Posted by: iam0nly1 | June 26, 2008

Pelosi Still Doesn’t Get It

Speaker Pelosi was extremely silent during the primary season when it came to acknowledging the sexism that Senator Clinton encountered and endured. Suddenly, she can’t say enough about it. Sadly, and infuriatingly, she’s saying all the wrong things now. Paul West over at The Swamp, has compiled a nice, “rambling” list:

“I think that Senator Clinton got the benefit of being a woman, because women are wildly enthusiastic about her candidacy. Not just a woman to be president, but this woman, of this talent, intellect, commitment, stamina. Let’s not ever forget stamina when it comes to these races, and so there is great enthusiasm for her.”

Hmm, this statement sounds very similar to the statements that Geraldine Ferraro made about people being enthusiastic about Obama’s candidacy because he was an African American man. I wonder if anyone will take offense?

“I’ll be very honest with you. I had the luxury as chair of the convention of not having to be involved (in the presidential primary)…My politics are about winning the House for the Democrats.”

Yep, Pelosi…you weren’t involved with the presidential primary…sure…

“Is there sexism? Probably so. Is it responsible for the defeat? I really wouldn’t have the scientific knowledge, all of the information, to know that. But I do think that being a woman has a positive upside in the campaign, probably offset by more sexism, I don’t know.”

Hmmm, “scientific knowledge?” Really, Pelosi?  The “positive upside” of being a woman…yeah, because Hillary got 90% of the female vote, and everyone was on hair trigger alert whenever any phrase could be deemed sexist.  

“Of course there is sexism. We all know that. But it’s a given. It’s a given. And I think with the next generation, it will be less…”

No, it’s not a given, Pelosi, and it doesn’t have to be if people like yourself would point it out and fight against it when it occurs. 

“I think that on the positive side, Senator Clinton has advanced the cause of women in government and her candidacy has been a very, very positive tonic for the country and had a very wholesome effect on the political process. I really don’t know, I haven’t analyzed the rest.

“And I’m a victim of sexism myself, all the time. But I just think it goes with the territory. I don’t sit around to say, but for that…”

THAT’S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM, PELOSI! It shouldn’t be part of the damn territory, and it wouldn’t be if people with some sway and pull, such as yourself and Dean, would point it out and denounce it when it does happen. Oh, and I absolutely love the way you are quick to say that you are a victim of sexism “all the time” but can only muster up a “maybe” for Senator Clinton. Yeah…thanks for that. 

“Her candidacy was a bright, bright moment for us and she may run again.”

Your assurances that Hillary will run again aren’t going to get us to the polls for your Golden Boy. We want Hillary, ASAP, whether that is ’08 or ’12. We have no intentions of sitting through 4-8 years of you and Dean’s presidential appointee. Not happening!

Pelosi was also asked if would it be helpful to go back and examine what role sexism played in the 2008 primaries.

“… for me that is going to have to wait until after November, because I have 30 incumbents to re-elect, 30 vacant Republican seats to try to win half or two-thirds of, and a number of Republicans that we are challenging…

“I don’t want to make a decision without knowing what the facts are. 
My impression is, yes, there was sexism, My knowledge is, yes, there is sexism, because there has been.

” But I myself find that I get a tremendous upside because being a woman. And I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about sexist remarks that people make. Important for our country, though, is to know our country…(it) might be valuable for those who study the American culture and politics.

“For me, I’ll be more interested in that after November, because I’m in the arena right now. It may be over in terms of that primary. But it’s only just begun for me in terms of the general election. . . ..I’m speaking really so instinctively about this. I haven’t made it a point to study the information.”

So now you’re too busy…other, more important things to deal with. BTW, Pelosi, recognizing the sexism and putting a stop to it is valuable for ALL AMERICANS, not just academics “who study the American culture and politics.” But, we know you haven’t made it a point to study the information, but we’re sure you will start on November 5th, after we hand the keys to the White House to Senator McCain. 

But if all that wasn’t enough, Pelosi decides to do an interview with Greta Van Susteren. Van Susteren, of course, brings up the issue of sexism. Apparently, many of us have made our thoughts on the primary process and outcome known to her. From the transcript:

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me first focus for a second on Senator Clinton. She is back on the Hill today, and many people email me and say that she is the victim of sexism–not all, but many. Did sexism play a role in this election for her, number one? And number two, I know this morning you were quoting as saying that you, sometimes, have encountered sexism.

PELOSI: I think every woman who is making progress in gaining power is probably a victim of sexism. I can’t document what happened in the presidential campaign as I am too busy being Speaker of the House and running my own races for Congress to retain and grow our Democratic majority in the House.

Oh, no you didn’t, Nancy. Too busy?!?!  You and Obama are certainly of the same mind. Are you going to tell us to “get over it” next?

PELOSI: But I do not think that there is any question that there is some evidence that there was sexism in the campaign, but I can’t tell you if that is the reason why Senator Clinton won or lost.

She made a great showing. She advanced to the cause of women enormously. We were thrilled with her candidacy, not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman with great intellect, great dedication, great stamina, that she proved she could be president of the United States.

But there was an election, and I think that Senator Clinton benefited greatly by the enthusiasm of women, there is no question about that. And I do not know what the impact of the sexism and was. I know it is a sign of insecurity on those who exercise it. I do not know what the political impact of it was.

Point of clarification, Nancy. There was not an “election” there was a selection

VAN SUSTEREN: You should see the e-mail I receive. I hear the Democratic Party talk about unity, and there is going to be unity in November. I hear that talk and I read my emails think it is almost delusional, because there are so many supporters of Senator Clinton who are absolutely outraged.

PELOSI: What are they outraged about? That she did not win?

Watch it, Nancy. 

VAN SUSTEREN: First of all, they do not like the caucus system. They do not like the crossover votes. They do not like the fact that the Florida and Michigan problem, they do not like that.

There is Senator Obama saying [of] Senator Clinton, Hillary is likable enough–they do not like that. They do not like that Senator Obama said to some woman reporter in Michigan something about, I will get to that, sweetie.

But these emails are unbelievable, and they are strident coming in to me.

PELOSI: I see the point.

What I find to be offensive, frankly, is the fact that the Republicans have not supported equal pay for equal work for women, that we cannot get them to support us for paid family and medical leave, issues that relate to, say, for example, SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The president says we cannot afford those 10 million children, to insure them in America —

Way to dodge the issue, Nancy. It’s obvious you don’t see the point.  We will not sanction the disgusting behavior of the DNC just so your Golden Boy can redecorate the Oval Office. We’re not stupid, Nancy. A Democratic majority should and would be able to pass equal pay legislation, paid family and medial leave, and SCHIP. Or are you all planning to shirk all your responsibility again?

VAN SUSTEREN: You are one vote. All the women who vote —

PELOSI: But these women will have to come down to a choice. They are going to have to come down to a choice. If they do not like the caucus system, that can be changed. But you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game.

Apparently you can, Nancy. The Rules and Bylaws Committee taught us that. You can even sh*t on Democracy if you want. 

PELOSI: So that is a process discussion at this point. We have a nominee, and the choice is between Barack Obama, who would make a great President of the United States, and John McCain, a very nice person. And the fact is that they have very different views on issues that relate to women.

Excuse me, Nancy? Did you just say, “we have a nominee?” Geez, no one knows the rules around here. The Precious is barely the “presumptive” nominee. No one is the nominee until that gavel comes down in Denver, and even then, you can proclaim yourself whatever, but that doesn’t mean you claimed it legitimately

PELOSI: And these same women who are writing these e-mails, and I contend to them, and I can say this with great authority, because I know of what I speak, they have the most to lose by the election of John McCain and the most to gain by the election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States.

ROFLMFBAO!!!!  Hilarious, Nancy, hilarious. I was wondering when you would start cracking jokes. 

It’s statements like these that make me pine for the good ol’ days when Pelosi was mum concerning sexism. But, apparently she enjoys making that much easier to pull the lever for McCain. 

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Christine,

    I think a lot of what Nader said was legitimate. Its seems pretty clear that Obama is not planning on directly addressing the black community.

    I trust the explanation he gives here:
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/nader-defends-remarks-about-obama/

    Out of context the “wants to talk white” remark seemed offensive (which is what the media does best) but in context, it totally makes sense.

  2. Good post…
    By the way, what is your opinion on what Nader said about Obama? Saturday Night Live seem to be hinting to this in their “Obama Files” cartoon. Check it out. It is funny…and true.

    http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=505eaef0-2425-49aa-a5e1-f7d694a1d70d

  3. LOL Jannie! But I don’t think Oprah’s gonna be on board…she’s having some trouble keeping her fan base 🙂

  4. jbjd,

    The misinformation campaign that went on this election is sickening. It really opened my eyes. The media is just a tool of the government and corporations, seeking to make sure that their narrative is the loudest and only one available. Thank goodness for the blogosphere.

  5. Pelosi was just too busy to catalogue all the sexism during Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 Democratic presidential run. Brazile was too busy castigating Hillary Clinton supporters like a female teenage Democrat who wrote her heart out about her concerns about how Hillary was being treated only to get back a message about how Brazile was not going to respond to “uncivil, repugnant and vile” Clinton supporters. Howard Dean was too busy fixing the election for Obama.

    I guess that the Democratic party is finished with Democracy and is just too busy kissing Obama’s ring finger to care about sexism in their party.

    Elitism can only flourish where the people allow it.

    Just say NO! to an Obama nation!

    NO! Obama nation!

    NO! Obama!

    BTW, Barack Hussein Obama could be in contention for a future entry into encyclopedias next to the word ‘charlatan.’

  6. I teach in the Boston public schools. On the day after Senator Clinton won the South Dakota primary, local newspaper headlines proclaimed, Senator Obama had won the Democratic nomination. One of my students, a self-declared supporter of Senator Obama, was sitting in the office with a staffer when I entered the room. She looked up. “He won!” “What did he win?” “The nomination!” “No, he didn’t.” She held up the newspapers to support her claim; I spent the next several minutes explaining the nomination process, pointing out until the SD’s vote in August, he is only the presumptive nominee. Finally, she understood that he hadn’t actually won anything. She appeared troubled. ‘Then why did all newspapers say he won?’ I replied I didn’t know, and given this obvious lie, suggested she might re-investigate her candidate with a more critical eye. Now, this high school student (from Haiti) knows more about the nominating process for the Democratic nominee for President of the United States than the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

  7. Nancy Pelosi is definitely dillusional if she thinks women should accept NObama because he’ll better represent us!

    Then she and Oprah should just run HARPO productions, afterall they both pushed NObama over HILLARY, when they’re supposedly so concerned about the well being of women and children, PUMA!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: