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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh, it's these types of politics that make me want to vote for Hatrack's third party candidate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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....?
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.)
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very funny, but where were you jatraqueros-come-lately at 3am when the country needed you? Slackers.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, you're speeding, pointing at gimpy dogs, answering cell phones, and making change? All at 3am?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
