Thursday, June 5

:: The Massive Tool(s) Report

Oh my god. These people are such massive tools.
First: the geniuses at Slate's "XX blog" - who have been bashing Hillary for months on end with every anti-feminist talking point to come out of the Obama campaign, but still call themselves feminists - are doing a live-interactive-web thingy at the ever-repellent (sorry, Buffy) Washington Post. I'll cut to the chase - check out this exchange, with a few formatting changes added because I can't help myself:
Edwardsville, Illinois:

I'm a big fan of Meghan O'Rourke's writing, but when she wrote that "Clinton's relationship to gender seemed at turns angry and deeply ambivalent" in contrast to Obama's relationship to race, I had to laugh.

Meghan, have you read "Dreams of My Father" or "Audacity of Hope"? If so, do you really believe that Obama's relationship to race is anything but "angry and deeply ambivalent?" I think the whole controversy with Rev. Wright arose from just that anger and ambivalence, and my Senator's quest to reconcile himself with race.

I also don't think his anger and ambivalence (or hers) ought to be counted as a negative. Shouldn't we all be angry about the role of race and gender in our society, still, after all this time? Aren't women all amibivalent about the impact our gender does or should have on our life choices? What do you think?

Meghan O'Rourke:

That's a really good point, and my only excuse is that I was writing overnight on deadline!

What I was trying to say, more precisely, was that in her demeanor on the campaign trail, Hillary (to my eyes) didn't manage to seem as open and humble about her situation as Obama did.

Obama is deeply ambivalent in those books: you're totally right. But on the stump he seemed willing to admit how hard it was for him -- and to have chosen to let people see how hard it was for him. So there's an ambivalence there, yes, but he managed to project a somewhat unified front ABOUT that ambivalence.

Whereas I felt Hillary switched back and forth more. Part of what I was getting at, or wanted to, IS that women do feel ambivalent and angry. And I nderstand Hillary's ambivalence and anger -- I really do. And I feel I've acted the way she has, writ small, in situations where I've felt chagrined that men seem to be given more authority by default.

But I do think it's the real challenge for women: how to care deeply about women's rights and equality while not becoming embittered.

And let's face the unfair, bitter truth: I, like many women, probably hold Hillary to a higher standard than I would many men. I wish that weren't the case, and I strive against it. But I'm sure I'm complicit in the double standard.
Like I said - what a tool.

Our next entry comes from yesterday's New York Times "Caucus" blog. Its the very patronizing item "For Clinton's Women Fans, Mourning and Anger." Here's your sign:
For many of these women, it was not just a matter of politics, but of identity. Older, more affluent, and often business-minded, Mrs. Clinton’s live audience last night resembled a more mature version of the cast of “Sex and the City.” Still, while they may be wearing Donna Karan and look as if life has treated them well, many said her struggle to gain the nomination -– and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way – mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world.

I can't muster anything more articulate; these fools have plumb worn me out. Please, someone else do it.


onelightonvoice said...

I know that this is all posturing for Clinton's VP hopes, but I wish Clinton surrogates would stop with the dishonest talking points. It really is time to move on.

The ONLY way Clinton can claim a popular vote victory is to 1) count the Soviet-style Michigan election results, 2) give Obama zero votes in the state, and 3) ignore the caucus states.

It was a close count, no doubt. Of course, if popular vote was the measure of victory, Obama would've run a different race. For one, he wouldn't have gone into "general election mode" a month ago, leaving votes on the table in the last few contests. But it wasn't, and Obama's team executed and won by every measure.

So can they please stop it?

onelightonvoice said...

oops, there goes the vp spot (as if she had any chance anyway):

onelightonvoice said...

Senator Clinton's speech last night was a justifiably proud recitation of her accomplishments over the course of this campaign, but it did not end right. She didn't do what she should have done. As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been.

I am so disappointed that she lost. As a long time Hillary Clinton supporter and more importantly, an admirer, I am sad that this historic effort has ended with such a narrow loss for her. The issues she raised and the people she touched have not been affected this way by any recent presidential candidate. And we were counting on her victory to change so much in this country. There will be the appropriate "if onlys" for a long time to come. If only the staff shakeup happened earlier; if only the effort in the caucus states had more resources; if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic female, connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign. If only. If only. I have written many times on this site about the talents of Hillary Clinton and why I thought she'd make a great President.

After last night's final primary, she was only about pledged 100 delegates behind him. Ironic that after not wanting to make the decision for so long, it was in fact, the superdelegates who made the decision. But I guess they did so for another reason. It just isn't her time. It is his time. It's a new day that offers a freshness to our party that many have longed for. We felt the rush of new voices and a new energy in the Congressional sweep of 2006 and the sweep continues. It has been an organic shift.

The life's work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in partnering with so many African Americans uniting our purpose and promoting our mutual issues is as responsible for Barack Obama's success as our first African American nominee as anyone. And yet, that joy is being denied for them by themselves. It is so sad.

So, I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her "Al Gore moment." And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters.

But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

Nina Miller said...

Okay, onelight, are you one of Obama's 400 paid bloggers, and if so, are you getting paid by the word? Because you are posting the same (identical) messages all over town. You have posted that "so disappointed email three times already.

I don't know why a regular person would surf around various political websites leaving the exact same comments willy nilly. You're clearly not reading the posts - you're not doing that over at, either.

Or maybe you're a young Republican. That sounds more likely, now that I think of it.

Either way, you're clearly on some kind of deluded mission to spread a set of stock comments, at least one of which reads as if it was written by a consultant.

Such silliness. Try to get a grip on yourself, for pete's sake.

RS said...

That "I am a Democrat, not a bargaining chip" post - pasted on and I think twice here, is actually Hilary Rosen's HuffPo post.

I seriously doubt Rosen's been cutting-and-pasting (hey, if she was, you are famous ;-) ) - but this is more likely some idiot who has not learnt to properly attribute pilfered ad-verbatim copy.

As for the rest of your posts - "Obama's 400 paid bloggers" - proof? Etc. Some very disturbing posts here - maybe I will write more later. Just a couple points:

I am not sure you have proved that the "rampant misogynism and sexism in the Democratic campaign" is actually towards all women and channeled at Senator Clinton, or more of anti-Clintonism. Seen any "Condi nut-cracker" or "Napolitano's a bitch" signs? I am not saying sexism is completely absent - I have told you I don't have a background in gender studies - but I am not convinced anti-Clintonism is not a big factor either.

As for Senator Clinton refuting the viral e-mail rumors spread about Senator Obama: "He's not a Muslim... as far as I know." [Or words to that effect.]
Yes, a very effective rebuttal.
[Yes, that was sarcasm.]