Sunday, May 15, 2016

The progressive case for Hillary Clinton.

Courtesy of In These Times:  

When you hear that Hillary Clinton is unlikable, be aware of the study that shows competent women are generally seen as unlikable; when you hear that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, know that this same study shows women in power are generally seen as dishonest. And know that when the same imaginary job candidate is presented to two groups, with the only difference being a male or female name at the top of the résumé, the female candidate is seen as less trustworthy than the man. In each study, these biased reactions were found in both women and men. 

And realize that when women seek power—for example, by running for the nation’s highest office—a Yale study reports that “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e. contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them” and that “women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions.” In the very same Yale study, when “participants saw male politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having greater agency (e.g. being more assertive, stronger and tougher) and greater competence.” 

That is not to say that there cannot be specific, convincing arguments against Hillary Clinton, or that there are not arguments against her. It is to say that people who criticize Hillary Clinton, especially from the Left, should be aware of how these stereotypes may distort our perceptions, and how we can frame criticisms without feeding into the very real misogyny that has dogged Clinton throughout her career—an antipathy once expressed in a “Hillary Clinton dismemberment doll,” complete with detachable limbs. 

Once one cuts through that misogyny, one is forced to confront the reason the GOP has fostered hatred against her: For much of the early portions of Clinton’s career, beginning when she arrived on the national stage in 1992, Hillary Clinton was presumed by the Right (and many Democrats) to be too far left to be in politics. She was Bill Clinton’s left-wing liability, a Saul Alinsky-hugging, Children’s-Defense-Fund-working, non-cookie-baking, mouthy feminist, attacked on the stage of the Republican National Convention for supporting “radical feminism” and “homosexual rights.” 

It was in part because of this hatred that Hillary Clinton became the person we know today: a candidate defined by her caution and her frustrating self-contradictions, seemingly torn between challenging the power structure and gaining enough credibility within that power structure to survive. Clinton believes that you need to be in the system in order to change the system, and I think that is true. Clinton’s path has given her tremendous impact, and in many ways, her politics—left sympathies combined with a survivor’s instinct for using the system, and a lawyer’s love of the fine detail—are reminiscent of Obama’s. While leftists have critiques of Obama, too, I think he’s been the best president in my lifetime, which started with Reagan. I also remember that second Bush a little too well to ever believe that the two parties are “basically the same” (though I have been told this many times). 

When I hear claims about Hillary Clinton, the money-grubbing shill for Wall Street who thinks just like a Republican, I don’t recognize the woman who once snapped at her husband for not fighting hard enough for universal healthcare, telling him, “You didn't get elected to do Wall Street economics.” Similarly, I see no shifty dishonesty in the Hillary Clinton who, in 2005, pushed for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Bush administration’s failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and who today is the woman making the administrative negligence in Flint, Mich., central to her campaign. 

Similarly, the Hillary Clinton who traveled to Beijing in 1995 against the wishes of her husband’s administration to declare that “women’s rights are human rights” is entirely recognizable as the Secretary of State who helped to create the Office of Global Women’s Issues and declared that “the United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women’s rights in every country on every continent.” In short, this is the same Hillary Clinton who is today stressing equal pay for women as a racial justice issue, given that the women who are most penalized by the pay gap are black women and Latinas. 

And the Hillary Clinton who is “Republican lite,” “more like Reagan than FDR” and “to the right of Nixon” does not seem remotely the same Clinton whose votes aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 93 percent of the time during the two years they overlapped in the Senate. They famously parted ways on the 2002 decision to authorize the war in Iraq—a vote that Clinton acknowledges was a mistake. That doesn’t undo the war, or make her right in retrospect, and it doesn’t even defuse the idea that she voted for the war specifically to protect her reputation; many Democratic politicians with presidential aspirations, from John Kerry to Joe Biden, made that same vote. I respect that for a serious and thoughtful person, the Iraq vote might rule Clinton out; it ruled her out for me in 2008. But this is not 2008, and this year, her opponent’s lack of interest or expertise in foreign policy worries me more than her record. We got into Iraq—a quagmire that has lasted, literally, for my entire adult life—not only because of U.S. interventionism, but because the commander in chief didn’t understand the region well enough to know how profoundly we would destabilize it, or how that would trap us in a conflict that would last for generations. I may not always agree with Clinton, but at least I believe she knows her stuff.

I was not aware of this April 6th article until just the other day, and once I read it I realized that it needed to be shared.

There is more at the link and I think it you would be well served to read it all.

The points that Ms. Doyle makes are solid and she has data to back them up. 

Things are only gong to get uglier from here, so it benefits us to have the correct information at our disposal.

56 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:06 AM

    Ask yourself if Obama can be a POS leader illustrated by his choosing douchebag as honoree, what can we expect from HIllary, who is an abominable foreign policy record.

    Also, it is not good that the first female president could be someone who has a lifelong history of treating women like shit, and is married to someone who treats women like shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maple5:23 AM

      And from your post, it appears that you are full of it......shit, that is.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:47 AM

      For fun was just watching some Repub apologists defending Trump. How can they- and you 4:06- live with yourselves when you suffer such delusion? How do you function in the world when you are so easily deluded?

      Delete
    3. SallyinMI6:04 AM

      Oh right. She goes to China calling for fair treatment of women-20 years ago. She tries to get healthcare in place because WOMEN are most likely not to have it from their employers-20 years ago. She has been an advocate for women her entire life. Frankly, if some bimbos were chasing my husband around and I wanted to stay married, I'd probably have a nasty thing or two to say about them too. Wouldn't you?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:02 AM

      Please keep posting. You're sounding more and more ridiculous with every comment.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous4:09 AM

    *
    "... so it benefits us to have the correct information at our disposal."
    Could not agree more!
    Before starting in her role as Secretary of State, Hillary had to read and sign this agreement NDA Agreement:
    Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.
    ...I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it...
    ...4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SallyinMI6:02 AM

      You keep posting this..SO?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:08 AM

      Hillary's disadvantage is that every detail of her life for the last 30 years is public and can be scrutinized. Trumps advantage is that he has been very good at not letting the media any where near his mountains of baggage and shady dealings. May be you should apply a little critical thinking in his direction, because Sanders is no longer an option and really never was.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:16 AM

      *
      Hey Sally!
      Do you honor contracts you sign your name to?
      Yes or no.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous9:19 AM

      What's sad 6:08 is that having every detail of her life scrutinized for 30 years should be a huge advantage. But the Clintons have been inept at putting to rest for good even the phony rumors. It doesn't help that every time anybody takes a close look, whether it's their Foundation, their taxes, their email server, there's more smoke. When in the history of this country has a candidate for president been the subject of an FBI investigation about possible mishandling of classified information?

      As for critical thinking...Clinton supporters dismiss Clinton getting $250,000 each for multiple hour-long speeches as no problem, yet practically orgasm yourselves pointing at how Jane Sanders' got a $200,000 one-time separation payout.

      You dismiss that the Clintons had to amend 4 years of tax returns with $15 million in income and then practically wet yourselves pointing at how Bernie took $8000 in write-offs for business lunches.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous9:23 AM

      Sally the SO? is that if the outcome of the FBI investigation is that Clinton mishandled classified information, she'll be ineligible to be president because she'll no longer be able to get a security clearance.

      Delete
  3. Do these women also have life-long histories of corruption? Do they have life-long histories of lying worse than Pinocchio? Do they have life-long histories of fleecing heads of governments and CEO's for their slush funds? Do they have life-long histories of hundreds of people connected to them in prison or dying under mysterious circumstances? Do they have life-long histories of saying whatever is necessary to get ahead? Even if they said the opposite yesterday? Do they have a life-long history of changing their beliefs to comply with whatever group they are pandering to?

    I think NOT!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SallyinMI6:01 AM

      My goodness. You sure have the Fox Noise talking points down pat. Are they paying you to submit them all over the web?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:19 AM

      Try reading the article and letting it sink in. If Sanders were a woman, with the little he has achieved, he would never even have made it to senator.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:00 AM

      Get a grip.

      Delete
    4. I think NOT!!!
      ---------------------------------
      Well I THINK you don't do any critical thinking at all. As SallyinMI says you sure have Faux Noise down pat.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous4:20 AM

    You can present a case for Satan to be a hero and this article has. They forgot the time she was under sniper fire, the time she identified the super predator black people that must be brought to heel. They forgot to mention the she is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street (her benefactor), an unapologetic warmonger, a pathological liar, a constant flip flopper, a cheater, a person who thinks she is above the law. etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:49 AM

      Dear Bernie Bro (or is it Trump fan?), Bernie hasn't been vetted yet. No one is really looking into his background because they don't expect him to win. You better believe he'd be beaten to a pulp by Trump if he were the nominee.

      Delete
    2. SallyinMI6:01 AM

      Thank you for your opinions, Fox News. Now slink back under your rock.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:03 AM

      *
      @5:49
      Let's do some vetting on Hillary...

      Clinton and her aides have broken the law.
      Title 18 Section 1924
      Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
      Title 18 Section 793
      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous6:14 AM

      What color are the trees in your world? Who the f' is this "Wall Street" who owns her? Is it one giant person? Is it everyone who works on Wall street? - the janitors, office workers, accountants, lawyers, every day people who contributed to her campaign? Who? Who? Who?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous6:59 AM

      It's all sound bites, many of which originated with Conservatives.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous9:07 AM

      It's not a conservative sound bite that Clinton is being investigated by the FBI.

      It's not a conservative sound bite that a federal judge is allowing discovery to proceed in a suit that Clinton circumvented federal record-keeping and FOIA laws.

      It's not a conservative sound bite that The Clinton Foundation may have violated federal law by giving money raised as a charity to private individuals for their own enrichment.

      It's not a conservative sound bite that Clinton charged $250,000 each for one hour speeches when she knew she was going to run for president in 2016. Poor judgement.

      It's not a conservative sound bite that the Clinton Foundation had to amend 4 years of tax returns to show that millions of donation dollars came from foreign govts.

      Try not to answer with "But Bernie...." or "But Trump...." or "other insult here"

      Delete
    7. Anonymous9:48 AM

      *
      @9:07
      Yup.
      Kinda like a cult,no?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous11:04 AM

      She charged what they would pay, just like she did for other organizations and just like every other speaker does.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous4:23 AM

    By all means yes, let's begin criticizing Hillary Clinton 24/7, that would be a really smart move for Democrats, wouldn't it?

    No sense in waiting for Bernie Sanders and his Trump base to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:48 AM

      Criticism of Clinton ≠ Support for Trump

      The calls for must-pretend-Clinton's-serious-flaws-don't-exist-or-you're-not-really-a-Dem make your queen look like a dictator in the making, just like Trump.

      Delete
    2. SallyinMI6:00 AM

      5:48-EVERYONE, including you, has 'serious flaws,' right? Even St. Bernie has flaws, and compared to Trump, Hillary is a saint herself. My goodness, was Obama the 'perfect candidate?' Was a Bush? Was RMOney? No one of us is perfect, and if you can't see a serious difference between Hillary and Trump, I know a local columnist who you;d love..he just got a third of the editorial page to rant about "The Lies of Obama" and how Hillary is the same and why are we worried about Trump? I guess the GOP prefers someone who can be manipulated to bend to their will rather than an experienced stateswoman who can hit the ground running. I know, maybe we'll all feel more secure when Donnie teams up with Cheney.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:16 AM

      Anonymous5:48 AM,

      So is Bernie your "king", since you pretend his flaws don't exist? Condescending, demeaning garbage.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:53 AM

      "Everbody has flaws, no one is perfect" is a goalpost move. The claim was that criticizing Clinton is supporting Trump. It's not.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous10:31 AM

      Maybe Not supporting Trump, but bring him closer to the White House.

      Delete
  6. SallyinMI4:30 AM

    I hadn't read that before, but the writer makes perfect sense, and excellent points. I am all in for Hillary, and when we send Trump and his model wife crying back to their penthouse, she will become an excellent President.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous4:56 AM

    You and Doyle undercut your own arguments by using 20+ year old pictures of Clinton on your stories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:20 AM

      That's what you got out of this post?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:58 AM

      What a strange comment. Exactly what argument are they undercutting by using that photo?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:48 AM

      Using pics of Clinton from the 1990s on 2016 articles is sexist. It shows the writers, both Doyle and Gryphen, think looks are important. So they use old pictures to get people to remember the young Hillary Clinton instead of the now fat now old woman who's the 2016 candidate.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous8:18 AM

      The post focused on the fact that Hillary has been working for progressive issues for decades....and used numerous examples from over twenty years ago. Very appropriate to use a photo from back then.

      Btw....I'm sure you love those SarahPac photos that never seem to show Sarah more recently than 2009 when somebody was helping her dress......(and reminding her to comb her hair).

      Delete
    5. Anonymous8:58 AM

      Criticism of Clinton ≠ Palin Fan, Trump Supporter, SeaPee aficionado

      BTW - when you insult people who aren't afraid to say they're not All In The Tank for HER, don't forget she's gonna need our votes if she's the nominee. Calling me names isn't going to persuade me to vote for Clinton.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous10:30 AM

      It's not sexist to post that photo. It is sexist to make that assumption about the motivation. You're the one who thinks her weight and age make any difference.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:05 AM

      Such a cute photo of her. She's still a very attractive woman - inside and out!

      She has my vote!

      Delete
    8. Anonymous2:14 PM

      Anonymous8:58 AM

      So are Clinton supporters allowed to defend her or is that considered insulting to you? Should we be "afraid to say what we think"?

      Delete
  8. Anonymous6:45 AM

    Today is the first time IM wasn't my stop since the summer of 2009 when I wondered why stupid Sarah was still being talked about. The Bernie bashing on this site lately has been irritating and not convincing. Thanks for this article for showing Hillary's good points.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:10 AM

    You make a poor case if you have to claim she is 93% with Bernie. Just vote for Bernie and get the 100% experience without the lies Clinton keeps telling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:52 PM

      We support Clinton because we prefer her over Sanders. The point of the percentages is to show they are actually very similar in their records. It's for your benefit, not ours.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous9:54 AM

    So what is the reason so many women hate Hillary?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:51 PM

      Stupid question.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous11:04 AM

    What a great article!

    I've always thought the world of Hillary Clinton and she has my vote as well as the hope she includes Elizabeth Warren as her running mate!

    They'd be a dynamo team and would beat any Republican that comes up against them!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous11:22 AM

    "There is more at the link and I think it you would be well served to read it all."

    WTH kind of word salad is that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous11:31 AM

    Why are Hillary people wasting time attacking Bernie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:15 PM

      Why are Bernie people wasting time attacking Hillary?

      Delete
  14. Anonymous12:00 PM

    G: I was not aware of this April 6th article until just the other day...

    UPDATE: May 10, 2016

    The Progressive Case For Hillary Clinton
    Isn’t Much of a Case At All


    A recent argument for Clinton from the left fails to convince.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/19118/the-progressive-case-for-hillary-clinton-isnt-much-of-a-case-at-all

    G: There is more at the link and I think it you would be well served to read it all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous2:44 PM

    Hilary is not a progressive. She and Bill pushed for the New Democrats' agenda to deregulate business and banking, ship jobs out of the country, etc. This is a matter of record. Some examples, Hilary consulted with the 5 biggest pharmaceutical companies to draft her version of health care reform and did not allow input from others, sold out unions with NAFTA and WTO treaties, signed on to repeal of Glass Steagal, etc. Her campaigns are funded by Wall St.

    She is a hawk on foreign policy and aligns with the neocons who believe in US "hegemony," i.e. empire, and using force and "regime change" to overthrow and assassinate foreign leaders in order to advance their agenda with or without the consent of Congress and the American people.

    The neocon record is dismal: they have destabilized Afghanistan and Iraq and right now Hilary is pushing for a war in Syria--in alignment with the neocons' desires. Her State Department destabilized Libya and made it a haven for ISIS and other terrorists; it also destabilized Ukraine where she pushed for the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected president, thus throwing that country into chaos with neo-Nazis taking positions of power (see Victoris Nuland "Yats" and the US role there).

    The neocons have absolutely no credibility, their illegal wars have created failed states that are now havens for terrorists. Hilary's ramping for war in Syria is not only stupid but dangerous. US policy, in accordance with the neocon aims that Hilary supports,is to overthrow Syrian president Assad. But sending US arms there is helping ISIS regain territory as they either capture the arms or pose as "moderates" to receive them.


    No matter the talking points, Hilary is no progressive. Her record is one of voting for the New Democrats' and the neocon agendas (to view the neocon agenda see "Project for a New American Century"--the infamous PNAC paper.

    (For more on Hilary's State Department and the neocon agenda see Seymour Hersh's recent reporting on the weapons the CIA was ordered to ship to Syria from Bengazi.)



    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous4:42 PM

    *
    @2:44
    Yup.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anita Winecooler5:02 PM

    Thanks for the article, I'm still voting Hillary because I feel she more closely reflects my values, she's got experience and the right resume for the job. I want someone who's going to continue the fine job President Obama's done. She knows all the leaders and will use force as a last resort.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous6:27 PM

    Hillary, the one" SANE" person in this mess!

    ReplyDelete
  19. What studies are referenced. Do we just blindly believe that the writer has no personal agenda? As far as trusting Hillary, her dubious legal dealings started ( as far as I know) with the Whitewater scandal and she has continued to straddle the legal and moral lines ever since. Sooo... woman, man, it is a question of a pattern of trust that has to be established to gain any sort of credibility. Spin it ant way you want, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.... you decide!

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.