#&#39;(LAMBDA NIL NIL)

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as "wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party

You think that's a new thing?

From:

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.

From:

That's an old characterisation, of Hillary being power hungry and ruthless. The big difference is that after the primary season, it's not just the Republicans who agree with it.

From:

Right, because bowing out and campaigning in support of your former opponent is just the thing to do when you're power hungry and ruthless.

The point is that this old meme has been taken up by the supposedly progressive left, despite the fact that it's demonstrably false and sexist as hell.

From:

Oh, come on, don't be so disingenuous. The power-hungry and ruthless characterisation started to set in when she committed the same unforgivable sin as Joe Lieberman: favoring the GOP over fellow Democrats. It would have been one thing to talk down Barack Obama and talk herself up. It would have been perfectly acceptable for her to argue that she was a better candidate than he. It was when she compared John McCain favorably to Obama, when she argued not that Obama couldn't beat McCain but that McCain was a better candidate than Obama, that she betrayed the party.

That she dropped out once it was clear that she couldn't win is irrelevant; if I'm locked in an empty room and I've searched all the cupboards and found nothing, does ceasing to look for food mean that I'm not hungry?

You can defend that centre-right piece of shit and whine about nonexistent sexism all you want; I suppose it's easier than confronting actual sexism. But don't turn your stupid, inane rage against people who are actually trying to improve the lot of the world simply because you didn't get your way.

From:

So let me get this straight.

I post an excerpt of an essay, and links to the full essay, which describes how Clinton was subjected to attacks using the same right-wing memes that the same people condemned before, and your reaction is to spout those same memes uncritically?

You have got to be shitting me.

It was when she compared John McCain favorably to Obama, when she argued not that Obama couldn't beat McCain but that McCain was a better candidate than Obama, that she betrayed the party.

Sigh...she didn't say that. She said that McCain had more experience. Which is demonstrably true. More experience does not necessarily translate to better, and she certainly did not say McCain would be better. These are not equivalent statements, and it's dishonest of you to continue to equate them.

From:

My reaction is to dismiss their defenses of Clinton. You can't simply say "right-wing memes!" and expect that such handwaving answers it. Before the 2008 primary campaign, I defended Hillary Clinton. I've never liked her or her husband, but goddammit I defended her against stupid assholes' criticisms because so many of them were lies, or misogyny, or just plain stupid.

I'm done with that now. The primary season had her justifying her refusal to acknowledge the inevitable on the grounds that her opponent might be assassinated, giving the victory to her. She's lost every last bit of the goodwill I so very grudgingly gave her, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Do not accuse me of being uncritical; I should think that as long as we've known each other, accusations of uncritical spouting of right-wing memes would be the last thing either of us would accuse the other of.

She said that McCain had more experience.

Don't you fucking try to spin me. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml) She said that McCain offers experience, while Obama offers speeches. That's a direct comparison between the opposition candidate and a competing party candidate which elevates the opposition candidate over the one from her own party. As far as I'm concerned, that makes her no better than Joe Liberman, who's made a career of appearing on FOX News to talk shit about Democrats.

From:

Do not accuse me of being uncritical; I should think that as long as we've known each other, accusations of uncritical spouting of right-wing memes would be the last thing either of us would accuse the other of.

You would think so, but unfortunately I see you doing just that. You haven't given her any benefit of the doubt, held her to standards far higher than Obama, and shown an appalling lack of critical thinking when it came to any news about her.

In the past, you've been careful to try and read between the lines when the media spouted bullshit, yet when it came to anything about Clinton, you gobbled it down like
it was the nectar and ambrosia of the Gods of Accurate News Reporting.

Not only that, but you repeatedly excused "gaffes" and "misstatements" by Obama which were highly objectionable, yet nailed Clinton to the wall for comparatively mild flubs. You've rejected any argument that Obama should try to reconcile with Clinton's supporters, and repeatedly stated that Clinton's supporters should just "get over it" and "quit whining", rhetoric which sounds shockingly similar to what Republicans said after 2000. And, you continue to rehash old and long since dealt-with issues from the primary, despite the fact that Clinton has thrown her support behind Obama, as "proof" that she's power hungry and evil.

What am I to conclude from this?

From:

You would think so, but unfortunately I see you doing just that. You haven't given her any benefit of the doubt, held her to standards far higher than Obama, and shown an appalling lack of critical thinking when it came to any news about her.

I submit that I have not, and that you're seeing misogyny and special treatment, as I said, where it simply isn't. Please don't think that I'm an Obamatard; he is a means to an end that is somewhat preferable other possible ends, and that is all. My support for him is not born of some idea that he's a great man, someone who's going to change the world and make it all better. He's the least worst candidate available, and that's all I think it's even vaguely reasonable to ask. I defend him not because I feel he's a great candidate or a great person; when I defend him, it's because the alternative is giving ground to the GOP.

And I haven't "rejected any argument that Obama should try to reconcile with Clinton's supporters", I've rejected your inane and asinine assertions that Clinton supporters are brittle and childish people who must be handled with kid gloves. (Gee, your characterisation of Clinton supporters isn't AT ALL misogynist, is it?)

Lastly, of course I address her behavior during the primary race when I'm evaluating her as a person- her saying "Oh, okay, get behind Obama now!" doesn't erase her behavior over the past several months. I'm not ready to forgive her, and even if I were, I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to forget.

From:

you're seeing misogyny and special treatment, as I said, where it simply isn't.

What makes you qualified to say that? Did you read the essay I linked? Those two women are prominent feminist bloggers who spend a lot of time thinking about and researching this stuff; what makes you so confident in dismissing their opinion? They're not alone in seeing sexism and special treatment in this primary; a number of feminist women have said the same. What makes you more qualified than they to say what is, and is not, sexist?

And I haven't "rejected any argument that Obama should try to reconcile with Clinton's supporters", I've rejected your inane and asinine assertions that Clinton supporters are brittle and childish people who must be handled with kid gloves.

That's an outrageous and unsupportable characterization of my position, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even considering it, much less saying it. My assertion has been that Obama needs to make policy and rhetorical concessions to Clinton's supporters, and he needs to make sure they are welcomed to the table, not shoved aside. He's not doing that.

When people who go to an Obama rally to protest his rhetoric and actions during the primary are excluded by security and shoved into Bushlike "free speech zones" (see my previous post), that does not equate with "unifying the party". That's exclusionary and divisive.

From:

Fuck it, I give up, I'm not going to keep this up if you're just going to lie constantly.

From:

Lie? I beg your fucking pardon?

You don't sling insults at me like that in my journal. Hell, you shouldn't do it anywhere.

I have a different opinion than you do, and instead of arguing it maturely, you just throw a tantrum. GROW THE FUCK UP.

And while you're at it, answer the question I asked you: what qualifies you to say something is not sexist, when many feminist women say it is?

From:

wlotus.livejournal.com

You're far more patient than I am. I would have locked down comments after the second or third reply.

From:

I appreciate that.

From:

While I agree that his characterization of your position is extreme, I can't help but note that your assertion has not just been that Obama needs to make concessions to Clinton supporters (which I strongly agree with in general but agree with to varying degrees when it comes to specific concessions) but also that Obama's supporters (in the loosest sense, since many people who are fine with him now were not for him or strongly for him during the primary) should refrain from being critical of Clinton supporters, even when they have serious concerns.

From:

Refrain from being critical? No, never said anything like that.

Refrain from engaging in personal attacks, blatant hypocrisy, bald-faced lying, and outright intimidation and bullying? Yes, quite. And I wonder where I got the idea that that was going on...

From:

That's a fine principle, but I'm going to have to disagree with your specific application of it in the past. When you're one of the people being criticized, it's easy to feel like you're being personally attacked, intimidated, and bullied, which I think is where the line gets blurred... Not that I'm not guilty of that plenty of the time. It's just that, well, that's a difficult thing to judge. Sometimes people do honestly mean to be respectfully critical, and while it's legitimate to feel attacked, I think responding in the way that you often have has the effect of shutting down discussion of the topic being raised. Which I guess all boils down to, maybe give people the benefit of the doubt more often? (Again, not referring to this thread here.)

From:

I'm all out of benefit of the doubt. I gave it away.

From:

Before we met, evidently. :p

I dunno, I've generally found that all it takes is one little test balloon and you'll either be pleasantly surprised or have your suspicions indisputably confirmed, at which point you can leave. Same amount of effort as responding angrily, while still welcoming sincere and respectful discussion.

From:

Part of the problem is that every time I try to discuss these things with some people, they end up hurling feces.

And I'm just too stubborn to give up after one try.

Also, PG is someone who I respected in the past, so there's a bit more of a reason for me to want to try to reason with him.

Edited Date: 2008-07-02 05:29 am (UTC)

From:

nailed Clinton to the wall for comparatively mild flubs

That's really not an objective fact.

rhetoric which sounds shockingly similar to what Republicans said after 2000

I think that's possibly pushing it a little bit, unless you're claiming that Obama stole the election (which I guess you might, but I'd remind you that Obama would have won the delegate count even if MI and FL had not been counted at all, and even if Clinton alone had gotten delegates in MI, and that there's no such thing as a popular vote in a system with a significant number of caucus states).

I think when your candidate of choice loses you have to get over it at some point in all elections, not just this one. And I also think (though I'm not speaking specifically to PG's usage) that there's a significant difference in tone between the imperative "Get over it!" and the mere phrase "get over it" used in a sentence. When I say (or rather, think, since I try not to say it, knowing that people will flip) that Clinton supporters should get over it or that I hope they will eventually get over it, I honestly mean it respectfully. Can you suggest a way to get across the same idea without the belligerent connotation?

From:

I try, but every time it comes up, PG starts slinging around the insults.

And he never did answer my question: what makes him qualified to dismiss sexism that many feminist women have seen?

From:

OK, but could you suggest one to me?

The answer to your question is, of course, nothing, but I'm not dismissing any sexism, so...

From:

Well, one way is for Obama and his camp to say "It was a hard-fought campaign, but we have common goals, and if you're willing to work with us, we'll work together to reach those goals".

And then Obama needs to give concrete assurances that he will in fact follow through on reproductive rights, LGBT rights, civil liberties issues, and other areas that Clinton's supporters (including me) are uneasy about. His rolling over for Bush on the FISA bill last week did NOT do him any favors there, for instance. And it would be really nice to hear him say something definite about protecting access to abortion.

From:

OK, but that's not the same thing. What I asked for was a way to talk about the concept of "getting over" something, "moving past" it, say, without it coming off as belligerent. I didn't ask what Obama and his supporters can do in general to make amends with Clinton supporters.

Serious question time: The most common thing I've heard wary Clinton supporters cite as a reason Obama is untrustworthy on LGBT rights is his opposition to gay marriage. But Clinton also opposes gay marriage... so why so much fear of Obama? I'm sure you've read about Michelle Obama's speech on LGBT rights, which was pretty heartening to me. I guess I don't really get it.

I guess you'll probably say McClurkin, but to be honest I don't get that either. He was invited to sing, not to preach or speak, and Obama wasn't even there. Of course, I'm also a critic of this idea that a candidate must be held responsible for every supporter who disagrees with him or her on something... And I'll be damned if Clinton has never loosely associated with a homophobe. (Just in case you're tempted to accuse me of being hopelessly in the tank for Obama, I followed this and formed my opinion on it when it happened back in October, at which point I was completely undecided.)

From:

She said that McCain had "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold." I still don't understand how you're able to claim that that's not a) positive as compared to Obama and b) a statement about qualifications.

From:

I disagree with you adamantly regarding Hilary Clinton being a good leader, but I've already gone over that with you. I dropped the discussion when I realized there would be no meeting of minds. After awhile it just gets to be be a head-bashing-against-a-brick-wall kind of thing, and I'm not into that. =^)

I think she handled herself poorly right up until she was pretty much forced to behave decently and relent and "let" Obama be the presumptive nominee. Her speeches she went on and on and on about HER and how wonderful SHE was and what a revolutionary SHE was, as opposed to Obama, who spoke about what needed to be done. He talked about himself, sure, but not all ME ME-ME-ME-ME-ME-ME-ME-ME like she did. It turned me off, big-time. That's the personal side. The practical side of me is aware of her past links to many scandals and sees her corruptive links NOW, and would rather not have that AGAIN in the White House. She would have done things the old way. Obama I think will try some new things-- and I'll like to give him that chance. Maybe it won't work, but I'd like to see the attempt made, anyway.

I'm not sexist, nor unfair in these opinions. I'm frustrated when someone tells me I'm "just not seeing the truth" when I've been looking and I think the same about them. At that point, there is no more to say.

Did the media attack Hilary Clinton unfairly? YES! They also gave her accolades just as unfairly. They also attacked and gave acolades to Obama and McCain unfairly. Even if she was especially attacked (and I don't think so, but EVEN IF) that would NOT change my opinion about her!

I'm darn GLAD that she did not win the Democratic nomination, because she didn't earn it, period.

From:

See, PG? This is how you disagree with someone respectfully.

From:

Well, I hope so.

=^)

'Cause I still like ya, no matter how much we disagree!

From:

As far as scandals and corruption go, I remember the manufacturing of those scandals and rumors of corruption back in the 90s, and that fact makes me extremely dismissive of such rumors now. Especially since it's the same people in the media spouting them.

From:

I think the media played DOWN the REAL scandals, like Whitewater and several suspicious deaths. They played up the silly bullshit like Bill Clinton's sexcapades, which was just annoying. The media has a habit of ignoring the stuff I want to know about and heading right for the shit Jerry Springer people will care about. Frustration!

From:

I think the media played DOWN the REAL scandals, like Whitewater and several suspicious deaths.

Actually, those were made up. Whitewater was a non-story, and the "suspicious deaths" were almost entirely the fabrication of the frothing right-wing press.

From: