We could have a regular post here every time Joni Balter goes to press at the Seattle Times. But that's boring, so we don't. Today's column, however, merits some push back.
First, it must be noted Balter is perturbed about state GOP fundraising rhetoric. This is really a non sequitur. Such intra-party rabble rousing tends toward the hyperbolic on both sides of the aisle. The typical voter on the street wouldn't be much impressed by it, but it works. Thus, there is little sense complaining about it.
Yet, a couple issues in Balter's work are a bit more substantive:
1) There's really no polite way to say this, but given the way in which Balter frames her argument there is little choice but to point this out: Balter implies that powerful politicians having a vagina is something that will naturally upsets many males...or at least the ones Balter thinks vote Republican.
She seems genuinely - and oddly - appalled that Republican fundraising rhetoric would link Christine Gregoire and Hillary Clinton. More importantly, she presume the linkage is some sort of assault on femininity. Balterdash!
The linkage occurs because it's natural to do so with the presumed leaders of the state and federal Democratic tickets (yes, Obama might win, but Hillary is still the favorite for now). The linkage is also easy to perform given the similarities between the two: controversial, polarizing, technocratic candidates who both lack the reputation for warmth on the campaign trail.
Let's stipulate that if Bill Clinton was running for President (snicker) and the Democratic candidate for governor was a lecherous, self-absorbed, slick purveyor of half-truths, the state GOP just might likewise link the two in a fundraising appeal. Just maybe. And it would have precious little to do with any similar anatomy between their respective legs.
2) Part of Balter's leap to assumption that such work is an assault on gender rests on the omission of Barack Obama from the money-gathering missive. The reason to link Clinton and Gregoire for obvious reasons is stated above. Balter, however, argues Obama "isn't mentioned because, frankly, as an individual who is half African American, he is a little harder to typecast and malign."
Exclude for a minute the fact the unwarranted mention of Obama's race and ethnicity says more about how Balter views the matter than about those who oppose Obama for President. Yes, the enthusiasm for his candidacy is profound. And yes, his campaign's fundraising capacity is unparalleled.
But, he was also selected as the most liberal U.S. Senator for 2007 and his comparatively thin resume is not befitting a major Presidential candidate. These facts will be used against him at length. Consequently, the Republican Party will not want for ammunition to use against Obama should he be the Democratic nominee, daunting though his candidacy might be.
Note that has nothing to do either the color of his skin or his gender.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 31, 2008 10:24 PM | Email ThisDang, Hillary and Queen Christine LOOK like they could be related. Creeeepy.
Posted by: Cydney on January 31, 2008 11:03 PMIt's fun to see how the left pays so much attention to race and gender, then projects their own insecurities on the right. The reason they will never understand that one could be blind to such things is that they don't comprehend the idea of a meritocracy. They're too busy being or finding victims...plus it's tough to admit real truths when those truths are simply that you aren't as good at something as someone else is.
Posted by: BMack on January 31, 2008 11:16 PMLet me throw out another theory which has nothing to do with a vagina or skin color, it has to do with the very low expectations that elite secular progresives have for people who are not like them and that would include people they consider to be "white trash."
One type of racism involves the core belief that really no person of color is as good as the Georgetown or Upper West Side Dakota elites, therefore, Obama could never win the nomination. I believe that Huckabee in their minds is some variant of the "white trash" God addict model.
The Clintons with the tacit permission of many of these elites have permission to use any dirty trick necessary to get the nomination. The next battle ground is California and look for Billary to run an explicit racial campaign aimed at the Latino vote with the message that no way can the "Black" candidate represent "their" interests. It is this expectation of hard ball racial politics that brought the Kennedys out of hibernation. When has Caroline Kennedy ever endorsed anybody? According to Duffman, Maxine Waters has endorsed Hillary. Well she is an idiot and would endorse Fidel Castro if given the chance. I haven't noticed that schools in her district or the lives of her constituents have gotten better under her watch.
What the dems are worried about is that Billary will introduce racial politics in their quest to win California that are so divisive that they may alienate many of their core groups.
In my opinion, this column has nothing to do with vaginas, it has to do with how liberal elites really view those of color or lower class Causcasians, never as equals and certainly not entitled to the real spoils of society.
Posted by: WVH on January 31, 2008 11:44 PMThus, she writes absurd tripe like this, completely ignoring the facts laid out above. Now, there are only two possible reasons for this... and they may actually be related.
The first is that she's so astoundingly politically ignorant. The second is that she is blind to anything to the right of her left eye.
She is a newspaper version of, say, a Ron Paul supporter; equally delusional, just without the sense of humor. If she had a conservative bent (God forbid) she would have been hounded out of the city years ago for her penchant of writing opinion as if it were fact, and failing to correct her mistakes when she's called on them.
Posted by: Hinton on February 1, 2008 01:47 AMI really hate the idea of Hillary as President. That ad pitch, Gregoire + Clinton, works on me: they are both very similar in many (to me, bad) ways, and I would very much like both of them to be defeated.
But I would MUCH rather have Hillary as President than Obama or Edwards, because she would be a much more moderate and knowledgable and experienced President than either of them.
So what does that say about Balter's thesis?
Posted by: pudge on February 1, 2008 01:55 AMVote Democrat.
Posted by: Independent Voter on February 1, 2008 06:20 AMBut she's running for President, better known as chief executive. Her executive experience is a gaping vacuum, and spending eight years in the White House as the tail on the dog doesn't count. Her disastrous attempt at seizing control of the country's health industry, by means of secret meetings and attempted coercion, does count - against her.
Experienced, by the terms of a resume, she's not.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 1, 2008 07:40 AMMemo to Dino: Please save yourself the embarrassment of a huge defeat...pull out!!
Posted by: Duffman on February 1, 2008 07:50 AMSpeaking of illogical upsets: Duffman For Hillary (& NY GIANTS)
Posted by: Duffman on February 1, 2008 08:24 AMIt will not happen.
My Best-Team-In-History New England Patriots will destroy the New Jersey Giants.
19 AND DONE. GO PATS.
Posted by: pudge on February 1, 2008 09:17 AMAs Charles Krauthammer said,
The Post editorial noted "a perverse kind of good news" in Hillary's free-trade revisionism: "There's little chance that her position reflects any deeply held principle." And there lies the beauty not just of Clinton on free trade but of the Clinton candidacy itself: She has no principles. Her liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs.
I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e. self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on February 1, 2008 09:18 AMGo back to sleep. Your comments are just down right stupid.
You remind me of the kid in school who say's stupid stuff to just get noticed.
In the words of Charlie Brown, "don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 1, 2008 09:33 AMAs opposed to,say, the Clintons?
Sheesh! I can't believe how may people on both sides have totally missed Ann's point. McCain is demonstrably a liberal. In the general election why vote for a liberal with an R behind his name when you can vote for one with a D behind her name?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 1, 2008 09:48 AM"an offensive term for somebody who is regarded as willing to set aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives"
To me - she fits that definition.
Furthermore if you'll examine my posts you will see that I am not a vulgar person, nor do I use 'bad words' in my posts. So, engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear. :)
See a rehash of an old article
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
I just wish they gave Ann more time. Just when she would start making sense and explaining herself, Colmes would interrupt her. If she had more time, she wouldn't have had to squeeze her comments in and would have been able to draw them out.
McCain- anti-capitalism, pro-depression policies, etc. etc. All Democrat and Socialist issues. How can anyone call hem a Republican, much less a conservative?
Balter just doesn't get it.
Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2008 10:05 AMLabel given to any person who craves attention to such an extent that they will do anything to receive it. The type of attention (negative or positive) does not matter.
Get up with the times, Kato! :)
Posted by: Duffman on February 1, 2008 10:12 AMWHO?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 1, 2008 12:01 PMAnd yet, you support HillBill ANYWAY?
Hypocrisy, thy name is DUFFMAN
Posted by: Hinton on February 1, 2008 12:19 PMI heard the same about McCain. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 1, 2008 12:45 PM