June 1, 2008

"McCain in '08! McCain in '08!... No-bama! No-bama!"

Shouts shouted as the DNC resolved its Michigan-Florida problem.

AND: Meet the angry white woman:



The whole world is looking at those bruises:



AND: Hillary gets to say she's ahead in the popular vote now, right? But shouldn't the Michigan and Florida votes be divided by 2?

152 comments:

TROBlog said...

Most will end-up voting for Obama, but some will either sit out or vote McCain. The thing is, it won't take many to do that to swing it McCain's way.

Then again a woman scorned is a terrible thing indeed and I don't think it is a sure thing that all those female Hillary supporters will forgive and forget before the general election. It could be a very comfortable McCain win - especially since Obama seems to be a weaker candidate every day.

michael farris said...

Clinton was pretty much invulnerable to attacks from Republicans; they'd thrown everything they had at her for 15 years to ... not much effect (outside of their own echo chamber). How weird that was more vulnerable to her own side.

This is similar to McCain who's weakest with the republican base.

The question now is how vulnerable will Obama be to republican mudslinging attacks. We'll probably find out soon after he gets the nomination. I'm not optimistic.

Finn Kristiansen said...

People who play these stupid games (If it's not Hillary/Obama I will vote for McCain) ought to have their voting rights revoked. You should be voting for a person because there are certain portions of their policies you like, and not as a matter of temper tantrum. If you are really a Democrat and into their policies, then one would be an idiot for voting for McCain. Same with those nimwits back during the Republican primaries who talked of voting Democrat if McCain was the candidate.

As for the issue of whether Obama can handle attacks, I think the greater question is whether McCain can get his own campaign functioning: Staff has quit, he is reluctant to fundraise in public, he is low on cash. Fortunately for him the RNC has more cash on hand than the DNC.

peter hoh said...

Micharl Farris, there is plenty of new stuff to throw at Clinton, starting with the 100 million they've earned in the past 8 years. Think that all came from speaking fees?

Clinton would start out in the general with very high negatives. And her primary campaign showed that she's not very good at running a campaign.

As for the general principle, I think someone needs to point out the absurdity of changing the rules to seat delegates from FL and MI. I suggest that some state announce that it will be holding its 2012 presidential primary on November 5, 2008.

Top that, New Hampshire.

Meade said...

Only one half? I thought the Constitution counts Democratic Party slaves as three fifths.

That's been amended? Someone should tell the party bosses.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama quits his wacky church and it was reported on Page 19 in today's Phila. Inquirer! Could the media be in the tank for Obama?

And what is with the "firedoglake" tag on these two videos? Is that website in the tank for Hillary?

ricpic said...

"The Party Elite Sucks!"

Yup. Both Parties.

rhhardin said...

The angry woman sounds like the classic KABC John and Ken car chase shutin call Nov 29, 1999.

Part of the Car Chase series.

titushowareyourchakras said...

Good morning fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine and haters of liberals and defeatocrats.

What an evening.

I am still trying to process everything.

My stock has risen considerably and I need to focus on where I go from here.

How are you this morning?

I am fabulous thanks for asking.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Could someone please remind me what they think is so terrible about Obama that's more important to them than whether we get a pro-choice or pro-life president?

John Althouse Cohen said...

Could someone please remind me what they think is so terrible about Obama that's more important to them than whether we get a pro-choice or pro-life president?

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

Thus far Obamas and Clintons have given us god-damn-america racism, liberation theology, Farrakhan connections, 60s terrorists, minstrel catholicism, Florida redux, Michigan meaningless, bruised and angry white women, embittered unemployed small-town whiteys clinging to religion and guns, the memory of landing under sniper fire, sociopathic musings on RFK, Bill wagging his finger at Barack for playing the race card better than Hillary played the gender card, and a first time for ever feeling proud of these 57 united states.

Rest assured, if elected, the democrats will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.

knoxwhirled said...

Each person gets half a vote? Embarrassing.

AJ Lynch said...

John:

Obama has less real world work experience than the average 40 year-old college grad.

His resume has about 10 years as a communty organizer? WTF is that?
Eight years in state senate and less than one term in US Senate.

His deepest and most longstanding relationship is with an un-American, racist church.

Unless abortion is my top issue, Obama just scares me.

ricpic said...

If I give up all my freedom - what's left of it - will the Dems make me safe?

They will?

Then I'll do it!

John Althouse Cohen said...

AJ: Fine with me if abortion isn't a big issue for you, but you are a man. I'm asking specifically about the kind of pro-Hillary feminist women who think Obama is the devil. I can't believe that Clinton's extra 4 years in the Senate over Obama is what's really driving them.

Spread Eagle ® said...

Fine with me if abortion isn't a big issue for you

Abortion isn't a big issue period. Check the data. The incidence of abortion has dropped through the floor.

former law student said...

The incidence of abortion has dropped through the floor.

Really? According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1.21 million abortions were performed the last year for which they have data, 2005. Do you have any more recent data? Based on current rates, they project 1 in 3 American women will have had at least one abortion by the time they reach 45.

Regarding Finn's comment. Hillary has character flaws, particularly a lack of ability to see herself as others see her, that you could drive a Humvee through. If by machinations and backroom dealing she somehow wrested the nomination away from Obama, there was no way in hell I could vote for her. I'd vote for McCain, another person of integrity. And, as a Republican, I would be well within my rights.

former law student said...

I forgot: Can I still get a Sore Loserman bumpersticker? With a Sharpie I'd add a caret and a "Wo".

John Althouse Cohen said...

Abortion isn't a big issue period.

Again, that may be your opinion, but I really doubt that that's the belief of the pro-Hillary women.

Can anyone explain what's driving them? Do they honestly believe that counting the votes of a fake primary, in which rational voters would have stayed home out of a belief that it wouldn't count, is a major civil rights issue?

garage mahal said...

What's ironic is Obama got more delegates for taking his name off the ballot than he would had he left it on. Plus four of her delegates. I'm sure that's going to go over well. I am hoping Donna Brazille is a woman of her word, and indeed quits the Democratic party if superdelegates decide the nominee.

AJ Lynch said...

FLS - no Repulican would use data from the Guttmacher Institute. So you ain't a Republican.

John:

Those two women in the video will not need an abortion anymore :)

Re why they support Hillary,the Dem grievance groups historiaclly have included women, blacks, gays, the aged, etc. The groups have no love lost for each other and a gain by one group is viewed as a setback for another group.

I assume that explains why women and gays especially seem to be against Obama. Victory for his candidacy elevates the black grievance group ahead of women and gays and aged too.

PatCA said...

If Hillary's supporters keep embarrassing the party, and if she keeps winning primaries, she might just have a chance.

Yes, the elites suck. They want Hillary to go away. They want to nominate Obama, even if he loses, because they might win a majority in Congress (think of amnesty, and the earmark potential!) and they will wait patiently for 2012 with their minority caucuses still happy. Business as usual: it's good to be king of the Hill.

UWS guy said...

Aj Lynch: A good rule of thumb. If you feel the need to emote a smiley face at the end of a sentence, your first instinct is probably right and that sentence you wrote probably really does sound, harsh, uncaring, unchristian, derogatory, and venal.

No amount of colon/smiley faces tend to fix that.

To young master christopher: "Hell hath no fury?..."

AJ Lynch said...

UWS:

I don't need any lectures from you- once an individual's own needs are met, those needs become far less important. Abortion is no longer a priority to those two women IMO. They now want a female prez.

former law student said...

Now I'm wondering how Hillary will spin a big win in Puerto Rico (assuming she gets one): "The road to the White House has always gone through Puerto Rico"? Somehow I don't think that even Hillary could say that with a straight face.

Is there a Republican source of abortion statistics by the way? I didn't think statistics came in partisan flavors.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Fine with me if abortion isn't a big issue for you, but you are a man. I'm asking specifically about the kind of pro-Hillary feminist women who think Obama is the devil."

John, I'm a woman and a stand on abortion is probably one of the dead last items on my list of qualities of a potential political candidate. I'm a conservative and I have decided that I will not be voting for any presidential candidate this year McCain is just as disgusting to me as either Obama or Clinton. Three peas in a corrupted pea pod.

However, I as much as I dislike Hillary, I agree wholeheartedly with the women in the clips Ann posted. The election process, especially on the Dem's side, is incredibly corrupted this time around. Sexism by the media against Hillary, archaic caucusing that disenfranchises the voters (I believe you experience this yourself), corrupt media in the tank for Obama and manipulating the news if not outright lying, party bosses and other petty local bureaucrats working to get Obama elected through strong arm tactics.... the list of corruption goes on and on and on.

Women who are of (ahem) a certain age have experienced this discrimination in the work force and in ordinary life. We thought that it was better; just as we thought that racism was fading away. Now that we see that the racists exist in Trinity Church and that the Obama campaign will stoop as low as it can in it's sexist tactics..... we are pissed to the wide. The women of the Democrat party will not forget this treatment.

UWS guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
UWS guy said...

Dust bunny: You mean "White women of the Democratic Party won't forget this treatment." 'Cause black women are voting for the Barack Obama.

Blah Blah and evangelicals won't vote for McCain; The number of Liberal Democrats who won't vote for obama is small and only looks large through the lens of MSNBC trying for ratings.

Case in point? An avowed conservative female voter telling us what avowed liberal female voters are going to do (based--I suppose?, on the lack of liberal female voters stepping forward to voice this opinion themselves.)

Wingnuts mugging for TV cameras notwithstanding.

jdeeripper said...

Meet the angry white woman

Hell, I'll take your angry White woman and I'll give you Sylvia from New York.

Geddouttahere!!!

UWS guy said...

"....inadequate black male."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

UWS. I suppose you are correct. "White women" since Obama has nearly 100% of the black vote and I assume that some of that 100% are women. Women who are voting mindlessly by their race. That's their prerogative. I think that there have been many "avowed" liberal women lately expressing their outrage.

Conservative/= evangelical btw. You need to learn that if you want to conduct intelligent conversations with conservatives.

John seems to be laboring under the idea that feminism = pro abortion. Most feminists, that I know, are ambivalent about abortion and are/were more concerned with equality in employment opportunities, education, wage parity and equal respect in public and private life.

The sexist treatment of Hillary has set things back by 30 years and the obvious racism of Obama's supporters has set race relations back 40 years.

UWS guy said...

Someone should tell those women not to be so...what's the word now...hysterical.

Chip Ahoy said...

This whole Michigan/Florida thing is incredibly annoying. It was such a brilliant idea to punish those states when it came to the push and shove of power-politics within the party, but when the votes are actually needed to clarify a close race the whole thing comes back to bite. Chew, actually. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving group. But the noise! You'd get the impression, had you not had it shoved down your throats for an entire year, that it just now occurred these millions of voters might feel disenfranchised and that this might somehow be of some important consequence. As an observer with no dog in this fight, It's not possible for me to express how annoying these people are to me. I know it's unChristian of me to hope to see them spontaneously combust, but my imagination does take me to dark places sometimes for amusement.

My apartment is shaped like a U. Our balconies face each other inside the U. I'm dead center. On each side of me the residents have Obama '08 posters in their windows facing outward. It's like dueling Obamas. Whenever I see them, which is often, I think, "Idiots live there. Don't bother conversing with them, something idiotic will come out, then you'll just be annoyed."

I could regale you with incidences of intelligent people stumbling over their own intelligence due to ego or a need to control, if you had a mind for such a thing, but this dragged out incidence is no longer even funny. It's as tragic and expensive as a straight-up civil war, and worse, it's entirely contrived. How is it that Howard Dean, onetime stud, is let off the hook on this?

John Althouse Cohen said...

archaic caucusing that disenfranchises the voters (I believe you experience this yourself),

No, I did not experience this. I caucused in Texas and everything I observed seemed completely fair to me. You're thinking about my brother. We are two separate individuals, and we see the whole presidential race very differently.

I don't like the non-secret nature of caucuses. I would be fine if all the caucus states switched to primaries. But voting for McCain would be an odd way of protesting that!

You may have valid points about the caucus system and sexism in the media, but I don't see what any of that has to do with my question.

My question wasn't whether Hillary has received perfect treatment. She hasn't. BREAKING NEWS: Sexism still exists in the United States.

Neither has Obama. BREAKING NEWS: There's still racism in the United States too. And there are some people who enjoy playing the guilt-by-association game against Obama while barely mentioning all the dubious characters the Clintons have been entangled with -- which I think is slightly more consequential than whether some idiots yelled "iron my shirts" at a Hillary event.

My question is why it's an intelligent thing for a liberal, feminist, Democratic woman to do to say: "I'm voting for McCain and against Obama (or I'm staying home)." (In fairness, I'm not really directing my question to you, since you're a conservative and thus have no need to answer for why you aren't voting for Obama, since he's a liberal.)

Aside: instead of spending so much energy whining about the existence of sexism and/or racism, I wish the Democrats would be celebrating the fact that their two most successful candidates were a woman and a black person, beating out several white men. And a black person will probably become president, beating out 15 or so white men who tried to achieve it. So everyone should just COOL DOWN.

Women who are of (ahem) a certain age have experienced this discrimination in the work force and in ordinary life.

Of course, time keeps moving onward, and progress keeps getting made, so I fail to see why the experiences of "women of a certain age" should be the barometer of prejudice in current society. A better barometer would be the experiences of young women who have recently entered the workforce.

UWS guy said...

Oh those mindless black women! You're right about conservative vs. evangelical. Most evangelicals are economic liberals and social conservatives...I tend to be opposite.

I recall it was bill clinton that started this whole race stuff in North Carolina when their strategy was--this is after Iowa where 'Bama won the white vote (white female vote as well...) and the Clintons needed to turn Barack Obama into the Rev. Jesse Obama Jackson.

Ohh our selective memories!

John Althouse Cohen said...

John seems to be laboring under the idea that feminism = pro abortion. Most feminists, that I know, are ambivalent about abortion and are/were more concerned with equality in employment opportunities, education, wage parity and equal respect in public and private life.

Hold on, you're mischaracterizing my views.

There can be feminists who oppose legal abortion. I may not agree with that view, but I wouldn't necessarily criticize them as inconsistent.

I'm not just talking about "feminists."

I'm talking about people who are (1) women, and (2) feminists, and (3) committed Democrats, and (4) adamant supporters of Hillary Clinton. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that someone who fits that description probably has a pretty strong preference for keeping abortion legal.

I mean, maybe you could find a few who are pro-life or apathetic about abortion. I have no problem with that. I'm talking about the ones who are strongly pro-choice, who I'm guessing make up the sizable majority.

I really think any of them who are considering voting against Obama (McCain, Nader, or staying home) should stop, calm down, and take about 5 minutes to think about what really matters in choosing a president. The current pro-Hillary outrage is utterly unwarranted and, frankly, just loopy.

jdeeripper said...

UWS guy said...I recall it was bill clinton that started this whole race stuff in North Carolina

You recall wrong. It was South Carolina and the black vote didn't need Bill Clinton to start any "race stuff".

They were going to go with Obama over Hillary as easily as they went for Johnny Cochran over Marcia Clark. It was predictable.

this is after Iowa where 'Bama won the white vote (white female vote as well...)

Obama LOST 60+ % of the White vote in Iowa.

and the Clintons needed to turn Barack Obama into the Rev. Jesse Obama Jackson.

Or Obama's White Obamatrons needed to pretend Jesse Jackson was merely Al Sharpton despite his ability to win quite a few White votes.

Ohh our selective memories!

Indeed.

Summer Anne said...

AJ:
His resume has about 10 years as a communty organizer? WTF is that?

Here ya go.

Dust Bunny Queen:
John seems to be laboring under the idea that feminism = pro abortion. Most feminists, that I know, are ambivalent about abortion ...


Wow, we know different feminists. Also, he was referring specifically to democratic women, who care about abortion a lot.

The sexist treatment of Hillary has set things back by 30 years and the obvious racism of Obama's supporters has set race relations back 40 years.

It's cute to blame Obama's supporters for both sexism AND racism, but in response to a video clip of a white woman talking about this 'inadequate black man' running for president, it seems willfully ignorant.

We all know there are folks out there who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, and there are folks out there who won't vote for Obama because he's black, and there are folks out there who won't vote for McCain because he is old and pasty. It sucks, but that's the reality. It comes from all sides. The best we can do is try our hardest to get as many people as possible to focus on the issues instead. Throwing blame at one side or another is just exacerbating the problem.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

MY mistake, sorry for confusing your with your brother.

Women who are of (ahem) a certain age have experienced this discrimination in the work force and in ordinary life.

"Of course, time keeps moving onward, and progress keeps getting made, so I fail to see why the experiences of "women of a certain age" should be the barometer of prejudice in current society. A better barometer would be the experiences of young women who have recently entered the workforce."

I thought you wanted to know why the women in Ann's linked videos were so angry. I also thought to give you my view as a woman on this issue.

"Could someone please remind me what they think is so terrible about Obama that's more important to them than whether we get a pro-choice or pro-life president?"

I think the age of the angry women is important because they have experienced and fought against discrimination and see it all slipping backward. Women of a certain age have more experience and reference in regards to sexist discrimination.

Younger women like my daughter, who have never experienced this level of discrimination and belittling would not be any barometer as to why the Democrats have angry "white" women. I would also guess that there are some angry black feminist women. There are also I suspect some younger women who have had their eyes opened by this experience. You know we women are not all the same :-)

Again. Most feminists are more concerned with economic and social aspects and not so much with abortion in general. It isn't that Obama is the devil. I believe that their anger comes from the obvious manipulation of the election process and the sheer sexism that has been evidenced in the media and by the Obama campaign. Sexism that has been allowed and encouraged as racism would not and should not be.

In other words...it's ok to diss women and call them hysterical when they are justifiably mad. Calm down little woman.

John Althouse Cohen said...

I think the age of the angry women is important because they have experienced and fought against discrimination and see it all slipping backward. Women of a certain age have more experience and reference in regards to sexist discrimination. Younger women like my daughter, who have never experienced this level of discrimination and belittling would not be any barometer as to why the Democrats have angry "white" women.

Of course, I was granting that the age matters. I was asking why we should favor the older people. Seems to me we should favor the younger people, since their experiences are more attuned to what is going on NOW rather than in the PAST. You haven't addressed this.

You know we women are not all the same

Yeah, I know that -- for instance, most of my female friends support Obama and don't seem to be getting suckered by the trumped-up charges of sexism.

Summer Anne said...

Oh man, and
[...] just as we thought that racism was fading away. Now that we see that the racists exist in Trinity Church and that the Obama campaign will stoop as low as it can in it's sexist tactics..... we are pissed to the wide.

Yikes. So, what you're saying is you thought racism was over and now that you've seen some clips of some guy in a church talking about white people you've realized it's back -- in reverse! This is such a gross parody of a republican viewpoint that I'm starting to think you're fake.

Can you give me an example or two of the Obama campaign (not wackjob supporters who exist on every side of every political race, but the actual campaign) using explicitly 'sexist' tactics?

Summer Anne said...

In other words...it's ok to diss women and call them hysterical when they are justifiably mad. Calm down little woman.

Calling the women in the first clip hysterical isn't any more sexist than calling Jeremiah Wright unpatriotic. She's hysterical! Whether it's justified or not is something we can argue about, but hysterical she certainly is.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Yeah, I know that -- for instance, most of my female friends support Obama and don't seem to be getting suckered by the trumped-up charges of sexism."

LOL. Thank you Pauline Kael. I wasn't saying you should favor the viewpoint of the older angry women, just that you might take a moment to understand it. Obviously I can't speak for the younger woman who has had much different life experiences.

Summer: Can't you read. Fading away isn't the same thing as gone or over.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Calling the women in the first clip hysterical isn't any more sexist than calling Jeremiah Wright unpatriotic"

Quite correct. The first is a diminishing stereotype of women who express their anger as being hysterical, shrill etc. ( Actually I think the women in the clips are over the top and need to reign in their vitriol abd get a grip. They are giving us a bad name.) The second is an observation based on his words.

Aren't you so cute at 25. /pat Must be so wonderful to know everything sweet cheeks. Oh. Did you find that patronizing. Don't get hysterical.

As to Obama. He "is" inadequate. But hey. If you guys want to run your inadequate under qualified guy against the other unqualified candidate McCain. Go for it. I don't care either way. May the least destructive candidate win.

Summer Anne said...

Summer: Can't you read. Fading away isn't the same thing as gone or over.

Sorry, was that a response? Okay, let me revise: so you thought racism was fading away and then you changed your mind because of Trinity Church? Can you agree with that statement, and if so, would you like me to provide some relevant and recent examples of racism in our society that actually affects people's lives, disenfranchises them, or gets them killed?

Beth said...

She's hysterical!

No, she's angry. What about anger is "hysterical"?

Beth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
UWS guy said...

Having a woman call any man "inadequate" is casting doubts to his virility.

Obama can't please the democratic women...

Hillary can...

DNC needs more lesbians.

Beth said...

Seems to me we should favor the younger people, since their experiences are more attuned to what is going on NOW rather than in the PAST.

At 48, my experience continues to be in the present tense; my existence and experiences are not relegated to the past. I'm no less "attuned to what is going on NOW" than any other living, working, voting woman. Instead, it's to my benefit that in addition to be conscious and aware of NOW, I have the context of my past to help me understand the present. Perhaps your younger friends don't see any sexism in this election experience because they lack the context to do so.

garage mahal said...

This was the discussion last Sunday on MTP. No one could figure any of this out! Six panelists for an hour couldn't name one instance of sexism, yet on MSNBC alone there were four employees on that very network that were either fired, suspended, or publicly apologized for sexist and/or weird comments toward Hillary. Instead, they put words into her mouth implying she said she was losing because of it, which she has never said. Yep, these older women are living in the past for calling out sexism happening NOW.

UWS guy said...

Hysteria...lesbian. Very greek. You know, when I was googling the correct spelling of hysteria (I'm really bad...tried to spell it histeria first time...)

The Wiki page on hysteria has a section of the Victorians 'cure' which was comprised of Male doctors alleviating the symptoms via 'orgasmic massages' to the womans pelvis.

sufficient to to say this was a very popular therapy among male Victorian doctors in mental hospitals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria

Summer Anne said...

Quite correct. The first is a diminishing stereotype of women who express their anger as being hysterical, shrill etc. ( Actually I think the women in the clips are over the top and need to reign in their vitriol abd get a grip. They are giving us a bad name.) The second is an observation based on his words.

I'm confused. You seem to be saying I'm correct in equating calling these women shrill with calling Jeremiah Wright, and then following that up by trying to make some kind of distinction and claiming that the former claim is based on an old stereotype and the latter is based on fact? Anyway, just because there's an unfair stereotype doesn't mean you can't point out an individual embodying those characteristics. Shall we never describe a black man who's murdered someone as 'violent'? The woman in the first clip isn't just 'angry' or 'expressing her views', she's HYSTERICAL. She's whining and shrieking and not articulating a goddamn thing. If she was a dude I would use the same adjective.

Aren't you so cute at 25. /pat Must be so wonderful to know everything sweet cheeks. Oh. Did you find that patronizing. Don't get hysterical.

How come you don't use question marks when you're asking a question? Is that meant to designate a rhetorical question? I found it a little patronizing, but also sad and desperate. Why is it that a young person engaging in an argument is almost always immediately accused of thinking they know everything? Obviously there are a lot of factors that affect our knowledge and our ability to discourse intelligently with one another. One of those factors is age. There's also IQ and life experience and relevant reading and written skills & & &... I wouldn't hesitate to admit that you and the women in these clips know more about some things than I do. Childbirth and menopause both spring to mind. I can also say with confidence that I know more about Hillary Clinton than most women twice my age, whether they support her or not.

UWS guy said...

Charlie Wilson's War was an underrated film. Levity makes a better point that turgid earnestness.

UWS guy said...

Can there be inadequate turgidness in a man?

titus?

UWS guy said...

Why am I trying to court jester in this comment section today.

This question is rhetorical. Isn't it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Summer: Can't you read. Fading away isn't the same thing as gone or over."

Sorry, was that a response? Okay, let me revise: so you thought racism was fading away and then you changed your mind because of Trinity Church? Can you agree with that statement, and if so, would you like me to provide some relevant and recent examples of racism in our society that actually affects people's lives, disenfranchises them, or gets them killed?

No it wasn't a response because you were asking me to respond to a statement that I didn't make. It was an observation.

You also 'assume' that Trinity Church is why I feel that our delusion that racism had been receding...not gone....not over.....receding. But I'll go ahead and respond to that false statement anyway. The overt racism in that particular church and the acceptance that it is normal is just one aspect of my feeling. The other is the overwhelming white vote for Hillary which is a backlash to the recent clips of Wright and Father whatshisname. Both are revealing and disappointing. The curtain is being pulled back on racism and sexism and it is an ugly sight we had hoped was fading away. (not gone)

Don't bother to give me examples of racism. I know they exist. I also have the perspective of having lived in the segregated south briefly as a child and having gone through the 60's civil rights movement. You have the perspective of about 7 years of adult life. Get back to me when you have some experiences. Don't get hysterical now. ;-)

But to try to get some commality with you: I too am eagerly awaiting Spore.

Beth said...

Childbirth and menopause both spring to mind.

What makes you assume they've had children? Or experienced menopause, or peri-menopause? And that's all you can come up with? You're reducing their experience to biological benchmarks. How patronizing.

Summer Anne said...

No, she's angry. What about anger is "hysterical"?

"Hillary's state! The best nominee that's possible. And the democrats are throwing the election away! For what? An inadequate black male would it not have been a white woman that was running for president. I'm not gonna shut my mouth anymore! I can be called white, but you can't be called black. That's not my America! It's equality for all of us and it's about time we all stood up for it. I'm no second class citizen and GODDAMN THE DEMOCRATS! [...] Why would you like my name? Maybe you're in the CIA, the FBI?"

UWS guy said...

Got to admit though; "no-bama" is a good line.

michael farris said...

I don't think there's that much wrong with Obama, I just don't think there's that much right either.

I say this as someone who wasn't bothered at all by anything Wright (a non-candidate) said (Pfleger's race libel was a lot worse).
That Obama has to distance himself from his church is a symptom of just how dysfunctionally stupid American politics can be.

I do think that after eight or twelve years of getting his hide toughened up in Washington Obama might have been a great candidate. I sometimes wonder if his campaign this election cycle was a rehearsal run that got out of hand.

I don't think much of either McCain's or Obama's chances of being a good president. I think they'd be bad presidents in different ways but I mostly honestly don't care which one wins.

The election this reminds me of most was 1988 (though I think Obama's chances are a lot better than Dukakis's) I really didn't want to vote for either and so I didn't. Bush was bad but I don't think Dukakis would have been any better.

Summer Anne said...

Beth:

What makes you assume they've had children? Or experienced menopause, or peri-menopause? And that's all you can come up with? You're reducing their experience to biological benchmarks. How patronizing.

I was making a dig in response to a specific commenters intentionally patronizing implication that my opinion is inconsequential because of my age. It was meant to be sarcastic: Obviously, I don't know anything about their life experience based on age, nor does DBQ know anything about my supposed lack thereof.

Dust Bunny:

The curtain is being pulled back on racism and sexism and it is an ugly sight we had hoped was fading away. (not gone)

On this we can agree. What I have a problem with was your blaming Obama's supporters for all of the sexism AND all of the racism in the current fight. That's silly.

I also have the perspective of having lived in the segregated south briefly as a child and having gone through the 60's civil rights movement. You have the perspective of about 7 years of adult life. Get back to me when you have some experiences. Don't get hysterical now. ;-)

This is vapid. How much do you want to delve into comparing our resumes for the position of being able to engage with each other on a blog? What do you define as adult life? I've been working and paying taxes since I was 14. The first time I worked on a political campaign, I was 9. The first time I discussed Hillary Clinton, I was probably 5 or 6. As for having a perspective on racism, mine is modern and personal, yours is historical. Whose is better? I don't know. Can we talk about something else?

But to try to get some commality with you: I too am eagerly awaiting Spore.

I know, right? It'll be out by the time the general election rolls around and I'll probably have officially checked out of reality and into that creature creator.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Counting Michigan and Florida is a big deal, and if you think it isn't, wait until November when those two states punish the Democrats by voting Republican. Everyone in those two states should have the attitude that if the DNC doesn't want their votes in the primary, the DNC won't get their votes in November.

Blocking the re-vote, taking your name off the ballot as a political move to invalidate a state you know you won't do well in, and then having the party only count the delegates when it's past the point when it could make a difference and in a skewed way that insures it couldn't make a difference, all as a way of allocating the delegates definitively to the popular vote loser...all of that seems a little hypocritical for the party that still talks about how Gore really won Florida in 2000. By the way, her popular vote lead would be higher, not lower, if Florida and Michigan had had normal primaries, even with Obama's name being on the ballot in Michigan.

The real outrage should've been when they didn't have re-votes in those two states. They never came up with a satisfactory explanation for why it didn't happen. It could've been paid for, they had enough time, the issue of not being able to figure out what kind of an election it should be was completely bogus. That all made it seem like it was just a back room deal to rig the election for Obama, because they knew she would be definitively ahead in the popular vote if there were re-votes in those states. They deserve to lose in November for that reason alone.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"I was making a dig in response to a specific commenters intentionally patronizing implication that my opinion is inconsequential because of my age. It was meant to be sarcastic: Obviously, I don't know anything about their life experience based on age, nor does DBQ know anything about my supposed lack thereof"

Now you are getting it. Patronizing because of your age or patronizing because of your sex. Same irritation isn't it? That was my point in being rude to you and it worked. Take that same patronizing and irritation and extend it for 20 years or so and just when you think it is over. Wham....back again.

"It'll (Spore) be out by the time the general election rolls around and I'll probably have officially checked out of reality and into that creature creator."

This is our chance to be God.

reader_iam said...

At 48, my experience continues to be in the present tense; my existence and experiences are not relegated to the past. I'm no less "attuned to what is going on NOW" than any other living, working, voting woman.

Beth, you beat me to it. That is almost precisely what I was going to type ... almost, because I'm 47, not 48.

UWS guy said...

Christopher: A Democrat who didn't vote in (I forget if it was michigan or florida) said that to now count all the votes would disenfranchise those democrats who "didn't" vote on account that they were told the primary didn't count.

A full re-vote would have given Florida and Michigan exactly what they wanted in the beginning; A stronger hand in determining who the nominee was to be.

They wanted to go early in order to feel important and to help control the direction of the primary election. To allow them to go last now...gives them the same thing.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Chris:

What about the fact that all the campaigns agreed not to count Florida or Michigan, including the Clinton campaign? By your logic, even if Clinton did end up being the nominee, the citizens of those states should punish her in November -- she tried to disenfranchise them too.

Hillary's attempt to count the votes as they actually happened in Florida and Michigan is disenfranchising the citizens of those states who rationally decided not to vote because they were under the impression -- thanks to Hillary Clinton and others -- that it wouldn't count. It's hypocritical of her to try to count them now based on cries of disenfranchisement.

Do you have any actual evidence that Obama tried to block the revote? As I remember, there was tons of state and party machinery that was unwilling to do it. And it's not clear that there would have been enough time or money to put it together.

Again, I see absolutely no reason for Democratic voters not to vote for Obama out of protest (I'm not at all talking about garden-variety reasons not to vote for him such as lack of experience or positions on specific issues).

Summer Anne said...

Now you are getting it. Patronizing because of your age or patronizing because of your sex. Same irritation isn't it? That was my point in being rude to you and it worked. Take that same patronizing and irritation and extend it for 20 years or so and just when you think it is over. Wham....back again.

But where are the examples of the Obama campaign using sexism? I understand some of the irritation with the news media, although I tend to agree with Ann that most of that is trumped up (the media makes fun of everyone but every time they make fun of her it's automatically labeled as sexist). One of the reasons why I would describe the woman in the top clip as 'hysterical' is that she makes statements I don't understand the substance behind. Do people really think that the reason Barack Obama is running is to stop a white woman from being elected? That's crazy talk, ladies! And, not to get 'hysterical', but it seems to me like that's pretty racist. "This inadequate black man is trying to steal something from this white woman. Just like that guy who stole my purse!" He's running for president because he wants to be president.

John Althouse Cohen said...

I should add that I think it's terrible that things went so badly in Florida and Michigan, and I think there's a lot of blame to go around, including the states themselves and all the Democratic campaigns. If Obama tried to prevent a revote from happening (which I don't know if he did), then I simply disagree with him on that even though I support him as a candidate.

But for anyone who supports abortion rights, gay rights, universal health care, and ending the Iraq war to vote for the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate in November would call into question their sanity.

I'm still waiting to hear the rational, sane, intelligent, cool-headed argument for Democrats not to vote for Obama. Face it: there is none.

UWS guy said...

Obama out Lawyered the the Clintons. The problem in 2000 is that Al Gore got schooled by Bushes lawyers.

He's out manouvered them for a good two months now. The behind the scenes stuff must have been quite machivellian, this makes him a better candidate against republicans.

Her camp and her campaign were amateurs in comparison. Instead of being ruthless they were ham handed. Instead of being canny, she cried.

She got beat on every field of battle.

reader_iam said...

I do also want to say that not only is John's central point sound, but I'm surprised it's not obvious. I know he's now said this a number of times, and perfectly clearly by my lights, but let me give it a try:

If you are a Democrat and your position on most issues is more closely akin to the standard liberal (no pejorative overtones intended or meant) set, in these United States in 2008, it does not make sense--from a positions standpoint--to vote for the Republican candidate over a Democratic alternative.

I don't see that there's a lot to debate there.

Now, if for strategic reasons you'd rather see a less-preferred candidate lose in hopes of getting another chance in four years, that's a different story.

(Independents and others are a whole different category. But I think we're talking here specifically about activist, or at least passionate, Democrats with the standard set of liberal positions.)

garage mahal said...

What about the fact that all the campaigns agreed not to count Florida or Michigan, including the Clinton campaign?

That's never been a fact. The only thing they agreed to was not to campaign there. She's been bring up FL & MI since January. And your idea imaginary people and their imaginary intents are equal to people that showed up and voted never made any sense to me.

She got beat on every field of battle.

Except for actual people pulling levers, yeah!

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

uws guy: That's your argument in favor of disenfranchising the states of Michigan and Florida? Yes, counting those states would make them important for the election. A lot of people live there. Anything that causes them to be unimportant is just a way of rigging the election for Obama. The more you try to justify disenfranchising them, the more obvious it is that the Democrats don't deserve their votes in November.

The person who really needs to just go away is Howard Dean. As for Obama, his 15 minutes will expire on their own.

UWS guy said...

If you give her some North Korean level of "winning" in a state. Which is to say, she won 100% of the vote!

lol, are you really saying that she, being the only name on the ballot deserves it all? No one would have voted differently if Kim Ill Clinton weren't the only name on the ballot?

Is your argument hinging on the ballot looking like something out of soviet russia?

Only in that rubric does she win the popular vote. If you give him even 30% he still maintains popular vote lead.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

John: the reason you don't understand why "Democrats" are going to vote against Obama is because you assume everyone falls strictly into one party or the other and that Hillary's supporters are all loyal Democrats. It might be useful, if you're going to talk about the general election, to acknowledge the existence of swing voters. Some of her supporters always vote across-the-board Democrat, and some of them are independent enough to not be eternally committed to one party. It's really not that complicated or confusing.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Well, no that actually is "confusing." I know that not everyone is a straightforward Democrat or Republican. But the people who are most riled-up about the Democratic primaries probably are pretty committed Democrats. I'm talking about a specific subset of Democratic primary voters, not just "voters" or "swing voters" in general.

Beth said...

As for having a perspective on racism, mine is modern and personal, yours is historical.

This is ridiculous and foolish. You seem to think that someone older than you exists only in a historical context. DBQ, me, anyone alive right this minute is experiencing events in as modern and personal a fashion as you are. You're trying to find a way to say "you're living in the past" without actually taking responsibility for saying something so inane and insulting.

reader_iam said...

all of that seems a little hypocritical for the party that still talks about how Gore really won Florida in 2000

Yet the rules by which the 2008 Dem primaries/caucuses were to be run were set AFTER 2000. They were finalized WITH the benefit, if that's the right word, of hindsight and the experience of 2000.

Personally, I keep coming back to that: how the rules were set up and that there were set rules, period.

I'm mighty, mighty curious to see how the Democratic Party plans to enforce party discipline with regard to orderly primary/caucus processes in the future. Precedents have consequences.

(Please do note that I'm not a political party loyalist, either by history or temperament, so a good chunk of me couldn't care less. But from an analytical and intellectual standpoint, I do and will find this interesting.)

UWS guy said...

The MacBeths were undone by their tragic flaws...as all shakespearean characters are.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Beth: You know, you started out asserting that your views are superior because they are steeped in "historical context."

Of course, "historical context" is a euphemism for "the past."

Now you're insisting that you're just as in-the-moment as anyone else.

Isn't that a contradiction? Which is it -- are people's current experiences what really matter? In that case, there's no reason to denigrate the experiences of people in their 20s. Or should we be mired in the past, insisting that things can't be that much better for women than they were decades ago? Choose one or the other.

reader_iam said...

Beth: Once again, you beat me to it! You go, girlfriend (and age-cohort compatriot)!

garage mahal said...

Is your argument hinging on the ballot looking like something out of soviet russia?


Who's fault was that? He received ALL uncommitted delegates. Plus 4 of hers! So that means some people that voted for Hillary may end up going for Obama, who TOOK HIS NAME OFF THE BALLOT. So the DNC broke it's own rules, and made one up straight out of their ass. Rules are rules, except when they aren't.

Simon said...

John Althouse Cohen said...
"[F]or anyone who supports abortion rights, gay rights, universal health care, and ending the Iraq war to vote for the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate in November would call into question their sanity. ¶ I'm still waiting to hear the rational, sane, intelligent, cool-headed argument for Democrats not to vote for Obama."

Perhaps because not all rational, sane, inteligent cool-headed Democrats support universal health care and ending the Iraq war. That cuts away a lot of your point, because the other two points you identify are categories not policies, and people's views on them are more ambiguous.

Beth said...

But for anyone who supports abortion rights, gay rights, universal health care, and ending the Iraq war to vote for the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate in November would call into question their sanity.

I agree whole-heartedly. And I agree, too, that the people most upset with this primary are Democrats frustrated with their party's self-destructive machinations--I don't believe that six months from now they'll be voting for McCain.

I won't have any regrets clicking the little X by Obama in November; really, only an idiot would, out of anger over this primary, vote for McCain or maybe Nader or whatever third-party holier-than-thou is running, no matter how well-grounded that anger might be. In 2000, I argued the same thing. Having the self-righteous satisfaction of some imaginary moral superiority in voting for that snake-oil salesman Nader was not worth the actual outcome of seeing Bush take office.

Simon said...

Summer Anne said...
"Do people really think that the reason Barack Obama is running is to stop a white woman from being elected? That's crazy talk, ladies! And, not to get 'hysterical', but it seems to me like that's pretty racist. "

The new Godwin's law: in any protracted argument over Obama, the probability of an Obama supporter crying racism approaches one.

somefeller said...

I'm still waiting to hear the rational, sane, intelligent, cool-headed argument for Democrats not to vote for Obama. Face it: there is none.

Correct. While I was a Hillary supporter in the primaries, there is no good argument for Democrats to vote for someone other than Obama in the general election. We're not talking about swing voters, independents or even Democratic-leaning people who are agnostic on social issues, we're talking about Democratic partisans who consider abortion rights and other liberal feminist issues to be important in their political ideology (as J.A.C. pointed out specifically in his earlier comments). I have no doubt that there will be pro-choice Democrats who vote for McCain over Obama in the general election, and I'd suggest to you that such people either aren't thinking things through in any rational fashion or their vote is motivated by some not-very-decent reasons (though the two aren't mutually exclusive, obviously).

reader_iam said...

John: I'm not sure it was Beth who started out by saying that (meaning, I think this portion of the conversation started elsewhere, and Beth responded to parts of it, as am I). I disagree that "historical context" is precisely the same thing as "past."

I think it's unreasonable and WRONG if/when older women say their experience of being, say, 25 back whenever is more valuable or valid then a current 25-year-old's, well, current experience. (I don't think that's at all what Beth, at least, was saying, by the way). HOWEVER, I think it's equally unreasonable to say a woman of 25 is better able to access sexism in current times than a woman of 35 or 45 in current times. Because, well, they're both going through, simultaneously, current times.

John, you wrote this: A better barometer would be the experiences of young women who have recently entered the workforce. This is the part of what you've stated with which I take issue, and I suspect Beth is probably in the same place.

John Stodder said...

If you are a Democrat and your position on most issues is more closely akin to the standard liberal (no pejorative overtones intended or meant) set, in these United States in 2008, it does not make sense--from a positions standpoint--to vote for the Republican candidate over a Democratic alternative.

I don't see that there's a lot to debate there.


That's what I would've thought, but in this election year, that assumption is a serious fallacy.

For example, my 60-year-old Lesbian barber began this election cycle thrilled that she was finally going to have the chance to vote for a woman president, one who seemed to be a lock to win in November. Now she sees this "empty suit," Obama, with nowhere near the experience or qualifications of Hillary, being chosen over him. This has been a deeply shocking development to her and her friends. To her, it seems like the nomination was stolen with the active connivance of the media.

The only criticism she accepted of Clinton's campaign was that Bill should've stayed in the background, because he reminded everyone of their "Clinton fatigue."

But the bottom line is, in her view, the difference between Clinton and Obama is one is qualified to be president and the other is not. This woman hates Bush and Cheney, but she seemed ready to vote for McCain because she sees him as also qualified and less right-wing.

In the end, I doubt she'll vote for McCain. But she will not vote for Obama, despite his ideology being closer to hers.

But the attachment to the Democratic party has been weakened for those who see the party as having selected an unqualified man over a qualified woman. They see it as deeply and irredeemably sexist, and will hold it against the party for a lot longer than 2008. I don't think Hillary stumping for Obama in the fall will change that, unless she's on the ticket -- and even then, the unqualified/qualified contrast will rankle.

How pissed off do you think Democratic women would have to be to show up as a party event to chant "McCain in '08?" This smug confidence that they'll all come back in November is mistaken. The ones who are angry will mostly not come back. They hate Obama and they really hate his supporters.

Summer Anne said...

Beth,

John said pretty much what I wanted to say, but: I agree with you in a general sense, but you're taking my comment out of context. In your quote, I was specifically responding to DBQ's assertion that I didn't understand racism (especially as it applies to the current political climate) as well as she does because I didn't live through the civil rights movement. I think that's bullshit. I was calling her on it, and arguing that my experiences with racism in the 90s and 00s are just as, if not more, relevant to racism in this campaign, as the experience she was citing with racism in the 60s. She was the one who orginally implied that her experience -- with sexism or racism -- was inherently linked to the past and therefore superior to mine, and my response was 'what about the present?' I wouldn't have ever raised the issue of age as part of this debate, but I do feel the need to respond to the implication that I don't understand these issues because I'm in my 20s.

reader_iam said...

Also, having experiential and historical context under one's belt is NOT the same thing as "living in the past." Implying otherwise is every bit as patronizing as telling someone, to paraphrase, "get back to me when you have a few more years under your belt." Just sayin'.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Of course, "historical context" is a euphemism for "the past."

No, it isn't.

Historical context and perspective is the ability to be able to compare, contrast and analyse one thing against another based on history AND current events. You don't need to have 'lived' through a period to have historical context as Beth, Reader and myself have although it helps. (I'm 58 got 10 years on you Beth lol)

I use historical context and perspective everyday in my occupation. I'd be a piss poor financial advisor if I didn't.

You need to be able to look beyond your nose and your current circumstances and use context. If you refuse to acknowledge the past as it affects the now then you are living in a narrow self blinded world.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Simon: You're simply missing the point, and everything I was talking about is "policy." Supporting or opposing gay rights or abortion rights are policy stances.

It's not worth my time to keep saying over and over that I understand that people don't all fall into neat little categories. Everyone knows that, and no one is claiming otherwise.

I'm not talking about the extremely small number of voters who are so passionate about Hillary Clinton that they despise Barack Obama for trying to defeat her -- yet who actually prefer McCain to Obama on substantive grounds (because, say, they just love invading countries). I'm talking about the ones who are straightforwardly liberal, meaning it'd be a weird decision for them to vote for McCain.

Beth said...

Jonathan, you began by asserting that the experiences of young women in the NOW were more relevant than the experiences of older women who you indicate represent the PAST (all-caps yours, not mine). My reply is that, as we age, we have a continuum of experience that includes both the past and the present. There's no contradiction there. I don't have to choose any of my life experiences as more valid than others based simply on when they occurred. I leave room for meaningful revelations in the future as well. And I might well evaluate anything coming down the pike through the lens of my entire life experience, if it is useful to do so.

Nor am I denigrating the experiences of people who are young right now. I am calling into question the idea that those young people's perspectives are somehow more valid than those of people who have not only the present but the past to draw on in experiencing the present.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Beth says it better than I do. I'll shut up now and go play World of Warcraft.

reader_iam said...

JohnStodder: So, what you're saying is a whole bunch of Democrats--who are traditionally Democrats by ideology (meaning, the general positions and philosophies held by the party)--are going to become swing voters?

That really IS an interesting observation. Because traditional swing voters (I'm one; and yes, I know by definition we're not monolithic) have, at least in my estimation, different mindsets and temperaments than what these disaffected swing voters would bring to the table.

Food for thought.

somefeller said...

How pissed off do you think Democratic women would have to be to show up as a party event to chant "McCain in '08?" This smug confidence that they'll all come back in November is mistaken. The ones who are angry will mostly not come back. They hate Obama and they really hate his supporters.

You're right, they are pissed off, and I don't think J.A.C. is showing smug confidence they will all come back in November. What he is saying, and what I agree with, is that anyone who was a Hillary supporter because they are pro-choice Democratic feminists (which I think is a safe way to describe the people who are most angry about Hillary losing, other than her close friends and family) and who votes for McCain in the November is doing so for reasons that aren't rational or defensible. And for the record, I am concerned about that and not smugly confident all of them will come around in November, because I've heard the "I'm so angry, I'll vote for McCain" comments from some serious Clinton supporters myself. Obama and his crew will need to work to get as many of these folks back into the fold for November, and part of the work will involve getting them to not let anger get in the way of good decision-making.

Summer Anne said...

The new Godwin's law: in any protracted argument over Obama, the probability of an Obama supporter crying racism approaches one.

You know what I'm tired of? People who don't have a substantive response to something yawning from the couch about 'Obama supporters'. For the record, I think that the comment you were referencing might be the first time that I have ever accused a specific clip / Clinton supporter / what-have-you as being racist. Whereas Every Single argument re: HRC I've seen in the last few weeks has 'cried' sexism. I don't think it's outlandish to say that examples like this one:

To her, it seems like the nomination was stolen with the active connivance of the media.

reek of racism to me.

The election was NOT 'stolen'. No matter how much we argue about Florida and Michigan and caucuses and whatnot, we can all agree that lots and lots and lots of people support Barack Obama. The underlying tone of the woman in this video clip and other HRC supporters who are planning to defect from the democratic party over this is that Clinton deserved this, and that was taken from her by Obama. Suddenly old white people are 'disenfranchised'? Why, exactly? Because so many black people turned up to vote? Because so many young people who would normally be sitting at home during the primary season got energized about Barack? No one's stealing anything, and no candidate 'deserves' the nomination more than the other 'until' there's a winner.

reader_iam said...

reek of racism to me.

I don't think that reeks of racism. I think it reeks of rank candidate partisanship, but not racism, per se. I do think there was, and is, a strong sense of entitlement on Hillary Clinton's part, and I do think that, therefore, Obama's success has rankled. But I think it rankles her due to issues of traditional political "dues paying," of "whose turn it is" in terms of time on the national political stage and the Democratic Party stage, and NOT because Sen. Obama's race.

I just don't see the racism in the example you provided. Ageism, maybe (Hey, you whippersnapper! Wait your turn!), even though I think that's to reductionist. But not racism.

Summer Anne said...

Nor am I denigrating the experiences of people who are young right now. I am calling into question the idea that those young people's perspectives are somehow more valid than those of people who have not only the present but the past to draw on in experiencing the present.

I agree with you here. My comments were in response to my experiences as a young person right now actively being denigrated, so I took a harsh tone.

But I will devil's advocate just a bit and say that I do think there's an argument that could be made about youth having a certain type of experience with the present that differs from an older person's. I would venture to say that my mother has a different, and in some ways much richer and deeper, experience with the Vietnam war and the protests surrounding it, than her mother who was alive at the time as well. And, taking that the next step, I don't think that she [mom] would object to me saying that even though we are both experiencing the present, I experience certain types of issues in the present more 'deeply' than she does by proxy of being young. In the context of this discussion, for example, abortion rights impact my actual life in a way that they don't impact the life of most older women, and the stakes on that particular issue are much higher for me, which is why I had to balk at the statement made earlier that abortion isn't 'that' important to 'most' feminists...

Summer Anne said...

I don't think that reeks of racism. I think it reeks of rank candidate partisanship, but not racism, per se. I do think there was, and is, a strong sense of entitlement on Hillary Clinton's part, and I do think that, therefore, Obama's success has rankled. But I think it rankles her due to issues of traditional political "dues paying," of "whose turn it is" in terms of time on the national political stage and the Democratic Party stage, and NOT because Sen. Obama's race.

What about the clip Ann provided? Why did the woman feel the need to talk about race so much? Why not just say that HRC has been ousted by 'the other candidate' rather than squeal about a 'black male'? And, seriously, what's up with the implication that he wouldn't be running at all if a white woman hadn't been running?

Beth said...

reader says: "John, you wrote this: A better barometer would be the experiences of young women who have recently entered the workforce. This is the part of what you've stated with which I take issue, and I suspect Beth is probably in the same place."

That's correct, reader. Thanks. I also suspect any young woman in her 20s right now who has recently entered the workforce is going to experience some changes in her views over the next two decades. I sincerely hope that she'll have much to celebrate.

reader_iam said...

I was responding to the specific italicized phrase you used, and, also--which I totally failed to indicate--some conversations IRL to which I've been privy in which some Obama supporters seemed to be saying that Hillary was enraged, specifically and especially, that she wasn't getting what she was entitled to because of a black man. As if she wouldn't be pissed in general, no matter who it was.

That's the backdrop to my comment. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

***

As for the angry woman video, etc.: frankly, I saw excerpts of tapes yesterday and also read, among other things, Eve Fairbanks' blog post (I think I linked to that here yesterday in one of Althouse's threads?) from yesterday and was so disgusted that I've avoided watching anything that's likely to cause me to repeat the experience today. Yesterday's enough was plenty for me this weekend.

Beth said...

but I do feel the need to respond to the implication that I don't understand these issues because I'm in my 20s.

Fair enough. I think one of the problems in this dialogue has been the context of "better than" or "not as well," as though we're measuring understanding and experience. I still think you're giving short shrift to difference. Your racism example is perfectly valid; of course you have every ability and perspective to critique racism in this election, and our current culture. But DBQ might well have something to add to that current perspective simply from having the visceral memory of encountering a whites-only public accomodation. I'd bet my experiences with racism as a Southerner will differ qualitatively (probably quantitatively as well) from that of someone living in say, Madison, WI, even while we'd both have the same opportunities to study and observe racism as a cultural phenomenon through a variety of media. It doesn't make my voice more important, but it means I might have something meaningful to add to the dialogue.

michael farris said...

Obama supporters: Patience and goodwill are called for. A lot of pro-Clinton anti-Obama rhetoric right now is simple venting - a human reaction to a hard fought loss. Most of the anger will go away in time.
Lesson learned: Obama is not a uniter and November will be close. Be gracious and understanding in victory, you'll need those pissed off Clinton voters then.

Clinton supporters: At this point in time she has lost and her chances of turning it around now are approximately nil. She ran a decent if not inspired campaign and for the most hated woman in America she did pretty well, but she lost.

To both sides: cool off or learn to like the sound of Decide if you like the sound of "President John McCain".

michael farris said...

"cool off or learn to like the sound of Decide if you like the sound of "President John McCain"."

That'll teach me to post sober.

That should be:
"cool off or learn to like the sound of "President John McCain"."

Beth said...

I experience certain types of issues in the present more 'deeply' than she does by proxy of being young.

Sure, that makes sense, and echoes my thoughts on the complexity of the nature of experience. I would agree that one's depth of experience at any given moment can have to do with one's relative position to the issue. But there are issues I experience less deeply now because I've already come to grips with them. It doesn't mean I live in the past regarding those issues; it means I've put them into a context over time.

James said...

DBQ:

You mention sexism plenty in your posts here, but the only specific "evidence" I have seen is the supposed support of an "inexperienced" man over an "experienced" woman.

However, back when Hillary was the "inevitable candidate" and her main argument was her experience, conservatives and other non-Hillary supporters scoffed. Everyone pointed out how strange it seemed for her to be counting her time as First Lady (of both Arkansas and the US) as the kind of experience necessary for a President. And at that time, I don't remember anyone contending that it was "sexist" to do so. Unfortunately for Obama, he could not exactly take this line of attack, because it would simply point out that he also lacked that experience, so he had to make the argument that "experience" in the traditional political circles is exactly what we are trying to get away from (i.e. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is not desirable). And guess what, that argument spoke to many people.

Clinton is not in her current position due to sexism, but due to a poorly run campaign. She thought that winning the big states, along with her (at the time) overwhelming support from the party elite superdelegates, would be enough, while Obama took the campaign to every state (all 57 of them! :P). Up until the the first major news story regarding Rev. Wright, and then the "bitter" comments, Obama ran a near-perfect campaign, and by that time, he already had all the momentum.

(PS - How was she ever such the heavy favorite if sexism was such a major factor? "Experience" can't be the answer, because there certainly were more "experienced" (although crappier) candidates in Richardson, Biden, and even Edwards. Did all of us raging sexists simply forget about our sexism until the primaries started, or did we forget that she was a woman?)

Beth said...

Beth says it better than I do. I'll shut up now and go play World of Warcraft.

DBQ: I was about to post that same thing, subbing DBQ for Beth, many comments ago in this thread, but then I got caught up in it. Except the WoW part -- hey, you're pretty hip for an old broad.

I'd be playing more games if I weren't a Mac user. My office mate continues to harass me over this point.

Beth said...

michael's comment of 3:00 pm makes much sense (save for that last line, of course).

John Stodder said...

anyone who was a Hillary supporter because they are pro-choice Democratic feminists (which I think is a safe way to describe the people who are most angry about Hillary losing, other than her close friends and family) and who votes for McCain in the November is doing so for reasons that aren't rational or defensible

Well, that's a pretty sweeping judgment. Politics isn't as binary as you make it sound.

One can be a pro-choice feminist but vote for McCain (or stay home knowing the result will be his election) because, first of all, legal abortion is not really threatened anymore in any serious way, and secondly because your feminist side is offended by Hillary's perceived experience being discarded because she's a woman.

If you've planted your flag for Hillary on the theory that her experience should be a deciding factor, one could rationally and defensibly proceed to decide that you only want to vote for a candidate who are qualified by experience for the job. One could determine (and Hillary is saying this openly) that there are two candidates who pass that test: Hillary and McCain. Hillary was your first choice for various other reasons, but if she's not the candidate, then you might rationally and defensibly choose McCain, or by not voting, allow McCain to win.

One might find a lot to like about Obama's positions and other qualities, but end up deciding rationally that he cannot be a successful president; and that the country cannot afford another failure seemingly due to inexperience.

The two comparative precedents that hurt Obama in this kind of analysis are George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter: Polar opposites ideologically, but comparable in the causes for their failed administrations: Insularity, arrogance, naivete, and above all lack of relevant experience.

But a lot of what's going on, as I see it, comes down to respect. Hillary's supporters think she, and they, are being disrespected right now by a seeming conspiracy between the media and the Democratic party establishment. If you don't respect me, I probably won't be listening to you when you tell me all the ways in which you're just as good as the candidate you illegitimately supplanted.

Mind you, I'm just channeling what I'm picking up from some women I know.

However, my personal journey from Obama supporter to Obama skeptic is also based on my sense of his poor judgment rooted in inexperience. As a political message, this seems like a killer, one he will find difficult to overcome. Obama accumulated his big delegate lead before his inexperience became so central to his public image; and he's kept it because of the party's rules, not on the merits.

John Stodder said...

back when Hillary was the "inevitable candidate" and her main argument was her experience, conservatives and other non-Hillary supporters scoffed. Everyone pointed out how strange it seemed for her to be counting her time as First Lady (of both Arkansas and the US) as the kind of experience necessary for a President.

This is true. However, do you think McCain could get away with making a charge of inexperience stick against Hillary like he'll be able to do against Obama? No, it would be laughable.

Having Hillary as his foe would frame the election in terms far more favorable to the Democratic message, i.e. Bush sucks, the Bush economy sucks, the war sucks, health care sucks, why would you want more of the same when you can have more of what came before Bush sucks took office. Hillary neutralizes McCain's potential strength with independent voters.

If Obama's the nominee, the fall campaign will be all about flyspecking Obama. It will be assumed McCain is more prepared to serve as president. Obama will have to come up with a rationale that surpasses McCain's greater qualifications, or more to the point, his lesser ones. I don't think he can do it, mostly because I don't think he's that good. He can't hope-and-change his way through three debates and a barrage of negative ads raising questions about who he really is. He's not offering the independent voter any particular reason to take a flyer with him.

Cedarford said...

UWS guy said...
Obama out Lawyered the the Clintons. The problem in 2000 is that Al Gore got schooled by Bushes lawyers.

Actually, Gore doomed himself not with inadequate lawyer sharks trying to win his election in the courts, but his strategy of losing Tennessee, Arkansas, New Hampshire, and yes, Florida - with his rabid anti-gun stance that got him the SF, liberal Jewish donors but lost him the electoral vote.
Then doomed himself yet again with insistance Florida not have a statewide recount, but only 4 counties controlled by Dem aparachniks all while trying to throw out every absentee military ballot.

He's out manouvered them for a good two months now. The behind the scenes stuff must have been quite machivellian, this makes him a better candidate against republicans.

He had one month after Super Tuesday, before SNL shamed the media into stop giving Obama a pass from any negative scrutiny, to pile up huge margins while Hillary's campaign regrouped.
After that, she has slaughtered him in states like Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia - and in Puerto Rico. Only where there are enough black voters has Obama been saved. (Blacks are 33% of the Democrats and they vote 92% for Obama, which is critical in the Dem primaries as Fundies are to Republicans.)

Her camp and her campaign were amateurs in comparison. Instead of being ruthless they were ham handed. Instead of being canny, she cried.

And why would Obama cry, when he was carried forth on velvet cushions by an adoring media?

She got beat on every field of battle.

Obama lost in every major swing state but Missouri to her.
He lost the white vote.
He lost the hispanic vote.
He lost the womans vote.
He lost the popular vote to Hillary.
Only the black tribal voting trait has saved him. But in the general election, 92% black votes coming from 10% of voters don't matter as much as in the Democratic primaries.

Simon said...

John Althouse Cohen said...
"Simon: You're simply missing the point, and everything I was talking about is 'policy.' Supporting or opposing gay rights or abortion rights are policy stances."

No, they are broad headings for clusters of policy that usually go together but do not necessarily do so. For example, one might be for gay rights in the sense of believing that homosexuals should enjoy identical rights to heterosexuals, but one might also be for gay rights in the sense of proposing additional rights and privileges to form some sort of balance or redress (redefinitions of marriage, for example, or additional legal protections). These are usually package deals, but not necessarily so. Andrew Sullivan is not the personification of the gay rights movement even if he is sometimes a caricature of it.

The point becomes even clearer when we turn to abortion. It does not follow that a person who is opposed to abortion must be for retaining Roe (or vice versa), and in neither case does support for abortion rights foreclose voting for McCain. One might rationally believe that McCain will not (or will not be able to) appoint judges who will overturn Roe; after all, some conservatives believe precisely that, and although they are, in my view, wrong, the view isn't totally irrational. Another variable worth noting is strategy: Even if one believes strongly that abortion should be legal (indeed, even if you regard that as the paramount policy issue of our age), that Roe was correctly-decided, and that McCain will appoint Justices who will overrule it, it does not follow that you will necessarily oppose McCain. If one believes, as Jeff Rosen claims to do, see Rosen, The Day After Roe in THE ATLANTIC, June 2006, at 56, that overruling Roe would shatter the forces opposing abortion and lead to a swift convergence on legal abortion, coast-to-coast, it would be wholly rational to hasten the demise of Roe. (Indeed, that might be the only rational response to that article if one is otherwise skeptical that the issue will go away by other means.)

The foregoing suffices, I think, to rebut your point; nevertheless, it is, if anything, an oversimplification. It does not consider the diversity of views among pro-choices on regulation of abortion (one might rationally be 100% for legal abortion on demand yet 100% favor parental notification when a minor is at issue, for instance), and avoids any kind of ordering of priorities, and how such an ordering interacts with the rainbow of rational views on abortion, abortion policy, constitutional law, and Presidential politics.

Lastly, just to come back to healthcare for a moment, I think one can rationally believe that better is the enemy of best. That view is almost invariably wrong, in my own opinion, but it is not necessarily irrational. If one believes that Hillary's plan is the right one, it is not difficult to conceive of any number of rational arguments why, if Hillary can't be the nominee now, it would be better to defeat Obama now and then run Hillary against McCain in four years. Two examples will suffice. The classic "better is the enemy of best" argument might appertain: Obama's measure is a halfway house, one might conclude, but by doing something, it will serve as a release valve, diminishing public pressure for true universal coverage. Alternatively, one might believe that Obama's attempts to implement ObamaCare will be a repeat of HillaryCare. His callow inexperience, one might conclude, will lead him to bungle it, producing a public backlash that will delay universal coverage for another generation. I don't suggest that either of these positions are correct, but they are rational, and they provide the conceptual bridge from supporting universal healthcare to voting for McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee.

Respectfully, I disagree with you on this.

Cedarford said...

somefeller - anyone who was a Hillary supporter because they are pro-choice Democratic feminists (which I think is a safe way to describe the people who are most angry about Hillary losing, other than her close friends and family) and who votes for McCain in the November is doing so for reasons that aren't rational or defensible.

That is cardboard cutout labelling of any pro-choice person as a one-dimensional voter with no other issues and indeed, an enthusiasm for more abortions.
Many "right to abortion" supporters have other major issues that are more important to them - like the energy crisis, health, the economy, even some local issue like respecting their religion and right as non-criminals to own guns. Others may be pro-choice, but want such matters decided by The People, not by lawyers using Court diktats.

Many of the same pro-choicers agree, with tons more sincerity than Bill CLinton had, when he said abortion should be "safe, legal, and RARE..." over time, but not banned.
It is hard to piss and moan exclusively about the sanctity of life of "hero soldiers" (902 KIA, dead in accidents, from disease, suicide in 2007) while being blase` about over 1 Thousand times that many human fetuses killed (1.21 million) in 2007.

To many of them, for a variety of reasons, John McCain may offer things and policies attractive to them and thus giving them his vote - that an abortion at will absolutist does not offer them.

****************
John Althouse Cohen But for anyone who supports abortion rights, gay rights, universal health care, and ending the Iraq war to vote for the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate in November would call into question their sanity.

1. I support abortion as long as it comes from voters in a state agreeing to it and controlling it's parameters and consenting to any taxes involved in public funding. Not by lawyers in robes making up shit not in any Constitution and dictating to The People.
2. I support gay rights in most matters, non-discrimination in hiring, financial matters, civil union benefits just as marriage - but oppose queer marriage and not factoring in certain gay lifestyle excesses on a case by case basis as good or bad for a child adoption.
3. I want universal health care, but a version that builds on the Romneycare, Japanese, French models that allows the private sector the latitude to do things that the government cannot do better and cheaper.
4. I want the Iraq War ended. But better we finish off Al Qaeda there and end with a stable country than with the idea of "accepting defeat, so "hero soldiers" can run away and be safe with their Mommies stateside again.

None of the items Cohen raises are absolutes where just because pollsters pick up that voters favor them do they necessarily fall in line with the Obama-Hillary version of what they want to do with national security, abortion, health care, or Fred and Dirk being free to bugger away without any discrimination other than in matters of adoption or claiming their Astroglide-assisted union is a normal marriage.

Of course people want the Iraq War ended. John McCain does as well. But not on terms that defeats the US, starts a ME nuclear arms race, and makes it likelier that we will be forced back there to fight a bigger war following a cut and run.

Revenant said...

However, back when Hillary was the "inevitable candidate" and her main argument was her experience, conservatives and other non-Hillary supporters scoffed. Everyone pointed out how strange it seemed for her to be counting her time as First Lady (of both Arkansas and the US) as the kind of experience necessary for a President. And at that time, I don't remember anyone contending that it was "sexist" to do so.

Compared to any of the likely Republican nominees of the time -- McCain, Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee -- Hillary *was* incredibly inexperienced. Democrats tried to make it seem like Hillary had significant experience by counting her First Lady days as time in government, which was silly.

But compared to Obama, Hillary IS much more experienced. She has more time in national government, and while her First Lady days aren't the same as being an elected official they are more significant than being a state legislator. Objectively speaking, Hillary would seem to be a better choice than Obama, especially since their policy differences are almost nonexistent.

Of course, Hillary is manifestly unlikable, and that's what makes the real difference. But that hardcore minority of female voters who actually LIKE Hillary don't understand that she might legitimately be disliked for reasons having nothing to do with sexism. From their perspective, they see a woman they like losing to a less-qualified man -- the standard feminist nightmare.

Simon said...

Cedarford said...
"I support gay rights in most matters, non-discrimination in hiring, financial matters, civil union benefits just as marriage - but oppose queer marriage and not factoring in certain gay lifestyle excesses on a case by case basis as good or bad for a child adoption."

Would it be an accurate characterization of your position that you regard homosexuality as a deviancy, and believe it should continue to be regarded by society as basically deviant, but support the right of people to engage in that deviancy, and to do so without discrimination, so long as and to the extent that it doesn't impact on others? That would account for your opposition to adoption by gay couples, and I suppose would also lead you to oppose its being taught in school sex ed, on the grounds that that would tend to normalize it?

garage mahal said...

Of course, Hillary is manifestly unlikable, and that's what makes the real difference. But that hardcore minority of female voters who actually LIKE Hillary don't understand that she might legitimately be disliked for reasons having nothing to do with sexism

Her favorable/unfavorable ratings are almost identical right now with Obama. She will end up getting more votes than anyone in the history of primaries. I think should explode that myth, don't you think?

Beth said...

Simon asks Cedarford: "Would it be an accurate characterization of your position that you regard homosexuality as a deviancy...?"

Gee, Simon, how much clarifying do you need: Fred and Dirk being free to bugger away without any discrimination other than in matters of adoption or claiming their Astroglide-assisted union is a normal marriage.

Since Cedarford brought it up, Simon, do you and your wife ever find a little lube helpful in assisting your union? That's such an important part of defining marriage, I just really need to know.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"Of course, Hillary is manifestly unlikable, and that's what makes the real difference. But that hardcore minority of female voters who actually LIKE Hillary don't understand that she might legitimately be disliked for reasons having nothing to do with sexism."

I like her, and even respect her, even though I'm worlds away from her politically. (I don't think that's a unique opinion, either.) But I can't stand Obama who I think is singularly unlikable. Go figure.

Simon said...

Beth said...
"Gee, Simon, how much clarifying do you need: Fred and Dirk being free to bugger away without any discrimination other than in matters of adoption or claiming their Astroglide-assisted union is a normal marriage."

No offense intended, I'm just trying to clarify his position.

"Since Cedarford brought it up, Simon, do you and your wife ever find a little lube helpful in assisting your union? That's such an important part of defining marriage, I just really need to know."

I think that as a rule, if you need lube, you're not doing foreplay right. It's a self-lubricating organ if you treat it properly. Anyway, this bit of TMI is just to avoid any reply that I'm avoiding the issue when I go on to say that I don't see the relevancy of the question.

vbspurs said...

Wow! Harriet Christian sounds like one of the Bouvier sisters from the Simpsons.

"I was a second class citizen before now I'm NOTHING!"

As she walks away, two people are condenscendingly muttering after her.

"Harriet?"
"Mother gets a little exercise" *Woman laughs*


Yeah, that's the way to treat one of your impassioned voters. Laugh at her.

Cheers,
Victoria

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

I am very glad I was busy today.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Harriet Christian is a fierce bitch and a hot tranny mess who's not apologizing for it.

I hope she goes to Denver and makes 1968 look like a god damn tea party.

Obama should pick her for his VP.

vbspurs said...

Harriet Christian is a fierce bitch and a hot tranny mess who's not apologizing for it.

I hope she goes to Denver and makes 1968 look like a god damn tea party.

Obama should pick her for his VP.


There can only be one Titus on Althouse, Zach. He's inimitable.

P.S.: Now, Reader, you know Titus means it's unsual for an gay male here to suddenly find onself with a "British" accented black male IN AMERICA -- though there is no such accent, but I won't hold that against him.

I think he has quite a bit of things up against him, as it is.

Cheers,
Victoria

Zachary Paul Sire said...

That was my initial reaction, whether it was Titus-esque or not!

Seriously she is amazing. I want someone to do a mash-up dance remix of her like they did with O'Reilly and his "f**k it, do it live!" rant.

I love that she's not from Florida or Michigan, yet she acts as if her vote wasn't counted. Of course, by the sound and looks of her, she'll be living in Miami Beach eventually anyways.

Roger J. said...

Wow--what an interesting thread! Glad to know that my 66 years on this earth are only historical context and I simply don't know what's going on! Beth: thanks for sticking up for "historical context." Had any of our twenty something commenters lived through 1968, they might be able to substitute Clean Gene McCarthy, RF Kennedy, and Hubert Humphrey for any of the current crop of Dems--and as I recall, the 1968 convention was not exactly a cakewalk.

But that's just historical context and no longer relevant.

Not saying Hillary supports will vote for McCain--but I think some of them will not be voting for Obama--abortion, the war in Iraq, racism and sexism notwithstanding.

The Democratic party lived up Will Roger's description, and it isn't over yet.

Cedarford said...

Simon - Correct.

There is nothing wrong with societies, as part of their social contract, defining certain matters as deviancies from norms people are expected to conduct themselves by as part of a harmonious social contract - and imposing certain bounds and limits on such deviants.

Nor is it a matter of cracking down on only those who exercise free will and chose deviancy voluntarily (polygamy, bigamy, child molestation) while excusing all behavior and actions of someone who can properly claim being born with a condition. (such as a propensity to child molest, lifetime pyromania, hardwired homosexual behavior which is true of the majority of homosexuals, alcoholism genes).

As long as such deviants do no intrude on safety, kid's welfare, taxpayer dollars - we tend to accept the idea of tolerance of deviancy - once they step past that - The People object...

John Althouse Cohen said...

This is the problem with internet discussions of politics. You can't make the simplest, most obvious point: most Hillary supporters should prefer Obama to McCain based on the merits. Everyone who is reading this understand that point. But people can't just say, "Sure, I see your point" -- they have to take the tiniest exceptions and spin them into an extended lecture: "Oh, you don't understand how complex these issues are..." No, sorry, I do understand that a Clinton support might have nuanced, idiosyncratic reasons for liking McCain better. But if you are reading this and you live in the United States, you know what I mean when I say that Hillary's most passionate supporters who are incensed about the idea that she's been the victim of sexism are probably strong supporters of a woman's right to have an abortion. Not necessarily all, but most. It's not a criticism of the people who don't neatly fit the categories. It's just a rough, general observation. I don't see any reason to think that the Hillary supporters who are threatening not to vote for Obama are unusually heterodox in their views. So my point (which I'm surprised proved to be at all controversial) still stands.

And remember this. Back when she was the unquestioned frontrunner, Hillary Clinton herself said over and over in the debates that there's not much policy difference between any of the Democratic candidates and that the Republicans are all much worse. So if you've been a passionate Hillary supporter in the primaries but then switch over to supporting McCain in the general election, then you have a pretty sharp disagreement with Hillary herself.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Right on, John.

Beth said...

No offense intended, I'm just trying to clarify his position.

The relevancy is that you have to edit and paraphrase heavily to even address the typical Cedarford comment. I wonder why you'd bother trying to do that.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Wow! Harriet Christian sounds like one of the Bouvier sisters from the Simpsons."

LOL Victoria. Frankly all people from New York sound like the Bouvier sister and a bit hysterical to me.

"As she walks away, two people are condescendingly muttering after her.

"Harriet?"
"Mother gets a little exercise" *Woman laughs"

I caught that too. Sexism, racism and age-ism is subtle but undeniable.

Had any of our twenty something commenters lived through 1968, they might be able to substitute Clean Gene McCarthy, RF Kennedy, and Hubert Humphrey for any of the current crop of Dems--and as I recall, the 1968 convention was not exactly a cakewalk.

Yep, Roger. History does repeat itself especially if you don't pay attention to it. And what comes around goes around. Doo da doo dah.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This is the problem with internet discussions of politics. You can't make the simplest, most obvious point: most Hillary supporters should prefer Obama to McCain based on the merits. Everyone who is reading this understand that point

This is"probably the problem with any discussion of anything. You think your point is obvious because you don't bother to consider that there is any other view point available. Obvious to you so screw any other viewpoint. Because you prefer one avenue doesn't mean that other roads (less traveled) don't also have merit. (self absorbed twit)

Hillary's most passionate supporters who are incensed about the idea that she's been the victim of sexism are probably strong supporters of a woman's right to have an abortion.

Or, consider..... maybe you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. What is your hang up about abortion???? The women who are incensed (even myself who can't stand Hillary) are pissed off about the treatment that she has received because she is a woman.

"So if you've been a passionate Hillary supporter in the primaries but then switch over to supporting McCain in the general election, then you have a pretty sharp disagreement with Hillary herself."

Hardly... since the degrees of separation between Hillary and McCain are pretty minimal. They are very close in policy. Surprise!!

Which is why I'm not voting for any of these clowns this year.

Cedarford said...

Beth - The relevancy is that you have to edit and paraphrase heavily to even address the typical Cedarford comment. I wonder why you'd bother trying to do that.
9:03 PM


Just as others would wonder why you defend NOLA scum, when anyone would bother knowing that 100's of thousands of NOLA savages stand ready to boil out and steal and kill on the next hurricane or loss of electricity or police control, Beth...

You are just scum defending scum.

Simon said...

Cedarford, stop being a jackass. If you have something substantive to criticize her with, bring it forth. Otherwise, shut up.

former law student said...

He received ALL uncommitted delegates. (in Michigan)

Well, why not? Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards took their names off the ballot. Therefore, any voter who wanted one of these candidates was forced to vote "Uncommitted" and hope for the best. (Of the candidates left on the ballot, only Hillary got any delegates.) What happened to the "Uncommitted" candidates? Bill Richardson withdrew from the campaign and endorsed Barack. John Edwards withdrew from the campaign and endorsed Barack. Because I don't think Biden was a powerful vote-getter this election, he likely would not have gotten any delegates. Thus the votes for "Uncommitted" were either votes cast for Obama or for candidates who subsequently endorsed Obama. Therefore, Obama rightly got all of those delegates.


Objectively speaking, Hillary would seem to be a better choice than Obama, especially since their policy differences are almost nonexistent.

Hillary is sleazy and not as bright as Obama. I don't see her extricating us from the Iraq mess. W.'s election persuaded me that policy talk going in doesn't matter -- he specifically said we weren't going to do any nation building, and that's all we've done for five years. Vote for the best leader, and not the policies.

former law student said...

The women who are incensed (even myself who can't stand Hillary) are pissed off about the treatment that she has received because she is a woman.

A lot of the treatment HRC got was very deferential. For example, the media never questioned her claims of thirty-five years of experience. Other than the taunts of a few braying jackasses on basic cable, like Chris Matthews, what ill-treatment did HRC receive?

reader_iam said...

Beth: I'd be proud to introduce my son to scum like you, and vice versa.

What counts as "cream' on the part of some others? Not so much.

***

Cedarford: Wattage doesn't count so much as the quality of the light. Oh, it's easy to see that you've got IQ, engagement and study to bring to the spectrum. But how you choose to allocate and manipulate those waves? I think you think you're shining your light into unexplored places, thus bringing "truths" into the glare of measured, rational attention. However, what you mostly do is wield a stark, harsh torch which serves only to illuminate the roaches and rats lurking in the shadows of your own dark spaces.

Cedarford said...

Simon said...
Cedarford, stop being a jackass. If you have something substantive to criticize her (Beth) with, bring it forth. Otherwise, shut up.


After Katrina anarchy, the doubling of murder rates in host cities, and total destruction of 80% of Federal housing Katrina refugees were housed in - I wrote that I was ashamed the NOLA scum had embarassed the USA so with their barbarism and depravity. Displying none of the higher behaviors higher level humans in Kobe Japan, the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, the 2004 inudation of Kolkuta under 8 feet of water, or the recent Chinese Earthquake showed.

(Despite none of them getting even token Federal aid for two weeks or more, those more advanced 3rd worlders behaved better during and after their disasters than NOLA scum.)

Pointing this out, Beth was outraged about the unfortunate truths of the New Orleans scumbags coming out, and demanded anyone pointing out the looting, high crime rates, or destruction of housing the NOLA people were given - should be shut up and banned.
She likes making unprovoked attacks on me out of the blue ever since I noted NOLA refugees were making other city and town murder rates explode.

So it is worth reminding her that the NOLA scum are cited by people in places like Burma, Sri Lanka, Sumatra, and Wuchan, China as being the nadir of humanity. As the Chinese are just the latest to say they are dealing with the earthquake without NOLA-like American thugs looting and sitting on their asses demanding others rebuild for them. They are without incompetent American black mayors and hapless stupid female governors in over their head.

In every disaster for a long time to come, the NOLA scum will be the yardstick by which other nations judge rock-bottom humanity - and their cultural and national prestige at being far better in being civilized in crisis than American NOLA scum.

Beth said...

Goodness, how things have developed while I was away.

Simon, thanks. Your civility is always appreciated, even when I'm cynical enough to think it's wasted (see my earlier comment.)

reader_iam, thanks. And you nailed it with that metaphor.

MTfromCC said...

John - You are right, in all respects. And I think the truth is that these particular angry women represent the most zealous and twisted supporters, who can't see past their own intense passion, however wrongheaded it may be, but who only represent a miniscule minority of Hillary supporters.

I am married to a committed Hillary supporter who has been very pissed off about how things have gone for her candidate -- how she has been treated, the sexism of the media, etc. -- and who has even been getting agitated these past few days about the party not counting the Michigan caucus exactly as it was voted (Obama gets -0-), North Koream style, with Hillary as the only vote getter on the ballot. Now I think that is about as weak and unprincipled an issue as I can imagine somebody getting upset about, given how morally ambiguous the Clinton position is (i.e., she was against it before it became politically necessary for her to be in favor of it). So my wife is very passionate about Hillary.

But as intensely partisan as she has been this past month or two, largely in antagonism to the many repetitive calls for Hillary to drop out of the race before the voting is done, my wife will still support Obama enthusiastically in the general election -- and so will every other Clinton supporter I know, most of whom are very passionate and embittered to some extent at this point. Yes, 1 out of every 20 or 25 Clinton supporters may be like Harriet Christian [who was busy accusing the reporter of being a government agent out to take her name down for nefarious reasons when he first asked for her name, but then was spelling it for him within a second or two after he told her that he was a reporter . . . hmmmmm, wonder what her motivations were]. For that matter, 5-10% of the GOP base is way to the right of McCain, and can't stand him either, and will never vote for him. But the other 90-95% of the Clinton supporters will support Obama, most of them with cash and enthusiasm, and McCain will lose the election by a huge margin, because of an unprecedented anti-GOP mood, which is quite powerful and not to be underestimated. McCain is a decent guy, or was before he decided to sell out to Bush and the hard right wing in order to win the GOP nomination -- a lot of good it did him with the hard liners in the gOP, mind you -- but he is going to be swept away in one of the true watershed elections in our lifetime.

So don't get too agitated. These shrill and almost psychotically enraged Clinton supporters are very confused and twisted, and, if you ask me, they all came across as incredibly rude, self-centered, and more than a little nutty. Sanity will prevail.

vbspurs said...

DBQ wrote:

I caught that too. Sexism, racism and age-ism is subtle but undeniable.

When you're battling for power, you can even take your friends prisoner.

Having said that, I can't imagine any Bush supporter in '00 having done that to a McCain supporter then -- especially an older woman, who feels disenfranchised.

And that would be because she has been. What the Democrats have done to their Party this go around, knows know no name. All to make some kind of point.

I never knew the moral high ground looked so tawdry from below.

Cheers,
Victoria

Palladian said...

"but he is going to be swept away in one of the true watershed elections in our lifetime."

We'll see. If you think you've seen nasty politics, wait until Obama gets the nomination and the Right Wing Death Star takes aim at B. Hussein Obama's campaign. In the words of Emperor Whatisname: "Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station!"

John Stodder said...

Yes, 1 out of every 20 or 25 Clinton supporters may be like Harriet Christian

1. Even if it's only that many, in a close election, those will be votes the Democrat needed.

2. It's more than that. Harriet Christian is articulated what a lot of other women are feeling but only expressing among friends.

I'm surprised by my own point 2, but it's undeniable. The polls reflect it. The silly confidence that all HRC's voters will switch effortlessly to Obama is not what any polls are showing.

A lot can happen between now and November. But what I think the silly-confident are assuming is that the Obama we'll see for the next six months is January Obama. But we haven't seen January Obama since early March. April-May-June Obama is a lousy candidate who appeals only to the Democratic base.

I mean, what's the Obama story been for the past few weeks?

1. The drawn out Rev. Wright/Trinity Church saga.

2. The angels dancing on a pin semantic walkback from his vow to meet with Ahmadinejad unconditionally.

3. Accusations of sexism that are, while unfair, sticking to him.

4. Overwhelming vote totals against him, at a time when other successful Democratic candidates should consolidating their position. The media keeps telling voters the race is over and the voters keep pushing back. That's not trivial.

Obama was inspiring at one time, but that seems so long ago. Now he just seems like he's floundering.

Summer Anne said...

2. It's more than that. Harriet Christian is articulated what a lot of other women are feeling but only expressing among friends.

She didn't 'is' articulate shit. She's just a batty, hysterical loon yelping nonsense. I'm not saying that no HRC supporter could feel disenfranchised and articulate that in a reasonable manner -- I would disagree with them, but completely sympathize. The woman in the clip above is not representative of anything other than emotive, attention-mongering BS.

I think a lot will change when HRC concedes the primary and supports Obama's general campaign. Despite what a terror she has been at times, I have a fair amount of faith in the Clintons to get behind the Democratic nominee. Don't get me wrong -- we'll all know they're fakin' it, but they'd be outcasts otherwise. I think a huge chunk of the normally reasonable supporters of HRC who feel upset at the moment will eventually follow. Harriet Christian excepted.

But we'll see. Let's all bookmark this discussion to refer to our predictions in a few months, and one or two of us will be able to feel very smug. :)

reader_iam said...

As I said to my husband earlier this evening (well, that is to say, late last night--'round about 11:30 central): I still can't get my mind around the idea that--in a presidential election cycle which was so profoundly the Democrats' to lose--the Democrats won't, in fact, end up prevailing in November. Most, though certainly not all, of the driving factors for that "edge" are still there, not to mention the "fatigue" factor of having one particular party at the helm of the presidency for [what it seems so many perceive as] so long.

It's a long way 'til November, so who knows what'll happen between now and then? It'd be silly not to think and say, "Anything could"!

Still, I wouldn't bet much on the proposition that the Democrats have irrevocably fumbled their chance of the deciding touchdown come fall.

(On the other hand, I do think there's been a rather large amount of damage and carnage suffered by the Democratic Party, and that there will be a price to be paid--in one way or another--over years, the results of the 2008 presidential election notwithstanding. The disarray on, and the issues facing, the conservative side of the spectrum does not ameliorate that, and ought not facilitate complacency.

Looking longer term, where does everyone think we'll be, four, six and eight years from now?

TitusThe Lebanon said...

I have to say I am honored fellow republicans.

I am one of the most conmmented about commenters on this blog.

I have made an impact obviously.

blake said...

Let's see if we can't have some good come out of this thread.

I'd be playing more games if I weren't a Mac user. My office mate continues to harass me over this point.

Beth, are you familiar with "Boot Camp"? It allows you to boot Windows, and would let you play games that Mac doesn't directly support.

(See? There's a way to make any conversation productive! 'course, Beth probably knows about it already....)

blake said...

And does anyone else find it amusing that JAC wrote this:

yet who actually prefer McCain to Obama on substantive grounds (because, say, they just love invading countries)

? Seems to me, we all know a liberal who so preferred invading countries--or at least felt defense was important enough--that she voted for Bush over Kerry, despite Bush's many obvious negatives.

And given the results in 2004, I'm thinking the "liberal hawk" isn't all that rare a creature.

Beth said...

Blake, I loaded VM Fusion so I could run XP and OS X at the same time. Games don't like the emulated system.

One of my summer projects is to back up my whole system, reformat and partition my drive and set up Boot Camp. Then I'm going to destroy my office mate in Medieval Total War.

blake said...

Medieval (I & II) is pretty dang hardcore.

I have them here and have never had the chance to play them.

Oh, as another alternative, you could try WINE for the Mac. That's an interesting bit of code that implements (not emulates) Windows on Unix-y systems.