The Big Lie
I wish I’d written this post, but that’s okay; the important thing is that it got written.
I said in a comment here the other day that I don’t think I’ll ever forgive the leftist blogosphere for what they’ve done to Hillary. Baseless character assassination used to be the purview of wingnuts and the mainstream media, the folks who gave us Swift Boats and earth tones and “I invented the internet.” The leftist blogosphere was supposed to be the antidote to all that.
Instead the Blogger Boyz have gleefully joined with the mainstream media to crucify Hillary Clinton. Again and again they repeat the lie that she’s ruthless, corrupt, power-mad, and now racist. They’ve poisoned the minds of countless voters against a good woman.
When will there be an accounting? When?
16 Responses to “The Big Lie”
-
therealUK says:
Again and again they repeat the lie that she’s ruthless, corrupt, power-mad, and now racist.
It is evil what they have done. “Poison” it is indeed.
And the fact that such poisonous lies about HRC have so got much traction, even amongst supposedly intelligent pundits, speaks volumes as to the true stupidity of people.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:31 am EST -
CognitiveDissonance says:
Can you imagine how far ahead Hillary would be right now but for a biased, hateful, misogynist press plus the largest leftie sites? I’m sure she would have ran away with this a long time ago. And yet, she is still standing, still fighting, and still has a chance of pulling it out. For that, I will always hold admiration for Hillary Clinton. I can’t think of a single male politician who would have lasted a week had they been subjected to it.
I also hold the boy blogz responsible for the hatred and division they have spread online. The sheer magnitude of hate on these sites is something I have not seen in all my years online. I have a suspicion, though, that their balance sheets are suffering from their shortsidedness. Kos actually complained in a diary about his horrible February numbers. I wish them all many more red numbers to come.
-
Kat says:
I understand your anger, and I share it. It seems to me that many have smugly adopted Obama as a hip, trendy brand that fits their “creative class” lifestyle. Obama is being marketed (and to make that contructive active, he is marketing himself… actively) as an anti-establishment candidate, when he is not. This leaves me with a key question: what will happen when Obama is swept into office like a pair of well-marketed sneakers, and starts actual doing things? Or, more accurately, starts hiring people to do things? I suspect that his fans will be so unwilling to admit they were manipulated by advertising, they will justify every establishment thing he does.
Can we talk about the nuts and bolts of health insurance and economic recovery yet, please?
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Obama won’t be swept into office. He’s not going to be elected.
If the Dems continue this path of forcing his nomination, then we’ll lose in November. Some people believe that the party is deliberately making that calculation — to sacrifice this election — in order to keep the young Obamabots in the party. True, their hero won’t be president, but at least their poignant belief in the Unity Pony won’t have been crushed.
That the party might be so willing to coddle the wee ones that it will toss out women over 40, latinos, the working class, the older voters — and let the Repubs continue their reign of terror — is amazing.
Hillary is our best chance now to take the White House in November.
-
octogalore says:
VS — do you see a parallel between the way Obama won the confidence of and then elbowed out Alice Palmer in Chicago and the way he got tips from and then unexpectedly ran against Clinton, all the while affecting a peaceful “above the frey” facade?
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
Yes, I do, I’ve been reading about that.
Reminds me that you left a link here to your post that I still need to go read! I’m sorry, I’ve been all over the place this week. Trying to do about a zillion things at once.
-
octogalore says:
No worries. When you get a chance, I’d value your opinion.
Re Palmer, I read about this today and recalled a story, in Atlantic I believe, about how Obama had approached Clinton in his early Senate days and asked for some guidance, and she’d been helpful in counseling him, much as Palmer had done. It’s frustrating that in (some, luckily not all) feminists’ urge to be the group representing everybody (except, often, women) these things aren’t more remarked-on. Are we so used to getting trampled on past our sell-by date by mainstream America, the media, etc. that it’s no big deal?
-
whaleshaman says:
U.S. Senator Barack Obama’s website:
When it comes to race, Obama makes his point–with subtletyObama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
-
gayle says:
Ready for the latest outrage? Obama is blocking the re-vote in Michigan.
That’s some “Chicago Style” politics, blocking fair elections.
-
gayle says:
LINK about MI:
“A Lansing insider IMs to explain the latest development:
The Senate Dems just had a long caucus meeting following their long phone call with the Gang of Four [as Carl Levin and others pushing a re-vote are called], and the result is that no one moved. Votes aren’t there. Thus, it will not go to a vote in the Senate. And barring some other last minute miracle that doesn’t involve those four, the governor and Hillary traveling to Michigan, it is dead as a doornail.”
-
octogalore says:
gayle, check it out:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....7567.story
he’s been there and done that before.
-
donna darko says:
Everyone knows racism is “bad” but sexism is still acceptable so every racist incident gets covered by the media and blogs. Even when they’re misinterpretations. I went through the trouble of looking at what Ferraro and Steinem actually said. and what each of them said was taken out of context. This is because racism is unacceptable and sexism, in this case, assuming the Clinton campaign did something wrong, is acceptable. Racism and sexism should be considered equally.
Ferraro said the conversation was historical candidacies and that she first said she would not have been a vice presidential candidate in 1994 if she had not been a woman. Then she made an inelegant quote had nothing to do with his qualifications.
Steinem’s quote was correct but she was not clear she was only talking about Presidential politics and the home because of her writing style. I’ve read her over the years and that’s how she writes though she and second wave feminists should get up to date on intersectionality.
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.
-
Virginia Ray says:
Violet said:”If the Dems continue this path of forcing his nomination, then we’ll lose in November. Some people believe that the party is deliberately making that calculation — to sacrifice this election — in order to keep the young Obamabots in the party. ”
The party is in a death match between the left and the center. The boys who rule the left will sacrifice the election NOT to keep the young but because they are Left Males in control of the party and this is their kind of decision making; Dean, Kerry, Kennedy,and many more. This is how they govern.
They hate the centrist Clintons and think up nasty names and endless criticism. They would rather go down in flames with their man then vote for an uppity woman who is an original thinker, an organizer, a feminist, a compromiser and a centrist. A woman who is better than them at their own game. Obviously. That is why they call her a monster.
How many elections did the Kennedys spoil for the party which lost because they would not control their greed for power. And the Michael Moore’s urging us all to vote for Nader because “they are all the same” “not a dime’s worth of difference”
Still now they use the old lines saying there is no real difference between BO and the Hill. God – how long……how long before we vote our own self interest instead of following Peter Pan’s Piper of Dreams down the rat hole every time.
-
ClareA says:
I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November.
Whether or not that is Hillary, I will not forget the misogyny that was expressed on “progressive” blogs.
I don’t believe that all women who support Obama have not noticed this. I even noticed it in the past when it was Ann Coulter who got the treatment. I did comment when this occurred, but apparently not enough people did, or not enough importance was given to any objections to misogyny.
I suppose I should’ve known that these same progressive bloggers would bring out the same ugliness against a Democratic woman they didn’t like. -
gayle says:
octogalore,
I just did!
“. . .There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.”
WOW! I didn’t know anything about this.
-
juliana says:
You know you’re a feminist when: all of your friends are going to the Obama rally, and you go to the movies instead. Tonight Barack Obama is coming to Eugene, Oregon, population 150,000. Major candidates never come here. It’s Spring Break, things are quiet, the biggest event we’ll have this year is the Oregon Country Fair, the track meet, and Barack Obama.
I’m going to the movies.
