I'm accustomed to strange/silly/wrongheaded/ignorant/ludicrous political commentary. In fact, I'm expecting to see and hear and read more of it, since 2008 is a big political year! Apparently everybody everywhere has something to say about the American presidential race.
OK, fine. That's great. But I have to point to this ridiculous British piece as the most idiotic "commentary" of the day. The writer argues that Hillary lost to Obama in Iowa because in America misogyny is stronger than racism. What?
I don't even know where to start tearing this apart. I add too the fact that half the voters in Iowa are women; are they also misogynists and sexist woman-haters because they didn't choose Hillary? Pfffffft. You know, maybe some things are actually more important to the voter than gender and skin color.
Also, the writer then actually says the following insane sentence: "Imperfect as she is, Hillary Clinton is also on the side of the global angels, and is super-competent and super-serious about the presidency."
"GLOBAL ANGELS"???? Excuse me while I fall out of my chair and laugh hysterically.
UPDATE: Take a look at this too, as women voters are deserting Hillary and flocking to...Obama.
3 comments:
At first glance I thought it complete idiocy, but I'm not sure. This guy is normally one of the more level-headed and realistic of the lefties over here.
The point (even if he doesn't understand it) is that racism is a balanced sword while misogony is unbalanced. That is I think many people are apt to vote for Osama BEACUSE of his race, quite possibly outweighing the few weird mixed-up racists who would normally vote for him were he white, but vote against because he's half-negro.
Misogony is different. I percieve no natural anti-misogynist vote to offset the misogynist vote, and I believe misogyny may be normally distributed across the political spectrum.
Another prblem for Hilary is that she is going to lose out on the 'guilty liberal' vote because Obama's claim outweighs her own in that group because negros trump white females in that calculus.
I take your point, though I think you'll forgive me if I still think this news piece is nonsense as the writer presents it. He sounds as though he's really arguing that Hillary lost because she is a woman -- and mainly because she is a woman. This is rubbish.
He doesn't seem to think it possible that the voters didn't like Hillary because she is Hillary the person; he certainly is half in love with her, if his calling her among "global angels" is any indication.
A factor also to consider (that the writer does not) is that women are individuals, and I as a woman resent the fact that some analysts think I will automatically rush off to vote for a woman SIMPLY BECAUSE I am also a woman. Am I now supposed to vote for Hillary just to prove I'm feminist -- and is every man out there supposed to do likewise to prove that he's not sexist/misogynist? Anyway, Hillary is deeply unpopular to a great many people of all kinds of backgrounds and genders. Let's see how New Hampshire likes her.
Maddie,
women are individuals
You certainly are - but does that go for all women? I mean, the last time a saw women with this kind of enlightened smile on the face and longing eyes was in the video of Johnny Cash "Man in Black" from the early 70s...
But maybe it's only Obama's campaign spin.
Post a Comment