Uncanny how (4.00 / 3)

those anonymous officials in the White House exclusively blast progressives, as opposed to centrists. But then I guess that's what happens where you have barely any progressives in the White House.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 13:03:23 PM CST

The comments to the AmericaBlog post.... (4.00 / 2)

...are incredible - denying that there was anything wrong with the phrase "man up".  My eyeballs are spinning in my head!

But remember, Obama has always been a Political Lurker...always in the picture, but never out front, never leading the charge.  Even his "famous" speech on Iraq (the one he went back and re-recorded...even with crowd noises because no one bothered when he actually delivered it) resulted in not a single attempt by BO to end the war once he got into the Senate.  But then, he was so busy on day one running for his next promotion he forgot that little issue, didn't he?

I remember reading about him running into committee members on their way to a press conference about something they had just accomplished.  He said, "What's up" and they told him and he said, "Can I come along"?  They said sure - they wanted people on the podium for pictures and then he had the audacity (whoops!) to take the mic and speak as if he had been personally involved in the accomplishment.  Staffers were pissed as hell at what he did.

He lurked in CT in 2006 (never really coming out and supporting Ned Lamont).  He always has and still lurks on pro-choice (using weasel words and voting present).  He lurks on race (demanding a dialog and then saying we should all move on - pun intended!).  

Where in the world does he really stand on things?  He doesn't...because he's always lurking waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before he takes - even an initial - stand.  That's why it took him days and weeks respond to things during the primary.

Barack Obama has no convictions.  Therefore he has no policies.  And therefore, he will never have any plans upon which he stakes his convictions.

At a time when this country clearly needed good, strong, progressive leadership, we are left with this.  So sad.

---

by: Shainzona @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 13:09:35 PM CST

Never occurred to me that there was (0.00 / 0)

anything wrong with 'man up.' The problem is the implication that a 'real man' is one who does the right thing, even when he doesn't want to?

Or that there's no female equivalent?

What's the gay issue? I'd tell a gay man to 'man up'--or I would've, before I read your explanation as to why I shouldn't!

---

by: Joel @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 13:51:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And the suggestion (4.00 / 1)

that manliness equals toughness and courage. (Funny coming from the person--man, I'm guessing--speaking from behind a cloak of anonymity!)

You see this crap in politics all the time, as when the charming James Carville made that crack about Hillary having balls.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:02:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Women and gays -- (4.00 / 3)

so moody!

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 13:21:04 PM CST

What is this, gym class circa 1975? (4.00 / 1)

It is also kind of hilariously ironic. Weiner's engaged to one of the most beautiful women in politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Somehow I doubt his masculinity feels that threatened.

---

by: the new @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 13:36:01 PM CST

Ah, meeting sexism with sexism. (4.00 / 3)

Because, by virtue of her beauty, she's a trophy to validate his masculinity, right?

---

by: sb @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:06:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

REAL men wed REAL women (4.00 / 1)

While the rest of us watch and wish.

No need for OVERT sexism when subtle framing is enough.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:16:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i don't see the irony (4.00 / 1)

nor the connection between masculinity and the percieved beauty of one's spouse.

Care to elaborate?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:09:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 1)

I don't think it was sexist (overtly or subtley) to say that someone that is engaged to a beautiful woman is less likely to be insecure about his masculinity.

As Natasha and the posts she links to point out, the person who made the statement to "man up" clearly wanted to get a rise out of Weiner and his supporters by challenging the perception of his masculinity (i.e., the kind of guy who always accepts a challenge, or is ready to duel, etc..)  You can say that the perception of one's masculinity shouldn't matter, whether to Weiner, to the person making the statement, or to anyone else, and frankly I'd agree with you. You could even say that the concept is completely socially constructed, and not coherent. But that doesn't change the fact that that perception probably does matter, at least to a great deal of people. My comment was taking all of that as a given.

But anyway, to the small extent my comment on this progressive blog here perpetuates the prevalence of that perception, and its importance, I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies. My point was, although I don't know if Weiner or his supporters care about his perceived masculinity (he might), if he does, I doubt this effects it.

For what its worth Abedin is also clearly a talented  (although still relatively young) political professional with an intriguing personal and family background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

---

by: the new @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 15:01:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you for clarifying (4.00 / 1)

I hope you can see from some other comments here that Mr. Weiner's masculinity and how he feels about it are somewhat beside the point.

The entire concept that being a good politician can only be accomplished by "manning up" is sexist on the surface, as is the idea that one can gain "manliness" by wedding beautiful women. Its a shallow perspective and demeans everyone involved.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 15:27:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd agree, but I'd add that I didn't see any of the better established (0.00 / 0)

progressive blogs respond negatively to Alan Grayson's "K Street whore" comment in reference to Linda Robertson. And, in that instance, not only was the comment made once but also defended repeatedly by staffers- including with the commment by a Grayson spokesperson, "The attack was on her professional career, not her personal life," as if denigrating a women with gender-based derision were more acceptable in a  professional context? Add in Todd Todd Jurkowski's defense:

"She attacked the Congressman and his efforts to promote a Republican bill to audit the Federal Reserve. She actually questioned his understanding of the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. This is [a] person who used to be the chief lobbyist for Enron attacking the intelligence and motives of a Congressman who used to be an economist,"

and you've got repeated validations of a gender-based attack on a woman working in a highly male-dominated environment. A month-late apology doesn't quite cut it to make reprimands.

At any rate, I want to believe good things of Alan Grayson, too, but perhaps the willingness to optimistically gloss over problematic points is precisely what got us where we are with Obama here.

---

by: sb @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:03:39 PM CST

Manning up would have meant doing something about the abortion restrictions (0.00 / 0)

I notice that the issue you brought to my attention yesterday about the House version of Health Care reform trying to kill insurance coverage for abortion made many of the major blogs.

A check of the progressive and feminist blogs today shows that the issue has disappeared.

I raise this here because Weiner was willing to shoot the bill down over the public option.  Where does Weiner stand on this.  Couldn't he be a bit keener?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: jeffroby @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:24:42 PM CST