home

Rahmbo Blasts Kennedy's Attack On Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:39:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Good on Rahmbo:

[Rahm] Emanuel called to assail Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for remarks he made when asked about the possibility of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois choosing Mrs. Clinton, of New York, as his running-mate. “I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don’t know how the hell he comes off saying that,” said Mr. Emanuel, who has ties to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and has not endorsed in the race. “The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals.

(Emphasis supplied.) Good on Rahmbo. and I think probably good on the Obama campaign who might have spurred Rahmbo to do this.

< A Defense Of Obama On Iraq | Hillary's Mother's Day Pitch In WV >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rahmbo Blasts Kennedy's Attack On Clinton | 168 comments (168 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    But, but (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    I thought uncommitted superdelegates only got upset with Clinton surrogates. That's what Americablog says!

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    Well Aravosis is useless now imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Worse (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:44:29 PM EST
    Good thing nobody reads blogs. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Nobody does you know (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Um, just one question.. (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    Do you know why Obama is referred to as Senator and in both references to Senator Clinton, she is referred to as Mrs. Clinton?? She has been a Senator longer than Obama, so why don't they at least give her that respect?? That sort of thing is starting to leap out at me. And it is so demeaning, and insulting to a hard-working Senator. Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]
    Same here (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Regency on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:42:45 PM EST
    I've been noticing it for some time and it makes me see red.

    [ Parent ]
    You're so right!!! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Tess on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:15:43 PM EST
    This little "Mrs" reference has bothered me for a long time!  It happens far more than most realize.

    That along with MSNBC's stock head deer-in-the-headlights image of her which  was dreadful and used for months...makes me nuts!!!

    [ Parent ]

    NYT style manual seems to (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:37 PM EST
    require subsequent references use Mr. or Mrs.  Pretty out-dated.  

    [ Parent ]
    But in their Prof context the honorifics are equal (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:06:21 PM EST
    I wondered about that too. It reads as  deliberately obtuse more than respectful, and even more ridiculous if you come across it after a MoDo hit job.

    (I have half a dozen style manuals so context wins out.)

    [ Parent ]

    And they don't permit the serial (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:19:27 PM EST
    comma.  Why do I keep reading this newspaper?

    [ Parent ]
    Post internet, all bets are off (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:55:58 PM EST
    I'm only formal in professional correspondence and work.

    Online I skew phonetically and approximate dialogue online because it's a more natural voice, and punctuate to make it easier to read. I throw the rest to SpellCHuck.

    Also, I use Vox which tends to mix up homs, and since my browser's auto-word select has a mind of its own when it comes to selecting special characters and HTML, I'm just thrilled if manage to make any cents at all. Nyuk.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll be reading your posts more (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:58:45 PM EST
    critically from here on!

    [ Parent ]
    PLEASE CORRECT ME I need it (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:16:05 PM EST
    I'm careful with work related output (eg, not calling people jackwad so much) but I just skim online blather.

    I always love the pluck of people who make the effort to correct The Internet. It's just really nice to know they're out there carrying on the good fight.

    I don't know if you were following a Best Tpyo threadlet where I added this to the hopper, but I'm having this one, from snail correspondence, framed:

    Dear Sir or Madman

    How did I go all these years without getting one of those before?

    [ Parent ]

    No can do. People get pissed at (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:19:41 PM EST
    grammarians, plus, I'd be faking it.

    [ Parent ]
    Rahm (none / 0) (#169)
    by tek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:09:55 AM EST
    Have no illusions on this.  There's not a noble bone in Emanuel's skinny body.  He's playing good cop/bad cop with Hillary Democrats.  No true Democrat will ever forget the vicious things he's said and done to both Clintons.  Emanuel is part of the corrupt Chicago machine.

    [ Parent ]
    Except for today, I gather. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:58:52 PM EST
    Lots of cross-over.

    [ Parent ]
    Good for (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    him but will Kennedy apologize? I seriously doubt it.

    Read The Link (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:47:11 PM EST
    He said that he was not referring to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    right... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:48:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Know (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    I don't buy it either.

    [ Parent ]
    great (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    now he's got to lie about what he said.  he really should apologize instead.

    [ Parent ]
    I know, they ALL lie, and then.... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:48:47 PM EST
    ...they all act like the Clinton's are the only liars. That's what irks me the most about the whole freaking lot of them.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    Then, later, he says she's qualified to be VP but he doesn't think it likely 'given the tenor of her campaign'. WTF?

    [ Parent ]
    in fairness he said (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    "tenor of the campaign" not her campaign.  But for the record, I am not buying it either.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, you're right (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    My bad. Maybe he just meant the campaign overall.

    [ Parent ]
    Does "tenor" equal (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:11:21 PM EST
    "tone" here?

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:13:33 PM EST
    It just that this is turning into an opera buffa.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD keeps the theme alive (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:57 PM EST
    in his next post, by including in the title the word "concerted."  

    [ Parent ]
    another cheap shot (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:47:12 PM EST
    "tenor of her campaign" means she's been the nasty one.  It's really mind boggling how she got painted into this corner, but no woman here should be surprised.

    Actually, I don't think this is the first time I've read about Rahm calling people out on this kind of thing.  He "wrote" a great book a couple of years ago with someone else on the DLC-really about a path to victory.  I'm fairly certain he included the working class.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm, michelle called it tone. you say (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:53:42 PM EST
    tOmato, i say Tomato.

    [ Parent ]
    Kind of like... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    ...Obama not passing the mythical commander-in-chief test but being a swell choice for Clinton's VP.

    Candidates are always slagging one another and then making up.  It happens.  I think Kerry and Edwards had a spat or two before joining up, and I remember Dole and Kemp famously loathing one another before, during, and after their run in '96.  I'm sure Bush the elder had some choice comments about Reagan during the 1980 primaries.

    It's just par for the course I think.  I really don't think it would be in anyone's interest if Obama asked her to be his running mate but I guess we'll see how it shakes out.

    [ Parent ]

    That's it (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Davidson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:53:30 PM EST
    What she said was the following: I passed the C-in-C test as has John McCain; Obama will have to prove it to others whether he passed it or not (and he can't rely on one speech made years ago when he had nothing on the line running for state senate in an uber-liberal district).

    I have been reading your comments for a while now and they're are extremely counter productive if you care about Obama's chances in the GE because they're distortions--at best.

    And again, Clinton went after Obama on legitimate grounds where Kennedy, which is not typical for most Obama supporters (including yourself) goes after her on personal (read: baseless), usually bigoted, grounds.

    Keep digging Obama's GE grave if you want.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: That's it (none / 0) (#156)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:40:35 PM EST
    >What she said was the following: I passed the C-in-C test as has John McCain; Obama will have to prove it to others whether he passed it or not (and he can't rely on one speech made years ago when he had nothing on the line running for state senate in an uber-liberal district).

    And she can't rely on being a senator for eight years.  The point being, there is no "commander-in-chief test."  She just made the notion up.  And she sided with a Republican, a Republican warmonger, against her fellow Democrat to do it.  How is this is better than Kennedy's dumb comments?

    >I have been reading your comments for a while now and they're are extremely counter productive if you care about Obama's chances in the GE because they're distortions--at best.

    Well, A) if anyone votes against Obama and blames it on something that I wrote on a blog, they were never, ever, ever going to vote for Obama in the first place.  I would tremble at the thought of any such person voting to spite an anonymous comment on the Internets.  B) If you've read my comments you might have seen that Obama is the third candidate I supported, Clinton being the second, and that I'm neither enamored with him nor disgusted with her.  What put me off her were two factors: her awful campaign, and the fact that she is almost certainly going to lose.  And C) I would be happy to discuss any individual "distortions" you claim to have detected.  And I mean that sincerely.

    >And again, Clinton went after Obama on legitimate grounds where Kennedy, which is not typical for most Obama supporters (including yourself) goes after her on personal (read: baseless), usually bigoted, grounds.

    It's not really legitimate to criticize an opponent for experience that you yourself lack.  All it did was point out to voters that neither Democratic candidates had military experience and McCain of course did.  So it hurt Obama but hurt all of us as well.  Bad move.  And I've asked several times here how exactly Kennedy's remarks (not the guy in NC, not anyone else, these specific remarks) were sexist, or as you say "personal [and] bigoted."  And I've yet to receive an answer.

    >Keep digging Obama's GE grave if you want.

    Right.  My comments here will doom the ticket in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    He was.

    [ Parent ]
    Obviously (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't believe it (none / 0) (#129)
    by daria g on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:30:22 PM EST
    IMHO the Obama campaign has done a lot of passive aggressive attacks on Sen. Clinton this way, talking more about what he doesn't want to do (implicitly, what the Clintons would) than his actual policies..

    [ Parent ]
    Nice To See Rahm On The Correct Side (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:46:57 PM EST
    of an issue for a change.  Kennedy needed to get lambasted over his comments.  And, he will also need to give his vote over to Hillary, per obama's take on sd's...as if.

    stopped Clock (none / 0) (#131)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:33:09 PM EST
    Rahm's still horrible.  When someone like Rahm is right, it should be noted in passing, like you would say "Look, its 12 O'Clock, and our stopped clock says 12 O'Clock.  Cool, huh?"

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see the remark (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:20:13 AM EST
    by Rahm as some "moral" from him. He's a smart politician that sees that all the Hillary bashing is alienating a portion of the party that Obama would need to win in a GE. He's not playing nice, he's playing smart.

    And I do agree, he's terrible. Being right once sure as heck doesn't make up for all the wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    uh... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:47:15 PM EST
    Why would the Obama camp have to call on Rahm to go after one of their own surrogates?

    Yeah, I wondered about that comment too. BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Palomino on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yeah, I don't know about the obama camp having (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    anything to do with this.  I suppose it would have been nice for obama to say something about Kennedy's comment himself; but that is not his style.  He is above the fray.  That boy's grandmother should have taught him some manners before he threw her under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    and your grandmama (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    taught you manners? I see it clearly in this post.

    [ Parent ]
    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kayla on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:41:17 PM EST
    You probably didn't mean anything by it, but "boy"?  Please refrain from using that term for a grown man.  It isn't nice.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:59:31 PM EST
    S/he used the demeaning term in a prior post and I pointed it out. Just got snark back. So at this point either she is completely insensitive, or trying to irritate other commenters.

    [ Parent ]
    Or She, Like Me (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    is old enough to be his mother.  I said the same thing to a black man last summer only I said it to his face.  He's twenty years younger than I am and looks forty years younger.  My use of the term was solely a reflection of his age.  

    I think this line of criticism is picky, at least in this context.  After all, Barack Obama WAS a boy when his grandmother was teaching him manners.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:05:04 PM EST
    I said the same thing to a black man last summer only I said it to his face.

    Was he acting too uppity for you so that you had to put him in his place? Or do you regularly try to humiliate people?  

    [ Parent ]

    Re: uh... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:12:33 PM EST
    Well, either Kennedy's remarks were deliberate and "planted" by the Obama camp, and they sorta backfired.  Or Kennedy mangled his remarks and spoke poorly, or spoke a little too honestly, without the Obama people knowing ahead of time.

    Either way, while it hasn't really registered beyond the political junkies like us, what impact it did make was negative.  So it would make sense for them to ask an ostensibly neutral Dem to do a little media course correction and slap Kennedy on the wrists for his comments.  Or maybe Emmanuel just felt the comment deserved response.

    I tend to think of it as badly worded more than anything else, but I can see how others might have taken umbrage.  Hopefully Emmanuel's retort will nip this in the bud.

    [ Parent ]

    Emanuel (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:19:51 PM EST
    is how you spell it, of course.  But why should I check that before clicking on [Post].  Silly me.

    [ Parent ]
    Emanuel's a name I always get wrong (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:29:34 PM EST
    I know several people of various backgrounds that all have slightly different spellings. One day I made a point of looking up Rahm's with the idea of searing it in, only to increase the doubt factor.

    Now whatever comes out of my Vox macro gets posted and if he shows up at my door with his dukes up or to take it to the Dance Dance Revolution mat, oh it's ON.

    (I just found out that he studied dance.)


    [ Parent ]

    I don't know if... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:44:18 PM EST
    ...I want to see Rahm Emanuel play Dance Dance Revolution.

    That doesn't seem dignified.

    Guitar Hero, maybe.

    [ Parent ]

    agree totally (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    BTD is giving Obama way too much credit -- Obama himself could have stated his disagreement with Teddy's remarks -- imo, his silence on the subject has been deafening. Point in fact, Teddy's remarks were not that much different from previous remarks by the Obama camp ("she'll say anything to win" she is "the most secretive politician in America" to name a very, very few). Rham's not a total moron -- he saw how Hillary's supporters responded to the remarks and he, unlike the Obama camp apparently, is swift enough to realize we shouldn't be alienated if the Dems are going to have a chance to win in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    Well my question is (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by lilburro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM EST
    why isn't Obama starting that talk?  One thing about being the media darling, he has allowed the media to define his relationship with Hillary Clinton.  They are his attack dog.  I guess if you go in with a passive aggressive strategy, you end with it (declaring victory on May 20, leaving Clinton WV and KY out to dry).  But IMO he really should be stepping up.  What's he waiting for?  Does he think he'll lose the popular vote?

    [ Parent ]
    why do the work if someone else does (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:55 AM EST
    it for you. Staying above the fray means Obama doesn't have to dignify it with an answer, same vein as the Move On vote, it's all beneath him. Godly politicians don't have to deal with the mundane issues or those bitter angry bible toting gun slingers. Perhaps he should give a speech on sexism. He can cite the problem,give us another history lesson, then offer no solutions. All done while blaming Clinton and anyone else but himself.  For good measure he can throw his grandfather under the bus this time and the MSM can tingle all over again.

    [ Parent ]
    Surprisingly(!), I agree with Angie (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    Yet another example where Obama could have stepped in and done something--anything--to show that he is worthy of women's votes.  He would have lost nothing in coming out against this and gained everything.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:45 PM EST
    it would alienate his supporters that thought this election was a referendum on the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? Where is the evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:23 PM EST
    I think probably good on the Obama campaign who might have spurred Rahmbo to do this.
    there will no evidence of that (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:02 PM EST
    because it didn't happen.  it would be the first out of dozens of these hose job attacks they've done anything about and they're not starting now.  

    [ Parent ]
    Cuz I think Rahmbo (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    would have checked with Obama before saying it.

    My surmise, no evidence.

    [ Parent ]

    An orchestrated outrage? WTF! As good as pig sh!t (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:18:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    why? since Emanuel is uncommitted. (none / 0) (#20)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Because (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:56:04 PM EST
    Obama is gonna be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Could pls you stop saying that? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:55:14 PM EST
    I'm not attempting to censor your speech but the declaration is kind of spooky.

    Of course if we had a pool and you had inside info to bring to the table ...

    [ Parent ]

    I am not big on apologies (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:24 PM EST
    But Ted owes her one and not a "out of context" apology, it was bush-league, pun intended.

    Too Late Now (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    But he can support a Unity Ticket in lieu of an apology. Too bad his head would explode, cause we still need him in the Senate.

    [ Parent ]
    We NEED Kennedy in the senate? (none / 0) (#167)
    by herb the verb on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:16:50 AM EST
    I wonder. MA is a deep blue state, maybe he's right and it's time to get rid of the "old" politics afterall.

    Then again, No Child Left Behind was really wonderful, as was all the obstacles he has but on wind farm development. Ehhh.....

    [ Parent ]

    Don't these superdelegates (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:53:25 PM EST
    hear the Obama camps divisive comments, as well as the GE math like the previous post about the math. I have lost a lot of respect for many of the democrats in congress? I am not very liberal, I am way more moderate, that is why I prefer Clinton. She is also a tougher candidate.

    And I am extremely (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by seeker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM EST
    liberal and support Clinton.  If a "moderate" and a "liberal" agree, I think the implications are obvious.

    [ Parent ]
    No Proof Obama Campaign Asked for It (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by cdalygo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    Look, the person who should have called Kennedy on it was Obama. That goes down the line for everything else that has been said over last couple of months. See Grey's post at http://www.taylormarsh.com/

    Yes, BTD has also consistently called them out on the same sexism. But it's nice to see them in one spot.

    His failure to take those steps has now given the McCain campaign an opening to raise the issue. Given the DNC's criminal silence on the issue over last month (e.g. the New Republic cover), I say go for it. See the original article cited over at Taylor Marsh's site: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/McCain_camp_no_longer_ignoring_Hillary.html

    Sen McCain is going to win a lot (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:56:35 PM EST
    of democrats because of this caustic crap.  That's on Obama and the gutless DC democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    Dems are a (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:16:10 PM EST
    freaking disappointment.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Sen McCain is going to win a lot (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    I will wager you $20.00 cash that on November 5, you will be unable to find me one single voter who says he or she voted for McCain because Ted Kennedy said something mean about Hillary Clinton.  I feel this is a safe bet to make.

    [ Parent ]
    i'll take it because i know several (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    women personally who won't vote for that expressed reason. please don't try and negate the terrible effect this blatant sexism is having on the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    You know... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:44:15 PM EST
    ...a comment against Hillary Clinton is not a sexist comment by definition.  It can be inaccurate.  It can be unfair.  It can be gross character assassination.  But that doesn't make it sexist.  sheesh.

    I know some commenters here, male and female alike, want to think that the only reason that Obama/Kennedy/Clyburn/Richardson/the media/the voters haven't carried Clinton on their shoulders to the convention is because she has a vagina.  And that, frankly, is just as ridiculous as people at Kos or wherever saying that Bill and Hillary Clinton are secret Co-Grand Wizards because he mentioned Jesse Jackson in South Carolina.

    Baseless accusations of sexism tend to dilute the effect of accurate accusations of sexism.  Please use this charge sparingly and appropriately.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps you mean (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:54:47 PM EST
    comments like the Fatal Attraction accusation by Cohen in NC aren't sexist?  If so, you're clueless.

    [ Parent ]
    why even try? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM EST
    I'm just to the point today where I think that no matter how much you explain, some of these folks just don't get it.  Maybe it's age, maybe it's life experience, maybe it's just wishful thinking.

    I felt this malaise somewhat lift when I read Rahm Emanuel's words, though.  Finally.  A real democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    So explain it to me. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:49:13 PM EST
    Sincerely.  I don't see the sexism in Kennedy's words.  And when I ask, the answer seems to be "Well all those old men are sexist" or words to that effect.

    This isn't trolling, I'm not trying to be difficult.  Maybe it's just something that as a man I'm blind to, I'm just not noticing it.  Could you explain it to me?  Kennedy's remarks, specifically?  I want to know why they're sexist in particular, and not just ill-considered, stupid, and divisive.  I'd appreciate any comments you'd care to share.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (none / 0) (#108)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:03:54 PM EST
    I mean specifically the Kennedy remarks, which had nothing whatsoever to do with sexism.  They were just good old-fashioned political mudslinging.

    The Fatal Attraction comment was obviously sexist.  This was the point I was making.  When you call everything against Clinton a sexist remark, you make it easier for people to ignore the real, blatant sexist remarks because "there she goes with the sexism thing again."  And as I said earlier, the same goes for some Obama supporters finding racists everywhere.

    [ Parent ]

    sleeper, think about this. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    the basis that lies behind many of these comments is a sexist attitude. why do you think the aa community doesn't like to hear the term "boy". it says to them behind the term is an attitude. surely you know that. women for the most part know it.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: sleeper, think about this. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:08 PM EST
    >the basis that lies behind many of these comments is a sexist attitude.

    Obviously.  And obviously, the basis behind any criticism of Obama is a racist one.

    See?  Annoying and groundless, isn't it?  Not to mention counterproductive and self-defeating.

    >why do you think the aa community doesn't like to hear the term "boy".

    Well, because that's not a basis behind a comment, that's a pretty upfront comment itself.  And when people compare Clinton to Glenn Close with a butcher knife, I agree that that's over the line and stupid.  But this was Ted Kennedy saying that Hillary Clinton wasn't visionary enough, didn't believe in the future, whatever his exact words were...there was no "girly" or "little lady" or any of that.  There was no condescension; this was just a direct slam on her character.  (Or a verbal misstep, but that argument's probably a waste of typing around these parts...)  It was probably uncalled for and inaccurate but it wasn't sexist.

    >women for the most part know it.

    Or see what they want to see.  Eye of the beholder I guess.

    [ Parent ]

    trying to make a point w/you is useless. (none / 0) (#133)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    you have a nice evening.

    [ Parent ]
    And you as well. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM EST
    I'm sorry neither of us persuaded the other.  Take care.

    [ Parent ]
    This comment seems a nonsequitor (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:49:22 PM EST
    What are you talking about?

    [ Parent ]
    Re: This comment seems a non-sequitur (none / 0) (#93)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:53:11 PM EST
    I was responding to the comment posted ahead of mine that seemed to say that Kennedy's comments, and any criticism of Clinton, is sexist by default.  And that to me is as ludicrous as the charge that criticism of Obama is racist by default.  Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Clueless (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    is no way to go through life.

    Teddie is the least of it.

    [ Parent ]

    well there sure is a lot of this (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:46 PM EST
    type of behavior in this campaign. i just wonder how the dems would be acting if it were michelle being treated this way. the term clueless applies to the men in this campaign acting in this manner.

    and actually ted is a big deal. he should darn well know bettr. he has put himself out there for obama on the front lines. when he acts and speaks in that manner with no comment from the obama campaign to negate it then i have to assume that they supported it.

    [ Parent ]

    Hope its o.k. to mention Anita Hill (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:02:35 PM EST
    here.  Do you really expect better of Ted Kennedy as to Hillary Clinton?

    [ Parent ]
    antia is a real lady, such shabby (none / 0) (#109)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:06:30 PM EST
    treatment.

    [ Parent ]
    What? (none / 0) (#168)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    Ted Kennedy voted against Clarence Thomas.  What are you talking about?

    [ Parent ]
    These men are not clueless; they (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
    just haven't seen any consequences and don't anticipate seeing any in the future.  

    [ Parent ]
    Done (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:51:44 PM EST
    but it's not just about Kennedy.  It's all the other remarks which have been made and left hanging by Obama and the gutless DC democrats.  Hell, McCain called this one of them out yesterday and got an apology from a NC rep for a Fatal Attraction comment about Hillary.

    If you don't think this will cost you in November, then you should pull your head out and look around.


    [ Parent ]

    Nope. He used to be a better senator than that. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Angel on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:02:10 PM EST
    But no more.  He has sold out.

    Okay, so let me get this straight:: (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Anne on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:05:29 PM EST
    Kennedy said:

    1.  he didn't think it was possible Obama would pick Clinton for the #2 spot.

    2.  he then describes the person Obama should pick.  Remember, he's already said Clinton isn't going to be the one, so in describing the ideal VP, he's pretty much saying that Clinton doesn't fit that bill, isn't he?

    3.  he makes it even worse by saying that the VP should be someone with real leadership - and since Clinton's not under consideration, I guess that can only mean that she's not a real leader, right?

    Come on, Ted - we all know you were talking about Clinton and worse, what you were saying about her; my dog probably could have figured that out.

    My God, there are a lot of Democrats I have lost respect for since the 2006 elections, and the list keeps growing.  

    Isn't that the truth (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by bridget on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:53:04 PM EST
    the lists gets longer and longer

    I didn't espect this from Ted Kennedy

    What does he think he gains from talking like that about Hillary.
    Well, he is an old pro, it's got to be something ...

    or maybe I am giving him too much credit here  

    [ Parent ]

    Next person to mention Chappaquiddick (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    will be banned.

    I had to look that up, but (none / 0) (#36)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:05:53 PM EST
    me too!

    [ Parent ]
    eek (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    That's reserved for Rush Limbaugh!

    [ Parent ]
    What a mine field (none / 0) (#50)
    by tokonoma on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    I really like this site; however, it is a bit of a mine field.  I posted a few minutes ago and mentioned Chappa--well, let's just say the "C" word in case mentioning it even in passing gets me banned.  My point is, it is hard to tell what is fair game here.  I certainly wasn't race-baiting or trolling (obvious taboos already spelled out).  I hope that honestly stating my opinion that threats to ban posters without prior rules ever being clearly defined is a bit capricious will be considered rather than being used to justify my dismissal. It's your site---do what you will, but somebody needs to call attention to it.

    [ Parent ]
    Using the Ch***********k word about Teddy . . . (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Palomino on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    is tantamount to invoking Godwin's Law or reviving the canard that Obama is  a M****m.

    [ Parent ]
    Or that... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:58:09 PM EST
    the Clintons did away with Vince Foster and Ron Brown, for some undoubtedly nefarious yet never fully articulated or even coherent reason.  That one always galled me for its particular stupidity.

    [ Parent ]
    You know about that now (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:23:34 PM EST
    We'll take them as they come.

    [ Parent ]
    That was helpful - NOT (none / 0) (#65)
    by tokonoma on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:27:32 PM EST
    I will go back to being a reader.  I prefer to censor myself rather than walking through arbitrary trap doors.  It's still a good site by the way (at least for readers).

    [ Parent ]
    It's not so bad, you always get a warning and... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM EST
    ...here's the kicker, if you violate the rules in error it isn't a demerit against your permanent record. We've all been "disciplined" a time or two, I'd bet. But it is really necessary, I've come to realize, in order to keep us out of the mud.

    [ Parent ]
    Bleck... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:56:03 AM EST
    Nothing good comes from bringing that right wing TP up...

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, Would You Prefer (none / 0) (#128)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:25:26 PM EST
    that the event in question be forgotten completely?  Sounds like a serious case of denial to me.

    Things always assume their proper perspective with time.  That doesn't mean they never happened nor that they should have no effect on current thinking.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    Who else thinks this is Rahm calling for a unity ticket?

    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:10:22 PM EST
    not even a whiff.

    [ Parent ]
    House Dems are vulnerable and nervous? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
    Dems need to stop jockeying and tripping over each other for media space. It's embarrassing.

    In a rush to be at the head of the receiving line to annoint Obama and get their meat hooks into those now legendary databases of new Peeps, they're writing off substantial groups of floyal Dem voters.

    It's never been clear whether these oPods would even be back after the summer since Bad Monster Lady didn't fold.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    Hadn't thought of it but I like the idea. Would be even more exciting if Rahm got it from Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:14:14 PM EST
    Here's my reasoning.

    Rahm doesn't give a damn about Hillary's feelings. I assume he agrees with BTD that this is all about November. And unlike some of Obama's biggest boosters, he understands that we need a united Democratic party, and that Hillary has roughly half of it in her back pocket.

    If Rahm thinks a shotgun marriage will help us win in November, he'll push for it.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure Makes Sense To Me (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    Still I want to see how red faced Kennedy gets when he calls for the unity ticket. I am lol just thinking of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Rahm sure was loyal (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    to the Clintons during the impeachment so he would be a good emissary.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, she does. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    and that Hillary has roughly half of it in her back pocket.

    The bigger problem is the top of the ticket.

    Anyone with a brain knows who the better qualified candidate is.  But money and media support can do wonders to keep screwing us.

    Shall we bring up the economy under the last dem president?  How about how our standing in the world?  No war.

    Geez.  What is this you don't get?

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, guess what? (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:43:54 PM EST
    Rham actually likes Hillary Clinton.  I know this sounds shocking, but it's true.  He and Bill play golf.  They have known each other a long time.

    I think he's calling out Kennedy on this because it ticked him off, and he is sending a message that this kind of crap has to stop.  

    Speaking for myself, and being a big fan of Rham's from way back (I've met him twice!) I cannot begin to describe how...uplifting?  validating?  encouraging?...it was to FINALLY see someone on the "outside" call folks like Kennedy on his sexist bs.

    They are so blind to how furious women are right now.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm disgusted. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    Yes, furious.

    That's beside the point.  I'm clearheaded when it comes to my choice for president.

    Hillary Clinton.  No doubt at all.

    [ Parent ]

    He may or may not care about Hillary's (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    feelings, but I do think he cares about down-ticket races. After all, he just came off duty from being the 2006 guy in charge of the Dem. Cong. Comm. campaign slate. He's savvy enough to know that Kennedy was probably expressing the real feelings of Obama in not wanting Hillary on the ticket, but Teddy just put his foot in his mouth big time. Rahm can read the numbers, and he can see that Hillary has real support among the voters. He doesn't want Hillary voters so disgusted with Obama and his surrogates that they stay home on election day, even if they don't want to vote for Obama. The Dems need to win those congressional seats. Just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're right. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:40:20 PM EST
    Sadly, it may be too late.

    Rahm was another one that the lefty blogs trashed on a monthly basis.

    You have to have some unity, and you guys can't seem to figure that out.  It may be too late.

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh, I don't want to see it (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by daria g on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:45:38 PM EST
    Yet again the more qualified woman who'd do a better job gets pushed aside for the exciting new guy who doesn't have the record to back it up.  Plus ca change..

    [ Parent ]
    plus c'est la même chose... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:54:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm Cynical (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:51:17 PM EST
    IMO Rahm would not have said anything if McCain had not made a political issue out of Dems crossing the line attacking Hillary.

    This type of sh@t has been going on for months. Crickets

    All of a sudden, McCain criticizes these actions for political gain and suddenly Dems are giving half @ssed apologies and Kennedy is called out for his actions.  Coincidence? I don't think so.

    [ Parent ]

    there is a change in the air (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:56:20 PM EST
    I feel it.  I have been wrong before, but I am taking Emanuel's words as a signal that the crap has to stop.  He's incredibly powerful in the party.  He's practically dem royalty.

    I don't think he does anything because he's told to.  I think he speaks for himself.

    [ Parent ]