Obama: remaking the world is not for Woman

Would Barack Obama prefer to return to the days of yesteryear before women could vote?  Looks like it.

Obama signed the guest book at Yad Vashem, writing, “At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man’s potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise from tragedy and remake our world.”

Looks to me like women just got excluded from the Obama vision of human action in the world, both good and bad.

In the 18th century, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the words “all men are created equal” and “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” women could not vote and could not give consent.  Jefferson did not mean the word “men” to mean “men and women” or “humans”.  He meant “men”.

Gender-neutral language has been around for the last 40 years.  It is the norm these days for newspapers, law journals, psychology journals, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and countless English grammar texts, including the one I studied from as an undergraduate in 1991.  Surely Obama has some basic understanding of the idea.

Use of language that is not gender neutral is associated with promoting sexism in economic issues, like equal pay for equal work. No one disputes the role that sexist language plays in manufacturing consent to gender inequality, in maintaining and strengthening sexist values.

Obama already has enough problems with women defecting from his political party. Why would he appear to ignore the role that such women as Golda Mier, Madeline Albright, Condoleeza Rice, just to name a few well-known ones, have played in the evolving picture that is the Middle East. Why is Obama so ultra cautious not to offend Jewish voters by spending days with his careful reclarificaton of his stand on Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel but so careless with trivializing more than half of American voters?

Barack Obama sends me a feedback form

A while back I signed up to receive emails from most of the candidates. Most have stopped sending me emails by now, as their campaigns closed down. This week however, I got an email from Barack Obama. So what did he say? The nomination is in his pocket? He has done the math and it all adds up?

No. He says, “This is a pivotal moment in the election..” And he says “We have three more contests to go, and we’re going to fight for every delegate….” And he sends me a donate button with a link to his donation machine–but all the candidates do that. Then he sent me a feedback form and and asked me to take a survey.

A while back the Clinton campaign sent me a survey. Very simple it was. Name, zip code, write what you want. And a link to their privacy policy so you know what they do with the information.

The Obama survey is three pages. First page: name, address, email, date of birth, occupation, gender, …if you don’t think that’s nosy, looks what else they want to know…

Are you registered to vote?

Politically, what do you consider yourself to be?

In the past, how have you voted?

How often do you attend religious services?

Those aren’t required fields, and they certainly aren’t questions I would answer without knowing who is going to have access to the information and what they are going to do with it–and why on earth they are asking for the information in the first place.

But what about it? Should I complete the form? And if I do, what should I tell them?

Assassination! Assassination! Eeeek! Now, what was the question again?

The continuing fervor over Hillary Clinton’s mention of the RFK assassination puzzles me. I have already pointed out that it is not the Clinton campaign that is spreading cries of “Assassination!” all over the mainstream media. I don’t think it’s the McCain people either.

And I certainly interpreted the RFK assassination reference as a memory key about primary election dates for those of us who lived through those troubling days of losing JFK, RFK, and MLK, our cultural heroes of the sixties. The Argus Leader editors interpreted it that way too. So did RFK’s son. The memory of those times is something that ties us boomers together.

Why then was the Obama camp excited enough to issue a press release? And send their own reporters to the taping of the Olberman hissy fit at MSNBC? And have their main media consultant hand carry the Olberman videotape to the other mainstream news sources on a three day weekend.  And have their candidate mention Robert Keennedy several times in a commencement speech–isn’t he supposed to be worried or something?  Why are the obamabots going ape in the online forums?

Possible reasons:

Possibility #1: Obama and is genuinely concerned that he will be the target of an assassin.

But ALL the candidates have been threatened. McCain by immigration foes, Obama by white supremacists, and Clinton by an O’Reilly blogger. And those are only the threats that have been made public. The secret service probably has a drawer full of them.

So what would make Obama think he owns the assassination trademark?

And if Obama was really so concerned about the dangers of publicity, why didn’t they go quietly to the FBI, or to Hillary’s camp and ask her privately to stop–after all, the RFK reference has been a staple in her canned remarks for some time. Why issue a public press release?

Possibility #2: The Obama camp is threatened by what Clinton was saying and wants to take attention away from it, like a mother bird that pretends to be wounded in order to lure predators away from the nest of hatchlings . “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, they say. “The real show is up here”. “Assassination!” “Assassination!”

So what was Hillary Clinton saying, again? Well, she makes a pretty good case against the people who are trying to strong-arm her into dropping out of the race.

Hillary was saying…

Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote, depending on how you count Michigan and Florida, and she claims more people have voted for her in the primary than have ever before voted.

Hillary Clinton says she can win the electoral college. She has a map. She says that an aggregation of polls, leaked from Karl Rove’s office, shows Clinton beating McCain, and McCain beating Obama. She says she does well in states with primaries, while her opponent does well in states with caucuses where activists, not ordinary voters, control the outcome. “It’s not the math”, she says. “It’s the map”.

And then there’s those superdelegates. Their whole reason for existing is to save the Democratic party from another embarrassment like the 1972 election, where McGovern carried only two states. Show me your map of how Obama can win the electoral college, Hillary tells the superdelegates.

So another more ominous scenario emerges. For the sake of party unity, Obama could have quietly supported Clinton–who a year ago was the heir-apparent to the Democratic nomination–and gotten the VP slot for himself. But he decided instead it was his year to make a bid for the presidency. What if he has put himself forward before all his ducks are in a row? What if he is successful in winning the superdelegates, but not the electoral college? The first black man to run for the presidency, and he ends up splitting the Democratic party and losing to McCain? Not a good scenario for the Democrats or for Obama. Oh, he’d keep his senate seat. Maybe they could even give him Nancy Pelosi’s chair.

But the Republicans would be laughing–all the way to the bank—again.

The Clinton camp claims that every time a pundit publicly calls for Hillary to leave the race, her contributions start to dry up. She has until August for her campaign to repay her $20 million personal loan.

You would think that if she is really toast, as her opponent claims, that he would just leave her alone and let her try to recoup her loses. But they aren’t doing that. The Obama camp is fighting, and fighting hard. Assassin, schmassassin.

In the meantime, Hillary continues to gain speed while being outspent three to one, four to one, five to one.

“Assassination!”

“Assassination!”

“Pay no attention to that woman behind the curtain!”

Assassination in context–transcript: Hillary Clinton interview with Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board

The following is a transcript of an interview with Hillary Clinton and the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board on Friday May 23, 2008. This fifteen minute segment contains the “assassination” reference as well as a discussion of why Clinton stays in the race and her strategy for winning the general election.

The tape segment can be downloaded from the Argus Leader |here|.

I understand it’s customary to “clean up” the vocalized pauses and crosstalk that occurs in normal conversation to make a transcript more readable, but since there has been some controversy about whether certain comments in this interview “open a door wide into the soul” of Senator Clinton, I have left them in for accuracy and for the amusement of any soul-augurers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HILLARY CLINTON: I think, if you look at this campaign, ahh, starting in late February, moving forward, ahh, I’ve done much better, ahh..The longer this campaign has gone on, the better I’ve done…which I think is an interesting observation. I lead in the popular vote. More people have voted for me, not only more than my opponent, but more have voted for me than, ahhh, anyone who’s ever run for the nomination of a political party in our country, ahh, and…there are a lot of people who really believe in me and support me because they think I would be the best president. And I think…

Having the campaign go on until the people in South Dakota actually get to vote, ah, is a very important part of democracy. I readily accepted Senator McGovern’s offer that Senator Obama and I appear side by side. I have accepted that. I have urged that. I think that the people of South Dakota deserve it. He doesn’t seem to want to debate me or even appear on the same stage with me, which I think is kind of strange since he’s certainly have to do that in the fall, I would expect, if he is our nominee. Ahhh, so, I feel very good about my campaign, I’m very grateful for the support that I’ve received against pretty daunting, ahh, ahh, you know, mountains to climb, ahh, because people have been declaring it over for many months, and…voters seem to have a different idea and keep coming out and voting for me and… I hope to do well here in South Dakota.

ARGUS LEADER: The reports this morning and over night were that, uh, your campaign had certain contacts or overatures to Mr. Obama’s campaign in, …in the past 24 hours, and were working on some sort of deal for your exit.

HILLARY CLINTON: That’s flatly untrue. Flatly, completely…untrue.

ARGUS LEADER: No discussions at all?

HILLARY CLINTON: No discussions at all. At ALL. And…now, I can’t speak for the seventeen million people who voted for me, uh, uh, I have a lot of supporters, uh, but it is flatly untrue, and it is not anything I am entertaining. It is nothing I have planned. It is nothing I am prepared to engage in. I am still, you know, vigorously, uh, you know, campaigning. I am happy to be here, looking forward to campaign here, going to Puerto Rico tomorrow. I expect to be back here before the election.

But this is part of an ongoing effort, to, you know, end this before it’s over, and you know I’m very heartened by, you know the strong support that I’ve shown in Kentucky and West Virginia just in the last two weeks, ah, they sure don’t think it’s over. The people who are here in South Dakota looking forward to vote–they don’t think it’s over and I sure don’t think it’s over.

Neither of us has the number of delegates needed to be the nominee, and every time they declare it, it doesn’t make it so. Neither of us do, and I’ve never seen anything like this. I mean, I have perhaps a long enough memory that, uh, many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees, ahh, went all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention. I’m ahead in the popular vote. Less than two hundred delegates separate us out of four thousand four hundred. Michigan and Florida are not resolved. No one has the nomination. So I would look to the , uh, uh, camp of my opponent for the source of those stories.

ARGUS LEADER: Well, I was just going to ask. One presumes…

HILLARY CLINTON: (laughs)

ARGUS LEADER: (crosstalk)….where it originates…

HILLARY CLINTON: I think so. But that’s been the pattern for quite some time now. I’m…Honestly, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate any time, any where. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition, ahhh, where we find ourselves and,…I have been willing to do all of that, during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa, ahh…

ARGUS LEADER: Why?….

HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t know,…

ARGUS LEADER: ….why?…..

HILLARY CLINTON: ….I don’t know….I don’t …I find it curious, because…it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it, you know between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this…urgency to end this, and you know, I … historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery..

ARGUS LEADER: You don’t buy the unity argument?

HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t. (crosstalk)….because again I’ve been around long enough, uh,… my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, uhhh..somewhere in the middle of June..

ARGUS LEADER: …June…

HILLARY CLINTON: (crosstalk)…right?… We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, in California, ah, I…I just don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is, but ah,…

ARGUS LEADER: What’s your speculation?

HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I don’t know. I…I…I find it curious and I don’t want to, uh, attribute (laughs) motives or uh, strategies to people because I don’t really know…ahhh…but it is a historical curiosity to me.

ARGUS LEADER: Does that have anything to do with gender?

HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t know that either, I don’t know. You know, I’m not one to speculate on that because I …I think that uh, I want to be judged on my own merits and I think I am. But, uh, others have.

ARGUS LEADER: It sounds like what you’re saying, then, to those who are looking forward to voting on June 3 is that there will be a competitive race on the day that they vote.

HILLARY CLINTON: That’s right, that’s right,…well, if I have anything to do with it….

ARGUS LEADER: (laughs)

HILLARY CLINTON: And the other thing that I want South Dakotans to really think hard about is…winning in November. The electoral map is…the target here. And consistently over the last weeks, I have had a considerable lead, in that electoral college calculation, over my opponent, and…

A source that is perhaps suspect to all of us as Democrats, but seems to have a pretty good track record, Karl Rove does a rolling assessment, and ABC News got a hold of his maps and his calculation last week, and it coincides with everything that I’ve seen from every other source. If the election were held today, I would win. I would beat McCain, and McCain would defeat Senator Obama. I was just in Florida…. Every poll for the last three, four months,… I defeat Senator McCain, McCain defeats Obama. In the battleground states that we have to win, and in the anchor states that any Democrat must win, ah, I’m ahead. So if South Dakotans are concerned, as I am, that we place our best candidate, our stronger candidate, against Senator McCain in the fall, the evidence is overwhelming.

Now if you look at the states that I have won, it totals 300 electoral votes, give or take. Now some of those states a Democrat is not likely to win. We can compete, but it’s tough. But states that I’ve won that I know I can win, like Arkansas, and West Virginia, like Kentucky, like Florida, like Ohio–where again I defeat McCain, and McCain defeats Obama–are states that we have to win, if we’re going to be successful. Senator Obama has won states totalling about two hundred seventeen electoral votes, far below the threshold of what we need–two hundred seventy–and the Rove analysis, which is, as I understand it, a calculation based on every public poll available, because there’s a theory that apparently he subscribes to, as do others, that any one poll is not as good as averaging all polls. And polls within individual states that are done locally, as well as national polls that go into those states, will give you a better picture.

HILLARY CLINTON: Now does that mean that my opponent can’t win? Of course not. But does it mean, based on what we know now, if you were a South Dakotan who would your better bet be, to actually win the White House? It would be me. And I think that that’s a very important piece of information. And it’s one of the reasons that I am competing and continuing to compete because my goal here is to win in November. I respect Senator McCain. He’s a friend of mine. But I do not believe he has the right ideas for our country, and I do not believe he should be the president after George Bush. It would be like a continuation–economically, and in Iraq–of Bush’s policies. So I think Democrats need to think very carefully about this vote in South Dakota.

ARGUS LEADER: Are you saying that you don’t think Obama can win?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, I’m saying he can win..

ARGUS LEADER: …the states you’ve been in…so strong in…

HILLARY CLINTON: I’m saying …

ARGUS LEADER: Ohio, ….

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, let me say it this way

ARGUS LEADER: West Virginia…

HILLARY CLINTON: Based on the evidence now, and the the margin of my victory over McCain and McCain’s victory over Obama, he will have a much harder time. Of course he can win. Anything can happen in politics.

ARGUS LEADER: If he were the nominee, would you campaign for him in those states?

HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely. Absolutely. I have said I would do anything and everything I am asked to do. I am a Democrat, and an Amercian, and I think the damage that George Bush has done to our country is considerable, therefore we must have a democratic president. I think the odds are greater that I woud be that president than my opponent. That doesn’t mean he can’t win, that doesn’t mean I won’t move heaven and earth and do everything I can, if he is the nominee, to help him win. But I ..I’m a real believer in evidence-based decision making, and if you look at the evidence, as this campaign has gone on, I’ve gotten stronger and stronger. If you look at where I get my votes, it’s primarily from primaries, and that’s where I get my delegates. If you look at where he gets his, it’s primarily from caucuses, which are not representative and are largely uh, driven by the most activist members of our party . I believe I have a stronger base to build on, to acheive victory in the electoral college, uh, and I’m going to do everything I can do to make that case. If I make it, I will be the nominee and I will win. If I’m not successful making it, I will do everything I can to elect a Democratic president.

ARGUS LEADER: It sounds like your strategy to win is essentially… rests now on Michigan and Florida.

HILLARY CLINTON: No, Neither of us has the delagates we need.

ARGUS LEADER: Well, he’s closer than you are.

HILLARY CLINTON: He’s slightly closer than I am. Slightly. I mean, less than 200 out of 4400. One of us has to get to 2, 210, and neither of us is near there yet. He keeps saying “oh, but I’ve gotten to two thousand twenty-five”, but that excludes Michigan and Florida. I don’t think it’s smart for us to have a nominee based on 48 instead of 50 states. Hopefully Michigan and Florida will be resolved on May 31st, when the DNC rules committee meets. But even then, we still have to convince superdelegates. Now, superdelegates are in this process for a purpose. Their task is to exercise independent judgment. And the independent judgment they should exercise is: who is the stronger candidate to win in the fall. And if they exercise that independent judgment, they should look at all the evidence, and they should make their conclusion. I’m waiting to see the electoral map that leads my opponent to the 270 delegate number. That’s all I ask, and that’s what a superdelegate should ask. Show me the map. It’s not the math, it’s the map. And I can show you the map about how I’d put together a majority of 70 electoral votes.

ARGUS LEADER: In your mind what would a fair resolution to seating the Michigan and Florida delegates?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, in my mind, it would be fully seating the delegate, and here’s why, Even…though…they moved their dates, I think there were extenuating circumstances for both. The case is clearer for Florida. Florida has a Republican governor, a Republican legislature, and I mean huuugge majorities in both, not just a close divide. They determined they were going to set their date to benefit Republican candidates, and Democrats really had no choice in the matter. They could have said “we’re going to be pure, we’re not going to participate”–they never could have afforded to run a primary in Florida. That would be…prohibitive. So they did go along with it. But I think there were very understandable reasons why they did. And..1.7 million people showed up. It was a totally level playing field. We were all on the ballot. There was little or no campaigning, so nobody was in there. The voters took it very seriously because they thought it was important, and they voted. And the idea that voters should be punished, for what was, at worst, an acquiescence…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: The Argus Leader has a transcript available–without all the “unmm’s” and “you know’s” that conversational speech has. Unfortunately it’s not in HTML form–you have to download it and open it with Word. So you can’t read it if you’re in the public library and you can’t read it if you don’t have word on your computer. The link to download is at the upper right corner of the page |here|.

Updated Update: I have gotten a Microsoft Word program running (curse Word 2007/Vista!) and have downloaded and posted the transcript from the Argus Leader |here|.

Obama Assassination: is it Hillary that is spreading this meme?

I have written before about the whole Obama assassination rumor thing, pointing out that it is a dangerous game being played by those who claim to be his strongest supporters. I wasn’t going to contribute to what I said was a problem by putting it out there into the blogosphere any more, but the latest assassination bru-ha-ha is just too much.

What are the facts?

Here are the comments Hillary Clinton made at an interview with the editorial board of the Argus Leader in South Dakota:

HILLARY CLINTON: ….people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa, …

ARGUS LEADER: Why?….

HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t know,…

ARGUS LEADER: ….why?…..

HILLARY CLINTON: ….I don’t know….I don’t …I find it curious, because…it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it, you know between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this…urgency to end this, and you know, I … historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery..

ARGUS LEADER: You don’t buy the unity argument?

HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t. (crosstalk)….because again I’ve been around long enough, uh,… my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, uhhh..somewhere in the middle of June..

ARGUS LEADER: …June…

HILLARY CLINTON: (crosstalk)…right?… We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, in California, ah, I…I just don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is, but ah,…

ARGUS LEADER: What’s your speculation?

HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I don’t know. I…I…I find it curious and I don’t want to, uh, attribute (laughs) motives or uh, strategies to people because I don’t really know…ahhh…but it is a historical curiosity to me.

ARGUS LEADER: Does that have anything to do with gender?

HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t know that either, I don’t know. You know, I’m not one to speculate on that because I …I think that uh, I want to be judged on my own merits and I think I am. But, uh, others have.

and |here| is a link to the video at the Argus Leader website so you can see for yourself.

At no time does Hillary talk about Obama. She is talking about historical presidential races that were still going on in June. I do indeed remember the RFK assassination–he died on my birthday, right as the school term was ending. The editors of the Argus Leader are probably old enough to remember that day too, some 40 years ago.

I don’t have to google it, I can remember the day. In June of 1968, RFK and several others were still running for the Democratic nomination.

The Obama campaign fired back, “Sen. Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.” Clinton issued an apology that referenced not wishing to offend the Kennedy family at a time when Senator Teddy Kennedy has just received bad news about his health.

But the Obama surrogates didn’t want to make this about the length of the campaign or about the Kennedy family. In case there was any doubt, Keith Olberman of MSNBC, which long ago gave up any pretense of impartial election coverage and is being boycotted by Clinton supporters, went on a bizarre dramatic rampage .

Those words, senator, you actually involked the nightmare of political assassination…

You actually involked the spector of political assassination…

You actually invoked the spector of an inspriational leader at the seeming moment of triumph for a battered nation yearning to breathe free silenced forever….

You actually used the word assassination…

Oh, my. Olberman–who objects to the Hillary’s use of the word “assassination” in an interview by an obscure newspaper in a backwater state–actually repeats the word twelve times more during a mainstream media broadcast that will be seen by millions and picked up by millions more on Google.

Olberman is the one who, in the guise of the “concerned” commenter, is spreading the meme about Obama and assassination. Olberman has jumped the shark.

If only Olberman could get that outraged about the “b-word”.

The Race and Gender Split: videos, cartoons and a pocket guide to Obamabots

It started with a rumor that the Obama campaign was hiring 400 bloggers to woo Hillary’s online supporters.

Clinton supporters, already unhappy about misogyny in the mainstream media, were not amused. Said Cannonfire–

“Obama volunteers are being told to ratchet down the anti-Hillary hate, because someone in the campaign realizes Hillary Clinton supporters are not very likely to support Obama if he becomes the nominee. Which means, of course, that Obama controlled the Hillary-hate in the first place. His was the hand on the spigot.”

The hate in the blogosphere has been palpable, perpetrated by anonymous bloggers identifying themselves as Obama supporters who pasted the same misogynistic hate messages and Obama campaign chants in the comment sections of political articles. Clinton supporters have dubbed them “obamabots”.

Like a battered wife, they’ll be back.

Says Lavender Liberal:

Notice something? For about three days after his supporters declared Barack Obama the “presumptive nominee”… the constant bashing… suddenly subsided, to be replaced by sickeningly cloying calls for “unity” and “graciousness,” ’cause, after all, “we’re all Democrats.”

Why did the obamabots stop posting their cut and paste messages? Could it be, as Lavender Liberal suggests, that

“The Big Giant Head at Obama Central texted new marching orders to the cell phones (or perhaps directly into the brain-chip implants) of all Obamaniacs simultaneously”?

Or maybe it was encoded into the Edwards endorsement of Obama ? The bots were watching all the news services–we know they were following the speech, because they were posting nasty messages whenever a news service didn’t publish something about the Edwards endorsement instantaneously enough for their demands. When Edwards mentioned Hillary Clinton’s name, about 1:20 minutes into the speech, there were boos all around. Then Edwards made the “we are a stronger party, because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat” comments. Then the obambots stopped pasting their venom.

The Lavender Liberal, bracing for the expected change in online tactics, created a pocket guide, based on the cycle of domestic violence model:

Another Hillary forum prints its own unprintable reply below the fold (NSFW). One visitor posts a link to Jo Jo singing “Too little, too late”, another to Carole King’s “It’s too late baby”. Some blogs–and radio stations–are talking about a Obama boycott, a boycott of NBC, and whether to vote for McCain or write-in Hillary’s name. Many are expressing disappointment over NARAL, an organization that Hillary Clinton took some political heat for in giving them her support in 1999.

At Hillaryresponders.com they are planning a DC rally for the May 31 rules committee and chatting about a million woman march on the Democratic convention in Denver. A new video from GeekLove08 declares “Make your vote count, vote Republican”, and includes scenes from the riot-torn 1968 Democratic Convention. The names of Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are invoked over and over, and not in a good way.

Even the political blogs have become divided. One poster who reports an abundance of “obamatons” on Huffington Post says any comments favorable to Clinton are taken down by a moderator within an hour of posting. MoveOn is said to be a huge fundraising machine for Obama.

Probably the most sensible thing that has been said all week came from Bill Clinton talking informally after a campaign event. He said we not only need to unite the nation with regards to race and gender, but also by income and geographical location.

And don’t forget the earlier–and in my opinion the best–video mashup of political campaign hate and anti-woman vitriol. The soundtrack has Hillary’s China speech about the value of women.

Links: Election hate speech–are you “terribly sexist”?

Interesting links on the subject of sexism, and some tests to see if you’re sexist:

Misogyny I won’t miss by Marie Cocco in the Washington Times–a review of election ‘08 hate speech

Hey Obama boys, Back off already! Rebecca Traister in Salon “Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.”–a narrative of the increasing cultural split and increasing split in the Democratic party.

The Male Privelege Checklist

Our Racist, Sexist Selves in the NYT

Campaigning while female –the Hillary wrinkle picture that guys were passing around on their cellphones last winter

Online psychological tests:

The ambivalent sexism inventory-answer 22 questions and see your score

U of C shooter test-target practice, distinguish between a criminal and a black

Harvard battery of psychological tests-list of tests

Video

Anti-woman media images from this campaign

“People try to dismiss me all the time”–Transcript of Peggy Agar with WJR’s Paul Smith about Obama and “sweetie”.

Paul W. Smith interviews Peggy Agar on WJR 760 AM radio:

Smith: See now, Peggy Agar, believe me, is happy to be doing what she’s doing right now. Not that she’s happy that she’s at an explosion at Ten Mile and Hoover and Warren but happy that she’s doing her news. And yet people are bugging her, like us, to ask about “the story”.

Smith: Peggy, good morning. First, uh, uh, let me let you be, as you are, a great newsperson on Channel 7, be a great newsperson here on WJR. We’ll borrow you for a minute. What’s going on there at Ten Mile and Hoover?

Agar: Oh, there’s a transformer explosion, so we went out to Ten Mile and Hoover. We got there, looks like they had everything under control, nobody was hurt.  These transformers, you know, I mean they’re pretty powerful stuff, so they wouldn’t even allow the fire department to go in there and try to work on it.  They’re just going to handle it themselves. So, in this case it was fine and they worked it all out, but there was an explosion and some damage.

Smtih: I bet the people don’t know how many times you’ve gone running off to stories that turn out to be either over with or not a story at all and then you go…somewhere else.

Agar: Yeah, and that’s okay, I mean, I don’t mind going to stuff where, you know, people aren’t hurt or…

Smith: (crosstalk) Sure…thank goodness, thank goodness…

Agar: (crosstalk) …something good…

Smith: Oh man, you’ve retained your humanity through all of this. You know, people become cynical, you know. all of us do.  When you do something over and over and over again and you start to think in terms of what would be a great news story, and sometimes you forget it wouldn’t be such a great person or people story. Meanwhile..

Agar: (crosstalk)

Smaith: Go ahead.

Agar: Oh, I was just going to say it’s time to get out of the business, I think, when you start acting like that… (crosstalk) like I did the first day that I was here. I’m still excited to talk to, you know, any person that, you know, has story to tell and if you lose that edge then I don’t think you have any place being in the business any more.

Smith: And you were very excited to speak with presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama as he was walking through, smiling, shaking hands, moving rather quickly, I think he was with Jim Press from Chrysler, (crosstalk) and you held out your microphone and started to ask a question about I guess what he was going to do for the auto workers in Detroit or in Michigan something like that. What was it going to be?

Agar: Right. Well, I mean, I wanted to ask him what he plans on doing for, you know, auto workers in America, which of course specifically means Detroit. There had…he had gone through the plant, it was really loud, we weren’t able to ask any questions there and his people had said he might take a question when we went into this other room.  So when we got into the other room, I mean, he was maybe two feet from me and I figured, you know, it was a good time to ask. I was right there and you know, he’s shaking hands with auto workers, he’s running for president, he hasn’t been here in ten months, you know. That’s the time to say what you’re gonna do for these people, how you’re going to help them keep their jobs and keep their homes. (crosstalk)…I…I just wanted an answer.

Smith: Now people will be able to watch this if they want at WXYX.com. They can see the video and hear the audio, the whole thing. WXYZ.com. I happened to see it ’cause I was watching the eleven o’clock news, Channel 7 last night when you, I didn’t see you, but I kinda saw your microphone, and you were starting to ask the question and he in a friendly dismissively way said, I mean, sound like he got angry but he, he kinda smiled while he kept moving and said uh, hold on one second sweetie, yeah, we’re gonna get to that, we’re gonnna get to that, or whatever….

Agar: That’s almost word for word exactly how, you know, it was and how it went, you have good memory on that and at the time it was dismissive but I’ve been called a lot worse than sweetie out on stories.  People try to dismiss me all the time, I mean, it’s our job just to press on and get the interview. So, I figured once he said that, I was thinking, well good, this must mean that he’s going to answer here in a minute…

Smith: See? Do you hear that? She’s a true newsperson, see Ann Thomas is so interested in this because she was a reporter too. So I said I don’t want to make this a big story because I don’t think it should be a big story. It doesn’t sound like you think it should be a big story because the first thing you thought of was, okay, I’m going to get my question answered. It wasn’t how dare he call me a sweetie, he must not think I’m a very important person, or that I’m not as good a newsperson as a man. I don’t think you thought that at all.

Agar: I don’t really care what he thinks of me personally, I mean, that’s, you know, as a reporter I’m just trying to find out an answer from him. I mean this was a person that’s running for president (garbled) states and a state that has a lot of problems and I have an audience with him. I’m two feet from him, and you know, I want to ask him things that he should be able (garbled)…

Smith: And meanwhile, I can hear your phone is being called, you’re probably getting lots of calls, and they try to protect you at Channel 7, I must tell you, but Ann was persistent and we thank them for making it possible for us to talk with you and I know you’re there on a story that seems to be over with, and we’ll wrap this up quickly, but, fact of the matter is you then got the most, I think, incredible phone call later on your voicemail.

Agar: Yeah, I had, you know, I worked that early morning…at three thirty in the morning…and so I was tired after the story, you know, I went home and I took a nap, (laughs) and when I woke up from my nap I had all these phone calls on my, you know, messages and I started going through them and one of them was from Barack Obama himself (crosstalk) and he not only apologized for not answering my question but he apologized for calling me sweetie as well, and so, I mean I thought that was nice. More importantly he promised to make it up to me the next time he’s in Detroit, so I’m looking forward to maybe sitting down with him and, you know, getting to ask the questions I didn’t get a chance to.

Smith: Just think of how valuable this currency will be if he becomes president, Peggy. You will have the first Detroit interview with President Barack Obama, trust me when I tell you that.

Agar: I mean that would be great that’s why we’re here why I’m in this business, so any time I can have an audience with him, I’m going to go for it.

Smith: Good for you, I’m glad you’re handling it this way and I’m glad you spoke with us, and I hope it doesn’t become a big, big story. Like most reporters you don’t want to become the middle or the part of a story, you just want to report it, and I’ll let you go back to doing that on Channel 7, and I thank you for joining us, Peggy.

Agar: Thank you so much.

Smith: Okay.

Agar: Bye-bye.

Smith: Peggy Agar. She’s handling it much better than I handled being shut down by BJ Sing (?phonetic) at the masters several years ago when I went to ask him a question and he just kinda shut me down and walked away. I haven’t like VJ Sing ever since. See, that’s the difference between a sad talk show host, and a strong reporter, isn’t it, yes, it is.

Don’t call me Sweetie: t-shirts, buttons, and magnets

When journalist Peggy Agar asked presidential candidate Barack Obama what he was going to do about Michigan plants closing, his answer was “hold on one second, Sweetie”. She–and Michigan–are still waiting.

Dismissive or disrespectful?

The nation’s economy–and a professional journalist–both deserve a better answer than “don’t worry your pretty little head about it”.

No more “sweetie”.

You can call me “sweetie”…

when I can call you “boy”.

T-shirts, magnets, stickers, and buttons, that say “no dismissiveness” in no uncertain terms. Items have either a “No sweetie” symbol or a “You can call me ’sweetie’ when I can call you ‘boy’” slogan.

Here’s the Geek design, the code for the end of a format:

The velvet hand in the iron glove–with hearts:

Or Goth–with skull and crossbones:

Or the international symbol–a circle with a red line through the word “sweetie”:

Does it matter whether Barack Obama calls Peggy Agar “sweetie”?

“Senator, how are you gonna help the American auto worker?”

Peggy Agar of Detroit’s Channel 7 WXYZ had been sent to get a soundbite from a candidate. The soundbite she wanted, and the soundbite her listeners wanted, was about automobile plants closing. The soundbite he gave her was “Hold on one second, sweetie“. The question was never answered.

For Agar the question was about local jobs, but the blogosphere as usual put its own interpretation on the exchange. On one typical thread, some claimed not to understand why calling any adult professional “sweety” was offensive. Others railed at the news service for publishing it at all. ‘Jay from the west’ said,

Are you kidding? come on lets not make a mountian out of a mole will. He was just being nice, its no tlike he slapped her on the backside and told her to “get” or anything.

Egad! What DO they think of professional women out there in “the west”?

A commmenter on the same thread named ‘hoping for your end’ claimed racism was the motivation behind the story,

a large sink hole like the one recently reported about should swallow cnn up until there’s nothing left of your stupid hack jobs on obama. what, is it because he’s black that your treat him with such contempt?

So asking a black candidate a question about jobs is now off limits?

Others hurled invective at rival candidate Clinton or at the reporter who asked the question. Said one commenter, signing their name as ‘OH GOD, GIMMIE A FREAKIN’ BREAK!!!’,

You, girlie, are NOT that important! GET A FREAKIN’ LIFE, MAN, TOY, WHATEVER it is you need to make you less BITTER for goodness sake!

Several others mentioned, I think more realistically, that “sweety” is something they would call their children or grandchildren. For some reason, the senator appeared to equate this journalist with a child–someone you would not take seriously or treat as an adult.

That, of course, is the insult, for those who haven’t figured it out yet. Journalists are adults and ask adult questions on behalf of the communities that watch their programs. Responding to Agar with the kind of language one uses for a child implies that Agar is not qualified for her job–or that the question itself is not pertinent. Agar asked a question that the community takes very seriously–but instead of being given a serious answer, was given the verbal equivalent of a lollipop and a pat on the head.

So the first issue here is the one that Agar identifies–that of closing plants and lost jobs.

The second issue here is Agar herself. Who is she? What is she about? From local blogger Emily XYZ we find out she usually works in the middle of the night, reporting about traffic conditions. Then we find out she has a two year old at home and was taking a nap when Obama called to apologize. This is the type of American we need to be supporting, not undercutting.

An even more bizarre issue is raised by a blogger without a nickname–and no, I’m not going to give a link–who says the following, and I’ll have to put a lot of asterisks in here, since I list this site as child-friendly:

What if, by w***ing to the almighty dollar, you have to try and discredit one of the only alternatives to Bush III? Well, sister, discrediting Obama is tantamount to trying to make McCain look good. Making McCain look good is like saying you enjoy f****** the average American and would like to see more war, bull**** politics, substandard status quo and selling off of our country and rights to rich foreign investors. You appear to be a selfish b**** who would destroy this country for face time. FACE TIME. That is deplorable.

The third issue then is the hardcore Obama supporters who don’t believe in asking any serious questions of the candidate for fear that he might lose the election. Perhaps they don’t believe he can answer the questions. For them the end justifies the means–their only interest is in electing a particular candidate. For them, the president does not exist to solve the problems of the country. The country—the plant workers losing their jobs and the journalist mothers working odd hours to try to raise their families–are not important. They are not the country, rather, they are destroying the country by not closing their eyes to the economic problems that beset the nation.

Personally, I think this third group is underrating Obama. We need to be asking more, not less of candidates. We need to be discovering the truth, not hiding it to protect the powerful Obamas and Clintons and McCains of this world. The factory workers need answers, the mothers struggling to raise children while working night jobs need answers. They, and not the powerful politicians, are the backbone of this nation. Politicians work for us, we don’t work for them.

Who knows, if we are willing to expect something from candidates, they just might start expecting more of themselves as well. And that might be the change we are really waiting for.