A woman and an African American fighting for the Democratic nomination is evidently giving Ms. Dowd heartburn this morning.
With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.
Yeah, that all white man party really's got us this time.
People will have to choose which of America's sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?As it turns out, making history is actually a way of being imprisoned by history. It's all about the past. Will America's racial past be expunged or America's sexist past be expunged? ... ..
The Democratic party is breaking barriers, which is never easy, especially when you take on two at once. But "historical guilts?" Fault lines, for sure, but breaking barriers and extending possibilities is what we do. Surely Dowd can get her brain around that one without tripping on her bra strap.
The other question is just who is giving women a hard time for supporting Obama?
As a woman I know put it: "Hillary doesn't make it look like fun to be a woman. And her 'I-have-been-victimized' campaign is depressing."
But Hillary -- carried on the padded shoulders of the older women in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island who loved her "I Will Survive" rallying cry that "I am a little older and I have earned every wrinkle on my face" -- has been saved to fight another day.
Women who stand above the firing line while drawing it obviously don't get that it's not about being "victimized." It's about being treated differently than men, especially in the traditional media where doyens of delusional daintiness like Dowd hold court to decide what woman meets her feminine test; the one where women don't measure up to the men in power they prop up. But considering Dowd is likely one of those women still wearing pearls with black, it's unlikely she'll get that bitch gets it done and requires none.
Or as Tina Fey so aptly put it, bitch is the new black. Shoulder pads not required.
One woman who was 101 years old said in the Texas forum that she voted for Clinton because she was a woman. But most of the people I know are voting for Clinton because of competency and her depth of knowledge on the issues, which has been on display for over a year now. Just ask the military flag officers supporting her. Perhaps Ms. Dowd could have noticed that if she'd put down the mirror and quit asking the who's fairer question.
Walking away from the 1950s is also required in order to realize that Democrats are bringing the entire country into the 21st century by our choices, whether the "Leave it to Beaver" crowd is ready or not. The fact that this isn't Bill Clinton's race and Monica Lewinsky wasn't Hillary's fault is also something Dowd can't quite accept. Trying to hoist that wingnut drivel once again to see if it can make it 'round the turn one more time, using it in a closing line.
The crowd held up their camera phones to capture the former president, in his bright orange tie and orange-brown ostrich cowboy boots.
"We love you, Bill!" yelled one boy. "You did a good job, except for Monica."
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
1. Most of her touted experience and placement in the political venue is only because of her husband. HE was Governor and President. What did she accomplish in this venue of her own accord (other than being the 'woman behind the man'?) Does anyone doubt that her husband's political gains was not resposible for her attaining current Senate seat, et al. True, we'll never know because it is forever 'Billary'.
2. Too many are avowing their support of her candidacy only because they believe that Bill will have WH residency also.
3. Her ongoing 'stand by your man' posturing (no matter what the reason - some say a deal was made that he would 'stand by his woman' and support her political aspirations) despite his infidelities and humiliating not only her, but his daughter - is not something that should be held up as any woman's legacy/goal to her own or other daughters (as well as peers).
Truth is, I think she is smarter than Bill. Perhaps without his gift of schmooze, but has more of the basics. I just don't feel good about how she is only 'here' because of who she married and not because of what she accomplished on her own. Her lifetime of experience seems to be more about him than her.
But, these are just part of my ponderings as I continue to consider all the candidate's 'records'.
Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, supported Bush policies without criticizing them for years and now we're suppose to believe she will make a change and do something different?
Her campaign's NAFTA memo lies and manipulations that won her Ohio make her look more like a Republican in drag than anything else. Let's not forget she took Karl Rove's advice a few weeks back and played the terror card against Obama. When she starts taking Rove's advice you know there's something wrong.
I do look forward to your articles. I am so tired of hearing reporters quote Dowd as as if she is an oracle. Your opinions help balance a lot of noise in the political world. Keep writing them please. We need a bit of fresh air to break up the fetid breath puffed in our faces by the Hillary haters.
I loved, loVED, LOVED Maureen's Op-Ed! It was right on point about HILLARY - 'Barack is not a muslim, as far as I know and I wish I was playing on a level playing field although I am white and married to the former president and running against a black man with three foreign names' - CLINTON! Maureen was dead-on! Hillary's I-have-been-victimized campaign is not only depressing but pathetic and disgusting. Go Maureen!
By the way, please tell your 'vetted' friend to release her tax returns.
Hillary demands Lazio to release his tax return during 2000 Senate campaign:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2DF153EF93BA2575BC0A9669C8B63&scp=1&sq=lazio+tax+returns&st=nyt
Minus one for Obama not being forthcoming re Rezko. Either both parties' cards are on the table, or not. (See my comment from the "Ken Starr" string reprinted below*)
Minus another one for the following sin: Criticizing Clinton for what not she says, but the Anybody But Clinton crowd SAYS she is saying.
****
* Well said, but tell you what: This here Hillary supporter wants to see Hillary's tax returns too.
But not as much as I want to see an accounting of the connections and financial overlaps between Obama and one Tony Rezko.
One topic is a fishing trip. The other? There's already a jerk on the line.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/828546,CST-NWS-brown06.article
Can we agree to call for full disclosure on both sides? As a friend of mine says, "Sunlight makes a great disinfectant."
The Sun-Times and Tribune have been covering Obama for 2 years on the Rezko story and have determined that the two of them closed on a split bid on the same property at the same time in an above-board, completely legal transaction in the highest bid made for the property.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, hasn't released her tax returns for the last 8 years, loaned her campaign 5 million dollars out of her pocket, and all of this after accosting Rick Lazio night and day for not releasing HIS tax returns in her Senate campaign. Not to mention the financial deal Bill Clinton made with a Kazakhstani dictator that his wife previously called a human rights violator.
One topic's a pile of rotting mullet it's getting hard to stomach, the other's admittedly a tangled line on a jagged rock.
Worse, in that trial currently going on, three of Rezko's co-defendants are CLINTON DONORS! None of them has given a CENT to Barack Obama.
Oh, right, HE RELEASED HIS TAX RETURNS!
You're demanding he prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. If he asks you if you see one you shout, "WELL, IT'S INVISIBLE!"
go to "Walking the Walk of Feminism" by Susan Kaiser Greenland posted today.
Now that is RIGHT ON.
Thanks to women's lib, Hillary has the power to do so -- and the freedom to choose NOT to.
HOW MANY OF YOU ARE IN MARRIAGES THAT SOME NUMBER OF THE REST OF US WOULD RECOMMEND BE ENDED? For your own good, of course.
Life, Liberty, and the Purfuit of Happineff (sic, sic) means the freedom to put up with your spouse. As has been said, "When there are two heads on one pillow, there is no room for a third." Let alone another 300 million.
Those of you who think you know better -- and hold that out as a litmus test of Hillary's lack of fitness for the presidency -- can feel free to Impeach her (big i) after January 2009 for her moral unfitness, just as you are impeaching her (little i) today.
Even amongst Dems -- and to their discredit many Obamanistas -- I hear and read a lot of:
"Vote for Obama because his RACIAL background will make him be a better President."
But I DON'T hear much of:
"Vote for Hillary because her GENDER background will make her a more effective President."
Got DOUBLE STANDARD?
If Obama were "white," would he have gotten this far?
If Hillary were male, wouldn't the race for the nomination be over -- and the GE a foregone conclusion?
Of course not!
(bad joke)
I'm sure Dowd has worn her share of "pearl necklaces."
No person of class would ever use this expression, with or without pearls.
"Bitches Get Stuff Done"
Maureen is not a bitch. She's done nothing worthwhile.
Would your life be totally void of meaning if sexism didn't exist?
Are you capable of moving beyond a rigid, already-outdated paradigm and enjoy life for once?
You want a woman in a high office? How about Condi Rice? She sure has done the country a lot of good!
It is like a fan zine for obama 90% of the time. Folks like you make it much more interesting.
It exists even without the Bush administration.
And I will happily vote for ANY anti-Bush candidate in November.
Please let's not a whole bunch of these devotees sulking and not supporting the democrat chosen.
Just thought you should know.