Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

babyming — Sat, 24 May 2008 08:25:00 -0000

I should mention one more thing to rikyrah,

As a Jewish guy who really likes Obama, I know I will be very unhappy to see the attacks that some Jewish groups will direct against him.

I can understand some of these people's concerns, e.g. if they somehow link Obama with people like Farrakhan, whose famous Madison Square Garden speech about "Jews in the ovens" doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

What I'm trying to say is, these people are entitled to their opinions. But I honestly believe that if Obama becomes President, he will do A LOT to eliminate prejudice and hatred of all types.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

babyming — Sat, 24 May 2008 08:15:00 -0000

rikyrah,

I agree with you. And I admit that quite a few Jews are worried (mistakenly, in my opinion) about Obama's attitudes towards Jews. I apologize as I didn't mean to imply that Jews are somehow "better" and more attuned to civil rights; that obviously isn't true.

In my earlier comment, I wanted to emphasize that I don't think that Jews are any more anti-Obama, or MUCH more anti-Obama, than any other demographic group.

I certainly hope people don't think that if Obama spends the time to address the concerns of Jews, he's somehow "kowtowing to the great Jewish lobby."

Honestly, I think Obama is probably one of the least-prejudiced people on the planet! And as far as "trust" goes, it's not even a contest to compare him with McCain or (God forbid) Clinton!

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Ms.Martin — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:12:00 -0000

CPL

"Chief Hanky Head Maggie Williams will get the blame for her losing the election?"

Interesting thought.

I wonder why she hasn't turned on Penn yet?

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

The Christian Progressive Libe — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:32:00 -0000

Not Star Jones:

It was never about race and gender until Hillary Clinton made it so.

I'm glad you can exhale because it is becoming very clear that when you can't make it about the issues, fling race and gender like monkey poo and hope something sticks.

Hillary's flinging monkey poo, and every woman under 60, Black, White, Jewish and in-between, is getting highly pissed off. The days of the bra-burning, Gloria Stenheim-feminism is long over; even Betty Friedan, when she wrote the Feminine Mystique, said before she died, that feminists like Stenheim took what she said far out of context of what was meant when she wrote that book back in 1963.

Which I took to mean that the whole feminist movement was out of the context of what real feminists like Freidan meant. Yet the Gloria Stenheim crowd got all the credit, so they should live with the consequences as well. That's the wave of feminism that Hillary and Bitter Old Hag Klanswoman Gerry Ferraro rode in on, and they can't seem to get a clue that the 1970's feminism is highly out of place and out of whack in 2008.

That's what's costing Hillary and once she loses, how fast do you think Chief Hanky Head Maggie Williams will get the blame for her losing the election?

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

I am not Star Jones — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:22:00 -0000

CPL,

your post is helping me to exhale...

I'm tired of the games that Team Clinton is playing.

But let's rewind to Summer 2007...

wasn't she the presumptive front runner for the nomination?

I don't think the change in her status can only be tossed up to misogyny and sexism of voters and the media. There was something off about her campaign team's approach that ignored strategy and public mood which also impacted where she is today.

This cannot be blamed on gender. It can be blamed on her assembling a tone deaf campaign staff.

Clearly

in light of her interesting choices she has decided to go for scorched earth and does not want to be seriously considered for ANY position if Obama does become the next President.

It amazes me how Hillary and her supporters are more comfortable with the prospect of a McCain presidency than an Obama presidency because SHE ran an ineffectual campaign.

Madness.

Although that reality is disheartening, I take comfort in Obama trumping Hillary fair and square has revealed everyone's real beliefs about equality and parity.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

TruthSeeker — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:09:00 -0000

bpm,

that's a great article.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Anonymous — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:47:00 -0000

Sex and the Sissy

Have a good weekend,

BPM

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

B-Serious — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:34:00 -0000

blackstocking said, "When did women just mean white women?"

Amen to that! Of course, that's consistent with how society often dismisses the autonomy of black women to be means in and of themselves rather than the subset of another group.

I'm amazed that the media still doesn't get it. How can Hillary be the "woman's" champ when most (in some states, 8/10 or 9/10) black women aren't even voting for her?

I've got strong black women in my family. And trust, the word "Hillary" gets a lot of unflattering responses from them when they hear it.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Ms.Martin — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:25:00 -0000

Blackstocking

The whole thing makes me want to say f***k em.

Hillary lost and they need to deal with it.

Let the feminist vote for McCain so he can take away their choices (btw Hillary and Gerry don't care about that - they're beyond childbearing age) and take them to wars, wars like the one Hillary voted for.

These women are so stupid, they're are being played by a woman whose ambitions are completely selfish.

When it all boils down and they get their emotions in check, they will realize that Hillary has lost and McCain has nothing to offer them.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

BlackStocking — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:11:00 -0000

I'm sick and tired of the growing chorus of whining white women who are trying to tie Obama to the sexist media. As if Obama runs MSNBC, FOX, et al.

White so-called feminists are falling into their usual short-sighted nonsense. Their white skin privilege is deluding them into thinking that it must be the black guy's fault if Chris Matthews turns their girl into eye candy or som Rethuglican operative comapres her to a nagging wife.

Pat Schroeder was blathering on about this last night on NPR. I understand that they-white women of a certain age- are disappointed, but the race was their girl's to lose. And she did so by not understanding that it is 2008, not 1998. In the words of her husband, I feel the white woman's pain.

Now they, white women, are threatening not to vote for Obama. Goodbye and good luck. They wouldn't be the first group of white voters to vote against their own self-interest. Actually, if they cause McCain to get elected, it will be just like 200o when many white uber liberals voted for Nader.

Also, notice how the media doesn't seem to want to know that many blacks have also threatened not to vote for Sen. Clinton if they steal the nomination away from Obama.

It is insulting that they, white women, seem to take it for granted that Hillary should be the nominee, no matter what. That white skin privilege is a bi$%h! This same group of privileged women have benefited from much more from affirmative action than black folks. So they play the game of sometimes they are oppressed and sometimes we's white so we msut be the winner.

When did women just mean white women? My dictionary doesn't include this definition, but the media yap on ad naseum.

Okay, now I'm whining. Whole thing makes me wnat to leave the planet.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

RhondaCoca — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:05:00 -0000

I rememeber getting this is an email last year. The title of it goes with the title of this post.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_1N3...

B-Serious said:

"That "rejection" is strengthened by the privilege some assume when they suggest leaders cannot lead and policy cannot be made unless someone makes them feel "comfortable."

Well, as a black man, I want to feel "comfortable" too. So I pledge that I won't even think of voting for McCain until I see him do the electric slide at a black family BBQ over Memorial Day weekend. Come on McCain. . . let's see what you got!"

Thank You, I would like to see that too. I wont vote for him unless he shows me that he is one of "us".

How sad, I was just thinking about that yesterday when they pundits were being pretty open about the fact that Obama was "different" from so many of the voters.

Interesting.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Ms.Martin — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:39:00 -0000

S

Obama has the support of 61% of the Jews and McCain 30 something.

I suggest you get about the business of promoting your candidate and stop trying to convince us about ours - we know better!

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

TruthSeeker — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:22:00 -0000

Biden seems to be auditioning like crazy:

Republicans and Our Enemies

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

B-Serious — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:45:00 -0000

On a separate note, I'm starting to really like the idea of an Obama/Biden ticket.

I gotta get more info on him, but I like what I've been hearing from him lately.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

B-Serious — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:36:00 -0000

typo: "But his color and name scare the hell out of some people. You'd thnk they'd more than that to dismiss someone."

I meant. . .

"You'd think they'd need more substance than that to dismiss someone."

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

B-Serious — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:22:00 -0000

How convenient. . .

Obama's got a problem with Jewish voters.

Obama's got a problem with white voters.

Obama's got a problem with working class white voters.

Obama's got a problem with women voters.

Obama's got a problem with Latino voters.

Anyone see a pattern here? What's next . . . Eskimos?

Far be it from me to ask for serious evidence as to WHY Obama has a "problem" with so many groups . . . groups that, by the way, are conveniently categorized by racial and ethnic labels.

Far be it from me to ask for any consistency when judging Obama vis-a-vis any other politician who has done or said similar things or taken similar positions as he.

Legit criticism should be tied to Obama's own words. Obama's own actions. His own policies. Not the words, actions and policies of someone he knows . . . or someone who knows someone he knows. Or someone who knew his father 40 years ago. . . or something his wife's cousin said 15 years ago.

Gotcha politics is nothing new. But rarely have I seen critics try to use six degrees of separation as a dispositive means of determining a candidate's fate.

Such tactics normally require more substance to live beyond one or two media cycles. But that's not the case with Obama.

We all no "why?"

Pat Buchannan tells us "why" every day: "Obama's not one of us?"

That's really convenient, isn't it?

Especially when one considers it would be nearly impossible to acculturate oneself into 5 or 6 different groups at the same time. One can't be all things to all people. But we sure expect Obama to do just that.

And this persistent implication that politicians ever have been all things to all people seems to be revisionist history on the part of his critics and the media.

This is an election. . . someone wins, and someone looses. Some of us back the winner, some the loser. Some of us get to celebrate the first Tuesday night in November; the rest of us find a way to move on.

Yet for some reason, with Obama, everyone feels entitled to a consolation prize. Very odd.

Sorry. . . sometimes you lose. It's as simple as that.

No one expects McCain to pick an asian v.p. because he said, "I hate the gooks" back in 2000.

No one expects McCain to pick a Catholic v.p. because of Rev. Hagee called the Catholic church the "great whore." Certainly, no one expects McCain to pick a gay v.p. because Rev. Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was the consequence of a gay pride parade.

And I'll fall out my chair the day I see McCain beg for forgiveness at a Muslim mosque just because Rev. Parsley's words made some muslims think, "McCain's not one of us." Trust, if he ever did he'd do it on his own time . . . on his own terms.

The common thread that ties all of these supposedly disaffected groups together (by the way, I actually believe that such "problems" are exagerated if they even do exist) is an unsubstantiated rejection of Obama as a person . . . not necessarily his policies. Obama's positions are not as radical as some make them to be. But his color and name scare the hell out of some people. You'd thnk they'd more than that to dismiss someone.

(At least us black folk log our complaints in a wiki)

That "rejection" is strengthened by the privilege some assume when they suggest leaders cannot lead and policy cannot be made unless someone makes them feel "comfortable."

Well, as a black man, I want to feel "comfortable" too. So I pledge that I won't even think of voting for McCain until I see him do the electric slide at a black family BBQ over Memorial Day weekend. Come on McCain. . . let's see what you got!

But we all know that won't happen. McCain is one of "us." So is Hillary. I mean, it's not like we know them personally. We don't have to. They're "one of us." They don't have to prove it, we just have to learn to accept it.

Obama is an "other." And people are fearful of "others." But we're not allowed to say what that fear actually is. . . just trust Buchannan when he tells you, "he's not one of us."

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Fri, 23 May 2008 08:45:00 -0000

Of course Obama has a problem with some Jews...and some whites...and some women, etc.

The question is: is the 'problem with Jews' a big enough problem to make a difference in the general election? How many Joe Liebermans are put there? I would venture to guess more than a handful.

Unfortunately, civil rights is not a general election theme this cycle, national security is.

Support for Israel in the face of mortal threats from Iran, Syria, al-Qeada, Hamas and Hezbollah is perhaps the main issue for many Jewish voters. The NYT article re: Obama's problem with Jewish voters was fair and merits serious consideration.

All criticism cannot be dismissed and misconceptions about Obama in the minds of Jewish voters must be addressed.

Of course, Obama's opponents are pushing this...it is a perceived weakness!! Welcome to politics.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

rikyrah — Fri, 23 May 2008 08:14:00 -0000

babyming,

I don't for one minute believe that Obama has a ' Jewish Problem'. But, it's sort of obvious, when it comes out every 10-14 fucking days...

'Obama has a problem with the Jews' Memo - there is SOMEONE PUSHING THIS...and it's not Camp Obama.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

babyming — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:55:00 -0000

As a Jewish supporter of Obama, I disagree that Obama has a Jewish problem. Jews have generally been at least as pro-civil-rights as anyone else. If you're SERIOUS about fighting prejudice, the enemy is people like Mark Fuhrman, not people like me.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

The Christian Progressive Libe — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:28:00 -0000

Rikyrah:

I got a long way to go to catch up with the rest of you here at JJP, but I'll do my best.

I swear, if she compares herself to Ghandi or MLK, I'm gonna hurl and beg Keith Olbermann to do another one of his "Special Comments" like the last one he did when he called her out for playing the race card in the first place.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Nquest — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:36:00 -0000

In the fine Clinton campaign tradition of "me and McCain, we got experience; Barack don't", another ad for "Clintons for McCain '08":

We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. And if we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send the message that we don’t fully value your votes, we know Senator McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument. Why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won’t even listen to you?

Transcript link

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Michelle — Fri, 23 May 2008 00:54:00 -0000

@rikyrah (comment at 08:19:00 PM)

OMG!

You said "Period" about Gerry Ferraro who is a WOMAN -- that's so sexist!

OMG!

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

babyming — Fri, 23 May 2008 00:50:00 -0000

The whole point of not counting Florida and Michigan is that they voted too early, before Super Tuesday, February 5. The idea was to allow the "official early states" of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to be where the candidates got to make themselves known to the public.

Obama scrupulously played by the DNC rules. The point I'm trying to make is that when FL and MI voted, OBAMA WAS NOT WELL-KNOWN. Not nearly as well-known as he is today. And he wasn't even on the ballot in MI. When FL and MI voted, Hillary was the front-runner, so many voters naturally voted for her.

Please note: the above is EXACTLY what the rules were supposed to PREVENT!!! The rules were supposed to give the "unknowns" like Obama a chance in the "early states". Then, populous states like MI and FL would vote LATER, when the candidates were BETTER KNOWN.

I may not have said to too well above, but if you think about this, it is completely bogus to talk about the popular vote in FL and MI. My point is, the rules were not arbitrary; they were ESSENTIAL to any second-tier candidate (e.g. Obama) to have a chance.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

glaukopis — Fri, 23 May 2008 00:32:00 -0000

I'm a 57 year old white woman and I'm with you on Hillary. Can't stand her.

Like your blog.

Obama 44

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:50:00 -0000

"is John Cole balloon -juice? I've been trying to get into that site, but it's down."

kos gave him a link and i think it blew him out for a while. it's up now, with a new post of more clinton bs.

make it stop!