Skip to main content

Hillary Clinton

The thing that had a radicalizing impact on me began after [Hillary lost in] Iowa. Because there was this pile-on, and to me it was mind-bending. It was coming often from people on the left. It was like something they had been keeping inside as they bit their tongues and covered this woman who had the gall to be the front-runner and the "inevitable" candidate, which was the word that they threw out there. And finally she had shown weakness, and they were just going nuts.

[. . .]

Eventually I became a lot more aware of the ways in which not only Hillary but also her supporters were being talked about. I became increasingly sensitive to the scorn directed at her, and it built and built as she continued to fight, and it drove me nuts. Because I thought her continuing to fight was awesome and hilarious. I thought it was completely redefining how we view women and our expectations for them in public and political life. She would not comply. She would not give in. She would not do what the pundits wanted her to do, what her opponents wanted her to do, what reporters were insisting that she do, what everyone was telling her was the smart thing to do or, in one case, the classy thing to do. She just kept going. (Rebecca Traister, quoted in Curtis Sittenfield, “Big Girls Don't Cry’: The election that changed everything for women,” Salon, 12 Sept. 2010)


HRC WAS way better than Obama, guys. Only she reminded people of their swarming, intentful mothers, so they looked away, moved apart, and voted in the more denatured, affectless Obama. She WAS brutally treated during the campaign; reporters could barely look at her, and looked away as soon as excuse was given. Credit is due Rebecca for noticing this; discredit, or considerable suspicion, for not being drawn to her from the start.

@Patrick McAvoy-Halston

Patrick: "HRC WAS way better than Obama, guys."

Strange that you direct this comment at "guys." So there weren't any female Obama supporters, is that it?

Patrick: "Only she reminded people of their swarming, intentful mothers, so they looked away, moved apart, and voted in the more denatured, affectless Obama."

Okay, let me ask you: Are you joking? Is this some sort of satire? If not, then I am amazed at your ability to psychoanalyze an entire voting bloc. I'm even more amazed at your extra-sensory powers in detecting that hundreds of thousands of voters have "swarming" and "intentful" mothers! (I didn't realize the primaries were decided by honeybee larvae.)

Patrick: "She WAS brutally treated during the campaign;"

"Brutally"? Really? Which part was brutal-est? Was there anything much more brutal than the later claim that Obama "pals around with terrorists"?

I think it's really cute how people want to claim Obama supporters were "BRUTAL!" to Hillary. But when Obama supporters point out that it works both ways, suddenly people are saying, "Oh, she's just feisty!" and "She paid him the respect of giving him a good, hard fight!"

I also vividly recall Obama getting raked over the coals because the pastor at his old church was obnoxious. But that wasn't brutal, that was fair, right? So let's see: If people are critical of Hillary, they're being "brutal," (practically woman batterers, if you want to get clinical about it) but if people are critical of Obama, it's peachy. Got it.

Patrick: "...reporters could barely look at her, and looked away as soon as excuse was given."

Now, again, this has to be satire, right? Because I am pretty sure that people looked at Hillary Clinton on an ongoing basis, very intently.

Okay, no, I am convinced you're kidding. Sorry for missing it up till now. (Xrandadu Hutman, response to post)

@Xrandadu Hutman

No, not satire. When they (the press) could switch from talking to Hillary to talking to Obama, they seemed relieved. They did almost enough (though not enough: note the SNL skits which played on the press's strange aversion to Hillary) to save face, but it WAS as if they were risking close contact / involvement with some toxic medusa. They engaged with her scrunched up in a grimace, bracing themselves to the first touch of her affect. Obama was cool, smoke in hand. For all the talk of charisma, it was his sparing absence which drew "us" to him.

Palin you can bond to, have carry around her like a pistol in her holster, because you'll be killing baby seals and runt liberals, not bonding with her in some cuddled global village. The first sense we have that she's turning to make us into one of her sprats, we'll turn her into our first lady, permanently ensconced as secondary to Obama. There is a sense, perhaps, that she's settling into that position right now. Can Obama master his uppity (Palin) wife, like he did his previous mistress?

That Salon gave Hillary support, speaks FOR Salon.

Link: “Big Girls Don’t Cry: The election that changed everything for women (Salon)


Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   

2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…