COMMENTS: 66
Strange Bedfellows: The Clintons, Karl Rove ... and Erica Jong?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Act One
I keep hoping Hillary Clinton will change direction, because she's a good Senator and this country needs a woman President. But her cynical (and self-destructive) choices have been hurting the country since that war vote in 2002, and last week's New Hampshire campaign was a new low.
First came the Swiftboating. Her campaign spread flyers around the state containing a lie about Obama's record -- one they already knew was a lie. Their claim that Obama had abandoned the pro-choice cause by voting "present" had already been disproved. NOW's Chicago director, a Clinton supporter, described the flyers as "offensive" and added: "I'm very disgusted at this tactic being used by the Clinton campaign."
We'll never know much this deception helped Sen. Clinton's come-from-behind victory.
What about the race card? Michael Eric Dyson says they played it when Bill said that Obama would be "a roll of the dice." Prof. Dyson said this was a play on the racist stereotype of African Americans as gamblers. I'm inclined to give Bill the benefit of the doubt because of his strong civil rights record. On the other hand, Prof. Dyson would be far more attuned to racist pitches than a thickheaded white guy like me, and a Southerner of Pres. Clinton's age would certainly remember all those "roll dem bones" stereotypes.
It certainly looked like racial condescension to me, however, when Hillary dismissed Martin Luther King by saying that Dr. King's "dream" only became real thanks to Lyndon Johnson. That's not only wrong, it's offensive. To get a sense of how hurtful this statement could be, imagine the reaction if Obama had said that "Susan B. Anthony was a good talker but it took Woodrow Wilson to pass the Nineteenth Amendment."
Some would argue that this distorted reading of history is to be expected from a candidate who includes her time with the Rose Law Firm as part of her "thirty five years" of "making change," while dismissing Obama's years of community organizing as "inexperience." What she seems to be saying is that black people didn't change this country -- their white patrons did. If this is all unintentional miscommunication, as some will argue, then she should apologize immediately.
But remember: This all came after Clinton supporter Bob Kerrey's Muslim-baiting comments about Obama. If it happens once, it might be an accident. But when it keeps happening it's deeply troubling.
Act Two
Now Karl Rove has come out and given us a preview of the Republican playbook should Obama be the nominee. Remember when the Clinton campaign was slamming her critics for repeating "Republican talking points"? Apparently, now she's writing them. Less than a week after those New Hampshire flyers went out Rove writes: "(Obama) had a habit of ducking major issues, voting 'present' on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights ..." So Clinton pushes a lie and the GOP picks it up. Thanks a lot.
Rove's race-baiting isn't subtle, but here's a translation for cloistered liberals who have "never met a racist": When he says Obama is "lazy" (what he means to say is "shiftless"), he's reinforcing a racist stereotype. When he claims that Obama "bluffs" and makes "misstatements" or "exaggerations," he's appealing to bigots who believe black people are inherently dishonest.
Here's a classic code-talker sentence: "His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night." "Trash talking" is perceived by white racists as both a black slang phrase and a common form of minority behavior, while whites have seen African Americans play "pickup basketball" in a thousand ghetto movies. (And bonus points to Karl for "cap," which is hip-hop slang for shooting people. Is he that smart? We report, you decide.)
When Rove says Obama offers "soaring" and "inspirational" rhetoric that isn't "filling or "sustaining" or "substantive," he's playing on the white stereotype of blacks as superficial "jive talkers." Rove adds (without "substantiation") that "Clinton won the beer drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd." The word that Rove is subliminally reinforcing here is "uppity."
When he adds that Obama looks like a "vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson," the portrait is complete: Obama's a shiftless, uppity, fancy-speakin', trash-talkin', basketball playin', anemic white-boy wannabe. Throw in a talking point or two from the Clinton clan and the pitch to white racists is complete.
Act Three
Then, in a bizarre twist, Erica Jong weighs in with a strange screed called "Seeing Sexism." As far as I can tell, Ms. Jong is suggesting that everyone who opposes Sen. Clinton's candidacy is at heart a sexist, regardless of their reasons and no matter whether they're male or female. They are all, according to Ms. Jung, just like the Egyptians she imagines opposing the female pharoah Hatshepsut for being "too fat" or "too shrill."
I doubt she would knowingly take cues from Karl, but nevertheless that's classic Rove: The bad people hate my candidate, so anybody that doesn't support her is a bad person.
"We don't know how a female President would act," Ms. Jong writes. I'll leave that sentence to be parsed by those who have experienced sexism firsthand. But wouldn't it have been offensive if it had been written by a man (say, Lawrence Summers)? So why is it acceptable from Erica Jong?
But it's her no-doubt-inadvertent bigotry that is awkward, to say the least. How's this for "seeing racism"?
"Perhaps Hillary will appoint (Obama) to the Supreme Court where he can counter that embarrassing Clarence Thomas."
Get it? The nice white President will appoint a good Negro to counter that nasty Negro -- the one who can't do his job and is "embarrassing" his race. Because, after all, nobody knows more about handling colored help when they're screwing up than a wealthy liberal.
I fear Ms. Jong will have to live down these words for a very long time.
*****
As I said, I'd like to see a woman President, and moving statements like "Can I Have a Dream?" illustrate some of the reasons why. I know that American women will benefit from the example of a female leader. (Men will, too.) But these 100 American women haven't benefited from Sen. Clinton's leadership. They died in a war she voted for and continued to defend for years.
Don't the women of America deserve better than that?
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Markson on Jan 14, 2008 12:23 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons are many things, but stupid they're not (Their supporters have been stupid with their public comments, however, an "anonymous" source printed in the Guardian shouldn't count). Who benefits the most from this in the national press (already proven to be blindly smitten with Obama) and heading towards the South Carolina primary, which will provide critical momentum leading up to Super Tuesday? Certainly not the Clinton campaign.
I don't care for either corporate "Democrat," but if we don't push back on this, it'll blow up in our face. These charges are most explosive and the rhetoric is only becoming more baseless and inflammatory.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: qual standards? Please.
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: qual standards? Please.
Posted by: Markson
» RE: qual standards? Please.
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: qual standards
Posted by: CoatesMoe
» The Ugly twin
Posted by: carbon-based
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Jan 14, 2008 1:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This campaign is persuading me that the U.S.A. and the Democratic party have made more progress overcoming racism than they have overcoming sexism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The treatment of women equals the fate of the world.
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Jan 14, 2008 1:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't the women of America deserve better than that?"
In the very first Democratic debate Obama advocated going to war with Pakistan if the leadership of Pakistan didn't do what he told them to. That position is in no way substantially different from Bush's position on Iraq. Does this author think that somehow women won't die if Obama expands this war to Pakistan?
I get so tired of this particular deceptive argument against Clinton. Obama is no more likely to bring an end to Iraq than Clinton.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama, not Clinton, is the warmonger.
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
» get your facts straight
Posted by: Tombo
» RE: get your facts straight
Posted by: wavydavy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skingk on Jan 14, 2008 3:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this article should file financial disclosure.
The country doesn't need Clinton as President, woman or not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gemajabe on Jan 14, 2008 4:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Gemajabe
Posted by: particle
» RE: Gemajabe
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
» your sexism is showing
Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: your sexism is showing
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
» RE: your sexism is showing
Posted by: CoatesMoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: defrag on Jan 14, 2008 6:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one racist stereotype I've never even heard of. Can anyone point to an example of it in pop culture? Seems to me like extreme oversensitivity. (Maybe Obama didn't notice the supposed racist stereotype himself because he's not "black enough," as people like Prof. Dyson keep worrying.)
[A] candidate who includes her time with the Rose Law Firm as part of her "thirty five years" of "making change," while dismissing Obama's years of community organizing as "inexperience."
Was she in charge of the petty cash box, "making change"? Ooh, is that a sexist stereotype? Is it really? If a male candidate claimed to have been "making change" while working at a high-powered law firm, would no one be allowed to poke fun?
I guess I don't care; I'm just tired of the Clintons. Okay, if Obama is the only alternative, throw me in that briar patch!... I mean, I hope Obama wins!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You must not live in the south
Posted by: Tombo
» "Making change" is bad grammar
Posted by: defrag
Comments are closed-
Posted by: quinndiesel on Jan 14, 2008 6:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: quinndiesel
Posted by: CoatesMoe
» RE: quinndiesel
Posted by: quinndiesel
» RE: quinndiesel
Posted by: gazooks
» Lincoln
Posted by: Markson
» RE:LBJ
Posted by: gazooks
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CoatesMoe on Jan 14, 2008 7:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Strange Bedfellows
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wavydavy on Jan 14, 2008 8:32 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You just described your very own article.
This is a truly pathetic attempt to twist and distort relatively straightforward comments into something racist, simply because you say they are racist. As commenter defrag correctly points out, most of your complaints are either made-up or stretched so thin they don't support your arguments.
I don't prefer Hillary as the Dem candidate (my choices would be Kucinich, or Edwards, to be realistic), but this over-the-top trashing of every word HRC utters is just ridiculous. Since you brought up Karl Rove, explain to me how you are not doing his work for him.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What a load of crap
Posted by: defrag
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Jan 14, 2008 8:57 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Hillary campaign ONE ONE HAND, and Karl Rove ON THE OTHER, don't need to do a thing to rally these racists. In THIS time, in THIS day, Obama never had a chance in hell of winning, and he STILL doesn't for all the money Karl Rove clandestinely puts behind him (which creates mass media fawning, as they do for ALL major advertisers, as well as the covert motive of GOP media owners supporting a "can't-win" Democratic candidate) as Rove throws out some VERY LATE perfectly perfunctory racist comments to decoy people and throw them off the trail of his REAL strategy.
I've got the experience to back up what I'm saying, the hard way. I was a first time voter in the 80's that thought a senile geezer like Reagan could NEVER win against Carter, a man who kept us out of war with Iran back THEN, despite the goading of the entire country for war over the hostages. To the point I registered as a Republican to vote for Reagan in the primary because everyone, the press, the pundits, saw him as the least viable candidate. Then of course in the general I voted Carter.
What I learned then is what every Obama supporter is going to learn the hard way; for every young and silver haired VOTER with their head on straight, there are about 5 HUNDRED silver hairs with their heads stuck back in 1965.
In ALABAMA.
And Obama will bring them ALL out, in droves, to vote for ANYONE but a black man. Believe me, Hillary misogyny (and it is legion as well) doesn't even BEGIN to come CLOSE. And don't think Karl Rove hasn't polled this, time and time and time again, and planned his strategy. Look, I don't create it; I just report it, as honestly as I can. Becuase there is so much at stake, we CANNOT ALLOW ANOTHER GOPNAZI INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. Even an anti-war nutcase like Paul who doesn't even know he's a Nazi running in a Nazi Party.
Find out the hard way, keep it up.
It's time for some hard reality, and to take a good long hard look at who's really supporting who, and why.
It's called "Divide and Conquer" and there is no greater bastard at it on the planet than Rove.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hillary and Rove don't need to LIFT A FINGER...
Posted by: babs
» RE: Hillary WILL start troop pullout in 60 days
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Hillary and Rove don't need to LIFT A FINGER...
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Seek and you will find
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Not particularly sorry I clued you in and you LISTENED
Posted by: xbj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 14, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not about race and gender, it's about the issues. The corporate press wants to avoid the issues, such as the oil raid on Iraq, the illegal domestic spying, the gross government corruption related to contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, etc., the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney. and so on. Therefore, they try and focus on race, gender, haircuts, and emotion.
We need candidates who don't pander to corporate pro-war interests, period. However, such candidates are blocked off the stage by the corporate press, so they don't get heard by the pubic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Are you loony? Thatcher was Britian's version of a NaziGOP, Reagan in a dress
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Are you loony? Thatcher was Britian's version of a NaziGOP, Reagan in a dress
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Are you loony? Thatcher was Britian's version of a NaziGOP, Reagan in a dress
Posted by: left_libertarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jan 14, 2008 10:27 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are plenty of reasons, we must all admit, to not like ANY of the top-tier candidates. But this election, as are all American elections, is not about voting for the best candidate -- it is about voting for the lesser evil. Hillary is the greatest evil on the Democrat side. And I know she would lose the General Election to the Republican, definitely an even greater evil (whoever wins that nomination). Racist, sexist, whatever. That is a bunch of bullshit. Please, people, make your choice based on the ISSUES, not on the sex or race of the candidate. Otherwise you are no better than a Republican voting for the Whitest Man in the election.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: buffeliscious on Jan 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» QUIT YOUR GODDAMNED LYING... Hillary is NOT PRO-WAR
Posted by: xbj
» Hillary Isn't Anti-war!
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Hillary Isn't Anti-war!
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Hillary Isn't Anti-war!
Posted by: xbj
» RE: QUIT YOUR GODDAMNED LYING... Hillary is NOT PRO-WAR
Posted by: jareilly
» RE: QUIT YOUR GODDAMNED LYING... Hillary is NOT PRO-WAR
Posted by: xbj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: antsue on Jan 14, 2008 12:29 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jonnie rae on Jan 14, 2008 12:33 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MobileSucks on Jan 14, 2008 1:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reevolve on Jan 14, 2008 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, I've heard some conservatives claim that Obama will raise taxes if he's elected. This is just code for "here's another black guy who wants to steal your money."
And people keep referring to him as "Barack Obama," which is, let's face it, a very unusual name, which just reminds the xenophobes in the country that he might not be "one of us."
Also, whenever people talk about his wife, they insist on calling her "Michelle Obama." Now, we all know that "Michelle" is a very white-sounding name. By constantly making reference to her first name, Obama's opponents are tapping into long-held racist beliefs about black men coming to get our pure white women.
The list goes on and on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the same time, not enough attention is given to Hillary's biggest weakness. It's not her hawkish, warmongering record, but her divisiveness. She is easily the most divisive candidate in the primaries, even more so than George W. Bush at a comparable stage in his career. We've had enough partisan bickering, deadlock, triangulation, swiftboating and hardball and need an FDR or JFK or Churchill to bring us together to face the considerable challenges confronting us. I believe Obama can do that, but he needs to stay above the fray, stay positive and stay on message.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: nough Childishness!
Posted by: jareilly
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Jan 14, 2008 5:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2008 5:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Zipless Fuck"..............
Had a few of those myself. "Fanny"...a takeoff of Cleland's book written in the 1700's was brilliant.
But look at this...I don't like Ms. C's agenda, but she would be the most effective leader....No BS with her on the World stage.
Obama Yo Mama is too young for the job, and doesn't have the clout or connections. THAT'S what it takes to be Pres.........
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Erica Jong....
Posted by: saltoafronteira
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2008 5:53 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a moronic conclusion. She implied nothing of the sort. Anyone who has half a brain and looks at the video would say she was talking about EFFECTIVE POWER. Nothing more.
Just goes to show what fools run the MSM. I am surprised AlterNet would repeat this libel.
Hardly offensive to the folk who THINK and are not fools who are told what and how they should feel by the MSM (and AlterNet)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Yermal on Jan 14, 2008 8:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 14, 2008 8:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anti-war; bring our troops home (h.r. 1234)
pro single payer health care (h.r. 676)
pro education
out of NAFTA/WTO
impeach (h.r. 333/799)
green engery - no nukes
end the war on drugs
freedom
protect the constition
repeal the patriot act
'nuff said.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Markson on Jan 14, 2008 12:23 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons are many things, but stupid they're not (Their supporters have been stupid with their public comments, however, an "anonymous" source printed in the Guardian shouldn't count). Who benefits the most from this in the national press (already proven to be blindly smitten with Obama) and heading towards the South Carolina primary, which will provide critical momentum leading up to Super Tuesday? Certainly not the Clinton campaign.
I don't care for either corporate "Democrat," but if we don't push back on this, it'll blow up in our face. These charges are most explosive and the rhetoric is only becoming more baseless and inflammatory.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: qual standards? Please.
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: qual standards? Please.
Posted by: Markson
» RE: qual standards? Please.
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: qual standards
Posted by: CoatesMoe
» The Ugly twin
Posted by: carbon-based
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Jan 14, 2008 1:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This campaign is persuading me that the U.S.A. and the Democratic party have made more progress overcoming racism than they have overcoming sexism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The treatment of women equals the fate of the world.
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Jan 14, 2008 1:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't the women of America deserve better than that?"
In the very first Democratic debate Obama advocated going to war with Pakistan if the leadership of Pakistan didn't do what he told them to. That position is in no way substantially different from Bush's position on Iraq. Does this author think that somehow women won't die if Obama expands this war to Pakistan?
I get so tired of this particular deceptive argument against Clinton. Obama is no more likely to bring an end to Iraq than Clinton.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama, not Clinton, is the warmonger.
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
» get your facts straight
Posted by: Tombo
» RE: get your facts straight
Posted by: wavydavy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skingk on Jan 14, 2008 3:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this article should file financial disclosure.
The country doesn't need Clinton as President, woman or not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gemajabe on Jan 14, 2008 4:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Gemajabe
Posted by: particle
» RE: Gemajabe
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
» your sexism is showing
Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: your sexism is showing
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
» RE: your sexism is showing
Posted by: CoatesMoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: defrag on Jan 14, 2008 6:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one racist stereotype I've never even heard of. Can anyone point to an example of it in pop culture? Seems to me like extreme oversensitivity. (Maybe Obama didn't notice the supposed racist stereotype himself because he's not "black enough," as people like Prof. Dyson keep worrying.)
[A] candidate who includes her time with the Rose Law Firm as part of her "thirty five years" of "making change," while dismissing Obama's years of community organizing as "inexperience."
Was she in charge of the petty cash box, "making change"? Ooh, is that a sexist stereotype? Is it really? If a male candidate claimed to have been "making change" while working at a high-powered law firm, would no one be allowed to poke fun?
I guess I don't care; I'm just tired of the Clintons. Okay, if Obama is the only alternative, throw me in that briar patch!... I mean, I hope Obama wins!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You must not live in the south
Posted by: Tombo
» "Making change" is bad grammar
Posted by: defrag
Comments are closed-
Posted by: quinndiesel on Jan 14, 2008 6:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: quinndiesel
Posted by: CoatesMoe
» RE: quinndiesel
Posted by: quinndiesel
» RE: quinndiesel
Posted by: gazooks
» Lincoln
Posted by: Markson
» RE:LBJ
Posted by: gazooks
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CoatesMoe on Jan 14, 2008 7:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Strange Bedfellows
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wavydavy on Jan 14, 2008 8:32 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You just described your very own article.
This is a truly pathetic attempt to twist and distort relatively straightforward comments into something racist, simply because you say they are racist. As commenter defrag correctly points out, most of your complaints are either made-up or stretched so thin they don't support your arguments.
I don't prefer Hillary as the Dem candidate (my choices would be Kucinich, or Edwards, to be realistic), but this over-the-top trashing of every word HRC utters is just ridiculous. Since you brought up Karl Rove, explain to me how you are not doing his work for him.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What a load of crap
Posted by: defrag
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Jan 14, 2008 8:57 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Hillary campaign ONE ONE HAND, and Karl Rove ON THE OTHER, don't need to do a thing to rally these racists. In THIS time, in THIS day, Obama never had a chance in hell of winning, and he STILL doesn't for all the money Karl Rove clandestinely puts behind him (which creates mass media fawning, as they do for ALL major advertisers, as well as the covert motive of GOP media owners supporting a "can't-win" Democratic candidate) as Rove throws out some VERY LATE perfectly perfunctory racist comments to decoy people and throw them off the trail of his REAL strategy.
I've got the experience to back up what I'm saying, the hard way. I was a first time voter in the 80's that thought a senile geezer like Reagan could NEVER win against Carter, a man who kept us out of war with Iran back THEN, despite the goading of the entire country for war over the hostages. To the point I registered as a Republican to vote for Reagan in the primary because everyone, the press, the pundits, saw him as the least viable candidate. Then of course in the general I voted Carter.
What I learned then is what every Obama supporter is going to learn the hard way; for every young and silver haired VOTER with their head on straight, there are about 5 HUNDRED silver hairs with their heads stuck back in 1965.
In ALABAMA.
And Obama will bring them ALL out, in droves, to vote for ANYONE but a black man. Believe me, Hillary misogyny (and it is legion as well) doesn't even BEGIN to come CLOSE. And don't think Karl Rove hasn't polled this, time and time and time again, and planned his strategy. Look, I don't create it; I just report it, as honestly as I can. Becuase there is so much at stake, we CANNOT ALLOW ANOTHER GOPNAZI INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. Even an anti-war nutcase like Paul who doesn't even know he's a Nazi running in a Nazi Party.
Find out the hard way, keep it up.
It's time for some hard reality, and to take a good long hard look at who's really supporting who, and why.
It's called "Divide and Conquer" and there is no greater bastard at it on the planet than Rove.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hillary and Rove don't need to LIFT A FINGER...
Posted by: babs
» RE: Hillary WILL start troop pullout in 60 days
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Hillary and Rove don't need to LIFT A FINGER...
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Seek and you will find
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Not particularly sorry I clued you in and you LISTENED
Posted by: xbj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 14, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not about race and gender, it's about the issues. The corporate press wants to avoid the issues, such as the oil raid on Iraq, the illegal domestic spying, the gross government corruption related to contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, etc., the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney. and so on. Therefore, they try and focus on race, gender, haircuts, and emotion.
We need candidates who don't pander to corporate pro-war interests, period. However, such candidates are blocked off the stage by the corporate press, so they don't get heard by the pubic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Are you loony? Thatcher was Britian's version of a NaziGOP, Reagan in a dress
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Are you loony? Thatcher was Britian's version of a NaziGOP, Reagan in a dress
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Are you loony? Thatcher was Britian's version of a NaziGOP, Reagan in a dress
Posted by: left_libertarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jan 14, 2008 10:27 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are plenty of reasons, we must all admit, to not like ANY of the top-tier candidates. But this election, as are all American elections, is not about voting for the best candidate -- it is about voting for the lesser evil. Hillary is the greatest evil on the Democrat side. And I know she would lose the General Election to the Republican, definitely an even greater evil (whoever wins that nomination). Racist, sexist, whatever. That is a bunch of bullshit. Please, people, make your choice based on the ISSUES, not on the sex or race of the candidate. Otherwise you are no better than a Republican voting for the Whitest Man in the election.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: buffeliscious on Jan 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» QUIT YOUR GODDAMNED LYING... Hillary is NOT PRO-WAR
Posted by: xbj
» Hillary Isn't Anti-war!
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Hillary Isn't Anti-war!
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Hillary Isn't Anti-war!
Posted by: xbj
» RE: QUIT YOUR GODDAMNED LYING... Hillary is NOT PRO-WAR
Posted by: jareilly
» RE: QUIT YOUR GODDAMNED LYING... Hillary is NOT PRO-WAR
Posted by: xbj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: antsue on Jan 14, 2008 12:29 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jonnie rae on Jan 14, 2008 12:33 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MobileSucks on Jan 14, 2008 1:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reevolve on Jan 14, 2008 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, I've heard some conservatives claim that Obama will raise taxes if he's elected. This is just code for "here's another black guy who wants to steal your money."
And people keep referring to him as "Barack Obama," which is, let's face it, a very unusual name, which just reminds the xenophobes in the country that he might not be "one of us."
Also, whenever people talk about his wife, they insist on calling her "Michelle Obama." Now, we all know that "Michelle" is a very white-sounding name. By constantly making reference to her first name, Obama's opponents are tapping into long-held racist beliefs about black men coming to get our pure white women.
The list goes on and on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the same time, not enough attention is given to Hillary's biggest weakness. It's not her hawkish, warmongering record, but her divisiveness. She is easily the most divisive candidate in the primaries, even more so than George W. Bush at a comparable stage in his career. We've had enough partisan bickering, deadlock, triangulation, swiftboating and hardball and need an FDR or JFK or Churchill to bring us together to face the considerable challenges confronting us. I believe Obama can do that, but he needs to stay above the fray, stay positive and stay on message.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: nough Childishness!
Posted by: jareilly
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Jan 14, 2008 5:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2008 5:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Zipless Fuck"..............
Had a few of those myself. "Fanny"...a takeoff of Cleland's book written in the 1700's was brilliant.
But look at this...I don't like Ms. C's agenda, but she would be the most effective leader....No BS with her on the World stage.
Obama Yo Mama is too young for the job, and doesn't have the clout or connections. THAT'S what it takes to be Pres.........
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Erica Jong....
Posted by: saltoafronteira
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2008 5:53 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a moronic conclusion. She implied nothing of the sort. Anyone who has half a brain and looks at the video would say she was talking about EFFECTIVE POWER. Nothing more.
Just goes to show what fools run the MSM. I am surprised AlterNet would repeat this libel.
Hardly offensive to the folk who THINK and are not fools who are told what and how they should feel by the MSM (and AlterNet)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Yermal on Jan 14, 2008 8:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 14, 2008 8:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anti-war; bring our troops home (h.r. 1234)
pro single payer health care (h.r. 676)
pro education
out of NAFTA/WTO
impeach (h.r. 333/799)
green engery - no nukes
end the war on drugs
freedom
protect the constition
repeal the patriot act
'nuff said.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




