« AT&T's New Love for Copyright | Main | Red State Weathervanes »

January 12, 2008


hilzoy's answer (and Gary's preceding analysis) looked unsurprising to me.

Maximin, if I may say so, "mind your own business" is not really going to work when you post in a public forum

"Gary, is there a part of 'mind your own business' that
perplexes you?"

Not at all. There's simply no reason for me to follow your commands.

I hope that won't perplex you.

"As for the idea that assumptions are facts,"

Again, incorrect. The facts are the words written by nickzi and Hilzoy, and that my characterization of the exchange has been verified by Hilzoy, and -- I'm going to go out on a simply terrifiying limb here, but I'm simply too brave for words -- I will bet you one shiny nickel that if or when nickzi (whom I don't know from a hole in the cliche) comments on this, nickzi will confirm a lack of concern over the alarming "grudge" your perceive to lie behind Hilzoy's sinister and threatening words.

Have a nice week.

"I just wish someone could make the case for me that she's been a leader on feminist issues in her public life."

I'd argue that her entire existence amounts to leadership on feminism.

But there are examples of specific actions on feminism: The Office on Violence Against Women is a major one; the publicity she created at the Fourth World Conference on Women; the Vital Voices Global Partnership. There's more if you'd like me to dig it up.

OK: there's no reason anyone needs to obey my commands either, but I will now politely suggest that personal comments having been exchanged, we not exchange any more.

Perhaps this isn't feminist, but i don't really blame someone for fucking their way into power, over and above the blameworthyness of any sort of power-grabs. I don't like HRC, but staying married to william isn't really something i think should be up for hating-on. personalpoliticalyadayada, but public criticism, outside of celeb"heye-im-here-highly-paid-for-your-amusement"ness,
seems liek such bullshit. relationships are really complicated and outside bullshitting is just that.

yoyo: the posting rules forbid profanity. This is partly because of people who want to read this at work, or in some other place that has profanity filters, and partly because, after we adopted the rule for that reason, we discovered that it helps keep things civil.

I realize you probably didn't know this, which is why I'm pointing it out. She said, feeling somewhat awkward. :)

i did not know blogs had 'rules'

next thing you'll be saying i need to wear a suit to post instead of my boxers

i even read the banning policy here before posting. you guys have multiple rule pages. @#$#@#$#.

Yeah, we keep meaning to consolidate them, but we never do... Sorry. (Why? Because most people don't even read one page...)

I think there's something twisted about holding a person's feet to the fire, demanding that they break up their marriage in order to comply with a principle -- basically, either bust up your life or be accused of hypocrisy. I've heard plenty of people say they knew Clinton was a phony feminist when she didn't divorce Bill. I wish I could articulate exactly what is wrong with this. For one, it is pretty clear that "feminism" does not commit you to divorcing a person for philandering, but ignoring that -- there's just something sleazy about trying to use a person's principles in any game of schadenfreude gotcha.

Having said that, the same issue arose with our lovely senator from Idaho. His public principles were one thing. His private behavior was another. This hypocrisy did bother me. Am I a hypocrite? Maybe. The lovely senator adopted policies that were meant to vilify people. Turns out he was vilifying a group that he had some degree of membership in. I'm pretty sure it is a stretch to argue that HRC hurt anybody by staying with Bill. Somehow, that seems to make a difference to me.

Or maybe the differences just that demanding some things is more difficult and demanding others. Demanding that a guy stay away from making sexual advances in public restrooms? Not so difficult in my book. Demanding that a person break up a 25 year marriage? Very difficult. So maybe it is just sensitivity towards how demanding it is reasonable to be.

And having said all that, I would like to say that there's one part of what nickzi said that I agree with. I can excuse HRC for staying with Bill, the perv. But when HRC goes on to vilify and use the press machine against women who get in their political way, I have to say that you really can impeach a person's feminist credentials on something like that.

Don't I remember this very blog pushing Obama as a smart and right-thinking candidate who was always pushing interesting and well-thought-out bills?

I'm still on the "obamma pushes interesting and well-thought-out bills." what of it???????

Sanbikinoraion, you may want to check the line beneath each post's title. Several people post at Obsidian Wings, and those who are inclined to vote Democratic this election don't all agree on which candidate is best or even what the major issues regarding each may be. Furthermore, the posters have all changed their minds on various issues over the years. The blog's posters and long-time reader see both these features as actively good things, to be encouraged.

So even if you did see some posts that can be caricatured that way, it doesn't mean you have grounds for an implied charge of hypocrisy or vacillation if other posts say other things.

Hope this helps.

To be very clear I don't like Hillary Clinton. It's not about her choices regarding her marriage. I have no idea what her reasons for staying with Bill are and I don't care. What happens between a man and woman(or a man and a man or a woman and woman) is their issue.

I also don't much care what her gender is. Sure I think it would nice to have a woman President just as I think it would be nice to have a black President. Good message to send to the country and the world. But it's really a secondary point to me.

I don't like Hillary Clinton because she strikes me as willing to do or say anything to achieve her objectives. I don't believe she would ever say or do anything that involves risk. The one thing I really disliked about Bill's time in office was his slavish adherence to polls. Polls are important and a President SHOULD always be taking the country's temperature. But that doesn't mean that his or her policies should shift with every new poll. I believe that Hillary would be even worse on this.

I believe that she is manipulative and that she is using her gender as a reason to vote for her. I don't care much for that.

"Don't I remember this very blog pushing Obama"

No. The blog is a Typepad service. It has no thoughts, takes no acts, and has no consciousness.

The contributors to this blog, on the other hand, are individuals, of quite disparate views. I'm really quite sure Charles hasn't posted "pushing" Obama, nor Von, nor Sebastian (whom I managed to forget the other day when I was mentioning conservative contributors here: sorry, Sebastian! -- but it's been so long since you've been posting regularly!), and so on.

I, whom am neither this blog (thank God, I don't want to be a collection of pixels) nor the author of this post, have in fact described Obama as the author of a number of thoughtful bills. (Most notably, here.) But the other members of this blog are individuals, and can make up their own minds, thank God.

While this thread is still raging, I'd like to comment on the "Muskie cried" meme

Muskie was upset at the newspaper for printing things about his wife and stormed over to give the editor a piece of his mind. It was very snowy outside.

Now, when you walk from an extremely cold exterior, into a very heated interior, you have an automatic physiological reaction -- your eyes tear up.

Muskie was speaking angrily and "had tears in his eyes" and that got translated as "he cried" -- I think any fair reading of the situation has to conclude that his eyes were watering because he came in from frigid temperature into a heated office.

But the story persists....

"I think any fair reading of the situation has to conclude that his eyes were watering because he came in from frigid temperature into a heated office."

Muskie always insisted it was just melting snowflakes.

Maybe it is, or someday will be possible, to do a retroactive analysis of the video sufficient to reach a definitive conclusion, but my guess is that it's more likely not possible, and thus will be forever indeterminate.

But I do think it's unfair to Muskie to simply pass along what his enemies said, that destroyed his campaign, as unalloyed truth. It's the last triumph of Richard Nixon that liberals thirty years later pass along his dirty campaign trick lies as unvarnished truth.

Googling to see if the Muskie video might be online somewhere, I see digby was as prescient as ever.

Also, equally unsurprisingly, Bob Somerby.

I don't get the "Monica as victim" concept. Why is the disparity of power & age relevant where, as here, there seems to be absolutely zero evidence that he pressured her to have sex? She wasn't a child, she was a smart, worldly grownup, albeit pretty young.

Is the theory that a workplace relationship is inherently coercive? I have a hard time with absolutes about relationships, all of which tend to have nuances not obvious to anybody except the participants. Here, I could far more easily make a story about Monica as a power-groupie determined to seduce a lonely older man, regardless of what it might cost him.

I'm not saying Bill is the victim -- he was a grown up too, with lots more experience, and he showed lousy judgment. He set himself up. But I don't see how you can look at what happened and say that he abused her.

And as to costs, well, they both got traduced in the press, so honors about even there. But he, not she, got the criminal indictment (which is what an impeachment is), the nationally televised trial, the upheaval of his career, etc. She, not he, got a better job out of it, a book contract, etc.

This is the song that Obama reminds me of.


Barack Obama, Superstar!

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar,

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar

Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about?

Adoph Hitler could really rally those masses, and Olde Joe Stalin could make them walk barefoot through broken glasses, And Ho Chin Minn, he could bring the crowd in, and that Po Pot he know how his words could make them hot...

Now do you believe?

Now Marshall Applewhite made them think that they were going to go to Heaven on a comet, and David Koresh he sent his faithful on a path to Armageddon. And of course we all know about olde Jim Jones. His people did what he told em and that Kool-aid got overflowin...

Now do you believe? (the mesmerized crowd shouts back Yes we Believe) Now do you believe?(louder) Yes, we believe! Hallelujah now get that sister some water (the front row of women then faints).

Barack Obama, Superstar,

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar

Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about?

Now do you see yourself as as Che's Second comin... Or maybe you set yourself up on a path even higher. Perhaps you do see yourself as the new Messiah, start a new religion with you as its idol.

Do you believe?

Cults of personalities well they very rarely end well and with yours it could set the earth a trembling... For when you come unglued as all cult leaders in the end do, you could push that nuclear button and set the earth afire..

Barack Obama, Superstar,

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar!

Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar!

Turing America into one big Manson Family

Barack Obama, Superstar!

Turning America into one big Manson Family

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad