Monday, June 16, 2008

The View From My Ass

I'd like to tell you I am writing because I am in a deep analytical mood but the truth is I am writing because I still currently too pissed to sleep.

The race for the Democratic nomination is over of course and thank God for that. But I was talking to The Contessa Friday night about what I sensed was hypocrisy fron many of Hillary Clinton's female supporters. I have defended Hillary Clinton often during the race because I thought she was the victim from unfair criticism from all sides. But many of her Female supports were in my judgment guilty of the very same things they have been accusing others of... blatant sexism. Many of Hillary's supporters have charged that much of Obama's support was due to three facts...
That he was a Man
That he was Black and
That he was a Black man.

Now of course there are people who, wrongly by the way, voted for Obama because he is a Man and she is not. However when Clinton supporters (almost all female in this case) were asked why they were supporting their candidate the answer was often because it's time for a Woman. If voting for a candidate because that candidate has a penis is wrong, and I believe it is, then voting for a candidate because they don't is equally as wrong. To me that seems pretty obvious. And no I am absolutely not saying that Hillary's supporters all backed her just because she was a woman, Nor am I saying all or or most of her Female supporters did so, all I am saying is "because she was a woman" was not a valid excuse.

Let me just say before I get bombarded with posts calling me a sexist. I have and will back female candidates in political races. I would have been 100% behind Hillary Clinton if she won the nomination.

Speaking of Women Great editorial from Frank Rich in the Sunday times about Women and Obama.


From the editorial

" But while the McCain campaign apparently believes that women are easy marks for its latent feminist cross-dressing, a reality check suggests that most women can instantly identify any man who’s hitting on them for selfish ends. New polls show Mr. Obama opening up a huge lead among female voters — beating Mr. McCain by 13 percentage points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls and by 19 points in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey.

How huge is a 13- to 19-percentage-point lead? John Kerry won women by only 3 points, Al Gore by 11.

The real question is how Mr. McCain and his press enablers could seriously assert that he will pick up disaffected female voters in the aftermath of the brutal Obama-Clinton nomination battle. Even among Democrats, Mr. Obama lost only the oldest female voters to Mrs. Clinton.

But as we know from our Groundhog Days of 2008, a fictional campaign narrative, once set in the concrete of Beltway bloviation, must be recited incessantly, especially on cable television, no matter what facts stand in the way. Only an earthquake — the Iowa results, for instance — could shatter such previously immutable story lines as the Clinton campaign’s invincibility and the innate hostility of white voters to a black candidate.

Our new bogus narrative rose from the ashes of Mrs. Clinton’s concession to Mr. Obama, amid the raucous debate over what role misogyny played in her defeat. A few female Clinton supporters — or so they identified themselves — appeared on YouTube and Fox News to say they were so infuriated by sexism that they would vote for Mr. McCain.

Now, there’s no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.

The fictional scenario of mobs of crazed women defecting to Mr. McCain is just one subplot of the master narrative that has consumed our politics for months. The larger plot has it that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided, and that only a ticket containing Mrs. Clinton in either slot could retain the loyalty of white male bowlers and other constituencies who tended to prefer her to Mr. Obama in the primaries.

This is reality turned upside down. It’s the Democrats who are largely united and the Republicans who are at one another’s throats.

Yet the myth of Democratic disarray is so pervasive that when “NBC Nightly News” and The Wall Street Journal presented their new poll results last week (Obama, 47 percent; McCain, 41 percent) they ignored their own survey’s findings to stick to the clich├ęd script. Both news organizations (and NBC’s sibling, MSNBC) dwelled darkly on Mr. Obama’s “problems with two key groups” (as NBC put it): white men, where he is behind 20 percentage points to Mr. McCain, and white suburban women, where he is behind 6 points.

Since that poll gives Mr. Obama not just a 19-point lead among all women but also a 7-point lead among white women, a 6-point deficit in one sliver of the female pie is hardly a heart-stopper. Nor is Mr. Obama’s showing among white men shocking news. No Democratic presidential candidate, including Bill Clinton, has won a majority of that declining demographic since 1964. Mr. Kerry lost white men by 25 points, and Mr. Gore did by 24 points (even as he won the popular vote)."

Amen Frank.

Now on to Tim Russert. The Rude Pundit had a great line. Did Iowa all of the sudden dry up? yes his death was sudden and for some tragic and on the day he died I mentioned I was not a fan but it was a sad thing. Now we can be sad but let's be honest. If you have been watching MSNBC'S 72 hour Russertathon you mat have came away with the impression that the Man was an honest to goodness American institution who single handedly invented Political journalism. A man who was beyond reproach. honest. loyal, hardworking and above all Neutral. Well the time has come from a little good old fashion truth. The man was a neo-con ass kissing, soft ball throwing, hack. Yeah
there's a time for sadness and there is a time for truth. He destroyed meet the press, his gotcha performance with Hillary Clinton in the Cleveland debate was a disgrace and his willingness to kiss the ass of any neo-con sitting across from him will never be forgotten. Sorry Timmy but the truth is the truth.

Anyway I feel a little but better now. I am still pissed that there is going to be a game Tuesday. And I am worried that with Pierce playing all game tonight and Perk still probably out of the line up Boston's gas tank might be hitting E. But hey win Tuesday and it's all good.




et said...

As a woman whose support gradually coalesced around Obama (from an original point of view of I'll-back-any-Dem) I've heard accusations from good friends that I was betraying myself by supporting the person I honestly felt was the better candidate; just because he wasn't a woman, and I was, and the candidate opposing him was.

I made my choice based on the substance, tone and tactics of both campaigns, and found that all three elements from Obama's campaign had more personal resonance for me. I liked that he took on the race issue in the wake of the Rev. Wright controversy in a nuanced and intelligent way that didn't talk down to his audience, recognized that we as an electorate didn't need to be pandered to or placated on this issue. I disliked the tone the race took on in Appalachia, that it was all about bowling scores and who could knock back shots and a beer - it seemed a throwback to the "who'd you rather have a drink with" politics that helped elect Dubya, and I'd had well enough of that for one lifetime.

I can't see that any sane Democrat is going to vote for McCain out of some kind of real or imaginary spite. The guy's policies are so much in line with the Bush-Continuum, he might as well be a clone. Anyone who would choose him before Obama is no real progressive.

I think we need to all remember that it's to McCain's advantage to perpetuate this notion of a swarm of Clinton stalwarts flocking to his side.

Let's not give him the satisfaction. It's not a real flood, it's an imaginary one. So let's be sure to paint it as such whenever we encounter it.

Sergei Andropov said...

"If you have been watching MSNBC'S 72 hour Russertathon"

Remember, Count, these guys are in mourning. For them, Russert wasn't just some talking head on a flat screen, he was a colleague and a friend.

Anonymous said...

Understood and 24 hours would have been understandable.

Sergei Andropov said...

If one of your lifelong friends were to suddenly drop dead, would you be over it in 24 hours?

Anonymous said...

Nope But I would admit it wasn't a news event worth 72 hours of news coverage either.

What MSNBC'S excuse for the over coverage of Russert undoubtedly is is that they do not cover the news on the weekends anyway. Even less so than other cable "news" channels. MSNBC'S weekends are usually filled with Prison documentaries and shows about Women in combat sports. Russert's death just gave them a chance to show something somebody might actually watch. And for all the crying and blah blah blah I'll bet you a weeks worth of Kryspy Kreems that once they are off air a quarter to a half of those people are actually saying what dick Russert was.

Total Pageviews