Stay classy...Lambert gets it ... too bad Obama doesn't.
AP:“[OBAMA] I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” he told reporters.’Cause you know how women are….
Driven by feelings…. Worried about their [sex] appeal… Prone to tears… The whole phases of the moon thing…
And did you catch the dogwhistle in “periodically”?
NOTE Apparently, Andrea Mitchell and Nora O’Donnell noticed as well. Even if the boys on the bus didn’t — or approved. Looking for links…
UPDATE Best I can do on the links comes from Googling on Mitchell and O’Donnell and ending with this transcription. If I had a TV, maybe I’d know what show was being referred to, and could go look for an official transcript of their reactions.
Don't agonize, organize ... that's my mantra. Change won't happen unless you work to make it happen! But sometimes even your best efforts don't provide the results you were looking for. Or sometimes a situation is just so completely outrageous that all you can do is say ... YIKES!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Lambert nails Obama with "Stay Classy ..."
I've had the good fortune of meeting Lambert, who is an exceptional person! That is why I want to post this -- in its entirety here (hope that's okay). So here is:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
BAC, as you know I have had a great deal of trouble with finding a candidate to fully support.
When I heard Obama say that yesterday on TV I almost fell over.
What horsemanure!
Thank you by the way for your very thoughtful and clearly written comment on my blog. You rock sister and I respect you very much.
Fran - You know how I feel about you, too! Thanks for your comment.
BAC
OH BAC:
This is really the shits. I had a million and one good reasons for liking Clinton and disliking Obama. While I did think that Obama was kind of homophobic, I never thought he was sexist before, nor she racist. I still am sure of the latter.
Now, I realize that it's Obama who well could be all of SEXIST, RACIST and HOMOPHOBIC. I'm pretty sure he's anti-Latino by philosophy and by campaign tactics. He's obviously "age-ist," and a snob.
But STILL I prefer issues and experience to "themes" and "identity." We know she crushes him on that score, but I really don't see how much better she could have campaigned. I know if I had chosen a strategy and tactics for her, I couldn't have done a better job. Just how supremely unlucky is this woman?
I SUPPOSE I prefer Obama to McCain because I believe Obama is sane, for me it really makes no difference. On the issue of greatest material importance to me -- US gambling law -- Obama and McCain have the same position. Clinton has the opposite position which is mine. On competence, it's clear. And philosophically, I believe that Clinton is more trustworthy on the "values" issues that are important to me: separation of church and state, firmly pro-choice, a sense of compassion, and the willingness to back her opionions with policy.
Clinton, I think, has gotten an unfair reputation in "liberal" circles as a hawk. I do believe she's more aggressive than I would like her to be, but I can live with that. I very much believe what Pat Buchanan says about McCain: "he makes Bush look like Ghandi." And as for Obama, his lack of specificity, plus his close relationships with Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Jim Wallis, Colin Powell and Joe Lieberman suggest to me that he's MORE likely than Clinton to buy into the Rapture/AIPAC global domination thing.
A final material note for me, wheras a signature diplomatic success for the Bill Clinton administration has been his South America policy, I highly doubt that HRC would do anything do damage that.
I believe that McCain just because of his very McCain-ness would love to take a run at Hugo Chavez. And if Pat Robertson and Joe Lieberman have Obama's ear, I'll be very wary of the same. I fully expect both McCain and Obama to pour Blackwater into Colombia should Cesar Gaviria appearing to be polling well against Uribe.
Panama is agnostic towards all nations really but I can't see either McCain or Obama letting us be considering that Panama's emergence as a post-colonial, first-world, trade and banking power and democratic republic was a signature accomplishment of President Clinton.
You have to understand that modern South America really looks to Western Europe now for its cues as to how to manage a society, a government and an economy. This means that the Republican Party of the USA has "lost" South America and we know McCain's biases and Obama's closeness with Pat Robertson, the advocate of Chavez's assassination, is worrisome for me.
I really need Senator Clinton in there.
But you see the point. These are real instrumental reasons for my preference. "Hope" and "Yes We Can" just don't measure up.
"And as for Obama, his lack of specificity, plus his close relationships with Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Jim Wallis, Colin Powell and Joe Lieberman suggest to me that he's MORE likely than Clinton to buy into the Rapture/AIPAC global domination thing."
I love Kelso - I really do.
Gender is a clearly far more complicated issue to address than race.
Period.
And if you'd care to help bring light to that and embrace a newer, more effective, up to date version of feminism in the third-wave, we'd love your support.
You have a valid argument and I am not being snide. I'm saying that it's time for a change and it's time to redefine feminism for a new era. You have good ideas, but I think you're beholden to past ones that didn't work.
Kevin - I'm not so sure it's "feminism" that needs to be changed or even redefined. It's our culture that needs to be changed. Feminism is defined as a belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. That is something Abigail Adams asked of her husband John, when he helped draft the Constitution.
Wikipedia notes: She is best known for her March 1776 letter to John Adams and the Continental Congress, requesting that they:
...remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
To this, John answered:...as to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh...Depend upon it, we know better Than to repeal our masculine systems...
In 2008 women still don't earn the full dollar, we are only about 20% of Congress, and we are a only a small percentage of CEO's. And we are still not a protected class within our Constitution.
Young women are about to lose not only their access to safe, legal abortion -- but to birth control as well. We are one Supreme Court Justice away from it. And affirmative action, which benefits women, will be lost as well.
The loss of these civil rights would not have a direct impact on my life, as I am not able to get pregnant. And I probably wouldn't be directly hurt by the loss of affirmative action, since I have a job where I am respected. But these would have an impact on how I am viewed by the world at large.
It it still socially acceptable to make sexist comments about women -- and that needs to change. Maybe the younger women today need to lose all of their civil rights before they realize just what this struggle is all about.
This is certainly not something I would wish to have happen.
It actually would be in men's best interest to work for women's rights. Since it takes two incomes to keep most families afloat, you'd think that men would want their wives/partners earning as much as they do. It would mean a greater household income.
Maybe a way to redefine feminism is to make it a man's issue.
BAC
Post a Comment