Yes, I watched the last hour of the debate in Texas last night. I noted that neither candidate addressed the key issues which face our nation and which will determine our destiny. How will our next President deal with the potential Islamification of America? What are his or her views about fundamentalist Islam, jihad, terrorism, Muslim (not Hispanic) immmigration as well as the way in which some Muslim-Americans are using American civil rights and liberties in order to safeguard Islamic gender and religious apartheid on American soil?
Will we keep funding the Saudi Wahabi war against America and the West? Will we continue to buy their oil and continue to allow their Princes to buy up American real estate, universities, and mass communication outlets? Will President Obama launch friendly United Nations-style “talking” sessions with Saudi Arabia and Iran that will outlast even this never-ending Presidential election? Will President Clinton focus on mandatory, universal health care coverage even as we are being bombed back into the seventh century?
Of course, both candidates “scored” debating points and the audience cheered as if the debate was merely an extention of American Idol–which I fear it is. This is not a football game and such applause should have no place in so serious a discussion. I am so Old School –actually, I’m not, this is precisely how our old Mother Country, Britain, conducts the public airing of issues.
Psychologically speaking: I also noted that in general, Barack either looked down, or away, or into the middle distance when Hillary spoke. Or, he glared at her. In turn, Hillary often “gazed” at Barack as he spoke in a “girlish” or political wifely fashion. And, several times, Barack came too close to Hillary’s personal space in a way that suggested that if he could, he might have meant to touch her arm. Such “touching” is a male-to-female statement of power over and containment of the woman. Endless research about body language over the last thirty five years has confirmed that this is true.
My conclusions? That Barack was raised as a man and Hillary was raised as a woman and that both will have to wrestle with certain features of their gender-conditioning if they are to deliver on their various promises to the nation.
Folks: I am very worried. Are people voting for Obama because they were hooked on the television series 24 in which America had a black President? Are “angry white men” voting against a woman, any woman–or merely against this woman? Are women incapable of voting for another woman–someone who is not themself? Do young people merely want someone young and new, like themselves, in the White House? Are all Americans , including African-Americans, thrilled to finally be able to vote for a black candidate? Is everyone voting narcissistically?
Will people vote for Senator McCain because he “looks” like the kind of authority figure we once revered–or because of his track and voting record and because of his position on Islam? Will the battle to come be that between a traditional and no longer young military hero and that of a new kind of candidate with Kennedy-style glamor? And by the way, I hope that the Kennedy annointing of Obama does not condemn him to their tragic history of assasinated sons.
I am worried on all counts.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom
Women and Madness
The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It
Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman
Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site
Letters to a Young Feminist
With Child: A Diary of Motherhood
Feminist Foremothers in Women’s Studies, Psychology, and Mental Health
Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness
>Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M
Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody
About Men
Women, Money & Power
13 Comments
John R:Dear Ms Chesler:
I agree with nearly all of your comments except that maleness or femaleness and/or gender roles has nothing to do with the current state of unseriousness. But a culture of celebrity certainly does and it necessarily makes us dumb and aloof and incapable of seeing and acting in a responsible, adult manner. I know I am not one of these since I am personally still so enraged over the murder of our fellow citizens on 9/11 that radical Islam remains the only important issue of the campaign. Like you, I am disgusted with all the vapid applause and rock star mania surrounding Barack and Hillary.
Feb 22, 2008 - 1:08 pm David Thomson:“I noted that neither candidate addressed the key issues which face our nation and which will determine our destiny.”
Mainstream Democrats have nothing to say about Islamic nihilism. They are existentially discombobulated by the very subject. Violence is supposedly the result of an inability to communicate. Moreover, the radical Muslims are predominantly dark skinned. We disgusting Westerners are obviously responsible for their rage and bitterness. Both Barack “Barry” Obama and Hillary Clinton sense this hard and fast fact: If this election revolves around the war on terror—John McCain will win by a landslide! In other words, it is best for these two Democratic Party presidential candidates to pretend the crisis doesn’t even exist.
Feb 22, 2008 - 4:13 pm Ben:Our election contests have been trivialized, descended into inane exercises in pheromone laced popularity contesting because we are too lazy to identify and research the vital issues. The idiot box bears a great deal of blame for this condition.
In my blog post: Seriously Senator, I propounded the vital questions to Senator Obama. He has not responded. He won’t, for reasons which should be obvious to any intelligent person. Lets put those same questions to the rest of the field.
Feb 22, 2008 - 7:41 pm George Jochnowitz:I have a fuzzy memory that sometime between the election of Bill Clinton in November 1992 and his inauguration in January 1993, National Review suggested that the best way for Republicans to attack the Clinton administration was to focus on Hillary. I should go to their archives and try to find the issue where I read this, but I don’t have the time or patience. National Review’s tactic proved successful. I can’t think why. Nobody knew at that time that Hillary would run for president. I find Hillary hatred inexplicable, since it is never related to her views by those who advocate it.
When the Monica Lewinsky story came out, Bill Clinton should have refused to talk about it instead of committing perjury. Other presidents have been guilty of adultery without a political issue arising. The impeachment process, in all likelihood, weakened our country’s fight against Islamism at an early date by distracting Clinton from his job and also by creating an atmosphere where any serious response would have been characterized as a deliberate diversion of the national interest—wagging the dog.
Feb 22, 2008 - 8:20 pm maryQ:Who the hell is going to run on confronting Islamofascism? Oh, right. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. How’d that work out for them?
In all honesty, though I have my favorite, I think Obama, Clinton and McCain are sufficiently reality-based to know that a)wingnut language does not win elections and b)the next president is going to have to deal with the fact that lots of people want to kill us because their god told them to. And they hate Bush.
So, many Obama’s followers are young idealists in search of a new messiah, Clinton’s are geriatric feminists still mad about ERA not passing and ethnic minorities afraid of black people, and McCain’s are people who need a big strong daddy to take care of us. That says nothing about the candidates and how they will govern.
We’re spoiled for choice, so chill.
Feb 22, 2008 - 8:37 pm David Thomson:“Who the hell is going to run on confronting Islamofascism?”
Ever heard of a guy named John McCain? He constantly warns Americans concerning the threat of Islamic nihilism. It seemed to worked for him. McCain will probably be our next president. And what is this “wingnut language” you are talking about? Could you please offer some examples? I have never heard any of the major Republican candidates indulge in this sort of rhetoric. Have I missed something?
Feb 23, 2008 - 1:27 am Frankie Q:maryQ’s “So, many Obama’s followers are young idealists in search of a new messiah” is estranged from the broader reality. The dynamics of the politics of “racism” in which its “victims” are poised to finally gain full sway over all political decisions made in the name of the President of the United State. This is what informs Obama’s attraction. The belief that “victims” once in power would take care of the discriminated against “minorities” . This is the psychological pivot for his charm.
The question gone begging is whether the success of such political sway speaks to the interests of America? Rather proven capacity for taking the reins of the highest political office of our land must be based on a track record - none of which has thus far been made an issue in this election. Surely as regards the Democrat’s offerings. The ability, and proven responsibility in public office to the American people - none of which adds up in the case of Obama. Imperatives of such magnitude go unadressed in any media discourse thus far. As President setting foreign and domestic policy is critical no less in times fraught with challenge as is ours.
The unimaginable heavy traffic of foreign interests banging on the President’s door takes stamina to keep from coming under the influence of untoward interests. No less from those rising to power countries that seek to submerge American sovereignty. As regards the protection of America’s essential interests by a doey eyed, bin ladin-like feminine attractive featured candidate as is Obama - should give everybody pause.
Instead we are all treated to celebrity cult-like political drumming.
Indeed, what is Barrak Hussein Obama’s report card in experience, proven education as regards foreign affairs, ability to grasp and understand the imperative of sustaining the integrity of America against all who would remove our pillars, military strength, and will to stand up to all kinds of interests seeking favors? All looming to eviscerate our power in the full range of enterprise spheres in a globalized technologically driven era?
Indeed, what qualifications essential to determine worthiness for the job of President of America do the potential candidates have!
Yes, what does his report card say?
Feb 23, 2008 - 7:04 am Mama Palama:Do we need a president vulnerable due to lack of experience, questionable relationships with race based political alliances? What exactly are frequently absent Senator Obama’s legislative record in his senatorial job? And why is this not an issue?
In a word, what are his credentials?
Under whose sway will as President Hussein Obama - with a Moslem father and grandfather - come? His inexperience in the face of the very experienced and monied Islamic States incursions in America, in Europe, in Scandinavia permeating economic, academic, media, infrastructure ‘buy out’ spheres? He could all too easily become an operating agent by proxy for untoward interests aiming at the highest reaches of power of America.
Barrak Hussein Obama - whose very name has the sound ‘bomb’ poised to advance the cause of “victims” is indeed a very dangerous political lure. It mimics all too well the political marksmanship of Marxist/Communist ideological strategies.
Pray to be protected from “victims” placed in seats of power. The reversal of fortune is not an option for America! And it is this our front runner candidates place at risk!
Feb 23, 2008 - 7:13 am Franki Q:Response to Mr. Jochnowitz -
Its not just the media’s obsession with Monica Lewinsky’s presence in the White House that cost America. Rather that sexual trysts elicited by Bill Clinton served as distraction precisely in times he was required to make decisions regarding looming foreign crisis. That he used sex and as such with Lewinsky was in fact malfeasance while in office affecting national policy.
As later reported by members of his immediate staff, they were unable to reach him on account of his shut doors during his sexual engagements in the oval office with the then teenager Lewinsky. Clinton’s dalliances occurred during times necessitating response and decisions. It was reported he did not want to deal in decision-making when confronted with a foreign crisis. However, when he did it was to distract from the crisis he set in motion besetting him at home!
Feb 23, 2008 - 8:57 pm Frankie Q - further:“Wag the Dog” and Bill Clinton
Worse, far worse, was Bill Clinton’s carpet bombing of Serbia, Christians, against whom Islamic interests sought to ensconce and expand in Europe. The propaganda campaigns unleashed in America’s media very much lead by the NYTimes Moslems as victims stance setting the stage for land takeover only 2 decades hence. And it appears successful given the declaring of an Islamic torn from Serbian owned territory, Kosovo!
The ensconcing of a Shari’a State in Europe lands the hegemonic Islamic policy pursued against Israel in the Middle East in Yugoslavia, in Europe - collaborated in by American!
The “wag the dog” policy that defines former President Bill Clinton decision-making has never been held to an accounting. What we do have is his wife by proxy running for the candidacy for a third-term presidency that if successful would give Bill Clinton a third term in office!
Did his selling of the land on which the Panama Canal was is built to China make any headlines leading to questioning the motive and impact on the Western hemisphere?
It was indeed, during President Bill Clinton’s term in office in which the legitimization of terrorism as policy, its rewarding, and the raising to near statesmanship status the arch-terrorist, KGB trained agent, Egyptian born career opportunist Yassar Arafat was set in place. Opportunism does not represent leadership! Somehow the American public has not essentially been apprised of the difference? For this I hold media responsible! Failure in not prizing critical thinking in much of liberal/alien conduit agenda learning institutions in America.
Indeed, as legacy of precisely this type of incompetence and failure of leadership in protecting America’s interests that marks the Bill Clinton presidency. And as such ignored by a media dedicated to promulgating the Left’s agenda including the dumbing down of America. The consequences to such incompetence, tantamount to malfeasance has had global repercussion.
It could be said, setting the stage for the downward spiraling of requirement seen by the public as standards for Presidential nominees of our country.
Feb 23, 2008 - 9:26 pm George Jochnowitz:Thanks for your comments, Frankie Q. However, I still don’t know why Hillary is so hated, nor do I understand why she was the focus of attack even before she became first lady.
Which president do we feel was least likely to have had an extra-marital affair? In all likelihood it was Carter. Is he the president we most admire?
Feb 24, 2008 - 11:51 am David Thomson:“I still don’t know why Hillary is so hated”
The Clinton insiders brilliantly conned many well meaning people into believing that all criticism of Hillary is merely due to blind hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senator Clinton has been caught in countless lies. She is truly a ruthless individual if anyone dares to stand in her way. And no, it is not merely conservatives who say this. You might want to read feminist Candice E. Jackson ‘s Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine. It should be a real eye opener.
Feb 24, 2008 - 7:50 pm Frankie Q:To Mr. Jochnowitz
The Clintons are a political machine deft at covering tracks of major misdeeds. As such going back to financial impropriety and other shenanigans in Arkansaw where some observed people standing in their way just seemed to disappear.
Such accusations upon surfacing were quickly quashed never gaining traction.
The carefully crafted mystique shielded the Clintons from much disserved public and official scrutiny due to the Liberal/Left bias in the media. Hillary perhaps on account of Republicans/Conservative strategies, or simply a disingenuousness becoming more apparent as her public appearances increase - has shown an unraveling of much of the mystique Bill Clinton, certainly while holding the reins of Presidential power - had been so adept at weaving.
With both early and ongoing political candidacy stomping for some reason Hillary’s transparancy and therefore of the Clinton’s have been gaining. Perhaps, more importantly, confronted by Obama now perceived as the great white hope! Yesterday’s celebrities get all too quickly replaced in a very much challenged world looking for the new and brighter star to follow!
Ironically, it has been said, the Clintons who promulgated themselves as representing the interests of African- Americans (a strategy adopted to gain important political traction)are now seeing themselves trounced by same using the Clinton techniques to manipulate America’s votership!
Feb 25, 2008 - 1:11 am