Monday, September 25, 2006

Democrats, Stop Nominating Pussies!

I apologize for the sexist language, but it's necessary.

Watch Bill Clinton destroy FOX's Chris Wallace when Wallace tries to blame him for 9/11.

The right-wingers are going on about how he lost his temper and was un-presidential. That doesn't matter. They're not going to vote for a Democrat anyway.

Look at his body language. Look at how he vigorously defends himself and dominates Wallace physically and verbally. See his passion.

That's a man people will vote for.

No more snivelling, whiny pussies like Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore (at least in 2000), and Kerry!

Nobody's inspired by those guys. Nobody instinctively trusts them to defend our country. They're not alpha males, they're omega males.

I'm not talking about who would make a good president; I'm talking about who can win an election.

Let's look at the Democrats who have won in the last hundred years, besides Carter. Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton. Those are real goddamn men. Mondale, Dukakis, 2000-Gore, and Kerry? Real goddamn pussies.

(Yes, Kerry was a war hero and could probably still kick my ass. Somehow he still comes off as a goddamn pussy on television, though. Also, I'm using "man" figuratively here. In theory, a dominant woman like Thatcher could win as well. Hillary's probably more dominant than Kerry or 2000-Gore, but I hope for our country's sake we can do better than her.)

For a while, I was leaning towards Obama or Edwards, because they have charisma. But I'm realizing it wasn't just his charisma that got Clinton elected. It's dominance. I don't think Edwards has it, and I haven't seen enough of Obama, but I'm afraid he doesn't have it either. And Wes Clark has got to be the least dominant-looking general to have ever lived.

Gore's shown signs. He's a big man and he can fight. His speeches in recent years have been electrifying. I'm not sure if he let his handlers turn him into a pussy in 2000 or if that's who he really is during a campaign. But I don't see anyone else who can do it. I guess it's either him or Hillary.

Now I don't know who convinced a majority of Democratic primary voters that Kerry was the most electable Democrat in 2004, or how they did it, but let's stop making the same goddamn mistake every four years.

Sadly, both Giuliani and McCain have more dominance than Gore or Hillary. A Dem might win in 2008 because of the Republicans' unprecedented corruption and incompetence, but nobody's going to be excited about him or her unless we find someone who's not a goddamned pussy.

(end rant)

21 comments:

david said...

Yow!

I nominate you!

tikkunger said...

LOL, thanks for the interesting take!

I like Bill

asher said...

Don't have a cow man

skcorefil said...

Dr. Condelezza Rice for president!

Daisy said...

Hi there, I've never commented here before, but I read your blog regularly and generally enjoy it. :)

I agree %100 -- we need a strong, confident nominee, one who can hold her own in an argument, one who people recognize as a natural leader, one on whom people feel they can depend. These qualites are critical.

However, I don't think referring to poor candidates as "pussies" is helpful or necessary. Your blog, you business, but relying on old staples of sexism puts a person -- and his argument -- a helluva lot closer to the right wing, in my opinion.

Jewish Atheist said...

Daisy:

Thanks for commenting. :-) I was reluctant to use the word, but "wimpy" wouldn't cut it and "wussy" just sounds stupid. Everyone knows what is meant by "pussy" even if it is unfortunately a sexist term. I'm writing about people's instinctive reactions to candidates and such reactions aren't often free of prejudice. When I call them "pussies," I'm speaking as the unconcious parts of voters' brains, not in my own voice.

Well, not in the voice I usually let out in public, anyway.

dbackdad said...

You hit the nail on the head. People will stand up with somebody with passion who is not afraid to defend themselves. That is why I like Feingold. He is not afraid to take an unpopular position and is willing to stand up for what he believes in.

And that is why, despite my numerous problems with some of her policy positions, I would support Hillary. No one would accuse her of being a shrinking violet. And I think that is why some conservatives begrudgingly give her credit.

Random said...

Re. the Clinton interview - when it comes to deciding what qualities are most suitable in somebody who is going to have his finger on the trigger of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, then I have to say that "goes berserk when somebody pisses him off" would not be very high on the list! I have to say too that (although I haven't seen the whole interview - it hasn't been broadcast over here, I've had to rely on clips on the net) Clinton looked more petty and petulant than dominant and forceful to me. YMMV, of course.

Which isn't to say that getting angry doesn't have it's place, but it has to be the right sort of anger. For example Dukakis probably sunk his campaign for good when he failed to get angry when a journalist asked him how he'd have felt if Willie Horton had raped and murdered his wife, and George Allen may just have saved his by responding angrily to the "Are you now, or have you ever been Jewish?" question so disgracefully thrown at him by a journalist.

As for the lack of "real goddam men" in leadership positions in the Democratic party, have you stopped and considered that that may be a structural problem with the way the party is these days? To put it bluntly, given the party's enthusiastic promotion of a hard-line feminist, gay rights, etc. politically correct agenda (or at least to be fair it's public image of being mainly about this sort of thing these days) then is it that surprising if alpha males (who are routinely stereotyped by people pushing this agenda as the cause of all the evils they are fighting) don't feel welcome in the Democrats? After all, forty or even twenty years ago a man like Giuliani (ethnic, gay rights, pro abortion...) would surely have been a natural Democrat (heck, Reagan was a Democrat once!). The fact that he's a Republican these days surely says something about the Democrats? Why do the Giulianis of this world no longer feel the Democrats are their natural home?

Short form - if you want more alpha males in the party, then stop demonising them...

Jewish Atheist said...

Random:

Re. the Clinton interview - when it comes to deciding what qualities are most suitable in somebody who is going to have his finger on the trigger of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, then I have to say that "goes berserk when somebody pisses him off" would not be very high on the list!

He was mad but never out of control, IMO. Moreover, he *should* have been mad. You weren't really afraid Clinton was going to nuke someone because he lost his temper, were you? :-)

although I haven't seen the whole interview

It's on youtube.

George Allen may just have saved his by responding angrily to the "Are you now, or have you ever been Jewish?" question so disgracefully thrown at him by a journalist.

I'm surprised at this because I don't think of you as a spinner, so you must really believe this. You must not be following it too closely. The story here is that he responded angrily not because the question was out-of-bounds (although it may have been) but because he's embarrassed to be "outed" as a Jew and possibly worried that being Jewish will cost him votes. Evidence: he referred to the question as "casting aspersions" on him. He proudly declared that he still eats pork (as do I, but I don't brag about it to show how un-Jewish I am.) His mother reportedly said, "Now you don't love me any more" after she told him she was Jewish. He has a long history of racism -- reportedly he used the N-word a lot in college and did some pretty crazy things like putting a deer's head in a mailbox in an area where Blacks lived. He kept a noose (!) in his law office in the early '90s. He flew the Confederate flag (not necessarily racist by itself) and hung out with the CCC.

To put it bluntly, given the party's enthusiastic promotion of a hard-line feminist, gay rights, etc. politically correct agenda (or at least to be fair it's public image of being mainly about this sort of thing these days) then is it that surprising if alpha males (who are routinely stereotyped by people pushing this agenda as the cause of all the evils they are fighting) don't feel welcome in the Democrats?

There is some truth to this. White males are voting overwhelmingly Republican. Democrats haven't done a good job of convincing non-minority men that they're looking out for them, too. (This is why I went with the word "pussies" despite my instincts. If we're going to be too "pussy" to use the word "pussy," we're never going to get back those white males.) I firmly believe that the Democrats are better for White men than the Republicans, but I can understand how some of them feel left out.

Random said...

Thanks, I'll look out for the Clinton interview.

WRT Allen, I've heard that version, but it strikes me more as counter-spin by people attempting to justify the question than anything that's supported by any actual evidence. According to the Washington Post, he was angry about the episode because it was bringing an extremely painful piece of family history into the public arena - his maternal grandfather was swept up in the Holocaust, an event which so traumatised his mother that she effectively buried her family's Jewish heritage in order to protect her children from any future outbreaks of violent anti-Semitism, not telling Allen the truth until after the story broke. And it's hardly fair to quote "Now you don't love me any more" without quoting Allen's reply ("Mom, I respect you more than ever"). As for the college stuff - I've heard of that too. It seems to come down to an article in Salon featuring accusations from one named and two unnamed sources. Allen by contrast has denounced the story as lies (no political evasions here) and produced on his website statements from four named sources all calling the accusations nonsense. It's only fair to point out that when we discussing the Swift Boat Vets a while back you were prepared to accept this sort of thing (who did the majority of contemporaries who knew the candidate back?) as powerful evidence in support of Kerry. It's only fair to extend the same consideration to Allen.

"I firmly believe that the Democrats are better for White men than the Republicans, but I can understand how some of them feel left out. "

I'm sceptical about this myself (I don't believe the Dems are better for anybody, in the long term at least...), but thanks for understanding the point I was trying to make. It's basically the same as what Howard Dean once said about needing to find a way to talk to guys with confederate flags on their aerials and gun racks in the back of their pick ups - though you managed to avoid the sort of stereotyping Howard used, which show him to be part of the problem rather than the solution. Maybe the Dems should hire you:-)

Jewish Atheist said...

Random:

WRT Allen, I've heard that version, but it strikes me more as counter-spin by people attempting to justify the question than anything that's supported by any actual evidence.

How do you interpret his "casting aspersions" comment? And his saying "[being Jewish is] just an interesting nuance to my background -- I still had a ham sandwich for lunch. And my mother made great pork chops." Doth he not protest too much? And what's up with the confederate flags? You can't argue that they're Southern pride rather than racist symbols -- he's from California and Chicago!

And what of the CCC???

The Nation reported in 2006 that Allen, as Governor, initiated contact with the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), one of the largest white supremacist groups.[52] The CCC descended from the segregationist White Citizens' Councils of the Jim Crow-era South.[53] At a 1996 Conservative Political Action Conference attended by Governor Allen and CCC leaders, Allen suggested that the group join together for a photograph.[52] The Nation obtained and published the resulting snapshot, which the CCC had printed in the summer 1996 edition of its Citizens Informer newsletter. The CCC is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, though the CCC disputes these claims.[54] (wikipedia.)

There's just too much smoke around Allen -- not just during this campaign, but throughout his whole career.

You have a good point about the Swift Boat comparison w/r/t the allegations about his behavior in college though.

Maybe the Dems should hire you:-)

Yeah, I'll come barging in with a mission to de-pussify the party. :-) Actually, it doesn't sound like a half-bad idea.

But seriously, there are those in the party who do this stuff well -- mostly Clinton's people like... the Clintons and James Carville. Maybe this is why they jumped behind Wes Clark last time around, although that didn't pan out.

Izzy said...

A few items:

"Pussies" is an objectifying, sexist term. You should be ashamed for using it, and should publicly apologize. Afterwards, report to the re-education camps. {{grin}}

Perhaps the term "Limp-wristed" -- oops, no good.

"Feminine" -- nope.

Yes, I think the term "wuss" is the best. So far, no one has claimed it as a term of derogation.

I've watched the interview, read the right and the left spin on it, and I still come to the conclusion that BJ Clinton cannot help but lie. I believe it may be pathological.

But, that said, you are absolutely correct in your analysis that what the Democrat party is lacking in recent candidates is the "Alpha Male". But, then, again, both parties have problems finding them.

Reagan was one.

Bush I, was not, but he was in comparison to his opponent.

Clinton definitely was. His forceful charismatic nature is stunning, even to someone who has a negative opinion of him. (I remember hearing his televised speeches, and believing every word of it. Only later, when I could read the words did I realize what a pathological liar he was/is.)

Bob Dole is, but his handlers made him water down any strengths he had. (They also wouldn't let him be humorous, and the man can be definitely funny.)

Bush II is, but only slightly. Compared to Clinton, Bush II is a wet rag. But, compared to Bore (Ooops, I mean Gore), W appears manly and virile.

And Kerry is way too french and elite. (And the phony hunting license line hurt him immensely. If he hadn't tried to "countrify" his speech pattern, he might have made his point, but the patois he used made the whole point of making him an "everyman" vanish.)

Hillary may be that "Alpha". She might be wise and tone down the shrillness (that has peaked out occasionally as Senator), but enhance the leadership. Unfortunately, this might be wrongly perceived as "bitchy" or "pushy" rather than "leading." She, unfortunately for her, may have to tread very carefully here, where a male candidate would be praised for being pushy. I, right-wing wingnut that I am, am against this kind of double-standard, since the double-standard does not benefit anyone (how pragmatic is that?).

What is more likely, though, is that her handlers will say that the coasts matter more than the heartland (the same mistake other Democrat national condidates have made), and tell her to be pushy. This will only make the red states redder.

The Republicans have some "Alphas" in the wings, but, once again, the handlers become all-important.

asher said...

JA,

You sit here on your left wing blog with that smirk on your face thinking you're "oh so clever" and even though I'm putting my finger in your face and sitting forward in my chair, I am not losing it.

Howard Dean agrees, Hugo Chavez was right.....the devil is in the white house.

Anonymous said...

JA, Clinton couldn't even stand up to NOW. Until a Dem candidate does, he'll be seen as, for lack of a better term, wimpy. Of course if he does, he won't have a chance.

Another anon

Random said...

First of all, apologies that an offhand comment of mine appears to have derailed the thread, but to answer your questions...

"How do you interpret his "casting aspersions" comment?"

That depends. You don't have to personally believe that the revelation of Jewish ancestry is ipso facto damaging in order to believe that the person ambushing you with the revelation may be doing so with the intent to damage you. Allen may be saying he doesn't believe it's a negative aspersion, but suspects the journalist in question and her defenders do, in other words. As for the pork chop thing, that may just be a slightly clumsy way of saying it's an interesting detail in his family tree but has nothing to do with the sort of person he is today - he's simply not Jewish, not a Jew who's hiding the fact for electoral advantage in other words.

As for the confederate flag - yes, that's straightforward and not particularly creditable pandering to his constituency. I would hope it's simply another example of an immigrant to an area being much more patriotic than any native born person, but given what the flag represents one would hope he'd grow out of it.

As for the CCC thing. I found your quote on wikipedia and followed the links through to the Nation article. Stripped of the hyperbole, it seems clear that what happened is that Allen was working the stands on the fringes of CPAC (which does seem to be a perfectly respectable organisation) and stopped for a photo opportunity at one which has since come back to bite him. You know as well as I do that high profile politicians (he was governor of Virginia at the time) do literally hundreds of these things a year and simply don't have time to check the bona fides of everybody they meet. It's almost inevitable sadly that some unsavory characters are going to slip through. Even the Nation admits that we only have the word of the CCC that it was Allen who initiated the meeting and proposed a photo opportunity - and frankly, I wouldn't put too much faith in the integrity of people like that.

Incidentally, the only named source in the Salon article has now retracted his claim - apparently he never heard Allen use racist language himself, he only heard other people say he did...

Don't get me wrong. If I was a Virginian I suspect I wouldn't be voting for the man - he is at the very least a clumsy politician with a tin ear who shows distinct signs of lacking courage under fire. But going by what I've seen of the campaign so far, I'm almost certain I wouldn't vote for his opponent either. These sort of sleazy, unsubstantiated tactics discredit the people using them far more than the proposed target.

Sadie Lou said...

http://www.pietyhilldesign.com/blog/2006/09/24/boy-was-i-wrong/

Jewish Atheist said...

Random:

You're give Mr. Allen a whole lot of benefit of the doubt. Did you know that he proudly displayed the Confederate flag in high school before he ever even moved to the South?

And why are you blaming his opponent for "sleazy tactics?" What does his opponent have to do with this? Are you saying he put the reporter up to it? Are you saying he made the press go nuts about the "macaca" incident? Did he get several (not just the one named in Salon, who did not in fact retract the substance of his claim) people to say bad things about Allen?

BTW, someone else came forward today or yesterday about Allen's use of the N-word in college.

asher said...

JA has a right to be upset with Allen. After all the guy has been a governor, a senator and in public life for maybe 30 years and only NOW does all these important things about him come out. Must have a been a pretty slow news day.

JA - I know for a fact that you used the n word, the c word, the k word and the s word sometime in the past, also you may have called some women bad things and implied they are lesbians, and worse (horrors!) you have been caught watching FOX news.

Deny it if you may but we have people who have heard it from other people and we have to go on that.

Now tell me the difference.

Jewish Atheist said...

asher:

JA has a right to be upset with Allen. After all the guy has been a governor, a senator and in public life for maybe 30 years and only NOW does all these important things about him come out. Must have a been a pretty slow news day.

Actually, there have been stories all along (just google it) but for some reason the "macaca" incident seems to have brought it to a head.

JA - I know for a fact that you used the n word, the c word, the k word and the s word sometime in the past, also you may have called some women bad things and implied they are lesbians, and worse (horrors!) you have been caught watching FOX news.

I'll admit to calling individual women "bitches" at times in my life, using the "s word" if you mean by that "shit," and have even watched FOX from time to time, but I have not done the others. Are you really going to go with, "But everybody does it!" as an excuse?

Are you okay with Jesse Jackson's use of "himeytown?" I'd never vote for him.

Moreover, even if a lot of people have used some of those words, it's not the same as having a longstanding pattern of racism AND running for public office.

Spungen said...

What's wrong with "weakling?" Or "spineless?"

I guess "jellyfish," "nebbish," and "pantywaist" are too retro?

Random said...

Benefit of the doubt? Not really. I've already said I'd be most unlikely to vote for the man even if I could, after all. I just don't believe that my disdain for him requires me to believe every smear that comes out about him - especially when, as I believe I've shown, they tend to disintegrate when subject to closer examination.

And I wasn't blaming his opponent specifically (though I don't doubt that the Webb campaign has leapt on all these charges with indecent enthusiasm). I was blaming people opposed to the Allen campaign in general - though I can see how you read it the way you did. Call me a cynic if you wish, but I strongly doubt for example that the journalist in question was motivated by anything other than a disinterested quest for the truth when she raised the Jewish Question.