The Eclectic One

…Because labels are a poor substitute for thinking

Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and sexism

Posted by Bill Nance on August 31, 2008

I’m a Hillary fan. Let me rephrase that; I’m a HUGE hillary fan.

It’s not because of what she has between her legs, it’s not because I’m a rabid “liberal” (I don’t subscribe to labels in general and certainly not THAT one.)

I’m a fan of Hillary because the lady is my kind of policy geek. She’s smart as a whip and she’s not afraid to let people know it. She has a better grasp of policy issues than almost any politician I can think of (probably better than Bill). She’s tenacious, she’s tough, and she genuinely gives a shit, which is more than I can say for most pols.

I voted for her in the primary, I talked to everyone I know about her and was able to get some people to actually change their votes. I was very disappointed when she lost.

Some people are actually claiming they supported Hillary and are so angry that they are going to vote for John McCain. I’m really having a hard time believing this. I’m of the opinion that a whole lot of this PUMA thing is a Nixonian COINTELPRO operation. Let’s see…Hillary…McCain…

Hillary: Pro Choice.

John McCain: Anti-Choice

Hillary: Pro-Iraq withdrawal

John McCain: Wants to stay there indefinitely

Hillary: Pro Stem-Cell Research

John McCain: He doesn’t just want to ban federal funding, he wants to ban ALL  Stem-Cell Research

Hillary: Green-collar jobs

John McCain: More money for big oil

Hillary: Universal Healthcare

John McCain: According to his Chief economic advisor, there IS NO healthcare problem.

I could just go on an on here. On every significant issue, McCain is the polar opposite of Hillary. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Hillary:

“I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family and fighting for women’s rights here at home and around the world . . . to see another Republican in the White House squander our promise of a country that really fulfills the hopes of our people. And you haven’t worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership.”

Now lets get to sexism.

I’m a feminist. I’m a PROUD feminist. I have a 21 year-old daughter whom I taught to take crap from no one, nor to look for some man to take care of her. I LIKE strong women. I RESPECT strong women, and I don’t have much time for shrinking violets trying to hide behind petticoats in 2008. The Hillary haters who tried to claim she was where she was because of her husband PISSED ME OFF. I thought the press treated her badly.

But part of being a feminist and a rationalist means looking at the truth. And the truth is, she ran a shit-tastic campaign. I hated to watch it. I sent money, I sent emails, and it never improved. I’m no great political strategist, but it doesn’t take one to see that her campaign had no plan for how to deal with Obama and they never really got one. That’s what really killed the campaign for Hillary and it was a crying shame. The rest was icing on the cake. The wound was, I’m very sad to say, self-inflicted. One of the well-known Clinton faults is hubris. That’s what killed Hillary’s bid, and I was as disappointed as anyone when it was clear she’d lost.

But Sexism? Ya, let’s talk about sexism shall we?

Sexism is when you vote for someone because of what’s in (or not in) their pants. THAT’s sexism. It’s not OK when some jerk won’t pay my daughter the same as a man, and it’s not OK when a woman doesn’t hire to my nephew because he’s a male.

John McCain? Oh, my, where do we start? (laughing)

How about the trophy wife? Hmm? How about ditching his first wife because she had a disfiguring accident? How about… oh yes, how about Sarah can’t pronounce NUCLEAR Palin?

He’s getting nailed by Obama after the DNC, his poll numbers are down, he needs a woman on the ticket! I’m pretty sure the process went something like this:

McCain’s brain: “Yes, that’s it! A woman! Those broads will never guess I was making a totally hollow political gesture! I’ll pick up all those pissed off Hillary voters! Hmm, who to pick?…Kay Bailey Hutchison?..Hmm. experienced, well-respected Senator, all the right ideological positions, will be ok with the base..Naw, she’s too smart. She’d never know who was boss in MY house. Christ, that old biddy would probably want to like…DO something!

Ok, so she’s out, who else?….Christie Todd Whitman? Hmm…solid credentials, the environmentalists will love her, could chip away at Obama’s base there. She quit the EPA in protest of Bush’s policies, so she’ll go over big with people pissed at Bush..Oh HELL no, talk about a troublemaker, she’d DEFINITELY want to do something besides preside over the senate when a tie comes down, besides she’s pro-choice. She might actually have an opinion on something! Never work.

Shit I’m running out of options. I better come up with someone fast or I’m toast…Palin! Ya, that hot babe I met once and talked to for a few minutes last week. That’s IT! Holy Christ the religious wackos will love her, she’s a freakin pentecostal holy-roller. She’s got 5 young children, she’s got about 2 minutes of state-wide experience, so she’ll be too busy and too stupid to get underfoot, the guys will love her, she’s a babe, I hear she even won a beauty pageant! I’ll just have her say some nice things about Hillary once in a while and We’ll get ALL those broads on my side! HELL YES! I’m a friggin GENIUS!”

Yep, God knows John McCain isn’t a sexist, all you PUMA folks should vote for him…really, I mean it..


11 Responses to “Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and sexism”

  1. […] Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)One Short Thought on McCain’s VP pickMcCain’s Harriet MiersMcCain Makes a Girl His VP!Slate: The Road Ahead for Obama […]

  2. nv1962 said

    I’m sure that you’re really (no, really) a HUGE fan of Hillary Clinton, and that you’re not a Nixonian COINTELPRO agent. Now, explain again to this Puma why I should give a rat’s rear end about “policies” (no matter how smartly powerpointed) when, oh say: His Oneness has campaigned feverishly against mandatory universal health care (happens to be a big red button issue), turned around from his ardent attacks of FISA to… Oh, you already knew that one. Well, I could go on for a bit, but I suppose you get my drift: the plank of the presumptive “Democrat” has about all the attractiveness about him as last year’s emergency can of Rice-A-Roni.

    Now, about something more serious. Like, a candidate who received less votes, with the biggest DISproportional boost in delegates coming from victories in small red-state caucuses (you know, those gregarious cozy events where the average participant is about as representative for the community as a can of Rice-A-Roni, and voter participation typically is at LEAST 5% – check out the polling data in Texas where curiously they had caucuses AND primaries on the same day, yet with HIGHER participation in primaries Clinton won, and with MUCH LESS participation in the subsequent dreadful caucuses by a skewed “electorate”, that other guy “won”), with FIVE states who illegally advanced their calendar, yet curiously only the results of TWO of them were barred. Curiouser yet, and totally coincidentally of course, those two were the same where Clinton was polling WAY ahead. No, nothing to see here: no Rules & Bylaws Committees shenanigans, no widespread voter dilution and caucus fraud (ask me about Nevada, if you dare – I witnessed those), no hysterical accusations of “racism” while being conveniently silent about rampant and raunchy sexism…

    Do me a favor: next time you try to think for someone, get acquainted with his/her viewpoints first. You might find out that four years of McCain is considered a small price to pay, to meanwhile destroy the Dems’ own Gang of Four, who ripped the heart out of a truly progressive campaign, to send in a clown who attempts to appear like a modern-day Reagan Democrat, but without the clothes on, without any desire or ambition to put the political center back where it belongs: right in the middle, instead of far to the right under some guiled pretense of “consensus” to those who don’t really care for the plight of dozens of millions of fellow citizens. Because the starry-eyed pups can’t even remember what a civilized, advanced and prosperous nation looks like, with universal, yet bare-bones social welfare guarantees. Nope, all that’s been “compromised” away by these “reality-based” wonders, while raping representativity. Like Nancy “9%” Pelosi, or Howard “proportional delegate” Dean.

    Simply put, Pumas want the current members of the DNC gone, and with them the gutless, spineless and contemptuous disregard for political discourse (you know, the stuff that leads to “positions” and “policy”) all in favor of pure, unadulterated desire to win, no matter what. It’s gotta be a bit worse, it has to be somewhat colder, and it’s gonna be a bit darker, just before daybreak. Enjoy John McCain until then. That so-called “Democrat” guy, he won’t do; he’s remarkably suitable for a Nixonian COINTELPRO strawman. Or was that Manchurian Candidate? Oh well.

    Daybreak for America is scheduled to arrive in 2012.

  3. nv1962 said

    I’m a hardcore Puma, so perhaps my somewhat edgy-worded comments (sharpened by an unbelievable pile of nonsense that I’ve seen) lack the more softened tone to get at least some traction for understanding. Perhaps this essay of profound disappointment by a moderate supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign gives you a better idea of why my blood gets boiling at attempts to present Obama as a somewhat “acceptable compromise” candidate. No sale for her, either, even while she’ll never consider voting for McCain.

  4. Bill Nance said

    Oh my..Well, I think I could easily counter pretty much everything you’ve said, but the poor excuse for reasoning, childish pique and disregard for the facts speak for themselves. Please show up at every campaign event where Hillary is present and try to make those arguments in person. I’m sure she’ll have a few words for you.

  5. nv1962 said

    I’m sure you think you can counter, except that you haven’t understood that it’s not about policies or positions, but the corrupt process. I don’t care if Obama turned around, ditched Biden and picked her instead, or even stepped aside to let her run. That’s the key you don’t understand.

  6. Bill Nance said

    I understand quite well. I understand you have a problem with the process. I also understand as well as you do, that these rules were in place well before the primaries even started. The issues over Florida and Michigan were settled well before the primaries started. I’m sorry you feel the system sucks, and I don’t necessarily disagree that Caucuses are a lousy way to count votes. But that’s not your actual issue, and you know it.

    Nothing you’ve said changes the fact that the system was in place well before the primaries. Hillary wasn’t raising Hell then, and neither had anyone heard of PUMA. That you didn’t boycott the primaries themselves, or that you didn’t come out and openly support McCain before the primaries in protest tells me one thing very clearly: Your claims about process are a poorly veiled cover for a temper tantrum over your candidate losing.

    I don’t have a problem if you’d just come out and say it. I think it’s a bad decision,but it’s yours to make. But your lack of honesty over your reasoning and motives is transparent to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. It’s dishonest, it’s self-defeating and it’s not helping anyone. It is, however, doing an excellent job of convincing everyone in the country that you are a lunatic. Good luck with trying to influence anything in the future.

  7. sagechick said

    Bill Nance, while I disagree with the course of action endorsed by NV1962, I can assure you that while his post was rather intemperate, his intelligence, honesty, integrity and intentions are impeccable. Having been a Clinton delegate to the state convention here, I witnessed a sham having nothing to do with a democratic process, which was particularly shocking having spent the vast majority of my life in a primary state. As far as I’m concerned, the geniuses who concocted caucuses could have only done so with ill intent. The entire idea is rife with problems and the caucus in which I participated was certainly not the process that had been advertised. It was a flawed, corrupt insult to the notion of democracy and I, for one, will not reward the DNC for rigging the outcome. My write-in vote for Hillary Clinton will be meaningless in the great scheme of things, but will mean something to me. Considering the level of corruption consistently engaged in by both parties, which earns rare criticism and is even defended, makes one wonder whether votes mean anything at all.

  8. Bill Nance said

    There is a process for reforming the system and I would encourage you to do everything you think you can to change it. When it comes to caucuses, I’d even support you. It’s a lousy way to decide anything.

    While I disagree with your stated intention, I have no qualm with it. It’s a protest vote, but it’s an honest one. I doubt Hillary would have anything negative to say to you other than to wish you’d change your mind.

    My beef is with the people saying they will support McCain. And not because I’m such an Obama fan or don’t like McCain. It’s about honesty. This isn’t a protest vote for the candidate you want, it’s a complete betrayal of principles. If you’re a McCain supporter, that’s fine. Vote for your guy. But saying you supported Hillary and now will support McCain? That’s the attitude of a five-year-old in need of a spanking, not an adult who expects to be taken seriously.

    I’ve had it up to here with intellectual dishonesty, intentional or otherwise. I call ’em like I see em, whether on the right or left, Dem. or Rep. I’m an equal opportunity pisser-offer. I’ve already blasted the Obama people for one distortion, and I’ll do so again if I run across one. NO ONE gets to lie.

    I think you are mistaken about rigging. I am especially suspect because no reputable news organization reported on it, and it would be a fairly huge story. Talk all you want about sexism, when reporters smell blood they will go in for the kill, no matter who it is. Ask Bill Clinton.

    Thanks for the polite reply. I don’t think we agree, but I see your point.

  9. fsudirectory said

    Id like to know why the PUMA PAC Leader Murphy released e-mails of people that did not support them and go as far as to threaten people and say they are Obama Private Investigators!!

  10. sagechick said

    Actually, Bill, we agree far more than you think. See, particularly my thoughts on the “Destructive spite vote”. Today’s post deals with incivility, misogyny and Sarah Palin, titled “Fresh Meat.” You probably won’t agree with my first post (novice blogger) “To celebrate or mourn, that is the question…”, but it’s my take on the situation in general and how I arrived at my current position. I’ve been around the block far too many times to engage in the visceral, counter-productive nonsense that surrounds politics, particularly during election years.

    As far as rigging the outcome goes, the caucus process is a means by which manipulate the outcome – even when it’s on the up-and-up, which it wasn’t.

    “Reputable news organization”? In all honesty, I can no longer name one – at least on this continent, which saddens and infuriates me more than I can express.

  11. loomisnews said

    I’m very exciited, and couldn’t be happier that McCain chose Palin!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: