Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Hillary Disgraces Herself - And Women - Playing the "Shouting" Card Against Sanders

"And he accused me of shouting! BWAAAHAHA! We women are all victims!"

Mika Brzezinski was absolutely correct this morning when she described Hillary Clinton's recent attacks on Bernie Sanders as "pathetic".  And Ms. Brzezinski didn't stop there, going on to assert Hillary was disgracing herself and all women by resorting to such transparent, gender-based victimhood, adding, "She ought to speak for herself not have people write her lines for her."

Two clips were played on 'Morning Joe' each of them as "cringe worthy" as the other to use Mika's term, with Hillary referencing that "shouting" (Bernie made the reference to people shouting about gun control in the last debate) and yelping at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday

"I haven’t been shouting, but sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it’s shouting,”

When a woman speaks out? So you presume to speak for all women? To bust Bernie's chops on behalf of "women"? You would use all women to advance such a disgraceful gambit?

As Mika pointed out, you know damned well that is not what Bernie meant!  He meant the general din that often accompanies most discussions of guns and gun control with each side shouting over the other.  Sanders' past comments disclose for anyone with sense and ears that his “shouting” line is just that – a favored turn of phrase that he has used regularly in the past few months, long before Clinton released her plan to address gun violence.

Indeed, in July, Bernie clearly said that people needed to “stop shouting at each other” on the issue of guns. In August, he said that “people shouting at each other” about gun control “is not doing anybody any good.”  So unless Hillary was out of it she had to know what he meant.

As Mika put it, she should not be playing the "poor little victim" card at this stage and anyone with common sense knew Bernie had no remote sexism in his heart or words when he made that remark at the CNN debate .

And then there is this little pro-Hill dummy, Amanda Marcotte on salon.com -Amanda Marcotte who psycho-babbles that in fact Hillary hit the mark - but in a Freudian, unconscious sense:

"but Clinton isn’t accusing Sanders of being anti-choice or opposed to women’s rights. She is accusing him of having unconscious biases, something nearly every person has, even if they are generally smart and have all the “politically correct” opinions. Most feminists have dealt with condescending liberal men who think their support for abortion rights means they get to talk to you like you’re a child. Sexism, like most things, exists in gradations, and it’s not a good look to pretend otherwise."

Please, give it up, girly! So what now? You want Bernie to get couched for a therp and work out his "unconscious biases"?  Really? Probe his deep seated prejudices held since he was six? Nice try, but sober citizens aren't biting this diversionary BS.  Your girl Hillary was caught out playing the victim -gender card, admit it and shut up!

What is even more choice is when this Hill-tool spouts:

"When he justifies those (pro-gun)  votes by saying, as he did in the debate, “the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not,” he is admitting that he’s just like any other politician, pandering to the worst impulses of his constituents rather than doing the right thing, even when it’s unpopular."

Yes, yes, pandering. Seems like I recall Hillary doing the same on the pro-Iraq war vote back in 2002. Rather than doing the right thing merely because it was unpopular.

But Marcotte's choicest remark?

"Clinton’s talking point is also landing because it plays off not-unreasonable fears that a lot of women have that at least some of the Sanders support base is coming from condescending, know-it-all men who have unconscious issues with women in authority."

Spare me! The real truth? We Bernie supporters have conscious issues with women who are dummies and two bit hacks, especially who try to invent Freudian excuses for a candidate who ought to know better than to invoke victim codswallop in response to spot -on debate points. Oh, and also expecting Bernie to apologize for being "condescending and overstating his point" - I mean you have to be fucking kidding me. Amanda, you've got to lay off the MJ candies! How about :"Hill" apologizing for unconscious, unprincipled changes in previous positions and hyper-ambition?

This brings up the fact in the next Democratic debate- on CBS November 14th- Bernie now needs to take the gloves off and whup up on "Hill". It's either that, or betray to his millions of supporters he's not really in it to win it, only to force this changeling to move Left (for now).  NO more concessions or giving her the benefit of the doubt, and hell, even the emails thingie is cause for reconsideration if she doesn't back off on her snide, tawdry sexist tactics and  using gender -victim portrayals. What better way to portray her then as a powerful, snide, conniving manipulator? But whatever he does it can't be along the lines of what he said last time - especially if she is going to do a number on him.

Some possible points of attack for him to consider:

- Hillary was for the Iraq War before she was against it,

- Hillary was for the TPP before she was against it.

- Hillary was for the Keystone pipeline before she was against it.

Hillary is NOT a liberal or progressive but a neoliberal backed by scads of Wall Street money - and for that the Wall Streeters will expect to see some payback in her administration if she is elected. She is also a neocon warhawk as reflected by keeping so many Bushies at State - such as Victoria Nuland (instigator of the Ukraine coup of Viktor Yanukovich).  Blacks especially who vote for her will see defense spending rise - if for no other reason than to secure a 2nd term - and their domestic needs go unaddressed.

Her current yak up on guns is totally unworkable and is only being used to beat Bernie over the head as a differentiating point, given she now agrees with him on virtually everything else. But Bernie can't let her out maneuver him on this and needs to point out how she is manipulating the issue.

See also:





"She believes in pay to play politics and global finance capitalism, the twin political and economic models she helped build. He doesn’t. She thinks we can keep them and still save our democracy and our middle class. He thinks they’re the cause of the slow asphyxiation of each. It’s a big difference and voters agree with him. The only way he wins is by exploring it in full."

No comments: