Ultimately I think you’re splitting hairs trying to categorize a lunatic fringe movement. I can understand not wanting to be associated with them, but if they want to call themselves liberals, then okay, they’re liberal by whatever standard that means to them. It’s very reminiscent of the Larouchites in the 70′s: they claimed to be leftists, and while the rest of the left did everything they could to distance themselves, it was ultimately fruitless. But then again, so were the Larouchites. And there were considerably more of them.

Most second wave women I know, who you refer to as embittered hypocrites and with the traditional contempt of classism as women with no degrees, are women who marched with people in Selma and were part of the civil rights, anti war and hippie movement. It was the unrelenting oppression of them as women which converted them into feminist from these movements. As such they became true radicals seeing the roots of their oppression in the patriarchal norms, traditions and institutions which shaped their lives. It was these women’s work in affirmative action and equality in employment that did more for blacks than their own leaders did in the 80s and 90s. I think of them as liberals and radicals. But here you rant about them not being liberals and present no definitions and no examples of their non liberal politics.

Tisk, Tisk, and with all your advanced degrees….

But I think of the left as misogynist as the right. And you are proving it by the comments on this thread. It is not just that you show you do not respect women — there is real woman hating – mother hating here.

Instead of continuing to lie about your political opposition like some stupid teenager, you ought to be glad PUMA exists instead of kissing the feet of a misogynist leader who may or may not betray you. If there is no one who will hold him accountable there is no doubt he will betray you. Respect the function of PUMA in a democracy.

I read the PUMA blogs during the Fall campaign thinking that they might make a difference (they didn’t) and I’ve read them since the election because I find them so damn amusing and sickening. I also read Free Republic. Free Republic is more liberal than the Confluence at times and certainly more knowledgeable. They at least know who is who in politics. They are rank amateurs and embittered hypocrites.

Exactly…and that’s why i base my position on what she has done. She’s been a governor for awhile now. No ‘theocratic’ moves. To the contrary I’d say she has been extremely pragmatic as governor and at times been downright liberal (taxing oil companies and distributing checks to the voters is the kind of wealth redistribution scheme that Democrats tell their kids about in bedtime stories). But even if Palin had been Michelle Obama smart she would have had two fatal strikes against her for liberals…she’s an evangelical and she’s a conservative. So that’s why you make the leap from reason to wild speculation.

While liberals like to play chicken little with the notion of a theocracy…we are so far from that being a reality that it’s fairly laughable. Bush was the best chance that the few wacko theocrats that are really out there ever had and exactly nothing happened. But the spectre remains and so you guys take a page from the Karl Rove playbook and use the fear angle.

Look at it this way Ames…Obama’s record on guns is really deplorable. He supported a LOT of anti-gun legislation in Illinois. I mean, it’s one of the few areas where liberals really have no defense because the evidence is so overwhelming against him. But if I say, “Obama is a gun-grabber and opposes the 2nd Amendment” you will tell me that we misunderstand his record and that guns aren’t high on his priority list and I am silly for stockpiling ammo and 15 round magazines. But then you ignore Palin’s record of never supporting any kind of ‘theocratic’ legislation and say that because she goes to a certain kind of church you know her true intentions.

Which one of us is being ‘reasonable’ and which one isn’t Ames?

http://2008.weblogawards.org/docs/weblog-award-faq.php

here is a comment from the contest administrator, kevin aylward:

Is “The Confluence” exactly the same as the other blogs in their category? No. Hillary Clinton supporters spawned a movement in parts of the Democratic party to rebell against the system and the nominee. Also, it should be noted that there were conservative bloggers who supported Obama. For us to ignore some of those blogs just because other blogs or readers don’t like them wouldn’t be fair. We’ll leave it to voters to sort out the winner.

For this year what’s done is done…

and here is a comment from the queen herself … riverdaughter …

Anyone who is questioning The Confluence’s bona fides as a “liberal blog” is invited to read our Credo . Post for Riverdaughter of The Confluence, who can’t seem to log in here:

The Credo has been at the top of our site since the inception of The Confluence. The Confluence was founded on liberal principles and this is what sets it apart from some of the other blogs in our category that were based on the thoughts of individuals. We are a liberal blog.
Once again, we would like to thank those who nominated us. We are honored to be included in this category with so many other noteworthy and excellent blogs.
Sincerely,
RD

in my opinion, this miscategorization is as much about sloppy and lazy marketing (on the part of contest administrators) as it is about misunderstanding the gradations and meanings in the political spectrum.

i think they ought to open a category for best collection of pathological incoherence.

it would be the only case where confluence would have even one iota of support from me.