The above photograph was taken at the Diller-von Furstenberg 2nd Annual Awards, as Chelsea presented her mother, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the first Inspiration Award.

Some of the most poignant moments for me of the 2008 Campaign were to see Chelsea Clinton with her mother. The pride she felt, the love, the connection, was evident by the way Chelsea looked at her mother when she was speaking. This photo reminds me of those days when a woman garnered the most votes of any candidate during a primary ever.

Yes, it brought back some memories, like this one of Chelsea and her mother:

(Joe Raedle-Getty Images)

Ah, yes – those were the days. It seems appropriate during Women’s History Month to remember, to affirm, just how close we came to having a woman president for the first time in this country. And to recognize just how far we have to go to achieve true equality in this country. Sadly, more qualified, accomplished, women still have to take a back seat to younger, unqualified men. It is a sobering thought.

Given that Clinton was just awarded an Inspiration award, what should we make of it when the Secretary Clinton consistently highlights the importance of girls and women to be educated, that the very development of communities, and countries, depend on how women fare. Yet when discussing Afghanistan, women, and USAID, a senior official claims that:“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.” (H/t to Yttik.)

“Pet rocks”? That’s how this “senior official,” who would speak only under conditions of anonymity, describes over half the population in relation to a USAID contract in Afghanistan? And on the eve of International Women’s Day, no less?

I hope you appreciate my restraint in not writing what I really think of this man (but you can feel free to add your two cents worth about him).

Allow me to provide some context for his assholic remark, though it may make you even madder. The quote is from a Washington Post article entitled, “In Afghanistan, U.S. Shifts Strategy On Women’s Rights As It Eyes Wider Priorities.” Yes, the headline does provide a bit of a clue as to the intent, but this makes it crystal clear:

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sought bids last March for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan, it insisted that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women’s rights: The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women’s land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women’s rights.

Before the contract was awarded, USAID overhauled the initiative, stripping out those concrete targets. Now, the contractor only has to perform “a written evaluation of Afghan inheritance laws,” assemble “summaries of input from women’s groups” and draft amendments to the country’s civil code.

The removal of specific women’s rights requirements, which also took place in a $600 million municipal government program awarded last year, reflects a shift in USAID’s approach in Afghanistan. Instead of setting ambitious goals to improve the status of Afghan women, the agency is tilting toward more attainable measures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes, “attainable measures.” Right. Presumably that means turning the other way when girls get acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban. Or when women are killed through “honor” killings. I could go on, but I trust you get the idea.

So a senior official refers to women as “pet rocks” in a discussion of how USAID, which falls under the State Department, has thrown women under the bus in their contract requirements. Wow.

I remember well those days, just three short years ago, when Hillary Clinton was amassing the most votes of anyone ever in the history of the country. I remember well the excitement of women, children, and men alike that this incredible, capable, intelligent, qualified woman had surfaced in a run for the White House. And I remember well how the media, the DNC, and Obama himself, worked to destroy her by any means necessary, including massive misogyny at every turn.

And then she went to work for him.

The issues that affect women and girls has always been of the greatest importance to Hillary Clinton. Or at least they were until she became Secretary of State under the least qualified man ever to sit in the White House, pushed over the far more qualified woman. The issues that always meant so much to her, to us, now take a back seat as “special interests.” Over half the population in the world has been reduced to a “pet rock.” Holy moley.

I have never been inspired by a politician the way I was by Hillary Clinton. I have never donated so much time, money, or energy as I did for Hillary Clinton. Two years ago, I would have said, “hell to the yes” she deserves an Inspiration Award. But when her department fails to do what is right for women in Afghanistan, or Egypt, or Libya, or Iran, or anywhere else in the world, because women are seen as “special projects,” not worthy of full humanity, well, I find that less than inspiring.

Frankly, I find it disturbing. How about you?

Listening to our local FOX 25 this morning, a fill-in for the off-the-wall winger VB surmised that this weekend we witnessed the successful outcome of a kid raised with true family values, rather than talk.

Think about it.

Shy Chelsea moves into the White House when she’s 12. She lives through the glare of the cameras, the onslaught of the rightwing witch hunt of her mother and the scandal of her dad’s affair. Yet, she turns out to be a wonderful woman who marries the guy she met in high school.

So, the commentator on TV wanted to give Bill and Hillary props for their undeniable family values. In comparing Chelsea’s parents and Bristol Palin’s parents, he said something to the effect, that the “party of family values” could learn something from these two who actually practice it.

Bill and Hillary Clinton raised their daughter to be a woman that girls of every party and every religion can admire and emulate.

Here’s Chelsea through the years in photos below.

Cross-posted from the hampster nest over at http://www.partizane.com

Arkansas days

Young Chelsea

Family

Chelsea and Marc

Chelsea and Marc later

The smiling couple

Shortly before 11 p.m. local time, the Clintons exited a van arm-in-arm outside the Beekman Arms Hotel. The former first lady, in a long, green dress, waved to the cheering crowd waiting behind metal barricades outside and quickly went into the hotel. They left about a half-hour later.

Earlier in the day, Bill Clinton, looking fit and relaxed in blue jeans and a black knit shirt, walked with security a few blocks north from the picturesque village’s main intersection to the restaurant Gigi Trattoria.

Of course, he attracted a huge crowd, as both Hill and Bill usually do, and mingled among them answering questions:

“We’re all fine.”

“We love it here,” he said. “Chelsea loves the area as well.”

I was thrilled to see them both looking so joyous and all of us at NoQuarter wish a beautiful wedding day to Chelsea and Mark – and to Chelsea’s parents who have enduring such mistreatment at the hands of the press. One of the high points of the campaign of 2008 was soft spoken Chelsea hitting the campaign trail as her mother’s most effective surrogate.

It has been fascinating to watch the media tripping all over itself to offer more than mere speculation on this top secret celebration. Big media has been reporting on the high price tag of the wedding for 400 guests, quoting figures of $2 million or even more. Security and secrecy has added stress and expense to the event for a family whose tastes are not extravagant, according to ABC News.

I’m sure secrecy has been of huge importance so that the wedding is not invaded by paparazzi and other vultures. Yet I take any of the media dollar figures with a huge grain of salt. It would not surprise me to discover that the wedding is costing far less than big media’s outrageous estimates. They barely get anything else right when discussing the Clintons. Why trust this?

The UK’s Daily Mail reported yesterday on Chelsea looking exhausted the day before the wedding, as if no one on their staff had ever gotten married. The stress of the upcoming event, and the fact that one is doing a lot of last minute prep accounts for a less than stellar appearance as one is racing about town. Trust me — Chelsea will make a lovely bride!

The top secret event to be held at Astor Estates in picturesque Rhinebeck is a huge event for the town and has had reporters speculating on the guest list as well. The Obamas have politely declined an invitation. The Gores will not be in attendance either. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Former British Prime Minister John Major, and Ted Turner are reportedly on the list of the hottest event of the summer…

My hope is that every face Chelsea and Mark see at their wedding will reflect love and light back to them and give them yet more reason to celebrate. That is as it should be.

(photo courtesy Arkansas Times)

We’ll be keeping you posted of new developments but for now, we wish all the best to the Clinton family as they celebrate their daughter’s wedding.

Now, I have said before I used to love the guy, DVR’ed him every night. But, once he started with the raging misogyny against Hillary Clinton, even defending David Schuster for calling Chelsea a whore and Hillary a pimp, I knew I could not stomach him anymore. But then again, I wasn’t an Obama sycophant like the vast majority of the JournoListers are, and Olbermann is. So imagine my surprise when I read that was one of the reasons they hate him, too:

[snip] At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nation’s Katha Pollitt began the group’s rant. “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy,” Pollitt said.

Michael O’Hare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was “about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable person’s internal alarm doesn’t go off in a situation like that …’I’m going to ridicule a girl who’s obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me’?”

O’Hare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. “If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse,” he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize. [snip]

Click here to read the rest.

Incredible, isn’t it? A number of these folks really get it about Olbermann, and his blatant misogyny. No one was more surprised than I was, especially given the level of misogyny leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by many on the left.

But still, Olbermann had some supporters, like David Roberts, who appreciated his getting out the liberal news to the masses, so there is that. But that is not so surprising.

And while I am on the whole JournoList thing again, Tucker Carlson, the Editor in Chief of Daily Caller has written a follow-up letter to address the expose of Journolist. He writes about the two arguments currently being used to justify what these journalists did, and some claims that they are making. Specifically, he wrote:

[snip]The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with. [snip]

Click here to read the rest of the letter by Carlson.

I recommend reading the entire series at Daily Caller. It is certainly informative, though the piece about Keith Olbermann cannot help but make me smile. He SO deserves to receive this disdain by some of the very elite of whom he seems to count himself. Teehee! It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving fellow. To quote Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost!”

And how.

I agree that the debasing attacks on the former Governor are ridiculous. Hannity just conducted an interview with Palin which brought him huge ratings. He was respectful to her and I’m sure the principles she trumpets are similar to his own. That is fine. What is not fine is the nonsense he spewed with his panel as they all got fired up defending Sarah Palin. Hannity made the remark that you can bash a conservative woman all you want – but no one would touch a liberal woman. He basically said if you’re Hillary Clinton, you’re safe from this kind of treatment.

Well, Sean, if you’re reading this – here is a little refresher course on what the left did to Hillary in 2008. And by the way, you and your right wing cronies taught them well with the fifteen years of Hillary bashing she and we have had to put up with. Here are a few examples…

“A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario.” ( Keith Olbermann, MSNBC)

“The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC)

“When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. She’s castrating, overbearing and scary.” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC)

“Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way?” (David Shuster, MSNBC)

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s cunt.” (Bill Maher, HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher)

“If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out.” (Jonathan Alter, Newsweek)

“Some women deserve to be called bitches.” (Castellanos, CNN)

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” (Leon Wieseltier, literary editor, The New Republic)

“She’s an aging, resentful female.” “She’s a ludicrous embarrassment.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, MSNBC)

“Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.” (columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune)

“She’s the most secretive politician in America today.” (David Plouffe, Obama campaign)

“We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House….She’s got a testicle lockbox.” (Rush Limbaugh)

“Someone needs to go there and take her out behind the barn.” (Pete Snyder, FOX)

“It cries.” (Glenn Beck, FOX)

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future.” And when Hillary Clinton speaks men hear, “Take out the garbage.” She does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.” (Marc Rudov, FOX News)

“She is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex…” (Bob Ellis, ABC Unleashed)

“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” (Maureen Dowd, NY Times)

“…when I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry. I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.” (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews Show)

Readers, please feel free to add your own.

You see, Mr. Hannity, there are several big reasons why Sarah Palin said she would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a cup of coffee. Those two ladies have a lot to commiserate about. They were both trashed by the left.

The majority of the comments above came from the liberal media. This was but a mere fraction of the daily filth spewed by the likes of these arrogant cowards. Never mind the shameful General T. McPeak who said “Hillary is not fit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier,” or some of the horrid, betraying comments made by the backstabbing elite in her own party. Further, the daily commentary from the likes of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so many lefty blogs who bashed Hillary, the more qualified candidate, in favor of a brand name with no experience seems to have escaped Mr. Hannity’s attention as well.

I’m sure Sarah Palin has a great deal of admiration for Hillary – her toughness, her resilience and her body of knowledge. What a shame, Mr. Hannity, that you cannot see fit to extend the same courtesy to a woman clearly deserving of your respect – even if your political philosophies differ.

This is the big problem with punditry from either side. I appreciate that Mr. Hannity has been brave enough to cover topics others news stations will not. I also appreciate that FOX News is the only network daring to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on policy, rather than cheerleading. While I may not agree with the conservative bent of the network, I do at least get some news rather than pillow fluffing. Hannity’s show clearly is more opinion than anything else, but when he ignores the experience of Hillary Clinton and the insults her supporters had to put up with in the campaign last year – his credibility takes a nosedive.

It was interesting that just before he mentioned her name, he paused for a moment – he knew he was lying about her, saying liberals gave Hillary a pass – but he just couldn’t help himself. Integrity is not selective.

It is said that character is what you do when nobody’s looking. Perhaps Mr. Hannity thought no one would be paying attention. Well, I was looking and his character last night was found wanting.

The spontaneous march in response, the solidarity evident, brought tears to my eyes.

While we are on the subject of the GLBT community, as of this writing, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 332 service members have been dismissed under DADT under Obama and this Congress.

As for Obama and Same Sex Marriage, anyone holding their breath that Obama will do anything FOR it should breathe now. I’ve been saying this for a while, and James Kirchick writing for the Washington Post had this to say in his editorial, “Obama Said ‘I Don’t. He May Just Mean It” (h/t to American Girl in Italy):

~snip ~ When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can’t count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton’s comments, he told reporters that his boss “does not support” same-sex marriage. “He supports civil unions,” Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama’s statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating “don’t ask, don’t tell” violations.

Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn’t done — and is unlikely to do — much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama’s secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. “Pbbbht! Of course he’s in favor of gay marriage!” Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director. “I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we’ve achieved full equality in the gay community,” he told journalist Rex Wockner. I’ve lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama “really” supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it’s easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent — if not outright opposed — to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals’ notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. “Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn’t have — that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar — is it a complicated issue?” Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

Ah yes, why actually believe Obama’s own WORDS on this issue, is the question I would have for Kushner. Obama, and Biden, have been VERY clear that their position on same sex marriage is EXACTLY THE SAME as Sarah Palin’s. Exactly the same. Identical. No difference. But please, keep lying to yourselves so you can continue to glorify The One. And go have some more Kool Aide while you’re at it. Kirchick continues:

Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a “citizen of the world” would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don’t, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

Obama’s history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama’s apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama’s apparent flip isn’t genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he “really” thinks, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They’ve done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn’t apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: “I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

Talking about “feelings” is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama’s promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, “I feel your pain.” Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action. (jkirchick@tnr.com James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.)

Good for Mr. Kirchick to actually point this out. I seriously doubt that the people who refuse to believe it will see the light, but at least he tried, right? And I appreciate the effort on his part.

Speaking of the Washington Post, we had this this, from July 31st. It is a shift from homophobia to sexism. You will most likely recognize the two “players” in this video:

I said all along that Obama, the DNC, and the MSM declared open season on women. There was little or no comeuppance for ANYONE who made disparaging, sexist, or misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. I knew it was going to continue, and possibly get worse. Here we are. With these two sexist pigs suggesting Clinton, who can run RINGS around these two intellectually, politically, and HUMANELY, drinks “Mad Bitch beer.” What a couple of _______ – you fill in the blank.

Oh, and one last thing. Vanity Fair has an article about Sarah Palin entitled, “It Came From Wasilla.” Yes, the author is a man. They are calling the former Governor, a woman, “It”?? Like when Glenn Beck said of Hillary Clinton, “It cries”??? Sheesh, the author isn’t even original. And naturally, the article is another hatchet job of this woman who dared to work her way up, buck her own party, and do right by her state. Naturally. Not for nothing, but I would have more rights in Alaska because of Sarah Palin than in most states in the Union. Just sayin’.

Back to Millbank and Cilliza: WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS???? I guess the same reason people like David Shuster does – he can call Hillary Clinton a pimp, and her daughter a whore, and keep his job with just a little slap on the wrist. So I guess what Millbank and Cillizza did was mild by comparison? Their comeuppance cannot come too soon, and it SHOULD come for this blatantly sexist attack on Secretary of State Clinton. Now. They should be fired.

But all women, in my humble opinion. That is what David Letterman did with his sexist comments regarding Governor Palin and her daughter (and it doesn’t matter if he meant the OLDER one – not that much difference between 14 and 18, ya know). Here is Conservative pundit Andrea Tantaros discussing this issue with Megyn Kelly on America’s Newsroom Tuesday morning (and the clip includes Letterman’s apology, hence why it is not linked above):

Tantaros was taking off on a post she wrote on this very issue, Attacking Conservative Women. Even though she is a Conservative, she makes a lot of good points. And I say this as someone who actively fought for Equal Rights for Women, who ran in the Seneca Falls to Houston Run way back when, carrying the torch, who helped found a chapter of NOW. Because this was what was NOT part of all of that work – that it was only for liberal women. No, we were fighting for ALL women, and that is why these kinds of comments are so offensive, whether they are about Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, Hillary Clinton, or Chelsea Clinton: because they are WRONG:

A growing trend seems to be emerging. From Perez Hilton to Playboy’s “Conservative Women Hate List” to David Letterman’s lewd comments about Sarah Palin, it appears that attacking women – specifically conservative women – is not only all the rage, but oddly, acceptable.

The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.

I’m not talking about attacks from bottom feeder leftist blogs either. Notable mainstream brands like the Miss USA Organization, “The Late Show” and Playboy magazine have all lost their sense of humor and their sense of decency by allowing conservative women to become a punching bag — and a punch line — for the left. Forgoing all boundaries, a party that once used to claim to own the violence against women issue has embraced it and let their politics run them when it comes to the issue of misogyny.

On its face, this isn’t even a political issue. It’s a women’s issue –- a human issue that transcends politics (emphasis mine). But why, when it comes to the most serious and sensitive attacks against women the National Organization for Women spokeswoman warrants a missing person’s report?

That’s EXACTLY it – this is a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. This kind of language would never be tolerated if it was directed at any other group (okay, maybe at “The Gays,” as Kathy Griffin calls us, but that’s it), and it sure shouldn’t be tolerated against the largest minority in the world.

Tantaros continues:

Carrie Prejean was called the most offensive four and five letter words by Miss USA judge Perez Hilton’s after she expressed her traditional views on gay marriage. Was he scolded by one of the organization’s owners, Donald Trump? Hardly. Trump actually expressed willingness to allow Hilton to judge at next year’s competition.

And that’s just the beginning. Playboy magazine published a vile, incendiary list of conservative women it would like to engage in hate sex with, and it was only after public outcry that it pulled the article. Its response was watered down, to say the least. Where was that writer’s editor? (And that editor’s mind, moreover?) It doesn’t take an expert to know that the first stage of violence is thinking about it, then expressing it, then actually doing it.

Again, about Prejean, she said NOTHING that OBAMA and BIDEN hadn’t already said. Yet, Obama got voted in (more or less), and Prejean was put on trial – for saying the same, exact thing.

And the Playboy piece was despicable.

As was this:

David Letterman made a disgusting joke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s underage daughter and he didn’t stop there. He continued to make an off color joke about the Governor’s appearance making many want to invoke slaps but not against their knees.

Palin is apparently more popular than Letterman. Thanks to growing pressure from viewers Letterman offered — not one — but two — mea culpas. But where was CBS from the start? It was only after the public got involved that the comedian began to react with some seeming sincerity.

For the record, Palin should never appear on his show. Protests calling for his resignation should continue with a larger message to the general population and television executives everywhere: distasteful behavior against females will not be tolerated.

The only reason for Palin to ever appear on Letterman’s show is to demonstrate that she takes the high road, and is a MUCH bigger person than he is. I used to watch Letterman’s show, by the way, before he took every opportunity to trash Clinton – both of them (I mean, really – it has been a long damn time since the Monica Lewinsky issue, and Letterman STILL takes digs at Bill over it – there isn’t ANYTHING else going on in the world about which he could joke? That’s just lazy. And in very poor taste.)

Here’s the kicker:

The United States, a champion for women’s rights throughout the world, will have a tough time wagging it’s finger at countries that are less than progressive in their attitudes toward women and crimes against women all over the world when we tolerate hate speak at the expense of the American female, for a few laughs or fame, no less.

The First Amendment protects free speech but there is no reason that we, as citizens and consumers, should buy it. When it comes to those who want to disrespect any woman, we can take it to their bottom line and not only speak out, but also boycott their business.

Violence against women is wrong, no matter what party affiliation, not to mention it’s just not funny. The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.

Amen, Sister Tantaros. We may differ politically, but on this issue, I am standing right with you. We have seen the open season that was declared on women last year, we have felt the effects of it, and we still are. But it is UNACCEPTABLE to decent people. And we are decent people.

As is Dan K. Thomasson, who wrote a very good piece on this issue, “Letterman’s Remarks Symbolic of National Coarseness.” Now I realize this might date me some, you know, that I expect some level of decorum and decency and all, but so be it. (I’m also a Southerner, so what do you want from me already? That was supposed to be funny, just so you know.) I think Mr. Thomasson has it right in this post, and highlights that it isn’t just women who are upset by this level of discourse:

One doesn’t have to be a fan of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family to be offended by David Letterman’s utterly tasteless, senseless remarks about her trip to New York City. Somewhere in there may be a clue as to why NBC picked Jay Leno instead of Letterman to replace Johnny Carson on the “Tonight Show” all those years ago.

Letterman told his television audience that Palin, her husband and daughter had attended a New York Yankees game where the daughter had been “knocked up” during the seventh-inning pause by Yankee star Alex Rodriguez. He also insulted every hard-working airline crewmember outside the cockpit by describing Palin’s own appearance as a “slutty flight attendant look.”

Let me note here that as the father of one daughter and the grandfather of four young ladies, three of them teenagers, and the father-in-law of a former longtime flight attendant who missed being on one of the ill-fated 9/11 planes by one day, I was particularly outraged by these mindless remarks.

To her credit, Palin ignored the assault on her own person, realizing her political ambitions have made her fair game. But what parent, even one who understands that in this country politicians can expect rough treatment, would not be angered by the gratuitous off-color assault on her teenage daughter? The Palin daughter at the game was 14-year-old Willow. Palin called the remark “sexually perverted,” which seems an apt description for one who apparently thinks the suggested rape of a child or a teenage pregnancy are laughing matters.

Letterman said he would never say that about a 14-year-old. Well, that would indicate at least he knows the consequences attached to an assault, verbal or otherwise, on an underage girl. He said he was referring to Bristol, the 18-year-old who is an unwed mother but who was not at the game — an obvious cop out. But either way, of course, he was out of line. Just because this former TV weatherman hails from the Indiana farm country (as do I) doesn’t mean he should be bombarding us with pig dung in the guise of barnyard “humor” that most Hoosiers on either side of the political aisle would consider unfunny.

Like I said, I don’t think it is any funnier if it is about an 18 yr old, either. What a pathetic excuse that is, and in no way minimizes the inappropriateness of that “joke.” And extra credit if you figure out how old Obama’s mother was when she had HIM.

Thomasson continues:

Furthermore, this smutty dialog is not fit for national television. Aren’t we getting a bit tired of those who feel somehow their lofty positions give them immunity from the social restraints and standards of good taste and decency that govern most civilized Americans? It is safe to say that had Letterman’s remarks been made with any sort of racial overtone, his job would be on the line. There really is no reason for it not to be now if one subscribes to the notion that a baseless suggestion of immorality about any one no matter their color should bear some consequences, First Amendment guarantees notwithstanding.

Letterman’s remarks may have been written for him, but the responsibility is still his. He has complete control of his own material. It is puzzling that after all these years, he has not learned the difference between fair comment and satire and vicious disparagement. What may be more troublesome in all this is that it furthers the incivility of today’s politics, that its nastiness moves us just that much closer to the hate line at the expense of innocent bystanders — in this case children.

Liking or disliking Gov. Palin has nothing to do with this. Those who find her politically unsettling should be as appalled as those who are her biggest supporters. Her daughter’s pregnancy and decision to keep the baby does not make her a legitimate target for scurrilous public bathroom scribbles from morons. Mothers all over the world should be offended. It may be too late for a Letterman apology, but it isn’t for CBS officials to issue a strong disassociation with his remarks. After all, he violated most of the unwritten but understood rules that have protected minor family members from such unfair attacks. They have fired people for less. What this whole matter says about our direction is downright disgusting.

Yes, it does say a lot about our direction, and it sure as hell is disgusting. We saw a whole lot of that kind of behavior throughout the Primary and Election campaigns, too. It has all been well documented here before, the shirts, the actions, the horrible comments by the MSM, Obama’s supporters, and the enabling by the DNC of the sexism or coarse discourse.

Oh, and Dave? It’s not the PERCEPTION of what you said. It is WHAT YOU SAID. Just to be clear. We didn’t misunderstand you. We heard you loud and clear. And we didn’t like what we heard. Because what we heard, what you SAID, was offensive to women, and children. Enough of the deflection masquarading as an apology. We heard what you said, Dave, and it was offensive.

Maybe the third time is the charm – maybe Letterman can make a REAL apology without pushing it off on his listeners, or claiming he was mixed up, or whatever BS he comes up with next.

And maybe, just maybe, women will start to turn him off, and others of his ilk, who demean, belittle,castigate, and sexualize us, and our children. Now THAT might be a message clearly understood by everyone, Dave included.

Recently, my fellow NQ writer, Ani, mentioned this incredibly assholic, sexist, comment Jay Leno made at Secretary Clinton’s expense. Personally, I don’t care for Jay Leno anyway, but now I REALLY don’t care for him. The video is below (H/T to SusanUnPC for finding this for me), and the comment starts at about 5:15 into the show:

I am so sick of the constant sexism spewed by people on this network I could scream. Never mind that the incident that apparently sparked this stupid comment, the MOnica Lewinsky scandal, occurred over TEN YEARS ago. Sheesh. Unbelievable. Anyway, below is my little diatribe to NBC (with a few edits):

Dear NBC:

On April 30, 2009, about five minutes into the show, Jay Leno made an offensive joke at Secretary Hillary Clinton’s expense. He said that a number of Kenyan women were threatening to withhold sex to force their government to stop bickering, an idea they got after Clinton’s visit.

This kind of joke has become the hallmark of what I now consider to be the N(ational)B(oys)C(lub) network, though this ignorant joke is slightly tamer than much we had to endure from reporters and broadcasters from this network during the Primary and Election season. Still, it is unacceptable.

First of all, it is just plain lazy to keep going back to an unfortunate, painful time over eleven years ago in Secretary Clinton’s life. And it is incredibly juvenile to stoop to this level (again and again and again).

Second of all, Leno and his writers are essentially blaming the woman for her husband straying, which is offensive on the face of it.

Third of all, Secretary Clinton is an amazingly accomplished woman in her own right, having worked tirelessly for this country in one way or another, from the Children’s Defense Fund, to First Lady of Arkansas, to First Lady of the United States, to a two-term US Senator, to the person who received more votes than anyone else in US history in the 2008 Primary season, to current Secretary of State.

Frankly, I am sick of what has become accepted sexism, even misogyny, on this network and its affiliates (remember David Shuster calling Chelsea Clinton a whore and her mother a pimp? I sure do.). It has become the status quo at this network, and it is UNACCEPTABLE. This past election season, with the aid of the mainstream media in general, became open season on women. I, for one, will not stand for it.

Evidently, Mr. Leno has not bothered to review Secretary Clinton’s work with nations abroad, their overwhelming support of her, or bothered to learn that the State Department blog, under Clinton, has received over 5,000,000 views since she took office. But, hey, why should Leno bother to actually educate himself about her work when it is just so much easier to take a cheap shot at this incredible woman, a role model to millions across the world? It is lazy, it is intellectually dishonest, and it is sexist.

Mr. Leno owes Secretary Clinton, and all women, an apology. NBC needs to take a good, long look at the treatment of women it exudes from its newscasters to its “comedians,” and it needs to change. Enough is enough.

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

If you, too, would like to ive them a piece of your mind, here’s how: Contact NBC.

Swearing-in Ceremony February 02, 2009
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC

(Applause.) Thank you all very much. Thank you. It is an overwhelming honor to be sworn in to assume this position on behalf of our country. I thank my dear friend, Vice President Biden, and I thank President Obama for investing the trust and confidence in me during a particularly challenging time in our nation’s history. I look out and see so many friends and colleagues. I particularly want to thank the Speaker and the Majority Leader, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid for being here and for providing the leadership that you both are doing in the Congress.

I also want to thank my colleagues in government and my former partners in the Congress. I am very grateful to all the members of the House who are here today, and particularly those with whom I served over eight wonderful years who represent New York. And I’m very grateful to all of you.

And to my friends in the Senate, I see the faces of people with whom I have shared so much, and I am deeply grateful to each and every one of you. But I have to single out the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who, after all, presided over my confirmation, for which I am very grateful, Senator Kerry. (Laughter and Applause.)

[I would laugh at that line as well! - Susan] And I look forward to working with all of you, particularly the appropriators – (laughter) – who are here this afternoon. We have a lot of work to do and it is such important work that lies ahead. I also want to thank two wonderful friends of mine, governors, Governor Corzine from New Jersey, and Governor O’Malley from Maryland who are here. (Applause.)

And I am particularly honored to have four of my predecessors with us today. I have sought their advice and their counsel and I have to publicly thank each and every one of them. With us today, Secretary Kissinger and Secretary Baker and Secretary Eagleburger and, of course, my dear friend and fellow Wellesley alum Secretary Albright. (Applause.) And I also want to thank Secretary Rice and Secretary Powell and Secretary Shultz, with whom I had a wonderful visit just last week when he came to the seventh floor, and Secretary Haig – all of the former secretaries of state who have been so generous with their time. And I think I can predict I will be asking for advice as we move forward.

Because this ceremony takes place at a real hinge of history time, there is so much that lies ahead in terms of challenges, but also opportunities. When I came into this building for the first time a week or so ago now, I told the assembled State Department employees, and then repeated it again at USAID, that we are all on the same team, and it is America’s team. And we have, in the leadership of President Obama, someone who wants us to reach out to the world, to do so without illusions, understanding that the difficulties we face will not be wished away, but meeting them forthrightly and smartly, and that we want to seize the opportunities that exist as well.

I talked in my confirmation hearings about smart power. Well, smart power relies on smart people, and we have an abundance of them in this building and at USAID. But I’ve also told my teammates in the State family that we’re going to have to be smarter about how we do what we must for our country. There are many ways that we can improve on what we do on a daily basis. And I want to work with my friends in Congress on behalf of our Administration to really look for those efficiencies and those changes that will make what we do more effective, more cost-effective, so that we can be out there around the world delivering America’s message, certainly doing all we must to protect and defend our security, but also advancing our interests and furthering our values.

So for me, this has been an amazing personal journey. As Joe laughingly referenced, neither one of us thought that we would be standing here together, doing what we are now doing together. Life has a funny way of unfolding and politics is even stranger. So we are joined in this incredible mission on behalf of our President and our country. And it’s one where it’s not only those of us holding positions, whether elected or appointed, must perform to the very best of our ability. We’re asking everyone in our country to think about how each of you can make a contribution so that we ensure that America’s future is even brighter than our storied past.

I’m excited by seeing so many familiar faces. There are friends in this audience who have known me my entire life. And there is the next generation, you know, my niece and my two nephews who are here. I get up every morning thinking about what I must do to make this world of ours safer and more prosperous and to make our country all that it can be. As difficult as the times are, I am an optimist. I believe that we can do what we set our minds to do. And so it is the power of our ideals and the intelligence and dedication of our people.

I could not be standing here before you today without all of you, but in particular, the three people who stand with me on this stage. It’s literally true I wouldn’t be here without my mother. (Laughter.) And so I – (applause) – I’m especially delighted that she can be with me. And to my daughter, who I am just bursting with maternal pride over, but who I look to also for advice and, frankly, for some cultural cues that I might otherwise miss. (Laughter.)

And finally, to my husband, who understands so well the awesome responsibilities resting on the shoulders of President Obama and Vice President Biden and all of us who serve with them. I am so grateful to him for a lifetime of all kinds of experiences – (laughter) – which have given me a – (applause) – which have given me an extraordinary richness that I am absolutely beholden to and grateful for.

So now, let me thank Gladys and her crackerjack protocol operation that put this together. We had to schedule it around two schedules that were hard to mesh: Vice President Biden and Chelsea Clinton. (Laughter.) When we finally got a time when both of them could be in the same place, we rushed to fill it. (Laughter.) So if you’re wondering why you didn’t get an invitation until Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday, it’s because we just had to make sure that we had the main people here.

But I do want to greet all of you individually, and obviously, my family wants to say hello as well. So we’re hard at work already, and we’re working hard with a great team of people here in this building and at USAID. And we’re looking forward to fulfilling the excitement and the promise that the Obama Administration represents here at home and around the world.

Thank you all very, very much.

(Applause.)

No Quarter’s Bud White had a fascinating conversation with Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of The Denver Group. It turns out that Mr. White is a real pro (sort of a likeable and more intelligent Charlie Rose) and starts he things off with:

“Keeping the Democratic Party democratic.” That’s the motto of the newly formed The Denver Group. The Denver Group’s stated goal is an open, Democratic convention, with Hillary’s name on the ballot.

Their Web site says:
“To deny Senator Clinton a rightful place on the ballot in an attempt to foster a false image of party unity based on unofficial declarations by super delegates. It will fool no one and only create more disunity. It is in everyone’s best interest, especially the Democratic Party and its chances in November, to hold an open and honest convention.”

****

We’re joined this evening by the founders of The Denver Group, Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin. Good evening to both of you. Thanks for joining us…

Please take a listen and we would love to hear your thoughts on this show.

The interview runs 1 hour and 10 minutes.
-FEC recognized 527 group.
-They want to make ads to be shown in the mass media.
-They want to make sure the Democratic party stays democratic.
-They want a fair and open convention.
-Please contribute money to help this cause; $5.00–$5,000; whatever you can do.
You can visit The Denver Group at http://thedenvergroup.blogspot.com
Heidi Li Feldman’s personal blog is Heidi Li’s Potpourri at http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/
Marc Rubin’s blog is Tom In Paine at http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/
No Quarter is http://noquarterusa.net

Firstly, Hillary Clinton is one classy lady. It is amazing to see a woman and a mother who has put up with so much and taken so much flak, stand up so straight and proud for the country she loves. It is amazing to see her, with dignity and grace, go on Keith Olbermann’s Count-the-ways-I-love-Obama-down and face him and his dishonest questioning. And with a bit of humor! [The video of the interview is at the end of the story.]

Did anyone notice Keith’s convenient paraphrasing?

Like when he forgot to mention the second half of Obama’s quote — the bit where he destroyed the DNC’s campaign of the last two months by saying McCain would be a better President than Bush? Well, I sure as hell didn’t miss it and neither did Hillary.

But, unlike me, who would have directly called b.s. on loverboy Olbermann, Hillary did something better: she refuted Olbermann’s assumptions and then did what needed to be done — she cast McCain as not just the same as Bush, but worse. And I paraphase:

In fact [McCain's] statement about being willing to leave troops in Iraq for up to 100 years is something that I absolutely reject, that would be worse than President Bush…

Thank you Hillary, for knowing how to take the fight to ‘em! And with such poise. No one does it better.

Secondly, I caught a video today that I want to share. It’s Chelsea, you know, that beautiful, articulate, intelligent woman who was raised by Hillary Clinton.

I think children speak volumes about the character of the person who raised them, but that’s just me — I am just a hick with guns from Montana — a bit old-fashioned, if you will. Here is the vid of Chelsea, it makes me even more proud to be a Hillary supporter:

Happy PA primary, folks! Give all you can to our girl. Let her know we are proud of her and we appreciate all she has, is, and will do for this country.

The sense of humor bit? When Hillary said this to Olbermann:

…but I do believe in redemption Keith… I think it’s possible for anyone to see the error of their ways… …I am bringing people together as we speak…

Well, I still haven’t stopped chuckling.

_______________

Here’s the video of last night’s interview by Olbermann:

Ms. Clinton has been confronted with signs bearing messages like “America deserves better than aristocracy” and “Got Pimp?” a reference to a recent remark by a now-suspended MSNBC host who claimed that Mrs. Clinton was exploiting her daughter.

To those of us who dare oppose Barack Obama, it’s not a surprise, sadly. The incredibly nasty, immature attacks against us are a daily occurrence, all day every day. But this is despicable behavior towards a very bright young, highly knowledgeable woman who is campaigning her heart out for her mother.

For more background on the source of the PIMP remarks — which emanated from the nasty mouth of David Schuster on MSNBC, who was suspended for two weeks (he deserves more punishment) — see these articles here:

• “Singled Out” as Fair Game by SusanUnPC

• MSNBC Pissing Away its Credibility by Larry Johnson
• Who Kidnapped David Shuster? by Larry Johnson

Photo caption: “Chelsea Clinton talking to supporters of her mother, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, on Feb. 8 at Bowdoin College.”

What even more remarkable in the article is just how very bright, and detailed in her knowledge of policy, the young Chelsea Clinton is:

[She blitzes] her targets with policy details. In a single hour of responding to questions at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire on Tuesday, Ms. Clinton talked about Medicare Part D, the distinction between the chronically and occasionally uninsured, health care premium caps, Pell grant allowance maximums, income contingency repayment programs for financial aid, sugar-based ethanol and carbon sequestration. That is not counting her detours into Romanian reproductive policy and the design of the internal combustion engine.

“It was a little over my head,” admitted Stephanie Biese, the founder of the Students for Hillary chapter on the Madison campus, about an exchange Ms. Clinton had with another attendee about nuclear base loads.

About the sexism:

But a furious, provocative essay that Ms. Clinton mass-blasted to her friends and acquaintances on Feb. 4 provides clues. She wrote that she did not agree with everything the essay’s author, Robin Morgan, a former editor of Ms. Magazine, said. (Ms. Morgan argues that Mrs. Clinton has faced not only a sexist double standard but also “sociopathic woman-hating.”)

But until jeering men insulted her mother in New Hampshire and the news media made light of it, Ms. Clinton wrote, “I confess I didn’t entirely get ‘it.’ ”

Read all of today’s NYT article, “Chelsea Clinton Talks Policy in Obama Territory.”

Here’s the link to Robin Morgan’s now famous essay: “Goodbye to All That #2.”

And I wrote about Morgan’s essay, and other women’s (including Erica Jong), here: “For All the SUPER Women.” (I confess I was truly disappointed that this article didn’t get more attention, particularly from women. It’s so important — take it from someone who’s old enough to remember just how nasty sexism once was, and remains (even though the MSM acts like it’s yesterday’s news).

And here’s Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft blog — who I happen to know is a male and (I’m 90% sure) a Chicagoan at that — but he’s one of the rare bloggers who’s unafraid to post about what he truly thinks, and let the chips fall where they may. I even think he’s leaning to Obama, but that doesn’t stop him from being a “truthteller.” Good for him!

I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal. – Barack Obama, February 15, 2008

In a campaign marked by news coverage unrelenting in its sexism and misogyny, especially from NBC, the last thing we can afford is sexism from the frontrunning candidate. Barack Obama needs to apologize for this remark.

From Robin Morgan:

—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.  Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.

Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.  

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has. 

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement.  She’s running to be president of the United States.

Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here. …

Read it all here.

You go, Robin Morgan. And YOU GO, CHELSEA CLINTON!

This year I watched in Chicago when Hillary Clinton came to Yearly Kos [the second annual national convention of bloggers and diarists at Daily Kos]. She was not in friendly territory. Kossacks were respectful enough but it was clear by and large that their hearts belonged to someone else. Several someone elses in fact. Hillary Clinton was viewed as the establishment by a crowd who saw themselves as an insurgency. But she was there and she sat on that stage through a nearly two hour debate not shying away from positions that were not tailored to win that audience’s approval. And Hillary remained in good humor throughout all of it.

That is something I have been thinking about today. I think MoveOn.org’s rejection of Hillary as a candidate may have something to do with my thinking along these lines. Hillary Clinton, you may recall, defended MoveOn.org when they were red-baited in the U.S. Senate, and she was in a minority of Senators who did so. Hillary never runs against the left no matter how ugly the attacks on her have been. She keeps seeking our support respectfully, whether or not the netroots treat her respectfully in return. That is classy, and, I think, a public reflection of the private grace that her own family is more privy to seeing than we.

I see Hillary forced to banter with people like Chris Matthews and I come away impressed. He could have been knifing her yesterday and Hillary will still embrace him in public while dead panning “I don’t know how to handle men who are obsessed with me”; but the truth is she has handled all of them, all of the Hillary hating, double standard setting, sexist talking head media males extremely well. They are the divisive ones, the unlikable ones, not Hillary Clinton.

Here’s more, from the beginning of the diary:

[H]ow would it affect me if that type of bitter derision and accusatory hatred was aimed toward me every day? And not just by those who I can understand may have good reason to be my enemy, but also by those whose goals and vision for America I too share. A whole lot worse than it has effected her was my very quick and certain answer for myself. And Hillary has been dealing with this, to greater and lesser extents daily for over 15 years. All because she long ago dedicated her life to making a positive difference in other people’s lives.

That is really what this is about for her, I have no real doubt about that. And I know that Hillary Clinton is far from being alone in politics in having made that type of personal commitment. But very few have been attacked as fiercely, as relentlessly, and for as long because of that commitment than Hillary Clinton has. She has incredible inner strength. Many people notice that, but lately I have been seeing the grace in Hillary Clinton also. Though sometimes she flashes angry, it doesn’t harden into bitterness. Hillary can take a punch and come back swinging, but she knows when, and how, to take off her boxing gloves when each round is over.

Hillary’s words of unity may not sound as inspirational as another famous Democrat whose name pops up a lot nowadays, but she knows how to live those words. She does it so our nation might prosper. Less than three years after the Republican dominated United States Senate tried her husband in public for high crimes and misdemeanors in an attempt to remove him from office, Hillary Clinton entered that chamber as a Senator herself. She went hard to work building the type of connections that were necessary to accomplish goals on behalf of her constituents in a divided chamber under the control of Republicans. And by all reports she succeeded.

On a very personal level Hillary’s own house was earlier divided, while people across the globe discussed her husband’s semen stain on another womens dress. It pains me to write that, what must it have been like to live it? Not only did Hillary Clinton find the strength to hold her head high and continue to function in public, but she stepped forward on a political level to call out by name “the vast right wing conspiracy” then attempting a quasi legal governmental coup against the elected President – her husband.

And Hillary continued to raise her teen age daughter throughout all of it, somehow shielding Chelsea’s spirit from the soul deadening effect of the toxins that swirled around their lives. …

Read all of Tom Rinaldo’s moving diary, “I Think I Would Really Like Hillary Clinton If I Knew Her Personally.”