[PREV - BERNIE_DERANGEMENT_SYNDROME] [TOP]
UPSET
April 20, 2017
This last election season has
unhinged many, including I fear London Review of Books,
the usually more level-headed January 19th, 2017:
Rebecca Solnit, who had a "From Lying to Leering"
piece in the London Review
positively ranting in frustration (The front cover blurb on this was
at various, largely unnamed "Penis Power", and one wonders what
people in her life who were wag at the LRB slapped this one on
less than thrilled at having Solnit's piece.)
to rally around the Hillary.
I gather that if you're [ref]
Rebecca Solnit you're stuck
dealing with the leftiest of
the left all the time, and (I remember vaguely hearing that
it was wearing her down. she had some connection with Chris
Carlson... but that could be a
"Mentioning that she's won misconception on my part.)
the popular vote upset many
of the men I am in contact
with ..."
Why would that upset anyone?
She actually did. Everyone
excepting our fearful leader
would agree with that.
"... though they would not or
could not conceive it that way."
Ah: putting words in their mouths?
Maybe it's just as well they're
unnamed.
And they apparently had
the timerity to disagree
when accused of misogyny...
Quoting herself:
"'With their deep belief in their own special
monopoly on objectivity, slightly too many Too many? What
men assure me that there is no misogyny in would be the
their subjective assessments ...'" right number?
"... these men went back to talking about (If Rebecca Solnit accuses
what a loser Clinton was." you of misogyny, you better
not say otherwise. If you
Well, yeah, she *did* lose, and think you know more about
she lost to a ridiculous blowhard your motivations than she
who didn't even seem to be trying does, then you're being
to run a serious campaign. awfully high-handed.)
The idea that Hillary was
rejected by many of the left
because of misogyny seems
really difficult to
substantiate: Bernie Sanders
was a belated enthusiasm,
originally the favorite pick
was Elizabeth Warren, who
declined to run in 2016.
Early in the election season Bernie
wasn't getting much attention: who
would've expected that some old lefty
would have any traction at all?
"There was considerable evidence
that we had not had a free and
fair election, evidence that
might have allowed us to contest
it and to stop Trump."
Well sure, it looked dirty
from several angles. Some of the more suprising losses look
to me like they might even have been
(Of course, the treatment the result of playing games with our
Bernie Sanders got during old friends the electronic voting
the primary wasn't all that machines...
wonderful, either...)
(The deep convinction many seem to
have that that's a ridiculous thought
"But those men of the left were is touching, but I'd rather we just
so dedicated to Clinton's status got a decent election process so we
as a loser that they wanted could stop worrying about it.)
Trump to win ..."
If only those lefty Clinton-haters
had gotten out of the way, we
could've overturned the election?
Seriously?
Solnit's piece is not a *complete* mess, of course--
it leads off with a good discussion of the kind of
trouble female politicians have: You can't appear
weak and get elected, but if you come off as strong
you'll be attacked as an evil bitch.
But it's full of remarkably bad jibes like this:
"'I don't vote with my vagina,' the actress
Susan Sarandon announced, and voted for the
Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, who one
might think was just as vagina-y a candidate
as Clinton but apparently wasn't."
Surely I don't need to explain that Sarandon was
not saying that she won't vote for any woman
ever, but rather that she won't vote for a woman Sarandon was not
just because she's a woman. swearing "never Hillary"
during the primary,
she did however
decline the loyalty
oath Hillarites kept
trying to extract:
What if Hillary wins
Clinton supporters have a knack of the nomination?
shrugging off all criticism and insist on Sarandon: "We'll see."
downplaying the considerable negative
elements in her career... Solnit does a
thumbnail description of the bits she
likes, then tries to rule any discussion CONFESSIONS_OF_A_HILLARY_HATER
of Clinton's history as out-of-bounds:
"You could pick out a lot of feminist high
points and corporate and neoliberal low points
in her career, but for anyone more interested
in the future of the US and the world her 2016 (If only Hillary had some
platform seemed most relevant, though no one serious funding, and was
seemed to know anything about it." in a position she could
use to promote herself...)
The question is not whether her platform had some
nice stuff in it, but whether you could trust her
to stick to any of it, because her actual history
shows her blowing all over the map as convenient.
As opposed to someone like Bernie Sanders who's
message has been so consistent it could get kind
of boring.
"Lots of policitians have been disliked for
their policies and positions, but Clinton's (A letter in response by
were often close to Sander's ... " Nikil Saval, from the Feb 2,
2017 issue argues with some
Well maybe they were *this year*. justice that they were not
(Nice job, Bernie.) that close.)
[ref]
A letter by Peter Connolly in the February
16, 2017 LRB goes into some detail on
Hillary's background:
[ref]
"... during the 1980s, while her husband
was governor, Hillary Clinton was a
partner in the Rose Law Firm, the most
prominent corporate law and lobbying firm
in Arkansas. This was an inherent conflict
of interest, as anyone wishing the
governor to think well of his or her
request for state favours could simply
hire the governor's wife's firm. ..."
"These were also the years of her
miraculous conversion of $1000 into
$100,000 by means of 'commodity futures' WHITEFOAM
trading ..."
And later, after Bill's presdiency:
"... the Clintons have created a worldwide
influence-peddling empire through the Clinton
Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative,
financed by contributions from self-interested
sleazoids from all continents ..."
"... The Clintons also received $153 million
in fees for 'paid speeches' during those
years, money paid in the hope of influencing a
sitting senator, secretary of state and likely
(it was thought) future president. Clinton
herself took in $22 million for paid speeches
after resigning as secretary of state,
including $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
few evenings of schmoozing in 2013 because
'that is what they offered.'"
"Her email server problem, which Solnit
dismisses as the 'dullest and most uneventful
scandal in history', probably had to do with
her desire to shield all these multifarious
arrangements from prying eyes. But of course
it is all James Comey’s fault."
--------
[NEXT - CONFESSIONS_OF_A_HILLARY_HATER]