Or this: Is Sarah Palin a poster girl for racism?

Or this: Town Meeting Protestors ‘Taking a Page Right Out of a Nazi Playbook?

Or this:

Maybe this was over the line? Sarah Palin getting divorced.

Or any one of the images I added above? Why the fuss over one anonymous poster?

Racist? I don’t think so…

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.

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.

David Shuster loves teabagging. He just can’t get enough of it. Full throated, tongue lashing, in your face teabagging.

How many puns can you count in this clip?

You’re going to need a *dick* army? Wow, funny stuff there, Shuster.

Well, he couldn’t be outdone by Rachel Maddow, who has dedicated a lot of time giggling over teabagging. More videos here. And here. (note to Rachel - nobody is calling this *tea bagging*, they are calling the events tea parties. you are the one bringing the smut.)

Nothing like a major network news channel discrediting themselves by acting like a bunch of prepubescent children, in an attempt to *discredit* Americans upset over our ever growing deficit.

(this is why I no longer watch msnbc…except for Morning Joe, that is!)

And since Rachel and David are apparently having trouble trying to figure out why people are having tea parties, here is the reason, from the Tax Day Tea Party web site:

“Americans across the country are gathering across the country to express anger over Congress’s irresponsible and reckless spending habits. Taxpayers are not deceived by the notion that the American economy can be revived by government simply spending its way out of a recession. They are a sophisticated people who recognize that continued overspending runs up massive deficits that ultimately lead to higher taxes and less freedom for all Americans.”

Perhaps if David and Rachel would pull the teabags out, and act like journalists, they could figure it out.

Obama may have promised taxes wouldn’t be raised, but they will be. And that will be yet another broken campaign promise.

The cream certainly rose to the top in the second round in the battle for the No Quarter Trophy. The second round of our March Madness tournament had few suprises and almost every match was a blowout. With the field narrowed to 16, we are down to the best of the best. To become our National Champion and wear the title of Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape, someone will have to rise to the top over some of the most reprehensible people of our time.

BELOW, the scoop on the most suspenseful race last week (Michelle Obama vs. David Axelrod) and your virtual voting booth:

It was a surprising second round as three former National Champions were eliminated in matches that were not even close. Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter and Ted Kennedy (in a likely farewell performance) were all sent packing. The 12th seed in the Capitol Hill Bracket, Senator Claire McCaskill is the lone long shot left in the field as she easily disposed of the 4th seed John Boehner. The most exciting match occurred in the White House Bracket where number two seed Michelle Obama had her hands full with the 7th seed, David Axelrod.

Mrs. Obama pulled it out 54-46.

Your chance to vote in our Sweet 16 starts now. The polls will be open until 8:00 PM EDT on Tuesday. Here are the matchups.

White House Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Capitol Hill Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Media Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

At Large Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Just vote for who you think is the biggest ass in each matchup. Feel free to post additional comments below. Have fun with this. Don’t forget to join us on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio this Tuesday night at 9:00 PM EDT for the Sweet 16 results and Elite Eight preview.

MSNBC went all out to get Obama elected, but now they’re tiptoeing into dangerous territory! Criticizing The One is verrrrrrry risky — as all of us at No Quarter know only too well after non-stop attacks for the past 15+ months!

UPDATE: Besides that one Politico report, there are two more revelations about Obama’s failures to live up to his promises:

(1) “Obama team’s finances hard to access“

Even as President Barack Obama issued new rules to make government more open and transparent, his administration is relying on an antiquated and opaque disclosure system.

Anyone seeking copies of the financial disclosure reports recently filed by members of his Cabinet and his top aides has to navigate an arcane and intrusive bureaucracy reliant on faxes, dense government forms, snail mail, or proximity to Washington, plus an insider’s knowledge of an unpredictable schedule dictated by a host of government officials.

Simply put, it’s a system that seems to run counter to Obama’s talk and his new rules about using technology to open the halls of the federal government to the public.

To be sure, the process for filing and releasing disclosure reports is a legacy that Obama has inherited from previous administrations – and one not easily changed in the first days of the new administration.

But it’s one that he could bring into the 21st century on his own – without congressional action – by executive order, which he was urged to do in post-election meetings that his team arranged with advocates for heightened government disclosure.

It’s especially anachronistic for financial disclosure forms – which are intended to ensure government employees’ economic interests do not conflict with their officials duties – to be so difficult to get, said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

The non-partisan government watchdog group recommended the new president tighten reporting requirements, make the disclosure forms electronic and searchable and put them online quickly. … Read all

(2) “An online promise unmet“

Barack Obama’s campaign realized the potential of the Internet in politics, but his new White House website is still scrambling to approach his campaign promises of a more interactive government.

The Transition apparently didn’t arrive with a readymade template for the site, which has been developing in fits and starts since Obama’s Inauguration. Today, the Sunlight Foundation’s Paul Blumenthal pointed out a broken promise: Today’s Liily Ledbetter Act was not posted online for five days in advance of signing, as Obama had pledged.

Another flaw: WhiteHouse.gov, which is the official website of the American presidency, hasn’t been updated to show that Hillary Clinton and other Cabinet officials have been confirmed in their posiitons.

What??? The White House Web site isn’t updated to show the cabinet officials who’ve been confirmed?

Just who is in charge of this government anyway?

Oh wait … right ….

Well, he’ll come back to life when the next campaign begins.

Maybe that honeymoon really IS over!

See also: “ Is it true? Did Obama’s honeymoon end before it had a chance to begin?”

ALSO: I’ve received more recommendations for feminist books, and will be adding those in the story or in the ad column this afternoon. Thanks to all for your suggestions!)

Damn straight we will NOT forget, all you sexist and misogynistic scions of the MANstream Obamedia with your self-aggrandizing, “land of the blind” ignorance of what women endure, to this day, with stereotypes, slights, direct insults, demoralizing putdowns, and outright hostility (and that means you, Mr. “take her in a room” Keith Olbermann who, I bet, hasn’t a clue just how misogynistic he really is).

I’m not flogging that book on the historic writings of feminism that I discovered at Amazon yesterday while looking for good books on feminism, but I found this part of an editorial review of the book to be important to share with you all:

Enlightened males (John Stuart Mill, Frederick Douglass, Henrik Ibsen) are permitted a few heartening words, but mainly the women yell for themselves: “All I ask of our brethren is, that they take their feet from off our necks.” The piecemeal collection supports the editor’s assertion that “feminism has not developed a viable theoretical foundation.”

Such theory as there is seems to be an incidental byproduct of socialist doctrines and it is impotently outdated. [Susan's Note: I cannot convey just how important I find this sentence. We need a whole new 21st-century way for making women and men aware of the ongoing sexism and misogyny, and we obviously can NOT rely, any longer, on the outdated and shamefully irrelevant vehicles such as the now-discredited Ms. Magazine.]

Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the sometimes plaintive, sometimes shrill complaints of the women on their dreary, circumscribed lives are frequently articulate and the rejection of their submissive, decorative status is fervent.

All agree: Eve was framed; the doll’s house is a prison.

Eve was framed.

Hillary was framed.

We will not stand for it any longer.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

P.S. I’m open to suggestions for great books on feminism to advertise. Please send your recommendations to me at susanunpc at gmail dot com.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And now it’s your turn.

John Zeigler absolutely owned the nimrod David Schuster during this interview. My favorite part? Zeigler telling Schuster he is a joke:

Then there was round two where he is owned once more:

He actually named David Brooks, Chuck Hagel and Kathleen Parker as Republicans who represent our party…..oh man, can’t make this stuff up.

And then he has the nerve to ask:

“Isn’t it important to try to test her credibility”

This coming from the network that did everything but wear a blue dress for Obama. Does anybody remember when it was that any MSM outfit asked Obama what the front page news story of the NYT’s was? Sheesh….what a nimrod.

I find it fascinating how downright scared these liberals are of Sarah Palin. We all know the MSM has their back and all but to start the attack machine four years before the next election is pretty indicative of a very scared party. They know Obama will own this recession. They suspect we may be attacked again since the enemy now knows we have another Clinton in office with no spine. And they understand that a very well qualified female, unlike the current President-elect who is completely unqualified for his job, could give Obama a run for his money.

Ed. Note: Originally published at Flopping Aces blog.

The modern media’s 24 hour news cycle has changed the way the news is delivered and has pretty much destroyed the tenets of journalism. In order to get information out first and constantly refresh the news product, old rules about double and triple checking information provided by sources and investigating the integrity of those sources no longer fit the game.

Shortly after election day, Fox News ran a story quoting an unnamed McCain source as saying that Sarah Palin was not aware that Africa was a continent. Just a few minutes later, the story popped up on MSNBC after someone who saw the Fox piece e-mailed the tip to a friend in the MSNBC newsroom.

Instantly, e-mails and blogs started buzzing and those suffering from extreme “Palin Derangement Syndrome” were ecstatic over having more “proof” that she wouldn’t make it past the first round on “Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader”.

Heres the problem, the entire story was a hoax perpetrated by a couple of guys trying to drum up interest in a television show based on a fictional character they have created.

Believe it or not, the NY Times actually has the story. Read about it here

If you are waiting for prime time retractions, don’t hold your breath.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character.

The creators of this hoax, know just how easy it is to take advantage of today’s media.

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.

Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.

Even MSNBC admits to the mistake

An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. “It had not been vetted,” he said. “It should not have made air.”

And while the MSM is easily fooled, bloggers are even bigger victims of information hoaxes.

But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.

As for Sarah Palin, the damage is already done for now. No amount of retractions will make up for the hits her image has taken. Jay Leno, David Letterman, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart will not be telling jokes about how stupid they were in repeating this nonsense. Maybe they should have written a few more jokes about the guy running for President of the 57 United States.

On the media level, there are no solutions coming. News organizations will not invest more time and money into vetting stories. Reporters and bloggers will not take more time to carefully check their facts in fear of losing out to competitors. The only solution has to come from us, the consumers. We just have to accept that every news story that comes down the road, is just a story and we can not rush to judgement.

We’ve certainly come a long way from that time, baby - we have the right to vote, e are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, priests, rabbis, ministers, accountants…And we continue to make up a large percentage of nurses, teachers, retail help…Our sports are now funded on a par with the boys thanks to the diligent work of women in the 1970’s to raise up girls and women in sports. And we now have women represented in the US Senate and House, not to mention a number of governorships. The most qualified candidate in the presidential field this year was a woman, and she got more votes than any other candidate EVER. That is pretty remarkable.

Bill Kristol said, “White women are a problem, that’s you know - we all live with that.”

And so it is that in the 21st century, while we may have come far, we have men yelling at a US Senator, a Former First Lady of the US and Arkansas, “Iron My Shirt!” You have college kids wearing t-shirts that claim, “Bros before hos!” You have TV newscasters calling the same senator a whore, and her daughter a pimp, on national television, and when he is rebuked for it, other male commentators lash out in anger. You have a network selling nutcrackers with the female senator on top, another station having an organization on - twice - whose acronym is an incredibly derogatory term for women. You have major party candidates making sexist statements to not only his fellow candidate, who is older and far more accomplished, but to reporters and other women. And it is brushed aside.

You have rampant sexism, even misogyny, eminating from newspapers, magazines, television, and rallies. You have the female speaker of the U.S. House claim she is too busy to document the sexism that has gone on during the campaign, dismissing it, and her female colleague, out of hand.

Women athletes have to sue the Olympic Committee for not having their sport represented, though their male counterparts have theirs. But in Canada, where the Olympics will be taking place, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex.* O, Canada! You rock!

Boston now has an operation designed to reduce the number of sexual predators on its subway lines with cameras, as well as involving the people to help stop these abusers. Way to go, Boston!!*

And, there is still a disparity between girls and boys in math and science in countries that do not offer equal access to education.*

There’s an “abstinence-promoting” magazine for high school girls, as well as one for boys, that presents inaccurate information as “facts,” and suggests the girls should dress “modestly.”* (*Facts taken from skirt.com, July 2008 Issue.)

So, yes, baby - we have come a long way, but we have a long way to go yet before that glass ceiling is truly good and shattered, before women are seen as full, equal human beings to men, before women stop being measured AGAINST men, with men being the standard (Anna Quindlen writes about that beautifully), before women do not have to fear for their safety when walking alone, whether in broad daylight or nightfall, before women no longer have to endure sexist jeers and attacks by our own media. Yes, we have a long way to go yet, but at least we are on the road.

Thanks to women like Susan B. Anthony, Amelia Bloomer, Lucretia Mott, and many, many others, for getting us going. Thank you for the struggles to the women in the early 1900s, some who sacrificed their very lives for us to be able to vote. To the women in the ’70’s who pushed against the restrictive standards, who fought for equality, who showed women as capable human beings who were more than the sum of their parts, I thank you. And to the men who supported us as we broke through some of the barriers.

We have more work to do, my sisters and brothers. Much, much more work to do, as this primary has shown us. But together, YES, WE CAN!!!!

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

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!