I'm confused, and no, that's not a prelude to a scream-and-leap.

I think the case of Dawn Leamon is appalling, as I've said. I think calling, essentially, open season on women in the contractors and/or the military is appalling. So is the violation of Iraq and its population. And if I remember it right, the rapes by the janjaweed are abominable. Am I correct that using rape as a weapon is now considered, explicitly and in general, a crime against humanity?

I don't want to get into the classification of whether one rape is worse than another, and I'm concerned that that's what you're doing -- saying that being part of what is, essentially, a merc force lessens the offense because the victim shouldn't have been there in the first place. If we take that to an extreme, we would be establishing a hierarchy of rape, and frankly, I don't want to imagine litigation or justification or attack ("well, it was ONLY...") on those grounds.

If taken to that extreme, your comments come too close to "well, she got what she was asking for." Please explain how that isn't what you're saying. (Or, if it is, please come clean and explain why you would feel that way.)

At first, I thought it was generational -- classic second-waver refusing to Get It. Then, I noticed progressivism as a fashion statement; a number of the same protestors posting repeatedly, epigrammatically, and with a kind of nastiness I've only seen on flame-wars (and I have seen a LOT of flamewars). I've also seen a number of false syllogisms and, to me, more telling yet, the "I'm not a sexist but..." coupled with some personal attacks (but again, I'm pretty good at that, so I wrote it off for awhile)...

It summarizes thus: I've seen what Rebecca Traister has noticed for a long time. But jast as during Second Wave, I used to get Portentous Condemnations for calling fashion statements for what I thought they were, I suspect I'm going to get them now, especially from the repeat posters, yapping on the ether like so many Chihuahuas, wetting themselves with glee.

I've also noticed a tendency that I saw and still see: "that's not true; that's ridiculous; you're wrong." Invalidation used to be a technique practiced by men with power on women without, or parents with power on kids who had none. From this I conclude that power must be spreading out (unlikely and counter-intuitive); some people are using magical thinking (and I expect the "tu quoque" here); or people have simply gotten used to Internet tactics of swarmping and screaming (which are tactics I know myself).

To me, this is like "I'm not anti-Semitic, BUT..."

It makes a GREAT opportunity to let the rage out. I've also noticed that this type of rage appears whenever the economy is particularly dicey; you get the exception-to-the-rules-girls (who are NOT like those other icky women and actually believe it), mixed in with liberals who are vocal and honest and have made an honest choice.

Rebecca Traister: I know that you, as you point out, are 32 and Cool. Your radar is way slow, sorry to say, if you hadn't seen this coming.

To me, it's nothing so much as "well, why WON'T you?" and on and on and on.

But I too am going on and on. People: because you have silenced someone does not mean you have convinced him. Or her. And I wouldn't count on the silence either.

I wonder if we can't differentiate between the Senator and his supporters. He's shown himself capable of feeling and principles.

If he achieves his objective and wins the nomination, runs for president and wins that, will the Obamabots be content or will they want a personal return on their emotional and ideological investment.

Politicians are politicians. Just as the Bushes let the "angry white men" twist in the breeze and Bill Clinton saw the prosperity during his administration circle the drain, I wonder if Obama will disavow -- not his responsible, committed supporters -- but the yelping 'bots who mistake insult for ethics. For the older ones, it'll be same old, same old: the younger ones are going to find themselves discarded if/as/when they prove the petulant annoyance to Obama that they are to many of his opponents right now.

Aloof and elitist? Maybe. He's -young- and people who are unsure of themselves frequently come off as aloof. Elitist? Consider the academic background, which is as formidable as any we've had running -- and stronger than McCain's position as almost "anchorman" at Annapolis. Like the Clintons, Obama is a "wonk." I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with him, except that I don't think he's ready yet.

If he must -be- ready, however, I'm convinced he can come up the learning curve fast.

But I think he'll do what all smart, wonky, and pragmatic elitists do, and jettison the deadwood, which will prove a liability in the national arena.

I wonder what it will do.