Good morning, all. Some headlines for you leftover from Friday and coming out this morning on Saturday, then if you make it that far, a Wonk rant and a couple of other tidbits to close out.
I’ll start with a few links on the midterms horserace that caught my eye first and try to touch on a few other stories after that if I can.
Lest Democratic sympathizers disturb their beautiful minds over “stolen elections,” the D.S.C.C. reports a record-breaking month in fundraising (via Michael Shear at the NYT Caucus blog).
According to the latest polling from Reuters/Ipsos, “California Democrats cling to leads.” Boxer’s lead over Fiorina is down to one point, and Brown’s lead over Whitman is down from 7 to 4. The Ipsos pollster says, “California is trending Democratic although the races are close.” We shall find out soon enough if that trend holds until election day. It’s not my state, but I’m in the NOTA camp when it comes to rooting for the major party candidates in either of these races. Looks like whoever wins, the people will lose.
The Hill reported Friday on polling from NPR Battleground Survey that shows “GOP has edge in most competitive Democratic seats.” The edge that the Rs have in this one is four points “among likely voters in the 53 most competitive congressional districts held by Democrats.” The Ds and Rs are tied in 33 more races for the next most competitive set of seats held by Democratic incumbents. Talk about Change we could have done without. From where we were in 2006 to where we are now, the Ds have waged political malpractice in my opinion. Sure the party in power wouldn’t have it easy during midterms regardless, but 2006 and 2008 had sealed the electorate’s anger at the GOP. The Ds made sure to join the GOP in the doghouse.
Shifting gears to the foreign policy front for a minute, this link is from CNN: Condi Rice says we were right to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein, but mistakes were made in the rebuilding of Iraq. Well, that’s kind of late. And, I don’t think we were right to go into Iraq. And, I’m not happy that we still have 50,000 troops there and the Administration is acting like we’ve left Iraq. But, I’m just a “nobody who could have predicted” Bush-Cheney going into Iraq would be a disaster.
Oh, and on the off-chance that you guys are waiting on the edge of your seats to find out if the Matt Drudge noises alleging that the First Lady “campaigned inside polling place” were anything more than cheap and easy grist for the rightwing mill, experts say Michelle Obama did not break the law. What a stunning ending to that political suspense thriller, I know! Someone call M. Night Shyamalan. He can call it The Polling Place!
In HCR news…what else but more bad news… up to a 47% premium hike in Connecticut. And, here’s this from the NY Times: “It’s About Time to Check the Fine Print on Your Health Plan.” But, there was this interesting and not-so-bad development from Thursday (also via the Gray Lady): “Challenging Health Care Law, Suit Advances.” People talk of killing the bill, but if only it would self-destruct on its own. Perhaps that’s a long-shot, but a mandate to buy a private service sets a very bad precedent.
I never planned on linking to iowahawk, but this one called “Beltway Adventure” just showed up as lead item on memeorandum so it must be getting a lot of traffic. I cheated and just scrolled to the end. I won’t lie, the ending of this one did make me laugh even though naturally I disagree with the “turn left” and “fake turn right” — I think Obama has actually been turning right and fake turning left.
Over at Salon, the War Room’s Justin Elliott has this story… “Clinton aide’s idea: Let Iraq shoot down U.S. plane — A new book says a cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American airman as a pretext for war.” The book is by General Hugh Shelton, and he writes that the proposal was put to him in October of 1997. If you haven’t read the details already, you really should click the link to read how Shelton says he responded. I don’t know what to make of this story yet, but I’m sure the Clinton derangement crowd is busy filling in those blanks in comment sections across the blogosphere. Also, this from Elliott at Salon: “The way Shelton writes the story, the unnamed cabinet official could not have been Berger or Cohen. That leaves Albright and the other cabinet members as possible candidates.”
Okay, now for something that leaves me less speechless. It’s time for my rant.
I linked at the top to the story about Boxer and Brown clinging to their leads. Californians ultimately should and will have the final say on who deserves to win. But, I can’t say I’ll feel sorry for Jerry Brown if he doesn’t pull this out. He made his own mess.
And, so have the Democrats. They can’t keep screwing over the women who vote for them, leaving the sorry “I have to pay everybody else before I can pay you” note on the dresser, and then say it’s not gendered to use the word “whore” to describe a woman competing for power held by a man. That’s just too much.
I always try to push back on the use of the word whore by saying so-called “media whores,” “political whores,” “famewhores,” “blogwhores,” etc. are not as honest and noble as real whores who provide an actual service.
Similarly, I like to push back on the use of the word bitch in political debates by saying it’s an insult to bitches who, as Tina Fey said on SNL, get stuff done.
I certainly “get it” about the usage of the word “whore” and am really turned off by all the little tutorials on the usage of slur words coming out of “progressive” quarters lately. People are talking down to us stupid wimmenz and like-minded men for just not understanding the difference between a racial slur and a misogynist slur and how misogynist slurs aren’t as offensive.
I mean, seriously Joan Walsh? This is just sad to read. Your partisanship for Ds vs. Rs at all costs is so blind that now even the word ‘whore’ isn’t an off-limits pejorative for a staffer of a male candidate to use against his female opponent. It’s just merely “crude” and “loaded” and would be better if it wasn’t used, but it doesn’t “pack the punch” of a racial slur, so we should just look at this as a staffer issue and move on ? Seriously?
Walsh was one of the only people in the MSM to stand up to the Frat Boys media treatment of Hillary Clinton and her supporters during the primaries. That’s why it’s sad to see her act this way, though it’s been the path she’s been on ever since Obama became president. After Coakley lost, Walsh told feminists to “put on their grown-up pants” and “take their lumps” as a way to insulate Obama from criticism that Coakley’s loss was really a referendum on him. It wasn’t as if feminists were out there protesting Scott Brown being sworn in or something, but blaming the “Emily’s list candidate” and her feminist supporters was a convenient distraction away from Obama dropping the torch that Ted Kennedy had passed onto him.
Getting back to the uproar over Brown’s campaign calling Whitman a whore — if that is no biggie and we should just move on, why then was it wrong for Julia Reed to say President Obama was “out of his cotton-pickin mind“? And, I do think Reed’s comment was wrong as well as something to make people aware not to repeat even though there’s a good chance it was an honest in-the moment mistake and wasn’t meant in a racial context. But, why the double-standard here?
Cotton-picking doesn’t pack the punch it would if used outside of the context of President Obama, either. But, Reed’s comment did take on a racial context once it was out there for public consumption, whether she meant it that way or not, and the Brown staffer’s whore comment does take on a gendered context when put out there in the political debate as well. The right thing to do to move on is to apologize, admit it was wrong and should not be repeated, and talk about how it sends a poor and counterproductive message to use that word when women are running for office in record numbers. Stop trying to qualify it.
Furthermore, it’s not only the womanhood of Democratic women who are advantageous to Obama and the Democrats that deserve fair treatment. I don’t defend the womanhood of women in politics because of their politics. I defend their womanhoods because of MY politics.
If the D/R situations were reversed on this one, and Gillibrand’s opponent’s staffer had been the one calling Gillibrand a whore, Walsh’s spin would be a complete 180. These kinds of apologia from Joan and other Democratic women apologizing for Brown right now will come back to haunt Democratic women if Jerry Brown gets away with this and the Democratic women’s orgs and activists don’t get their acts together. Democratic gatekeepers of feminism are on record now saying “whore” is a passable term to describe your female opponent in politics or just a staffer gaffe at worst, move on. Good luck getting more Democratic women elected with that attitude.
But then, the point and the plot of this discourse was lost several slurs ago. And, it makes me think of the John Lennon song to the right.
On that note… on this day (October 16) in 1916, Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in this country at 46 Amboy St. in Brooklyn. There’s an old flyer for the clinic archived online that’s neat to look at. It’s copyrighted or else I’d put it up here.
Oh, and before I go, with the spate of teen suicide stories in the news right now, I thought it was an intriguing coincidence that the movie It’s Kind of a Funny Story, trailer to the left, has come out just last week. It’s about a depressed teenager who checks himself into a psych ward. It looks interesting. Here’s a positive review from my local paper, the Houston Chronicle.
Have a great weekend, and I’d love to hear what’s on YOUR mind and what you’re reading this morning.
Joan Walsh didn’t endear herself to me during the health care reform campaign. She became part of the problem some time ago. If she were the only one, she’d be a curiosity, but this is actually where most nominally progressive organizations seem to be these days. They aren’t speaking out for the people whose interests they’re supposed to be watching out for. It seems to be about them now, not their missions.
Thanks for your comment, Cujo. I’m going to check out your blog post about Walsh in a sec, but same here–she didn’t endear herself to me during the HCR debate either and neither did most so-called progressive supporters of Obama. I wish the left would have taken a harder line on single payer. That would have put more pressure on Obama to come back with something much better than a junk insurance mandate that does more to transfer wealth to Wall Street than it does to expand health CARE to more people.
I don’t think anything compares to the “n” word. But I grew up in St. Louis, Mo. at a time of busing, with Missouri always a boiling pot when it came to racial politics. Only the “c” word gives people the chills, though Henry Miller’s generation weren’t so delicately offended. Some of his greatest writings couldn’t be published today, with the world being sadder for it.
That said, it’s been tough for Brown to navigate this one, because reports point to his wife having been the one that uttered it. “Political whore” doesn’t make it any better.
However, this was supposed to be a PRIVATE conversation, which was inadvertently taped, then leaked, which should be more of an issue than it is. I’d sure as hell hate for my private political conversations during a heated campaign to be taped!
As for the women’s groups, their reaction is typical to their fecklessness. This is just another example of why I don’t belong to any of them.
Lastly, it’s positively absurd to say that because “whore” easily floats off the tongues of pundits that proves anything. MSNBC commentators used rhyming words instead of being grown ups and simply saying “whore,” with Jon Stewart offering the best laugh at them on this. Women have been easily demeaned with or without the word “whore,” something that’s done to Sarah Palin continually, especially, though she sure makes it easy sometimes.
Terrific food for Saturday thought, Wonk.
New York Magazine – Proper telephone protocol: Always hang up the phone completely before calling someone a whore.
Thanks so much for the reply, Taylor, and the space to have this discussion with the TM.com community.
I just think the point gets lost when things devolve into the oppression olympics of which slur is “worse.” The N word is vile beyond words, but all slurs are unacceptable to have out there in the national media in the context of women and minorities and lgbt running for office.
The leaked private conversations aspect–it’s a test only a saint could pass. Once the cat was out of the bag, though, it needed to be handled a lot better than it was by the Dems and the women’s orgs (which have become mere fundraising arms of the DINO party, imho).
Shock poll headlines are common close to an election, but it is important to never look at just one poll during this critical time. The consensus between polls and the trend lines are far more revealing.
Is there +R movement in the California Senate and Gubernatorial races? Possibly, but extremely unlikely. Carly and Meg are toast, and rightly so. Along with Linda in CT, this didn’t turn out to be the year of the millionaire woman candidate. I laugh, because Republicans are so opposed to redistribution of wealth. Thanks, Carly, Meg, and Linda, for injecting $0.3 billion of your wealth directly into the economy.
Polls vary, and we’ve seen considerable variance in LV screens. There is tremendous uncertainty in the House, with outcomes between -68 and -28 seats equally likely. But the Senate picture is clearing up, and losses of only 5 seats are now entirely possible.
DINOs (including Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) and GOP are bipartisan in their support of wealth transfer to the bonus class.
Rubinomics?
“the Ds have waged political malpractice” — excellent description, including the active, conscious nature of “waged.” For the malpracticing Electeds, the consequences often seem to be a reward, though this time around, for the Dems, maybe not. Of course, the Unseated will probably just be shuffled into the next phase of their careers, as lobbyist, “consultants,” etc., where the malpractice could be considered an asset. Okay, perhaps I’m overstating things a bit. Maybe.
No, unfortunately, that is what will happen. That is what always happens in modern politics.
That said, we will lose some despicable candidates this cycle, and sadly, some good candidates as well.
Plantation Blanche will surely go on to find a nice job on K street. Russ Feingold is a democratic hero, but learned a hard lesson from firebagging the President on Financial Reform.
My hypothesis is that practicing flawless politics, if such a thing is possible, would not have avoided midterm losses. I don’t put much stock in what James Carville has to say anymore. He’s seems capable of talking only to a dying demographic. But it really is the economy.
You’re correct, of course, NFS, that this is simply what happens. And I also think you’re correct that midterm losses were unavoidable, though the Dems have done an outstanding job “growing” the number of losses.
In politics, when you’re winning, you’re perceived of having done no wrong, while when you’re losing, you’re perceived of having done everything wrong. And Democrats are “losing”.
This age old perception clouds deeper analysis, and is why I reject claims of bad messaging and political missteps by Democrats simply because they are losing. The analysis is too superficial.
Presently, Democrats are defending 85 congressional districts that voted for George W. Bush… a second time. It is a rare exception when one party dominates the House for an extended period, usually after a National tragedy or calamity (The Civil War, The Great Depression). Democrats pretty much hit their high water mark in 2008, and I would say a good 30 of these seats were gone no matter what Democrats did right or wrong. Add in 9.6% unemployment, overturning Citizens United, and, yes, real honest to goodness mistakes by Democrats, and Nate Silver is projecting a -48 seat loss. I expect that to soften by about 2-5 seats between now and election day.
I don’t expect anywhere near the -10 seat Senate loss Bill Clinton suffered. The more light you shine on these teabaggers, the more they wither.
The MSM will still tout whatever Obama suffered as a repudiation, but the real talent relies in separating political mistakes from the natural cycle of things. So far, I haven’t seen much of that.
Mid-terms, of course, are particular challenges for whoever is in the majority. This time around, both Dems and Reps, in differing ways, have to deal with the Tea party and independent voters in general, with their records and/or voter’s perception of it, and, of course, both are dealing with the usual mid-term dynamics.
I’ve read as much about the policies and legislative actions / lack of actions with which voters are unhappy as I have about how the campaigns are going. That said, I am in total agreement with those who think the Dems, including Obama, have done a very poor job in campaigning. That’s in addition to thinking they’ve done a poor job in governance.
I agree, although I think that poor messaging is clouding the perception of governing. Considering all they inherited, and grading them against past Presidents, I give them a solid B in governing, but a D in messaging.
But this story is far from over, and despite a middle of the road average grade, there is no middle of the road outcome.
If Obama fails, he will have set Democrats back 20 years, and this will likely be the end of the country as we know it. We will become a far right corporatist oligarchy. If Obama succeeds, they’ll be carving his face on Mount Rushmore.
It’s not that the messaging is bad for a decent product. It’s that the product has been exposed and the marketing from 2008 is failing.
Talk about cynical and jaded! I have a stubborn belief in ordinary people. I think you are wrong and Obama is not the end-all be-all of our country.
Oh and we already are a rightwing corporatist oligarchy UNDER Obama.
That’s the wrong question to ask and answer. What do we have to show for the midterm losses? What was the political capital built up between 2000-2008 spent on from 2009-2010? What substantive coherent policy agenda did the President and his Congress put forward to the American people to blunt midterm losses? What was the gain? It’s not been on civil rights issues. It’s not been a comprehensive jobs agenda. It’s not been the protection and strengthening of the social safety net.
That’s a very jaded and cynical view of the past two years.
Can we can start with Elizabeth Warren and work backwards to cover the greatest democratic legislative accomplishments in a two year span since FDR?
Oh, I know, there are holes in the donuts. Remember, you’re talking to someone hired as a direct result of the ARRA after spending 60 weeks on unemployment thanks to civil infrastructure.
I think you’re trapped in a false narrative.
Funny, that’s what I thought of you and your narrative.
There’s that Rachel Maddow talking point again — see list of LBJ’s accomplishments just from 1965 which makes Maddow’s meme a joke.
Love Liz Warren. Obama’s non-appointment of her? You really want to start there? Liz Warren for President 2012! Since we’re trapped in false narratives and all
Is Elizabeth Warren doing her job today? Yes.
Impeaching Elizabeth Warren as a corporatist sell-out strikes me as outrageous as Jane Hamsher’s call for a primary against Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
That’s a picture of young Hillary Clinton, someone to the right of not just Elizabeth Warren, but Barack Obama as well.
Who is impeaching Liz Warren? Certainly not me. I would vote for her for my Senator or for President in a heartbeat.
I’m impeaching Obama for not even being able to appoint the woman who fought for that Consumer Protection Agency as the head of that agency. Liz Warren’s special adviser status is a temporary gig, and sorry I don’t trust Obama the way you do. He’s done nothing to earn that kind of benefit of a doubt.
Hillary Clinton isn’t to the right of Barack Obama. Yes, we all know young Hillary Rodham was a Goldwater girl. Give it up. That’s like the rightwingers still holding onto Hillary’s thesis on Alinsky as proof she’s a radical. Hillary is neither a Republican nor a radical. She’s a moderate, pragmatic, center-left pol. Her centrism is coherent. She’s to the right of where I am on foreign policy, but she was and is much better on the domestic agenda than Obama. And, I think part of the thing that improves the middle class’ ability to rein in their government on foreign policy is when that middle class is strong and taken care of. Which is why the difference on domestic agenda DOES matter indirectly when it comes to foreign policy.
Nah, you’re probably understating
Congress is the Future Lobbyists of America.
I know you are right about the understating. I think I sometimes throw in a bit of “qualifying” in order to try to make myself feel better. It doesn’t seem to be working, though, since reality is so real
Hey Wonk~ Thanks for the reading. Where have you been lately?
I saw General Shelton on C-Span talking about his new book. For those with CDS he had only good things to say about WJC as president. In fact he told a moving story about Clinton visiting soldiers in a burn unit. He was told that the soldiers had only hours to live. The General said there was no press or entourage with Clinton at he time and he saw him kneel and pray for over an hour.
I used to really like Joan Walsh and read her often but I agree that since Obama has become president she seems much more concerned with her career enhancement than what I would consider democratic values. In her many appearences on Hardball she lets Tweety get away with murder.
As for “whore” and the “n” word and their historical significance, I see them on a pretty equal level. Both are used to marginalize,make illegitimate and rob the humanity from a set of people. I would say at this point in history the “n” word is universally recognized as unacceptable but I can’t say the same for “whore” since it is still has common political parlance.
“Both are used to marginalize,make illegitimate and rob the humanity from a set of people.”
That’s a very good way of defining these words.
“I would say at this point in history the “n” word is universally recognized as unacceptable but I can’t say the same for “whore” since it is still has common political parlance.”
To play Devil’s Advocate, AA’s might respond to your assertion by claiming that one word refers to entire race of people, man, woman, and child alike, wheres the other word is a slur for a woman with what our society considers a nefarious profession.
It was a stupid thing for Jerry Brown’s wife to say, but the campaign moves on, and thank goodness he will be governor of California.
I would not argue with that response other than to say that the word whore is applied to women for a varity of reasons having nothing to do with the world’s oldest profession.
I actually have copied down what you said, as this is the most concise description I have encountered:
“Both are used to marginalize, make illegitimate, and rob the humanity from a set of people”
Lake Lady, I hope you see this. Sorry I didn’t get a chance to reply earlier. Thank you for the C-Span rundown on Shelton. Great comments on the slur words and the double-standard in politics. For my part, I think trying to decide which is worse is more or less a zero-sum game. None of these slurs have a place being out there in the public discourse on the campaigns of minorities, women, and for that matter LGBT.
I have used “political whore” many times to discribe polititions who “sell” their votes or souls regardless of their sex. It discribes an action or state of mind and attitude. This is a ridiculous nonissue.
Duly noted. But, next time the “rethuglicans” call a Democratic female candidate a whore, don’t say you weren’t warned.
Party of Women My Ass. POWMA. LOL. (tongue-in-cheek)
Heya secular!!!
Glad to see you! Even if I do think your comment was spoken like a true man. I know you are very sensitive to women’s issues so I just have to disagree with you on this.
“Even if I do think your comment was spoken like a true man.”
What do you mean by this? If in fact the statement was made in referance to a political sell out by a polition, which is a sexless state of being, what is the problem. In case you or anyone else didn’t notice there are MALE whores out there also. The one, common denominator between male, female and political whores is being for sale.
I get what you are saying secular. But because you are not a woman you might not have the same sensitivity to it that I might. Yes, the word in your usuage is fairly non gender specific but the same word is used to marginalize women for other reasons.
If anyone is looking for something to do go over to Sandman’s diary and watch an awesome video.
Joan Walsh is sticking up for the president anymore no matter what he does. I just quit listening to her.
Ladies, if you would like to earn extra money, no experience necessary and at NO COST to you, please visit the following website to learn more: http://www.roleplaywithme.com.
Online authors seek ladies with no acting experience to test storylines by roleplaying them on Yahoo or MSN instant messenger. There is no travel required, absolutely no fees or any out of pocket expenses, and it’s completely without obligation.
Ladies, it’s a chance to earn extra money with just a few hours of your time.
These auditions are free of charge, and you are not paid for either of the two auditions you are allowed. Your two auditions are scored and used to determine how much you would be paid IF you are signed to a contract. These auditions are not a commitment or promissory to be paid. Instead they are the means in which your skills are gauged so as to determine the amount you WOULD be paid if you are selected for a contract.
Everything is explained in detail on the website.
Please check it out and determine for yourself if this is the right option for you!
http://www.roleplaywithme.com
Hello!
I am Dr. Adewole Aremu- a director with the Union Bank of Nigeria in Lagos – and I wish to speak to you most urgently about a matter regarding the sum of $39,000,000 US Dollars…
No play with you, your brain tis not of thee!
Well, name-calling is nothing new in politics. I liked your article….nicely written. It’s all in how the media decides to inflate the issue. If it’s their favorite candidate then it’s downplayed, if it’s their opponent then it’s on the news.
First, it was said in a private conversation so I don’t feel it’s that big of an issue. Each of us say things about others, in private, that we would not say in public.
What concerns me is after the elections. Democrats are famous for causing civil unrest if their cause is losing.
With that said, I strongly recommend everyone to just
read a book out that’s about Americans who are tired of the whole political system. It’s powerful cause it could happen to each of us as history may soon be calling us on our true destiny in life. I recommend it.
http://www.booksbyoliver.com
That is a Glenn Beck talking point.
Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0