Obama Calls Reporter “Sweetie”
Is this a big deal? Is it sexist?
Nah… this is a non-story. Having grown up in the South, it’s quite common for people to use terms of endearment with strangers. “Would you like fries with that, honey?” Thanks for the extra biscuit, sweetie.” Etc.
No big deal. Move on.
Owen - What are you talking about, boy.
You have missed the context here. Obama is running for POTUS, not interviewing to be a waitress at Shoney’s.
A waitress calling me sweetie or hon is completely different than me using that term with anyone. Especially is a professional context. I’ll try it with my female department director tomorrow and report back.
And “boy” was certainly common in the South as you grew up. That same waitress may have patted little Barry Obama on the head and called him boy. I’ll let you try that one out with him today.
No big deal. Move on.
Posted by Headless Blogger on May 15, 2008 at 2015 hrsExcept if John McCain, GW Bush, Dick Cheney had said that, they be called perverted, sexist and worse. Yes, it is a noon-issue, but if it were a conservative…
Posted by on May 15, 2008 at 2016 hrsI get the context and understand why some people will make a big deal of this. I’m not willing to go there. If we are going to push back against the perpetually offended, we must do so on all fronts.
Posted by Owen on May 15, 2008 at 2018 hrsI quite agree with you, Owen. Besides, I don’t think it’s ultimately good for our democracy to perpetually focus on scandal and pseudo-scandal. Me, I don’t care if G. W. Bush got out of Vietnam because his father was well-connected. It’s not nearly as important as whether his policies are sound. And I don’t care what Obama’s pastor shouts to his congregation on Sunday. Frankly, anyone who’s shocked by it doesn’t understand race relations in America today and they should perhaps spend more time among their black neighbors.
Focusing on these things is something that campaigns will do. And the corporate media naturally follows because their business is selling sensationalism and scandal, not informing people. And ultimately they do so because the American television viewer responds to this junk more than they do to issues-oriented reporting or investigative journalism. They want Dip N’ Dots not oatmeal. To me that’s the saddest realization of all.
So thanks for saying no to it. Feel free to bring up the fact that I said this next time McCain says or does something dumb but unimportant.
Posted by scott on May 15, 2008 at 2035 hrsI agree with Owen, but I admit it’s one of the things I don’t miss about being in the south. I’m not your honey, I’m not your sweetie, I’m not your sugar. Ugh. But Obama lived in Hawaii, Jakarta, and Chicago. Where did he pick up the habit? Harvard?
Posted by on May 15, 2008 at 2046 hrsHeh. I"m sure he just did it because he wanted to suck up to those folksy, down-home Michiganders. Or because he’s just a rabid sexist.
I’ve probably done worse myself, and I’m not guilty of either of those things. He starts doing it all the time, that would be weird. But to get a little chummy during a conversation with a reporter? Yawn. it’s more important to me that he be in favor of advancing issues that are important to women voters.
Posted by scott on May 15, 2008 at 2056 hrsWendy, my thoughts exactly. And in my mind, your observation is what makes the statement condescending instead of familial.
Obama wants to be leader of the free world. Vernacular like this could get the U.S. in trouble in some cultures. The campaign is a trial, an example of how he would lead.
Uh-oh.
Posted by Cindy on May 15, 2008 at 2250 hrsMountains...molehills. Although I would give much to see McCain use the exact phrase and context in say late August. I believe Scott, I do not believe media would let that go.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 0713 hrsObama wants to be leader of the free world. Vernacular like this could get the U.S. in trouble in some cultures. The campaign is a trial, an example of how he would lead.
Uh-oh.
Please tell me you’re not a Bush-supporting Republican. My irony-o-meter wouldn’t survive it.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 0805 hrsI agree that the “sweetie” comment is a non-issue and the fact that people are attempting to assert otherwise highlight how ridiculous our political discourse has become.
On a side note, I would also like to point out that I admire Scott’s attempt (intentional or not) to use this post to spin the Rev. Wright issue. Calling someone sweetie and allowing a hate-monger to be your spiritual leader for 20 years are not the same thing (even if other hate-filled blacks feel the same way). Good try though - maybe if you try hard enough all of Obama’s negatives will go away just in time for the general election. Try this one next - I don’t care that Obama has no real history in managing anything and no significant legislative accomplishments and I wish that people would stop focusing on that and only discuss his prepared and polished speeches
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 0815 hrs
REL, I didn’t intend to be controversial. I should have used a different example, knowing that many might not find that example similar enough.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 0827 hrsAlthough, upon reflection I have to point out that in one respect they are exactly the same: I believe both issues are as a practical matter completely irrelevant to the problem of choosing the most capable president.
I don’t care that Obama has no real history in managing anything and no significant legislative accomplishments and I wish that people would stop focusing on that and only discuss his prepared and polished speeches
I don’t think presidents are chosen based on their resumes. If they were, George W. Bush would not be the current occupant. It inspires confidence, sure, if they have successfully held other high offices, but presidents are chosen much more based on their policy proposals, their party’s platform, and people’s personal assessment of their leadership capabilities. Senator Obama has policy ideas that appeal to a lot of Americans. His party’s ideas seem to be resonating quite a bit this electoral cycle. And people’s take on his leadership skills seem pretty positive, probably drawing their conclusions from what he chooses to emphasize--and avoid--in his campaign speeches.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 0854 hrsAs for the “sweetie” comment… Big deal…
How about the flap over the curious george t-shirt that some guy in Atlanta is selling?
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?ar ticleid=1094037&pos;=breaking
News media is running with it… threats of lawsuits… blah blah blah…
And its funny. I never heard any flap over the caricatures of Bush as a chimpanzee???
Its all a matter of perspective. And once again, there will ALWAYS be someone who CHOOSES to be offended.
Anyone who is offended… Its their own problem.
Why people make other peoples comments so efficacious I will never under stand.
Didn’t their mothers ever teach them about stick and stones?
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 0936 hrsWhy people make other peoples comments so efficacious I will never under stand.
Because sometimes a monkey is meant to suggest something negative about the subject’s intelligence. And sometimes a monkey is unalterably associated with a long and terrible history of dehumanization, slavery and discrimination against not one person but an entire ethnic group.
Me, I’m none too worked up about the t-shirt. It’s irrelevant to the presidential race, as far as I’m concerned. But it’s sad that some of us are so willfully ignorant of the context in which these things take place that they find nothing much wrong with it and seek instead to attack the attacked.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 0947 hrsWait, huh? Can you be more clear on that last paragraph Scott? People are attacking Obama for the T-shirt?
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1009 hrsNo, people are attacking the folks who said they were offended by it.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 1014 hrsScott,
It’s not that I need an impressive resume from a presidential candidate, but it is the very absence of Obama’s resume that makes his other choices more important to me. The only thing that I see from Obama is the ability to look and sound presidential in prepared settings. This will be great for diplomatic functions and on TV, but I have seen nothing that evidences that he is the type of person that I want making decisions when sh*t hits the fan. However, I also acknowledge that most presidents hire other people to make the decisions for them - just like Bush - it is for precisely this reason that it is important to me to note the types of people Obama has chosen to closely associate with - namely, his wife and his pastor. I am not impressed with either of these people.By the way - the monkey thing is wrong because of the historical connotations of it, but, as Scott said, its irrelevant to the campaign.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1037 hrsYou can’t equate the depiction of a Bush as a monkey to the depiction of Obama as a monkey. I wish you could, but the history of racism in this country prevents that.
Justifing such insensitivity be trying to equate it with an apples to oranges comparison is only going to embolden the bigotted and clueless that think it is funny to depict Obama as a monkey on a t-shirt. Imagine if some idiot kid from the northwoods decided to wear this shirt to summerfest the night of the Alicia Keys concert. A clueless provocateur attempting to be funny by wearing an Obama monkey t-shirt could set off a race riot.
We should all denounce such foolish insensitivity.
Calling a woman “sweetie” is also foolish insensitivity, but it is completely harmless.
I was amazed that old school Creoles used the term “baby” the first time I heard it in New Orleans.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1039 hrsBecause sometimes a monkey is meant to suggest something negative about the subject’s intelligence. And sometimes a monkey is unalterably associated with a long and terrible history of dehumanization, slavery and discrimination against not one person but an entire ethnic group.
Exactly Scott…
And as I said, its people’s choice to decide what they ‘think’ the person who made the caricature thinks.
The guy selling the t-shirts says he “intends no offense”
I think the george bush/curious george comparisions were because GW had kinda protruding ears.
To be honest, I think GW and curious george kinda do have a resemblance.
And Obama has the same outward protruding ears. He kinda resembles curious george too.
So I make the same comment about both and sure as the sun came up this morning there is a vast segment of the population that will read the GW comment as innocuous but take the comment about Obama as racist and referring to:
a long and terrible history of dehumanization, slavery and discrimination against not one person but an entire ethnic group.
But I will say Scott, for you to say:
attacking the folks who said they were offended by it.
I’m not attacking Scott, I’m merely suggesting that people could better themselves and their disposition by not getting their panties in a wad over comments people make.
I’ll use the Don Imus comment as an example.
One of the girls said that his comment about “nappy headed ho’s” “ruined her life”
REALLY? ruined her life?
What some old ugly crotchety white dude said “ruined her life”
This is my point… WHY do people give someone elses words SO much power over them?
If my dad told me I was a loser, I’d be crushed.
If some schmuck walking down the street said I was a loser it would affect me less than a fart in church.
Why would anyone let a t-shirt from some dude in Georgia ruin their happy day?
Why would any girl on the Rutgers basketball team let a comment from an ugly loudmouth like Don Imus “ruin her life”
I’m not attacking Scott. I’m offering a suggestion that I think would do people a world of good and improve their disposition in life.
But again its all a matter of perspective on your behalf. I’m not suprised that given your other social policy positions you would embrace victimology as a way of life.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1042 hrsIt’s easy for you to dismiss what I refer to as “context,” that “unalterable association with a long and terrible history of dehumanization, slavery and discrimination,” as a mere state of mind that the wise simply choose to ignore and then --poof--it’s just not there anymore.
For those of us in the reality-based community it’s not so easy. Doubly so if you have a personal and family history caught up in that historical context.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 1052 hrsWell then to you Scott, I would say “get over it”
Jeez, you’ve got victimization down to a science don’t you.
Clinging to your feelings, whatever they are, of unfairness, dehumanization, discrimination… That’s not empowering you… (in my opinion)
You’re “reality” is based on a personal and family history? How does that work for you? Today is today. If you want someone to treat you special because of history… Sorry… You’re not going to find many takers.
People are ready to receive their fellow man. What they aren’t ready to do is tip-toe around your desire to cling to status of victim and give you special treatment or something.
Every time in my life I’ve let someone ‘offend’ me, I know I lost. Every time in my life when I let someone else unrightfully get my feathers ruffled, I know I lost.
I know to do better than that. Not to stand back and cry injustice. Never did any good.
But you keep going with it. See how it works out for you.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1148 hrsTranslation: racism is just in your head, a memory. Those who are offended by its symbols are whiners who are only interested in falsely portraying themselves as victims.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 1200 hrsIt doesn’t matter Scott. Wether racism is in my head or your head, the prescription is the same.
You aren’t going to better yourself by clinging to victimhood. The real racists don’t give a shit about you, and the people who aren’t racists don’t deserve to have to treat you special because of what someone else did.
Push forward in life, not backwards. If you run into a racist, go around them, don’t stand there throw up a sign and cry foul. It does nothing for you.
Seriously… You’re going to let a t-shirt from some dude in Georgia affect your life? Damn… What a waste of energy.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1215 hrsI am just getting over being dumb-struck by the ‘it is ok for Bush, but not Obama idea. That has so many angles wrong with it… wow.
1) Using an animal caricature on a human for purposes of ridicule should still bring up those same historic ‘feelings’ whether on a white or black person. Historically, more whites have been slaves of whites and blacks have been slaves of blacks. You could argue ‘not in this country’ and be correct, but black slavery in America was not a southern invention. They ran out of indentured servants, looked for another source of cheap labor, found african tribes through European literature that offered slaves they could buy cheap, and took advantage of it. There was very little ‘Roots’ going on, slavers had their favorite tribes to buy from and that was cheaper than trying to capture your own. The point is that if you think Bush as a monkey is funny and Obama as a monkey is life changingly offensive, you have internal issues, it is not the people around you.2) So if we elect a black President or a female President, all our media sources will suddenly have to censor all things that may be offensive to our elected leader? All the watercooler tank gossip must be edited to not offend? Dems have routinely likened Bush to Hitler, but Republicans will be horrible racists if anything negative gets said about Obama? That will surely be a uniting agent in the US.
3) Liberals always deny all double standards and hypocrisy… what would you class your comments today as?
I had more, but I must stop now to have the daze wear off fully before I get back to work.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1310 hrsIt must be incredibly liberating to live in an entirely context-free world.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2008 at 1320 hrsIt must equally liberating to live in a world free of the burdens of hypocrisy, or morals.
Posted by on May 16, 2008 at 1323 hrs
Ol' Army
