Monday, February 11, 2008
The Iraq War, Obama & a Quote... ¿Quién Sabe?
For the record, Obama never voted against going to war because he wasn't in the Senate. Talk about the absolution of a short congressional record.
Seriously folks, does any Obama supporter truly believe he would've voted against giving Bush authorization for going to war after party hacks like Frum and his ilk were done whispering sweet little nothings in his ear about future political viability ALA Edwards???
Moreoever, based on Obama's Senate record, it's kinna odd to claim to be against a war that one continues to fund, especially after vacillating when it truly mattered: that is, when one's political future was at stake.
If a person wants to vote for Obama, please do so with the howler's blessing but don't delude yourself into thinking Obama would've voted any differently than Sen. Hillary Clinton.
My proof? This priceless gamey quote from Obama in '04 when he ran for the Senate and parsed a direct question as to how he might've voted:
In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.
‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said.
‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’
Sunday, February 10, 2008
We Shall Overcome...
After listening and reading what media pundits and blog elites are saying about the Democratic race, however, the howler is not particuarly sanguine that 2008 will be the year.
Indeed, it's been a long pet peeve of her how female Democratic leaders are serially portrayed as nagging, manipulative, ruthless, pimping, clueless, loony, castrating bitches and "everybody's first wife." In other words, too polarizing for genteel partiarchal America.
Don't believe...? Here are a few words from Nicholas Kristof's thoughtful column in today's New York Times:
[R]esearch ]shows] that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments...demonstrat[e] that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.
This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.
It seems the good ol' boys have lined up against the female presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, to ensure that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue remains the male bastion of chest-thumpin' real he-men.
This must not stand without pushback.
Unlike previous elections, this 2008 presidential campaign is unique because the Democratic party is offering two exceptional candidates; and no matter who wins, he or she will have broken through the glass ceiling or racial divide that has been such a fundamental ingredient in American politics.
But this post is about over-the-top sexism and ladies, let's not fool ourselves. It took the Nineteeth Amendment to the United States constitution in 1920 before women were even allowed to vote for their leaders.
This likeability issue raised by media pundits when referring to Hillary Clinton is simply a misogynist code word for naked screaming patriarchal bigotry on their part.
Just today Marc Fisher pens an article in the Washington Post framing the Democratic primary straight out of Obama talking points: "Establishment vs. Inspiration," the headline reads. And to add sexist color to his story, Fisher goes and quotes a male high school student who decries Hillary for being "manipulative and underhanded." With her trying to be president, and all.
Well, the howler refuses to allow media and mostly male bloggers to frame her presidential choices. Let's not pretend media bias against Hillary doesn't exist. Read Margaret Eggan's article in today's Boston Globe and then try to pretend it ain't so.
Here are a few comestibles to chew on a few days before Maryland, DC and Virginia go to the polls:
News organizations often publish photos of Hillary Clinton, above, that make her look crazy, while pictures of Barack Obama, left, portray him as cool and reflective."
[W]omen voting for Hillary, particularly older women, endured legitimate sexism. When she gets trashed, they feel trashed.
It’s analogous to the reaction among blacks when Bill Clinton was running around South Carolina making racist remarks...
Meanwhile, the unspoken rules say you can still publicly trash women in a way you can’t publicly trash African-Americans. "Imagine if somebody said Barack Obama was pimping out his wife,” says Andrea Cabral. “What would never be said about race is the sport of kings when it comes to gender.”
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Voting for Hillary - Bob Kerrey is TOO
Yea, she knows that the latest poll shows Obama whipping McCain but...polls this early into the game are meaningless. Anyone remember Hollywood Fred?!? How about a guy named Rudy???
Former Nebraska governor and senator Bob Kerrey recently endorsed Hillary in an ad. Is there a secretary of state in Bob Kerrey's future?
Now apropos to almost nothing, the latest op-ed by Colbert King of the Washington Post "helpfully" writes that Hillary should pick sell-out Harold Ford as her running mate--you know to balance the ticket with another DLCer.
She has a much better candidate for Hillary. This is the year for REAL CHANGE. How about Fightin' Jim Webb. Now that's a dream ticket all the Dems can get excited about. And it's not so far fetched, folks. Webb buried the ancient hatch with Bill Clinton and if Bob Kerrey is advising Hillary, remember, Kerrey is great friends with Webb.