There is no point in leaving them at Raising Kaine since you, yourself, have called my posts passive aggressive and disgusting. And you are not alone.
But I was sitting at my computer last night thinking about the very audacity of the Raising Kaine moderators to remove a diary that I have written and yet leave the diary open with the negative comments remaining and still coming strong. And when asked by others, Raising Kaine moderators refused to repost the diary. So I was not then able to defend myself and what I had written. Even other RKers had the decency to ask that it be reposted so that they could make their own decision. But the answer was no. The moderators said it was a smear on their candidate, in their opinion, and they decided to remove the diary but leave the comments. That is exactly what the Bush Administration does in Gitmo Prison, refuse to let the detainees have the ability to defend themselves, then have the government lawyers attack them without the detainees having the right to see the so-called evidence against them. This site, this supposedly "principled" forum, has obviously adopted that tactic. How low can one stoop?
This decision by the RK moderators tells its posters that RK can decide the meaning of your diary, they then can delete it, and they can make the spiteful decision to leave the diary open for further "discussion".
So, as I get around to it, I'll remove the remainder of my diaries.
PS Thanks Blacknell and others here for your support.
You, of course, may interpret the diary and Dianne's actions as you see fit, but in light of the fact that the diary no longer exists for people to judge it for themselves, I think it is not accurate to characterize it as an unethical in a post, and I am writing to correct the record.
The diary sought to raise a legitimate issue, but did so in a way that, in the judgment of the editors here, was inappropriate. That is quite different that stating, as fact, that it was an ethical slip.
The only point of ethical interest that I see here is characterizing a squashed diary that one finds politically counterproductive as "personal invective or unwarranted trashing" in the service of what? Not political expediency - the primary is over in Virginia.
The diary was of interest to me because as a woman who is over 50, I have had experience with the "claws" meme myself. Years ago a few of my fellow students (guys) explained away some difficulties in courses with this professor as having something to do with her having "clawed her way through Harvard graduate school." The young men did come to realize that they never would have used that language in reference to a male professor under any conditions.
After reading that bio, it's obvious that in addition to doing the work, she had to make her way through a system that was nearly impossible for a woman. So in an unfair system, she had to "claw her way" to success, and subsequently is criticized for clawing.
The history of claws references is definitely sexist, though perhaps current usage is a bit more egalitarian, if insults can be such. I don't know that it's the first instance, but in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" one of Brick's famous lines is something like, "Careful, Maggie, your claws are showing." That movie did popularize the unflattering cat and claws references into a widely known stereotype of a "catty" woman. I find it hard to believe that any adult could be unaware of that stereotype.
swva.observer@gmail.com
Though I didn't always agree with you, it's a shame to see an RK community member leave.
We're supposed to be trying to pick a candidate here, not trash the one who loses. If you had posted a productive diary outlining in rational terms why Hillary is better than Obama as a candidate you would have gotten your message across without angering anyone. I share office space with someone who's a strong Hillary supporter. I've gone from Edwards to Obama. We have our disputes, but they're civil, no one calls the other's candidate names, and they're based on our perceptions of what the best course for the Democrats, whether liberal or progressive or even conservative, should be. I've even said that there's quite a bit about Hillary that I like and hope to see Obama moving toward if he wins the presidency. No need for nastiness or negativity.
I would still like it if you decided to stay though. I have a lot respect for your writing. We may not always agree, but that is to be expected in political discussions.
There is obviously some history between you and other members of this community that puts this whole dispute in a different context than I can appreciate. From what I have seen, there has been way more personal invective directed at you and your husband than you have directed at others, but I suppose one's perception of that can depend on one's perspective.
I, for one, do mind that you are going, but I can understand and respect your decision. I think the voices of you and soccerdem, which I hear as true passionate voices committed to progressive principles, have been a positive addition to the discussions in which I have participated. Indeed, the Diary that caused all the controversy raised important issues, notwithstanding the editors' decision with respect to it.
All the best,
Alan
I have to admit that, while I disagree (often strongly) with a lot of things Dianne has written, I have not seen any reason for taking down any of her words.
I have not seen the post in question. It should come as no surprise that I take strong issue with the idea that Obama has said anything sexist. I think the Clinton campaign has done a lot of unfortunate things over the course of this campaign. I don't know if that stems from the weak rationale for her candidacy in the first place, for the fact that her campaign has been consistently out hustled by Obama's for many months or for some other reason.
This is a Presidential campaign and it is a tough business. Still, there are lines that should not be crossed. There isn't a rule book or anything like that. These are judgment calls.
Clinton's campaign has been widely criticized for things that have been said. Obama's campaign has not.
A separate issue is what is written by partisans and observers on sites such as RK. Personally, I want to be a known quantity, but I do not speak for anyone except myself and so that is the extent of my accountability. Some people, to my great disgust, have tried to tie a candidate to views expressed by his or her supporters. This childish notion has even reached the op-ed page of the New York Times. What supporters of a candidate say on independent websites is well beyond the purview of any campaign. When I see complaints about that sort of thing, I think that somebody has recognized that their candidate is losing and so they resort to an attempt at changing the subject.