We Thought We Were the Movers and Shakers, So How Come Everyone is Laughing at Us?
Well, forget the tits, it's all just really about the blog lunch that backfired. The lefty bloggers thought they hit the big time lunching with former President Clinton but all that happened is that the blogosphere was reminded of Clinton's prior groping behavior and inappropriate conduct. Maybe if some on the left would stop being so reactionary, people might start listening to them again. But they can't seem to help themselves. By piling all over Ann Althouse they made sure that everyone was reminded of Bill Clinton's checkered past, and of the lefty blogosphere's worship of (Democratic) power over principles.
Update: The reason this woman will not be going back to Feministing:
Apparently, this is not the first time that the Feministing blog has had problems with hypocrisy. It probably won't be the last.
Update: The reason this woman will not be going back to Feministing:
The part I don't understand is this: Who did Jessica think she was aligning herself with when she decided to be a part of this picture? If she truly believes that a woman deserves to be seen as more than a collection of sexually-appealing body parts, then why would she choose to associate herself with Clinton of all people? It just doesn't make sense. Then today when I visited her website I see this post: Anti-feminist hypocrisy.
Now, can someone please explain to me how Jessica could have a post on her site talking about how a woman posed nude in some photographs and still have some justifiable complaint about people discussing her breasts? Am I the only one who noticed that the link on that post is to another post entitled "Somebody Slap this Slut"?
Given all of this, I see her gripe regarding a discussion about her breasts to be quite hypocritical. If Ann's post was as "un-feminist" as Jessica seems to think, then what should we think of what's on her website? How can someone with a blog featuring a discussion about how a woman's nude photos showed her "open wide" really have room to complain about this post? I'd love to hear some of those who are so offended by Ann's post show how that's logical.
As for the idea that Clinton should have felt honored to be in the room with these bloggers, all I can say is this: I think that all of these people deserved each other because I figure every politician needs sheeple who support him and Peter Daou went out and found Clinton a group of bloggers who were willing to sell out progressive causes in order have the opportunity to take that photo.
I gave up on feministing months ago when the writing on the wall came in the form of Jessica
1. deciding to allow her readers to repeatedly make racist comments to a blogger that she had interviewed
and
2. leaving this interview (along with the despicable comments) on her site despite the interviewee's request for feministing to remove the post since she no longer wanted to be associated with what they were willing to allow there. That means I have a little more time to explore other blogs. I know one thing for sure. I'd definitely prefer to check out Althouse regularly before I'd ever go back to visiting Feministing when I'm on the look out for logical arguments but hey, that's just me. What do I know, I'm just another inconsequential black chic whose probably just envious because I can't be just like these clowns, right?
Apparently, this is not the first time that the Feministing blog has had problems with hypocrisy. It probably won't be the last.
57 Comments:
Helen, I looked at the satellite map for Tennessee and it is going to be a beautiful day today. Get out there and ride your bike or take a walk. The blog can wait. Bill Clinton left office years ago. It doesn't really matter who has lunch with him today. Time for a break and maybe a new topic for next week.
Cham, Helen is reporting what others are saying, thinking, discussing.
Squelching public discourse because you don't like the topic?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
While, for some reason, lefties adore Clinton, the rest of us realize that he primarily serves as material for comedy. Trying to use him to further a cause or message for feminism, etc is, well, a joke.
I was surprised how the discussion thread progressed yesterday. Reading the post before anyone else posted, my first reaction was not regarding the woman's frontal protuberances but, since Clinton was standing directly behind her, "What was he groping at that moment?"
It's a nice day in Ohio. I've got to mow the lawn but I'll be checking blogs during breaks. Do as you please.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In blogfights like this, a certain pattern is predictable. First, a conservative blogger insults a progessive blogger, usually in a very personal and petty manner. The progressive blogger then defends himself or herself, with allies backing that blogger up. At that point, no matter what the progressive blogger and his/her allies say, the conservative blogger and his or her allies declare the progressive blogger to be unhinged and just engaging in ad hominems. Much back and forth ensues, until the conservative blogger or one of his/her allies declares victory and says this is just proof about how reactionary/mean/out-of-touch the left is, blah blah blah.
Congratulations, Dr. Helen, you did your part nicely and closed the circle. You can now sit at home watching a copy of "The Clinton Chronicles" or reading a book about what really happened to Vince Foster in peace and satisfaction.
No, it's more like this:
Dr. Helen: "Heh. Look at that hypocrite 'feminist' blogger showing off her rack, posing with that sociopathic psychotic groper Clinton. "
"Democrat": "Oh shut up, Dr. Helen."
Dr. Helen: "See? Democrats are unhinged."
For more on Clinton's supposed sociopathic, psychotic tendencies, see Coulter, Ann.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406250002
More like: a conservative blogger points to the hypocrisy of a feminist blogger fawning over Clinton.
If it's 'hypocrisy' for feminist bloggers to support a guy who, as President, consistently supported feminist causes, then what do you call it when self-proclaimed 'libertarians' fawn over a president who is actively working to gut constitutional guarantees of personal libertay?
The progressive blogger distorts the criticism as "making fun of my breasts" because she has no excuse for her hypocrisy.
Here's a shorter version of Althouse's post: "big breasts....breasty...breasts of a model....big closeup on breasts....breasts....tight knit top...breasts ...breasts....breastblog....breasts." Sorry, but there's no distortion at all in saying her puerile smirking was all about the breasts.
As some smart guy said long ago, the greatest weakness of the left wing is an absolute inability to self-criticize. It's simply impossible for them to think the words, "wait, I might be wrong here." When criticized in any fashion whatsoever or challenged on any belief, they defy all logic to somehow prove that everyone else is wrong. It comes from the perpetually adolescent state of mind most of them occupy - arrogant, cynical and excitable.
And coming in at a close second is the knee-jerk "tu quoque" response.
Tom Hilton asks "what do you call it when self-proclaimed 'libertarians' fawn over a president who is actively working to gut constitutional guarantees of personal libertay".*
I know, I know, call on me! How about 'choosing the lesser of two evils?'
Does anyone really think electing any of the current crop of Democrats would protect more constitutional guarantees of liberty than electing one of the Republicans running?
*P.S. I hope the spelling "libertay" is not a sign of incipient ericocartmanitis.
"a guy who, as President, consistently supported feminist causes"
This has been asked a dozen times in the threads with no leftist stepping up to the plate, but I'll try again:
WHAT feminist cause specifically did Bill Clinton advance? Seriously, what one?
Red herring & not the point.
The real issue is the sheer idiocy of Mrs. Instapundit, lecturing "Democrats" for excessive rhetoric while she indulges personal attacks on a blogger and calls a former President a "sociopath" and "psychotic."
Need more attention, helen?
This is Awesome.
This whole thing would have been written off as mildly humorous snark if they'd let it die, but the flurry of attacks from the opposition bloggers has held it on the frong burner for a whole week.
Dr. Helen I hope this is driving up your ad rates. Keep blogging about anything you want.
Helen, I bet if you had a rack as nice as Jessica's you'd show it off too.
anonymous 12:52pm
Me thinks you are a woman. Being old school, I will not qualify your womanhood. There is no greater delight for this seasoned citizen than to gaze at Dr. Helen's beautiful face every day. Several times a day if my blood pressure gets to low. Add to that her brilliant intellect and one has the true picture of a beautiful woman.
WHAT feminist cause specifically did Bill Clinton advance? Seriously, what one?
Reproductive choice, for starters. And if you aren't well-informed enough to be aware of that, it's your problem--not liberals'.
Sure there is. The point was that not only did a feminist betray her principles by fawning over an influential sexual predator, she deliberately chose to objectivy herself as Eye Candy - tight blouse, shoulders arched back [and her weblog shows a pattern of using breasts as a lure].
I'm sure Clinton noticed that she had type-cast herself as one of his interns. And would not be at all surprised to discover that he hires her to "work" on Hillary's net-campaign... or to learn that this was Jessica's intention all along.
How many feminists would tease an influential sexual predator for a job? What does it say about their beleifs? And isn't all that shoulder-arching bad for her back?
Anatomy of a smear...
Let's count the examples of loaded language, speculation, and innuendo in this bit of filth:
1. "fawning over"
2. "sexual predator"
3. "deliberately chose to objectivy herself as Eye Candy"
4. "using breasts as a lure"
5. "Clinton noticed"
6. "she had type-cast herself as one of his interns"
7. "would not be at all surprised to discover that he hires her to "work" on Hillary's net-campaign"
8. "or to learn that this was Jessica's intention all along"
9. "tease an influential sexual predator for a job"
The fact that you rely on innuendo and inflammatory language demonstrates pretty clearly that you have no logical basis on which to argue your point.
Great post from the Sadly, No! comments
---------
The Alternate Right Wing Dimension take on this, I suppose, is that as a feminist she should detest Bill Clinton, and therefore what she should have done is accept the invitation to lunch with him, dress in a dowdy, body-covering outfit that was dressier than the occasion called for, and when joining in on the group photo she should have stood behind people taller than she, and slouched unattractively while frowning, to indicate her distaste at being in his presence.
------------
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about over that picture, it seems innocent enough.
I'm afraid that we on the right have gotten so used to associating the Ex-President with potty/sexual humor that when we see him with any moderately attractive lady our reflexes go into overdrive.
Unfortunately this is going to be the true legacy of the Clinton Administration, but the initial poster in this thread is quite correct, it's not worth the trouble or the time. Nobody was doing anything improper in that photo, lets just let sleeping horndogs lie.
Peter Ingemi
PS.(I know I'm proving my own point by that last line but I just can't help myself.)
PPS.
I'm thinking that until we on the right can get over our obsessions concerning President Clinton we can't ask the left to get over their obsessions about President Bush. Lets both do our best to drop it.
Long-time conservative here, but ashamed of conservatives today. Ashamed that Althouse used a funny picture to start a series of personal attacks on a liberal blogger. Don't kid yourself that she wasn't expecting the personal attacks. Yes, it was a funny photo--it made me laugh out loud. Would I have published it on my blog? No, because it wouldn't have been nice to subject Jessica to ridicule just because of an unfortunate pose. If I have differences with Jessica, those differences are not about her appearance.
Helen saw that Althouse's blog was getting plenty of attention and decided to tag along. Not at all surprising to someone who follows Helen's blog. Original ideas aren't her thing.
This reminds me of the time Michelle Malkin made fun of Cindy Sheehan's "muffintop." Of all the things possible to make fun of when it comes to Cindy, her appearance comes last on the list. Definitely a low point in the conservative world and I will forever distrust Malkin because of it. Is it really that hard to be NICE while you disagree with someone?
"Reproductive choice, for starters."
Ha! I knew you'd say that, as abortion's been the single rallying point for so-called feminist politics during the last 20 years. Nice weasel words, by the way. Those of us in favor of executing serial murderers don't call it "judicial choice."
Oh, and as for "starters?" More like starters and finishers. He's done nothing else, all you have is abortions. Hooray for you.
A psychologist referring to, "some on the left" is just scary. You know it's all a big bunch of gray. It's not black and white. But for some reason you need to label a group as "the left" and then assign common hopes, dreams, and faults to make a point.
Dealing with the criminal element must have shown you the truth about people. You appear to be an expert on classification. Frist does it via video but you do it via blog post and photograph. Genius!
Hey Graham Strouse,
Aren't you the least bit curious about how Helen's rack stacks up with Jessica's? I'm guessing that both she and Althouse are suffering an extreme case of breast envy.
Which melee weapons do you prefer?
God, Helen, this is just pathetic. I know you got your hackles up, and naturally defend yourself. But attempting some sort of political ju-jitsu using the definition of feminism and another woman's tits to revive 8 year old political smear is just sad.
Can't wait until you start reviving Carter jokes.
If Dr. Helen were running a WordPress blog, we wouldn't have to guess. only works under WordPress, although the Blogger-Wordpress conversion is doable.
As the trolling gets worse, perhaps she'll make the change.
Stupid blog software can't handle a proper URL ending with a slash. Feel free to delete the last one.
If Dr. Helen were running a WordPress blog, we wouldn't have to guess. This sockpuppet identifier applet only works under WordPress, although the Blogger-Wordpress conversion is doable.
As the trolling gets worse, perhaps she'll make the change.
I'd advise using blogging software that tracks IP's as well (that's what the applet relies on). Judging from the types of trolls she's getting, the threats won't be far behind. Also I doubt that most of these trolls would be so brave if they were identifiable, even if only by IP.
to Anonymous@12:52:
The puppy-blender linked to a photo of Dr. Helen the other day -and based on that photo I'd say that you're mistaken.
Hey Ed. Can you link the actual picture of Helen's rack so I can compare it with Jessica's?
TIA
PS Helen: If you're really interested in increasing blog traffic, you know what to do. Show those puppies.
So ed.
You're saying she *wasn't* showing off her girls in that picture?
What planet are you from?
"BTW, what did Clinton actually DO for "reproductive choice", other than talk about it? Anything?"
Well Fenrisulven, he appointed two pro-choice Supreme Court Justices, for starters. He also suspended the Global Gag Rule. If you want other examples you can look them up yourself.
Also, it's amusing watching the type of people who post phrases like "Pro-Choice: Will Kill For Sex" shed crocodile tears about about objectification of women and sexual harrassment, as though they've ever done a damn thing to promote women's rights or have cared about either topic, except as the punchline to a vulgar joke.
Fenrisulven: if you look at your own quotes on this thread, you'll see you raised the issues of objectification ("she deliberately chose to objectivy herself as Eye Candy" and sexual harassment ("they never really adressed Clinton's sexual harassment") in your comments, so that's why I mentioned those two topics.
But perhaps I made an error in characterizing your comments as crocodile tears for such topics. Perhaps instead, you're simply the type of resentful loser who doesn't even bother with the crocodile tears, but goes straight to the vulgar joke. My mistake.
Oh, and I notice you don't even acknowledge the fact that I proved you wrong with the facts as per your comment about Clinton's lack of action on reproductive rights issues. Better luck next time.
fenrisulven,
I guess I'm not as clever as you think because I voted for Bush and am a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. But then, Bush did more than just ridicule Saddam, didn't he?
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013831.php
Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.
Mmmmm, boobies!
Anonymous 9:05:
Are you too dense to read what I said about that t-shirt picture? I do not give a damn if people want to show their boobs, model t-shirts etc. Hell, I don't care if they legalize prostitution. I object to "feminists" saying they are against sexual harassment and groping and then get on and pose with Happy Hands Clinton. It's hypocritical. In the t-shirt picture you link to, I have on a shirt for Ken Layne and the Corvins, a band that I liked and was asked to model one of their t-shirts. Wow, how hypocritical of me. Sorry if you thought you had a Dr. Laura "gotcha" moment on me but that's just not the case. Sorry to disappoint you.
He's not dense. His dishonesty is willfull.
Bingo. This has been their MO from the onset. They're attempting to direct the argument through dissimulation and by incessantly repeating the same charges and misrepresentations. They know that they're lying, that's what they came here to do. You'll see the same posts nearly verbatim on any of the blogs that have covered this incident. It's the Alinsky method - if you can't gain control simply sh*t all over the place until no one wants to participate - then you've won.
Their actions may be coordinated to some extent.
The path more easily trod is to do as feministic blogger Lindsay "Majikthise" Bayerstein does and simply claim that all Clinton's bimbo eruptions, both known and unknown, are the figments of the prurient rightwing antisex league's imagination.
Though, iirc, Lindsay says elsewhere that she lived in Germany through the early 90s and may not be up-to-speed on the topic.
or she may just not give a damn history.
Once again, Dr. Helen:
Blog as YOU wish, not as others wish. They can always change the channel, so to speak.
And I do agree, the left can't help but shoot themselves in the foot. I chalk this up to their increasing cognitive disonance.
Peter Ingemi sez:
"I'm thinking that until we on the right can get over our obsessions concerning President Clinton we can't ask the left to get over their obsessions about President Bush. Lets both do our best to drop it."
But there's an important difference: while "we on the right" are enjoying ourselves with a cheap gag, "those on the left" are ranting and raving like a bunch of total lunatics.
I'm not "obsessed" with Clinton - I actually voted for him twice and still don't regret it. I just have a low sense of humor, and sometimes he's just too good a walking strait-line pass up.
Question 1)
Which group is doing more harm to its reputation and appeal among nonmembers, the snickerers or the ranters?
Question 2)
Which seems to be putting the most emotional energy into this?
Question 3)
Which side seems to be having fun?
Paraphrases...
What did Clinton do for womens' rights?
Off the top of my head, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Patients' Bill of Rights, increased funding for Head Start, increased federal student aid, the veto of the "partial-birth" abortion ban due to no provision for the health of the mother, and his foreign policy was marked by Hillary Clinton's statement that "Women's rights are human rights." All of those things to one extent or another advance the cause of feminism. All were opposed to one extent or another by earlier Republican administrations.
You asked, I answered. Don't let's get into an argument about any of the specific policies; we already know we disagree about them.
I know, I know, call on me! How about 'choosing the lesser of two evils?'
You can say this about Bush but are incapable of fathoming it about Clinton. Now I KNOW you people are crazy.
Does anyone really think electing any of the current crop of Democrats would protect more constitutional guarantees of liberty than electing one of the Republicans running?
I know, I know! Pick me!
YES.
Also, this "who's having more fun" BS is just that: BS. It's easy to be having fun when you're the sexual harassers. It's a little harder when you're on the receiving end, or you know the person on the receiving end.
"It's easy to be having fun when you're the sexual harassers."
It's true, Bill looks quite cheerful in that picture, doesn't he?
Like I said, I like the guey,a nd I don't hold the behavior of the other people at that dinner agaist him.
It's amazing how liberals have made fools of themselves while conservatives have maintained their dignity in writing about Jessica's breasts.
Which facts are those, Fenrisulven? I eagerly await your analysis since I am a bigger believer in self-improvement (although not so much a believer in facts seeing as I am not a member of the Reality-based Community).
First of all, to say that you, me or anyone is "pimping" for my blog is to imply that my blog is whore, which is deeply insulting to my blog. The passages you quote I think would come under the rubric of opinion not fact. For example, I find the Starr Report very titillating; you may prefer something with more pictures. I agree with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of porn: "I know it when I see it."
When I wrote that libertarian bloggers who support Bush are supporting what they see as "the lesser of two evils", Auguste replied:
"You can say this about Bush but are incapable of fathoming it about Clinton. Now I KNOW you people are crazy."
Of course, no one is objecting to those who voted for Clinton as the lesser of two evils. The question is not whether one should vote for a sexual predator whose policies one finds less objectionable than his opponent's, but whether one should participate in photo-ops with him after he leaves office. So far as I can tell, the libertarian bloggers Auguste so despise haven't even shaken hands with Bush, much less posed with him in group photographs. Auguste's comment is therefore useless, to put it politely.
Dr. Weevil
http://www.drweevil.org
Me and George love staying up late and trying to tune in scrambled porn channels after everyone else has gone to bed, when poppa Bush invites me over to Kennebunkport. Well, he mainly just rides the stationary bike, but I get a kick out of it. and then we get in our sleeping bags in the living room and sack out for a few hours till breakfast.
Honestly, if I can hang out with them, why do you have to fight so much, once you make it into the elite circles , ideology and principles are so BLAH!!! Its like wearing wranglers.
Wow. What a pathetic pissing contest.
Rusty
"...the libertarian bloggers Auguste so despise haven't even shaken hands with Bush, much less posed with him in group photographs."
Oh, give me a break, you're trying to tell me that instapundit, instawife, althouse and others wouldn't jump at a chance with a luncheon with Bush and would refuse to pose for a photo? Even in two years, when he's out of office?
Don't be daft.
Andrea
Personally, I would jump at the chance to have lunch with any former or sitting US President, including Clinton and Carter. I say this while dispising both men and their administrations (Carter's especially). But the truth is, They were US Presidents, and even if I don't regard their celebrity appeal as anything special, the visit would be supremely interesting.
On the other hand, I would walk away from the event remembering that it was just lunch, it wasn't a date and it wasn't a business meeting in which I fanagled some important prize. Unfortunately, these folks seem to have allowed thier own importance to be over-inflated based on the meeting.
As for the tits, I suspect Victoria's Secret helped-out just a bit. And I also suspect that if you look at other pictures this woman posed for, you'd detect similar behavior.
Rusty
Graham Strouse;
I am sorry you feel this way--I have strong opinions on certain subjects and tend to write on those as I see fit--not as others would like me to write. Although you may not agree or like these recent posts, I hope there are others that you find interesting or enjoy. If not, the blogosphere is a big place and I am sure you will find what you are looking for elsewhere.
Anonymous Andrea (7:45 am) writes: "Oh, give me a break, you're trying to tell me that instapundit, instawife, althouse and others wouldn't jump at a chance with a luncheon with Bush and would refuse to pose for a photo? Even in two years, when he's out of office? Don't be daft."
Of course, that is not what I meant at all. I meant that I don't think libertarian bloggers would be lining up to do a photo-op with Bush if he were a sexual predator like Clinton. It's an a fortiori argument: libertarian bloggers don't seem to be trying very hard to meet Bush, who is not a sexual predator, and (I think) would be even less likely to want to meet a hypothetical Republican ex-president who was one.
Of course, there is a severe shortage of sexual predators among Republican ex-presidents, but they have had other embarrassments. How many bloggers would be willing to do photo-ops with to Richard Nixon if he were still alive? Very few, I suspect. Or Spiro Agnew, if he's still alive? (I don't know and don't much care.) A few years ago I passed Agnew on the street in Annapolis and he looked quite approachable. I did not approach him, because I despise him, not for his policies, with which I mostly agree, but for his lack of character. Is it really so hard to understand the point I'm making? Given a choice between Clinton and Bush I or Dole, I can see voting for Clinton, despite his obvious and severe character flaws, but I wouldn't want to meet everyone I might consider voting for, especially if I thought he was using me for his own political purposes.
Dr. Weevil
http://www.drweevil.org
Fenrisulven:
Yes, because me and my blog wield that kind of influence. I think not. Thanks for your delightful commentary--it is nice there are others out there who stick up for free speech and do not freak out when others have a difference of opinion.
Enjoyed your blog. I hope it pays off for you. I also have a blog that you might enjoy...
The Best Lingerie At The Best Prices - Romantic-Intimates
Hah hah! Funny link there Anon 8:04 am! I do not get the spike heels thing though. Never have, maybe it is a part of my wanna be hippie status in the 60s.
Trey
Now how did I miss this thread before? It was quite a (pleasant) surprise to see so much of my post quoted here. I wouldn't have known about it at all if it had not been for the fact that someone recently visited my site via the link on this page and it showed up on my sitemeter. I really enjoyed reading many of the comments left here. I don't consider myself a "lefty" but I don't really call myself a "conservative" either. The two terms are now used in so many ways that their use tells you almost nothing about what a person actually believes. Anyway, no matter what you call yourself (or what others call you), feel free to drop by my blog and comment on anything you see here. I enjoy hearing the views of others.
Thanks again for the mention.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home