Can one of you just shoot me in the head?
Asked on CBS’s “The Early Show” whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said:
“That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
Is she out of her damn mind?
Hahahahahahaha!
Now Ohio is the only ‘significant’ state in the country?
There’s still hope for Pennsylvania being significant too (if you vote the Hillary way that is).
What state are you in, Steven?
NY, so of course I’m significant, but less significant than Ohio today, lol.
As New Yorkers, we’re just assumed to be in her column.
Clinton’s margin in NY state was no where near as impressive as Obama’s in Illinois (or Hawai’i).
Reposting this from the last thread, because it’s relevant to this one.
For anyone who’s interested, Jerid at Buckeye State Blog has posted a breakdown of the delegates in Ohio, by district. Just so you all know, we don’t all suck here in Ohio.
Another post here at Plunderbund analyzes the trends, and wonders about racism as a factor in some areas.
If racism was a factor, those same people are just as likely to make sexism a factor should Hillary be facing off against old white guy McCain.
They’re still Democrats. We have a lot of white racist democrats in Chicago. They’d go for the white woman, a familiar face, before they’d go for the black guy.
what about ageism?
Only if there are two bullets and one is left for me.
Wait! That’s the answer: The states that matter can vote for a Clinton-Obama ticket, and the rest can vote for a Obama-Clinton ticket.
And then whichever combination has the highest number of states voting for them is the one we go with…
We can just have them take turns being president on alternate weeks.
Of course, the weeks that Clinton is the chief executive will be the ‘significant’ weeks.
well, the party big-wigs realize that having the primary fight go all the way to the convention would be a disaster for the party’s chances in november. some are asking party leaders to step in and broker some kind of compromise.
so what kind of compromise can there be other than the offer of a VP position? if clinton would accept the second spot it actually could work. after all, it would help unify the party (something we badly need), but because the president and not the VP is the one appointing people, it would reassure me that clinton’s people would not get in. since its really clinton’s people and her judgment in the war vote that bother me about clinton, i could accept her as a veep if it would give obama the nomination and end this stupid primary contest.
i’m not saying it’s likely to happen. it’s just not crazy.
I told you not to go to WCL last night or this would happen…why, noz, why?
it is my fault. even more evidence: vermont, obama’s one victory last night, was called before i got to the obama party. once i got there it was nothing i just got to see obama’s lead in texas evaporate.
can anyone find me a mccain election party in november?
Clinton will never accept the veep position. She’s sixty years old. That would put her next shot at the presidency at the age of 68. If sexism is a barrier for her now, wait until she combines it with ageism. It’s tough enough for a male candidate; it’s a no-win situation for a female candidate.
And frankly, having Clinton as veep does not guarantee that she won’t be appointing anyone. In the unlikely event she was to accept the compromise, you can be sure that there would be some major strings attached, and since no one has made any serious effort to repudiate Cheney’s fourth branch of government theory, I wouldn’t count on the vice-presidency being as neutered as it used to be.
Doesn’t the office of vice-president have a lot more power these days? Think about that before you go wishing the vice-presidency on her.
The Veep is the most powerful position in the world — if your Preznit is Dubya.
it’s only a strong position right now because cheney is so weak. the VP has only two official duties: (1) presiding over the senate, and (2) being ready to be president if the president dies.
everything else is whatever the president decides to delegate to her. bush delegated a lot to cheney, but that is not binding on any future president. they can do whatever they want.
With a strong president, the veep’s power is limited, indeed. With a blithering idiot like GWB, the sky’s the limit. With both Clinton and Obama having strong personalities, I think the office of the vice-president will return to its historic role, a life insurance program for the most important job in the world.
why wouldnt it work with hillary on top?
what if obama is on a downward slide?
what if the hillary campaign and the press are about to throw everything the republicans will eventually throw at obama…arent you interested in seeing how that plays out? if he cant handle it from a dem how can he handle it from a repub? i’d like to give him an opportunity to handle it.
there are quite a few arguments to be made for hillary on top of the ticket. outside of fringe left land people arent so concerned about the inner workings of the dem party and all the reasons a lot of people in fringe left land dont want to vote for hillary….they just worry about who will make sure they arent worse off financially 4 years from now and who will give them a sense of security. as this process progresses we are seeing more issue oriented discussion and awareness and less inspirational speech likability…the electorate is better served the longer this goes on.
a lot of people are looking forward to their votes actually counting this time around…i think this will only bring more people into the process….whats bad about that?
They way I fight my sister is much different from the way I’d fight a stranger. If there was such a thing as party loyalty between Dems., we wouldn’t have to watch Clinton give the GOP ammunition for the general.
The Obama campaign has gone to lengths not to hit Clinton on her vast amount of weaknesses, thus giving ammunition to the GOP. She’s so easy to hit, with her “35 years of experience”, even though between McCain, Obama and Clinton, she has the least amount experience in public office. Do you really think the GOP will be this hands off on her? Do you really believe the lie that she’s been vetted? When so many of her papers and records are under lock or undisclosed, exactly how has she been vetted? She’s never even had a serious challenger before.
She’s proven she has no character beyond the gutter, and the GOP will take her “35 years of experience” and hang that around her neck. We’re gonna get to relive the Clinton’s first two terms in office all over again. The only bonus, is that if the Clinton’s get the nod for a 3rd time around, the GOP won’t have Obama’s words to use again her.
thank you for making sense, hard to come by on this site reg. the election imo and HRC…when all you can do is hate HRc there is not much room for clear thinking.
This wailing about giving the reps. ammunition, folderol, they will get down and dirtier than we can imagine.
It’s not like Obama has not gone negative, come on,and the phone ad, was that so fearsome, really. Was that any worse that the flyers OB sent out in Ohio.
You can’t very well say my opponent is great, but still vote for me.
And yes I do think everyone is US should have a chance to vote on this and not some ‘oh get out of the race you are 100 points behind’, blather, I say, would people be asking for Obama to step down if he was behind 100 pts. and besides that neither of them have a chance to get to the magic number without massive wins, so why not let this thing play out.
Watching OB at press conference last week, frankly I didn’t think he handled himself all that well, but he’s great in prepared speeches…I’ve watched him in Senate, not very impressive there either.
Yes. She is out of her damn midn. I think we’ve clearly established this, and it’s also very clear that she’s going to do everything in her power to make sure Obama doesn’t win the nomination… Even if it means destroying her own chances in November. If she wins the nomination, watch in awe and horror as she tries to one-up Dean by campaigning only in the states that voted for her. Because hey, they’re the only ones that matter!
every candidate does that…campaigns in their strong states and the swing states….they have 2 months or so between the convention and the election….no matter who the candidate is the focus will be on ny, ca, pa, oh, fl, mi, tx, nj, il.
dont you think there is an argument there that hillary won almost all of those states? i mean doesnt that give you pause?
NY, CA and IL will go to the Dem. no matter who is the nominee. The other states will be battleground states, just because race is a factor with many of those people. But you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama has won 25 states. Doesn’t that mean anything?
None at all. You don’t seem to understand why the Republicans have been winning elections consistently for the past twenty years, or the implications of the 50 state strategy. Simply put, “swing states” aren’t. Swing states are only swing states because the Clinton strategy has been to fixate on winning a small number of “centrist” and “blue” states, while abandoning the rest of the country to the Republicans. This means that the Republicans pick up a lot of votes from the 30-40 states that “don’t matter”, and are able to win the whole shebang by edging out small wins in a tiny handful of “swing” states. Meanwhile, the Democrats concentrate on winning the big states and the swing states, and wind up in a situation where losing any swing state is a complete disaster.
If, as Dean and Obama have been, you contest the entire country, instead of wasting money squabbling over “swing” votes, you win. It’s the essence of strategy: attack your opponent’s strength.
(Incidentally, Clinton hasn’t won Florida or Michigan – those were illegal primaries in states that she’d pledged not to campaign in. Yet she had surrogates campaigning in both, and campaigned in Florida. Obama didn’t. That says nothing about her appeal in those states, nor her ability to carry them in the general. Heck, in Michigan, she barely beat “no candidate”! It does say a lot about her respect for the rule of law, or lack thereof. She clearly feels her own personal quest for power supersedes the party election rules she agreed to, and that does not fill me with confidence for her ability to respect the constitution or the rule of law.)
it’s actually pretty clever on her part. She knows it’s near damn impossible for her to still win, so she minimizes Obama without slashing him. She’s basically saying: look, Obama will be on the ticket no matter what, and hey he can still be president eight years from now-choose me!
That said, she’s absolutely driving me insane and she’s aided in her effort by my boyfriend who’s staunchly and blindly pro Hillary. Maybe we should just seperate for the next seven weeks. Damn her!
Exactly. Again, she’s working the media narrative to make him appear weak. To sow doubts in the minds of the superdelegates.
My sympathies on being in a mixed relationship š
thanks for your sympathies. Mixed relationship? yeah, I guess that term describes it pretty well, lol.
isnt it impossible for either one of them to win if we go all the way to the convention?
they are virtually tied it seems…the only way either wins before the convention is if the other concedes.
im very interested in seeing how obama does in pa.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania. The demographics suit Hillary even more than Ohio. But she won’t get enough delegates out of it to dent his lead.
Giddiness is not presidential. Supporters worried about Bill off his leash, well welcome to Giddy Hillary. This is the real Hillary, not the weeping victim, take a hard look at Giddy’s version of graciousness, where is the talk of unifying the party, of the greater good? Notably absent from Giddy Hillary.
this was the same argument against dean after the scream, that wasnt.
i find it sexist.
lets all highlight hillary’s giddiness and obamas blackness.
id rather talk about what they have accomplished and what their plans for the future are.
You found it sexist that Dean was called giddy or that Clinton is called giddy? And what does Obama being black have to do with giddiness?
try to follow this ok
dean screams…the media AND the other dem candidates used it to say not very presidential behavior.
obama is black/muslim/jives/fakes a southern accent and the media conflates it as not presidential.
hillary giggles or cries or points her finger or changes her tampon and the media conflates it and spins it as not presidential.
in hillary’s case i find it sexist because her giddiness is so girlish…it infantilizes her….its sexist.
for dean it was a question of making him look too kooky to be the president.
for obama its making him look too scary black to be the president.
its part of demonizing…which goes on much too much here.
and for the record…a year ago i swore i woulndt vote for hillary clinton if she were the last democrat on earth…i was hoping gore would enter….when he didnt i was for edwards….after he dropped out i was left with 2 candidates im not crazy about but think either would make a good president, better than any republican, and someone who i could depend on the make many things right and protect the supreme court from becoming the pseudo christian court…i was HORRIFIED by the sexist pile on of hillary from the media and the left wing blogs…i voted for her specifically because of that…really i could have voted for either and been satisfied….i have just as many complaints about hillary as i have about obama, and just as much praise for both…what distresses me is the lack of grace of many of the supporters on both sides… i dont think many of the supporters of either side can take the high road….the bitterness, the lies, the spin, the bullshit, the attacks…..its coming from both sides….no wonder it trickles up to the campaign…both campaigns have been dirty, maybe one more than the other….but if thats what it takes to win then so be it…and if the other gets a little dirtier to win then good for him…because in the general no matter who is the nominee they better be willing to be as dirty as possible….that hope and love and kumbaya shit only goes so far………EVERY peacemaker thru histroy has met a tragic end.
“Jive”? WTF are you now, Andrew Cuomo?
Absolutely, completely, uncalled for. But I suppose you knew that already.
I’m sorry he spoiled Clinton’s coronation, but quit it with the slurs. Make your point another way.
Why don’t you get some facts right if you want us to take your arguments seriously?
Maybe by fall you will understand that Clinton’s whining, cheating, moaning, and ego-centrism cost her and the Democratic party and America more than it ever gained. That we dread her sense of entitlement, because that is the path to hereditary dictatorship. That we fear and loathe having another war-monger who voted for torture and invasion and surveillance and illegal wire-tapping and all the apparatus of permanent power that Bush has established. That we don’t trust someone who fails to keep her word to the Country, to her oath of office, and to her fellow Senators. That we despise cheaters. That we really don’t want an established theocracy or a president-for-life inheriting the job because of NAME ALONE.
I am a feminist. White, over 50, educated, and disabled. I will not vote for a ticket which has Clinton in any position. We have other, better women who can run, and run because of real accomplishments… in their own names.
No more Clintons and no more Bushes!
Not Now. Not Ever.
No more dynasties!!!!!
He needs to respond to this. He needs to make it clear that he isn’t interested in being her vice president, that he’s running for president.
If in the end, Hillary works a miracle and gets the nomination and he agrees to be on her ticket – no one will care that he said this now.
But he needs to shut this down NOW and get the media talking about how if she gets the nomination they just can’t see him agreeing to be be on the ticket and that will be a problem for the party. He needs to appear strong because with the headlines this morning he’s looking weak.
He’s looking VERY WEAK. He needs to kick some ass TODAY to change the media narrative. Time is of the essence!
I thought Missouri was the state you had to win to be President. Now, Missouri is not important, because Obama won here.
he has been looking weak for a week….maybe….maybe…..wait for it….maybe he IS weak.
how weak is he going to look when the republicans go after him….if he doesnt go negative and use dirty tricks against mccain he might lose….and if he does he may be seen as an angry black man….would you encourage him to go negative against hillary, wait and go negative against mccain, or never go negative at all?
Go negative in response to negative. Don’t start it, but always FINISH it.
so its not really the going negative you have a problem with…its who started it?
Yes. Self-defense is acceptable. And killing off the offender is preferred. Initiating conflict in the first place is not acceptable.
Did you ever watch Babylon 5?
Never start a fight, but always finish it.
No, I don’t think he’s looked weak until this morning and I don’t think he is weak. Up until this weekend he looked like he was outsmarting her. A long winning streak will do that.
But we’re now in a different phase of the campaign and I think it is time for him to go negative on her. But he needs to do it in a smart way.
That’s why the tax return argument would work, it fits completely within the context of his existing argument about transparency in government.
He’s been soft on Hillary because she’s a fellow Democrat. He will be much stronger against McCain, trust me.
There’s a difference between playing strong and playing dirty, however, and I don’t think he’ll play dirty. But he must play offense, or else he’ll be playing defense for the rest of the campaign.
HE may not have to play dirty, but someone does. He has many great surrogates who can get down in the mud with the Clintons, then when he is asked he can just do the Cheshire Cat Smile and pretend he knows nothing. But she needs to receive some dirt TODAY.
so if his surrogates go negative thats ok but when hillary’s go negative thats not ok?
There you go again, putting words in people’s mouths. Her surrogates have gone negative… consistently since Iowa and he has dealt with it, being a good sport. I’m just suggesting it’s time to hit back.
That’s exactly right.
Going negative doesn’t mean flinging mud. It means emphasizing why voters shouldn’t vote for your opponent. Up until now he’s preferred to emphasize why voters should vote for him. This has gained him a lot of support. But it hasn’t knocked her out of the race. Now he needs to emphasize to the remaining people why they shouldn’t vote for her.
I’d hit her hard on her claims of experience. Very hard. He really hasn’t touched her on it yet.
he hasnt ht her on experience because he has less than she does.
No. I don’t think that’s why he hasn’t hit her. His schtick so far has been to not go negative. To win in a ‘different’ way.
Please detail her “experience” other than First Lady of Arkansas and of the former President. She has a little time in the Senate with basically NO accomplishments. Barack has many more years of legislative experience. He needs to make that case better because people like yourself are buying her story uncritically.
None of them have any. Unless she answered phone calls at 3am in the WH when terrorists were coming to get us that is. And we know she didn’t.
Her claim to experience is simply based on nepotism. Hence the reason her campaign couldn’t point to any.
Here’s an opening.
Don’t go negative! One should not engage in pissing contests with skunks. I think there were some machinations involved in Texas, whereby HRC was the beneficiary of nefarious cross-over votes. Nothing would solidify the Republican base more than having HRC be the Democratic nominee.
I’m a few feet from the beach, having escaped northern climes for a week. I should be enjoying this day but I’m not. Clinton’s suggestion of a joint ticket has added salt to my wounds. What a freee loooader, this woman. Shame.
This joint ticket thingy. will. only. happen. over. Michelle’s. dead. body. and mine. and ALL. Obama’s supporters. Who wants to catch the Clintons’ slime, sleaze and fleas?
I’ve found with every disappointment comes a blessing, not always visible in the moment. While we’re hoping this would be over, let’s not be distracted. It’s the math. Obama has run a smart campaign. He knows what to do.
BUT, If he won’t ask for her tax returns, we can and yes we will. Make it a ground swell.
Andrew Sullivan has a pointed editorial summary of March 4th. I hope he does not mind my lengthy quote. In essence, ‘Yes, the road show must go on because Clintons’ egos demand it.’
good advice, that.
The Clintons are on track to lose; if not the nomination, the general election. The Clintons fail to realize that their future is greatly diminished. HRC can’t return to the Senate with her head held high.
I still hold Barack will the next president of the U.S.A.
Look on the bright side, the convention might be so brokered that a giant like Gore could emerge. When I heard McCain give his acceptance speech I thought that he sounded very old. I don’t know how he’ll be able to appeal to many. This Presidency is the Democratic Party’s to loose.
I felt a bit revivified by watching Obama’s whole speech last night from San Antonio – he seems weak here only the sense that the man needs some sleep and a throat lozenge.
Let’s take a cool-headed look at this mess. Clinton has won states that have to be won by Democrats to take the general. The big question facing the party is whether November election will be structurally close or a blow-out. I think most of here and on other progressive blogs have thought –as I certainly did and do — that next fall will be a Democratic blow-out. If that’s the case, then Obama takes all the states Hillary can take and some states she can’t take.
On the other hand, if it is close — which given the deteriorating state of the economy seems hard to believe — then Hillary seems the best candidate, since she ensures or would seem to ensure the states that Dems have targetted since 1988 as their key to victory. That means FL and OH. I would hate to see this scenario play out, but if we accept that the MSM will be full throttle for McCain, and accept that Mrs. Clinton’s extra-democratic appeal is quite limited, it’s a plausible scenario. These are the issues that the super-delegates are turning over in their minds.
What matters is the head to head polls against McCain. If Obama dominates them, the supers will go his way.
After Hillary Roveham Clinton’s slash-and-burn, fear and smear campaign, even Obama on the ticket wouldn’t be enough to make the medicine go down. And since Obama is still leading in the delegate count, and he fights fair, I can’t see him aligning himself with such a muckraker.
If Hillary snakes her way to the nomination McCain will win the general by a huge margin. A majority of Republicans already hate Hillary with the same passion lefties reserve for Bush. And now she’s earned the hatred of a significant number of Democrats.
Exactly. As of today, Hillary has ensured that the next President of the USA will be one of two people: Obama or McCain. And she’s also made it clear that she’ll do her damnedest to make sure it isn’t Obama. Her campaign’s already subtly praising McCain and hinting that he’s a better choice than Obama. Imagine how that’s going to look for her in November if she’s on the ticket!
This isn’t about Hillary winning the nomination anymore. This is about Hillary being bitter and angry at not being coronated, with great fanfare, as the rightful ruler and saviour from the start of the primaries through the end. The Democratic party has refused to recognize her greatness, so the fields will be burned and salted.
The comments she made pertaining to hers and McCain’s lifelong experience were not subtle. This was fraternizing with the adversary. My maxim: “Just because you’ve been driving a Volkswagen for 50 years does not mean you’re qualified to enter the Indy 500”
I would support Obama running as an independent, rather than him running on the same ticket.
so would all the republicans
less than 24 hours after Obama points out that the world is watching our behavior so it’d be a good idea to behave like adults she acts like a child. Again.
are you aware that infantilizing her is sexist?
just like when obama takes on his face southern accent and does a little jive in front of AA audiences and people start pointing this out….thats racism.
What exactly does that mean?
Oh and keep in mind that when the Clinton’s were dog whistling, by calling Obama “kid” that you were one of the most vocal people saying that that wasn’t racist. Wasn’t a harken back to “boy”. Are we really supposed to take you seriously? Or are you officially on board with the white feminist fantasy that perceived sexism is really worse than actual racism?
fabooj show me where i said that…specifically.
and are you arguing that racism and sexism arent equally bad? percieved/actual or wahtever.
ive been arguing they both are bad and they both exist in this race, on this board, etc
I blockquoted your exact words from the post I’ve replied to.
its obvious to me you cant follow a thread so its very hard to discuss something with you….you stated that i supported or defended or whatever the clinton campaign calling obama a boy and dismissed it as not racist….i want to know where i said that.
as for my words in the block quote….im using them to make my point…its an illustration of the double standard. its very hard to illustrate the point without using the words.
now it happens to be beautifully sunny here in delaware….im heading to the park with the puppy and then im off to the flower show to get my freak on.
Though I don’t how you figured I can’t follow a thread because I’m replying directly too you.
I’m not going to waste my time sifting through your comments, you said it back in January. You dismissed that it was a dog whistle, that that was what they were doing. You said it was in my (and black people’s) imaginations.
I guess in your world “does a little jive” is white slang for being black, so I’m left wondering how it is a double standard for a black candidate to be, um…black? I’ve asked what exactly does “does a little jive” mean? Maybe it’s you that can’t follow a thread.
Isn’t it also sexism to argue that Hillary shouldn’t be criticized as a male politician would be criticized? In a sense it is you that is “infantilizing” Hillary. It is you that is saying Hillary is fragile woman and as such shouldn’t be criticized.
All of a sudden Hillary supporters are the authority on what is or what isn’t sexist. And you, Anna, have abused that authority and are now predictably spouting ridiculous accusations that simply portray women as overly-sensitive, irrational, emotional misfits. If you are willing to throw out the gender card willy-nilly (as you’ve done twice on this thread that I can see) for political blame you do nothing but cheapen any true gender criticisms you may have.
And you totally destroy your credibility with your race baiting.
You are aware that white girls named Anna shouldn’t be using words like “jive”, right?
I’m sure you’ve seen this white woman getting all jiggy and jivey when she was in front of a black audience:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=egJ8NtvVFs8
It’s okay, because Black People Love Her.
LOL! Snort! LOL!
They do seem like a fun couple. No wonder black folk like hanging out with them.
Sally and Johnny’s friends are all so articulate and clean!
Okay, I’d better stop or I’ll violate fair use. Too funny.
Hillary clearly has the white vote wrapped up, at least if this site is any indication:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/
Calling her out on her crap is sexist? Acting in a childlike fashion cuts accross barriers of gender. GWB has done it many times. In this particular instance the childish one is HRC.
a racist campaign when she does the same thing to him?
It’s almost like the GOP is trying to hand the election to Obama to better position themselves for a comeback in 2012, and the Dems are trying to hand the election to McCain to better position themselves for a comeback in 2012.
Both sides are playing to lose…to win.
Excuse me Chelsea Clinton, like your mother I am not clairvoyant, but although she might manage somehow to get the nomination by whatever means, I can say that she will never win the GE. Never. And there’s the dilemma. If Obama goes severely negative on her, he will also diminish his own chances. He would be crazy to accept the vice-presidential slot. The man is only 46 years old, talented beyond anything either Clinton can offer, so why would he want to be saddled with them for the rest of his political career, the rest of his life. She has to get out. She won’t. The bigwigs need to kick her out. They won’t, can’t. Isn’t this what is called an impasse? Did she really say ‘we will win in Afghanistan and Iraq’? Hillary Clinton is now in a bubble, seated like a doll in a red dress in one of those glass balls filled with water and white flakes, a soft-focus, wintry dream for kids. She will rescue them at 3 A.M., winter, spring, summer or fall. They will be grateful to her (and her family). The family will bask in the glow of their happiness. It’s all very perverse and wrongheaded.
how do you know she wont win the ge?
the democrats are pulling twice as many people to the primaries in every state as the republicans….the economy is tanking….the war (which hillary along with 75% of americans supported) isnt going well.
i think either candidate can beat mccain….unless something bad happens like a terrorist attack or some wild crazy thing coming up in either dems past….either can win.
she can’t win because black turnout will be nil.
not true at all
absolutely not true
just like when the party decided casey was going to be the nominee and everyone said women arent going to come out and vote….but they did…the fringe left might stay home….but the mainstream voters will be out in force.
use your mind for a minute.
Don’t think in the abstract about Clinton vs. McCain.
Contemplate the steps along the way here. She is going to have to destroy Obama to get the superdelegates to hand her the nomination over the clear preference of the pledged delegates. He will enter the convention in a worst case scenario with at least an 80 delegate lead, and probably over 100, perhaps even 150. To negate that, she will have to have killed his electoral prospects so that people are literally convinced he cannot win.
That is going to piss people off, especially black people, but all of Obama’s supporters…college students, the blogosphere, everyone.
Then, the delegates are going to nominate a la the Supreme Court the candidate with less votes. And you think, after all that, that she is going to get black turnout? College turnout? Progressive activist turnout?
No effing way.
Black voters across the board have come out to say that because of the Clinton’s race-baiting tactics, among other things, that they (we) will not vote for Clinton in the GE. You couldn’t pay me to vote for her and I know I’m not alone. If the Clinton’s get the nomination, they’d have managed to do what the GOP has only hoped for; driving black voters away from supporting the Dem. nominee.
That is not true about across the board, I have read many comments on many other sites, including news media sites, where people identified as black have said they do not buy the “racist” attributed to HRC and they will vote for her and have seen many tv interviews of the same and in fact will not vote for BO because of his campaign;s part in the demonization of HRC..
Thing is you seem to buy that Obama’s campaign was innocent in all the “racial” uproar, whereas they stoked the fire and piled on, the media and blogs for the most part were blinded and fell for it. Yes he played the good cop to his campaign’s bad cop. On the other hand many folks were all too willing to accept the “racist/racial” point of view of Hillary’s campaign and so the pile on continued.
I think this is fairly representative of the general view of most African-Americans now…not after a slash and burn campaign that last all the way to Denver and wrests the nomination out of the black guy’s hands at the last moment.
You can’t point to a few exceptions to deny this. She’ll never get the black vote back. No, they’re not going to vote for McCain…they just won’t come out to vote. And we’ll lose senate seats because of it.
I’ll still vote downticket if she’s the nominee and I’m working on convincing people to do the same. There’s no law that says I have to vote for president. I know other bloggers and voting-type activists are pushing the same line.
I’m not black, but I’m with you. NO WAY am I going to vote for her in a General Election if she should make it there by some crooked maneuver. NO WAY. Not after what she has done. Nope.
If she steals this thing, then I will absolutely not vote for her. I don’t know if I can stomach voting for McCain but I’ll either write in Obama’s name or leave it blank. I have spent the better part of a decade supporting (time and money), volunteering and yes, working for Democratic members.
I haven’t always agreed with their positions, but you take the fleas with the dog when you work for someone. And I did so with an eye of what was good for the party. Let’s just say–for one example–that I remember impeachment pretty goddamn well, and as pissed as I was (and MANY others), we defended the creep because it was, among other things, an unconstitutional power grab. In defending him, we were defending ourselves–or so I thought.
Billary could not give a hot damn about anyone else other than themselves. We are a means to a goddamn end. From Bill’s sucking up to Poppy from Hillary’s posturing and positioning in the Senate, they have not done one goddamn thing to help the party. Her fight is for herself. It’s almost like she’s Syndrome, the villain in The Incredibles–standing by and watching as we go down the tubes on any number of issues, just so she can swoop in “save” us as the conquering hero.
And I won’t begin to go into the whole DLC BS they will bring along with them. We’re well aware.
I have done my “for the good of the party” bit repeatedly. It’s not happening any longer. If she steals this, I’m done. We have an opportunity to have a fresh start, with newly invigorated state parties, etc. I will not see it all go to hell because of her entitlement complex or aid and abet if she steals it. I don’t need an administration job.
But I’ll definitely vote down-ticket so I can at least vote for our Congresswoman Donna Edwards. I know she has to win the general but we are a Dem district–besides, I’m just practicing so I can be ready when it’s official! š
How’s that? I know there are a few black people that would vote for Clinton because of the race baiting. But you’re also buying into the HRC/media lie that that Obama somehow started it. Remember that black people were pointing out the Clinton’s racism back in December when it first ramped up. White people were saying, “Well…I don’t know…Maybe you’re being sensitive.” So now, white people and the media act like it was Bill Clinton’s SC comment that did it. The Obama campaign didn’t mention anything until that comment.
On Jan. 10th, I posted on my blog, Is it a “dog whistle” when White people do it?. The very next day, Booman posted Team Clinton’s Anti-Black Dog Whistle Keep in mind that was before the South Carolina comment.
Anyway, because Bill Clinton said something stupid, Obama’s campaign pointed it out, white people all over the internet blame the Obama campaign, “for fanning the flames.”
I’ve written about this before, Obama’s campaign did not just point something out, they made a whole hearted effort to dissect every word spoken or written by HRC, her campaign and any surrogates, and they sent pages and pages of memos to news media, including the day of the carolina debate, where Tim Russert mentioned it.
Just remember there are many behind the scene phone conversations and emails to reporters and the media that we generally do not know about when you say Obama’s campaign did nothing..
I didn’t mean to suggest that blacks would vote for HRC because of “race baiting” but rather that they don’t think it was.
And I just think it’s crazy to think that blacks would stay home rather than vote for HRC, I am sure you don’t pretend to represent the whole black race as I do not pretend to represent the whole white race, and I am sure there are thousands of views out there different than yours and mine.
I am saying, and have said all these things reg. and in defense of HRC not because I am a supporter as frankly I like them both, but I just hate to see all this vitriol and negativity dropped on her.
But I am on a lot of lists for various black-focused groups. I have a ginormous family who are also Demcratic activists and they get info from groups. When I say this, it isn’t me, some friends and some bloggers. I just pulled up over 5000 individual emails (the actual total from my email search is 5189 emails, that was after culling through 8969 emails since 01.04.08 on this subject and deleting dupes/conversations) from black people (that’s including black Americans with backgrounds from Africa, South and Central America, Europe, Canada and run-of-the-mill black people like me) around this country who will not vote for Clinton and anectdotal stories about how family members and friends will also not vote for Clinton all because of the race baiting. So take it as you will, but don’t even try to insult me by acting like I’m not speaking from a position of knowledge on this front.
I think the point some posters on here are making is that what we have seen so far would be surpassed by what’s yet to come should the Clinton campaign pursue a scorched earth strategy. So you have to look at the November scenarios with that in mind. The Democratic convention could be a tumultuous one leaving a lot of people disenchanted.
think they played racist to get to this point and that they continue to do so. We can easily sit on our hands for this one should the high muckety mucks give it to her since she can’t ever catch up with pledged delegates.
Aside from the depressed AA turnout, young people will be nonexistent at the polls if Clinton is the nominee. Traditionally, of course, they have a sparse turnout anyway, but so many of them have registered and gotten involved in the process due to the excitement and, yes, idealism surrounding Obama….and if he’s out, they’re out too.
Right, she needs as vice-president candidate so she can ride in on his coattails, or so she might think. This is the crux of the babble today about offering second place. Isn’t she cute. ‘I’ll throw him a bone but Bill sill still stay the Big Dog.’
Is she out of her damn mind?
The answer is in the question.
…is now vividly on display.
Yeah. Choose the candidate who will lie, cheat and steal. That’s the ticket.
Choose the candidate who will stab a fellow Democrat in the back. That’s the way to grow our base.
Choose the candidate who has NO EXPERIENCE in executing foreign policy, but dares to question another who has more years of experience negotiating in others to get legislation passed. Way to show how smart the Democrats are.
YES. She is crazy. But so are her supporters. Seriously.
I feel like I’m watching the Bush Administration take over a sizeable wing of the Democratic party. People who used to be neighbors in Reality Land have step outside without their gas masks on. On one hand, it’s almost laughable to see their remarks so far away from reality. On the other hand, it’s pretty damn sad because for the most part, their remarks are based on their own bigotries. The reason I left DK is because of these people. I never thought I see self-described progressives falling for GOP tactics, but it’s happening.
The thing that kills me the most is that all this time, I’ve seen Obama supporters willfully admit that there are things about Obama that they do not like. You’ll never see Hillbots doing that. Blind loyalty, even though a year ago some of these same people were saying how they’d never vote for her. They buy the lie that she has experience or knowledge on anything, they buy the lie that the media is harsh on her, they buy the lie that people who don’t vote for her are sexist. It’s crazy-making, tiring and fucking hilarious at once.
People who used to be neighbors in Reality Land have step outside without their gas masks on. On one hand, it’s almost laughable to see their remarks so far away from reality. On the other hand, it’s pretty damn sad because for the most part, their remarks are based on their own bigotries. The reason I left DK is because of these people. I never thought I see self-described progressives falling for GOP tactics, but it’s happening.
the above comment I find to be very offensive, that those of us who do not agree with your side are bigots, seriously . Oh we do not live in reality land like you and others here do, well from my point of view it is your side that has blinders on but I don’t call you a bigot for not seeing what I see and for seeing what I don’t see.
I call you willing to see negative or “racism” in many things that I don’t and don’t say I don’t know because I am not black, that’s true I am not, but I do know when someone is being tied down on a railroad track with the crowd cheering for the train to come.
I hope at some point you will concede that the Clinton campaign is actively trying to make Obama into a black candidate.
Oh Booman, you always have these things to bring up don’t you…more proof to the pudding you are so busy making.
Guess what Booman, he is the Black Candidate and guess what she is the Female candidate and McCain in the POW candidate, and equally back to you I hope at some point you will concede you were wrong about HRC.
I will concede that I was wrong about Sen. Clinton. At the beginning of this primary season I thought that I’d be happy with either she or Obama as the eventual nominee, but her continual willingness to slash and burn everything in her path on the way to victory, coupled with her whining and moaning about how unfair the press has treated her, and her pointed refusal to be clear about Obama’s religion have completely changed my mind.
This slash and burn thing really, it’s just silly that she has done that, that’s the rhetoric of the pundits, the bloggers and folks like that and of course our dear Booman, if you call that slash and burn you ain’t seen nothing yet, till you see what the reps.
will do.
and then the whinning and moaning, oh dear, would you ever say a man whined and moaned, and I certainly thought she was clear about O’s religion, what did she pause for 2 secs. when you would have preferred her to not pause,she didn’t speak in exactly the tone or words you expected and certainly you and other have not looked at her with any kind of jaundiced eye, right.
And of course this site and the press has treated her fairly from the very beginning, right, she has no reason to complain, right.
In any case thanks for taking the trouble to make a comment to me, even tho it be negative, how are you doing btw.
Yep, if Obama had done any whining I would have called it whining. Whining is gender-neutral, IMO. The Clintons have shown that they are out to further the Clintons, which seals the deal for me. This election is much bigger than the political aspirations of a power couple. It is too important.
Well I guess we can agree to disagree about a lot of things,,
And I guess if someone complains about anything they are a whiner, or is it just about media coverage, that one can be called a whiner and how about if you labeled it complaining, would it then be allowed. Is she not justified in complaining if she feels there has been a bias, or should we just suppose there has been none (bias)and therefore we in our great rightness have thus proclaimed that she has no right to contest, complain or whine about anything.
Anyway you have certainly laid out a compelling case not to vote for her (not). She whines and she is out to further herself,, oh and Bill too, wow. On the other hand Obama’s is I guess out to help us and not further himself at all.
I wasn’t trying to encapsulate the myriad reasons why I’m not voting for her, but if you’d like, I could do that. It would just take a lot more space. And it would likely focus more on why I’m voting for Obama than why I’m not voting for Sen. Clinton.
personally, i whine more than any woman. I think men tend to whine more than women in general.
yep, I say it all the time at work. My experience is that men whine a lot when they are trying to dump work on you.
Once again you’re jumping to conclusions I didn’t make.
You know, how Clinton supporters tell me that as a black person, I somehow owe it Clinton to support her, or how they say that I’m a traitor to my gender or that I’m sexist because I don’t support her. I can’t think in those terms. I can’t do a blanket statement like that. I’m not saying being a Clinton supporter makes one a bigot. I’m saying that many Clinton supporters are supporting her because they are bigots.
I’m not “willing to see” shit. I’m able to see it because working in corporate America, you get used to hearing the same codewords. Living in the midwest adn working in places where bigots are accepted you hear the same codewords. Being black in this country, you get a different skillset that white people will never have and that makes me able to hear those codewords. You can blame me all you want, but I’m not the only black person on this blog and I’m not the only black blogger who has heard this codewords. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you won’t see the ingrained racism of the remarks coming from the Clinton campaign. I’m not saying that makes you a bigot. But you can not sit here and tell me that within this liberal blogosphere you don’t see racist comments from Clinton supporters on a daily basis. Hell, there’s 5 guys and 4 women over a TPM who post racist blogs every single day.
You know what I see, sexist and hateful remarks every day on this blog and others directed at HRC, but that’s ok, as to racism, I’m sure that there are lots of people who make racist remarks on the blogs and so on and Clinton supporters too, on the blogs and so, but what I have said is that the campaign itself is not racist, the Clintons are not racists and they are not using a racial strategy…
what with all the code words, the unsayable words it’s hard to navigate or compose much at all that doesn’t have something in it that someone will see to be racist.
If I said to you, or to anyone in fact, “that is like the pot calling the kettle black, would that be racist using code words? Now the generation of that statement is not about blacks, but about blackpots as were available in the past when the saying originated, and white people, including my family used it often. It was meant to say don’t call others what you are yourself or don’t think your pot isn’t just as black as my kettle. So would that be about race in your mind.
I am not, never have and never will say racism doesn’t exist.
Keep in mind that I have never made hateful or unkind remarks about either candidate, but somehow I am off a bit because I don’t support yours and others view. While everyday on this site someone makes just awful remarks about HRC and that is OK.
So racism isn’t ok but sexism and pure hatred is. Well I’d rather be a person who doesn’t see HRC as racist than a person who writes just hateful and spiteful things because they think she or others are guilty of whatever the soup du jour is.
And btw along those lines I have read comment after comment by you and others about how she looks, her makeup, her smile, her clothes, her jewelry and many others very negative comments often accompanied by the f word or worse along with where people want to send her (to hell I believe).
Is that better than racism or just ok to do?
Is that the high road I ask?
I have often thought I would not want most of the folks on this site on a jury that my life depended on, I would surely be condemmed before the trial.
BTW I’ve yet to hear anyone apologize for hateful remarks made about HRC, here or anywhere, oh I forgot, it’s ok, open season on her.
“That’s the pot calling the kettle black” is not any type of racist codeword. I’m not a moron, I know what it means. You’re off the deep end to even insinuate that I would say that. That’s flat out stupid and insulting that even you would wallow that low. Talking to people like you about this makes running headlong into a brick wall that much more enjoyable. At the latter activity has a fucking point.
You’re not a bit off for supporting Clinton. You’re a bit off because even though you have black people sitting here telling you that something was a racist remark, you sit here with you fingers in your ears while you play word games.
I’ve yet to see any sexism here regarding Clinton except for that one guy a few months ago. He was called on it on it. She’s never, to my knowledge, been called any sexist names on this site. Yes, we talk about her clothes and stuff because it’s not the usual talk about ties and half of us doing the talking are women. We’ve also complemented Clinton on how nice her hair looks and we have certain favorite outfits and jewelry she’s worn. You should also note that we always talk about the tacky suits or ugly ties and bad hair from the guy candidates too, so you’re just cherrypicking, as usual.
On other blogs, despite the fact that Clinton has insured that this black woman will never vote for her and I won’t waste my time defending her in the GE if she gets the nod, I still call out people who make sexists remarks about Clinton and I see other Obama supporters do it to. As usual, your remarks are 100% horsecrap on that front.
As for an apology. Are you kidding me? For what? Not wanting to vote for a race-baiter? I wouldn’t ask that of anyone. Anyone who decides to use race-baiting tactics aren’t worth shit. Clinton doesn’t deserves an apology unless she actually apologizes for using the GOP playbook and not that half-assed, fingers-behind-the-back apology that was mumbled at the BSOTU last week.
I’m sure you’ll come up with more selective amnesia on other fronts and dismiss the fact that the Clinton’s have used racist tactics. I can’t wait.
Wow, what do you think you are doing but playing word games. I sit here with fingers in my ears? no I sit here unwilling to be a sheeple and pretty disgusted with the whole herding mentality going on here.
Fabooj, can you even make a point without using the f word I wonder, well in any case your response was just what I expected from you.
The Clinton “Race baiter” is not a proven fact it is a conjecture, fed and nurtured by the media and the blogs and this site in particular, try to prove it in a court of law.
My reference to the pot and the kettle was an illustration of the way we have to manuever through the languange in order to be PC. There are other examples I could use, like the word lynching, white and brown, yellow, got lynched too, but we can no longer use the word at all, It’s been conscripted.
If you’ve seen no sexist remark reg. Clinton here maybe you have the same kind of selective amnesia you’ve accused me of and don’t forget hate.
You say a black women is telling you these things and I should believe, but a white woman is sitting here telling you about sexism and hateism, does that exist here and you say nay. what kind of thing is that…you are allowed your niche to live in but I am not.
Nothing I have ever written felt or thought is anything but sympathetic to the black position and past and I am completely against racism, period. I am disgusted in the most profound way about the whole issue of slavery, treatment of Native American, Chinese, Mexican’s and women and probably more if I could think of it at this time. To me it certainly lessens my feeling about this country. I have lots of ill feelings about the past history in just about every area.
However I refuse to accept others ideas of what I should think. And I refuse to have kneejerk reactions to events. You are entitled to think what you think, but don’t attack me for not thinking the same.
By the way, I find your last paragraph very hateful, so there you have an example of hateism which does exist on this site…she has been tried and convicted and that’s the end of that. Her apologies are not even good enough for you.
Do you care that I am just as offended by your remarks about Clinton as you seem to be about her so called “race baiting.”
I know it’s much easier on this site to be on the side you are on so please consider for a moment what it takes for me to stand up against that. Not very comfortable, but I feel the need to speak up.
Yep. I hate racists. I hate politicians who use race-baiting tactics. I hate supposed Democrats who use race-baiting tactics. I’m not the only one. So, that last paragraph was probably hateful to someone who willingly refuses to see the race-baiting of the Clinton’s campaign.
What has thoroughly shocked me though, is how you’re now blaming blogs and the media for “nurturing conjecture”. That’s simply breathtaking. You’ve just told me that I couldn’t think for myself and that I didn’t arrive to my conclusions of the fact that the Clinton’s used race-baiting as a tactic without other bloggers or the media? Even though I had been blogging on these comments since last summer, some of them were liveblogging at that?
Amazing.
And as usual, you’ve moved the goalposts and added in other little words you like to play with fine. I full agree that there are people here who hate Clinton. After the last 3 months I don’t fault them. As for me, I’ve never held the Clinton’s in high regard after their race baiting tactics of ’92, so this was merely a drop down in stature for me. Take heart! They’re still a tiny notch above Strom Thurmond.
Oh dear,
Sorry but I said no such thing, I was talking in generalities, I have no way of knowing your specifics, nor do I pretend to. In no way did I suggest that you drew your conclusions from blogs.
Can you consider for a moment that one can hold a different opinion than you without being a subversive.
You say they race bait, I say I don’t believe it, that it has not been proven to me….I do not have to accept that you said it therefore it is. This is more than about how you and your circle or group percive this, this is about calling someone something awful I don’t think they deserve to be called.
You have labeled her, her campaign and those who surround her, with a horrible word and I don’t buy it. You can hold your opinion and I have no problem with that, but do not call me crazy outside of reality or any other thing for not accepting it.
And ‘nurturing conjecture’, of course it is nourished in blogs, all sorts of conjectures, innuendos and insinuations are nurtured in blogs and fed completely to grow up to be a dreadful things.
Hate is too.
I am not blind, have amnesia or any other thing, I am just for fairness.
Fabooj, I don’t dislike you or wish to make you unhappy or uncomfortable, in fact I quite like you. We just have a difference of opinion. I send you my best wishes and hugs if you will accept them..
Fabooj, I have to leave blogging for a spell and go and do other things, but I didn’t want to leave without saying that I apologize if I have offended you in any way, that was certainly not my intention. I know these issues are difficult to discuss and sometimes the discussions are in themselves taken to be such.
Again I send my best wishes to you.
Diane, I know your heart is in the right place but you’re starting to be really offensive. You know how, as a woman, you and I see sexism in words and situations that a man just blows off and says we’re crazy? As a white woman, I am just smart enough to know that, though I might not see it right away, there is racism that fabooj and other African Americans see every day, both blatant and subtle. I would not presume to tell a black woman that she’s crazy for seeing racism that is not readily apparent to me.
I never said she was crazy to see racism, I merely said I did not in this case see it as a trait of either Clinton or her campaign. It’s pretty obvious Fabooj does, but I am not crazy myself for thinking it’s not part of the campaign.
I keep writing about how HRC is treated here and it always turns with Fabooj and others to be based in HRC “racism”, so that is a legitimate issue to pursue for me don’t you think.
How can I avoid that when it is constantly brought up to support the Clinton hate.
I am against the Clinton hate and hysteria and sexism here, is that ok. She, Fabooj is against the racism she thinks is in the campaign, and I resent being called living outside of reality for holding my position.
So tell me how I am being offensive.
I don’t have to be even a woman, white or any other thing to see hate. NO one has an edge on the ism’s.
These things rock both ways you know.
I believe it is offensive to tell someone that her perceptions and beliefs, which she has spent a lifetime accruing, are wrong.
As far as “hating” Clinton – I believe you are mistaking righteous anger and political passion with hatred.
I did not tell her, that her beliefs were wrong, nor do I think that, simply that I did not hold the same view. You can see the difference can’t you.
Several times I have stated that.
As far as the hating goes, I disagree, that should be apparent. And hating is just as offensive as racism to me.
As you may know I am about loving, not hating, and when loving cannot be done, I am for at least not hating.
Saving the hating for the pedophile who entered my daughters life when she was 14.
I gave you a link to an advertisement where the Clinton campaign:
a) took a photo of Obama and darkened it to make him look blacker
b) widened it, which made his nose wider and more ‘negroid’
c) lied about it
That’s an OLD trick. And to say it isn’t racial is like me showing you David Duke in a Grand Wizard’s outfit and you saying ‘maybe you see that as racist, but I don’t, and my opinion is as valid as yours. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I have a different view’.
As some point, making those types of arguments does cross the line between civil disagreement to offensive.
On some of these incidents, a charitable view is available. Not on all of them, and not when the form a pattern.
the pattern they formed was rounded up by you and others on a mission to do the same….now it’s a pic that makes him look blacker, fits in the pattern, right, makes his nose look wider(don’t see that, but he does look darker), again I say cause no one here or anywhere on earth knows he is black. About the lying I have no answer. Please don’t equate me with the David Duke comment, that is really far out.
Truthfully I am done with this, won’t try again to point out any disparity in anything or any view, certainly not relating to HRC.
Apologies to Fabooj still stand.
Bowing out now, taking a rest.
I’ve been thinking that I should write a diary on a fuller definition of the term “racist” because too many people think its only meaning is people who 1)wear white sheets and pointy hat and 2) having the temerity to say “nigger”–out loud and in public. We can’t say what anyone does out of earshot.
(And yes, as much as I deplore that word, there will be no nibbling around the edges on it in this case.)
There was a thread recently, “What’s it Mean to be Uppity,” and one person answered
That’s a perfect answer. And that definition explains the unconscious racism of Joe Biden with his “fresh and clean” comments. I said here months ago that he wasn’t a knuckle-dragger; nothing of the sort. His heart–and votes–have nearly always been in the right place on civil rights (and sanctions in South Africa in the 80s).
But when it came to dealing with Barack Obama as a person who had the same dreams and aspirations as he did, for a moment it seemed not to compute. I don’t think he thought of say, Chris Dodd, the same way.
And that would also explain Hillary to the degree that Sen. Obama’s OK as an employee, but not to be in the lead. I actually read comments on Salon.com of a woman who had the unmitigated gall to write that he “he knew she was running and had no right to run for the nomination.” Are you kidding me? According to whom?
There’s a conservative who regularly calls into WPFW (a Pacifica station, so you know it’s progressive) who said as Obama won Iowa (rough paraphrase) “watch the racism from white liberals.” He knows what I suspect a good many of us do: It’s one thing to help a Black child; it’s quite another to take orders from a Black adult.
Now did he have his own reasons? Well, of course. Doesn’t stop it from being true.
But what’s more troubling to me is her use of racial innuendo to achieve her ends. Seriously…he’s not a Muslim “as far as I can tell”?
She didn’t have an affair with and subsequently kill Vince Foster…as far as I can tell. You’d go deaf with the howls of protest–and rightly so–but she and her supporters play dumb when she does it? Right.
She knows better but doesn’t care, because her coronation was not to be trifled with.
I’m sorry, but the only reason she wants this is for herself and the Gloria Steinem set. And while I’m sure the validation may seem nice for them, it is masturbatory because her policies are to the right of Obama. After the race-baiting and blatant mis-representation of Sen. Obama on choice, when his present votes were designed to give cover to vulnerable members while protecting choice in Illinois, that was ALL I could take from her. She would dare impugn the motives of someone who was sticking up for choice AND look out for the party by helping a member who was vulnerable, all for the sake of the Clinton Restoration?
At the end of the day, Obama does what she and her cronies could not or would not–reinvigorate the party and speak about progressive values clearly and confidently. The only thing left for her, then, is racial appeals.
When you show me who you are, I believe you.
I see that all over the internet. Along with “why can’t he wait his turn.” and the usual, “Why should a black man get to be president before a woman?”
It’s comments like that that have pushed me away from embracing feminist groups. As I’ve said ad nauseum, I’m aware that most of these women’s rights groups don’t count me into the equation. They’re generally focused on helping women like Clinton and set aside days to help poverty-stricken black and Latina girls. I’ve never been comfortable with that sort of dichotomy and it’s even uglier to watch it come to the fore right now.
But you point out some rightful double standards. As I mentioned last night, if Clinton gets the nomination, the GOP isn’t going to be hands off on all the million Clinton scandals like Obama has been. I think Clinton supporters should be thanking their lucky stars that Obama is only holding her feet to the fire over the Clinton adminstration policies and not all the tiring and stupid scandals.
And I really want to point out that not all feminists feel that way, which is a comfort because I’ve been seriously thinking that I’ve wasted my time and that I should pick up Alice Walker’s “womanist” and be happy.
God, I shouldn’t have to say this, but not all white liberals and progressives feel the need to race bait or attempt to justify it. I have been overwhelmed and proud to see how Sen. Obama has been embraced by so many people, regardless of what they look like. Um, walking around South Carolina with men and women, Black and White, chanting “Fired up! Ready to go!” in the streets? I could positively WEEP at the mere thought of it, because a very different America existed just a few decades ago. It gives me…hope. His policies toward nation and party matter first, but that feeling is one hell of a fringe benefit. But let’s not pretend that some of our “allies” haven’t been downright racist.
And I have to say, it’s downright insulting to hear from certain feminists that “our generation” is clueless about sexism. That is patently insane. My Mom had couldn’t get a job she applied for and was told to go home to her husband (which is almost not a total insult since Black women aren’t always assumed to have husbands). She was told she had to get my Dad’s permission to get a credit card. HELLO!!! THAT was in the 70s. But she was also called nigger by the white kids on their school bus while she and her classmates walked to their sub-standard school. (I’m sure the girls on the bus grew up to be oppressed by Black men.) And of course, as an adult.
Hell, there was a Klan march in my hometown in 1986 when I was in high school.
And damn, if I don’t have two reasons to be undermined at work. Of course things have improved because I usually won’t get followed as closely in a store if I wear a suit. But that suit doesn’t help me when you’re dealing with some jackass dude who thinks he’s the smartest MF in the room. Or some asshole who drops suggestive comments in the hope you’ll bite…or suck…or both. The one instance I have in mind happened when I was a flippin college intern. And the offender happened to be a state delegate in the office where I interned (the three shared one large office, with individual offices inside the district suite) who said that he said what he did in order to “make me tough.”
Bollocks. I was already tough. That’s how my parents prepared me. Like I was too stupid to know he wanted a piece of young ass.
Anyway…I guess all this had to happen. It doesn’t, however, make it any more pleasant.
I grew up in Southeastern Ohio and feel for the folks that have seen it change from an area of industrial strength. They have received very poor leadership in adapting to the changes that we have all faced. I don’t think that this vote will help them; I think they were used by Hillary. NAFTA needs adjustment and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Not having more of an open mind toward immigration, racial equality, and trade is what will stop Ohio from developing. Too bad there isn’t a leader out there that can honestly explain the advantages that our free society allows us.