BlogHer - Tuesday, Aug. 26, at the DNC: What will Hillary Clinton and her supporters do? Plus: Valerie Jarrett - Comments

Thank you but - (you knew there'd be a but!)

Jill Miller Zimon — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:53:10 -0500

I appreciate you taking the time to flesh out some of what you've written already since clearly I disagree with one of your prior assertions that defining the terrorist threat is rhetorical - under no circumstances is it rhetorical (and it's my time in Israel that helps me know this for a fact - just ask an Israeli Arab or Jew about what they see as a terrorist threat - they will give you a lot more than rhetoric).

But this isn't about satisfying me or anyone but yourself - nothing that you've written gives me any reason to believe, more than anything else I know, that an attack WILL occur and that I should be afraid of an attack and for an attack any more now than I have at any other time in my life (I'm 46).

Being able to think critically about the words you read and the images you see that come from any organization to which you look for information is vital to being an informed citizen. Some call it overthinking in my case, and they're probably right. But on an issue with sweeping terms like "terrorist attack" and "jihad" and other phrases that people use to invoke very specific images and feelings, it's even more vital that we deconstruct what exactly is going on - and what we should take away.

From what you've written, my sense is that you've taken away exactly what's been fed to you without further thought about the reality of life, here or anywhere else. I don't mean that as a putdown or as a righteous statement - I write it based on my experience in places like Israel - not only for the year I lived there, but also from having just spent two weeks there, with my family, friends and rabbi.

Let me try to explain.

First, I don't actually recall where you've written before about why you are afraid of another attack. Maybe you mean you are afraid another attack will occur if we don't elect the right people, or something along those lines?

Here's some of what you wrote that might hint at why you are afraid that there will be another attack or you are afraid of the abstract idea of terrorist attacks:

Neither does it give me a warm fuzzy that Dr. Ingrid Mattson spoke
at the prayer service on Sunday. She represents the Islamic Society of
North America, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, which provided
the ideological foundation for Al-Qaeda.

Captain James Yee, who was charged with mishandling classified
information from Gitmo, was credentialed as a delegate to the
Democratic Convention

The Democrats are soft on terror. I'm not smitten with John McCain,
but he understands the terrorist threat better than the Democrats,
which is why I'll likely vote for McCain.

You don't really say what you mean by "soft on terrorism" but I am guessing that you think that this being soft is why you should be afraid?

Maybe it's this?

...many groups (ISNA, CAIR, Muslim American Society, Muslim Students
Association) that represent Islam in the US have their origins in
radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

So - you fear that there will be terrorist attacks (in the US, I assume? you aren't so concerned about them happening anywhere else?) because the groups you name, in your beliefs, have origins in "radical organizations" and you imagine that radical nature to...foster terrorist acts?

If that is at all accurate, it's way too vague to apply to the choice of who is best able to govern. I would argue that education and exposure to people different from us is the best way to battle terrorist threats, for it is alienation and isolation that breeds discomfort when you see something or someone unlike yourself. So - what is "radical"?

You may say that I should know what you mean by radical in this context, but what you mean by radical in this context is what you've been told is radical and is equated to something you should fear.

I could not disagree more with that message (that is trying to be sent out by groups like Jihadwatch - not necessarily by you - I do want to be clear on that - I think you've appropriated what you've read or been told - I'm urging you to be more critical with all that information).

Then again, there is the notion of radical as meaning to take action - BlogHer is radical in that sense, on a regular basis. At its conference, there was even a session on whether Mommyblogging is a radical act (sure, why not?).

But the way you write about radical, you write as though you are sure we will all shrink back in fear when the label is applied and read. I hate to break it to you, but some of us are attracted to things labeled radical because we read that as code for "I care enough to do something about what bothers me."

In fact, you could be called radical, since, as you write,

I wrote to Obama's campaign recommending that he seek advice about the
ideology behind Islamic terrorism from people who've studied it, rather
than seek advice from Cold War holdovers like Albright and Brzezinski.

That is a great act of radicalism - seriously. Do you have any idea how few people actually write political candidates or their elected officials? (I do, since I work to convince people to speak up all the time!) (As for the content of what you wrote, that's another post!)

And these aren't the last resort definitions, The Style Page (sorry - you've yet to name yourself and I couldn't find a name to go with your online work). I'm not Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader when it comes to the concept of radical or even fringe, but I care, enormously and passionately, about all life and I will not allow others to define what level of threat I should feel.

You know, I'm re-reading all your comments, and I have to tell you - I really cannot figure out why you are afraid, to be honest. I'm not sure you know either. You write about terrorist threats as though you live in Jamaica and are getting pummeled by Gustav, or live in the areas where there may be landfall and you've been through this experience before and know to what extent you need to be concerned.

But my brother lived through 9/11, saw the second plane hit the tower, stood packed in at Battery Park with thousands of other people, walked 100 plus blocks home up the East Side. He has fears and guess what - he is an Obama supporter, and he still lives and works in NYC and he travels internationally as does his wife on a regular basis.

My brother is someone I would understand to have fear beyond what I think is reasonable - because of his experience.

I don't understand why you do - but then maybe my sense of what is reasonable fear is out of whack - that sure is what John McCain and Jihadwatch and the Bush administration want to make me think.

And just to drive this home - it's not that I don't think the goings-on that lead to terrorist attacks aren't happening, or that there aren't people who hate you, or me, or Americans or Jews or Blacks or women or Arabs or Muslims.

Of course there are. But what on earth does pushing the meme that Democrats are soft on terror mean that translates into, "they can't protect us"?

Honey - electing a president isn't like throwing salt over your shoulder to ward off bad juju. Bush was president - we had an attack. Oklahoma - home-grown - under a different president. On a daily basis, people are attacking one another - parents abuse children, spouses victimize spouses.

Do you really believe that the seeds of terrorist acts that grow in any one person are any different than what motivates people to commit other acts of violence (and I'm not talking about self-defense)? Desperation? Hopelessness? Desire to control? Inability to express or resolve anger or disagreement in any non-violent way?

The way you write about "terrorist threat" means that those folks commiting or desiring to commit an act of terror have already achieved in you what they want: control of your actions and choices. Control which you cede to our government in the name of what government people tell you is or analogize to as being the terrorist threat.

And if voluntary abdiction of control over your life, at the behest of people who present images to you to suggest that you should be afraid isn't terrifying, I don't know what is.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I hope that this satisfies you

thestylepage — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:40:46 -0500

I still don't understand why you take objection to my comment. I believe that my statement is self-evident.

If you must know, terrorism is when someone crashes in a plane in a building (as what happened (9/11) or straps a bomb to him/herself (as what happens in Israel) to kill people as they go about their daily business.

I am afraid of another terror attack on the U.S., for the reason I stated earlier. Given the fragile nature of the U.S. economy, a terrorist attack will devastate it even further. To say nothing about the victims or the grief of the survivors. And if you must know, I haven't been taken in by the so-called politics of fear for which the Bush administration is accused.

Call Jihad Watch a "propaganda" site, but I find the information presented by Robert and Marisol to be credible and reliable. Admittedly, Raymond's tone is sarcastic and Hugh is often strident.

Show me where Jihad Watch tells me to be afraid. I am afraid not because anyone is telling me to be afraid.

I don't have direct experience with terror. I've traveled to India several times, and it scares that some of the places where I've been or where loved ones have been were subject to terror attacks. I am always concerned about my loved ones' safety in the wake of a terrorist attack.

Personal experience is only one way of knowing; evidence is another.

I'd take away my comment about your being prettier than me if I could: it only serves to undermine my feelings about myself. That you have more academic credentials than me is fact.

I hope that this satisfies you.

Honest to goodness

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:00:03 -0500

BlogHer is a place I love BECAUSE we interact and can meet people and people w/views we might not otherwise interact with. Don't reduce your original post's assertions about Muslims and McCain and Obama and then how someone who was in Israel should feel about the terrorist threat with that kind of glib trying to put closure on this comment. You haven't once answered back since you made your suggestion that since I was in Israel I should know.

Speak for yourself - what do YOU feel? What do you believe is meant by the terrorist threat? Are you really afraid or are you afraid because others tell you that you should be afraid?

This is okay- disagreement is okay - LEARNING is good.

Teach me what I don't know - but don't send me to propaganda like FrontPage or JIhadWatch. Tell me what YOU know from YOUR experience. As a blogger, in particular, I trust little else. That is meant as a compliment.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I don't understand

thestylepage — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:54:02 -0500

... but then I'm neither as well-educated nor as attractive as you.

Assumption asserted here

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:27:53 -0500

"I read your profile on your blog and saw that you had lived in Israel.
Surely there's no need to be more specific about what is meant by the
terrorist threat."

That's not whistling Dixie.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Looks like I struck a nerve here

thestylepage — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:25:23 -0500

Frankly, I don't understand what I said that aroused such umbrage. I made no assumptions about your views.

You are right

Laracolvin — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:23:21 -0500

Quick retorts are often not my best moments;however, referencing the Jihad Watch as a credible resource was a conversation stopper for me. It "reveals" based on the personal bias of its creator, which I believe is often hateful. I call it like I see it. But I apologize if my earlier response was harsh or disrespectful to you. Now, before I do it again I'm going to disengage from this conversation and go celebrate the history of this evening.

Notions of Identity

With all due respect

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:35:25 -0500

You do not know me or my politics if you would say that re: my living in Israel. Perhaps you're unaware that Israelis are fine with either Obama or McCain. That you've been impressed by generalizations, talking points and the media that pushes the military industrial complex.

But I am my own person on this topic and certainly not easily pigeon-holed, as at least a few in this community will tell you when it comes to the Middle East.

I resent others using my religion as a foil for their fears.

When you are willing to speak for yourself, as yourself, let's chat. But until then, please do not even offer up the bait of "I read your profile on your blog and saw that you had lived in Israel.
Surely there's no need to be more specific about what is meant by the
terrorist threat."

If you want to start with understanding me, check out Rabbis for Human Rights, Israel's singularly brave efforts to absorb Darfur refugees (who are Muslim) and Givat Haviva, which works to expose the peace and exchange that occurs on so many levels between Israeli Jews and Arabs. These are the programs and efforts I support in the effort to eradicate the "terrorist threat."

Please - do not insult my intelligence. And I do apologize if this sounds harsh - I'm more known for sticking my foot in my mouth. But you are being audacious in the worst sense of the word, in my opinion.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

If I had a direct line to the President

thestylepage — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:19:06 -0500

Jill, I wrote to Obama's campaign recommending that he seek advice about the ideology behind Islamic terrorism from people who've studied it, rather than seek advice from Cold War holdovers like Albright and Brzezinski.

The question about defining the terrorist threat is rhetorical. We lived through 9/11. I read your profile on your blog and saw that you had lived in Israel. Surely there's no need to be more specific about what is meant by the terrorist threat.

Credible reference

thestylepage — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:59:40 -0500

I consider Jihad Watch a credible reference, as it reveals what Islamicists say and do and the origins in the Quran and Sunnah. Once someone brings out the canard "hate," it's a conversation stopper.

Thanks

Laracolvin — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:20:40 -0500

for supplying the reference; however, I should have specified that I was looking for a credible reference, not a hate web site.

Notions of Identity

References

thestylepage — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:34:25 -0500

No, I am not lumping all Muslims together. However, many groups (ISNA, CAIR, Muslim American Society, Muslim Students Association) that represent Islam in the US have their origins in radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. For references, please browse or search Jihad Watch, www.jihadwatch.org.

do you have references for this?

Laracolvin — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:44:22 -0500

Neither does it give me a warm fuzzy that Dr. Ingrid Mattson spoke at
the prayer service on Sunday. She represents the Islamic Society of
North America, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, which provided
the ideological foundation for Al-Qaeda.

Last time I checked, followers of Islam were also Americans. Why shouldn't she represent them at an interfaith prayer service? And what references are you citing regarding the Islamic Sociey being a "front group"? And could you clarify what you mean? It sounds to me you are lumping all Muslims together, and that is a very dangerous statement, I think.

Thanks for clarifying if you will.

Notions of Identity

Freedom is most important

Liz Rizzo — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:09:38 -0500

Any political party that doesn't understand the importance of protecting my personal freedoms and the freedoms that America stands for, doesn't understand terrorism, promotes fascism, and will never, ever get my vote.

The Republicans should be completely ashamed of the state of their party.

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

If you had a direct line to the president

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:01:22 -0500

What would you say needs to be done about what you call the terrorist threat? Can you be more specific about how you define the threat itself?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Tuesday, Aug. 26, at the DNC: What will Hillary Clinton and her supporters do? Plus: Valerie Jarrett

Lisa Stone — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:22:51 -0500

Whether she's personally responsible or not, Sen. Hillary Clinton is emerging as a massively divisive force for Democrats seeking the support of women who vote, if their blogs are any indication.

With a reported Clinton delegate protest march planned and her prime-time speech, Tuesday is the day Sen. Hillary Clinton and her supporters pick a path. Will they step forward to support an Obama-Biden ticket or will they step forward to support HIllary Clinton as a candidate they believe should be on the ballot in November, either as VP or as an Independent candidate?

Emotional doesn't begin to describe what I'm reading in the BlogHer-sphere from pro-Clinton, pro-Obama and pro-Just-A-Democrat-Please bloggers. But first, watch what Sen. Clinton herself said on the topic at yesterday's Hispanic caucus (video by Tracy Russo of The Back Forty blog):

The audio isn't great, but if you listen hard you can hear Clinton clearly state her support for Barack Obama. Her words, however, appear to have no check on the emotion I'm reading around the BlogHer-sphere and in news reports from bloggers like Womenzvoice, who are openly activating for an independent candidacy for Clinton, even as PUMA (a group of convention delegates whose acronym means either People United Means Action or People United My Ass) is planning a march. And as you'll read in that last link, NOW President Kim Gandy is openly angry when talking with reporters about everything from the ballot to Sen. Clinton's title on the speaker manifest. "[M]any women are devastated by Obama's selection of Joe Biden as a running mate," wrote BlogHer Contributing Editor Suzanne Reisman yesterday, in a post exhorting progressive women to re-plug in called Election 2008: It's not over yet!

In an attempt to explain, PunditMom blogged The Hurdle Some Hillary Supporters Can't Get Over -- and says that even Michelle Obama's glowingly acclaimed Monday night speech cannot change it:

My experiences of not always being treated fairly or equally in the workplace are not going to prevent me from voting for Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate. But I have to wonder whether the persistent sense of experienced women coming up short in the workplace and having to take the helper's role to the younger man in the office is something that will unconsciously tip more than a few mid-life women into the John McCain or 'other' column.

When I surf Democratic bloggers who can and do support Obama, they don't sound any less frustrated. With "WHAT?! Southerngirl in a single post touches on every point I've seen made about the effect some bloggers fear this conflict between Clinton and Obama supporters could have on the election:

Hillary, do me a favor and get over yourself and out of our way so we can get a democrat in the White house and start to fix this mess we are in. The things facing this country are too important for one person to hold up. LISTEN UP! Hillary is not the nominee. Barack is and it is his right to decide who is on his team, it is his right to seek the counsel of whomever he wishes. This is about him not Hillary. If we want respect for the next woman then she and her supporters have got to act with some dignity and (gasp!) class.

Meanwhile, Michael Melcher on The Huffington Post makes a satirical point: The way the news media tell it, no matter what happens, "It's all Hillary's fault!"

On day two of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, BlogHer's Erin Kotecki Vest, Maria Niles and Videographer Katy Chen will be at the convention, fingers typing and cameras rolling, asking delegates what they think -- perhaps even the Senator herself if they are fortunate.

First on BlogHer's agenda is an interview with Chicago Businesswoman Valerie Jarrett, whom The Washington Post described as a member of the Obamas' inner circle and pivotal according to New York magazine in both Michelle Obama's career and the Barack Obama's decision to seek the presidency.

Midday, BlogHer will cover the WomenCount.org lunch featuring Hillary Clinton, which was to have been co-hosted by the late Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. Later that day, BlogHer will attend the Emily's List gala where Sen. Clinton and Michelle Obama will appear with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Afterward, the BlogHer team will take a trip to the Pepsi Center to interview New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and cover tonight's speeches, culminating in Hillary Clinton's remarks.

Image credit: Hillary Clinton by http://nytimes.com