On MSNBC, purveyors of sexism Buchanan and Barnicle purported to assess role of sexism in presidential campaign coverage
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Mike Barnicle and Pat Buchanan discussed whether "sexism [will] play a key role in what went wrong" in Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, with Barnicle saying that "reality," not sexism, "will play a much larger role in what has happened," and Buchanan asserting that, while "there's resistance to a woman being the nominee," "the fact that she's a woman has helped her." But Barnicle has referred to Clinton as "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court." Buchanan has described Clinton's voice as "rising to the level that every husband in America at one time or another has heard."
During the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski asked MSNBC political analyst Mike Barnicle, "[D]o you think we'll be looking back on the coverage and on the conversations pertaining to [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's run for the White House and will sexism play a key role in what went wrong?" Barnicle responded: "No, I think the further we get from this election cycle, I think reality will play a much larger role in what has happened in this election than reality is playing a part now." Later, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan stated: "[T]here's resistance to a woman being the nominee, but by and large, I think the fact that she's a woman has helped her here." But as Media Matters for America has noted, on the February 26 edition of Morning Joe, Buchanan made the admittedly "sexist" comment that when Clinton "raises her voice, and when a lot of women do, you know, it's -- as I say -- it reaches a point ... where every husband in America ... has heard at one time or another." Additionally, on the January 23 edition of the program, Barnicle had said of Clinton: "[W]hen she reacts the way she reacts to [Sen. Barack] Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court, OK? Looking at him that way, all I could think of ... was this fall, if it's [Sen. John] McCain that she's facing, McCain is likable. She's not."
After Buchanan criticized Clinton's voice on the February 26 Morning Joe, Brzezinski responded: "Oh, Pat, you're lucky you're not in the studio, I'm telling you." Buchanan said: "I know that's a sexist comment ... but there's truth to it! ... There's truth to it." He continued: "It's very difficult for women to reach those kinds of levels effectively, as it is to make them sort of a rally speech. They're not good at that." Brzezinski replied: "There is something so wrong with what you're saying, and what I fear is that the effect may be exactly what you're saying because of this double standard that people can't hear strength from a woman without using the B-word, and quite frankly, if that is what people are going to take away from this, it just seems to me as, well, everything that the Clinton campaign is arguing then." Buchanan had stated earlier: "[I]t's very tough for a woman. You see two men going back and forth at each other, you say, 'Boy, they're really going at it.' ... And you see two women or something, and say, 'Boy, what a catfight this is.' " During the April 23 edition of the show, Buchanan said of Clinton's speech following the Pennsylvania primary the day before: "[O]nly once or twice did that voice start rising to the level that every husband in America at one time or another has heard. You know, where it starts going up."
Barnicle made his January 23 comment during discussion of the January 21 Democratic presidential debate, among an all-male panel that included co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, and correspondent David Shuster.
From the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: The Washington Post -- oh, this is interesting, with these questions percolating -- with these questions percolating about sexism --
GEIST: Mm-hmm.
BRZEZINSKI: -- and whether or not Hillary Clinton maybe hasn't done so well in this election because of sexism along the way. [Syndicated columnist] Marie Cocco: "A woman? Yes. But not that woman. Is it [sic] the platitude of the moment, an automatic rejoinder to any suggestion that Hillary Clinton has struggled so desperately -- and so far unsuccessfully -- to grasp the Democratic presidential nomination in some measure because she is female. It isn't the woman part, the rationale goes. It's the Clinton part: that 'polarizing' persona and 'unlikable' demeanor. The unappetizing thought of President 'Billary.' The more inspirational quest by Barack Obama to become the country's first black president. Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who? ... Is it something about Hillary, or [is it] something about us?"
Mike Barnicle, do you think we'll be looking back on the coverage and on the conversations pertaining to Hillary Clinton's run for the White House and will sexism play a key role in what went wrong?
BARNICLE: No, I think the further we get from this election cycle, I think reality will play a much larger role in looking at what has happened in this election than reality is playing a part now. Go back six months, Mika. Hillary Clinton was ahead in every poll you could find by anywhere --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
BARNICLE: -- from 15 to 25 points. She had raised a huge amount of money. She had the endorsements of several key political leaders in each and every primary state she was in. So, guess what? When we look in the rearview mirror a year, two years down the road, if Teddy White was still here doing Making of the President, writing it out --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
BARNICLE: -- and it hit the market in two years, it'd be the fact that she was not a great candidate.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. Well, I think, yes, she evolved at the end there, and also, you can't say you want to fight to the convention and that you can win the big states if you say sexism has played a bad role along the way. So --
BARNICLE: Well, you -- you know, one of the things that she did initially, and she's been a terrific candidate for the past five or six weeks. Had she been this way from the beginning --
BRZEZINSKI: Exactly.
BARNICLE: -- she'd be the nominee.
BRZEZINSKI: I agree.
BARNICLE: But she began with this level, this sense of entitlement, and kept insisting every other sentence, "my 35 years worth of experience." And more and more people said, "Thirty-five years worth of experience? Well, tell me about that."
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
BARNICLE: "What 35 years worth of experience?"
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. There you go.
BUCHANAN: I think there's resistance -- there's resistance to a woman being the nominee, but by and large, I think the fact that she's a woman has helped her here. I mean, they rallied to her in New Hampshire --
BRZEZINSKI: Sure.
BUCHANAN: -- those women came out when she got upset by Barack Obama, who ran a phenomenal campaign --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
BUCHANAN: -- and so they rallied to her. So, I think on balance, it's been very positive, just like being an African-American --
BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely.
BUCHANAN: -- has on balance been positive for Barack.
When Hillary finally admits, and or realizes, that she herself, and the insurgence of Obama as an honorable candidate offering far more than her brand of Rovian divisiveness for president, is to blame for where she is then perhaps her healing, and that of her party, will begin.
She can whine about sexism, complain about the process, moan about this and cry about that, but she should act like a woman and do the right thing and concede what she has already lost.
Those holding your breath on that one may soon asphyxiate themselves.
"She has been the victim of sexism ie. America doesn't want an aging woman for president. But yeah its time to step aside for Obama."
No, that is only re-inforcing the notions that sexism is prevalent in this campaign.
Good question, but no doubt if he was a close second, they would claim he lost because of racism.
Using these "ism's" is a presidential campaign (sexism, racism, etc) is ridiculous. The presidential seat is not a mandated affirmative action job where you need so many of a certain race or gender. This is the best person for the job, plain and simple. The voters make their voices known, and in the end, so be it.
If Obama had pursued dishonest attacks, used Karl Rove as a source, and had said that men would not vote for Clinton, then I would absolutely be calling for him to get out of the race.
Wookie,
Lets be honest here. It's Democrats who don't want a woman as their nominee. She says she would get elected.
These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.
AA,
Are you contending that if Hillary were a man she would be the nominee? I really hope you aren't asserting that Hillary's gender is the reason people are voting against her, are you?
AA,
Can I fairly conclude from your logic that if Hillary is the nominee and you vote against her that you don't want a woman to be President? Likewise, from your logic, can I conclude that if you vote for McCain against Obama that you don't want a black man to be President?
Fried,
Everyone is missing the point. It is the Democrats that are making these choices of either being for or against a woman or being for or against a black man. It's Democrats who are voting for these candidates based on their gender or race rather than issues.
All this sanctimonious talk against Republicans being sexist or racist while Democrats are not, is simply projection. Democrats are proving they are filled with people who vote simply based on gender and/or race.
This facade of Democrats being non-sexist and non-racist is coming apart.
Pot meet kettle.
AA,
You are missing my point. I did not vote for Hillary because of her hawkish foreign policy views. I did not vote for Hillary because of the way she has run her campaign. Plus, with few differences between the two on policy issues, I didn't want to hear the smear machine dredge up old, unfounded rumors. Nothing brings out the worst in SOME (not all) Republicans, than the name "Clinton." I also like Obama's message. At this point it might be rhetoric, but none of us know. He seems sincere, and I like the way he responds to attack politics. NONE of my reasons, as you can see, have to do with race or gender. I am terribly insulted, as I am guessing most people on this site are, that you would make this into a race or gender issue.
If you are truly saying this is a case where "pot meets kettle" you are calling both parties racists and sexists, are you not? Please clarify your point on this, AA. You are basically saying that if Dems don't vote for Obama, they are racist and if they don't vote for Hillary, they are sexist. If I have you wrong, please correct me.
It is the Democrats that are making these choices of either being for or against a woman or being for or against a black man. - AA
Really? What Democrats are making those assertions? Outside of some bloggers I've seen little of that. It seems to be more of a news pundit talking point than an actual electoral phenomenon.
It's Democrats who are voting for these candidates based on their gender or race rather than issues. - AA
I won't deny that gender or race are factors, but neither candidate would have the support of women or African Americans without positions on issues that those groups could support. We have two candidates, both intelligent, qualified, strong and inspiring who are very close to each other on policy issues. After those factors are taken into account, it's not sexist or racist to next give consideration to the potential breakthrough either would be if he/she became President.
This facade of Democrats being non-sexist and non-racist is coming apart. - AA
The facade portraying Democrats as equal to Republicans in sexism and racism is coming apart.
So many things incorrect about your post; let's just start with a few:
(1) the age analogy comes closest to being right, because age, like gender and race, is an immutable characteristic. However, it is not the same because older people have not been systematically excluded from the Presidency. We've had plenty of seniors aspire to and get elected to that role. It is also more potentially relevant to the job qualifications than is gender or race, e.g., people who are very inexperienced are less likely to be qualified, and there are age related detriments in certain physical and mental abilities, even though they don't affect all people equally.
(2) Your other analogies do not work at all. Behaving like a wimp or skirt-chaser is exactly that - behaving. It's not a characteristic someone can't change. Criticizing an individual for perceived his or her bad behavior is entirely different from stereotyping or discriminating based on gender or race.
(3) A case can be made that NO white male should be asked to comment on whether racism or sexism is present, e.g., on the grounds that their systematic group privilege renders them far less qualified to understand and judge discrimination than people who have been far more frequently disadvantaged by this process. This would disqualify Buchanan and Barnicle. It may also account for why you don't see the sexism that MMFA has clearly pointed out in their behavior, and you ought to spend more time considering that possibility than in making assertions to the contrary. However, people who believe that ruling out all white men as commentators is too extreme because it does not take into account individual differences still have plenty of basis for disqualifying these two nimrods -- namely, the evidence MMFA has pointed out that they themselves have engaged in. If NBC insists on finding a white male to comment on sexism or racism, perhaps they should try to find someone who has actually studied discrimination systematically and knows something about it. There are plenty of such white men to choose from.
Her "popular vote" argument is bogus and disingenuous, yet the Press just parrots it without correction. What's up with that? The Democratic party is headed for a cliff if they don't resolve this quickly.
The Dem party was screwed after Iowa, the moment they declared her a loser just because she didn't win the first primary.
She is an *incredible* close second and her supporters do not want her to back out. If you think her continued presence is damaging, I assure you the calls for her to quit are even more so.
Do you honestly think if the situation were reversed, if Clinton were ahead and Obama were a close second, that anyone would be calling for Obama to quit ?? Answer honestly now.
YES WE WOULD
With a contest that has ALWAYS been about delegates, both super and otherwise, if Obama was behind 145 delegates and 34 superdelegates and Hillary was within a mere 62 delegates of winning the nomination outright...then not only would we be asking him to step aside but so would the press. Those 62 are inevitable. The show is over.
And while Obama is on the trail praising Hillary...Hillary is out TRASHING Obama and the campaign he has run
I'll bet you my life if she had lost in Florida and Michigan she would be fighting tooth and nail to not seat ANY of them
Its time to unite...If she was the better nominee she wouldn't be so far behind
Such as evidence presened by Eric Boehlert:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200804300001
That wasn't what was being asked
It was, at this point in what I refer to as the Never Ending, Goal Post Moving, Mathematically challenged, rule changing in the middle of the game Primary, whether Obama suppporters would be ok if the roles were reversed and the answer is yes.
Look, Hillary said it was about the delegates...Obama leads, then she said it was about the supers...Obama leads, now if you can handle the chutzpah it's about who wins Kentucky and West Virginia?!?
Gimme a F'n break...if you think the Democrats chance at being President hinges on Kentucky and West Virginia then don't hold your breath
Obama hasn't run a "phenomenal campaign", he's where he is because, as Carlos Mencia says, he's the whitest black dude ever ... and also because he has perfected the "I'm a victim of racism" whine.
Barnicle is so lacking objectivity I have no idea why they use him as an "analyst". He doesn't analyze, he just spews his biased pre-formed opinions.
Why don't any of these pseudo-pundits actually talk to voters instead of concocting their own theories about what has happened and what is yet to happen ? One dumb bimbo on CNN insists that the Clinton supporters will "come around" after Obama gets the nomination. Uh, not according to what I've read and heard. Like this chick is totally out of touch with the voters and just hurling her own opinionated vomit.
Please show us specifically where and when Obama as perfected the "I am a victim of racism" whine?
Tommy, Carlos is a comedian who's comedy is funny IF you believe each and EVERY stereotype of minorities he portrays.
Hillary is losing because of Hillary, NO ONE ELSE!
Hey J,
Long time no "see", but I can't get here as often as I would like to anymore.
It's BarnIcle, not Barnacle.
And your theory is all wrong, I assure you. I'm not criticizing blacks for voting for Obama. I'm criticizing Obama for playing the race card but then whining that everyone else is.
Here is an excerpt from a Chicago Tribune article available on Obama's own web site:
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/
Obama-hypocrite flogged Ferraro for saying the exact same thing about him that he said about himself. What an ass.
Now if this is the candidate you prefer, by all means vote for him. But don't expect me to swoon like a groupie. I see through him.
Btw, you and the other Obamabots can bash us Clinton supporters all you want, but the fact is *we* now have the upper hand. Obama NEEDS OUR VOTES. You will pay for your misdeeds in November.
Don’t expect an answer. Moreover, Atheist just called Barnacle Black since she herself lacks the objectivity she says he lacks. She is passionately pro-Clinton and the idea of having a female president in 2008 and she is vehemently anti-Obama and anti-his supporters particularly his AA supporters because we are getting in the way of what she wants. Atheist feels entitled to have things her way which is why she lashes out at anyone like a crazy she devil anytime they disagree with her or they get in the way of what she demands. To sum it up unfortunately Atheist and other feminists are pissed with Black people so now they share a similar view of many right wingers, and roughly about 22% of White Appalachian Democrats that all Blacks are just whiny pains in the asses and it’s them against us, and Hilary’s rhetoric and even more so what she hasn’t said is encouraging this sentiment. I am very very sorry to see things come to this in the Democratic Party yet here we are.
Naw, I'll just read what Lynn wrote
Its the only part the makes sense
Go ahead and vote McCain if you can live with yourself after, its a judgement on your own flawed and bitter character, no one elses
Hillary is a F'n brand name, biggest thing in the party after Kennedy and she got her gorram doors blown off in the primary, she lost, Obama will net the last 67 delegates in no time
Its time for Hillary voters to ask themselves a hard question- What is my vote worth? Is it worth wasting on bitterness over a loss when thousands of US soldiers are stranded in Iraq and the US economy is swirling ever downward? Is it?
I'm not voting for McCain. If Clinton isn't on the Dem ticket, I'll either vote for a 3rd party candidate or I won't vote at all.
The actual reason I wouldn't vote for Obama in November is the reason I didn't vote for him in the Illinois primary. I think he's a manipulative self serving hypocrite and fake, with the worst delusions of garndeur I've seen outside of the Catholic church. What amazes me is the continued vitriol of the Obamabots against the Clinton supporters. Don't you people realize you NEED our votes ?? Do you really think the way to win us over is to continue to bash the candidate we prefer, and to continue to bash us because we want her to stay in the race ? Really DUMB tactic. If your candidate is ahead and you're so convinced he's the nominee, then why are you so bitter all of the time ?? Why not just bask in your victory ?
Lynn, I haven't forgotten Atheist. She's the one who felt that Obama wasn't really black enough, he was just pretending to get the black vote. She also felt that Obama was dismissing his mother who was white.
It's Obama/the media's fault that Hillary didn't plan for a campaign after Super Tuesday. It's Obama/the media's fault that Hillary choose to run as an incumbent, assuming the nomination was hers. It's Obama/the media's fault that Hillary made comments on race, you know those "hard working Americans, those White hard working Americans". It's all Obama/ the media's fault that Hillary's only getting 5% of the African American vote because African Americans always vote for African Americans. Of course women who support Hillary cannot be accuse of only supporting a woman THEY have valid reasons. It's Obama/the media's fault that Hillary voted for the war. It never ends with excuses for Hillary losing but the simple truth is Hillary is responsible for Hillary's current position!
So when it comes to Atheist's comments I consider the source.
Pearlene, you've got it all wrong, you've misstated my position, but it doesn't matter because you don't care if you are right or wrong. You're just pissed because I don't and won't support your candidate.
I have now said this many times and I will say it again: Obama NEEDS the votes of the Clinton supporters. He cannot win without them.
With that as a mathematical fact, what are you going to do ? Continue to bash Clinton and her supporters, forever ending any hopes that they will ever vote for Obama ? Or try to win their support ? It's your call.
Pearlene, you've got it all wrong, you've misstated my position, but it doesn't matter because you don't care if you are right or wrong. You're just pissed because I don't and won't support your candidate.
Atheist, IT'S YOUR RIGHT to vote for whomever you choose.
As far as misstating your statement, you said:
Anyway, I think it would be more likely that the Hillary supporters wouldn't seek revenge on Obama if he wins the nomination, so they will vote for him. Unfortunately I think exactly the opposite will happen if Hillary wins, the pissy Obama supporters will seek revenge ... and install another Republican president.
- atheist / Saturday January 26, 2008 3:35:15 PM EST
Now you're saying:
If Clinton isn't on the Dem ticket, I'll either vote for a 3rd party candidate or I won't vote at all.
I have now said this many times and I will say it again: Obama NEEDS the votes of the Clinton supporters. He cannot win without them.
I almost got caught up in this myself ! I won't be a patsy. If Hilary doesn't win the nomination, I WILL vote for Obama.
- atheist / Saturday January 26, 2008 2:40:47 PM EST
With that as a mathematical fact, what are you going to do ? Continue to bash Clinton and her supporters, forever ending any hopes that they will ever vote for Obama ? Or try to win their support ? It's your call.
You want so badly for your candidate to win that you are blaming any of his losses on the Clintons rather than on the people who actually voted. Revenge will backfire on you.
- atheist / Saturday January 26, 2008 3:48:43 PM EST
As you said, revenge will backfire on you. I'm not going to kiss a single Clinton's supporters a**/ If having your temper tantrum is more important to you, fall on the floor and bang your head till it hurts or you pass out!
If the roles were reversed and Hillary was leading and the 95% of African Americans that didn't vote for her said exactly what you've said, WHAT would YOU do? Keep calling Obama supporters names? You would need them to win as well. It can work both ways, so while you wishing for a Hillary win, be careful what you wish for, you may be asking yourself the same question you just asked me.
Well that would be my question !
But it no longer matters. Now we're in a new phase of the "game". Obama needs the votes of the Clinton supporters. How is he going to do that when that Gallup poll revealed that only 60% of them said they will vote for him ?
Gallup poll revealed that only 60% of them said they will vote for him ?
That 60% DESERVE 4 more years of Bush policy.
Atheist...over 1 million donors with an average donation of $37...
...crowds of 20-75 thousand...
his campaign is nothing short of "phenomenal."
And not once, not once has Obama claimed to be a victim of racism throughout his campaign. I dare you to find me one credible link otherwise.
Yes but Atheist said "and also because he has perfected the "I'm a victim of racism" whine." implying that he has done this.
And what about her white America comments? That's pretty hard to misinterpret.
Any half-black candidate as white as Obama would have the same support. THE ONLY REASON HE IS AS POPULAR AS HE IS IS BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR !
He admits it himself:
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
Any half-black candidate as white as Obama would have the same support. THE ONLY REASON HE IS AS POPULAR AS HE IS IS BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR ! He admits it himself: - Atheist
No, Obama did not say the same thing. His comments didn't come close to saying that his color is the only reason for his success. What he said is that he has benefitted from it, but he has also pointed out that it's also been a disadvantage. It's not an either/or situation.
It would be interesting to know exactly what he said, rather than simply rely on a reporter's paraphrase years after the discussion.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
BARNICLE: -- from 15 to 25 points.'
Yes but that was before the first vote was cast. It was the Washington inside the beltway pundits, all saying that and she believed them-that was her real problem and she ran her campaign accordingly.
I am a proud Obama supporter, but I get insulted when these "men" talk to us about sexism involving senator Clinton.
The Democrats have made their own bed by their courting different constituencies that are based not on ideology but victimology . The party has pulled in feminists and blacks with the constant harangue of 'fighting' for them and their rights.
Now we have them fighting each other and no matter who wins, the other will be victimized once again.
The Dems politics of victimhood is coming back to hurt them.
AA,
Your off the wall views always give me a good laugh.
AA, You make a good point, similar to the one made on the Limbaugh thread yesterday......they were just fine as long as certain non-disruptive constituencies were nicely in their place and only rose to a certain non-threatening level within their ranks, or didn't have to compete against each other on such a national stage. But now that those special interest groups who have been pandered to effectively are going head to head, it has gotten rather ugly, primarily due to Hillary, who doesn't give a damn, it's all about her, nobody else.
AA,
It breaks my heart to see what is going on in the Democratic Party, and I know my pain is your joy, but anyway you chastise the Dems for having this chaotic my group against your group non-sense play out but you know what it's true you might never see this in the party you embrace because your party is homogenic since it is essentially comprised of and lead by one group, I believe Bill O'rielly calls them WCMs. Anyway it is my prayer that my party will get through this. We are going through a transition now as we not just pull diverse groups into a party that emphasizes our shared values and desires but there are some birthing pains happening now as we ascend members of those diverse groups from just a seat at the table but into leadership positions and in this case the top leadership position. I believe we will get to where we need and want to be. The right people could lead us through this transition, but the Clintons in my opinion aren’t the right people to do this, but there are many in the party that could. In spite of all of this, we are progressing baby!!!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/clinton-gave-voters-permi_b_103085.html
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard Obama say that Clinton couldn't reach "hard working black Americans".
Pitiful is the word, for sure. Just when you think she is ready to unify the party and put her own personal ambitions aside, she pulls something else out of her hat, now it's the sexism issue. Shameless is the only word I can think of, I firmly believe that she wants to injure Obama and her party so badly that McCain wins, and she can swoop down in 2012 and be the savior.
As I said, if Obama nabs her for VP, he has lost my vote.
Keep screaming, no ones listening
When the Red Sox blow the doors off the Yankees we don't play nice
Its competetion, she was ready to play now she needs to accept that she lost...a 200 delegate margin isn't close
Unfortunately Mitt Romney showed more class
I was a Hillary fan until the 3am ad
Now that her husband is a guest on Limbaugh and Ferraro lives on Foxnews and Hillary guests on O'Reilly...I am washing my hands of her
I'd like to Kick Ickes a$$ too for being a snake
She can run with Lieberman for all I care, they'd be a perfect match
No middle of the night phone calls ? Or are you offended because she used a landline and not a cell phone ?
Hillary DID NOT have Natl Security clearence during her ENTIRE 8 years in the White house. Without that clearence she couldn't even be in the room when Natl Security issues were discussed.
THAT commercial wants people to believe she knows about the 3am calls when all she knows is the phone rang!
It doesn't matter what you think. Clinton's supporters want her to stay in the race, and the calls for her to quit are going to hurt Obama in the end.
Oh yeah that's real adult, blame Obama for something he never said, makes it much easier to blame someone else. If the roles were reversed and Clinton were ahead (thank God she's not) that Junior Senator from Illinois would have been forced out months ago when it became apparent that there was no way he could win.
As I have said elsewhere, Obama NEEDS the votes of the Clinton supporters.
LOL
If Clinton supporters, especially women think that Obama will have to kiss their a**, buy a clue. If Obama's loss is because female Hillary supporters switched to McCain, they deserve a reversal of Roe v Wade. You see there's a lot at stake for women and control of their body is just one example. McCain's Supreme Court nominee won't be obvious, but it will be conservative enough to swing the vote. And that's just a preview of the things McCain will do. So before you run out telling everyone how Obama needs you don't forget you need Obama as well.
Without them he will not win. He will not lose because of racism, though he and his Obamabots will whine that it's so.
You can deny that the 22% of both West Virginia and Kentucky only voted for Hillary because she's white and you pretend that racism doesn't exist but then again YOU think Obama's not black enough so what to do know.
Pearlene,
Could it not be that the whites voted for Hillary because Obama did not campaign in WV or TN and has been noticeably weak in addressing the concerns of Reagan-Democrats in those States.
You illustrate a great point. As an Obama supporter you are claiming racism when your candidate loses.
Hillary's backers claim sexism when she loses.
The dilemma that the Democrats face is that it could be you are correct. Maybe the Democratic Party is full of racists and sexists?
"Maybe the Democratic Party is full of racists and sexists?"
AA, you're post made sense, but you had to tack on that piece of fluff on the end. I, being a white male, did not vote for Hillary because she voted for the war. Plain and simple. Not because she is a woman. Many, many others hold the same views.
And yes, there are racists and sexists in the Democratic party, but it's not "full of them" as you seem to suggest. Hold a mirror up to your own party of you're going to throw out such a baseless accusation.
DB,
I did not make the accusation, I merely asked the question since it is your party that has the candidates and the voters who seem to be voting either way based on gender and race.
I agree with you on on part of your note. I too vote on issues. I find it ironic that the Democrats and so many here are now faced with the fact that for all their highminded rhetoric, their party is being split because their members seem to be dividing themselves based on gender and race. Two issues which the Democrats have prided themselves on for years.
As an Obama supporter you are claiming racism when your candidate loses.
AA, acknowledging and accepting that racism still exists is not the same as saying if Obama loses it's because of race. I can't give you a reason if Obama's loses becuase if hasn't happened!
The dilemma that the Democrats face is that it could be you are correct. Maybe the Democratic Party is full of racists and sexists?
AA, I'm not a member of the Democratic party but I'm still a proud card carrying liberal.
The Clinton campaign is grasping at straws. It's almost embarrassing to watch.
Sorry Mr. Mike you sexist schmuck, I think in 6 months from now the opposite will occur.
Well, maybe not in six months. I cannot wait to get far enough away from this and the voices of actual thinkers, intellectuals, people with minds instead of ageendas start offering some analysis. There are columns and articles out there but you have to dig and dig hard to find them.
Shelbey Steele wrote an interesting column a while back. Sean Wilentz as well.
Of course since they weren't falling at the feet i(or is it feat) in supplication toward Obama and his supporters they have either been ignored or villified. Now Maureen Dowd gets mentioned. how amusing.
These people who clam to be analysts have taken journalism to a low I didn't think possible.
It's fine for them to have an opinion if they weren't 1. spewing it as if its fact and with such vehemence and contempt. and 2. if they were actually commenting on the content of what was said instead of spinning it to make their biased point of view into "truthiness."
The Clinton comments on sexism are a perfect example. Shewasn't saying that the media coverage was sexist (though she could have)and that is why she is losing. She said that many women are offended by the sexism out there, she was pointing out that examples of sexism and vitriolic flat out misogyny is not covered as racism is and it should be (and that is sexist in itself IMHO). . (paraphrase obviously)She didn't accuse the Obama campaign of sexism (though she could have) It isn't the sexist coverage it is the LACK of coverage of sexism.
PAY ATTENTION! Do I need to repeat it? It is the LACK of coverage of sexism and misogyny that Clinton is commenting on... she isn't blaming anyone, she isn't accusing anyone. She is making an observation that sexism and misogyny are not ever on the radar.
Maybe SNL needs to do another skit pointing it out.
Good idea, I think I'll write to them.
Not one of the pundits or news stories covered the comments in any way resembling what she actually said.
Damn, what do they teach in journalism school? What do they teach to all these well educated Obama supporters that love to jump on any MSM meme as if it is fact as long as it is against Clinton? doesn't anyone know how to listen and think critically anymore?
UGHWell, not if you have an agenda I guess.
Here is just one example.
The case of the Curious George tee shirt. It was rightly covered and protests documented in an even handed way. It was rightly condemend, no spin. Great. Bravo.
The same bar has a marquee outside where the interviews are taking place. The marquee says in big, unmistakable letters; "I wish Hillary had married OJ." the marquee doesn't show and the sign is never mentioned.
the racist content of a tee shirt (that says Obama o8 BTW) is deemed worthy of coverage but the utter , flat out hatefullness of wishing a woman dead and not just dead but murdered in the most brutal and horrific fashion is not deemed worthy of coverage.
Give me a break.No sexism? no bias? no slant?
Now that is a fairy tale.
If you think that, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
The Clinton campaign took a few cheap shots at Obama, as well..... but Grampy McBush was the real winner.