To hell with Northern Ireland — where was she on Blue Dress Day?
It’s incredible. Hillary’s papers as First Lady have been released, thus giving us an opportunity to note her remarkable involvement in foreign policy: the brilliant “women’s rights are human rights” speech in Beijing, her decisive role in forging the Good Friday peace, her outreach in Kosovo, and her lobbying in Africa to outlaw FGM and to lift various legal restrictions on women’s rights.
But out of those 11,000 pages of records, ABC News was interested in just one thing: where was she the day Bill stained Monica’s blue dress?
No wonder Chris Matthews thinks the only reason Hillary has a chance at the White House is because her husband cheated on her. For him and the other knobs in the media, that’s the only thing about her that matters. She’s not really a person to them, much less a brilliant woman and devoted public servant. She’s just the ol’ ball and chain. They might as well call her “ofBill.”
*****
UPDATE: For another take on the media’s dismissal of Hillary’s work as First Lady, see this post from Shakespeare’s Sister. Amazing.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Excellent diary over at MyDD setting the record straight: Myths & Facts About Hillary’s Schedules.
12 Responses to “To hell with Northern Ireland — where was she on Blue Dress Day?”
-
Dave says:
That’s mean, indeed. It’s demeaning towards Hillary Clinton and, again on gender and race, it’s typically american. In Europe, nobody makes a fuzz about such private matters. It’s disgusting. Also, how can Obama not support his pastor’s idea that 9/11 was due to america’s foreign policy??? Isn’t that a truism. Gosh, even the allegedly most liberal candidate hasn’t got the… well, whatever to admit to that obvious truth.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pm EST -
Violet says:
Dave, most Americans feel too emotional about the innocent victims of 9-11 to take kindly to the kind of remarks Wright made. Especially since he made those remarks 5 days after the event, when it’s possible that some victims were still alive and suffocating in the rubble. Crowing excitedly about “the chickens coming home to roost!” was in poor taste that Sunday.
-
Dave says:
Ok. And certainly nothing can excuse such actions in the least. The timing was, then, unfortunate. However, I think politicians in the US have to face the fact that what goes around comes around. I’m not saying that ‘americans’ are to blame in general but an often less than ‘adroit’ (to say the least) foreign policy has caused much harm. The myth of the ‘big helper’ or the world’s ‘policeman’ just doesn’t hold water. For a more level-headed approach to foreign policy much myth-debunking is needed and some soul searching too, I think. Of course that goes for other countries just as well. Let me say that there was an enormous wave of sympathy for victims of 9/11 here in Europe, despite misgivings about US foreign policy. However, instead on building on that sympathy Bush basically spit in everybody’s face. Denial is just the beginning and things come back hitting you hard until one stops being in denial…
-
Red Queen says:
Hey Dave- I haven’t been reading about Sarkozy’s new wife (or former wife for that matter) in American news. But i have in European news outlets. So quit with the Europe is better than you crap.
-
Dave says:
Subtlety, subtlety! Believe it or not, there are subtle differences in reporting on the fact that your president marries again and the stuff the media pulled in the US (even impeached the guy). Also, I wasn’t saying Europe is better, just different. Sarkozy’s marriage is a nice celebrity story for tabloids, it’s NOT a politicum. Distinguo.
Needless to say that America is the best of nations, as Barack and all your politicians love to reiterate… -
Red Queen says:
I think it’s more that they are suggesting Sarkozy is a happy cuckold with two wives who have monogamy problems, (if that’s what makes him happy- fine, but news it is not.)
And I am pretty sure that most of Europe has the same problem with rape, misogyny, and sexism that we do here. Needless to say, Europe is not the best of continents.
(I don’t really have problem with Europe actually, I do have a problem with exceptionalism. Every country has issues with sex and sexism.)
-
Dave says:
I don’t really have problem with Europe actually, I do have a problem with exceptionalism. Every country has issues with sex and sexism.
Oh quite. However, I’ve never heard anybody officially say that Europe is ‘the best of continents’ or any such thing, whereas it’s standard rhetoric in the US. Europe has issues with sexism. However, the general attitude towards such things as nudity etc. is actually different. The US are more conservative there. When, e.g. Angela Merkel was elected german chancelor I just didn’t find her being female an issue at all. Maybe I’m just blind but I have many feminist friends who were and are in the ‘Frauenbewegung’ (women’s movement) and they too didn’t think it was much of an issue. So, do we have discrimination? Yes. Does mysogeny persist? Yes. Is there a difference in the role the sexlife and natural sex of candidates plays? Yes, I humbly think so, although I might simply have a biased view (but I don’t think I’m entirely wrong on this). It’s just not true, that the US is the most progressive country in every respect. Of course, it doesn’t help for me to claim the progressive highground (even if that was justified). I didn’t want to say this. I simply wanted to express my frustration with and sstonishment at the fact that sexism against a candidate is so strong in a country like the US. Not in a condescending way. I’m just genuinely surprised and disgusted to see that.
-
anna says:
Don’t forget that Hillary held meetings in support of NAFTA and welfare reform, both of which hurt many poor women (as well as men) and that she has never repudiated either. Don’t forget her failure with health care.
-
Violet says:
I disagree that she’s never repudiated NAFTA. Her position on NAFTA is that it hasn’t worked out well and needs to be changed. Her position is the same as Obama’s, though I would point out that Obama has lied publicly about his position and given under-the-table assurances to Canada, so who knows what he really thinks or plans to do.
As for her failure with health care, I consider that a huge plus in her column. Why? Because that’s when she was cutting her teeth — 15 years ago. She learned from her mistakes, and as a Senator has become highly respected as someone who can get things done.
Obama still hasn’t cut his teeth. He has zero legislative accomplishments. (The Illinois bills credited to him were actually developed by other people, and handed to Obama by the Chicago machine to create his resume.) Obama has done squat — never cut his teeth, never fought the fight, never been in battle. He’s a baby.
-
julia says:
I felt much safer on the streets of Europe and even Rio de Janeiro, at 3 A.M., than I do in most major American cities. This is a violent country. One big reason: easy availability of guns.
Europe has health care, daycare, affordable universities, un-employment that you can actually live on, housing; the UK houses single mothers and gives them a stipend until their child is 16.
We don’t have any of this.
My point?
Put widespread poverty, a dying economy, no safety net, easy access to guns, mix with misogyny and you get one violent country for women - the USA. -
Dave says:
When browsing through a 2004 yearbook, one difference between Europe and the US, or at least Germrany and the US, in terms of women’s representation was this: In the US, women are better represented in top position in business, whereas there is a much higher number of (top) female politicians in Germany. Maybe then discrimination against women is stronger in certain parts of society for different contries. Politics seem to be, perhaps, a particularly rough place for women in the US.
-
Dave says:
Hillary Clinton recently walked into the offices of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. There she spoke 90 minutes with reporters something that, apparently, changed the author of this
piece’s mind about her.
To quote from the article:“Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.
Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.
Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today’s most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.”
This is the stuff one should talk about, isn’t it ?
