Hillary’s Two-Headed Coin
Okay, I’ve sat on this long enough and enough is enough. Last night Dr. Paul Song, a healthcare advocate, spoke at a pre-debate rally for Bernie Sanders, and during his address he referred to “corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma…” in a sentence in which he also mentioned Hillary Clinton, suggesting that if she were elected, those corporate whores” would continue to get away with being bought off. Song did not call Ms. Clinton a corporate whore, nor any other kind of whore, but it did strike a sour note and Song quickly and passionately apologized for even having used the term.
Later that same last night the Clinton pretend feminists were out in force, having found something more solid than usual to grab onto, and began operation “Stop Bullying Hillary and Calling Her Bad Names and Stuff.”
Let me interject right here that there are such things as “Bernie Bros,” and they will, some of them, say damn near anything about Hillary, call her all kinds of names, act like juveniles of middle school age and…well, generally imitate most any conservative Republican of any rank whatsoever.
That does happen, and I disapprove strongly. In fact I condemn that shit.
Today, again, though, in the virtual pages of Salon, Amanda Marcotte accuses Bernie Sanders, that mean old man with the wildly floppy index finger, of “bullying” Clinton during the election. I linked Ms. Marcotte’s article in the next paragraph, because there’s just too much hooey in it to dissect here. You may do it yourself, especially if you are young, since I understand you don’t do your own research.
Let this sink in, especially you feminists out there. Here’s this strong, proud, accomplished woman, former Senator, former Secretary of State, a politician’s politician (at least in the establishment sense), running for president against a guy who is also running for president, and when he calls out parts of her record (and all parts of any candidate’s record are fair game) is accused of bullying her. (Get the whole sordid story from Amanda Marcotte here). Hillary Clinton can hold her own against any other politician and does so regularly. Is she always honest? No, I don’t think so, and if there is something on the record (or in it) that warrants questions, well that’s what politicians do. But when they do it “to” Hillary Clinton, suddenly they are “picking on her,” “bullying her,” being “sexist,” are called misogynists. When Bernie Sanders does it, he is portrayed by the Clinton Apologist Squad as an evil, old, out-of-touch member of the He-Man Woman Haters Club, a meanie, and just plain wrong.
Great diversionary tactic, ladies, but you can’t have it both ways. Either Hillary is a strong (some say heroic) woman and a highly qualified, competitive politician, or she is a little girl neophyte who needs to be shielded from the big bad guy with the crazy hair who could not speak if his hands were amputated. (I love that guy).
By the way, I am a feminist myself, and while I may get into arguments with women from time to time (thoughtful, civil, excellent arguments), I don’t resort to ad hominem (ad feminam?) attacks when all else fails me. I wasn’t raised that way. In fact I was raised mostly by and around women and girls.
Senator Sanders last night qualified his “unqualified” remarks about Ms. Clinton, and rightly so. He had made them in response to her having suggested that he was not qualified to run, at least as a Democrat, and he did it very sloppily (in my ever-so-humble opinion). Last night he corrected himself, stating that of course Ms. Clinton is qualified, at least on paper. She does have an impressive resume. It was (and has been all along) her judgement he finds wanting (as do I), and he should have slowed down a little and worded it better.
So yeah, he beat her up with that “unqualified” remark. What did Hillary do to him with her similar, earlier comment about him though?
It’s a two-headed coin: Heads I win, tails you lose.
There are not many “Hillary Bros” out there, but there are a few, and there are a lot of, uh…how should I put it? Hillary Sis..Sisses…Sistahs? How about just plain “defenders,” even when there is no defense required?
The woman is a bear! Ha! You thought I was going to use some other kind of “B” word, didn’t you? She can handle herself in the public square, in the boxing ring of political debate, and then some. She can talk (Wolf Blitzer used the word “screaming” last night, and I almost dropped my malbec) over anyone, run past the timer with the best of them, think fast, hit hard, sometimes low, and ladies and gents, that is politics.
Bernie did not call Hillary a “corporate whore” last night nor at any other time (and neither did Paul Song). He did not call her any bad names. He asked some inconvenient questions and threw some sarcasm her way. Touche?
Meanwhile the good Doctor Song is not only being kicked around for his use of “corporate whore” in the same sentence with Hillary’s name, despite his very eloquent and sincere public apology, but I have heard people say that since Bernie didn’t slap him down at the moment he said it, that means he agrees with it. (All those “corporate Democratic whores” have been men, by the way; the term is used on men quite often). In this case Senator Max Baucus was the one singled out by Song as the biggest corporate tool in the derailing of the 2008 attempt at Medicare for All that wound up being The Not-So-Affordable (corporate) Care for A Lot.
Fucking Max Baucus was, in that instance, a corporate Democratic whore of the first magnitude. He dicked up a grand idea for the sake of keeping big insurance corporations involved in our lives. I said that and I will likely say it again. It doesn’t take a woman to be a whore. There are plenty of man-whores out there, men who whore themselves out to the highest bidder, and many of them are United States Congressmen.
I would never call any woman a whore, a bitch, or any of the terms commonly used to berate and devalue women.
Sam Baucus, who is not a woman, yes.
I guess you could call that a semantic double standard.
Call it my two-headed coin.
Now enough of this bullshit, people. There is a campaign on. It is not in the least about the GOP (who are all corporate whores, corporate shills, fascists, mountemanks, perverts and freaks, and NONE of whom are electable). It is about choosing a presidential candidate to destroy the GOP’s presidential candidate, whoever that might wind up being, and we have two highly qualified, strong, determined choices.
It comes down not to whether to elect a man or a woman but whether to elect an establishment candidate who promises to be pragmatic, work with established corporate interests, hopefully make incremental gains, and maintain the status quo, or to elect a grass roots champion of the people, a latter day Huey Long (or, some like to say, a latter day FDR), who will do his damnedest to bring about not only faster results, but change (remember change?), the way politics looks for us, how we think, our entire world view, freedom from the status quo, from the known (a very scary or at least heady notion for a lot of people) and a new political and social order at home and in the world.
I’m a couple years older than Hillary Clinton and a couple younger than Bernie Sanders, and I want that new political and social order while I’m still around and able to enjoy it. I want it for my children’s children’s children, but I want it for me, too.
I am such a dick sometimes.