Obama has been denegrating in his oratory from the get go! I have been amazed at the accalaides he continues to get. I have heard Evangelical, Revival and Transient emotional speakers for decades, with some not even achieving a High School Diploma. I have attended sales seminars and training from some of the best, including Dale Carnegie, and heard many other prominent sales motivational speakers. Within all of these experiences the oratorical skills that Obama has tried to learn and pick up on (the purpose of which of his well planned and coordinated jobs in Chicago) and Obama isn't even in the top 100. However, when subprime mortgages are sold with no money down, no employment verification, and no income verification loans to people that know there isn't a chance in H**l they will ever afford the true payment, much less when the "makeup" interest payment resets/kicks in, it really is should not be surprisng that so many are buying his slick presentation. Elitists are giving him a pass and are always going to go for a softie pseudo- intellectual because they have always considered themselves the only ones "quailified" to "manage" societies at large. Unfortunatley, the Elitists always end up having to rely on the Fascists Supremists to do their bidding for them when their social engineering in the world just don't work out so well (just pick any of the colonial/imperielist intervensions anywhere in the world the USA has tried to "manage" regimes and "change").
Obama Is Right: Words Matter When You Want Your Opponent to Leave the Race
Buzz this article up.
AOL News reports this:
Despite calls for his rival to drop out of their tight race for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama said Saturday, "My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants."
Note the tepid and dismissive "Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants." In one carefully chosen short phrase, Barack Obama uses a verb form that bestows his permission, as if she needs it, while at the same time subtly belittling her because she is staying in the race. Both of these rhetorical techniques aim to diminish one's opponent while seeming to be gallant and awarding oneself the cloak of the putative front runner who can afford to be generous.
But is he the front runner?
Within the same AOL news article is a straw poll asking who readers would vote for. Click on the map and you see that Clinton wins over Obama 52%-48%. To be sure it is an unreliable self-selected poll. Possibly Hillary's numbers are inflated by other people like me who never before voted in those straw polls but who are so insulted by the Obama-supporting pundits and politicians incessantly hammering their "she should quit" nail that we have taken to clicking for Clinton every chance we get. Even the Wall Street Journal has acknowledged the blatant sexism and rampant bias.
On the other hand, the facts are that national polls show the two candidates still volleying back and forth. It made sense for the other candidates to end their campaigns -- Dodd and Biden at low double digits in the polls, and even John Edwards whose contributions were drying up after too many third-place showings in the early primaries and caucuses. But remind me again, why is it that Clinton should quit but Obama should stay in the race when their delegate count is separated by just 133 and Clinton keeps winning the big states the Democrats must have in November to capture the White House?
Perhaps Obama should live up to his gallantry, throw down his cloak Sir Walter Raleigh-esque so the lady can walk over the latest mud slung against her, and into the nomination gracefully. After all, she is the elder, she is the senior of the two senators, she was in this race first, and she has an enormous constituency. In all other aspects of life, the etiquette would be to let her go first.
Or perhaps Obama's statement was merely words after all.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I, too, winced when I read that Obama said, "She can continue to run if she wants to..." -- as if he were in a position to give her PERMISSION to run. This is so chauvinistic and insulting. I fear that most people don't detect his condescention in that statement, but rather think he is being gallant to her. She is a strong opponent and would be foolist to drop out now -- given the unfairness of the DNC in relation to the Florida and Michigan votes. Furthermore, the caucus sham, as demonstrated by what happened in Texas, shows that Obama does not win the popular vote. Go Hillary! You are the best candidate for Hcange -- I mean Change!
I agree with you 100%. I couldn't believe Obama's contemptuous, thinly veiled insult...but I've come to expect this from His Hopeness and remember in N.H. or Iowa when he said to her, when she was actually being warm and nice to him (I saw it live on TV) and even touched his arm saying..."Oooo, Barack, you do think I'm likeable?!".... He recoiled by looking at her like he could slug her saying: "Yes. I think you're likeable ENOUGH, Hillary!" It was obvious and it was intentionally CRUEL. Since then, I've lost all hope for that arrogant media darling. His core values of being post-racist and a 'unity' candidate are being demolished now (Uncle Jerry's porn pulpit) and his heavy-weight proxies from the Ole Boys Club are twisting arms left and right! Thanks, that was exactly how I felt and I think Glioria's aritcle was right on target! It's about time! And they should listen to John McCain who said "HILLARY I HAVE NO DOUBT WILL MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT" -- in Baghdad, interviewed with Hillary-Meet the Press 2005. Good judgment for the old senator! And DNC Chair Howie Dean said: 'I THIK HILLARY WILL BE A GREAT PRESIDENT"!......that about sums it up, eh? It ain't over til the whistle blows...And the Bully-boys are getting impatient it seems..
Which is the sexist statement?
"My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants."
or
"Perhaps Obama should live up to his gallantry, throw down his cloak Sir Walter Raleigh-esque so the lady can walk over the latest mud slung against her, and into the nomination gracefully."
I know my mother and wife would be incensed to think that a man should forfeit a legitimate contest out of gallantry or ettiquette.
By the same token, Bobby Riggs should have laid down his racket after his second set against Billie Jean King, saying "Gallantry and ettiquette demand that I allow you to win. Let me hold the net down for you so you may cross it with dignity."
"Ladies First" should be reserved for the RMS Titanic, not the Democratic nomination. People will start mentioning the two in the same breath soon enough, if Ms. Feldt's sense of gender entitlement continues to drive the Clinton campaign.
No, I don't think Gloria was literally suggesting this, but, rather, it was an ironical commentary on her part. She did mention that there were other qualities of this candidate that she found superior to Obama's. Ladies first is purely ironical commentary; but I agree it may have been misleading somewhat....nothing to do with gender entitlement as she backs up her position elsewhere in her column. That was just a frill and was probably trying to make an antithetical to 'feminist' principles statement to 'lighten' up...I guess the key thing is that she's against stopping the race before they wave the flag, blow the whistle, till the 'fat lady sings'...etc. But I agree with Gloria that Sen. Obama was snarky and arrogantly presumptious in his idiosyncratic way that we all know and some of us are not so enamoured with!...thx...
It is clearly apparent that your main reason for voting for Hilary is the fact that she is a woman!!! The most obvious thing about her is that she is calculating, manupilative and not trustworthy which has been her biggest problem, not the fact that she is a woman. I was a strong supporter until I realize that she is willing to destroy anything in her way to get what she wants and if you are looking at this entire campaign, she has been the most negative whenver she is behind. Word of advice to women, just because she is a woman does not mean that she will work to get women in a better place, I would be the farm that she will do more harm to women's right because she is SELFISH and she places herself above all other women.
Wow...the Hillary supporters have been reduced to this...how freakin' sad...Is there a single person (besides Ms. Feldt) who didn't grasp the delicious irony here?
So let me get this straight...Ms. Feltd (a self-described feminist), is now suggesting that the front runner "live up to his gallantry" and drop out of the race because Hillary is older, and she called "dibbs" before he did. On one hand, she blasts Obama for some fictitious verbal slight (because he used a verb form which allegedly implied that he was giving her permission to stay in the race) and then at the end suggests that he should "...let her go first" which would seem to constitute an admission that Hillary indeed needs his permission. CLASSIC!!!
She was arguing that if he were to be consistent with his false "gallantry" as was revealed by his statement, "She can run if she wants to," he would need to continue to be gallant by respecting Clinton's seniority, etc. But as we all know, he is full of contradictions and really doesn't know why he says what he says. He is full of hot air. Just like he said that it would be "punishing" his daughters to force them to give birth if they got pregnant under less than ideal circumstances...
Hillary Clinton is the elder, is the senior of the two senators, was the first in the race, and does have an enormous constituency. But what you forgot to say is that she is UNIQUELY QUALIFIED to be president, having served an eight-year presidential apprenticeship in addition to her seven-plus years in the U.S. Senate.
Barack said '"My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,". 'can' means 'able'. 'may', which he did not use, implies permission. Your very premise is in question.
Sorry, but Obama has run a better campaign, hands down. He has tried to stay above the dirty politics unlike the Clintons. I think they showed their true colors. Americans are sick of that kind of politics.
Thanks Hillary, but no thanks.
The reason Hillary is clearing losing this race has little or nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with nepotism, incompetence and dishonesty.
Hillary Clinton lies, blatantly, very often about things that matter. She appears to believe herself entitled to the presidency simply because she was the wife of a second-caliber Democratic president. Her one and only significant attempt at policy during the Clinton presidency, health care reform, was a complete failure, due in no small part to her arrogance and penchant for secrecy.
The sexism I see in this primary, as seems to be the case with the author of this article, comes from a group of women - who so blindly want a woman president they disregard her profound and obvious flaws.
You and all of your ilk are making the most assumption of all in assuming that the race (and democracy) is about the candidates rather than the voters. It is the majority of Democratic voters who have expressed their preference for Obama over Clinton. In fact a more representative (compared to the bogus straw poll you cite) Gallup poll released today shows Obama has a 10 point edge over Clinton. It would be an assault on democracy for Obama to deny those voters in an effort to appear "gallant."
By the way, from where I sit the gallantry that you want the male candidate to exhibit toward the female candidate looks alot like a call for the Black guy to step aside because he somehow hasn't earned this (even though the majority of voters beg to differ) in favor of another white nominee. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the kind of gallantry we all can do without.
i know it's getting hard to come up with compelling arguments when your candidate is behind in delegates, votes, and states, but come on! Please if you're going to continue to shill for Hillary, try not to embarrass her and yourself in the process.
Double standard here? HRC has not shown Obama nearly the respect nor courtesy that he has shown her. Moreover, but for her gender, the MSM would have stopped covering her long ago. Finally, if the tables were reversed, do any of us have any doubt that she would be ridiculing him endlessly? If this is all you can find to complain about, this campaign indeed is in death throes.
This is one of the most Hillaryous posts I've seen on the Huff. So because Hillary is older and was there first, she should have the nomination. Too bad Strom Thurmun has passed over into the land of old racists. Otherwise, by your logic the Republicans could match him up against the reigning old head in the Democratic party and the senate-- Robert Byrd.
As for your displeasure at the way that he expressed his lack of opposition to Hillary staying in the race. Remember when she said that "as far as I know" he's not a Muslim? Exactly why should he emphatically assert his rival's right to stay in the race? In particular why should he serve as her champion when it is apparent that she has moved from a realistic chance to win into someone who is intent on doing the Republicans' work for them by tearing down the likely nominee of the Democratic party.
Finally, it always amazes me when the Clinton camp asserts that Obamas supporters are KoolAid drinkers who cannot see their candidate clearly. It seems to me that it is the Clintonites who see Obama as some sort of Jesus figure who should demonstrate an endless store of forgiveness and infinite willingness to turn the other cheek no matter how vilely he is attacked. Isn't that expectation a bit unrealistic?
Asking Hillary to end this race is premature when there are a dozen states needing to vote. However it's totally not premature to ask her to step down when she's throwing everything besides the kitchen sink, including used toilet tissue.
Gloria, I wonder if you 'feldt' this sort of rage when Hillary was giving the FRONT RUNNER permission to step into the Vice President role?
"Perhaps Obama should live up to his gallantry, throw down his cloak Sir Walter Raleigh-esque so the lady can walk over the latest mud slung against her, and into the nomination gracefully. After all, she is the elder, she is the senior of the two senators, she was in this race first, and she has an enormous constituency. In all other aspects of life, the etiquette would be to let her go first."
Entitlement much?
While I'm used to the myriad double standards coming from Sen. Clinton's campaign, it strikes my funny bone every time a "quasi-journalist" sees no problem in the candidate he/she supports saying something akin to "although I'm in second place, my first-place-ranking opponent would make a great vice president, because he's less qualified than i." That tone seems even more condescending, because for many of us if screams of "he's being uppity if he thinks he can best yours truly." Read into it what you will, but neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton should have a free ride to the nomination simply because of gender/race identifiers. The parsing on the part of Sen. Clinton's supporters borders on ridiculous -- especially when they're so quick to dismiss her similar "offenses." They're giving feminists a bad name (and justifying some statements by chauvinistic pigs, to an extent).
When a campaign needs arguments like this, it's on the skids.
A note to all the people who keep bringing up the fact that Clinton has won states such as California and New York, thus showing that she is the candidate who has the best chance of winning in November: These states have almost always gone democratic in presidential elections. So if Obama is the democrat running in November, he will likely win those states as well. It is a hollow argument, and shows a lack of understanding of national politics.
AGREED!
Thank you for bringing up this point. It seems to be the Clinton campaign's main argument that she has won the most important states. What the media and everyone else has not called her out on is that those states would go Democratic with either candidate! The states that Obama has won thus far are much more valuable at this point.
HRC - Female/YES Woman/Yes LADY/???
What are you smoking? And what should Obama have said instead? "Gee, Hillary's one tough gal... She scares me silly and I sure hope she drops out soon instead of beating up on me. (?)
What should Obama have said instead? What you said would be a good start--more truthful, too. Heh.
The calls for her to bow out of the nomination race are coming from the fact that it would take the unelected party officials & "add-on" unpledged delegates to overturn the public vote in order for her to get the nomination.
It is still mathematically possible for her to overcome Obama's lead, but it would require winning the remaining contests by a 28 point margin, according to Slate's delegate calculator. Clinton has averaged 12 point victories, while Obama has averaged 26 point victories.
Given the actual ratio of elected office holders to unelected party officials (only 36%, 285, are elected office holders), it would be a nigh on fascist process if the public vote comes in and the party officials respond "well, isn't that cute", while nominating the other candidate.
I don't understand why Gloria Feldt ( the voice of experience) feels it imperative that because Hillary was born a woman, that it is now her "turn" to be President.
It would be wonderful to have a woman president- just not Mrs. Clinton. She is much too divisive of a character and has huge negative numbers- in my view, justifiably so, among voters throughout the country. If she is nominated, the "vast right wing conspiracy" will come out in full force against the Clintons. Her two brothers received hefty sums for getting their clients pardoned on Bill's last day in office- and that's just the tip of the ice berg.
Any Clinton supporter should take the time to read Carl Bernstein's book "Woman in Charge," in which he details many of her personality traits. An excerpt from the book:
"Since her Arkansas years Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth... judged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share."
"Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn't trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent--or perhaps herself--to understand the true significance of events..."
Bill should just fade away into his $500,000,000 presidential library and let his wife "take charge" in the Senate.
Amazing how the same people can discount and dismiss gender bias with a wave of their mighty hand will go into conniptions regarding race in this campaign with but the slightest of provocation. Not really. I'm entirely used to it by now...
Gloria Feldt: Perhaps Obama should live up to his gallantry, throw down his cloak Sir Walter Raleigh-esque so the lady can walk over the latest mud slung against her, and into the nomination gracefully. After all, she is the elder, she is the senior of the two senators, she was in this race first, and she has an enormous constituency. In all other aspects of life, the etiquette would be to let her go first.
===
If Arianna ever creates HUFFIE awards, I nominate this for best comedy blogging of the year.
Meanwhile Barack Obama beats Hillary Clinton 52% to 42% in a much more scientifically drawn GALLUP Poll.
I am a white woman. I am voting for Barack Obama. I am not betraying my gender, or falling for an empty suit with pretty words, as some HRC supporters have the gall to suggest. It's simply that character matters to me, and my memory is good enough that I am concerned about HRC and her husband. I remember the false statements about her activities at the Rose Law Firm. I remember her false statements about her involvement in Travelgate. I remember the stories, after the Clintons left the White House, of damage and outright vandalism to furniture, fixtures and equipment in the building, including someone stealing the letter W from over 100 computer keyboards. Even people who don't remember those years should think twice about the fact that she lied very recently about her activities in Bosnia. And then there are her suggestions that she would try to steal this election by flipping the pledged delegates. Is she actually willing to torpedo her own party just to get in power?
Character matters. That's why I'm voting Obama. If you want a woman in the office, offer us a Golda Meir next time. But don't expect us to vote for Eva Peron just because she has a uterus.
Wow! Well said.
AOL Straw Poll?? Are you kidding me? A poll that people can manipulate by clearing out their history and re-freshing? How about the daily gallup poll which shows nationally that Obama leads Clinton 52% to her 42%....when you review the gallup poll, he has consistantly been ahead of her except immediately after the JW smear. Your desperation is on par with HRC's....which is a not so subtle reminder that death throws are never easy or nice to watch.
This author, on her website, said about this article "Read my March 31 Heartfeldt Politics post. It is sure to get the Obamabots hopping...."
Seems to me its all about creating a post which yields a bunch of comments, stirs controversy, and gets her name out there.
Well, success. I'll never purchase anything she writes, as she is obviously self promoting at the expense of the feminist cause and the Democratic party in general. A shame really, because I'm sure I would have discovered her sooner or later as I believe in the feminist cause and would have purchased her works.
But I'll depend on less self serving authors.
Consider the mind at work here. To Feldt, Clinton is the candidate of choice just as Kathleen Turner is a subject worthy of serious intellectual thought (as evidenced by Feldt"s latest book on the actress). Please. For all the good she"s done, Feldt is just plain wrong on this one. To her, any woman president will do, no matter how much she schemes and lies like a man to win the nomination.
This post is preposterous for so many reasons. Interpreting Obama's statements as "condescending," "dismissive," and "smug" is ironic, because these are all qualities that characterized Clinton during her long period of "inevitability." But the more important point is that for many commentators, Obama's real sin here is simply that he isn't a woman, and nothing he can say or do will change that.
As a lifelong feminist, I find it unfortunate that Clinton -- who is objectively not much of a feminist and far from progressive -- has managed to identify herself as the champion of women against an authentically misogynistic social order and make her bid for the presidency a Holy Grail.
I've dreamed of seeing a woman in the White House for more than four decades, and started out believing Clinton could be an extraordinary president. Her campaign has been a painful wake-up call. And while it's important that the process run its course, things like Roe v. Wade make me worry about what a McCain victory would do to the Supreme Court, a question that hasn't really hit the radar yet.
If you consider Clinton the best candidate, I respect your choice and am ready to be persuaded. But I find it intellectually dishonest to make Barack Obama the stand-in for every despicable misogynist creep out there. It just isn't so -- and while it may feel good to vent our frustration, it isn't worth four years of John McCain.
Loading comments…
The Hill reports that Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman is considering legislation that would...
Verne Troyer's ex-girlfriend and sex tape co-star Ranae Shrider spoke to News Of The World about...
Lara Logan is pregnant and will marry the father of her baby, Joe Burkett, the...
NEW YORK - Sex crime has a telltale signature, even when those directing the outrages are some...
Posted March 31, 2008 | 10:49 AM (EST)