Letters to the Editor
-
"evidence" is a strong word
I don't think it's news that some people who don't like Hillary Clinton will attack her based on her gender.
But I don't think everyone who attacks her should be written off as sexist. I agree with the Olberman clips used in there because I do think she's trying to be whoever the people she's talking to want her to be. She portrays herself as a tough war hero and an experienced politician in some instances and an outsider and underdog in others. Nowhere does he say she's being duplicitous BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, and I don't think it's implied.
There are other comments in there that I agree with and are judgments that aren't based on her gender. And then there's Chris Mathews. He should be called out often and with great vigor, but he isn't the majority of voices in the media.
That people from Fox would go after her any way they can isn't that surprising - including your new buddy, Rush. I don't think that even counts, honestly - they will hate her for any reason they can, her gender just being the easiest place to start, and their audience is right there with them.
What's disappointing about this little montage to me is the heavy-handed effort to jazz the whole thing up. Let's contrast Olberman with Edward R. Murrow! Never mind that it's a fictitious speech written for a movie, just do it! That'll show those meanies that don't like Clinton! It takes what is a pretty reasonable argument (a lot of people don't like Clinton and some of them are being sexist about it) and puts a beat to it rather than evidence. At least it got your toe tapping, Joan, because it's a song you believe in, but it doesn't do much to back up the point. These sorts of videos are all over youtube, proving that 9/11 was an inside job and that evolution is a sham. Fine. But don't repost them as "evidence", please. It isn't. It's a montage.