Time to Remove the Confluence (Updated!)

I am but a visitor on Jerome's site, and as I have said repeatedly, Jerome is free to do with his site what he wishes.

He may express his views without reproach, as he has earned that position through hard work and talent. Like so many of us, we can only hope to make an insightful comment.

While I have never hesitated to respectfully disagree with him (and defend him) over the election, a discrepancy of late has caught the attention of a few. Specifically, the Confluence remains on the Blogroll.

While possibly progressive at one point in time, the Confluence has turned down a path of delusion, hatred, and overt racism from which it cannot return.

While the overwhelming majority of democrats recognized the victor in a hard fought primary battle, a small percentage, so wrapped up in identity politics and hysteria, could not let go of their candidate and accept reality. It was as if Hillary's loss was one more failure in their life which they could not accept. Worse, an even smaller fraction of these people, perhaps out of narcisism and anger, decided to start a war against the nominee. That would almost be fair, but anger turned to hatred, and the point of no return was passed by.

Never again can the opinion of the Confluence be taken with any credibility, nor can a smiple apology some how return their proegressive credibility.

The number of instances and examples are too many to count -- this member of the blogroll has turned into an all irrational Obama hate fest all the time. The latest example, however, was the assumption that a volunteer of Obama's campaign must be responsible for the fraudulent attack in Pittsburgh:

"Here at the Confluence, River Daughter and many other writers have been warning of the violence the Obama campaign and its supporters have basically advocated by not decrying violent images of Hillary, Sarah, and their women supporters.  This is vile and is exactly what misogyny produces."

I am thereby hoping to call attention to this lost blog on the blogroll.

The time has come to say goodbye and remove the Confluence.

I imagine there are many, wonderful progressive writers out there who could use the attention, and who offer insight instead of Obama's picture on a food stamp.

Update: As of 12:54AM EDT, The Confluence is no longer listed on the MyDD blogroll. Thank you all for helping to bring this oversight to the attention of the powers that be. Part of me is torn, though. On one hand, as a democrat, I champion and defend free speech and dissenting views. I loathe to begin a precedence of redacting nonconformist blogs from the roll. On the other hand, I can not tolerate hatred, delusion, and overt racism and the Republican party that supports these views. Tonight's open post was hoping against all reasonable hope that Florida goes red (the PUMA effect is going to really, really, really make a difference... this time) and tuning in to Michael Savage. And regarding the McCain worker who faked the attack?
"Let’s see, 20 year-old female McCain volunteer tells police she was attacked because of the “McCain” sticker on her car. Initial reports treated the story as true, the McCain campaign expressed sympathy, some people on both sides expressed skepticism. Others who believed the young woman felt that the very real misogyny emanating from Obamanation was to blame, but no one I saw proclaimed that Obama’s “quest for the presidency was over.” Today the young woman recants, and admits she lied. Her motive for lying has not been reported, but she is obviously disturbed. Media conclusion: It’s all McCain’s fault. Of course Teleprompter Jesus isn’t even held responsible by the media for the things he himself does and says, let alone what one isolated supporter does.
So somehow this is Obama's fault for running against a woman? Now I don't feel so remorseful.

Tags: hatred, meta, obama, primary wars, racism, the confluence (all tags)



Respond to petition

by iohs2008 2008-10-24 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Respond to petition


Agreed.  Nothing espoused at The Confluence has any place in the progressive blogosphere.

by fogiv 2008-10-24 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Respond to petition


(coulda just emailed me dude :) )

by Todd Beeton 2008-10-24 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Respond to petition


Thanks Todd.


by Kysen 2008-10-24 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Respond to petition

Thanks, Todd.

by fogiv 2008-10-24 06:47PM | 0 recs

the confluence is the best written of the PUMA sites, but they are embracing and enabling reactionary forces.  

by fladem 2008-10-24 04:38PM | 0 recs
make that third-ed

Actually have requested that already today.

Their response to the Ashley Todd incident was STUNNINGLY racist, almost beyond belief, given these people CLAIM to be some santuary for disenfranchised supporters of the Senator Clinton...

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-24 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

Where would we get our laughs from then?

by thezzyzx 2008-10-24 02:04PM | 0 recs
Or as I also suggested

Jerome should create a subcategory and link them, Flowbee, Alegre...


Wingnuts at work-Proceed with Caution!

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-24 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Or as I also suggested

God knows people have a right to be mad at Alegre but I would never put her in with those others.

by Jess81 2008-10-24 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Or as I also suggested

Probably true, there is a large gap between her, Texas Darlin, and Larry. I see anger with her, but not out and out racism.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-24 03:30PM | 0 recs
Alegre is a Democrat.

She is all Hillary all the time.

But I know what you meant.

I'd settle for replacing The Confluence with Alegre's Corner.

I'm serious too.

Today they were pissed off because the Todd story was a hoax.

I mean, seriously.

They were dissapointed a 20 year old young woman was not sexually assaulted, mutilated, and traumatized for the rest of her life ?????

These people are sick turds.

I know you dipshits lurk.

Here is a big ole...


from spacemanspiff.

Come down and defend that dump.

by spacemanspiff 2008-10-24 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre is a Democrat.

Seconded on "replacing" Confluence (which is already gone, horray) with Algere's Corner. Not snark!

by Exhausted Pennsylvanian 2008-10-24 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre is a Democrat.

Might I also recommend Shakesville (which I noticed also wasn't there)?  A strong feminist website that sticks up for both Obama and Palin when warranted, and aware enough to know that just because Palin is a woman does not mean she is good for women.

by wilder 2008-10-24 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Or as I also suggested

Let me be sure that I understand what you (and others) are saying here:

You would like to link to a certain blog (Alegre), whose blogroll includes some of the craziest, non-progressive "writers" (including The Confluence and No Quarter)?

So, it would be ok to link to Alegre because she isn't a racist - she just links to racists and crazies.

How would this further "Direct Democracy for People Powered Politics"?

A Blogroll is a list of sites whose views are not only generally approved, but also encouraged and supported.

Count me out.

by Sully Fick 2008-10-25 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Or as I also suggested

She's not radically Republican, just hysterical and deeply stupid.  So she deserves to be shunned, but for different reasons.

by failsafer 2008-10-24 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

This is the diary I've been wanting to write (but have been too lazy to).  Thanks, you.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-10-24 02:33PM | 0 recs
Thanks, but...

...it's not particularly well written, nor does it add anything to the debate really. But yes, I agree, the Confluence has no place on the blogroll anymore, as its words and actions are indefensible.

by iohs2008 2008-10-24 03:30PM | 0 recs
Just had a look over there today

Good lord, there's a huge amount of concentrated insanity over there. They're no better than Redstate. They may even be worse.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-10-24 02:45PM | 0 recs
They are at least more confused...

Almost all of them think Senator Clinton agrees with them, that she is "secretly backing" Palin and McCain, etc...

Most of them think either the Cops are covering up for Obama and Ashley is telling the truth..

Or wierder still, she is "a secret plant" from the Obama campaign, sent to smear McCain.

They have come completly untethered from reality.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-24 02:52PM | 0 recs
They never were attached.

Goldberry founded that sh!tstain of a blog after being banned from Daily Kos for a particularly shrill Islamaphobic rant.

by Geekesque 2008-10-24 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: They are at least more confused...

Almost all of them think Senator Clinton agrees with them, that she is "secretly backing" Palin and McCain, etc...

Really? If so, they seriously need psychiatric help. They sound like stalkers who believe that movie stars are secretly talking to them when they give interviews, etc.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-10-24 03:13PM | 0 recs
That's a great analogy

And I think there may be a connection.

They really think she's on their side and just being loyal to the party.

Oh, and don't forget that these supposed democrats also see themselves in Sarah Palin, who is also being brutalized by the same misogynistic media.

by iohs2008 2008-10-24 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a great analogy

Which makes them AGAIN natural to become part of the NEW Republican party, headed by Sarah.

Victimhood is already part of their collective DNA....it's always an injustice...

SOMEONE ELSE did this to them, someone OUT there...

The other.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-24 03:35PM | 0 recs
I think many red staters tag along and troll there

I really haven't examined it that closely, but I suspect that many egging the big cat movement on never intended to vote Democratic. It's just a hunch.

by iohs2008 2008-10-24 03:29PM | 0 recs
They've always been racist.

They blamed the credit crunch on lending to minorities.

They claim Barack isn't a real black person.

They call him the "affirmative action candidate."

Racism is the raison d'etre of the PUMA movement, and so it goes with that racist hag Goldberry and her circle of sheet-wearing loons.

by Geekesque 2008-10-24 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: They've always been racist.

I wasn't aware of that, which kind of makes me wonder why it was on the blogroll for all this time... I'll continue to pretend I didn't know.

That said, I think racism is major part of it. I think deep down many of these people could never accept Obama because he is black, and thus they perceive him as uppity. These are the Harriet Myers (did you see Fox news gave her airtime?).

But I also don't think racism is the entire story. Maybe I just don't want to believe it? Anyhow, to me, identity politics run amok is also a major component, where these people are so lost inside some image of Hillary Clinton that they can no longer tell right from wrong.  

by iohs2008 2008-10-24 03:26PM | 0 recs
There are some hardcore

identity politics in that movement, but they're a far different breed than the loathsome racists.

by Geekesque 2008-10-24 04:29PM | 0 recs

i dont visit the site cited in this diary.  however - more disturbing to me was that the andrew sullivan's and his ilk were the ones doing the blaming the credit crisis on minorities.  yet he is quoted on a daily basis by 'progressives.'

by canadian gal 2008-10-24 05:29PM | 0 recs
No, CG

I've never once seen him blame "minorities" for the crisis.  Respectfully, do you have a citation?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-10-24 06:48PM | 0 recs
you're right reaper.

i stand correct it .  he did not blame the minorities - he blamed THE PEOPLE.  he argued against Naomi Klein's thesis that the crisis belonged squarely at the doorstep of an ideology-obsessed political class and its Wall Street allies.  in fact at one point he called her a socialist i think.  old sully went on to say:

The American People have had since the `70s have had stagnating incomes so they've decided to get something for nothing. And their government never told them they couldn't...

and - i swear to god - he added:

This doesn't validate Noam Chomsky, it validates Ron Paul.

here is a clip:

just because he likes obama does not in any way make him a progressive.

by canadian gal 2008-10-24 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: you're right reaper.

He's never claimed to a progressive.  He's always claimed to be a conservative.

by Dreorg 2008-10-25 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: hhmm...

Are you thinking of Andrew McCarthy?  Sully's been "in the tank" for Obama since the Palin pick.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-10-24 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: hhmm...

Andrew Sullivan has been 'in the tank' for Obama since late last year.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-10-25 03:02PM | 0 recs

I've attempted to be one of Jerome's defenders on this site. I need to see what you're talking about.

What is his role, exactly?

by Spiffarino 2008-10-24 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Really?

Ok, I checked it out. WTF is that doing linked to a progressive site...ANY progressive site??

The bullshit story about the McCain canvasser attacked by a "large black man" and the backward "B" on her face is still up there, unrefuted, even though it has been completely discredited.

What is Jerome's involvement?

by Spiffarino 2008-10-24 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Really?

AFAICT he has none, but he was the leading dead-ender on this site, so he's the most likely mod to keep The Effluence on the blogroll.

by failsafer 2008-10-24 03:05PM | 0 recs
Front page post

in response to their attempt to politicize Ashley Todd blowing up:

Oh, and lets not forget about how fucking hypocritical you are.  Several years ago the Duke rape case was the talk of the nation.  Democrats (myself included) were shocked that a woman would be brutalized by a group of men.  It was even more inflammatory because the victim was a black woman and the men were all rich, white, ivy leaguers.   But guess what?  Turns out she made the whole thing up.  What did the right wing do?  Gloat like you pigs are doing right now.  SHAME ON YOU.  But that wasn't enough.  Liars like Amanda Marcotte and Pam Spaulding continued to protest her story and just the other day she released her memoirs, maintaining she was a victim.  Where is your outrage about that?  Exactly, it doesn't exist because you don't give a shit about women's rights, or brutality against women.  You want your Obamesiah.  And if you don't you'll riot and scream and cry and stomp your feet until you're blue in the face.  Go for it.  I don't give a shit.  You're all a bunch of sick heartlesss zombies.

by Jess81 2008-10-24 02:59PM | 0 recs
Isn't that the guy who posted the racist

crap at Mydd and then got cited by the Hill Hub?

by Geekesque 2008-10-24 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

The confluence is baffling. I supported Hillary in the primaries: she had a better (further left) energy plan than Obama and I'm a climate voter.

I assumed they were further left too. At that time they seemed to be espousing the "don't cave in to Republicans" POV, which Hillary represented: the feisty true FDR Democrat, willing to take on the fight, like when she made O'reilly squirm and admit that rich people should pay more tax.

If they still believe that she was the leftiest option, how could they possibly want a Republican to be president? Madness reigns there. I am sure Hillary is horrified by the craziness.

I know why Hillary asks for a 60 vote Senate: but the confluence writers don't want to give Democrats a majority! The only way we get anywhere on climate legislation is a 60 vote Senate, and to keep the next oilygarchy out of the WH, and Palin represents the Cheney in the ticket.

In every renewables vote, McCain has voted the same as (global warming is a hoax)Inhofe!

Dirty As Inhofe
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/ 22/125714/935

Regardless of the injustices and sexism in the primary, Obama has voted just like Boxer on clean energy. Even if his plan was not quite as perfect as hers, he now has Hillary's  policy advisor Neera Tanden.

The difference between Obama and McCain is truly as extreme as between Boxer and Inhofe. But nobody there cares. They just want revenge, even if it means destroying the planet.

by dotcommodity 2008-10-24 03:19PM | 0 recs
You are assuming that they care about issues

They don't. For them, it's not about issues. It's about hatred, racism, and yes, mental sickness.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-10-24 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

I wholeheartedly support this petition.

One clarification from the previous comments.  I don't believe that Alegre should be lumped in with the craziest of the crazies.  

I have visited her corner consistently during the election to get a feeling of what was going on.  She doesn't like Obama and feels that Hillary got screwed, but she refuses to vote McCain and deletes diaries that are clearly supporting the repub ticket.  I am not saying that she hasn't sometimes gone too far but we shouldn't forget that she is a progressive and a Democrat.  

After the election, we should reach out to her and many others at her blog and work together to pass the reforms that we all want.

by CAchemist 2008-10-24 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

I made the comment, and I agree.

She is off the rails, but she is not where these others have gone.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-24 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

At one point during the primary wars I made a comment in one of Alegre's typically saccharin, superficial and sophomoric diaries, promoting some support of Hillary's for children's issues as it related to her own admittedly moving and very personal experience, that Hillary's AUMF vote may have had a less than salutary impact on the children among the 600,000 or so Iraqi casualties since 2003.  Her response was immediate and unequivocal, she branded me an 'a@@hole' without the slightest interest in responding to or refuting my argument and my comment was hide-rate over twenty times by her acolytes.

Alegre may be prolific but she is arguable banal, she deals in cameos as trivial as collectible bric-a-brac, lacks any semblance of intellectual integrity or curiosity and inevitably responds to criticism with ad hominem attacks on her interlocutor.

If that's the kind of site you would like to see on the blogroll here at MyDD, suit yourself, but it seems to me that Alegre's notoriety is more due to the self-aggrandising and disruptive role she has welcomed, indeed precipitated, than any content value of her postings or allegiance to progressive ideals.

I'm not saying everyone isn't entitled to their views and freedom of expression but not everyone watches the Hallmark channel either.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-10-24 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

A nice synopsis.  Well done, Shaun.

by fogiv 2008-10-24 06:56PM | 0 recs
Well Said.

Toning down the screeching empty rhetoric makes her act slightly less despicable, but shouldn't qualify it to for endorsement.

She was the one that threw a tantrum and walked out to much public fanfare - first from dkos, then here. She was the one that chose to create her own little echo chamber. I see no need to reward that sort of petulance with conciliatory overtures. When she's ready to rejoin the real world, she'll be back on her own - until then, we're doing quite well without her.

by Sumo Vita 2008-10-24 09:53PM | 0 recs

Against my better judgement I took a quick peek, and a certain feline bottom-feeder and her fellow dead-enders are still, as of today, busy wallowing in their "empty suit", "cheated", "write in", etc. pro-McCain idiocy at the "Corner". Clearly further quarantine is warranted before they can rejoin the sane world.

by Sumo Vita 2008-10-25 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: She is not pro-McCain

although some of the commenters may be.  She has stated at least twice that I know of that her site is a democratic site and that diaries extolling McCain are not welcome.

by half nelson 2008-10-25 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

I find I prefer the new annotated version.

by failsafer 2008-10-25 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence


by Shaun Appleby 2008-10-25 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

I think that they can reach out to the rest of us.  Many of them used this and other sites to suit their purposes but then left of their own volition when the tide turned against them.  Frankly, some of them were quite irrational, angry, and borderline-Republican, in my opinion, so I think any effort should come from the other side as a sign of good faith.

by rfahey22 2008-10-24 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

jesus, they're fucking nuts.

Here at the Confluence, River Daughter and many other writers have been warning of the violence the Obama campaign and its supporters have basically advocated by not decrying violent images of Hillary, Sarah, and their women supporters.  This is vile and is exactly what misogyny produces.

I hope that this young woman recovers and that Senator Obama will take time out from his campaign to finally call the dogs off women for simply voicing their support for some one other than him.  I also hope that the press finally stops reporting on `fake' threats towards Obama when there are real women whose lives are put on the line by the sexism Obama supporters have incited, encouraged, and displayed.  The media should also admit its culpability in this attack.

Thanks for the heads up. Will address.

by Todd Beeton 2008-10-24 04:07PM | 0 recs
Thank you for taking care of it. Unfortunately
some seems to have lost their bearings in hatred.
Couldn't even see through the obvious stage managed routine of fake attack...
by louisprandtl 2008-10-24 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

The "liberal blogosphere" has become a complete extension of the Democratic Party as controlled by Barack Obama.  That may or may not be a good thing, but more mandatory groupthink seems unnecessary.

by Upstate Dem 2008-10-24 04:17PM | 0 recs
The Confluence is a racist hate site.

There's a difference between groupthink and basic human standards of decency.

by Geekesque 2008-10-24 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Confluence is a racist hate site.

I don't like Obama, and I think he'll be a weak president, but I'll probably end up--as we used to be able to say--"holding my nose" and voting for him. But maybe not.  It's still a free country.

These days, if you're not a true believer, you're suspect.  I sometimes read The Confluence, and I don't think they're racists.  That's my opinion, but who's to say? Maybe you're right.

Websites can do what they want. If you have to enforce strict discipline, I could care less.  But it won't come without a price in the long run.

by Upstate Dem 2008-10-24 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Confluence is a racist hate site.

You're welcome to your opinion.  By many accounts, Ted Budy was charming, and hey, that Ted Kaczynski was super good at math.

by fogiv 2008-10-24 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The Confluence is a racist hate site.

Upstate Dem's narcissism speaks for itself.

by IsaccBurn 2008-10-25 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The Confluence is a racist hate site.

True believer in what?

Logic? Reason?

Sorry, but these absurd conspiracy theories and hateful rants have no place in polite discourse and it's especially natural that they would be met with hostility on the left.

Still, there are plenty of places on the net where you can sate your appetite for delusional anti-Obama fantasies, but don't accuse others of "groupthink" just because they don't want to share their company with vile rumor-mongers.

by IsaccBurn 2008-10-25 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

Standing up to racists constitutes groupthink?  What the fuck kind of whitebread world do you live in?

by Dreorg 2008-10-25 05:27AM | 0 recs
Is there ANYTHING you folks were right about?

It's hard to imagine how much it sucks to be a PUMA these days....

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-25 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Some PUMA's maintain that sexism and

misogyny played a part(and is still playing a part) in this election.  They're right about that.  An ugly side of our party has been exposed, particularly among people who self identify as progressives, the last place I would have expected to find sexism.   While we all in theory disapprove both racism and sexism, it is obvious that unlike racism, sexism is still tolerated in mainstream discourse.

Just as an example, the cries of "Kill him!" at Palin rallies evoked an immediate backlash, and rightly so.  They were reported by the media and denounced by the Obama spokespeople and other prominent democrats, like John Lewis.  Perfectly appropriate.  Yet few denounced Keith Olbermann's eliminationist imaginings about Hillary Clinton.  On the contrary, on sites like TPM, his remarks were excused, shrugged off.  Why?  Sexism has an ongoing history of violence and abuse.  Why would democrats tolerate such offensive language?   That is just one example.  Commenters on sites like this one said far worse than Olbermann.  

I fully understand why people who care about sexism have decided that there is no place for them in the democratic party.  

Unfortunately, the dubious behavior on sites like the Confluence is making it hard to take their legitimate grievances seriously.  But there are legitimate issues.  

by half nelson 2008-10-25 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Some PUMA's maintain that sexism and

I fully understand why people who care about sexism have decided that there is no place for them in the democratic party.  

Oh, for goodness sakes, get a grip.

Your tarring EVERYONE who is still a democrat by claiming we don't care about sexism anymore?


And, please, those people over there are chanting the praises of potentially THE WORST CANDIDATE in modern presidential history on issues that familes and women care about.

It's the cult of bitter vicitmhood for 90% of those folks IMHO.

Anyone that cares about those issue, stayed and is STILL fighting the ballot.

The nutjobs left.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-25 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re:I never said

that all democrats who care about sexism defected the party.  That would indeed unfairly tar a lot of democrats, including me.

Your question was, "have the PUMA's been right about anything?" My answer to that is in at least one instance, yes, they were right IMO.  Period.  I did not defend the Confluence, so don't put words in mouth.  

by half nelson 2008-10-25 06:23PM | 0 recs
This is really what we need.

Come January, we can invite all the trolls back and have 24/7 pie fights with diaries like, "Bill's not a racist!" and "Olbermann is a sexist!"  Then we can troll rate each other and post troll pics and talk about reaching out to each other so we can win again in 2012, even if it means some people pinch their noses to do it.  Yup, that will be awesome.

You know, I actually LIKE John McCain.  I'm not going to vote for him, but I could write a long testimonial about why I like him personally as a human being.  But when I look at videos of the people attending his rallies -- my God -- the vile scum of the earth, I think, I don't want to be associated with people like that.  That alone, if it weren't for everything else, would be enough reason to disqualify him.

Likewise, when I see the kind of shit that people like Alegre and others post, I feel the same way.  They belong in their own padded room together.

by Dumbo 2008-10-25 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Rather than more pie fights

I hope there will be constructive, open dialogue within our party at all levels, concerning sexism.  There is obviously unfinished business related to gender that needs to be addressed.  My expectation is that the party that espouses equality will in the future take a strong stand against misogyny in any form including language that is hateful or violent (Olbermann,)or that shames, humiliates or otherwise denigrates women for being what they are(the C word, for instance.)


by half nelson 2008-10-25 07:38PM | 0 recs
And we need to take a strong stand

against race-baiting in elections.  I'm sure you agree with that, too.

by Dumbo 2008-10-26 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: In elections or

anywhere it rears it's ugly head.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  And let's not forget, minority women are impacted by sexism, too.  Slavery still exists in this country and around the world and the majority of the exploited are female.  

by half nelson 2008-10-26 11:38AM | 0 recs
And yet...

Olbermann is a sexist because he spoke out against race-baiting.  Race-baiting by your favorite candidate who just happened to be a woman.

Therein lies the problem.  We are supposed to pretend that the jihad against people like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow is divorced from the primary campaign season, and yet it can't help but come back to that.  It's just a ruse.  I am very concerned with sexism, but not when it comes in this kind of disingenuous form.  

by Dumbo 2008-10-26 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: So violent misogynistic language

is permissible if it's for a good cause?  I disagree, but you've proven a point that I made upthread-that sexism is tolerated and excused in mainstream discourse in a way that racism is not.  That needs to change, not for Hillary Clinton, but for all women.  

Olbermann remarks aren't offensive because they targetted my candidate, they are offensive because women have often been scapegoats whenever men feel disempowered or disrespected.  I imagine a woman who lives every day with the threat of domestic violence would cringe at what he said.  

by half nelson 2008-10-26 06:01PM | 0 recs
You fail to see the symmetry.

I disagree, but you've proven a point that I made upthread-that sexism is tolerated and excused in mainstream discourse in a way that racism is not.  

If you agree that race-baiting cannot be tolerated, then Olbermann is not a sexist if he points out that it is being done by a candidate who also just happens to be a woman.

I'm really kind of fed up with the anti-Olbermann shit, I'll admit, so I have great difficulty taking what you are saying as sincere and not just another attempt to rehabilitate Hillary at somebody else's expense.  The real molten-hot outrage against Olbermann was not for his comment about "two people go into a room," which takes a great deal of interpretation to see as sexist, but rather it has been outrage over the Special Comment in which he called out Hillary for her attack ads and comments about hard-working white voters.  So this is all bullshit.

by Dumbo 2008-10-27 04:45AM | 0 recs
So...It's OK to call for murder

of someone you don't agree with--as long as it's Hillary?  Whether it was race baiting or not (and many say it was not) Olberman could have said as much without calling for her murder.  

by Blue Jean 2008-11-06 09:40AM | 0 recs
O the group think charge

I always love democrats who are so concerned over taking a stand on an issue they are reduced to ineffective, spineless, quivering yellow bellied masses who would reject leadership for fear of power. That's the problem with your narrow definition of who the powerful is in this country.

This isn't about censorship.

No one is telling Riverdaughter what she can and cannot say. No one is petitioning her ISP or trying to have her blog shut down.

This is about removing the endorsement of a blog on a progressive website (MyDD) that is openly waging war on progressivism.

by iohs2008 2008-10-25 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

Yes, whoever would have thought that the liberal blogosphere would be committed to electing a Democratic president and combating absurd conspiracy theories that have been commandeered by the paranoid fringe of the far right. Indeed, these are dark times!

by IsaccBurn 2008-10-25 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

Dark, dark times.

by Jess81 2008-10-25 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence
I set up an e-mail account and signed onto some petition asking for a resolution to Michigan and Florida. It turns out that this Clinton supporter is an extremely enthusiastic supporter and donor to the Obama/Biden ticket. I think they will be the best thing that has happened to this country in at least the last 100 years, even if they are only able to succeed in stabilizing this country and repairing some of the incredible damage Republicans have done to it in the last several decades. But they have already managed to encourage and ask everyone in this country to come together and work together as Americans. Democrats lead but moderate, honest and reasonable Independents and Republicans are not excluded.

Ridding the Senate and House of the obstructionist, money grabbing, couldn't care less about the people who actually live in America Republicans means a new start without the same old failed policies. I got a sexist and racist, anti-Jewish hate mail from someone who was collecting signatures from that petition. I've also recently gotten them at my place of employment, which means they are trolling the donations sites.

The site you talk about does not represent progressives as much as it demonstrates how others will exploit pathology if they believe they can wrest power or make money off the crazed, vulnerable, and disappointed. The Confluence is a McCain campaign supporting site. Not Clinton supporting, not progressive supporting, not thoughtful and honest discussion of any aspect of this election season except really old scab picking.  The onty thing it exists to do is amplify certain individual's opinions.

I'm sure it's owners are just collecting material to write a book that will never sell or something. Otherwise it's just a place where a few people hang out and discuss themselves. Reminds me of that Billy Joel song, "Bigshot". It doesn't belong here as a link, but the really important question is whether they link here. Because then people can come here and enjoy much less anger and hate filled discussion.  We will eventually win them over unless they are able to recognize that even in the blogosphere a damaged psyche repels even those  who might provide help.

It looks like almost all of Hillary's supporters, and most about everyone else for that matter will vote Obama/Biden and for the Democrats running all down the ticket. Of course if you never actually supported Clinton you might spend your time there, but does anybody even do that anymore? The only less trafficked site where people have really missed the boat and still think they are waiting for it to dock is the RNC site.

by Jeter 2008-10-24 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

Actually, I'm much more interested in the ability to edit a post within the first 30 minutes of posting it, and the ability to indicate that that a recommended diary has it's detractors. Kind of like downrating a diary to indicate opposition so we can exercise our trusted users rights more expansively. But I guess that would drive down traffic.

by Jeter 2008-10-24 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence

I don't know if they are full-on racists, but I do think they resent what they see as race being elevated above gender.  However, the ways in which they express their outrage are ridiculous and myopic.  

Take a post from today (I peek over from time to time): Riverdaughter wrote a post that basically said that women have it worse than anyone and punctuated it with a YouTube video of John Lennon singing "Woman is the N***r of the World."  I can understand resentment of women's issues being put on the back burner (whether or not they actually are), but to use *John Lennon as a spokesperson for women's empowerment?

The same Lennon who verbally and physically abused his first wife and (likely) his second, who left his first wife financially strapped and did not see his son for several years, and who at the time of his death still did not have a normal relationship with his son and ex.  That Lennon?  He wrote a progressive-sounding song, so that makes him a credible speaker for women's issues?

And don't get me started on all of the "I don't support either candidate.  MY candidate didn't get chosen.  But gosh, isn't that McCain super swell?"

[Btw., I was a Hillary supporter during the primaries.  A lot of shit from the Obama supporters pissed me off, especially on DailyKos.  I think there needs to be ground rules so that we don't treat Democrats we disagree with like the worst of the Republicans.  Hillary never came close to being the gross embarrassment that is Sarah Palin.]

by wilder 2008-10-24 08:40PM | 0 recs
Taking Advantage

Well, after reading many of the comments, I have come to believe more and more that this is about fame and attention instead of a rational argument. I do not know whether Riverdaughter believes what she is saying, but I have reexamined the site, and I can say with good certainty that there is some explotation. I think that is why misogyny is mentioned so often; to reinforce that destructive, self-consuming identity politics. If Hillary is a victim of misogyny (I disagree that she was), and you feel your shortcomings in life were due to misogyny, then it doesn't take much expertise to realize that the mentally unstable few will form an unhealthy bond with the image of Hillary. That being said, there was plenty of ugliness on both sides in the primary. But politics is a blood sport.

by iohs2008 2008-10-25 11:23AM | 0 recs
Yeah, but

I think bloggers and posters are making a mistake when they use the same vicious language to describe someone on their side that they would use for a lying, cheating, Republican.

What I saw during the primaries was plenty of: "I want a woman, but not THAT woman.  Hillary Clinton is not pure enough for me."  Which is fine.  But this -- "OMFG!  SHRILLARY WILL STOP AT NOTHING FOR POWER!  IT IS ALL ABOUT THEM!"  Many of these people admitted that Hillary "wasn't so bad" after she conceded, gave a moving speech at the convention, and started working her ass off to get Obama elected.  However, they did not once concede that maybe their tactics in calling her out when she did things they disapproved of were too extreme.  Instead of all the "OMFG!" posts, a simple "I'm really disappointed in Hillary Clinton" tone would have sufficed.  

Clinton has never been a Joe Lieberman, who eagerly cut against the party in high-profile and critical ways.  To hurl the same language at her that you would hurl at Lieberman, or Rove, or Bush and Cheney just makes critics sound hysterical and lacking all sense of proportion.  The hysteria generated over Clinton's mention of RFK's assassination in June, in a discussion where she was talking about herself rather than Obama, was so fucking ridiculous that for a moment, I considered changing my party ID to Undeclared.  Nothing Hillary did or said came close to what McCain and Palin have done, and even if she had, there were better ways to respond to it than an extreme Limbaugh-type screed.  Democrats are supposed to be better; many people could have taken Clinton to task while maintaining a sense of fairness and dignity, and didn't.

Because I never hung out at the ardently pro-Hillary sites like No Quarter or Hillary44, I never saw some of the worst anti-Obama rhetoric, though I don't doubt there was plenty of "OMFG!  WHAT AN UPPITY BLACK MAN!"  That was bullshit and wrong, too.  To me, the model to follow during the campaign was Digby, who maintained perspective and never got too negative toward either side.  The models of who not to follow were the DailyKos frontpagers, John Aravosis, and Andrew Sullivan, who produced hysterical screeds all the time.  Again, we can do better, and I think that after the election, we should have a discussion about how to approach this type of situation differently, should we ever get into primary wars again.    

by wilder 2008-10-25 11:56AM | 0 recs
Irony is floating face down in the Confluence

They claim that they are outraged by all the alleged misogyny directed at Sarah Palin, while the current front-page post is a joke about the author's ex-wife being a witch and hurting herself.  I guess the hypersensitivity doesn't go both ways.

by JJE 2008-10-25 05:38AM | 0 recs
I saw that!

I was really tempted to comment, but decided it wasn't worth it.  If that was posted on a pro-Obama site, though, you know they'd be having a shit-fit.

by wilder 2008-10-25 07:15AM | 0 recs
Looked again

What really amazed me was that it wasn't until about 4/5 of the way down the page that the commenters started voicing disapproval of the sexist undertone of the post.  Before then, they were ridiculing someone's statistics on rape.  That site has no credibility, but I don't think that needs to be said.

by wilder 2008-10-25 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Time to Remove the Confluence (Updated!)

The extreme insanity and nastiness on site are extremely depressing.

by wrb 2008-10-25 06:09AM | 0 recs
Ignore those batshit crazy dead-enders.

I live in Tampa.  Since I moved here in August, Obama has been here, Biden has been, and Hillary has been here.  Joe's wife is here today, I think.  Tampa is turning blue in ten days.  The Conflucians are in for a very rough morning on Nov. 5th.

by psychodrew 2008-10-25 11:05AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads