Clinton changes tactics
By Libby
I'm working all day and will be offline for most of it but I didn't want to let the latest rhetoric from Hillary pass unnoticed. She's really redeemed herself in my eyes with her current aboutface from negative campaigning. She defended Obama and the party from Bush's inane remarks about appeasers in Israel yesterday.
Even more importantly, she earlier reached out to her supporters to ask for unity.
On the heels of NARAL's endorsement of Obama, the remaining organized women's groups are staging a mass mutiny and threatening to vote for McCain, in direct defiance of Hillary's own call for unity. I have to agree with Kyle that this makes no sense. It's not like Obama has some kind of godawful record on women's rights, so one faction is angry with the other for disagreeing on which candidate would advance the long term goals of all of us, namely getting a Dem into the White House.
On a quick read, while the language is couched over electability and alleged character issues, it seems the big objection is that NARAL betrayed women by endorsing a man. Call me a bad feminist but basing their objections mainly on his gender seems to me to be -- well -- pretty darn sexist.
I'm working all day and will be offline for most of it but I didn't want to let the latest rhetoric from Hillary pass unnoticed. She's really redeemed herself in my eyes with her current aboutface from negative campaigning. She defended Obama and the party from Bush's inane remarks about appeasers in Israel yesterday.
"I think today we’ve had two examples of why this country is going to be voting for a Democratic president. And I hope that people really look seriously both at President Bush’s comment and at Sen. McCain’s speech and realize that the only way we’re going to restore our leadership and our moral authority and deal with the very real challenges we face in the world is by electing a democratic president and I believe that I am a stronger candidate against Sen. McCain and will be a president who could accomplish that," she said.
Even more importantly, she earlier reached out to her supporters to ask for unity.
"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."I have mixed emotions about this turnaround. I'm happy to see it, but sad she didn't take this tack earlier. If she had, I may well have voted for her instead of Obama. But what's done is done and I'm glad to be free of the WTF is she doing factor. I wish I could say the same for her supporters.
"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."
On the heels of NARAL's endorsement of Obama, the remaining organized women's groups are staging a mass mutiny and threatening to vote for McCain, in direct defiance of Hillary's own call for unity. I have to agree with Kyle that this makes no sense. It's not like Obama has some kind of godawful record on women's rights, so one faction is angry with the other for disagreeing on which candidate would advance the long term goals of all of us, namely getting a Dem into the White House.
On a quick read, while the language is couched over electability and alleged character issues, it seems the big objection is that NARAL betrayed women by endorsing a man. Call me a bad feminist but basing their objections mainly on his gender seems to me to be -- well -- pretty darn sexist.
Labels: Election 08
posted by Libby Spencer at 9:56 AM
3 Comments:
There were some interesting comments made during the "Weekly round-up" discussing this morning on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR. It was suggested that President Bush, who made his comment before the Israeli Kinneset (sp?), was actually aiming his comment at those within Isreal who would negotiate with terrorists. Another panelist thought that he was referring to President Carter, who you will remember just got back from his visit with Hammas. They both thought that Sen. Obama protests too loudly when he immediately assumes that he was the intended target of the comment.
I now think that all possibilities are true. It was probably a calculated measure on the part of the White House to set up Sen. Obama, and then step back and play coy, and wonder out loud why the junior senator from Illinois is being so defensive.
In any case, I think it is important to point out that there is a big difference between talking with your enemies and giving away half of Czechoslovakia.
Libby, I am agree with your post almost entirely but I tend to be a little less generous towards Senator Clinton because of the damage she has done.
In the last months of 2007, I favored Clinton and even made a modest donation to her campaign but got turned off during the South Carolina primary when the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, went negative.
Especially insulting, I thought, was their claim that Obama was unqualified to be president but qualified to be Vice President if only he would quit the campaign in deference to the Clintons. This was arrogant in the extreme in view of the fact Obama lead according to all indices. In other words, Obama was "good enough" to be driving Miss Daisy around but not good enough to stand on his own merits.
Thereafter, the Clinton campaign offered a Hobson's choice between "sexism" versus "racism" that left me angry. How can the cause of feminism be served when one raises the specter of racism? Is there some unspecified Law of Thermodynamics that states: The amount of respect for diversity is fixed and finite in the Human Universe, and any increase in respect for one group shall mean diminished respect for the other.
The Clintons framed the debate as if "sexism" and "racism" were mutually exclusive, that you could have only one but not the other. How are civil rights, women's rights, and the pursuit of human dignity served in the face of such self-serving, self aggrandisement at the expense of principle.
Even as recently as today, the Clinton campaign asserts their candidate as "superior" to the other. Meanwhile, angry feminists vow to boycott the Democratic ticket if Obama is the candidate. How self-defeating and stupid is this.
I blame this mess on the Clintons for framing this argument in the first place. Unforgivable, in my opinion.
Kevin, it was clearly a setup but nonetheless it was an incredibly tacky and impolitic remark. But you're right, the best that became of it was Tweety's exposure of the wingnut ignorance. I doubt it will enlighten the diehard neanderthals but it should give some who are swayed by them a moment's pause.
SC, I hear you and I understand. I'm just as astounded as you are about the NARAL thing, but I tend towards forgiveness. These women who can't give up the dream have held for a long time. As they say, dreams die hard. I feel more empathy than anger, even as I'm incredulous at their response.
Post a Comment
<< Home