Hillary’s Paranoid Delusions – Part II

Being neither black, nor a woman, I feel I can look at the situation fairly objectively.  Some “individuals” in the media may have demonstrated some form of an anti-woman bias, but a few individuals do not constitute “the media”.  And please, don’t bring up anybody from FOX “News” as an example of Hillary/sexist bashing, because EVERYONE knows the agenda of THAT network. 
I have seen just as much of an empty bias, in favor of Hillary, from some very prominent women in the media.  Maureen Dowd, for example, writes as though Hillary Clinton is the female messiah, and that the presidency is – somehow – her divine right.  Even Gwen Ifill – who I generally admire – has a hard time concealing her obvious bias towards Hillary. 
And, it’s not just women in the media.  After both the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries Tim Russert could hardly contain himself, he was so happy for Hillary!  And, all the unqualified adjectives (some superlative) that the media used in describing (the few) Clinton victories showed me that “the media” was NOT favoring Obama.  As a matter of fact, though conveniently forgotten, prior to Obama’s upset victory in the Iowa caucuses, he was actually trailing in New Hampshire polls.  But, in the days following Iowa, all of a sudden, the polls had him ahead by nearly 9 % points?!?!  This set up Hillary’s “upset” victory, that the media then ballyhooed, despite the fact that she won by a mere 3%.  In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary she had as much as a 22% lead over Obama, but when Hillary won by 9.4% the media acted as though it were a major coup.  For a few days they were still crowing about it being a “double digit” victory, when it was known on Wednesday morning that she didn’t crack 10%, which still reflected a drop in support of 12+%.  New York (favorite daughter), Ohio and Pennsylvania set the stage for Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.  In Indiana Obama led Clinton by “a statistically-insignificant 45% to 43%, with 7% undecided and a 3.9% margin of error”, yet her 1.12% victory was also hailed as a major upset by the very media that is allegedly against her, and for Obama.  And, with West Virginia and Kentucky, Obama realized that his chances of any kind of enlightenment of those states’ – predominantly non-educated, working class, white – voters were slim to none, so he focused his energies on the primaries where he at least stood a chance of winning.  In most political circles, this is considered good strategy.  Clinton’s victories in those two states were predictable, especially considering the not so subtle race card she had been playing since the Ohio primary.  And, yet again, the nasty sexist media somehow found a way to heap the superlatives for those victories of hers that were always forgone conclusions to begin with.  Adjectives, such as “Trounce” and “Landslide” for these particular states could just as easily have been replaced with “Duh”. 

Some feel that Hillary is the only one who can carry the South.  On the contrary, Obama has actually won more southern contests than Clinton.  (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Missouri)  The only southern states that Hillary won were Tennessee, Kentucky (two “Duh” states), Arkansas (former favorite daughter), and Florida.  And, Florida was predictable, considering its constituency, and doesn’t count, regardless, because they (like Michigan) ignored the rules and held unsanctioned primaries. 
In my mind it has been just too easy for some to make the sexist allegations.  Women, who seem to value feminism, over everything else, are all too willing to make mountains out of the molehills.  It helps in casting themselves as the oppressed, because it allows them to claim “a” (not “the”) moral high ground.  Hillary’s core supporters (other than the race-baited “hard-working whites”) are the white women, who are generally 50 and over.  They lived through the big feminist movement that ran from the latter ’60s through the early ’80s.  They are more in tune with the disappointment of the failure of not passing the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment).  In my opinion, these supporters are wearing blinders that allow them a very narrow focus, but prohibit them from seeing all that is going on around them.  I applaud those who have had the courage to remove those blinders, and I hope and pray that more of them will find that same courage.

Sexism and racism are, unfortunately, still factors in our society, and for that matter most of the world.  It’s clear to me, as it should be clear to others, which candidate is playing up the bias angle, and which one is trying to reach out to the broadest spectrum of the electorate. 

Your Uncle Rave

0 Responses to “Hillary’s Paranoid Delusions – Part II”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other subscribers


Bookmark UncleRave's Weblog

Blog Stats

  • 6,819,581 hits

Member of The Internet Defense League

%d bloggers like this: