Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
x

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report
Email this item Print this item

Chauvinists Fly Under the Radar

Posted on Jan 10, 2008

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—The national media have reveled in self-congratulation over Barack Obama’s historic ascent to become the first African-American to have the nomination of a major party within his grasp. Racism, we have been told, is now a supposed irrelevancy in American politics, a vestige of those past battles that Obama pledges earnestly not to fight. 

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
    So as soon as Hillary Clinton defied the polls and won an upset victory in New Hampshire Tuesday night, the pundit chorus immediately cried ... what? Racism!

    The pre-election polls were wrong, many declared, because white voters must have lied to pollsters about supporting Obama and then went into the booth to vote for a white candidate. Yet there is scant evidence of this: When pre-election polls were averaged, Obama was predicted to get 38 percent of the New Hampshire vote; he got 37, a statistically insignificant difference. Obama beat Clinton soundly among white men. Clinton beat Obama among white women and—significantly—among nonwhite women, whose vote she carried by 12 points.

    We have tried mightily as a country to banish race as the -ism none dare to publicly speak. But the national media during this campaign have ignored, if not heartily encouraged, an ugly -ism no one is squeamish about.

    To recount the sexist double (and triple and quadruple) standards and misogynist insults to which Clinton has been subjected would take double (or triple or quadruple) the usual column space. Consider this an abbreviated account: Television commentator Chris Matthews suggested last month that prominent male politicians who endorsed Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.” His MSNBC colleague Tucker Carlson declared that there’s something about Clinton that “feels castrating, overbearing and scary.” Why, Carlson said, “when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide, Desktop

Advertisement

Square, Site wide, Mobile
    Think, for a moment, of what might happen if a well-known media personality were to say of Obama: “Every time he comes on television, I involuntarily reach for my white hood.” Would even Don Imus survive?

    A wholesale rewrite by both the media and Clinton’s opponents transformed her tenure as first lady into a useless credential, and made winning two Senate terms in New York—a state not known for softball politics—the moral equivalent of achieving nothing on her own. Yet back when she actually was first lady, the media depicted Clinton as the most powerful presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt. Clinton’s groundbreaking foreign travels, her discussions with foreign leaders, her rebuke to Chinese dictators, and her failed attempt at overhauling the health insurance system were chronicled as evidence of her unprecedented reach. The right wing spewed vitriol; the left took approving notice.

    Yet once she ran for president, Clinton was portrayed as an observer to her husband’s administration—why, The New York Times pointed out, she hadn’t even attended National Security Council meetings. Can you imagine the ruckus if she had? 

    Such a revelation would likely have caused a bigger stir than did the videotape of an impeccable woman attending a November campaign event for John McCain leaning forward determinedly to ask, “How do we beat the b——?” An excellent question, McCain replied. The exchange never drew the abundance of national analysis given to Hillary’s cleavage, her alleged “cackle” or those wrinkles that were so pronounced in a photograph that zoomed around the Internet.

    Twenty-four years have passed since Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, the first—and only—woman to have a spot on a major party’s ticket. Ferraro was subjected to George H.W. Bush’s post-debate taunt that he’d kicked a “little ass,” while first lady Barbara Bush assessed Ferraro as someone who “rhymes with rich.” A supposedly enlightened generation later, Clinton has had it far worse.

    The senator’s emotional moment in a diner, when her voice caught as she answered a sympathetic question, was immediately dissected as a possible Clintonian calculation. No doubt New Hampshire women thought differently, and brought their—how to say it?—difference of opinion into the voting booth.

    Obama’s candidacy may yet deliver us to the promised land of post-racial politics. Right now the idea is either irrational exuberance or a fascinating theory, still to be tested. Neither racism nor sexism has disappeared from American life, and we’d best admit it.

    But standards of public discourse should not differ depending on the candidate. If you—or the media—wouldn’t hurl racist insults at Obama, it’s time to call out those who have made Clinton’s candidacy a celebration of their own sexism.   

    Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.   

    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile


Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:


Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Maani, January 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

All:

The link is to an NYT Op-Ed by Bob Herbert (who, for those who don’t know, is black), and speaks to the REAL difference between endemic racism and endemic sexism.

Peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Report this

By John Borowski, January 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Years ago when a woman called me a chauvinist I was so shocked that I ran to the dictionary to find out what she called me.

Report this

By John Borowski, January 15, 2008 at 7:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When Hillary Clinton becomes president she will be judged by the American people by how well she kicks the asses of the Republicans (Aka Conservatives right-wingers) while at the same time make them believe she is kissing it.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 13, 2008 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BUT, it is obvious you know nothing about the petro/chem business. 

“Big oil” buys, just like you, and those who sell (usually local governments) are pricing their product in eollars, but using a “euro count” which means since Bushie let the dollar lose 1/2 its value since he took office, the cost for raw product (to “big oil” is twice what it was then, IN REAL DOLLARS

It might interest you to know that ExxonMobil (and I only assume other companies) make a profit of 7.5 cents on that $4 a gallon gas you have out there… It’s a volume business, and one of the few bringing the profits home to the USA.

Don’t worry, I know this is a waste of time… People love to find a “villian” and burn it at the stake… But unfortunately (no matter if you drive or not) the villian is that face WE all see in the mirror!

Report this

By cyrena, January 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

Gomerspile, I would quibble only a bit, (and not to any significant degree) about the liberal label, as well as the conservative label, only because I’m convinced that neither has the same meaning in today’s political discourse, as it did back in the days of yours or my own origins.

Now, if you think the liberal view is one of my way or you’re dead wrong, that clearly doesn’t fit with my own view. On the other hand, ‘compromise’ in the general meaning of the term, OR..at least in respect to CONFLICT RESOLUTION, rarely works.

We like to think that it does, and we even try it, in various scenarios, generally using established sorts of ‘compromise’ type programs. In the end, it generally doesn’t work, because it will ultimately still favor one side over the other.

That’s where ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION mechanisms can sometimes be helpful, but it generally requires moving it out of the standard and established means that we’re accustomed to, (such as a court of law) to some other forum. And, it takes a while. It takes a while because it means sorting through a bunch of BS, to get to what the REAL issues are. Like, what do the conflicting parties REALLY want? You’d be amazed at the process of trying to actually find that out. At least I am, every time I become involved in any sort of mediation.

Still, it’s never ‘my way or the wrong way’ but rather the opposite. It’s more like ‘what works for the whole’. And amazingly, when individuals AND groups of them, can actually sort through to what it really is that they want, (or at least the substance of it) the ‘ideal’ resolution is that everybody CAN actually have it their way. Most folks don’t stop long enough to think through what they actually want, because they’re too busy banging down the other guy/girl.

But, I said all of that to say that conservatives, and liberals (if there even IS such a thing anymore, since those concepts have clearly broken down) CAN in fact manage quite well, without even calling it a ‘compromise’. Believe it or not, EVERYBODY can eat cake, once they’ve realized that it’s possible, and aren’t focused on making sure that the ‘other’ doesn’t get ANY.

Unfortunately, that’s pretty much where we’re at now, and it’s getting worse.

Report this

By cyrena, January 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

I’ve only proved that you’re ignorant and very, very tacky lib…as in no class. So, it’s foolish to thank me for that.

And, LESS is never better when it comes to intelligence, because we live in a society that depends on it’s populace to excercise whatever degree of it they can be expected to. You fail us miserably.

BUT, I did mean to ask you about your research on Barack Obama’s father, and all of his wives. Nobody else seems to know about, or be aware of them. And, it’s hard to get any real accurate information, since the guy’s been DEAD for so long.

So, how did YOU find out? Special research?

Report this

By cyrena, January 13, 2008 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Thanks reason. I suspect you’ve ‘read me correctly’, which allows you to interpret the rest just as well.

Meantime, I responded to another comment that you made over on the thread that has decided that “Oh well, maybe Iran didn’t do it after all’. (my paraphrase of the latest piece explaining the hype of the alleged ‘provocation’ of the Iranian speed boats.

It doesn’t answer your question - directly - about the definition of ‘winning’ the Iraq war(or any other agressive actions in the ME) but you’ll be able to make the connections easily enough.

In short, it just continues to make clear what the ‘war’ is for, and about. Once we know that, (and it’s been clear to me since before it began) the definition of ‘winning’ becomes obvious.

In that case, ‘winning’ means being there for as long as there is oil to be stolen for the BIG Oil Industry.

Now Hillary say’s it’s to ‘protect American interests’. But in reality, that’s not the case, at least not if we’re talking about average Americans like us posting on this site, or pretty much the other 300 million of us. Because, at the end of the day, the price at the pump is still what it is, and we either pay it to the oil companies, or we don’t.

So, that’s what ‘winning’ is. It’s getting every drop of the oil from under the sands of Iraq, (at least for starters) and our troops (not to mention the millions of Iraqis) will continue to die in the process, unless someone can control the gangsters, and agree to start PAYING for the OIL, instead of stealing it.

Now THAT would make far more sense in my opinion, but of course I’m not running anything. wink

Still, imagine..for those of us who still buy gas at the pumps, (now up to $4+ a gallon in my area, which is why I’ve long ago switched to alternative transportation) it would actually be so much cheaper, if we were willing to BUY the stuff from the Iraqis, and they could use the money, to put their country back together. (or at least try).

But, I don’t see that happening, as long as the thugs are still in control.

Report this

By straight_talk_11, January 13, 2008 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

That Hillary is another establishment, power elite pawn has nothing to do with sexism. Her very dirty game doesn’t either, nor the help whoever it is gave her with the fake pollsters calling Iowa voters with questions containing nasty implications about Obama.

And by the way, she probably didn’t win in New Hampshire any more than Bush did in either election. See this (never mind the title; this is a generic problem):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecdkCVD7mM&feature=related

Report this

By Maani, January 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Reason:

Re Cyrena, you say, “...many think personal insults and condescension are acceptable retorts to others that do not agree with them. I am glad to see that you are above that.”  Are we reading the same cyrena?  Here is a recent comment, just four posts below this - and it is by no means the only one of its kind:

“But, I see you’re proud to be from Texas, and that explains it all. My sympathies go out to you. It’s one ignorant hell hole of a place. You’re proof that it hasn’t changed. So, while I’m certainly not ‘radical’ (say like ron paul) YOU are certainly ignorant, and just downright, well…the others can figure it out.”

You call this type of sarcasm and mean-spirited denigration “being above” the behavior you chastise?

You might want to do a little more research on cyrena’s posts; she is among the MOST sarcastic, personally insulting posters on the site.

Peace.

Report this

By lib in texas, January 13, 2008 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, Thanks for proving my point, sometimes less is better !!

Report this

By reason, January 13, 2008 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

I like your style Cyrena. I do not post my views on here as often as some but I do read many of the comments. It would be nice if more of the commentors were seeking friendly debate but it seems that many think personal insults and condescension are acceptable retorts to others that do not agree with them. I am glad to see that you are above that. Truthdig (for me) is a forum for views and ideas that can refine and expand my views and help me understand others. I sense from what you have written that you feel the same. It is nice to see you can stand your ground with some of the “dimwits”.

Report this

By cyrena, January 12, 2008 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

By lib in texas, January 12 at 4:16 pm #

Re: Re: Obama ,my ass
•  cyrena, I don’t believe I have seen anyone so infatuated as you seem to be with Obama.  Maybe you can apply to be one of his wives.  His father had 3, I guess 4 if you count his mother.  Since when do you have the monopoly on the truth.  I’ve seen several things you have written that you were misinformed about, but I am not going to get into a big long dissertation with you about it.  Not worth it since you are so radical.

Well lib,
I guess you haven’t been around much, or reading long. And, you’ve obviously not read my own posts much either, since I’ve been a staunch supporter of Kucinich for this election, since the beginning. I also like Edwards, but Kucinich and Gravel were my preferred candidates from the beginning, and I still like them a lot. It doesn’t look like things are working out for Kucinich though, so I certainly hope that Obama can win the nomination.

Meantime, yours is a really tacky shot on the whole thing with Obama and his father and all of the rest. Really pathetic. But, I see you’re proud to be from Texas, and that explains it all. My sympathies go out to you. It’s one ignorant hell hole of a place. You’re proof that it hasn’t changed.

So, while I’m certainly not ‘radical’ (say like ron paul) YOU are certainly ignorant, and just downright, well…the others can figure it out.

Report this

By lib in texas, January 12, 2008 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

cyrena,  I don’t believe I have seen anyone so infatuated as you seem to be with Obama.  Maybe you can apply to be one of his wives.  His father had 3, I guess 4 if you count his mother.  Since when do you have the monopoly on the truth.  I’ve seen several things you have written that you were misinformed about, but I am not going to get into a big long dissertation with you about it.  Not worth it since you are so radical.

Report this

By cyrena, January 12, 2008 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

Gomerspile,

You sure do give this guy a whole lot of credit for stuff, all things considered. One minute, he’s an ‘obscure politician from nowhere’ and now you’ve got him responsible for everything that’s happened in Cook County for the last 30 years.

You’ve also got him teaching at the U of I, and unless I’m really off base myself, I specifically remember that it was DePaul University, and I KNOW that his field has always been civil rights, (and for you that make limited associations with words and phrases, civil rights that apply to ALL people) with an emphasis on Int’l Law as well.

I should add that I also lived in Chicago for a while, and although I don’t live there any longer, I can testify to the improvements that have happened since Obama entered the scene, which hasn’t been quite as long ago, as you would like to give him credit for.

So, why not just say that YOU don’t like the guy, for WHATEVER the reasons YOU might have…maybe you’re a racist, and don’t like ANY people of color, or maybe you’re just a bitter old fart who can’t stand anybody, including yourself. So, just say you don’t like him, instead of making shit up and passing it off as fact instead of your sour grapes opinion. I’m pretty sure that we’ve been through this before, and you pretty much don’t like ANYBODY.

So, go take it out on your dog, or better yet, beat your own self in the head. Or, go take a bribe.

Report this

By vic, January 12, 2008 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

“Vic you need to live in Illinois to see what Obams has not done”

I actually lived in Chicago…but not sure what you mean by “see what he has not done” - There is a lot to be fixed in every part of the country…how does that diminish what Obama HAS done?

Report this

By vic, January 12, 2008 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

Found this in Washington Post on Obama’s record:
Judge Him by His Laws

By Charles Peters
Friday, January 4, 2008;

People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements.

Since most of Obama’s legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there—and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously.

I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the “heart and soul” bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person’s character and ability.

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced—by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that “Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”

The police proved to be Obama’s toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, “This means we won’t be able to protect your children.” The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought—successfully—to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn’t stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois “one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure”). Obama’s commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who “bundle” contributions for them.

Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a “unique” ability “to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people.”

Report this

By lib in texas, January 12, 2008 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

cyrena, I hope you aren’t insinuating Obama is a suffering black man?  Obama led a privileged life thanks to his white grandparents.  His work in the trenches,so to speak, after he got his BA was only a few years, then he went to Harvard. He is the product of a white mother and Kenyan father who was never a US citizen. I laughed when I heard him talk about walking the picket line in heat and cold.  Wow !  Bill and Hillary Clinton have done more for black people than the priviledged Obama.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Somewhat.

I never give money to ANY charity…I just don’t trust that much.  I hear and read about the salaries and bonuses given to the head of United Way, and Red Cross, and I see pictures of these folks flying first class on the Concord when it flew, and I feel my money would be better going direct. 

I don’t want to sound “liberal” but I have taken in a “vet” he was not unknown to me, and I didn’t take him in because he was a “vet” but because he was (before he joined the military) a friend.  He stayed two years, got cleaned up (off drugs and booze) got himself a job and a new girlfriend, and then moved to Utah where the girl came from.

Washington County Maine is a strange place.  In the summer it is a county of over 100,000 people, and is upper middle class. In the winter it shrinks to 33,000 and the average yearly income for winter residents is $16,000.  Due to this situation, I have not a lot of time for discussions about the poor elsewhere in the world. 

Once I said I would feed anyone who arrived hungry at my home. Today that is no longer possible. 

Where I agree with you is the absolute stupidity of a discussion over the trials and tribulations of a very rich White woman, and a equally wealthy black man, or the meaning of “change” or the rabid fanaticism of the candidate’s “groupies” who tell us that this one will “lead” better than that one, when in reality the script is not written in Washington, but in Shaker Heights, Marin County, and Westchester. 

We are not picking a king or queen (although all these candidates from both parties seem to act as if we were) we are in fact hiring an employee… a series of employees actually, and they are here to SERVE, not necessarily lead.

If we want our country back, we have to STOP listening to this nonsense and instead tell these folks what their DUTIES will be when (and if) they attain our approval.

Report this

By Maani, January 12, 2008 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Re Obama and Hillary and torture, let’s look at their respective statements.

Obama: “We have a legal definition of torture—it is the Federal Anti-Torture Statute. The techniques outlined in the New York Times article are inhumane and unlawful. This is the finding of the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. When I am President, we will reject torture without exception or equivocation. It is illegal, immoral, and it does not protect America.”

Clinton: In October 2006, Hillary came out against torture, with a single exception: “if the suspect has knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans.”  However, she withdrew from this position shortly thereafter, and in her October 2007 remarks on the torture bill, stated:

“The rule of law cannot be compromised. We must stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under stress and under threat. We must show that we uphold our most profound values.  The bill before us allows the admission into evidence of statements derived through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. That sets a dangerous precedent that will endanger our own men and women in uniform overseas. Will our enemies be less likely to surrender? Will informants be less likely to come forward? Will our soldiers be more likely to face torture if captured? Will the information we obtain be less reliable? These are the questions we should be asking. And based on what we know about warfare from listening to those who have fought for our country, the answers do not support this bill. As Lieutenant John F. Kimmons, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence said, “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive interrogation practices.” This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive Orders to redefine what permissible interrogation techniques happen to be. Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach? By allowing this Administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might.”

Thus, at this point they are both against torture, and both have come out specifically against waterboarding.

It is interesting to note that NEITHER of them includes their positions on torture in their respective Wikipedia position sites. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama and ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton]

A couple of other observations re the Wikipedia sites: Clinton’s says she is in favor of “benefit of the doubt” re executive authority, while Obama does not mention the issue on his site at all.  As well, something I did not catch re his Senate votes is this: “He has advocated closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but has not supported two specific bills that would have done so.”

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 12, 2008 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Thank you for your more measured comments.  I will attempt to do the same, and hopefully neither of us will further engage in the emotion-laden intensity of our past exchanges.

Rather than go into detail about your most recent comments, I will only say that you have actually ended making my case for me - or at least saying what it is that I have been trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to say since Day 1.

That is that, no matter how “nice” Obama’s rhetoric may be, there is the practical reality of politics; i.e., that with respect to what he can ACTUALLY DO - rather than what he promises - he will be in almost exactly the same boat as Hillary would be if he gets elected: the need to work with others to accomplish his goals.  And as you just said (and I have been saying or alluding to for some time), “The very guts of the democratic system requires ‘deal making’ more than anything else.”  Obama will have to be no less a deal-maker than Hillary if he is elected.

And it is in this regard that “experience” DOES count.  As I have noted, Hillary has been among the most bipartisan senators almost since arriving in DC; this is acknowledged by both her own party AND by the GOP.  Obama is NOT seen that way, partially because he is a comparative neophyte senator and has simply not had the time to learn, but also because he has made little effort to do so, at least compared with Hillary.  And no, it is not simply that Hillary has similar views to the GOP, and thus works better with them.  While this may be true in some instances, she leverages this to get the things SHE wants for HER party as well.  As you note, and while we BOTH may hate it, THAT is how it works.

Re “political expediency,” I am surprised to hear you dismiss it so casually, even within the context of the “reality” of politics.  Rather, I hold BOTH of them accountable for this type of behavior - not taking a stand when they should or might have.  In this regard, my argument is that Obama seems to be getting a free ride re HIS political expediency, while Hillary gets vilified for it.

Indeed, another aspect of “political expediency” is copping your opponent’s positions, either brazenly or subtly.  I do not question that Hillary has copped some of Obama’s positions.  But he has done the SAME THING on occasion, most recently re the housing crises, which he did not even address for months while Hillary was “on it” pretty early on, yet he has now taken a remarkably similar stand to Hillary’s.  Yet here again, Obama seems to get a free ride when he does this, while Hillary is, again, vilified for it.

Finally, re Hillary and torture, I will address this and a couple of other things in an additional post.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, January 12, 2008 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

Part 1

Maani,

Let’s talk about this a little more, since I didn’t have the time or energy for a full response yesterday. Not just you, but many other Obama haters, have pointed out his alleged ‘no vote’ record, which is easy enough to tally. Some have even given percentages of his votes, for when he has voted in ‘agreement’ with the majority of the others in the Senate, and you’ve used this same tactic to claim that his policies are IDENTICAL to Hillary’s. MORE than that though, you consistently go above and beyond the mere statement of these ‘statistics’ by adding your OWN assessment of it. Specifically, you love to say that this is an indication that he is ‘not principled’ or that he won’t ‘take a stand’. I quote you here, but this is standard for you…

•  “It was not just one time; it was at least four times, if not more, so he had LOTS of chance to back up his rhetoric with his votes.”

Now, let’s consider something other than the spin that YOU put on this. There could be any number of reasons why Obama, OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, may not vote at all, or may not vote in the way that we think they should, based on what we see as their stated policies, or how we perceive that they should, based on our own. You have intimated as much yourself, when you suggested that NO PRESIDENT could ‘change’ everything. (or something like that..I paraphrase).

So, for the record, I will AGREE that on many occasions, there is of course some measure of real politick in the operations of Congress. That’s just the way it is. I will also agree that many politicians DO in fact, wage their leverage with their constituency, by indulging in a certain amount of political sophistry. An excellent example of this is when Dennis Kucinich introduced a measure to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul, who CLAIMS as a candidate, that he believes the bunch should be impeached, used some parliamentary bullshit to block the measure, because in reality, he’s just as teamed up with the Repugs thugs as he’s always been, and there’s no way he would EVER go along with an effort to impeach any of them. So, he did some typical bullshit stuff that I won’t even bother to repeat here. And, it fooled a lot of people, or at least those that want to support him, no matter what.

So yes, that sort of thing does goes on, because it’s part of the game of politics, and I admit that I hate it, and that it’s always been that way, so I’ve managed to see it in the grand scheme of things, and measure it case by case.

There are OTHER reasons however, why any member of Congress, (including candidates seeking higher office) may not register a vote on an issue. Oftentimes, they already know, IN ADVANCE (because if they’re on top of things, they SHOULD) what the vote on any particular issue is going to shake down to. If for instance, either Hillary or Barack already knew that their vote for or against Mukasey’s confirmation for AG was NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, it was probably politically expedient to not bother casting a vote at all.

Now, I don’t know, (myself, personally) why neither of them did, and I also don’t know what the ‘issues’ were, on the 4 or more times you claim that Obama did not vote. However, on the Mukasey confirmation, we see that their votes would NOT have made a difference, because the Senate does NOT have what I would consider a real majority of Democrats, (I ‘THINK’ the split is 51/49 – so not a majority by any means). Just as your other Senator supported that confirmation, so did MY other senator – Barbara Feinstein, and so it’s time for her to go as well. (It’s also long past time to put Pelosi out to pasture and that’s the KINDEST way I can say that.)  However, they were not the only dems to vote to confirm, and it would have taken 60 NO votes, to block that confirmation. Do you follow me here?
TBC

Report this

By cyrena, January 12, 2008 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Part 1
Maani,
Let’s talk about this a little more, since I didn’t have the time or energy for a full response yesterday. Not just you, but many other Obama haters, have pointed out his alleged ‘no vote’ record, which is easy enough to tally. Some have even given percentages of his votes, for when he has voted in ‘agreement’ with the majority of the others in the Senate, and you’ve used this same tactic to claim that his policies are IDENTICAL to Hillary’s. MORE than that though, you consistently go above and beyond the mere statement of these ‘statistics’ by adding your OWN assessment of it. Specifically, you love to say that this is an indication that he is ‘not principled’ or that he won’t ‘take a stand’. I quote you here, but this is standard for you…

•  “It was not just one time; it was at least four times, if not more, so he had LOTS of chance to back up his rhetoric with his votes.”

Now, let’s consider something other than the spin that YOU put on this. There could be any number of reasons why Obama, OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, may not vote at all, or may not vote in the way that we think they should, based on what we see as their stated policies, or how we perceive that they should, based on our own. You have intimated as much yourself, when you suggested that NO PRESIDENT could ‘change’ everything. (or something like that..I paraphrase).

So, for the record, I will AGREE that on many occasions, there is of course some measure of real politick in the operations of Congress. That’s just the way it is. I will also agree that many politicians DO in fact, wage their leverage with their constituency, by indulging in a certain amount of political sophistry. An excellent example of this is when Dennis Kucinich introduced a measure to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul, who CLAIMS as a candidate, that he believes the bunch should be impeached, used some parliamentary bullshit to block the measure, because in reality, he’s just as teamed up with the Repugs thugs as he’s always been, and there’s no way he would EVER go along with an effort to impeach any of them. So, he did some typical bullshit stuff that I won’t even bother to repeat here. And, it fooled a lot of people, or at least those that want to support him, no matter what.
So yes, that sort of thing does goes on, because it’s part of the game of politics, and I admit that I hate it, and that it’s always been that way, so I’ve managed to see it in the grand scheme of things, and measure it case by case.

There are OTHER reasons however, why any member of Congress, (including candidates seeking higher office) may not register a vote on an issue. Oftentimes, they already know, IN ADVANCE (because if they’re on top of things, they SHOULD) what the vote on any particular issue is going to shake down to. If for instance, either Hillary or Barack already knew that their vote for or against Mukasey’s confirmation for AG was NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, it was probably politically expedient to not bother casting a vote at all.

Now, I don’t know, (myself, personally) why neither of them did, and I also don’t know what the ‘issues’ were, on the 4 or more times you claim that Obama did not vote. However, on the Mukasey confirmation, we see that their votes would NOT have made a difference, because the Senate does NOT have what I would consider a real majority of Democrats, (I ‘THINK’ the split is 51/49 – so not a majority by any means). Just as your other Senator supported that confirmation, so did MY other senator – Barbara Feinstein, and so it’s time for her to go as well. (It’s also long past time to put Pelosi out to pasture and that’s the KINDEST way I can say that.)  However, they were not the only dems to vote to confirm, and it would have taken 60 NO votes, to block that confirmation. Do you follow me here?
TBC

Report this

By cyrena, January 12, 2008 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

Part 2
Let me add that while Obama did not vote, he DID make it clear, to a large percentage of the American population in several of his campaign speeches, (including Iowa) that torture is NEVER acceptable/allowable, in ANY FORM, at ANY TIME, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Therefore, I am satisfied with his position on that. (if only because this particular violation of domestic and international law on the part of the Dick Bush gangsters happens to be among the greatest of my complaints, if I had to rank them). IF Hillary has EVER addressed this AT ALL, I haven’t heard her.

Moving along…it’s pretty much the same way that many other issues shake down. None of these members of Congress operate in a vacuum. Yes, we expect them to appear in on their respective floors, and do their respective jobs in casting votes on issues. We also know that sometimes it does no good, and that an equally important part of their job involve coalition building, and the ability to sway other members to their side of an argument. Some do it better than others, and quite honestly, we have a jacked-up and whimpy Congress right now. If George Bush, (the ultimate moron bully) can threaten to make them ‘stay after school’ (or in this case, in session beyond their recesses) to demand that they give him legislation that he wants, and they DO it, (instead of telling him to kiss our collective asses) then that gives you a clue to what we have as leadership/representation these days. And, that’s on BOTH sides of the aisle. So, as a life-time democrat, I’m pretty pissed off with the entire bunch of them. (save a few)

Another thing to consider from a more nuanced perspective, is exactly what standards we’re putting on ANY of these candidates, respective to ‘votes backing up rhetoric’. You complain of Obama supposedly getting a ‘free ride’ but in reality, shouldn’t we look at ALL of the candidates, including those who are NOT in Congress, and don’t have to answer to their votes, and can talk all the shit they want?

Sue made the comment about Obama’s very strong stance against the war on Iraq, (long before it was launched) by claiming that compared to Hillary, (who voted FOR the attack and continued occupation) that it didn’t ‘count’ because Obama wasn’t a Senator at the time of that vote. Is she suggesting that if he had been a Senator at the time, that he MIGHT have voted in favor of the destruction of Iraq, for the purposes of stealing oil, and continuing the US imperialistic agenda?

And what about all of the others? The only repug candidate currently in Congress in Ron Paul. (tell me if I’ve missed one) Among the Dems, we have Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Kucinich, Obama. Maybe I forgot somebody here too. So, should we not consider all of that as well? Should we not hold them to an equal standard, if in fact they are in a position to be responsible for their votes? And if they are NOT currently members of Congress, should we not demand an explanation for where they DO stand on any given issue?

I ask that because more often than not, ‘we the people’ don’t ALWAYS know or understand the political logistics behind any given issue that may come up for a vote in Congress. The very guts of the democratic system requires ‘deal making’ more than anything else, even though I suspect we ALL would prefer to see a bit more of the emotional ideology and all of the ‘stands for statesmanship’ that are the stuff of movies and great leaders.

So, when I suggest looking at things from a larger perspective, I’m not just being arrogant.  I’m saying…LOOK at the whole thing, (at least to the extent that we can, based on what we know) and make your analysis from a broader view. Because, at the end of the day, you’ll be able to find SOME fault, with every single one of them.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 12, 2008 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Absolutely… The readers and writers of and to the NYT are obviously superior to the rest of us (who get news off the internet and from other sources) that what they say matters… Another precentage which figures here is this:

Only 10% of US citizens read a “non-local” paper. This means outside the City of New York, 10% of people subscribe to the NYT OR some other non-local paper. Hill-the-business-shill better not count on this minuscule number of folks to win an election for her….

Report this

By cyrena, January 12, 2008 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

Terry, you said it all, right here. And we KNOW that this is STILL the case. More black men are imprisoned for lesser crimes, (or none at all) and they are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, (even below black females, though we’re just one up the notch) and I could go on.

I should also mention that it’s been this way for decades.

I should also mention that degrees of ‘suffering’ aren’t what we should be using as a criteria for selecting the next President. However, looking at our history, (not to mention some of the current comments) I don’t know if we can expect such a thing as common sense judgment in these matters, minus all of the emotional BS and rhetoric.

In reality, if we were a more ‘advanced’ society, none of this would be part of the discussion in the 21st Century, because we would have had both a FEMALE and/or a BLACK or NATIVE American president eons ago. That we are even discussing these issues now, just goes to show how thoroughly backward we are. And, I don’t see that changing. It’s been that way for nearly 300 years.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 12, 2008 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

This whole line of thought is insane, sort of like mine is bigger than yours.

Well, if suffering is the criteria for selecting a president, seems McCane should be included in the equasion.

This is almost as bad as the Republicans arguing which kind of torture is the mostest.  Maybe they could get together and try some water boarding on the Republicans so they can catch up to Obama and Hillary suffering categories. 

I still say a little substance would go a long ways further, but what do I know?

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 12, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“We also see a lot of stereotyping—the angry jabs and temper tantrums by males are OK (boys will be boys), but the first time a woman who has just come through a lot of stress and finally is in a supportive environment tears up, she’s swift-boated as a phoney.”

Obviously you are not old enough to remember the campaign against Ed Muskie Right there in New Hampshire in front of the Union Leader building…

and as to “..swift-boated as a phoney(sic)” is it still “swift boating” if she is in fact a Phony? I have examples if you are interested.

Report this

By Claire W, January 12, 2008 at 3:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Clinton has more experience, learns from mistakes—including some made by Bill Clinton on policy issues that turned out to be bogus.  She doesn’t cling to a position once the evidence is in that it just wasn’t the best approach or choice.  And she’s proven she can weather some of the worst emotional storms.

We also see a lot of stereotyping—the angry jabs and temper tantrums by males are OK (boys will be boys), but the first time a woman who has just come through a lot of stress and finally is in a supportive environment tears up, she’s swift-boated as a phoney.

I think both candidates are fighting uphill battles, but I don’t think race is why Obama lost.  Many religions sideline women in some respects, so Clinton has misogyny working against her.  And youth and beauty are important for women in U.S. culture, so her age also works against her.

Report this

By Terry Washington, January 12, 2008 at 3:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

IF we have to debate who has suffered more-white women or blacks of either sex- then black MEN would win hands down.
It’s no coincidence that during Jim Crow in the South, black men were lynched at a far higher rate than their female counterparts!

Report this

By Maani, January 12, 2008 at 12:16 am Link to this comment

Actually, you called me arrogant at least once, and I believe twice, in this or other threads.  But that’s okay; takes one to know one…

And “stupid” is SO un-P.C. I’m intellectually challenged…

Peace.  (Maybe…)

Report this

By cyrena, January 11, 2008 at 11:31 pm Link to this comment

Wrong again Maani…like this:

•  Yes, but what makes YOU the expert on telling one from the other - with regard to EITHER Obama or Hillary?  Or is Hillary the only one who does this?

First, NOTHING make ME ‘the expert’ on this or anything else. If YOU think I am, well…what can I say? As for Hillary being the only one who does this…probably she isn’t. I’d say there are too many to count.

Then there’s this:

•  You are so blind to your OWN arrogance and your own culpability in “get[ting] yoursel[f] so entrenched in your ideological biases that you interpret FACTS in isolation of the larger and ever changing picture.

Here, you’re just full of more of your own pompous and petty shit slinging. I didn’t suggest that you were arrogant, and I didn’t even suggest (out of a matter of diplomacy) that you were stupid either. But, you are.

As for me being arrogant, that’s pretty much in the eyes of the beholder, now isn’t it? My opinion is as valid as any other opinion, specifically when it’s supported by fact. And, I happen to be a person that recognizes things for what they are. If the tree is green, that’s likely to be what I will say about it. If the tree is brown, then that’s what I’m likely to say about it. If I don’t KNOW what color the tree is, then I’m gonna say that as well.

If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. That’s the beauty of it all.

Report this

By Maani, January 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

FYI All:

The link below is to letters published in The New York Times on Fri, 1/11.  These letters speak directly to the topic of this thread, so I felt they would be germane.

Note that the policy of the NYT letters page (which I know because I have been published numerous times) is that, where multiple letters are published, it is according to the percentage received for each side of the issue.  In this case, the first two letters are “pro” Hillary, and the third is “anti” Hillary, which means ~66% of the letters received (and there may have been dozens, or even hundreds) were pro-Hillary and ~33% were anti-Hillary (the additional letters are published at the whim of the letters editor, and do not count vis-a-vis the percentage received for each side).

Needless to say, I really like the first one, while the Hillary-haters here will like the third.

Peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/opinion/l11elect.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Report this

By Maani, January 11, 2008 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

jackifus:

Thank you for your kind comments - a refreshing change from the vitriol and vituperation that usually come my way…LOL

You say: “Obama also questioned Clinton’s judgment in voting for last month’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment…Obama said the amendment included language that empowers the president to attack Iran.”

This irks me because, here again, Obama did not even vote on this: his vote was “NV,” meaning he was either absent or was present and chose not to take a stand.  This is one of the MAIN reasons I question just how “principled” he is - and even whether he has any right to attack Hillary on it, since he has done this on quite a number of critical bills re military and civil liberties.

Reason:

You say, “I do not think we need to make the division in this country greater by electing someone who feels her gender and her family name give her special privileges and consideration.”

Here is the crux of the biscuit: this statement is nothing more than a VERY cynical PRESUMPTION - one that is being made by all but a few people on this thread (and the site in general).  However, since so many people here seem to LIVE on presumption and cynicism about Hillary, I do realize that I am something of a lone voice crying in the wilderness…(LOL).

Cyrena:

Re Mukasey, I am MOST angry with my other senator, Chuck Schumer, who was the one who REALLY pushed for his confirmation.  You can be CERTAIN I will NOT vote for him next time.

You say, “[I]n regard to his ‘principled’ stand against the WAR ON IRAQ, I don’t believe that his failure to vote that one time negates everything that he has said or voted on prior to now.”

It was not just one time; it was at least four times, if not more, so he had LOTS of chance to back up his rhetoric with his votes.

“And this is…what you’re attempting to do…Let’s concentrate on finding out whatever ‘wrongs’ we can on Barack Obama, as some sort of perceived leverage for Hillary.”

Wrong.  I am simply trying to point out that Obama has been getting a “free ride” on his rhetoric, despite the fact that some of the FACTS put his rhetoric in SOME question.

You also say, “I also don’t have a problem with any person…changing their minds, as conditions change, or bona fide information becomes available…That is not necessarily the same as changing one’s mind and flip-flopping, based on political expediency.”

Yes, but what makes YOU the expert on telling one from the other - with regard to EITHER Obama or Hillary?  Or is Hillary the only one who does this? This is of a piece with your comment about “sources” - as if yours are the only ones that are accurate and supportable.  You are so blind to your OWN arrogance and your own culpability in “get[ting] yoursel[f] so entrenched in your ideological biases that you interpret FACTS in isolation of the larger and ever changing picture. And in the process, you also throw in stuff that is far removed from the facts.”

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, January 11, 2008 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

Yes Maani,

I DO agree that he should have attended the vote. He’s missed more than I would like for him to have missed lately, and I suspect that it’s because of the campaign. I’m not excusing it, because it is what it is.

I think I mentioned before, that NEITHER of them put forth a vote on the Mukasey confirmation, and I didn’t like that either. I think they should have voted against that confirmation, even if it wouldn’t have made a difference, because enough other DEMOCRATIC senators did vote to confirm him.

Since I’m not in contact with Obama, and since he doesn’t take orders or instructions from me, I can’t really control his senate activity. However, in regard to his ‘principled’ stand against the WAR ON IRAQ, I don’t believe that his failure to vote that one time, negates everything that he has said or voted on prior to now. And this is of course, what you’re attempting to do. Again, let’s concentrate on finding out whatever ‘wrongs’ we can on Barak Obama, as some sort of perceived leverage for Hillary. This is the mentality that is not just yours, but standard negative politics in general.

Like I said before, you pick things out in a cherry picking method, isolated from the general context, and then put your own spin on them. Example, “if he was so principled”…blah, blah, blah.

You did the same thing with his comment on Pakistan. You conveniently forget that it has been the Iraq war of aggression that he has always spoken out against, and that he said long ago, that it wasn’t that he “Didn’t believe in war, he didn’t believe in DUMB wars”. Now he put it far more mildly than I would of course, but here’s the bottom line.

For over 6 years, Bush has been giving billions of dollars to Musharraff to ‘combat terrorism’ in the region where al-Qaeda was known to be…that no-mans land between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And, this was AFTER the US failed to shut them down immediately after 9/11. Musharraff has of course, done anything BUT. (so, what was the money for?).

So now, after 10.7 billion of our dollars have been handed over to Musharraff, and he’s done nothing to counter the haven that we ‘presume’ al-Qaeda has set up there, (and I say that, because I don’t know WHAT al-Qaeda has going in the area) Obama says, IF WE GET ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE, and Musharraff FAILS TO ACT, then we will. I don’t have a problem with that, but you’ve decided that it makes him a hawk.

I also don’t have a problem with any person, (candidate or otherwise) changing their minds, as conditions change, or bona fide information becomes available. Someone else on this thread has said the same thing, and I’ve made the point myself before. If you haven’t changed your mind lately, how do you know you still have one?

That is not necessarily the same as changing one’s mind and flip-flopping, based on political expediency. For instance, we ALL know that Hillary had previously discounted any diplomatic conversations with the Iranians, and criticized Obama for suggesting that such conversations should take place. Now she’s willing.

This is the kind of stuff that I’m talking about. Is it so bad that she’s now seen the light? No, not at all. Still, you and people like you, get yourselves so entrenched in your ideological biases, that you interpret FACTS in isolation of the larger and ever changing picture. And in the process, you also throw in stuff that is far removed from the facts.

Now, I personally don’t agree with Obama in his belief that OBL is still MIA. I think he’s dead. But, there’s not much doubt that the area in question has provided cover for a terrorist element, and it’s important to address that.

Report this

By lib in texas, January 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

No you just don’t have a clue!

Report this

By jackifus, January 11, 2008 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t mean to promote any particular candidate at this point.  I brought up Obama to contrast with Clinton, didn’t intend to promote him - but your point is well taken “reason”.

I very much would like a candidate that emphasizes Reason and brings historical and international context to issues we face.

rgds,

Jack

Report this

By Libgress, January 11, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

I’m a woman, a baby boomer, and in no way view Hillary as a victim.
All politicians are “power-grubbing.”  It’s naive to think otherwise.
Power for power’s sake is dangerous (Dick Cheney comes to mind).
Garnering power to push an agenda is what pols do for a living - why
should Hillary be different? because she’s a woman?  You might rethink your own prejudices against woman and baby boomers.

Report this

By Libgress, January 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

Chris Matthews has recently been called out - on the air -  for his biased and inaccurate reporting by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Tom Brokaw, and
Dan Abrams.  Will Matthews in return be humbled or, better yet, dechatterized?

Report this

By Libgress, January 11, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

Noted, Maani, and thank you.  I am new to these boards, and will be more
observant in the future.  Hatred for Hillary, I suspect, has a component of liberal self-flagellation; it’s reflexive and irrational.

Report this

By reason, January 11, 2008 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

Maani & Jackifus

I was not promoting Obama’s nomination; I was voicing my suspicions of Hillary Clintons integrity as a politician (gender and race does not enter into my view). If I had to choose between one and the other, I would go with Obama because I sincerely believe he could bridge the issues that divide this country and get young people of all socio-economic levels interested.  A great many voters in the past have forgone voting because they were made to feel irrelevant. “It is time for a change”!
I sway toward Edwards for President and Obama for Vice President or vice/versa (who knows?). I love my country (democrats, republicans and, independents) and I do not think we need to make the division in this country greater by electing someone who feels her gender and her family name give her special privileges and consideration. We’ve had the Clintons for 8 years and we’ve had the Bush’s for 11; it’s now time that we have someone who knows first hand what everyday life is like for those of us who must worry about our finances and opportunities (not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren). I have one vote; with it, I chose hope over disingenuous chatter from a “talking head” whose prime interest is party politics and establishing a political aristocracy.

Report this

By JNagarya, January 11, 2008 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All feminists abhore the juvenile expressions of sexism against Hillary.  But only some feminsits—Marie—also deplaore the intellectually dishonest expressions of sexism from the other direction: women.

We do know, don’t we, Marie, that all violence on the planet is committed by men—so say the female chauvinist pigs. 

And that only (white) women are “oppressed” (let’s not notice that black males are more oppressed than white women)—even though during wartime the target of the draft is exclusively men.

But, what the hell: if a woman hasn’t experienced someone else’s oppression, then that oppression doesn’t exist.  So the draft, being involuntarily slected to be cannon fodder in order to protect women and children, as is the traditio, cannot possibly be oppression, because it isn’t happening to women.

Remember, Marie, Abu Ghraib?  None of us had the least difficulty or hesitation nailing the responsibility to the male Granier.  But Lyndie English . . . it had to be someone’s fault other than her’s, because we know women are simply incapable of handling responsibility, especially as the consequence for their own actions.

“Be the change you would see in the world.”—Gandhi.

Opposed to sexism, and want to see it eliminated, Marie?  Then begin with your own: take on the female chauvanist pigs _ALSO_.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

Men are a minority.

If the women voters want to make men eat a shit sandwich via the vote, they can and in the case of local elections of state legislatures and judgeships, they do.

I guess HRC has proven as apt at selling used cars as the male candidates.

Report this

By jackpine savage, January 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

There is no doubt that both racism and sexism are alive and well in America.  They are both mean-spirited and ugly aspects of our culture (such as it is) which will remain with us, regardless of the results of this presidential election.

But have we descended to the point where our election process will be based on which is the greater ill to be rectified, sexism or racism?

These two themes dominate the political coverage of the Democratic nomination.  What about the issues facing this country?  They are immense and dangerous to our future and the lives of our progeny.  We aren’t talking about them, we’re talking about sexism and racism.  Neither of those are going to matter one iota if we don’t right this ship, and soon.

I would be incredibly proud and happy to see a woman sworn in as president of the United States.  I would be just as happy and proud to see a black man sworn in, and the swearing in of a black woman is just about too much to even imagine. (And by the way, having known a fair number of black women in my life, a strong black woman might be just what we need…i’ve never known one not more than willing to tell it like it is.)

These candidates should be stumping about what they’re going to do, not what they represent in some abstract manner.  Their femaleness and their blackness are letting them off the hook in terms of addressing our very serious concerns.

Just because this media narrative is better than previous narratives does not mean that it isn’t still a media narrative designed to shift our focus from where it should be, because the historic moment of swearing in a female or a minority won’t count for squat if that president must oversee the downfall of a nation.

Report this

By jackifus, January 11, 2008 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Maani -

Your response was thoughtful and thought-provoking…

I look forward to learning something that will change my mind ... and may yet.

However, my Clinton/cheap impression remains - here’s a useful illustration ... still on Iran ...

from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928

...On Thursday, Clinton said she’d meet with Iranian leaders “without preconditions” — a position she criticized Obama for taking earlier in the summer.

Obama also questioned Clinton’s judgment in voting for last month’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which identified the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama said the amendment included language that empowers the president to attack Iran.

—-

reversing positions is nothing to be ashamed of ...
was it Keynes who said “When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?”

But admit you made the change - and that you were wrong to criticize ...

—-

I did find when Obama first made reference to all options being on the table - I believe it was in a speach to AIPAC.  He really framed it by emphasizing diplomacy.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2808&issue_id=2

thanks again for your comments -
nice to get new information - not just folks yelling about what they already believe.

rgds,

Jack

Report this

By Maani, January 11, 2008 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

I need to correct a minor error.  Re the appropriations bill for funding for the Iraq war, Obama either voted Yes or “NV” (meaning he was either absent or abstained).

Re the NV votes, if he is so “principled” in his stand against the war, don’t you think he should have either attended so he could vote “No” or taken a stand by voting “No” and not “NV” when he was there?

Peace.

Report this

By Marshall K, January 11, 2008 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

I have to hand it to my party:  In just two political events in two small states they managed to reject the most qualified people and bring to the front the two most polarizing, least experienced of the field.
We have gone for the symbolic candidates, a black man and a woman. I guess it just shows that we vote with our feelings rather than our brains.  Clinton has a hawkish record, and Obama lacks experience, but she is a WOMAN and he is BLACK and the significance of this appears to be more important than federally funded national health care, an immediate end to the Iraq war, or an end to the polarizing, crippling politics in Washington.
After 36 years as a Democrat, I think I’ve had enough of having to hold my nose to vote for the person who isn’t the Republican, and will just write in the candidate I like best.

Report this

By Maani, January 11, 2008 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“Not all sources are equal…”  Really?  So I suppose YOURS are always the ones that count, and others can be discarded?  How arrogant.

My source for the voting records was Project Vote Smart, which tracks every vote of every candidate on every bill.  My complete exegesis of the votes of Obama and Clinton can be found here:

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/09/mb-civic-original-opinion-reality-check-who-is-barack-obama/

Re Obama’s Pakistan statement, I did NOT “spin” it. In fact, the comment I made was the opinion of the VAST majority of the media - including alternative media - when he made the statement.

However, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The point I am making is this:

Hillary is generally seen as hawkish, militaristic, hardline, etc.  Obama has fashioned himself as the “anti-war” candidate, focused more on diplomacy and “peaceful” efforts.

Yet with the sole exception of Iraq, Obama is no less hawkish, militaristic or hardline than Hillary - they have identical positions on Iran and Israel, for example - and MORE hawkish re Pakistan.

In addition, three things should be noted here.

First, even if Hillary’s original vote “for the war” (which was nothing of the sort) was either calculated (to make her more palatable as CIC) or stupid (because she should have known what Bush would do), I challenge you to go back and look at what she was actually saying - CONSISTENTLY - at the time: that the diplomatic and NON-military options had NOT been exhausted, and that they must continue to be tried before military action was considered, much less taken.  How convenient that all of you forget this.

Second, I notice you have still not responded to the FACT that Obama voted for all but one of the funding appropriations for the Iraq war since arriving in the Senate, as recently as November 2007.  If he is so “anti-war,” why did he not take a stand and vote “No” on these?

Third, let me ask a question, and I want you - and all the other Hillary-haters here - to answer this honestly:

If Hillary had been president at the time, do you REALLY think she would have invaded Iraq (pre-emptively or not), instituted “regime change” (toppling Saddam), and allowed Hussein to be publicly hanged?

I believe the answer is a resounding “no,” since Hillary never bought into the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, nor did she consider Hussein’s hyperbolic “provocations” (which had been going on for years) as anything requiring military action.

Yes, Obama argued against military action in Iraq early on and consistently.  Yet his voting record raises questions about just how strong that stand is (actions speak louder than words…), and, again, with the sole exception of Iraq, Obama has shown no less (or more) hawkish, militaristic tendencies re Iran, Israel, etc.

Or am I “spinning” something here?...

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 11, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

Libgress:

While I personally agree with you, note that the Steinem article was posted on Truthdig and has its own thread.  As well, if you are new to the boards, you might want to know that there is such a visceral hatred of Hillary here (for the most part) that nothing you say will cut through.

Still, your voice is welcome to the few of us who support Hillary.

Peace.

Peace.

Report this

By RdV, January 11, 2008 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

There have been instances of ageism promoted by the Obama movement that I have found offensive, however when it comes to yesterday’s feminists who traded in their credibility for insider status during the Clinton years, the shoe fits.
They are now establishment dinosaurs who equate feminism with victimization and greater equality with men as mimicing men.
It is interesting to observe that Clinton’s strong points are victimization and sympathy: Those boys are bullying me, picking on me- and it is sooo difficult for me, poor me, have compassion for me. Feminine wiles. It is the trump card she first discovered with sleazy Bill’s whoring around on her that welled up the sympathy of the people. That and the rude man who invaded her space running against her for the senate. Everything Clinton has gained has either been on the coattails of her husband or through sympathy for the poor weak woman. In what way does this represent progress for the way women are viewed? Clinton either fall back on the weak woman model, uses men to get ahead or tries to emulate the worst bravado of men, so in what way does this present a new paradigm that women can relate to as progress on the gender identity front? Unfortunately that progress has stalled with the sixties era feminists who made their mark and now are establishment figures of the monied class. These feminists shot their credibility when they defended Bill Clinton against the women he abused. Let us not forget that this sisterhood of elite feminists sneered at the women and Hillary herself sought to damage the credibility of these women to protect her husband.
There needs to be a new ideal for women to carry into the future–a model that embraces nurture, compassion justice and decency. If women champion this model time will reveal the winning alternative to restore the equilibrium of Mother Earth.

Report this

By Libgress, January 11, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

I’m a white woman.  If an “ism” requires violence as a symptom, then sexism exists in the US and certainly in many other places around the world.  But sexism - and racism - exist in more subtle but equally destructive forms, too. 

Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
Published: January 8, 2008
http://tiny.cc/mecj7

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone
who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less
than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable
candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone.
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American
life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen
or who could be in the White House. This country is way
down the list of countries electing women and, according
to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical
pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote
a half-century before women of any race were allowed to
mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions
of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any
women (with the possible exception of obedient family
members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic
but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama,
her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed,
neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s
public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being
considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as
the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air
we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature
as racism once was; because anything that affects males
is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only”
the female half of the human race; because children are
still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men
especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood
when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism
stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long
that some white men find their presence to be
masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them);
and because there is still no “right” way to be a
woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

(snip)

Report this

By lib in texas, January 11, 2008 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

They have been on my radar for awhile, Chris Mathews (he told a story of how his mother hid her magazines so his father wouldn’t see them) Tim Russert, same deal. Those who argue against Chauvinisim is a Chauvinist because it is LOUD AND CLEAR !!!

Report this

By lib in texas, January 11, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

I watched C-span the other evening and South Carolinians (blacks) were calling in supporting Hillary.

Report this

By lib in texas, January 11, 2008 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

cyrena-thank you. I saw it the same as you and I just can’t believe how the truth can be so twisted by People like maani !!!!

Report this

By lib in texas, January 11, 2008 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

Didn’t read fpif’s disclaimer did you???? You swallowed it hook line and sinker.The way you haters act as if Hillary ruined the country, the world, all by herself.  What power !!!!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 11, 2008 at 7:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena:

“if only because no other first lady has done it since Eleanor Roosevelt.”

I am sure your glaring omissions are unintentional,

Jackie Kennedy not only traveled the world making friends, but while doing so, often spoke to them in their own language.

In 1977, Rosalyn Carter discussed policy with seven South and Central American government officials while traveling that part of the world as The Carter administration’s “good will ambassador.” 

Nancy Reagan, while a more traditional first lady traveled to Rome for an audience with the pope, and to Malaysia, Thailand, London, and Sweden.

Laura Bush has headed delegations to African countries (Liberia, Ghana and Nigeria) and then returned to Africa on a humanitarian mission to distribute bed nets. She has also met with leaders in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAR.

I only mention this as to counter Ms Business-shill’s shrill message that her “experience” she is somehow unique, as she continually claims.

Report this

By Joe, January 11, 2008 at 4:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Imaging my surprise on seeing that it’s women in this thread, for most part, who are finding fault with Hillary’s policies. My complaint is her failure to push publicly for nuclear disarmament, starting here at home.

Report this

By cyrena, January 11, 2008 at 1:41 am Link to this comment

Maani,

Sorry you don’t like the word lying, so we’ll temper it to ‘cherry picking’ and your own added nuance. Here’s an excellent example of what you consistently do, and it’s so noticeable, because it’s a standard tactics for hacks….always take a direct quote, (without ever providing the actual source) and then put your own spin on it. This is an excellent one, because I read the same myself, so at least I know you didn’t pull it from the air, even though you never bother to source any of it. (I do research as well by the way, but when I post my research, I post the source, since not all ‘sources’ are equal)

•  In August 2007, Obama said (and has not recanted from) the following: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” implying that the U.S. would send troops to chase down the terrorists, and might even strike Pakistan unilaterally if Pakistan fails to act.

Here it is. We have here, what HE said….

And then, we have here, what YOU add…specifically, what YOU have determined that he was “implying”. How the hell do you know, and what makes you think that we can’t read or listen to his words, without your suggestion of what he might be ‘implying’?

He said what he said, beginning with ….IF WE HAVE ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE, And then…we will ACT. That’s what he said. The rest is just your take.

And, if YOU weren’t so myopic and concentrated on your tunnel vision to interpret whatever he says as something of a flip-flop, or any ‘implication’ or spin that you want to put on it, you’d know that this is NOT the first time he’s said something to the same effect.

In reality, he has consistently complained that the bush administration has totally screwed things up, by not going after al-Qaeda in Pakistan in the first damn place!! So what? You’ve been in a coma for 5 plus years yourself?

So, you don’t remember Obama ever mentioning this ‘concern’ before? For the very same reasons…PAKISTAN HAS NUKES? Or, do you only pay attention when Hillary finally figures it out, and decides to do the same thing that GW has been doing for the past 6 years…OUTSOURCING the operation by giving Musharraff billions of dollars over the past 6 plus years? Now she’s got an idea to do the same thing. Oh gee, how original. She (and you) get more pathetic by the moment. I’m sorry you even told me what her ‘plan’ was.

So no, the rest of us are NOT stupid, but I have serious doubts about you!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 11, 2008 at 1:32 am Link to this comment

Wondering about Clinton.

This article might give some insight into Clinton’s SUPPOSEDLY undeserved label as ““cold,” “castrating,” “bitchy,” “man-like,” etc.”

Article quote:
“Not only is she willing to support military assistance to repressive regimes, she has little concern about controlling weapons that primarily target innocent civilians. Senator Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children.”

Same article:” She opposed UN efforts to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli occupation forces and criticized President Bush for calling on Israel to pull back from its violent re-conquest of Palestinian cities in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.”

Same article: “Senator Clinton’s hostility to international law and the UN system is perhaps best illustrated by her opposition to the International Criminal Court. In 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of an amendment by right-wing Senator Jesse Helms that prohibits the United States from cooperating in any way with the International Criminal Court, and its prosecution of individuals responsible for serious crimes against humanity, such as those responsible for the genocide in Darfur.”

The article goes on and on, Clinton deserves her title, in fact she’s earned it.

Link:  http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803

Marie:
Per your comment: “Clinton’s groundbreaking foreign travels, her discussions with foreign leaders, her rebuke to Chinese dictators, and her failed attempt at overhauling the health insurance system were chronicled as evidence of her unprecedented reach. The right wing spewed vitriol; the left took approving notice.”

From the above article link: “Senator Hillary Clinton has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just to name a few.”
 
GOUNDBREAKING FOREIGN TRAVELS…?!  THE LEFT TOOK APPROVING NOTICE…??!!  Marie, were you over at Condi’s house drinking the Kool-Aid..?!

Here’s another “trip down memory lane” as it was touted:  ” But the astronomical odds against any financial novice making a 10,000 percent profit without the game being rigged led many to believe that Blair, the outside counsel to Arkansas-based poultry giant Tyson Foods, must have put only profitable trades in Hillary’s account and absorbed her losses.”

Link:  http://prorev.com/2007/12/catalog-of-hillary-clintons-lies.html

Report this

By Maani, January 10, 2008 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“...we are not so stupid as to know that Hillary wants to stay in the Middle East, forever.”  My guess is you meant the oppostite, since that is what you have been accusing her of consistently: wanting to stay in the ME forever.

“Quit lying on Barak Obama, by re-wording his statements, or claiming that he is identically the same as Hillary on their votes. The man was speaking out against the Iraq war before it happened, and you damn well KNOW this.”

Lying about his votes?  Hey, lady - I spent over half a day going through EVERY SINGLE VOTE that each of them made in the Senate since Obama arrived - 15 pages worth, single-spaced.  HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF LYING ABOUT THIS!  I HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THE RESEARCH: HAVE YOU?

As well, are you suggesting that Obama-Messiah never flip-flops?

I am going to go through this one more time, hoping that you will actually LEARN something - FROM THE FACTS.

1.  Obama did, indeed, oppose the war even before he was a senator, and he has consistently done so.

2.  In January 2007, he submitted a proposal to the Senate for a complete withdrawal of American troops in Iraq by March 2008.  He has since backed away from this proposal.

3.  Even before this proposal, Obama voted “Yes” on all but one appropriations bill for continued funding for the war (at least three over a three-year period).  The last time he voted for such a bill was as recently as November 2007.

4.  Obama’s position on Iraq, as stated by HIM, is as follows: “Withdraw one or two brigades per month, to finish within 16 months.  [Now pay attention, cyrena, and all you blindered Obama-ites].  Leave limited forces to combat terrorism; forces would not be involved in deterring Iranian involvement.  Troops would train Iraqi forces only if there was political reconciliation.  Redeploy some troops to Afghanistan.”  Get that?  “Leave limited forces…” Interesting that he does not specify how many.

Hillary’s plan is IDENTICAL (phased withdrawal of one or two brigades per month), with the SOLE difference that the forces she left there would not only fight terrorists (as Obama’s would), but would “deter Iranian aggression” and “protect the Kurds.”  PERIOD.  END OF STORY.  ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL POSITIONS.

It might also shock you to know that Obama’s position on Pakistan makes Hillary look like a dove.  In August 2007, Obama said (and has not recanted from) the following: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” implying that the U.S. would send troops to chase down the terrorists, and might even strike Pakistan unilaterally if Pakistan fails to act.

Hillary has done no such saber-rattling, much less suggested unilateral strikes on Pakistan, although she has been a staunch critic of Bush’s coddling of Musharraf.  Rather, since she considers Pakistan’s nukes the most critical issue (since they could fall into the wrong hands if there is a coup), she has been working with others to get Musharraf to share security responsibility of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons with a delegation from the U.S. and possibly the UK.  So who is the hawk HERE?

You better take those blinders off and see what’s REALLY going on here.  And dont you EVER accuse me of lying again - especially when you have done ZERO research while I spend half my days making sure that I am providing FACTS and not conjecture or emotional diarrhea.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, January 10, 2008 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

Part I and this includes you Maani

Marie,

You’re preaching to the choir here, and it’s a waste. The same chauvinists that were complaining about her as first lady, are the same one throwing the sexist digs now. (just look at the names you’ve provided) And, are you really SURPRISED that Babs Bush would come up with something like that. I mean really.

If you thought that sexism, racism, and just general hatism had gone away, then you were being naïve. If anything, it’s probably worse now. When has our nation EVER been as polarized as it is now? (And Hillary will only keep it that way)

So, the same ones that came up with the Impeach Billary from decades ago, are the same ones coming to the surface NOW. The difference, (and it’s a large one) is that the racism component, (for her opponent) has added yet another dimension for hate and uglism, for which the repugs in general, are so well practiced.

Nobody is surprised that Hillary would be supported by white women in New Hampshire. Your figures are perfectly predictable there. The women of color vote surprises me, but then again, it’s relative. 12 points you say. But really, what’s the non-white female voting population of New Hampshire? I admit I don’t know.

Still, it’s annoying, (and an insult) to a large portion of the thinking population, regardless of their race or gender, to claim that Hillary is just being subjected to male chauvinism, while you tote all of her accomplishments. The irony is that there are a whole bunch of democrats that DON’T see her Senate activity as an accomplishment, just like we are pretty damn pissed with Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker, and not because she’s female, but because she’s screwed up royally in her responsibilities to the American public that she is supposed to represent. I personally don’t have an iota more respect or appreciation for Condi Rice, who is both black and female. I think she’s been a danger to the republic just like all of her repug neocon co-members of the Cabal.

It’s no different with Hillary. When she was elected to the Senate, by the people of New York, I was actually pleased, since I thought she would be a forceful voice for the Democrats. I was wrong and apparently naïve myself, since she has mostly SCREWED UP!! And, she has screwed up, based on what my own, (and I’m sure other voters’) priorities are for our collective well being. She’s voted consistently with the repugs to continue the imperial assault on the rest of the world, specifically the Middle East, and many of us are damn sick and tired of that. As a matter of fact, for many Americans, that is a MAIN priority. We want out of that, and we are not so stupid as to know that Hillary wants to stay in the Middle East, forever. Just as her repug counterparts choose to claim, she thinks that our military needs to be there forever, to ‘protect American interests’ in the area. (Her words – not mine). And, while they might not be my words, MOST of us can interpret them quite easily. Those ‘interests’ are specifically – OIL, and maintaining a US hegemony in the ME. IOW, the continuation of EMPIRE. It’s that simple. I think most Americans would agree that this insistence on being an empire, is what has brought us to our knees, and is soon to flatten us entirely.
TBC

Report this

By cyrena, January 10, 2008 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment

Part II
If there was NO OTHER REASON NOT to support Hillary Clinton, that would be it, and for many people, that is enough!!

It doesn’t help that she is joined at the hip to the political elite, status quo, corporate oligarchy, which is yet ANOTHER reason to eliminate her as a choice. How is she gonna just pretend that she hasn’t been as much a part of what has brought us to the brink of disaster as any other members of the same oligarchy? Her senate record sure hasn’t proven that.

Are we impressed with her diplomatic efforts as first lady, traveling around to other countries and meeting other leaders? Well, I am, if only because no other first lady has done it since Eleanor Roosevelt. But, Hillary is no Eleanor Roosevelt, so don’t try to make her that. My guess is that Eleanor Roosevelt would have gladly met with the Iranians, and the Syrians, and the Palestinians, and maybe even al-Qaeda. Far more importantly though, Eleanor Roosevelt was first concerned with putting our OWN house in order, a point that just so happens to be emphasized by Michelle Obama, and NOT Hillary Clinton, who seems perfectly OK with maintaining the status quo.

So, what is Hillary gonna do about employment for American workers? How is she going to truthfully explain the effects of NAFTA on our own economy? What is she going to do about the disappeared middle class? She’s a power monger, just like the rest of them. You don’t really expect her to reverse any of these authoritarian power grabs that the repugs have taken for themselves, now do you? She hasn’t indicated that by her votes or her rhetoric. She doesn’t even address it.

And she’s already decided to just allow the Dick Bush gangsters to remain totally unaccountable for the destruction. The first item on her ‘to do’ list is to send hubby and the old man, GHWB on a ‘peace keeping’ mission. So much for any sort of accountability.

So, stop blaming the chauvinists, and the racists, because they’ve been here forever, and they will be here forever. If Hillary wants to play with the big boys, she can’t have it both ways. She’s supposed to have enough sense to know that she would remain under attack by these same pundits and right-wing zealots, and if she wants to hold her own, she’s gonna need to avoid participating in the same negative hate tactics as those that are perpetrated against her. We the people are not ALL stupid. We the people don’t care what Carlton Tucker, or Chris Mathews or Barbara Bush has to say about anything. If Carlton Tucker says he has the urge to cross his legs every time she comes on stage, that’s HIS problem. We don’t give a shit. Maybe he does it regardless, just to hide what he doesn’t have.


Maani,

Quit lying on Barak Obama, by re-wording his statements, or claiming that he is identically the same as Hillary on their votes. The man was speaking out against the Iraq war before it happened, and you damn well KNOW this. As a matter of fact, he was there right along with the other millions of people in 800 cities of 60 countries who demonstrated against this war on Feb. 15, 2003…the month before it happened. Hillary wasn’t there. Instead, she voted for it, and later claimed that she thought she was voting for something else. (continued inspections…give us a flippin’ break).

So, here’s the deal. If your Hillary can’t win on her own, without you consistently attacking her opponents with LIES and innuendo, then I say she doesn’t deserve to. And, based on the comments on this thread, it would appear that most other thinking people feel the same way.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 10, 2008 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

A little substance please, why should I vote for Hillary, because she is a woman who supports the war?

Report this

By truth hurts, January 10, 2008 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I so agree. I’m quite tired of the attempt by white women to equate sexism with racism. When a white woman is hanged from a tree, dragged by a pick up truck, beaten by racist cops, etc. simply because she is a woman…then we can talk.

Report this

By Maani, January 10, 2008 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

“We who don’t like Hillary know that she would ride rough-shod over her own mother and daughter to get something she wanted.  You can call this a perception if you want but it is based on 16 years of observation.”

Care to give some examples?  Or are you (and others) on this thread (and site) too cowardly to actually supply FACTS instead of unsupported statements?

Peace.

Report this

By troublesum, January 10, 2008 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

Hillary has been a public figure for about 30 years and I think people have gotten to know her well in that time.  Her husband is as much a victim of her as she is of him.  The guy has my sympathy in that respect alone - I don’t like him either.  I have had quite enough of Bill and Hillary and wish to God that we could be rid of the affliction but it seems that many in America are gluttens for punishment.  We endured Richard Nixon for some 40 years before and after his disgrace.  We who don’t like Hillary know that she would ride rough-shod over her own mother and daughter to get something she wanted.  You can call this a perception if you want but it is based on 16 years of observation.  It has nothing to do with gender; it is exclusively a matter of character and men are afflicted with this flaw more often than women which is probably why it is more shocking to see it in women and less forgivable.
We are expected at this late date to believe that Hillary has a heart because she cried in public over the prospect of losing this election, but I think if Hillary had a heart Susan McDougle would never have spent all that time in solitary confinement, nor would Vincent Foster have shot himself, nor would Bill have lied about Monica.  She’d have done a lot of crying before now.

Report this

By Maani, January 10, 2008 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Nope.  You’re just wrong.

You say, “People despise Hillary for what they PERCEIVE her to be” (emphasis mine).  But what if that perception is wrong?  What if she NOT that way?

You further say that that perception is that she is a “power-grubbing person who will step on other men and women to achieve her goals.”  Examples, please.  I have seen none.  Indeed, two facts belie this.  First, even the Republicans ungrudgingly, even admiringly admit that Hillary has been one of the most effective, bipartisan senators, “reaching across the aisle” in a way completely unexpected of her - given the “perception” of who she was before she got there.

Second, if ANYONE “stepped” on someone, it was Obama.  Clinton was his mentor in the Senate.  (This is one reason why their voting records were identical 95% of the time.)  He was a neophyte senator, with little Congressional or foreign policy experience.  She was in the middle of her second term, with more experience in both.  He knew very well she was going to run for president.  Yet he sneakily - yes, sneakily - started an exploratory committee without letting her know.

Thus, it was Obama who betrayed Hillary, not Hillary who tried to “step on” anyone.

Peace.

Report this

By forgot my password, January 10, 2008 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Chauvinists aren’t flying under the radar, they’re voting for Hillary and bragging about it simply because she’s a woman.  If a man did this, he’d be excoriated but when women do this, it’s “solidarity”. 

Today my son was in school having a class discussion about religion and gender in the bible when two girls in the room started bragging about how much smarter and better girls are.  If a boy did this, he’d probably be sent to the principal’s office but when a girl does this, she’s patted on the back.  My son said nothing because he knew the rules, the rules say that if you’re a boy, you’re not supposed to defend yourself if your attacker is a girl.  If a girl wants to defend herself, anything goes, especially if the target is a boy… and they are applauded for it.  I am a mom and a woman.  I am disgusted by what I see as a new breed of “Female Chauvinist Pigs”.  I thought we wanted equality, not the right to act like men once did.

Report this

By Paula, January 10, 2008 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Opus - I couldn’t agree more!  I truly believe she wants to leave this nation more closly aligned to it’s orignial ideals than it will be under any other presidential contender.  And, I say this specifically because SHE IS A WOMAN!  Guys, we ARE different than you - all you have to do is look at who consumes most of the GNP in prision, protection and courts - it’s not women; and I believe THAT very biological difference is not only what this country needs right now -but what our world needs right now.  As much as she has had to “play the game” under someone else’ rule - and have the appearance of conformity - I assure you in the beginning, middle and end - she is ALL woman - always has been and always will be.
  I am voting for her because not only do I believe that a her thinking is in the right direction on sooo many fronts but the bottom line is that there is no way she could do any worse than any of the previous male presidents have and in fact, I HAVE A VERY GOOD FEELING that SHE WILL BE THE ONE TO USHER IN A NEW ERA of opportunity and prosperity for america! (if we aren’t bombed to shit or a pandemic of some kind isn’t unleashed by bush-etal before then.) She’s got my vote - 1000%!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 10, 2008 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“... one could make a VERY good case that NO ONE has been treated worse by the media than Hillary.”

Making another joke right?

You are obviously too young to remember Anita Hill, Geraldine A. Ferraro, Madeline Murray-O’Hare or Ethel Rosenberg. Two of these maligned women were murdered, and two had their careers stolen from them.  There is also Nixon’s first victim Helen Gahagan Douglas who got trashed with a series of Nixon lies.

Actually, I could write a book on women treated worse than Hill-the-Chappaqua-Business-shill.

Report this

By Maani, January 10, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

Hate to tell you, old chap, but Obama’s position on Iran is virtually identical to Hillary’s.  Here is his recent comment:

“The Iranian regime is a threat to all of us…I think we should keep all options on the table.”  This was in response to whether he would consider military action against Iran.

This echoes, almost word for word, Hillary’s statement only days earlier that “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”

It might also interest you to know that John Kerry was extremely bullish on Iran; moreso even than Bush at first.  And Kerry just endorsed Obama.

Peace.

Report this

By vic, January 10, 2008 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Are you sure these nonwhite women were black - maybe Asian or Hispanic…just a thought

Report this

By vic, January 10, 2008 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

Sue, I am not Juanita Broaddrick - I was posting the open letter she sent to WaPO (I think) when Hillary was running for the senate.  And I think a lot of folks, including NOW thought her claim had validity.

The point is that Juanita indicates that Hillary was complicit with her husband in covering up his unsavoury sexual activities.  So are you saying that Hillary should bear no responsibility for aiding her husband in trashing other women? 

How sad that women have such selective memories in whom they support for the feminist cause

Report this

By vic, January 10, 2008 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

I am a woman, and I absolutely cannot stand Hillary.  I just don’t understand the thinking of these women baby boomers, who think of Hillary as a ‘victim’ - victim of her husband, victim of the media, victim of the old-boys club. Boo-hoo

People despise Hillary for what they perceive her to be (a power-grubbing person who will step on other men and women to achieve her goals). They do not react the same way to other women.  Men are comfortable with strong women - Nancy Pelosi, Oprah in the US, Angela Merkel in Europe - they are just not comfortable with Hillary.  They sense she is ruthless and a phony…I do too and I am a woman…so, am I sexist…?

Report this

By jackifus, January 10, 2008 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

Hillary stands out for her drumbeat towards war with Iran.  She has since stepped back ... but when it was more fashionable, she was beating the drum to demonize and bomb Iran. 

That’s one reason she’s viewed as a cheap politician.  She tried to ally herself with Bush when it appeared politically convenient.

When she refers to her trip to Bosnia as diplomatic experience, when she was accompanied by Sinbad ... that appears to be cheap ... because it’s purposefully misleading.

Report this

By Jacks, January 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

I am definitely not a fan of HRC, but that misogyny on display was way out there—even for Chris Matthews!  If you check the exiting polls, however, it shows that the horrible press coverage inspired women *who already preferred* HRC to actually go out and vote for her.  People who had made their decision within the past three days overwhelmingly voted for Obama.  Combine that with good weather and you have those results.

Conclusion: conventional wisdom is pathetic.

Report this

By rage, January 10, 2008 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton was confronted by a couple twenty-something men telling her to “Iron my shirt” ...

Plants!

A l’il sumpin-sumpin from Big Dog to sharpen Hill’s fighting skills. She’s too big a crybaby. No heart. Big dog was letting her know the nice Pennsylvania Avenue digs come after the Presidential jump-in. Hill’s got to survive the beat-in without flinching and crying like a beyatch to lead this gang, see what I’m sayin’?

Besides, those two obnoxious pinheads probably don’t even know what an iron is. Bill paid them in popcorn and beer to get that off.

Report this

By Maani, January 10, 2008 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

Reason:

You say, “Like most people I can’t say I know exactly how well Barack Obama would do as predident but I know I don’t want cheap politicians thinking they can establish themselves and their families as the American royalty” with a line of sucession.”

Setting aside the “line of succession” comment, what makes you think Obama is any less a “cheap politician” than Hillary?  Their Senate voting records were identical 94% of the time - on EVERY issue, INCLUDING defense/military (they BOTH voted Yes on the 11/07 bill for additional funding for the Iraq war) - and their positions on all major issues - Iraq, Iran, Israel, health care, economy, taxes, etc. - are virtually identical.

You also say, “I am not radical but I do question anyone who would tell me they only have my interests at heart.”

Yet isn’t that EXACTLY what Obama is saying - far more so than Hillary?  Indeed, isn’t that EXACTLY what his (hopelessly insubstantial) rhetoric - “We,” “Hope,” “Change,” “Turn the page,” etc. - is all about?

I think you have your candidates confused.

Peace.

Report this

By mary, January 10, 2008 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

It’s journalists like these two twits that continue to spew nonsense and no one calls them on it.  But then again, it’s typical of the right wingnuts to hammer anyone progressive.  Sen Clinton barely teared up yet it’s been “brittney sprears” type news for days now.  I serously doubt these guys are interested in anything other than getting their candidate elected, one way or the other.  And one way is to make sure they put Sen Clinton on the Democratic ticket.  They think she will not be able to beat any of the Repubs.  This is why we hear nothing but negative press for John Edwards, who clearly would be the candidate of middle class Americans.  Team him up with Sen Obama and the Democratic Party will not only win, they will be very strong and probably unbeatable for many years.  The right knows this and their Corporate and media sponsors can’t have that!!!!!

Report this

By reason, January 10, 2008 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

Hillary is one side of the coin and George Bush is the other. I guess it is sexism to state Nancy Pelosi is a sorry “Speaker of the House”. The problem I have with Hilary isn’t that she is a woman, it’s that she is a political hack who can’t be trusted. Like most people I can’t say I know exactly how well Barack Obama would do as predident but I know I don’t want cheap politicians thinking they can establish themselves and their families as the American royalty” with a line of sucession.
I am a big believer in “We The People” and no one has the right to take that from us! The only way we can lose it is to give it away to those who promise us that it is for our own benefit ie, protecting us form terrorists, allowing newspapers to own multiple TV and radio station, etc. I am not radical but I do question anyone who would tell me they only have my interests at heart (Mother Teresa passed away several years ago!).
Does anyone hurt more because they were hit by a stone thrown by a black man rather than a white man or woman?

Report this

By vic, January 10, 2008 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

“Well, one could make a VERY good case that NO ONE has been treated worse by the media than Hillary.”

Do you remember Paula Jones being called “white trailer trash”  and being totally villified by the media and Clinton staff…smear…smear..smear.  I felt so sick when I watched that years ago and the memory has still stuck in my mind. 

” would YOU choose the plight of another woman - no matter how badly treated - over your marriage to your husband?”

Yes, I would.  I would stand by my husband if he cheated on me (perhaps), but I would not stand by and watch him viciously abuse other women and smear them in a public campaign.  I guess this is what is called having some honor and decency…?

Report this

By Sue, January 10, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well said!

I too found it obsurd that this woman holds Hillary responsible for something she had nothing to do with.

She sounds bitter and that is something that is eating away inside of her and she should talk with a priest and really try to forgive herself of (if there was any wrongdoing on Bill Clinton’s part against her) not reporting it at the time.

Until she does this, she’ll never have any peace in her life and that is sad, but, again not Hillary’s fault.

Report this

By Maani, January 10, 2008 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment

FYI, I am a man, and I am not on Clinton’s staff. In fact, I am not on anyone’s staff.  I am an independent thinker and doer who does happen to be supporting Hillary at this moment, though that is open to change depending on whether Obama ever gets around to articulating, clearly and succinctly, his currently insubstantial rhetoric.

And I agree that no one should vote based on gender, race, etc.  But I also believe that there are deeply ingrained double standards regarding a woman running for office, particularly for president, and that those deeply ingrained double standards are at play whether we want to admit it or not.  The most obvious is that if Hillary shows emotion - e.g., tearing up - she is seen as either manipulative or, worse, “weak.”  Yet if she shows steely resolve, she is seen as (take your pick) “cold,” “castrating,” “bitchy,” “man-like,” etc.

Does she have a “duty to support women who were treated much worse by the media than she has been?”  Well, one could make a VERY good case that NO ONE has been treated worse by the media than Hillary.  Yet even were this not the case, let me ask you this: as a woman, would YOU choose the plight of another woman - no matter how badly treated - over your marriage to your husband?

Maybe you should step back from the viscerally emotional aspect of this and look at it with a little more distance.

Peace.

Report this

By vic, January 10, 2008 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

You are obviously on the Clinton staff, and for the record, I am not supporting Obama or anyone else.  I am a woman and find this feminist appeal by Clinton very cynical. 

Ok, her husband has many affairs and she stands by him. He may have raped a woman, and she stands by him.  But how could she stand by and watch the Clinton staff smear the women - Paula Jones, JB and other victims…?

Is Hillary only entitled to support from women…does she not have a duty to support women who were treated much worse by the media, than she has been?  So, to maintain her position and ‘face’, she allowed her husband to go after and viciously smear other women.  And now when she cries, we must rush to her defense?

If you are a woman, I would suggest you search deeply inside yourself and examine your values

Report this

By G. Chell, January 10, 2008 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Clinton beat Obama among white women and—significantly—among nonwhite women, whose vote she carried by 12 points.”

If it is politically incorrect for white women to say that they wont for a black man, it is even more politically incorrect for a black woman to say that she wont vote for a black man. It is outright treason! I think a higher proportion of black women lied to the pollsters about their support for Obama!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 10, 2008 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Yet as senator from New York, Hillary has proven herself smart, competent, effective, and a fierce proponent of issues affecting both New York specifically and the country in general.”


That was a good one Manni….I’m still laughing… Since you are supporting the business shill, why don’t you cross the picket line and work for Leno… your jokes are better than his!

Report this

By jackifus, January 10, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Hillary Clinton was confronted by a couple twenty-something men telling her to “Iron my shirt” ...

One of the men had a Hillary sticker on his handbag.  Seemed like a stunt to me.  This doesn’t imply that there isn’t actual sexism in other instances. 

Hillary is known to use Bush-like tactics in her campaign - planting questioners.  This incident appeared to be an effort to bring sexism to an extreme so that it would be noticed…

Report this

By Sue, January 10, 2008 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BRAVO, Marie!

Report this

By Maani, January 10, 2008 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment

An Open Letter to Juanita Broderick:

I am familiar with your story, and your allegations that Bill Clinton raped you in 1978 during his first campaign for governor of Arkansas.

However, why not tell the WHOLE truth here, instead of making it sound like your original allegations were believed?

In 1997, you filed a sworn affidavit with the lawyer for Paula Jones that Mr. Clinton had never assaulted you, stating, “During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. ... These allegations are untrue…”

You contradicted this in 1998, during an interview on Dateline NBC, and then recanted your statement in an FBI interview regarding the Jones case.  The FBI found your NEW account “inconclusive.”  Among other things, you were never even able to remember the date of the incident.

As well, despite your claims, even the Republican-led impeachment committee did not call you to testify as a witness during the hearings.

In addition, of the few people who claim that you told them about the alleged rape at the time, two of them were angry with Mr. Clinton for commuting the sentence of the man who killed their father, and one is your husband - who himself was involved in an extra-marital affair with you at the time.

Finally, neither the public nor the media believed your “new” claims, despite your Dateline interview.

It is, of course, possible that the alleged rape did in fact occur.  If so, and despite the above, you have my sincere hopes and best wishes for personal peace.

However, in EITHER case, the question is raised: what does this have to do with Hillary’s ability to govern?  What does it have to do with her knowledge and experience?

You say, “Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.”

Yet as a lifelong New Yorker, I have found Hillary to be an OUTSTANDING representative - as have, apparently, most people, since she won her second term in a landslide.

There is no question that honesty is important, as is being “honorable.”  And as one who has met Ms. Clinton twice, and found her to be quite genuine and likable both times, it would sadden me if she was as cold to you as you say.

Yet even so, it would not change my feelings about her as an elected official.  and why should it?  ALL politicians have a hint (or more) of dishonesty - even the seemingly squeaky clean Mr. Obama, who has engaged in spin, omission and dissembling no less than Hillary.

Yet as senator from New York, Hillary has proven herself smart, competent, effective, and a fierce proponent of issues affecting both New York specifically and the country in general.

It is your prerogative to personally dislike Ms. Clinton based on real or percevied slights, and to campaign against her.  But if you are going to accuse Ms. Clinton of subterfuge and omission, then you yourself should not engage in it.

Peace.

Report this

By P. T., January 10, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

It seems highly unlikely that all the voters who switched from second-tier candidates went for Clinton.  So some people who said they were voting for Obama must have voted for Clinton.  I also wonder what percentage of black women voters Clinton got.

Report this

By Opus, January 10, 2008 at 11:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We should remember that Hillary has spent the majority of her career in The Boys’ Club. Any woman who works with a male majority knows that to be taken seriously, you have to act like one of the boys at least some of the time, and the reality is that women are still seen by many as weaker. We don’t know what Hillary would do when those arrogant old white dudes aren’t setting the boundaries anymore, and she is. It could very well be that once Hillary sits in The Big Chair, all of those progressive ideas she’s had to keep under wraps would be acted upon. It would be her rules, not theirs, and I would bet you will see a LOT more women in office. Maybe that’s what they are afraid of.

Report this

By truth hurts, January 10, 2008 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh, dear. This is so reminiscent of the suffrage/abolotion movement (race or sex?). Fortunately the narrative of the poor, helpless white woman of the ‘Birth of a Nation’ era is stale…let’s hope!

Report this

By vic, January 10, 2008 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON,

BY JUANITA BROADDRICK

‘DO YOU REMEMBER?’
SUNDAY OCT 15, 2000

As I watched Rick Lazio’s interview on Fox News this morning, I felt compelled to
write this open letter to you, Mrs. Clinton. Brit Hume asked Mr. Lazio’s views
regarding you as a person and how he perceived you as a candidate. Rick Lazio did
not answer the question, but I know that I can. You know it, too.

I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were
twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on
television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy
in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.

I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and
maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill
Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton’s bid for governor of
Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by
your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then
leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a
state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr.
Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering.
Do you remember? You told the driver, “Bill has talked so much about Juanita”, and
that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you
entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember
how you thanked me, saying “we want to thank you for everything that you do for
Bill”. At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you
kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement,
but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the
last eight years. You said, “Everything you do for Bill”. You then released your grip
and I said nothing and left the gathering.

What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault
I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you
warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.
Yes, I can answer Brit Hume’s question. You are the same Hillary that you were
twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the
thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight
years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I
only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton
is not an honorable or an honest person.

I will end by asking if you believe the statements I made on NBC Dateline when Lisa
Myers asked if I had been assaulted and raped by your husband? Or perhaps, you
are like Vice-President Gore and did not see the interview.

Juanita Broaddrick
Arkansas

Report this

By reason, January 10, 2008 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Common sense and questioning source motivation are prerequisite for assigning the value of any information proffered by the political hacks from either party. This is not the first time prejudice and bigotry has been used to further the interests of those seeking to manipulate voters. Personally, I judge the possible truthfulness and validity of information about candidates by who is offering the information and what the motivations may be. In the next months of this election, we will be told, that black is white and up is down. However, in the end, we all have to be able to justify our views by the values we personally know to be fair and honest if we want a serious change from the dishonesty that has been so prevalent in the past.
The Bush administration has been the most corrupt and manipulative I can remember, but Clinton was not a paragon of honesty either. As with most decisions we make, the burden is on the individual to make an informed choice based in fair and impartial reasoning. Do any of us want to elect a person to political office who will first take into consideration race, color or the religion of the people they are swore to represent equitably? The cost we will pay for our prejudices and bigotry is much higher than most of know!!!

Report this

By ntc, January 10, 2008 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Seriously, what’s wrong with all those white women?  Are they afraid to vote for a black man?  Their undisguised racism sickens me…

How ridicules.  How absurd.  Hillary was ANNOINTED as the nominee by the media from day one of her campaign.  I wish both the “everything is sexism” and the “everything is racism” crowds would just be quiet for a change. If so many liberal democrats dislike both blacks and women, why is Edwards trailing as a distant 3rd place candidate?  What a complete non-issue…

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 10, 2008 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Hilliary offers status quo, so the choice is not ours but the medias.  Hillary has been their darling for some time, Edwards is being edged out in the wake of Kucinich, insurance compaines do not want to loose their money pot. 
Mass Media chooses our choice for us. Vote for Hillary the women, for she is not a Lady.

Report this

By Vic, January 10, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am an woman of color and I find it interesting how white women differentiate between race and gender.  I think there is sexism and there is racism - but you equate the two as equal problems, or that sexism is worse…that is so twisted.
Remember, when white women were burning their bras for liberation, black men were being burnt alive…and black men and women consistently earn less than white women…so let’s get off the “poor white woman” horse please.  And it is hard to see how HRC, has been disadvantaged in anyway - she has name, money and the Clinton machinery behind her.  It is like saying poor emelda marcos, or poor evita peron..yeah, right.

I think a lot of this sexism stuff with regard to HRC is to make white women feel good about choosing a white woman instead of a black man as president - this way they can give into their baser, racist fears and still feel good about themselves and say “I really like Obama but I need to support a sister”

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 10, 2008 at 6:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This piece would be humorous if not for the serious plight of the vanishing middle class in the USA. 

So the verdict is in… those men who did not cast their vote for Hill-the corporate shill were sexist…. of course if they had voted in large numbers for any of the white candidates, they would have been racist, and I’ll bet the reason Mr. Kucinich got so little support (even among diminutive people) is because he is short.

There are real issues here, but the press (They were wrong about the New Hampshire vote BUT not for Ms Cocco’s reason) are not interested.

Hill-the shill is an unacceptable candidate for some of the same reasons Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Fred Thompson are unacceptable. They all get their campaign money from folks who are actively working against the best interests of working US citizens.  Of course the corporate press who make their living whoring for business, get their money from the same folks.  It is all one big happy family….ON THEIR SIDE. Their side is NOT our side, and someday, probably when it is way too late, folks will wake up and see that the great divides in our society were created by the same folks who decried them…. The folks who profit from the ignorance and disaffection of the voters.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook