For so long I've avoided blogging about the 2008 run for the White House and sworn I wouldn't until it was seemly. Maybe it was because I was a bit sickened by the campaigning kicking off before the 2006 Midterms even concluded. It's like retailers putting up Christmas decorations before Halloween. It ain't right.
I did have a post or two about Fred, but I tagged them Not the 2008 election, so I feel I kept my promise in a moral sense.
But now it's 2008, so I'm ready.
To the Republican party:
Y'all are making me laugh. Your candidates are crazy or lazy.
To the Democrats:
Can we please avoid having a nomination until the rest of the nation freakin' votes? We did this last time and look who we got. A loser. A guy who was so lacking in charisma and winning-ness that he couldn't resoundly beat that no-hoper George Bush.
To the "liberals":
Stop calling Hillary Clinton "shrill" or "close-to-tears" when she's not. Y'all need to take a look in the mirror and think about where this attitude is coming from. From what I've seen Hillary Clinton has acquitted herself admirably. Yes, I am voting for her.
But here are two people who probably/certainly aren't voting for her who've spotted the woman bashing, too. (Kathy Flake and the Tennessee Guerilla Women here and here and elsewhere). Heck, even my husband who subscribes to Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine noticed and has been stunned by the level of woman bashing.
To the British media:
Stop pontificating on this election as if a) you have a vote or b) you deserve a vote. You are merely outside observers. You do not get to anoint your chosen candidate - Barrack Obama. Although, maybe I shouldn't say anything since I believe that The Guardian with their stupid letter writing campaign along with the some vote tampering managed to lose Ohio.
And since I'm supporting the shrill and close-to-tears Hillary Clinton (yes, this according to the British media), go ahead, please shoot yourselves in the foot on this one, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The bashing really has been sickening. She can't win for trying - either she's a "robot", or "too emotional".
I'm leaning towards Obama, but I do feel Hillary would be more than capable.
Here's a link I just sent to a friend: White guy expresses shock at misogyny, but other than that, he gets it.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=mysogyny_and_the_election#103613
Well said, daughter, well said. Vol Mom
I agree about Hillary, but I'm not surprised at the sexism she has faced. It's why I think the candidate's gender should be taken into consideration when voting. We need more women in power if these attitudes are ever going to change. Benazir Bhutto was targeted for assassination in part because she was a woman.
It's hard for me to really get a feel for what's happening in the race, given the over-the-top obsession the British media have with Obama. They act like if he wins New Hampshire, he'll become president. If memory serves, many of those who won New Hampshire did not become the party nominee. New Hampshire is not representative of the American voter and neither is Iowa. I find this whole primary system to be ridiculous.
HRC can't win for losing, as far as the MSM are concerned. If she stands up for herself, she's shrill, and if she's passionate, she's weak. It's terribly unfair. That said, she's done herself no favors by trying to parse her positions on any number of issues and buying into the 'change' meme while simultaneously campaigning on the accomplishments of WJC's administrations. It's an terribly awkward position to try to maintain. She's run an awful, lazy, shockingly Kerry-like primary campaign that afforded her very little opportunity to generate much visceral emotional excitement and that's looking fatal at the moment. As she said at some point, 'candidates campaign in poetry, and govern in prose' (quoting someone else). There's been woefully little poetry in her campaign and, rightly or wrongly, she's paying for her artlessness. For me the, the campaigns of the big three were summed up in their post-Caucus speeches. Edwards milked the populist, red meat themes on which he's been campaigning for 3 years. The operative mood being anger. HRC gave her same stump speech, workmanlike and harmless. BHO gave one of the most rousing, passionate 'presidential' speeches I've ever heard.
I'm so beaten down by disappointment and the failure of my candidates in years and decades past to work up any genuine hope that this passionate enthusiasm for Obama will translate into any kind of meaningful transformational political movement, but then I'm usually wrong about such things.
P.S. I don't mean to oversell either the flaws of Clinton or the positive qualities of Obama. I would pull the lever for Clinton or Obama with enthusiasm and don't mean to impune the character of HRC. She is a powerful force for good in this country.
I mean "impugn".
We're backing different horses in this race but I'm with you on your requests to the British media. My biggest problem is that they just don't get the nuances of American elections and the American electorate, but write as if they do.
Crazy or lazy - that's a good line.
I happen to support Barack, but I wouldn't be opposed to voting for Hilary if she won the nomination. And one small note about Hilary not being close to tears-- have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk
* Hillary
Stop calling Hillary Clinton "shrill".
Nope. Sorry. No can do. She is shrill.
You may have seen my post about how I'd woke to the news that she 'won the nomination' yesterday.
Made my poor heart stop, it did.
Post a Comment