BlogHer - Comments

Wow.

Rita Arens — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:20:46 -0500

I could understand if they took a swing at a label for the purposes of a title or having a vocubulary with which to discuss different ways families come into being, but I can't figure out who in their right mind would think "non-mom" would be appropriate for anyone.

I think you nailed it by discussing the harm that could come to the children - we as adults can handle an ignorant comment (and I don't mean that to minimize your feelings, PunditMom, but I know you're a tough cookie) but the harm comments or labels like that can cause a child forming ideas about his or her place in the world could be irreparable. And the last time I checked, kids watch television. So yes, more than insensitive. Ghastly. I'm choking to think how that would make a kid feel. Or a mom, but particularly a kid.

Surrender, Dorothy - When I was your age, we just let them ride in the back window.

Rita Arens is a contributing editor for BlogHer -- Mommy & Family.

Friending your boss

Denise — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:17:27 -0500

I can see situations in my world when I would not have wanted to friend my boss - or my coworkers. Then of course there's the whole problem of trying to keep a blog "anonymous" so your boss and your coworkers don't read it - because sometimes you just have to blog about your boss

errr, not me. I neverrrrrr blog about my boss. OK OK fine, I do but I only say nice things. But that's because I only have nice things to say. What happens if I have less than nice things to say? What happens if I need to vent .... I can't, not really. It would be wrong and I just would not do it.

Because I work "here", my work life and my "social networking life" are one in the same. I'm cool with that.

I'd love to talk about previous jobs, and social networking in relationship to those former bosses and coworkers but... nah. Some of them are reading right now.

:-)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

At least we all agree racism and sexism are wrong.

Rita Arens — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:11:14 -0500

I realize this is a heated argument, and I haven't educated myself well enough on what she said now and in recent weeks to speak to what caused this firestorm.

However, I find real beauty in the fact that everyone here agrees that every voter in this country should be and is equal. From that foundation, we should be able to come up with a decent president one way or another.

Surrender, Dorothy - When I was your age, we just let them ride in the back window.

Rita Arens is a contributing editor for BlogHer -- Mommy & Family.

Thanks for the Kind Words!

Babyblogger — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:57:25 -0500

Goonie,

Thanks for the kind words about BabyBlogger.com, and the offer to post on your site about it. I tried to contact you via the "Contactify" form you use on your BabyFirstYear site, but when I click "I agree, send message", nothing happens at all. Please contact me at michael [at] babyblogger.com, and I'll send it directly. Thanks again

BabyBlogger.com - a secure, advertising-free baby website

I agree

looking for integrity — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:50:37 -0500

Ted, I think you are probably right about how she got herself in this mess. Unfortunately, when she did it she lost this 65-year-old white female who would love to vote for the HRC I used to know. This one scares me.

Neither did Nixon and Agnew

looking for integrity — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:47:31 -0500

Ted, us female Yalies learn to speak in code when necessary. She doesn't use N words or speak directly but comments like her recent "Hard working Americans, white Americans" go out without much cover. Barack Obama was black and Hillary Clinton was white when she had the majority of black votes, before South Carolina. That changed because black voters know the code even better than white voters. And yes, he had to learn to be a successful black politician just as she had to learn to be a successful white politician. That is not the problem. The problem is that she is going out of her way to appeal to people who are opposed to black people, not people who think a woman can be president.

Kudos

Kim Pearson — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:41:19 -0500

What I particularly like about your post is that you have not only taken the trouble to summarize the candidates' positions, you've also talked about the actions they have taken. Very substantive and useful.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

to looking

Ted in Chicago — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:36:25 -0500

You may be right - but my impression is that it took about till the 7th inning for HRC to start talking like that

Now is that the ugleeee HRC - win at all cost?

Or is that factual?

Or is that an HRC who sees Blacks voting against her and is trying to line up women or seniors or hispanics or whites to counter that solid block?

No doubt HRC is saying things that are near ugly or ugly. But I posit she did not start that way and it has only been a short time that she has talked that way

Again - that does not excuse ugliness -

And it is not an attempt to rationalise it

For me - I wonder out loud - and believe - it is tit for tat .......... that the Clintons - right or wrong - having felt race was used against them - have responded in kind

For sure HRC tossed a ton of different mud at BO as that is her style and always has been. i am not arguing she is clean or even nice.

I am suggesting people look around - as to when race "courting" or baiting entered the contest (and it was NOT BC in SC - that was weeks later)

And I am suggesting that it might be possible that HRC is using race, at this very late point - IN RESPONSE - to earlier actions by BO and to the voting patterns of a minority

LBJ

looking for integrity — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:28:43 -0500

Ted, I knew what she meant about LBJ and she was right, from my perspective. But she said it clumsily and I also know how it was going to sound to Black people. It was the equivalent of saying a woman gets a little emotional at that time of the month. As a woman, I know it's true. I also know it's irrelevant and people only say it when they are trying to make the point that a woman should never be in power. What she meant was that neither LBJ nor MLK could have made the voting rights bill pass without the other. All she needed to say was, "That didn't come out right. What I meant was that to get the Voting Rights Act we needed both of them. And, like LBJ, I know the truth when I hear it and I know how to get the law to reflect the truth and justice." The reason she didn't is because some of the Obama people would have chuckled "She said it herself. She's LBJ and he's MLK." That's a cheap shot, but she wasn't going to allow it, so she set a pattern of appealing to racists. It would have been so easy to get out of it, but she just plain doesn't have the courage. And, in my book, the fact that she would rather appeal to racists than tell the truth is a great flaw.

Chicken and the Egg

Ted in Chicago — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:24:55 -0500

RE HRC and "her strategy seems clearly based on race to me"

I can not agree. At first - HRC never ever mentioned race as she wanted to get a reasonable share of the Black vote.

Might it be when it became clear - for whatever reason - that she could not get more then 10% of the Black vote that she shifted and aimed at the vote hardest for BO to get

Which was the first - the so called HRC racisl strategy or the BO AXELROD racial strategy?

Looking for Integrity

Ted in Chicago — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:20:40 -0500

And while you remember about GW

Remember that BO got his ask kicked by BR in the run for a Congressional seat - and then became more black in a public way.

And while you have your memory on - Remember that the articles in the NYT and other liberal media whan the race for Dem Nominee began were most often - Is BO Black enough?

Is there some correlation with the timing of those stories - and how BO was campaigning - and which primaries were first and second?

Not an accusation - just an observation of how a smart Chicago politician learned his lessons well - and how his campaign positioned him at first and then repositioned him as needed

Agaiin - same is true for HRC and all politicans - I just want to keep the balance - No one here has clean hands

Unfairness

looking for integrity — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:19:54 -0500

Ted, Barack doesn't play the race card when he appeals to a black constituency any more than Hillary does when she goes out of her way to appeal to women. And it is not racist of her to say that his antiwar record is thin. It is, and she is right to point it out. But time after time she has made remarks like "...the hardworking Americans, the white Americans...are for me.,," and she has never said "whoops. That didn't quite come out the way I meant it to." It has happened so often that I can only conclude that it is a racist strategy, although I don't believe for a moment that she, personally, is a racist. She is, however, sending signal after signal to racists that it is safe to vote for her. It is calculated and it is more despicable than if she were a racist herself. That would just show her to be stupid and bigoted. Those are faults that are either too bad or curable by education. Pandering for power is terminal character cancer. I regret it for my sake as well as hers and yours. As a white woman in my 60s I would love to vote for her, but I would hate myself in the morning.

Can we have real talk about the gender politics?

Kim Pearson — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:18:34 -0500

Can we have some data to go with that accusation, please? The las time I asked, I was referred to his reference to Clinton having tea as First Lady, and another remark about her getting upset periodically upset. I thought his dismissal of her experiene at First Lady was cavalier at the time, and said so.

At the same time, I think she oversold her experience, and she really hurt herself with the exaggerated anecdote about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. I also thought there was a curiously masculinist tone to her "why can't he close the deal" jibe at Obama right after the Pennsylvania primary.

At the same time, I wonder what folks think about Prof. Melissa Harris Lacewell's accusation that Sen. Clinton has pulled a "Scarlett O'Hara" act, and that is what has alienated many women of color?Can we talk about the people who were calling Clinton's communications style "masculine" and Obama's "feminine?" Is that meaningful or useful?

When all is said and done is what I want to know about the gender issue. What does Sen. Clinton's experience teach us about what women politicians have to do to win at this level? What are we learning about the power of women voters in this campaign? Finally, is there a way for women to combat the kind of very real sexism that Clinton has experienced and the very real racism that Obama has experienced while respecting the very real differences among us? I ask this not just in reference to this campaign, but for the next strong candidate who comes along who isn't a rich, white, well-connected straight Protestant man, as most our Presidents have been.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Back up

Ted in Chicago — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:15:40 -0500

Everthing I reported (other then my opinion) is public record. Do you dispute that BO blamed it on seniors? Do you dispute what BO said about how he would have voted? Do you dispute how I described the BC discussion of anti war support or lack there of by Barack? Which part do you think needs a fact check

There are parts that are clearly my opinnion - my sense of reality based on how I heard and saw things evolve - that I can not prove - it is opinion.

I sugest that the problem - or the reality of humans -is that in the case of BO vs HRC there are two sets of ears out there. We hear the exact same words in different ways

E.G.

As i said above - I hear the Clintons say - it took a great leader and courageous man AND the president (at that time an old tough White LBJ) to work as a team

Others hear it as - It took a white man to finish a black man's job. We I guess can argue if BC sent out a morse code message to whites - but there is no arguing what was said - how it was heard two different ways.

I can not get into your head or into the heads of those who heard it that way. And like wise you can not get into my head etc.

What I am saying is I heard it differently - the same words that are in print and on youtube - being heard two (or more) different ways

I do not see a lot to so call prove - or dissporve - much is fact - in papers and on youtube and much is my opinion.

Too many people are already using facts to support opinions and opinions to create false facts

I simply ask that those who disagree with me- read and hear what i have said - and consider it for at least 5 minutes before dismissing it or labeling me.

Lies Damn Lies and Statistics

Lots of foot notes and citations do not create truth - in a world of gray.

Good health to all and vote DEM

Thank you, Kim

looking for integrity — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:08:35 -0500

Kim, as a white feminist in the HRC demographic who has been persuaded to vote for Obama by her racist strategy, although I don't think she is personally a racist, I would like to give you an Amen. Listening to her reminds me that George Wallace started his political career as a racial progressive. When he was soundly defeated by a race-baiting opponent, he vowed that he "would never be out-ni****ed" again and made sure he wasn't. I'm sorry HRC seems to be following his example.