Discussing poll, Dick Morris claimed "weak[]" Obama won "female" virtues while McCain won "male" virtues
Discussing the results of a USA Today/Gallup poll in a column posted on The Hill's website on April 8, Fox News contributor Dick Morris wrote: "So [Sen. Barack] Obama won the traditional Democratic (and female) virtues of understanding problems and caring about people. [Sen. John] McCain won the usual Republican (and male) virtues of strong leadership and efficient management." In the column, headlined "Obama's weakness is weakness," Morris noted that based on the results of the poll, a higher percentage of respondents thought Obama "[c]ares about the needs of people like you," "[s]hares your values," and "[u]nderstands the problems Americans face in their daily lives," while a higher percentage of respondents thought McCain "[i]s a strong, decisive leader," "[i]s honest and trustworthy," and "[c]an manage the government efficiently" (the poll uses the word "effectively"). Morris is therefore making the following assertions: the qualities of strength, decisiveness, and efficiency are male and Republican; the qualities in which Obama outpolls McCain are female and Democratic; Obama is "weak[]"; and women are weak.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances in which media figures characterized Obama (here and here) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) (here, here, here, and here) as feminine during the 2008 presidential campaign, or reinforced the characterization of the Democratic and Republican parties as the "Mommy" and "Daddy" parties, respectively.
From Morris' April 8 column:
The USA Today/Gallup Poll of late March suggests a strategy for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the general election. The poll compared Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and McCain on certain key variables. Here were the results:
Obama won:
- Cares about the needs of people like you, 66% to 54%
- Shares your values, 51% to 46%
- Understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives, 67% to 55%
McCain won:
- Is a strong, decisive leader, 56% to 69%
- Is honest and trustworthy, 63% to 67%
- Can manage the government efficiently, 48% to 60%
Neither won:
- Has a clear plan for solving the country's problems, 41% to 42%
- Has a clear vision for the country's future, 67% to 65%
- Would work well with both parties in Washington to get things done, 62% to 61%
- Is someone you would be proud to have as president, 57% to 55%
So Obama won the traditional Democratic (and female) virtues of understanding problems and caring about people. McCain won the usual Republican (and male) virtues of strong leadership and efficient management.
I don't want to use the "sexist" word but...
in this case it seems to be appropriate.
"i dont want to use the word sexist"
I do. And I know a bunch of female managers in my office who would be surprised to know that 'strong leadership' is a male trait.
This isnt a sexist statement as its not an attack on females, nor does it discriminate against them from doing anything.
Although the comment may be viewed as distasteful to some, or many, the point was comparing the democratic party to those virtues that are contained in the good old meaning of "motherly love", while comparing the republican party to the old phrase of "he who brings home the bacon".
Lets all agree it was distasteful, but dont be so quick to pull out the "sexist" card because its not accurately categorized under that.
Its not sexist, its just being too sensitive. He never said that there was anything wrong w/ being female, he just compared the democratic party to a female.
Its nothing more than a distasteful comparison.
GMAFB.
In other words, Republicans can't win on the issues, and they know it. Meanwhile, Pigboy Limbaugh continues to bloviate about Liberals making decisions based on emotion.
I dont agree with all stances by either party, but your assertion here is just as wrong as the ones you are bloviating against. There are obviously enough people in the US who agree with Repulicans on certain issues, and enough that agree with Democrats on certain issues.
Not every decision can be based on emotions, and not every decisions can be made without any emotion.
Now, if every seat in congress, and if every president in history was a Democrat, you would have something here. However, that is not true, and nor is your assertion that the Democratic party is always right, and will always win.
You require a rather high burden of proof methinks.
How about: 8 years of W and 14 of the last 16 years of republican controlled congress? Balance that with... well, pretty much everything that's going on right now (pick an issue) and the fact that W, and Congress both have abysmal ratings (trending downward), and that (barring some huge change in polling data) the Pub's appear poised to lose even more seats as well as the WH in 2008?
I'd say that you overstimate the number of people who "agree with the republican's" on most issues. And the right wing noise-machine knows it. They know what's at stake here, and they're running a full court press to try and avoid the inevitable backlash for their failed policies.
"Obviously enough people agreed with their stances to vote them in. This isnt rocket science my freind...its just your partisonship leaking out of the woodwork"
I have yet to meet in person a Republican who voted because of the candidates stances. Unless by stances you mean that they are "Godly" (my mom) that if the Democrats take control the terrorists win (the rest of my entire family) or because Hannity doesn't approve (some of my co-workers.)
A lot of the Republican vote was garnered by fear-mongering and outright lying.
THen you obviously havent met very many people, so time to come out of your box.
Many people who vote republican vote because they agree with the stances...or even becuase they disagree with the democrat stances. Then again, maybe theres people who just vote for whoever because they dont understand the ballot.
But who will win if they go toe-to-toe?
If they go toe to toe, Dick Morris will suck. That's what he always does to toes.
Either way he is a hell of a basketball player considering his age and all. I hope he can throw a ball. I 'm so tired of seeing Presidents throwing out the first pitch like sissies. Despite the effectiveness of Bill Clinton, he threw a ball like a beauty queen.
So far, regarding substance, Obama has shown none. He had a hard time deciding whether or not Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies of the olympics. Fortunately, he was able to grab on to Sen. Clinton's coattails to give an answer. What would he be like if he had to make a spur of the moment decision?
I am much more interested in a nominee who knows the issues, has good judgment....I could give a rat's patootie if he is a good basketball player. According to Chris Matthews, it is a given he would be a good b-baller.
"So far, regarding substance, Obama has shown none."
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Define "substance"...
Obama has dreams of "what would really be nice"...when common sense and history shows that they are just not feasible. Thats a "dream", not "substance".
"Hope is not substance"
The burden is on you to identify where he lacks substance. As indicated above you have defined it in a specific manner so it shouldn't be hard for you to specifically show areas in which he lacks substance. I'll make it easy...pick any substantive issue and show me how he lacks substance. *Hint* you should at least make sure his policy position isn't specifically outlined on his website, or elswhere.
Memo to self. . . Design pink background bumper sticker "Pussy bowlers for Obama". Set up sales stand at CPAC convention. Retire early. </snark>
The Clintons might have done some bad things, but giving this tool a voice has to rank up there as one of the worst.
No doubt. But then instead of viewing her as a desperate liar who will do anything for a vote....i'll also have to start viewing her as the 60yr old bartender who thinks she is still hot enough to work for tips.
Sorry Hillary, but keep the pant suit on, and well covered.
As soon as I see Dick Morris's name in the headline I know what follows will be bullsh#t.
Why does anyone care what this fool says? He's wrong 99% of the time. Actually maybe it's 100%? I can't think of anything he's ever said that was proven correct.
Hey Jeter!
Message to slicky dick - you can take the rental out for a spin, but on November 8th, bend over cause I'm driving!
Jeter,
That should make you wonder more about Hillary's judgement as it was her who brought him in to the White House. I wonder how many other little dick morris' she is surrounding herself with now.
As an Obama supporter, I'm going to have to give Dick Morris a pass on this one. Clearly, Morris is making an analytical point here.
This may surprise people, but I think that Morris likes Obama.
You are a liar and a fool.
Is this a "macro" of yours that automatically pastes when you go to reply? Clearly he was posting a personal opinion, and never claimed anything to be a "fact", so he didn't lie.
I agree, yet you didn't even comment on NAC's posts.
I havent had anything good or bad to say about them. They are opinionated, but nothing that grabs my interest to elaborate my point on view on. Im not an Obama support, and I could care less about what Dick Morris does, or doesnt say/do. Neither have any influence on me.
Columbus...Solon writes invective when he sees in his mind dumb of moronic things that aren't worthy of debate. Most, if not all of NAC's posts are exactly those things. Go back through some of the past three days and you'll definitely see a pattern of "I'm an Obama supporter but this Republican is right on the money and Obama is a scary Muslim who is trying to infiltrate America to perform Jihad"
That being said, I don't necessarily like it when Solon gets ranty, but by this point I don't think he's going to change, and really, a few of the people on here deserve it.
And yes, he is an excellent debater when he wants to be.
But who wins the terrorist thug virtues? Former Democrat President Jimmy, yes that's my brother Billy whizzing on Air Force One's tires, Carter.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. You screwed up the 70's for us, why are you still doing it to us now too? Stop continuing to french kiss every freaking terrorist that give you the chance.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=51009§ionid=351020202
"What has code Pink or Al Gore done to fight terrorism. Nothing."
Ahh but they're not all for "blow(ing) them all away, in the name of the Lord." They weren't the ones who were pushing for this war, and they weren't the ones who followed the President blindly into a sectarian conflict that will not be resolved until we leave.
And like it was mentioned earlier, Who in the Bush Administration has spent time in service overseas? None of them. Al Gore served in Vietnam as a war journalist at least.
Ahh but they're not all for "blow(ing) them all away, in the name of the Lord."
No, they'd rather all of us dance around in circles wearing pink tootoo's in the middle of San Francisco, smoking pot, and throwing eggs at every soccer mom who drives and SUV.
Columbus,
Al Gore has nothing to do with this. Proudconservative makes a habit of trashing others who take actions on an issue they are passionate about. You may or may not agree with Carter but at least he DOES something. That being said, Proudconservative is 100% behind the failed policies of this war on terror. My point is what has he done to contribute to a cause he is so passionate about. Has he volunteered to serve? Has he contributed money? I have much disdain for a chickenhawk. A war is not worthy unless you would fight it yourself.
Al Gore has nothing to do with this. Proudconservative makes a habit of trashing others who take actions on an issue they are passionate about.
I know, I was just making a point by inferring that its not right to accuse Proudconservative of not doing anything to fight terrorism, when the fact is many people have not. I wasn't inferring that you were incorrect though.
You may or may not agree with Carter but at least he DOES something.
I know, as i stated I saw Carter as an ineffective president. But did not discount that he may bring some good with what he's doing.
That being said, Proudconservative is 100% behind the failed policies of this war on terror. My point is what has he done to contribute to a cause he is so passionate about. Has he volunteered to serve? Has he contributed money? I have much disdain for a chickenhawk. A war is not worthy unless you would fight it yourself.
I dont think that makes him a chickenhawk. It just means that some people are big on talk, small on action. Thats all. Personally, if someone told me that I could not be behind the war becuase I am not active military, I would refute that by saying you should not be able to be president and control the military unless you were in the military. Neither is necessarily true.