September 19, 2012 / Opportunity

Apologies to Hillary, Revisionist History and Cognitive Dissonance

by

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.

These past two years, we have been stunned by a pundit class offering everything from grudging to glowing praise of Hillary Clinton, a candidate they had roundly excoriated four years earlier.  What changed?  And will the men and women in mainstream media who exhibited a reckless, cruel bias toward not only Hillary, but her supporters, now pretend the debacle of the 2008 primaries never occurred?  Today, watching their vapid, verbal sparring in expensive suits as they sit behind well-appointed desks, butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.  Yet, it is important we not forget their breach of responsibility, lest past become prologue in 2016 and beyond.  The specter of Secretary Clinton loomed large at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte two weeks ago.  Though she was working half way around the world as President Clinton offered up his Convention speech on President Obama’s behalf, the #1 trending twitter hash tag that night was: “Hillary 2016.”  Inquiring minds want to know – will she run again?   And so, the feeding frenzy has begun, two months before we even have the results of the current critical election.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball was one of Secretary Clinton’s worst “man-handlers.”  Now, he leads the parade discussing Hillary’s prospective 2016 run and how she might prevail.  He offers a demeanor innocent as that of a newborn, behaving as though he had rooted for her all along:

When Matthews says, “She was dynamite in New Hampshire,” one may recall his many “bi-polar” comments about Hillary… Perhaps Matthews would rather we forget he basically accused an entire state of being racist (referencing the “Bradley Effect”), since she beat all polling averages to pull out a win there.  Matthews didn’t think she was “dynamite” then, as evidenced by this litany:  “Nurse Ratched,” “she devil,” “Madame DeFarge,” “domineering mother,” “The only reason anybody voted for her is they felt sorry for her because her husband messed around.”  Matthews also dubbed her male supporters “castratos in the eunuch chorus.”

His current about face might simply be a manipulation to seduce voters to the polls for Obama, thinking that would somehow bode better for Hillary Clinton’s Presidential future.  But the very existence of this video at this premature stage showcases the wrongheaded focus of the media, and particularly the ghoulish fascination with all things Hillary or Palin.  The modus operandi of “chew them up and spit them out” is more about ratings than having the decency to judge a woman solely on the merits – or more important, keeping our focus squarely where it should be – the current race and who would be best to lead us out of the difficulties in which we now find ourselves.

Guest panelist and ex-Congressman Harold Ford Jr. made an interesting comment in praise of Secretary Clinton when he tactfully offered that we were hungry for someone who loves politics and policy, is extremely hard working and knows her way around.  But then there was Joan Walsh of Salon.com trumpeting the false narrative that Hillary Clinton acted “entitled” last time, not courting Americans or asking for their votes.  Bull crap.  It is true she evolved into a better candidate as the race wore on – but she has always worked hard for everything she got.  I never saw a politician more prepared out on the trail or more willing to engage in specifics, reaching out whether or not she got a warm reception.  Journalists’ and pundits’ revisionist history is a function of their need to assuage guilt or, more likely, to dodge blame since they didn’t bother with vetting and proper focus last time out.

That never stopped the likes of Margery Eagan of the Boston Herald from beating on Clinton.  As Eagan puts it in “An Apology to Hillary”:

“When her husband was president, I made a career out of trashing Hillary Clinton’s hairdos, pantsuits, her attempted health care coup, her right-wing conspiracy theories, her staying with that slippery serial philanderer. Four years ago in the presidential primary I rooted for Obama over her.”

Many have made a lucrative career out of thrashing Hillary and other powerful, inconvenient women.  That’s really the bottom line here, isn’t it?  It’s all a business.

And now Eagan says…

“She then went on to perform [as Secretary of State] so ably that nearly two-thirds of Americans, an almost unprecedented percentage, approve of her…

More than once since 2008 I’ve wondered: Would she have done a better job than Obama? I don’t know. But I do know I sold this woman short.”

But Ms. Eagan’s apology and others like it are far less important than the cognitive dissonance that remains today.  The New Republic just offered a piece by Neera Tanden, Why Democrats Need a Woman on the National Ticket.

In it, Ms. Tanden praises Democrats for showcasing deep diversity, while stating Dems need to elevate a woman to high office.  I agree on the second point, but as to the first, where was all the diversity of which she spoke?  Our female Senators?  None of them got a prime time speaking slot.  We saw 25-year veteran Senator Barbara Mikulski flanked by her 8 sisters Senators for a photo op while she made a wonderful 6-minute speech that few people probably heard.  “Every issue is a woman’s issue,” Mikulski said.  This was one of the most important statements of the Convention.

Who did the Dems advertise?  A man by the name of Julian Castro, currently referred to as the “Latin Barack Obama.”  A mayor of a mid-sized city in Texas, he has never held statewide office.  Apparently, politics and wooing certain demographics comes first.  Political leaders still show an addiction to shiny new toys over proven ability.  Ms. Tanden continues:

The United States is long overdue to have a woman on the national ticket. By 2016 we will have come ninety-six years since ratifying the 19th Amendment without once electing a woman to either office. People inevitably focus on Hillary Clinton (my former boss), though she has said she won’t run and we ought to take her at her word (though I hope she changes her mind). Still, if Hillary doesn’t run, that’s no excuse for ignoring other women qualified for the job. Passing over women yet again would not just be an embarrassment, but a genuine handicap for our national politics.

But how do we avoid “embarrassment” when the party doesn’t even bother to showcase up and coming stars…Kirsten Gillibrand?  Amy Klobuchar?  Why does a mayor no one ever heard of get a prime time speaking slot and not one of our Senators?  Ms. Tanden may also not be aware that in 2008, Leon Weiseltier, editor of The New Republic, had these choice words to describe Hillary Clinton:

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn President, just leave me alone.”

Ms. Tanden states that we rank “80th internationally in the percentage of women in our national legislature.”  With statements like the one TNR’s editor made above, it is no wonder.  And “[g]overnorship numbers are even grimmer—only six states currently have women governors.”  Four of those are Republicans.

Tanden reports:

A growing scholarly literature suggests that female leaders are more active on “women’s issues” than their male counterparts. For example, studies have repeatedly shown that women in Congress and state legislatures are more likely to prioritize issues like childcare, domestic violence, and women’s health and reproductive rights. Women officeholders raise these issues more often in floor speeches, more frequently co-sponsor legislation to address them, and more often secure passage of such legislation into law.

Perhaps not enough women were aware that women legislators really do pay attention to the concerns of the whole woman, rather than condescending to them as one issue voters.  That is why it was doubly painful that someone who had long been such a champion for women was treated so disrespectfully in 2008, and why we show few signs of departing from that mistake.  Should Hillary Clinton run in 2016, she will have to endure ageism and sexism…Only we have the power to stop that ingrained bias or feeding frenzy, rejecting spin and bias in favor of fact and attention to a candidate’s actual record of achievement.  Any woman running should not have to hold up the banner for all of womanhood or motherhood in her demeanor, dress, voice or some ever-shifting likeability metric.  That is a hurdle too high for any candidate.

Tanden concludes:

“[A]s the self-proclaimed party of women’s rights, Democrats should aspire to place a woman on the ticket in 2016.  It’s long past time.”

Tell that to Weiseltier, Matthews, Eagan and company.  It is doubtful their ingrained stereotypes have evaporated.

************************

Anita Finlay is the author of Dirty Words on Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary Supporter’s Rude Awakening, now available in print and Kindle editions on Amazon.

Like Anita Finlay, Author on Facebook.

Follow @AnitaFinlay on Twitter.

Join Our Email List

Be the first to know the latest initiatives from The New Agenda to improve the lives of women and girls.

Thank you for joining our list! Check your inbox to confirm your subscription.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Thanks, Anita, as always for saying so eloquently what needs to be said daily by anyone and everyone who believes that sexism is just as wrong an injustice as racism and is not afraid to say it loud and clear!

    I’m certain pundits, like Matthews, are counting on the attention span of the American people being short, so that he can engage in this revisionist history about Hillary.

    As one of those bitter, old women, I will NEVER forget Matthews, Olbermann, and pretty much all of the male pundits and their female enablers how they treated Hillary and us.

    I also want to point out to those Americans with these short attention spans that the dems protested en masse when Al Gore won the popular vote (as Hillary did), but lost through highly questionable methods used by the repubs and the Supreme Court and ask why were they silent when essentially the same thing happened to Hillary?

    The dems silence during that infamous May 31st meeting of the democratic leadership in changing their own rules to favor obama over Hillary was a truly dispicable time in the democrat party’s history. That event was the beginning of the end of the democrat party as far as I’m concerned. The sad thing is they were willing to gamble away the democrat principles in favor of an empty suit, with no experience and no record of helping the people like Hillary did.

    No, I’ll never forget and I’m holding Matthews, et al. responsible.

  • Bes

    I am so sick of the Obama-rama of the morons in media I have unsubscribed to Daily Beast,no longer go to Yahoo news page and stopped even turning on any news cast but my local news or FOX news. And if you look at their ratings they have very few viewers left and are likely sacrificing those with their stupid actions. For the record FOX has more viewers than all the other news stations combined.

  • The DNC featured San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro because they need the Latino vote in order to win. Women were certainly front and center during the convention.

    And why watch FOX News when we have Rachel Maddow, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Alex Wagner on MSNBC!!

    Beth

  • anna

    it seems to me that that was the point Anita made. the dems need to give a little known Latino mayor a top spot for the Latino vote. They don’t have a Suzanna Martinez. and if they had they would not recognize her as asset. That is what you get when you marry a party instead of holding out what they are willing to do for the women’s block. I will vote the green party this time. none of the major parties seem to find a capable woman for the top ticket.

  • JeanLouise

    Thank you, Anita, for another excellent article. I see Tweety Matthews is still a prick and Joan Walsh has turned into a pod person. A couple of weeks ago, she actually made some kind of ridiculous apology for identifying with Hillary as a woman in 2008. I hope she’s getting well-paid for her turn as an Obot because she’s certainly lost any pretense to integrity.

    I agree with Neera Tanden but I think we have to expand her point beyond the Democrats. All Americans need to make it clear that no top national ticket of any party is acceptable unless one of the candidates is a woman. We far outnumber African-Americans and Latinos in this nation but we’ve always been pushed to the side because the progress of some other “minority” group has been deemed more urgent than the progress of women who live as a minority even though we outnumber any possible special interest group. It’s time for women to stop serving coffee and start giving keynote speeches. When I heard that Juan Castro was going to speak in prime time, I wondered who the hell Juan Castro was. The Democratic Party’s failure to showcase any woman who wasn’t the candidate’s wife or talking about women’s healthcare made it clear just how ghettoized the Democratic Party is in 2012.

    Bes, there is no “news” on FOX News. There is only propaganda.

  • Bes

    I wouldn’t watch MSNBC if I were paid to do it they are so in the tank for Obama just like in 2008. That is not journalism. Our ambassador and three others are assassinated on September 11th and the media want to go after Romney for some BS about 47%? If the Obama administration and media really believe the assassinations are the result of a random demonstration about a movie trailer they are dumber than a box full of rocks. More likely they are just lying and think we are stupid enough to buy it. It makes me sick. I do plan to watch the election returns on MSNBC as it should be a riot watching them report the Romney win. Usually I watch my diet but I am thinking pizza and some really good beer will be called for that night, I’m not sure about desert yet.

  • Bes

    FOX is not perfect but it is far more balanced than the Obama-rama on Daily Beast, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo,etc. As far as I can tell FOX is the only channel reporting the truth regarding the September 11 assassinations in our embassy in Libya. Of course you can read coverage of the situation in the media from other countries but the American media is pathetic.

  • JeanLouise

    Bes, a study that came out about a year ago revealed that people who watch Fox News are less informed on current events than people who don’t watch any new programs or read papers or news magazines. They pick up more accurate information in casual conversation than Fox viewers do.

    I didn’t see the coverage but I was aware that Romney had attacked Obama on the anniversary of 9/11 for a statement that Obama didn’t make, while mischaracterizing the statement. Considering that Romney is running for president, his actions need to be closely examined. In fact, Romney called his own press conference on 9/12 and doubled down on his libelous statement of the night before. It cracks me up that his supporters whined about the press covering his press conference.

    The factual information about what occurred in Libya is sparse at this point because it happened in Libya. Duh. I believe that Hillary was responding to information from local sources that the riot was related to the anti-Muslim film trailer. Of course, an investigation will take place. I’m concerned that the consulate didn’t have better structural and human security and I’d like to know how the continued cuts to the State Department’s budget might have contributed to that lack of security.

    As for his 47% statement, why would anyone not be concerned that, in a roomful of millionaires and billionaires, a presidential candidate disrespected almost half the country including seniors, military personnel, the disabled and the working poor?

    For the record, I will be voting for Rocky Anderson and I haven’t watched cable news since 2008.

  • Listening to Bes it’s no wonder the women’s movement is so far behind. And to Anna, if you want the Dems to have more women elected officials then urge women to get more involved in local Dem politics and take over the party. The Dems already have women as 50% of their delegates, encourage women to take control at the local level, and get more women on the ticket.

  • Linda Anselmi

    Anita – Great post. Spot on!

  • Julie

    “a study that came out about a year ago revealed that people who watch Fox News are less informed on current events than people who don’t watch any new programs or read papers or news magazines. They pick up more accurate information in casual conversation than Fox viewers do”

    Jean Louise, LOL, have you seen this study? What were the questions and how were they asked? You do realize you can get the results you want from studies like this. It’s all in the wording and what questions you ask.

    After Obama was elected there was a u-tube video asking Obama supporters questions about Obama and where he stood on issues, etc. Most of these people had no idea of what was going on or who stood for what. Also how about the lady that said Obama was going to pay her bills. Should we conclude that these people represent all Obama voters.

    Fox news study results, Koch brothers, etc are all democratic talking points. Talking points are for people who do not want to think. This Country needs thinking people. They need to turn off the TV and do their own research. The media cannot be trusted and should be called out for their lies and twisting of the truth.

  • Bes

    Open you eyes, and don’t act like gullible sheepole. The attack in Libya was a planned and successful terrorist attack on Americans on the significant date of September 11th. It is reported in foreign media from day one that there was no demonstration over a movie trailer going on in Libya at the time of the attack. It is reported that our Ambassador was taken from the embassy alive and was raped and tortured before he was drug through the streets. This info does not match up with anything you have been told by CNN or MSNBC or the Obama administration but FOX has been on the story. I am personally shocked that the Corporate Media is willing to sacrifice what little remaining credibility they have to hold this cover up for Obama.

    I don’t find the 47% remark of Romney any more offensive than the “bitter people clinging to their guns and religion” remark of Obama in 2008. It isn’t like we have the option of voting for a gaff free candidate. It certainly shouldn’t lead a newscast when there has been another 911 attack.

  • JeanLouise

    Julie, I saw that video and the Obama supporters sounded stupid and uninformed. The difference is that those were people off the street. Romney is the GOP presidential candidate. He was culled from an illustrious group that included a man who thinks that the use of contraception is ruining civilization (he won the primary in my swing state), a man who just closed almost all the health clinics in his state that provided birth control, Pap smears and breast exams to low income women because they were run by Planned Parenthood who, in a very few of those clinics, provided a legal medical service to desperate girls and women, a pizza magnate/black token who didn’t know that China has had nuclear capabilities since 1964, a thrice-married windbag who once shut down the federal government because Bill Clinton wouldn’t let him sit in the front of Air Force One and a woman who’s more interested in accusing loyal Muslim-Americans of being terrorists than in addressing the economic crisis.

    This is what Fox News and Roger Ailes has given America. If you think that concern about the Koch brothers is no more than a Democratic talking point, I suggest that you pay attention to the mass of moderate Republican legistators who were just voted out of Kansas government by candidates supported by Koch brothers funded Tea Partiers.

    I don’t do talking points but anyone who thinks that Fox News is “fair and balanced” is about five cans short of a six-pack.

  • JeanLouise

    Bes, what was the name of the person who reported that Ambassador Stevens had been kidnapped, raped and tortured before any investigation had been done or Stevens’ body autopsied? How did that person know that? Was that person present? What motive might that person have for making those claims? “It’s been reported” in this case is not a news report. It’s gossip.

    Fox News is pure propaganda for the corporatists. It may well be that MSNBC is as well. I don’t watch any television news so I don’t know but every time you praise Fox News as the only legitimate television news source, you embarass yourself.

  • Julie

    Jean Louise – you embarrass yourself with Obama talking points. Are the republicans not allowed to have donors? The democrats have George Soros, Warren Buffet, Hollywood rich celebrities, MSNBC, CNN, Time magazine, New York Times, Newsweek, the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Saturday Night Live, light night tv all shilling for Obama and mocking Romney.

    You say Bes should be embarrassed for mentioning Fox News but you don’t know that MSNBC is so over the top in their support of Obama? They don’t even pretend to be fair. They would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit them.

    Also if you don’t watch any television news how do you know Fox hasn’t moved more to the center? It is a democrat talking point that Fox News is all propaganda and you embarrass yourself for making that claim.

  • Beth Corbin

    Julie- It’s you who should be embarrassed if you think FOX News has moved to the center. Do you really think anyone is going to believe that? You have a right to support Romney if you like, but he would be a terrible President for women (more than half the population), people of color and the poor. He’s only going to benefit you if you are part of the 1%.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Beth,

    With all due respect, your response to Juie sounds a great deal like the talking points I hear every night on MSNBC about Romney.

    As bad as you think Fox is, take another look at MSNBC, ABC, CBS and watch the propaganda spew from all of the pundits on these major news shows. They rarely, if ever, have an opposing opinion to counter the pletora of guests they have who support obama, no matter what the subject is about.

    During the 2008 primary, Fox news was ironically more fair in their reporting of Hillary than any of the other news outlets (except, of course, Hannity). I’ve never been a “fan” of Fox but I have come to see the other networks to be even more biased in their reporting in their ongoing, unrelenting support of obama, who, according to their collective opinions, has done no wrong, bears no responsibility and agrees with obama’s constant lament that it’s all bush’s fault when things go wrong and takes all of the credit when things go right! These “news/propaganda” programs consistently cheerlead for obama’s so-called “leadership” and it’s anything but “objective reporting.”

    As for obama’s support for women, I really don’t see any real changes that he’s implemented which will move us forward in any significant way. I honestly don’t believe either party has women’s best interests at heart, but I am concerned about a 2nd obama term where he is totally free to undermine the Constitution and put forth policies and make decisions without the consent of Congress, which he has already done in his first term.

    The media’s protection of obama concerns me greatly. The why and who is behind this protection needs to be answered before I will ever trust obama.

    Obviously, a Romney presidency would be under the media’s microscope every day and they would be as unmerciful and relentless with Romney as they were with Hillary and bush, which is the way a truly effective media should be in keeping the public informed of the facts and not opinion and partisanship, which has no place in reporting the news.

  • JeanLouise

    Kathleen, the media, including the NYT and the Washington Post treated Bush like he was there first and beloved child.

    Beth is not repeating talking points. A Romney presidency would be horrendous for women and for the middle class, not just the poor. Clearly, you are a Romney fan and you have the right to your opinion but you do not have the right to make up facts. Overturning Roe v. Wade, supporting a “personhood” amendment and ending family planning funding for poor women, all of which Romney has supported, are clearly harmful to women. Turning Medicare into a voucher program, reducing Social Security payments and destroying the remainder of the federal government except for the military would also be bad for women. Facts are facts. Romney/Ryan is a dangerous combination and women would be their first and most vulnerable victims.

    Julie, get a grip. I’ve never defended MSNBC and I have no doubt that they support Obama. This discussion didn’t start because anyone defended MSNBC. It began when Bes lauded Fox as the only fair news source on television. That was too bizarre to ignore. Just because I don’t glue myself to Fox News does not mean that I have no exposure to them. I’ve watched clips of their softball interviews with Romney and seen him get pissed with even those questions. I saw a clip of the Fox News anchor who got angry about something at the RNC convention and complained that the people were trying to undo what they were doing for Romney. He admitted that Fox News was the propaganda wing of the Republican Party. I’ve seen them give incorrect scientific information in an effort to support the GOP’s extreme views on climate change, education and women’s rights.

    The Koch brothers want to destroy workers’ rights, women’s rights, the environment and the economy. Shedon Adelson wants us to attack Iran and the three of them are committing hundreds of millions of dollars to tv ads which tell nothing but lies in order to buy the presidency for Romney so he can do their bidding.

    Ignorance apparently is bliss for you. I prefer to be informed. Not to worry, though, because I intend to vote for Rocky Anderson, not Obama. I don’t like Obama either. I just don’t think he hates Americans as much as Romney does.

  • JeanLouise is correct that I’m not repeating talking points, I’m sharing my belief from observation of the two candidates.

    I watched a documentary today about the Koch brothers that was both frightening and hopeful. The frightening part is what they are trying to do to this country. The hopeful part is when people united to fight back.

    This is an important election because of the age of some of the Supreme Court Justices. The next president will nominate one or two new people. Decisions on issues of importance to me are often 5-4. A loss of even one progressive could mean 20 years (or more) of really bad decisions.

  • yttik

    “This is an important election because of the age of some of the Supreme Court Justices.”

    And yet many conservative justices have made very good decisions while some alleged progressive ones have made bad ones. Harry Blackmun who actually wrote the ruling on Roe V Wade was a Republican justice appointed by Nixon. Roe/Wade was actually a conservative ruling based on your right to privacy versus big government’s right to invade it.

    Justice Scalia has actually been on the side of gay rights activists in a couple of recent rulings, while the more liberal court was opposed.

    Justice John Roberts just made a very liberal ruling on Obamacare.

  • JeanLouise

    The conservatives on the Supreme Court shut down Lilly Ledbetter and denied her the damages that the law clearly meant for her to have. They sold our political process to the corporatists and even foreign nations when they found in favor of Citizens United. They approved strip searches for anyone arrested for anything. If you don’t have the money to pay a traffic ticket and you get arrested, you can be strip searched while in holding. If you participate in a peaceful protest and get arrested, you can be strip searched.

    It appears that John Roberts upheld some parts of Obamacare because the nation’s approval rating for SCOTUS has dropped precipitously. He’s worried about his power and his legacy. If the Supreme Court continues to lose legitimacy with the public due to partisan decisions, they will have no power. How often is he going to betray his very conservative soul in the future? Not often, imo.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Sorry, Jean and Beth, but I disagree with you.

    Do you not remember how the media treated Hillary and then how they attacked Sarah Palin? You cannot tell me that the media is not biased in how they report the so-called “news”.

    We haven’t had real reporting for decades. they are simply cheerleaders for those politicians they agree with and go to great lengths to protect them from criticism.

    The same press we protested against when bush the younger was in power, you conveniently overlook is the same press who is now protecting obama. Obviously, both bush and obama did not have the requisite experience for the job, but were protected, coddled by the media.

    It seems to me that this fact alone proves that obama is nothing more than bush was…a puppet who should never have been president, much less given a 2nd term.

  • For yttik: Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy that was ultimately filled by Blackmun. The first two nominations were rejected by the United States Senate.

    Haynsworth was opposed by Democrats, more liberal Republicans, and the NAACP, who thought his court decisions appeared to favor segregation. He was also perceived as being anti-labor. Senators also questioned Carswell’s civil rights record, citing his voiced support for segregation during a failed Georgia legislative bid in 1948. Feminists accused him of being an opponent of women’s rights. A number of feminists, including Betty Friedan, testified before the Senate, opposed his nomination and contributed to his defeat.

    The only reason we got Blackmun is because the Senate did its job!

    Antonin Scalia is no friend to the LGBT community. Scalia took the wrong side in Bowers v Hardwick that stated that “homosexual sodomy” was not protected by the right to privacy and could be criminally prosecuted by the states. And he dissented in the Lawrence v Texas case that reversed Bowers. Think Progress says this about Scalia: “He’s defended torture and finds little wrong with executing the innocent. When a majority of his colleagues reached the radical conclusion that people have a right to choose their own sex partners, Scalia railed against them for embracing the “homosexual agenda”. During oral arguments over the Affordable Care Act, Scalia seemed unable to distinguish legal arguments from partisan talking points.”

    And as for Chief Justice Roberts I think it was his ego (more than anything else) that led him to uphold the Affordable Care Act. His vote guarantee’s him a place in history.

    For Kathleen Wynne: There certainly is bias in how news is reported. My contention in this thread is that FOX News is not “fair and balanced” as was suggested by Bes. I will agree that both George W. Bush and Obama were “coddled by the media.” I strongly disagree, however, with any suggestion that President Obama is anything like President Bush. In my opinion Bush replaces Reagan as the worst president ever. Bush lied to take us to war, gave billions to friends through no-bid contracts, and allowed torture to take place under the guise of “protecting freedom.” Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and has kept us from going completely underwater. Instead of losing millions of jobs we are now seeing a steady increase in new jobs. Homeowners are more secure, more people have healthcare – and women in particular have a lot more health care benefits than before. Women have more workplace protections and the LGBT community has a president that has lifted the ban on gays in the military, and expressed support for marriage equality.

    Obama would be a hell of a lot better for both women and lesbians and gays than would Romney.

  • yttik

    “Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and has kept us from going completely underwater. Instead of losing millions of jobs we are now seeing a steady increase in new jobs. Homeowners are more secure, more people have healthcare – and women in particular have a lot more health care benefits than before. ”

    That’s astounding because in spite of all these alleged new jobs, unemployment is actually increasing. More people are actually losing their health care benefits and insurance due to rate increases. Poverty is getting worse. The number of people now dependent on food stamps is breaking records.

    President Obama has also engaged in drone attacks and approved the assassination of two US citizens. The ME is even more unstable than it was and we are now less safe. The war rages on and has now spread to other countries.

    Women have more workplace protections? That’s laughable. Women now have an extended time to attempt to sue if they think they’ve experienced wage discrimination. Most women I know are more concerned about how their paychecks are bouncing and how unstable their employment is since their employers are all on the brink of bankruptcy. Women are desperate for jobs. Desperation makes you more vulnerable to workplace discrimination.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Bes,

    “Obama would be a hell of a lot better for both women and lesbians and gays than would Romney.”

    So now Obama’s views on gay marriage have “evolved”. This should come as no surprise if you follow politics. It’s pandering and hypocrisy of the worst kind. If you believe for a second that these guys really support gay marriage, then ask yourself this: why didn’t they repeal DOMA, as Obama promised to do in his campaign, when they had both houses of Congress for two years? Because it wasn’t politically expedient.

    Obama didn’t repeal DOMA at the time because he already had the majority of people vote him in. He was riding the wave. He was speaking to vast crowds beside Greek columns. If he repealed DOMA, he wouldn’t win any new supporters and might lose those few indepedents he didn’t have.

    Obama no longer enjoys the broad support he had in 2008. Not long ago, he gave an important speech to a hall at Ohio State that was a third empty, the same one that had been packed to see him in 2008. A jailed felon captured 42% of one state’s primary votes.

    What you are saying in your post is really an “illusion” and not based in reality. People are not more secure, the unemployment rate is much higher than the pro-obama media is reporting and our country is bankrupt. You can spend yourself out of debt. If you believe that, well, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

    Romney flip-flopped on abortion and gay rights, but so did Barack Obama. Romney changed positions in order to run for president. So did Barack Obama. Let’s face it, if the press agrees with your latest position, it’s a historic decision, and they accept the definition of evolution. If the press doesn’t like or is uncomfortable with that position, it’s a flip-flop.

    Compared to MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC, Fox news is fair and balanced. Without the media bias carrying his water explaining what he meant to say at every turn, turning a blind eye to his numerous gaffs, flip-flops, incompentency, and basically protecting him every step of the way, obama would not be president today, Hillary would.

    For the media’s complicity in helping give obama the WH and usurping the will of the people, I will never forgive them for, much less give them a free pass and a wink and a nod.

  • Ugh … I give up trying to inform you two. Your minds are clearly made up and nothing else matters. So, keep listening to FOX News — where truth takes a holiday.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Beth,

    The exact same thing could be said about you! The inconvenient truth to obama supporters is that he has failed on so many levels that it is hard to believe.

    Your response is not surprising. Throughout the 2008 primary, all of us who chose to support Hillary were dismissed in much the same way for defending Hillary against the onslaught of obama lies and distortions about her, not to mention an extra, heaping helping of misogyny as well.

    We were right then that obama was a blank slate upon which you all could write your individual vision upon. He is still a blank slate, but the truth is hard to swallow when you’ve been betrayed by someone you had such hope for.

  • I contributed $2900 to Hillary’s presidential campaign, which was actually more than the limit — so I suggested the campaign keep the balance for a future run. NO ONE supported Hillary more than I did.

    You are dead wrong to place me in the Obama supporter’s camp. I simply KNOW that women would be MUCH WORSE OFF with Romney. THAT is the simple fact that you can’t wrap your brain around.

    Your hatred for Obama has totally blinded you to the FACT that Mitt Romney would be a DISASTER for women, the middle class, lesbians and gays, and people of color.

    I sincerely hope at some point in time you Hillary fanatics decide to grow up and recognize that even Hillary herself KNOWS that we must support Obama in this election. If she had stomped off and spent the past four years pouting in a corner do you think the country would be better off? NO. Hillary responded the way a MATURE AND RESPONSIBLE ADULT would. SHE MOVED ON!!!

    It’s too bad the fanatics who worship her can’t follow her lead.

    Beth

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Beth,

    I contributed the total limit to Hillary’s campaign too AND I DON’T WORSHIP HER, I RESPECT HER. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    I don’t hate obama, I hate what he’s done to this country. Your hatred for Romney has blinded you to the possibility that obama really wasn’t ready to be president (which those of us who supported Hillary could plainly see during the debates) and that all republicans are not evil, and that Romney is a descent man who won’t be as horrible towards women as you predict.

    Obama clearly has proven that experience does matter and that “superb judgment” all of his supporters touted about during the primary and which we are still waiting to appear, has vindicated those of us who saw through the marketing of obama as simply “smoke and mirrors.” As a result, our country is suffering far more than it should have.

    I have no faith in obama’s ability to rise to the occasion. He’s always had the occasion rise to him and he thinks being president is about being cool and giving speeches. It’s really as hard as Hillary said it would be. Sadly, our country is filled with people who have watched too much American Idol and are too quick to believe the hype, rather than look for and demand substance in those running for office.

    It’s too bad that you still use the kind of rhetoric used against us who did not support obama during the primary as “fanatics.” Clearly, it is the obama supporters who are fanatics because they cannot bring themselves to see the truth about obama and how he has failed them and our country.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see…

  • Kimble

    Y’all could go around endlessly on this. I think the larger point is, to build a robust nonpartisan or bipartisan women’s movement, everyone has to work together. And figure out what we’re fighting for.

    Is it possible? I’m not sure, to be honest. I’d like to think so. But I’m not sure.

  • yttik

    I’d love to build a bipartisan women’s movement, but honestly it can’t happen until one side lets up on all the disrespect and hatred they direct towards women who don’t share their political party loyalty. That hate and disrespect came to a head during the 2008 primary and is the reason I left the Dem party.

    Maybe some women don’t understand, but calling people fanatics, accusing them of wanting to bring disaster to the country, saying people prefer ignorance, accusing women of being brainwashed, and blaming them for why the women’s movement is so far behind, are all ways NOT to build solidarity among women.

  • Feminists for Obama-Biden
    http://feministsforobama.org/images/timeline.pdf

    This is a list for year one. To see the full list click the link above.

    12/1/2008 Nominates Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State
    Obama announces nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Confirmed by the Senate on Jan 21, 2009. Secretary Clinton has put the issues and rights of women around the globe in the forefront of US foreign policy.

    1/23/2009 Issues Executive Order Repealing Global Gag Rule
    Issues an executive order repealing the Global Gag Rule, which prohibited overseas family planning programs that receive US aid from using non-US monies for abortion counseling, advocacy, and/or referrals.

    1/23/2009 Pledges and does restore funding of United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
    Restores funding of programs that improve access and quality of reproductive health care including family planning, prevention and treatment of obstetric fistula, and the prevention of STDS such as HIV/AIDS.

    1/26/2009 Nominates First Woman Solicitor General
    Obama nominates Elena Kagan to solicitor general. She is confirmed on March 29th.

    1/29/2009 Signs Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
    The Ledbetter Act corrects the Roberts Supreme Court decision that gutted the ability of women workers to sue for wage discrimination under Title VII.

    2/4/2009 Signs the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009 (SCHIP)
    Expands government health insurance to cover 11 million children.

    2/17/2009 Passes Economic Stimulus Package
    Saves and creates jobs in traditionally women-heavy fields- health care, child care, and educationin $787 billion economic stimulus package; also increases Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment benefits. Saves some 400,000 teachers’ jobs and estimated to save or create 3.7 million jobs, 1.5 million or 42% of which are for women.

    3/2/2009 Appoints Most Diverse Cabinet in History
    On this date, Kathleen Sebelius becomes the 7th woman appointed to Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, joining Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis, Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, and Small Business Administration Administrator Karen G. Mills. Obama’s cabinet is the most diverse cabinet in history, with the highest number of women named to the cabinet or cabinet level positions in a first term.

    3/6/2009 Institutes New Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues

    3/11/2009 Creates White House Council on Women and Girls
    Council is responsible for coordinating federal response to the challenges facing women and girls. Council chair is Valerie Jarrett and Executive Director is Tina Tchen.

    3/11/2009 Signs FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act
    Reinstates low-cost birth control availability at college health centers and at some 400 clinics serving low-income women.

    3/19/2009 Supports UN Declaration on Human Rights
    Pledges to sign UN declaration to decriminalize homosexuality, which President Bush refused to sign.

    4/6/2009 Appoints first Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues
    Melanne S. Verveer became the first ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues. Ambassador Verveer is Director of the Department of State’s first Office on Global Women’s Issues.

    5/26/2009 Nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
    She becomes the third woman and first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court.

    6/26/2009 Appoints Advisor on Violence Against Women
    Lynn Rosenthal is appointed as first White House violence against women advisor.

    7/24/2009 Announces US Will Sign United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
    with Disabilities

    President Obama announces the US will sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at a ceremony commemorating the 19th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    7/31/2009 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Signed
    Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, signs the United Nations Convention (Treaty) on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at the UN Headquarters.

    10/30/2009 Ends HIV Travel Ban, Signed Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
    Starting in 1987, foreign nationals with HIV were banned from obtaining US visas or becoming permanent citizens. The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act increases funding for HIV programs and continues funding the Minority AIDS Initiative.

    12/16/2009 Signs the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act
    The act includes several major gains for women’s health and civil liberties and eliminates traditional sources of funding for abstinence-only programs.

  • yttik

    I see you’ve found “feminists for Obama.”

    Are there any Feminists for Women anymore? Do we always have to be organized around a man or a political party? It sure seems like women spend all their time doing all the work to get men elected, to get men more power. When do we get to be FOR women?

  • A very wise feminist woman once said to me: “Everything is political.” And then she pointed to the doorway and said: “Someone voted on what color that exit sign would be.” She was right, and with the general elections just a month away WOMEN need to be focused on politics right now. Anyone who isn’t has their head stuck in the sand. Which reminds me of what another wise feminist once said: “If you’re not at the table, your probably on the menu.”

  • yttik

    Well, there are women who think that having jobs and an economic future are important issues for women, too. These women don’t have their “heads in the sand,” they’ve considered what’s happened to them in the past four years and decided they would prefer to take a new path.

    These women aren’t fanatic or ignorant or any other labels that we throw at them. When we allow politics to become so disrespectful, so divisive, we destroy the possibility of women ever building some solidarity.

  • Beth Corbin

    Any middle class woman who wants a job needs to vote against Mitt Romney. He only has the interests of the very rich at heart. Just take a look at what he did in MA.

  • Anne

    Beth, Romney is indeed a corporate tool and so is Obama and neither is less evil than the other. Any man who ran the sexist campaign Obama did against Hillary without saying a peep about the horrible blatant misogyny is NO friend to women. You can go on thinking he is if you like but, he’s also the one who not only threw women under the bus for his insurance company bail out bill, he’s the one who kept us from having the first woman president by CHEATING and using misogyny to “win” then gloated over it. Alice Palmer anyone? But I guess everyone is expected to “ignore” his actions against powerful women his entire career. I wont’ be doing that. When someone shows me who they really are, I believe them.

    Hillary Clinton IS secretary of state and you act like that’s some granted gift from above from *Obama* when in fact if not for him she would be POTUS right now. Given that she got more votes than any candidate in primary history I find your name calling here to women whose votes were totally dismissed, indeed 18 million people who were treated as if they were supposed to ignore their rights being taken away rather insulting. Telling women to “get over it” or they aren’t “mature” when voting rights were trampled is pretty big headed if you ask me. You can be wrong in your assumptions as to why this is so important to women and will always be and in this case you are wrong.

    I’m voting for Jill Stien. Obama has women issues. He showed me who he really was in 2008 and sorry I don’t vote for someone who twists the “rulz” and uses hatred against my gender. You go on ahead saying you care about women’s issues while voting for such a vile man. And yes, he is Bush three and then some. He’s done all the bad things we hated Bush for and extended some of them including taking away more rights than Bush could have ever got away with.

    Obama is everything you accuse Romney of being. He’s no more for the middle class than Romney or Bush. He’s pandered to corporatists in every imaginable way possible. Appointing the nuts he appointed on purpose to the cat food commission for example. But I think he’ll “win” and then when he stabs you in the back don’t come crying here about the “middle class” He cut a HUGE amount of money from medicaid to pay for his “Obamacare” and then said insurance companies can TRIPLE premiums as a trade off for having to cover everyone. The list of his Bush like antics is long.

    Hillary has her own career and is her own person and I am glad she took the position but, that has nothing to do with the actions of OBAMA on matters that speak of HIS actions and inactions. Lilly Leadbetter got women not much at all, it was a trade off too. And a token compared with what he could have done and should have done.

    He’s so far to the right of Nixon it’s not even funny. He’s worse than Reagan whom he admires. Could I vote for Romney? NO. But by that same logic looking at his actions I could not vote for Obama either much less defend him, not unless *I* was the one with my “head in the sand”

  • Beth Corbin

    Anne, what is that old saying — there are none so blind as those who will not see. You COMPLETELY missed my point about Hillary being SoS. I don’t view it as a “gift.” It was a smart move by both of them, and Hillary has certainly benifited from it. My point is that Hillary GOT OVER IT, AND MOVED ON. My only hope is that you live in a Blue state. If not, God help us all.

  • anna

    have to second Anne.
    will be voting for Jill Stein too. at least the women in non swing states could send a message by voting for women. don’t know how much our candidates are the same. one is speaking as if he cared and when you look at actions, there ‘s just words. pro business, pro banker, pro lawyers, the rise of everyones expenses in the last 4 years is not even on the radar. romney’s actions for women I would put in the field of hope and see. whether he has valid recipes for growing jobs I am not sure.
    given that I don’t agree with everything Jill Stein says, she should still get my vote, even if it is just a protest vote. I find it an insult to free speech, that we get a debate between the two parties who act the same, and just have different advertisements. no candidates we don’t know well were being presented. the two parties did not just buy the airways with their adds, they also exclude every dissent in the debates.