Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Someone Who Gets It - Baracks Embrace of the Double Standard and Inability to Empathize With Black Folk
I was going to write a post about Barack, the Double Standard, his treatment of Wright and his treatment of The Clinton, Ayers and Ferraro but someone beat to the punch. From Jack and Jill Politics:
I can't stand black folks always going on and on about how white folks treat us and we know we can treat each other shit.
That's part of the issue I have with Obama in this whole ordeal. He's quick to dump on Black people or play that Noble Negro role. "The double-standard is real", they say, and, again, Obama is all too accepting of it.
I credit him for taking a stand when he gave his speech on race but found some profound issues where he granted all kinds of deference to OTHER people but was nowhere near as understanding when it came to Black folk and I will constantly highlight how Obama dissed a whole GENERATION of "men and women" from Rev. Wright's era and how he's quick to call White folks issues "legitimate" and not misguided or counterproductive while regurgitating that tired old narrative that it's Black folks whose "anger" and resentment is disabling and all the other derogatory things that get associated with however we are/feel while excuses are made for White folks. He should have caught more hell in the "bitter-gate" blow up for being a flip-flopping politician saying one thing in front of one croud while saying the opposite in front of the other.
In his race speech he defended White "resentment" while disparaging Black "anger" (using OTHER people's words to describe and frame the way Black people respond in society) and insisted that White "resentment" was not only "legitimate" but also not misguided. The whole "bitter-gate" stuff centered on the idea that working class Whites is vulnerable to the politics of division and often get caught up in scapegoating ... the very definition of misguided, misdirected angst.
In both cases, he tried to paint working/poor White folks as VICTIMS which, like the "bad English" Rev. Wright talked about, only seems to be a bad word when someone talks about Black VICTIMIZATION however real and legitimate because we're tired of the "politics of division"... as long as Black folks can be framed (Barack Obama included) as the source of the division (see Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton's claim that Obama "played the race card").
Yes, Obama falls right in with mainstream America on that. He's big, bad and "tough" when it comes to playing the Cosby role showing "tough love" for the Black community.
When it was a Black/White thing, he essentially played the Black pathology card while being deferential to Whites to the point of saying that their misdirected angst and frustration over the diminished opportunities, etc. and, in fact, their opposition and resistance to African Americans and our historic quest for justice and equity was something we all need to understand.
That's the sacrifice mentality and worn-out narrative I'm talking about. Rev. Wright didn't fit any of the criteria in Obama's disparaging remarks about "Black anger" but then again... That didn't matter. Politicians and public figures have a long tradition of dogging Black folks and getting away with it.
In the Nevada debate, Obama confronted a Black woman's question about immigration in the strongest (pejorative) of terms, labeled it as "scapegoating" (I agreed with him and defended him on that, btw), but the second HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES made an issue out of him applying that same kind of idea to White folk, even in the most genteel of tones, explaining "why" poor Whites are "bitter" and happen to (vote against their economic interest and) "scapegoat", he's willing to offer very public apologies for something that he was right about... just like Rev. Wright was RIGHT about the things he said -- no strawmen counterarguments ("he said AIDS was invented by the gov't") allowed -- AND just like there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Michelle Obama said about being "proud of her country."
That's the sacrifice mentality I'm talking about. And the second HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES told him to dance to the tune of the Farrakhan (let alone Israel) broken-record...
Well, you know what happened and all of that FOR WHAT??? It's not like this kind of stuff is going to end January 21, 2009 when he becomes president. The very basis of the cooperation he could ever hope to get is now, more than ever, bought with the price of how much he is willing to sacrifice right now in the campaign.
It's the whole history of this double-standard and Obama's ready acceptance of it that has me at a crossroads in terms of how much support I'm willing to give Obama.
Just like Obama feels betrayed by Rev. Wright (because somehow the Rev. was supposed to understand how much he had to be sacrificed and surprised Obama because he got tired of being the Obama's convenient villain as well as the villain of Obama's POLITICAL ENEMIES)... I can no longer stomach the way Obama behaves. I understand the politics of it all but I also understand the sorry history of this double-standard Obama has accepted.
Obama always has an excuse that he "didn't hear" all of what Rev. Wright said... but that didn't stop him from doing the very thing his political enemies did... reduce Rev. Wright to a convenient stereotype of the "Angry Black Man."
Me, I can't stand people who can't be honest. Obama framed his issue and disagreement with Rev. Wright as one about the different worldviews they have particularly as it relates Rev. Wright "spoke as if" there was no progress. Well, again, Rev. Wright fully acknowledge how "governments change (for the good, etc.)", including our own.
So, Obama has no room to talk about being "insulted." Whatever Rev. Wright "did to him", Obama had it coming. Obama was willing to let people frame Rev. Wright as a "racist" (no press conference on that) even as he's defended Hillary, Bill, etc. and said none of them or the things they've done or said were racist or race-baiting.
To whatever extent Rev. Wright was the teacher to Obama's pupil... one lesson Obama hasn't learned is how unity can't exist with subordination and in the presence of asymmetrical deference.
I think it's that kind of naive notion MLK had to come to grips with and dispensed with. Maybe one day our beloved brother Barack Obama will progressed to that point instead of staying in the holding pattern of this idiotic Rodney King like simplistic and problematic race narrative.
There are a few more lessons in nuance and depth Obama is lacking. He'd be wise to catch a clue and understand how the difference in the way he sees things and the way Rev. Wright sees things don't make his superior to Rev. Wright's and, by extension, Rev. Wright's views, somehow, deficient or wrong.
And his idea that Wright's so-called "anger" is "generational" is about as dumb as anything I've ever heard. I'm sick and tired of people who use idiotic rhetoric like that.
Obama very public acceptance of the double-standard especially his remarks about Min. Farrakhan the other day really shows the fault lines and just how eager Obama, even if he begrudgingly did it first, is to satisfy White people's anxiety and "Your name is Toby" tests.
He can disagree, dislike and even 'hate' Min. Farrakhan but for a Black man to go out of his way to "denounce" another Black man for White folks fickle pleasure (i.e. his Farrakhan statement only shows how he's willing to answer: "TOBY!")... Well, that makes me lose respect for Obama real quick.
Again, according to reports, Obama went to the Million Man March. So exactly what was he objecting to when Rev. Wright acknowledge (get this Ms. Martin) that Farrakhan is NOT his enemy?
Obama tried to act like he can deal with and want people to talk about race in all its nuance but somehow he can't apply a nuanced view to Min. Farrakhan. Note: How Obama hasn't treated Roy Ayers someone who actually plotted to harm people in a comparable manner.
Yes. Obama is, like Cosby IMO... all too willing to treat Black people like $&1#.
I still want him to be president out of crew that's running and still believe he's a decent person committed to the Black community but I won't excuse the flaws in his thinking...
(that Rev. Wright made in a much more sincere and legitimate manner than Obama) is More than anything, it's Obama's theme of unity.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
This is a poster from The Field Negro who puts this whole bru-ha-ha in perspective:
Well, as someone whose ran in local politics before and worked as an congressional intern can say this, nothing short of a dead hooker or a live boy is going to keep Obama from getting the nomination short of Clinton/Rove dirty tricks. If the worse people can say is that your preacher is crazy says that your enemies are really on a fishing expedition.Amen.
As Christopher pointed out, what does reverend wright have to do with the litany of issues he listed above. Or Sean Bell here in New York? Or the cost of getting a college degree? A big fat nothing. And so long as Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest of these blown dry, combed over mannequins have jobs, its going to continue to be about nothing.
The problem for FOX News and CNN is in terms of corruption or moral quagmires, Barack Obama offers a big fat nothing. He has no love children, no known mistresses, no drug abuse (beyond experimenting in HS and the occasional Newport) and no really shady backroom deals like the Borg Queen or the Crypt Keeper. You just have a really smart, church going Black guy in his mid 40's who actually might want to change the world.
Nope, the worse they can say is that his pastor is one part Malcolm X and one part Yosemite Sam. Or that, gasp, any Ivy League educated lawyer might be smarter than most of the shit kickers in the Midwest.
As MacDaddy said, this is all shit shined up and called gold by the MSM. Yeah, Obama could have have showed a little more backbone and told the FAUX talking heads to bugger off. And Wright could have kept his mouth shut, enjoyed fishing on Lake Michigan and lied low until the election was over. Both were right and wrong in what they did, but its really not about them at it this point, its about how our media keeps us distracted on nonsense.
The MSM needs dirt on an otherwise squeaky clean guy. If they couldn't find any dirt they'll just make some. I'm suprised they didn't try to Wesley Snipes him and say he didn't pay his taxes will getting a professional from a crackhead on the South side.
Remember if the last PA debate where the 'O' man snapped and ripped into George the Judas for wasting 45 minutes on Reverend Wright and lapel pins? That's the problem, to really debate about issues not lapel pins, phantom Bosnian snipers or 5 minutes YouTube remixes of an 7 year old sermon would knock the Borg Queen, the Crypt Keeper and maybe even the O-man out of the race.
If this were about issues and not about bullshit it would a Kuicinich, Edward, Obama three way race on the Dems and the Republicans would be down to Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. And we might actually hear some Green or Libertarian debaters. I might actually care about watching the debates instead of watching CSI or playing Xbox.
But to demand that a change in politics is to demand change in the people. The American people would have demand intelligence and dedication to truth from the Media. It would demand Americans knew more about politics and people who actually run the world and less about the NBA playoffs or American Idol.
But, then again, I wish I were a little bit taller....
A post by a commenter at Jack and Jill Politics who really understands the how Obama has been so willing to uphold the double standards by the media (and white folk in general) when it comes to his relationship with Wright and McCain's with Hagee:
Tell the truth: Barack Obama has been all too willing to uphold the double-standard. He definitely hasn't held a press conference to confront the issue. Every time he's been asked to "jump", he's really played ball like he did at UNC showing he's got more hops than Michael Jordan, Jerry Stackhouse and Vince Carter combined.I couldn't have said it beter myself.
Here it is, people calling Rev. Wright out for being selfish while Obama's response was everything selfishness is made of with his eagerness to please and appease. Selfishly, Obama and a number of his supporters, obviously, felt like his bid... HIS BID for president (remember, he's not running for president of Black America - i.e. to necessarily represent or promote Black people's issues and concerns)... He obviously felt that his bid for president had to be bought at the expense of Rev. Wright and even his own wife.
I have a serious issue with Black people in 2008 who are so quick to sacrifice other Black people and even themselves at the altar of White acceptance. All the Noble Negro and other rationales for "playing the game" fall short and flat with me. People rightly criticize Rev. Wright for HOW he said what he did in the NPC Q&A session AND I rightly see reason to criticize Obama for HOW he's been so willing to concede the double-standard and quick to denounce Rev. Wright and Min. Farrakhan whenever he's been asked to BY HIS ENEMIES!!
The whole sorry drama featured both Obama and Wright playing their roles. Wright became that "crazy uncle" Obama dismissed him as and Obama was willing to use Min. Farrakhan for personal gain. Simply put, there was no reason for him to say anything about Farrakhan in his reaction to Rev. Wright.
This self-sacrifice narrative has got to go. Somehow, after all that time in Rev. Wright's church, the whole idea of Afrocentricism was lost on Barack Obama (and I've defended Obama so much I've been labeled an uncritical supporter of Obama).
On the Farrakhan issue... according to reports, Obama was at the Million Man March.
END OF STORY.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Obama is pissing me off. I'm sorry, I know you want the job but you do not throw your pastor under the bus. You do not claim his comments are "ridiculous and destructive," because many, MANY Americans believes he's speaking the truth.
You do NOT get into a cage match with another Black man and allow the media to manipulate you. You do not fall for the BS that you somehow have to win "real Americans" i.e. White working class voters to win the nomination.
Like I said yesterday this is all a setup to ensure that Hillary gets the nod. Her people have been saying it will be decided on June 15. Please don't think that's an accident.
I will still vote for him if he is the nominee but I have lost much of my respect for him. You DO NOT throw Wright under the bus. If you can't stand up for your Pastor than who the hell can you stand up for? If you can't validate the beliefs of millions, without calling them "ridiculous or destructive," than what the hell do you stand for? I guess only White working class values matter...huh?
Like I said Black folk...are ya'll prepared for when they give this election to Clinton? Because that is what they are trying to do.
Monday, April 28, 2008
I'm convinced now.
They (the Superdelegates) are going to steal this election.
I've said this any number of times before, that the only reason they haven't come full out for Obama is because they don't really want a Black candidate either. So they will sit on their hands and allow HRC to throw the "kitchen sink" at Obama and not do anything about it, hoping that enough muck will stick and they can say, "I know he leads in pledged delegates but he really isn't electable and we want to win in November. So sorry."
I will say this: I will gladly be proven wrong. But the Democratic party will rue the day they decided to torpedo the nomination of the first and arguably the last (for a very long time) viable Black candidate for president.
If they want to go the way of the Whigs, so be it. I will gladly help them get there.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I am writing to tell you about my friend, Hillary Clinton, and why I am standing with her in her campaign for the presidency. I know the kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know the person she is.
I am inspired by her courage and her honesty. She is a reliable and trustworthy person. She is someone I not only admire but one for whom I have profound affection.
Hillary does not waver in standing up for those who need a champion. She has always been a passionate protector of families. As a child, she was taught that all God’s children are equal, and as a mother, she understood that her child wasn’t safe unless all children were safe. As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: “She is the prayer of every woman, and every man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools and a balanced economy.”
It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would write her off or grind her down. Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all more alike than we are unalike. She is able to look through complexion and see community.
You can read the rest of this travesty here.
Sigh. I'm done. I'm so tired of Black folk with slave mentalities I don't know what to do. This is just ridiculous. I suppose if Clinton had called her a Nigger to her face she'd still be talking about, "She is able to look through complexion and see community."
When will Black folk learn.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
There's always one:
That creaking noise you hear is the sound of me going way out on limb to predict that Barack Obama will win the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday, finally ending Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions.
Broadly speaking, presidential elections are almost always decided by what and who Americans think best suits the moment. After all the wins and losses, after all the gaffes, the deceptions, and the rare moments of inspiration, Obama, is simply closer to the mood of the country than either Clinton or McCain.
Obama is selling change. Both of his opponents are selling the virtues of experience, but voters, fed up with the way things have been going, view experience as more of a problem than a solution.
The path to an Obama win is relatively straight forward: run up the numbers in and around Philadelphia, fight for and maybe even win the Lehigh Valley cities Bethlehem and Allentown, and minimize his losses in the west. This is a strategy that tracks with Democratic victories in Pennsylvania in recent years.
Here, finally, is why I think he wins:
- Clinton hasn't succeeded in making any of her criticisms of Obama stick. He has managed to weather scandals that would sink politician of lesser skill.
- Clinton has been most effective when she is seen as the victim and underdog, but, given her aggressive response to Obama's "bitter" comments and her established strength in Pennsylvania neither of these circumstances apply. If can resist the urge to complain about his treatment in the debate he may be the one seen as a victim.
- Bob Casey, Jr.
The importance of the Casey's endorsement of Obama is hard to overstate. In part that's because Pennsylvania's junior senator is as daring as a piece of Lackawanna anthracite coal and is seen as unwilling or unable to play cynical political games. What's more, he is an able counterbalance to Clinton's two biggest supporters -- the affably pugnacious Gov. Ed. Rendell, and Philadelphia's African American Mayor Michael Nutter.
Casey is also exactly kind of conservative, Catholic, blue-collar Democrat that Obama is supposed to have the most trouble attracting. He needs Casey's help all the more now that some of these voters think that he sees them as clinging to guns and religion out of a sense of economic frustration. In a new ad for Obama, Casey makes the election clearly about the economy, declaring on camera that "in towns like yours and mine, families are struggling with bills they can't afford and jobs moving away. It has to change -- but it won't until we change Washington."
But Casey's endorsement does something less obvious for Obama -- it rescues him from being the 'Philadelphia candidate' and all the taint of racialized politics, corruption, and urban decay that such a label would put on him. This is especially true when Casey's support is contrasted with Rendell's and Nutter's, since both are current or former mayors of Philadelphia.
So my call is Obama by a point and a half. Creak ...
Here's hoping he's right.
Monday, April 21, 2008
[O]ver the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you.
What's it with men and anal sex?
Why is it men feel the need to stick their penis in every available orifice? Right now I'm jsut waiting for some guy to say to me,
"Hey baby, let me stick it in your ear."
My current "friend" has been on this anal sex kick for a minute now. He is determined to get in the backdoor. Now, while said friend can easily be classified as the best sex I've ever had (his oral sex game is PHENOMENAL), he has jackhammer tendencies, if you know what I mean. So anytime he mentions anal sex, all I can think is,
So last night it comes up again. Now mind you, this is after four shots of Gentleman's Jack and one orgasm later (his not mine), and while we're in the midst of me getting my orgasm he wants to know if can just..well you know.
And I'm like,
I don't think he liked that too much.
Besides with the nasty side effects that are associated with anal sex, I don't think it would have been a good idea last night with the loaded cheese fries and brownie sundae I had for dinner.
I'm just sayin'
- Pennsylvania polls and why Hillary could win and still lose
- Hillary Clinton is broke
- McCain and his "Republican Voodoo" econmoics
- Obama brings them out in Philly
- Superdelegates say eff the effing primaries
- And one more time for those who may have missed it:
Friday, April 18, 2008
Sorry it's been so long since my last post. A combination of a sick baby (she had pneumonia) and work on the writing that pays the bills, hasn't left me a lot of time for blogging.
Anywho I'm writing to tell ya'll about a new project I'm working on and to get your help. I'm working for Prevention magazine. They were looking for a few bloggers to help them promote and get feedback on their two new blogs and I was one of the ones they hired. Here are the two blogs:
Prevention - What's all the buzz?
The first is a regular blog. It features standard health and fitness advice. The second features recipes (I think I'll be linking to this one a lot). What they want is feedback on the site: What do you think? How's the layout? What articles would you like to see? Is it something you'd read regularly? You get the idea.
I know you guys are never lacking in opinion, so hit up the comments and let me know what you think. I'll let the know the Prevention folk know what ya'll had to say. Oh, and I should have a blog of my own on their website soon. I'll send you a link when its up and running. Thanks.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
We are letting our hair kill us:
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – About a third of black women cite complications of hair care as the reason they do not exercise or exercise less than they would like, according to Amy J. McMichael, M.D., the lead investigator of a study from Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
McMichael, associate professor of dermatology, specializes in hair and scalp diseases, ethnic and pigmented skin diseases, and general dermatology and skin care. “I see a lot of African American women in our clinic and had noticed how many of them are overweight. This puts these women at risk for hypertension, diabetes and other serious problems.”
In fact studies show that 77 percent of black women are overweight or obese, McMichael said. “I thought it would be interesting to look at what role their hair plays in their amount of exercise. Many African American women with coarser hair use either heat straighteners or chemical products to straighten their hair. Depending on how coarse or fragile their hair is, they can’t just wash their hair after exercise without having to go through the whole process again, and that can take hours. Over-washing fragile hair can make it break off easily.” Keep Reading
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Seems Essence, Ebony and Jet are doling out bad diet and fitness advice:
African-American women's magazines are more likely to encourage fad diets and reliance on faith to lose weight, while mainstream women's magazines focus more on evidence-based diet strategies, according to the study by UI researcher Shelly Campo, published in a recent issue of the journal Health Communication.
AA women's mags are more likely to suggest Faith as a weight loss strategy, which never is a suggestion in more mainstream mags:
Relying on God or faith was suggested by 1 in 10 weight-loss stories in the African-American magazines, but in almost no weight-loss stories in the mainstream magazines. Read more
One of the things I’ve enjoyed about this election cycle is the way it has busted all of the myths that many liberals cling to so dearly: the myth of Clinton’s “blackness,” the myth that White feminists care about all women and not just White women and the myth that liberals aren’t as racist as republicans. And my personal favorite, the myth that Black people have made such “progress” in this country has finally been shown for the lie that it is.
Progress, like many other descriptive terms, is relative. For the sake of this argument “progress” is going to be defined as the ability of Black people to make inroads into the power structure of these Unite States of America. When you define progress in those terms then we fail miserably. Too often, when the subject turns to the heavy burden racism still exacts on the lives of Black Americans, people say, “But look at all the progress that’s been made! There’s Oprah, and Jordan and Bob Johnson. Look at Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. We finally have a seat at the table.” To which I reply, do we really?
What this election has shown me is no, we do not. What we have is a few rich black people, also known as the Black Power Elite, who’s “power” is given to them by their white masters: The Clintons. Not all of the Black Power Elite answer to the Clintons, some have republican masters. But the point is: they all have masters.
And how quick they are to do the Master’s bidding when called upon. We had Andrew Young, a stalwart of the Civil Rights Movement, talk about how “black” Clinton was because of all the black women he supposedly bedded. Robert Johnson wanted to remind us that the Clinton’s did more for the Black community than Obama ever did, since we know he was using (and dealing) drugs in the “community” when he was younger. And then there’s Stephanie Tubbs-Jones who, like mammies of old, will protect her white mistress at all costs no matter how self-loathing and servile it makes her seem.
Yet theses are our leaders. These are the folks we like to hold up forty years after the end of the Civil Rights Movement to show, “how far we’ve made it.” I think Malcolm X, Dr. King and all the others who fought so hard to give us a seat at the table, would be sorely disappointed at these turn of events.
And sadly, this is what happens when diversity and integration are treated as if they are synonymous, when they are not. Diversity just means you have a few Black faces where previously there were none. They aren’t actually involved in any of the decision making, they just add a little color to the place. Integration means that people have a real seat at the table, that power sharing exists and that they have a say in how things are run, be it on a corporate or government level. They can make decisions independent of what the white man is doing and have those decisions validated and implemented. That doesn’t exist in this country and if this election cycle is any indication, I’m not sure it ever will.
In the end, I don’t know what boggles my mind more: the complete lack of power that Black people have this country, despite the cries to the contrary, or the fact that otherwise, intelligent, accomplished people believe that handouts from the white man is still an acceptable and viable way to achieve power in this country. Either way it’s a sad state of affairs and brings into question just how much “progress” have we really made forty years after equality was made the law of the land.
Monday, April 07, 2008
For All of You Poll Junkies, here is a rundown of the latest Penn Polls:
Obama - 45%
Clinton - 45%
Obama - 38%
Clinton - 49%
Insider Advantage poll
Obama - 43%
Clinton - 45%
Obama - 41%
Clinton - 50%
Obama - 45%
Clinton - 43%
Survey USA Poll
Obama - 41%
Clinton - 53%
So there you have it. All that polling and we know absolutely nothing, with the exception that Clinton isn't leading by 20pts anymore. if you're wondering why I haven't been posting much about the race lately is because I'm burned out on this primary campaign. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee. The rest of this primary is about assuaging this chick's and her husband's ego and keeping their power hungry dreams alive.
I will go back to talking about other things and will only talk politics here and there (like posting the updates from The Hillary Deathwatch)barring any major developments, until this primary season is over. I will however be on it for the General.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Thursday, April 03, 2008
"Gender issues are especially significant fo“r ENTJ females. As a type, their arrogant, confrontational manner and need for control can appear to be quite ‘unwomanly’ to others. Of course, the problem intensifies for the ENTJ female when dealing with men. Their demanding, objective, competent, and independent nature is not particularly endearing to most men.”
"These qualities may obscure the fact that ENTJ females can be quite nurturing and caring. For them, femininity is not defined by traditional roles. It is reflected in the total involvement and commitment they bring to each moment of life.”
Even though I'm split between E and I. But the rest is very dead on. And it makes it very difficult in relationships.