_______________________________________
Pushing Back Against the Hillary Haters
Jane Hamsher
I was watching MSNBC yesterday morning and wondering how much the media thrall surrounding Barack Obama has been worth to his campaign.
Having seen Obama mania up close and personal the media didn't make it up, but the way they cover this race -- the language they use to talk about him, his charisma, his "youth movement," his momentum and his star qualilty all stand in sharp contrast to the way they pick apart every detail of Clinton.
They obsess over her in irrational and completely contradictory ways and just seem to find it unseemly that a middle aged woman won't quietly remove herself from the national stage and stop making a bunch of men under 35 uncomfortable with her very presence.
Stanley Fish, writing today in the NYT, gives the best description I've read of the Hillary Hating phenomenon:
I have been thinking about writing this column for some time, but I have hesitated because of a fear that it would advance the agenda that is its target. That is the agenda of Hillary Clinton-hating.
Its existence is hardly news -- it is routinely referred to by commentators on the present campaign and it has been documented in essays and books -- but the details of it can still startle when you encounter them up close. In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a "warmongering hawk," for being godless and for being "frighteningly fundamentalist," for being the victim of her husband's peccadilloes and for enabling them. "She is," Horowitz concludes, "an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest." (In this she is the counterpart of George W. Bush, who serves much the same function for many liberals.)
This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton's candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.
But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call "the next level," in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the "strangeness" of her eyes -- "Analysis of Clinton's eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries" -- and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls "The Crazy Files": she's Osama bin Laden's candidate; she kills cats; she's a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).
But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult. Back in November, I wrote a column on Clinton's response to a question about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. My reward was to pick up an e-mail pal who has to date sent me 24 lengthy documents culled from what he calls his "Hillary File." If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are "supported" by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don't.
I get those emails. The guy is nothing if not thorough. And I agree with Fish's assessment:
Compared to this, the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry was a model of objectivity. When the heading of a section of the "Hillary File" reads "Have the Clintons ever murdered anyone?" -- and it turns out to be a rhetorical question like "Is the Pope Catholic?" -- you know that you've entered cuckooland.
Horowitz warns that as the campaign heats up, this "type of discourse will likely not stay on the fringes for long," and he predicts that some of it will be made use of by Republican operatives. But he is behind the curve, for the spirit informing it has already made its way into mainstream media. Respected political commentators devote precious network time to deep analyses of her laugh. Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesn't do. (This is what the compound "Billary" is all about.) If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, she's just play-acting. If she cries, she's faking. If she doesn't, she's too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, she's dowdy. If she doesn't, she's inappropriately provocative.
None of those who say and write these things is an official Hillary Clinton-hater (some profess to like and admire her), but they are surely doing the group's work.
One almost prefers an up-front hater (although he tells Horowitz that he doesn't like the word) like Dick Morris, who writes in a recent New York Post op-ed of the Clintons' "reprehensible politics of personal destruction" (does he think he's throwing bouquets?), and accuses them of invading the privacy of opponents, of blackmailing and threatening women, and of "whatever slimy tactics they felt they needed." Morris calls Harold Ickes, a Clinton aide, a "hit man" for the president, and he calls the president "Hillary's hit man."
This is exactly the language of the most vicious anti-Hillary Web sites, and here it is baptized by its appearance in a major newspaper.
_______________________________________
Here is a letter in response to Ariana Huffingtons editorial in the Huffington News this morning.
I think I have had just about enough of this crap that obama is not about himself but for the people. Based on what? I am from illinois and here we joke that we only have one senator Dick D. From the minute mr Obama was elected he has been all about himself. I don't find one thing he has done for this state since he was elected. Heck the fact of the matter is he is only in this state to collect money for his war chest. I am amazed at how folks have just decided that someone with no history and says nothing other than "I am going to change things" This sounds a lot like George bushes line when he was running. I am a registered Indie and this decision by huffington and Moveon to decide for people by smearing one canidate and soft balling the other is sad.
_______________________________________
From the Daily KOS
California is in the Bag... for Someone
by Devilstower
Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:32:54 AM PST
Only hours before the polls open, two of the biggest polling operations have turned in their final verdict on today's vote in California. And the verdict is: someone is really, really, really wrong.
California (370 Delegates)
Reuters / Zogby 2/4
Barack Obama
49%
Hillary Clinton
36%
Okay, Obama supporters. Get those cheers out of your system. Ready for the next one?
California (370 Delegates)
Survey USA
Hillary Clinton
52%
Barack Obama
42%
Don't scream yourself hoarse, Hillary fans.
So according to Zogby, California is going to be South Carolina writ large. SUSA says it's mega-New Hampshire. One thing for sure, come Wednesday morning, one of these organizations is going to be laughably wrong.
_______________________________________
Here we go again!
New Jersey's governor is having problems voting in the state's presidential primary.
Jon S. Corzine was scheduled to cast his ballot at 6:15 a.m at the Hoboken Fire Department Engine Company No. 2. But the two machines aren't working and it's not clear why._______________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment