Obama and Edwards gang-bang Hillary

[wiegie]

Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President

January 11, 2008

 

by Marcia Pappas, President NOW - New York State

 

We've all witnessed scenarios where, on the playground little girls are being taunted by little boys while both girls and boys stand idle, afraid to speak up or even cheering. Or, in the workplace males tease young and older female co-workers; make obscene gestures, inappropriate comments, laughing and expecting (often correctly) that everyone will join in. Then there was that movie where Jodie Foster portrayed the true story of woman who was ganged raped in a bar while others looked on and encouraged the realization. Still others pretended the rape didn't happen. In short, gang raping of women is commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically.

 

This past week, we witnessed just such a phenomenon involving men who are afraid of a powerful woman. Hillary Clinton, in her quest for her Presidential nomination, has in fact endured infantile taunting and wildly inappropriate commentary. Indeed we have witnessed almost comical attacks by John Edwards who in turn sided with Barak Obama as both snickered at Clinton's "breakdown," which consisted of a very short dewy-eyed moment. Now John Kerry, who should certainly know better after his own "swiftboating," has joined the playground gang.

 

But here's the news. Every woman knows how it feels! There are those who will dismiss, defend or even shame those around them into believing that we progressives are making a mountain out of a mole hill. But that’s the game plan of the patriarchal system that has persisted for millennia. Because they can't frighten Hillary they've decided to control her with the time-old trick of patriarchal ridicule. Women, you know what I mean!

 

Pundits want to know what happened in New Hampshire. Why didn't the polls see it coming? How could they have gotten it so wrong? Well, aside from the thousands of women and progressive men who made calls from their homes, dropped literature, and held house parties for undecided voters, the truth of the matter is…women get it! That’s why, when women in New Hampshire could vote in private, they came out in droves for Hillary. They'd seen more Hillary bashing than had Iowa's women, and the polls stopped too early to measure their collective reaction. What happened is that women stood up and said "We're fed up and we're not going to take it anymore! We won't sit idly by and watch, while you gang bang one of us." One woman told me she didn't even want to vote for Hillary because she feared that her campaign would be the most dreadful blood bath in the history of politics. I asked her “if Hillary is willing to stick her neck out for us, should we not be brave enough to stand strong behind her?” She agreed and said of course she would vote for Hillary.

 

We have waited a long time to see our first truly viable women presidential candidate. And what we see now during the debates is what women and girls have experienced from time immemorial. But it seems John's recent alliance with Barak sent a clear message to women everywhere. The message is that if a woman gets too powerful, she can count on the good ole boys ganging up on her. Hillary is a powerful, strong and intelligent woman and she deserves our support. Let us remember what we as women's rights supporters, are charged to do: SUPPORT WOMEN!

 

And I, your writer,certainly speak from the belly of the beast. I was in Iowa for ten days with other feminist leaders, donating our personal time and money to help with Hillary's campaign. And in spite of our shortfall in Iowa, we did make a difference. Our efforts gave Hillary second place in the precinct we walked. Let me tell you why.

 

Our job on caucus night was to transport eight women from a nursing home to their caucus site. These were eighty-to-ninety-year-old women who came out in the cold weather and climbed into our vans to stand for Hillary. As we talked with glee about the possibility of our first women president, we were overjoyed to hear stories of their dedication to making it happen. One woman said "I never thought I would live long enough to see a woman president." Another woman said "It's about time; we need to have a woman as our President." These were women who were born around the time that women won the right to vote. They'd heard first-hand stories of that struggle from their mothers and grandmothers. They fought long and hard to see a day when they could have their own credit cards, own their own homes and be in control of their own bodies. They remember all too well when it was legal for a man to beat and/or rape his wife because she was HIS property. They remember when “rape” was ignored by people in the community and law enforcement officials. “She must have done something to deserve it” was common language in those days. Today we still see variations on this same behavior, more subtle perhaps, through success of our efforts, but nonetheless still abusive.

 

Now those senior citizens we transported stood tall for Hillary, and want us all to know that to have a woman president is to send a clear message to little girls everywhere: "Yes, you can do great things and even become President of the United States." Those senior citizens really get it!

 

So let's not let young women and little girls down, whether it's on the playground, in the workplace, or in the political arena. Young women need role models. They need to know they can be powerful and control their own lives. By putting Hillary in the Oval Office we send that message loud and clear for all to hear. Little girls everywhere need to know that to be important they don't have to emulate Brittany Spears or other similarly-exploited women. We can do it!

 

Think about the legacy we'll leave behind when we support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Let’s put a stop to the psychological “gang banging” of women and girls. Let's stand up and be counted by way of the hard-won votes we can now cast!

 

Marcia A. Pappas, President, NOW New York State

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

[billay]

That piece represents the single largest reason why a HRC presidency may be inevitable. Hell hath no fury like a bunch of disenfranchised, affluent white women scorned.

[isleseeya]

That piece represents the single largest reason why a HRC presidency may be inevitable. Hell hath no fury like a bunch of disenfranchised, affluent white women scorned.

 

 

backed by a former slick tongued teflon ex president who happened to be well liked and left his office with economy being as strong as it has been in 50 years

[billay]

The irony is (and more representative that we are achieving equal rights for women) that Hillary is the bully on the playground.

[AtomicCEO]

The irony is (and more representative that we are achieving equal rights for women) that Hillary is the bully on the playground.

 

That's what I was thinking. This article is from right after New Hampshire. She's been on the attack since then, and it's no longer "Poor Hillary"... it's "Hillary should back off because people are getting turned off by her aggressiveness".

 

It makes this whole "Stop hurting Hillary" article seem a little silly.

[Cunning Runt]

That piece represents the single largest reason why a HRC presidency may be inevitable. Hell hath no fury like a bunch of disenfranchised, affluent white women scorned.

 

Hillary, IMO, is unelectable. Far too polarizing.

[detlef]

The irony is (and more representative that we are achieving equal rights for women) that Hillary is the bully on the playground.

 

 

That's what I was thinking. This article is from right after New Hampshire. She's been on the attack since then, and it's no longer "Poor Hillary"... it's "Hillary should back off because people are getting turned off by her aggressiveness".

 

It makes this whole "Stop hurting Hillary" article seem a little silly.

My thoughts exactly.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Yes, John Edwards has teamed up with Obama to attack Hillary. Sure he has. Nevermind the last debate had them both attacking Obama. This is politics. There's no crying in beisbol and no crying in politics. Your candidate, Ms. President of NOW, is being attacked for her (and her husband's) behaviour. Not for her gender. Hillary and her supporters want it both ways. If you disagree with Hillary you are being sexist.

 

While no doubt some of his surrogates are making the case for Obama based on race, Barrack himself is not. He has repeatedly said his candidacy is not about race. That we need to get beyond race and gender. I'm sorry Bill, but Obama is not Jesse Jackson, as much you would like to marginalize him so.

[Azazello1313]

Yes, John Edwards has teamed up with Obama to attack Hillary. Sure he has. Nevermind the last debate had them both attacking Obama. This is politics. There's no crying in beisbol and no crying in politics. Your candidate, Ms. President of NOW, is being attacked for her (and her husband's) behaviour. Not for her gender. Hillary and her supporters want it both ways. If you disagree with Hillary you are being sexist.

 

While no doubt some of his surrogates are making the case for Obama based on race, Barrack himself is not. He has repeatedly said his candidacy is not about race. That we need to get beyond race and gender. I'm sorry Bill, but Obama is not Jesse Jackson, as much you would like to marginalize him so.

 

well, hillary and her campaign aren't really making gender an issue either, it is "surrogates", like this ridiculous NOW woman. it seems like you're the one trying to have it both ways.

[Ursa Majoris]

Hillary, IMO, is unelectable. Far too polarizing.

Just because she's polarizing doesn't mean she's unelectable. It's the college that will matter. All she has to do is get half those votes + 1 and nothing else matters at all.

 

She'd hardly be the first polarizing president of recent times, would she?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

well, hillary and her campaign aren't really making gender an issue either, it is "surrogates", like this ridiculous NOW woman. it seems like you're the one trying to have it both ways.

 

Forgotten her "boys club" claims already?

[Azazello1313]

Forgotten her "boys club" claims already?

 

what about when hillary made this quote:

I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

and obama responded by saying she offended some people with her "unfortunate remark" by diminishing MLK's role, was he playing the race card? yes or no?

[whomper]

If I was Obama and I had the floor during one of the debates I would ask Hillary what she thinks of the situation in Dees..When she says What is Dees ? I would then point to my crotch and say Deez nuts ..

[Cunning Runt]

Just because she's polarizing doesn't mean she's unelectable. It's the college that will matter. All she has to do is get half those votes + 1 and nothing else matters at all.

 

She'd hardly be the first polarizing president of recent times, would she?

 

In this case, again, my opinion only, she is too polarizing. Others may have been before her, but I think she's at a whole 'nother level.

[Azazello1313]

Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn’t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on.

 

Fair enough. The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.

 

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.

 

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Sommers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.

 

Clinton is suffering most. She is now accused, absurdly, of being insensitive to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Bill Clinton’s talk of a “fairy tale,” which was used in the context of the Iraq debate, is now being distorted into a condemnation of the civil rights movement. Hillary Clinton finds that in attacking Obama, she is accused of being hostile to the entire African-American experience.

 

Clinton’s fallback position is that neither she nor Obama should be judged as representatives of their out-groups. They should be judged as individuals.

 

But the entire theory of identity politics was that we are not mere individuals. We carry the perspectives of our group consciousness. Our social roles and loyalties are defined by race and gender. It’s a black or female thing. You wouldn’t understand.

 

Even in this moment of stress, Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants to be emblematic of her gender and liberated from race and gender politics. As she told Tim Russert on Sunday: “You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.”

 

Huh?

 

What we have here is worthy of a Tom Wolfe novel: the bonfire of the multicultural vanities. The Clintons are hitting Obama with everything they’ve got. The Obama subordinates are twisting every critique into a racial outrage in an effort to make all criticism morally off-limits. Obama’s campaign drew up a memo delineating all of the Clintons’ supposed racial outrages. Bill Clinton is frantically touring black radio stations to repair any wounds.

 

Meanwhile, Clinton friend Robert Johnson, a one-man gaffe machine, reminds us of Obama’s drug use and accuses him of being like Sidney Poitier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Another Clinton supporter, Gloria Steinem, notes that black men were given the vote a half-century before women.

 

This is the logical extreme of the identity politics that as been floating around this country for decades. Every revolution devours its offspring, and it seems the multicultural one does, too.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Pick your poison...

 

Hillary - woman

Obama - black

McCain - old

Romney - Mormon

 

[billay]

Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn’t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on.

 

Fair enough. The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.

 

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.

 

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Sommers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.

 

Clinton is suffering most. She is now accused, absurdly, of being insensitive to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Bill Clinton’s talk of a “fairy tale,” which was used in the context of the Iraq debate, is now being distorted into a condemnation of the civil rights movement. Hillary Clinton finds that in attacking Obama, she is accused of being hostile to the entire African-American experience.

 

Clinton’s fallback position is that neither she nor Obama should be judged as representatives of their out-groups. They should be judged as individuals.

 

But the entire theory of identity politics was that we are not mere individuals. We carry the perspectives of our group consciousness. Our social roles and loyalties are defined by race and gender. It’s a black or female thing. You wouldn’t understand.

 

Even in this moment of stress, Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants to be emblematic of her gender and liberated from race and gender politics. As she told Tim Russert on Sunday: “You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.”

 

Huh?

 

What we have here is worthy of a Tom Wolfe novel: the bonfire of the multicultural vanities. The Clintons are hitting Obama with everything they’ve got. The Obama subordinates are twisting every critique into a racial outrage in an effort to make all criticism morally off-limits. Obama’s campaign drew up a memo delineating all of the Clintons’ supposed racial outrages. Bill Clinton is frantically touring black radio stations to repair any wounds.

 

Meanwhile, Clinton friend Robert Johnson, a one-man gaffe machine, reminds us of Obama’s drug use and accuses him of being like Sidney Poitier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Another Clinton supporter, Gloria Steinem, notes that black men were given the vote a half-century before women.

 

This is the logical extreme of the identity politics that as been floating around this country for decades. Every revolution devours its offspring, and it seems the multicultural one does, too.

 

I won't say that Obama hasn't done so, but to say that they have done it to the same degree would be false. Take this for what it is worth, but I don;t think anybody has said that "we need a black president" because, for whatever reason, nobody, in obama's camp or otherwise has needed to. Has the NAACP issued such a statement? If they're smart they won't. That whole schtick in New Hampshire was about being about a woman. "Poor me, I'm tired, I'm beat up, these men just won't let me be." Ane women bought it, evidenced by weige's article. Obama benefits from his status as a minority without having to talk about it. Part of the reason that Obama has sucked all of the wind out of John Edwards sails is becuse Obama is a minority. Forget that they're both in the senate. A message of equality just sounds better coming from an African-American candidate than it does from a rich-white guy.

[Pope Flick]

Except that in this case, the girl has an ex-President husband who she has empowered to do a large chunk of her fighting for her. Wouldn't a "women's lib" proponent rather see her take on the fight solo?

[wiegie]

Pick your poison...

 

Hillary - woman

Obama - black

McCain - old

Romney - Mormon

 

hmmm, where have I seen something similar?

[TimC]

Pick your poison...

 

Hillary - woman

Obama - black

McCain - old

Romney - Mormon

 

 

I think the question of the poster was which would you have sex with.

[driveby]

Pick your poison...

 

Hillary - woman NO F'n WAY

Obama - black Socialist - NO

McCain - old OH Hell NO!

Romney - Mormon

 

[Egret]

Pick your poison...

 

Hillary - woman

Obama - black

McCain - old

Romney - Mormon

 

[wesleysnipes] Always bet on black. [/wesleysnipes]

[Coffeeman]

Yes, John Edwards has teamed up with Obama to attack Hillary. Sure he has. Nevermind the last debate had them both attacking Obama. This is politics. There's no crying in beisbol and no crying in politics. Your candidate, Ms. President of NOW, is being attacked for her (and her husband's) behaviour. Not for her gender. Hillary and her supporters want it both ways. If you disagree with Hillary you are being sexist.

 

While no doubt some of his surrogates are making the case for Obama based on race, Barrack himself is not. He has repeatedly said his candidacy is not about race. That we need to get beyond race and gender. I'm sorry Bill, but Obama is not Jesse Jackson, as much you would like to marginalize him so.

+1000 I'm pretty sure if a male candidate had gotten 'dew-eyed', they would've ganged up on him too! While I don't disagree with this woman on her overall issue of guys 'picking on' girls first as boys and then as men, this one example was weak. And since it is very un-PC to do this openly at work nowadays, it doesn't happen nearly as much now as it did in the past. I think the 75% of salary for the same job thing is a bad deal that needs to be changed, but I just don't see the blatant 'gangbanging' that she talks about here. I have no problem voting for Hilary if I thought she was the best candidate, regardless of gender or color, religion, etc. Some people aren't as open-minded, but it goes both ways.

 

If your perception is constantly colored by a hypersensitivity to one particluar issue, you will tend to see it 'everywhere', and will obssess about it. Like the religious fanatics see the 'devil' in everything. Both of these extremes are scary places to be, and this woman doesn't realize that she is becoming part of the problem and not the solution....