Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think he was just making the personal observation that he wished she'd go away, and stop reminding us that she exists.
I'm sure we all have our own list of public figures who we wish that of, political or not.
-
we'd be eagerly awaiting President Gore's valedictory.
OK, the polling got that one right according to most sources. The Supreme Court however...
-
Just maybe having a woman as President of the most powerful country in the world might do something for the disenfranchised and savagely oppressed women of some of those countries.
Oh yes, quite possibly. And that would be a good thing.
But the original article was talking about the perception that other countries would have about the election of Obama/Clinton. Not the reality of how it would play out on the ground around the world.
-
But you and Tomasky offer no evidence that this would be true.
I think we've covered this ground. So, up to you what you think really.
I find the mix of wildly extravagent claims of Obama's future success combined with quite vicious attacks on Clinton such as by Michael Tomasky to be unnerving.
You must be referring to different parts of what he wrote than the bits you quoted. I can't see wildly extravagant, and I think calling those paragraphs a vicious attack is a little unusual.
-
but Toamsky is also making the claim that there would be that perception. I'd just like som evidence.
Well it seemed fairly logical to me. But if someone runs around surveying world leaders... good on them.
But you could agrue that someone that could transcend national boundaries might do more good than some one who reinforces them.
You could, if Clinton was Nelson Mandela. But she's clearly not.
And in terms of major issues the USA needs to deal with over the next four years - it's either countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or it's "the Middle East/Muslim region/religion".
So either having a better perception at the country level is going to help, or... being Obama with an African father, time spent living in Indonesia, and having voted against going into Iraq is going to go down a lot better with the Muslim world.
-
Hey, I miss getting three copies of my student loan statement. And more fool me for ringing them up and suggesting I only needed one. (I've got a theory that the IRD has been taken over by aliens that feed on bewilderment and simmering hostility.)
If you enjoy that, you should try crossing the line and having a kid and then paying child support.
Some weeks I've gotten three letters, consecutive days, each telling me that my income has changed, and that this is the new amount I'll be paying. When my income actually only changes once a year, when I get my pay rise.
A few times, I've had two letters on the same day, saying exactly same thing, except for the numbers after the dollar sign.
I get about 50 bits of postage a year from the IRD. I really wish they'd just email it to me (and the damn bank too). Save everyone money and trees, and at least then I could claim they were spamming in the way god intended it.
-
Yes but it's not a fact therefore I can disagree. Do you have any evidence that a Pres Obama being black would be better for the world than a Pres Clinton being female? I'd certainly scoff if Clinton supporters made such a claim for her.
You were poking at someone claiming that it sent a 'powerful message'. You can't then demand evidence that it would be better - the message would be in the perception, the reality is another issue completely. That's clearly what Tomasky was saying.
It's not about whether it would make the world a better place (who knows after all). The election of Obama, with his dark skin, would be viewed very strongly in lots of countries around the world.
But then might not gender transcend those national boundaries?
Gender does transcend national boundaries. But countries don't. And it is countries that are the major players in the world stage.
There's no big player in the international stage made up of, or representing womens interests. The closest you can get is female leaders of countries made up of roughly equal numbers of men and women.
There's lots of big players on the international stage who overwhelmingly represent the interests of non-whites, because their countries are overwhelmingly non-white.
-
Kyle, you're missing the point. Many observers have pointed out that Ferraro dismissed as 'sexism' any suggest that she wouldn't have been on the Democratic ticket in '84 if she had a penis between her legs instead of a vagina.
No I don't think I am missing the point. This isn't one side saying 'boys are better', and the other side saying 'girls are better'.
This is one side saying 'gender', and the other side saying 'race'. Sometimes race is important, and gender isn't, and sometimes the opposite is true.
If Obama was to walk into a feminist lobby group, his race wouldn't matter much. If Clinton was to walk into the same group, her gender clearly would.
I'm sure there are lots of people in the world that will think it's great if Clinton is the first women US president. I think lots of people will think it's great if Obama is the first non-white US president.
But if you're going to talk about foreign affairs you're talking about countries, and countries can be (broadly) defined by race, they can't be broadly defined by gender. There will be countries in Africa that will be very interested in seeing Obama getting elected, even if it makes no practical difference between him and Clinton. Image matters.
Partially because no country is 90% women, partially because most world leaders are male, and partially because of who she is and who she's married to, there won't be so much interest from countries in having Clinton get elected.
-
But it's just his opinion, it's not analysis.
In politics, analysis is opinion. Unless someone has done some polling of world leaders as to who they think is going to send a stronger message to the world, it's all just opinion, but it sounded like accurate analysis to me.
Why wouldn't the election of a woman send as strong a signal?
Because America has a perception problem in the world, that they invade Muslim countries that have lots of oil to spread democracy and save the local population, but don't give a shit about poor Africans dying in whatever Civil War is wracking that continent at the moment.
Whether or not Obama will at all change that in any way, who knows. But he has ties both to Africa, and to Islam, through his father and the places he's lived in the world. And he's obviously not white.
And you can define countries reasonably accurately by race/ethnicity, but you can't by gender. Lots of countries have 90% of their population of a particular colour, but every country has something reasonably close to 49/51 gender split. Race can mean things to specific countries as part of their identity in a way that gender can't.
-
That's far more than a woman coming from an Obama supporter. What would be the reaction if a Clinton supporter said far more than a black man.
That's nonsense, clearly the election of Obama would send a very strong message on the world stage, particularly to countries whose populations are of arabic, and african heritage.
Electing Clinton wouldn't send the same message because she's a white woman, but it would send a very strong message to women domestically, and to an extent around the world.
You're criticising Tomasky for accurate analysis. If a Clinton supporter said 'far more than a black man' they'd just be wrong.
No country is defined by gender, lots of countries are defined by race. When was the last time the US invaded a country full of white folks? Germany?