"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters.
I think I'm going to stop prefacing my support for Clinton with "I really like Obama, but..." because that isn't true anymore. What a nasty, and, yes, sexist jab at Hillary Clinton.
And as Melissa McEwan suggests, if you don't understand why that's a sexist comment, you haven't spent much time in corporate America.
Oh, and while I'm at it, Ken Blanchard's recent post on Condi Rice as a possible VP candidate garnered a response from a reader who implied she was a 'B word'. Equally inappropriate. What is wrong with people?
14 comments:
Clinton, trying to make a point about presidential leadership and Obama’s constant references to Dr. King, the civil rights icon, said: I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished."
Lyndon Johnson, that great champion of equality...who referred to MLK at "that goddamned n****r preacher."
Obviously, no one wins when the candidates get nasty and try to undermine each other instead of making the case for themselves. They're both good people with human flaws (as well as those unique to people crazy enough to seek elected office).
I just wonder what you and Alfie are going to do if the candidate you've been developing so much vitriol toward gets the nomination. Vote for McCain?
I am quite sure I have never suggested either Clinton was without flaw, and I am also sure I have never indicated I would vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee in November.
And now that I think about it, I'm confused about why the MLK/LBJ thing is coming up here. Both sexism and racism have been an issue in this campaign, and the existence of one doesn't really excuse the other, I don't think.
I think it's unfortunate when Clinton and surrogates make arguments that seem to appeal to people's discomfort with a person of color becoming president. I also think it's equally unfortunate when Obama and surrogates make arguments that appeal to people who aren't comfortable with a woman president.
And now that I think about it, I'm confused about why the MLK/LBJ thing is coming up here. Both sexism and racism have been an issue in this campaign, and the existence of one doesn't really excuse the other, I don't think.
I don't think so either. But sexism is being used in this post as an example why you don't like Obama. All I'm saying is that if we stop liking our candidates because they're being nasty to each other, we're really left without a candidate to like.
The way things are going, I'm afraid that I'm going to hear so many terrible things about both of them that it's going to be really hard to support whoever gets the nomination, which is too bad, since I was so excited for both of them at the beginning.
I will admit to holding Obama to a higher standard, but I think he's brought that on himself by arguing (and convincing a lot of people) that he is the candidate who is actually going to change politics forever. He's given himself a pretty tall order, and stuff like this (which is one example of many) is evidence to me that he's just another politician.
I guess what it keeps coming back to for me, now that Edwards is not at option, is that I don't always like what Clinton does/says, but at least I feel like I have a sense of what she's about. All I know about Obama is that he would be better than McCain, which is why I would vote for him in November.
A sister North Dakotan has this to say:
A Woman in the White House
By Jennifer Baumgardner
The Huffington Post
Friday 15 February 2008
[... .]
A bitter reality is beginning to sink in for me, a daughter of the Second Wave. Here we are: several generations raised with the mantra that a "woman" could be president, and learning that we don't mean any woman who actually exists.
link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-baumgardner/a-woman-in-the-white-hous_b_86845.html
OK, I read the Baumgardner piece.
First of all, I didn't vote for Clinton because I *don't* think she has what it takes. I am not less of a feminist for that. I think, as Baumgardner's article unwittingly illustrates, that the push to have a woman in the White House and the belief that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for president are two separate ideas that have become conflated, so that frequently when I read/listen to someone express their conviction that Hillary is the best candidate, the argument shifts suddenly to be about how long that person has wanted to see a woman in the White House.
And second, I'm confused when I continually see women saying that they just don't understand why feminists are not voting for Hillary. You know - ASK some of us. We're pretty clear about it. The war. The establishment. The class issues. Wal-Mart. The sense that she'll be true to the DNC but that she won't shake up anything. It's really not difficult to understand, but the people who are most shaken up by this "betrayal" are the ones who define feminism from a white center.
And when I say this, I get told I am sexist.
And somehow voting for the guy who is not the bad woman is the better thing to do?
Seriously, my friends.
Come to the cosmos. It is not anything close to what you're arguing about.
If you don't believe H Clinton is a valid presidential candidate there must be someething wrong with our discourse. Professor.
I''m sorry, you can't possibly stick with those arguments.
While I don't necessarily buy all of Baumgardner's argument (because obviously, feminists have good reasons for supporting Obama), I think she makes a good point. For whatever reason, a lot of left-wing types hold Clinton to a standard that no human being could ever reasonably be expected to reach, while Obama gets practically a free pass. I mean, I'm having a hard time buying that he's not part of the Democratic establishment, for example.
The fact that he, and his spouse, and his surrogates, consistently make underhanded sexist remarks directed at Clinton is only another reason to wonder what his campaign is about.
I'm not holding Hillary to a higher standard. I'm holding the candidates to the same standard, I think they're both good candidates with their own individual problems (including, as in every campaign, employing people with questionable ethics). I don't think holding either of them to a higher standard is particularly fair.
I also find it unfair that it's considered legitimate to judge some based on their choice between two competent and fairly similar candidates. I don't think it really 'says' anything about the person. Simply not voting for someone in a primary isn't the same as hating them or saying they aren't a legitimate candidate. Both of them have really intelligent, respected people who support them. And after this is over, I would hope we could all support whoever gets the nomination (which goes beyond simply holding your nose and voting for them).
Lucretia,
You've nicely proved my point.
I don't like her health insurance mandate, I don't like her foreign policy, and I don't like her position on Iraq. I like Obama's health care plan, I like his foreign policy (talking directly to Cuba's and Iran's leaders is a big issue for me), and I like his position on Iraq. I would hope that you could understand that someone could disagree with you and still be intelligent and of good will.
Anna - I've actually heard more underhanded racist remarks coming from the Clinton campaign - the operative words there being "I've...heard," because I'm talking literally, I haven't been watching much of the coverage and I haven't heard a lot of it (I didn't like that he pulled out her chair for her last night - that was controlling. But I would need to study his movements to know if that was a deliberate controlling move or if it is that he's simply a "gentleman" - because chivalry is sexist). But then again, I think people have been looking for sexism on his part and brushing off the racism on her part.
Either way, her behavior right now is sinking her, at this point (I'm thinking about the plagiarism thing).
But then again, I think people have been looking for sexism on his part and brushing off the racism on her part.
I disagree with this. I think people are looking for it on both sides and generally finding it because we live in a racist, sexist society. I don't think it's accurate (or helpful) to say anyone has been getting a pass.
I finally tackled the racism/sexism issue on my blog and I didn't even get INTO what the canidates are saying on each other... :) this post and the comments have been fun.
tobestalks.blogspot.com/2008/02/youve-got-racism-in-my-sexism.html
Post a Comment