home

Odd Senses of Humor

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:19:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Wouldn't you expect John McCain to have known that "his good friend Clayton Williams" isn't someone in whose company he wants to be seen during a presidential campaign?

While running unsuccessfully against Ann Richards for governor, the Texan was overheard comparing rape to the weather: "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."

It seems to have dawned on the McCain camp that Williams' role as a fund-raiser wasn't helping McCain's reputation.

Following the resurrection of this and other off-colour remarks [reported here], the McCain campaign decided abruptly to cancel the fundraiser at Mr Williams's lavish Midland home.

The McCain camp wants us to know that the Republican candidate-to-be doesn't think Williams' joke is funny. Let's not forget that McCain's own sense of humor can tend toward the vicious. [more ...]

While the mainstream US media deemed it "too vicious to print", Mr McCain's remarks at another Republican fundraiser still echo round the internet. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" he asked his guests. It was, he said,"because her father is Janet Reno [US attorney general under President Bill Clinton]."

Singing "Bomb Iran" makes him chuckle, as did the question "How do we beat the b-." Funny guy, that John McCain.

< Denver Host Committee Falls $11.6 Million Short of Fundraising Obligation | Gay Marriages Begin in California >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Odd Senses of Humor | 128 comments (128 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I sure hope no one is asking (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:28:33 PM EST
    Donald Trump for any money. You can be sure it would be easy to find a bad joke from him dated 20 years ago, too.

    Politically correct has tightened itself over the past 2 decades. I remember some hysterical jokes we girls used to tell that wouldn't be tolerated in today's society.

    Is this joke really 18 years old? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:38:00 PM EST


    Yes, it was told when (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:52:05 PM EST
    Williams was running against Ann Richards for Gov of TX in 1990.  If they've got to reach this far to tar McCain, he's one clean maverick after all.


    Parent
    Considering how disgusting the humor is... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    I dont care if it was 20 years or 20 minutes ago.

    Parent
    Frankly... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    between one candidate standing aside and letting sexist jokes run rampant until it became politically expedient to speak out against them after it was too late...and the other candidate who has made his own stupid comments and canceled a fundraiser with the guy of the "20 year old joke"...

    I'm thinking that women are pretty much getting the short end of the stick. And it's a sharp end too.

    Parent

    No argument... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44:02 PM EST
    but that doesnt speak to the fact that this is vile, period.

    Parent
    It was vile... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:52:40 PM EST
    But I also don't see Jim Webb going under the bus because of his women in the military statement from appx. 20 years ago. (Yes...I know he apologized.)

    Nor do I see another Dem senator going under the bus for patting female staffers on the back end.

    Nor did that TN Rep get tossed under the bus for his comments...though he did apologize.

    Parent

    My point is that... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    any woman turning to the republican side because some, somehow, might think theyre any less sexist are horribly misinformed.

    Parent
    And my point (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    is that there are no clean hands with this one.

    Parent
    Never said there were... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:44:04 PM EST
    and you have a valid point.  But it isnt an argument to vote for McSame.

    Parent
    You mean McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:59:10 PM EST
    There is no "McSame" in this election.    

    Why the namecalling?  Won't your argument hold up without hamecalling?    

    Parent

    Never said it was... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:21:12 AM EST
    However, I'm also not interested in reinforcing bad behaviour in Dems who apparently thinking that they can talk out of both sides of their mouth on this and not feel the consequences.

    As I've said elsewhere, votes are earned. And it doesn't seem as though Obama is really all that interested in earning my vote.

    At the moment, he's too busy trying to pander to the evangelical vote.

    Parent

    Thats a great reason... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    not to vote for Obama; theres no disagreement here.

    Parent
    Sexism is rampant everywhere (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:01:19 AM EST
    I don't speak for everyone but for some reason ppl assume Hillary supporters for McCain is about bitterness.  It's not at ALL!  When I outweighed Obama and Hillary by digging deeper into the web with facts, without a doubt I wanted her to change because of her long time stances with what she believes in.  It wasn't a short voting record that convinced me otherwise, it was who she was even back in college.  Her ambition, drive to fight for ppl.  Obama doesn't carry any of that including Foreign Policy.  I'm not voting for Mr. Obama because he is black and I'm bitter, I'm voting for he most qualified candidate.  It's unfortunate that the DNC had built a wall so hard that HIllary supporters couldn't fall on but only get pushed more to the "right" side.  It's principle.  2008 MI/FL primaries will only remind me how they allowed votes to be taken away.  It's no different than the 2000 election.  When did the DNC start having dbl standards?  I guess it's when they already decided who they wanted to be the nom.  

    Parent
    error above (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:02:40 AM EST
    When I outweighed Obama and Hillary by digging deeper into the web with facts, without a doubt I wanted her to be the change we needed in this country because

    Parent
    yeah, im sleep ...another error (none / 0) (#64)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:04:40 AM EST
    I'm not voting for Mr. Obama because he is black and I'm NOT bitter, I'm voting for he most qualified candidate.


    Parent
    Just FYI... (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:06:32 AM EST
    youre first version conveyed your sentiment.  The correction is now a double negative.  :(  

    You need to get some sleep!

    Parent

    This is a great reason... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:03:54 AM EST
    not to vote for Obama (Ive been a HRC fan for awhile).  Im only addressing those voting for McSame thinking he'd be any less sexist.

    Parent
    Which would be (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11:04 AM EST
    approximately no one.  Even the people I read who are planning to vote for McCain aren't doing so because they mistakenly believe that's he's a pioneer of women's rights.  Constantly implying that they are is both a waste of time and insulting to the intelligence.

    Parent
    I personally know people that are... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:13:10 AM EST
    so if youre not apart of that equation, then its not directed at you.

    Parent
    reread my corrections (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:12:24 AM EST
    I get what you are saying but what really irks loyal Hillary supporters is that Obama supporters believe we are bitter but were not.  Obama supporters don't like the idea we aren't bitter, they wish it were that but in fact, it's Obama's superficial nomination.  If you were a Hillary supporter before then you would know it's not about bitterness.

    Now the primaries are over, what I'd read with articles/blogs deep down in the web hiding behind all those Obama paid bloggers, had told the truth.  

    1st  Obama is about winning and not truly for getting our troops out of Iraq.  He speaks differently but it clearly spells out on his website.  That's a big slap in a face for his supporters, since that is why they jumped on his bandwagon.

    2nd  Obama surely ticked off a lot of his loyal supporters after he attacked Hillary for sitting on Walmart's board and then hires Furman, a pro-NATFA/pro-corporate policy maker.  

    Don't believe me, look it up.  I go to get to bed.

    Bloggers that bait their readers will only backfire

    Parent

    First off... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    I wanted HRC to wiin the nom... or selection, whichever you prefer.

    Second, I have never said anything about being bitter.  Voting for someone you honestly believe isnt sexist does not equate bitterness (gah talk about double negatives...)

    I dont disagree with any points youve made.

    Parent

    Most of the McCain sexist quotes I've (none / 0) (#68)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:09:07 AM EST
    seen are old.  And sexism was accepted 20 years ago.  

    I can't hold that against him.  

    I still remember some of the things I said about men back then!!!  (totally sexist!)  

    Parent

    Not Sure Where You Were In 1990 (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:13:07 PM EST
    But sexism was definitely not OK. And it is very different to laugh about rape of a woman, than to call a man a sexist pig. In general oppressed groups have a lot more latitude in nasty remarks of their oppressors than those who hold power, just sayin....

    But you are a McCain supporter so you will say anything about him at this point to help him win, even if it is distortions and lies.

    Parent

    I will most definitely... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11:56 AM EST
    hold sexism, homophobia, and racism against someone, regardless of how long ago it was.  No free passes on that.

    Parent
    I would also add that... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:06:27 PM EST
    those morons ignoring sexism are just that, morons.  And in a national political party the size of either democrat or republican, youll always have idiots in them.  

    Try and strive for better?  Of course, but voting for the other side (when I'd argue its fundamentally worse on this, and every other issue) doesn't help.

    Parent

    They aren't just ignoring it.... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:13:56 PM EST
    They're rolling around and reveling in it.

    Parent
    You think Dean is a moron? (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:23:11 PM EST
    He didn't notice all of the sexism during the campaign because he doesn't watch a lot of cable television. I'm not kidding. He said that. To the New York Times. I don't mind sharing a party with idiots - but I'm not going to follow them if they're trying to lead.

    Parent
    If the head of the DNC... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:45:38 PM EST
    is oblivious to current news, then yes theyre an idiot.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:44:52 PM EST
    those morons ignoring sexism are just that, morons.  And in a national political party the size of either democrat or republican, youll always have idiots in them.

    And it's such a pity when the idiots include, among others, the head of the DNC and the presumtive Democratic nominee.

    Parent

    McSame is no smarter. n/t (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Who (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:18 PM EST
    said he was?

    Parent
    Hopefully no one... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:50:54 PM EST
    but its just enjoyable to me to reiterate that.

    Parent
    Do you mean (3.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:51:26 PM EST
    McCain?  

    You lose 10 IQ points in my book by calling him "McSame."  

    I wish someone would stop this c@ap.  How can you have an intelligent discussion with anyone who confuses McSame with McCain?  

    Parent

    No reason to take a nickname... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:57:14 PM EST
    not directed at you personally.  Im not getting personal with you, please dont get personal with me.

    Parent
    Excuse me? (3.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:05:03 AM EST
    I thought this was a discussion board for mature adults, not children.  The only people I see calling McCain "McSame" are kids.  

    Only kids think it is hysterically funny to warp someones name into something like McSame or McBush or Obomba or Billary.  

    That's a kid thing.  

    The adults posting here manage to call people "McCain" "Hillary" "Obama" and they don't resort to juvenile names smears.  

    So, I'm not getting personal with you.  I wish you would find another board to troll.  If you can post like an adult, then I'm sure you are more than welcome here but if you have to post like a kid, then you should go somewhere else.  

    This board contains a lot of posting adults.  McCain = McCain.  Obama = Obama.  Hillary = Hillary.  You got it?  

    Parent

    Do you get this indignant... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:07:41 AM EST
    when people use Obamabots?

    Parent
    Are Obamabots (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:13:29 AM EST
    condoms?  Or do they just pretend to be condoms?  

    If they aren't condoms, how do they prevent disease?  What purpose does an Obamabot have if they can't prevent disease?  

    (You can spend however many hours it takes for you to answer this.)  

    Parent

    My reply would be... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:18:49 AM EST
    according to your logic, anyone on this board whose ever used the term Obamabot is a kid and has 10 points less on their IQ.

    Parent
    I have no idea what (none / 0) (#77)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:27:01 AM EST
    Obamabots are -- so is that the definition?  

    Cool.  I didn't know.  

    Anyway, is it too much to ask?  McCain is McCain?  Obama is Obama?  Hillary is Hillary?  

    I know it takes some of the (non)creativity out of it all, but there are adults posting here, ya know?  

    Parent

    I dont see why you feel... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:30:55 AM EST
    the need to be condescending when you havent been insulted in anyway, but ok.  

    Regardless, if you honestly dont know what the term Obamabots means then this must be your first day here at TL (which I know it isnt) or youre a very selective reader of the comment section.

    Parent

    grace's comment is blatanly hyprocritical (3.66 / 3) (#88)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:32:13 AM EST
    I agree 100%.  And hypocrisy is worth how many points deduction in IQ?????  Either consistently call it out or stfu.  This site wasn't always this way, nor is it consistent with a majority of the posters, just a few bitter types who have no place else to vent I guess.  

    Parent
    'bitter types' (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:36:42 PM EST
    so old and uncreative. might as well be 'strident' or 'humorless'. surely you can do better.

    Parent
    nah bitter is what it is (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM EST
    why try to sugar coat or parse words?  

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    She only cares when someone disses her candidate: McCain. Makes sense for someone who loved Russert and is prodeath penalty. Not sure exactly why she finds it so offensive. Maybe it is because she is for change and the term McSame or McBush makes for cognitive dissonance. She has even argued, albeit indirectly, that McSame is pro choice.

    Delusional, imo.

    Parent

    They admired maggie Thatcher to a man. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    So it's hard to say really.

    Merkel is in the conservative god books too.

    Generally though the GOP are a Frathouse and they don't like anyoutside the club.

    Parent

    If it makes you feel any better.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:45:29 PM EST
    Ann Richards, in the same campaign, said all WHITE women should have a right to an abortion. Nary a peep out of the press on that one. They howled in outrage for weeks over Clayton's joke. Different time, different press, another set of double standards to apply.

    Parent
    Yep, I was there at SMU (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    during the Williams-Richardson race. Good thing he did say it though, because Richardson wouldn't have won if he hadn't.

    Parent
    Jokes about rape. . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by Tzal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:21:51 PM EST
    are sort of timeless. Also, didn't he also joke about hog tying Ann Richards?

    Google. Get to know it.

    Parent

    I know google... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:26:35 PM EST
    pretty well.

    Condescension does you little good, oh relatively new user.

    But I do find it ironic that some of the folks who were arguing against the use of "arguments of association" against one candidate are now okay with using "arguments of association."

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    Both Obama and Hillary returned money donated by those whose association was damaging. You obviously missed the point that this "argument of association" is about not returning the $300,000. donated to McCain by a guy who publicly joked about rape and hog tying women during his campaign against Ann Richards.

    Parent
    A timeless joke (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:39:10 PM EST
    is one that is just as funny today as it was 100 years ago, and will still be funny 100 years from now.

    Parent
    Politics suck! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    I think it's distasteful to see McCain make those statements but is there an audio link or video.  Media may not had printed that but surely, they have it recorded.  

    The media has dbl standards on what they will print or not, whether the shift is liberal or conservative.

    In comparison....

    The media on HUFFPO didn't care to make news (main page headline) about Jena Bush losing her virginity.

    George W. Bush To Gain Son, Jenna Bush To Lose Her Virginity

    How is that different?  Politics suck!

    I don't like Bush but for a Pro-Obama site, this was tabloid reporting.  Tacky! And sexist.  I surely wouldn't want  someone to advertise my children losing their virginities, let alone calling them ugly as a joke.  

    link (none / 0) (#6)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM EST
    sorry here is the link

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/george-w-bush-to-gain-son_n_101025.html

    Parent

    What did McCain say? (none / 0) (#8)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    The article is about canceling a fundraiser for McCain because the man throwing the event made a lousy joke 18 years ago when he ran against Ann Richardson for Gov of Texas.

    Parent
    Calling Chelsea Ugly (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:49:01 PM EST
    I know why Chris had to highlight or quote that piece.  IMO, it's baiting us to not vote for McCain and point out his attacks on Hillary but I'm not buying it.  It's no different than Huffpo reporting something tacky and it fell in the lines of sexism.  

    While the mainstream US media deemed it "too vicious to print", Mr McCain's remarks at another Republican fundraiser still echo round the internet. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" he asked his guests. It was, he said,"because her father is Janet Reno [US attorney general under President Bill Clinton]."


    Parent
    Tasteless and mean but also from the '90s (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    Can't they find any jokes less than 20 years old to tar McCain?


    Parent
    the paragraph following Tchris quote on Chelsea (4.33 / 6) (#17)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:02:16 PM EST
    This is from the article and is the following paragraph.

    Mr McCain later personally apologised to Mr Clinton for the remarks and went on to become a close friend of Mrs Clinton. If he fails to win the White House in November, the two may rekindle the alliance they forged during an all-night drinking session on the way to Baghdad a few years ago, when by all accounts Mrs Clinton drank her old colleague under the table.


    Parent
    Geesh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:05:09 PM EST
     At least there was an apology unlike Huffpo/Pro Obama.com, mocking Jena Bush and losing her virginity which is no man's business.

    Parent
    I remember reading about that (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    at the time.  It humanized both candidates for me.


    Parent
    I remember when the joke first made the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:35:19 PM EST
    rounds. I don't remember anyone not laughing at it, but I can see where a Senator wouldn't be the right person to be telling the joke about the President's daughter.

    Tasteless jokes are simply tasteless jokes. I delete numerous tasteless jokes from my email every week.

    Having been raised Catholic, I think some of the most tasteless jokes are about Catholics...and in my circle it was the Catholics telling them.


    Parent

    Yeah, horrifying (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST
    "joke" no matter how long ago.  I'm glad McCain canceled the fundraiser.  I'm glad there was enough pressure to force McCain to cancel the fundraiser.  

    Now, let's see that same pressure applied to the other side of the aisle with comparable results.  Until then, I'll see this sturm und drang as political expediency and a weak-kneed effort to scare women into voting for Obama.

    But he took the money (none / 0) (#46)
    by namekarB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    Any decent politician would have donated it to charity.

    BTW, he did not cancel it, he postponed it and will have it at a different location

    Parent

    decent & politician are mutually exclusive (none / 0) (#102)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:36:34 PM EST
    yes, even re: Obama.

    Parent
    What's your issue? It's not clear. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:58:50 AM EST
    Wouldn't you expect John McCain to have known that "his good friend Clayton Williams" isn't someone in whose company he wants to be seen during a presidential campaign?

    ...the McCain campaign decided abruptly to cancel the fundraiser at Mr Williams's lavish Midland home.

    The criticism in your post would make sense if the fundraiser had occured.  Clearly, in repudiating this person before the event took place, he's not cynically taking advantage of the $$ and then trying to cover it up and clean it up after the fact.  Instead, McCain is pitching this guy out, money and all.  Seems like the right thing to do.  Apparently, McCain did know that he shouldn't be seen with this guy during a presidential campaign.  I note that the framing of that remark is a lot like have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife.  'shouldn't been seen' makes a lot of assumptions.  But then, this post is full of non-sequiturs.

    Women aren't stupid (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:23:20 AM EST
    ....although apparently a lot of men think they are. What women have learned during this primary is that most men on both the left and the right couldn't give a crap about demeaning women (whether in jokes or in serious political conversation or on blogs or on TV or in addressing a professional reporter or anywhere else). There is no moral high ground any more on the left, so please stop insulting women by trying to scare them into voting for Obama. If you want to talk policy, that's another thing.

    On this very blog, I had to have a ridiculous argument with some guy claiming it was perfectly fine to call Hillary a b!tch since that is just the correct name for a female mammal. All over the lefty blogs, men justify demeaning talk about women. Give it up already.

    I'm not voting for McCain, but the women I know that are voting for him are not doing it because they're too stupid to see how sexist he is. They want to send a message to the democratic party that it's not OK to be just as sexist as the republicans are. Do you have a suggestion as to how else they can send that message? I've been trying to think of one, but honestly I can't.

    I second Dr Molly's post (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by stxabuela on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:41:22 AM EST
    As a woman, I am getting the message loud and clear:  the Democratic Party doesn't care about us.  At least the Republicans aren't hypocritical about sexism.  

    btw, I will NEVER vote for McCain, but I don't foresee voting for Obama, either.  Third party or skip the race and vote Dem downticket is where I'm at today.  

    Parent

    Thanks for saying this (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    maybe it will get through to some of them (but I will not hold my breath -- or worry my pretty little head about it either).

    Parent
    you betcha! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:35:24 PM EST


    Parent
    And equally comforting to see that dishonest (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    mischaracterizations continue apace in your sarcastic comments. Most commenters here gave any indication of that. Most indicated that they are simply unmoved by hypocritical faux-outrage against sexism by those who excused it or participated in it themselves. It's not rocket science.

    BTW, did you speak out against the sexism from the lefty blogs and MSM? Just curious.

    Shoot, (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    and here I thought this article was about McCain. My mistake.

    Between McCain and Obama, (4.42 / 7) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:29:07 PM EST
    women really are getting the short end of the stick in this election.

    Yeah, allegedly Obama is supposed to be better, but it just seems to me like the biggest difference is that Obama has a better filter than McCain, who seems to have no filter at all.

    Meanwhile, people continue to chuckle at things that aren't even remotely funny - and it's happening on both sides of the aisle.

    It's very depressing for us women - more than most men can begin to appreciate.

    The joke was told in 1990 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:38:23 PM EST
    not yesterday.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm aware of that, but then again, (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:00:45 PM EST
    McCain is the same man who chuckled at "so, how do we beat the b!tch."

    The same man who voted against the Lily Ledbetter Act and said that the reason women aren't paid the same as men is because we need more training.

    Somehow, I'm not seeing a lot of growth in the man.

    And, I know he isn't the one who made the rape-is-just-like-the-weather comment, but if every news organization that exists can do 30 seconds of research on the man who did, it would seem like the McCain campaign would have that same capability - I am certain someone in that campaign knew exactly what had been said, even if it was almost 20 years ago.

    It's just like the Hagee endorsement, which McCain initially welcomed, then said he hadn't sought but would not reject, then rejected, but after Hagee withdrew it.

    It's the money - always the money.

    I think sometimes we should just put up a bunch of names, and hold a telethon.  The candidates can sing, dance, tell jokes, twirl a baton, model a bathing suit, play the spoons - whatever - and whoever gets the most money wins.  Then we can use the bazillions donated to do some actual good in the country.

    Parent

    McCain and policy issues important to women (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:13:39 PM EST
    (1) McCain is in favor of judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
    (2) McCain has opposed equal pay for women.
    (3) McCain has opposed the CHIP [Children's Health Insurance] program, that would make children insured.
    (4) McCain opposed legislation that would allow women pilots to fly combat missions. His argument was "The purpose of the military is first to defend this nation's vital security interests throughout the globe and only second to ensure equality". Former Presidential candidate Patricia Schroder (D-Colorado) who (D-Colo.), who spearheaded the effort to grant women the right to fly in combat, called McCain a product of a "guy culture", she also said "He has always had trouble dealing with women as equals.
     

    Parent
    Read Dr. Molly's post up thread (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    Women aren't stupid. Women who are voting for McCain are not doing it because they are not aware how sexist he is. They are doing it because they want to make a statement to the DNC. It is their votes, no one else's, and they have the right to vote the way they please. So, your whole little list here is just insulting.

    Parent
    Mind you (3.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:19:51 AM EST
    Obama got a failing grade on Children's Defense Fund scorecard.  Guess who got a passing grade, Hillary.

    See, Bush will go down in history as one of the most conservative presidents.  He is all about getting his name in history .  He had ample opportunities to overturn Roe V. Wade.  Democratic party can't scare me on that one or give threats.  

    Besides, why do you think Lieberman is literally his right hand man now.  Lieberman voted 99% with his old party (democrat).  Pre Bush, McCain was more of a moderate.  To get the nod to run Republican, he had to vote in the lines of the party.  I don't think he will do much of that either. Lieberman is definitely a sign in my favor.

    Parent

    Um.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by nr22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:23:33 AM EST
    Bush did not have ample opportunities to overturn Roe v. Wade. That is a profoundly ignorant statement. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision which the President has no power to overturn. The only way it can be overturned is by a vote of at least five justices on the Supreme Court. Bush has appointed two anti-choice justices to the Court; the only reason he didn't appoint any more is because he didn't have the opportunity to do so.

    And I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of hearing that we people who plan to vote for Obama are "giving threats" to those of you who plan to vote for McCain. We are not threatening you; you are threatening us by pledging to help elect McCain. We're just trying to make sure that you understand what your threat means.

    And among the consequences of a McCain presidency will be rollbacks in the cause of women's rights. (And it's not just abortion rights at stake, there are many other things as well; for example, McCain favors allowing insurance companies to refuse to pay for birth control).

    Parent

    women's rights... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    can only be rolled back if Democrats in congress allow it to happen.... like they've been allowing it to happen with the appointment of people like Alito and Roberts.

    Obama's Unity Pony doesn't require that he be in the White House -- he can be the Unity Pony in the Senate, demanding the preservation of our civil liberties and rights as a Senator.

    But we've seen that he is ALL talk on that front... (hint... why doesn't he get his UnityPony butt to the senate and tell democrats that as the Presumtive Nominee, he's opposing telecom immunity -- and will stand with Chris Dodd and other Democrats in filibustering any FISA bill that has telecom immunity in it.)

    You want your "womens rights" protected?  Tell Obama to step down, and tell congressional Democrats to step up.

    But don't blame us because we refuse to support someone who is completely unsuited for the oval office just because he has a "D" next to his name.  He's YOUR problem.

    Parent

    exactly! The Roe v. Wade scare tactic (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    would have a lot more juice with me if the Dems hadn't allowed it to be chipped away on the state & federal level over the last 30 years (so-called "partial birth" abortions, anyone?) to where it barely has meaning.

    Parent
    Um, no (none / 0) (#98)
    by nr22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    If you refuse to support the Democratic nominee and McCain gets in and rolls back women's rights, that's everyone's problem. Not just ours.

    Parent
    Um, this is profoundly ignorant logic (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    given the tenor of this primary.

    Parent
    Actions have consequences (none / 0) (#111)
    by nr22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    And the tenor of the primary has nothing to do with the consequences of a McCain presidency.

    Parent
    Yep, they do. And the actions of the primary (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    have absolutely everything to do with the consequences of my vote.

    Parent
    Well the consequence of a vote for McCain (none / 0) (#119)
    by nr22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    will be significant setbacks in women's right. If you can live with that consequence, then by all means, vote for him.

    But using the primary as an excuse for that cuts no ice with me.

    Parent

    Don't lecture me about setting (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    women's rights back. I'd bet my life I've done far more work in my lifetime for women's rights then your can even begin to comprehend. So your hysteria about "setting women's rights back" cuts no ice with me.

    Parent
    Boy (2.33 / 3) (#122)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:09:57 PM EST
    Does that "I've done more (imagine finger pointing)"
    sound O'Reillyesqe or what?

    Lets not neglect a womans right to a self-sabotaging
    tantrum with unforseen consequences.

    Parent

    Your comment is far more hysterical than mine (2.33 / 3) (#123)
    by nr22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:20:34 PM EST
    And I'm not lecturing you about anything. I'm simply telling you that electing John McCain president will set the cause of women's rights back significantly. Now, if that's okay with you, then by all means, vote for him. But if you do, you forfeit any credibility you might have on the issue of women's rights, because you obviously don't care about them one whit.

    Parent
    jondee & nr22 -- how dare you (none / 0) (#127)
    by angie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    seriously, were do you get your balls that you dare to tell me how to vote or to describe how I choose to vote as "hysteria" or "self-sabotage." You two need to grow up and stop your childish insults if you ever hope to persuade people who know how to think to come around to your view points. There is a reason the voting booth is private -- because no one gets to tell anyone else in this country how to vote (at least not yet).

    Parent
    I did not tell you how to vote (none / 0) (#128)
    by nr22 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    Nor did I describe your vote as hysterical. And nowhere did I use any childish insults. Please stop the inaccurate characterization of what I said.

    I simply told you that electing McCain president will set women's rights back significantly. Now, if that's okay with you, then by all means, vote for him. But if you do, don't come back here and try to lecture me on women's rights, because you will have just proven that you don't care the slightest bit about them.

    Parent

    Good lord! Enough (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by angie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:12:16 PM EST
    You are insulting, patronizing and childish -- and not even self-aware enough, or honest enough, to know it. Physician heal thyself.

    Parent
    Let's see (none / 0) (#130)
    by nr22 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:20:43 PM EST
    You have called me "hysterical," "childish," "patronizing," and now dishonest, and yet you still claim that I'm the one who's being insulting.

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, apparently.

    Parent

    Hi there, (none / 0) (#110)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    I agree.

    Parent
    Obama is "courting" Reagan (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    dems and repub lites. He cannot promote "liberal" judges and still get their vote. He himself has said he will appoint judges who are sympathetic (ugh)to women's issues and gay issues but that women should make this decision after consulting with their clergy etal (insulting)! With a dem congress, the barrier gets set up against conservative judges anyway. And, on this blog, many times, the "threat" of appt. w/judges has been used. Remember, until he was talked out of it, Obama was voting yes on Roberts.

    Parent
    Wow, you even (none / 0) (#126)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:55:30 PM EST
    troll rated me on this one.  Should I care about troll rating?  I don't get bothered easily, especially with troll ratings but apparently, any type of dissent isn't allowed on your blogs.  

    Is it because I know you subliminally were trying to call out Hillary supporters in reference to McCain stating sexist or odd jokes years ago?  I'm putting words in your mouth, but I believe you were comparing hypocrisy. If Hillary supporters are so upset with the sexism , then why are we voting for McCain?  Just be straight forward on it.  Baiting is very common on blogs and ppl can see that on their own.

    I don't know if you didn't expect anyone to read your article entirely, but I did and thought posting the following paragraph from your "quoted" reference where McCain called Chelsea ugly. It was clear the writer literally wiped out what he had written in the previous paragraph by stating McCain's apology and how the Clinton's accepted it with drinks on their way to Baghdad.

     

    Parent

    Precisely (none / 0) (#44)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:31:05 PM EST
    Senator McCain's sexism is evident in his very long, overwhelmingly bad record.

    Parent
    Good policy points (none / 0) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    Regarding Shroeder's quote, I would now say that applies to most democratic men as well based on what I hear and see on the lefty blogs, MSM, etc.

    Parent
    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:40:19 PM EST
    on the plus side, the fundraiser did get canceled.

    Parent
    But, should it have been (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:45:39 PM EST
    for an 18 year old joke? The guy didn't set bombs all over and then claim just a few years ago he wished he had set more.

    Parent
    I dunno... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:52:48 PM EST
    Personally, I find the sturm and drang to be politically convenient posturing (outside of BTD and a couple others...of course).

    Parent
    not cancelled (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by namekarB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:42:31 PM EST
    postponed . . .

    Parent
    indefinitely? (none / 0) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:23:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Canceled before it happened (none / 0) (#33)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38:58 PM EST
    and not only after the media backlash didn't seem to be going away.

    I'm thinking a lot of glass houses here.

    Parent

    Off topic (1.00 / 4) (#22)
    by rdandrea on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    the word "Obama" never appeared once in the parent article.  It was about McCain and Clayton Williams.

    Parent
    Unfortantely, when (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    you are debating, you bring up comparisons, whether someone likes it or not.  

    NOBAMA!

    Parent

    Well, bless your heart, I actually knew (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST
    that, seeing as how I can read and all, but McCain has an opponent in this election, and I was describing my disappointment with both candidates, neither of whom seem to be strong on women's issues, and both of whom seem to find funny things that a lot of women do not.

    Parent
    My comment was meant for randrea, (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:26:22 PM EST
    not sociallybanned.

    Parent
    O I know dear (none / 0) (#32)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38:35 PM EST
    LOL

    Parent
    Me thinks we aren't (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:29:48 PM EST
    assimilating fast enough for some...

    Parent
    The issue... (3.85 / 7) (#45)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:40:17 PM EST
    to me is that Obama's acceptance/exploitation of misogyny is entirely different from McCain's.

    See, GOP sexism and misogyny is a given.  Nothing really changes in the zeitgeist when it happens, because we've known it was there, and have been decrying it for ages.

    But when the Democratic nominee (and Party leadership) uses misogyny to its advantage, you're talking about about a major change in the social/political environoment for women.  The Democratic party was supposed to be a "safe place" for women -- and Team Obama and its supporters have changed that.  

    The simple fact remains that Hillary Clinton was the far better candidate -- women figured that out first, because they filtered out the misogynistic BS that was responsible for the "myth" of Hillary Clinton.  The fact that someone like Howard Dean didn't figure it out until just now shows how deep the misogynistic impulse among male politicians is...

    wow (none / 0) (#51)
    by namekarB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:45:49 PM EST
    I am truly amazed at your logic

    Parent
    Hillary was the better (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:01 PM EST
    candidate.  Why are you amazed at her logic?  I'm not.  

    Parent
    grace.. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:57:20 PM EST
    "her" is a "him"...

    paul lukasiak

    :-)

    Parent

    I think that point is entirely debatable (none / 0) (#109)
    by tribe643 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    Some could argue that Hillary was the establishment, DLC, centrist candidate that had she won the nomination, would be shifting to the center-right at this point in time. Given her past support of criminalizing desecration of the flag, voting for the AUMF for Iraq, kind words for John McCain during the primary season, it wouldn't be out of character.

    There are shades of gray all over the place in politics and most just end up seeing things the way they choose to see them, whether they be the things I mentioned above or something like Obama reaching out to evangelicals. One could easily interpret it as him pandering to christian conservatives and selling out his principles or someone else could argue he's trying to reach out to those of faith who believe fighting poverty and protecting the environment is just as important as protecting the sanctity of life as they see it and give them a choice instead of automatically ceding them to the GOP every election.

    Parent

    Hi there, (none / 0) (#113)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    I agree.

    Parent
    You are aware, I hope, (none / 0) (#114)
    by tree on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    that both Clinton and Obama voted against the flag burning Amendment and both voted FOR the flag burning law?

    Parent
    This is "not" about McCain, this is (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    about Sen. Obama and what he does and does not bring to the table. By putting McCain down, does not lift up Obama!

    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    The McCain voters are starting to get defensive. Soon they will be gone as there are no valid arguments for voting R at this site. To repeatedly do so would mean becoming a chatterer. Traditionally a few have been kept around here to liven things up, but I believe those slots are already filled.

    Yeah, like a tornado is enjoyable (none / 0) (#15)
    by splashy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:56:11 PM EST
    Or a hurricane. People dying should enjoy it.

    What an idiot.

    I have to laugh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    Times have changed in the last 20 years.  Sexist jokes used to be funny and women willingly put up with them.  (The joke about Chelsea wasn't funny because Chelsea was a minor -- but that's the only reason.  If he had made the same joke about Hillary, it would have been perfectly acceptable.)

    Things have really gotten more sensitive over the years.

    Anyway, considering when these jokes were told, I don't have a problem with them.  I used to tell raunchy jokes back then myself.  

    At least John McCain has a sense of humor!  A lot of older people don't have one anymore.  It's one of the first things older people lose and there has been research done on this in the last few years.  I'm thrilled John McCain has a sense of humor, as old as he is.  

    Barack Obama appears to have no sense of humor at all which bodes very poorly for him if he plans to live over the age of 50.  ;-)  

    I'd tell you some really crass joke about men now, but I'm so old I can't remember any of them.  

    Sigh ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by cymro on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:25:36 AM EST
    In my experience, no political party anywhere has a monopoly on good taste or bad taste. I doubt if that will ever change, no matter how earnestly some people wave the flag of "political correctness."

    However, it would not surprise me if the US has the most juvenile level of political discourse anywhere. Much of the discussion in this thread reminds me of the kind of overly dramatic gossip I was subjected to when my daughter was a teenager -- a phase she grew out by the time she graduated from high school.

    Is it too much to hope that TL's class of 2008 will also graduate and leave these angst-filled discussions behind?

    Hi there, (none / 0) (#118)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    I agree.

    Parent
    bit off topic (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:27:36 AM EST
    but I thought of this quote when I read the Vanity Fair response to Gina Gershwin re the Bill Clinton story which was basically shut up and enjoy the free press.

    18 Years Ago (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    Was 1990. Hardly the 50's or a time when such vile misogynist crap was acceptable in public discourse. Maybe you were not born yet, or you traveled in different circles where that sort of thing was OK, but for anyone to say that, no less a public figure running for governor, meant a permanent black mark in my book.

    Theory of relativity, Obama style (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    1990s -- ages and ages ago re: Clinton Presidency.
    1990s -- just yesterday re: McCain associations.

    Parent
    Don't look know (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    vile misogynist crap is acceptable in public discourse TODAY. The Dem. primary proved that.

    Parent
    Misogyny and Sexism Is Never Acceptable (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    And your implicit apology for McCain's accepting $300,000. from a pig who glorified the rape and hogtying of women when he was running against Ann Richardson in 1990, is duly noted.

    Parent
    Ya, here we go again (none / 0) (#125)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:57:37 PM EST
    Lectures and finger-wagging from a bunch of dudes about women's rights and who we have to vote for. Yawn. I'm sure you guys have worked hard all your lives to not be hypocrites about women's issues. LOL.

    Odd Senses of Humor | 128 comments (128 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment