|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Having It Both Ways With HillaryPosted on Nov 20, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—Now that Hillary Clinton has hushed, for the moment, the chatter about how she can be both a woman and a presidential front-runner whose opponents pile on, can we pay attention to the way the most powerful “gender card” is really going to be played in the 2008 campaign? Click on YouTube. Go to the video titled “How Do We Beat the B——?” Watch a middle-aged woman lean forward earnestly toward Republican John McCain and ask, with a tone of determination usually reserved for questions about rolling back the terrorist threat, “How do we beat the b——?” And watch McCain. He’s a bit flummoxed. But he finds nothing so objectionable in the epithet that Barbara Bush once famously said “rhymes with rich” that he can’t retort with a quip of his own: “May I get the translation?” Then comes the double dose of misogyny, as a man out of camera range pipes up: “John, I thought she was talking about my ex-wife.” That’s when McCain laughs heartily with the crowd, cupping his hand over his mouth to recover. On to the comeback: The Arizona senator and Republican presidential contender replies, “But that’s an excellent question.” It is indeed an excellent question, because it used a vulgar and sexist slur against a former first lady, a two-term senator and a colleague with whom McCain sits on the Armed Services Committee and with whom he has traveled to Iraq. McCain does not chastise his questioner for using profanity, or for hurling such a hyper-charged insult. It takes him a full minute—an eternity in real-time video—to say that he “respects” Clinton. Advertisement Ergo, the B-word. Clinton stands accused of trying to “have it both ways” because she wants to appear strong, experienced and capable of being commander in chief—traits voters in many polls already attribute to her—and because her campaign promoted the idea that during a spotty debate performance, her male opponents were “piling on.” Clinton answered the conundrum during last week’s Nevada debate, saying that she understood “people are not attacking me because I’m a woman. They’re attacking me because I’m ahead.” Actually, Clinton is attacked because she’s a woman and she is ahead. She really is the two-for-one, blue-plate special. An awful lot of America has a hard time digesting this. Karl Rove proves the point. In his current Newsweek column, the former Bush White House strategist describes Clinton as “hard and brittle.” He raises the McCain town hall in which the “rhymes with” question was asked, and calls the query “tasteless, but key.” Tasteless? Think, for a moment, if Barack Obama were the Democratic front-runner and a South Carolina voter rose to demand of McCain, “How do we beat the———?” Would McCain have let that one go? Or had a good chuckle at Obama’s expense? Would the media leap to declare the episode to be just another awkward, uncontrolled moment on the campaign trail? There’s been little pushback against the B-word. Yet the vitriol so often directed at Clinton always has been rooted in virulent sexism. That’s why she’s been called a lesbian, a cold if not frigid wife and, my personal favorite, a “Hildebeast.” But Clinton also routinely tops Gallup’s list of “most admired women.” She was found in a recent Lifetime Networks poll to be the Democratic candidate people said they would most like to invite to Thanksgiving dinner—as well as the candidate who would put the “most thought” into a holiday gift. The split-screen Hillary is the product of an American imagination that still cannot see strong women in the same glow as it does strong men. Talk about having it two ways. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group  Previous item: Obama Campaigners Work the Switchboards Next item: The Gloves Come Off New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
Marching in Chicago: Resisting Rahm Emanuel’s Neoliberal Savagery
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By nils cognizant, November 26, 2007 at 9:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Aegrus hits it pretty good re the foisting of candidates. All of this whiny shit is precisely what keeps men, and lots of women (look over the exit-polling next year) from voting for female candidates. If advocates for a male candidate engaged in this pathetic brand of pussypetting, the guy would no longer be a viable candidate. Who cares if someone called Hillary a name? The world is in turmoil and this is supposed to be newsworthy? Shortly after Arnold became Governor, somebody nailed him in the chops with a raw egg. He didn’t even blink.
Another problem advocates of females-in-gov have created for themselves has been a complete lack of policing their own. Dianne Feinstein spent around two years attacking the rights of gun owners. I followed this issue and found that over that protracted period Feinstein had not taken the trouble to learn anything about the operation, construction or proper use of firearms. The example here was her endless wailing over possession of a large array of “assault weapons.” In fact, not one rifle I saw under discussion was capable of automatic fire. These (all, I believe) were sporting rifles only..pull trigger onetime, one bullet come out. Feinstein and the sappy Democrat males who groveled at her feet had gone buggy not over function, chamber-pressure, energy on impact, accuracy or bullet design but, simply, over how the gun LOOKED. Those with futuristic or aggressive physical design were deemed scariest.
Women will be elected to public office once they show they know exactly what they’re talking about.
Report thisBy Rick, November 21, 2007 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Dear Margaret from Portland Oregon,
um, what?
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 21, 2007 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment
114755 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/20 at 1:39 pm: “But will Hillary have something to say about the Saudi woman rape victim who has been sentenced to 200 lashes for her “crime”? .....Certainly, Obama should after his recent comment about “not buying oil from dictators”...”
(CNN)—U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has added her condemnation to the sentence handed out to a Saudi rape victim—200 lashes and six-month jail term…..... Calling the decision “an outrage”, Sen. Clinton urged U.S. President George W. Bush to protest the decision to the Saudi authorities…...
“The Bush administration has refused to condemn the sentence and said it will not protest an internal Saudi decision,” the Democrat presidential frontrunner said in a statement…... “I urge President Bush to call on King Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] to cancel the ruling and drop all charges against this woman.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7106234.stm
More on BBC…....
Truthdig at it again! Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/21/ just add this to the URL <saudi.rape.victim/index.html>
Report thisBy sos, November 20, 2007 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes, Hillary is a corporate shill. She always aspired to wealth and finery, and she got it, by propping up and covering up for bad hubby and her own crimes and ethical breaches. She would raise taxes on the rich (but not on her super rich comrades-only on “rich” people who make between $65K and $200K). Duh! her rich friends would not support her if she intended to cut into their high-living. I’ve read such dumb accolades by Hill’s supporters who believe she will “do something” for them. Actually, she will do something TO them. And if they vote for her, they will deserve it. This article was a disingenuous piece appealing to old-time religion. Obama is right in saying that time has passed.
Report thisBy Jacks, November 20, 2007 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment
Great article. Hell, if McCain had been asked about Obama, “How do we beat the *boy*?” or “How do we beat the *black* man?” there would’ve been an uproar. No slurs are even necessary.
As long as misogyny is confused with common profanity or rudeness rather than *bigotry* there will continue to be this open celebration of intolerance and hate of women (and girls).
Report thisBy Margaret from Portland Oregon, November 20, 2007 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Way back when I had a woman boss who really ran the company but she was “The woman behind the Man”, she used this expression “Life is a Bitch and then you die”, so after that even though I was accused of being less than a lady so be it, I know that I am a woman because I was born a woman, end of story.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
“..Click on YouTube. Go to the video titled “How Do We Beat the B——?...”
That is really slack! To hell with Truthdig telling people to go find the link yourselves, uhh!
But will Hillary have something to say about the Saudi woman rape victim who has been sentenced to 200 lashes for her “crime”?
Certainly, Obama should after his recent comment about “not buying oil from dictators”!!! http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/20/ -and add “saudi.rape.victim/index.html” to the URL
THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE! From Truthdig:-”..Click on YouTube. Go to the video titled “How Do We Beat the B——?...”
That is really slack! To hell with Truthdig telling people to go find the link yourselves, uhh!
But will Hillary have something to say about the Saudi woman rape victim who has been sentenced to 200 lashes for her “crime”?
Certainly, Obama should after his recent comment about “not buying oil from dictators”!!! http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/20/ -and add “saudi.rape.victim/index.html” to the URL
THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!
Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found
http://edition.cnn.com/
2007/WORLD/meast/11/20/
saudi.rape.victim/index.html
Report thisBy Edward S. Lounello, November 20, 2007 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This is what I hate about pundits. The manufacturing of a phony issue. the “B” word applies to Hillary who will do nothing to improve the lot of the people.
Report thisShe’s not interested in doing the people’s business, she’s interested in the same thing G.W.Bush is interested in, representing corporate america.
Personally I’ve had quite enough.
By Sue, November 20, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary’s in it to win it.
The time is right for a WOMAN president, and she’s the strongest and best person qualified (that she’s well earned) for the job!
GO HILLARY!
Report thisBy sera_ph, November 20, 2007 at 11:34 am Link to this comment
I agree with some of the previous posters—I’ve heard worse. With all the slander that has been going on between parties and towards the President himself etc., I don’t see why the concern was only focused on Clinton. This seems very hypocritical to me; either be against slander in general—on both sides—or call it a fair game.
Report thisBy Outraged, November 20, 2007 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
The issue here is one of professionalism and ethics. As Marie pointed out this comment was not being made by you or I, but by ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, SENATOR AND FELLOW MEMBER OF THE ARM SERVICES COMMITTEE.
What would the aftermath had been had Sen. McCain made this comment about another ex-first lady, say… Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Rosalyn Carter? Marie, I think you are right on target bringing up the issue. It says a great deal more about Sen. McCain and others than just the “b” word he used. Were we supposed to pass that off as the man SWEARS?
To me this translates as a person who, if president, will represent the male portion of America and possibly women who “know their place”.
Report thisBy anonymous, November 20, 2007 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
if you think “bitch” is bad, you should hear what i call the turds in the white house
the woman in the video didn’t even specify what kind of bitch
and, if you expect mccain to come to her rescue, you’re retarded
we’re sexist, we’re here, get used to it
but that doesn’t mean we can’t dislike hillary for being a corporate shill - the same reason i wouldn’t vote for bill again either
Report thisBy RdV, November 20, 2007 at 8:09 am Link to this comment
Clinton is a politician, isn’t she? Expect her to be hit with much worse and don’t expect her gender to insulate her.
This pisses people off who view this whining as so much pc privilige and exploitation. Yet, one has to wonder if the author considers Anne Coulter a bitch?
Clinton did cry foul and used the “because I am ahead” line as an escape hatch. It certainly was broadcast all over the net as the reason as opposed to her campaign’s claim that all the boys were picking on her.
And make note of this:
“...When women act in gender-consistent waysthat is, in a cooperative, relationship-focused mannerthey are perceived as too soft a leader. ...”
There would be no bind if women owned their strategies as superior, as alternative approaches compared to the failed blundering disasterous maschismo of stupid men.
Report thisWomen should OWN themselves, not triangulate off the bufoonery of male sabrerattling..
By Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 6:21 am Link to this comment
Quote: “The split-screen Hillary is the product of an American imagination that still cannot see strong women in the same glow as it does strong men. Talk about having it two ways….”
The generations of men who were “breastfed” on Playboy and Penthouse magazines are having to adjust to an uncomfortable reality. No more titty, ha ha!
Strong needs to be redefined. Its not necessarily aggressive any more than it is loud or muscular. Eastern countries understand this better and have no trouble in accepting a lady “tai pan” or dragon lady as boss.
Perhaps Americans should be grateful that China’s ruling Communist party is just as sexist or you would see many remarkable women in power. Too bad those dumb Texans ignore Condi Rice, too, or the USA would already be ruling the world, uhh!
Report thisBy Aegrus, November 20, 2007 at 6:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m a little disappointed to hear such whining from Marie Cocco. Sometimes, she creates very poignant arguments that illicit good discussion. It is apparent that she has been deceived by the media regarding what is at stake this election. Hillary is….not…qualified… for office. This clanging noise through the streets for Hillary sounds just as weak as the Kerry parades. Both campaigns ultimately said, “We’re the most electable because we say so. Don’t judge us by our policy, judge us by our smile and brand name.”
Well, I didn’t buy into Kerry and I certainly don’t buy into Hillary. It’s very ugly how the system foists these candidates when we’ve had solid principals lead by Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. None of them are “electable” though. Are we so afraid to vote on principal?
Report thisIt seems that the Republicans are in a similar position as the Democrats by the content of this article even if the tone doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation as best as it could. Please, I urge you all to re-evaluate your criteria for presidential candidates.