The political theater we witnessed yesterday was an interesting piece of televised misogyny. “The Kennedys anoint Barack Obama”. “The Kennedys pass the torch to Barack Obama”. The male media swarmed the event and leveraged it to the hilt to show everyone that Hillary was going to lose for sure now that Barack Obama had the “grandfather of all endorsements”. The unbiased media could only see the cup running over for Obama. Actually, Obama may want to check that cup before he sips in the Camelot court. Look at their last best friends Hillary and Bill Clinton. The Kennedys had no trouble throwing the Clintons under the bus when they didn’t heed big Ted’s mandate to campaign in a particular way.
Obama crowned by Camelot is a fairy tale. Kennedy supported Kerry-he lost. Kennedy supported Gore-he lost. Caroline Kennedy endorses a person based on her children's recommendation and a resemblance to her father’s ability to motivate through moving speeches, now that’s a good way to decide who runs the most powerful country in the world.
The fact that the Kennedys' didn't remain neutral and made such a public faux Camelot spectacle by attempting to ridicule and demean Hillary Clinton indicates that they truly believe that they can simply wave a magic wand and people will follow along. The entire scene smacks of misogyny, when Ted takes such a vicious swipe at a woman who he called friend, when it was good for him.
The message from this scene is “remember who is in charge”. This episode paints a clear picture of how the male so-called power structure in Washington in concert with the male media works. The good old boys just can’t quite understand that a woman is better qualified to run the country that they have run into a ditch. When Obama began to run into some trouble on the campaign trail, it appeared that Ted rescued him. Ted rescued Ted, not Obama. There is a higher price for that support than Obama may realize at this point. Obamas’ mantra of “change from the old Washington politics” pales with his newest old boy buddy as his sidekick. He might find a few thorns in that sparkly Camelot crown
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Portrait of a Leader
The choice between presidential candidates was clear to many women on Tuesday night as Hillary Clinton continued to paint a portrait of leadership. Senator Clinton reached across the racial divide the press created and in a dramatic power play offered to bring the junior senator into her battle to take control of the government from George Bush. That gesture demonstrated the intelligence, the compassion and the ability to heal a major rift in a national political party.
Obama confirmed what many already believed when he was questioned about his comments to a Nevada newspaper regarding how he would lead. His admission that he was not good at handling the details brought into focus a fact of life that many women experience on a daily basis. Women assistants have made the phone calls to correct mistakes and cover for the boss, who looks good, talks a good game but depends on his secretary to "make it work".
Those statements are striking to many women who have spent years finding the piece of paper the boss needs and running the office or household while the male boss or husband plays golf and makes the deals that she will have to turn to reality. Obama’s responses confirm what many suspected: good speeches, great ideas but not great hands-on control over the moving parts. We’ve experienced that method of governance for eight painful years. We’ve seen the results of turning the details of running the country over to those selected by those who were not elected. Enough. We need someone in the White House who can find the paper and make the government run – not just talk about how it should run.
The responses to the debate questions clearly demonstrate the difference in ability and readiness to lead. Never has there been a clearer picture of what the past has been and what the future could look like. The dramatic difference between Hillary and Obama reflects the reality that many women experience on a daily basis. Men who look like society expects them to look and talk the talk are in the positions of power, reaping the benefits of their power, while women do the work.
Work Horse vs. Show Horse.
Obama confirmed what many already believed when he was questioned about his comments to a Nevada newspaper regarding how he would lead. His admission that he was not good at handling the details brought into focus a fact of life that many women experience on a daily basis. Women assistants have made the phone calls to correct mistakes and cover for the boss, who looks good, talks a good game but depends on his secretary to "make it work".
Those statements are striking to many women who have spent years finding the piece of paper the boss needs and running the office or household while the male boss or husband plays golf and makes the deals that she will have to turn to reality. Obama’s responses confirm what many suspected: good speeches, great ideas but not great hands-on control over the moving parts. We’ve experienced that method of governance for eight painful years. We’ve seen the results of turning the details of running the country over to those selected by those who were not elected. Enough. We need someone in the White House who can find the paper and make the government run – not just talk about how it should run.
The responses to the debate questions clearly demonstrate the difference in ability and readiness to lead. Never has there been a clearer picture of what the past has been and what the future could look like. The dramatic difference between Hillary and Obama reflects the reality that many women experience on a daily basis. Men who look like society expects them to look and talk the talk are in the positions of power, reaping the benefits of their power, while women do the work.
Work Horse vs. Show Horse.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Is it a Race War or a Press War?
MSNBC gets one right!
Dan Abrams has finally gotten one right as he stepped outside the box of his colleagues’ rhetoric and screamed that the Clintons were not being racist in their comments regarding Dr. King. When the press reported that certain African American leaders hinted they were not happy with comments by Bill and Hillary Clinton, that led the "got to get ahead of the news press" to create news by escalating the "made up news" to headline the follwoing day on Cup of Joe - more on the "race war in the Democratic party".
If you are a straight white male on the sidelines watching this national race when your boy Edwards is a distant third, you want to stir this mix and create some headline news by raising questions about the only differences you can see, the first African American male and the first white woman, running for an office that is usually about only straight white men, therefore, the story is about race or gender, because you’re left out. That makes for great conflict if you can stir that story enough, by raising the right questions that lead either contingency to "react". When they don’t react, the press can react for them.
Do we really think many of those caught in the Obama "hope for all sermon" won’t react to the attack on Hillary and Bill Clinton and back away from Obama, offended that the Obama campaign benefits from the "creation of the race war". The press can leverage any comment about Obama to raise scrutiny about racism and force the Clintons to react. All Obama has to do is stand and smile (vote "present") and let the Clintons explain that they are not racist while the press does the dirty work for Obama. That’s great for their ratings and for Obama, but is that same press scrutiny levied about misogynist comments about Hillary Clinton. The press could never get away with attacks on Obama the way the they attack Hillary. So far, it’s softball and fluff for Obama and hardball and body blows for Hillary.
In this presidential contest - "race comments" are off limits (as they should be) but anything said about Obama by anyone can be interpreted by the "press" as a possible "race" comment by the Clintons - misogynist comments are the same old, same old, anything goes and few seem to care, or do we? We won't vote "present".
Dan Abrams has finally gotten one right as he stepped outside the box of his colleagues’ rhetoric and screamed that the Clintons were not being racist in their comments regarding Dr. King. When the press reported that certain African American leaders hinted they were not happy with comments by Bill and Hillary Clinton, that led the "got to get ahead of the news press" to create news by escalating the "made up news" to headline the follwoing day on Cup of Joe - more on the "race war in the Democratic party".
If you are a straight white male on the sidelines watching this national race when your boy Edwards is a distant third, you want to stir this mix and create some headline news by raising questions about the only differences you can see, the first African American male and the first white woman, running for an office that is usually about only straight white men, therefore, the story is about race or gender, because you’re left out. That makes for great conflict if you can stir that story enough, by raising the right questions that lead either contingency to "react". When they don’t react, the press can react for them.
Do we really think many of those caught in the Obama "hope for all sermon" won’t react to the attack on Hillary and Bill Clinton and back away from Obama, offended that the Obama campaign benefits from the "creation of the race war". The press can leverage any comment about Obama to raise scrutiny about racism and force the Clintons to react. All Obama has to do is stand and smile (vote "present") and let the Clintons explain that they are not racist while the press does the dirty work for Obama. That’s great for their ratings and for Obama, but is that same press scrutiny levied about misogynist comments about Hillary Clinton. The press could never get away with attacks on Obama the way the they attack Hillary. So far, it’s softball and fluff for Obama and hardball and body blows for Hillary.
In this presidential contest - "race comments" are off limits (as they should be) but anything said about Obama by anyone can be interpreted by the "press" as a possible "race" comment by the Clintons - misogynist comments are the same old, same old, anything goes and few seem to care, or do we? We won't vote "present".
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Poll Tool:Reporting or Making the News?
I love watching the pollsters, journalists and pundits twist as they struggle to explain an unprecedented failure of their tool of persuasion, their polls. They don’t understand that the glass ceiling many older women have been bumping into for centuries is really a glass floor that all white men have been dancing on. Men have abused, suppressed and ignored women and have shaped public opinion by shouting down and dismissing women who disagree with them. (Watch Chris Matthews with women guests who disagree with his position.). Dan Abrams chuckled last night “The weather was warm and there were all of these old uh older women were coming to the polls”. Yep. Those old broads voted because it was warm enough for them to come out, otherwise the frail old women would have stayed at home.
I see this unprecedented poll failure as a great opportunity to reclaim the electoral process and force the media to report not make the news. Polling is the life blood of the pundits that gives them to power to speak for us and therefore, shape the outcome of elections. If we refuse to participate in the polls, they will have an opportunity to report not make the news. To begin to stop the spectacle of fabricating the news, hang up when a pollster calls; if pressed by a pollster lie, after all you’re not under oath; after you vote keep it private.
We shouldn't’t have been surprised by the results not being what we “expected” because we shouldn't’t have been expecting a result. Tom Brokaw was right when he said the press was trying to get in front of the news. We can insist that the press wait with the rest of us and do what they are supposed to do, report the news, not make the news.
Susan Herbst, the public policy professor from Georgia Tech., quoted in an ABC News article gave sage advice to the journalists, candidates and pundits; "I hope this is a wake up call for the journalists, candidates and pundits." I see the failure of the polls as a wake up call and an opportunity to take back the process of the voters electing our leadership; don’t participate in polls. Let’s see what the candidates, not the pundits really have to say about real issues.
We can vote for candidates based on what we see and hear from the candidates, not what the press thinks they see or hear about a candidate that they think we might want to see or hear. We don’t need more analogies and opinions from experts to explain what we see and hear. We know that “Father does not know best.”
I see this unprecedented poll failure as a great opportunity to reclaim the electoral process and force the media to report not make the news. Polling is the life blood of the pundits that gives them to power to speak for us and therefore, shape the outcome of elections. If we refuse to participate in the polls, they will have an opportunity to report not make the news. To begin to stop the spectacle of fabricating the news, hang up when a pollster calls; if pressed by a pollster lie, after all you’re not under oath; after you vote keep it private.
We shouldn't’t have been surprised by the results not being what we “expected” because we shouldn't’t have been expecting a result. Tom Brokaw was right when he said the press was trying to get in front of the news. We can insist that the press wait with the rest of us and do what they are supposed to do, report the news, not make the news.
Susan Herbst, the public policy professor from Georgia Tech., quoted in an ABC News article gave sage advice to the journalists, candidates and pundits; "I hope this is a wake up call for the journalists, candidates and pundits." I see the failure of the polls as a wake up call and an opportunity to take back the process of the voters electing our leadership; don’t participate in polls. Let’s see what the candidates, not the pundits really have to say about real issues.
We can vote for candidates based on what we see and hear from the candidates, not what the press thinks they see or hear about a candidate that they think we might want to see or hear. We don’t need more analogies and opinions from experts to explain what we see and hear. We know that “Father does not know best.”
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Misogyny vs. Racism
Misogyny is alive and well. Hillary wins in the New Hampshire primary and the discussion is about how the "polls got it wrong". Does that sound right? Why isn't the press talking about Hillary - her remarkable win, how she got it right - America is finally ready for a woman President -what was her message that worked. She's on the road to victory, Obama is toast etc. When Obama won Iowa the next morning headlines were glowing with the projection that - America is finally ready to elect a black man - The next great MLK would lead all of us to the promise land, that being away from George Bush and the Republicans.
The press had buried Hillary and rejoiced that the "bitch" was dead or dying. Why is the news today about "how the polls were wrong and not about how Obama is toast"? The white male press continues it's mission to destroy Hillary the "woman candidate". These white guys are furious that "the polls were wrong."
Why all the fury about the polls being wrong? These guys were so sure that Hillary was politically dead, based on their polls that they went far out on that well known limb, only to find that they were WRONG! They are furious that Hillary won, when the "polls" said she would get trounced and finally be finished because they relied on those polls to make them be right.
The leader of Obama's press band, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, is actually blaming "the people for lying to the pollsters." He is cites the problem as voting in a booth instead of like Iowa, where people stand up in front of the community and vote their convictions, where they "can't hide and squirm in a booth". That's a great way for men to control their wives and children, vote this way or else! I prefer the privacy of the booth, away from a community that might force me to vote a particular way to "fit in" or "live there".
Chris Matthew's and the MSNBC Gang resolve this "poll problem" by playing the "race card" saying that "political correctness" is to blame and that the real reason Obama lost was that the people in New Hampshire are really racists. They lied to the pollsters,(as if that is a crime), to be politically correct. Therefore, in the MSNBC bubble, the voters when asked about their vote answered for Obama because they were cowed by political correctness. Hellooooo.
Think about what Matthews and MSNBC is saying, really saying. That because the polls were wrong, Hillary won, there must be a fundamental problem with "voters". First, they are a bunch of liars and second, they they are a bunch of racists. So, a vote for Hillary labels you a racist in the MSNBC world. The Gang attempts to box in Hillary by planting the seeds that will spark a great divide and make great news, that any challenge of Obama by Hillary is her playing the race card. That's simply not reality.
Matthews chants the misogynist creed, "Any man, but not a woman". Even with the Hillary's win he talks about Obama against McCain. Matthews chants about Obama "his good looking wife; he brings back the 60's; ever seen that guy walk on a stage; lanky and winning the way he walks". Is that reporting? These guys are trying to "make the news, not report the news". The only saving grace for MSNBC was Tom Brokaw, a real newsperson, who pulled Matthews in line to remind him that their job was not to "get in front of the news".
Don't let the press make this election about race, it's not. Just because we choose a white woman over a black man, doesn't mean we are racist. Just because someone answers a pollsters question and changes their mind, doesn't mean they are racist.
The results of this primary election actually mean that the voters in New Hampshire voted for a woman candidate who they believed to be better qualified for the job of President. That's a stretch for the entire MSNBC Gang but not for the rest of us.
Don't let the white male press or their pollsters elect the next president! New Hampshire showed the world that "women of all colors" have power, not the white male commentators or their pollsters.
The press had buried Hillary and rejoiced that the "bitch" was dead or dying. Why is the news today about "how the polls were wrong and not about how Obama is toast"? The white male press continues it's mission to destroy Hillary the "woman candidate". These white guys are furious that "the polls were wrong."
Why all the fury about the polls being wrong? These guys were so sure that Hillary was politically dead, based on their polls that they went far out on that well known limb, only to find that they were WRONG! They are furious that Hillary won, when the "polls" said she would get trounced and finally be finished because they relied on those polls to make them be right.
The leader of Obama's press band, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, is actually blaming "the people for lying to the pollsters." He is cites the problem as voting in a booth instead of like Iowa, where people stand up in front of the community and vote their convictions, where they "can't hide and squirm in a booth". That's a great way for men to control their wives and children, vote this way or else! I prefer the privacy of the booth, away from a community that might force me to vote a particular way to "fit in" or "live there".
Chris Matthew's and the MSNBC Gang resolve this "poll problem" by playing the "race card" saying that "political correctness" is to blame and that the real reason Obama lost was that the people in New Hampshire are really racists. They lied to the pollsters,(as if that is a crime), to be politically correct. Therefore, in the MSNBC bubble, the voters when asked about their vote answered for Obama because they were cowed by political correctness. Hellooooo.
Think about what Matthews and MSNBC is saying, really saying. That because the polls were wrong, Hillary won, there must be a fundamental problem with "voters". First, they are a bunch of liars and second, they they are a bunch of racists. So, a vote for Hillary labels you a racist in the MSNBC world. The Gang attempts to box in Hillary by planting the seeds that will spark a great divide and make great news, that any challenge of Obama by Hillary is her playing the race card. That's simply not reality.
Matthews chants the misogynist creed, "Any man, but not a woman". Even with the Hillary's win he talks about Obama against McCain. Matthews chants about Obama "his good looking wife; he brings back the 60's; ever seen that guy walk on a stage; lanky and winning the way he walks". Is that reporting? These guys are trying to "make the news, not report the news". The only saving grace for MSNBC was Tom Brokaw, a real newsperson, who pulled Matthews in line to remind him that their job was not to "get in front of the news".
Don't let the press make this election about race, it's not. Just because we choose a white woman over a black man, doesn't mean we are racist. Just because someone answers a pollsters question and changes their mind, doesn't mean they are racist.
The results of this primary election actually mean that the voters in New Hampshire voted for a woman candidate who they believed to be better qualified for the job of President. That's a stretch for the entire MSNBC Gang but not for the rest of us.
Don't let the white male press or their pollsters elect the next president! New Hampshire showed the world that "women of all colors" have power, not the white male commentators or their pollsters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My StumbleUpon Page