PDA

View Full Version : Why Hillary Clinton Makes My Wife Scream (article)...


DekWannaBFlea
04-30-2008, 04:06 PM
Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream
By Tom Hayden

My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.

It's getting to me as well. Last year, I was somewhat reconciled to the prospect of supporting and pressuring Hillary as the nominee amidst the rising tide of my friends who already hated her, irrationally I thought. I was one of those people Barack accuses of being willing to settle. I even had framed a flattering autographed message from Hillary. But as the campaign has gone on and on, her signed portrait still leans against the wall in my study. I don't know where she belongs anymore.

At least Hillary was a known quantity in my life. I knew of the danger of her becoming more and more hawkish as she tried to break the ultimate glass ceiling. I also knew that she could be forced to change course if public opinion was fiercely opposed to the war. And I knew she was familiar with radical social causes from her own life experience in the sixties. So my progressive task seemed clear: help build an antiwar force powerful enough to make it politically necessary to end the war. Been there, done that. And in the process, finally put a woman in the White House. A soothing bonus.

But as the Obama campaign gained momentum, Hillary began morphing into the persona that has my pacifist wife screaming at the television set.

Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge. Even worse are the flacks she sends before the cameras on her behalf, like that Kiki person, who smirks and shakes her head at the camera every time she fields a question. Or the real carnivores, like Howard Wolfson, Lanny Davis and James Carville, whose sneering smugness prevents countless women like my wife from considering Hillary at all.

To use the current terminology, Hillary people are bitter people, even more bitter than the white working-class voters Barack has talked about. Because they circle the wagons so tightly, they don't recognize how identical, self-reinforcing and out-of-touch they are.

To take just one example, the imagined association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers will suffice. Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"

She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists". Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)

All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with FOX News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic superdelegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House, whether or not she is the nominee.

Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.


About Tom Hayden
Tom Hayden is the author of The Other Side (1966, with Staughton Lynd), The Love of Possession Is a Disease With Them (1972), Ending the War in Iraq (2007) and Writings for a Democratic Society: The Tom Hayden Reader (2008). more...

* Copyright © 2008 The Nation


--------------------------
Interesting article. Comments?

Surtr
04-30-2008, 04:24 PM
Obama '08

DekWannaBFlea
04-30-2008, 04:25 PM
Let's keep the spam to a min. I want to hear people's thoughts without having to wade through crap.

Surtr
04-30-2008, 04:26 PM
My thoughts are that I don't understand what he's saying really. He didn't like Hillary, now she's a Capitalist whore unlike she used to be and he hates her again, or is at least unsure.

This isn't really news to me nor anyone else...

DekWannaBFlea
04-30-2008, 04:31 PM
That is a way over-simplification of the article.

DBoons Ghost
04-30-2008, 04:40 PM
It is.

All it proves though, is that she's everything we thought she was. A lying sniveling carpetbagging whore who will pander all she can so she can make history.

She's attacking Obama for being what she once was, and since Hillary has learned the establishment is never going to change, she has become one of THEM. She's a hypocrit in the end, and I could have told anyone that.

I suppose I'm coming to the same conclusion as Surtr.. I said as much in another thread already today. My friends who are Dems are now listening to McCain.

What's your take on it Dek? Is there some hidden meaning we're missing?

Surtr
04-30-2008, 04:40 PM
...Then how else would you take it? I just see it as him stating he's a little unsure about Hillary because she's no longer got the same stance he at all knows she once had and it bothers him some. Its not really anything stunning, we're all a little unsure (Or wayyy ****ing sure I 'spose for some/a lot of us) that Hillary would be a good President.

DekWannaBFlea
04-30-2008, 04:48 PM
What I find interesting about the article is its focus on Clinton's past. People can tell she is a panderer but can only get a recent glimpse of this. I don't think people fully realize what Hillary's past was like. And commenting that Hilary is a "capitalist whorebag" isn't contributing much.

Perhaps I missed the thread where this was discussed. If so please redirect me.

DBoons Ghost
04-30-2008, 04:54 PM
What I find interesting about the article is its focus on Clinton's past. People can tell she is a panderer but can only get a recent glimpse of this. I don't think people fully realize what Hillary's past was like. And commenting that Hilary is a "capitalist whorebag" isn't contributing much.

Perhaps I missed the thread where this was discussed. If so please redirect me.

Well, you added the bag to whore. Surtr and myself called her a simple whore but you added the bag to it. Freudian slip good sir?

I guess I call her a whore because she's female, and the fact that she had an affair when her husband was running Arkansas has seemingly escaped public criticism, as her past and her present.

I don't get it personally.

JohnXDoe
04-30-2008, 05:09 PM
tom hayden lol

jane fonda's whipping boy gg



Clinton '08

descendents1
04-30-2008, 07:19 PM
Article is: background, stronnnng opinion, evidence from some book he read, stronnnng opinion, conclusion.

I thought it was interesting, however. Not much of a politics guy myself, but he wasn't really saying anything new.