Custom Search

Friday, January 11, 2008

Gender Identity Politics And Free Speech; Hillarynauts To Gag Dissent

Courtesy www.mediabistro.com

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

How many times have you heard that we need a president who "can bring us together?" Those dissatisfied with the current course of the country lament the fact that public discourse has become so poisonous during the Bush 43 years.

In the words of that great American philosopher, Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" It isn't going away; it's just crossing the street. It is difficult to articulate what I've witnessed since the 3% landslide victory of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. I've read more than one column that has morphed a primary election cycle for the presidency into a national litmus test for sexism. As in anything politically correct, the judges are also the accusers.

Frankly, there ARE no current candidates who convince me that they belong in the White House. Joe Biden was the most serious, but he's unelectable precisely because he has the presidential timber for the job, warts and all. Obam's rhetoric is soaring, but there's a difference between preaching and working. John Edwards' message resonates with people, but corporate America will shun him, and this is a corporate state.

So I'm skeptical but haven't ruled anyone out for my vote. Except one candidate, and that is Hillary Clinton. As I read recent articles portraying "attacks" on Clinton as anti-feminist viciousness, I'm reminded of how anyone opposed to a flood of illegal aliens into the country is a "nativist" or "xenophobe." One applied in haste, that tar and feather treatment is hard to rub off.

My allergic reaction to Bill Clinton began after he took office. I had hope because that was what he offered. He lied. He lied for 8 years, wrapped in a cocoon of selfishness that placed him in my mind as the worst president since Lyndon Johnson. He was easily exceeded by George W. Bush.

But, I DO remember seeing William Clinton and Albert Gore on the ballot. I do NOT remember seeing Hillary Clinton on it, nor can I find anything constitutionally that provides a role for the first spouse.

I knew Hillary Clinton was not a "stand by your man kind of woman like Tammy Wynette" because she said so. I did NOT know that there was a "co-presidency," underlined by the quote, "WE are the president." The healthcare debacle at the beginning of the Clinton presidency had a large bearing on the 1994 Congressional elections, resulting in our first taste of the Rabid Republicans forming a posse that rode on for years.

I remember the unseemly details of the "travelgate" fiasco, which while not illegal wss an example of the exercise in power. A power derived through a MARRIAGE LICENSE to the President of the United States. There was the ridiculous and false claim in 1995 that Hillary Clinton was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, six years before he was known outside of New Zealand.

There was the convenient purchase of a home in Chappaqua, New York some months before the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. Bill Clinton pardoned 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, members of FALN, responsible for 120 bombings in the U.S. It need not be mentioned that a large number of Puerto Ricans live in New York City. It was an insult to the victims of the FALN bombings, as well as to the patriotism of Puerto Ricans, which is strong. But it was a bald-faced attempt to secure votes for a candidate for the U.S. Senate, one Hillary Clinton.

There is enough to fill a book. What I know is that I have one vote in November. It will not be wasted on someone who wants the world to work both ways at once and at the same time. One thing Bill and Hillary Clinton have in common is a unique ability to fold, spindle, and mutilate people in acquiring what they seek.

But now.....the fog horns of "feminism" are blaring out the message that any criticism, any questioning of Hillary Clinton is an attack on women. Bull. Shit.

I've watched for 30 years the campaigns for "womens' rights." Unfortunately the women I've worked with were untouched (and unthought of) by these "brave" attempts to break glass ceilings in corporate boardrooms. The women in the offices and factories worked just as hard as the men, were mistreated just as badly as the men, and their miserable pay and conditions were the same as for the men.

I wonder how many of these suddenly gender-concious women voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984, unlike a fascist pig like me who voted for Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro.

But that's not relevant. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. The message I see popping up now is: Hillary is teflon because she is a woman. She's human. She deserves special consideration. She was tired and exhausted. Sure, like John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson were sleeping for the last few months.

Hillary Clinton may be a marvelous candidate. Big deal. I've seen many "marvelous" candidates turn out to be lousy office-holders. Apparently, though, in 2008 neither I nor anyone else is to feel free to express their opinion. That is, unless it is approved by those in an elite position to know what's best.

If you want more elitism, more authoritarianism, more divisiveness, then vote for Hillary Clinton. Insist that there is no connection whatsoever between herself and her husband. She's just a warm and fuzzy innocent who wants to be president so badly she could just cry. Amazing how one can be so tought yet a victim at the same time.

Demanding obediance to some speech code is anathema to what America is, or was. I reject it and if that offends some, I can only remind them of the 1st Amendment. The horribly inconvenient thing about Americans is that they have a bad habit of refusing to be told what to think. Or say.
****************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Labels: , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

2 Comments:

Anonymous Frodo said...

In the immortal words of Joan Rivers, "Can we talk?"
Frodo is a great believer in diversity. He likes all kinds of people, and feels very strongly that artificial boundaries of discrimination are heinous. Does that mean however that he has to be "for" somebody, just because there is a link to some disadvantaged group, or that he has to be "against" somebody who opposes such an individual.
Frodo thinks Hillary Clinton is a harpy. She smirks (thereby recalling George W. Bush). She looks up at Bill (thereby recalling Nancy Reagan). She sweeps into a room (thereby recalling Loretta Young). She is as far from a woman's eyeview of problems as her gender allows.
If they had had a blind date in college, Frodo would've exited from the window in the Men's Room.
Frodo would be proud to vote "for" someone. He finds that very hard to do in this case. The issue has nothing to do with "experience," it has to do with whether or not he goes through another Presidency trying to escape through the window in the Men's Room.

12:17 PM  
Blogger Papamoka said...

I give, why do you speak in the second person Frodo?

To add to your comment, I'm not a huge fan of Senator Clinton but I do think she has a great message. I just don't have a coupon that will let me afford to buy it.

I'm leaning Obama but the current debate over who is a better Civil Rights leader is idiotic. See the latest post about what I mean.

10:46 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home