Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream
My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack's transformational appeal.
For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth.
It's getting to me as well. Last year, I was somewhat reconciled to the prospect of supporting and pressuring Hillary as the nominee amidst the rising tide of my friends who already hated her, irrationally I thought. I was one of those people Barack accuses of being willing to settle. I even had framed a flattering autographed message from Hillary. But as the campaign has gone on and on, her signed portrait still leans against the wall in my study. I don't know where she belongs anymore.
At least Hillary was a known quantity in my life. I knew of the danger of her becoming more and more hawkish as she tried to break the ultimate glass ceiling. I also knew that she could be forced to change course if public opinion was fiercely opposed to the war. And I knew she was familiar with radical social causes from her own life experience in the Sixties. So my progressive task seemed clear: help build an anti-war force powerful enough to make it politically necessary to end the war. Been there, done that. And in the process, finally put a woman in the White House. A soothing bonus.
But as the Obama campaign gained momentum, Hillary began morphing into the persona that has my pacifist wife screaming at the television set.
Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge. Even worse are the flacks she sends before the cameras on her behalf, like that Kiki person who smirks and shakes her head at the camera every time she fields a question. Or the real carnivores, like Howard Wolfson, Lanny Davis and James Carville whose sneering smugness prevents countless women like my wife from considering Hillary at all.
To use the current terminology, Hillary people are bitter people, even more bitter than the white working class voters Barack has talked about. Because they circle the wagons so tightly, they don't recognize how identical, self-reinforcing and out-of-touch they are.
To take just one example, the imagined association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers will suffice. Hillary is blind to her own roots in the Sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?" She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents. [75] Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Truehaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists". Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. [all citations from Carl Bernstein's sympathetic biography, A Woman in Charge, 2007, pp. 67,69,70,75, 83]
All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the Sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whom Hillary attacks today represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?
It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American Right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.
It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with Fox News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic super-delegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House whether or not she is the nominee.
Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.
Tom Hayden is with progressivesforobama.blogspot.com and author of Writing for a Democratic Society [City Lights, 2008].
Loading comments…
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
I am asking you a question because I adore you and everything you have said and done for our country.
My question is this, while Obama's message of unity and understanding instead of fighting is clearly the way we should all behave. My concerned is this. What else does he offer and is this unity message enough of a reason to for him as president? Is that enough to take on that job?
I get concerned when I consider Iran. Does sitting down with Iran's leader, who denies the holocaust, really a good idea? Is it dangerous to be reasonable with unreasonable people?
You yourself, in your youth were a fighter for peace. You didn't sit and try to negotiate it. Maybe as you grew older you realized that negotiating gets you farther, I am not sure. I would love for you to address these questions in another post, since I respect your opinion and this choice over who to support has been a struggle for me.
To complete my point.
Doesn't anyone else see that this is business as usual for women? A woman is once again gettting crucified for not being polite. In this case, Hillary is expected to change not only the way politics has been done for centuries (this is a benign primary cocmpared to JFK and many others) she has to change the way the humans deals with conflict since the history of man-kind.
The irony I see that Obama's message of unity and understanding is not adopted and practiced by his supporters. Your peaceful wife chooses anger over understanding, people on this website call Hillary a c_nt instead of understanding, and that as you say, the youth will revolt in anger instead of anger.
Is his message real?
I think it can be reasonably stated that in terms of lack of moral character, deceitfullness, power mongering and the willingness to destroy anything or anyone who gets in their way, the Clintons (yes, both would be running this country further into the ground), nothing separates them from George W. Bush. They are of the same cloth, stitched from the same fabric. In terms of character there is nothing that seperates Clintonianism from Bushism/Rovianism. Hillary supporters could care less that she is a pathological liar. They don't care that her husband was impeached for lying to Congress. They are pleased that she is a dirty, disgusting and vile human being because they are familiar with her and happy that she can "fight like a man". They don't want change. Voting for Hillary Clinton is just like voting for every lying, cheating, deceitful, bullying man who ever ran for office because she has proven that she is just like them. So really, what's the difference between her and George W. Bush? Nothing. Please people, if how Hillary Clinton has run her campaign is any indication as to how she would run this country, God help us all.
Hey Tom, it's amazing, but my wife, age 57, a lawyer and mother of four, is reacting to Hillary and her surrogates in the same way as your wife. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. She stood by her man after his infidelity and during the impeachment proceedings. At the same time, she criticizes Obama for standing by Reverend Wright. Hopefully this will be all over soon.
"It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with Fox News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic super-dele
No, I think they re doing it very consciously.
It is pretty clear to me. She is already looking to 2012. She knows she has no way of getting the nomination--how could the Dems take away the nomination from someone with the lead in delegates, popular vote, states won? They would cripple themselves with young voters, African Americans, and their core liberal base. So, the only alternative: Damage Obama so badly that he loses to McCain and she can run again in 2012.
It is pretty obvious that the Clintons care little for their party or our country's future, all they want is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, no matter the cost.
My friends warned me about her. I used to think she's a good person. But now I see that she's power hungry and selfish and blinded by ambition and greed.
Hey, Bill OWES her this. Lighten up. ;)
If the Democratic leadership (superdelagates) were to "give" this nomination to Sen Clinton, I wouldn't be mad at her, I'd simply be through with the Democrats. I'd not only vote for McCain, but also for every Republican on the ballot. Maybe it's easier for me because I'm an Independent, but I've always supported the Dems in the past, and it would be a sad, sad day for me. But that would signal the end of the party for me. I'm tired of them not being able to beat Bush twice, of them not being able to end the war, and of them pandering to the right. So it's been a long time coming.
Luckily this won't happen. The Dems would have to be out of their minds to pull something like that. No matter how good of an argument she can make against Sen Obama, she will never be a better alternative. All Sen Obama has to do is win over the Sen Clinton supporters and he can win a general election by a landslide. He won't get everyone of them, but he'll certainly get the lion's share. Her supporters are Dems, and they won't want more war and bad economy.
I don't disagree with the negativity from the Clinton camp, but I do wonder why Obama gets a total pass on his own brand of negativity. The campaign says one thing and does another. Why has NO ONE on the left spoken up about the sexist dog whistles Obama uses frequently when talking about Hillary? Because they are so small and nuanced, maybe a little too personal?? Oh yeah, thats right. The left was never too great at understanding the sexism thing- get back in the kitchen and make the coffee while we plot revolution. Yes, you can dislike Hillary and all she stands for while still calling out Obama on this sexism. Will his campaign be held accountable for this?
Can you give some examples of "the sexist dog whistles Obama uses frequently when talking about Hillary"? I've seen others make this claim but no one ever gives examples. Thanks.
So Tom, which wife is this? The one you married after you totally cheated on Jane Fonda? Or the one you married after you cheated on the one you married after you cheated on Jane? Far Left men are all misogynists, but please, lecture us on why we need a sexist , elitist president.
tkk,
Take a grown up pill and leave the personal stuff on the street corner where you belong.
All that I see on any of these posts is very personal. Don't fool yourself Rachel36.
"Far Left men are all misogynists"? Any data to back that up? And, assuming that you are talking about Senator Obama as being "sexist" and "elitist", any data to back that up?
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one screaming at the sound of Hillarys voice - I've gotten to the point now where I just change the channel. The condescending tone it too much for my intelligence to bear. I think the Goldwater girl is still alive and well. I don't care for her right leaning tactics - both she and bill have lost all credibility in my eyes.
Onewho has joined up in the I HATE BILL AND HILL club perhaps IS fooled by distractio
Spot on analysis.
Obama not only has the Clinton campaign and McCain to contend with but the MSM as well.
But he is srong and this is all media hype. Hillary Clinton lost a long tome ago....now lets go cover her court appearance in Chicago tomorrow.
Great column.
I heard one commentator say last night that the Clintons feel that they own the Dem Party, and I suppose their supporters feel the same way... I guess we're all supposed to just get in line behind the Clintons, no matter that they vote to authorize Bush's invasion of Iraq or that they continue to insult those Dems who disagree with their tactics. It will be a very hard job to get the Clintons elected again if Hillary's our nominee... the unlikeability factor will be too high to overcome in November.
Ok. I am upset. I am feeling sad because I think it’s hard for him to win. The doubt has been raised that he can win in the general elections. Because, this is just the beginning of the negative campaigning. Can he handle it? Can he overcome these attacks? Can he rise above it? Will they let him get elected?
Fact: whoever wins the primary will have a tough time against the republican machine.
Fact: she’s very polarizing. And will unite the Republican Party to come and vote against her. Why do you think that they are hoping she’ll be the nominee? For them, she’s easier to beat. They can attack her and not get in trouble for it, whereas to beat him, they have to show their true colors and they don’t want to do that.
Fact: many republicans switched party in PA to vote for Clinton in order to stop Obama, and they will probably do it other upcoming primaries.
I agree with everything you said in your column and remember seeing you at RFK's wake at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1968.
However, hillary has a willing audience in the significant portion of our population that remains racist. Those white people who cannot face the fact that they are racist will use any of this negative nonsense to justify their vote against Obama. They did so in the primary and they will do so in the general election to justify their vote to totally destroy this country by electing mccain.
We cannot afford this now. hillary and obama are unelectable. Hillary by her own actions and Obama due to the racism that still exists in this country.
Draft Gore. Obama as vp. Let America get used to having Obama as vp before he runs again in 2012 or 2016. Let Hillary go to hell.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
