The first part of the article tells us that Clinton is not bringing in the crowds. Clinton's feminist contingent is not pleased that all of us vagina owners will not vote for the vagina candidate. Seriously, see if any of them mention any other reason why we should vote for Clinton. Some feminist from NOW says, "There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course. But they'll take a black man over a woman. I never thought, in 2008, that we'd still be dealing with this." Too bad the reporter didn't ask why Clinton wasn't running against Edwards instead of Obama then, I mean if all we want is a white penis candidate, we had our chance.
Then WaPo tells us: "As Wagner and other NOW executives toured Ohio last week, they repeated a resounding message: Clinton has been mistreated by an opponent who subtly demeans her, by a mainstream media that ridicules her, by voters too threatened to vote for a confident woman, by young women who no longer feel the urgency of the women's movement, by African American women for whom race is more important than gender." My head hurts. I'll let bark, bugs, leaves, and lizards handle this... and one of those...er...ingrates wants to put a bit of a exclamation point on what she finds important.
I gotta agree with her. I guess I'm an ingrate too. Some dude making a wisecrack for you to get in the kitchen, or worse, another dude pulling out a chair for you, damn, life is so hard! "...they just as often ended up commiserating about how sexism -- "the worst of the 'isms,' " they said here -- continues to thrive." Those middle to upper class, middle aged to elderly, white women have it worse than anyone else in the world. I'm just weeping for their hardships.
And you just gotta love their blatant racist, Moresky said. "I think a lot of women are really in shock about it, and they're going to feel gypped if she loses. Barack will still be another man in charge."
Did anyone else laugh out loud when they read this part? "Wagner said she never expected gender to become a determinant in this election." I don't think they are campaigning on much else lately.
"During the NOW tour across Ohio, the makeup of each audience was almost exclusively white, middle-age women, many of whom had joined the organization in the late 1960s or 1970s." People vote for who they think can best represent them. I understand perfectly well why this demographic is excited for Hillary Clinton, is showing up at her rallies, and is voting for her. But for some of us having a vagina isn't enough, because she will be voting for white, middle aged, middle class interests. Not to mention corporate lobbyist interests, and starting wars to prove she's as tough as the guys, which I hear is her excuse for her Iraq War vote. She would have to...lemme see...how about tell us what she is going to do for young people, to earn their votes; tell us what she plans to do for WOC, to earn our votes; you know, make us believe she gives a shit about us instead of taking us for granted and acting like she is entitled to be President because she is Bill Clinton's wife...and is a WOMAN, did you catch that? She's a WOMAN! It's the bestest reason in he whole wide world to vote for a candidate.
A couple other interesting posts about this article:
Hillary Clinton Feminists
Just Stop Before I Really Get Pissed
The Fierce Urgency of NOW
Oh and here's something else interesting at SeibuOne.
Clinton’s relentlessly negative campaign of the last week seems to have worked. For now. But it looks like Obama’s campaign is ready to answer back. David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager explains:
“We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates,” he said, ”and we’ll continue to do that. If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate. We’ll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and lawfirms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I’ve said before I don’t know why they’d want to go there, but I guess that’s where they’ll take the race.”
But is Obama willing to go there?
“We’re willing to draw distinctions that are honest and legitimate,” Axelrod said before raising the issue of Clinton’s tax returns and the records from the Clinton library.
The Republicans are loving this.
and from the first time she pulled this:
“I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.”
This is so utterly and completely self-destructive, short-minded and cynical. You don’t do this sort of thing in a primary.
If Hillary wants to compare her record to Obama’s, then fine. But to flat out say that the Republican nominee is more prepared than the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination is just astounding in its selfishness.
The message here? Screw the Democratic party, screw the election in November, if Hillary can’t be president, then no Democrat should be able to.
but no, she does it again:
Fallows reports:
In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002″ line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience” part of that sentence?
0 comments:
Post a Comment