Mark my words... if he is the nominee we will lose. I will go on record every single day saying it. He will lose. And, even though I am for Hillary, it will break my heart.

Gov Ann Richards sure was a peach... how she could have lost to Bush and sent this whole world on the awful path it was headed on... is beyond me. Remarkable, strong woman!

K

Stella said...

Now I know I'm in great company. All blessings to Gov. Richards. I'll bet she's up there saying, "Damn it all, if I didn't tell you so about that little bastard."

I'm no youngster, Utah Savage: I intend to mature but never grow old. K, I never thought about the fact that if Richards hadn't lost the Texas election, we might not be hanging on for our economic lives, paying almost $110/barrel for oil (how much of that money is going into the Bush pockets), and spending 43 cents of every tax dollar on a war that approximately 20% support? And through this repressive maelstrom, how do we keep our nation free as our civil rights erode.

OK, sure, I'm just ranting. It's just my way of saying I like what you have to say, K. I live in trepidation thinking that we might end up having McBush for president. Certainly, the mainstream media has set Obama up for a fall.

If only more people had listened to Sen. Mike Gravel. I greatly admire his integrity. So, shall we start a "Boxer 2012" campaign?

Best to you both.

Vigilante said...

K McKiernan:

There are so many things could say to you (in a kindly way) but tonight I have ranted recklessly to the end of my short rope.

If you really feel that what "Ferraro said was brave and true", may I ask you what you would feel if I asked you what if Hillary were not a woman, would she be a primary contender? I mean, what does she have over Joe Biden in terms of experience and oratorical skill? (I'll wait for your answer).

The truth of it is that not since JFK have Americans elected a Senator with significant or long senatorial experience directly into the Presidency. JFK was exceptional. (You may not have been an adult at that time, but those in this room will back me up when I tell you his oratorical skills were extraordinary.) There's a reason for 'experienced' Senators not making good presidential candidates. It's called baggage and all of the Senatorial protagonists in this year's crop had plenty of suitcases, except Obama and Edwards. The Clintons have it in spades.

OTOH, look at all the 'fresh faces' who have won: Nixon (after 8 years in the wilderness), Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

It's the role of the effective upstart insurgent outsider to be charismatic, ambiguous, and non-wonkish. Overly specific promises can be fatal to second term aspirations. Not to put you down for missing this, of course, but I'll say it anyway: a sophisticated voter does not look for 3-point programs and dramatic promises. He or she looks for character, intellect, talents and gifts in a candidate. If you're alert you'll know it when you encounter it. I confess I missed it (badly) in the case of JFK. I confess I recognized it when I found it in RFK. And I confess I have found it in BHO.

If Barack Obama had decided to wait four years, I expect I would have voted enthusiastically for HRC. But we are still paying the unfathomable penalty for missing out on the better choice of 2000. I do not think I want my party or my country to settle for second best in 2008.

K McKiernan, I celebrate your participation in this room. Utah Savage's pages make for comfortable and protected conversation, a fittingly final daily destination for battle-scarred bloggers.

K McKiernan said...

Vigilante: You said, "He or she looks for character, intellect, talents and gifts in a candidate." I agree. And I find those traits in HRC.

I could write back point by point to what you wrote, but the bottom line is this. If Obama is the nominee, we will lose. I will not be happy about it, for like you in reverse, if HRC was not in it, I would be for Obama.

Read my other posts. He has been set up to fail. He will fail.

And with respects to your "turning the table on me" and presenting me with the rhetorical about face: gender question, um, its a moot point, for Hillary gets reamed daily due to her gender. There are countless rude, snide, misogynistic slogans/jokes/comments that abound every minute of every day. If we had even ONE single joke that referenced his race, people would be up in arms. Did you see the signs at one rally that said, "Iron my shirt"? Do you think people would have allowed signs that said to Obama, "Go eat some chicken"? Hell, no.

Its all too easy for you and others to attack her. Think about why.

J McKiernan said...

Vigilante...

You pretend to be respectful, and I bet you patted yourself on the back after churning out your responses to K's comments. You, however, were merely exhibiting thinly veiled contempt, and therefore I cannot even pretend to be respectful to you. So let me be honest: every last syllable you wrote is patronizing, latently sexist bullshit.

Are you kidding yourself when you imply that an educated person wouldn't know of JFK's oratorical prowess? Are you proud of yourself for lecturing her on being "alert"? Do you *really* "not mean to put her down" when you discuss your wizened views on what the "sophisticated" voter looks for (therein implying that K is not a member of said sophisticated voting contingency)? I mean, how old do you think she is, 12?

Perhaps your intentions were truly respectful, and that is all well and good. But to attempt to impart wisdom to someone you deem less mature and less informed than you are is entirely disrespectful, honorable though your intentions may be. The reason we converse with one another over Utah's wonderful blog is because we are all *informed* enough to be here sharing our views. We are all on equal ground here, and I don't appreciate anyone talking down to anyone else. We can repudiate statements and assertions all we want (and believe me, I will), but why can't we leave the smugness at the door? At the end of the day, we all know the score, and we all are looking for the same thing...

But enough of that for now...let's talk about the points you made...

Based on sophisticated voting habits as you describe them, I am assuming you voted for George W. Bush, correct? I mean, seeing as he was the "effective upstart insurgent outsider" and all. Were you impressed by his character, intellect, talent, and gifts? I doubt it.

Yet you were right...he was an upstart who won (by stealing the election, lest we forget, but won nonetheless). And that example exposes your argument for what it truly is: simple emotional appeal. When you say "sophisticated," you really mean "average joe who pays little attention." And when you say "character" and "talents" beat out "3-point programs," you are really saying that the gullible voters choose based on superficial emotional appeal. Obama is about the most emotionally-appealing candidate we've ever seen...because he is the best orator we've had since...well, JFK, probably. And Obama may be a great deal smarter than George W. Bush (obviously), but his *appeal* is not sophisticated in the slightest. It is purely emotional.

In reality, sophisticated voters look for things like the 3-point plans you disparage. Why? Because 3-point plans are sophisticated. I'm so sick of incredibly smart candidates losing because the American people feel so threatened by their intelligence. Al Gore and John Kerry were both about as smart as you can get--highly sophisticated, one might say--and yet they both lost to a man who could easily be categorized as functionally retarded. Sophistication loses elections, and that's why Barack is beating Hillary.

By the way, regarding your question about whether Hillary would be a contender if she were not a woman...WOW. You are deluding yourself something fierce.

Being a woman in politics is about as great a disadvantage as starting a relay race from the back bleachers. And it is simply because of Hillary's experience and uncommon power with "sophisticated" voters that she is in the place she is in. Does she have any more experience than Joe Biden? Hell, no. And hey, I love Joe Biden. But it's not like Hillary would be 'just another Biden' if she was a man...because no one votes for Joe Biden. He's just a unique case. More people vote for Dennis fucking Kucinich because Biden has a haircut that looks worse than Donald Trump's. He just simply isn't electable. If Hillary was a man, she would likely be a shoo-in, simply because the media...and bloggers like YOU...would sooner allow a man to be outspoken and tough, and to fight until the end. As it currently stands, she is a bitch who doesn't know when to quit, and she's denying us all our chance to rally around the next great 'sophisticated' leader. And the weird thing is, Obama IS sophisticated...every bit as sophisticated as Hillary. But to imply that the reasons people are attracted to him are sophisticated is just plain wrong.

Talk about ranting recklessly to the end of one's short rope. Usually I am happy just to make a few comments, but you shortened my rope when you patronized my wife, and cut it further still by doing so with ass-backwards logic.

Utah Savage said...

Wow! Now that's a great discussion group. I hope you all stay interested enough in my little pieces to keep talking. I wish we could get together in my living room, have a few drinks, smoke a little something and let it fly. I feel so incredibly privileged to have you reading me.

Vigilante said...

And your furniture? Utah, think about your furniture!

Vigilante said...

I appreciate Kay's response and admire Jay for rushing to his wife's defense. That has to be said, even though I scarcely believe she needs defending. She does defense (and offense) quite well enough on her own feet, thank you!

I do not feel that my major points have been addressed. I feel also like sort of like a proxy in that at least part of the response is addressed to some other demon(s). I am tempted to characterize Jay's response further, but will refrain out of concern for the furniture.

Alas, I do not have time this morning to comment further. I will say that if I did, I would concentrate on this portion of Jay's comment:

In reality, sophisticated voters look for things like the 3-point plans you disparage. Why? Because 3-point plans are sophisticated. I'm so sick of incredibly smart candidates losing because the American people feel so threatened by their intelligence. Al Gore and John Kerry were both about as smart as you can get--highly sophisticated, one might say--and yet they both lost to a man who could easily be categorized as functionally retarded. Sophistication loses elections, and that's why Barack is beating Hillary.

In this paragraph I find several nubs for discussion. If Stella returns, and if Utah has time, I urge examination of this paragraph.

Grace be upon all who read and consider my words...

J McKiernan said...

K does NOT need defending, that is surely true. But the fact remains that I am compelled to back her up whenever someone calls her into question in such a patronizing way. K and I actually have some disagreements as well (among them, I'm not sure Obama would *surely* lose to McCain), and we can get to more of those when the time comes. But just because she is fully capable of defending herself doesn't mean I will sit twiddling my thumbs when I see my *very* smart, *very* capable wife (she has such a complexly discerning mind that it amazes me and makes me wonder if all my supposedly well-founded opinions are wrong..usually she is right, I find, even when I disagree) receive a talking-to from someone posturing himself as having a higher intellect and greater depth of experience.

Anyway, the paragraph Vigilante (may I refer to you as Charles Bronson from now on?...with great winking admiration, of course...) italicized as 'in need of further discussion' is one of my favorites, since it simply the most obvious and blatantly true of all the paragraphs I ranted out. I am sure The Bronson and others will try to dissect it, and that's fine...the debate is on.

So, uh...that's all from me for now.

When exactly are we going to stop debating one another and start unifying behind a shared loathing of John 'Mad Max' McCain? Iraq lasting for a century, Bush tax cuts becoming permanent...on and on...THESE are the things we should be commiserating about over cocktails in Big Love country.

Boris said...

If I may comment: in here it looks to me like Hubby jumping to Ms. McK's defense just like Bubba jumping to Hillary's defense. Maybe a little over-protective? But true to the pattern.

K McKiernan said...

Just two individuals speaking their own minds. Both are allowed.

No one (who likes women at all) would expect me to sit by and keep my mouth shut, so why should we try to silence J?

Vigilante said...

LOL!

J McKiernan said...

Cute comment, Boris. But if Natasha posted a comment and then I blasted her for it, I bet you'd be the first one to rally to her defense.

Utah Savage said...

Well, y'all. This is great. Will somebody pass me the.....

I couldn't be happier to have met you all and introduced you to the K and J team. I wish Sitenoise were here. He is traveling to stay with his dying dad.

By the way, Stella, I too have always thought of myself as a socialist. The film The Lives of Others broke my socialist heart. It always seems to be that some strongman bastard gets the reigns and ruins it for the rest of us.

All of you and your fabulous sites are sources for me for up to the second political news and information. K and J tell me what movies to skip. Since I can't afford lemons I appreciate the reviews.

I'm a night owl and read the middle of the night reading early editions of the NY Times and the Washington Post, Slate, Salon, and Huffington. I'm sure I'm missing something, and will rely on the rest of you to point the way.

Thanks for staying with me.

Vigilante said...

Too many loose ends in here. I thought Utah's smackdown of Ferraro was a bit harsh. I cut Ferraro a little slack (not much) because her superannuated status. But politics is no country for old women, is it?

Stella is right to bring up Ann Richards. Now there was a winner!

Good comment, Boris. Insightful and incite-full (the best combination).

And now to the Jay & Kay event (main bout).

To refresh everyone with the multi-faceted and pregnant para:

In reality, sophisticated voters look for things like the 3-point plans you disparage. Why? Because 3-point plans are sophisticated. I'm so sick of incredibly smart candidates losing because the American people feel so threatened by their intelligence. Al Gore and John Kerry were both about as smart as you can get--highly sophisticated, one might say--and yet they both lost to a man who could easily be categorized as functionally retarded. Sophistication loses elections, and that's why Barack is beating Hillary.

And, for good measure, let me add a couple more mouthfuls:

And Obama may be a great deal smarter than George W. Bush (obviously), but his *appeal* is not sophisticated in the slightest. It is purely emotional.

In reality, sophisticated voters look for things like the 3-point plans you disparage. Why? Because 3-point plans are sophisticated. I'm so sick of incredibly smart candidates losing because the American people feel so threatened by their intelligence. Al Gore and John Kerry were both about as smart as you can get--highly sophisticated, one might say--and yet they both lost to a man who could easily be categorized as functionally retarded. Sophistication loses elections, and that's why Barack is beating Hillary.


1) I never said upstart, insurgent politicians make great presidents; they just make good candidates. All Baggage tends to be negative, so the less baggage a candidate has the better for him.

2) Perhaps I never should have used the word sophisticated, because you liberals took it to mean wonkish. 5-part health care programs make for great analytic materials for the chattering classes appearing on CNN on slow news days, but for the average voter it's cold, stale oatmeal. I don't know what word would have served better. Discerning, perhaps. A discerning voter takes the measure of a candidate's personal traits against the demands, challenges and opportunities of the times. A discerning voter knows that 5-part reform plans are sooner or later bludgeoned into 3-part programs. A winning candidate and gifted political leader is always conning the majority of voters, trying to show off his/her talents, judgment and mind without making commitments which will restrict his/her actions after inauguration. Promises are not wise; myths and mythology works. In 1960, JFK argued that there was a debilitating missile gap that the Republicans were hiding from the American people. What happened? in 1961 the missile gap evaporated. Same with Nixon's 1968 "secret plan to end the Vietnam war": instead he mowed down students at Kent state and bombed the holy shit out of Cambodia and North Vietnam. Myths and mythology, not promises and plans is what wins elections.

3) Al Gore & John Kerry? That's a can of worms which I can't open here. (I may say more about both tomorrow on my site.) BTW, in 2000 I voted against Bush twice - and legally - which I wager was twice as many times as either of you two did (Kay & Jay), so don't fucking blame me.

4) Don't be so quick to denounce a perceived personal, emotional, attachment to a candidate as superficial. If you insist on doing so, read Andrew Sullivan's Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters, and take it up with him. I'll pick the dude or the lady who I think I can tolerate every night on my TV for the next 4-8 years, thank you, and vote accordingly.

5) I personally think Obama is smarter than Hillary, but I don't hold that against her. What I hold against her, primarily, are the clay-footed handlers and surrogates, all of who are male. That's Bubba, Mark Penn, and Howard Wolfson. I can think of a more artless and tone-deaf threesome. They are not serving her well, judging from the scripts and talking points that she is using. Americans have been lied to for eight fucking years and they're not going to take to more of the same.

6) Can Obama win? Yes. (Si, se puedes!) But the gang of three mentioned above seem like they are bent on seeing that he doesn't so that they can blame defeat on him and come back in four years after McCain retires.

This room is always quiet at the end of the evening. I hope I didn't intrude too much on Utah's tranquility. But these are important issues that divide Liberals from Progressives, and I feel like extending myself to do my part in bridging the gaps between us.

Vigilante said...

There's a typo in the above. I said

I can think...

I met to say

I can't think

J McKiernan said...

Okay, here we go again...

Talk about pregnant comments, what is this about:

"BTW, in 2000 I voted against Bush twice - and legally - which I wager was twice as many times as either of you two did (Kay & Jay), so don't fucking blame me."

Just because we are obviously (lots) younger than you, Bronson, doesn't mean we weren't of voting age when the 2000 election went down. I assume that was what you were insinuating...either that or we were too apathetic or...whatever other bullshit you were reaching for. Tread carefully.

Now, onto your 6-point argument...

1) I fully understand what you said about upstart insurgents making good candidates and not necessarily good presidents. But I was writing based on your false notion that said candidates also attract 'sophisticated' or even 'discerning' voters.

2) First off, the hilarious assertion of "you liberals" is, clearly, ridiculous and unfounded, and shows that you buy into the demonizing of the word just as much you buy into the sensationalism of upstart candidates.

Second--and most telling--is the fact that you actually correct yourself, and then provide direct support for my argument, even though you throw in some passive-aggressive potshots to make it seem like you are countering what I said.

I said before that by 'sophisticated' you meant 'average-joe.' You then basically said as much ("5-part health care programs make for great analytic materials for the chattering classes appearing on CNN on slow news days, but for the average voter it's cold, stale oatmeal.") Then you describe said average voter as "discerning," which would not have served me better, actually, since 'average' and 'discerning' don't have any political correlation whatsoever. In my mind, a discerning voter would listen to plans, think about intelligence and experience, filter out all the rhetoric, and get down to the heart of who they think is best for the country, and why. Average voters--who are really who you're talking about--are the ones who vote based on the surface sheen, which is also what you're talking about. You can say it's discerning to think about a candidate's 'talents,' but it isn't. One can pay about 15 minutes of attention to an MSNBC feature and be impressed by a candidate's 'talents'.

But to get to the core of the issue, you are right: upstart insurgents do win elections, average voters do vote based on talents and not plans, and myths and mythology are absolutely what people respond to most. My point about it all is that all of those things are not nearly as *positive* as you seem to be implying.

There is nothing more mythic than Obama basing his entire candidacy on Hope. And it sure is effective, and he sure does know how to sell it. And average voters drink it up...and voila, a great candidate is born.

In essence, we are in agreement. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let you try to get away with saying that the Appeal of Mythology is somehow substantive and would appeal to truly discerning voters. It appeals to average voters who focus only on the surface, and since that group makes up about 80% of the voting population, that is precisely why Obama can (and most likely will) win.

3) I love how you talk so broadly about Gore & Kerry opening up such huge cans of worms, and how you can't possibly talk about it here. And really, it is all well and good that you voted for Gore twice in 2000 (actually, maybe you didn't...you said, 'voted against Bush'...could have been a Nader vote), but however you were able to pull off such a thing, just because you did so and can use it to tell us how bad we are for a) not being old enough according to your assumption, and b) not being smart enough to vote twice is ridiculous. Also, I wasn't BLAMING you. I was pointing out, very clearly, that Bush was the upstart insurgent in 2000, and because he did so little and remained so stupid, he was really the upstart insurgent in 2004 as well. And by your logic, he was the guy discerning voters should have been for.

4) I respect Andrew Sullivan, and I am NOT against Obama. Back in 2004, after his keynote speech at the DNC, I spread the word as fast as I could about this guy, and flat out said at that moment that he would be the first African-American president of the United States. And that was just based on a speech...

...so yes, he does matter. But to think his appeal is anything but superficial is a lie. We know he is smart, we know he talks well, and we also know he makes promises and has plans, which should turn people like you off, but anyway.... For this discerning voter, when you have to bend over backwards to get to the depth of your candidate, maybe you should support a candidate who is running on pure depth.

And good lord...when you say "I'll pick the dude or the lady who I think I can tolerate every night on my TV for the next 4-8 years, thank you, and vote accordingly," you expose yourself for being 100% voting on surface appeal, and you also come off 110% sexist. Again, you get to pat yourself on the back for inserting "or the lady" into your comment, but to use the word 'tolerate' indicates a form of sexism that you don't even realize you are exhibiting.

5) There is nothing more dirty than equating a person with George W. Bush's administration. It has been the worst, most dirty, underhanded, deceitful, disastrous administration in U.S. history, and equating anyone with them is tantamount to throwing them under a bus and raw, unabashed scare tactics. So don't fucking do it to Hillary Clinton. Give me a break. Hating the Clintons has become so en vogue that it is becoming a cliche. I'm sick of it, because Clinton was the most successful president of the last 20 years, and the American people were happiest across the board when he was in office. It's like we all want to have our cake and eat it, too.

But for all the Obama people to say that Geraldine Ferraro is racist, and that Hillary is using scare tactics, but then to turn around use the dirtiest, most transparent scare tactic of all--that a Hillary administration will be just another Bush administration--is knowingly false and ten times more despicable than anything the Clinton camp has done.

6) Can Obama win? Yes. I never asked you, I said it myself. I think he can win in a semi-landslide, actually, and turn John McCain into another Bob Dole (when in reality, McCain isn't just another Bob Dole...he's actually an older version of Bob Dole).

That is not the issue. I do think the in-fighting can potentially have a negative effect on whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I think Obama and Clinton both are setting each other up to fail, and need to be wiser than that if they truly want to change the country.

But if Obama gets the nod but loses in November, it won't necessarily be because of the 'team of three' you speak of. It will be because he peaked early. I have been sitting on this notion for a while, and it truly does concern me, because in reality I am not against Obama--certain writers on this blog have made me appear more against him than I am. This primary season has been much more vigorous and much more in the spotlight than any other primary in history. And it is during this primary season that Obama has ascended to such a god-like status for many voters (not so many that he could actually pull off victories in any major states, but many voters nonetheless). But to have this primary end with Obama only winning a nomination and not the presidency is not good for him. It means he will have to sustain his status with voters across the country, and maintaining frontrunner status is really fucking difficult to do. The deck becomes stacked in McCain's favor for no other reason than Obama Fever will be slowing its roll...once a person ascends, they have nowhere to go but down, and Obama will have to fight that for however many months it ends up being between the nomination and the election.

For Hillary, if she gets the nod, she will have to fight the perception of killing God for many voters and could be equally fucked.

Okay, last thing. Your division of 'liberals' and 'progressives' is ludicrous. You have bought into the Republican-fronted demonization of the word, 'liberal,' and therefore couch your true liberalism in the context of 'progressivism.' They are one in the same, though the latter indicates a fear of wearing your ideas on your sleeve. It also makes it so you can attack me for having the same ideas as you. Makes no sense.

Vigilante said...

I like you Jay. You too, Kay!

You make some good points here. And continue to go off the tracks on others. There is much room in here for agreement and reciprocal consciousness-raising (I had to search for that one). It is unbelievably a pleasure to find some Clinton people off their friendly reservation of Taylor Marsh, who are willing to cross words with Obamacans.

I'm currently working on a post on my site which will touch on Gore & Kerry and Liberals vs. Progressives. I should get it finished today.

In the meantime, since I really don't feel finished with issues on this marv thread, I wonder if our esteemed Web-Hostess would consider slapping today's date on the heading so that it could rise again to the top. I hate to see it get buried!

The Ides of March are upon us.

Emily said...

A quote from Al Martinez's Pillow talk goes from amendments to unmentionables

Cinelli and I have pillow talk discussions when she doesn't have a place to go and I'm not in a deadline panic. We discuss parties we've been to, people we've met, movies we've seen and the slow transmogrification of Hillary Clinton into Bill Clinton, indicating that even Hillary isn't sure if America is ready for a woman president.

Stella said...

Here I am, Vig.

Magnificent thread. Hi J, nice to meet you. Obviously, both you and K have great minds. I would love to join you all in U.S.' living room for a few drinks. All those great minds in one place.

J, you mentioned I'm so sick of incredibly smart candidates losing because the American people feel so threatened by their intelligence. I so agree with you. Although Eisenhower wasn't one of the more horrible Repubes, I'd like to add Adlai Stevenson who ran against him in the '50s to Gore and Kerry.

K, you are great. You're right: if women shouldn't be silenced, neither should men. That's true equality. Sounds like you two are into dialogue and discussion: Bravo! The same with me and mine. We'd rather rant over the news than each other.

And, yes, I think we must start standing up for ourselves. I'm a Socialist Liberal. And a Feminist: when women become equal, men will have a better life, too. That's right: The "F" word. No more Rethuglicanisms for me. Thank you, J, for clearing my mind of New Speak.

We need to adopt J's "'Mad Max' McCain." Fookin' great! That's perfect.

I'm ramblin' because I'm sneaking blog time at work. You all have such great minds and eloquent, articulate writing. U.S., I'm grateful to have stumbled across this great blog.

Yellow Dog said...

Lynching Hillary? Where's the outrage, people?

The field is not level.