Hillary's female supporters and feminism
I've been thinking a lot about this issue for the past few weeks, and I'm having a very hard time understanding where the hard-core, rabid, feminist Hillary supporters are coming from. I can certainly understand their disappointment and despair over her not winning the nomination (for some of them, Hillary was their first and last best hope at electing a female President), but I don't understand their willingness to abandon their Democratic and feminist principles and either sit out the election or vote for McCain. It seems that they became so emotionally invested in Hillary the person, instead of Hillary the candidate, that they have lost all objectivity and reason. Which leads me to my main train of thought. But before I begin, let me state that I realize there are male Hillary supporters. However, in perusing the pro-Hillary websites, it seems that the bulk of her most vociferous and outspoken supporters are woman of a certain age and experience, and it is this group of supporters about which I am writing.
OK, so here goes. We have been told time and time again over the past few months that we need to give Hillary supporters "time" to deal with their disappointment and their sorrow, and that Hillary herself needs "time" to drop out of the race. We are told that her supporters deserve "respect" and that their voices must not be silenced. It seems to me (and I consider myself to be a rather staunch feminist) that these are very condescending, paternalistic, patronizing statements and directives. The message is that her supporters are emotional, temperamental and thus have to be handled with kid gloves. I might be wrong, but aren't these the very same attitudes, misconceptions and generalizations that feminists have been fighting against all these years? Why do only Hillary supporters need to be molly-coddled and "brought along"? Were Edwards, Richardson, Biden or Kucinich supporters given the same considerations? I was originally an Edwards supporter and I don't remember anyone saying that I needed "time" to deal with my candidate's decision to drop out of the race. I was disappointed to be sure, but as an adult I dealt with it, I looked at the remaining candidates, and I made the next best choice (in my opinion). Are Hillary supporters incapable of doing that? Are they that emotionally invested that they need to be given special consideration? And if they are, doesn't that just feed into the stereotype of the "weak, nervous, emotional" female crap?
I really believe that the underlying message, which is being pushed hardest by Hillary herself, is that she is a victim, her supporters are victims, and they will need to be coddled until they can pull themselves together. Now, I'm not saying there weren't sexist elements working against her in this campaign (although, in my opinion, not as many as some others may think), but being a passive victim, in my opinion, is not feminism. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
OK, so here goes. We have been told time and time again over the past few months that we need to give Hillary supporters "time" to deal with their disappointment and their sorrow, and that Hillary herself needs "time" to drop out of the race. We are told that her supporters deserve "respect" and that their voices must not be silenced. It seems to me (and I consider myself to be a rather staunch feminist) that these are very condescending, paternalistic, patronizing statements and directives. The message is that her supporters are emotional, temperamental and thus have to be handled with kid gloves. I might be wrong, but aren't these the very same attitudes, misconceptions and generalizations that feminists have been fighting against all these years? Why do only Hillary supporters need to be molly-coddled and "brought along"? Were Edwards, Richardson, Biden or Kucinich supporters given the same considerations? I was originally an Edwards supporter and I don't remember anyone saying that I needed "time" to deal with my candidate's decision to drop out of the race. I was disappointed to be sure, but as an adult I dealt with it, I looked at the remaining candidates, and I made the next best choice (in my opinion). Are Hillary supporters incapable of doing that? Are they that emotionally invested that they need to be given special consideration? And if they are, doesn't that just feed into the stereotype of the "weak, nervous, emotional" female crap?
I really believe that the underlying message, which is being pushed hardest by Hillary herself, is that she is a victim, her supporters are victims, and they will need to be coddled until they can pull themselves together. Now, I'm not saying there weren't sexist elements working against her in this campaign (although, in my opinion, not as many as some others may think), but being a passive victim, in my opinion, is not feminism. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Advertisement
I agree with everything you said. But I do know some Clinton supporters who have conflated their past disappointments and sexist treatment and personal ambitions (at work, at home, whatever...) with Sen. Clinton's bid for the WH. I think it's hard for them to disengage their personal stake in this election. A personal stake that is possibly much more profound than that of other supporters with their candidates, as it is all about identity politics. Or maybe they just emotionally feel that their connection to Hillary is more profound. I'm not a politico heavyweight. I'm just speaking for some of the women I know. (I'm an Obama supporter.) I think, unfortunately, that Hillary Clinton herself took on that role (for political and personal reasons) as well and fed that connection between herself and frustrated feminists. I think it may be Hillary Clinton who will have to carefully rework that personal connection and channel that energy and commitment into a more useful direction. But you are right about the "coddling" meme. It is a bit strange. But I think it is meant to honor that personal tie between these women and Hillary Clinton.
June 5, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need to move on, but I also believe that there were real issues about Hillary's tactics.
From, "Hillary is NOW Damaging Feminism"
ttp://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
"It is time that feminists who have supported Clinton for the right reasons step up to the plate and criticize her for unacceptable remarks and practices. The women’s movement has been deeply divided over the Clinton candidacy. Yet what started out as a legitimate disagreement about the merits of the candidates and their agendas has turned into a test of one’s feminist credentials. But the test is perverse. It is not a test of feminist principles and values. It has become a test of loyalty to Clinton, in spite of the fact that she is undermining basic feminist values....."
June 5, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mitchell, that's a terrific commentary and spot-on. I have felt on occasion by friends and other women that my "feminist" credentials were being questioned because I wasn't a fervent Clinton supporter - that somehow, I wasn't a true "feminist", and that I was actually selling out and damaging feminism, because I was backing a black man (horrors). Isn't the point of feminism to get beyond gender? I mean, why should I support Clinton just because she's a woman if I don't like her policies or agree with her campaign tactics?
Anyway, I would love to quote it in full, but I'll just post the link (yours was broken):
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
It's definitely worth a read. Thanks for posting it!
June 5, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I was a Dean Fanatic in 2004. And so on that level I can understand the crushing defeat and despondence that happens when your hero gets killed by the media.
On that level, I think it is smart, useful and generally good spirited to offer a grace period, when we should all reach out to those who’s dreams are mortally wounded and offer them a safe comfortable return to our party and race to the white house.
Reaching out to each other in the spirit of unity can never be a bad thing for democrats.
On the other hand. there are obviously HillaryIs44 type supporters who will never back Obama. And I suspect they are motivated by something other than party, ideals, and taking Bush out of the white house. In a word, racism.
There is a great deal of racism that taints that site, along with No Quarter. Those people are motivated by an "Other" motivation. And they are lost to Obama. And should not be a big consideration for us as we move forward towards the general election. No amount of graciousness on our part, will bring them around, to see that we are all just good people fighting the good fight with a leader we truly believe in..
But that’s just my two cents on your question.
June 6, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol,
Thank you for your kind comments and fixing the link! In my professional life, one of the figures who I work on is George Herbert Mead, an American pragmatist and good friend of John Dewey. He was at the U. of Chicago in the early part of the century and his politics bear a striking resemblance to Obama's. This was the heyday of American progressivism. (I don't think that it is an accident the Obama appears to be connected to this tradition.) In any case, I thought that your readers might appreciate an excerpt from a letter that he wrote to his daughter-in-law, the wife of his only child, in 1920.
"First of all, in regard to Dr. Hoffman's views. The fundamentals in the matter I take to be the following:--for the most normal situation a woman as well as a man should have the training for a social calling apart from the family life, this for the sake of the best family life but principally for the independence of mind and self which every one legitimately craves.
Do not let the dependence on others which we all have for those whom we love carry with it intellectual dependence and you cannot have real intellectual independence, that which gives one the fundamental self respect on which one builds, without competence in some field of the society which is responsible for the very existence of ourselves. Cultural training never gives this--only training for a practical end."
I discuss this tradition a bit in a blog. I hope to write more about its connections to Obama in the future.
"The Internet and the Election: There is something happening here"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
June 6, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some imbecile Obamabot has posted the following spam all over every pro-Hillary diary on TPMCafe:
"I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that June 6 was the day the central business district of Seattle burned in its entirety.
I just automatically think of June 6 as Burning Seattle Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's June 6.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up."
It's incredibly funny!!!!!
It makes it even funnier when jerkoff Obamabots post it over and over!
"I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that June 6 was the day the central business district of Seattle burned in its entirety.
I just automatically think of June 6 as Burning Seattle Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's June 6.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up."
The author of this post is exactly right. People who supported Hillary Clinton shouldn't act like victims.
It's time for payback!
June 6, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anywhere in this post did you see anyone call Hillary supporters "Hillbots"? If you want to have a civilized dialog, you would be well advised to stop your stupid nonsense. Really. Grow up.
June 6, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol, the war is over. We've laid down our arms. Its ok to stop shooting.
June 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not shooting - I am merely trying to make sense of why Clinton supporters are expected to get special treatment, and I am trying to understand how women who are supposed feminists are OK with being treated as weak and emotional. And If they are OK with it, how that advances the cause of feminism (in my opinion, it doesn't) that they've fought so valiantly for. Please do not take this post as a rebuke against Clinton (yes, I have been one of the most vocal critics of Clinton - I freely admit it). It's not a rebuke - it's an honest inability to understand why female Clinton supporters are so willing to embrace the "victim" label and why they are so willing to abandon their core principles and vote McCain in the fall. Peace, OK?
June 5, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
They don't need coddling. They've started to move on; their candidate will officially pack it in soon and endorse.
This is real life. Most of us are adults. The few children that post here - if you're mean i will vote for mccain - account for the slimest of minorities.
They will come along during the course of the general. There is no need for you to comment on their supposed hurt feelings.
The first step to healing is to move forward.
June 5, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't need coddling. They've started to move on; their candidate will officially pack it in soon and endorse.
This is real life. Most of us are adults. The few children that post here - if you're mean i will vote for mccain - account for the slimest of minorities.
They will come along during the course of the general. There is no need for you to comment on their supposed hurt feelings.
The first step to healing is to move forward.
June 5, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol,
This actually pretty close to my area of expertise, so I'll take a stab at answering this specific question. I should point out that this post is NOT a broad generalization applied to all supporters of a candidate, but to a specific individual that seem to reside at the margins of all political movements. To be blunt, in any given movement they're anchoring their end of the bell curve. For the benefit of certain posters*, the individual linked to below is being used as a particular case illustrating a more general phenomena, and NOT a blanket statement
My own research is into a slightly different fringe group - the religious right to be exact - but the attitudes and mythology that are held seem to be common in the U.S.
For those interested, key references on this would be the following, especially Castelli on the jeremiad (look at wikipedia for a quick summary of the jeremiad form of discourse).
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (2006). The Authoritarians. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Castelli, E. A. (2007). Persecution Complexes: Identity Politics and the "War on Christians". differences, 18(3), 152-180.
Smith, A. D. (2003). Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
You've probably seen ">this video from the Rules and Bylaws committee meeting. I think it's an example of some of the themes that are running through some of the more commited supporters, which is strangely parallel to other mythologies of victimhood. See if you can pick out any of the themes:
1. Victimhood, with an appeal to the unjustly downtrodden myth. She's a second class citizen
2. Certainty that McCain will win. Only Hillary can defeat McCain. A failure to vote for her is a vote for McCain.
3. Us vs. Them. Since voting for Obama is really voting for McCain, it follows that Obama supports McCain. Only Hillary's supporters are remaining true to the Democratic cause. The 'true faith' myth.
4. Urgency. The outcome is an immediate issue, which cannot be put off and must be addressed. The only remaining fallback is to take it to the convention.
5. Future utility. If McCain wins, they're exonerated for their views. Since it's certain McCain will win, they're certain to be able to say 'I told you so'. If the 'impossible' Obama win does occur, they'll probably start looking into conspiracies and working to 'expose the fraud'. Haven't heard that one, but I'm sure it's going to emerge in the next few new cycles.
6. Holy wrath. The only option left is to take this to the convention. The fight must be taken to the 'belly of the beast', as it were. haven't heard this phrase yet either.
7. ERA backlash? In the 80s the supreme court prohibited state-led prayer, integrated schools, legalized abortion, and made several other decisions that helped galvanize the religious right by giving them additional causes to rally around. What role does the ERA defeat play in this mythology?
Note also that there's no golden age myth mentioned, though Hillary did reference the civil rights movement and the civil war as a sort of 'golden age' at one point.
*bsdev, dijamo, billy glad, Lalo835adm. Before replying, you may want to consider how your reply fits into the above commentary.
June 5, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Argh - video link end tag didn't take. Here's the whole link:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/31/clinton-supporter-ejected-from-meeting-mccain-will-be-our-next-president/
June 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, fascinating stuff. Thanks.
June 5, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found it fascinating enough to go into grad school at my relatively 'advanced' age - glad my interest is shared. :-)
BTW, Castelli's article turns out to be available online as a free pdf:
here
Assuming this link works - my kingdom for a preview function!
June 5, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with grad school. Been there, done that, glad it's well behind me. I will read that Castelli article.
June 5, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
June 6, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good points and very interesting. If you browse sites like hillaryis44.org for just a couple of minutes you will see clear evidence of all those points. Statements exactly like: "Hillary Clinton, can defeat John McCain. Barack Obama cannot defeat John McCain. Only a suicidal Democratic? Party would nominate Barack Obama." That's a quote from the most current post.
They also post about conspiracies, how the only reason Hillary is suspending the campaign is because she's being strong-armed and forced to by a corrupt, sexist DNC.
Another is your point about the "true faith" myth, again, on the latest post it says clearly "No Democrat that cares about the issues should vote for Barack Obama."
It's really amazing how in one single posting there almost all of your points can be found. Makes for interesting reading.
"as for the superdelegates, just an FYI, we have the list with your names, you will be held accountable on Election Day and beyond, too."
They've even produced a new semi-organization called "PUMA (Party Unity My Ass)".
June 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you browse sites like hillaryis44.org for just a couple of minutes
My god...
That is fairly horrifying.
(sorry if I'm misusing the html tags - don't know much about that)
June 6, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I know that I am asking for a lot of angry mail. But I couldn't help myself. I just posted this on the PUMA site that was mentioned.
Dear Angry Friends,
I want to share with you MLK's words on the day before he was assassinated
“Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.” Martin Luther King, “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop,” April 3rd, 1968.
1968-2008 Forty Years
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
June 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I saw that video. Thought she was a lunatic. Every campaign has lunatic fanatic followers. That people make so much of her is pretty revealing in itself.
Take for example the average media coverage of an anti-war vigil, march or rally. Or an anti-WTO rally. Do the cameras scan the crowd in its entirety? Not often. Do they zoom in close on the families, the grandparents, the folks in business and casual wear or do they zoom in on the guy wearing the US flag as a diaper with a blue wig on his head? Do they interview the organizers of the event who could speak to the event's purpose or some glassy-eyed anarchist who will say "we're here to take down the power,man! and no fur! Vegans rule!"
focusing on that lunatic is emblematic of the desire to demonize and marginalize people who disagree with you by seeking out the idiots on the fringe.
June 5, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
mos,
What's most interesting to me is the underlying similarity of the tone and arguments, regardless of the cause - you hear the same kinds of claims (conspiracy, true faith, and most importantly an absolutist black/white view of the world, with no shades of gray). Apparently we're wired (through biology and culture) to identify with these kinds of myths. I think the political take on this is called 'framing' though I haven't looked into that literature as much.
If you're curious, I highly recommend castelli article - it isn't a 'typical' boring research article at least IMHO. And it's fairly short.
June 5, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon,
And this would be an excellent criticism, IF I HAD SAID THAT SHE WASN'T ON THE FRINGE. Please read what I wrote, not what you want to hear:
Perhaps you might also want to read the asterisk at the bottom, which I unfortunately left your name out of (could be why you missed it):
So let's take a look at your reply and how it rates in terms of what I was talking about.
You say that focusing on her as an example of a non-representative extremist (a view which you seem to agree with) indicates my "desire to demonize and marginalize people on the fringe". Are you of the opinion that her views should be promoted? Or do you think she's an extremist that should be marginalized?
If she's an extremist and you don't agree with her, then why are you bothered by my comments? On the other hand, if you agree with her comments, then I can see how you would be bothered by mine, and would explain how you would feel victimized by this analysis.
As I said, I'm studying the people that you refer to a 'lunatics', so forgive me if I'm more interested in the extreme (and rare) example for what it tells us about other extremists.
June 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defensive, aren't we?
I bothered replying because that video has been shown on this web site with comments saying that proves that Clinton's supporters are racists. That video has made the rounds of cable news and fake news and chuckled and giggled over in ways that demean women - presented as though she were a typical supporter.
It's not harmless. Your caveats don't help when you link to that video. Your caveats could have been perfectly fine if you had the decency to simply describe "the video of the Clinton supporter's meltdown"
June 5, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, simply impatient with people who have problems with reading comprehension.
I also notice that you didn't answer the question, but did say:
Indeed, and as I've pointed out every time I've posted about her, she is not a typical supporter.
But enough about that, because this does get into another area that does seem to happen fairly often with extremists, including political ones. And that is the interpretation, or outright creation, of offensive statements where there were none. The previously mentioned Castillo article brings this up in the context of Fox New's "War on Christmas" - an imaginary problem that sounded right to the extremists it was created for. Any use of a holiday greeting that didn't satisfy the Christian 'victims'(a version of right wing political correctness) was viewed as part of a conspiracy against them.
In a similar matter, you've created - based on your expectations rather than what was written - a victim mentality that you're now righteously fighting against. Truly, you are the victim here, and fighting against an unjust and unprovoked attack which you will meet with righteous resistance, knowing that your cause is just and that victory will be yours at the end of the day.
Or at least, that seems to be the route that you're taking here. If so, thank you for doing an excellent job of illustrating what I'm talking about here.
June 5, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a fascinating post.
what are you getting your grad degree in? This sounds almost like fun to me - studying these trends.
June 5, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey,
Education actually, educational psychology specifically. The problems of teaching biological evolution and the biases (cultural and innate) that come into play when people encounter information that doesn't fit their preconceptions very specifically. :-)
June 5, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. I started looking into this a bit myself (though not to the extent of going back to grad school) recently. The pattern is quite clear and--let's be honest--there are some of us on the Obama side who would have behaved the same way if he had lost.
But, as far as the golden age mythology goes, have you not heard how they go on and on about the veritable utopia that was 1992 - 2000?
June 5, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Despite oregon's protestations, these are fringe people, and they're everywhere. It's true that they're more common in some areas (fundamentalist religions come to mind) than others (beachcombers come to mind). Nonetheless, I can imagine fantic beachcombers bewailing their unfair victimization at the hands of some anti-comber mob intent on depriving them of all that is good and right with the world.
But interestingly these fanatics are more common in politics. The current Texas Board of Education is a prime example - the upcoming curriculum decisions they're working on are going to have some far-reaching effects, even though they're certain to face court challenges, and haven't won any of those challenges since the Scopes trial.
But, as far as the golden age mythology goes, have you not heard how they go on and on about the veritable utopia that was 1992 - 2000?
No, actually I haven't heard that. And from what I recall, Clinton's time in office did turn out pretty well - as well as any presidential run in my lifetime. Decreasing deficits, low unemployment, good salaries, declining poverty, an intervention to stop a modern genecide. Pretty good things in my book.
Not that he didn't have his share of stupid ideas. The internet decency laws were obviously illegal but he promoted them anyway. Same with NAFTA's lack of worker and environmental protections. And his inability to get any sort of health care reform passed is a legacy we're still trying to deal with. But all in all, I can't remember a better time.
June 5, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some kids will have nothing to do when others cease calling their fellow Democrats DINOs and stuff. I read this poster a few weeks ago claiming that she was gonna lead the charge against Hillary in the NY Senate race in 2012. That guy Kash something or other is also a New Yorker and I think he wrote the same thing just a few days ago. Hey they better start now 'cause it's gonna be purty lonely for them.
June 5, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I certainly shall help whoever runs against her in 2012 - I am a New Yorker and I don't think she's done much for our state, and I certainly did NOT like the way she ran her campaign, nor do I like her vote authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq, nor do I like her vote declaring Iran's army as a terrorist organization. Nor do I like several other of her positions. That's why I was NEVER a Clinton supporter during these primaries. Am I not allowed to dislike a candidate, and am I not allowed to state that I will NOT vote for her in 2012 but will vote (and work for) her opponent? What is your point here???
June 5, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that you are one of the most divisive people on this website and it doesn't surprise me at all that you were one of the few folks to oppose Senator Clinton in the New York primaries. Carol, I don't question your right to post here whatsoever, and I respect your right to do so, but the reality is that, given your demonstrated ongoing and continuing hatred of Hillary Clinton, I don't see you as having any credibility with respect to passing judgment or evaluating the feelings of your sisters who supported Hillary Clinton.
I see your post as being just another, yet another, pseudo-intellectual shot directed at Hillary Clinton, at a time when she and her supporters are down. And I just don't play baseball that way. But do carry on.
June 5, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please - because I'm not allowed to speak my truth? Again, you're saying I shouldn't post questions about Clinton supporters because "they're down"? Again, that seems a little patronizing and paternalistic, like we have to treat them with kid gloves so they don't crumble.
I don't hate Hillary Clinton as a person - I don't know her so how could I? I dislike her intensely because of her pandering, her prevaricating, her triangulating, and her votes on the war and on the Iran army (among others). I find her cold, calculating, and not altogether honest. I am not impressed with her tenure as NY Senator and I have been very, very disappointed with her during this campaign. Of course, it's my opinion, but I feel she's run a very dirty, nasty campaign and have resorted to all kinds of underhanded tactics in an effort to win the nomination. I despise her politics. And I'm not afraid to make my opinions known. It's that simple.
June 5, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well then don't disguise it as a disengenuous inquiry into the philosophy of feminism.
June 5, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD
GROW UP!
Just a simple request.
June 5, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, pardon? I said she was hard nosed about this and she is.
June 5, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please cite reference to your claims that she intended to present philosophy of feminism. And try not to "omnimax" project your bias, just a quote is fine.
Any else tired of the BevD straw men?
June 6, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your specialty is apparently the direct personal attack. Every fucking time.
Who is divisive?
June 5, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call things as I see them Tena. And you curse, always. To each his/her own. We don't like each other; it's cool. Plenty of room on this website for both of us.
June 5, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
June 5, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have been told time and time again over the past few months that we need to give Hillary supporters "time" to deal with their disappointment and their sorrow
---------------------------------------------------
You have been told that by Obama supporters trying to tone down the negative rhetoric or promote unity. I have yet to see a Clinton supporter say it or ask for it.
Much as I respect Ben Hocking for never taking the low road even though he posts a lot and much as I appreciate his attempts to tone down the hateful rhetoric with threads like this one.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/why-does-it-matter-how-we-trea.php
It is this response to him by Les Ismore in that thread that echoes some of my feelings and I guess the feelings of other Clinton supporters.
"This is truly laughable. Just look at the comments in this thread. Smug, self-serving like you just won the prom king or something. Guess what, you didnt.
We have a good candidate whoever wins. My problem with the Obama supporters is the hateful threads over the months, threads that make me think most are closet Freepers. You know, the "Open Letters to Senator Clinton" or the "I would rather die than vote for Senator Clinton" threads here. Hundreds.
And of course what you consider slams at Obama are nothing in comparison to the slurs and ridiculous lies about Senator Clinton. Just ridiculous. I have seen time and time again the supporters of Senator Obama just echoing the right wing talking points and of course we have the now famous threads about the doctored video. That was shameful. And you expect to have credibility after that? Come on.
Look, I dont need or want you to be civil or kind or whatever. I have been a poster and reader of TPM since day 1 nearly 8 years ago. I expect that the Bionic Soys, Girl from Brooklyn and others will soon lose interest and head back to their Facebook pages soon. So please, none of your condescending crap, okay? I dont need it and I dont want it. I am for Senator Clinton because I think she is a better candidate. GET OVER IT!"
June 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding me? Every single Clinton surrogate on the MSM has said basically the same thing over the past couple of months - that Clinton supporters need time to come to grips with this, that they are angry, bitter, distraught, etc. Come on, now - let's be honest. And if you think the anti-Hillary vitriol was bad here, just go read some of the shit that was (and still is) posted about Obama on some of the pro-Hillary websites like TaylorMarsh, Hillaryis44 and NoQuarter (and even Hillary's official campaign website). No comments on here ever, ever approached the nastiness that you see on those websites. I realize that we all have our own perceptions, but there are Hillary supporters out there who are unhinged right now.
June 5, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should it bother you that consideration, compassion and empathy is given to people? It isn't about feminism, it's about human decency.
June 5, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, I'm absolutely not against it. But when else have you seen that kind of consideration given to a group of supporters whose candidate lost? All I'm trying to say here is that there seems to be a double standard, which is what feminists have been fighting against for decades and which they seem to be all too willing to embrace now. Do you understand what I mean? Believe it or not, I have great compassion for Clinton supporters who saw her as their savior, who saw her as their last best hope for their dreams to be realized - some of them will not live to see a woman President and I can only imagine what they must be going through right now (I have 2 friends who are in their 60's who are just devastated). But being told by the media and by Clinton surrogates (and by Clinton herself) that they are victims doesn't help the cause for which they have dedicated their lives. I don't know if I can explain myself any better.
June 5, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Carol, you seem not to recognize that feminism isn't about being treated just like a man, it's about being treated like a human being. And where does this hardnosed attitude that we have no sympathy for victims come from? If you're being victimized by smear campaigns, runours, innuendo, sexual slurs, then you're a victim. The victim isn't the bad person, the victimizer is. Speaking out about it takes guts and courage, because there is always someone who thinks that if someone is being treated badly, they must have provoked it or it's her fault, or she was asking for it. At no time has any candidate been asked to completely concede, give up his delegates and promise undying support to the winner of any race, so why you insist that Clinton should is the real double standard. It was months before Edwards threw his support to any candidate and he still has not released his delegates to Obama - neither has any other candidate in this race. In 2000, Bradley never did concede, nor did he ever support Gore either at the convention or during the general election.
I don't remember anyone in the media calling for sympathy for Clinton at any time much less at this moment, in fact, they have been calling for her to concede since South Carolina. This has been the closest primary race we've ever had, if Clinton wanted to and she has every right to, she could take it to the convention and challenge Obama for the nomination. According to her letter this morning she has said she will concede, she has asked her supporters to unite with the party - what you want is the republican "it's not enough to win, others must fail" kind of victory. That's not feminism, that's spite.