I would have subtitled this video "America's New Civil War".

Fox News had Michelle Malkin on yesterday discussing some thing or another having to do with the dark-skinned Filipina's attacks and demonization of presumptive First Lady Michelle Obama. So what does the Fox News editorial team do during the conservative racist baiter's time on TV? They put a banner right under the news bit that read : "Outraged Liberals : Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama".

As Oliver Willis says quite correctly, why not call her a N***r and get it over and done with it? Why not just turn Fox News into what it really is, a race-baiter's dream machine?

Kevin Hayden says' the channel should be fined by the FCC a minimum of $325,000 for publishing hate speech. Even though I agree with Stefania this proves the extreme right is scared shitless at the prospect of seeing the Obamas in the White House, it's still utterly wrong and those bastards should pay every time they pull this shit.

Yet what's most important about all this mess is the other Michelle. La Malkin. Why do you think Fox News has on their payroll a dark-skinned Filipina who is not only their quite giddy and willing cover for the racist rants you pass as news, but also something of a news maker herself?

I've been thinking a lot about virality and what is making the videos in this election cycle so important in terms of cultural and social significance. To me they are working as "zeit geist machines". These videos are not only capturing the spirit and mind of our particular moment in time. They act as portals into the way we are creating spirit and memory right here and right now.

In the immortal words of Team America, fuck yeah! This has got to be one of the best "get out the vote" initiatives I've seen in a long time.

Via Digg and Twitter and cross-posted at Booman Tribune.

Can't this man just say, "I'm not interested in being VP, thanks so much" and just leave it at that? Why does he have to give any ammunition to the Obama haters by saying shit like this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Ohio Governor Ted Strickland – who has often been mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick for presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama – said Tuesday that if asked, he would “absolutely not” join the party’s presidential ticket this fall.

Strickland, who backed Hillary Clinton during the primary season, told NPR’s Michele Norris that he was taking himself out of the running. “Absolutely not. If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve,” he said, in an interview on NPR's All Things Considered. “So, I don’t know how more crystal clear I can be.”

Obama lost the Ohio primary to Clinton.

The swing state governor, who has endorsed Barack Obama, dismissed the idea that all potential running mates deny interest in the job. “No, I don’t think they all say that. I’ve heard people say, ‘you know, if I was asked, it would certainly be something I would have to consider.’ That does not mean that I am any less committed to helping Barack Obama become the next president,” Strickland said in an NPR transcript of the interview, which is scheduled to air Tuesday night. He is scheduled to join Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio this Friday.

Now, you'd think that people would understand that professionally, it would be absolutely STUPID for John Edwards to run once again as VP to anybody. That's why people like me are clamoring for him to get the Attorney General post.

So what do Hillarytons have to say about this? That it's proof Obama is mediocre and is being reject by the party establishment.

Okay, am going to admit it : Am a really shallow person. For years I wanted to have a baby just because of this picture.

That's me 41 years ago eating my first birthday cake.

I thought, if I can be that adorable, I obviously can spawn some cute kids. And I did : my kids are indeed indecently adorable.

I know, am shallow and self-centered, but so fucking what.

It's my birthday!

I was having a short discussion the other day on Twitter about sexism and it seems that Natasha Chart over at MyDD, that bastion of feminism, has taken it out of context to make a point about sexism.

Lovely.

This is the comment I left :

So let me get this straight : You take a comment that was part of a whole conversation about how our culture imposes the tyranny of homogeneity instead of respecting difference and looking at diversity as an asset and you twist it to prove a point about sexism?

that conversation was about how aggressiveness and violence are not necessarily nature. that as a mother of two boys and someone who has taken care of many of my friends girls, i can see how their energies can by nature, be vastly different.

the issue is of holding male energy as the standard of what is good and by assertion, female energy being bad or weak. just as how whiteness is held up as the standard and everything that is not "white" then becomes diminished, poor, disadvantaged, underdeveloped, or plain old not good enough.

but you took that one quote and you built a whole post about how everything about this campaign was sexist attacks that cost Clinton the nomination.

we've had this conversation before online and am going to say it again, it's not the reason why. there's 100 reasons, none having to do with sexism, that cost Hillary Clinton the nomination.

get over it.

and, by the way, this link was sent to me. if you're going to quote me, have the tact next time of emailing me the link.

i take cause with how you present my words here.

there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING wrong not wanting to [be] like men and finding power in that.

I had to use Summize to go back on the twitts of yesterday and find the conversations I was having. I can identify 6 different conversations all revolving around different discussions of sexism.

One of them was with Shannon McKarney of EcoChic, who had this to say :

I wrote that piece last year+believe it more strongly now. Women have to become more "male" to be successful

That's where the whole discussion of homogeneity vs. difference started. That's where I ssaid that I strongly disagree with women needing to be like men to be successful just as I strongly believe this to be one of those sticking points for a lot of feminists of color.

The whole discussion of women vs. men pits oppressed people in many communities of color against each other. Yes, colored men can be sexist and even ruthlessly misogynistic but is that the root of our problems or is it a symptom of a larger structure of violence and exploitation that women and men of color need to unite against?