NBC's O'Donnell: Edwards "keeps hoping that [voters] still want a return to a Southern white man"
On the August 5 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell asserted without evidence that former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) "keeps hoping that they'll [voters] still want a return to a Southern white man." In fact, at a July 23 Democratic presidential debate, Edwards said, "[A]nybody who's considering not voting for Senator [Barack] Obama [IL] because he's black or for Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton [NY] because she's a woman, I don't want their vote."
O'Donnell was responding to host Chris Matthews, who earlier asked: "Here the Democrats -- everybody says -- here face a really good option to win, a really good chance to win. Why do they want to throw in a risk factor like gender or race or ethnicity? Why do they want to risk a candidate who might lose an easy one?" U.S. News & World Report contributing editor Gloria Borger said: "There's a risk with anyone." Matthews then clarified: "Let me ask you this, the first woman president in history, the first commander in chief in a wartime situation. Do you think that's a risk? ... Politically?"
From the August 5 edition of The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this, the first woman president in history, the first commander in chief in a wartime situation. Do you think that's a risk?
O'DONNELL: Well --
MATTHEWS: Politically?
O'DONNELL: -- it certainly will be the kind of gut-check moment for people when they're voting. Are they ready to make that commitment?
MATTHEWS: I agree.
O'DONNELL: It's easy to be excited on the campaign trail for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. John Edwards keeps hoping that they'll still want a return to a Southern white man.
As Media Matters for America noted, on the June 24 edition of The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews similarly asked if Clinton "being surrounded by women" makes "a case for commander in chief -- or does it make a case against it?" As Media Matters has noted, Matthews -- who on his June 24 program said that he "love[s] gender politics" -- has frequently focused on gender issues when discussing Clinton.
From the July 23 Democratic debate:
ANDERSON COOPER (moderator): Senator Edwards, earlier this week, your wife said that you would be a better advocate for women than Senator Clinton. Was she right?
EDWARDS: Well, let me say first that on the question that was just asked to Senator Obama --
COOPER: We'd prefer you stay on the question --
EDWARDS: I'm going to stay on your question. I promise I'll answer that question. But the first thing I want to say -- and I want to speak for everybody, I believe, on this stage -- anybody who's considering not voting for Senator Obama because he's black or for Senator Clinton because she's a woman, I don't want their vote. I don't want them voting for me.
From a discussion with Matthews, O'Donnell, Borger, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman on the August 5 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about what the Democrats are up to, because they're [Republicans] not running against "Brand X Democrat." Right now in the polling, you see Hillary in number one, you see Obama number two. If either of those run, is that an odd thing? Here the Democrats -- everybody says here -- face a really good option to win, a really good chance to win. Why do they want to throw in a risk factor like gender or race or ethnicity? Why do they want to risk a candidate who might lose an easy one?
BORGER: Well, I think they don't think it's a risk. I think that they think Hillary Clinton is a very strong candidate, growing stronger out there on the campaign trail. I think they think Barack Obama is this vessel into which people pour their hopes and their dreams. And sure, there's a risk with any candidate.
MATTHEWS: OK.
BORGER: There's a risk with anyone. But, Chris, they're in good --
MATTHEWS: Well, no. There's not a risk as much.
Let me ask you this, the first woman president in history, the first commander in chief in a wartime situation. Do you think that's a risk?
O'DONNELL: Well --
MATTHEWS: Politically?
O'DONNELL: -- it certainly will be the kind of gut-check moment for people when they're voting. Are they ready to make that commitment?
MATTHEWS: I agree.
O'DONNELL: It's easy to be excited on the campaign trail for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. John Edwards keeps hoping that they'll still want a return to a Southern white man.
FINEMAN: You know --
MATTHEWS: Come December.
FINEMAN: Yeah.
O'DONNELL: Yes.
FINEMAN: But among the two front-runners, ironically, Barack Obama helps Hillary Clinton in that regard, in terms of social change. I think, at this point in our history, people may be more willing to accept a woman who talks tough and sounds as much like [former Israeli Prime Minister] Golda Meir as she does Hillary Clinton --
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
FINEMAN: -- than an African-American candidate. I think that's possible --
MATTHEWS: So she's become -- yeah, go ahead, David:
FINEMAN: -- she's the less social change.
BROOKS: I'm with Gloria. In the beginning, they know it's a black man, a white woman. But once they get to know the person, it's the individual qualities that have higher salience. So I don't think it's a big risk.
What is so offensive about what O'Donnell said here? She is saying it in the context of Edward's chief opponents being a woman and a black man.
Geez, can't there pundits bat around their ideas and thoughts on this relatively obscure program without the "police" here going crazy dissecting every word? Is this it?, is this all you've got?
Seriously Tommy? You have a huge problem with OReilly (although he IS a bigot) saying that having a sex-specific day at a ballpark during a kid-specific day is a bad thing, but playing the race card AND putting words in voter's mouth is a good thing? I expect better man.
I don't really understand what your point is, or what you're saying.....?
There's a lot of things in this world that you don't understand, Tommy.......
I do not understand the point toward Tommy either or the comparison. Historically Americans have voted for Southern White men, ie Clinton, Bush JR, Carter.
Bush Jr. was born and grew up in suburban Connecticut; he isn't a "Southern Man" unless you swallow the Raised On The Ranch myth created by his handlers. He didn't even own a ranch until the year before he became President.
He was elected President as a Southern Governor.
Well, that's true. But it's also true that his handlers carefully crafted the "southern image" he didn't posess. He didn't even live here when he owned part of the rangers. The big controversy when he was running for governor was whether or not he was legally a texan because the residence he claimed was an abandoned inn he owned. Not a true southerner...
Um, so what? He wasn't a Southerner. Or do you call all those retirees who spent sixty years in NYC and then move to Miami "Southerners" too?
Bush wasn't born in the South, and he wasn't raised in the South. He moved to Texas as a young (I wont say "mature") man but zipped back to New England to hang out with mommy and daddy every chance he got. His ranch, purchased for the Presidential campaign, was a prop (or do you think Bush is a "rancher," too?)
I don't know if it's "offensive", Tommy, but O'Donnell is speculating that Edwards is hoping that there are lots of Americans messed up enough to vote for him because they're scared to vote for a black man or a woman.
Probably nothing to you, but to those of us not blessed with amazing mind-reading abilities ;0) , it seems pretty presumptuous about Edwards and pretty insulting to the American public.
That makes no sense cause everyone knows most of the racists and sexists don't vote democratic to begin with. Unless Edwards is planning on switching parties this is pure bunk!
HBL,
I hear what you are saying, but considering Edwards made it abundantly clear in the debate that he does not want votes from some people simply who may not feel comfortable with Clinton or Obama, why would O'Donnell make this statement in the context YOU are assuming?
Mind reader ;)
The key part of O'Donnell's statement is that voters want a "return to a southern white man" as if Edwards is some Dixiecrat who needs the votes of racists to be successful.
The fact that she ignored Edwards' statement about not wanting sexually or racially motivated votes proves MMFA's point that this is "conservative misinformation."
The fact that you automatically equate "southern white man" to "Dixiecrat who needs the votes of racists to be successful" tells me that you are the one with a problem.
Couldn't she have simply meant he'd like to be compared to Bill Clinton, a very successful & popular Southern White Man?
Geez...
If what you're saying is true, then why does O'Donnell think that being a "southern white man" is a disadvantage?
And this whole debate is meaningless anyway since Edwards apparently doesn't believe that being a "southern white man" disadvantages him.
In this instance it could be a disadvantage because folks might be ready to make a what could be defined as a radical change, which of course would work against Edwards. BUT I honestly believe she's saying voters might go for another Southern white President, [like a Bill Clinton], and that Edwards is hoping the same thing.
See, I read the comments differently (albeit naively): There is tremendous excitement on the trail for the first minority contenders that actually have a chance at making it to the white house, so Edwards is hoping there are still some Democrats left that are willing to settle for a plain ol' southern white guy (same ol', same ol', considering the last two Presidents have been southern white guys on the surface).
Geez, can't there pundits bat around their ideas and thoughts on this relatively obscure program without the "police" here going crazy dissecting every word?
Apparently not. This seems to be the direction MMFA is going these days. Ruminating among pundits is strictly verboten.
The "return to a Southern white man" is obviously in reference to Bill Clinton. And I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards were thinking it would be great if voters were thinking that too.
Eh, I think Borger was really spot on. Maybe O'Donnell was just answering the question that Matthews was really pushing for, and maybe it was a reference to Clinton y-chromosome, but the conversation is really silly...Obama and Clinton are both such strong candidates that they are clearly well beyond questions of their gender or race being a "risk." Maybe if they were all polling dead even this might be a more legitimate question, but it's really not at all right now.
Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
This is commentary that is not accurate nor reliable and it forwards the conservative agenda.
Please explain Sue, how this commentary is unreliable, and furthering the conservative agenda?
You can't figure it out? Are you stupid as well as delusional, so that you think I'm somebody I'm not as well not being able to figure out that simple concept of why this is unreliable and inaccurate?
It's not an accurate representation of what Edwards has said. It's not a fair way to describe the way he has acted. It's not something one could rely upon. It is something that puts Edwards in a bad light, suggesting that he does act this way and has said things like this. That mischaraterization of what Edwards has said and what he might mean by it furthers the conservative agenda.
You're the one who consistently tries to say that MMfA is out of line for publishing stories. The problem in almost every case where you suggest that's the case is that MMfA is well within their mandate and their mission statement.
The Sue/Ellie/Notthatgeorge Temper is back.
I thought the same thing Casey, her "stupid" accusation......she can't help herself.
Sue, the clock is ticking. Get your alternative screenname handbook out again.
It does appear this version will use the word "Stupid" but has yet to use "numbskull" . Either way the hate and venom that flows out of his/her mouth is telling.
If I had to choose, NOMOBUSH beats Caseyspring every time, in terms of contribution and logic. Sorry.
(Note for posterity: those who unfairly attack another deserve any namecalling that may occur in the response. You guys appear to want to gang up and bully whoever is the most outspoken of your critics. Lotsa luck with that!)
We all have our likes and dislikes ;-)
And your response is ....... smear the messenger since you can't address the substance.
Weak.
No, what's weak is calling someone "stupid" as Sue did, and then expecting a response.
Your interpretation is expected, however.
NoMoBush called you delusional. Asked if you were also stupid. Given your attack on NoMo as "Sue", NoMo was pretty well entitled, since there is no extant evidence that NoMo is Sue.
Oh, I guess I forgot about your reputed clairvoyance . . . or was that mind-reading?
I guess it should be Friday, so I could start to drink to help me overlook my confusion . . .
So, ARE you stupid? (remember, it's only a question, not an attack)
Maybe . . . but my problem is at least episodic, so I will likely be a lot better in a short while, as the medication kicks in. ;)
You still haven't answered the original question, though - it was directed to you, pursuant to your (baseless?) attack on NoMoBush.
Gee, I could care less. When I am called stupid and delusional, then the credibility of the person leveling the attacks is poof, gone - hence, their question is irrelevant. If Sue wants to apologize for calling me stupid and delusional, then maybe I will respond.
Tommy, I agree with you. Many of us have experienced the venom of Sue/Ellie in the past. We saw what happened a few months ago. I for one will not respond to personal attacks, but I also will not be painted as a "Right Winger" like Sue/Ellie/Nothatgeorge tried to paint me in the past becuase she did not like one of my opinions.
I hear ya. Just because I correctly addressed her as Sue, with a very direct question, I am supposed to answer her when she calls me stupid and delusional? Uh, no. Frankly, I could care less what she calls herself, but I will address her as Sue, because that is who she is.
Thanks Casey......
If Sue wants to apologize for calling me stupid and delusional, then maybe I will respond.
Sue apologize? Now that's funny ;-)
I'd buy a ringside seat for that.
Bush will say "I'm sorry" before Sue ever will.
No, what's weak is calling someone "stupid" as Sue did, and then expecting a response.
Your interpretation is expected, however. Tommy
No Tommy what is weak is Casey, Sueeld and yourself continuing this Sue/Ellie rant. There are posters here with new names that sound like someone else by their posts. The way Sueeld rants makes her sound like Peg (lover of Imus and hater of Keith). This is the first time that I’ve seen Nomobush refer to Casey’s as stupid. I can’t help but agree since neither of you have any proof that he/she is Sue/Ellie. You both claim that the word “troll” was soooo offensive to poor Sueeld but you both continue with the Sue/Ellie. I have referred to Sueeld’s comment about lynching as stupid and I’m not Sue/Ellie nor will I take my “stupid” comment back.
Pearl
I have nothing to do with this, so why would you bring me up? Also as I have explained before I am not a defender of Imus, never have never been. I agreed with Savage that he was "Lynched" however that does not mean I am his supporter. Again explain why you would bring me up in this topic?
can you read?
Please read where I referenced you and decide if you need to comment again.
Pearl
You said this, I am not involvd in this so again why would you place me in this ? Yes I can read , you do not need to be sarcastic.
No Tommy what is weak is Casey, Sueeld and yourself continuing this Sue/Ellie rant. There are posters here with new names that sound like someone else by their posts. The way Sueeld rants makes her sound like Peg (lover of Imus and hater of Keith)
Sueeld I'm tired of your bs. My problem with you is on the one thread you claim that Imus was lynched. You did not then nor have you ever explained how he was "lynched". There are several words in the history of this country than you don't apply because "it sounds good" and "lynching" is one of them. At that time I asked you "was Imus dead" cause when black folks were lynched they died they didn't live to get another job. You did not or could not respond hence why I continue to bring it up with you. You also started the "I hate Keith" refrain again and again. "Hate" is another word that you just don't throw around but you seem to delight in doing just that. After all that you then call on the "poor me why does Lynn insult me" phrase as if you yourself are not in some way responsible for the context of some of the comments you receive. Enough, OK enough. You want to engage in debate fine, you want to throw out your jabs and then hide behind the "poor me" I don't and wont waste my time on you. I don't agree with Tommy or Jeter and some of the other conservatives that post here but they state their opinion and stand by them and don't wine when others don't agree, you don't. I'm too damn old to bs around.
Pearl
I explained my position on this in the past, why you keep bringing up the dreadful Imus is beyond me. Also claiming I am involved in some petty game with other posters was wrong. this is not the forum for personal attacks. I am sticking to subjects only, I would hope you would do the same.
Pearlene,
If I called you stupid and delusional, would you feel obligated in anyway to answer me in a serious way? No. You can excuse Sue all you want, I have had plenty of conversations with her in the past and have no intention of getting drawn into her insults. I asked her, Sue, a simple question "how this commentary is unreliable and furthering the conservative agenda" - she retorts by calling me stupid and delusional. Done.
Tommy: since you did not get the indirect reference, I will be direct: NoMoBush did not call you stupid! NoMo ASKED if you were stupid. NoMo called you delusional for your attack (using the boogeyman appellation, "Sue" is clearly an attack; persisting despite denial by the accused, seems to warrant "delusional" - unless you have proof). So, do you have proof?
I asked her, Sue, a simple question "how this commentary is unreliable and furthering the conservative agenda" - she retorts by calling me stupid and delusional. Tommy
The person who asked you a question was named Nomobush not Sue. No wonder he/she questioned your sanity since you called him/her Sue/Ellie.
Tommy, it's become old. This business has become old and for some reason both you and Casey continue with it. Each time Nomobush makes a remark you address him/her as Sue/Ellie. Each and every time and not only on this post. On the other topics for today you continue and continue with the Sue/Ellie. It's petty and juvenile and you don't seem like that kind of person.
If Edwards were seriously thinking that, he'd be out in the weeds cause everyone knows Hillary is a two for the price of one package, right Jeter? =p
Well said J,
As I get accused all the time of mind reading, this website mind reads every time it hangs a nefarious ulterior meaning to something like this?
Every word needs to be chosen so carefully around here, even if by pundits chatting on a cable show.
Well Tommy, maybe it's just term usage that's the issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but O'Donnell is a white house correspondant. Coulter is a pundit. Don't you expect a little more out of O'Donnell than Coulter?
Ya, you're right - O'Donnell is a WH reporter, so your point is well taken.
Plus, she is much hotter than Coulter.
--Bows gracefully--
Thank you, thank you. I'm glad I could add something substantive to the conversation.
"every time it hangs a nefarious ulterior meaning to something like this"
Exposing someone's words and accusing of them of ulterior meanings are two very different things.
Maybe she has ulterior motives, maybe she's just talking out her backside. I think it's the latter.
Aside from simply quoting her and Edwards on their website verbatim, how is MMFA accusing her of ulterior motives?
Mind reading is the operative word here.
The Liberals here mind read this statement and automatically assigned a racist meaning to Edwards "keeps hoping that [voters] still want a return to a Southern white man"
I saw it differently. Mind read it differently if you will;-)
I still believe it's a reference to Bill Clinton, a Southern white man that is beloved by many Democrats.
IMO, it was an offhand benign comment that doesn't really deserve the dissection it's getting here.
Ask yourself, when you think of Bill Clinton, who is the first person that comes to mind?
That's only part of what makes your theory flawed, but I think it sufficiently discredits its premise.
Hmmm? When I think of Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton is the first person that comes to mind.
But that's me........
My apologies to all the literalists on the boards today. I'll rephrase the question for those of us unwilling to cross the cognitive bridge from implicit meaning to explicit meaning.
In the context of this campaign, when one thinks of Bill Clinton who is the first person, other than Bill, who comes to mind?
Oh for pete's sake, just make your point. No need to play question and answer.
Response noted. Thank you for participating.
Warmest Regards,
Roundhouse
Roundhouse,
I haven't got a clue what you're getting at here. When I hear the name Bill Clinton, like Tommy, I think of Bill Clinton.
When I read this thread and saw Southern White Man, I also thought of Bill Clinton.
Refer to above posted reply addressed to all literalists on the site today.
I would like to extend my apologies to you as well. If the dominant paradigm, in your mind, of the Southern white male is Bill Clinton, then I must pity your inability to see beyond stereotypes.
John Edwards keeps hoping that they'll still want a return to a Southern white man.
When I read that--I thought of Bill Clinton, the most recent Southern Democratic Presidents. And how Edwards would love to have voters think of him in that regard.
I must pity your inability to see beyond stereotypes
I believe it's you that appears to be hung up on stereotypes. I was simply thinking of Southern Presidents :-)
Guess we're different, you and I.
If I'm watching a political talk show and my mind, for whatever reason, begins to free associate I'm not jumping from Bill Clinton to John Edwards. I'm thinking (since I've been prompted by the host to think of Presidents and Southern white men) I'm thinkin' hmmm: Presidents...Southern white male...Bill...Hillary.
Presidents.... Southern White Male...Bill Clinton...gee I'd pick Edwards next, after all he's a Southern White Male running for President.
But hey everyone reacts differently to word association games I guess.
If someone said cucumber, I'd probably say salad.
Others might say Hannity.
Then again others might say...oh never mind ;-)
Cucumber:Hannity. Oh, Jeter. Thanks for the laugh I really needed that today.
But yeah, we are different. I think Bill:Hillary. Package deal, man.
Bill and Edwards are indeed Southern white guys running for Pres, but Hillary is running for Pres too and she happens to be married to Bill. Hence the origin of my Bill:Hillary association.
Glad I got you to laugh especially if you were having a rough day.
John Edwards keeps hoping
... this is ongoing. It's not that Edwards HOPES, but he KEEPS hoping. What evidence does this pundit have to illustrate that she knows what Edwards "HOPES" ... other than he HOPES to win the nomination and the election (which is obvious of ALL the candidates)? She offers NO evidence that would allow her to tell the audience what Edwards is "hoping". This is, quite simply, more mind reading from the pundit class. Misinformation, presented as both FACT and "conventional wisdom".
that they'll still want
... "they" WHO? This must be the Democratic Primary Voters. In the context of Matthew's intro about having a black or woman candidate being "risky", this pundit is claiming that Edwards "keeps hoping" that the Democratic votes will behave in a shallow, racist, and sexist manner ... and vote a "safer" Southern White Male candidate. Not even a hint that Democratic Voters might be interested in, say, ISSUES or IDEAS or POLICY. No, this pundit is telling us that if Edwards wins the nomination, it's because Democratic voters REJECTED a woman BECAUSE she is a woman, and a BLACK MAN, BECAUSE he is a black man. This is a smear, an insult, and portrays Democrats as racists and misogynists ... exactly as the Rightwing WANTS them portrayed.
a return to a Southern white man.
Maybe Democratic Voters wish for a return to SANITY, which ANY of the Democratic candidates would offer, and in stark contrast to the "southern white man" now in the White House?
J,
Apparently there is some cognitive bridge that us literalists cannot figure out how to cross, or something??......but hey, we tried :)
Roundhouse is more interested in making people on this thread feel stupid for being incapable of reaching his level of cognition than he is in actually making a point, apparently.
"When you think of Bill Clinton, who is the first person you think of?"
"Bill Clinton."
"No, stupid, try again."
"Um...when I think of Bill Clinton, the first person I think of is Bill Clinton."
"Siggghhhh...(eyeroll)...ok, so who is the NEXT person you think about, you literalist neandertals?"
"Why don't you just make your point?"
"Oh, I give up, you people are beneath me!"
Agree, these are anonymous postings on a blog, not some liberal think tank.
Where did that come from, JJamele2880?
I have no intention of playing nice for niceness' sake with people who have, in the past, condescended to me or attempted to make me feel stupid.
My patience is more limited today than others for reasons I will not discuss here. If I came across as snotty, my bad. But I would ask you to give me the courtesy of addressing me directly and not in an incidental manner.
I'm happy to kick ideas around or explain myself when I'm asked about things. I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong or learning something new.
Not agreeing with Roundhouses argument is one thing, but purposely playing dumb in order to play the MMFA posters are trying to make me feel dumb is another.
I have bolded a portion of Roundhouuses script to help you along.
In the context of this campaign, when one thinks of Bill Clinton who is the first person, other than Bill, who comes to mind?
Playing dumb? Roundhouse was asked to make his point, he chose to play some silly question and answer game instead. And then got all huffy because we didn't follow him there.
Whatever.
I posed a poorly worded question but I think most people most got what I was getting at.
But then, here comes smarmy Tommy, so I stir in a pinch of condescencion and rephrase to a very legitimate question.
You then ignore the question and start actin' the fool.
So, to reiterate my take on you today, Tommy: Whatever.
Thanks AJWAN.
That was noble of you to point out the obvious to Tommy. I'm not convinced it helped him though.
I thought Hillary but then thought nah to easy. Which might be the thing that tripped most of us up.
I'm not sure if O'Donnell, as a reporter covering the White House, should have made this comment, but I dont really disagree with it. I still think that it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that in the end the Democratic primary voters will choose the candidate who most resembles someone the American people have voted for previously. In other words, they'll get cold feet and pick the option of least risk, and that's obviously Edwards. I'd be very surprised if this thought hasn't occurred to Edwards and his staff and supporters.
In other words, they'll get cold feet and pick the option of least risk, and that's obviously Edwards.
A good observation. It may well turn out that way. This is one reason I don't put much stock in Polls. Folks often say one thing, then do another.
Back when Clinton was running against Bush One, I thought I'd vote for Clinton. Or at least I was leaning that way. But when I stepped in the voting booth, I had a change of heart. I wasn't sure Clinton was up to the task [as it turned out he was] But I figured it was better to stick with Bush.
I think we can all read O'Donnell's words and draw our own conclusions as to what she meant.
I figured she was alluding to Bill Clinton. That was my gut reaction.
O'Donnell says he's hoping the voters will choose him as an alternative to a woman or a black, and there's no evidence that's the case. In fact, there's evidence that he's rejected votes from those voters.
She's pushing an inaccurate picture of Edwards. He wants to get elected because of the issues he holds dear, not because of the color of his skin or the genitalia he has.
How do you reject someones vote? And who's voted?
You kick him in the genatalia he has.
Again you're dressing up the intent of the post into something that it's not. The point in this case is not to expose how offensive something is. The point is to expose O'Donnell's credibility as the political analyst she's pretending to be.
She is placing words in the mouth of Edwards when statements he made are directly to the contrary. I think Edwards clearly expressed that he wants the Dem race to be a battle of ideas, but this seems to have eluded O'Donnell.
I'm not offended. I just know that based on this item, she's not someone I want to listen to when looking for honest or insightful political analysis.
I take Edwards at his word, if O'Donnell has another take on it, that's her opinion. It's hardly misinformation, but rather pundit opining.
You and others are free to disagree.
I agree that she's opining, but even opinions can have a basis. When you have a basis for said opinion, you're more credible. O'Donnell doesn't have one.
OK, we disagree.
I'm so glad we have objective journalists (albeit editorialists) that dwell on things like race and gender as major factors in an election, then talk about it, then make baseless assumptions. Southerners should take offense and take their viewership somewhere else as well.
If you polled likely voters instead of rural trailer-dwellers or 'hood residents, and asked them to rank race, gender, position on issues, character, and leadership ability in order of importance, I guarantee race and gender would be holding up the rear. A poll like that would be positive for America, so I guess we won't see it soon.
I do not know about that. I know a lot of middle class woman that would/will vote for Hillary just because she is the first woman to run for the presidency.
And they are also consistent voters? Likely and consistent voters tend to be much more policy- and issue-oriented than your plain old average middle classer, says this Pol Sci major.
If you polled likely voters instead of rural trailer-dwellers or 'hood residents, and asked them to rank race, gender, position on issues, character, and leadership ability in order of importance, I guarantee race and gender would be holding up the rear.
Dex, I think you're making a broad, sweeping generalization here. What makes you assume that because of a person's residence and income (or lack thereof), they would care more about race and gender than leadership skills, character, etc.? It's this type of classist attitude and moral condescension towards the poor in this country -- black and white alike -- that I find despicable. Just because the person is a "trailer-dweller" or "hood resident" doesn't mean they're uneducated, welfare-dependant bigots who aren't looking for the best president to lead us into a better place, domestically and internationally. Honestly, I don't see how what you said separates you from O'Donnell's baseless criticism of Edwards.
I meant no offense, but you are taking my words out of context. Did I say they don't care about our country? No.
I challenge you to prove me wrong. Please show me that citizens living in lower-standard housing and neighborhoods make up an equal proportion of likely voters in this country as do those in a different situation. Please also show me that likely voters will vote per gender/race AT LEAST as often as they will vote issue and on their subjective character assessments of their candidates.
Prove both of those and I will retract my statements and apologize for my ignorance.
I think it would be very interesting to find out, all things being equal, ;-) what percentage of voters would vote for Hillary because she's a woman and equally interesting the percentage who would not vote for her for the same reason.
The same question would be interesting substituting race with regards to Obama.
Are those who vote for Hillary because she's a woman, sexists?
Are those who vote for Obama because he's part black racists?
Actually they would be neither sexist nor racist. Both of those terms deal with a misconseption of superiority. However if they were voting for them solely based on those two facts I would say they are part of whats wrong with voting these days...its no longer about the issues.
Lost,
I'm afraid I don't follow you as to why voting for a woman because she is a woman is not sexist and by the same token, (pardon the pun,) voting for a half black because of his skin color is not racist.
I'm afraid you may correct in what is wrong with the state of political awareness in this country, but Hillary's gender and Obama's race do seem to be a big factor in their popularity in the Democratic Party.
I'm not sure what you base your assertion that the reason democrats are excited about Clinton and Obama are simply for the reasons you stated. I am a Clinton supporter...I am a woman...and Clinton's gender has nothing to do with my support...but I can only speak for myself.
To clarify my statement as to why it would not be sexist or racist...these terms involve the person believing in the superiority of the sex or race. However if you are saying the person voting for Obama because they think blacks are superior or voting for Clinton because they think woman are superior then you may have a point. I wasn't getting that from your post but only you can speak to your intent.
Lost,
I don't know where the "superiority" label comes into play? If someone votes, or does not vote, for any candidate based on their gender or race, then by very definition they are basing their decision on sex and/or race - either way.
superiority comes into play in the definition of the words.
Just to clairfy...If I was going to vote for Clinton because I think women are smarter then men then I would tend to agree that this would be a form of sexist thought. However if I was voting for Clinton because she is a woman like me as Jeter mentions then I don't consider that sexist...just a silly reason to cast you vote for someone. Hope this cleared up any confusion.
I don't think it really matters - if you vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman, the reason is basically irrelevant - you are voting for her based on her gender, whether she is smarter than a man, or prettier, or whatever - your vote is based on her gender........and voting for her based on that would be sexist.
We disagree...in my opinion you are accepting a watered down definition of racism and sexism. Many do...I am not one of those...I think the issue of racism and sexism is too serious to allow it to be watered down to be something less then it was originally intended to mean. AA asked a question...I gave my opinion...obviously open to debate...but I doubt we would ever see eye to eye if you believe in a definition that minimizes the true meaning of the word...hey I think we've had this disagreement before /-:
We may have, and we agree to disagree......good to see you back.
Lost,
I think just about everyone here will vote based on ideological compatibility with their particular candidates.
I think if one votes for a candidate based on their sex they are sexist and if one votes for a candidate based on their color, they are racist.
I must be a conundrum then - a middle aged white dude who grew up in military school, graduated from A&M (yeeehaw!), married a mexican born wife, am still married yet claim to be a liberal. Is Alfred E. Newman running this time around?
I disagree.
I believe the media think it's a big deal, and I don't believe the membership of the DNC obsess about Hillary's ovaries or Barack's melanin count as much the media would like them to.
Please remember - there are those of us in this audience that recognize that the media is no longer around to solely inform, but to create its own news and hype whenever it is profitable, and it is cheaper and easier to obsess about surface differences than it is to hire actual investigative reports that have the job of delving into serious issues and keeping the public knowledgeable about what effects their lives.
Well said, thank you.
BLR,
We agree on much of what you just wrote.
No, AA, it is my belief that within the Democratic party, these issues of race and gender as they relate to our candidates actually mean NOTHING. It is those who truly worry about those issues that are projecting them upon the rest of us. If the shoe fits.....
Hey LostLogic :-)
The first Presidential campaign/election I vaguely recall was Kennedy vs Nixon. I was only in elementary school at the time...but I remember one of my buddies [an Irish-Catholic]telling me his parents were voting for Kennedy because he was "one of them"
African-Americans voting Obama because he's "one of them", or woman voting for Hillary because "she's one of them" is what's still wrong with this country.
I'm Italian, but I wouldn't vote for Giuliani for Dog Catcher ;-)
P.S. Nice to see you back...even if it's just for a quick hit & run
I meant no offense, but you are taking my words out of context. Did I say they don't care about our country? No.
I’m not sure how you can say I’m taking your words out of context when you were implying that poor folks care more about superficialities when voting for a candidate than substantive issues the candidates brings forth.
I challenge you to prove me wrong. Please show me that citizens living in lower-standard housing and neighborhoods make up an equal proportion of likely voters in this country as do those in a different situation. Please also show me that likely voters will vote per gender/race AT LEAST as often as they will vote issue and on their subjective character assessments of their candidates.
Prove you wrong? I’m not making the assertion that poor folks in this country aren’t interested in important issues, but are obsessed with race and gender. I challenge you to prove to ME that’s the case and I’ll take your word for it. So far you base your accusation on myths about the poor; assuming that they’ll support any candidate—regardless of the issues the candidate is peddling—because of the color of their skin or gender. If that’s REALLY the case then why is Hillary Clinton still leading the polls with black voters and Obama and Edwards are behind her? Or why was Bill Clinton popular among black voters, even though he’s a white southern male and was a centrist in his policies? I can’t speak on poor white voters since I’m not poor nor white, but speaking as someone that’s black and a former “hood resident,” I know many folks in those areas who vote regularly and are deeply interested in politics, so I’m trying to figure out where you got this information from that people in those areas aren’t interested in anything but image of the politician.
I am equating lower-income with lower-education, and thus less-informed on the issues. Again, I can statistically back that up. AND, I'm not saying that every person living in a trailer is stupid or that black people living in the 'hood only care about blackness, blah blah blah.
And no, I posted my comment, and you challenged them. So, YOU must prove that I am wrong. If you're going to call me a liar, prove that I am wrong beyond your hearsay evidence.
I am equating lower-income with lower-education, and thus less-informed on the issues.
Hmm, so because the person has lower-income and lives in an area with poorer schools, that makes them less-informed of a candidate? Perhaps I would take that into account if there weren’t other outlets nowadays where anyone—poor, rich, whatever—can get information about candidates that isn’t reported in the mainstream media.
Again, I can statistically back that up.
But, Dex, so far I’ve only read where you said that poor folks vote more on the image of a candidate than the issues they put forth, and you haven’t presented any evidence of the sort to support your claim. Therefore, I’m only going by your word without any statistics or empirical evidence to back you up.
AND, I'm not saying that every person living in a trailer is stupid or that black people living in the 'hood only care about blackness, blah blah blah.
Well, that’s good, Dex, but why imply that trailer-dwellers and hood residents are too ignorant to vote for the candidates that support their interests, implying they’re too duped by image politics? You’re being way too simplistic on how you characterize voters—it’s not as black and white as you make it. Sure, there may be some who are too sexist and racist to ever vote for a black man and black woman, but I don’t think that attitude represents the entire middle-class/under-class constituency. One could make the case that there are those in the upper-class, also, who will not simply vote for a woman or black man, but we all know by now that a few doesn’t represent all, right? You haven’t proven to me this is the case with poor folks; you’re relying on your opinion of how poor voters operate based on their presumably lack of education and income. You haven’t posted anything statistically that validates your argument.
And no, I posted my comment, and you challenged them. So, YOU must prove that I am wrong. If you're going to call me a liar, prove that I am wrong beyond your hearsay evidence.
Sorry you got the impression I was challenging you; admittedly, I was a bit unhinged when you made your remark and I viewed it as a classist way of looking at the poor. However, I was interested to know where you got your information from, and perhaps you could post it in this thread, because I wouldn’t mind taking a look at the poll or other scientific information that proves your point.
My bad. I meant to say too sexist and too racist to vote for a black man and a woman.
Well, they have to talk about something, don't they? God knows there aren't enough really important topics to fill 24 hours of "news" time. By debating such titillating issues as Hillary's bazooms and where Obama went to school and Edwards' hair cuts...they don't have to waste time on other, less important topics...like HOW THE HELL WE GOT INTO IRAQ.
Here here.
Nerzog,
I don't disagree with what you've said, but does the fault lie with the news media or the public?
Ever since the 24/7 newschannels came into existence, and the increased competition, they are now ratings driven entities. The public seems to want to hear stuff like this, some of the public anyway, than wade through the complexities of the Iraq war - like it of not.
So, we're probably stuck with it...
Well, you have a point. I think the problem may be with the "News For Profit" model. I think there was a time when the news was considered a "public service". Those days seem to be well behind us.
Yeah but then what's to keep the ruling party from controlling the "public" media, etc etc..
Can of worms that tastes bad regardless of the brand.
Actually, I'm talking about the days when CBS, NBC and ABC did not try to make a profit on their news divisions.
Not a bad idea!
Both...the media serves it up and the public obliges. (I should add "some" to both of those.) Neither is blameless.
I don't doubt we'll always have garbage in the media. However, if MMFA can inspire enough - enough to make a difference on policy - to stay honest or think more critically, then that's all that matters. In fact, I don't even necessarily want more than that. Too much success might be too tempting.
Nerzog,
A small point. I do believe everyone knows how we got into Iraq. ;-)
I should have said "the events leading to our invasion of Iraq, i.e. the lies told by this administration and the failure of the media to challenge those lies" but I was just too lazy.
Hahaha... glad we got that settled.
Simply a baseless assertion by O'Donnell. It's fine if she wants to hold that opinion herself. But there's no excuse to broadcast it as if it were based on facts. Which is kind of what the viewer expects these pundits to do.
My problem is that it is a baseless assumption, brings the race/gender card in that ::hopefully:: will be destroyed by this election regardless of the ultimate result, and is insulting to southerners.
But at what point was this show construed to be a factual broadcast and not an opinion discussion?
It is an opinion discussion, and if MMFA disagrees with it, it's here under the guise of misinformation.
It is an opinion discussion, and if MMFA disagrees with it, it's here under the guise of misinformation.
So, is O'Donnell's statement an opinion under the guise of a fact? I.e., O'Donnell's statement reads as if she was stating a fact, not an opinion.
Tommy considers everything ever uttered by anyone to be an opinion. This enables him to ignore things like facts.
AA offers at least a plausible alternative interpretation later, though I disagree with his premise regarding one part of the statement. But even his interpretation wouldn't make it a statement of fact, not opinion.
I would think that any opinion program would be based on something approaching Fact if it were on a network called "NBC News," but perhaps I'm holding on to an antiquated opinion of the responsibilities of a news network.
I think MMfA spends too much time attacking opinions that favor conservatives but are easily a 50/50 in terms of their accuracy. Since this one is about 10/90, MMfA is safe in calling O'Donnell out.
One can assume Edwards does hope people will vote for him. One can also categorize Edwards as a Southern white man.
I would say that technically O'Donnell is correct. That being so, I find it hard to characterize her opinion as "misinformation".
But O'Donnell didn't simply say those things.
O'Donnell didn't say Edwards "hopes people will vote for him." It's obvious he does. And she didn't say "Edwards is a southern white man". That's obvious to.
What she did was ascribe a motivation to him --something about his desire for people to want the "return of a southern white man"-- purely and solely out of thin air.
I would agree with you if he were not a candidate himself.
It seems obvious to me that the "Southern white man" O'Donnell is referring to, is used as a contrast to Hillary being "the first woman" and/or Obama "the first black" President.
O'Donnell is simply injecting the 500 lb. gorillas of gender and race, (and now region,) into the discussion only this time referring to Edwards.
I am seriously gonna whip me a jernlist if one more of 'em talk about my suthurn herritage like it's a crutch.
Kinky. But since we're talking about O'Donnell, don't forget the black leather catwoman outfit.
;-)
--"O'Donnell is simply injecting the 500 lb. gorillas of gender and race, (and now region,) into the discussion"--
Race and gender is and always is in the discussion.
But O'Donnell injected a racial motivation which she attributed to Edwards. A motivation she pulled out of her rear end. She cannot know Edwards' motivations as she pretends she does. To affect a knowledge of motivation is not informative to the viewer. It is just the opposite. O'Donnel ought to just stick with what she knows as fact, as should any of these so-called knowledgeable, serious pundits.
I can see where you would come to that conclusion. I guess it all depends on what she meant by "Southern white man".
I see it strictly in the context of identifying Edwards by race, gender, and region. The region qualifier comes into play because of Clinton and Bush both being from the South.
But one can also say, as you do, that she is being racist, as "Southern white man" could be code for 'good o'l boy' Southern bigots.
Ok - I was about to write AA's comment was irrelevant too, but now see how it is relevant. If the statement isn't racist/sexist but purely of indentification - as AA argues - then there's no motivation attached. Then O'Donnell couldn't be attributing any motivation to Edwards.
However, I disagree with AA's premise that the comment isn't racist/sexist. It suggests voter descriminating based on race and sex, rather than policy position. So, motivation is attached...and O'Donnell is attributing this to Edwards.
---"But one can also say, as you do, that she is being racist"---
I did not say --or even imply, for that matter-- that O'Donnell was being racist. Please re-read.
Why do right-wingers have a real aversion to accuracy?
For the record and for the sloppy, I said that O'Donnell was attributing racial motivations to Edwards. Motivations that she cannot possibly know as fact. I accuse her of offering a baseless opinion. I didn't accuse anyone of racism.
At what point does an opinion lose the idea that opinions should be based on facts?
An opinion SHOW, that is.
Dex Are Whatever Your Name Is Noone Should Have To Prove You Wrong,You Should Apoligize Just For Being Ignorant,The Same For O'donnel & Chris Matthews
When you state something in a way that's contrary to the facts that's misinformation.
Edwards has clearly stated why he wants people to vote for him and O'Donnell stated something that's contrary to the facts.
I think we can all agree that's misinformation. All of us except for the right wing nut jobs who seem to agree with Fox News who stated in open court news organizations have a first amendment right to spin stories any way they see fit.
"... return to a Southern white man"? Puhleeze. That's the millstone we've had around our collective neck since 2001. I don't see the "Southern white man" campaign slogan being a big vote getter. That's probably one good reason Edwards isn't using it. Do O'Donnell and the others come up with this crap extemporaneously, or is someone taking notes at the previous night's kegger?
Call me crazy, but I think she simply mispoke. I don't think she weighed what she was saying in racist terms instead is just a bubble headed bleach blond trying to look clever. I know she isn't blond but she might not be aware of that.
It doesn't have to be racist to be misinformation does it?
Again, Edwards has clearly stated why he wants people to vote for him.
O'Donnell attributed something to Edwards he has never stated (He hopes etc.)
That's misinformation pure and simple.
This has been a fascinating conversation that I have just finished scanning.
As someone who has participated in and followed politics for three decades, it is my take that O'Donnell was simply offering up the former conventional wisdom that Democrats have to nominate a centrist Southern white man in order to win the Presidency. This theory was developed by those who looked at Johnson, Carter and Clinton, examined the coalition of states needed to gather the requisite electoral votes, and voila!
In fact, every candidate needs an overarching argument for why they would be the best candidate to defeat the opponent in the other party. In the last election, one of Edward's arguments against Kerry was that he was a Southerner (white and male were not necessary to mention) and, thus, would have a better chance to defeat Bush.
Thus, it really isn't a reach for O'Donnell to place this thought in Edwards' mind. So, while Media Matters is usually pretty good about selecting items for us to be concerned about, this isn't one.
By the way, just because she thinks Edwards might still be hoping that Democratic voters consider the Southerner theory as operable doesn't mean that she was saying Edwards' is looking for votes from people who don't want a woman or an African American for President. What she was referring to is the real fear that Democrats have had off and on over the years that any Northern Democrat (such as Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis and Kerry), would lose in a general election.
In my view, the political map has changed and the "Southerner must be nominated" theory is no longer applicable - if it ever truly was. Democrats can now win without any Southern states by taking the West Coast, the East Coast, and the Northern Tier combined with some key Mid-West and Western states. In fact, all we need is all the states we got last time with the addition of Ohio, which will be much easier this time with Democrats in control of the state. Still, I really expect whomever we nominate to win in a landslide.
This nation is ready for a change in direction and is willing to take a chance on any of the top three candidates - a left-wing Southerner, a populist African American, or a centrist former First Lady who has a controversial personal history.