- Commenting Rules. Read these before you comment. Really. I'm not kidding.
- Sharing material from Stonekettle Station. Read this if you're thinking about reposting, linking, quoting, or just plain stealing material from Stonekettle Station. Seriously, read this before sharing, otherwise I will unleash the badgers.

- Stonekettle Station's Greatest Hits: The good stuff, it's in here!
- Reader Links: Sites recommended by readers, pimp your site today!

Friday, November 16, 2007

Rymes with Witch

What the hell is it with the Democrats lately?

I don't mind taking hits on my records, on issues. But when someone starts throwing mud, at least we can hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican play book, So said Hillary Clinton in response to John Edwards during last night's debate in Nevada.

Exactly, what Hillary said.

What is it about this women that inspires such loathing in people? Is it because she comes off as such a bitch? When men are tough, outspoken, and forceful, they are referred as, well, tough, outspoken, and forceful. When a women is tough, outspoken and forceful, she's a bitch. Is it as simple as that?

Clinton was widely despised as First Lady, and frankly I've got to wonder why. When Diana, Princess of Wales stopped putting up with her idiot husband's infidelity and decided to stop being the Royal brood mare, and then got involved in world health care and became the poster child for AIDs awareness in Africa, she was hailed as a hero here in America. When Hillary stopped putting up with her idiot husband's infidelity and got involved in the heath care debate, she was reviled as a bitch. Was it because Diana was pretty and demure and wore sun dresses with big dots? And Hillary was, well, not-pretty and caustic and wore severely cut pants-suits? I don't know, but I'll tell you this - at least when Hillary Clinton was First Lady I knew we had a First Lady. Where the hell is, uh, whatshername? Oh yeah, Laura. Where hell is Laura Bush? George might as well be married to Dick Cheney, for all we see of the First Lady in this administration.

Hillary had the wherewithal to get herself elected to the Senate, where she's become a force to be reckoned with - no small feat for a women in that good ole' boys club. So yeah, she's a bitch. A tough, forceful, and outspoken bitch. Of course she is, she'd pretty much have to be, wouldn't she? And honestly, isn't that what you want in your Senator? I mean, the last thing I'd want in my congressional representative is some pretty passive wall flower - I expect my Senator to get into the thick of the fray and swing a couple of roundhouses, damnit.

But, by the Unnamed Feminist Deity, she scares the everliving crap out both Republicans and Democrats alike, doesn't she? Republicans I can understand, there's nothing more frightening to the Christian Right than a powerful woman. Look at Laura Bush, if you can find her I mean. She's the perfectly made-up, manikin-passive, baby-machine, Stepford Wife ideal of the conservative female.

But the Democrats? What's the deal with these people? During the Nevada Democratic debate, Barrack Obama and John Edwards did everything but call Hillary a bitch. However, if you watched it on TV, you can clearly see that both of them were thinking it. It was like that scene in Beetle Juice where Michael Keaton says "Ah Ah, nobody says the b-word!"

I mean, come on. What are the democratic front runner strategies again? Let's review the score card:
Clinton: War, Terrorism, Health Care, Education!
Obama: Vote for me, I'm the Anti-Bush, and at least I'm not Hillary!
Edwards: Vote for me. I'm practically a Republican, but at least I'm not Hillary!
Biden: Vote for me, you bunch of retards. Screw Hillary, that stupid bitch!
Kucinich: Vote for...Hey! What's that in the sky? Look everybody, space aliens!

Hell, Hillary Clinton gets more respect from John McCain.

In my opinion, the rest of the Democratic front runners look and act scared. And when frightened people talk, especially in public, they often fail to see the consequences of their words. By attacking Clinton on a personal level instead of debating her on a professional level, by engaging in childish "she said" rhetoric, Obama and Edwards have put themselves in the position of children facing a stern adult. And just like children facing an adult, they're going to lose. Clinton is a savvy and experienced politician, she's smart and very aggressive, and she's enough of an outright bitch to take control of the situation. And that's exactly what she did last night, she slapped Obama and Edwards down, hard. And did it in a manner that clearly shows she's driving the bus and she's had just about enough nonsense from the backseat.

I've really got to wonder what Obama and Edwards are thinking. They've pretty much burned their bridges, the both of them. If Hillary takes the the Democratic nomination, as seems very likely at the moment, both of them have given up any chance of being her running mate. So what then? You know as well as I do, they'll be forced by their own party to throw their weight behind Clinton in her run for the White House. What are they going to say to their supporters then? Something along the lines of "Well, I know I said she was a nasty bitch, but, hey, better the Democratic Devil You Know as apposed to the Republican Devil You Also Know? And then, I guess they'll go back to being Senators. And how's that going to work, when the woman they vilified is the President they'll have to work with? Here's a suggestion, you two, why don't you guys start telling us why we should vote for you, instead of why we shouldn't vote for Hillary. Just a thought.

Personally, I don't much care for Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't mean that I don't think she wouldn't make a decent President. If it comes down to it, I'd much rather have a tough, aggressive, hardnosed bitch for a President than some whiny, childish git or some likable buffoon. And I damned sure would rather see Clinton in office than the current lunatic tyrant, but I guess that pretty much goes without saying.

6 comments:

  1. Is it as simple as that?

    Unfortunately, in my experience, it really is. Not in every case, of course, but enough of the time to make it a decent rule of thumb.

    I'm not wild about Hillary, either, and I haven't made my mind up about who I'll vote for in the primary. I have plenty of time to decide, but I'm actually leaning towards Richardson. Providing he's still in the race by the time I get to vote, that is. I'm sure all of the candidates will have shot themselves in the foot numerous times by then...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been wondering that for a long while. I don't really have a strong opinion about her, personally, but I am concerned that Republican sentiment against her is so strong that it would prevent disgruntled Republican cross-over during the election.

    Thankfully, as an independent, I don't get to decide. Vote well, Dems! You've got to convince me you've got the right gal/guy for the job! Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I'm not crazy about Hillary either, but it irritates me to see the other democratic candidates reduced to ad hominem attacks against what is most likely their best possibility for the White House.

    I mean if the best you can do is: "don't vote for her, because she's a bitch," well I just don't see that as a good reason to vote for you. And to be quite blunt about it, not only am I married to the meanest, toughest women I know, I was in the Navy for two decades surrounded by tough outspoken females - and frankly I like it. So having a bitch in the White isn't something that scares me.

    And again, frankly, the things that she's stumping about, end the war, education, national health care, etc are the things I'm concerned about and think ought to be national priorities. Frankly, I've voted Republican all of my life (right up until the last election) - but if it comes down to it, I will vote for Hillary over John "two-face" McCain. Ain't no way I'll vote for that conniving sack of dog-shit. I mean if there's anybody that ought to be fore square dead set against torture as a national policy it's that son of a bitch. But no, he wants the Conservative vote so bad he'll sell his soul for it. Screw him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anne, I'm only a Democrat "technically." I register as such so that I can vote in the primaries. My husband's a registered Republican, and we both vote for whoever we think will do the best job, in both primaries and general elections. I don't really give a rat's ass what a candidate's affliation is - it's all about character, brains, and plans. And I like having some say in who ends up on the general election ballot.

    Jim, McCain also lost my support forevermore when he compromised himself on the torture issue. And I wrote him and told him so. I don't think he's in the categoary as Tom "Freeze-Dried Whackaloon" Tancredo, but I'd still rather move to Canada than vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed, on all counts. McCain can kiss my fuzzy white ass - I wouldn't vote for him if the Devil himself was running opposite of the Good Senator (of course, a number of people, including my folks, think Hillary is the Devil, so there you go).

    What amazes me, are the number of Republicans who hated McCain the last time around and voted Mr. MonkeyBrains into office - now those same folks are singing McCain's praises. What changed, besides his stance on torture that is?

    I changed my voter affiliation to "Undeclared" before the last election - and I doubt I'll ever register as a member of any party ever again. Like I said elsewhere, I vote for people, not parties. And the way it's looking, I'll probably be voting for Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm in the Richardson camp myself. Hopefully I'll get a chance to vote for him, at least in the primaries.

    ReplyDelete

Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.