Taylor Marsh is Poison and Needs to Grow the Hell Up

The Washington Times did an article on the "feud" in the liberal blogosphere between Hillary supporters and Barack Supporters.

They quote both Markos and Taylor Marsh on the issue.

[More after the jump]

Markos -- appropriately -- directs fire at conservatives trying to stir the pot such as Bill O'Reilly.

"While I'm touched by Bill O'Reilly's concern for our party, tell him not to worry. Unlike his show, where critics have their mics cut off and escorted out by Fox security, us progressive bloggers have no problem debating and disagreeing with each other," Mr. Moulitsas said yesterday.

Taylor Marsh, on the other hand, claims there's a "secret sexism" in the liberal blogosphere that is as bad as conservatives.

"The Democratic primary race has revealed a secret sexism among some of the biggest and most elite male-run blogs that has obliterated their credibility. Let's just say, 'Clinton derangement syndrome' is no longer simply confined to conservatives," Ms. Marsh said yesterday.

Never mind that the MALES over at MYDD are as pro-Hillary as anywhere, and female bloggers such as Digby have been critical of Hillary and supportive of Obama at various times.

The truth is...I see as much criticism of Bill here as Hillary.

Is that sexist too?

The suggestion taht people oppose Hillary because she's a woman, or are secretly sexist is so full of shit.

RACISM is a bigger problem for Obama than sexism for Hillary.

I have read at least three different articles now quoting people from rural Pennsylvania saying that Obama's problems in the state are directly due to racism. People who live there say things like: "There's discrimination." And they say: "People say they don't know a lot about Barack Obama. That's because they're afraid to say they won't vote for a black man."

These same people who have problems with Obama are HILLARY SUPPORTERS!

And now Hillary is telling superdelegates that Obama "can't win," precisely because she thinks there are too many racists out there. But, apparently, SHE thinks SHE can win -- despite her gender!

I am so sick and fucking tired of the "its sexism" argument.

My wife is sick of ths stuff too.

It's become a running joke in our house that Hillary's supporters are all 60-year-old white women and white males who have a problem with Obama because he's black.

Tnat's her base!

My wife thinks these 60's and 70's era feministsts need to get a fucking life.

Tylor Marsh needs to fucking get a life and chill the fuck out. And if she wonders why there is animosity toward Hillary, she can look in the mirror and point the finger at one of the major reasons she has problems with a lot of us.

•  Sigh

  RACISM is a bigger problem for Obama than sexism for Hillary.

  Its not a contest.

  by discocarp on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:15:17 AM PDT

  •  You missed my point.

    Sailed right over your head.

    The TRUTH is that Hillary's gender is NOT an issue in this campaign. Never has been.

    Obama's race has. Denying that is to deny reality.

    And Obama's got more to overcome than Hillary does. That's just a reality.

    by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:17:23 AM PDT

    •  I didn't miss your point

      I just don't agree.

      I think this race has brought out a lot of racism and sexism that the party had managed to keep behind closed doors for a long time.

      by discocarp on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:38 AM PDT

      •  Racism yes. Sexism, not so much.

        I think the "sexism" angle has been largely manufactured.

        Is Chris Matthews a sexist pig? Yes.

        He also thnks it'ss no surprise that Barack Obama sucks at bowling and is good at backetball.

        This is about Hillary -- not the fact that she's a woman.

        I don't assume that Taylor Marsh is a racist because she attacks Barack Obama all the time.

        by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:20:50 AM PDT

        •  manufactured

          is right. And it's all the more insulting BECAUSE sexism still exists and hurts lots of women. We can hold many thoughts in our head at the same time. I actually do think there is a male "vibe" to political blogging and that for whatever reason, women are underrepresented. They are underrepresented in the senate too, of course. But that does not cause or correlate to an idea that Clinton is being unfairly targeted because she's a woman. And that's the point of this--it's not that you can't disagree with someone or attack them--but you have to do it fairly or people won't listen to you anymore.

          How many times has Pelosi (or Reid) been called a wimp or Brazile (or Carville) a hack, or Feinstein (or Lieberman back in the day) a DLC shill? How many times were they defended by someone saying "that's so sexist that you disagreed with her"? Um...yes...

          by JMS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:39:53 AM PDT

          •  I'd rather Pelosi were runing rather than Hillary

            I'm not sure how electing the former First Lady as President is a huge stride for women, exactly.

            How about electing a woman with her own accomplishments that got where she was because of her own merits, and not because she was married to a former President?

            You know, someone like Nancy Pelosi!

            Hillary's folks like to cpompare her to Margaret Thatcher. But Thatcher paid her dues and climbed the ranks of the opposition benches in Parliament before becoming Prime Minister.

            And she didn't have a famous name or spouse to aid her.

            The comparison is specious.

            by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:47:46 AM PDT

            •  Just because YOU

              do not like or admire Hillary Clinton, does not make her a bad person, or a bad role model.  Let go of the right wing media narrative and do some real research.

              by Jjc2006 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:15:14 AM PDT

            •  Thatcher Also

              Got advanced degrees in science (chemistry, I think) from Oxford in the 1950s. Doubt she had a lot of sisterhood support there. Wellesley, 1960s, it wasn't.

              by pletzs on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:52:45 AM PDT

            •  Heck, Pelosi is light years ahead of Reid ...

              ... in the leadership department. Not that I would give her high marks either. But she clearly makes a far better Speaker of the House than Harry does as Senate Majority Leader.

              Every time I see Reid issuing his mealy-mouthed apologies and statements at pressers or on the Senate floor, I just have to cringe. It's almost like he wants to beg forgiveness just for taking up space on the Earth.

              As for sexism, it may not be as blatant as the racist garbage Obama has to deal with, and you may not see it, but it is definitely out there. I really, really dislike Hillary just for what she represents as a politician, but I also see a LOT of sexist slurs applied to her that would never be used to describe a man. Her laugh, for instance. When was the last time you heard a man's laugh called a "cackle"? Much of this is a petty way of belittling her for who she is as a person, and I can easily understand why so many women would feel personally offended by that.

              We should be able to oppose Sen. Clinton without being jerks about it.

              by philimus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:09:23 AM PDT

      •  Most of the sexism

        I've witnessed thus far has come from Hillary supporters (via postings at various blogs).  So many cite Hillary's sex as a contributing factor re: their support of her.

        Sexism -->

        1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

        2. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

        by bsmalls on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:02:40 AM PDT

    •  Yeah it's not like anyone

      told Hillary to iron theior shirts, oh wait a minute.
      And BTW you might want to edit your title before an admin has to do it for you.

      by Drewid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:19:13 AM PDT

      •  Funny how that never happened again.

        by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:21:43 AM PDT

        •  Staged sexism 101

          Funny never heard about those guys again and it helped HRC...hmmmm

          by kiki236 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:23:37 AM PDT

          •  Yup. Imagine if a bunch of Klansman showed up...

            ..at an Obama rally and started calling him a "nigger."

            His poll numbers would jump about 10 points.

            by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:25:46 AM PDT

          •  It was radio show

            shock jocks that did it for a prank.  The information is out there.  Implying that anything that happens in a rally is cooked up by the candidate is unseemly.

            by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:31:04 AM PDT

            •  So rightwing shock jocks...

              ...did it as a joke! And this is evidence of sexism in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

              by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:35:44 AM PDT

            •  One of the "sexists"

              had a Hillary sticker on his bag.  I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary was in cahoots with the radio show.

              by TLS66 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:37:18 AM PDT

              •  I just like what Obama said last night

                about getting away from this kind of stuff and sticking with what is important, like getting out of the war, keeping people in their homes and better education for our children.

                I am not going to play the I wouldn't be surprised game with anyone.  

                by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:19:57 AM PDT

                •  Thats the problem right there

                  This race has become a popularity contest. And in a beauty contest, all the disagreements are skin-deep and superficial.

                  I personnally cant wait for the general and a return to actual policy discussion.

                  by Unseen majority on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:40:02 AM PDT

      •  Staged radio stunt, not real sexism. n/t

        by drbloodaxe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:13:12 AM PDT

    •  I Can Believe There Are People Dumb Enough

      ...to rec this.

      That there are seven though, pretty stunning.

      by TooFolkGR on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:37:07 AM PDT

      •  You're a Shill for Hill...so no surprise there.

        by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:39:04 AM PDT

        •  LOL nonsense

          The candidate I've given my hundreds of $ to isn't Hillary.  (hint:  He's blacker and has a penis).  Don't assume that just because someone doesn't live in the same fishbowl as you that you know which candidate they support.

          by TooFolkGR on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:43:35 AM PDT

          •  That's why you were called a "scab"

            ...for crossing the pro-Hillary diarist picket line to post pro-Hillary diaries and comments?

            by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:52:59 AM PDT

            •  Way To Do Your Research There, Champ

              I was called a "Scab" for the same reason you're calling me a "Hillary Shill."  Because even though I support Obama based on his positions, his leadership abilities, and his potential for helping us downticket, I don't worship him and consider every single person who hasn't endorsed him to be a racist.  In short I'm a "mainstream" Obama supporter vs a "mainstream DailyKos" Obama supporter.

              The part about the "Pro-Hillary" diary is just silly.  I've never posted one of those anywhere.  She's always been my absolute second-to-last ranked Democratic candidate in the primary (over Gravel).

              by TooFolkGR on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:59:08 AM PDT

    •  I didn't miss you point

      Or your attitude, which is curiously hateful.  By the way, you and your wife should try to remember that you too will be 60 years old some day, if you are lucky.  Although your "point" is indefensible, you do not help your case by spewing ageist crap.  

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:40:06 AM PDT

      •  WE do remember that.

        But the numbers are the numbers. They are what they are.

        Hillary does best among older white women and Democratic ethnic white working class men in states with a history of racial tensions outside of the old South.

        by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:57:52 AM PDT

        •  So What?

          How in the world does that "fact" justify your self-confessed ageism?  I'm not getting it.  Do you really think that all "older white women" are Hillary supporters?  And even if they are, which is highly unlikely, why would you hate and scorn them on that ground?  Prejudice is prejudice.  You are engaging in it.  Look in the mirror before you start calling out others on that basis.

          by vigilant meerkat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:40:43 AM PDT

          •  See what I wrote about this below

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:43:05 AM PDT

    •  Your problem is

      you do not know the difference between opinion and fact.

      In your opinion, race is a bigger obstacle than gender is.  You are allowed to have an opinion.  Many may disagree but that's OK.

      Facts is that the numbers comparing the female electorate to their representation in government show a huge disparity....much greater than than the current disparity between African American electorate and African American representation.

      As well, African American males come in second to Caucasian males in earnings, while Causcasian women and African American women follow.

      These stats are readily available. If I did not have to leave for work, I would link.
      But let's at least be honest here.

      It is NOT a contest.  Sexism is just as bad as racism.  But sexism is still acceptable in the public arena. One only has to tune into MSNBC and other "news" channels to see and hear it.
      If any of them used racism the way they openly used sexism against candidates, they would have been fired.

      So get over yourself and your own biases and deal.

      by Jjc2006 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:14:04 AM PDT

      •  Again, you miss the point.

        I am not arguing that sexism doesn't exist. I am arguing that sexism is NOT the barrier to Hillary that her supporters keep claiming it is.

        And, frankly, not even Hillary believes that or she wouldn't be going around arguing to superdelegates that SHE is more electable than Obama because of "sensitive" reasons [i.e. He's black -- and a bunch of racist white dudes in swings states won't vote for him].

        by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:37:31 AM PDT

        •  I think this comment makes it more clear

          Had just posted a comment below and then just read this one.  I fully agree with you.  

          And would add that, to be fair, Hillary needs to discuss and address how she will overcome her own high negatives which have persisted for years.   At least Obama has the track record of showing how his poll numbers increase when election day approaches--while Hillary's poll numbers go in the opposite direction.

          by sawgrass727 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:41:49 AM PDT

    •  I agree with discocarp AND your diary

      If sexism has been nonexistent, then your diary statement would be:

      Racism is a problem for Obama and sexism has not been a problem for Hillary.

      I think you got it right the first time.   Sexism has been out there but not as overtly as racism, at least not in Democratic quarters this primary season.  You're right about that.  

      For example, I think I've read everything Kos has written about Hillary and none of it comes close to touching on a element of sexism.  If I am wrong, I would hope that Taylor Marsh gives evidence to her accusations.

      BTW: Where'd you get that quote for Taylor Marsh? I can't find it in your links and not via Google search.

      by sawgrass727 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:35:45 AM PDT

      •  Forget question about link

        Doh, don't know how I missed it the first time I read the first link.  

        by sawgrass727 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:37:37 AM PDT

  •  Why on god's green earth does ANYONE

    listen to Taylor Marsh?  She's a delusional idiot with a podcast who thinks she's a radio personality.

    by Rorgg on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:40:18 AM PDT

•  You'll have to edit your title

  by bumblebums on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:15:30 AM PDT

  •  I like the title.

    Sometimes an "f bomb" is necessary.

    by daninoah on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:16:37 AM PDT

    •  Against site rules

      to have profanity in the title.

      by discocarp on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:17:38 AM PDT

    •  It breaks site rules

      no explitives in diary titles as to make the site workplace and library safe or something.

      by Drewid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:17:41 AM PDT

  •  Yup

    F@#$
    edit your title.

    by Drewid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:16:54 AM PDT

  •  Changed it to "Hell"

    by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:09 AM PDT

  •  I agree with bumblebums

    In an effort to keep daily kos off restricted lists because of profanity used in diary titles, please consider modifying your F-word in some manner.

    by vbdietz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:19:49 AM PDT

•  Please delete. Keep Taylor Marsh away from this

  site even if you're criticizing.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:16:09 AM PDT

•  Edit your title

   Profanity in the body of the diary is fine but not the title..

  by ebbinflo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:12 AM PDT

•  Dog bites man n/t

  by theran on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:57 AM PDT

•  I wouldn't have realized Taylor Marsh was a woman

  without being told. Taylor can be a guy's name too.

  by slash196 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:22:05 AM PDT

•  This is just too hostile this morning for me...

  I am going to read elsewhere. Thanks.

  by jdmorg on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:22:36 AM PDT

•  You say "Poison"

  but really, the paint effects on her site are really more of a Van Halen feel, don't you think?  ;)

  by toothwalker on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:24:11 AM PDT

  •  I don't visit her site.

    by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:26:19 AM PDT

    •  No doubt...

      Didn't mean to derail - just trying to add some levity.  ;)

      by toothwalker on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:32:08 AM PDT

    •  It would be bad for your blood pressure

      There is real racism in the comments there. It's a good place to go if you want to lower your opinion of Hillary supporters. I don't, so I stay away.

      by neil on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:41:12 AM PDT

•  Breaking my pledge not to rec

  attack HRC diaries.  But this needs to be seen.

  You are absolutely right to criticize Marsh as a screeching shrew (is it OK to say that instead of the B word?)

  There is no sexism in my support of Obama, but I see lots of Racism in support of HRC.

  Is Hillary a Racist?  I won't say it, but I would love to see her score on the Implicit Association Test

  by DrWolfy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:26:47 AM PDT

  •  I don't believe Hillary is a racist at all.

    Nor do I believe Bill is. Or Taylor Marsh fopr that matter.

    But, in a way, that makes the obvious dog shistle race baiting against Obama they are engaging in even worse!

    They, presumably, should KNOW better! They know what they are doing is wrong, and poisonous and will hurt the country. But they don't care!

    by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:33:44 AM PDT

•  Please don't paint all of us older white women

  with a broad brush. Many of us 60s and 70s feminists support Obama because we would like to see this country move in another direction.

  by blue jersey mom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:30:05 AM PDT

  •  Didn't mean to do that.

    I know a lot of older white femisists who can;t stand Hillary.

    Just as I know African Americans who don't think Obama is qualified to be President and support Hillary.

    It's a generalization, of course.

    by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:31:33 AM PDT

•  She's like a liberal Rush Limbaugh

  Taylor preaches from a very large high horse, from a perspective that Clinton is always right, Obama is always wrong, and anyone who disagrees is sexist.  And then, she insists that she's is the only one being reasonable.

  Its the Limbaugh playbook, applied in an intra-party primary.  Beneath what Democrats should be about.

  by ILPundit on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:31:19 AM PDT

  •  Except

    Limbaugh actually has an audience.

    How's it going cuz?

    by pletzs on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:07:13 AM PDT

•  Clinical Delusion

  Taylor Marsh, at this point, is suffering from clinical delusion.  I don't mean that as hyperbole or sensationalism.  In very sober, literal terms she fits the clinical diagnosis.

  If you are to read her site, you would think that Hillary is stomping Barack in a landslide.  Her site literally reads like a Baghdad Bob blog.  You don't even get the faintest hint that Obama leads Hillary in every rational measure: pledged delegates, total delegates, states won, and the popular vote. And it's well beyond the point that any of this matters to her or apparently even registers.

  by nocore on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:32:44 AM PDT

•  What was it Obama said last night?

  We can waste our time talking about what the latest surregate said etc etc or we can spend out time talking about the things that are important?

  by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:33:08 AM PDT

•  HRC 08 having it both ways, again....

  1. There's a sexism that infects half the democratic party and explains why she's unable to win more than half the voters.

  2. HRC can win the general election despite her gender.

  She's in this flippy floppy world where she's got this weakness in the primaries that's going to turn into a strength in the general.....but that's old thinking from the days that she actually DID have that sort of deal, namely, when she was building her Hawk Cred with IWR votes and sniper fire stories.  She's got no advantages for the general now.  

  by Inland on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:33:17 AM PDT

•  Day after she conceeds Taylor Marsh will be ...

  The second most miserable person in the country. I can't wait to see if she changes that masthead of hers that says she is a democrat!

  by Massconfusion on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:38:53 AM PDT

  •  She'll endorse McCain

    She's already begun laying the groundwork.

    by neil on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:41:40 AM PDT

    •  Like I said: Poison.

      by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:43:35 AM PDT

•  Somehow I don't think this will convince her

  ...apparently, SHE thinks SHE can win -- despite her gender!... My wife thinks these 60's and 70's era feministsts need to get a fucking life.

  This is a very good way to make the argument that there is no sexism among liberal bloggers.

  It's become a running joke in our house that Hillary's supporters are all 60-year-old white women and white males who have a problem with Obama because he's black.

  When I hear Hillary supporters complaining that Obama people say they're racists, I wish I could tell them they're wrong.

  by neil on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:39:13 AM PDT

  •  You can have a problem with Obama's race...

    ...for other reasons than racism.

    i.e. You think he's "unelectable."

    You may think white male ethnic voters in big swing states like Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvani are racists so they will vote for McCain in the general election.

    The ironoy of Hillary supporters making that argument -- and then in the sam breath claiming HILAARY will get those same votes despite the fact she's a woman is very palpable.

    How can people be sexist, and at the same time, supporting Hillary OVER Obama?

    by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:43:02 AM PDT

    •  I don't agree with that

      I think that if you consider his race as a factor in deciding to vote against him (or to vote for him) then that's the textbook definition of racist, even if you aren't personally prejudiced. If you vote against Obama because you think black people are unelectable then you're voting against Obama because he's black. How is that not racism?

      Voting for or against Hillary because she's a woman is sexist, also. From what I've seen from the comments on Hillary-supporting blogs, many of the people there are quite sexist.

      by neil on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:46:59 AM PDT

      •  I think there's a subtle difference.

        Between voting against someone becuse you fear they won't win in the fall due to his race or her gender -- than votiong against someone because you don't trust or like black people or woimen -- or because you hold negative stereotypes in your mind about them.

        Ironically, early in the campaign there were a lot of African Americans who were reluctant to vote for Obama BECAUSE he was black. Not because they are racist (that's silly) but because they thought the country was too racist to vote for him -- or they were afraid for his safety.

        If a white person holds exactly the same views, that's not racism in the purist sense.

        by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:51:13 AM PDT

•  bigger problem

  I dissagree.  Sexism is a bigger problem for Clinton than racism is for Obama, because it is so much more overt and mainstream.  But I'm not voting for Obama because of his overcoming racism, nor for Clinton for overcoming sexism.  Obama will make a better President.  
  Sometimes, you have to take a stand regardless of the consequences for your political life.  In 2002 Obama stood up against the war, as did many democrats in Congress because they knew there was no way Iraq was a threat to the US, whether he had chemical or bio weapons or not.  Clinton knew that too, but she took into account the consequenses of voting against the war.  
  I'm not concerned withthe call at 3:00 a.m.  Its in making decisions made in the hard light of day that I believe Obama will not always think of the consequenses to himself first.  

  by stationakl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:46:12 AM PDT

  •  The proof is in the voting.

    If That were true, Obama would be winning these big states with histories of racial tensions because all these ethnic white male working class men would be supporting the man over the woman.

    by Hesiod on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:55:42 AM PDT

•  While I mostly agree with the diarist's opinion

  of Taylor Marsh (which is unfortunate, since before all of this she was a good political blogger), the thing that sticks in my craw is this.

  us progressive bloggers have no problem debating and disagreeing with each other

  Oh, kos, you do disappoint the grammar-nazi in me! "We", sir! "We"! A man who makes his living with words should know the basic rule that when in doubt of whether to use "he" or "him", "she" or "her", "we" or "us", you take out the phrase intervening between the pronoun and the verb in order to clarify. "Us...have no problem" or "we...have no problem"?

  Yeah, petty but it's one of my buttons...

  by jayjaybear on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:53:29 AM PDT

•  Those 60 year olds

  seem to show up to vote...in very large numbers! Think it is a good idea to piss them off? By the way, Hillary and Obama supporters respectfully disagree on this site? Markos should read his blog every now and then.

  by riverdan1900 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:08:48 AM PDT

•  This diary is unhelpful and unbecoming.

  I disagree with Taylor Marsh as much as anyone.  She bans most comments that are not pro-Hillary, and the site is largely an anti-Democratci blog posing as a Democratic blog.  It is an echo chamber not only for pro-Hillary enthusiasts, but for anti-Obama rage.  That is all well and good, but it is stoked on by posts from the front page that are factually incorrect and just the worst sort of propaganda.  No one from outside is permitted to attempt to correct the record.

  That said, this diary only fuels the flames of division at a time when we need to weigh heavily considerations of unity.  

  by LarsThorwald on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:17:34 AM PDT

  •  DailyO

    That just sounds like the DailyO for the other side.

    by gaf on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:48:05 AM PDT

•  Screw Washington Times.

  Fvcking moonie moonbats.

  And to hell with Taylor Marsh.

  Both are attention-hungry nobodies and we are just helping them by worrying about what they think or print.

  by MAORCA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:18:58 AM PDT

•  I'm sick of the sexism claims

  I don't like Hillary at all, but her gender's got zilch-zero-nada to do with it.  I'd vote for a woman in a second... just not Hillary, because I don't like her and I really don't like her husband.  I'm not comfortable with the idea of any spouse of a former president (be that spouse male or female) being eligible for the presidency, anyway... since no married person operates in a vaccum, it gets too close to compromising the term-limit system.  And I don't think that Hillary is, or ever has been, electable anyway.  She'll bring Republicans out in droves just to vote against her.  And those are just a few of the reasons I don't support her... but her gender?  Ain't even on the list.

  And yet I've still been accused of being a "sexist" by Hillary supporters more times than I can count... including people who know me and have seem me cuss out actual sexists.  I think they're desperate to villify their opposition so much that they're trying to make us into monsters.

  My favorite example of this is this one dimbulb who told me I was sexist because I said Hillary's combattive attitude would wear the country out.  There's absolutely nothing gender-specific about that statement, but this guy said that because he "couldn't imagine" anyone saying it about a male candidate, that makes me sexist.  WTF?  I've said the same thing about Bill Clinton many times, but suddenly we can be smeared by somebody's "imagination"?  Sheeeesh.

  by shadetree mortician on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:19:11 AM PDT

  •  Boy shadetree

    your moniker makes my hair stand-up! LOL

    by riverdan1900 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:29:42 AM PDT

    •  :)

      I live around a lot of "shadetree mechanics," and this came to me one day... it was too sick of an idea, I just had to use it... :)  

      by shadetree mortician on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:54:27 AM PDT

•  Maybe you should research your topic more?

  Never mind that the MALES over at MYDD are as pro-Hillary as anywhere, and female bloggers such as Digby have been critical of Hillary and supportive of Obama at various times.

  The truth is...I see as much criticism of Bill here as Hillary.

  Is that sexist too?

  The suggestion taht people oppose Hillary because she's a woman, or are secretly sexist is so full of shit.

  Sexism has nothing to do with criticism. Criticism and multiple-sided discussion is what attracts users to dkos. No one left because of criticism. No one left because of who supports Hillary vs. who supports Obama, or relative volumes of supporters, and those things have nothing to do with sexism.

  The truth is, you don't know jack about your topic and it seems to anger you, as if, to "not get it" means "it" doesn't exist.

  by kck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:30:45 AM PDT

•  The problem is Fox Newsism

  I think the problem is that Fox News and the Drudge Report do a pretty good job of presenting headline news, and it seems as if, even here, a lot of people watch Fox News and get the framing for their thoughts from it.

  Maybe people watch it thinking they're strong enough to escape from the effects of the propaganda, but I notice that plenty of people here who've watched the Wright videos think it's scandalous, JUST SCANDALOUS, to see a black pastor from Chicago, who probably deals with congregants suffering from the worst kind of poverty day in and day out, saying "God damn America," or "The government does more to hurt black people than help them."

  And, despite some notable exceptions, there are plenty of us people here, including people who support Obama much more strongly than I do, mostly accepting that framing.

  How could we be so jingoistic as to think that a pastor deserves unemployment and exile just because he curses America for failing to help the poor? I think the pastor expressed a simplistic view about how the world works, but why is it so shocking to think that he might express that view, and why is it so shocking that Obama might listen to that view without walking out in a huff?

  Along the same lines: it seems as if a lot of people here accept scandal stories and the framing of those stories (e.g., the Tuzla sniper gate story was on Rush Limbaugh about a year ago; the "was Chelsa really jogging by the Twin Towers?" "scandal" surfaced in the wingnut media about five years ago) as the gospel truth, especially if the stories are harmful to Hillary.

  I think it's obvious that the Tuzla trip was pretty dangerous, as first lady trips go, and the extent to which she juiced it up is a lot, lot smaller than Fox News types acknowledge.

  The extent to which Wright really attacked America or the Clintons in any way that's remotely unfair or unreasonable is a lot, lot smaller than the Fox News types acknowledge.

  If Keith Olbermann and Air America could develop a progressive/middle of the road TV news channel that was a serious, profitable alternative to Fox News, then I think a lot of these problems would go away.

  by sclminc on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:13:27 AM PDT