Man, I really can't stand Hillary Clinton anymore.
And, it's not because she's a woman, or a Clinton, or a baby boomer. No, none of those things.
It's because she fucking sucks.
Here's the most recent reason why: In an interview last week (and I don't know why it's taken a week to get out), Geraldine Ferraro (former first woman-ever VP candidate in 1984 and a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter and campaigner) had this to say about Barack Obama: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
What? Obama has nothing else going for him except being black - really? Hmmm. That's pretty bold talk, especially from the first woman VP candidate who just happens to be supporting the former first woman president candidate - who just happens to be the first First Lady presidential candidate.
Was it an angry outburst, quickly recanted? Geraldine, what do you say?
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
Sounds like you can spell mea culpa without Geraldine Ferraro to me.
So what did Hillary have to say about all this nonsense? Hillary, who demanded that some lady get kicked out of Obama's campaign for calling her a 'monster'. I mean, maybe she just meant the cookie monster or the sock monster or something, is that such a mortal sin? Well, Hillary didn't take it that way and Camp O felt her pain: the woman resigned.
Was she irate? Indignant? Disugusted?
"I do not agree with that," she [Clinton] said. "It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues."
Monsterism is clearly out of bounds, but a little racism? Eh - whatever.
Fuck you Hillary Clinton and fuck you too, Bill.
There's this, but there's also Bill dismissing Obama's SC win - saying Jesse Jackson won in '84 too; them sending the pictures of Obama dressed up in Kenyan clothing (and *Muslim*); Hillary saying "He's not Muslim...as far as I know".
I find it hard to believe, but I really feel like Hillary Clinton is employing her own 'Southern Strategy'-lite. I mean this isn't Ronald Reagan going to Philadelphia, Mississippi, to announce his presidency and affirm his commitment to 'states' rights'. But she's intentionally appealing to the middle white America's remaining racism.
They're not running against Barack Obama, they're running against 'that black (and maaybe Muslim) guy', Barack Obama.
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
12 comments:
Wow, LJT, spittin' some venom!
And I love this bit from Geraldine:
""Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
When someone says something like that, I wonder if s/he's just ignorant. But it's Geraldine Ferraro, who has no excuse for failing to understand how deeply the issue of race still affects this country (and its politics), so I feel like I have no choice but to assume she's just spouting some (using LJT's well-coined phrase) Southern Strategy-lite.
It's a shame that the first viable woman presidential candidate and the first-ever woman vice-presidential candidate are willing to engage in this.
Also, doesn't it seem like Ferraro's parents really, really wanted a son? (Whom they could name Gerald?)
The next time LJT is more right than he was in this post, someone please e-mail me and let me know, or call me or send me a carrier pigeon or some shit. I can't think of anything else to add other than the fact that he is the rightest right that ever righted.
I know that this blog is supposed to be more than the four of us congratulating each other for having ideas that the rest of us totally agree with (and anyone who wants to stand up for Hillary is welcome to do so . . . I will post it to this site on your behalf (I am looking at you, MMG and JRC)), but I can't help it. LJT is so right, that if they gave out a prize for who was the most right, he wouldn't win because it wouldn't even be fair. Instead, they would wait like 25 years, keep passing him over, and then give him the lifetime acheivement award for being right.
Hillary has run a campaign that makes people feel icky, and Barack has done the opposite. The only way he can lose is if he gets sucked into this mud-slinging, vitriolic, no holds barred negative campaigning.
In other news, Barack Obama (D-IL) has recently been sucked into this mud-slinging, vitriolic, no holds barred negative campaigning.
Well shit, just for the record, LJT wrote that:
"Hillary, who demanded that some lady get kicked out of Obama's campaign for calling her a 'monster'."
Hillary didn't actually demand that. Samantha Power resigned on her own.
Although, Hillary does deserve some shit for saying that "[Obama] did the right thing [by firing her]", when he didn't even have to fire her at all.
I know it's minor, but goddamn, Side Bar, get off of LJT's cock.
I'm really bothered by the recent Clinton strategy. I guess the last time a Clinton lost an election was in 1978, and I know we all weren't transfixed to the Arkansas governor's race back then.
It's all economy booms and internet bubbles as long as they're winning, but lose a couple primaries and it's all, "black people suck" and "muslims are terrorists and you are one".
That all being said, however, I do think there's an implication that if Hillary winds up being the nominee through the super-delegate process, that Barack will have gotten robbed (may be true) AND that race is an implicit factor (not true) AND that therefore black people will be justified in (a) not voting or (b) voting for McCain, to sabotage the process that they felt was unjust. I've heard this thought casually around in normal life, and from time to time on talking head shows.
A cursory web search turned up this which has the line "Another backlash could come if Black folks think their presidential pick was ignored. Black folks might just opt to stay home, which would almost certainly guarantee a Republican victory."
I think this is the kind of thing that Geraldine Ferraro, however seriously misguided, is responding to. I think women who "boycott" the process if they felt Hillary got robbed would be viewed differently, and more negatively, than black men or women with the Barack analog.
Well, Obama is not trying to make Hillary into the woman candidate - she's just a candidate.
Obama's base are college degree having whites and upperclass and blacks.
Hillary's stronghold is working class whites - who still have some racism in them.
She's stoking those feelings to swing things her way. Unconscionable.
Yeah, Hillary wants health care reform, she wants to fix Iraq as much as possible - all that shit.
What Hillary wants more than anything else, though, is to win and she'll say or do anything to do it.
I mean, she's out there saying McCain would be a better president than Obama - the guy in the other campaign.
I came into the election figuring she'd win and being OK with that.
She had to convince me that she sucks - and she has.
I'm not saying Hillary doesn't suck.
I was trying to comment on the general state of race relations, I think.
Chuck: "Muslims are terrorists and you are one." -- my new favorite thing to say.
Walt Clyde: The problem is that Hillary hasn't been robbed of anything. She doesn't have a virtual lock on the delegates. She will be the robber.
And all women should be secretaries.
My point is this:
It's unfair for Hillary, Geraldine Ferraro, etc... to see Barack as the "black candidate" and to deal with him as such. They should be color blind in that regard.
Consequently, then, the notion of black supporters of his trying to sabotage Hillary's nomination - implicitly BECAUSE Barack is black and the black candidate got cheated, in their eyes - should also be seen as unfair - for the same reason. I don't think it would be perceived that way.
You can't be color blind part of the time, when it suits you.
This is a rather dramatic post. Relevantly, there is a growing consensus among experts, and in the media, that Obama is not a Boomer, nor an Xer, but instead is a member of Generation Jones (born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Xers). Just in the last month or so, several top media outlets, including The New York Times, Newsweek Magazine, and NBC, have all made the argument that Obama is specifically part of Generation Jones. I also heard a panel of generations experts recently on a national radio show discussing this specific issue, and four of the five experts conlcuded that Obama is, in fact, a GenerationJoneser…that his bio and political worldview closely match the GenJones archetype.
I've never heard of this Generation Jones thing. Who came up with that? What does it mean?
And couldn't they have come up with a better name?
According to Wikipedia:
Generation Jones is a term that describes people born between the years 1954 and 1964. U.S. social commentator Jonathan Pontell identified the existence of this generation and coined the term “Generation Jones” for it.[1][2][3][4] Generation Jones has been referred to as a heretofore lost generation between the Baby boomers and Generation X, since prior to the popularization of Pontell’s theory, its members were included with either the Boomers or Xers. The connotations of the name “Generation Jones” include:
* a large, anonymous generation
* the slang term “jonesin,” which refers here to the unrequited craving felt by this generation of unfulfilled expectations
The term has been cited in the U.S.,[5] U.K.,[6] Western Europe,[7] Australia,[8] and New Zealand [9]. The birth years typically used in the U.S. are 1954-1965, but tend to vary slightly in other countries, usually starting no earlier than 1953, and ending no later than 1968.[10][11][12][13][14]
In demographic terms, Generation Jones was part of the baby boom which ended in the early 1960s. However, the events stereotypically associated with generational discussion of Boomers, including protests over civil rights and the Vietnam war and the emergence of rock music took place while the members of Generation Jones were still children or early teenagers. Thus the early life experience of this group was more similar, in many respects, to that commonly imputed to Generation X.
Post a Comment