Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Clinton derangement syndrome

DCblogger's picture

Clinton derangment symdrom, the anti-Clinton hatred that has reduced so much of our public discourse to the most appalling lies, is back for the 2016 election.

How Politico became a GOP stooge: Republicans want to destroy Hillary Clinton—and the media is helping them out:

It’s tragic for our country that after the ridiculous spectacle of impeachment, a stolen election, the war in Iraq, and an epic economic meltdown that our political media is still this shallow. That they are willing to enable this three-ring circus that calls itself today’s Republican Party in order to gain power is frightening.

The Wall of Words: Hillary Clinton and the Verbal Assault Against Women Online:

The dizzying array of dehumanizing and demeaning terms targeting Hillary in recent weeks (Machiavellian, Lovecraftian, slithering, monstrous, imperious, musty, petulant, paranoid, stale, scornful, regal, devious, deceitful, robotic, abnormal, etc.) is a concrete manifestation of the gender barrier in American politics. It constitutes a “wall of words” blocking her path to the presidency.

Aside from the standard electoral challenges facing any presidential candidate, one of Hillary's fundamental obstacles as a woman trying to break the 44-0 shutout in national politics is to overcome that wall of words. Though largely unspoken and unacknowledged, that wall was part of the reason her 2008 presidential bid was unsuccessful.

This is not a question of what you think of Hillary, it is a question of what you think of the celebrity press corps and misogyny.

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

McDee's picture
Submitted by McDee on

I'm a bit confused. The implication here seems to be to me that criticism of Clinton is misogyny. Are we not to criticize her because the MSM is doing so?
My usual description of HRC is "oil soaked, blood stained grifter." Is that OK? I've said as much about about Bush, Cheney and Obama, and worse.
I have no problem with a woman being President. Just not THIS woman.

jinb's picture
Submitted by jinb on

I'm confused by your reply. From the 2nd link:

Two important clarifications are in order:
•In no way are we arguing that people shouldn’t criticize Hillary, disagree with her ideas, or generally dislike her.
•We are not claiming that every negative adjective used to describe Hillary or other female public figures reflects gender bias, sexism or misogyny.

If your criticisms don't sink to levels of misogyny, then it shouldn't be an issue for you, no? However, evidence from the links posted supports the theory that the press corps doesn't share your restraint.

From the original post here: This is not a question of what you think of Hillary, it is a question of what you think of the celebrity press corps and misogyny.

One can criticize Clinton and concurrently the way the press corps is "criticizing" her too.

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

We all know about Bill -FTAA- and Hillary Clinton.

They do make $250,000 speeches. Everybody knows.

Stop this already.

We know.

Get strategic score, machine-free voting.

No more Republicrats, thank you.

EVERYBODY KNOWS.

Stop it now.

We will "vote" for them?

Ya think?

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

...we're in a fight for our lives, and you'all are worried about PC?
If that is the level of discourse; then our existence is finished.
If the electorate can't focus on the point; then what's the point?
Get over yourselves and SEE what the real fight is.
Loose that and it's over; truly over...
Clinton is the evil continued; just what will it take to break the spell of the status quo?
There is a serious lack of vision extant in the political soup of American politics; an ethnocentric blindness of deadly consequences.
This isn't a progressive blog; it's a PC correctness denial of reality of the real world; AS IT IS!!!
Tell me I'm wrong...
Get down and dirty and find the real life...
The gutter lives...

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

I saw this this morning:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/democrats-primary-nightmare-florid...

This is one of the least PC people in the stable and the establishment is squealing "not fair!" in their search for bona fides. I think that the electorate is starting to focus, and focus unusually early at that. I don't think that "being shrill" is the drawback that it used to be perceived as.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

Grayson is okay in my book, we need more like him. He's a straight speaker.
But, no matter how you slice it, it's all captured by a thoroughly corrupt two party system.
If that cannot be broken, then nothing changes.
The only one running who isn't part of the machine is Sanders; if he continues to make gains and he can't be bought; he'll be destroyed.
One cannot beat a rigged game from within...IMO.
I've been watching this game for 70 years and it's not better; that is so patently obvious, yet, the players just play on; like the band on the Titanic...
Noble but doomed...
Well, I've had my say and really have no expectation, cheers.

jinb's picture
Submitted by jinb on

The only one running who isn't part of the machine is Sanders; if he continues to make gains and he can't be bought; he'll be destroyed.

If Sanders weren't part of the machine, he wouldn't be running as a D. Has everyone forgotten how he - of the sternly written letter - caved to Obama's Romneycare after that sweet ride BO gave him on Air Force One?

However, what your post has to do with misogyny remains unclear.

Submitted by lambert on

... I'm not going through 2008 again. Misogynistic comments will get whacked.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

So, whack away...
I'm not a misogynist, despite what others may think...

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

Oh, thank you so much; you just perfectly exemplified my point.
If you are not prepared to deal with (ignore) racist points (misogyny), then you lose both focus and energy spent on nothing. You'll not stop or change anybody! Focus on getting somebody other than the 99%, disgusting humans we've been offered as (choke) leaders. I just don't think most Americans realize how close to the end, of what they think they know, is about to end.
Think about it and get on with the now!!!! Please...

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

There was no way he was going to scuttle the deal and to go against it would have a backlash, as we saw the next mid-terms. He got the best deal he could for Vermont and lived to fight another day.

I read the F-35 thing the same way; it is there, go with the flow and get what you can out of it until you can deconstruct the complex that supports it to whatever degree one can. The MICC does not fit well with his demonstrated priorities, I think that might just be a go along to get along issue thus far.

One can hope, anyway.

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

His message is resonating and the establishment is backed into a corner; they can neither refute nor attack him. The "Dean Scream" will not work this time; we have already seen that play. Short of assassination I really do not see how they can stop him. Killing him would not be a good move, it would confirm everything he has been saying and no one wants a martyr.

What I see is him winning the Presidency and continuing to make his points and (unsuccessfully) pushing legislation until he has majorities he can work with. The wealthy do not want a revolution; they want either total domination (TTP,TTIP, TSIP) or they will take a Rooseveltian step back. I think we will ultimately have a new deal.

The alternatives are too depressing to contemplate.

Submitted by lambert on

.... "we're in a fight for our lives, and you'all are worried about PC?"

The comment nesting was too deep for me, I think.

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

for our corporate owned media. The comments sections in publications like POLITICO and The Hill are swamps of useful idiotry wherein long usage has rendered the practice acceptable. They have created a market and are servicing it. With the exception of pants suit commentary (which, IMHO, is a profound case of awful design reflective of an insecurity complex amongst her coterie; ergo not sexist), most of the that stuff seems to be found on sites where few would vote for her anyway.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

it is about our public discourse. While the media are hyping pseudo scandals manufactured against Clinton, REAL republican scandals are ignored. There is a stench of corruption emanating from Jeb!, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, but you hardly ever see any mention of it. That does great harm.

And read Peter Daou's post and notice the words that are used in connection with Hillary, words that are never used in connection with male candidates. It is possible to push back against the unfair attacks on HRC and at the same time support Bernie Sanders.

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

The old meme of "when everyone is guilty, no one is" comes to mind. There is so very much bullshit to wade through when it comes to the Republican Party that real scandals just get swamped in the rest of the effluential torrent, I think that is a little different than sexism re Hillary. Amongst the Republican Party faithful, I think that their view of corruption is just an extension of the general love they have for the Gordon Gekko's and their take no prisoners approach to making money and gaining power. It only serves to give them more credibility....save with the TP faction, of course.

The dynamic is quite a bit different with Democrats; we do still have the capacity for being shocked; hence the more nuanced approach taken with regard to her by most reputable media outlets.

http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-clinton-campaign-notices-...

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

published by Digby. I don't think anyone is diminishing the rampant sexism out there, especially by Republicans. There are double standards, obviously, but I do not think that your target market is going to the worst of the worst for their information and so they are not routinely subjected to the extreme types of it that is cited here. More likely is the subtle stuff that Gaius speaks of and that is largely supportive of her candidacy.

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

Hillary The $2.5 Billion Candidate Gets WHATEVER She Wants

Black Agenda Report -- The Ascent of Hillary, the $.2.5 Billion “People’s” Candidate.

“It is the triumph of filthy rich campaign contributors.”

V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V
Black Agenda Report -- The Ascent of Hillary, the $.2.5 Billion “People’s” Candidate -- 04/15/2015
http://www.blackagendareport.com/ford-hillary-$2.5billion-dollar-peoples-candidate

“It is the triumph of filthy rich campaign contributors.”

Hillary Clinton just announced that she’s running for president. However, this commentary is not really about her. It’s about a nation of more than 300 million people in which politics has become the sole property and domain of the rich. The rich decided some time ago that Hillary Clinton would be the virtually unchallenged presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. The 48 percent of Americans that express an affinity with the Democratic Party have not yet chosen Clinton. There has been no primary election in any state. But, that does not matter because the selection process that counts occurs in the boardrooms and mansions and private clubs and getaways of the rich. Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill, have spent virtually their entire adult lives on the millionaires’ campaign circuit, the rich man’s primary. In the process of pleasing the rich, they have become rich, themselves.

Hillary hopes to spend two and a half billion dollars of – mostly – rich people’s money in the 2016 campaign. Wealthy people will be just as generous with the Republican candidate. The outcome on Election Day is absolutely certain: the rich man’s candidate will definitely win, and the people will lose – because they have no candidate in the major parties.

The people are not even in the game; the contest is over before the Democratic Party’s formal selection process even begins. And, when primary season does arrive, it will only be a formality. The menu has already been printed, and Hillary will be the main course for Democrats next year.

Democratic voters can say “Yes” to Hillary, but they can’t say “No,” because the party machinery and the rich men who pay for that machinery will crucify and expel any Democrat who seriously challenges her from the Left.

“The Party has always been a scam.”

The Democratic Party’s apologists like to call it a big tent with room for Blacks and browns and gays and labor and peace-loving people. But it’s actually a huge trap designed to contain and politically neutralize the folks who might otherwise turn against the rich.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what does $2.5-Billion buy her?

2500000000/330000000 = $7.57+ to buy every single man/ woman/ infant residing in the USA.

"The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners":

George Carlin "The American Dream" Best 3 Minutes of His Career
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

Okay so these "right wing" chumps tried to make their play with an anti-Hitlery bumper sticker. So this warmongering monster crushed them with her $Billions. No free speech for you -- Poor peasants!
V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V
TheGatewayPundit.com -- SHOCK CLAIM: Hillary Clinton Forces Campaign Parody Taken Down -- 5/15/15
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/shock-claim-hillary-clinton-forc...

Hillary Clinton has forced the online store Zazzle to remove from its site a bumper sticker mocking her presidential campaign over an alleged trademark infringement.

The bumper sticker was offered by Marinka Peschmann, an author who published two investigative books about the Clintons: The Whistleblower: How the Clinton White House Stayed in Power to Reemerge in the Obama White House and on the World Stage, and Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer.

Peschmann recently posted a notice to her site:

“Note: Take down! This bumpersticker is no longer available. Hillary for America’s legal department lodged an intellectual property right’s holder trademark complaint against HILLPoP2016’s latest styles. While HILLPoP2016 thinks our H is different (the arrow faces left and is orange for instance), one must pick their battles. HILLPoP2016 respects Zazzle’s decision regarding their terms of service agreement and wishes more corporations would enforce them.”

Peschmann has an assortment of anti-Hillary Clinton campaign material at her Zazzle page with similar parodies of the Clinton 2016 logo. Most of Peschmann’s merchandise feature a variation of the question: “Hillary 2016 Prison or President?”

Clinton debuted the logo, which features a blue H with a red right-facing arrow on a white background, when she announced her candidacy in April.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will NOT EVER vote for another Clinton/ Bush. EVER.

The problem is that people such as Barack Obama can collect $1.1 billion dollars from individuals and corporations -- and then pay for TV ads where they exercise great talent for promising everybody a glowing future. And then they just take away our homes and sell them to Chinese bankers. So for that, we need performance artists who will go forth and run for office while claiming to provide every American with a free yacht (while explaining that this will solve everything!). Maybe the rubes will eventually stop believing everything they are told, no matter how extravagant the TV performances may be.

Another Catch-22 that stands in the way of the common people getting what they need is -- you guessed it -- the two-party system that is imposed by our single-selection voting system (all voting systems are actually "plurality"). Don't like your Dem mayor? Your only alternative is a Repub! Here's my short, sweet boiler plate with the sure-fire cure for that:

"Simple score voting involves absolutely no fractions, division, multiplication, or other complications. Each voter can give from 1 to 10 votes to each of a certain number of candidates, up to say 20, since letting them give votes to 100 candidates would just take too long. They can't give a zero (0) vote since then they could write in someone's name and give zero votes, which is not nice. At the end of the day, all the votes are simply added up -- that's it. So you could, for example, give 10 votes to candidates you really want, and 9 votes to a "lesser evil", but well financed, one. If the “lesser evil” one wins, you will only have sacrificed 10% of your voting power. It's absolutely simple."

No more two-party Catch-22! Passive "justice" is not enough. Demand actual power!

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

..., summed up perfectly. The people lose, because the collective "they" just do not get it!
Sexism/racism; what's the difference? None: that's the society you/we live in. Get over it and move on or die.
American society is living in la la land; totally lost to reality by the media. Election? Ha! Coronation or usurpation; those are the choices in the rigged game of U.S. politics.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

[sarcasm]And speaking of dogs, why won't that stupid, rich, corporate bitch quit?[/sarcasm]

It's like 2000-fucking-8 all over again with our "progressive" friends.

This kind of crap is almost enough to make me SUPPORT Clinton again.

Almost.

Submitted by cg.eye on

Sexism/racism; what's the difference? None: that's the society you/we live in. Get over it and move on or die.

Isn't one of the reasons Saunders has traction this campaign is due to thousands of people objecting to the fatal practice of racism in this country? And, the people who've been vocal since Occupy finding a way to act, again?

If we, as a people, truly "get over it and move on" concerning sexism or racism, whose side are we on? Which constituency demands such blissful avoidance not as a bug, but a feature?

I can object to Democratic candidates using such issues as a cloak for corporatism, *and* insist that the candidates I support, do more than provide lip service.

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

We must get beyond the two-party system. The big parties are toxic.

Both Clinton and Bush are fascists. Which one will provide a nicer WW-III experience?

What will gender matter then?

Get machine-free, strategic score voting. Or we all will die. Yeah really.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

Supposedly, Sanders has traction because he speaks to social issues and suddenly being a socialist isn't criminal (politically).
The PC crowd is its own worst enemy. In my 70 years I've never been able to convince a racist/sexist of the error of their ways (it's a bloody waste of time). So, I take responsibility for my own values and work to point.
The two party system is just a cruel shame; this whole thing stinks of the past once again; but of course this time it's different. RIGHT!!!
Those looking for the second coming will be led to the same end as the last 50 years.
One cannot win a rigged game; especially when that one cannot see there is no longer a democracy. Oh, it's called that, hell, that word is a weapon used to beat up the world. I hate that word because, in America, it's a bloody lie.
I will no longer give that lie a vote.
I appreciate you didn't use ad hominum (to the person) attack on my post. My views are radical and I do not expect agreement, nor court it, but opine the way I view from afar.
I left 6 weeks after the war criminal Bush attacked Iraq on a lie. I don't much care about POV, just don't be willfully blind/ignorant to reality(not the manufactured one).
Cheers