Betsy Reed has a shrewd piece in The Nation complaining about blind support by the more institutionalized, establishmentarian arm of the feminist movement for an increasingly appalling Clinton campaign.
« Who's Afraid of STV? | Main | Purple Toupee »
The Feminist Wedge
07 May 2008 02:13 pm
Comments (28)
Yes, the "cry more" attitude. So nuanced and mature, Andruw.
perhaps matthew ought to learn the meaning of the word "apalling." there are many things about the clinton campaign i don't like (and there are a good number of things about the obama campaign i don't like), but try to keep a sense of intelligence and perspective: "apalling" should be reserved for things that are "apalling," like the prospect of a mccain presidency.
The race and gender dialog in this primary is growing really fucking tired.
Or try this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/05/07/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL
I can see why the feminists like her. Hillary is the only candidate threatening to knock balls.
"perhaps matthew ought to learn the meaning of the word 'apalling.' there are many things about the clinton campaign i don't like"
Not even two hours after the Clinton campaign says that they are pleased with the results of North Carolina because they won the white vote, and you wonder how Matt could possibly call the campaign appalling?
Or eight weeks of hitting Obama because he has trouble winning the white working class, primarily in Appalachia?
The Clinton campaign HAS been appalling in its blatantly racist campaign pitch. And yes, saying that we should vote for her because other people might not like the fact that Obama is black is indistinguishable from saying that we should vote for her because Obama is black. They're both racist hogswill, and Clinton should be run from the party if she were to get her just desserts.
appalling is a good word to describe the clinton campaign.
she is clearly doing everything she can do to sabotage obama so that he will lose to mccain in '08. that sets her up for a run in '12.
the only reason she can pursue this strategy is the reflexive, unblinking support of feminists who are blinded by their goal of having a woman in the white house.
any thinking democrat, or any thinking person who wants to avoid a third bush term, would have tossed clinton over the side by now, considering the tone and nature of her campaign.
but appalling does not begin to describe how despicable her campaign has become. it doesn't go far enough.
and this comes from someone who was a huge admirer of hillary clinton, someone who actually applauded her back when she made her comments about not staying home and baking cookies.
i'd always imagined that she was the better half, the better angel of the clinton duo.
ambition obviously can warp even the best of us.
appalling Clinton campaign.
I know I'm going to feel very hopeful when President Obama gets rolled on health care reform by the insurance interests. Or more likely, when President Obama tells future Senate Majority Leader Durbin to gut Speaker Pelosi's genuine universal health care legislation to accomodate insurance/HMO/pharma-funded Senate GOPers & ConservaDems in the name of hope, change, and unity.
I know I'm going to feel very hopeful when President Obama gets rolled on health care reform by the insurance interests. Or more likely, when President Obama tells future Senate Majority Leader Durbin to gut Speaker Pelosi's genuine universal health care legislation to accomodate insurance/HMO/pharma-funded Senate GOPers & ConservaDems in the name of hope, change, and unity.
Such a shame too, when we could have the effective (non-pandering) policy-making of the Clintons as the alternative.
Yglesias blows!
"I know I'm going to feel very hopeful when President Obama gets rolled on health care reform by the insurance interests."
I'd really like to know why Hillary Clinton, who personally effed up the best chance at meaningful health care reform in America in 20 years, is considered the "Health Care Reform Candidate" in this race? If you wouldn't trust George W. Bush to start another war in the Middle East, why would you trust Hillary with health care?
Mike
Chris Rock says on Racism vs. Sexism- 'I don't remember seeing no 'No White Women' signs.
"Appalling" as in coaxing the re-introduction of race-baiting into national Democratic political campaigns. By a fellow Democrat.
"What but design of darkness to appall ..." etc
Uh-oh, get ready for another flood of "Nazi Republican Democrats".
Face it, people who support Clinton are either totally ignorant of her actual policies and behavior and are running on personality (weird to think of Clinton as having one, but there it is) or they are corrupt liars with an power agenda like she is.
And most of the comments here last night were from the latter crowd.
Could it be said that the feminist struggle many of Clinton's supporters went through was one by middle- and upper-class white women from the bonds of suburban housewifery? From what I understand, this movement wasn't as representative of women of color as they could have been. In that context, it may not be as out of character for the movement feminists to "blindly" push their goals while ignoring (or even actively supporting) injustices committed against the others.
"And they detect--and reject--a tinge of sexism among male peers who have developed man-crushes on the dashing senator from Illinois."
I really don't know what this means. So some unquoted group detects and rejects something called a "man-crush" that they surmise may be related to Obama's dashingness?
Otherwise a good read.
"I know I'm going to feel very hopeful when President Obama gets rolled on health care reform by the insurance interests. Or more likely, when President Obama tells future Senate Majority Leader Durbin to gut Speaker Pelosi's genuine universal health care legislation to accomodate insurance/HMO/pharma-funded Senate GOPers & ConservaDems in the name of hope, change, and unity.
Posted by dry_fish | May 7, 2008 3:30 PM"
The major difference between their plan is that Obama's lack mandates. Insurance companies like mandates because it forces working class people to give money to insurance companies. That's why the idea used to be rather popular among corporate shills on the right like Romney.
Hillary's toast.
1) Look at the MONEY -- she just had to lend herself $6 Million --on top of the $5 Million she lent herself previously.
She's running a VANITY campaign!
2) She's getting redfaced blowing the Israel Lobby dogwhistle --but no sound's coming out. She all but threatens to nuke Iran -- but Haim Saban's obviously decided to cut his losses. And if a Zealot like Saban is leaving, the rest are heading out the door as well.
3) Remember my point on April 22?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/money.php#comment-1972585
" The superdelegates are politicans -- and one weakness politicans recognize instantly is vanity campaigning.
And Hillary's problem is going to get worse -- who would waste money on her campaign now?"
4) Barack Obama gets hit with Rev Wright -- and then fucks up by opposing the gas tax cut. Yet Hillary still loses -- No bump at all.
That should tell the superdelegates what kind of hopeless alternative Hillary provides for the general election.
Reality Man, don't bother arguing with dry_fish. Anyone who considers the person who single-handedly ruined the best chance for national health care in the modern era to be the national health care candidate ain't working from facts.
If you want to learn how not to enact legislation the only case you need study is the 1993 Health Care Task Force: secret meetings, freezing out key players, employee provided coverage (with an ever so snide dismissal from Mrs. Clinton – “I can’t be concerned with every small business in America” – great, now the local house painter trying to expand has to provide health insurance if hiring a second painter), a plan so convoluted all its opponents had to do was describe it to discredit it. I remember the sinking feeling as the damn Task Force blitzkrieged its way through it’s secret meetings.
Funny, I also remember leftists being outraged when VP Cheney (a constitutional office by the way) held secret meetings of his energy task force. I thought his actions were an outrage and I though hers were an outrage. But if you’ve consumed enough of the Clinton Cool Aid his were an outrage while hers were necessary.
The 1993 health care plan was also largely designed by the Jackson Hole group with the then-5 largest insurers & HMO's -- Aetna, Cigna, The Travelers, Met Life, Prudential. They formed the Alliance for Managed Competition, which is why Hillary's design was known as Managed Competition.
The so-called "right wing" which opposed it, the HIAA, was made up of not just the actual right-wing Republicans, but the mainly self-interested medium- to- large insurers & HMO's who weren't in the top 5.
http://www.jeffcohen.org/docs/mbeat19931124.html
white women have always used the civil rights movement when convenient and when inconvenient they have deafeningly silent about issues or actively opposed issues of justice regarding black folks.
it is laughable that they would, with this scarlett o'hara like hissy-fit, attempt to jump the line and declare that they "deserve" the nomination because of past discrimination.
No, Bob, the national health care candidate was John Edwards. But, of course, he was no good because he spent too much money on his hair cuts. Or something like that.
Obama didn't simply offer an alternative health care plan. He demagogued two other plans (Edwards' & Clinton's) widely viewed as superior in design in multiple ways (not just mandates), from the Right. And if you really understand his argument, he essentially put millions of dollars into advancing an argument against the principle of universality. For a lot of people, Obama's defense of his own plan has been as disastrous for the universal health care movement as HRC's 1993 fiasco.
Now don't get me wrong. Obama will be better than McCain on health care, not that that's saying much. And President Obama, in a more than a few policy areas, I expect will prove that his supporters' enthusiasm was every bit warranted. However, on health care, I don't expect anything better out of his administration than a NCLB-esque half-measure. He is quite clearly telegraphing this. He doesn't think health care is a hill worth dying for.
So, if Clinton's campaign was appalling because she slapped him around a bit -- I can't agree. Obama deserved it.
dry_fish: your argument might hold water if health was the only or even the primary issue over which Clinton "slapped" Obama. How about the gas tax? How about being tough enough to bomb Iran into the stone age? How about Clinton and McCain have enough experience, but not Obama? Right wing talking points all.
That's the problem with Clinton supporters. They're running either on one issue - health care, because that's what Clinton was known for fifteen years ago - or they're running on "personality" or identity politics (she's female and allegedly a "feminist").
Meanwhile they ignore ALL the lying, ALL the corruption, ALL the insane foreign policy, ALL the Israel pandering, ALL the negatives - everything else just doesn't exist for them.
They don't care if she hob-nobs with right wing religious nuts in "The Family". They don't care that she'll start another war with Iran for Israel that will kill their husbands and sons and daughters and destroy the US economy. They don't care that she's willing to destroy the Democratic Party to win - not even this year but in 2012!
They don't care about anything except their one issue or their one pet notion about who she is.
It's like celebrity fandom. It doesn't matter if the celebrity is a drunk, a drug addict, dumb as a post, and incapable of performing their function as an actor or whatever competently - the fan ADORES them anyway and will go to any lengths to support them.
For celebrities, this is mostly harmless. In national politics, this is a serious threat to the country.
Posted by asl: "Chris Rock says on Racism vs. Sexism- 'I don't remember seeing no 'No White Women' signs."
That's probably the dumbest statement of the year.
for once, i think i agree with richard steven hack.
i'll leave it at that.
Comments closed May 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"Appalling." Such a sensitive soul, why can't' politics be more like the flophouse.
Posted by Andruw | May 7, 2008 2:33 PM