you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Dr. Violet Socks on Why Obama’s Campaign Strategy Is Dangerous

The more I see of Obama, the more I understand his game. He’s decided to exploit the Republican propaganda of the past 20 years, rather than fight it, in order to get himself elected. The right-wing lie that Reagan was Saint Ronnie, who won the Cold War and could leap tall buildings in a single bound? Fine, use it. The right-wing lie that the Clintons were incompetent/dishonest/dirty/all of the above? Fine, use it. The right-wing lie that the 60s and 70s ushered in an era of excess and we need to get back to family values and personal responsibility? Fine, use it.The problem with this tactic is that these right-wing lies are dangerous. The lie that the Clintons were incompetent/dishonest/dirty/all of the above is one reason Dubya is in office. The lie that Reagan was a great president is the other. The Reagan lie, in fact, is probably the dominant political fact of the American landscape, and if you don’t know what I’m talking about, dig into the tubes and read up on the Southern strategy, the Moral Majority, Iran Contra, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iraq, the trillion-dollar deficit, the end of the Fairness Doctrine (hello, hate radio and Fox!), AIDS, union busting, the defeat of the ERA, the assault on women’s reproductive rights — oh, geez, I could go on and on.The meme of Saint Ronnie is dangerous. It needs to be exploded. It needs to die. Endorsing it may give Obama the mainstream appeal he personally needs to win, but at what cost to our country?

On the other hand, perhaps the fight is already lost. Perhaps the truth is already a lost cause. One of the most striking things I’ve noticed in this campaign season is the unthinking repetition by young Democrats of the “fact” that the Clintons were incompetent/dishonest/dirty/all of the above. Democrats saying this! It’s right-wing propaganda, but they don’t know it. Repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. The wingnut noise machine is so effective at saturating the very air we breathe that people don’t even know they’ve been brainwashed.

I recognize the pattern because that’s exactly what happened in the feminist movement.

Dr.  Violet Socks rocks it out– go read!   And comment.  I can’t comment on Dr. Violet Socks’ blog from work for some wierd reason so I have to thank her for this post on my own blog.



8 thoughts on “Dr. Violet Socks on Why Obama’s Campaign Strategy Is Dangerous

  1. GOV again posts brilliance. Further the way Clinton is being regarded and allowed to be treated in the media and by the public should be a wake up call to all young American women.

    Posted by kiuku | January 28, 2008, 8:58 pm
  2. Hmm. I would not call the Clintons incompetent, but to imply they were squeaky clean is Democratic propaganda. It was not just right wing propaganda painting Bill Clinton as Mr. Slick. These Democrats that so incensed Dr. Violet Socks by saying the Clintons were dishonest and dirty, perhaps they are finally waking up. Can one say, Democratic Leadership Council? However, if they think Obama has any business claiming the moral high ground, probably they are not waking up. Virtually all politicians are masters of public relations spin. Believe what they say at your own risk.

    Posted by Aletha | January 29, 2008, 6:22 am
  3. Let’s see……Vince Foster, Whitewater, Pardons for pay, The lincoln bedroom being used like motel 6 to doners…..I could go on……. The clintons are dishonest, they are dirty. And to say the right wing brainwashes, well we have one tv news station. How about the other 10 news stations that are far left liberal, you want to talk about fairness doctrine??? As far as talk radio goes, the left has tried their hand at it and has failed miserabley everytime. So if you don’t like what you hear on the radio, turn the station. Who are you or who is congress to tell me what I can or should listen to. If you want to be fair and if your going to censor radio then why don’t the Dems want to do it to television. Oh yeah!! all but one of the news stations is in their camp. How hypocritical!!!! You keep rooting for Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriends wife and keep talking like those two are squeaky clean, I know better. I am very close to all the candidates. And although I don’t agree with everything that Obama says and does I can tell you that he is the same man off camera as he is on. He is a nice, intelligent, respectful human being. Too bad the same cannot be said for Hillary “Rotten” Clinton, or is it just Hillary Clinton now. I can’t keep up with her changing names back and forth all the time. Give me a break!!

    Posted by Bryan | January 29, 2008, 2:45 pm
  4. “I am very close to all the candidates. ”

    Maybe one of them could help you learn spelling and punctuation.

    Posted by Miranda | January 29, 2008, 5:28 pm
  5. Well, once in a while I have to provide examples of the evil that lurks in my mod queue before it gets spammed into oblivion.

    Bryan, how is it that you are “very close to all the candidates”?

    From my perspective, mainstream media is disappointingly biased and that’s aggravating and wrong, but the bias that is of most concern to me is the bias mainstream media demonstrates towards women. All mainstream media evidences this bias, whether it is owned by/operated by/listened to by liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, whatever. There are a tiny, minuscule number of exceptions to this.

    Pretty much the only people who make it on talk radio are haters of some stripe. They are the only people that masses of people will turn in to be titillated by, addicted to hate speech as they are (much of it against women, see above paragraph).

    If you bothered to pay attention you would see that most of us here, including me, have not been enthused about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and are singularly disgusted by the behaviors of Bill Clinton.

    As to Hillary Clinton changing her name, I support every woman’s right to use whatever name she chooses. The names women are given are their fathers’ or husbands’ names, our culture is patriarchal and patrilineal and men are Large and in Charge. Some of us intend to change that and a good starting place is changing our names.

    Anyway, no worries, everyone, I’m not going to approve any more of these, except occasionally. Sometimes I feel I should share what people attempt to comment here.


    Posted by womensspace | January 29, 2008, 6:14 pm
  6. And yeah, Aletha, I certainly agree that the Clintons are not squeaky clean! The problem is that they also aren’t the Anti-Christ which is the picture Republicans/the Right have painted. Possibly if they had not been so (absurdly at times) demonized, their squicky acts and behaviors might have been of more interest to people in a position to address them. As it was it was just word wars and there was so much stuff circulating, it was ridiculous to begin to sort it out.

    Well, you know I’m not much a fan of the Clintons. But more than I’m not a fan, I am DISGUSTED and OUTRAGED by media portrayals of Hillary Clinton.

    Posted by womensspace | January 29, 2008, 7:12 pm
  7. Talk radio and Clinton haters of that ilk are men most of the time. If you pay attention to talk radio, it is about angry men all the time! It is about womanhating all the time.

    Talk radio is simply not a credible source of political information.

    I think right wing people are trained to go nuts over people who are neither demons nor angels. Hillary Clinton in person is a thoughtful intellectual. Alan Greenspan, whom I respect, thought Clinton one of the brightest presidents he ever worked with. He said Bill Clinton was one of the most economically literate presidents of the 20th century.

    Alan Greenspan is basically a libertarian leaning to the republican side of the fence.

    The 90s were an incredibly economically productive time in the U.S. When the republicans got in, well, you can see what they did in eight very LONG years.

    What bothers me is the angry male dominance that is a part of public political discourse. Talk radio, Fox news… I believe over 90% of the major newspaper columnists are white males.
    There really is little diversity in the reporting on this campaign.

    The democrats have opened up the field, but you’ll see men attack Hillary as a woman. You’ll see personal womanhatred directed against her by woman hating men. They are not reporters, they are haters. It’s very easy to tell this mindless right wing programming.

    Of all the things Clinton was charged with in office, none of it resulted in convictions. The right wing machine had been after him for a long time, until that male truth detector known as a grand jury, nailed him for purgury. Of course, if men are not under oath, they don’t believe they have to tell the truth at all.

    So the campaign is about white men not wanting to tip their hand, so they’ll restrain their racism, but they won’t restrain their sexism in public. Hmmm. Why is this? Even right wing christian radio hosts will bemoan racism, but they won’t say one word about sexism ever on their shows. They are the same talk show hosts who trumpet the “woman submit to your husband” male supremacy garbage night and day.

    Black people wouldn’t put up with white supremacy for one minute! But the mystery is why do women put up with male supremacy and blatant woman hating bible idiots and still accept this stuff? When women get good and angry about male supremacy, then we’ll see a real change in men.

    In this campaign, women take note about how Hillary is actually being treated. Are her ideas addressed? Or is she just subject to character assassination? Character assassination is about as sophisticated as the white male talk haters get. They really don’t know how to deal with women’s IDEAS and you can write them off pretty easily if you see them go into their “spiel.”

    Is Obama being treated to the male supremacy club? Is Hillary getting treated to the male supremacy press club? It’s pretty easy to see the difference.

    Posted by Satsuma | January 29, 2008, 8:30 pm
  8. CNN has a very informative chart that shows where each candidate stands on various issues.


    Posted by Miranda | January 31, 2008, 2:41 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,613,344 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo