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

Conversation about "Black Panther" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · February 16 at 9:31pm So, Black Panther: it's a pleasure to watch and to think about. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen Creed, in which Ryan Coogler turns the Rocky franchise into a powerful, personal, and critical experience. Black Panther is the rare superhero film in which the worldbuilding is very satisfying—coherent and dramatic in itself, like a bit of history rather than a jerry-rigged contraption. And the action itself has an intellectual and political resonance that's rare for any kind of movie. Like many action movies of any sort, there's plenty of exposition, and some of the early parts seem like pretexts for high-speed tumult (though it's realized cleverly); but when the drama kicks into high gear, it's shudderingly intense—and that very intensity packs an idea of its own.…/the-passionate-politics-of-blac… The Passionate Politics of "Black Panther" Many films …