This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
The Nation executive editor Betsy Reed elaborates on why many feminists, like the 1500 "Feminists for Peace," are backing Senator Barack Obama:
Feminist Obama supporters of all ages and hues, meanwhile, are hoping that he comes out of this bruising primary with his style of politics intact. While he calls it "a new kind of politics," Clinton and Obama are actually very similar in their records and agendas (which is perhaps why this contest has fixated so obsessively on their gender and race). But in his rhetoric and his stance toward the world outside our borders, Obama does appear to offer a way out of the testosterone-addled GOP framework. As he said after losing Pennsylvania, "We can be a party that thinks the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush and John McCain. We can use fear as a tactic and the threat of terrorism to scare up votes. Or we can decide that real strength is asking the tough questions before we send our troops to fight."[Betsy Reed, "Race to the Bottom," The Nation, 2008.05.19 print edition, posted online 2008.05.01].
Reed acknowledges that Clinton has faced a constant stream of indefensible sexist rhetoric. But noting how Clinton "has increasingly deployed issues of race and patriotism as a wedge strategy" against Obama, Reed leaves us wondering: Is Hillary Clinton just one of the boys?
Read the full article (warning -- one cuss word included in a Chris Rock quote) for an interesting discussion of sex, politics, and values.
For all his rhetoric to the contrary, Obama has proven that he's a politician just like all the rest of them. He joined the church he attended for 20 years and stayed there because if was politically expedient at the time. Now that the Rev Wright controversy has damaged his campaign, he has again shown his political expediency by disavowing Rev. Wright and his teachings. If you believe Obama just now figured out those beliefs, I have a bridge....
ReplyDeleteSay all you want, but anyone who attends a church for 20 years and then claims that he didn't know that church's dogma is either 1) a liar which doesn't do much for Obama's credibility, or 2) seriously lacking in judgment, which again is not a person who should be elected to the Presidency. Anyway you cook it, Obama's goose is cooked.
I too am all for hope and sometimes for change, but not the type that Obama is hyping. Obama is too inexperienced and naive to be the leader of the free world. I am not for Hillary either, but I would much prefer her over Obama.
After seeing Hillary on "The O'Reilly Factor," I am more impressed with her than I was before. But I'm still not sure I can trust her. It's academic, though. At this point I am still likely to vote for McCain in the general election.
ReplyDeleteSo, Anon, what Obama says about his church and the man who conducted his marriage and baptized his children is more important to you than what Obama says about the gas tax, a government policy that actually affects your life? Obama's the only one giving us straight talk on the issues that matter.
ReplyDeleteThe only "Straight Talk" Obama is giving us is the same "Straight Talk" that all politicians give us. The Republican party want Obama to be the nominee to badly to trust nominating him. Once the party walks over Hillary and puts Obama in place the stories of him being bisexual will come out in the MSM. Then we are done for.
ReplyDelete--twweeeeet!-- the whistle blows, the BS flag flies! 10 yard penalty, oldsarg, for rank ignorance and bigotry.
ReplyDeleteFor your penance, oldsarg, go read David Newquist on why Obama is the man for our country.
ReplyDeleteCory if I ever make a dumb comment like that above, please straighten me out.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I don't see in that article is how Clinton is responsible for any of the stuff the author accuses her of doing. People need to back their crazy assertions with facts, or they're meaningless...as is much of the rhetoric coming from both sides in this primary.
ReplyDeleteClinton responsible for stoking testosterone politics? How about her portraying Obama as soft on guns?
ReplyDeleteAll of this said ... In my opinion, we have three of the best candidates for President that I have seen in a long time.
ReplyDeleteAny one of the three would do fine in that job.
I must admit that having Obama for President would certainly not be boring.
I couldn't care less about the sexual proclivities of any of the candidates. After living in Miami Beach, I'm waaay past letting that sort of thing dictate my opinion about the qualifications of a person for a particular job.
I also dismiss the nonsense to the effect that Hillary is a neo-communist. An ex-Republican, more like it ... Ann Coulter said she's more conservative than McCain.
Again, this is a great Presidential race, and I won't make an absolute final decision until (hopefully) Obama gets to debate McCain and I get to see it.
Let the best person win! Aloha!
Who the heck is Betsy Reed to weigh in on sexism?
ReplyDeleteShe's executive editor of a magazine and what were the 2007 stats? She published 491 men. How many women? 149.
Reed can fool some people but only for a little while.
http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2008/05/dear-betsy-reed.html
http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2008/05/dear-betsy-reed.html
ReplyDeleteLink goes to the article with the stats on Betsy's magazine.
Gee, Kayla, I'd have left a comment over there, but "Third Estate Sunday Review" won't deign to permit other voices to contribute.
ReplyDeleteShould I assume you also deny Barbara Ehrenreich and the other 1500 (oops -- make that 2027 "Feminists for Peace" the authority to speak on sexism? Whether or not you can get published in The Nation is a red herring par excellence, as good as the Wright controversy that Third Estate Sunday Review seems to enjoy fanning.
This was e-mailed to me and I'm replying to caheidelberger. The Third Estate Sunday Review is an online magazine. Comments? Their e-mail is on their profile. They haven't done a "mailbag" feature in a while but they regularly bring e-mails into their "roundtables." The issue of comments goes directly to me. The Third Estate Sunday Review grew out of The Common Ills which started in November 2004. At that time, C.I. allowed comments and I was the one complaining because I was used to leaving comments at other sites and being called a bunch of racist remarks when something I typed didn't toe the party line. Self-identified "Blue Dog Democrats" (two of them) posted "chicken bone" and the n-word in reply to comments I left at The Common Ills in early December of 2004. When that happened, C.I. pulled comments. African-Americans are very aware of that and it is why a number of us feel less than welcome online because it happens over and over. It is for that reason that the bulk of TCI community sites do not have comments. Two exceptions are Marcia and Cedric. Marcia recently had to edit out over thirty racist and homophobic comments. It's not something we imagine, we are fully aware that if we say the wrong thing, some immediately go to racist remarks. To be welcoming to all, most community sites do not offer the comment option and I think it's really sad that someone here wants to slam them for something that was created to be welcoming for all. The point of "Dear Betsy Reed" is that Reed now wants to play a 'feminist' and most feminists don't quote Chris Rock and they certainly aren't editors of magazines that in one year (2007) published 491 men to 149 women while The Nation was whining to Third by July of that year that they were aware of the problem and fixing it.
ReplyDeleteAs for this "Whether or not you can get published in The Nation is a red herring par excellence," you don't know what you're talking about. Ava and C.I. wrote that feature and neither has any interest in being published in The Nation or elsewhere. C.I.'s planning on closing down online in November of this year (unless we can all convince her otherwise) and she and Ava have regularly refused publicity. When cites reference them, when books do (such as The New York Times first ombudsman's book), when newspapers do, they don't "blurb" themselves. They don't even acknowledge it. Their point is in reference to Dona and Rebecca's argument that all the work Ava and C.I. did to point out the problem that feminist writers brought to them about publishing in The Nation did not result in advances. They resulted in Katha Pollitt's little friends writing silly little posts. You don't know what you're talking about. A number of feminist writers have participated in roundtables for community newsletters. We are fully aware that women's magazines picked up the political stories that Betsy Reed and Katrina vanden Heuverl turned down -- even when they were stories about Abu Ghraib that really didn't go with the magazines who picked them up. But they were strong articles and The Nation regularly turned down women writers. Ava and C.I. didn't go looking for that issue, it was dumped in their laps by feminist writers. The Nation's excuse, published at all community sites on July 4, 2007, was that they were working on it and offering a list of changes that they still have not implemented.
When Ava and C.I. started covering the problem, with the first issue of 2007, they thought the magazine would fix the problem. The magazine did not. The magazine still has not. It is in that context that Betsy Reed shows up and claims to want to talk woman to woman and it's a laugh.
It's a lie and a distortion for you to point to a non-existant red herring. They are commenting on Rebecca's point that all the work they (Ava and C.I.) did for feminism resulted in Katha Pollitt's little friends coming in and writing their useless posts.
As for Jeremiah Wright, as an African-American, I found him offensive and they've not 'fanned' it. The bulk of it has gone into community newsletters and has been members weighing in. When C.I. weighs in, it's always because Betty's father has asked her to. He is grossly offended that Wright has been presented as normal (no longer by the Obama camp -- not by Obama, not by Melissa Harris-Lacewell and, after Obama broke with him, suddenly the networks found African-American preachers willing to speak out against him, those preachers always existed).
You write about things you know nothing about which includes Barbara Ehrenreich who is not a Democrat and has no business in a Democratic primary. "Feminists for Peace" was always a joke. The 1500 was a reference to when such 'feminists' as Minnie Mouse were on that petition. Frances Fox Piven, who did not vote Democrat in 1996, 2000 or 2004, signed that endorsement and went on Democracy Now a week later claiming not to have endorsed. That list is a joke and it's entitled "feminist" because they can't very well call it "Democratic Women for Obama."
Thank you,
Keesha
I guess we take different approaches to comments, Keesha. When yahoos harass folks here, if it's just rank offense, I just hit "Delete" or throw the BS flag and give 'em both barrels. It's a small price to pay for open conversation.
ReplyDeleteSo Barbara Ehrenreich writes about bread-and-butter issues that affect working women (and the rest of us) but doesn't have the moral authority to speak as a feminist in support of Obama, just because she's not a registered Democrat? Sounds like a stretch of logic meant to insulate a very narrow, embittered view from engaging the broader society.