Sweetie
I've been cooped up all day and most of the night trying to finish off a writing project to I haven't closely followed the mini-flap over Barack Obama calling a female reporter "sweetie."
Oh jeez, how did this crap ever start? Did I, back in the 60's, have something to do with this sort of strait-jacketing we now seem so comfortable in? I hope not, but probably did.
Well, here's a confession (which I am sure I will regret revealing). I call almost everyone "sweetie." Really, I do. It's such an acute trait that I'm sharply aware of it. I often catch myself in the middle of pronouncing the word and then have to pull it back or suppress it in mid-syllable as I realize the person I'm talking to might actually get offended because I am being, um, sweet to her -- or him.
I'm not sure why I started doing this so much over the last couple of years. I've thought about it a lot before today's news story about Obama and I concluded that, in my case, it's a confluence of a couple of factors. One contributing condition is the intense time I spent a few years ago working on my Las Vegas book as "sweetie" is about the most common form of address in Sin City. Also, after two cardiac hospitalizations a year ago and the resulting shift in life perspective (not to mention the effects of my daily meds), I've make a conscious effort on a daily basis to reduce stress, avoid anxiety, to be much more tolerant of my fellow humans (except for the Clintons :) ) and to, in general, be a nicer, warmer, more open and harmonious element. Hence, the excessive use of "sweetie." (I suppose being exposed more frequently than some to a certain Hollywood'oid element also allows terms like sweetie and darling to slowly creep up in usage as well).
I know all the arguments against using such terms. As I said, I probably helped formulate them during one or another moment of self-loathing back in the 60's. But I think ruling out, or in, any particular term or word is rather absurd. It's all in how you say it, sweetie. There are plenty of people who call me Sir or Mister or Mr. Cooper in a way that makes me want to punch'em.
I'll take sweetie any day. Even if I don't wear a skirt.
P.S. Oh, yes. There's that Edwards endorsement of Obama. Hey, Senator, it was about time! And I say that as an original and early Edwards supporter. Don't know about you, but I could easily live with an Obama-Edwards ticket. No?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:06 am
With Edwards on his side, Obama will get the hair dresser and sweetie votes.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Always a bridemaid, never a bride.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:26 am
“I know all the arguments against using such terms.”
Those don’t apply to Obama.
Now, if John McCain referred to a female reporter as “Sweetie,” there would be hell to pay.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:32 am
at least he didn’t call her ‘bitter’
May 15th, 2008 at 6:58 am
The Obama apologist has spoken.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:06 am
I’ve known Marc for 25 years and he’s never called me sweetie. But then, I’ve never called him sweetie either.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:38 am
It takes a contribution to his blog MB. He sent me a note saying “That was sweet of you.”
I’ll try a larger one next time to see if it evolves to ‘sweetie’.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Of course that was before the current political enviroment. From some of my comments here lately, I kinda doubt I’d still on his sweet list.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:48 am
“in general, be a nicer, warmer, more open and harmonious element.”
– Marc, is that you? Marc? Marc?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:15 am
There is a generational element here. I’m about 15-20 years younger than Marc and certainly would never call a female whom I didn’t know very, very well “sweetie” unless I was deliberately trying to irritate her. Even my wife hates it when I call her such names, although to be fair, she is not particularly sweet. Obama is older than me, younger than Marc, so he may have fallen off the curve.
Marc, if I ever meet you in person and you call me sweetie, I’ll call you “cupcake.”
Bob W> Now, if John McCain
>referred to a female reporter
>as “Sweetie,†there would be hell
>to pay.
Bob, this is unlikely since McC prefers more anatomical terms.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I’m not sure why I started doing this so much over the last couple of years. I’ve thought about it a lot before today’s news story about Obama and I concluded that, in my case, it’s a confluence of a couple of factors.
I’m going to imagine that your time spent in Latin America had an impact as well. When I’m in Brazil I say “querida” all the time.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Marc honey, don’t worry your pretty little head about it.
Everyone will understand so much better after they release “Terms of Endearment 2; the Marc Cooper Story.”
May 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
…or Brokeback Mountain – The Sequel
Nice try, Hillary:
Can a Dead Woman Vote?
“At the conclusion of her victory speech in Charleston, W.Va., on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton told the story of a supporter named Florence Steen, who passed away last Sunday. The 88-year-old South Dakotan had just voted for Clinton by absentee ballot, ahead of the state’s June 3 primary.”
Why stop them now? The Democrats have had the dead vote for decades.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“Sweetie”? As I read this post, Marc, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the Sopranos scene on the construction site in the fifth season when Little Paulie gets the bejesus beaten out of him by Eugene Pontecorvo when he goads Eugene by saying, “You oughta know, Sweetie” (after Eugene says that Paulie’s girlfriend is okay, “if you can stand the sideburns.”).
May 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Don’t know about you, Marc, but I resort to appellations like sweetie or bro or [ ] because I am forgetting more and more names as I get older.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Honey, sweetheart, luv, darling – I use them all the time and I’m girl and from the South, and I admit I get away with it because I’m a chick
As for the hub bub, I think there is generational element, especially among HRC supporters, who see this as an example of why the road may be tougher for a female canadiated for Prez.
I totally get why my feminist forbearers would get ticked by it as they were the ones who had to deal with bald faced discrimination – gender neutrality helped to create a more civil workplace, etc. But I think amongst the younger where a lot of barriers about gender have erroded, it’s becoming more casual.
In short he should know better. I’m glad he got called out and apologized personally to the reporter.
Good to see that Bob still is working on that one note.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
You’ve come a long way, baby!
Office worker awarded £5,000 after boss constantly broke wind in her direction
May 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
the Dead vote is going for Obama. Phil and Bobby have been doing a lot of fundraisers for him, and the “family” is involved.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
> the road may be tougher for a female canadiated for Prez.
Are you saying that there is anyone on Earth who thinks Hillary Clinton is a “sweetie?”
May 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
> Are you saying that there is anyone on Earth who thinks Hillary Clinton is a “sweetie?
Chelsea?
May 16th, 2008 at 4:50 am
There might not be many on earth who think Hillary is a sweetie, but there is always the danger that she will try to court the extraterrestrial vote–check it out in today’s edition of Balter’s Blog.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am
>the Dead vote is going for Obama.
>Phil and Bobby have been doing a
>lot of fundraisers for him, and the
>“family†is involved.
If Jerry was here, he’d vote for Nader
May 16th, 2008 at 8:09 am
“There’s that Edwards endorsement of Obama. Hey, Senator, it was about time!”
It’s the best strategy if you’re looking for a job in a new administration, and need to be quite sure which one is going to be hiring.
I doubt Obama was impressed Edwards left him hanging in Pennsylvainia…….and W Virginia.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I suppose that Edwards is going after a cabinet position rather than V.P.
If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can’t Stop Her
“Does Hillary Clinton want to be the Democrats vice presidential candidate? Probably. Could she get on the ticket by dropping out before the last states vote on June 3rd? Definitely not. Does Barack Obama want her on the ticket? Absolutely not. Can he stop her if she wants it? Probably not. Why not? Super delegates are why not.
“…If Hillary Clinton wants the vice presidential nomination, and her loyal delegates demand it, and the Clinton machine puts its full weight behind it, she will be on the ticket. Count on it.”
I’m hoping that Obama chooses Al Sharpton or Rev. Wright.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:12 am
An Obama-Edwards ticket? Oh, sweetie-darling, sweetie-darling, sweetie darling!(insert Jennifer Saunders air-kisses)Maybe they’ll get it right this time !
May 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
The Dead were definitelyl radicals, Pigpen who had a Panther girlfriend – thus they did benefits for the Panthers, etc. Bob and Jerry were self-proclaimed anarchists, and Phil apparently is a big fan of the 1844 manuscripts.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“I see you got your fist out/
Say your piece and get out.
Every silver lining’s got a touch of gray.”
May 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Great news for jcummings!
**A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday.
The cartoonist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of violating hate speech laws and held overnight before being released, a spokeswoman for his publisher Uitgeverij Xtra said.
“He was arrested with a great show of force, by around 10 policemen,” the spokeswoman said.**
May 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I would behoove me to stay out of the Netherlands.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Where’s Marc? Operators of Star Trek: The Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton might soon be telling Sin City, “Qapla’.” That’s Klingon for goodbye.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Just read Bob Beckel’s piece posted by Woody. The scenario he describes is the one I’ve been thinking about. What if Hillary really wanted the VP? Unless she takes the initiative to say she doesn’t want it, I don’t think Obama has any choice but to offer it to her….and pray she doesn’t take it.
I do believe the pundits do not generally comprehend the power Hillary and Bill have right now. As Beckey infers, it is power of a negative sort–the power to disrupt and to impede. I would say that given the stakes they would be unlikely to use that sort of power, but they surely are not averse to leveraging it. And, worse, that is the central motif of her campaign the last 6 weeks.
Her comments yesterday about Obama being no appeaser are the first apparent turn away from the anti-Obama campaign. The question is: is it the beginning of her campaign for VP?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I would behoove me to stay out of the Netherlands.
Wij zijn het ermee eens en we zijn allemaal opgelucht!
May 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Marc, you call anyone you want “sweetie” and for good reason. If there is no intent in the usage of a word or phrase to injure another, the “offense” rests solely with the interpretation of the listener and you are not responsible for that. For example (explained because of all the progressives in this thread who take offense merely because some commenter is conservative –
), If I tell you that you are fat (whether you are or not) and I’m intending to hurt you, I’m responsible for the offense and I owe you an apology. If however I call someone sweetie and I’m being cheerful and non offensive, then if someone is in fact offended, that responsibility rests with them. I owe them nothing.
Didja notice that most of those who get offended at minor “slights” are usualy those who are the most P.C. and thus, the most (oh dread) judgmental
May 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Hey Marc!
I myself use “Luv,” which I may have picked up on one of my trips to the UK. Who knows?! But it’s a casual form of address, it’s unisexual. And so far, it seems to have offended no one (that I’m aware of).
As for sweetie – - – sure beats “my friend”!
May 16th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Bob
I think that is taking things a little far, to say the least. I’m not for jailing racists. I’m for using state power to neutralize them in the public eye, through which means other than imprisonment could suffice.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:35 am
cummings: what if they refuse to be neuralized in the “public eye”? What if they persist in making post on the internet?
You really need to Chomsky and me in defense of free expression.
“I’m not in favor of jailing racists.” Somehow that does not sound all that convincing.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:43 am
“I’m for using ‘state power’ to neutralize’ them….”
Oh how familiar this concept sounds, primarily found in totalitarian societies throughout history.
But for something reason, I doubt JC has been taught unbiased history, so he is understandably venerable to repeating it, as he does here verbally in an endless string of clueless and, quite frankly nauseatingly scary, string of comments showing a fetish for ‘state power’ over peoples ‘democratic’ freedoms.
But all done for the good of ‘the people’, of course. Ask in totalitarian.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:56 am
There is no unbiased history, anywhere, ever.
and Totalitarianism was a concept invented by Arrend, etc. in order to conflate Marx and Heidegger as philosophers of totality (which both were in different senses), thus to claim any politics basedo n the totality, or universal, is inherently authoritarian, whereas politics based on the particular is inherently democratic. There are contradictions in both directions, and such a categorization obscures more than it clarifies.
To put it more simply, do you have a problem with the state prosecuting child pornography?
May 17th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Chomsky’s position, which I don’t share, led him to defend holocaust deniers, thus handing his enemies ammunition.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Child porn = political cartoons = political essays = The Communist Manifesto
jcummings has the moral sense of Ingrid Newkirk.
Me, I stand with true liberals like Antonin Scalia who says that although he abhors flag-buring, the flag-burner is expressing a political idea and is therefor protected from the State.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Racism is not a political idea.
The state, as thinkers back to Machiavelli conclude, as such, is defined by what is excluded from the narrative. We don’t “Defend” rape. This is what is so ugly about torture becoming an issue of “debate” since to even debate it is like debating rape. My point is that there are plenty of “free speech” issues that are not proper elements of political discourse, more akin to fire in a crowded theatre.
I don’t believe that jailing holocaust deniers, cartoonists, etc. is proper. I do believe that if there is consensus that speech is genuinely racist, as oppsoed to merely provocative, that the state has a responsibility, along with civil society to neutralize that speech. Examples include when the state of Wyoming, no liberal bastion, made an effort to remove homophobia from the proper vocabulary after the murder of Matthew Sheppard, a young gay man.
Again, to reitterate, I’m not in favor of jailing or punishing racists. I’m in favor of discrediting them.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Scalia, like a broken clock, is right by virtue of contingent accident. This is the same Opus Dei self-flaggelating piece of shit who defends torture openly and with impeccable fascist logic.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“This is the same Opus Dei self-flaggelating piece of shit who defends torture openly and with impeccable fascist logic.”
That’s religious bigotry, actionable under Canadian law.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“Examples include when the state of Wyoming, no liberal bastion, made an effort to remove homophobia from the proper vocabulary after the murder of Matthew Sheppard, a young gay man.”
What on earth are you prattling on about? That makes no sense to me. “…remove homophobia from the proper vocabulary….” I don’t have a clue what you are trying to say. What the hell happened to all that Marxist precision in language?
May 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
It is not bigotry to be critical of a racist cult organization, identified as such by most scholars of religion. In regards to Wyoming, serious efforts were made to educate the populace, down to the schools, about the dangers of homophobia, this trickled down to a cultural rejection of that kind of language.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“In regards to Wyoming, serious efforts were made to educate the populace, down to the schools, about the dangers of homophobia, this trickled down to a cultural rejection of that kind of language.”
Gee.
I kinda thought that in defense of the criminalization of speech, you would offer as an example a criminilization of speech. Instead you tell me that the Matthew Shepard atrocity resulted in the kind of stimatization and cultural rejection of homophobia that you find so unlikely and hence requiring the State to police attitudes.
No wonder your sentence was so damn vague. If it were clear, it would demolish your case.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I heard that Ted Kennedy had a stroke, but it couldn’t match the strokes that he used getting off Chappaquiddick Island.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Bob,
JC: “There are contradictions in both directions, and such a categorization obscures more than it clarifies.”
Does this help any?
May 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Jeezes Woody. Do you ever take a break!
May 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Jim R:
Har!
February 27th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Good luck
February 28th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Could she get on the ticket by dropping out before the last states vote on June 3rd? Definitely not. Does Barack Obama want her on the ticket? Absolutely not. Can he stop her if she wants it? Probably not. Why not? Super delegates are why not.