Sunday, January 27, 2008

Hillary-Haters Have a Ball: Reichwingers Play the C*nt Card; Young Obamist Makes Clinton, Not Bush, Prime Target. (Hunh?)




.

.
.

.



So this morning I went out to do the shopping (I'm a gurrrl, remember?).

The cash register was manned by a young white male. He mentioned the name of X, a white male liberal in my town who I know to be on its Democratic Party Committee. This older white male liberal I met when I was supporting Robert Reich for Governor in the Democratic Party primary against a white female, Shannon something. Can't recall her name.

The white male teen said he was working on Obama's campaign, and he said, pointedly, and disparagingly, "I'm working hard so that that OTHER candidate won't win."

The man he was talking to, asked, "Who? Romney?"

But of course young white liberal male Obama supporter meant Senator Hillary Clinton.

Now, boys and girls, this is how pervasive sexism is -- young white male liberal puts knocking uppity b*tch Hillary Clinton out of the race as a higher priority than knocking the Bushist fascists out of the White House. She's the enemy. Not Bush.

And that's how it really is.

A quick trip to a liberal site like Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground reveals a pervasive acceptance of misogyny. It's splashed across the pages of the New York Times, local radio, and on national and local TV.

Chris Matthews's creepy sexism -- not to mention that of Drug Limbaugh -- is acceptable everywhere. They sure don't get fired for it. They don't even get in trouble.

Media Matters has covered this well:

Using overtly sexist language, he has referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "she devil" and compared her to a "strip-teaser." He has called her "witchy" and likened her voice to "fingernails on a blackboard." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys." He has called her "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched."

(Contact MSNBC: Mr. Phil Griffin, Senior Vice President, News
NBC Television Network 30 Rockefeller Plz New York, NY 10112 phil.griffin@nbc.com )
When will sexism become as unacceptable as racism?

Uh, ever?



.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just a thought for you to consider It's possible to be opposed to Hillary's candidacy for a reason other than that she is a female.

By the way: "Maureen Dowd is a Nappy-Headed Ho"

So, misogynist language is OK for women YOU don't like, right?

No Blood for Hubris said...

Misogynist language used here quite deliberately, dear. But don't worry your pretty little head about it. ;)

No Blood for Hubris said...

And of course it's possible to be opposed to her candidacy for non-sexist reasons. If everyone would just stop their ongoing sexist smears, then we could all discuss those reasons in a rational manner, could we not?

No Blood for Hubris said...

Complete list of persons I have so far called "a nappy-headed ho" (Imus-sianly) on this blog: Maureen Dowd, Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch, Robin Givhen, Howard Kurtz, and last but not least -- Markos Moulitsas.

Click the label, lil' lady. Don't get your panties in a twist.

egalia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gen. JC Christian, Patriot said...

Did you see that Monica Crowley is touting a group she calls the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team (CLIT)?
http://monicamemo.typepad.com/weblog/2008/01/sleep-with-the.html

Enough of that.

I just want to point out that it is possible to dislike Clinton and not be a misogynist. It's also possible to dislike Obama without being a racist. I'm not a fan of either one. They're both too centrist for my tastes and I'm finding it very difficult to choose one over the other now that Edwards is out.

Gen. JC Christian, Patriot said...

I should have read your earlier comments. You clearly say there are other reasons for disliking her.

No Blood for Hubris said...

Yes, certainly it's possible. But I wonder how much of our vaunted national "dislike" of Senator Clinton is the result of 16 years of nonstop Karl Rovian/Rush Limbaughian media whore media propaganda.

As if it's a high school popularity contest. Which the media likes to make it -- and they've had the hatchets out for Hillary from day one. Still going strong.

The worst thing, today, was getting a message today from a so-called progressive Dem organization now backing Obama for his newness and youth, although recognizing that, when it comes to the issues, he is is way less progressive than Hillary Clinton is.

That's pretty frickin' weird. If THEY say it's not about his stance on the issues -- what's it about???

Hmm. I say they're playing the bitch card. And you?

No Blood for Hubris said...

Keeping in mind that I'm still pissed at her for voting for the war. But then I was pissed at Gore because his wife didn't like Frank Zappa. Or Frank Zappa didn't like Tipper. Old prejudices die hard.

No Blood for Hubris said...

Anyhow, she's for universal health care. Obama only sticks his neck out for health insurance to cover kids. Hillary doesn't write books that make doting statements about Ronald Reagan, and she's been sticking her neck for for a long time. Plus, she's pre-Swiftboated.

Obama is too Republican for my taste, and is, I fear, something of a lightweight. He'd do ok against Huckabee and Romney, but McCain -- not so much.

Moi, I'm praying for Gore/Clinton or Gore/Obama. My preferences after that would have been Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.

I'm surprised Edwards didn't catch on better, really. He had a higher profile than Obama at the start.