“The Clintons”
Guest Editorial
I am a woman. I am a feminist. And I am a democrat.
But that is totally besides the point.
During this election cycle, I have become increasingly disturbed by one phrase that has occurred almost everywhere: by newscasters (on all new stations), by pundits, by anchors, and by the voters who have been quoted by these venues. The phrase? “The Clintons.”
Because despite being a woman, a feminist, and a democrat I am becoming quickly unnerved by the fact that in Hillary Clinton’s campaign she is being referred to as “The Clintons” with absolutely no pause or second thought about what this phrase implies. “The Clintons” is a way of saying that voting for Hillary gets the package deal: husband and wife (like Sonny and Cher?) leading us from the dark days of the Bush administration. The way I see it, regardless of who I plan to vote for in the upcoming elections, this phrase is problematic for at least two reasons.
First, given that Hillary is being touted as the “feminist vote” by many, I find the phrase “The Clintons” decidedly anti-feminist. It implies that if we are going to vote for a woman we can only do so with a man backing her. It implies that either a woman can never get the vote on her own, or else a woman just can’t do the job on their own. It is condescending and patronizing. If I am going to vote for a woman president, it is going to be because of her credentials, not because of her husband’s credentials. Because otherwise, this allegedly “feminist vote” is suddenly more than a little anti-feminist. Rather than being about a woman’s strength, power, and talents, it is implying that “behind every mediocre woman is a great man” or something like that.
Second, it is so unabashedly manipulative in that none of those people using the phrase “The Clintons” are even questioning their use. It implies that the news programs, pundits, and campaign organizers feel that we won’t notice if they slip good ole’ Bill into the equation because god knows we aren’t *ever* going to elect a woman unless we are tricked by thinking we are electing a man. It seems that the phrase “The Clintons” is used just as manipulatively as Hillary’s non-existent crying in the allegedly “emotional moment” that turned around her campaign. It implies that the news media and campaign officials think we are pretty damn stupid. And perhaps we are, but that doesn’t make me any less irritated.
This whole woman-for-president election cycle keeps reminding me of the rhetoric that was floating about during the Geraldine Ferraro days. I was pretty young at the time, but I remember people repeatedly remarking, “We just aren’t ready for a woman vice-president.” Even in elementary school I (at some level) understood how ludicrous that sentiment was. “We aren’t ready…” implies that we know that eventually we will be ready. And if that’s the case, then how are we not ready now?
People wonder, now, if a woman is ultimately electable for the president. But if we are electing “The Clintons” we are not even putting that question to the test.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t question the assertion that america is more than a tidbit sexist — I’ve got a bunch of friends in the other room watching a woman get raped in some Rob Zombie “horror movie” as I type this.
But, I think the political reality is what’s being reflected by talk of “The Clintons.” I think it’s weird to assert that Bill would NOT be a huge factor in a Hillary presidency. Bill Clinton is a major international power player and he would, of course, be involved.
Also, I was under the impression that what turned her campaign around was not a public breakdown, but private fraud in recent primaries. That’s just my impression though, I’m already walking away from it.
I gotta agree with Uncle H up there. We can’t deny that a lot of Hillary’s qualification for president is that she is in the “unique” position of having snuggled an american president every night after a hard day of presidenting. Simply by virtue of being first lady does she have experience in the white house and of the white house that the other candidates can’t touch. Whether it’s useful experience is very much up in the air, but we cannot deny that it exists.
More interestingly, I think that Bill is helping to expose something that we as a society never really considered before: that when we are electing a president, we are also electing a first lady. That the first lady is a dude and a former president is throwing enough light on the issue that we finally have to admit to ourselves that we do, at least to an extent, very much judge our candidates by their wives. (Look at all the coverage Mrs. Obama has had, for instance.) What do we do with the first lady when she’s a former president of the US?
Besides, I figure Bill will make an excellent first lady. He’s got a marvelously friendly-yet-serious manner, and he looks pretty in sensible suits.
Someone should have said, “You’re crying? There’s no crying in politics!”
All signs point to a media propaganda campaign slanted towards “The Clintons”, and yet another rigged election. Hillary is merely a pawn of the big money corporation, and nothing will change when she is elected President. Nice article.
Hillary Clinton is a murderer. She was the prime reason that Vince Foster, one of the more honest men in the Clinton admin., was murdered. She orchestrated it. She removed evidence from his office. The Clinton’s are not who they seem to be. THey are very close to the Bush family. In fact, it was Bush Sr. as director of the CIA in 1975 who took Bill under his wing. THe whole Mena drug smuggling scandal under Clinton’s governor watch was a favor to Bush Sr. and his nazi activities happening in South and Central America. Plus, Hillary is really a Republican. She was a Barry Goldwater Girl and one of the attorney’s for the impeachment of Nixon under a Republican leadership on the Impeachment proceedings.
OBama is already picked as the next president anyways. Our votes haven’t counted for a long time.
Israel and AIPAC pick our president. NOT US! sites like whatreallyhappened.com, nogw.com, judicial-inc.biz, vialls.info all prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Also listen to Gary Spaceman Bell and Alan Watt out of Canada. It’s amazing that the only two people that the US can get the real truth from on political events are from Canada. A country also ruled by zionist and high level masons.
wait….Sunny and Cher aren’t running for president?
I am a woman, and an ‘equalist’ (I think a person’s humanity comes first and all other qualifications, including their gender second), and a libertarian. And I loathe Hilary Clinton. I think she is a lying hypocritical manipulator who is only interested in money and power (although not necessarily in that order) and she would walk over our dead and brittle bones to get it.
I’d vote for Cthulu before I’d vote for Hilary…and least Cthulu is upfront about what it’s after.
WHO WILL BE EATEN FIRST?
Do copies of that still exist online? I’d love to find it…for anyone scratching their heads, it was a dead-on parody of Jack T. Chick comic books, only it evangelized for Cthulu and it was paralysis-induction type funny.
WHO WILL BE EATEN FIRST!
I wonder of the respective campaigns have seen this: http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=902
It’s funny to me that there’s discussion now of whether Bill Clinton isn’t actually calling the shots behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign. When Bill first ran for president, people were speculating that Hillary was the one actually calling the shots. After the election, “Don’t Blame Me, I Didn’t Vote for Billary” was a common Republican bumper sticker. In other words, “the Clintons” have always been a package deal. It may be decidedly un-feminist, but it’s not exactly sexist either.
Interesting side note: Hillary has deliberately positioned herself as “Hillary” and not “Clinton” or “Senator Clinton” during this election cycle. Her election materials say “Hillary 08″ and not “Clinton 08.”
I had assumed the reason they were being positioned as “The Clintons” was to make Hillary more palatable to democrats, and had nothing to do with her gender.
Hillary is no more a democrat that Liberman. She authored an amendment banning flag burning. She believes that using federal funds to have the CDC drop what they’re doing and sponsor studies on how children get addicted to video games and become obese as a result is a higher priority than, say, research into disease prevention. She consistently votes against consumer choice and fair use when it comes to DRM issues. She has consistently voted in favor of the War in Iraq and then lied about it to the American people.
Quite frankly I’d rather vote for The Clintons than for Hillary, and it’s got nothing to do with her gender. But I’d rather vote for Kusinich than either of em.
I agree with you Tovarich, except maybe on the last point.
I have to admit I’m probably a sucker for artful rhetoric. Before Obama had ever made any mention about candidacy, before I knew who he was, I happened to be flipping through the channels and saw him speaking on C-SPAN.
God help me, I watched him speak for 2 hours straight. C-SPAN is usually a fair alternative to klonopin or thorzine so far as I’m concerned. I mean, I’m all for actually allowing politicians to speak in something more than the sound-bites allowed by most news stations, the problem is, most politicians seem to have really lost the art of rhetoric. (I mean this in it’s original sense, not in the more cynical sense that we use it in now.)
I’ve actually become slightly less enamored with him since the campaign was underway, I can only imagine that this is because he now has tons of handlers who are probably arguing in back rooms about every single word he should use, every posture he should strike… But still, given the other options, I’m still sold.
I just hope to God if he wins he brings in a well-rounded, experienced cabinet. It’s good having a visionary in the “CEO” position. But if you don’t have a “Leo McGarry” under you…
Well, I’ve revealed far too many of my dark secrets in this comment.