-0...9-
Hillary vs. the Patriarchy
By Erica Jong
Monday, February 4, 2008; 12:00 AM
In the WashingtonPost.com
"Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women," said Bill Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday, one of the many "news" outlets to expose Kristol's reliable sexism.
"The Democratic establishment would be crazy to follow an establishment that led it to defeat year after year," Kristol continued in his woolly, repetitive style. "White women are a problem, you know. We all live with that."
"Bill Kristol has been much criticized for his war mongering, arrogance, poor writing and lack of fact checking. But at least the guy is honest. He considers women a problem -- especially white women.
And he feels confident enough as an alpha male to be open about it. "I shouldn't have said that," he demurred. But he can say anything he likes and still fall eternally upward. He's a white man, lord of all he surveys -- including Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I, too, have been watching Hillary Clinton with admiration, love, hate, annoyance and empathy since she appeared on the national scene 16 years ago. (Can it be only16 years?) I've had a hard time making up my mind about her. Perhaps that's because I identify with her so strongly.
I'm hardly the only woman who sees my life mirrored in hers. She's always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her. She endured a demanding Republican father she could seldom please and a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos.
She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber.
Nothing she did was ever enough to stop her detractors. Supporting a politician husband by being a successful lawyer, raising a terrific daughter, saving her marriage when the love of her life publicly humiliated her -- these are things that would be considered enormously admirable in most politicians and public figures. But because she's a white woman, she's been pilloried for them.
She's had "........this is the end of the excerpt from the article.
read it all and vote for your sister, your advocate, and the best qualified person to be president of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------
Greenconsciousness says:
THINK ABOUT THE NEED FOR RETURN OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. The major media, all owned by Republicans with the Saudi's owning a 51% share of FOX, have been pushing Obama relentlessly and disparaging Hillary whenever they bother to speak of her. One female broadcaster even suggested that campus Obama supporters put kegs of beer near the polling site to get university students to vote for Obama. She said this on air to a student who could not have been much older than 18.
This is 24 hour a day, "all Obama" media except for CNN and C-Span. Most media is showing what amounts to commercials of Obama's speeches and endorsements, complete with soaring music, cheering crowds, over the top praise and lately even music videos. Contrast this to their coverage of Hillary. Remember, Obama is a two term senator with no specific accomplishments except the refusal to vote on controversial legislation.
I understand why blacks would want Obama even though Bill Clinton was called a racist for saying the same thing. It is stupid to deny reality but when your opponent wants to silence you they call you a racist. Of course blacks are voting for him because it seems as if he could make it. Not all blacks or even all blacks who are voting for Obama have this motive but it is a natural emotional pull for the majority to identify with your own. That is why I, and many other woman are sympathetic to Hillary.
This does not mean women will vote for Phyllis Shafley or blacks will vote for a a right wing oppressor, but if we have a decent person we can identify with, of our gender or race who relates to our sense of self in the world, as a presidential candidate for the first time in the history of the country, we will vote for them first.
There is no shame in this although the media tries to make women ashamed of gender solidarity just as they try to make acknowledgment of working class economic interests "class warfare". But white men, and the wealthy have been voting their own class, race and gender interests since voting began. It only becomes disgusting when blacks, women and the poor vote their own interests.
More suspicious however are the Obama endorsements by Republicans, Hollywood celebrities, media broadcasters and disgruntled Democrats of the far left. I believe misogyny and gender bias are at work here - the desire to be with the rock star. They are funding him heavily as is Oprah and they are the wealthy in this country.
These kinds people, even those who support Hillary are not the kind of people I want deciding policy issues. And then we have the women who self label as feminist but work for leftist groups, who have devoured the few feminist organizations left. Pro Palestinian - anti Semitic supporters of thug rule and sharia culture, they want to make peace with middle east theocrats.
For a long time you will know where a woman is at politically and emotionally by asking her who she voted for in the primaries. But it is a good thing to have the types of feminism more clearly defined. For which I thank Obama.
I am for the center, as is Hillary. I am for reality over rhetoric.
Maria Shriver's endorsement is especially suspicious. She is always used to bring the woman's vote out for her husband the sexual exploiter. I remember a foolish so called women's conference she organized which was simply to provide him with a woman's forum.
Comparing Obama to John Kennedy who was a whore with a different woman to exploit every night in the white house, off on sex trips while his wife miscarried and refusing to come home to her bedside, doing drugs in the white house, having sex with Mafia associates and who almost got us into a nuclear war -- this comparison is supposed to thrill us and just disgusts me.
The only reason Kennedy was popular is that the people never knew the reality behind the image. The media conspire with the academics to support the big lie. The Kennedy money has kept this lie of Kennedy sainthood going for too many years and now to drag it out again just makes the whole Obama candidacy seem to be built on a house of cards. Just another illusion. This frightens me because when the inexperienced cannot work their will as they expect, they become repressive and try to impose their will on the people. I do not see what Obama has won by perseverance for the people. He has not walked through the fire. He is being anointed without being tested. Hillary, on the other hand has accomplished in the face of opposition.
I don't think we have two equal candidates as the party tries to tell us and I do not think these two should be on the same ticket together just to get votes. I see very different outcomes for their respective presidencies and Hillary can do more for women in the Senate than she ever will as Obama's vice-president. He will never accept second place to a woman and will always compete with her, which will feed into the detractors of her presidency. I think it is better, if they want to appease the loser, to offer cabinet positions to the losers rather than the vice presidency.
In any case, the media's coverage of electoral politics needs to be regulated. It was regulated in the past, before elections became a commercial money maker for media outlets and now are a way for commercial interests to control the democratic process. This is where feminists can reach out to other groups.
Where are Fairness in Media groups now? Just how much fairness do they actually promote? You would think they would be documenting and publicizing this obviously biased coverage if they are more than front groups for the left.
The media lack of coverage of policy issues, the lack of investigation into candidate claims about their own and other's records, these women selling porn songs about the candidates without their permission and the enormous cost of buying TV time and unequal coverage and biased commentaries all need to be looked at closely.
The country can take a year to discuss free air time and equal time. The candidates can be forced to submit to more debates with different formats instead of buying TV time. We need, as a country, to discuss and regulate media election coverage when this election cycle is over.
We cannot let the wealthy video script our elections for their advantage. We must have the Media Election Coverage Fairness Doctrine to regulate election coverage so that it actually is fair and balanced. Our democracy is too important to allow it to be sold to the highest bidder for a media license.
And BTW, Bill O'Reiley, who is supposed to be so horrible personally , not only works for abused children but has consistently been neutral, fair and dare I say chivalrous in his election coverage. I hope he keeps it up.
Monday, February 4, 2008; 12:00 AM
In the WashingtonPost.com
"Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women," said Bill Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday, one of the many "news" outlets to expose Kristol's reliable sexism.
"The Democratic establishment would be crazy to follow an establishment that led it to defeat year after year," Kristol continued in his woolly, repetitive style. "White women are a problem, you know. We all live with that."
"Bill Kristol has been much criticized for his war mongering, arrogance, poor writing and lack of fact checking. But at least the guy is honest. He considers women a problem -- especially white women.
And he feels confident enough as an alpha male to be open about it. "I shouldn't have said that," he demurred. But he can say anything he likes and still fall eternally upward. He's a white man, lord of all he surveys -- including Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I, too, have been watching Hillary Clinton with admiration, love, hate, annoyance and empathy since she appeared on the national scene 16 years ago. (Can it be only16 years?) I've had a hard time making up my mind about her. Perhaps that's because I identify with her so strongly.
I'm hardly the only woman who sees my life mirrored in hers. She's always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her. She endured a demanding Republican father she could seldom please and a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos.
She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber.
Nothing she did was ever enough to stop her detractors. Supporting a politician husband by being a successful lawyer, raising a terrific daughter, saving her marriage when the love of her life publicly humiliated her -- these are things that would be considered enormously admirable in most politicians and public figures. But because she's a white woman, she's been pilloried for them.
She's had "........this is the end of the excerpt from the article.
read it all and vote for your sister, your advocate, and the best qualified person to be president of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------
Greenconsciousness says:
THINK ABOUT THE NEED FOR RETURN OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. The major media, all owned by Republicans with the Saudi's owning a 51% share of FOX, have been pushing Obama relentlessly and disparaging Hillary whenever they bother to speak of her. One female broadcaster even suggested that campus Obama supporters put kegs of beer near the polling site to get university students to vote for Obama. She said this on air to a student who could not have been much older than 18.
This is 24 hour a day, "all Obama" media except for CNN and C-Span. Most media is showing what amounts to commercials of Obama's speeches and endorsements, complete with soaring music, cheering crowds, over the top praise and lately even music videos. Contrast this to their coverage of Hillary. Remember, Obama is a two term senator with no specific accomplishments except the refusal to vote on controversial legislation.
I understand why blacks would want Obama even though Bill Clinton was called a racist for saying the same thing. It is stupid to deny reality but when your opponent wants to silence you they call you a racist. Of course blacks are voting for him because it seems as if he could make it. Not all blacks or even all blacks who are voting for Obama have this motive but it is a natural emotional pull for the majority to identify with your own. That is why I, and many other woman are sympathetic to Hillary.
This does not mean women will vote for Phyllis Shafley or blacks will vote for a a right wing oppressor, but if we have a decent person we can identify with, of our gender or race who relates to our sense of self in the world, as a presidential candidate for the first time in the history of the country, we will vote for them first.
There is no shame in this although the media tries to make women ashamed of gender solidarity just as they try to make acknowledgment of working class economic interests "class warfare". But white men, and the wealthy have been voting their own class, race and gender interests since voting began. It only becomes disgusting when blacks, women and the poor vote their own interests.
More suspicious however are the Obama endorsements by Republicans, Hollywood celebrities, media broadcasters and disgruntled Democrats of the far left. I believe misogyny and gender bias are at work here - the desire to be with the rock star. They are funding him heavily as is Oprah and they are the wealthy in this country.
These kinds people, even those who support Hillary are not the kind of people I want deciding policy issues. And then we have the women who self label as feminist but work for leftist groups, who have devoured the few feminist organizations left. Pro Palestinian - anti Semitic supporters of thug rule and sharia culture, they want to make peace with middle east theocrats.
For a long time you will know where a woman is at politically and emotionally by asking her who she voted for in the primaries. But it is a good thing to have the types of feminism more clearly defined. For which I thank Obama.
I am for the center, as is Hillary. I am for reality over rhetoric.
Maria Shriver's endorsement is especially suspicious. She is always used to bring the woman's vote out for her husband the sexual exploiter. I remember a foolish so called women's conference she organized which was simply to provide him with a woman's forum.
Comparing Obama to John Kennedy who was a whore with a different woman to exploit every night in the white house, off on sex trips while his wife miscarried and refusing to come home to her bedside, doing drugs in the white house, having sex with Mafia associates and who almost got us into a nuclear war -- this comparison is supposed to thrill us and just disgusts me.
The only reason Kennedy was popular is that the people never knew the reality behind the image. The media conspire with the academics to support the big lie. The Kennedy money has kept this lie of Kennedy sainthood going for too many years and now to drag it out again just makes the whole Obama candidacy seem to be built on a house of cards. Just another illusion. This frightens me because when the inexperienced cannot work their will as they expect, they become repressive and try to impose their will on the people. I do not see what Obama has won by perseverance for the people. He has not walked through the fire. He is being anointed without being tested. Hillary, on the other hand has accomplished in the face of opposition.
I don't think we have two equal candidates as the party tries to tell us and I do not think these two should be on the same ticket together just to get votes. I see very different outcomes for their respective presidencies and Hillary can do more for women in the Senate than she ever will as Obama's vice-president. He will never accept second place to a woman and will always compete with her, which will feed into the detractors of her presidency. I think it is better, if they want to appease the loser, to offer cabinet positions to the losers rather than the vice presidency.
In any case, the media's coverage of electoral politics needs to be regulated. It was regulated in the past, before elections became a commercial money maker for media outlets and now are a way for commercial interests to control the democratic process. This is where feminists can reach out to other groups.
Where are Fairness in Media groups now? Just how much fairness do they actually promote? You would think they would be documenting and publicizing this obviously biased coverage if they are more than front groups for the left.
The media lack of coverage of policy issues, the lack of investigation into candidate claims about their own and other's records, these women selling porn songs about the candidates without their permission and the enormous cost of buying TV time and unequal coverage and biased commentaries all need to be looked at closely.
The country can take a year to discuss free air time and equal time. The candidates can be forced to submit to more debates with different formats instead of buying TV time. We need, as a country, to discuss and regulate media election coverage when this election cycle is over.
We cannot let the wealthy video script our elections for their advantage. We must have the Media Election Coverage Fairness Doctrine to regulate election coverage so that it actually is fair and balanced. Our democracy is too important to allow it to be sold to the highest bidder for a media license.
And BTW, Bill O'Reiley, who is supposed to be so horrible personally , not only works for abused children but has consistently been neutral, fair and dare I say chivalrous in his election coverage. I hope he keeps it up.
posted by Greenconsciousness
at 11:59 AM - Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment