Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Feminazi Party
I had planned to avoid discussing national politics for a while, but I haven't seen anybody else commenting on something that I noticed about the NYT's Thirteen ways of looking at a whitebird -- basically twelve short answer responses (one had two authors) to the question: "What went wrong (with Clinton's candidacy)?" Six were written by men, six by women.
It's interesting, but probably coincidental, that of the six pieces written by men, the three written by politicians were all written by Democrats. Of the six written by women, the three written by politicians were all written by Republicans. The three written by Republicans, Jane Swift, Heather Wilson and Christine Todd Whitman, all blame Clinton's loss on sexism. One, Wilson's essay, asserts that Obama was the most liberal for good measure. I've found comments about each of those op-ed pieces individually, but none about all three. Now that Obama has the nomination wrapped up and the Democrats are trying to unite, Republicans start to object to the sexist treatment that Clinton received. How convenient:
For the sake of comparison, the other three women contributors were Kathleen Hall Jamison, of the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center blamed Clinton's Iraq vote. Ana Marie Cox, who must be liberal because Wonkette is always rife with sexual innuendos and references*, blamed the media. The New Republic's* Michelle Cottle inadvertently agreed with Cox.
*I was, of course, being facetious about Ana Marie Cox. Still, I do find it funny that, in an age of "South Park Republicans," Ms. Cox's apparent familiarity with fellatio seems to be taken as evidence of liberalism. I suppose that it's safe to say that The New Republic has gone back to being liberal-leaning since Marty Peretz sold it; it describes itself as center-left. I will take the opportunity to remind some (an astonishingly large number) Obama supporters just how conservative the magazine had become when Andrew Sullivan was its editor.
It's interesting, but probably coincidental, that of the six pieces written by men, the three written by politicians were all written by Democrats. Of the six written by women, the three written by politicians were all written by Republicans. The three written by Republicans, Jane Swift, Heather Wilson and Christine Todd Whitman, all blame Clinton's loss on sexism. One, Wilson's essay, asserts that Obama was the most liberal for good measure. I've found comments about each of those op-ed pieces individually, but none about all three. Now that Obama has the nomination wrapped up and the Democrats are trying to unite, Republicans start to object to the sexist treatment that Clinton received. How convenient:
Republicans are alive to the opportunity. When Obama superdelegate Steve Cohen compared Clinton to the bunny-boiling character played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, John McCain's press team rushed out a critical email. He hopes women will forget the campaign stop in South Carolina where he was asked: "How do we beat the bitch?" Once he stopped laughing, he answered "that's an excellent question".
For the sake of comparison, the other three women contributors were Kathleen Hall Jamison, of the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center blamed Clinton's Iraq vote. Ana Marie Cox, who must be liberal because Wonkette is always rife with sexual innuendos and references*, blamed the media. The New Republic's* Michelle Cottle inadvertently agreed with Cox.
*I was, of course, being facetious about Ana Marie Cox. Still, I do find it funny that, in an age of "South Park Republicans," Ms. Cox's apparent familiarity with fellatio seems to be taken as evidence of liberalism. I suppose that it's safe to say that The New Republic has gone back to being liberal-leaning since Marty Peretz sold it; it describes itself as center-left. I will take the opportunity to remind some (an astonishingly large number) Obama supporters just how conservative the magazine had become when Andrew Sullivan was its editor.
Comments:
<< Home
I agree about Sullivan, that's one reason why I often found myself defending Clinton, even though I never supported her. I did once point to an article from the "Nation" as the type of Clinton criticism I expected from the left. What pissed me off was how many liberals drudged up old attacks from right wingers like Sullivan that we heard ten years ago. Not that I was that big a fan of her husband back then. I generally went back and forth between thinking he was a total sellout or thinking that he was about the best we could get under the circumstances -- conservative acendancy, unquestioning market worship, backlash against a bungled or ill-considered "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Usually leaned toward either too timid or a sell-out, BTW.
Post a Comment
<< Home
