Deja Vu (Reply)

Flapromoter Writes: on an unrelated note. Ill be honest, when I first started seeing political posts I was a little shocked and vaguely annoyed. I come here to read about animals not politics (lol). Of course that feeling is unfair and I realize that you are more then just here for my entertainment. Not to mention the fact that you are certainly entitled to have more to your personality then just animal rescue. Anyways, I really have come to look foward to and enjoy reading your commentary. So I am requesting that you write a post about the current state of affairs with Hillary. Am I the only one who sees the fact that she is willing to put millions of her own money into this as a sign of passion? Is is really over as the media would have us believe?

Reply: Thank you so much for asking this. At the risk of offending some who come to this blog only to read about animal rescue, I am nonetheless very happy to reply.

There are reasons Hillary Clinton has overwhelmingly won the votes of "older women" (of which I am obviously one) in this campaign.

One of them is probably illustrated in my earlier blog post today, entitled, "Moving to the 21st Century."

Most women of older generations have had to struggle professionally and (to my mind) have been held to very different personal and other standards than men.

For example, had I been a man saying to Kyra Sedgewick, "We're not seeking to 'get rid of anything.' We're seeking responsible homes for these cats" would I have lost the job of doing cat adoptions out of a store?

I don't know, but part of me deeply questions that.

It seems when a woman "fights for" anything, (including truth and justice) she is often perceived to be "aggressive," "emotional," "calculating," or my favorites, "silly" or "hysterical." A man saying or fighting for the exact same things is often said to be "strong and determined."

In earlier years, I worked in several restaurants and saw promotions and pay raises go to men who had less experience, fewer qualifications and work records than I did.

Was that fair? Not at all.

Even today, women earn 78 cents for every dollar a man earns -- something else Hillary Clinton is fighting to change.

Why does a woman's work, dedication and efforts count less than those of a man?

Many women have to raise children on a single salary (I did). Why then is compensation (and respect) less than that for a man?

Anyone who doubts these things only need follow the present democratic primary and the downright vicious and untrue things that have been FREELY said about Hillary Clinton.

Anything goes in terms of what can and IS said about Hillary, the latest being that she is "delusional," a "racist" and a "sore loser."

The charge that Hillary Clinton is a "racist" based upon her answering a reporter's question truthfully, but inartfully, is akin to calling me a human hater based upon my "inartful" remark to Kira Sedgewick.

The Clintons have been on the forefront of Civil Rights for decades. Had an African American not been running in this Primary, Hillary Clinton would no doubt be winning the black vote probably in double or triple digits.

You ask, is it "passion" that drives Hillary Clinton to stay in this race despite the numbers and the media (that seemingly wants to hang her)?

Absolutely! Passion -- and following a mission!

You know, it would have been easy for me to "drop out" of animal rescue when losing stores and even being kicked out from rescue at the shelter (when I and others had to speak out to press and city officials ten years ago about horrific conditions in the shelters and inexcusably high kill stats).

Other people, when being barred from volunteering or rescue at the then "CACC" simply moved on to other things in life.

I elected to wait out the ban and eventually work my way back in.

When you know you have the capacity and passion to do something and do it well, you remain in that endeavor despite what anyone says and despite the setbacks and defeats along the way.

You stay in something because you believe in the mission and the cause. And you believe in yourself.

Hillary Clinton is still in this campaign because she truly believes (as quite frankly, I do) that she is the best equipped, qualified and most determined, impassioned person for the job of President of the United States. She has, over 30 years, gradually earned it.

Clinton has been on a crusade for Universal Health Care for decades and is, I believe, determined in one way of the other, to bring that about. But, Hillary knows she has to be in position of power to accomplish that. Being a Senator alone, won't do it.

When Hillary Clinton is on the campaign trail, she answers questions and continually pushes for the ISSUES she believes in and KNOWS in mind boggling detail. I saw her in person a few years ago when she helped promote Senator Robert Byrd's book, "Losing America." Hillary talked passionately about preserving the Constitution. On the campaign trail now, Hillary Clinton is NOT "attacking" Barack Obama nonstop or "playing the race card" as she has continually and viciously been falsely accused of!

It truly makes me angry when I hear these scurrilous and untrue accusations against Clinton. The media twists, takes out of context and reads hidden "meanings" into mere statements of fact.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama can talk about campaigning in "57 states" and only one news outlet even mentions it.

How could one be running for President and not know how many states in the union?

Isn't Obama's lack of knowledge of a simple (first grade) fact worthy of some news scrutiny?

Apparently not.

But, I guarantee had Hillary Clinton talked about campaigning in "57 states" the news media would have accused her of Dementia or early Alteimers. It would have been newspaper headlines:

"Hillary's losing her marbles!" "She can't count!" "She's delusional!" "She imagining states that don't exist!"

Finally, regarding the "sore loser" bit that is being hurled at Hillary now.

Its deja vu.

Remember this very same accusation thrown against Al Gore in 2000 when he demanded recounts in Florida -- including from many in his own party?

"He needs to get over it and move on." "The country needs to be together." He's showing himself to be a sore loser. "He's putting his personal ambition ahead of the welfare of the country."

Eventually, Al Gore gave up the fight and George W. Bush was awarded the Presidency.

We've been paying for that debacle and miscarriage of justice ever since.

I think Hillary Clinton is remembering all of that very well now.

And THAT is the real reason she isn't giving up the fight despite all the naysayers, party wimps and traitors (like Bill Richardson), media sellouts and quite frankly, misogynists.

As racism still exists in this country, so too, does sexism and misogyny. Let's not kid ourselves.

Anyone doubting that need only look at FLDS-type religious cults where young girls are raped and forced into marriages with older men; their will completely subverted and their minds controlled.

Isn't that a type of modern slavery and legal brainwashing under the guise of "religion?"

Where are the Al Shaptons and Reverend Wrights, cheap politicians and media moguls to speak out against that?

The democratic party seems to assume that all of us "older women" supporting Hillary Clinton are automatically going to support Barack Obama when he is anointed the nomination.

That is a very wrong assumption.

I don't like the way the Obama campaign and the Democratic party has treated Hillary Clinton throughout this campaign. I will neither quickly forgive or forget it. -- Not at all.

In fact, I plan on canceling my 2000 membership in the Democratic party and reregistering as an Independent the day Obama becomes the official nominee. -- PCA

*******

Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry

This entry has 2 comments: (Add your own)

#2 Comment from cdonian
5/13/08 2:49 AM | Permalink

Of course it's your blog! But, honestly, many people oppose Hillary for substantial, nonsexist reasons. I know an awful lot of folks, including midlife-and-older women, who have issues with her experience, character, Senate record, et al. Some women are puzzled by her "feminist" thing, since her experience, and campaign, are so Bill-dependent.
I spend most of my professional time awash in news/media/political/legal research, so I see sheer tonnage of commentary by Hillary/Obama fans, grassroots and other. In general, Obama supporters are all over the male/female + age range, and tend to be policy-oriented. Hillary supporters are primarily female (esp. older), and tend to project their personal lives or stories onto her.
It's interesting. But as a sexism-pummeled feminist female, I don't view Hillary as a victim of sexism. She's not the average woman, or candidate, or woman candidate, but has both years of public baggage and enormous (even controversial) advantages.
And on a Dem-party note: I'm distressed by (a) those who say, "If she's not nominated, I'll vote for McCain" -- thus trashing all that Hillary and her party stand for; and (b) the surfeit of Dem.-grassroots gender-vs.-race warfare. Both (a) and (b) look like a mad GOP/Limbaugh plot, not like a spat among Democrats.
#1 Comment from jmuhjacat
5/12/08 6:54 PM | Permalink

Great writing, Patty, and some very insightful comments. Fueled by passion, one assumes. ;)

Tales & Tails of New York Public Journal
Back to Journal	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds

Tales & Tails of New York

Deja Vu (Reply)