…or at least knocked Hillary Clinton out the race.
There has been one thing that has disturbed me above all other aspects of this primary season and that has been the absolute hatred aimed at Senator Hillary Clinton from so many democrats and so-called independents. When Barack Obama took Iowa, it was hard to tell whether the elation many displayed came from Obama’s victory or Hillary’s defeat. The schadenfreude at Clinton’s loss has been been on show at every minor stumble or political gaffe throughout her candidacy and although hatred for notorious politicians is nothing new, both the intensity and lack of reason/explanation for people’s hatred for her is.
Ask any democrat or independent that dislikes Hillary, why they hate her the way they do and nine out of ten of them will give some ephemeral reason or excuse that boils down to, “I just do.” When pressed further for an explanation, they’ll usually cite a list of reasons that find their genesis in none other than Rush Limbaugh and his more than a decade long campaign against her. Both the so-called “Clinton Machine” and the term “Clintonistas,” once residing solely in the collective imagination of right wing kooks, have escaped right wing radio and freeper boards and made their way into the mainstream. Now the terms are legitimated by mainstream journalists in print and on air, and worse, used by dissenting democrats and progressives alike to describe Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
We rejected these words, ridiculed them, and defended against them, when they were aimed at Bill Clinton and the party in general, but now that Hillary is alone and running against the emissary of innocence, Barack Obama, we employ them readily and with all too much glee. Even the tropes of “inevitability” and “invincibility” used to alternately. and sometimes derisively, describe her campaign are constructions taken directly from the narrative that Rush Limbaugh set-up and nourished for years.
Yet there are precious few voices decrying how ridiculous all of these assertions are or how hypocritical it is for us to be recycling right wing talking points we defended against only a few years ago.
Instead, we have a front page article on CNN.com asking whether or not Hillary will nominate Bill as a Supreme Court Justice, the conservative hack Bob Novak constantly accusing her of digging up dirt on Obama, Obama supporters accusing anyone that dares disagree with Obama or his positions of being a Clinton supporter, and the kicker, the New Hampshire debate question asking Hillary Clinton how she felt about people liking Obama more than her.
And who can still say, with any intellectual honesty at all, that Obama doesn’t have a political machine of his own that rivals if not exceeds Clinton’s own in not only money but also connections to the status quo?
How can any woman have “hope” when what is on display in this country right now from what are supposed to be the most liberal, progressive, and/or independent members of the public boils down to the frat boy saying: “Bros before Hos”?
I wouldn’t write HRC off just yet. Even if she loses NH, she’s still in this thing.
I agree with you to some extent — HRC does gets a bum rap from Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing. They have a pathological hatred of her and Mr. Clinton that really is astonishing, particularly cosidering that neither Clinton is the genuine leftist the right portrays them to be. No doubt some of the lies and innuendo have permeated every level of society, particularly considering that the right has been smearing the Clintons for 15 years now.
Sexism is no doubt in play too. When HRC got (rightly) pissed off during the debate the other night, the media immediately portrayed her remarks as “angry” and “shrill,” whereas men who show their anger are thought “tough.” It’s revoltingly sexist, but I believe it’s also the result of a lazy and self-regarding media’s love of setting up narratives and focusing only on the events that support their preconceived notions. That’s a huge problem, especially since so few people bother to see through it and draw their own conclusions.
That said, it seems a bit of a stretch to fashion this regrettable circumstance into a bomb to toss at Obama supporters. I can’t say it surprises me given what I’ve read of your opinions so far, but in all fairness, wasn’t it the well-connected Mr. Edwards who made the big point about HRC representing the status quo the other night? And not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn’t anyone who makes it past Iowa have to have a pretty strong political machine?
Although there are certainly a number of cretins and trolls infesting every campaign’s partisans, I haven’t seen any evidence of a trend indicating that “the most liberal, progressive, and/or independent members of the public” in any way operate under the motto “Bros before Hos.”
Hi Betty, you should visit the comment sections of digg.com if you’re looking for the “Bros before Hos” supporters. Believe me, they are there and at a lot of other open forum sites and they’re in many camps. The politically savvy are well too savvy, for that one. Unfortunately, idiots have as much of a right to vote as the rest of us.
As far as dropping the bomb on Obama supporters I really don’t see where you’re coming from on that one. The political machine comparison to Obama’s political machine was simply a matter of pointing out that Clinton gets berated for it whereas everyone pretends Obama doesn’t have one. This despite his fundraising numbers and lobbyist ties.
Since being an insider tied to the “status quo” are often the “reasons” people give to legitimate their hate for her, I thought it was worth pointing out the fact that Obama has similar ties and a similar machine and yet no one cites them as reasons to hate him.
Oh, I definitely know there are creeps out there — the cretins and trolls to whom I referred earlier. That’s why I tend to stay out of large site comments sections. Beating back those louts could be a full-time job, one that I have no interest in.
Point taken re: the phony narratives about Obama and Clinton. I blame the deplorable state of the media for a lot of that, and it extends to every campaign out there. John McCain as the flinty maverick, for example. What a crock! If ever there was a Bush-enabling, fundamentalist-butt-kissing phony, it’s McCain. He might have had an independent streak at one time, but he threw it overboard the minute it became clear it would interfere with his personal ambitions. And yet, the press loves to lick his boots. Sickening.
As I mentioned, the sexism on display from HRC’s detractors is absolutely revolting. You pointed out one of the more obvious manifestations of it with that deranged asshole asking her to iron his shirt. I thought she handled it with grace and wit.
More insidious examples are everywhere else, including the media brouhaha around her “tearing up” yesterday. She’s damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. If she shows little emotion, and the media portray her as a heartless shrew. If she shows emotion, she’s a hysterical woman who isn’t up to the rough and tumble of politics, as John Edwards is alleged to have suggested. (I hope it’s not true.)
I think Hillary Clinton would be a great president. If she wins the nomination, I’ll support her 100%. Edwards too. Really, I’m pretty excited about the superiority of this year’s crop of Dem candidates. They are all worthy and capable, especially in comparison to the GOP slate.