Thursday, May 08, 2008

It's Not My Party & I'll Cry If I Want To

O-kay. Here goes:

.1. My support for Hillary Clinton has zero to do with her gender, and everything to do with her policies. Her policies are significantly more liberal than her primary opponent's weak centrist positions are, and thus are closer to my own. (She's still to the right of me, but is well to the left of her opponent).

2. My unhappiness with Senator Obama's campaign is of relatively recent vintage. In December, I felt pretty much that any Democratic candidate would do. I no longer think that.

3. My unhappiness with the unbelievably sexist attitude of members of my own (or so I thought) party is what is driving me to get away from it just as far and as fast as I can. (There are some other factors in play as well -- for example, the Faux-Left Manichaean Naderite demonization of All Things Clinton. Hunh? Peace and prosperity for 8 years was so bad, Mickey Moore?)

Which brings us to our Leftist Sexist Du Jour.

This morning's insulting, sniggering, disparaging delectation is from Nicholas D. Kristof, writing his most recent version of "Why Don't You Just Shut Up And Die, Bitch," as part of the ongoing Hillary DeathWatch.

In this charming column, "The Too-Long Good-bye," Kristof tries to Swiftboat Senator Clinton by comparing her to Katie Couric.

Yes, yes, you heard it right.

He really says that. No, really, he does.

Hillary = Katie. Katie = Loser = Hillary = Loser = Wanting a "man's job" = Loser = Just Shut Up & Die, Bitch

What, you think I'm making all this up? You think this is just me, getting, oh I dunno, all periodically emotional, as The Man Who Would Be [Prom] King once said?

No, no. Let me find the link. Ah. Here.
"One of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton is resolved to keep fighting is, I think, a resentment that she and many of her followers feel over sexism in the campaign. On that issue, she has a point. One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate.

It’s interesting that two strong women — Katie Couric as well as Mrs. Clinton — have foundered this year in roles that are stereotypically male. Granted, the presidency is very different from the job of an evening news anchor, but some psychology experiments suggests that one factor in each case may be public resistance to a woman in a position in which we are accustomed to seeing a man. . . . . So Mrs. Clinton’s frustration is understandable." (Then he tells her to shut up and drop out so that The Man Who Would Be [Prom] King can get on with his important work.

So, boys, and girls, let's deconstruct.

Nicky Kristof imputes an attitude to Senator Clinton that is fact-free -- that she feels "resentment" over sexism in the campaign. He later baselessly asserts that Senator Clinton feels "frustration". (Playing so nicely into the gender stereotype, is he not? It fairly puts my panties in a twist!)

M. Kristof briefly admits to campaign sexism, but then spins it that the real problem is that the "bar" is set "higher" for a woman candidate than a black candidate (wrongly interpreting the data by implying that females inherently aren't "up" to the task, rather than seeing sexist attitudes as being more pervasive than racist attitudes).

He then spins vapid perkmeister Katie Couric as a "strong woman," and that Senator Clinton is a strong woman, too. What a nice compliment, Nicky. (Kristof here cleverly refers to Senator Clinton not as Senator Clinton but as "Mrs. Clinton." You know, Bill's wife. He then "Mrs. Clinton"s her all the way to the article's end.)

Nicky asserts that vapid Katie has foundered this year -- which is true.

Then he says she foundered because she, Katie, is female, not because she, Katie, is a vapid perkmeister unsuited to the job in which she was placed by network execs looking to make evening news even stupider than it has been.

Kristof asserts that, just as Katie Couric has foundered in a role that is stereotypically male, Senator Clinton has foundered in a role that is stereotypically male.


She's the last woman standing in the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States, and that's "foundering"?

Well, of course it is!

That girlie-bar is just set so high!

Then he tells her to get out of the race, and that it will be all her fault if Obama loses to McCain.

Well, no, dear. It's not really like that.

If Obama loses to McCain, that's Obama losing.

If people like you are alienating people like me, that's your bad, Nicky-boy.

And the bad of Faux-Lefties, people like Keith Olbermann, Mickey Moore, Mickey Kaus, Kos, Frank Rich, HuffPo, all those sniggering fratboys and fratgirls who ride wild with the Hillary DeathWatch Posse.

Is there any difference between their sexism and John McCain's?

I can't see any. Can you?



Catherine Morgan said...

Great post. I just wanted to let you know I have featured it as a guest post at The Political Voices of Women.


No Blood for Hubris said...

Thanks, Catherine.

Tigs said...

I was just wondering on what policies you considered Clinton to be to the left of Obama. I prefer Obama because I think he is the more progressive candidate, particularly on foreign policy.

No Blood for Hubris said...

Most importantly -- Health care. Social Security. On both these issues, Obama's frame is Republican Lite.

He, shockingly, comes out against a health care mandate. That in itself is completely un-progressive. It alone should have been a deal-breaker.

Next, Education policy. Jobs. Taxes. Budgeting.

On foreign policy, Joe Wilson says it better than I can:

scroll below, to "The Story of O."

Anonymous said...

I prefer Obama because he's less inclined to come up with lame excuses like videogames and drugs to take away liberties. And, he's better at avoiding offending bits of the Big Tent, which makes him a better politician and IMHO is why he's winning.

But, I've been saying all along that if Clinton wins, I'll happily vote for her over McCain. The bottom line is that we're on the same side. And I've got no problem atall with her staying in the race as long as she wants. It's supposed to be a free country.

AND, I want you to know that I'm disappointed with Dems like Kos, who have gone way too far in taking sides. But Clinton has her share of over-the-top supporters, too. AND, I'm unhappy with Kristof (the world's seen plenty of strong women in charge) and Wright and Ferraro.

Remember, a politician's most annoying supporters are unlikely to be in any kind of majority, and of course really the ones to pay close attention to are the politicians' attitudes themselves, and what their policy advisers' attitudes are. The media and many extreme bloggers are often deliberately annoying to bring readers.

No Blood for Hubris said...

videogames? drugs?

deliberately annoying extreme bloggers?

(shoe fits. is being worn)


Anonymous said...

Thanks for being impolite, lady.

Clinton has had longstanding policies for being in favor of regulating videogames - a restraint of free expression and speech - and, worse, been in favor of RICO-based confiscation of assets prior to guilt being established, and cruel jail escalations for drug crimes. Human rights are MY most important issues.

I sentence you to look in the mirror every time you read an unreasonable or nastily stereotyping pro-Obama post or comment.


No Blood for Hubris said...

Your comment was:

"The media and many extreme bloggers are often deliberately annoying to bring readers."

To which I responded:

"deliberately annoying extreme bloggers?

(shoe fits. is being worn) ;)"

As in, being worn -- by me. Identifying myself as an often deliberately annoying extreme blogger.

I was trying to be self-disparaging, dude.

Apparently I failed. My bad.

I was not trying to be impolite.