I clicked on recommend to help your thread stay alive.
Speaker Pelosi does appear to have a measured view of what happened based on these remarks of hers:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that she believed sexism against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was a factor in the 2008 Democratic primary fight, but added that the Democratic presidential candidate also benefited from being a woman."
Yeah - I know not the most engaging post but for the first time in my 31 years I was truly speechless.
31?? Damn, girl... you're gorgeous!! I had you pegged at roughly 10 years younger than that.
Please accept my apologies for such an inappropriate remark; simply astounded is all.
Shorter Pelosi:
"Hillary who?"
At least I knew who Hillary was when I voted for her. The more accurate question is Obama who? The FISA sell out is but the beginning and although Obama will be an improvement over McCain, it will be marginal at best. Congratulations on the infomercial candidate winning the primary. He had the audacity to hope that you guys wouldn't see through his bullshit before it was too late and he was right!
That's it. I'm starting my own Hillary support group called FU: Fuck Unity. Yes we'll vote for Obama over McCain, but to hell with all these fake ass democrats who have lost the basic core values of what our party used to stand for including respect for all including women. You deserve the inauthentic infomercial candidate that you have chosen to lead our party.
I was wondering how long it would take you to settle into that position. It's the only one that makes sense. But I doubt Obama needs our votes.
I'm in, but I was in before there was even a group. Fuck unity.
Concern trolls unite!
Are you the same crowd that was claiming Bush and Gore were "all the same" in 2000? That really worked out. Let's just hope that type of pissy self-centered cynicism doesn't get any more people killed.
mmmmm mmmmm...Dijamo! Girrrrlllll, you serve up some good troll sandwiches.
You're unreal.
Quasar seriously FU. Who's the freaking troll? The person who actually has substance to her criticism or the pathetic thing that waltzes in with the oh so witty "Hillary who?" get some new material.
If you want to continue to belittle and deman Hillary, then I will continue to criticize Obama. Unity is not a one way street.
Perfect troll like response. You do this troll thing so well.
"FU too!" ;-)
You lost me a few months ago when you tried to recycle yourself as Minamo.
Dumbass minamo is my sister who rarely shows up here. You lost me because you never ever have anything intelligent to say.
To clairfy - you are the dumbass. Minamo is not the dumbass. If that wasn't clear enough for you.
And if I wanted to have an alternate identity why would I pick minamo as a name. I am not as dumb as you are idiot. I'd got a little more creativity than that.
No you had it right the first time because I remember Minamo got slammed pretty good.
I don't know why ANYBODY would pick Dijamo for a name.
Then double up with Minamo?
Quasar, shut the fuck up.
Wait a minute...you still mad?
Punk?
Nope, never was. I don't break a sweat telling a guy like you to shut the fuck up. Considering your behavior in this thread and mine, I'd say your deeming dijamo a troll is ironic. To be kind.
To start.
I'm female.
What I did in your thread was to ask the question if Fareed Zakaria was a moderate conservative.
I stated that he impressions that he's "the smartest person in the room". He opinions after it's safe to do so from people that are pioneer of thought and takes it as his "analysis". And because of his arrogance I thought he was a numptie.
But this was after your long post on the virtues of his thought without you really knowing anything about Fareed but maybe a few TV appearances and not the think tank groups I challenged you on.
Since you were wrong. Is it my problem that you feel as though you have to wear your wedgie today?
You shouldn't. Because I wouldn't have felt that you still feel like your fake business meant that much to you.
Somebody lied to you. You're not that special. And I didn't feel as though your post could not be critiqued. It was bad.
I'll second this. Quasar's tendency to drop accusations of "troll" makes me think that she gets discounts for volume.
Aren't you late for your appointment as Manatee chum?
Thanks. I almost forgot the deep discounts on cheap insults.
Basically, don't take anything seriously coming from quasar. I know I don't.
You don't take your dissertation seriously either.
Basically, don't take anything seriously coming from quasar. I know I don't.
I feel it important to ditto that, for the health of this website. I don't want to see it turn into MySpace. Normally I dislike exclusion tactics but this case is an exception, constantly trying to bait others into a teen chat thing and put posters into cliques, reminds me of Heathers. If quasar's preferred M.O. starts leaking into TPMCafe front page threads, you can kiss grown-up contributors goodbye, as they'll be ashamed to be associated with such babble using their real names.
jealous?
DijaMo is a hybrid of my name. MinaMo was a hybrid of her name before she got married but she's still a Mo. And you are an ass.
You're telling him too much information (combined with your photo). Beware of the real nuts on the Internet.
And you're a PUMA.
I'm not PUMA - I'm a NYer who doesn't have to support some candidate just because 51% of my party did. I am entitled to disengage from a political process where my views are not respected. And I have no freaking obligation to continue to defend Obama or to engage in the political process.
Like I said..."PUMA".
D, it's a plant. It has no nervous system nor cognitive ability. No lungs, just photosynthesis. Don't waste your breath, take it's oxygen and ignore. And weeds, kelp and moss are just as useful for that.
Des, of course you are right. Moving on and past the weeds.
Respectfully, are you bipolar? This is a very demented post.
There has been no vote of any kind on FISA. Yes, Sen. Obama has made certain comments with regard to that particular bill. Most importantly, in those comments he said that he would fight to kill immunity for the telecoms. And I readily admit that he did indicate that, even if immunity survived, he would support the bill.
Now, isn't immunity for the telecoms the real crux of everyone's disillusionment? And, if that's the case, why can't we wait before we begin all the "Fuck Yous" (or, as you so ladylike put them "FUs"?)
As a Hillary supporter, I'm sure you have no tendency to respect the cunning of Sen. Obama. As an Obama supporter, I'll tell you straight up that he knows his game and his goals. His game is politics and his goals include returning power to the people.
At the end of the day, can't you, Billy and all the other Hillaryites on the board wait until at least one sprig of FISA hay is in the barn before you go all projectionist on an Obama presidency.
(He is gonna win, ya know. Check out the most recent LA Times poll!)
There has been no vote of any kind on FISA.
I'm talking about in the SENATE, of course.
Yeah I'm off my meds. They stopped making the Fleur de Sel Haagen Daaz. And there's also a number of excessively obnoxious Obama folks that have no desire to bring about unity and just want to continue to seed division. Why should I have to the better person and just let that unnessary swipes against Hillary go unanswered? You want people to follow Hillary in the spirit of unity then how about the Obama folks start following their leader in unity. How about an end to ad hominem attacks on Hillary that serve no purpose whatsoever. But rather than address those Obama assholes, it's me who's bipolar.
Unity is not one way. It's harder to bridge gaps when there are people actively trying to divide. And I have the right to revert to stage three and vent when said assholes tick me off.
Amen. If it were just newcomers, I'd suspect them as RNC scabs, but it's the same-old-same-olds pitching in. Quite annoying for so many reasons.
Dijamo wrote: "Yes we'll vote for Obama over McCain, but to hell with all these fake ass democrats who have lost the basic core values of what our party used to stand for including respect for all including women."
What will you do if Hillary votes yes? Since this vote, to you, cancels out everything Obama has ever done that can be considered good, and renders him a sell-out BY DEFINITION, and makes him simply the less heinous of a heinous choice, and not a true Democrat, I ask you: Will you apply the same standard when/if Hillary votes yes?
Or does she get separate rules? Just want to know in advance.
Hillary never pretended to be something that's she's not. Obama's the one appealing to move on.org in the primary and doing an about face now. I expect that Hillary will vote against the act but it's harder to so when it embarrases your lily-livered presidential nominee. If she votes against it - she's embarrassing Obama. If she votes for it, she's just as bad as Obama. Here's a clue. He's the nominee and is repsonsible for his own actions. It's not about Hillary anymore - it's about Obama. Now we get to see who he really is.
Sign me up .... In the immortal words of the Dixie Chicks, I'm not ready to make nice
You do know that Hillary didn't even bother to vote last time stripping telecom immunity came up in the Senate? (Obama voted in favor of stripping.) I'm angry at Obama, but Hillary is at least as bad on this issue if not worse. And clearly worse on national security policies overall.
Huh?
I agree with Pelosi (ALL of her points), but no one's saying that those crying sexism are the "worst people in the world." Can we please focus on what's happening right now? This topic has been examined quite thoroughly, and I think any of us with a heart agree that Hillary was subjected to a lot of sexism.
Pelosi:
“My impression is, yes, there was sexism. My knowledge is, yes, there is sexism because there has been,” Mrs. Pelosi said with a laugh. “I myself find that I get a tremendous upside being a woman, and I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about sexist remarks that people make.”
On the "FU" group you're starting...I wish you were kidding, but I know you're not. Let it go.
First, if you think Obama is only "marginally" better than McCain (especially on gender issues), you need your head examined. Secondly, enough fucking Oppression Olympics. Who cares if she got more sexism than he got racism? Fact is, he won, and if you really think that he won because voters hate women, then you're just being simple. There were many other factors (all of which you consistently ignore) and you know it. The fact that your candidate ran a crappy campaign until the last few weeks, had missteps ranging from money issues to message problems throughout and did her damnedest to destroy a fellow Democrat using Republican talking points had nothing to do with it, right? Please. (And I say that as someone who has voted for Hillary for Senate in NY State.)
Talk about "fake ass" - I always knew your support for Obama was just that, and that you were still mad bitter about the fact that Hillary lost. I think the response you put up to quasar said it all. You really think that helps?
I'm going to be the last person that tries to shut you up. But if you really, honestly think that Obama's nomination is an affront to all women and a betrayal of the Democratic Party's core principles...wow. Suffice to say, I disagree and think you need to relax. Take a cue from your candidate and unite for the greater good.
You seem to have a thing for lecturing me. Why don't you lecture the assholes on your side who are supporting Obama that continue to be so dimisive and negative towards Hillary for no reason? That continue to trash her and her supporters for no purpose whatsoever except to seed division and then are shocked when Hillary supporters get pissed. Oh I guess the unity theme is on the Hillary side while the Obama folks get to be obnoxious assholes. I don't think so.
If you want to classify yourself in the crowd I am saying FU to "fake ass democrats who have lost the basic core values of what our party used to stand for including respect for all including women," please feel free though I didn't put you in that box.
What I do care about is how the top woman in the dmeocratic party nonchalantly dismissed the sexism that Hillary faced and disregards it. Pelosi faced sexism to. Why should she say anything? Take a look at how African American leaders in congress responded when they feld Obama was being attacked on race - veen with minimal justification. they responded in force. Pelosi is pathetic and I lost the last shred of respect for her that was remaining after the FISA debacle last week. She is a disgrace.
You guys won. But what did you win? A candidate that gives a neocon-lite talk to AIPAC the day after the nomination. A candidate that turns his back on his pledge for public campaign financing so he can spend a half billion dollars in two months broadcasting everywhere? A candidate that faced with a FISA compromise vote will turn his back on his pledge to vote no on a bill with immunity for telecoms. This is the change you've been waiting for? You got had. Don't be mad at me. Blame your candidate.
Is he better than McCain and how much? I have no effing idea because I don't know who he is and neither do you. He says one thing to move on in the primary and another thing once he's got the general election sewn up. And you said Hillary's gas tax proposal was a pander?
So the moral of the story is I am still plenty pissed at the democratic party and Obama but I have no choice but to support him as the candidate because he's NOT MCCAIN. But what I won't do anymore is allow the asshole Obama supporters to continue to attack Hillary as ungenuine or divisive or do anything to win or dismiss her because Obama is even worse. Hillary was who she was. Obama is what you want him to be at that particular moment until your support means less than the moderates and then he'll shove you under the bus and pander for whatever gets him more votes. The audacity of hope in action. Congratulations!
You seem to have a thing for lecturing me.
Hardly. I thought your opinions were foolhardy, and I said as much. How is that lecturing?
Why don't you lecture the assholes on your side who are supporting Obama that continue to be so dimisive and negative towards Hillary for no reason?
I don't know about "dismissive" (right? or "divisive"?), but there's plenty of reason to be negative towards Hillary. She's provided all of that herself, and they have nothing at all to do with her gender. I won't recount it here, because we've been going through it for the last six months. You know damned well what she's done.
Look, if someone on the team I support is acting like a jerk, I may still support my team - but I'm not blind to the fact that that guy or gal is a jerk! (See, Belle, Albert.)
That continue to trash her and her supporters for no purpose whatsoever except to seed division and then are shocked when Hillary supporters get pissed.
What blog are you reading? Seriously, I see no one bringing up Hillary's name but you, and perhaps a few other Hillary holdouts. Maybe I'm not combing this site looking for the latest in Hillary slights, but I certainly read my share of posts. Point me in the right direction; I'm more than willing to concede the point.
Oh I guess the unity theme is on the Hillary side while the Obama folks get to be obnoxious assholes. I don't think so.
Let me break the news: he's the nominee. You thought we'd all unite around her?
And as for branding us as "obnoxious assholes" - glass houses. Slow your roll, and start naming people. Surely you know their aliases, seeing as they piss you off this much.
If you want to classify yourself in the crowd I am saying FU to "fake ass democrats who have lost the basic core values of what our party used to stand for including respect for all including women," please feel free though I didn't put you in that box.
Thanks for not pigeonholing me that time. I would love to join a group that is committed to adhering to Democratic values and speaking truth to power. But your idea sucks. I'm sorry, it does. You really think something like that would be anything but destructive at this stage of the game?
What I do care about is how the top woman in the dmeocratic party nonchalantly dismissed the sexism that Hillary faced and disregards it. Pelosi faced sexism to. Why should she say anything?
Wow, you were serious.
Maybe Pelosi's a lot less interested in being a victim than you are. Hey, I say the same thing about Sharpton, et. al. and racism as far as I'm concerned. Self-victimization and brooding over perceived slights gets us nowhere. I believe in accountability, and so does Pelosi - she didn't have to say anything. But what Pelosi drove home is that, yes - sexism is out there. She experiences it, too. But you never hear her or any of her supporters holler (in the fashion you're doing) that their candidate was gravely disadvantaged by it! That's my problem with your position.
Take a look at how African American leaders in congress responded when they feld Obama was being attacked on race - veen with minimal justification. they responded in force.
To compare the positions of acknowledged Obama supporters defending him during the primary to a powerful figure like Pelosi that didn't endorse acknowledging the sexism Hillary supporters (and some of the rest of us) complain about...that's beyond simplistic. They're not even the same situation, politically speaking. And that's the sphere they're operating within. Don't expect anyone within that arena to say anything revolutionary.
Pelosi is pathetic and I lost the last shred of respect for her that was remaining after the FISA debacle last week. She is a disgrace.
FISA's a different issue. I agree with you somewhat, though I'm not as alarmist as most are here on TPM because I realize that this ain't over.
You guys won. But what did you win? A candidate that gives a neocon-lite talk to AIPAC the day after the nomination.
Whatever. With all the shit you spewed at him during the primary and today, you're one to talk about "neocon-lite".
A candidate that turns his back on his pledge for public campaign financing so he can spend a half billion dollars in two months broadcasting everywhere?
Like that's a bad thing?
If you don't agree with his reasons for foregoing the financing, fine. But we saw what happened to Kerry when he did the same thing, thinking everything would be cool. I'm glad Obama's not that naive.
A candidate that faced with a FISA compromise vote will turn his back on his pledge to vote no on a bill with immunity for telecoms.
Sheesh. The man said he's going to work to get the immunity out of the bill! There's a reason two guys who've endorsed him, including one of his biggest supporters in the Senate, are planning to filibuster this thing. You think that's happening without Obama's input?
This is the change you've been waiting for? You got had.
Wow. That's not self-righteous at all! "You didn't vote for the candidate I liked, so you're fools"? I'm a responsible voter, and I've thoroughly researched the platforms of every single candidate in this race, from Obama to Clinton to McCain to Giuliani to Huckabee to Paul to Kucinich. I did so so that I might make an informed decision, and I chose Obama. If that makes me a fool in your eyes, I guess I'll have to live with that.
Don't be mad at me. Blame your candidate.
Don't be mad at me. Blame your candidate.
Is he better than McCain and how much? I have no effing idea because I don't know who he is and neither do you.
That's so weak. You either are being lazy or dismissive yourself. You'll notice that they differ on virtually every issue! Goodness. Are you even paying attention?
He says one thing to move on in the primary and another thing once he's got the general election sewn up. And you said Hillary's gas tax proposal was a pander?
Huh? It was a pander - about the grossest one I've seen since the "No new taxes" speech by Bush's daddy. How is he differing in his positions? (The ones that matter and could make a difference in our lives, I mean.)
So the moral of the story is I am still plenty pissed at the democratic party and Obama...
Funny that none of that anger is reserved for the candidate you supported. I'm an avid sports fan, and damn if I wasn't pissed that my Indians only scored two stinkin' runs against one of the worst teams in baseball (at home!) tonight. I don't blame the SF Giants. I don't blame the umpires and I sure as hell don't blame the fans or the weather (it was a perfect night in Cleveland, for once). I blame my team for not executing.
When your candidate pisses away a HUGE lead in the polls to start with, makes odd and offensive statements, disregards the caucus states because "they don't matter" (and loses 12 straight contests, incl. VT, in the process), her fundraising is dwarfed and her advisers give her bad advice, how is that Obama's fault, exactly? Or the Democratic Party? She's advocating her legitimacy in every way but that which the Party established - delegates - and yet, it's the Party's fault? She does everything in her power to undermine Obama's candidacy, going negative at every turn, and it's his fault when it doesn't work?
Get over yourself.
but I have no choice but to support him as the candidate because he's NOT MCCAIN.
I'm sorry it's so painful for you. I mean that seriously. You should never dread your vote.
But what I won't do anymore is allow the asshole Obama supporters to continue to attack Hillary as ungenuine or divisive or do anything to win or dismiss her because Obama is even worse.
How is Obama worse? Can you offer any specific examples, because all I hear from you is bluster about how fucking horrible Obama is, and was to Hillary in the primary. (Guess that's why she gave one of her best speeches ever in endorsing him, eh? Because he sucks.)
Hillary was who she was.
So that's an excuse for the way she conducted herself, and her campaign? Because we all knew what we were getting?
Or did you simply mean that she was consistent, because that's a load, too. The changes in her positions from Iraq to immigration were significant.
Obama is what you want him to be at that particular moment until your support means less than the moderates and then he'll shove you under the bus and pander for whatever gets him more votes. The audacity of hope in action. Congratulations!
And I guess all us libs were gunning for the war when Hillary voted to give this President a blank check to go to war? Huh? I don't hear word one from you about that. And when most Dems (including her) were joining the chickenhawk GOP in sending young men and women to DIE FOR FUCKING OIL, Obama was against it.
No candidate on this earth is going to avoid disappointing even his or her most loyal supporters at some point. It is important for us to keep our heads and realize what the greater good is. It seems that you've done that to an extent, but goodness...do you really think saying things like "Fuck unity" are helpful? And please, save any nonsense about your needing to vent after a deep disappointment; keep a diary or talk to a friend or family member. TPM is a place of public discourse, and you influence more people than you know. To paraphrase Dr. King, there's ways for people to continue to disagree without being vitriolically disagreeable. I understand how angry you are, but for goodness' sakes, there are more important things going on here than what you or I feel.
Eyes on the prize, folks.
TPM - preview feature. Please.
Nancy Pelosi the worst person in the world...
Yeah, she really makes Mugabe and his goons look good, doesn't she? And watching her on tv a little while ago made me think of applying for a visa for Somalia.
I think you missed the sarcasm...
Sarcasm? What sarcasm?
I trust you don't really think Pelosi's the worst person in the world. If you do, then I missed it.
Well I obviously did because I'm not even sure whose you're referring to. Dijamo's or yours? (I was responding to her post, not your comment.)
I'm just so sick of all this bleating about sexism. I didn't hear any complaint about it when the women jumped up and down complaining that Obama and Edwards were beating up on a woman. How sexist was *that*?
And I'd be a whole lot more upset about sexism if it had been a woman who'd worked her own way up from the bottom ranks rather than having been given so many damned legs up because of who she'd been married to. Crucially, had that been the case, she may well have had a damned more insight into how to run her own campaign so that she would have been able to win based on her own merits rather than concluding that she had to resort to `kitchen sink`.
I'd have been really, deeply upset about it had it been applied to a woman of real integrity who hadn't run the most disgraceful campaign I could imagine giving the Republicans so much damned ammunition to use against the nominee of her own party: (something which her opponent didn't do). Not only that, but by extending the campaign well beyond the point of statistical improbability most of all she gave them fantastic insights into what did and didn't work so that they wouldn't have to go through a period of trial and error which would have put them further behind the eight ball.
And for good measure, the fundamental reason I'd like to see a woman Democratic president is that one has the maybe idealised, romantic sense that just maybe she'd be governed by some really progressive attitudes to small things like war and peace, the power of diplomacy, rather than her standard operating manual of triangulation.
Oh I see. You get to choose which women are full of integrity and you like and defend those women from sexist attacks. Well guess what - the republicans don't like Michelle Obama and they don't thing she has integrity. So I am assuming you will not have any criticism of them when they lay into her with sexist attacks.
Whne did the democratic party get taken over by these apologists - oh sexist attacks are okay against Hillary because I don't like her or lets just ignore them or even worse participate in them. If someone calls Condoleeza Rice a mammy or a bitch, I speak up because it's wrong whether you despise the person or not. Don't let anybody call Michelle Obama a bitch, but if it's Hillary it's just fine.
You people lack principles and it is pathetic that you consider yourselves democrats. And then you wonder why Hillary supporters are still pissed. Because you don't respect Hillary and you certainly don't respect her supporters.
"Oh I see. You get to choose which women are full of integrity and you like and defend those women from sexist attacks..."
No, not at all. I guess the truth is that I didn't much like Clinton or have much respect for her before her campaign really resorted to the kitchen sink (though I didn't have the level of loathing & contempt I have since then) and the moment everyone came out bleating about Obama and Edwards `beating up on her` I thought (and still think) that was utterly pathetic and because of it, the issue of sexism no longer counted for me.
"Well guess what - the republicans don't like Michelle Obama and they don't thing she has integrity. So I am assuming you will not have any criticism of them when they lay into her with sexist attacks."
Sure I will - until and unless she/the campaign started to use false sexist arguments themselves. Then again I would lose interest in it as an issue.
"Whne did the democratic party get taken over by these apologists - oh sexist attacks are okay against Hillary because I don't like her or lets just ignore them or even worse participate in them. If someone calls Condoleeza Rice a mammy or a bitch, I speak up because it's wrong whether you despise the person or not. Don't let anybody call Michelle Obama a bitch, but if it's Hillary it's just fine."
Again, I can only speak for me, but it was the Clinton camp that started bleating utterly pathetically about sexism in a way that was so damned hypocritical and that is why I couldn't care less about any genuine sexism that they did come up against. And I believe their own conduct was so much worse in so many other ways that I don't for one moment apologise for not caring about any instances of unfairness they themselves came up against.
"You people lack principles and it is pathetic that you consider yourselves democrats. And then you wonder why Hillary supporters are still pissed. Because you don't respect Hillary and you certainly don't respect her supporters."
Well what I don't respect is people not understanding that it's something that's earned.
Just as contempt is.
Yeah I'm of Somali descent and my peoples don't want you there. VISA DENIED.
I made a comment like this before regarding one of your HRC-sexist blogs.
Hillary Rodham Clinton definitely was treated in a sexist manner.
Had she NOT been a female, she would never have been considered a qualified candidate for US Senator, let alone President of the United States.
He sole qualification was her marriage to Bill Clinton, period. She was a celebrity thereby.
Had she not done so--married Bill-- and embarked on a career herself, she certainly may have achieved, in her own right, as much as Bill did. But she choose to sublimate her own career to his; she choose to pour her considerable abilities into helping her husband reach the pinnacle of political success.
But that's all she did. She was a high-powered, superbly educated, brilliant, super-housefrau, riding on her husband's coattails, while whispering guidance in his ear.
Maybe women of her era had no other choice, but she was given every benefit of the doubt by the voters of NY, and by millions of voters in the primary. Benefits that no male in the world would ever have enjoyed. And she lost.
She tried to usher in the Eva Peron era in American politics and almost pulled it off. But just as her candidacy marked the first serious female run for the Presidency, so too will it mark the last female candidate who has to anchor her campaign to the starlight radiating from her man.
The next woman--barring Michelle Obama running in 8 years--will be a free floating, independent entity in and of herself.
Well since we're recycling:
Yes, Hillary had the advantage of being Bill Clitnon's wife when she ran for Senate and President. She had a hand in the formation of policy in her husband's White House (as he had told voters would happen) and performed substantive policy work outside of the traditional first lady duties. If Laura Bush or Barbara Bush ran for president no one would take them seriously because on their own they have no qualficiations in the politics or policy realm.
I wouldn't call that sexism - I'd call her advantage neoptism or family connections. FYI - this has been going on for ages. My particular favorite example is Teddy Kennedy. And if you want to talk about nepotism, let's look at Ted Kennedy: In 1960, John Kennedy was elected President of the United States and vacated his Massachusetts Senate seat. Ted would not be eligible to fill his brother's vacant Senate seat until February 22, 1962, when he would turn thirty. Therefore the President-elect asked Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo to name a Kennedy family friend Benjamin A. Smith II to fill out John's term (under the authority of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, and state law). This kept the seat open for Ted. In 1962, Kennedy was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in a special election. He was elected to a full six-year term in 1964 and was reelected in 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006.
When Teddy was "elected" to the Senate, he came straight out of law school with no qualifications other than being JFK's little brother. I am sure that you are outraged by this and this causes you to consider Teddy completely unworthy and unqualified to be a senator or a Presidential candidate.
If I had to compare Hillary to anyone, it would probably be Bill Bradley who was also a brilliant man famous for playing basketball. Elected to Senate because of high name recognition, but he had true intellectual heft and policy wonkishness. While his fame may have been a factor, he was no less deserving in his own right of the Senate seat.
Same with Hillary - she may be well known, but she's qualified in her own right and to dismiss her as having this opportnity jest because she's a woman or just beccause she's Bill Clinton's wife is insulting. In fact being Bill's wife probably made things harder for her in the long haul anyway.
Posted by dijamo
June 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
dj,
Fair enough, let's call it nepotism.
One of the reasons I could not support an HRC candidacy was the thought of 28 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton rule.
I think that would have made a mockery of our "democratic" system of government.
We may as well be ruled by kings, sheiks, amirs, princes and so on.
Along with the Kennedy's and Bushes, Gore is part of the nepotism club. You think he would have been a Senator if not for his father being one?
The Eva Peron comment was mainly said in jest, but there's some truth in it too.
Bill Bradley ( and Arnold S. and maybe Reagan) certainly had their celebrity to thank for much of their political success, but they achieved their own, HRC stardom came from the light emanating from Bill.
Finally, although I may disagree with him on most (domestic) issues, I think Obama, for many disparate reasons, was born to be Prez at this point in the history of America.
[You'll like this, dj: Nietzsche described the first few bars of Beethoven's 5th Symphony as, "Destiny knocking on the door." That's what Barack's candidacy is in my soulful, blue-green eyes.]
FB
Hear, hear. Fuck it, I am going to run in four or eight years after Obama wins, as an Independent, not because I'm married to or close to or happen to know anyone in politics, but because I'm a woman and I know what it's like to love children and mothers and I didn't vote to authorize the war in Iraq, nor did I vote for Kyl-Lieberman.
Do I have your vote, dijamo?
Hell no - you are a recovering republican. Do you have a plan on universal healthcare? Do you have a plan for foreclosure crisis. Have you sepnt your life workign as a lawyer advocate for women and children? Have you been integrally involved in reforming a statewide educational system? Have you been a force in the Senate for the peopel from NYS to make sure we get our fair share of tax dollars back and fight for homeland security funding? Have you been a part of pushing for the FMLA rights? Have you worked on behalf of veterans. If you ahven't then please be quiet. Hillary even with her flaws has made a million times more difference in this world than you and Obama has accomplished far less than she has on her own merits.
And FYI - Obama now supports Kyl Lieberman amendment even though he punked out and didn't show up for the vote. And now turning his back on his FISA pledge to not vote for telecom immunity. Do you really believe he qould have had the guts in the Senate to vote against the authorization for military force in Iraq? He doesn't even have the balls right now to keep his word on telecom immunity. All talk - no action.
Do you have a plan on universal healthcare? Do you have a plan for foreclosure crisis. Have you sepnt your life workign as a lawyer advocate for women and children? Have you been integrally involved in reforming a statewide educational system? Have you been a force in the Senate for the peopel from NYS to make sure we get our fair share of tax dollars back and fight for homeland security funding? Have you been a part of pushing for the FMLA rights? Have you worked on behalf of veterans. If you ahven't then please be quiet. Hillary even with her flaws has made a million times more difference in this world than you and Obama has accomplished far less than she has on her own merits.
Number one, you seem angry because your normally well-written (and spell-checked) posting abilities bit the dust with this one.
Number two, you are narrowing this whole thing down to 1) NYC and 2) women and families.
Number three, you are (in your own words) trying to claim that Obama has as much inexperience in government as I have.
What, dijamo, you're suddenly drinking while posting? Shame on yuz. Go to sleep, sweetie. Stop hitting the sauce.
Hmmnn, Hillary's health care plan was not universal. Universal healthcare implies tax payer funded, single payer health care. Hillary knows that, but she insisted on using the word "universal" to imply her plan contained something it didn't.
Forcing people to buy insurance is not "universal health care." Just like forcing people to buy car insurance, under threat of heavy fines and loss of license, is not universal accident protection.
Oh and worst of all you fell for Obama. That shows a serious lack of judgement right there. You my friend are unelectable as President.
And so are you, my friend.
Neener, neener, neener.
One more thing: Nancy Pelosi may not always be as effectual as we Dems would like her to be, but she got all the way up to the post she sits in, which is two people away from President.
AND, she's a woman and apparently had no problem with any glass ceiling, AND she wasn't married to a former President.
Yeah she had no political connections except her dad as congressman & mayor. TOTALLY got there on her own.
To be fair, how did being the daughter of Baltimore's mayor help her win a special election to get her House seat? And being the daughter of a mayor is a heck of a lot different than being the First Lady for eight years, no?
This is a stupid argument. Both Clinton and Pelosi benefited by their political connections. Who cares who benefited more?
Clinton made hers with her husband. Pelosi inherited hers.
Who cares?
Because Pelosi doesn't represent a dynasty and a concentration of power.
Clinton does.
Nonsense. As a daughter of a politician, Pelosi is far closer to the term Dynasty, than Clinton. Neither truly are.
You are Humpty Dumpty.
There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Concentration of power at the White House executive level and talk of co-presidency (TWICE!) is dynasty politics.
Keep living with the fantasies about how YOU are part of the worker's movement via your father. Sloganeer away, angry bee.
After praying on this, I remembered Galatians 5:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulnees, gentleness and self-control. Against, such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
I meant no disrespect, sister. We disagree, but as I said, I'd hope we can do so in the future without vitriol.
I wish I'd never read, or jumped into, this post. I'm tired of the vitriol and I liked it better when we were all starting to get along.
I liked it better when I didn't know what a fooking PUMA is.
I'm going back to my DVD of The Clash and my iPod and I'm taking a break from this place.
I mean, if the Left can't get a grip with it's own fist, how in the hell can it fight the vice grip holding the Right's down?
You know?
Couldn't agree more. As much as I enjoy debate, I wish I'd made better use of my time, and that we all could get past this.
I still don't know what PUMA is (other than a mountain lion). I refuse to look it up on principle. Second on the vitriol. Can't we fight nicely?
Apparently not. I take some of the blame here - as you see above, I let myself get sucked into the quicksand...
I'll go one step further. I name you provocateur. I agree with dijamo that your original post was a dismissive lecture, which is not to say that she didn't escalate the vitriol. To avoid provocation, try to avoid telling people to have their head examined, calling their ideas foolhardy, implying that that their posts are ludicrous, etc.
If a post doesn't justify a serious response, then a) ignore it, or b) ridicule it. Engaging seriously with condescension is the thing that provokes these fights. Generally though, while I often disagree with dijamo, I think her non-vitriolic posts merit a respectful response.
I agree with you - that's what I meant by the quicksand metaphor. Sometimes my lesser natures get the best of me. That's why I prayed on it, and shared the verse I did, hoping to calm some of the tensions I'd raised. I appreciate your perspective - you offer good advice.
I don't know that my advice is worth shit, but a the ability to question oneself is priceless, and I respect you for it. Sorry that I misunderstood what you meant about the quicksand.
Agreed from here, too. I have actually enjoyed a lot of dijamo's posts lately. I recommended and even commented on so
Comments (186)
I clicked on recommend to help your thread stay alive.
Speaker Pelosi does appear to have a measured view of what happened based on these remarks of hers:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that she believed sexism against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was a factor in the 2008 Democratic primary fight, but added that the Democratic presidential candidate also benefited from being a woman."
June 24, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - I know not the most engaging post but for the first time in my 31 years I was truly speechless.
June 24, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
31?? Damn, girl... you're gorgeous!! I had you pegged at roughly 10 years younger than that.
Please accept my apologies for such an inappropriate remark; simply astounded is all.
June 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Pelosi:
"Hillary who?"
June 24, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least I knew who Hillary was when I voted for her. The more accurate question is Obama who? The FISA sell out is but the beginning and although Obama will be an improvement over McCain, it will be marginal at best. Congratulations on the infomercial candidate winning the primary. He had the audacity to hope that you guys wouldn't see through his bullshit before it was too late and he was right!
That's it. I'm starting my own Hillary support group called FU: Fuck Unity. Yes we'll vote for Obama over McCain, but to hell with all these fake ass democrats who have lost the basic core values of what our party used to stand for including respect for all including women. You deserve the inauthentic infomercial candidate that you have chosen to lead our party.
June 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering how long it would take you to settle into that position. It's the only one that makes sense. But I doubt Obama needs our votes.
June 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in, but I was in before there was even a group. Fuck unity.
June 24, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concern trolls unite!
Are you the same crowd that was claiming Bush and Gore were "all the same" in 2000? That really worked out. Let's just hope that type of pissy self-centered cynicism doesn't get any more people killed.
June 24, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
mmmmm mmmmm...Dijamo! Girrrrlllll, you serve up some good troll sandwiches.
You're unreal.
June 24, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quasar seriously FU. Who's the freaking troll? The person who actually has substance to her criticism or the pathetic thing that waltzes in with the oh so witty "Hillary who?" get some new material.
If you want to continue to belittle and deman Hillary, then I will continue to criticize Obama. Unity is not a one way street.
June 24, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect troll like response. You do this troll thing so well.
"FU too!" ;-)
June 24, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lost me a few months ago when you tried to recycle yourself as Minamo.
June 24, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dumbass minamo is my sister who rarely shows up here. You lost me because you never ever have anything intelligent to say.
June 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clairfy - you are the dumbass. Minamo is not the dumbass. If that wasn't clear enough for you.
And if I wanted to have an alternate identity why would I pick minamo as a name. I am not as dumb as you are idiot. I'd got a little more creativity than that.
June 24, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you had it right the first time because I remember Minamo got slammed pretty good.
June 24, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why ANYBODY would pick Dijamo for a name.
Then double up with Minamo?
June 24, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quasar, shut the fuck up.
June 24, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute...you still mad?
Punk?
June 24, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, never was. I don't break a sweat telling a guy like you to shut the fuck up. Considering your behavior in this thread and mine, I'd say your deeming dijamo a troll is ironic. To be kind.
June 24, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To start.
I'm female.
What I did in your thread was to ask the question if Fareed Zakaria was a moderate conservative.
I stated that he impressions that he's "the smartest person in the room". He opinions after it's safe to do so from people that are pioneer of thought and takes it as his "analysis". And because of his arrogance I thought he was a numptie.
But this was after your long post on the virtues of his thought without you really knowing anything about Fareed but maybe a few TV appearances and not the think tank groups I challenged you on.
Since you were wrong. Is it my problem that you feel as though you have to wear your wedgie today?
You shouldn't. Because I wouldn't have felt that you still feel like your fake business meant that much to you.
Somebody lied to you. You're not that special. And I didn't feel as though your post could not be critiqued. It was bad.
June 24, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second this. Quasar's tendency to drop accusations of "troll" makes me think that she gets discounts for volume.
June 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you late for your appointment as Manatee chum?
June 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I almost forgot the deep discounts on cheap insults.
Basically, don't take anything seriously coming from quasar. I know I don't.
June 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't take your dissertation seriously either.
June 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel it important to ditto that, for the health of this website. I don't want to see it turn into MySpace. Normally I dislike exclusion tactics but this case is an exception, constantly trying to bait others into a teen chat thing and put posters into cliques, reminds me of Heathers. If quasar's preferred M.O. starts leaking into TPMCafe front page threads, you can kiss grown-up contributors goodbye, as they'll be ashamed to be associated with such babble using their real names.
June 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
jealous?
June 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
DijaMo is a hybrid of my name. MinaMo was a hybrid of her name before she got married but she's still a Mo. And you are an ass.
June 24, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're telling him too much information (combined with your photo). Beware of the real nuts on the Internet.
June 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're a PUMA.
June 24, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not PUMA - I'm a NYer who doesn't have to support some candidate just because 51% of my party did. I am entitled to disengage from a political process where my views are not respected. And I have no freaking obligation to continue to defend Obama or to engage in the political process.
June 24, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said..."PUMA".
June 24, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
D, it's a plant. It has no nervous system nor cognitive ability. No lungs, just photosynthesis. Don't waste your breath, take it's oxygen and ignore. And weeds, kelp and moss are just as useful for that.
June 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des, of course you are right. Moving on and past the weeds.
June 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, are you bipolar? This is a very demented post.
There has been no vote of any kind on FISA. Yes, Sen. Obama has made certain comments with regard to that particular bill. Most importantly, in those comments he said that he would fight to kill immunity for the telecoms. And I readily admit that he did indicate that, even if immunity survived, he would support the bill.
Now, isn't immunity for the telecoms the real crux of everyone's disillusionment? And, if that's the case, why can't we wait before we begin all the "Fuck Yous" (or, as you so ladylike put them "FUs"?)
As a Hillary supporter, I'm sure you have no tendency to respect the cunning of Sen. Obama. As an Obama supporter, I'll tell you straight up that he knows his game and his goals. His game is politics and his goals include returning power to the people.
At the end of the day, can't you, Billy and all the other Hillaryites on the board wait until at least one sprig of FISA hay is in the barn before you go all projectionist on an Obama presidency.
(He is gonna win, ya know. Check out the most recent LA Times poll!)
June 25, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about in the SENATE, of course.
June 25, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I'm off my meds. They stopped making the Fleur de Sel Haagen Daaz. And there's also a number of excessively obnoxious Obama folks that have no desire to bring about unity and just want to continue to seed division. Why should I have to the better person and just let that unnessary swipes against Hillary go unanswered? You want people to follow Hillary in the spirit of unity then how about the Obama folks start following their leader in unity. How about an end to ad hominem attacks on Hillary that serve no purpose whatsoever. But rather than address those Obama assholes, it's me who's bipolar.
Unity is not one way. It's harder to bridge gaps when there are people actively trying to divide. And I have the right to revert to stage three and vent when said assholes tick me off.
June 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. If it were just newcomers, I'd suspect them as RNC scabs, but it's the same-old-same-olds pitching in. Quite annoying for so many reasons.
June 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo wrote: "Yes we'll vote for Obama over McCain, but to hell with all these fake ass democrats who have lost the basic core values of what our party used to stand for including respect for all including women."
What will you do if Hillary votes yes? Since this vote, to you, cancels out everything Obama has ever done that can be considered good, and renders him a sell-out BY DEFINITION, and makes him simply the less heinous of a heinous choice, and not a true Democrat, I ask you: Will you apply the same standard when/if Hillary votes yes?
Or does she get separate rules? Just want to know in advance.
June 25, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary never pretended to be something that's she's not. Obama's the one appealing to move on.org in the primary and doing an about face now. I expect that Hillary will vote against the act but it's harder to so when it embarrases your lily-livered presidential nominee. If she votes against it - she's embarrassing Obama. If she votes for it, she's just as bad as Obama. Here's a clue. He's the nominee and is repsonsible for his own actions. It's not about Hillary anymore - it's about Obama. Now we get to see who he really is.
June 25, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sign me up .... In the immortal words of the Dixie Chicks, I'm not ready to make nice
June 25, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do know that Hillary didn't even bother to vote last time stripping telecom immunity came up in the Senate? (Obama voted in favor of stripping.) I'm angry at Obama, but Hillary is at least as bad on this issue if not worse. And clearly worse on national security policies overall.
June 24, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
I agree with Pelosi (ALL of her points), but no one's saying that those crying sexism are the "worst people in the world." Can we please focus on what's happening right now? This topic has been examined quite thoroughly, and I think any of us with a heart agree that Hillary was subjected to a lot of sexism.
Pelosi:
On the "FU" group you're starting...I wish you were kidding, but I know you're not. Let it go.
First, if you think Obama is only "marginally" better than McCain (especially on gender issues), you need your head examined. Secondly, enough fucking Oppression Olympics. Who cares if she got more sexism than he got racism? Fact is, he won, and if you really think that he won because voters hate women, then you're just being simple. There were many other factors (all of which you consistently ignore) and you know it. The fact that your candidate ran a crappy campaign until the last few weeks, had missteps ranging from money issues to message problems throughout and did her damnedest to destroy a fellow Democrat using Republican talking points had nothing to do with it, right? Please. (And I say that as someone who has voted for Hillary for Senate in NY State.)
Talk about "fake ass" - I always knew your support for Obama was just that, and that you were still mad bitter about the fact that Hillary lost. I think the response you put up to quasar said it all. You really think that helps?
I'm going to be the last person that tries to shut you up. But if you really, honestly think that Obama's nomination is an affront to all women and a betrayal of the Democratic Party's core principles...wow. Suffice to say, I disagree and think you need to relax. Take a cue from your candidate and unite for the greater good.
June 24, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have a thing for lecturing me. Why don't you lecture the assholes on your side who are supporting Obama that continue to be so dimisive and negative towards Hillary for no reason? That continue to trash her and her supporters for no purpose whatsoever except to seed division and then are shocked when Hillary supporters get pissed. Oh I guess the unity theme is on the Hillary side while the Obama folks get to be obnoxious assholes. I don't think so.
If you want to classify yourself in the crowd I am saying FU to "fake ass democrats who have lost the basic core values of what our party used to stand for including respect for all including women," please feel free though I didn't put you in that box.
What I do care about is how the top woman in the dmeocratic party nonchalantly dismissed the sexism that Hillary faced and disregards it. Pelosi faced sexism to. Why should she say anything? Take a look at how African American leaders in congress responded when they feld Obama was being attacked on race - veen with minimal justification. they responded in force. Pelosi is pathetic and I lost the last shred of respect for her that was remaining after the FISA debacle last week. She is a disgrace.
You guys won. But what did you win? A candidate that gives a neocon-lite talk to AIPAC the day after the nomination. A candidate that turns his back on his pledge for public campaign financing so he can spend a half billion dollars in two months broadcasting everywhere? A candidate that faced with a FISA compromise vote will turn his back on his pledge to vote no on a bill with immunity for telecoms. This is the change you've been waiting for? You got had. Don't be mad at me. Blame your candidate.
Is he better than McCain and how much? I have no effing idea because I don't know who he is and neither do you. He says one thing to move on in the primary and another thing once he's got the general election sewn up. And you said Hillary's gas tax proposal was a pander?
So the moral of the story is I am still plenty pissed at the democratic party and Obama but I have no choice but to support him as the candidate because he's NOT MCCAIN. But what I won't do anymore is allow the asshole Obama supporters to continue to attack Hillary as ungenuine or divisive or do anything to win or dismiss her because Obama is even worse. Hillary was who she was. Obama is what you want him to be at that particular moment until your support means less than the moderates and then he'll shove you under the bus and pander for whatever gets him more votes. The audacity of hope in action. Congratulations!
June 24, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly. I thought your opinions were foolhardy, and I said as much. How is that lecturing?
I don't know about "dismissive" (right? or "divisive"?), but there's plenty of reason to be negative towards Hillary. She's provided all of that herself, and they have nothing at all to do with her gender. I won't recount it here, because we've been going through it for the last six months. You know damned well what she's done.
Look, if someone on the team I support is acting like a jerk, I may still support my team - but I'm not blind to the fact that that guy or gal is a jerk! (See, Belle, Albert.)
What blog are you reading? Seriously, I see no one bringing up Hillary's name but you, and perhaps a few other Hillary holdouts. Maybe I'm not combing this site looking for the latest in Hillary slights, but I certainly read my share of posts. Point me in the right direction; I'm more than willing to concede the point.
Let me break the news: he's the nominee. You thought we'd all unite around her?
And as for branding us as "obnoxious assholes" - glass houses. Slow your roll, and start naming people. Surely you know their aliases, seeing as they piss you off this much.
Thanks for not pigeonholing me that time. I would love to join a group that is committed to adhering to Democratic values and speaking truth to power. But your idea sucks. I'm sorry, it does. You really think something like that would be anything but destructive at this stage of the game?
Wow, you were serious.
Maybe Pelosi's a lot less interested in being a victim than you are. Hey, I say the same thing about Sharpton, et. al. and racism as far as I'm concerned. Self-victimization and brooding over perceived slights gets us nowhere. I believe in accountability, and so does Pelosi - she didn't have to say anything. But what Pelosi drove home is that, yes - sexism is out there. She experiences it, too. But you never hear her or any of her supporters holler (in the fashion you're doing) that their candidate was gravely disadvantaged by it! That's my problem with your position.
To compare the positions of acknowledged Obama supporters defending him during the primary to a powerful figure like Pelosi that didn't endorse acknowledging the sexism Hillary supporters (and some of the rest of us) complain about...that's beyond simplistic. They're not even the same situation, politically speaking. And that's the sphere they're operating within. Don't expect anyone within that arena to say anything revolutionary.
FISA's a different issue. I agree with you somewhat, though I'm not as alarmist as most are here on TPM because I realize that this ain't over.
Whatever. With all the shit you spewed at him during the primary and today, you're one to talk about "neocon-lite".
Like that's a bad thing?
If you don't agree with his reasons for foregoing the financing, fine. But we saw what happened to Kerry when he did the same thing, thinking everything would be cool. I'm glad Obama's not that naive.
Sheesh. The man said he's going to work to get the immunity out of the bill! There's a reason two guys who've endorsed him, including one of his biggest supporters in the Senate, are planning to filibuster this thing. You think that's happening without Obama's input?
Do you just read whatever parts of the news that will get you into a (self-)righteous anger, and ignore the rest? I've heard of another group of folks that loves to do that.
Wow. That's not self-righteous at all! "You didn't vote for the candidate I liked, so you're fools"? I'm a responsible voter, and I've thoroughly researched the platforms of every single candidate in this race, from Obama to Clinton to McCain to Giuliani to Huckabee to Paul to Kucinich. I did so so that I might make an informed decision, and I chose Obama. If that makes me a fool in your eyes, I guess I'll have to live with that.
Don't be mad at me. Blame your candidate.
June 24, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM - preview feature. Please.
June 24, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Pelosi the worst person in the world...
Yeah, she really makes Mugabe and his goons look good, doesn't she? And watching her on tv a little while ago made me think of applying for a visa for Somalia.
June 24, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you missed the sarcasm...
June 24, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarcasm? What sarcasm?
June 24, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I trust you don't really think Pelosi's the worst person in the world. If you do, then I missed it.
June 24, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I obviously did because I'm not even sure whose you're referring to. Dijamo's or yours? (I was responding to her post, not your comment.)
I'm just so sick of all this bleating about sexism. I didn't hear any complaint about it when the women jumped up and down complaining that Obama and Edwards were beating up on a woman. How sexist was *that*?
And I'd be a whole lot more upset about sexism if it had been a woman who'd worked her own way up from the bottom ranks rather than having been given so many damned legs up because of who she'd been married to. Crucially, had that been the case, she may well have had a damned more insight into how to run her own campaign so that she would have been able to win based on her own merits rather than concluding that she had to resort to `kitchen sink`.
I'd have been really, deeply upset about it had it been applied to a woman of real integrity who hadn't run the most disgraceful campaign I could imagine giving the Republicans so much damned ammunition to use against the nominee of her own party: (something which her opponent didn't do). Not only that, but by extending the campaign well beyond the point of statistical improbability most of all she gave them fantastic insights into what did and didn't work so that they wouldn't have to go through a period of trial and error which would have put them further behind the eight ball.
And for good measure, the fundamental reason I'd like to see a woman Democratic president is that one has the maybe idealised, romantic sense that just maybe she'd be governed by some really progressive attitudes to small things like war and peace, the power of diplomacy, rather than her standard operating manual of triangulation.
June 24, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I see. You get to choose which women are full of integrity and you like and defend those women from sexist attacks. Well guess what - the republicans don't like Michelle Obama and they don't thing she has integrity. So I am assuming you will not have any criticism of them when they lay into her with sexist attacks.
Whne did the democratic party get taken over by these apologists - oh sexist attacks are okay against Hillary because I don't like her or lets just ignore them or even worse participate in them. If someone calls Condoleeza Rice a mammy or a bitch, I speak up because it's wrong whether you despise the person or not. Don't let anybody call Michelle Obama a bitch, but if it's Hillary it's just fine.
You people lack principles and it is pathetic that you consider yourselves democrats. And then you wonder why Hillary supporters are still pissed. Because you don't respect Hillary and you certainly don't respect her supporters.
June 24, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh I see. You get to choose which women are full of integrity and you like and defend those women from sexist attacks..."
No, not at all. I guess the truth is that I didn't much like Clinton or have much respect for her before her campaign really resorted to the kitchen sink (though I didn't have the level of loathing & contempt I have since then) and the moment everyone came out bleating about Obama and Edwards `beating up on her` I thought (and still think) that was utterly pathetic and because of it, the issue of sexism no longer counted for me.
"Well guess what - the republicans don't like Michelle Obama and they don't thing she has integrity. So I am assuming you will not have any criticism of them when they lay into her with sexist attacks."
Sure I will - until and unless she/the campaign started to use false sexist arguments themselves. Then again I would lose interest in it as an issue.
"Whne did the democratic party get taken over by these apologists - oh sexist attacks are okay against Hillary because I don't like her or lets just ignore them or even worse participate in them. If someone calls Condoleeza Rice a mammy or a bitch, I speak up because it's wrong whether you despise the person or not. Don't let anybody call Michelle Obama a bitch, but if it's Hillary it's just fine."
Again, I can only speak for me, but it was the Clinton camp that started bleating utterly pathetically about sexism in a way that was so damned hypocritical and that is why I couldn't care less about any genuine sexism that they did come up against. And I believe their own conduct was so much worse in so many other ways that I don't for one moment apologise for not caring about any instances of unfairness they themselves came up against.
"You people lack principles and it is pathetic that you consider yourselves democrats. And then you wonder why Hillary supporters are still pissed. Because you don't respect Hillary and you certainly don't respect her supporters."
Well what I don't respect is people not understanding that it's something that's earned.
Just as contempt is.
June 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I'm of Somali descent and my peoples don't want you there. VISA DENIED.
June 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made a comment like this before regarding one of your HRC-sexist blogs.
Hillary Rodham Clinton definitely was treated in a sexist manner.
Had she NOT been a female, she would never have been considered a qualified candidate for US Senator, let alone President of the United States.
He sole qualification was her marriage to Bill Clinton, period. She was a celebrity thereby.
Had she not done so--married Bill-- and embarked on a career herself, she certainly may have achieved, in her own right, as much as Bill did. But she choose to sublimate her own career to his; she choose to pour her considerable abilities into helping her husband reach the pinnacle of political success.
But that's all she did. She was a high-powered, superbly educated, brilliant, super-housefrau, riding on her husband's coattails, while whispering guidance in his ear.
Maybe women of her era had no other choice, but she was given every benefit of the doubt by the voters of NY, and by millions of voters in the primary. Benefits that no male in the world would ever have enjoyed. And she lost.
She tried to usher in the Eva Peron era in American politics and almost pulled it off. But just as her candidacy marked the first serious female run for the Presidency, so too will it mark the last female candidate who has to anchor her campaign to the starlight radiating from her man.
The next woman--barring Michelle Obama running in 8 years--will be a free floating, independent entity in and of herself.
June 24, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well since we're recycling:
Yes, Hillary had the advantage of being Bill Clitnon's wife when she ran for Senate and President. She had a hand in the formation of policy in her husband's White House (as he had told voters would happen) and performed substantive policy work outside of the traditional first lady duties. If Laura Bush or Barbara Bush ran for president no one would take them seriously because on their own they have no qualficiations in the politics or policy realm.
I wouldn't call that sexism - I'd call her advantage neoptism or family connections. FYI - this has been going on for ages. My particular favorite example is Teddy Kennedy. And if you want to talk about nepotism, let's look at Ted Kennedy: In 1960, John Kennedy was elected President of the United States and vacated his Massachusetts Senate seat. Ted would not be eligible to fill his brother's vacant Senate seat until February 22, 1962, when he would turn thirty. Therefore the President-elect asked Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo to name a Kennedy family friend Benjamin A. Smith II to fill out John's term (under the authority of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, and state law). This kept the seat open for Ted. In 1962, Kennedy was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in a special election. He was elected to a full six-year term in 1964 and was reelected in 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006.
When Teddy was "elected" to the Senate, he came straight out of law school with no qualifications other than being JFK's little brother. I am sure that you are outraged by this and this causes you to consider Teddy completely unworthy and unqualified to be a senator or a Presidential candidate.
If I had to compare Hillary to anyone, it would probably be Bill Bradley who was also a brilliant man famous for playing basketball. Elected to Senate because of high name recognition, but he had true intellectual heft and policy wonkishness. While his fame may have been a factor, he was no less deserving in his own right of the Senate seat.
Same with Hillary - she may be well known, but she's qualified in her own right and to dismiss her as having this opportnity jest because she's a woman or just beccause she's Bill Clinton's wife is insulting. In fact being Bill's wife probably made things harder for her in the long haul anyway.
Posted by dijamo
June 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
dj,
Fair enough, let's call it nepotism.
One of the reasons I could not support an HRC candidacy was the thought of 28 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton rule.
I think that would have made a mockery of our "democratic" system of government.
We may as well be ruled by kings, sheiks, amirs, princes and so on.
Along with the Kennedy's and Bushes, Gore is part of the nepotism club. You think he would have been a Senator if not for his father being one?
The Eva Peron comment was mainly said in jest, but there's some truth in it too.
Bill Bradley ( and Arnold S. and maybe Reagan) certainly had their celebrity to thank for much of their political success, but they achieved their own, HRC stardom came from the light emanating from Bill.
Finally, although I may disagree with him on most (domestic) issues, I think Obama, for many disparate reasons, was born to be Prez at this point in the history of America.
[You'll like this, dj: Nietzsche described the first few bars of Beethoven's 5th Symphony as, "Destiny knocking on the door." That's what Barack's candidacy is in my soulful, blue-green eyes.]
FB
June 24, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. Fuck it, I am going to run in four or eight years after Obama wins, as an Independent, not because I'm married to or close to or happen to know anyone in politics, but because I'm a woman and I know what it's like to love children and mothers and I didn't vote to authorize the war in Iraq, nor did I vote for Kyl-Lieberman.
Do I have your vote, dijamo?
June 24, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell no - you are a recovering republican. Do you have a plan on universal healthcare? Do you have a plan for foreclosure crisis. Have you sepnt your life workign as a lawyer advocate for women and children? Have you been integrally involved in reforming a statewide educational system? Have you been a force in the Senate for the peopel from NYS to make sure we get our fair share of tax dollars back and fight for homeland security funding? Have you been a part of pushing for the FMLA rights? Have you worked on behalf of veterans. If you ahven't then please be quiet. Hillary even with her flaws has made a million times more difference in this world than you and Obama has accomplished far less than she has on her own merits.
And FYI - Obama now supports Kyl Lieberman amendment even though he punked out and didn't show up for the vote. And now turning his back on his FISA pledge to not vote for telecom immunity. Do you really believe he qould have had the guts in the Senate to vote against the authorization for military force in Iraq? He doesn't even have the balls right now to keep his word on telecom immunity. All talk - no action.
June 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Number one, you seem angry because your normally well-written (and spell-checked) posting abilities bit the dust with this one.
Number two, you are narrowing this whole thing down to 1) NYC and 2) women and families.
Number three, you are (in your own words) trying to claim that Obama has as much inexperience in government as I have.
What, dijamo, you're suddenly drinking while posting? Shame on yuz. Go to sleep, sweetie. Stop hitting the sauce.
June 24, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmnn, Hillary's health care plan was not universal. Universal healthcare implies tax payer funded, single payer health care. Hillary knows that, but she insisted on using the word "universal" to imply her plan contained something it didn't.
Forcing people to buy insurance is not "universal health care." Just like forcing people to buy car insurance, under threat of heavy fines and loss of license, is not universal accident protection.
June 25, 2008 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and worst of all you fell for Obama. That shows a serious lack of judgement right there. You my friend are unelectable as President.
June 24, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so are you, my friend.
Neener, neener, neener.
June 24, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing: Nancy Pelosi may not always be as effectual as we Dems would like her to be, but she got all the way up to the post she sits in, which is two people away from President.
AND, she's a woman and apparently had no problem with any glass ceiling, AND she wasn't married to a former President.
June 24, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah she had no political connections except her dad as congressman & mayor. TOTALLY got there on her own.
June 24, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, how did being the daughter of Baltimore's mayor help her win a special election to get her House seat? And being the daughter of a mayor is a heck of a lot different than being the First Lady for eight years, no?
June 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a stupid argument. Both Clinton and Pelosi benefited by their political connections. Who cares who benefited more?
June 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton made hers with her husband. Pelosi inherited hers.
June 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares?
Because Pelosi doesn't represent a dynasty and a concentration of power.
Clinton does.
June 25, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. As a daughter of a politician, Pelosi is far closer to the term Dynasty, than Clinton. Neither truly are.
You are Humpty Dumpty.
June 25, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again, bee.
Concentration of power at the White House executive level and talk of co-presidency (TWICE!) is dynasty politics.
Keep living with the fantasies about how YOU are part of the worker's movement via your father. Sloganeer away, angry bee.
June 27, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
After praying on this, I remembered Galatians 5:
I meant no disrespect, sister. We disagree, but as I said, I'd hope we can do so in the future without vitriol.
June 24, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I'd never read, or jumped into, this post. I'm tired of the vitriol and I liked it better when we were all starting to get along.
I liked it better when I didn't know what a fooking PUMA is.
I'm going back to my DVD of The Clash and my iPod and I'm taking a break from this place.
I mean, if the Left can't get a grip with it's own fist, how in the hell can it fight the vice grip holding the Right's down?
You know?
June 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. As much as I enjoy debate, I wish I'd made better use of my time, and that we all could get past this.
June 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't know what PUMA is (other than a mountain lion). I refuse to look it up on principle. Second on the vitriol. Can't we fight nicely?
June 24, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently not. I take some of the blame here - as you see above, I let myself get sucked into the quicksand...
June 24, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go one step further. I name you provocateur. I agree with dijamo that your original post was a dismissive lecture, which is not to say that she didn't escalate the vitriol. To avoid provocation, try to avoid telling people to have their head examined, calling their ideas foolhardy, implying that that their posts are ludicrous, etc.
If a post doesn't justify a serious response, then a) ignore it, or b) ridicule it. Engaging seriously with condescension is the thing that provokes these fights. Generally though, while I often disagree with dijamo, I think her non-vitriolic posts merit a respectful response.
June 24, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you - that's what I meant by the quicksand metaphor. Sometimes my lesser natures get the best of me. That's why I prayed on it, and shared the verse I did, hoping to calm some of the tensions I'd raised. I appreciate your perspective - you offer good advice.
June 25, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that my advice is worth shit, but a the ability to question oneself is priceless, and I respect you for it. Sorry that I misunderstood what you meant about the quicksand.
June 25, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed from here, too. I have actually enjoyed a lot of dijamo's posts lately. I recommended and even commented on so