<p><,And why is Obama usually referred to as “Senator Obama,” But Clinton is frequently called “Mrs. Clinton?”>></p>
<p>I hadn’t noticed that, but I’m going to make a mental note to pay attention. Interesting.</p>
<p>Olbermann, Scarborough, they are equal opportunity haters. Although I think it will take a while for Olberman to hate someone more than he hates Bush…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, Coureur, that simply assumes that there should be a “valid reason” for disliking but none for … liking her. Is there a range to the lack of blindness or lack of reasoning in people offering support? Is there more rational sense in the attitude of citizens towards Bush or Cheney. </p>
<p>The reality is that we simply analyze situations differently according to our individual “rational” compass.</p>
<p>Interesting. It was just about ten years ago that it was “Mrs.” Clinton who was talking on national TV about the strength of her daughter. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/chelsea/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/chelsea/</a></p>
<p>Some things never change. ;)</p>
<p>Clinton is calling for the reporter to be fired, saying it’s not enough that he was suspended. I think this might be going over the top. He apologized on air and his career at MSNBC is effectively over in terms of future political coverage… calling for his termination just makes her seem vindictive, in my mind.</p>
<p>But sokkermom, in 1998 Hilary Clinton was not a senator (neither was Mr. Obama), so “Mrs.” Clinton made sense.</p>
<p>Have I missed your point?</p>
<p>I really truly absolutely believe that the reason for the hatred of Clinton – and the distrucst of everything she does – is because she is a woman. I think it’s completely unconscious in those who hate her, but I think that women continue to be objects of derision, and seeing a strong, smart woman who’s a real “contender” is very upsetting to many people. So, they “hate” her, “don’t trust her,” and generally put her down.</p>
<p>And I really, truly absolutely disagree with that. There are many strong, smart women who I admire and respect. She just isn’t one of them.</p>
<p>Yesterday’s Wall St Journal has an article by Peggy Noonan with the headline “Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?” in which both she and Obama are referred to as “Mrs. Clinton” and “Mr. Obama.” Elsewhere in the paper, they are either title-less, as in “Obama, Clinton Fight for Delegates” or both given the honorific “Senator.” I have not seen her referred to “Former First Lady” which is the phrase usually used for former Presidents’ wives. Without referring to the style manual, it would appear that the current title trumps the previous title.</p>
<p>opportunistic?lets see, now Senator Clinton (to be politically correct here) says she cant compete with Senator Obama in states where there are caucuses rather than primaries b/c her supporters can’t take the time away fro their jobs that a caucus requires.But she was quite happy about her caucus win in Nevada. All of a sudden,caucuses are unfair?
whoever found the definition of pimped as a verb ,thanks, thats just what my Son meant.I guess its a generational language divide.
also, I watched on the “View” when the ladies said they were all called personally by Chelsea before Super Tuesday.They all said it was strange and weird.</p>
<p>My observation about the forms of address relate more to use on the air waves: those commenting on radio and TV. I sincerely hope that any competent editor would ensure that consistency is observed in edited print media.</p>
<p>I don’t think Clinton’s reaction to this thoughtless comment is blowing anything out of proportion. </p>
<p>As a reporter, he’s in the big leagues now and he can’t run off at the mouth like that without consequences. Can you imagine if Obama had a daughter old enough to be out there campaigning for her father and someone made a crack like that…he’s “pimping out” his D to get votes. It’s an incredibly serious blunder for a professional journalist to make, but we’ve all become so used to the amount of screed spewed on both sides of the media fence that it’s getting the kid gloves treatment by some. </p>
<p>Pimped out = duded up? or promote? or advertise? Not in this context it didn’t. It came across to me as a tasteless allusion to putting one’s D out on the street, as in prostituting herself. Obama’s campaign spokesman rightly decried the remark as “deplorable” rather than pooh-pooh Clinton’s reaction. (If he keeps that up, I’m going to have say I’ve known of at least one politician with class.)</p>
<p>And xiggi: Yes, a simple “leader” would have been a heck of a lot more acceptable than “Fuhrer.” Fuhrer. I can’t believe you see the “beauty” in using that word to refer to someone who, while you may not like her, has done honorable public service, serving her constituents well in the Senate. She won New York; I take it that she’s not regarded as a Hitler figure there.</p>
<p>“serving her constituents well in the Senate”</p>
<p>Really? Name something she’s done to help NY. When I return home to visit no one seems to know of anything.</p>
<p>I just had a thought, which comes out of the paranoia and intrigue that seems to be characterizing this nominating process and into which I have now bought. What if Clinton had that comment planted so that she could invoke sympathy from all the moms, and get more of that free publicity she needs because of her (sob) difficult financial straits?</p>
<p>Re-elected with 67 percent of the vote in 2006 (31 percent for her opponent) suggests that the majority of voters of New York believe she has served them well. If she was someone you could compare to a mentally unhinged, emotionally volatile megalomaniac, I would think the voters of New York would have turned her out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Washdad - I completely agree. I have heard the term pimp up used as was suggested by suephilly. In fact, I only assume pimp refers to selling someone out sexually if the context is purely sexual. Otherwise, when I hear it (movies, TV, etc.), I think of a different meaning than it used to have. That being said, I think there could have been a much more tactful way of getting the message across about Chelsea’s involvement in the campaign. </p>
<p>I absolutely think the Limbaugh comments were more harmful than these last remarks. Being referred to as a dog several times by a national media character when one is 13 or 14 is vicious. I remember during those days I had a friend who was part of Rush’s cult and who would try to get me to listen to him. When I heard how he referred to Chelsea, I never wanted to listen to him again; he makes me nauseous. It just proves to me that he can’t make his points with civil, adult language so he must regress to elementary school behavior. So where was the upheaval then? Why wasn’t he fired or suspended from his job? I think Rush’s attacks were far more harmful than these latest ones (only because Chelsea’s now a confident, beautiful young woman who can see right through these digs at her); how do you tell a 13-14 year old, hormonal, awkward, girl to ignore the mean man on national radio, when you know all your friends have probably heard about it by now. Again, where was the uproar? </p>
<p>I am feeling sort of manipulated by the whole experience - was it deliberate? If not, was the response intended to draw free publicity and sympathy? It seems to have taken on a life of its own.</p>
<p>One more comment, if a reporter made a similar comment about one of Obama’s kids right now as Rush did about Chelsea, I sure hope there’s more outcry than there was with Chelsea.</p>
<p>“Re-elected with 67 percent of the vote in 2006”</p>
<p>LOL–Against the no name former mayor John Spencer. My goldfish would have received 67% of the votes against JP</p>
<p>How in the slightest does her victory illustrate anything positive she’s done for NY? And lest we forget, Hillary never resided in NY until she decided to run for the Senate. Although I really don’t have an issue with that. She’s entitled to live where she wishes, even if it does smell of opportunism. i.e. electoral votes,</p>
<p>I agree comletely, teriwtt.</p>
<p>Only slightly off track, but along the same line of thought: when McCain was asked something to the effect of, “How are we going to beat the b**ch?” He began his answer with “Good question.”</p>
<p>Now, if he had been asked, “How are we goin to beat the bast**d?” and answered similarly, what kind of outcry would we have seen?</p>
<p>E: </p>
<pre><code>A win of 67 percent suggests that the majority of New York voters liked the job she was doing as their representative and wanted her to keep doing it, thus the “served her constituents well” assertion. If she had been a more unpopular Senate, disliked and ineffective, then the Republicans would have put up a much stronger opponent to take her down instead of the sacrificial lamb that even your goldfish could have defeated.
</code></pre>
<p>Perhaps a lot of New Yorkers don’t think she’s done a good job, or served them well, but for the purposes of my standing by my comment, majority rules.</p>
<p>Magnifique, Jazzymom. Magnifique. Not to mention factual.</p>
<p>Like Al D’Amato. (Remember him?? Senator Pothole?)</p>
<p>“If she had been a more unpopular Senate,”</p>
<p>You’re misunderstanding my point. I don’t disagree she’s popular. But being popular doesnt correlate to “served her constituents well” We don’t have an argument JM. We simply look at the definiton of “served well” differently. I asked what has she done for the betterment of NY. I don’t know of anything. Do you? Have you ever been to upstate or western NY? How has she helped there?</p>