Letters to the Editor
-
A view from the OTHER side...
I thought it interesting to get this view from another side. This is from Moe Lane at redstate.com where they hate Clinton.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/code_words
"..which comes via TalkLeft (the title, "These Kinds Of Sexist Remarks Are Not What I Am Looking For," should give you an idea of their reaction), my general conclusion was merely Stone cold dumb[expletive deleted] of Obama for letting that come out wrong. Then I remembered that I'm a knuckle-dragging reactionary Neanderthal of a GOP fascist patriarch, so I did what knuckle-dragging reactionary Neanderthal GOP fascist patriarchs do in such cases: I went and asked my wife what I should be thinking.
I got an earful. While my better half (and I should note for the record that my wife is: a, the sole wage-earner of the family; b, has a doctorate in aerospace engineering; c, is a right-wing moderate with a lifetime NRA membership and no intention of voting Democratic in this election) normally looks upon my political enthusiasms with the same polite, supportive disinterest that she reserves for my love of the Cthulhu Mythos, on this topic she has an opinion, which you may read after the fold.
Read on.
The following was typed out by her: I haven't edited it at all, except to blockquote it.
Obama was careful not to say anything glaringly, obviously misogynistic; he never explicitly references Sen. Rodham Clinton's sex, for example, so he can say, in all innocence, that he was just talking about her as a person, not as a woman.
However, I find that disingenuous. The charge that women are irrational and emotional has long been levied against them, to argue why they should not be allowed into the political (or other public) arena. "A woman president? She'll get PMS and push the button." Women get emotional ("when she's down") and then do those silly, female things that men can gently laugh patronizing about ("launches attacks to boost her appeal"). Note that it's cast, subtly, as a self-image problem. She needs to "boost her appeal" like a woman who, feeling down, goes out and buys expensive shoes so she'll feel pretty.
If he's said that when she "feel threatened," "feels behind," "is behind in the primary," or otherwise implied that her attacks were motivated by a rational reason, I wouldn't have blinked at the comment. Instead, it's all because she's feeling badly - silly little woman.
(NB: If you're defining misogyny as vicious frothing hatred against women, then no, his comments were not misogynistic. Maybe "sexist" is a better word - whatever you want to call it, his comments play to an old and pervasive idea that women's minds just aren't as strong as men's.)"
The comments from all the republican conservatives are very interesting, as they AGREE WITH OBAMA's subtext, that a woman is too emotional and weak to serve as President, and considering Clinton hasn't said anything about this, but this obviously evidence that it is Clinton who is playing the sexist/woman as victim card. Oh, and women who are PMS'ing shouldn't be anywhere near the BIG button.
So, how is it, conservatives "GET IT" in all the different forms, but Obama supporters are so willing to be so blind when it serves Obama?