Rush Limbaugh's column and radio show Dec 18th, starts with the headline.
Limbaugh: "Does Our Looks-Obsessed Culture Want to Stare At An Aging Woman?"He goes on to ask... So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?
In addition same day The Drudge column headlines with a picture of Hillary looking quote "old". I am not going to dignify The Drudge Report by showing the picture of Hillary they show.
This thinking is the pits and the most sexist and ageist comment yet. But interesting as I think others have been subtly attacking Hillary for the same dumb reason. I think there is a group out there of both men and women who think Hillary is just not hip enough or good looking enough (double standard) as I mentioned two posts down she doesn't look like a mannequin and now I add concocted out of whole cloth by the Republican image machine looking like somebody's proper Republican wife. And more power to Hillary for being herself. She must be "damn" tired from the campaign and when people are tired they always look older. I doubt most of America listens to anything Limbaugh says but his headline does have a touch of truth which is Americans are obsessed with age. Something to ponder and fight against-blatant ageism directed at a presidential candidate.
By the way, all this focus on the way Hillary looks seems strange to me as I find her good looking in a mainstream kind of way. She does not look like a model though and why should she? Comments!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Clinton, Obama, Edwards Race in Iowa
My opinion on Hillary Clinton vs. Barak Obama hasn't really changed from the last time I wrote on this topic. Hillary seems ready to lead; Obama has no baggage to hold him down if he does assume higher office. Obama has been described as an agent of change; whereas Clinton is tagged as representing a continuation of the same insider kind of Washington. This is said in spite of the fact Barak has many ex Clinton staffers running and advising his campaign. Since I last wrote, Obama has increased his support and lead in Iowa; Clinton has received an important endorsement from the Newpaper Editors of The Des Moines Register. This endorsement has given new life to Hillary's campaign in Iowa. As for Edwards, he is still a strong contender and may gain from the tough rough ups going between Hillary and Barak, mostly coming from the Hillary camp. Some (Chris Matthews for one) have speculated that the Clintons would rather see an Edwards win in Iowa or even be in second place to Hillary rather than see Barak in first or second place as they think Edwards would be easier to beat in the long run. One poll Matthews quoted shows Edwards the strongest contender against the Republican candidates. I wonder if this represents blue collar voters and Southerners who can identify with Edward's working class roots.
Although it may not be directly attributable to Hillary, mention of Barak's drug using days when he was young and the fact he has a Muslim name and Muslin relatives has been a new constant item in the media. It is not a good move as this kind of attack could come back to haunt the Clinton parties. However, the media has brought up the spectre of Bill "the womanizer"in the White House even if only by quoting a recent poll asking how many out there worry about the Bill factor in the White House. The answer was 15% which seems insignificant which was mentioned by Chris Matthews in a snide way as being an optimistic American type response. Optimistic I guess because that would mean 85% would not worry about Bill having sex (not with his wife) in the White House.
The important thing to me is that a Democrat win and that that Democrat takes the
White House. In the end, I think pragmatism will take over and Hillary will edge out all the other Dems. I am hoping that by then the grassroots will have put enough pressure on Hillary to move her more to the left than she is now. But I suppose that is a pipe dream. My hope is that she will come through with her promised health care plan for every American which Barak is not promising. My hope is that being older herself she will not forget the elderly and their needs.
My hope is Hillary will put an end to the Bush and NeoCon Conquestial attempts to gain more power and oil in the middle east and beyond. The one postion I strongly disagree with her on is her idea of keeping soldiers in Iraq, a U.S. presence in that region, no matter how few, after the major troop personnel have been sent home. I think US troops have been an irritant in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, although I do want US troops and other troops to continue keeping the Taliban forces out of power when and where they can. More effort should be on keeping Afghanistan stable than we are doing now. All the Dems seem to agree with this shift in emphasis from the Bush administration.
By now the message has become loud and clear, Get us out of Iraq. She has not promised to completely vacate soldiers from Iraq but by the time she is elected, the focus on a peaceful solution and how to do it will be clearer. She will I hope act forcefully about helping the environment and not just listen to Al Gore and the global warming experts. Can Obama or an Edwards lead us to these ends more directly than Hillary can? The answer is unclear as both act as though the conservative forces can be sidestepped and ignored in the march toward progress. I think
Hillary needs to ignore more and compromise less if she were to be elected. I think Obama and Edwards have the right instincts. The ignorant and conservative forces need to be ignored when it is possible to do so.
Sometimes I feel my tendency to favor Hillary is a generational choice. I like the fact Hillary is a woman and older. As a participant in the Women's movement all through the seventies, it is hard not to get excited about a woman who is a Democrat running for President. I am not naive enough to think that this alone will make all the difference as a woman who gets that high has already been co-opted by a male world built to serve the interest of males. I also think there is a lot of subtle ageism and lookist negativity directed at Hillary because she looks like she is a late middle aged woman. She doesn't look like a manniquin like some of the Republican candidate wives. I guess what it boils down to is I would be supporting Barak if I really thought he would be better on all the issues than Hillary. I am just not convinced of that and Hillary just seems so damn together. I know she would be good in a crisis. She already is a symbol of someone who has weathered lots of storms. I wonder how many others feel the same way.
Although it may not be directly attributable to Hillary, mention of Barak's drug using days when he was young and the fact he has a Muslim name and Muslin relatives has been a new constant item in the media. It is not a good move as this kind of attack could come back to haunt the Clinton parties. However, the media has brought up the spectre of Bill "the womanizer"in the White House even if only by quoting a recent poll asking how many out there worry about the Bill factor in the White House. The answer was 15% which seems insignificant which was mentioned by Chris Matthews in a snide way as being an optimistic American type response. Optimistic I guess because that would mean 85% would not worry about Bill having sex (not with his wife) in the White House.
The important thing to me is that a Democrat win and that that Democrat takes the
White House. In the end, I think pragmatism will take over and Hillary will edge out all the other Dems. I am hoping that by then the grassroots will have put enough pressure on Hillary to move her more to the left than she is now. But I suppose that is a pipe dream. My hope is that she will come through with her promised health care plan for every American which Barak is not promising. My hope is that being older herself she will not forget the elderly and their needs.
My hope is Hillary will put an end to the Bush and NeoCon Conquestial attempts to gain more power and oil in the middle east and beyond. The one postion I strongly disagree with her on is her idea of keeping soldiers in Iraq, a U.S. presence in that region, no matter how few, after the major troop personnel have been sent home. I think US troops have been an irritant in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, although I do want US troops and other troops to continue keeping the Taliban forces out of power when and where they can. More effort should be on keeping Afghanistan stable than we are doing now. All the Dems seem to agree with this shift in emphasis from the Bush administration.
By now the message has become loud and clear, Get us out of Iraq. She has not promised to completely vacate soldiers from Iraq but by the time she is elected, the focus on a peaceful solution and how to do it will be clearer. She will I hope act forcefully about helping the environment and not just listen to Al Gore and the global warming experts. Can Obama or an Edwards lead us to these ends more directly than Hillary can? The answer is unclear as both act as though the conservative forces can be sidestepped and ignored in the march toward progress. I think
Hillary needs to ignore more and compromise less if she were to be elected. I think Obama and Edwards have the right instincts. The ignorant and conservative forces need to be ignored when it is possible to do so.
Sometimes I feel my tendency to favor Hillary is a generational choice. I like the fact Hillary is a woman and older. As a participant in the Women's movement all through the seventies, it is hard not to get excited about a woman who is a Democrat running for President. I am not naive enough to think that this alone will make all the difference as a woman who gets that high has already been co-opted by a male world built to serve the interest of males. I also think there is a lot of subtle ageism and lookist negativity directed at Hillary because she looks like she is a late middle aged woman. She doesn't look like a manniquin like some of the Republican candidate wives. I guess what it boils down to is I would be supporting Barak if I really thought he would be better on all the issues than Hillary. I am just not convinced of that and Hillary just seems so damn together. I know she would be good in a crisis. She already is a symbol of someone who has weathered lots of storms. I wonder how many others feel the same way.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Mitt Romney says "No" to Muslim in his Cabinet
Mitt Romney's first instinct was to say "No" when he was asked if he would consider a Muslim for his cabinet if he were to be elected President. Mansoor Ijaz who attended a fundraiser for Romney asked him "whether he would consider a Muslim for a national security post in his Cabinet, since he says radical jihad is the biggest threat facing America". I find Romney's response to Ijaz quite hypocritial given there has been controversy surrounding the electability of Romney based on the fact that he is a member of the Mormon Faith which is considered to be a non Christian faith by many mainstream Protestants and Catholics. Read more in depth on the controversy below.
Sharon Raphael
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/1
Boston News
A Muslim in Romney's Cabinet? Probably not
Link|Comments (3) By Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor November 27, 07 11:35 AM
A New York financier calls for a Muslim to be appointed to the next president's Cabinet and relates an interesting reply when he put that issue to Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Mansoor Ijaz, who describes himself as an American-born Muslim whose family came from Pakistan, writes in an opinion piece in today's Christian Science Monitor that he attended a private fund-raiser this month for Romney in Las Vegas. Ijaz says he asked Romney whether he would consider a Muslim for a national security post in his Cabinet, since he says radical jihad is the biggest threat facing America.
According to Ijaz, Romney said that based on the proportion of Muslims in the US population, a Cabinet post would not be "justified," though he could "imagine" Muslims serving in lower-level jobs in his administration.
"Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead," Ijaz writes. "Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America's Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats."
Romney, interviewed Monday on CNN, was asked about diversity in his inner circle and in appointments.
"Suggesting that we have to fill spots based on checking off boxes of various ethnic groups is really a very inappropriate way to think about we staff positions," he said.
"I'm very pleased that, among my Cabinet members [as Massachusetts governor], for instance, I had several African-American individuals. I had people of different backgrounds. But I don't go in every circumstance I'm in and say, 'OK, how many African-Americans, how many Hispanic-Americans, how many Asian-Americans,' and fill boxes that way.
"I fill responsibilities based upon people's merit and their skill. And, sometimes, it includes many ethnic minorities. And other times, it includes different minorities. But I'm very pleased with my record."
Sharon Raphael
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/1
Boston News
A Muslim in Romney's Cabinet? Probably not
Link|Comments (3) By Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor November 27, 07 11:35 AM
A New York financier calls for a Muslim to be appointed to the next president's Cabinet and relates an interesting reply when he put that issue to Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Mansoor Ijaz, who describes himself as an American-born Muslim whose family came from Pakistan, writes in an opinion piece in today's Christian Science Monitor that he attended a private fund-raiser this month for Romney in Las Vegas. Ijaz says he asked Romney whether he would consider a Muslim for a national security post in his Cabinet, since he says radical jihad is the biggest threat facing America.
According to Ijaz, Romney said that based on the proportion of Muslims in the US population, a Cabinet post would not be "justified," though he could "imagine" Muslims serving in lower-level jobs in his administration.
"Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead," Ijaz writes. "Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America's Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats."
Romney, interviewed Monday on CNN, was asked about diversity in his inner circle and in appointments.
"Suggesting that we have to fill spots based on checking off boxes of various ethnic groups is really a very inappropriate way to think about we staff positions," he said.
"I'm very pleased that, among my Cabinet members [as Massachusetts governor], for instance, I had several African-American individuals. I had people of different backgrounds. But I don't go in every circumstance I'm in and say, 'OK, how many African-Americans, how many Hispanic-Americans, how many Asian-Americans,' and fill boxes that way.
"I fill responsibilities based upon people's merit and their skill. And, sometimes, it includes many ethnic minorities. And other times, it includes different minorities. But I'm very pleased with my record."
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Is this funny?
Go to http://www.alternet.org/workplace/67680/www.tradewatch.org
to see a discussion of Barak and Hillary's position on Walmart in Peru and a free trade agreement.
Obama or Clinton? Iowa or Bust.
In recent days, the race in Iowa for Democratic contender for President is tightening up between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama appears to be ahead. John Edwards is not far behind. Hillary has faulted Obama by pointing out that the fact he lived abroad, in Indonesia, when he was a child is not evidence of foreign policy experience. Barak fired back by saying something like which one of us voted the right way on the War in Iraq and that he never equated living abroad as evidence of foreign policy expertise. Personally, I do not think Hillary did herself any good taking Obama to task on this issue. It seems just plain petty and defensive though I understand the logic in what she is saying.
When I listened to the Dem debate led by Wolf Blitzer from CNN last week, I felt that Hillary made more good points on some issues and looked stronger than Barak, for instance, her rasing the question of how Obama planned to finance his national health care plan by raising taxes (on the top 6% of income earners) on groups of seemingly high earners i.e. firefighters and police who sometimes in some regions fall into the 98,000 a year bracket. These are usually in areas that have high costs i.e. California. Hillary pointed out how she is backed by firefighters union and the like that would be against such a plan. I thought Hillary's quick evaluation of Barak's plan showed she can think on her feet and make points not that easy to explain in a sound bite. The implication seemed to be we should focus on the really rich and leave the middle class alone when it comes to raising taxes.
On the other hand, Barak appears to be getting a very positive response from many senior (over 65 crowd) Democrats living in Iowa as well as young people (under 25). These groups are swayed by Barak's growing reputation as appearing more honest and open than Hillary and more convincing as someone who cares about their interests.
Barak did not make points with the LGBT community several weeks ago when he had a "convert to straightness", a former Gay man who I think is a reverend following Barakand seaking at his campaign stops in S. Carolina. Not sure what to make of this development though it appeared Barak backed away from this connection in a public statement he made on the topic. Barak has mentioned that Oprah Winfrey will help him campaign in Iowa and if that happens I would suspect he will nail quite a few votes down with her help.
The Republicans campaigning for President i.e. Guiliani says only good things about Obama because I think he wants Obama to be his main contender and think that if he is the public will not vote Obama into office. It is a way of using the race card in a backhanded kind of way. No way to really predict the outcome in Iowa and what the outcome will mean in the long run. At this point, I remain an observer knowing I will vote for any Democrat who takes the lead in the end. It would be great to have the first African American President and great to have the first Woman President. I do think Hillary is obviously more experienced though not liberal enough for my taste and too ready to compromise with the Republicans on many issues though she keeps on demonstrating that the other party is not going away any time soon and so compromise is the only way to get anything done i.e. health care or reforming social security.
The more bad news we hear about Bush and his evil co-conspirators in the Valerie Plame affair and the War in Iraq decision, the more Hillary may look as though she has been weak in not attacking Bush or asking for his impeachment, although Barak has not done this either as far as I know. Hillary can continue to raise the fact that she was a victim of a Republican witch-hunt. Not sure how that will play. I am also afraid as the first Black man in office that Obama will lean over backwards to look and act like middle "white" America to the nth degree. He already has done this. At least, Barak has no baggage like Hillary has to carry into the White House with him. The question for me Is Barak ready to lead? I think Hillary is. What a dilemma!!
I hope whoever wins will put an end to the demagogery and move toward a police state that has taken hold in America since and even before 9/11. Both Obama and Clinton claim they will put this country on the right path. This won't happen if either one tries to prove they are more patriotic or more interested in security and fighting the boogeyman "terrorism" than any other contender. I think Hillary does this more than Obama. Obama says he will use diplomacy to solve problems and not stand on ceremony which Hillary implies she will do with States i.e. Iran and Korea. Edwards has been critical of this security conscious I am stronger than anyone else approach and I applaud him for that. Someone has to get off the merry go round and march to the right. Not sure the major two Dem contenders are up for it but we have to make them do it for our sake. Keep driving home the point, we want this country to abide by the rules the founding fathers created which puts checks and balances on tyrants and those who would fail to follow the principles of democratic governance.
Sharon Raphael
When I listened to the Dem debate led by Wolf Blitzer from CNN last week, I felt that Hillary made more good points on some issues and looked stronger than Barak, for instance, her rasing the question of how Obama planned to finance his national health care plan by raising taxes (on the top 6% of income earners) on groups of seemingly high earners i.e. firefighters and police who sometimes in some regions fall into the 98,000 a year bracket. These are usually in areas that have high costs i.e. California. Hillary pointed out how she is backed by firefighters union and the like that would be against such a plan. I thought Hillary's quick evaluation of Barak's plan showed she can think on her feet and make points not that easy to explain in a sound bite. The implication seemed to be we should focus on the really rich and leave the middle class alone when it comes to raising taxes.
On the other hand, Barak appears to be getting a very positive response from many senior (over 65 crowd) Democrats living in Iowa as well as young people (under 25). These groups are swayed by Barak's growing reputation as appearing more honest and open than Hillary and more convincing as someone who cares about their interests.
Barak did not make points with the LGBT community several weeks ago when he had a "convert to straightness", a former Gay man who I think is a reverend following Barakand seaking at his campaign stops in S. Carolina. Not sure what to make of this development though it appeared Barak backed away from this connection in a public statement he made on the topic. Barak has mentioned that Oprah Winfrey will help him campaign in Iowa and if that happens I would suspect he will nail quite a few votes down with her help.
The Republicans campaigning for President i.e. Guiliani says only good things about Obama because I think he wants Obama to be his main contender and think that if he is the public will not vote Obama into office. It is a way of using the race card in a backhanded kind of way. No way to really predict the outcome in Iowa and what the outcome will mean in the long run. At this point, I remain an observer knowing I will vote for any Democrat who takes the lead in the end. It would be great to have the first African American President and great to have the first Woman President. I do think Hillary is obviously more experienced though not liberal enough for my taste and too ready to compromise with the Republicans on many issues though she keeps on demonstrating that the other party is not going away any time soon and so compromise is the only way to get anything done i.e. health care or reforming social security.
The more bad news we hear about Bush and his evil co-conspirators in the Valerie Plame affair and the War in Iraq decision, the more Hillary may look as though she has been weak in not attacking Bush or asking for his impeachment, although Barak has not done this either as far as I know. Hillary can continue to raise the fact that she was a victim of a Republican witch-hunt. Not sure how that will play. I am also afraid as the first Black man in office that Obama will lean over backwards to look and act like middle "white" America to the nth degree. He already has done this. At least, Barak has no baggage like Hillary has to carry into the White House with him. The question for me Is Barak ready to lead? I think Hillary is. What a dilemma!!
I hope whoever wins will put an end to the demagogery and move toward a police state that has taken hold in America since and even before 9/11. Both Obama and Clinton claim they will put this country on the right path. This won't happen if either one tries to prove they are more patriotic or more interested in security and fighting the boogeyman "terrorism" than any other contender. I think Hillary does this more than Obama. Obama says he will use diplomacy to solve problems and not stand on ceremony which Hillary implies she will do with States i.e. Iran and Korea. Edwards has been critical of this security conscious I am stronger than anyone else approach and I applaud him for that. Someone has to get off the merry go round and march to the right. Not sure the major two Dem contenders are up for it but we have to make them do it for our sake. Keep driving home the point, we want this country to abide by the rules the founding fathers created which puts checks and balances on tyrants and those who would fail to follow the principles of democratic governance.
Sharon Raphael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
