« Obama: Ratify the Women's Convention Soon | Main | HILLARY'S ELEANOR ROOSEVELT MOMENT »

December 07, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


An op-ed piece I wrote about Favreau was printed in Pajamas Media on 12/16 for anyone who would like to read and/or comment:



“The Body Politic and the Anatomy of Discrimination”

We are all being victimized by the rampant sexual harassment that has been coming from the Obama Camp as well as the MSM. And, our culture is complicit.

New Agenda stepped out and called the offenders on their abuse. There was an immediate backlash. Campbell Brown stepped forward and called out the abuse, but “blamed the victim”, Hillary.

Meanwhile, the misogynistic pathology that infects our culture is being played out in this particular episode in a predictable way that serves to reinforce the patriarchy and divide the victims.

We must fight the entrenched dynamic and social means of policing those who would dare dissent.

Above all, we must recognize in each other the collective discrimination we face. Our common bond is clear. While we may see differences in each other, I promise you, those who hold our fortunes out of reach, do not make such fine distinctions.

To them, Hillary and Sarah and every last one of us is indistinguishable. Because, to them, we are our anatomies and that, that is what they are fighting for. Control of THAT. Jon Favreau has given us a gift of insight into this reality. For no matter the subtleties of power we may see in what Hillary Clinton embodies, ultimately, Jon Favreau and others see her merely as a body over which they have the power.



Dr. Violet Socks at Reclusive Leftist had a dead-on series during the general election entitled "If You Vote For Obama, This Is What You're Voting For".


56% percent of American women did just that. This is what all American women got as a result.

I thought I hated the whining hand-wringing "how was I to know" Naderites after 2000; it's nothing to what I feel for those who put O-boy in office.



“…fascinating how people have to really be careful nowadays…”

“…fascinating to see how stuff like that can get blown up…sign of the times…”

Communication to Mr. Blitzer regarding his recent coverage of Jon Favreau with James Carville and Kevin Madden:

Despite all of your “fascination”, you appeared to have little about how the main speechwriter for an incoming President could be found to be behaving in such a profoundly immature and sexist way and get away with it with little more than a private apology to Senator Clinton.

In addition, is the main point that of making sure one is not caught doing something unsavory, or, in this case, is it the nature of what was done? You seem to be suggesting that the larger concern is ensuring one isn’t caught, not the issue at hand.

Your comment about stuff like this getting blown up belittles the nature of Favreau’s actions. You’ve made a judgment call and it’s the wrong one. Those who are responding with outrage are not blowing anything up. We are responding to what occurred, taking it at face value, and we are disgusted.

You appeared more concerned with how modern technology enables us, for better or for worse, to capture events and for them to be made public, than with the fact that the more troubling “sign of the times” is the persistent misogyny that appears readily accepted in many quarters of our society, thanks in part to the nature of coverage like yours.

Would you have spoken with different words and with a different perspective if the cardboard cut out had been of Micelle Obama, or if the speechwriter and aid had been Republicans instead of Democrats? Based on prior CNN coverage, including your own, I would venture to guess that you would have been appropriately outraged if it had been Michelle Obama and would have skewered the men in question at the party.

Perhaps the sign of the times is the ever-shrinking existence of journalistic integrity in the mainstream media.

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN Political Correspondent and Democratic Strategist

Communication to Mr. Carville regarding his recent appearance on CNN discussing Jon Favreau; responses are embedded after each of his comments:

“IT’S A PIECE OF CARDBOARD, STUPID!” Two questions: 1) Re: “stupid” - As a political correspondent on a major network, who exactly is it that you in this presumably dignified position are calling “stupid”? And, if the cardboard were an image of your wife or either of your daughters, would you feel the same? If that still doesn’t offend you enough, what if the men fondling the image were not talented young men, as you describe Mr. Favreau? What if they were ordinary Joe’s, perhaps less educated, or in somewhat dirty clothes? Perhaps not at a party with privileged folks, but in a barrio or a blue-collar neighborhood? Still just a piece of cardboard? No offense, Mr. Carville? 2) Re: “cardboard” - You seemed focused on the meaninglessness of the situation because a cardboard image was involved. Is there any cardboard image that humans might interact with that would give you pause, or is any image that is inanimate rendered meaningless in your view? Do you think that images can have meaning and, if so, that humans relating to those images might further imbue the image with meaning? Would, for example, a person pointing with apparent enthusiasm to a swastika painted on cloth hold any meaning for you, or would it be moot because cloth was involved? What about a stone sculpture displayed in a public square that depicted one person murdering another person for no apparent reason? Would you take issue or move on because the image were made of stone? I could go on.

“THIS GUY WAS JUST HAVING A GOOD TIME…HE DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG…DIDN’T DO ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE…” At what point would you say a “good time” ends and something “inappropriate” begins? Do you make any connection between those two points in time?

“MR. FAVREAU IS A VERY TALENTED YOUNG MAN…” How are Mr. Favreau “talents” relevant to the matter?

“REALLY SICK PEOPLE WHO PUT THIS STUFF UP…” Do you have mental health credentials or is this merely another judgment on your part? If the latter, then you may understand that for many women, we have made a judgment about the matter as well. You are no more an authority on any of these matters than anyone else. The only difference is that you are on television and have some notoriety. In fact, since you are a man, your word about what qualifies as offensive to women carries far less weight than what many women say is offensive to them. Have you ever given yourself permission to tell a black person when they tell you something is racist, that it is not?

“…SEE NO REASON WHY FAVREAU EVEN HAD TO APOLOGIZE FOR FONDLING A PIECE OF CARDBOARD.” Do you grasp that for many women there is a direct connection to this act and the violence that is inflicted upon women every day? From your commentary, it would appear that you don’t grasp that, that you don’t take that seriously, that you minimize it and belittle it, even mock it. However, you are mocking the very group that has been offended. That is pure arrogance, Mr. Carville. That you then have the audacity to lecture what the real issues of concern are for women, ironically citing battered women as one of your three examples, is pure, lunacy. One might even say, “stupid.”

Mr. Carville also:

comments that he hopes that when he’s 67 he’ll be doing something like that.

establishes what he thinks we should be concerned about regarding women’s issues, citing battered women as one of his three issues.

wonders who a guy having a good time at a party has anything to do with….

suggests those who post this photo on the Internet have severe mental problems

and references his behaviors in his youth, suggesting they were far worse than Favreau’s, while appearing proud about all of it.

KEVIN MADDEN, Republican Strategies (Romney campaign)

Notes how we have to be careful in this information age whereby our actions can be caught, citing the hypothetical example of being caught jay-walking and having that made public.

Mr. Madden, you missed the point. The point is not the pros and cons of this information age when private acts can be captured and be made public. The larger issue is what was captured in this case, who the person was, and the nature of the ensuing response.

“Favreau is a talented guy.”

Mr. Madden, what bearing does Mr. Favreau’s talents have on this issue?


Over at Obama's website, they are asking for your questions on issues important to you. Any questions, ladies?

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:31 am EST
Open for Questions
Today, we're rolling out a new feature that lets you ask the Transition team any questions you have about the issues that are important to you. read more...



I think, aim your canon at the head. You (I'm Canadian) should be writing Obama. Post on his website. Keep asking why he's not done anything. Send copies to the media, but write Obama.

The longer he avoids dealing with this, the more he looks like a coward.


The Obama campaign has announced that they will not address this. WTF? What is wrong with women's groups? The only one that even raised the issue was the New Agenda.
Campbell Brown's CDS is out of control.
I'm so tired of this crap. It really is like the Bush/Cheney debacle with one outrage piled on another to the point where it was hard to muster the appropriate amount of outrage for each new offense.


It could be read as a subtle message: this is on your resume boyo. I think Favreau might see how he's never going to have Hillary, Bill, or several others of her supporters interested in him now.

Sure his cadre of leftist progressive one-handed keyboarders is making excuses for him, all very boys will be boys. But in the boardrooms, with the politicians who are yet to be elected in his future, needing speech writers? Great lad at a party, but do we want him on our staff?


We must all be contacting change.gov, the media and everyone and anyone we can think of to get the word out there that this man must go. I also recommend writing to Cambell Brown over at CNN who wrote a horrid piece that essentially got Favreau off the hook in a single sentence, and then refocusing on Clinton and how misguided her response was. Irrrespective of Clinton's response, Ms. Brown managed to turn things around in that same old familiar way whereby we blame the victim. Disgusting, all of it!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Caucus Fraud

Blog powered by Typepad

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

November 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Lynette's Favorites

  • Jon Krakauer : Into the Wild
  • Khaled Hosseini : The Kite Runner
  • Sara Gruen: Water for Elephants
  • Gilbert, Elizabeth: Eat, Pray, Love