- Obama! Obama! Obama!
What’s so hard about condemning sexism and misogyny? Does it really matter who the victim is? John Cole gets it:
You know, I have no idea what the hell David Letterman is thinking or what he thinks he is accomplishing with crap like this, but this was inexcusable. He should be ashamed of himself.
And I’m not trying to sound like some politically correct scold, and I have no problem with comedians being comedians. There are lots of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin, there are lots of reasons to not be impressed with her leadership, her beliefs, or, well, anything about her, but when you start with the “slutty” crap, or are making jokes about her daughter getting “knocked up,” you’ve crossed a line. I have no problem attacking Palin for her idiotic proposals and all the stupid things she has said, but this just is the kind of nonsense that is no good for anyone.
Maybe I’m over-reacting, and I know I’m not always perfect, but I’m really losing my patience and tolerance for this kind of stuff. There was no place for this kind of stuff with Hillary and Chelsea, there is no room for it with Michelle and their kids, and the same standard should apply for Sarah Palin and her kids. Hell, it should apply to all women.
But some of his readers don’t:
She worked that slutty angle —and no way in hell can anyone say certain men didn’t respond. Starbursts, remember? It was an image she carefully presented and I don’t get all the vapors people here get for her getting called on it.
By the way, this whole ‘insulting to women’ chorus of protest is so fucking misplaced. You people seemed to missed that the very real and much more damaging diss occurred when Palin ran for VP using her best MILF act.
Part of the reason conservatives loves them some Palin is she is an anti-feminist. What could be a bigger diss than to get where she is because she has a vagina and men like her because she’s hot?
She made herself into the lapdance the rednecks couldn’t buy (while pushing her high heels into the face of every woman who ever fought to get their due for their competence, intelligent and capability, and not for being a hot mamma). And somehow, amazingly, a comedian joking about Palin’s carefully cultivated Fuckable Me image is the thing that is over the top.
Sheesh. Some of you really missed what Palin was up to. Palin was the manchurian candidate for feminism.
The hot fuck-me chick who can’t be fucked. Like a slutty stewardess. She’s got the fuck-me thing going on but what can you do? Bend her over one of the seats? Unobtainable Sex Object. Akin to the Hot Librarian with the Big Glasses. (Another stock male fantasy character Palin more than hints at as well). Cuz guys, you know when she takes off those glasses and lets down her hair she’ll fuck you so hard on the book stacks your dick’ll be bruised.
Sure that’s stereotype that demeans women. Hell yes. But Palin is totally reinforcing that one. She’s projecting it: This is the modern Conservative Woman.
It’s a feature not a bug that it’s undermes feminism. Why do you think conservatives love this exemplar of Woman? And where’s the vapors over that?
It’s actually interesting that Letterman said ‘stewardess’. No flight attendants for conservatives. Women are stewardesses. Waitresses in the sky.
You can get pissed at Letterman but I think he’s noticing something here. It says more about how conservatives see women than Dave does.
Letterman did wasn’t nice. But comedians often say harsh shit. A difference between comedy and a comedian making gratuitous insults is whether it was true or not. Good for Dave for calling her on it. She doesn’t get to have it both ways.
That was one of many comments in a long thread (361 comments) where numerous people defended David Letterman’s misogynistic comments about Sarah and Willow Palin. What was so hard about denouncing something that is obviously wrong? Why would these people defend the indefensible?
The answer is tribalism
We all belong to tribes. These are the groups we identify ourselves with. I am part of the American tribe, and also the liberal tribe. Although I am a white, male heterosexual, I don’t consider myself part of the “white,” “male” or “heterosexual” tribes, any more than I am part of the “left-handed,” “blue-eyed” or “balding” tribes. Although all those things describe me, they don’t provide some common bond of loyalty to others of the same description.
To racists one of the most important tribal memberships that matter is determined by race. They think in terms of “us” and “them” with “us” being the members of their own race and “them” being the members of other races. Arthur Silber made these observations about tribalism:
ONE: To the degree that membership in a particular tribe or tribes is important to a person’s sense of identity, that person believes that his own tribe(s) is inherently and uniquely good. To the degree that tribal membership is a critical element of personal identity, all members of all tribes are convinced this is true of those tribes to which they belong.
TWO: Insofar as the tribe’s centrally defining characteristic(s) (race, religion, political beliefs, etc.) are concerned, all other tribes that differ with regard to these characteristics are necessarily inferior and wrong. This has an especially critical implication: at first with regard to these centrally defining characteristics, and inevitably in a more general sense, the individual members of all other tribes are necessarily inferior to and less worthy than the members of one’s own tribe(s).
THREE: The basic dynamics of all tribes are the same. This applies to all tribes in two different critical respects. It is true of dynamics within the tribe — that is, of those particular mechanisms which create and maintain tribal identity and cohesiveness — and it is also true of how one tribe views itself and behaves in relation to other tribes.
FOUR: The major mechanism by which any tribe creates and maintains tribal identity and cohesiveness is obedience: the requirement that each member of the tribe conform his thinking and behavior in accordance with the major elements of the tribe’s belief system.
Obamanation is a political tribe based upon a cult of personality. The single most important defining characteristic of their tribe is supporting Barack Obama. Although they may call themselves Americans, Democrats, liberals and/or progressives, those characteristics are far less important to them.
To a member of Obamanation, anyone who doesn’t support Barack Obama is inferior and wrong, even if they are liberal Democrats (or former Democrats) like us. Because their tribe is defined solely by loyalty to and support for Obama, they are untroubled by his broken promises and flip-flops. To criticize Obama is an act of tribal treason.
Sarah Palin is a conservative Republican. She not only isn’t a member of their tribe, she constitutes a political threat to Obama. So did Hillary Clinton and so does PUMA. Sarah, Hillary and PUMA all constitute a threat to the very existence of the Obamanation tribe. This is why they hate us, and why they are so reluctant to condemn anything that is said about us no matter how sexist or inappropriate.
This does not mean that the Obamanation tribe has no principles or policy goals, it simply means that they are secondary to supporting Obama. When there is a conflict between loyalty to Obama and adherence to their principles, loyalty to Obama wins. This means they have to either abandon their principles, deny the existence of a conflict or rationalize it away.
Abandoning principles is difficult because they are ingrained so deeply into us. They are the things we define as right and wrong. Denying the existence of a conflict is much easier, which is why Obamanation has so much difficulty seeing sexism and misogyny. They were indispensible tools in Obama’s victory, but to acknowledge them would be to criticize Obama.
But some things can’t be denied, so they rationalize them as okay. Sarah asked for it because she dresses like a slut. Hillary ran a racist campaign. PUMAs are racist Republican ratfuckers. THEY DESERVED IT!
If you have ever attempted to have a rational discussion with a member of Obamanation you know how quickly they get angry and begin launching personal attacks. This is because you are making them feel threatened by causing a conflict between their loyalty to Obama and their principles and beliefs.
Because it is based on a cult of personality their loyalty to and support of Obama is irrational. In January 2008 Obama was just beginning his fourth year in the U.S. Senate. His record as a Senator was unremarkable and his policy proposals were virtually indistinguishable from those of Hillary Clinton. He ran on two autobiographies, two speeches and a claim of opposition to the war in Iraq that was a fairy tale.
He denied being a liberal and praised Ronald Reagan. He campaigned with homophobes like McClurkin and courted the anti-choice fundamentalists. He was caught in numerous lies and flip-flopped like a fish on the deck. His debate performances ranged from horrible to barely adequate.
Obamanation DID NOT CARE.
How many times have we heard Obamanation described as a “movement?” Other than supporting Obama what defines that movement? What unique policies or goals? What was so different about Obama that it justified last year’s mass hysteria? Nothing.
Contrary to what Obamanation believes, our tribal identity is not defined by support for a person or even a political party. It is defined by principles and policy goals. Our support for Hillary was based on her support for our agenda. Her candidacy was a vehicle for achieving our principles and policy goals.
Obamanation cannot accept that our opposition to Obama is based upon principles. To do so would be disloyal to Obama and to their tribe. They cannot acknowledge anything that conflicts with the belief that they are “inherently and uniquely good” and that we are”inferior and less worthy.” So in their minds we cannot be liberals and loyal Democrats, we must be racists and/or GOP ratfuckers.
They cannot laugh at Obama or tolerate anyone mocking or criticizing him or their tribe. They desperately rationalize away the broken promises and betrayals. They lash out angrily at anyone who challenges their denial of reality. They stalk and harass those who criticize and oppose Obama, and defend anyone who supports Obama or attacks his opponents and critics.
David Letterman made misogynistic “jokes” about Sarah Palin. She is an opponent of Obama so Obamanation defended him. It’s that simple. A final example:
Yesterday Jeremiah Wright was back in the news. Last year Obamanation vigorously defended Wright for several weeks, then dropped him like a bad habit when Obama threw him under the bus.
This came from the same PUMA-hating asshat who thought Cinie was Brenda Lee:
I have said it a few time on DU, his comments were stupid, I do not believe that they were bigoted. He said them Jews, more than likely referring to Axelrod and Emmanuel who would never grant him access. He did not say the Jews, which would have suggested he believed in some great Jewish conspiracy.
This irony-impaired genius calls himself “thebigotbasher.” Even the owner/operator of the Virtual Stalker Club Forum wasn’t buying it:
And that’s not bigoted how?
What Reverend Jeremiah Wright said WAS bigoted. So why did so many members of Obamanation defend him? Because they perceive that Wright is still part of their tribe. Others feel free to denounce Wright because they perceive that he has been excommunicated by Teh Precious.
Beware of zombies.