by Tom Kando
On October 26, I posted an article titled Obsessive-Compulsive Obama Hatred Disorder Today’s article is a parallel piece:
I am prompted to do this by Alex Seitz-Wald’s recent article Where is Hillary on Torture? which appeared on the Left/progressive site Reader Supported News.
The article (correctly) complains that Hillary Clinton has not spoken out (enough) about the use of torture on terrorism-related detainees. But what I want to focus on are the comments which follow the article: They unanimously express strong hatred for Ms. Clinton. For example:
● Billy Bob and dquandle: “(Killary) also showed interest in invading Syria and Iran...and starting WWIII in Ukraine while obliterating Libya.”
● Ritawalpoleague: “Hill the Shill will say anything to up her chances of grabbing the nomination...”
● Eldon J. Boedorn: “Bill married her. He would know...!!!”
● Old Uncle Dave: “Hillary exhibits psychopathic traits.”
● Malcolm: “Hillary’s goal in life is to appear as manly as the most manly man warrior. She ain’t about to show her ‘feminine’ side.”
● A_Har: “She’s an ‘honorary man’.”
● Fredboy and Dquandle: “ (Like the Nazis,)...what Hillary likes (is) people who follow orders.”
● Dquandle: “Hillary supports torture and supports mass murder by executive decree, and will engage in both when elected. She is a gorgon...”
● A_Har: “I am already seeing bumper stickers--"getting ready for Hillary." OMG, I will never be ready for that harpy. I will never vote for her...”
● Kootenay Coyote: “...people who were doing what they were told to do...' Clinton should have been a lawyer for the Nazis at Nuremberg, if she takes that view.”
Etc.
And this is a Left/Progressive site! The hostility here is dwarfed by the venom spewed year after year by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party and my Republican acquaintances at my health club.
To the Hillary-haters on the RIGHT, she is nothing less than the anti-Christ, Satan, Medusa, Maleficent the Witch and Bitch all wrapped into one.
Let’s compare the two diseases - Obama hatred and Hillary hatred:
1. To right-wingers, all problems are Obama’s fault - unemployment, terrorism, illegal immigration, ebola, bad weather, everything. To Hillary haters on both sides of the spectrum, all problems are also the fault of the Clintons.
2. To right-wingers, Obama is a left-wing extremist. To a majority of men, Hillary is a ball-breaking feminazi.
3. To many on both the Right and the Left, Obama is too weak. To many on both the Right and the Left, Hillary is too strong (a woman has no business being strong).
4. To the Right, Obama is an “imperial” president. To both the Right and the Left, Hillary is an opportunist.
5. Unspoken and never to be admitted are the unforgivable sins of these two individuals: Obama is not (fully) white, and Hillary is a woman.
There are many more Obama-haters and Hillary-haters on the Right than on the Left, and they are far more virulent. However, hatred for both of them is also found on the Left, because both politicians are moderate centrists. Hillary is slightly to Obama’s right, which explains why the Left is more critical of Hillary than it is of Obama. Republicans, Tea-partiers and conservatives hate both. Racists hate Obama more, sexists hate Hillary more, while men hate Hillary more. All of this is simple and predictable.
My question to progressives who hate Hillary is this: What is the matter with you? She may not be progressive enough, but surely ANY Republican alternative would be ten times worse, no? Were Elizabeth Warren to get the nomination, fine, I would happily vote for her, but how likely is that to happen, and how electable would she be in the general election? Do you want to hand over the presidency to the Republicans, as Ralph Nader gave it to Bush in 2000?
As to all the bs about Hillary being a cold, castrating and opportunistic bitch: where is your evidence?
Why do you always judge people on superficial external appearances, rather than their accomplishments?
Okay, so she “appears” too strong for your taste. Well, if she appears strong, maybe it’s because she IS. When did strength become a weakness (except for women)? Hillary is threatening to millions of pathetic traditional guys who fear nothing more than a woman wearing the pants. Most men are sexist. And many women, too, are envious and fearful that they would be dominated by someone like Hillary Clinton.
Hillary’s strength is an asset. She was impressive when she tried to pass a health care plan in 1993. She was great when she banged on the table defending herself at Congressional Benghazi hearings in 2013. When she writes that “It takes a village,” and that her husband was the victim of “a vast right-wing conspiracy,” she makes an awful lot of sense. She was an excellent senator and secretary of state.
A strong woman is exactly what we need at the helm. We need a progressive Margaret Thatcher, an American Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi. Were Hillary Clinton to be our next President, she would
be an Obama redux, a stronger and more assertive version of Obama. What a hoot!
The alternative: Give the Presidency to the Republicans, who already control every other branch of government. Finalize the right-wing counter-revolution. Hand over the country in perpetuity to the plutocracy, complete the destruction of unions, privatize the entire economy, return to a minimum-wage labor market, abolish any remnant of national health insurance and defined benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. Welcome to the new slavery.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
9 comments:
With our media and the internet, Americans want a virile looking president (Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama). Don’t forget the superficial voters come out on presidential elections, so both Chris Christie and Hillary are too dumpy to get elected president!
Altho the POTUS is important, the Congress runs this country. That said, pres. Hilary is a cold warrior, and would try to get Congress to put many thousands of boots on the Middle East ground. They rightfully hate us for past deeds there, and our new and increasing involvement again may well grow ISIS. The end game may be ISIS becoming a new state, and then focussing on the eliminating the names Israel and West Bank. This would cause the US to go all out to prevent that, making Viet Nam look like an 8 year war game where we were the red team v the white team, and the red team lost.
Hell, if she couldn't manage her own husband, how can she manage the federal government?
Just read a fascinating article that posited that all the sordid claims against Bill Cosby will result in revisiting the claims against Bill Clinton and thereby sinking Hillary's candidacy : http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/why-hillary-is-not-inevitable-bills-sordid-past/
Hear, hear!!
She is surely not my kind of Democrat. I would much prefer an Elizabeth Warren. I agree, though, that much of the criticism of Hillary is just plain misogyny.
Thank you all:
I acknowledge the two anonymous comments, without knowing how to react to them, or supporting them. They are not very good.
Jutka seems to agree with me - possibly because much of my piece is feminist.
Scott’s remarks are very quite sensible.
Most interesting are Petermino’s concerns, which make sense up to a point:
ISIS? I am against US involvement there. But I am also against a second Holocaust (Israel’s demise). So I have no more of a solution than does Petermino.
Our evil “past deeds”? A couple of recent events remind me that such talk is simplistic and biased, and that the relationship between the US and the rest of the world is extremely complex, with plenty of blame for all sides:
Obama’s plan to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba is a great step forward.
North Korea’s success in censoring American popular culture through cyber-terrorism is a terrible development. And don’t forget that most of the hackers are on the Chinese side of the Korean border, so it’s China that’s really having a ball.
Related to the “Cuban development,” many young urban Iranians are now asking, “if America can come to terms with Cuba, why not Iran?” However, this overlooks the fact that the sticking point with Iran is that country’s effort to acquire nuclear weapons...
Plenty of food for thought...It’s not all clearly black and white...
Heated subject and I think we will actually be able to do more than imagine how gender dynamics will impact our world when and if we have our first female president -and having a woman in the White House will create just as many fireworks as race; gender is a contested subject as well
Gail
Good comment, Gail:
As far as I am concerned, if Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton both ran, BOTH the president AND the vice-president could be women. What a hoot! Of course, this matriarchal fantasy is delusional.
In fact, a recent poll shows that more Americans currently look forward to electing a Republican than a Democratic president. So let’s get ready for a president named “Jeb,” or someone like that. And let’s accept that electoral stupidity is more often the rule than the exception. But I am a natural pessimist. Hopefully I am wrong.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!