Monday, February 04, 2008

but not that woman

I'm really appalled by the animosity towards Hillary Clinton. It seems that people in this country are so hypocritical, saying that we are ready for a woman to be president, but not that woman. What other kind of woman do people expect to run for President of the United States? People who rise to political power are people who like power and know how to become more powerful. So in the face of a powerful woman, people in this country whose opinions I would otherwise respect become suddenly very sexist and prejudiced. I'm not the biggest Hillary fan, but I do respect what she has accomplished in her life and find her to be a fine role model for young women and young people in general. She has had to compete in a man's world and seems to be doing very well in Washington. This article echoes my current opinion about the negative attitudes toward a powerful woman campaigning for a position of power.

"It has become increasing clear in this presidential campaign that it is harder to run as a woman than as an African American male."

9 comments:

lonelytrader said...

Agree 100%. Most people will say just about anything to justify their hypocrisy and hide the real reasons for their thoughts and actions. Most of them aren't even aware of it. It's the people who are that scare me. And Hillary Clinton has not had a fair shake since her husband ran for President the first time around.

I have my own feelings about Barack Obama -- they aren't popular. In his first term as Senator, he missed 40% of the votes. I kinda thought that one's first priority as a Senator is to make laws. And he was just in his first term. Maybe he was too busy writing his book, or telling the public what he *would have done* during the Iraq war vote -- if he would even have shown up, that is.

He's slick and very good at appealing to our desires and hopes. He doesn't have the bland patina of someone who's been around Washington politics for half their lives. People mistake this for substance.

And he and his campaign did a very good job at race baiting the Clintons. And then stood aloof as if they had no part of it. It is so easy to take statements out of context and let the media run with it these days -- especially if it makes a good story. Journalists don't have to be smart, just good cherry pickers. And as it happens, the same is true for presidential candidates.

I did not vote for Barak Obama -- but not because he is black. I voted for Hillary Clinton for her long track record of fighting for what she believes in.

(And no, America, she is not a socialist. Nor is she "too ambitious" to be president...gawd.)

lonelytrader said...

Oh, while I'm at it, HuffPo has been shamelessly hypocritical about its own coverage of the Clinton campaign, and shamelessly uncritical of the Obama campaign, to the degree that I have stopped reading it. In their zeal to get Obama elected, Ariana Huffington and her motley crew have abandoned their own journalistic principles -- but then maybe they have always been pundits and I just had too much hope in them at the beginning of HuffPo.

KT said...

I agree with you on the Huffington Post. They are way too gung-ho for Obama.

I actually voted for Kucinich because he's the only democratic candidate with the balls to bring Articles of Impeachment before Congress!

lonelytrader said...

He's a one-man army -- just about the only guy that truly votes the conscience of himself and his constituents. Only other guy I know that did that was the late Senator Byrd, who gave one of the most eloquent and moving antiwar speeches I have ever heard. And Byrd had that other rare quality -- to admit when he was wrong and change his mind with the facts. But we're not in West Virginia. And did I already mention that he's dead?

lonelytrader said...

It isn't just HuffPo, either. Seems the media in general really doesn't want HC elected -- which baffles me.

From the WashPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803756.html

There are so many examples like this. The thing is, it galls me that a media pundit can use words like "pimp" and keep a straight face -- it's a little bit like when in the locker room you hear one dude say "yeah, I bagged her" and the other dude say "yeah, what a slut". (In real life they would then slap each other's butts.)

I really don't like people! LOL.

KT said...

All you need to do to understand is read this again: A few weeks ago, I was doing work for the U.S. military in Florida, and happened to visit an independent bookstore. By the cash register was a display of Hillary Clinton Nutcracker dolls for sale, and bags of walnuts. After purchasing one, a real man could sit at home cracking walnuts between an unflattering Hillary doll's thighs, and have a few laughs with his pals. I asked one of the store managers if they would sell an Obama doll done up like a shuck n'jive minstrel or an Amos and Andy look alike. Of course not, I was told, that would be racist.

lonelytrader said...

Where did you read this? I'd like to add that piece to my archives.

KT said...

That quote was in the article that I linked to on the Huffington Post in my original blog posting.

I just read your Washington Post article on Chelsea being "pimped out. What a disgusting display of "journalism." It's insane that in this country some people are unwilling to accept a woman's success on her own merits, and that furthermore they must try to attribute her success to her husband's weakness!

lonelytrader said...

Ah...that's why. I've boycotted HuffPo. I'm having snark withdrawals.