-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/thursday-open-thread-let-it-all-hang-out-4/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Fodder for Hillary's entrenched female supporters
it ends with this
"And this weekend that picture showed 75,000 people, in one of the whitest states in the country, out to hear a political speech by an African-American who is now within touching distance of the highest office in the land, the most powerful job on earth.
And just because the news media, for the most part, had a ho-hum response to that, doesn't mean other Americans should.
This is a revolution. You probably won't see another one in your lifetime."
Paul Loeb discusses the consequence of Hillary's "Bosnian Sniper Math" (emphasis added):
"The superdelegates understand the real math, or they ought to. But given the "bitterness" of so many Clinton supporters toward reality that the woman they thought would be America's first female president will not be, the more they hear a story that suggests Obama's win is illegitimate, the more likely they are to bolt. If Clinton's voters embrace that story that "a man took it away from a woman," denied her a victory she rightly deserved, they're at risk of staying home come November, or holding back from the volunteering and the get out the vote efforts necessary for the Democrats to prevail."
The Man Took it Away from the Woman
Never underestimate those women from The View. It looks like Joy might have been joking when she said it, but it's consistent with Hillary's implicit (and Ferraro's explicit) message that sexism caused her to loose the nomination. Regardless, it's a dangerous message to send out like that.
Perhaps--perhaps--this says a little something about some of the folks McCain surrounds himself with. But it says more about the respect and admiration that Barack enjoys with all kinds of people from all walks of life.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1246
Hopefully it will drop some folks blood pressure a few ticks over this MI/FL thing.
And as a poster noted in one of the comments, Obama handled Rev. Wright
He handled bitter-gate.
Compared to that, this is nothing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24774154/
I found this article over at TheRoot.com in regards to Nas' new album and the controversy around it that made him change the name.
http://www.theroot.com/id/46596
I remember reading about McKinnon in a paper while visiting my folks in Houston; McKinnon is from Texas, and thinking...wow...
I was touched. I was also suprised to read that the writers of the article I was reading actually understood why he say it.
And he actually did it...wow...
Thanks for posting the article.
Here's an excerpt from the comment:
"Clinton's statements that appear be race-baiting towards Obama are not at the heart of her strategy to win the nomination. I think that what's at the heart of her strategy are facts--disquieting facts, even--that seem to show that these primary elections have engendered voting behavior that is, to a measurable extent, predicated upon the race of the voter."
Did you read some of the comments in that article? Pretty sad.
If you don't agree with the man, then don't agree with him. Don't be nasty when he and his family are going through a very hard time right now.
As with FOX, they immediately started with the Kennedy bashing. Playing such bits from the movie Kindergarten Cop (Arnold Swart...) when he said "It's not a tumor"...and playing songs by the group The Dead Kennedys...come on people.
Low Class-says Barack
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-the-long-primary-batt_b_102848.html
Be Heartened. Be Blessed
8/25/07: Clinton DNC operatives strip FL of all 210 delegates
I was reading some of these facts somewhere yesterday. Ickes actually voted to strip the delegates and I'm sure the Clintons have there hands in everything that goes in the Democratic party.
I just wish the voters knew what's going on.
Great find. Let's hope things like this get a lot of attention from the mainstream media in the next few days.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/196378.php
HARTFORD, Conn. - The Internal Revenue Service says the United Church of Christ did not violate rules when it hosted Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama at its convention in Hartford last year.
But that's exactly what would happen. There would be an show of "sympathy," but someone would suggest that the brain tumor affected his decision-making in the War on Terror, the economy, etc.
Unfortunate, but that's our world.
Thanx for that. Her campaign is so trifflin'. Her advisor was on TV yesterday and she was not being honest. The media needs to bring that up and confront her about it! She needs to be confronted! She is just too transparent!
"Hillary "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going" Rodham Nixon's campaign stripped Florida of its full slate of delegates."
Haha...yup thats her new name...I think that she beat the song when it comes to desperation.
Thanks for your comments. I am leaning towards the stupidity argument. I think her campaign didn't realize the threat Obama posed and then got flustered when he started to pull ahead.
And one other little note - I'd appreciate it if you didn't insert Clinton supporters - well, my dad to be specific - into your argument. Thanks.
Did you read some of the comments in that article? Pretty sad. "
No, I read articles not comments. I wasn't aware there were comments. It was a newspaper article not a blog. Sorry but I won't go look for comments either, your characterization of them was more than I care to know about some Americans. I don't expect anything but gutter antics from Faux News anyway. It doesn't surprise me that Ferraro is employed at Faux News.
Territories over states
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/21/114532/130
That’s the same Party who offered a non-vetted non-experienced Presidential candidate for their ’08 race. What a mess, and they actually think that they can run a country like the USA.
Good old Nancy Pelosi once said, something like this – “It takes a woman to clean up the House.” (BTW, if a Republican had said that, the Democratic Party’s MSM would still be reporting on it!). Dig this:
Mix-up throws House veto override in doubt
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_go_co/bush_farm_bill;_ylt=Atkw_CskBbVOEITBbzecHtas0NUE
Seems that the House $290 billion farm bill was sent to the President…missing a 34-page section!? “And now, everything’s FUBAR–causing the need for a do-over today.”
OK. One more…this one is about the oil prices. The Democrats’ Senate Judiciary Committee had called oil executives before them, with the hope of blaming American oil companies for the high price of gasoline; however, that backfired, and actually exposed the truth for once, i.e. that the problem is caused by the Democrats’ own agenda and restrictions:
Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020571.php
Perhaps, when we reach $8-a-gal, Americans will toss the Democratic Party and their radical environmentalists out, and start drilling for our own oil…so to speak.
Obama's Lobbyist Advisers: Big Oil, Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies
The Washington Post finds McCain adviser Charlie Black’s work lobbying for various third world governments and an anti-Communist rebel group from 1985 to 1994 worth a front page story.
Also, starting today, MoveOn.org "will air a national advertisement on CNN urging McCain to fire Charlie Black, a top adviser who has been a longtime lobbyist; McCain and Black have said that Black retired from lobbying in March."
Okay. Fine. I think it's stupid to try to purge every campaign of anyone who has ever lobbied, since most campaign and political professionals need work in non-campaign years, and one of the most widespread options is lobbying firms.
But if our friends on the left want to have this fight, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So can we expect a front page story on:
Daniel Shapiro, one of Obama's foreign policy advisers on the Middle East, registered to lobby for several corporate clients in the last year, since leaving the office of Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla). Shapiro, who worked during the 1990s for President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, counts some of America's biggest corporate names among his clients, including beermaker Anheuser-Busch, carmaker Daimler Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac.
Obama considers the point that he doesn't take money from oil companies (no one does; he just takes money from their employees) worth mentioning in an ad. So if their money is tainted, why is it okay to take advice from their lobbyists? How can Obama say he'll get tough on automakers to make sure they make fuel-efficient vehicles, if a Daimler Chrysler lobbyist has his ear?
Stupid argument? No more so than the idea that Charlie Black will be setting McCain's Africa policy. More:
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
The BP connection is through Teal Baker, who worked for the Podesta Group.
Or how about lobbyists for those dreaded insurance companies?
Brandon Hurlbut, Obama’s liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D; Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.
Or how about pharmaceutical companies? They're popular in Democratic circles.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, which accepts lobbyists' donations and is now trailing in the polls, has sought to question Obama's commitment to his lobbying ban. In a debate Saturday night in New Hampshire, she noted that Obama's campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state-based lobbyist whose clients include pharmaceutical companies. He is not registered at the federal level.
Wait, there's more. How about AT&T;, opponent of "net neutrality" and a company that cooperates with the NSA on wiretaps?
The Washington Post previously reported that Moses Mercado, a veteran political adviser to the likes of Dick Gephardt's former presidential bids, was negotiating last fall to become an adviser to Obama. Mercado was registered in Washington to lobby on behalf of several several corporate clients, including AT&T.;
Mercado said today he ultimately decided to skip becoming a paid adviser and instead is volunteering his advice and time in hopes of sidestepping the questions about being a lobbyist on the Obama payroll. Mercado was departing today to Nevada to help Obama with that state's caucuses.
How about a lobbyist as chief of staff in an Obama administration?
One of Obama’s chief surrogates, former Senator Tom Daschle, is being talked up as possible chief of staff in an Obama administration. He’s currently a “Special Public Policy Advisor” at Alston & Bird, where his duties are described, "as a non-attorney, Senator Daschle focuses his services on advising the firm’s clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes. In addition, he advises on trade and international matters." His title may not be “lobbyist ,” but when he joined the firm in 2005, NPR described their interview with him this way: “Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, discusses politics, the party and his new job as a lobbyist.”
Now, all of these folks may be fine folks — I think rather highly of Daschle for the way he handled the anthrax attack in his office — and if Obama wants them on his team, that's his decision. But I don't see why McCain should be raked over the coals for Black while Obama gets a pass for his lobbyist staffers, advisers, surrogates and helpers.
Obama’s outreach to US foes is questionable.
Barack Obama's willingness to meet Iranian, Cuban and other hostile leaders who would not get face time from John McCain stands as a distinctive element of his foreign policy.
ADVERTISEMENT
Distinctive, yes, but clearly defined? Not quite.
Obama gets cheers at his rallies when he declares there is nothing to fear, and potentially much to gain, from talking to enemies as well as friends.
But U.S. diplomacy is not that simple and neither is his position.
This week, Obama qualified his past statements that he would meet the Iranian leadership directly and without precondition by saying he did not necessarily mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hardline, anti-American president.
Nor is it certain lately at what point he, as president, would speak personally with some of the dictators he says should be engaged.
This, despite months of assertions that his willingness to sit down with foes sets him apart from Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and now McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, who challenges Obama on that point.
At some point, I'm not even sure if he's going to be able to keep up with what his stance is.
Lying in Plain Sight
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/20/31_20_theyre_still_with_hil.html
The idiots you described @ 7:43 need to read this article written by a republican. He anticipated their stupidity in the middle and end of the article. I guess he knows his party.
Ted Kennedy's America
thanks for the article. Hmmm....he really broke it down.
They have no pride. They need to lose their seats. There is so much going on out here in NY and people are becoming discontent with these congress people.
Kevin Powell is going after Ed Towns seat.
How can you see that someone is race-baiting but still suppport them. That means that you support their tactics.
I think that they are nervous. The Clintons are powerful here in New York. They took over my poor state and city. Bill Clinton has his office in Harlem etc... I think that they are scared of pissing off the "masta" if you get my jest. They are nervous that if they dont support her, it will come with consequences. I figure that thats whats floating in their head. However Tubbs Jones, Jackson Lee and all the rest, have no excuse.
Trail of Tall Tales: John McCain
Anonymous,
I'm on my way to Huffingtonpost. It's not the first time Obama's ' Manhood' has been questioned. It's been a pattern. I know you can see it.
Ted Kennedy was going to give the Sunday's commencement address at Wesleyan University.
I am going to have to read it. You have to be joking. These people dont cease to amaze me.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/05/paterson-sees-desperation-by-c.html
IMO it's not about "a large chunk of women" who will defect from the party, it's about ....
you are on the money. They've already dogged, then insulted Black women who wouldn't go along with their 'Sisterhood' bullshit about Hillpatine. I've known for awhile that their feminism means nothing to my life. Nothing to my family. They don't have my family at heart. It's the sense of ENTITLEMENT. It was 'her turn'. This isn't hopskotch; it's the Presidency of the United States of America.
" Her turn?"
I don't think so.
Did you read the article by Sylvia Walsh "The Shrinkage Factor" that Anon suggested she has to be crazy.
Excerpts:
"Barack Obama may be the only male politician of any significance in the past, say, one thousand years who is faithful to his wife. Does anyone doubt Obama's fidelity? Now that it's near certain he will be the Democratic nominee, I've been trying to sort out why I don't think this is a good thing. It's not that I'm pro-infidelity, mind you. As a psychologist who has seen many couples torn to pieces over it, I know how corrosive betrayal is to a relationship. Yet, Obama's certain fidelity is somehow troubling me."
"Obama is a nice guy. And, as most any woman will tell you, "nice" guys finish last. And they finish last because, well, they just aren't very sexy. Power, for better or worse, is a turn on."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sylvia-welsh/the-shrinkage-factor_b_103068.html
Are you kidding me? I am going to comment later. I avoided posting now because I may get banned from Huffington.
This is sexist, disturbing and even racist to a degree.
Obama does not match of up what she thinks black men are.
They are not faithful husbands.
They are not faithful fathers.
Hypermasculinity...hypersexuality.
Agressive.
Chest beating.
A sexual object rather than intellectual.
No moral values.
She wants him to fit this paradigm.
And god forbid he is married, happy and faithful to his black wife and children!!
She wants him to be the "angry black man" that America likes to see and run from!!
He knows exactly how he must present himself to avoid that characterization by any definition.
If he doesnt fit this then its "troubling". She is confused!
Obama has his masculinity questioned every day while Hillary cries sexism.
Wow.
If anyone can prove what you said isn't true, I will change my name to Hillary Clinton.
In fact, Melissa Harris-Lacewell schooled Gloria Steinam on NPR on this very topic months ago.
I say it's time for black women to come together as a loud voice of one for Obama.
Shut them down now!
Rene wrote: I don't understand why these white women (Walsh, Maureen Dowd) believe its okay to question Obama's masculinity. Who the f**k is she to define what's sexy, what is masculine, especially in regards to a black man.
The white-hetero-women-defining-Black-masculinity (and relatedly assessing Senator Obama for sexiness) is to my eyes a white female assertion of assumed ownership of Black men.
Really disgusting.
and @ rikyrah and Ms. Martin, I'm glad to read your comments about what I wrote in the other thread. Ms. Martin, I remember Gloria Steinem getting schooled by Melissa Harris-Lacewell ...
".....a white female assertion of assumed ownership of Black men."
Isn't this really what this entire tantrum that Hillbitch & company are having is about.
Isn't this really what this entire tantrum that Hillbitch & company are having is about.
I hadn't thought about it that way but it resonates.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your take on it though (I could be! I think I may be missing something about the heterosexual dynamic of it or something).
But if not it reminds me of another dynamic of the white-race-loyalty-feminism I've been thinking about ... I wrote this a few days ago trying to think out loud:
-------------------------------
Focus on Senator Obama's supposed "sexism" is actually a form of coded racism. Using the woman/gender thing as cover for what they are really saying, which that Senator Obama is aggressive and scary because he is BLACK. But that's not what they say, they code it under "man" and "sexist."
So they can express, in a socially acceptable way, all their hatred and fury of a BLACK (man) seeking leadership under cover of saying it's just his gender and it's sexism -- and Clinton and they are the victims. The myth of the Black male rapist of pure unsullied white womanhood exists for a reason.
I think this form of white-race-loyalty-feminism is flat-out terrified of and furious about the possibility of a Black man, or actually a Black person of either gender, in power. To the core.
From this angle I think it may go beyond what B-serious said about uppity N*** cutting in line. It may be that in this perspective, Black people have no real place in that line to begin with because the line is for consolidating power among white people.
White-race-loyalty-feminism is about including white women in this line and in places of power in this society -- first as white people, and specifically as white people who want the full benefits and advantages of being white.
--------------
So Ms. Martin, I'm thinking -- again I may not be understanding what you said -- but seems to me like some form of ownership of Black men (and Black women for that matter, though again I suspect maybe there is some hetero dynamic that I am not getting here) is part of the cluster of white power that white-race-loyalty-feminism wants to be sure to have and retain a piece of.
Hmm, and I'm reminded of the whole thing where Ms. Hillary said Senator Obama should be her VP when he was ahead of her anyway. Because for her the proper place of that Black man is to be owned inside HER administration, that's what that move said to me.
I remember at that time I was struggling really really hard with something going on from the Obama campaign, I think it was that the senator lost his center for a little while (I remember him talking self-critically about it later in an interview, saying he was performing more than connecting).
Anyway, I remember that because I was feeling kind of down and depressed about the campaign and then BAM he came out with that marvelous corrective commentary about how he was running for President and not VP and the energy of it was just so strong and clear. I was practically calling back at him and cheering as I read the transcript, it was that powerful to my eyes.
And I was sort of thinking then and clearly thinking now: that power was his refusal to let her own him, that power was him standing as a real human being and as a leader -- and not an object for white ownership. It was beautiful to me.
Again -- I could be misunderstanding what you wrote, though, and I am sorry if so, that I just took what you wrote and ran with it so long in another direction.
Sylia Walsh belongs to a long line of them. For her to be so snarky and brazen about it mad me scream. I am still yet to comment.
They talk of sexism and condscension yet they do it all the time to Obama.
Finding his fidelity to Michelle to be troubling is what made me go off from the beginning. Talking about break-ups, betrayal and psychology?? Really
I never knew that cheating on your wife was a reassurance of someone's manhood. Since when did someone have to "turn on" women like herself sexually in order to get their support.
Michelle-
".....a white female assertion of assumed ownership of Black men."
I agree, I agree.
Her article was a load of crap.
Completely demeaning and condescending to say the least.
Interestingly, that idea of "ownership" is also held by white men who are often threaten by a sucessful and smart black man therefore needing to discredit him. That often occurs in demasculating in way shape of form. They too have questioned his masculinity in overt terms.
The bowling thing is one of many, many examples. White men in the mainstream media had such a great time doing that.
One guy on MSNBC the other day said that Obama had no testosterone.
Sylvia Walsh's "Boo!" comment reminded me of Mick Huckabee's "Obama dropped to the floor"comment.
They effectively get two things done:
1. They are able to remove the threat that he possesses to them while being able to superfically feel that they dominate or control him.
2. Then, they are able to make him seem like a weak and incapable leader who wont be able to protect the American people.
Interesting.
I mean that they are using the sexism guise, and I do mean guise, to express their irrational anger (which can not be honestly spoken) against him for not staying in his place and Ferraro even takes it a step further when she implicates "black" journalists are too responsible for this sexism.
IMO all of this absurd accusation of sexism is merely a way of lashing out - Gerry tried the racism thing way back and that didn't work.
Sexism is the one claim feminists can attribute to their oppression which is in no way real, but really, what else do they have? It's over!
When in fact Bob Herbert, one of the journalists she name, was maybe the only journalist who wrote a story about sexism in this campaign.
I agree, only I would say they attempt to do these things, I don't believe they've been successful in their attempts. Each time Obama has played the game his way and played it well.
They talked about his bowling, he then went and shot hoops and said he was going to take the bowling alley out of the whitehouse and install a basketball court - now that's in your face.
There is no doubt Rhonda that they have tried to emasculate him, however, his strength is shown in his ability to maintain his composure, speak with a clear head, showcase his beautiful family and finally, secure the nomination and God willing, the presidency.