This will be a short diary, but I have just heard that Clinton supporters are attempting to unseat Collin County delegates in Texas.  If this is already been diaried, then I'll delete.

The story below the fold...

I know I am stepping on toes by writing a diary such as this.  As a man, someone might argue that I am not qualified to speak on such a topic.  However, I have been consistently floored by "feminist" arguments in support of Clinton, believing that such arguments represent a deeply flawed conception of what feminism is.  Indeed, as I'll argue below, Clinton's campaign is a deeply misogynistic or anti-feminist campaign.  This thesis requires an articulation of what feminism and patriarchy are.

Follow me below the fold.

Unfortunately rhetoric tends to get a bad rap these days.  It is seen as something that is dishonest and manipulative.  Yet it is worth noting that at the very time democracy emerges in the ancient world, the intense study and theorization of rhetoric also emerges.  This is because the ancients understood that in order to govern effectively it was necessary to persuade others, and in order to persuade others it is necessary to speak well.  In his magnificent Rhetoric, Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of finding all available means of persuasion.  As someone who teaches rhetoric, philosophy, and critical thinking and who has observed the increasing nastiness of the atmosphere here at Dailykos, I would like to outline a few principles of effective rhetoric so that others might be able to make a more effective case for their chosen candidate.

At present there are two diaries on the recommended list decrying the poor treatment of Clinton supporters by Dailykos and Obama supporters.  I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.  As Kaiser Sosai said in The Usual Suspects, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing everyone he didn't exist."  Similarly, the greatest trick the Clinton supporters ever pulled was convincing others, even some Obama supporters, that they are innocent victims that are just targets of irrational attacks.  To this I pose a series of questions.

I for one would like to welcome our new corporate overlords and assist them in any way possible.  This, in effect, is what I read yesterday in a comment attached to a diary written by perhaps Dailykos's most ardent and tireless Clinton supporter.  

For more follow me below the fold.

This evening, while grading piles of essay quizzes and logic exams– with many more yet to go –I happened to catch a documentary on spree killers. Spree killers, of course, are people that go on killing sprees, killing a large number of people. As the show attempted to explain this phenomenon, it made reference to a psychological study done at a university (sadly the name and researcher escapes me), on this very phenomenon. The thesis– not a particularly elaborate or well developed one –is that people who have suffered continuous and constant rejection are especially prone to spree killing. In order to test this hypothesis (without producing the same result!), the psychologists called for groups of students to participate in an experiment.

This experiment explains a lot about heated rhetoric we witness surrounding politics and religion.  Follow me after the fold to find out how.

At this point, I think both supporters and non-supporters of Clinton can agree that things have gotten out of hand at Dailykos.  On all sides people are complaining about how the site has become a toxic environment, and how it is no longer the warm and welcoming place it once was.  Now, this situation isn't entirely new.  Those of us who were here doing the last presidential election will recall just how heated the discussions about Dean, Clark, and Kerry became.  However, perhaps it is just a failure of memory, but things seem far more ugly this time around.  I teach and research rhetoric and philosophy for a living, so I would like to offer some friendly advice as to how this might be overcome.  This advice, I hope, will be helpful to all candidate supporters.

In response to the recent revelations about Sen. Larry Craig (R), many have pointed out the odd coincidence that so many social conservatives who so loudly fight on behalf of what they believe to be burning moral issues seem guilty of these very immoralities themselves.  In response to these observations, I would like to suggest that this is not a coincidence at all, but that the moral vision advocated by social conservatives actually invites or produces these sorts of outcomes.

Read on

In a very nice diary, Undercover Blue asks why the rightwing is so prone to hate.  As a psychoanalyst, philosopher, political theorist, and critic of ideology I've thought a good deal about precisely these sorts of questions.  I posted this as a long comment to his diary, but thought it was worth a diary in its own right.  These points, of course, are only a crude outline of a very broad body of research condensing work done in a number of different fields done by a number of different researchers.  In short, this is a vast simplification that requires more fleshing out with appropriate bells and whistles such as references and whatnot.

Warning:  Much of the following is strictly satire.  Follow the link to understand the context.
***
In light of wiscmass's heroic and wise diary calling for religious tolerance, I have finally found the courage to make a call for tolerance of my own.  You see, I've noticed that there's a lot of intolerance towards republicans and conservatives on this blog, and I confess that I, as a conservative republican, find that I am unable to recognize myself in any of these descriptions.  What bothers me about this is that as a progressive conservative republican, this sort of intolerance goes against everything we stand for as progressives.

more below the fold...

Its Alienated Political Roots

These remarks were prompted by MnCamera's fascinating diary on myths about the social good of fundamentalism in the United States, which can be found here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/27/115228/078

I thought these observations might be of interest to other Kossacks and fellow travelers.

I've scratched my head for a while now as to why religious fundamentalism is rising in the United States.  Given the economic prosperity of so many fundamentalists, it seems odd that they would turn to such a repressive and shrill form of religion.  However, it seems to me that much of this current trend can be explained in terms of three phenomena:  

More below the fold:

Yesterday I wrote a diary briefly explaining some characteristics of conservative thought that deeply frighten me.  

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/20/202723/129

The basic point was that often, in conservative discourses, there seems to be a fundamental intolerance of dissent which translates into arbitrary exercises of power designed to stifle discussion and debate, which indicates to me that conservatives have little or no respect for me should I differ from them and would act accordingly at a governmental level should they have the power to do so.  

More below the fold:

I know a number of Kossaks have already discussed this issue, but I figured I'd throw my two cents in as well.  In addition to my time at Dailykos, I spend a good amount of time lurking about conservative blogs like Redstate.org and Little Green Footballs.  I never participate in these forums, but as a student of both politics and human nature, I like to see how people different from myself.  One of the things I've discovered at Redstate-- which all things considered is a fairly even toned blog --is that conservatives frighten me.

More below the fold:

Just a few brief words.  The events that have unfolded over the last two weeks have revealed just how flawed Bush's character is and why he is unfit to lead.  A person of high character 1) surrounds himself with those who are best suited and qualified for the position, not those who are friends or have done him favors.  Brown does not meet these criteria.  The fact that Bush has stocked his administration with figures such as brown indicates a fundamental lack of wisdom on his part.  2)  A person with character seeks honesty, forthrightness, and realism among those who advise him.  Bush, apparently, has surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear, not what he ought to hear and what the country needs to know.

More below the fold

As I watched the events on the coast unfold, I began to notice something odd around Wednesday.  Suddenly newscasters everywhere were talking about looting.  This perplexed me as it seemed self-evident that people trapped in New Orleans would have to find ways to feed, cloth, and medicate themselves.  Moreover, I wasn't particularly bothered by the looting of things such as jewelry as 1) I understood that these people experienced themselves as both abandoned and having lost everything they owned, thus they perhaps thought they needed a backup plan to support their families in the future, and 2) all of these goods would be claimed by insurance.  Yet still, the term "looting" had spread like a strange virus or musical refrain throughout the media.  After watching Hannity and Colmes this evening I now know why this viral refrain has spread with such speed.  

More below the fold.

I'm curious about something.  I seldom hear Michael Moore's name mentioned on this blog and I hear that the DLC has done everything they can to distinguish themselves from him and to emphasize that he doesn't represent Democrats.  I am aware that he voted for Nadar or the Greens in the past, but does this entail that he doesn't represent Democrats?  When the right gets so worked up by something, doesn't this generally entail that they're afraid of it or see it as a threat to their ideology?  I'm not saying that Michael Moore is the end all be all, but I think he has been important for giving us alternative narratives of what's going on in this country.

So a poll:

After the victory of Bush in 2004, Karl Rove was quoted as saying that his goal is the permanent Republican control of all three branches of the government.  Although recent months have indicated that there's a growing distrust of the administration among Americans, I would like to suggest that while the right might be losing some battles, they are still winning the war.  This likelihood of longterm victory has everything to do with current democratic strategy, but it is not necessarily the case that things cannot be otherwise.

More below the fold

No, I'm not referring to the manner in which we constantly fight amongst ourselves.  Nor am I referring to the possibility that we're out of step with American voting public.  Rather, what I'm referring to is an enlightened self-interest that isn't self-interested or enlightened at all, and a pragmatism that isn't pragmatic at all.  In both of these cases, our action is premised on what we believe others believe.  As a result of these premises, our political engagement becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which progressively moves us further to the right and undermines the possibility of any truly progressive politics.

More below the fold