NBC's Holt surprised that primary voters say a "woman candidate" "would make the best commander in chief"?*
Discussing exit polls during MSNBC's coverage of the February 5 presidential primary elections, NBC correspondent Lester Holt stated: "With the field of Democratic candidates reduced to two, we asked primary voters, 'Who would make the best commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces?' And here, it was [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] who was the clear favorite. The first woman candidate with a serious shot at winning the presidency beat out her male rival -- look at these numbers -- 50 percent to 35 percent. Keep in mind, this at a time the nation is fighting on two fronts."
Holt was not the first person on an NBC show to focus on Clinton's gender when discussing the possibility that she would serve as commander in chief if elected in November. As Media Matters for America previously documented, while discussing Clinton on the June 24, 2007, edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews asked Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, if "being surrounded by women" makes "a case for commander in chief -- or does it make a case against it?" Matthews went on to say, "But isn't that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well." Turning to New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, Matthews added: "Elisabeth, you're always thinking about these things." Bumiller referred to Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher -- women who were elected to lead Israel and the United Kingdom, respectively -- and said: "[W]e all remember these women. ... I think we can get there." Matthews responded, "But we've got Patton and John Wayne on our side."
On the May 30, 2005, edition of Hardball, Matthews asked retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey if "the troops out there" would "take the orders" from "Hillary Clinton, commander in chief." When McCaffrey responded, "Why wouldn't they listen to a [female] commander in chief? Sure," Matthews responded: "You're chuckling a little bit, aren't you?" When McCaffrey responded "No," Matthews said: "No problem? No problem? No problem?"
From the 6 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's February 5 primary coverage:
HOLT: With the field of Democratic candidates reduced to two, we asked primary voters, "Who would make the best commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces?" And here, it was Hillary Clinton who was the clear favorite. The first woman candidate with a serious shot at winning the presidency beat out her male rival -- look at these numbers -- 50 percent to 35 percent. Keep in mind, this at a time the nation is fighting on two fronts.
* Punctuation previously omitted in error.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Just how could this perception be true, when we all know that it's nearly excusively boys who play with "G.I. Joe" dolls and those other little plastic soldiers, not to mention toy guns...
...versus girls playing with "Barbies" and "Easy-Bake" ovens (lightbulb not included), and plastic tea sets...
It boggles the mind of the televised idiot, the notion of a woman being briefed and seeking the advice and counsel, of the several Chiefs of Staff who form the Joint Chiefs.
Yep - the whole “Commander In Chief” thing is nothing more than a label. We’re not talking Cuba or Nicaragua here. All that it takes is a good delegator and decision maker - man or woman wouldn’t matter. There have been more than a half dozen presidents with absolutely no Military experience, including Lincoln who led us through the Civil War. Military experience means zilch, except in the eyes of voters blinded by patriotic symbolism. Seeing how the majority of Americans think the Iraq was is a mistake, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would rather have Hillary running the show that McCain, despite his service and heroism.
Correct you are, in invoking President Lincoln as an example of one of the best Commanders in Chief the American People have ever had, and due almost entirely to his ability to listen to and weigh the advice of, his many Military Advisors, most notably his Joint Chiefs of Staff (if they went under that name back then).
President Franklin Roosevelt also. He wouldn't have dreamed of assuming the ability to micro-manage (or strategically direct at all) the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe and the Pacific during WWII. He had so many competent carrer Military Officers to advise and counsel him, that it was an easy decision to make, to all but transfer the title of Commander in Chief to Gen. Eisenhower, in making him Supreme Allied Commader in that difficult time.
I wonder if Sen. Clinton will do as well as they did, in the role of Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, despite the glaring fact that she didn't play with "G.I. Joes" or little plastic soldiers as a little girl.
But then neither did Mr. Mr Lincoln play with those things as a boy himself, there being no "G.I. Joe" doll in his time, nor any plastic anything whatsoever.
I guess that's the quote as recorded in History. I remember it more vaguely, from when I read Carl Sandburg's Lincoln ("The War Years") I believe...
I recall it being said that Mr. Lincoln took the staggering casualty reports from early on in the war (casualities in the many thousands, in a single day and on little more than a few fields, and every last one of them an American, Confederate or Union)... Mr. Lincoln took these losses of American lives to heart, in a way few people could ever truly fathom in the man...
And that upon hearing of the successes of Gen. Grant in the west, particularly when he took Vicksburg, that Mr. Lincoln was relieved somewhat of his grief, in knowing that Union victories and ground won, would in the end stop the loss of life... but that the all too frequent Union losses did nothing more but make sure, that more and more lives would be thrown on the War's fire...
But when the whispering campaign against Gen. Grant, reached Mr. Lincoln's ears, that "Sir, Gen. grant is sometimes known to take a few too many drinks in the field, and does even appear drunken during briefings and Staff meetings"...
...to which Mr. Lincoln retroted "If it means Union victories and an end to this bloody horrible mess, then I'd like the rest of my Generals to start getting into the habit, and get their daily ration of whiskey, and drink it down like Gen. Grant does!"
Because War is Hell someone once said.
Anyway, that's my warped version of it after all these years, and I guess I'd have to revisit Mr. Sandburg's book, to straighten it out.
HOLT: With the field of Democratic candidates reduced to two, we asked primary voters, "Who would make the best commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces?" And here, it was Hillary Clinton who was the clear favorite. The first woman candidate with a serious shot at winning the presidency beat out her male rival -- look at these numbers -- 50 percent to 35 percent. Keep in mind, this at a time the nation is fighting on two fronts.
Now AMESSNBC has alot of problems, Holt is not one of them. He should actually he anchoring the coverage instead of the two political hacks Olbermann and Matthews. No where does he say he is suprised. The title by MMFA is misleading.
No where does he say he is suprised. The title by MMFA is misleading.
Of course it isn't, but you've made a cottage industly of falsely accusing MMFA of being "misleanding", having threads that don't belong, etc. If you think they're doing such a piss poor job, why do you continue to hang around? Personally, I get tired of reading your whiney posts and other posters needing to constantly correct you.
As for this post, let's take his comment and flip it, what if things were reversed and he said ....
"With the field of Democratic candidates reduced to two, we asked primary voters, 'Who would make the best commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces?' And here, it was [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] who was the clear favorite. The first black candidate with a serious shot at winning the presidency beat out his female rival -- look at these numbers -- 50 percent to 35 percent. Keep in mind, this at a time the nation is fighting on two fronts."
Both quotes sound like surprise, even if you can't see it.
Btw, your "irrelevant" reply (which you've used on me, too) is getting very old. You might want to think of a new one the next time you lash-out.
You bash the MMfA site ("WITH") here on almost a daily basis. You bash Olbermann constantly, even if it's off-topic. You come to the defense of Fox News repeatedly. You call John Edwards a "disgusting" person. Just a few examples of your very, very pro-progressive agenda.
Then when people respond the way they justifiably do to those kinds of posts, you call them "irrelevant, garbage - spewing" people.
"The first woman candidate with a serious shot at winning the presidency beat out her male rival -- look at these numbers -- 50 percent to 35 percent. Keep in mind, this at a time the nation is fighting on two fronts."
That strongly implies surprise. It is possible to express that without saying "I am surprised".
Are you confused? I don't see you saying "I am confused". Are you being sarcastic? I don't see you saying "I am being sarcastic".
For Sue's elucidation, I will say "I am being sarcastic". Otherwise this could go on all night.
"I am being sarcastic".
Thanks Brabantio. That's the type of solid, hyper-expository communication I like! I like movies and tv shows where people drive across the Golden Gate bridge saying "Well, here we are - California!"
I don't know why SFNomad has to be such an enigma, though.
Hey, SF I am being facetious !
No problem, SFNomad*, I've got to work on my sarcasm tags.
* AKA Karl Rove
Are you being sarcastic when you say you are being sarcastic?
Then you close by saying that you're being facetious.
I don't understand and am confused. Is that French?
Please no talk about large hoofed mammals , having a short-haired coat, a long mane, and a long tail.
I'm not sure what I'm saying anymore.
I am now hitting "post" to post this comment.
Just another example of how the Neanderthals of the good ol’ boys club that runs the MSM are out of touch with the real world. The voters have been surprising them one turn after another throughout this presidential campaign –and there’ll be even more surprises for them in the months to come.
I think our new quote for them should be, “This ain’t your granddaddy’s election!”.
'Who would make the best commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces?' And here, it was [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] who was the clear favorite. The first woman candidate with a serious shot at winning the presidency beat out her male rival -- look at these numbers -- 50 percent to 35 percent. Keep in mind, this at a time the nation is fighting on two fronts."
Why did he even have to mention she is a "women". We all know she is , I am disapointed in Holt.
Doris,
I am talking about using gender when it's convenient and dismissing it as sexist when it's not. Look at when she complained of the "boys club" ganging up on her after one of the earlier debates, she used her gender then. Now when her gender is a factor, it's unfair? Sorry, can't have it both ways.
It either is, or it isn't.
What if it were a dwarf, or a midget ... a "height challenged" person ... running?
What if, after a tough debate, the dwarf said, "The TALL FOLKS were sure ganging up on me!" in a lighthearted jest. Would that be OK, or would it be unfairly "using" the dwarfism to garner sympathy?
Regardless of if you considered that reference "fair", would it THEN be open season for REPORTERS to wonder if a dwarf could be commander in chief?
That would be a non-sequitur, an example of portraying the dwarf in a negative/dismissive light, and the evaluation would have NO CONNECTION to anything the dwarf might have said earlier. (Unless, of course, he or she had directly said, 'I wonder if my height might make it difficult for me to be commander in chief' ... which would make such a comment relevant.).
[Plus, there's the fact that the "old boy" network has PLENTY of victims other than women. "Old Boys" only like OTHER "old boys", and any person with observable difference, be it gender, color, ethnicity, religion, or what have you, need not apply for their favor.]
TOMMY, of course, is straining hard to make such attacks on competence due to GENDER an OK thing to do, since Hillary herself has admitted to being female. That kind of "equivalence" or "turn about" does not constitute LOGIC on any plane. YES, she's a woman. NO, it's not then OK to claim her incompetent by identifying certain duties as exclusively "MALE". That's SEXISM. Bad for anyone to do, a horrible violation of objectivity for a REPORTER to do.
Do we understand you correctly to argue that:
1) pointing out and acknowledging facts suggesting that sexism exists and that you are trying to fight it positively, as in references to "boys' clubs" (as in every previous president of the US is a former boy) = bad;
and
2) engaging in sexist stereotypes = good?
She's not struggling for equal pay in a male dominated factory, she ain't no Norma Rae. She is equally as capable as any man, she has no less opportunity in her primary fight as any man, she is not screaming to be heard because of her gender, she is nobody's victim.
The male dominated world she is in at the moment is more than willing to elect her hands down, with no regard to her gender. She is still the frontrunner for her party's nomination, and if she doesn't get it, it is not because she is a woman.
The male dominated world she is in at the moment is more than willing to elect her hands down, with no regard to her gender.
TOMMY: Do you REALLY believe this?
She is still the frontrunner for her party's nomination, and if she doesn't get it, it is not because she is a woman
This part I can agree with – the big difference being the inclusion of the words “her party's”.
"The only thing I got out of all that is that your logic is dwarfed by your partisanship."
As is yours by your ignorance.
TEX,
Of course the biggest problem here is that this is the first time that a woman has made a truely serious run at and has a real chance at becoming the first woman prez......
This is new territory for everyone.... you, me, Tommy, everyone and while it may be wrong for Hillary or the male dominatied media to use gender it is happening.....
Whether Hillary wins or not, the entire experience will be a sigh of relief to the next woman that aims for the big house!
Sadly, until then, we are stuck with everyone going this route, as, for what I said, is a whole new experience....
Perhaps the next time around people on both sides will not bother to see gender and see only a qualified candidate, presumming the shoe fits?
Capt,
For the record, I have said many times here that gender and race are irrelevant voting factors for me, despite Tex's nonsense about me wanting to attack Hillary on her competence because of it, that is absurd......and just more of Tex having to resort to distortion to make his point. Something I have gotten used to with him, I am indifferent to it anymore.
You're avoiding my point, which is that YOU claim gender is irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, then you should be very upset by Holt's bringing it up. That is what this thread is about.
I am never thrilled when anyone brings it up either way, since it is a diversion. This is not the worst most sexist example of it, by far. But should he have left it out? Yes.
I was simply pointing out where all of Hillary's supporters are, particularly MMFA, when she herself has used it in the past, in the example I gave? They were silent.
FOSTER:
I disagree that this will be a big step forward for woman candidates, "no matter what happens".
If SEXISM is allowed to define the contest, if gender alone is allowed to diminish and belittle the female, if paternalistic condescension is allowed as "acceptable" throughout our MEDIA ... and it WORKS in lowering support for Hillary's candidacy ... then the MESSAGE will be to women, "You WILL be dismissed, you WILL be stereotyped, you WILL be subjected to derogatory sexism. And it will cause you to LOSE."
That's not a good message. It's a HORRIBLE message, and we are on point NOW to either DO something about it, or sit back and believe that it's all good, no matter WHAT happens.
You're a good man, Capt Foster, be we disagree. It DOES matter what the Media is allowed to get away with. It DOES provide an example of what candidates in the future will have to face. The rightwing MEDIA ... to INCLUDE all cable news, all print, and all radio ... is currently either blatantly forwarding or flirting with sexist narratives. It needs to STOP, and it's WE THE PEOPLE alone who can stop it.
SHOULD ADD:
And this sexism is perhaps even WORSE when it is dismissed, as TOMMY exemplifies, by "the soft bigotry of low expectations". The "it's no big deal" dismissal, combined with the "heck, she said HERSELF that she was a woman!" rationalizations for "green-lighting" attacks on her very competence.
It's WORSE, because it's a WEASEL. Limbaugh and Kristol are UP FRONT about their misogyny. Tommy takes the "nothing to see here" approach, suggesting there's nothing for women to worry their pretty little heads about.
In "good cop, bad cop" scenarios, every criminal knows it's the GOOD COP who's most likely to make the case, so he's the most dangerous to their interests. Similarly, we see demonstrated "good sexist, bad sexist" techniques in our society. Woman-hating misogynists, like Limbaugh, are easily identified and dismissed as SEXISTS. They are the "bad sexists". But it is the "good sexists" who can do the most harm to progress.
SPOOKY:
Perhaps, a lobotomy?
unlimited supply of $1.99 plastic soldier sets that he can do with as he pleases
LOL, funny (in a creepy kinda way), Moonbat – It reminds me of my best friend Bobby, the boy next door, in my prepubescent days. He had the whole friggin’ brigade and I can remember walkin’ in on him playing, to catch him doing voice-overs and the whole bit, and thinking to myself, ‘What the heck are you doing?” Never had so much as a GI Joe doll myself, and could never understand the male fascination with “playing war”. But the GW analogy sure brought back childhood memories of those I knew who did.
I don't see why anyone gets butthurt about the gender card. Both sides are going to play it. Its a strength and a weakness. The same as Obama's race. Its politics, you use everything you got that you think will help or hurt depending on what the situation requires. Some media personalities like weinerdog go over the top, but this here is a little mild to get too uptight about.
I think a difference here is that even tho Hillary will sometimes mention her gender, it's in context with commending the progress our country has made toward gender equality. She has never said, as far as I know, 'Vote for me because I'm a woman', or 'I'll do a better job of this or that job because I'm female'.
Holt, on the other hand, seems to have the opinion (or I should say had, now that he hopefully knows better) that voters would select a candidate for Commander in Chief because of their sex. I doubt Obama has made or will ever make the argument that he'd be better at the job because he's male. Obama's opinion of voters' intelligence would seem to be higher than Holt's.
Women do better at some traditional male occupations than men, for instance heavy equipment operators. This is in reference to operators at a big mine in S.America
"Despite concerns or issues regarding the performance of these female equipment operators, many industry personnel actually say the women have a better touch in operating than some men do. Cristian Silva, a truck and earth-moving equipment trainer for Caterpillar, Inc., said “Women tend to take more care of the machine and don’t abuse the brakes or the engine…Operating the machine better means more profits.” This is one of the main reason mining companies in South America, such as Barrick Gold Corp. and BHP Billiton Ltd, like the female operators—their performance actually cut costs and increase output."
It seems that in some situations it is better to not have a little head trying to make decisions best left to the big head.
There have been more than a half dozen presidents with absolutely no Military experience, including Lincoln who led us through the Civil War.
by Robert A. Braun. All rights reserved.
"but i was screaming at the tv set."
Gee, it's too bad the set wasn't plugged-in. I'm sure You would've changed The Course of History yet again.
women, i believe has a mixed record on leading the military, just as men.
Deborah did a pretty good job and interestingly her general was Barak.
There was a woman in europe who led her people against the Romans. I don't recall her name. They got wiped out.
Catherine the Great was okay. Elizabeth was charismatic, but not especially concerned about the welfare of her men.
Thatcher, of course, was awesome in the Falklands. Golda, whom I met at her house after the Yom Kippur War, was ineffectual during that war.
"Golda, whom I met at her house..."
Riiiight. I was there, too. Played shuffleboard with Lincoln out back of the house.
I wish the media, whenever they are tempted to make gender-based comments, would first make a racial analogy and decide whether or not the comment is prejudiced based on archaic stereotypes.
Writing off Hillary as being little more experienced than Obama neglects to take into account her 8 years as First Lady. This highly intelligent and motivated woman would not be satisfied with redecorating the White House and baking cookies all day long. You have to know that when she wasn't directly observing the goings on, her husband was discussing them with her after hours. EIGHT YEARS of this ! She's probably nearly as qualified as if she had been VP for those years.
.