It amazes me that people who've spent substantial amounts of their lives in the political arena can still manage to publically make statements that common sense ought to have told them wouldn't go over well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It's a bit...je ne sais quoi...?off? for Obama's spokesman to ask that Ferraro be chastised&repudiated for repeating the entirety of the Clintons' campaign theme. It's not as if the Wicked Witch of the East hasta play by the same rules as the Champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think that we're going to get very, very tired of calls for repudiation and chastisement before this campaign season is over. It seems to be the name of the game this time around.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If the "entirety of Clinton's campaign theme" is that people are prejudiced in favor of Obama because he's black and against her because she is female, all the more reason to vote against her.
In recent weeks I've heard several feminist icons make statements about Clinton that I found deeply offensive. The statements have implied that people aren't supporting Clinton because of her gender and that Obama has an unfair advantage because of his gender. Those statements have offended me particularly because I am and have been an advocate of women's rights for a long time. I have in the past bemoaned the fact that (until this year) the US had never had a woman who was a serious contender for the presidency.
I have in the past defended Hillary against what I thought were unfair and sexist attacks on her person. I've been quite relieved that up to this point, those attacks have largely been absent in this political campaign. Until the past couple of weeks I had hope that we might make it through this campaign without anyone playing the gender card or the race card. It was a very positive thing. (Although I admit I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, they could be making fun of her ankles, accusing her of having Lesbian lovers and photoshopping her face on to dogs bodies for all I know. )
If all other things were equal, I would support a woman over a man for president. I know that's sexist but heck if all other things are equal I'd have to make the choice on some grounds.
The point is that all other things are not equal and I don't consider gender or race to be more important than medical care, the Iraq war, and a variety of other issues in this race. These feminist icons seem to be claiming that I should put gender above those real substantive issues and I find that insulting and very sexist.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I think that we're going to get very, very tired of calls for repudiation and chastisement before this campaign season is over. It seems to be the name of the game this time around.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I think that we're going to get very, very tired of calls for repudiation and chastisement before this campaign season is over. It seems to be the name of the game this time around.
Shame on you, Noemon, for launching such a slanderous attack on the candidates. I think you should step down immediately.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Shame on you Jon Boy for launching such a slanderous and inaccurate personal attack on Noemon when we should be discussing the important points of this thread.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I thought of going the meta-humor route like Jon Boy and The Rabbit, but then I thought, aren't we all tired of the same old gags? Don't we yearn for something more?
We need a change! We should all pledge, ah, something noble! Yes we can!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
On one hand, I really do think Ferraro's comments were a) unfair and untrue and b) incredibly foolish.
On the other, I recognize that the Obama camp's reaction probably has at least as much to do with the possibility of casting the Clinton camp in a negative light and knocking out an otherwise effective campaigner/fundraiser as they do with any real sense of outrage at Ferraro's comments.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
We need to focus on the real issues of this thread. Race, Gender and experience serving Hatrack. I have 8 years of experience posting on this forum. Morbo has one feel good post in this thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On the other, I recognize that the Obama camp's reaction probably has at least as much to do with the possibility of casting the Clinton camp in a negative light and knocking out an otherwise effective campaigner/fundraiser as they do with any real sense of outrage at Ferraro's comments.
Sterling, have you ever been in a situation where you have been told that your success is only due to your race or gender? I've been in that situation. I don't think Obama's campaign is expressing any thing close to the real outrage I would feel if I were in his shoes.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, Rabbit, and that 8 years of experience includes a vote for adding graemlins to the forum. We all know what horrors that has led to.
Whereas I've staunchly stood foursquare against graemlins.
Plus, do you even post at 3am any more? Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sterling, have you ever been in a situation where you have been told that your success is only due to your race or gender? I've been in that situation. I don't think Obama's campaign is expressing any thing close to the real outrage I would feel if I were in his shoes.
I have... And I'm not saying the Obama campaign's outrage isn't real, or reasonable. But demanding resignations seems to be becoming the default action, and I'd be lying if said I didn't suspect there's an element of political gamesmanship here. What about demanding apologies or retractions?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Morbo is clearly distorting my record. I never voted for inclusion of Graemlins to the forum and anyone who has followed my career knows that I have always been very conservative in my use of Graemlins, limiting them only to the most extreme cases.
What's more, Morbo is specifically avoiding discussing my real substantitive contributions to the forum like "ask Dr. Rabbit" and the politically correct annual hatrack gift to charity.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What about demanding apologies or retractions?
I'd like to see an apology from Ferraro, but it doesn't really make sense to demand an apology or retraction from Clinton for something she didn't say. I think asking Clinton to demonstrate her disapproval by distancing herself from Ferraro is a logical action and it is uncharitable to call it politically motivated.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You can't triangulate your way out of this, Rabbit. You certainly did vote for the AUGH (Authorization for the Use of Graemlins on Hatrack.) And you've been backtracking ever since from the graphics quagmire it's caused.
I'm not avoiding discussing your admittedly substansive contributions--I'm just letting you toot your own horn.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I also question the value of apologies and retraction in a case like this.
Ferraro knew she was claiming that Obama was only succeeding because of reverse discrimination. What can she possibly say to ameliorate that? The best she can do is to say that she is sorry she made the racist and insulting comment. She can't really convincingly claim she doesn't believe those things.
The best the Clinton campaign can do is to take actions to assure people that they don't believe the accusation and are offended buy it. Certainly they should be cognizant of how vulnerable they are to the same kind of accusation and how outraged they would be if people publicly state that she was only still in the race because she is a woman.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I am deeply disappointed that Morbo is continuing with this personal and politically motivated attacks when we should be focusing on the important issues of this thread. I have dedicated 8 years of my life to this forum. Ask yourself, when you are reading this forum at 3am, whose posts would you prefer to see?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:What about demanding apologies or retractions?
I'd like to see an apology from Ferraro, but it doesn't really make sense to demand an apology or retraction from Clinton for something she didn't say. I think asking Clinton to demonstrate her disapproval by distancing herself from Ferraro is a logical action and it is uncharitable to call it politically motivated.
Ferarro is, according to the article, a "top Clinton fundraiser"...
I guess I'm going to have to be uncharitable, then. My inherent skepticism/cynicism with regard to the political process causes me to suspect that the possibility knocking a few dollars out of his major opponent's future warchest can't help but play a part in this.
For the record, I like Obama, I respect Obama, his message gives me more to hope for than anything from any candidate in a decade, and if he wins the nomination I'm more than prepared to contribute money, make calls, and do whatever it is in my power to do to insure that he does in fact rise to the presidency.
That doesn't mean his campaign is necessarily devoid of people who are in "bar room brawl" mode.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Yes, Rabbit, and that 8 years of experience includes a vote for adding graemlins to the forum. We all know what horrors that has led to.
I'm shocked you'd let this sentence vomit emoticons all over this thread without fully considering the implications and consequences.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...Ask yourself, when you are reading this forum at 3am, whose posts would you prefer to see?
Sid Meier's
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"If the "entirety of Clinton's campaign theme" is that people are prejudiced in favor of Obama because he's black and against her because she is female"
Nah, the Clintons' campaign theme has been to link Obama with Male and Black, while linking *Hillary* with Female and White. Then letting the gullible fall their own way. Hence the "Is Obama Black Enough?" play to black voters as if a person hasta grow up as a "homeboy in the 'hood" to share commonalities, which simultaneously told other voters to "remember that Obama is black." Same with "Bill is the first BlackPresident" all the way through "Mississippi women should vote for me if they want to throw off their subjugation by men." Every vote she loses is cast by "bigots who hate me..." "...because I am white" or "...because I am not a man" or "...for being a successful woman." Every vote Obama wins is "because he is a man" or "because he is black." Or both.
Then there is her campaign's constant "Clinton is more macho than thou" comparisons to Obama. (And everybody else as far as I can tell)
When this election cycle started, I was REALLY pleased by the choice between the top contenders. Leaning toward Obama (with a STRONG "prove you've got what it takes") while leaning away from Clinton**. Even third-choice Edwards felt like somebody I could enjoy voting for. And I really can't remember a previous presidential race in which I could enjoy voting for a candidate. Oh, intellectually I felt that Gore would probably make a good President: certainly better than any of the alternatives. But intellectually I know that raw vegetables are good for ya.....and I still won't pass up the enjoyment of eating a decent chocolate croissant by having raw vegetables instead. If Clinton had stuck to the real issues, I'd have still felt good about voting for her in the GeneralElection; whether or not I had voted for Obama in the Primaries. She sounds quite expert&sincere when discussing the real issues; even in those areas where I have personal disagreement.
Instead the Clintons began race&gender-baiting of the type that hasn't been so over-the-top and out-in-the-open since Reagan***.
She probably had better than a 2to3 split in the black vote with Obama, 1to2 split at the very worst.....until the Clintons decided to get clever. Essentially, being clever is over-reliance on the blindness of others, hoping that subtlety of phrasing will fly over the heads of the folks being called "IDIOTS!" The problem being ya can't "fool all of the people all of the time." And payback's a beach as the word spreads. Similarly she's torgued off the entire Democratic core except the I am Woman, Hear Me Roar contingent along with a few GrayPanthers and retirees who'll vote for whoever is closest to their age. And of course, she's still guaranteed to have the support of the Democrats who literally would "vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Republican."
Now all I see in her candidacy is personal egotism trumping over all other considerations; including her own public agenda. Even if she were to win the Presidency, the Clintons will have alienated so many people that the coattail effect will hurt those incumbents and challengers seen (rightly or wrongly) as her political allies; especially those facing tight elections. And ya can't pass legislation through political foes
So if she were to win the Nomination... It comes down to, do I really want somebody who is willing to nuke the DemocraticParty, and her own legislative programs, in hopes of obtaining personal gratification to be sitting by the RedPhones****? An "I'm more macho" brawler to be quarterbacking the football?
And I really despise McCain politically. Maybe I'm wrong. But almost all of the legislation that he's supported has been either the antithesis of what I see as desirable, or so poorly crafted as to appear to be nearly as self-serving as for-the-good-of-all. But I do think, despite the reputation spread by his political foes, that McCain has a steady temperament. ie Even when he is really angry, he engages his brain before acting.
* Reflecting her preference on campaign signs
** Due to concern about the 16years of rightwing smears against both Clintons affecting her electability in the GeneralElection, with the (back then) possibility of producing a negative coattail effect on apparent political allies, both incumbents and challengers.
*** Reagan officially began his presidential campaign alongside Dixiecrat-then-Republican "lynchings are a States'Rights issue that shouldn't be interfered with by the federal government" StromThurmond. Then in a town made infamous for the murder of CivilRights workers, Reagan proclaimed his support of those "States'Rights" before the American people.
**** The US is currently in negotiations for a similar arrangement with China.
[ March 12, 2008, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If all other things were equal, I would support a woman over a man for president. I know that's sexist but heck if all other things are equal I'd have to make the choice on some grounds.
The point is that all other things are not equal and I don't consider gender or race to be more important than medical care, the Iraq war, and a variety of other issues in this race. These feminist icons seem to be claiming that I should put gender above those real substantive issues and I find that insulting and very sexist.
I don't think you should find it that insulting given that you are, yourself, espousing an extremely sexist view. That you would vote for a woman over a man "if all things were equal," is disturbing to me. Although you understand intellectually that this will not be the case, you nevertheless recognize that you would vote for a woman, for the sake of voting for a woman. That means, to me, that you will allow your wish to have a woman president affect your decisions. I'm not very comforted by the idea that differences in policy are the only things holding you back.
This is easy, just think what people would say if I claimed that I would vote for a man over a woman in the same situation. Or say I claimed I would vote for a white person over a black person, "if all else were equal." It frames the gender, or the race, in a position of importance to your decision, but also denies that gender or race are important issues. The fact is that gender and race are HUGE deciding factors in the trajectory of a person's life, and even though all else will never be equal, the fact of a person's identity, how they arrived in their position in life, is important to consider, I think.
I may not be completely clear on this issue, I don't know exactly how I feel, but I also know that "all else being equal," gender and race are manifold issues with definite impacts on a person's experience, character, personality, whatever. I may have voted for Obama, for instance, because I find Hilary to be grating, narcissistic, unprincipled, and unrealistic in her expectations. This all has to do in many ways with her gender, the way she has risen in the world because of her gender, and the way that she has learned to deal with others, and has been portrayed by others. If it was being a woman that made Hilary part of the way she is, then it's partly to do with her being a woman when I don't vote for her. I would be foolish to refuse that there was a connection- or not to consider that a better person could have reached her position with more dignity, class, and respectability, and that if that other woman were standing in her place, I might vote for her for the exact opposite reason.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I don't know if I'd consider that particularly sexist. I'm male, and given two identical candidates, one male and one female, I'd probably vote for the female candidate, just like Rabbit. Why? Well, since everything else is equal, the symbolic value of having our first female President would tip the scale. Like it or not, the lack of female representation in our highest office to date is evidence of a political glass ceiling, and I think the very legitimization of the concept of "a woman as President" would be reason enough to vote for our hypothetical female candidate. Again, all else being equal.
Of course, all else is not equal- hence my support for Obama. If this was a race between Obama and, say, Kathleen Sebelius, I'd have a much harder time deciding.
quote:Morbo is clearly distorting my record. I never voted for inclusion of Graemlins to the forum and anyone who has followed my career knows that I have always been very conservative in my use of Graemlins, limiting them only to the most extreme cases.
So are you willing to reject and denounce the use of graemlins, then?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
All other things being equal, I would vote for a woman over a man because I'm tired of "There's never been a woman President." And that's even though I am a... ...dagnabit! It's too hard figure out, what with being a ghost in the machine and all.
Then again, all other things being equal, I'd also vote for someone with a nonAngloGermanic last name cuz there ain't been none of them neither. Besides, listening to a properly pronounced "Sylvia Poggioli" is pure music to the ears.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ugh, it's these types of politics that make me want to vote for Hatrack's third party candidate.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You just don't like music Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
and I'm a serial graemlinizer Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ugh, it's these types of politics that make me want to vote for Hatrack's third party candidate.
There's no need. Hatrack won't coalesce around any single candidate, and it'll come down to a brokered convention.
And then Ron Paul will win. You'll see.
You'll ALL see!!!! Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I don't know if I'd consider that particularly sexist. I'm male, and given two identical candidates, one male and one female, I'd probably vote for the female candidate, just like Rabbit. Why? Well, since everything else is equal, the symbolic value of having our first female President would tip the scale. Like it or not, the lack of female representation in our highest office to date is evidence of a political glass ceiling, and I think the very legitimization of the concept of "a woman as President" would be reason enough to vote for our hypothetical female candidate. Again, all else being equal.
I reject but do not denounce your position.
The "glass ceiling" is societal, historical, impossibly complicated. Who are we to say that there is a net positive in, as it were, throwing a woman candidate through that glass ceiling if she really isn't a decent candidate for president? It's tempting, for many reasons, to throw Hilary through the ceiling, but that would also set a standard for female candidates that I don't particularly like or have much hope for. Why are we always settling on these things and people, when we really could do so much better?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: and I'm a serial graemlinizer
There was simply a time and a place, following the advent of more advanced forum technology and the second forum war, in which certain posters felt obligated to create posts that did not necessarily appeal to the ordinary sense of aesthetic beauty or traditional narrative structure. I for one applaud these posters' bravery, and though we may not enjoy these posts while reading or quoting them, I feel that there is a lot to learn about the forum which created them.
I guess I'm just a posting snob.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ugh, it's these types of politics that make me want to vote for Hatrack's third party candidate.
There's no need. Hatrack won't coalesce around any single candidate, and it'll come down to a brokered convention.
And then Ron Paul will win. You'll see.
You'll ALL see!!!!
So who are Hatrack's superdelegates?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The creators of legacy threads, posters with a count over 2,000 per year on average, Papa janitor, the Cards, Dagonee, and me.
To this decision there is no appeal. Because I said it first. And that's the way it is.
But we'll all go with the popular vote, so don't let any of the candidates fool you by suggesting that the frontrunner should be VP.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The creators of legacy threads, posters with a count over 2,000 per year on average, Papa janitor, the Cards, Dagonee, and me.
To this decision there is no appeal. Because I said it first. And that's the way it is.
But we'll all go with the popular vote, so don't let any of the candidates fool you by suggesting that the front runner should be VP.
I hereby declare a filibuster until Ori is removed, due to a complete lack of experience in these types of matters.
We don't want another Cedrious issue again, do we? Who is to say that he ISN'T Ced....?
Let me check my wire taps.
He is.....TRUST ME!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
*BRRRRRRRing* *BRRRRRing*
Hello?
Sorry, The Rabbit is asleep, perhaps I help? Ahh, I see, a critical crisis that won't wait till morn? Why, sure I can pitch in! I have manly, decisive skills just rarin' to tackle this problem!
(My name is Morbo and I approved this ad parody.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can see the ad now:
"Fade In"
IT'S 7PM. A STEREOTYPICAL AMERICAN FAMILY SITS DOWN TO DINNER.
THE PHONE RINGS
Mother - "Not again! Everytime we sit down to eat!"
Children - "Mom, now we can't eat together, as a family. Who would want to ruin our precious time together, as a family?"
Father - "There's only one man I can trust to solve this issue..."
FADE TO BLACK - WHITE TEXT APPEARS ON THE SCREEN:
"Who do you want answering the phone at 7pm?"
SWITCH TO:
"Morbo - Defending America from telemarketers."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I may not offer experiences, but I promise CHANGE! I am the candidate of hope. I support dreams. If there was a dog limping across the street and I was speeding along in my car, I would slow down, I might even point for another motorist to get out of their cars and help the doggy. Can you guarantee that another candidate would do that, if the red phone was also ringing?
Vote for me, vote for change. Vote for hope, vote for sunrise.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Very funny, but where were you jatraqueros-come-lately at 3am when the country needed you? Slackers.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wait, you're speeding, pointing at gimpy dogs, answering cell phones, and making change? All at 3am?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well as a Superdelegate as defined by Orincoro's rules, I was waiting at home for a call from Chelsea Clinton or Madeleine Albright.
I expect to be courted.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Wait, you're speeding, pointing at gimpy dogs, answering cell phones, and making change? All at 3am?
Consider the time difference.
As a superdelegate, I am called upon to multi-task, misquote, and generally derail an argument at any given time. I take it as my solemn duty and honor.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I expect to be courted.
:::bring BRIING::
Hey, Lyr, what's up... yeah... yeah it's me. So, um, hey can you hear me.... oh ok. So anyway, um... hey did you make it to that concert last week? ... Oh yeah I think I saw you there right? Ha ha.... yeah... so anyway, I was wondering, like, um, I know that like, you're like this "super delegate" and stuff.. hehe. .... yeah.... so anyway I was wondering if like, you might be interested in um, like, maybe voting for my friend who's running and stuff? ... yeah.... yeah her... uhuh... well, she told me that like, she thought you were really cute and stuff? so like, maybe you want to vote for her, and like, you know, like who knows? right? So, yeah, ok... yeah... oh, right ok... cool... aright... ttyl. Haha... bye
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So...I'm a 14 year old superdelegate and you're the best friend of someone running for student council president?
We'll talk more tomorrow in home room.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
It's like a circus! There are scary clowns everywhere...
quote: "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Yeah, that's really not something that a political worker should say. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a number of people are voting for Obama to prove to themselves that they're not racist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe this is so offensive because it is coming from someone supporting a candidate that would not be in her position if she weren't a woman?
Elizabeth Edwards said that she couldn't make her husband be black or female and that puts him at a disadvantage, and that was quietly acknowledged as probably true.
But if Hillary were male, she wouldn't have been able to marry Bill Clinton and she would never have been in the position she's in now, so for her campaign to degrade Obama for his race while crying sexism if particularly hypocritical.
---
quote:"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
Oh good grief. Signs of senility if she thinks that was a good idea.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Perhaps it's my own bias towards Obama, but I'm reading a lot more sense of entitlement coming from the Clinton campaign than I am from the Obama campaign. And not just from the campaign, but supporters.
I just get a vibe-and a lot of this comes from the offer-but-not-really of a VP slot for Obama from Clinton-that pro-Clinton people are really annoyed or even angry that this newbie comes along and messes with Clinton's shot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rakeesh, have you seen the Slate video comparing Hillary to Tracy Flick?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha! Yup, I have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Perhaps it's my own bias towards Obama, but I'm reading a lot more sense of entitlement coming from the Clinton campaign than I am from the Obama campaign. And not just from the campaign, but supporters.
I just get a vibe-and a lot of this comes from the offer-but-not-really of a VP slot for Obama from Clinton-that pro-Clinton people are really annoyed or even angry that this newbie comes along and messes with Clinton's shot.
Well of course. It was her turn. She stuck with Bill and that was the deal.
Sorry. That was cynical. I really don't know that her marriage has anything to do with anything. (See my previous comments.) But I have gotten more cynical about Senator Clinton as I have observed her behavior in this campaign.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I get that sense, too - that this is the payoff for keeping her part of the bargain. However, the nomination is not Bill's to give away. Talk about a smoke-filled backroom - I think she struck a Faustian bargain and is outraged that it isn't working out. I'm unhappy that she struck the bargain in the first place.
I would be thrilled to vote for a woman for President. I don't want to vote for a woman who is in the position to be elected only because she served as a conspirator to her husband's decades-long adultery with subordinates.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I reject but do not denounce your position.
The "glass ceiling" is societal, historical, impossibly complicated. Who are we to say that there is a net positive in, as it were, throwing a woman candidate through that glass ceiling if she really isn't a decent candidate for president? It's tempting, for many reasons, to throw Hilary through the ceiling, but that would also set a standard for female candidates that I don't particularly like or have much hope for. Why are we always settling on these things and people, when we really could do so much better?
I don't think we actually disagree. I specifically stated that the hypothetical involved two candidates that were otherwise identical, and also stated that I support Obama precisely because he and Hillary are not the same. I'm not sure how you interpreted that as me being willing to "settle" for a bad female candidate just to break the glass ceiling. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The creators of legacy threads, posters with a count over 2,000 per year on average, Papa janitor, the Cards, Dagonee, and me.
To this decision there is no appeal. Because I said it first. And that's the way it is.
But we'll all go with the popular vote, so don't let any of the candidates fool you by suggesting that the frontrunner should be VP.
Total nonsense. Hatrack super delegates are those who posted back in the big mouth lion era and who have had a continued presence on the site since that time.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And a half vote for those who just watched the big mouth lion era?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
It often felt exactly like that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: We all know what horrors that has led to.
Entertainment? Thousand-word substitutions?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The creators of legacy threads, posters with a count over 2,000 per year on average, Papa janitor, the Cards, Dagonee, and me.
To this decision there is no appeal. Because I said it first. And that's the way it is.
But we'll all go with the popular vote, so don't let any of the candidates fool you by suggesting that the frontrunner should be VP.
Total nonsense. Hatrack super delegates are those who posted back in the big mouth lion era and who have had a continued presence on the site since that time.
Look, I'm not going to veto this response.
What I'm going to go ahead and do is sign it, and make this statement: I have the right and duty to ignore your argument in my capacity as superdelegate, when it may impinge upon my duty to protect Hatrack.
Orincoro
Posted by the Professor (Member # 5319) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: We all know what horrors that has led to.
Entertainment? Thousand-word substitutions?
I hereby reject, denounce , disavow, decry, (and whatever else the kids are saying nowadays) my surrogate/main SN Morbo's screed against smileys. Who could hate a smiley? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Language warning on the link, hmm?
quote:Who could hate a smiley?
Sadly, many people.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I deplore myself for using a link with profanity.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I demand that you repudiate the link, delete it immediately, and then dump this bucket of ashes over your head. I've got some sack cloth you can wear if you don't want to mess up your clothes.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Can we please get back to the most important issue? All this talk of race, gender, health care, and war is ridiculous and taking away the focus of this election.
Elizabeth, be aware that there is *language* right in your link
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
The battle between the Rabbit and Orincoro has been getting nasty lately, nearly coming to blows over the selection of superdelegates. Stay tuned at 5 for our exclusive interview with Orincoro's neighbor's brother's cousin's orthodontist.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
She is stepping down. I don't like it. I think that Ferraro is a bright, perceptive woman, speaking her opinion. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything she said, but I am going to make a distinction between Ferraro and Marge Schott. This entire wave of resignations creates a culture of fear. I appreciate that Ferraro did not apologize. I don't think that ignoring issues of race is the same as working through them. I think it's ridiculous that people aren't supposed to talk about race and gender, unless you are some wonk crunching electoral math, then it's permissable to do so because the paradigms work.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't think that ignoring issues of race is the same as working through them. I think it's ridiculous that people aren't supposed to talk about race and gender, unless you are some wonk crunching electoral math, then it's permissable to do so because the paradigms work.
I don't think what Ferraro said could be considered working through issues of race and gender. She gave no critical evaluation of how race was influencing Obama voters or how gender was influencing Clinton voters. What she did was make unsubstantiated racist and sexist accusations.
I've been in the position where I have been told point blank to my face that my success was only because I was a woman. The people who've made such comments did so to excuse themselves from giving me the respect they gave other people who had received similar honors. They did so without even looking at my record. What's more I've seen the same thing done to other minorities and women and many of them had achievements that far exceeded those of their white male peers.
If Ferraro had talked specifically about the ways in which race has helped Obama and the ways in which its hurt him (say for example with hispanic voters), that would have been working through issues of race. What she did was make unsubstantiated racist claims.
From my perspective, the average democrat (if there is such a thing) doesn't really care much about either the race or gender issues. I think if either Clinton or Obama were white men, it would make more of a difference but I think in this particular case they cancel each other out. Clinton has a core of older progressive women who supporter more strongly because she is a woman. Obama has a group of progressive black voters who support him more strongly because he is black. I haven't done the math to figure out which is the larger group but then neither has Ferraro. At the same time Clinton faces some voters who don't support her because she is a woman and they fear the sexist hatred the right wing has for her. Similarly Obama's race is a negative with some voters (for example Hispanics).
Given all of that, I don't think its clear which if either of them gains from the race and gender issues. Given the complexity of the dynamic, comments like Ferraro's, which are unaccompanied by any substantive analysis, come across as merely part of a culture of victimization that turns off most people.
I think that Ferraro, and other feminists, had hoped Hillary would generate a lot of excitement among progressives because she is the first serious woman contender for President. I think that they are bitter that she isn't getting a ground swell of support from progressive women and are looking for a scape goat. Perhaps they have some justification. I think if Hillary were facing a white male opponent, people would be more excited about the fact that she is a woman. Obama's race cancels that out because both candidates pretty much satisfy most of the progressives who would be excited to see someone other than a white anglo-saxon male elected president.
Its extremely dangerous for Clinton's campaign to go down this road because she is so vulnerable on this issue. By any objective analysis, Clinton's most prominent public role was as wife of the President a role which she didn't achieve either by election or working her way up the latter and for which gender was a key qualification. Ferraro's comments injured her campaign not primarily because Obama made a big deal out of them but because they open the door for people to critically assess how gender and family connections have benefitted Hillary in the race. Would she even be considered a contender if she had never married Bill Clinton? That's a question its impossible to answer since we have no idea what Hillary would have done with her career if she weren't married to Bill but I think that we can clearly say that if you omit her role as first lady from her resume', there is little in it to qualify her as a top contender for the democratic nomination.
[ March 12, 2008, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
But if Hillary were male, she wouldn't have been able to marry Bill Clinton and she would never have been in the position she's in now, so for her campaign to degrade Obama for his race while crying sexism if particularly hypocritical.
*Refrains from drifting the thread to an average gay rights brawl*
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: The battle between the Rabbit and Orincoro has been getting nasty lately, nearly coming to blows over the selection of superdelegates. Stay tuned at 5 for our exclusive interview with Orincoro's neighbor's brother's cousin's orthodontist.
"Well, I don't know, I didn't see anything... I heard Barack Obama is a muslim... So yeah."
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A video recap of Ferraro's media feeding frenzy. Short version: She's outraged Barack's people are spinning her comments to make her look racist.
I think I've totally got outrage exhaustion. The word and it's synonyms have been drained of all meaning in this primary season.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Keith Olbermann has a long special comment on the Ferrero Fiasco and other recent Clinton campaign moments. It's getting some blogospheric buzz for taking Clinton to task for her tactics.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:At the same time Clinton faces some voters who don't support her because she is a woman and they fear the sexist hatred the right wing has for her.
The right wing's hatred of her is not necessarily sexist. It is mostly disgust that rubbed off of Bill - or if you know her well enough, her statements about wanting to be the second coming of Eleanor Roosevelt will scare you.
It's a pity Elizabeth Dole is as old as McCain, or I'd consider her an excellent VP. As I was reading up on her yesterday, I learned that Lynne Cheney was also considered as a VP by Bush, evidently.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
[gossip]My friend who has worked in various offices said that while Bob Dole was a complete sweetheart to work for and with, Elizabeth Dole was rough with her staff and not pleasant to be around at all.[/gossip]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Honestly, while I can see why people would see racism, I really don't think that there's much direct racism in Ferraro's statements, although when you find yourself sounding like Rush Limbaugh ("Donovan McNabb is only considered good because he's black."), you really need to reconsider what you're saying.
She wasn't trying to make a racial comment by implying that he's an empty affirmative action candidate. She was trying to dismiss him as a serious candidate. This has been the Clinton campaign strategy from just about the beginning. The "people are supporting him because he is black" is secondary to the "and that's the only he has the support he does." She was not only belittling Barack Obama, but also the fool who are supporting him.
There is a ring of truth to the first part. There are people who are supporting Barack Obama partially (or even near fully) because he is black. There are also people who are against him in various degrees because he's black. And there are people who are for him because he's a man (or rather not a woman) and against him (or rather for Hillary Clinton) because he's a man.
That's part of how letting people decide things like this for whatever reason they want works.
---
To a certain extent, I feel that focusing on the racist angle is missing an opportunity for the Obama campaign. If they focused on addressing the second part I think that not only would they beat Hillary Clinton easily, but they'd put themselves in better position to face John McCain in the general.
Imagine the speech that he could give, talking about how, while the racism thing is distressing, he's more concerned about the pattern of trying to dismiss him as a fad. The speech almost writes itself and you know Sen Obama could deliver the heck out of it. Get the right writers and you could give a speech that would be recorded in history.
Working the racism angle will pick you up a bit, but it's destructive and a little low. It's the expected political thing and I think we all know how we feel about that. I think focusing on the why he's a serious candidate, judging he and his opponents on who they are and what they stand for, not what they are, but also touching on what it would mean to be the first President who was black could be extremely positive and inspirational. It could be a barn burner.
---
Irami, I'm not sure I understand your affirmation of Rep Ferarro's remarks. From what I can tell, you are agreeing that Sen Obama being black has been the thing that has gotten him to where he is. If I recall correctly, you previously were claiming that being black was a great liability for him, because many white people wouldn't vote for him. I'm not sure how to reconcile these stances.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In other news, Mitt Romney does another 180, this time going back on his "I won't be a McCain Vice President. That's something that's not going to happen." by actively soliciting the VP nod from John McCain.
edit: Oops. I thought I was in the campaign thread. This doesn't really belong here. I'm moving it over there.
[ March 13, 2008, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Obama hasn't gotten where he is by being black, he's gotten where he is by not being bitter about it, by not taking entitlement in his minority status. That's why I like him, anyway, and I think it's what gives him leadership quality.
P.S. Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee are all poison. If McCain is smart, he won't touch any of them. Thompson would be okay.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:She wasn't trying to make a racial comment by implying that he's an empty affirmative action candidate. She was trying to dismiss him as a serious candidate.
I think it can be both.
--j_k
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If it weren't for one heck of a speech in 2004, he wouldn't be where he is. If he weren't such an excellent and inspiring speaker, he wouldn't be there. If it weren't for his enormously attractive mode of politics, he wouldn't be there.
Ferraro should be ashamed of herself for dismissing a major candidate so and trying to reduce him to nothing but his race.
If it weren't for winning the Senate election, he wouldn't be where he is.
If it weren't for marrying Bill, Hillary wouldn't be where she is.
If it weren't for Bill's blatant infidelity with an intern while President, it is very likely that Hillary wouldn't be where she is.
Something that should have bothered Hillary about Ferraro's comment was the way it reflected on her - that Hillary is only a contender because she's a woman. I think Hillary is desperate and she's grasping at anything to stay in the game, including condoning this kind of complete crap.
What bothered me was the enormous sense of entitlement apparently prevelant in Hillary's camp - that Obama is a "problem for Hillary" and those who support him are traitors to the heir apparent. He's getting more votes and more delegates and so he's winning. Welcome to a republic!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 convention truly inspired me, which was surprising, almost unique for a middle-aged misanthrope like me. I'd encourage anyone who never saw it to watch it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Seems to me that Obama got where he is today because he's a really good candidate for President. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Something that should have bothered Hillary about Ferraro's comment was the way it reflected on her - that Hillary is only a contender because she's a woman
The great thing is that Rep Ferarro, while saying that Barack Obama's sucess is due to his race, claimed that Hillary Clinton is getting treated unfairly because she's a woman.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:If it weren't for Bill's blatant infidelity with an intern while President, it is very likely that Hillary wouldn't be where she is.
I don't understand this part. I saw Hillary as reaching for the crown from day one of the first term, wanting to be co-president rather than first lady.
I'd like to redirect again that Bill's problem was that he systematically sexually harassed women in his employ, and then he lied about it to a Federal Grand Jury. That's the ick.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It has been speculated (I'd post links, but I'm lazy - google if you're interested) that in exchange for Hillary supporting Bill during that crapfest, he would do everything in his power to give the presidency to her next.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand your affirmation of Rep Ferarro's remarks. From what I can tell, you are agreeing that Sen Obama being black has been the thing that has gotten him to where he is. If I recall correctly, you previously were claiming that being black was a great liability for him, because many white people wouldn't vote for him. I'm not sure how to reconcile these stances.
It's a liability in the general, blacks are way overrepresentated in the democrat south, and in the democratic party in general (for all of those hacks who say that the democrats have been fooling us ignorant blacks for all these years, we've finally saved up and bought ourselves a candidate.)
As to Ferraro, I take her comment as a lot of people are caught up in this Obama myth and forget that the myth may not be adequate to the facts of the job of the US Presidency-- compared to Clinton-- and this myth is intricately tied to the color of Obama's skin. I may not agree with all of her sentiments, but they are not so beyond the pale that she should be shamed from admitting them to public discourse.
[ March 22, 2008, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It has been speculated (I'd post links, but I'm lazy - google if you're interested) that in exchange for Hillary supporting Bill during that crapfest, he would do everything in his power to give the presidency to her next.
I guess I don't understand what he has the power to do, besides come across as likeable. Or is it just that it hasn't panned out the way they'd hoped in the Primaries? I thought it was just general expedience and her ambition guided by (in her own words) "What would Eleanor do?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand. Barack Obama is the front runner in the Deomcratic primaries and is polling to destroy John McCain if he makes it to the general (which seems likely right now) because of the advantage of being black, but being black is a liability in the Democratic party and in the general election?
I don't see how both of these things can be true. They seem strictly contradictory to me.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Barack Obama is the front runner in the Deomcratic primaries and is polling to destroy John McCain if he makes it to the general (which seems likely right now) because of the advantage of being black, but being black is a liability in the Democratic party and in the general election?
I don't believe the polls.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, you don't believe Obama would or could win against McCain? Dare I ask why?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Fine. We can discount the polls for the general (at least until Barack Obama wins the general, if that occurs), I guess.
However, I'm not sure how you can discount the fact that the majority of democrats have voted for him, which you are saying is due to him being black while at the same time saying that being black is a liability for a candidate with the Democratic party in general.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I guess I don't understand what he has the power to do, besides come across as likeable.
Well, he is a pretty charismatic figure, so his schmoozing superdelegates could be a pretty powerful tool for the campaign. He also has enough clout in the party and enough experience in politics to be able to call in favors from some superdelegates and threaten others into cooperation, if he so chose.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: However, I'm not sure how you can discount the fact that the majority of democrats have voted for him, which you are saying is due to him being black while at the same time saying that being black is a liability for a candidate with the Democratic party in general.
Being a black isn't a major liability for a candidate within the democratic party-- it's a blessing in some states and a curse in others-- it is a liability for a democratic candidate in the general election. The same can be said for being a women.
quote:What, you don't believe Obama would or could win against McCain? Dare I ask why?
It's easy for non-black moderates to vote for Mccain.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
He was the leader of his party for 8 years. He's got a lot of contacts and a lot of power in the party, both in the party structure and the party base. He was more popular during the 2004 elections than the person running for President.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
If Obama were to defeat McCain in the general election, Irami, what would you make of it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Being a black isn't a major liability for a candidate within the democratic party-- it's a blessing in some states and a curse in others-- it is a liability for a democratic candidate in the general electio.
I misunderstood what you said. I thought you had said that it is a liability both in the general and in the Democratic party in general, but the second part was a misunderstanding.
However, you seem to be drawing back from support of Geraldine Ferarro's statements. If being black is beneficial in some places and a liability in others in the Democratic primaries, it seems like that couldn't be the reason why he is where he is right now. Am I right that you are stepping back or can you reconcile this?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Noeman, I'd say: "Huh, didn't see that coming."
Then again, I was a bit appalled that our democracy chose Bush in '04.
MrSquicky,
Mostly, I support her right to say it. I don't find her opinion offensive. She freely admits that one of the reasons she was on the VP ticket in 84 was because she was a woman. It's not a bad thing; rather, it's the state of affairs, and let's not get carried away. I may not agree, but it's a far from unreasonable position to hold.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'd say: "Huh, didn't see that coming."
It seems to me that a Barack Obama victory would largely invalidate your view of race and racism in America society and politics. If he won, do you see any major changes that you'd feel compelled to make in your worldview?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It seems to me that a Barack Obama victory would largely invalidate your view of race and racism in America society and politics. If he won, do you see any major changes that you'd feel compelled to make in your worldview?
Sure. The extent would depend upon who voted where and why.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand. Barack Obama is the front runner in the Deomcratic primaries and is polling to destroy John McCain if he makes it to the general
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, you don't believe Obama would or could win against McCain? Dare I ask why?
Dare! Dare! Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:McCain is behind by 0 to 3 points in the latest polls I could find.
Wow, I was used to seeing Sen Obama at around +10-13%. I really haven't been keeping up with things lately. I'm a little disappointed in how many things I've thought were true lately turn out not necessarily to be. I may need to pull back on stuff until I'm not so busy.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Obama's big leads were back when a lot of conservatives still hoped for someone else. Also, Obama was weakened by Clinton surviving March 4. Here's a pollster plot of McCain v. Obama.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, that's reasonable. I just got used to the numbers being there.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)