>
It's Time for Senator Clinton's "Sexism in America" Speech
If you thought the mainstream media (MSM) could NOT go any lower to find a way to humiliate or castigate Senator Clinton, you were wrong. Check this ABC "pearl" -- Hillary At White House on 'Stained Blue Dress' Day. This POS ("piece" of shit) is newsploitation at its very worst. Early BlogSponders to the Brian Ross article included Pitiful.. Shameful... at the Democratic Daily, Congratulations ABC News at Shakesville, And Where Else Was Clinton? at Shakesville, ABC News Reduces Clinton to Victim, at TaylorMarsh.com, Your Librul Media, The Brad Blog, and Correntewire.com. |
 |
The first thing the ABC so-called "investigative" reporters did when they got their hands on the newly-released copies of Hillary Clinton's schedules during Bill's years in the White House was to figure out if Hillary was in the White House the day of the infamous Lewinsky BJ.
You can't get much more adolescent than that. You can't abuse your journalistic roots much worse than that. You can't show your true sexist colors much more brightly than that.
You can bet that the KosConventionalWisdom will likely be "I don't want to hear about the Clinton's sex lives for another 8 to 10 years, get out of the race now." As if the Clintons created the MSM feeding frenzy. To let the MSM defeat Clinton by abusing her AND us would be our "Profiles in Chickenshit."
I can only hope that any good that could come out of such media abuse will be a huge feminist backlash. Give the "boys club" hell, now!
I will cast my vote, right here, right now, for Senator Clinton to give the "Sexism in America" speech.
As expected, Sen. Clinton’s record is impressive. If anyone wants to find names, they can go to specific committee or meeting minutes to get them. This proves that she is more than qualified to hold the office of President. Especially since Sen. Barack Obama claims that he is grossly under qualified. Furthermore, Sen. Obama’s recent lies (i.e., that he did not hear his pastors racist comments and then admitted he did, donations are not $25-50 as he claimed but $1,000, etc.) show that his cannot be trusted. America does not need a president that lies so easily.
Reply to this
Why is it so easy for them to believe there is nothing going on in McCain's personal life?
It seems like a distant memory that McCain was linked to a woman. Now, I don't even know what he stands for. He just looks like an older gentleman.
I always recall he is against abortion and further prosecution of the Iraq war.
Should be a little more to a candidate than that. Health care? No. Global Warming? No.
We for Hillary are more into specific issues than personality. What does McCain stand for?
Reply to this
Hillary's 11,000 pages are making a great diversion to Obama's Wright controversy. I wonder if the newspapers are still even after the NAFTAgate story where Goolsby assured the Canadians there would be nothing for them to fear from Obama concerning NAFTA.
Obama denied the meeting took place and then the Canadian government said it did take place.
Where does that story go?
How about the ads on PA TV these days again with his taking no money from lobbyists. If you believe that first of all there is Rezko. What kind of contributor was he? Then you can read the fact check at HillaryClinton.com that tells you how employees of lobbyist corporations can give and 5 of his top 10 contributors are such employees or that he does accept contributions from lobbyists' partners, employees whose companies lobby as I mentioned before or state lobbyists.
Those 11,000 pages according to Obama tell us that Hillary had no part in the peace process in Northern Ireland, but that's just bullshit.
Obama acts like he's some big district attorney who has got the goods on somebody but he doesn't have the goods.
11,000 pages. I have a book that is 2,000 pages and just get through that in a week - and has it been a week? 11,000 pages. Can anybody imagine how much information that is? And where is his information?
Hillary Clinton was the most political first lady we ever had, although I didn't know Eleanor Roosevelt. She says in Living History she had her own office in the West Wing, which no First Lady had ever had, called Hillaryland.
To state that all of this First Lady's trips and visits were largely ceremonial is to deny who Hillary was and what Hillary did which is exactly what he wants to do.
When Obama speaks of a First Lady Obama is wholly insensitive. All you can think of is a Lady Bird Johnson or a Mamie Eisenhauer. Where is his feminist ear? Does he not know of Eleanor Roosevelt and Abigail Adams? Obama only give lip service to great American women!!! I feel like if he should mention great women he would mention Sojourner Truth and none other.
In Philadelphia he referred to Ms. Clinton as a smart lady. Wasn't he trying to plant a thought in your subconscious about First Ladies. He wants you to hear that First Ladies do not do anything, have not done anything and will not do anything. They're only women.
Reply to this
Happy Easter Hillary, Bill and Chelsea; and Hillary Campaign!
Hillary!
I am imploring you to convince Hillary to give a speech on 'gender, race and American politics'!!! It is ‘you’ who will ‘unite’ the Democratic Party! A speech like this could do it!!!
Hillary- this is the moment!! Don't be afraid to use the 'values' card! That is how Obama swifts momentum from you.
I am an African-American professor in Michigan who is a big supporter of you; but I feel that you need to take back momentum from Obama by demonstrating what a "pluralist values" president can look like on 'gender', 'race' linked to issues- and your experience as a woman!!
Please, please listen to me! This IS a popularity contest within the democratic party - you know it! It is not good for White working class Republicans to support you because they think Barack is racist!
You must counter this on all grounds! Here will be your talking points!
1) Denigration of your accomplishment as a First Lady is sexist- it says women can only be first ladies? It says the work of first ladies like you who were politically active by choice is meager!
2) As a professional woman with children who has unfortunately had to get a divorce because I wanted to move up in the professional world, I resonate with you so much in the choices that you made to let your husband lead; now, it's your turn and your husband supports that --- this is a great feminist story that you must tell!!!
3) Not racist, but remind the world that Wright's comments were 'immoral' for a preacher-- his comments about you in the pulpit were 'sexist' and unfair! For a 'preacher' I think his style is hateful. It wasn't a political rally --- It's Church!!! In 2009, as we African Americans seek justice, we do not do it in a way that denigrates others! Wight’s sermons don’t seem to reflect that! Remind the left-wing of the DParty that we expect more from Obama’s ‘spiritual advisor’
4) Let Americans know that the identity values and symbolism are important to you because they are important to Americans (see your Men for Hillary and Feminists for Hillary support)---- and African American support for you and Bill's values before Barack came on the scene.
5) You should NOT be in the MIDDLE of McCain and Obama on 'race' at all! You- the moderate wing of the Democratic Party- should take the helm of this issue. Your support among African Americans - Maxine Waters, Tubman-Jones, Togo West, Harold Ford, Dave Paterson, Charlie Rangel------- is not minimal – it is reflective of you and Bill’s legacy of support for our issues - let Barack, his campaign and America know that!!!!
6) Hillary your speech should be off-scripted as much as possible - it should combine your beauty and humanism expressed in this website and your many town meetings; as well as your toughness and brilliance your strengths in this campaign!
Hillary, Howard, Bill, Chelsea and Clin
Reply to this
Dear AfricanAmericanforHillary:
I was moved by your reply. I so regret that feminists and African-Americans have somehow become polarized in this democratic presidential primary. I really can't see sexism or racism as separate. I often lament that the vitriolic rhetoric on both sides takes on a "scarcity of power" mentality -- as if there is only enough power in this country to address one of these issues! We absolutely need each other. The scourge of racism is absolutely related to the scourge of sexism. Both are the result of scapegoating. I am a white, married woman of two children. In my professional pursuits, I have found that I learn some of the most valuable lessons about integrity and Christ-like power from my female African-American coworkers -- who despite their challenges in a white, patriarcal America know their own value and press on. They so wear Jesus' face to me. When a friend of mine circulated the horrid and untrue email claiming that Obama was muslim, I was horrified (even as Hillary supporter). It took all the courage I had to speak out against this (to my Republican, Texan friends), but I had to. I lost almost all of these "friends." I don't lament this. I'm on a quest of integrity. It's a beautiful thing. My support of Hillary is related to this quest. She's the best -- and apparantly so are you.
Reply to this
I totally agree! I am soo proud that I am one of the many who demonstrated in the great state of oHI!o by casting our votes for Hillary.
Senator Clinton, where is your sexism
statement/speech? Fighting intelligently, organized, logically, and realistically for the ERA and the right to choose are just two things
that we women, who do make up over 52% of the U.S.'s population, must continue to do with intelligence and fairness.
Our responsibilities lie with our being active role models and mentors, plus
continued activists. The young women
today in the U.S. are seemingly dead
to social and societal issues. I know,
I work with them every single minute of the day in higher education. Where is
their positive parenting? Basically
nonexistent.
Go, Hillary, Go!
Reply to this
Are you calling Obama's speech in defense of his involvement in Rev. Wright's church a speech on race relations?
You see there's the rub. She has not been embarrassed by any relationship to extremism.
I just read Anna Quindlen's Las Word in Newsweek, "Still Stuck in Second," which is about low expectations held for women.
It's an excellent article claiming the double standard still exists and thrives in the March 17th issue of Newsweek.
I understand since you are a woman why you want to hear this speech. I'm not a woman and I don't listen to many speeches. They seem to be more about entertainment to me than substantial plans that will affect me.
I've been unemployed for 10 years and actually for most of my adult life. I understand this is the message Hillary is bringing home in Pennsylvania where many union jobs, which would be my envy, have disappeared.
I loved the quote at the Texas Town Hall meeting by the 101 year old woman that she is voting for Hillary because she is a woman. Her being a woman should represent hope to all "subclasses."
I've heard the expression "chronically unemployed" and it sounds like a disease. And maybe it's contagious and makes people ostracize you. Maybe it's like leprosy. Certainly my subconscious can relate to that term, leper.
Maybe many women know this experience, living at home with parents, not seeing and meeting friends since you have left school. Not really having left school because you were suspended for "poor scholarship," which is a pseudonym for not straightening up and flying right.
I guess those would be the rock and roll women. The women who believed in sexual revolution, the dope (marijuana) and rock and roll. That's the kind of misbehaving that "creates" the so-called poor scholarship. That and the angry attitude about the laws surrounding are "sacred weed."
Some women have that experience, I know. It's a frustrating experience.
Reply to this
I would love a speech from Clinton about sexism and misogyny. However, I have a feeling that could hurt her chances of being elected, which is rightly her focus right now, and I doubt that this speech will happen soon. She can barely even allude to sexism without being accused of "whining" and "pulling the gender card" by pundits, comedians, talk show hosts, bloggers, and commenters all over the intertubes. Even the response to her calling out the obvious to the "Iron my shirt" idiots was mostly whining about her acknowledging the obvious. Even if she brushes off sexism as she did when Chris Matthews pinched her cheek (?!?!), there were comments all over the netosphere that she was "whining about sexism" because some other people called that for what it was. I can also foresee a lot of accusations in response that she's just copying Obama to play "oppression olympics."
Maybe I'm being pessimistic. I have that tendency sometimes. Right now we need to get her into the White House so I wouldn't want her to do anything to hurt her chance of being nominated or elected. But maybe I'm wrong and a speech on gender would rally more female and allied male voters and give her a boost.
Reply to this
I finally looked up that word, misogyny, in Wikepedia.
Reply to this
You got me curious, so I checked that out too. It's an interesting entry. I interpret misogyny as something more openly hateful than sexism. Sexism is, "girls are supposed to wear pink and play with dolls." Misogyny is more like, "women are manipulative, superficial gold diggers who can't drive." There's a lot of gray area between the two terms, obviously.
Anyway, speaking of speeches from HRC regarding sexism, she's actually made quite a few of them, several of which are posted at her website.
Mary Louise Smith Lecture at the Catt Center for Women and Politics:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3900
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association Luncheon:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1235
The Inaugural Doherty-Granoff Forum on Women Leaders at Brown University:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1239
Not to mention her 1995 "Women's Rights Are Human Rights" speech in Beijing, 1995, which is on YouTube.
The collective of all these speeches isn't quite the same, I know. They don't address sexism solely and specifically as Obama's speech addressed racism. And HRC's speeches on women's rights never had the viewership or analysis that Obama's speech has had. But for whoever is interested in learning more about HRC's experiences, perspectives, and goals on women's rights, they're highly recommended reading.
Reply to this
Hi Wiggles:
Thank you for your response and the links! I think Hillary could give the "humanism" speech. I know "humanism" is kind of an outlawed word in the feminist realm, but I think someone of Hillary's stature could redefine the meaning and keep feminism intact, but with a "bigger tent" aspect to it.
Certainly, Obama cannot give the "humanist" speech or the gender speech. What is he going to say now after the race speech -- "Oh, I forgot, what about women and men? Let me bring up a couple of uncomfortable questions. How many women are in slavery around the world? What was the difference between indentured servitude and the institution of black slavery and the slavery of white women (you know, being owned, chattel, and all that)?"
Won't happen. But Hillary could give the humanism speech. Will she? Not likely, since every time she tries to talk about mutual respect and equality (she, by the way, is for requiring women to register for the draft), she gets dinged with the "she's playing the victim card again" (ah crap....)
Reply to this