Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 15,984
Number of posts: 15,984
great white snark to which I was replying.
That post implied that those whose principles will not allow them to vote for the Democratic nominee cause their fellow Americans to suffer. The point of my reply was that voting for, even electing, the Democratic nominee does not automatically prevent suffering.
I cited actions of the Clinton administration simply because it was the most recent Democratic administration before Obama's and I did not want to debate the current administration. My post didn't even fucking mention Hillary or any other woman.
Should I have gone back to the 1970s for the Democratic administration before both Obama's and Clinton's? Is that is what is really necessary these days to avoid a charge of sexism on DU?
Or is any criticism of any Democratic administration at all going to be deemed sexist now because the Democrat who seems to be running for President currently happens to be a woman?
By the way, Sanders, O"Malley and Webb have all made noises about running for President, too. Was my point that voting Democratic does not necessarily prevent Americans from suffering also anti-white male?
I have been the victim of sexism quite a few times, but my reply to great white snark has zero to do with sexism. It's not even in the same universe. If you really thought the post was sexist, you should have alerted, rather than make an ad hom attack on me. That's what the jury system is supposed to be for, to conceal ugly posts for the benefit of all who read DU posts.
And, of course, heaven forbid you should even attempt to address any fact stated in my purely factual post, when you could just ignore everything my post actually said for the pleasure of insulting me for things my post never mentioned at all.
However, let me not do to you what you did to me by totally ignoring the substance of your post, scant and utterly misplaced and ad hom as it was. Besides, I've seen this issue come up before with other posters.
As already stated, my reply to great white snakr was about voting (or not voting) causing our fellow Americans to suffer. It was not about Hillary. However, your reply certainly was, so I will address that.
FYI, the reality is that Hillary does happen to be the wife of a former President who seems to have chosen to run for President herself and certain things do and will inevitably flow from that, especially given the way they have both behaved around that issue and the importance of the office.
First, in 1992, he and she both sold his candidacy as getting two for the price of one. Her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy the same way, with no demurrer whatsoever from her (or him) and her supporters have already been selling her seemingly likely 2016 candidacy the same way.
She has referred to his administration with words like "we" and "us," including while she was running for President in 2008 and since then. For example, when questioned at a 2008 primary campaign event about how her husband had run on equal rights for gays, then signed DADT and DOMA, she replied, "I thought we did pretty well."
Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to qualifications to be President.
I have not heard her disavow anything her husband did. To the contrary, she has praised her husband's administration. So, I am not at all sure how associating her with the things he did, good or bad, is sexist. So, neither Hillary nor her supporters can have it both ways.
But, again, that is my response to only hint of substance in your post to me. My reply to great white snark had dealt with none of that. It spoke only to whether voting for one Party or another prevents human suffering. All the other nonsense was in your mind, not mine.
(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and he behaved about that and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain. So even in your imagined version of what my post never said, the charge of sexism is wholly unwarranted.)
You really should think twice before you call any DUer bigoted. That is a very serious charges and require grounds other than merely your ability to fling about the term. Speaking as one who has endured sexism, I must add: Do you really think accusing male and female DUers of sexism willy nilly is going to help the cause of any female running for President, now or in the future, or the cause of any female, period?
Sorry, your ad hom reply said a lot more about you than it said about me or about the cause of equality for women.
On edit, this post was probably an overreaction, but no apology or deletion. If you call people bigots willy nilly, you get whatever reaction your charge gets.
Posted by merrily | Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:34 AM (2 replies)
strategists like Shields and Shrum, the folks at MSNBC.
A far better question from people who are sincerely seeking truth in this matter might well be, who in a position to have inside Democratic Party info has been saying there should be vigorous primary challenges to Hillary? Or actively encouraging other candidates to run?
Remember, in 2008, all we heard about a primary that Hillary chose to extend well beyond the point at which she had any mathematical chance of winning whatever, was not that it wasted time, money and energy that Senator Obama could have spent battling McCain. It was the the primary had been so wonderful for voters, Obama and the Party. Now, all we hear is that a primary challenge is the worst possible thing for a Presidential candidate. Double think?
Given that so many professional politicians do aspire to be President someday, it is extraordinary that, as early as 2012--before Obama was even re-elected, I was hearing on TV almost daily that the 2016 nomination was Hillary's, if she wanted it; and, if she chose to run, no Democrat would even bother to oppose her in a primary.
When has that EVER been said about a Presidential primary in which no incumbent is running?
What do people like Shrum and Matthews have to offer anyone if it is not their credibility on political matters? Why would they risk their bread and butter on such an unprecedented kind of statement?
Why are the same people who were saying how the 2008 primary was the best possible thing for the party and its Presidential candidate now saying a Presidential primary would be the worst possible thing for the party and Hillary?
And who the hell ever said publicly that primaries were not about party voters, only about "the Party" (whatever the hell that is, apart from voters) and its anointee?
Why are so many supposedly typical Democatic posters here saying it?
Come on, isbm, you're so much smarter than your framing of that question.
Posted by merrily | Tue Mar 24, 2015, 11:22 PM (1 replies)
Seeking to equate liberals with the right is false equivalency at its worst and laughable. And transparent.
On a related topic, liberals are not the Democratic counterpart of teabaggers :
The splinter group within the Democratic Party are the so called centrists, who sought to leave the main body of the Party behind. Hence the name "New Democrats." First, they wanted to disassociate themselves from the Party as much as they could without losing the benefits of the Party (much as Teabaggers did), then they wanted to pretend they ARE the Party.
It is no accident that the Koch brothers donated to the DLC and "served" on its Executive Council, and conceived of the Tea Party at about the same time (the 1980s).
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html (DLC info)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations (Tea Party info).
One is the right wing of the Republican Party and the other is the right wing of the Democratic Party. Fostering both helps the Koch brothers ensure that the nation goes further right.
Posted by merrily | Wed Feb 18, 2015, 07:01 AM (0 replies)
break the internet.
Sunday, it being President's Day weekend, and Boston having it's 642nd snowstorm this month, I turned on On Demand. On the screen was the following message: We are unable to fill your request due to more than usual viewership. Please try again another time."
Posted by merrily | Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:20 PM (0 replies)
Of course, you know New Kids on the Block's Danny Wahlberg and his brother, Mahkee Mahk Wahlberg. They are only two of the nine Wahlbergs. An older brother, Paul, has always dreamt of having a restaurant. (Or so the intro to their reality show says.)
His more famous brothers are helping make his dreams come true, big time, with the Wahlburger's franchise. And that real life saga is being reflected in the reality show, Wahlburger's, on A & E.
Yadda Yadda, Mayor Walsh has a cameo on the February 11 episode, which I am half watching via On Demand as I am typing this post.
Posted by merrily | Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:25 AM (3 replies)
Not long ago, a DUer chastised me for having "labeled" Hillary as "Third Way." Other DUers have criticized other DUers and me for referring to the Democratic Leadership Council ("DLC") or DLCers, on the ground that the DLC corporation dissolved (giving its papers to the Clinton Presidential Library).
One of the purposes of this post is to show that the legal technicality of corporate dissolution of the DLC far from ended the spirit, philosophy and influence of the DLC, which is amply represented within the Democratic Party by New Democrats, some of whom call themselves progressives, and also represented in Democratic think tanks like the Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way, No Labels, etc. And, the legal technicality of corporate dissolution of the DLC erase the history of who was and was not a DLCer and who did or did not embrace the DLC philosophy and goals.
Another purpose of this post is to show that referring to Hillary as Third Wayer and/or a DLCer is both factual and consequential.
I hope that this post also at least implies why references to "progressive" Democrats and "progressive" policies may not always mean what seems to be frequently assumed: "Progressive" is not necessarily a synonym for either "liberal" or "left." This is relevant to Hillary because she has sometimes referred to the policies that she supports as "progressive" policies.
Now, a disclosure: I decided in 2007 that I would support Obama in the Democratic Presidential primary. Among other things, I thought Obama was the one likeliest of the 2008 primary field to win a general. Obviously, I thought an African American would have to overcome biases (and so does a woman). Nonetheless, I thought all others in the field, including Biden and Hillary, were more vulnerable than Obama. (I thought Hillary vulnerable because of Iraq, the Clinton baggage and other reasons.)
Since then, it seems to me that a lot of money and power has been put behind insulating Hillary from primary challenge. However, nothing can insulate her from challenge in a general. I believe her to be even more vulnerable now in a general than I believed her to be in 2008, including because of her "racially tinged" 2008 campaign against Obama. So, although I do not yet know whom I will support in the next Democratic Presidential primary, I do know that I will not support Hillary in that primary.
Facts and Observations
(All bolding is mine.)
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal of reclaiming the Democratic Party from the left's influence prevalent since the late 1960s.......
The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN and Third Way.
The model for the DLC was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM"), a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.
(Google for images of Hillary with Kissinger through the years, if you are interested.)
Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC. (IMO, New Democrats rejected a hell of a lot more of the Democratic Party than only McCarthy and the 1960s.)
The wiki of the Democratic Leadership Council once named both Bill and Hillary among the founding members of the DLC, along with Lieberman, Gore, Robb, Warner and others. (Predominating among the DLC's founding members were Southern white males, many of whom had, or have since, been named in connection with possible Presidential runs.) However, a search today of the DLC's wiki, using Mozilla's "Find," could not pick up that fact about Hillary and Bill. Either I missed it, or someone has edited relatively recently.
I did, however, find in Al From's wiki a description of Hillary's unique role in the DLC--as of this morning, anyway. (Perhaps it, too, will soon be edited?) Much of the material in Al From's wiki used to appear on the DLC website, almost verbatim, so I assume From had, at a minimum, some role in writing it:
Today, many of the ideas that comprise the core of the Democratic Party's agenda come from work done under From's leadership at the DLC. National service, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, welfare reform, charter schools, community policing, expanded trade and re-inventing government were all championed by scholars and analysts at the DLC before becoming public policy.
In 1998, with First Lady Hillary Clinton, From began a dialogue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other world leaders, and the DLC brand – known as The Third Way – became a model for resurgent liberal governments around the globe.
In April 1999, he hosted an historic Third Way forum in Washington with President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Prime Ministers Wim Kok of the Netherlands and Massimo D'Alema of Italy.
From is a controversial figure in the Democratic Party, drawing criticism in liberal circles and from blogs like DailyKos.com and MyDD.com among others. In 1991, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called the DLC “Democrats for the Leisure Class,” and in 2003, former Democratic National Committee Chair and Vermont Governor Howard Dean* sharply criticized From and the DLC as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left". Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."
(Lately, it is not only Birchers or Marshall echoing the lie that criticism of a President is anti-American.)
Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement,** which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more conservative orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
He served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman (I) and John McCain (R) designed to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion.
Given the above, it is not necessarily surprising, though it may be shocking, that Hillary gave a speech urging support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, and without reading the 90-page NIE. (In fairness, she was far from alone in not reading it, which I find physically nauseating, given all the blood and treasure and unintended consequences that hung in the balance.)
*Howard Dean, not only once dubbed the DLCers the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, but also identified himself as belonging to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. However, there is money to be earned, politicians evolve and Dean is now a professional spokesperson, pundit and lobbyist, and has already endorsed Hillary for 2016. (He recently explained this on TV as people being worried and therefore likely to want someone familiar. The flip side of that, of course, is Clinton fatigue and also that, yes, we are all too familiar with Hillary.)
In a January 2009 interview with the Associated Press, Dean indicated he would enter the private sector after 30 years in politics. Dean told the AP he would deliver speeches and share ideas about campaigns and technology with center-left political parties around the world. ......Dean is a contributor to the news network MSNBC in shows such as The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. He has also guest hosted Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show. He is on the board of the National Democratic Institute.
Dean has also spent time as a Senior Strategic Advisor and Independent Consultant for the Government Affairs practice at McKenna, Long & Aldridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenna_Long_%26_Aldridge
However, Democracy for America, which Howard Dean founded and turned over to his brother Jim once Howard was named chair of the DNC, has been urging Senator Warren to run.
**Note: "New Democrat Movement," not "New Democratic Movement." A DUer once called me out for using "New Democrat Caucus," rather than "New Democratic Caucus." However, New Democrat Caucus is indeed the correct name of the New Democrat Caucus and I am not the one who named it. So, for example, when I emailed MSNBC to chastise Chuck Toad for referring to the "Democrat Party," I knew, but did not spell out, that my position is not as strong as it might have been, sans the New Democrat Movement. But, I guess, if you are going to lead what Howard Dean once called the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, why not use "Democrat" the way Republicans do when they are trying to insult Democrats?
Posted by merrily | Wed Feb 11, 2015, 12:51 PM (524 replies)
The instructions for bestowing hearts on your favorite DUers say something like "just find a post" by the DUer to whom you'd like to give a heart. That is not easy, especially if the poster has not posted recently. The search function may not help either, especially if the poster's screen name is a commonly used word.
For those who have as much trouble figuring out this kind of thing as I do:
Go to your inbox. In the space beside "Send DU mail to:", type the name of the poster you are seeking, or as close to it as your memory allows. Then, click "Find Member."
At that point, you will see the number of screen names like the name you searched. Click on that and a list of posters' names will appear. Find within the list the name of the poster yu seek, then click on it. That will get you to the poster's profile.
In the poster's profile, under "Statistics and Information," you will see a link to the poster's most recent post. Click on that. Voila!
Posted by merrily | Tue Feb 10, 2015, 07:13 AM (2 replies)
1. Is there a place on this board that has answers to FAQ about donating to DU, buying hearts, etc?
If there is, and it covers my other two questions, you need not answer anything but Question 1.
Question 2. Does buying someone a heart also give that post star membership?
Question 3. If not, is it possible to give someone star membership anonymously?
Question 4. What is the minimum amount to spend to make a poster other than oneself a star member?
These questions have probably been asked before and I apologize for that.
Posted by merrily | Mon Feb 9, 2015, 09:07 AM (2 replies)
I got a call today from someone wanting a donation to preserve Governor Patrick's legacy. I was about to go out the door and asked if they could call another time. Anyone know what that is about?
Meanwhile, here is what someone at the Boston Globe thinks of Patrick's time in office.
Posted by merrily | Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:25 PM (0 replies)
To those who got appreciable or heavy snow, dig out your car's exhaust pipe before getting into the car with the engine running to get warm or letting your kids do the same. Make sure it's clear. Otherwise carbon monoxide inside the car can be very dangerous, perhaps fatal.
Posted by merrily | Tue Jan 27, 2015, 08:29 AM (5 replies)