Hillary's recent remarks about politics as a "boys' club" resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US.Fortunately, if Hillary loses, she'll lose to a black man, which will make it a lot harder for critiques like that to work. And those young feminists who love to cry misogyny — aren't they attached to Obama?
If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon.
२१ एप्रिल, २००८
"Hillary's voter base consists of middle-aged to elderly white women who identify with her caustic, stubborn, bulldog resilience."
Says Camille Paglia, who observes — as I have on many occasions (I insert Paglia-style) — that Hillary is a poor example of feminist heroism because her political success has thus far "glaringly been a subset to her husband's success."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
You'd think her voter base would also have many who see right through Obama, in this hold-your-nose primary, and don't care about her feminist positions if any.
Live by identity politics; melodramatically wail at the blood-red moon by identity politics.
What's the difference between resilience and harping intransigence?
My elderly white mother is not a supporter. My parents (in PA) don't like to answer the phone now. I'm sure they'll be thrilled when the election stops the insanity.
I turned off the ringer on the phone years ago. Phones are only for calling out to fix online orders gone wrong.
Unpolled and unpushed since 1996.
But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US.
Just as Obama allows himself to be associated with racist rhetoric (Rev. Wright), implying that he's got a retrograde view of race relations no longer applicable to the US.
I turned off the ringer on the phone years ago
Mom could never do this -- how would she know when her children are calling? I would call tonight and ask in a disguised voice if they are registered to vote, but I'd bust out laughing before I finished the query. (Plus I work late tonight and they go to bed early)
"And those young feminists who love to cry misogyny — aren't they attached to Obama?"
Ann, are you still reading Marcotte, and her fellow travellers?
I really wish a qualified woman would have run for president. That would be historic. What we have here is an unqualified, dishonest, political hack whose only claim to fame was being married to a President.
Any woman that has a successful husband can't have a successful career of her own. Thanks Ann, for that June Cleaver form of feminism.
"Fortunately, if Hillary loses, she'll lose to a black man, which will make it a lot harder for critiques like that to work."
Am I missing something, or are you not even considering the possibility that Hillary loses to McCain?
-kd
We could call what Hillary is touting, Vulgar Feminism (h/t Kaus): Anything a woman gets by whatever means is a feminist victory.
Any woman that has a successful husband can't have a successful career of her own.
Feel free to point out where she said that. Hillary's political career is not self-made; it is because of her husband. Other couples have non-interlinking careers where both are independently successful.
Feel free to point out where she said that. Hillary's political career is not self-made; it is because of her husband. Other couples have non-interlinking careers where both are independently successful.
So, other couples can have independently successful careers, but not Hillary. Why, and where is your evidence? Simple question for you and Ann.
Clearly it doesnt hurt your career that your husband is Governor and President. That said, I have no doubts that Ms Clinton would have been successful in any career--she appears to have the necessary education and ambition to be succeed.
Re the PA election tomorrow, Drudge is talking about good Clinton internals, and Obama is quoted in Politico.com not predicting victory. Seems to me that the internals are showing the same thing. Goodie! get to drag this out all the way to Puerto Rico, and keep the superdelegates on the hook.
I am guessing Obama's "bitter/clingy" thing is going to hurt him except in urban centers--will be interesting what the exit polls say. Ms. Clinton is still very much a viable candidate IMO, now that Obama has been defenestrated by ABC. Unlike the Hapburg emmisaries, Obama actually landed in the dung heap.
I always thought the crowds at Hillary rallies looked like fat, middle-aged white women. And that was just the men.
C'mon garage, there is no way you are that dumb. Hillary became Senator in a state she had never lived in, never having had any prior elected office. There are only two ways anyone has every done that: having a husband who was president or having a dead brother who was president. Are you actually claiming that Hillary would have been elected to senate from New York without Bill being president? Really? I am betting you are not silly enough to claim that.
Is Hillary smart and tough? Yes. Could she conceivably have made it on her own? Yes. Did she? No. Stop being ridiculous.
I would be interested in knowing just why people think Mrs. Clinton would be sucessful without Bill.
She did not succeed in law until her husband was elected. She was way wrong in her job in the Nixon impeachment.
She blew the heathcare initiative. She has done nothing as a Senator.
The only success she has had was running the attacks on the women Bill had, or tried to have. No wonder capital F feminists love her.
Peter,
I said "conceivably." I do think it is plausible.
You say she only smeared the women who told on her husband. That's more than "only." She took a guy who is a degenerate sexual predator, who took advantage of dumb little Monica, assaulted Kathleen Wiley, raped Jaunita Broderick, and she made him the hero of the drama in the eyes of the American public. I think that is a massive feat of politics. It included spinning a sympathetic story about her husband, smearing some innocent women (and some not so innocent ones), and rallying the troops when they were disgusted with their boss and themselves. That is not easy.
Past that, she managed to get elected Senator in a state she knew nothing about, just crushing the local opposition. I think that's impressive.
Then in the senate, she was very effective in forging relationships with the same Republican senators who were her arch-enemies. Obama talks nicely about the other side, but what republicans did he ever recruit to support a cause of his? You might know some, but I don't.
Lastly, I think her presidential campaign has been impressive. Disciplined, focused. Yes, some stupid stuff got done. She is still toe to toe with Obama, and he is a real political talent. And before that she got rid of all the Bidens and Edwardses and Richardsons like they were nothing. I don't think many others could do that.
She has real weaknesses and flaws. But she has a lot of strengths, too.
Not that I like her. And not that I think she didn't capitalize on her relationship with her slimy predator husband. But she does too have virtues.
"If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon."
ooooow . . . I'm shakin in my boots. It's tough to be scared by a bunch of wymyn, though a little girl did give me a black eye for picking on her cousin in 5th grade.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा