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.

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.

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

Or something like that.

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.