Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Women Need Not Apply
"Hi, I'm here to apply for the job."
"What job?"
"It says here, this one, 35+, inspiring, competent, experienced, steadfast, Democrat preferred."
"Sorry, it's been filled."
"What do you mean it's been filled?"
"Well, to be frank, aren't you a little old?"
"Old? I just saw someone 72 years old walk in here!"
"Yes, but there's a lot of heavy lifting, not sure you can do it."
"Heavy lifting? For this job?"
"Oh, you know what I mean. When you periodically get....down? Do you really want your finger on the button at that point?"
"Ahah, I get it. No, I'm post-menopause. That doesn't happen anymore."
"Yes, but we're looking out for the youth vote. The kids are depending on us."
"Hmmm, so are the grandmothers and housewives, no?"
"Well, kind of. But we were looking for someone with a little more star appeal."
"Were Will Smith and J-Lo available?"
"Frankly no, but we think we got close. It's always hit and miss, but
we think we found someone who fits our demographics pretty well."
"Wow, pretty neat - what's he do?"
"He's a Senator."
"Cool, I'm a Senator too, maybe I know him."
"Well, I'm not sure you do. He's only been around for 3 years. But he's got quite an impressive career back home."
"Back home? Where's that?"
"Chicago."
"Hey, I'm from Chicago, at least originally. What's his name?"
"Well, I don't mean he's been around that long."
"Oh, I see. Just exactly how long has he been around?"
"Let's see, 3 years here, 8 years there, about 17 years in all."
"Oh, that's interesting. That would be about the time I moved to the White House."
"I see. Are you name-dropping now?"
"No, I actually lived there. You see, my husband worked there, and I
helped get him elected and did all kind of things in the background.
You see, I'd been working on campaigns since I was a kid, rabble
rousing on campus and all. Kind of my father's hobby and it rubbed off
on me."
"Fascinating. Any experience abroad?"
"Sure, 80 state trips, meeting foreign leaders, carrying cryptic diplomatic messages, arranging conferences..."
"No, I mean as a child."
"Excuse me? No, I'm sorry. Chicago suburbs, Cubs and Yankees fan."
"Well, that's a shame. We were looking for someone with more authentic experience. You know, native."
"How native? You said this other guy's from Chicago?"
"Well, no, not exactly. You see, he's multicultural. And that fits our
demographic to a T. A little of this, a little of that. Half of our
audience has some mixed background these days or simply is tired of the
Pat Boone/Jay Leno thing. You understand."
"Hmmm, not quite - first you ignore my experience, I'm supposed to be
from another country, then you compare me to a couple of aging white
guys when I'm a woman. What kind of Presidential race is this?"
"I'm sorry, Ma'am, you seem a bit confused. This is the entry line for
American Idol. Perhaps you want to check at the information desk. They
may be able to help you."
Comments (74)
Why can't you just say what you think and spare us all the hackneyed dramatics ?
Cheers.
February 27, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really it is the rage generated when she feels overlooked. How dare you question my superior stance on this subject. I worked with a guy who always showed his true feelings when he sensed a need to control. Voice would raise and this aggressive stern-ness would take over his tone. (A guy mind you) This need for control certainly turned me off. Makes you realize why they have legal contracts.
Protect yourself from some wo/man who may have hid behind good intentions.
February 27, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could speak for the rest of the country (I know I can't, and I know sexism is very real and prevalent) but as an Obama supporter I wish this didn't have to come down to man vs. woman, or black vs. white. I know not everyone can truly say the same but I know I was looking forward to voting for Clinton and having a woman as president.
After my research I found I preferred Obama. Which is no slight to HRC, she would make an excellent president. I just think America needs his (yes I'll say it) Personality and ability to inspire. The funny thing is how well they would truly work together.
February 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Succinct.
February 27, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I think a woman will have her time.. whether it be this election or in the near future. This isn't the last chance.
February 27, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are many fine reasons for preferring Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton that have nothing to do with race or gender, one of which I just blogged about:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/this-is-too-important.php
February 27, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another take:
"Hi, I'm here to accept your job offer."
"Job offer? But we just posted the posi--"
"No, it's okay, I know the guy that used to work here, he said it'd be cool."
"Uhhhokay, I think we've just got to check with the board of directors and staff before we can go ahead and--"
"Board of directors nothin'. I've been to your website, I've looked over the staff profiles, I know what those guys are looking for in an employee, and I know I fit the bill."
"Right. But, y'see, lot of the staff has been saying that we need some new blood at the company; that it was around the time your husband showed up --nice guy, don't get me wrong-- that things started going off the rails. To be honest with you, morale HAS been pretty low lately..."
"Who's been telling you that? It was Carolina, wasn't it! I know it! Well let me tell you-- she's a nobody. She's nice and all, don't get me wrong, but there's something about her that I can't quite put my finger one..."
"Um--"
"Or, wait! I know. It must have been one of those hayseeds you keep hiring... I don't know why you keep bringing in these losers from the flyover states! What have they ever done for us?"
"Ma'am, nothing personal, but hold up a minute. We've got some other excellent applicants who have been making their cases and--"
"Listen. I've already been tested, I've been vetted--"
"And I appreciate that, I really do. Now, Tuesday is when we'll be looking at CVs. If you could please get back to us on Wednesday, we can discuss things further then."
"W-Wednesday?"
"Yes. Wednesday."
"Well, I haven't really thought that far in advance..."
FIN
February 27, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Touché.
February 27, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Aaaaannnnd... CUT!"
That's a wrap people! The first take was kinda shaky, but you guys really nailed the chemistry issues on that second one. Well done. Take five. Grab a latte.
February 27, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your title of the blog gives you away.
Grow up.
The Speaker of the House, who is *second* in line to the Presidency is a woman.
Is that not a wonderful thing?
The way I see it, it was *very* good that the day after Pelosi got the position, most people didn't see her gender as a big story. Apparently you don't!
And *that* is the society you should be seeking to build.
Gender neutral.
Other women will, no doubt, feel like they can run after HRC's credible national campaign. And when one of *those* women really connect with the electorate, she will be elected.
But not until then.
In the meantime, let's list other people who didn't get to be their parties nominee this cycle:
Biden, Dodd, Romney, Brownback, Cox, Thompson, Hunter, Vilsack, Edwards...
Get it? She is one of *many*.
February 27, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for playing, north_aufzoo (everyone's a winner), though we can debate whether things were going off the rails in the 90's another time.
PS DF - don't forget ageism - we need young blood for our show.
Dear Douglas, if I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution. Love, Emma
February 27, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, when all you're looking for is an excuse then any one will do, right?
February 27, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be clear, I could have put a number of tags for the title - old people, women, white people, short people, people who've seen UFO's....
February 27, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course none of this has to do with the ability or merits of the candidates, only their demographic data. This is why you describe Barack Obama's race as an advantage.
But if he was losing, wouldn't be 'Blacks Need Not Apply'?
Somehow you've managed to turn a Democratic primary which is a win-win for equality into a lose-lose.
Of course, this is really more about the fact that you favor Hillary Clinton than it is about any of the ridiculous premises you've put forward here.
February 27, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and anyone named "Edwards"
February 27, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying that you would have considered titling "white people need not apply"? Now that really IS troubling. Like, Ward Connelly-troubling.
Pitting women and blacks against each other in the struggle for equality has been a tragic feature of American history, and it has to be resisted. I think you are doing a disservice to the larger struggle for egalitarianism by setting up this 'pecking party.'
February 27, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, I invented racism and sexism and ageism and anti-gayism and anti-religionism, and society was just cruising along hunky dory before I put in my 2 cents and brought up the subject.
As I said in another post, do you think Hillary would have screamed bloody murder if her campaign had been compared to Geraldine Ferraro's?
And I admitted in a third post that I was the one who released the Obama Somali pictures (Drudge and the Aliens). Because I'm so out of touch with America that I think it will make a difference? Because before me, people hadn't noticed Obama had darker skin and now the house of cards will come crashing down? That we're post-racial but we freak out at the mention of race at all?
Someone tried to say the Obama outfit couldn't be Obama's because Somalia is Muslim and Kenya is Christian. Reality check - Obama's father's and grandfather's family in Kenya are Muslim, with most having Muslim names. Obama himself is an American Christian, with a hippieish anthropoligist NGO-type white mother who probably gave him a more "world religion" upbringing than anything else (his sister is something of a Buddhist but I get the impression of more philosophically than deeply practicing). Good for her. Good for him. Own it. Be proud of it. If Obama having 4 years in Indonesia and a grandmother on the banks of Lake Victoria makes him a better voice for America, a better ambassador to the world, prove it, show it, confront it. Because I would have thought it irrelevant - with my funny slightly out-of-focused eyesight that thought we were talking about a society past race and sex (though obviously not religion) and could get back to the issues.
And besides that, if the nomination is really sewn up, he's running against Republicans now. Better come up with some strong, coherent, proud and not defensive attitudes on these things. Because Republicans don't say sorry.
February 27, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'm bailing on this thread. This is just getting weird/gross (e.g.: "Someone tried to say the Obama outfit couldn't be Obama's because Somalia is Muslim and Kenya is Christian. Reality check - Obama's father's and grandfather's family in Kenya are Muslim, with most having Muslim names. Obama himself is an American Christian, with a hippieish anthropoligist NGO-type white mother who probably gave him a more 'world religion' upbringing than anything else (his sister is something of a Buddhist but I get the impression of more philosophically than deeply practicing)").
I'm sorry we couldn't have a more serious conversation.
February 27, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be sure, Obama has nothing to be ashamed of. That these attacks will be ratcheted up by the right is nearly certain, but this doesn't make the tactic of purposefully playing on ignorance and fear any less deplorable.
I have every confidence that Obama own it completely and a result do a great deal to diffuse the issue and dissuade fears, unlike HRC's tactic of constantly trying to distance herself from who she is. In a sense, Clinton has now done him the favor of allowing him to test this strategy. It has certainly worked well for him so far.
February 27, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is to hoping his responses are good enough. The Tennessee mailer is the first (real) shot in the next battle.
As a Clinton put it: lets role the dice.
February 28, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, for DF, for women this has overall been a lose-win campaign, though there may be some positive responses to come out of it. And I don't mean because not everyone votes for Hillary.
February 27, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is losing because of sexism just like Gore lost because of Nader, right? No one doubts that sexism is an obstacle for Hillary Clinton, but at the end of the day she still has to figure out how to win.
Dems will do much better when they stop trying to blame forces beyond their control and start figuring out how to win. Don't look now, but I think that hour may finally be upon us.
February 27, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi ya doin Desi???Got those they are discriminating against me because I am a woman Blues?Get over it sweetie though it is not right it is a fact.I do pray however that I will one day see a female President that I can support and VOTE for but The IRON WITCH is not the one.
February 27, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go, Desidero - the voice of reason.
February 27, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the sort of guy who would actually be MORE inclined to vote for a woman. Just not THIS woman. I'm sorry to report to you that a majority of Americans did not support Hillary's pre-coronation. I'm glad to report to you that it had NOTHING to do with gender.
February 27, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chautauquan nailed it...just not THIS woman. But, I will be even more forceful. It's not, for me, a matter of THIS woman; it's a matter of THIS candidate: something about an erratic, shrill, poise-less, duplicitous, race-baiting, recalcitrant, Balkanizing, poster-child for identity politics does not seem to scream "presidential material" to me; irrespective of her policies.
February 27, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Gothlaw et al. Got your point.
When a woman comes along who isn't shrill,
she may have a chance. If she isn't into
identity politics. So along as she doesn't
mention being a woman, focuses on "generic"
issues. Presumably not wear a pants suit.
Doesn't get angry, doesn't act controlling.
Isn't divisive, not demanding, just wants
to get along. Wouldn't hurt if she was young
and fresh. And not too big of an ego. But
wants to be President.
I'll let you know if I see one come along.
February 27, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just fyi..."Isn't divisive" is on my list of qualifications for preferred candidates regardless of their gender or any other demographic characteristic you can think of...
"Isn't shrill" and "Doesn't act controlling" are also on there.
Some people (and I won't name names) seem to think that every policy that isn't theirs is inherently inferior, and if only people would just listen to them and accept how smart they are, the awesomeness of their policy positions would shine through. We all know people like that. They all have a self-inflated sense of how special their unique gifts are in relation to the people around them. "I work harder. I know more. My plan is better." We all know them. Do we like working with them? Do we want to spend any more time around them than is necessary? Do we want to have our lives in their hands?
February 27, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not it at all...it's actually the pessimistic, race-baiting, triangulation, divisive, Bush-like smears she resorts to when everything doesn't go her way. This is not some "uppity" woman thing; it's specifically an HRC thing. And, if you think for one second that I'm the only one who sees the absolute negativity and is turned off, then look around, and take a good look at America as it is, rather than as you perceive it. Because, there is a damned good reason one million more people have voted against her, than for her.
If it walks like a duck, etc...
February 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
But no cleavage showing, don't forget that! And she'd better not have chunky legs. Can you imagine a president with chunky legs?
Must have good hair, of course -- but better not spend too much on it. And for goodness sake, she'd better not do it herself. Remember that homespun hayseed Rosalyn Carter? Please.
Oh, and no plastic surgery, but she'd better not age over the course of 8 years. Who wants to see that? Ugh!
Misogyny? Nah, what on earth makes you think there's any of that in the air?
February 27, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, so everyone feel free to just ignore my comments because we all know that Obama supporters are in reality, pod people...
But I just have to laugh out loud at all the people saying, with perhaps just a hint of self-righteousness: "I'd be happy to vote for a woman. No, really. I'm the type of guy who would be inclined to vote for a woman." Pause. The other shoe drops: "Just not this woman".
Please. You may as well just say it: you're not going to vote for Hillary because her voice is shrill, you don't like her, she reminds you of your first/second/third wife, she gets angry too often, whatever. Fill in the blank.
What type of woman would you vote for? Hmmm?
Thanks for this post.
And {gasp}: I'm a woman, and I'm supporting Obama. But I just have to say: the reaction to Hillary is just pure mysogynistic horseshit.
February 27, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of my best friends are women...
February 27, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
AKA:Your failure to support this candidate means you hate women candidates. I suppose Nancy Pelosi is just an inconvenient blip on the path to crowning HRC?
I think all this misogyny paint being used has got a lot of people high on the fumes.
If HRC is being held down by the Misogynist Vote with 1,031 of the pledged delegates (48.75%) then what is happening to BHO with 1,084 of the pledged delegates (51.25%)? I mean The Male is only ahead by 2.5%. That is within most statistical margins of error. This Misogyny Vote(TM) is the new Soccer Mom, with less mass.
Sexism exists and it is vile - but I do not see much effort being done to solve it, just a lot of anger and finger pointing. Go post on Little Green Footballs if you want people to be mad at.
February 28, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barbara Boxer. Jennifer Granholm. Tammy Duckworth.
Molly Ivins.
Vera Atkins.
February 27, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Edwards
February 27, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of it attributable to misogyny.
Some of it is because of her flaws as a candidate.
One of these she can change. If your goal is getting to the White House, which should you focus on?
February 27, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said CT Voter. And very much appreciated.
February 27, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, nothing chaffs my ass quite like the theory that all those who would not vote for HRC do so for things like thick ankles, shrill voices, or because she is a "powerful woman". Sexism exists, ergo men who vote against HRC are sexist?
Bull Shit.
I wish I had a link, but humans can identify someone who is powerful (in the true sense of the word) with very little interaction. The study I read went so far as to say that if a person bluffed their position and they got called out on it, the group would be even more merciless in knocking down that person.
To claim you are ready from day one, and to play "tougher" than you really are, and to get called on it will wreck any player. Penn fucked HRC's campaign up by interfering with HRC being HRC. Hillary is tough, she can take the heat, but she did not show her real personal side. That whole "Conversation with America" vanished quicker than a Super Bowl commercial and all we got stuck with was "ready from day one" followed shortly by "ready to be CinC from day one". I like HRC the best when she demonstrates her humanity, not her willingness to battle. Those demonstrations are rare, and do little to offset the whole tone of her campaign.
I like a strong woman. Forgive me if I offend, but I married one (does this make me a misogynist?). Strength does not come from being "right" and fighting for it until your opponent gives in. Strength comes from standing up when you should stand up, and standing down when you realize you are wrong. HRC refused to stand down from her Iraq vote because it might make her look weak. That is a bad sign for Americans these days - we have had eight years of someone who will never stand down from a bad decision.
Strength through character, not through battle. And yes, that means tough to some of us.
Guess it is hard times being tough, or male or female.
February 27, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes a thousand times yes.
February 28, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cynthia McKinney.
February 28, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has to be a tough old broad too...
February 27, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, ondioline, if you're talking about me, you're wrong. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me.
February 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a woman, I find blogs like this far more offensive than the usual 'Shrillary' hit jobs. Pretty shameful stuff you're peddling here.
February 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like you.
:)
Nice job.
February 27, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I woman, I find you whiney, humourless, and dim.
But that's just me.
February 27, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now what did that get you? what did it get anyone?
I read your bio out of curiousity - your animosity must come from something. Nothing there to go on, and your reasons for concern in this world seem very reasonable and gave me something to relate to (I only have one child, but will have more if nature is on my side).
Do you carry this sarcasm into your daily life? Do you pass along your anger to your children?
Actually I am curious. I suppose I will come across as _________, but I had to ask anyway.
February 28, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was posted the other day. Why the re-run?
I thought the Writer's Guild strike ended and we didn't have to have reruns or hack material anymore.
February 27, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a strong Obama supporter who thinks he is really the right person for the job.
However I have to say I thought this was pretty funny and clever.
February 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what is one of the most important reasons for my support of Obama over Clinton?
It is that Clinton never admits fault nor takes responsibility for her actions. It is always someone else's fault.
You know, like failing to win a nomination because the electorate is misogynistic instead of maybe trying to figure out how she could improve herself.
The blame game, the lack of accountability are deal-breakers for me. If you recognise your shortcomings, you can improve yourself in those areas. Taking responsibility for a wrong choice is a good start: examining the reasons leading to that choice is even better because it allows for better future choices. Not having experience but learning from it, and learning the right things.
In short, complete bullshit argument, Desidero. Sorry your candidate is losing but I think some self-reflection would be far more beneficial to you than finger-pointing.
February 27, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To CT Voter,
Thanks. You have more credibility with the Hillary haters since you are not supporting her. You are absolutely right that the I would vote for a woman, just not this woman statements are horseshit. Particularly when they are followed by the typical gender-based values judgments such as "shrill" that completely expose the poster's misogyny.
I expect Obama will win the nomination and I will vote for him -- he is likable and certainly is NOT the lesser of two evils as both candidates are good. That said, with notable exceptions such as yourself, Obama's supporters have been the most obnoxiously fanatical and offensive partisans I have seen since the 2000 Naderites.
You know, after the primary is over, Obama is going to need the Hillary supporters in the general....but his supporters such as the yahoos posting here seem determined to make sure Hillary's supporters stay home. Sometimes I wonder if the obamaniacs here are really McCain supporters trying to ensure there is not unity after the primary by being as sexist, hatemongering and offensive as possible.
February 27, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not bullshit at all to say that you would be willing to vote for a woman, but that you reject Hillary Clinton as a candidate on her merits or lack thereof. What you're implying is that people would say this about any woman, which may be true for some, but is not true for all.
By your logic, the only way to prove myself is to vote for Hillary Clinton no matter how terrible a candidate she is. Pointing out sexism in the environment is legitimate and justified, but this is just playing the gender card.
Are we to enact affirmative action for the office of the President?
February 27, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed (only a day after the last debate) that there is an increase in troll-esque behavior. Not ubiquitous, but with a growing sensation that it is GE time.
As for the heated misogyny, this place seems light on it compared to some of the internets. After that - who are we talking about? If you mean MSM, fair enough, but how much of this crowd is actually sexist? I heard 2/3 somewhere this link, any other guesses? I ask for references because I think an easy thing to do is to write off something because of desensitization. I think about a 1/3 or less of the posting population is overtly/moderately misogynist. But I could be dismissing excessive postings as the sign of a troll.
Or
Obamanicultbot ergo misogynist?
February 28, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, let's do a reality check. This is a misogynistic, racist country. It needs to change. We need to change it. But we're not going to bully it into changing. Never worked, never will.
I'm female, 48 (a feminist late boomer, not an early one like Clinton), and have been a gender pioneer for around 25 years--bus driver, park ranger, wildfire fighter, lawyer in good ol' boy Salt Lake City. I've been harassed, assaulted, denied jobs, underpaid, and restricted from doing the fun stuff at the jobs I did get. But I eventually got the cherry Park job and the perfect public-interest litigation job. I've won case after case because the other guy assumed I couldn't possibly be smarter or tougher than him.
I may complain to friends about injustices, but when I'm attacked for my gender I just fit it into my strategy. I stay up late thinking up everything that could go wrong and coming up with a way to turn it my way. And when it's showtime I ignore the slights and affronts, stare down the vulgar raving bullies, and kill the judge with competence and civility that make it impossible to take my opponent seriously.
I assumed Clinton would use the same strategy that works for so many of us professional middle-class women. And I'm dismayed by her apparent inability to absorb and respond to the body blows she gets from all sides. She had to know she would be attacked for being Bill's wife and undercut because of her sex, and that her "experience" would be held against her. Why didn't she have ready-made comebacks for every attack before it came at her? Did she really think she could just mock Obama until he went away?
She had a chance and threw it away. I think we'll see a woman in the Oval Office in the not-too-distant future, but it'll be a woman who's, frankly, more like Obama--tough, composed, gracious, tenacious, and unafraid to forgive when it'll draw the other side close.
Is this misogynistic? In a racist country, in a sexist country, the facts are the facts. Once we've had a black president, a female president, and (gasp!) a non-Christian president, I'll start believing that America might let go of some bigotry. Until then, we have to fight to get our foot in the door before being allowed into the room. Because once you're in the room you can start joining the conversation as an equal.
February 27, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Oregon, we can fight until the cows come home over who started the hatin' and never get an answer. Everyone's being vicious. No matter who started it, the winner has to gather in the loser's supporters; otherwise we still have time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. So how about we start figuring out how to get the Democratic vote out in the fall and stop crying over how mean everyone is?
February 27, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MaximumBob, I try to spice things up.
Thanks everyone else - I'm happy there was a discussion.
February 27, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have done well Desidero. Most importantly, you have provided a forum for supporters of both candidates to discuss the sexism that has permeated this election contest, just as it permeates society.
This is an important reality check in the midst of an emotional campaign. I especially appreciate the candor of some of the Obama supporters, who have acknowledged that Clinton has been prejudiced on account of her gender, and that she has been prejudiced by more than your typical right-wing neanderthal type. The stench of sexism is in our own home. And this is something I submit that the progressive commmunity will have to confront head on when all of the dust of the campaign settles.
February 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't against a woman becoming President. I'm against THIS WOMAN becoming President.
February 28, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would think you would help your point if you moved from being against this Woman, to being against this candidate.
The candidate was questionable. The Woman is worth her salt and then some, and will continue to do good things. (If not, it will be a sad day)
Focusing on Woman or Man or Black or Minnesotan or Texan misses the point of the Candidate.
February 28, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone earlier responded to CT Voter with some names of women he/she could support - one was the name of a dead woman, another the name of a Canadian born woman... When people say sure, I'd vote for a woman, just not HER, like CT and Desiderio, I want to ask, which high achieving women in the political arena you do admire and support as a presidential candidates?
We hate strong women. Even though it's okay if you, someone's wife or your mother is strong.
February 28, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? I guess by supporting (only some?) strong women, we do not meet some threshold that says we would support a women for president?
February 28, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
That there are few choices is sad, but irrelevant. The logic is fundamentally flawed and saying, "Oh, yeah? Name one" doesn't change this.
Do I have to vote for Clinton to prove I'm not sexist or am I still allowed to evaluate a candidate on their merits?
Accusations of misogyny are being used here as a disguise for, "WAAAAAAAAAAH, it was supposed to be MY TURN!"
February 28, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, and I think for many, a more appropriate title might be, "People who supported the war need not apply". I don't think this translates into we hate strong women, its possibly more difficult to take a stance against something like this.
February 28, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. Shrill...I doubt you would say that about a male candidate. And there's the problem with Hillary haters. They always bring up her female expressions. Even the women do. I wonder what male expressions we can bring up for male candidates we hate.
Frankly, there is a massive and unnecessary rift among democrats now because a young, arrogant, wet-behind-the-ears pseudo preacher was able to hoodwink half the democrats into supporting him. Despite his so-called momentum, remember, almost half of all democrats still support Hillary in this country. If the Superdelegates decide she's the one, they are pretty close to the will of the people. Let's not forget Michigan and Florida. Last I heard, the voters there are still US citizens who want their votes to count, and even if they ultimately don't count, that doesn't mean they don't exist anymore.
Oh, and those of you who were babies when Bill Clinton was in office, do some research...your college education may have been helped by the legislation that was passed as the result of the Clinton's efforts, as well as the Earned Income Credit and many other benefits you enjoy today.
February 28, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Nixon opened the door to China and helped defuse the cold war with the USSR.
Your point is what? We should be grateful that public servants who came before us did their job?
February 28, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, men can be shrill, too. Ever listen to Michael Savage?
February 28, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, there is a massive and unnecessary rift among democrats now because a young, arrogant, wet-behind-the-ears pseudo preacher was able to hoodwink half the democrats into supporting him.
Yeah, this rift probably has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton and her supporters keep telling half of the electorate that they're gullible and that their candidate is a young, arrogant, wet-behind-the-ears pseudo preacher.
Unbelievable.
February 28, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that the HRC supporters here are obsessed with her gender? I truly believe they think more about her gender than I do. I know that HRC campaigns on her gender -- how much do you hear equivalent statements from Barack and race?
I want the best president. The package shoudln't matter. What should be the feminist goal is that the package shouldn't prevent you from running. And HRC has already shown that!
It's statements like:
that really scare me.
Attacked because she was Bill's wife? Being Bill's wife is the reason she didn't have to fight to become the Dem nominee of a Senate race in NY.
Undercut because of her sex? Perhaps if she lost the general election there might be something to this. But these were DEMOCRAT primaries and caucuses. There are more women registered as Dems. If women (as a single block) wanted her to run on the basis of gender, HRC would have been unstoppable. Obviously she didn't convince enough of the *women* that she needed to convince.
I'm glad "experience" was used in quotes. What experience? She was *not* the POTUS. She wasn't even an official cabinet member. She was never elected to office until after Bill left the White House. She never had a serious campaign challenge until this primary season -- look how poorly she was vetted as a campaigner!
She had experience as a lawyer, a corporate board member, an informal good-will diplomat, a congressional lawyer, and a Senator. But this isn't 35 years of White House experience. She's 60, and 60-35=25, so she is saying that *everything* after getting her law degree is directly translatable experience to be POTUS. Sorry, no one should buy that.
Finally, she wasn't beaten by a white man. She was beaten by someone of color who started from humble means -- more humble than hers, in fact. So this has been an interesting election season.
And she started the campaign with more money than God and had already been enmeshed in the Dem political machines in a variety of cities.
To say that sexism defeated her in the *Democratic* primaries is a fairy tale -- and one that the next female candidate should avoid if she doesn't want to repeat the mistakes.
Here's why HRC lost:
a) The surname (it cut both ways)
b) She doesn't like campaigning. In fact, she is not used to really having to campaign. She is used to fundraising and then rolling over the opposition in a weakly fought contest. (Her husband loves to campaign -- *he* is the real politician as a result.)
c) Perhaps most importantly, she has no real reason to run. Like GHWB, she really is trying to run on a resume. She has her one issue (health care), but that's hardly a broad platform. In fact, she would do better to pursue that goal in Congress.
Remember, HRC didn't lose the GE, she lost the primary. Given the Dem party make-up, if she GOTV of women, she would have been a shoo-in. But she couldn't convince even enough women.
And, as I said above, a woman is currently 2nd in line for POTUS. I'm amazed that no one says "wow" -- that is already historic. And I don't hear feminists saying how wonderful that is. It seems that for some, POTUS is the only position to show the power of a woman in government. There are other positions -- and women should run for them as well.
February 28, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, ct, you have made it plain.
February 28, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, clearthinker, what was Barack Obama's humble beginnings? I think he went to an expensive prep school from the time he was 10, and I think he was in private schools in Indonesia where his father was an oil engineer for Shell and spent much of time talking about golf.
February 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama comes from a middle class background. His father left when he was two years old. Try again.
February 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it, even if no one else did...
February 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, "Accusations of misogyny are being used here as a disguise for, "WAAAAAAAAAAH, it was supposed to be MY TURN!""
It is misogynist of you to accuse me of crying when I am only contributing to the commentary.
February 29, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
eliottness, the point of my comment "we hate strong women" not including your mom, your wife, or yourself (if you happen to be a woman) is: strong women are somewhat celebrated until they try for power positions, which is when they generally become bitches. So yes, you can support a strong woman in your personal life (some of your best friends may even be women!) and still be prejudiced against women, and have an interest in trying to shut women up. Saying a woman is shrill, hysterical, accusing her of going "waaaaa!" are all tried and true methods of achieving that goal - to get a woman to shut up.
By shutting a woman up men and their female enablers can continue to revel in the status quo and the exercise of that power.
February 29, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, how are Obama's middle class beginnings "humble"? Didn't you just prove my point? He wasn't rich, but he did go to an expensive prep school and he was well cared for. Compare this to say Bill Clinton's beginnings, it was a decent well-cared for upbringing.
Obama was not born in a log cabin, and his grandparents took good care of him.
March 1, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment