home

A Good MoDo Column, Really

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    How about Only Half Bad (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:32:27 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:34:25 PM EST
    "prettier when she smiles" (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    It is none of your business.  It does not affect her stance on public issues.  If you have that much time on your hands, read a book, don't psychoanalyze their marriage.

    Parent
    You do not know the definition (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    of an open marriage, for starters.

    You really do talk out of your posterior here.

    Parent

    link? (none / 0) (#133)
    by slr51 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:12:01 PM EST
    Do you have a link to the info about Michelle Obama requiring her husband's approval to take a job? The only info I have been able to find says see was already a lawyer in a firm when they met.

    Parent
    It's in an interview posted on his campaign site (none / 0) (#146)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:42:55 PM EST
    As if it were something to be proud of.

    They met when he was an intern at a law firm where she was an associate. While they were engaged she applied for and was offered a job at Chicago  City Hall. Her fiance had told her privately that he had political ambitions. So instead of saying "yes" (to the job she applied for mind you - and apparently it was no secret to Obama that she was applying) she insisted that Obama had to meet the woman who wanted to hire her (Valerie Jarrett) in person to give his approval. She had to "pass his test."

    Now, seriously - when was the last time you had to get an SO's permission to take a job? I'm not an Ivy League educated lawyer, but I do believe I would find that just a touch humiliating.

    Parent

    Wow - that seems like quite a stretch (none / 0) (#196)
    by slr51 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:50:24 PM EST

    If I knew the man I was going to marry wanted to run for office I would be very sensitive to this and want to be sure I wasn't going to hurt his chances.

    To claim it was some kind of "control" issue he had over her?

    Seems like most of the your conclusions come out of thin air.

    Parent

    I Don't Believe the Public Part (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:01:15 PM EST
    Was the Clintons' idea.  You can thank the GOP and the MSM for that one.

    But on a smaller scale I do know marriages where one spouse has cheated and folks who know the couple are aware of it and the marriage goes on.  You know why?  Because relationships are complicated and people are complicated and there are a thousand ways to hurt someone and betray someone and infidelity is only one of them.  And those hurts are balanced against a gazillion other things - love, kindness, mutual support.  

    Look, I'm the first to say Bill Clinton isn't the perfect husband, far from it, and I don't know whether I'd have been able to get over his dalliances.  But I do think his strengths are often discounted and overlooked.   When he was trying to get her to move to Arkansas he told a friend he wasn't sure she should or could because "she could be a Governor or Senator" and this was in 1973.  Not a lot of guys said that about their girlfriends in 1973.  When he says that she's got the best mind and heart of anyone he's ever known, I think he genuinely means it.  He likes and appreciates a lot of the qualities that lesser men resent her for.  And after she moved to Arkansas, by every account I read, he never asked her to change her name even as it hurt him politically because he knew how important it was to her to try to keep her own identity.  Again, not something a lot of guys would do in 1978.  Now, did she compromise and change it?  Yes, but I think it's important that it was her choice.  That he respects her enough to let her make that choice.  

    And he has worked his butt off for her in this campaign.  After NH when they learned of the financial problems, it was Bill who went to Arlington and spent days pouring over the campaign finances with Maggie Williams.  And I don't for a minute think this is about him, he doesn't need the attention, he can get media attention any time he wants it.  He has been reported to have said privately that this is about paying her back for moving to Arkansas and giving up so much to help and support him.  Now a lot of men only get what they want in life because of their wife's help, but not all of them ever acknowledge that.  The very best thing about Bill Clinton, IMO, is that he has always acknowledged that.  He has never denied how important a role she has played, in fact he has celebrated it.

    But back to the issue of compromise in marriage, as Bruce Springsteen sang, "It ought to be easy, it ought to be simple enough. Man meets woman and they fall in love.  But the house is haunted and the ride gets rough.  You've got to learn to live with what you can't rise above."

    Parent

    Beautiful, BDB. You are so right. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    ok... (none / 0) (#87)
    by jor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:12:25 PM EST
    .. this is a line of reasoning I can believe.

    Parent
    jor (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:41:16 PM EST
    do you ask these questions based on your own thirty year marriage that has had every single nuance raked over in the national spotlight?

    Please, tell us how you behaved differently when this happened to you.

    Parent

    I agree w/jor that the Clinton marriage (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:48:45 PM EST
    appears to involve a series of compromises, at least by HRC.  Not sure Bill Clinton has compromised anything for the sake of the marriage.

    Parent
    Not married, huh? It's all compromises (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST
    and most are easy trade-offs for what we get.

    Maybe you'll find out someday, after puberty.

    Parent

    That she stuck with him (none / 0) (#113)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    when most women would've called for a divorce?

    I don't know about other women, it takes a really strong one to remain in a marriage after such an incident. Especially if it can damage her own career.

    But you won't get a peep out of that. Just the usual sexist remarks about her "dependencies."

    Think Obama is where he is today because of his speeches? Heck, if his wife didn't get him out the door in the morning, the dude would be lost.

    It's the wives that are the unsung heros of these candidates. Be it Elenore Roosevelt to Jackie to Roselyn to Nancy and onwards. They really don't get the credit for what they deserve, because all these sexists think, it's the man who did the job -- HA!

    Parent

    Compromises (none / 0) (#170)
    by miriam on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:30:50 PM EST
    And what long-term marriage isn't a series of compromises?  You can't live with someone day in and day out and get your own way all the time without putting a terrific strain on the relationship, or fighting every day...or, at the very least, annoying the neighbors and scaring the cats.

    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

    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

    I thought the column (none / 0) (#25)
    by bob h on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    was garbage, like almost everything Dowd does these days.  She's rapidly moving into William Kristol-style irrelevance.

    Incidentally, Hillary can probably be encouraged that Kristol last Monday exulted in her likely demise.

    Moving Into? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:25:39 PM EST
    I think so (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:31:51 PM EST
    I really do.

    If I understand your use of golden correctly.

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#49)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:39:01 PM EST
    And will just assume it, since we'd never know for sure.

    Parent
    I Would Agree (none / 0) (#56)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:44:20 PM EST
    That is the best part of the column.  But even in this column that laments the sexism aimed at Hillary, she still can't avoid signing onto some of it like the crap about the Clnton marriage.  

    And, unfortunately, Maureen Dowd has been one of the prime practitioners of what she's now denouncing.  Why she's trying to back off now, I have no idea, perhaps she got complaints from friends or readers?  Or perhaps the Docs finally found the right dosage for her meds?  

    There, there. No on screen diagnoses. (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#75)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:03:44 PM EST
    WOW The hatred is awful out there (none / 0) (#61)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:49:20 PM EST


    I wonder which mistakes Clinton (none / 0) (#64)
    by tigercourse on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:52:14 PM EST
    excused because of her gender. That's a weird one.

    And Obama's race has clearly been quite a asset to him in this primary.

    A Contrary View (none / 0) (#88)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:16:36 PM EST
    Here is echidne's takedown of the current MoDo Column (it's the post with MoDo's name in the title, not the top post).  

    Transcend race? (none / 0) (#95)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:40:55 PM EST
    I was put on a moderation ban on another site, when I posted what my mom calls Obama -- Obaba (and this was suppose to be a CONSERVATIVE forum). Reason given? "Borderline racism". My mom's Japanese, and she can't call Obama "granny"?

    Please don't tell me Obama and his supporters are transcending race. Insult my momma jerks, and I'll make damn sure I will do everything to get your OBABA not elected.

    Okay, to call the white dude McCain, McInsane. Call Obama, Obaba, and get moderated or banned. That type of double standards sure doesn't help race relations across the board.

    granny? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:01:05 PM EST
    Thats a new one.
    How does Obama remind your mom of a granny?

    Parent
    why are you, seemingly, angry at (none / 0) (#129)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:03:27 PM EST
    Obama supporters, or question their attitudes to race, when a conservative forum banned you?

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#140)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:33:19 PM EST
    the dude that runs the site is a Dem supporter who gives regularly to the party, in the 5 digit range. His site also has a conservative forum.

    And to answer your question why my mom calls him "granny" is twofold -- she has a hard time pronouncing his name, and she's angry as hell that Obama can beat Hillary.

    It was a sly tactic from his supporters, who get offensive at anything that isn't pro-Obama, especially when you're not supporting him, but Hillary.

    Follow conservatives wouldn't have pulled the OBABA post, but some Obama supporters would -- only they would immediately consider it "racist". Just like they played Bill Clinton's remarks as "racist".

    Parent

    MoDo (none / 0) (#124)
    by Maddie In Florida on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:52:58 PM EST
    is a self loathing woman. What she writes is abusive.  Now she is obsessive about the Clintons. Will she write some snark about the Obamas.  Probably not.  She would be suspended.

    There is apparently not one thing she likes about herself except her hair. Maureen hides behind the NYT logo...no responses please.  I write drivel, you read.

    BTW, Dowd's column is consistently biased and gender bashing.  What's so good about that?

    Erica Jong (none / 0) (#125)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    They complain about her ankles -- too thick. They complain on Fox TV that "White women are the problem" -- (idiot boy Kristol, the brain-damaged scion of Irving who rose through nepotism like our unelected "president"). Then they say she has "baggage" -- which could mean wrinkles, or her husband, or her daughter Chelsea whom they say she is "pimping." Then they say she never divorced Bill -- as if it's anyone's business. Then they moon over Obama's rhetorical style. Then they make it appear that she's a drone or a worker bee and has no royal jelly. Or else she has royal jelly and is queen bee. And that's her problem.
    Patriarchy

    Non sequitor (none / 0) (#126)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:57:01 PM EST
    BTD, your logic seems off the rails to me.

    MoDo: "While Obama aims to transcend race,"

    This is true.

    BTD: "Obama clearly is benefitting from his race,"

    This is true too. But it doesnt, in any way contradict that truth of the first statement. He makes no appeal for votes based on race, to the contrary, he constantly tries to shift attention away from race, gender, etc. toward a past-future framing.

    MoDo: "Hillary often aims to use gender to her advantage,"

    This is true also. She explicitly references electing the first woman, as an argument for voting for her. Barack NEVER does the same with regard to electing the first black.

    "Hillary' gender is clearly a double edged sword"

    No doubt true as well. But totally irrelevant to the point being made. The double edged sword refers to the effect of her gender. MoDo is speaking of her willingness to explicitly appeal for votes based on her gender.

    Modo (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruthinor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    http://www.dailyhowler.com/

    Someone thinks this column was anything but her usual sleezy slam??  what is wrong with you people??

    well (none / 0) (#135)
    by Maddie In Florida on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    Comparing to ones self to MLK for days on end and using the same words as the man, same speech tone and inflections,  is using race. Counting on the African American vote by speaking at  black churches is using race. References to his adopted country of Kenya , is using race.

    The problem is that Barak Obama does not see himself as an AFrican American. He is upper class, mixed race who has little in common with the struggles of African Americans and he makes sure that everyone knows it.

    speaking at a black church (none / 0) (#138)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:42 PM EST
    is using race?????
    Referencing Kenya is using race?
    wow....

    Parent
    He is playing the race card (none / 0) (#142)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    even worse than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at times.

    But like McInsane, if the press likes you, you're given a free pass.

    If Obama called the Blacks in this country the "N" word, he would walk away unscathed. Just like McInsane could for calling Asians "gooks".

    The double standards are eyebrow deep.

    Parent

    no he isnt (none / 0) (#147)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:45:25 PM EST
    he is not playing the race card. Saying so dont make it so.

    Parent
    Why are you so vested in this (none / 0) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:50:33 PM EST
    He used it. It worked. It looks like he is winning. What is wrong with this? It's politics, they will use whatever they can get their hands on. I just don't get it. We have no problem with it. My problem is spinning it and then claiming that the Clintons were dirty and using bad politics. C'mon, we know what goes on.

    Parent
    What's wrong? (none / 0) (#159)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:15:36 PM EST
    The fat double standards.

    His campaign can get away with every race baiting tactic known, while anyone else who opposes him can not, without being called a "racist" (yeah, tell me how my mom calling Obama Obaba [granny] is racist). All protected by the media.

    Parent

    He Did, Brilliantly (none / 0) (#152)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:00:27 PM EST
    But so has almost every white, male GOP president of the last 25 years.  It's not a coincidence so many of them wear cowboy hats, you know.  It's all about being an iconic white guy.

    Heck, the only one who was really bad at it was poor Poppy Bush, remember those Doonesbury cartoons?  The irony is that he was a war hero, while Reagan shot movies and his son went AWOL from the Nat'l Guard.  But he was the wimp.  Poor guy.

    Parent

    Absolutely he is... (none / 0) (#157)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:09:09 PM EST
    and worse, I don't even believe he believes he's even Black.

    Just being born half-Black doesn't exactly make him Black (as in any other race). I find it ironic Obama gets a free pass on that, when even Colin Powell got the doubts about his heritage.

    You bet he's getting a lot of free rides over the race issue.

    BTW, just saying he doesn't play the race card, doesn't mean he hasn't, either.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:40:48 PM EST
    there he was playing the immigrant card. Pandering to the immigrants.

    Parent
    we should call this the Stellaaaa defense (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:48:46 PM EST
    aka defining deviency downward.

    If your candidate is caught playing some card, then redefine the notion of card playing so loosely that you can then claim that any poltician who says anything is also playing some sort of a card. Therefore, everyone does it. Lets move on.

    Parent

    i never said racist (none / 0) (#153)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:04:41 PM EST
    that is a hugely overused word. It properly refers to attitudes of racial superiority. I have never accused the Clintons of that, and have stated explicitly that I dont think they have a racist molecule in their body.

    Playing the race card is different however. They had a strategy, very much on disply in SC, of marginalizing Obama as the "black candidate", as opposed to what he is, and how he has always seen himself, as a serious candidate for the presidency that happens to be black.

    The "black candidate" is, by definition, a candidate who is acknowledged to represent the interests of the black constituency in the party, and is thus given a stage to share with the serious candidates so that that constituency gets its issues aired. But no one takes such candidates seriously as potential presidents. The Republicans have the same with their Christian candiates, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson etc.

    The Clintons wanted to put Obama in this box. Dont take him seriously. That is what the MLK reference was all about - Obama as the eloquent advocate for racial equality, or other racial issues. That is why Bill compared Obama's potential success in SC to Jesse's. That is why Bill explicitly predicted (i.e. gave license to the notion) that blacks would vote for blacks. That is how they explicitly explained their loss - Obama is the black candidate, therefore, one shouldnt see that victory as anything serious.

    That is not racist. It is playing the race card. And of course, that doesnt even get to the playing off of race stereotypes, with the allusions to drug dealing etc.

    Parent

    Do You Think (none / 0) (#156)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    It was a coincidence that Jesse Jackson, Jr., went on national television the day after Clinton won NH and complained that Hillary didn't cry over Katrina?  

    The MLK comments came up because a person in the audience asked her about MLK.  Prior to that she had been using JFK and LBJ.  It's been totally distorted by Team Obama.  But they've done it very effectively and that's what politics is usually about, sad to say.  

    Parent

    Not politics (none / 0) (#160)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    it plays in the awful stereotypes.

    Parent
    why dont you just ask me (none / 0) (#173)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:51:08 PM EST
    what my opinion of the media race/gender framing is? We were not discussing the media, so it was not an issue I addressed.

    I think the media tend to greatly overplay these categories, and in so doing help to perpetuate their relevance. I denounce it.

    It is, however, somewhat less egregious to look at demographic trends and report on them than it is to bring them up in a campaign.

    It is one thing for Wolf Blitzer to say that X% of blacks voted for Obama - it is something wholly different for Bill Clinton to say that blacks will vote for blacks, so we cant win, or for the campaign to dismiss the SC loss, the day after, by claiming that Obama is simply the black candidate, something that should be expected to hurt him in the rest of the country. These comments are an invitation to people to see the campaign in these terms - and of course that means for whites to vote for the white candidate.

    As for the drug issue - the problem was Shaheen's implication that Obama was a drug dealer, not some mere reference to his admitted drug use.

    Parent

    here are a few (none / 0) (#182)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:21:13 AM EST
    A summary of the argument by Glenn Greenwald, with links, can be found
    here.

    The report of the specific campaign release, after SC is here

    Please note, as I explained in a comment above, and several other times 'round here, I did not claim that these things were "racist". Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over the other, and all that flows from that. This is using race, playing on racial fears and animosity in the general population, for political purposes - i.e. the race card. It is not motivated by racism, but rather unprincipled opportunism.

    Parent

    Yeah...do (none / 0) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:02:36 PM EST
    Cause they all do it. I just cannot stand the" my guy does nothing wrong", and yours does everything wrong. Like I said to you one thousands times, whenever the Clintons do or say something, the MSM, blogs and Obama supporters attribute some motive. When Obama does something you do not attribute any motive. How do you think he got this far? Luck? Throwing darts? No calculations? There is a full deck of cards, and they are played. Axelrod is great at it, he did a brilliant double reverse on the race issue that will go down in history. Remember the Rove tactic, take your opponents strength and make it a weakness. Well, one thing Clinton had was strong credentials in the AA community. Within two news cycles, they were down to practically 0. You think that was not planned? If they did not plan it they would have been idiots. It's just that they did it so well. I tell you though, it ended up hurting some long time AA legislators and they will have to recover from that. You don't make allies that way.

    Parent
    Is this the kind of (none / 0) (#163)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:44:26 PM EST
    calculations we're supposed to be making our electoral decisions on? What about political orientation and philosophy? What about the issues?

    Is Hillary really guilty of failing to separate her narrative from Bill's record? Why should she not tout her experience in the administration where she served? No male would get this kind of underhanded shafting, or at least it wouldn't be so insidiously effective.

    Just more misdirection, shallow personality-based analysis, and attempts to infantilize the electorate. Useless and insulting. Meh.

    Tano says (none / 0) (#164)
    by rosaleen on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM EST
    " we should call this the Stellaaaa defense (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:48:46 PM EST
    aka defining deviency [sic] downward."

    Erica Jong says:

    Let me tell you about the Hillary-Haters who fill my inbox, they can't spell. They also believe in witchcraft. They believe HRC boils eye of newt with unborn baby's hair and little Jewish children not yet circumcised. They think she had a child with Vince Foster (even though Chelsea looks much like Bill and even his mother), then murdered him. They think she will leave Iraq, not leave Iraq, give us universal health care, not give us universal health care, sanction the killing of fetuses, not sanction the killing of fetuses, defend Israel, not defend Israel, end the Death Tax, not end the Death tax. ... ..

    i don't beleeve [sic] in witchcraft (none / 0) (#165)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    nor do I think that any rational person would be convinced by such an over-the-top, absurd charcterization of anyone (and yes, I mean anyone, given that I intend to vote for hillary if she is the nominee, and spent 8 long years defending the CLintons) who dares criticize the awesome Hillary.

    My charge, quite rational and measured, is that Hillary is an old style poltician, playing the identity politics that marked the times she grew up in. I explained this at length a week or so ago, in another thread here. Its not evil, nor does it have anything to do with boiling newt eyes. It does, however, include using any technique that you can, including the race card if necessary, to push aside any opponent.

    The outrage in the black community had everything to do with the Clintons trying to marginalize Obama as nothing but another special-interest candidate - the black candidate. Someone to share the stage with for awhile, but not to be taken seriously as an actual candidate for the presidency.

    I realize many women here are big Hillary fans, and thus rush to her defense. But I would think that with a little reflection, they might recognize the pattern. What the Clintons were doing was paving a ceiling on the aspirations of ANY black candidate. If someone like Obama, even Obama, cannot be accored the respect of being considered a serious candidate for the presidency, then ALL black candidates will be, for the forseeable future, confined to the "black box" in terms of their candidacy. That is what got people so upset, rightly so.

    Instead of trying to hunt down literary references by which to insult the messengers, may I suggest that you take the criticism to heart.

    Parent

    Do you think Clinton doesn't (none / 0) (#175)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:21:43 AM EST
    "aim" to transcend gender, whatever that would actually mean?  Don't you think the fact that she wants to lead men AND women counts automatically as a 'transcendence' of gender?  Same with Obama wanting to lead men AND women.  Hillary has worked her tail off, and has admitted to working hard, to make sure that a woman could be considered a serious candidate for President and Commander in Chief.  If that isn't working to transcend stereotypes about gender, I don't know what is.  I'm tired of this B.S. about transcendence.  I don't think there's anything wrong with appealing to a group you were born into or deeply love.  The Clinton and Obama campaigns have both done it.  I provide a link to Michelle Obama's MSNBC statements vis-a-vis the AA community at bottom.  I think Clinton has communicated with women (all races) on a personal level the same way Michelle Obama has communicated with the AA community (all genders) on a personal level, the same way Senator Obama has.  I know Obama's campaign has had perhaps a more difficult challenge in distinguishing his candidacy from the pioneering but failed bids of African Americans before him, or at least did from the outset.  But Clinton also has an uphill battle against the conscious or unconscious misogyny of white men in particular, which I guess she's not doing such a great job of fighting, considering Obama has of late been winning white men.

    Michelle Obama's statements on MSNBC

    You're right, (none / 0) (#192)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    most of my anger should've been aimed at MoDo, sorry about that.

    Parent
    Obamamania2008 says (none / 0) (#176)
    by rosaleen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:39:33 AM EST
    "Can you cite one instance in which he has implied black people should vote for him for no other reason than racial unity?"

    It gets tedious trying to counter this kind of thing. But here you go:

    Michelle Obama in March of this year:

    To Michelle Obama, the wife of Sen. Obama, the reason that her husband is lagging in the polls is the "fear of possibility" owned by those blacks who are holding out -- scared flesh in their racial memory from being told too often that we are "not ready" to achieve. Mrs. Obama holds, however, no fear. In an interview with MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, she said she believes that soon the straggling blacks will "wake up and get it."

    I don't disagree with the notion that for some people of color, there is a "fear of possibility." When Harriet Tubman ran the Underground Railroad, she used to carry a gun with her. It wasn't so much to use against bounty hunters. She used it occasionally to dissuade blacks so frightened by the journey to freedom that they wanted to run back to the plantation, thereby endangering all.

    John Ridley a Black American (none / 0) (#177)
    by rosaleen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:42:02 AM EST
    said in response to that crap:

    For Michelle Obama to claim that one day black America will "wake up and get it" and support her husband is to imply that any person of color who does not vote for Obama is somehow slumbering or stupid. That Obama need not earn the black vote, but rather our votes must be given out of racial fidelity.

    I would add that earning the black vote does not mean pandering to the idea of "black issues," as any issues that affect blacks -- hate crimes and discrimination and lack of housing -- are not restricted to a particular race. And to suggest that those are "black issues" is to intimate that the credit crisis and the war on terrorism and the rise in oil prices are of no interest to or do not affect people of color.

    Instead, I would say that Obama needs to earn his votes through consistency of message. He can't pass himself off as an agent of change, then pander to the homophobic crowd. He can't claim to stand against the war, then continually vote for its funding. He can't send mixed messages as to whether America would actually use its nuclear arsenal to protect itself.

    Obamamania2008 (none / 0) (#179)
    by rosaleen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:53:01 AM EST
    Stellaaa gave you the link to answer your question upthread at #39. But did you read it? No. Instead, you insist that you want someone to spoon-feed the truth to you.

    But when I spoon-feed it to you, as I am about to do, will you read it? Will you bother to educate yourself? Or will you be, within 24 hours either here, there, or somewhere else demanding that someone "cite one instance in which he has implied black people should vote for him for no other reason than racial unity?"

    Here is your citation Obamamania2008 (none / 0) (#180)
    by rosaleen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:00:41 AM EST
    Proof Obama was the one who first played race card.

    by yellowdem1129, Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:19:18 AM EST

    Yes, November is when it all started.  The Obama camp began playing the race card in an effort to boost black votes for them.  They wanted to keep their general support and then boost the black vote toward victory.  The problem is, as I know very well the black community is a PROTEST community.  This means as a group we are more invested in fighting against something than making a political decision about who is the best candidate. There was nothing to protest going into November.  So Obama sought out to create a furor to stoke the emotions of black voters:

    MSNBC is using excerpts of a Michelle Obama interview to run in full on Tuesday morning. In a clip that's featured in the afternoon cycle, Michelle Obama invoked the name of civil rights leaders Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. when talking about African-American turnout, a crucial voting bloc for the Illinois senator.

    Michelle Obama said there was a "natural fear of possibility" and that there were times in her life when she was put down and not encouraged. There is "always that doubt in the minds of people of color."

    She said the African-American community has to shake of its fear

    "That's what we want to show our community," Michelle Obama said. "...We can do this too."

    snip

    CROWLEY: In South Carolina.

    WINFREY: You know, Dr. King dreamed the dream, but we don't have to just dream the dream anymore. We get to vote that dream into reality.

    CROWLEY: Almost half the Democratic primary voters in South Carolina are black.

    OBAMA: The fire hoses came out, the dogs came out, but they kept on standing up. Because a few stood up, a few thousand stood up, and then a few million stood up, standing up with courage and conviction. They changed the world.

    (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

    OBAMA: South Carolina, we can change the world.

    Now could the dream be made into reality only by voting for the black guy?

    1. the much talked about "fairytale" comment which had no racial overtones.

    2. The big one: LBJ - MLK. timeline:

    *  Hillary said that Obama was giving false hope about how he could transcend the political divide, go to Washington and change everything just through "hope". That was "false hope"

    here's obama's response:
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/73017 0,CST-NWS-sweet08.article

    What does that mean, false hopes?" he said at Claremont, the start of a 720-word summation about "false hope" he repeated almost word for word during the day.

    "How have we made progress in this country? Look, did John F. Kennedy look at the moon and say, 'Ah, it's too far?' We can't do that. We need a reality check.

    "Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 'You know, this dream thing, it's a false hope. We can't expect equality.'

    "False hopes. Let me tell you something about hope. I do talk about hope quite a bit. Out of necessity. There is no oddsmaker who would have said that I would be standing here when I was born in 1961."

    Then Hillary said, it took a president to get the 1964 civil rights acts through Congress.  

    then Obama people claimed she attacked MARTIN LUTHER KING!

    who is yellowdog (none / 0) (#185)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:40:54 AM EST
    why on earth do you think it is "proof" of anything to quote some anonymous poster who gave his/her interpretation of things on some anonymous site? Might as well just repost your own comments and take that as "proof".

    The quotes from Michelle are given no context whatsoever. They seem entirely likely to have been from a discussion of her own internal conflicts about taking on the campaign - something I have heard her discuss in various interveiws. Note - there is a little editorial framing put in between her quotes - how do we know that is what she was referring to?

    Oprah's comments seem clearly to reflect the struggles for blacks to vote and to feel their voices would be heard. Is any appeal by an Obama supporter to black people to get out to vote (something that most Democrats engage in) to be viewed as playing the race card?

    The MLK "timeline" you present is downright silly. His mention of MLK in that context was one of a series of examples he used to demonstrate that hope is not airy-fairy nonsense, but is the motivating emotion behind all the good that has occured in our society.

    Hillary chose to pick out the MLK quote to put Obama in the black activist box. There are legions of Democratic candidates that reference Dr. King in their speeches. Obama was not comparing himself to Dr. King, just pointing out that King "peddled hope". As was JFK with the moonshot. Hillary chose to make the point that a hope-mongerer was not enough, you need a president. Well, Obama is running for president. So her point makes no sense unless you assume that Obama is just not in the league of being a potential president. He can make the speeches, but only she can be an LBJ.


    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#184)
    by rosaleen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:37:51 AM EST
    that kind of rhetoric coming from Obama and Oprah and Michelle Obama is so offensive in so many ways.

    There were a lot of non-black people standing up with blacks during the time of Martin Luther King and before him, too. There were a couple of young white men buried in a levee down there in Mississippi for their efforts to get black people to the polls. Their names were Mickey Schwerner and Andrew Goodman. They were murdered, along with James Chaney, a young black man who was working with them. I doubt you would know their names. When B.O. stands up and declares how "we" stood up, he doesn't mention them. He mentions Martin Luther King.

    There was a very brave White Federal Prosecutor who risked his life to go down there and convict the racists of murdering the two young white men and a young Black man at the same time. It was the first time a White man had been convicted of a crime against a Black person in the history of the state. The prosecutor's name was John Doar but I doubt you would know that. You certainly never heard about it from B.O. or his wife.

    Nor were those White men alone. And it wasn't Martin Luther King who sent the National Guard into Little Rock to open the high school there to Blacks. It was Dwight Eisenhower. And it wasn't Martin Luther King who sent the National Guard to Alabama to dust George Wallace out of the doorway of the University of Alabama where he was precluding blacks from becoming enrolled there. That was John Kennedy.

    And it wasn't Martin Luther King who sacrificed his own political career and oversaw the demise of the Democratic Party in the south by signing the Civil Rights Bill in 1967. That would be LBJ, just as HRC said it was.

    None of this takes away anything Martin Luther King did, and telling the truth that whites stood shoulder to shoulder to blacks in the civil rights fight is not racist.

    Bill Clinton, in his years as governor of Arkansas did more for people of color, appointed more people of color to state office than any governor in the history of the US.

    And you cannot tell me that all those blacks who adored him, called him their first black president, went to the polls and voted for an inexperienced, untested neophyte with no specific plan at all beyond "hope" because they thought he was more qualified than HRC. They voted for him because he was black and he had convinced them that HRC and Bill Clinton are racists and were dissing Martin Luther King.

    And personally, as someone who worked for the civil rights movement, I resent this bigtime. B.O. is a parasitic opportunist who wants to live in the WH and he thinks he deserves it because he can talk with a forked tongue and convince people that it is time for a black POTUS.

    this is just not true (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:46:03 AM EST
    Obama has specifically mentioned Shwerner and Goodman in his speeches. I heard it with my own ears. You are just making things up now, in fact, downright race baiting. Trying to pretend that Obama is dismissive of white people who worked for civil rights. Calling him a parasite! Are you some Rovian troll here?

    Parent
    Rovian Troll? (none / 0) (#187)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:35:17 AM EST
    Why is it that when ever someone does not agree with Obama supporters they sooner or later will call them "Rovian"? Because they know that is the world possible insult to use against a liberal? Or because they are so short of evidence that just throwing out an insult is deemed enough? Either way, calling another liberal "Rovian" is way out of line and should be noted.

    Parent
    Tano said (none / 0) (#194)
    by rosaleen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:17:05 PM EST
    Obama has specifically mentioned Shwerner and Goodman in his speeches. I heard it with my own ears.

    If he has, I apologize. I haven't seen it. Got a link?

    The quotes I put up are accurate. I was asked for quotes by B.O. where he asks blacks to vote for him for the sake of racial unity. The quotes I put up are proof that he did and context has nothing to do with it. Just read his words. Just read his wife's words.

    Race-baiting? Ha! Your mother wears army boots, Tano!

    kenoshaMarge you said: (none / 0) (#195)
    by rosaleen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:21:44 PM 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've never seen Dowd's tracts so eloquently described. I was shocked to see her touted here as "good."