dagblog - Comments for "Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?"

"I have given credit to

Ramjett — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:03:13 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

"I have given credit to Senator Obama many times but FYI I don't vote my skin color, I vote my policies."
No but you have no problem voting chromosomes. I'm sorry I must have missed the post where you gave Senator Obama credit for a well run, above board campaign. If you have some examples please include a link.

"Most black men I have grest respect and admiration for. I tend to judge people individually by my interactions with them..."
So it is your interactions with Senator Obama that led you to state his campaign was using sexism, and 'cheated' Michigan and Florida, and prevented a revote and blah,blah,blah, blah.

" and I can say with certainty judging from your ignorant ass comments that you ain't shit."
Ah, name calling, dijamo you are perfect as the typical Senator Clinton supporter. Man I wonder if I should play...hmmm. So what names could I use for some one like you ......Damn Barack was right, it really is hard not to respond in kind, but I will follow his example and let it go THIS TIME.

"And I am NOT your girlfriend." No dijamo you are not! You are....shoot, I'm tired of taking the high road. You are a 'Un..ahhh man that was close almost let it go. dijamo you have recently come around to saying you will support Senator Obama. Have you ever thought that we the people who make up Senator Obama's organization really don't want your support.
Please support Senator McCain. He deserves you.

“Hate crimes against

Ramjett — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:27:40 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

“Hate crimes against women...do they exist?”
What the hell are you talking about? I never said hate crimes against women didn’t exist. This is the typical straw-man diversionary tactic used by the intellectually dishonest. Not only do hate crimes against women exist, under slavery black women suffered double. Since white women didn’t get the same treatment as black women during slavery I will assume that being black was a bigger problem then being a women.

“Are women the victims of lynching?”
What a stupid question. Yes, plenty of ‘black-women’ where indeed lynched!

‘I've enough pictures of naked, raped women thrown down hills and in gutters and ditches to think that lynching is more than hanging from a rope.’
That seems like such a strange thing to collect. If some man on this board admitted to collecting this type of material, we would all justifiable wonder what his problem was, but since you are a women I’m sure it’s ok.
The question again is not does sexism and/or racism exist, of course they do. Would a black women with no coattails to ride have a tougher go then a black man in a similar situation, I have no doubt she would. That is not the situation, however. So once again your position that Senator Clinton had a tougher go, being white, a former first lady, $250,000,000 in funds vs. the black Senator named Barack Hussein Obama is delusional.

I'm certainly going to use it

Billy Glad — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:20:12 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

I'm certainly going to use it from now on. 100 times better than Kitty Litter. Ouch!

I also take issue about the

Qwerty — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:06:50 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

I also take issue about the so-called "sexist" comments about her cackle. Personal traits have always been fodder for pundits, so if Dubya's "smirk" is held against him, why is Hillary's cackle off bounds? Personally, I HATE her cackle not because it's an awful sound, but because she clearly fakes it to avoid answering some of the tough questions out there, eg. Bill's $800K speeches paid by Columbia and the conflict of interest with her position on the Columbian Free-Trade deal.

I would add that a super

pistolpete — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:04:10 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

I would add that a super majority of voters isnt required in order for some of the voters to decide based on gender. And no one really knows what their impact was. For example, with her high negatives and campaign flaws, would she have garnered less women votes? Note that I believe many southern women didnt vote for her because she wasnt their kind of woman, holding the 51% in check.

I believe sexism and the backlash is relevant only to make the point that it works both ways, and I hope they balance out. I resent her using sexism to drum up votes (mainly because I think it was self serving), but the issue needs airtime, and like Jesse and Obama, we might need to see a victim to get awareness before we find the catalyst of change.

How can we tell the

Qwerty — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:00:20 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

How can we tell the difference between a gender-specific insult (bitch, dick, prick, etc.) and sexist intent? A "bitch" to me is simply a horrible female person, just as a "prick" to me is a horrible male person. And no, I don't want to do it all PC and give up my right to call a bitchy woman a "bitch" (and god knows there're lots of them around) and use a "horrible person" instead - it's absurd. Ironically, the objections to the use of the word strikes me as sexist - it is considered inappropriate because, well, we're supposed to be nice to women, and saying "bitch", that's not nice to women. Well, nasty women do exist - eg. Ann Coulter is a BITCH. There, it feels better.

I really believe we only hate

Julian Smith — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:55:48 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

I really believe we only hate what we fear. And you seem so hysterical about Clinton. Like Olbermann's rants or something. I don't mean to offend, but if you're coming from fear all the time, maybe you're not seeing people for who they really are. Is that possible?

I take issue with some of the

SDedalus — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:40:16 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

I take issue with some of the NOW examples:

Keith Olbermann, "Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

I've always thought this could be said of a candidate of either gender.

Tucker Carlson is scared of being castrated by Hillary?

If I'm not mistaken, this was a response to the "3 testicle/1 testicle" comment made by one of Hillary's union supporters. I don't recall her denouncing and rejecting the statement, so it would seem to be fair game.

Bill Kristol thinks white women are the problem.

How is this any different from all media outlets calling attention to Hillary's base of support amongst this demographic? Hard to say, seeing this out of context.

Daryl Cagle draws violent imagery of Hillary Clinton as the slain beast.

A tradition in political cartoons that dates back to the eighteenth century at least was finally applied to a female?

Jack Cafferty conjures up the image of Obama running over Clinton with a truck.

How many times were we treated to imagery of persons (of all genders) being deposited beneath buses?

Seriously, I realize these are merely "nominees," but doesn't that underscore the point? A small number of narrow-minded assholes within the right-wing media (and sometime surrogates at the non-FOX networks) intentionally said things that slurred Hillary as a woman, and this was to be expected -- not condoned, but certainly expected. There were a few people who got bent out of shape by campaign events and spoke without considering the full impact (or at least neglecting to properly filter what was emerging from their mouths). I put Randi Rhodes and Ferraro on this spectrum. And then there were journalists who made some clearly off-color comments, none altogether dissimilar from those evoking negative male stereotypes in previous political history ("Wimp President?" on the cover of Newsweek describing GHWB is one such example). It's unfortunate that male dominance of the political scene has denied us a gender-neutral pundit vocabulary. If you called Hillary a wimp or a dick, or a soft-handed effete, or implied that she could not "lead the dance" of negotiations, you could be accused of denigrating her because she's not male. We really should be working toward a neutral set of expressions, but this is a shared problem -- the media is only one component. Hillary's camp trying to have it both ways (emphasizing connections to ground-breaking women, while balking at any attempt to associate them with negative aspects of femininity that are in the culture) made it difficult to arrive at the proper lexicon.

Could Obama have come out in defense of Hillary? Sure, but that could have been counterproductive on multiple levels. Obama could have been painted as condescending, attempting to call attention to and perpetuate the misperceptions that underlie the comments. Clinton could have suffered further from criticism that she needs men to defend her. Obama could be seen as deprecating and weak. Michelle could have been a more effective vehicle for this message, but after SC, I could see how she might be resistant to don that mantle. Ordinarily, I think BO is bigger than that and would say the right thing, but I honestly think that he was concerned about the potential backlash and was frankly disinclined to further protract the primary race. I'm disappointed, but I hope to see this rectified in coming weeks.

We need the same sorts of unflinching discussion on gender that we have already seen about race. We need a better political songbook, and we need people to be clear-headed in separating what's sexist from what's merely blunt. Being drawn too ugly in a political cartoon is the sacred right of any elected official or candidate. Let's allow them to retain that.

This meme, that Obama

BevD — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:31:58 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

This meme, that Obama couldn't criticize Clinton because he is a black male and she is a white woman is evil.

Yes, Hillary had the

dijamo — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:28:03 +0000

In reply to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

Yes, Hillary had the advantage of being Bill Clitnon's wife when she ran for Senate and President. She had a hand in the formation of policy in her husband's White House (as he had told voters would happen) and performed substantive policy work outside of the traditional first lady duties. If Laura Bush or Barbara Bush ran for president no one would take them seriously because on their own they have no qualficiations in the politics or policy realm.

I wouldn't call that sexism - I'd call her advantage neoptism or family connections. FYI - this has been going on for ages. My particular favorite example is Teddy Kennedy. And if you want to talk about nepotism, let's look at Ted Kennedy: In 1960, John Kennedy was elected President of the United States and vacated his Massachusetts Senate seat. Ted would not be eligible to fill his brother's vacant Senate seat until February 22, 1962, when he would turn thirty. Therefore the President-elect asked Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo to name a Kennedy family friend Benjamin A. Smith II to fill out John's term (under the authority of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, and state law). This kept the seat open for Ted. In 1962, Kennedy was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in a special election. He was elected to a full six-year term in 1964 and was reelected in 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006.

When Teddy was "elected" to the Senate, he came straight out of law school with no qualifications other than being JFK's little brother. I am sure that you are outraged by this and this causes you to consider Teddy completely unworthy and unqualified to be a senator or a Presidential candidate.

If I had to compare Hillary to anyone, it would probably be Bill Bradley who was also a brilliant man famous for playing basketball. Elected to Senate because of high name recognition, but he had true intellectual heft and policy wonkishness. While his fame may have been a factor, he was no less deserving in his own right of the Senate seat.

Same with Hillary - she may be well known, but she's qualified in her own right and to dismiss her as having this opportnity jest because she's a woman or just beccause she's Bill Clinton's wife is insulting. In fact being Bill's wife probably made things harder for her in the long haul anyway.