The prerequisite penis
From the NYT:
"Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state stood as a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president."
I think we have an equally clear answer as to whether America is prepared to vote for a female person for president.
"Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state stood as a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president."
I think we have an equally clear answer as to whether America is prepared to vote for a female person for president.
12 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 8:52 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 11:02 AM
-
Ted Frank said...
-
- 3:41 PM
-
David Schraub said...
-
- 6:26 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 1:15 AM
-
Ted Frank said...
-
- 7:11 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 4:09 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 6:55 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 4:13 PM
-
Ted Frank said...
-
- 8:45 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 4:56 PM
-
Stefano EARTH said...
-
- 4:11 AM
Post a CommentDon't agree. I don't think sex plays the role in this that you do. I'd vote for a woman in a heartbeat. All things being equal, I'd _prefer_ to vote for a woman. I really like H. Clinton. I identify with her. But all things aren't equal, and I prefer the individual Obama to the individual Clinton. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he's a man (or because he's black), but because he's the best way I see out of the polarized mess we're in. He's thoughtful, eloquent, and his appeal for bipartisan cooperation is powerful. Go Obama! -Shani
Thoughtful and eloquent are wonderful qualities in a boyfriend. I'm still waiting for the US to join the ranks of civilized nations in electing someone other than a guy that all the women want to date and that the men want to be.
All things aren't equal: Foreign policy-wise, this country is in such a deep and forlorn place that only someone well-versed in realpolitik can hope to start groping for a way out. I'd have no problem with Obama '00. Obama
'08 troubles me a bit.
All things aren't equal: for every person voting for Obama, not because he's a man, there are twenty voting against Clinton, with or without pretext, because she's not a man. The literati are proud to affirm the equal rights of black men and white men. When it comes to women, they mumble something about some study on hormones...personality...wait, maybe it was IQ...that suggests that women really are different, and perhaps suited to a different role. Never mind that the evidence doesn't exist and the social and biological can't possibly be teased apart in this diseased society; the psychological drive to rationalize the caretaker role that these professional men need in their own lives trumps all else. In a nutshell: among the educated classes, prejudice and discrimination based on race is no longer acceptable. Based on sex, it's almost fashionable.
All things aren't equal: the trendiness of being daring enough to suggest the inequality of the sexes is something that's gotten worse under eight years of Dubya. Policies come and go. Cultural changes endure. The social and cultural ramifications of a female president are currently unknowable but almost certainly positive, and a necessary corrective. The flip side: a Clinton defeat virtually ensures we won't have another serious female contender for another generation. ("Oh, a woman candidate? We tried that already.")
Or: they could have serious qualms about this woman and this woman's record. I'd vote for Hillary if she weren't anti-NAFTA, didn't kowtow to the trial lawyers on even uncontroversial bills like CAFA, and could be expected to appoint judges who'd adhere to separation of powers. I would've supported Elizabeth Dole in 2000, if she had stuck around. Is there bias at the margin? Sure. But given that white males got less than a third of the Dem vote despite having two thirds of the candidates, I doubt that that was dispositive. It's not especially a feminist landmark for a woman to rise to power by inheriting her spouse's mantle.
1) 38% of Iowa caucusers voted for Obama, 30% for Edwards, 29% for Clinton. As an Obamaphile, I'm happy to claim a solid win, but let's not pretend this race isn't still tight. Using it to demonstrate American sexism or (post-)racism or whatever strikes me as both premature and giving way to much power to a bunch of corn farmers. Certainly, in a 95% White state like Iowa, chalking up the win of a half-Black Hawaii native educated in Indonesia to identity politics strikes me as pushing it.
2) Most Democrats I've talked to are relatively like me: they like everybody. I've been an Obama fan since even before his 2004 convention speech. But I like Hillary too. And Edwards as well. All of them would make me happy as President. All of them I think can win the presidency. Thus, I'm in the happy position of being able to vote for a candidate because I genuinely like him the best. It's a true mark of cynicism to be completely unwilling to entertain that Iowans simply voted on their conception of the merits.
To the Editor:
Per usual, I find myself almost wholly disagreeing with Ted. As if La Belle Hillary (as was husband Bill) the kind of person who ever met a 'free trade' bill they didn't love--despite what comes out of their mouth. Or that Hillary was some class-conscious cadre, packing the judiciary and kissing butt of the trial lawyers. I wish! The fact is, Hillary is everything people like Ted want and more: She is a conservative democrat. For example, during one debate, Jerkface Chris Dodd wailed at Sen. Clinton, for supporting drivers' licenses for undocumented workers--and she backed down.
But to say that she is simply 'inheriting her spouse's mantle' is more than doing her a disservice: Say what you want, but Ms. Clinton is no Bess Truman, Pat Nixon, or Lurleen Burns Wallace.
And I have to say, Ted, after the last eight years of corrupt & BS judicial appointments--including the new Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse--how can you even begin to complain about 'separation of powers'? Yeah, thank god for Bush v. Gore, and federal deference to state supreme courts and their interpretation of their own state law. As they say where I come from: Free BONG HITS FOR JESUS!
All that said, Idiot George W. Bush has bent the spine of American politics so bad, I'm listening to goddamn RON PAUL on Bill Moyers, and Ron Paul is attacking overcentralization of power to the executive branch--with the same arguments (and language) that I screech about viz human rights violations. And I want to vomit every time I find myself urging (all to no avail), this administration follow the CIA...
But is the selection of Obama v. Hillary a question of pee-pee politics? Maybe--but I doubt it. I see her more as a victim of the anti-incumbent spirit, as others have suggested.
For me, I guess I'll still keep my 'Kucinich--Might as Well' bumper sticker on my car, although I do like Gravel...But I know those guys are just favorite sons. Of the top three, I guess I'd have to go with Edwards.
But what's the message from Iowa? I think it's twofold. First, the Republicans are in trouble: almost twice as many Demos showed up for their dog & pony show. Second, 60% of the republicans who showed up were self-identified 'evangelicals,' a solid majority of whom felt the candidate's personal religious beliefs was 'very important' ie NOT MORMON. Can Mr. Huckabee be president? Sure--During a debate, he asserted that he did not believe in 'macro-evolution.' Romney the opportunist is tying himself to George W. Bush. Giuliani is just making stuff up, Thompson SHOULD be making stuff up, and McCain has sold his soul for rock & roll...
But my biggest gripe, is that I am sick to death of jerks in Iowa wetting their pants over immigration, deciding who my president is. And on Feb. 5, 21 states will have their primary--and that will decide who the Presidental candidates are. By Oregon's May 20th primary, only Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and the New Mexico Republicans will have yet to have held their primaries.
Ah, but what do I care.........
I'm not aware of a single corrupt OR BS judicial appointment made by Bush. There's some severe Bush Derangement Syndrome going on there.
On the other hand Dickie Scruggs and Stan Chesley are big Clinton supporters, and presumably not doing so against their self-interest. (And Mr. Clinton appointed Mrs. Chesley to the federal bench, if you want corrupt/BS judicial appointments.)
Democrats regularly get more turnout for caucuses than Republicans do, and regularly lose the state in presidential elections. I give the Republicans about a 40% chance of carrying Iowa and the presidential election, a lot lower if Huckabee is the nominee.
In any event, Obama beat Clinton by 13 points among Iowa unmarried women, so whatever was holding Clinton back, it wasn't her genitalia. Though I might be persuaded to change my mind if she's given a lot of grief for her debate performance last night.
Let's face it: the Republican smear machine will pull no punches. Obama won't be able to handle this, whether or not Oprah is on his side. Only Clinton knows how to handle the barrage of lies that she will face: she's been faced with such a barrage since January 20th, 1993.
Do the Obama-ites realize that, a month or so ago, Karl Rove wrote an op-ed piece for the Financial Times in which he offered B.O. advice needed to win the election?
I take that as a sign that the Republicans are DYING to run against Obama.
Americans says that they want uniters, candidates with hope, blah blah blah, but they respond to smear tactics very reliably. (How a decorated war veteran could get Swift-boated says less about Kerry than it does about ineffective campaigning tactics by the Dems.)
I think it was Rovian ju-jitsu to give advice to Obama to beat Hillary to make the Dems paranoid that the Republicans want to face Obama instead of Hillary when it's the other way around. He's *that* sinister.
Fair point, and I'd agree if it were an op-ed in the WSJ. But the FT (at least in my opinion) is a UK paper.
Then again, I can only agree that Rove is *that* sinister. I almost always use diabolic references when speaking his name.
New Hampshire shows two things:
1) Caucuses are really unrepresentative:
(A) The 15% threshhold and second-choice phenomenon leads to a lot of strategizing by the lesser candidates on how they can best hurt their most dangerous enemy. Obama benefited from this.
(B) The fixed late-night time of the caucuses advantaged college students, union members, and the elderly, to the expense of single mothers and lower-middle-class late-shift workers. This benefited Obama and Edwards and hurt Hillary.
(C) The public nature of the caucuses probably led to a reverse Bradley effect that helped Obama as all these well-meaning liberals wanted to demonstrate to everyone how tolerant they were by voting for the African-American.
(2) Meanwhile, Clinton was helped by her gender, or, at least, used it effectively: if a man had been subjected to substantial criticism by the press and opposing candidates and responded by crying, he drops thirty points in the polls. Clinton benefited, the way she benefited in 2000 when Lazio seemed "mean" to her in the debate.
To the Editor:
I usually go out of my way to crap all over everything Ted says--but out of deference to the general public of this blog, I did not go off on a Supreme Court/federal judge rant (not really. I did not respond, because I already am on double secret probabtion for excessive entertaining-lessness, and I fear the reaper with the delete key)--so I should acknowledge when I agree with him: Caucuses don't mean squat, and Iowa less so. Ted is also on the money about lesser Dems wanting to hurt Ms. Clinton. My man Dennis outraged his people (both of them) by throwing his support behind Mr. Barack instead of Mr. Edwards. On the Charlie Rose program, Dennis said that was his decision for IOWA. Uh huh.
I differ with Mr. F, though, in his back-handed compliment to the 'well meaning liberals.' Instead, I think the difference lies with the JFK-style liberals v. the meat & potatoe (sic) liberals. The JFK people love the good looks, the great rhetoric, and are not troubled by lack of experience. Those folks are more motivated to get out & brave traffic for the new new frontier. The more pragmatic liberals (who in the case of Mr. Jackson especially, believe a man's first job should not be president of the US), go more for experience...or maybe name recognition.
As for Ms. Clinton tearing up--I'm not sure I agree. Both of my parents, while otherwise wonderful people, are screwball nutso republicans. Ever since Ms. Clinton was the point person for the failed Clinton universal health care plan, they have gleefully received a torrent of anti-Hillary Clinton smears, slanders, and jokes that would make the Polish people rise up in disgust. No suprise, but virtually all of these attacks are gender based. In other words, Ms. Clinton has been handed almost 15 years of sexist crap. To suggest that has given her--on balance--an advantage I think is stretching the point.
Still---because I am old---I can't help but remember Ed Muskie's 'melting snowflakes' in the 1972 campaign, when he may (or may not) have gotten misty at the BS Nixon smears aimed at his wife. Muskie's campaign was already having serious problems at the time, and would have ground to a halt any way, but that incident pushed him off the rails.
AND YET--going back even further, my dad was a dedicated Eisenhower guy, but in 1956 when the Trickster went on televison and CRIED, I mean tears flowing, about his daughter's little dog Checkers, that's when he decided he'd never trust Nixon again. Unfortunately, the rest of the country bought his boo-hoo act, and Ike kept Nixon on the ticket.
Which in turn allowed Nixon to be elected President in 1960--but for the fact Richard Dailey stole the state of Ill for Kennedy, and the presidency. But that's another rant.
Thought you might like to know, I just linked this post in my latest blog at stefanoearth.com - Thanks!
S.
<< Home