Well, liberals ARE proponents of recycling...

[flewellyn]

Melissa McEwan and Maureen McCluskey of Shakesville have written a wonderful essay about the demonization of Hillary Clinton in this past primary, and the disturbing facts revealed about the left in America.

Excerpt:

In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton — funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism — was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher's note for the tome says of its subject: "No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies - and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes."

Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole "malevolent, power-mad shrew" thing sounded pretty good, too.

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 while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn't matter we swear." The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Full essay is here. Worth a read, I think.

Comments

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

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.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

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

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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?

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

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

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I appreciate that.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

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.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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...

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

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.)

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

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.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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.