BlogHer - Ron Paul - Comments

McCain's Idaho #'s

Erin Kotecki Vest — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:05:13 -0500

With 89% of precincts reporting

McCain is estimated to have 70% of the vote and Ron Paul with 23% via AOL.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

A Fun Veepstakes Game/Tool

Erin Kotecki Vest — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:27:22 -0500

Over at MSNBC you can play VeepStakes for McCain's runningmate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24672458/

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

I think that's exactly right

Maria Niles — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:45:09 -0600

I think the distinction that Tubbs Jones is both an individual voter and a super delegate and faces pressure in the latter situation that she should not face in the former is not only accurate but fair.

If the tables were turned and a super delegate voted for Obama (particularly if, like Clinton he had won fewer states and fewer votes) and the delegate's district voted overwhelmingly for Clinton they would rightly experience the exact same pressure.

And I don't think it's an issue of race or gender even though it gets spun that way. If super delegates choose a nominee who is not the leader in the overall popular vote, super delegates will then come under fire from lots of voters. And if that nominee is different from who voters chose overwhelmingly in a district then a super delegate who is one by virtue of being an elected official will then face extra pressure from their voters. Tubbs Jones would have the same pressure applied if she voted in congress against the preferences of a majority of voters in her district on key issues. And if the Democratic nominee loses the general election under that scenario, the pressure will be even greater. And that would be true even if we were talking about two white men as potential nominees. If you're an elected official who defies the will of the people who elected you and especially if you then end up on the losing side, you should expect to be challenged for reelection no matter the circumstance.

And here's yet another one ALSO from the PD on same subject

Jill — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:16:15 -0600

See - this kind of harping bothers me - here's today's story on the same thing re: Tubbs Jones and the pressure she'll face to change to Obama

I completely understand the issue about the political pressure. But at what point does she get to be a voter? DOES she get to be a voter?

What are we really saying about democracy and free will to decide if people feel that she should give in to what her district is doing, as far as who she supports?

Here's what I think - and maybe it's just naive - but I believe that she should be left alone to support Clinton if that's what she believes in, she should be left alone to vote for Clinton if that's who she wants to vote for. BUT - as for her superdelegate status, THAT is something she may need to reconsider. She will have to decide what the value and meaning of that status is and then decide if she must cast THAT vote for Obama because of her constituents.

How's that for splitting hairs!?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

First, I have to say that

Dana J. Tuszke — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:59:38 -0600

First, I have to say that you are not hi-jacking, any discussion is a good discussion. It all correlates, really. :)

Secondly, I have never been able to completely align myself with the Republican party, even though I'm a registered Republican. I confess, there have been SEVERAL issues over the last eight years that I haven't agreed with -- and the lines of BS that the GOP have tried to force feed me over the course of this election process are enough to drive me crazy.

If anything, I've learned to be the sore thumb of Republican party -- and to stand for what's important to me.

And that's really the bottom line, I think. After all, "Republican" is just a label designed to keep me "in my place" and I'm tired of it.

And when it comes down to a woman as President -- I'm all for it, and I can't wait for the day it happens, but I cannot force myself to support a candidate that makes me feel uncomfortable and skeptical.

And believe me, I know that Hillary isn't getting a fair shake. Maybe, if she wasn't connected to Bill Clinton, I would feel better about her. Maybe if she hadn't played a part in so many cover-ups (Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater) I would feel like I could trust her. (Everyone tells me to separate Hillary from Bill, and I'd love to, but she won't even separate herself from Bill.)

I know it's not her fault that her husband is a lying, cheating, SOB, but it is what it is and I can't just "get over it" and pretend it doesn't bother me.

On the contrary, Obama isn't the perfect candidate by any means. There are a few things I dislike about him, mainly his stance on abortion, and I'm not overlooking that issue, it's going to bother me for a long time. But right now, I have to focus on more than that. It's painful to say that, but it's true. And if anything, I want to be authentic and true to myself.

I know that Obama and Clinton have similar stances on important issues and I had to single out what I liked best about each candidate's plans (I included John McCain into this mess, too) -- then I had to decide which candidate I could trust, and feel good about voting for. Every time, Obama came out ahead. So I went with my instincts and voted for him.

I think that every Republican could benefit from doing the same. I can name many Republicans who still think they have to agree with every single thing the GOP agrees with and it's rather naive. Like my mother would say to me, "If Katie jumped off a bridge, would you jump, too?" It works the same way with politics.

And the ones sending the negative, anti-Democrat e-mails aren't helping the cause. It just makes them look scared. Open and honest communication is the way to get someone to at least hear your side, but it doesn't guarantee they'll agree with you.

So, yeah, that was a long-winded comment and I probably just re-hi-jacked!

Thanks, Jill

Maria Niles — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:53:19 -0600

Interesting piece, thanks for linking.

My sense was that Morris was suggesting two things:

1. Some in the community have suggested that she should be supporting Obama rather than Clinton based on race.

2. That if her district votes overwhelmingly for Obama and she, as a super delegate, continues to cast her vote for Clinton, she will likely face some pressure.

My reaction is that all African Americans should be free to vote for Clinton if they feel she is the best candidate and arguments that they are race-traitors is just as annoying as the gender-traitor claims. And, while super delegates are not only free to vote their conscious as to who they think is ultimately the best candidate, and arguably they should, voting against the overwhelming choice of those who elected you is politically risky and rightly so. If Stephanie Tubbs Jones finds herself in the position of having to explain her vote for Clinton to voters in her district she should be prepared to defend that choice well, prepare for a possible challenge next time she is up for re-election or really, really hope Clinton makes it to the White House and gives Jones a role in her administration. ;-)

Yes, mostly rhetorical

Maria Niles — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:42:16 -0600

Apologies for the continued hijack, Dana and Laurie, this is a broader rant not directed at you but rather at the reasoning of others you cite and to further clarify my initial comment.

Race has also been a consistent factor, not just gender - every president has been a white man. And yes there are lots of sexist people out there who would never vote for a woman just as there are racists who would never vote for a black man and too many idiots who wouldn't vote for either simply because of their race or gender.

And I'm not arguing that it is not a good thing to be happy to vote for the first viable female candidate and to proudly do so as a woman. And yes, there has been too much sexist treatment of her and she has to work that much harder than would a man in her position. But the same is true for Obama because of his race.

Nor am I suggesting that electing Clinton would not be a profound act of courage and change in the United States. However, racism and sexism come from the same place. If voting for Hillary is perceived as striking a blow against sexism then voting for Barack should be perceived as striking a blow against racism and both should be celebrated.

And to argue that only black women are free to vote for Obama without getting their feminist pass revoked is just a really tiresome argument - I feel really sorry for white women who seem to be bearing the brunt of feminist ire for betraying the tribe. Nobody owes any candidate their vote, they all have to earn it and possession of a vagina is not sufficient in my book.

As Dana has so beautifully pointed out, let's make it about issues first, identity second and in any case stop chastising women for having enough of a brain to make up their mind on the former rather than the latter.

Hey Maria -

lauriewrites — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:37:28 -0600

That might have been rhetorical but here I go thinking out loud again. ;) From what I read, there are some people (mostly women) who believe that having a woman as commander-in-chief would be more notable than a man of any race/culture, given that gender has been the one consistent factor of all 44. Not saying I'm one of them (at all). This obviously comes from a personal lens that's different for all of us, and I think it's why it's so dangerous to boil anything down to one identifying factor.

My cousin's sister-in-law told her that God didn't intend for there to be a female president. This cousin is a lifelong Republican who inundated me with anti-Democratic e-mails during the last election, and told me last weekend that she's voting for Obama. Huh? No offense, Dana, but this was the shocker of this primary season for me, and one of the main ones of my whole life (no hyperbole, I swear.) A female co-worker of mine told me - completely serious - that she didn't feel any woman was capable of leading a nation in wartime. Any. Ever. If nothing else the conversations I'm engaging in and things I'm reading this year are letting me know that I took a lot for granted in terms of the heads and hearts around me. It's kind of freaking me out, sometimes in a good way, sometimes not so much. It depends on the day.

Laurie

Maria - to that question!

Jill — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:33:54 -0600

I apologize if this goes off just a bit, but Plain Dealer columnist Phillip Morris wrote this piece that was published today and he very much seems to be implying that a black woman voting for Clinton is a traitor to race - now, no one is calling Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones a traitor - not that I've heard of. And Morris isn't either - but he is saying that the pressure, the burden, the out of sync-ness that will be apparent could be overwhelming for STJ - because she supports Clinton but her district is rumored to go 3:1 for Obama. I don't know - I'm not sure.

But I hope you'll take a minute to read the column. It probably deserves more of a post in BlogHer - because I remember maybe two weeks ago? There was a big thread on the topic of African American women being doubly challenged/blessed - with Clinton and Obama.

Thanks - sorry - didn't mean to hijack. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

If ...

Maria Niles — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:18:00 -0600

If white women who for Obama are traitors to their gender as you posit, ajm7, then are black women who vote for Clinton traitors to their race?

And, if "having a woman president after 44 male presidents would be an act of profound justice and fairness, and because a woman president would fundamentally change our culture in ways that are almost difficult to comprehend now" as you state are you saying that having an African-American as president not be as much an act of justice and fairness after 44 white presidents and as much as a fundamental change to our culture? Or are you suggesting that racism in not as much a problem as sexism and the symbolic redress is not as important?

PopConsumer
Beyond Help

You say that I said you

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:48:28 -0600

You say that I said you should vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

That is not what I said. I reiterated that I, personally, only wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Wouldn't that also be sexist, you know, if we got down to the brass tacks of the matter?

You say that you decided against Hillary because you felt you can't fully trust her but you don't back up your reason for it.

I have backed it up. I've given several reasons. I encourage you to go back and read my post again.

In regards to your question about race and gender -- I don't think it is wrong for anyone to be excited, elated even, about having a black or female President. I think it would be wonderful, but I made my decision without taking race or gender into consideration. I weighed the importance of the issues and then determined which candidate was better for the job.

May I ask if you've researched where Hillary stands on the issues? Or are you voting for her simply based on gender?

I assumed that anyone who

ajm7 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:35:38 -0600

I assumed that anyone who votes for a socialist has got to be at least somewhat liberal. If you are not a liberal, I think it somewhat incomprehensible that you are voting for someone who is to the left of the Left. This is a man who thinks abortion in the very last day of a pregnancy should be absolutely legal and freely available to any woman.

You say that I said you should vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. I never said that. I said that your seeing Hillary as "entitled" seems to me to be very sexist. It seems like a mild form of what people who hate Hillary believe - that she's dictatorial and calculating (most often summed up with the b word). I understand this coming from traditional minded people who can't abide to see women in positions of authority, but I don't understand it from people who claim to be more enlightened.

Furthermore, do you think it is wrong of black Americans to be excited that Obama is black.. and that they are finally going to perhaps see someone like themselves in the White House? Do you think it is wrong of them to take Obama's race into consideration? Do you think it is wrong of them to make a decision between Obama and Hillary based on the fact that Obama is black? Does not the very fact that Obama is black and that a black man may be President, given the history of black people in this country, is this not very fact of historical and profound importance? Why should this be discounted? And .. why is the same not true of women? Is not choosing a woman or a black man in itself a factor at least as important as any party affiiiation/policy/worldview?

You say that you decided against Hillary because you felt you can't fully trust her but you don't back up your reason for it. I decided for Hillary not because I'm liberal but because having a woman president after 44 male presidents would be an act of profound justice and fairness, and because a woman president would fundamentally change our culture in ways that are almost difficult to comprehend now. Young girls in our country are plagued by self hatred because they have no heroes. They hate themselves and their bodies because all they see are unrealisting images of what they should be. Yes, there is a war in Iraq that should be ended. But there is war at home too.. and too many times women and girls are the victims.

As a liberal woman...

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:46:44 -0600

I often vigorously disagree with Dana. However, I wish that everyone took the time and did their research the way she did before she came to her decision. I have tremendous respect for Dana for standing up for her beliefs, and I take umbrage at anyone who berates her in the name of liberal women.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

I just had this thought: If

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:34:14 -0600

I just had this thought: If Coulter and Malkin became mothers, would they still be embraced on the news channels like they are now?

Well, thanks, Jim! I'm

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:32:05 -0600

Well, thanks, Jim!

I'm certain there are several people who don't agree with my politics, but that's what makes this country great, right? (And it's probably why the left and right fight so much. But hopefully that will end once we all learn to speak to each other calmly.)