Fear of the Vagina masking as anti-war
Conor Fridersdorf (The Atlantic) is worried about Howard Dean's soul. Seems Dean is supporting scary Hillary Clinton -- you know she has a vagina, right?
And it's got Conor all spooked because who knows what might come out of there?
It's an innie and he can only handle sexual organs on the outside.
So he gets all frantic and writes of Dean:
On another occasion, he argued, "We wouldn't even be in Iraq if it weren't for Democrats like Senator Kerry." So how can this erstwhile champion of the anti-war movement tout his support for just that sort of hawkish Democrat in 2016? "At this point, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton," he said last year. And he confirmed as much to Ryan Lizza in his just-published article on the Democratic frontrunner. “I think the chances are fifty-fifty the Republicans are going to nominate a nutcase," he said, "and Hillary’s the perfect foil for a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz." (Wouldn't the perfect foil for Senator Paul have gotten the Iraq War right?)
Conor, you are aware that, after making those remarks about Kerry, Dean went on to support him in the 2004 election? You are aware of that, right?
Because that kind of defeats your whole column which is built around the concept that Howard Dean is doing something unusual when, in fact, Howard Dean is doing what he always does.
(We have praised Dean for inclusion efforts when it comes to campaigning; however, we've never been Deaniacs at this site or thought he was very smart or insightful beyond campaign strategy.)
More importantly, Conor, you've got a post where you could rail against Barack non-stop.
You really haven't, have you.
What sends you into a panic -- apparently a sexual panic, at that -- is the thought of Hillary Clinton as president. You're not extremely bothered -- judging by the tone of your writing -- that Barack's carrying on the Iraq War.
You're only bothered that a woman might be president.
If she runs, I'm not voting for Hillary.
She had four years in the current administration to demonstrate she had ideas but her only idea is: Kill, kill, kill.
She's a War Hawk.
I will not support her.
But thing is, I also call out Barack. You know him, right? The man in charge of the ongoing wars. The threat to world peace for the last six years -- the biggest threat to it as he's sung Kill, Kill, Kill all on his own, not needing prompting from any other man or woman to do so.
Howard Dean supporting (or not supporting) Hillary is an issue of minor importance when so many people -- including Conor -- refuse to hold Barack accountable for what he's done and is doing.
We've got two more years before the US presidential election.
It may make a lot of impotent men and women with strap-ons (like CodeStink) feel potent to rage against Hillary but until they can carry that same outrage over to Barack, they're the hypocrites.
On that list?
You can find Conor's name.
He'll argue he's called Barack out.
No.
Not when it comes to war. He's noted how bad this was or that was.
But ridicule and scorn, the kind he and so many other men and women-who-want-to-be-men heap on Hillary? They continue to give Barack a pass.
Now I know the left knows how to serve up ridicule and scorn. Some are aiming it at voters right now. Others -- Firedoglake, we mean you -- are aiming it at a War Criminal and guaranteeing that he'll get more press attention because the story will be (a) his first big remarks on Iraq since being forced out of the White House in January 2009 and (b) the frantic liberal response to those remarks.
Just ignore him.
He has gone away. Keep him away. Do not create a response to him, just ignore him. And be glad that we finally can ignore him.
In the meantime, your failure to rebuke Barack Obama makes you as much a hypocrite as Conor thinks Howard Dean is.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
And it's got Conor all spooked because who knows what might come out of there?
It's an innie and he can only handle sexual organs on the outside.
So he gets all frantic and writes of Dean:
On another occasion, he argued, "We wouldn't even be in Iraq if it weren't for Democrats like Senator Kerry." So how can this erstwhile champion of the anti-war movement tout his support for just that sort of hawkish Democrat in 2016? "At this point, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton," he said last year. And he confirmed as much to Ryan Lizza in his just-published article on the Democratic frontrunner. “I think the chances are fifty-fifty the Republicans are going to nominate a nutcase," he said, "and Hillary’s the perfect foil for a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz." (Wouldn't the perfect foil for Senator Paul have gotten the Iraq War right?)
Conor, you are aware that, after making those remarks about Kerry, Dean went on to support him in the 2004 election? You are aware of that, right?
Because that kind of defeats your whole column which is built around the concept that Howard Dean is doing something unusual when, in fact, Howard Dean is doing what he always does.
(We have praised Dean for inclusion efforts when it comes to campaigning; however, we've never been Deaniacs at this site or thought he was very smart or insightful beyond campaign strategy.)
More importantly, Conor, you've got a post where you could rail against Barack non-stop.
You really haven't, have you.
What sends you into a panic -- apparently a sexual panic, at that -- is the thought of Hillary Clinton as president. You're not extremely bothered -- judging by the tone of your writing -- that Barack's carrying on the Iraq War.
You're only bothered that a woman might be president.
If she runs, I'm not voting for Hillary.
She had four years in the current administration to demonstrate she had ideas but her only idea is: Kill, kill, kill.
She's a War Hawk.
I will not support her.
But thing is, I also call out Barack. You know him, right? The man in charge of the ongoing wars. The threat to world peace for the last six years -- the biggest threat to it as he's sung Kill, Kill, Kill all on his own, not needing prompting from any other man or woman to do so.
Howard Dean supporting (or not supporting) Hillary is an issue of minor importance when so many people -- including Conor -- refuse to hold Barack accountable for what he's done and is doing.
We've got two more years before the US presidential election.
It may make a lot of impotent men and women with strap-ons (like CodeStink) feel potent to rage against Hillary but until they can carry that same outrage over to Barack, they're the hypocrites.
On that list?
You can find Conor's name.
He'll argue he's called Barack out.
No.
Not when it comes to war. He's noted how bad this was or that was.
But ridicule and scorn, the kind he and so many other men and women-who-want-to-be-men heap on Hillary? They continue to give Barack a pass.
Now I know the left knows how to serve up ridicule and scorn. Some are aiming it at voters right now. Others -- Firedoglake, we mean you -- are aiming it at a War Criminal and guaranteeing that he'll get more press attention because the story will be (a) his first big remarks on Iraq since being forced out of the White House in January 2009 and (b) the frantic liberal response to those remarks.
Just ignore him.
He has gone away. Keep him away. Do not create a response to him, just ignore him. And be glad that we finally can ignore him.
In the meantime, your failure to rebuke Barack Obama makes you as much a hypocrite as Conor thinks Howard Dean is.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
No comments: