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.
Hel-lo?
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?
.