Politico: Hillary on track to be SOS

Mike Allen at politico is reporting Obama aides are saying Hillary is on track to be Secretary of State and financial disclosure of the Clinton Foundation has been dealt with. The team of rivals grows.


Guess what Liberals: Now you have a woman to hate

I spent a lot (some would say too much) time today reading blogs, columns and comment boards on the Palin speech of last night. The commentary was either overwhelmingly positive. This unknown burst onto the scene and wowed the crowd at the Xcel center. Or they are fiercely negative. She is the anti-christ in beauty-queen form. The hockey mom from hell.



Then I had a moment of clarity when I was tossed through the looking glass and into the past, a not-too-distant past, where a new comer to national politics came to the scene. A pantsuit wearing liberal with bad hair and a false smile-she rode the coattails of someone with more history and charisma and from her seat of national power she sought to ruin the civic and private lives of all Americans.

Two very different women same story:

For conservatives everywhere Hillary Clinton represents a socialized medicine loving, pantsuit wearing, liberal hell bent on taking your children and raising them in a village. She was an unqualified neophyte with no right to thrust her ultra left wing views upon the nation.

And now fast forward 16 or so years and Sarah Palin has finally emerged to play the mirror role. A gun-toting, oil drilling, polar bear killing, hockey mom. She wants to kill taxes and evolution, fires people for not banning books, and thinks global warming is the construct of liberal scientists, the same people who brought you that pesky Darwin.

Sure they are different stages in their careers, but the story arches are the same. While Hillary came inches

from her party’s nomination, and Palin is playing mini-maverick, these women are fulfilling the same roles for their respective sides of the culture war. Symbol, demagogue, target and Joan of Arc for their friends and enemies.

Women have made remarkable strides in the political life of America. I wonder though, if we’ve really made strides if women can only rise to power in the wake of man, and if they can only be seen in the extreme, not only politically, but socially. 

Hillary Clinton is a cold calculating “bitch.” Hell bent on her own political success. Sarah Palin is a ditzy ex-beauty queen, playing puppet to the conservative establishment to keep winning her life-long popularity contest. One is seen as too smart for her own good, the other as too dumb. They are mirror images, polar opposites, in everything but the magnitude of order the media as bestowed on them so quickly. It’s not to say they are not news worthy women, clearly the opposite is true. But what does it say about us that we only have female politicians playing in the extremes of our pop culture?

Maureen Dowd: Two Against One

One has to wonder is Maureen Dowd, really paranoid or really funny.

Sorry PUMAs, it’s not Hillary’s party.

I’m not quite sure what Hillary Clinton supporters still want? Apparently, its catharsis now. First they wanted to win easily and move on to the general election, then the new guy with the funny name messed that up. Then they wanted to dominate Super Tuesday, turns out in their party delegates are assigned proportionally, so that didn’t work. Then they lost eleven primaries in a row. Which despite their other wins, made it mathematically impossible for them to win the nomination. Unless you counted Michigian, you Michigan where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot.

Is it frustrating to lose, Yep. Is it even saddening? You bet. Is it time to get over it? Has been for awhile. But while the Clintons are dutifully trying to lend their tongue-in-cheek support to Senator Obama, Hillary also has no problem playing the Clinton-as-victim card yet again to ensure sympathy and support for her next go around (if there is one) in 2012. It’s also worth noting that if the roles were to be reversed, and Obama had lost so narrowly, the Clinton machine would have ground his remains to dust and swept him away by now. Any attempt at Obama-supporter catharsis would have been poo-poohed away. 

A respectable candidate would have told the PUMA’s to go home already. Instead, we’re going to have Senator Clinton named in nomination for a vote on the convention floor.  Obama’s move is gracious and in this context, chivalrous even. But what do PUMA’s want? Hillary Clinton can’t win the nomination, could someone please tell me…what is it you ladies (mostly) want?

Addendum to the Get Over it Post

Lest any PUMA should come at my colleague for the previous post for being a man, let me weigh in on the topic with a decidedly more feminine take.  This posted reaction to Chuck Todd’s comment is only the latest in a chain that I have been coming across lately from the disaffected Hillary camp. 

And I have to say, that it infuriates and frustrates me to see the feminist ideal represented this way.  There was a point in the Feminist movement where the word feminist took on a negative connotation and when women began to distance themselves from that label as a result.  It began when extremists who called themselves feminists drew media attention to themselves and gave off the impression of being more anti-male than champions for females.  From that point on, feminism scampered to the outskirts of the national consciousness.  As the years have past (and some ceilings have broken and some progress made), the impression of feminism has become less volatile.  All the while, the issues facing women are increasingly nuanced and complicated (and most, not solvable through legislation).  Here enters a strong woman presidential candidate….and the subsequent backlash for her loss. 

Let me make clear that I believe Hilary Clinton lost the primary due to her Clinton name and the notorious campaign tactics we all know and loathe–not some perceived media bias.  But I’m not about to deny that people have the right to disagree with me.  I would be more than happy to discuss and debate the point.

But what bothers me about the comments of the PUMAs, as they call themselves, is how destructive they are to the view of women.  There have been quotes from women who say they related to Clinton because she admitted to being on Weight Watchers and they wouldn’t vote for some “beanpole guy” for President.  I’ve read criticisms that Obama hasn’t given a speech on gender as he has on race (as if any woman wants their situation explained by a man).  And now this post.

I’m embarrassed at these reactionary comments because they showcase the female vote as nonlogical.  The way to get those dumb women voters is to appeal to their emotions–to commiserate with their struggles to lose weight and keep up their appearance. Those are the things women really care about.  That’s the insinuation.  In a year when a woman candidate was a viable candidate for president, where was the discussion of more accessible child care for families been?  What about discussions about the challenges that women face today in business?  Work-life balance?  Not a peep.

What’s also insulting is the lack of purpose the PUMAs have.  What do you plan to accomplish by rebel voting for McCain or not voting at all??  Do you really think that that will help the state of feminism or any of the other issues you supposedly care about?  Wouldn’t it be more effective to make the current candidates answer questions about health care, and child care, and other policy issues?  Why not take advantage of the focus that’s being placed on women voters to force the candidates to discuss topics that are important to you?  Or are you all just a sliver of the population that fits the stereotype that women just follow the fads, like raw milk and organic foods and this one just happens to involve a political candidate? 

If you want to be taken seriously, then start acting seriously instead of acting out like teenagers.

From the Bureau of People that Need to Get Over It

So apparently Chuck Todd (NBC Political Director) made a comment yesterday on Meet the Press. He basically said the people still supporting Hillary despite her mathematical elimination from the nomination fight, were a essentially a small group “manufactured in manhattan.”

Well that prompted a response on The Concluence which I found somewhere between stupid and moronic:

The truth is much more frightening than that, Chuck. We did this all on our own and we are EVERYWHERE. Yes, Chuck, we are in your Whole Foods and Wegman’s. We drink lattes at the Starbucks on the corner. We take our kids to your summer camp. We swim on your beaches and pools. We send our children to Iraq. We are on the East coast, the West coast, Texas and North Carolina. We are a viral infection. We are spreading. It’s much worse than you think. Manhattan is not the headquarters. There *is* no headquarters. We are in every neighborhood and demographic group. We are like zombies who rise from the dead, who you can’t kill off. Trying to corner us on an island in NY is futile. It will be like playing Whack-a-Mole.

If PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) want to compare themselves to zombies I can go with that. Zombies can’t be killed but they also feed on everyone in sight until everything dies. I’m also no expert but I think by the end of most zombie movies, the zombies are the ones that end up losing. You know losing, like Senator Clinton did. Viral infection, sounds like something you go to the clinic in Chelsea for….

People talk about the Obama “cult of personality” but come on ladies. Simply continuing to blindly support a candidate that LOST the nomination fair and square is a level of devotion usually reserved for religious extremists. Its a free country and you can support whatever candidate you like, if you think your interests are best served by voting McCain, or not voting at all, well fair enough. But stop pretending that this nomination was stolen from Senator Clinton, you know like she stopped pretending she ever dodged sniper fire.

Though what do you get when you combine a sniper and some zombies……