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

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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?

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

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...

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

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.)