I'm part of the "base," and I don't give a shit what color, creed, or gender the next Supreme Court pick has as long as he/she is left of center. Most people care about track record and ideology, not color.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
Because while Americans are comfortable with hunting, we aren't so comfortable with "fish in a barrel" hunting. The attractive part of hunting is that you use your own patience and wits and strength to find and kill a crafty animal. Here, the deck is clearly stacked against the poor wolf. There's no way it can cleverly dodge the plane. It's a fish in a barrel.
There's something grossly unfair about this practice that will come across to a lot of Americans.
Nice job (I saw it on TPM before). The only part that I found disconcerting was Josh's (?) laughter in the end... it went on too long. I'm sure some shameless Republican will try to turn it into Sexist Librul! demeaning poor l'il defenseless Sarah Palin.