The New Agenda’s teeniest fashion critic

The New Agenda (née Ye Olde PUMA) styles itself as a women’s rights group, and there was much righteous harrumphing at the site today about the media’s focus on Michelle Obama’s clothes as she bowls over the UK. One of the front-pagers posted an evaluation of an AP piece, sarcastically wondering why no one pays attention to men’s fashion needs and instead obsesses on Ms. Obama’s wardrobe—even while women contend with issues such as “domestic violence, job loss fears, sexism in the media, fair pay, the sexualization of young women,” etc.

Fair enough. I also find the obsessive focus on women’s appearance and clothing irritating. And surely there are more weighty issues to discuss, what with the global financial system meltdown, the collapse of the US housing market, burgeoning unemployment and the alarming rise in terrorist violence in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Not to mention the substandard season of American Idol.

But I guess not all New Agenders got the memo about how sexist and unseemly it is to focus on women’s appearance: New Agenda front-pager and certified PUMAloon Madamab published a screed mocking Ms. Obama’s fashion sense the same afternoon The New Agenda was officially denouncing such frivolity.

The post was presented in the form of an excruciatingly lame one-act play in which the Queen of England and her husband serve as sockpuppets to express all the catty remarks the PUMAs routinely unload on the Obamas. Well, Madamab doesn’t go so far as to have the Queen call them “uppity nigras,” but all the other old PUMA canards are well represented, e.g., the Obamas lack manners and class, etc.

Even the hoary Obama-brushes-Hillary-off-his-shoulders and Obama-flips-Hillary-off legends make yet another encore appearance, surfacing in the Queen’s dialog as if she would have the foggiest notion about such things or would give two shits in a bowler if she did. But here is the relevant excerpt on fashion:

[Queen]: ...That awful woman TOUCHED me. And did you see what she was wearing? It didn’t even fit her properly! Can’t she afford a good tailor?

[Prince Philip]: I must say her appearance surprised me as well. The Americans are always going on and on about how sophisticated and stylish she is. I admit, I just don’t see it.

[Queen] (maliciously): Well, it’s hard to see something that isn’t there, darling. J. Crew is not exactly haute couture, is it?

It’s telling that Madamab would concoct a fantasy about the Queen of England hating on Ms. Obama to amuse her fellow bitter dead-enders. Ms. Obama enjoys stratospheric approval ratings in the US, she’s a rock star in the UK, and she was apparently a big hit with the Queen herself. How galling this must all be to the Hillary-or-mass-cult-suicide people! But in any case, I can see why an important feminist organization like The New Agenda would be eager to add such a dedicated feminist to their writing staff.

Posted by Betty Cracker on 04/02/09 at 11:05 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaBedwettersElection '08NuttersOur Stupid MediaPUMAs

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Even by her standards, that’s some frothing idiocy from madamababa.

And I just love how she’s so affronted on our behalf about the gifts and royal protocol.  I bet she’s been a follower of court news for years and has a special place in her heart for the Queen.

This was a nice touch, too:

HMQE (with dawning hope): Tell me, darling. Am I still allowed to behead people?

PP (gently): I’m afraid not, darling.

HMQE (back into despondency): Oh.

The queen hated spending time with those gigantic uncouth negroes so much that she wanted to kill them. Stay classy, World’s Shittiest Playwright!

riverdaughter, on April 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 am Said:

I’m not one to criticize fashion or anything but I find it interesting that Michelle managed to make the Queen look like a fashion plate. MO looks positively frumpy in that suit.

myiq2xu, on April 3rd, 2009 at 7:18 am Said:

She’s “all that and a bag of hips.”

New feminism rocks.

QUICK VENT: Nancy Keenan, a traitor to women
April 1, 2009

by Amy Siskind

Thanks to our friends at No Quarter for a great piece today on Nancy Keenan.

When you’re trying to establish a credible “liberal” organization it’s always a great idea to publicly acknowledge that you’re pals with the lunatics who run a blog that even PUMAs admit is racist, rightwing and crazy. Sisking might as well go all the way and give a shout out to Larry Sinclair.

Hillary-or-mass-cult-suicide people

if only….

The post was presented in the form of an excruciatingly lame one-act play ...

I salute your indefatigability, Kevin. Whenever I see the phrase “one-act play” anywhere near the word “madamab,” I instinctively hit the scrollwheel and engage turbo mode.

riverdaughter, on April 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 am Said:

I’m not one to criticize fashion or anything ...

Then, all too predictably, does so.

Be honest, RD. I’m not one to criticize fashion either, but the Queen was a vision in matronly pink that my grannies wouldn’t have been seen dead in. I’m not bothered that she wore it, and I’m sure she’s not bothered that I observe this, but “fashion plate” is a heckuva stretch in comparison with anyone. (And if we’re going to get personal about it, you’re not all that either. So there.)

By gum, if the PUMAs could see the coverage over here of Mrs. O’s visit, they’d have a collective conniption.

Not only did the Queen take the unprecedented step of committing PDA on Michelle, but Michelle responded appropriately. And the Queen *gasp* *clutchpearls* showed every evidence of not turning a hair at this unwonted supposed invasion of her personal space - it seemed the most natural thing in the world - and as her office confirmed, despite the RW frothing, no protocol was harmed. Michelle’s also been wowing them on the public appearances she’s made, being mobbed by excited kids at one school where she gave an inspirational address (even using the correct UK term “council estate” rather than “project”).

Another aspect that seems to escape the PUMAs (and the rest of the RW wingnutsphere, of which they have become part) is that the Queen’s realm includes the Commonwealth (16 sovereign, independent nations with her as shared monarch), and her active diplomatic role in this has involved over 50 years of dealing with a succession of heads of state - I’ll whisper this so as not to shock any passing PUMAs - quite a large proportion of whom have not been, er, pink.

I think a lot of us here were more relieved that Prince Philip didn’t let HM down by unleashing one of his legendary ill-chosen jokes. He was positively well behaved, and appeared utterly charmed.

I’d also point out to madamab that she has committed lèse-majesté, so I’d cancel any plans to visit these shores in the future unless she fancies a spell in the Tower of London at Her Majesty’s pleasure. The Windsors have long memories, and HM is unlikely to look kindly on having such mean, spiteful, and childish qualities imputed to her that have been from the depths of madamab’s revolting psyche. And what may worse, she’s dissed HM’s new BFF. Now that‘s what I call a diplomatic incident.

Erm, that should of course read, “I salute your indefatigability, Betty.” Apols.

Heh. This comment over at madamab’s lasted all of five minutes before being scrubbed:

I am British. I take grave offence at this terrible depiction of our Head of State as a spiteful harridan.

For your information, all the evidence is that Her Majesty was charmed by the First Lady, as have been others who have encountered her on her first visit here.

It’s wonderful to read you Americans projecting your own issues onto we British.

Please own your own childish spite, and don’t attribute it to others in future.

The dimwit should think herself lucky that I don’t direct a bunch of people over there from the “Comment is Free” forums. She’d get RSI from hitting “delete.”

Heh 2. But madamab was apparently not quick enough on the trigger:

regency // April 3, 2009 at 9:49 am

Wait, what?

regency // April 3, 2009 at 9:50 am

Trolls make for awkward posting.

Yes, they do, regency. That’s a fine bag o’ trolls madamab’s assembled there.

The queen hated spending time with those gigantic uncouth negroes

I am awaiting Madamab’s hilarious one-act satire of Zulu:

PP: My God, it’s like Rorke’s Drift all over again!

HMQE: Courage, my love. We are safe until dawn…or whenever the drums stop beating.

Here’s the latest PUMA hot link. They’re going to twist themselves into knots trying to figure out what to mock: Michelle’s kiss or Bruni’s “back off.”

Heh 3. A one-act play depicting what passes for reality in madamab’s diseased mind:

madamab // April 3, 2009 at 9:56 am

LOL Regency!

Yup, I zapped him. I have a zero tolerance policy for nasty Obots.

Heh 4. Nice try from Tom65 (again, lasted 5 minutes):

Tom65 // April 3, 2009 at 9:58 am

That’s some ironic feminism right there - decry the fact that women are judged by what they wear, then get catty about what MO wears.

This comment on madamab’s latest something-or-other on T ‘n’ A pretty much sums it up:

Kiuku on March 29th, 2009 12:45 pm

Hillary won, but Hillary did not get to run because she was a woman.

Ah, not-PUMA feminist organization, how we love thee…

Zero tolerance for reality, more like.

Yup, I zapped him. I have a zero tolerance policy for nasty Obots.

She also has zero tolerance for nasty reality.

Jinx!

Damn, she even banned me

And right on schedule the blogoshpere’s most egregious comment spammer is now at madamab’s pimping her wares.

Go RitaMae!

The dimwit should think herself lucky that I don’t direct a bunch of people over there from the “Comment is Free” forums.

She should no longer think herself lucky (though I don’t expect much, if anything, in response).

Hmmm. Anti-woman cattiness, politically ineffective whining, intra-group slapfests, mass defections and cross-blog cannibalization.

I’m really liking what I see in the rosy dawn of the Year of the PUMA.

PUMA is now officially a perpetual Bridge Club without cards.

I’m envisioning some bizzaro world version of “Whose Line is it, Anyways?”, starring Darragh Murphy, Larry C. Johnson, Orly Taitz, Will Bower, and Larry Sinclair.

The whole shebang will be hosted/judged by Glenn Beck.

I’m with YAFB, the Queen is my head of state and although we Canucks have mixed feelings about that, we have great respect and affection for her personally.  We certainly do not see her as someone who smiles, hugs and shows affection in public and then spews venom as soon as your back is turned.  That is truly offensive. 

If the Queen is displeased, she’ll let you know.  She has a whole repertoire of frowns she can put to use when some politician from East Bumfuck, New Brunswick, grabs her arm or puts his hand in the small of her back.  There’s no mistaking her feelings.

And speaking of that “don’t touch” protocol nonsense, that’s something we firmly believe the British press made up to mock us colonial and ex-colonial hicks with. The only entertainment that the Queen’s trips to the sticks seem to offer them is waiting to catch someone in the act of manhandling her.

There’s some point to it.  The Queen is a tiny person and now an elderly person and it must be an ordeal for her to be mauled by strangers.  But as I said, she can make her feelings known.  In the case of Michelle Obama, the Queen hugged her first.

I could post this on that horrible PUMA blog but what would be the point?  Let them stew in their own bile.

Let’s see how long this one lasts:

Geraldine Wiley // April 3, 2009 at 1:04 pm

“Sucks to be you!”

Nope, you talentless, petty deadender, it sucks to be you with your childish obsessions and ridiculous “plays”.

Grow up. Michelle Obama’s got a hundred times your class.

Well, as was made abundantly clear by many of the PUMAs during the campaign, when they say “women,” they mean “white women.” An n-word is always an n-word, no matter what gender, to these white-trash harridans who have achieved nothing of note in their lives. What else would we expect from people who think “Scoop Mouth” is the height of witty repartee?

And yeah, RiverChucky criticizing ANYBODY else’s personal sense of style is pretty rich.

Let’s see how long this one lasts:

Six minutes. She’s slipping.

Let’s see how long this one lasts:

It didn’t. :D

I wonder does she moderate comments on her own T’n'A posts?

It would appear not!

And the natives are apparently revolting chez madamab:

Drusifer // April 3, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Jesus. You people are pretty pathetic… what the hell IS this shaz? Some ax to grind. Who cares about this royalty bullshite?

Four minutes. I’m off out. Let her reap what she’s sown!

Crap.  RitaMae got greedy.

Why can’t I find my comments?!?!

Because you’re a fucking idiot, you make the Hambeast seem intelligent in comparison.

Then again, you’re a regular commenter here at Stupid “R” Us, so that does explain a lot.

Not long for that thread, sad as it is.

I also love the fact that all of the sudden this gaggle of griping diseased geese have all of the sudden become experts on royal protocol.

Humboldt, Madamab is using the old MyIQ trick of rewriting troll posts.

It’s almost as if they are able to learn from each other, perhaps through some primitive mimicry response.

Humboldt, Madamab is using the old MyIQ trick of rewriting troll posts.

It’s almost as if they are able to learn from each other, perhaps through some primitive mimicry response.

I popped a tonsil laughing over that one.

I think referring to Hillary as “the Hambeast” is the height of cleverness.

They still don’t get it, do they?

HumboldtBlue // April 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm

I think referring to Hillary as “the Hambeast” is the height of cleverness.

But then, it’s tough to think with my head shoved so firmly up my ass.

I don’t think that “edit” had quite the effect madamab intended! The Secretary of State is the Hambeast?! SHAME on you, madamab.

Irony is a stranger to these PUMAs.

Meanwhile, over at The New Agenda, this hasn’t gone unnoticed:

http://thenewagenda.net/2009/03/29/no-apologies-no-c omparisons-women-first/comment-page-1/#comment-13852

Now I’m really going out!

Meanwhile, over at The New Agenda, this hasn’t gone unnoticed…

LOL, well played. Of course, the PUMAs-that-be at TNA have swooped in to cut off further discussion there too.

Violet Socks, Editor on April 3rd, 2009 3:11 pm

Oh for heaven’s sake. Mr. Wilkins is hijacking this thread to pursue something completely off-topic. It ends now.

What a farce.

Meanwhile at the Effluence they’re saying how much more naturally beautiful Carla Bruni is than Michelle and analyzing the “remaking” of Michelle, including examining old pictures of her. Imagine how apeshit they’d go if they saw anyone doing the same thing to Hillary.

Shameless hypocrites, the whole lot of them.

Well, at least Mary got it.

Hey, it’s OK for chicks to treat other chicks like sex-meat.

In fact, it’s the basis for many fine prison movies.

I love how the folks over at T&A;always pass the buck about the hypocrisy in the “PUMAsphere” - “oh that’s HER site, we don’t control what she says over there (we just let her write here)”

In fact, it’s the basis for many fine prison movies.

Just ask Doughy Pantload

Well, Violet Socks is “moderating” comments, if by moderating you mean terminating with extreme prejudice.

The link to Michelle’s meeting with the girls from the Council Estate, and the discussion of it, is gone, so my comment as “Purple Pose” did not make it:

Oh for logic’s sake. Ms. Socks is unravelling this thread because it’s unravelling her.

So empowering disadvantaged young women is not something to be discussed at the New Agenda, Violet?

Not if it’s Michelle Obama doing it.

Better to have your resident dramatist make fun of Michelle’s clothes! That makes perfect sense for a supposed feminist.

While that entire discussion was wiped, the topic was evidently large enough to include the following, from “chevalier”:

Of course, our media is beyond fawning about Obama, but check out what the UK media has to say about Obama:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb…..ughed.html

“He spoke slowly, in a meandering manner. Some might say that he was thoughtful and professorial. Others might call his manner circuitous, even yarny. Am I saying that he was a bore? Oh dear. I find that I possibly am…….
“Our old donkey Gordon, by comparison to this American visitor, was for once Mr Eloquent, Mr Quick-Off-The-Mark. Mr Obama had managed to make Mr Brown look good. Another amazing achievement”

welllll……

Now that’s right on topic for a non-partisan feminist website.

Quoting the Daily Mail? I guess that’s their paper of record since the Weekly World News folded.

Maybe we should do a prowl directed at the four women speaking at the forum Violet put together for the New Agenda. I think a few of them might take a keen interest in what a blogger for the New Agenda had to write about Michelle.

I’m sorry now that I hadn’t checked out The New Pudenda earlier.

That Amy Siskind is hawwwt!!

“If women want any rights more than they’s got, why don’t they just take them, and not be talking about it.” - Sojourner Truth

Umm, ladies, what rights are you missing? Just curious.

Because I swear from this day forth, I will give my last breath, the sweat from my brow, the skin from my hands, the beer from my frid ... (jesus HB, what the fuck are you thinking?) errrmm, the lunch from my box, the french from my fry, the hip from my hop, the git from my go, the hot from my pocket, the key from my board, the rock from my roll ... well you get the idea ... to get you dem rights you done been missin’, but only if I get a goddamned sammich first!

I can understand Sojourner in context, I’m just not sure how it fits in with 2009.

Oh, and to our resident Brits, may I propose a trade?

We’ll give you Angie Harmon, the crazy bible bitch who used to be on SNL, that nitwit who smashed watermelons as part of his act, Larry the cable guy, and umm ... uhh ... Chuck Norris for John Oliver and two funny people to be named later. Whatcha say boyos/girlos, do we have a deal?

Depends on who the Funny People are if you want Billy Connelly well you know it ain’t going to happen, he is a national treasure.  Or you know John Cleese, ain’t going to happen.  We might be willing to give you Ricky Gervais and wotshisface from House seeing as you pod people already seem to have enveloped them.  However, we only go for the deal if we are allowed to then treat our trades with huge guffaws of derision and spite, and classic Brit snark.  Cause otherwise it would be pointless.

Oh and on the whole Queen hugging thing?  Bullshit.  As the protocol office said, the Queen got all caught up in the moment and hugged Michelle, who responded in kind (and believe me when the Queen wants to hug you, you have scored huge), you have to remember that Princess Di (as much as I hated the crazy bitch) pretty much did away with the “no hugging Royals rule” and the rest of the family followed suit.  You can hug the hell out of the Royal Family right now, just like you can hug the First Lady (despite the Secret Service having a cow).

PUMA sexism is not just restricted to African American women. You only need to search for the comments of the the bigoting bigots about Katherine Sebelius or Caroline Kennedy. I’m sure amongst the worst were comments made by those who now post at PUMA scum Lite “The New Agenda”.

Hee. This is what happens right now if I try to access T’n'A:

Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /author/madamab/ on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.36 Server at thenewagenda.net Port 80

Whereas, funnily enough, if I use a proxy, I can get access with no problems.

Can’t take the heat of debate, eh, Ms. Socks? Pathetic.

Props to the blameless Carolyn who first responded to me over there, and also to Mary for chiming in (and any others who did so and got wiped).

IP refreshed, and I now have access. What a shamelessly partisan hack you are, Ms. Socks.

So, anyway. This is what the PUMAfascifeministi are so scared of - a positive message from one woman to some women of the future (I hope the BBC and Sky links work where y’all are - if you can find a clip of the whole of Michelle’s speech, it’s pretty moving):

http://www.egaschool.co.uk/

They love her. I guess that’s forbidden in some quarters, too.

I was amused to see that the stupid that is HelenK posts there as well. Such hypocrisy from a bigot claiming “equalists” rule, when it is posting on a completely disgusting attack on Michelle Obama, for no reason other than how the Press treats the fashion sense of the First Lady.

As if that wasn’t enough a reasonably argued (for a PUMA bigot) is followed up with even more examples of stupid, confirming that PUMAs do not understand “Foreigners”, so instead they proceed to go into their comfort zone and bigot on about the First Lady again.

Grr.

What on earth does the bigot AngieNc2 have to offer the World on fashion tips? Is that thing the lovechild of MyIQ=2 and Darhag Murphy; produced when hiding from the FEC?

Or you know John Cleese, ain’t going to happen.
Comment by Litlebritdifrnt on 04/03/09 at 06:56 PM

We already have Mr. Cleese and Mr. Idle. So, nyar sucks boo!

Sorry to post on a p2 topic, but I thought I would keep it on topic.

The fact that Siksind is blogging on NoQuarter as a Front Pager when they are running this

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/04/06/barack-h ussein-obama-touts-his-muslim-roots/

says everything you need to know about PUMA Lite.

Comment by TheBigotBasher on 04/07/09 at 06:35 PM

And Kevin - the title of the picture of Michellle Obama “hugging” the Queen is quite telling of how bigoted PUMA scum are.

I’m “Mary” mentioned above, one of the posters at TNA who Ms Socks tried to smack down. After Carolyn and I made our posts repudiating the assaults on the Queen & MO, Ms Socks closed the thread.
Later, she outed herself in a post “My Life as a Mole” or something like that. She offered apologies to 4 or 5 of the other founders of TNA for her political (pro hrc) and pro choice agendas and in the process, outed them. There was no apology to the partcipants who took the TNA at their published word that they are non-partisan and choice neutral.
As a new visitor to the site, I felt angry and abused and let Ms Socks know it in my post. I also expressed my displeasure with the hostility towards women that is rampant in the site’s statements . I am now verboten from the site. I wish this had happened 4 weeks ago so I would not have wasted my time trying to reconcile the mindset with the goals. If TNA wants to promote hrc & pro choice, they should do it but be honest about it. The charade is an insult to feminism.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main