Here’s an audio clip of Hillary Clinton talking to a Washington Post reporter about the misogynistic treatment she has supposedly received as a candidate, and how "surprised" she was by it.
Mind you, in Hillary’s defense — if I may be so chivalrous without giving offense — the reporter is really pressing this line of discussion on her, urging her to talk about this treatment that has "really pissed off a lot of women." So it’s not like she brought it up. They refer to a column over the weekend by the Post‘s Marie Cocco detailing men’s sins against Hillary, which I gotta tell you I had to go read, because I was really wondering what these two ladies were going on about… Ms. Cocco wrote that when this is all over, she "won’t miss" all this misogyny. After reading the list of sins (ranging from Andrew Sullivan down to some unnamed sleazeballs selling tasteless novelty items), I must confess that I did miss them, mostly (I think I did hear the one about "everyone’s first wife," secondhand). But then I wasn’t looking for them. And I don’t watch TV "news."
But given the opportunity, she complains that sexism has been way more of a problem than racism. That lucky duck Obama, huh? You would apparently have known all about this, but we men in the media have been covering it up.
Anyway, if you don’t want to follow the link, here’s a transcript:
Q. One of
the stories that has been well documented over and over again is basically how
you’ve been treated by the media. Can you talk about that a little bit, because
I get the idea that it’s really pissed off a lot of women.A. "I think
it has. I think it’s been deeply offensive to millions of women. … I believe
this campaign has been a ground breaker in lots of ways, but it certainly has
been challenging given some of the attitudes that have been forthcoming in the
press, and I regret that because I think it’s been really not worthy of the
seriousness of this campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies
that we have here. But I don’t really stop to worry about it because there’s
nothing I can do about it."Q. Are women
going to be upset if you don’t get the nomination?A. I have
more voters now than my opponent. I have more popular vote, more people voting
for me.Q. Counting
Michigan and Florida?A. According
to ABC, and I think it’s a fair way to total it up because my name was on the
ballot they voted for me. But in any event, it’s one of the closest races we’ve
ever had and I think that a lot of people are deeply invested in their
candidates, so there will probably be disappointment no matter which of us gets
the nomination. And then it will be up to us to unify the party and make sure we
are victorious in November against McCain.Q. What’s
the scenario by which you could still win the nomination?A. If people
start asking themselves who’s the strongest candidate against John McCain,
because I believe I am.Q. Do you
think he can win?A. Sure. I
think he can win–I think I will win.Q. But short
of a scandal on his part do you see people coming to that
conclusion?A. I don’t
know, that’s why we’re not going to quit. We’re going forward. We’re going to
give the people in the remaining elections the chance to vote, which I think is
absolutely fair. And we’re going to resolve Michigan and Florida, which has to
be done sooner instead of later. And then we’ll see where we
stand.Q. Do you
think this has been a particularly racist campaign?A. I do not.
I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and
race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I’ve
seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an
African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of
some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable
or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the
sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem
as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that
has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but
misogynists.Q. Isn’t
that how it’s always been though.A.
Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to
places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is
joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the
single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you
look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women,
at it’s base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so
much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I
think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should
be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice. I have spent my entire
life trying to stand up for civil rights and women’s rights and human rights and
I abhor wherever it is discrimination is present.
Related Posts
Maybe they have, but I haven’t heard much of it. I’ve heard her husband, and her, playing the ‘race card’. But maybe I’m not aware of everything.
Fox is apparently the only fair channel according to FOX…
Like Frankenstein’s monster, the media created Hillary, and now the media can destroy Hillary, now that they have created a new monster, Obama.
It’s all about victimhood. Boohoo.
Hillary has been the Queen of identity politics, when it has suited her purposes, and Obama has been the King, so it’s hard for me to feel sorry for either one. We seemingly have reached the sorry place in american politics now at which gender and skin color are primary qualifiers for the highest public office. And the MSM has really made it so ~ Hillary and Obama have simply been shameless in using it to their advantage.
We’re about to fool around in this country and elect a president based on melatonin or estrogen and we’re gonna be eternally sorry for it. Not that McCain is any more attractive or qualified than these other two clowns, and certainly he’s played the POW identity politics card a time or two himself.
I swear, I closely and faithfully watched it happen over the last eight months, and I still don’t really understand how we got where we are right now. All three of these beauty queens are wrong for the country. I keep hoping for a ninth inning miracle, but there isn’t going to be one. And I’m dreading it. David
POW identity politics?
David, as the spot light begins to shine on McCain we are seeing a great increase in criticism from different sources. Check out what Chuck Hagel,
Obama’s Joe Lieberman, has to say about McCain.
Hillary has been completely trashed by the media. Every positive she has is played like she is an accidental blip on obama’s parade.
Check all the news media portrayals of her gains with obama annointed, always second to last.
Hillary kicked his butt and now he is wimp toast, madison avenue milque toast.
The obamaoid is not an American, no way jose. He has kenyan half brothers, indonesian sister, raised by whites, claims to be black, like oppressed by affirmative action quotas one drops negros, decides to be a chicago south side civil rights activist after his hawaai elite education.
And dumps his black theology marxist hbcu graduate race card. What tripe, a mullett.
Not an American by a long shot.
I meant melanin…I think melatonin has to do with brain chemicals and sleep. Melanin is skin pigment. My excellent and piercing point stands however.
Brad, your point is a good one: McCain hasn’t engaged directly in identity politics where his POW status is concerned, but he’s routinely wrapped himself in the flag as a vet. And whenever anyone thinks about him as a vet, naturally McCain is remembered as a POW. So the effect is the same. David
He has kenyan half brothers, indonesian sister, raised by whites, claims to be black, like oppressed by affirmative action quotas one drops negros, decides to be a chicago south side civil rights activist after his hawaai elite education.
-Citizen
Let’s re-package this just a bit:
He has Kenyan half brothers, Indonesian sister, raised by whites, without forgetting his black DNA, took advantage of the unique opportunity offered by affirmative action to secure a fantastic education, but did not forget his African-American heritage so he became a civil rights activist working tirelessly for the betterment of disadvanged Americans of color. But he was fortunate to have the opportunity to take advantage of the high quality American education system while living in Hawaii.
Sounds like a true American to me, one that I’m going to proud to vote for in November. Barack Obama serves as an inspiration to Americans of all races, creeds and cultures.
You know, bud, you could teach a course in how to be an obvious Democrat partisan, if you’re aware of how you do what you do.
Your Obama conversion points up the lemming-like nature of Democrat partisanship.
Hillary didn’t change, but you abandoned her, and now your praise for Obama goes just as much over the top as your praise for her once did.
Any ship in a storm for a Democrat, I guess.
Citizen, let’s evaluate your statements.
Hillary has been completely trashed by the media. Every positive she has is played like she is an accidental blip on obama’s parade.
Who else could have lost 11 states in a row, fall millions into debt, encouraged race baiting supporters (primarily Lord William) and been allowed to continue the race? The media was highly deferential to her for a very long time. As she began to manipulate and distort truth, abuse the media (e.g. phone calls threatening reporters), and accuse the media of sexism the media took her to task and rightly so.
Hillary kicked her butt? Using which metric? The Clintons have offered several versions; Delegates? Supers? Popular vote? Contests won that are not caucuses nor in states contiguous to Illinois?
The obamaoid is not an American He was born in the United States. So American citizenship is a subjective quality to be determined by some capricious set of criteria determined by the likes of you? McCain was not born in the U.S. so can I use my own set of criteria to deem him a foreigner?
I didn’t abandon Hillary. She would make a fantastic Vice President or Supreme Court Justice. But Obama is going to win the nomination. And I’m willing to support him for president because he’s a man of conviction, intelligence and energy. He will address the needs of Americans by focusing on what makes us great, not by using the fear tactics so ruthlessly employed by the GOP. The world will understand the compassion of the United States while respecting this great nation for it’s strength and resiliance.
Hillary should be a part of that future but she will not be president. As a pragmatist I understand the world of reality. It’s only in the tiny minds of the neo-con fear-mongers that could conclude that the praise of one candidate represents the abandonment of someone who has obviously lost. That type of thinking gets us nowhere. It’s time to look forward to a great future led by a magnificent and gifted leader. And I make no appologies for saying so.
Hillary and Obama are both totally unqualified for the offices they now hold, much less for President or VP.
They are charlatans, fakes.
But in the end, Democrats only care about riding back into power over the taxpayers, not the nag they ride.
That’s why we have impeachment and the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves from such scum.
…sure hope the Secret Service doesn’t monitor these blogs…
Oil Prices Soar Above $132 As US Supplies Plunge
Weekly data from the U.S. government showed stocks of crude had fallen by 5.4 million barrels. Gasoline inventories slipped by 800,000 barrels and distillate stocks, which include heating oil and diesel, rose by 700,000 barrels, less than analyst expectations for a 1.3 million barrel increase.
-theoildrum.com
I know this isn’t the right place to post this but it’s of such extreme importance it needs mentioning. $132/barrel???!!! That is simply shocking. Why is our government doing so little?
Barack Obama mentioned the importance of conservation and the right-wing echo chamber just went nuts. Keven Cowen simply went ballistic on his radio show Tuesday over Obama’s comments. He suggested that since he works his tail off he’s entitled to keep his home at 72 degrees and burn as much gasoline as he wants. That is the attitude that is causing this astonishing rise in oil prices. We simply MUST conserve. Why is this so hard to understand?
The Secret Service is sworn to protect the US Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment and impeachment.
You didn’t see them move in to prevent the trial of President Clinton, and they won’t intefere with the trial of Obama, which there will surely be if he is elected and tries to implement his socialist agenda.
Obama voted for the $307 Farm Bill last week, which was laden with pork for ethanol subsidies.
Obama and Clinton voted against Bush’s legistlation rewarding conservation and funding research in solar, geothermal, and wind power.
Anyone who believes this country can “conserve” its way out of our energy crisis is an idiot.
Plain and simple. It is inarguable. David
This “idiot” believes conservation is crucial to solving the energy problem. We need wind, solar and other alternatives plus an effort to move away from gasoline powered cars. Drilling is a very minor and perhaps even counterproductive part of the solution. Let’s save our beautiful natural resources and get on with a cleaner, oil-free future.
Lee, I’m only trying to help you out here, and you know darn well it wasn’t the “impeachment” part of your comment to which I was referring. If you mention Obama and Hillary, then say, we need the right to arm ourselves “to protect ourselves from such scum,” then depending on how you define “protect”…well you see how somebody could interpret this.
You apparently don’t understand that the 2nd Amendment is to allow “the people” the means of resisting the force of tyranny with force of “arms” that they “keep and bear”. Defense of self and country is the law of the land.
That’s why juries every year find citizens NOT GUILTY when they shoot rogue police in self defense.
That’s why socialistic Democrats seek to disarm the people. No leader with honest intentions would fear the citizens.
Democrats in Congress are demanding that OPEC increase production of oil in order to reduce prices.
Democrats in Congress are preventing US oil companies from increasing production, by putting ANWR and shale oil deposits off limits to drilling.
Democrats have blocked increased research into solar, wind and geothermal energy.
Hillary and Obama support ethanol subsidies which create artificially low fuel prices and discourage conservation.
Maybe Brad doesn’t find Hagee, McCain’s pastor buddy, to be “interesting” but when Hagee says in a sermon
God sent Hitler, it is VERY “interesting”.
I can’t wait to see the Double Talk Express U-turn out of this one.
I’m starting to have second thoughts about drilling in the ANWR. Generally my thought has been that it would be a good idea (to drill) that would add a bit of time to the crucial process of moving away from fossil fuel usage. Now, given the completely irrational tantrums the right keeps pitching about how conservation is somehow unpatriotic, it seems as though drilling will only spoil the environment without helping the energy situation. ANWR drilling will only bring in a few barrels of oil in about 10+ years. By then we will be well on our path to developing alternative energy sources. If we hold out the naive hope that drilling in the ANWR will save the day then many folks on the right will block development of alternative sources of energy. That would only postpone the day of reckoning.
Given the certainty that drilling will only create an environmental calamity it seems best that we just skip this and move quickly to alternatives.
If conservation doesn’t matter, why don’t we get rid of the federal CAFE mileage standards, and those silly hybrid cars?
bud, let’s not let the Energy Party coalition fall apart at this point.
The only chance we have to become reasonably energy-independent is to do it all. Neither conservation alone nor drilling alone nor alternative fuels alone will get us where we need to be. And the only way to make it is to do it all, respecting nobody’s ideological sacred cows. We’ve got to get pragmatic in this country for once in our lives, and act like we’re serious.
Let me assure you that NEITHER ideological side will EVER get its way enough to solve the problem. The left will never get that much conservation; the right will never get that much production. We’ve got to pull everybody together on this, and the last thing in the world we need is for anybody who understands this to retreat into one ideological corner or the other.
Conservation is good. I’m all for it.
But it alone can account for only an infinitesimal fraction of what is needed to make up our present petroleum deficit. And this is doubly true if we are to have an expanding economy. Anyone who says different either knows better and is lying to further an agenda, or doesn’t know better and ought to get informed before making ridiculous assertions and claims. It is really just that simple.
People in this country have a personal stake in conservation…it saves them money. But let’s not be fooled or naive, conservation cannot now have a significant impact on easing our problems and it will not for the short and intermediate run. Those who push conservation as an answer to our problems are really attempting to advance a social agenda that advocates for a rollback in the quality of life and level of consumption by US citizens. For no particular good and worthy reason, other than that they believe the US is bad. David
Gasoline prices have now passed $3.83 nationally with no sign of easing. How can drilling in ANWR have any effect on that? It’s a false hope that represents nothing more than a fantasy. Even with the most aggressive policy, one that would spoil the environment, this oil won’t be available in quantity for at least 10 years. I fail to see how that is going to ease TODAY’s oil situation. Existing efforts to bring U.S. oil to market are nothing short of extrodinary. We’re coaxing many more barrels of oil out of the ground than we ever though possible. Yet domestic production plummets.
As if that’s not bad enough oil from other nations is peaking. Mexico, Indonesia and possibly Russia are past peak. There are many questions about the ability of even the Saudis to boost production.
Bottom Line: Production cannot be increased on a world wide basis to address the expected demand growth. It’s a false promise that needs to be stiffled. Any promise of future oil from the ANWR or anywhere else simply distracts us from what needs to happen: MASSIVE CONSERVATION, along with alternative energy sources and different ways to get around. The Europeans are 10 years ahead of us on this and they’re coping just fine with gas prices as high as $9/gallon (Holland). So let’s just get on with it. Forget about the ANWR. Let’s just leave it in it’s natural state and continue drilling in less sensative areas. In the end it’s probably best to just rip the band-aid off without all this false postering about the ANWR.
In the end economic growth is just a dream. We’ll be lucky to maintain what we have. This problem is not getting the attention it deserves. The sooner we accept the situation for what it is, the sooner we can deal with it.
As an aside, my kids and I went to the Toyota dealership looking for a used car. They had a used Prius on the lot. This was a demo car with about 3,000 miles. Asking price: $28,000. Wow, talk about sticker shock. There were no new Priuses and the waiting list for the $30,000 vehicles is about 6 months. Apparently Lee hasn’t gotten his message out very well. The only thing keeping these cars from setting all-time sales records is an inability to manufacture them. All this with zero tax incentives.
“Conservative” today is a misnomer insofar as today’s conservatives don’t believe in conservation, at least as regards energy. On the one hand, they sometimes say “don’t worry about declining real wages; people can adapt”, i.e., become more conservative in their spending. On the other hand, the idea that energy conservation might be part of a bridge solution to making needed long-term changes in the way we live our lives is unthinkable. Today’s WSJ has a front-page story on how the International Energy Agency is beginning to come around to the notion that “peak oil” may be a reality in the short run. Better get ready, it looks like some basic assumptions need to change.
Steve I saw the WSJ article. Of course that ultra-liberal, socialist publication can’t be trusted.
Seriously, the IEA is now recognizing a very sobering and scary truth: the world, not just the U.S., cannot increase production of crude oil much, if any, any longer. The factors are mainly geological in nature and have little to do with above ground political bottlenecks.
What about that 10.3 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, and the TRILLION barrels in shale oil that the Democrats won’t let the oil companies extract?
As gasoline prices increase, every economy car becomes a better buy. Some hybrids, which were too expensive to ever recoup their cost, may now make economic sense. Even at $4.00 gasoline, buying a 35 or 45 mpg is a bad business decision for many people, for a variety of reasons.
Higher oil prices also make it more practical to drill for oil that was formerly unprofital to extract.
Well, bud, you know, there was no chance we would ever put a man on the moon, but we did.
And there’s no chance now that we can regress to the Stone Age voluntarily, as you’re recommending.
But it’s ideas like yours that keep a Democrat from being elected president.
Think of the campaign slogans:
Follow me to mediocrity.
Jump on board and we’ll shrink back.
The back seat suits us.
Let Islam rule.
And there’s no chance now that we can regress to the Stone Age voluntarily, as you’re recommending.
-p.m.
Folks in Holland pay $9/gallon for gasoline and they are far healthier, thinner and live longer than we do. Why? Because they understand the energy situation as it presents itself and they’ve adapted. Sure it’s taken some getting used to using those stone tools to go out and kill a wildebeast for dinner, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do.
You folks on the right make this so much more difficult than it has to be. We simply adjust our thermostats a bit (and use a fan or sweater as needed to be comfortable), drive smaller cars (do people really need an 8 passenger 4 wheel drive SUV?), walk whenever possible and use compact florescent light bulbs and whola, problem solved. A few simple things can buy us a bit of time until alternatives are developed. It seems so obvious to me.
Amen, bud, amen. We need to do all that.
But of course, that’s just half the battle. You mention "the right." To hell with "left" and "right." "Left" and "right" are foolish indulgences that we can no longer afford. Even if one side or the other got its way completely and enacted its entire energy vision, without any dilution or compromise — it WOULDN’T BE ENOUGH to make the kind of difference that we need. Let me refer you back to a Friedman column in which he put the futility of being selective in our energy policies in perspective:
We need to do it all — the entire Energy Party platform. We need all the things you mention (plus mass transit, HIGHER gas taxes, higher CAFE mandates, dramatically increased R&D into alternative power sources, etc.) AND drilling in the ANWR and off our coasts, lots of new nuclear power plants, and every other increased-production idea the "right" can come up with.
And then, if we do it ALL, we just might move the needle to where we will have strengthened our hand somewhat and improved our position with regard to petrodictators, terrorists, China, our "friends" in OPEC and the rest… and taken an appreciable step toward saving the planet, maybe. We need political CONSENSUS to do it ALL, or we fail.
The Dutch pay $5.00 / gallon in taxes on gasoline, because they have a greedy, socialist government and expensive, lousy socialist medical “care” which euthanizes hundreds of patients without their permission. Holland is not the role model for America.
The problem with the ideological divide on energy is that the socialist side, which wants high taxes and low production, is based on gross ignorance of technology and economics, mixed with contempt for the freedom of choice of other people.
Brad I used to think we needed to do it all if for no other reason than to use as a bargaining chip. I’ve never really thought drilling in the ANWR was of much real value. Now I’m certain of it. Yet it seemed a small price to pay to bring the conservatives on board to do the things we really need to do.
But now I’m so disgusted with the neo-con idiocy on this issue I just don’t feel much like sacrificing the remaining pristine land just to bring a bunch of stubborn fools to the bargaining table. They are just not going to budge. We just need to get rid of the whole sorry bunch of them (from the government) and go about doing what needs to be done.
The IEA estimates factor in known reserves AND the cost of extracting them. Bottom line: whatever oil is gotten from reserves is going to cost a lot more. $ 10 a gallon gasoline, anyone?
bud, you don’t know enough about oil or economics to be certain about anything. If the experts at Exxon or Shell want to drill, who are you to stop them? LOL!!!
Sorry, bud, but all the wildebeests in my neighborhood have Obama stickers on their Escalades.
Actually, Mr. Warthen has it sort of right. The right and left both guzzle gas. It’s not a left-right issue.
And if the rich use more gas than the poor, well, since Obama gets more votes from better educated, that more or less makes my point.
Obama gets the vote of ignorant people who think he is cool because he is young and talks in riddles. Rich or educated, they haven’t put much analysis into this charlatan.
And why does Obama put such effort into telling “the poor” how he is going to tax us bad ole working people (“the rich”) and hand out more welfare goodies?