The N. H. backlash against Hillary-hate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caryl-rivers/why-was-barack-anointed-s_b_80743.html

Why was Barack annointed so instantly?

Did the media's savage attack on Hillary Clinton stir up some atavistic instinct of anger or protectiveness among women, helping her to win New Hampshire? Was there a massive CLICK moment, as old-guard feminists used to call it, when women collectively thought, "Hey, this isn't fair!"

SNIP

And why was Barack anointed so instantly? To use a sports metaphor, it was like the talented rookie being handed the Cy Young award after his first pouting on the mound. As Gloria Steinem noted in her much-discussed New York Times op-ed, what if Barack Obama had been a woman, with the same resume? She'd have been laughed at if she said she wanted to run for president.

I believe a lot of women thought "This isn't fair. Give her a chance. She's earned that. Maybe she won't win in the end, but if she loses, let it be fair and square. Any why doesn't the media seem very excited about the first woman president. Why isn't that 'change?""

For women of a certain age, there was an air of familiarity about the whole process. Often, women work hard, learn their craft, pay their dues, don't try to step in front of other people, and then, when they are due for the big promotion, something happens. Some young guy is suddenly standing in front of them. He's the hot new commodity, and she is just expected to gracefully step aside.

SNIP

Women are usually harder on other women than they are on men, but sometimes, not often these days, but once in a while, there cones a point when they hear the "CLICK."

Steinem's right about one thing: If all Obama had was a resume he'd be nowhere. But he doesn't have that problem; Hillary does.

but he smiles a lot.

Or Edwards, smile and say anything

:rofl:

i love melodrama.

The hate by the media, Obama supporters, etc, heaped upon Hillary Clinton yesterday blew up in their faces. Of course they will go wild with denial, this is predictable, but you can only heap so much misery upon someone before there is blowback. The question is, will they ever learn?

...in Hill's Shills all whining about "Hillary-hate," when it was only yesterday (it seems) that they would be So Very Indignant when the right brushed us off as "Bush haters"...?

:wtf:

And I like Edwards a lot, too.

But what happened to HRC -- the media pile-on regarding the diner incident -- galled me, as it did many women.

Second, voting for someone based not on their qualifications, but upon "gender solidarity" in the face of perceived mistreatment on the part of an entity that isn't one of the candidates, is a pretty crappy way to choose a leader, IMHO...little better than pulling the lever for the Republicans, a la Pavlov's dogs, every time you hear "9/11!"

I am reading all this stuff today and I'm astonished that people still don't accept that some people simply do not believe or support Hillary's candidacy on issues and ideals.

I just don't get it.

Also, why is it that people are not suppose to support Obama simply because he's black yet women should back Hillary because she is a woman.

Oh more Democratic Hypocrisy!

*smirks*

Also I love the Hillary hating comments with an exemption that she and her campaign has smeared Obama with none issue based rhetoric, left and right. *sighs*

If anything it made me more protective of her.

IMHO, that "voice" is as phony as a computer speech-synthesizer.

Give her another 35 years and she will probably realize:

*that the Iraq War/Occupation was a HUGE blunder.

*that NAFTA wasn't (isn't) such a good deal for Americans who Work for a Living.

*that letting Corporate Lobbyists write legislation is not a good thing.

*that the Pentagon should get LESS money, not MORE.

*that the upper 6% is NOT the Middle Class.

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is not really HealthCare.


Just give her a little more time to catch up.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

The oozing sugar sweet "I am woman" venue would have put a diabetic in a coma. :eyes:

I told one today people are tired of Clinton this Clinton that crap. So far everything has been thrown at her dozens of time and its rolls off. IMHO she is going to be hard to send packing - message don't mess with the women. The ironing my shirt crap back fired. Hillary might not be baking cookies but she knows the recipe and so do other women. That my take and I'm sticking to it for now. :eyes:

There was clearly a backlash to what the media was doing to Hillary. I know I felt it and I'm not a woman.

HRC's words and behavior consistently comes across as contrived and artificial to many people that there is a true dislike of her person. She's a lightning rod by her own choosing, her nature and demeanor do not make her trustworthy to large segments of the population. That's not sexist, that's observation.

In other words, damn her experience, I don't TRUST her. :shrug:

n/t

??

I don't trust HRC. I don't sense "anything genuine" or "spontaneous" in even her most inconsequential mannerisms. :shrug:

John Kerry had with the press, and Al Gore, too.

But I'll take tea with a cautious introvert any day over having a beer with an extrovert like the Decider.

Just to name a few more:

Russ Feingold
Barbara Lee
Paul Wellstone (RIP)
Maxine Waters
Chris Dodd
Mike Gravel
Ron Paul

All of the above are unafraid to tell you exactly who they are, and exactly where they stand on the ISSUES. After listening to them, you KNOW EXACTLY where they STAND. All of the above rarely use weasel words, and no one needs to explain what they really meant the next day. There is nothing phony or fabricated about any of the above.

There are more, but I will agree that they are RARE in today's Washington DC.

When the candidates own trackers all of them come down to the last day agreeing and then at vote counting time it comes out the opposite: The smart people look first to what happened in the last 24hrs.

Hillary got bashed good by the TV networks, by the other candidates(and it was widely perceived that Edwards had puposefully whip-sawed her with Obama), follow that with the Newspaper bashings by the Boston Globe and NYT...THEN for the first time Hillary showed the rest of the country what I honestly believe was an actual unscripted honest heartfelt emotion backed answer (yes, she quickly recovered and went back to the mask, but it was there), it played all over the media(they wrongly interpreted it as a gasp of despair)...add all those together and toss them at a group of people who think of themselves as charitable and compassionate and you get: BACKLASH! plain old uncomplicated BACKLASH!

The last thing I wanted to do was be "predictable" in that situation. Hillary showing up at the polls with her well raised daughter pushed me over the edge.

heading into the polls pushed me over the edge to vote for Hillary even though I had no intention of voting for her heading into the polls.

It really started with the MSM telling me that my vote was meaningless. Oh yeah? Eat that fucking crow ass holes!

Not yet. And the way to keep that from happening was to keep HRC in the race.

I really have no problem with Obama ultimately being the nominee, but I'll be damned if the sexist blow-hards like Matthews and others were going to tell me that he's already the nominee before I've even voted. I did also consider that a more drawn out process would ultimately be better for our Democratic candidate, but it wasn't my only consideration.

people who had bet on Obama being the EVENTUAL Democratic nominee? Based on nothing more than Iowa and the polls showing him ahead in N.H.? I wonder if he's had second thoughts about the wisdom of that!

But I sure felt like I was a "sure thing" heading into the polls. If there is one thing I am not, and that is predictable. That is part of why I am a Democrat. People who don't want to understand that based on their support of a particular candidate are ass holes IMHO.

(See my earlier post on this thread -- the double-standard on the part of the Clintonistas is quite astounding. And I suppose Arianna Huffington is solely driven by misogyny, right? :eyes: )

;) :thumbsup:

IMO HRC wouldn't know what a sexism is if it climbed atop her head and set up camp.

She's always had it BOTH WAYS.

when she was applying, as Wellesley's Valedictorian, to Harvard and Yale law schools and the Harvard professor told her that they didn't need any more women in their law school?

up close and personal. And you know, as a woman Army Officer having a senior male officer "jumping me" I was blessed to not have to *play the victim.*

No, women of color in the work place and those of us who have served in the armed forces KNOW sexism.

Even when we file charges and report rapes, we don't fawn *victimhood* as a medal of honor as HRC is too quick to do whenever it serves her agenda. :thumbsdown:

How many women do you think were lawyers when she graduated from law school? How many were in politics? Practically none. And it's not because they weren't qualified. It's because there were institutional barriers that kept them out. Hell, there are women alive today who remember women not even being able to vote, much less run for office.

If you are saying you were raped, I'm very sorry for that -- but it has nothing to do with this situation. It doesn't change the fact that HRC and most women who've been in the workforce for decades have had a great deal of experience with institutional and personal sexism. When HRC mentions her experience, she isn't "fawning" victimhood or playing the victim. She's describing her experience, one that she happens to share with millions of women -- even you.

Yes, in a way it's personal for me because HRC represents all the smarmy women who *claim* to be feminists but kick the "lower tier" women in the teeth (remember Kitty Kelly's revelation of HRC personally intimidating Bill's former lovers?) as they throw their FALSE weight (I'm married to the boss so you have to listen to me.) around and take credit on their resume for THEIR HUSBANDS work place achievements.

Not only as a woman officer but also as a retired Marine Corps Officer's wife, I loathe everything HRC has stood for, especially when she touts her "first lady" days. What makes her think that, due to her husband, she is more entitled than other, equally qualified women who have EARNED (on their own without parasitically attaching onto her husband's power base) their place in the work force.

Beyond everything else, I know "the type" (senior officer's wives who acted like they were in-charge) and I despise such women. If that is what you term "sexist" then so be it. :shrug:


*BTW, no, I was not raped ... AS IF you genuinely give a damn. :eyes:

The most important part of the op-ed piece that so many people have missed here on DU from this one day I've been on it is this...

"I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that."

If sympathy makes so many people change their votes so easily... we dont deserve to vote first. Its disgusting.

I love the fact that the idiot MSM that we rail against here day after day had to eat crow like never before.

It was a great day!

Yay team? :(

thanks.

like your avatar is a super schmuck. I am open to change, I am open to new ideas, I am open to people changing for the better, how about you?

And limit their critiques to the issues, rather than to personality.

I saw it with Al Gore, with John Kerry, and now with HRC. You'd think we'd have learned something by now.

Maybe the voters in N.H. have.