You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by KingsJohn/Obediah
What FBJ said was not sexist. He was correct about how women, especially First Ladies fit into today's politics. Notice that Laura Bush was not attacked
What FBJ said was not sexist. He was correct about how women, especially First Ladies fit into today's politics. Notice that Laura Bush was not attacked like Hillary, nor was Barbara Bush. Remember Nancy Reagan was attacked when she put herself out in the spotlight on the drug issue.
I think this is right on point. Hillary wasn't running for office, and Mrs. Obama isn't either.
If Michelle Obama tries to get out there and give policy speeches like we are getting some kind of two for one deal, then she is fair game. Her husband is the one running, she isn't, so she should just support him and leave the policy statements to him.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
Nonsense. Why introduce race? Could it not also be said that the assumption is made that she doesn't share America's values because she's from Chicago, or because she's a lawyer? While any could be a part of the reason for her feelings, they are equally irrelevant to the fact that she doesn't share America's values. Because of the fact that she made that connection, the statement on the part of Maureen Dowd implies that she feels that the black community doesn't share the values of the average American. Now, we all know this isn't the case, but having eliminated that option, you have to see that this is clearly an attempt to make the Obama's the victims. I can only see this working for so long.
Sorry salami, I'm lost. Are you saying that race is irrelevant to the attacks on Michelle Obama? Are you saying that it is objectively true that MO doesn't share 'America's values'? Niether of those things? I'm not clear on the argument.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Then, in your opinion, are these attacks on Michelle Obama fair? She's just another American.
That's right, she is just another American and if she was talking to you or me in line at the grocery store, then she wouldn't be attacked, but that isn't what she is doing. She is using her husband's campaign as a platform to put forth her opinions and ideas.
The day when she runs for something is the day I will care about her opinions being stated in public. If she is going to publicly state her opinions, then she and her husband should be prepared to have those opinions criticized.
BTW, I don't think going after her is a great strategy for McCain's campaign. There will be plenty of candidate Obama's positions to attack without going after his wife, but the more Michelle Obama talks the more I like it. Let the political pundits discuss any comments that she makes. There is no need for McCain or anyone in his campaign to respond to anything that Michelle Obama says.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
Last edited by KINGS17; June 12th, 2008 at 01:58 PM.
That's right, she is just another American and if she was talking to you or me in line at the grocery store, then she wouldn't be attacked, but that isn't what she is doing. She is using her husband's campaign as a platform to put forth her opinions and ideas.
The day when she runs for something is the day I will care about her opinions being stated in public. If she is going to publicly state her opinions, then she and her husband should be prepared to have those opinions criticized.
BTW, I don't think going after her is a great strategy for McCain's campaign. There will be plenty of candidate Obama's positions to attack without going after his wife, but the more Michelle Obama talks the more I like it. Let the political pundits discuss any comments that she makes. There is no need for McCain or anyone in his campaign to respond to anything that Michelle Obama says.
OK as long as we're clear then: You won't judge her arguments based on their merit because she is using her status as wife to the Democratic nominee. But you won't discredit the whisper campaign and libel against her that is being perpetuated by the McCain campaign and the 527s he refuses to even attempt to control. (another flip-flop for McCain.) But you will say that it isn't a great strategy. Just checking.
She is using her husband's campaign as a platform to put forth her opinions and ideas...The day when she runs for something is the day I will care about her opinions being stated in public. If she is going to publicly state her opinions, then she and her husband should be prepared to have those opinions criticized.
Pardon me KINGS17, but doesn't the second sentence above directly contradict the first and the third?
My real question is this. Every spouse of a candidate that I can think of except for Pat Nixon has been involved in the campaign of the husband/wife. Just exactly what opinions that don't amount to "I support what my husband's campaign is about" has Michelle Obama offered? What are you referring to?
Sorry salami, I'm lost. Are you saying that race is irrelevant to the attacks on Michelle Obama? Are you saying that it is objectively true that MO doesn't share 'America's values'? Niether of those things? I'm not clear on the argument.
For some reason I always seem to do better with analogies....
If I call a guy an a-hole, and he happens to be black, is that based on race? Now, what if he is, unequivocally an a-hole, but his attitude is a result of the oppression he received when he was growing up black in a latin or caucasian neighborhood. Is calling him an a-hole then a racial statement? I think the answer is "no", just as it would be if I accused MO of not sharing America's values. While it is possible, however unlikely, that the two are related, it doesn't necessarily mean that they run hand-in-hand.
Last edited by salami; June 12th, 2008 at 07:25 PM.
For some reason I always seem to do better with analogies....
If I call a guy an a-hole, and he happens to be black, is that based on race? Now, what if he is, unequivocally an a-hole, but his attitude is a result of the oppression he received when he was growing up black in a latin or caucasian neighborhood. Is calling him an a-hole then a racial statement? I think the answer is "no", just as it would be if I accused MO of not sharing America's values. While it is possible, however unlikely, that the two are related, it doesn't necessarily mean that they run hand-in-hand.
But... what if you like a-holes? Do you like a-holes?
Classic Politiking (tricking?) here. Attack someone's "personal motives" instead of the statments they make. Someone says that Michelle Obama is fair game? They must be sexist. Someone says they don't like Obama's platform? Must hate blacks too. Nice strategy there. Make someone prove they aren't a bigot instead of debating them on why they think that way.
Leo, I know you're a hardcore Obama supporter, but isn't it possible that someone can disagree with him without hating his skin color? It seems every post you make regarding him (and lately that's quite a lot) has some statment in there about people only disliking him because he's black. I know that's a simple way of putting it, but that's the gist isn't it?
...and OMR, how is anything FBJ said sexist? Bill Clinton was mentioned in the original statement. We've ONLY had first ladies so it's not like he's picking and choosing who should remain in the background if they don't want to be picked on. She's certainly fair game just like any other spouse who puts them selves out there. Also, what's with the "independent thinker" comment? First ladies have ALWAYS parroted their husbands platform. What's independent about that? Can you name me an instance where they were at odds?
As to the original point of this post, I really don't think attacking her will hurt. It didn't hurt in 2004 with Kerry's wife. . .and she wasn't that vocal. Mostly just didn't have a feel for the american people.
...and OMR, how is anything FBJ said sexist? Bill Clinton was mentioned in the original statement. We've ONLY had first ladies so it's not like he's picking and choosing who should remain in the background if they don't want to be picked on. She's certainly fair game just like any other spouse who puts them selves out there.
There is a direct contradiction within the same post here Smythe. Let's look at your last sentence: "It didn't hurt in 2004 with Kerry's wife. . .and she wasn't that vocal." So if Theresa Heinz "wasn't that vocal" and she was still targeted by the right wing, then when is a potential first lady not "fair game?" Theresa Heinz was targeted by xenophobic attacks because she wasn't born in the US. She was targeted by right wingers because she didn't take her husband's last name. Much like Michelle Obama is being targeted by some because she is black. People like Meatstick will say they aren't racist, Michelle Obama holds "un-American" values. What the hell are American values? This is a nation of laws, not ethnic, religious, or philosophic identity. Tell me the use of the term "baby mama" wasn't invoking some sort of racial identity politics.
Meatstick would have had a field day explaining that because Theresa Heinz spoke 5 languages, was born in Africa, and decided to keep her family's name, that Theresa Heinz didn't share "American Values." FBJ would label Theresa Heinz as "strong liberated woman" with derision because she kept her family name. And you would've then stepped in and asked "How is that sexist?"
Quote:
Also, what's with the "independent thinker" comment? First ladies have ALWAYS parroted their husbands platform. What's independent about that? Can you name me an instance where they were at odds?
As to the original point of this post, I really don't think attacking her will hurt. It didn't hurt in 2004 with Kerry's wife. . .and she wasn't that vocal. Mostly just didn't have a feel for the american people.
Ok since people have trouble grasping the concept of sexism, here is the original post by FBJ:
Quote:
If she acts like a potential first-lady should act (i.e. simply saying that she supports and believes in her husband 100%), then there should be nothing to attack her about. But if she goes out and starts talking like Hillary Clinton did when she was first lady, then in my opinion, she's fair game.
The thing about liberal candidates is that they'll feel a need to pander to the "strong liberated woman" vote (even though they don't need to pander that direction), so they'll probably trot her out there and have her giving speeches where she discusses specifics. After that, she's campaigning (similar to the way Bill was out stumping for Hillary and saying all kinds of stupid crap) rather than simply supporting her husband while he's on the campaign trail.
Notice the bold. "acts like a potential frist-lady should act." Explain to how this is different from saying "acts like a wife should act." That just a tad patriarchal.
Notice that strong liberated woman is in quotes. Notice the negative connotation of the word pander. FBJ speaks about feminism with derision.
Now, some independent first ladies: Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt and apparently Hillary Clinton according to her recent campaign. Can I also mention some other politician's wives? Elizabeth Edwards and Maria Shriver come to mind.
Last edited by OddManRush; June 13th, 2008 at 07:43 AM.
If Michelle Obama tries to get out there and give policy speeches like we are getting some kind of two for one deal, then she is fair game. Her husband is the one running, she isn't, so she should just support him and leave the policy statements to him.
quoted for truth
she wants to call us a mean country and say things on public record, then she should be attacked like any public figure.
For some reason I always seem to do better with analogies....
If I call a guy an a-hole, and he happens to be black, is that based on race? Now, what if he is, unequivocally an a-hole, but his attitude is a result of the oppression he received when he was growing up black in a latin or caucasian neighborhood. Is calling him an a-hole then a racial statement? I think the answer is "no", just as it would be if I accused MO of not sharing America's values. While it is possible, however unlikely, that the two are related, it doesn't necessarily mean that they run hand-in-hand.
I agree that the answer to the first two questions above is "no." And I also believe there is no necessa
KINGS17
