Trackbacks & Pings

1. Another linkage catch up post. « Small-Town Elitist on 12 Sep 2008 at 9:09 pm

   [...] has a post about the situation that some feminists find themselves in following McCain’s selection of [...]

Comments

1. livininphilly wrote:

   I had a similar experience when I saw a Guerilla Girls performance (very problematic on many different levels) but one skit that just really, really didn’t sit right with me was a skit about the presidential nominee election. At the time Hillary was actually winning a lot of the primaries. The skit went like this:

   Guerrilla Girls in their gorrilla masks (anyone else find this bit particularly offensive?) were dancing on stage having a party b/c a woman had a chance at becoming president. One shouts to the audience: “who says women or a black man can’t run the country (pics of hillary & obama flash)? Well we Guerrilla Girls think that they can! By why not combine the powers of the two and nominate this woman (picture of Oprah)?! But since she isn’t running Guerrilla Girls think that women should vote for Hillary because a a black man is still a man but a woman, now that’s change!” This monologue was met with uproarious applause from the audience (predominantly white) while my friends & I WOC politely applauded or didn’t applaud at all (that would be me!) They were saying that people should vote for a woman simply b/c she’s a woman. I was so pissed off. It was the final straw b/c so much of their show rubbed me the wrong way. I also thought that it was very ironic b/c spun another way based on race the arguement could’ve been “A white woman is still white, voting for a black man, now that’s change!”

   BTW: check out http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 10:31 am ¶

2. Thea Lim wrote:

   @ livininphilly

   Ugh! I had heard good things about the Guerilla Girls, so that sucks.

   Even in Traister’s article (and I consider Traister to be very clever and a great critic) she refers to Clinton and Obama as “a woman and a black man.” Actually, for that sentence to have proper symmetry it should read “A white woman and a black man.”

   Grr. Arr.

   (thanks for the link!)

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 10:35 am ¶

3. atlasien wrote:

   I really don’t have any problem with people voting because the candidate shares some identity with them…. as long as it’s one factor among other factors.

   Sharing the same identity is like a shortcut… it means the person will probably look out for your interests better than someone who doesn’t share your identity. For example, I’d be wary of any local politician who hadn’t lived in Atlanta for very long.

   When you throw race in, I think white voters probably have a harder time looking past race to see broader shared identity.

   Where the Republicans suck and are evil is how they turn shared identity into identity politics and then use it to undermine everyone.

   They use homophobic gay people to attack gay people, anti-immigrant immigrants to attack immigrants, anti-black black people to attack black people, anti-feminist women to attack women and so on.

   I had a gay Arab-American friend who used to joke that if he started writing gay-Arab-bashing columns, he’d be a rich man by now.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 11:08 am ¶

4. Slush wrote:

   I think the key is what you quoted in the beginning, “Palin represents a form of feminine power that is utterly digestible to those who have no intellectual or political use for actual women.”

   That is not true is a statement about race or gender for either Clinton or Obama. Both of those candidates had to downplay their respective feminism or anti-racism to appease the fearful mainstream and run a major campaign.

   Palin is the outlier, like Clarence Thomas, who gets championed by Republicans for not fitting their demographic mold (and thus not representing much of their demographic either).

   I put a lot behind identity politics, and I think there is a lot of merit to voting for someone because they are a woman, or because they are black, or Latin@, etc. And I would take it so far as to vote for someone I might not otherwise support. But not quite so far as Palin, because she represents repression of women in all the forms I know of, other than her specific political advancement. But for example, Condoleezza Rice, whose foreign policy I hate…I might vote for her. She’s smart as hell.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶

5. Renee wrote:

   Palin is a colluder of the worst sort and should never be considered a feminist. There is nothing about her policies that could be considered even remotely pro woman. That she feels that women are responsible enough to kill (gun ownership) but not have control over own reproduction even in the case of rape and incest speak loudly about what she embodies—patriarchal values. To vote for her is not identifying with womanhood it is identifying with patriarchy.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 12:57 pm ¶

6. Thea Lim wrote:

   @ atlasien + Slush

   I vote for someone based on bio and identity – but only in so far as how their bio and identity influences their politics.

   I’m not sure what to think of Obama (as a Canadian I have the luxury of not needing to be totally up on his politics). I think he is a bit of a slippery character. But from his “A More Perfect Union” speech and the speech he gave at the DNC, I can see that his experience as a mixed race person of colour totally affects how he sees race, and how he advocates for the issues of people of colour – in a way that I agree with.

   When I heard about Palin one thing that marginally excited me, was the fact that she has a Down’s Syndrome baby and that she actually talked about wanting to advocate for families with special needs kids. So possibly an example of a person’s bio making them a candidate worth supporting.

   Very quickly though the press is questioning whether or not her identity as a Down’s Syndrome mum really will influence her policies in a way that helps special needs families: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/us/politics/07needs.html

   If bio/identity doesn’t influence politics in a way that means good outcomes for politically underrepresented groups, I’m against voting based on identity. Like it’s not enough just to be a woman, or a person of colour, or a special needs parent.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 1:18 pm ¶

7. octogalore wrote:

   I agree identity isn’t a good way to determine to whom to vote for.

   Thea’s point re Palin is well taken.

   I think the jury’s out on Obama too, though. Obama wrote letters supporting Rezko projects and didn’t intervene after the taxpayer-funded buildings (which housed many black families) turned into slums. At the time, Obama was a lawyer with a firm of which Rezko was a client. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article). And while I personally love that he did this, I’m sure others aren’t thrilled that he’s postponing tampering with the Bush tax cuts until end of 2010 when they phase out.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 4:03 pm ¶

8. Joseph wrote:

   @ Thea Lim
   “Back in March, the Shameless Team and I had the pleasure of attending WAM. There we heard the legendary Helen Thomas assert that feminists should vote for a female candidate, just because she’s a woman…At that point, I suddenly became aware of the fact that I was a woman of colour in a room that didn’t have a lot of women of colour.”

   Sigh. Here we go.

   Thea, Helen Thomas is (wait for it) an Arab American. I know, right? We are everywhere…

   She’s first generation. And she, an immigrant Arab girl, grew up in Kentucky.

   So, even though I completely disagree with Thomas’ notion that we should be voting along ethnic/racial/gender lines I think reducing her reasoning to “She is a privileged white lady so she doesn’t know my life” is…not good enough. A quick scan of the room to assess skin tone doesn’t tell the whole story. Okay?

   Having said that, as far as voting for a member of an underrepresented group out of “brand loyalty” is concerned: nuh-uh. Me? I would jump at the chance to vote for a progressive old white man (say, Ted Kennedy) over Darrel Issa, the only Arab American congressman…and a giant Republican.

   No freaking contest.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 4:57 pm ¶

9. Thea Lim wrote:

   @ Joseph

   Hrm, why did you assume I didn’t know Helen Thomas was Lebanese? I didn’t know much about her before WAM but afterwards I went home and looked her up. Discovering that she was Lebanese actually made me feel worse, not better about what she said.

   I’m not sure why you got the impression that I thought she was “a privileged white lady who doesn’t know my life.” The only thing I said about HT was that she thought a person’s gender – regardless of their politics – was reason enough to vote for them.

   It’s funny b/c HT’s race – at least in the context of her comment about voting for HRC – is more proof that we shouldn’t just align ourselves with someone on the basis of race.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 5:05 pm ¶

10. Joseph wrote:

    @Thea Lim
    If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

    But you wrote:
    “There we heard the legendary Helen Thomas assert that feminists should vote for a female candidate, just because she’s a woman. At that point, I suddenly became aware of the fact that I was a woman of colour in a room that didn’t have a lot of women of colour.”

    And then you wrote:

    “At the same conference, the very ugly rift between grassroots feminists of colour and grassroots non-anti-racist feminists was brought to the harsh light of day. ”

    And there is a big picture of Margaret Thatcher accompanying this post.

    So can you see why it seemed to me that you were including Helen Thomas (who is, again, totally wrong about this in my book) among the aforementioned white ladies?

    While I disagree personally (and, frankly, as an activist) with the notion of identity politics I think considering Helen Thomas’ background might be interesting in assessing why she would say such a thing. (In the same way that Obama’s ethnic mix–and his experience negotiating the dominant culture–seems to have shaped his world view and approach to politics)

    But really, it wasn’t my intention to derail this thread I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page about who is (really) who.

    More on topic: It chills my blood to read a comment like “I might vote for Condoleeza Rice.” Yeah, Lucrezia Borgia was smart too, but I wouldn’t accept a glass of wine from her…

    I think there is a very real possibility that a politician who is a member of a marginalized group is forced to do even less for her/his group than anyone else, to insulate against charges of favoritism. So just voting in a person who is like you in some way is no guarantee that your concerns will be heard.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 5:47 pm ¶

11. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Joseph,

    Since we are going with derailing – and theoreticals – I would totally vote Condi over Sarah. She’d blow people up strategically, not launch the New Millennium Crusades. If this is a lesser of two evils kind of thing, Condi wins hands down.

    Hmm…maybe we should have done a fantasy candidate pool for this election. If I’m still here four years from now, I’ll do it.

    (This is a joke folks, in case you can’t tell with all these tempers flying high.)

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 6:53 pm ¶

12. Joseph wrote:

    My temper isn’t high. My neighbor is high though–if she thinks she can play her TV that loud. I am about to give her the New York City three loud knocks on the wall…

    I think you are underestimating Condi’s potential to start those Crusades. She is an Evangelical Christian with a Chevron oil tanker named after her…those are not two great tastes that taste great together. The only upside to a Condi presidency would be forcing SNL to hire a Black woman comic.

    If we are playing imaginary candidate I am surprised no one is talking about Colin Powell. There was a minute there that I really thought he’d be our first black president. I think he totally could have had it if he’d wanted it.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 7:38 pm ¶

13. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Joe –

    I’m not saying she wouldn’t. I’m saying she’s strategic. I feel like the whole Middle East wouldn’t be under threat, just those who didn’t cooperate. Whereas Palin and them would watch Team America:World Police and use it to plan strategy.

    And I do recall that Colin Powell was fairly clear in his “that job? Hell no…” statements back in the day. Political work drama is a killer.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 7:43 pm ¶

14. em wrote:

    i know this was a ways back, at number 3, but it got me thinking.

    @ atlasien: when you say that a shared identity can be a shortcut, i think it’s very important to recognize the common denominator among almost all national political figures: wealth.

    just because a person has at one point in his / her life experienced poverty–as a man, woman, and/or person of color–does not mean that person will advocate for poor or middle class americans. fyi, when i say middle class, i’m going by the common sense definition. not this 5 million a year bs.

    when you write: “They use homophobic gay people to attack gay people, anti-immigrant immigrants to attack immigrants, anti-black black people to attack black people, anti-feminist women to attack women and so on.”

    i think it’s important to note that these anomalous personalities bring with them a large amount of self interest concerning their money. i’m not saying money or having it is a bad thing, but when people forget that wealth is the exception, and that there’s a certain amount of give and take required in any system, then there’s a problem.

    so i guess when it comes down to how i feel about identity politics, i identify with people who politically and through their actions show that they will advocate for the interests of most people–not a privileged wealthy few.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 8:58 pm ¶

15. jvansteppes wrote:

    Joseph, thanks for the clarification about Helen Thomas, I was confused too by the wording.

    Thea, I’m a but iffy about the manner in which you compare dominant feminists’ unease with Palin with your unease with Clinton, but maybe I’m misreading here.

    Clinton at least thinks of her principles of being feminist even if her policies and actions fail so many women, whereas Palin probably has experience in some abortion-doctor-chasing militia somewhere. I see that both of them try to appeal to voters as women but I think Palin was brought onboard primarily because she might sway evangelical voters.

    Identity politics are dangerous and everyone uses them, including Obama supporters, even if their candidate is, in my opinion, a whole lot more relevant to most people than HRC. And they feel good to people whose identities are constructed mainly about one aspect of who they are, which is why white women love identity politics, especially white straight, upper/middle class and able-bodied women…

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 9:26 pm ¶

16. James wrote:

    I would be amazed if Helen Thomas said that. It just does not sound like anything she would say, even if she would like to see a woman president some day. I see her as saying vote for the individual you think would vote most in line with your views.
    She in certainly NOT for the Republican ticket even though a female is on the ticket.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 11:43 pm ¶

17. Jaye wrote:

    Wanted to comment on the last 4 paragraphs of Traister’s article. I was with her until these lines:

    ” It is infuriating that Clinton, her supporters and, yes, also those Obama supporters who voiced their displeasure at the sexist treatment Clinton sometimes received, and also female voters, and also females full stop, are being implicated in feminism’s bastardization.

    But if we inadvertently paved the way for this, then the Democratic Party mixed the concrete, painted lanes on the road, put up streetlights and called it an interstate. The role of the left in this travesty is almost too painful to contemplate just yet…
    And it’s also true that if there hadn’t been so much stone-cold silence, so much shoulder-shrugging “What, me sexist?” inertia from the left, if there had been a little more respect…then the right would not have had the fuel to power this particular weapon.

    Which leads us to my greatest nightmare: that because my own party has not cared enough, or was too scared, to lay its rightful claim to the language of women’s rights, that Sarah Palin will reach historic heights of power… That she will hit her marks by clambering over the backs, the bodies, the rights of the women on whose behalf she claims to be working, and that she will do it all under the banner of feminism.”

    It really pisses me off that Traister doesn’t mention the race-baiting at the heart of the Clinton campaign, because I personally think that was PART of the reason for the left’s silence over the media’s treatment of Clinton. There was genuine sexism that should have been talked about, but honestly, I wasn’t in a mood to really defend Clinton after being on the receiving end of her racist innuendoes (and to me, racism is both racist AND sexist, although some people might tend to overlook that). Traister also didn’t mention that some of us thought that HRC only brought up sexism when it became convenient for her as a tool to win votes, not because her campaign genuinely aspired to feminist values.

    HRC’s win-at-any-cost tactics brought us to this place. I wouldn’t look at the left’s silence on the sexist treatment of HRC without taking an equally hard look at HRC’s race-baiting, and seeing how ALL these things contributed to the identity politics war we currently have on our hands.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 4:39 am ¶

18. gatamala wrote:

    That’s the part I had a problem with too Jaye.

    In addition to the quote above I co-sign this:

    But while the Republicans would have us believe that Palin can simply stand in for Hillary Clinton, there is nothing interchangeable about these politicians. We began this history-making election with one kind of woman and have ended up being asked to accept her polar opposite. Clinton’s brand of femininity is the kind that remains slightly unpalatable in America. It is based on competence, political confidence and an assumption of authority that upends comfortable roles for men and women. It’s a kind of power that has nothing to do with the flirtatious or the girly, nothing to do with the traditionally feminine. It is authority that is threatening because it so closely and calmly resembles the kind of power that the rest of the guys on a presidential stage never question their right to wield.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 11:19 am ¶

19. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Jaye and gatamala

    I’m with you. It annoys me when people discuss the sexism experienced by HRC without talking about the racism in and around her campaign.

    @ jvansteppes

    I agree that Palin and Clinton are very different. I tried to make that point by discussing how I think Clinton is admirable.

    The similarities I was drawing between them were not to do with their specific politics – which are very different – but with the way their campaigns are being run. So it’s not the content of the thing, but the shape of the thing that’s similar. Does that make sense?

    @ James

    You and me both. I didn’t know much about Thomas before seeing her speak, but did know that she was a big deal, and prolly not a Republican. It was stunning that she said that. An audience member asked her flat out “Should we vote for someone just because they are a woman?” and she said “Yes.” It was a shocker all right. If she is anti-Palin (which wouldn’t be surprising), she’s gonna have to eat her words.

    @ Joseph

    I do feel that you are reading things into my post that are not there. It’s odd to me that in response to an article that is about not liking (or disliking) a public figure solely based on their identity, you are insisting that I have beef with Helen Thomas based on your perception of my perception of her race.

    The picture of Margaret Thatcher is there because to me she is an excellent example of a politician who is not pro-woman, just because she is a woman. Her race has nothing to do with it.

    Similarly, when I spoke of Geraldine Ferraro, Helen Thomas and HRC, it was not to say that they were white women and hence had bad politics. It was what they said and did, not who they were, that alienated me. I didn’t make any statement otherwise. I was not writing a post about white women, and mentioned Helen Thomas along with a bunch of bad, terrible, white women I know. I was writing a post about women who did a bad job advocating for all women. You thinking that I thought their poor advocacy was because of their race, is an incorrect assumption.

    Incidentally I have a white mumma. So for me to say that no white women could know my life would be a bit foolish.

    To wit, I never even use the phrase “white feminists.” Because my issue with Ferraro, (for eg) is not that she is white, but that she is a non-anti-racist-feminist. A mouthful! But a phrase that I use very carefully in an attempt to not equate identity with politics. I talk more about it here if you are interested: http://www.racialicious.com/2008/06/13/rage-of-an-anti-racist-feminist/

    The line that seems to be riling you is where I talk about suddenly realising I was one of few WOC among many white women.

    That line is in there because b/c my alienation from feminism, which began during the primaries, was around race.

    At Thomas’ speech I had my anti-racist guard down, you could say. I was like “I’m among my people! I’m with feminists!” I made the assumption we were on the same page due to our shared gender and supposed shared ideology. I wasn’t doing racial headcounts, and I didn’t expect to feel marginalised. When Thomas made the comment about voting for HRC, I suddenly *did* feel marginalised.

    I felt then – more strongly than I ever had before – that just because (almost) everyone else in the room was a woman and a feminist, didn’t mean we were on the same team. For eg, what about the fact that many of them had had different racial experiences than me? It was my feminist un-click moment (hurr hurr) you could say – the first time that I really and truly felt like the movement didn’t quite speak for me.

    I’m not normally that much of a softie but your comment really stung, and made me feel quite angry. I have to say I too have read things into your first comment, and made assumptions about you based on it. I feel as if you were talking down to me because I’m not a dude. Is that a wrong assumption?

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶

20. Marge Twain wrote:

    @Joseph
    “The only upside to a Condi presidency would be forcing SNL to hire a Black woman comic.”

    Keep wishing. More likely, they’d just use Kenan Thompson.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶

21. Marge Twain wrote:

    There are a lot of women on the right who would probably love to see Palin as the VP. That’s one of many reasons McCain was smart to pick her that have nothing to do with bereft Clinton supporters.

    I find it hard to believe Helen Thomas would have said that outside the context of supporting Clinton, a woman candidate who has a solid record of advocating for abortion rights, healthcare, and families (”women’s issues”) It is feminist to support a woman who is for women. Though a feminist may support Obama, I’ve never heard a feminist argument for it, only progressive(sans feminism) or “lesser-of-two-evils” arguments, now that he’s the nominee. He’s not the patron saint of anti-racist PoC, either. A large number of us preferred Clinton during the primaries. Some of us still remember “Hillary Clinton D-Punjab”

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶

22. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Marge

    Helen Thomas made that comment in March, which was before Palin ever appeared on the scene. I think what she was trying to say is that we need a woman in the White House, no matter what.

    I doubt she would make the same comment today. I think Sarah Palin demonstrates
    quite clearly why voting for someone on the basis on gender is bad – I think in the frenzy of the primaries Thomas wasn’t thinking about someone like Palin.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 3:46 pm ¶

23. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Marge/Joseph –

    Helen Thomas most certainly did say just that at the WAM conference. Thea is not making this up. If you go back to the blog posts from that time (I’m not) some people referenced the issue as the kick-off to a lot of the problems that were reported with WAM. Carmen, Wendi, and I didn’t get there until Saturday, but we heard about it. Multiple times, from multiple people.

    Would she have said that in support of Palin? Probably not. But at the time, when the primaries were dominated by woman vs. black man analysis, her message was crystal clear.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶

24. Marge Twain wrote:

    I do understand when she said it and I’m not questioning that it happened. I just said she likely would not have done so outside the context of her supporting a woman running for office, someone whose experience as a woman heped shape her into being the most passionate and effective advocate for women in the race in March.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶

25. Marge Twain wrote:

    heped=helped

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶

26. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya:
    Hold up now…I never said Helen Thomas didn’t say it: I took Thea at her word about that. Your point about it being centered around Clinton rather that Palin is provocative. It would be interesting to follow up with her and ask what she thinks now…

    @Marge Twain Re: Kenan Thompson
    I wish I couldn’t picture that. But God help me, I can.

    @Thea:
    As I said when I first replied, if I misunderstood your intent, I apologize. I’ve read your stuff before and happily cosigned your points as both a poster and commenter, so, to be clear, I’m not “insisting” anything. But yeah, I did think you were lumping Thomas in with the other women you reference because, for me, the context was confusing, which is why I spoke up in the first place. If you were stung by my first response I am sorry, it wasn’t my intention.

    I’m not sure how to respond to your question about your not being a dude (presumably because I am a dude)…That wasn’t in my head, but I’ll think about it… What I remember thinking when I replied was “Here we go again,” mostly because of the shit storm that followed Nader’s comments re: Obama. I guess I am still pissed off about some of the–I thought– ignorant shit people said about that. (Latoya, you are right, I should just go ahead and write about it) But in either case, I should have taken a moment before jumping in so strong in my reply. Maybe my concern would have been better framed as a question? Would you have been able to hear it better that way?

    Anyway, are we cool?

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 6:02 pm ¶

27. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Latoya

    Thanks for backing me up friend!

    @ Joseph

    Yah, I think it was the assumption that I didn’t know my facts that upset me. Your comment came across as very condescending and that really got my goat. Thanks for clarifying – and yes, I think if you were to have phrased it as a question (as in, did you know HT is not white, did you know that it comes across that you are putting her in with other white women?) it wouldn’t have bugged me. It was more that you seemed to have jumped the gun and made a bunch of conclusions, based on what I felt you read into the post rather than what was actually written.

    Yes, we’re cool!

    Posted 13 Sep 2008 at 12:28 pm ¶

28. Joseph wrote:

    @Thea
    “…based on what I felt you read into the post rather than what was actually written.”

    But I was responding to what you actually wrote, Thea. That is what I’ve been trying to say: what you wrote is confusing. I am not the only person who thought so. I hear that you were stung but…why can you not take responsibility for that? Especially given the stakes for these issues during this election?

    Look, I meant what I said before, I am happy to step up and say that I could have expressed my concern differently… But I want to be clear that I am not apologizing for speaking up in the first place.

    Posted 13 Sep 2008 at 4:33 pm ¶

29. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Joseph

    Ok I think we are having a miscommunication here. What was confusing?

    Is it that it is not clear whether or not my problem with HT, HRC, Ferraro and Thatcher is their race, or their politics?

    If that’s the issue, I disagree with you. Because I do not mention HT, HRC, Ferraro or Thatcher’s races once (and obviously, if this was a post about their races, it would’ve come up in the post that HT is not white). I do however talk about how the politics of campaign (both its content, and the politics of how HRC was represented – as a woman who spoke for all women) alienated WOC voters and their allies.

    I also don’t say “I went to WAM and their keynote speaker was some privileged white lady, how I am supposed to feel included in a place like that??” I say rather that it is what Thomas said, not who she was, that distressed me.

    So I feel like you are reading things into the post, possibly from earlier experiences of this election (as you mentioned above). I sense you are not going to agree with me on this.

    I think that’s ok though – I think we are flogging an almost-dead horse here.

    Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 11:13 am ¶

30. Joseph wrote:

    @Thea
    “I feel like you are reading things into the post, possibly from earlier experiences of this election (as you mentioned above).I sense you are not going to agree with me on this.”

    Yeah, okay.

    I have a really bad reaction to this kind of passive aggressive language. So I’m gonna go because I can feel myself getting angry all over again.

    Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶