Election 2008--CLOSED

[Marge_Innavera]

Even though I'm ecstatic that Obama won, the anti-Hillaryr video is depressing and disgusting and the column rings true to me. Thank God a person can avoid much of the tasteless sexist comments by choosing not to watch only a couple of channels.

I'm not sure I understand that.  A lot of Clinton supporters have been seriously alienated and there's no way to tell as yet that the smug predictions of Clinton supporters meekly falling into line and voting for Obama have any basis in reality. Are you saying that as an Obama supporter you intend to just ignore that and pretend it hasn't been an issue?

[Dave Cullen]

I realize that many of you were opposing Obama three days ago.

If you're reconsidering that now, and wondering what the hell he plans to do for our community, you might want to participate in this call. It's open to everyone interested in LGBT issues.

And all you Obamicans might be interested, too. Whether you're gay or not, you clearly have some gay friends (on this thread, for sure).

RSVP for the conference call here:
 
http://pride.barackobama.com/LGBTcall

It's 6 ET, 4 Denver time

Here's more about it, from the email they sent:

On this call, we will give a status report of our campaign as a whole, discuss LGBT policy, provide suggestions for how you can be involved and answer questions and hear your concerns.

National LGBT Conference Call

Friday, June 6th, 2008

6:00 p.m. EDT

[appleone]

Interesting - I got a totally different take from KittyHawk's comments, which she can explain for herself.  I did not see her statement as a decision to ignore sexism, instead I saw it as an affirmation that even if she was glad that Barack became the presumptive nominee, she still found the sexism towards Hillary Clinton to be disgusting and depressing and agreed with the column's assertions about the sexist climate we live in and the effects on the primary.  She then implicitly called for a boycott of the most egregious offenders.  So, I did not take her comments as "ostrich in the sand".  I took them as disgust and depression towards sexism during the primary season and a suggestion for boycott.  But that is my take on her comments and I may be completely wrong.

On a more general note and putting aside both KH's and Marcia's question, I do hope that the Obama and Clinton supporters can unite to form a strong coalition to win the White House.  I think there are a lot of myths going both ways about the supporters of the different camps.  (For me, one of the more patronizing myths about Barack's supporters is that somehow we are blind to sexism or think that sexist treatment of others is okay as long as our candidate gets to win.  It belittles both my experience and my awareness.) 

I do not think that Clinton's supporters should just jump on the Barack/Democratic National Party bandwagon the next day after she suspends and be glad about it.  Anyone who has worked on a campaign knows the letdown after the campaign is over, especially when you feel passionately about your candidate.  Many people mope around for weeks, eat junk food, gain weight, grow beards, stop bathing, blame the world of idiots for not picking their candidate who was the obvious best choice, make vows that the world will rue the day they didn't pick their candidate, etc.  Here, there is the added experience of the historic nature of the campaigns, the reality that the nomination went from being inevitable to not happening, the passion that Clinton's supporters had for her, etc.  So this process of uniting the party is going to take a lot of time and both Barack and Clinton will play a large role in how successful that those efforts will be.  The supporters of each side will also play a large role, in particular because the more ignored and disrespected Clinton supporters feel, the more attractive a spite vote will seem to them.  But we are months away from the general election and I think a lot of healing will happen in those months.

The stakes are high and there is much work to be done.  Let us refamiliarize ourselves with the current state of our country and the problems that ail this country today.  We are in a recession and do not have a growth industry on the horizon that can bail us out a la technological boom of the 1990's.  The housing market is abominable.  Whole towns are being foreclosed.  We are in two wars with no end in sight and have an Administration with their eyes on Iran.  We are facing a reality of $5/gallon gas while unemployment rates are rising and this summer reportedly will have record layoffs.  We are more divided than ever as a nation on so many levels.  The one thing almost everyone agrees on is that we are not comfortable about the direction in which our country is going.

We are now in the general election cycle.  That is bigger than any one candidate.  Amond the key questions we must ask ourselves are which party do you want in charge of deciding how we get through this housing crisis? recession? war? health care crisis? picking the federal judiciary?  education? We may disagree on the answers but the problems are real.

 

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

^^^^^^

thanks apple, all good points, and here is the crux of it (which I hope Hillary Clinton will soon point out herself)

If Obama is the next president, we have some hope that the Supreme Court can be improved by his appointments.  If McCain wins, we will get more conservative judges. 

Some of the decisions of this supreme court are a travesty.

If we care about women's rights-- look at the decision they handed down, that a woman who was discriminated against by her employer for 20 years (they under paid her) -- she sued the company and won the lawsuit.  Our Supreme Court bent over backwards looking for a reason to reverse that decision, and with tortured reason (the original discrimination took place 20 years ago, when she was hired, so the statute of liminations has run out.  Huh?)

Getting some balance on the Supreme Court is important.  And don't forget Roe vs. Wade.

I agree with apple, it is way bigger than the candidates.  If there is to be any hope of reversing the damage done by Bush, we need to start ASAP.

[Flyboy]

Did anyone here catch this article from the New York Sun? Sounds like sour grapes, or at worst, a witchhunt............very tacky and unnecessary to me.............

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama

[brokebacktom]

^^^^^^

thanks apple, all good points, and here is the crux of it (which I hope Hillary Clinton will soon point out herself)

If Obama is the next president, we have some hope that the Supreme Court can be improved by his appointments.  If McCain wins, we will get more conservative judges. 

Some of the decisions of this supreme court are a travesty.

If we care about women's rights-- look at the decision they handed down, that a woman who was discriminated against by her employer for 20 years (they under paid her) -- she sued the company and won the lawsuit.  Our Supreme Court bent over backwards looking for a reason to reverse that decision, and with tortured reason (the original discrimination took place 20 years ago, when she was hired, so the statute of liminations has run out.  Huh?)

Getting some balance on the Supreme Court is important.  And don't forget Roe vs. Wade.

I agree with apple, it is way bigger than the candidates.  If there is to be any hope of reversing the damage done by Bush, we need to start ASAP.

I agree with you. WE have to start reversing what Bush and Company did. No matter who got the nomination, we have to start ASAP. It will take a long time. It scares me that people are not taking this seriously. Our right have been slowly taken away, and the Corporations are given exactly what they want. They are giving 1st Amendment rights, which is what our founding fathers frowned upon. This is what I was taught in school at a Private Religious School, a conservative one.

[Dave Cullen]

On the news tonight they reported that Barack Obama was going to take
three days off to rest and relax and that he said he wanted to take his wife
out on a date.

. . . that it just sounded so refreshing, so human,
and even joyful, that it made me feel good.  I want to feel good more often.

me, too. i loved that.

and i love michelle more with every passing day.

i'll throw a little water on that, though, and pose one question that gnaws at me. let me put it hopefully: I hope america is ready for michelle obama.

at the risk heresy, i'll be candid: the first time i saw her--the first few times i think, though it's a little fuzzy--i was a little concerned. i wasn't quite sure what to make of her, or whether she would be good for the campaign, or whether i was even going to like her. i don't remember the exact context, but the first several times were very short clips of her, not saying a whole lot: sound bites, i guess.

and she seemed . . . brash? is that the right word? brash can be good or bad--in fact very good or very bad. and i'll also say she was different than i'm used to. which is my problem, i know, but i think it's true of a lot of white guys--white people in general, but white guys in particular. i don't know a lot of black women.

(at the moment, i don't have any close friends that are. i have lived all over the country and have my good friends all over, and then my local friends. my good friends mostly came from my college paper, and my grad school writing program in my 30--neither of which included many black people. the friends are about half female, with a mix of lcolors--for some reason a ton of latinos and a huge over-representation of asians--but none black. and the local friends, due to my working at home, are mostly gay men. (even more latinos. partly because i live in denver. very latino. i also seem to have an affinity for them.) i don't meet a lot of black women at the gay bars--or at my gym. for the locals, the colors are again sorted, and include blacks, but not black women.)

so those are my particular reasons, but i would wager that there are more white men in america WITHOUT any close black women friends than with.

and michelle is definitely a black woman. i think she'd be the first to agree that she is no barbara bush--or laura bush, or even rosyln carter.

the cliche to describe it would be that michelle threw me out of my comfort zone a bit there at first.

now i kind of love being hurled out of my comfort zone, so after a little exposure to her--and the first time i heard her speak at length, and realized how freaking smart she is, and how sincere and bold and wonderful, and how well she carries off that brashness--i was smitten.

and my internal response was, "huh. i need to meet more black women." seriously. it was one of those times where i didn't really notice the gap there until i "met" one, noticed she clearly came from a different subculture than the women i know, and i was missing out. (i tivo oprah every day, but not the same thing.)

but i don't think most people enjoy their comfort zone being violated (which is how they tend to feel it). it may be a harder sell; it may take a little longer.

but i think that's why they need michelle out front and center more. new things take a little getting used to, and i think a lot of white guys will fall love with her, but not on the first media "date." don't hold her back; get her out there.

i think once she's the first lady, she is going to inspire a whole new wave of style and a sense of chic in her image. it's going to be like the early 60s and Jackie Kennedy again, but with a very different style.

(and i'm not of the school that believes style is shallow and to be brushed off as silly. i think it has a big impact on arts and culture and the public sense of itself in deep ways that we don't consciously perceive.)

we've had black chic for a long time--up and down--but hasn't it usually been a form of black male? there were white people emulating the black power fist thing and all that went with it in the 60s, and there were all the suburban white boy rappers and hip hoppers and gangsta stuff of the last two decades, often at the expense of women.

it will be nice to see a resurgence of black female style. i think michelle will eclipse barack on the pop culture and style front, the way jackie did with jack. and in both cases, i think an underlying idea, is that michelle and jackie both are/were intellectual women with a lot more than a pretty dress or hat. they are strong women who should be seen as figures to emulate.

hmmmmmm. i guess i drifted.

summary: i have great expectations for the way the country will eventually embrace michelle, and some unintended impact she'll have on the culture. in the short-run, during the campaign--she will make some people uncomfortable, so get her out there fast and furious, and give those white guys a few months to get comfortable with her.

[brokebacktom]

For those considering voting for McCain who supported Clinton, please remember this: I just heard of this where was I? Sad that McCain did not stand up to her, since he admires Hillary so much. This is in no way to affend anyone. I will take it off if it does.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

[Dave Cullen]

Interesting - I got a totally different take from KittyHawk's comments, which she can explain for herself.  I did not see her statement as a decision to ignore sexism, instead I saw it as an affirmation that even if she was glad that Barack became the presumptive nominee, she still found the sexism towards Hillary Clinton to be disgusting and depressing and agreed with the column's assertions about the sexist climate we live in and the effects on the primary.  She then implicitly called for a boycott of the most egregious offenders.  So, I did not take her comments as "ostrich in the sand".  I took them as disgust and depression towards sexism during the primary season and a suggestion for boycott.  But that is my take on her comments and I may be completely wrong.

thanks, i saw it the way you did.

that montage gave me a lot to think about. it was very helpful to have a raft of examples, which some of the columnists i've read failed to provide convincingly. i give that org a lot of credit for doing that.

i had a conversation with a friend this week that helped me figure out one big thing: one big factor in whether or not you've heard sexism in this campaign is who you have been listening to.

i was kind of baffled by some of the charges, until she pointed out that a huge proportion of the examples being cited are from FauxNews, and most of the rest are MSNBC. i almost never, ever turn on either. (i watched o'reilley the night stephen colbert was on, and could barely even stand that.) mostly, i see FauxNews through Daily Show clips ridiculing it. i don't even know where MSNBC is on my cable.

i mostly get my news from--more or less in this order--charlie rose every day (tivo'd so i catch them all), daily show & colbert (which i don't consider a problem, btw), links from members on this board, NYT (via the web), CNN on primary nights and leading up to them--i FF through a lot of crap, and stop especially when i see David Gergen, Jeff Toobin or Donna Brazille; the WP poltical blog; Fresh Air and occasional other NPR, my local news every morning.

and looking back at that list, i don't think any of them are very sexist, ever. occasional a guest will say something borderline, and usually another will call them on it--which i think is healthy: it leads to a discussion about something men don't necessarily perceive as sexist.

seriously: i really don't think they're being sexist on charlie rose. the closest i recall him coming is the argumentative attitude he took toward arianna huffington, which really pissed me off, and i said so here. i'm not sure it had anything to do with her gender, though somehow i suspected some of it did--i'm not sure why. (i DO think charlie may have some unhealthy internalized ideas about women, but he also has really strong/smart guests how tend to call him on his shit.)

i don't think it's going on in the daily show or colbert, either: i think they're pouncing on shit like that.

and i read a lot of arianna huffington and maureen dowd, both of whom dislike hillary, but are much stronger champions for gender equality than any particular candidate in any one race. i don't hear them doing it. i hear them discussing gender sometimes, in what sounds like an even-handed way to me. (if i read ann coulter, i'd probably shudder--but i'm not that mean to myself.)

after we talked about it, i felt like, hmmmmm. i think there is more out there than i'm aware of. i'm just not spending time with those people.

i was shocked at that talk-radio asshole on that montage. i had no idea he had said those things.

and tucker carlson, what a dick. no surprise there. i believe i had a blog post a few years ago with a title something like, "tucker carlson: what a dick." no surprise that he is/was such a dick, but i was surprised that he was/is such a dick to women, or that he said those things, without more of a shitstorm.

i guess i balance that against this question though: how do you raise a shitstorm over someone saying horrifying things on Fox? that's a daily occorence. Fox is such a special case. it's really hard to rile anyone up with the idea that assholes are saying outrageous things on fox.

it is appalling that there's an audience for that, though. and that Fox's own viewers are putting up with that shit--and presumably eating it up and panting for more.

and i do think those comments were dispicable enough that there should have been a Fox news exception made, and a campaign that "this is too much, even for Fox."

i don't want to brush the whole thing off as just a Fox problem; they're clearly a big part of the problem, but not all of it.

but i do want to make the point that it really depends who you're listening to. i realize that it's still a problem whether i have been hearing it or not. and maybe there may be more of it on my list that i'm just not hearing, and can benefit from someone pointing out more examples.

bottom line, though, i think that to bring some people into this conversation, and to get them to see the problem, we have to begin with this idea: "you might not think it's a problem, because it hasn't been among the people you read or hear or talk to. take a look at some of the other press, and you'll shudder."

now, what to do about it? god, i don't know. i have tried to convince my parents to quit watching that swill, and i know THAT approach doesn't work. i don't know.

[Dave Cullen]

For those considering voting for McCain who supported Clinton, please remember this: I just heard of this where was I? Sad that McCain did not stand up to her, since he admires Hillary so much. This is in no way to affend anyone. I will take it off if it does.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

ugh. i watched, and that gave me the shudders. the worst part for me was the atmosphere in the room, and the guy calling about something about (his ex-wife?)--generalizing it even more to women. and all those people so ready to embrace that, including the soldier in the near background with the shit-eating grin. ugh.

[Dave Cullen]

On a more general note and putting aside both KH's and Marcia's question, I do hope that the Obama and Clinton supporters can unite to form a strong coalition to win the White House.  I think there are a lot of myths going both ways about the supporters of the different camps.  (For me, one of the more patronizing myths about Barack's supporters is that somehow we are blind to sexism or think that sexist treatment of others is okay as long as our candidate gets to win.  It belittles both my experience and my awareness.) 

I do not think that Clinton's supporters should just jump on the Barack/Democratic National Party bandwagon the next day after she suspends and be glad about it.  Anyone who has worked on a campaign knows the letdown after the campaign is over, especially when you feel passionately about your candidate.  Many people mope around for weeks, eat junk food, gain weight, grow beards, stop bathing, blame the world of idiots for not picking their candidate who was the obvious best choice, make vows that the world will rue the day they didn't pick their candidate, etc. 

so well said.

i think there are two important discussions going on in the country and the party right now:

- what sexism went on over the course of the campaign, and how do we change the atmosphere going forward--irrespective of who the D party nominated?
- how does the D party unite and go forward?

i think those are two separate discussions--both great for this thread--but the more we untangle the sexism issue from the election of a D candidate going forward, the better.

i think apple is also right on the second one. the party needs to come together, but it can't happen this week. i've worked on too many campaigns to just get over it in a day or a week.

personally, my history is that i mope horribly for a few days, then i stop that abruptly and disengage for weeks. i just don't read or listen to anything about politics. i'm certainly not ready to jump on board. it took me quite awhile with kerry.

everyone has a different process, but nearly everyone takes time.

the time it takes varies wildly by individual too, and so does the starting date of the grieving (or whatever you want to call it), which we need to keep in mind here.

for example, i was a rabid Deaniac, but after the Iowa caucuses in 2004, i assumed it was all but over. i started my grieving then. a week later, when he was crushed again in NH, i wrote him off completely, and was well into my grieving. when he finally dropped out (after WI, i think, like six weeks later), i was just about done grieving, but lots of people had remained fervent until that moment, and were just beginning.

we saw the same thing this week. some hillary supporters called it a day a month or two ago--they still hoped a bit, but not much. some of them are already done grieving, or well on their way. others were crushed by the news hillary would concede this weekend. i read a woman on another site say she had to pull her car over to cry when she heard the news. she's just starting. some won't start until they hear hillary's speech saturday. a few will hold out until the roll call in denver.

(and of course some preferred hillary but liked both candidates, and are a little dissapointed, but don't really need to grieve.)

everyone is in a different place. some need time, others need . . . i'm not sure what.

it would be great for some grievers to tell us, but sometimes grievers don't really feel like explaining themselves, so that's ok, too.

[Dave Cullen]

right after i posted the above, i got this nice email from a friend who was a very strong hillary backer (in response to my spam to friends about the lgbt conference call, saying i know a lot of you opposed barack a few days ago, etc.):

And there are those of us who really like Obama, supported Hillary for other reasons (in my case, because I think there's a LONG AND HUGE post-Bush cleanup job that needs to be done, and Hillary would know exactly how to execute) and are now completely happy to rally behind Obama--and still think that Hillary's campaign has made Obama a stronger, better prepared candidate.

i think there are a lot of those people, too.

the trick now is to welcome and rally the hillary-supporters who are ready to come join us, without stepping on the feelings of those who need time.

i also agree with the statement that "Hillary's campaign has made Obama a stronger, better prepared candidate." god, that's for sure. and it's true with any sport or endevor of any kind: you can get a little better by taking on weak opponents, but you get MUCH better by wrestling really strong competition.

she was strong competition, and she made him infinitely better. another reason we need to be grateful to her.

[Dave Cullen]

I think they have brought Linda Douglass on board to be the campaign's face to the media.  She does have that ability to talk on and on and not say a damn thing.

oh that's right. thanks for reminding. i sure hope so.

she's not one of my faves, but maybe she'll be good in this role. i think she'll be a lot better than david. i sure hope she's relieving him of his duties.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Sexism-Clinton
Racism-Obama
Ageism-McCain
Homophobia-me

I think if you are a member of the concerned party, you are going to perceive all
of these issues differently.  Guess which one of the above gets the LEAST
respect as a problem, though?  Ageism.  Think about how many jokes are
made about being old coupled with McCain, that you have heard.  Even McCain
does it, probably trying to lessen it as a joke.  Imagine Hillary brushing aside
sexist jokes or participating in them.  Imagine Obama brushing aside racist
jokes or participating in them.  Letterman's made a nightly routine of age jokes
and McCain.  No, being old is something to laugh at.  (How many commercials
have crazy old people in them?)  The most startling poll I heard all year was
back in March when they asked:

Is America ready for a woman to be President?
67% said YES.

Is America ready for a black President?
68% said YES.

Is America ready for someone over 70 to be President?
43% said YES.

People aren't apt to change their gender
or ethnicity, but they ARE going to get old.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

I forgot to make the point above in that I learned something
about dealing with the issue of homophobia some time ago.
Although it can, homophobia doesn't always mean hate.  It
can just be an aversion or lack of understanding.  That can lead to
hate or violence, but it also can just lead to antipathy or aversion.
In a lot of phobias, you don't hate what you're afraid of.

Can this be applied to sexism and racism as well?  People
who make the jokes or comments, which get the most attention,
may not be anti women or black, just in a different head space.
Is that making sense?  I doubt anyone that was making age jokes
thinks there is anything wrong with that or that they hate old people.
Discuss...lol...