I don't get it ???????????????????

Anonymous
Re this "Clinton supporters suggested that any woman but Clinton would be unacceptable. So, blame those women for that particular glass ceiling."-

HUH? Since when does Obama campaign listen to what HRC supporters want? You've got to be kidding me.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:I am not wrong. I hardly call more than half the PG County Council and a former County exec a "handful of dead enders'. Their protest worked.

Maryland Gazette of Politics 1/17/2007:
"A group of prominent Prince George’s Democrats endorsed Republican candidate Michael S. Steele for U.S. Senate, citing concerns that Prince Georgians, and particularly black candidates, were not being included in the Democratic Party’s upper echelons.
Baker said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. and House Speaker Michael E. Busch got the message and have given several Prince George’s senators and delegates meaningful committee assignments."


You are indeed wrong. The votes in PG County were 154,798 to 49,484 in favor of Cardin. The protest failed to have any visible impact on the election and those who supported Steele simply displayed their own irrelevance. They were ignored by the vast majority of voters.

Yes, after the election, moves were made on both the state and federal levels to be more inclusive of PG County African Americans. However, those efforts were not a response to a toothless protest but rather as a normal process of addressing the needs of an overwhelmingly supportive constituency.


Anonymous
To the PP who demanded that the Obama campaign find a female spokesperson, have you been paying attention at all? Otherwise how could you have failed to notice Susan Rice, one of Obama's most important foreign policy advisors. She is a serious player and very well-respected on the merits of her experience and expertise, and has been all over the news explaining his views on each and every foreign policy issue. I'm sure that there are others as well in other areas, who are part of the Obama campaign not because of race or gender but because of qualifications.

And if people want to place blame for the fact that Hillary was not a finalist for the VP slot, they should look not at Obama but at her husband... Bill Clinton has been a major detriment to her throughout the campaign and even more so with his very obvious sour grapes since she conceded. How could any candidate take on that baggage if he hoped to win (and govern successfully)? Ironic that the former president played a major role in helping Hillary get ahead (i.e., would she have had any chance of winning her Senate seat as a new resident of NY who had NOT been first lady?) but also in limiting her ultimate prospects...
Anonymous
You know, I work for a tv station, & I don't get these bitter HRC supporters either. I like Hillary, I wish Obama had picked her. But, with that, if you would stop being so "angry", & really listen to what Hillary is saying, there's no way you couldn't vote for Obama. She's speaking right now, & her message is so clear. Unless you want another Republican administration, & the havoc that they have created, then Obama should be the next president of United States. Try to get past your bitterness & LISTEN.
Anonymous
PP, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but Susan Rice falls far short of well-respected in the DC policy community.
Anonymous
If it was a normal response to AA's being good democrats, why didn't it happen before 2006? AA Dems have been winning elections for Maryland for years, and it was only after the leadership threatened to bolt the party they were given their due. Dean and Lierman were embarrassed about the lack of diversity in Maryland leadership, and they should have been.
Anonymous
13:03 poster - not sure where YOU come from, but among anyone who wants to get anywhere on a prospective Obama foreign policy team, there is a great deal of respect for Susan Rice. And while you can go ahead and diss her anonymously here, you may just end up working for her if there is an Obama administration.

BTW, I only raised her name b/c PPs were accusing the Obama campaign of excluding women, which is patently false. I find it sad but predictable that the only response to the news that there is in fact at least one very senior woman on the campaign is to impugn her credentials (without any actual specifics). But I'm sure the critical poster has a more impressive resume than Dr. Rice, who was a Rhodes scholar, PhD in political science, senior NSC & State Dept official and yes widely-respected academic.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:BTW, I only raised her name b/c PPs were accusing the Obama campaign of excluding women, which is patently false. I find it sad but predictable that the only response to the news that there is in fact at least one very senior woman on the campaign is to impugn her credentials (without any actual specifics). But I'm sure the critical poster has a more impressive resume than Dr. Rice, who was a Rhodes scholar, PhD in political science, senior NSC & State Dept official and yes widely-respected academic.


Also, remember that Samantha Power was a high-level Obama foreign policy advisor.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:13:03 poster - not sure where YOU come from, but among anyone who wants to get anywhere on a prospective Obama foreign policy team, there is a great deal of respect for Susan Rice. And while you can go ahead and diss her anonymously here, you may just end up working for her if there is an Obama administration.

BTW, I only raised her name b/c PPs were accusing the Obama campaign of excluding women, which is patently false. I find it sad but predictable that the only response to the news that there is in fact at least one very senior woman on the campaign is to impugn her credentials (without any actual specifics). But I'm sure the critical poster has a more impressive resume than Dr. Rice, who was a Rhodes scholar, PhD in political science, senior NSC & State Dept official and yes widely-respected academic.


Rice is not well-respected on a personal or professional level around here because she is a tireless self-promoter. This is certainly not a secret amongst any of us who have worked in policy and on Africa issues. Her CV is certainly nothing if not outstanding. But this isn't about her, it's about Obama, and as long as he hasn't hired John Prendergast (please tell me he hasn't), he's doing fine.
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:BTW, I only raised her name b/c PPs were accusing the Obama campaign of excluding women, which is patently false. I find it sad but predictable that the only response to the news that there is in fact at least one very senior woman on the campaign is to impugn her credentials (without any actual specifics). But I'm sure the critical poster has a more impressive resume than Dr. Rice, who was a Rhodes scholar, PhD in political science, senior NSC & State Dept official and yes widely-respected academic.


Also, remember that Samantha Power was a high-level Obama foreign policy advisor.


Ummm, yeah - until she called Hillary Clinton a "monster"...
Anonymous
Obama's problem is that he is "post-feminist" in an environment where feminism still has a long way to go. Government is at least 20 years behind society- remember when HRC was the first first lady who had a career? In 1992! Obama isn't doing enough if he simply has some women among his advisors (which he does). He really has an obligation to purposefully advance women- through outright commitments the way Bill Clinton did. I saw someone added it up once and found that GWB had more female advisors and confidants than BO. Imagine that!
Anonymous
I can't believe the shrillness of the Hillary diehards, who are being manipulated exquisitely by the self-centered Clintons. Hillary Clinton is an admirable woman who has done some worthwhile things during her career, but let's also recognize that she is where she is today entirely because she happened to marry a man who became president. And now she and her husband are twisting her failure to annoint herself president as a cruel male-dominated conspiracy, primarily in hopes that Obama will crash and burn and she can rise again in 2012 after a one-term McCain administration. Anyone who buys into that is not advancing a pro-women agenda but a pro-Clinton agenda... one that will have a disastrous impact on the composition of the supreme court and every other relevant federal institution and policy. The reality is that Mrs. Clinton lost the nomination because she ran a lousy campaign, predicated on the assumption of inevitability, and came up against a candidate with a lot more charisma than she has managed to project.

Obama's positions, for anyone who bothers to read them, on each and every so-called women's issue are absolutely identical to those of Mrs. Clinton. So what's the problem - Obama is unworthy because he doesn't have enough women around him (a fact which has been asserted but not actually documented with any statistics here)??? And any female Obama advisors are irrelevant because they're "self-promoters"?? Heavens no, not an ambitious woman, god forbid!! You're true feminists, aren't you?
Anonymous
I agree. I can understand being emotionally invested in your choice of candidate, and being upset by the blatant sexism-- particularly in the media-- that the campaign revealed, but push has come to shove, and the question now is whether Clinton supporters want to be the Naderites of this election-- do you really want to live under President McCain, because it's pretty clear he's going to be just as divisive and right wing as Bush has been (maybe more, since Bush at least pretended to care about "compassionate conservatism" when he was campaigning).

Bill Clinton certainly wasn't my first choice in 1992, but I supported him because we needed a Democrat, and looking back I'm damn glad he was elected-- he far surpassed expectations.



Anonymous
So you "democrats" will risk putting another ultra conservative supreme court justice on the bench who will side with the existing conservatives to over turn Roe v. Wade? It's like 2 steps forward 3 steps back. This race is so close between the Democrats and Republicans and you want to divide the Democratic votes? For you "democrats" deciding to vote for McCain or write-in Hillary, I hope your young and unmarried daughters are using airtight birth control and be ready to jet off to another country to get an abortion.

Why don't you vote for the issues and the party? Obama & Hillary are on the same team.
Anonymous
It's really not about "women's issues" as defined by political parties. The offense I took is about the process. I am deeply offended by sexism I saw, and continue to see, within the Democratic party. Not their platform on abortion or equal pay, but their actions during the primary. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I'm sure I cannot explain it to you, but I wanted to throw in the distinction. And if you don't get it, perhaps a women's studies class could help??
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: