Resonance

This particular paragraph of Hilary Rosen’s post on continuing to support Clinton hit home for me, and more than explains why I still am supporting Hillary. The emphasis added is mine…

But Hillary’s campaign is still going for every woman who has spoken up in a meeting and was greeted with silence only to have a man say the same thing and be praised. It endures for the mothers who are taking care of their children and their parents and their home and has no time to take care of herself. It endures for women who are so scared to see her fail because of what it may say about their chances in life. And yes folks, it resonates for all the women who have seen the younger guy come along and get the promotion even though she has worked in the company loyally for years.

I can more than identify.

Continue ReadingResonance

Wil Wheaton on Hillary Clinton

One lovely thing that has come out of all the election crap — I’ve pruned a lot of dead wood out of my blog roll. Several supposedly progressive blogs just couldn’t keep their sexist assholishness hidden over the last six months with a female candidate in the race, and have gotten the heave ho – the latest being Wil Wheaton. Sorry, Wil, but you don’t get to tell me what’s a strawman argument.

It’s a shame all these jackhole guys are tarnishing their chosen candidate with their behavior. I was going to be happy to vote for Obama, but now all I can think about is guys comparing Clinton to Fatal Attraction. I don’t think they understand who the villain in that movie actually was, and who was the victim.

But it’s nice – much more time to read books instead.

Continue ReadingWil Wheaton on Hillary Clinton

Video Debunk: Kantor video about “Indiana” is faked

There’s a video clip circulated by notorious nutjob Michelle Malkin making the rounds; it’s of Democratic advisor Mickey Kantor, who is currently advising on the Clinton campaign.

The scene is an edited clip from the 1993 movie “The War Room” about the 1992 Bill Clinton campaign. The movie followed Kantor, Stephanapoulos and Carville as they worked to get Clinton elected. In the clip, Kantor is discussing a memo of poll numbers put out by the Republican party, where the numbers had been faked one explanation says faked, other say talking about Ross Perot’s poll numbers. In it, Kantor appears to be saying about the Republicans putting out fake data “These people are shit. How would you like to be {inaudible}?”

The circulating video clip from the movie has been edited to make it sound as though Kantor was talking about the people of Indiana, who’s poll numbers he mentions right before he makes the derogatory remarks. The filmmaker says the inaudible section was dubbed or manipulated to say “a worthless white n**ger?” In the original movie, this section is not clear, according to the Huffington Post.

It also leaves out the origin – suggesting that the video is recent and from the current Clinton campaign, not from 1992.

UPDATE: According to the filmmaker, the sound was edited from the original, and everyone in the room including the filmmaker agrees that he never used the N-word. Other people claim they hear it even on the original DVD. Until I hear the DVD for myself, I can’t tell. I doesn’t sound like this on other clips posted on YouTube.

The edited version appears on YouTube with comments and ratings turned off, and is being circulated around Indiana now. You can see it here:

I saw part of the movie back in 1993, but I didn’t remember this scene; just lots of video of Carville and Stephanapoulos with their heads together, so I recognized what I was seeing pretty quickly as being from the 1992 clinton campaign.

If Kantor had actually said this about Indiana, it wouldn’t just be coming out now. It’s getting dugg and heavily circulated, so I’m blogging about it in hopes that people watch the actual movie and see what it’s saying before leaping to conclusions about it.

Also — the fact that Malkin is pushing it obscures where it’s coming from, but I can’t see something this hacked up coming from Obama’s campaign. Smells like McCain to me.

NOTE: The reason I’m blaming Malkin for this one is because the story about it first “broken” on her blog and on the Drudge Report, with other discussion following pretty widely after that in the blogosphere. But she’s definitely one of the primary voices pushing this out there. That’s also the reason I think McCain is behind it rather than Obama.

Also, I got a couple of nasty right-wing comments on the post defending Malkin, which I deleted, per my comment policy. Comments are closed due to conservative dickishness.

Continue ReadingVideo Debunk: Kantor video about “Indiana” is faked

Press attempting to push Hillary out of the Race

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters for America has some interesting points comparing Hillary’s ongoing campaign to past presidential races:

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there’s simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

…And the fact is, the media’s get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party’s nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

“Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history,” wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. “When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she’s constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party.”

…No longer content to be observers of the campaign, journalists now see themselves as active players in the unfolding drama, and they show no hesitation trying to dictate the basics of the contest, like who should run and who should quit. It’s as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses.

Shakespear’s Sister refers to this sexist phenomenon as the “take your boobs and go home” media push.

Continue ReadingPress attempting to push Hillary out of the Race

Credibility

My post below about Butler student Evan Strange who asked Chelsea Clinton an inappropriate question spawned an interesting response. I received several emails from Butler student Lauren Laski defending her fellow student. I’m not going to go into detail of what they said, other than that Lauren really needs to take a logic course while she’s there at Butler. But I want to talk about this a little more, because I still think Evan’s a moron, but apparently I need to spell out why for some.

Let’s look at the question Evan actually asked: He asked Chelsea to give her opinion “on the criticism of her mother that how she handled [Bill’s affair] might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president.”

First, where the hell is this “criticism” coming from? Evan asked the question like everyone has heard this, and it’s a statement of the obvious, and that it’s a question in the minds of most Americans — but it really isn’t. There are a tiny handful of people out there making this criticism – but it’s not average Americans, it’s people like drug-addled Rush Limbaugh, who also thinks Clinton shot Vincent Foster and faked the moon landing herself. The criticism doesn’t have any legitimate basis; it’s a smear campaign like all the others coming from the same right-wing conspiracy nuts. Given that, the question really didn’t need to be asked.

But let’s even suppose there’s actual merit to the question. is Clinton’s “credibility” today affected by the decision she made ten years about how to handle her marital difficulties?

Of course not. The answer to that is so obvious that again, the question really need not be asked. Hillary’s choice about how to handle “Bill’s affair” was a choice that over 100 million Americans have had to face. What do you do when you have a serious problem in your marriage; is it better for your family to stick it out, or to get a divorce with the help of family law claims attorney? There’s no right or wrong answer to that question, as anyone who’s been through it can tell you.You can also contact attorneys from law firm for divorce charges as they can help you legally in dealing with the matters related to relationships. You have to pick what you think would be best for your family and even your community, and hope and pray that the decision you’ve made is the best one. You can also contact experienced divorce attorneys serving in Crossville to give you legal counseling and take the best decision for your future. And you may not know whether it was for decades.

But no matter which option you pick – there’s not a moral failing in making it. Suggesting that Hillary’s credibility is in question over the choice she made to stay married is also calling into question the credibility of 100 million other Americans who’ve had marital difficulties and had to make that choice. That’s a pretty audacious thing for a 20-year-old unmarried college student to do. If Evan has anyone around him who’s been divorced, they should be bitch-slapping him right about now.

I believe that the above answer to Evan’s “question” is obvious to 99% of America. Most people understand exactly what Hillary went through when her marriage got such a public and painful challenge, and most people would have the common sense not to judge her for how she handled it. Most people would never ask such a question in the first place.

Now let’s go back to Evan’s claim that he’s a Hillary supporter and was trying to help her out. I don’t have any evidence as to his real motivation, but his body language and tone belie what he’s saying. Anyone with common sense would understand that asking this question does nothing to help the Clinton campaign – perhaps Evan is genuinely lacking in that common sense, but I don’t think so.

It’s my opinion that Evan wanted to be on national television, that he didn’t mind causing Clinton some bad news cycles, that he was savvy enough to know that Monica’s name uttered in a room with Chelsea Clinton would be explosive, and that he was willing to make himself and the state of Indiana look dumb to ask the question.

Lauren claimed that Evan didn’t intend for his question to make the news. That’s a bit of a stretch, considering that he had interviews with 12 different media outlets; appearing on Fox News and the Today Show, among others. If he was sincere about his question to Chelsea and his motivation in asking it, when the media came calling he would have said “no comment.”

Continue ReadingCredibility

Butler student insults Chelsea Clinton

Leave it to an idiot Hoosier to embarrass the state of Indiana now that we’re in the national spotlight. I’m sure it’s the first of many bonehead moves Hoosiers will make when they see television cameras. From the Chicago Tribune:

INDIANAPOLIS – The college student who got a stinging brushback from Chelsea Clinton when he asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal said Wednesday he’s a Clinton supporter who was trying to get her to show “what makes Hillary so strong.”

Evan Strange, a Butler University student who works on the school’s newspaper, The Butler Collegian, said he had asked Chelsea Clinton her opinion “on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the… scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president.”

Strange’s question at Chelsea Clinton’s appearance Tuesday at the school brought a stinging rebuke from Clinton’s daughter. “Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business,” Chelsea Clinton said during the campaign visit for her mother.

Evan, you’re a dumbass. And you’ve made us all look like dumbasses. Thanks, idiot. If you want to know what Evan looks like so you can, perhaps, throw a mudball at his head if you see him in the street, here’s a video of the moron trying to explain is his idiot question.

Continue ReadingButler student insults Chelsea Clinton

WTF? ABC News is full of shit

via Shakevillethis lovely gem appeared on ABC news yesterday.

What the hell is this about? Do they actually think that WE think this is news? Do they think anyone seeing this wouldn’t recognize it for the sexist, misogynist smear job that it is? I was sorta halfway still on the fence between Obama and Clinton, given how close they are on issues, but I’m not anymore. I’m going to vote for Clinton because the media is fucked up. Not a rational reason I know, but I don’t give a shit.

The economy is in the toilet, it’s the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion and other countries are refusing to convert American money for travelers because the dollar is so weak. THIS is what ABC has to say? Unbelieveable.

This is NOT news

Continue ReadingWTF? ABC News is full of shit

Election 2008 and Hillary Clinton

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

A while back I posted about my belief that the media was illustrating a sexist bias against Hillary Clinton in their coverage of election 2008. Erinposte actually collects and documents numerous examples of it here in s fascinating catalog of anti-female hate.

And pop matters has a great list of helpful hints for Hillary, compiled from various media reactions to her campaign.

It’s a great list because it applies not just to Hillary, but to all women out in the workforce today.

It’s okay to appear ambitious. Ambitiousness shows that you’re confident and secure—a leader.

Don’t appear too ambitious; it freaks men out and offends less accomplished women.

Don’t cry, or it will expose you as too weak to lead our fine nation. And, remember, if you cry, then Jesse Jackson, Jr. will accuse you of crying out of self-pity, rather than for Hurricane Katrina victims.

Do cry, because you don’t want to appear unfeeling and robotic; crying humanizes you! And even if you simply well up a bit, they’ll call it crying, anyway, so you may as well let the waterworks flow.

For God’s sake, don’t laugh. Your laugh is a crazy cackle, and whenever you let loose, you’ll be accused of deflecting attention away from an issue you don’t want to confront.

Do laugh, or else people will think you have no sense of humor, and the last president to lack a sense of humor was Nixon—you certainly don’t need that comparison.

Don’t allow fine lines to appear on your face, or Rush Limbaugh, that paragon of GQ handsomeness, will question whether the nation is ready to witness a woman age in office.

Do age naturally, because if you go for cosmetic surgery or even Botox, it will reinforce the perception among some voters that you are not genuine.

Flash some cleavage to remind us you’re a woman.

Cover it up because it’s unseemly for a woman “of a certain age” to dress like a slut.

Wear pantsuits because they make you look both fashionable and authoritative.

Don’t wear pantsuits, because Anna Wintour says not to, and you don’t want to mess with the devil.

Use Bill Clinton to campaign on your behalf because he’s the best there is (or at least he used to be) and people still like the two-for-one deal.

Don’t use Bill Clinton because you ought to run on your own record and, besides, he’s really annoying the crap out of a lot of party leaders.

Refer to yourself as ‘Hillary’ because it makes you seem accessible.

No, refer to yourself as Senator Clinton because it reminds people of your experience.

No, call yourself Hillary Rodham Clinton to show show you maintain an identity separate from your husband’s.

No, call yourself Hillary Clinton (without the Rodham) to show you are committed to your marriage despite all the whispered rumors.

Oh, hell with it, call yourself ‘Hill’. It’s a win-win-win: it makes you one of the gals and it reminds people that you work on Capitol “Hill” and it lets you avoid the whole ‘Clinton’ imbroglio.

Continue ReadingElection 2008 and Hillary Clinton

links for 2008-01-18

Continue Readinglinks for 2008-01-18