From Roseanne’s Blog:
After she (Arriana Huffington) dutifully helped the misogynists in the dem party to completely destroy the woman day after day with comments about her body, her husband, her mental capacities, attacking her for having no morals, equating her feminism with “beltway politics of the past” and ultimately laying the blame for all of Iraq at her feet, it makes me sick to even visit huffington post.
I’ve been looking around some of the pro-Clinton blogs in the past few days to try to understand the bitterness coming from that camp. Roseanne sums up the way they are feeling and what many are thinking right now, and I don’t get it.
I don’t remember hearing anyone making remarks about Clinton’s body, and the only person that I can remember who questioned Clinton’s mental capacities was her husband when he tried to explain “sniper-gate” by saying that she was tired and over sixty.
Bill Clinton most certainly is a legitimate issue for her opponents to bring up, since she pins much of her experience credibility on her time as first lady, but she seems to only accept responsibility only for the good things that happened during their tenure in the White House. And when President Clinton says controversial things on the campaign trail, he is acting as a representative of her campaign, so certainly, his words certainly are a legitimate issue.
Clinton may have been attacked for having no morals, but aren’t all politicians open to attack in that area? Don’t many people believe that politicians are, by definition, amoral?
Feminism certainly is not the “beltway politics of the past,” Roseanne. I don’t think that anyone has suggested that it is. When we talk about “the beltway politics of the past,” we’re not talking about feminism. In fact, it’s the last thing on our minds. We’re talking about the petty bickering in Washington that has consumed our politics for way too long and in which the Clintons certainly played a role. How you could equate that with an attack on feminism is baffling.
The Iraq war and Clinton’s vote are legitimate issues, too. I don’t know anyone who thinks the war was entirely Clinton’s fault, but she does bear some responsibility, as do other Democratic politicians who supported it. For many of them, that vote seemed to be one of pure political calculation – at the time it was thought that voting against the war would be political suicide. I put John Kerry in the camp as well, but Kerry now admits that the vote was wrong. Clinton remains unrepentant about that vote. Sorry, Roseanne, but you can’t expect people who were against the war at the time to think she has a lot of credibility on the issue. In fact, I think that vote is a major reason that she will not likely be the Democratic nominee.
And if you don’t like to read the Huffington Post, don’t.
I respect Senator Clinton and her supporters. It’s been a really long and tough campaign, but these cries of victimization and threats to vote for McCain (whose Supreme Court appointments will set feminism back a generation or two) don’t serve your cause well.
Keep fighting for your candidate, but please don’t feel like it’s a personal attack if Obama wins the nomination based on the established rules that we had going into the primary. A lot of those rules stink, and they need to be reformed, but Obama will likely win by playing within that framework.