Comments on: Hillary Declares War on MSNBC

By: Edward

Edward — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:06:41 +0000

Hilary’s biggest problem is herself and everything else that is blamed is just an excuse. It started with her husbands inauguration when she decided to cut her own notch by declaring herself to be identified as Hilary "RODHAM" Clinton. At that point she made it clear that she was interested in making herself known and a power.

The timing was bad and I found it in bad taste and very self serving. She should have been supporting her husband At that moment. Ever since that time I have seen everything she does as self serving and power grabbing. A person who only wants to be powerful for the sake of self aggrandizement does not sound like someone that has MY interests at heart. Only her epitaph and her legacy.

She is the one who is sexist. She acts as though we OWE her the White House because it is the right of a woman to be elected and because she feels that she should be the ground breaker to add to her legacy and her epitaph. Again, the power trip and the overly tremendous ego. This is not my idea of a person dedicated to serving the good of the people, only her own desires and self esteem.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:33:50 +0000

The idea that women should vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman even if they might for whatever reason actually prefer a different candidate strikes me as far more anti-feminist than anything the supposedly Obama-supporting "misogynists" are doing. Asking women to sacrifice their independent judgment in order to uphold someone else’s idea of being a good woman is straight out of Victorian anti-feminism. I know many women who are supporting Hillary. Few of them seem to me to be doing so only out of an obligation to the sisterhood. And I know many people who are supporting Obama. I don’t think any of them hate women.

It is also very offensive how so many of Clinton’s supporters keep showing up to claim that ALL Obama supporters just hate women or hate Clinton personally or are just ignorant people being “fooled”. It is reminiscent of the self-destructive anti-persuasive techniques that Voldemort’s fans spammed blogs with for so long with claims that all the people who opposed Voldemort were anti-freedom, anti-Constitution statists who wanted to kill America. It only hurts your candidate’s prospects when you misrepresent and attack the motives of the very people you need to convince to change sides.

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:24:19 +0000

Terry, who should black women vote for? Should they stand up for their identity as a black person, or for their identity as a woman? If you replace "men" with "white people" and "women" with "black people" in your rant, then it could be used to urge black people to vote for Obama, because "White people are afraid to see a black President succeed."

I agree that Obama’s rhetoric is very weak on substance. But part of what’s killing the Democratic party in this election cycle is that the "identity politics" that feminists, black leaders, and others have played for the past 20 years is coming back to haunt them, now that there is no evil white male candidate in the race to be united against.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:28:48 +0000

It is true that Senator Clinton is being singled out, her accomplishments, stamina to fight the unthinkable, her dedication to healthcare, the economy, and more doesn’t seem to constitute as a contribution.

The Media, CNN and others seems to focus on Obama. Why, simply because he is a man! In my opinion, there is still a lot of chauvinism in this world, a woman president is a fight that is extremely hard to battle. You are cut off by men and of course women. Senator Clinton is a fighter, and she will prevail in all of the punches given or may come her way.

For a lady who can withstand her husband’s infidelity, forgave him, support him, and love his family no matter one, I would say that Senator Clinton is a very strong woman. A bigger person with a big heart, able to forgive just like "God."

Those who believes and lived for "Sweet Nothing" talks are people who support Obama! Americans seemed to look for "Idol." Obama speaks of "cliches" - it’s so fatatic! I get so bored on hearing his speech because I know they are all "sweet nothings." Weak people falls for "sweet nothings" with empty promises!

Why does men in American support Obama? Simple, chauvinism! Men are afraid to see a woman President succeed. All 43 (excluding, President Bill Clinton) had failed to run the country. Now for the first time in history, a woman had enough guts to go out there and fight for what she believes in. The question is - does your country wants honesty? Do you want fairness?

You need to all wake up Americans, and see your world for what it really is….Obama is not the answer. He would only kill your country with more chaos, because he is going to bring in his own country to the plate.

Women should fight, and start standing up for your rights, and now is the time, if you don’t do it now it will never happen for you.

T. Lawrence

By: Interested

Interested — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:24:47 +0000

and the exact thing I predicted - much to your disagreement Michael, has come to pass.

Too bad to see, but very predictable.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:41:03 +0000

The Schuster comment about Chelsea Clinton was pretty vile and inappropriate, but I can’t figure out AT ALL what it has to do with Hillary being female. In fact it’s almost the opposite, that a young woman being pimped out would tend to imply that a male has acted as the pimp- so it would seem like this phrase would generally be more likely to be used against the daughter of a male candidate. Obviously that wasn’t the case here, but it just makes no sense to me to say that a daughter campaigning for her mother would be more likely to draw that criticism- I just don’t get it.

If anything, the reason this is being said now is just because we’re becoming more lax about what is acceptable to say- the media is pushing envelopes all over the place, and MSNBC in particular seems to want to push the limits the most (but then also, of course, reprimanding their stars and forcing them to issue apologies- which is probably all designed to get maximum attention and ratings.)

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:46:34 +0000

It was the time delay between the insult and the apology that will hurt David Shuster and MSNBC, in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons similar delays have damaged other media reputations. The delay (and initial refusal to even acknowledge the mistake) clearly implied that Shuster (like Chris Matthews several weeks earlier) didn’t quite "get it" until MSNBC brass explained it to him. If media personalities want to avoid escalating mistakes like this they should take an immersion program in public relations crisis management — the advice they should follow is pretty straightforward: a proper apology, according to http://www.perfectapology.com, should always include the following: 1. a detailed account of the situation2. acknowledgement of the hurt or damage done3. taking responsibility for the situation4. recognition of your role in the event5. a statement of regret6. asking for forgiveness7. a promise that it won’t happen again8. a form of restitution whenever possible Obviously perfect apologies work best when delivered to recipients who are prepared to forgive. But when the aggrieved community sees an opportunity to push the hurt a little further then no apology is likely to be good enough. And that is precisely where we are today — we’re in the midst of a political charged election environment where the primary imperative is not to be reasonable but to search for ways to generate support for your side. When media personalities like MSNBC’s David Shuster or Chris Mathews (or MSNBC’s Don Imus, or Golf Channel’s Kelly Tilghman, etc.) screw up by insulting Chelsea or Hillary (or the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, or Tiger Woods, etc.) even perfect apologies may not work, for perfectly rational political reasons. The real error in these cases was not the initial mistake but the fact that the best, most sincere and meticulously worded apology was the last one to be issued by those who screwed up. What is so fascinating (and perplexing) about the rising number of failed public apologies over the last few years is that so few public figures (surrounded by public relations advisers) really know how to do it well, or quickly enough. Peter F. Goolpacy

By: Lola

Lola — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:51:47 +0000

I agree that sexism is big, ignored and greatly undermining HIllary Clinton’s campaign in big and small ways. One area is the inspirational side. Obama’s has already beein annointed with the vision and legacy of a of Kennedy, a Marthin Luther King and he projects such history making aura that makes him compelling. Hillary is inspirational but in a lonely way because she is not beign bestowed with an equivalent aura of female or male leadership equivalents. Instead, terms associated with her are sexist put downs. Yet, she persevers and that is how she makes her own inspiring story. Go Hillary Go.