| date: | 22 April 2015 at 18:56 | ||
| subject: | Fw: If Hillary Doesn’t Win, It’s Sexism |
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Fwd: If Hillary Doesn’t Win, It’s Sexism
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: If Hillary Doesn’t Win, It’s Sexism
If there’s anything worse than a sore loser, it’s someone who starts making excuses before they ever play the game. Granted, in this case, it isn’t Hillary Clinton herself grumbling about the reasons she may not win the White House in 2016, but her liberal champions in the media are already providing her with a soft landing should she be unable to secure a win.
Appearing on ABC this weekend to promote her book, Cokie Roberts told George Stephanopoulos that the “crack pollster” at the network had determined why many Americans might have an unfavorable view of the Democratic contender. No, it’s not because the name Clinton has become synonymous with the worst of Washington politics. No, it’s not because she has all the charm and charisma of a three-dollar tuba. And no, it’s not because scandal seems to follow the Clintons wherever they go. It’s because –
duh – she’s a woman.
“A woman who is strong and powerful is seen as not friendly and empathetic,” Roberts said, quoting an unspecified ABC poll. “Here we are in 2015 and we still have to deal with that. So that’s what she’s doing. She’s trying to figure out how to show people she’s a warm and friendly person.”
Stephanopoulos noted that this strategy differed from her last campaign, where Clinton seemed eager to show the country that she was as tough and strong as any man.
Roberts said, “Right, because she was afraid people would think a woman was too weak to have her hand on the button or the red telephone in the night. Now she’s selling wisdom, which is a good thing in an old woman.”
Maybe it
isn’t that they are making excuses for her eventual loss. Maybe they are trying to shame Americans into voting for her.
Don’t you know that it’s sexist that you don’t like her? Don’t you know that you would feel differently if she was a man? You don’t want to come off as a bigot, do you? Hmm?
What these sycophants are unwilling to admit is that Hillary’s gender is literally the only thing she has going for her. Put her next to the legion of fresh, vibrant faces on the right and she comes off as positively ancient. And that’s less to do with her chronological age and more to do with how long she’s been in the public eye. We’ve known Hillary Clinton for nearly 25 years now. There’s no way for her to capture that thrumming sense of miraculous surprise that helped Senator Barack Obama in 2008. The fact that she would be the first female president is her only point of interest.
If people aren’t excited about that, maybe it’s not because of sexism. Maybe it’s because of the woman herself.
Posts
10 comments:
Poor ol' Hillary and her pantsuits. I've always thought that the only reason why she doesn't wear anything else but pantsuits was because she has a penis.
Despite having over 300 million citizens, this country is quickly becoming an oligarchy. Another Clinton vs. another Bush....2016.
God help us (and even the non-believer commentators on this blog).
Mike Hawk
Put her next to the legion of fresh, vibrant faces on the right and she comes off as positively ancient.
Yes, compared to a pile of fresh dog shit, yesterday's leftover lasagna does look old. I still would rather eat the leftovers.
'It's sexism!' said the extremely sexist screed.
Oh irony, thy sting is lost on the tea-baggery.
Clinton vs. Bush? I seriously doubt that we'll see Jeb as the nominee. I realize that Republican options are both few and poor, but the public isn't going to elect another Bush.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but most of the "scandals" associated with her are Right Wing exaggerations (Vince Foster, Travelgate, Benghazi.) I'm pretty sure the Republican Slime Machine will do its best to render her unelectable. Their unprecedented attacks on Barack Obama were just a warmup.
There's still plenty of time for a better candidate to turn up among the Democrats. As far as the Republicans go, choices are only likely to get worse.
Aw c'mon Mike, you're just worried that if she did take off those pant suits her dick is bigger than yours. Jealous much? LMAO
No fan of HRC, but of course rightwing think tanks will frame one of the narratives this way.
I would much prefer to see some other candidates run from the D Branch of the UniParty, but stating that you'll be viewed as sexist if you don't support HRC is, uh, in and of itself, a sexist statement.
Once again, it's not really framing arguments for/against HRC's politics, positions or any real issues. Typical rightwing empty rhetoric and bs.
While I think HRC is too much of a corporatist ( I'm putting my support behind Bernie Sanders in the primaries ) this RWF is clearly aimed at partisan conservatives who dislike her no matter what. No research on the issues, just ad-hominem attacks over juvenile reasons.
If RW-ers kenw HRC's views on foreign policy and economics are basically the status quo of the last 15 years, they'd STFU and hope she does get in and not be torpedoed by reactionary teabaggers running on just social/racial issues.
Hillary Clinton is a Goldwater Republican NeoCon. Clinton is a smart Sarah Palin, but because she's smart, the misogynistic "mens movement" types are afraid of her and so, hate her.
Pretty stupid bc if Clinton is chosen by the 1% to "win" the election, then she'll pretty much do the same thing that any supposedly conservative douchebag Republican male would do.
The rightwing noise machine uses Clinton to fake-out dumb conservatives and naïve "liberals" into believing there's some kind of difference between the 2 branches of Duopoly.
There's really not. I would just say that, from where I sit, Obama actually seems a bit lower on the scale of War Hawkish NeoCon demeanor than Hillary Clinton, who never met a War she didn't love and wasn't willing to spend your (not hers) tax dollars on. Really Clinton should be the wet dream of all dipshit Republicans but they hate strong independent smart women, so that's that.
Hooray,
As Gruaud pointed out in a previous reply to my comment that basically echoed what you said about the differences in 2 branches of the duopoly:
One is a bunch of moderately conservative, triangulating chickenshits who occasionally do really good and a lot of times fail and many times sell out. They're politicians for fuck's sake. But the party also has a tiny minority that I agree with and who fight for us, not the billionaires.
The other bunch is radically extremist, John Birch society influenced, in thrall to the billionaires, racist, homophobic, mysogynistic, anti-democratic process, batshit fucking paranoid insane.
He makes a good point and I agree with it on the surface however I maintain both parties are each controlled by their own brand of the 1%. It just a matter of who's ox is getting gored. The other 99% are fucked either way for the most part. Legislatively there is a philosophical difference and yeah there is a minority that have good intentions but beyond that...meh.
*whose
Post a Comment