Site logo

Prometheus 6

All respect and no restraint

Actually, it's something about you

This woman is getting on my nerves.

Clinton cleared the hurdles often cited as holding American women back, yet she is unlikely to surmount the final barrier. So you have to wonder.

Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?

This is one of my rules of thumb to screen out nonsense: immediately discount anyone who uses "we" and "us" in a way that obviously does not include themselves.

Cosbyites should also take note of that.

A woman? Yes. But not that woman.

It is the platitude of the moment, an automatic rejoinder to any suggestion that Hillary Clinton has struggled so desperately -- and so far unsuccessfully -- to grasp the Democratic presidential nomination in some measure because she is female.

That link is to a thouroughly discredited op-ed written by...this annoying woman, herself. 

It isn't the woman part, the rationale goes. It's the Clinton part: that "polarizing" persona and "unlikable" demeanor. The unappetizing thought of President "Billary." The more inspirational quest by Barack Obama to become the country's first black president.

Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?

That's a question you're asking because your concern is NOT to have the best candidate. but to have the first woman President. And that is very similar to Hillary's problem. We KNOW from her campaign that her concern is not us. It's her.

Though she would conflate them, there three seperate issues in that paragraph.

Hillary IS polarizing. It's her campaigning style, which is the same as Bill's and Bush's.

Bill Clinton WOULD wind up being a very Cheney-esque figure. President Carter shows you really can't stop an ex-President from moving around and doing as he pleases (which, in considering an ex-President Bush, is a terrifying thought). Bill would be influencing things all over hell and back. We do fear that prospect.

Obama is campaigning to be President and yes, people find him inspirational. Go figure.

And this woman has not addressed a single one of those issues in her silly little article. Not one.

Add to that the poor planning and execution of Hillary's campaign and I can only quote the wise old saying, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

She can continue to promote a flawed candidate on the grounds that no one acceptable to her is better, if she insists.

It's Really Get on My Nerves!!

The way white women, and some women of color, are acting. They forget that Clinton ran a poor campaign. They didn't notice the racism coming from her campaign. They don't mention that maybe people don't want another chickenhawk for president. I mean, after all, where's Chelsea? She's not in Iraq.

Then, this whole competition of the oppressed. It's ridiculous!

It seems their only problem with Obama, besides him being a man, or black, or possibly a black man, is his "inexperience." It's like that bought the Clinton-water and didn't care to look into it themselves. Cause all he has is a speech. He doesn't have a lifetime of experience leading people and improving lives. It's sickening!

"Then, this whole

"Then, this whole competition of the oppressed. It's ridiculous!"

The only time these folks want to raise this issue in this particular way is when they are being denied something that they believe they are entitled to get when they want it. In their reality, Hillary should be president because it is her turn to be president. The fact that large numbers of other people do not agree with their views is evidence, in their belief system, of our failure to fully appreciate the intrinsic moral value of their claims.

In my view, black folks are being asked to tolerate an extremely narcissistic group made up largely of white women who have continuously accommodated and bowed down to the demands of an irrational white patriarchy. Hillary and her crowd did not oppose the "white boys club" as much as they sought membership in this club. How else can we explain a so-called feminist voting for an unjustified and illegal war that was certain to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women and children? Or a feminist who openly declares her support for obliterating all the men, women and children of Iran? A nation of 75 million people.

Hillary and her crowd simply want to take the place of the "white boys". They have no interest in throwing over the policies these "white boys" have put into place. And the disaffected black women who speak on their behalf and do their bidding are no better. If Hillary Clinton is a victim of sexism, then grits ain't groceries, Mona Lisa is a man and God is a opposum. 

The way I see it...

I've been reviewing the exit polls for states at CNN (available here; link goes to CA).  There are a lot of surmises about who voted for whom. but based on what I'm looking at, the patterns vary a lot by state. The one consistent trend is that older whites (>65 either gender) tended to vote for HRC.

Generalizing about the Asian American vote is not useful since there are many different Asian American communities with very different interests.  Ditto, the Latino community, which in some states (e.g., IL) went for BHO in a big way, and in some (e.g., TX) voted rather the same way as Whites (i.e., younger Latinos more pro-BHO, older favored HRC).  There was a strong generation gap in the Latino community, reflecting different immigration cohorts.  More recent immigrants tend to favor Obama.

Seldom did women deviate from men voters by more than 14 percentage points (in WS, the gender gap was 19%p).  In KY, MS, & NC, the "gender gap" was 3 percentage points; AR & MD, 8%p; CA, OR, & MA, 14%p.  I get the sense that PT might be right on the role of really zealous (White "2nd wave") feminists, particularly early in the campaign, but note there was a pretty strong intra-state correlation between education (more-->Obama, less-->Clinton) and age (younger-->Obama).  Basically, there was usually at least 40% of women voting for Obama everywhere, with the exception of Appalachian states where only a third of men and women did.

Why is 14%p an important parameter?  Because women are disproporationately Democrats.  Should Sen. Obama win the 2008 Presidential election, it will be women who put him over the top.  In fact, women voters usually outnumber men in the Dem. party primaries by 16%p!

 

James, thanks for running

James, thanks for running some numbers up under my emotional outburst but I get steamed up when I think about all of those Iraqis who have died for absolutely no good reason other than the fact that we had the power to kill them with impunity. Then to have Hillary Clinton, who voted for that war and supported it before she allegedly turned against it, running off at the lips and trying to link her failed bid for the presidential nomination to slavery, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Movement and the elections in Zimbabwe just galls me no end. Damn her and all of those so-called feminists who support her. All of them.  

white boys

PT,

I think you're absolutely right. So much so that I wonder if they'd be this indignant had it been a white man instead of Barack. They keep saying, "If not Hillary, who. If not now, when." African Americans have a better claim to the same question.

Also, where was all this support in 2004 for Carol Mosley Braun? Why are they threatening to turn to McCain rather than Cynthia McKinney, the Green candidate?

Then there's the LGBT community who also threatens to vote for McCain. What I don't get from them is exactly how is Obama worse than Clinton.

I'm so there

I get steamed up when I think about all of those Iraqis who have died for absolutely no good reason other than the fact that we had the power to kill them with impunity.

Word.  Right there with you, Bro.

(That's why there was the revolution in feminism of the late 1980's-1990's.  It was called "postcolonial feminism," and it's still woefully incomplete but it actually was in response to the very things you brought up.  I'm thinking of some of the writings of bell hooks, inter alia)

"...where was all this

"...where was all this support in 2004 for Carol Mosley Braun?"

I have to confess something here. I know Braun and I would not have supported her either.  

I do agree, however, with the points that you making. Their self-serving hypocrisy knows no bounds. 

 

This woman was on PBS' The

This woman was on PBS' The Newshour just now. Video is uploading as we speak.

In my view, black folks are

In my view, black folks are being asked to tolerate an extremely narcissistic group made up largely of white women who have continuously accommodated and bowed down to the demands of an irrational white patriarchy. Hillary and her crowd did not oppose the "white boys club" as much as they sought membership in this club.

You said it all. They're not looking to change the game, they're looking to run game, especially on Black women. If the few Black women who are still trifling with that set didn't get the hint when Hillary put Bob Johnson front and center on the campaign stage, which raised nary a peep from their white sisters, they never will. Might as well have brought Bishop Don Juan up and called it the players ball, 'cause far as I'm concerned, these so-called "feminists" are straight up pimps.

This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye