home

How Not to Make Friends For November

Via Instapundit, here's Jennifer Rubin in Commentary reviewing some of the sexist comments of Barack Obama and his supporters against Hillary. A snippet:

Meanwhile, Obama had to apologize for his “sweetie” crack. But this was not an isolated incident. Remember, this was the candidate who used phrases like “when the claws come out” and “when she’s feeling down periodically she launches attacks” in reference to his opponent. When language like this is part of the vocabulary of a candidate (one who is so exquisitely articulate), it is worth asking if there is something going on here.

The language and tone of the media have become so condescending and disrespectful toward Clinton that, I think, Obama’s camp has picked it up. When “she-devil,” “everyone’s first wife,” and “Fatal Attraction” become acceptable means of description in the mainstream media, why would the candidate hesitate to use them himself ? In short, Obama’s media fan club — those open-minded and inclusive liberals — have systematically removed inhibitions about the use of startlingly sexist language.

< Are Dems Determined To Lose FL and MI In The Fall? | Just For Fun: ARG Polls For OR And KY >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And I Am Sure Those On His Side Will Be Making (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:04:56 AM EST
    excuses for him right and left.

    Just read the comments in the piece (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:08:00 AM EST
    And you can see what is going on. I just can no longer tell which comments are just misguided followers spewing talking points, and which are paid astro-turfers.

    [ Parent ]
    If I don't know the history (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    of a commenter, I have to at least suspect that they may be mobies or shills or some other keyboard commando.

    [ Parent ]
    I've taken to calling them Dorm Trolls (none / 0) (#234)
    by Jake Left on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:29:41 PM EST
    I get this image of kids with free college bandwidth picking up beer money from the neocon pr people for tossing M-80s into the cyber toilets. Then I wonder how they keep records so they get paid. It all reminds me of the frat-boy tricks that Donald Segretti did when he worked for the Nixon camp in the run up to Watergate. And we know who was a young mentee employee under Segretti -- Karl Rove.

    [ Parent ]
    For kicks. (none / 0) (#240)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:15:39 PM EST
    I looked up the Great Pie Fight at Daily Kos.

    militarytracy and digdugboy both wrote diaries then.
    It was illustrative to note digdugboy's (deleted) diary's title
    "The Sanctimonious Women's Studies Set".

    Sometimes history is informative.  I'm not sure what the diary said, but the title says a lot.

    [ Parent ]

    Excusing Obama (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Prabhata on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    So Obama has picked up the sexism from the media?  Another fairy tale.

    Great contradiction... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    in this man Obama: appearing to be 'suave' and gentlemanly yet downright rude, disrespectful, and out of line.
    The measure of a man is proportional to the degree of respect he has for other human beings, especially women. But now that I remember, he hasn't exactly expressed himself kindly of his "typical white" grandmother, nor of his mother.


    [ Parent ]
    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    Just to let you know, you should only troll rate things you find offensive or if they are false/ off-topic.  I am not sure what you found offensive/ false/ or off-topic about how Obama voted on Supreme Court justices.  I was just correcting a false statement in the previous post.

    [ Parent ]
    Newsweek - Obama's "sweetie" challenge (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:19:03 AM EST
    written by a MAN!

    >>>The reason he said "sweetie" is less relevant than the reaction it produced, and the sense of marginalization it reinforced.
    http://tinyurl.com/3v25o7

    And speaking of Nazis and the way the Washington establishment supporting Obama rose up in outrage yesterday over Bush's comments....Limbaugh and the GOP have been castigating Democratic women with "femi-Nazi" for 2 decades!
    And not one word of condemnation from Dem leaders and the Washington establishment!

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for the link (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by A little night musing on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    I'm glad to see Romano (and some others) "get it".

    I also thought the point got somewhat lost that it was not just calling her "sweetie", but that he was refusing to answer her question so it came off as a dismissive blow-off when the reporter was really asking a very serious question, and that made it doubly irksome.

    As Robert Farley (I think: can't find the link for some reason) said on LG&M, if I'd made a similar remark in a classroom I'd be sanctioned (at the least). Words like this have different meanings in different contexts and Obama's really got to develop a better ear for this sort of thing. (Giving him the benefit of the doubt here.) He did say the right thing in apology, but most of us* who were offended by this need more from him, given that we've seen such an onslaught of sexism and tolerance for sexism during this campaign. Another reason I've said before and I'll say again that I think Obama needs more seasoning.

    *Speaking only for myself, of course. ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary didn't look this good (none / 0) (#241)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    back when she made the "baking cookies" comment.

    She's come a long way since then.  It does take time to be able to handle the pressure of being in the public eye constantly.  It takes time before you can learn how to convey the Message you want while giving your audience what they want.

    It's h3ll of a job.  Get the message across.  Be responsive.  Don't say anything stupid or clumsy or insulting or disrespectful.  Don't be conned or led or provoked.  Pay attention.  Listen.  Have all your talking points down by heart, including policy details.  Be able to answer a question concisely, yet be able to elaborate without droning on and on.  Keep it exciting while avoiding needless hyperbole.  Keep up to date on, oh, everything - domestic policy, foreign policy, pending legislation, votes.  

    Don't let your mood, or whether you are hungry, thirsty, tired or in pain interfere with your attention and focus.

    Oh, and do this all for hours at a stretch, in every possible venue, for every possible audience from the actively hostile to the most receptive.  And remember that the most important person in the room is NOT YOU, but anyone who is listening to you.

    Simple, eh?

    [ Parent ]

    He apologized for the sweetie remark. If obama (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:28:15 AM EST
    was running on the "I am the bestest backpedaler" ticket, he would win hands down.

    Bad enough he is doing a news conference today to address bush's comments that were supposedly a slam on him....can we say another "free pass"?

    [ Parent ]

    I am not going to watch it..but (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    I am going to look for the transcript. I want to see if anyone asks him about the endorsement from Hamas and why he got it. Then I want to watch him sweat and wriggle trying to explain it. That is going to be funny. Really funny. I love watching politics, and this year it's better than soap operas, mini-series and mysteries with a twist all rolled into one!! And from the tone of the stories about Obama in the last week or so, it is looking like the worm has turned for his media darling shtick. It's ObamaBBQ time. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure the statement (none / 0) (#172)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    was directed at Obama.  I think Bush tossed a rock over the fence, and Obama is the one that howled.

    [ Parent ]
    It Was Reflex....obama Always Plays The (none / 0) (#199)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    victim!

    [ Parent ]
    The White House denied it was (none / 0) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    but Bush's people with him in Israel apparently freely told the traveling press it absolutely was meant to refer specifically to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    The excuse is that the media (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    controls Barack Obama?  That he is the MSM's "Manchurian Candidate"?  Seriously? That's supposed to make what he said okay?

    Your Democratic Party: "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" is the change we've been waiting for.

    [ Parent ]

    Tad irrational (none / 0) (#28)
    by 1jane on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:30:51 AM EST
    for continuing to chase a mirage. Take a hard look at McCain's record relating to women's issues or civil rights, that is what faces us.

    [ Parent ]
    Considering that the majority (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    of the Dem party is female....how are you going to insure turnout?  Look, everybody knows McCain represents the sexist party, DUH!  Obama is supposed to represent the equality party and when he doesn't what happens to his base?

    [ Parent ]
    But you guys don't need us so don't worry about it (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:35:47 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Choosing between two (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    men that leave much to be desired BOTH by way of women's rights and issues (sorry present votes mean TRIANGULATION to me) is sickening.  We HAVE a candidate for women's and gay issues. We have one already.  But the sexism of the other two MEN are part of why she probably won't be it.  So I will not reward either because of any kind of scare tactics about women's rights. Since neither satisfies me. And SCOTUS?  Obama voted for Scalito and Roberts. So no thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    *Alito (none / 0) (#32)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No he did not (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    Obama voted against both Alito and Roberts.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama voted against Roberts under pressure (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    He is on record saying that he was for Roberts and supported Roberts nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    For pity sake! (none / 0) (#152)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    BHO is a man who will say or do almost anything "under pressure"!  

    [ Parent ]
    You're absolutely right. I'm tired today. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:06:44 AM EST
    I apologize for that last sentence.  My point re Scotus stands. They won't scare me with that.  

    [ Parent ]
    C'mon! (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:27 AM EST
    He didn't vote for Alito and Roberts, he voted AGAINST them.

    And to be fair (although I don't know why I should want to be fair to Obama except I don't want to become what "the other side" has become), he was initially going to vote for Roberts not because he thought he was a good nominee but because he thought, as do many misguided Dem. senators, the president is entitled to appoint justices of his own ideological persuasion.  I disagree strongly with giving that much deference to a president's judicial appointments, but it's not at all the same thing as wanting those kinds of justices himself.

    Personally, I think the idea that Obama's initial willingness to vote for Roberts is evidence he will appoint anti-choice SC justices himself is wrong-headed, bad logic and a rationalization for voting against him.

    I still haven't decided how I'm going to vote in November, but I absolutely will not vote in a way that aids a McCain victory, and SC appointments are a major, although not the only, reason.  Obama simply would not appoint the same kind of bad justices, and to pretend that he would is to engage in deliberate blindness.

    [ Parent ]

    so (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by sas on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    we get screwed by the candidates, or we get screwed by the SCOTUS

    sorry, i'm not voting downticket Dems either

    my congressman, Patrick Murphy, got 18,826 reasons to vote for Obama and none of them are female (think George Washington ).

    Hillary carried my PA county, Bucks, which he represents, by 63-37 .   He thinks it won't be a problem that he is an Obama supporter.when he only beat the Republican last time by 1600 votes.

    I'm not going to enable those sexists, Obama and Murphy, particularly when they are supposed to be on my side.

    I'm voting for McCain because I want to teach them a lesson - if women let this happen we deserve to be disrespected.

    I also sent my registration to change from Democrat to Independent today.  The party I have worked for and loved since 1971 has left me.

    There is a price to be paid.

    [ Parent ]

    For sure-- (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    "There is a price to be paid."

    I'm with you all the way on that!

    [ Parent ]

    I Concur (none / 0) (#111)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    But unfortunately, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices may be too high a price to pay.

    [ Parent ]
    Only if you believe (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Just another person on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:10:23 PM EST
    that Obama will make the right decision when it comes to the SCOTUS. I'm not convinced.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#145)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    You may be correct, what with his desire to not be seen as Partisan.

    [ Parent ]
    disagree TOTALLY (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    But unfortunately, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices may be too high a price to pay.

    No, it isn't. Losing Roe vs. Wade is not necessarily the end of the world.

    Losing the right to have your voice heard is much, much worse.

    [ Parent ]

    I Think You Misunderstand Me (none / 0) (#136)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:33:44 PM EST
    There are bigger issues at stake than even Roe vs. Wade. John Dean has done an excellent job of detailing the problem with the Supreme Court in his volume "Broken Government" It's worth a read. Our Constitutional Rights are all at stake.

    [ Parent ]
    civic duty is more than just supporting the party (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    Our Constitutional Rights are all at stake.

    So to "protect your constitutional rights", you are going to just hand over your vote in response to shameless bullying, on the assumption that Obama will vote the way a Democrat would?

    (Personally, I want to know what "new kind of politics" means, before I go making that assumption. So far I do not like what I see.)

    You'll give up your right to expect and demand free and fair elections, and you will just relinquish the expectation that the DNC will stand up for Democratic party values?

    You are going to support and reward the very people who have been hammering Hillary to get out of the race, and who have been doing everything in their power to tip the election to Obama, including a number of tricks obviously designed to manipulate media narrative and suppress voter turnout.

    That, to me, is equivalent to voting to dissolve the former Democratic party and replace it with the new Obama party. Or is that "faith".  

    Well, I haven't had the epiphany and that man ain't my messiah, and I am too old to join the Obama Youth (the only ones who honestly expect to gain anything by this), so count me out.

    [ Parent ]

    I Don't Disagree (none / 0) (#220)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    But unfortunately we're stuck with a Catch 22. Until we have a true multi-party system we're stuck with, as Gore Vidal says, "One party with two wings". I'm too much of a sceptic to believe that things will change to allow for true representation in our lifetimes. I'm no spring chicken either.

    [ Parent ]
    Since we're setting the record straight (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Just another person on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    Obama didn't want to vote for Roberts because he thought the president's ideology should prevail. He believed Roberts was a good justice based on his record and decisions he's made, and did not feel that a justice of the SCOTUS should be nominated based on ideology. I'm torn about this issue. I respect his mind-set that a legal career should be defined by legal decisions and not right-wing/left-wing sentiments that a judge might have, but as a pro-choice woman, I am all too aware that the ideology of a justice can sway decisions in a matter that is disastrous for women's reproductive rights.

    In any case, Obama chose to vote against Roberts not based on his principle but political expediency, which is worse in my book. And I'm not so sure he's going to pick a liberal judge for SCOTUS like we've been promised, because I don't think he is that liberal to begin with, and based on his own principle, ideology shouldn't be part of his decision.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure he's (none / 0) (#203)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    going to pick what you and I would think of as liberal justices, either, but we know what kind of right-wing nutjobs McCain will appoint.  I would expect Obama to pick uncontroversial middle-of-the-road justices.

    As I say, I don't know.  But I do know what kind McCain would put on the Court.  It's easy to throw Roe v. Wade, civil liberties, etc., under the bus when we don't think it's going to significantly hurt our lives.  But there are many people in this country whose lives will be made a misery, just as there are many people in Iraq, if McCain is president.

    That said, I think it's basically a moot point because if Barry is the nominee, McCain will be president next year.


    [ Parent ]

    If he's not tough enough to stand up ... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    ...to the President, then how on earth is he tough enough to stand up for our nation? Obama's views change with the tides. He has no anchor.

    [ Parent ]
    He had to be talked OUT of (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    voting for Roberts.

    And ultimately, his no vote was one of political expediency rather than knowing and doing what should have been a no brainer.

    The judge had little to no background experience to be on the Supreme Court. His opinions were minimal. And now he's Chief Justice.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:48:39 PM EST
    about the record it's about respect. Obama doesn't respect women obviously.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    that this kind of misses the point as I see it. The article blames the media for Obama's actions whereas I think that Obama is responsible for his own sexist statements. The fact that the media has not called him down on it has reinforced his belief that he can talk this way.

    on one level (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:12:38 AM EST
    I dont think the primary kid gloves are doing him any favors.
    the media is responsible for his campaigns misogyny?
    give me a freakin break.
    the treatment he is going to get in the general is going to be rather a shock to his and his supporters systems Im thinkin.

    [ Parent ]
    Capt.H, so far, there's nothing to indicate it! (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    Look how they've all rallied around him on Bush's appeasement statements. HE IS THE MEDIA BABY! What has this country come to:DISGUSTING!

    [ Parent ]
    just makes barry look more gooder (none / 0) (#137)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    Look how they've all rallied around him on Bush's appeasement statements.

    being insulted by Bush is like a compliment or an endorsement right now.

    But you know I'm not real comfortable with obama's positions on foreign policy. I don't want this polarized into two extremes with no middle ground.

    [ Parent ]

    To be fair (none / 0) (#164)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    The media should have rallied around him for Bush's appeasement comments. Hillary Clinton rallied around him too.  What Bush said is disgusting.

    [ Parent ]
    new group - Dem women rising up!! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    "Clinton supporters count too"

    Dem women tired of being taken for granted while the Dem leadership has allowed sexism to flourish!

    http://tinyurl.com/6heqzn

    I can't find a website for the new group.

    [ Parent ]

    It makes it really really hard (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    How am I supposed to vote for a such a sexist President?

    It would be ironic justice (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    if he were Hillary's VP.  But perhaps he really does need to hide behind her pantsuit.

    [ Parent ]
    DON'T! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:17:20 AM EST
    I WON'T!

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know how I will (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:34:56 AM EST
    I read Jeralyn's post about new federal judge positions created and they are lifetime appointments, and I know I don't want McCain making those appointments.  And at this point that is about all I know now.

    [ Parent ]
    then don't (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:09:03 PM EST
    How am I supposed to vote for a such a sexist President?

    Make a list of the priorities you really care about.

    Will he be good on women's issues? probably not.
    Will he be good for working class America? no.
    Will he be good for the economy? not if you are a working class wage earning type.

    Will he be good for equality (including not just blacks but everyone, for instance gays and lesbians?) no.

    Will he be good for the environment? He might be better than McCain. But even on issues where he isn't directly awful, you have to wonder - how hard is this man willing to fight for values and principles?

    Will he get us out of the war? He might try. His foreign policy experience suggests he'll be learning on the job, as W. and Carter did. Not reassuring IMO.

    What will he do for America?

    Look - I know he has that (D) after his name, but you know, maybe the party is better off if some Democrats don't get elected.

    And btw I am significantly, seriously disturbed by his attempts to consolidate the entire progressive movement into his own campaign. That's too centralized IMO.

    Don't vote for Obama. Party loyalty must be tempered with the realization that it is blind party loyalty that gave us Bush - there are many good Republicans who voted out of a sense of hold-your-nose duty, who are horrified at how the party they thought they knew is just lost to them now. Is that what everyone wants for the Dems?


    [ Parent ]

    This post paid for (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    by the Republican National Committee.

    [ Parent ]
    oh puh leez (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    This post paid for
    by the Republican National Committee.

    I am not seeing much difference between the Republicans and the Dems right now.

    I thought Dems were better. I thought we voted on principles and issues.

    But I guess it's just time to screw principles and issues. Screw equality. Screw free and fair elections. Screw women and Latinos and gays and the working class. Screw everything the Democratic party has believed in - because now we have Obama and he doesn't like Democrats. So we have to like whatever our new leader tells us to like. After all, he has consolidated the entire darned apparatus under his own name, and has bought every politician in the party.

    But answer me this: if Obama is our messiah, what makes us better than Republicans?

    [ Parent ]

    How bout (none / 0) (#208)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    you explain how is all those terrible things?  And rather that pulling random out of context to "prove" your point you stick with his stated policy objectives?

    The fact that you think that Barack Obama opposes equality suggests that you have become blinded by your anger over Hillary not getting the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Which ones? (none / 0) (#214)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:32:53 PM EST
    stick with his stated policy objectives?

    They keep changing depending on who he's pandering to at any given moment.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#216)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:44:53 PM EST
    That's certainly an easy way out.  

    [ Parent ]
    Just the truth. Can't you handle it? n/t (none / 0) (#245)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:13:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There was a time.... (none / 0) (#226)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    when there was a difference between the parties?  When was this, where was I?

    As CDN so wisely quoted above from Vidal..."a party with two wings".  They've always been on the same page on the big stuff...foreign policy, drug war, police state, prison nation, corporate welfare.

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama wants our votes..... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:17:28 PM EST
    ...he has to make the case. He hasn't. What is the point of simply voting reflexively for someone with a "D" after their name if doing so isn't going to get us what we want? I stopped living on hope and change a long time ago, because those concepts are too vague, too abstract. I want rock solid competence and good ideas. Obama has already shown that he will compromise his principles for a worth goal. How do I know he won't compromise mine?

    [ Parent ]
    So (none / 0) (#209)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    a track record of.....

    civil rights advocacy
    pro-choice rights
    liberal tax policies
    support for aiding underprivileged people

    isn't enough for you.

    Instead you prefer someone who has

    20 years of strong opposition to abortion
    supports the Bush tax cuts

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. it's hard, but..... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Camorrista on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:09:18 PM EST
    How am I supposed to vote for a such a sexist President?

    I understand your dilemma, and it pains me to wave the banner of the lesser evil, but as slippery, flaccid and unprincipled as I find Senator Obama, I still see John McCain as the nightmare scenario.  

    To win the nomination, McCain has demonstrated that there is nobody too foul for him to embrace and no position too hateful for him to advocate. Most importantly, he belongs to the demented bar-brawler school of politics--when in doubt, snarl a threat, start a fight, wage a war.   (People seem to forget that before he became the sainted victim of torture, he dropped bombs on civilians.  If that's heroic, spare me heroes.)

    How sexist Obama is I can't tell, and, no doubt, he has calculatingly turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the mysogyny of his supporters (and, of course, the press).  But do you really believe that Obama would nominate worse candidates to the courts than McCain?  Do you really believe Obama would be worse for women than a philanderer who dumped his wife for his mistress while his wife was recovering from a catastrophic accident?

    It's no secret that I believe Obama is inferior to Senator Clinton--as a politician, as a person, as a battler for what matters to me.  And it breaks my heart not only to see her lose to him but to see her savaged day after day by his supporters (and the press).  

    So to answer your question, vote for him with a heavy heart (though I will surely understand if you can't), and then--whether he's elected or not--join me in rebuilding the Democratic Party so that we can drive his uglier supporters out of it.  They need us for November; le's make make sure we don't need them after that.

    [ Parent ]

    But that's the whole point (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    We shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils - we clearly have a superior choice.

    To win the nomination, Obama has also demonstrated that he will embrace anybody that helps him further his career. Then after many years of working with these people, he pretends to know nothing about them.  That says a great deal about his character and judgment. (And I guess you would be opposed to Jim Webb as a running mate if you are going to frame McCain's military service as only "dropping bombs" on people LINK - Webb won the Navy Cross for his actions on a search and destroy mission where people were killed).

    Obama has built his campaign on a personality, not on issues.  Personally, I don't trust him to have my best interest at heart - whether it comes to reproductive rights, ending the war in Iraq, dealing with leaders of foreign governments, the economy, the environment, or a whole host of other things.  So in reality, while I won't vote for McCain, no one yet has made a credible convincing argument that McCain would be so much worse or Obama would be so much better.

    McCain has said he wants to get rid of signing statements and wants accountability to the Congress by implementing a "question time". Obama said he wants to keep mercenaries like Blackwater in the mix. It's a mixed bag when talking about judgment. And we know who wins the experience argument, hands down.

    Obama has not made the case that he would be a good person to lead.  All he has made the case is that Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and Daschle will probably be pulling the strings - and that's just as scary as the Maverick.

    [ Parent ]

    I take your point, but.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Camorrista on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    I can't argue with any of your criticisms of Senator Obama, but, ultimately, as dishonest as he is, I believe McCain is even more so.  McCain was, after all, the most important Republican to oppose Bush on torture--until he embraced Bush on torture.  He was, after all the most important Republican to challenge Christian fundamentalists--until he embraced them.

    That's why I don't believe his rhetoric about signing statements, or question time, or anything else.  

    As to the matter of "a credible convincing argument that McCain would be so much worse or Obama so much better" I won't attempt to make that argument because I suspect--forgive me--that your bar for that is very high indeed.

    Granted, Obama is an empty vessel, but McCain--to me, at any rate--is an ignorant and street-stupid brawler who, despite his pugnacity and maverick reputation, has--when the crunch has come--always gone along with the worst elements of the Republican Party.

    No, not every election is about the lesser evil, but unless Senator Clinton achieves a miracle, this one certainly looks like it.

    [ Parent ]

    Four words (none / 0) (#170)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM EST
    "Bomb bomb bomb Iran."

    [ Parent ]
    How about (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    bombing Pakistan?

    [ Parent ]
    The problem (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    is that if you vote for him you're enabling the ugly supporters. If he loses, we can kick out all the dead weight at the top of the party. Besides, the dems will control the senate and house. I feel like they would do better in opposition than if they had to agree. After all, Obama thought that Roberts was a good supreme court judge. I just really don't see that as such a big issue.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that the country can take (none / 0) (#168)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    another four years of Bush policies.  Indeed, I think that McCain is Bush on steroids.

    At the beginning of primary season I thought that I would be able to enthusiastically support Obama if Clinton lost. That certainly is no longer true. But I do see a huge difference between Obama and McCain, despite my disappointment in Obama as a candidate and potential president.

    I live in New York, so Obama won't lose the state just because I don't vote for him (I would never ever vote for McCain).  But in many states, disgruntled Democrats like me could make the difference, just by withholding our votes.

    It is a true moral dilemma, and one I would not presume to dictate to anyone. For myself, I will probably unenthusiastically vote for Obama in the fall, simply because I think he will, at worst, be ineffectual, while I see McCain as potentially catastrophic.  

    [ Parent ]

    Second, with this addendum: (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:36:58 PM EST
    A vote for McCain or an abstention is SGBTRv.W.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand the acronym n/t (none / 0) (#180)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:54:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    "Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade." (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    I was roundly chastized here yesterday for my constant refrain, which some characterized as Roe v. Wade blackmail.

    [ Parent ]
    Good-bye... And good riddance (none / 0) (#190)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    Roe v. Wade has become nothing more than a shield for fundamentalists to hide behind as they take away women's control over their bodies. State by state, they have made abortion more difficult to obtain. Their goal is that abortion will be completely legal in this nation - but it will be impossible to get one. Parental notifacation, waiting periods, expensive ultrasounds, limits on minor's crossing state lines, expanded regulation of clinics, even prosecution and harassment of doctor's who perform abortions, have made Roe v. Wade irrelevant. Meanwhile, the people of America stand by and watch all of this happening, falsely secure in the knowledge that Roe v. Wade is protecting a woman's right to choose.

    [ Parent ]
    Good riddance? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:27:45 PM EST
    It's not good riddance. Yes, Gooper legislatures have made obtaining abortions more difficult. But a number of limiting statutes have been struck down on the basis of Roe, and there is no way we are not better off with it than without it.

    The moral of the story is that we can't rely on Roe alone -- we have to take back state legislatures -- but without Roe, large swathes of the country go dark immeidately.

    [ Parent ]

    They're already dark (none / 0) (#198)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    That's the point. Roe is not preventing states from restricting abortions. Women have to travel hundreds of miles, often to other states, to get abortions. This is the same as it would be if Roe is overturned. All Roe is proviging is an umbrella for the anti-choice activists to work under. They can get away with anything, because the commone person knows that abortion is protected by Roe v. Wade.

    Regardless, a strong congress can hold up appointment of extremists SC justices. I don't know if Congress would actually do that, since they have caved so often, and a large proportion of Dems in Congress as anti-choice, but I have seen no evidence that Obama would make abortion rights a priority in choose a new Justice.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry for the typos (none / 0) (#200)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    I always have them (some weird but minor form of dyslexia), but I usually re-read and get out the worst. I forgot.

    [ Parent ]
    I think we may represent those (none / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    "old" ways of thinking which are not important to those who support the "new" ways of thinking.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    I live in a red state so it really won't matter if I don't vote for Obama.

    The problem is that I see both Obama and McCain leading the country into a ditch. It's not that they are the same, it's just that Obama hasn't a clue and McCain has bad policy. Pick your poison would be my statement on this.

    The only thing is I think McCain will be better able to get us out of Iraq. He seems to be much more amenable to public opinion than Bush has been. Already he is modifying his positions on a number of issues even going to the point of supporting green goods.

    I would call myself a tepid McCain supporter if Obama gets the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Vote for Dems down ticket (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by esmense on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    with the assumption that a Democratic congress and senate will block unacceptable McCain appointees. That assumption may not prove to be true, but, the assumption that Obama, who has strongly signaled his desire to work with Republicans on the kind of issues most affected by court appointments, will make appointments pleasing to progressives is likely to prove even less true.

    The likely choice isn't between an Obama checked by a Republican legislature or McCain aided by a Republican legislature.

    The likelier choice is between Obama -- who I do not believe is ideologically acceptable as a progressive leader (on vital issues of economic and social issues, issues of vital importance to women and the working class) -- with a rubber stamp Democratic congress, or an equally unacceptable (for differernt reasons) McCain checked by an opposional legislature.

    Given that I believe that both of these men, for very different reasons, are terrible choices for the presidency at this time in our history, and that the election of either is likely to have tragic outcomes, I would prefer to have the one in power whose power, and long term influence, will most likely be checked by a strong oppostion.

    So while I will not vote McCain, I will write in or vote for a more progressive choice at the top of the ticket -- and hope for 4 years of divided government.

    [ Parent ]

    Downticket Dems (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by TLE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:53:28 PM EST
    I can't make the "assumption that a Democratic congress and senate will block unacceptable McCain appointees."  The haven't lifted a finger to block Bush on anything.  Do you think they will suddenly find some gumption if McCain is president?

    I will not vote for McCain, but if Obama is appointed as the Dem nominee (and yes, I DO mean appointed, the Democratic primary system is a farce), I will not vote for him either.  Let the GE cycle be a battle royal between the Christian fundies and the Obama worshipers; it ought to be quite entertaining.  

    How many of the super delegates who are elected officials, currently jumping on the flashy bandwagon, will be frantically distancing themselves from Obama in October?  I don't think you can necessarily count on getting a Dem congressional majority this year.  Maybe before we get there, we need to unload some excess baggage, like Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and Reid.  I'm sick of these old-time hacks who are not interested in taking power (that's too much responsibility), and instead just want to protect their share of the lobbyist booty.  Ralph Nader turns out to be right; he just may get my vote this year.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain isn't the only option (none / 0) (#132)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    If you can't stomach McCain, vote for Nader. Vote for the Libertarian - at least he's honest about being a Libertarian.

    [ Parent ]
    Or vote Green (none / 0) (#174)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    Their platform is very "woman friendly" and Cynthia McKinney has at least as much experience as Obama.  If enough of us do it, who knows?

    [ Parent ]
    Enough! (none / 0) (#143)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    I refuse to assume 'they' win.  We have not all voted, we have not seated FL, we have not had the convention.  So long as Hillary fights, I am going to do an MLK--"We shall Overcome!"*

    *What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so I am unaffected by complains about borrowing 'the' song.

    [ Parent ]

    That would be rewarding bad behavior (none / 0) (#158)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    and I won't do that.

    [ Parent ]
    Commentary? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    Man, the right wing sure enjoyed the heck out of the "Hillary is a race-baiter" narrative, and now they're enjoying this one just as much.

    They sure love pointing out examples of racism and sexism among holier-than-thou liberals, and you know, I can't say as I blame them.

    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    The race-baiting is only going to inoculate them in the fall - when real race baiting and racism rears its ugly head-  but, by then it's crying wolf.  Nobody but the die hard supporters will pay attention.

    And then, as childish as it is, when all this stuff starts hitting the fan and the Obama camp can't handle it, I will be imitating Grace Adler (of Will & Grace, for those who don't know) and doing the "I told you so" dance

    {Told you so. Told you so. Told you, told you, told you, told you, told you so!

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry, Steve, but this is Obama's issue. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    Not the media.  I noticed it back in when they were still in Iowa.  

    [ Parent ]
    You mean (none / 0) (#175)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    the "I've got 99 problems" victory lap?

    [ Parent ]
    sexism/misogyny in the media and the campaign (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by noholib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    Yes indeed, the sexism and misogyny in this campaign are not making friends for November or later.  Many Hillary supporters, especially women. will still vote to keep the Republicans out of the Presidency in November, but afterwards, they will think long and hard about the implications of the ugliness of this season with regard to women and gender.

    I agree that Senator Obama chooses his words carefully (except for the "ums")and he is well aware of what he is saying and not saying about women, sexism, and misogyny.  He may well think that he's immune to criticism on this matter because his own wife is perceived to be a strong and outspoken woman; at the same time, he has it both ways because she has been at pains to show how traditional a mother she is.  

    It's all so very ugly and dispiriting.  

    I think (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:11:05 AM EST
    a lot of them won't vote for Obama. Why legitimize the behavior? They'll never stop it if they get what they want despite the misgyny.

    [ Parent ]
    "Will vote (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    but will think long and hard".

    And who cares? if that's all we do.

    Nobody.

    [ Parent ]

    voting and thinking (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by noholib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    Well, obviously when I say "thinking long and hard," I mean to draw implications and act. Maybe a new League of Women Voters, in other words, a women's political party or something else that I can't envisage yet?  I didn't mean endless thinking with no practical result.

    I am thoroughly disgusted by the rampant sexism and misogyny we have all been witnessing.  

    But as for November: I have always been a firm believer that in this flawed two-party system, one has to make a choice.  The Presidential election is a zero-sum gain in this country.  If you vote for A, then B loses your vote.  If you don't vote for A, then in effect B gains. I think that as unpalatable as it often is, one has to recognize that in this system, there are only two viable Presidential nominees at a time, and one has to choose.

    I do not at all condone the treatment of Senator Clinton in this campaign or the raging sexism that I think is behind some, though not all, of the opposition to her and the coverage of the campaign, BUT that doesn't mean that I support the Republican agenda.  I never have and even this sexist ugliness doesn't change that.


    [ Parent ]

    If we thought (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    Obama bought into the liberal agenda, maybe it would be different.  But I am not trusting him on women's issues or health care, to name just two'.  AND I READ THIS AM (not sure where but will try to find it) OBAMA AND MCCAIN ARE BOTH MOVING TO A CENTRIST POSITION ON IRAQ.

    I don't much like them apples, since McCain is saying he sees victory in 2013.  Five more years of insanity????????

    [ Parent ]

    we are the only thing opposing one party rule (none / 0) (#124)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    I do not at all condone the treatment of Senator Clinton in this campaign or the raging sexism that I think is behind some, though not all, of the opposition to her and the coverage of the campaign, BUT

    So to save the party you'll throw the values overboard.

    BUT what makes us better than Republicans if we do that?


    [ Parent ]

    I don't think a McCain victory (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:52:31 PM EST
    will save the Party. The DNC has failed to learn too many lessons from too many defeats, and the fact is that even if McCain wins, the Dems will probably gain in the House and Senate.  It will be perceived as the rejection of Obama only because he was "weakened" by Clinton -- even though Clinton, loyal Democrat that she is, will campaign her heart out for him.

    The Party has to be changed from the ground up. That means, to me, that women have to start running more for Congress, have to start taking more prominent positions in the MSM, the world of talking heads, political operatives and the blogosphere. We have to make sure that the next generation of superdelegates and ROOLz committee members are progressive on issues of gender, whatever their own gender.  Supporting McCain -- and alas, for myself only (to coin a phrase) not voting at all means supporting McCain -- is something which I can not, will not do.  I won't give money, I won't man phones. But I will vote, heavy-heartedly, and to forestall the McCain apocalyse.  

    [ Parent ]

    Why not use your vote as a crowbar? (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by hookfan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:06:55 PM EST
    Use it to influence the outcome in November rather than commit right now? Why not withold support for either candidate and parley for influence to see who will support women's issues, worker's issues, and Hispanic issues?
      I think it would be much better for women, working class, and Hispanics to hold together and seek to influence by publicly declaring non commitment and waiting to decide. Why not vote on who will commit to your values?
       If you commit now and decide to vote for Obama whether he supports your values or not you will disempower yourselves and expect to be ignored. If neither candidate respects your values, neither candidate deserves your vote. If Obama doesn't respect your values the supreme court appointments will likely reflect that too, as will all other aspects of his administration.

    [ Parent ]
    But (none / 0) (#196)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    what are you going to do when you work your heart out for women down ticket, get more women to run, and when one of them breaks out of the good little woman mode and decides to run for President, the good ol' boys decide to bring it on hard and strong again? I'm sorry, but this hasn't happened just to Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    to save whom? answer to moll and litigatormom (none / 0) (#201)
    by noholib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    No, "moll," I don't see a vote in November for the Democrats as a vote to "save the party."  It's to save the country and us from the Republicans, who in my view, are still worse when I look at a broad range of issues.
    So, I won't be throwing out my principles; rather I will be choosing among my several principles and weighing them.  
    I think "litigatormom" makes some very good suggestions.

    [ Parent ]
    that is the point (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    but will think long and hard".

    And who cares? if that's all we do.

    Nobody.

    Well it is important that you give all your power away to someone else before you actually use it.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Because in the end they will get what they want. (none / 0) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    Women just stepping aside and giving them what they wanted. Reward.

    [ Parent ]
    A traditional mother with a full-time job (none / 0) (#224)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    and a full time housekeeper and a gardner or two. Her mother quit her own job to help take care of Michelle's children. She has a personal trainer she tries to see four times a week.  And her job pays over $300,000 a year. Not what I  would call a traditional, or typical mother.

    [ Parent ]
    Blame (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:13:28 AM EST
     Blaming an amorphous sexism, I find, absolves Obama and his campaign of their responsibility.  

    Great Crawford bit that people should pay attention that is being completely glossed over.  Mississippi watch the candidate who won completely disavow and distance himself from Obama, yet Obama takes credit.  

    Which piece are you referring to? (none / 0) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    No one wants to pay attention to Mississippi.  Weren't the Repubs able to take off some of his point lead with their Obama based attack.  Sad he had to run radio and tv to say he was being tied to someone he had never met.

    [ Parent ]
    The Dem who won (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    had to have an ad that he did not know Obama and had nothing to do with him.  Distancing himself, the ads are in the Crawford video.  

    [ Parent ]
    Is it any wonder (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by stillife on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    that women are getting mad as h*ll and vowing not to vote for Obama in November?  


    Ain't just (5.00 / 10) (#17)
    by mikeyleigh on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST