(Cross-posted at Kickin it With CG and Clintonistas for Obama).

When Hillary Clinton conceded several weeks ago I was sad.  I truly wanted her to win the Democratic nomination and become the president in January 2009.

But....

It.Didn't.Happen.

Since that time we have seen the PUMA movement take hold.  Which for those living under a rock, stands for Party Unity My Ass.  I am not going to get into a diatribe about them because in some ways I understand what they are doing and somewhat how they are feeling.

- Disappointed that Hillary will not be the President in 2009?  Okay.

- Don't agree with some of Obama's policies?  Okay.

- Reviled at his campaign's tactics during the primary?  Okay.

- Think Hillary would have been the better candidate?  Okay.

- Dislike Obama?  Okay.

But you know what?  THE PRIMARY IS OVER.

And for those that are thinking of voting for McCain? Stop and think what you are doing -you are throwing Hillary under the bus.  Everything she stands for has very little to do with the Republican party ideals and voting for them would be a slap in her face.  Yes - a slap.

As my good pal Kysen wrote:

But, opting not to vote?
Voting only downticket?
Writing in Hillary?
Fine.
Whatever.
Seems a bit like holding one's breath to get one's way....but, at least it is not sullying Hillary's name.

So for the love of god - if you cannot vote for the Democratic nominee - people may not like your decision but will understand it.  But DO NOT betray Hillary and everything she stands for by voting for McCain.

(cross-posed at Kickin it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

Last week the blog Clintonistas for Obama was locked by Blogger.  The following message was provided:

Dear Blogger User,

This is a message from the Blogger team.

Your blog, at http://clintonistasforobama.blogspot.com /, has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

To unlock, a code had to be entered to request an editorial review from a live person, which took four days.  I also would like to preface that C4O's mandate is as follows...

We agree with Hillary Clinton, we support the progressive values she supports, and we share her dedication to making this nation better... That's why we support Barack Obama for President! :-)

The locking of the blog puzzled the group that posts there, and personally made me suspicious since C4O is the furthest thing from being spam.  So I decided to investigate this a bit further.  What I discovered was shocking and disturbing to be frank.  

My investigation began with a Washington Post article that exposes that the Obama smear emails originated on Free Republic. No shocker there. Freepers have been leaders of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy since its inception and full of smears, slime and innuendoes, especially about the Clintons.

But after the article was published, a Freeper, charged that the WaPo reporter has exposed the identity of anonymous posters in the past, and the WaPo article also "exposed" ordinary people who dared to think the rumour was important, but who denied being involved in the spamming.

The author is quite paranoid about it:

The article Mosk wrote today purports to be about efforts to track down where the `Obama is a Muslim' allegations began. However, it is actually a warning shot across the bow to opponents of Obama that they will be tracked down and exposed for speaking ill of the Obamessiah.

While it literally pains me to agree with a Freeper, is this what is going on?  Shutting down free speech online?  Finding the name and address of people who post anonymously on websites?  Reporters harassing them and exposing them to ridicule?  I am embarrassed to say that I have witnessed behaviour akin to this on 'progressive' blogs as well.

Which brings me back to C4O.  It seems that there is a concerted effort amongst a group to shut down political criticism of Obama.

Blogger offers readers the opportunity to flag blogs as spam or complain about objectionable content.  And apparently someone has been using this to shut down blogs that are perceived as critical to Obama.

Several sources, including Blogspasm report that several blogs that have been shut down by Google that are critical of Obama, and the suspicion is that Google is being manipulated to shut down the opposition.

Now no one could think that the Obama campaign is promoting such deeds, but when people attack and try to shut down sites critical of a political candidate - we all have to worry.

Is this really what some people have become, bullying and intimidation to fall in line with what is 'acceptable' discussion?  

(cross-posted at Kickin' it with CG)

Back in May, the Women's Media Center together with Media Matters launched a new video and online petition campaign illustrating the pervasive nature of sexism in the media's coverage entitled "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It."

The purpose of the WMC campaign states that, "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."  

Since the GE campaign has begun, we have seen troubling new signs of sexism rear its ugly head.  And the Women's Media Center has remained vigilant.  Below is an excerpt of an email I received from them today.

Dear Canadian Gal,

We hardly had time to recover from the spiteful, often sexist, barrage of sentiment against Hillary Clinton, when the assault began in earnest on Michelle Obama. Last week she made the front page of The New York Times which touted a personality "makeover," then she "surprised" observers by playing nicely with others on ABC's The View.  This, as the gears of a sinister smear machine racheted up a notch, insinuating un-American, anti-white motives on her part. If reading this or any of the electoral coverage on women makes you angry - help us fight bias.  

We must be vigilant here. Both sexism and racism are in play.  Use of seemingly innocuous words such as "strong woman" in referring to Michelle have to be analyzed: what, exactly, do you mean by that? Speculating endlessly about implanted codes in "fist bumps" and what riotous signal they may be giving to other African Americans is an outrage. And for those who have thrilled to the prospect of spitfires going at each other for the amusement of the media and public, you may be in for a disappointment. This is what Cindy McCain said about Michelle this week: "I think she's a good woman, a fine mother we both are in an interesting line of work right now."  And Michelle on Hillary Clinton: " I think that Hillary Clinton, as she said, has made 18 million cracks on the ceiling and we need to keep pushing it and pushing it. She's taken [the hits] so that when my girls come along they won't have to fight it as badly." We must reign in the destructive, woman-belittling dramas in our media. We must speak up for all women subjected to them.

We need your support so we can keep on advocating for women to be represented fairly. The WMC has been at the lead of the fight against sexism in the media. Our "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It" campaign already has more than 200,000 views and nearly 6,000 signatures, demanding that networks be held accountable for language that goes over the line of acceptability.

Please sign now to be included.

For more information, please visit www.womensmediacenter.com

------ End of Forwarded Message

If you have not yet had the opportunity to sign the petition calling out the media fail, I encourage you to do so.

(cross-posted at Kickin' it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

Most progressives would agree that Hillary Clinton was on the receiving end of a great deal of sexism in the Democratic primary.  This was mostly manifested in the media coverage of her as illustrated in the focus on Clinton's appearance, mannerisms etc.  But almost as quick as anyone could say c-o-n-c-e-d-e, other troubling signs of sexism have surfaced in the campaign.

What has been disgusting is that we have reverted into the oldest stereotypes - namely that women should ONLY depicted as wives or mothers.

The responsibility doesn't just rest on the media, which I'll get to in a minute. The campaigns themselves deserve some of the blame as well. Do the Obama's and the McCain's want to play into the stereotypes of first ladies that are only sweet and cuddly? Is Michelle going to quit giving her husband the fist-bump because it comes across as too strong?  Does Cindy have to submit any more of 'her' cookie recipes so people can relate to her?

Media stories breathlessly ask:

'Where do they buy their clothes?'

'What types of food do they cook?'

'Which one can be compared to Jackie O?'

WE GET IT.  They are wives and mothers. But guess what?  Both are highly accomplished and intelligent women and are other things too.

In a New York Times article covering Michelle's stint on The View, they further this meme:

Early on, Mrs. Obama was likened to Jackie Kennedy for her youth and fashion style, but lately, the strong and assertive African-American career woman is experiencing the kind of antifeminist hazing that Mrs. Clinton endured in the 1992 campaign when she made her "baking cookies" faux pas.  

Mrs. Obama distanced herself from that model on "The View," describing herself as a mother and not mentioning her law career or her views on policy.

The question is, how does mentioning her career or policy positions make her more palatable?  Is the writer suggesting that America cannot handle a strong woman?  Or that Michelle's policy positions are unimportant?

This new focus on Michelle and Cindy's hair and dresses comes right at the end of the gender-biased way the media covered Clinton's campaign.  And instead of letting this go - AGAIN - we should be holding the media accountable for perpetuating stereotypes. If a white woman is strong, she's considered cold - as the coverage of Cindy has shown. If a black woman is strong, she's obviously angry - so go the accusations about Michelle.

While I am by no means trying to minimize both the beauty or personal accomplishments of these women, there is far more to them than those things.  And seeing as how the 2008 election cycle thus far has turned conventional thinking on its head, this is an opportunity to change the way women - and first ladies - are represented.  If we let the narrative about the potential first ladies converge on the role and status of the conventional "little lady" then we have lost the chance to reframe gender and marriage dynamics.

(cross posted at Kickin' it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

On Thursday, Fox News's John Gibson had former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on his radio show. They discussed Obama's foreign policy. Bolton charged that "the best outcome" of an Obama presidency would be "a replay of the Clinton administration," meaning "more embassy bombings" and "more World Trade Center attacks":

GIBSON: The Obama team is going back to some of the old complaints about the war and the war on terror...that the left has been articulating for a long time now, and not really coming up with anything new.

BOLTON: Yeah I think honestly that's an optimistic view of it, that it will simply be a replay of the Clinton administration. It will simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks. That would be the best outcome from that perspective.

Have a listen:

Gibson failed to ask and Bolton declined to mention that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred during the Bush administration, while Bolton was serving in the Department of State.

(cross posted at Kickin' it with CG)

In the upcoming Fortune magazine, Barack Obama seemingly has backed off of vow to use the "hammer'' of opting out of NAFTA to force the renegotiation of the trade pact and now says he will seek change through dialogue if he is elected president.

This is a marked change from the stance taken at the debate in Cleveland in the final days of the Ohio primary campaign in March, when Obama agreed with Hillary Clinton when she said the six-month opt-out clause should be invoked on NAFTA to force changes. He said:

I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced

In contrast, Obama dialed back his anti-NAFTA stance in the interview Fortune interview:

Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.

"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.

To some progressives - this is not sitting well.  And while I am not a fan of NAFTA, I'm certainly not surprised.  Are you?

Cross-posted at Kickin' it with CG

Hillary Clinton may have furthered the discussion of sexism in her concession speech when she stated that women deserve equal respect, along with equal pay, and that "there are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century in our country."

She was referring in part to what emerged as conventional wisdom by many during the democratic primary campaign that sexism is still tolerated in America.  Chiming in (albeit ill timed) on this topic was DNC chairman Howard Dean, who is among those calling for a "national discussion" of sexism.  

Echoing those sentiments, NOW and Emily's List are generating e-mail campaigns to the cable channels when they see sexism.  "We're certainly not going to take this lying down," said Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily's List. She said her hope was for a national discussion to focus on "what is fair in the new political world of Internet, cable and traditional news coverage.'

Also created was an online project which it points to examples of sexist language titled Media Hall of Shame, NOW's president, Kim Gandy, said her members need to remain alert, "We're going to keep watching because we think Michelle Obama will be the recipient of the same kind of attacks that Hillary was."

Ya think?

Cross posted at Kickin it With CG

I originally wrote this about a month ago - but am hoping that this now gets a bit more attention.

As some will note I have written several diaries now on the failure of the fourth estate during this primary season.  The reactions to these pieces were mixed from agreement, indifference and denial of any bias in the coverage.  But with the recent feeding frenzy of the press in response to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book - nothing could be clearer: A CORRUPT MEDIA HAS FAILED.

Amongst other things, McClellan's asserts that the media's failings are primarily responsible for the rush to war in Iraq and complicit in enabling the Bush administration.

And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it... the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. Was the president winning or losing the argument? How were Democrats responding? What were the electoral implications? What did the polls say? And the truth--about the actual nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the right way to confront it, and the possible risks of military conflict--would get largely left behind...

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should have never come as such a surprise. The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam Hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so because their focus was elsewhere--on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war.

He goes on to blame a liberal media bias, but that's a whole other story.  PBS's Bill Moyers devoted an entire show in April 2007, entitled Buying the War to answering the questions of a complicit media.

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President -- no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored. How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?

But what's more interesting about the fallout of this book is the sudden Mea Culpa by some members of the press.  

Katie Couric:

"... I'll start by saying I think he's fairly accurate. Matt, I know when we were covering it--and granted, the spirit of 9/11, people were unified and upset and angry and frustrated. But I do think we were remiss in not asking some of the right questions. There was a lot pressure from the Bush White House. I remember doing an interview and the press secretary called our executive producer and said, `We didn't like the tone of that interview.' And we said, `Well, tough. We had to ask some of these questions.' They said, `Well, if you keep it up, we're going to block access to you during the war.' I mean, those kind of strong-arm tactics were really...

CNN's Jessica Yellin on 360:

Yellin: I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.

I think, over time --

Cooper: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

Yellin: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

Washington Post's Dana Milbank::

Of course he's right.  We didn't do as much as we could have and the fact of the matter is we did raise these questions.  And I mean I guess what Scott`s just saying in a backwards way there is they were just doing a particularly good job of keeping the facts out of the public domain.

What's worse is as Eric Boehlert points out, the warning signs were provided by Senator Edward Kennedy, who largely was ignored by the press.

Specifically, back in September 2002, with the Bush administration and much of the Beltway media rushing to embrace war with Iraq, Kennedy delivered a passionate, provocative, and newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about a possible invasion. Unlike today, the political press wasn't very interested in Kennedy or what he had to say about the most pressing issue facing the nation. Back in that media environment, being the voice of American liberals didn't mean much.

So what is the moral of the story?  

Boehlert puts it best "let's not forget that it wasn't that long ago that the media did their best to ignore what Kennedy had to say. And when it ignored Kennedy, and when it ignored the voice of liberals, the press -- and the country -- paid a dear price."