« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
An Invitation to Clinton Supporters Who Wouldn't Vote for Obama in the General Election Under Any Circumstances and Who May or May Not Be Angry
Having removed all traces of racism, sexism, chauvinism, Maoism, favoritism, Fascism, etc., from the headline and content of my previous post, let's now talk about your reasons why.
Have at it.
Advertisement
Comments (157)
Ha! Nice title.
May 19, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My Dear, Dearer and...Dearest supporters,
We all know I'm losing the race,
...but that's not a big problem, is it...!?!?
We'll just change the rules
to which I agreed to before the race,
...but obviously at the time I didn't know I would be losing now,
...so how can that count...!?!?
You agree with me...right...!?!?
And...those who don't agree are just sexist pigs."
-- Hillary Rodham Clinton
PS: Please send some more money to help me pay off the loans recurred by this effort and this little bitty debt force upon us .
May 21, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I repost as well
I aplaud your intentions, but your efforts may not invite desired discourse.
Once Hillary fades away, disposed into the dustbin of history, most of her supporters will realize they'll be screwing no one but themselves if they don't support the democratic party candidate.
I think most people are looking at personalities at the moment, so voting for Obama at this point seems like a surrender and a favor for Obama, but as the curtain on Hillary falls, most people will begin to acknowledge voting democrat is a favor not to Obama but for themselves.
Hillary must get out of the way before commencing any "healing" process
May 20, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud your repost. You may be right. But if Nixon can go to China and Obama to Iran, I can go the extra mile to those Clinton supporters who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstances and who may or may not be angry. In other words, it can't hurt.
May 20, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I loathed her - seriously. When she came up with comparing McCain favourably to Barack; that ghastly, phoney performance of "I'm honoured" - so many things...
But really Obama's right. The most important thing is to unite the party now. Surely Ferraro's comment in today's NYT that she might not vote for Obama now highlights how crucial it is.
Unless she goes bananas and starts criticising Obama, we have to cut Clinton slack now by realising that she feels she has to stay in for the sake of all her supporters: so she has to articulate a rationale for that. Cut her slack by realising that she's staying in for them and focus on how much grit she has not to be showing how heartbroken she must be feeling and how exhausted she must be. I give her kudos for that. She has to stay in till June 3 when the Committee will have made its ruling over Michigan and Florida and until the last primary's been held.
And we have to basically lie low until then. The woman must be utterly exhausted. How the hell do you have good judgment in that condition and cope with campaigning because you have to?
The best thing all Obama supporters can do is to take their lead from Obama - not from Wolfson, McAuliffe et al - and certainly not from a woman who knows she's lost and, exhausted & devastated, isn't in a position to say so.
May 20, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
good perspective.
I distrust Hillary. I have for quite some time now.
I'm not without empathy, though.
May 20, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Gergen, bless his heart, seemed to just get it tat the race issue isn't good, and suggested that Hillary Clinton tell voters that if they're voting for her because of race, she doesn't want that vote! I'm yelling to the TV, "Perhaps she could have said that in the USA Today interview, instead of talking about hard-working white voters going for her!"
Edwards said just that at the very beginning of the campaign (about not wanting the race-based vote). Love that Gloria B said "What, it's too late, is she going to say that in Montana?"
This is absolutely insane.
May 20, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's incompetent.
May 20, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he's demonstrated it with that crappy campaign that he's running. He's in debt. He's lost so many states. He's behind. Dang, you're so right.
May 20, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many incompetents have worked themselves up into corporate leadership. I had a boss once who "made it his private hobby to study corporate presidents". His conclusion? They must be all special because they made it to be president.
Skill at getting elected is not the same as skill at running government. It's scary that people don't see this as obvious.
May 20, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're absolutely right. We needn't look further than our current twice-elected President.
But what is it that makes you think he's incompetent?
May 20, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not Billy, so he'll have his own set of reasons, but by "incompetent" I would say inexperienced especially in foreign affairs, not fast enough on his feet with policy issues, not terribly good at damage control, and poor at political optics when it comes to specific issues. I also don't trust his bargaining skills, which I think is a key part of the job.
May 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what if I told you I think you are an incompetent judge of character and ability.
I mean, you have an opinion, that's fine, that's your right. You get to vote just like the rest of us. But who gives a flying peanut butter sandwich about YOUR assessment. What do you know about the skill and talent and intelligence and judgment it takes to be president.
What do you make of the fact that Paul Volker and Warren Buffett and Lee Hamilton and Lawrence Tribe and Abner Mikva and Ted Sorenson --just a few guys who have been around the block and know a thing or two about these things have a different assessment? (p.s. I purposely chose a bunch of 'over the hill' folks who are unlikely to have some reward to reap from backing the winner)
May 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I give a rat's ass about an Ancient Greek coming back from antiquity to pontificate on economics? Let's see, Ted Sorenson - child of the Kennedy Dynasty - how come he didn't keep us out of Vietnam? Warren Buffett, clever guy, what did he say, "because it appeared that Obama would win the Democratic nomination, he is endorsing Senator Obama." Oh, okay, he likes both but thinks Obama already won, fine, thanks for telling me. Not that I think Buffett would ever choose a guy with 3 years major experience to run one of his companies. You want to compare endorsements head on over to Hillary's and see who you like. I like Madeleine Albright and some others from the list, but here's a dark little secret. I don't give a shit. Albert Einstein could say Obama's his main man and it wouldn't make no nevermind to me. I go by *MY* opinion, which by the way is the one somebody asked for, all peanut butter aside.
Now I did think some of the stories from thehillaryiknow.com are interesting and compelling, and Joe Wilson & Richard Clarke give some pretty good arguments, and then there's Billy Glad, and you know what? I couldn't pick these people out of a crowd, but there arguments seem sound. Now if you want to pull out an Obama supporter who says something more interesting than , "Ayup, seems alright to me", I'm happy to entertain the prospect. But "another famous person endorses Obama" just leaves me cold as a reason to vote for him.
May 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Lincoln Chaffee, Tom Daschele, Gary Hart, George McGovern, Sam Nunn, Lowell Weicker, Jr., Zbigniew Brezezinski, Anthony Lake, Robert Reich, or . . .
Christ, here's a list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements
I'm not trying to beat up on you. I'm just saying, don't you think that the fact that all of these people, many of whom one would think are in a position to know that's at least a little better than yours, disagree with you is entitled to some consideration?
May 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave consideration. Like with Buffett - "Obama's winning". Oh, okay. I can go through the list, but at the end of the day I'm quite fine with being in the minority of major punditry with my own opinions. Hillary has some well known names for her, but in any case, I didn't sit around tallying endorsers for Clinton or Gore or Dean either.
May 21, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
But by your metric of how they have run the campaign, if I recall, McCain was going to be assigned to the "dust bin of history" less than 1 year ago and now he is the nominee. He must be a genius in your eyes by your own metric of running a campaign, eh?
May 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apples and oranges. The winner take all system allowed McCain to triumph. A system like the democrats have and the republican primary would still be going and split three ways.
May 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, McCain benefited by the splitting of the conservative base between Huckabee and Romney. If either one of those two had not been in the race, or had dropped out earlier (or if Romney had endorsed Huckabee over McCain), I think we would have had a very different outcome.
May 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you cite specific examples of this incompetence? Or is it just a gut feeling? The reason why I ask is that political experts from both sides of the spectrum have admitted that Obama has waged the most competent campaign in recent history.
May 20, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Axelrod ran a brilliant campaign. Give Obama credit, too. Does that make Karl Rove competent to govern? Was Bush? After you get elected, you have to govern. First thing are the schedule C's that were turned into super grades this year. Dug in and protected by Civil Service. These are the people who have worked night and day for the last 8 years to politicize and destroy the Executive Branch's effectiveness while extending its power. Obama is not competent to fix what's broken. You may believe, as an act of faith, that he will find people who know how. I'd rather go with the Clintons. They absolutely know how to get that job done.
May 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
By that metric, Clinton isn't experienced enough to do it on her own either. No one in the history of America would be qualified to fix every problem found in the federal government without significant help from an experience staff.
I don't know that it is even possible to fix every problem we have within a single administration, even one with two-terms. Sounds a tad unrealistic to me. By your standards, I am afraid even your candidate will be a huge disappointment.
We certainly don't think Obama will fix everything that ails this country. We just expect to get the journey started. Our problems are pretty damn profound and way more than any one person can handle.
May 21, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it Bizarro Day again?
May 20, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the upshot in response to the question is that you view McCain as more competent, and will therefore vote for him? Or did I miss something in your reply?
May 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? I'm actually coming around to that position. Threads like this help.
May 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Clinton gets the VP nod?
May 20, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meaning, actually, that you don't know whether he's competent, but you think Hillary is.
I get what you're saying about finding a way to root out the Bush patronage sleeper agents they've burrowed into the civil service system. It is very important work, but, damn, man that is not a Presidential task. That's a job for the chief of staff the West Wingers.
Regardless, how is voting for McCain the answer to your concern? How is staying home the answer to this concern?
And, if you're resolved to voting for Obama, why are we arguing about this?
May 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President sets the agenda. Obama's not the nominee. Ask me again when he actually gets the nomination. Maybe I'll change my mind. Ask me again if Clinton agrees to run as VP. Maybe I'll change my mind. Right now, I'm in a "don't blame me, I voted for Hillary" frame of mind.
May 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he can't... He just got a monster wedgie over the fact that his candidate is losing. =)
May 20, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what makes Billy Glad?
May 20, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I am not the target demographic for this posting. I'll be writing in for Hillary but that's because I'm a NYer and my non-vote for Obama won't have an impact on the general election. But I will urge Hillary supporters in close blue states, red states, and purple states to bring a post it called "NOT MCCAIN" if that's what it taskes to pull the lever for Obama. At least of Obama loses, they will not be partly responsible for 4 more years of doubling down in Iraq, ballooning national debt and the risk of Scalia becoming the moderate on the supreme court.
That said my write in vote for Hillary is an expression of the fact I think Hillary was the stronger candidate policywise and I am not sold on the authenticity or electability of Obama.
If you want to know why Clinton supporters are angry it's not just because she is losing. It's because it is appalling to ses the glee and venom (much of it with laced barely disguised or outright misogony) with which otherwise reasonable minded democrats have been throwing her way. And to hear this shit not from Republicans but from DEMOCRATS sickened me to my core. Any perceived slight regarding race and the democrats were up in arms; repeated, vicous and outright attacks on Hillary based on her gender were laughed off or met with deafening silence. Really? Is this the new politics we've been waiting for?
Excellent, excellent article that really captures why Hillary supporters atre "bitter." To help Clinton supporters over that anger perhaps the Obama campaign,, supporters and the democratic party need to take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves what role did they play in creating this anger?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html
May 20, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, I am so tired of this misogyny spin that the Clinton campaign has been lobbing of late. I am a woman and I simply don't like or trust Clinton as a person. I don't like her values or her all-politics-all-the-time mode. Sure, there are some men who are misogynists (sexist is more like it, misogyny is pathological) and they won't support Clinton, but they already have their candidate in McCain. But all these white hard working men in blue collar areas voting for Clinton? How can you claim sexism, when that would be the crowd you would expect it from, and they are voting for her? If you want to play with the big boys, then act like a big girl and stop telling the refs that it's not fair that the boys are winning. Outsmart them. And, Hillary has not done that, and it's because she ran a weak campaign with managers who were ossified and she thought her name was all she needed. She has not lost because of sexism. That's just crap. And the more she uses that as an excuse, the more it makes me cringe, as a woman almost her age who certainly knows what sexism feels like.
May 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever there is any mention of race the entire democratic party jumps to Obama's defense. Whenever there has been outright sexist comments against clinton like she's a she-devil or a bitch or she's just there because she's Bill's wife, the democratic party and representatives say absolutely nothing. It's fine to call Hillary a bitch, but who dares to use the N word against Obama? You can't even call him the new kid on the block without people saying it's too close to calling him "boy" which is racially inflammatory.
It's not just about Hillary - is this a way we should expect female politicians to be treated? Republicans do the same thing to Nancy Pelosi. I would expect better from democrats.
May 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard anyone who is a real adult call Hillary a bitch. And I certainly have not heard that language from Obama. And you are right, that type of language is inexcusable. But I think you are missing the point that it is Hillary, not the fact that she's a woman, that some people don't like. It is her actions and words that are offensive, not her sex. My point above was, if you want to play with the boys, toughen up. I don't hear Pelosi going on and on about sexism, or Barbara Mikulski or Barbara Boxer, or Olympia Snowe. That doesn't mean they don't experience it, but using it as an excuse for your failings doesn't work. Tough truth.
May 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: pelosi and mikulski hear it all the time but it is coming from Republicans. Hillary has been getting this treatment from so-called democrats. I get it - many Obama supporters and folks in general don't like Hillary. But take a look at the posts and the level of discourse on TPM self avowed democrats and liberals using sexist and misogynistic criticisms of "shrillary". I have criticized Obama many times and I have never once had to resort to racism or muslim-phobia. Even if you dislike her, why do Obama supporters have to resort to sexist and demeaning attacks? Why is that acceptable? And how can you defend that?
May 20, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still dont see sexism Dijamo.
Now, from all of the things I had been reading, press wise, media and blog wise....I dont see it. Maybe you can help me by pointing out some specifics. Becuase I have seen your posts where you make these comments, and again dont back up any sort of proof...a name I can search? A event?
I know I havent seen any on CNN(and they had been asking the same question). I have seen some dumb ass comments from people of course through out the internet about not voting for a woman.
And yes, Hillary was getting it pretty rough early on(as was Obama, but it was being manifested in completely different ways), but that is because of her and husbands past, I didnt see any sexism or misogyny.
So if you could help with that, then I think we can move forward, as you are stating all of this as "FACT". But it cant be fact if it is all your opinion.
Thanks
May 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I am saying is that the attacks on Hillary have been incredibly personal and gender based. Her laugh is too shrill. She's a cackling evil she-devil witch. She only got where she is because she's bill clinton's wife and did nothing but serve tea and cookies in the white house. she can't even control her husband - how can we expect her to run the country. She wears pantsuits. All incredibly important in issue things that elections are made of.
The media laughed off those idiots at the clinton campaign rally shouting iron my shirts at her before they realized women were genuinely offended. Can't blame them - misogny can be so entertaining. I don't believe Barack ever had folks at his rally saying shine my shoes and the media laughing that off.
If she tears up, the Obama campaign says it's fake and a play for votes. John Edwards criticizes her and says she needs to toughen up if she wants to play with the boys. She is criticized more for than the male candidates like biden, kerry, edards, dodd etc for authorizing the Iraq war because her critics claim she was just trying to prove she's "tough enough" to be commander in chief.
Do I really need to provide links for this stuff? For anyone who's paid any attention to campaign to pretend sexism has not played a role is shocking to me. And again it's going to be very hard for some Hillary supporters to get over it if the issue is not addressed.
May 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you haven't cited a single example of where Obama or his campaign were making these charges or comments or innuendo.
So this boils down to the fact that you won't vote for Obama because the media write idiotic articles about Sen. Clinton's laugh, because two republican radio shock jocks (yes that is who they were) shouted "iron my shirt", and there are some rude bloggers out there?
Think about that for a second.
If you have examples of Obama treating Sen. Clinton unfairly just list them.
Or explain to me how the debate over the wisdom of voting for the war, or the gas tax, or talking to foreign leaders, or the wisdom of health insurance mandates vs. incentives has anything to do with gender.
May 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, i'm a 50+ woman. and once upon a time, i idolized hillary! i expected her to be the first woman president and was very excited about that idea!
but i've completely lost all respect for her, and am quite franky shocked that ANY bright woman isn't offended by how she's performed, how she's squandered, with incompetent planning and petty behavior, our gender's opportunity to prove ourselves equal to men in every sense. and i totally disagree with hillary's (and her remaining supporter's) claims that this has been an sexist primary.
having gone through a LOT of REAL challenging things in my OWN life, and especially because i AM a woman, i have precious little sympathy for women who play the victim card. i personally wouldn't call them strong women. REAL strong women can't abide a woman who constantly thinks she's a victim!
i read the article you posted.
and, i'm sorry but, to me, that, too, is nothing but a giant steaming cauldron of "victimhood"!
i'm wondering, how can people address hillary WITHOUT it being construed as sexist? if i had to define her entire campaign in one word, that word would be "pitiful".
what i see, as a very disillusioned and disappointed woman and one-time hillary fan, is hillary demonstrating nothing BUT the very WORST and WEAKEST aspects of our gender.
initially, there was the beauty queen sense of entitlement that caused her to think she was going to be "handed" this nomination. this can't be blamed on anyone but hillary and her staff.
it's well documented, by her own staff, that they were so confident that she would be anointed on super tuesday, that she didn't put ANY effort into caucus states, and had absolutely NO ground organization prepared for ANY state after that date.
that's pure arrogance. HER arrogance.
and that's incompetence. HER incompetence.
no one else can be blamed for THAT!
and no one can be blamed for her response to this error.
next, there was the "which hillary are we going to see today?" period. as a woman who's been through menopause, i feel i have every RIGHT to say she behaved like a woman going through her change of life! that, or like a woman with some kind of multi-personality disorder. as a woman looking at another woman, i didn't see anything remotely genuine in any of these personas!
when none of those worked, then came the smear campaign. like a jealous, scorned woman, like an iconic shrew, she lashed out, mind set on bloody revenge, embracing scoundrels and enemies, she went straight for the throat of her rival.
i put these criticisms in feminine terms simply because, and only because, after all, she IS a woman!
but HAD she been a man, and done the same things, my criticisms would be essentially the same. sure, the analogies drawn would be masculine in nature, if she were a man, but they would have been critical of the very same flaws. arrogance. incompetence. vengence.
as a woman, i reject the notion that this has been an intensely sexist primary. i reject it, categorically! i think hillary supporters need to take a good long look at HER performance, and stop playing the victim card, too, and reject this tactic. not just in hillary's campaign, but if need be, in their own lives.
May 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, sister.
May 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo,
You're purposely selective. Neither Obama nor his campaign have demeaned Hillary for being a woman. As to whether some Obama supporters have, that depends on your point of view. What is clear is that Hillary's camp has assailed Obama for his race. Think Bill in S Carolina, Ferraro for a month, and Hillary's attempt to pair him with Farrakhan and others. Want more examples of despicable Clinton supporters saying despicably racist things about Obama. Here's one from Billy Glad's recent post on Obama and Iran, by kanne:
"Well first of all Obama is going to walk into the meeting with that Iranian fellow all shuckin and jivein and its gonna put that Iranian fellow in a jovial mood. Then Obama's going to give him one of those awesome black handshakes that only a whitey can give and that Iranian fellow is going to say, 'Hey, you be my peeps.' Then they're going to get down to the business and afterwards go out before the cameras and give great speeches saying nothing signifying nothing was accomplished and Obama is going to shuck and jive his way out of Iran saying, 'THATS what I'm talking about!' And the Obamaheads will say, 'Oh ya.'"
May 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse Jackson Jr. on "tear-gate"? How many piled on her in October for "using the gender card" after the debate? There's more than enough info out there, but ignore it as you like. We've gotten used to this.
May 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muslim-phobia? You are joking now?
May 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You weren't around my place when she caved to NBC to get a debate before the Ohio primary.
May 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Bitch comment, women and men can both be Bitches though they have slightly different meanings when put towards a man, and I am PRETTY sure you know that.
If your acting like a "bitch" then you get called a "bitch". I'm not saying Hillary is, or isnt, and I am 99.9% I havent referred to her as such, but it is still name calling. And not sexism....not misogyny.
I don't know, but again I think you have a very flimsy argument. And you want to be mad, just be mad. OR you have invested so much into Hillary(I understand) that now you are thinking "well what about me". This is all opinion but, its not about you. Its not about the other Hillary supporters...it is about all of us. Get over this "me, me, me" crap. Think 3 years down the line, andn ot 6 months.
In a year you and your supporters will be WISHING you had voted for Obama to put McCain out to dry.
The same as those who voted for Bush and we ended up in this mess now.
May 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remind me, who called who a bitch? When was this?
May 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it was a McCain supporter and Tina Fey.
I was shocked that Obama never offered Hillary an appology for either of these incidents. Shocked I tell you! Shocked!
(Although I guess that, for some reason, it was OK for Tina Fey to call her a bitch.)
May 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, it's all over the place, bitch this, cunt that, Hillary the ball cutter and nutcracker and whatever.
May 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used some of those, but not nut cracker or ball cutter, when she caved in to NBC. Although not in print. Only to the ceiling. You get the picture. :)
May 20, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing worth keeping in mind -- "bitch" refers to a particular way of acting and dealing with other people. I've known a number of men who are 'bitches' in that sense (and said so to them). By the same token, there are many women who would never be described as a bitch, because they don't have those characteristics. So while 'bitch' may have its roots in negative stereotypes of women, today in common parlance it means something else, something that is not even particularly related to gender. --- N____r, on the other hand, means one very superficial thing one: that a person is black and someone who is bad, or less than the rest of us, because of that one simple fact. Thus it is, in a fact, far more offensive term, one that is absolutely racist and, in fact, has no meaning other than a racist one. --- So, yeah, when you call someone (man or woman) a bitch, you are saying something about their actions and attitudes. When you describe someone by that other word, you are saying that their actions and attitudes don't matter - only their skin color.
As to anything else I would add, Kate O is saying it incredibly clearly. I, too, am a white woman around Hillary's age who has been embarassed and offended by the way she has played the 'victim' of sexism to explain her loss of support from people like me who simply cannot trust her as a *person*.
May 20, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that article a few days ago, and agree with most of what she says. A lot of that stuff is offensive, sexist, and just plain wrong. But not one example comes from Senator Obama.
May 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. Please don't be so wet, Hilary. I'm trying to get you off that ship before it sinks. But you have to help. You're running out of chances. After they lock the chains it's too late. Then you have to row to the beat of the drum, and I can't help you anymore.
May 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post dijamo. You sum it up perfectly.
May 20, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why is the venom from our side so much more offensive than the equal and opposite venom from your side that it constitutes a reason to cast a spite vote against him?
And, I'm sorry, but I heard exactly the same tune from the Nadarites in 2000. "We don't want people to vote for him in swing states, only in the states Gore has locked up, to make a point" they said. Yeah, that worked out great for us. They played with fire to satisfy their own personal issues, and we have 4,000 dead Americans and a trillion dollars corpse factory to show for it.
May 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. That is not a fair statement to make. Please don't blame any one American voter for the Iraq war. That is bullshit. The blame lays squarely on Bush/Cheney and their willful lies. Their accomplices: their republican friends in congress and a MSM willing to sell the war to the American people.
May 20, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take a quick stab at some of Obama's problems from the perspective you describe. This is only my fee-associating personal viewpoint - it isn't intended to be either comprehensive or definitive.
(1)Middle-aged white women. General rule: They don't like him. Something vaguely chauvinistic radiates thru his campaign and the media play on it (flicking the suit?), alongside the obvious fact that HRC is one of THEM, and Sen. Obama isn't. Rep. Ferraro is not so much an aberration, as a representative type. Lose them, and you lose millions of the kind of voters who are usually money in the bank for Dems.
(2)Rural and small-town white working-class people - a lot are Republicans anyhow, but I'm not sure there's much hope for those who aren't. Even the Dems. in this group don't stand too far from the Republican border. Sen. Obama has made ZERO effort to connect to them, and seems to believe he can win without them. (I will virtually promise you ahead of time that he will NEVER set foot in my home state, regardless of where we go from here). We'll see how that works out.
(3)Yes, I used "white" twice. OF COURSE race is a factor. It is also a FACT, same as the sexism I discussed above. There ARE white votes that are not available to Sen. Obama for that reason alone. I happen to believe that is a lower number than many people tend to think, but still a real and probably permanent obstacle.
This are just my off-the-cuff observations. Don't anyone waste a lot of time ARGUING with me, because I'm just talking intuitions, here - perhaps right, perhaps not. I hope they are some help to those who want to understand Obama's potential liabilities as I see them.
Time alone will tell the whole story.
May 20, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your perspective--but I have to take issue with the middle-aged white women point because I'm one of them. I think it is easy to forget that some white middle-aged women are also racist. I have friends whose opinions I respect a lot who say they just can't vote for a black man. As for saying these women think he's chauvinistic--why pick on him? All men might be to an extent, but is it the uppity black man that bothers some women? I don't want to start an argument either, but I don't get good answers when I ask older white women why they don't like Obama. They might have good reasons for supporting Hillary, and that's fine, but I think some women need to look deeper to understand what it is about this man that they don't like. For some, the answer might not be so pretty.
May 20, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Ferraro has lost her bearings and should just keep her mouth closed. I don't find her representative of anything but angry old women who have a chip on their shoulder.
May 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama stated that he didn't know whether the people supporting him would support Hillary. Michelle Obama said she would have to think about whether she would support Hillary if she were to be the nominee. So why should they or you expect that Clinton's supporters will all support Obama? He has to earn it and I don't think the way to do that is by being dismissive of their concerns about him on a policy level, on a substance level, and demonstrate that he has respect for their views and opinions.
May 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle said she would have to think about "working" for Hillary, should she be the nominee and added that there is a lot of pressure to take care of her kids. She sacrificed for he husband, but for someone else, she'll have to think about it.
Your point about Obama showing respect for Clinton voters and their concerns is the only sensible thing you've said on this thread. Given that he is still competing for votes with her, do you not think he has every intention of doin g so duringthe general election.
What policy position of your do you think he does not respect?
May 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche - Michelle Obama clarified her original comments to say she'd have to think about working for Hillary Clinton. So I guess Bill Clinton can take some time to think about "working" for Obama in this campaign. Given how negative he's been in the whole campaign, I am sure Obama doesn't want him anyway.
So on my policies:
Healthcare - Obama doesn't understand the need for universal healthcare (not universal access). His policy is inadequate and just perpetuates a system where people can choose not to be covered. He's made republican arguments against mandates for coverage for adults (children have mandates for coverage).
Foreclosure - Hillary supports more active gov't involvement in freezing ARM rates and a forecosure moratorium for 90 days. Obama opposes that.
Foreign Policy - Obama made a huge mistake when he criticized Hillary Cinton's position that we will have vigorous diplomatic engagement with our enemies but would not be willing to have direct presidential meetings in her first year without preconditions. Looks like he's backing away from that now.
In short I think Obama's economic policies are not liberal enough. We have the potential for a democratic congress and president and this is not the time to be cautious. We can do important things and his economic policies in my view are mediocre. Are his policies better than McCains? Of course. I prefer lima beans to baby corn, but that doesn't mean I have to like lima beans.
May 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would prefer both Obama's and Clinton's healthcare policies to be further left. I would, in fact, prefer a single-payer plan. However, more than anything, I want healthcare reform that can actually be passed. I'm not convinced that mandates would pass, and I am not at all convinced that Clinton is capable of getting any kind of healthcare legislation passed. She and Bill had a Democratic congress back in '93, and she did not get it done. She antagonized fellow Democrats, and the whole debacle set us back 15 years. I am not convinced she's learned the correct lessons from that experience.
Obama's healthcare proposal is imperfect, but I do believe he could get it passed. It would be a vast improvement and at least set us on the path to where we need to be.
On the foreclosure issue, I don't think Hillary's right. Anytime you have a government-mandated freezes and moratoriums, you wind up with unforeseen consequences, and they're rarely good. Freezing isn't the answer. We need programs that get people into sane fixed-rate mortgages (or even sane ARMs - with reasonable restrictions, they're not all bad). We need to give lenders incentives to work with borrowers rather than pursue foreclosure, and we need to pursue sane regulation of the mortgage industry.
On the foreign policy issue, I disagree. I think we need engagement with our foes. Talking with our enemies is the only way we make progress. Unless you think five decades of not talking to Cuba has brought about any progress.
Clinton's foreign policy is all far too hawkish for my taste. It's not just her Iraq war vote. It's her Kyl-Lieberman vote, and her comments about obliterating Iran. We've had more than enough of that attitude.
"In short I think Obama's economic policies are not liberal enough. We have the potential for a democratic congress and president and this is not the time to be cautious."
I don't think either candidate's policies are liberal enough, but I at least have a reasonable expectation that Obama will do what he says. I have no such expectation from Clinton. She has lied to me too many times.
May 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the the nail on the head.
From the AA perspective: I think it is the same for many African American or Hispanic women. Usually burned through years of failed attempts of dating African American men that have all let them down, and it has spurned there views of Barack Obama, as it probably does with other African American men in their normal lives. Dating, and friendship, etc..
May 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all personalize our political views, and this has been a fascinating primary for making us look inwardly, and at others, in terms of sexism and racism. I think it's healthy, if painful. I have learned a lot about my own views and have struggled with those of people I thought I knew well. In the end, I believe the Dems will come together because I believe in her heart of hearts, HRC will know that's the right thing--once the burn heals--and because Obama will ask us to.
May 20, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
BULL - maybe some Hillary supporters are more into substance and policies than flash and charisma.
May 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, here we go again with the patronizing. Obama supporters are simple minded cultists. That's getting REALLY old.
May 20, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most certainly it is the issues that drive a lot of voters on both sides. Which is why it makes sense that those people will, or should, vote for the person who is closest to their beliefs on those issues.
May 20, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What substance and policy are you talking about?
The gas tax?
May 20, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happened to that gas tax holiday anyway?
May 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
But I have friends and associates who WANT to vote for a black man. If Hillary wasnt in the race I would support Barrack over John Edwards or any of the other candidates in some part because it is time for a black man as president.
May 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to hear it.
May 20, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha@Title.
Well put Rip lol.
May 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you worried about what other people expect? Or what they can give you? This "eye" for an "eye" shit. Its dumb.
Think about it: What do you want to get out of this election? What do you want to get out the next President? What do you want to be doing in the next 3 - 5 years when it comes to your life and how you have planned?
Use those questions to guide your answers. Nit picking through 7 months of "what he said", "what she said" wont produce you any answers. And it will just stoke your fire even more. I mean, if things were opposite, I could find hundreds of lines or things I have heard Hillary say that I may not like, actually, probably not even that many, since I dont take things she says out of context or to heart in such a way(as you seem to with Obama) and then I would never be able to vote for anyone at all. EVER.
You either REALLY like every single thing that Hillary has ever uttered out of her mouth, or are being hypocritical.
May 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so curious about this assertion that the DNC and Obama surrogates (not bloggers) have jumped to defend Obama against racism or race baiting. Can you give any examples of this because I felt as though many of his surrogates were actually very silent and didn't come to his defense or speak out against race-baiting at all.
Additionally, what exactly are Obama's policy positions that causes concern? Clinton and Obama seem to share a great deal in common so what specifically should I being paying attention to that I have missed? And I ask this in all sincerity.
May 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I didn't see Obama having very many friends in high places around during the Rev. Wright fiasco. Good luck getting someone to respond to your questions. I've tried before so I can better understand the disconnect, but don't get substantive responses.
May 20, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
KateO, I've read here your attempts to get that question answered and it's a shame that we're at this place in the process and it is still met with silence.
I feel challenged on a personal level by these claims of sexism and misogyny being the cause of Hillary's loss and especially when her supporters assert that Obama's himself has been sexist. As a woman, I'm concerned that the patriarchy has blinded me somehow and I truly wish Hillary's supporters can help bring me into the light!
May 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we are blinded. I just want someone to convince me that racism is not as big of a factor as I suspect it is. I want to understand why Clinton supporters think she will do a better job bringing together this divisive Congress and country. I want to understand why Obama's ability to communicate so well bothers them. I want to understand why white blue collar workers relate to her (I really don't get that one).
May 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that CNN's exit polls show that 27% of black Democratic voters in NC said that the race of the candidate was an important issue to them, I can't disagree.
May 20, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
I choose Hillary because I think she has a better understanding of the issues. If you saw any of the debates you would think the same way. Race has nothing to do with it.
May 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
I choose Hillary because I think she has a better understanding of the issues. If you saw any of the debates you would think the same way. Race has nothing to do with it.
The way you wont give people credit for supporting Senator Clinton on the issues is quite condescending to your candidate. Think about it.
May 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw several of the debates, and I disagree that Clinton is inherently better on the issues. She's good on the issues. So is Obama.
The way you won't give people credit for supporting Senator Obama on the issues is quite condescending.
I'd suggest you think about it, but it seems unlikely to happen.
May 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw every debate. I AM a policy wonk. That's what I do for a living. I work in DC. But that doesn't make me fit to be a leader, or a politician, or the President. Lots of us have a good grip on the details of issues. That's the EASY part. The hard part is getting people with different interests to listen to each other and work together. That's where Obama outshines Clinton like a lighthouse. I worked in health policy during the years she tried to reform health care and she pissed off every possible interested party. She didn't listen, she was arrogant, she didn't understand how to build teams and coalitions, everything was a power play. You were with her or against her. Yes, she's smart, but so am I. That doesn't mean I deserve to be President. I have been in the same room with her. I have watched her off camera. She is not the right person to bring this country together and back on its feet.
May 20, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
First, let me say, thank you for your service to our country as a policy wonk. I agree, that doesnt make you a leader, in fact, it sounds like you are somewhat bitter that Senator Clinton wouldnt listen to you. But that is another story, I take you on your word for that.
Being a policy wonk doesnt make someone a leader, nor does being able to read a speech make someone a leader. Nor does the qualification of not being in the Senate when the toughest vote was cast make someone a leader. There are other qualities, qualities that I find in Senator Clinton. I too have been in a room with her and I too have spoken directly to her. Most people who have had that experience have said that she is much warmer and engaging in private than in public. That is a shame.
May 21, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not bitter that she didn't listen to me. I'm not bitter at all. She didn't listen to anyone. That's not a leadership quality. She has many qualities, to be sure, and she has been a great Senator and could become Majority Leader if she wanted. But, she is divisive. She is so battle scarred that she can't listen or do anything but be combative. I understand where that comes from, but I don't want that personality in the White House.
May 21, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I don't know. Maybe Bill Clinton saying the idea that Obama was against the iraq war consistently was a "fairytale" was turned into a racially based attack to say Obama's candidacy was a fairytale.
Bill Clitnon saying he'd pick Hillary to be a leader even though he'd know Mandela & Yitzak Rabin, he'd trust her was turned into a racial attack / slap on Nelson Mandela (must have been anti-semitic too since Rabin is jewish).
Hillary Clinton giving LBJ credit for getting the Civil Rights Act passed is turned into a racial slap at MLK Jr.
Bill Clinton noting the Jesse Jackson won the SC primary twice is SO beyond racist. How dare he compare Obama to Jesse Jackson who came in second place in the 1988 democratic primary with 30% of the vote. Obama owes nothing to Jesse Jackson and should not ever be compared to him even though Jesse won 11 primaries & was at one point the front runner for the dmeocratic nomination - note I was too young to vote for Jesse, but my mom was rooting for him and thought his campaign was important.
Hillary noting the reality that white working class voters are supporting her is racist. Note she does not say whites are supporting her because she is losing the educated highly liberal vote to obama, so her commentary is really about both race AND class. Never mind that - it's still racist. The fact that Hispanics, asians, etc are also supporting her makes no difference.
Anytime race has been mentioned, no matter how slight or innocuous, the Clinton's have been unfairly tarnished with the brush of racism in this campiagn and many in the Demcratic party and the Obama campaign have denounced them. Who has denounced the sexist and demeaning attacks on Hillary?
And in terms of the internets particularly on TPM, you find plenty of gender based criticisms of Hillary. Real Hillary supporters don't criticize Obama based on his race or accusing him falsely of being a muslim. they attack him on substance. Yes there are racist trolls and those are thoroughly denounced and reported by everyone and are not real Hillary supporters.
May 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an awful lot in your commentary about Bill. He's not running. That's revealing.
May 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well given how offensive Bill has been to Obama in this primary campaign, if he is the nominee I am sure he would not want the old dog out campaigning on his behalf. Especially given how racist and divisive he has been. Hillary too. They are both republicans anyway. Obama doesn't need them and they are the old guard. Obama should make a clean break and campaign without Bill or Hillary in the general election. Eff the Clintons right?
And yes I like Bill & his policies - but I think Hillary is tougher and more likely to fight for what she thinks is right like universal healthcare. I'm with Chelsea - Hillary would be a better president than Bill was.
May 20, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right Kate, and he wouldn't be a "co-president" either, any more that Michelle would be.
May 20, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Throughout the course of this campaign, there's been what seems to me like a lot of stretching to find prejudice. The fairy tale comment, for example, was taken entirely out of context and blown way out of proportion. I've said that repeatedly. But if you look back at who began, and then perpetuated the notion that it was an attack on Obama's entire candidacy, it was Chris Matthews. Newsweek. The Washington Post. Bob Novak. Time magazine. And you'll get no argument from me that the MSM essentially sucks. They perpetuate falsehoods and turn opinion into gospel. But I fail to see how the blame for that gets laid at Senator Obama's feet.
On the other hand, there have been times when both candidates have said something stupid. The MLK/LBJ comment from Senator Clinton was, in my opinion, not racist or race-baiting, but ill-phrased. She recognized that, which is why she sought to clarify it almost immediately. Senator Obama has said some ill-phrased things throughout the campaign as well. I think it should be all of our responsibility to try to understand what the context was, what they really meant, rather than use it as a weapon to beat them with for months and months. Both sides have been guilty of this.
And I also believe Senator Clinton has faced a lot of sexism in the past months. Much of it has come from the media. I really haven't seen any from Senator Obama himself. Perhaps I missed something. I see Ms. Ferraro has used as an example of his sexism when he "brushed off his shoulder." That sounds like quite a bit of a stretch to me.
May 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Bill Clinton brushed Obama off his shoulder there would be an uproar about how belittling and demeaning it was. Obama himself has stated that periodically Hillary gets emotional and down at times and lashes out to attack. Not so veiled attempt to dismiss Senator Clinton's criticisms as her PMSing. Obama himself mockingly referred to her as annie oakley. His likeable enough comment was smug and patronizing and demaning.
Any aha gotcha moments where Obama himself called Hillary a bitch? no, he preferes code words like polarizing or calculating. But Obama has never stepped up to criticize the sexist tone of the media that he benefits from and neither have the democratic party leaders. I am ashamed of the democratic party and how in the face of the campaign of our first viable female candidate, they have been silent to the gender based criticism she has faced. It has not been forgotten by Hillary supporters and to dminish the role sexism has played will not win the hearts and minds of the HRC crew.
May 20, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm.. I think Obama was brushing off the attacks, not the people. And when was that..in NC when the Wright swiftboating was going on. If Bill tried to bruch Obama off his shoulder you;d have to ask what Obama was doing there in the first place.
Obama said Sen. Clinton gets emotional and down at times (when was that)and that is an attack on womanhood? Is emotional and down like shucking and jiving? I didn't know that. And how do you attack a 60 somethign woman for PMSing? How does that work.
Most important, why would Obama or anyone on his campaign ever think it makes sense to make coded attacks against women? They are the majority of the electorate. There is absolutely no advantage there. On the other hand, we know there are potentially huge advantages to trying to alienate Obama from the majority. That is why the Republicans are trying so hard to do it.
May 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
HMMM Bill could have tried to brush off the Obama campaign's race baiting attacks in SC when they tried to make his "fairytale" comments racist. Might have seemed dismissive as if the criticism was unworthy of a response.
And BTW Obama brushed off Hillary's criticism of his "bitter" comments. Really helps to cure that pompous, elitist image! That one really sold to the rural, lower income workers that his campaign per David Axelrod has already given up on in the general election. As dismissive to Hillary's criticisms as to that sweetie reporter who was impetuous enough to ask Obama a question.
And Obama himself made those "emotional" comments about Hillary - could he have made the same about John Edwards? unlikely. The shuck and jive comments you referenced were made not by Hillary. Since I was asked to only reference statements directly from Obama I would expect the same in return.
May 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does Bill Clinton have to do with this? Obama was not "brushing" Bill off his shoulder. Nor was he brushing Senator Clinton off his shoulder. It was a direct reference to the attacks from the debate. That's what he was brushing off. And I don't see how brushing off attacks can be construed as sexist.
May 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, all that and not a single answer to the question posed.
Again, what exactly are Obama's policy positions that causes concern? Clinton and Obama seem to share a great deal in common so what specifically should we being paying attention to that we have missed?
May 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have expressed many concerns about Obama's policy positions and why I think Hillary is the better candidate. Is Obama better than Mccain? Of course. I will encourage other Hillary supporters to vote for Obama in the general election if he is the nominee as the better of the two options. But the nomination has not been won yet despite the demands of the obama supporters for the little lady to step aside and I stand by my support of Hillary.
I wouldn't expect Obama supporters spewing hatefilled rants about Hillary to all of a sudden see the light if she was the nominee and embrace her with open arms. So don't expect me to like Obama or defend him from what I consider valid criticism. And don't expect me to forgive the democratic party for it's silence in the face of sexism within this campaign.
May 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that pretty much all you got...spitefulness.
Good luck with that.
May 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about his policies. He can't inact them, so what difference does it make what they are. He's incompetent. All he's done is game the system and run for office, man. He's going to have to do some work as President. Finally. Mind if I have some doubts about how that's going to turn out.
May 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think he wouldn't be able to enact his policies? What evidence do you have?
As a freshman Senator, he actually did manage to get a couple of substantial piece of legislations passed into law (the Lugar-Obama Act and the government transparency bill that established USAspending.gov). He was successful in passing several very difficult pieces of legislation in Illinois.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton totally fumbled healthcare reform in 1993, and she hasn't personally spearheaded any substantial legislation since.
May 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And they gave him oversight of NATO. Perfect for oversight of Afghanistan, which is a war if you recall that he did favor. And he's made a lot of the fact that Bush failed in Afghanistan. And how many oversight hearings did Senator Obama hold? Nada. Zip. Why? He was busy campaigning he says. He can't even do the job he was hired to do last, but you want to give him the Executive Branch to run and make him Commander In Chief of the military. Excuse me while I kiss the sky. And fall down laughing.
May 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true. He did not hold any subcommittee meetings on NATO.
So, that's it? That's all you got?
There was a full committee hearing on Afghanistan in March 2007.
What should Obama have accomplished with subcommittee hearings?
May 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
His Subcommittee was not the Subcommittee on NATO, it's the Subcommittee on Euroepean Affairs. There were a number of areas he could have done some work on.
----------------------------------------------------
Both the same Senate subcommittee under Republican control and the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe have both been much more active.
In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the Senate subcommittee was chaired by George Allen, who has never had a reputation for hard work or intellectual stature. And yet I found at least three hearings that Allen chaired:
The Lifting of the EU Arms Embargo on China, March 16, 2005
U.S.-E.U. Regulatory Cooperation on Emerging Technologies, May 11, 2005
Islamist Extremism in Europe, April 5, 2006
Allen even had the excuse that he was running in a high-stakes election himself, one that he would eventually lose to Jim Webb.
The House counterpart to Obama's subcommittee has been very active as well, holding at least nine hearings since January 2007, under chair Robert Wexler (Florida).
11/14/2007 U.S.-Greece Relations and Regional Issues
10/3/2007 America's Role in Addressing Outstanding Holocaust Issues
6/20/2007 Adding Hezbollah to the EU Terrorist List
5/24/2007 Expanding the Visa Waiver Program, Enhancing Transatlantic Relations
5/3/2007 Do the United States and Europe Need a Missile Defense System?
4/17/2007 Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: The Impact on Transatlantic Relations
3/28/2007 Opening up of the Bad Arolsen Holocaust Archives in Germany
3/22/2007 Polling Data on European Opinion of American Policies, Values and People
3/15/2007 U.S.-Turkish Relations and the Challenges Ahead
As we can see, there are some highly important issues here, including relations with Turkey (a country much in the news for its involvement with Iraq), missile defense, extraordinary rendition, and others. Obviously, as a House member, Wexler is never really not campaigning.
May 21, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn’t have primary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. That's the Armed Services Committee.
It doesn't have secondary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The full Foreign Relations Committee does.
It doesn't have tertiary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs does.
May 20, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe your candidate has been absentee from the Senate just as long, if not longer than Senator Obama.
May 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record, oversight of Afghanistan does not fall under the NATO committee which Obama chairs -- it is entirely (and exclusively) under another committee. I'm sorry I don't recall who chairs that committee but it's someone else.
May 20, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Levin is chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
May 21, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though as far as NATO in Afghanistan is concerned, I believe that's Foreign Relations, headed by Biden.
May 21, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
To re-itereate what I posted in the v. 1 of this blog:
Why would Hillary supporters vote for McCain?
Maybe the Koolaide's starting to take effect.
They've been told ad infinitum by Obama supporters that there's no difference between Hillary and McCain.
May 20, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject and denounce your invitation!
I am leading the popular vote.
I am leading the delegate vote.*
I will lead you all.
Much Love,
Hillary.
* Delegate vote totals do not include endorsements from "brain damaged" SDs with tumors implanted by radiation shot from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
May 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you don't know how much you just creeped me out. I just got done reading a new headline that Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Bad timing I guess. :(
May 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject bad timing. NOW is the time for "us".
Leading the popular vote!
Leading the delegate vote!
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary.
May 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo --
About Obama's lack of "substance." I think most people who assert this have not taken the time to research or get to know his positions on issues on Iraq, education, disability policy, the economy, etc. It's out there, and if you actually took the time to read it you would see that on point, both Clinton and Obama have very similar policies.
What's more important in a leader, however, is the ability to unite the party to get things done. Clinton could have the best policies around, but if she's too divisive, too arrogant, too content to make up excuses for running an effective campaign (everyone's a sexist!), then I can't see her being able to execute on her promises. The evidence shows that Obama has been able to inspire new voters and new donors who will turn out to elect a solid Democratic majority in the fall -- a majority that will more effectively help his administration usher in the change that we need. I don't see Hillary having that same effect. In fact, if Hillary were to be elected, I foresee more gridlock.
May 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was on Meet the Press last week or the week before. When talk turned to energy policy, Obama
1. Criticized McCain and Clinton's tax holiday proposals, something specific about a poilcy difference, then
2. Pandered on ethanol, and then
3. Made generic statements that boil down to being for the good and against the bad.
In short, does Obama know what his own energy policy is? May he should go take a look at this website.
May 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really you act as if no one else here has heard him talk extensively about energy policy and therefore might be fooled by your weak representation of his views.
1. Obama ahas spelled out in quite a bit of detail his objection to the gas tax. That there is almost universal agreement among policy experts that the tax holiday is a stupid idea, I think speak to the fact that he has the correct policy.
2. His statements about ethanol have been conflicted as anyone from a farm state. The again he has stated clearly that corn-based ethanol is only a stop-gap and that much more efficient and sustainable sources sugar-based or cellulostic ethanol are preferable. So you can call his position pandering to the corn producers, it is a little, but he is very clear that is not his objective.
3. So does that mean you are against the good and for the bad.
If you are ignorant of the other aspects of his energy policy just admit it, otherwise feel free to explain your objections to carbon cap-and trade, higher CAFE standards, incentives for alternative fuels, etc...
May 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did he happen to explain why he voted for the Cheney energy bill? Oh yeah to benefit corn farmers in his state through ethanol subsidies. When you sacrifice a sound national energy policy to pander to the voters of Iowa and Illinois, you have no right to criticize Hillary for her recommendation of a gas tax holiday.
May 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that Obama himself was unable to explain his energy policies on MTP, an interview for which he presumably prepared.
That doesn't give me much confidence that he has much of an energy policy, as distinguished from random talking points. Hell, even Bush, once in a blue moon, can give a good speech.
May 20, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo (and to all those calling for a write in Clinton campaign) --
My mother actually feels exactly like you do, and I feel that you are making the same fundamental mistake that she consistently makes with regard to Obama's alleged sexism. You have conflated the Media (admittedly sexist, racist too ... example: Lou Dobbs' cotton-picking remark) with Obama. Can you point to a single example of Obama making sexist remarks towards Hillary? Doubt it, but I also doubt that you will directly answer this question. Your previous comment, that Obama is sexist because he hasn't called the media out on being sexist towards Clinton, is a non-answer. Did Clinton defend Obama when the media was constantly replaying 20 seconds of Reverend Wright completely out of context? Did she mention that the "chickens come home to roost" language was actually quoting a white guy? No, of course not. Another possible answer is the "dirt off your shoulder" move that Obama used after the most recent debate fiasco. Of course, this is also a non-answer because he was referring specifically to the debate moderators and the bullshit questions they were asking him, not to Clinton.
So, is the media sexist? Yes, it is owned by a bunch of rich white guys. Is Obama sexist? There is no evidence of this. So the fact that you are so furious about sexism against Clinton isn't Obama's fault.
So take a second to really think about the potential results of your anger. Will putting McCain in the white house really make you happy? Will that solve America's latent sexism? Will that stop American Imperialistic Warmongering? Will that balance the budget? Will that raise taxes on the wealthy and cut the middle and lower classes a break? Will that reform the American health care system?
If making Clinton into the 2008 Ralph Nader is worth four more years of McCain, then by all means go ahead and write in for Clinton.
May 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you understand my point. I am ENCOURAGING Hillary voters in swing states, close blue states and red states to vote for Obama.
I have the luxury of living in the great state of NY which is going to vote for Obama regardless. This is not calling for a write in campaign or saying anyone else should follow my lead. It is a personal expression that I believe Hillary is the best candidate for President period. I care enough about the party to actually go in and vote so I can hopefully elect a democratic congressman to increase our majority in congress to be veto proof which will be really important since I don't think Obama can beat McCain.
May 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know why you will be writing in for Clinton and I agree that it probably will have no effect. But take a look at Hillaryis44.com, the amount of hatred that this website, as an example, has towards Obama is amazing. They are calling for concerted efforts to boycott Obama and ensure that McCain wins, presumably so that Clinton can run again in 2012. If you are serious about encouraging fellow Clinton supporters to only write in Clinton if they are in heavy Blue states, Hillaryis44.com would be a good place to start.
I apologize in that my comment was meant to have a broader audience than just you. I am frustrated by the calls to sink Obama. I don't understand why an individual who supports Clinton would vote McCain, considering that Obama is much closer to Clinton's policies. It doesn't make any sense.
May 20, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
An explanation might start with the fact that Hillary has been deemed a republican by many in the Obama wing of the party. Which would make her supporters republicans as well. So perhaps some folks will listen and make McCain their second choice or feel so disrespected by the whole process that they decline to vote at all.
Or maybe some folks are just so appalled by what the democratic party has turned in to - denying voters in two states a chance to have their voices heard, the senior party leaders putting their thumb on the scale for Obama at every opportunity, the utter lack of leadership in calling the media to account for sexist attacks on Hillary. I don't recognize the democratic party and I am sure there are many hillary supporters feelign the same way.
May 20, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you vote based on what Obama bloggers say? Ridiculous. As for calling Hillary a Republican, that charge might not have stuck so well had Hillary herself not praised McCain on several occasions at Obama's expense. She has written the GOP play book for the fall. Tell me how, as a Democrat, you can endorse that?
May 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't vote on Obama bloggers. I vote my conscience. I encourage other Hillary supporters to vote Obama if he is the nominee. Obama is allowed to use the GOP playbook to attack Hillary's healthcare policy. He is allowed to say she is polarizing and divisive and calculating - all according to the gop playbook. Hillary is not allowed to say Obama needs to answer the question of if he's ready to be commander in chief?
Give me a break. He's the one who said he could win all Hillary's supporters, but the question is could Hillary win his. Like I said before Obama and his supporters are the ones with the real sense of entitlement.
May 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, you seem genuinely interested in having a Democrat in the White House, even if that is Obama. I respectfully disagree that Obama's critique of Clinton's health care plan has been any more biting than her critique of his.
"He is allowed to say she is polarizing and divisive and calculating - all according to the gop playbook."
IF he has used any of those phrases himself (and I don't believe he has), they would still pale in comparison to her statements that he "can't" win the white vote, his message is a mere fantasy that "the sky will open up...," and her endorsement of herself as commander-in-chief while pointedly ALSO endorsing McCain's credentials but not Obama's.
I hope you will reconsider your planned "protest" vote, as I think you know it is a subtle subterfuge to encourage others to do the same, not necessarily in NY.
May 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. Here's one for the Obamanauts only. During Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein attacked Israel with SCUD missiles. He had chemical weapons. He didn't use them. Israel did not respond to the rocket attacks. Why not? Points for brevity.
May 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the US said please don't?
Bringing Israel into the fight would risk incensing the Arab countries.
May 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are asking why Isreal didn't attack back it's because it would have destabilized the region and probably erupted to some level as a regional war.
May 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Saddam had already lost and the Arab nations supporting the US would go ballistic and wreck the whole damn thing.
So are you saying we should hold our fire?
May 20, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I regret to agree that we Obama supporters have played a part in fostering some of the anger that Clinton supporters are feeling. I respectfully ask that we recognize that Clinton supporters have also played a part in fostering the anger in Obama supporters that has led us to behave the way we have. It has been very frustrating for all. Now, it's time to begin to bind the wounds. If Obama is indeed to be the nominee, then it behooves us to do all we can to heal the wounds. Mrs. Clinton says that seventeen million voters have pulled the lever for her. We might dispute some of those, but the fact remains that seventeen million voters is a lot of people. It is one of the biggest voting blocks out there. It would take a lot of phone calls and canvassing to turn seventeen million votes. We should speak to Mrs. Clinton's supporters in the same way that we would speak to a potential voter if we canvassed them in their own neighborhood----With Respect. It is up to both sides to remember this. Mrs. Clinton stands for core principals that we hold dear too. No one can honor her or the Democratic Party or our country by treating her or her supporters with disrespect or by voting against everything she has worked so diligently for over the course of her entire life.
May 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad --
US commanders exerted influence on Israel to refrain from using its standard policy of retaliation in this instance due to concerns that any Israeli retaliation would escalate the conflict and draw other Middle Eastern countries into the war.
How is this relevant?
May 20, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing it's a metaphor for the current topic.
May 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israelis trusted George HW Bush's administration to take care of Hussein's military, to take out the missile launchers and to defend Israel with Patriot missiles. We did the first, more or less did the other two. Israeli confidence and trust made it possible for Israel to defer its own response to the attacks.
Now, we would like for Israel to defer attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. We want them to trust us to handle this situation, too.
May 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is...?
May 20, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a die-hard BO fan who does not agree with the way HC has ran her campaign, but I do not hate her.
What frustrates me is that alot of you BO supporters either do not really understand how to help advance his agenda, or are too full of yourselves to do it.
The simple truth that attacking HC any longer only hurts BO. Of course that has not always been the case, but now that he is the presumptive nominee I think it well proven that it is the case.
So my question to BO supporters is, what is your reason for the continued smug attitude now that you know it is destructive for BO's general election campaign beyond your own smug need to scream out "i told you so." I would really like an answer to this.
May 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, ahclark79, but I have posted this blog entry specifically to discuss the concerns that motivate some Clinton supporters to attempt sabotage of Sen. Obama should he win the nomination. I am open for serious discussion, but there aren't many takers from the Clinton camp. Just more of the same attacks on Obama and his camp. If you want smug, check the mirror. Otherwise, put your money where your mouth is and explain why some Clinton supporters prefer a Republican to a Democrat in the White House.
May 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a perfect example of why people who support Hillary Clinton are fed up with Obamanauts.
You morphed your own blog post from "why won't you vote for Obama under any circumstances?" to "efforts of her supporters to sabotage Obama's November campaign."
You can't even stay on your own message for the course of one blog thread. Talk about incompetent. Excuse me while I shake my head and smile.
May 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You split hairs, Billy. You insult others. You post screeds against the imminent nominee. You sow division. You inflame passions rather than illuminate thought. I think you're a GOP troll with a foul mouth and a small cerebrum. And if Hillary gave you one of her balls, you'd have one.
May 20, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smile all you want Billy Mad....you lose.
May 20, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about the people's republic for Judaea!
F*CKING SPLITTERS!
May 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
ahclark79 --
I for one, am not attacking HRC herself. What I'm attacking is the efforts of her supporters to sabotage the BO's november campaign if he becomes the nominee. It it this nonsense that sickens me. The idea that people are so willing to put their personal preferences before their personal interests and the interests of the country. Would I vote for Clinton if she is the nominee? Absolutely and without hesitation. We need to clean these Republicans out of office.
May 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason people have called Hillary Clinton a Republican is because she has acted like one. She got very negative and nasty and said that she and McCain were prepared to run the country and Obama is not. And I'm sorry, she has brought race into this campaign.
May 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper McCord -
First, I was not calling *you* smug. I was referring to BO supporters who needlessly taunt HC supporters. It appears to me, despite your attempt to insult me (lol), that you are more part of the solution than the problem, and again, I was not referring to you.
Ok, see? You and I had a misunderstanding. I did not take it personal and I declined to make an ad hominem attack out of frustration. I am only asking the rest off BO supporters to do the same. In order to ensure BO wins in Novemeber we need HC's help, or atleast we need her not to hurt BO's image. More important than HC, we DEFINITELY need the help of her supporters.
The purpose of my post was merely a challenge to fellow BO supporters to "be the bigger person," and not attack HC supporters (and by extension HC) even if they "deserve it." For the sake of Novemeber. That was all I was attempting to communicate.
May 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, ahclark, I get your point now and stand corrected. You are quite right. Must be I'm getting a little touchy from all the comments questioning why I even posted this. Like you, I think Obamaphiles have to be part of the solution and cut the crap about Hillary. I've been guilty of it myself. Uniting the party means we ALL have to overcome our worst instincts. Looks like I still have some work to do.
May 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spare us the bullshit, man.
May 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you still want to pick a fight. Pathetic, dude. Keep trying.
May 20, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for trying to be intellectually honest and occasionally self-critical.
Too bad those are such low-value traits around here.
May 20, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the question was Obama v McCain, not HRC rehash?
Everyone here would vote McCain or sit out? Really?
By the way, I agree that the media has been sexist. Not sure the impact of that this election, but it doesnt matter. Shouldnt be there, doesnt help, is an important issue for all of us.
May 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy...Billy...Billy........
I am from New York.
Would you provide me, please, with a listing of the 'accomplishments' of Hillary Clinton since she took office in the Senate?
I anxiously and with bated breath await this list. :)
May 20, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the primary is finally over there is one & only one point. There is not a single argument on either side that trumps.
If you are truly a democrat, winning the 2008 presidential contest is the one & only goal, Period.
May 20, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is meant for the combative Hillarysupporters. For those just disappointed and needing time or holding out hope, I understand. Look forward to your joining the ranks when you are ready.
Experience Argument - Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama's 11 years exceeds Clinton's seven. You can add on her time as First Lady, but to pretend her experience is superior to Obama's is silly.
Turned off by Obama Campaign Tactics - Pot meet Kettle. Stop confusing internet posters with candidates.
Policy Differences - I hope this is your biggest beef with Obama because if it is I can't see how you can vote McCain in good conscience.
Incompetence - Ok, Billy your only evidence is that he didn't hold hearings in his committee (Jan 2007) while campaigning. It's fair to criticize him for this, but I don't think it qualifies as incompetence. A better example would be failing to push through a national health care bill, where the past can be determinate of the future.
Sexism - It's an important issue that deserves discussion, but it's a lame excuse for not voting Obama. Especially if pro-choice is important to you. Unless, you believe the "sweetie" remark is an indicator that he is a mysoginist planning on reversing woman's right to vote.
Your Ego - Excellent reason.
May 20, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok so now that we agree that sexism has played a role and i am certain you are open-minded enough to agree that racism has played an even bigger role, where do we go from there? you don't look exactly white djamo, so let me ask you-how do you feel when hrc says that she can win over the bigots, but obama cannot even though he has been winning over white folks all over, just not the bigots? secondly, please tell me how obama cheated hrc of this nomination? please tell me in your words how and where he changed the rules?
i would really like to hear your perspective. again, i am not suggesting in anyway that you should support obama b/c you are black. i am latina and hrc's latest pitch for the bigots and making it ok for them to say they are voting for her b/c she is white scares me and i am brown, not black. in my eyes, if it is ok to play upon the fears of the bigots to win votes today against a black man? tomorrow, it will be ok to turn that very same bigot vote agaisnt brown people. then later it will be ok to turn that bigot vote against the red and the yellow people? so please help me to understand for i am lost that you are not taking equal offense at racism as your over sexism. they are both wrong, but i find it odd that you identify with one over the other. or am i jumping the gun...
with respect.....
May 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
i respect your opinion if you think obama is too inexperienced and in like kind, respect mine when i say mccain and hrc have too much of the wrong kind of experience.
i respect your opinion if you say that sexism is the reason why hrc is losing. respect my opinion when i say arrogance and poor planning rank higher in the list.
i respect your opinion when you say hrc is a better deal b/c things were better under prez clinton. respect my opinion when i say that was then and this is now. old time politics for old time america. the world is changing right before our eyes and the stakes are higher. there is no guarantee that what worked under better conditions will produce the same results under deplorable conditions. it is that inability to think outside of the box that has literally boxed the US in a corner...
i respect your opinion if you say it is naive to talk to your enemies. humor me when i ask you if you ignore every a**hole in your company who has the power to make important decisions? or do you put on your brave face and negotiate with them to get the job done???? to simply say, i don't like you and therefore, we cannot have a discussion stifles progress. i am certain there is a reason why these people in the middle east are so ready to eradicate us from planet earth? listening to them and doing our best to show them that we are not the animals they think we are might go a long way...
i respect your opinion when you say you will cast that vote for mccain if hrc doesn't win. respect my opinion when i say, you would have never cast that vote for obama anyway. he and hrc have almost the same voting record and their stance on the policies are almost identitical. it just so happens, he ran a better campaign and he didn't take any one particular vote or delegate for granted, so therefore, he bested hrc. if the tables were turned and they just might b/c i fully expect hrc to do whatever in her power to wrestle a fair win away from obama, i would be hard-pressed to cast that vote for mccain. he is the direct opposite of what both hrc and obama are fighting for.....
after this is all said and done, i will be sure to change my party affiliation. i always assumed that all fellow democrats were openly accepting of diversity and culture different from their own. that is why minorities such as myself gravitate towards dems not republicans, but now i know differently.
disenchanted dem is what i have become....
May 20, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a forty something white guy who has supported Obama since his address at the Democratic Convention I hesitate to enter this fray and yet this recent call of foul on the grounds of sexism has riled me to a point that I had to reset my password and add my two cents after lurking here throughout this long primary battle. I have lost the ability to differentiate an authentic argument from another find for the kitchen sink strategy. I picture a spit balling meeting at Clinton headquarters where someone in charge says to a beleaguered staff “what haven’t we thrown at ‘em yet. Remember nothing’s out of bounds here”. If this problem has plagued the Clinton campaign so thoroughly why wait for the death throes to raise a fatal infraction? Another complaint of unfair tactics starts to seem like nothing more than mere white noise in a cacophony of whining. Play or don’t but leave the goalposts where you found them.
May 20, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, ripper. Just checking in to see how you are doing. Hope you are hanging in there.
For a long time, I felt I could have supported either Obama or Clinton. I suppose Clinton would have been the more obvious choice because she is more experienced and I am a woman of about the same age. When she started running a campaign reminiscent of a Rovian campaign, I was done as a potential active supporter. If she was to someone shoehorn her way onto the Democratic ticket in the presidential slot, I would vote for her because I would vote for anyone rather than see a Republican in the White House in 2009. But I voted for Obama in the primary largely because I have no desire to see Mark Penn sitting in Rove's chair in the White House. We have all had enough of these guys who think everything in the country is for sale.
May 20, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, they know exactly how to lie, cheat, steal and try to demean the other candidate. They have used every bit of guile and dishonesty to try to yank this one from the winner. They are two pathetic bottom suckers who should be promptly ignored, starting tomorrow. Enough of this Hillary nice shit. She has been an ass and it is time to cut the rope.
White Mama for Obama
May 20, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I traded my vote tonight with one of your own:
"Do not the intertubes reach WV and KY? Who *are* these people? I honestly do not get it." Posted by Marioth
What I said: "You're joking. Who let you out? Did you miss that thing about elitism 'n stuff? Who the hell are YOU? Oh, yeah, college-educated, rich, snot. THE demographic. (I know you're not black, because blacks are familiar with real life.) I just decided what I will do with my vote. Because YOU are such a PERFECT example of the absolute dregs of Obama's support, the disgusting, putrid slop swirling at its center. I will balance your vote for him with mine, not for him. No going back now. I believe there are MANY like me who have encountered somebody like YOU and just want to puke at the idea of electing this fraud with creeps like you fawning all over him."
Then I sent Hillary more money.
So McCain wins. So what? No universal health care as per usual. No war since the newly elected house and senate won't fund it, because we who loath the Obama are not fool enough to neglect the rest of the ticket. Then he's finished in 2012, giving the idiots the opportunity to make up for their mistake and give it to Hillary.
The idiots have gone WAY TOO FAR, and we watchers know who has the power now. The "peacemakers" can pucker up all they want, but they'll be sucking air.
May 20, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loath Obama seriously I do. I'll never vote for Obama. Even if he picks Webb as VP and I love Webb. If he picked Wesley Clark I'd vote for him and hope for a wait I can't say that.
May 20, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary/sexism question is a really thorny one, in part because she herself has never really dealt with it in any direct or useful way. Obama gave a big speech about race, in which he talked about his sympathy for the anger of black nationalists, but his distance from their solution, and his disdain for racism despite his admiration and even love for some racists. It was a complicated and thoughtful message, which made him a stronger candidate by showing, I think, some of the ways in which his Presidency could be a step forward in getting out of the deadlock on racial discussion in which we have been stuck for a long time.
Clinton, on the other hand, has never publically attempted to come to terms with sexism or how it impacts her campaign. She has not, for example, ever tried to explain how being a woman has impacted her Presidential run -- a very contradictory question, since, on the one hand, obviously some people won't vote for you as a woman, but, on the other, an awful lot of people will vote for you because you were First Lady. She hasn't tried to explain or deal with the pros and cons of victimization -- which hurts her in some ways and helps her in others. She hasn't tried to reconcile the strong links between feminism and the peace movement with her own hawkish stance. She hasn't explained why her candidacy is a boon to woman; what about a woman president would actually be helpful or feminist? All she's done, really, is complain that her gender makes her a victim -- which is certainly true to some extent, but saying it over and over without offering solutions or insight doesn't help; indeed, one could argue that it tends to make things worse, just as black nationalist anger, while justified, tends to make things worse.
In other words, it doesn't seem to me that Clinton has shown much, if any, leadership on the issue of sexism (beyond running for President, which is not, I'm afraid, quite the same thing.) The way she has run her campaign, around this issue and others, makes me extremely nervous about her competence and leadership ability in office. Billy mentioned that "the Clintons" know how to run government. But the fact is, if feminism means anything, it certainly means that Bill and Hillary are two different people.
May 21, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It was a complicated and thoughtful message, which made him a stronger candidate by showing, I think, some of the ways in which his Presidency could be a step forward in getting out of the deadlock on racial discussion in which we have been stuck for a long time."
Gimme a break. He didn't even campaign in WV or KY. I think he is afraid. Or maybe his wife is. It's comparable to white people in the olden days (or now, in indianapolis, perhaps) crossing the street if they see a big black guy walking toward them. Obama sees threats in these states. This is not the demeanor of a leader. He is confused by this non-comprehension, on their parts and on his - a BIG problem for a guy who thinks he's presidential material.
Underlying it is, besides the fear of getting his head blown off, the underlying elitism that causes him to think there is so much brain warp among the Appalachians that they would shoot him. These toothless, drooling mountain morons. Pretty sick. Not my kinda guy.
Solution: go to those states. Have some fun. Look around. Admit to yourself they smell just like you. Fewer dentists, but maybe you can help with that when you get to be prez. Take your kids. THEY don't think they're gonna get raped the minute you take your eyes off them. Around racism and fear, kids know exactly what to do. Tell their rents to get DOWN... you're SO EMBARRASSING!. Ask em.
Hillary, sexism and feminism? Noah, you ain't even close. Stick to things you understand, though based on your stuff here, I can't imagine what that might be.
May 21, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment