|
by BooMan
I've noticed this new common acronym that keeps getting repeated on Hillblogs: WWTSBJQ. Presumably, this stands for 'Why Won't the Stupid B*tch Just Quit'. Today, it's in use to suggest that John Edwards is part of a network of 'boiz' that are conspiring to push Clinton out of the race before all the people get to vote. I guess I'm part of that network, and so is Markos and John Aravosis, and a bunch of other male pro-Obama bloggers.
I'll let others speak for themselves, but I just want to say a few words about my own feelings. For me, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman is a plus. For a long time when it looked quite likely that she would be the nominee, I consoled myself with the fact that she would be an inspiration to billions of little girls all over the world. Just today, when I was doing analysis of all the House Races, I took a special interest in the women I identified that have enough money to compete. And, even though both Kay Hagan and Jeanne Shaheen are too 'New Democrat' centrist for my tastes, I'm willing to overlook that because I think the Senate desperately needs more female voices (especially the Judiciary Committee). So, while I have a tremendous feeling of satisfaction that Democrats rejected a restoration of the Clintons, I am saddened that so many of her female supporters are feeling such a profound feeling of loss. And, on this blog at least, I've maintained a basically zero tolerance policy for anyone calling Clinton gender-based epithets or otherwise negatively referring to her gender. My opposition to Hillary Clinton has had nothing to do with her gender. I would have been an even harsher critic of her husband, had he been constitutionally permitted to run for a third-term, and done so. For me, the Clintons are largely responsible for the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. Their brand of DLC politics effectively killed off the Democratic Party in the South, and did real damage to the party in the Mountain West. The only places where Clintonism worked were in the (predominately Northern) affluent suburbs. They also ran the DNC in a totally incompetent manner, and saw their liberal and black supporters (the activist base) as a liability that had to be hidden from view. I also resented having to defend Bill Clinton from impeachment charges. He didn't deserve to get impeached, but we didn't deserve to have to defend him against those charges. Finally, the Clinton's foreign policy was not to my liking and, in many important ways, laid predicates for the neo-conservative hijacking that followed in the Bush administration. Briefly, relentless eastward NATO expansion set the path for renewed tensions with Russia. Misinformation used to sustain the sanction regime on Iraq, was then twisted to justify the war by Bush. Going into Kosovo without a UN resolution made it much easier to go into Iraq without one. During the Bush years, while Al Gore and Jimmy Carter were speaking out, Bill Clinton was touring the world with Poppy Bush, while Hillary Clinton was voting for the war and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. There are so many reasons to oppose the Clintons politically, including the generally pro-war tilt of her official supporters and advisers, that it really shouldn't be necessary to spell them all out. But I have spelled them out in a brief, cursory way, to make the point that my opposition is based on a wide array of considerations. And these considerations informed my opinion long before the campaign actually started. I know that most of the serious Clinton supporters have the opinion that it is Barack Obama that injected race into the campaign. We'll just have to disagree about that. But what I find somewhat curious is the high level of perceived misogyny that HillBloggers attribute to the Obama campaign and to Obama supporters. I know I've seen the comments and the t-shirts, and there is no question that there is a lot of misogyny and a lot of it gets directed at Clinton. But not from me. And not from any of the well known bloggers that I read. And not from Obama, or his staffers, or any of the people that have endorsed him or speak for him. There is certainly no misogyny from John Edwards, or John Kerry, or Bill Richardson. A lot of people are frustrated that Clinton is still in the race because it costs money and time to campaign against her. Barack Obama does not really need to be campaigning in Puerto Rico and Kentucky right now. And he really doesn't need the Clintons telling voters in West Virginia that he is an elitist. It's not helpful for the general campaign. So, sometimes people lose their temper and say nasty things. Sometimes people wonder why she won't drop out because she is hurting the party and hurting Obama. I mean, seriously, do you think it helped us in any way in our quest to defeat John McCain to have our nominee blown out in West Virginia last night? And, a last point. I recently made a list of who I'd like to see as Obama's running mate, and a woman topped the list. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has executive experience, she's smart, she's talented, and she has had success attracting more conservative voters without betraying progressive principles. As far as I know, every one of the so-called 'Boiz' agrees with me that Gov. Sebelius deserves to be on any short-list for vice-president. And I think we'd all agree that she'd make a fantastic president in 2016, or if the need should arise before then.
Deep Thought | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Deep Thought | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
|
Login
We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris
|
|||||||||
Booman Tribune Homepage admin@boomantribune.com powered by Scoop 
More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.
|
|||||||||||
