In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

DNC Open Thread

Jill

So… Bill Clinton was kind of awesome, right? Like total nerd-wonk and also somehow a guy you actually want to hear go 30 minutes over his allotted time? Possibly the only person you ever want to hear pontificate on the details of the discretionary budget? One of the few politicians who is actually capable of taking policy points that are both complex AND mundane and making them both interesting and accessible? Man is gifted.

Also: Michelle Obama yesterday. And Lily Ledbetter yesterday! But mostly Michelle Obama yesterday. Good God. I will admit I rolled by eyes at the “Mom-in-Chief” line, but damn, woman knows how to deliver.

Thoughts? OPEN THREAD. SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT. TIME FOR ANARCHY.

104 thoughts on DNC Open Thread

  1. One of the best political speeches I’ve heard in a long time. Very effective. It made me want to stand up and applaud in front of my TV set.

    1. Just to be clear, I was referring to Bill Clinton’s speech tonight. I haven’t seen Michelle Obama’s or any of the others. I’m not remotely as into the DNC’s as I was as a child, when I would sit there keeping score during the roll call votes! I even remember staying up until 2 am, or whenever it was, to watch George McGovern’s acceptance speech. “Come Home America” and all that. All I remember about 1968 was the rioting — by the police — outside the convention hall.

      1. I remember keeping score in 1972 during the DNC VP vote, and have vague memories of some RNC or other, but have really gone off conventions since they became uncontested pageants. (The television conundrum, perhaps – needed to see the contested conventions, but helped them go the way of the dodo.) As far as anyone’s individual speech goes, it’s likely I’ll end up feeling like Emma Woodhouse calling on Miss Bates and hearing the entire substance of Jane Fairfax’s letter without hearing the actual letter itself.

  2. I read a fabulous article somewhere that I can’t currently locate about how the first lady’s speech centered heteronormativity, traditional gender roles, and the proper make up of a family being nuclear. Also something about how her daughters are lucky to have an ideal example of a male authority figure in their lives and how they wouldn’t have been who they are without it.

    1. Don’t expect wonders of progressivism out of this campaign, they have an election to win and they need the votes of people we may vehemently do not agree with to do it. It is still a radical notion that non-hetero people can get a civil marriage in many states here. I’d rather they bullshit the voters and put the policies in place behind their backs (or burried in the platform someplace no one talks about much), like many good reforms have been done in the past. Whoever took God out of the platform was a political idiot too, I’d almost believe they were secretly working on behalf of the Republicans. I am purposefully being a huge hypocrite here because my choices are limited to being a hypocrite or allowing Romney & Co. to win and having to live with their awful dark-ages policies.

    2. But she refers to Barack’s single mother and the help his grandparents gave her. She references the pay gap and glass ceiling experienced by BO’s grandmother and mentions the first bill BO signed was some sort of pay equality bill. She also references (obliquely) same sex marriage and this administration’s record on LGBT rights.
      Her speech wasn’t perfect, but I’d say that article was picking at nits.

    3. Please link if you ever find it.

      This morning my radio went on just as the news started to cover her venturing to visit various caucuses. The sound bite from her talk at the LGBT caucus had a reference to her Mom face when she was being serious, but that fortunately originated from the audience and she just went with it. It was irritating enough that the LGBT introducer seemed so heteronormative in the manner of his giving credit to the first lady for the president’s change to a supportive stance, as if same-sex couples were incapable of being seen as rights-worthy on their own merits but needed support specifically from within a heterosexual structure (when there were much less heteronormative ways to thank her).

    4. There is a Concern that US black men are absent fathers, so I think Michelle Obama was emphasizing her husband’s role as an active father as a counterpoint to this.

      Capital C because I’m not sure to what extent it’s a stereotype raised and perpetuated by whites (including active racists), and to what extent it’s a legitimate concern of US black communities. I’ve seen it raised by white racists and anti-legal-abortion activists of multiple races, but also by black womanists and feminists.

    5. Those values have worked pretty well for thousands of years. As long as those values are not forced upon people I do not see a problem. In fact most feminists, many guest bloggers on this site in fact, adopt heteronormativity and traditional gender roles later on in life anyway. It’s their choice.

      1. No, they haven’t. The nuclear family is a very recent construction; traditional gender roles have not worked “well,” unless your definition of well includes “causing immense suffering”; heteronormativity of the kind espoused by mainstream US culture is also a relatively recent invention.

      2. If a feminist adopts heteronormativity, then it is not just hir choice, because heteronormativity is about cultural promotion of heterosexuality and the gender=sex binary as universal, ideal, or the only correct way to exist. It’s about the assumption that everyone is straight and fits nicely into “cis man with muscles who eats beef and is tough” and “cis woman with long hair who eats salads and is sensitive” boxes. It _is_ about imposing norms on others.

        A feminist may happen to be heterosexual, and may happen to be a cisgender person who finds that social gender expectations fit hir well enough, and that much doesn’t impose anything on anyone else. But that’s not embracing heteronormativity any more than saying a pro-choice feminist who choses not to terminate hir own pregnancy is embracing the “pro-life” values of desiring to ban abortion.

  3. I am loathe to admit, but…I haven’t been watching. I love politics, I could watch politicians lie all day long. But for some reason I’ve just been “Meh” about these conventions. Although I did rage quit the internet for, like, 30 whole minutes because of that asshole Erik Erikson ( that fucking name, I’d be pissed) calling the first day the “vagina monologues”.

  4. He’s just so amusing and he’s having such a good time – he doesn’t yell or lecture or get angry or preach and yet he manages to get in more information, more snarky digs, and more sincerity than the rest of the crowd put together. And he’s so sly – he moves so quickly and effortlessly from one emotional register to another that it takes your breath away.

  7. I saw Stacey Linn’s speech on youtube and was in tears. Decided there’s no point in watching anything else, since I already know how I’m voting.

    2. DOMA was a bone thrown to the conservatives to stop them from ginning up support for a constitutional amendment. Yes, it’s a law that sucks, and it was unconstitutional as hell from the get-go, but it’s a lot easier to get a law struck down or reversed than to kill a constitutional amendment.

      1. Agreed zuzu, let’s not confuse tactics with positions. DOMA could very well have served the purpose of delaying a constitutional amendment which would have passed for sure back then. That time bought allowed people to make the case for non-hetero marriage and now you have even a portion of conservatives (the so called fiscal conservatives and moderate conservatives) quietly supporting it. The better solution would have been to get government out of the marriage business completely and establish civil unions for all, including those who decline/fail to register their status. (after all marriage is a religious institution in its genesis and was carried over when we divided secular government from religious governance)

        1. I thought DOMA was tied to ENDA, which just failed. I definitely remember watching the ENDA vote in the Senate, and I’d have sworn it followed the DOMA vote. Of course, there could have been two deals active.

          As for the FMA, back then? The Rs could still pass it now if they were serious enough. But it’s their biggest cash cow, they’d have to let the blue states stop being donor states for a few years in terms of the bribes it would take, and, once they do pass it, they will go from being able to play the Victim card to looking like bullies.

        2. According to Wikipedia (caveat lector),

          In the early 1990s, supporters of the legislation decided to focus on employment. Rep. Gerry Studds introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on June 23, 1994.[12] The legislation failed in 1994 and 1995.[13] In 1996, the bill failed on a 49-50 vote in the Senate and was not voted on in the House.[14][15] Its level of support in the Senate may have represented an attempt by some to compensate for their support of the recently passed “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.[citation needed] These early versions of ENDA did not include provisions to protect transgender people from discrimination[16] and ENDA was not introduced in the 109th Congress.

          So, “tied” in the sense that it was on a related issue to DOMA, but not tied legislatively.

        3. I’d have sworn there was some deal made to allow floor votes on both, which was all I meant by tied. Maybe there was just a rumour to that effect that I misread as accurate reporting. Of course, it’s all so long ago I’m not surprised if I don’t recall quite accurately.

          What I distinctly recall as a rumour was that it was thought to have a better chance of passage than the tone of the citation suggests. There were hints that various senators took one for the red team by letting themselves be seen as possible Yes ENDA votes when they were really solidly No all along. The joy of legislature.

          But I do distinctly remember Senator Moynihan’s No vote on DOMA; that was one of the highlights of my year.

  9. Clinton’s speech was unbelievable — I don’t think I’ve ever seen a serious, wonky, entertaining political class like that, and certainly not one that went on that long without losing the audience.

    I loved Michelle’s speech as well, it felt sincere and from the heart and an explanation for the foundation of her husband’s beliefs rather than just a list of personal anecdotes trying to make him seem more relateable (which was how I viewed Ann Romney’s address). I also cringed a bit at the Mom in Chief line–seriously, when is it going to be okay for a first lady to admit that she’s anything other than a wife and mother?–but I can completely understand why the first African American first lady might feel the need to present herself as the most traditional kind of wife. She took a real beating in ’08, and now her approval rating is through the roof.

    1. Well, their job is to best represent their constituents, and advocate effectively for their positions, and frame their positions in a way that both accurately represents the positions and makes them appealing to voters. That often requires powerful oratory. To dismiss that as political theater is shortsighted.

      1. FDR too.

        A head of state’s job in a democracy is to channel the collective power of the voters, they don’t rule by fiat.

  11. Clinton is so good that even though I don’t agree with most of his positions and downright detest a lot of what he has done during his time as president (welfare reform, anyone?), I just can’t help but like him. The fact that he can get up there and ad-lib for close to 50 minutes and not lose the audience is pretty amazing and a testament to his personal charisma. Too bad his policies left a lot to be desired.

    1. I have a couple of acquaintances who have met Bill Clinton. They all report that he is, bar none, the most charming and charismatic man they have ever met.

      1. I have met Bill Clinton a few times now (extremely lucky, I know) and worked with him briefly on a project (extra lucky, I know), and he is not only incredibly charismatic and charming, but stunningly intelligent and quick-minded. His ability to distill down complicated issues and quickly solve complex problems? Not exaggerated. One of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. Dude is a genius, no joke.

    2. I saw him speak at a dinner once, and I swear that by the end the room was enveloped by a palpable fog of charisma. It was really impressive. It’s like it’s his mutant superpower.

      1. I saw him in 1997 in Warsaw, speaking at Zamkowy square, and he absolutely enthralled the crowd. I guess his charisma works even when he’s adressing people that (most likely most of them) don’t speak his language 😀

  12. Maybe I have the less popular opinion, but I just can’t watch Bill Clinton. Personally, I believed Paula Jones and all the others, and he just really creeps me out, because I personally do believe he’s a sexual harrasser (and that’s not the worst that can be assumed of him). I do think his speech, from the transcripts, was probably awesome, but I always kind of get a nagging feeling that my feminism should stop me from supporting him in any way. I don’t blame Democrats for using him because, hey, it probably works. I just wish he didn’t occupy such a popular place in the party.

      2. Uh, you’re aware that he was never criminally charged with anything? Sexual harrassment is a CIVIL claim, and that’s what was alleged. I’m sure you’ve also extended Clarence Thomas the same doubts as well. Oh, wait…

        1. Anita Hill’s testimony was never thrown out by a judge. It was discounted and ignored, sure, but Paula Jones’ case isn’t comparable to Anita Hill’s.

        2. Jones’s case was dismissed twice at the trial level, and Clinton settled without admitting fault in exchange for her dropping the appeal.

          Hill’s allegations against Thomas came up during his confirmation hearings, not a trial. She’d been subpoenaed there.

        3. Uh, zuzu, the problem I have with Clinton doesn’t have anything to do with the trial procedure. Jones’ cases was dropped not for any reasons of credibility, but firstly because she failed to show damages and secondly due to the standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress (and note that the second one was ruled on assuming the allegations were true). Neither dismissal rules upon the validity of Jones’ actual allegations. I was making the point that, personally, I don’t get the cognitive dissonance among feminists who will support Anita Hill but will jump through hoops to support Clinton.

          And samanthab, I’d love to hear how you don’t think the cases are comparable.

        4. Jones lost on summary judgment on her sexual harassment claims because even accepting her allegations as true, they didn’t qualify as sexual harassment under 8th Circuit or Arkansas law. She suffered no reprisals for refusing his advances, and because there was one incident, it wasn’t pervasive enough to qualify as hostile environment.

          As the judge noted, his conduct may have been “boorish and offensive,” but it was not sexual assault, and it was not sexual harassment as that is defined under the law.

          Anita Hill, by contrast, suffered a pervasive atmosphere of harassment by the very person whose job it was to oversee all claims of sexual harassment and employment discrimination.

          Hill also came forward reluctantly and under subpoena and went back to her life as soon as possible. She said very little on the matter publicly until Clarence Thomas’s wife left her some bizarre voicemails. Jones was underwritten by right-wing groups that were trying to take Clinton down.

        5. Drahill, I told you exactly why the cases weren’t comparable. Your willful blindness doesn’t actually constitute a counter-argument.

  13. Blimey, it’s almost unbelievable to me that nobody’s mentioned Sandra Fluke’s address. I was so incredibly moved by how a reluctant student-turned-national-figure spoke the words I’ve been waiting for our pro-choice voices to be able to speak to a national audience of tens of millions, but have never heard until that night…

    “…your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party. It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds we don’t want and our doctors say we don’t need. An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it; in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again; in which someone decides which domestic violence victims deserve help, and which don’t.”

    Ms. Fluke, you are my hero. You give to my friends an ideal to strive toward.

  14. I have met Bill Clinton a few times now (extremely lucky, I know) and worked with him briefly on a project (extra lucky, I know), and he is not only incredibly charismatic and charming, but stunningly intelligent and quick-minded. His ability to distill down complicated issues and quickly solve complex problems? Not exaggerated. One of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. Dude is a genius, no joke.

    How can this be? He’s from Arkansas.

      1. I think he meant “How can he be a genius? He’s from Arkansas.”

        I think you didn’t notice that I was willfully ignoring his clearly asinine generalization.

        1. The Marksman is joking because he is also from Arkansas. And also quite smart and savvy.

          The enduring hope/disappointment about Clinton and Arkansas from my family, who are from Arkansas, is that they finally got to see a man of intelligence and import from their home-state on the national stage. My uber-Republican parents voted Democrat for the first time in years (if not for their first time, I don’t know) because of the pride they felt. He was a moderate, well-spoken, a good orator, educated, and had a competent, no-nonsense wife. In many ways, he reflected the wish of flyover country to see themselves reflected somehow nationally in a meaningful way. Yes, his politics were imperfect (fuck welfare reform), but finally people like my folks expressed that someone like themselves, from truly humble beginnings, was in the White House.

          When the Lewinski thing went down — and I feel like feminists could have a heyday with this discussion fifteen years out, re: sexual harassment, consent, whether or not this was a legitimate use of public time and money — Clinton fell right off the pedestal that all these moderate conservatives put him on. Dude was lower than low. Dude was dirt. In so many ways, the Ken Starr investigation not only smeared Clinton and Democrats, but also primed the Republican party to step in as the true party of family values, honor, and humility (ha! ha! ha!). It also tarnished Clinton’s reputation as a total lecherous, lying asshole, that I’m not surprised at how shocked and pleasantly surprised people are after his speech this week. He really is a great orator. He really is rather adept at code switching from folksy language to high-wonk numbers and figures, and people find it both endearing and a positive attribute in a leader. I kept chuckling at how he managed to flirt with Michelle Obama in front of fifteen million people, AND SHE LIKED IT. Did you see her face? Still LOLing.

          Anyway, I tried talking to my mom about the speech yesterday and she just groaned and grunted at me. In her mind, Clinton will forever give Arkansas a bad name.

        2. The Marksman is joking because he is also from Arkansas. And also quite smart and savvy.

          The asinine generalization to which I referred was the assumption that Feministe readers would immediately assume someone from the Deep South is stupid. I found it neither smart nor savvy.

        3. the assumption that Feministe readers would immediately assume someone from the Deep South is stupid.

          I don’t think that’s what’s happening — but Marksman can speak for himself. I was putting the statement in context in regards to what I know of Arkansas natives and the Bill Clinton promise, in which case it’s one I hear often and with great bitterness and has nothing to do with the intelligence of Feministe readers.

      2. And this thing about “Bill Clinton can’t be a genius, he’s from Arkansas!” is totally unprejudiced because people from Arkansas, amirite?

        Oh, wait, no, actually, it is prejudiced.

  15. Where’s the love for Elizabeth Warren? I mean for fucks sake:

    The Republican vision is clear: “I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.” Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people.

    No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.

    Fuck. Yes.

  16. Or, we could talk about how the protests of the DNC led to ten undocumented immigrants being arrested, among others, including a man who seems to have been arrested for no other reason than having created a facebook event to protest the continued imprisonment of government whistle-blower Bradley Manning.

    Basically, the Democrats are doing next to nothing for any of us and sure as shit aren’t progressive. The DNC, in my opinion, was only marginally less of a disgusting display of nationalist garbage than the RNC. And everything Melissa M. said here. A snippet:

    1. Poverty. Earlier today, on Twitter, Jessica noted her frustration that there was precious little meaningful discussion about poverty at the Democratic National Convention. Yes, of course, lots of lipservice to uplifting people, and vague references to “people in need,” and all that, but there isn’t anyone really talking about poverty, no one who’s really angry about it, an overwhelming absence of the details and nuances of poverty—the food insecurity, the housing insecurity, the chronic unwellness, the incredible stress on families, how goddamn hard it can be just to get a bath. […] It’s impossible to talk about the real sources and real solutions of entrenched poverty in the US without offending corporate sponsors.

    I’m particularly disappointed with Warren’s speech. She had absolutely none of her fiery passion and the brave things she said before being groomed for office. None of them get my vote for anything this year.

    1. Orrrrrrrr we could talk about the fact that any meaningful references to civil liberties were removed from this year’s Democratic platform… funny how Democrats only care about freedom, the Bill of Rights, and civil liberties when Republicans are in office.

    2. Basically, the Democrats are doing next to nothing for any of us and sure as shit aren’t progressive. The DNC, in my opinion, was only marginally less of a disgusting display of nationalist garbage than the RNC.

      You do understand that there are only two mainstream political parties in this country? And in order to win the election you have to appeal to a majority of the electorate?

      If there are are only two choices how can one be ‘progressive’ in any way? You can only hope that one is, as you say, marginally less disgusting.

      If someone gives me a 2-day old peanut butter sandwich for lunch, I’m going to be hugely disappointed. However, if the only other option is a massive turd on a baguette, the stale peanut butter sandwich will sound like lobster thermidor.

      2. No, I had no idea that’s how it worked, because I was born yesterday and haven’t read a thing in my life! Thanks for explaining it so well. The extra condescension really helped me fully grasp the concept of a corrupted two-party system.

        Or, obviously, the problem isn’t that I don’t get how the system works, but that I oppose that system.

    3. I’d say that Obamacare and the DOJ’s aggressive prosecution of voting rights (in particular, getting the blatantly discriminatory Voter ID laws in Florida and Texas (so far) shut down entirely), the end of DADT, and the waiver of deportation for many undocumented young people raised in the US is a little more than “next to nothing.”

      I’m not the Obama Administration’s biggest fan, and you’re right that there are few progressives in national government, but he can’t do much without Congress on board, and the Democrats in Congress can’t do much without the Republicans on board, and the House is controlled by batshit right-wing extremists who’ve got the few reasonable Republicans left scared to death of primary challenges from Tea Party true believers.

      1. Obamacare is actually a great example of why Obama is not better than a Republican. Obamacare’s main function is to funnel more money to corporate interests and run up the deficit. . .which can then be used to justify austerity measures that cut social spending and harm the poor and the marginalized. This is why Obamacare has its ideological roots largely among Republicans and conservatives, many of whom only started opposing such measures because Obama was for them, and they hoped to score political points. If Obama and the Democratic Party were not controlled by corporate interests, they likely would have implemented a single payer health care system in the US in 2009. There would have been enough public support for this, and the Republicans would not have been able to stop it. But such a move would have been counter to Obama’s goals and values, his pro-corporate realpolitik, so he didn’t pursue it. I get tired of Obama’s apologists on the left who often blame his less than progressiveness on the Republicans. Obama does what he does partially in reaction to Republican intransigence, but largely his actions are a reflection of his own pro-corporate, imperialistic, patriarchal, and heterosexist values.

        1. If Obama and the Democratic Party were not controlled by corporate interests, they likely would have implemented a single payer health care system in the US in 2009. There would have been enough public support for this, and the Republicans would not have been able to stop it.

          I think that we must have been living in different countries in 2009. In the country I lived in, Obama and the Democratic Party were barely able to get the Affordable Care Act passed at all, and may still lose the 2012 election because of it.

          I think that getting the ACA passed was an enormous historical achievement. It has huge problems, but it’s a start. Nobody else has even come that far.

        2. The reason they were barely able to pass the Affordable Care Act, in my opinion, was because the Republicans had decided to oppose any major legislation that the Democrats proposed. I wouldn’t have been surprised if most Republicans would even have opposed a Obama plan to partially privatize Social Security. . .but that wouldn’t have made such a plan progressive. I agree that there are a lot of provisions in the ACA that will help people, like making it harder for HMOs to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, and that’s a great thing. But overall, I think the bill entrenches a corporate system that is taking more and more of people’s money just to give them what should be their human right to begin with. So I don’t really think it’s a good start. I think the the cost of the ACA will be used to justify austerity measures, and it will hurt most Americans in the long run. We are already seeing how the budget deficit is being used as a excuse to cut things like food stamps or Medicaid payments.

          I agree there’s no way that the Democrats could have actually passed single payer in 2009, but the reason isn’t just because of Republicans. The reason is because corporations control our government, including both major parties. That’s why I oppose both Obama and Romney, and our corporate-controlled government, and our system of capitalism more generally.

        3. If Obama and the Democratic Party were not controlled by corporate interests, they likely would have implemented a single payer health care system in the US in 2009.

          If wishes were ponies, beggars would ride.

          The sensible thing to have done would have been to have implemented single-payer through Medicare for All. But we have a shitload of jackwagons in Congress who refuse to do the sensible thing.

          And it’s not like the Dems in Congress were uniformly progressive; there were a shitload of Blue Dogs in both houses, and the majority in the Senate was razor-thin. Do you not remember the political hostage-taking with the Group of 14 and Olympia Snowe?

          As it is, what got passed is a foot in the door, and you can thank Nancy Pelosi and her armtwisting-fu that we have it at all.

          The reason they were barely able to pass the Affordable Care Act, in my opinion, was because the Republicans had decided to oppose any major legislation that the Democrats proposed.

          Well, there’s your problem. So they would have gotten single-payer passed how, exactly?

        4. I agree that we have a shitload of jackwagons in Congress. Probably at least 90% of the people in Congress, in fact.

          But anyway. . .during 2009 and 2010, Nancy Pelosi repeatedly said she was in favor of single payer, but only in an abstract sort of way, and that she was opposed to trying to actually implement it in the present. She repeatedly refused to hold votes on single payer proposals, much less endorse them. As far as I know, Obama was even more critical of single payer than Pelosi. So yeah. . .of course such proposals aren’t going to get traction when the leaders of the party that would purportedly support them refuse to back them. Would you expect Pelosi and Obama to come out and just say they won’t support single payer because this would harm the corporations whose interests they serve? No. . .that’s not winning rhetoric. . .even the Republicans aren’t that candid. So instead Obama and Pelosi chose to push their corporate agenda while blaming their actions on Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats. . .that way they can pander to corporations and voters simultaneously.

          I never was trying to imply that there was a way in the real world in which Democrats could have passed single payer. There wasn’t such a way. But there’s a lot of causes for that. It’s not just the fault of the Republicans, or even the Blue Dogs. Pelsoi and Obama are as committed to the continuation of the corporate dominance of USian society as those folks. . .or if not quite as committed, damn near close.

        5. Give Nancy Pelosi credit for knowing what is possible legislatively, and what will simply give your enemies a chance to move the Overton window right again.

    4. Under this logic one would stay at home in every election until one were running for office themselves. What the Republicans are doing is so evil, I’d vote for nearly anyone but them. I sure hope the swing states don’t contain piles of progressive stay at home because there is no viable third option/the candidate is not 100% aligned with my values voters.

      1. Actually, I’ve often thought that under this logic, I wouldn’t even vote if I were running for office myself. I have some positions I disagree with myself on.

      2. No, under this logic, one could vote for a third party. Because “I won’t vote for them because they won’t win” is only true if no one votes for them. I can’t believe people are still pretending we don’t have other options.

        And, yes, oftentimes, voting third party is more of a protest than a pragmatic vote. And way the fuck more people need to protest the things that are actually wrong, instead of sighing and going along with them — or, worse yet, falling for it hook, line, and sinker, and then celebrating how awesome it all is.

        1. Democrats might vote for a third party, but republicans won’t. If 40% of Americans are republicans and 40% are democrats and 20% are relatively in the middle, if the 20% most liberal democrats vote third party then the remaining 20% would need the entire independent vote just to tie.

          Even if 40% of Democrats voted more third party, which they won’t because plenty of them are just as misogynist and anti LGBT as Republicans, then the republicans would grab the centrists and win.

          There is no way in hell a third party could get 270 electoral votes.

        3. Protest votes do not work. You said we should protest vote. Hence people pointing out that they don’t work. Even if you oppose the system you still said we should protest vote.

        4. “Protest votes do not work” for what, exactly? For getting a third party in office? Because the comment in which I said that third party votes are often (ETA: on the national level) protest votes rather than pragmatic votes necessarily implies that they do not “work” to get someone elected. Protest is protest, and exists both within and outside of the electoral system.

          Whatever, though; the point is that if you oppose the system in which you are expected to vote, it’s infuriating to hear people repeat ad nauseum that voting third party doesn’t work or that you’re giving the election away to the republicans!!!!11!!!!!!! ZOMG and all the oppression in the country is your fault if you vote Green. Get a grip. You don’t get to tell people how to vote, for one, and please let’s all stop collectively pretending that it matters who we vote for for president.

        5. The problem you have in the USA is that you have a winner takes all voting system. Many countries have systems that use proportional representation and then it becomes worthwhile to vote for third parties.

      1. You’re just now figuring this out? Of course they’re scripted. Everyone knows that. The Democrats haven’t had much appetite for letting the chips fall where they may since Teddy Kennedy shanked Jimmy Carter at the convention in 1980.

        It used to be that the primaries weren’t very meaningful and all the action happened on the convention floor (Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 is a fantastic account of this process). That’s changed since then — for the Democrats, at least, since the rules they put in place after 1980 to prevent another shanking of the candidate. Now, delegates are pledged after the primaries and only the superdelegates and the uncommitted (who have to be elected as uncommitted) can change their vote. But because there’s usually only one candidate standing after Super Tuesday nowadays (in part because it’s so expensive to campaign that only those who look like they’re going the distance after an early win can raise enough to continue), there isn’t even a chance for a floor fight anymore. 2008 was the closest the party came since 1980 to a floor fight.

  17. I don’t think that’s what’s happening — but Marksman can speak for himself. I was putting the statement in context in regards to what I know of Arkansas natives and the Bill Clinton promise, in which case it’s one I hear often and with great bitterness and has nothing to do with the intelligence of Feministe readers.

    Don’t waste your time with them, Lauren. If they were locked alone in a room, they’d argue with themselves. You know what I mean…

  18. Democracy Now! hosted an interesting debate on President Obama’s acceptance speech and overall record between sociologist Michael Eric Dyson and Glen Ford of blackagendareport.com. Here’s the link if anyone is interested:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/7/effective_evil_or_progressives_best_hope

    Anyway, I agree with Glen Ford’s position. I don’t think that Obama is generally the lesser of two evils so much as a more “effective evil” than the Republicans–more able to accomplish many destructive things without incurring opposition from other Democrats or many left. For instance, I think Obama has been more effective than John McCain could’ve been in furthering the development of a corporatist security state in the US. He has successfully facilitated the near merger of the federal government with Wall Street, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the invasion of Libya and military escalation in Pakistan, the creation of a legal basis for indefinite military detention of U.S. civilians, and a proposal for draconian cuts to social spending in the name of budget austerity. In the long run, these actions will entrench USian global imperialism and the corporate domination of US society more than what McCain could have accomplished, in my opinion, and to the detriment of the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants.

    That said, I can’t deny that Obama has accomplished some positive things a Republican wouldn’t have. Since he tries to market himself to certain marginalized groups, there have been significant, tangible things he’s done that will certainly benefit many women, LGBTQ people, and others. I don’t feel that these positives outweigh his negatives accomplishment, however. So I doubt I will vote this fall–certainly not for Obama; if I do it will be a protest vote for someone like Jill Stein (the Green Party candidate).

    1. I am very close to voting for Jill Stein myself. I am so tired of having to vote for “the lesser of two evils” and being told “Well, if Romney wins things will be so much worse.” We said the thing about McCain in 2008 but Obama embraced most of the conservative positions of Bush without a hitch. Yes, he may have some progressive positions but most of his actions during his presidency have been anything but. It’s saying a lot when past Republican presidents like Nixon and Eisenhower are more progressive on things like taxes and public spending than the past two Democratic presidents. There is no progressive party or candidates at the moment among the two “parties”. We are given a choice between conservative and even more conservative parties. What a choice!

      1. Yes, I remember the “there’s no meaningful difference between the two of them” argument from the 2000 election. My opinion is that the events of 2001-2008 show that there was a meaningful difference.

        1. Please tell us more about your ability to discern exactly the events of the Gore presidency that did not happen.

          In all reality, though, yes, there are obvious differences between Democrats and Republicans in a number of ways; no one who says “there is no meaningful difference” is stupid enough to not notice that one party hates everyone who isn’t a white straight Christian dude, and the other doesn’t. But when you take a step outside of the incredibly insular social justice bubble and look at their policies in practice, and the end results of the two parties’ carious methods of achieving their policies, it’s clear that the only real difference is the rhetoric. What really gets me is that the people who are so quick to point out the very few obvious differences between the parties never have anything unapologetic to say about the cooperation of bother parties when it comes to war, the neo-liberal agenda, or the increase of the surveillance state and utterly despicable disappearance of any meaningful civil liberties. Democrat supporters will scream and holler about these things all day long when a Republican is in office, but are curiously mum as soon as their favorite Democrat is elected.

        3. April, you’ve spent much of the thread telling Democrats what they think without bothering to ask us, and yet you want to tell us that we are not allowed to make conclusions based on history.

        4. I’m old enough to remember the “there’s no real difference” argument as far back as Nixon vs. McGovern. It was foolish then; it’s foolish now.

          I can’t afford to be quite so sneeringly and condescendingly dismissive of the real differences, because this isn’t simply an academic or philosophical discussion for me. Those differences mean a great deal for my actual life, and my son’s life as well.

      2. It’s saying a lot when past Republican presidents like Nixon and Eisenhower are more progressive on things like taxes and public spending than the past two Democratic presidents.

        It says a lot about how far the Overton window has been yanked rightward.

        Hey, if you want to yank it back, get to work getting progressives elected to dogcatcher. That’s how the Republicans did it, and it took them 30 years.

    2. Just delurking long enough to thank you (and Lotus) for your comments here.

      I’ve been voting Green now for over a decade. It continues to grate on me no end that feminist blogs are so reflexively rah-rah Democrat all the time. And I think it’s criminal that they’re once again snubbing woman candidates (two all-woman tickets, no less!) in the name of protecting an unprincipled creep like Obama.

      If I sincerely thought the Democratic Party was some kind of Last, Best Hope for feminism I’d give up bothering to call myself feminist. Gah.

      1. P.S.- Hey, Donna.

        Single-payer healthcare would have made a huge difference in my life. Too bad Obama, Baccus, Pelosi, Kucinich and the rest all connived with Republicans to make sure I couldn’t have it. Yeah, they get government-funded care (from us!) and then smugly withhold it from their benighted “base.” All the while, they’re up to their eyeballs in money from for-profit insurers. Surprise!

        For this and for countless other reasons they deserve every ounce of “sneering condescension” I can lob their way, and them some.

  19. The DNC was certainly more organized and on-message than the RNC.

    The Jerusalem/G-d debacle was embarrassing to say the least. It was fairly obvious the vote was even and it was confirmed by Jon Stewart who showed the teleprompter. The fact is, this administration has not shown any real support for changing Israel’s capital to Jerusalem, and their refusal to define the red-line on the Iranian nuclear program is brazen and irresponsible.

    Michelle Obama was a class act, and I hope to see more of her in the campaign.

    Jennifer Granholm was channelling Howard Dean. What could possibly go wrong?

    Senator Kerry’s foreign policy speech was mixed. If you’re going to evaluate foreign policy success by who you kill, George W. Bush should be credited for the deaths of Mohammed Atif, Abu Mus’ab az-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein, Uday & Qusay, etc. not to mention the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the liberation of IRaq and Afghanistan. However, Senator Kerry has shown a desire to build a strong bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, so I’ll give him a pass.

    President Clinton’s speech was wonkish, and excessively long, although I wish there was an equivalent speech at the RNC.

    All in all, I still prefer the RNC and will be voting for Romney.

  20. People like Bill Clinton is why we have presidential term limits, I really would have voted him in again if he could have run for a third term. He is a genius and I think he did a pretty good job at president, unlike Gore he can also appeal to people that want a just folks president too. Remember why the presidency has term limits? Wonder why the house and senate won’t vote themselves term limits? naw, you all know why.

    1. Remember why the presidency has term limits?

      Are you suggesting that “because of FDR” is not the correct answer?

      1. No, apparently it’s because people would vote for BC and then hate themselves for it. I guess? Voters lack self-discipline, but we should expect Congress to have what we lack. I guess? Reply is hazy, Datdamwuf, try again.

Comments are currently closed.