Worse Than I Thought
I hadn't actually clicked through one of the main links on the post that inspired my last post. But now I have, and it is pretty ridiculous. It also explicitly invokes something that was only implicit in Ms. Barnett's post: the desire to send a message by refusing to vote for Obama against McCain:
I don't want to use the word "hysterical" here, but this is really over the top. Yes yes, it's so obvious. If Obama wins, then it must mean that the Democratic party is misogynistic. John Roberts is most likely to support Obama in the fall. The Democratic Party will, at that point, clearly be pro-life. Makes complete sense.
I don't know what it is about this race that causes people to lose all grip on reality. Check out her comment section: ugghh.
If Barack Obama and his supporters become the new Democratic party, then the Democratic party will no longer be the party of women’s rights. There will still be women in the party, naturally, but basic respect for women as citizens will be a dead letter. It will be the party of John Roberts and anti-choicers and the most virulent outbreak of public misogyny I’ve ever seen. All the sexism of this campaign will be rewarded instead of repudiated....
That’s why I won’t vote for Obama. I’ll be sending a message to the Democratic party: if you want my vote, then you need to earn it.
I don't want to use the word "hysterical" here, but this is really over the top. Yes yes, it's so obvious. If Obama wins, then it must mean that the Democratic party is misogynistic. John Roberts is most likely to support Obama in the fall. The Democratic Party will, at that point, clearly be pro-life. Makes complete sense.
I don't know what it is about this race that causes people to lose all grip on reality. Check out her comment section: ugghh.
posted by James | 9:45 PM
5 Comments:
This is really weird. Your argument about symbolic votes in the last post is correct, but it doesn't get to what weirds me out about these people. No, what's really confusing is the insistence that Obama's behavior is misogynist, and that Obama's agenda represents a big departure from the glorious Democratic party just before Obama. Huh?
(The John Roberts thing is kinda priceless.)
I guess there are some clues in the comments -- mostly about surprise and disappointment that Hillary is no longer winning -- but it all seems pretty stupid.
Ugh, I've been reading the comments more. It's a scary view into the role successful blogs can play in their readers' lives.
"You've been supporting my irrational belief system since February!!!"
(I don't think I've ever read comments on a successful blog that weren't depressing in some way.)
This is disgusting and insane. The thing that blows my mind the most is the complete lack of (attempted) justification. The author doesn't even bother to back up her claims with (selective, distorted) examples--which suggests that her blog is preaching to the choir. This is probably good, because it means she's not going to change anyone's mind, and she's not going to be taken seriously by legitimate media (where does The Stranger fall?). Rather she's just going to (further) radicalize her rabid readership--which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, they'll be more active and vocal, but they'll also be less credible. The real issue is the blog's marginal impact on their activity. If it convinces them to not to vote, then that's obviously a problem.
Does this blog really speak for a significant portion of Hillary supporters? Does it merely exaggerate the views of a significant portion of Hillary supporters? Say it ain't so.
"Hysterical" is the best word to use here. Let's give them all hysterectomies to rid them of their hysteria!
ugg factory outlet
ray bans
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
longchamp
ugg clearance
north face outlet
hogan
true religion outlet
nike air max
201711.13wengdongdong
Post a Comment
<< Home