Don't hate her because she's beautiful
“I’m not sad because Obama’s the nominee. I’m sad because there are women … across this nation, many of whom weren’t even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.”
- Melissa McEwan,
Shakespeare's Sister
I'm a man, not a woman, an independent liberal/progressive with the occasional truculent streak of libertarianism, not a Democrat. So I may be disqualified from commenting on this. Nonetheless, I cannot help but call shenanigans.
In the 1990s there was no bigger fan of Hillary Clinton than I. I thought she was classy, smart, ultra-competent, and pretty clearly the brains of the marriage. I looked forward to a time when I might be able to vote her into some office or other, and if that office happened to be the highest in the land, well, that worked for me, too. If anyone had the chops to be the first woman President of the United States of America, certainly, it was Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Unlike many native New Yorkers, I was neither outraged nor annoyed when Ms. Clinton bought a house in New York State so she could run for New York State Senator. Many saw it as opportunistic, and, well, yeah, I guess you couldn't argue with it. However, as a lifelong resident of New York who had had to clench my teech for years over the corrupt self serving antics of Senator Alphonse D'Amato, I was pleased at the prospect of getting someone to represent New York in the U.S. Senate who wasn't a complete lugnut. That our upgrade came in the person of one of the most capable human beings to appear on the national political scene in ten years was wonderful beyond belief.
Certainly, both of the Clintons have always been intimately familiar with the cold equations of rough and tumble politics, and being neither blind nor a child, I was aware of their awareness, and understood the necessity of it, especially for the female half of the team, burdened as she was not only by the fearful hatred of tiny souled, threatened males everywhere, but by the sheer venomous loathing the right had for her husband. I kept this always in mind, and tried to make allowances due to it. Yet as time wore on, Senator Clinton's cynically pragmatic approach to every issue and every vote wore on me even more. Was there no principal dear enough to her that could get her to cast a vote without carefully triangulating her position first? Would I ever see her take a stand that might conceivably cost her more than she netted from it?
It didn't seem likely.
So gradually, the shine wore off the crush I had on Ms. Clinton. And then, I started reading stuff by Greg Palast, like this, and this.
So I was no longer the Hillary Clinton fan I had once been, and no longer quite as enamored of the idea of her becoming our first female President. Yet I went into the 2008 election season with every intention of voting for whoever the Democrats put up. As John Rogers recently intoned on his own blog, Kung Fu Monkey, had the Democrats put up a three legged bulldog, I'd have voted for it, rather than see the Republicans keep the White House for another four years of rolling catastophe, disaster, and calamity.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination. At some point, Senator Clinton completely lost her mind, or, at least, any sense of proportion or restraint she might have had. I do not know why, and will keep my speculations private, but at some point, Senator Clinton pretty clearly decided that she was fated to be the next President of the United States, that this was the way things were going to be, and anyone or anything that tried to get between her and her glorious destiny had better run for the high country, because there was absolutely nothing she was not willing to do to get to where she felt she was supposed to be.
Absolutely nothing.
Here is what Hillary accomplished with her constant cheap shots and relentless pandering to the right leaning, black-hating redneck vote -- she lost my vote. After hearing Hillary's staff brag about how much she loved to toss down a shot and a beer after killing some grouse with her favorite shotgun, and hearing Hillary herself jeer at her gracious opponent with words like 'elitist' and moronic aspersions as to exactly what kind of firearm Senator Obama thought dimbulb hunters might use to shoot varmints, I was done with Ms. Clinton. I would still have voted for that three legged Democratic bulldog, but there was and is no way in hell I was pulling a lever in a voting booth with Hillary's name on it. I'd have voted Libertarian first, goddamit.
None of these feelings, none of this outrage, none of this alienation, none of this revulsion on my part has anything to do with Senator Clinton's gender. Nor do I ascribe any of her relentlessly wretched, miserable, petulant, childish, near pathologically entitled seeming behavior to her sex. There are men who routinely behave every bit as boorishly as Senator Clinton has in pursuit of this nomination, and women who comport themselves every day of their lives as admirably as she hasn't. This has nothing to do with the configuration of anybody's X and/or Y chromosomes.
This is a very simple matter: Senator Clinton has been a brat. We've had a brat for a President for the last eight years, and it hasn't worked out all that well for most of us, or most of the rest of the people in the world.
I say, no more brats in the Oval Office. Male or female, black or white, older or younger -- no more brats.
Period. The End.
- Melissa McEwan,
Shakespeare's Sister
I'm a man, not a woman, an independent liberal/progressive with the occasional truculent streak of libertarianism, not a Democrat. So I may be disqualified from commenting on this. Nonetheless, I cannot help but call shenanigans.
In the 1990s there was no bigger fan of Hillary Clinton than I. I thought she was classy, smart, ultra-competent, and pretty clearly the brains of the marriage. I looked forward to a time when I might be able to vote her into some office or other, and if that office happened to be the highest in the land, well, that worked for me, too. If anyone had the chops to be the first woman President of the United States of America, certainly, it was Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Unlike many native New Yorkers, I was neither outraged nor annoyed when Ms. Clinton bought a house in New York State so she could run for New York State Senator. Many saw it as opportunistic, and, well, yeah, I guess you couldn't argue with it. However, as a lifelong resident of New York who had had to clench my teech for years over the corrupt self serving antics of Senator Alphonse D'Amato, I was pleased at the prospect of getting someone to represent New York in the U.S. Senate who wasn't a complete lugnut. That our upgrade came in the person of one of the most capable human beings to appear on the national political scene in ten years was wonderful beyond belief.
Certainly, both of the Clintons have always been intimately familiar with the cold equations of rough and tumble politics, and being neither blind nor a child, I was aware of their awareness, and understood the necessity of it, especially for the female half of the team, burdened as she was not only by the fearful hatred of tiny souled, threatened males everywhere, but by the sheer venomous loathing the right had for her husband. I kept this always in mind, and tried to make allowances due to it. Yet as time wore on, Senator Clinton's cynically pragmatic approach to every issue and every vote wore on me even more. Was there no principal dear enough to her that could get her to cast a vote without carefully triangulating her position first? Would I ever see her take a stand that might conceivably cost her more than she netted from it?
It didn't seem likely.
So gradually, the shine wore off the crush I had on Ms. Clinton. And then, I started reading stuff by Greg Palast, like this, and this.
So I was no longer the Hillary Clinton fan I had once been, and no longer quite as enamored of the idea of her becoming our first female President. Yet I went into the 2008 election season with every intention of voting for whoever the Democrats put up. As John Rogers recently intoned on his own blog, Kung Fu Monkey, had the Democrats put up a three legged bulldog, I'd have voted for it, rather than see the Republicans keep the White House for another four years of rolling catastophe, disaster, and calamity.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination. At some point, Senator Clinton completely lost her mind, or, at least, any sense of proportion or restraint she might have had. I do not know why, and will keep my speculations private, but at some point, Senator Clinton pretty clearly decided that she was fated to be the next President of the United States, that this was the way things were going to be, and anyone or anything that tried to get between her and her glorious destiny had better run for the high country, because there was absolutely nothing she was not willing to do to get to where she felt she was supposed to be.
Absolutely nothing.
Here is what Hillary accomplished with her constant cheap shots and relentless pandering to the right leaning, black-hating redneck vote -- she lost my vote. After hearing Hillary's staff brag about how much she loved to toss down a shot and a beer after killing some grouse with her favorite shotgun, and hearing Hillary herself jeer at her gracious opponent with words like 'elitist' and moronic aspersions as to exactly what kind of firearm Senator Obama thought dimbulb hunters might use to shoot varmints, I was done with Ms. Clinton. I would still have voted for that three legged Democratic bulldog, but there was and is no way in hell I was pulling a lever in a voting booth with Hillary's name on it. I'd have voted Libertarian first, goddamit.
None of these feelings, none of this outrage, none of this alienation, none of this revulsion on my part has anything to do with Senator Clinton's gender. Nor do I ascribe any of her relentlessly wretched, miserable, petulant, childish, near pathologically entitled seeming behavior to her sex. There are men who routinely behave every bit as boorishly as Senator Clinton has in pursuit of this nomination, and women who comport themselves every day of their lives as admirably as she hasn't. This has nothing to do with the configuration of anybody's X and/or Y chromosomes.
This is a very simple matter: Senator Clinton has been a brat. We've had a brat for a President for the last eight years, and it hasn't worked out all that well for most of us, or most of the rest of the people in the world.
I say, no more brats in the Oval Office. Male or female, black or white, older or younger -- no more brats.
Period. The End.
Advertisement
Dude, she lost. Can you get off her now?
June 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed. this doesn't serve any purpose. whining about other people's whining doesn't help.
June 5, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
Who know that Obama's biggest flaw as General Election candidate would be that he's not running against Hillary Clinton?
June 5, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
When all her fans stop accusing everyone who isn't of misogyny, sure.
Thanks for stopping by.
June 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good as usual, Doc.
Just a couple of things:
1) I must agree with Obamawon (the blogger formerly known as Louisville1975). Can't help but wonder if now (or perhaps tomorrow, assuming she suspends) is the right time to let dead dogs lie?
2) I do not understand how it is possible to be surprised by this...
I expected nothing other than that. Perhaps as a resident of the great state of New York, and suffering so long under D'Amato you were too close to home to be anything other than pleased at the prospect of getting someone to represent New York in the U.S. Senate who wasn't a complete lugnut. I can fully understand that, and quite likely would have had the same thing happen to me! :)
For those of us outside NY, who by definition perhaps brought a slightly less personal viewpoint to Clinton's Senate run, we saw this (like she did) as absolutely nothing but a stepping-stone to the Presidency. As such, I fully expected her to do nothing but use her Senator opportunity fully to this end, and triangulate like a sailor!
June 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
II00II,
Thanks, as always, for thoughtful feedback.
I guess I expect the best out of those I admire. I understand the pragmatic necessities of power politics, but I keep thinking, if those we elect to office continue to keep playing the game instead of trying to change the rules, what hope do the rest of us have?
I do believe that Senator Clinton had an enormous reservoir of good will and support among not only her own Senate constituency, but among supporters throughout the nation and even the world, to call on to counterbalance the hatred many conservatives felt towards her, which I believe was, in large part, fueled entirely by her gender cross referenced to her competence and political influence. And I believe that had she wanted to draw on that good will and support, she could have blazed a very proactively principled trail through the Senate that probably would have led her directly to the White House.
She chose instead to be cautious, to keep all her bridges intact, to carefully cultivate every available resource, regardless of how many compromises she had to make to do so. I expected so much better of her, and here's the thing... so did many other people.
And the argument that, well, she did what she had to do to get where she wanted to be, is kind of fatally undermined by the fact that she didn't get where she wanted to be... and the politician that didn't triangulate, didn't run the numbers before every vote, didn't study the polls and calculate the equations and hedge every word and make certain that for every vote he lost, he picked up two more from some other focus group or special interest... THAT guy, the one who has actually made principled stands and done what he thought was right and given honest answers instead of carefully weighted ones... THAT guy is one who won the Democratic nomination.
As to when we stop beating a dead dog, well, I'll stop clacking my keyboard when Melissa McEwen and all the other 'feminism has been set back generations OH you just hate Hillary because she's a GURL OH you should be ASHAMED' types stop clacking theirs. I'm tired of vaginal outrage. The vast majority of Democrats who dislike Hillary do so because she's behaved like a brat, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with her chromosomes.
June 5, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt. I don't think anyone could, at this point, refute your observation that Senator Clinton's strategy was obviously proven to be a losing one. I suppose it comes to down nothing more than differing expectations of the same event:
Where I expected Senator Clinton to hedge her bets to attain the presidency, and would have been pleasantly surprised at the contrary, you (and a great many others) expected something completely different and were (understandably) disappointed when those expectations seemingly failed to materialize. For the record, I have shared similar disappointment in other politicians over the years, as I'm sure most have. Most definitely never feels good being letdown.
For a viable strategy to negate Melissa McEwen and others, do you think it would be a good idea to refrain from attacking Clinton directly? I can't help but agree that Senator Clinton is largely responsible for fostering the "misogynist" meme, but I wonder if attacking her directly (though legitimately) only serves to reinforce the viewpoint from her supporters?
Maybe I'm just being a coward here for not wanting to call out Senator Clinton directly? I dunno. I suppose for me it is nothing less than gross Machiavellian practicality - I want the unfounded (in my case and obviously yours too) claims of misogynism to stop. What is the most direct way to do this? Continue berating Senator Clinton for it? Or directly challenge her supporters who most loudly claim it? I am wondering if it is the latter. Pointedly refute McEwen's claims by explaining the non-gender related reasons why I did not vote for Senator Clinton, and then ask McEwen if she flatly rejects theses reasons and continues to insist it is far more likely that I must hate all women. Two cents for your thoughts?
Thanks!
June 5, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, I think a refusal to 'call out' Senator Clinton, for fear of being seen as misogynist, is doing exactly what Senator Clinton's feminist supporters claim they are most offended by -- it is dealing with Senator Clinton on the basis of her gender, not her behavior.
My entire original entry is meant to state, as clearly as I can, that my distaste and revulsion for Senator Clinton's candidacy, and for her notional Presidency, has nothing to do with her gender. It is entirely based on her behavior. I don't think I can adequately illustrate that, though, without discussing the behavior that has so disgusted me. If by doing so I am further enraging Senator Clinton's supporters because they insist on seeing any criticism of Hillary Clinton at all as misogyny, well, that is there problem. And, in fact, it's the problem I wrote this entry to address.
To use another example -- I've loathed Al Sharpton since his Wappingers Falls/Tiwanna Brawley days. As the decades have passed, Sharpton has attained something very like legitimacy through his constant, impassioned use of identity politics, and when anyone anywhere who isn't African-American denounces him on any basis, they are almost automatically branded as racist. But my contempt for 'Reverend' Sharpton has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his execrable behavior. The fact that his execrable behavior is so bound up in his own ethnic self-identification makes a very effective shield for him against any criticisms any non-black may have against him, but I'm not playing that game. His behavior is despicable, I despise him. It's as simple as that... and that is exactly how I feel about Hillary Clinton.
June 5, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point.
June 6, 2008 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, stepping back a bit and taking the 10 000 foot view, I think this epic democratic primary has ended identity politics as we know it in America. The limits and failures of identity politics has been exposed to so many, from opinion leaders right down to jane and joe lunchpail, grama and gampa. We can feel its unworthyness in our very bones. Politicians who continue to play identity based political strategies are going to be on the short end of the stick going forward. This is my intuition, which I hope is true because looking back at the last 40 years in American politics, identity politics weakened the liberal brand in America. A politics based on citizenship and service will work much better for liberals.
Just a thought.
June 5, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
A politics based on citizenship and service will work much better for liberals.
It would work much better for everyone... but it depends on what you mean by 'work'. If you define functional as 'solving the problems that need to be solved in a way that respects every individual's essential dignity, rights, and liberties', then, absolutely, 'a politics based on citizenship and service' will be the bomb diggity.
Unfortunately, many do not define 'work much better' in that way. They do not prioritize solving problems, and they certainly don't have respect for anyone else's dignity, rights, or liberties on their agenda. These are powerful people who wish to, at the very least, stay just as powerful as they are, and optimally, to become more powerful. (Democrat or Republican, at the level these people operate on, those labels are just meaningless noises.)
In most democratic societies, there are essentially two political parties -- the Party of the Powerful, and the Party of the Not Powerful Yet But Boy Howdy We'd Like To Be. In our culture, where for generations it's been whites, and specifically, white males, who have had almost exclusive access to great wealth and greater power, the Party of the Powerful has been that which defends and protects white male privilege -- which is to say, the Republicans. But they don't have a monopoly on defending white male privilege, or simply elite privilege; the highest levels of the Democratic Party have exactly the same goals.
For these people, identity politics --the politics of the wedge, of hatred and fear, of divide and conquer -- work very well. And these people are still very much with us. I believe it is premature to look for 'the end of identity politics' in America. I think this coming general election is going to see the Republicans playing identity politics like they've never played it before.
What will be important, what will shape our politics for the future, is... will it work?
That's why what Senator Clinton did during the campaign was so shameful. By indulging in identity politics herself, she has validated this ancient and loathsome strategy of division... and yet, I have hopes that her failure to achieve victory with it has also largely invalidated it, and should Senator Obama win the Presidency without stooping to it (as I believe he will) then, yes, at that point, I believe you will be correct -- identity politics will be at an end. Not because we yearn for it to be over and done with, but because it will have been demonstrably proven, in two different and titanic confrontations, not to work.
What the Republicans are going to do when they can't play the hate card any more I have no idea. Maybe they'll just dry up and blow away... or they'll rebrand themselves as Neo-Libertarians, or something.
June 5, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a male, and try not to be a misogynist, just as I am white and try not to be a racist. I don't claim perfection in either of those endeavors.
As an Arizonan, I happily have helped elect Janet Napolitano twice, and am completely open to voting for a woman as President.
That being said, I don't believe the career path that the first woman President will travel will be through prior experience as First Lady and the benefits from much of the husband's political and money machine, no matter how much of a partner the woman might have been in the husband's political career.
This is a lot of the source of her perceived attitude of entitlement, including the notion that anyone who supposedly "owes" political favors to the husband is a "Judas" if they support the wife's opponent. (Witness Carville's reaction to Richardson endorsement of Obama.)
I think HRC was caught in a trap. You can make the case she never would have gotten to a front-runner status without having been the spouse of Bill Clinton, notwithstanding the fact that she is enormously intelligent. Once you agree with that case, she is open to having to answer for every aspect of her husband's Presidency that fell short of the mark, even though the current office holder has made his Presidency look good by comparison.
And the trap was not only a problem in the election or nomination process, but also resulted in a complete uncertainty in what governing would look like. How does an ex-President function as a First Spouse without overshadowing his wife -- especially this particular ex-President? The campaign at times offered reminders of this potential future problem, even though he clearly helped her when used right.
I predict the first woman President will get there based entirely on her own merits and with way less baggage than HRC brought to the party. And no one will be able to claim she had a feeling of entitlement.
June 5, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.”
A. It never happened. Certainly never in any way, shape or form by the Obama campaign, like Obama's race was used against him by the campaign and by a litany of surrogates.
Does sexism exist? Of course. And by my sig line, you can see I am Hillary's demographic. That is not why she lost.
B. Anyone who wants to "obliterate Iran", not re-think the implications of such a reckless statement and then repeat it in detail, has no right to use her gender as a club against anyone else.
C. It's harder for the black guy whose name isn't Clinton. This comes from a 58 year old white woman.
June 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy B-day! (though perhaps a bit belated?)
Time to change the old username?
June 5, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty of feminists here who believe you when you say your reasons for souring on HRC had nothing to do with gender. So please, take yourself off that hook.
That said, let me put you on a different one: why didn't you write this, with the particular links you note, during the nominating process? That might have put some doubt in the minds of hardcore HRC devotees.
I did not know anything at all about the Entergy tie-in; nor did I realize how long HRC was on WalMart's board, or during which phase of their cannibalization she served.
My point is this: if I, a person who consumes more political articles and blogs than is probably healthy, did not know these facts, then it is likely that they are unknown to the HRC zealots who have placed her on a pedestal as a martyr.
So, if you were to send those two articles to the HRC blogs, might that have a sobering effect? Not your own opinions -- because then you would be accused of HRC-bashing -- but just those articles themselves that were written by an irrefutably respectable journalist.
Or maybe not? Would any one of them read them dispassionately?
June 5, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, everyone.
Threegoal,
We wear the chains we forge in life, and certainly, Senator Clinton has forged an extremely large one in her marriage to Bill. You'd like to think his positives would outweigh his negatives, but I think chances are, he pulled her under more than he buoyed her up.
57andfemale,
Absolutely. Anyone who honestly believes it has been harder for Hillary Clinton to run for President, than it has been for a recently unknown black man with a funny name to do the same, is living on serious dream time. And that's without factoring in the presumptive nominee doing everything short of hiring someone to break his knees to knock him out of the race.
ww,
I'm at a loss to explain why I didn't try to publicize the Palast stuff more. I guess I figured if I could find it anyone else could, too (which is true) and if I took it upon myself to do a little due diligence, so would others who cared about the political process.
Beyond that, though, I'm honestly baffled. I guess I'm just used to no one paying any attention to me... I have several blogs, and several unpublished novels, and I feel like I've been shouting into a void most of my adult life with little to show for it. I guess it never occurred to me that anyone would listen.
I imagine if I had tried to give some kind of heads up, I'd have gotten a great deal of crap for it, but that's hardly a worthy reason not to do it. I don't know. I guess I should have.
June 5, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few points:
1) I hate the implication that if someone doesn't like a woman it is because they are threatened by them.
Let's grow up. Suppose I said to every women who had an issue with a guy it was because she was threatened by him?
2) Hillary is not a sleeping dog. For those who lack imagination, let's just say there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes at the moment -- and may continue into Denver.
As a simple reminder:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129586/page/1
Obama is no fool, you will note he already (a) has one of his guys watching the DNC and (b) kept Dean on board. Dean will now operate with a greater degree of flexibility as the DLC becomes more and more irrelevant.
But the DLC is not going to simply wither -- it will have to be pushed further and further from the center of power.
Yes, Obama won the nomination. The next step is he has to morph the DNC from what it once was into what it will be. This will include confining and restricting the Clintons' influence (which has been central for 16 long years).
Doc raises valid points. And let's get sophisticate in our politics. It's much more interesting that way.
June 5, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being a woman and one who wrote to Senator Obama and asked him to run for president (frankly Hillary never inspired me to ask her), I rarely heard of or witnessed an attack I considered out of bounds except of course in the blogosphere where there are know rules and where I witnessed extensive emotional, reactionary ranting on all sides... but again that's the blogosphere. I do have to say that much of it feels like an uncensored playground of 'I know you are but what am I...'
I live in america. I deal with men all of time. I appreciate men and I don't always like what they do, what they believe, or how they treat me. They probably have the same experience of me. And frankly I do find many women complicit with wierd behavior from men but it fits their level of development so I just learn how to appreciate everyone for who they are (not that I don't have my own anger and resentment at times that things are the way the are) and move on...
June 5, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doc Nebula:
Please forgive my scolding tone, which I only perceived when I read your reply to my post.
In fact, what I was trying to say is that I think what you've written is one of the best things I've read during the entire primary season. It is thoughtful, analytical, beautifully substantiated by references and, best of all, courageously personal in its search for answers.
Keep thinking and writing....and posting. We are paying attention. And thank you.
June 5, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to everyone who commented, and recommended this post. I sincerely appreciate your kindness and attention.
June 5, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
June 6, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU, TerryCarroll, for helping end my night with a grin. EXACTLY. This feminism of victimhood is seriously, seriously working on my last nerve, especially in the face of Senator Clinton's ingracious response to Obama's victory. Would we have accepted that behavior from any male candidate? Did even Kerry's supporters in '04 snarl at people for not giving them "time to grieve?"
Thanks too to Doc Nebula, for a good post. I agree with you and ClearThinker. We are not "whining." We are responding to complaints that the loudest of Hillary supporters (not the majority, by any means) continue to lob at anyone who disagrees with them. They are playing the gender card, and I'm tired of it.
If you can't stand the heat, Senator Clinton.
June 6, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kung Fu Monkey's post on McEwan's post really does and excellent job of demolishing her.
Read it and move on.
June 6, 2008 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, John Rogers (who writes over at Kung Fu Monkey) does have an excellent post on this, and reading that post moved me to put my own thoughts down here on the same subject. Anyone who has read and enjoyed this post should definitely check out http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2008/06/ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for.html
That is all.
June 6, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A somewhat related point that bothers me is throwing around the term misogynist. There are a lot more sexists than there are misogynists, and the leap to the latter term among several of the more rabid Clinton supporters disturbs me.
June 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me the Kyl-leiberman vote was pretty bad, and then she got pretty nasty when she was losing. Plus the fake "I used to hunt" comments, not to mention the Bosnian sniper fire incident made her seem a bit unhinged. The "commander and chief" threshhold statement was pretty bad as well.
Hillary was a really bad candidate, she almost seemed like Joe Lieberman and his 2004 candidacy didn't go to far. As a party the Democrats would have been better off if Hillarys campaign had ended with her Kyl-Lieberman vote. Were she anyone else that would have been the end of her campaign, ultimately name recognition and a certain politcal savviness kept her in the race, which seemed to give her more chances to embarrass herself; like with the Robert Kennedy assisnation remark.
Hilary had never campaigned before at least not in a competitive race and it showed she was niether emotionally or intellectually prepared to campaign for POTUS. It is lucky that she is not the nominee as it would have been a long embarrassing campaign watching her and John McCain argue over who is more of a Washington insider and who can do a better job obliterating Iran.
June 6, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink