"I thought for a few days about why I had such an entrenched assumption that Digby was male. You identified many of the factors -- the masculine-sounding psuedonym (though is it really?) and the picture of the man at the top of the blog (wiich is definitely a big factor). But there is clearly more to it than that. There is something about her writing voice that just makes people think she's male. It's an interesting question as to why that is. I still haven't really figured that out."

I'm mortified that I made exactly the same assumption for the same reasons. What is truly mortifying to me, as a woman and as a writer, is that I suspect it has something to do with the easy directness of Digby's writing -- that there's no hint of apology for her arguments. She's never arrogant, but she's also wholly self-possessed (and not defensively so) in her prose. Many women, myself sadly included, corrupt our writing with self-referential and self-conscious locutions -- self-, self-, self-, all the time. Like I'm doing now. . . .

Digby is a great lesson. I've been reading her for years and I will now do so with an attuned ear for how much more I can yet learn from her.

That was a nifty bit of self-evisceration you managed in that last sentence, Ms. Traister. Simply borrow some RNC-talking points about John Edwards' looks and "reframe" them for puerile consumption -- nicely done. I can't think of a better way for you to have made your argument.

Although, perhaps you intended the piece as a farce?

'cause I'm confused.

How is Dean's statement "rude"?

It's correct in its facts and strongly stated, and given the nature of political discoure -- how is it rude?

is this:

"A presidential election is a unique time when Americans are engaged in a discussion over our collective political values (at least more engaged than any other time). Why would anyone watch the Obama campaign use this opportunity to perpetuate and reinforce this narrative, and watch Obama embrace polices that are the precise antithesis of the values he espoused in the past, and not criticize or object to that?"

The argument that Obama (may) harbors secret plans to do the right thing when installed in office and we must all quell dissent in the interim is deeply flawed. When Obama embraces the narrative that Glenn has outlined above, he substantially contributes to the mind-set shifting this country away from progressive -- scratch that: fundamentally AMERICAN and CONSTITUTIONAL -- ideals.

This narrative is doing incalculable damage to the national discourse. As a legacy, I can't imagine a worse one for Obama to embrace.

It seems to me, at the very least, one would have to have official contractor status before the rest of this could even be considered as an argument. Are the telecoms' official government contractors? And if so, is there a conflict of interest that American citizens are individual customers? Not sure there is, but am asking . . . .

After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

Seems to me nows the right moment for him to get specific about exactly what that "change" looks like to him. Because I'm truly goddamned confused.

Actually, I'm not confused so much as angry. That's a completely dismissive statement to any thinking voter, given his change of heart on FISA.

"Trust me." uhmmm. I think not.

If this report is accurate on the transcript outlines of a weekend Treasury Dep't conference call with some finance industry folk, it sounds like a number of finance organizations have the luxury of not needing to immediately apply bailout $$'s:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/mussolini-style-corporatism-in-action.html#Contributors

I would tend to believe that we've been inundated with scare tactics in order to provide a package that will solely benefit these financial institutions. Think about it: even as Treasury was telling us one thing for months ("the finance market is sound"), its not as if the industry folk didn't see it coming. They would not allow wholesale collapse to be imminent and contingent on an immediate influx of money -- they have too much self-preservation. That a few companies have fallen doesn't surprise me as I'm sure those left standing regard this as a Darwinian culling of the field.

This is not to suggest we aren't facing an extreme situation. But that doesn't mean we don't have a little more time to get the details of a "bailout" right -- or at least, much righter.

I'm suspicious of these dire warnings of immediate financial apocalypse. Given the long view (both past and present) it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense: "wow! whoda thunk? and throw money at us quick!"

What makes sense is that the public debate is being engineered through threats and fear-mongering (much like the lead-up to the Iraq war) to drive us to "their" desired end.

"Economic Recovery Plan"/"Bailout"/"Loan"/"whatever" . . . seriously, doesn't anyone find it charming that Mark Levin sees folk embracing and debating conservatism over "donuts" at Starbucks?

. . . that in a thousand little bullshit ways ruin and degrade our energy and self-respect day after day, year after year, until at the end of our lives we are nothing but tiny, fearful little shriveled corpses of the shining, courageous people we once dreamed of becoming.

I've posted this next to my computer as a reminder every morning.

Thank you.