While promoting her newly released memoir, Hillary Clinton has placed blame on several factors for her loss to Donald Trump last November – from her own mistakes, to Russian interference in the US election, and the late intervention by then-FBI director James Comey.
But Clinton has also spoken candidly about how deep-rooted sexism played a hand in her defeat, and about the double standards she faced as the first woman nominated by a major party for president in America’s 240-year history.
The Guardian: Hillary Clinton: there's a 'game that keeps women in their place'
That Clinton plays this fatuous rubbish right after the election of the first black American President implies a blithe ignorance relative to the administration in which she says she so proudly served. It's true there's discrimination against women but I don't recall any period in American history in which women were being lynched by armed vigilante nightriders.
“This has to be called out for what it is: a cultural, political, economic game that’s being played to keep women in their place,” Clinton said.
“The idea that women have to fit certain stereotypes; that’s a weight around the ankle of every ambitious woman I’ve ever met,” she added. “We get constant messaging our whole lives: You’re not thin enough, talented enough, smart enough. Your voice isn’t what we want to hear.”
- Guardian
This scandalous exploitation of the real discrimination women experience, particularly in the workplace, has nothing whatever to do with a woman who has enjoyed every privilege of wealth the Wall Street banks could afford her. Her life in no way resembles the American working girl or no more so than my life had any relationship to that of Donald Trump, yet another of those with more money than sense.
Ref: "Working Girl" with Melanie Griffith.
My opposition to Clinton started relatively early and particularly after she was asked about her position on the Veterans Administration in the early debates but her best answer was to say she would get back to us on that. My immediate response to her lack of knowledge was wtf do you mean you don't know after years of sending young Americans to war.
The situation wasn't that anything was stacked against Clinton from the start but rather as the campaign progressed she revealed more and more to the people as an ill-mannered and bad-tempered person. The repulsion she created was by her own words far more than any inherent stacking of the deck against her. The psychopathic horror was unmatched relative to any candidate ever was when she said, "We came; we saw; he died."
That, more than anything else, was what finished her.
“It’s difficult for me to see my story as one of revolution,” Clinton told the Times. “But I was part of the women’s movement that led to a revolution not just in laws, but in attitudes and doors that had been closed to young women opening.”
- Guardian
It ought to be a difficult thing to see when there was nothing revolutionary about her campaign and she was failing progressives almost from her first word. Her solution was to vilify Socialists and rejection by us she now wants to turn around to call discrimination. That kind of logic may pass in a Washington think tank but it doesn't pass out here in the real world.
Kamala Harris has signed up with Bernie Sanders on Medicare-for-All and she gets immediate respect for having the political courage to do so. So has Elizabeth Warren. (Ithaka: Add Your Name, Sign Bernie's Card | Our Revolution)
Tulsi Gabbard has been espousing the same approach since the first and she has had deep respect for her political courage as well. Ms Gabbard is the strong preference of Progressives and that's because she hasn't ever waffled on anything or changed answers but rather has spoken forthrightly from the beginning in support of real revolution in the American political system whereas Clinton never brought anything of that nature.
She describes the experience as both “excruciating” and “humiliating”.
“The moment a woman steps forward and says, ‘I’m running for office’, it begins,” she writes. “The analysis of her face, her body, her voice, her demeanor; the diminishment of her stature, her ideas, her accomplishments, her integrity.
“It can be unbelievably cruel.”
- Guardian
Ever the bleedin' victim but we never heard of any empathy in her for all the people getting killed in the Middle East. The cruelty she says was inflicted on her was insignificant relative to that which she inflicted on others.
The Guardian should be ashamed of itself for giving continuing sympathetic focus to that empty horror of a human being.
But Clinton has also spoken candidly about how deep-rooted sexism played a hand in her defeat, and about the double standards she faced as the first woman nominated by a major party for president in America’s 240-year history.
The Guardian: Hillary Clinton: there's a 'game that keeps women in their place'
That Clinton plays this fatuous rubbish right after the election of the first black American President implies a blithe ignorance relative to the administration in which she says she so proudly served. It's true there's discrimination against women but I don't recall any period in American history in which women were being lynched by armed vigilante nightriders.
“This has to be called out for what it is: a cultural, political, economic game that’s being played to keep women in their place,” Clinton said.
“The idea that women have to fit certain stereotypes; that’s a weight around the ankle of every ambitious woman I’ve ever met,” she added. “We get constant messaging our whole lives: You’re not thin enough, talented enough, smart enough. Your voice isn’t what we want to hear.”
- Guardian
This scandalous exploitation of the real discrimination women experience, particularly in the workplace, has nothing whatever to do with a woman who has enjoyed every privilege of wealth the Wall Street banks could afford her. Her life in no way resembles the American working girl or no more so than my life had any relationship to that of Donald Trump, yet another of those with more money than sense.
Ref: "Working Girl" with Melanie Griffith.
My opposition to Clinton started relatively early and particularly after she was asked about her position on the Veterans Administration in the early debates but her best answer was to say she would get back to us on that. My immediate response to her lack of knowledge was wtf do you mean you don't know after years of sending young Americans to war.
The situation wasn't that anything was stacked against Clinton from the start but rather as the campaign progressed she revealed more and more to the people as an ill-mannered and bad-tempered person. The repulsion she created was by her own words far more than any inherent stacking of the deck against her. The psychopathic horror was unmatched relative to any candidate ever was when she said, "We came; we saw; he died."
That, more than anything else, was what finished her.
“It’s difficult for me to see my story as one of revolution,” Clinton told the Times. “But I was part of the women’s movement that led to a revolution not just in laws, but in attitudes and doors that had been closed to young women opening.”
- Guardian
It ought to be a difficult thing to see when there was nothing revolutionary about her campaign and she was failing progressives almost from her first word. Her solution was to vilify Socialists and rejection by us she now wants to turn around to call discrimination. That kind of logic may pass in a Washington think tank but it doesn't pass out here in the real world.
Kamala Harris has signed up with Bernie Sanders on Medicare-for-All and she gets immediate respect for having the political courage to do so. So has Elizabeth Warren. (Ithaka: Add Your Name, Sign Bernie's Card | Our Revolution)
Tulsi Gabbard has been espousing the same approach since the first and she has had deep respect for her political courage as well. Ms Gabbard is the strong preference of Progressives and that's because she hasn't ever waffled on anything or changed answers but rather has spoken forthrightly from the beginning in support of real revolution in the American political system whereas Clinton never brought anything of that nature.
She describes the experience as both “excruciating” and “humiliating”.
“The moment a woman steps forward and says, ‘I’m running for office’, it begins,” she writes. “The analysis of her face, her body, her voice, her demeanor; the diminishment of her stature, her ideas, her accomplishments, her integrity.
“It can be unbelievably cruel.”
- Guardian
Ever the bleedin' victim but we never heard of any empathy in her for all the people getting killed in the Middle East. The cruelty she says was inflicted on her was insignificant relative to that which she inflicted on others.
The Guardian should be ashamed of itself for giving continuing sympathetic focus to that empty horror of a human being.
No comments:
Post a Comment