Saturday, July 28, 2007

The Right Wing Media's Hillary-Bashing Heats Up

Conservative radio blowhard Monica Crowley went to town Saturday...on Hillary Clinton. The syndicated talking-head, in a fit of ignorance and pathetic partisanship, trashed Clinton's character, reputation, womanhood and sexuality. As the 2008 election for Republicans seems more and more ominous, they're racheting up the Hillary-hating and it's obvious to those in the right wing media that she could handily beat the pants off their guys. So the bashing continues, and gets worse every day.

On Saturday's program, Crowley played the audio of a soldier who suggested to Clinton--during the recent Democratic YouTube debate--that she would not be taken seriously at the negotiation table by Arab and Muslim leaders who "treat women as second class citizens" in their countries. Clinton replied:

"You know, when I was first lady, I was privileged to represent our country in 82 countries. I have met with many officials in Arabic and Muslim countries. I have met with kings and presidents and prime ministers and sheiks and tribal leaders. And certainly, in the last years during my time in the Senate, I have had many high-level meetings with presidents and prime ministers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan and many other countries. I believe that there isn't much doubt in anyone's mind that I can be taken seriously. I believe that other countries have had women presidents and women prime ministers. There are several serving now — in Germany, in Chile, in Liberia and elsewhere — and I have noticed that their compatriots on the world stage certainly take them seriously....It would be quite appropriate to have a woman president deal with the Arab and Muslim countries on behalf of the United States of America."

Sounds like a logical, rational, intelligent answer, right? Guess again. Crowley ripped it apart, ridiculously accusing Clinton of claiming that she was really the president during those eight years. And, in an even more inane moment, implied that the soldier, who is stationed overseas, knows more about what Arab leaders think than a woman who's spent fifteen years as First Lady and U.S. Senator. She cavalierly mocked Clinton and summarily discredited her experiences over those many years.

Let's analyze this for a second. Arab leaders wouldn't take Clinton seriously simply based on gender? Well, George Bush is male, and no one takes him seriously, not in the Middle East, Europe or anywhere else. So much for that theory.

And what was Crowley's primary point, anyway? That because a bunch of primitive, oppressive societies hold women in little regard that that would be a reason for Americans not to elect a woman president? You'd think that the abuse women face in these Muslim countries would arouse Crowley's ire towards them, not Clinton. But Crowley's clearly a Republican first, and a woman second.

Crowley then brought on Michael Musto, the flamboyant Gay Village Voice columnist, who sophomorically speculated the Clinton was having an affair with her beautiful Pakistani/Indian aide Huma Abedin. Crowley and Musto then riffed on this, Hillary's cleavage and her "re-sexualization" for about 30 minutes, acting like a couple of gossiping high schoolers. I truly felt sorry for them both.

And by the way, what the hell is up with Musto? What self-respecting liberal homosexual would willingly go on the air with a narrow-minded, hate-spewing conservative demagogue like Crowley? And to attack another person's sexuality, no less? Perhaps he's not so self-respecting. More like self-loathing.

America is so sick and tired of this sort of divisiveness; of the personal attacks and of the politics of hate. But you'd never know it listening to Crowley or just about any other member of the right-wing spin machine. They just don't get it. Nine months after voters kicked Republicans to the curb they're still regurgitating this vomitous nonsense. I say, keep it up. Keep it up until we recapture the White House too.

It's a damned shame that in 2007, when our country is mired in war, threatened by terrorism, facing a weak economy and marred by political scandal, media types like Crowley are more obsessed with Hillary's cleavage than getting voters focused on the issues.


Anonymous said...

I wonder why Monica never took this angle with President Bush's Secretary of State?

Must of been an oversight on her part.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Liberal Democrat. However, Hillary is not the choice we should make for our candidate. I know she was First Lady but I don't remember her making official visits to world leaders representing our country Allbright did that. I remember Hillary going once as a rep for women's rights. No matter -- being First Lady does not prepare her or anyone else to be President. Lady Bird ???? Barbara Bush????? It has nothing to do with gender -- it's that she was the spouse of the President -- not in his Cabinet.

However, I believe the Republicans are beginning to bash her because many Democrats, among them many in the Afro-American community who adore Bill, think they will be getting him back. She would not have the lead she has in the polls if it weren't for him. He would be to her as Cheney is to Bush.

All that said, the entire Religious Right Movement declares that women are second to men. They must obey their husbands, stay home and rear the children. Part of the anti abortion movement is "keep 'em barefooted, pregnant and in the kitchen." That's why Jimmie Carter left the Southern Baptist Church. So even if Hillary were adored by all she would still have an uphill battle to the presidency in this country these days.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church won't allow women to become priests; and, the fundamental protestant churches such as the Southern Baptist won't allow women to become preachers. Not only that, the women who belong to those denominations are not in favor of and will not support women pastors. How could they -- they have to obey their husbands.

I don't know how it is in the rest of the country but in the south the churches are segregated: The blacks attend their church and the whites attend theirs.

Good luck Clinton and Obama.

Anonymous said...

In a way, I suppose, Sen. Clinton should be flattered that these two so-called commentators (I'd call them nothing more than idiots, though) couldn't find anything more of substance to criticize her about than her gender and a totally imagined affair. Unfortunately, such bombast is what passes for political commentary nowadays. Both of these idiots should be repudiated by whatever media outlets gave them free reign to assassinate character like this!

Anonymous said...

I don't think it matters. Either you like and will support Hillary or you won't. I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but really fear she would not win. Too many people tell me that a woman (or a black man like Obama) will not win the election. We are still a sick dog nation and I hear it all the time. I live in the most segregated area of the country (Metro Detroit Michigan) and many folks will not support a woman or black person. You don't have to live in the south to think it's 1957. I am disgusted daily with many of the folks who live here.

Anonymous said...

Wnat gets into relatively strong Democratic candidates?. Gore caved and worried about his wardrobe color scheme and switched to earth tones. Kerry worried about his elite image and foolishly did a photo-op in a hunting outfit. And now we see Hillary for the first time in her public life showing clevage.

The Republican candidates don't change their wardrobe or try to change their persona. Don't the Democrats know this makes them look weak and silly?

Are the Dems hiring Republican "moles" as campaign managers?

Anonymous said...

Thatcher managed ok being a female leader. The thing that worries me about Hilary is not that she's a woman - frankly a country that has been run for the whole of its existence by middle aged white guys could do with a change - its that she is related to a previous president. Out of 200 million adults your version of democracy cant find anyone to elect who is not related to a previous president ? If that is really the case why does the election process cost so much money ? In Singapore they have much cheaper and more efficient ways to elect the son of the guy before last and they spend the money they save on infrastructure.

Corruption, nepotism, bad debts. You guys are starting to seem like a third world country.

Anonymous said...

What you said is true, noteapot, but our current president is also related to a former president. In that case we already have the corruption, nepotism, and bad debts in our country.

Anonymous said...

I'm a middle of the road liberal. I believe in some of the things the republic believe and some of the dem, but I'm also a black man , who wants to know what Bill clinton did so much for our race while in office that he deserve our admiration or support. When hillary said those things about her being in meetings with heads of states, she wasn't speaking as a cabinet member, but the first lady. the most segregation day and time of the week is 11:00am on Sundays, Blacks go to their church and whites go to theirs. America we have a serious problem and it will never change because both party still have to kiss the 40ish white male butt to succeed in the election.