I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Thursday, April 10, 2008

If you don't support Hillary, you hate women!

Surprisingly, this doesn't come from your typical man-hating feminist blogs like Pandagon or Feministing. No, this little gem of wisdom comes from that political genius, Elton John:
Sir Elton John has staged a fundraising concert for US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and claimed that the “misogynistic attitudes” of Americans may be hindering her bid for the White House.

The star, an ardent Clinton supporter, raised $2.5 million (£1.25 million) for her campaign with the gig at New York’s Radio City Music Hall.

“I’ve always been a Hillary supporter. There is no-one more qualified to lead America,” he told the audience.

But he added: “I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them... I love you Hillary. I’ll be there for you.”

Yes, of course, it's the mysogyny! That's why Hillary isn't catching on!! All of us who dislike her must do so because we hate women. By comparison, all of us who dislike Obama must do so because we hate blacks, to follow the same line of logic... right?

Why is it that the Clinton campaign does this? She tries to present herself like a tough woman who can handle being the most powerful person in the world, someone who will have to handle being a rare female in a mostly male world (especially when it comes to foreign politics). But what happens when things don't go her way? She cries, she blames it on the "boy's club", she demands special treatment... she basically acts like a whiny twelve-year-old girl. And yet she's supposed to be able to deal with leaders of Islamic countries that look at women as property, at best?

News flash to Elton John. I do not dislike Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, nor do I dislike Obama because he's black. Like most Americans, I dislike them because of where they stand on the policies. I don't want Hillary in office because she hates the United States like most liberals do, because she's a pathological liar, because she will ruin this country if she has it in her grasp for four years, because she has zero experience to make her qualified for this job, because she is piggybacking her husband's presidency -- and as far as I'm concerned, he's the worst President this country has ever seen! I could go on all day with reasons I don't want to vote for Hillary. Her gender wouldn't come up once.

Sure, there may be a few people here and there that don't support her because she's a woman. But they are a rare, tiny minority. Most people just realize what they're getting into with putting the Clintons back into the White House, and frankly, would rather play leapfrog with unicorns before enduring four years of that torture again.

One of Hillary's biggest mistakes was her attitude of inevitability. She was so used to the Clintons being the Golden Couple of the Democratic Party that she just assumed the Presidency was hers. She looked at this whole primary/election business as red tape, but that they key to the Oval Office was already in her hand.

Well, sorry honey. President Hillary Clinton isn't an inevitability, and it doesn't make anyone a mysogynist for not wanting her in the White House, no matter what Elton John (freakazoid extraordinaire) says.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

23 comments:

turnidoff said...

Both Hillary RODHAM(notice how you never hear the "Rodham" anymore?) and Obama will be playing this game up until the end. Dont you dare criticize them lest ye want a racist or sexist label slapped on you.

you know, SNL better hope that neither of them win or that show will be out of a job. They wont be able to make fun of either of them, especially Obama.

mkfreeberg said...

This is exceptionally dangerous, the prospect of a President who can't be criticized.

I mean yeah sure we get saddled with it anytime the President has the letter "D" after his name: He prints up more money, goes to negotiate with terrorists, grabs guns from law-abiding citizens, we're all supposed to gobble the crap down, give compliments to the chef and ask for seconds. But to have an oppressed minority in there with a cheap gimmicky race/gender card their friends are so ready willing and able to play -- four long years, nobody will be able to say anything bad about 'em no matter WHAT.

I can't think of anything posing a more serious threat to our country as it was intended to exist.

If that's the situation, keep the rich old white guys in there for another hundred years. And no, don't anyone dare blame me, I didn't create the situation. But it seems only when there's a WASP in th White House, can we call the President a buffoon or an idjit if & when he starts behaving like one.

Baz said...

Please stop saying stuff like this:

I don't want Hillary in office because she hates the United States like most liberals do

If you correct your child when he behaves badly, does that mean you hate your child? Absolutely not.

Liberals think America can do better. And if that's not a great expression of love, commitment, and confidence, I don't know what is.

America's a great country, but let's not go s*cking each other's d*cks just yet. We've got a lot of work to do. All of us.

THAT'S the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Baz said...

This is exceptionally dangerous, the prospect of a President who can't be criticized.

You mean like the current administration? I couldn't agree more.

When critics are labeled as "America-haters," it really kills the exchange of ideas.

If we'd listened to the critics of the Iraqi intelligence before the war, instead of shouting them down as "encouraging terrorists" we wouldn't have created the Al Qaeda training grounds we have in Basra right now.

But if you don't know what "sexist" or "racist" is or means, I can understand why you might be afraid that someone will call you these things.

It's really not hard to criticize respectfully and with substance, not name-calling.

mkfreeberg said...

Oh, you've heard President Bush criticized respectfully lately?

I R A Darth Aggie said...

[Bill Clinton]'s the worst President this country has ever seen!

Obviously, you didn't see Jimmah Cartah's administration...

I R A Darth Aggie said...

It's really not hard to criticize respectfully and with substance, not name-calling.

Lemme know when Hillary learns this fine art, ok?

Let me go first: advocating that you vote for someone because of either their race or their sex is idiotic, and Sir Elton should stick to what he knows: music.

Baz said...

Oh, you've heard President Bush criticized respectfully lately?

Every day for the past 7 years, yes. It's called NPR.

Of course, after so many years of incompetence, cronyism, graft, divisiveness, indifference, dodging the difficult questions, and media manipulation, people get fed up and start getting mean.

Lemme know when Hillary learns this fine art, ok?

I never heard her name-calling. If you can find a quote, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think it's her style.

advocating that you vote for someone because of either their race or their sex is idiotic

No argument there, except that Elton didn't advocate voting for her for any reason. He offered his opinion on her qualifications and a theory about her low polling numbers. I think he's wrong, but so's your reading of his quote.

Amanda said...

Really, when the word is in the story you cite, you should be able to spell it correctly. It's "misogyny," not "mysogeny." Sheesh.

Amanda said...

Or "mysogyny." Not that it makes it better. Are you trying to take a page from Jay Tea?

Physics Geek said...

I assumed Hillary would win because she and Bill had the perfect attack machine: dirty, powerful and completely amoral. The missteps and sublime idiocy on display in her campaign should become lessons in how not to do it.

mkfreeberg said...

Of course, after so many years of incompetence, cronyism, graft, divisiveness, indifference, dodging the difficult questions, and media manipulation, people get fed up and start getting mean.

Yup, I understand. It isn't that lefties are respectful. It's that they always have an excuse.

Baz said...

dirty, powerful and completely amoral.

Yeah, like push-polling. That's a really dirty play.

Oh wait, that was Karl Rove.

OK, ok... getting the Supreme Court to stop vote-counting. That's a real power play that undermines every principle of democracy.

Oh wait, that was Bush.

Nevermind... I've got nothing.

Baz said...

It isn't that lefties are respectful. It's that they always have an excuse.

You're right. We really have no right to get angry that someone on the public payroll is incompetent or flagrantly disregards the rule of law, outs CIA agents (read: treason), or sends a billion dollars in cash into a war zone without requiring any accounting for it.

We shouldn't be mad that a major US city was allowed to become the third world, and that the people who failed to act are rewarded.

Totally out of line. I apologize for the entire 70% of America that thinks the President has mismanaged this country.

Angry White Guy said...

"Oh wait, that was Bush."

I really don't get this. The Supreme Court applied federal law, and made Florida follow it's law (If you look at the law, and Florida's ruling you will see the court did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the law stated).

And Bush is to blame? Explain to me how. Really. Explain it.

Angry White Guy said...

"We really have no right to get angry that someone on the public payroll is incompetent or flagrantly disregards the rule of law, outs CIA agents (read: treason)"

And what do you have against President Bill Clinton or Joe Wilson?

Texas Truth said...

I cannot believe Iused to like his music. Oh well, I guess I will have to add him to my "Dancing Monkey" list.

Baz said...

And Bush is to blame? Explain to me how. Really. Explain it.

Well, there's no pretending that this was a simple case, because it was an absolute spiderweb of cases, laws, allegations, and problems.

There are a number of laws that in practice conflict with each other.

But the Judiciary's job is to determine which of the conflicting laws is most important, most represents core principles outlined in US law.

So the US Supreme Court had to choose which laws are more important: that every vote be counted properly, or that a deadline be maintained. Legally, it was actually a coin-toss between the numerous conflicting laws.

Can you at least understand the frustration that many Floridians actually don't know whether their votes were counted or not? This because of mistakes at every level, and legal wrangling at the highest levels.

And what do you have against President Bill Clinton or Joe Wilson?

Um... nothing. Why do you ask?

mkfreeberg said...

Well, there's no pretending that this was a simple case, because it was an absolute spiderweb of cases, laws, allegations, and problems. There are a number of laws that in practice conflict with each other.

Gosh. In your earlier comments you made it seem so simple. Especially the part where it's Bush's fault..."getting the Supreme Court to stop vote-counting...a real power play that undermines every principle of democracy."

Um... nothing. Why do you ask?

I don't want to speak for angry white guy, but I'd bet some money you just made his point for him.

Angry White Guy said...

"So the US Supreme Court had to choose which laws are more important: that every vote be counted properly, or that a deadline be maintained. Legally, it was actually a coin-toss between the numerous conflicting laws."

Actually, they did both. Florida has laws (you know, those things you're supposed to follow?) about recounts and such, and the Florida Supreme Court ignored them completely. There was no uniform standard to the recounts, and thus they were meaningless. One group would count a dimpled chat, another wouldn't, even if they had both looked at the exact same ballot.

You can not reliably infer intent for a vote from other votes an the ballot. You simply can't. For example, I will be voting a mostly straight republican ticket (if for no other reason than the Dems in Illinois lean further towards socialism and nanny-state than either Senators Obama or Clinton), but I won't vote for the republican on the ballot for US Congress, nor will I vote for McCain (shush Cassy, we've gone over this). Should by some act of god we find that Illinois end up in a recount, I would be actively pissed of as all hell to find my non-votes were counted as votes, simply because I'd voted republican in all other areas.

You either mark your vote properly, or you don't. The rocess assumes a certain level of intelligence and responsibility that the people of Florida obviously weren't equal to. That's sad. It isn't that tough to make sure you pushed out a tiny paper rectangle.

If some people felt as though their votes may not have been counted, they should work harder next time to make sure they get it right. This isn't sclass president we're voting on, it's actually important. I'm sorry you don't expect people cast ing their vote to pay fucking attention.

And since youre so concerned with "every vote counting", I'm sure you were frothing at the mouth over all the military absentee ballots that were tossed aside by forces bowing to Democrat pressure...

Surely you were upset by that. Surely...

"Um... nothing. Why do you ask?"

President Clinton's lying under oath, and the person who ACTUALLY outted Plame, several times, was her husband Joe (he was rather fond of bragging about his CIA spy of a wife).

But you know, details details...

"I don't want to speak for angry white guy, but I'd bet some money you just made his point for him."

Indeed, he did. The delicious irony is that he's completely unaware of his own hypocracy...

Angry White Guy said...

"But the Judiciary's job is to determine which of the conflicting laws is most important, most represents core principles outlined in US law.

So the US Supreme Court had to choose which laws are more important: that every vote be counted properly, or that a deadline be maintained. Legally, it was actually a coin-toss between the numerous conflicting laws.
"

And again, I ask you:

How is that Bush's fault, you mindless fuckwit?

Baz said...

Surely you were upset by that. Surely...

Uh, yes I was and am. Rumor was those mostly for Gore, anyway.

And as I said, mistakes were made at every level. I think we agree about that, so I don't know why you're arguing that point.

"Um... nothing. Why do you ask?"

President Clinton's lying under oath.

Oh, that old chestnut. Everyone lies. Don't kid yourself. The question is, does the person lie about *important* things? I'll take lying under oath about a blowjob over refusing to take the oath entirely or lying publicly over critical matters of state any day of the week. That's a no-brainer.

...Joe Wilson

Not even a tool like Robert Novak would print a statement based on one person's word. That's a journalistic cardinal sin. Journalists get fired every day for doing that. Seriously. He needed confirmation from a second source, a public official before he could print anything. You know it came out of Cheney's office, and if Cheney didn't know about, then he's just careless.

How is that Bush's fault, you mindless fuckwit?

Ouch. You could've found work in Bush's diplomatic corps. Seriously, no experience necessary.

Anyway, Bush built that conservative majority court himself. Two appointments. It's well-known that Bush appoints people more for loyalty than for qualifications (e.g., no-bid contracts, handing out Iraqi posts to unqualified people based solely on loyalties, trying to appoint his personal attorney to the Supreme Court, the list goes on.)

I know someone who has argued in front of Scalia, and he needed to be corrected on points of law numerous times. He's no great legal mind.

Thomas and Rehnquist have clearly and publicly stated their personal bias in favor of Bush. So Bush knew *exactly* who he was taking his case to.

Baz said...

if for no other reason than the Dems in Illinois lean further towards socialism and nanny-state than either Senators Obama or Clinton

If socialist nanny states are so bad and capitalism is so good, why do we need to borrow so much money from socialist nanny states (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea)? They own most of the massive debt we've acquired in the past 7 years. And yes, Japan and Korea are quite socialist and nanny-state in practice, if not in name.