Tonight was the first time I saw a Keith Olbermann Special Comment (or in fact, most of an Olbermann show), based primarily on your recommendation. I was...kinda blown away.
(Now I'm going to be stuck going between Daily Show/Colbert Report and Olbermann.)
Indeed, wow. My housemate henglaar, notes he was unsure of Teh Keith's sincerity due to difference between the vehemence of his words vs. the calmness of his face, but I feel that "Comment" just about stripped the paint off the walls.
I used to actively like Senator Clinton, but as tides have changed, I feel she has become shrewish, grasping, and unsure of herself, and thus is appearing desperate and needy. I really enjoyed Senator Obama's reaction to the suggestion that he become her Veep. "Since when did the person in second place offer the Vice Presidency to the person in the lead?"
Now, see, to me it sounded like a friend trying to tell another friend that they were an alcoholic, or something similar. You've Got A Problem, For God's Sake Please Do Something About It Before It Kills You.
Probably true. But I fear it's more than the friend having a problem, but rather the friend is the embodiment of the problem itself. This personality quirk of hers has been around for longer than she's been a Senator. I've worried for a long time that to her it's more about winning than being the person who should win.
To me? It sounded like the same thing -- only the scope of the problem was rather more like, say, diphtheria: 'You're sick; you're not getting treatment; if you -don't- get treatment, you're going to get -us- sick, too, and maybe kill us all if the dogs don't get here in time from Anchorage.'1
I have been a supporter of Sen. Obama, despite (or perhaps, because) I am also a strong feminist, from the outset, simply because Sen. Clinton is so divisive, and does seem to have the talent of p*ssing everyone off simply by walking by. There is no doubt in my mind that she -could- do the job -- there is, however, great doubt in my mind that she'd get over herself long enough to actually do it. Mr. Olberman did an excellent job of articulating that concern. Thanks for the heads up.
1. Which I initially spelled Ankhorage. I may have passed a line of reading too much Pratchett heretofore thought mythical.
Ouch. I don't know you, and in fact I also think that the Clinton campaign deserved every word of that Special Comment. But I'll ask you, respectfully, to stop and think about your language for a moment. Can you imagine yourself, or anyone else, applying the words "needy" and, especially, "shrewish" to a male candidate? I'm sorry, but I think that playing into any stereotype is something to be avoided at all times.
Can you imagine yourself, or anyone else, applying the words "needy" and, especially, "shrewish" to a male candidate?
Funny you should mention that. I've argued for ages that any time a woman, in politics or business, behaves as assertively or aggressively as any male, she gets accused of being "bitchy."
While I grant your notion of stereotypes being a danger, I have seen male candidates be both needy and shrewish. I think Dennis Kucinch all too often came across as needy, and Ralph Nader is frequently shrewish. In media, both Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would be called "shrewish" if their behavior was seen in a female.
More locally, I thought my former Congressman, Tony Bielenson, was relatively needy -- always looking for approval from one quarter or another before committing to anything, then looking for forgiveness from people he'd offended.
I also recall another former Congressman, now lobbyist, James Rogan, who was a tin-plated bitch on wheels when you disagreed with him, and I got into an unfortunately public pissing contest in the local paper with him over the whole "Ten Commandments" plaque measure of a few years back.
So: While perhaps it was inadvisable to use terms so easily misrepresented, I submit that, at least in my universe, it wasn't specifically a female stereotype. I can easily grant that, in a relatively-public forum, they might be misinterpreted. I will ask you, though, how would you characterize Senator Clinton's behavior?
Could we have used "strident" instead of "shrill"? I'm having trouble coming up with a suitably indicative synonym for "needy".
I will ask you, though, how would you characterize Senator Clinton's behavior?
Fair question. I think "desperate" and "strident" work pretty well, as does "insecure" in place of "needy". I'd also add "ill-considered", given the damage this could do to the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever it is.
All of the stuff Keith points out she is doing is bang on. Yet I come to a slightly different conclusion.
How she could be so blind as to see what she was doing is beyond me. I don't think thats the reasoning behind why she has embarked on what Keith calls "a suicide pact strategy".
It's more than her being an unwitting participant. I think this is a strategy that she has actively wanted, and that her advisors *implemented* for her based on her desire for it.
The reason:
One doesn't pause before the religion question unless you know exactly why you are doing it. It's too tough to sell it unless youre (A) an enthusiastic participant or (B) have no conscience about being a willing one.
Same logic largely holds true for the other stuff. She goes along with it entirely too well.
Once might be an accident. Three or Four times means it's either scenario A or Scenario B and is a DQ for my vote.
I don't doubt that you're right. But, again, it still feels to me as if he's talking to an alcoholic, the kind who keeps insisting, "I know what I'm doing". I think he tried to word it as diplomatically as he could without calling her an asshole on national TV.
I watched this last night as well, actually I pretty much watch Countdown every night based on your reccomendation :)
Now that I've had time to digest it all I have to agree with you Tom. While the language was firm it was also the kind of thing one friend would say to another over a matter that concerned them. It made me respect the man all the more.
I'm with you. She's happy about the religion questions because she thinks it may turn people against Obama, and she's happy that somebody brought up the "affirmative action" line of thinking because it plants a seed among potential voters and makes them wonder if that might really be the case, and yet she didn't have to say it herself.
And I'm personally left with the impression that all she stands for is becoming President at any cost. As if she hadn't already proved that with her verbal hint of endorsement of McCain over Obama (which Tom pointed out a while back.)
Yeah. Can't remember if I said it on LJ or wherever, but it occurred to me recently that she's reminding me a lot of Bob Dole, and that you really can't have It's My Turn Dammit as a campaign slogan.
He's good. He's impressive, and he makes good points.
And yet I keep seeing this scene playing out in my head:
POLITICIAN: (turning off the TV) "Oh dear. Maybe he's right. Do you think I should [do what Keith suggests I should do]?"
ADVISOR: "Well, you could. If you wanted to be seen as someone who caves in to the media whenever they squawk. If you think people will vote for a sock-puppet."
POLITICIAN: "Well, what do you suggest?"
ADVISOR: "You don't have any option now but to carry on [doing what you're doing]. If you waver, it'll be seen as a sign of weakness. Who's in charge of your campaign, you or this Olbermann guy?"
POLITICIAN: "But suppose he's right?"
ADVISOR: "Doesn't matter. At this stage of the campaign, the only thing that matters is a show of strength. You listen to this guy, who are you going to listen to next? What am I doing here if you're getting free campaign policy advice from some pundit on the tube? What's next, Jerry Springer as Communications Director?"
And thus, if I'm imagining it right, every time Keith says someone should do something, he makes that course of action untenable. Which is sad, considering how right he is.
Which, of course, ties into the equally broken idea that in American politics these days, one of the greatest sins someone can commit is daring to change their mind on anything. :P
Which is infuriating, becuase I personally think any politician with the guts to say "I was wrong, here's where I went wrong, here's what I know now that changed my mind, and here's how I'm going to try to not let this happen again" would probably win big points among intelligent voters.
Except that the media tried the OTHER option with George Bush--praising him for fucking up everything in the hopes that he'd stand up to the media and do something right instead (that's their story now, and they're sticking to it, anyway)--and that didn't work, either.
I hate to say it, but if HC makes the ticket I don't know who I will actually vote for. She's showing herself to be the kind of person I do NOT want to see in the White House, and reminding me why "straight ticket" (blind) is generally a bad idea.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 02:07 am (UTC)(Now I'm going to be stuck going between Daily Show/Colbert Report and Olbermann.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 02:13 am (UTC)I used to actively like Senator Clinton, but as tides have changed, I feel she has become shrewish, grasping, and unsure of herself, and thus is appearing desperate and needy. I really enjoyed Senator Obama's reaction to the suggestion that he become her Veep. "Since when did the person in second place offer the Vice Presidency to the person in the lead?"
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 02:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 03:17 am (UTC)See my comment below.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 01:33 pm (UTC)I have been a supporter of Sen. Obama, despite (or perhaps, because) I am also a strong feminist, from the outset, simply because Sen. Clinton is so divisive, and does seem to have the talent of p*ssing everyone off simply by walking by. There is no doubt in my mind that she -could- do the job -- there is, however, great doubt in my mind that she'd get over herself long enough to actually do it. Mr. Olberman did an excellent job of articulating that concern. Thanks for the heads up.
1. Which I initially spelled Ankhorage. I may have passed a line of reading too much Pratchett heretofore thought mythical.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 02:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 04:19 pm (UTC)Funny you should mention that. I've argued for ages that any time a woman, in politics or business, behaves as assertively or aggressively as any male, she gets accused of being "bitchy."
While I grant your notion of stereotypes being a danger, I have seen male candidates be both needy and shrewish. I think Dennis Kucinch all too often came across as needy, and Ralph Nader is frequently shrewish. In media, both Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would be called "shrewish" if their behavior was seen in a female.
More locally, I thought my former Congressman, Tony Bielenson, was relatively needy -- always looking for approval from one quarter or another before committing to anything, then looking for forgiveness from people he'd offended.
I also recall another former Congressman, now lobbyist, James Rogan, who was a tin-plated bitch on wheels when you disagreed with him, and I got into an unfortunately public pissing contest in the local paper with him over the whole "Ten Commandments" plaque measure of a few years back.
So: While perhaps it was inadvisable to use terms so easily misrepresented, I submit that, at least in my universe, it wasn't specifically a female stereotype. I can easily grant that, in a relatively-public forum, they might be misinterpreted. I will ask you, though, how would you characterize Senator Clinton's behavior?
Could we have used "strident" instead of "shrill"? I'm having trouble coming up with a suitably indicative synonym for "needy".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 04:42 pm (UTC)Fair question. I think "desperate" and "strident" work pretty well, as does "insecure" in place of "needy". I'd also add "ill-considered", given the damage this could do to the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever it is.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 02:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 03:12 am (UTC)How she could be so blind as to see what she was doing is beyond me. I don't think thats the reasoning behind why she has embarked on what Keith calls "a suicide pact strategy".
It's more than her being an unwitting participant. I think this is a strategy that she has actively wanted, and that her advisors *implemented* for her based on her desire for it.
The reason:
One doesn't pause before the religion question unless you know exactly why you are doing it. It's too tough to sell it unless youre (A) an enthusiastic participant or (B) have no conscience about being a willing one.
Same logic largely holds true for the other stuff. She goes along with it entirely too well.
Once might be an accident. Three or Four times means it's either scenario A or Scenario B and is a DQ for my vote.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 10:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 12:47 pm (UTC)Now that I've had time to digest it all I have to agree with you Tom. While the language was firm it was also the kind of thing one friend would say to another over a matter that concerned them. It made me respect the man all the more.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 01:01 pm (UTC)And I'm personally left with the impression that all she stands for is becoming President at any cost. As if she hadn't already proved that with her verbal hint of endorsement of McCain over Obama (which Tom pointed out a while back.)
-=ShoEboX=-
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 01:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 10:11 am (UTC)And yet I keep seeing this scene playing out in my head:
POLITICIAN: (turning off the TV) "Oh dear. Maybe he's right. Do you think I should [do what Keith suggests I should do]?"
ADVISOR: "Well, you could. If you wanted to be seen as someone who caves in to the media whenever they squawk. If you think people will vote for a sock-puppet."
POLITICIAN: "Well, what do you suggest?"
ADVISOR: "You don't have any option now but to carry on [doing what you're doing]. If you waver, it'll be seen as a sign of weakness. Who's in charge of your campaign, you or this Olbermann guy?"
POLITICIAN: "But suppose he's right?"
ADVISOR: "Doesn't matter. At this stage of the campaign, the only thing that matters is a show of strength. You listen to this guy, who are you going to listen to next? What am I doing here if you're getting free campaign policy advice from some pundit on the tube? What's next, Jerry Springer as Communications Director?"
And thus, if I'm imagining it right, every time Keith says someone should do something, he makes that course of action untenable. Which is sad, considering how right he is.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 12:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 01:06 pm (UTC)-=ShoEboX=-
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 01:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 04:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 02:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 03:10 pm (UTC)Except that the media tried the OTHER option with George Bush--praising him for fucking up everything in the hopes that he'd stand up to the media and do something right instead (that's their story now, and they're sticking to it, anyway)--and that didn't work, either.
You can't speak truth and you don't dare lie
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 11:13 am (UTC)./sigh