My grandparents just celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. They got hitched right after Grampa got back from the war. They're both educated professionals. They're proud Americans. We come from a long line of Southern Democrats. My grandparents, the mavericks, are first generation lifelong Republicans. Grampa has a portrait of Ronald Reagan in his bathroom. Not in the place that would make 'trickle down' literal - let alone actually manifest. The portrait is near the sink, where he brushes his teeth. Every morning he wakes up, and The Gipper is proudly smiling at him.
With that being said, for my own amusement, the other day I asked Grama what she thought about Hillary Clinton. Now it may have been a bad cell phone connection, but I think I heard my otherwise sweet little Grama actually growl before saying, "That woman." She said disapprovingly. "Ambitious."
Which is EXACTLY what Clinton basher Christopher Hitchens says about Hillary. He notes her 'overweening ambition' in his otherwise thin 'case' (think grudge) against her in his latest Slate.com article.
With all due respect to Grama, there has to be something dark and twisted about the human psyche that only wants people that don't want power to actually get it. Or maybe its that men are go-getters and women are ambitious. Or maybe it's just Hillary. She has turned into a black light for Americans, highlighting our dandruff and other things we would care not to have mentioned. Like the fact that we have no restraint when it comes to our viciousness toward her and can't come up with a good reason for it.
Her critics are starting to get really freaky with vehemence. People are starting to foam at the mouth. Chris Matthews, for example, was starting to look like Old Yeller right before they put him down.
For those of you not following the election that close because your more humane hobby of setting ants on fire with a magnifying glass is taking up most of your time, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, on Morning Joe the day after the New Hampshire primary he said, "The reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." Then he went on to say," She didn't win on merit. She won because everybody felt, 'my God this woman stood up under public humiliation' -- that's what happened."
So it's not that voters really dig name recognition (cough - Schwarzenegger). It's that she got a host of sympathy votes? When has Hillary Clinton ever -- ever gotten sympathy? Her enemies are so quick to hit below the belt that neutrality is the best I've seen for her.
Matthews later defended his comments and said that he was not sharing an 'opinion' just historical interpretation. It's like saying that it was not eggplant -- it was aubergine.
Then after what was a week's long outrage for his remarks he finally gave up. On his show Hardball he said, "Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive." That was big of him, but that comment was hardly isolated. He never thought that calling Clinton supporters "castratos in the eunuch chorus" was nasty and dismissive?
Politics is a blood sport, but even blood sports have sportsmanship. But not when it comes to Hillary. Back when her husband was running for president, back in 1992, a television reporter from Columbus, Ohio asked her, "You know, some people think of you as an inspiring female attorney mother, and other people think of you as the overbearing yuppie wife from hell. How would you describe yourself?"
You may be wondering the answer to that question. I'll quote from A Time to Kill, "Now imagine she's white."
Think of that question to anyone other than Hillary. Could you imagine another first lady hopeful, on the campaign trail EVER being asked that? Could you see anyone asking Barbra, Nancy or Laura that?? Hillary's rapport with the press started way back then. Way back then in what the press dubbed "The Year of the Woman".
But just the word 'ambition' used in the pejorative is baffling. "I disagree with her wanting to do anything with more prestige than she has right now." In other words, she needs to know her place. And because she doesn't know her place -- don't hold anything back. It's not regular criticism. It's like a reprimand and to used Matthews' words 'public humiliation' for not being more demure.
It's as if she's not liked because she's a know-it-all. She's running for president -- we want a president to KNOW IT ALL.
It's not even a double standard -- it's a special standard -- just for Hillary Clinton. It's the Hillary Standard. And who can hold up to the Hillary Standard? No one. Not even Hillary.
It's a reality show where otherwise, rational, intelligent people are showing their prejudices and blinding contempt. It's tired. It's boring. And it's not discourse. It reminds me of the ironic quote by Voltaire, "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." Done.
Follow Tina Dupuy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TinaDupuy
But let a woman show her smarts - or real ambition, and she becomes uppity or TOO ambitious - even for other women, unfortunately. But the men really can't stand her because she is everything they don't like in women and can't express it. All that seething hatred . . . women, on the other hand, are just plain envious.
Right now we desperately NEED someone who is smart, informed and ambitious enough to take on more crap from republicans and the press in order to do what she's worked toward all her life. She has prepared herself in every way she could. Don't forget "contacts" can work both ways. Not only can they be willing to work with her, but can also lead to good people to surround herself with.
There's nothing "wrong" with Obama. He's brilliant, over-achieving and ambitious. He'll make a wonderful president. In 2016. By then he'll be even better.
After all, a good little woman wouldn't fight back or really want to win. We all know that, right?
Obama's recent ad plays right into that.
Bet nobody will suggest he's playing the sexism card, however.
Group with Sheik Mohammed deal. Now thats red meat to the average American. Remember the Dubai port deal that the average americian hated. It she get past go. She will not be going to the oval office. Somebody should ask Bill has he been vitted since he left the white house. The republicans save dirt like its money on people. I like the Clintons, but they have wore me out.
It's just a special convergence of regular old sexism, regular old anti-progressives, and a bunch of other "isms" with what is perceived as license to express otherwise social unacceptable hate speech against some people see as a legitimate target.
It reminds me so much about what Dr. King spoke of as "violence of word" and what Patricia Evans calls "verbal abuse."
I offer this link as example of the concept of "verbal abuse" http://www.youarenotcrazy.com/ .
I haven't had a chance to look at the whole site, but it seems pretty good. However, I would like to emphasise that the verbal abuse can be used by anyone against anyone else and isn't limited to men using it against women.
I think that she is capable and bright but has tied her success to her husband. As a feminist, that is not an admirable trait.
As far as ambition, of course she is. She wouldn't have been a high powered corporate attorney without it. Those credentials are all her own...and those were fought in a very dominated environment.
Peoples dislike of her is not just her ambition. I myself dislike her. I do not believe that she could run or believes in herself as Hillary Rodham the woman but only as Bill's wife and consultant. I find it disgusting.
As her candidacy continues, I am also being reminded of all of the scandals during Bill Clinton's presidency. It is not pretty.
It is not good for our country and is very divisive. I believe that she amongst all of the candidates republicans included is the most divisive.
How very urban. That ranks up there amongst the coolest things I've seen this week since Romney quipped, "Who Let The Dogs Out!" in a recent 'photo-op' with young African Americans! LOL
;)
Edwards '08!
The same onus applies to Obama and even to Edwards with his deep drawl. But if we were looking for a candidate that no one in the country would hate, I’m afraid the list would be very, very short. The Republicans even hate all their own candidates.
We are about to take a chance that America is mature enough to elect a man of color, a woman or even more hated, a rich trial attorney. It is too late to turn back now, find a spotless white governor from a southern state and play it safe.
No the American people, it seems across party lines, are parched for a new power that can topple the fortresses of entrenched grid lockers. Americans do not suffer stalemate well. We want to move on. And the thirst is so great, some heretofore unwilling to drink from the cup of change may be now inclined. In any case, to not seize and make the best of the opportunity to state that America is at least on the cusp of change, and the resulting breakthrough would be so momentous, that it should not be forfeited through night terrors about the outcome.
Sometimes she does come across as cynical and manipulative, and to the horror of some, willing to compromise with Republicans when they cannot be outvoted. That is an unfortunate consequence of voters putting so many bonehead Republicans in office.
The Gore and Kerry experiences of 2000 and 2004 proved that only a heavily armored attack dog with lots of big money contributions can hope to survive the smear campaigns that Republicans and their covert dirty tricksters will unleash in the general election.
Repulsive is the best word I can think of for the filthy, disgusting language used when talking about Hillary. The stuff that people have been posting on this blog and elsewhere about Hillary is 1000 times worse than anything I've heard anyone say about George W. Bush!