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

clintonesque

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: clintonesque

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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

Re: clintonesque

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Well, I hope so.

=^)

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

Re: clintonesque

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: clintonesque

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

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!

Re: clintonesque

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: clintonesque

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Um no -- I disagree. Again.

At this point, I should be calling you names I think-- I'm pretty sure that's the standard protocol. But, I just can't choose the best insult. =^)

Could you help me out a little, here? I gotta think of some good insults to throw at you. Uh-- fark!

Ok-- I'll try. *clears throat*

You ignorant, lock-step, media hound! You couldn't find the truth about a Clinton if it came to you in a slimed-over cigar!

Oooh! Was that good!? Did it hit home? Am I all superior now? *looks hopeful* 8^D