Rebecca: I'm Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude and tonight we've got a roundtable. Participating are Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ, Trina of Trina's Kitchen and The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona and Ava. The Third Estate Sunday Review also includes Jim, Jess and Ty. They aren't participating but in case they're mentioned, FYI. For the same reason, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It! and Wally of The Daily Jot are being noted now. In case they are mentioned. C.I. and Ava are responsible for typing this and we can knock out those links right at the start and not require them later on. This is a rush transcript. We're going to be talking about a number of topics including the prospective presidents, Iraq and more.I actually did some planning ahead of time. I have questions from e-mails that we'll hopefully get to. In addition, in honor of Tuesday night's debate we have two hot seats. Everyone was informed of that ahead of time and asked to vote. The 'winners'? Elaine and C.I. As moderator, I wasn't eligible. So I will periodically go to them, or that's the plan. Betty's participating by phone and I think that gets all the background out of the way. First hot seat moment. I have a number of readers at my site who hate my guts and enjoy e-mailing me to tell me just how much they hate me. Yes, they are all men. And I generally ignore them but I e-mailed them to inform them of this debate. TrickRick self-describes as a White male, 23 y.o., Republican. He states, "We" meaning the GOP "will wipe the floor with BO" Barack Obama "but the only reason you're for Hillary is because she's a woman. My question is are you ready to lose?"
Elaine: C.I. is pointing to me. If I was just supporting Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary today because she was a woman, I would've voted for her in my state primary. I didn't. I voted Super Tuesday for Mike Gravel due to his past work regarding the Pentagon Papers and ending the draft. Best of luck to him in his new party but it's not a left party and I won't be supporting him in the general election. The non-stop attacks on Hillary Clinton bothered me. I had made the decision, weeks ahead of time, that Mike Gravel stood up in the past and, if nothing else, my vote said, "Thank you. It was appreciated." I've called out Hillary Clinton at my site before for any number of things. I suffer no illusions that she's perfect. I also know she's not the anti-Christ. I also know that there are standards and they weren't applied. I also know what blatant sexism is and am happy to list the 'left' participating in that. It would include "There's no such thing as global warming!" crackpot Alexander Cockburn, the pathetic Matthew Rothschild who thought a word that rhymes with "runt" was apparently delightful, the insane Robert Parry who claims to be a journalist but thinks he can resort to some form of spousal tea leaf reading to peer into Hillary's soul and see things with no backing, David Corn who will let no fact interfere with his need to rip apart Hillary, the twin punks Ari of the Nation who think the thing for a 'left' magazine to do is repeat false charges from the 90s that the right-wing started . . . It's a very long list and along with these evil and overt sexist, you need to include the bystanders. The ones who sat on the sidelines and did nothing. Include Ms. magazine on that list and the laughable lie that they can't cover a race because it would hurt their tax status. I don't know which is worse, that lie or that they hired a homphobe.Donna Brazile's little public snit fit against gays and lesbians means her ass needs to be fired. Let me be clear, Ms. wasn't saved repeatedly so that it could be this -- on the sidelines or publishing a homophobe. Dona Brazile needs to be fired. And a number of us who have given big money have decided next time Ms. is in trouble, tough s**t. We didn't support that magazine, we didn't donate all that money, so that they could ignore women running for president. But that's what they've done, that's what they're doing. And don't even get me started on Bill Moyers. Ava and C.I. have documented how he has refused to explore sexism but every other damn week it's time for him to wallow in his own White guilt and pretend to explore racism. I blame the ones on the sidelines. I'm not standing on the sidelines. I'm for Hillary and I can give you a hundred reasons and, trust me, the fact that she's a woman doesn't even enter into it for my support. The fact that she is a woman and that Ms. won't explore her candidacy does piss me off. But my support for her is not predicated on her historical run. I was able to note that history being made and not support her earlier. I was able then, as a non-supporter, to do that. Some may support her because she's a woman and if so more power to them. Candidates have been selected for far less worthy reasons.
C.I.: Well I could repeat what Elaine just said or I could expand on it and since she did such a wonderful job, I'll expand on it. Elaine and I honestly planned to sit this out. Electoral politics wasn't anything we were interested in writing about. We assumed that Hillary would rise or fail on her own. We assumed there would be some level of fairness. We assumed that Barack Obama would be probed. We actully assumed that if that happened in depth -- and it still hasn't -- he would be out of the race. He's not qualified and he's a fraud and Elaine and I know that very well. I assumed the race would come down to Clinton, Edwards and Biden. And, of the three of them, I assumed the battle would be between Edwards and Biden who represent two different aspects of the Democratic Party. Hillary might or might not have benefitted from that but that's what I assumed would happen. I wasn't following it. I was paying attention to Iraq. I had no idea about Iowa until after the caucus. Now Real Media, the kind who are trained, has a million and one excuses for why they didn't probe Barack. And Ava and I can back up the fact that they promised over and over that they would publicly. On chat show after show. It's coming. We're going to do it, they'd say. But they really didn't. America still doesn't know Barack Obama. Now that's Real Media. Panhandle Media? They claimed they had standards and that they were higher standards than Real Media. We saw something completely different, didn't we? We saw KPFA do two hours after the Texas debate, two hours of allegedly free speech radio, where every guest was pro-Obama. Not only were they pro-Obama, they had already endorsed Obama. But Larry Bensky and KPFA didn't feel the need to inform the audience of that. Probably not a good idea to inform the audience that you've rigged the show before you started broadcasting. Amy Goodman is disgusting filth. Ava and I will be taking on that beggar in Sunday's commentary. But she did 'roundtables' where no one was supporting a candidate. The guests all came to the conclusion that Hillary was Pure Evil. Of course, disclosing that your guests are supporting Barack would have allowed the audience to factor in all the Hillary hatred. Frances Fox Piven endorses him, then goes on Democracy Now! and is an 'objective' and 'impartial' guest who just happens to think Hillary's done poorly on something. Listeners and viewers had a right to know FFP had already publicly endorsed Barack Obama. Amy Goodman likes to talk a lot about Michael Gordon and Judith Miller's 'ethics,' but she has none of her own. She flaunted that again this week but Ava and I are taking that on, so I'll bite my tongue here.
Elaine: I didn't realize we were going back and forth. I hope this isn't boring for anyone. I meant participating but reading as well. Let me pick up with Amy Goodman. People were calling me, friends, saying, "I've told C.I." That Amy Goodman was willingly slanting the show. C.I. was giving Amy the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't, she's a total fraud. It's always great when a beggar grew up 'nicely' and enriches herself but continues begging. But Ava and C.I. both were hearing the warnings. Then, the week before Goody created her Geraldo moment, how proud her pathetic family must be, a mutual friend presented Ava and C.I. with proof of how close Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Goody were. Melissa Harris-Lacewell had just been on Goody's show. Goody had presented her as a professor not vested in any candidate. That was a lie. Melissa was actively campaiging for Obama and had been for months and Amy Goodman knew that. But Amy didn't disclose it to her audience. Not only did she not disclose it, she allowed Melissa to lie to viewers by bragging -- as a disinterested party -- on a speech by Barack. Now I want everyone to absorb that because that's the sort of thing that gets people fired. Amy Goodman knew Melissa was part of the Obama campaign. She didn't tell her audience. When Melissa bragged about Barack, Amy still didn't tell them. Now tell me what world Amy Goodman thinks she lives in that what she did, that her actions, are allowed? They aren't allowed. That's not journalism and she can never lecture anyone on ethics without being laughed at by real media because she is hypocrite.
C.I.: Like Elaine, I assumed we'd speak a bit and then you'd move on. Well what followed that -- the immediate following was I was sick to my stomach -- was that Ava, Elaine and I did 'reporting' -- we started working everyone we knew, we started speaking to people and we started finding out just how deep this goes. And where it's coming from. And my attitude today is, "If I burn your Red Playground down, oh well." This is a campaign driven by closet Communists. They have no business in a Democratic primary.
Rebecca: Trina's nodding so I'll toss to her.
Trina: My father smelled it from the start. My father's a Socialist. Never been in the closet on that. Never hidden even when it cost him. Who are the ones who made sure he paid a price during the witch hunt years? The ones who betrayed him were closet Communists. And that's because the rats always save their own asses. That's a rat by defintion. For awhile, there was a big rumor going around that Barack was a Socialist. Barack's a corporatist Democrat. But his benefactors were feeling like they weren't getting their due and they didn't like the shadows so they started whispering that lie. But the mania, the devotion, the whole thing had cult of personality written all over it and today people may, for example, criticize the fact that it built up around Putin but it built up because that system requires a cult of personality. Or it requires from those people. They are the same ones that created "Uncle Joe" -- and refused to later get honest about Stalin's crimes. Maybe this will change in this country because of the young. But, I mean, I knew this growing up. I knew these people, these rats, they lived in our neighborhood. They were authoritarian. They needed a daddy figure. And each daddy had to destroy the previous one. That's one of the reasons that it falters today. They disown to embrace the newly selected leader. They run off a Trotsky, they rewrite history. They need that daddy. And that daddy must be supreme. And we would see their hand picked candidates running for local office -- sometimes labor offices -- and we would know just from the campaign, just from the slogans, just from the fact that a new 'man of the people' had sprung up and the devotionals and the testimonials, just from that we'd know who was backing this candidate. We'd find out we were correct at some point, but just the way the campaign was being run, we'd know. So it's not a surprise to me.
Betty: I hope I'm not stepping on anyone who was about to talk but think about what Trina just said about the way those campaigns were run and tell me she didn't just describe the Obama campaign.
Dona: I was actually thinking the exact same thing.
Marcia: I agree and, if I can take the conversation in a different direction, and you know I can, I'm a lesbian. I'm out of the closet. I can't imagine the self-hatred involved in placing yourself in a political closet. Myself, I have no respect for any gay person who stays in the closet. At some point, you need to step out or admit you're a fraud and a fake. So I really don't have any respect for these closeted Communists. David Corn's not a Communist, here's where I go off topic --
Rebecca: That's fine we'll probably return to this later.
Marcia: Well I mean what kind of sick mind thinks that setting bombs and serving on the board of Wal-Mart is the same thing?
Ava: I need to step in here. This topic isn't a problem, pursuing it, isn't a problem with C.I. or I but we're addressing it Sunday in our commentary so we're not going to be able to say much on it if anything at all. Just to explain that.
Marcia: Sure. To me that's the perfect example of how biased Panhandle Media has been. You can argue the complexities all you want and I have no problem listening to them. However, at the very basic level, Weather Underground set boms. They wanted an armed revolution that would overthrow the country.They broke laws. What did Hillary do? A new member of the Wal-Mart board, before Bill was president so we're going way back into the past, focused on areas she thought she could have an impact on? I mean, do we all get that? Do we get that Hillary's being slammed for not using her junior position on the board to go after every flaw in Wal-Mart? And we're talking about things that weren't even known as flwas at the time. Two decades after she joined the board, we're holding her accountable for everything the company did?
Betty: Well, let's offer that perspective. You're talking the Reagan and Poppy Bush presidency when jobs were in decline and times were tough. Wal-Mart was a job creator. It wasn't perfect but, like Marcia's saying, what the left emphasizes about Wal-Mart now wasn't big news then. What was she supposed to do? I don't really understand that and, if David Corn wrote that, he is an idiot. He's made a non-stop embarrassment of himself for some time now and I don't read him. Ruth's ignored him because he lies on NPR.
Ruth: Oh, does he. I thought he was a journalist. He slants everything. He is not supposed to be on as a columnist. He is presented as a reporter. How about telling the facts then? I have no respect for him and the snapshot today is hilarious. Mr. Corn insisting "everyone knows" that Bill Clinton gave a pardon to two members of the Weather Underground when President Clinton never did any such thing. He should probably hang his head in shame. He was shouting in that conference. He came off not just like a jerk, but like an ignorant jerk and, sadly, that has happened far too often lately.
Rebecca: It really has and I actually have him in my prep work. He's been working overtime to lie for Samantha Power. Was Power fired, C.I.?
C.I.: No. Barack should have fired her. He didn't. I was told that by friends of Power and by friends in the Obama campaign. Samantha Power resigned. She did not resign strictly for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." She also insulted Gordon Brown. Which was a big deal in England although you didn't hear about it from Corn or John Nichols --
Rebecca: Let me stop you for a second. You noted that John Nichols in his sob-fest for Sammy Power LIED and stated that Power knew Hillary "for years" and that wasn't true. You quoted her on The Charlie Rose Show and in October 2007 stating she'd only met Hillary once. For the record, The Nation has never corrected their LIE.
Ava: Do they ever? Come on, they never corrected their lie about John Kerry where they slammed him for saying something at the DNC convention that he never said at the DNC convention and they knew about that lie, the writer of the piece even admits it's wrong. But they never corrected it. They just lie. They have no standards, they just lie and they lie again. And they don't seem to grasp that all these lies build and build until no one believes a word they say.
Elaine: Well look at who's in charge. I can remember her pissing her panties and lying about that. Foul, foul odor -- you had to wonder what the child was drinking -- and she'd lie and say she hadn't.
C.I.: We are off topic. I'm laughing because it is true. But, back to the topic. Samantha Power couldn't stop spilling the beans. Rebecca's referring to David Corn writing that 'everyone knows' that Obama saying he's going to end the illegal war is just a "proposal" and not a "plan." Everyone knows that, Corn? Just like everyone knows there were pardons for Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans? When there were no pardons? David Corn's made himself a joke, he's far from alone, but it's embarrassing to see. I'd be very happy to go through life without calling Corn out. I know the thing you're talking about Rebecca, it was a post to his own website/blog. I just ignored it. But I'm not going to ignore the Constitution and that's not an option with me. I thought he was smarter. I mean, it's stupid to write about "pardons" without researching to find out if pardons actually took place. But to be so arrogant about it when you are so wrong. I mean, the next time he calls in, instead of yelling over the phone, he needs to immediately apologize and Mother Jones needs to issue a correction.
Dona: Can I talk about corrections a minute? Years ago, Ava and C.I. had nothing to write about one weekend and an actress called them, a friend of their's, who had been on a program and the program had turned a rapist into a boyfriend. They wrote the commentary on that. And then it turned out that he was drugged or something, I don't remember. They heard about it as soon as the commentary went up. Now, just so you know, we're working at The Third Estate Sunday Review starting Saturday night until we drop. We were all going to bed when the phone rang on that. Ava and C.I. didn't blow it off. They stayed up and worked three hours on a new commentary. As soon as they knew it was a mistake, they wrote a note at the posted piece explaining that. They then rewrote and posted every half hour as they finished the piece. They were completely transparent. They took full responsibility for it. And that's what you do. Mistakes will be made. That's a given, my degree's in journalism, it's a given. But what blows your credibility is refusing to make corrections.
Kat: I agree with Dona and to talk about that, there was a difference of opinion. Jim wanted a correction note at the end and thought they were making too big of a deal out of it. But Ava and C.I. acknowledged their mistake. They rewrote the entire piece. The opening they wrote acknowledges the mistake and then they explore the plot twists. The piece actually was stronger and that's got to be in part because they owned their mistake.
Dona: And I'm trying to remember the title. Ava and C.I. won't because Jim comes up with the titles to Ava and C.I.'s commentaries. And our archives at Third are so screwed up. I can't even remember the show.
Ava: Veronica Mars.
C.I.: "TV: We're losing ground and now is not the time for silence." We actually did write that title. I don't remember if it was the original title or not.
Ava: But we made a mistake. As Dona pointed out, it does happen. And the test is how you handle that. Do you do so honestly or do you do it dishonestly? I agree with Kat that it was stronger because of the entire process. But I also know I said to C.I., "I don't know if I'm writing another one." That had nothing to do with the mistake. It had to do with having to stay up throughout the rewriting of that piece. We didn't just insert a correction. We completely rewrote that piece. Because we did, Jim argued that the correction, which we put at the top in all caps, could be dropped. He said it could be added to his note to the readers. But our feeling was that it was our mistake and we owned it. And I think you saw Hillary do that in the debate Tuesday by the way but I have to bite my tongue there because that's one of the topics we have on our list that we're hoping to address Sunday. I can say that if you think you're infallible, you've got problems. I remember C.I. freaking out in a cab one day. I'll let Elaine pick up that story if she wants.
Elaine: Well, C.I. called my office and I was between sessions. Sunny hollers, and she's not a screamer, for me to grab the phone. Because C.I. was so upset. I pick up and C.I. asks, "What is Dorn's first name?" I'm thinking, "Dorn who?" It was Bernardine. C.I. and I both know Bernardine and have known her for years. Some radio program --
C.I.: Pacifica's From The Vault.
Elaine: Thank you, I didn't listen, had an announcer repeatedly call her "Bernadine." And C.I. was thinking, "I've insulted her for decades by getting her name wrong. I don't even know her name." While I'm saying, "No, you've got it right," Bernardine's speaking and says, "This is Bernardine." I say, "See." But I mean, C.I. doesn't operate under a "I'm right!" philosophy. C.I. never has a problem saying, "I was wrong." And when someone's so sure of themselves, like that announcer was to that Women's History program back in March, C.I. will immediately go to, "I must be wrong." And I know the argument there will be, "Well, they do have a staff and they're just compiling tapes so if they're saying 'Bernadine,' maybe they're right?"
Kat: And when C.I. wrote the thing Thursday night, Ava and C.I. had already covered this topic in the morning and C.I. was still making sure it was right -- how there were no pardons -- even though C.I. knew it for a fact.
Marcia: If I can add to that, I once corrected C.I. in an e-mail. This was like March 2005. I got an e-mail back saying, "I'm so sorry. I'll fix it and note the correction and credit you." I was, this was before my blog obviously, pleased. I felt really good. That's what I expect when I'm reading something. The sad part comes after. I feel so good and mention it to my mother and she says, "Marcia, you're wrong." And I was wrong. I had to immediately e-mail C.I. with a heading of "911! You were right!" But I didn't have a problem admitting to that and, obviously, C.I. had no problem owning a mistake that, it turned out, wasn't one.
Dona: What ticks me off is when you go to the trouble of explaining how something's not an error -- I don't do this anymore and don't do it because it was Pig Male Journalist the last time and I said never again -- and they still want to argue. There have been court cases that Ty and I -- we read the bulk of the e-mails at Third -- have had to research because someone's convinced that Elaine and C.I. are wrong. So we research and find out they were right, provide the section of the majority opinion and someone still wants to argue. But in terms of Piggy, I went out of my way to be nice --
Kat: Always a mistake.
Dona: Agree. And he writes back to Jim. Not to me and basically calling me "emotional." Look, Middle Aged Man, if I want to get emotional, I'll tell you what I think of you. I went out of my way to be kind to you even though there is NO defense for a man who beats a woman. A man who beats a woman repeatedly, throughout their marriage. And, for anyone who doesn't know this, Jim and I are a couple. So it wasn't just offensive that he's running to Jim about how 'emotional' I am, it was stupid.
Rebecca: Men or women, who are the worst in e-mails?
Betty: Men. No woman has ever called me the n-word. No woman has ever threatened me.
Ruth: To use the word Dona was accused of being, "emotional," disagreements in e-mails I have received from men have been vrey "emotional." Women who disagree with me tend to write a basic, matter of fact e-mail. Men can be very threatening. Wally was really helpful to me when I started my site and has been since. But when I got the worst e-mail I have ever received, he listened and did not try to fix it, just let me vent, and then explained to me that Cedric gets screamed at in e-mails and he never gets those. He and Cedric are doing joint-posts and the same men, writing both of them to complain, call Cedric vile names but with Wally act like the picture of maturity.
Betty: It's the race. It really is. I mean Marcia had to delete over 30 comments to her Kovco post because the people were using the n-word as they screamed at her or Keesha and Latrice, community members who had left comments. And if you talk to Cedric -- who has written about Kovco and written with the exact position Marcia expressed -- he gets that in private. Cedric allows comments at his site and his mirror site. But they won't call him the n-word at his site. They'll call Marcia that, they'll call her a "lez" and other things. I can only imagine what her e-mails must be like.
Marcia: They're actually not as bad as the comments I deleted to the post where I was defending Judy Kovco, the mother of Jake Kovco, the first Australian soldier to be killed in Iraq.
Kat: Well we all know the story of Ava and C.I. In January 2005, The Third Estate Sunday Review starts up. For three or four weeks, all of them -- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. -- are writing the TV commentaries. No threatening e-mails. Some people disagree but no cursing, no threats. Ava and C.I. start doing those all by themselves and it's not announced that it's just them. Still no problem. The first time Jim gives credit and notes they are writing it by themselves, e-mails start pouring in with threats. There are certain categories of people that apparently allow for attacks.
Rebecca: Kat's right because that is the perfect example. No problems when everyone was writing. No problems when readers thought everyone was writing, the second it's identified that Ava and C.I. are writing them, it's non-stop attacks. There's not a better example. I find that in my e-mails as well, by the way. And why not when the males of Panhandle Left -- and the women -- have declared open season on Hillary Clinton and will tell any lie, use any smear, to attack? Trina?
Trina: I really don't get a lot of hate mail. If you need a lot of men, or a certain type of men, I may drive them away automatically due to the fact that I'm offering recipes. Of the small number of vile e-mails I have received, I believe all but one was from a man. My biggest problem is a lot go into the spam folder and I always forget to check that so I'm writing someone back two weeks late because I never saw their e-mail until I happened to remember to check the spam folder.
Dona: Can I say something here regarding e-mails?
Rebecca: Go for it. I think I know what you're going to say.
Dona: Don't ask for a highlight if you've slammed Hillary since the start of 2008 unless you've also slammed Barack Obama. I don't mean you've smeared Hillary and said, "Maybe Bambi's really not a peace candidate?" That's not equal standards. I'm getting damn tired of all the e-mails to Third begging for links, especially from third parties, who think they can slam Hillary and then beg us for a link. Reality is the bulk of the beggars have never done s**t for Third. They've never linked to us. But they regularly ask for links.
Ruth: I agree with Dona and understand this was actually a discussion.
Dona: It was. Everyone helps out at Third and we thank them for that. But, at the end of the day, Jim, Ty, Jess, Ava, C.I. and I am responsible. So we did have a discussion and our feeling is that we've done enough to help others at this point. I'm talking about repeat e-mailers. And we also held to a standard. We've explored Hillary. We were doing it in real time. Third exists as a corrective. When the whole world's bashing Hillary, when we're not highlighting your site if you're doing that. We're not interested. There has been no equal standard and we're sick of it.
Trina: I agree with that. I have been very tough on Hillary and I am glad I was. Because I was using a standard. I applied to all the candidates. Now? I've played fair. I'm not going to lie for Hillary -- who I am supporting and who I voted for on Super Tuesday -- but you're b.s. nonsense that you rehash the same points while excusing Barack, I'm not interested. I don't even reply to those people. I just delete their e-mails.
Betty: There was a topic raised in the roundtable we did for the gina & krista round-robin this week. I thought we could talk about that but I feel like Ava should address it because of Jess.
Ava: Sure. Jess, my boyfriend, brought it up. It was bubbling under but no one was mentioning it. Jess is a Green Party member. I think that's all the backstory anyone needs. But Barack Obama made comments that offended many Small Town Americans. This week, Amy Goodman interviewed Matt Gonzalez whom Ralph Nader has picked as his running mate. Always eager to advance Barack's political campaign, Amy asked Matt about Barack's offensive comments. Matt Gonzalez said it wasn't a big deal. That sets it up. Jess isn't going to be angry with any comment made here, he thinks Matt Gonzalez needs to apologize, so say what you want, no one's going to offend him.
Betty: Okay, well he's not here and none of us want to hurt Jess. I thought that was the most stupid thing in the world. I agree with Jess that Matt Gonzalez needs to apologize and, if he can't, I don't know where Ralph Nader thinks he has the right to expect any votes.
Elaine: I have group on Thursday nights so, unless the roundtables are done at another time, I never participate. If it's okay, I'll comment first?
Rebecca: Go for it.
Elaine: Well Matt Gonzalez may think it's no big deal. That may be his opinion. But it really doesn't matter what Matt Gonzales thinks. What matters is that people are offended. Ralph will need every vote he can get. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Ralph won't get those votes. If Barack gets the nomination, a number of Democratic voters will go elsewhere or leave the spot blank. Ralph Nader is known for his work on issues that impact the lives of working Americans. He also has name recognition. That was a stupid remark by Matt Gonzalez. It was already known that Barack's statements had offended and for Matt, running on the Nader-Gonzales ticket, to interject himself in there and say what he did was offensive. And it was stupid because the problem was known. If I can add something else, it is not the "Nader/Gonzalez" ticket. It is the "Nader-Gonzalez" ticket. Otherwise, you're implying the ticket is "Nader or Gonzalez." I'm sorry to bring that up but we all use "Nader-Gonzalez." However, the campaign's site uses "Nader/Gonzales" and I have received e-mails on that.
Rebecca: It's like the polls by CBS and the New York Times. They do that as well, implying it's a CBS or NYT poll. No, it's a joint poll. You use a dash. I believe the Washington Post uses a dash for their joint polls with ABC News. But what Elaine said is exactly true. A third party candidate needs votes and you're not going to get them by defending comments that have already been seen as offensive. In fact, you are saying -- Matt Gonzalez was saying -- "You're feelings do not matter." I don't think a vice presidential candidate is picked to run off voters. It was a mistake.
Betty: It really was and when Jess brought it up, everyone came up alive. We're not noting Ralph until Monday -- community wide -- at the earliest. The campaign's not being noted. C.I. imposed that for The Common Ills and Jess carried it over to Third. It has offended people and no one's promoting Ralph right now as a result. Cynthia McKinney could be promoted but probably won't be because all she's offered is a video at her campaign site. And let me speak for Hilda and other hard of hearing and deaf community members, a video with no text may as well not go up. Whatever message you think you're conveying, you're adding an addition one: "You don't matter if you can't hear." Hilda's Mix has really opened my eyes to how many barriers exist for the disabled.
Ruth: I would agree with you on that. I really think Hilda's done an amazing job. And now there are two Hilda's Mixes. There's the newsletter in text and there is an audio version. I think all the newsletters add to the community but the focus on the disabled really has made a big impression on me.
Kat: I think it has on all of us. And what's really amazing to me is that we've got two wars going on, going on for years, and veterans are returning disabled and there's so little awareness of that in the press coverage. To focus on hearing issues, ringing of the ears and loss of hearing are very much a part of the Iraq War and where is the coverage? I mean, C.I. can and does cover the Congressional hearings. Where are the news outlets? Where is The Nation? They've got time to smear Hillary several times each day but do they offer anything of value ever? Is that what they want to be remembered for?
Rebecca: Good point. Hot seat time. There were questions for everyone from Weston who didn't provide his age or stats even after I had asked. But for the two of you. Elaine, I'll start with you. "She never writes a word about her life. I would assume she's been married. I don't know why everything has to be such a big secret. Is she the Queen of England?"
Elaine: Yes, I am the queen of the England. What the heck kind of question is that? I mean how tired is that phrase? I don't write about my personal life. Rebecca has written about her personal life before. That's her comfort area. I have no interest in putting my personal life online. If I have been married, if I have children, I will never write about it. I really have nothing more to say on the issue. I don't talk about my personal life outside of my circle of friends. I've acknowledged that I'm in a relationship with Mike. Mike respects my privacy and doesn't blog about that at his site. He'll mention it or me but he's not blogging about us.
Rebecca: Okay. Weston notes that he knows C.I. was married -- "at least I know that. But I have a problem. What's with the not talking about religion?"
C.I.: Like Elaine, there are topics I'm not going to discuss.
Rebecca: That's it?
C.I.: You can ask any question, I don't have to answer. Which, for the record, Barack Obama, if he was so offended in the debate Tuesday could have done.
Rebecca: Well then let me substitute. Something was pulled from today's snapshot, so will you talk about that?
C.I.: Sure. That was only pulled as a result of space. I'm assuming we're back to the closet topic, right?
C.I.: We, this was what was in the snapshot, will highlight Socialists and Communists. I have no problem with that. We're a site for the left. But we don't highlight closeted types. I explained that Ava and I grew tired of one man and we don't include him. Ava noted it was going to blow up in everyone's face and we weren't taking part in that. The man is a Communist and he hides that to the public. We don't include him on the list of war resisters. He's really not one though some other sites count him as one. His story is fake. He was against the illegal war and signed up. Why did he do that? I think we're all smart enough to figure that out. Despite the fact that he has considerable advanced education, he tries to play like he doesn't and tries to speak as if he's a high school drop out. I'm not putting forward the lie -- any of those lies. Ava publicly noted, at Third, two years ago that we're not getting behind that nonsense. We knew he was a member of the Communist Party. We weren't bothered by that. Then we heard the interview where he was playing like he was politically naive and playing like he wasn't a college graduate and that was it. Go tell your lies somewhere else. Go advance your crap somewhere else. There is not a "no Communist" policy at The Common Ills. They are part of the left, we're a left site. But I'm not interested in closeted types. And I may start doing that across the board.
Marcia: Carl Webb is a radical and he's open about it and someone who does get highlighted but I want to toss this in, I'm not highlighting MySpace for anyone, I'm not signing up for Facebook or highlighting Facebook. I want to mention that because I did get a Facebook something from him. I respect him. I don't respect Facebook. I get Facebook stuff in my e-mails all the time. I don't believe in that and am not taking part in it. I believe that's true of all sites. In terms of what C.I.'s saying, if they had stayed out of electoral politics, the closeted types, that would be one thing.
Trina: But they didn't stay out. They lied and called themselves "progressives," or presented themselves as "Democrats." They're not. And I agree that if you're endorsing a candidate in a primary, it needs to be your own political party's primary or you need to be upfront about who you are politically.
Kat: That's just basic. It's political primary. If you're not a member of the primary, butt the hell out. The general election, as C.I. notes, is open to all. There's no reason for non-party members to be endorsing.
Dona: I think that's true. I -- it's basic. But if they were open about who they were their endorsements would not only be meaningless to many people, they would also taint Barack. His "Democratic" support among the gasbags isn't Democratic. But if they don't present themselves as Democrats, then people would be making this very point: "It's not your party, butt the hell out." It really is amazing how they're trying to subvert and control the Democratic Party. If they're allowed to, they'll destroy it the same way they splintered their own party.
Rebecca: This has been a long roundtable and we'll probably wrap up in a second so I want to give everyone a chance to bring in anything on this that they want.
Ava: I'll go next because I want to touch on what Dona was saying as well as the point C.I. made. It is a Democratic primary. Not a Democrat? Stay out of it. It doesn't concern you so there's no reason for you to be endorsing. You're a liar and I have no respect for you. In terms of the non-war resister. I'm not going to be around for when that explodes. Someone against the Iraq War chooses to enlist and then does attention getting stunts while telling the world that he's apolitical and he's a member of the Communist Party? I'm not interested in your 'work.' Trickery and deceit do not interest me but, no surprise, the closet cases would resort to that. They've build up Barack through trickery and deceit, it's all they have to offer. In terms of the 'war resister,' when he lies he risks everyone being seen as a liar if he's exposed. I'm sick of it. There are war resisters of all political types. The ones who aren't closeted -- regardless of what they belong to -- add to the fabric of the movement. The ones who are closeted and go around lying risk the entire movement being called liars.
Ruth: Which is the damage that could result from it. And that same damage could result from their promotion and endorsement of Obama. In either case, they brought it on themselves. No one forced them into closets.
Betty: I'm going to grab that and go somewhere else. The closeted Communists think the Civil Rights are their story. They think, these White Communists, that they gave Black people a gift. They didn't. We fought for our rights. I have no problem giving Communists -- especially Black Communists -- credit for their part in the Civil Rights struggle, but there is a preening attitude about some. You saw it during Jena 6 as well. You saw the lie that reduced it to a town with all the Blacks on one side and all the Whites on the other. As Ava and C.I. pointed out ("Stop the madness!" cry the Goodmans, "You first," reply Ava and C.I. ), that wasn't the case and they did it by pointing to what Amy and David Goodman left out of their book but what Amy Goomdan broadcast on her show. I think the White, closeted Communists think they're going to "give" Black people another gift: Barack! That really is all they have to latch onto, the Civil Rights struggle. But they go back to that over and over, the early days, before MLK emerges. They seem to think they birthed MLK. They didn't. Nor did they give Black people rights. We fought for the rights we have. I don't know how clear I'm being here because I'm condensing many points but my point is that White, closeted Communists may think Black people are tickled pink -- or is it Red? -- that they're doing all this for us. They're not. And they need to get off their high horses because no one considers them an "honorary Black" or even honest.
Marcia: That's such a strong point. You really can trace it back there. These good Whites, these northern Whites, so helpful, saving us Black people from the mean White folk. Reality is that Black people fought for their rights. Reality is the Black people died doing so. Reality is MLK was interested in addressing the racism in the north but that offended some people. Reality is that you have your own problems in your "People's Republic of" whatever. I think we anyone who paid attention grasped which Whites were Communists and which weren't by the way they amplified their lies. Some were at least honest about it like that White woman going on her speaking tour to 'get out the word' and bending most facts while doing so. I'm sick of it and I'm sick of them. Their faux missionary work among the alleged savages. I'm sick of their simplistic b.s. and how they lie and it's African-Americans left holding the bag. And I'm sick of Bill Moyers. Next week, Mr. White Guilt sits down with Jeremiah Wright. Yes, Bill, the world has been waiting for that interview. Not. Be a yeller and screamer or a shuck and jive artist and Bill Moyers will invite you onto his show. Be a competent person and forget it. In fact, the way he's set up his show this year, the conservative Shelby Steel came off better than any other African-American because he was intelligent and not putting on a ministrel act for the White folk. He doesn't do that with White people, does he? But his White viewers are left with the impression that we're either yellers or shuck & jive artists. It's insulting. I can make my point without raising my voice or without mentioning Jesus every other word. Look at who Bill Moyers has booked. I'd call it Prissy, from Gone With The Wind, but it's all men. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the show telling White America that African-Americans are all a bunch of screaming, superstitious people. It's insulting.
Kat: I would agree with you and Betty and I talked about one of his screaming guests and how, no matter what the man said, who gave a damn? He was so loud that who wanted to hear him? You're in a TV studio. Bill Moyers might not respect you but there's no reason for you to disrespect yourself by putting on a ministrel show for Bill and his audience's benefit. I really think if we had an actual movement, a lot of shows would be the focus of protests and I'd put Bill Moyers program on the list as one to picket.
Trina: Sorry, I'm watching Ava and C.I. take notes and thinking about how long this is going to take to type up. The point's been made before, by Ava, C.I. and Dona, but I think history will not be kind to a number of women who have taken part in these attacks on Hillary or stayed silent while they went on. It went beyond criticism, it was a non-stop bashing. It continues and still some women stay silent. All women are not feminists. Even those who claim to be. C.I. would you talk about the idiot who writes for The Seattle Times?
C.I.: Not this week but last, she felt the need to self-describe as a feminist and explain why she was supporting Barack. She explains, in her column, that she doesn't think there's a butter knife's bit of difference between Hillary and Barack. She also explains that she's tired of Hillary, Hillary's been around too long, she argues. She uses the term "goldenboy" to describe Barack. And she wants to claim to be a feminist. There is nothing feminist about that argument. That argument says a young man comes along and you toss aside a woman with experience and you do so happily because he's a "goldenboy." It says that experience doesn't mean anything. It says that you valued "newness" more. There's nothing feminist about it.
Trina: Thank you. I think women willl like that will be exposed for the non-feminists they were when it mattered. I want to plug Paul Krugman really quick because it was his going over the differences between Hillary and Barck's healthcare plans that led me to vote for Hillary on Super Tuesday. While I thank him, I think it's very disturbing that a number of female voices didn't write that column. I think it's very disturbing and I'm all for revoking membership in the club. I also think it's hilarious that C.I. worked to ensure an event by a Hillary hater was ignored by the press. I know no one else will mention that but I thought that was wonderful. You can't say you're pro-woman, let alone a feminist, stage your crappy event on the backs of African-American's misfortune, hide in your political closet and get away with it. And C.I. worked overtime calling in favors to make sure your 'big event' was a non-event. That's exactly what you deserved for your attacks on Hillary while claiming you were pro-woman. Don't expect anyone to take your "I want to help the women of the world!" lies seriously. You're nothing but a semi-closeted Communist. You play like you're not a Communist to the rest of the world and hope and pray no one reads the pieces you've written for Communist 'art' magazines. Those things do have a low circiulation, granted, but I thought it was wonderful how C.I. did a little press package assembling all your crappy writing that most people are unware of.
Elaine: C.I.'s not going to comment on that but I will say I agree with Trina 100%. And that little self-styled leader better grasp how many women no longer support her. As for women stabbing Hillary in the back, and that's what a lot of this is, Ava and C.I., in one of their TV commentaries, mention the disgusting George McGovern and note the scars of Miami. Those are scars you don't know about because you have worthless gender traitors like Amy Goodman who bring McGovern on and fawn all over him. McGovern lost and he lost big time. And Amy Goodman who published in Larry F**nt's skin magazine H**tler never tells you the reality about his campaign. When the battles in Miami went down and, over and over, women were losing -- not just on abortion by the way -- it destroyed his campaign. McGovern and his people were shameful. Today he's as disgusting as he always was and that's only a surprise if you bought into the Amy Goodman Truth which, hate to break it to you, is never the truth. It's never reality. But I don't remember Robin Morgan mentioning Miami in her wonderful essay "Goodbye To All That (#2)." She may have and I may be remembering wrong. But Robin Morgan certainly knows what happened in Miami and, briefly, what happened was a significant number of women joined men in selling women out. Women were thrown under the bus for McGovern. So those little namby pamby women today who want to criticize Robin Morgan, get your facts first, find out about Miami. We saw it happen then, what's going on now, we saw little girls posing as women betray us. It wasn't pretty and payback was hell. Again, that's not part of the 'official' McGovern story as told by Panhandle Media today.
Rebecca: We're going to close and I'll just note, Amy Goodman isn't the one to ever go to for the truth. She gets her facts wrong accidentally -- such as this week when she made a real howler -- and she gets it wrong intentionally because she's not working in journalism, she's serving a higher 'calling.' As for Elaine's points about Miami, exactly right. And battle lines are being drawn. Gender traitors -- especially those who are serial gender traitors -- better grasp that regardless of what happens in the Democratic primary, life as they know it is over. There is no 'let's forget about it' as too many sellouts had to learn following Miami.
kats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlz