We have a very important, yet related, digression to make before we continue our discussion about the obvious and naked political moves and motives of Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton. In Part I we discussed Sarah Palin’s naked political moves and posted a blatant political ad designed to position her for a presidential run.
We thought we could move on to Hillary and Bill today but there are some things that need to be said which relate to Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. We will discuss Hillary Clinton today (Bill Clinton in a subsequent Part III), but first some other items in the news which highlight why Hillary Clinton supporters and Sarah Palin supporters have mutual interests and must form an alliance against sexism and misogyny.
This past Wednesday USA Today published an almost universally ignored article which demands attention from all Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin supporters. As we Hillary Clinton supporters know, sexism and misogyny as political attacks are extremely effective:
“Calling a female candidate such sexist names as “ice queen” and “mean girl” significantly undercuts her political standing, a new study of voter attitudes finds, doing more harm than gender-neutral criticism based solely on her policy positions and actions.
Harder-edged attacks, such as referring to her as a prostitute, were equally damaging among voters, according to research commissioned by a non-partisan coalition of women’s advocacy groups.
The survey said the advice often given to women — to ignore the attacks rather than risk giving them more attention or legitimacy — turns out to be wrong. In the study, responding directly helped the female candidate regain lost ground and cost her opponent support.”
Mainline “women’s advocacy groups” (think NARAL which supported John Edwards! then Barack Obama) stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back or disappeared during the primaries. Phony women advocates like Oprah Winfrey (who voted skin color not character) likewise proved either hapless or treacherous. Neither Hillary nor Sarah Palin should expect decency or support from mainline women’s groups.
Many of these “women’s advocacy groups” betrayed their constituents (yup Gay and other organizations were/are equally treacherous to their own too) and went with Obama-come-lately rather than a tried and true and effective friend. Now these dolts are “stunned”:
“I was stunned at the magnitude of the effect of even mild sexism,” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who conducted the survey. “Right now campaigns tend to be silent and try to tough it out, and this really opens up a whole new strategy of responding.”
The groups that sponsored the research are the Women’s Media Center, the WCF Foundation and Political Parity. Thursday, they will announce a joint initiative called “Name It. Change It” designed to monitor and respond to sexism against female candidates in the media.
Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, president of WCF, says demeaning or belittling language routinely afflicts women in both parties, from Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 to Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware now.”
We hope but will wait and see (and won’t hold our breaths) if the flowery words from the Women’s Media Center are worth a damn. We’ll wait and see if they denounce the sexism and misogyny directed at Sarah Palin and/or Hillary Clinton when the corrupt Obama Dimocratic Party tells them to shut up. If they live up to their words we will praise them and hug them as allies.
The article cites attacks against Senator Lisa Murkowski as a prostitute, Senator Mary Landrieu as a “high-class prostitute” and Harry Reid’s recent description of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand as “the hottest member” (a particularly ugly double meaning insult). The article does not cite currently up for election Christine O’Donnell (hey Women’s Center lets see if you tackle this one) as she is called a “whore” on national television by Judge Karen Mills-Frances and cheered on by Joy Behar.
Among the findings of the poll:
“• The female candidate lost twice as much support when even the mild sexist language was added to the attack. Support for her initially measured at 43% fell to 33% after the policy-based attacks but to 21% after the sexist taunts. The drop was significant among both men and women, those under 50 and over 50, and those with college educations and without.
• The sexist language undermined favorable perceptions of the female candidate, leading voters to view her as less empathetic, trustworthy and effective.
• Responding directly helped the women candidates’ regain support. The rebound occurred both after a mild response — the female candidate calling the discussion “inappropriate” and “meritless” and turning back to issues — and after a more direct counterattack that decried “sexist, divisive rhetoric” as damaging to “our political debate and our democracy.”
As we have written so often the sexism and misogyny of 2008 is forever a blot of people we used to consider allies. No longer. Creatures like Hendrik Hertzberg busied themselves race-baiting and digging up “code” racist language while the scorching fires of sexism and misogyny burned. Then these creatures threw gasoline on the race-baiting fires and declared that anyone who was against Obama was a “racist”. These same eruptions of race-baiting are still directed towards the Tea Party movement and those, like us, who were right about Obama from the very first.
As women on a world-wide basis are attacked, raped, mutilated, the fascination is still racism not sexism and misogyny. Institutional racism is now stamped out or at the very least strongly attacked whenever and wherever it appears. Indeed, today there was a hearing at 10:00 a.m. (televised on C-SPAN) of the Civil Rights Commission regarding voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. [We were not surprised that Bill Ayres is too depressed today to “retaliate” against the hearings.]
In a recent Daily Mail article it was noted that under a new law in England the “racism” hunt extends to tots:
“Teachers are being forced to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged ‘racist’ language, it was claimed last night.
Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Race Relations Act 2000.
More than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said.”
Three year old innocents are stamped with the indelible ink of racism but blatant sexism and misogyny flourish in the open.
“Sports show asks NFL receivers: Would you rather see Palin in the White House — or in Playboy? [snip]
Needless to say, as any Hillary Clinton fan would tell you, this is a bipartisan problem. (And intrapartisan too!) The only question now: Will this be shrugged off somehow on grounds that Palin was “asking for it”? Don’t laugh — that argument has been made before, and not always by hard-left liberals.”
HotAir, a conservative website was one of the few outlets which reported on the study of the effects of sexually charged taunts on women politicians. We have yet to hear from the “Women’s Media Center” a denunciation of this vileness directed at Sarah Palin:
Will “Name It? Change It?” speak up now that they have had their publicity debut? Don’t hold your breath. It’s still “bros before hos” even with alleged “women’s groups”.
We’ll take our own advice and denounce an article which is very favorable to Hillary Clinton.
As Hillary Clinton prepares to travel to Australia, Helen Elliott has written a flattering portrait of Hillary as well as a discussion of feminism which seeks to expand the definition of that still fought over and controversial word. Elliott wrote a fine article then betrayed everything she wrote in the following paragraph:
“Hillary Clinton’s life – struggles, failures, as well as achievements – is a retrospective mapping of women’s lives in the last half of the 20th century. The facts might read as a tick-list of: “First woman to be . . .” but her progress is not about a single theme known as “Feminism”. It’s a bold, infinitely complex and as yet unfinished flow through some 60 years of breakneck change. Faced with the dismaying rise of flirty, dirty Sarah Palin, a woman who declares that all she ever needed to know was learnt on a basketball court, we cling to the idea of a woman of substance, whose eloquent life is making the impossible possible.”
The attack on Sarah Palin as “flirty, dirty” is disgusting. Where is the Women’s Media Center? Where is “Name It. Change It?” We admire Hillary Clinton as much as anyone. But we will not heighten Hillary Clinton by denigrating other women, particularly an accomplished woman “of substance” such as Sarah Palin. We don’t agree on policy issues all that much with Sarah Palin but she is a woman of substance by any definition. The attempts to sideline her as a “cheerleader” or a bimbo will will continue and we await the strong defense the Women’s Media Center will mount.
Palin not only fought the Murkowski machine in Alaska, she now threatens the entire Republican establishment as she leads Jeanne d’Arc fashion the forces of the Tea Party movement. Read our previous article Ms Elliott. Read some of our earlier Palin articles too.
As to naked Hillary? “The idiocy or willful blindness is amazing to watch for those with eyes wide open.” “No matter how overt Hillary Clinton is… Big Media creates a whole other reality.” We have written about this many, many, many times before:
“The usually secret warfare by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton has become open war and direct attacks against Hillary – straight from the Obama campaign apparatus. Yesterday the attacks from the Obama campaign against Hillary (shades of 2008!) became blatant, not disguised, attacks. [snip video]
We’ve written about the earlier, none too veiled attacks, by Obama and his thugs against Hillary (see Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart). In earlier articles we have noted the reasons for the attacks“
That “yesterday” we mentioned was months ago. In that “yesterday” it was Steve Hildebrand leading the attack on Hillary Clinton. In a “yesterday” from this week, it’s David Axelrod with the quotable quote:
“The senior White House strategist was regarded as “a complete spin doctor” by Gen David Petraeus, then chief of the central command region that included Iraq and Afghanistan, Woodward claims.
Axelrod had trouble trusting some of Obama’s senior appointments. When the newly-elected president floated the idea of making Hillary Clinton Secretary of State, Axelrod reportedly asked: “How could you trust Hillary?”
To fully appreciate what a dirty piece of scum David Axelrod is, you must read a February 2009 article called “I Must Save My Child” which details the pain, suffering and struggles of Susan Axelrod and her husband David Axelrod due to the epilepsy of their child Lauren. As their child suffered with savage seizures and surgery and electrodes implanted into her skull – who did the Axelrods turn to? Hillary Clinton. When he needed help David Axelrod did not ask his wife in regards to the life of his child “How could you trust Hillary?” But in Obama’s Chicago and Obama’s Washington – scum rises to the top.
In the latest Woodward tome we see the subtle work of Hillary Clinton – who works with a scalpel not an ax:
“In a review of the “juicy bits” from the new Bob Woodward book Obama’s Wars, this is what the Daily Beast calls “passing the buck”:
[Hillary] must have hidden under a desk when Woodward went to Foggy Bottom. Perhaps she’s still smarting from The Agenda. There’s one killer scene: While the senior staff is formulating the war policy, she tells Obama, “Mr. President, the dilemma you face…” Everybody in the room notices the pronoun.
Wait a minute…I thought the President *wanted* to be the decider. If Hillary had tried to make the decision, what would the Daily Beast have said?”
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know the deal. Both know which way the wind blows as states like Ohio become killing fields for Obama Dimocrats and bulwarks for a vote magnet like Hillary Clinton:
“The voters Obama is losing — white-collar managers in Columbus, blue-collar union workers in Youngstown, pro-life independents around Cincinnati — are exactly the types he needs to win re-election in 2012, and they’re backing away from his party in droves. Obama tallied a whopping 60 percent disapproval rating in Quinnipiac’s latest Ohio poll, with nearly two-thirds of voters disapproving of his economic performance.”
With all the signs pointing to an Obama disaster this November it is little wonder that Hillary Clinton is loudly, nakedly, engaged in a military style pincer movement.
One flank of the encircling movement struck at Obama’s signature message of Hope and Change. During the campaign Hillary often said that it is hard work and experience that can bring about change, not flowery words. This month Hillary nakedly repeated that argument and Big Media pretended it had nothing at all to do with Obama. Hillary said:
“Well, I’ve seen a lot of people run for office and say a lot of things, and then when they have the burden of holding office and the responsibility that goes with it,” Clinton said, “I’ve seen them become very sobered, very quickly, about the challenges we face domestically and internationally.”
“You know, nobody said it better than Mario Cuomo, who said, ‘You campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose.’ Sometimes the poetry can get kind of hot,” Clinton added, “and a little over the top, but the prose brings you down to earth.”
Hillary laughs when she says “the poetry can get kind of hot” and so do we because it is such a specific reference to Obama. The words are exactly the words Hillary used in the 2008 primary campaigns:
“COMMERCE, CALIF. — Lately Hillary Clinton has taken to quoting former New York Governor Mario Cuomo on the stump. “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose,” Clinton tells her crowds. It’s another subtle way to target Barack Obama. The Clinton camp feels that the path to the Democratic nomination runs through her ability to paint Obama as a “talker not a doer.”
But Big Media pretended that “poetry” had something to do with the Tea Party.
The other pincer was making herself clear on the economy and national security.
“ Hillary Clinton sent a precisely calibrated multi-warhead missile (MIRV) into the heart of ObamaLand.[snip]
But Hillary Clinton today was a marvel to watch as she skewred Barack Obama in language which was both disguised and naked. [snip]
The sputtering economy, Mrs. Clinton said, “sends a message of weakness internationally.” She continued, “It is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny, but to have the leverage that comes from having this enormously effective economic engine.”
Hillary’s critique was on both economic and national security grounds – her strengths. It was also a repetition of the argument that Obama is “weak”.
The analysis Hillary Clinton makes is clear and precise. It is naked for all the world to see. It is made on nationally broadcasts outlets. Clear, precise, naked – that’s Hillary today.
[Part III, on Bill Clinton who unlike Hillary is not banned “by law” from politics, coming soon.]