NY Times to Mind-numbed Housewives: Pay No Attention to the Judas Oprah. Solidarity Sisters!
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Does anyone know if Oprah woke up today with a horse head in her bed? It's been 24 hours and it's already getting ugly.
Patrick Healy of the New York Times, no doubt first forced to watch the Vagina Monologues to get in touch with his inner female before writing this, has fired the first shot at The Oprah on behalf of The Clintons.
Message: women are still alive who didn't have the right to vote. You must stick with the woman so that these old women can finally see one of their own in the White House.
“I told her that my grandmother was the first person in town to vote, and my mother was the second,” said Mrs. Smith, who was born three months before the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. “And I told her I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.”Since then Mrs. Smith’s story has become a grace note in Mrs. Clinton’s stump speech. At the same time, the many other elderly women who turn out for Clinton campaign events have become welcome set pieces, visibly demonstrating the candidate’s effort to highlight her sex and her overtures to female voters, whom the campaign is counting on to propel her to the Democratic presidential nomination.
I wish I could insert barf noises into this post.
Read on . . .
Seriously, this is the Clinton message against The Oprah -- it's more important that we get a woman elected than a black man because, well, there are still women alive who lived before women's suffrage. Solidarity sisters! Housewives unite! Pay no attention to the suffrage of African-Americans. Now is *our* turn.
That's really rather pathetic.
Lest you think this is an objective piece, Mr. Healy pulls out the trademarked practice of presenting the negative to show the positive in an effort to appear fair and balanced. After spending 755 words explaining to American housewives the world over that they must vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton despite what The Oprah tells them, he throws in 124 words of "not all women will vote for her just because she's a woman" and then ends with 48 more words on how all respectable housewives will ignore The Oprah and vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton:
Mrs. Smith, the senator’s touchstone in Iowa, said she heard doubts about Mrs. Clinton from some of her Republican friends but did not care much.“A lot of them believe a woman’s place is by the cookstove,” Mrs. Smith said. “But I think Hillary’s a very capable girl.”
I say within two weeks there'll be a hit piece on Oprah in the New York Times.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Huckabee Plays The Religion Card — Comments (44) »
NY Times to Mind-numbed Housewives: Pay No Attention to the Judas Oprah. Solidarity Sisters! 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Who will stand with me on this one? (The fund will focus on videos shot in color and that are less than 30 years old.)
Nice to see that the qualifications for being the President aren't silly things like, oh... I dunno,... experience or basic worldview, but the more important things like what kind of genitals does the candidate have, and what color they happen to be.
To vote for a woman simply because she is a woman, or a black man because he is a black man is sexist, racist, and incredibly stupid. (Just summed up the far Left's whole philosophy right there.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”
--Augustine
It would be ideal and much better for everyone to get informed and then vote. But if they aren't willing to do the prior, I wish they would stop do the later.
I don't read the NY Times, and after clicking on the link above, now I remember why.
Staggering, even by NYT standards, that they would print such an unabashed puff piece of Clinton campaign propaganda.
if women are voting strictly on gender than by god take the vote away from those liberal idiots.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I have to ask this question, because I'm not sure what she gets out of this. Is Oprah considering politics as her next cause? Not entirely out of the question for celebs, if you look at the success of Arnold S. or Ronald R. Or maybe a VP invitation if Obama gets the dem nod. She is certainly a qualified and successful business person.
She would take too much of a financial hit if she got into politics... And she has more "power" now than if she obtained elected office...
there is a kind of mindless kinship. Between hags why should issues matter? Funny, but they could be among the first to have medical benefits reduced down the road as we proceed towards the Kazakhstan model or whatever other model we are following this week.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The article does not mention Oprah and the only reference to Obama and Edwards is to say that they are close in the polls.
It is a puff piece about Hillary courting elderly female voters. It doesn't really appeal to me, but I'm not an elderly woman.
It's related to Oprah because the NY Times is beginning to make the case that women should stick with Hillary even though Oprah, America's #1 Woman, is not.
That is the only sense in which these two political events are related. The article is about Clinton appealing for votes from elderly women, perhaps women in general. This was not even an attack on Obama other than in the broadest possible sense that would state than any good for one campaign is bad for another thus an attack. For this to extend to Oprah one has to say that any appeal to a constituency by one campaign is an attack on all representatives of that constituency that support another campaign.
The only logic I can see you following here is:
Oprah endorses Obama,
Oprah appeals to female voters,
Clinton makes an appeal to female voters,
The NYT reports on it,
Therefor the NYT and Clinton have attacked Oprah.
If Dobson endorses Huckabee will that be an attack on Robertson?
If Steven Seagal endorses Rudy will that be an attack on Chuck Norris?
I had the same impression... an article that doesn't mention Oprah at all, and Obama only in two sentences, and frankly if you read it objectively it comes across as no more positive than negative for Clinton. I failed to see where the writer was advocating rather than reporting.
At the same time, the many other elderly women who turn out for Clinton campaign events have become welcome set pieces, visibly demonstrating the candidate’s effort to highlight her sex and her overtures to female voters, whom the campaign is counting on to propel her to the Democratic presidential nomination.
Translation: Clinton is obviously using elderly women as props to be exploited in her presidential campaign.
The Clinton campaign is courting these women in Iowa as the senator seeks an edge in a three-way fight with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards of North Carolina to win the state’s caucuses on Jan. 3.
Translation: Using elderly women is a premeditated tactical move by the Clinton campaign given the situation in Iowa.
So the Clinton campaign hopes to find an advantage with older women, who might feel an emotional bond with Mrs. Clinton — seeing her like a daughter or seeing something of themselves in her.
Translation: Clinton isn't trying to convince elderly women on the merits of her experience and qualifications - she's trying to appeal to them through emotion and feelings.
And in Iowa, campaign officials constantly check their numbers of elderly female supporters (currently, 479 of them are ages 90 to 110) — in part to see if they have relatives who might also become supporters.
Translation: The Clinton campaign treats elderly women like a herd of cattle, periodically verifying counts and trying to grow them in number.
In interviews with 20 women in their late 70s and 80s, most said they supported Mrs. Clinton based on qualities they saw in her — intelligence, confidence and capability — rather than her positions on issues.
Translation: The Clinton tactic is working: most elderly women are embracing her on the basis of perceived character rather than perceived policy positions.
Shazam! And suddenly and alleged "first shot at The Oprah" turns into a damaging broadside at Clinton!
then again so is quite a bit of the campaigning by all parties involved. That is just the nature of politics.
I live in NY and still wonder what Hillary is capable of. In point of fact, I have a hard time finding anyone in these parts able to recite one accomplishment. Ditto for B. Hussein Obama, whom only competes for the title of Most Unaccomplished with Hillary.
Honestly, what does it say when the primary implied appeal is a candidates sex or race? How about voting for someone simply because a talk show host pimps them like a product? It says you need to read more, examine all their positions and understand how that fulfills the needs of an entire nation. It also says you need to watch less TV and start making decisions on your own.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Earlier posts have pictured Clinton as Godzilla, does this mean that Oprah is Mothra?
or is Oprah the shobijin (little fairies) and Mothra her viewers?
If Clinton wins the nomination and gets Oprah's endorsement would that make the Republican candidate Gigan or Monster X?
that if Hillary! is the result, women never should have been given the vote in the first place.
I sound like I'm joking but I know my fellow females too well.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.