Was listening to the Schnitt show while getting ready for work tonight, and caught him playing an excerpt from a reporter in Michigan -where she asked Obama how he was going to help the Autoworker (UAW). He blew her off “hold on one second there, SWEETIE.”
Barack Obama passed off a reporter today in Michigan, and she seemed less than amused by his name for her.
“Hold on one second there, sweetie,” he says.
The reporter signed off: “This sweetie never did get an answer to that question.”
"Major foot in the mouth”? Come on. Talk about making something out of nothing. Each presidential campaign cycle is getting more and more hysterical as time goes by. This is really “grasping at straws”.
Oh I beg to differ. MOST women -especially professionals, don’t care to be addressed as ‘sweetie’. I’d be in a world of trouble if I addressed my patients like that. Politicians are all about image -and there is NO way to insinuate that his addressing that reporter like that, was appropriate. A definate ‘no-no’ -and it seems that the lady reporter felt the same way.
You can’t pretend that a news woman from Michigan is some kind of conservative -especially not a republican. She was handing him a softball -he swung clumsely and missed.
Who said (or implied) the reporter was “conservative” (or Republican)? Where did that come from? It was just a minor gaffe from Obama—not some kind of headline news.
Todd Schnitt does far more to marginalize women than Senator Obama ever will.
Will be interesting if he (Schnitt) has the sack to proceed with his civil lawsuit against Bubba TLS wherein he claims Bubba and crew are slandering Schnitt’s attention-ho wife
Schnitt isn’t running for president -and doesn’t have to put on a presidential image.
Nobody said the reporter was conservative -I was just putting that in to try to deflect the idea that she could be a conservative trying to make him look bad. Yes, it was a minor gaffe, and it was not headline news -but as minor gaffes go, it could prove damaging since one demographic he needs to work on is attracting the female vote. It was a disrespectful comment -though I fully expect he didn’t mean to say what he said -the way he said it.
Just remember. Dan Quails’ mis-spelling of potato was a minor gaffe, and the media (and democrats) turned it into a mountain. I’d say his gaffe was at least as bad as mis-spelling a produce item.
Schnitt isn’t running for president -and doesn’t have to put on a presidential image.
Nobody said the reporter was conservative -I was just putting that in to try to deflect the idea that she could be a conservative trying to make him look bad. Yes, it was a minor gaffe, and it was not headline news -but as minor gaffes go, it could prove damaging since one demographic he needs to work on is attracting the female vote. It was a disrespectful comment -though I fully expect he didn’t mean to say what he said -the way he said it.
Just remember. Dan Quails’ mis-spelling of potato was a minor gaffe, and the media (and democrats) turned it into a mountain. I’d say his gaffe was at least as bad as mis-spelling a produce item.
The potato incident is better compared to Obama’s 57 States mistake. The somewhat disrespectful addressing of the female reporter was a slip that might tell more about Obama’s treatment of women.
I seriuosly doubt he mistreats women -and his gaffe doesn’t suggest that, to me. Personally, I think its just typical arrogance, most politicians feel they are above the rest of us. Comes with the job, I expect.
In his case, its just a slip of the tongue (you know he knows better than that -but… )
Today, President Bush was talking about how we should not sit with terrorists and have a talk -that this was not the way to deal with them. And right after, Obamas’ campaign immediately took it as a slight to them. Hillary took it as a slight to the Democrats in general. Bush mentioned NEITHER of them -not by name, not by example. He was stating his policy, and how he believes that this should continue to BE the policy.
He didn’t mention them, nor did he insinuate them.
In our past, we have had senators who claimed that they could have diffused Hitler if only they had been given a chance to talk with him first. That kind of thinking is rediculous. Some folk are just plain evil. Take Ahmadenajahd (sp) for example. He has been referring to his neighbors as a rotting corpse, and about how he will see that they are wiped off the face of the earth -time and again. This guy is not going to be swayed by a peace talk -he doesn’t want to iron out any differences, he wants to obliterate those he doesn’t like. He is very clear on this. You don’t sit and talk with people like that -it wastes time and opens you up for attack by making you complacent. A certain senator from New York recently went to the ME to talk peace, and came back saying she had accomplished much in that regard -only to have the leader of that terrorist faction say that they had done nothing of the sort (no agreement reached and that she had misunderstood him).
entirely different situation. And I sincerely doubt that Khomeni was enough to get Reagan an election by a 49:1 state margin. If you wish to recall a little history, the Khomeni situation was put in place by none other than his predecessor -Carter -who had the Shah unseated to give Khomeni the power -upon which we were ‘repaid’ by having our representatives taken hostage. To the best of my knowledge, no hostage situation exists right now with Iran, and that rag-head was not put in place by any US president -nor has any US President (so far) helped him.
The Khomeini situation was put in place by Carter? It was the Shah’s own policies that made him unpopular. To say that Carter “had him unseated” is revisionist history.
I concede that it I was a little harsh on Carter, but he certainly did help undermine him -though I don’t believe that was his intent -he was trying to get the Shah to be more humane in his treatment of the would-be revolutionists and other political prisoners. He certainly had his influence on the Shah -who did bow to pressure from Carter -and Khomeini and his followers gathered strength, eventually enough to overthrow the Shah. So while Carter may not have deposed him, he certainly influenced the situation that allowed it to happen. THAT is not revisionism, thats a fact.
Come on, Nightbiker. Initially Carter just followed the policies of every president we had since we helped install the Shah. Carter was actually doing the right thing—it was the Shah’s brutal policies (and lavish lifestyle) that led to his downfall—not anything that Carter did. If anything, what Carter did was too little, too late. To say that he “influenced the situation that allowed it (the Shah’s downfall) to happen” is a stretch.
I agree to a point. He WAS trying to do the right thing. I never insinuated otherwise. His heart was in the right place, just as I could say the same for pretty much all of his successors -and for the most part, the previous presidents. The problem he had/has is that he failed to considder (as have pretty much all presidents and other dignitaries who have meddled in foreign affairs in the middle east, if not most any other place) the full consequences of his actions. While he was trying to get the Shah to be more humane (and if you think about it, the Shah was absolutely TAME by their standards, already -considdering the scum who ran the country in previous years) he helped lay the groundwork for the followers of Khomeini to gather strength -by pressuring the Shah into not reacting as harshly as he had previously, to their gathering/assembling and rabble-rousing.
Would the shah have eventually fallen if carter had left him alone? Possibly. Hell, PROBABLY. Its a fact of life in those countries -their leaders rarely retire -they’re usually overthrown (historically, anyway) -but there can be no denying that Carter definately helped this along -even though I have no doubt that he did not intend for it to happen.
