A liberal lady friend sent this article yesterday. A lot --maybe most-- of Hillary's voters view her election as the personification of American acceptance of feminism. See Rocco's last paragraph:
> There are many reasons why
> Clinton is losing the nomination
> contest, some having to do with
> her strategic mistakes, others
> with the groundswell for
> "change." But for all Clinton's
> political blemishes, the darker
> stain that has been exposed is
> the hatred of women that is
> accepted as a part of our
> culture.
Read that again, OK? Because it's important to see that there's no clever arithmetic at work in there. Hillary has been in the public eye for almost 20 years. She's been in dozens of scandals both petty and grand. She's never once taken clear responsibility for any of it. But Rocco thinks it's not possible that you would find her lacking as a public servant unless you bear secret hatred for women.
How could a woman who came to national prominence through marriage could be the foremost candidate in the feminist mind? I suspect that if Bill Clinton had kept his pants zipped, some of this support would now be flowing towards Pelosi and Feinstein, who did it on their own instead of letting a marriage carry them to third base. I think some of these voters (aging, working class women, mostly) are responding to some other hurt they've perceived in Hillary... Because it's very, very personal.
Their love for her is like that for Princess Diana. They identify only with the parts of her life which echo resentments of their own. None of her faults or manipulations are visible to them. In both cases, it's a fascination with royalty whom they imagine to have been cheated from their rightful place.
What makes this particularly despicable is that Americans shouldn't do royalty. The woman who sent me this article is edjumicated and no kind of drama queen, but these are soap opera passions.
So long as Hillary herself has brought matters of mortality into the discussion, I should recall this Hitchens observation that while the adoration is ferocious in the moment, it vanishes quickly when the stimulus is removed. Because no matter how attached we get to people through electronic media, we are not intimates of theirs.
So as a lifelong registered Democrat, I pray that Rommelman and her cartoonist are right, and that Hillary has or will shortly say something so insanely dishonest that it can't be ignored. Remember, Hillary could ruin things for Obama in 2008, not get elected, and still come back and do this to the next Democratic candidate in 2012.
Crid
at May 31, 2008 11:26 AM
Crid, she's already said things that are so insanely dishonest that they can't be ignored, and a lot women are ignroing them anyway. What bothers me the most about her is her blatant phoniness. I cannot stand to even look at her anymore. I'm not the most intuitive person in the world, but I always trust my gut, and my gut screams "PHONY!" every time I see that woman. I know I'm not the only woman that feels this way about her, but there aren't enough who are looking at her and seeing her for the shrew that she really is.
Flynne
at May 31, 2008 1:05 PM
It's all based on emotions now. Most of you know, I am supporting Obama. I think the issue about his pastor, his wife saying the "proud of America" comment, the flag lapel pin, etc, are crap.
I do however think the lack of a recent trip to Iraq and/or Afghanistan is a real issue, and one that should be reported. I believe he should accompany McCain, for the good of the country, because the two will have to work with each other no matter who wins. The next president should have an existing working relationship with the commanders in Iraq / Afghanistan.
But the real nuts and bolts, the things that will have a true impact, won't be discussed.
Mostly though I am disheartened that it seems that we as a country can't even manage the simple task of holding a smooth and decisive election anymore. I am not talking about Diebold conspiracy theories. I mean setting the rules, counting the votes, and accepting the result. Simple! This Michigan/Florida debacle will haunt whoever the Democrats send against McCain, and the party is going to look like a pack of incompetent boobs.
Hillary may very well be 2008's Nader.
Eric
at May 31, 2008 9:29 PM
> It's all based on
> emotions now.
Kinda. There's not a whole lot of difference between Obama and Hillary positions-wise, but I voted for him because if she gets the job I'm going to have a lot of bad emotions every time the president speaks for four years. When she says things I agree with my flesh crawls anyway, because I think she doesn't mean them.
> I mean setting the rules,
> counting the votes, and
> accepting the result.
My favorite liberal friend was defending Hillary's comments about RFK the other day, and pointed out that what she was saying was *true*... June is still a very early time to be settling things. It occured to me that '68 was well within Hillary's adult memory of political history... She was a campaign worker and paying close attention.
But with the possible exceptions of the Democrats in '72 and the Republicans in '76 there's never been a national convention since where anything much was decided. (Anyone who knows better about this should please speak up.) Ever since RFK was shot, national conventions have been carefully staged-managed affairs for public relations. Free network air time, and all that. Obama's team is younger; that's all they've ever known! To have a competitor saying let's take this to the floor is something they don't know how to deal with.
My bigger point is that these things are changing. There are oscillations and fashions. There's probably never been a really smooth-running election system... And if there were, I'd assume it was corrupt. (Remember the one where Saddam got one hundred percent of the vote?)
You're right about the Nader thing, too. And, let me repeat, she could spoil things again in 2012. And you're right about sending them both (all?) to Iraq. That would seriously mean a lot to me.
Crid
at May 31, 2008 11:37 PM
Oh, Flynne you are soooo spot on in regards to the phoniness factor of HRC. Did you see the video of her doing whiskey shots and beer chasers at Bronkoe's Bar in Indiana? It looks like she's a sophomore trying out for the school play, just plain wooden and always conscious of the audience.
Then again, I'd hate to live in a fishbowl of constant scrutiny like she does.
Check it out on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V4fffzU1wA
I LIKE IT!! o_O
Flynne at May 31, 2008 8:57 AM
A liberal lady friend sent this article yesterday. A lot --maybe most-- of Hillary's voters view her election as the personification of American acceptance of feminism. See Rocco's last paragraph:
> There are many reasons why
> Clinton is losing the nomination
> contest, some having to do with
> her strategic mistakes, others
> with the groundswell for
> "change." But for all Clinton's
> political blemishes, the darker
> stain that has been exposed is
> the hatred of women that is
> accepted as a part of our
> culture.
Read that again, OK? Because it's important to see that there's no clever arithmetic at work in there. Hillary has been in the public eye for almost 20 years. She's been in dozens of scandals both petty and grand. She's never once taken clear responsibility for any of it. But Rocco thinks it's not possible that you would find her lacking as a public servant unless you bear secret hatred for women.
How could a woman who came to national prominence through marriage could be the foremost candidate in the feminist mind? I suspect that if Bill Clinton had kept his pants zipped, some of this support would now be flowing towards Pelosi and Feinstein, who did it on their own instead of letting a marriage carry them to third base. I think some of these voters (aging, working class women, mostly) are responding to some other hurt they've perceived in Hillary... Because it's very, very personal.
Their love for her is like that for Princess Diana. They identify only with the parts of her life which echo resentments of their own. None of her faults or manipulations are visible to them. In both cases, it's a fascination with royalty whom they imagine to have been cheated from their rightful place.
What makes this particularly despicable is that Americans shouldn't do royalty. The woman who sent me this article is edjumicated and no kind of drama queen, but these are soap opera passions.
So long as Hillary herself has brought matters of mortality into the discussion, I should recall this Hitchens observation that while the adoration is ferocious in the moment, it vanishes quickly when the stimulus is removed. Because no matter how attached we get to people through electronic media, we are not intimates of theirs.
So as a lifelong registered Democrat, I pray that Rommelman and her cartoonist are right, and that Hillary has or will shortly say something so insanely dishonest that it can't be ignored. Remember, Hillary could ruin things for Obama in 2008, not get elected, and still come back and do this to the next Democratic candidate in 2012.
Crid at May 31, 2008 11:26 AM
Crid, she's already said things that are so insanely dishonest that they can't be ignored, and a lot women are ignroing them anyway. What bothers me the most about her is her blatant phoniness. I cannot stand to even look at her anymore. I'm not the most intuitive person in the world, but I always trust my gut, and my gut screams "PHONY!" every time I see that woman. I know I'm not the only woman that feels this way about her, but there aren't enough who are looking at her and seeing her for the shrew that she really is.
Flynne at May 31, 2008 1:05 PM
It's all based on emotions now. Most of you know, I am supporting Obama. I think the issue about his pastor, his wife saying the "proud of America" comment, the flag lapel pin, etc, are crap.
I do however think the lack of a recent trip to Iraq and/or Afghanistan is a real issue, and one that should be reported. I believe he should accompany McCain, for the good of the country, because the two will have to work with each other no matter who wins. The next president should have an existing working relationship with the commanders in Iraq / Afghanistan.
But the real nuts and bolts, the things that will have a true impact, won't be discussed.
Mostly though I am disheartened that it seems that we as a country can't even manage the simple task of holding a smooth and decisive election anymore. I am not talking about Diebold conspiracy theories. I mean setting the rules, counting the votes, and accepting the result. Simple! This Michigan/Florida debacle will haunt whoever the Democrats send against McCain, and the party is going to look like a pack of incompetent boobs.
Hillary may very well be 2008's Nader.
Eric at May 31, 2008 9:29 PM
> It's all based on
> emotions now.
Kinda. There's not a whole lot of difference between Obama and Hillary positions-wise, but I voted for him because if she gets the job I'm going to have a lot of bad emotions every time the president speaks for four years. When she says things I agree with my flesh crawls anyway, because I think she doesn't mean them.
> I mean setting the rules,
> counting the votes, and
> accepting the result.
My favorite liberal friend was defending Hillary's comments about RFK the other day, and pointed out that what she was saying was *true*... June is still a very early time to be settling things. It occured to me that '68 was well within Hillary's adult memory of political history... She was a campaign worker and paying close attention.
But with the possible exceptions of the Democrats in '72 and the Republicans in '76 there's never been a national convention since where anything much was decided. (Anyone who knows better about this should please speak up.) Ever since RFK was shot, national conventions have been carefully staged-managed affairs for public relations. Free network air time, and all that. Obama's team is younger; that's all they've ever known! To have a competitor saying let's take this to the floor is something they don't know how to deal with.
My bigger point is that these things are changing. There are oscillations and fashions. There's probably never been a really smooth-running election system... And if there were, I'd assume it was corrupt. (Remember the one where Saddam got one hundred percent of the vote?)
You're right about the Nader thing, too. And, let me repeat, she could spoil things again in 2012. And you're right about sending them both (all?) to Iraq. That would seriously mean a lot to me.
Crid at May 31, 2008 11:37 PM
Oh, Flynne you are soooo spot on in regards to the phoniness factor of HRC. Did you see the video of her doing whiskey shots and beer chasers at Bronkoe's Bar in Indiana? It looks like she's a sophomore trying out for the school play, just plain wooden and always conscious of the audience.
Then again, I'd hate to live in a fishbowl of constant scrutiny like she does.
Check it out on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V4fffzU1wA
Juliana at June 1, 2008 6:21 AM
Leave a comment