It's not just him, this seems very common. Yet this annoys me:
"To be clear, I'm not here to argue that she is destined to win. She might, but she might not. It depends on many things. But there are a lot of people who will say that Clinton has unique problems with the electorate, and that's the part that's false."
https://prospect.org/waldman/hillary-clinton-just-polarizing-every-other-major-political-figure-no-more-no-less
Ok, his larger point in this piece that she's no more or less polarizing than any other candidate has some truth in it. Still, why do we have to be so agnostic about her chances? She might not win, it's true, but her chances of winning are a lot better.
I mean if we can be honest here, the election is very likely going to be between her and Jeb Bush-yes a 'battle of dynasties.'
So while the GOP sounds like it wants to call her a dynastic candidate this will a big mistake in the general as Jeb comes from a bigger dynasty than she does-we've had just one Clinton so far but two Bushes. Beyond that, at least the Clintons' success is meritocratic: they had to earn their money and their status rather than being born into it like both Bush Presidents-especially W; at least Poppy Bush had achieved something prior to being President.
Still, Jeb Bush is at least the grandson of a very privileged background. The Bush family is truly aristocratic unlike the Clintons who worked very hard and certainly never traveled in any paved road to get here.
This is not an unimportant disticntion and when Hillary is attacked for being a dynastic candidate this should be pointed out.
As for the idea of her being 'coronated' I for one don't think this matters. Apparently most Democrats disagree as 54% want her to have a tough primary fight-but 40% do not so mine is still hardly a fringe position.
Again, there is this fetish for electoral uncertainty. I guess in the minds of a lot of media people if she runs basically unopposed in the Democratic party this shows she's not a small d democratic choice of the party.
This makes no sense to me. If she wasn't the clear choice of the party there would be other candidates running. As Josh Marshall says there is a huge Hillary wing of the Democratic party and I for one thought that her video announcing her candidacy was brilliant.
I was somewhat disappointed that Rachel Maddow tried to make this an issue of her spending all this money on consultants. Ok, she's going to spend lots of money. Lots and lots of money. What would you prefer-that she limit herself to public financing while Jeb and his aristocratic buddies raise billions?
I also am struck by how proud Saturday Night Live seems to be about its unreconstructed misogyny after all these years. When it caricatures Hillary, the best it can come up with is saying 'She's so cold! Why can't she act like a woman? Not be so ambitious.'
How far that show hasn't come. No wonder it's so mediocre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdNYXMQoy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqGgQ9dMvcY
Look, I understand that's the point of SNL-to send up politicians and political candidates and this has been one of it's strengths over the years. But with Hillary I'm struck with how they have to strike such a blatantly sexist line. For whatever reason SNL has always been and remains one of the most woman hating shows on television. There's something about its kind of humor or sensibility that seems to be connected to contempt for women.
I'm still convinced that there is a lot more freedom for people to make sexist attacks than say racist or even anti gay attacks. You wouldn't see SNL ever go racist like this. Indeed, I've always noticed that the show acts like it likes black people-as in its mind they're hip-but not women, particularly white women.
Think I'm wrong? Take a look at the archives some time. See how they've treated women over the years. They are always portrayed in the most unflattering terms imaginable. Then see how black folks are treated/ It's not even comparable.
P.S. I haven't watched SNL so much lately but the way I remember it for years is that the show normally starts strong-the opening monologue-and yes, the political satires are usually the best-and you have great hope for the show but then the show as it progresses turns out to be a big letdown.
"To be clear, I'm not here to argue that she is destined to win. She might, but she might not. It depends on many things. But there are a lot of people who will say that Clinton has unique problems with the electorate, and that's the part that's false."
https://prospect.org/waldman/hillary-clinton-just-polarizing-every-other-major-political-figure-no-more-no-less
Ok, his larger point in this piece that she's no more or less polarizing than any other candidate has some truth in it. Still, why do we have to be so agnostic about her chances? She might not win, it's true, but her chances of winning are a lot better.
I mean if we can be honest here, the election is very likely going to be between her and Jeb Bush-yes a 'battle of dynasties.'
So while the GOP sounds like it wants to call her a dynastic candidate this will a big mistake in the general as Jeb comes from a bigger dynasty than she does-we've had just one Clinton so far but two Bushes. Beyond that, at least the Clintons' success is meritocratic: they had to earn their money and their status rather than being born into it like both Bush Presidents-especially W; at least Poppy Bush had achieved something prior to being President.
Still, Jeb Bush is at least the grandson of a very privileged background. The Bush family is truly aristocratic unlike the Clintons who worked very hard and certainly never traveled in any paved road to get here.
This is not an unimportant disticntion and when Hillary is attacked for being a dynastic candidate this should be pointed out.
As for the idea of her being 'coronated' I for one don't think this matters. Apparently most Democrats disagree as 54% want her to have a tough primary fight-but 40% do not so mine is still hardly a fringe position.
Again, there is this fetish for electoral uncertainty. I guess in the minds of a lot of media people if she runs basically unopposed in the Democratic party this shows she's not a small d democratic choice of the party.
This makes no sense to me. If she wasn't the clear choice of the party there would be other candidates running. As Josh Marshall says there is a huge Hillary wing of the Democratic party and I for one thought that her video announcing her candidacy was brilliant.
I was somewhat disappointed that Rachel Maddow tried to make this an issue of her spending all this money on consultants. Ok, she's going to spend lots of money. Lots and lots of money. What would you prefer-that she limit herself to public financing while Jeb and his aristocratic buddies raise billions?
I also am struck by how proud Saturday Night Live seems to be about its unreconstructed misogyny after all these years. When it caricatures Hillary, the best it can come up with is saying 'She's so cold! Why can't she act like a woman? Not be so ambitious.'
How far that show hasn't come. No wonder it's so mediocre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdNYXMQoy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqGgQ9dMvcY
Look, I understand that's the point of SNL-to send up politicians and political candidates and this has been one of it's strengths over the years. But with Hillary I'm struck with how they have to strike such a blatantly sexist line. For whatever reason SNL has always been and remains one of the most woman hating shows on television. There's something about its kind of humor or sensibility that seems to be connected to contempt for women.
I'm still convinced that there is a lot more freedom for people to make sexist attacks than say racist or even anti gay attacks. You wouldn't see SNL ever go racist like this. Indeed, I've always noticed that the show acts like it likes black people-as in its mind they're hip-but not women, particularly white women.
Think I'm wrong? Take a look at the archives some time. See how they've treated women over the years. They are always portrayed in the most unflattering terms imaginable. Then see how black folks are treated/ It's not even comparable.
P.S. I haven't watched SNL so much lately but the way I remember it for years is that the show normally starts strong-the opening monologue-and yes, the political satires are usually the best-and you have great hope for the show but then the show as it progresses turns out to be a big letdown.
No comments:
Post a Comment