Obama’s speechwriter, Jon Favreau, demonstrating who he, and so many of those associated with Obama, is: a misogynistic, juvenile pig who has disrespected the Former First Lady of Arkansas, a Top 100 Attorneys in the United States TWICE, the former First Lady of the United States, a two term US Senator, the RIGHTFUL Democratic presidential nominee, and all women. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words, and this tells us plenty.

In case that is not enough for you, there is this:

Or how about this:

Oh, we can’t forget this one:

Heck – they don’t have to be about Hillary. Here are some of Obama’s minions sporting their new misogynist-wear. And this is the milder one they were wearing:

No doubt, you know there are more out there about Clinton and Palin.

We don’t have to rely simply on a photo, though. We have video, too. This was from Geraldine Ferraro, who listed the incidences of sexism in the primary:

Gee, Ms. Ferraro, isn’t that PRECISELY what you did?? Immediately flip-flop over to Obama? Hell to the yes, you did, going on show afte rshow touting him as the Democratic nominee. I guess that DOES make you a “typical politician.” To say the very least.

Despite it all, despite all of the sexism, the MISOGYNY, Obama used, NOW threw women under the bus and endorsed him. Planned Parenthood did the same. Then there was NARAL, who threw women under the bus by endorsing Obama, which completely pissed off the folks at Emily’s List. And what did EMILY’S LIST do? Well, it, too, threw women under the bus. Why? To get money, to get on the bandwagon, to show that NOT ONE of those organizations truly have women’s best interests at heart. Apparently, for Emily List’s Director, Ellen Moran, it was to benefit her PERSONALLY since she will now be working as the White House Communications Director. Way to fulfill your mission statements, folks. Way to stand up for women.

And the piece de resistance, the video below. While this focuses on the Primary, it easily speaks to what is happening today:

A picture speaks a thousand words. And the response of Obama to the future White House Speechwriter’s blatant sexism? To the blatant sexism and misogyny in this election? Well, from Obama, the silence is deafening.

As long as Favreau has a job in Obama’s Administration, the message remains clear. Obama’s speechwriter can insult and degrade the future Secretary of State, and other women, and that is A-Okay by Obama. Obama could have half of his entire cabinet be women, but the message to women remains clear.

That said, I can’t tell you how many times I heard and read during the primary that people were, “not opposed to a woman President, just not THAT one.”

I can’t tell you how many disparaging, sexist, misogynistic, hateful, violent, horrific, insulting attacks I heard and read about Hillary Clinton, during the primary.

Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That’s approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

There were threats of violence towards her, and a belittling of her accomplishments, and insulting comments on her looks. And these were just the ones from the media!

Some of the attacks I heard:

She only got to where she is because of her husband.
She is too old, too ugly.
She cried. She’s a whiner.
She didn’t shed enough tears. She’s cold hearted.
She was racist.
She didn’t have any experience, she just hosted tea parties.
She was a liar.

The attacks went on and on.

So, now what? Now we have a female candidate, who, for all intense and purposes, is the complete opposite of Hillary Clinton. And we find ourselves right back where we were during the primary.

Sarah Palin is the victim of disparaging, sexist, misogynistic, hateful, violent, horrific, insulting attacks. There are threats of violence towards her, a belittling of her accomplishments, and insulting attacks on her looks.

Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor’s attention.

But, she did not get where she is on the back of her husband. She is self made. She worked hard, and got where she is on her own. (As did Hillary, in my opinion.)
She is not old, and she is not ugly. (and neither is Hillary)
She has shown an emotional side, and she is tough as nails (with polish) (as has Hillary)
She is a working mother, with a large family, and a loving husband. (well…Hillary and Bill are loving partners with issues, and they have raised an outstanding daughter)

They differ on party, issues, age, accomplishments, successes, family life, personality and looks. They both have major accomplishments, and they are both intelligent. I don’t think either of these women would be where they are now, if they were not smart as whips.

They have different styles, and they have had different paths. They have had different educations, and different life experiences.

But the thing that these two have in common, above anything, is that they are both women. Women who have chosen to serve the people. Women who have dedicate their lives, to serving others.

They are both women, who have been the victims of disparaging, sexist, misogynistic, hateful, violent, horrific, insulting, personal, personal, personal attacks. Attacks coming from both men and women.

Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It’s estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

Why? We can disagree on policy, but this is not what these attacks are about.

What links these two women is that they are both smart, successful women, who have managed to maintain a family and career, and have chosen to serve the public, through political office. Long story short – they are women.

So, when Hillary haters claimed, *it is not that they are opposed to a woman, not just THAT woman*, they were really saying – *I am opposed to a woman*.

So, I ask, if not now, when? If not Geraldine, or Hillary, or Sarah, then who?

As I see it, if we don’t put a stop to these attacks, if women don’t stop attacking each other, and until women are treated with respect and equality, we will never get passed this. Women will never *overcome* if they are treated this way, and if they attack this way.

Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.

And the attacks are not just aimed at Clinton or Palin. They are aimed at women who support them. The ugly attacks that are left on blogs are beyond the pale. Absolutely disgusting.

I am not a psychiatrist, or socialigist, or expert in any way, but I do see a direct correlation in the way women are treated publically, to how they are treated behind closed doors. And, until something changes, we will keep digging those graves. Four women a day.

“Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said. “That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country.”

“Morisette acknowledged to FOX 11 news that had he depicted Barack Obama in the same scene, it would not have gone over as well, because the history of a hanged black man in America is a lot more intense than a hanged white woman.”

And I hope you got to read Geraldine Ferraro’s outstanding op-ed, “What Hillary Clinton’s women want,” published yesterday in the New York Daily News:

Hillary Clinton’s speech before the convention on Tuesday night was brilliant. It reminded me of the one that Jesse Jackson gave in 1984 after a very contentious primary, when his name would be put into nomination the next evening and his 465-1/2 delegate votes would be recorded in the history books. His speech soared with reminders of a historic campaign, thanked supporters and recognized it was time to move on as a unified party.

Hillary’s remarks, however, went even further than Jackson’s did 24 years ago – by pressing for support, over and over, for her former opponent, Barack Obama, and urging party unity as the only way to defeat John McCain in November.

She could not have done more. And despite what some of Obama’s supporters seem to feel, responsibility for a contentious campaign does not rest solely on her shoulders.

It seems to me there are now three distinct groups of Hillary Clinton supporters.

The first are the PUMAs – which, as everyone now knows, stands for “Party Unity My A–.” For them – and over the last two weeks I have received hundreds of letters from women who consider themselves PUMAs – nothing Hillary could say or do would move them. They are livid at the sexist way that Hillary was treated by the media, and even angrier at the Obama people, the Democratic National Committee and Howard Dean as chairman, for not speaking up against it.

They believe that sexism is larger than this presidential race, that it seeps into the fiber of our country and must be stopped. They are convinced that if the media had been racist against Obama, Howard Dean would have been shouting from the hilltops – and so would have Hillary. They feel the party accepted a double standard, and many have indicated that they will either vote for McCain, write in Hillary’s name or just not vote for President.

Those people were outside of Hillary’s reach on Tuesday night.

A second group of Clinton supporters is those who chose her over Obama but who consider themselves good Democrats and will vote for the nominee. They also would never think of voting for McCain, primarily because of two vital, closely related issues of their concern: the Supreme Court and abortion.

That leaves the middle group. These are the women (and in smaller numbers, men) to whom Hillary was reaching out in her speech. They were on the fence; some of them remain there. They were disappointed when she didn’t win the nomination and let down further when she wasn’t chosen, apparently wasn’t even seriously considered, to be Obama’s running mate.

They were not only a significant number of the delegates in the convention hall on Tuesday night, but they are also the blue-collar ethnics and older voters in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, who came out in large numbers for her toward the end of the campaign.

[...]

Read all of “What Hillary Clinton’s women want.”

But this movement has a twist: Obama lacks legitimacy. The continuation of this rift is not about Hillary “losing.” Clintonistas, like myself, know that losing elections and having your heart broken is the inevitable risk of politics. Anglachel writes:

With John Edwards in the news these days, I have been reflecting on the theme of “Two Americas” and have applied a twist that more accurately reflects the two Americas within the Democratic Party – those whose bigotry and biases are excused because they are of the right class and those whose flaws are inexcusable, even when the flaws do not exist.

This “class” split in the Democratic Party is much more than an economic split. As Anglachel suggests, it is evidence of a values divide. These values are not the black-and-white split of abortion. Instead, this divide is a matter of emphasis. Obama talks about access to health care, but he doesn’t offer a universal plan. Obama criticized Hillary for her Iraq War vote, but he wasn’t in the senate to vote. Obama lectures Americans to learn Spanish–an irony not missed by many– a language he doesn’t speak.

But the differences of emphasis were not themselves the deal-breaker. The deal-breaker, I believe, was about Obama’s tactics in the campaign and the Democratic Party’s complete bias and vote-rigging for their chosen candidate. Donna Brazile’s embarrassing performance at the RBC was so transparent in its bias that she became the most visible Obama shill massaging rules for her candidate, all the while lecturing us on rules. Do they really think we’re that stupid?

Clintonistas, and now PUMAs, are revolted by four major issues. This is by no means an all-inclusive list, but includes the followings:

(1) The Democratic Nomination was Stolen

garyinchapelhill writes about Obama’s lack of legitimacy resulting from a stolen nomination:

Obama’s decision to return full voting status to delegates from Michigan and Florida does not make up for the fact that the RBC stole delegates from the uncommitted voters, as well as all write in votes, AND 4 of Hillary’s delegates. Until that travesty is corrected the votes of those delegates can not be considered legitimate.

And Marc Rubin of The Denver Group considers Obama’s current flip flop on Florida and Michigan as a ploy to entice disgusted Democrats into the fold:

Florida and Michigan were one of the earliest examples of how dishonest, two faced underhanded and fraudulent Obama can be, when he claimed in speeches that he stood for “voices being heard” and “every vote must count”, and then clamped his hand over the mouths of almost 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan because he didn’t like what those voices were saying, which was a loud “go home”. And in all likelihood are still saying “go home and will continue to say it. Clinton beat him by landslide numbers in both states and this little act of political self preservation isn’t going to fool anyone. Anyone, even an Obama supporter can see it’s nothing more than another cynical political ploy to try and win back voters who were disgusted with him a long time ago because he needs them now.

(2) Obama Race-Baited the Clintons

Obama’s race speech was compared to Lincoln by his sycophants in the media. It was closer to Nixon’s infamous “Checkers” speech, a disingenuous, hateful piece of sophistry created to dove-tail with white liberal guilt. The conflation of Jeremiah Wright’s homicidal racism with Geraldine Ferraro’s simple observation was only the most glaring evidence of Obama’s tactics. Anglachel points out that Obama’s demonizing of low income whites was a basic political calculation:

working class voters are not the socio-economic slice of the “white” vote that votes Republican. They are the least likely portion of white voters to do so, which is part of what made the constant slamming of this group so infuriating during the primaries. This was the slice of the white demographic most likely to vote for Hillary, and that was the reason they were being singled out for shaming and insults.

And Alegre puts her finger on why PUMAs find Obama unacceptable:

I think I can speak for millions of Hillary’s 18 millions supporters when I say that Camp Obama stepped over a serious line when they tarred the Clintons as racists in the lead-up to the SC primary (and since). Those attacks were simply unforgivable and may be a big reason (among many!) why many of us won’t get on that unity pony of Howie’s.

(3) Obama Attacked Hillary from the Right

Attacking Hillary from the Right was not by itself a deal-breaker. But the fact that Obama went after Hillary on health care — after everything she had fought for in the 1990s — was a disgraceful appropriation of Right Wing tactics and talking points. As SusanUnPC writes:

The sad reality, of course, is that Obama has no fealty to commitments over issues. Issues are merely fodder to be used to grab what he seeks above all else: Victory…Now, every politician has to be focused on winning. But most politicians have some issues about which they genuinely care and are knowledgeable about. Obama doesn’t seem to hold any issues dear.

(4) The Democratic Party Rejects Racism, Embraces Sexism

Democratic Party leaders and Obama supporters stayed silent while egregious misogyny was leveled against Mrs. Clinton. As feminist blogger Violet Socks said to me, the silence from our “brothers” on the Left regarding this sexism has been one of the most disappointing political events in the annals of progressivism. So we must have an accounting, and a defeat. There are worse things than losing elections, and I believe we have just witnessed them during the primaries. Obama’s use of sexist stereotypes against Hillary gave cultural permission for the venom against Hillary. It was outside the realm of acceptable behavior for a Democratic politician, and must be vehemently rejected. Voting for Obama is condoning tactics which are anathema to why we are Democrats in the first place.

Lynette Long writes:

I am not Lolita. I will not crawl back into bed with a party that raped me. I will not stay in an abusive relationship because I have nowhere else to go. I will not be placated by a pat on the head or a worthless trinket. I will not spend the rest of my life waiting for tomorrow or listening to people tell me that today is better than yesterday.

Defeat is Good

Just as Barry Goldwater’s defeat by Johnson in 1964 was considered the end of the conservative movement, Obama’s victory is seen by the neo-liberals as a rejection of third-way progressivism. However, the PUMA movement is not an end but a beginning. It’s not the continuation of Bill Clinton’s moderate policies, but a movement of dedicated progressives who embraced Mrs. Clinton’s far more bold agenda, an agenda more analogues to FDR than Bill Clinton, and one which is much more progressive than Obama’s. Our nascent movement parallels the rise of the conservative movement:

All the pundits saw the size of Goldwater’s defeat. Almost none grasped the implications of the fact that the Goldwater campaign had twice as many volunteers as Johnson’s — or that while 66,000 people donated to the Kennedy and Nixon campaigns of 1960, over a million gave to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Among other things [it is an] account of how a rebellious and at first marginal political faction moved toward power reminds us of the dynamic character of politics and the dangers of static analysis

I am a Democrat because I believe in universal health care, because I despise racism, race-baiting, and sexism, and because I believe in the democratic process. On all these counts, our Party has failed us. We must rid our Party of race-baiting, sexism, and vote stealing, and return our Party to its glorious heritage of patriotism, equal opportunity, and care for the most vulnerable.

Thanks to Medusa for her help with this essay.

Apparently the Obama Campaign, in their typically rude and threatening fashion, put Geraldine Ferraro’s phone number on the internet in the George Bush tradition they so naturally have embraced — so sycophants could dutifully harass her. But that backfired because, in addition to the expected Bush Obama campaign vitriol, Mrs. Ferraro also got plenty of phone calls from disgusted women who gave her an earful about exactly what they think of Barack Obama.

The only difference between Geraldine and me is I couldn’t care less if Barack Obama reached out to women now. I find him to be a dishonest vote panderer who doesn’t mean a word he ways, whether it’s to Jews, Typical White People, Women or any other voting block he disdains. I will never vote for Barack Obama and I will do my very best to make sure that everyone I know does not vote for him. For me, it’s a crusade against an incurable bigot, racist and sexist pig. Or as Geraldine put it:

“I don’t know how he gets these women who are so angry to vote for him.”

 Part 1:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bFp7yqhrDs[/youtube]

Part 2:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_7_eVoxmks[/youtube]

This is how she describes the Convention:

I listen to the leaders of our party talk about us all “coming together” when a candidate is chosen, fully understanding now that perhaps it is a forgone conclusion that nominee will be Obama based not on what the people want, but on what the party leaders want.

My friend has been a loyal Democrat for over 30 years. She has lived in Denver and Boulder, and has spent her life committed to progressive causes and equality. I am stunned when she tells me she can’t support Obama. This is a voice the super delegates need to hear, I think. I ask her to give me a brief biography. Here’s how she describes herself:

49 year old white female…Lived in Colorado for 21 years. In a committed relationship for nine years. Veteran of the US Army. Undergraduate degree in Sociology. Police officer for 13 years. Currently employed as a criminal investigator. Prior to that, worked as a volunteer, counselor, management in domestic violence shelters. Have also previously worked in the education field at the collegiate level for three different colleges/universities. I consider myself a Democrat and have primarily voted for Democratic candidates since I began voting at the age of 18…Very patriotic, believe it is my right and responsibility to vote.

It is one thing for on-line activists to write posts saying we’re not supporting Obama; we’ve been abused, cursed, and banned from every progressive site but a handful. It’s another thing for a progressive like my friend to say she can’t support Obama:

I have given a lot of thought to whether or not I could support Obama for president and the truth is, I can’t. I don’t believe he is the right candidate. I don’t believe he can make the right changes and the immediate impact the Clinton can and I don’t believe that those supporting Clinton will vote for him. He has not been able to tell me what he will do, only “yes we can,” chanted over and over again by his supporters who when questioned cannot tell me why they support him. This is not about race and it is not about gender. It is about who is the right person for the job.

Powerful words spoken honestly. I could see that it pained her to say that she couldn’t support Obama; she knows she will be contributing to a likely McCain presidency. But at some point over these months there was a deal-breaker for her. Perhaps it was Obama smearing the Clintons as racists, or his silence on the rampant sexism, or Obama refusing to be photographed with San Fransisco Mayor Newsom. Maybe it was when Obama crudely equated Geraldine Ferraro’s under-the-radar comment with 20 years of hate sermons by his pastor, maybe it was bitter-gate and Obama’s elitist attitude, maybe it was Ayers, Dohrn, and Rezko. It might have been disgust at the media’s relentlessly biased reporting. Perhaps there was no one deal-breaker and it was cumulative.

The primary reason so many of us cannot support Obama, I believe, is our disappoint and disgust at the Democratic Party’s utter incompetence with the primary schedule. In the mind of Hillary supporters there is an alternate sequence of events: last summer Howard Dean finds a way for Florida and Michigan to vote and for their votes to be counted. Hillary wins those states handily and takes on a huge delegate lead. That lead propels her to other victories and the nomination.

But instead we’re stuck in Al Gore’s Twilight Zone, a place where the popular vote winner and better candidate is asked to give up what should rightfully be hers. Taylor Marsh writes about Clinton supporters in general but she could be talking about my friend specifically:

Clinton’s supporters don’t understand why the woman with the big vote total is being pushed out. Brokering a nominee who refuses to count Michigan and Florida is not their idea of democracy from the Democratic Party, which they’ve supported for decades. Barack Obama stands for everything they’ve come to loathe this primary season, the sexism, his silence about it, his own complicity in it, the disrespect of Senator Clinton, the list is indelibly marked in each Clinton supporter’s brain.

One voice can be dismissed as an anomaly. My experience from talking to other Hillary supporters, however, is that my friend represents many, many Democrats and the polling supports mass defections if Obama is nominated. We will not be blackmailed into voting for a candidate whose campaign tactics we despise and for a Party who has failed us.

Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

______________

I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.

His political repertoire has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did—i.e., getting props both for emoting with the black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming “tough love” message that focuses on alleged behavioral pathologies in poor black communities. Because he’s able to claim racial insider standing, he actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous.

It may be instructive to look at the outfit where he did his “community organizing,” the invocation of which makes so many lefties go weak in the knees. My understanding of the group, Developing Communities Project, at the time was that it was simply a church-based social service agency. What he pushed as his main political credential then, to an audience generally familiar with that organization, was his role in a youth-oriented voter registration drive.

The Obama campaign has even put out a misleading bio of Michelle Obama, representing her as having grown up in poverty on the South Side, when, in fact, her parents were city workers, and her father was a Daley machine precinct captain. This fabrication, along with those embroideries of the candidate’s own biography, may be standard fare, the typical log cabin narrative. However, in Obama’s case, the license taken not only underscores Obama’s more complex relationship to insider politics in Daley’s Chicago; it also underscores how much this campaign depends on selling an image rather than substance.

There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp’s young minions’ enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others’ criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin. The campaign even has a stock conversion narrative, which has been recycled in print by such normally clear-headed columnists as Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt: the middle-aged white woman’s report of not having paid much attention to Obama early on, but having been won over by the enthusiasm and energy of their adolescent or twenty-something daughters. (A colleague recently reported having heard this narrative from a friend, citing the latter’s conversion at the hands of her eighteen year old. I observed that three short years ago the daughter was likely acting the same way about Britney Spears.)

Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz, a Clinton supporter, noted that the Obama campaign advisers have tried to have it both ways on the race question. On the one hand, they present their candidate as a figure who transcends racial divisions and “brings us together”; on the other hand, they exhort us that we should support his candidacy because of the opportunity to “make history” (presumably by nominating and maybe electing a black candidate). Increasingly, Obama supporters have been disposed to cry foul and charge racism at nearly any criticism of him, in steadily more extravagant rhetoric.

The campaign’s accusation that the Clinton team made Obama look darker in a photo or video clip than he actually is—and what exactly are we to make of that as an accusation?—and the hysterically indignant reaction to Geraldine Ferraro’s statement that much of Obama’s success stems from the fact that “the country is caught up in the concept” of a black candidacy are no different from the campaign’s touting its “historic” character. Obama supporters fulsomely attacked even Clinton’s attempts to portray him as inexperienced, which is standard fare in political campaigns. They also charged that she was playing to racism. See most recently Harvard sociologist Lawrence Bobo’s characterization that she was “disrespecting” black people, a leftover canard from Jesse Jackson’s campaigns (which, lest amnesia overtake us, were also extolled as historic firsts).

The Jackson comparison points to one of Obama’s key contradictions: Like Jackson, he wants to appeal to blacks with the “it’s our time now” line, and to white liberals with that, as well as with the “I’m black in a different way from Jesse” qualifier and the religious conversion rhetoric. A friend said that Obama’s campaign, in stressing his appeal to rapturous children and liberal, glamorous yuppies, offers vicarious identification with these groups, as well as the chance to become sort of black in that ultra-safe and familiar theme park way.

I often tell my students that, even though Paul Wellstone was my good friend from college to his death and an individual for whom I always had great respect, no politician in this system is likely to be a person you’d want for your sister-in-law or brother-in-law. And, as many Progressive readers may know, I’m hardly a Clinton fan. I’m on record in last November’s issue as saying that I’d rather sit out the election entirely than vote for either her or Obama. At this point, though, I’ve decided that she’s the lesser evil in the Democratic race, for the following reasons: 1) Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a “movement” that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he’s practiced his entire career; 2) his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality—in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks—stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency; 3) he can’t beat McCain in November.

Frankly, I suspect that Clinton can’t beat him either, but there’s no way that Obama will carry most of the states in November that he’s won in the primaries and caucuses. And, while it makes some liberals feel good to think that a majority of the American electorate could vote for a black Presidential candidate, we should keep in mind that the Republicans haven’t let one dog out of the kennel against him yet. The Jeremiah Wright contretemps is only the first bark.

Obama’s style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It’s like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that’s so big that they can’t hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they’ve told different people. And Obama’s belonging to Wright’s church in the first place was quite likely part of establishing a South Side bourgeois nationalist street cred because his political base was with Hyde Park/University of Chicago liberals and the foundation world.

For now, the Jeremiah Wright connection probably won’t hurt him too much, partly because the Republicans at this point mainly may want to keep him and Clinton bleeding each other as long as possible. And his Philadelphia compromise speech—a string of well-crafted and coordinated platitudes and hollow images worthy of an SUV commercial, grounded with the reassuring “acknowledgment” of blacks’ behavioral inadequacies—has gained him breathing room by holding out a vague promise of racial “reconciliation” that has appealed to centrist liberals ever since Booker T. Washington’s comparably eloquent 1895 accommodation to Southern white supremacy. Obama gets credit for “opening a conversation” on race, for “taking the matter on squarely.” But he doesn’t really speak to what we ought to be doing to address the injustices, past and present, that he mentions. Despite all the babble about Obama’s transcendence, Obama persists in portraying black Americans as a stereotypical monolith: blacks feel x; whites feel y. And the trope of black “anger” is a tired chestnut that neither explains nor characterizes political grievances or aspirations. (By the way, Obama’s casting Wright’s alleged “anger” as generational is entirely consistent with his earlier praise of Ronald Reagan for sensing Americans’ desire to undo the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.)

Because he’s tried carefully to say enough of whatever the audiences he’s been speaking to at the time want to hear while leaving himself enough space later on to deny his intentions to leave that impression, his record represents precisely the “character” weakness the Republicans have exploited in every Democratic candidate since Dukakis: Another Dem trying to put things over on the American people.

Obama’s campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure.

And then where will we be?

Correction: Adolph Reed Jr. apologizes to Katha Pollitt for stating that her daughter influenced her to support Obama. Her daughter did no such thing.

Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

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

Reprinted by permission of The Progressive. Reed’s article was part of a debate on Obama in the May issue that included an affirmative by Edwidge Danticat.

Writes Taylor Marsh: “The above video is pretty silly, but it started circulating late last night so I thought I’d share it. It blames everything on my friend Larry Johnson over at No Quarter, which is laughable. He wasn’t anywhere near Rhodes when she let loose her screed against Clinton or Ferraro. Today’s reports do make it official.”

Out of context, my arse. And there’s no way that Green360 or Randi Rhodes can spin themselves out of the hate speech promulgated by Rhodes, including calling Geraldine Ferraro “David Duke in drag” — as well as calling both Ferraro and Hillary Clinton “big f–king whores.”

ALSO: This was not a “private” event. It was a pro-Barack Obama event, and it was advertised on Barack Obama’s official site. (Click on the image, or click on the original story, to see the full-sized screenshot.)

Green360’s spin focuses on blaming No Quarter for their and Rhodes’s woes. Instead, they can simply look in the mirror to find out who’s at fault.

Read all of our stories on the Randi Rhodes scandal, thanks entirely to her own hate speech.

SEE especially, this story with the screenshot of the advertised event featuring Rhodes and placed on Barack Obama’s official site: “Barack & Randi, Cozy As Can Be [Three Updates — Third from Larry Johnson].”

A week? How about months of the “progressive” blogosphere’s incessant attacks on both Hillary Clinton and her supporters? This vitriol has far-reaching and potentially lasting implications, beyond the hate speech of Rhodes, Obama’s spiritual advisers, and two individuals — Huffington Post’s Allison Kilkenny and talk radio’s Ed Schultz — who I called out last night in “Obama Supporters Take the Low Rhode.” What does this phenomenon really say about progressives? In a rather severe but noteworthy indictment posted at the Liberal Rapture blog — “The Obama infection and the lynching of Hillary Clinton” — John writes:

Obama has injected a poison into the body politic of the United States. The ugliness Obama has stirred up is real and severe – all the more damaging because he is so charming. We are past now the dizzying, frothing, mindless adoration from Huffington and the Daily Kos. We are now past the snotty, childish attacks on Clinton by Olbermann and Cafferty. We are into a new realm … The hatred quietly coached and encouraged by Axelrod is now bubbling forth everywhere.

Then John wrote about the real meaning of what Randi Rhodes did to Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton:

Randi Rhodes called Senator Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro “fucking whores” on stage. Do the math with me on this one moment: a liberal female talk show host called the first female V.P. candidate on a major party ticket and the first viable female Presidential candidate “fucking whores”.

For fun.

This is a symptom.

Read all of John’s post, “The Obama infection and the lynching of Hillary Clinton.”

The Daily Howler notes the myth about “progressives” and “progressive” radio:

For years, there was a self-flattering story we liberals liked to tell about the nature of talk radio. Theoretically, liberal talk radio would never work because we liberals are so bright, so intelligent, so independent—such non-ditto-heads, we kept saying. To be honest, this tale never made much sense. But Rhodes, and others, have made this week a time for some sober reflection.

Are progressives really brighter than conservatives? As a group, we tended to believe it when John Dean (who we admire) wrote that book. But uh-oh! This week, we emitted a low, mordant chuckle at one part of this David Sirota piece, to which we’d been linked by the person who has kidnapped Josh Marshall.

Most of us, if not all of us, heretofore considered Air America Radio a good station to tune into. Most of us, if not all of us, thought highly of Josh Marshall and his Talking Points Memo site.

Did they change? Or were we wrong about them?

But I didn’t realize, until I read the Daily Howler, that Josh Marshall had been “kidnapped.” (By aliens, or by _____?) Or that the TPM writer Greg Sargent’s “short break” has been extended so long — perhaps indefinitely? And that his “short break” began — what a coincidence — shortly after the popular, widely-read Sargent had the nerve to point out the negative media coverage of Hillary Clinton.

At any rate, the viciousness of the attacks is unrelenting, and it has claimed many victims — including people who have been banned from “progressive” Web sites simply because they support Hillary Clinton as well as those who dare to speak their minds such as Geraldine Ferraro.

Where will this hate speech and these attacks take us? I’m worried.

What becomes of a nation when one of its three leading contenders for the presidency of the United States has this man listed on his official campaign Web site as a spiritual adviser to him?

What becomes of a nation when its “progressives” stand silently by while hate speech is spewed at pro-Obama events — as Randi Rhodes did at an Obama gathering in San Francisco?

What becomes of a nation when its “progressives” stand silently by while a priest like Father Pfleger — who is supported by and featured by Barack Obama on his official campaign site — defends Louis Farrakhan, so bigoted that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists his organization as a “hate” group?

Maybe it’s just that whoever likes my man Barack is cool with me.

Can it be just that crass? Is there no discernment? Do any of the Obama followers ever take a pause when they hear such hate speech? Especially when their candidate remains strangely silent about the hate speech being spewed at his honorable opponent who, if any of her surrogates uttered such words, would never heard the end of it from the MSM and blogosphere.

* Ed Schultz, the radio show host until recently a Republican but is now a Democratic party “expert” on TV pundit shows
* Allison Kilkenny, a venal writer for Huffington Post

ACTION NOTICE: Sign this petition to demand a stop to sexism on our nation’s radio stations. (There are more details at the end of this post.)

I wish these people were “exceptions to the rule” among Obama supporters. But, reports of delegates at caucuses and conventions prove their behavior is a too-often norm for Obama’s followers. Someone I know was a delegate at the King County convention today in Seattle, Wash. where the Obama delegates booed so loudly when they were asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance that the convention chair gave up and skipped the pledge. (Maybe they took their cue from “The One”?)

Apparently, our symbolic rituals of patriotism are passe´ — even at official American political party events that decide who will be the candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

BELOW, read what the buffoon Ed Schultz said and what poison-pen writer Allison Kilkenny wrote. WARNING: Ms. Kilkenny’s language is vile and adult denigrating to both men and women …

DISCLAIMER from SusanUnPC: I am not a supporter of John McCain. I plan on voting for Hillary Clinton in November. But we can surely attack McCain on the substance of his politics and his record without resorting to these kinds of attacks that have no place in a supposedly civilized society — the quality of which is under threat from the likes of these people.

ALLISON KILKENNY perpetuates the Randi Rhodes sexist, disgusting attacks in her Huffington Post story, “John McCain Is A Big F*cking Whore.” Here are some repulsive examples from her article:

[...]

Ladies and Gentlemen, John McCain is a big fucking whore.

[...]

John McCain is, in short, a whore.

Matt Welch carefully explains in McCain: The Myth Of A Maverick how the McCain of yesterday transformed into a lobbyist-humping, lying whore.

[...]

John-Whorebag-McCain spent more than three decades living in the Beltway, a far cry from his claims of existing outside Washington.

[...]

If and when the press gets over their love affair with McCain, they’ll realize they’ve been in bed with one of the biggest Beltway sluts. On the McCain bus, there’s no time for message consistency, especially during a campaign season packed with the act of getting down on both knees and suck, suck, sucking until the cash flows. …

If that isn’t sexist filth — even if the verbal garbage is tossed at a man by a female writer — I don’t know what is. Arianna Huffington should to be taken to task for permitting this kind of sexist hate speech on her blog.

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

ED SCHULTZ via the New York Times blog:

On the air, Ed Schultz, a liberal talk show host based in Fargo, N.D., is well-known for his blunt criticisms of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party. But Mr. Schultz, a fervent supporter of Senator Barack Obama, may have gone too far late Friday when he called Senator John McCain “a warmonger.”

Mr. Schultz, whose program is syndicated nationally, made the remarks while revving up a group of Obama supporters at a $100-a-head fund raiser at the North Dakota Democratic Party’s convention in Grand Forks.

As is typical, Barack Obama did not apologize for Schultz’s remarks but let a campaign staffer do the job:

Mr. Obama did not refer to the incident during a speech Saturday morning to 8,000 people who had gathered at the University of Montana basketball arena. But a spokesman, Jen Psaki, issued a statement that distanced him from Mr. Schultz.

“John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such,” she said. “He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”

I have plenty of problems with McCain’s persistent support for the Iraq War and the surge, but I wouldn’t call him a warmonger — especially if I were speaking on behalf of my favored presidential candidate at a $100-a-plate dinner! And most especially if my remarks were the top story, instead of my candidate’s own campaign stops.

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

HERE is more on the petition:

You have received an invitation from Stop Sexism to support the following petition.

Let’s show them how much we mean it when we say Stop Sexism in the Media

Stop Sexism on the Radio

The treatment of women as second-class citizens must stop. The assault on the integrity of women has continued with a wide range of attacks including name calling, sexual innuendo, and degrading comments about achievements and place in society. With the recent events of name calling including Randi Rhodes and Don Imus, and the ongoing assaults of women in our society and the media, we the undersigned call for you to do your part to end sexism in the media. We call upon you to end all support of media personalities and end sponsorships with companies who engage in or support sexist attacks of any kind.

IF YOU WANT a reminder of the sexism spewed regularly on radio and on stage by these nationally syndicated radio show hosts, catch this new YouTube of Randi Rhodes (quickly, before she or the San Francisco radio station contacts YouTube and demands it be taken down):

It is unconscionable that those Obama supporters whooped and clapped when Randi Rhodes called Geraldine Ferraro — a woman who has fought for equal rights for decades and was named to the National Women’s Hall of Fame — a “David Duke in drag.”
___________________________________

Yes! Our story yesterday — “Air America’s Randi Rhodes Suspended: We Did It! [Updated x2]” — was the top featured story this morning at the New York Times’s blog tracker, Blogrunner.

[Click on the image to see the full screenshot.]

Did you see that Ms. Rhodes is in a snit about her “indefinite” suspension? From the Huffington Post’s Jeff Norman:

“They [Air America Radio] are in breach of my contract and have damaged my hard won excellent reputation in the broadcast industry…” Rhodes added she received thank you letters from representatives of Air America, the San Francisco affiliate and sponsors praising her for the performance that now has her in hot water.

I smell a lawsuit. Don’t you? She seems like the litigious type.

Below the fold, we have video of Fox News reporting today on the pre-event publicity announcement that appeared on Barack Obama’s official campaign Web site.

Here’s the link to the abhorrent video, which was posted first here at No Quarter. (If it’s still available; now the Obama fundraisers are claiming “copyright” privileges. We are fighting back.)

We reported this earlier today here — with a screenshot of the Obama campaign site’s publicity for the event — in our story, “Barack & Randi, Cozy As Can Be [Three Updates — Third from Larry Johnson].”

Also below the fold, you’ll also see Geraldine Ferraro’s response to Rhodes’s statements — including Rhodes calling Ferraro a “David Duke in drag” —

Fox News’s coverage today of the pre-event publicity on Barack Obama’s official campaign site:

John Gibson is demanding that Randi Rhodes apologize. And that will happen … when?

Geraldine Ferraro and more from Hannity & Colmes last night:

[MORE TO COME. STAY TUNED.]

Great thanks to C.S. for his masterful, fast video magic!

Do you remember the video we posted on April 1 — in which Randi Rhodes called both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton “whores”? The YouTube that our video whiz C.S. created from an ordinarily non-transferrable source, and posted at YouTube? (It’s below the fold for those who missed it.)

C.S.’s YouTube video went “viral” (writers posted it all over the blogosphere!) — and now Randi Rhodes has been suspended from Air America Radio. Here’s Air America’s official statement:

STATEMENT OF AIR AMERICA RADIO, FROM CHAIR CHARLIE KIREKER
By air america

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 3, 2008

New York – Air America has suspended on-air host Randi Rhodes for making inappropriate statements about prominent figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, at a recent public appearance on behalf of Air America in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.

“Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts,” said chair Charlie Kireker.

UPDATE x2, from the New York Times, at the end — her suspension is “indefinite”:

Thank you, C.S. You made this happen.

(And thanks to Pacific John for sending me the official statement of Air America Radio.)

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

UPDATE x2:

From the New York Times’s Caucus blog today:

Randi Rhodes, an afternoon host for the progressive Air America radio network, was suspended Thursday after repeatedly insulting Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event last month.

Ms. Rhodes used vulgar language that likened Ms. Clinton to a prostitute at an event sponsored by KKGN, the Air America affiliate in the San Francisco area, on March 22. A video of Ms. Rhodes’ remarks was published to the video-sharing Web site YouTube on Tuesday, prompting condemnations by some bloggers.

In a statement, Charlie Kireker, the chair of Air America, said the radio network “encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts.”

The network called Ms. Rhodes’ suspension “indefinite” and did not elaborate on the fate of her daily three-hour radio show. “The Randi Rhodes Show” is normally broadcast from 3 to 6 p.m. weekdays. Sam Seder, another Air America host, was scheduled to fill in for Ms. Rhodes on Thursday…

(Thanks, Ron, for sending me the NYT post.)