That's from Andrew Sullivan.
ADDED: Here's a NYT article about black voters deciding between Hillary and Obama:
Most polls here [in South Carolina] show Mrs. Clinton leading and Mr. Obama second...The article also quotes one woman who says: "We always love Hillary because we love her husband" and "A man is supposed to be the head. I feel like the Lord has put man first, and I believe in the Bible." So, do black women support Hillary because she's a woman or in spite of the fact that she's a woman and because they really love Bill?
... Mr. Obama appears to have a big lead over Mrs. Clinton among black men, said Adolphus G. Belk Jr., a political scientist at Winthrop University who co-directed a recent study of black voters. Black women, Dr. Belk said, are divided equally between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and significantly, perhaps a third are undecided.
“They stand at the intersection of race, class and gender,” he said. “Black men say to them, ‘Sister, are you with us?’ and at the same time white women say, ‘Sister, are you with us?’”
That's a lot of love for Bill if it can override Barack even when Bill is not the candidate. Why isn't there more love for Obama? The article makes much of various comments by black women that Obama would be in physical danger as President. We're told that's "maternal" of them.
I'm vaguely horrified by this discussion of black female political thought. As the NYT article tells it, it seems that black women vote based on whether they feel more like a mother or a sexual partner to the candidate (or the candidate's spouse) — with a dollop of religious inanity stirred in.
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
First of all, I love this comment:
"No real feminist would do this; only someone who postures as a feminist while using her husband as a tool."
Thank God we have Andrew Sullivan to define "real feminism" for us. And secondly, as real feminist who occasionally uses her husband as a tool, I really don't see the contradiction. Sometimes he even likes it.
Eva,
Some would argue that yours is a phony feminism because "using" another person as a "tool" is dehumanizing and that objectification of another human being is the first step in a process leading to inequality, domination, and brutality. Historically, that is the process against which "real feminists" have battled.
I'm wondering if they saved a Craig Livingstone FBI file on Giuliani.
Foresight has its limits.
objectification of another human being is the first step in a process leading to inequality, domination, and brutality.
The guy winds up loving not the vagina but the one who has the vagina, as I think Bataille writes somethere ; so it works out as the girl fantasized, in the end, after all.
Meade:
Well, that was actually kind of a joke. Try reading it with a Mae West-style inflection. That still may not work.
But thanks for the instruction, nevertheless.
Eva: How many cranky old commenters does it take to lighten up with a little subtle humor?
Meade: That's not funny!
I'm with Eva on this. How does using a male connection disqualify one (female or male) from being a feminist? Does feminism trump human nature? It's human nature to use what advantage lies at hand, no?
I'll also point out that Edwards and Obama are not averse to using their wives as tools to make attacks on Hillary. I guess it's only women who must be so high-minded and pure lest they be accused of faux feminism.
Amendment XIX was a big mistake.
The American Revolution was a mistake.
From the Times article:
“I’ve got enough black in me to want somebody black to be our president”
“Men have been running the country for a while, and I’d like to see a woman in office”
If only Oprah would run.
I'd like to ask Andrew, if politicians organize themselves and their parties along racial lines, then why is it not fair game to chase that base? Of course Hillary is trying to retain control of black voters. Are white candidates supposed to pretend that black voters are not a bloc?
I'm vaguely horrified by the idea that the author of the article seems to believe that visiting rural Southern hair salons will tell them all they need to know about the average black American woman.
Interesting that no mention of Edwards, whose natal native state SC is. Does this mean the charlatan ambulance-chaser is lsoing his pulse?
Jennifer, yeah, I know. Compare the big stink about Bill O'Reilly going to a restaurant in Harlem to find out what black people are like.
I think most people, black or white, understand that Bill Clinton was not our countrie's first 'black' president.
what concerns me is the lack of public discussion regarding the Clinton's shady business deals, hiding documents, unexplained deaths of close friends/associates, and the failure of feminists to take umbrage at the disgraceful abuse of women who crossed Bill's sexual path.
The Clinton's will do anything in their quest for power and use their connections to stifle reasoned debate.
They do not belong in power in any position. Surely we as a community can see the difference between the Clinton's and the Obama's.
vet66...you sound insane.
Black people supported George Wallace later in his life. They forgave him standing in the schoolhouse door and his shouts of "segregation forever!" as if all those things never happened.
But GW "doesn't care about black people."
Bill and Hill fired all 93 sitting U.S. Attorneys, but poor Al Gonzales was "up to something" for firing all of 8.
We don't even need to discuss "sheets" Byrd.
Some things in this world are just beyond explanation.
Archie Bunker: Well, let me tell you one thing about Richard E. Nixon. He knows how to keep his wife, Pat, home. Roosevelt could never do that with Eleanor. She was always out on the loose. Running around with the coloreds. Tellin' 'em they was gettin' the short end of the stick. She was the one who discovered the coloreds in this country; we never knew they was there!
(All in the Family 1971)
So they are doing what they can to crush him, and punish any Democrat who associates with him."
Hysteria aside (after all, consider the source), politics has seen this type of "crushing" for decades, if not centuries. At least, in this country. I'll defer to Sullivan re British politics.
Who said it?: "Watching the Kennedys is like watching the Borgia brothers take over a small Italian town".
Sullivan is at his weakest when describing American politics.
SMG
Richard,
Maybe the world is beyond explanation because your not that bright. Let's make this easy. Clinton fired the US Attorney's that were HIRED by his PREDECESSOR George HW Bush, while George W Bush FIRED 8 U.S. Attorney's that HE actually HIRED a few years back. And this doesn't even include the fact that there was private pressure from the White House and Republican Congressman to get rid of US Attorney's that vigorously went after Republicans or weren't inclined to trump up charges against Democrats.
See how easy that was.
As for the whole "black" President thing with Bill. It isn't that people consider Bill "black", its that he is probably the first President who truly seemed comfortable around black people. That may be trivial, but unless your maybe Mitt Romney, walking into an average diner in say Iowa isn't going to be uncomfortable for most. Bill would just as soon walk into a soul food restaurant as he would that diner in Iowa, and black people truly appreciated that sense of equality. Reagan, GB and GW would probably spend their time eyeing the exits and checking for their wallet.
I'd be curious to know what those same black women think about Condi Rice -- an fellow black woman. They probably hate her.
Invisible Man, "Let's make this easy." AGs serve at the pleasure of the president. There is, to date, precisely ZERO evidence that the release AGs were fired for any criminal purpose. If it was politics, then it is EXACTLY like the political firings of AGs appointed by one's predecessor.
Of course, when one is attempting to hang the first criminal act on an administration following the one we the most criminal convictions in decades, one must occasionally stretch a bit.
You're welcome.
Eric at Classical Values had a nice piece on:
When Victims Collide.
You know - "I was horse whipped more."
"Well that is nothing, I was beaten with a stick."
"You think that is bad? I was forced to get off welfare and take a job for a million a year and now all my poor friends hate me."
oh my Dave...if you stretch that little bit of AG spoof a little tighter you can bounce a ball on your conclusion.
All I know is that Hillary Clinton could have volunteered to go to Vietnam, but didn't.
Isn't it sad that everyone must be classified as to race, gender, religion etc. ? The politically correct have won. No one is an individual any more. Not only are you a number to the political elite, but a number within a category.
Invisible man:
You are entitled to your interpretation, but Clinton fired the US Attorneys who were investigating his business dealings. Coincidence, I’m sure. And let’s not forget Billy Dale at the travel office who was charged with a crime to make room for a crony.
And the reference to “first black president” was not about Bill’s easy way in soul food restaurants, but Bill’s easy way with the women around him.
You only need to make sure you're classified according to race or gender if you think you're going to gain some kind of advantage out of it. According to the US Census, people classifying themselves as "Asian" have the highest median family incomes, the lowest single-parent household rate and on and on and on. I can't think of the last time I saw an Asian equivalent to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton on TV talking about the "Asian" point of view.
All those short cuts of racial and sexual set-asides leaves you in...something other than first place.
They never seem to interview women like my wife, who would never vote for Hillary because she thinks she is b**** and would never vote for Obama or Edwards because she thinks they are gutless wimps who would not have the guts to stand up for America.
Hillary got ahead the old fashioned way. She became a senator by sleeping with the president, and now wants that last promotion not based on her accomplishments, but rather based on being entitled, for having put up with his onerous affections.
I don't fear for Obama after he is president, but rather after he leads after winning the first few primaries. Ask Howard Dean how valuable it is to be front runner before the primaries.
what exactly is meant by the "fearsome clinton political machine" stuff?
there is so much contra evidence to the idea that bill was some ruthless political manipulator, though i know the name alone causes hysteria and idiocy in these parts.
is this about bill strangling vince with his bare hands?
It would seem the Black voters are suckers. They keep voting for Dems, and get nothing in return. The Dems know they will get the Black vote and know they don't have to do anything for them because they vote as a Dem block no matter what happens. So, the Dems get the votes, and the Blacks get nothing. Maybe there really is something to the beauty salon idea. How else to explain it?
Don, what makes you think this is her last promotion?
Invisibile, your Apostrophe License is hereby revoked.
there is so much contra evidence to the idea that bill was some ruthless political manipulator
Well, let's see some of it then.
Clinton fired the US Attorney's that were HIRED by his PREDECESSOR George HW Bush, while George W Bush FIRED 8 U.S. Attorney's that HE actually HIRED a few years back.
Democrats believe Bush should have fired practically everybody except the 8 guys he actually did fire.
Hillary will be a two-term presidency. Obama will not be her Vice Presidential candidate. Her Vice will probably be New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
And she will be the third president (and second Clinton) to be impeached for Corruption and Abuse of Power.
Her administration will be tough and ruthless against the Republicans as she will be against Al Queda terrorists. And that's a big problem. Her administration will use the gov't resources to spy and eavesdrop on Republicans, and they will be caught. If you think "FileGate" was bad (where First Lady Hillary was involved), things will be worse under madam president Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filegate
This just shows how poorly educated US blacks are, when the acceptance criteria is that a politician be leftist/socuialist (mo money,mo money), and then it simply boils down to race and sex.
This is a population perfect for manipulation by the DNC.
Eva wrote: And secondly, as real feminist who occasionally uses her husband as a tool, I really don't see the contradiction. Sometimes he even likes it.
Eva, on behalf of husbands everywhere, thank you!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा