What's Sexist and What's Fair Game When It Comes to Hillary Clinton?
Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com
January 12, 2008
A recent BuzzFlash Editor’s blog stirred up a storm of response from readers. In it, we once again proclaimed that we will endorse any of the candidates who receives the Democratic nomination; that BuzzFlash doesn’t officially endorse candidates in primaries; but that we did admit to an Obama/Edwards "tilt." I also admitted that I personally, in full disclosure, am a male, to get the inevitable gender issue out in the open.A lot of responses are from individuals appropriately upset with the mainstream media's sensational and often sexist coverage of Hillary over the years, which has its origins – in part -- in wildly inaccurate attack books emerging from the likes of the right wing Regnery Press and right wing smears leaked through the Drudge Report. There is no question that the male class of entertainer pundits – epitomized by Tweety Bird Matthews – revel in slicing and dicing the brainy, savvy Hillary for sport, while generally giving the moronic behavior of George W. Bush a pass (one need only remember how Matthews lavished praise on Bush’s codpiece GI Joe arrival on the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier).
But we return – knowing that this will stir up another hornet’s nest -- to the point of looking at what is fair and unfair criticism of Hillary Clinton; what is sexist, and what is fair game.
So I decided to give some somewhat random examples in my own mind of the difference between inappropriate standard white-male chauvinism and actual candidate "fair game" issues.
Sexist
The mainstream media playing endless footage of Clinton’s laugh and deriding it as "the cackle."
Fair Game
Clinton has never held an elective office other than senator. She has no formal foreign policy experience, which undercuts her claim to be ready to deal with international crises from day one. She takes claims for some legislative accomplishments passed during her husband’s two terms as president and terms as governor of Arkansas. Exactly what role did she have in these laws? If she was so intimately involved with Bill’s foreign policy – in an informal capacity -- what was Al Gore doing, was he just chopped liver? And does such informal involvement, whatever it may or may not have been, qualify as decision-making experience?
Sexist
"Tweety Bird" Matthews claiming that when Clinton showed her emotions in New Hampshire she was finished and saying all sorts of sexist and misogynist things about her over the years about her.
Fair Game
One of Clinton’s key claims against Obama is that he does not support universal healthcare coverage. Yet, in her biggest official assignment in her husband’s administration she set the healthcare coverage issue back for more than a decade with an ill-conceived, wonkish, more than a thousand page "plan" that no one could understand. Clinton feared backing universal health coverage, which could have been accomplished simply, boldly, and efficiently by proposing that all Americans be covered under Medicare. Her key experience in drafting healthcare policy was nothing short of a disaster because she wouldn’t assert leadership to try and break through the insurance company and right wing opposition to universal coverage.
Sexist
The Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Regnery Press smear attacks on Clinton as a calculating shrew, a Lady MacBeth who is out to do harm to the Republic.
Fair Game
Clinton bragged in her autobiography that it was she who successfully argued for bringing the dirt bag Dick Morris back into the inner White House circle after Newt Gingrich took over the House leadership in 1994. Bringing Dick Morris in to save an administration that was having a stutter step is bad judgment, bragging about it is extraordinarily misguided. (See pages 299 and 344 of "Living History," by Hillary Rodham Clinton.) But it is hardly the only case of Hillary seeking out "triangulation" advisors. She says that, in the beginning, she met weekly with Bill and Dick Morris to carve out a strategy recommended by Morris. Can we expect more of the same if she chooses to highlight this in her memoirs as a "good" move?
Sexist
Writing about Clinton’s clothes, as Robin Givhan of the Washington Post did, devoting a whole story to a claim that Clinton was showing "lower cleavage." (And that was written by a female fashion reporter.)Fair Game
Clinton is bathed in the "centrist" philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council, which believes in a mythic American "center." It is more than fair to say that Clinton is not a progressive; she has espoused a foreign policy during her senate years that shadows Bush’s and has been modeled to prove that she can be as tough as "the guys." There is nothing compassionate, peaceful, or especially hopeful in her major foreign policy votes and statements to distinguish her from Bush. She has still never apologized, as Edwards has done, for her Iraq War vote. Yes, she has "experience" in the Senate, but what exactly has her "experience" revealed: a DLC adherent to a foreign policy that is so cautious and lacking in innovation, no one really knows if she would deviate far from the Bush doctrine when it comes to conflicts abroad. Are we supposed to just take her foreign policy votes with a wink and a nod and hope for the best?
Sexist
When Clinton is aggressive in her campaign style, some of the mainstream press claims that it will hurt her because it is not appropriate for a woman, while obviously implying that it is appropriate for a man.
Fair Game
Clinton has been a long-term member of the Washington D.C. status quo. She doesn’t rock the boat. She doesn’t upset lobbyists. She doesn’t take on special interests to any great degree. She is a practitioner of realpolitik. She dares not offend the money brokers behind the scene and therefore is lacking in bold and imaginative ideas. Until New Hampshire, she ran a "Rose Garden" campaign before she was elected. Her election would mean, if she served 8 years, a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 1988, 1980 if you include George Herbert Walker Bush’s years as Vice-President. That would stretch the Bush/Clinton "War of the Roses" reign from 1980 to 2016. Is this what our founders envisioned?
Sexist
The country is not ready for a woman in the White House.
Fair Game
Many foreign countries – including England (remember Maggie Thatcher), India, Pakistan, Germany and Israel – have had female heads of state. It is indeed time for America to enter the club, but the question is whether Clinton is the candidate that best serves the nation, regardless of gender.
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign, as a New York Times editorial noted, ran perilously close to injecting race – and we think that the Times was being polite -- into the 2008 contest based on statements made by both Hillary and Bill, including ones that could be interpreted as belittling Martin Luther King and characterizing the idea of a black man as president as a fantasy. This is not good, not good at all. The fact is that they did inject race (and there has been a pattern of reported racially tinged comments by Clinton staff and supporters that make it a pattern too large to overlook as isolated incidents – Andrew Cuomo’s comment that Obama can’t just "shuck and jive" being just one of these offensive comments), as did Gloria Steinem in a tactless op-edthat tried to argue women are more the victims in current American society than Blacks. (Many letters to the New York Times, from women, slammed back at Steinem.) In short, the Clinton campaign and surrogates have turned this into a "it’s more important to have the first woman in the White House than the first Black" contest. That is not a "unifying" campaign tactic, and it is rather unsavory.Hillary Clinton can’t have it both ways: she can’t play the "I’m tougher than all the guys" role in foreign policy and then claim that she is a victim as a woman and then have her campaign belittle the civil rights movement and Obama as a black man.
Margaret Thatcher, among other women leaders of foreign countries, taught us that gender doesn’t necessarily mean a more compassionate, effective, or sympathetic government. True, Maggie was a Tory and Clinton is a Democrat. But I think that it is safer to view Hillary through the lens of Bill’s old buddy, Tony Blair, than Margaret Thatcher, if you want to look at her likely style and policies in government.
Blair came to power on a platform of a "reformed" Labour Party. He left a neo-liberal economic globalization, IMF/World Bank, pro-Iraq War advocate.
If you want to look at actual Hillary Clinton statements and experience, not gender politics, Clinton is no Thatcher, but she is a Tony Blair.
The fact that she is a woman will likely make no or minimal difference in her style of government, although if I were a woman I would revel in the milestone of having a woman president.
But to what end?
Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House, which is fantastic.
But in the end, she will be judged by her performance not her gender.
The same will be the case for Clinton.
Anyone who cares about the nation should vote for the most effective leader who has shown through his or her experience the vision and ability to effect change and restore democracy, a secular society and progressive values, not to run away from them in order to maintain power.
Gender politics are an explosively emotional sideshow to saving our Constitutional heritage.
The issue remains which candidate shows the vision, consistency, promise and leadership that is not regularly compromised by the status quo of D.C. and a flawed DLC "narrative" of a mythical American "center" that drives their positions.
We’ll leave the answer to that up to our BuzzFlash readers.
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
Technorati Tags: - Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
BuzzFlash: Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Radio Ads | Reviews: Books, Movies, Music | Television | Books, DVDs, CDs, Hats, T-shirts
Community: BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions | News Releases
Columns: Wings of Justice | GOP Hypocrite of the Week | Last Chance Democracy Cafe | Libby Defense Fund | Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop | The Daily Buzz | Independent Thinker of the Month | World Media Watch | Blue State Jukebox | Verse-Case Scenario | Ms. Smith Goes to Washington | Caption This
Columnists: P.M. Carpenter | David Lindorff | Barbara's Daily Buzz | Ann Davidow | Thom Hartmann | Steven C. Day | Steven Jonas | Tony Peyser | Shirley Smith
Cartoonists: Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Tony Peyser | Andrew Wahl
Poets: Tony Peyser
Other: About | Frequently Asked Questions | Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Put BuzzFlash Headlines on Your Web Site | Get BuzzFlash Alerts | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content
and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
General Disclaimer: Guest and Reader Contributions, News Releases and Mailbag Letters posted on BuzzFlash are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BuzzFlash or its editors.
Attempting to justify your prejudices
Sorry Mark but keep your opinions of the democratic candidates to your self until we make out selection if you wish to hold your democratic audience.
I am not upset with the media I am upset with YOU.(nice try but no cigar)
I don't need to hear this blog giving John and Barak a free ride at Clinton's expense.
For the facts check http://facts.hillaryhub.com/and try a little objectivity.
You put your sex out front now how about your ethnicity?
P.S. Note the difference in the length of your sexist response and your fair game ones.Each time you go to town on the fair game and use it to bash Hillary without an equal bash of John and Barak.
Your prejudice is showing.Your "fair game" is actually sexist in disguise.
Let the GOP beat each other up during primaries!
I am voting for whomever wins the Dem nomination in the general election,
because I am ready for change, too.
But nothing changes when Dem voters beat up their candidates during a primary
season, and nothing turns off independent voters more, IMO.
Let the GOP beat up on each other's candidates for a change! Say nice things about
people in your party! All of them!
Whomever is elected will face plenty of criticism. Just let the voters decide, and
don't lean to one Dem candidate or the other - I am ready to vote for any one of them,
though I admit I am very interested in seeing the first woman/or first black president in my lifetime!
(And I hope John Edwards sticks around, as well, and that he may appear on a presidential ticket, too
this election.)
SINCERELY,
INDEPENDENT FLORIDA VOTER
In short - just leave Hillary alone! No one except her husband knows how much she may have helped
him as president, and it is sexist to assume all she did was bake cookies for 8 years in the White House!
Can we get on the subject?
Hillary has been on the scene much longer, and was the target of outrageous lies and malicious prosecution and scandalmongering for years. And there are platoons of pundits who love nothing better than trashing Democrats -- including the "liberal" ones. And certainly the morons like Matthews, who might actually have played a part in bringing women to Hillary's side. And yes, she was attached to the DLC, though less than her husband. Need I remind you that the DLC gambit brought two terms of a largely successful presidency? Yes, after Bush, it's gone moribund. Remember the last meeting which happened to be at the same time as Yearly Kos? Who did the candidates go to? Politics is a tough business. I think the DLC was a transitional object, in psychological terms.
But I really draw a line when you attack Hillary's health care plan because of what she did 15 years ago. The new plan isn't the same, and it's a better one than Obama's; that's not just me, that's Paul Krugman.
And about bashing Hillary for centrism - what is Obama but a centrist? His whole campaign talks about "unity." He sure wants that independent vote, and the Weekly Standard and Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Sowell are sure trying to help him. That might be why he's soft-peddled the mandatory nature that any decent, universal health plan should have. He's always inserting right-wing memes into the conversation and playing to the conservative and independent crowd. That's what mystifies me about the degree of support for Obama: if he was a white woman who'd been First Lady, Obama would be the target of democratic abuse, because there's not that much difference between most of the candidates -- and Hillary's positions are more liberal than anybody but Edwards and Kucinich. Of course, as a stage presence, Obama wins hands down. Are you confusing image and reality?
I think Hillary's much weaker than thought, because of one thing: she's 60, he's 46. The Gen-X'ers will be served. The Queen is dead, long live the King. Aside from that, if you want the programmatic liberal, vote Kucinich or Edwards. If you want the great speech maker with the more conservative positions, vote Obama.
Oh. One more thing. I'd be a lot more impressed with Obama supporters, and Buzzflash types entirely, if they could just admit that Hillary won because the pundits were wrong - but the polls were accurate, just reported incompletely. No "racism," no "Black Box voting," no "dirty tricks." She won one state where the pundits thought the polls showed her losing -- when they never mentioned the large number of undecided, even on Sunday. By the way, in 2000, Bush lost to McCain, and the polls were "wrong" then, too. So, are the Obama-ites going to start robocalls about Bill's black baby now? I trust you won't.
Gender Politics is a Diversion
If Hillary Clinton is the best qualified PERSON to be president, she will handle the sexism and bashing from the Right in a strong, intelligent, effective way. That's what a LEADER does.Women have always had to fight harder for fair treatment. Nothing new there. What is more important is her VOTING RECORD and past actions as a senator. If we look at those and ignore the gender issue, she's either a progressive who's faking it to get elected by the mythical middle or she's a true corporatist. Gender has nothing to do with it.
A disagreement
There are a couple of points with which I disagree and they are these:
Your assertion that the Clintons are making statements about Obama "including ones that could be interpreted as ... characterizing the idea of a black man as president as a fantasy."
No one who heard or read the entire statement would say such a thing; it's clear that Bill Clinton was talking about Obama's voting record on the war and what he's said about it. Clinton was clearly not speaking of the "idea of a black man" in making those remarks. Here's what he actually said:
"It is wrong that Sen. Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war."
"And you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."
"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
Second, regarding Gloria Steinam. I haven't read her piece and I may not. However, please consider this: MSM -- pundits and others -- are sexist all the time. They're never called on it and they're never admonished for it. It's accepted. Note all the comments made by Chris Matthews, not only about Hillary but about every woman he has on his show.
Now note how racist comments are addressed ... when made by Don Imus, by the golf-channel woman, etc., etc., etc.
Sexism is far more acceptable than racism -- at least in terms of speech -- in the popular culture. It's far more acceptable to diminish women than it is to diminish members of minority groups.
Finally, you might want to mention not only that you're male, but that Barack Obama is your senator.
Signed: Female and not from Illinois :-)
Your Whole Response is the Biggest Fairy Tale I've Ever Read
Don't take it personally and it certainly wasn't meant to be sexist.
Electing Any Stay-The-Course-Candidate Is A Doomsday Scenario
"Why is that?"
"Either we end the Iraq war or it'll be the end of us."
"But what can we do?"
"Go all out for a candidate who upon being elected makes good on his or her campaign promise to end the Iraq war."
"And doomsday?"
"Thereby undone."
"How is that?"
"Empowered by our having ended the Iraq war, it'll be up to us, the what sort of world."
Sexism and racism
Thanks to Mark Karlin.
I agree with the comments that suggest the same attention should be given to coverage of Obama.
We have a very difficult time, all of us, defining as "legitimate" comments about persons in public life who are not "white" males. I agree with Gloria Steinam's view that there's more prejudice against women in public life than against any man. I think this is because any racial/ethnic/religious etc etc label is fluid and the salience and relevance depends on the context and changes over time. For example, John Kennedy's Roman Catholicism was a huge issue in 1960 but the political importance of that religious affiliation now seems almost quaint.
However, the division of our species, both biologically and therefore socially, into female and male is fundamental. And since in the US we still have relatively few women who have achieved prominent positions in public life we have not worked out our collective ideas and feelings. We, many of us, frankly like to think of our president as a paternal protector. But what role is a "mother" to play? It's interesting that in highly stratified societies eg Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, just to name a few countries that have had women political leaders, social class trumps gender even where the majority of women suffer from low education and limited rights.
As for the most recent sexist analysis of Clinton's suitability for the presidency I thought the public discussion of her so-called "tearing up" in NH and whether she was expressing a "genuine" emotion or whether her emotion was contrived was ridiculous. Other emotions displayed by candidates - anger, friendliness, seriousness, affability, etc etc etc - are not scrutinized and analyzed as genuine or contrived. Give me a break! To be a candidate for public office is to be on stage non-stop. When a candidate is alert and "on message" every statement and emotion is supposed to be self-monitored and practiced. When they get exhausted, exasperated, bored, frustrated etc etc they may say and do things that may be picked up on and exaggerated (Howard Dean's "scream") or ignored depending on how the media like the candidate and how the pack mentality plays out. In 2000 GWB was usually portrayed as a genial and affable guy and Gore as overly serious and boring. Not too many Buzz Flash readers can now think that affability, genuine or not, was an important quality for choosing a leader.
Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA
Fair Game you say?????
Why don't you do the sam analysis on Borrack H Obama, like you did on Hillary R Clinton! and do it in the same way.
Lets talk about how many times he voted present and all the contradictory votes he had.Lets talk about how honest he is because he admitted to overindulging in liquore,marijauna, cocain and on the verge of heroine..What did he think all this was going to be a secret? Lets just bring it all out..This is what has been done to the Clinton. Its nice to just use the fair game to the advantage of who you want to take the nomination. It will be a sad day when and if Obama takes over. He is an empty vessell. He talks about hope and change but never takes issues on. Why does'nt he answer questions at rallys, I understand his advisers shiver of the thought..unless they connect a small device to tell him what to answer to the questions thrown at him. Lets be fair..Its nat racist here its not the gender card here but you and the rest of the media has made it this way. It the begining of a civil fight here and the media has done this. The woman can't say anything without it being scrutinized. I think everyone feels that Obamas has gotten a free pass with the press and the media. Its time to end the Free pass, let him pass on his own if he can. I think the free pass is so that he may win the nomination and then 4 more years of Republicans. Why you may ask..Republicans any of the candidate will eat Obama alive! They are shacking in their boots if Hillary should be the one. A WOMAN??? yes a woman and not because she is a woman it is because she is more qualified.
Be fair-No more free pass' for Obama..Lets just let it all hang out..His no vote for the war-Highnsight is bliss, his yes vote to fund the war? you might say for the troops, which is it? His hundreds of present votes because he can not commit. I am just a little person out here with little education, which I am sure you have quessed by now, but I do know that you all
media and journalist and people like you have not been fair to Hillary R Clinton and that Obama has been givin a free Pass on media reality.Dick Morris ungrateful scum of the earth, who can respect this man. He was trusted and look at his scummy behavoir. The media has brought him in and he is chocking on his own saliva because he can't get enough negative out there about Mrs. Clinton. Come on lets be fair! Do the same analysis on all the candidates!!!
Obama Needs Fair Scrutiny Too
Yes, Obama needs to be scrutinized and made to present the specifics of his program. His ascent to the presidency cannot be a coronation any more than Hillary's or anyone else for that matter. The media, however, does not allow a conversation on this level and constantly focuses on mind-numbing, irrelevant detail (Hillary's tears or laugh?). Obama's drug use certainly is not a surprise considering the widespread use of drugs in this culture, probably a feature of George Bush's resume as well. Bush was arrested for driving while intoxicated. That did not seem to phase voters. Clinton has been impeached and has sullied the very sanctum of the White House. Since voters no longer seem to care about "moral rectitude" (now there's an anachronism), maybe they should focus on the issues? I am a cynic and don't believe what any of the candidates SAY. Bush called himself a compassionate conservative and went on to be anything but compassionate or conservative. Obama has a shred of integrity and self-respect left. He's young and a public eager for the blood of its gladiators has him in their sights.
Both Sides Now
How about a similar analysis of RACIST/FAIR GAME with Obama? He is getting a pass with his campaign's frequent and egregious use of the race card, thereby allowing the media to avoid covering his allegiances, his statements, his friends, his policy contradictions, his failure to take important stands by not appearing at critical votes or just voting "present" etc. Where is the record analysis of Obama? Lost in a Kumbaya fantasy that is no different to me in playing to Democrats Kumbaya dreams (and I am one of them) than the Republican 9/11 Fear-O-Rama is in playing to the their base's anxiety.
The hypersensitivity to racial offense is a campaign tactic and is nothing more than guerilla theater--very effective. I do not see him being given the once over that Hillary is on policy. HER associations are dredged up but his are not. Try the same exercise on Obama if you really want to be "fair".
HYPERSENSITIVITY! You're kidding, right?
One might say Hillary's entire campaign is hidden behind her figurative skirts. No male equivalent of Hillary with such baggage from the previous administration and support for the war would have gotten past the first round in this beauty contest. Obama has not run an explicit campaign on his race although it is an inescapable element of it. To say that there is hypersensitivity on that account should surprise no one. What Obama and the African-American community put at risk in this campaign is enormous compared to the puny little ego-trip that our ex-first Lady has been on from the get-go. This is a defining moment in American history and how we all treat it will either resound to the everlasting credit or shame of this nation.
Fair Game
DEFuning: Yes I agree with your comment! I wish I could say it so eloquently!
Thank You!
Lefty is Far From Right
To characterize the Clintons as having fought "the good fight" is laughable. An impeached President and the First Enabler? The woman who has enabled Bush from her Senate seat? We pay a steep price for the few crumbs off this table. I like my fascists straight up rather than on the rocks, if you please.
Lefty is Far From The Right
You bring up the past on the Clinon, but the bottom line our Country was in a surplus when Bill was President! and frankly I prefer the person that has already brought us prosperity and a person that is a big MAYBE!!
Straight up! I agree, so why is Obama getting a free pass? Doing drugs, and riding on the coattalis of Oprah is not straight up..that he admitted to doing cocaine and on the verge of Heroine is this what you mean by straight up..Did he think this was going to be kept a secret? So therefore lets be straight up and admit to it? is that it??? Does he answer any questions on his rallys? Obama is straight up? He is an immitation of Martin Luther King the only different Martin Luther King was the REAL THING..
Now That We Have Gotten That Straight...
Are you going to tell us what is fair game about Obama and what is racist? Apparently you are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. Your charges of racism are disingenuous.
When you are going to betray someone, the first step is to convince yourself that they are bad and deserve what you are about to do to them. The Clinton's have fought the good fight against the forces of reaction and repression for many years. We are done with them now and we must destroy them so we can walk away with a clear conscience.
Yes!
There is no benefit of the doubt with the Clintons. We know thier shortcoming and we know thier experience. We know that during the times of the Clintons our Country was in a surplus, people felt proud to be Americans because we were respected globally! We knew that the dollar was up, we knew, we knew I certainly would rather know what I can expect that concerns our Country than say maybe he can, or he might be able, or what if??? we can't we shuld'nt
Sorry..Our Country, Our nation, Our People are going thru trying and crucial times. We can not aford the luxury of giving an inexperienced the benefit of the doubt!
fair game
The problem with fair game is that by the time you get to fair game the well has been poisoned.It may be unfair to attribute certain things to Hillary but by the time you are finished they are well and truly set in concrete in the mind of the reader.As they say in the entertainment world bad news(even if not true) is better than no news especially from the point of view of the opposition.
So go ahead and do the Lyndon Johnson number ( he will have to deny it won't he?)on her.
Sincerely
Andyod
Media-ism
Although I am a fervent supporter of Barack Obama and no fan of Hillary Clinton, it is obvious to me that the if you added the entire IQ of the current media you wouldn't get enough frequent flyer points for a busride. Can you imagine an Eric Sevareid or a Harry K. Smith reporting the news in the manner that these present clown do? It used to be called journalism. Maybe we should now call it "media-ism" so that the concept reflects the inattention to accuracy and the subtle or-not-so-subtle use of sexist and racist language used to discredit candidates. My position with respect to Hillary as Presidential candidate has nothing to do with her being a woman and the media should not be making that an issue. But my defense of her against sexist attacks does not translate into support for her for president.
Halle-freakin-leujah!
I'm in complete agreement with Buzz and commonsense. But, I also see that it's the Right fueling this poor Hillary crap -for their own purposes. Pat Buchanan is screaming his lungs in her defense -trying to get us all to believe that within 48 hours of her self pitying blubbering women came running out of every corner of New Hamshire to take their revenge on -just Barack Obama?? Edwards and Richardson's numbers didn't change from what the polls predicted. Nor did the Republicans numbers didn't change.
While this will be discussed in detail later, no serious person can believe those results were accurate. When the hand counted votes ratios are flipped in reverse to the Diebold counted ratios -something smells. And when pollster.com said "There is a problem here", they know something smells too.
But my point is Buchanan and Co. may just be trying to drown out what they too know, was a rigged election.
Anyhoo, here's a fact I thought you'd find interesting. The bullsh** that women prefer Hillary to Obama, or that Hillary appeals to the beer drinking labor class of middle-American is easily disputed by the figures.
Re the woman thing -Obama has many more women contributing to his campaign than Hillary -until you get to the big big money donors from business.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordemCID_compare.asp?cycle=2008&cand1=N00000019&cand2=N00009638
An update: Kucinich has used his own money to pay New Hamshire for an audit!
Nationalism is not terrorism. And an adversary is not an enemy.
Continuing an Untruth
Even in Buzzflash where I expect better the lie about the "fairy tale" was again written. President Clinton called Obama's stand on
the war, a fairy tale not his campaign. If Obama called Hillary's stand a fairy tale, would that be all right? I am sure no one would comment. In regard to LBJ. Senator Clinton talked about that to show what Presidents can accomplish. If LBJ had not put the legislation through and got it passed, where would King's dream be or how much longer would it have taken? LBJ's action doesn't diminish King, it just says a good President can make a difference in a cause which is what Hillary said. As to legislation, Hillary as first lady designed the SCHIP program, you know the one that Bush vetoed the extension on. She designed it and worked in Congress as First Lady to get it passed.
It is hardly fair to go with an attack on her when she tried to get
health care. She was the first person to seriously try and part of the problem is the people weren't ready for it. Today it would be a different story. I think she deserves credit for giving the idea a huge push or it would never be as accepted as it is today. Please tell me one thing that Obama even tried to do that was that big in his lifetime. I supported Obama when he ran for Senate, I attended fundraisers and worked in my community. I heard the same great speeches of hope and change and then he went to Washington. What happened to that message? He promised he would finish his term and be the best Senator for Illinois. That promise lasted until the ink was barely dry on his oath of office and he was running for President. Obama showed me who he was and I think this time I should believe him.....all hope and not much else. I hope you will have the integrity to so the same with Obama you did above on Hillary. You know Buzzflash readers fund you and I did so believing you would stay neutral as you claimed you would.....your diatrabe above was not neutral and if this is what you call neutral, I think maybe I should believe what you just showed me and go elsewhere too.
Obama's speaches are full of
Obama's speaches are full of empty hopes. I was also in Ilinois,visitng a relative who said we needed to go see this wonderful young man,(Obama) he will make the difference, bring change and who knows what else she said as she rambled on and on saying how really great he was...I have to say I was impressed untill he won and then...what happened? nothing...then he was running for President...What are we getting?We will be getting an empty vessell, with empty words and the only change he will make, may be a change of address. In regards to his Hope, well hmm he does not have the experience to turn our hopes into a reality. By the way my relative was needles to say very disappointed just as all Americans will be if Obama would be the nominee.
I also agree that we DO need the same analytical brilliance that you seem to think you have on Hillary be used on Obama.
You may not want us to hear that his experience is minimal, accomplishments are minimal and that if we want an intern in the White House in these crucial times we are facing...we will be very sorry.
Lets get the same Analytical Brilliance on Obama on your next Buzzflash or we will definately have to go elsewhere for this article on Hillary would be a bias article to HelP Obama.
High-five Hazmaq!
No doubt that the right is trying to make as much hay out of the current Democratic contest as possible. The wing-nuts on the right are convinced that if they promote Hillary, their job in November will be easier. Unfortunately, all of this maneuvering over the political map is unavoidable in a contest which has now got so many hot-button variables. You have to stop every now and then and catch your breath. When you do, the media calls you over and gives you a sucker punch to help you in your distress. It's my hope (possibly vain) that through all this the media will also be taught a lesson. People, wake up! Take back the conversation.
Obama comes up short
Okay.
As a gay woman, I will be very interested in how and when and if Obama meets with the gay community, and find out EXACTLY what his stand on choice is.
I know where Hillary stands. That is enough for me.
If It Matters to You
Obama has received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood of Illinois for his record in the Illinois legislature. Sometimes we just like a candidate for who they are. You're entitled.
IT DOES MATTER TO ME?
As nice as receiving 100% Rating from Planned Parenthood of Illinois for his legislative record..The Big Question is What did he really do to make a big difference and change. What hopes did he bring to reality?.What did he do for his state, what can he do for the entire Countyr? he has not been in the Senate long enough to make a difference. Now he wants to hop, skip and jump right into the white house with a minimal of accomplishments to be President.
Then you will say, what about Kennedy..Well his forreign policy inexperience 1. example Bay Of Pigs..and that is a millionth of what we are facing now and what is ahead.
No I insist that the same analysis be done on Obama as Hillary. I can say that as a Vice President he may be able to barely slide in, but at the least there will be a leader that won't compromise our Country due to Inexperience!
Why the Question Mark?
So,it is not simply particular issues that you care about, but you are blowing the experience trumpet. Even raising the Bay of Pigs (as if that were relevant here). Let me get snide a bit a remind you that Bill Clinton and Kennedy had a similar history of scandal, although in Kennedy's case it was kept under wraps. At least Kennedy kept the Oval Office out of bounds. As far as Hillary's great - oh so great - experience, she was unable to get health care reformed in part because of her fascist method of closing off the public from the process. She enabled an impeached president to smear the office and watched while an administration, which had the crucial watch before 9/11, failed to prepare us sufficiently for the challenges of the 21st century. Not defending Bush here, whose legacy is as infamous as the Clintons, but any American who in their right mind imagines that these bargain basement seconds are going to improve our status in the world or anyone's life is in for a rude awakening.
You knew him well, then?
How the **** do you KNOW that Kennedy kept the Oval Office out of bounds? Were you there?
Bill Clinton could have done the same thing with every woman he could find, and he would not have sullied the office (or the Office) as much as George W. Bush has, just so he could be a "war president." Tens of thousands (at a very conservative estimate) of people have died because of Bush's lies, compared to exactly 0 over Clinton's.
As for terrorism, Clinton's record may not have been perfect, but I remember that when he did try, the amen chorus of the Republican party accused him of "wagging the dog." He did a hell of a lot more than our present fearless leader, right down to the members of his administration begging their successors to pay attention to it, after which they promptly spent the next 7-1/2 months ignoring warning after warning after warning.
Selective Rage
You know, I don't know if Kennedy had himself blown in the Oval Office but since there isn't any evidence of it, I'll take the absence of evidence as more reliable than your malicious imagination (and language). As for your other points, my feelings toward Bush easily outmatch yours. HOWEVER: That Clinton and his coterie of bunglers (Sandy Berger and the National Archives document scandal) and George Tenet (director of the CIA and Clinton appointee on watch during 2001) shared responsibility for 9/11 with the present so-called president should be obvious to anyone with the good faith to give the matter objective consideration. I thought the game was two steps back one step forward. When did it become two steps back, then three steps back?