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

  • Contribute 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!


    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. ;)


    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?


    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"?


    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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
    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.

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

    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.

    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"!  

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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!


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.

    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!


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


    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.

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

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.


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

    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
    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.


    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?

    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


    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.


    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.


    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.


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

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

    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.

    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.  


    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.  

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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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!


    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.  

    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?

    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.

    "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.



    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.


    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????????


    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?


    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


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



    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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
    women, I'm afraid.  I've been voting for presidents since 1972 and this is the first time I've ever contemplated not voting for the Democratic nominee.  But as of today, nothing could induce me to vote of Obama.  He's earned neither my respect nor my vote.  Most importantly, he doesn't seem to want either.

    I wish (none / 0) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    somebody would organize a great big movement called something like Dem. Women Voting for Obama Under Protest.

    Let's face it, a lot of us are going to end up having to vote for the jerk, or at least not voting for McCain, and I desperately want there to be some way of registering vehement disapproval of Obama--  Dem Women Voters Holding Their Noses, Dem. Women Voters Carrying Barf Bags...


    Maybe Ralph Nadar (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    actually has a chance this year..lol!!! I'm not voting Obama...I would rather not vote. All the work and time and effort of all the people here and other places who have worked so hard and long and with such dedication to the Dem party and then to be insulted, demeaned, disrespected, etc. will not earn my vote this time.

    200+ Years (none / 0) (#123)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    And we still are only really limited to a choice between two political parties. How Sad!
    Sadder still when people like Gore Vidal say "I wish we had two parties. What we really have is one party with two wings." How True.

    Not Ralph Nader (none / 0) (#177)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:52:54 PM EST
    Cynthia McKinney Green Party.  

    Or.... (none / 0) (#229)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:01:52 PM EST
    Steve Kissing, Frank Moore, Jesse Johnson, Mike Gravel, Steve Kubby,  Gloria La Riva and more.  Link

    We've always had choices, we're all just a bunch of sheep who only look at 2 like we're told.

    If the Clinton/Obama battle royale leads to people leaving the Democratic party in droves, while Bush incompetence and McCain apathy leads to Republicans leaving their party...this just might save the damn republic!

    "Wrench in the works" in '08 baby!  


    Look McCain and Obama are (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by hookfan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    both malleable. McCain is already reaching out to clinton voters (not enough, but still. . .), and Obama has started being responsive to the working class issues post West Virginia (god I love those people!). By witholding support and acting as a large swing bloc of voters based on our values and needs we will continue to see gains in this direction. If you care about women's rights, workers issues, and Hispanic needs and values, it is IMO too soon to commit to unity. What has Obama committed to us? Until he does don't. Let's use McCain as our crowbar for us rather than be blackmailed. Doesn't Obama care if McCain is elected? If he does then he can put up or shut up.

    Obama's handlers (none / 0) (#228)
    by TLE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    don't care if you hold your nose, throw up in your mouth, or writhe in agony, as long as you vote for their puppet.  Time comes you have to quite just complaining and actually do something about the problem.  That time has come for me.  

    NO! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    There is no wondering about the hows and whys of that.

    Another good video (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    Remember the sniper moment, where everyone took great joy at diminishing her bravado?  

    Well, watch as dueling videos diminish Obama's alleged bravado, but how much play will this get?  

    He's offering corp welfare (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM EST
    Of course they are applauding.  He's offering to in effect pay for the R&D of the auto industry as auto makers have refused to adjust and keep fighting fuel efficiency legislation.  They'll take the money (for health care) and then pocket the money.  No one will cover this, it isn't news, it's the American way.  woohoo!

    If he (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Emma on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    would just support universal health care, he wouldn't have to provide corporate welfare!  Yes, health care and pension costs are a big expense for the auto industry.  But the answer is universal health care, not narrowly targeted corporate welfare!

    But he claimed (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:25:12 AM EST
    that he went into the den of Detroit and challenged them and no one clapped.  Well, he paid them off and they clapped.  No heroism there, Obama.  

    that is hilarious! n/t (none / 0) (#78)
    by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    Link please (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Saul on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    I missed the "sweetie" remark.  Anybody got a link? Thanks

    here ya go (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Klio on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:41:42 AM EST
    at Taylor's place

    Here you go. (none / 0) (#43)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    Sweetie (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    I think, in the post-mortem, "sweetie" will be seen as the stupidest word that ever came out of Obama's mouth.

    It perfectly sums up the condescending way Democrats have treated Hillary supporters and women this election cycle.  

    The "sweeties" always come around.  OR not.  They really think they have the election in the bag this time.  How could Democrats possibly lose?

    Famous last words.

    I think so too (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    and I wish it had happened in a slower news week.  It has not gotten near the amount of attention it should have.

    condescending plus snot (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    It perfectly sums up the condescending way Democrats have treated Hillary supporters and women this election cycle.  

    We need a better word.

    If you put sweetie (toward women) together with bitter (toward rural people) you start to get a sense of what is wrong with his attitude toward not just these groups but a lot of people.

    But we don't have a word for that. People think 'elitist' is about money.


    Yes we do.. JERK. There's a word for it.. (none / 0) (#225)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    That is my usual reaction to seeing or hearing Obama. What a JERK!! I think it is nice of him to continue to live up to my initial evaluation of him. Heh.

    How about calling (none / 0) (#211)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:21:43 PM EST
    Barbara Boxer "cutie"?

    Sexism is passe' (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    Is that really the best conclusion she could reach?

    I'm glad to see the issue being raised, but I think it should be condemned a little more strongly than last year's fad.

    If you feel the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:26:49 AM EST
    and Party elites are making a huge mistake by pushing Obama, I've created a petition you might want to sign:

    Hillary or McCain - It's Your Choice.

    The petition does NOT ask for a pledge to vote for McCain or against Obama. Instead, it focuses on the legitimacy of Obama vs. Hillary as the Democratic nominee, and states as fact that HRC's coalition will desert Obama in droves if he gains the nomination, and that they (the DNC and Party elites) will be responsible for President McCain, NOT Hillary or her voters.

    If you like it, I hope you will sign it and pass it along. Thanks!

    I loved it. (none / 0) (#110)
    by befuddled on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    Thanks. I don't trust every complaint site I see on this web of lies.

    I think they think they're going to (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:30:14 AM EST
    have an easy lap around the bases and skip over home plate while McCain huffs and puffs in the outfield blinded by the sun and the sweat as he looks heavenward for the still skyrocketing ball.

    The misogyny and the condescension have been valuable building tools for the primary. The problem that they've got is that they underestimated Clinton's appeal and now they're burning bridges they're going to need. The beast they've created has nasty appetites. What's that line from Conan The Barbarian? "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." They really want to hear the lamentations of Clinton's supporters and think they can humiliate them into supporting Obama. It's bizarre to read their rhetoric. Clearly, there has been coordinated effort by the Obama campaign and the media to simply drive Clinton our of the race. This business of declaring Obama the nominee and simply refraining from covering Clinton is bizarre in the extreme.

    I think there is a flanking manuever in the works though that they haven't seen coming.

    Ghengis Khan (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM EST
          "The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

    And Kerry was projecting methinks about his own attitudes.

    Ithink he also said wear their women for your nightshirt thier bosoms for your pillow.


    Axelrod used the twin themes of (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    sexisim and racisim to bait Hillary and push Obama. Right from the start the candidate for hope and change and the new kind of politics informed us that since Hillary was disliked by most voters and was a polarizing figure hence he was better. Team Obama consciously used many sexist memes to attack Hillary and they actually kind of gave legitimacy to the MSM and elite liberals to let loose all their misogynistic attitude.
    Racisim - the (in)famous memo said it all.

    If I thought it was (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    a conscious, deliberate tactic, I might actually be less angry about it.  I don't think it is.  I think it simply reflects the way they and the media and the Blogger Boyz really think about strong women.

    One possible good result (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by stillife on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM EST
    of this campaign season is that the scales have fallen from our eyes and we now have incontrovertible evidence that politics and the media are boys' clubs.  The double standard is appalling - just imagine if similar remarks were made by pundits about Obama's race.  Racism is out (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not acceptable in polite society), but sexism is alive and thriving.

    I hope this will be a wake-up call for feminists (both male and female) and post-feminists (those young women who hasten to say, "I'm not a feminist" like it's a dirty word.  Of course, the latter are probably all Obama girls.

    thanks hillary :) (none / 0) (#150)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:44:35 PM EST
    the scales have fallen from our eyes and we now have incontrovertible evidence that politics and the media are boys' clubs.  

    I think maybe Hillary really wasn't supposed to last as long as she did.

    I think she was meant to drop out.

    I hope she is really making these guys mad.


    Team Obama is (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by kmblue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    absolutely counting on women shrugging and saying
    "what choice do I have?"
    speaking for myself only, I ain't playing.

    Here's a choice.. (none / 0) (#230)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    WriteHillaryIn.com We can write her in enmasse. If she isn't the nominee, the second the nomination is done, we should start an write-in campaign. Send a strong message to the DNC, and the men of this country, that we will not be trifled with. We have political power, and we know how to use it, and if they want our votes, they can field a candidate we like too and never mind the "don't worry our pretty little heads" crap. If we get all the people who don't like either Barack Obama or John McCain to write in Hillary, she will win by a landslide. Either way, it sends a very strong message that we cannot be counted on to move with the male-directed herd. In my business, horses, it's the mare who runs the herd, not the stallion. He is around for active defense and breeding, everything else is decided and enforced by the boss mare. So the claptrap about male dominance being natural is just that, claptrap.

    Would Sen. Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    mother be so proud of the campaign he's run? I, too, am a single mother of 2 young men who I've tried to teach respect (of "people")and the ability to take responsibility for their actions.Did he ever call his mother "sweetie" or issued sexist remarks when it came to her? And now he is railing against accusations floating around about his wife. No one can "disrespect" his wife, but he can disrespect all other women? Sounds flip-floppy to me!!

    Well, when the GOP starts picking on his wife (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    We will see him fight that off. Suddenly it will not be next month is White B()*( month.

    Well, she is under the bus too.. (none / 0) (#231)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    with his grandmother. So that just shows the kind of respect he has for them. And if his wife doesn't want to be attacked, she can keep her big mouth shut. They aren't attacking her, they are attacking what she said. And what she said is her fault, not anyone else's. If she didn't want people to attack her with her own words, she shouldn't have said them.

    I hate to say this, but... (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by A little night musing on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:02:20 AM EST
    I've seen this increased tolerance for sexist language in action and it seems to be clearly tied, in those instances, to its being a way to denigrate Hillary Clinton.

    In one case, some extremely misogynistic comments were made (not about politics, in another context altogether) in a group of self-proclaimed liberals. All of the other people in this group are Obama supporters and I haven't said anything to them about my preferences. But I was kind of shocked that no one said anything about this person's comment (espeically as the group is about 80% women), so I spoke up.

    When I called the speaker on the sexism, the entire group was either silent or came to the speaker's defense, and the final comment was "Don't give up, (sexist commenter), or Hillary wins!" From this reaction - remember, we were not talking politics prior to this - I could only conclude that the misogyny is not only tolerated but encouraged, because calling people out on misogyny is what the horrid Clinton supporters do.

    I'm appalled.

    I really hope this is not typical of Obama supporters and what is happening to our discourse. I hope my experiences are outliers, or at least only symptoms of temporary extremes.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    No one equated hard-working with being white.  Keep it up with the race-baiting.

    Geez (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    She was referring to white working-class voters.  If you hate Hillary so much that you want to interpret it that way, that's great for you, but you won't find many takers here.

    I honestly don't understand how you people manage to convince yourself of stuff like "Hillary intentionally disrespected MLK."  I guess this is the sort of derangement we see during the primary season.


    Please (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    You claimed that Hillary thinks only white people are hard-working.  No combination of words will persuade anyone here that that isn't deranged.

    I'm a yellow-dog Democrat through and through, and I disagree strongly with many of the commentors here who say they won't vote for Obama.  But every time an Obama supporter calls the Clintons racist, my vote because less and less of a sure thing.  I just can't condone that.


    Yes, you did say she was racist (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    by inversion -- clever but still quite clear:

    "And equating hard-working with being white wasn't racist.  I get it now."

    So you are a liar, even about your own words.  Go away; that is thread hijacking and not okay here.


    She was quoting an AP story (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    but don't let that stop ya -- or cause ya to go complain to AP.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    Of course it came out awkwardly.  She was right to apologize.



    I am serious about this (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    Idiots like you calling Hillary a race-baiter are going to make it very very hard for me to vote for Obama in November.  It's outrageous.  Get a flipping grip on yourself.

    KEY-rist (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    She was responding to an AP reporter about HER DEMOGRAPHICS.

    Really. Keep pushing the "Clinton supporters are racists" and "Clinton deliberately panders to racists."

    Then say "Howdy" to President McCain.


    Yes, you said she was racist (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    -- this comment landed upthread but belongs here -- when you said so by inversion, which is clever but still quite clear:

    "And equating hard-working with being white wasn't racist.  I get it now."

    So you are a liar, even about your own words.  Go away; that is thread hijacking and not okay here.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#194)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    All the racists in the Democratic party. (snark)

    Sorry, but the vast majority of racists left when the Dixiecrats walked out of the '48 convention, and the rest left when JBJ signed the civil rights bill.  You're about 60 years too late.  Unless you're one of those Republican who keeps claiming "The Democrats are racists because Robert Byrd is a Senator!"

    By all means, keep it up, though. When the real racists start in on Obama, the RRW will LOVE the cover you've provided.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    black working class folks aren't voting for her. However, it was a poor choice of words for many reasons - one being that it isn't just "white" working class that's voting for her - it's Hispanic, and Asian, and Catholic, and Jewish, and female too.

    I love that video (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    I watch it when I get discouraged by the campaign.  I usually start in the middle though.

    not sexism or racism (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    but maybe dumb:

    'Senator Obama is expected to address the issue again later today at campaign events in South Dakota', (about 'a thinly disguised swipe at Mr. Obama's expressed willingness to interact diplomatically with rogue nations like Iran and Syria.')  NYT today, picked up by Google

    Yesterday someone was 'wondering' what would happen if you yelled 'moron' in a crowd of people.  The person who took offense would maybe be thinking he was the moron?  So Obama in his holiness assumes Bush was talking about him.  Maybe it was more likely Carter, but never miss a chance to to 'address the issue!  The day is long past when I thought he was a fairly decent speaker, so I am thunderously uninterested in his defence.  But since he 'bit,' Hillary's remarks were good.

    there is ample research (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by dem08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:38:10 PM EST
    in Anger Management that shows that the more people vent and explore their anger, the angrier they get.

    I love Talk Left; I know people will say, "Daily Kos" and other sites are worse. I read Altercations, Talk Left, and Moderate Voice.

    this post is ON-TOPIC because there is a huge problem with sexism. Teach college like I do: young women hate "feminism", even as they embrace feminism's career and some of its equality goals. Young women call each other 'ho', they love "Pimps and Ho's Party" themed gatherings.

    I think the "Hook-up Culture" that young women think empowers them is an act of annihilation.

    But young women don't want to be angry and bitter and victims. They have certainly not thought things out, but who is trying to help them in an economy and society that markets everything from liberation to rage?

    Young college students of the white middle class variety believe sexism and racism are long ago and far away.Many Hillary supporters think racism is never a factor but sexism often is. I am certain both racism and sexism ARE a factor: but how much? I don't know and I wish there were a dispassionate look at both and each.

    And in the meantime, since anger begets anger, I don't see what good it does ANY person to proclaim her/himself so angry and post so many angry posts about that growing anger.

    Quite right (none / 0) (#147)
    by kmblue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    we should just go home and beat out husbands.

    But seriously, folks...

    Can you tell I disagree with dem08?

    I like expressing my anger on anonymous blogs (civilly, of course) because people might agree with me.  That dissipates some of my anger and makes me feel better and less crazy.  But that's just me.


    And there is ample research that (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    not expressing anger and keeping it inside causes depression, ulcers, etc.

    Thanks, but I'd rather read TalkLeft than take meds.


    Yes, anger is not good for you. (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    Well, unexpressed anger. I hope Obama never shows up here at my farm because every animal here thinks he is the Devil Incarnate from the way I rant and rave about stuff he has done, said, or not done. He wouldn't stand a chance. Heh. They find it fascinating. The cats line up, sit down and watch me when I go off. The hound runs for cover, she isn't sure it's not her I am mad at. The Bichon bounces around looking for whoever it is I am mad at so she can go bark at them.  The horses look around for who it is Mom obviously wants stomped. Then they go back to eating. So, I get lots of venting. I always feel better afterwards. Of course, that may be because all the cuddlies run up and want to comfort me after I have been so upset. That's nice.

    Oh, totally off-topic but interesting bit of info on cats. A purring cat purrs out the exact mhz that promote healing of tissues. Including bones. So if you end up with a broken bone, get a cat to sit next to it and purr. It will cut the healing time by a large percentage..up to 25%. Research has proven it.


    Hm (none / 0) (#223)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    I haven't met any of these Hillary supporters who think racism doesn't exist.

    ahhh (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:44:33 PM EST

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#35)
    by thentro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    commentary magazine?

    One of the bizarre (none / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:40:26 AM EST
    turns in this election is that the rightwing media had enough respect not to put a thumb on the scale.

    MSNBC appointed themselves to pick our candidate.
    Also, Fox and that  didn't pick Mccain for the GOP.


    it isn't their scale ;) (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    they don't understand how this particular scale works so they are left sitting back and watching and reporting what they see happen ;)

    Sweetie (none / 0) (#36)
    by michitucky on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM EST

    Opps...... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by michitucky on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    Opps...I was trying to do a link and didn't get it to work.

    This is from todays Detroit Free Press:



    Ouch (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    I've been called "honey," "sweetie," "darling" and worse. But never by a man who wanted my respect. The men who call women those names are generally oily and disreputable. Even used car salesmen have learned to call women by their names, to call them "ma'am," or to call them nothing at all.

    "Sweetie" puts a strong woman down. It diminishes her to a doughnut.

    You've got to wonder where a 46-year-old Harvard-educated attorney picked up such a bad habit and why he has not yet set it aside. You have to wonder if it remains handy, quick and easy as a wink, to remind the women he meets who's still in charge.

    You have to wonder (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by stillife on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    if he's basically just an oily used-car salesman at heart.

    Years ago, I had a very smart female boss who used to say that it's the little things that tell you a lot about a person's character.


    When (none / 0) (#243)
    by tek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    I was a graduate student, the women students had a joke that the professors (all men) who called us "honey" were the people who couldn't remember our names.

    The "Sweetie" Thang.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    cracks me up.  Where I'm from it's a term of endearment.

    I've been called sweetie, honey, baby...I even was called honey-baby once (that one cracked me up).  I got no problem with it...just don't call me assh*le and I'm happy.

    Well, I was told (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    that in West Virginia, some slang is neutral in connotation as they use even though it would be derogatory elsewhere.  (The original use of "honkie" was to refer to Hungarian and other Slavic immigrants.)

    However....part of the job of President is being an ambassador to all fifty states and all the nations of the world.  You need to know how to speak the local lingo properly and which terms are respectful and disrespectful.  And when in doubt, always use the most respectful form of address.  "Sir" "Madam"


    When in Detroit (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:23:47 AM EST
    best do as Detroit does.  If in the White House, do as the norm does for staffers from all over the country.  And if dealing with other countries, especially those that actually don't get all testeroned up about women in power like this one, best be willing to learn about cultural differences in communication.  

    Obama has done "sweetie" over and over, and not just to reporters but to other working women in their workplaces (and offering a kiss! that calls for a slap:-), and his staff told him to stop.  The guy is not ready to be president on day one, because the campaign is when you prove it by acting presidential.  He doesn't.


    Look at it this way (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:05 AM EST
    Maybe if Obama actually wins, he too can give the German Chancellor a neck massage! </snark>

    If one of my female customers.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    started offering kisses, that would be a bit much.  Point taken.

    But I don't mind being called sweetie, or honey, or honey-baby.  I think no offense is intended, and certainly none is taken on my part.  And I find it friendlier than "sir"...that's one term I'd rather not be called.  But when I am I'm certainly not offended.  

    Another of my customers, a Vietname Vet, flies off the handle when you call him sir.  I did it once, and only once, when I first started this job and he nearly bit my head off.  "Don't you ever call me sir, I'm an enlisted man!!!" he goes.

    Some people are just wound way too tight, I tell ya.


    Hang on (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    Are you saying you're a man, and that since you're not offended at being called sweetie, this female journalist shouldn't have been offended either?

    She can get offended... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    at whatever she wants.  Offense is a personal thing.  Some are more easily offended at others.

    Personally...I think anybody who gets offended by a common term of endearment is wound a little to tight...like my customer the Vietnam Vet who flies off the handle when you call him "sir"...wound too tight.  All imo of course.


    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    I think you should consider the possibility that it comes across differently to a female professional who is accustomed to being belittled than it comes across to you.

    Belittled? (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:26:51 PM EST
    By sweetie?

    I thought sweetie was short for sweetheart, meaning sweet of heart aka kind-hearted.


    Put it this way... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    Picture a female reporter was interviewing Obama and  said "Thanks for your time, boy."

    That's why it's offensive.


    Belittled in many ways (none / 0) (#215)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:40:45 PM EST
    exemplified by such diminutives, but part of a far larger problem in a work environment for women.

    You must know that, as you seem intelligent.  But you prize contrariness and debating little points over the big picture so often, in ways that just seem to be for yourself and not contributing for others.  I don't know why, but it's tiresome.


    I think we have a very different understanding.... (none / 0) (#217)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    of the "big picture" Cream.

    I've said many times women get a raw deal in many ways in our society, blacks get a raw deal in many ways...even everybody's favorite whipping boy, the white male, gets a raw deal in some ways, but to a far lesser extent.  The raw deal is action based...a smaller paycheck for the same work, for example.  

    Yet you guys seem to quibble over the littlest things....in this case "sweetie".  That's the big picture?  I know, I know...you think women get shafted when it comes to their paycheck because men call women sweetie and such.  I say who cares what we call each other...let's tackle that equal pay thing, ya know?


    Again, this just shows that (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    you don't get how it all comes together in the big picture for women in the workplace.  Dismissing us in small ways adds up in large ways like promotions and paychecks.

    There are lots of good readings on this -- as this is not the place to try to summarize all that is easily found elsewhere.  If you want to learn.


    My professor husband did (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    use a sort of 'tender' tone talking to his female (physics) students outside of the classroom.  Generally, I believe his students of both sexes really liked him (I still get calls 2 years after his death), and the girls who were not majors probably were happy to think he might give them better grades. (Majors had to work, and work hard, male or female).  But my son and I used to speculate that soon or later, some girl was going to lambast him for being sexist.  (In a way, he was, cause he really did like the smart girls.)

    "Sweetie" is not the most intelligent thing to call a woman--particularly a reporter (we tend to be 'hard' types, said the CW).


    Shoot... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    in today's climate, I'm kinda scared to call anybody anything besides their first name.

    You're liable to get your head bit off.

    Molly...do you think your husband used sweetie and other such terms to convey endearment or to belittle?  I'm guessing the former...


    My husband and I (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    had 3 little girls and to our surprise, many years later we wound up with a son.  My husband was as proud as punch of that boy--but he related best to girls and women.  Early on, he wasn't sure his daughters were safe out in this world, but he soon learned that they were strong characters who deserved respect.  I can't recall a specific term he used when his female students phoned him, but I am totally sure whatever word he used was an endearment.  Course, he wouldn't have used 'sweetie' to me; I am sure you understand why!

    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    why does Margie at Brand X Supply use it when adressing me in the course of our work?

    I'm guessing in an attempt to be friendly.

    I use go with young lady when adressing females...you can't lose with that one, and I think it makes older women feel good, always good to score brownie points with the customers.  With the males I go with buddy or pal, with the occasional dude or chief thrown in to mix it up.  It's nice to try and keep it light and jovial and un-stuffy.


    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by wasabi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    I'm in my 50's and if you said young lady to me, I'd just think you were a patronizing butthead, but thats just me.  I don't see it as a compliment at all.  

    If you dare to call me "young lady" (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    believing that it will make me, as an older woman, "feel good," you're going to get put in your presumptuous place by a dismissive "little boy."

    Older women, you should be aware, are not ashamed of being older (and wiser) and it does not make them "feel better" to be pandered to in that way by an immature boor.


    You just can't win.... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    I swear.

    I saw a lady, musta been in her 70's, at the store just the other day, as I held the door for her I said "after you young lady" and her smile light up the whole place.

    As always, different strokes for different folks.

    I take it you (how should I address you?) homosapiens of the female persuasion hate it when a guy holds the door for ya too, eh?


    No, there is a big difference between (none / 0) (#236)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    gallantry and sexism. Men should learn what it is. Women already know. Heh.

    A hardcore feminist... (none / 0) (#237)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:59:08 PM EST
    would say gallantry is sexism, no?

    No, and I am saying that as a NOW (none / 0) (#238)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:06:25 PM EST
    member since the 60's. Courtesy is not sexism. It's courtesy. Sexism is using courtesy as an excuse for sidelining women out of equal jobs, pay, opportunities. I never asked if men thought I had a right to a job, I just did the job better than they did, which proved I had a right to it. And got me promoted to a position where the men answered to me. They didn't mind because I got the job because I am very good at what I do. They respect that in the horse world.

    And besides, it was handy to have a woman around when the stallions got testy. Stallions are territorial and don't like any male in their area. Females they don't mind. So when it became clear that the big mean studs were like babies for me, it was no contest. I got the job. Sexism can sometimes be a good thing. Heh.


    I like you.... (none / 0) (#246)
    by kdog on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:42:24 AM EST
    I never asked if men thought I had a right to a job, I just did the job better than they did, which proved I had a right to it.

    Amen to that...You can only be offended if you let someone offend you, you can only be a victim if you let someone victimize you.  You only have the freedoms you can defend.


    Cultural differences.... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    I think you nailed it.  My first language is slang.

    Some women are offended by ma'am, particularly younger women.  That's why I go with young lady...no one has taken issue with that one...yet:)


    Not really sure.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    I think it's because he was an enlisted man, and worked for a living.  I'm not fond of being called sir either...too formal for my taste.  But it's cool...call me anything you want except assh*le and I'm happy.

    Where's Tracy, our resident military expert? She'd probably know for sure.


    I live in the South, and (none / 0) (#235)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:48:43 PM EST
    here Hon, Sweetie etc. are the norm..for women. A man calling me Hon or Sweetie had better be a very good friend. Otherwise he gets The Look, not only from me but from his lady. One woman at the local drive-in takes it a bit too far, and I called her on it. She kept calling me "Baby". I am almost 57, have silver hair that I wear on top of my head, and I don't in any way resemble a baby. I told her, "Look, I am old enough to be your mother. I do not like being referred to as "Baby". Not even my husband did that. I would appreciate it if you didn't either." Her answer? "Yes, ma'am. So sorry if it upset you. It's a bad habit of mine." Now she calls me "Sugar". Which isn't as bad, or demeaning, as "Baby". It's a Southern thing, calling people Hon, or Sweetie, but you don't do it in anything but a casual situation. And certainly not on the campaign trail. And Obama isn't Southern, not even close.
    Your "young lady" is good. So is "Miss". "Miss" implies youth and respect all in one. Most of the kids around here call me "Miss(my first name)". Their parents are old-fashioned and don't allow their children to call adults by their first names without an honorific of some sort. "Miss" works fine.

    Two other women here... (none / 0) (#247)
    by kdog on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:48:35 AM EST
    said they'd take big offense to "young lady".  I was surprised because I've yet to run into a woman who minded it.

    remember (none / 0) (#79)
    by sas on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    you are speaking for yourself only

    How could I forget? (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    Who else who would I be speaking for?

    I'm like Groucho Marx...I wouldn't be associated with any group that would have me as a member.

    Or like Pee-Wee Herman..."I'm a loner Dottie...a rebel" :)


    You have low standards n/t (none / 0) (#184)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:00 PM EST
    but I like to think of it as "not sweating the small stuff".

    When life and liberty are threatened, then you'll see me become a crazed dog.  But how I'm greeted?  Life is way too short to sweat that sh*t.


    Obama is from Hawaii, via Illinois (none / 0) (#191)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    I don't believe that "Sweetie" is a traditional way of referring to professional women in these areas. Actually, I'm not sure it's appropriate for a man to refer to a professional women like that anywhere. People in the South get more leeway because... well, because people assume that they are sexist pigs and we can't expect better of them. It's wrongheaded thinking, but that's the way it is.

    Exactly; it is not Midwestern at all (none / 0) (#218)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:50:47 PM EST
    and would make many Midwesterners uncomfortable, whether or not it's in a work environment.  Now, his constituents include many from a Southern culture -- and I do get called "sweetie" by my Southern-raised husband.

    However, my husband never would be so unwise as to use it in the workplace here in the Midwest, where he has been for decades.  So has Obama.  Does he do "sweetie" throughout his Hyde Park neighborhood?  Ha.  And I hope he did not do it in his law school classes, which are to be conducted to prepare for a professional environment.  Did he use "sweetie" in court to another lawyer or to a judge?  Ha, again.

    So no excuses about his background; he's not a Southerner.  And even they, like my spouse, have learned to adapt to where they live and work, and Obama now is working in (almost:-) every state.  He ought to be using the opportunity that a campaign provides not just to talk at people but to listen and learn about life in every state.

    Above all, though, he ought to act presidential in his job interview with the country -- as he still hasn't been hired.  And I have seen many a managerial aspirant judged on just these sorts of things and not get the management jobs they wanted.


    Heh (none / 0) (#221)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:16:01 PM EST
    I am so going to try that next time I'm in court.  "Sweetie - I mean, Your Honor..."

    Just 2 weeks ago... (none / 0) (#232)
    by TLE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    a guy came into my shop to pick up an order, and inquire about pricing for something else.  He wasn't very nice, and as he left, he said "Thanks, sweetie."  I was stunned just long enough to let him get away, then I was really angry.  I know I'm not supposed to let things like this get in the way of business, but if he does come back, I'm afraid my schedule will be too tight to allow for processing his order.

    I am ready for the "sweetie" thing, though -- I've been practicing a cheerful "No problem, needle d*ck!" response for next time.


    Good for you... (none / 0) (#248)
    by kdog on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:54:10 AM EST
    There are few rude, assh*le customers I'd like to tell to take a walk...male and female.

    I just hope we all can will look at context and demeanor before jumping down somebody's throat...I'd imagine "sweetie" and other such slang greetings can be demeaning or not depending upon the all important context.  For example, one can say "thanks a lot" and literally mean that or if sarcasm is detected it means "thanks for nothing".  Tone, context, demeanor....all come into play.

    All women are different, just as all men are.  Let's all give each other the benefit of the doubt.


    Feminist Outrage: O'Reilly's Lynching Party (none / 0) (#46)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    Where is the feminist outrage with the attack on Michelle Obama?   The recent GOP Tennessee ad places her juxtaposition of white middle age blue collar workers.  Is this ad giving cover for white men to go after black women?  What is the subliminal message?  Is this the lynching party that Bill O'Reilly was speaking about?  I have not gotten over the lynching comment by O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels. . . ." However whimsically the intent, O'Reilly connected Michelle Obama with lynching- unlawful murder, intimidation, and fear mongering. During the same week, President George W. Bush vehemently argued that to display a noose and/or swap lynching jokes was "deeply offensive." They were wrong and had no place in America. For this reason, O'Reilly's statement about "a lynching party against Michelle Obama" serves to illustrate why some black and white Americans have had moments in their adult life when they were not proud of their country. The legacy of lynch terror and its ramifications lingers in the in the hearts and minds Americans.  For the record, O' Reilly  later gave a convoluted apology.   I'm concern about the deafening silence I'm hearing from  my feminist sisters in the struggle. This ad is  misogynist and racist.  
    Listen to Michelle for yourself:

    But but but CLINTON! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM EST

    Many of us had apoplexy about that particular comment, by the way. I know I did.


    I was outraged and I do remember (none / 0) (#49)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    just like now venting my feelings in huffPo message boards against the same.

    Yup, O'Reilly got nailed (none / 0) (#50)
    by kmblue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    to the cross on that comment (by myself among others) and whined
    about it.
    Way to change the subject.

    Black women, patriotism, lynching (none / 0) (#96)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    I am trying to change the subject, because this goes at the heart of African American womanhood and there was no thread that address this issue.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    You really felt it was that important to complain about TalkLeft failing to cover something that happened three months ago?

    Do you actually have any idea whether TalkLeft criticized the O'Reilly comment?  Of course you don't.  A simple Google search would have told you.

    Click this link.  And realize that you jumped to a conclusion about this site, bigtime.


    I'm offended.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    by "nailed to the cross"

    How dare you belittle the suffering of the lord and savior to so many!!!

    Just kidding...nailed to the cross has come to be a common figure of speech, like "lynch mob" or "pimpin'".  Nothing offensive about it imo, depending on the context of course.


    To correct my previous message (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    I was outraged regarding Bill O Reilly's statement.
    But regarding the Tennesse ad, I kind of blah. I know the ad is not good and quite a cheap tactic by the GOP. But the ad to me is similar to the numerous you tube ad by Obama supporters which show Hillary as some kind of Monster. Both the ad's don't elicit a reaction because they are juvenile.

    Black women and patriotism (none / 0) (#92)
    by bison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    I agree the quality of the ad is not good,  but the message goes at the heart of black womanhood.  The questioning of black women's patriotism gives credence to labeling them second and third class citizens.  Ads demeaning Hillary were juvenile, but this ad is dangerous it conveys the subliminal message of a high tech lynching.  It portrays  white men gaining up on a black women- a lynch mob.  Every voter is not as inform as you, I remember the Harold Ford ad in his Tennessee senator race.  It played to the latent racial fears about interracial relationships between black men and white women.  Being dismissive of this is shortsighted.

    I'm no O'Reilly fan... (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    ...but I didn't find that remark particularly outrageous. It's common practice to refer to an attack on an individual as a "lynching party". The only reason this is offensive is that Michelle Obama is black. But if we're seriously going to try to become post-racial, then we have to treat black people the same as white people. That means that if something wouldn't be offensive if used to refer to a white person, then it should not be offensive if used against a black person.

    Sexism works the same way. I simply apply a test: If I changed the phrase so that it referred to a man instead of a woman, would I be offended? If the phrase doesn't apply directly, then is there an equivalent phrase that I can use for the test?

    The test on this works this way: If a person said "I don't want to go on a lynching party until I get all the gacts" in reference to ... say... Bill Clinton, then would it be national news? No. It would pass without notice. And please don't tell me that the rules are different for black people. The entire point of equality is that we all live by the same rules. White people cannot live every moment of their lives worried that some common phrase will be misinterpreted as racist if they utter it about a black person, any more than men should go about their lives fearful of offending a woman with normal language. That just creates resentment and hostility between groups.

    By the way, "sweetie" is offensive with this test. It's hard to think of a male equivalanet, but the closest I can come to is "Buddy, wait a minute", which still sounds dismissive and condescending. Referring to claws coming out is marginal, but talking about moodiness would be insulting to a man, as well. If somebody said "When he gets down, he attacks" about a man, it would imply that he coudln't control his emotions.


    WOW (none / 0) (#222)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:17:20 PM EST
    I would be 100% absolutely offended if someone used a "lynching party" as a way to describe anything, black, white, asian, etc...

    And it absolutely has racial connotations.  That's because those were the people who were actually lynched...  People wouldn't say it about Bill Clinton, and if they did, that would still be WRONG.  Just like KO talking about going into a room with Hillary and one not coming out.  Anything that threatens someones life is waaay off limits.  And this one specifically refers to a way that blacks were killed.  Nooses are still hung as an intimidation tactic.

    Now, I am not defending sweetie, it was a stupid, condescending thing to say.  But no one should EVER defend "lynching party".  Period.


    Lynching is not racial (none / 0) (#244)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:35:26 PM EST
    Think of every western you've ever seen with a "lynching party" going out after some kind of miscreant. Remember the commercial for salsa, when they found out that the sauce was from "New York City", and the man said "Get A Rope"?  There wasn't a lot of fuss over that commercial, and it aired for quite a while. Lynched dummies were standard fare for Halloween all over. Lynching was never just a way of killing blacks. It has been a common way of killing in our culture, a way that was widely accepted by law for many centuries, to the point where "lynch mob" has taken on a meaning that is not associated with actually killing somebody, but is a metaphor for attacking someone verbally. Lynching, or nooses, CAN be used to threaten somebody, but so can a cross or if it's used in a certain way. That does not mean that the symbol itself is an assault.

    O'Reilly was not threatening Obama in any way - he was simply saying "Let's get the facts before we criticize her". Attacking O'Reilly for using that term is no more reasonable than attacking Cuomo for using the term "shuck and jive". In this instance, O'Reilly was showing a rare case of good judgment (although I'm sure he followed up shortly with attacks).


    Why would feminists be outraged?? (none / 0) (#239)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:11:50 PM EST
    She said it. She owns it. That is what they are attacking, not the fact that she is female. Or black. Just that she said she was proud of her country for the first time..in her adult life. It's not a chauvinist attack, it's a political one. If she is going to put her foot in her mouth, she shouldn't complain about the taste of shoe leather.

    Jeralyn, not "picked" up from the media (none / 0) (#54)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    the derogatory, condescending, insulting, and misogynist language. They have picked it up  from Obama himself when those HATEFUL EXPRESSIONS you cite have come out of his mouth time and again! to think, t'was a woman who gave him life!

    Obama: 'I just had to get that off my chest, Guys' (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ellie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    In South Dakota, in front of a backdrop of mostly Problematic Typical Older White Women and a couple of older guys in the back row (presumably the men are in the Creative Class), BO tweaked his milquetoast response to GWB's "appeasement" comparison before the Knesset.

    The focus was more about he said / he said comparisons of McCain and Bush wth a heaping helping of Obama being personally offended.

    Then before moving on to the townhall portion, he signed off with the line in the subject header.

    "Guys?" This really stuck out given the pains he took to stack the backdrop with the kind of voters he's increasingly p!ssing off with his campaign's blatant sex!ism.

    Or, he's stoned but not enough to go to Dude followed by Man.

    (Is HRC in Oregon today? If so, the Obama Snoozapalooza footage from this that they'll run is a godsend.)

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    at least among my peer group, "guys" has always been totally gender-neutral.  It does seem a little off in that context, but I certainly wouldn't call it a "sweetie" moment.  I do think he needs to start working a little harder to stop putting his foot in it.

    Hold on (none / 0) (#107)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    Now, I agree that Obama has made some unfortunate comments towards women, calling a reporter sweetie is probably not the best idea.  The "claws come out" comment was uncalled for.

    But calling people "guys" regardless of gender, is something EVERYONE I know in the northeast does.  Me, my female friends, our moms, our male friends, etc... It's like saying "ya'll" down south.  We just say "guys".  Even if it's only girls.  None of us are being sexist, it's just part of our language.


    Didn't play that way against his backdrop (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ellie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    And regardless of your speech, TeamO spends bajillions of dollars to create images that target very specific groups and address very specific concerns.

    The campaign went to obvious pains to stack his backdrop with white women (middle aged and older) that Obama is hoping to lure back after having alienated and offended them.

    A man who walks into such a group and addressed them as "guys" would be considered impaired in some way or baldly sexist.


    Tone deaf (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by tree on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    I think that's Obama's problem. He can't understand how some of the things he says and the way he says them could upset people because he's  politically tone deaf. That explains the "bitter/cling" and his attempts to "explain" his remarks, it also explains why he didn't distance himself from Wright until so late in the campaign. He just doesn't get what does and doesn't offend a large number of people. I've come to the conclusion that his "judgment" argument really has very little merit because he really is very slow to pick up on nuances and differences among people and how they perceive him.

    Some would say (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:06:28 PM EST
    the POTUS should have a dignified element of courtesy when he speaks to crowds. Is he going to talk in such familiar terms when he's sitting at the big table with foreign dignitaries?

    The constant use of "well, look..." is bad enough.

    He has a very condescending manner of speech. I find myself following the bouncing ball when he speaks. Most of his sentences end on the down note, and in the past two weeks he has let out both a "hon" and a "sweetie" on video at reporters.


    Look at it this way (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:10:56 PM EST
    As long as he doesn't go around giving female leaders a shoulder massage, he'd be a step up.

    LOL (none / 0) (#131)
    by A little night musing on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    Thanks for the reality check!

    "Better than Bush!" (none / 0) (#178)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    Woo!  That's better than "Morning in America!".

    Let's print those t-shirts!


    I didn't say we were dignified (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:13:41 PM EST
    Sure, maybe it was undignified.  I wouldn't call it sexist.  As for speaking with foreign dignitaries, I am pretty confident he will do a much better job than George "let me give you a back massage" Bush.

    Do I think Obama can be condescending at times?  Sure.  He is running for president.  Anyone running for president is going to have a massive ego.

    I have already said I think the "sweetie" comments are a problem and they need to stop.


    It's not the speaking with (none / 0) (#213)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    foreign dignitaries...it's how you go about getting to the table to speak with those dignitaries.

    The State Department has a process that we go through when it comes to talking with folks...regardless of whether or not we like them. Some folks (the president of Iran included) are, if you hadn't noticed from his last visit to the US, a bit more complicated than others. And some of them include sending folks like Richardson (Darfur) and Carter (Hammas) to get the ball rolling.

    As POTUS, you go through that process...you let the process work.


    right now (none / 0) (#197)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    Corbett on WILK-fm

    Operation Turndown.

    Thank You!

    All comments (none / 0) (#242)
    by tek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    can't be attributed to frat boys though, because Obama himself lobs comments like the bittergate thing.  Maybe there are people who get bitter, but LABELING them seems like a very impolitic thing to do.  So they didn't vote for you.  Do you call them names (probably forfeiting their vote forever)?  

    Obama and MO both say blacks hate being labeled, and yet he seems to throw some label at every group of Dems who haven't voted for him.  Mr. UNITY.