tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post3239404086125100204..comments2023-10-15T10:48:01.870-04:00Comments on Roxie's World: What's Wrong With This Picture?Roxie Smith Lindemannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06455529922082930949noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post-41011525528886340792008-06-07T19:13:00.000-04:002008-06-07T19:13:00.000-04:00Eitan, I don't know you but I wasn't talking about...Eitan, I don't know you but I wasn't talking about your death watch, since I've never been to your Facebook page. There are real HRC death watches on other Facebook pages. <BR/><BR/>Also I think it might interest you that I'd never put up a death watch for the Obama campaign or even the McCain campaign. Why? Because metaphors structure thinking and wishing for death is a dangerous way to characterize campaigns of politicians one doesn't support. The campaigns of all candidates who will not, it seems, be their party's nominee are presently suspended, not dead. And when the nominees are chosen (that doesn't happen officially until the conventions), then the campaigns of their opponents are over but not necessarily dead: they might be revived in future years. But all campaigns, even those with which I disagree, should be honored and respected. I think using a death metaphor makes that difficult.<BR/><BR/>And Stephanie -- yes, Moose is correct. The DNC put an * besides Barak Obama's "win" that was entirely unnecessary. And the rush to do that as well as the strong arming smack of insecurity. You don't do such a thing when you are very confident, and it's true that Obama's numbers have been declining since March (so I can understand their trepidation). But I think it unspeakably stupid to reveal that insecurity through bullying tactics that are taken from the Republican playbook of 2000 (and you can bet that the RNC notices the bungling insecurity).<BR/><BR/>Hope this clarifies, and I hope everyone will read Roxie's report on HRC's speech today. What grace, what leadership--most impressive to me was that she didn't let the media bully her out of talking about sexism, yet when she did so she did not personalize this grave problem but spoke of it as a systemic problem on which she will be more focused. I appreciate that. And I appreciate that she mentioned the gay community not once, but twice, and nothing about her mention seemed forced or the politically correct thing to do. THAT's why a majority of queers are in HRC's camp: we're not being pandered to, she never refers to our lifestyle, and she would never say she admires one of us for "not proselytizing." Metaphors, vocabulary matter and reveal a lot.<BR/><BR/>Here's to HRC, the most admirable woman--excuse me, Person--in the world.<BR/>--GooseMartha Nell Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10066686045532002283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post-26862456085926233442008-06-07T10:29:00.000-04:002008-06-07T10:29:00.000-04:00Just FYI, the Hillary Clinton Deathwatch on my Fac...Just FYI, the Hillary Clinton Deathwatch on my Facebook page was from Slate magazine, and it was about her CAMPAIGN and not HER.Eitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06048819747086690385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post-1733745484728331092008-06-07T08:47:00.000-04:002008-06-07T08:47:00.000-04:00Thanks, RA. I'm always a little cynical when it's...Thanks, RA. I'm always a little cynical when it's reported that two politicians have prayed together, but I like your image of Clinton and Obama sharing a moment of mutual respect and silence. One quality I think they both have is a core of serenity, an ability to stay calm and quiet at the center of the storm. If two such figures shared such a moment, it would be powerful indeed. And if each could appreciate that quality in the other, they might recognize that they could be an extraordinary force for leadership and change -- together.<BR/><BR/>Gosh, RA, I think you just helped me talk myself into a unity ticket!<BR/><BR/>Point taken on the math and the superdelegates, Stephanie -- Obama was obviously ahead without them, though his numbers were padded by the Michigan compromise. I think Goose's point was that he still needed superdelegates to get to the magic number. Plus, we were very upset w/ the story about our delegate Heather Mizeur being strong-armed into coming out for Obama on Tuesday night -- It was an unseemly rush to force things to the conclusion that was obviously going to be reached anyway.Roxie Smith Lindemannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06455529922082930949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post-40515330147848865122008-06-07T07:55:00.000-04:002008-06-07T07:55:00.000-04:00Great, great post, Roxie, at a most important junc...Great, great post, Roxie, at a most important juncture! Go PUMA! - No unity without respect !!!<BR/><BR/>But there is some hope — the Mystery Meeting was all important — I would guess Barack and Hillary prayed together at some point in that conversation, probably at the end, and if so, that prayer, or moment of mutual respect and silence, may strengthen and inspire Hillary's speech today, and carry them both, in a very profound way, through to November.<BR/><BR/>RAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post-9513062934924155432008-06-07T02:55:00.000-04:002008-06-07T02:55:00.000-04:00I agree that this is all very difficult and that t...I agree that this is all very difficult and that the Democrats have risked this election through various shenanigans and mistakes. I commend your efforts to to build a new feminist movement in the wake of this sh*tstorm.<BR/><BR/>I am confused, however, by this description of the delegate count: <BR/><BR/><I>[T]he refusal of Senator Obama to remember his wailing back in January-February that the nomination could not be decided by superdelegates, that the popular vote is just as important, and then demanding this week that the nomination be decided by superdelegates.</I><BR/><BR/>As I understand it, Obama is not demanding that the race be decided by delegate counts. Doesn't he lead in pledged delegates? By my rough mental math, if you take away the Florida and Michigan delegates as awarded and substitute the Clinton numbers (in Michigan, that's 73 for Clinton and 0 for Obama), Obama still leads 1754-1731. If I am correct -- and mental math is not always the best math at this hour -- then he only requires the support of superdelegates to win the nomination because superdelegates exist and have pledged support to Clinton. He does not need the majority of superdelegates to win the nomination; assuming he is nominated, the will of the majority of superdelegates is not what will have determined the outcome.<BR/><BR/>Of course none of this detracts from the very real problems with the nomination process, both in general and in this campaign in particular. I just wanted to offer my opinion about that one claim.Miss Happhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714779022274391672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post-18541355802638641382008-06-07T02:52:00.000-04:002008-06-07T02:52:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Miss Happhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714779022274391672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23938076.post-29012446029136869812008-06-06T18:04:00.000-04:002008-06-06T18:04:00.000-04:00Once again, Rox, you made me laugh and smile about...Once again, Rox, you made me laugh and smile about something that just makes me sick, quite frankly. <BR/><BR/>The Pudd'nhead Party is just brilliant isn't it? Did you see the Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes today about if the election were held today, Clinton would beat McCain (and handily) but McCain would beat Obama. Check it out, gang: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin.<BR/><BR/>And that's been the case with other scientists who are ranking polls scientifically (rather than wishfully), and has been so for weeks, even months (so the numbers are hardening). Yet the Pudd'nheads think they can do exactly what they condemned in 2000 (steal votes from one candidate and give them to another; at least Pat Buchanan and George W. Bush were on the ballot in 2000!). The Pudd'nheads think they can do that, tell us to shut up, and that everything's going to be unity. Their "reasoning" seems to have been that "yes, we can change the rules if we all agree to change them; therefore, we are going to change them even beyond what the Party constitution allows and reallocate votes even though we do not have the authority to do that." WOW. <BR/><BR/>And then they ordered us up on our unity ponies. Unity cannot be ordered. It must be earned and forged, and not by name-calling and through threats. <BR/><BR/>Senator Clinton's speech on visibility reminded me of just how invisible, just how othered I feel by some of the Obamites. They don't see me. They don't hear me. They have death watches for my candidate (not for her campaign) on their Facebook pages. They're comfortable with a candidate who had to pinch and force and bully in order to obtain the nomination.<BR/><BR/>It's a long, long way from here to November, and there's something terribly wrong here on the Democratic side already--the insecurity indicated by last Saturday's DNC decision and the refusal of Senator Obama to remember his wailing back in January-February that the nomination could not be decided by superdelegates, that the popular vote is just as important, and then demanding this week that the nomination be decided by superdelegates. Senator Clinton will do just as you say, Rox--she is much larger than anyone in American politics. But even she cannot persuade me that violating my own principles to make others feel better is a good thing to do. <BR/><BR/>Unity cannot be bullied, though a party nomination can. <BR/><BR/>In Peace,<BR/>Goose<BR/><BR/>PS - I invite you and all of your readers to join me by joining NOW: http://www.now.org/Martha Nell Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10066686045532002283noreply@blogger.com