Mother Talkers

It’s Not Your Imagination

Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:17:23 AM PDT

I’ve noticed something this primary season.    Even though we are told that a double standard doesn’t exist, it surely does.  There were obvious examples of sexism during this heated primary season... like Chris Matthews gaffes that ended with a public apology.  But there have been others.  Recently, my mother forwarded me an essay by Robin Morgan of the Women’s Media Center called Goodbye To All That #2.  Robin wrote Goodbye To All That (#1) back in 1970, when she and other feminists took over a counter culture magazine called Rat.  

After reading her most recent essay, I’m convinced that sexism is alive and well in this political primary season.  It’s hard for me not to copy and paste the whole article.  Here are a few highlights...

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .
—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Here’s one I’m really feeling:

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

Yes!  Enough of that.  I’d be pissed if I was being skewered for what my husband says like Hillary is.  

I hear all the time that Hillary is “opportunistic”.  That she’s “riding on her husband’s coattails”.  Here’s what Ms. Morgan has to say about that:

Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.

And...

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.

Here’s what Ms. Morgan says about those Hillary nutcrackers...

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

How true.  It’s not my imagination.  Read the whole essay... it’s fantastic.  And, for those of us who have been supporting Hillary Clinton for President, it’s an answer to that nagging feeling that yes... there is a bloody double standard.

Tags: Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Robin Morgan, Women's Media Center, Sexism, Feminist (all tags)

Permalink | 73 comments

  • great essay (0 / 0)

    Great points.

    Here's another interesting article from Newsweek.  It's a review of book of essays on HRC, written by women writers...

    The essays—written mostly by New York intellectuals, and edited by Susan Morrison, The New Yorker's articles editor—dissect Clinton's femininity, sexuality, clothes, mothering, marriage, mystique and, of course, likability. Or, more precisely, why so many educated, middle-class women have a visceral response to her. "My generation definitely has a Clinton problem," writes Amy Wilentz in an essay on Clinton's clothes, or "costumes."

    The reasons for their suspicion outlined here are mostly personal—she doesn't have a hobby, aside from cleaning closets and completing crossword puzzles. She doesn't appear to have been deeply attached to her family pets. She lacks sensuousness. She showed a hint of cleavage. She wore turquoise earrings with a yellow pantsuit. She liked prim headbands. She changed her maiden name. She married Bill Clinton. She stayed married to Bill Clinton. She is still married to Bill Clinton. Even her voice, Marie Brenner writes, "reminds us of the fifth grade teacher we despised."

    And here's the punchline...

    The problem is that many of the authors seem unaware of how much support Hillary actually has among women. Roiphe declares, "I have yet to meet a woman who likes Hillary Clinton." How, then, to explain that polling has consistently shown blue-collar women have rallied to Clinton's campaign, along with older women? A recent Pew Research Center study found 49 percent of female Democratic supporters back Clinton—only 28 percent chose Obama.

    So not all women think the same way. It's just that some voices are a lot louder than others.

  • what about age (0 / 0)

    Not to keep clogging your thread up with Newsweek articles..but here's another gem from Anna Quindlen...Why are we all talking about race and gender, yet not McCain's age?

    There's been plenty of talk during primary season about gender and race; it's age that has become taboo. While there is a minimum age of 35 to be elected president, there's no maximum. Perhaps that's why it's more acceptable to suggest that a contender is callow than over the hill.

    http://www.newsweek.com/...

  • THANK YOU for this (0 / 0)

    I'm sending it to every one who ever made me 'defend' my supporting Hilary.  I believe in her and I admire her and I'm with her til the end!  

  • This author makes some good points ... (0 / 0)

    ... but her inaccuracies and bias makes me just turn off.

    Such as:

    "—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary."

    I guess her math is rather fuzzy -- Kathleen and Bobby are OLDER than Carolyn, Patrick, and Maria.  And the three she mentioned are the only Kennedys for Hillary?  She should have left this point out.

    And yes!  Let's talk about Chappaquiddick (40 YEARS ago) and Marilyn Monroe.  That's the ticket.  Let's call some "young" Kennedys wonderful (Kathleen and Bobby Jr. are in their 50s), while calling other (not young?) Kennedys silly?  Truth be told, I really admire Bobby Jr. NOW, but let's be fair -- if we're gonna judge Teddy, let's judge Bobby, too.  Heard of Bobby Jr. in the late 60s/early 70s?  

    Let's keep politics to the NOW -- or at least the last 20 or so years.

    That means Hillary being a Republican is OUT.  And Obama and cocaine, too.

    • sexism is alive and well.. (0 / 0)

      however i agree that the kennedy point was not well made. and that by only referring to ted kennedy ruined the essay.

      i related to caroline's endorsement ...she watched her kid's excitement around obama.  i have watched the same in my dd and other younger kids.  i haven't seen this kind of excitement in younger generations....ever.  not to sound trite...but this gives me tremendous "hope".

      they are both great candidates.  i just think obama is the candidate that has the best shot  to move the country.

      • i have to agree with you (0 / 0)

        i am fully aware of the double standard and the sexism that is rampant in our society and media.

        i still, however, feel that Obama is the better candidate.

        We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. - E.R. Murrow

        by lorin on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:00:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • the Kennedy thing (0 / 0)

      They are all first cousins, so they're all of the same generation, right?

      At any rate, I do think counting up Kennedys is a dumb thing to do.

      • Well .... (0 / 0)

        Teddy and Ethel are one generation.  Patrick, Maria, Bobby, Kathleen, and Carolyn are the next.  And Carolyn's and Maria's children (who are allegedly for Obama) are a third generation.

        And you are absolutely correct about counting Kennedys.

        • there ARE so many of them :) (0 / 0)

          i read arnold said it it the first time in 30 years he has know the family that they are not all agreed.  gotta love that.

          again i was touched by caroline's endorsement. i do have respect for her, and i can't recall her ever coming out this early for an endorsement.  i think she is clearly moved by her children and obama.

          my husband comes from a large irish catholic family too....at dinner on saturday night the clan was divided between obama and clinton.  except my FIL who voted early and it was for Edwards.

  • Damned if I do... (0 / 0)

    damned if I don't, I guess.  I find myself feeling defensive at times because I'm not in the HC camp.  I'm a feminist- use the word loud and proud at every opportunity- and would probably be an HC supported if Obama weren't running.  Not to go into all my reasons for my choice, but I bristle when I feel painted as a "type."  I'm not a sexist anymore than HC supporters are racists for not supporting a black man- and I feel like this essay calls that into question.  It almost feels like she wants my Ms. magazine subscription suspended and my feminist membership card revoked because I won't make a choice based on biology.

    Perhaps I'm overthinking this.

    • feminist to the bone.. (0 / 0)

      have been for as long as i can remember...back to the 70's as a teen.  the "where is your uterus" question really needs to go.  my uterus is firmly in place.  i think HC is great on many  many issues.  and i will support her if she wins.

      but obama is clearly a "feminist" too.  his wife campaigns with great integrity.  Obama promises to deliver a very exciting, positive and next generation White House.

      • LGBT issues? (0 / 0)

        Do the stories about surrounding himself/consulting with  very homophobic folks have legs? I've not researched it and am hoping, hoping, hoping it's a myth. Anybody know?

        • first I have heard of that... (0 / 0)

        • I did a bit of research (0 / 0)

          Here's what I found:He supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
          He supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
          He believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."
          He believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.
          Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.  He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.  "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

          Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
          Other 2008 Presidential Candidates

          He seems to have connected himself with some folks who are less than praise-worthy in the LGBT issues arena.  I'm wondering if that's a bad choice based on inexperience or if it's an indicator?  

    • ITA (0 / 0)

      to everything you said. As stupid as it is for my white male husband to automatically be for Mitt or John, it's silly to say that I should be for Hillary because I am a girl.

      You're not overthinking it. It's a slippery slope. And I think, too, I've mentioned it before, but there are a lot of 2nd wave feminists who might see Hillary as their only chance for a woman candidate in their lifetimes. I think that's a little short sited. 8 years later isn't a bad thing, and if Obama could appear so quickly on the scene, so could the first woman president.

    • ITA! Yes! Yes! (0 / 0)

      I preferred John Edwards and would have voted for him in the primaries. I now will vote with great pride for Obama. If HRC is the candidate for the party, I will also vote for her. But I am really tired of the idea that if you're a woman and you don't vote for HRC, you're not a feminist. Balls to that. ;-P

    • I went to the UCLA rally yesterday (0 / 0)

      It was amazing, but what was great was when Oprah spoke about those women who say she's a traitor to her gender because she's for Obama.  She said, "The point is that I'm a free woman.  I am free to make the choices I want to make."  Ooh, you really must watch the video of her talking.  I've never paid that woman any mind in all my life, but I was surprised that she had something good AND interesting to say.  

      I gotta tell you, being at that rally, with all those strong women on stage.  Wow.  And I want Michelle Obama for president.  When she becomes First Lady, it will be the first time in my lifetime that we'll have a First Lady who is brilliant and can inspire us to be better Americans.

  • beyond gender (0 / 0)

    I completely agree that the anti-Hillary vitriol has a strong dose of gender bias.  But I also believe it is old baggage that she's been carrying around since the early 90s.  She didn't deserve it then, she certainly doesn't deserve it now, but for whatever reason it is firmly attached to her.  Unfair, but it comes from a segment of the population that progressives write off anyway.

    What really frustrates me, though, is all this backlash insisting that Hillary's drop in the polls are an unfair reflection of a gender double standard.  When NOW put out that press release criticizing Ted Kennedy for the 'ultimate betrayal' I was furious.  To insist that he was obligated to consider her genitals is a betrayal of everything NOW is supposed to stand for.

    The FACT is that Hillary and Obama are both wildly popular compared to McCain and Romney.  In any other context she'd be winning in a landslide.  It's not her negatives that hurt her standing, it's Obama's positives.  

    I am a passionate feminist.  I have enormous respect for Clinton and I believe she has the potential to be among our great presidents.  But I am voting for Obama.  And it has nothing to do with his balls, or hers.  

    The Democratic party is partially responsible for the mess we're in, for enabling Bush and not standing up to the Republicans.  As much as I like Hillary as an individual, I look at who is standing behind her.  She is the choice of the party operatives and the DLC. People whose influence within the party I want to see reduced.

    • 17 years (0 / 0)

      of collecting information on Hillary. If society is "allowing" the sexism now, imagine when the big guns come out. It's going to be ugly because Hillary is Hillary, fair or no.

    • You're not alone in your fury: (0 / 0)

      I was distressed to read that the President of NY State N.O.W. excoriated Ted Kennedy for "betraying women" by endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton (NYT, 2/1/08)....  For us [old school feminists], Barack Obama represents a better vehicle for feminist aspirations than Hillary Clinton. The democratizing energies now converging on him promise to create the terrain on which our sort of feminism can once again flourish.... That is a prospect worthy of the best and the highest in American feminism.

      Nancy Fraser
      Henry A. and Louise Loeb Professor of Philosophy and Politics
      New School for Social Research

      I confess to being less than inspired by Obama.  What I have read of his positions and his voting record don't strike me as transformative.  Yesterday's NYTimes article about his softening of legislation to please nuclear facility operators didn't increase my confidence in him.  

      Entirely apart from the question of feminism, what is Obama pledging to do that inspires so many of you?  What am I missing?!  I'm voting tomorrow and am still undecided.

      • Early childhood education (0 / 0)

        that was what got me.  His belief that early childhood education- not just childcare, but quality early childhood education, taught by certified educators paid a professional wage, subsidized by the government- is a right, not a privilege; that's what swayed me.  That and the sense I have that, as the child of a single mom who struggled to raise him, he knows what it's like to be right on the edge of not having enough to get by- or worse.

      • Experience (0 / 0)

        Seeing as how he has more experience in public office and working with non-profits; bringing together a diverse group to get things done, I lean his way.  The fact that Clinton has not only voted horridly on a lot of legislation, but is cavalier about it, turns me off.  Even if she wins the nomination, I won't ever vote for her because of her campaign's racist/xenophobic tactics.  Bill Clinton did it in the '90s and it's just pathetic to do it now.  

        And most importantly, she keeps mentioning all this "work" she did as First Lady, yet won't release on her papers.  I know that the Clinton's sold us on a "co-presidency" back then.  So, it follows that that's what we'll get now.  A 3rd term.  

        My last reason is long term.  No one except a spineless pol will want to be VP in a Clinton WH.  I'm assuming that no one is naive enough to believe that Bill wouldn't inject himself at every turn.  

      • it's not his pledges (0 / 0)

        Funny, I just had this very conversation with DH as he was filling in his ballot at the last minute before a trip.  He was undecided but leaning Hillary.  Interestingly, after talking through all the issues for over an hour he still had to ask who I'd voted for; he couldn't tell I am an Obama partisan.  Both Hillary and Obama, taken as individuals, are just that good.

        On the issues there's not much daylight between them; they are making the same pledges and once in office will be constrained by the same realities.  Hillary is smart, capable, and experienced.  But she will not govern alone.  Obama is less tested, but he won't be alone either.  

        Our next president is going to land in some very deep doo-doo.  There are going to be some harsh realities to face, requiring difficult and unpopular decisions.  The current party leadership has to date shown an aversion to sticking their collective necks out and a reluctance to push for what needs to be done.  These cautious, weak-kneed, focus-grouped cowards will be a major component of an eventual Clinton administration.

        Major changes won't happen without major support.  Unpopular decisions require that the public have trust, faith, and confidence in their leaders.  I don't think Hillary, for all her competence, can inspire that.  I think Obama can.  

  • Would Hillary be running w/o Bill? (0 / 0)

    I don't dislike Hillary Clinton, but I just can't see that Hillary would be where she is if she hadn't happened to marry Bill.  Of course, if Bill had married someone other than Hillary it seems fairly likely that he would still be Governor of Arkansas. There is tremendous synergy in that marriage, whatever the problems.

    But to me the moral lesson is not an especially edifying feminist success story because the wellspring of Hillay's political success is her fortunate marriage.  Hillary is not really becoming the man she wanted to marry so much as married to the man she is becoming.

    If I had married a different guy (and there were certainly missed opportunities) I might have had a more successful career myself.  sigh  That's a post-feminist thought if I ever had one.

    --AmyB

    • As it turns out (0 / 0)

      I used to feel this way too, but as it turns out, Hillary Rodham was mentioned as a potential future Presidential candidate even before she married Bill, based in part on her activism at Wellesley, for which she was featured in Life Magazine. So it's part of the tangle, but her accomplishments are significant even without her role as First Lady. Imagine if instead she'd had a position like Karen Hughes. Would her accomplishments be her own then?

      I am voting for Obama tomorrow, but I have warmed to Hillary considerably over the past year.

    • Would JFK (0 / 0)

      have been president without his father and his father's money and position? Would Robert Kennedy have been AG and then presidential candidate without the same? Ted Kennedy, a senator? Caroline Kennedy, an endorser of presidents? Why does no one care about that?

      I just don't get how the marriage relationship is somehow more problematic, in terms of where it gets a person, than family connections.

      I also happen to believe that the self-made success of the Clintons is entirely mutual. Neither one of them could have made it without the other.

  • I agree there's been a double standard (0 / 0)

    It's still hard for a woman politician. Picking out clothes and hairstyle and makeup, for example - a huge balancing act.

    It gets a little better every year.

    Hillary in particular is burdened by having been in the front ranks of the feminist movement, someone who took a lot of heat and arrows in the 90's for daring to be the first First Lady with her own resume. And so as part of that, her accomplishments were toned down. Still, there is a whole generation who took all of their anger at the feminist movement and pasted it firmly on her lapel. They probably don't even remember why she makes them so angry.

    As for her getting blamed for whatever Bill does - well, this isn't a double standard. Candidate spouses have always been at issue in this. Edwards took flack for things Elizabeth said. Reagan took flack for things Nancy said. Etc.

    I'm rooting for Obama, but whatever happens, I respect Hillary and she will always be an important figure in American history. If she does not become the first female President, I think there will be no arguments that she has been an important part of paving the way and making it possible for the next candidate to come along.

    How wonderful it is to be part of a party where the best a white guy could do was third place. I knew this day would come, but still I'm surprised to see it happen so suddenly.

  • First of all... (0 / 0)

    I have no problem with people voting for Hillary because she is a woman. You should be able to vote for whoever you want and for whatever reason. I know, for me, I was looking at her over John Edwards because she is a woman and I have always seen her as a role model. I love the idea of a female president and think it is revolutionary in itself.

    But what I have problem with is essays like these, and Gloria Steinem's and the statement released by the New York Chapter of NOW that infer if  you do not vote for Hillary this means you are sexist, or you are "selling out." Not cool. And this is the exact reason that sent me to Obama. Throughout the campaign, he has never asked blacks to vote for him because he is black. He has stayed on message: I am a uniter, I have new ideas, there's still hope, I will make the best president, etc.. And, statistically, he has brought many new voters to the polls, which I find so inspirational.

    Plus, I agree with him on the ISSUES over Hillary: He has been against the Iraq war from the beginning and even has a deadline for troop withdrawal -- which Hillary will not commit to. He did not vote for the Iran resolution like Hillary has. He is against taking lobbying money, whereas Hillary is one of the largest recipients -- of both parties -- of that money. She got booed at Yearly Kos for actually justifying taking lobbying money! I like that Obama has run on a platform of openness and transparency whereas Hillary held her healthcare meetings behind closed doors and still refuses to release records of those meetings or any meetings while she was First Lady. If you want to be judged on that record, why not release that information?

    Again, I will proudly vote for Hillary if she is a nominee and all the polls I have read suggest she CAN beat John McCain in the general election. Then again, so can all our candidates. If I have chance to vote for who I think will make a better president -- or at least, who I agree with on the issues -- then why not? This is not an anti-Hillary vote. This is a vote for Barack Obama for the reasons I stated above.

    Finally, this woman's essay has so many straw mans, I don't know where to start. To suggest that sexism is more rampant than racism is a straw man. There are more white women in Congress -- including the Speaker of the House -- than African Americans of both genders. African American women are overwhelmingly breaking for Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton. More African American women -- than men -- voted for Barack in South Carolina!

    Anecdotally, I know of at least two college-educated and affluent white women voting for Hillary Clinton because they think Barack Obama is a muslim extremist. (Yes, they believed the e-mail forward, just to show you that having a college education or money doesn't protect you from stupidity.)

    Bill Clinton didn't make the news because he is Hillary's husband. He was a former president that partook in race-baiting with the Jesse Jackson comments. I know this is what all politicians do, but I still find it repugnant, especially if you are trying to run a "new and different kind" of campaign.

    Also, young people, particularly college students -- of all races -- are overwhelmingly breaking for Obama. In fact, it was white college students that helped give Obama the victories in Iowa and South Carolina. Where he did poorest was among middle-aged and older whites who voted for Hillary. Those are the stats I have seen. So my question is: Are those whites that vote for HIllary racist? No, they are voting their conscience as they should. So can we quit it with the sexism vs. racism news stories? Sheesh.

    • Okay... (0 / 0)

      I'm with you on the NOW statement.  That was completely over the top.  But, I think this essay is different.  On the whole, I do agree with the author think that sexism has been more rampant than racism in this primary campaign.  Yes, there are more white women holding public office.  But we are talking about this campaign.

      I don't think anyone's inferring that if you don't vote for Hillary you are sexist.  I think that Ms. Morgan is just pointing out the sexism that's been going on in the media.  

      It's easy for Obama to say he's been against the Iraq War since the beginning, since he wasn't a senaotor when the vote came up.  Since then, he's voted in tandem w/Hillary to fund the war.  And, he didn't vote against Kyle Leiberman either... he just didn't show up to vote, which ties into his present votes in Illinois.  Hillary has said she'll start withdrawing troops from Iraq within the first 60 days of holding office.

      He also voted for Cheney's energy bill, which she did not... and we are still paying for that.

      The biggest reason I'm supporting Hillary isn't because she's a woman, or even because Wes Clark endorsed her.  But... it's because his healthcare plan dooms the chance of universal healthcare.  Paul Krugman talks about this very thing today.

      I'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee.  But HRC's my first choice.  As Ms. Morgan points out, "I agree with her 97% of the time".

      • In this campaign (0 / 0)

        From my view, it seems that the only people injecting sexism in this campaign are women, particularly feminist.  I think the problem is who is running.  

        If there were another woman up there, I think there'd be a lot of gushing and "Oh my this is historical!" articles.  But it's HRC.  Old news, for one.  For another, it was assumed in '04 that she was going to be running.  We were all raised knowing that someday she'd run.  It's boring.  

        And I think that there are women out there who are a bit miffed that more isn't being made of it.  Clinton is being treated like any other candidate (for the most part, as those other candidates aren't married to a former POTUS), yet any time there is an article about her that just states facts, it's women who are first to comment on news boards, "It's because she's a woman she's getting picked on!".   Pffft.  Even in the so-called progressive blogosphere you see it.  

        As for Clinton's promises; grain of salt.  Clinton just recently said she'd withdraw troops in 60 days.  3, 4, 5 months ago, when John Edwards said that, she laughed at how naive it was.  She wasn't planning on bringing troops back home until her 2nd(4th) term.  And since Krugman is a FoB, it's another grain of salt.  Of course he's going to write something like that, even though it's nowhere near the truth.  He's been writing pro-Clinton stuff all his life.  He can't stop now.    That article is so filled with half-truths and quasi-facts, I'm a little shocked it got printed.

    • Hillary is good on the issues, for the most part (0 / 0)

      I'm an Obama voter, but I'll defend her on her Iraq campaign pledge.  She knows the reality better than just about anyone, and has racked up a list of military endorsements; I trust her to get us out of there.  (She loses me on Iran, though.)  I'm also primarily a health care voter, and I think Hillary wins here as well.  But I believe the details of both Iraq and health care will be decided by the realities on the ground and in the congress.  Both outcomes will be determined less by the president's stated campaign positions than by his/her ability to rally support.  

      Something is happening out there, something with the potential to be good.  It goes beyond the personalities and politics of the leadership; a desire to get our country back on a better track is palpable all over the political spectrum. Even my passionately pro-Romney brother (yick!) feels it.  We can't let this opportunity slip away, and this zeitgeist is most clearly behind Obama.

      • no question and i have huge respect (0 / 0)

        for krugman at the NY Times as well. but i do believe we are at a moment, the moment that maria shriver talked about so eloquently in her endoresement, is again exactly how i feel.  we must reshape this country before anything can get done.
    • Straw men (0 / 0)

      I agree with you.  I think there are a number of straw men in this essay.

      To wit:

      When a sexist idiot screamed "Iron my shirt!" at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted "Shine my shoes!" at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

      This is ridiculous.  In the first place, I never heard anyone say it was amusing.  However, there was in fact commentary on it and why it was wrong.  How many crowd hecklers do you hear about (very few), but nevertheless we did hear about this one because people were offended by it.  Furthermore, I'm sure there would have been people who would think "Shine my shoes" is amusing, too.  In summary, this is one of the flimsiest arguments I've read in a long time.

      It is also silly to say people say Hillary's ambitious but Obama has "fire in the belly."  I googled around and you can find articles using both phrases attributed to either candidate.  However, the phrase "fire in the belly" appeared on Google to be most commonly attributed either to Dodd or Fred Thompson.

      I could go on, but won't bother.  

    • very informative (0 / 0)

      Thanks, Elisa, for listing your reasons.  That helps.  The Iraq and Iran positions are especially important to me.  But I had a twinge during the last debate, when Hillary presented her "16 months or sooner" withdrawal date -- it seemed like she actually had a plan of how to redeploy the brigades.

      Barack did take nearly $300,000 from the nuke folks.  (The head of the largest nuclear company, Exelon, is also the chief lobbyist for the industry.)  I'm not sure how much money he's taken from corporations and lobbyists overall.

      • The 16 months deadline... (0 / 0)

        was Obama's deadline for ALL troops. Hillary said she would begin to withdraw troops in two months -- and has left the rest open-ended. Also, she will not commit to no permanent bases, which Obama has.

        • oh (0 / 0)

          When I watched the debate, I heard him say "one year" and heard Hillary say "16 months" -- and then go on to offer a few details about how she would actually effect that.  Barack's lack of logistical facts troubled me.  I agree that the permanent bases are a big problem, and one that Hillary is on the wrong side of.

    • Just posted (0 / 0)

      on the Monday Open thread on  Katha Pollit'sendorsement of Obama. Very interesting and speaks to a lot of the issues on this thread. (I'm just dumb and posted it in the wrong place!)

  • The truth (0 / 0)

    is that either one of them is going to be an excellent president and that either way you're making history.  

    I childproofed my house but they got back in somehow.

    by lonestar canuck on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM PDT

Permalink | 73 comments