That gesture was clearly-in word and action-dismissive of the attacks on his campaign, saying they were "textbook Washington" and that you have to "expect it...and kinda (brushes shoulders)." You have to brush off the attacks and move on. No reasonable person would see anything else.
But if you choose, to use this as "proof" of sexism, then be my guest. Just don't be surprised when you and your argument lose credibility.
(In your best interest, it's probably best to take any argument you learn from Geraldine Ferraro with block of salt.)
"If the 2008 election for President were being held today..."
I can buy that. Fortunately, it's not, and Obama will have some time to improve his numbers in areas where he's lacking. Some of the less glamorous poll questions are something to be excited about.
The numbers comparing McCain and Obama favor Obama on two of the top three issues considered most important by the respondents. Obama wins out on the economy and health care, McCain on Iraq.
It also shows that respondents want to know more about Obama before they make a decision, whereas they're satisfied with their knowledge of McCain. And they think that Obama is "in touch" with the problems of most Americans, while McCain is out of touch.
While a vast majority would be entirely comfortable with either a woman or an AA as president, a minority would be with someone as old as McCain, and his association with Bush makes folks overall less likely to vote for him.
The poll also shows a minority favor an Obama/Clinton ticket, which gives me a degree of personal satisfaction since I think that would be a mistake.
Finally, a majority say that the Wright issue will have no effect on their vote. Good night, Reverend Wright.
Sure, those numbers on the election if held today aren't great, but there's more than enough time to build on the positive and overcome the negatives once the nomination process is over.
And since the respondents suggested a familiarity with both Clinton and McCain, Obama has the added benefit of being able to change perceptions. That's a big plus.
is in no way a sexist allusion. I agree that the argument for sexism (or racism or xenophobia or etc.) loses its traction as an issue when such stretches are made to prove widespread intolerance. I'm willing to acknowledge a certain amount of sexism up to the point that the "proof" starts to take on an aura of desperation, and attempting to tie that particular gesture to sexism certainly reaches my threshold for disdain.
that the 12 members of the RBC who are either active Clinton supporters or actually employed by the campaign supported stripping MI and FL of their delegates.
On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)...
Now Clinton feels that a failure to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates would besmirch the democratic process. With Obama ahead on pledged delegates and drawing growing numbers of superdelegates, Clinton will have only a limited ability to affect whether the DNC backs off from its decisions to penalize the two states. Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it.
of Obama supporters can no longer rate, I think this is going to be a trend around the entire site.
It's sort of hilarious that it took the destruction of the ratings system by widespread abuse to finally get the mods active. Unfortunately, the seemingly rather one-sided enforcement has completely diminished any import of ratings.
(dusts off shoulders) What are you gonna do, though?
about this diary, too. This is a prime example of why the system that Jerome et al have in place is counterproductive. I, like many people, stepped over a line at some point w/r/t abusing HRs and TRs, and as a result, I lost the ability to use both. That's fine. I could argue about the enforcement of that particular disciplinary measure, but it's their world and they make the rules. The thing I can't understand, though, is the decision to tie a measure against recommending diaries to the punishment. Here we have a diary by someone with whom I've had some...er...unpleasant exchanges, but, based on this particular contribution, I would like to be able to show my appreciation, and make an effort towards a degree of reconciliation by offering my modest recommendation to the work lombard has shared with us. But I can't, and it makes no real sense. The system, therefore, is punishing not only the violator, but the contributors who provide free content to this site.
This is my two cents, and you may disagree. But I think the system is broken, and needs to be reviewed in order to make it more effective for everyone involved.