• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    bernard jenkins on We’re Royals and other…
    churl on We’re Royals and other…
    r u reddy on We’re Royals and other…
    r u reddy on We’re Royals and other…
    mitzimuffin on We’re Royals and other…
    Sweet Sue on We’re Royals and other…
    Sweet Sue on We’re Royals and other…
    abc on We’re Royals and other…
    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    riverdaughter on We’re Royals and other…
    Monster from the Id on We’re Royals and other…
    cwaltz on Give Democrats a piece of your…
    Mr Mike on We’re Royals and other…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    January 2013
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec   Feb »
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The Attack In Ottawa will be used to justify losing more rights
      Prime Minister Harper pretty much confirmed it: ‘Our laws and police powers need to be strengthened’ Yup.  Never let a crisis go to waste. I’m very sad that MPs and their staff were scared, and I’m sadder that a soldier lost his life.  But one attack does not justify increasing the police state.  However, if [...]
  • Top Posts

Pathetic

Digby gives the old tired excuses on why she and so many other left leaning bloggers turned their backs on women during the 2008 election.  It wasn’t *their* fault.  Hillary just brought out the misogyny.  Plus, you know, like, there wasn’t a hair’s breadth of difference between them.

The whole post is just lame but the excuse that there wasn’t a bit of difference between Obama and Clinton is incredibly easy to shoot down:

1.) If there wasn’t any difference between them, why was such a tsunami of money thrown his way in February 2008 after she beat him in the big state primaries on SuperTuesday?  Apparently, SOMEBODY thought there was a difference.

2.) If there was no difference, why wouldn’t you go with the person who had the most relevant and comprehensive experience overall?  If you were worried about getting things done, wouldn’t it make sense to go with the candidate who might have a clue and be able to hit the ground running on the first day?

3.) If there was no difference, why wouldn’t you go with the female historic candidate who would represent more people overall including voters in the other camp?  It was even a winning formula among african americans because half of them are women.  I never understood this argument that african americans would walk away from the party if Clinton was nominated.  At the worst, I could see half of them walking away.  The other half would be thrilled with either choice.

And let’s not even get into the real, tangible differences between the candidates.  I can’t take seriously all the lefties who are screaming “neoliberal!” at Clinton.  If Clinton is neoliberal, what does that make Obama?  It’s a lot like the brain dead tea partiers who insist, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that Obama is a socialist.  Note that Clinton has said over and over and OVER again in the past 4 years that she does not comment on domestic politics.  So, we have no idea how much she agrees with Obama on all the weak policy he’s driven in the past 4 years.  We can only assume that they agree on foreign policy.

But I suspect the bankers *did* know how much of a difference there was between Clinton and Obama back in 2008.  The real estate bubble was already clearly collapsing in early 2007 according to authors such as Michael Lewis of The Big Short.  They knew that the degree to which they would personally suffer was contingent on which candidate was nominated.  And the last thing they wanted was some kind of homeowner bailout.  How do we know that?  Because the last thing homeowners got in the last 4 years was a bailout.  The people who got bailed out were the bankers and ONLY the bankers.  They did not want to see Hillary Clinton implementing a HOLC style program where principals were crammed down and mortgages restructured.  I haven’t got time to track down all of the videos of Clinton on the early morning talk  shows from September 2008 where she discussed her HOLC proposal but there were at least 3 separate appearances. (readers?  can you track them down and add them to the comments?)  Of course, by the time she gave those interviews, she was already out of the picture.

Update: Commenter Rangoon found this op/ed piece by Hillary Rodham Clinton in the September 25, 2008 issue of the Wall Street Journal, laying out the argument for why it was so important to implement a HOLC program.  Regardless of one’s vague personal feelings about Clinton, there is a very good possibility that she wasn’t kidding about this policy.  Policy was her strong suit.  She did her homework.  I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it was this particular policy more than any other that doomed her presidential career.  She knew it was coming, the banks knew it was coming and they didn’t want rehab.  They wanted an enabler.

She also gave an incredibly forceful defense of abortion shortly after she was confirmed as secretary of state.  You will never in a million years see or hear Barack Obama defending abortion like this:

No difference, Digby?  The issue of abortion and women’s reproductive rights are extremely important to you and yet there’s no difference?  How about gay rights, Digby?  Can you imagine Hillary Clinton inviting Rick Warren to her inaugural?  The same Hillary Clinton who ordered the State department to equalize the treatment of gay State department employees and their families as far as the law would go?

But, Ok, we’ll never really know, although I think given her record at State, Benghazi notwithstanding, that she would have been an exemplary president.  Let’s put that aside for now.  I don’t think she’s ever going to run again.  Why should she?  She doesn’t have the advantage of 2008 when all of the auspices were in her favor.  In 2016, it will be a different America and she’s smart enough to know this.  I’d rather she get her own column in the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Let’s talk about the suggestion that Hillary Clinton brought out the misogyny in the media and the parties.  Wow, I guess we could do nothing about that except become passive observers, right?  I guess we couldn’t threaten the party to walk away from it and their candidate if they didn’t stop using misogyny to further their chosen candidate’s goals.  I guess it would have been silly to point out that gratuitously taking advantage of that misogyny might backfire on women in general.

Ok, we know that our side had a fair share of cowards who were either unable or unwilling to speak up and defend a woman.  They would have defended a female candidate, just not this female candidate.  Well, it’s a good thing it was only one female candidate in 2008.

Except that Sarah Palin got it too.  Now, I don’t care whether you like or dislike Palin.  I don’t like her even if I thought she had a lot more political talent than the left gave her credit for.  For some bizarre, freakish reason, the left still hasn’t let up after 4 years of bashing her.  The left still seems to think she’s relevant even if she’s not.  That kind of obsession is pathological if you ask me.  There must be a reason for the persistence of the Emmanuel Goldstein treatment of Palin.  She’s useful for a good, unifying 3 minute hate, right?  That’s why the left just can’t quit her.  But she’s been useful for years to the Democrats.

With Palin, we saw the same kind of misogyny pick up where it left off with Clinton.  So, clearly, it wasn’t just Clinton that was bringing out the misogyny.  Misogyny became a convenient bludgeon because it worked so well taking out the candidate on the left so it was employed to take out the candidate on the right as well.  And who was one of the leaders of that club?

Digby.

Yep, day after day, week after week, we read how stupid Palin was, what a disgrace her family was right there in the posts of Hullabaloo.  Digby piled on with the rest of the left.

You can say a lot of negative things about Palin.  Justifiably.  You can attack her political philosophy, her conservatism, her opportunism.  All of that makes sense.  But the attacks on her in 2008 were horribly misogynistic.  Remember the effigies?  Remember the “Sarah Palin is a Cunt” T-shirts?  Remember the jokes about Caribou Barbie and the photoshopped pics of Palin in a bikini holding an assault rifle?  Remember the big fucking deal that Katie Couric made over the fact that Palin didn’t have an immediate list of national newspapers in her head that she read cover to cover before breakfast while she took on her responsibilities of running a state?  She should have asked Couric, “How many state budgets have you prepared in a year?”, because that would have been a good question for feminists.  She was a governor who got to be governor without family connections.  That’s something that Katie Couric hasn’t done.  That’s how feminism is supposed to work, Digby.  You are supposed to credit women for their accomplishments, not bury them with your stereotypes.

Whatever you think of Palin, dehumanizing her in 2008 was misogynism like I have never seen.

That’s what misogyny is.  It is the intentional dehumanization of females.  It denies women their personhood, dignity and accomplishments.  It’s belittling and relies on stereotypes, like the idea that a pretty woman must be a light weight or that women need to develop executive experience while men are born with natural authority.  And in 2008, it wasn’t the case that only Hillary Clinton brought it out.  Misogyny was used as an intentional campaign tactic just like rape is used in some countries as an act of terror and political strategy.  Just as the accusations of racism were used to shut up the supporters of Clinton in 2008.

Digby, YOU were part of that.  You decided to not buck your team’s leadership.  If you said anything, it wasn’t forceful enough to get them to stop.  You didn’t stick up for your half of humanity.  Even if you were right that it is Clinton personally that brings out the worst in people, that was no excuse for giving those people a pass to behave as badly as they did. Isn’t that like blaming the victim and don’t misogynists make an art form of blaming the victim?  You had an opportunity to stand up and make a difference even if it meant incurring the wrath and shunning from people who you thought were your friends.  To do nothing was to tacitly admit that Barack Obama could not win without using misogyny and racism.  What does that say about the candidate?  It said enough to me that I could never support him in a million years.

What kind of friends use misogyny to get their guy in at any cost, especially if that cost will have significant repercussions for half of the people living in this country?  Those people were not your friends, Digby.  They were financier class driven political operatives who would have killed their own mothers to get what they wanted from this president.

And this president is no hero when it comes to championing the rights of the socially disadvantaged. He’s certainly no Martin Luther King who famously said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

I don’t know why so many people on the left abandoned women and thought they were doing everyone a favor.  Or maybe they were so driven to elect Obama that the ends justified the means.  I’ve never found that sentiment to be very rewarding.  If fighting the misogyny had meant that Clinton had a fighting chance for the nomination, would that have been so horrible?  After all, NY, NJ, PA, OH, TX, MA, FL, MI, WV, KY, RI, NH, NV, MO, NM and CA (this list not exhaustive) voted for her in the primaries.  It’s only in a parallel universe where we would consider that candidate a failure against a guy who won a bunch of rural, prairie states with cheap, undemocratic caucuses.  I suspect the country would have embraced her and a Clinton/Obama ticket with her in the top slot would have been unbeatable even before the September crash.

But that’s not what happened, is it, Digby?

Don’t look to misogyny against Clinton as the cause.  Look at it as the method.  The bad guys got what they wanted. They got the weakest nominee and president.  If women got caught in that fight and got taken out, fuck’em.

THAT’S what you and your buddies were either too stupid or too complicit to realize.  It’s human nature to want to find a way downplay the effect of “follow the herd” mentality or cowardice or to find excuses (you should at least make an attempt at logic) or distance oneself from the fallout.  I understand that impulse.  We are all guilty of that in some aspect of our lives or others.

But ultimately, we are responsible for the effect of our decisions.  In 2013, women are feeling the effect of the 2008 election when the people who should have put their foot down on the brake hit the accelerator instead.  Digby can lie to herself about what happened in 2008 but she can’t lie to us.

*************************

Note to commenters: Sarah Palin has been talked to death here on this blog and there are filters in place to send all comments containing her name, or variations of it, directly to the moderation queue.  Please don’t tell me about how unfair the left has been to Sarah Palin.  There are very good, non misogynistic reasons for loathing her.  She might be worthy of human dignity but she’s no Hillary Clinton.  If you’re in her corner, you’re wasting your time here.

About these ads

58 Responses

  1. There’s not a hair’s breadth of difference between them – that really got me too. What a crock. Then why not have fair primaries? Then what does it matter who wins? Just because Clinton appears to have charmed Obama (as she seems to do with anyone she has personal contact with) and appears to have moved beyond 2008 – well, that doesn’t mean you can rewrite history, Digby.

    Frankly, much as she can write well, Digby is a coward and she’s admitted as much. So, ultimately, she’s useless when it matters or, worse, a force against equality for women. (And, BTW, long before she revealed herself as a female, I knew she was: her topics and her style screamed female to me.) I used to be proud of her. Now I’m ashamed of her.

    • I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s a shame that one of our side’s best writers has made herself a useful idiot.

      • She lost her courage when she went public as a “she”. I haven’t been to her site regularly in years. And now I only go there when pointed in that direction. It’s sad, really. There were many editions of “What digby said” by more bloggers than Atrios, and now? Well, there aren’t even comments. You have to wonder why those were disabled.

        I have to disagree, though, with the “best writers” accolade. One of the “best writers” wouldn’t write the drivel that you’re responding to. And wouldn’t have jumped in to actually participate in the misogyny. One of the “best writers” would have called it out. Or, if truly fearful, then at worst ignored it — NOT participated in it.

        • Its already becoming almost “long ago” . . . but I do remember Digby condemning Chris Matthews’s use of misogynistic themes on his show. Or at least I think I remember it.
          What I DON’T remember is Digby doing any detailed pieces on policy standpoints of the primary candidates, especially Clinton and Obama. I DON’T remember Digby linking to Clinton’s Wall Street Journal piece and I DON’T remember any commenters mentioning it at the time either. This is effectively the first time I have ever seen it.
          I was just a happy mushroom .

          If Somebody (Anybody) had mentioned The Confluence and linked to it back in the start of primary season 2008, I don’t know if I would have been ready for it or not. But it would have been nice to have been given that chance. (And yes, if I had been reading DailyKos I might have been reading and following Riverdaughter’s work. It is DailyKos’s own fault that I didn’t read DailyKos. I don’t read anything that is that nasty vile brown-orange color. It was too ugly to look at. If Moulos Markitsas has wanted me to read his blogsite, he would have made it a deep beautiful blue . . . like FireDogLake.)

          Perhaps it took an early round of betrayals on Obama’s part to have made me ready to read seriously counter-Obama material. Betrayals like “look forward not back”, appointing the BillClinton Economic Advisers, etc.etc.

      • It’s a shame that one of our side’s best writers has made herself a useful idiot.

        Amen sistah!

        Makes me wonder why she and her side kick…Spoon…disabled the comment section on their blog.

    • Digby is a coward, all right. She still hasn’t restored comments on her blog. :roll:

      • I would lean toward “veal-penning DemParty Apparatchik” myself. Tinfoil becomes me, or becalms me, or something.

  2. The idea that It really didn’t mater which Democratic candidate won in 2008 is one I’ve never subscribed to. I believe the weakest, least liberal candidate was nominated and it was a Banker’s coup d’etat. Call me a wooden headed conspiracist, oh wait, you already have.

    2008 one Candidate’s plea::

    There is a broad consensus that Congress must act to stave off deeper turmoil on Wall Street. Irrespective of the final agreement yet to be reached, there are several principles that must be part of a broader reform effort that begins this week and continues in the coming months.

    This is not just a financial crisis; it’s an economic crisis. Therefore, the solutions we pursue cannot simply stabilize the markets. We must also deal with the interconnected economic challenges that set the stage for this crisis — and reverse the failed policies that allowed a potential crisis to become a real one.

    First, we must address the skyrocketing rates of mortgage defaults and foreclosures that have buffeted the economy and ignited the credit crisis. Two million homeowners carry mortgages worth more than their homes. They hold $3 trillion in mortgage debt. Nearly three million adjustable-rate mortgages are scheduled for a rate increase in the next two years. Another wave of foreclosures looms.

    I’ve proposed a new Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), to launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. The original HOLC, launched in 1933, bought mortgages from failed banks and modified the terms so families could make affordable payments while keeping their homes. The original HOLC returned a profit to the Treasury and saved one million homes. We can save roughly three times that many today. We should also put in place a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and freeze rate hikes in adjustable-rate mortgages. We’ve got to stem the tide of failing mortgages and give the markets time to recover.

    The time for ideological, partisan arguments against these actions is over. For years, the calls to provide borrowers an affordable opportunity to avoid foreclosure as a means of preventing wider turmoil were dismissed as government intrusion into the private marketplace. My proposals over the past two years were derided as too much, too soon. Now we are forced to reckon with too little, too late…

    The candidate’s identity [hint: She didn't win] here:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230767702474045.html#printMode

    2010 and the President still wasn’t listening:

    Time to Bring Back the Home Owners Loan Corporation | Roosevelt Institute

    The New Deal’s mortgage relief program offers an effective alternative to the Obama administration’s failed strategy.

    http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/time-bring-back-home-owners-loan-corporation

    2012 and the failed policy still is hitting home:

    SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) – California had the highest foreclosure rate in the country in July, a stark reminder that people are still losing their homes in record numbers despite state and federal efforts to end the housing crisis…

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/07/12/california-foreclosure-rate-tops-in-nation-san-leandro-familys-struggle-typical/

  3. Standing ovation, RD.

    • Yes RD, this post is on fire! I think all of us here are just mystified that so many could not see this and/or made excuses. Am I remembering correctly that a similar thing happened to candidate Dean? He was publicly in favor of breaking up the media and then suddenly this manufactured “scream” took him down. The powers that be like their patsies. So why hasn’t the public figured out to beware of the candidate those in charge want? Shouldn’t they wonder why? And then run to vote for someone who is not that person?

  4. I agree with this. Under normal circumstances, there was no way a novice like Barack Obama could have won the 2008 primary. He got a lot of help and that help came principally from Wall Street in cahoots with the DNC. It’s no coincidence the Wall Street money came flowing in to his coffers while Hillary Clinton was talking about a national mortgage refinance plan which would have included writedowns of principal. In the eyes of the banker lobby, she was too risky to support and THEY HAD TO GET THEIR MAN IN BY WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE. It coincided with a smear campaign against her and very dubious ethical activities in the caucus states, not to mention the deliberate withholding of the MI and FLA primary delegates to deny her the momentum she needed to win.

    Digby is doing what is expected of her by the DNC and the Democratic donor base. I don’t hate her for it, but it’s important to see it for what it is. All we have to do is see what has transpired since the 2008 election; no banker prosecutions of any consequence. Sure, some low level people got sacked, but the big players are still in charge. These same people who caused the meltdown are still in power. The country pursued a Japanese-style banker bailout as opposed to an Icelan-Sweden nationalization. This was done not because it was the best policy option,we have the Japanese experience as proof, but because it was the ONLY option Wall Street would countenance. Power politics in its crudest form. It’s why the recovery is so weak and the population’s economic prospects have diminished.

    And this is not something we can pin strictly on the Republicans.

    • It was not all of Wall Street, it was the institutional old boys network that jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Those who were more interested in a thriving economy than either a stacked deck or no prosecutions of the smaug elite were likely to back Hillary. (one example was the hedge fund trader/billionaire Steve Cohen).

      They were outnumbered and outspent and oushouted by the corporatists and the crooks.

      • What psycho-political process or brainset explains why the hip groovy cool young political analysts and thinkers like Matt Stoller backed Obama aGAINST HClinton at key crucial points when their backing mattered?

        What explains Al Giordano backing Obama even unto this very day?

  5. Excellent post. Love the photo at the top, too. It says it all

  6. Cynthia McKinney, the 2008 Green party nominee and formerly a strong liberal member of Congress was also treated with the same extreme disrespect by so called progressives

    • I was a McKinney supporter and remember it well. The gross disrespect wasn’t front and center and in the headlines but it was just as ugly.

      I’m absolutely sick at the thought of Hillary running in 2016 because I just don’t want to have to see that unfettered, shameless misogyny again. And, trust me, we will see it. And a large share of those “no difference” Obama supporters will dredge up some, any, reason to take their vote elsewhere. (Mark my word, Michael Moore will be leading the pack and telling us to vote for Ralph Nader.)

      That said, I’m already following “Ready for Hillary” on twitter, and if she decides to run, I will in all likelihood support her. If Hillary is willing to lay it on the line, I feel the need to stand with her and have her back because women like her (and Palin) are the soldiers on the front line in this insane war against women.

      • I suspect HClinton won’t want to run in 2016. She would look upon the economic/political/cultural/legal Superfund Site this country will be by then and decline to drink from that poisoned cup.

        I think Obama will be our ” apres moi l’deluge” President.

  7. You say: “For some bizarre, freakish reason, the left still hasn’t let up after 4 years of bashing her. The left still seems to think she’s relevant even if she’s not.” I think it is because misogyny is embedded in our culture, in the left as much as the right. Give the left a legitimate female to bash, and they will do it with enthusiasm. It’s an outlet for the misogyny they otherwise have to rein in, to some extent. She is (in that appalling old phrase) fair game.

    • “It’s an outlet for the misogyny they otherwise have to rein in”

      bingo – spot on

      speaking as a geezer, this was why 2nd wave feminism started back in the day – so thrilling that the guys were stopping a war, so thrilling that blacks were fighting for their rights – only to find that when the ladies showed up, we were deployed making copies and fetching coffee … and the boys just could.not.understand why that shattered our illusions about them on the spot

      Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

  8. Riverdaughter said:

    “There are very good, non misogynistic reasons for loathing her.”

    And that sums it up. I always said that arguments against Sarah Palin should have focused on her policy positions not her gender or all the ugly name calling. The comparisons made between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, as if they were equals in experience and skill, were idiotic in my mind. There was/is no comparison.

    The electorate was cheated in 2008 and the Democratic Party did the cheating at the primary level with their own members. It’s the reason I refused to vote for Obama in 2008 or this past November. That doesn’t mean I bought into the Romney/Ryan disaster. Do I think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016? Like you, I am simply not convinced. I think domestically we would have been in a much better position had Hillary won in 2008. That’s water under the bridge. But that doesn’t mean that I or many others are suffering from mass amnesia.

    The Obamacrats got what they wanted. How’s that working out for everyone??? The Big Lie may work for the true believers. It doesn’t wash for me. Not then, not now.

  9. And of course Digby brought in Atkins and began censoring her comments section to make sure nothing like this got said on her blog.
    She and Atkins have gone on to delete the comments function entirely,
    so that her veal-calf readers will stay veal penned. I’m just glad Monster from the Id made note of this blog in a comment over there before the ability to do so was shut down.

    • I’m just glad Monster from the Id made note of this blog in a comment over there before the ability to do so was shut down.

      Oh, me too! I think about that now and then.

    • Atkins is the reason I stopped reading Digby’s blog.

      Tossing in my two bits on the “Hillary” issue, I had plenty of problems with her back in 2008. A significant part of my distaste for her was rooted in the Carpetbagger thing. I just didn’t like the way she had parlayed being a President’s wife into Senator from NY, and then on to a White House run. And I was really unhappy about her handling of the health care business. Finally, she gave every indication of being Israel’s Candidate, virtually promising a war with Iran.

      Regarding Obama, I was snookered. While prepared to believe he was a generic lying politician, I wasn’t expecting him to lie about EVERYTHING! So I voted for the *******. That time only.

      If I could climb into a time machine and go back and tell my 2008 self what I know now, I’d tell “me” to save the $5 I paid for the Obama yard sign and to stay home on election day. I knew back then Hillary wasn’t anybody I wanted as President, and I know now Obama is a total disaster.

      The fix was on in 2012 same as in 2008. Obama was going to be the candidate back then, and he was going to win the election. McCain/Caribou Barbie were throwaway candidates, same as Romney/Ryan were in 2012. I’m very much afraid it’s going the other direction in 2016. All the Republican Big Boys sat out the 2012 election. And there is nobody of note on the horizon for the Democrats. Conclusion: 2016 is a Republican year, and the Democratic nominee will be the ‘throwaway’. IMO if Hillary stays in good health it’ll be her. Hated by 100% of the Republicans, and distrusted by 50% of the Democrats, she can’t possibly win. If she’s not available, there is Biden. WAY too old to be president, and guaranteed to lose on that account alone.

      That’s how I see it.

      • I don’t know where you live but I’m located in NJ so I was able to see Hillary campaigning for the Senate from the local NYC stations. It was Chris Matthews who said everyone voted for her because they felt sorry for you. From what I could see, that wasn’t true. She campaigned hard, just like everyone else. And she was excellent in debate.
        I think the fact that she was a former first lady gave her name recognition but if she hadn’t been any good, she never would have won the Senate. But this is a VERY common sexist belief that extends beyond politics. Many career women face this. There is always an excuse as to why she got a job that has nothing to do with her accomplishments and hard work. If it’s not some extraneous reason, it’s luck. it’s never her own efforts.
        I hope you spend some time thinking about that because the operatives that wanted to get Clinton out of the way recognized this trend in thinking. It’s hard enough for women to overcome.
        Like I said before, I don’t think she’s going to run. Unlike you, I think she would be extremely popular and people would vote for her in a heartbeat. But I don’t think it’s going to happen. She lost the nomination not because of something she did or didn’t do. She lost it because the party decided to back some other guy and did everything in its power to eliminate her. In other words, it didn’t matter how moany millions of people voted for Hillary, the party was going to use every trick in the book to sideline her. We saw it happen.
        Under those circumstances, why bother? You could potentially win every primary and all of the popular vote and still see the party pull the plug on your nomination. Besides, Obama has solidified the gains the bankers made in 2008. It will be very difficult to change that without a cultural revolution of sorts. That might not happen for decades to come. She’ll be dead by then.
        So, to recap, the party is in the hands of the bankers and they’re not going to let her succeed and if she did succeed in spite of the bankers, her chances of running things like she would have in 2008 are greatly, GREATLY diminished.
        One last thing, she is not hated by 100% of the Republicans. I’m not sure where you got that notion. I canvassed dPennsylvania in 2008 and met quite a lot of Republican women who were looking forward to voting for her. They couldn’t vote for her in a closed primary but there is no doubt in my mind that she would have won in a landslide in the general.

        • The place where we have no disagreement whatever is that Obama is totally in bed with the Bankers. Whatever it was Hillary did or didn’t offer them back in 2008, Obama outbid her. And boy oh boy, has he ever delivered! But as others have pointed out, giving $250,000 speeches to them and their interest groups is the way to great wealth when he leaves the White House. That kind of money piles up in a hurry – witness Bill Clinton’s current situation.

          I was very unclear about the 100%/50% business, so allow me to elaborate. Given that Big Money is going to install whoever it is they choose, they need an excuse that their couriers in the “liberal media” can peddle to the unwashed masses. IMO the official line – or one of the major ones – in explaining why Hillary lost was that she started with a built-in disadvantage.

          Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton would be an electrifying candidate. The hoopla would be incredible, the spending would set records. And she’d lose. Why? Because in the places which matter, our votes will be collected by Diebold Devices, and the vote totals will be whatever the controllers of those machines desire.

          I’m from Indiana, and was a close observer of the 2008 primary here. Goodness, but what a circus! In what is truly a right-wing redneck state a black man was opposed by a white woman! The excitement you could cut with a knife. The Republicans deserted their own primary and voted for Hillary, probably at the instigation of the likes of Rush ‘druggie’ Limpaugh. Now on to the general election. Guess what? – Obama wins in Mississippi North! How was that explained? Because of all the enthusiasm generated by the Democratic Primary here, vast numbers of new Democratic Voters were registered, and that gave Obama the edge. B.S. What happened was the big money boys who were electing Obama weren’t taking any chances, and since Indiana is a touch-screen voting state, all they needed was a barely plausible cover story.

          IMO Karl Rove really believed he could steal the 2012 election same as he’d done in 2000 and 2004. His behavior on Fox indicated how stunned he was that he’d been ‘outbid’ in his effort to steal Ohio again. He had an awful lot of money, but to Big Banking that was chump change. By the way, I was giving 10:1 odds on Obama’s retaining the White House, and except for a nagging fear Israel might do something rash, would have offered 20:1. That election was as preordained as any I’ve ever seen.

          I’ts my opinion that 2016 will be the same, only this time I’m predicting one of the Elder Statesmen of the Republican Party will take the brass ring. Notice how Our Man Mitch has installed himself at Purdue University so as to remain in the public eye. Jeb Bush. Chris Christie. The dark skinned guy from Louisiana. In my own head at this date it’s 5:1 that 2016 is the Year of the Elephant.

  10. Brava, RD! You are telling it like it is and was.

    • Christ I miss her!

      One of Basement Angel’s last comments at Corrente:
      2-18-11:
      “Clinton has dedicated her life to improving the living conditions, health conditions and educational opportunities of women around the world with definable results. She ran the first genuinely competitive race for the presidency and had the boys not decided to cheat by disenfranchising voters, would have won the race. But she still knocked down innumerable barriers for the next qualified female candidate. There are no greater feminists heroes around at this time. She stands with the greats and I’m proud that I got to vote for her. Of course, unlike most Americans, I took the time to educate myself and I know what she’s actually done with her life. And that’s why I take this stand.”

  11. I watched the rampant racism and cheating in the 2008 primary in NC and nearly blew a gasket. Many, many of my friends became tea baggers and now they’re rabid conservatives instead of the moderate Democrats they were before the junior highs were emptied and bussed to the polls (did not see that personally). Clinton lost but she should not have. I sat on the Intertoob with Net-friends during the scamming of the Texas primaries and once O had the nomination, I went from Puma raging Puma.

    I voted for McPalin and loathed the way Palin was treated. The great Katie debacle, where O got to answer “what does it mean to be a black man…blah blah blah” endlessly over multiple interviews, while Palin, and Clinton before her, had to play foreign policy Jeopardy during every interview, was just icing on the cake. She was debauched by Digby, Hamsher, Marsh, et.al. in one of the greatest gender hate fests this side of Clinton.

    I voted for O over Magic Mitt but I have not forgotten, and though I am old, I hope I live long enough to see some justice served up during Hillary Clinton’s second term– for all the criminals, liars, and self-serving opportunists we’ve had to endure.

    • Interesting. I already had no cable TV by that time and my TV was not hooked up to anything otherwise, so I had effectively no TV at all.
      So I missed a lot of that.

      I voted for Obama to keep McPalin out of office. But this time around I almost voted for The Mittster. The only thing that finally stopped me was his cheap transparent insulting lie about “Chrysler goes to China”. So I voted for Rocky Anderson instead.

  12. Did anyone else watch the fascinating PBS American Masters program “Inventing David Geffen”? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/david-geffen/film-inventing-david-geffen/2361/
    Right in the midst of it was another nail in the coffin for Clinton in the primaries. The man, who was commenting on Geffen’s public rejection of the Clinton’s and particularly Hillary, noted that he didn’t think it was deserved.

    • But what is interesting is this . . . if Hillary was indeed winning the primaries and Obama was only winning the cheatable caucuses, then
      Geffen was no nail and there was no coffin. What there was . . . was a pair of cement galoshes fitted for HClinton (and everyone who voted for her in any primary) by the DNC at DemCon 2008. They really should have held the Convention in New Jersey . . . in a city like Bayonne or Jersey City.

      And that’s what I wasn’t seeing at the time because I was getting all my news through Digby and stuff like that there.

  13. I always thought that much of the resentment of HRC lay in the fact that she is almost always the smartest person in the room, and her deserved self confidence scares insecure males who no matter their station in life feel they are by definition superior to females.

  14. This is like the “golf” scene in Animal House where the 2 senior Delts are looking down on the field where Niedermeyer is horribly abusing their freshman frat brother in ROTC drill and one says, hey, they can’t do that to our pledges, only WE can do that to our pledges! So if anyone but Hillary deadender PUMAs call Palin for what she is and was, the death of McCains faltering but not yet hopeless campaign, the he/she is a sexist.

  15. From someone at TL concerning Lambert’s link to RD’s post:

    “Get a loada this guy Anthony over at Lambert’s!
    http://correntewire.com/stupidest_career_progressives_on_the_face_of_the_earth_4#comment-215580

  16. The narrative, the narrative! That’s all that matters …

    Elections have consequences, whether you want to see them or not.

    Nicely written, well said, BRAVO!

  17. Great. Now you folks have me wishing there had been a Hillary/Dean or Dean/Hillary ticket.

  18. Preach it, RiverDaughter! And never let anyone forget.

  19. Fantastic post! Not over it and re-writing of history is not acceptable!

  20. I, too, remember Digby writing early on about the bigotry directed at Clinton. Those were the days when any blog not swooning over Obama got swamped by his comment army. I remember the usual vitriolic shit in the comments on her posts.

    Then the mood gained steam that zomg!-the-Repubs are-Death!-we-must-win! In tandem ran the mantra that of course Clinton would lose, so everybody had to get behind the boy wonder nownownow.

    It was pure misogyny from the getgo to assume the winning female was a loser, but that recognition wasn’t allowed in any way, shape, or form.

    Then there was a period of a few weeks when there was relative silence on the subject at Hullabaloo, well before the Convention. When she started discussing Obama again, she’d fallen into line, and I stopped reading her.

    She said, much later, (two years?) that she’d let herself get intimidated on her blog and that she’d been wrong.

    It takes a lot of courage to admit in public that you were wrong, and I give her props for that. If she’d also climbed all the way out of the veal pen, I’d be even more impressed. Instead, for reasons I’ve never understood, she invited the apparatchik David Atkins to pollute her site.

    There’s a line somewhere about evil triumphing because bad people are full of conviction while good people are mealymouthed ditherers.

    • I know that digby admitted that she had become a “chickenshit” and I understand that her blog is her income. She wasn’t the only blogger who felt conflicted and gave in for one reason or another.
      But I do have a problem with her justifying her behavior in 2013 for entirely different reasons. She knew it was wrong in 2008 and 2009 but now it’s OK because there wasn’t any difference between them and Clinton brought out the misogyny in all the big players? I’m sorry, that’s like paying too much money for your “dream house” only to find that it’s built over a toxic waste dump and then saying that the house you got swindled out of probably was sitting on poison too.
      But what really upsets me is that digby is supposedly a feminist and she doesn’t want to believe what the Obama campaign and the DNC has colluded to do to women. I’m not sure they were thinking along those lines when they got behind Obama. But if you see the world without the Democratic Party glasses on and see it through the eyes of a banker, the whole 2008 debacle makes sense. They didn’t care who they had to step on to get what they wanted. If women became collateral damage, well, it’s regrettable but they’re not going to lose sleep over it. And because there was never any attempt to rectify the carnage from 2008, there has been a steady dehumanization of women over the past 4 years. What Democrat is going to go out of their way to defend our rights when we had so many young women chuck out everything they cared passionately about in order to help the Democrats win the presidency?
      This problem is going to continue until people like Digby connect the dots and start writing like feminists and not like Democrats.

      • Don’t get me wrong. I agree 100% about the recent nonsense, and it makes me livid. I haven’t read digby in a long time (because I kept getting livid at the Democrat first, human being second BS), but I’ve been seeing via other blogs that she headed that way.

        Sad, horrible, nasty. And of a piece with how often women refuse to fight for themselves.

    • I myself also wonder about false flags and black hands ( as in “black hand advance”) and stuff. Various people who advertised themselves as supporting Hillary were using the exact memes and charges that I either also, or later, saw from Republican spokesfolk. The first place I saw “birtherism” mentioned and advanced was at Larry Johnson’s No Quarter blog. Larry Johnson presented himself as “pro-Hillary” but I wonder if he was a Republican or at a deeper level a CIA agent working to discredit Hillary by getting support-for-Hillary associated with
      Birtherism and Nixonian themes like “palling around with terrorists/Ayres” . . . a theme that Pail-Inn later took up in her speeches. Given what I have later ( too late!) read about Obama’s working a couple of years for a CIA front Consulting Company specializing in anti-union and anti-movement penetration and subversion, Larry Johnson’s “support” for Hillary begins to look very suspicious indeed in hindsight.

  21. Well! . . . I couldn’t resist temptation and so I went over and actually read the Digby piece in question. Awful, just awful. Now, NOW! she has decided that HC and BO are indeed equivalent? After all the evidence being faced up to more and more about certain real and evident differences?

    I mean, HOLC . . . is the same as . . . HAMP? Even setting my own bitterness at the stealth comment takedowns and the secret stealth bannings (and the passive-lying-by-ommission about all of that), if Digby can say that NOW . . . AFter what is becoming ever more known and/or faced up to; then Digby (and her little dog Atkins) are a source of Brain Pollution.

  22. Didn’t know anything about Digby then nor do I now, but I do know this. One of the first posts I stumbled onto in 2008 that summed up EXACTLY what was happening in that primary and how I felt about it was yours, Riverdaughter!

    Fast forward to Denver, the march and watching Hillary give her speech in the “puma den” where I’ll never forget the claps, tears and pride of Hillary giving her shout out to “the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits” and to their dedication and resolve, Since you were responsible for coining that phrase, I can only imagine what must have been going through your mind.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping the record straight for those of us who knew and those of us who didn’t know what was really going on during that primary.

    If Hillary does run again, I will work as hard as I humanly can to help her win the seat she would have won had it not been gifted to someone else.

    I also hope we are all prepared for a preemptive strike against “sexist pig” Chris Matthews and others of his ilk, to effectively shut them down before they can even get started. Yeah, I’ll never forget that little group chant either!

    Thanks again, Riverdaughter!

    You do have such a way with words!

    • maddie – everything you just said!

    • You know, I don’t think you should get your hopes up about Hillary running again. it’s what the party would like you to think is going to happen because it means you will postpone your ire over what they’re going to do in the meantime. You need to stay focussed on the present.
      It’s no slight to Hillary to stop expecting her to run. If it happens, it happens. I don’t think she will but I’m not clairvoyant. But there are much more important things to do before 2016.

      • Remembering the damage done by the whole “waiting for Gore” thing in 2008, I have to agree with you. Fantasy campaigns might be fun dreams but, we need actual candidates with thoughtful plans to counter the bad stuff that’s been going on. Hillary might be that candidate, but for now she’s denying it.

        • If she runs in the primaries I will give her a respectful listen. If she gives me reason to decide, upon whatever careful analysis a self-semi-informed layman can perform, that she wants to kick some shit over and stomp on it good; then I’ll vote for her. Because given what she has learned, seen, done and been through . . . if she wants to, she can. . .

          . . . kick some shit over and stomp on it.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 468 other followers

%d bloggers like this: