From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 2:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV --- In [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech: > "Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to > dwell on what might have been." No hint in the interview of Hillary having > sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a "stuffed suit." She > clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys > working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a > little bit better informed than yours? >
My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit has nothing to do with Hillary's private or public opinion of him. Does anyone know what anyone REALLY thinks? What Hillary thinks of Obama`s polices at any point in time depends on the issues at hand. What does it matter anyway? Whether Hillary agrees or disagrees with Obama, she clearly understands her role as SOS and the importance of supporting his policies in the interest of national security. Hillary takes her job seriously and has a strong sense of patriotic duty that impels her to her best for Obama and for our country. Once again, Rick, I don't care that Hillary lost. I care how she lost. The DNC and Obama's complicity in allowing blatant sexism to run wild in the primary will always be a sore spot for me whether it is for Hillary or not. OK, that's pretty clear, and the points in the article below are well put, and you've posted examples of indisputable sexism against Hillary but please remind me, how did Obama "complicitly allow" sexism against Hillary? Should he have regularly chastised the bloggers during the campaign? I received a lot of racist stuff during the campaign and still do. Doctored photos of the White House lawn turned into a watermelon patch, and stuff like that. Why is Hillary complicitly allowing people to distribute these things? Why did Bill belittle Obama's win in North (South?) Carolina by comparing it with Jesse Jackson's? I'm not as politically insightful or articulate as you, so it puzzles me how you can perceive Obama as an empty suit when just about everyone else except right-wingers is rather impressed with how well he's handling the huge pile on his plate. That's why I suspect that emotions skew your perception. For the Record by Melissa McEwan | Tuesday, June 03, 2008 I'm not sad because Obama's the nominee. I'm sad because there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across this nation, and-if my inbox is any indication-across the globe, women of all races and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren't even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. (I'm not talking about legitimate criticisms of her campaign, which I have made myself. I'm not saying any criticism of Clinton is de facto sexist; it isn't. I'm talking specifically and only about misogynist attacks, which are always unjustified and smear not just the woman at whom they are directed, but all women.) And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of aggressive misogyny and their long-presumed allies' casual indifference to it, and wondered what fucking planet they were on that dehumanizing eliminationist rhetoric, to which lefty bloggers used to object once upon a time, was now considered a legitimate campaign strategy, as long as it was aimed at a candidate those lefty bloggers didn't like. And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being thrown to the wolves in a fit of political expedience. And these women felt personally abandoned. By people they had considered allies. And while they struggled to understand just what was happening, while they were losing their way along well-traveled paths that no longer felt familiar or welcoming, they were admonished like children to stop taking things personally. They were sneered at for playing identity politics. They were demeaned as ridiculous, overwrought, hysterics. They were called bitches and cunts. They were bullied off blogs they'd called home for years. (But don't take that personally.) And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch. And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They're hurting because misogyny hurts all women, and because they have fewer allies than they once thought. And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don't have a "despite it all." They don't have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it. They just have the pain. And I'm sad because I see so little evidence of people who are willing to understand that.
