Comments on: Hillary’s Tears, Our Tears

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:24:40 +0000

I think this is really best read as a counterpoint to the Steinem column from last week. It’s a lot more measured than Steinem’s simplistic “women have it worse than black men” thesis. At least Moore introduces the third, and probably most determinative factor of class (though admittedly, she doesn’t quite address it directly). Insofar as race and class are often inextricable in this country, the matter is far more complicated than Steinem was admitting.

But really, I don’t see the utility of these arguments to the larger progressive agenda. I’m not sure what a ranking of oppression gets us. The more important question is whether women– as women, but also not just as women–would be better off under a Clinton or Obama presidency.

Frankly, I’m not sure there’d be much of a difference. Both are on the right side of women’s issues. Either candidate would represent with their physical selves some sort of symbolic progress in the most general sense. But the safest bet is that this symbolism wouldn’t track with their actions as president, at least not in any discernable manner. They’d both spend most of their time mopping up after this last asshole.

If you accept that as a premise, Moore’s argument in favor of Obama is a bit more persuasive. I wouldn’t have made every point the way she does, but hey.

By: Laura Duggan

Laura Duggan — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:59:19 +0000

I can’t laugh at the guy wearing the pink mop because his bit demonstrates the misognous nature of our country. Is it any wonder that the guys in the media and elsewhere make lame anti-women jokes rather than listen to what candidate Clinton has to say? As a woman, I’m sick of it! It’s time to stop being dazzled by the current “big guy on campus.” Let’s go for a woman who clearly cares about the country and has the smarts to make it better. Give a woman a chance. We’ve already seen what a man can do. Maybe we need a lady to clean up the mess made by Bush.

Aunt Laura

By: A.R.Yngve

A.R.Yngve — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:13:11 +0000

I wish the media would focus more on policy and less on soundbites and “emotional moments”.

Imagine if *your* every mood, tic, cough and mote in the eye was filmed, endlessly replayed and debated in the news:
“Ed said he got dust in his eye from a passing truck, but did he really mean heavy traffic made him shed a tear?” Good Grief!

But the problem is, the news media has decided that their audience (us) are a bunch of gullible idiots, and treat us accordingly:
“Today on CNN: A politician cries, and some pictures of cute cats.”

(Remember when CNN didn’t run “Cute animal” stories as news? What the hell happened???)

By: Shane

Shane — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:23:41 +0000

I’m an unabashed Obama supporter/Clinton detractor, but I will leave that discussion alone to just mention this- Youtube comments are never a convincing argument. People will crawl over each other to call Hillary a bitch as fervently as they will to call Obama a crack-smoking Muslim or his grandfather “a chimpanzee”. Youtube is a cesspool of attention whoring and Ron Paul supporters. Its collective opinions on politics is indicative of nothing.