Wow. Simply Wow. (4.00 / 2)

  Is vast wimpiness a requirement to work for a progressive organization?

  Was there anything FALSE about that ad? Shouldn't "progressive" organizations, at least, be focusing on the CONTENT? It seems to me that it's these columnists who are undermining the antiwar effort with their shrieking and panicking, not MoveOn, which has stood by its ad.

  A military uniform is not a shroud of automatic honor and integrity. Petraeus IS a fraud and a Bush shill, and that's the idea progressive organizations should be reinforcing. God knows the rest of the media's fawning over him enough like a prom date...

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 20:27:57 PM CDT

One of the big differences between Dems and Republicans... (4.00 / 3)

Republicans run toward their base.

Dems run away from it.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 20:34:07 PM CDT

These people are just pathetic (4.00 / 1)

Lets hope their little jihad against MoveOn is as spectacular as their ability (or lack thereof) to get progressives elected.

I'll take MoveOn in a streetfight against the Rethugs any day!

---

by: surfk9 @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 20:55:06 PM CDT

What Do You Expected From the Terminally Deluded??? (4.00 / 1)

In one fell swoop, they [MoveOn] have undone massive work by countless progressives trying to bridge the gap with the military and reconnect.

Uh, yeah, right.  Because everyone in America had the utmost respect for Petraeas, a household name for a generation who was universally regarded him as a rock of integrity.

Oh, wait...

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 22:00:37 PM CDT

And let's not forget that (0.00 / 0)

Criticism of one Bush stooge is basically the same as calling for every American soldier to be strung up in the streets of Najaf. What on earth were MoveOn thinking?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 13:36:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There was nothing actually wrong with Kerry's joke (4.00 / 1)

about how "if you don't study you end up in Iraq" a week before the 2006 elections either, other than his slightly garbling it, but I'm glad that with the help of the party he stuffed himself into a mine shaft until the election was over.  It doesn't keep me from being happy to work with Kerry these days.  And I'll happily keep working with MoveOn, even though their "joke" was similarly defensible on logical terms and comparably tone-deaf.

What prompts me to write, though, is that I am completely sick of seeing progressives use phrases like "Tomasky's battered spouse enabling of Democrats."  You manage at once to insult both women in abusive relationships and the probable majority of progressive activists who don't fight back to your satisfaction against the Democrats.  While I'm of the pre-"post-feminist" (i.e. "feminist") generation, I don't want to being accused of getting the vapors and using aristocratic language, so: for fuck's sake, Matt, can you think of a less fucking tasteless metaphor for those of us who don't think its likely the Democrats can actually be moved to stop the war right now, as much as we might like it and work towards it, than that?  Call us dancing organ grinder monkeys with shit-eating grins if you have to -- just some other metaphor you think you can defend.

You think that the Democratic Party has been beating us into submission?  No, maybe they've been sitting around watching football rather than mowing the lawn and we're pissed about it, but that's another sort of problem.

Some of my academic writing is on battered women who kill, in the tradition of feminist legal scholars who reject so-called "Battered Women's Syndrome" in favor of the understanding that when women don't leave abusive relationships it's not because of some sort of Stockholm Syndrome or Learned Helplessness.  The question most often asked by people who are above and outside of such situations is "why didn't she leave?" -- oddly, a lot like your insinuation about Tomasky and others.  It turns out that it's usually because there are rational reasons (largely dealing with the lack of availability of other options and of their felt responsibilities to their children) that they feel they have to stay.  So it is with progressives and the Democrats.  They are sometimes lazy and sometimes a bad provider, but that's not the same as being a batterer, and implications drawn are different.

If it were, I guess we could shoot the Democratic Party while it's asleep, or wait until it's passed out drunk and set it on fire, but then we're out on the street without social services, and our kids are taken away and put in rotten foster homes while we go to jail, and when we get out we wake up in Margaret Atwood's Gilead.

Or, if you don't want to follow the "battered spouse" metaphor through to its legitimate conclusion, we could just stop using it.  It is not only "distasteful and ill-considered," it is fucking repulsive and bone-headed and far below the standard that you and the many other great progressive writers who occasionally trot it out demonstrate in most of their work.  I will plan to send the same message to other people who I see using it, so don't feel singled out.

If this makes you feel "risk averse," I hope you get beyond it soon.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 22:00:51 PM CDT

don't agree (4.00 / 2)

You manage at once to insult both women in abusive relationships and the probable majority of progressive activists who don't fight back to your satisfaction against the Democrats.

I wrote spouse, not women.  There are men in positions of abuse as well, both gay and straight, and any such relationship indicts both parties not just the one doing the abuse.  In this case the metaphor may be clumsy because we're talking about civic engagement.

I did not insult anyone, but it is instructive you perceived enabling of immoral unprincipled behavior as an insult.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 22:14:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leaving aside the content of Major Danby's post... (4.00 / 1)

The fact that you followed up the 'battered spouse' description with a reference to Blanche DuBois from 'A Streetcar Named Desire' reinforced the impression that you are typing Democrats with stereotypically female behaviour when they cave in on Iraq.

While it may have been inadvertent, if progressives don't try to avoid sexist framing in their use of language - who will?

---

by: writkat @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 23:01:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, I'm sorry, you insulted both men *and* women (0.00 / 0)

in abusive relationships.  My mistake.  Do you really think that the term isn't feminizing?  A nice little study could determine how people interpret your use of it within a day or so.  (Do you *really* think that the use of "spouse" makes a serious difference here?)

I elaborate here (without naming you or this site) if you want to waste the time with it: http://www.dailykos....

You don't know why abused men and women sometimes feel they have to put up with it, evidently, and if you did you would probably read something very different into your methaphor.  As you used it, it is doubly insulting.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 23:08:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Feminist (4.00 / 1)

I'm a feminist and don't think it's offensive to say the Democratic Congress has battered wife syndrome. Or that these fools get the vapors.


Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 01:26:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your opinion is duly noted (0.00 / 0)

but not exactly conclusive, is it?  What do you know about so-called "Battered Wife Syndrome"?

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 15:30:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stop trying to hijack this thread (0.00 / 0)

Start your own thread about spousal abuse.

Sure we can discuss more than one thing at a time on a thread and certainly if it has to do with the original post, which this does not.

I don't know about the feminist to whom you directed the question, but I know a helluva lot about 'battered wife syndrome' in experiences with my own mother. THAT is not the issue.

The issue is the content and message of the MoveON ad. MoveOn has been a bit over the top for me here and there. I don't care. It's about getting the message out and across and IT WORKS.  Yep, I send $$$ to MoveON and I will continue to do so. Personally, I would not have used the play on Petraeus'name; I would have used the context of betrayal in another way.

However as anyone knows who has been in the military (as I have as well), the higher officer and higher enlisted are sooo status quo, specifically officers. They have to be to retain command.

---

by: Wordsmith @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 18:04:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you're trying to accuse me (0.00 / 0)

of hijacking a diary, not a thread.  I did start my own thread about Matt's use of a bogus metaphor involving spousal abuse.  You're on it.  There are plenty of other threads on this diary.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 19:45:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please stop this discussion after this comment (0.00 / 0)

It's irrelevant to this thread and if anyone wants to discuss it they can go to your thread on DK. Telling the Democratic Congress to their face they suffer from battered wife syndrome is very apt. I'm using Lenore Walker's definition of the term from her landmark book in the 80s. It is the common understanding of the issue and it's great you're researching it and have the most current understanding of this issue.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 00:09:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, Walker's work is no longer the common understanding of the issue (0.00 / 0)

Please read "Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking" by my former professor, Elizabeth Schneider, for the arguments on this; in deference to your request I will not belabor them here.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:01:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dear dancing organ grinder monkey with a shit-eating grin (4.00 / 1)

Your post actually proves the analogy.  "It turns out that it's usually because there are rational reasons (largely dealing with the lack of availability of other options and of their felt responsibilities to their children) that they feel they have to stay.  So it is with progressives and the Democrats."  Do you recommend murder for every battered spouse?

p.s.  My mother taught me a good straight line is a terrible thing to waste.

---

by: jeffroby @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:09:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The response to your last question is "no" (0.00 / 0)

The response to your P.S. is agreement, the response to your title is laughing, and the response to the rest of your post is confusion.  If there's an analogy to be made, it might be made to actual battered spouses, which would not be an analogy to so-called "Battered Spouse Syndrome," which does not actually typify them except in pop psychology.  Is that more clear?

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 15:27:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They wish (0.00 / 0)

that they were a tiny bit as effective as MoveOn. The difference is that MoveOn is a grassroots organization,and members are the organization!
Policy wonks are totally out of touch with real people on the ground.
I have to say that I was feeling pretty depressed at the beginning of this week as it seemed that Bush had the momentum. Is it just me, or do things appear to be swinging back our way? I think MoveOn's taking the heat for stating what needed to be said, that we were being sold another version of stay the course by the President's mouthpiece.

Has starting this conversation shifted things back our way a bit...?

---

by: Metrix @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 22:06:22 PM CDT

Man (0.00 / 0)

I was annoyed in the past few weeks as I noticed some had taken to the incredibly middle-school BS of labeling Petraeus Betrayus. However as this shit happens a lot I thought little of it (annoyance). Now that it is COMPLETELY pwnd by MoveOn I am really over all this. Had that ad read :
Will General Petraeus, Betray U.S. ?
I would not feel so embarrassed by the blatantly, pathetic, juvenile name-calling bullshit that sadly overtook any NECESSARY impact the message might have had.
I am fervently against this (what the hell is this anyway? Mission was accomplished. No war authorization from Congress. So what is this now? A war? WTF?!?!?) fiasco in Iraq.
I am 'beyond adjectives' in describing the opportunist trash that is running the ONLY feasible opposition party (Dems) to the truly base, fossilized atrocity that is the Republican party.
Now with this reaction from a 'Democratic', 'progressive' group I am just undone. It just seems like rather than have a FUCKING vision and PASSIONATELY endorsing that vision, good, bad or otherwise, the Democrats running the show are only concerned with appeasing as many people as possible. Crafting a message that will not step on any toes and will not offend anyone will NEVER win an election. PERIOD.
Petraeus has provided ample proof of his politicizing Iraq. Rather than run ads SHOWING this, what does this group do?!? Whine about losing military support?!?
How pathetic is this party?!?
UGH!

---

by: p.8.n @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:26:10 AM CDT

Soooo.....now we're discussing something totally different (0.00 / 0)

JezzusChrist! We're discussing an ad and Matt's take on it. This is NOT about anyone in abusive relationships. Stop with the bullshit smoke screens! And we wonder why we're getting NOWHERE! Does no one understand anymore the use of metaphor, analogy, example, etc?

Leaving aside Tomasky's battered spouse enabling of Democrats in Congress for doing nothing to end the war despite the 2006 mandate

Do you understand that sentence? Good - now MoveON!

---

by: Wordsmith @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 11:06:28 AM CDT

That's the value of political correctness (0.00 / 0)

for the right wingers, that is.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:25:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I object to this particular metaphor (0.00 / 0)

How exactly do you think I should convey that opinion?

If he had said "Leaving aside Tomasky's house n***er enabling of Democrats in Congress for doing nothing to end the war despite the 2006 mandate," would you have understood my speaking up?

Assuming so, then understand why I spoke up here.  We can have more than one conversation in a diary at one time.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 15:29:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More than one conversation is fine (0.00 / 0)

But, reviewing your posts on this thread, I don't see any place where you actually addressed any aspect of the original post, other than expressing your thoughts on the words used in that post.

To me - that's simply a diversion.  No problem making your opinion known, but to focus on only that aspect accomplishes very little.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 16:36:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excuse me -- is it your postition (0.00 / 0)

that if I don't express a view on the substance of the post, I should not feel free to object to any aspect of its form?  I don't understand your logic.  This isn't hijacking a diary to something unrelated to it.  It's addressing a part of the diary itself.  To me, an important part of it.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 16:58:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (4.00 / 1)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:49:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

MoveOn breached the wall of denial... (4.00 / 1)

...and obfuscation in Washington. Agree or disagree with the wording of the ad, but MoveOn succeeded where few others have in piercing the PR effort of the White House, an effort that absolutely relies on the credibility of Petraeus.

Progressives can sit back and tut-tut and allow that breach to be filled in with their own hand-wringing. Or they can take advantage of the breach and use it to further hammer Petraeus.

Sample Talking Point: "Regardless of the advisability of MoveOn's language, it is absolutely essential that we question the credibility of Petraeus' presentation. To do otherwise would be to violate our duty to our country."

---

by: Chris Andersen @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 13:29:41 PM CDT