Well, my allegiances are known (and volunteered for) but I do have to say one thing about her litany did resonate- can you imagine if this were a Barack Obama v. Joe Biden race? Or Tom Harkin? In that alternate reality, Obama would be the Nader candidate- a great idea, really, we mean it, but just not workable (so step away from the opposition now.) He is still in the race because his opponent is Hillary Clinton, not because she's female or because she's unable to control her sense of entitlement, but because she's so bad at assuming the mantle of entitlement. She gets caught making up outrageous lies not because the media is hard on her, but because actually, most of these "old poll-driven opportunistic politicians" have spent their adult lives courting the exact photogenic moments she'd give her eyeteeth to pull off. If you're in the fold, even if you aren't currently running for office, you know you have to go to at least one war zone where the snipers are shooting at you on camera, if only to pass out a couple ceremonial MREs. She never did that kind of homework, based her candidacy on being a first lady, and now there's an opening for an idealist and an orator to push the flannel suits aside.
Also, I mean, there's no guarantee that women are any less prone to starting idiotic wars or supporting horrible social welfare rollbacks- we have Maggie Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Helen Chenoweth etc, all of whom can claim at least the portion of feminism that argues for access to prestigious jobs for women...
And Golda Meir. But, then again, when has Israel ever had peace?
"He is still in the race because his opponent is Hillary Clinton. . ."
I think both candidates benefited from the presence of the other. Without either of the candidates you would have a different race altogether.
From now on all major political races should be a 2/1 competition between everyone vs. "the straight white protestant guy." I think it will be healthy for the country. We can just beat on each other until we're too tired. Like when we were kids! Whatever the outcome, the good ol' boy establishment network will slowly lose ground.
Next up: Barney Frank vs. Bill Richardson. Git'er done.
"He is still in the race because his opponent is Hillary Clinton, not because she's female or because she's unable to control her sense of entitlement. . ."
I think she's losing because she's running your conventional Democrat's campaign. I don't think she's doing anything that Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done in her exact position, although at least they'd be more gracious at losing, and both of them are capable of standing down when the occasion requires.
Speaking of which, I deeply wish she had been this passionate about any other cause besides her own will to power. Man, how stoked would I be to have her as our candidate then? Maybe if she'd campaigned against the war as hard as she campaigned for her own nomination . . .
HRC hired overpriced beltway insiders to tell her what the "people" want when, in truth, they have no fucking clue. She went out drinking with the gun nuts to prove she was one of the boys when we all know what a preposterous lie that was. (see Dukakis-in-a-tank photo shoot) And, as we have heard in detail, Obama out-organized her. He hired smart strategists to win delegates. Your average politician merely tries to outSPEND their opponents, but her money didn't do her any good. She took the condescending attitude of an incumbent. His team was more driven and more clever. In this case, her experience may have literally counted against her, and not just because we know exactly what kind of politics her family engages in. But because there is such a thing as being too calculating. Because you can't be both; on the one hand, the person who the public expects you to be and, on the other, effortless and natural. I would suspect that around about the time that she decided to rebrand herself as Suzy Homemaker and bake cookies for her family, that's when she decided that she would be whatever the public wanted her to be, as long as she could keep leapfrogging her way to the presidency. I don't blame her for trying.
"Also, I mean, there's no guarantee that women are any less prone to starting idiotic wars or supporting horrible social welfare rollbacks-"
I think what you are proving is that successful female politicians win by adopting and mastering the (all-male) political culture. You could argue that feminism has advocated two contradicting attitudes: Equality and Reform. Many women have defined feminism as the right to compete equally with men. And to do that they have embraced the values of the system that retarded their own success. (When did Margaret Thatcher ever declare her devotion to any woman but herself?) But then other feminists have said, "Fuck the patriarchy. We want to subvert it." Those are two different and opposing goals. Of course, as accommodating as women are conditioned to be, we knock ourselves senseless trying to do both.
Uh, I think I just said what basically every issue of BUST magazine has said since its inception. So. . . THAT'S embarrassing.
Click to view
Also, I mean, there's no guarantee that women are any less prone to starting idiotic wars or supporting horrible social welfare rollbacks- we have Maggie Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Helen Chenoweth etc, all of whom can claim at least the portion of feminism that argues for access to prestigious jobs for women...
A
Reply
"He is still in the race because his opponent is Hillary Clinton. . ."
I think both candidates benefited from the presence of the other. Without either of the candidates you would have a different race altogether.
From now on all major political races should be a 2/1 competition between everyone vs. "the straight white protestant guy." I think it will be healthy for the country. We can just beat on each other until we're too tired. Like when we were kids! Whatever the outcome, the good ol' boy establishment network will slowly lose ground.
Next up: Barney Frank vs. Bill Richardson. Git'er done.
"He is still in the race because his opponent is Hillary Clinton, not because she's female or because she's unable to control her sense of entitlement. . ."
I think she's losing because she's running your conventional Democrat's campaign. I don't think she's doing anything that Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done in her exact position, although at least they'd be more gracious at losing, and both of them are capable of standing down when the occasion requires.
Speaking of which, I deeply wish she had been this passionate about any other cause besides her own will to power. Man, how stoked would I be to have her as our candidate then? Maybe if she'd campaigned against the war as hard as she campaigned for her own nomination . . .
HRC hired overpriced beltway insiders to tell her what the "people" want when, in truth, they have no fucking clue. She went out drinking with the gun nuts to prove she was one of the boys when we all know what a preposterous lie that was. (see Dukakis-in-a-tank photo shoot) And, as we have heard in detail, Obama out-organized her. He hired smart strategists to win delegates. Your average politician merely tries to outSPEND their opponents, but her money didn't do her any good. She took the condescending attitude of an incumbent. His team was more driven and more clever. In this case, her experience may have literally counted against her, and not just because we know exactly what kind of politics her family engages in. But because there is such a thing as being too calculating. Because you can't be both; on the one hand, the person who the public expects you to be and, on the other, effortless and natural. I would suspect that around about the time that she decided to rebrand herself as Suzy Homemaker and bake cookies for her family, that's when she decided that she would be whatever the public wanted her to be, as long as she could keep leapfrogging her way to the presidency. I don't blame her for trying.
Reply
Reply
I think what you are proving is that successful female politicians win by adopting and mastering the (all-male) political culture. You could argue that feminism has advocated two contradicting attitudes: Equality and Reform. Many women have defined feminism as the right to compete equally with men. And to do that they have embraced the values of the system that retarded their own success. (When did Margaret Thatcher ever declare her devotion to any woman but herself?) But then other feminists have said, "Fuck the patriarchy. We want to subvert it." Those are two different and opposing goals. Of course, as accommodating as women are conditioned to be, we knock ourselves senseless trying to do both.
Uh, I think I just said what basically every issue of BUST magazine has said since its inception. So. . . THAT'S embarrassing.
Reply
Leave a comment