Francis Holland has an interesting post accusing the DailyKos community of misogyny with regards to Sen. Clinton’s campaign and I am crossposting my reply here. As always, I think Holland forms a provocative and lucid argument which is worth the read. Moreover, he gets no argument from me that the anti-Hillary rhetoric at DKos certainly borders on irrational for a woman (and occasionally women in general) who has carried so much water for the Democratic Party. But I think the explanation is far less sinister than he would have us believe and, "four legs good, two legs bad" and all that, it really doesn't surprise me that DKos reacted as they did to his accusation.

In my own "humble yet insistent" opinion:

*In the aftermath of "Crashing the Gate," the bulk of the DKos community has been suffering a form of establishment greed as they delude themselves that they and they alone are the voice of the “new” Democratic Party.

*DKos is under the throes of group-think. Boasting a vociferous and sharply critical crowd, one must have an incredibly thick-skin to offer a minority opinion. Even experienced bloggers have found themselves torn to shreds - by those supposedly on the same team - for no discernible reason other than having the temerity to disagree with the torch & pitchfork crowd.

*The Mark-os-amatons see themselves as President and CEO of the netroots, a position they zealously protect. I can't count how many times I have encountered vicious diary/comment criticism based wholly on the basis that somebody (MSM, RNC, etc.) might just see it. This may be precisely how a political party closes ranks around a unified position, but by disallowing the influx of new ideas and opinions, DKos has virtually ensured the death of its own evolutionary process.

All this being said, I disagree with Holland’s premise that the DKos community (and by implication, anyone declining to support Hillary) are guilty of misogyny. People who do engage in commenting (or who write diaries themselves) form a vociferous minority of around 1% of the whole. I think it is fairly obvious that they are deeply unhappy, nay - angry, at the state of affairs over the last six years and are doing what they can to effect a reformation.

From my perspective, this group is terrified of continued Republican hegemony (something with which many of us can agree), but almost equally scared of the Democratic establishment who have enabled this. Hillary Clinton is in name, action, rhetoric, and record the quintessential embodiment of this establishment. Whether or not these are rational criteria upon which to oppose her candidacy is a matter of personal opinion. Nevertheless, they certainly seem to satisfy Holland’s demands for an alternative explanation to misogyny.

As Army Sgt. Kim Wilt asks why we fly the flag at half-mast for the VA Tech victims and not for the thousands who have lost their lives in Iraq, the time has come to ask some serious questions about whether we are a country at war, or a country whose military is at war.  The Bush administration’s war in Iraq has been a sinking ship from the beginning.  But rather than admit mistakes and try to move forward, they label anyone with a contrary opinion as ‘anti-troops’ - as though subjecting our brave men and women to an elective war of aggression, without the proper equipment, while cutting their benefits is somehow supportive. 

For all the pomp and rhetoric and honorary Purple Hearts Bush receives, his policies, words, and actions are hurting our troops in Iraq and weakening our military as a whole.  This has to stop and it can’t wait for impeachment.  As you can see from the new sidebar ad on the right, THF will be supporting MoveOn’s new VideoVets Project where real veterans and military families offer their own candid perspectives: 

The administration tries to call anyone who criticizes their policy in Iraq 'anti-troop,' but the interviews below show that 'supporting the troops' does NOT mean supporting an endless war. The voices of these veterans and military families are missing from the debate in Washington. Together we can make sure they become a vital part of the national dialogue around ending the war. 

Please take a moment to visit the site and check out some of the videos.  Also, I will be posting one to this site every day this week.

VideoVets: Tina Pearson
 
Which VideoVets video should be a TV ad? Vote at http://pol.moveon.org/videovets

I lost my linguistic tempter last week over the politicization of the VA Tech massacre for which I later apologized.  But rhetorical regrets aside, I remain ever-annoyed over these incessant and meaningless post-traumatic debates.  The latest spate comes in the argument over whether Cho was a liberal or a conservative.  Granted, the point on the latter was that his actions have done so much to fan the flames of right-wing fear-mongering while the former was merely to further demonstrate Limbaugh-lunacy.  Regardless, between Newt and Rush, there are at least two prominent wingnuts who are pushing the “liberalism is to blame” meme.  

So I’ll say this once for the record: The kid was freakin’ mentally ill, people!  He was saturated with self-loathing, paranoia, and rage and, unable to cope with the crushing pain, he decided to externalize it by brutally murdering anyone he set his rabid eyes upon.  If he voted for Ralph Nader, are there seriously people insane enough to extrapolate this to liberals as a whole?  If he was a card-carrying member of the NRA, does this mean that all Republicans are unhinged, violent thugs?  No and no, with a bit of ‘are you nuts?!’ thrown in for good measure.

Ahh, the days of yesteryear when our fearless national guardian was careful not to reveal too much lest our enemies catch on: 

O'REILLY: Now Brian Ross of ABC said — reported the CIA water boarded Mohammed. That is dunked him in water, tied him down and then that broke him. Is that true?

BUSH: We don't talk about techniques. And the reason we don't talk about techniques is because we don't want the enemy to be able to adjust. We're in a war.

Yes, we don’t want our enemies to be able to adjust to our torture techniques.  If they know that we routinely waterboard suspects, then they might surgically implant gills into the sides of their America-hating necks.  Troop movements on the other hand…hell, bring it on! 

The speech, followed by a 35-minute question-and-answer session with the audience, marked a subtle change in how Bush is making his case for his decision to intensify U.S. engagement in the increasingly unpopular war. 

The president delved deeper into details of his Iraq strategy than he usually does in such appearances, using the monitors to illustrate troop movements and to show photographs conveying the horror of the violence in Iraq. He promised more detailed reports on Iraq during speeches in coming weeks. 

I guess the element of surprise isn’t worth much of a premium these days.

"Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev Bush, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev Bush, tear down this wall! 

Or something like that.

Rove took some time out from hiding emails last week to give a press conference:

In a question-and-answer period after his speech, Rove was asked whose idea it was to start a pre-emptive war in Iraq.

"I think it was Osama bin Laden's,'' Rove replied.

Ok, somebody turn on the VCR ‘cuz I’m only a’gonna say this once – I totally agree with Rove! The war in Iraq monumentally eclipses 9-11 as bin Laden’s crowning achievement. What better way to succeed than by turning your two biggest enemies against one another?

On a side note, Jane Stillwater has a good explanation for why the official body count is lower in Iraq than Vietnam.

Take a moment to visit General Zod’s 2008 campaign website. Here is an excerpt:

*I do not take orders. I give them. Congress shall no longer have the ability to impeach me or override my decisions, and the Supreme Court shall not meddle in government affairs.

*Your freedom will be expanded. You will be even more free to give your money and lives to me, and to be my eternal subjects.

*Eliminate the Iraq War. The Iraq War has shifted $187 billion to the defense industry. How is this "defense industry" to kneel before me? Are my praises to be sung as footnotes in their paperwork? You will stop giving these corporations your wealth. I suggest you put the money into your own schools and health care, so that I may have intelligent, healthy servants. I will indulge your wishes if you all want a Westernized, unpopular regime in Iraq, and I too shall gloat in its troubles, but it will not be done at my expense.

*Universal health care. Even a criminal like myself is shocked that millions are not able to get health insurance and cannot pay for basic surgery. Who are these power brokers that allow the pigpen to become wormy and filthy? I demand your very lives, but I am not such an imbecile as to institutionalize suffering and poverty. You have my assurance that this shall change swiftly.

*Corporate reform. You people have become disgusting minions to these things you call "corporations". These things take your money and your land, put you into debt, send your jobs overseas, provide you with unsafe foods, and sue you when you say anything bad about them. Yet you people fatten them up at the ballot box. You give them free land, name your stadiums after them, allow them to telemarket you, and even sacrifice your own bankruptcy protections. Quite frankly it astonishes me. I will break this sickly codependency. It is I who shall be your ruler. I shall empower you with wealth to give me as tribute. A corporation cannot bow to me or give me tribute that comes from the heart.

*You will buy U.S. made items. Why do you buy Chinese-made items when you know that it sells out the jobs of your family and friends? How will you buy those cheap things when you have no job? You are sending my wealth and tribute to foreign lands. I will not tolerate this.

Per usual, hats off to Jonathan Schwarz (imho, the best blogger on this planet or any other) for the juxtaposition:

Cho Seung-Hui, in the video mailed to NBC:

"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today...You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.''

George Bush, three days before the invasion of Iraq:

"Tomorrow is the day that we will determine whether or not diplomacy can work...You see, the decision is [Saddam's] to make. And it's been his to make all along as to whether or not there's the use of the military. He got to decide...these are his decisions to make."

Also, great catch from Wonkette on the “Marine Hero of the Day” who took it upon himself to keep track of how many times Gonzo invoked the Reagan defense under questioning.