Why Hillary makes my wife scream - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:35 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Really, I'm less inclined to blame Hillary here, and more inclined to blame the political parties for creating this convoluted and long drawn out primary process.

Wouldn't we all have been happier, had Iowa and New Hampshire coronated our candidates like usual?
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 08:39 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 04:59 PM
Why is it so spread out? Wouldn't it be better to have a national campaigning period and then just everyone in to vote nationally on one specific day, just like the general election? Am I missing some obvious logic with this approach?
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:49 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
Why is it so spread out? Wouldn't it be better to have a national campaigning period and then just everyone in to vote nationally on one specific day, just like the general election? Am I missing some obvious logic with this approach?
The approach to deciding a candidate (in the US anyway) changes exponentially with who the candidates are.
This time is no different.
We have two viable Democratic candidates and the stakes are extremely high.
The process HAS to play out this time.
How that will play out is anyone's guess.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 11:52 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
Why is it so spread out? Wouldn't it be better to have a national campaigning period and then just everyone in to vote nationally on one specific day, just like the general election? Am I missing some obvious logic with this approach?
The "logic" is that the parties want the candidate to be coronated by Iowa and New Hampshire. That means that they can focus on two tiny states, without having to raise too much money to do it.

As for the other states, since their primaries haven't generally mattered for decades, I think most of them stopped caring when they were scheduled. Here's hoping that they'll be more organized the next time around.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-01-2008, 03:48 AM   #20
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Take that, Hayden.


That's Hysterical
Attacks on a "hysterical" Hillary Clinton have a long literary pedigree.

By Linda Hirshman
Posted Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 6:04 PM ET


I wonder whether the SAT still includes those questions about which object does not fit into the larger group. Here's mine:

1. Lucia di Lammermoor
2. Lady Macbeth
3. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
4. Fraulein Bertha Pappenheim ("Anna O.")

Lucia, the heroine of Sir Walter Scott's novel The Bride of Lammermoor and, more recently, of Gaetano Donizetti's eponymous opera, is forced to marry her brother's ally rather than her true love, loses her mind, stabs the groom to death on their wedding night, and—after some impressive vocal pyrotechnics in her bloodstained wedding dress (the opera's mad scene)—dies. Lady Macbeth, of Shakespeare's play and, more recently, Giuseppe Verdi's opera, is married to an aristocratic, but not royal, husband; eggs him on to kill the king and various other superdelegates; loses her mind; and—after some impressive vocal pyrotechnics (the opera's sleepwalking scene)—dies. Bertha Pappenheim, the "Anna O." of Sigmund Freud and Josef Breuer's studies on hysteria, developed paralysis, lapses of consciousness, and hallucinations, but, after a so-called talking cure with Breuer, recovered sufficiently to die (operatically in form, if not in fact) of tuberculosis.

Then there is Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose husband's antics probably would have driven Mother Theresa to homicidal ideation and who has been repudiated on an almost daily basis by people she has personally and politically supported for years. She travels from rally to rally, delivering boring, but worthy, addresses to the assembled multitudes and finds herself—against all odds, since the first recorded contest—approaching, if not securing, the nomination to run for the highest office in the United States.
The May 7, 2008, cover of the New RepublicThe May 7, 2008, cover of the New Republic

And yet the media keep trying to paint her as a hysteric. Here's the cover of this fortnight's New Republic. Category mistake? From all those brilliant young Harvard guys at the New Republic?

Clearly, something else is afoot.

By playing the "hysteric" card, Clinton's attackers are following a very old script—a script that taints women with madness every time they, you know, say anything at all that might distinguish them from a doormat. The word hysterical does not mean any old homicidal lunacy. It means—and has meant since the birth of Western medicine—symptoms caused by the uterus (in Greek, hystera): a disease, as Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine, called it, of women:

When the uterus has reached the liver and the hypochondrium and causes suffocation, the whites of the eyes roll up, the woman becomes cold, and even sometimes livid. She grinds her teeth; saliva drips from her mouth, and she appears to be having an epileptic fit.

So that's where the New Republic got its cover art …

Ancient doctors speculated that uteri drove women crazy because the thirsty organs didn't get watered enough by having sex with men. Although ordinary anatomy eventually dispensed with that theory, the notion that there was some medical basis for female hysteria just would not stay dead. Famed scholar and literary critic Elaine Showalter wrote in her book Hystories that "for over a century the political context of hysteria has been feminism. Hysteria became a hot topic in medical circles in the 1880s and 1890s when feminism, the New Woman, and a crisis in gender were also hot topics. … [D]octors viewed hysterical women as closet feminists who had to be reprogrammed into traditional roles."

Ever since, you could be certain that whenever the old hysteria talk surfaces, the writer is relying, usually quite consciously, on the old association between uppity women and insanity. Culture critic and Slate contributor Stanley Crouch, who recently invoked the H-word when describing Clinton's television persona in his Daily News column ("Clinton seems by turns icy, contrived, hysterical, sentimental, bitter, manipulative and self-righteous [italics mine]"), certainly knows what he is doing. As Salon described him in its series Brilliant Careers, the volatile and charismatic Crouch is "[a]rmed with an elephant's memory and a passionate knowledge of and engagement with art and history." Nor, probably, would anyone contend that Slate's own Christopher Hitchens didn't know the queen's English when he described Clinton's story about Bosnia as "flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying." Flagrant, yes; repetitive, yes; and maybe pathological. But "hysterical"?

This charge of insanity—fits, pathology—against any woman who aspires to transcend prior female achievements is the go-to weapon for people who would keep women down. And this move goes way beyond the candidacy of any particular individual. In a recent Nation column, Tom Hayden (the '60s guy, now in his 60s) deployed a full arsenal of insults, comparing Clinton to Lady Macbeth and then going on to liken her appearance to a "screech" on the blackboard.

Hayden, apparently fearing some criticism, hid behind the voice of his never-before-heard third wife, Barbara, a "meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic," never previously given to offering hostile political pronouncements. But Clinton's appearance on TV apparently makes Tom's wife "scream." Poor Tom Hayden, still looking for a sufficiently submissive female. Everyone remembers Jane Fonda, Hayden's second wife. But probably few Nation readers remember the first Mrs. Hayden, one Casey Hayden. In 1965, right around the time she divorced Tom, Casey Hayden wrote the screed that helped launch the women's liberation movement, "Sex and Caste." Her ex-husband's most recent unleashing of the hysteria rocket shows how little distance we have covered since Casey Hayden picked up her pen.

Can Tom Hayden be suggesting that hysteria is contagious—that even peaceful Barbara becomes somehow unhinged when exposed to the hysterical female presidential candidate? Or maybe it's Tom himself who is the real constant here, seeing women as hysterical wherever they appear.
__________________
VintagePunk is online now  
Old 05-01-2008, 07:52 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,983
Local Time: 10:59 AM
^Interesting. Some people will never admit to such thinking but it is out there. They ought to honestly examine it.

Maybe a hysterectomy would fix her.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-01-2008, 05:00 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 09:59 AM
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 05-01-2008, 05:04 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:59 AM
Tom Hayden has a history and baggage.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-01-2008, 05:11 PM   #24
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
^Interesting. Some people will never admit to such thinking but it is out there. They ought to honestly examine it.

Maybe a hysterectomy would fix her.
Exactly. Remove the offending organ, and she'll be just fine!
__________________
VintagePunk is online now  
Old 05-01-2008, 11:49 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk


Exactly. Remove the offending organ, and she'll be just fine!
and with numerous talking heads, the overriding consensus is that Bill is the offending organ.
Isn't that hysterical..
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:08 AM   #26
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk
Take that, Hayden.
if nothing else at least this articile did make sense

I'm not a Clinton fan or anything
hell, I don't care one way or the other
but the Hayden article made no sense whatsoever
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is online now  
Old 05-02-2008, 04:39 PM   #27
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
if nothing else at least this articile did make sense

I'm not a Clinton fan or anything
hell, I don't care one way or the other
but the Hayden article made no sense whatsoever
Neither am I, nor am I a militant feminist. I'm not even American, so I have little invested in the outcome besides being an interested citizen of the world and a neighbour to the north of the US. Yet oddly, I find myself wanting to defend some of the outrageous claims made about her (yes, they are outrageous, akin to tabloid journalism). I think it's naive not to think that there is at least some degree of sexism going on in the vilification of Hillary.
__________________
VintagePunk is online now  
Old 05-02-2008, 04:51 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
if nothing else at least this articile did make sense

I'm not a Clinton fan or anything
hell, I don't care one way or the other
but the Hayden article made no sense whatsoever
there is a lot of hysterical ranting aginst Hillary these days

I expected it from the Rush Limbaughs and his like

I saw the same hysterical rantings against Bill Clinton in the 90s by that same group

it seems the anti-Hillary people really got nothing
so they are just regurgitating the wacko Right-wing rants
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:03 PM   #29
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Really, I'm less inclined to blame Hillary here, and more inclined to blame the political parties for creating this convoluted and long drawn out primary process.

Wouldn't we all have been happier, had Iowa and New Hampshire coronated our candidates like usual?
I've been meaning to reply to this for a few days now. I think you've hit the nail on the head, blaming the process for much of the problems and division that's going on right now.

You seem to be very familiar with the ways of Canada - you're moving here soon, right? - so you probably know about our process of electing leaders of political parties, and it is so much easier, faster, and more efficient than yours.

In my view, what's happening right now in the US is that contrary to most election cycles, you have two very strong candidates running for the Democratic party. Normally, this should be thought of as a positive thing - yay Democrats! - but all it's causing now is bickering and division.

Because of the strength of the candidates and the relative closeness of their delegate counts, the process has to go on and on before it resolves. In the meantime, the American public is becoming more and more invested in seeing their particular candidate win, forgetting that essentially, they're both on the same side! Your media certainly hasn't been helping, sensationalizing every aspect of the candidates and the process, as the US media is wont to do. This seems to be setting up an air of fervency, whereby it's taking on a tone of a sporting event, with the fans of each "side" being overly invested in the outcome. Rather than being pleased that there are two very strong, capable candidates running, this is leading to the inevitable mudslinging and whatnot.
__________________
VintagePunk is online now  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:05 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


there is a lot of hysterical ranting aginst Hillary these days

I expected it from the Rush Limbaughs and his like

I saw the same hysterical rantings against Bill Clinton in the 90s by that same group

it seems the anti-Hillary people really got nothing
so they are just regurgitating the wacko Right-wing rants
I find the people who criticize Hillary for stuff that has nothing to do with her stands on the issues (I think people can make perfectly rational arguments against her there) to be far more "hysterical" than Hillary has ever been. They call her cold and robotic one day and hysterical the next! Talk about irrational.
__________________

__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com