Perhaps it's my poor hearing - conceded if that's the case - but I don't know that it was booing so much as loud cheering with a few scattered boos.
Mind you, I want him impeached, disgraced and ruined. But I didn't hear it. Others apparently heard it better.
beis-bol?
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. The proles in the lower stands at Daytona booed him a few year back. Or was that booo-ush?
Not sure which is worse for David Beckham, club or country. England is suck but the Galaxy are beyond bad. They got punked 4-0 in their MLS opener. All part of Alexi Lalas master plan to increase scoring for the American market.
Remember that even the people who don't like him badly would not use this particular situtation to show it... too much respect for baseball, new field and the whole deal.
The surprising thing is that in this ceremonial spot that has so many reasons to not bring politics into it... he got booed bad enough to hear it and to have him be fairly hurried in his part of the deal. It finally hitting him that we don't like him... I can't think of another President I ever saw booed in that situation... maybe somebody else does?
Um, let's be resonable. He was booed by roughly 50% of the audience. When the pitch was delivered, the cheers increased dramatically. So much for being a subjective blog....(cough)LOL! It's a headline fit for the NY Times.
That said, GO NATS!!!!! Nice walk off homer by Zimmerman.
Oh btw, I was actually there.
Booed by 50% of the audience in a situation where a lot of people who disliked him wouldn't boo him for baseball reasons, means he is pretty heavily disapproved of. Way more than the 50% who were uninhibited enough to boo at a baseball game.
He was booe'd, by enough for us to hear it.
And he deserved it.
But he was booe'd in his own home prez town.
In DC.
He was booe'd, and we hear it.
Never was that done, in our history.
Never.
He was. Booe'd.
Deservedly. *G*
"Booed by 50% of the audience in a situation where a lot of people who disliked him wouldn't boo him for baseball reasons..."
Yeah, I wouldn't have booed.
50% of an audience that could afford those tickets. Didn't Bush once refer to the rich as his base?
GO NATS!!!!!!!!
Aviva's got it nailed. He was booed by mostly rich people.
McCain's fucking toast.
As an aside, I think it was hilarious about how Jim Miller gushed over Bush's ability to throw the ball 66 feet.
Obama can do that and is even a southpaw. Plus he didn't start a war that killed over a million people.
He's already the MVP(more valuable president).
Obama wouldn't have to throw the ball. It would sense his superiority and loft voluntarily into the air, sail on winds of hope and iridescent sparkles of vision toward the catcher, who would later comment a ball never felt more inclusive in his mitt.
Whereas Hillary, you know, throws like a girl. To sum it all up.
No, a President has never been booed like that at a sports event. But the few who were hated (though not to this extent) also knew it. They didn't live in the bubble like Dubya.
My, we do love our heroes in bubbles, don't we? Until they fall.
Wow, Maggie. That's -- wow.
I think I'm coming to the realization that I like Hillary a hell of a lot more than her supporters.
"I think I'm coming to the realization that I like Hillary a hell of a lot more than her supporters."
It's not that they don't like her, it's that they pity her. That's what comes of viewing one's preferred candidate mainly as a special-interest victim in search of redress instead of as an individual running for office. Compare that with the tone on race set by Obama's Wright speech, and the response from his supporters.
The more I watch this campaign, the more convinced I am by LowerManhattanite's earlier contention that the key difference between the approaches of the Dem candidates and their supporters is based neither in race nor gender, but rather in their generational cohorts.
OTD, this isn't about generation at all. I'm a 52-year-old white woman and not only am I supporting Obama, but I pretty much sealed my doom with the feminist blogosphere, most of whom are of the Obama demographic more than the Hillary demographic, with this post.
It's not about generation at all. It's about whether you think victimology is an effective political tool and whether victimhood is somehow empowering. I don't think it is.
"It's about whether you think victimology is an effective political tool and whether victimhood is somehow empowering. I don't think it is."
Correct. What I'm saying is that victimology has been more characteristic of Boomer politicians than Xer ones (for valid historical and social reasons). Many pragmatic liberal Boomers like yourself do seem to be reject victimology, and as a result they're more likely to gravitate toward the Xer (or "Joneser", if you prefer) Dem politician than toward the Boomer. On the other hand, I'd argue you're less likely to see Xers gravitate to a message of victimhood.
BTW, I do have personal pity for Hillary, but as a tragic figure in the classical sense rather than as some sort of feminist icon. Pity is a sign of compassion and understanding, but it's not a basis for choosing a leader.
[Since we're drifting off topic, it might be best to move further discussion of this to earlier thread. I'll look for follow up comments there]
I think I'm coming to the realization that I like Hillary a hell of a lot more than her supporters.
Minor point, but I think I need to rephrase, as I don't think I was clear here. Let's try this:
"I think I'm coming to the realization that I dislike Hillary's supporters far more than I dislike Hillary."
I'm just amazed how quickly some of the more rabid Clinton-supporting blogs will lump any vague mention of Obama with sexism. wengler didn't say anything that could be construed as offensive, in any vague sense, but Maggie just decided to tar him as a sexist pig. That's not merely assholish, that's positively Bushian.
But wengler is a tarred sexist pig. (joke)
Working with the party I can almost see a Clinton supporter when they come in the door... sorry to sound like a jerk but it is apparent that age is a major factor. The male or female balance is skewed toward the female but not so much as to be exclusive. But boy is that age thing a big deal... "Im 55 years old and an Obama supporter and the Clintonistas often are surprised by that.
I honestly don't get all ofthe supposed feminists taht are hillary supporters. If you are trying to promote strong empowerd women why would you have as a standared barrer a womne whos only strength, only identity is her husband? I would think that you would want to champion a wonmen who achived her prominance on her own merrit and not on who she landed as a husband.
Wild assumptive leaps here. Corrections:
I'm not a "Hillary supporter" any more than I'm an "Obama supporter". I'll vote for either of them. They're both moderates who'll do a good job in some ways, are not taking on the issues I care most about in others. What I was was an Edwards supporter, because he was running against the moneyed elite.
I took issue with the injection of Obama hero-worship into a story about Bush. I mean, the equation of being able to throw a ball with ANYTHING having to do with leadership -- it's not just sexist, it's stupid. Bush RAN on that "buddy" crap. If sports ability gets linked to Obama, it will also be (subtly) racist.
Deal with ISSUES, people, not personalities. Personalities are why we're in such terrible trouble. That's my point.
I was opposed to even the thought of her running based on the dynasty factor. That's just not right at it's core. No more family members. Period. It's just wrong.
But she ran. Of course Obama will say she should continue. I've come to see that she should as well. I've called for her to step down so many times but she should continue to reveal herself as more of the same petulant attitude and behavior that got us to where we are now. Yes, please continue. Please continue to show us how difficult it is for you to face reality, just like we seen from the other fantasy island resident. Yes, please continue.
Bill Richardson said yesterday on face the nation that his loyalty to America was greater than his loyalty to the family of a past president. I think he's got that right. I think he's making a pathway for other clinton "loyalists" who feel they cannot abandon their clintonista ways without some retribution. He did it, he endured her wrath, and the world kept turning. It's okay to put America's future first.
Intervention politics.
Jill - Right on. 
Okay, I meant that for the previous post. Sorry to mess that up jesse.
On this topic.... bush boo'd.... 
Loves it!!!!
That IS amazing that a baseball crowd would do that. I'm surprised fighting didn't break out in the stands.
Lots of good comments here. I'm 53, white, and a woman who doesn't see it as generational at all. I hate all the identity politics period. The damage she does to women is immeasurable. I will be voting for Obama regardless of who wins the official nomination. I feel that strongly about it.
Maggie - I bet Hillary could burn that catchers' mitt in the strike zone. And thankfully, that's not a determining factor. Obama would "be the ball" I'm sure. :-D
Moonglum 9:22 - Exactly. I've gotten myself banned on one site and fairly smacked around out there for saying that.
I don't ever recall seeing a President booooooooo'd at an event like this before. Notice how he just threw it quick like then got outta there. He deserved that.
I'm sorry, Maggie, you're not getting a walk here, to continue the sports metaphors.
Again, the fact that a commenter mentions Obama in a positive fashion does not automatically make him (or her) a sexist pig. You owe wengler an apology, and that's all there is to it.
I'm sorry, Maggie, you're not getting a walk here, to continue the sports metaphors.
Again, the fact that a commenter mentions Obama in a positive fashion does not automatically make him (or her) a sexist pig. You owe wengler an apology, and that's all there is to it.
Plus, Sen. Obama has had the opportunity to throw out a first pitch (Game 1 of the 2005 ALCS, Angels at White Sox). He threw it pretty well, IIRC, and got a good round of cheers from the Sox fans. As far as I know, Sen. Clinton has yet to throw out a first pitch.
I'm trying to follow along here....
So, because wengler DIDN'T mention Hillary, his comment is seen as sexist? Huh?
I'd ask how, but to understand that would make my head hurt I'm sure.
"That IS amazing that a baseball crowd would do that. I'm surprised fighting didn't break out in the stands."
I'm surprised that Bush didn't (a.)burst into tears, (b.) have a screaming temper tantrum right on the spot, or (c.) threaten to have the entire crowd arrested for "terrorism". "Y'all ain't kissin' mah ass! Yer terrarists!!"
I wonder how ol' John "Blast Furnace For A Temper" McCain would have reacted in a similar situation?
I don't think mccain is physically able to throw a ball given his previous injuries, but perhaps he'd give it a go anyway. He holler back at the crowd, I'm sure of that.
the bushco spin will be "Well they were hollering buuuuuuuush" .... because in his bubble his IS the boss donchaknow. He is their Bruuuuuuuce. I'm sure they'll be trotting that out any moment now. *rolly eyes*
I bet he did go home and cry though 
One more time: Using sports ability as a factor for how we discuss/choose a political leader is completely irrational. It would be the same as discussing how well they can hem a cuff, or make a casserole. It has no bearing on the job whatsoever.
But there does exist, in this country, the delusion to the contrary. It's a sexist delusion. Women are shut out of sports to an overwhelming degree, at least the sports that is part of the entertainment complex. (They hold their own at smaller venues, where there's not serious money involved.) So, using sports ability as a reason to compare candidates is not only beside-the-point stupid and nutty, it has a subtext (whether you want to admit it or not) of invoking the male domination of the field.
We don't live in a vacuum. Not all comparisons are equal. If we had a candidate who was, by virtue of some other identity (being in a wheelchair, let's say) shut out of the common stereotype of a baseball player, then using a fast-pitch yardstick for Presidential value would also be an indirect (but not accidental) way of taking a cheap hit.
ISSUES, not how someone smells or dresses or who they are married to or do they wear makeup or can they throw a baseball or are they fertile or would you like to drink a beer with them. Leadership is not determined by any of those things. We have to get out of the shallow end.
And I speak up just as strongly when people who want to sneak in talk about spades, spooks, jungles or other laden metaphors talk about Obama and then try to say "it wasn't about identity or stereotypes". In this instance, we're so used to the masculinity worship in American politics, you can't see when it crops up absofuckinglutely everywhere.
And I DON'T think its a compliment to apply a masculinity aura to Obama, by the way. He's not running on it, it's just being attached to him by insecure white boys. He DOES have substance (though not as much as the hype would indicate) and he deserves to be invoked in substantive terms, not comparing his fucking pitch to the worst moron to ever hold a position of authority.
"One more time: Using sports ability as a factor for how we discuss/choose a political leader is completely irrational. It would be the same as discussing how well they can hem a cuff, or make a casserole. It has no bearing on the job whatsoever."
But is that actually happening here, Maggie? Some discussions are more serious than others, and some are just trivial fun. Using an incident like this to make snide remarks about Bush, or even as a springboard to make jokes about Hillary or Obama isn't the same as an in-depth analysis. As you should certainly know.
Sweet as any love song, that booing.
Oh, & for the record, his "fabulous" throw sucked it - HIGH & to the RIGHT, just like he is.
The phony smile trying - but failing miserably - to hide his total rage is the best tonic of all. Dude's gonna wind up spending the rest of his life in Kennebunkport & Crawford, assuming he can stay out of jail. His pathetic ego won't risk going anywhere else & running into the contempt of his betters.
I can't remember if anyone else mentioned this, but -- hasn't Bush said one of his dreams, post leaving the debris of his Presidency, is to be Commissioner of Baseball?
I wish I could say this little clip made toast of that dream, but money can buy you anything. Until we get a government that stops it. (Talking about dreams -- that's mine, and likely will occur after I'm long gone.)
What I appreciate, especially from OtD and Myrtle June, is how they took the thread back on topic.
Let's everyone please try to keep the Clinton/Obama pie-fights to the Obama/Clinton pie-fight threads.
I know it's hard. For what it's worth, it's hard for your bloggers as well. All of us have opinions. All of us work hard not to bring them to the blog, so we can give you journalism; -- Group NEWS Blog -- not advocacy.
No one did anything wrong here. No one needs to apologize at all for anything in this thread. Personally, I found the discussion fascinating, a step above our usual pie-fight. *laughs*
Still, it was off topic.
I continue to ask that if you feel tempted to be the person to pick up that first piece of pie and throw it (or feel you need to throw some pie back at someone 'cause you just got hit in the face with a big old face full of blueberry or lemon pie) no matter how tempting it seems, please don't.
Just. Don't.
Love you all,
This thread has been funny to read. Um...I wasn't talking about Hillary at all Maggie, nor even thinking about her.
Just look at Bush as he struts out onto the mound. If he was a normal politician, or even a normal person, he would go out in front of the mound with the home team's hat on and toss one in a non-chalant fashion to the catcher. That is what the 'ceremonial' in ceremonial first pitch means. But nope...he is a teenager(or a toddler) trapped in a senior citizen's body, so he goes to the rubber and tries to throw it as hard as he can to impress his buddies or the girl he likes.
He is simply a caricature of himself. His inabilities and faults are so naked to the world and he thinks he can contain the charade by throwing that ball just a little bit harder. I feel like if I ever walked into the oval office he would challenge me to arm wrestle or something.
This is why he should be attacked for throwing a ball 66 feet. I don't care if Barack or Hillary can do it. I can do it. Lots of people can. Bush struts around like the cock on the block that he can and is lauded by Jim Miller in one of his more idiotic moments(Joe Morgan must be rubbing off on him). Remember, Bush finds tossing a ceremonial first pitch from the rubber as important and so do his supporters, while most people don't give a shit. Saying Barack can do it better is both a) probably true, and b) likely to piss Bush and his supporters off.
Maggie, I dunno if Barack has magical powers, but if you are insinuating that he does we are a lot better off when he becomes President.
Women are shut out of sports?
Since when? Certainly not since Title IX was passed.
I'm 31 and played basketball and softball throughout my childhood and took up rugby in college.
Sports have always been a part of my life since my mother introduced me to baseball when I was little.
I don't know how old you are Maggie but no one my age male or female would see my participation in sports as exceptional.
This idea of women being shut out of sports at this point is from another age.
I can think of many times the GNB'ers have featured "Women in Sports".... Cheerleading is a "sport" after all. Right? *rolley eyes*
Seriously, I played softball as a young girl.... I'm 53 now. We made our HS have a girls softball and basketball teams. We just said we wanted to play and one friend's mother got us some uniforms.... from the school attic. So what if they were silk baseball jacket and knickers from 1940 something... when they'd had a previous girls team. The basketball girls made iron-on tape numbers for their t-shirts. No one cared because we were playing our sports in the state league. We sucked, we lost... but we played. We loved it.
My mother played basketball in school and when she was in the Canadian Women's Army Corps... in the 40's I think.
I've never lived anywhere there were not opportunities for women to play sports.
yes women due participate in sports...but at least in the high school level there are socila presures taht keep most from compeatign at a high level...i think a lot of those come from other girls.
I was a decent fencer in HS (top 50 in the nation in my age group, JO's four years running, top 64 in the olympic trials), we had mens and womens teams for all weapons, adn our womens team was one of the best in the state....why, becuse they traind with the men and we beat the timidness out of them(as a freshmen I had the timidness beaten out of me as well...just how our very sufi like team captin worked, marathon bouts that you walked out of brused and bloodie...but you learned to give the hit instead of taking it)...most female athleats just are not agressive enough...they can be very good if they get over the mental block that keeps them fom takeign the inititive adn going for the win as opposed to tryign not to lose. the women had all the ability in the world, you jsut cant' score if you don't attack...adn the women on our team got greff for beign "too male" from other girls (both other female fencers, adn other girls at school).
There are barriers to women in sports, but i think a lot of those barriers are put up by other women.
I really don't know how to argue with someone who wants to deny women are shut out of sports. Except to say please watch your local news broadcast and see how many seconds are devoted to women's teams or female athletes vs. male. It'll be at least 80% to 20% on a GOOD night. Check the budgets of your school athletic programs and see if there is parity between football and so-called "girls'" sports.
Or -- name me five female pro football players or baseball players.
Yup.
If athletic ability had ANY relationship to leadership, Bush might have had a resource to draw on to compensate for his absence of empathy and his fear of learning.
the women had all the ability in the world, you jsut cant' score if you don't attack...adn the women on our team got greff for beign "too male" from other girls (both other female fencers, adn other girls at school).
Female competancy is frequently identified as "male"...... usually by insecure people of either/all genders.
Maggie - You're talking about parity in popular culture and how much msm coverage is given to women's sports. Hopefully, women don't let that define them or their pursuit of actually playing sports. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
I can't answer any of your questions mostly because I don't watch sports much at all and not much teevee either. I do know there is not parity but women, as rule, don't find some false identity, nor measure themselves by who can hit, run, throw, or jump longer, faster, or higher. When everything you do, as a woman, has a touch of infinite magic to it, there's no need to submit to such finite measurements.
Everything bush touches turns to shit.... everything. I think everyone can agree on thaaaaaaaat.
Maggie the big three are not the onyl sports. when was the last tiem you saw fenncing mentiond on ESPN...don't talk to me about media representation.
the otehr side of Titial 9 is that sports get droped at HS and college leves beacuse they need to keep the numbers even. a lot of big schools droped their mens fencing team so that the mens sports didn't out number the female sports.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
