March 6, 2008
The campaign press corps missed what may have been the most important comment in the Feb. 26 debate – when Hillary Clinton reminded women that their chance of electing the first female president was slipping away.
“You know, obviously, I am thrilled to be running to be the first woman president, which I think would be a sea change in our country and around the world, and would give enormous… [applause] … you know, enormous hope and, you know, a real challenge to the way things have been done and who gets to do them and what the rules are,” she said in the debate.
10 comments:
I find it interesting that Hillary is accused of playing the gender card because she ask women to vote for her; yet, Obama is not accused of playing the race card when he ask and expect African Americans to vote for him. I might add that I am an African American, and I did not and will not support Mr. Obama. Yet, my friends and family members pressed me to vote for him. An overwhelming majority of African Americans, nearly 80%, voted for Obama. This significant majority surpasses the support given to Hillary by women or white men. Pundits often admit that we need to wait until the African American vote comes in before we call a state, especially where there is a significant number of African Americans. They seem to expect it and have no problem with African Americans voting for Obama. Yet, there is something strange when women are asked to vote for Hillary—she is seen as playing the gender card. So far, we (African Americans) have been the most race-biased group in the country, and people like you have nothing to say about it. Please get over it. That is why I am supporting Hillary because of comments like yours. Everyone else is doing what he needs to do to target his voters; there seems to be no problem with that; yet, when Hillary does well among her gender there seems to be a problem for people like you. Why don’t you be fair Mr. Parry? Let’s see you talk negatively about Mr. Obama!
I very much agree with the recent posting of 'anonymous'; I also wondered why women voting for Hillary was a no-no, when African Americans were, more or less, expected to vote for Obama, and that was apparently OK. When will the 'fairness card' be played by the media and pundits? I have quit watching CNN for the same reason and will now quit reading Consortium News. It has become very obvious to me that Hillary will not be allowed to have a level playing field. Women always have had to do better, be better, be smarter, work harder - longer than their male counterparts to achieve any kind of male-begrudged acknowledgement.
Mr. Parry, since when is it playing the gender card when Hillary Clinton asks for women to vote for her?
The Democratic Party has been using this slogan for years: WHEN WOMEN VOTE, DEMOCRATS WIN
My oh my! You sure exude your bias and...yes, your hatred.
Obama has a way of clearing the playing field, rather than leveling the playing field.
Do a google search of Obama Alice Palmer ballot
Obama is your typical Chicago-style politician.
Mr. Parry, how about fulfilling your Fourth Estate responsibilities and informing your readers about Barack Obama -- who is he? Who are his patrons? How did he get his start in politics? What condition is his district in -- the one where Tony Rezko got taxpayer funds to "rehab" apartments for low-income Chicagoans? The district where crime is rampant, Rezko's buildings are dilapitated, code-deficient, rat-infested, lacking electricity, heating?
Enough. We are what we are. Women make up over 50% of the population but we are underrepresented in areas of power. I have never been a feminist until now and have witnessed people I normally agree with say such horrible things about a presidential candidate just because she is a woman. I don't care what Republicans or neocons or fundamentalists say about her. I do care what you say. Why is ok if 80% of blacks vote for Obama but Hillary is playing the gender card when she goes after women. She is not portraying herself as a victim. She is telling you the way it is for her and most women. I have generally been content going along my own road and making my own way but no matter how you present it, success IS more difficult when you are a woman. I have not dwelled on this in my life because it really is not helpful but I will not sit by and have you say or imply that the difficulty does not exist and the coverage of Mrs. Clinton has been the same as Obama. Why do you not point out that white men vote for Obama in higher numbers? And because this is true, what it says about this contest and this country.
Goodbye
Mr. Parry...read this for some enlightenment:
The world's greatest, untapped alternative resource: women
I"m getting pretty sick of Consortium News blasting Hillary Clinton. Is it that you are all men, and fear being taken over by women? Give it up or get help. You will never get another penny from me.
I love Consortium News and so this focused effort to promote Obama, especially in this completely negative way distresses me. I think the suggestion to spend a little time digging around and giving us some substantial information about Obama, good and bad, is one to be taken up. I think of Obama as a media created candidate because I watched it happen.
Believe me, I don't want either one but since the party made it a 'push come to shove' situation then, for me, the lesser of the two evils is Clinton.
So she got my vote in the Ohio primary. But I'm not happy about it. Kucinich is my choice. Maybe being a woman had something to do with my vote. I rationalized it as the evil you know as opposed to the evil you don't.
Nader looks better and better. If it turns out to be an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket then Nader will definitely get my vote. If the party can't accomodate the progressive wing or left wing or whatever name you want to give us, then there isn't any reason for me to hang around.
Mr. Parry has hit the nail on the head... but, ironically, in a commentary about the politics of "victimization and identity politics" Mr. Parry joins the US media/press corps and the vast majority of candidates in... dancing around the penultimate victimization/identity politics, that of the, shall we say, "never again" identity.
It is a subject so loaded with vitriol and venom, that you literally can't even mention it without immediately being derided as _________!
Speaking of the politics of identity victimization, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi deigns not to notice the serial abuses of power coming from the White House... not on torture, not on lies-to-war, not on the outing of CIA operation and obstruction of justice, perjury, and pardons; not on vast crony corruption, contract fraud, and missing billions; she has the House Judiciary Chairman under her thumb, she refuses to let him hold even a basic investigation into possible "high crimes and misdemeanors" (making him a liar for all his pre-election '06 pledges to do exactly that) - but she DOES NOTICE, and reserve the right to express outrage, that Senator John McCain is making an alliance with anti-Catholic "end-times" bigot preacher John Hagee!
Pelosi ignores, in any meaningful response, the administration claims that Congress is "irrelevant" re Iraq war or war-on-terro oversight...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/03/military_iraqpact_030408w/
but she quickly expresses outrage over one of Senator McCain's endorsements!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/pelosi-blasts-mccain-over_n_90302.html
In my previous comment, I mentioned (anonymous, above) I mentioned that Speaker of the House is not exactly burning up the history books as a champion of democracy or defender of the Constitution. I believe that she, the DLC, and the DCCC's role in winning the Congressional majority in 2006 was overrated (I believe that outside-DC challengers did the heavy lifting of that election, empowered far more by public revulsion to Republican scandals than to any Democratic 'leadership' message), but I shared the joy of her victory and wished her the best in January of 2001. What a disappointment she has been since then!
Oh, that's right.... I can't say that without being an anti-feminist if not outright misogynist!
Jonathan Chait had a good Mar 4 LAT commentary on HRC's political shortcomings, but the Buzzflash editor's blog has an even better take. Bottom line: If you actually _LIST_ Hillary's foreign policy ACCOMPLISHMENTS, her National Security ACCOMPLISHMENTS, her health care ACCOMPLISHMENTS, her education and CHILDREN accomplishments.. you actually have a very short list, with the ugly, ugly Iraq war authorization vote, the Kyle-Lieberman vote, the No-Child-Left-Behind vote, and the ugliest one of all, her sponsorship of the criminalize flag-burning bill! Before women and feminists tell me that I owe HRC my vote, and that any defense of the Junior senator from Illinois is therefore sexist, I would hope that they would please write out that list of HRC's actual, legislative and National Security accomplishments! (And while your at it, get Nancy Pelosi off her duff, and get her to do something to enforce the US Constitution.)
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/059
*** "She is not a progressive. She is a DLC "triangulator" who has actually "solved" very few problems, sold out poor women and their children in the "welfare reform" act of 1996, passed very little significant legislation, has virtually no foreign policy experience, and values playing the "I'm tougher than the boys are" card, when she's not playing the gender card.
If you want a progressive candidate for president, look to someone like my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, who opposed the Iraq War and knew what was coming when Clinton chose political expediency. (Schakowsky is also a progressive on almost every major issue where it counts, whereas Clinton is a politically calculating centrist who changes positions to meet the needs of her campaign). As P.M. Carpenter notes, there are potential progressive female political candidates who also are strong Feminists in practice -- not just word -- but Hillary Clinton is not one of them.
Electing a symbol may make many women feel better, just as electing George W. Bush made many people of good faith believe that they were really electing a man of God, but what they got was a man of war. There are a large number of women in politics who are not just symbols, but actually have a record of feminism, progressivism, results, and, most importantly, a respect for the will of the people and a desire to beat the Republicans, not just promote their own political interests. Hillary Clinton, we repeat, is not one of them." ***
Post a Comment