Why women shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
By Camille Paglia
Last Updated: 12:08pm BST 20/04/2008


Is Hillary Clinton the saviour of feminism? Or its albatross, dragging feminism backwards under a weary weight of old-guard victimology and male-bashing?

The scrum is on! Feminist grand panjandrums like Gloria Steinem have leapt back into the arena, while younger women have seized the feminist banner to proclaim Hillary the messianic Wonder Woman, destined to smash the glass ceiling of the presidency.

All women, on pain of excommunication from the feminist claque, must now support Hillary. Never mind her spotty record or her naked political expediency. Any woman with the temerity to endorse Barack Obama (as I do) is condemned as a "traitor" to her sex. "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life," trumpeted Steinem earlier this year in an article promoting Hillary in the New York Times. Barriers of race, class or economics are waved away as mere frippery.

As a resident of Philadelphia, I am currently under siege by the firestorm of political adverts heading toward Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, which Hillary has long been expected to win. She has roots in this state: her grandfather was a Welshman who settled in the coal-mining city of Scranton, which remains conservative and working-class. Women there are tough and blunt, with few illusions about life.

Hillary's voter base consists of middle-aged to elderly white women who identify with her caustic, stubborn, bulldog resilience. Humiliated and upstaged by her philandering husband, Hillary is the champion of an army of women who were stymied, betrayed or outmanoeuvred by men. Over the past year, whenever her cowed male opponents mildly rebutted Hillary in debate, her campaign jumped into über-feminist mode: male bullies, they screeched, "ganging up" on a helpless damsel.

Losing ground with other core groups - notably her own cohort of upper-middle-class, baby-boom career woman - Hillary played the gender card to the max. When polling showed she had seemed too harsh to the caucus-goers of Iowa, she rolled out teary eyes for New Hampshire, which handed her a primary victory. Hillary will scratch, claw, and morph through every gender trick if it rakes in votes.

This symbol of raw female ambition has never comfortably fitted into a conventional sex role. As the first child of a hard-working and authoritarian father, Hillary absorbed his willfulness, competitive drive and suspicion. Excelling academically, Hillary felt ill at ease with the feminine persona so deftly deployed by pretty, popular girls in that era. Frumpy, stumpy and myopic, she identified with the new idolatry of shiny careerism promulgated by the second-wave feminism of the late 1960s, when she emerged from posh Wellesley College.

Though she would specialise in women's and children's issues, Hillary's public statements have often betrayed an ambivalence about women who chose a non-feminist path. "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies," she sneered during Bill's 1992 presidential campaign. Then, defending her husband against the claims of a 12-year affair by Gennifer Flowers, Hillary snapped: "I'm not sittin' here like some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette" - a sally that boomeranged when Hillary had to make an abject apology. The irony is that Hillary had offended the very group of stoical, put-upon, working-class women who are now proving to be her staunchest supporters.
advertisement

Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark.

In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform.

Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic. Hillary's disastrous botching of national healthcare reform in 1993 (a project to which her husband rashly appointed her) will live in infamy. Obama may also have limited executive experience, but he has no comparable stain on his record.

The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights.

What feminist supporters have recently denounced as troglodytic misogyny in media portrayals of Hillary has in fact been a function of her own strange sexual accommodations and ambiguities. Yes, she may surround herself with luscious, multicultural babes (such as her minder, Huma Abedin, or her now sacked aide, Patty Solis Doyle), but Hillary, despite the rumours, is no lesbian. She's a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she's God's agent. There's no room for random eroticism in her calendar.

Genuinely disturbing are the caricatures of Hillary (called "Hitlery" or "the Hildebeast" on the web) that rarely accrue to male candidates: she's portrayed as a hectoring nag, a witch on a broomstick, or a castrating bitch. But if such images were truly generated by simple fear of female power, we would expect to find them around other women politicians too, such as the current female Speaker of the House.

No, Hillary was demonised by the American electorate long before she sought elective office. It is Bill Clinton who is responsible for the tainted sexual aura around his wife.

Furthermore, Hillary's mythomania and her chameleon-like daily alterations of persona and voice are unsettling. (Even Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses.) No male candidate enjoys Hillary's options as a woman to tailor her costume to the audience.

Hillary's recent remarks about politics as a "boys' club" resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US.

If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Con.../news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml&site=5&page=0

-VG
 
IMHO,

The problem with this whole thing is (the colored parts)

A large majority of women in the US employ Hillarys tactics daily
(albeit on a smaller scale, I'm sure)

They see no problem with her actions.
It's viewed as a way to "even the playing field, against the "mean 'ol boys"
 
^^^:rolleyes:

I would have probably voted for Hilary at first cuz she is a woman and I thought maybe changing it up would help out the country but the way she has been acting has really turned me off ... personally I think she is a disgrace to women ... she has acted catty and unprofessional and I think she fucked up a womans chances of being in the White House:smh:but I don't live in America so it's whatever to me ... but Obama just seems like the breath of fresh air that America needs right now
 
Last edited:
They see no problem with her actions.
It's viewed as a way to "even the playing field, against the "mean 'ol boys"

:cool:


^^^:rolleyes:

I would have probably voted for Hilary at first cuz she is a woman and I

Voting based solely on gender or race is a disservice to not only your self, and the right to vote, but to your country men, and to the future.




:smh:but I don't live in America so it's whatever to me ...

You have got to be kidding. Your country, of residence, is nothing more than a maple syrup farm satellite of the AmeriKKKan empire. Our next president should be of your utmost concern as long as you plan on hanging out there.
 
Your country, of residence, is nothing more than a maple syrup farm satellite of the AmeriKKKan empire.


23lfxp1.jpg


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
I'm not a HRC fan by any means. I don't like her or her husbands brand of politics they are the closest thing to a monarchy in politics today. But they know how to create jobs, they know how to balance a budget and they know how to beat neocons. To be honest we don't know what the world would be like if Gore had held the party line, won the election and continued Clinton's policies.
 
Voting based solely on gender or race is a disservice to not only your self, and the right to vote, but to your country men, and to the future.

So that is why I took a closer look at the candidates and made a decision not based on sex ... if you had read my whole post you'd already know that:rolleyes:

You have got to be kidding. Your country, of residence, is nothing more than a maple syrup farm satellite of the AmeriKKKan empire. Our next president should be of your utmost concern as long as you plan on hanging out there.

I only meant that maybe cuz I am not American he wouldn't want my opinion ... I'm fully aware of the "closeness" between Canada and America ... didn't need a lecture from you but thanks anyways Shane:)
 
I'm not a HRC fan by any means. I don't like her or her husbands brand of politics they are the closest thing to a monarchy in politics today. But they know how to create jobs, they know how to balance a budget and they know how to beat neocons. To be honest we don't know what the world would be like if Gore had held the party line, won the election and continued Clinton's policies.

They? what budget did she balance? What jobs did she create? Hilary was the first lady. Period. She sat in on NO national security briefs or anything of the sort. How do I know this? Because Hilary didn't have a security clearance. So much for her foriegn policy and national security experience. She tries to take credit for Presiedent Clinton's shining moments and then act like she was totally against any of his failed policies. The BS about her being against NAFTA behind closed doors is a crock. There are countless video clips and sound bites of her praising NAFTAs success. The media kills me with their blatant favortism of her. At first they say that Barak needs to show that he can fight back. Then, when he lashes out at her after shes' said something negative, he's a bullie. I can not believe she's trying to act like she's being "picked on". How can an African American male, who has an Arabic name have an advantage over the first family of the Democratic party?
 
They? what budget did she balance? What jobs did she create? Hilary was the first lady. Period. She sat in on NO national security briefs or anything of the sort. How do I know this? Because Hilary didn't have a security clearance. So much for her foriegn policy and national security experience. She tries to take credit for Presiedent Clinton's shining moments and then act like she was totally against any of his failed policies. The BS about her being against NAFTA behind closed doors is a crock. There are countless video clips and sound bites of her praising NAFTAs success. The media kills me with their blatant favortism of her. At first they say that Barak needs to show that he can fight back. Then, when he lashes out at her after shes' said something negative, he's a bullie. I can not believe she's trying to act like she's being "picked on". How can an African American male, who has an Arabic name have an advantage over the first family of the Democratic party?


"They" is a term I used to describe the Clinton marriage/partnership. And don't think you are going to make a habit of drawing me into spats with you by challenging everything I say. Lets face it you're not that important.
 
"They" is a term I used to describe the Clinton marriage/partnership. And don't think you are going to make a habit of drawing me into spats with you by challenging everything I say. Lets face it you're not that important.

Chill out. I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't get personal. Nothing I said is directed towards you. I was asking a question. I don't know you and you don't know me. I was commenting on the statement. I'm not trying to draw YOU into anything. I've never commented on ANYTHING you've said before. And by the way, the Presidency is not a marriage/partnership. She doesn't get credit for balancing the budget because she's the President's wife.
 
:cool:




Voting based solely on gender or race is a disservice to not only your self, and the right to vote, but to your country men, and to the future.






You have got to be kidding. Your country, of residence, is nothing more than a maple syrup farm satellite of the AmeriKKKan empire. Our next president should be of your utmost concern as long as you plan on hanging out there.


That's the problem with Amerikkka, you'll beleive the whole word should care about you'll shit. We got news, the rest of the world don't give a fuck, no matter what you think about the so called great Amerikkkan empire. The fact is we do what we do and you'll do what you'll do. I'll bet you never even been to a country outside the US.
 
Chill out. I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't get personal. Nothing I said is directed towards you. I was asking a question. I don't know you and you don't know me. I was commenting on the statement. I'm not trying to draw YOU into anything. I've never commented on ANYTHING you've said before. And by the way, the Presidency is not a marriage/partnership. She doesn't get credit for balancing the budget because she's the President's wife.

Chill out man, to this guy, Juanita Jordan helped lead the Chicago Bulls to 6 championships. Youve never seen her rings and MVP trophies?
 
That's the problem with Amerikkka, you'll beleive the whole word should care about you'll shit. We got news, the rest of the world don't give a fuck, no matter what you think about the so called great Amerikkkan empire. The fact is we do what we do and you'll do what you'll do. I'll bet you never even been to a country outside the US.

Please, why make assumptions?

My statement was not to offend dear Star, or any international.

Perhaps if you put my post into context, you'll find we can all agree that the next American president, and he/she's attitude towards world wide Foreign Policy is important.

An not only that, but the world's attitude towards the next president is as equally important.


Every country, especially those that border us, and those in our most immediate sphere of influence should be concerned. Concerned about military expansion, financial impacts, a myriad of different issues.








p.jpg
 
Last edited:
hillary personafies all the negative sterotypes and attributes of a woman

it doesnt take a rocket scientist to discover that

shes going to win at all costs...and whoever is in her way weither it be obama or the democratic party she plans to destroy them

and i never really understood why people who dont like america post on this site:confused:
 
I'm not a HRC fan by any means. I don't like her or her husbands brand of politics they are the closest thing to a monarchy in politics today. But they know how to create jobs, they know how to balance a budget and they know how to beat neocons. To be honest we don't know what the world would be like if Gore had held the party line, won the election and continued Clinton's policies.

I don't buy into the "THEY" argument because Hillary is NOT politically similar to Bill in my estimation. Bill's FOCUS was Domestic. He succeeded in that area because that was his strong suit. Hillary seems to be more of a globalist and the wrong type of corporatist to me. Bill was a coporatist too, but he seemed to be more of a bottom/middle up corporatist (pre-NAFTA) where Hillary is more of your Bush-style top-down corporatist. The Bill Clinton economic plan was centered more around building the middle class (the ONLY group proven to feed gains they make back into the economy in a positive way).

It's like running into the kid you knew in college after years and being disappointed because he's not full of fresh ideas and dreams anymore and has been hardened by life. I wouldn't expect a Hillary presidency to be ANYTHING like a Bill presidency.

Obama is more like Bill Clinton was when he first came into office than Hillary OR Bill is today.
 
Is Hillary Clinton the saviour of feminism? Or its albatross, dragging feminism backwards under a weary weight of old-guard victimology and male-bashing?

This issue raised by Vegas Guy in a 2008 post is dogging Hillary, still TODAY !!!
 
Younger Women Not Voting for Hillary Because She Killed Feminism

One of the more-interesting elements of Election 2016 is the genuinely weak rapport Hillary Clinton has with young, liberal, feminists voters of either sex (let's assume that most Democratic voters are feminists for the moment).

The former senator and secretary of state got walloped in Iowa and New Hampshire among folks south of 50 years old. In Iowa, for instance, Bernie Sanders won a whopping 84 percent of the vote in the 18 to 29 year-old range. In New Hampshire, the same thing happened. In fact, she only grabbed 24 percent of the under-44 vote! When it comes to women only, Hillary barely won the female vote in Iowa (53 percent) and lost it badly in New Hampshire (44 percent). No wonder there's a bunch of stories out there about Clinton's failing support among lady voters, even after Madeleine Albright threatened eternal damnation to women who didn't vote for Clinton.

Why aren't women en masse—or at least in Democratic primaries and polls—flocking in support of the first female president in U.S. history? Is it that "intersectionality" (the idea that race, class, and gender are so intertwined that even self-identified feminists no longer care first and foremost about gender) now reigns supreme in terms of cultural and political identity? Is it that women have achieved enough equality that the lure of voting for the first female president isn't as big a deal as it would have been even 10 years ago? Is it ageism? Or lack of gratitude by younger women for the struggles their mothers and grandmothers went through?

op-ed by Steinem, arguing that Lewinsky’s will was not violated, so no feminist principles were violated. What about Clinton humiliating his wife and daughter and female cabinet members? What about a president taking advantage of a gargantuan power imbalance with a 22-year-old intern? What about imperiling his party with reckless behavior that put their feminist agenda at risk?

To be sure, Dowd, who made her bones as a national columnist skewering the Clintons during the 1990s, goes easy on herself (she was hardly above slut-shaming and even fat-shaming Monica Lewinsky back in the day). But she is rightly unsparing when it comes to Clinton, Albright, and the rest:

Hillary knew that she could count on the complicity of feminist leaders and Democratic women in Congress who liked Bill’s progressive policies on women. And that’s always the ugly Faustian bargain with the Clintons, not only on the sex cover-ups but the money grabs: You can have our bright public service side as long as you accept our dark sketchy side.

Young women today, though, are playing by a different set of rules. And they don’t like the Clintons setting themselves above the rules.



http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/16/younger-women-not-voting-for-hillary-bec

 
Back
Top