Thoughts from Kansas : Hurray for the primaries!

Search this blog

Profile

Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is also a graduate student at the University of Kansas, completing a doctorate in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not modeling species distributions or battling creationists, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive

Thanks!

Accolades

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Affiliate programs: buy through the links, and TfK will get a percentage.

Buying some music for your friends?

Or maybe some gift certificates?

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Good government

Find your state legislators

Help elect sensible leaders

Re-Elect Nancy Boyda!

Internet neighbors

Add yourself to the Frappr map!

Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

Progressive Blogroll Alliance

Show PBA Blogroll

« New video from NCSE | Main | More on marriage in California »

Hurray for the primaries!

Category: Policy and Politics
Posted on: May 21, 2008 7:04 PM, by Josh Rosenau

Find more posts in: Politics

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments

I am disappointed with this Clinton bashing. Obama doesn't do such things, but I am fed up with Obama supporters who do it. A better Monty Python sketch is from "The Holy Grail", the witch scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

Posted by: bernarda | May 22, 2008 6:01 AM

Pretty darn on point, and amusing, too. I don't see how this is bashing -- it's satirical, to be sure, but it's reflective of the reality of this campaign at this point.

Posted by: Bill | May 22, 2008 9:23 AM

Obama leads in pledged delegates and superdelegates. He's won more states. A majority of primary voters and caucus-goers backed him. By any sensible standard, he's ahead by an insuperable margin.

Saying that isn't bashing Hillary, any more than it's bashing Kucinich, Gravel or Edwards. This isn't about race or gender, it's about votes and delegates, elections, democracy, etc. The main one bashed in the clip is James Carville.

Hillary has based her campaign around claims about winning the "important states," or particular demographics, or a measure of the popular vote that ignores 3 states that don't report turnout, and another where Obama obeyed party rules by withdrawing his name from the ballot. For a while, Hillary had a superdelegate lead, and so that was the metric she was talking about. Then she lost that lead and stopped talking about it. Way back when, she supported sanctioning the Michigan and Florida primaries for violating party rules. Now it's an offense on the scale of Florida in 2000, or, god help us, Zimbabwe (where people are, you know, dying).

What realistic scenario exists in which Hillary could win this? In what meaningful sense is she still, therefore, in the race to win? In what sense is the Black Knight scene inaccurate?

Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 22, 2008 11:24 AM

So, Obama has won. Then why do Obama supporters have to do this? I guess they are bad winners like they were bad bashers.

You notice already that the media and the Rethugs have begun similar misogynist attacks on Michelle Obama. It was predictable and Obama supporters laid the groundwork.

Of course I will support Obama fully, even though so many of his supporters disgust me. He has much more class than any of his supporters I have read.

Posted by: bernarda | May 22, 2008 3:00 PM

I'm having genuine trouble knowing what you find offensive about this video. To my eye and ear, it isn't misogynist, it's political commentary that would be applied to any candidate who was claiming that victory was imminent long after viability was gone.

Yes, there is sexism out there, just as there's racism. But that's not what's driving people's frustration with Hillary, the frustration is that, long after the race is over, she's still attacking the de facto nominee of her party, setting up frames and dissent in battleground states that McCain can exploit this fall.

I'm prepared to consider the possibility that I'm being a bad winner (though I don't think so) if you'll acknowledge that Hillary's actions make her a bad loser.

Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Look up the too long list of misogynists' attacks on Clinton at Shakespeare's Sister. Nothing like that has been done to Obama, whom I respect. OK, maybe Hillary is a bad loser, but usually that is called politics. I read anti-Clinton blogs like Americablog, Balloon Juice, Daily Kos, etc, and I only see confirmation of my impressions. Have you seen the vocabulary they use?

Can't Obama supporters now take the high road? I don't mean with McCain, who deserves all the bashing possible. If you read French, there is a good article on Michelle Obama in Le Monde.

http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2008/05/22/michelle-obama-prete-pour-le-job_1048274_829254.html#ens_id=904503

Don't hold your breath to see that in the U.S. media.

Posted by: bernarda | May 22, 2008 4:19 PM

Again, I don't dispute that there is racism and sexism out there, directed at Obama and Hillary (respectively). But I say again, "that's not what's driving people's frustration with Hillary, the frustration is that, long after the race is over, she's still attacking the de facto nominee of her party, setting up frames and dissent in battleground states that McCain can exploit this fall."

As for "nothing like that has been done to Obama, I refer you to this quick sampling of racist attacks on Obama. It is by no means comprehensive:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/02/20/racist-attacks-on-obama-growing-more-heated/
http://www.slate.com/id/2186553/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/13/politics/washingtonpost/main4090746.shtml
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/14/racist-obama-t-shirts-for-sale-curious-george/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/26/for_bill_clinton_echoes_of_jac.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintons_white_Americans.html
http://hillary1000.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/clinton-did-apologize-for-racism/
etc.

Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 22, 2008 4:42 PM

I didn't mean to imply that Obama was not object of attacks. But you list a half dozen. Here is a list of 100.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part-one-hundred.html

Actually, I think that Michelle would probably be a better President than Barack, or Hillary.

Posted by: bernarda | May 22, 2008 4:53 PM

Like I say, no dispute that there's sexism and racism out there, and that both are persistent and troublesome.

I haven't looked at all 100 of the instances of sexism cataloged at Shakesville, but how many involve the KKK issuing death threats? How many involve an opposing campaign, as with the photo of Obama in Somali dress, or Hillary's remarks treating "hard-working Americans" as synonymous with "white folks"? Or, while we're at it, Hillary's reluctance to push back against the absurd claims that Obama is a secret Muslim? Or the Clinton campaign's consistent media strategy (returning to the original post) that states with large black populations don't really matter, that the only states which really count are the ones with large white populations? That line alone has been pushed over 100 times by Clinton surrogates and supporters.

It's been a brutal campaign, and fortunately it's winding down. It's time for Hillary to turn the negative campaigning against McCain. As I've said before, if she wants to prove that she would be the better candidate in the fall, she needs to show it now, by taking on McCain, not Obama. If she can't or won't do that, she should accept that she lost this campaign, and help her supporters work to elect Barack Obama.

Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 22, 2008 6:42 PM

#10

Taint over till one of them has a majority of all the delegates. Why? Because neither can win on the first ballot. After that, I believe, and if my ancient brain can remember, delegates are free to negotiate their vote or change their vote. Taint over till one of them can win on the first ballot. All else is bullshit.

Posted by: Oldfart | May 23, 2008 9:11 AM

#11

Hillary is betting that some of those caucus delegates have changed their minds and will vote for her on a 2nd or 3rd ballot. And I have heard that that is the case.

Posted by: Oldfart | May 23, 2008 9:13 AM

#12

It is incompetent fascists, corporatists, and double-digit IQ christ-besotted jackasses (Manchurian candidate McCain) against bleeding heart Liberals, welfare pimps, Enviro-whiners, feminazis, and Queer Nation (Clitler and the Dark Lord). Choose wisely.

Posted by: Uncle Al | May 23, 2008 10:18 AM

#13

Heck OldFart, superdelegates can switch whenever they like, and which way are they moving?

Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 23, 2008 12:23 PM