|
||
Hillary Obliges the Right Wing Conspiracy
Has anyone noticed that Hillary is methodically displaying the very stereotypes the right wing has attributed to her all these years? She seems dedicated to prove they were on target all along. Hillary is using the same slash and polarize tactics against someone in her own party that she previously reserved for outside opponents. Wasn't that blatant political blasphemy to proclaim that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama? It's a knife in the back that the Party won't be able to extract very easily if Obama becomes the eventual candidate. The Republicans will have a scar they can rub sore with glee. A voter in Mississippi said it simply and directly: "You cannot treat your party members like they are your enemies." At least you can't if you have a modicum of grace and balance in your politics.
And what about Geraldine Ferraro's similar comment that Obama is an unqualified contender, only able to be in the race because of his skin color? This must be the first time in U.S history that someone has said that an individual has the upper hand in running for president because he's black. Her observation should go into the Guiness Book of Records. I don't know whether the stupidity of the idea or its viciousness is more remarkable. Ferraro was a high level operative in the Clinton campaign and was not reprimanded for sullying the debate, receiving only a gentle "I don't agree" slap on the wrist. Her continued vitriolic outbursts and the reactions to them led her to finally resign, apparently on her own volition. Hillary was virtually silent on the issues throughout this rancor-generating display by a member of her team.
To manipulate perceptions of the campaign, Hillary has appointed herself The Decider, anointed to establish which states are important and which are insignificant. Can you guess what she decided? The important ones are the few "big" states where she won the primaries. The others are merely "boutique" states (tell that to the people of Maryland, Illinois, and Minnesota). Now let's get this straight. Blue states that she won, like New York, California, and New Jersey, which regularly vote Democratic anyway, should count toward boosting her candidacy. But the many conservative Red states that Obama carried and could bring over to the Democratic side of the ledger in the election should count against boosting the Obama candidacy. This contorted, hocus-pocus reasoning is typical of the cynical Clinton campaign style. So is using fear, victimization, scolding, the gender card, the "how would I know if Obama is a Muslim?"card, the "finding my voice" card--and changing the inflection every day. Hillary, it seems, has come up with an inventive election strategy-driving up her negatives.
In case there's a feminist out there glaring at me, I'm not critical of Hillary because she's a woman, it's because she's Hillary. It's not her gender but her divisive, take-no-prisoners approach to politics that gets to me. I don't discriminate here. I feel exactly the same about husband Bill. And the thought of having them both back in the White House conducting business in the same manner as before is a bad dream. The kitchen sink, and surrounding equipment, should be fixtures in the White House, not weapons of political warfare. That style of politics wasn't good for the country when the Clintons lived there and will only bring gridlock and acrimony in the future.
It's true that the Clinton campaign has gotten some traction in recent weeks through a barrage of negatives. They've clobbered Obama above the belt and below. Some people think that's working. But in my view, Obama's quiet, intelligent, consistent decency will, over the long run, come through and win over a wide swath of the American public. And Hillary's caustic, unpalatable tactics, I'm convinced, will turn people off over time and backfire on her. I'm not starry-eyed in saying this. I believe, at this time in history, people are desperately looking for an upgraded political process, a change in tone that will foster civil dialogue and produce legislative results.
Let's get back to the famous right wing conspiracy. That cabal, or whatever they are, should be grateful to Hillary. She's given them a load of new ammunition they can use to bad mouth her and the Democrats if she chances to be the Party's candidate. Last week my friend phoned his wife who is away doing business in another city and she was gung ho over Hillary. This week when he phoned, the same woman couldn't believe the vicious tactics Hillary was using and said they were "appalling." The "conspiracy" guys would probably sneer, "I told you so." They would love to have her in their sights for the election so a bloody slugging match takes place, with conservatives, right wingers, and ordinary Republicans coming out in droves to vote against her and her party. The rest of us should be hoping for a different kind of candidate and a different kind of campaign.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Don't worry, there are lots of us feminists who are critical of Hillary for the kind of "person" she is. See comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-obst/women-of-my-generation-ha_b_91468.html
True feminism is about change and parity for everyone, not leaving any group behind and Hillary is too selfish to attempt that on any score. Great article!
I can't agree more! I find it ironic that many of us "liberals" (whatever that means) who used to defend the Clintons are suddenly agreeing with the conservatives on the right (hmmm, now I actually wonder what Ken Starr knows).
Perhaps some of us allowed our own political bias to cloud our judgment when it came to the Clintons. We refused to condemn them for their flaws, or plainly refused to acknowledge them. We were their enablers. Only now do we get a hint of how powerful they have become, now that we see they can actually overturn an election. It is a good thing that Bill Clinton never served in the military and never really got a lot of respect by the military; otherwise, I'd worry about a coup.
I don't know about others, but one of my lessons from this election is that blind following of any ideology is bad for democracy.
Hillary created the term "right wing conspiracy" to defend against scandal. Of course she embodies it, because its her concept. She also created the "commander in chief threshold," where she is the one and only judge. ALL OF IT, HAS GOT TO STOP.
It was easy to dismiss a lot of things the right wing said about the Clintons cause it was coming from the right wing. It's hard to admit, but they were right about them. Maybe it's a good thing Hillary ran for President. It's allowed people to see the Clintons for what they really are.
The Clintons are a party of their own, for their own.
Hillary apologized for Geraldine's remarks only after the meeting with her contributors. Coincidence? We think not!
Very nice piece! Have you read Taylor's piece? I think she might think that you are sexist.
I think that you just wrote Obama's letter to the super delegates. You got the main idea anyway.
I am relieved when women especially who support HRC admit that while they support/ed her, she isn't going about this in a respectable way. If she were using the same approach as Obama, this would be an exeptional race. Instead, I hate her. Not because she is a woman. Because she is a "monster" to put it lightly.
Great blog.
Excellent piece, Mr. Rothman. It seems that you, too, have come to the same conclusion many of us, who were previously Clinton supporters, have -- the Clintons are fucking nuts!
Actually, having known someone who suffers from narcissism, I've come to realize that the Clintons are plagued by the same personality disorder. That would explain their bizarre behavior and their seemingly insane obssession with winning at any cost, even if they end up destroying themselves.
Unfortunately, their selfishness will probably result in a Democratic defeat in November and the continuation of the dismantling of America as we know it by Big Business Republicans, but the Clintons will have gotten their way -- they got the media attention they wanted even if they didn't make it back into the WH.
Long-time Clinton opponents-principally Republicans, but not only- always criticized the Clintons for their "My way or the Highway" style, and I ignored it. This election has proven them right. I have been a loyal Democrat since I voted in my first election in 1980. It's the first time I've contemplated not voting in a November general election should Clinton scam her way into the Democratic party nomination. Her mocking Obama's supporters, and praising McCain at the expense of Obama has been ridiculously short-sighted. There was already roughly 48 percent of the country that had a negative opinion of her before this process got started- with the Democrats and others that she has snubbed and sickened in this election, who knows how high that number is now.
Well Jack, I'm blind, but even I can see the truth in your words!
Great post!
What is the sound of one vast wing flapping? The shrieking of the 'eagle' that it's attached to, desperately trying to stay aloft, on it's way straight down, in a death spiral. I'm running as an Independent, in an attempt to get BOTH wings co-ordinated, and pulling together. But, that 'eagle' can't get nowhere with his beak up his... , which is about where this country seems to be, lately, and I'll be happy to put forth my best effort in getting Tweety straightened out, here.
When I was watching Bush today, I thought of Hillary.
It was when he said "I'm going to veto this bill because without giving the Telecoms retroactive immunity, America is unsafe." He was just lying. So bold a lie Nancy Pelosi was able to call him "wrong" with that tone that says "I'm past pretending to be polite about it, the man is insane or lying. Or, both."
It reminded me of Hillary saying, "the primary elections in Florida and Michigan were fair..." or, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by Bill's 'Jesse Jackson' comments in South Carolina." She was just lying.
She agreed to the rules in both states, and had previously said they "counted for nothing", and it was reported recently that Bill Clinton got that line about Jackson from Mark Penn.
I's the lying that makes Bill and Hillary just like Bush.
Obama/Webb (Gore, Nepolitano, McKaskill, Richardson) in '08
The 3 a.m. ad really cemented that idea for me. It looked as if the boogey man were waiting in the shadows outside that little girl's bedroom. It was embarrassing to watch. As if Carl Rove had suddenly joined her bandwagon. Uggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!
I would love to read a biography of Hillary in 20 years or so--written at a distance, and with lots of interviews from people who are then retired and not much constrained. I wonder when she became the person we see today. Is this the same person that became First Lady in Jan. 1993? Or has she fundamentally altered? I'm sure there is some hint in the recent biography of her, but I don't want a quick answer. I want to see what she says in 10 years or 20 years. or more. And what others say once the cameras are gone. I wonder if the right wing's portrayal of her in the 1990s became a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Or if it was simply accurate.
I'm interested because in the past months I've gone from viewing her as a bit dull and overambitious to viewing her as perhaps one of the most conspicuously despicable politicians in the U.S. in many years.
She's probably always been like this. An indication would be the failure of her Health Care Program back when she was first lady. Apparently she wouldn't let anybody in on the process. It was my way or the highway. The difference is that back then, it was all behind closed doors.
Now, with her back to the wall in a very public arena, the claws are coming out.
Great insight... I wonder about a couple of things too... Will this nastiness injure the chances of Obama (who certainly looks like the candidate from any sane projection), and create a Republican victory? (In that sense Hillary is Ralph Nader as much as George Bush.) Will she repeat this monster show in four years? Will the people, from all parties, who want a better cleaner political process, and a better America, be able to organize and effect change? Will it mean the birth of a new party? Certainly seems like there might be the need, and the momentum, for one, especially given the Democrats' consistent leadership failures, and this awful reluctance to salvage a candidate who shows the only promise of a better future than partisanship and politics by lobbyists.
How will Hillary fare if (when) Obama wins? Will she continue the drumbeat of scorn, joining the conservative media team? Or perhaps even switch parties?
Is there any way to eject someone from a politcal party? If so, why hasn't she earned that? Because of what Bill did 8 years ago?
If nothing else this has certainly been an enlightening campaign, in many ways. Now to move forward...
I just purchased the "Hillary the Movie" and will watch it tonight. I can't wait. When I bought it last month (it took a while to arrive) I was just curious for the sake of curious. NOW, not so curious. Prepared to see the absolute truth.
www.hillarythemovie.com
The Clinton brand has been forever tarnished. They have not just lost this race, they have lost much more. It is sad, they could have been such a force for positive in the world, instead they will be just a failed footnote in history. The potential was astonishing! They just frittered it away for the promise of power. Real power is in doing the right thing even when it might cost you.
Goodbye Clintons and I am sorry to say, good riddance.
On target, Jack ... quite cynical for Hillary to apologize to the Black voters in order to try to win the Urban Centers, after having Ferraro imply Obama was some sort of affirmative action candidate to win the rural whites ... I have faith that the Dems of Pennsylvania will see through her ruse.
great article!
Loading comments…
Related Blog Posts
|
||
Posted March 12, 2008 | 02:01 PM (EST)