The one, the only

Sister Site

« The Southern Strategy backfiring at long last | Main | James Lileks yadda-yaddas the politics »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be5969e200e54fd7dc848834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Camping with grizzly bears:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Frenchdoc

Sorry but I'm with Shakespeare's sister here and disagree with you. I'm probably crankier than usual because of all the nonsense that's been coming out of the media today, but Lance, that's some pretty big pile of "blame the victim / she asked for it / she knew before she started" you just gave us here.

Obama and Edwards should be fighting the current sexism and mysogyny because it's the right thing to do, not because it might help HRC and they're competitors at this point. I lost quite a bit of respect for Edwards today.

And it should be our role in the liberal blogosphere to do the same (as Jane Hamsher, Digby, Matt Stoller and others have done). We're liberals, we don't stand for that !@#$, and we will fight it even if it was predictable. Period.

What the heck, Lance?? *shakes head in disbelief*

Tom W.

Lance, I actually don't believe it's their jobs to defend Hillary - but I do think that it would be gracious and politically effective. This is getting close to a radical moment for me and the Democratic party. If our party had allowed a race or religion-based verson of this, you can de damned sure more people would be up in arms - Edwards and Obama and the other candidates included.

Reagan may not have been a racist personally, but he allowed racism to help put him in the White House. Of Obama is silent, he's working on his own version of that strategy.

Lance

Frenchoc,

Clinton isn't a victim, she's a volunteer. And I might as well say it flat out now---she's my choice! I like all three, but I've been leaning towards her all along because I think she is the toughest and best able to handle the fight.

And Edwards and Obama haven't won me over any by their silence. I just don't think anybody should ever expect their rivals to do their fighting for them.

OutOfContext

I have to say, to an outsider like myself, this all seems a bit like an exercise in Kremlinology.
To give you some idea of where I fit on the issues I will say that every online alignment poll I have taken, like this one, shows me to be a Kucinich voter, but I started out supporting Richardson.
I have never been a member of any political party, but I have only voted for one Republican in my life, for county sheriff, because I knew the Dem and he was too big of an asshole for me to support.
I thought Bill Clinton was an okay President and am embarrassed by the current bad joke in the office.
I'm tired of Clintons and Bushes. Hillary is Establishment, uninspiring and hawkish. Edwards' America first economic message would be as disastrous to our foreign policy as the Neo-Con military version of international relations.
You can parse the subtleties of language as much as you like, but I fail to find Clinton any more inspiring than John Kerry.
I think I've pretty successfully ignored attacks on her gender--just as successfully as I've ignored her attempts to benefit from her gender. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find examples of her using the subtleties of language to engender herself to the female voter. When I look at Hillary Clinton I don't see a woman, I see an alignment of old and entrenched interests trying to regain power. I'm willing to be called unfair on those terms, if you want.

lina

I'd have more sympathy for Sen. Clinton as "victim" if she were not also the beneficiary of nepotism. She would not be the Senator from New York if she were not someone's wife.

She is a smart, capable, policy wonk who has always seemed out-of-her-element in campaign politics.

I would like the first woman President of the United States to attain that position without the benefit of dynastic caste.

Tom W.

"...she were not someone's wife." See, that's exactly the kind of gender role stuff that's being used against Senator Clinton - it's very clear from every study, every major article, every book ever written about the Clinton presidency (positive and negative) that Hillary Clinton was as close as to a full partner as you can get. Yet even to a woman, she's labeled as "someone's wife."

Then there's the "out-of-her-element" comment. This is tame compared to the "shrill witch" language normally used against her, but it's not valid. How exactly is she out of her element? Why should she remain a behind-the-scenes policy wonk? Again, this seems to adopt the old, tired gender roles of the past.

Lina, I'm afraid neither of us will live to see a female American president, and I'm assuming you're younger than I am.

velvet goldmine

Lina, I tend to think that Bill Clinton would not have become President if he had not been Hillary's husband...not because of voter nepotism, but because of the couple's unique dynamic.

Well, perhaps not so unique...one thinks of the Roosevelts, or of state politicians who died in office and were rather seamlessly replaced by the wives who had all along been more partner than ornament.

lina

So you're all telling me she would have been a shoo-in to win a Senate seat in New York had she been married to any old guy? Do I have that right?

Melissa McEwan

Mannion, unless you believe that sexism only affects the specific woman at which it's directed, an idea to which I'm quite certain you are not remotely obtuse enough to subscribe, arguing that two men who want to represent an entire nation (half of which is women) have no prerogative to address sexism being wielded as a weapon is just absurd.

This isn't just about Hillary. It's about whether they think this a fair way for women to be treated. And if they want women to trust them, it's incumbent upon them to defend against it, even if it is directed at their opponent.

huh

Lance - I'm with you. Personally, I think the whole thing is completely overblown. It's not like she broke down in heaving sobs or something. To the extent it matters, the event shows the full extent of how entitled she believes she is to the position - which was a little ugly.

But the odd part about this is that that emotion displayed by HRC here would be devastating for any of the men in the race - a Muskie moment for sure. She's actually being treated much better than Edwards or Obama would have been. And yet there are all these posts about how she's being unfairly discriminated against.

Ultimately, I think HRC would be a lousy president because she is unprincipled (think Democratic Tom Delay), lacks good judgment and I simply don't trust what she would do. And if you are anti-Iraq War, her vote on Kyl Lieberman shows the zebra hasn't changed it's stripes one bit. She is almost certainly the Dem most likely to keep us in Iraq.

As for Tom W's post regarding HRC being nearly a complete *partner* during the previous administration - why should we be happy about that? In my view, that construction was inappropriate then and it's still inappropriate. I really didn't like the unelected first lady taking a major policy role in the Bill Clinton administration and I like the idea of unelected Bill being a *near complete partner* this time around no better. Doesn't the first spouse have enough power without giving them formal responsibilities other than doing *good works*? What process is there to remove the first spouse from their position if they screw up? Let's keep our elected officials elected or at least confirmed by the Senate.


huh

Lance - I'm with you. Personally, I think the whole thing is completely overblown. It's not like she broke down in heaving sobs or something. To the extent it matters, the event shows the full extent of how entitled she believes she is to the position - which was a little ugly.

But the odd part about this is that that emotion displayed by HRC here would be devastating for any of the men in the race - a Muskie moment for sure. She's actually being treated much better than Edwards or Obama would have been. And yet there are all these posts about how she's being unfairly discriminated against.

Ultimately, I think HRC would be a lousy president because she is unprincipled (think Democratic Tom Delay), lacks good judgment and I simply don't trust what she would do. And if you are anti-Iraq War, her vote on Kyl Lieberman shows the zebra hasn't changed it's stripes one bit. She is almost certainly the Dem most likely to keep us in Iraq.

As for Tom W's post regarding HRC being nearly a complete *partner* during the previous administration - why should we be happy about that? In my view, that construction was inappropriate then and it's still inappropriate. I really didn't like the unelected first lady taking a major policy role in the Bill Clinton administration and I like the idea of unelected Bill being a *near complete partner* this time around no better. Doesn't the first spouse have enough power without giving them formal responsibilities other than doing *good works*? What process is there to remove the first spouse from their position if they screw up? Let's keep our elected officials elected or at least confirmed by the Senate.


Tom W.

Hey huh, I've got two words for you:

Eleanor

and

Roosevelt.

Linkmeister

Two more, Tom.

Ronald

and

Nancy.

velvet goldmine

Lina, who are you addressing? If it's either Tom W. or me, we've already addressed this.

But to reiterate, it's not so much that she wasn't married to "any old guy."

Rather, Clinton wasn't just "any old wife," or even any old First Lady. She was an activist and a professional prior to morphing those roles into her Mrs. Guv and Mrs. Prez duties,continuing fighting the good fight within those roles.

And she didn't exactly float into that senate seat, if you'll recall. She had that whole carpetbagger stigma to deal with, not to mention how raw the Lewinsky and Whitewater stuff was at the time.

AND her husband spent his last days in office on controversial pardons. He is much more popular now than he was when she was launching her first senate run. He was considered such a liability at the time that he was sidelined rather than campaining for either his wife or for Gore.

In other words, I think your premise could use a little tweaking.

huh

So that's hardly a response with any basis in policy is it. Though perhaps a fair critique of Eleanor Roosevelt? Can't say I was around for those days - but unlike HRC, she by all accounts did good things during those years - though I'm not sure it's accurate to say that she functioning as a cabinet officer in the way HRC did. As for the Reagan Presidency - I think it's a dubious claim that Nancy was anywhere near as involved in policy as HRC.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Data Analysis

  • Data Analysis
My Photo

The Tip Jar


  • Please help keep this blog running strong with your donation or subscription
  • Contact by Snail Mail
    Lance Mannion
    PO Box 732
    New Paltz, NY 12561
    USA



Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Be Smart, Buy Books


    Movies, Music, Books, Kindles, and more

    April 2014

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    27 28 29 30      

    For All Your Laundry Needs

    Blog powered by Typepad

    In Case of Typepad Emergency Break Glass