Wed 10 Sep 2008
Bristol’s Mom
Posted by David under Eph Pundit, Erin Burnett '98 at 11:24 am
Who remembers Stacy’s Mom, hit 2003 single from Fountains of Wayne?
Adam Schlesinger ‘89 and Chris Collingwood ‘89 are founders of the band. Is this theme — sexual attractiveness of older women/mothers — somehow relevant to US politics? Erin Burnett ‘98 thinks so! Context is an overview by Donny Deutche of the Palin candidacy, with special emphasis on her attractiveness.
Erin: You know Donny there is a 4 letter acronym that would apply, but I won’t say it, but it begins with M and ends with F.
Donny: Ends with what?
Erin: Begins with M, ends with F, it’s a four letter acronym, that’s all I can say.
You stay classy, Erin! (See Wikipedia for an explanation of the acronym.) Yet Palin is not the only woman (or person!) to benefit from her good looks. Consider this Eagle article on Burnett.
There is no doubt that Burnett is major ammo for CNBC; she delivers the news, and she becomes it. In some cases, she eclipses it. Watching MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews tell Burnett she was a “knockout” during a recent broadcast was more than embarrassing to some viewers.
James E. Mahon, chairman of Williams College’s political economy program and Burnett’s senior thesis adviser, watched a broadcast of Matthews’ public display of affection toward Burnett and said he found it “disgusting.”
The idea that his former student is simply a “Money Honey” — the oft-used epithet used for attractive business news anchors that implies they’re all looks and no substance — is more than a little irksome.
“She works very hard,” Mahon said. “When she sees a job, she knocks herself out.”
For her senior thesis at Williams, Burnett researched labor standards and product identity, and Mahon helped her work it into form.
Under the title “Complying With International Labor Standards,” an abridged version of the thesis was published in a trade journal in 2001.
Mahon described her as a serious student who didn’t use her good looks as currency.
“She wasn’t a beauty queen,” he said. “She was a field hockey player. She wasn’t going around campus trying to be Miss Glamour.”
If you are as beautiful as Burnett, you do not need to try to be “Miss Glamour.” You already are. Beautiful women, like Burnett and Palin, do not need to try to use their “good looks as currency.” Every time they walk into a room, their good looks come with them. Chris Matthews may be “disgusting,” but his reaction to Burnett’s beauty was only outrageous in its obviousness. (And note that she was wearing purple at the time. Who among us can resist an Eph woman in purple?)
Men like to look at Burnett. You think that she would be on CNBC if she were ugly? And, for the record, the phrase “Money Honey” implies nothing about the “substance” of attractive female CNBC anchors. All CNBC anchors, Burnett included, are highly intelligent and quick on their feet. It just so happens that (most of) the female anchors are also very attractive. Turns out that smart women can be attractive and attractive women can be smart! This should hardly come as news to Ephs. Also, Money Honey is not an “epithet.” Maria Bartiromo has actually trademarked the term!
I don’t know if Professor Mahon finds the term irksome or really thinks that it is an epithet. He seems like a smarter guy than that! Yet I do think that Burnett’s good looks played a part in her rise to fame. And the same is true of Palin. What is interesting is that so many people like to pretend that looks don’t matter, or that they shouldn’t. Alas, it is an imperfect world we live in
Other article highlights below.
Yes, she was sharp-witted, talkative and energetic. And funny.
A “pistol,” in the words of one Williams College administrator.
She also was quick on the field hockey and lacrosse fields. And she was a “nose to the grindstone student,” according to her thesis adviser.
No one was surprised when she became a television star.
Erin Burnett “always had a way with words,” said Dick Quinn, the college’s director of sports information. “Now she gets paid for it.”
Ten years after graduating from Williams with a bachelor’s degree in political economy, Burnett, 32, has become one of the most visible personalities at CNBC, where she co-anchors “Squawk on the Street” from the New York Stock Exchange and hosts “Street Signs,” two of the network’s live business news programs.
The shows broadcast every weekday from 9-11 a.m. and 2-3 p.m., respectively, making Burnett the youngest CNBC anchor to have that much regular airtime. In addition to guest spots on other CNBC shows, she appears regularly on NBC programs such as “Today.”
The network’s decision to give Burnett such a sizable chunk of live airtime between the NYSE’s opening and closing bells can be attributed to her “obvious set of skills (and) her wide appeal,” according to Jonathan Wald, CNBC’s senior vice president of business news.
“She has an interest in her material, and it’s clear she enjoys what she does,” Wald said from CNBC’s studios in Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
It’s true; Burnett loves her work, and it shows. Her on-camera demeanor is a magical mix of friendliness and authority that viewers love, and she’s not afraid to poke fun at herself when the red light is on.
During a guest spot on CNBC’s “Stop Trading w/ Jim Cramer” last month, she battled a case of the sniffles while talking stock picks and Hurricane Gustav with Cramer, a Type-A personality gone wild.
As Cramer flailed his arms and referred to Burnett as “Rudolph” (as in “red-nosed”), Burnett kept a poker face.
“I’m a little bit sick,” Burnett said. “Did you notice my nose is red from incessant blowing?”
Long gone are the clipped vowels and cool demeanor of anchors past; Burnett might have flawless looks, but she’s not afraid to let loose with a hoarse “whaddaya watchin’?” when she picks a financial adviser’s brain on “Street Signs.”
The cute asides and on-camera ribbing among guests and anchors are encouraged at CNBC, Wald said, but he noted that Burnett’s ability to “think like a producer” and envision the whole package with a clear point of view give her “authenticity.”
It’s that authenticity that appeals to Burnett, who said she loves live journalism for its ability to bring “voices into the public dialogue.”
Although time and space are at a premium in her business, she gets to present faces, voices, pictures and sound to a global audience.
“(Television) journalism sacrifices (production) time, but I can show a little bit of everything,” Burnett said.
Charles N. Leach, senior investment officer at Berkshire Bank, said Burnett is a “confident, quick study” with a wide breadth of knowledge.
“She has a tough job, because she has to be entertaining but deadly serious at the same time,” Leach said. “We’re at a critical time in the economy.”
Leach said a lot of investment professionals oscillate between CNBC and Bloomberg Business News during the day.
Leach keeps the television volume muted at the office until a guest comes on.
“It’s (Burnett’s) job to draw out the information I need to hear. She has to keep it fresh and compelling,” he said, calling her an “up-and-comer.”
Impressive résumé
Burnett was hired by CNBC in December 2005 after stints as an analyst at Goldman, Sachs & Co., a writer for CNN’s “Moneyline,” an online media executive at Citigroup, and an anchor at Bloomberg Television.
At CNBC she began sharing co-anchor duties of “Squawk” with Mark Haines. Since she joined the show, viewership has increased 52 percent overall and 130 percent with adults 25 to 54, according to CNBC. “Street Signs” viewership has risen 21 percent since she took over as anchor.
A June 2007 article in The Huffington Post referred to Burnett as a “secret weapon” in the inevitable war between CNBC and the Fox Business Channel.
“She’s a not-so-secret weapon (now),” Wald said. “She’s on the air three hours a day. She’s improving constantly, and she has a desire to keep doing more.”
…
As for Burnett’s celebrity, which has inspired a Web site called ObsessedWithErinBurnett.com and has invited acid-tongued snipes in the tabloid press (when Burnett wrote an article called “8 Ways to Impress Me” that ran in Men’s Health magazine earlier in the year, the New York Post had a field day), Mahon said the attention she receives speaks volumes about the culture and says nothing about the woman.
“I never get used to it,” Burnett said. “The whole people-knowing-who-you-are thing? It’s totally different. I just have to laugh.”
Although Burnett agreed that her rise at CNBC happened quickly, it was her pre-stardom life of crunching numbers for Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bloomberg that prepared her for her good fortune.
“It took me 10 years to become an overnight success,” she said. “Had my life (before CNBC) not happened, everything would have been different. I liked everything I did in my early 20s, but I was willing to jump off the diving board. When we get older, we get a little more risk-averse.”
Burnett also said her “hybrid” college major of political economy, along with her regular consultations with Mahon, prepared her for her work at CNBC.
She said she doesn’t know what she’ll be doing in five years, but for now, television is the right fit.
“It’s the best place for (television) journalists now,” she said, adding that, when she returned from India earlier this year, she was able to weave human interest, business and political stories about the trip for the “Today” show, CNBC and MSNBC.
The Williams influence
Burnett is single with no children, but she has seven nieces and nephews — courtesy of her older sisters, Mara and Laurie, who graduated from Williams in 1988 and 1991, respectively.
Whenever the sisters and their children get together, everyone is decked out in purple Williams gear.
Especially the little ones, Burnett said.
“I always ask (my sisters), ‘How many non-Williams-branded children’s clothes do you have?” she said, laughing.
Burnett, who hails from Mardela Springs, Md., said she returns to her alma mater at least once a year. Among her favorite memories of Williamstown are hiking at Mount Hope and the four years she spent on the Williams field hockey team.
Chris Mason, then Williams’ head coach in lacrosse and field hockey, recalls Burnett fondly.
“She was very quick and fast,” Mason said. “A good scorer.”
Mason then told a story about Burnett: The field hockey team had reached the NCAA Division III tournament for the first time, and Mason got to break the exciting news to the team.
“I told them, ‘I have good news and bad news. The good news is we made the tournament,’ ” Mason said. ” ‘The bad news is that we have to take a bus (to the competition) in Salisbury, Maryland. They won’t let us fly down.’ ”
Mason said most team members were silent, “digesting” the news about the long bus drive.
The only one making noise was Burnett.
“Erin was jumping up and down going ‘Wooo!’ ” Mason said, laughing. “She was saying, ‘That’s near my house! We can go for dinner!’
“That was no stuffy money analyst.”
UPDATE: Apologies! I forgot to credit Dan Gerlanc ‘07 for the video link and Dick Quinn for the Eagle article suggestion.
Print • Email| « Demagoguing the Bailout | ‘Neck-ties: another view … » |
81 Responses to “Bristol’s Mom”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.




Jeff Z. says:
Of course physical appearance plays a roll in politics Right from the first televised debate, Kennedy vs. Nixon, in almost every case, both candidates, or certainly the winning candidate, looked “Presidential” — tall, reasonably attractive, traditionally masculine looking men. It is unsurprising that looks would matter for a woman, as well. If Palin had below average looks, there is almost no chance she would currently be a Vice Presidential candidate … that is just stating the obvious. Just like if Bush looked like Joe Lieberman, I’d bet anything he never would have beaten Gore. People gravitate towards attractive people in all areas of life, especially areas of life, like politics or journalism, that involve a substantial television presence. In fact, I’d bet a LOT of money that we will have a female president long before we have an obese president.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:30 amce says:
Most male anchors tend to be good looking as well–the expectation goes both ways.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:37 amronit says:
I am befuddled as to why a post on an interesting article about Erin Burnett needs to feature any mention whatsoever of Spiro Agnew in a Skirt.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:52 amSoph Mom says:
‘Voice’ is very important as well.
And Palin has one that will begin to grate with time.
As well, she has a little sneer thing she does with her nose, that the SNL and Mad TV gals are probably already rehearsing.
Just wait and see.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:52 amfrank uible says:
Agnew had a Williams connection.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:23 pmnuts says:
A strange pivot but yes, all things Eph… Kane’s bid to turn the conversation (here) from Palin to Burnett and Burnett’s take on Palin, Oh! the spin I’m in. MILF is far less provocative than PILF.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:24 pmhwc says:
I see the Democrat felt the need for a press conference this morning explaining his “lipstick on a pig” remark to quiet the firestorm. Something tells me that press conferences explaining lipstick are on the top ten list of things a Presidential candidate wants to avoid.
Two new ads from the Republican goons:
Lipstick Ad YouTube
Fact Check Ad YouTube
Oh, and right on cue, Grandpa Fred Thompson introduced McCain and Palin this morning in Virginia with remarks about Reverend Wright. Sex education for kindergarden yesterday. Rev. Wright today. And the Democrat has a press conference to explain lipstick.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:45 pmSoph Mom says:
I am mightily confused.
Assuming Sarah wouldn’t have minded being called a name she gave herself…since when is a pig …um…’lesser’ than a pit bull?
I think by all accounts pigs are smarter…and definitely more likable. And while a pit bull may have that “rash’ tendency to attack, a pig is clever and resourceful. They are however, inclined to chubbiness. But then again, a pit bull can be rather …um…graceless.
All in all, I think Palin picked the wrong animal. And if she just follows the campaign strategy they have had up to now, she should just steal the line from Obama and quit complaining.
Election Riddle of the Day:
Q. So, what’s the difference between a pit bull and a pig?
A. Character (and maybe a few extra pounds).
September 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pmcurrent eph says:
hwc–
Given your recognition of the Republicans’ dirty tactics (and I assume your condemnation of them?) and your admittedly democratic tendencies, why are you supporting the Republican ticket this election? Are you one of the few democrats who believes that the Iraq war was a justified turn away from Afganistan? Do you believe that drilling in Alaska and off the coast is a better way out of our current oil conundrum than increasing fuel efficiency standards and investing in green energy? Do you believe that the best way to turn the country around economically is through trickle down economics and tax cuts to corporations, or through infrastructure investment and middle and lower class tax cuts?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pmrory says:
hwc,
you write with glee it seems. you enjoy supporting a candidate who dishonorably lies? It’s one thing to support McCain (a bad thing and quickly becoming dishonorable considering how he’s campaigning, imo) it’s another to support this type of campaigning (classless and disgraceful).
September 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pmhwc says:
I answered that in another thread. I have three main reasons:
a) John McCain’s experience makes him unquestionably qualified to be commander-in-chief.
b) John McCain has a proven track record of taking stand-up positions on tough issues, even when it hurts him politically: taking on tobacco, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, McCain-Kennedy immigration reform.
c) One party is fully committed to embracing women for the top positions in government and defending them against sexist attacks. The other party is not. I am casting an enthusiastic vote for the party that walks the walk on this issue.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:53 pmhwc says:
Oh, and I forgot one more reason. There’s far too much incompetence in the Pelosi/Reid/Kerry majority to give them a rubber-stamp Democrat in the White House with no checks and balances. With this Congress, the country needs a Republican veto pen.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pmSoph Mom says:
Rory,
Does the “EB Obama Donation Fund” benefit even if the absurd hack BS is repeated from an earlier thread?
And, what are we up to now?
P.S. HWC, you really ought to reconsider those reasons. They are getting more laughable by the day.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pmJeff Z. says:
Honestly, HWC, do you engage in any critical thinking whatsoever in regards to point c in particular? Name one single sexist attack the Obama campaign has levelled against Palin — ONE. There are none. They are all phony, made up, bullshit, just like this pig / lipstick stuff. Doesn’t it bother you even a tiny bit that Palin’s polices include denying funding for rape kits for women, and prohibiting abortion even in cases of rape? Doesn’t it bother you that McCain himself called his wife a cunt in public, made a viscious joke about Chelsea Clinton when she was a teenager, jokes about rape and wife beating (the latter was a figure of speech, so I’ll cut him slack on that one, but if Obama said what McCain said, you’d of course be crying sexism), cheated on his disabled wife, and so on? The GOP hasn’t exactly been taking McCain to task for any of this — so why doesn’t that bother you? It is absolute insanity that suddenly, by virtue of nominating Palin, the GOP and McCain in particular are the anti-sexist, pro women party. Hell, McCain is even against equal pay for equal work for women. Don’t policies mean anything? Are you that blind to the GOP spin machine that you honestly believe Obama is remotely close to sexist, or that McCain cares more about women than Obama? Just because they are using Palin in a calculated ploy, suddenly makes them the party of gender equality? Just because Clinton lost, means the democrats are anti-women? I guess if Barack had lost, that would mean they are anti-black, right? Barack and his campaign are not sexist, and never were. McCain has a long history of sexism that no one has EVER called him out on. For christsake, just use that Williams education a TINY bit, I beg of you.
As for b, I guess it doesn’t bother you that McCain has completely abandoned every single outlier position he once took — on the Bush taxes, on environmental policy, on the “agents of intolerance”, on the Rovian campaign advisors / tactics, on reaching out to the left / not pandering to the religious right, over the last two years … I guess none of that means anything whatsoever to you.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pmhwc says:
Rory:
Classless and disgraceful campaigning is playing the rap song I’ve got 99 problems, but that bitch ain’t one at your celebration event after the Iowa caucus or Addicted to Love at the Democratic National Committee following President Clinton’s speech endorsing your candidacy.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pmcurrent eph says:
Thanks for your answer. I take it that you’re excited enough about his experience and previous mavericky record that you’re willing to make fairly significant compromises when it comes to the issues? How do you feel about stem cell research or reproductive rights or global warming? Or, am I wrong in thinking that you lean left on those issues, and you actually agree with McCain policy-wise?
Maybe you can help me, but I’m a bit confused by part c of your response. Do you not think that putting an African American on the ballot is as important as putting a woman on the ballot? Your answer implies this, but I’m guessing this isn’t what you mean. Both parties have taken a huge political step towards equality (in fact, if you consider nominating an African American to be as big of a deal as nominating a woman, than the Democrats have taken a bigger step, having nominated an Af Am for President) with their respective tickets, and both have taken a fair amount of flack for it, and consequently have had to “walk the walk” and defend their ticket against bigoted charges; there is undeniably significant amounts of both sexism and racism in our country today. So, yea, can you elaborate on (c)?
September 10th, 2008 at 3:08 pmrory says:
we’re at $55 now soph mom.
hwc,
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
you’ve reached a level of trollishness i didn’t think possible. I’d rather a song with some iffy lyrics rather than, you know, playing a song without the artists permission and then being legally told to cease and desist. that’s gotta be awkward for the republican, considering it’s happened multiple times this election cycle.
that’s right people, the brilliant HWC thinks playing popular music is disgraceful. he, however, does not appear to think lying about your record and your opponent is not disgraceful.
^^^^is what it takes right now, it seems, to be a John McCain supporter. Where’s JPM when I need him for a more reasonable counterbalance? good god.
and when you’re quoting Jay-Z, at least get the line right: i got 99 problems/but a bitch ain’t one. Which bs right-wing blog sent you that meme, btw? you should tell them the correct lyrics. not that they care about facts. lol.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pmhwc says:
Sorry for not being a Jay-Z lyrics expert.
I think it’s a big step, but nowhere near as bold a step as putting a woman on the ticket. Women weren’t even allowed to vote in this country less than 100 years ago and continue to be massively underrepresented at every level of government.
I hope to see a woman elected President during my daughter’s lifetime and I intend to continue rewarding the party that walks the walk on that issue with my vote.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pmwwilson says:
Current Eph, I believe McCain is in favor or embryonic stem cell research (see http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=0ef7162d-8d83-4d8d-b342-5f4560f6ab3d&Region_id=&Issue_id=766fba58-c762-4e68-bf3d-99163108bb35) and acknowledges the importance of addressing global warming (see http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm) (sorry for not being able to simply generate links here). His presidential website seems to waver a little on the embryonic stem cell question. I don’t think there is any doubt that he is pro-life (anti-abortion(?)), but I’m not sure where he stands on other “reproductive freedom” questions.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pmrory says:
$60. this has to be a joke. or a dream, right? no one can actually say what hwc is saying and mean it, right?
congrats, hwc, on having supplanted david kane for most absurd statement about race i’ve ever read on ephblog.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pmWhitney Wilson '90 says:
Comment #19 was mine. I’m not sure how the tag was changed.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:39 pmfrank uible says:
George Carlin is laughing hysterically in his grave. After all this time why do we in the middle class continue to tiptoe timidly around certain words? They are just words for Christ’s sake. Those in our subcultures don’t so tiptoe? They use ‘em when they believe appropriate. To refrain from doing so is certainly not “class” – it is uptight. The acronym is MILF. Most people in my lower middle class/poor boyhood neighborhood were honest and liberated enough not to require the use of such an acronym. MILF means “mothers I’d like to fuck”. There – I already feel better.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pmWhitney Wilson '90 says:
I think Rory’s underlying premise, that nominating an African-American for the Presidency is a huge deal (and, if I can – with apologies in advance if I’m wrong – try to step into Rory’s mind for a moment) more “groundbreaking” than nominating a woman for vice-president, is correct. I suspect that at least part of why Obama may be having more trouble gaining traction in what appears to be a political climate which should heavily favor a Democrat is an unease about him which – consciously or unconsciously – stems from his racial background. Does anyone think differently?
September 10th, 2008 at 3:45 pmronit says:
Can we please not get into this stupid, unproductive comparison of the historical suffering of various groups? Please? It’s divisive and doesn’t accomplish a damn thing.
Please remember that you are being baited into this discussion by a privileged right-wing male who has no intellectual standing whatsoever.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:48 pmWhitney Wilson '90 says:
Amen to the first paragraph of Ronit’s post.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pmJeff Z. says:
HWC, perhaps you were living in Canada at the time, but the dems put a woman on the ticket, oh, 25 years ago. And the party is not some monolithic entity that “chose” Obama over Hillary, despite what many of the more rapid Hillary supporters would have you believe. The caucus system is what it is, and the primary system is what is is, and Obama won the majority of millions upon millions of individual voters, fair and square. He wasn’t annointed from on high to represent the party.
Personally, I’d rather have my daughters (if I am lucky enough to have some) rights protected by anyone, man or woman, than a woman in place who would not support those rights. Just like I’d rather have a Christian like Obama who I agree with than a Jew like Lieberman who I disagree with, even though the likelihood of a Jewish president is even lower than the likelihood of a woman president.
Finally, as to your comparison of the plights of women and blacks in American politics, are you f—-g kidding me? How many black Senators have their been? Black governors? Black congressman from non-majority black districts? I donated 60 bucks to Obama this morning, but I gotta start a new tally.
If there anyone else who suspects that HWC is actually a brilliantly devious Obama supporter who is engaged in an ongoing parody of a lunatic fringe McCain supporter, all in a cleverly subversive effort to inspire passionate support for the Obama campaign? Honestly, at this point, I can’t think of any other possible explanation.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pmrory says:
swiped from a very good comment on another blog:
“By sending out this torrent of mud and slime and lies every day they keep Obama on the defensive. The object of this is not to persuade anybody to vote for or against anyone, there are lots of reasons to do that already for whichever way someone leans.
The object of this torrent of mud is to discourage occasional or first-time voters period. By turning the election into a slimefest it confirms that it is politics as usual and nothing will happen.
So while you have to counter the slime you still have to stay on the main message of change with specifics. Optimism is the primary motivator, dispel fear with strength. The most successful administrations combined optimism with strength.”
new tactic. $5, and a specific issue point of Obama’s. This post’s point will be women’s issues. Obama’s own words:
“From the first moment a woman dared to speak that hope – dared to believe that the American Dream was meant for her too – ordinary women have taken on extraordinary odds to give their daughters the chance for something else; for a life more equal, more free, and filled with more opportunity than they ever had. In so many ways we have succeeded, but in so many areas we have much work left to do.”
Obama’s page on women’s issues is here . McCain’s? umm…
yes we can.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pmhwc says:
Actually, he did not win the majority of the votes cast in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pmSoph Mom says:
What HWC is doing are exactly the tactics of the McCain Campaign; denigrate all that is good about Obama, twist the truth into outrageous assertions, and spin, spin, spin.
I think he went to McCain Camp and drank the kool-aid.
Anyway, Ronit is right. Other than the ‘Obama Fund”, nothing is to be gained by engaging with him.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:19 pmhwc says:
Uh. No. I’m not kidding you.
There are 39 African Americans in the House of Representatives. At 9%, that’s only slightly below the percentage of the overall population.
There are 61 women in the House of Representatives. At 14%, that is far below the percentage of the population (over 50%). Disgraceful underrepresentation. Despite a female candidate winning 18 million votes in the primaries, the Democratic party did not even vet a female candidate for their ticket.
I’m casting a vote for the Party that walks the walk on his issue. I intend to be part of electing the first female Vice President of the United States. I think it will send a powerful message to the half of the population that wasn’t even allowed to vote until 88 years ago.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pmronit says:
McCain’s issues page is here – women’s issues are entirely absent. But, hey, at least they nominated Agnew in a Skirt to be VP, right?
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
September 10th, 2008 at 4:22 pmronit says:
By the way, if you know anyone who is not yet registered to vote (please check with your friends and family, at least), send them here:
https://voteforchange.com/
September 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pmWhitney Wilson '90 says:
I suppose, Ronit, that one could make an argument that there are not(or at least should not be) “women’s issues.” I think that would be the Republican position. Obama’s page on women’s issues was impressive in its comprehensiveness. I continue to be surprised at how much anger there appears to be among some Clinton supporters towards Obama.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:31 pmJeff Z. says:
Actually, HWC, yes he did, unless you count Michigan, where he was NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT and where Hillary had planned not to be on the ballot as well, until it became politically expedient to reverse herself. Even counting Michigan, I believe he won the majority in any event.
The house stat is meaningless — almost all of those black reps are from majority black districts. Look at governors and senators — far, far more women governors and senators than black governors and senators. In any event, all women have to do if they desperately want a woman candidate to win is go out and vote for her — women are, after all, a majority if people in this country. Blacks have no similar recourse. I guess you’ve forgotten, by the way, that long after women had the right to vote, blacks were still being systematically disenfranchised. Fortunately, most women don’t think in the raw identity politics you apparently espouse — I’d like, for example, to take a poll of feminist bastions like Wellesley, Smith, and Bryn Mawr — I’d bet a substantial sum that Obama is WAY ahead of McCain at any of those schools. Why you, a privileged white male, should take it upon yourself to be the voice of the oppressed woman, then disregard what most women (and in particular, most feminists) actually prefer, is beyond me.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:32 pmSoph Mom says:
Per #32
And then send them HERE………
September 10th, 2008 at 4:33 pmronit says:
Which is worse – using a Jay-Z song as background music once, or quoting some anti-Semite who prayed for the assassination of FDR in your convention speech?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palins_source.html?showall
September 10th, 2008 at 4:42 pmhwc says:
According to The Politico today:
This, btw, is the wife of former DNC chair Don Fowler who laughed that “God is on our side” by hitting New Orleans with a hurricane during the Republican convention.
And, you want me to vote for these people?
September 10th, 2008 at 4:42 pmrory says:
$65.
Look, hwc–you’re treading on the ground many of us study and even more of us live day to day (being a racial or gender minority). I am not one to compare inequalities, as that’s a frivolous debate designed to divide what should be a broad coalition of people who are striving to make the US into the land of freedom and equality its founding documents proclaimed and its greatest leaders and community organizers worked and continue to work towards.
The idea that out-of-context numbers in any way can justify one side or another in that frivolous debate is absolutely beyond the pale of idiocy. The idea that the Republicans are “walking the walk” more than democrats have and continue to do is almost as absurd.
There’s a reason the democrats are the party with:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pm-the first female VP candidate
-the support of more woman
-the first serious female Presidential candidate in their primary
-the first female Speaker of the House
-more than twice as many female senators as the republicans
-more female governors
-and more than twice as many female members of the house of representatives.
rory says:
oh, and $70.
guess which party has more and worse stupid quotes from state politicians?
September 10th, 2008 at 4:46 pmJeff Z. says:
First of all, boo-frigging-hoo … thousands of prominent republicans have said far, far, far worse about Obama, including the McCain campaign, oh, TODAY. Secondly, although inartfully put, that is, after all, what got the right wing so fired up — is is Palin and her supporters, not Democrats, who have been saying how she is the paragon of family values and walks the walk for no reason other than she had knew she would have a disabled baby, and decided to have the baby in any event. So why is pointing out EXACTLY WHAT PALIN AND HER SUPPORTERS BEEN CITING AS HER PRIMARY QUALIFICATION in any way problematic? And by the way, I don’t want to you to vote for the wife of former DNC chair Don Fowler, just like, presumably, you don’t want McCain supporters to vote for the various racist assholes who visciously attack Obama (strike that, you probably do, being one of them). If Obama is suddenly responsible for any comment made by any Democract, and McCain responsible for any comment made by any Republican, we might as well just throw in the towel right now and put Ventura in office by popular fiat.
Love how you, as usual, completely ignored the littany of McCain’s sexist conduct, as if it never happened, never even existed. What is more important, some random comment from the wife of some random dude in South Carolina, or the FAR MORE OFFENSIVE things that man you are voting for ACTUALLY HIMSELF SAYS ABOUT, AND DOES TO, WOMEN? Seriously, how dumb are you?
September 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pmronit says:
Jeff Z. – I don’t know about you, but I’m encouraging everyone I know to write in the wife of former DNC Chair Don Fowler for every single thing on the ballot in November. Along with our disregard for fetuses, I’d have to say that wholehearted endorsement of everything ever uttered by the wife of former DNC Chair Don Fowler is pretty much the defining characteristic of Democrats and liberals everywhere.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pmSoph Mom says:
Gotta be the kool-aid.
And the dose must have been too high because the rant has gone from absurd to psychotic.
Honestly, somebody put some duct tape over that mouth before he embarrasses himself any longer.
Have mercy!
September 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pmce says:
Well, sure, McCain has a left-of-conservative stance on global warming and stem cell research, but he’s still significantly more conservative on both than Obama.
So, hwc, you actually do continue surprise me. You honestly believe that the Republicans nominating a woman VICE president 25 years after the Democrats doing so is a bigger historical “deal” than the Democrats nominating an African american president for the first time. Af-Ams haven’t had the right to vote for super long either, and they faced pretty serious other institutional problems up until about 35 years ago.
Also, I’d like to echo what others have said here–would you rather have a woman VP who will make it difficult for your daughter to obtain a rape kit, heavens forbid, should one be necessary…or would you rather have a male VP who would make that as easy as possible? Do you honestly believe that the former will be better for your daughter, either now, or in the long term?
You seem to be basing most of your anger on the Obama campaign on his not selecting Hillary as his running mate. Despite what the media might have you believe, it’s not standard practice to select the “runner up” to be one’s running mate…so Hillary coming close to winning the nomination means mostly squat, except from a purely political “will her votes help him win” standpoint. Obama’s team–unlike McCain’s team–looked to their VP for a candidate most able to step into the shoes of president, if need be. How can you possibly fault them for making this decision? How can you possibly laude McCain for failing to make this decision? Hillary was qualified to be President–without a doubt–but she is not the most qualified among Democrats by a long shot (nor is McCain among Republicans or Obama among Democrats–generally those who get closest to the presidency aren’t those who are the most qualified), and consequently, based on the criteria Obama was selecting his VP on, she shouldn’t have been selected as Obama’s running mate. Like the decision or hate the decision, it doesn’t come anywhere close to sexism.
On the other hand, do you think Palin would have been selected had she not been a woman? Do you think Palin would have been selected if Hillary Clinton hadn’t been such a big force this election? She is nowhere close to the most qualified person to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency in the GOP (and nowhere near the most qualified woman in the party, for that matter). She is nowhere near the most mavericky or most outsider candidate either. I’m not saying that politically she was a poor choice–far from it–I’m just saying that she was primarily a gender-based choice.
So, hwc, my question to you is this–what kind of message are you sending to your daughter when you help elect an unqualified woman for a position simply because she is a woman? Wouldn’t you rather the first woman elected VP have earned that honor?
Finally, aren’t we missing a point here? We’re electing people to what may be the most powerful position in the world. McCain is old, angry, and impulsive. While he may have been the man for the job 10 years ago, I don’t think anyone would argue that he is far past his physical and intellectual prime now. More importantly, he’s old, and Palin is not qualified. Sure, maybe she’d be fun to have as a VP, but do you think she would have gotten more than 3% of the vote had she run in the primaries for President? The fact is, overlooking her radical positions, her past history of abusing executive power, and her current history of blatantly lying to the American people, she is woefully unprepared to assume the duties of the Presidency, should the need arise. Unfortunately, McCain’s age, and previous medical history indicates that the need could very realistically arise (I remember reading that the life insurance-predicted “chances” of someone in his position, even without the enormous stresses of the presidency, living another 8 years is less than 80%).
Furthermore, we’re electing not only the candidates, but their teams and all of the viewpoints that come with that to the office. I think it would be wrong to fault Bush himself for much of what has gone wrong over the last 8 years–most of the fault lies with his advisers. Like it or not, a McCain presidency would carry with it, most of the same political infrastructure that Bush had, and consequently, very similar policies and approaches to policies. I can’t imagine that as a Democrat, you’ve been very happy with how things have gone for the past 8 years…so I would just ask you to seriously consider whether electing a woman VP is worth another four or eight years of Republican executive power.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pmronit says:
You know, I kind of wanted to object to the first off-topic/random troll comment that was posted in this thread (#7), but then I realized that David’s post itself was kind of random and trollish – a completely awkward, tenuous, and somewhat sexist attempt to link Palin to an actually interesting article about an Eph.
David – this might be good for pageviews, but you’re not even making any money from ad placements on this site. Do you actually enjoy this kind of garbage? Must we sully the name of the beautiful, talented, and intelligent Erin Burnett by linking her to Palin and all of this political crap?
PS: Am I the only one who was somewhat confused by the formulation, “Beautiful women, like Burnett and Palin…”? Or is David preaching the idea that beauty is only skin-deep? Palin’s face conceals an ugly soul and repulsive ideas.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pmJeff Z. says:
ronit, I’m with you all the way
September 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pmhwc says:
I don’t think this is the argument that an Obama supporter really wants to make.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pmSoph Mom says:
Wow! He called him Obama!
September 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pmronit says:
Soph Mom – I’m sure he meant to type Osama, and that it was just a typo.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pmPTC says:
Dave- Sexuality and Williams? Williams and sexuality? Good god dude…
September 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pmce says:
hwc–
You’re the one that’s basing your vote largely on gender/race, not me. I think it’s problematic to vote for Obama primarily because he’s black for the same reasons why I think it’s problematic to vote for Palin primarily because she’s a woman. That said, the situations are not equatable. Unlike Palin, Obama was not appointed to his position and will have fully earned the presidency should he win. Obama is where he is today because he is incredibly eloquent and had the correct judgment on the war in Iraq from day one, not because he is black. If anything, signs point to Obama’s race hurting him in this election far more than it is helping him (Palin’s gender, on the other hand, primarily seems to be playing to her advantage).
September 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pmPTC says:
Sophomore mom has got it going on
Sophomore mom has got it going on
Lady do you remember when your son was a frosh
And you told me how much, athletics reduced the co o o o ost
Now we all know David has no respect for Ti i i i ips.
And that he may think, your son is really a di i i i its
Sophomore mom, has got it going on
Sophomore mom has got it going on,
I know It might be wrong but I’m in love with sophomore mom
I know you like me more with every single post,
And the way you say, I’m really nice to you most
Sophomore mom, has got it going on
Sophomore mom has got it going on,
I know it might be wrong but I’m in love with sophomore mom.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pmDavid Kane says:
Trollish? Moi?
Seriously, I don’t understand the complaint from Ronit and JeffZ. A reader (now credited above) sent me a link to the video of Burnett describing Palin as a MILF. Should I not have posted this? It is OK for Ronit to post a video of Burnett but not for me? That makes little sense. My simple rule: If a famous Eph says something interesting/noteworthy/shocking/whatever, I post it. What should I do?
A different reader sent in the link to the Eagle article. Surely, we all agree that I should post that.
And, since both links came in at the same time, and both referenced Burnett, isn’t it reasonable to post them together. (And, moreover, if my fellow authors would post these items first, it would not be left to me to do so.)
Finally, I added a reference to the most famous song by the most famous Eph band that was directly relevant to Burnett’s MILF comment. That’s not trollish! That is blogging genius.
Much to learn from me you have young blogger.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:57 pmronit says:
All I’m saying is, I really wouldn’t if we had three separate posts about Erin Burnett (and none about Sarah Palin) in a single day.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:07 pmhwc says:
Uh. No.
Being qualified to be commander-in-chief is a “gating” item on the checklist for me. I won’t consider any candidate who fails to cross this threshold, especially with the country at war.
This rules out Nader, Barr, and the Democrat, leaving me the options of McCain, a write-in vote, or not voting in 2008. I was undecided among those three options until the nomination of Palin. Now, I am voting for McCain for the reasons I outlined.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:22 pmPTC says:
hwc- If the fact that we are at war and the Commmander in Chief criteria is the driving force behind your vote.. why McCain?…What makes McCain qualified? Do you think McCain has been right about Iraq?
Do you really want a man with his record giving orders to the most powerfull armed forces in the world? He has been wrong on the war, in detail, and in strategy. So … why? Unless you think the War in Iraq has increased our security? Please explain. Do you think the War in Iraq has been good for our country?
September 10th, 2008 at 7:30 pmPTC says:
by the way… “I am voting for a best Commander in Chief” is not a reason for voting for McCain. You have to explain why you think he is the best choice … for it to be a reason. Please expalin to me what McCain has done to gain your confidence? Do you agree with McCain on Iraq? Again, Do you think Iraq has been good for our country?
thanks.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:33 pmronit says:
PTC – I’m not sure that making good decisions or exercising sound judgment is a part of the “qualified to be President” checklist. For chrissake, this country elected both George W. and Richard Nixon, twice. The primary criteria that qualifies someone to become President of the United States is to be absolutely, utterly shameless. McCain passes this test with flying colors.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:37 pmce says:
hwc–
That’s fair. I strongly disagree that McCain is either the most qualified or the best prepared to be commander in chief, but I definitely respect that as a reason to vote for a president.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:38 pmSoph Mom says:
PTC:
(smiling here)
For the sake of modesty, as well as an Ode to “Silly Season”, I offer you Sheryl Crowe in return…
**************************************
You got the farms in Argentina
Making fuel from sugar cane
You got the bastards in Washington
Afraid of popping that greed vein
‘Cause the money’s in the pipeline
And the pipeline’s running dry
And we’ll be the last to recognize
Where there’s shit there’s always flies
Gasoline
Will be free, will be free
Gasoline
Will be free, will be free
Yaaayaya!
September 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pmhwc says:
Because the other available options are laughably short on experience.
Was McCain “right” on Iraq can’t be answered with a simple yes or no answer. It’s a very complex question with multiple opportunities to be right or wrong.
For example, was McCain “rigth” to approve the original authorization given that the CIA had cooked the intelligence estimates on the central question of whether or not Sadaam had WMD? With the benefit of hindsight, it was clearly a mistake. But, based on the cooked intelligence, everyone in the world (inc. Hans Blix) believed that Sadaam had a nuke program.
Was McCain right in his harsh criticism of the Rumsfeld/Cheney military strategy. Yes. I believe he was right.
Was McCain right in saying that the surge would work. Well, as a viscious critic of the surge it pains me to say so, but it appears that McCain was indeed correct in his assessment and in his support for General Patraeus’ plan.
Overall, I would have to grade out McCain has well as anyone else in Washington. Better than most.
It has been my observation that the ex-military guys are the last leaders who want to go to war. John McCain knows what war means. I believe he is also likely to grasp the essential two-pronged elements of carrots and sticks in preventing war. For example, we will never reach a deal with Iran on nukes unless Iran believes that the US President would take them out with military force. It’s that classic irony: the threat of military force prevents the need for military force.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:54 pmJeffz says:
I was actually agreeing with post 47 by ronit.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:03 pmrory says:
$75. and that last doozy and re-writing of history might have been worth an extra $5, but i’m cheap.
woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow @ that one.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:08 pmPTC says:
Was McCain “right” on Iraq can’t be answered with a simple yes or no answer. It’s a very complex question with multiple opportunities to be right or wrong.
Wrong- McCain was wrong. We never should have gone in, and Obama was against it. McCain said it would be a short easy war. Yeah, he said that. Obama was right, McCain was wrong.
The surge- Again- wrong. We should have never thrown more good money into bad. Iraq cannot be won, because there is no national interest in our policy there. We are being used. Pretty simple really. I know the American psyche likes to think of things in terms of “good” and “evil”… “right” and “wrong”… but hwc, it is simple. We are being used in Iraq, and wasting trillions of dollars being used. It only seems complex because it is hard for Americans to imagine being used. “How could this happen, we are America, we are good and just, and we beleive in freedom…” Nope, guess again. We are being used. If you like being used, they you think we can still win.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pmrory says:
hwc,
so your argument boils down to singing “bomb, bomb, bomb iran” is sound foreign policy? nevermind a candidate interfering in foreign policy (Georgia) or forgetting that Checkoslovakia hasn’t existed for about a decade…
September 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pmRechtal Turgidley, Jr says:
I was surprised to read the amount of interest paid to MILFs at the start of this post.
I have been aware of the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) for many years because of old family ties to the Phillipines as an alternate of source of the type of sisal found readily in Panama.
The demand for an independant Muslim state in the southern islands of Mindaao and the Sulu Archipelago by the nearly 5 million Islamic inhabitants has been a source of consternation and worry to Phillipine central governments since the 1960’s and the Jabidah Massacre. Terrorist attacks and assinations have been common. Indeed, There were several outbreaks of fighting again last month.
I am always impressed by the depth of knowledge and accute insights that abound where ever a group of Ephs are found! The interest shown in MILFs and their appearance in the media is yet another example of this.
Rechtal Turgidley, Jr
September 10th, 2008 at 9:07 pmQuark Island, Maine
JPM says:
Whitney:
Earlier in this thread you stated:
I believe this animosity stems from some of comments made by Obama during the campaign that women construed as sexist. For example, Obama said this in early February about the attacks coming his way from Sen. Hillary Clinton::
Later in the month of February, Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton’s latest attack ad:
Both Andrea Mitchell seemed to suggest Obama may have been — if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive. She reacted to Obama’s comments with the following:
In addition, women reacted negatively Obama’s comment in a NH debate, which Richard Cohen described as:
These comments ignited the “sexist powderkeg” for many women supporting Clinton.
Thus, when Obama makes the “lipstick on a pig” comment, he’s providing the GOP with additional fodder for their attacks, as well as bringing up old wounds for female Clinton supporters.
I’m interested in your and Soph Mom’s (as well as other women on this blog) views of Obama’s comments about Clinton and whether you consider them to be sexist.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pmJG says:
OMG, did you really pull out the “periodically” comment? That is still the biggest piece of bullshit I’ve ever heard.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:40 pmJPM says:
JG
The “periodically” comment infuriated a lot of women…
September 10th, 2008 at 9:46 pmPTC says:
jpm- Of course you are interested in nonsense. You cannot support McCain and talk about Iraq, Education, the Economy, Health care… or anything else. Why not talk about lipstick on a pig for a while then. Sounds great. lol.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:47 pmrory says:
did he laugh when someone called Senator Clinton a “bitch”? No? then he’s doing better than McCain.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:48 pmce says:
Hey, at least he never called his wife a c*nt.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pmanonymous says:
An astute observation Rechtal.
This points to having an ever increasing foreign policy engagement, now that we have brought the MILF factor to our table of discussion.
Besides Afghanistan, Iran, Georgia, we have the MILF Panamanian connection, no doubt with special thanks to our esteemed Rechtal Turgidley II.
Quark Island will host the MILF Conference, the Plan for the New Philipine Century, with insightful presentations and thought out proposals, given the expanding experience of an astounding foreign policy advisor.
In the next administration, I will table Rechtal Turgidley II for appointment as a mediator to MILF with offices located in Mindanao serving the Sulu Archipelago Islamicysts.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pmJeffZ says:
None of those sound remotely sexist to me. I mean, for christ sake, grow up Clinton supporters. She said a hell of a lot of things that could be construed as racist by those standards. I mean, are we at the point where every single word that is spoken has to be parsed because someone might take offense? It is really pretty pathetic. If, out of thousands and thousands of words spoken over months of intense campaigning, that is the worst you can come up with, I think you’ve just proven that Barack did NOT say anything remotely sexist. And forgive him for being a little testy with the candidate who visciously slammed him, over and over, in teh press … basically, Clinton supporters (and now, times about a 1000, Palin supporters) support a double standard — you can repeatedly say nasty, untrue, vitriolic things about Obama because he is a man, but you can’t say anything bad about a woman because, of course, any critique of a woman can ONLY be routed in sexism. If anything, it is a reverse double standard at play that favors Clinton (a little) and now Palin (a lot).
Now, when Bill Clinton dismisses all of Obama’s primary wins in the south as nothing more than what Jessie Jackson managed, I’d say that is invoking race a BIT more explicitly than anything noted in the comments above. In all events, Hillary didn’t lose because of sexism — she lost because Obama ran a much better campaign, and I don’t think anyone can dispute that, even HWC. Her message was constantly shifting, her advisors were busier fighting each other than supporting their candidate, and so on and so forth. She also lost because people were sick of partisan warfare, and Obama at least offered the hope of transcending some of that, whereas few are hated more intensely by the right wing than the Clintons — they are the right’s version of the Bushes. Plus, he happens to be a pretty charismatic, appealing guy if you didn’t notice. Likeability has never been Hillary’s strong suit — and fine, call me sexist, but a woman can be unlikeable just as a many can, and plenty of women exude a lot of personal charisma — Hillary, while she improved tremendously over the course of the campaign, ain’t one of them. See, e.g., her forced, painful, unnatural laughter.
But all of that is neither here nor there. What is comes down to is that Hillary and Obama support nearly identical policies, and whichever ended up being the nominee, the country would not be materially affected by the choice. But either versus McCain, well, now we are talking worlds apart ….
September 10th, 2008 at 10:47 pmJG says:
Actually, the “periodically” comment infuriated a lot of people – not just women – who were so passionate about their candidate that they saw attacks on her coming from everywhere, even when they weren’t there. I saw a lot of sexism during the primary, but that was not it.
Some of the most devout PUMA people are men, not women. I think one of the ways we might try to get beyond the sexist (and racist) crap is to stop assuming only women are offended by sexism and that only people of a particular race are offended by comments aimed that way. People who value respect and equality, regardless of party, get offended when such things happen.
Thinking Palin can’t be VP because she has kids is sexist. Referring to McCain policies with a new person to schill for them as lipstick on a pig is not sexist. Calling Obama “uppity” is racist. Questioning his policy positions is not. This isn’t hard.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:56 pmWhitney Wilson '90 says:
JPM,
As those who know me can attest (including DHTK and Jeff Z), for better or worse, I’ll never be able to provide the female perspective on those quotes. They don’t seem sexist to me (as they apparently don’t to Jeff Z), but that is of little importance here. The question is not whether they were sexist, or were intended to be so, but whether significant numbers of women saw them that way. As my friends routinely point out to me, you really can’t tell someone how they feel about something, you can only tell them how they should feel about it. The antipathy that Obama arouses in some women simply surprises me.
PTC, do you really think McCain’s proposed foreign policies are indefensible? Once the situation in Iraq degenerated to where it appeared to be in 2006, don’t you think the subsequent policies (including “the Surge”) improved things? I suppose you could argue that eventually Iraq is destined to implode in a massive orgy of violence, and we are only delaying the inevitable with the huge financial and (more importantly) human price that we have paid since then, but I think there is a chance a reasonably stable state could emerge in Iraq, and our presence over the last few years is critical to that. Has the invasion of Iraq been “worth it” overall? Knowing what we know now about the late-Saddam-era WMD programs in Iraq, probably not. But at the time of the invasion, it was a defensible decision in my judgment. As it has turned out, Obama was right, and he deserves credit for that. But it doesn’t mean he is infallible or that McCain is never right.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:55 pmSoph Mom says:
JPM,
My answer is no. IMO, there is nothing sexist about those comments.
In fact, I find Obama to be a man who exudes a high regard for women. He has been surrounded by strong women all of his life. His manners, his lack of bluster, the way he is with his wife, the way in which his daughters tease and adore him, even in the most public of settings…(sigh) I don’t really know how to explain this.
As well, without going into detail about my family history, my background, my career(s), my marriage, and the overall circumstances of my life, past and present, I don’t know how to convince you that my…um…”sexism” barometer is about as good as they get.
Character, context, tone, intent…IMO, it’s a subtle combination of these things that determine the appropriateness of language and innuendo. Hard to explain and easy to misconstrue. As well, the difficulty defining these things makes for a situation that is easy to exploit.
And although accusations need to be taken seriously, and carefully considered….you also need to examine what’s being gained in the making of them.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:34 amJPM says:
Whitney and Soph Mom:
Thanks for the respense — I appreciate your candor.
Personally, I believe there were sexist overtones to the “periodically” remark. I can’t imagine the comment – specifically phrased as it was – directed towards a man. As for the other comments, I do not believe they were sexist.
Regarding the “lipstick on a pig” comment, I believe that Obama knew exactly what he was saying, but I don’t believe that the remark was a sexist jab at Palin.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:42 amrory says:
i can’t believe we’re letting the discussion be about whether or not two or three one liners were or were not sexist by Obama.
cmon.
He’s running against John McCain. The man who had an ad in the primaries opposing the bridge to nowhere and earmarks for bear dna collection selected a governor who supported the bridge to nowhere and asked for millions in an earmark for seal dna.
cmon.
He’s running against the man who publicly proclaimed that the Iraq war would be short and easy. The man who sang jokingly about bombing Iran and interfered with American foreign policy to help his campaign.
cmon.
He’s running against the man who has flip flopped on tax cuts, oil drilling, and abortion to appease the base of a party, a base whose leaders he once called agents of intolerance but now he embraces.
cmon.
A man once smeared by Karl Rove now works with Rove’s proteges to smear Obama falsely.
cmon.
John McCain is no longer honorable. this latest bullsh*t should prove it to anyone still doubting that (except, perhaps, hwc). Let’s fight on their turf, not ours.
McCain and his supporters can talk about the relative sexism or not of the term “pig in lipstick” while ignoring that mccain himself used it when refering to Hillary Clinton. I’m not going to. I’m going to talk about McCain and his failures. I’m going to talk about Obama and the possibilities that would come from his presidency.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:12 amSoph Mom says:
JPM,
I’d honestly like to hear your opinion of McCain’s sexist behavior.
Again, you seem to have put a lot of thought and consideration into comments Obama has made which are almost unanimously considered non-sexist, (at least by your fellow Ephs, and the two women on this thread)…but that obviously disturbed you. If that is the case, then how do you reconcile McCain’s record of obvious and ostentatious sexism?
The Chelsea Clinton ‘joke’, the video of him calling a woman a C**T, B***H, WH**E…, his obvious public enjoyment when Hilary was called a ‘b**ch, and I know there are several other instances.
This behavior scares me, not just because of what it reveals about his lack of regard for women…but also because it shows a man very clearly ‘out of control’. To behave that way within a (senate?) hearing, in a public place, isn’t just about a lack of judgement. It’s evidence of an urge over which he has absolutely no command.
And if it’s been recorded several times, how many other instances have occurred in which there was no camera rolling?
As well, ask yourself what the reaction would be if there was evidence of even a whisper of that same rash behavior in Obama?
September 11th, 2008 at 10:20 amcurrent eph says:
I think few would argue that the war in Iraq–as a whole–has been a fairly disastrous endeavor. Furthermore, I doubt that few would argue that the surge has made things better. That said, where you stand on everything depends largely on just how disastrous you believe the war has been and just how well you believe the surge to be working.
Judging the surge on its stated goals (which were primarily political), it has not been successful; the sort of political progress that the surge was designed to spark has not happened. I think it’s easy to ignore that and say “but the surge has made Iraq safer.” Nobody doubted the effectiveness of our troops, so I don’t think it comes as much of a surprise to anyone that Iraq is safer. The question we must ask ourselves is at what cost is Iraq safer? Clearly the troop levels of the surge are not sustainable, so if we don’t achieve our political goals in Iraq through the surge, it will not have been an especially fruitful endeavor. More problematically, however, is the situation in Afghanistan, and the situation at home. By committing more troops to Iraq, we have sapped ourselves of the ability to commit to Afghanistan as fully as need be. I doubt few would argue that Afghanistan should be a higher priority in the GWOT than Iraq, so given this, the surge has been somewhat counterproductive. Additionally, our Iraqi commitment has strained our country’s finances, at least contributing to our current fiscal mess.
So yea, I think the Surge was certainly a defensible policy–it’s had some good effects in an area of the world that we’ve pretty much only made worse over the last 5 years or so. I think looking at the big picture, it’s fairly clear that the Surge was not successful policy in that it drained our financial resources and distracted us from a more worrisome center of the GWOT. In conclusion, Whitney, to answer your question, I (at least) think the Surge and many of McCain’s policies were defensible. Ultimately, I think history is showing pretty much all of the major policy decisions he’s made over the last decade or so to be the wrong decisions–and I do think that says something important about his judgment–but I can’t really think of any decisions he’s made that could be described as “indefensible.”
September 11th, 2008 at 10:33 amrory says:
Any decision can be “defended”, especially political decisions that do not have counterfactuals (who knows what would have happened sans surge?).
“defensible” is not the right term. “Prudent” or “beneficial” are better. McCain’s views on Iraq were not prudent and the benefits of the surge are shaky as current eph notes well.
McCain’s views on Iraq in the past 8 years have rarely been “prudent” or “beneficial”–the surge was predicted by some generals as necessary when they said before the war that they would need more troops than Bush planned to use. McCain and Bush didn’t listen to that advice until 4 years had passed. That’s not a track record I’d support.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am