MSNBC's Carlson suggested women may be "so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics"
On the November 5 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing "the so-called gender card in the '08 presidential race," host Tucker Carlson asked Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation: "You don't sort of look down a little bit on women ... who would vote for [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)], partly because she's a woman?" Smeal responded, "No, absolutely not. ... [L]et's face it, she's very qualified. But the reality is, you also would like to break this glass ceiling. You would like to have some representation," adding, "I mean, it's embarrassing, Tucker. We're 68th in the world for representation of women in our Congress." Carlson replied: "I'm not embarrassed. I almost -- when I get up at a baseball game and sing 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' I don't hang my head because we don't have enough women in Congress. I'm actually not embarrassed by it at all." Smeal responded, "Well, it has nothing to do with your baseball game obviously," to which Carlson said: "I don't know why that's embarrassing. You could make the counter case that most women are so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics. ...They've got real things to do."
Carlson began the interview by noting a November 4 Politico article reporting that Smeal compared the "spectacle of Clinton onstage confronting seven male rivals [sic] and two male moderators" at the October 30 Democratic presidential debate with Anita Hill's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination hearing in 1991. From the November 4 Politico article:
"It goes beyond logic -- it's a gut response," Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said of the spectacle of Clinton onstage confronting seven male rivals [sic] and two male moderators at a debate in Philadelphia on Wednesday night.
Smeal, who has endorsed Clinton, compared the debate scene to the congressional grilling of Anita Hill when she challenged Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination in 1991.
"Every woman -- it was just so visceral -- that panel was all male," Smeal recalled. "It didn't matter almost what was being said. It [was] a visceral gut reaction, and I think that's what you're seeing here again."
On the show, Carlson asked Smeal: "[H]ow did this remind you of the Thomas hearings?" Smeal responded: "Well, what reminded me is that it was the reaction from the audience. I think that women have a gut reaction to seeing all those men then two men as the interrogators." Carlson then asked: "So women see themselves as victims?" Smeal replied: "No, they don't see themselves as victims. They just know how hard it is to crash through the glass ceiling. And so, there's a feeling for her in those kinds of situations."
Following Smeal's statement that "[y]ou have, for the first time in history, a woman leading the race for president ... and then you see that whole line-up, all men on the panel, two men questioning, and the 'I got you' question," Carlson stated: "But they're not just men, I mean, they're Democrats: They're sensitive, New Age men. I mean, they're NPR-listening, Volvo-driving, Whole Foods-shopping. They're the kind of guys who cry during Meg Ryan movies. I mean, they're kind of in touch with their feelings. They're not manly men ... they're wimpy men." When Smeal responded, "Oh, come on!" Carlson said: "I'm not attacking 'em. I'm just saying, it's not like she's surrounded by Southern sheriffs. She's surrounded by [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL]." As Media Matters for America documented, Carlson has previously asserted that Obama "seems like kind of a wuss" and called his "rhetoric" "kind of wimpy."
Smeal also asserted during the segment that Clinton is "obviously very strong," stating that she both is "a strong debater" and has a "record of fighting for women's rights." Carlson replied, "But if she's so strong, then why is she whining about sexism?" Smeal countered, "She isn't whining about sexism," to which Carlson stated: "Of course she was. She got up there and said, you know, 'It's this all-boys club.' ... [E]ssentially she's saying, 'They're being mean to me 'cause I'm a girl.' " Carlson was referring to Clinton's November 1 speech at Wellesley College, her alma mater, during which she said: "In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete on the all-boys club of presidential politics." Nowhere in her speech did she claim that the male Democratic candidates were "being mean" to her because of her sex.
From the November 5 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Hillary Clinton appears to have decided that complaining about sexism is not a winning rhetorical strategy, so, for the moment, she has stopped. Not all of her supporters have given up on the gender card, though.
In describing her reaction to last week's Democratic presidential debate, Eleanor Smeal spoke of her gut reaction to seeing one woman against six male rivals and two male moderators, and according to Politico.com, compared that moment to the questioning of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings all those years ago.
Here to discuss that comparison and the so-called gender card in the '08 presidential race, we welcome Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Eleanor Smeal, thanks so much for coming on.
SMEAL: Good being here.
CARLSON: So, how did this remind you of the Thomas hearings?
SMEAL: Well, what reminded me is that it was the reaction from the audience. I think that women have a gut reaction to seeing all those men and then two men as the interrogators. So --
CARLSON: So women see themselves as victims?
SMEAL: No, they don't see themselves as victims. They just know how hard it is to crash through the glass ceiling. And so, there's a feeling for her in those kinds of situations.
CARLSON: Well, why would it be hard? I mean, here you have someone who is probably the most famous woman in the world, who's smart, who's aggressive and knows what she thinks, who has more money and more support than any presidential candidate in the history of the United States. She's the overdog, not the underdog.
SMEAL: Yes, but let's face it, she's making history. This will be the first woman. And so, there's no question that women know that this is tough terrain. They know this is the highest of all glass ceilings. So, there's no question there.
CARLSON: Well, it's interesting 'cause the kind of convention -- the stereotypical stereotype about women is, "Oh, they're emotional. They use their hearts not their minds. They can't control themselves." I mean, you know that sort of ugly stereotypes you spent your life combating and yet you've just described them. You've just said, "This is a gut reaction we can't control. She's a woman, we're women, so we empathize."
SMEAL: No. No. No. It's -- of course you empathize, but that doesn't mean it's overemotional, it's just -- it's the facts of life. You have, for the first time in history, a woman leading the race for president. And so -- and then you see that whole line-up, all men on the panel, two men questioning, and the "I got you" question.
CARLSON: But they're not just men, I mean, they're Democrats: They're sensitive, New Age men. I mean, they're NPR-listening, Volvo-driving, Whole Foods-shopping. They're the kind of guys who cry during Meg Ryan movies. I mean, they're kind of in touch with their feelings. They're not manly men; they're kind of -- they're wimpy men.
SMEAL: Oh, come on!
CARLSON: No, no. I'm not attacking 'em. I'm just saying, it's not like she's surrounded by Southern sheriffs. She's surrounded by Barack Obama and --
SMEAL: No, no, no. But let's face it, the question, though, was led by [NBC News Washington bureau chief and debate moderator] Tim Russert.
CARLSON: Right.
SMEAL: It was led with by Chris Matthews [sic]. I'm just saying that if you're saying what people are feeling, I think that women do identify with the woman who is crashing through.
CARLSON: But don't you think, as a matter of citizenship and civic engagement --
SMEAL: Right.
CARLSON: -- that women have a moral responsibility to overlook, or look beyond, the gender of a candidate. That's like, you know, should white people vote for a white guy 'cause he's white? That's disgusting. Is -- doesn't the same thing apply here for women?
SMEAL: Well, no, of course it does. But you're saying all things being the same, and it's more than the same. She's obviously very strong, a strong debater, strong on the issues --
CARLSON: Right.
SMEAL: -- a record of fighting for women's rights. So, all things being equal, you're there rooting -- and that's all the case is.
CARLSON: But if she's so strong, then why is she whining about sexism?
SMEAL: She isn't whining about sexism.
CARLSON: Of course she was. She got up there said, you know, "It's this all-boys club and they're --" essentially she's saying, "They're being mean to me 'cause I'm a girl."
SMEAL: No, I don't -- I -- see, I don't read that Wellesley speech like that at all. She was identifying with that audience that knows how tough it is to break through the political glass ceiling. I mean, are we going to kid ourselves? This has not been an easy feat. This is tough work. We're only 16 percent of Congress. It's 2007.
CARLSON: You don't sort of look down a little bit on women, though, who would vote for her, partly because she's a woman? I mean, doesn't that --
SMEAL: No, absolutely not.
CARLSON: So, you think that's an important, legitimate criterion in a candidate --
SMEAL: I think that --
CARLSON: -- the sex, the gender?
SMEAL: Well, I think that -- I think all other things being equal -- I mean, let's face it, she's very qualified. But the reality is, you also would like to break this glass ceiling. You would like to have some representation. I mean, it's embarrassing, Tucker. We're 68th in the world for representation of women in our Congress.
CARLSON: I'm not embarrassed. I almost -- when I get up at a baseball game and sing "The Star-Spangled Banner," I don't hang my head because we don't have enough women in Congress. I'm actually not embarrassed by it at all.
SMEAL: Well, it has nothing to do with your baseball game, obviously.
CARLSON: I'm just saying. I don't know why --
SMEAL: I mean, it has nothing to do with that.
CARLSON: I don't know why that's embarrassing. You could make the counter case that most women are so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics.
SMEAL: Oh, give me a break!
CARLSON: They've got real things to do.
SMEAL: Give me a break! They spend all kinds of money -- you know what's happening. War and peace issues, how much is going to be spent --
CARLSON: Yeah, but let's be real.
SMEAL: -- for Social Security and child care.
CARLSON: Most voters are women. Wait, hold on. Most voters are women, OK. That's just a fact. So, if women were so anxious to have women in Congress, and there were so many great female candidates running, then why wouldn't Congress be 52 percent female?
SMEAL: Well, come on, that's rather naive, isn't it?
CARLSON: I don't know.
SMEAL: We've had two political parties throughout history. We didn't even get to vote until 1920. We've had -- we are now beginning to come into our own age, but we have not cracked it. We only got nine governors. There's a reality that we're underrepresented in this country, and it's time that that changed.
CARLSON: Wait. Wait --
SMEAL: So, as long as there's been a history of discrimination, gender will be an issue. And that's --
CARLSON: Would you support a federal law to bring equity to politics, a sort of affirmative action for women in politics, why not?
SMEAL: I think there should be affirmative action for women in politics. We'd be better off for it.
CARLSON: Do you think Mrs. Clinton agrees with you? Hillary Clinton agrees with you?
SMEAL: I don't know if she agrees with me, but I do believe in affirmative action, you know that.
CARLSON: No, but for politics. We should hold up --
SMEAL: And the women's movement has always been for affirmative action.
CARLSON: Absolutely. One of the reasons I've always opposed it. But should we hold aside a certain number of seats in the Congress and make this a less embarrassing number.
SMEAL: Well, we can't under the current Constitution do that.
CARLSON: Right.
SMEAL: So, we're not saying that. But we are saying that there should be gender balance in appointments. There should be more women running. It would be -- you know, one of the reasons that there's now women on the Judiciary Committee -- and there is still only one in the Senate Judiciary Committee -- is because of what happened to Anita Hill. It would better if that panel had been integrated.
CARLSON: All right. Eleanor Smeal. I really appreciate you coming on. Thank you.
SMEAL: Thank you.
Tucker, Tucker, Tucker!
"They're not manly men; they're kind of -- they're wimpy men."
Some guys can get away with a statement like that.
Not you, pal.
Seriously... What a laugh. Toughguy-Tucker.
Tucker said so many stupid crazy hings in this piece I have abandoned plans to even list them. It's incredible that he can be such a dickhead. This work would score "D" on any junior high school debate.
His manliness was all in his bowtie...like Samson and his hair!
Gotta LOVE this variation on he traditional PATERNALISTIC male-dominated world. The one where MEN discussed all serious issues, and made all decisions for the family, and they ALONE could own property and deal with money. The WIVES? Brood mares, domestic help, sexual services on demand. Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, whipping up grub for the men who actually "worked".
So Tucker suggests that women shouldn't worry their pretty little heads over something as "silly" as "POLITICS" ... which involves writing the laws and drafting programs that affect every citizen's life in a great many ways, including LIFE and DEATH.
Listen up, Tucker. POLITICS and government are only "silly" when YOU PERSONALLY are involved. YOUR involvement is silly, petty, superficial, and meaningless.
Politics itself is very, very serious, and very, very important. And WOMEN are perhaps even MORE affected than the men. So politics should be MORE important to women.
I understand Tucker may be losing his "show". GREAT, as long as they don't replace him with Savage.
Tex,
So you think that politics is more important to women than men, as they are more affected?
Wow, the only way you could possibly conclude that is obviously because of your ultra liberal, government cure-all mentality, and the fact that you must think women need government more than men do.
Why is that?
Because in your mind, they are inherently weaker and need government services and help more than men. There is no other explanation for such a blatantly sexist remark as that, are you even remotely aware of what you are inferring with such masterful subtleness? Of course you don't, or at least won't admit it.
If you feel that women and men are equal then there is no reason for one sex to need politics/government more than the other.
Wow.
Or maybe, just maybe, he's talking about some serious issues that do tend to affect women more directly:
--Federal non-discrimination laws, without which women would have difficulty getting jobs for which they are equally qualified as their male counterparts, or being paid as much.
--Prohibition of discrimination for maternity leave or child sick days, which would otherwise put very qualified women at a disadvantage in obtaining gainful employment & advancement.
--Funding for schools and after-school programs (I WISH men were equally invested in this, but many choose not to be).
--Health care (considering a small matter called pregnancy!) and children's health care (again, considering that single mothers are going to be more invested in this than the absent fathers, thus altering to some degree the average of the two genders).
--Product safety, especially in children's toys.
--Access to birth control and the right to be well-informed about protecting oneself.
--Social Security and retirement payments (Statistically, women live slightly longer than men).
So, maybe there are some ways that, in the present political climate, women do have a more vested interest in politics and it has more power to directly affect their lives.
This isn't to say AT ALL that we're inherently "weaker" or need a "Mommy state," it is recognizing that there are some very entrenched unfairnesses in the current system, and without the responsible use of politics, women would be cheated on many of the above issues through no fault of their own.
You have just included several examples of government help necessary for women, according to liberals. The "soft bigotry of low expectations".
The women I know have no more need for expansive, intrusive, expensive government than any man I know. When they get patted on the head by liberals and told how much better their lives would be with more government, and patronized by inferring they need government's help and assistance otherwise they are disadvantaged......they become quite insulted at that sexist attitude.
Tex just illustrated it with his comments, and you provided proof.
I take it that you count Barbara Bush and Lynne Cheney in your social circle of female acquaintances, right? Perhaps also (M)Ann Coulter too... but we still aren't sure of her true gender - hence the parentheses around the 'M' - so she may not count though.
Are you honestly trying to argue that men and women worry equally about time off for maternity leave? Or that its perfectly ok that without governmental protection of nondiscrimination on the basis of pregnancy, women may not have the opportunity to contribute to the economy and society in certain jobs?
THAT, Tommy, is the "soft bigotry of low expectations" if you think it's fine that women have less opportunity to get a job for which they are qualified, by virtue of their physiology. There's nothing "low" about the expectation that a man and a woman, with equal qualifications, should have the equal opportunity to be employed.
The government would hardly be "intrusive" in such a situation--it would be there, standing by, if someone WENT TO IT to seek redress for grievances. Like a police station: it's not "intrusive" to have a police station in your community, and when you need help you call them.
****** Let's imagine this: Someone accesses your bank account illegally and steals $100,000.
Would you think you were "patted on the head by" police/fraud investigators if you asked them to retrieve it for you and they attempted to do so? Would you disagree if you were "told how much better your life would be with" your $100,000 back (Of course it would be better! That's a huge chunk of retirement savings/travel opportunities/your kid's college education!).
Would you believe you were "patronized by inferring" you "need" the police's/fraud investigator's "help and assistance otherwise they are disadvantaged"? (Of course you're disadvantaged! You've just had $100,000 stolen from you! That, by definition, puts you at a $100,000 disadvantage from what you deserve. Furthermore, without those fraud investigators, just how do you expect to get your $100,000 back?)
Would you be "insulted by that" fiscalist "attitude" that you should get back the money that was stolen? Or would you sit back and say, "Oh, well, I was cheated out of $100,000. I'm succumbing to the soft bigotry of low expectations if I think I need my own money back."
So, what if a female executive works for a company for say, 10 years, and, unbeknownst to her, her male executive counterparts who do exactly the same amount of work and have the same qualifications have been making $10,000 a year more than her? How is this different than having $100,000 stolen from you (as in the above example)? In either case, wouldn't you want to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?!
LEFTSIDEPOSITIVE:
Brilliant response, and exactly the reason I made the statement I made about women and government.
Women were kept from even VOTING until 1920, BY THE GOVERNMENT. Republicans are constantly threatening to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would effectively allow states to FORCE women to carry to term at the muzzle of state guns. And is there equal effort to find and hold responsible the MEN who caused the pregnancy? There is not. And it's all because the LAWS have been written by men since this nation's founding.
So, YES, women have more of a stake in government, because there is still much work to be done to remove obvious DISCRIMINATION against them, and a great man male legislators don't even realize what the problem is, let alone have any inclination to SOLVING those problems.
Excellent presentation, LEFTSIDE, saved me the trouble of destroying Tommy's "women weaker" strawman argument.
Tommy,
Wow.
I guess today you spun the wheel and it's going to be aggressive Tommy instead of contemplative, above the fray Tommy.
Wow.
Perhaps. I just get tired of conservatives getting accused so easily of sexism and racism, yet when it's directed at liberals it's considered taboo - like it couldn't possibly be the case. Well, at times it is.
Man, they can't sign Rosie too soon.
I'd love to see Rosie bitch-slap Tucker on live TV......
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
David Brock's best seller - "The Real Anita Hill" - amply documented what a liar she was in her testimony against Clarence Thomas.
Maybe there IS a legitimate comparison!
(pre-emption - I know I'm relying upon the word of an admitted liar, but if I believe Brock then and you believe Brock now we are both taking the word of a known liar. The only question is WHEN he lied. I think that Brock's book on Anita was well sourced and absolutely reliable!)
It was the lying he had to do when smearing Anital Hill that caused David Brock to do some soul-searching and leave conservatism behine.
Sort of how Justicetruthus has left reality behind....
Change the subject a lot Justice?
JUSTICE:
You are correct that Brock is an "admitted liar". He started out working in the Rightwing Smear Machine, and wrote books to smear Democrats because that was what he was paid to do.
In the books, he used many devices to put across FALSE information, such as unsourced rumors, single sources with no corroboration, and just plain partisan prose ("a little bit nutty and a little bit sl---y").
You WERE believing him back then, and you still believe what he wrote TODAY, or so you say, and you pose to us whether a "known liar" can ever again be believed.
Your POINT is moot, because nobody who reads MMFA is taking David Brock's WORD for a damn thing. MMFA does what Brock failed to do as a rightwing writer: it follows strict journalistic standards in reproducing the actual WORDS and STATEMENTS of the people being discussed. We don't have to believe Brock, only our own eyes and ears.
Brock's honesty, one way or the other, is not at issue in reviewing MMFA.
So, your self-imposed quandry has a very simple solution: Everything you want to believe about Brock's work ... his rightwing hit pieces ... has been revealed to be FALSE. So, if you STILL believe his earlier work, you believe LIES.
Now, if you wish to challenge the veracity and accuracy of MMFA, you have the clips and the videos and the sourcing to point out any "lying" you might see. If you cannot do that, and only object to how people REACT when they read the accurate reproduction of the rightwing media's output, you have no claim of "lying" for Brock OR for MMFA in their current work.
Brock has come clean, and his current work renders his previous work irrelevant (except he may use his earlier experience to better spot Rightwing misinformation, because he was once an "insider", privy to their techniques, tactics, and motivations!)
Very eloquent & crisply reasoned!
Point, set, Match; did you even break a sweat?
didnt you hear? tucker is going to get canceled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html?ex=1195016400&en=e2ed41f168e7de8e&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
And not a moment too soon.
Please bring back Phil Donahue.
I second that. MSNBC should never have let him go in the first place.
Tucker's argument is not so easily dismissed. He is playing devil's advocate by saying that the reason there are not more woman in politics is because there are, perhaps, other more important things many of them want to do. It isn't so riduculous, nor insulting to women. One just cannot assume it's because they are shut out, or discriminated against.........unless you're Smeal, who has pushed that notion for years.
Are these pundits not even allowed to explore other ideas and reasons, or are they subject to the knee-jerk sexist reaction immediately?
Well, tucker better get his point across pretty darn quick, looks like he's about to be cancelled!
Yep, there goes a low rated conservative talker.......the free marketplace is alive and well.
Gee, I might be able to embrace this "free market" after all! I'm especially looking forward to when we get to the point where there is only one "conservative" viewpoint vs hundreds of liberal viewpoints. I wonder how the right wing will feel about the fairness doctrine then? ;)
The same way I feel about it now......yeech!
Well actually he didn't say women had more important things to do, but "so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics". Which doesn't make any sense at all, why wouldn't women (or anyone for that matter) want to have a say in what policies are passed, policies which can directly affect them? I see nothing wrong with women voting for HC just because she's a woman, especially since she's more than qualified for the job. I have no stats to back it up, but you can bet there are men out there who will vote against her because she's a woman. Let me take it a step further and say that i'm sure there are plenty of people who won't vote for Obama because he's black.
So, if you see nothing wrong with voting for Hillary just because she's a woman, then it stands to reason that you see nothing wrong with voting against her just because she is a woman.
You can't be for one without the other. But if you feel that way, you're entitled to your opinion.
I have no problem at all with people voting against Hillary because she's a woman or against Obama because he's black.
For Tucker to say women are too sensible to be involved in politics is absolutely stupid.
Thank you for your honest answer.
Apples and oranges, Tommy.
If a person didn't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, that's prejudice.
But if a person votes for Hillary just because she's a woman, it's because women are grossly underrepresented in certain fields, politics included. I am not black, but I have voted for black candidates because they are black to try to promote equity.
In the case of Hillary, I'm voting for her because I feel she is the best candidate, she is extremely intelligent and a great diplomat, she is level-headed, competent ... and a woman.
I see nothing wrong with women voting for HC just because she's a woman, especially since she's more than qualified for the job. I have no stats to back it up, but you can bet there are men out there who will vote against her because she's a woman.
Wouldn't it be best to vote for whomever is best qualified, period. Not just "more than qualified"? I'd venture a guess that most of the candidates presently running on both sides are qualified. Some more than others. I don't believe Hillary is as qualified as Joe Biden. I don't believe she has more qualifications than Obama or Edwards.
Those that vote for candidates based on gender/race/ethnicity are not using their votes wisely. Nor are those that reject a candidate based on those factors.
Jeter, I agree with you that voting for the best qualified candidate should be the way we vote, but lets face it, you and I both know that's not always going to happen. Because if that's the case, everyone should have voted for Gore in 2000, because he was much more qualified than Bush. And who's to say that these women who are voting HC don't believe she's also the best candidate? Suffice it to say, everyone has a reason for voting for the candidate of their choice whether it's a good reason or not.
Suffice it to say, everyone has a reason for voting for the candidate of their choice whether it's a good reason or not.
Agreed. Let's face it some folks choose a candidate by looks or what region of the country they hail from. Or their ties to a certain family. Read that Kennedy ;-) I'm from Massachusetts & it's no secret Teddy got elected because of his brother JFK. And likely remains in office because of a lingering Kennedy mystique.
I'll agree Gore was far more qualified than Bush. McCain was far more qualified than Bush. Moe, Larry & Curley would have been far more qualified than Bush!
On the Republican side I believe McCain is probably the best qualified, but it's doubtful he'll get the nomination. Just like Biden tops Clinton, Obama & Edwards but cleary won't beat them out.
I just watched Chris Matthews gushing over Giuliani calling him a tough guy cop that folks would want on the subway with them at 3AM. Now there's a great reason to back a candidate eh? ::eye roll::
I'm Italian but Rudy is the last guy I'd vote for!
Jeter, I try to watch Matthews at times, but there's only so much of him I can stomach. I'm glad to hear that you're not voting for Rudy, what do you think of Ron Paul?
Bootsy,
I like Hardball, but yeah Chris can be hard to take at times. He is so blatantly pulling for Rudy, it's embarrassing to watch.
I like Ron Paul, especially his stance on Iraq. The guy speaks honestly on every topic & that's refreshing. Of course he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination, but I enjoy hearing him speak.
I haven't got a clue just yet on how I'll vote. Quite frankly the two lineups are disappointing, IMO.
I've never been a huge Hillary fan, though I admire Bill & once considered voting for her based on the fact it would mean he'd be back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Guess that shows I wasn't exactly picking someone I considered most qualified ;-)
I suppose I could live with Romney if he ends up getting the Republican nomination. But I held my nose once before [when I voted for Bush], lived to regret it, & I'm thinking I'd sit out the election before ever doing that again!
If I were to vote for a Democrat, it would be Biden. Of course he stands about as much of a chance as Paul.
I am impressed with Obama, but I'm not sure my reasons are enough to pull the lever for him. There's something about him that does convey hope & the promise of a new direction. But I'm not quite convinced that he's ready for the job.
Who are you leaning towards?
It's funny, a couple of weeks ago I asked someone I knew who's Republican what he thought about Ron Paul. His answer? "Who's Ron Paul?" This guy watches Fox on a regular basis, so I was pretty surprised that he had no idea who the guy was. You're right though, Paul as about as much chance to get the nomination as the guy i'm leaning towards, Dennis Kucinich. (Ok yes I'm from Ohio :-) )
I do think Kucinich has some great stances on healthcare, abortion, civil liberties and drugs just to name a few. Unfortunately he's not getting as much attention from the MSM as he should. Maybe he'd get the nod as a running mate for whomever comes out on top, which right now seems the best I can hope for.
Bootsy,
Dennis Kucinich is too far to the Left for me, but I admire the guy for having principles & sticking to them.
I don't want to rain on your parade, but I don't see him as a VP pick.
This might sound nuts but here's my prediction for the Democratic Prez/Vice Prez ticket:
Edwards-Obama or possibly the other way around
And for the Republicans:
Romney-Huckabee
Actually the last person you want on the train with you at 3AM is a loud mouth "bring it on" type but when is the last time any of these millionaire pundits actually rode a train at 3AM?
Ha! Don't try to tell Matthews that, he sees Rudy as a "Big Daddy Protector" or some such nonsense. Honestly the guy literally drools when he mentions Rudy.
Yeah I wonder if Matthews has ever ridden the subway at 3AM? Not bloody likely.
Exactly. If people actually voted for the better qualified candidate we wouldn't have eight miserable years of Bush/Cheney.
The truth is that people really don't care about who is 'smart' or 'best qualified'. Most people want to vote for someone who is 'likable'... someone with whom they have some sort of personal rapport or some other bullsh*t. "Yeah, I voted for Bush cuz he's a regular folksy type of dude who would be oh-so-fun at a BBQ!" You know... THAT sort of thing.
What this means is that, like my father would say, is that the average American voter is about as intellectually equipped as a head of lettuce.
Jeter women have always had to vote for the lesser of two evils and they always have been "white men". Now we have a woman running, she’s not stupid, she can hang with the boys, she can use the fact that she’s a woman ( I, as a woman have no problem with that) and she just might be able to beat the boys. In American politics we've only had men to choose from. Sometimes, like the last two Presidential elections, unqualified men to choose from. Now because there is a woman running there are some who make a bru hah hah over the fact that women may vote for a woman based solely on her sex. What gives? Women have not made any big deal over the fact that men vote for men. Women have not made a big deal out of the fact that there have been no woman candidates. When choosing “qualifications” the last two Presidential elections tell us that the best “qualified” certainly didn’t win. I keep saying what I’ve heard from many women both young and old like me, keep picking on Hillary’s laugh, her thighs and her marriage and we will vote for her in numbers men can not imagine simply based on her gender. If you don't want "gender" to be a factor lay off Hillary's thighs, her laugh AND her marriage. By the way, tell me how big Rudy, Fred, Mitt and Huckabee's penis is. I mean if we are going to discuss Hillary's thighs lets make this far and compare.
Pearlene you're right about that...guys like Tucker are feeling really threatened right now because they know that the female vote could easily swing the election in HC's favor. Now all of a suddenly, according to Tucker, women are too sensible to get involved in politics, even though women have as much at stake in the election as anyone else.
Bootsy, the more Tucker belittles women's intelligence and Annie insults them the more women will vote for Hillary simply for spite. I've heard my female relatives say exactly that.
I agree, his biased babble doesn't hurt Hillary one bit, and probably helps her.
How funny, several weeks ago Hillary supporters were uneducated, then we were ssluts, and now we're too ingelligent ? Come on Tucks, settle on a stereotype and stick with it !
By the way, tell me how big Rudy, Fred, Mitt and Huckabee's penis is. I mean if we are going to discuss Hillary's thighs lets make this far and compare.
Geez Pearlene you just made me blush!! ;-)
Hey we all have different reasons for choosing a candidate, & maybe I just can't relate to why a woman would pick Hillary based mostly on her gender.
My wife, a Democrat, can't stomach her. She's pulling for Obama. Confidentially I think she has a crush on him ;-)
I suppose since there have only been White men I've never had to give gender or race much thought. But I'm not going to base my vote on that this time. If I vote at all.
BTW I'd gladly vote for a qualified woman, just not Hillary. I just don't see any core beliefs there. She's strictly a politician trying to elected by judging the polls, & straddling the line on various issues IMO.
My wife, a Democrat, can't stomach her. She's pulling for Obama. Confidentially I think she has a crush on him ;-) Jeter
I'm not voting for Hillary either, Obama is in the lead for getting my vote but it really bugs me how MSM covers things like thighs and cleavage. She a woman and guess what we all get that. There are enough issues to discuss with Hillary with insulting her and all woman by discussing her thighs and cleavage. It's tacky.
Sorry for the blush. ;-)
Pearlene,
I think the most ridiculous thing the media focused on was Hillary's alleged cleavage. I mean the other stuff is nonsense too, & doesn't belong in the press but the "cleavage" was the most insane. I mean what cleavage? It was barely a peek-a-boo & it was so unprofessional of the press to even focus on it.
I don't blame women for being fed up with this sort of stuff.
By the way, tell me how big Rudy, Fred, Mitt and Huckabee's penis is.
How embarrassing. They only have between them?
JETER:
The Constitution itself provides all the QUALIFICATIONS needed for a President.
1. A citizen.
2. at least 35 years old.
3. obtain the most electoral votes.
That's IT, as far as "qualifications" are concerned.
Now, PRACTICALLY, there should be OTHER qualifications needed to obtain those electoral votes, to appeal to voters.
I fear George W. Bush has dispelled this theory. On the basis of HIM, there really needs to be NO record of any experience useful to running the largest nation in the world. No personal attributes, no special knowledge, no record of accomplishments, NOTHING.
The bar has been lowered to the baseline, any 35 year old citizen. Then it's up to the campaign spinners.
Oops! Don't forget, must be born in the USA.
I always vote for someone who is at least as intelligent as me. I feel that's as low as I'm willing to set the bar, and I thought most people had that rule locked away somewhere among their reasons as well.
If that's true, the last two elections prove there must be some REALLY stupid Republicans. :-)
Well if you look at experience....HC has been in the white house, she does know how things are done.....
she has participated at the very top levels of gov. in the white house.
she is probably much more qualified than any of the others on that issue!
This makes how many networks Carlson been fired from? PBS, CNN and now MSNBC? I guess FOX NEWS will pick him up next. When will producers realize that Carlson is not an appealing person and his preppy smugness turns everyone -- conservatives and liberals -- off from watching him?
In a way I don't want MSNBC to hire Rosie. I guess you guys don't remember the daily bitchin' from O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Scarborough, Hume, etc., when she was on The View. Just think how it will be when that "liberal" network, MSNBC, hires her, with her broadcast appearing after O'Reilly's arch adversary! Rosie will be used as the face of the left, whether one considers that good or bad. Instead of reporting the news we'll get nothing but networks bashing other networks. No doubt, she will bring MSNBC some incredible ratings, probably will eclipse O'Reilly's, but I've had enough of pundits going after each other in their attempt to one-up each other.
Then again, no one rattles the Right more than Rosie O'Donnell. She inspires as much vitriol reaction from the Right as Coulter does from the Left.
Preston,
You make excellent points, well said. O'Reilly and much of Fox lives to mainstream the ultra wacky on the left - putting it out there as representative of rank and file Democrats - demonizing them all day long with people like Rosie as their "leader".
If Rosie gets her own show they will extrapolate her "out there" views as what will happen if you elect Democrats, and it is not fair.
Spot on, Tommy & Preston. Though, at the risk of having my testosterone allotment for the rest of November rescinded, I'm not sure I can agree that Tucker could not be an appealing talker. If one imagines him actually telling the truth, stop the spinning for the right and focusing on the true issues without all the speculation and fringe assertions, and actually having guests that were knowledgeable and pertinent to the topic at hand, he could be one of the top draws...
Wow. That sounded a lost less ridiculous in my head than it appears in print.
Yes I'm sure that's what the execs over at NBC are thinking about and not the fact that Rosie will draw an audience larger than Carlson and Abrams combined.
The network execs live in fear of Bill O'Reilly.
This makes how many networks Carlson been fired from? PBS, CNN and now MSNBC? I guess FOX NEWS will pick him up next.
Oh God, you are probably right. He will be the moderate, the independent, to give balance.
Now I've heard everything.
Getting involved in politics is not a sensible thing to do.
Thats why its a good idea to get them out of your head and look at them, or listen to them. It's sorta helped me on the occasion.
So Tucker's gone and Rosie's in humm? I've heard a few complain about her, never heard "political" speak from her. I'm not getting cable just so I can.
They're sensitive, New Age men. I mean, they're NPR-listening, Volvo-driving, Whole Foods-shopping. They're the kind of guys who cry during Meg Ryan movies. I mean, they're kind of in touch with their feelings. They're not manly men ... they're wimpy men."
Can someone please give this loser a wedgie?
Tucker, (is that a manly sounding name?) I am a manly man. I drive american, eat red-meat and eschew whole foods. I can hit a fast-ball, throw a curveball and I box. (But just as a hobby.) I don't cry during (or even watch) Meg Ryan movies.
And I'm definitely what you'd call a "liberal" and I'm definitely voting democrat accross the board in 2008.
As for the rest of your rant... I listen to NPR becuase, unlike most of your crowd, I actually enjoy objective information, careful and balanced analysis and, in the end, being left to form my own opinion. (It's this real moron thing us progffressives do called THINKING.) As for being "in touch with my feelings" or being "sensitive"... I am. Because when you are truly secure in your masculinity you possess sufficient courage to allowyourself some vulnerability. You are not so wrapped up with fear that you need to innoculate yourself from it. Being unable to let yourself be vulnerable is not strength - it's cowardice. It's risk aversion pure and simple.
You sir, are a pansy. A wimp. A wussy. An overgrown (and overpaid) child, sitting at the adults table.
I suspect that Tucker still harbors deep resentment for not being breast fed as child. ;>)
Where's John Stewart?
I have two words to describe your next demographic approval rating.
Lorena BobbittYeah ladies. Why don'tcha go knit a doily or something and let us men folk handle the dumb 'ol politics ...alrighty?
Yeah, don't you worry your pretty little heads about such things.
I wonder how die-hard conservative women feel when they hear this guy basically telling them to take off their shoes, get in the kitchen and fix him a meal? Sucker Carlson acts like the opportunities he's had didn't stem from bias towards his gender and race. If women or men want to vote for Hillary because she's female, so be it. And men who vote for Hillary aren't soft they are open-minded. What's so wrong with that Sucker?