U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

11 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Yes, I think that the reaction to Albright's remarks reveal more about the reactors than they do about Albright herself. 

Headline: Noted Hillary Clinton supporter thinks criticism of prominent Clinton supporter speaks well for Hillary, bad for her opponents!

In other news: Supporters of the two primary candidates agree: "Heads I win, tails you lose!"

But seriously, I suspect that Albright's critics ALSO think their criticism reveals more about them than Albright's comments reveal about her. The question, as ever, is exactly what these criticisms reveal. There you will probably not find such ready agreement. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Yes, I think that the reaction to Albright's remarks reveal more about the reactors than they do about Albright herself. 

Tracker,

Would you mind to answering my question to Lyanna? 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lyanna,

So, by that logic women who don't support Sec. Clinton for President are betraying women and need to go to a "special hell" because they aren't supporting a woman?  How is that different from saying "if you are a woman and don't vote for Sec. Clinton you should go to a special hell"?

I think Albright was speaking in a general sense, and I would certainly not interpret her words as "Women must always take the side of the most womany person in the room no matter what." I would also not take her to mean that any woman not voting for Clinton is a gender traitor or something. As far as I can tell, Albright is saying that, in general, women have a special interest in supporting other women, since men cannot always be counted upon to do so. 

[Jaxom 1974]

With Robot Rubio getting a little more attention in the last couple days after the debate,  watching his body language and listening to him...I didn't think my skin could crawl more after Trump and Cruz.  Nothing about him screams honest or trustworthy. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker, Lyanna,

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?referer=

From the NYT:

 

Quote

While introducing Mrs. Clinton at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, Ms. Albright, 78, the first female secretary of state, talked about the importance of electing a woman to the country’s highest office. In a dig at the “revolution” that Mr. Sanders, 74, often speaks of, she said the first female commander in chief would be a true revolution. And she scolded any woman who felt otherwise.

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

 

She says this at a rally for Sec. Clinton and it doesn't make reference to women who choose to support candidates other than Sec. Clinton? 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Hillary Clinton Alleged Barack Obama Sold Access To Big Donors; Now Criticizes Campaign Finance Attacks

 

Quote

In the closing stretch of the New Hampshire primary campaign, Hillary Clinton has slammed critics for pointing out that she backed public policies that helped her major campaign contributors in the financial industry. At a debate sponsored by MSNBC, she said it was out of line for her opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, to “link donations to my political campaign, or really donations to anyone’s political campaign, with undue influence with changing people’s views and votes.”

...

Today Clinton presents herself as an unwavering ally of Obama — and has accused Sanders of indirectly besmirching the president with his criticism of politicians who take Wall Street donations. But in April 2008, Clinton’s campaign aired a television ad portraying Obama’s support for a 2005 energy bill as a quid pro quo for campaign donations. The ad said Obama had “accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies,” while criticizing him for voting “for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil.” The clear message: Obama backed the bill as a favor to donors.

Clinton also accused Obama of exchanging legislative favors for campaign cash from the nuclear industry.

"Sen. Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors — Exelon, a big nuclear power company,” she declared. “Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry.”

...

Clinton’s apparent change of heart about the propriety of campaign finance criticism comes as Sanders is trying to focus the race on the role of money in politics. That effort plays off a series of reports documenting the former secretary of state’s support for policies benefiting industries that delivered big money to her campaigns and her family’s foundations. Among them:

• A Wall Street Journal report on the secretary of state helping a major bank that donated to the Clinton Foundation.

• A New York Times report on Clinton supporting a uranium deal that helped a Clinton Foundation donor.

• International Business Times reports on Clinton backing arms deals, approving contracts, pushing trade deals and supporting offshore drilling legislation that helped major foundation and campaign donors.

• An analysis by Elizabeth Warren suggesting Clinton backed a bankruptcy bill to help her campaign donors in the financial industry.

 • A report by the Intercept on Clinton reversing her support for single-payer healthcare after being paid $2.8 million in speaking fees from the healthcare industry.

...

The attempt to flip the campaign finance issue back on Sanders, though, spotlights an inherent contradiction in Hillary Clinton’s arguments. At times, like in last week’s debate, Clinton has disputed the idea that campaign donations and speaking fees buy influence. Yet in her campaign launch speech last summer, Clinton asserted that money was a problematic influence on public officials. “We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process and drowning out the voices of our people,” she said.

 

[Inigima]

50 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think Albright was speaking in a general sense, and I would certainly not interpret her words as "Women must always take the side of the most womany person in the room no matter what." I would also not take her to mean that any woman not voting for Clinton is a gender traitor or something. As far as I can tell, Albright is saying that, in general, women have a special interest in supporting other women, since men cannot always be counted upon to do so. 

I absolutely cannot fathom why, in context,  you -- or Lyanna, or whoever else -- do not believe this was exactly that. There's no other way to parse her words.

[Inigima]

It isn't even what she said! I would agree with Albright if it were.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

What's shameful is the Clinton campaign and it's supporters are embracing the bullying of young women who don't support them while at the same time complaining about Sanders' supporters bullying them online. Like Nestor said, heads I win tails you lose.

[Calibandar]

Not sure if this is an opinion prevalent in these campaign threads, but as a fan of the US and one following this whole election, I do feel that the US has a genuine dearth of good candidates this time around.

Not that I am able to judge Obama and how he did over 7 years, but he at least seemed a "natural" candidate who just seemed somewhat head and shoulders above the rest. But now?

Hilary Clinton comes across as a shrill woman with less than zero charisma, on any scale. She's 69 years old, at the very edge of what I would deem a desirable age spectrum for someone in such a demanding job. She would not get my vote if I were a citizen, of that I feel certain, and in doing so I apparently join the ranks of most young Democrat voters in the US.

Bernie Sanders? I thought he was supposed to be a just a joke candidate set up so that it did not appear as if Hilary didn't even have to run. He seems do be doing much better than expected. But despite his advance age of 74, you have to question what wisdom he offers.

As for the Republicans, Trump is ridiculous, which leaves Rubio and Cruz, who are ok I guess, but like Hilary elicit little feeling or inspire confidence. 

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker, Lyanna,

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?referer=

From the NYT:

 

 

She says this at a rally for Sec. Clinton and it doesn't make reference to women who choose to support candidates other than Sec. Clinton? 

Scot,

I agree with Tracker's interpretation.

 

Note here as well that this is the journalist saying "in a dig against the revolution" etc etc. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps it was only Albright trying to highlight that when it comes to representation, electing a woman is truly revolutionary. And in that regard, it is. I think we also need to take into account that someone of Albright's age will have more likely suffered far more sexism and resistance through her career, and given that, the issue of representation, to prove that it is possible for a woman to get elected, is more important than economic politics. 

Regarding what she says either, she is not wrong. Tracker's point on how women have an interest, as a group, of supporting other women is an important one. It runs even deeper than representation, too, since one unique woman (the "unique snowflake" woman, see also examples like Margaret Thatcher) can occasionally succeed, but she will be only one, until women as a group learn to support other women. The structures of internalised sexism dictate that the highest honour for a woman is to be counted among the men. I think you can see that there is a certain helping of self loathing involved in that process and it is unhealthy. This is what Albright is after, I think, even if it also comes off as a swing at Sanders. Of course, he would be revolutionary in different ways, just not by the virtue of being a woman.

[BloodRider]

On 2/8/2016 at 8:20 AM, Ordos said:

Some more useless trivia: The Democratic party have a primary for Democrats abroad. I think Americans in foreign countries can vote at the embassies or consulates. Why no Republicans abroad primary?

Because expats are tantamount to traitors.  :-)

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Scot,

I agree with Tracker's interpretation.

 

Note here as well that this is the journalist saying "in a dig against the revolution" etc etc. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps it was only Albright trying to highlight that when it comes to representation, electing a woman is truly revolutionary. And in that regard, it is. I think we also need to take into account that someone of Albright's age will have more likely suffered far more sexism and resistance through her career, and given that, the issue of representation, to prove that it is possible for a woman to get elected, is more important than economic politics. 

Regarding what she says either, she is not wrong. Tracker's point on how women have an interest, as a group, of supporting other women is an important one. It runs even deeper than representation, too, since one unique woman (the "unique snowflake" woman, see also examples like Margaret Thatcher) can occasionally succeed, but she will be only one, until women as a group learn to support other women. The structures of internalised sexism dictate that the highest honour for a woman is to be counted among the men. I think you can see that there is a certain helping of self loathing involved in that process and it is unhealthy. This is what Albright is after, I think, even if it also comes off as a swing at Sanders. Of course, he would be revolutionary in different ways, just not by the virtue of being a woman.

Lyanna,

I see what you are saying. That said offering this comment at a rally for Sec. Clinton certainly gives the impression of "vote for Sec. Clinton if you are female or burn in a special hell."  Perhaps it wasn't intended that way but it certainly sounds like that.  I think Sec. Albright should, at a minimum, clarify.

[TrackerNeil]

54 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I absolutely cannot fathom why, in context,  you -- or Lyanna, or whoever else -- do not believe this was exactly that. There's no other way to parse her words.

Can you tell me how you parse her words? Until I know that I can't say just how far apart you and I are.

[Lyanna Stark]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lyanna,

I see what you are saying. That said offering this comment at a rally for Sec. Clinton certainly gives the impression of "vote for Sec. Clinton if you are female or burn in a special hell."  Perhaps it wasn't intended that way but it certainly sounds like that.  I think Sec. Albright should, at a minimum, clarify.

Hmm, I am not sure it's needed.You have to almost wilfully misunderstand Albright or be a click-bait searching jouirnalist to demand that. I found Steinem's comments far more eyebrow raising, to be honest. Albright is commenting on how women should stick together, which is a good thought. Steinem is accusing young women, and young feminists, of only supporting Sanders because they fawn over men. That is insanely insulting. Albright's commentary I see far more along the line of Tracker and Nestor, while Steinem is just offensive.

Not that she's the first second waver to piss of the third wavers either. Germaine Greer has pioneered that particular line of thinking for some time.

 

EDIT: On the other hand, I saw some third wave feminist say something like "well, I don't care what Steinem says anyway, she was a playboy bunny" and then I just wanted to put my foot down as again, why put other women down with sexism as a response to them putting you down with sexism? Just as bad, imho. Also: bad feminism.

 

EDIT2: Just as a sidenote, it should surprise nobody that Albright is coming across as an avid support of Clinton since she is speaking at her rallies. Isn't that what she is there for? It's as if people are surprised she is pro-Clinton and thinks she is the best choice for women and for equality. She couldn't really say "Well, I am rather in favour of Clinton, but that other guy is also kinda good, you know." Or, well, she COULD, but it would be a bit misplaced in the current media climate.

[Inigima]

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Can you tell me how you parse her words? Until I know that I can't say just how far apart you and I are.

Here's an exact transcription, by me, from the direct video.

"We can tell our story about how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women don't think you have to-- it's been done. It's not done, and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you, and just remember, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."

It's in the same sentence, even. It's plain as day, it doesn't require some kind of verbal contortion to get there, it's a prima facie exhortation for women to support Hillary Clinton because of her gender.
 

4 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Hmm, I am not sure it's needed.You have to almost wilfully misunderstand Albright or be a click-bait searching jouirnalist to demand that. I found Steinem's comments far more eyebrow raising, to be honest. Albright is commenting on how women should stick together, which is a good thought. Steinem is accusing young women, and young feminists, of only supporting Sanders because they fawn over men. That is insanely insulting. Albright's commentary I see far more along the line of Tracker and Nestor, while Steinem is just offensive.

Not that she's the first second waver to piss of the third wavers either. Germaine Greer has pioneered that particular line of thinking for some time.

 

EDIT: On the other hand, I saw some third wave feminist say something like "well, I don't care what Steinem says anyway, she was a playboy bunny" and then I just wanted to put my foot down as again, why put other women down with sexism as a response to them putting you down with sexism? Just as bad, imho. Also: bad feminism.

Steinem has actually apologized. It's a pretty lukewarm apology, but it's an apology.

Hillary Clinton has some genuinely lamentable politics. I agree with her on a lot of stuff, but there's oceans between us on some issues, and I wish people would stop acting as though those differences are invalid.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lyanna,

Does the context of the statement not matter at all? 

ETA

Looking at the quote Inigima posted I agree with him.  She's saying vote for Sec. Clinton because she is a woman.  If you don't you burn in a special hell.  That's not okay.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Not to derail  Steinem gate, but this was an actual headline in a tax trade publication:  

GOP Candidates Oppose Higher Taxes on Corporations, Wealthy

 It was not followed by, "and water is wet."  

[Mexal]

Rubio malfunctioning in New Hampshire. Think it's time for a tune up.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Rubio malfunctioning in New Hampshire. Think it's time for a tune up.

Marco Rubio is the Sarah Palin of 2016.