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

[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.