|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: Ferraro on Race, Class, and Gender, Again... |
 |
|
First, I do not see the Democratic Party "uniting behind the nominee" as some Democrats promise will happen. Not only this story, but other stories suggest this. I read one days ago that reported women will be severely disappointed if Clinton loses the nomination. "If Clinton cannot win the nomination and the presidency, then America will never accept a woman as leader!" or something similar. I recall reading similar stories about Obama and blacks.
Second, Ferraro and other feminists/Democrats like her do more to reify race, class, and gender distinctions than anyone or anything else in American society. The can and will see nothing else in their worldviews and they obsess on and thus further reify and indeed confirm such divisions. They could not even watch the Lion King without hurling allegations at it. Good for them.
CNN Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
The obsession with race/gender in the party, then, might actually prevent an African American or female being elected this time around? Is this the outcome of competing victimologies? Every victim in her corner?
Seems silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
The obsession with race/gender in the party, then, might actually prevent an African American or female being elected this time around? Is this the outcome of competing victimologies? Every victim in her corner?
Seems silly. |
Its a little more complicated than that. Part of the problem was that some states moved their primaries/caucuses forward, while others kept theirs behind. As a result, the close race was drug out.
Another factor is the recent American political 'shame' phenomenon. This is where political figures cast shame and aspersion on the other side for their stances on various issues. One side requests an apology; and the apology is not meant as a way to atone for a wrong but as a point to be scored for the side receiving the apology. When this game is done within the party, it can lead to scars. Clinton is at least as much to blame for this as Obama, and Edwards et al are not innocent on this score, either.
Still another reason for this obsession with identity-politics is the near similarity of Clinton and Obama on the issues. While those Americans unable to follow the issues regularly vote almost entirely on personality & party, those of us who do follow the issues could make very little distinction between Clinton and Obama. The nomination battle, except for a significant difference on health care, has really been about: change/experience, the new hope/the battle-scarred veteran, Tuzla/Cling, chocolate/cherry vanilla.
Another problem has been the supporters themselves. There's a tendency for one camp to villify the other. Hell, you've seen this on this board. As the lone Clinton supporter on this board, I've been personally attacked once or twice (often because I've been vocal and made arguments not easily refuted). Its easy to fall into a victim complex when you've been at the end of personal aspersions based on your candidate preference.
Yet another factor is Barack's weak end-game.
His homestretch performance has been hampered by Rev. Wright and a newly critical media. Underdog Obama basked in the glow of a fawning press corps for over 10 months, and was actually unprepared for them to turn on him when he attained the advantage following the Potomac Primaries. One cannot blame Obama for the media scrutiny, but one can blame him for not anticipating it and not handling it better.
Obama has also faced some tough turf in the past few primaries. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. North Carolina and Oregon alone were favorable turf. But Pennsylvania alone got 6 weeks worth of media attention.
But, lastly, Obama has recently given a stumblebuss performance. How are Clinton supporters/Obama doubters supposed to rally around mediocrity? I won't list the mistakes; I assume you've been paying some attention recently. Okay, I'll content myself with linking his most recent slip-up. But he hasn't been working his rhetorical magic of late, and the sound-byte media is eating him alive.
And most importantly of all, we have simple immaturity. Ferraro is a poster-child for this political immaturity. Politics is about compromise, and the Presidency, while important, isn't everything. Hillary Clinton will still be a huge force in politics. Hell, she has over 45% of the delegates! More of the pledged delegates. Including Florida (but not Michigan) she may have even won as many as 50% of the Democratic votes. So, really, Clinton supporters need to take this in stride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice link on Ferraro, Kuros. I agree with the "immaturity" conclusion.
I post the original article in its entirety, below, because I found it on CNN's "ticker" page. And apparently, I just noticed this, CNN changes this page often. So the link may not connect this thread to any permanent story as other links do.
| CNN Reports wrote: |
Geraldine Ferraro, the outspoken former Democratic vice presidential candidate and a supporter of Hillary Clinton's White House bid, told the New York Times she may not vote for Barack Obama should he be the party's nominee.
Ferraro, a former member of Clinton's finance committee who resigned that post earlier this year after making comments many viewed as racially offensive, also said she thinks the Illinois senator has been "terribly sexist" over the course of the presidential campaign.
The comments appear to underscore the potential difficulty Obama may have courting some women voters in the fall � many of whom have said they feel a solidarity with the New York senator over the barriers Clinton faces in her bid to become the first female president.
Ferraro has not shied away from discussing the impact of race and gender throughout the Democratic presidential campaign. In March, the former congresswoman told a California newspaper the chief reason Obama's candidacy was successful was because he was black.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she told The Daily Breeze. "And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Ferraro also said Clinton had been the victim of a "sexist media."
Obama later called those comments "ridiculous," and Clinton said she disagreed with them.
Ferraro maintained her comments were not racist, but ultimately resigned from the Clinton campaign after they caused an uproar.
"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen," she wrote in her resignation letter to Clinton, adding, "I am who I am and I will continue to speak up." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hillary ran a bad campaign full of negativity and Rovian maneuvers, and Ferraro is bitter that her candidate lost so she will sabotage Obama.
Typical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Hillary ran a bad campaign full of negativity and Rovian maneuvers. |
Yes, like this Rovian Maneuver: Democrats Observe a Fragile Cease-Fire
The real question is: why are Obama supporters so bitter these days?
Answer: because Obama's performance has been sucking it up bigtime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The real question is: why are Obama supporters so bitter these days? |
What are you talking about? Where do you see bitter Obama supporters?
Sucking "big time?" Really? Well, let's attribute any negativity in this campaign to the person that brought it forth. Clinton has tried her best to use any dirty tricks available, and all they have done is manage to hurt the Democratic party.
She has operated her campaign in the worst manner possible. Her campaign motto could have been, "He's unfit for office." Nothing about her, and everything about him. She's been playing as second fiddle since day one, and it should shock no one that that is where she ended up.
Now, if you want to know why Democrats are bitter, let's discuss. Hillary's supporters (Kuros) are bitter because Hillary's mudslinging tactics, less-than-truthful statements, and inability to answer why she panders to whatever will get her votes at the time have cost her the nomination. Other Democrats are bitter because Hillary's "scorched Earth" campaign tactics have jeopardized the entire Democratic party.
I'm not bitter, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that a so-called "Woman of the People" can be so selfish as to risk having another four years of GOP nonsense just to satisfy her own lust for power.
Bitter? Physician heal thyself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| I'm not bitter, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that a so-called "Woman of the People" can be so selfish as to risk having another four years of GOP nonsense just to satisfy her own lust for power. |
One could look at Obama's failure to decisively take the commanding heights in these primaries and ask the same exact question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
| I'm not bitter, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that a so-called "Woman of the People" can be so selfish as to risk having another four years of GOP nonsense just to satisfy her own lust for power. |
One could look at Obama's failure to decisively take the commanding heights in these primaries and ask the same exact question. |
No they couldn't.
All you have to do is look at the manufactured outrage (bitter comments / Reverend Wright) and negativity that was thrown against Obama by Clinton as a reason for any semblance of a close race. Should the front runner, one who has run a clean campaign, step aside so that the second place candidate can take over?
That would be sabotaging your own party. Unlike Clinton, Obama hasn't done that. Rather than making herself appear to be a better candidate, she's trying to make Obama look like a worse one. It's petty, spiteful, and evident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep the typical Obama is the weaker candidate bs. Well then why can't she win more then the 16 or so states (and territories) she's won.
Oh wait, it was suppose to be over by Feb 5th...
Maybe the shilling on the other side of the fence is just as bad.
As for women, the backlash against NARAL has been pretty disappointing. I guess some women would rather back neocons who want to over turn Roe v. Wade and role back not only women's rights, but every one's civil rights. From what I've seen, women who support Clinton are clearly sending out the message, "if you don't support Clinton you are a sexist pig." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You two discuss Obama as if you believed he were disinterested, above the fray, and merely interested in advancing the universal good. This is beyond laughable if true. Please tell me you do not walk around as naive as that. Politics is a dirty business and anyone involved in it is generally dirty, to one degree or another, from George Washington to George W. Bush, and indeed anywhere else in the history of the world since the Neolithic.
In any case, if Obama had indeed seized command of the Democratic primaries, we would hardly be having this conversation. He has a lead, without a doubt. But he has not succeeded in eliminating or even marginalizing Clinton. Compare McCain and Ron Paul, for example. I doubt that anyone will even grant Ron Paul talking time at the Republican convention. Conversersely, Clinton will likely play a central part in shaping the Democratic platform, at the very least.
And Milwaukiedave: who said "Obama is the weaker candidate" here? Not me. Also, I seem to recall hearing "racist Americans would never elect an African-American president; they remain 'not ready.'" Or "if he wins 'they' will simply assassinate him." And so on. This notwithstanding, I join you in denouncing Ferraro's tactics here: palpably puerile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The real question is: why are Obama supporters so bitter these days? |
What are you talking about? Where do you see bitter Obama supporters?
Sucking "big time?" Really? Well, let's attribute any negativity in this campaign to the person that brought it forth. Clinton has tried her best to use any dirty tricks available, and all they have done is manage to hurt the Democratic party.
She has operated her campaign in the worst manner possible. Her campaign motto could have been, "He's unfit for office." Nothing about her, and everything about him. She's been playing as second fiddle since day one, and it should shock no one that that is where she ended up.
Now, if you want to know why Democrats are bitter, let's discuss. Hillary's supporters (Kuros) are bitter because Hillary's mudslinging tactics, less-than-truthful statements, and inability to answer why she panders to whatever will get her votes at the time have cost her the nomination. Other Democrats are bitter because Hillary's "scorched Earth" campaign tactics have jeopardized the entire Democratic party.
I'm not bitter, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that a so-called "Woman of the People" can be so selfish as to risk having another four years of GOP nonsense just to satisfy her own lust for power.
Bitter? Physician heal thyself. |
So basically, your answer to my criticism of Obama's conduct of late is that it's all Hillary's fault.
How is Rev. Wright Hillary's fault?
How is Obama's descent into partisanship re: Bush's remarks Hillary's fault?
How was Obama's cling comments Hillary's fault?
I'm not going to bother defend Hillary, because she has lost. Let's see if you can defend Barack on the merits, without finding a scapegoat. And, really, this isn't that much about Barack anymore. Its about you coming up with a response a little better than, 'bitter? I know you are, but what am I?' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nope, I get he understands politics is dirty. Tomorrow night Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates and be roughly 60 delegates from being the presumptive nominee. If Obama is picking up 5-6 delegates a day, it is possible by May 31st (I'm certainly not saying it will happen by then, but by the last primary on June 3rd he will for sure). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are still not acknowledging that Obama will win this game, so to speak, in the last minutes of the fourth quarter by a bare field goal. A good, hard-fought victory, to be sure. But hardly the frontrunner's clean campaign and clean sweep you two seem to believe it was, above.
Given the bitterness on the Democratic side that Ferraro evinces, do you believe that Obama will come out of this process undamaged and with the Democratic Party standing behind him en masse? Without any clear and obvious wedges that the Republicans will not hesitate to exploit to the fullest?
If you were a Clinton supporter...better yet, assume that you still support Obama, and Clinton won and Obama lost. And after all that has been said and done, how much support could she count on from you? Now turn that around: how much support do you expect the likes of Ferraro to throw Obama's way come the convention and the season leading up to November?
No tears from me. I shall vote for McCain and against Obama. So do not get me wrong: I like that the Democrats have so openly divided themselves along race, class, and gendered lines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| So basically, your answer to my criticism of Obama's conduct of late is that it's all Hillary's fault. |
Dear God, Kuros. You are stooping to new depths in the "I can't help but put you down because I'm so flippin' angry at the world" debate. Of course the "bitterness" you speak of is Hillary's fault.
Obama's conduct of late? When did you mention anything about that? Are you transferring what I said about your "bitterness" comment onto something completely different?
You're clearly trying to set up a strawman and making yourself look like a buffoon in the process.
| Kuros wrote: |
| How is Rev. Wright Hillary's fault? |
Puhleeze... Acting as if you don't realize the sensationalism of that story didn't come from Hillary mentioning it every time a camera was pointed at her shows your inability to see the whole story.
Are you serious? Can you not see the difference between slandering the person who may be your party's candidate for president and defending yourself against ridiculously negative and untrue fear-mongering by the President, who happens to be a member of the opposing political party?
Really? You really think they are the same? You even think that any response to those comments is "partisan" rather than necessary and truthful? You think the opposing party's leader should be able to single you out in a foreign country and compare you to a person who would have appeased Hitler with no rebuttal? You think refuting that is "partisan politics?"
That might be the funniest thing I've read all day.
| Kuros wrote: |
| How was Obama's cling comments Hillary's fault? |
"Cling?" are you referring to the "bitter" comment? What he said was not Hillary's fault, of course. However, twisting it and turning it into an insult against the people of Pennsylvania and plastering snippets of it on attack ads aimed against Obama was clearly her doing and it hurt the entire Democratic party in the process.
| Kuros wrote: |
| I'm not going to bother defend Hillary, because she has lost. |
No, by all means. Defend her. Please.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Let's see if you can defend Barack on the merits, without finding a scapegoat. And, really, this isn't that much about Barack anymore. Its about you coming up with a response a little better than, 'bitter? I know you are, but what am I?' |
Why are you acting so childish, Kuros? I've made nothing but great points and you respond with schoolyard insults, strawmen, and deflection?
If this is the way that you are going to debate this topic, you can have it. I've proven my points.
Editorial Here.
| Quote: |
The Low Road to Victory
Published: April 23, 2008
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad � torn right from Karl Rove�s playbook � evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. �If you can�t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,� the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton�s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: �We would be able to totally obliterate them.�
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don�t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton�s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about �bitter� voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they�re wrong.
After seven years of George W. Bush�s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate � right now and through the general campaign � about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.
It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
