USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Thanks, melliedee..and in all seriousness, what did you take from my post 13299 regarding how I would advise Obama?

Um...that Gergen's demand should extend to Obama with regard to black voters? No...they they do not apply and you would not make the same demand of him?

Maybe if I look back at your "answers" after I've had a glass of wine, your meaning will emerge. It is, afterall, not even noon and I've only had one cup of coffee.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think that view, while carefully considering the context and history of racism/sexism (which a I can appreciate), is at its heart a bit insulting to the intelligence of voters. If a woman told me she was voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, I'd feel free to call her an idiot. It's not just conservatives hollering about this; I am too.

Why is the breakdown in KY only addressing race with the pundits? Why not the fact that Obama campaigned little there, and basically ceded because he know he could not win? Did that fact impact the margin as much as race might have? How is that any different than Clinton dissing the "unimportant" caucus states?

They did do some of that, actually, in what I saw.

But on the first point, I still think there's a distinction worthy of note. I hear you saying to such a person, "Why don't you shoot for something a bit better when deciding how to vote?" (with which I would agree), but I hear conservatives using the view I was citing as saying to her, "See, you're just as sexist as the people you liberals complain about!" Or of course in the case of race, that a person is just as racist, etc.

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

They did do some of that, actually, in what I saw.

But on the first point, I still think there's a distinction worthy of note. I hear you saying to such a person, "Why don't you shoot for something a bit better when deciding how to vote?" (with which I would agree), but I hear conservatives using the view I was citing as saying to her, "See, you're just as sexist as the people you liberals complain about!" Or of course in the case of race, that a person is just as racist, etc.

Steve

I think that is a question for all voters, black and white, men and women. While I can certainly understand a black voter identifying with a black candidate, and a woman doing the same, to base your vote largely on that reason is uniformed and misguided. Because I can appreciate the history of racism and sexism going into that decision doesn't make it right. Any more than a white person refusing to vote for a black candidate, or a man for a woman, is right. That one should be held up as an example of racism, and the other, well I guess it's just a conservative talking point? Personally, I don't think so.

[ryberg]

I don't follow that entirely, but perhaps the distinction is what's right in an ideal setting and what's more... understandable or reasonable in our reality. The former would be everybody proceeding in a race-blind and gender-blind fashion when choosing who to vote for, I guess, but predicated also on a past which had been race-blind and gender-blind. I see the conservative view as wanting to have their cake and eat it, too, pushing for people to behave in such an ideal way but ignoring the glaring lack of any such ideal history or its relevance. Our real history makes it very hard, imo, to clearly state that black people or women who are more inclined to vote for a black person or a woman just because of race or gender are just wrong to do so. That it's not right in the sense of an ideal world seems clear to me but does not indicate that they are wrong, either, since our reality and our history have been far from ideal.

So I wouldn't encourage voting that way, by I wouldn't criticize it, either (esp not as a white male!).

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I don't follow that entirely, but perhaps the distinction is what's right in an ideal setting and what's more... understandable or reasonable in our reality. The former would be everybody proceeding in a race-blind and gender-blind fashion when choosing who to vote for, I guess, but predicated also on a past which had been race-blind and gender-blind. I see the conservative view as wanting to have their cake and eat it, too, pushing for people to behave in such an ideal way but ignoring the glaring lack of any such ideal history or its relevance. Our real history makes it very hard, imo, to clearly state that black people or women who are more inclined to vote for a black person or a woman just because of race or gender are just wrong to do so. That it's not right in the sense of an ideal world seems clear to me but does not indicate that they are wrong, either, since our reality and our history have been far from ideal.

So I wouldn't encourage voting that way, by I wouldn't criticize it, either (esp not as a white male!).

Steve

Fair enough. Thanks, btw, for anwering my question so thoughtfully. Race is a difficult topic and not served very well by the old Seinfeld adage "I don't think we should be talking about this..." We should talk about it. Fear of offending someone or not being politically correct...well, that's not a good enough reason to avoid the conversation, imo.

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Yeah, but the jig's up: that's one of those things the McCain campaign is actually providing to people via their web site when asking them to go to blogs and news comment pages and put in their thoughts -- for points! (No joke -- click here!)
It's too funny. His approach to the campaign is to fire the lobbyists who saved him months ago in order to try to retake the reformer mantle from Obama, while trying a sort of guerrilla version of the netroots foundation that Obama has been building for months and months.

Anyway, this link has a video clip of the first part of what Gergen and the others say, which prompted me just to say, Hey, wow, listen to this...

RedLasso - David Gergen discusses race in KY

Commentary on that appears along with that video link here:

David Gergen and CNN pundits challenge Hillary Clinton to denounce the racist vote.

The more moving part came after that, after they came back from commercial and Cooper went back to him on the point, but of that, I don't as yet find any video or transcript, unfortunately. His comments were as I say seemingly both spontaneous and heartfelt and he referred to the tendency over the course of the campaign toward the legitimizing of racism.

I agree with what he said. I do not think it can be interpreted to mean that he does not see sexism as a problem, if that is the concern here. They weren't talking about sexism at the moment, and anyway, Clinton had just focused on sexism and said she didn't think racism was an issue in the campaign. (That would be laughable if it weren't so sad to hear her lie like that on such an important issue.) And it did not appear to be any sort of prepared or comprehensive statement, either, just sincere commentary.

Steve

Don't know what that's all about. First time I visited is when you posted the link...you trying to garner more points or sumpin?

I posted the quote from a news report I read. I found it interesting that the two candidates are saying the same thing about each other. Who's really genuine? You say Obama because he's your candidate...I say I don't knw...sounds like they are both spewing the same rhetoric!

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think that view, while carefully considering the context and history of racism/sexism (which a I can appreciate), is at its heart a bit insulting to the intelligence of voters. If a woman told me she was voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, I'd feel free to call her an idiot. It's not just conservatives hollering about this; I am too.

Why is the breakdown in KY only addressing race with the pundits? Why not the fact that Obama campaigned little there, and basically ceded because he know he could not win? Did that fact impact the margin as much as race might have? How is that any different than Clinton dissing the "unimportant" caucus states?

That is not accurate. While not there in person, he blanketed the state with ads, and outspent the Clinton campaign from I heard last night.

Why isn't anyone drawing a misogyny inference from the fact that 2/3rds of Oregon men voted for Obama?

[roni]

Just one more point.

Obama is pursuing the very vote that Gergen is reported to suggest that Clinton repudiate.

Should Obama repudiate it before seeking it, or after seeking and getting some of it?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by horizon200

Don't know what that's all about. First time I visited is when you posted the link...you trying to garner more points or sumpin?

I posted the quote from a news report I read. I found it interesting that the two candidates are saying the same thing about each other. Who's really genuine? You say Obama because he's your candidate...I say I don't knw...sounds like they are both spewing the same rhetoric!

Well I dunno... You could look at things like, oh, which one of them claims to be the anti-lobbyist reformer but has lobbyists run his campaign, or which one takes one view on our foreign military involvement at one time, and then flip-flops on that for political reasons later, or which one calls certain tax cuts bad at one time but supports them later, again for political reasons, or that sort of thing, you know.

To me, that tends to reveal a lot about someone's sincerity and integrity.

Steve

[jtm1631]

I have not had a chance to keep up with this thread recently but I have a question.

I have three duaghters, ages 14, 10 and 7. People talk about everything Hillary Clinton has done for the good of women everywhere. I'm starting to question that. Is Hillary Clinton really the person I would point to with my daughters and say "now there is an example by which women should lead their lives".

Specifically, the seeming inability of Clinton to accept defeat despite the fact that everything points to the fact she has no chance of winning the nomination. Part of being an honorable person is admitting when you are wrong and when you have to accept defeat. I don't not see either of these qualities in Senator Clinton.

I think Clinton has turned what should have been a great moment for women in the United States and turned it into an embarrassment, but maybe that is just me.

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

I have not had a chance to keep up with this thread recently but I have a question.

I have three duaghters, ages 14, 10 and 7. People talk about everything Hillary Clinton has done for the good of women everywhere. I'm starting to question that. Is Hillary Clinton really the person I would point to with my daughters and say "now there is an example by which women should lead their lives".

Specifically, the seeming inability of Clinton to accept defeat despite the fact that everything points to the fact she has no chance of winning the nomination. Part of being an honorable person is admitting when you are wrong and when you have to accept defeat. I don't not see either of these qualities in Senator Clinton.

I think Clinton has turned what should have been a great moment for women in the United States and turned it into an embarrassment, but maybe that is just me.

Perseverance in wanting to do well for the best of your country is plaudable, I believe.

And definitely not as bad as stealing the election by various sub-forms of gerrymandering sealed by dictat of a bunch of appointed right-wing judges.

[pslucky]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

I have not had a chance to keep up with this thread recently but I have a question.

I have three duaghters, ages 14, 10 and 7. People talk about everything Hillary Clinton has done for the good of women everywhere. I'm starting to question that. Is Hillary Clinton really the person I would point to with my daughters and say "now there is an example by which women should lead their lives".

Specifically, the seeming inability of Clinton to accept defeat despite the fact that everything points to the fact she has no chance of winning the nomination. Part of being an honorable person is admitting when you are wrong and when you have to accept defeat. I don't not see either of these qualities in Senator Clinton.

I think Clinton has turned what should have been a great moment for women in the United States and turned it into an embarrassment, but maybe that is just me.

I agree with you on many of your points. Knowing when to bow out gracefully is a good quailty in both men and women. (I wanted to qualify that because I don't want anyone reading into this in order to say society would consider it acceptable for a man to press on...)

It reminds me of that story about King Soloman and the baby. You know? Giving up for the greater good of the party...

[StephenB]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

I have not had a chance to keep up with this thread recently but I have a question.

I have three duaghters, ages 14, 10 and 7. People talk about everything Hillary Clinton has done for the good of women everywhere. I'm starting to question that. Is Hillary Clinton really the person I would point to with my daughters and say "now there is an example by which women should lead their lives".

Specifically, the seeming inability of Clinton to accept defeat despite the fact that everything points to the fact she has no chance of winning the nomination. Part of being an honorable person is admitting when you are wrong and when you have to accept defeat. I don't not see either of these qualities in Senator Clinton.

I think Clinton has turned what should have been a great moment for women in the United States and turned it into an embarrassment, but maybe that is just me.

I think Hillary fails as an example for women in other ways too, but I'll just about that!

[Daddy B]

Just one question to those much better informed about detail than I am: what are the Democratic hopefuls' respective positions - in a nutshell - regarding Guantanamo Concentration Camp?

I sincerely hope they wouldn't use Robert Gates' excuse for keeping it going...

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Just one question to those much better informed about detail than I am: what are the Democratic hopefuls' respective positions - in a nutshell - regarding Guantanamo Concentration Camp?

I sincerely hope they wouldn't use Robert Gates' excuse for keeping it going...

How many delegates are at stake?