Do you feel the breeze? Crackpot Katrina vanden Heuvel, the ugly girl who always wished she could be pretty and feminine so she turner herself into a joke with skirts to short for her age and a 'whisper purr' that has everyone laughing, wants Hillary to drop out of the race.
We'll get into the why in a moment, but the breeze is blowing. Do you feel it? It's truth. Katrina's article has resulted in many comments. This is my favorite:
491 men, 149 women. That''s the number of men to women in The Nation''s bylines for all issues published in 2007. http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2007/12/nation-featured-491-male-bylines-in.html
That''s not even 1/3 of women. When Ms. vanden Heuvel wants to address that, I''ll listen to anything she has to say as a ''feminist.'' Till then, I don''t need her posing.
That's right, it's coming back to bite Katrina in the ass. All the sexist Queen Bee crap she's pulled is now following her around.
Queen Bee wouldn't publish women as editor and publisher of The Nation. That's going to follow that two-bit 'journalist' around for the rest of her life. It will never go away. It is the anchor around her tree-trunk wrinkled neck.
Get used to it, Katrina, the public's catching on to you. Little Miss 'Democracy' is going down faster than her magazine.
Forget Katrina vandenCrappy article. The comments are wonderful! Here's another one:
Who the hell is this Katrina person to dictate to HRC what she should or should not do? I hope to vote for HRC in November, and with a race this close, I take exception to the MSM''s obsession with BHO and the columnist''s unsupported opinions. I thought she had conducted a poll in which the nation had said Hillary should drop out. It doesn''t seem that way.
And there's more:
That''s cute: "The Nation" says HRC should drop out. "The Nation"''s journalistic standards just fell on the floor.This economy is the worst I have seen since 1980, and I don''t think BHO has a clue how to fix it. It does not seem a good idea to have two candidates (McSame has already admitted he doesn''t know about the economy) who are clueless about economic matters fighting each other.HRC would win in a vote against McSame. Don''t count her out - she is very smart, and I would love to see anyone smart running the US seven months from now.
And pay attention here:
Katrina failed to mention what is being "covered up"--and that is that the polls show Hillary with a winning portion of electoral delegates in the fall and Obama with a losing portion when both are matched against McCain. In that way Katrina herself perpetuated the cover-up. Why is that do you suppose?
Uh, maybe because Katrina's been part of the organized attacks from day one. Read Ava and C.I.'s "TV: American Oh-Dull" on just how it works. Katrina, Katrina, you big nosed freak. You must bes sh**ting bricks in fear of how much C.I. knows about the dirty tricks you plaed and worring exactly what C.I.'s going to reveal?
You know Ava and C.I. are still turning down a book offer to write about what really went down in this primary cycle. While they don't need the money, I think much more crap from Craptrina vanden Heuvel could change their minds. So please, please Katty-van-van scribble some more crap. Ava said, when she heard about this, "It's junk like that that makes me reconsider."
And it wouldn't be that difficult. A) They could take time off. Jim would even excuse them from Third to write the book (and hawk the fact that they're off beause they're writing the book knowing Jim). Mike and I could grab The Common Ills to allow time off. B) It wouldn't take them very long to write it. They know the story and are both keeping journals. C) C.I.'s amazing memory would allow them to pull from historical records. D) C.I. has the scoop (and a Congressional file) on The Nation that would allow for a page turner and a huge expose. E) How the money they begged for actually got used is a story. F) Their circulation is LIES. And that's also known as FRAUD. G) They know who is flirting with Katrina's husband and could do a lenthy chapter about 'college life'. H) C.I. and Elaine know Katty-van-van from when she was a child -- who pissed her panties long after she should have stopped. Elaine has a hilarious photo of Katrina at a very early age apparently sprouting hair from every pore that I'm sure would make a wonderful cover photo for a book jacket. Katrina never did grow into that nose but you really have to see that photo and the ugly scowl on Katty-van-van's face to really appreciate it.
J) Writing the book would allow them to go public and therefore end the online lives that they are both sick of. They really have had it. They are exhuasted. If tomorrow was November 1st, they'd be saying, "That's all, folks." K) With both their press connections (via family) and with their amazing good looks (each your heart out, Katty-van-van), they'd be booked everywhere. It would be the media event of the year. From what I understand, such a book would leave Katrina a single mother and the laughingstock of NYC. She'd probably have to move. She can forget DC (where she's hated and loathed) and the enterainment industry considers her "trash" so that leaves out California. I guess she could move to Maine and lunch with Babs Bush?
Here's more replies to Katty-van-van:
I am happy Hillary Clinton is staying in the race. She has half of the Democratic Party in her corner, why should she bow out? She''s earned the right to be there. I will not vote for Obama; I view him as naive and way too trusting to be the President. He''ll be chewed up and spit out by more experienced leaders. Just look at Bush, his inexperience has gotten us where we are right now. He actually thought Putin was his "friend". Give me a break, we need leadership, not just hot air. Go Senator Clinton!!!!!
And Obama supporters stop whining about Hillary, it''s terribly unbecomming. If you''re right thenyou''re going to get your coronation, just not before the convention. Grow up, this is not a MacDonald''s Happy meal bought for your by your parents, it''s an election!
Poor Katty-van-van. So used to buying her way into everything but didn't count on the public saying, "Not so fast, Big Nose!"
This is Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: Fighting For Puerto Rico's Soldiers and Veterans" (HillaryClinton.com):
Fighting For Puerto Rico's Soldiers and Veterans: During a conversation with the family of a Puerto Rican soldier who had fought in Iraq, Hillary promised that "[w]hen I’m president, we will begin ending the war in Iraq, and you won’t have to worry about [your son] going back…Our veterans deserve a commander in chief who will take care of them, and I will." Read more.
Memorial Day Statement: Hillary issued a statement yesterday reflecting on Memorial Day: "Memorial Day is a solemn day for every American; a day to express our profound gratitude to the men and women who have given their lives in military service. A day to join in our thoughts and prayers with the families mourning loved ones. A day to cherish the freedoms and opportunities that so many have served, sacrificed, and died to defend." Read more.
Today In Montana: Hillary hosts a "Solutions for America" town hall in Pablo and a "Solutions for America" rally in Billings, MT.
In Case You Missed It: "Number Crunching With Past Five Elections as a Guide" Read more.
On Tap in South Dakota: Hillary will campaign in Kyle and Rapid City on Wednesday, May 28, and in Huron and Watertown on Thursday, May 29.
Why is Hillary still in the race? Because she is a winner! Why is Katrina vanden Heuvel still editing the magazine she's run into the ground? Because she bought her seat at the table. One is an example to all American women. The other's a big nosed freak who needs to spend a little more time protecting that 'fairy tale' marriage.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, May 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continues, Dana Perino reveals how little oversight Bully Boy's giving to the Iraq War, Joan Walsh insults Latinos and the working class of Kentucky, Katrina vanden Heuvel reveals she hasn't changed a bit (and that's not a good thing) and more.
Starting with war resistance. Last Wednesday, US war resister and Iraq War vet Corey Glass was informed by the Canadian government that he had until June 12th to leave on his own and, after that, he would be deported. The government is refusing to grant him asylum. Attorney Jeffrey House explains to The Real News Network (link has text and audio), "A soldier discovers the war is illegal, and then he or she doesn't want to participate in it. If they go back to the United States, they're treated as deserters, and they can't argue, 'Oh, this is an illegal war.' The courts have said you're not able to raise such a complicated question. And so a main argument and a main reason why these soldiers have refused to fight on honorable grounds is being kept out of the court system -- it tears the heart out of the argument."
Yesterday Sandra Cason (Marshall News Messenger) reported on the family of James Grady Johnson who died while serving in Vietnam (February 26, 1968). Cason spoke with his siblings and oldest sister Linda Ford stated that her half-brother went AWOL for a brief period (three days) and is quoted by Cason stating, "'I bear a great burden of guilt. I'm the one who talked him into' going back 'and I took him to the plane in Longview. It is something I will always regret. I had the money to send him to Canada, which is what a lot of others did'."
War resisters in Canada today need support as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?Toemail@example.com -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Lahey quotes NDP's Oliva Chow, who steered the motion, explaining, "If (Liberal leader) Stephane Dion were to say tomorrow that he supports this motion . . . we will then debate it. So we need people to call Mr. Dion . . . 'whose side you on Mr. Dion'?" The number to call is (613) 996-5789.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
On Sunday, a press conference was staged in Baghdad, presided over by US Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll and Major Mohammed al-Askari (spokesman for Iraq's Ministry of Defense) was trotted out for show, but, uh-oh, he went off script when pressed about weapons that must be, simply must be, coming from Iran. His response:Well, this topic is the responsibility of the Iraqi government. We are an executive side. Those weapons could be smuggled and passed in an illegal way. And the Multi-Nation Forces have information and talked about this several times. At the Ministry of Defense, we do not interfere with the external policy of the Iraqi government. We just detain the wanted personnel and we present to the court. And if we captured different kinds of weapons, regardless of their background, and most of them are coming from outside the country like western, coming from western countries. This topic, of course, we do not interfere in it. And...but we'd like to also, what we do is give those reports and evidence to the Iraqi government. And I think the government will have procedures and may not talk about it, but I'm sure there will be some procedures by the government, like committees or stuff like that. Actually, what we have, any kind of weapon that we capture, we present it to the Iraqi government. And I think the government has the responsibility for that.
That would be real news so don't look for it in Panhandle Media. (Amy Goodman was too busy trying to erase Fidel Castro's critism of Barack. First she played Barack's statement then she reduced Castro's criticism to half a line. It's so very hard when Red Poster Boys come out against Goodman's candidate.) The US government continues to try to portray the Iranian government as a supplier of weapons to Iraq. And yet al-Askari stated very clearly that the bulk of the "weapons that we capture" are from the "West." Meanwhile AFP reports that The Political Council for National Security is telling puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki he better "ensure that a pact under discussion to extend the US troop presence beyond 2008 will not harm the national interest. Washington and Baghdad are holding negotiations on a Status of Forces Agreement aimed at giving a legal basis to the US troops after December 31, when a UN mandate defining the current status of foreign forces expires." On the US end, the Status of Forces Agreement (a treaty being called something else) has met with strong objections from Congress. From the April 8th snapshot, Senator Hillary Clinton questioning US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker:
With Crocker, she brought up the treaty the White House wants to make with the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, "With respect to our long term challenge, Ambassador Crocker, the administration" is planning to make an agreement with Iraq and "will it be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for ratification?" Crocker replied that it had been "indicated that" it would be brought "to the council of representatives." Well then, Clinton wanted to know, "does the administration plan to submit the agreement to our Congress?" No, Crocker replied, "at this point . . . we don't" because they don't believe it "would require the advice and consent" of the Congress. That "seems odd to Americans," Clinton noted, that "the Iraqi Parliament may have a chance to consider this aggreement" while "the United States Congress does not." She noted the legislation she introduced (December 6, 2007) calling for the Bully Boy "to seek Congressional approval for any agreement that would extend the US military commitment to Iraq." And it is very odd that the White House thinks they can make a treaty without the consent of Congress and that the Iraqi Parliament will be weighing in (their Constitution guarantees them that right -- the US Constitution guarantees that Congress also has that right).
April 9th, US House Rep Susan Davis would echo Clinton's points and point out that allowing the Iraqi Parliament a say while the US Congress gets none (under the White House plan) "strikes people in our districts as strange." Davis also wanted to know whether the proposal would be used as "a vehicle for leverage that would actually bring about a result that would not occur without the agreement?" Davis was required to repeat the question to Crocker three times before getting some sort of 'answer' : "I think that like other agreements, this is a geustion of mutal agreements uh uh we both have interests in uh uh . . . it's not a question of uh uh having something to give to them uh uh . . ." April 10th, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations would address it with US State Dept's David Satterfield and US Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long:
Senator Joe Biden: We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.
The key statement on the treaty (which does need Senate approval, regardless of what the White House claims) was probably when committee chair Biden explained, "Just understand my frustration. We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." And possibly when Senator Russ Feingold told Satterfiled, "I would suggest your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution." Even Republican Seantors Norm Coleman and Johnny Isakson expressed objections. Meanwhile, there are objections in Iraq as well. Reuters reports that Moqtada al-Sadr is calling for a demonstration this "Friday against negotiations between Washington and Baghdad on keeping U.S. troops in the country beyond 2008" and quotes him stating: "We invite Iraqis to join us for a mass demonstration after Friday prayers unless the government cancels this agreement." CBS and AP say the protest would be a "weekly protests."
Martin Sieff (UPI) reviews recent news from Iraq: "On Monday, reports said violence had dropped to a four-year low in Iraq. That was obviously good news. The same day, reports announced that two more U.S. troops had been killed in yet another bomb attack. That was obviously bad news." He also notes that Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani "opposes the current terms of the Status of Forces Agreement that U.S. diplomats are seeking to conclude with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad."
The US is engaged in the Iraq War and that is, apparently, news to the White House. For seven long years, Bully Boy has tried to pose as commander-in-chief (which only applies to the military, not the civilian population) yet on Friday, at a White House press conference, Dana Pernio stated of Bully Boy and Gen David Petraeus (the top commander in Iraq), "Well, they talk regularly -- at least once a week, if not twice a week -- and they were able to see each other this week." The US is engaged in an war and the best the Bully Boy can do is 'talk' with Petreaus "at least once a week"? Exactly what does the commander-in-chief do with all his time? Counsel Stephen Harper on Canada's ladybird beetle?
While the spin is that things are getting better -- and weren't they already fine and dandy? -- in Iraq, Raviya H. Ismail and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report on students like Murtada Abdul Zahara who could be going to college next year; however "he hasn't been to school since March 23, because it's been closed due to violence between Shiite Muslim militants and U.S. and Iraqi security forces in the Sadr City neighborhood where he lives." School teacher Juhaina Mahmoud Ahmed states that only one-half of students enrolled now attend classes in New Baghdad due to the violence.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing wounded one member of an "Awakening" council, a Diyala Province home bombing claimed the life of 1 "Awakening" council member while six more people were wounded and a Tal Afar car bombing claimed 5 lives and left forty-five people wounded. Reuters notes a Baghdad pipe bombing which wounded one person.
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province shooting that wounded "two men and a child" and one person was wounded by gunfire in Kirkuk. Reuters notes "three Iraqi oil technicians" were shot dead "as they tried to fix an oil pipeling in the town of Baiji," 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul and a woman shot dead in a Mosul suburb.
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad Monday (he also reported 18 deaths and thirty-two wounded), McClatchy's Hussein Kadhim reported 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad Sunday (and 5 deaths and thirty-three wounded) and Saturday Al Dulaimy reported 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 2 in Kirkuk (4 killed and nine wounded).
Due to a DoD announcement today of a May 22nd death (DoD is suppose to identify the dead, not make the announcement, that's MNF's job) the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4083.
Yesterday, Memorial Day, Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reported on the death of Jeffrey McKinney who "killed himself" in Baghdad: "Finally, around 2 p.m., 12 hours after he reported for duty that day, Jeff yelled 'F--- this!' He stepped out of the Humvee and fired two rounds into a vacant building. Then he pointed the gun at himself and pulled the trigger.
'APACHE 7 IS DOWN!' his driver screamed into the radio. 'HE SHOT HIMSELF. I NEED HELP NOW!'" McKinney was taking "antidepressants, antibiotics and prescriptions for heartburn and diarrhea." Sunday Halimah Abdullah (McClatchy Newspapers) wrote about Brian Rand's 2007 suicide "just a few months after being discharged from his second tour of duty in Iraq, Rand smoked half of a cigarette as he wrote a suicide note, grabbed a gun and went to Cumberland River Center Pavilion in Clarksville, Tenn. As the predawn dark pressed in, he breathed in the wintry air and stared at the park where he and his wife, Dena, had married. Then he placed the gun to his head and silenced his inner ghosts." Today, David Morgan (Reuters) reports that PTSD rates in the US army "surged 46.4 percent in 2007" and Morgan states, "Experts also say PTSD symptoms increase as soldiers return to combat for multiple tours of duty." Experts as in outside experts? Just asking because though the bulk of the country missed it, that was confirmed by the army in April. "One of the issues with multiple deployments and the dwell time for soldiers when they've come back, we've learned from the research that we've done, [is] that 12 months is not enough time for soldiers to reset and go back for another deployment," declared US Amry Director (Divisions of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research) Col Charles W. Hoge to the House Subcommitte on Health April 1st. US House Rep Shelley Berkely followed up on his statements. "Not enough time between tours of duty, did I hear you correctly?" Hoge replied, "Yes . . . What we've found . . . Yes. That's what I said . . . The 12 months is insuf- . . . appears to be insufficient." [". . ." in Hoge's statements indicate pauses. That is his complete response, without any editing.]
Turning to the political races in the US. Where there are lies, there lies Katrina vanden Heuvel who writes, "The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a 'cover up'?" We'll get back to "cover up" but let's be really clear that "the women of The Nation" -- she makes it sound like a special issue of Playboy, doesn't she? -- didn't do crap. Stab Barbara Ehrenreich? Her idiotic nonsense about Hillary's 'scary' religion? (While refusing to note Barack's ties to the same prayer group.) Betsy Reed? Self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders staying silent on Barack's use of homophobia but making time to slime Robin Morgan? How about this simple and undeniable fact: The Nation magazine publishing 491 men, 149 women in 2007. Want to fix sexism, Katrina, fix your own damn magazine. Funny, you dispatched Ben to e-mail this site in the summer of 2007 claiming that you were going to do just that. And you never did a damn thing. True, Katrina did call out David Schuster's outrageous remark on MSNBC that Hillary was 'pimping' Chelsea. She deserves credit for that -- no sarcasm. You didn't see anyone at The Progressive call it out, did you? Amy Goodman played dumb. So Katrina does get credit for that but that credit is off-set by the fact that she allowed longterm sexist (so sexist it got him kicked out of the Berkeley commune) Tom Hayden to hide behind his wife for his sexist rant which The Nation was happy to publish online. No, Katrina, the women of The Nation have done damn little. Over and over. "Cover up"? Bill Clinton (video here) was speaking of the push to force Hillary out of the race when she is in fact winning the popular vote. Bill's not a crackpot, his remarks were not 'shocking'. He called it like it was. It's cute of Katrina to pretend like she's been pro-Bill Clinton until now. She's written and okayed the publishing of the sort of crap one's more used to seeing in The Weekly Standard but fascists in love with authoritarian regimes stick together, now don't the? Katrina, you're not a feminist. (You also didn't win an award from Planned Parenthood -- The Nation was awarded, not you -- try correcting that lie.) For the record, a feminist calls out homophobia but no one at your crap-ass magazine (with declining circulation that can no longer be hidden by including trial subscriptions in the count) ever called out Barack's homophobia. Sell your lies elsewhere.
Katrina also feels the need to offer this version of the rules and 'democray': "when the polls close on June 3, superdelegates should move, expeditiously, to make their decision . . ." Uh, no, they shouldn't. The rules don't allow for that. By the rules, it now goes to the convention floor unless Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama decides to drop out. Democracy is a difficult concept for the school girl spending her days dreaming of the Soviet Union but that's what we've got in the US, accept it. "Cover up" frightens Katty-van-van because she's been all up in the campaign since 2006. She's been behind the scenes, using the Roosevelt Institution to conduct 'meet ups'. If anyone ever checks out how the Institution played it this election season, it won't be pretty for Katty. She brought on FaceBook to the campaign, she orchestrated coverage, she did a great deal. She doesn't believe in democracy and it's no surprise that she's scared now. There's a push back and it's so huge, Katrina has to put aside the planning and aftermath time for the seventeenth birthday party to scribble some garbage quickly. For more on how Panhandle Media has schemed to deceive the people, see "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "The Democratic Race for the presidential nomination," "hillary, hillary and only hillary," "Only Hillary can win in November," "Hillary can win in November," "Want to win the White House?," "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "There's only one choice for Democrats,""The cruelest and most vile word you can call a Democrat," "Is the DNC paying attention?" and "Hillary's the only choice" As Elaine's noted, Katty-van-van is no friend to women. The women of The Nation have done damn little other than encourage it and waive it through (in one of three pieces -- columns and blog posts -- Katha Pollitt did call out Tom Hayden -- but how did he get published to begin with? The same way that filth of a 'book review' sliming two women authors and extolling the virtues of a bordello was published in The Nation's first issue for 2007. Take responsibility for that, Katrina.) As Linda Hirshman (Slate) noted of Pig Hayden's nonsense:
In a recent Nation column, Tom Hayden (the '60s guy, now in his 60s) deployed a full arsenal of insults, comparing Clinton to Lady Macbeth and then going on to liken her appearance to a "screech" on the blackboard.
Hayden, apparently fearing some criticism, hid behind the voice of his never-before-heard third wife, Barbara, a "meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic," never previously given to offering hostile political pronouncements. But Clinton's appearance on TV apparently makes Tom's wife "scream." Poor Tom Hayden, still looking for a sufficiently submissive female. Everyone remembers Jane Fonda, Hayden's second wife. But probably few Nation readers remember the first Mrs. Hayden, one Casey Hayden. In 1965, right around the time she divorced Tom, Casey Hayden wrote the screed that helped launch the women's liberation movement, "Sex and Caste." Her ex-husband's most recent unleashing of the hysteria rocket shows how little distance we have covered since Casey Hayden picked up her pen.
That garbarge of Hayden's was brought to you by Betsy Reed and Katrina vanden Heuvel. They need to own it and they need to apologize for it. (Don't hold your breath waiting.) They could have done a roundtable on the issue but weren't interested. Instead CNN's Reliable Sources, anchored by Howard Kurtz, did that. Susan (Random Notes) has posted the video of the discussion and notes "Marie Cocco really hits the 'liberal' or 'progressive' blogs and their commentators for their filth."
Carol Costello: It does bother me personally. It does bother me deeply. And you know I've done many stories on The Situation Room on this. One thing I would like to say, you know, we sit around and we blame males for sexist comments but women are guilty as well. I remember Jane Fonda came out and called Hillary Clinton what? "A patriarch with a vagina." Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio talk show host played the Wicked Witch of the West music everytime she talked about Hillary Clinton. Randi Rhodes, a liberal woman talker, she called Hillary a term I cannot say on television. But at least she was fired on it. But women play into this sexist culture as well. You know, explain to me, ladies, why women play into this when they have been in the same position as Hillary Clinton, fighting to get to the top, they know what it's like and yet they play into it. And they get away with it because the media doesn't cover that part of it."
Transcript here. It should be noted Jane Fonda has denied that she made the statement everyone heard her make but, after saying the "c" word on NBC what do you expect? While Katty-van-van issues dispatches from her Harlem mansion, her crush Barack puts his foot in his mouth again. Not content to claim there were 57 states in the United States, Jeralyn (TalkLeft) points out Barack's now claiming to see dead people: "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of . . ." Barack Obama, thinking he's fit to be president, doesn't even know what a "fallen hero" is. Apparently, they didn't teach that Indonesia (or Barack couldn't follow it) and skipped it in his posh prep school as well. (Jeralyn also reviews the primaries and the caucuses here.) It's a hard knocks life, that elite life Barack's lived. Rachael Jolley (New Statesman) speaks with Sidney Blumenthal about how he sees it as part of the Hillary campaign:
"She has a tangible connection with them that she didn't have before. She has very definite connections with these voters."
Blumenthal, who has written extensively about the consequences of a Republican-dominated America and been an outspoken critic of Bush the younger, believes that the Democrats' key failure in the latter part of the 20th century was an inability to reach and represent working people: "This is a central factor for the regeneration of the Democratic party," adding they had come to be seen as "elitist".
The Democrats were further stigmatised, particularly through the Reagan years, as less patriotic than the Republicans, and less competent with the economy - similar to the picture the Tories painted of the UK Labour Party in the 1970s and 1980s. "The Clinton period was an effort to deal with these inherited problems and to reconstruct the centre left," says Blumenthal.
The strength of Blumenthal's conviction that Hillary should be the next Democratic candidate matches the strength -- and waspishness -- of his opinion that Barack Obama should not. For example, he dismisses Obama's foreign experience as "I think he stopped in Britain once for a day".
"Obama's problem is, as a candidate he hasn't really extended his support beyond his base as a state senator." These supporters hail from liberal academia, the well-off young and African Americans, believes Blumenthal, who is not afraid to point the finger at Obama's attitude to working class as "insulting", plainly referring to comments during the Pennsylvania primary.
Meanwhile Joan Walsh makes an idiot (and racist) out of herself at Salon where she posited on Monday that those White and Latino voters not supporting Barack may not be racist, they just may have a "lack of familiarity with Obama." Quoting Ava: "How dare you write about people you know nothing about and how dare your Anglo publication try to talk about my community. Kiss my Latina ass, Joan Walsh. Latinos and Latinas know who Obama is -- I imagine so do most White voters regardless of income unless they're returning from a mission to Mars -- the reality is WE DO NOT LIKE HIM. It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with his empty rhetoric and the fact that he's a light-weight. Hillary's the fighter and has earned that title. But Barack couldn't take that title away from her with both her hands tied behind her back. He is weak. The Latino community does not look to weaklings to lead. Dolores Huerta is no cream puff. Either leave your desk and speak to the people you think you 'know' or write about what you do know. I doubt you know a damn thing about the White working class in Kentucky but I damn well know you don't know a thing about the Latino community. Clue to Joan: Instead of you writing about my community, how 'bout you get off your Anglo ass and hire some Latinos and Latinas to write and, no, that's not a a request for a job. Tu no eres nadaien importante loca vieja. If that confuses you, it just demostrates my point. Let me throw it back to you: You may not be racist, you just may be stupid. How does that feel on your end?"
Lastly, Womens Media Center notes (link has petition and video): "On May 23, The Women's Media Center, along with our partners at Media Matters, launched, "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It," a new video and online petition campaign illustrating the pervasive nature of sexism in the media's coverage. While Hillary Clinton's campaign has cast a spotlight on the issue of sexism, this isn't a partisan issue: it's about making sure that women's voices are present and powerful in our national dialogue. If you haven't already, please click on the image at right to watch the video. You can also read a statement about the video from WMC president Carol Jenkins. Then sign on below to join our petition campaign."
womens media center
amit r. paleythe washington post
corey glasssandra cason
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlz