September 6, 2008

"The question is, will Mrs. Clinton fight Ms. Palin to help her former rival, Mr. Obama?"

Patrick Healy asks:
Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Palin have little in common beyond their breakout performances at the conventions and the soap opera aspects of their family lives. Mrs. Clinton always faces high expectations; Ms. Palin faced low expectations this week, and benefited from them. Mrs. Clinton can seem harsh when she goes on the attack; Ms. Palin has shown a knack for attacking without seeming nasty. Mrs. Clinton has a lot of experience; Ms. Palin, not so much. Mrs. Clinton is pantsuits; Ms. Palin is skirts.

Some Republican delegates in St. Paul saw starker differences.

“Sarah’s smile is sincere, which I never felt from Hillary, who has anger and resentment in her eyes,” said Ann Schmuecker, a delegate from Mountain Home, Arkansas, where she met the Clintons decades ago.
(Song cue.)

But Palin may appeal to the "white working women with children living in the exurbs and in rural parts of battleground states" who stuck by Hillary in the primaries. Obama may look to Hillary to try to deliver those voters to him, but then the question is: Does she want to?
Some of her aides note with a hint of resentment that Mr. Obama did not pick her as his running mate; he did not even vet her fully.
Fully? I thought he didn't vet her at all!
Plus, they add, her fall calendar also includes campaigning for Senate Democratic candidates, not just for Mr. Obama.
Ha ha, yeah. She's too busy!
“Let me tell you something,” said Luanne Van Werven, a Republican delegate from Lynden, Wash., as the convention closed late Thursday night. “I secretly think Hillary loves Sarah Palin.”
Oh, is sisterhood powerful all of a sudden? No. It's just that Hillary may want Obama to lose so she can run for 2012.

ADDED: In the comments, some people are making something of the NYT's use of different honorifics for Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Why is it Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Palin? The NYT is following a longstanding neutral rule:
The use of “Mrs.” is appropriate whenever a woman prefers it. It isn’t our choice, yours or mine; it is hers. Our style rule calls for us to use "Ms." in subsequent references to a woman unless she prefers "Miss" or "Mrs." and reporters are told that they should ask for the woman’s preference. That holds for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as other women (in her case, of course, "Senator" is also an option in subsequent references).
Hillary Clinton is one of those women who asked to be called Mrs.:
THE sign outside Nancy Pelosi's office bears the mark of her feminist roots: it identifies her as "Ms. Pelosi," using the honorific created half a century ago to give women an alternative to disclosing their marital status.

But mostly Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, goes by just that — Mrs. Pelosi.

Across the Capitol, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, is referred to as Mrs. Clinton at every roll call. Yet the women in the Senate are split: seven use Mrs., but the other six go by Ms., including three who are married: Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine; Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana; and Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.
Now, you can analyze the personality or the political strategy of various women as they decide whether to overcome the default and ask to be called "Mrs." (or "Miss"), but put aside your theories about New York Times bias.

233 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 233 of 233
Trooper York said...

Now San Francisco was picturesque if dirty as well. They were very impressed with themselves. Me, not so much. What's so cool having a major tourist spot be an old prison. It's like going to New York and me telling you "OH you must go to Rikers Island, it has so much history."

Plus you should call it Frisco. It drives them crazy.

reader_iam said...

The most important part was that he was candid: we, as a party, screwed up. It wasn't that our ideals were wrong, or that our policies were wrong: it was that the people we sent to Washington on our behalf were the wrong people.

Speaking of human nature, my son makes the same mistakes.

The most important part was that he was candid: we, as a party, screwed up.

No, the most important ISN'T the candid part. The FIRST most important is that the party of the first screwed up.

The SECOND most important part (only alluded to, so we can't be sure it happened) is that individuals recognize what happened, how it happened, and how they personally are responsible for what happened and/or are personally responsible for enabling it, and--quite significantly--are responsible to helping make things right, up to and including, and perhaps especially including, working with those whom they were particularly dismissing previously.

The THIRD part is being candid: and, to be clear, it don't mean squat without the first or second. To put that first--to say that's the most important thing--is to make a fundamental error. It's also revealing: the Right, too (or, to be precise, at least some of its most ardent defenders) has gotten sucked into the apology culture! (Unbeknownst is not a defense.) Gee, I'm sorry. Gee, did I offend? Gee, didn't the fact that I said "gee and I'm sorry" make it all go away? Well, gee, what's with wrong you? Gee, I was CANDID?

Awww--shit, awwww- gee.

It wasn't that our ideals were wrong

1) I'm far more with you than you realize, but the fact that you don't realize or acknowledge the reasons I'm not ENTIRELY with you is telling.

2) Ideals, practically speaking (as distinct from a more rarefied, attractive, even seductive context) are as ideals do: specifically, ideals--in terms of implementation--are ONLY as good as how their Idealists DO. And, in the end, whether it's more about the ideals or the Idealists. You know, the in-group people so self-identified. Which is why all the stuff having to do with the "ordering of things" embodied in the first section of my comment (see "the most important part") is even relevant.

3) Some of your ideals might well be wrong. Ever consider the notion? The "most important part" here is not whether they're wrong, but wether you've considered notion seriously, since whatever time you decided they were writ in stone. They might well be. That's not the point. The question here is whether you ever revisit and reaffirm honestly, as opposed to endlessly iterate and re-iterate from some point which you may or may not have ever revisited at some later point. Have you? You might have. I'm not saying you haven't. I am saying that your increasingly bellicose approach suggest at the least the possibility of otherwise.

it was that the people we sent to Washington on our behalf were the wrong people

The people get the government they deserve. And in some cases, earned. And in some cases, outright worked diligently for. Is that a notion you'd want to challenge, in terms of generalities or in terms of specificities? And if so, how and why?

***

People say they want substance over superfluity. No, for the most part, most of them mostly don't.

People say they want to DO substance over superfluity. No, for the most part, most of them mostly don't.

I don't, either, and no bones about it.

How's THAT for candid, folks?

Trooper York said...

Chicago is a great town. Good baseball stadiums. Great hearty food. Good people. I wouldn't mind living there.

Just not in a community that was organized.

vbspurs said...

Arrghh! I've been dittoed. What a Rush!

I'm going to go out on a Limbaugh and say you're very liked, Beth!

(Come back...oh well, glad to hear you're back!)

Cheers,
Victoria

Lem said...

I still would rather have our history than Bostons.

26 to a few (too few to mention) would be an easy brag even for a red sox fan ;)

Trooper York said...

When I went to Boston we went on the Duck tour. Now don't get excited RH.
I was wearing my Yankee cap and the driver was giving me a lot of shit.
The ducks were amphibious buses that rode along the highway and then into the harbor as boats. Anyway it was the year after Boston won the first time and the Red Sox had rode the ducks to the parade and the roof of the bus was covered in autographs. The driver was real proud of them.

As we were filing out and giving the guy a tip, he said to me "Hey your are good sport man thanks for the tip." I said "I hope you are a good sport because I just erased all of the autographs." He near shit a brick.

I didn't really erase them.

But he did have a new Derek Jeter autograph. Hee. hee.

Lem said...

Reader...

Why cant we all just keep it brief?

Trooper York said...

Hey let the girl express herself. She is in corn country. She needs an outlet. And there are no tomatoes.

Have a heart dude.

reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

TRundgren said Not sure if it's true but it needs to be investigated.

Yeah, especially after he leaves office, if he gets elected.

Lem said...

When I went to Boston..

The Yanks help us out beating the Rays 2 out of 3..

Is the evil empire softening ;)

Trooper York said...

Hey reader I posted an eggplant caponata reciepe.

Lem said...

Hey let the girl express herself. She is in corn country. She needs an outlet. And there are no tomatoes.

My bad.. I think.

Trooper York said...

Lem how can you like Boston? They dumped your boy Manny.

Plus Manny has said he wants to come to the Yankees next year. That could happen you know. Giambi, Matsui and Abreu all come off the payroll after the end of the season.

reader_iam said...

Lem: I'm famous for being brief. For even writing incomplete sentences. (See: Trooper.) For expressing in 1-8 words in linking to videos, articles or what-have-you.

It's exceedingly rare that I post long comments. (Hell, even when I blog, it's rare that I write long posts.)

There could be a reason, every now and again, that I break form.

In any case, assuming you're a newbie, you shouldn't be presuming, at least with that particular combination of confidence + X factor. If you're a regular in a different skin: pfooey! If you're a lurker who doesn't pay attention, well: on the one hand, I'm sorry, but on the other hand, not so much.

reader_iam said...

But Lem, I should acknowledge this: Thanks for proving my penultimate point!

Trooper York said...

Are penultimate points like nipples or something?

Trooper York said...

Now that would be cool.

Lem said...

Plus Manny has said he wants to come to the Yankees next year.

In the criminal justice system they call that recidivism.

Boogs, the rocket.

We are used to it.

Lem said...

In any case, assuming you're a newbie, you shouldn't be presuming, at least with that particular combination of confidence + X factor. If you're a regular in a different skin: pfooey! If you're a lurker who doesn't pay attention, well: on the one hand, I'm sorry, but on the other hand, not so much.

I'm a newbie..

Trooper York said...

Boog Powell was a Red Sox? He was never on the Yankees or the Sox.

You mean Boggs.

Lem said...

The penultive - If you're a lurker who doesn't pay attention

I first became aware of Ann Althouse via Rush some years ago.

But political gender had not been an issue until Hillary.

So... here I'am.

Lem said...

You mean Boggs.

I seat corrected.

Trooper York said...

No problemo dude. I thought it was a dominican thing.

"We hate you for leaving Boston
Miester Boooggs!"

Trooper York said...

You know A-Rod was from the Dominican or his parents were I think. I think he was born in Washington Heights which is part of the Dominican.

Of course he is Jewish now.

Lem said...

Of course he is Jewish now.

Ok.. you are a real Yankee...

That is New York funny. Dont repeat that in polite company ;)

Lem said...

A-Rod was from the Dominican

When they had the first 'real' world series Arod waited till the last minute to say what country he was going to play for.

I felt sad for him.

Ortis would never have that kind of 'problem'.

Lem said...

I was hoping to make 300, but it appears Sparta has taken the night off ;)

Synova said...

Thanks for the update on the Mrs. and Ms. thing.

I'm all for going with a person's preferences but I do think it ought to be a generally lose sort of thing. It's fine if a newspaper or something keeps these things on file so they can get it right, but manners being manners... at some point expecting people to jump through another person's hoops is rude. Certainly just as rude as not caring what a person prefers.

Ms. is nice, not because it conceals marital status, but because it doesn't require a person to know marital status.

Using Mrs. and Miss takes more effort than simply using Ms. for all women. I rather like that one-size-fits-all way of doing things. And it avoids the thing we've just seen where we're all trying to figure out the reason for the different treatment.

vbspurs said...

"Reason 1,384 Why I am Not a Feminist"

I'm a Miss, not an abbreviation for a manuscript.

Ann Althouse said...

"Sorry to hijack this thread, one I'd do well to read and comment in, but I am tired and want to say WE'RE HOME!"

Glad to hear it, Beth.

blake said...

Yay, Beth!

reader_iam is the Silent Bob of Althouse. She doesn't say much, but when she does, it's revelatory.

Trooper York is more like Jay.

blake said...

The people get the government they deserve.

If only. I'd say more that people and government are in a sort of feedback loop. Actually, I think Confucius said this, though in a less modern way.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 233 of 233   Newer› Newest»