-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/gee-now-theyre-pulling-woman-card.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
(snark)
"So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.
Why on earth should one candidate quit before the contest is finished?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, what is it that people do not understand about how this process is done? If Ms. Malcolm arguments are to be believed then why aren't Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Gavel and anyone else that started the process still in the race? Was it perhaps they didn't have the numbers, maybe they ran out of money or couldn't raise the money, or maybe they lost 31 primaries and won only 5 or 6.
My answer to Ms. Malcolm is Hillary can be praised for trying but when reality, and the math is the reality, hits you in the face and you still persist, it is flawed judgment.
The article neglects to mention how repulsive she is.
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd.
Hillary has never known hard times; she has never had to pretend that she is not hungry just so her children can eat because there is not enough food to go around. Hillary has never had to cry silently at night so her children will not hear her, because she is endanger of being evicted or her electricity is about to be turned off. Hillary has never had to diagnose her children’s illness based on seriousness because there is no way she can afford to take them to the doctors.
Women like the ones that she’s describing do not quit because they cannot quit. There is a difference between have to and want to, Hillary WANTS to keep going and Hillary does not WANT to quit. Single mothers with little or no education that are at or below the poverty level cannot quit, they have to keep going. This also goes for most middle and lower class families they cannot quit they also have to keep going. This article is disrespectful to every woman out there that is struggling, they struggle and they continue to fight because of their children and families not for themselves.
The women that Ellen Malcolm describes put their needs and wants last.
I cannot imagine Pelosi stooping to or accepting supporters to act the way Hillary's has. She would be horrified. She'd know it's whining and Pelosi has her pride in being seen as an equal by being treated equal - not getting special treatment like Hillary and her supporters expect.
These women are doing more damage to a woman's credibility as a leader when they expect Hillary to be treated with kid gloves rather than an equal.
I also get ticked when they play the 'traitor to my sex' thing. Equality means I can make my own decisions and chose who I want.
I just wrote a post about this - there is no difference in racism, sexism, or any other kind of oppression - it's the same hate pouring down from the top of a single hierarchy. We need to focus on tearing down the hierarchy, not who got hit with more hate. I want the candidate with the least sense of entitlement and some vision of something different in the way we are governed, and that is not Mrs. Clinton.
Where were all of the feminists during the 90's?. One thing for sure Hillary did not lose the nomination because she is a woman, but if somehow in their minds she lost because she is a woman, then she would dam sure lose in the General Election because as far as I know John McCain is a man and in November she would sill be a woman.
I have seen posts that actually try to make the case that Hillary deserves the Presidency because of all she has endured because of her husband's behavior. Hillary is smart enough to know what to exprect from Bill, and she has accepted that treatment because she expected to reap the benefits that his success seemed to assure. The simple fact is that the Clintons have very little to offer once you get past their smoke and mirrors. Bill's coat-tails are so short that not even Hillary can get a free ride on them.
If you're a feminist, you believe that men and women are equal and should be treated as such. Therefore, Ellen needs to take a minute, regroup and look at this OBJECTIVELY. Hillary can't win, period.
No one's holding Hillary back because she's a woman. In fact, as a white, wealthy person w/ the last name Clinton, she's the privileged one here, IMO.
I came into this presidential race excited as hell about a future female president. But Hillary has disappointed me. As much as I want a female president -- and, God, do I want one -- I'm not willing to lose an election over it.
"Women like the ones that she’s describing do not quit because they cannot quit. There is a difference between have to and want to, Hillary WANTS to keep going and Hillary does not WANT to quit"
-------------------------------------------------------
You are so right! When I first read that entire article, there were things that were offensive on many levels but I think your sentence describes it perfectly.
Because, let me tell you what is happening now. All the CEOs/heads of businesses are now saying (although not publicly), "THIS is why we don't want females running things." And they are half right. I say HALF because I have seen just as many dumb things done by males, too. But to have Hillary and her supporters act like this -- it sets back the womens' movement 50 years.
I am livid. At Hillary. At her mouthpieces, especially the females. They have undercut the womens' movement. Damn them.
EMILY'S List. A fundraising group for female candidates -- no matter which party. (I THINK the candidate must be pro-choice, but I'm not sure. I haven't known any right-wing females to belong ...)
Anyway, EMILY means "Early Money Is Like Yeast" -- meaning it grows, if fed early, or something like that.
Hillary has already WON!
She already WON! A long time ago...
All the way back when she won New Hampshire.
She has said it over and over...That she's won. And so said her husband, the former President...Of America, and stuff...You know the man? Mr. Bill...
And when the wife of the former President and the former President Mr. Bill himself says she has won...SHE WON...GODDAMN IT!
Now vote for her...
Oh yeah and could you send her some money, cuz she kinda had to loan her campaign a bunch of money before you all realized she had won...And stuff.
she has lost the nomination because she in not the best candidate.
she has lost because she is not the best person.
she lost this.
The woman who lied on many occasions
The mother who allowed McCain calling her daughter ugly and thought of him as a good leader
The wife who tolerated public humilation of her husband cheating on her for her political ambitions
Is that the kind of woman any feminist group want to support ?
We've already seen Rethug women turn on their own sex, and for EL's information, a lot of women, who, obviously, elite white women don't care about, are black or other minorities who have suffered far, far longer than their privileged asses.
I saw this attitude among some in the women's movement 40 years ago, esp. in regard to working class women of all colors and I didn't tolerate it then, and won't tolerate it now. Screw these elitists.
As a white guy, if I supported John Edwards mainly because he was a white man, some folks would frown upon that -- and they should! To me, that's no different than women blindly supporting Hillary or African-Americans blindly supporting Obama. I support Obama because I like him and his policies. His gender and skin color have nothing to do with anything to me.
This organization blindly supports Hillary basically because she has boobs. If Hillary were the exact same candidate, with the exact same issues, demeanor, personality, etc, BUT were a man, this organization would NOT be actively backing Clinton in the manner that they do -- if at all!
This makes me think back to how some women said Oprah was a 'traitor' to women when she "chose race over gender" in their eyes. That just goes to show you how narrow-minded some people are. To assume that someone as smart as Oprah doesn't have the capacity to genuinely choose and support a candidate in the same way that I do is not only a bunch of nonsense, but it's completely unfair to assume.
- Then, Obama is hurting his own candidacy by stating that there are 57 or 58 states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
Success means a lot more than sitting in some boardroom, being elected to some high political office, or getting degree after degree. For someone who has achieved all this to dismiss other women who never even got a chance at the opportunities she's had, is patently offensive to the nth degree.
Ms. Malcolm may think that Ms. Clinton is being kicked when she's down, but she did ever consider that some women have never even gotten the chance to even stand up? These "competitive" types she writes about had better start learning that you don't always get what you want. Most of us ordinary women out here already know this.
This election isn't about feminism, it is about change and I did not sense a huge rallying of women for Hillary across party lines. On the other hand I did sense at a rally in Greensburg, Pa the same exhilaration I felt when i heard JFK speak. Emily's List smacks of elitism and one of the things that bothered me about this campaign was Hillary's attempt to be the common man even while exuding the superiority and entitlement most of us resent and distrust. To me she comes across as selfish. She isn't running for us, she is running for herself. Bill is running with her for Bill and his attempt to be back in the limelight. That same elitism worked in getting Chelsea a $900,000 a year job with a friend and advisors hedge fund, that is something the rest of us can't achieve but resent because it is all about being inside. Inside the beltway the politicians of both parties play the game, suck up for votes every few years and in between live like royalty and believe we the electorate hang on every word. We don't we expect more but seldom get it. No Hillary, we want more than what you want, we want change and maybe Senator Obama will in the end disappoint us, but don't confuse feminism with us being tired of the same old, same old because we have heard that tune for the past 16 years.
The Times’s tally shows Mr. Obama with 266 superdelegates against 263 for Mrs. Clinton, based on telephone polls conducted with CBS News as well as public endorsements. A separate count by The Associated Press shows Mr. Obama running even with Mrs. Clinton. And a measure by ABC News showed the Illinois senator ahead as of this morning.
Obviously, it's a closed little society in itself that doesn't bother with us lower income types, although plenty of men of their class support them.
Why they still claim that Clinton is attracting working class women is beyond me. Maybe a few white working class women who think "success" is measured in getting to the "top" but not the majority of us who will never see it, and frankly, might not want it, if it involves turning on your own.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109...
Stick it to the taxpayer/consumer, shall we? Another reason for me to drop any relationship to banks...
Do we have any hope that WV will bring it a little closer and shut her down? Some of the numbers I hear, this will be a huge loss. Can we keep her to under 20 pt? Or has she marginalized the state she's always expected to win with her race-baiting ugliness?
At least Obama has vision for this country to change; what does Clinton have but blind ambition for power with the strategy of destroying large segments of the Democratic Party?
Bill Clinton said Hillary's opponents are attacking a girl, he also mentioned Jesse Jackson, among other things.
Hillary became the White candidate yesterday, in her disgusting remarks, and her campaign was responsible for
putting out that picture of Obama in African tribal gear.
The Clintons really are experts at this game. It looks like Emily's List is rather selective in what they see, and choose to
support the candidate that experts say, mathematically CANNOT win, had run a lousy campaign, had the biggest lead at
the beginning of this campaign, thrown the dirty kitchen sink at her fellow Democrat, said and done disgusting things, that
should make any woman embarrassed, unless of course, they like thuggish, gutter politics. It is time Hillary's supporters got
out of their denial, accepted the fact that Obama is ahead, fair and square, and do the best for the party.
Hillary should accept that this is NOT her time, and that a woman is not going to be President in 2008.
Do the right thing, Hillary. Put your ambitions aside for the party.
Enough of that shit. This is the 21st century--we need a president who practices inclusion...and that is Obama.
What Hillary and now Emily are doing is damaging any chance of a woman becoming the nominee in the future. Who will forget that it became more about entitlement and gender than getting a Democrat in office.
This makes women look like sore losers who will take everyone else, including the winner, down with them.
If Obama's opponent were a man he would have already dropped out. But Hillary is a woman and she is entitled damn it
How very sad that she is now the biggest joke in Washington. And unfortunately she's ripping the Democratic party to shreds.
https://emilyslist.org/support/candidates/?trac...
link
Not the superdelegates or pledged delegates, but those who will refuse to vote for a black man in November should decide.
Sen. Hillary Clinton didn't use those words in an interview with USA Today, but she came close.
I'm sure there are SOME people who don't vote Hillary because of her gender, just like I'm sure there are some people who don't vote Obama because of race, and I'm sure some people don't for candidates because they're unattractive, or remind them of someone they don't like, or wear ugly shoes or any number of inconsequential reasons. One drawback of our presumed free society is that the voters don't have to be educated in order to vote, and can even vote for reasons that have nothing to do with a candidate's qualifications. Politicians have been using that ignorance to their advantage all along.
What this dunderhead from EMILY'S list (and oh must they be proud) fails to realize is that, when women are treated as equals, that means that we can still think they're less qualified for a job. We can still not like it when they say stupid things, or have representatives say stupid things on their behalf, especially if they don't then correct that stupidity. We can find them abrasive, unlikable, foolish. And if they stand in the way of progress, we can tell 'em to get the hell out of the way.
And it's not because they're women.
Hillary's campaign has become loathsome, mean, divisive, irrational, and we the people have the right to reject her message, because her message sucks, and it has nothing to do with what she's packing in her pant suit.
This election is far too important to tear the party in twain by the supporters of each candidate bickering. And it's WAY too important for that bickering to be based on perceived biases and not the hard cold facts of how each candidate is faring and will fare. Republicans read tripe like Ellen's and high-five each other because we're at each others' throats and not after McCain. They read Ellen's "feminist" message and say "Heh, good girl." Ellen, you're doing the GOP's dirty work. You're being used, and you don't even know it. Ain't that just like a woman,
The problem for Clinton is that this is another case in which her math does not add up. Yes, every voter the Democrats can get their hands on is critical. But all this talk about Obama not connecting with salt of the earth white folks cynically forgets that white leaders in the Democratic Party have not solved this problem since Jimmy Carter's 48 percent of the white vote in 1976, yet want to make Obama the poster child for it despite his multi-racial crowds and record turnouts of voters. In the late throes of her insurgency, to borrow from Dick Cheney, Clinton is playing "divide and doubt" about Obama getting "only" 37 percent of the white vote in North Carolina and Pennsylvania and 40 percent in Indiana.
But in a year in which Republican enthusiasm is in doubt with a bad war and a bummer economy, it must be remembered that Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 in three-way races with a grand total of 39 percent of the white vote and 83 percent of the black vote and 61 percent of the Hispanic vote and besting the first President Bush and Ross Perot among all age groups.
Boston Globe, again
Hillary has not been racist, she's been racial. Saying that she can't win a southern primary because 50% are black is not racist -- it's racial (and factually true, btw). Piling on with the Wright attacks is neither racist nor racial, it's dirty politics. Siding with the republicans on that issue is analagous to John randomly bringing up Whitewater yesterday. Saying she is the candidate for the whtie working class is unnecessarily racial but not racist, since she never said whites are better than blacks. Jeremiah Wright points out this difference whenever people say he is a racist.
This matters because of something called affirmativce action. To systematically choose the black candidate between equals (which contributes to Obama's 90% support from black and egghead voters) is not a bad thing, given that blacks have never had proportional or high-level political represenation. Affirmative action is not racist, it's racial, and I for one am okay with it. I just don't think you need to keep articulating it in every circumstance.
Obama has been neither racist NOR racial (unless responding to attacks, as in the Philadelphia Wright speech). That is one way of several ways in which he is a better candidate.
seems to have wanted a winner declared before the voting even started.
I'm gad to see this lay out as long as it has. Last I heard, ;etting
everyone have a say was the whole point- or are you against letting
people vote?
As far as I know anyone is allowed to run for President as much as they
want. Or are you against free speech?
Adam Sperry
--
Adam D. Sperry, C.A.S.
N. Hollywood, CA, USA
818 982 8105
It make take a village, but it only takes one very rich, self-obsessed white woman to burn it all down.
Hillary has been using Rovian tactics against Obama, who was not my first choice (because I love him as my Senator and because I would like to see him get a little more experience in Washington before taking the national stage) and her desperation has left a worse and worse taste in my mouth as this campaign drags on. I can't support someone who indicates that they intend to keep playing politics the way we've been going no matter what kind of equipment they rock under their suits, and that is why I voted for Obama in the primary. He has shown restraint and class throughout this process, but has not been afraid to call it like he sees it. I wish he had chosen to do that with Rev. Wright - not because I see a hero in that preacher, but because Obama needs to demonstrate that he will remain true to his prinicples and not to the advice of his political consultants.
Anyway, this Emily's list lady has it all wrong for me. If she wants to play that card, fine, but it's not flying with me here in middle America. Hillary chose to play this race like a Republican and that is why I will not vote for her, no matter what.
I find Obama inspiring, refreshing and genuine -- someone who can be an agent for badly needed change. Hillary, not so much.
She's telling us that she's still fighting because women didn't stop fighting for equal rights. Is she going to compare herself to Rosa Parks next? Bottom line: she's fighting for herself. And she's fighting dirty. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Kate Millet weren't fighting for their chance to be powerful and "obliterate" certain countries, they were fighting for noble causes, for equality, for freedom. Nothing Clinton has done convinces me that she's doing the same.
Anyway, if you're interested, here's the post: http://www.moblogic.tv/blog/2008/05/13/domestic...
And here's the show: http://www.moblogic.tv/video/2008/05/13/get-the...
What Ellen Malcolm writes isn't "kind of" offensive, it is profoundly offensive, and "borderline" does not describe the absolute sexism.
But you have the "seriously f'd up" part just right.