tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post7431854177274188182..comments2024-01-17T15:05:50.120-06:00Comments on AngryBlackBitch: And the whole world is watching...Shark-Fuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03323962708956637012noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-69756444347650270922008-05-29T23:49:00.000-05:002008-05-29T23:49:00.000-05:00jsb16 said, "his website has sections for (race-ba...jsb16 said, <I>"his website has sections for (race-based) civil rights, disability rights, immigrant concerns, rural concerns, urban concerns, seniors' concerns, the concerns of the poor, and veterans' rights, <B>but not women's rights."</B></I><BR/><BR/>Sorry Shark-Fu, but I just wanted to point this out. jsb16 said Obama doesn't discuss women's rights on his website. . . well:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues" REL="nofollow">Obama on Women's Issues/Rights</A><BR/><BR/>It's an entire web page listed under Obama's "Issues" tab, marked "Women."<BR/><BR/>It's there for all to see.<BR/><BR/>The page discusses issues such as: <BR/><BR/>- abortion rights;<BR/>- ovarian and breast cancer<BR/>- women and HIV/AIDS<BR/>- Domestic violence<BR/>- Pay equity<BR/>- Expanding Early Childhood Education<BR/><BR/>FYI. . . Obama mentions other women's issues, but I just wanted to highlight a few.<BR/><BR/>Given the abundance of evidence, I felt the accusation was a little harsh. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Obama has thrown feminists under the bus or pandered to sexists or threatened a woman's right to bodily self-determination. <BR/><BR/>I respect that we'll agree to disagree on some of this stuff. But I just wanted to provide evidence/information for the public forum.<BR/><BR/>Obama's not perfect. But he seems pretty damn good. I personally think we've got a great opportunity with him. <BR/><BR/>I know Shark-Fu wants to keep this on message. But I wanted to respond because <B>(and the following is not directed at jsb16)</B> it seems like people are LOOKING for any and every possible excuse they can find to NOT vote for Obama. . . especially since he has the nomination on lock. <BR/><BR/>People have begun to throw out blind accusations without any facts to back them up -- done in the hopes of de-legitimizing his nomination and/or derailing his campaign. <BR/><BR/>I don't doubt that there is a lot of constructive criticism. I don't agree with Obama on everything either (e.g., wish he had stronger stances on affirmative action and gay marriage). <BR/><BR/>But I'm also aware of the fact that we're in the "sour grapes" mode of this campaign. And some have begun to throw any accusation at the wall to see if it sticks.<BR/><BR/>That's a shame because I feel that, if we play our cards right, we've got a real opportunity for a paradigm shift in this country.<BR/><BR/>And Shark-Fu. . . I'm sure you get this a lot, but you've got a great blog. Truly impressive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-43452782830834696592008-05-29T19:09:00.000-05:002008-05-29T19:09:00.000-05:00B-Serious:Did you miss everything in my first comm...B-Serious:<BR/><BR/>Did you miss <I>everything</I> in my first comment other than the part you objected to?<BR/><BR/>Let's recap: I don't like Hillary Clinton. I haven't liked Hillary Clinton since she failed to get decent healthcare passed during her first stint as a resident of the White House. So quit trying to persuade me that Hillary is worse than Barack is. I'm already convinced.<BR/><BR/>However, if Obama were not running, or if Clinton were the front runner by a ten times larger margin than Obama is now, I wouldn't expect anyone to be silent about her racism, even if she didn't express it as clearly as she has in this campaign. Heck, I <I>haven't</I> been silent about her racism, and I think she's essentially finished in this campaign.<BR/><BR/>But none of that means that I think my right to bodily self-determination is a matter of <I>belief</I>. I don't <I>believe</I> that it's wrong to force women to carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to term any more than I <I>believe</I> that it would be wrong to force Black Americans to become bone marrow donors because there's a shortage of such donors. I <I>know</I> that both of these violate a fundamental human right, even if they might give life or save an already existing life.<BR/><BR/>As for who I'm voting for in November, that remains to be seen. I'm absolutely sure that I'm not voting for McCain. If there's a chance that McCain will win my state, we'realmost certainly doomed, but I'll vote (and campaign) for Obama if I think my doing so will make a difference. <BR/><BR/>But that doesn't mean that I think he's perfect in every way, or that I'm not noticing that, whatever his record says on women's rights, his website has sections for (race-based) civil rights, disability rights, immigrant concerns, rural concerns, urban concerns, seniors' concerns, the concerns of the poor, and veterans' rights, but not women's rights. Yes, women fall into many of the above categories, but everyone falls into multiple groups. Why shouldn't I question his decision <I>not</I> to make his position clear on his website?<BR/><BR/>And now I'll stop, with apologies to ABB for going off-topic.jsb16https://www.blogger.com/profile/15026570673498674977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-45211743920647762252008-05-29T09:53:00.000-05:002008-05-29T09:53:00.000-05:00Okay people...Help me help you.I moderate comments...Okay people...<BR/><BR/>Help me help you.<BR/><BR/>I moderate comments so that the conversation remains on topic. I hate to have to reject one with a topic related opionion just because it also contains some shit that is only going to add another set of bricks to the wall. But I've rejected more comments to the post than published (wince) and that's just not cool.<BR/><BR/>So, please pretty please self regulate or a bitch will continue to do so for you...Shark-Fuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03323962708956637012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-51233372550565957472008-05-29T08:43:00.000-05:002008-05-29T08:43:00.000-05:00jsb16 said, "That was a reference to Obama himself...jsb16 said, <I>"That was a reference to Obama himself, answering a question from a fundamentalist who thinks that abortion is about "thousands of innocent, sweet babies" being killed, by saying that people "believe women should have some control over their bodies and themselves."</I><BR/><BR/>You are faulting Obama for what he did not say rather for what he did say. Nowhere in your example does Obama say he would do away with or ignore a woman's right to "bodily self-determination." <BR/><BR/>In fact, Obama is on record as saying that he believes in a woman's right of choice (even in certain issues of partial or late-term abortion -- but I'll get to that later).<BR/><BR/>You also leave a lot of context out of your quote. In that same link you provided, Obama did say this (emphasis added):<BR/><BR/><I>"A lot of people have arrived in <B>the view that I’ve arrived at,</B> which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that <B>the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And I don’t think they make it lightly.</B></I><BR/><BR/>This quote shows that Obama has a view and outlines it as such: that, although he understands the moral implications of abortion, he feels that <B>"the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And [he doesn't] think they make it lightly."</B><BR/><BR/>That's a pro-choice position. Which, to me, seems no different than Hillary's position that abortion should be <I><B>"safe, legal and rare."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Both imply compromise. People could (and probably do) take Hillary's "safe, legal and rare" stance as a pander. But I notice that you're not taking her to task. <BR/><BR/>I personally think both Obama and Clinton are taking nuanced (though politically expedient) approaches to a very sensitive issue. <BR/><BR/>You criticize Obama's stance on partial-birth abortions without mentioning Hillary's position on the same issue.<BR/><BR/>In her October 8, 2000 debate for NY Senator, Hillary Clinton said that she was <B>not opposed</B> to the idea of a BAN on partial birth abortions. She specifically said that she "could support" such an idea if given the right circumstances.<BR/><BR/>In that debate, her opponent, Republican, Rick Lazio, accused Hillary of not supporting a ban on partial-birth abortions. Hillary Clinton responded by saying the following:<BR/><BR/><I>"My opponent is wrong. <B>I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions,</B> so long as the health and life of the mother is protected."</I><BR/><BR/>In her own words, Hillary is saying that she <B>"can support a ban on late-term abortions."</B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/nysenatetext100800.htm" REL="nofollow">Here's a link to the debate transcript</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm" REL="nofollow">Here's another link that outlines Hillary on the issue of abortion</A><BR/><BR/>Her and Obama practically have the same position on this issue.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm" REL="nofollow">Here's a link to Obama on the issue of abortion</A><BR/><BR/>If you look at the link I provided, you'll see that, among other things, Obama voted against a partial-birth abortion ban in the IL Senate (in part because there was no safeguard for the health of the mother--like Clinton, herself, said); he views late-term abortion as a women's choice issue; and he voted AGAINST a measure that would define unborn children as eligible for SCHIP (as did Clinton).<BR/><BR/>Actually, Clinton's response seems to be par for the course as far as many pro-choice people are concerned. So does Obama's.<BR/><BR/><B>Quick diversion:</B> <BR/><BR/>As you probably know, the definition of "life" is <B>key</B> to the abortion debate because it is directly tied to the issue of "choice." <BR/><BR/>Legally speaking, a woman's "choice" stops being unilateral once life is established. That's why pro-lifers want to define life at conception. People often dismiss this as pure religion or social conservatism when, in fact, it's actually a legal argument that they are trying to push. <BR/><BR/>As you probably know, it used to be a question of trimester analysis. It has since changed to a question that looks at the viability of the fetus(determined, in large part, by lung capacity).<BR/><BR/>The government has long held an interest in the health and well-being of the fetus after a certain stage in the pregnancy. Even Roe v. Wade recognizes such governmental interest. The private decision and right of "choice" that people often refer to focuses on the timeline <I>before</I> fetus viability and in matters of health and safety to and for the mother.<BR/><BR/>To the best of my knowledge, a woman doesn't have the "right" to get an abortion when she's 9 months pregnant. In theory, she <I>could</I> get an abortion at that point, but only if her health requires it (otherwise, the state interest in the health of the fetus would likely triumph over the woman's self-interest). <BR/><BR/>From a legal perspective, "health" is more a matter of <I>necessity</I> than "choice." <BR/><BR/>The reason for this is that, in late-term pregnancy, a woman's "choice" now has a competing interest. . . that of the state. The potential for a second legal interest lies at the heart of the abortion debate: the interest of the unborn (currently resolved by way of proxy in the state). <BR/><BR/>Not many question whether "life" exists at 9 months. Our medical technology allows us to see "life" (i.e., growth, response to stimuli, a heartbeat, etc.).<BR/><BR/>In fact, the Supreme Court (by way of Sandra Day O'Connor) is on record as saying that "abortion" is on a collision course with itself. This means that, as we advance further in technology, we learn more and more about the fetus and, thus, more about the capacity for life at potentially earlier and earlier stages.<BR/><BR/><B>Back to your post. . .</B><BR/><BR/>You said, <I><B>"Obama said people <I><B>"believe</B></I> that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves."</B></I><BR/><BR/>You stressed the word "believe" in a way that implies you think Obama, himself, does not "believe" that women have control over their bodies. You say this when (as I've shown) there's a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. <BR/><BR/>My earlier references already demonstrate that Obama believes that women "are in the best position to make that determination [about abortion]."<BR/><BR/>It's ironic that you'd take Obama's use of the word "believe," to signal <I>disbelief</I> (especially when he used the word "believe" as a third person reference). That's putting words in his mouth and ideas in his head without much evidence to support your position.<BR/><BR/>For the sake of consistency, here's a larger context to your Obama quote (from the same article):<BR/><BR/>Speaking to the pro-life questioner. . . <BR/><I>"“The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions."</I><BR/><BR/>It's clear that Obama is simply recognizing two competing philosophies on the abortion issue. . . two competing philosophies that often co-exist within many people who compose the mainstream view on this issue. <BR/><BR/>Obama further goes on to express his own viewpoint (which, as I've previously shown, is pro-choice). That pro-choice viewpoint is later solidified as a contrast to the pro-life questioner when Obama says,<BR/><BR/><I>"If you believe that life begins at conception, then I can’t change your mind."</I> <BR/><BR/>Well, Obama wouldn't raise the idea of changing a pro-lifer's mind if he, himself, was pro-life.<BR/><BR/>Obama goes on to state a similar position as Hillary Clinton when he recognizes the desire many people have for some regulation regarding late-term abortions.<BR/><BR/>Both Obama and Clinton received a 100% rating from NARAL and, as we all know, Obama received NARAL's endorsement a couple of weeks ago. I'd say Obama has a pretty strong pro-choice position. <BR/><BR/>Regardless of whether one thinks Obama or Clinton's "pro-choice" stance is stronger (I actually think they're basically the same), it's a far cry to say Obama threatens a woman's right to bodily self-determination.<BR/><BR/>Again, both Obama and Clinton basically have the same stance on the abortion issue (I've given evidence to back this up)-- they're both pro-choice and they both see the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies as a progressive compromise on the abortion debate.<BR/><BR/>And let's not forget that McCain is pro-life.<BR/><BR/>Your conclusion that Obama panders to anti-choice voters is unwarranted. . . that is, unless you also think Hillary Clinton panders to those same voters. <BR/><BR/>If that's the case (if you see both Obama and Clinton as "pander-bears" on the issue), then I can appreciate you're principled stance. <BR/><BR/>But I'd assume that means you're going to vote for some third party candidate. . . because, by referencing your "late-term abortion" concerns, Obama, Hillary and, certainly, McCain might be too conservative for your taste.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-11676458599825786302008-05-28T22:51:00.000-05:002008-05-28T22:51:00.000-05:00To the person who objected to my term of affection...To the person who objected to my term of affection for Hillary <BR/><BR/>BORG QUEEN<BR/>BORG QUEEN<BR/>BORG QUEEN<BR/><BR/>"Resistance is Futile"<BR/>Black people don't count.<BR/><BR/>SEXISM -I'M A VICTIM <BR/><BR/>NO platform on policies to improve the lives of Black women.<BR/><BR/>SEXISM TRUMPS RACISM<BR/><BR/>Gee.....where does that leave us BLACK WOMEN?<BR/>OH I guess all her white feminists crying sexism, ignoring racism don't see us. They can't because we were thrown under the bus, see...... <BR/><BR/>Now are YOU going to tell ME how I should feel or what I should say because you know better? I DON'T THINK SO SWEETIE!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-72884438457613902432008-05-28T19:47:00.000-05:002008-05-28T19:47:00.000-05:00B-Serious:That was not a reference to Ferraro. Tha...B-Serious:<BR/>That was not a reference to Ferraro. That was <A HREF="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-issue/" REL="nofollow">a reference to Obama himself</A>, answering a question from a fundamentalist who thinks that abortion is about "thousands of innocent, sweet babies" being killed, by saying that people "believe women should have some control over their bodies and themselves."<BR/><BR/>Let me repeat that.<BR/><BR/>Obama said people "<I>believe</I> that women should have <I>some</I> control over their bodies and themselves."<BR/><BR/>He said this in <B>October 2007</B>, and to my knowledge has never clarified beyond what he said later on, which included that there should be regulation of late-term abortions, which would seem to include the banning on particular surgical procedures by a group other than the AMA. He certainly doesn't have a section on his website that addresses the abortion issue. He seems to be perfectly willing to ignore a women's issue in order to have a chance of splitting the non-racist, fundamentalist, not-already-convinced-he's-a-Muslim vote.<BR/><BR/>I want to believe that my and my daughters' right to bodily self-determination would not be at risk under an Obama administration, but I haven't seen him try to reassure me.jsb16https://www.blogger.com/profile/15026570673498674977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-80833819930159960652008-05-28T16:59:00.000-05:002008-05-28T16:59:00.000-05:00Make my sheets rainbow. I want to go after the ano...Make my sheets rainbow. <BR/><BR/>I want to go after the anonymi, the gay-baiting politicians and preachers, the folks who think that Obama is Muslim or who spread the misinformation. <BR/><BR/>And yes, I do believe the sheets should be fancied up a bit. How about a bit of leather and some Pride beads?<BR/><BR/>NancyP ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-56990595572230200112008-05-28T13:27:00.000-05:002008-05-28T13:27:00.000-05:00Jesus Wept!Anonymous and the whole "slave becoming...Jesus Wept!<BR/><BR/>Anonymous and the whole "slave becoming a king" thing is one of the most breathtakingly raw expressions of unearned privelage that I've run across in a long time (and I drank from a keg in the auditorium where Wallace blocked the entrance).<BR/><BR/>Um, how MF-ING dare you compare random black people in positions of authority to being sent to war? Let's preach individual responsibilty, but practice group blame.<BR/><BR/>Let's see, you linked white privilage to the bible, never seen that before (eyes rolling).<BR/><BR/>Then you implied that black people (yes, PEOPLE because you didn't name someone specifically)operate out of racial resentment. I.E. a black President is going to appoint black people who will in turn harass white people. Surprise, that scenario places randon melanin challenged people at the center of the universe-- again.<BR/><BR/>WTFE.<BR/><BR/>Watch for the price of sheets to go up in the next few weeks. I am starting to see a spike in the demand.<BR/><BR/>Tip: Don't use pinking shears to cut the eye holes.E. Bunnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04428623198357271636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-55581232409143274882008-05-28T12:43:00.001-05:002008-05-28T12:43:00.001-05:00OMFG!!!!!Anonymous, there are too many issues in t...OMFG!!!!!<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, there are too many issues in that comment for me to address so I'm going to leave it at this - I explore issues of race, class, gender and orientation here. <BR/><BR/>You aren't on parole and reading a bitch isn't a condition of your release.<BR/><BR/>And I don't bite unitentified objects.<BR/><BR/>Next!Shark-Fuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03323962708956637012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-55126323902352213262008-05-28T12:33:00.000-05:002008-05-28T12:33:00.000-05:00jsb16 said, "But that doesn't mean that I'm willin...jsb16 said, <I>"But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to overlook Obama's <B>incidents of pandering or sexism</B> or <B>apparent willingness to throw feminists under the bus</B> in order to win "swing voters" who have doubts about whether or not women should even be entitled to "some" control over our own bodies."</I><BR/><BR/>This is a very serious charge with NO mention of evidence to support it.<BR/><BR/>Unless, perhaps, this is a reference to Ms. Ferraro who felt entitled to belittle Obama as some lucky black guy who would never be where he is if it weren't for the color of his skin (code: affirmative action) and white guilt. In that case, Geraldine threw herself under the bus.<BR/><BR/>Although it's worth noting that even Obama said he didn't think Ferraro was a racist. . .he limited his criticism to her comments, not the person (a point Ferraro conveniently ignores today as she calls Obama a sexist on every major news outlet).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-4293039732345471232008-05-28T12:29:00.000-05:002008-05-28T12:29:00.000-05:00Everyone running for the presidency is at risk. Wh...Everyone running for the presidency is at risk. When Benazir Bhutto was assasinated I was worried about Hillary Clinton. There are just as many sexist nuts out there are there are racist ones. Anyone who has not had even a faint glimmer of worry for any of the candidates feel free to cast the first stone. Until then, stop lying and criticizing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If I'm not mistaken, it was Obama who had to get SS protection right after he announced he was running. And when it comes to those 3 candidates, he's the one I worry about most.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-40657131387467692552008-05-28T12:22:00.000-05:002008-05-28T12:22:00.000-05:00@ Nancy, "It's about how easy it is to claim the h...@ Nancy, <BR/><BR/><I><B>"It's about how easy it is to claim the high ground when the MSM does most of your dirty work, and how standing aside and watching other people do wrong isn't really innocent at all."</B></I><BR/><BR/>As opposed to Hillary who showed no hesitation in tag-teaming with McCain to label Obama an "elitist," after Obama's "bitter" comment? <BR/><BR/>As opposed to how Hillary jumped aboard the "Bill Ayers" wagon during that ABC debate (mind you, this was just a few minutes after Obama defended Hillary's "Bosnia" gaffe as nothing more than a media-obsessed distraction)?<BR/><BR/>As opposed to how Hillary, during that same debate, tried to link Obama's church to Hamas?<BR/><BR/>And where's there any proof to suggest that the media is "doing Obama's dirty work for him?" Is this part of the vast left-wing conspiracy? <BR/><BR/>You're beef still sounds like an anger at the fact that Obama didn't take a proactive stance to speak up against certain insults directed at Hillary. As a consequence, you label his silence as agreement. <BR/><BR/>That, to me, sounds like some type of affirmative obligation you pin on Obama, but don't hold Hillary to. As I said before . . . when has Hillary stuck her neck out to defend Obama against racism? I gave you a specific example of when Hillary flat out DENIED the existence of racism. That obligation (if it exists) should go both ways.<BR/><BR/><I><B>"Speaking of transgressions, how long should we hang Obama out to dry for calling a female reporter "sweetie" for the (gasp!) second time in the last few months?"</B></I><BR/><BR/>There is NO moral equivalency between "sweetie" and "assassination." That is an insult. <BR/><BR/>Sweetie is not the moral equivalent of "drug dealer." (as discussed in Shark-Fu's post).<BR/><BR/>Plus, Obama called that woman to personally apologize to her. Where's Hillary's apology to Obama? We're still waiting.<BR/><BR/><I><B>"4) The perception of Obama supporters that Clinton is a dirty fighter, or has "poisoned the well" is both inaccurate and naive. But don't believe me: wait until you see what the Republicans have cooked up for the Democratic presidential contender."</B></I><BR/><BR/>The poor behavior of one does not excuse the same from another. Republicans will fight dirty. That does not give Hillary a free pass to act the same way. The focus is on her. . . her actions and her words. <BR/><BR/>Bringing Republicans into it only seeks to change the subject and shirk responsibility.<BR/><BR/>Again. . . her camp said Latinos wouldn't vote for a black man. Her camp said whites wouldn't vote for a black man. Her camp says Obama can't get hard-working white voters. That's poisoning the well. That's making Obama's race a central theme of this campaign. It's telling people how they should vote based on ethnic and racial lines. <BR/><BR/>Obama has not done this with Hillary's gender. I've never heard him reference gender as an explanation to vote for or against Hillary. I've never heard him say, "You know, we have polling data that suggests men won't vote for a woman in the general election." or "There are a lot of men who won't trust a woman as Commander in Chief." <BR/><BR/><I><B>". . . ease up on the racism/sexism Olympics, and get to work on some coalition building."</B></I><BR/><BR/>Hillary engages in the "racism/sexism" Olympics every time she calls sexism the "highest glass ceiling," ignoring the fact that there are many other glass ceilings that are just as difficult (racism, homophobia, etc.). <BR/><BR/>She engages in said Olympics every time she dismisses racism as a factor in this election. <BR/><BR/>Her camp engaged in the "racism/sexism" Olympics when Ferraro said Obama was <B>"lucky"</B> to be a black man because we're supposed to believe life's harder for a white woman like Hillary. <BR/><BR/>She engages in the "racism/sexism" Olympics every time she doesn't recognize white privilege or the ways in which gender, race and class intersect.<BR/><BR/>And while I don't blame Hillary for the following, I think it's worth noting: Gloria Steinem played the "racism/sexism" Olympics when she wrote that article in the NY Times back in January, "Why Women are Never the Frontrunners." <BR/><BR/>She doesn't know what it's like to be a person of color. So she shouldn't take liberty to assume which group has it worse than the other. Especially not in some weird implication that the most "oppressed" holds some moral entitlement to the Presidency.<BR/><BR/>Racism and sexism are bad enough. I don't need a white woman telling me that I got it easy because I'm black. And I don't need Steinem distorting black history and struggle for political gain.<BR/><BR/><B>Re: "coalition building"</B><BR/><BR/>That <B>"coalition"</B> is called the Democratic party.<BR/><BR/>That "coalition" had a primary season to select its leader.<BR/><BR/>That "coalition" had two very strong candidates that fought for the nomination. <BR/><BR/>That "coalition" picked a nominee. That "coalition" picked Obama. <BR/><BR/>The question isn't whether some coalition needs to be built. The question is whether Hillary encourages her supporters to desert said "coalition" by continuing to imply that Obama stole the nomination away from her. The strength of that "coalition" relies on whether or not Hillary is willing to accept defeat (just like any other candidate) and recognize Obama as the legitimate winner.<BR/><BR/>But she doesn't do that. Instead, she goes compares MI/FL to slavery and the Civil Rights Movement (again, an insult). She bends the very rules she agreed to play by and then blames Obama for playing by said rules. She let's Bill go around talking conspiracy theories. She raises ghosts of Al Gore and the 2000 election.<BR/><BR/>This is NOT coalition building. On the contrary, this is stirring resentment amongst one's base of support. It's crafting an excuse to abandon the "coalition," so many speak of today.<BR/><BR/>Obama congratulates Hillary on every one of her victories. He refers to her by name. He praises her as a strong and capable opponent. He even praises her as an example for his daughters. <BR/><BR/>Hillary does not return the favor. What was the last good thing Hillary ever said about Obama? <BR/><BR/>For all this talk about treating Hillary with kid gloves, someone needs to tell her that she needs to play nice as well. <BR/><BR/>Step one: Don't talk about assassination.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-74166117825889164502008-05-28T11:23:00.000-05:002008-05-28T11:23:00.000-05:00OMFG!You just gave me this horrid vision of Hill r...OMFG!<BR/><BR/>You just gave me this horrid vision of Hill running independent. Like a a pant-suit version of Nader, She takes away enough voters so that the insane portion of this country +undecideds=Bush3.<BR/><BR/>I expect Hill to campaign all the way to the comvention. Then, I hope, they'll group hug, sing Koom Bye Ya and sort it out on the Demo ticket.<BR/><BR/>FuB, I think you're a little off. Like just to the left of Ralph Nader. Who is, obviously, a pain in the ass. This campaign stuff is way, way overblown. Picking through Hills remarks while a rich pile of fresh manure is available to you daily on Major Media is just so wrong.<BR/><BR/>I fear Obama, at least for the biblical part about a slave becoming king. I've sure worked with and dealt with enough blacks who get a little power over the white guys. It's scary. But I can deal with that shit easier than I can deal with Fighting Johnny McCain.<BR/><BR/>My kid can get along with a black supervisor. He can't get along with an Iraqi bomb. Which is where McCain would be sending him. So, yeah, even though I fear injustice at the hands of black elected officials, I'd still vote for Obama if he made the dem. ticket. It probably wouldn't be Obama. It would be flunky#1187, buried in the landslide of new administrators, nursing some supersecret racial grudge for some stupid cracker who abused him as a child.<BR/><BR/>And for that, we must all be made to suffer. Bite me, bitch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-43328714492889447482008-05-28T10:24:00.000-05:002008-05-28T10:24:00.000-05:00One more thing, and this is a minor rant so please...One more thing, and this is a minor rant so please bear with me. But what is WITH the use of the passive voice in what's supposed to be an apology? I am so sick and tired of reading "I regret the event that happened." It just HAPPENED? And you just HAPPENED to be there with your mouth moving?<BR/><BR/>Okay done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-43958553237779914742008-05-28T09:33:00.000-05:002008-05-28T09:33:00.000-05:00Everyone running for the presidency is at risk. W...Everyone running for the presidency is at risk. When Benazir Bhutto was assasinated I was worried about Hillary Clinton. There are just as many sexist nuts out there are there are racist ones. Anyone who has not had even a faint glimmer of worry for any of the candidates feel free to cast the first stone. Until then, stop lying and criticizing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-54812033194119633842008-05-28T09:30:00.000-05:002008-05-28T09:30:00.000-05:00B.Serious Of course she's not going to apologize ...B.Serious<BR/> Of course she's not going to apologize to Obama and his family! She can barely say his name as it is- haven't you noticed she almost always refers to him as 'her opponent' (btw, Ms. Clinton, actually McCain is your opponent)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-3652607256436143462008-05-28T09:25:00.000-05:002008-05-28T09:25:00.000-05:00I just love that the new tact is to blame Obama fo...I just love that the new tact is to blame Obama for not jumping to 'protect her' from the sexism of the media! Hillary wants to have it both ways- don't treat her special as a woman, oh wait treat her special because she's a woman! I even heard some get pissy over Obama saying she could stay in the race as long as she wants. They said he was patronizing!<BR/>Now she's stirring the die-hards up and they basically want you to beg them to vote for Obama. And making demands that he put her on the ballot- what gall. If the situations were reversed and SHE'D won 11 in a row, they would be screaming for BHO to drop out and you know what? He would've gracefully. Hillary kept saying it was about putting a Democrat in the WH but she's basically told her fans they should support McCain. A REAL feminist wouldn't support a man like that. So it was just about getting HER into the WH. And like I said before, throwing hissy fits and not supporting the ACTUAL Democratic candidate because the woman you adored ran a crappy campaign-that's not democracy, that's idol worship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-49974088448269911922008-05-28T08:58:00.000-05:002008-05-28T08:58:00.000-05:00B-serious said:"Hillary needs to deal with her tra...B-serious said:<BR/><BR/>"Hillary needs to deal with her transgressions rather than point the finger at someone else. There is absolutely NO excuse for her latest comment. Forget intent, the effect of her words have potentially deadly consequences for Obama and his family. The fact that she can't see this. . . the fact that she won't acknowledge this. . . the fact that her campaign admits that they have no plans to apologize to Obama and his family, speaks volumes of her lack of character."<BR/><BR/>I agree. I also think that it demonstates that she is more like Bush than not. <BR/><BR/>She running up a debt in pursuit of an unwinnable race while playing on people's fears.<BR/><BR/>Another thing, Sen. Clinton wanted this "possibility" to become an OPEN conversation. That is why she kept bringing it up. Perhaps (wink, nudge) she raised the "spector" in her earlier interviews because she is self-absorbed and couldn't see beyond her own objective. <BR/>...Okay (wink, wink).<BR/>However, her campaign's decision to resurrect the story after Sen. Obama gave them a pass is an attempt to sway superdelegates<BR/>with an unconcionable arguement.<BR/><BR/>It is time for George and Lurleen to leave Foster Auditorium.E. Bunnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04428623198357271636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-43658990219044689612008-05-28T07:29:00.000-05:002008-05-28T07:29:00.000-05:00I just wonder how much Bill is behind all the Hill...I just wonder how much Bill is behind all the Hillary stuff? So Bill – let’s talk. Puh-lease let Hillary step aside with dignity. Okay, fair enough - when she is ready. But don’t make it more difficult than what it should be. There is no “cover up”. Except if we can call your spin since Monica and now the “Hillary working class hero” and “wrap up in June” bull. Back off Bill. You had your chance. No be a good ex-President and go talk to someone who cares. http://angryafrican.net/2008/05/27/bill-just-back-off-will-ya/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-9020187042701488402008-05-27T23:22:00.000-05:002008-05-27T23:22:00.000-05:00For what it's worth, Huckabee personally apologize...<I>For what it's worth, Huckabee personally apologized for his comments. Why is Hillary so special? It's like she thinks she's above apologizing to Obama.</I><BR/><BR/>Clintons do not apologize or admit mistakes....ever.Julie The Vintage Goddesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02760552385792635375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-22941857982440400452008-05-27T23:08:00.000-05:002008-05-27T23:08:00.000-05:00Shark-Fu, thanks for putting into words my feeling...Shark-Fu, thanks for putting into words my feelings. I've just started blogging for real about a month ago; and already I've gotten so disgusted that I've had to diversify my writing. I've reviewed a musical, written about violence in our communities, talked about supporting our soldiers by getting out of this stupid Iraq war.<BR/><BR/>But when I do write about the sheer political stuff, I'm going to hit it hard.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate you.Mac Daddy Tribute Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01483912561779369669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-37751848177695852662008-05-27T22:21:00.000-05:002008-05-27T22:21:00.000-05:00I totally agree with your assessment, ABB. I saw t...I totally agree with your assessment, ABB. I saw this video before it hit the TV cycle because I happened to be plugged into Twitter when the story broke, so I had a close-to-blank-slate experience, absent pundit spin. Yet I, too was worried that I was injecting some of my Obama-favoring bias into my interpretation of her RFK comments. So I watched the video again. And again. Trying to un-see what I had seen. But it was still there. The tone of voice. The turn of phrase. Her emphasis on the word "assassinated" was particularly damning, in my view. I didn't think she was wishing for disaster. But she was planning for it. Out loud. Blatantly. Maybe even deliberately trying to remind people of the danger.<BR/><BR/>It was not cool. NOT COOL. And the fact that her "apology" afterwards did not reveal any true understanding of the real reasons for the NOT COOLness of what she had said only made her attitude seem worse, in my mind. <BR/><BR/>(And before anyone jumps on me, please note that I am a second-generation feminist, would love to see a woman president, and used to have tons of respect for Hillary. My respect, which was hers to keep or lose, has been dwindling.)Jaelithehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12081888212421953409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-66812163338435299152008-05-27T18:13:00.000-05:002008-05-27T18:13:00.000-05:00If Clinton's motivation was simply to express why ...If Clinton's motivation was simply to express why she's staying in the race, she should have cited another Kennedy. After all, Ted Kennedy took the nomination contest to the 1980 convention trailing Carter by a thousand delegates.<BR/><BR/>I'm willing to believe that Clinton is staying in the race because it's not mathematically over yet. I'm not willing to believe that she's the best candidate, or that she'd win if the worst happened to Obama. (After all, we all remember President Humphrey fondly, right?)<BR/><BR/>But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to overlook Obama's incidents of pandering or sexism or apparent willingness to throw feminists under the bus in order to win "swing voters" who have doubts about whether or not women should even be entitled to "some" control over our own bodies.<BR/><BR/>I started this primary season enthused, because I thought the Democrats had a two out of three chance of nominating a real progressive and a certain chance of nominating someone I could at least be content with. (Those two out of three would not include Senator Clinton, btw. I've known for a long time that she's not a real progressive.) Now I'm down to hoping the Democrats don't manage to either lose to McCain or foist another bait and switch on us the way Bill Clinton did by giving us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" instead of actual reform.jsb16https://www.blogger.com/profile/15026570673498674977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-10092453394506462102008-05-27T16:23:00.000-05:002008-05-27T16:23:00.000-05:00Clinton had every advantage in this race, Obama wa...Clinton had every advantage in this race, Obama was an unknown. And yet somehow he is winning- and while doing so he has shown the skills that are necessary to be president. He has excellent advisors, discusses issues lucidly, doesn't get confused and say stupid things, etc., etc. I can't wait for President Obama to lead our country.Homerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18107337628719451890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10755833.post-67495768535982829422008-05-27T14:51:00.000-05:002008-05-27T14:51:00.000-05:00Here's another great response to Hillary's comment...Here's another great response to Hillary's comments:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/assassination-chatter-and_b_103619.html" REL="nofollow">A-Word Chatter and the End of Legitimacy</A><BR/><BR/><B>David Bromwich:</B> (emphasis added)<BR/><BR/><I>"When a democratic society fails to honor the contract by which we elect our leaders in peace, and let them govern in peace, and show our approval or disapproval by keeping them or turning them out of office--when the incantation <B>"He is not one of us"</B> dips so far below sanity that we pretend the rules and decencies aren't in force any more--it is more than one person who is harmed. <B>This loose way of talking and thinking of violence hardens us against real responsibility if the violent thing should happen.</B> We are administering shocks to ourselves in advance so as not to be surprised by the actuality. <B>But such preparations are in their very nature corrupt, and corrupting.</B> And they are not less so when used against any person of dignity and estimation, on the public stage, than when they are leveled against an elected official."</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com