How many times can men say that Clinton needed to do what they wanted her to do?
Hillary Clinton didn’t need to do anything — she chose to get behind Barack Obama, which is what she was expected to do.
18 million people cast their primary ballot for Hillary Clinton — she didn’t need to do anything to remain a potent force in the Democratic Party. She could have, had she chosen to, told Barack Obama “it ain’t over ’til its over, I’m still the better choice, I’ve still got more experience, I’ve still got better ideas, and I’m still far more electable than you — and superdelegates have nearly three months to figure that out.”
But we are now going to be told …
Senator Clinton did all she needed to do (andy ’power glutes’ sullivan)
To her credit, Clinton did what she needed to do. Cliff (nobody would read me if I wasn’t now part of the FDL brand) Schlecter — so nice of Cliff to let us know that Hillary is “’a credit’ to her gender’.
Front page
still hating-Dowd-
says she’s faking it— Watch Out, Meryl Streep! She’s a Master Thespian
I Couldn't Agree More, Paul
She did what she always made absolutely clear she was going to do, under these circumstances, that at the point she decided she had taken her campaign as far as she could without hurting the chances that a Democrat would be in the White House for the next four years, that she would work as hard to help the nominee, including if it was Barak Obama, win the GE as she had to become the nominee.
She was so good today, and what she did she did so completely on our own terms, she actually seemed to scare the usual suspects over at MSNBC sufficiently that they just couldn’t figure out anything negative about her; I must say, without that Clinton rules script, they seemed lost.
She was so good, that they couldn’t even say, if only she’d done this on Tuesday, although no doubt others will.
Not just trying to disempower Clinton, but all women--who ought
to know their damn places (which vary depending on their age, of course). These comments were and are infuriating.
And, once again, it’s the MCM (Maintstream Corporate
Amberglow, I clicked to the MoDo piece--but had to stop reading
after the bit about pretending to be interested in China and the china.
What is wrong with Maureen Dowd? What is wrong with her editors?
What, indeed, is wrong with the NYTimes????
paul l
yep
These guys are so dumb...
unless of course they’re really trying to drive Clinton supporters away and get McCain elected. But I’m not sure I think they’re that smart.
In re NYTimes, back in 1894, Eugene V. Debs led a labor protest by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Palace Sleeping Car Company. The NYTimes called him an “enemy of the human race.” Never been the friend of the working class.
(This is told in Democracy’s Prisoner by Ernest Freeberg.)
Ever wonder why
stories like Lisa Belkin’s “Opt-Out Revolution” get front-page status, while actual feminist data and critiques (if they ever appear) are relegated to inside pages and on-line only columns? The Times is invested with a false sense of entitlement and a huge commitment to maintaining the status quo when it comes to racial, gender, and class hierarchies in American society.
E.J. Graff had an interesting article in the Columbia Journalism Review last year about how the NYTimes has been “discovering” a renewed commitment to domesticity by white, upper-middle class women since the 1950s. They run stories about this “return home” every 5-10 years, as they struggle to cram the toothpaste back into the tube: http://www.cjr.org/essay/the_optout_myth…. (Sorry! I will figure out how to do this properly next time.)
she really needs professional help--
she’s like the female version of Tweety with her obsessive Clinton hatreds—it’s pathological.