Too often on the campaign trail we here people yell sexist things at Hillary. Whether it be "iron my shirt," or "get back in the kitchen," the Hillary Presidential run does not all of a sudden make sexism acceptable. If racist remarks were made towards Barack Obama the person would immediately be castigated and forced to apologize. This demonstrates the awful double standard we live with in America. Sexism is still all too prevalent, but racism has become unacceptable. As women have begun to excel in the various fields of medicine, business, and legal profession many glass ceilings still have yet to be broken. But the measure that is being applied to Hillary's Presidential run is all in the vein of her being a woman. She is not just a candidate, but she is the first female to make a serious run on one of the major political parties' tickets. Why is she not a normal candidate like Barack Obama or John McCain? For some reason Barack Obama's blackness has been an attribute but Hillary's femininity has been a weakness.
This double standard being applied to minorities is wholly unacceptable. Political commentators complain that older, white women vote for Hillary at an extraordinarily high rate. But older white women vote for Hillary at a smaller percentage than black people vote for Obama. Women have attacked Hillary in books, articles, and on the internet, but when will we see black people attack Barack Obama. Women have hurled each and every nasty insult they can at Hillary-they pick on her pants suits, her resolve in staying with her cheating spouse, her personal sacrifices, her law firm experience, and anything or everything they can insult. But why? Sure some women fundamentally disagree with Hillary's policies, but come out and argue why you disagree with her. Do not pick on her personal life, unless you are willing to hold Barack to the same standard you hold Hillary to. Barack's personal is not more pristine that Hillary's. In Barack's personal life we know he was a frequent user of cocaine and marijuana in his 20s, his pastor has given numerous anti-white sermons, and he bought some of the land his property resides on from a shady landlord. Surely more about Barack will be made public as the race continues but his personal life is only important in that he should not be held to a different standard than Hillary.
Consistently we see black people vote for Barack in overwhelming percentages and rarely if ever do we see the black community point out any of Barack's flaws. I hope as the race continues Barack will be held to the same standard as Hillary.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Rove goes after Obama and almost sticks up for Hillary
This has to be the first time I have quoted anything Rove has done in a positive light. But the man has a valid point on Obama's lack of experience and how Hillary should hammer him on this point.
Obama is all words and when Rove and the Republican media machine get a hold of his words and twist them he will have nothing left to rely on, except his actual legislation and policy. Unfortunately, Obama has neither. Rove's assault on Obama demonstrates exactly why Hillary must be the candidate if the Democrats are going to take back the White House. All of Hillary's "problems" and every step she has taken for the last 16 years has been under a microscope. There will be no surprises and she has dealt with the pressure from Republicans. She has proven herself against their slander, but Obama has not and I would bet good money that if Obama wins the nomination the Republicans will destroy him in the media and make him look naive and inexperienced. Many of the right leaning pundits are already taking aim at him.
Some of these arguments are going to stick and if Obama looks like a hypocrite it will be difficult, if not impossible, for him to dig out of the hole. When Hillary is questioned she can point to her career and voting record. Obama has not had a national career and as mentioned in prior blog posts here, he has failed to vote often, especially on hard issues.
Obama is all words and when Rove and the Republican media machine get a hold of his words and twist them he will have nothing left to rely on, except his actual legislation and policy. Unfortunately, Obama has neither. Rove's assault on Obama demonstrates exactly why Hillary must be the candidate if the Democrats are going to take back the White House. All of Hillary's "problems" and every step she has taken for the last 16 years has been under a microscope. There will be no surprises and she has dealt with the pressure from Republicans. She has proven herself against their slander, but Obama has not and I would bet good money that if Obama wins the nomination the Republicans will destroy him in the media and make him look naive and inexperienced. Many of the right leaning pundits are already taking aim at him.
Some of these arguments are going to stick and if Obama looks like a hypocrite it will be difficult, if not impossible, for him to dig out of the hole. When Hillary is questioned she can point to her career and voting record. Obama has not had a national career and as mentioned in prior blog posts here, he has failed to vote often, especially on hard issues.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obama and McCain neglecting their Senatorial Duties
As compiled by the Washington Post, McCain has missed over half of the Senate in the 110th Congress. It is a big deal that McCain has neglected his Senatorial duties, but it is partially excusable because he is running for president. While this is a huge percentage, and if I was his constituent I would be concerned, he has been in Congress for over 20 years and has a voting record history. In fact, McCain has missed more votes during this Congressional session than he has made.
Obama, has missed the third most votes of any Senator (trailing only McCain and Tim Johnson, who had a brain hemorrhage on December 13 and has not returned to the Senate yet). This means we really have no idea how Obama will vote once he is in office. If I was a real skeptic I would argue that Obama has neglected his Senatorial duties in order to run for President. But this is not a terribly strong argument given that IF Obama wins the Presidency he could not have his mind set on any bigger sights and once President he will have no reason to neglect his duties.
However, I still feel uncomfortable with Obama's lack of voting, not just because he has neglected his constituency or because he has not fulfilled his voting duties to the country as a Senator, but because he has not been forced to vote on important issues and really take a claim on the bills. What happens when a controversial bill gets passed by Congress and he needs to veto or sign it? Will Obama become the pocket veto president? I want to know how Obama behaves on important legislative issues of national importance and so far that has not happened. For all intensive purposes, Obama has only served one 2 year Congress term where he actually showed up for his job. Is this enough to qualify him for the job of President?
Obama, has missed the third most votes of any Senator (trailing only McCain and Tim Johnson, who had a brain hemorrhage on December 13 and has not returned to the Senate yet). This means we really have no idea how Obama will vote once he is in office. If I was a real skeptic I would argue that Obama has neglected his Senatorial duties in order to run for President. But this is not a terribly strong argument given that IF Obama wins the Presidency he could not have his mind set on any bigger sights and once President he will have no reason to neglect his duties.
However, I still feel uncomfortable with Obama's lack of voting, not just because he has neglected his constituency or because he has not fulfilled his voting duties to the country as a Senator, but because he has not been forced to vote on important issues and really take a claim on the bills. What happens when a controversial bill gets passed by Congress and he needs to veto or sign it? Will Obama become the pocket veto president? I want to know how Obama behaves on important legislative issues of national importance and so far that has not happened. For all intensive purposes, Obama has only served one 2 year Congress term where he actually showed up for his job. Is this enough to qualify him for the job of President?
Hillary "borrowing" language from Obama
We have heard too many commentators saying Hillary is desperate by pointing out Obama has plagiarized Deval Patrick's speech. If Hillary is desperate for pointing out Obama's plagiarism, what does it mean when Obama's campaign puts out a memo outlining "statements" that Hillary lifted from Obama?
Does anyone honestly believe that Obama can lay claim to phrases like "Bring the country together," or "turn the page?" I find the memo insulting, because these are two phrases we have heard in reference to each and every political campaign. Did Obama lift "turn the page" from the Pete Seeger song by the same title? What politician does not aspire to bring the country together? That is the most common refrain at every political rally I have ever been to.
Does anyone honestly believe that Obama can lay claim to phrases like "Bring the country together," or "turn the page?" I find the memo insulting, because these are two phrases we have heard in reference to each and every political campaign. Did Obama lift "turn the page" from the Pete Seeger song by the same title? What politician does not aspire to bring the country together? That is the most common refrain at every political rally I have ever been to.
Obama and Plagiarizing
On Saturday Obama gave a speech where he lifted rhetoric from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. This part is no secret, but the media's attack on Hillary for her campaign acknowledging this is fact is asinine. Obama has not passed any tangible legislation and has actually failed to do anything more than inspire America with his words. It is frustrating to read that so many people have bought into the hype of Obama's words, but when we will see his actions? When will Obama actualize his words?
In the New York Sun, Seth Gitell went after Hillary's campaign for bringing up Obama's lifting of Mr. Patrick's words. Gitell takes this as Hillary's desperation, but from day one Gitell has disliked Hillary and the chances of Gitell saying anything nice or even neutral about Hillary is as likely as hearing a complete sentence by President Bush. The highlighted sentence for the column was, "Hillary Clinton has a slim chance in this presidential race. But yesterday's trick will likely do more to hasten the end of her national career than sustain it." That is a mouthful.
There is nothing tired about stating that Obama lifted his words from another speaker. In college if you did that and did not acknowledge the source you failed the paper, sometimes the class, and in egregious plagiarism you were expelled. But instead of Mr. Gitell commenting on Obama's statements he would rather trash Hillary. It seems like a curious decision considering the incident should be about whether or not Obama lifted these words from Mr. Patrick.
It does not matter that Mr. Patrick and Mr. Obama are friends, what matters are the originality of Mr. Obama's words. If Hillary did not say anything then people would say she is spineless. But since Hillary did say something Hillary is "desperate."
If anything was revealed by Mr. Obama lifting the speech from Deval it is that Hillary is correct: Obama is all words and no actions. Obama is able to quote some of the memorable statements of American Presidents, but will he be able to pass important legislation like the civil rights act or ending slavery or making advances in federal funding for stem cell research. Obama, by improvising this part of his speech, demonstrated Hillary's point about his candidacy: he is all words. Whether they are borrowed or not, Obama has run a campaign based on promises and phrases, but lacking in content to back it up. Mr. Gitell has bought the bait, hook line and sinker. Whether or not it is plagiarism to lift Mr. Deval's words should be the issue not Hillary's response.
In the New York Sun, Seth Gitell went after Hillary's campaign for bringing up Obama's lifting of Mr. Patrick's words. Gitell takes this as Hillary's desperation, but from day one Gitell has disliked Hillary and the chances of Gitell saying anything nice or even neutral about Hillary is as likely as hearing a complete sentence by President Bush. The highlighted sentence for the column was, "Hillary Clinton has a slim chance in this presidential race. But yesterday's trick will likely do more to hasten the end of her national career than sustain it." That is a mouthful.
There is nothing tired about stating that Obama lifted his words from another speaker. In college if you did that and did not acknowledge the source you failed the paper, sometimes the class, and in egregious plagiarism you were expelled. But instead of Mr. Gitell commenting on Obama's statements he would rather trash Hillary. It seems like a curious decision considering the incident should be about whether or not Obama lifted these words from Mr. Patrick.
It does not matter that Mr. Patrick and Mr. Obama are friends, what matters are the originality of Mr. Obama's words. If Hillary did not say anything then people would say she is spineless. But since Hillary did say something Hillary is "desperate."
If anything was revealed by Mr. Obama lifting the speech from Deval it is that Hillary is correct: Obama is all words and no actions. Obama is able to quote some of the memorable statements of American Presidents, but will he be able to pass important legislation like the civil rights act or ending slavery or making advances in federal funding for stem cell research. Obama, by improvising this part of his speech, demonstrated Hillary's point about his candidacy: he is all words. Whether they are borrowed or not, Obama has run a campaign based on promises and phrases, but lacking in content to back it up. Mr. Gitell has bought the bait, hook line and sinker. Whether or not it is plagiarism to lift Mr. Deval's words should be the issue not Hillary's response.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Great Article in Wall Street Journal on Hillary
How often do we hear that Hillary Clinton is not a viable candidate for the Presidency? I think Drudge posts around 10 articles a week bashing Hillary, and I am sure he has made a small fortune off of advertisers requesting to be linked to these articles. The irrational hatred of Hillary and the Clinton family is getting old.
Republicans and even some Democrats have gotten into the act of claiming Hillary lives off of Bill's coattails. Hillary has only made a career because her husband is such a powerful politician. These criticisms are short-sighted and lack any truth. Hillary has campaigned hard and worked hard throughout her career.
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed in which they explained how Hillary is getting the short end of the stick and how she is qualified to be the President. Hillary is the first woman candidate to come of age during the Feminist revolution and while she was able to mother a successful daughter and be a supportive wife for her husband in his political career she never sacrificed her own career. She is the first Presidential candidate to demonstrate that women can have it all. They can have children and support their ambitious husbands without being forced to stay on the sidelines and assume traditional feminine roles of domesticity with a secondary emphasis on a career. Hillary has been a successful lawyer, corporate board member and even Senator without sacrificing her family.
Hillary presents an interesting phenomenon. Older women identify with her struggle against the political establishment. Women in her age range, give or take ten years, understand the many priorities she has to balance in order to succeed politically.
Women in our generation have benefited immensely from Hillary and her women peers. They broke down dozens of barriers and proved that woman can have careers and still have a family. Hillary climbed the corporate ladder to make partner at prestigious law firm; Hillary worked on corporate boards; and Hillary has now succeeded in crafting important legislation and proudly representing the citizens of New York.
Of course Hillary has her shortcomings, we all do. As outsiders many questioned her desire to stay with her husband even though he had cheated on her. Given the same position millions of women have opted to stay with their husband. Who is so blameless to cast the first stone and say she should have left him? No one is perfect and while Bill was wrong to cheat on Hillary, it is Hillary's decision and her decision only to choose to forgive him.
Republicans and even some Democrats have gotten into the act of claiming Hillary lives off of Bill's coattails. Hillary has only made a career because her husband is such a powerful politician. These criticisms are short-sighted and lack any truth. Hillary has campaigned hard and worked hard throughout her career.
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed in which they explained how Hillary is getting the short end of the stick and how she is qualified to be the President. Hillary is the first woman candidate to come of age during the Feminist revolution and while she was able to mother a successful daughter and be a supportive wife for her husband in his political career she never sacrificed her own career. She is the first Presidential candidate to demonstrate that women can have it all. They can have children and support their ambitious husbands without being forced to stay on the sidelines and assume traditional feminine roles of domesticity with a secondary emphasis on a career. Hillary has been a successful lawyer, corporate board member and even Senator without sacrificing her family.
Hillary presents an interesting phenomenon. Older women identify with her struggle against the political establishment. Women in her age range, give or take ten years, understand the many priorities she has to balance in order to succeed politically.
Women in our generation have benefited immensely from Hillary and her women peers. They broke down dozens of barriers and proved that woman can have careers and still have a family. Hillary climbed the corporate ladder to make partner at prestigious law firm; Hillary worked on corporate boards; and Hillary has now succeeded in crafting important legislation and proudly representing the citizens of New York.
Of course Hillary has her shortcomings, we all do. As outsiders many questioned her desire to stay with her husband even though he had cheated on her. Given the same position millions of women have opted to stay with their husband. Who is so blameless to cast the first stone and say she should have left him? No one is perfect and while Bill was wrong to cheat on Hillary, it is Hillary's decision and her decision only to choose to forgive him.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Look at Her Hair, Her Makeup, Her Suits...
How many times have you heard political pundits, talk show hosts or even the person sitting next to you on the subway, make a comment about how Hillary Clinton looked last night on television? It is unfortunate that people today would rather focus on a person's superficial qualities, rather than their substantive policies. Even if the comments are positive, you can be assured that Senator Clinton is not running for President of the United States based on her looks or fashion sense.
These materialistic comments are a type of discrimination. When you make a decision about someone based on how they look, rather than on what they have to say or what they stand for, you are making an uninformed decision about that person. Often this ends up being the wrong decision, and it is you, or in this case the public, who will suffer in the end.
As a woman trying to focus on my career, I can relate to the Senator's struggle to get people to look beyond what they see. As a young woman out of college, my first job required me to travel around the country and give speeches to college students. After a year on the job and getting nothing but rave reviews, my supervisor was replaced. Within one week of the new supervisor taking control, I was fired because he felt "students would be too busy looking at me instead of listening to me." This was a ridiculous statement of course. Nevertheless, I lost my job because of his inability to look beyond the exterior, and it was to his detriment because I was exceptional at my job.
I do believe that the public can look beyond the superficial, but it is extremely hard to do when the media is constantly commenting on Senator Clinton's hair, makeup or clothing. Hillary Clinton is not a fashion icon nor does she proclaim to be. She is a political leader with ideas and policies (which are discussed more fully in other postings on this blog) that will move this country forward for the next 8 years.
These materialistic comments are a type of discrimination. When you make a decision about someone based on how they look, rather than on what they have to say or what they stand for, you are making an uninformed decision about that person. Often this ends up being the wrong decision, and it is you, or in this case the public, who will suffer in the end.
As a woman trying to focus on my career, I can relate to the Senator's struggle to get people to look beyond what they see. As a young woman out of college, my first job required me to travel around the country and give speeches to college students. After a year on the job and getting nothing but rave reviews, my supervisor was replaced. Within one week of the new supervisor taking control, I was fired because he felt "students would be too busy looking at me instead of listening to me." This was a ridiculous statement of course. Nevertheless, I lost my job because of his inability to look beyond the exterior, and it was to his detriment because I was exceptional at my job.
I do believe that the public can look beyond the superficial, but it is extremely hard to do when the media is constantly commenting on Senator Clinton's hair, makeup or clothing. Hillary Clinton is not a fashion icon nor does she proclaim to be. She is a political leader with ideas and policies (which are discussed more fully in other postings on this blog) that will move this country forward for the next 8 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)