Democratic Family Fight or a License to Hate?
One sister supports Obama, the other, Hillary — a microcosm of the family feud that has torn the Democratic party to pieces during the primary season.
So, Democrats, the media tells us we are in the midst of a “family fight.”
To introduce myself and my family, I am a latte-drinking, white, college-educated progressive Democrat who, despite my demographic, supports Hillary Clinton. Maybe it is because I am also a woman over 45. My mother and my late father are “blue collar” Democrats. My dad worked in a factory in the Detroit area all his life and my mother, in a medical supply house. My mother, whose vote doesn’t count — for now at least — because she lives in Michigan, supports Hillary. My younger sister, another educated progressive Democrat — who, oddly, thinks Starbucks coffee is too bitter and doesn’t drink lattes — voted for Obama. We had several “family fights” about this, mostly by email since I live in the great Hillary-supporting state of California and my sister lives in Maryland, an Obama stronghold.
It occurs to me that my “family fight” somewhat mirrors the Democratic primary that the media has frequently characterized as a “family fight.” Therefore, I thought Democrats, particularly those latte-drinking, educated, progressive, blog-reading Democrats in the upcoming primaries, would like to hear about my family fight and what I learned from it, in the hope that it could illuminate the larger battle.
When I asked my sister why she didn’t want to vote for the first viable female candidate for president — and a brilliant person as well — she told me that she “hates” Hillary Clinton. Stunned at the intensity of her feelings, I asked her why. She proceeded to give me some reasons that I found startlingly similar to the Obama campaign talking points:
Sister: Hillary voted for the war in Iraq.
Me: Actually, she voted to give the president the authorization to go to war so the threat of war would force Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq, which it did. Bush, not Hillary, then decided to stop those inspections before they were done and invade Iraq. (I sent her an article in the Huffington Post by anti-war activist, former ambassador, and husband of Valerie Plame Joe Wilson about this.)
Sister: I don’t have time for this. She still voted for the war, and Obama was against the war.
Me: Obama didn’t have to make that tough decision. He wasn’t in the Senate. He wasn’t representing the state of New York that had been devastated on 9/11. He just gave a speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago, in his very safe, very liberal state senate district. How much courage did that take?
Sister: Look, I’m inspired by Obama. Democrats have the right to be inspired too, you know.
Me: Okay, you like the guy. I am not crazy about him, myself. He seems like a snake oil salesman, selling hope and change. But I don’t “hate” him, and you still haven’t answered my question about why you “hate” Hillary.
Sister: Hillary is just like Bill Clinton. She’s too moderate and they both “triangulate.” We don’t need another Clinton. I’m tired of Bushes and Clintons. We need something new. (To her credit she didn’t use the epithet “Billary,” which may have been too sexist for her. Or she may have just been embarrassed to say that to me.)
Me: Have you seen Hillary’s policy proposals? They are very similar to Obama’s. In some cases, particularly her health care proposal, they are more progressive than his. (I sent her one of economist Paul Krugman’s articles from the New York Times on why Hillary’s health care plan, which will cover everyone, is better than Obama’s, which will only cover children.)
Sister: Who has time to read all of these things? Politicians never do them anyway. He inspires people. That’s what we need in a president. I’m going to lose my job if you don’t quit writing all these emails and sending me all these articles.
Me: I am just trying to find out why you “hate” Hillary so much.
Sister: Hillary Clinton will do anything to get elected. She’s running a negative campaign.
Me: Can’t you see that that is just code for she’s an ambitious, ball-busting bitch?! What kind of sexist double standard is that? Hillary has paid her dues. She didn’t run for president in 2004 after only four years in the Senate. She waited until 2008 after being elected by the state of New York with a huge majority to a second term. Yet, Obama’s ambition is very apparent. He has run for higher office every three years. He is impatient to get to the highest office in the land. And do you really think Obama won’t do anything to get elected? Both he and his campaign have been very negative. He or his campaign spokespeople have said she:
- is a “calculating, poll-tested, divisive figure”
- “consistently” and “deliberately” misleads the American people
- is “dishonest”
- is attempting to “deceive the American people”
- is “one of the most secretive politicians in America”
- is “a monster”
- is “not being straight with the American people”
They have also claimed that:
- “The American people are not going to elect a president that they do not trust”.
- And (probably the worse) they have said that John McCain is seen as more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton.
Obama is a master at the very negative campaigning that he and his campaign accuse Hillary of practicing. And, though he calls her a liar, he has lied plenty in this campaign. (I sent her a New York Times news article about how he lied about a Senate bill that he claimed to have passed but didn’t regarding radioactive leaks at nuclear power plants.)
Sister: Quit sending me these emails! Can’t we just agree to disagree? I’ll vote for her if she is nominated. But I don’t want to talk about it anymore.
That, sadly, was the end of our conversation. But from it and others with Obama supporters, as well as listening to the regular anti-Hillary rants on the “progressive” Air America talk radio network, I realized something quite disturbing. I realized that a very important pillar of Obama’s campaign strategy is exploiting the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. This hatred was first brought to us by the Republicans, and it is now the rallying cry of Obama supporters. The negative things Obama and his campaign have been saying about Hillary are 50 times worse on the blogosphere and the progressive talk stations — she’s a “bitch,” a “f**king whore,” “Billary,” “warmongering,” etc. — than even that coming directly from him and his campaign. But the license to do this, the license to spew negative, vile, and often misogynistic hatred, has come from Obama and his campaign. If they can call her a divisive liar, why can’t talk show host Randi Rhodes go a little farther and call her a whore?
The other strategic pillars of his campaign are 1) his ability to give inspiring speeches about change and hope; 2) his race, which legitimately brings pride to African Americans and makes white liberals feel good about their support for the first viable African American nominee; and 3) his hip, trendy, youthful coolness. These, in my opinion, are not the best reasons to choose a president who will have the responsibility for pulling us out of war, an economic mess, a climate crisis, and various other difficult, explosive foreign policy problems. But they aren’t ugly.
The exploitation and encouragement of Hillary-hating by the Obama campaign, however, is ugly. And it is insulting not only to Hillary but to all women and particularly those who have worked hard and competed in male-dominated professions — like politics.
What is astonishing about what the Obama campaign has accomplished is that it has built so much of its support on this sexist, negative, and inaccurate portrayal of Hillary Clinton, while at the same time successfully spreading the myth that it is the Clinton campaign that is negative. And the Obama campaign couldn’t have done this without the willing participation of Obama himself, which belies the claim that he is a “unifying” figure and that he practices “new politics,” let alone that he brings people together. In fact, he is bringing people to his campaign by scapegoating and demonizing the “other” — the old, traditional, divisive, bitchy, lying, politics-as-usual Hillary Clinton.
Yet, in reality, Hillary is not only not traditional: she is, in fact, a very unusual figure in American politics — a first lady who became a senator and then ran for president. How many of those have we had? She also is not only not divisive, but she has shown as a senator that she can work with people who hated her and her husband when he was president. She has healed relationships that one would expect could never be healed.
Women across the country are working their hearts out for Hillary, not only because they want to see this brilliant woman become the first woman president, but because they are furious at the ugly misogyny coming from the Obama camp. And they know that the Obama campaign could not have been successful in building their support on the demonization of Hillary without the willing cooperation of a male-dominated, sexist media. A media that rarely reports that his campaign is regularly calling her some of the worst epithets ever thrown at one Democrat by another, but one that pounces on her when she or her surrogates even mildly criticize him. A media that doesn’t even notice that he is a Democrat, who, in attempting to tear her down, actually tears down the administration of the one Democrat since FDR, Bill Clinton, who won two terms of office. (In his “bitter”/”clinging” remarks, Obama stated that the Clinton years were as bad for working people as the Bush years.)
I couldn’t talk to my sister about all of this because she wouldn’t listen. But I’m hoping that voters in the upcoming primaries will listen. I’m hoping that Democrats, particularly those latte-drinking, college-educated, Obama-leaning people, will educate themselves to what is really going on in this primary election. I’m hoping that not just women, but men with daughters, mothers, wives, and sisters — men who respect women — will no longer be inspired by hatred.
I’m hoping that this Democratic “family” will not stand by and watch as Obama and his campaign tear down Hillary Clinton and get away with it in the media, if not in the hearts of half of the primary voters so far.
There is no question that this primary campaign has alienated a lot of women. And women are this party’s biggest block of supporters — almost 60 percent of reliable Democratic voters. If we abandon so many women, the backbone of our party, by nominating Obama, it will be more than a family fight. It will be a very bad time for the Democratic family — without the scores of women in local offices to answer the phones, canvass, and run the ground game. We won’t have much of a family with women walking out of the house in droves.
We need these hard-working reliable “mamas” — and Hillary Clinton — much more than we need a candidate, Barack Obama, who has given his followers a license to hate.
Joanne Parrent is an author of six non-fiction books, a screenwriter, and a latte-drinking older sister. She is also a licensed private investigator, with her own firm in Los Angeles.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
66 Comments
1. huxley:I often wonder how these guest columns make it to PJM. Does one of the editors notice it on the net and request permission to publish it on PJM or does the author send it to a large number of outlets such as PJM?
I would be surprised if Joanne Parent, apparently the author of “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Filmmaking” on Amazon, will be reading the comments. So it probably won’t do much good to address comments to her.
It does seem ironic that Obama sells himself as a unifier though his overall effect is quite divisive–even within his own party. The Democratic party is in quite a pickle, having to choose either Obama or Hillary and consequently alienating either blacks or women–both core groups it requires to be effective.
May 8, 2008 - 2:05 am 2. GM Roper:For those of us with a conservative bent (even those of us who are conservative and don’t believe we can check the box or pull the lever for McCain)the “civil” war between Democrats is a reminder of our own
“civil” wars in 1994 and 1976. Schadenfraude is soooo much fun!
Onward Democrat Soldiers!
May 8, 2008 - 6:29 am 3. Huh?:Obama is playing the victim card, pure and simple. He’s half-black (er, or half-white) for Pete’s sake! He was a globetrotter and educated in some of the most expensive schools in the country. He and his wife make hundreds of thousands in salary, and millions in royalties. Supposedly this would be the embodiment of the American Dream, but it’s not good enough for Barry and Michelle. She’s not proud of America, neither is he. Liberals need to get over their guilt, and see these two for what they are – race hustlers willing to do anything to get to the top.
There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs. – Booker T. Washington
Keep up the fight, Hillary!
May 8, 2008 - 6:49 am 4. Richard Fagin:Ms. Parrent:
Maybe you can now understand how we Republicans feel when discussing the President and Sen. McCain with you latte drinkers. We agree with all your criticisms of Obama, and to the extent your sister actually articulated them, all her criticisms of Clinton.
May 8, 2008 - 7:13 am 5. Gary Ogletree:I suspect you will be in hot water with your sister for a long time. One might get the idea that you make a better argument. I don’t advise doing that to a family member in public. I suggest you tell her she’s right, then keep on supporting Rocky. P.S. I like PJM giving space to a broad spectrum of ideas and experience. I’d likely never seek out the opinions of such as John Judis and Tom Hayden. Whether they make a good point, add information to the discussion or merely expose the bizarre thinking of the left, it doesn’t hurt to check out the opposition. I’ve noticed that no one champions the 1st Amendment more, nor has more scorn for the Cuban gulag than Nat Hentoff in that old lefty bastion the Village Voice. USA!
May 8, 2008 - 7:16 am 6. Weary G:Schadenfraude indeed.
The same vitriol that has been spat at Conservatives and Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular, is now being thrown around the Democratic tent.
Reasonable debate was not on the agenda for Dems and liberals when discussing many of the issues in the last 8 years with those that disagreed with them.
In fact over the top rhetoric, visceral hatred and stubborn denial of facts and logic was the approved SOP for them when they were on the same side.
NOW, however, they’ve turned their bombastic guns on one another and are firing full blast.
Looks like the Democratic party’s chickens have come home to roost…
WG
May 8, 2008 - 7:21 am 7. Xdpaul:I always find it interesting when one woman accuses another of sexism. I’m not sure it is the most persuasive argument in the world to suggest one’s sister is an Uncle Tom.
Gender should never be a reason to vote for a candidate. Period. Nor should race. Margaret Thatcher didn’t get elected because she was a woman, nor did Golda Mier.
Hillary is not a spectacular politician. She’s a somewhat non-distinguished two-term senator from a big state that historically has had trouble vaulting candidates to the nomination. She has both high visibility and high negatives in polls, none of which have to do directly with her sex.
What sort of insecurity does it expose in an advocate when one of the most pervasive arguments in favor of one’s candidate is that she has a gender that is unique to the office?
I don’t ever recall this being an argument in Libby Dole’s favor.
Just something to think about. If you stripped sex and race from the Dem campaign you’d have two junior senators with little to distinguish them.
May 8, 2008 - 7:32 am 8. LogicalUS:Ms Parrent,
Welcome to a conservatives world.
Yet you still delusionally try to blame Republicans for your sisters unhinged anger. Your only disapproval is that she has directed it toward you and Hillary and not toward the real enemy. Al Queda? No, conservatives and Republicans! Your hatred for President Bush and Republicans is no less ugly than your sister’s idiotic thoughts on Obama. You are quick to forgive Hillary on her lame political posturing to win your vote:
“wasn’t representing the state of New York that had been devastated on 9/11″
but condemn President Bush who was charged with protecting this entire nation and its citizens all across the world from threats. While Bush was governor of Texas, the Clintons and every Democratic congressmen, except for the crazies like Kucinich, were condemning Saddam and his WMDs. You no doubt forget that it was Bush who tried to work with Democrats to solve problems in Washington. He worked with Ted Kennedy to write an education bill and picked Bill Clinton to act as a ambassador with Bush Sr to represent America in Europe.
And how was he rewarded by your liberal friends? Bushitler, ring a bell? Calls for his impeachment, imprisonment and being tried before a Court in Hague for “war crimes” and promises from Obama to convict him if he is elected.
So spare us the blubbering sobs stories about your sudden shock that your fellow liberals are vindictive, insulting and angry idiots. Liberals have always known what they know and never let actual reality get in their way. Grow up.
May 8, 2008 - 7:55 am 9. paul a'barge:“I sent her an article in the Huffington Post by anti-war activist, former ambassador, and husband of Valerie Plame Joe Wilson”
Oops. No need to read any further.
May 8, 2008 - 7:56 am 10. Bruno:So after 7 years of unrelenting, irrational Bush hate (just as as bizarre as the Republicans Bill Clinton hatred btw), you are surprised that the the Dem Left has now focused their collective rage on Hillary? As much of a disaster as an Obama presidency would be, it would almost be worth it to witness all those angry heads explode once they don’t have a a target for their all-consuming rage. Now that’s schadenfraude!
May 8, 2008 - 8:00 am 11. Ken Hahn:The second paragraph is everything wrong with American politics today, especially with the Democrats. Demographics trump the individual. This breeds grievance and identity politics. Then victimology. Maybe after the whining era we can get back to thinking for ourselves.
May 8, 2008 - 8:01 am 12. michael:Hmmm. The “hatred” of Hillary may have originated with conservatives, but hatred for hatred’s sake, as motivating force in political life, is deeply rooted in contemporary liberalism. I work in a leftist bastion (a university), but am not myself a leftist–I’m an “undercover” libertarian, as I don’t want to be ostracized. And that’s exactly what would happen to me if my politics were revealed, because of the virulent political hatefulness of my colleagues. These are for the most part decent people, but it’s very clear to me that their political attitude is a self-indulgent license to hate. It’s irrational, ignorant, and childish–but also it’s human nature. I believe mature people can transcend this aspect of human nature, but many adults never quite seem to mature.
May 8, 2008 - 8:18 am 13. DWPittelli:Consider the corruption issue.
Obama’s association with Rezko is easily almost half as fishy as the Clinton’s with Norman Hsu, and you know the Republicans will have a field day with Obama’s questionable associations, which will hit him ten times as hard, because really, all Obama has going for him is that he is putatively not the old sleazy type of politician, whereas with the case of pardons for donations, pardons for FALN terrorists for votes, pardons for larcenous community leaders for votes, pardons for $100,000 payments made to two of Hillary Clinton’s brothers, and post-Presidential lobbying, such as for Kazakh uranium contracts for $10 million contributions — there’s just no way the Republicans could use that old news against Hillary — let alone the really old news which Hillary has actually had to answer questions about, like the $100,000 commodities payoff, and her legal work furthering the Whitewater scam.
Yes, in the fall it will be the Clintons who will be wearing the teflon.
Because we already know who we’re dealing with when it comes to the Clintons.
While Obama is… untested.
May 8, 2008 - 8:32 am 14. Brown Line:Dear Ms Parrent,
I have a similar situation to yours. I’m an older brother to an extremely liberal sister. The vitriol I heard from her – not just disagreement, but raw hatred – when I said that I had voted for Ronald Reagan astonished me. It took me a while to realize that that’s par for the course among “progressives”.
So, Ms Parrent: welcome to my world. I hope you enjoy your stay. And if your experience teaches you to temper your behavior, or encourage your fellow “progressives” to tone it down a bit, so much the better.
May 8, 2008 - 8:36 am 15. Mike M:Ms Parrent wrote:
“a very important pillar of Obama’s campaign strategy is exploiting the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. This hatred was first brought to us by the Republicans…”
While some conservatives may have indulged in hatred of Hillary, many democrats and media figures have spent the last eight years in an accelerating tantrum of hatred for President Bush. The New Republic published an article by Chait boasting of his hatred for Bush back in 04, declaring that he hated the way he walked and the way he talked etc. And a formerly reputable house published a novel indulging in fantasies of assassinating Bush. In NYC where I live, comparisons of Bush to Hitler are absolutely unexceptional.
Having indulged themselves this way for years, clearly many democrats are no longer able to acknowledge political opponents: they can only have enemies. And they have learned to indulge in hatred for these so called enemies.
This is, after all, profoundly stupid. Anyone who knows the history of the 20th century should be aware that there are enemies in this world infinitely worse than any US politician, and that hating leaders who are honestly doing their best is a fools response to the exigencies of political life. Only a fool would think that Bush has anything whatever in common with Hitler. Such fools should hope that they never find themselves forced to realize how true this thought is by their own subsequent experience in life.
I didn’t like the Clinton presidency, with its uninspired improvisations on serious issues, its new leftish posturing to cover for its centrist policies, and i was ashamed (among other things) of their bombing from above the clouds policy in the war with Serbia, which counted Serb civilian casualties as irrelevant, but I knew they were not remotely in the league of Hitler, or Stalin, or Kim Jong Il, indeed not even of Castro or Mugabe.
The very real hatred for Hillary Ms Parrent regrets reflects the long term consequences of indulging in and sharing unjustified political hatred on a daily basis. There’s no emotional intelligence in the democratic net roots. They can only understand vicious hatred and swooning adulation for their current hero.
Maybe they should grow up, finally.
May 8, 2008 - 8:42 am 16. Buford Gooch:Why, my sister is acting like a *Republican*! Oh, the horror!
Except that what she is really acting like is a Democrat. And so is the author of this article. Chickens, meet roost.
May 8, 2008 - 8:50 am 17. bigbooner:I always enjoy when people refer to Hillary as “brilliant”. Based on what? Do they know her personally and are exposed to her intelligence on a daily basis? Is it the same kind of “brilliant” they Dems used when referring to Al Gore? To a lib every presidential candidate is brilliant while the Republican can’t even tie his shoes. You can’t sell us a bill of goods on Hillary because we know exactly what she is. Even when she behaves badly it is because of “Karl Rove”. The woman has no credentials other than being married to a former president.
May 8, 2008 - 8:54 am 18. Greg D:So Obama’s guilty of running a hate fueled campaign against women, but Hillary’s “leaks” of photographs of Obama wearing African garb aren’t an attempt to frighten blue collar Archie-Bunker liberals into voting for Hillary?
From where I sit, the whole Democrat Primary has been nothing but:
Obama: She’s a woman!
Hillary: He’s Black!
Obama: Half black, but she’s a woman!
Hillary: Damn right I’m a woman. But you’re black!
Obama: Yes, I’m black. And you’re a woman!
ad nauseum.
I agree wholly with LogicalUS: The Democrats have been running on hate for decades– hatred of Nixon, hatred of Reagan, hatred of both Bush 41 and 43. Heck’s bells, they accused Barry Goldwater of being mentally retarded! Now that they’re using that same campaign tactic in their own primaries, everyone’s shocked; Shocked; that Democrats could be so hateful.
Come off it.
May 8, 2008 - 8:56 am 19. J Richardson:I see that you are a licensed private investigator. Does that mean you own a firearm? Do you feel bitter? Do you cling to that firearm in your bitterness? Obama thinks you do.
May 8, 2008 - 9:07 am 20. Big City Boy:bigbooner, NO politicians are brilliant, neither Democrat or Republican (not contemporary ones anyway). It’s not a profession for brilliant people. It’s a profession for ambitious narcissists. Parent is indulging in idol-worship.
May 8, 2008 - 9:09 am 21. Andrew X:Sorry to read this somewhat plaintive cry by Joanne, but she is merely discovering what we Republicans have known for years.
That Democratic ideals are ever more by each year about how they make people “feel”. “Feeling good” about (Obama, Candidate or policy X) is everything. Her sister and her FEEL at odds, and this is profoundly different than, for example, the Republicans who don’t like McCain, are clear about it, some will hold their nose and vote for him, some will simply refuse to, but they are NOT EMOTIONAL about. So Joanne and sister are tearing their own families apart over it.
Republicans aren’t. Nor were they over Bush and Kerry. Their opponents many times were, but Bush people by and large were not. Just another day in the arena for them.
What we on the right of course also know is….. Let’s see, you are being bitterly, visciously, vituperatively, caustically attacked by the morally superior left for being the vermin and scum of the earth and possibly psychologically deranged because of who you support for President?
Yeah, line forms at the back, baby,
May 8, 2008 - 9:21 am 22. Peg C.:Well Ms. Parrent, I’m a latte-drinking, former lifelong lefty, former L.A. resident, and I can no more identify with you or your sister than I can fly. I’m no fan of John McCain – NO fan – but voting for either Hillary! or Obama is inconceivable to this “recently” converted conservative (10 years – I’m in my early 50s). Not only does Hillary not speak to me in any way, Obama scares the daylights out of me. He’s a Marxist.
I think if there’s one thing that offends me right now it’s the media reciting ad nauseum that “older women” are Hillary’s constituency. I know plenty who are not, anecdotal as that may be. Furthermore I doubt very much that a) this country is ready for a female president, and b) that there is a female politician in the U.S. deserving of being president. But I hold women to standards. This woman has zero credentials. She was married to a womanizing yahoo who was elected president in a moment of insanity in this country and is “owed” this as compensation for her suffering and loyalty and victimization. She, too, has dangerous, socialist-verging-on-Marxist policies and plans for this country. Yeah, I’ll vote for that.
Dems, fight on ’til the end! Please bloody each others’ noses. We Republicans are depending on it. Go Operation Chaos!
May 8, 2008 - 9:45 am 23. dirigible:By far the best thing about this election cycle is that it has finally caused a head-on collision between the smug leftoid racists and the smug leftoid sexists – two groups which definitely deserve each other – and the fireworks have been spectacular.
May 8, 2008 - 9:46 am 24. The Fop:I too, came from a very liberal family and had very liberal friends for most of my life. Then, after 9/11, I started questioning my political beliefs and found that I was actually a closet conservative for all those years. I started listening to conservative talk radio and reading conservative blogs and publications.
And here’s the conclusion that I’ve come to over the course of my whole political life experience……Conservatives view liberals as their political opponents. Liberals view conservatives as their mortal enemies.
With this in mind, the hatred that left wing Obama supporters feel towards Hillary makes perfect sense. For these people, the accusation that Hillary is mimicking or aiding the Republicans, is the worst possible accusation that they could make about anyone. As they hate Republicans more than they hate anyone on the entire planet.
May 8, 2008 - 9:47 am 25. Quote of the Day » Pursuing Holiness:[...] a comment on this article: If you stripped sex and race from the Dem campaign you’d have two junior senators with little to [...]
May 8, 2008 - 9:47 am 26. BMoon:“They strain at gnats and swallow camels.”
May 8, 2008 - 9:49 am 27. Thomass:God save us from all these latte-drinking “progressive” fools.
“I realized something quite disturbing. I realized that a very important pillar of Obama’s campaign strategy is exploiting the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. This hatred was first brought to us by the Republicans”
B…S.
May 8, 2008 - 10:11 am 28. J.J. Sefton:The Clinton haters in the 90s are not an excuse for the behavior of ‘progressive’ democrats over the last eight (I don’t think they were as numerous either, none of my republican friends hated Bill.. the haters seemed to be some columnists I didn’t know). You’ve / democrats looked the other way over irrational bush / republican hating because it suited your goals. Now the chickens are home to roost… you’ve literally let a bunch of irrational, immature, idiots take over your party (via moveon and such) and now they’re turning on you too… and you’ve allowed at atmosphere to develop that encourages it among people that might keep it together had they been around rational people… Soooo… Bummer.
Welcome to my world. My girlfriend is a professor at a very prestigious university and staunchly liberal. Yours truly, let’s just say NOT. I did notice the very quiet disappearance of the Edward Said and Noam Chomsky books from the shelf but alas, Langston Hughes is still in my face. We rarely if ever talk politics (for obvious reasons) but when the inevitable Republican Party mailer came yesterday, there was blood in the halls my friends. “Worst economy ever” “Bush and Cheney” “Greed” “10% of the population have 80% of the wealth” blah, blah….. I love her but I’m so sick of being entitled to an opinion – her’s.
All’s fine today, but man o man….
May 8, 2008 - 10:13 am 29. Errol Phillips:Great read – a new perpective on Hillary from a Male Conservative.
I would like to think that many of these hard working women will cast their votes against Obama in the General.
May 8, 2008 - 10:29 am 30. Thomass:J.J. Sefton:
““Greed” “10% of the population have 80% of the wealth””
And they vote dem.
May 8, 2008 - 10:30 am 31. Shortwave8669:Don’t forget that Hillary’s Healthcare Task force was more secretive than anything Cheney has done. hillary called the FBI after “little person” Billy Dale in the Travel-gate scandal where a middle-class man had to bunkrupt himself to pay the legal fees to clear his name so a friend of Bill and Hillary could get a a travel agency contract with the White House.
Just two reasonable reasons to HATE this politician
May 8, 2008 - 10:30 am 32. Peg C.:J.J., there is hope for her and you. When I married my hubby in 1995, politics was off-limits by mutual decision. He was/is a Rush-listening conservative (he’s a Vietnam vet as well) and I was a lefty-spewing ranter like your girlfriend. And yet we got married and were very happy.
My enlightment didn’t come for 3 years but it did come thanks to Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” fingerwagging Clinton and everyone who spent a full year deconstructing Bill and his hypocritical supporting feminists and fellow Dems (for me, that was Imus, then Sean, then Rush, in that order, during my long commutes and days off). It was the most uncomfortable year of my life ideologically because I was adrift for 6 months, fighting it tooth and nail. It was also tough because liberalism is easy and involves no thinking. Conservatism is hard. We are challenged every day, multiple times a day. And yet, once we switch we can’t believe we were “over there.” Contrary to Obama and others, we are not “post-partisan.” That is wishful thinking. Humanity is partisan, period. We are an opinionated and categorizing species, as well as tribal, competitive and warlike. Peace and love…yeah, maybe in 1,000 years (in another galaxy far, far away).
Good luck.
May 8, 2008 - 10:43 am 33. pst314:Joanne Parrent: For many decades liberals have demonized conservatives, insisting that their opinions were due to evil intentions. Liberals’ current fratricidal war (if you support Hillary you’re a racist and if you support Obama you’re a sexist) are a logical outcome of many years of intentionally divisive identity politics. (Oh–and by the way, just a reminder: Many of the people you call conservatives are in fact classical liberals, and would still call themselves liberals if leftists had not appropriated that label for themselves.)
May 8, 2008 - 10:51 am 34. Wilbur:I love how Joanne browbeats her sister into voting for Hillary at her work email address, even after being told once to stop, then implies it’s the Obama followers who are the ideologues. It is zealots like Joanne that think politics is the most important thing in life, not people like her sister, who are what’s wrong with politics.
May 8, 2008 - 10:58 am 35. Paul from Hamburg:Ah yes, Hillary is “brilliant”. Anyone else notice that the claims of Hillary’s genius never, ever have a corroborating argument? I sit here in the outskirts of Buffalo just waiting for our brilliant junior Senator to start fulfilling some of her campaign promises help our part of the state. I am just kidding; I have always known she had no intention of trying to do anything for us. Even Joanne doesn’t actually explain why Hillary would be a good president.
May 8, 2008 - 11:13 am 36. schnargley:Oh dear, dear. For this progressive, white, male highly-educated latte-drinker, the Dem Party use to provide ample opportunities to enjoy my unearned privilege and inherited affluence while at the same time providing a little guilt alleviation along with heavy doses of self-righteousness to boot. How could the DNC have forced us into such self-loathing as to have to choose between alleviating our white liberal guilt or our chauvinist liberal guilt?
The only solution – Obama/Hillary in -08!!!
May 8, 2008 - 11:25 am 37. Right Wing Nation » More Popcorn!:[...] Just go read. Schadenfreude on steroids. [...]
May 8, 2008 - 11:54 am 38. Karl:I guess the Dream (Nightmare?) ticket ain’t happening…
Uh, btw- it is HILLARY/ Obama in 08.
Who says politics is boring?
May 8, 2008 - 12:03 pm 39. Daedalus:WOW !!! – talk about hitching your star to a pair of losers…..Who would make the best president – congenital liar, or a marxist clone…..either way the country loses big time. Hillary has proven time and again to be a liar and the thought of her husband around the oval office and any female interns is enough to scare anyone with a young daughter. Obama has yet to explain his 20 year relationship with his radical minister, and his more recent associations with an unrepentant terrorist. Add to that his background as a neighborhood organizer for ACORN, and you have a revised version of “Slick Willie” with even more questionable actions…..
May 8, 2008 - 12:58 pm 40. politicalreacharound:Maybe she is fighting with her sister about this because she is smarter than her and thinks she can win an unfair fight. If she spoke to me about why dems don’t want Hillary than she would have no chance at using all of her easily dismissed talking points. The bottom line is this must have been written a couple weeks ago because Hillary is through, done, over and her supporters need to give up and get on board to make sure we take this country in a new direction.
May 8, 2008 - 1:06 pm 41. Increase Mather:What’s with this “progressive” stuff?
Does she mean “liberal”? Why are the Dems afraid of the word?
May 8, 2008 - 2:09 pm 42. Jim Rockford:Buried in the Obama backer’s appeal is the belief that Hard Left Radicalism after GWB is a good sell. That compromises along the middle, for Middle Class support among working class and middle class, mostly white Americans is not required.
It’s the equivalent of “So Long White Boy” the Democratic analyst and Obama supporter piece in Atlantic Magazine. Saying Dems can win without white men specifically.
We will see who is right. I suspect a coalition that deliberately excludes moderation and White Men will generate the “mother of all backlashes” and fall to electoral failure, “big time” as Dick Cheney would say.
That coalition might win of course. But it would fail completely in governing by making enemies of pretty much most white men.
College Kids, Blacks, and SF billionaires are not to my mind a winning governing or electoral combination.
May 8, 2008 - 2:15 pm 43. Bozoer Rebbe:I was talking with my cousin, whose dad once ran for Congress and whose entire birth family are active Democrats. The subject of Kwame Kilpatrick came up and I happened to mention that one of the whistleblowing cops he fired was contemplating using some of the proceeds from their $8 million settlement/hush money to run against Kwame for mayor. Even though the ex-cop is a Democrat, my cousin started ranting about hypocritical Republicans.
Frankly, I was mystified because I hadn’t brought up partisan stuff. Maybe being a progressive makes you nuts.
May 8, 2008 - 2:23 pm 44. J.J. Sefton:Peg; Thanks for the support. My gal has a great heart and she is truly one of the most empathetic people on the planet. But when you have a doctorate in multi-culturalism, you don’t just drink the kool aid; you brew it. Lover he madly though.
I can heartily recommend “How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and Found Inner Peace” by Harry Stein. Great author, who used to write the ethics column for Esquire. Really sums up my politics – issue based, not party based. Which means about 95% Republican.
Appreciate the encouragement!
May 8, 2008 - 2:32 pm 45. J.J. Sefton:Love her madly – UGH!
May 8, 2008 - 2:33 pm 46. Paul in NJ:You gotta live this interparty – and I use this word deliberately and in its classical sense – jihad. The tactics the left has rolled out against the un-left has finally come home to roost, and it’s damned ugly. It’s also entirely satisfying.
“Sister: Hillary Clinton will do anything to get elected. She’s running a negative campaign.
“Me: Can’t you see that that is just code for she’s an ambitious, ball-busting bitch?!”
That may be the left’s code, but for the rest of us, it’s a sad attempt to shut down criticism of a woman — criticism which has the advantage of being at least partly true. Like knee-jerk accusations of ‘racism!’ for non-Obama followers, it just doesn’t work any more; get over it.
May 8, 2008 - 2:51 pm 47. Shinyk:“Actually, she voted to give the president the authorization to go to war so the threat of war would force Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq, which it did.”
As a Republican who will happily be voting for McCain, I don’t exactly have a dog in this fight, but I’m commenting because this excerpt really is hair-splitting BS. Read some of Hillary’s speeches on Iraq (or the use of the Armed Forces in geopolitics) from 1999-2001. She was talking about using the force to overthrow Baath and rebuild Iraq while Bush was still pledging “no-nation building.”
If resoponsibility for the war is your big thing, the case can be made that some Democrat Senators, most notably Kerry, voted for the war for “political” reasons or because they thought it would “help inspectors.” That case cannot be made for Clinton, since her vote, and Bush’s subsequent actions, were consistent with everything she had been personally suggesting for years.
If this author would read the words of her preferred candidate instead of listing all the ways some women may or may not be or have been victimized (without making an affirmative case for voting for Clinton–specifically), she would already know that.
May 8, 2008 - 2:54 pm 48. RadConTrad:As a life-long conservative Republican who spent 10 years (my early 20s and early 30s) a non-judging social liberal, environmentalist, church-hating jerk, I will indulge myself by adding to the thread:
Readers of Huff Po/Plame/and Wilson shouldn’t brag they possess the ultimate knowledge of anything. She is college-educated? What kind of college? Those reference sources MUST be an inside joke. And she wrote it like it was a good thing.
I pray every day for Hillary to keep this thing going. Man! she is tough and fiesty. I have grown to admire her and would trust her far and away over that wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, Obama. She will keep hammering the Jihadists just to prove her manhood and seems genuinely to love our America. I know who and what she is.
I will, however, vote McCain in Nov., because of the war on terror and the knowledge his SCOTUS judge nominees will at least be center or right-of-center. She has been so viciously maligned and mistreated by the mainstream media (payback for her past arrogance and for standing by Bill and his faux pas, perhaps?) it’s breathtaking. The holier-than-thou juvenile progressives who worship Lord Obama look down on her with palpable revulsion–she may as well be Archie Bunker or Edith, or George Bush!
Though not brilliant, she is a much more substantial person than Obama. She has endured well–flourished even in this campaign. To me, she seems to have actually grown into a mature adult over this process. As political broads go, she doesn’t grate on me nearly as much as Pelosi or that other old lady running the Senate (Ms. Reid). I’m not the only rabid GOP’er who feels this way, either. She hasn’t played the best game, but once the press decides to destroy you, the only thing you can do is put your game face on (as she, Bill, George, George, Reagan, et al, had to do) keep your head and barrel forward. Surely she has done that.
JJ–as a conservative woman, I dated my last liberal man 8 years ago at the age of 41 and never looked back. Life is too short to argue over such fundamental differences. Find a woman who allows you your thoughts, values YOUR values, and can talk with you about life-and-death matters with consideration and understanding of your beliefs. Run, run for your life now! It’s not likely to get any better. After the Bork hearings and with all the memorable cultural, political, religious, and meteorological events that have occurred since, we are forever a divided nation. Make war, not love with those who think you are wrong in not coming to the same conclusions in life and assuming the same values as they.
Oh, BTW, I am one of those who still love and admire President Bush (both, actually). I’ve spent every year from 1979 til now defending Reagan and I’ll spend the next 29 years defending Bush, too. Yeah, yeah, I am loyal Republican, but I am also I’m cynical realist possessing a sense of fairness AND optimism. I do my own research and analysis. Most importantly, I compare and contrast WHAT IS to WHAT IF and from where I sit, the alternatives were and are much worse and hideously dishonorable. Remembering the constant flood of vicious, irrational lies from the demented, power-hungry liberals in office, among the masses, and in the press says it all. I’ll keep fighting. I, too can take it down to the finish–yes, just like Hillary! Sans Chairman Mao pantsuits or philosophy, of course.
May 8, 2008 - 3:40 pm 49. Gringo:Obama-supporting sister: “Who has time to read all of these things?”
May 8, 2008 - 4:26 pm 50. Denny, Alaska:So when rightwingnuts detected a certain amount of “We want CHANGE whatever Obama says is great” attitude among the Obamaphiles, it was on target.
Let’s see, war is going well, world opinion is turning strongly in favor of the U.S., “dude, where’s my recession?” seems to be on the rise, one front-runner can’t collect votes from whites, one can’t collect votes from blacks, one wins all the big states and is asked to withdraw, one wins caucuses and is crowned the front runner….
Yep, should be a real good year for Dems; *real* good year.
May 8, 2008 - 4:31 pm 51. Buckeye Tom:I would like to echo the sentiment, that Democrats having been using the same lack of fact-based, name calling, arguments against Republican for years.
But there are a couple other interesting things from this article, I was hoping the author could clear up.
First, why is she unwilling to let the matter between she and her sister go?
“It occurs to me that my “family fight” somewhat mirrors the Democratic primary that the media has frequently characterized as a ‘family fight.’”
Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but she says “mirrors” (still on going) as opposed to mirrored (over and done). Her sister lives in Maryland, which means she voted for Obama almost 3 months ago, on February 12th. I’ll assume her little sister isn’t a super delegate, so she can’t go back and change her vote. The author acknowledged her sister said she would vote for Clinton if she becomes the nominee. She why does the author continue to press the matter?
The other interesting thing in this article is the author‘s explanation for Clinton voting to authorize war with Iraq.
“ Me: Obama didn’t have to make that tough decision. He wasn’t in the Senate. He wasn’t representing the state of New York that had been devastated on 9/11. He just gave a speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago, in his very safe, very liberal state senate district. How much courage did that take?”
This raises two questions.
First, is the author suggesting Hillary voted to authorize going to war with Iraq, because she (either the author or Senator Clinton) believed Iraq was involved with 9/11?
Second, does the author believe Mrs. Clinton showed political courage when she decided to run for the Senate in a very safe, very liberal state she had never previously lived in, as opposed to facing voters in her home state of Arkansas?
May 8, 2008 - 4:34 pm 52. Pashley:Orwell had it right.
5-10% population educate themselves, make more or less informed political decisions on the basis of ideology or economics, care about the results.
30% of the population engage in the 5-minute hate. That’s all there is; my tribe, its politicians, and its acts are right, your tribe and leaders and positions are wrong.
60% don’t care
May 8, 2008 - 4:56 pm 53. blurto:I can’t help feeling a guilty pleasure, even some joy in reading all of this. The chickens are indeed coming home to roost, but the truly best has been saved for the general campaign.
If you are for Obama – you are sexist!
If you are for Hilary – you are racist!
But the best is yet to come – McCain is going to be viciously excoriated during the general election for being too old! The Democrats are about to become exposed as being aggressively ageist as well as racist and sexist – and they are guilty, guilty, guilty. It’s about time the real truth came out, and the Democrats, again, pay a very heavy price for their venal and arrogant anti-human philosophies and attitudes. Even the general electorate are really not such fools – they have an impressive amount of common sense. Just ask John Kerry.
In response to Increase Mather’s query, the name change to Progressive is about brand erosion. When self-labeled Communists and Marxists realized they couldn’t win ANY elections, they became Socialists, hoping no one would notice. When the Socialist brand was exhausted, they transmutated into “Liberals”, or even “left-wing Liberals”. Now that everyone is on to that nonsense, they have become “Progressives”. But they remain the same old nasty Communists they always were, with the same horrifying tendencies and attitudes.
May 8, 2008 - 5:00 pm 54. LCSusan:When the inclusive, transformational Obama-ites talk about a post partisan world, they apparently aren’t talking about Hillary supporters. If the Obama Dems want my vote – and I’m not sure they do – they are going to have to work for it.
http://strictlyanecdotal.com/2008/05/08/thank-you-gary-hart-for-reminding-me-of-my-place.aspx
May 8, 2008 - 7:01 pm 55. Joel Rosenberg:I’m one of those moderates who thinks McCain would make a better President than either of the two Democrats still in the running, but I’m strongly supporting Hillary up through the convention.
Pretty much everything negative said about her here is right — her flaws are well-known — but the lady has guts, and if there’s an ounce of quit in her, it’s been sweated off in this campaign.
Choose her or Obama to handle a crisis? I despair of anybody who doesn’t find the answer obvious: Hillary, not the Hamas-endorsed Obama.
May 9, 2008 - 5:00 am 56. Chester White:I occurs to me that Democratic voters are pretty like 13-year-old girls.
They want to be thrilled, they want to be inspired, they fall in love quickly, they get infatuated, they change their minds, they are fickle.
It never changes.
May 9, 2008 - 5:56 am 57. Chester White:Should be “pretty much” in that last post, not pretty
May 9, 2008 - 5:57 am 58. transcended:To be quite frank, none of the candidates speak to me. The three of them offer nothing in the way of “SENSE” when it comes to illegal immigration and the entitlements given. WHY? Because these 3 idiots consistantly PANDER for the hispanic vote. They salivate over it, leaving LEGAL citizens to wave “uh hey…over here, morons.”
For the US citizens living in border states these candidates represent DUMB, DUMBER, DUMBEST. It has become a matter of pick the LEAST dumb. This is the worst presidential election in voting history. ever.
They can all go jump in a lake.
May 10, 2008 - 1:49 pm 59. Timothy:C’mon guys. Really? Hillary lost, fair and square. Poll after poll shows that she attacked unfairly, she used fear(OBL in an ad, 3AM) and pandering (Gas Tax scam) as a means to win an election, which is anathema to truth loving democrats.
She surrounded herself with clueless sycophants and now, despite the math and facts on the ground, she continues to soldier on in a counterproductive effort to secure a democratic presidency. The same sort of myopic, old-world tunnel vision we’ve seen from the Bush Administration.
This is not about race or gender, this is about who is the better candidate. Hillary voted for the war, the Iraq War, the most consequential war we’ve ever been involved in. During the course of this campaign, egged on by her yes-men, we saw her go negative, trying to kneecap her undeniably gifted opponent with the kitchen sink. We’ve even seen her contemplate the nuclear option. You two might see a fighter, but I see stubborn megalomania.
And to say the media has been unfair? Have you seen the endless clips of Rev Wright on cable television, did you see the moderator for that PA debate, a former Clinton staffer, impugn her opponent’s patriotism? The last month and half has been really tough on the man that had the testicular fortitude to challenge Mrs and Mr Democratic Party. And win.
If we find ourselves unable to move beyond gender and race, let me say this. There are more white women in college than there are black males in college; there are more black males in prison than there are white women in prison. If we are going to waste our vote to support what we perceive to be the most disenfranchised demographic, then there’s no question who we should voter for: Obama 08. But if you use your head as well as your heart in the voting booth to cast a ballor for the best candidate, it still leads us to the person who ultimately won: Obama 08.
May 10, 2008 - 4:29 pm 60. Sarah:This infuriates me. I am a female. I am 55 years old. I have worked my whole life. Yes. Outside the home, even when I had children. I am in Hillary’s core group. But, you see, I have a brain. I didn’t put up with 30+ years of discrimination (and yes, it was there) to finally have a female presidential candidate ruin it all.
Because, let me tell you what is happening now. All the CEOs/heads of businesses are now saying (although not publicly), “THIS is why we don’t want females running things.” And they are half right. I say HALF because I have seen just as many dumb things done by males, too. But to have Hillary and her supporters act like this — it sets back the womens’ movement 50 years.
I am livid. At Hillary. At her mouthpieces, especially the females. They have undercut the womens’ movement. Damn them.
May 10, 2008 - 4:31 pm 61. jessica:As a feminist, this pisses me off.
If you’re a feminist, you believe that men and women are equal and should be treated as such. Therefore, Ellen needs to take a minute, regroup and look at this OBJECTIVELY. Hillary can’t win, period.
No one’s holding Hillary back because she’s a woman. In fact, as a white, wealthy person w/ the last name Clinton, she’s the privileged one here, IMO.
I came into this presidential race excited as hell about a future female president. But Hillary has disappointed me. As much as I want a female president — and, God, do I want one — I’m not willing to lose an election over it.
May 10, 2008 - 4:32 pm 62. Justin:“trying to kneecap her undeniably gifted opponent with the kitchen sink”
Please explain the “undeniably gifted” part. He hasn’t done anything so what makes him so gifted. HE HAS DONE NOTHING! What justification do the leftists have for getting excited over this guy?
May 10, 2008 - 8:52 pm 63. Justin:All Obama can do is say meaningless phrases such as “Hope” and “Change” which do nothing but titilate the Demoncrats who were already going to vote for the left anyways. Everyone is are a bit more sober and have read deeper into him than what the left is willing to do.
May 10, 2008 - 9:13 pm 64. Yaakov Watkins:My question about Hillary is about Bill. Every time I read about what Bill is doing (aside from campaigning for Hillary) he is hanging around Arabs and making money at it. Big money.
Now that is his right of course, but I wonder how much money Bill and Hillary have taken from Arab oil merchants, and I wonder what will be for sale if Hillary wins.
The first time they left the White House, there was minor pilfering. I am truly concerned about what they will take the second time.
I cannot help but compare them to Dick Cheney. Cheney made over $7 million dollars last year and gave 80% to charity. Yes I know. Cheney is rich anyway. But it still makes me think.
May 11, 2008 - 12:56 pm 65. S321Saint:This is one of the many mind bending statements made by this “college educated” woman. “I’m hoping that not just women, but men with daughters, mothers, wives, and sisters — men who respect women — will no longer be inspired by hatred.” PATHETIC. It was tiring to slog through the ultra left wing feminist mantra. One one hand she complains because Obama is calling her names, but then goes on to say how “strong” she is. She is tired of the “billary” name..when its actually a campaign slogan started by them…you remember bill and hilly co-presidents..two for the price of one? But what is par for the left wing course is the insistent mantra that if you disagree with hilly…you are sexist. You are a woman hater, etc… That ONLY men who support hilly really respect women? My dad would be spitting at you if you said that to his face…and I would too.
May 13, 2008 - 4:22 pm 66. Joanne's Sister:I am Joanne Parrent’s sister. I only belatedly discovered her posting in this blog. If you’re reading this, Joanne, I want you to know that I am deeply hurt and angered that you took a private exchange and plastered it across the internet, only thinly veiling my identity –and without ever telling me about it! It is insulting to be characterized as uninformed, unthinking, failing to support my own interests, and spouting talking points like a robot — all because I don’t agree with you!
As it happens, today is the day Hillary Clinton has endorsed Barack Obama. I hope that you will be able to move forward as Hillary herself has, Joanne. The New York Times just reported that she said, “Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate [Obama] on the victory he has won and the extraordinary campaign he has won. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him and I ask of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.”
But this matter really isn’t about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or the presidential race. It’s about failing to respect my right to my own opinion and then ridiculing me in public because I wouldn’t engage in an argument. So if you readers have gotten this far, I hope you will take another minute to consider my perceptions and my views – which were completely lacking from Joanne’s twisted account.
Since she has splattered our private spat all over the internet, preserving it for eternity, here’s what I’d like to say. I am a grownup, but I am the younger sister and Joanne, who is very vocal and sometimes volatile in her opinions, often expects me to follow her lead. When I followed my own head and heart and decided to support Barack Obama – with great enthusiasm, I might add – she expected me to account to her for my views. I’d made the wrong decision and she was going to set me straight! But we had already voted in our respective primaries and I didn’t see why either of us needed to justify our positions. I didn’t think either of us was likely to convert the other and arguing seemed pointless and unpleasant. On top of that, I had just started a new and very stressful job with which I was very preoccupied and having a tough time. I didn’t wish to come home to a barrage of angry emails every night. So I cut off the conversation – because we were at a draw and I wanted to keep peace in the family.
Tellingly, I told Joanne that I would vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she became the Democratic Party nominee, thinking that this certainly should be the last word on the matter. Knowing how Joanne felt about Bush, I thought she certainly would vote for Obama if he became the nominee. But for Joanne, it wasn’t good enough to hang in there and see how events unfolded and agree to disagree; she evidently wanted to extract a concession! So at some point I said, “Look, I HATE Hillary Clinton!” I admit that I said that. But I overstated the case as a way of telling Joanne to leave me alone! It is completely wrong-headed and distorted to turn that comment into an ugly and overblown thesis about Barack Obama “licensing hatred.”
Sometimes the personal is not a metaphor for a political theme that should be broadcast across the internet. Sometimes the personal is just personal and should remain private!
Jun 7, 2008 - 11:41 am