34
   

Are We Ready For a Woman President? Really?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 09:56 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Hell, I know that anyone who at this point still thinks Obama hasn’t been treated any worse than any other president is not going to be persuaded otherwise, but here’s a sampling of some of the foulest stuff anyway.

1. Leader of a foreign nation whose views are in conflict with the president is invited to speak at a joint session of Congress. The president is not even informed of this as a courtesy until the visit is already pending. Netanyahu said, “My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds.” Really?

2. The leader of a foreign country would undoubtedly never be greeted at plane landing by an American official with a wagging finger in his face while news cameras watched. Republican Governor Jan Brewer did just that in January 2012 to the sitting President of the US for all the world to see. She said she did it because Obama made her feel “A little threatened.” Puh-lease.

3. No President has ever been refused a request to address congress – except one. President Obama asked John Boehner for a date to address Congress about jobs and the economy in September 2011 and was refused.

4. The whole birther fiasco and varying degrees of refusal by GOP leaders to disavow it was the most virulent between 2009-2011, but still rears its ugly head sometimes. What other president has had his very legitimacy as a citizen questioned this way?

5. Even in an age of general incivility, it’s astounding that a member of congress would have the lack of control to call the President – while he was addressing congress and the nation on worldwide television– a liar. Imagine if say, Maxine Waters had done this to George Bush. I know, I can’t even imagine it, either. That kind of open contempt has been reserved for this one president.

6. The signs and videos circulated by the GOP and Tea Party are too vile to share in polite company, but they were breathtaking in their sheer numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWbmEUIQOCQ

7. Maybe one of the most offensive shows of disrespect for this president was by Former NYCity Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a widely-publicized interview for Politico. It wasn’t an exception, it was how GOP officials regularly spoke of President Obama.
“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said, according to a story in Politico last month. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.” When Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked Giuliani whether he wanted to apologize, he said, “Not at all. I want to repeat it.” Giuliani would then tell the New York Times his remarks weren’t racist “since [Obama] was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools”



I agree with you about Obama. I disagree with you about Clinton.

Show me how Clinton is facing anything comparable to what Obama faced as a candidate in 2008. There is no birther controversy. There are no people marching with offensive signs. There are no rants equivalent to the "inadequate black male" rant from a Hillary supporter.

There is no equivalency here.

Hillary is having problems because she is a Clinton, not because she is a woman.

There is this vague "no one should criticize Hillary" theme coming from Hillary supporters (which is quite unreasonable for someone running for national office). But there are no examples of how the criticism Hillary Clinton is facing is any different than what John Kerry, John McCain or even Bill Clinton faced.

Snood, I would also like to hear you expand on the claim you quoted that what white women face in the way of prejudice or injustice is anywhere near what people of color face-- I suggest we compare any theme; incarceration rates, interactions with police, voting access, salaries, economic power, housing, access to finance... anything. I don't think the claim that gender discrimination is anywhere near racial discrimination has any merit. Do you?

snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 11:08 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Show me how Clinton is facing anything comparable to what Obama faced as a candidate in 2008. There is no birther controversy. There are no people marching with offensive signs. There are no rants equivalent to the "inadequate black male" rant from a Hillary supporter.

There is no equivalency here.


Again, you're arguing with me about something I never said. I never tried to claim equivalency between what Hillary and Obama contend with. The only reason I mention the two in the same post is because I think racism has been a factor with Obama, and I think misogyny is, and will be a factor with Clinton. If you don't think any misogyny is a factor with Clinton, fine - disagree with that. But kindly stop making furious arguments against things I haven't even said, as if I said them.

revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 11:09 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
There is this vague "no one should criticize Hillary" theme coming from Hillary supporters (which is quite unreasonable for someone running for national office).


I agree, they are acting as though she is somehow above being questioned.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 11:12 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I think there are plenty of people who think she's dishonest and they can't stand her. I'm a damn woman myself. I'd LOVE to see a strong, good woman in office, but I wouldn't vote for anything in a skirt to achieve it.

Did you really think everyone who didn't vote for Obama was a racist?


No I don't "really" think that, as evidenced by the fact I've never said that or suggested that. Never said everyone against Obama was racist; not saying everyone against Hillary is misogynist. Don't know where you and Max are pulling this stuff from, but I'd appreciate a stop to the ******* strawmen.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 11:19 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
There is this vague "no one should criticize Hillary" theme coming from Hillary supporters (which is quite unreasonable for someone running for national office).


I agree, they are acting as though she is somehow above being questioned.


So, max puts quotation marks around a contention that nobody's making - "no one should criticize Hillary" - and then you agree with max's strawman argument against something that no one's saying. Great. That'll move the discussion right along.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 11:29 am
@snood,
Misogyny is not a disadvantage for Hillary Clinton. It is a marketing slogan.

Hillary is one of the most privileged people on Earth. She is White, wealthy and well connected with name recognition to match.. People pay her tens of thousands of dollars to hear her speak. She can call world leaders on the phone and they will answer. Same with Wall Street leaders, and fund raisers and business tycoons.

To try to portray her as disadvantaged by anything is ridiculous by any stretch. Being female is a disadvantage for woman who are trying to make it in the real world, especially the professional world.

But for Hillary it is so much of an advantage that she is using "Madame President" as her primary marketing message.

This narrative is so contrary to the fact, that it is frustrating.

Let's talk about the real issues-- like racial justice for example. I am still waiting to see Hillary's detailed plan to respond to the issues raise by the Black Lives Matters movement (which she helped make worse in the previous Clinton administration).


revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 11:56 am
@snood,
Every criticism is met with a certain attitude as though she above being criticized and if she is criticized then we are just part of the ones out to get her. It is like we democrats have put her on a pedestal or something.

I don't think being a woman has anything to do with any criticism of her, but just her as a person. I still think Elizabeth Warren would have been better received and I hope Biden and Elizabeth both get in the race.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 12:00 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Misogyny is not a disadvantage for Hillary Clinton. It is a marketing slogan.

Hillary is one of the most privileged people on Earth. She is White, wealthy and well connected with name recognition to match.. People pay her tens of thousands of dollars to hear her speak. She can call world leaders on the phone and they will answer. Same with Wall Street leaders, and fund raisers and business tycoons.

To try to portray her as disadvantaged by anything is ridiculous by any stretch. Being female is a disadvantage for woman who are trying to make it in the real world, especially the professional world.

But for Hillary it is so much of an advantage that she is using "Madame President" as her primary marketing message.

This narrative is so contrary to the fact, that it is frustrating.

Let's talk about the real issues-- like racial justice for example. I am still waiting to see Hillary's detailed plan to respond to the issues raise by the Black Lives Matters movement (which she helped make worse in the previous Clinton administration).




Just because you say misogyny isn't an issue in this election, doesn't make it true. I think it's much more reasonable to assume that there will be some voters who are misogynistic than to assume there won't. I haven't tried to say that is the only factor or even the greatest factor. I started this thread just to raise the question and get a feel for how much misogyny people think is still out there. Because just as in the US, there is racism - In the US, there is misogyny. There's no sane reason in my opinion to think these things will be suspended especially for this election. You have clearly answered that you don't think anyone will vote against Hillary because she's a woman. Okay. Fine. Asked and answered.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 12:06 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Every criticism is met with a certain attitude as though she above being criticized and if she is criticized then we are just part of the ones out to get her. It is like we democrats have put her on a pedestal or something.

I don't think being a woman has anything to do with any criticism of her, but just her as a person. I still think Elizabeth Warren would have been better received and I hope Biden and Elizabeth both get in the race.


Look, I ain't crazy about Hillary Clinton my damn self! Never have felt like she's someone I'd want to sit to coffee with. I might vote for her, though. I argue here with criticisms I think are unfounded or unfair.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 12:14 pm
@snood,
Actually Snood, I am saying the exact opposite. Hillary's gender is a benefit to her.

Hillary is using the fact that she will be "The First Woman President(TM)" to her full advantage. The term "Madame President (TM)" is used all over her marketing appeals from her well-funded and impressive PR department.

Her gender benefits her. It is one of the central arguments for her candidacy. Not to mention (as you yourself demonstrated) it is useful to discharge the difficult question normally asked of every single presidential candidate. If there are legitimate difficult questions about your use of a private email server which went against the spirit of government transparency... the magic word "misogyny" goes a long way to deflect any accountability.

I can give you a list of specific ways that racial messaging was used prominently against Obama. You could probably make that list yourself with specific attacks that no other candidate has ever faced, from the Birthers, to the Kenyan photos to political signs.

There is nothing even remotely similar that Hillary is facing.

This is a marketing ploy, nothing else.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 12:21 pm
@maxdancona,
For the record, I don't really mind her marketing herself as "Madame President". This is a fine message and one of the appeals of Hillary's campaign. She has every right to use this.

What bothers me is the use of Hillary's gender to dodge political criticism.

Every national candidate does, and should, receive scrutiny. Obviously this is often partisan, our system is partisan, but this serves a purpose. We question their candidates, they question our candidates. Everyone goes through a great deal of scrutiny on their record. In total (messiness aside) this ensures that every candidate for national office has to defend their record.

It is wrong for the Hillary campaign to use her gender to be granted a free pass. The email server controversy is not nothing. Any male candidate would be grilled about this.. as they should be. And she should be treated no differently.

And yet here we are... suggesting that even legitimate criticism of her record is "misogyny". That isn't right.


snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 12:52 pm
@maxdancona,
You're the one perverting the argument, max. You keep trying to inject an argument that NO ONE IS MAKING. No one is saying that all criticism, or even any criticism of Hillary is misogyny. For the last time, I'm saying in this thread that I think there is some misogyny out there that will affect the vote. You disagree. That's fine. moving on.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 01:18 pm
@snood,
Let me ask you this one last question Snood.

If Hillary loses again how will you know if misogyny played a part in it?

How will you distinguish this from Hillary losing a second time based on her record, her perceived lack of trustworthiness and the fact that many Americans don't like a candidate with such strong connections to the political and financial elites?

The last time she lost, many people claimed "misogyny" even though all the evidence (including polling) pointed to the fact that her perceived connection to the Iraq war was the biggest reason she lost.

Is there an honest way to answer this question? I understand the feeling that it is high time to put a woman in the White House. But, sometimes the best woman for the job is a man.



snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 01:23 pm
@snood,
This reminds me of what people who hated Obama used to do when he was running. "If I say anything at all critical about Obama, I'm called a racist." It was almost as if they wanted very badly to keep even the mention of racism out of the discussion. I mention in my launch post that I think some good ole boys out there might not like a woman for president. Since then some people have been trying to turn this discussion into "If I say anything at all critical about Hillary, I'm called a misogynist." It was a bullshit move when Obama was running. Of course there is racism still extant, and of course it affects some folks' thinking. It is a bullshit move now. Of course there is misogyny extant, and of course it affects some folks' thinking. Stop with the bullshit.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 01:29 pm
@snood,
Hillary is not Obama. The attacks faced by Hillary are based on her record. The attacks faced by Obama were based on race.

I think it is crazy to compare compare the criticisms of Hillary's record and her actions in office and her ties to big business, with the race based attacks on Obama which included the Birther controversy, use of racial slurs by Hillary supporters and comparisons to a monkey.

Please provide an example of what you are talking about. Give me the facts. What attack is Hillary facing that even comes close to Birthgate, or the Kenyan racial jokes.

I think your claim is baseless. I can give concrete examples of racial attacks on Obama. Give me a single example what similar attacks Hillary Clinton is facing.

I don't see Hillary Clinton facing anything worse than what every candidate, male or female, faces. Obama faced much worse.


snood
 
  5  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 01:35 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Let me ask you this one last question Snood.

If Hillary loses again how will you know if misogyny played a part in it?


I won't know if it did, just exactly like you won't know if it didn't.

Quote:
How will you distinguish this from Hillary losing a second time based on her record, her perceived lack of trustworthiness and the fact that many Americans don't like a candidate with such strong connections to the political and financial elites?


I'll even stipulate that MOST will vote based on merit or lack of it. It's just impossible to rule out that SOME people wouldn't vote for ANY woman. Can't you see that?

Quote:
The last time she lost, many people claimed "misogyny" even though all the evidence (including polling) pointed to the fact that her perceived connection to the Iraq war was the biggest reason she lost.


I honestly don't remember reading anywhere that people were saying she lost to Obama because she was a woman. I remember seeing some bullshit stories that Obama won BECAUSE he was Black.

Quote:
Is there an honest way to answer this question? I understand the feeling that it is high time to put a woman in the White House. But, sometimes the best woman for the job is a man.


I wouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman. I didn't vote for Obama because he's black, although that part was gravy for me. Some people might vote for or against someone solely based on those things. We can't know who those people are, even if we ask around, because they will deny it.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 07:00 am
Wouldn't it be just swell and dandy if we were talking about the actual merits of the candidates and the vote-worthiness and how they stand on the important issues of the day?
snood
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 07:08 am
@Ragman,
Yes. I can do that. I started this thread because I think it is relevant, and people tend to not want to talk about things that have to do with our lower natures - like homophobia, racism, sexism, misogyny. I didn't bring it up because I think it's the most issue in this election, or that it should be. I think I've gotten a good feel now for the respondents here and their respective takes on how much or how little Hillary's gender has to do with her prospects.

I am certainly willing just to talk about those things you mention - credentials, issues, qualifications germane to who would do the best job.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 07:31 am
@snood,
You know I thought about your topic later when I thought to myself who I would rather have as vice President, Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden? I realized it my answer was Elizabeth Warren, but than I thought, well Biden might not be able to vice president again? But anyway, you may have a point.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2015 07:50 am
@maxdancona,
I don't think the claim is baseless, but I do think Obama faced a much worse situation overcoming race than Clinton will face overcoming gender. Clinton will still have to answer questions about what she wears, her hair style, etc. Chat boards will still be filled with comments about her looks (not good comments). Jeb Bush could wear the exact same suit for a year and no one would even notice. Trump being obnoxious and insulting is somehow perceived as leadership. Imagine Clinton doing the same. Clinton being strong and forceful is not perceived the same way and I would argue that sexism is one reason. That's a challenge when running for a job where forceful is a job requirement. You can also look on this board and find threads where women CEO's are considered tokens when they take on the top job, castigated should they fail (or even partially succeed) and even criticized for taking minimal maternity leave. Male CEO's fail all the time (Continental Airlines is the most recent egregious example) and not a peep is heard.

Clinton is not going to get the "other" firestorm that the President got. She is still "one of us" even for those who don't like her. That said, I do think she has a hill to climb that her opponents don't. (Excepting Fiorina of course. If she gets the nod, then we will have a repeat of the Palin/Clinton looks comparison from 2008.)
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 11:07:51