Tennessee Guerilla Women
MSNBC AND CNN SHOULD BE CALLED THE OBAMA NETWORKS. They make me sick and I will not watch these fuckers ever again. I never knew CNN was such a bunch of kiss asses. even jack Cafferty man I thought that guy had a little integrity.
My my my.....we are sore losers, no?
I want to know how the Hillary Camp will spin this:
(CNN)
Barack Obama did well with Virginia Democrats across both race and gender lines, and seems to be eating away at Hillary Clinton's backbone of support: women.
Obama led Clinton 58-42 percent among the women who were polled,
52-47 -- among voters over 60 (For Obama)
And 49 percent of those who voted for Obama were white, a big change from previous contests in which Clinton held a big lead over Obama among white Democrats.
Obama took 59 percent of the votes of respondents who said they earn less than $50,000 a year and 62 percent of those who said someone in their household is a member of a union.
The Democratic Party is dust without women. Think about it.
Well, we 'spin' it with the pesky factual numerical details, and we back up our numbers with a link. And if you want anyone to believe your numbers, Ademin2008, I suggest you do the same.
White women have stuck by Hillary throughout the entire race and continue to stick by her.
Obama gets Blacks. Obama gets men of all color.
Hillary gets Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and white women.
In Virginia, Hillary got 54% of white women. Obama got 45%.
Obama got 85% of black women. Hillary got 15%.
The number of Hispanics and Asian-Americans was too small to register. Not so in Texas, Ohio, PA.
Like I said, the Democratic Party is history without women, especially white women.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008...s/epolls/
#VADEM
This is why TGW has lost a lot of respect. You can't even admit or accept that OBAMA beat the crap out of Hillary Clinton in VA! In a PRIMARY (not a "sexist' caucus). Obama beat HRC in every group except white women (yes, not ALL women are White TGW!). Now Hillary's Deputy Campaign Manager has resigned, but I'm sure it is a coincidence....
TGW You are losing all of your credibility by shrilling for HRC! I guess you'll have to wait until Texas or Ohio for another HRC win..
CNN now calls VA, Maryland and DC for Obama!
Obama now leads HRC in delegates!
Here are the links
Virginia exit polls show support for Obama ran wide:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...olls/
index.html
Obama stealing Clinton's base
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn...-clintons-base/
Jim, you are so full of yourself. All you ever do is echo whatever is popular. The elite male dominated left loves Edwards. You love Edwards. The elite male dominated left loves Obama. You love Obama.
aphrabehn, I agree that clinton does lead with white women but it has decreased from Super Tuesday. Obama won the latino vote by 6 points.
From (Exit polls: Obama stealing Clinton's base)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn...-clintons-base/
"The only demographic Clinton won in Virginia was among white women, who broke for her over Obama by 10 points. But that margin is significantly smaller than the national average on Super Tuesday. She beat Obama among white women by 25 points then, according to national exit polls."
"Obama even beat Clinton among Latino voters, a group that his heavily favored Clinton in most past primaries. In Virginia, Latino's went for Obama over Clinton by 6 points. Though they were only 5 percent of the electorate there."
No, Ademin2008. No one expected Hillary to win the Potomac primaries. If you were paying attention, you'd know that Obama's base in terms of class, race, and gender predominates in these primaries.
Gloat while you can. It is so not ovah.
And no, Jim all women are not white, not here on TGW either. What a really dumb thing to say. It is, however, true that white women are the largest group in the nation and the largest group in the Democratic Party. Keep on pissing us off at your peril.
Ademin2008, 2 points:
1) Everything I've read today points to a demographic in these primaries favoring Obama in terms of class. As you perhaps know, there is a class divide.
2) With the media blessing given to Obama, and media bashing given to Clinton, it would be really quite remarkable if Obama did not soar. And, yes, that does cause some bitterness.
TGW made a big deal about Obama snubing Clinton back in January, Looks like clinton is doing the same thing
Clinton: Still no congratulations for Obama
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn...ions-for-obama/
Clinton congratulated Obama and John Edwards after their first and second place finishes in the Iowa caucuses. Obama returned the favor in New Hampshire, saying Clinton “did an outstanding job.” That courtesy continued through the early states.
But as the race has shifted to a delegate chase with dozens of states in play around the country, the notion of congratulating one’s opponent seems, for Clinton, to have fallen by the wayside.
By the way I don't really care who wins the democratic nomination, as long a Democrat wins 2008. I am am just sick and tired of all the Obama hate in this blog. I thought this was a Feminist blog, not Hillary Clinton's Blog.
"Jim, you are so full of yourself. All you ever do is echo whatever is popular. The elite male dominated left loves Edwards. You love Edwards. The elite male dominated left loves Obama. You love Obama.
aphrabehn"
Aphrabehn, I hate to be rude but you are full of shit. What in the fuck is the "elite male dominated left"???? Do you make this crap up?
I can remember not long ago that Hillary Clinton was annointed the Democratic candidate by the so-called "elite media" and that that "elite male media" ignored and crapped all over John Edwards. If you knew ANYTHING about me you know I don't do anything just because its popular! So go fuck off
yes I'm angry, I have never seen as many insults by so-called "progressive women" or as much ignorance of political reality.
I'm taking this horrible "blog" which I once loved off of my blog list.
Adios...
Brian Williams is on MSNBC talking about how very hard it is to criticize or vett Barack Obama because of the racism factor. Not a word is said about how very easy it is to criticize or attack Hillary Rodham Clinton because of the sexism factor.
Precisely. That's why I've been saying it is easier to elect a black man president, than a woman.
God. Admen, do tell the little wimmin how to blog the way you like it.
It is interesting how Ap can say this about Hillary:
"Clinton placed third in Iowa, behind Obama and John Edwards, who has since left the race. Her campaign has struggled since then."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080...n_el_pr/
clinton
I mean last I looked she was still WINNING??
How is that 'struggling??'
I agree that the media has viewed Clinton with a sexist bias. But I don't think that's all of it by a mile.
Having said that, the media did not view Bubba with a sexist bias in the 90's, they just flat out hated him.
The Clintons have been despised by the media from day one. That carries over to Hillary, and is not wholly based on sexism.
Hillary lost, not because the media dislike her, but because she faced a vastly superior campaigner in Obama.
Good bye Jim ... don't let the door hit you on your way out! ha
Brian Williams is on MSNBC talking about how very hard it is to criticize or vett Barack Obama because of the racism factor. Not a word is said about how very easy it is to criticize or attack Hillary Rodham Clinton because of the sexism factor.
This comment is so absolutely true, and it makes me crazy.
We need to dig in and do all we can to help Hillary win. If you live in TX, OH or PA volunteer with the local campaign headquarters. If you live outside that area, you can make phone calls by going to the Hillary for President web site and click on "make calls" listed under "5 things you can do."
We can make this happen!!
BAC
This Black woman is, and will continue to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. I have seen too much suffering over the last eight years to be fooled by Barack "Rev. Ike" Obama's vision of change completely devoid of a proven track record of accomplishments to "make it happen" Hillary is not just telling us what we want to hear in order to get our votes. She has the experience, the commitment, and the qualifications to affect "real change" If Obama is in fact our party's nominee, we can get ready for at least four more years of a Republican occupying 1600 PA. Avenue.
We just don't know what four years of Obama will mean. He doesn't even know. He's too much been the guy running to prove he can get elected to know what he will do when he's the show. It will be hard for everyone. Be careful what you ask for is so true in politics. It's a lot different being the candidate than it is implementing. I heard him say all the change he was going to make in Washington and it all sounded legislative. There are three branches of government and the executive, especially after the last eight years, will not be the legislative.
Yeah, well, if John Edwards had the media on his side, he would have been proclaimed to be a 'vastly superior campaigner' too.
"Hillary lost, not because the media dislike her, but because she faced a vastly superior campaigner in Obama." -- Steve |
Don't kid yourself. The media has a tremendous influence in what most people think. It was the media that sold the majority of the public on that goddamn war. And now they're selling a feel-good candidate with no national security experience and no foreign policy experience.
God help us.
"If Obama is in fact our party's nominee, we can get ready for at least four more years of a Republican occupying 1600 PA. Avenue." --Tia
I fear you are right Tia.
When this is all over- I am going to make Chris Matthews and Tim Russert my Bitches. I am feeling especially empowered today- I posted my first sexist post today. Turn about is fair play.
Come on TEXAS, OHIO, and PENNSYLVANIA!
See ya later Jim....
"yes I'm angry, I have never seen as many insults by so-called "progressive women" or as much ignorance of political reality.
I'm taking this horrible "blog" which I once loved off of my blog list."
Did you think this was EHarmony? hahahah
"Yeah, well, if John Edwards had the media on his side, he would have been proclaimed to be a 'vastly superior campaigner' too.
"Hillary lost, not because the media dislike her, but because she faced a vastly superior campaigner in Obama." -- Steve |
Don't kid yourself. The media has a tremendous influence in what most people think. It was the media that sold the majority of the public on that goddamn war. And now they're selling a feel-good candidate with no national security experience and no foreign policy experience."
I live in Iowa and have seen Edwards, Obama, and Hillary up close and personal. Obama is a far better speaker and campaigner. And there was no media around in my town of 25,000 to tell me who was better.
I'm not saying that Obama would make a better president than Hillary. I am only saying that he is a far more gifted orator and campaigner than Hillary. And much of his success stems from that.
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
People are sick and tired of the same old same old.
Obama offers a breath of fresh air.
Bobby and Martin would be pleased to see it.
No argument, Steve. But do most of us want our individual church minister to be President? If he is a great orator which he appears to be, where does the wisdom and experience come to be the President? We don't all worship the same message and Orator vs President this day in time seem different. I don't know really but I don't think the skill requirements are exactly the same.
Why is everyone being so mean to Hillary? She's A GIRL! People can't vote against the girl, just because they think the other person is a better candidate? Come on.
SOME of us who have fought hard for all our adult lives to fight sexism realize that that is all the Tennessee Gorilla Women have become; sexist.
You are supporting Hillary BECAUSE she's a woman and that is sexism. You are mad at those of us who think Obama is the better candidate and would likely make a better president because we won't be sexist.
Brilliant commentary Marg. Did you type that all by yourself?
What I really enjoy here is when the good old boys, white and black, realize this is ageism and not sexism or racism. The younger, whether black, white, men, women, hispanic etc, don't want to hear their parents or grandparents experience wisdom etc. Fun times ahead. Reminds me of the stories of the 60s and 70s.
"No argument, Steve. But do most of us want our individual church minister to be President? If he is a great orator which he appears to be, where does the wisdom and experience come to be the President? We don't all worship the same message and Orator vs President this day in time seem different. I don't know really but I don't think the skill requirements are exactly the same."
Funnying | 02.12.08 - 10:42 pm | #
I've never said who I was supporting. I will stand by my statement though that Obama is a better campaigner, and that accounts for much--not all--of his success. Hillary's downfall is not solely the result of sexism.
Like they had nothing to do with it.
There is an implication here that the actual, measurable strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in question had nothing to do with it. Chris Matthews and his ilk can kiss my ass, and I hold no ill will toward Clinton based on any of the slander that has been directed at her in the media (and blogosphere) any more than I would harbor ill will toward Obama based on any of the slander that has been directed at him in the media (and blogosphere). Reasonable, informed, progressive voters made the choice to vote for Barack Obama. The idea that his sweeping successes of this evening in the Potomac Primaries owes to the machinations of sexist jerkwads like Matthews is pretty insulting.
C'mon Victoria, certainly you're not denying that the media has great powers of persuasion over the American Public? Certainly you're not saying that FAR TOO MANY people are willing to GO with whatever the media presents to them as the best choice.
First of all I would argue that the American voting public is the most ill informed or easily swayed voting public on the planet. Too many people are willing to jump on the Public Opinion bandwagan and nowhere is this better illustrated than by the election of 2000 & 2004 and further amplified by the 4 years of wild support for the Iraq war.
Too many people in this country will believe whatever they see on the boob tube and are like children in their support of whatever they believe is going to be the winning team.
Now I'm not accusing you of that, I believe you are exactly what you say you are, informed. But if you're an OLD activist certainly you know that MOST people aren't informed. Most are band wagon jumpers who care more about being on the winning side than on making an informed, thoughtful decision.
certainly you're not denying that the media has great powers of persuasion
Certainly, you're not suggesting that I'm stupid enough to deny something that self-evident - right?
Duh. The media has a role here, and has both helped and hurt the respective candidacies of Clinton and Obama. What I object to is the implication that the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates, apart from their specific representations, have played a role in the victories and the defeats of both candidates.
That is to say, the electorate is NOT comprised solely of MSM-brainwashed automatons. We think. We do research. We discuss matters of import with our friends, relatives, and neighbors.
Obama's a strong candidate, period. Chalking up his win yesterday, by so significant a margin, to the bullshit-blabbering of Matthews et. al. is tantamount to saying that the people are stupid, don't know what's good for them, etc.
The media outlets that have reach where I live in Virginia are also represented, for example, among our neighbors in Tennessee. When Clinton won Tennessee, I assumed it was primarily on the basis of her strengths, not on the extent to which the media has either accurately, or inaccurately, represented same. So too with Obama's win in Virginia. Why are you so intent to discount the discerning powers, not to mention the very will of the people?
Bless your little guerilla hearts. I know how it feels to support a candidate that you really love, but rest assured there will probably be a woman president one day. It just may not be now and it may not be Hillary.
What will you do if, in 2012, for example, Hillary and Kathleen Selebius both run and are the only two surviving at this point in the race then? Will you call all of Selebius' supporters "sexist"?
Not everyone who supports a candidate other than the "woman" is sexist but everyone who support the "woman" candidate because she's a woman is sexist.
What I object to is the implication that the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates, apart from their specific representations, have played a role in the victories and the defeats of both candidates.
Jeez. That was supposed to read, "What I object to is the implication that the strengths and weaknesses... have NOT played a role in the victories and the defeats of both candidates.
What's with me and these tiny little words that completely change the meaning of my own sentences? Sorry folks, it must be the sleep deprivation speaking.
Obama's a strong candidate, period. Chalking up his win yesterday, by so significant a margin, to the bullshit-blabbering of Matthews et. al. is tantamount to saying that the people are stupid, don't know what's good for them, etc.
Victoria Marinelli | Homepage | 02.13.08 - 5:26 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
Well, do they know what is good for them? They supported the Iraq War until after the last Presidential election Cycle. Even the Dems. They pushed aside Howard Dean, who was against the war, to nominate an "electable candidate" John Kerry who was for the war.
I beleive what the voter knows and doesn't know is suspect. Time will tell
TGW You are losing all of your credibility by shrilling for HRC! I guess you'll have to wait until Texas or Ohio for another HRC win..
Jim Maynard | Homepage | 02.12.08 - 8:43 pm | #
And you've lost your credibility as a progressive male by acting like an absolute jackass about the primaries.
I had a dream last night that I finally got to vote. I was tempted to write in Gore, but then I wrote in the underdog instread....
Duh. The media has a role here, and has both helped and hurt the respective candidacies of Clinton and Obama.
In all seriousness please give me an example where the media has hurt Obama.
Good question, dmac. We're waiting.
So I see it's still, "AHATT" here. This used to be a really informative blog, but I don't recognize it anymore. OK, as a white, middle-aged woman who formerly supported Edwards and now has not decided who I care about now, it is truly sad and disheartening to see such vitriol here. Both Obama and Clinton are good candidates and would make fine presidents, certainly compared to any Republican. Don't think you can figure out who I support just because of my race or sex. Maybe John Edwards would have done better in this race if more people weren't afraid of being seen as racist or sexist for supporting the white guy...
Clinton was the media darling, and now she isn't. That's too bad. We aren't all influenced by the MSM, but more by personal experience, like the person who called me just hours after Edwards pulled out of the race going after my support for Clinton. That kind of ambulance-chasing doesn't work for me. The point was moot as I had already voted in the primary.
Meanwhile, how about getting back to some real issues once in awhile, like the FISA vote?
"it is truly sad and disheartening to see such vitriol here."
Be nice girlz, or I won't want to play with you. Don't have strong opinions, obey what you're told and, above all, be *nice*.
Looks like my girl Cynthina McKinney will have my vote after all.
I am getting sick to death of the fainting-couch complaints about "this blog used to be......"
Egalia's blog.
Egalia's right to post what she wants and endorse whom she wants. Period. Egalia's right to focus on primary issues during the primary. Egalia's home. We are visitors.
Blogs are free. Hint, hint.
In all seriousness please give me an example where the media has hurt Obama.
The entire run-up to the primaries, the media contributed to the narrative that Hillary was the inevitable candidate. She was effectively running a general election campaign back in November and early December of 2007. Though politicos certainly already knew who Obama was, Hillary had vastly more name recognition than he did, thanks in no small part to the media having already crowned her the presumptive nominee. If you don't think this helped Hillary going into the primaries, you need to rethink your own narrative.
I have to laugh a little whenever I see people referring to Hillary as the new "underdog". As a friend recently pointed out, that would have been like claiming that the Patriots became the underdogs during the Superbowl the minute the Giants pulled ahead. I don't think it works that way. I know Gloria Steinem disagrees, but Hillary has always been the one to beat, and if Obama pulls it off (which, at this point, is no certain thing), it will be a minor miracle and a testament to his formidable political skills.
Is that a "don't let the door hit you on the ass" joke?
Because, if so, that's actually quite clever.
'everyone who support the "woman" candidate because she's a woman is sexist.' -- Margaret WATB
Hah!!! Women are sexist for supporting women! That one deserves a place in the book. What men's rights org. did you say you are from?
So sorry for all the poor menz we women are oppressing! May the menz forever rule and forever make more money than women, may they rule the country and keep our children in the category of highest child poverty rate in the industrialized world forever. The menz rule. And we are so sexist if we don't like it.
Like I said, that one's going in the book.
Well, do they know what is good for them? They supported the Iraq War until after the last Presidential election Cycle. Even the Dems. They pushed aside Howard Dean, who was against the war, to nominate an "electable candidate" John Kerry who was for the war.
Hold on a minute.
Howard Dean was a governor, not a Senator, and thus couldn't actually cast a vote against the war. Meanwhile, Kerry was a Senator, and actually had to vote. We've been told over and over again that we can't compare Obama's stated opposition to the war to Hillary's vote for the war, because Obama wasn't a Senator. Moreover, when Dean was running in 2004, he made it very clear that he did NOT support an immediate pullout - that even though he thought the invasion was a colossal mistake, now that we were there, he advocated keeping troops there to stabilize the country, prevent a catastrophic bloodbath, and attempt to salvage some kind of viable nation. He repeatedly admitted he would have voted to keep funding the war if he was in Congress....just as Kerry did, just as Obama did, and just as Clinton did. Yet we've been told here that Obama's votes for funding indicates that he had no ground to stand on when he attempts to differentiate his war position from Hilary Clnton's. So why are you recognizing a genuine difference between Dean and Kerry? Why does Dean get to have his antiwar credentials and Obama doesn't? What gives?
"What men's rights org. did you say you are from?"
Whatever one is sending you the trolls you already have. They have the same logically faulty arguments. They must have a handbook they take them from.
Betty,
That was actually an unhinged joke, but yours could work too I suppose.
for some reason I can't get the screen shot from Dan Abrams report about neg v postive media coverage to work.
so- while I heard the argument about how Hillary was the candidate to beat, your forgetting that every time they mentioned her as front runner they countered with a negative. An Attempt to balance the coverage- possibly. I am still waiting to see evidence of the media 'hurting' Obama. Believe me- I have looked for it- but still have never seen it. Hell, just last night Chris Matthews shared with the world that he gets a tingly feeling up his leg when Obama speaks. And for the record when I hear Obama speak, i hear him regurgitating messages put forth by Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton while taking subtle swipes at all of them using a MLK styled cadence. It's dishonest.
"That was actually an unhinged joke,"
Oh right, because if we disagree with you and -gasp!- have our own opinions, we're unhinged.
Silly me.
"your forgetting that every time they mentioned her as front runner they countered with a negative"
A sexist negative, more often then not, designed to prey on America's unrestrained misogyny.
egalia,
I didn't say I was from any "menz rights organization." I am, in fact, a lesbian woman( one mihgt think that my name, Margaret, might be a clue that I'm not a man, but I digress).
My partner of nearly 18 years (also a lesbian woman) is an attorney who has fought hard over the years for women's rights, as well as the rights of all minorities in Tennessee.
There is no "fault" in my logic. That logic goes like this: if you support a man for a political office, just because he's a man, that is sexist reasoning. Likewise, if you support a woman for a political office simpy because she's a woman, that is sexist reasoning.
If you support Hillary just because she's a woman, that is sexist, just as someone supporting Obama for the sole reason that he black is racist reasoning.
I was torn for whom to vote in this election, believing that Hillary might make a great president, just as I believe Obama might be a great president. (My first choice was Edwards because I like his progressive agenda, but by the time we had the vote in Tennessee he had withdrawn).
My partner and I both had a hard time deciding who we'd vote for. On election day morning she asked me, "So, who are you gonna vote for?"
I replied, "I've had a hard time deciding between Obaman and Hillary but, in the end, I think that Obama might be the most likely to try and undo all the damage Bush has done. I dont think Hillary is likely to do that because she voted to support him just about everytime Congress had vote."
She replied that she, too, had awoken with Obama on her mind and had decided that even though the night before she was leaning toward Clinton, she was gonna vote for Obama.
If either of us had based our vote simply on whether or not we'd rather have a woman elected president, we would have voted for Hillary. That would have been sexist reasoning.
While I won't hold your caustic attitude against the Clinton campaign the same may not be able true of everyone. Attitudes like yours, which could be said to be devisive and polarizing, only go to reinforce such stereotypes as the already are in wide belief about Hillary (and many feminists in general).
But, as was said above, it's your "house" and you can say what you want to say (and keep deleting my comments as well). However, by so doing you won't gain more support for your point of view.
I replied, "I've had a hard time deciding between Obaman and Hillary but, in the end, I think that Obama might be the most likely to try and undo all the damage Bush has done.
Typo or years and years of programming to believe men are the superior choice?
"one mihgt think that my name, Margaret, might be a clue that I'm not a man, but I digress)."
yeah, because no male trolls have ever come to a feminist website pretending to be women before.
"Typo or years and years of programming to believe men are the superior choice?"
Who is supposed to answer this question, out of curiosity?
Margaret WATB
from her post timed
Margaret WATB | 02.13.08 - 10:55 am | #
"Well, we 'spin' it with the pesky factual numerical details, and we back up our numbers with a link. And if you want anyone to believe your numbers..."
..We'll run a similar straw poll and make them up as we go.
Polls, and by association, most numbers, don't mean jack, and it's plainly obvious to anyone with a brain.
Dmac - gotcha.
"Attitudes like yours, which could be said to be devisive and polarizing, only go to reinforce such stereotypes as the already are in wide belief about Hillary (and many feminists in general)."
I am *so* SICK of this bullshit argument. You're bascially saying that we need to censor ourselves because some witless outsiders might not like what we say. If you feel the need to bow to outside pressures, feel free. Others of us are not so inclined. And if an outsider takes a stereotype as truth and doesn't investigate deeper, they are hardly an ally, are they.
It is my honest belief that many people, mostly men, but many women will vote for a man, any man before he or she will vote for a qualified woman. Misogyny has permeated our society, it has had a 2000 year head start, so much so, that women hate women and usually cannot see their own hatred. I voted for Senator Clinton. I am by far too cynical to believe she will get the democratic nomination because of misogyny. I am pissed off to read how some people can freely announced that they will not vote for Clinton if Clinton wins over Obama, however, if someone were to say they will not vote for Obama if Clinton wins over Obama then that person is charged with dividing the democratic party. Well, I will not vote for Obama, which does not default into voting for the Republican candidate. If I vote I will vote for one of those obscure candidates that do not get enough votes to even register a percentage. I don’t care which man is president because without Clinton it is still a man.
"" It is my honest belief that many people, mostly men, but many women will vote for a man, any man before he or she will vote for a qualified woman. Misogyny has permeated our society, it has had a 2000 year head start, so much so, that women hate women and usually cannot see their own hatred."
Seconded. HuffPo is a good example. Even some successful women will use misogyny and sexism to bash another to earn that honorary penis. *
"If I vote I will vote for one of those obscure candidates that do not get enough votes to even register a percentage."
Try http://www.runcynthiarun.org/ - McKinney, Green Party
"I don’t care which man is president because without Clinton it is still a man."
I was fine with Obama until the sexist sludge started leaking out. Now, unless he says something before the nomination, or unless he makes CLinton his VP if he wins the nom, a vote for him is out of the question.
Progressives *always* have an excuse to not deal with bigotry against women. Always. And they say so often -there's always something more important than us. Always.
I've had enough of that. I will not sacrifice my beliefs to vote for yet another dude who benefits from exploiting sexism.
If I'm wrong about him. he's still got some time to prove that to me. I won't hold my breath.
* - that means approval from male counterparts that will still call her "bitch" behind her back.
I am pissed off to read how some people can freely announced that they will not vote for Clinton if Clinton wins over Obama, however, if someone were to say they will not vote for Obama if Clinton wins over Obama then that person is charged with dividing the democratic party
Both things have been said - Obama's supporters saying they won't vote for Clinton and vice versa. Both sentiments do, in fact, serve to divide the Democratic Party. How can you not grasp that these positions are not mutually exclusive? (While also doing your damnedest to ensure that those divisions among Democrats persist, and are even deepened to a heartbreaking extent?)
And to the person who asked - rhetorically of course (when a person asks for "an example" of a an excruciatingly well-established phenomena of which there are countless examples, she or he has clearly already decided no such examples exist or will be seen as valid no matter what proof is supplied) - I will be responding to your taunt elsewhere, on my own blog, in the next few days. Not going to waste my time with that here. I say this now only because, otherwise, my lack of a reply would surely be construed by the True Believers in Clinton No Matter What that I'd somehow accepted your retort as representing truth, and not as the knee-jerk ideologically-driven taunt it so obviously, and sadly, is.
Oh please, the division started and will remained as long as men are favored over women.
I don't owe a party that excludes me a damn thing.
Hold on a minute.
Howard Dean was a governor, not a Senator, and thus couldn't actually cast a vote against the war. Meanwhile, Kerry was a Senator, and actually had to vote. We've been told over and over again that we can't compare Obama's stated opposition to the war to Hillary's vote for the war, because Obama wasn't a Senator.
mary | 02.13.08 - 9:54 am | #
==============================
My point was SIMPLE mary and I'm sorry you missed it, the point WAS most dems are influenced by the Media.
Remeber 2004? The Media hated Howard Dean, but loved Kerry UNTIL HE WAS NOMINATED. The media took everything that Howard Dean did and said and played it over and over again, out of context, to portray him as a wild eyed weirdo.
In 2004 DEMS FREAKED OUT AND DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED SOMEONE WHO HAD VOTED FOR THE WAR BECAUSE THE WAR WAS STILL POPULAR, EVEN AMONG MOST DEMS. Dean was portrayed by the MSM as an aberration, a resurrected hippie dove who might leave our country vulnerable to terrorism. Kerry, WHO IN THE FALL OF 2004 WAS STILL STANDING BEHIND HIS VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUION, was built up as a Vietnam war hero and a battle tried, dyed in the wool VETERAN, STRONG on DEFENSE and a man who could protect us from the terrorists, the man who could beat GWB.
So what did most Dems do in 2004? They ran from Dean, the anti-war governor and ran to Kerry, the man who was still affirming his vote for the war resolution! AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED? HOW CAN ANYONE FORGET HOW THE MSM ASSISTED THE SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR BULLSHIT in their annihilation of John Kerry. They facilitated and legitimized the destruction of Kerry by giving the Swift Boaters the stage and nothing Kerry said or did could counter the effect. The US voter swallowed it, ALL OF IT, and GWB was elected to a 2nd term.
Now, do you seriously believe that the MSM doesn't influence much of the voting public? Goddam, what else explains 8 years of George W. Bush? And do you believe that John Kerry might have been elected if the Swift Boaters hadn't been given a platform by the MSM?. And do you actually think that Barack or any other Dem will be treated better by the MSM when the shit hits the fan, and it will. DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID TO AL GORE? AND CAN'T YOU SEE HOW THEY HATE HILLARY?
What is wrong with the collective memories of the people in our party? What is wrong with the people who are now saying they'll never vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war, WELL IN 2004 THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD HAVE VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT WAS TO HAVE VOTED FOR SOMEONE WHO HAD VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR. WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR IN 2004, DID YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE OTHER THAN A DEMOCRAT, I DOUBT IT!!!!!
Now, I'm through yelling!
Now, I'm through yelling!
That's good, because my ears hurt. Or, at least, my virtual ears hurt.
If I misunderstood your point, I apologize - you seemed to be expressing great frustration that people abandoned the "antiwar" candidate in 2004 (Howard Dean) for the "pro-war" candidate (John Kerry). That is what I was responding to. Apparently you were only pointing out that the public is fickle and easily lead astray by the media. I gather I misinterpreted your point, but there was no malice or willfulness about it. I just read you wrong. So, to respond to the point you were actually making:
The simple point that the media influences people is so obviously true as to be beyond any discussion or debate. Of course the media influences people.
If Victoria will forgive me for speaking on her behalf, I assume she was reacting to a far more insidious implication: that Obama's support can be almost entirely explained by the media. There seems to be very little acknowledgment here that people of intelligence and good faith can simply disagree about the merits of the candidates. Obama's support is constantly reduced to insulting generalizations about fashions, fads, cults, messiahs, media-following sheep, masses, fickle youth, etc etc. In fact, it's not clear to me that many people here actually want to discuss the substantive merits of the two candidates. As an Obama supporter who has read every word of every policy proposal on both candidates' web sites, as well as countless analyses of their platforms, I hope you can understand why these implications often seem a bit insulting.
I know there are people out there who say they will never vote for a candidate who supported the war, but it doesn't appear that any of them post on this blog. So far as I can recall, every single Obama supporter here has stated they will vote for Hillary in the general election if she is the nominee (the only half-exception is myself, and then only if she wins because of superdelegates or Mi & FL, which has nothing whatsoever to do with her war vote - and btw, I wouldn't vote for Obama either if he won because of superdelegates or uncontested states) We are rather making an argument about why we prefer Obama in the primaries. In a recent comment, I explained that Hillary's war vote, by itself, wasn't really the whole issue. It was rather her overall pattern of enthusiasm for militarism and imperialism, of which her war vote was merely one symptom. Absolutely nobody responded.
I don't expect any candidate to be perfect. I certainly don't think Obama is perfect. I think his health care plan is disappointingly cautious, I found his rhetoric about bombing Pakistan highly alarming, I prefer Clinton's approach to foreclosures, which seems more willing to penalize predatory financial institutions. But, as I've said before, since none of us will ever receive the candidate who perfectly represents us, we have to weigh the importance of different issues and decide, on the whole, which candidate best represents us. Is it so difficult to admit that Obama supporters may have actually engaged in this process? What is so frustrating about so much of the discussion on this blog is the immediate attribution of the worst possible motives and instincts to anyone who doesn't support Clinton - sexism, naiveté, stupidity, historical cluelessness, messianic longing, trying to be hip, doing whatever the media tells us, etc etc.
Perhaps the best remedy would just be for me to stop reading this blog, I suppose. I keep coming back because I've been a loyal reader for a few years. Maybe it's time, perhaps just temporarily, to take a hiatus...
Just one last substantive example of why I voted for Obama and not Hillary Clinton:
Senate Amendment No. 4882: this amendment would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Cluster bombs have been responsible for dozens of documented civilian deaths, and likely hundreds more undcoumented ones. Our use of cluster bombs earned us across the board international condemnation.
Obama voted for the ban, Hillary Clinton voted against it.
It's not just about her vote for the war.
There have been several people who have stated that they Won't vote for Hillary because of her war vote, the last one I spoke with was in a thread from yesterday called TVonthe Fritz. But people trot out her WAR vote on this blog all the time as a reason they WILL NOT VOTE for her or as a reason they find Barack superior to her, when 4 years ago they rejected Howard Dean because he was opposed to the war. I find that bizarre and other than the fact that Barack didn't vote for the war (never mind that he wasn't even in the Senate) no one has given me any substantive reasons why they're voting for Barack, other than the hope message, which I find thin and no more or less authentic than the hope message offered by any candidate from any party.
Obama voted for the ban, Hillary Clinton voted against it.
It's not just about her vote for the war.
mary | 02.13.08 - 11:13 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
Actually mary that resolution LIMITED the SPENDING ON Cluster Bombs, it didn't BAN the use. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE mary!!!!!!!
"While they praised the moral case for shielding civilians from combat weapons, opponents argued that curbing spending on cluster bombs would tie the hands of US military leaders.
"In an extreme situation, the commander must be able to use all options to shape the battlefield to protect our forces and those allied with us," Republican senator Ted Stevens said at the time.
"Restricting the deployment of cluster munitions could severely hinder aviation and artillery capabilities and reduce the commander's capability to wage war successfully," he added.
Obama voted in favour of limiting use of the bombs, while Clinton and 69 other senators opposed the spending limits, defeating the proposal."
NOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO TELL IT, GET IT RIGHT!!!
So the DEVIL is again in the details. SA4882 doesn't BAN the use of cluster bombs it restricts the appropriation of funds if the use is in civilian areas. It was submitted as an amendment to an appropriations bill.
This is the text of the Bill from GOVTRACK.
SA 4882. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. LEAHY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5631, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act my be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated population of civilians, whether permanent or temporary, including inhabited parts of cities or villages, camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or camps or groups of nomads.
(As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on Sep 5, 2006.)
Another note concerning banning Cluster Bombs
HR2764 which passed in Sept-2007 had similar language, had similar language banning the sell of cluster bombs to foreign countries.
FOR THE RECORD:
Barack Obama did not cast a vote
Hillary Clinton did not vote cast a vote
Here's the link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...?vote=s2007-
325
I'm at a loss to understand how this distinction makes any moral difference in evaluating the votes. Hillary's vote is still the more hawkish, militaristic, and, frankly, morally objectionable one. In fact, it strikes me that the distinction you are making is an evasion of the issue. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clnton's vote was justifiable because it wasn't strictly a ban but rather an extreme limitation?
As Feinstein herself explained the bill, the purpose was:
"to prevent funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster bombs until the Department of Defense has adopted rules of engagement to ensure that cluster bombs are not used in or near any concentration of civilians."
It seems clear that the intent was to effect a ban.
As for this:
There have been several people who have stated that they Won't vote for Hillary because of her war vote, the last one I spoke with was in a thread from yesterday called TVonthe Fritz. But people trot out her WAR vote on this blog all the time as a reason they WILL NOT VOTE for her or as a reason they find Barack superior to her, when 4 years ago they rejected Howard Dean because he was opposed to the war.
I didn't see the conversation with TVontheFritz, so I'll have to take your word for it. But are you saying that TVontheFritz rejected Howard Dean because he was opposed to the war 4 years ago?? You are making some pretty strong accusations of hypocrisy against people commenting here based on the nominee for the Democrats in 2004 - but you have no idea who any of the people posting here wanted as the nominee. Surely I'm not hypocrtiical because other Democrats supported the pro-war candidate in 2004?? I certainly didn't.
Yes, I voted for him in the general election....but I'll also vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Do you have no response for any of my other comments? Would you agree that many Obama supporters are simply people of good faith who have made a sincere effort to evaluate the candidates' merits and decided they prefer Obama? Would you agree that it is insulting to these people to constantly imply that Obama supporters are a bunch of fashion-obsessed media-driven sheep? I'm not demanding your agreement, I'd just like to know what you think.
Roll cal vote on HR2764:
http://www.senate.gov/legislativ...on=2&
vote=00232
Mary, I think it is hypocritical of anyone to use her vote giving GWB the authority to go to war as an excuse to not vote for her in 2008 if they voted for Kerry in 2004.
I think it is hypocritical to pretend that in 2008 the war is somehow more wrong than it was in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007. It is important to remember the history of our party and to remember that only a handful of Dems voted against giving Bush the authority and that most of the Democratic electorate DID NOT support the anti-war movement until well after the 2004 election.
Now I don't know how TVonTheFritz voted in 2004, I asked him the question and he never responded (but even if he had responded there is no guarantee of the truth), but if you peruse the threads on this blog you will see this given as a reason to reject Hillary over and over again by Obama supporters. Now I can come to 3 conclusions :
1.) They didn't vote in 2004. Maybe they weren't old enough, maybe they were disenchanted.
2.) They voted for an independent in 2004
3.) They say they're not voting for Hillary because she voted for the resolution to give GWB the authority, but they voted for Kerry despite his support for the same resolution. THAT'S HYPOCRISY.
And I have absolutely no doubt that MANY Obama supporters are totally committed to BO solely on his merits, but there is also no doubt that many people will decide who to vote for based on other reasons that have nothing to do with who the best person for the job is. Some will jump on what they see as the winning bandwagon (that's why many people abandonded Dean in 2004), some will vote for him because he's a man (I think every woman see's that as inevitable), some because he's a person of color (also predictable) and some will even vote for him because their friends are votiing for him (the immaturity factor), some because Oprah said "he's the one" (the rock star factor), or because the MSM is beating Hillary to a pulp some will view her as not worthy of consideration.
Now it is also obvious that some will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, but the gender bias and anti-Clinton theme in the MSM has created a much higher threshold for Hillary to cross to reach the nomination. She is now in the position of having Dems reject her because of the HILLARY IS DOOMED Prognostications of the MSM
Now we can agree to disagee on who the best person for the job is, that is an honest debate, but to deny the obvious bias against Hillary in the media and how that impacts the mind of the uninformed voter (and sadly too many voters in the US are uniformed) is to pretend that GWB didn't get elected because the MSM was HANDS OFF during the election cycles of 2000 & 2004.
If Barack gets the nomination and he well may he will face the slings and arrows in an onslaught of negativity that will be unbelievable. Many of us, have already defended him against the reprehensible email that flooded our mailboxes. I can't even imagine what will come next, or maybe I can.
Roll cal vote on HR2764:
http://www.senate.gov/legislativ...on=2& vote=00232
mary | 02.14.08 - 8:37 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
I found that one Mary. That was the one from the 2006. The link I posted was from Sept-2007.
Past vs. Present
I think it is hypocritical of anyone to use her vote giving GWB the authority to go to war as an excuse to not vote for her in 2008 if they voted for Kerry in 2004.
I agree, if we are talking about the General Election. But for those of us who supported Dean, and went with Kerry once he was the nominee, it isn't hypocritical at all to want a nominee who had the judgment skills to know that going into Iraq was bad, and that authorizing the President to use force "if necessary" was essentially a declaration of war.
I agree, if we are talking about the General Election. But for those of us who supported Dean, and went with Kerry once he was the nominee, it isn't hypocritical at all to want a nominee who had the judgment skills to know that going into Iraq was bad, and that authorizing the President to use force "if necessary" was essentially a declaration of war.
Anonymous | 02.14.08 - 10:06 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
Well I think we're doing a bit of word parsing here.
First let's preface this discussion by saying that the President DID NOT need that resolution to go into Iraq. He was going and in fact our troops were deployed to Germany, Kuwait and Deigo Garcia far in advance of the resolution. That resolution was FORCED upon the Dem minority to get them on the record at a time when the nation was at a fever pitch for REVENGE for 911 and to tell the world especially the UN Security Council that our government was united in it's support for the President. Saddam Hussein became the punching bag of choice and he had the history needed to convince the American people that he was a bad guy who might commit similar acts. But in fact he was nothing but an impotent old man who couldn't muster enough support to even escape from his own country before the invasion.
I was adamantlly against the war even before the 1st bomb was dropped. I supported Dean until he was out, then I voted for Kerry. I didn't consider that as hypocrisy at the time, nor do I consider it as hypocrisy now, UNLESS I was one of those excluding Hillary now because of her vote.
But that's not the only argument here. The other argument has been that she voted for the war resolution and Obama didn't and there are 2 fallacies with that argument.
1. Obama didn't cast a vote.
2. Obama is on the record as saying he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd had access to the same information that the Senators had.
Now, I hate how Hillary voted at the time, it was a mistake then, it is still a mistake. I also hated how she's voted on several issues especially the resolution recognizing the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization because I believe that is the sort of vote that gives cover to war action. But Barack Obama missed that vote, because as his campaign explained, he was campaigning. Well Hillary was campaigning too, so I view that missed vote as flying under the radar of vote scrutiny. It would have been easy for Hillary to do the same thing but instead she steeled herself and voted her conviction (regardless of how I see it) knowing that there would be hell to pay from people like me, and sure enough there was.
Now I wasn't a Hillary fan in the beginning. I am one of those people who is a Hillary come lately supporter. My first choice was Kucinich but that truly was and is a pipe dream. So I went for the candidate I believe demonstrates the most overall ability. Her bonafides on womens and childrens issues, civil liberties issues and international issues make me believe she is the most qualified. Does she have votes and positions in her resume that I disagree with, YES, but any candidate would who's been in the public eye as long as she has.
My first choice was Kucinich but that truly was and is a pipe dream.
"Pipe dream" is an interesting choice of words, Carolyn.
Do you think that Dennis was haulin' on the hookah before he spotted that UFO? 
Well Ronald Reagan claimed to have seen a UFO in 1982. even before the onset of Alzheimers.
Although I've never seen a UFO I'm positive that more people have seen a UFO than have seen god, but that doesn't keep people from believing that god exists.
And don't forget the catholic church, they burned Joan of Arc at the stake for daring to reveal that she spoke to god, BLASPHEMY!!!! Can't even imagine how they would have killed her if she had clamied to have seen a UFO!
Carolyn,
I didn't know that about Reagan. Thanks.
Your point about the UFO is well taken. Congressman Kucinich's positions should be debated on their merits.
One point: The English burned Joan for whipping them in battle. The charge of heresy was a convenient justification but, unlike Galileo who raised a serious theological issue, the Brits would have toasted her for something. Heresy was convenient.
Mark
Hey Mark:
Well, if we're going to get picky the actual death sentence came because she committed the crime of wearing mens clothes. 
And you're right on one count, it was the English who carried out the execution, but it was on the order of the ecclesiastical court which found her guility of heresy. The catholic church didn't overturn the ruling of that court until she'd been dead for a quarter century. Then they declared her a martyr. Now that's some hypocrisy!
And true Galileo would have been a better point.
To answer your question, Carolyn, I voted for John Kerry. It really wasn't much for a choice. You were galled into voting for Kerry versus suffering under four more years of a Bushie dictatorship. In the intervening four years, I've gotten older. Some would say wiser; others would argue that assertion. I've grown to the realization that not much difference exists between the Democrat and Republican parties, especially the social policies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain in regards to imperialism and foreign policy, not to mention a slew of gay-rights issue and climate change policy. So to answer your question, I'm part of the growing coalition of independent-minded voters. I'm the 15 percent the mainstream media loves to talk about.
I sincerely appreciate the answer. And I have the very same issues you have. I see Hillary as the best alternative, you see Barack. But no matter who wins the nomination we can't vote for the Repugs because John McCain will have us in Iraq for a century. He was a proponent, some would even say the driving force behind the Surge, which is travesty.
Now we can refuse to vote if our candidate doesn't get the nomination, or we can vote for an independent, either is an acceptable alternative that I know John McCain will appreciate.
I'm not for Barack, for all the reasons I've stated here, but I will buckle down and vote for him the same way you and I both voted for Kerry in 2004. Because in the end I know that either Dem is better than the repug and so do you.
Again, McCain's foreign policy differinates little from Clinton. I personally have no dogs vested in this hunt. But we will have to agree to disagree.
Carolyn,
True. But the Ecclesiastical Court was under English influence. To have acquitted her might have been unhealthy for or, at least, not in the interests of the members. An independent Church tribunal might have found differently.
By the standards of the Church's operations, a quarter of a century to overturn the verdict looks positively speedy. Sadly, our courts often do not undo injustices much more swiftly.
Mark
I personally have no dogs vested in this hunt. But we will have to agree to disagree.
TVontheFritz | Homepage | 02.14.08 - 1:15 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
Well I know they both opposed the surge and both she and Barack voted for the confirmation of General Petraeus. Their votes on funding defense are nearly indentical. She also voted against the censure of MoveOn.org for the General Betrayus ad and Barack skipped that vote altogether.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/2...eon.html?
ref=us
Voting is a personal, sacred thing for me and it should be for everyone and because it is it's ok when we agree to disagree.
Oh Mark, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the speedy justice in catholicism, I lived on the inside of that nightmare for over 5 decades before I shook it off for good.
If catholicism is your thing and it works for you then you should do it.
Polls in Ohio are looking good for Hillary...sure would be nice if Senator Edwards would endorse her. She could let him burn up the campaign trail for her there and in PA.
Polls in Ohio are looking good for Hillary...sure would be nice if Senator Edwards would endorse her. She could let him burn up the campaign trail for her there and in PA.
dmac | Homepage | 02.14.08 - 1:45 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
Both polls are looking very good for her. Now if she can keep the edge maybe this will be a horse race.
Commenting by HaloScan
