Obama's speech affects even Fox News commentators

That's good news... (0.00 / 0)

because that was a good speech, and a lot of the criticism of it is unfair.  It's unfortunate that no cable news commentator saw it fit to walk off the set at any point over the last year or so while Hillary Clinton has been put through a meat grinder, both personally and professionally.  

---

by: Anna @ Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 16:17:26 PM UTC

GOOD POINT! (0.00 / 0)

Anna, hillary should NOT be put through the ringer because we ALL know that she loves the country and Obama does not! Right? Or at least that's what her moronic hillbilly billy boy says!  Can you even imagine?!  Can you even IMAGINE another eight years of hillbilly billy and his errant kloppledanger bangin' around in the white house interns?  Neither can the country!  Both these bozos need to head back to arkansas until they learn to use indoor plumbing!

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 17:05:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

spot on... (0.00 / 0)

I have to agree. Clinton's treatment in the media has been far, far worse. I've written about that here...but the best report was by Bill Moyers, tho' I can't find the link here...

But I think that's one of the advantages in a Clinton nomination: there's not much new the media and the right can throw at her. And she obviously can weather the crit and still maintain her popularity.

That said, Clinton has yet to offer us anything like this speech; my anger was aimed more at the media and political commentators who constantly gripe there's no substance in the race, but when substance appears, they whack at it, unable to think in anything but mendacious, horse-race style...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 19:34:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But what would (0.00 / 0)

the media say about Clinton making an insightful speech regarding the effect of sexism in America?  They would call her a whiner and accuse her of playing the gender card.  Her hypothetical speech, no matter how good it would be, would not be hailed as a groundbreaking new approach to sexism in America.  

She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

Thanks, by the way, for the links to other posts.  I'm new to Montana (and Montana politics) so I haven't followed this blog for very long...

---

by: Anna @ Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 21:50:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here here (0.00 / 0)

They would rip her to shreds. She already has a tough enough time with it without adding to it. Welcome to Montana (and her politics).

---

by: Mathello @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:17:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let her make the speech (0.00 / 0)

and then we can judge the outcome. Arguing about hypotheticals is meaningless without substance.

But Obama's speech was in response to a specific event (Wright's rant) and generalized to a greater place in American life and history. Obama transcended the political campaign to deliver an important vision of how he would approach race in his presidency.

How Clinton could segue into an important speech about gender in American politics and history remains to be seen. She had an opportunity with Ferraro's recent remarks, but didn't do so. Likewise Clinton needs to show how she will transcend gender if she truly wants to run a post-gender candidacy and presidency.

There is an important historical element to the battle between Clinton and Obama, one that has been ongoing since before the Civil War. Bob Ostertag (author of People's Movements, People's Press: The Journalism of Social Justice Movements) wrote an interesting piece for the Huffington Post yesterday, "Is a Sad History Repeating Itself?" drawing the parallels to Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton:

The parallels with today are obvious. As the Clinton campaign began to feel the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming the first female president slip away, the campaign has resorted to increasingly racist appeals. One wonders if, decades from now, Hillary Clinton will be a hero in the feminist pantheon or, like Stanton and Anthony, a reminder of a painful episode that future feminists will prefer to forget.

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:06:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ferraro (0.00 / 0)

Her big thing wasn't exactly about gender, but race. It would have been stupid to make more of it than it was. Obama had to make the speech because people were worried that he had attended this guy's church for so long.

---

by: Mathello @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:25:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree... (0.00 / 0)

Ferraro specifically used race as a way to bait a fight with Obama. This is exactly the sort of desperate measure that Ostertag relates his comments to, that I referred to above.

If the feminist movement (of which Ferraro was a leader in her time when she ran as VP candidate) wants to run a post-gender campaign, then when people like Ferraro inject race, then the candidate has the opportunity to raise to the cause. Clinton failed the opportunity, leaving many to believe that through acquiescence, she assents to the treatment. This is where you could raise the "leadership" or "judgement" sort of litmus tests about her that she throws out to the press about Obama's "Commander-in-Chief" creds.

This is becoming a huge problem for the Clinton campaign. And if Hillary wants to get some fair treatment in the press, she needs to take this issue head-on. If she does, and excels at it, then she will go a long way to gaining the respect of the media, as did Obama. Unfortunately, Clintonian politics is predicated upon the notion that most anything goes, and winning is everything. So you invite the press to use the same attitude when examining your record and actions. One cannot both manipulate the press, and then cry foul when the press treats you less than fairly.

And I disagree that "Obama had to make the speech because people were worried that he had attended this guy's church for so long." His speech did little to dispel the criticism that he continued to attend the church over the years. In effect, his speech did much to inflate the anger of the Pat Buchanans and the Sean Hannity's because he exactly did not do what they wished, which was to publicly renounce Wright's words as they were spoken, and leave the church.

Hannity and Buchanan, et al. are advocating a dangerous litmus test for PC religious behavior, and Obama deliberately did not go down that route. Allowing the right wing media to dictate one's relation to one's church as a predicate for ascending to the presidency dangerously treads on the notion of separation of church and state. Instead Obama rose above that, and spoke to the larger issue of race in America.

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:53:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can pretty much guarantee you (0.00 / 0)

it doesn't matter what Clinton says about gender, she's going to be portrayed as playing the victim.  If she's ever seen as appealing to women, if she points out the specific difficulties of being a woman candidate for president, if she points out the historic nature of her candidacy, if she (god forbid!) chokes up - she's playing the gender card and/or whining.  Obama himself has accused her of this on at least one occasion that I can recall offhand.  Cable news talking heads do nothing but criticize her.    

Again, I don't need to be lectured about history (really...I don't) and I would wonder where this writer would place Obama's overt appeals to sexism and Clinton-hate.  I sincerely have not seen "the Clinton campaign" resort to racist appeals.  In fact, I've seen Clinton appeal to a pretty broad cross-section of voters, including Latino/a and Asian people.  A few people within the campaign have said things that could be construed to be racist, but they've been dismissed and their comments have been condemned.

It's funny to me, as a Clinton supporter...when Obama himself or one of his surrogates says something sexist, we're supposed to disregard it, because Obama is a really good guy and he didn't mean what he said.  When Ferraro, an honorary member of Clinton's fundraising team (with thousands of others) says something racist, we're supposed to assume this is suggestive of some endemic, coldly calculating racist strategy from deep within the Clinton campaign.  I don't buy it.      

---

by: Anna @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For Anna (0.00 / 0)

This pretty much says it all:

http://www.counterpunch.org/st...

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:38:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you really think Hillary has a chance (0.00 / 0)

to win the nomination? Without tearing the Democratic party apart? And then go on to beat McCain without the support of those who will believe Hillary to have stolen the nomination from Obama with superdelegates?

Do Hillary's supporters really believe that her win-at-all-costs campaign is going to bring the presidency to the Democratic party in the fall? If so, then they will inherit the democratic party they deserve: a weak, unprincipled, chaotic mess. And Obama can raise up again in 2012 to rescue the Democratic party from McCainism. If he still is a part of the party, and if he could once again raise the flames of hope in those who have been crushed before they got out of the starting gates of politics.

And Anna, If you believe enough in your brand of self-fulling prophecies about how the American people will judge Hillary Clinton if she were to do something like give a major speech on post-gender politics, then you should be able to read the writing on the wall about how the American people will treat her if she looses the election to McCain.

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:52:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you think (0.00 / 0)

Obama has a chance to win the nomination without tearing the Democratic party apart?  And then go on to beat McCain without the support of Latinos (who would go 80% for Hillary vs. McCain and 40% for Obama vs. McCain), elderly voters, working class whites, and many female voters?  Can Obama win without Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?  Because they're pretty much completely out of play for him vs. McCain.

I know this will shock you, but I don't support Clinton because I hate Obama.  I like Obama a great deal, but I think Clinton is an extremely intelligent and capable person who would make a really good president.  Clinton is supported by the majority of registered Democrats in the primaries thus far, and Obama and his supporters would do well not to dismiss us.    

---

by: Anna @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 23:17:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, what... (0.00 / 0)

Obama, the leader in the popular vote, states won and pledged delegates should just turn and walk away from the primary because people think Hillary is entitled?

And who just endorsed Obama? The leading Latino politician in the country, Bill Richardson. If I was Obama, I'd be thinking about going to Puerto Rico before the primary there, with Richardson, and talk about how he'll appoint him to a leading position in his cabinet, or, gasp, pick him for VP!

And how do you get that Obama won't pick up MI, FL, OH, or PA? Just because she won two of them in honest contests (though Ohio is suspect because at least 16,000 Republicans committed voter fraud by participating in Rush Limbaugh's "Chaos" campaign and crossed party lines to vote for Hillary).

Michigan and Florida violated party rules--rules that Hillary agreed to--which is why their delegates have yet to be seated. That was not Obama's fault, and any attempts by Hillary to make it his fault is disingenuous. And, maybe Ohio and PA will swing republican because of the damage Hillary did to Obama in those states. But she is going to lose the south if she steals the nomination, because she will have disenfranchised the black vote, and they will not turn out for her. Obama brings other swing states into play that Hillary won't--like Virginia.

I don't hate Clinton. I always admired her, to a degree. and she is, as you say extremely intelligent and capable. But the more I see of her in public on the campaign trail, the less I view her as being trustworthy, or a capable leader. I see her as a divisive force in the democratic party, and if Obama gets the nomination and loses to McCain because of being tarred and feathered by Hillary, then we all lose. But I do have some political foregiveness if she were to show some humility and made honest attempts to repair the damage her team inflicted by working to reunite the party. And I would have supoprted Hillary had not Obama ran. I just happen to think that he is the better candidate.

And I disagree with your assertion that Clinton is supported by the majority of registered democrats in the primaries. Checking in at Wikipedia today (3-25-08), the popular vote count is

Obama: 13,679,402, 51.5%
Clinton: 12,858,238. 48.5%

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

---

by: JC @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 00:35:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think (0.00 / 0)

either of them has any reason to "turn and walk away."  I think both of them can make a pretty compelling case regarding why they ought to be the nominee.  The overall popular vote count for Democratic primaries does not indicate that the majority of registered Democrats support Obama - as I'm sure you're aware, Is and Rs can vote in open primary states, and they give Obama his popular vote lead.  

Pretty much every recent poll has shown Obama losing to McCain by double digits in OH, PA, MI, FL.  Hillary would easily win each of these states.  Recent polls also suggest that CA, NJ, MA will be swing states in this election if Obama is our nominee.  If you think it's okay to trade those electoral votes for Virginia, I guess that's up to you, but that's not going to lead to a Democratic president.  Obama loses among Latinos, Asians, and Jewish voters to McCain, by pretty large margins, while Hillary takes huge majorities of those voters.  This is what brings CA, FL, NJ into play.

Obama and his campaign need to figure out a way to reach out to those people, and they don't seem to be doing it because (if the comments I read here are any indication) Clinton and her supporters don't even exist.  That is the problem with a campaign based upon one personality as the embodiment of hope and change in this country - even lifelong Dems who, heaven forbid, come to a different conclusion regarding the best candidate in this race seem to be seen as impediments to change.  We're in the way and we don't matter.  Obama folks continue to express this attitude at their peril.  

---

by: Anna @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:32:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]