home

A Good MoDo Column, Really

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:13:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

This is good from MoDo. Except for this:

While Obama aims to transcend race, Hillary often aims to use gender to her advantage, or to excuse mistakes.

Absurd. Obama clearly is benefitting from his race, and more power to him. Hillary' gender is clearly a double edged sword, as MoDO basically accepted in the previous part of her column.

In any event, a much more thoughtful MoDo than we have come to expect. Tell me what you think.

< Open Thread | The MI/FL Solution >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Good MoDo Column, Really | 180 comments (180 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I read it last night and thought (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:17:01 PM EST
    "Well, that's fine, but what about the fact  that you're personally responsible for so much of this?"

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    Good point.

    I habve not read much of anything today.

    I got weak stuff so far today.

    Sorry. I just have no idea what is going on.

    [ Parent ]

    Something related you should read (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:23:06 PM EST
    the letters in response to Paul Krugman's column. They really cover the full range of feelings about Obama--at least on the Democratic side.

    [ Parent ]
    Not very interesting (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:29:56 PM EST
    Every response was I am an Obama supporter and I am not in a cult, I do not hate Hillary etc, as if they are who Krugman is talking about.

    Heck, there was something CULTLIKE in those letters frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    That was what I thought was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    You've got obviously well-educated people spewing talking points and then being printed without comment in the Times. It piques the historian in me.

    [ Parent ]
    speaking (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:50:10 PM EST
    of cult like worship, is it possible for you to disagree with Krugman?  

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of Maureen Dowd's (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:02:41 PM EST
    last column, do you have any criticism of it?

    [ Parent ]
    nope i liked her last column (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:42:53 PM EST
    MoDo is good at giving me the perspective of low information voters, thats why I like her.  

    [ Parent ]
    Cult (none / 0) (#98)
    by koshembos on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:45:39 PM EST
    Cult members always think that they are normal. After all, most Democrats are in the habit of living in an imaginary world. Remember Kerry - talk about a mirage. So who is normal and who is a cult member is unclear from Mars' perspective.

    [ Parent ]
    More like in their responses (none / 0) (#104)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:00:39 PM EST
    robotic.

    Even the comic strips are picking up on their nature. =:o

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps you are working up a post (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:24:46 PM EST
    on Puerto Rico primary, prestidigitator?

    [ Parent ]
    Doubtful (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    I am much more interested in MArch 4 than June 7.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, we all are. But then? (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:29:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Let's see if we care on March 5 (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    If we do, I'll give it the Full Monty.

    [ Parent ]
    Woo Hoo (none / 0) (#80)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:06:56 PM EST
    The Puerto Rico Full Monty, sounds like fun.

    [ Parent ]
    Looking for stuff? To prep for Wisconsin (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:58:16 PM EST
    primary, go to jsonline.com and then to its Politics '08 section -- it has lots of analysis by savvy locals, lots of stats and graphics, etc.  Then you won't need to rely on more bad reporting and opinionating by the national network idiots who know Wisconsin is somewhere between Chicago and Canada, but that's about the extent of their knowledge.  As usual, we already are hearing much mythology about the state (basically, stories about what it was about 50 years ago -- for example, that there are hardly any new immigrants here; that ignores growth of not only the Latino/a community but also that the state is third in the country for Hmong Americans, etc.).  

    Be sure to watch for (a) a visit to a Friday fish fry, complete with polka band in lederhosen, (b) a visit to a bowling alley, but they won't find bowlers in lederhosen; (c) an interview with somebody in a cheesehead, preferably with antlers on it, too; and (d) no one pointing out, as no one has yet, that Milwaukee is a majority-minority city not filled with Germans and Polish and polka bands in lederhosen anymore.  And if some town name sounds misprononounced, it probably is -- if it's not French but Ojibwe, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Potawatomi, or others of the dozen nations still here.  But you also won't see any networks going north to any of the many reservations in Wisconsin.  Maybe the media didn't get the memo that Natives have citizenship now.

    [ Parent ]

    So, Cream (none / 0) (#108)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:06:28 PM EST
    What's your take on how this is gonna shake out?  You make me happy mentioning the aa snubs and the Indian reservations (is that where Mankiller resides?) but then again, the national news paints a none to pretty picture for those of us holding out hope.

    I also have been reading that the press is none to happy being relegated behind the rope line at Obama events now.  You don't tick off the press--that much I know.

    [ Parent ]

    Mankiller (none / 0) (#120)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    is a Cherokee. She lives on her family's tribal allotment in Oklahoma.

    [ Parent ]
    NO idea -- it's getting weirder here (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    by the hour, and that's saying something in Wisconsin (land of Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, the Dairy Princess, and other infamous murders -- winters like this will do that to us).

    Obama went today to Waukesha.  The fourth-reddest county in the entire country, evangelical fundie land fit for Huckabee, I though.  But now Bill Clinton goes there tomorrow, too, after his big rally in Milwaukee . . . where word is that Obama finally will have a public event this weekend, but no time, no site yet.  That's the way it has been here, where my family is sending me better info from the Washington Post than is in our paper.  Well, except for all the WaPo info that's wrong -- it lists as a rally for Obama what is really an event where Clinton will speak, too, a $100 a plate fundraiser for the state Dem party and hardly a public event.

    I think what I'm seeing, from being around some of the bright young staffers yesterday, may be the result of the technological changes in campaigns since I last was this involved.  They all seem to have three cell phones plus Blackberries plus laptops and are answering and calling and texting and emailing each other like mad.  

    But they're forgetting that most of the public still relies on mass media for information -- and these last-minute campaigns, on both sides, are not getting info to the media very well, where most people look for it -- when they can here these days, with hours spent daily with our snow shovels.  So maybe Obama's staff sends out mass texting that tells the younger set where to be when and carrying which signs, although we will see how well it works here in Milwaukee.  

    His big Madison rally yesterday was announced well ahead of time, in time for mass media to complete a news cycle or three.  Now, no one seems to know what next -- other than that there's MORE SNOW coming for much of Wisconsin in this record-setting winter.  

    Bottom line:  As ever, the polls that are all over the place all of a sudden about Wisconsin are probably all correct for the point in time they were taken and the public they asked.  But I don't see any local prognosticators putting down any bets at the Potawatomi casino.:-)


    [ Parent ]

    Heard Obama speaking on NPR (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:52:35 AM EST
    this evening from somewhere in WI.  He talked about couples where each person earns $75,000/year as people needing help.  In WI? That is a bunch of money.

    [ Parent ]
    'WAY about the average here (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:00:51 AM EST
    which is below $50,000.  But y'know, he's talking to the "creative class."

    Of course, what that means in most of Wisconsin is people who do the most artful decoration of our cheesehead hats.  He really resonates in Madison, though -- the only place I've ever seen lattes here.

    (Best headline about Madison:  "Where They  Put Brats on Croissants" -- "brats" being not our kids here but our bratwurst marinated in beer, yum.  And REAL Wisconsinites put their brats on buns with sauerkraut, youbetcha.)

    [ Parent ]

    I don't like this argument (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:26:27 PM EST
    that we'll never know if America is ready for a woman president, because it's *Hillary* who is running, rather than a more ideal "test case."  As if Hillary were a separate gender unto herself, or as if a woman with a viable chance of running for president would not face similar hurdles, or have many controversial decisions on her record.  Whatever MoDo.

    I can't think of another woman who (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    would have had as much of a chance in this Dem.  primary as HRC.  

    [ Parent ]
    before Obama... (none / 0) (#23)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    ... who would have been the black candidate that had a chance?

    [ Parent ]
    Colin Powell (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Before Obama, before UN speech, and (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    with a different spouse.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh,.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:34:04 PM EST
    ... Colin Powell was politically dead after March 2003.

    Condi might have also been reasonable up-and-comer, but she is also now officially dead.

    My point is, there can be star candidates around the corner -- hillary is not the last shot at the presidency women will ever have.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    You asked. I answered. Apparently you did not like my answer.

    Want to change the question.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course not, but, for me, (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    it is difficult to see who is on the horizon for the next Dem. primary.  A female blue dog Dem?

    [ Parent ]
    Not very reassuring (none / 0) (#77)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    It's only taken 200+ years to have the first real shot at the presidency.  What's a couple more centuries?

    [ Parent ]
    Nah, it won't take that long -- (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:26:36 PM EST
    after all, after the Civil War when the women's movement went on hold to win abolition with the promise that male reformers would get back to what was called universal suffrage . . . instead, at their convention in 1866, the men ousted Elizabeth Cady Stanton as the American Equal Rights Association president and decided to restrict their campaign for rights for only AA men instead.

    As the women were told, "This is the Negro's hour."  Of course, that rather ignored that the majority of AAs were women. . . .  But thus were the 14th and 15th Amendments born -- the ones that put the word "male" in our Constitution for the first time.

    And thus was the separate woman suffrage movement born in 1869, and it only took until 1920 to win the 19th Amendment -- the year that Clinton's mother was born, exactly a century after Susan B. Anthony was born.  So at that rate of progress for women in this country, someone somewhere just had a baby girl who will have a baby girl who may get to be the next woman to run for president and get this far by the end of this century.  

    See how easy it is to just "hope" for "change"?

    [ Parent ]

    Cream (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:28:38 PM EST
    Do yourself a favor--don't read Handmaid's Tale.


    [ Parent ]
    I have. And I have nightmares. . . . (nt) (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:48:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is sheer fantasy (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    You take an essentially true and important point and demolish it by overstating your case.

    The part where you totally discount (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    sex and race.

    Want to try it again?

    [ Parent ]

    Clean up your racist language (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I have to conclude you weren't paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:30:44 PM EST
    she was involved in many of those scandals.

    Oh, you mean the made-up scandals for which both of them were completely exonerated?

    Those scandals?

    Yeah, I guess she was involved in being found completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

    [ Parent ]

    Which point was essentially (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    true and important?

    [ Parent ]
    That there is some level (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    of resistance in the Media and parts of the electorate to another Clinton.

    It is an important point.

    [ Parent ]

    the problem for the clintons... (none / 0) (#78)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:04:23 PM EST
    ... moving forward is going to be, before Clinton hate was part of a "vast-right wing conspiracy". If she faces McCain, its going to be hard to keep saying that, when there was obviously a lot of Clinton-hate even within the democratic party, as evident by the primary

    [ Parent ]
    have you failed to notice (none / 0) (#82)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    that a vast number of people in the democratic party voted for Clinton, too?

    McCain is going to have his own problems with Huckabee.  And besides, he's going to be too busy shredding Obama as he did back in the senate, only this time it'll be on national television.

    [ Parent ]

    Eek (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:34:56 PM EST
    I guess your traffic is going up here. . .

    Transcending Race (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:37:06 PM EST
    I disagree with her contention that Obama transcends race. He and his team have used race brilliantly. After it's over it will be obvious. He convinced AAs that he is AA by framing the Clinton's as racist. Then he got all the white liberal and progressives to fear being considered racist so they turned on Hillary. Hillary had to stop all criticism, cause everything was interperted as racist. There is nothing a white liberal fears more than being thought of being a racist. Our entire race drama was played out. Older AA politicians who supported Hillary are now being marginalized. I just don't know how this will play out in the GE. It's a flimsy alliance. The Bradley effect in California happened during the Statewide election, not the primary. Democrats will vote, but when it comes to the General election-- I wonder if the campaign strategy will hold up. I even worried writing this because it will somehow get twisted.

    Yes, Stellaaa (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:05:47 PM EST
    and that's why McCain and the republicans won't have trouble with Obama. The liberal white fear of being called a racist (notice I did not say being a racist) is Obama's most brilliant strategy--besides the est-change-cult-stuff. But McCain of course can get elected by "straight talk" about race--but he won't have to b/c, ironically, Obama's campaign itself will be sending the dogwhistles about race to the "not-ready-to-elect-a-black" person republican voters. But the republicans won't hear the dog whistles the same way Josh Marshall and the dem primary voters hear them.  That Obama's raceless racial campaign is good only for the dem nomination is why Obama strikes me as the newest version of the limousine liberal losing democrat. McCain's voters will be happy to prove that they don't feel guilty about how they feel about African Americans simply by not voting for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree . . . (none / 0) (#54)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:42:08 PM EST
    that Obama does not transcend race.  I wish you would stop attributing it to the deviousness of the Obama campaign, rather than to the facts of life in our country.  Anecdotally, the main reason A-A's switched to Obama is that he proved he was viable by winning Iowa.  The Clinton's attacks were secondary.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it was accidental. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM EST
    It was very carefully planned, what is wrong with that? It's a political campaign and they had to deal with that. So, this is what they did.

    [ Parent ]
    There was that memo in SC (none / 0) (#102)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    That doesn't seem accidental to me.  If I remember, Obama attributed this memo to "a low level staffer" in a debate.  My understanding was that the memo was distributed by his SC press secretary, a position you do not attain by being a slouch.  I also have a hard time believing that this press secretary would put out a memo on race in the midst of the SC primary of all things without first consulting her superiors.

    [ Parent ]
    do you recall what was in the memo? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:07:05 PM EST
    a list of race-tinged tactics by the Clinton campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    To be made into (none / 0) (#131)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:08:59 PM EST
    talking points. C'mon, give credit where credit is due, it worked. Enjoy it.

    [ Parent ]
    yes Stella (none / 0) (#137)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:24:30 PM EST
    you see, this is nothing but pure Clinton spin.
    Clinton uses the race card. Obama campaign tracks it, to complain about it. Clinton supporters turn around and offer that is proof that it is Obama using the race card.

    No one believes this stuff, Stellaaaaa, no matter how many times you repeat it.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:29:07 PM EST
    lots of people believe it. And lots get it. Obama ran a great political campaign. Check this out: mydd

    [ Parent ]
    Did you look at the contents of memo? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    None of these comments were racial.  Bill's fairytale comment was not racial.  

    If you bother to look at the full quotes rather than take these talking points as fact, there is not one racial comment among them.  

    [ Parent ]

    Link to description of contents (none / 0) (#136)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:23:42 PM EST
    here

    [ Parent ]
    I think the Clintons did not (none / 0) (#161)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:27:44 PM EST
    do enough to make amends for the comments or at least project a different, more gracious attitude towards the AA community and Obama's race as a potential factor.  But some of the items on this memo are so absurd and I can't believe I haven't heard more criticism of their inclusion.  Nelson Mandela???  The Mark Penn Hardball appearance?  A lot has already been said about the distortions of the fairytale comment and the MLK/JFK/LBJ comment.  

    Again:  "Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela."  ????????

    [ Parent ]

    This is what aggravates me (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    Everything the Clintons do is given some motive. Everything Obama does is never looked at with the same critical eye, it's perceived as innocent or an accident. Well, you don't get this far in the big leagues with innocence. Steroids.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think the Clintons had an evil motive (none / 0) (#106)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:04:50 PM EST
    It just spun out of control.  That's why both campaigns stepped back from the brink so ceremoniously.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    You guys whine that it spun out of control, the same time all over everyone was saying this, when nothing was said that was to be considered" spinning out of control" . 99.9% of the people never even read any of the original Clinton quotes.

    [ Parent ]
    Who are you calling "you guys"? (none / 0) (#121)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:48:07 PM EST
    You can't cite me accusing the Clintons of intentional race-baiting.  I'm with Josh Marshall, who is widely seen as supporting Obama, but said at the time about Clinton's MLK comment:

    But her reference is to different presidents -- Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, one of whom inspired but did relatively little legislatively and Johnson who did a lot legislatively, though he was rather less than inspiring. Quite apart from the merits of Obama and Clinton, it's not a bad point about Kennedy and LBJ.

    . . . .when I look at the actual words in this statement it just doesn't match up with the line that's circulating -- that she was saying Obama's King and she's LBJ.



    [ Parent ]
    Well, see a Wisconsin story (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    of anger by AAs in Racine at being left out of an Obama rally (on jsonline.com today).  The town is almost a Chicago suburb to the north, it ought not have been hard to find out who local leaders are.

    [ Parent ]
    This analysis by an AA gent (none / 0) (#59)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:47:33 PM EST
    over at MyDD seems to agree with you.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:10:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For what its worth, Obama is picking (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    up votes amongst the "old ladies," also, if you mean women over 60.  I will never understand, however, how anyone holds HRC's past efforts on universal health care against her now.  Who else has even tried?  Will Obama?  She is risking her chance for teh nomination by advocating mandates to make universal health care a reality.

    i dont think so. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    Mandates are, if anything, considered dogma in the Democratic party. Just look at how Obama is criticized, even here, for not including them - it is spun as an example of an abandonment of progressive values.

    If anything, Obama is risking his nomination chances by staking out a position that he feels is the smarter way to go. Nothing would have been easier for him, in terms of winning the support of Democrats, than to go along with mandates.

    [ Parent ]

    mandates (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:14:18 PM EST
    I'd see your arguement about how he took the hard road by abandoning mandates if he had used other language.  Instead he chose to use Republican talking points.  And for that I think he gets no "courage" points.

    [ Parent ]
    Democrat Hod Rod you said (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by rosaleen on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:18:09 PM EST
    "Nobody has a problem with a female President."

    The opposite is obvious and has been proven. You say people don't want another Clinton in the WH? Where were you when he won re-election handily and his approval ratings were sky-high. People loved Bill Clinton. Where are you getting your facts?

    The piece by Dowd was disgusting. She spreads a sexist joke made at HRC's expense under guise of complaining about it. She claims that if HRC loses it will be her fault and not the fault of Dowd and the other opining meat-heads who have attacked her for being a woman. She is out of touch with reality as she and her accomplices have created it.

    B.O. has deftly used the race card. Anyone who can't see that needs to expand the range of their news sources.

    Terrible Op-Ed (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:04:57 PM EST
    It's only good if you give her a pass for blaming the sexist, unhinged crap solely on "male reporters" and "male pundits."

    The entire column was an exercise in misdirection, as though none of us were capable of remembering all the trash, sexist and otherwise, she herself has spewed on Clinton (I won't even bother to mention all the other female "reporters" and "pundits" who have done the same).

    Nope.  This column was a calumny from beginning to end.

    Hey! Ohio and Texas primaries (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:29:36 PM EST
    are going to be in Women's History Month.  (March every year, by act of Congress and presidential proclamation although because women annually mark March 8 around the world. . . .)

    That gives me real hope of some audacious results for Clinton then.  Thanks!

    What I Learned At The Grocery Store (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:04:58 PM EST
    So here's what I read in the checkout line:

    Oprah is apparently caught in a love  triangle with the Obamas.  Now from what I can tell from the picture, it appears they are intending to imply that she's having an affair with Barack.  Of course, given how the tabloids and media like to lesbianize powerful women, I'm sure she'll move onto Michelle in a few weeks.

    The Clintons have a secret deal where if Hillary loses, they will divorce.   And, I know that all those other 1,000,121 predictions of an imminent Clinton divorce didn't pan out, but I'm just sure this one is true.

    And, you know, I could see Maureen Dowd writing a column projecting either of these two scenarios onto these couples.  In fact, I'm pretty sure she's already done that one on the Clintons.    

    Cherry Picking (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:40:36 AM EST
    Digging through a column by Maureen Dowd in order to find bits that are palatable is like digging in a dumpster. You may find something here and there that is not completely disgusting, but it still leaves you feeling dirty. I'd rather just stay out of the dumpster completely. I can find better columns and palatable bits somewhere less nasty. For myself I can't imagine reading something because it isn't as bad as usual.

    I'm wonderfing what this means, (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:21:17 PM EST
    other than HRC's alleged intransigence and secrecy re health care plan:

    She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor.
    It's a Kinder, Gentler (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    Trashing of Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    right because (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
    no reasonable person would think she did anything wrong with health care, thats why we have universal health care now.

    [ Parent ]
    SCHIP -- children do have UHC (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    thanks to Hillary Clinton.  It's a start, with the most sadly unprotected part of the population, and provides preventive care to maybe bring down costs in future for us all.

    Obama picks up on it and calls it his, with health care coverage mandated only for children.  And she can't call him on it, because it would be called not transcending race to expose Obama's weaknesses.

    [ Parent ]

    SCHIP (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:31:12 PM EST
    does not provide universal health care for children.  thats factually inaccurate, in fact children are a larger share of the uninsured.  On top of that congress passed that and he husband signed it into law.  


    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    You are nitpicking - it was a fairly serious column, inaccurate as it is.

    Maybe I should have written "Good by MoDo standards."

    [ Parent ]

    Damn right! Nit[ickers R Us! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:53:57 PM EST
    If she's going to make a statement like that, she should back it up with a list.

    Talk about your glittering generalities...

    'Fairly serious though inaccurate.'  Hmmm...quite the compliment.  That would still be an 'F' in class with a red-pencil note at the bottom from 'the teach.'

    [ Parent ]

    I've been cruising past (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:07:29 PM EST
    the "nitpickers" containing comment.  Should have know you wouldn't let BTD slide on that one.  Good job.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. But evidently (none / 0) (#99)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:50:19 PM EST
    typing R NOT us...nor editing...oh, well...

    Speed.  Not accuracy!

    [ Parent ]

    That would be more accurate. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:26:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How about Only Half Bad (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:32:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:34:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    "prettier when she smiles" (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The Daily Howler (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    has a great shredding of this Maureen Dowd column.  Especially on that portion you quoted.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems Bob agrees with me (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:37:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I agree, but think key parts are... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    As an obama supporter, I agree, that was a pretty good MoDo column. Although I think some of the women on this board could use to read the following parts

    Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.

    Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. .....

    If Hillary fails, it will be her failure, not ours.

    Thanks but no thanks for the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:23:54 PM EST
    unsolicited advice.

    [ Parent ]
    The feminist concern troll herself (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    I don't have the time or the inclination to point out all of the double standards Dowd reinforces with these characterizations (and this is much more tame than her typical Heathers-inspired "journalism").

    Nor can I describe the combination of amusement and sheer horror at reading Dowd's criticism that Hillary has not sufficiently carved an identity distinct from a man, Bill Clinton.  This is from a woman that won her only Pulitzer for her reporting on the Monica Lewinsky scandal (yep, she can thank Bill), wrote a book in 2005 called "Are Men Necessary?", has made a career of feminizing men, and by many personal accounts has no qualms using her femininity to advantage in the work world.

    Projecting much, Ms. Dowd? A flawed feminist, indeed, but I assure you she isn't Hillary. The reality is that Maureen is a petty and spiteful person hiding behind the cloak of feminism.  

    What's up next week at the NY Times?  Will they have a prominent African American columnist criticize Barack Obama for the manner in which he has chosen to navigate race in this election? Will  Obama be taken to task for not carving an identity sufficiently distinct from the white man, instead running bolstered by his record and his muscle?  

    I certainly hope not because that would be despicable. Overt sexism, on the other hand, seems to be perfectly acceptable.

    [ Parent ]

    Maureen Dowd is not fit to have a column (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    in a PTA newsletter, as I read somewhere. She is the emobodiment of spite and hate. She killed Gore and Kerry. She writes archly about Bush and Cheney but republicans are smart enough never to take her seriously so her childish digs don't get any traction.  IMO, we should not talk about her, link to her, or give her any creditibility at all. There is no such thing as a good MoDo column. She is worse than Kristol b/c she gets credit for being liberal and having a point of view. She isn't and she doesn't. All her work is just twisted autobiograpy written by an unreliable narrator. She's the female Humbert Humbert, if you'll excuse the literary reference.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed Sancho (none / 0) (#100)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:50:35 PM EST
    I am absolutely incensed that the NY Times, supposedly reporting on all of the news fit to be print, continues to employ a woman whose talents would be better served drawing offensive doodles at PerezHilton.com.

    [ Parent ]
    You might enjoy knowing that (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    her columns often are read in women's studies classes, classes like gender and media, I hear -- to wake up students who think that their mothers won everything we needed and they don't need to be feminists because everyone gets it now.  (Btw, they also seem to think that we have an ERA, and have to be told that Constitutional amendments get numbers and don't need nicknames anymore.)

    Then they read Maureen Dowd columns and get cognitive dissonance to the max!  And then they're assigned some Ellen Goodman and Anna Quindlen columns to give them hope again -- and examples of how to think, not be like MoDo.

    p.s.  JOR, with all your talk of compromises, MoDo is the example you ought to read of someone who really has compromised everything and gets paid for it.  There is a name for that profession. . . .  

    [ Parent ]

    Excellent point re: compromise (none / 0) (#123)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    What was this about "controlling Michelle's career" in another part of this thread.  I am not familiar.  Link?

    [ Parent ]
    link (none / 0) (#143)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    This is on his website.  She went to a job interview at the mayor's office and wouldn't take the job until they met Obama.  He was a community organizer at the time, and not her husband:

    In the summer of 1991, Valerie Jarrett, then Mayor Richard Daley's deputy chief of staff, interviewed a young Sidley Austin attorney named Michelle Robinson. After the 90-minute conversation, Jarrett offered her a job, but Robinson called back a day later, not to say "yes" but "maybe." First, she said, her fiance wanted to meet Jarrett.

    click here for the rest.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    the psychoanalyzing of the marriage was weak.

    A fair point regarding Bill being very intertwined, but there is no avoiding that period.

    [ Parent ]

    Cruddy psychoanalysis is MoDo's MO (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:25:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I thoguht this was an (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:26:03 PM EST
    interesting piece. I have not said that about a MoDo piece in quite a while.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with this (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:26:51 PM EST
    but there are certain things you always have to look over with her.

    [ Parent ]
    The Entire Column (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:36:55 PM EST
    Was the same only in softer clothing.   The only reason it seems good is that it isn't as screamingly psycho as some of her columns have been lately.  

    Psychoanalyzing the Clinton marriage in a negative way is classic Maureen Dowd.  It's also a favorite pastime of the Clinton haters.  It's like not one of them has ever met a couple who shares similar work interests and mutually supports one another.  And, of course, Hillary always comes out looking bad for being married to Bill - he never suffers quite so much from being married to her.  Funny how that works.  I don't think Dowd has a clue about marriage or relationships.

    One of the best analysis I've ever read of why the people like Dowd and Broder are absolutely obsessed with the Clintons' sex life and their marriage is Amanda Marcotte's post, a snippet:

    But in the end, it's not them as individuals that draws such fascination. It's the very existence of their marriage, which offends the reactionary story about the fate of women who dare embrace feminism and demand to be respected as full human beings, even by their husbands. Believe me, I get the story emailed to me by various misogynists all the time, who recite it to me like a mantra: No man could ever want you, women who aren't obsequious are unloveable, etc. The Clintons not only give lie to that myth, they basically blow it apart. Hillary Clinton didn't run off every man in sight with her intense intellect and her feminist ideas. On the contrary, she married the D.C. equivalent of the homecoming king, the sexiest guy in the class. (Considering how the beltway journalism is soooooo high schoolish, I think the metaphor applies.) And it wasn't an accident. Not only was he attracted to her mind (women's brains are sexy, oh noes!), but he is not crippled into picking someone more subservient to shore up his ego. The Clinton marriage makes every male politician who's got the standard-issue glazed-eye, no-thought political wife look small-minded, petty, like they can't handle living with their intellectual equals.

    And about Maureen specifically

    Now, for a lot of us, the idea of a couple that is (gasp!) mutually supportive, where they're both attracted to each other intellectually, is commonplace. But for some reason, it's still treated as an unheard-of novelty in the news media. Think of poor Maureen Dowd, who seems to really believe that it's her ambition and not her choice in men that has left her single in middle age. The novelty of the Clinton marriage endures; maybe Barack and Michelle Obama will be spared some of the freak show treatment if he wins the nomination, having had the path carved out for them by the Clintons.

    But the entire thing is really worth reading, including the comments.


    [ Parent ]

    Here is my theory on MoDo (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    and women like her:

    We are basically wired to be competitive creatures. We compete for food, shelter, respect, etc.  This goes back to caveman days.  Cliques form because they yield genetically stronger offspring.  Those who are considered too weak are pushed out.  Those who are considered too strong are either worshipped or challenged.  Either way, those at the top have to constantly fight to prove themselves and maintain their position.

     You can see this in any nature show you watch, and though we wear clothes now and live in houses, that competitive nature hasn't changed much.  We want to be around people who are successful and who share our vision for the type of person we think we are.  We also don't want them to get too far ahead of us, which is why most of us won't give a nickel to the homeless man on the street, but we'll send a hundred bucks to help starving people in Africa.   Universal healthcare in Iraq?  It is a moral imperative.  Universal healthcare in America?  Get a job, you fascist!  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!

    Now, how this related to MoDo:  She belongs to a set social class (well-educated, brilliant, successful female).  Hillary Clinton is part of this clique.  Both of them were raised during a time when there were very few "slots" at the top for women of this type.  By attacking and denigrating Hillary Clinton and trying to bring her down, MoDo is trying to protect her perceived position at the top.  There are only so many spaces for women, and MoDo wants her clique to get them all.  She goes after Clinton the way women always do--subtly, stealthily, nastily.  

    You know, men have it so easy, because they can "out man" each other or punch each other in the face, but women have to be really careful and start whisper campaigns that slowly give the other woman an eating disorder or make her start cutting herself.  It only takes a few rumors to turn the other women against the alpha woman.

    Just my theory, which you can take or leave, and which BTD may delete, though I think it's on topic  (I have one on Britney Spears, too, that's basically, "I love her/I want to be her/She's kind of out there/Holy crap I hate her guts").  I only came up with it because Jeopardy is doing teen tournament and I hate watching those snotty little young twits.

    [ Parent ]

    their marriage... (none / 0) (#20)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:29:03 PM EST
    ... doesn't require 'psychoanalysis'.  It's plain as day to anyone to see that there were a "series of compromises".

    [ Parent ]
    This is the type of BS (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    that makes me dislike some of you intensely.

    You have no idea. None.

    But you deign to act like you know something about this.

    [ Parent ]

    And What Marriage (none / 0) (#46)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    Isn't a series of compromises?  

    I'll tell you, the ones that done last.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm really curious.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:38:48 PM EST
    ... In what world is infidelity, followed by having the cheated-upon spouse cover for you in public, when you know you're going to get caught ----
     not a mariital compromise?

    I honestly don't understand. I can not imagine a couple where this isn't considered a compromise on the spouses part. Its one thing to have an open-relationship -- the Clinton marriage is in its own realm.

    What about acknowledging this plain as day fact is wrong or makes one angry? I seriously have no clue.

    [ Parent ]

    You deem to know (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    all about their marriage.

    you do not.

    Stop pretending you do.

    [ Parent ]

    You have no clue (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:54:40 PM EST
    what goes on in most people's marriages. You have no idea if the Clinton's marriage is in another realm. This goes on a lot more often than you seem to realize. Just look at the stats of the number of people who are unfaithful. I personally know of a couple of very good marriages that have had similar problems but did not have to work it out with the whole world looking on. And look at JFK and Jackie or Franklin and Eleanor. It is obscene that anyone thinks it is their business to know what goes on within a marriage or judge people for staying together. The Clintons have clearly done a great job as parents and they have always shared a passion for using the political process for the betterment of ordinary citizens. The make a good team.

    [ Parent ]
    what about the three men (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:01:31 PM EST
    who lead the charge against Clinton...yet were all later exposed as serial cheaters themselves (one with prostitutes)

    Let's talk about Obama's marriage and why Michelle was not allowed to take a job until Obama had met her future boss and given his approval.

    Is that the kind of political wife you prefer?

    [ Parent ]

    Yeh, that controlling Michelle's career (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:10:29 PM EST
    choices just keeps giving me the willies.  It really does.  And every woman friend I tell about it just gets this freeked-out look, too.  We didn't think women with advanced degrees and professional careers still did that.  And if ever it happened with the hiring committees I'm on, I can tell ya. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    All of my friends have the same reaction (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:24:49 PM EST
    They don't believe it.  Then, they go to his webpage and they don't believe it's on the page like it's a good thing.

    Even the most lenient reading has him using her as a step up into the mayor's office.

    I mean, come on.  Tell me this guy is not a politician!

    [ Parent ]

    Where? (none / 0) (#189)
    by notableabsence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:44:39 AM EST
    on his webpage?  I know women I'd like to show that to.

    Notableabsence

    [ Parent ]

    Don't get mad (none / 0) (#119)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:34:34 PM EST
    but this would be required, in a Muslim household. I mean for Obama to act this way before his wife could accept a job. At least, it would be done where there was a choice. If the family needed the work, it's possible that an American Muslim male might not interview the potential employer, but there would be a great deal of negotiating among the males of the family before she could take the job.  BTW, this might also be the case for hindu, but I know some Muslims and this is accepted.

    [ Parent ]
    Kethy, kathy, kathy. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:05:27 PM EST
    Do you think McCain will mention this during a debate w/Obama/

    [ Parent ]
    its not just the serial infidelity... (none / 0) (#83)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:09:15 PM EST
    ... its how she publically protects him regarding it. Its twice the humiliation when he finally gets caught.  Hence I state, its not just that they have an open-marriage, it goes well beyond that.

    Anyway, the repubs aren't better.

    The infidelity alone I think is boring. Men cheat, some repeatedly, they are often forgiven. What makes their relationship more insanse is Hillary comes out publically defending him against those allegations, to face the embarrassement x 2. I'm just not aware of anything else like that.

    [ Parent ]

    You are too interested in their personal lives (none / 0) (#85)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:12:04 PM EST