Female Mysogynists for Obama
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on April 5, 2008 at 8:38 PM in Current Affairs
Women who hate women seem to flock around Obama. How else to explain the nutty reaction of some ladies to NoQuarter publicizing Randi Rhodes verbal abuse of Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. Don’t take my word for it. Let me introduce you to a person who says she is Melinda Shanks-Robbins. Ms. Shanks-Robbins greeted me this morning with the following:
From: Melinda Shanks-Robbins
Sent: Apr 5, 2008 10:45 AM
To: Larry Johnson
Subject: RandiYour whole business is based on the fake terrorism boogyman. That is why you want Clinton to be President. Going after Randi the way you did is no different than physically assalting or raping her. You are a criminal. I hope she does sue your ass.
Can you follow the batshit logic here? Posting the video of Randi calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro is the equivalent of beating or raping Randi? Jesus Christ!! We are to blame for Randi’s intemperate remarks? It is impossible to even begin to fathom the stupidity of the person who would make such a comparison.
I wrote back to Ms. Shanks-Robbins and encouraged here to seek out a qualified mental health professional. Maybe she stopped taking her meds. Well, she sent me another missive:
From: Melinda Shanks-Robbins
Sent: Apr 5, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Larry Johnson
Subject: Re: RandiYou are the one who needs mental health couseling. You deliberately posted that video to get her fired from her job, because she has said she is for Obama. More Rove tactics from the Clinton camp.
I wrote back:
So you support calling women like Hillary and Gerladine Ferraro “fucking whores”? What the hell is wrong with you?
Not surprisingly, Melinda replied:
From: Melinda Shanks-Robbins
To: Larry Johnson
Subject: Re: Randi
Date: Apr 5, 2008 5:59 PMOh please, who are you trying to kid? This isn’t about Randi saying that at a private function. You were after her for being critical of Clinton on her radio show. She has criticized her for the tactics she has engaged in, and I agree with her. Clinton will never catch up with Obama in number of delegates. She is getting desperate. Her saying that she and McCain passed the commander-in-chief test and Obama gave a speech was disgusting. Who’s side is she on? I’ll tell you who - she is out for herself. She doesn’t care about the Democratic Party or the American people. The word whore has several meanings. I believe, in this context, Randi meant sell-out, suck-up, corporate shill, etc. You can spin what you did anyway you want, but it still was cruel, petty, and of course Rovian.
So folks, I leave it to you to decide. Who is the spinner here? So remember, if you publicize the film clip of someone saying something that they really said that, in the fantasy world of Obamaland, is Rovian. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Holy freakin’ cow! I have been a feminist for, well, all my life, but officially for the past 33 yrs or so. And exposing the hate speech of Rhodes is not an attack on her. She said it; she’s responsible for it; and those who applauded her are right up there with her in her abusive attacks on Clinton and Ferraro. For this woman to attack YOU rather than really looking at what Rhodes said is telling in and of itself.
So, Larry - that is all to say, I’m with you. This exchange was…Wow…Disturbng. On her part, not yours.
It’s Hillary’s fault.
I know. Why won’t that bitch just quit? Oh, excuse me, I believe I misspoke — I meant to say “fucking whore.”
This is just unbelievable. I swear to God, Eleanor Roosevelt must be turning in her grave, with the all-too-personal abuse Mrs. Clinton is sustaining in this campaign.
Hillary has stumbled unnecessarily from time to time, and to be perfectly honest I think that success is becoming doubtful at this point whether we care to admit it or not.
But I will say that because of the sheer amount of vitriole and threats heaped upon her, history will show that she’s certainly run one of the more personally courageous campaigns in modern times, certainly in my relatively short adult life. I’m proud to have stood for her in our party caucuses last February, and I’d do so again.
I agree, Donald, and thank you for YOUR bravery in standing for her in a caucus. In such a pro-Obama state as Hawaii, I’m sure it took courage. Hillary would be proud.
You’ve made me see Hillary’s exemplary campaign in a different light, thank you so much! I have been supportive of her candidacy because I was so eager for what the future would hold with her as our President. And what you’ve made me remember is that she can still be my champion by the courage of her convictions, whether she is elected President (this time) or not.
(That’s not to say that I’m not still hoping! And doing everything I can to help her win!)
the degree of hatred coming from women does seem to be much greater than that coming from men. i’ve noticed it throughout the primary season, all over the blogs and on the tube. the personal attacks on looks, etc., as well as blaming hillary for bill’s infidelity, and on and on. and the we shouldn’t vote for her “just because she’s a woman” line that comes out everywhere.
i’ve been called a feminazi more than once, a term i hadn’t heard in about 30 years. it’s as though we’re fighting the old war all over again.
strange, isn’t it, how the slightest comment can be twisted into racism, with a resulting uproar, but no sexist attack, no matter how vile, is deemed too low. and the women are the ones defending the sexist attacks the loudest (although the men express themselves as well, by voting for obama, but they are less likely to scream personal insults - hard to tell what part of the vote thing is white guilt vs. no woman should be president).
It’s just that old Belafonte Effect, and their sensitivity about being called on it.
The Insensitive, Politically Incorrect term for many of these women is, “Closet coal-burners,” but I won’t use that term, “BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WRONG!”
(Thanks, Nixon, for a quote I can finally use.)
completely agree. i think we know that obama would’ve folded a long time ago if he’d had to undergo the viciousness that has been dumped on hillary. but she just keeps fighting.
agree that success is becoming doubtful. clearly, the powers that be will not allow it to happen in the normal process of things. of course, some new and even more horrible info could come out about obama. but i think that unless there’s video of him committing murder, it won’t matter.
i’m voting mccain. my first ever repub vote. have voted straight dem ticket almost every year since 1972, and have never voted repub in a presidential race. will do so this year.
Ok, leave, AND vote for 100 year war McCain, the last time progressives did this they voted for Nader, look how well that turned out
So go ahead 4000 dead Americans and a million Iraqis is NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU
THe loss of what is left of the Supremem Court is NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU
The loss of SCIENCE in the classrooms is NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU
The evisceration of the Constitution is NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU
The loss of our environment is NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU
I am a Hillary supporter, BOTH sides have gone CRAZY WHY CAN’T WE FIGHT Republicans like we fight each other
Donald….found you again….finally. Hallelujah!
Wow you have the bat shit crazies coming out of the wood work.
Well I DO have degrees in Psychology and Counseling and Larry Johnson is certainly not crazy. I also know that to have worked at the CIA he had to have mental health evaluations. I would expect that there is a personality assessment in his personnel files.
Women are womens worst enemies and Melinda Shanks-Robbins is nuts.
Randi Rhodes said what she said and it was caught on video. If she had been a Clinton supporter at a Clinton fund raiser and called Obama a nasty racist name — all hell would have broken loose.
The point is the LANGUAGE the WORDS that Randi Rhodes used was wrong. Her combination of words was wrong.
The misogynistic language has got to stop NOW!
I am so thankful for the strong men who understand the problem with using these words to describe women is wrong.
Obama has contributed to the hate speech by making misogynistic remarks about Senator Clinton.
Thank you Larry Johnson!
I agree the language is unacceptable - but I believe it’s also the tone and the context. I have he same problem with Wright.
There are true-blue Americans who question some of the things that America does - I’m one of them. But you don’t do it by cursing and damning and making outrageous accusations. Instead, you consider the issues, different points of views, and discuss it all maturely, and then take responsible action.
And you absolutely DON’T choose a course of action in which you are overduly influencing people, instilling wild rage and non-critical thinking in those who hear you.
Both Rhodes and Wright engage in inciting reactionary emotions. Neither promotes critical thinking. As far as I’m concerned, both are dangerous, for these reasons.
What happened to public personalities behaving professionally and ethically and responsibly? (Thank goodness for Hillary)
…..Well I DO have degrees in Psychology and Counseling and Larry Johnson is certainly not crazy. I also know that to have worked at the CIA he had to have mental health evaluations…..
He would have needed to pass the real estate exam too and know how to operate a vacuum cleaner. Hmmmm. Randi Rhodes. I need to pay more attention to that lady.
She on Obama kool-aid?
Sounds like Obama calling Imus a racist in 2007 and a year later defending his preacher Wright!
Life to look forward to the Obama way! Thank Oprah folks!
And saying his grandma is a “typical white person.”
you heard the latest from Obama?
if elected President, to curb the Race divide in Rich White America, he will institute by Executive Order that the card game Black Jack hense forth shall only be named Afro-American Jack! And the Queen of Spades will hense forth be called the Queen Donna Brazile card!
That’s very bad, mel…so why can’t I stop laughing?
The Executive Mansion will be known as, “O’s Juke.”
Shucks, I once had a tomcat named, “Tigger,” but, due to the sensitivities of my then-wife, I was compelled to change his name to, “Teegro.”
This, alas, was also unacceptable, so he passed the remainder of his days as my, “feline-American.”
LOL - my feline American approves
Curious how Obama supporters latch onto that one statement by Clinton, yet totally ignore Obama’s veneration of Reagan and Bush I at the expense of Bill (and, by implied extension, Hillary) Clinton.
If that’s what Rhods meant, Rhodes should have said, “she’s a fucking sell-out, corporate shill” and backed up the claim.
That said, I’m not sure I’d call this Melinda Shanks-Robbins person a misogynist. I would definitely call her an idiot, however. She seems to be one of those Obama supporters who’s so blinded by their candidate’s “rapturousness,” they can’t see the irrational vitriol toward the Other Democratic candidate. It’s called Unity!
The word whore has several meanings. I believe, in this context, Randi meant sell-out, suck-up, corporate shill, etc.
No. Then she would have mentioned Barack Obama.
Hahahahaha Hard to stop laughing about that. Hahahaha!!!
LOL - big time!
rotflmao
Some troll here yesterday tried to make the same argument. Even had a cute little cut and paste example from a dictionary. Their point was that you speed right on by the first two meanings for “whore” and go for the third. Ergo, you find sell out etc.
Ignorance can be cured in some cases but this kind of “stupid” is a lifelong affliction. And sadly, I don’t believe there’s a medication for it.
What Clinton said was: both McCain and herself had passed the threshold and that Obama would have to prove he had done the same. Not once did she endorse McCain over Obama. But that’s what happens when you criticize Obama: inflammatory distraction from the question.
But let’s say Clinton did endorse McCain: how does that excuse misogynistic bigotry? It doesn’t.
The word whore has several meanings. I believe, in this context, Randi meant sell-out, suck-up, corporate shill, etc.
David Shuster was suspended for the same thing - he said that HRC was “pimping out” Chelsea and the “several meanings” interpretation was not accepted.
Jayyyyyyysus. What a beauty.
The word bitch has many meanings too and I am certain the author of those heinous e-mails fits the description of each one of them.
I agree with you, Mr. Johnson (Larry), and the other people who wrote in stating you are sane. I just thought I would take this opportunity to THANK YOU for this great blog and the intelligent (and sometimes fun) entries. I have found it so important after I stopped reading the HRC hating boyz. Happy spring! F
Thanks. We are glad to have you with us.
You might be a cranky old bastard…but the CIA does some good work.
Maybe you should direct the emailer to the covert SOE/OSS?Bletchley work done in WW2 and how key it was to defeating the Nazis and the Japanese.
The only reason you don’t hear about the currently successful work is because it’s still classified.
A quick tour though through the crucial spying of ww2 would enlighten the sadly deluded emailer about the necessary evil of secret intelligence agencies…
If nothing else you are giving a reasonable preview of the Republican game plan.
something Churchill said about the truth being so precious it needs to be protected by a bodyguard of lies.
It’s interesting to see how history has had to be rewritten with the revelations about ULTRA and Bletchley Park.
I’m certain that when this period’s archives are declassified we will all realize we have to reassess what successes and failures we have really had with Al Qaeda and other security issues.
Wow, and I figured Hillary had to deal with crazy haters! Sorry you had to be exposed to the underside of THAT rock.
She’s like the Obama supporters who are now trying to say that what the Reverend Wright said was actually not so bad. It’s called DENIAL, and anyone who’s spent any time around drug addicts or alcoholics is very familiar with the term. Denial can drive you insane, especially when the facts are staring you in the face. I guess Obama’s supporters are really going off the deep end.
You are a good man, Larry. She is a NUT.
what the Reverend Wright said was actually not so bad
Bill Mahr was comparing what MLK to the Rev.
amazing.
which is why i’ll never watch him again.
i felt bad when he got screwed after 9/11. i don’t feel bad any more.
The “Rovian” part really struck me. Talk about someone who has not only drunk the kool aid, but has gone back for seconds. This woman has a serious problem with the Truth, doesn’t she?
She has no problem, however, with bleating Obama-approved talking points. “Rovian,” indeed.
I bet she now screams foul at Larry sharing her name with us here. Because nothing you do, say or write should ever be critically examined, by anyone.
As a woman, sometimes I’m really really embarrassed by other women. Ms. Shanks-Robbins is apparently comfortable with women being called “fucking whores.”
I wish she could illuminate us all with her koolaidy goodness on how the term “fucking whore” fits in with that whole ‘postivey hopey changey’ thing.
I’m just not seeing it…
Word to Melinda: I cannot fathom how or why anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, would actually send out such a nasty email with your name on it. The dig on Larry’s career was downright scary: “Your whole business is based on the fake terrorism boogyman.” Dear God woman, in light of 9/11 how could you even go there? Obama really does bring out the beautiful people, doesn’t he?
hahahaha…that should be Obama’s new campaign slogan, “Join us as we do the whole positive-y hope-y change-y thing”….hahahah
You just KNOW I am going to have to use that for a Title.
You are welcome to use anything I say, Uppity!
xoxo
That’s what I thought, too.
What a horrible thing to say, in light of the suffering of those who have lost loved ones, or been injured by terrorist acts.
And that includes those harmed in Iraq, and Afghanistan, too.
The deaths and the suffering are very real.
If she’s really THAT upset, she should ask Obama about Auchi, and Saddam, or Wright, Farrakhan and Qaddafi.
I’m actually thinking it could be a dance.. the “postivey hopey changey”, kinda like the ‘okey dokey hokey pokey!”
Cuz that’s really what it’s all about!
LOL…hahahaha….
I believe the positivey hopey changey is the second verse of the okey dokey hokey pokey…
wait awhile willya? I haven’t learned all the steps to the okey-dokey-hokey-pokey yet.
Second verse and new steps would then be the:
positively-hopey-dopey-changey two-step?
I think I’ll sit this one out.
Who knew there was so much musical talent here?
lol…..hahahaha
Cuz that’s really what it’s all about!
So much material, so little time!
I must say that women who rationalize and condone the this kind of behavior are as vile as vile can be. But, I have seen that something is going on with women in this country and it isn’t pretty. I am a 37 year old woman who cannot fathom going to a work-related function and behaving in such a manner. Getting pissed off and saying something in complete privacy to a spouse about a run-in with a terrible person is one thing. But, being a 50 year old drunken radio host spewing this kind of crap is grounds for a pink slip.
There is no decorum anymore. Nothing is off limits and nothing is out of bounds. If we want civil discourse, then we each play a part in making that reality. Being a public figure like Randi Rhodes puts even more responsibility on you. She isn’t a private person. She makes her livelihood in the public arena.
The only kind of woman who would not only condone but defend this kind of behavior is a woman who has no manners and no self-respect. You know my mother always taught me that you treat others the way you want to be treated. Karma is a bitch ain’t it Randi!!
Does this explain Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech, too?
What do you think of a man who refers to feminists as feminazis?
Simon:
I agree that Rush Limbaugh is a vile creature and the same rules apply, or rather should apply to him as well. We all know in this society that the rules do not apply equally. Like Jerry Falwell saying that it was feminists, lesbians, People for the American Way, the ACLU, etc… that were the cause of 9/11. He should have been tarred and feathered. Needless to say, he got a free pass! Women who condone this kind of crap wind up getting it in end, more so than their male counterparts.
Limbaugh apparently appeals to the Phyllis Schafely women and the Neanderthal men who love them! That is why the Fairness Doctrine needs to be re-introduced. Limbaugh never had the venue he has today until that law was repealed under Reagan.
I disagree, I think Limbaugh, and his ilk of shock joke, (like Howard Stern,say) waged a war against women unlike any I’d ever seen.
In fact, I’d say many of the Obamabots take their cue from the cultural misogynist sewage those men dumped, even if subconsciously.
Combined with the hiphop garbage?
That’s one toxic American dump, now isn’t it?
For the last 10 years, women seem to have been regulated to the roles of porn star, or maid, or mother, propped up by false breasts, and plastic surgery, portrayed as second class gold diggers, not equal to men intellectually, not equal in the “hard disciplines” of math and science. THIS, in the 21st century, in America! Remember that Harvard kook who surmised women might be genetically inferior because of less ostensible achievement in math and science? (Well, let’s see, all words and numbers signify relationships, all at a quantum level. Is math achievement superior to other language execution, achieving a more exact analysis, a more exact solution, indicating a more logical, superior brain? What is logic, anyway, is it definitive, now? Did someone win a Nobel for discovering all their is to know about everything, because this is 21st century America, and if Silicone Valley can’t do it, well, nobody can…eh. Those mathematicians and scientists sure didn’t win Iraq, now, did they, the AI and CS groups and their belief in the infallibility of their specious science, and warfare. HALO is the war of the future, war by video game! Damn those Iraqis, and their IED’s! Damn chaos theory, they thought they understood! What is this theory of everything, anyway, and how does the communicative structure and relationship fit in? What are the possibilities? Don’t bother them, they’re busy programming in A++, they are the future…heh)
Refusing to even look at other factors, he went straight for some pseudo scientific genetic explanation, looking insipid every step of the way.
Where did this come from, who popularized it, why did the President of Harvard think this way?
Because it was acceptable, it was made acceptable to think in this manner by men like Rush.
No thanks.
In addition, as a real democrat, Rush’s words against “liberals” were offensive, meant to intimidate and drown dissent.
Same with the use of the word feminazi.
I have far more problems with him, and Camille Paglia, than I do with Rhodes.
How can we be really surprised by the blog sexism after witnessing the war waged against women over the last 10 years by certain media types?
And I don’t want to hear how difficult their Moms were, I’m not interested in their sexual inferiority, and fears, the usual food pornography, their infantile narcissism, just like those who went before.
( And Rush and the torture of Middle Eastern innocents? Don’t get me started…)
Sorry for the rant, Rhodes was out of line, most definitely, but her drunken rant did far less damage than Rush or Howard or any other intellectually subpar boy we’ve been subjected to over the last 15 years.
And Camille Paglia is the true woman hater, the true misogynist, the true self hater.
Women have issues with women, no doubt, but don’t buy into the shit they’re selling.
It isn’t an us v them, it’s tolerant decent people v a bunch of stupid, pseudo intellectual self hating bigots, trying to manipulate and inflame our differences.
Thanks again, Simon, for getting to the REAL issue. The fact that Randi, even in her obviously inebriated state, could think this was OK, goes right back to the long-term process you discuss.
Simon,
You get now argument from me about Limbaugh, Stern, I wish they’d all go away from the public airways. They are responsible for the lowering of public discourse into crude and offensive language. Paglia is an overly intellectual, academic nutjob. She’s an example of what happens to someone whose life experience revolves around what she’s read in books. And she’s dotty, too!
Rush Limbaugh has a hard time with women. How many times has he been married again? He’s not very good at it is he? I would guess that Rush Limbaugh is inadequate in every sense of his personal life. You can hear it in his voice, you can see it in his face. He despises women and in the end they take him to the cleaners. In his mind, they are vile for taking him to the cleaners. But I bet that everybody around him understands why they leave him, except him.
When I look at Rush Limbaugh I imagine a young really fat kid that everybody made fun of. Unlike the crazy nutcase kids of today who open fire, Rush grew up vowing revenge. And he has his radio show.
It’s hard to fathom where self-hating women come from. Why are they blind to Obama’s huge number of faults? Why are they blind to Hillary’s amazing qualities?
I sure have no idea what’s with them.
The whole point of her using those words was to inflcict insult and to hurt. She chose those words deliberately. Parsing what the words meant is nonsense.
Larry, love your work.
And “you deliberately posted that video to get Rhodes fired..” reminds me of Homer Simpson’s accusation when the phone company explains why certain area codes were being changed- “I accuse the phone company of making that video ON PURPOSE!”
This woman is a riot. “How DARE you post that piece of damning evidence?” Hahaha. Too much.
Well Melinda,the argument that whore has several conotations is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. If you want to use that argument the N word could be used in different ways.Most of us are not thoughtless,crass,ignorant,obnoxious……… to use it.She deserves everything thats happened and I can’t see how peaceniks for the big O can believe such bullshit!
Have you guys noticed everything from Obama camp (himself, Michelle, Rev Wright, Randi, etc) has to be put in some kind of context?
I forget who here termed it this - WORM (e.g. What Obama Really Meant)!
If you read the other sites that have written articles about the Randi Rhodes video, you will find that most of the people who comment are like this lady, blame everyone for Randi being in this predicament but Randi.
I have listened to Randi for 3 years and one of her hallmark statements is that “There comes a time in everyone’s life when someone you know will show you who they really are and when they do, believe them.” I think Randi has shown us over the last few months and with this video who she really is and we need to believe her. It’s kind of a sad commentary on the future if Obama wins, isn’t it?
absolutely I agree with this.
I’ve heard Randi say almost the exact same thing too the friggen HYPOCRITE!
And she’s a Vet too!! It just makes me disgusted to call her a fellow female Vet.
I wonder if she was “honorably discharged” or “medically” discharged.
It would explain a LOT!
I think her horrible letters to Larry WERE a type of medical discharge…
It’s all of our faults that we viewed the video isn’t it? The inability to accept responsibility shows the disgrace they feel. They cannot even accept it themselves so they deflect it all onto others. Randi has been going down and that is why I stopped listening months ago.
We joke about Obama supporters being like cultists, but if that isn’t an obvious piece of evidence, what is?
David Koresh supporters could look at a camera and explain away their Dear Leader’s sexual relations with dozens of women and girls, and his complete dominance of their lives, in matter-of-fact tones, and accuse the interviewer of “Just not getting it.”
Then they could turn around and viciously assault anyone who dared to criticize Dear Leader in public or even use his own words as evidence against him. Such people were not even critics to the cultists- they were The Enemy; a Threat to Dear Leader.
I see the same psychology at play with Obama supporters. Hillary is not a political opponent- she’s a Whore and a Bitch and all of her supporters are Racist Corporate Stooges who Don’t Understand. Fairness and Democracy don’t really matter if they get in the way of Dear Leader’s success. The ONLY thing that matters is that Obama wins- everything else is just a silly distraction.
If you are a blogger or a caucus-goer who supports Hillary, you deserve no respect, because you have not accepted Dear Leader as your guiding light. Oh, and you are a lunatic because you won’t accept that It’s Over.
These raving weirdos need to get a grip. At some point, you’d think they’d figure out that bleating “Your Candidate (and her husband) are Finished” until they are blue in the face ISN’T GOING TO WORK and would just move on and let the process run it’s course. But again- the process is not important to these guys- only the result matters.
Because you are obviously a sane person, John, you can’t see that the reason Dear Leader’s supporters are raving weirdos who believe the only thing that matters is that Dear Leader wins is that their devotion has driven them INSANE. They can’t get a grip, they can’t figure anything out…
Even when authorities brought “Father Pyotr” out of the mental institution to try to talk them out of the caves because it was feared they would collapse, THEY STILL WOULDN’T LEAVE.
This whole Obama-mania has taken a life of its own and they don’t even really care WHO their nominee is anymore. They don’t even know why they’re fighting so hard to make him President.
We’re trying to be reasonable with insane people.
BINGO!!!!! I just got done with a caucus here in Washington State and we, Hillary supporters sat quietly and respectfully through ALL the Obama speeches (I won’t go into the weird way they went on and on about themselves and how great THEY were…ehew) but the moment Hillary supporters stepped up to the microphone they got booed. It was a loooong day. Oh and don’t get me started on how the Obama supporters in District 9 bailed and had Hillary supporters count the votes to nominate THEIR delegates to move on to the next level of caucuses. Friggin’ sad.
Of course you did, you’re Hillary supporters…
Wow, that’s incredible!! Thanks, Strawberrybitch, for standing for Hillary (with dignity and class) despite the disgusting behavior of the Obama-maniacs. I applaud your courage and stamina. Just know that all of us here were with you!
That’s something that’s been troubling to me. I’m on the blogs every day (the ones that don’t make me bang my head on the computer), and I have yet to see anyone really go after Obama in the way that Hillary is attacked by Obama supporters.
Yes, Hillary supporters may comment on Obama’s weaknesses and perceived faults, but that is usually based upon information. You just don’t see these character attacks on him as you do with Hillary. Hillary to them is not just wrong, she is an ‘evil bitch that must be stopped’, and so on.
Just as Rush Limbaugh and others were able to create anger for profit amongst right win men who felt powerless, Obama is doing the same thing.
It’s our economy and our culture that makes the average person powerless, but when given someone to blame their anger is directed toward that person. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove, all understood that feeling of powerlessness and frustration and they knew how to use it to their advantge to try and destroy the Clintons (who are the biggest threat to the failed republican policies.) Now we have Obama and his cohorts, and the media, doing the same thing against Hillary. The incessant talking heads and 24/7 punditry cannot thrive if there is not an enemy, someone to rally against.
That says a hell of a lot about Hillary Clinton. If you look at the level of anger and hate that’s been cultivated against her, and much of the media using that to boost their ratings, and you realize how she is still standing strong and fighting, you just realize what an amazing person she is. I can’t imagine any of us could continue on after 16 years of public abuse and ridicule.
Many of the people attacking Hillary so vehemently right now have grown up during the time of 24/7 anti-Clinton media. If you do the math, you’ll see how many of the Obama supporters view the Clintons through that filter of having Fox or CNN on during dinner at home as a young teen, when the the repubs and the media were hellbent on destroying the Clintons. She is an object of scorn because they’ve only known scorn. Hillary wins people over when they actually listen to her.. but first they have to open their minds.
It’s basically what Obama did with Wright. Instead of condemning Wright, he laid the blame on America, saying America, not Wright, was racist.
Ms. Shanks-Robbins is batshit crazy, simply put. Rhodes is responsible for her words. Trying to spin the meaning of the word “whore,” while simultaneously accusing Larry Johnson of using Rovian tactics… is Rovian.
Obama ropes people in through emotional appeals, not reason or logic based ones.
This is why a lot of Obamabots like Melinda are the way they are.
Look Obama does the rah-rah Tony Robbins feel good speech routine, little if any content but mainlines the audience with feel-goodisms. The listeners literally get a high off them.
It also helps that the audience is doing a lot of projecting and transference.
Shit like this is a staple of many motivational and self-help gurus used to make current attendees, repeat customers.
Also successful cults.
The downside this emotional intensity doesn’t last very long, typically 12-24 months and the person crashes and burns psychologically.
Never thought I’d see anyone use this in politics the way Axelrod and company have.
But it’s so weird to me that these people don’t seem to comprehend that Obama’s words, which are th only things they have to judge him, are not his words.. they are rehashed from other candidates. He is playing a part… It shocks the hell out of me that intelligent people like Jimmy Carter would actually be supporting Obama, when Obama offers nothing but David Axelrod’s words. I would think that Jimmy Carter would see that this is another George Bush/Karl Rove production… every word, every photo op, passed through the political advisor filter. Do the high profile people supporting OBama really feel that the 30+ flag officers that endorse Hillary are inconsequential.. but Oprah is of some significance in fixing our problems?
His supporters are like.. ‘it doesn’t matter what he’s done, it’s what he SAYS!!!’, but if the words don’t come from Obama, then who are they in love with? Axelrod? Gibbs? the Speechwriter? It defies logic, and it’s Bush vs. Gore all over again.
AKA neuro-linguistic programming.
These people are trying to intimidate anyone who questions their saint snooker-didoo, or whoever he claims on being this week.
Calling women — any woman — what Randi Rhodes said is misogynistic, hateful, and inappropriate. Major corporations that are legitimate should not be sponsoring these people on any level.
Bottomline, this was indefensible and your defense of it is the same.
When I say “your” I mean the female letter-writer who wrote such an over-the-top series of letters.
I’d have to say, it’s the misogynistic women that have been the worst to deal with during this campaign. Maybe because I wasn’t expecting it from them? Everybody grows up in this society with biases, nobody escapes the influence of sexism, but I just wasn’t prepared for the depth of hatred coming from women. Women! I haven’t had to explain why “whore” is a degrading word to any men. They all seem to get it. Some of the women are just downright depressing.
I’m sorry you get crazy “fan” mail, Larry Johnson. But on the bright side, many of us found No Quarter because of your detractors. You can usually find people speaking the truth by following how much outrage they’re provoking.
There is an incredible level of hypocrisy coming from the Obama camp. If anyone had said something similar about Michelle Obama they would have been up in arms and demanding the offender’s head on a pike. But it refer to Hillary Clinton is such vile vicious language is “free speech” in their mindsets.
I think what is more disturbing is the level of low discourse and actual viciousness that has entered this fight for the nomination. Many of the Obama supporters are so fanatical that it does border on a cult or personality.
I’m not a psychiatrist but my theory is that this is the personality type that fixates on an issue or person and is obsessive in their pursuit of some ideal. In this case, Obama’s candidacy. They are probably the personality type that joined Hitler’s Youth Movement during the Nazi era or were involved with the Communist witchhunt during the McCarthy era. These type of episodes eventually tend to burn out, but not before they do alot of damage.
Unfortuantely, Hillary Clinton is their target this time. They are aided and abetted by a large portion of the MSM, who has shown itself to be largely biased and in the tank for Obama.
In my view, this is not really a sexist issue. The issue is that these obsessed Obama supporters will say or do anything, no matter how low-down or dirty, to achieve their aims. Because they have a sense of entitlement that their cause is right and Clinton is in the way of them achieving their aims. The more she stands up to the bullies and refuses to give in to them, the more vicious and vile their attacks will be.
I think that we, her supporters, need to be there to fight back for her and stop the the Obama supporters from succeeding in their thuggish aims. Because you have to push back and stand up against people like this. That’s the only thing that bullies like this understand.
there is a sliver of the left that could just as easily be fanatically right wing. The first moonies for instance.
Also when The Nazis took over Germany and banned teh Communist party a sliver of the Communist activists did fit right into the fold.
The Neocons are also a particular type of Trotskyite as well.
Personally I think it has something to do with the political and theological brain wiring being fatally mixed or misfiring.
Politician as GOD. Politics as theology.
Bill Clinton’s saving characteristic was his earthy vulgarity–I like low company. cards, beer, women, off colour jokes, cars, bufoonery etc. But only if the players are also witty and whip smart under it all.
The piety of Obama makes me sick at times. He’s not enough of a rogue as far as I can tell.
Obama reminds me of William Ewart Gladstone or Edward the Confessor. The pious hypocrit. Bill Clinton was more like Palmerston or Henry VIII. Earthybound common touch. Hillary was trying to be Maggie or Elizabeth I. Iron Lady.
Oh, and I am absolutely furious at Obama. He won’t denounce Randi Rhodes words or even issue a simple statement in defense of his fellow female Democrats, but he takes the time to issue a statement condemning a talk show host for calling McCain a “warmonger”.
Obama campaign: McCain not a ‘warmonger’
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_el_pr/obama_talk_radio_host
and he’s not really condemning the talk show host - just another tactic, come off looking like a nice guy by saying not a warmonger, then say just supports a war that i don’t….i.e., a warmonger. so gets the story repeated and convinces his koolaiders that he’s a good guy, all in one sentence.
Larry, I do not like that letter, I would never vote for her or his candidate. That candidate attracts peaple like that. That makes me scared if that candidate would win. The USA would be very sad place. That is why I support Hillary 100% all the way. Larry really appreciate what you do for Hillary. Your integrity, intelligence, and insight. I wish we had more people like you and Susan who do what do for Hillary. The media and the DNC have been very unfair to Hillary. That makes me even more strong to be against their programming of American people. Please do more to help Hillary to win this race. She is the best person to help this troubled nation right now. I trust her.
Am I missing something here? On what possible basis could Randi Rhodes sue Larry? I thought she wanted to sue Air America for suspending her.
I’ll have what Miss Melinda is having.
Then I’ll retire to the closet with my Grateful Dead tapes.
The colors, oh the colors.
me too, but i’ll take joplin, morrison (jim) and hendrix. i can see my hands moving across the sky….
Mr Peanuts will strolling by with his cain a twirling…damn side walk.
Aoxamoxa is playing.
Amazingly insightful thoughtful comments. I have nothing left to add because you guys seem to have said it all.
Thank you, Larry and everyone here, for verbalizing these concepts so brilliantly.
I notice that Melinda never actually answers your question about supporting calling Clinton and Ferraro “fucking whores.” Instead she employs a little misdirection and tries to engage you in an argument about her criticism of Clinton.
I do wonder though, if Melinda were willing to actually discuss the issue at hand, how she felt about Don Imus, the comments he made and whether or not she thought he should have been fired. I wonder if there’s any consistency in Melinda’s
thinkingfeeling about a comparable situation.There was a comment yesterday on myDD that said the folks over here at NQ were bat guano crazy….
The email that Larry got from a BO/RR supporters pretty much proves who is bat shit crazy and it ain’t us…
What that woman wrote to you was the media/Obama camp talking points we’ve all been hearing for the last 6 months. It proves so many people don’t think for themselves. If Obama attacks Clinton it’s fine, (and he does it often through his minions) but if she does it’s “Rovian” or out of the “GOP Playbook”. Total double standard. It also proves we are beyond a doubt a nation of sheeple. They just repeat what they hear on the tee-vee.
But, I think it’s easy enough for women to despise other women. I despise Randi Rhodes and I never want to hear her raspy, drunken voice again. She defines the word “hack”. I know I probably shouldn’t say that about another woman, but I can’t stand that boring bitch and I hope she gets fired.
Randi Rhodes is a nobody.
and if she ever WAS a somebody
she aint no moe! (in my BEST NC slang)
To borrow an English quote: “She has ceased to be. She has ex - pired. Bereft of life, she rests in peace. If you hadn’t nailed her to the perch she would be pushing up the daisies. She has rung down the curtain and joined the choir in Vittibule. She is an ex - mouthpiece”. (Trivia question - where did I get that from?) (Yes, I know that I didn’t get the quote quite right.)
Persona non grata. Her mouthpiece is now corpus delecti. RIP.
“She’s joined the choir invisible. She’s an EX-parrot.” Love me that Monty Python!
I love reading the posts trying to pinpoint WTF is up with these Obamacans. I hope someday someone will publish a paper explaining how all these people were bamboozled. I agree with the comments comparing them to Hitler’s youth movement, or the Koresh followers, or the motivational speakers (remember EST?). There’s some weird chit going on, and we can only keep on keepin’ on, and hope the Super D’s are a bit more level-headed, or rational, or solid, or something than the seemingly deluded followers of this charlatan.
Thanks so much Larry for opening your place up for those of us who just won’t fall for the crap being fed to us by Corporate Press, and the marketing Team of St. O.
I can’t wait until this election is over.
I have zero finger nails left!
just caught a bit of cspan with Dana Perino interviewing DeeDee Myers on her book why women should rule the world (or something like that).
THAT was an odd moment! These two women different as night and day yet share a couple real COMMON bonds! Being Press Secretary’s and Women (DD was the first apparently, something I never knew)
It was another one of those twilight zone moments as I think Dana actually admires DeeDee! It shocked me.
Jusr because she’s dumber than dirt doesn’t mean she doesn’t know Whose to Kiss and When…
Green960 has reposted the video. If they are so offended at the video being posted…then why do they have the video posted publicly in the first place?
They apparently endorse Randi Rhodes calling two women of such prestige “fucking whores”. Perhaps Green960 needs to understand the real meaning of Free Speech by hearing some Free Speech by those who do not appreciate this savage attack on two women who were not there to defend themselves from this vicious attack by hatemonger Randi Rhodes.
The applause of the audience doesn’t indicate much other than their own sexist ravages. Do you think that Klan members don’t applaud Hal Turner?
And they state it was a private event…It ceased to be private when the posted the hour long video on their website. How private is it to do so?
Then I noticed that the link doesn’t work (thanks again truthtelling007) on the YouTube page. It claims copyright infringment. Yet when you got to Green960, they relink back to Truthtelling007 to the Hannity and Colmes clip from FoxNews.
So let me get this straight…when it doesn’t benefit them…they attack YouTube poster for “copyright” but when it does benefit them…they link to a YouTube clip from…THE SAME POSTER!
FUCKING HYPOCRITES!
Let Green960 know what you think about it. The puffy General Manager, has a clip up at YouTube saying he loves Freedom of Speech when it calls to put that idiot Stephanie Miller on the air…does he love it when that Free Speech cost Randi Rhodes a suspension? No he equates that with censorship. This is a sign of how morally indifferent he is about Freedom of Speech when it benefits and when it doesn’t.
FUCK GREEN960 the sexist support station.
http://www.green960.com/pages/contact.html
As of this date, 4-5, only 556 people have signed the petition to reinstate Randi Rhodes..where is that vast audience they are appealing to?
Hear hear. We very much appreciate what you do, Mr. Johnson!
btw Larry I love that you use military time!
Brings back fond memories!
this divide between the DEMS reminds me of a tear being forced against all the grains
like cutting meat or ripping material the wrong direction it just shreds and ends up a mess
THIS is how I feel the split is happening.
It’s not a natural split. Not (to me) looking very solid on either side.
a lot of UN-natural allies (or so it seems to me)
I don’t see it holding
i believe one of the other posters said it best,
she is HIGH ON OBAMAID…
once ingested there is no known cure…
UNLESS, A TRUTH INTERVENTION IS PERFORMED, twenty four ours after consumption.
in my opinion, OBAMAID has reached critical mass,
and the subject can now be declared DOA…
LOL my word is baracKOOLAID!
Clinton got a standing ovation at a speech today. Here’s the link:
Clinton: Nomination Is Worth Fighting For
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/clinton-nomination-is-worth-fighting-for/
seeing a video clip would be perfect
I’m guessing the media wasn’t bothered?
:-/
DOA= DAMN OBAMA ANDROID
Everytime I see the initials “BO” I think of Body Odor.
I have to question the judgment of anyone who would equate posting a video with physical assault or rape. It shows a shocking lack of maturity and basic common sense - and a severe lack of sensitivity.
One of the major reasons I won’t support Obama is because his followers are so vicious and hateful. They reflect very poorly on him, particularly since I’ve never seen them called on their behavior.
Just heard Tony Snow on the radio, telling us that Obama will get the nomination, and that McGramps will smoke him.
He DID say that HRC would be a much more formidable candidate against the GOP.
Duh.
Call the Nobel Committee!
First, what does terrorism has to do with Randi Rhode’s calling Clinton and Ferraro “f—– w—” ?
Second, well I cannot even address the second part of her comment since it is sooooo crazy !!
Poor Melinda Shanks-Robbins… I have no clue who she is (not that I care) but
she needs a neurologist to reconnect her neurons…
Oh wait…would “Obama’s health insurance plan” give her access
to appropriate care?
I don’t think any medical plan would help this poor woman. Cause there is no cure for stupid. Medication for mental illness, yes. Medication for congenital dumbness, not available at this point in time.
“There is none so blind, as those who will not see”.
And there are none so blind as an Obamapologist. There is nothing they will not excuse, no depth to which they will not descend and no filth with which they will not foul their own nest. Congenital Dumbness writ large.
…..From: Melinda Shanks-Robbins
Sent: Apr 5, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Larry Johnson
Subject: Re: Randi
You are the one who needs mental health couseling. You deliberately posted that video to get her fired from her job, because she has said she is for Obama. More Rove tactics from the Clinton camp……
I agree with you Melinda. Larry Johnson is the crackpot. Can’t he come up with some other response other than, “Maybe you stopped taking you meds” — because in case he hasn’t noticed, this lame retort is getting kind of old. Furthermore, must all Americans, particularly women such as myself, find it necessary to move to Europe to get some respect?
Another poor soul suffering from congenital dumbness. Go away little troll. Nobody wants to play with you today.
I have two passports. How many do YOU have? Now, who is it again that is suffering from congenital dumbness?
First, what does terrorism have to do with Randi Rhode’s calling Clinton and Ferraro “f—– w—” ?
Second, well I cannot even address the second part of her comment since it is sooooo crazy !!
Poor Melinda Shanks-Robbins… I have no clue who she is (not that I care) but
she needs a neurologist to reconnect her neurons…
Oh wait…would “Obama’s health insurance plan” give her access
to appropriate care?
…..Your whole business is based on the fake terrorism boogyman. That is why you want Clinton to be President…..
And you’re right about this too, Melinda. This time in 2006, Homeland Security was turning back all the flights from Heathrow. But what a difference two years and a worthless dollar make. Does anybody think Europeans would be eagerly spending their Euros in the USA if they anticipated transportation obstacles being put in their way?
Mr Johnson , there is no firewall for stupity…they always seem to get though the SPAM* filter
Thanks for sharing the ravings of an unhingged person…thanks heavens for the delete key.
*Stupid People Are Morons
Wow, now I know I’m in a parallel universe. You’re a rapist for protesting Rhodes calling Hillary a “fucking whore.” What is wrong with these people?
I think there is a tendency on both sides to interpret any kind of attack as either racism or sexism.
I kind of wonder at the eagerness of some on the left to want to make people lose their careers whenever they say something controversial. I can’t stand Ann Coulter, I can’t stand Rush Limbaugh, but they have just as much of a right to have a job as Bill Maher did when he was shut down for opening his mouth after 9/11.
When did we become the anti-free speech party?
I thought that what Geraldine Ferraro said was offensive and racist. Did I think she should be kept from having a job? No. Did I think that Clinton should sever her ties with her? Yes.
I understand your anger and frustration at Randi. I understand why you would want Obama to repudiate her words. I do not and will not understand why you are trying to take her livelihood away for a comment she made when she wasn’t even on the radio. What you are doing is wrong.
You understand my frustration? And then accuse me of “taking away her livelihood”? Are you insane? I’m not “taking away” her livelihood. I don’t listen to Air America anymore. I don’t advertise on Air America. I have no personal or professional relationship with any person in a management decision with Air America. I have no say about her job. The management at Air America made that decision. Go complain to them. Got it bonehead?
I have simply pointed out that she used sexist, hate speech towards two accomplished, professional women. Randi’s beef with Hillary, based on the video, is that Hillary wants the Super Delegates to exercise their own judgment. That makes Hillary a whore? If that makes sense to you then you inhabit a different planet. A world reserved for neocons who think the war in Iraq is going swell. One in which Republicans think it is okay to expose an undercover CIA officer.
You use the same immorality and logic employed in the Bush White House. Like those assholes, you will defend the indefensible because the person dumping shit–Randi Rhodes in this case–is on your side.
Well, I don’t have a side. If supporters of Hillary called Barack a “fucking nigger” I’d be equally outraged. But not you. You don’t worry about the fundamental issue of right and wrong. Well bucko, there is right and there is wrong. This is not a question of whether you like vanilla bean ice cream or sorbet. It is not an argument about whether or not Pinot Noir is better than Merlot. Randi verbally attacked a woman using the most vile, misogynist term available. What Randi did is wrong. And the fact that you will defend her conduct is an indictment of your moral and intellectual shallowness. Nazis excused the gassing of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Bush and company have excused the shredding of the Constitution to imprison and torture people outside the bounds of judicial review. And now you excuse the verbal assault on two women who simply want to debate a valid question about what delegates should do in deciding who should be the next President.
You disgust me.
There are two people in this world whom I would want in a foxhole with me:
Larry and Hillary.
oh…and you said I could write your rants for you…nonsense…you are a pro!
Great Job!
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Bravisimo.
Moral Equivalence is what we call this shit.
And disgust you they should Larry. They will excuse words and tactics that would gag a Bushbot so long as they believe it benefits their candidate. I don’t think they need medication, I think they need de-programming.
Larry,
I meant you in the plural sense, as in “you all commenting on this thread who are trying to get her fired”. I do apologize for not clarifying that. Calling me a bonehead will not make me back down from the content of my post.
I didn’t defend Randi, I argued against censorship.
Your analogies blow things way out of proportion. As a woman I don’t think that a woman calling another woman a w**** is the same as a White person calling an African American the “N” word. What she said was inappropriate, offensive, and wrong, but it is not the same.
I do not take issue with people who are angry at Randi, I take issue with people signing petitions and writing letters because they want to get her fired. I don’t think that reacting in this way does anything to further discussion or educate people. Just so you know I argued the same thing when people on other blogs were saying that this is a site full of irrational racists a few days ago. I defended the right of people here to have an opinion.
Go ahead and call me a bonehead, equate me with Nazi apologists, I’m a pretty tough cookie so it really won’t hurt my feelings, but it does nothing to further your cause. Things have changed since the era of the civil rights movement. 40 years of anger hasn’t managed to end racism and sexism. In fact, calling people racists or sexists causes them to shut down and become defensive. It also causes many people to shut their ears and ignore what happened because they are sick of having people routinely call every slight an example of racism or sexism. This country has passed the point at which angry rants are effective means of creating change on these issues. I would like to see all Democrats come together and calmly call the media, candidates, and their supporters to task for making this campaign about race and gender.
Comment by yikes | 2008-04-06 03:18:20
You Obamabots merely repeat what you’ve been told.
Ferraro was speaking about the SEXISM of this campaign.
And there is a quote from Obama (repeated several places) where Obama says essentially the same thing about himself that Ferraro says.
The sexism is that we have a female candidate who is almost over qualified for the job she is campaigning for — she is super intelligent and she understands how Washington works. Then we have a male candidate who has so little experience that his campaign should have been over before it began.
But the Obamabots just wanted to find someone to pin the donkey tail (racism) on — and they found an obscure interview with Ferraro who is saying what a lot of women who have been passed over for promotions by younger men who are totally unqualified for the job.
Sexism is so pervasive in the American culture — and the Obamabots can scream racism when the subject was SEXISM — and the Obamamedia falls in line like good Obamabots.
You koolaid drinking fools are bat shit crazy and most of you seem to be sexist as well — and you all can’t even see how sexist you are.
You — mr. yikes — are one of the worse — because you continue the lie that what Ferraro said was racist — she was talking about the SEXISM of this campaign — you idiot.
There was a thread at The New York Times Caucus Blog about Emily’s List endorsing Clinton. It was met with Obama supporters impersonating females who were outraged by a group formed to support female candidates was supporting a female candidate.
It is just the obamatroll army who lie and smear and try to cast mud on everybody.
When it was mentioned that Al Gore might step into the convention as a candidate they instantly bashed Gore with filth. When he later remained neutral and were called on their lies about him the same people started saying they admire Al…
How do they sleep at night? They are humorless as well. Whatever Obama is guilty of they instantly try to spread the same thing on Clinton, wrongfully.
I’ve noticed this for months.
Wright gets turned to: her pastor (snyder) who she never even met, a photo of bill with him and a gaggle of ministers at the WH, linking her to that national prayer meeting group (along with obama and dozens of pols) and even saying she prays with hilter sympatizers type stories. This is just one example of their rubber-glue tactics.
Rezko is attached to her by one photo op but they keep claiming it is her who is connected!
These things are beyond the gullibility factor, they do this as a plan attack. They are a contagion of vileness and a plague.
Paul Krugman, Gerry Ferraro and others have gotten avalanches of hate mail after comments which shed light on obama. They must know the truth and yet fight it with all the dark forces they can muster.
The Clinton supporters make me proud to be among them. They are fighting the good fight till the end.
The opposition is not blind, they truly are delusional and think they can win at all cost. This isn’t Alice Palmer they are up against this time.
And I hear the same arguments from the Obamabots of the internet.
It’s not HIS fault that he sat in a pew for 20 years listening to racist speech and even donated to that church, it’s the fault of those who made the speeches public.
It’s not HIS fault that he hung out with corrupt political fixers and Weather Underground radicals. He’s not to blame for anything.
Anyone else see a parallel to the adoration of George Bush from 1999 through the devastation of Hurricane Katrina?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
How any woman can be fine with what is happening in this Presidential race on the Democratic side is way beyond my comprehension. We will not tolerate racism in any form and rightly so, it is abhorrent. Yet the Obama supporters are quick to label real and perceived slights as such and demand that Hillary must apologize. But they jump quickly to defend and explain away any faint hint or implication of sexism coming from their camp. I tend to judge a man on how he treats the women in his life. John McCain is really proud of his wife, daughters and most obviously his elderly mother. The fact that Obama has engaged in sexist language and has not condoned the misogynist attacks against Sen. Clinton coupled with the disdain of his mother in comments made in his book,tells me all that I need to know about him.
Barack Obama has made several statements that should insult women–including the recent one he made in Philly, while he was trying to charm factory workers by flirting with them. He called one of them ’sweetie.’
Ya know, I bet she was thrilled–until she went home and thought about that, and probably realized she’d been patronized by another “charming man.”
This is the same man they meet in their communities, at their place of work, in the local bar on the weekend, and even in their own family–you know the type–the “charmer” who thinks he’s just God’s Gift To Women and the World? The same one who never actually accomplished anything; yet thinks he is something special?
The first clue about those “charming men” is that they are the first ones to tell you they’re so charming. That’s their calling card; their central character trait. Charm; it’s how they get from one place to another.
Women still fall for it; they get a thrill from being in the warmth of the spillover from the halo, I guess. But, there’s a malice toward women in those “charming” men; there’s an implied contempt in their very charm. Surely, we’ve seen it from Chris Matthews, who patronizes, and even sexually harrasses young beautiful women on his Hardball show in front of millions of viewers.
Barack Obama has that same contempt for women. Anyone can read it in his repeated comments about Sen. Clinton, and in his patronizing attitude when he calls factory workers, “sweetie.”
YUCK! “Sweetie” only cute little olsladies and men may call me that! For someone of Obama’s age (a couple of years younger than me) to use that other than talking to a baby is INCREDIBLY patronizing. What a piece of work he is.
The writer has a hypen in her name. I guess I need to be a little more crazy to get a hypen in my name. Or maybe I should not be a women who takes offensive at such vile description of other women. What is wrong with that writer to defend the remarks of Randi? I can’t answer the question, but she has a hypen and I don’t. Let me go and drink some crazy kool aid and maybe I can get a hypen.
If anything, Lonesome Rhodes verbally raped 2 women of extraordinary accomplishments. I don’t know what kind of drugs that woman who wrote you is taking but please keep whatever it is far, far away from me. It sounds like she is Free-Basing Obama O’Blarney.
Larry and everybody. Thanks for all of your insight. This Brave New Barack World is very scary. Up is down, down is up, etc., etc., etc. It is a comfort to know that there are a lot of sane people out there still. I think these loonies act this wasy because they are trying to drive the rest of us crazy.
I too would like to add my thanks to this site and most of those who post here for brightening my days.
After finding that the pod-people had taken over most of the blogs where I had spent so much time I felt really alone. My old family had been unable to stay awake and had been Body/Snatched. Or maybe it was the Borg. Whatever.
Unless, could they all be secret Cylons?
Sorry it’s obvious I spend way too much time watching the Sci-Fi channel. But thanks again Larry and Susan.
You just built an entire false premise - “Female Misogynists for Obama”… “Women who hate women seem to flock around Obama. How else to explain the nutty reaction of some ladies to NoQuarter publicizing Randi Rhodes verbal abuse…”
all based on your interaction(s) w/ one person?
Weak… very weak.
Don’t worry Kevin, your little pee pee will NOT fall off if Hillary becomes President.
too funny, I point out the salaciousness of Larry’s post, and you immediately equate that to my fears re: hillary becoming president?
Thanks for the concern for my penis however. That’s might neighborly of ya…
Your old prof from trollschool just phoned me. He’s livid.
He was OK about your unequivocal statement that a premise is entirely false at the beginning of the argument. He considers that properly inflammatory for a troll and bound to attract lots of attention to you.
What generated his initial ire was your capitulation at the end when you considered Johnson’s assertion weak, and by implication, not false, thus contradicting your properly inflammatory original assertion.
What made his head really explode was that you then abandoned a priori reasoning for induction.
Evidently that mixing of the arguments is not kosher in trollschool.
His advice: When in a hole, stop digging.
(I know, I promised not to feed the trolls but when they roger the syllogism I just gotta cut loose)
Does anyone ever wonder how much of the campaign contributions that are going to Obama actually come from either foriegn sources via email?
Often.
Thanks for replying - both Uppity and Andy. And Larry Johnson, I think I should surely go nuts were it not for you and a dwindling group of sites that has allowed us to keep our sanity in this vicious and demented environment.
It seems to me that we all need to keep an eye on this possible problem. It does not seem impossible that our election is being decided based on some foreign group considering the kind of pollution of foreign money that Obama has been comfortable with out of Chicago.
I think I will begin to email everyone that I can think of a version of this question. If there is a better source of email addresses to use than that supplied by Taylor Marsh, please let me know.
And thank you for all being here. Susan
Most people are very resistant to this suggestion, but you hit the nail on the head.
And really, with so little governance, why wouldn’t foreign money try to influence US politicians, in this manner?
So much money, and so much influence.
Simon, I appreciate the fact that you noted this because it has bothered me for some time. Having been a college student for many years and then part-time faculty, I know the limitations of “limitless” student contributions - at least in my gut I know it - and it seems to me that enormous numbers of “new” small donation contributors over and over again month after month is suspicious and can be generated by just a few people - with finer computer skills than mine and possibly in foreign venues - sitting in one room in one city pretending to be those enormous numbers of new small donors. I can’t imagine who could regulate this. And Axlerod must have known this long ago… considering that Obama has never really won an election in any “fair and square” manner. It was sometime last year that we were told that Obama was actually counting all of the “bumper stickers” he sold as donations and that was what surged his numbers. It seems like we kind of fell for that one and no one has asked since. But, to quote George Roy Hill (and by extension Robert Redford and Paul Newman) from “Butch Cassidy…”: “Who are those guys (donors)???”
But then this is a film uniquely American from when Obama was 8 yrs old and if he didn’t know that 9/11 had been predicted, I doubt he would recognize that quote.
I loved that movie.
“Use enough dynamite there, Butch?”
As the plump unctuous Rezko comes undone, as the terrorism web unravels, I’m sure we will find out much more about Obama’s funding.
Unfortunately, it might not be for a few more years.
Willful denial is a refuge of false security, people are willing to co opt lies for the sake of pretending everything is OK, for the sake of appearance.
It’s a dangerous world, deliberate ignorance makes it even more dangerous, unnecessarily so.
And in the case of 9.11, over 3500 Americans died, or were murdered, and that simply didn’t have to happen, IMO.
I’ve asked the same question many times….What gov. agency monitors this?
Aviva posted this video yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g
Note the words the reporter uses after interviewing the man; she talks about this man’s “time and money” invested in rallying support for Obama in the US.
One wonders how is his money being used?
[...] to be on their website. It is a part of their BIG TENT approach. Republicans, Terrorists, Racists, Mysogynists, Homophobes and Bigots For Obama is their battle cry. And the Obama campaign only takes this stuff [...]
It is nice to see a man calling this out. I get so tired sometimes as a woman having to deal with this all by my lonesome while too many men stand around saying, “What’s the problem with that?”
so thanks, Larry.
The big picture is that it is unacceptable to promote, or support sexism. When you publicly call a woman a whore you are then guilty of insulting all women. Randi Rhodes, as a public figure, and a woman could’ve and should’ve been sensitive to the fact that she was demeaning to herself. The problem is that she chose her words incorrectly and she attacked a woman who as many know has worked doggedly on behalf of women’s and children’s rights. Even Samantha Power had to apologize and backtrack on her “monster” mistake (as she calls it), and state that she in fact has publicly spoken of her admiration of Senator Clinton the woman, and of her life’s public service(except Iraq).
As a woman, I am saddened to see how many young women disrespect themselves by allowing sexism to happen in their lives without a challenge. I blame the media, MTV, much of the new generation of hip-hop, old values that will not go away if not directly challenged, and an overall sense of simply wanting to believe that we really have as a nation transcended not only racism, but sexism as well. The truth is sexism is an even bigger socioeconomic issue today than racism. For many, such a statement will be considered incorrect, As a woman, I disagree. If Obama was a woman, or a black woman, this would be a different presidential race. If Obama was instead the experienced, older white or black male candidate, and Clinton was the eloquent, younger, inspiring, less experienced, black or white female candidate, this would be a different race. Then, experience would be all important, and great speeches would be seen for what they are, great speeches lacking action.
Oh, this is still a man’s world with the help of some women the believe the
propaganda against being a feminist and what it really means. Feminism does not mean you support the female gender regardless of any real merit. Rather, feminism was and still is a movement to elevate women in society and attain the status of first class citizen. This a fight women are still in today. Sad. It’s fine to disagree with Senator Clinton on the issue, it is another thing to engage in ad hominem attacks. If anybody where to call Obama a f!#%!! bastard, well, the public outcry would be like a tsunami. However, the word bitch, cunt, whore,etc… are so routine and matter of fact, that society, generally speaking have become desensitized.
Most important, is context. The Randi Rhodes comments were made at an Obama sponsored fundraiser. No word from “The One” himself on the matter. Instead, the campaign sent a memo stating they had nothing to do with it. That’s it. Wow, that was far from being a message of unification, hope and
change.
As for me, my eyes are wide open, and I will not drink the kool-aid. I have done and continue to research both candidates. I do support Senator Clinton. I support her not because she is a woman, but rather, because of the woman that she is: Strong, courageous, experienced, compassionate, willing, ready, and able. I don’t hold her up on a pedestal, as I know she is only human. She inspires a great confidence in me to see the real change through real solutions that will bring about real progress with her presidency. No disrespect to Senator Obama, who still has many years ahead of him to prove himself. He just has not closed the deal with me.
I can’t be afraid Larry
There was something so hateful in the Rhodes clip, I mean it wasn’t even funny unless you hated Hillary, and then the type of funny that it was…….if you were laughing you may need to seek some help for your displaced rage. No matter what a person’s political beliefs may be they can sell out their principles in an attempt to gain some sort of end product. I was never a Rhodes fan so I’m not sure what her standards were and if she sold anything out dear to herself or not by calling two female figures of the party she claims to champion whores, but the masses have their own standards and she crossed it.
[...] Female Mysogynists for Obama (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) Women who hate women seem to flock around Obama… Let me introduce you to a person who says she is Melinda Shanks-Robbins…[:] “… Going after Randi the way you [Larry] did is no different than physically assalting or raping her. You are a criminal. I hope she does sue your ass.” Can you follow the batshit logic here? Posting the video of Randi calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro is the equivalent of beating or raping Randi? Jesus Christ!! We are to blame for Randi’s intemperate remarks? It is impossible to even begin to fathom the stupidity of the person who would make such a comparison. [In a later message:] “You can spin what you did anyway you want, but it still was cruel, petty, and of course Rovian.” So folks, I leave it to you to decide. Who is the spinner here? So remember, if you publicize the film clip of someone saying something that they really said that, in the fantasy world of Obamaland, is Rovian. Be afraid. Be very afraid. And I hear the same arguments from the Obamabots. It’s not HIS fault that he sat in a pew for 20 years listening to racist speech and even donated to that church, it’s the fault of those who made the speeches public. It’s not HIS fault that he hung out with corrupt political fixers and Weather Underground radicals. He’s not to blame for anything. Anyone else see a parallel to the adoration of George Bush from 1999 through the devastation of Hurricane Katrina? [...]
[...] Female Mysogynists for Obama (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) Women who hate women seem to flock around Obama… Let me introduce you to a person who says she is Melinda Shanks-Robbins…[:] “… Going after Randi the way you [Larry] did is no different than physically assalting or raping her. You are a criminal. I hope she does sue your ass.” Can you follow the batshit logic here? Posting the video of Randi calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro is the equivalent of beating or raping Randi? Jesus Christ!! We are to blame for Randi’s intemperate remarks? It is impossible to even begin to fathom the stupidity of the person who would make such a comparison. [In a later message:] “You can spin what you did anyway you want, but it still was cruel, petty, and of course Rovian.” So folks, I leave it to you to decide. Who is the spinner here? So remember, if you publicize the film clip of someone saying something that they really said that, in the fantasy world of Obamaland, is Rovian. Be afraid. Be very afraid. And I hear the same arguments from the Obamabots. It’s not HIS fault that he sat in a pew for 20 years listening to racist speech and even donated to that church, it’s the fault of those who made the speeches public. It’s not HIS fault that he hung out with corrupt political fixers and Weather Underground radicals. He’s not to blame for anything. Anyone else see a parallel to the adoration of George Bush from 1999 through the devastation of Hurricane Katrina? [...]
[...] to be on their website. It is a part of their BIG TENT approach. Republicans, Terrorists, Racists, Mysogynists, Homophobes and Bigots For Obama is their battle cry. And the Obama campaign only takes this stuff [...]
[...] Female Mysogynists for Obama [...]