Does a true Feminist support "obliterating Iran"? Senator Clinton didn't
even discuss the complexities behind the whole notion of Iran hypothetically
attacking Israel, an ally with enough nuclear capability to "obliterate" the
entire Middle East on its own. In short, wasn't it more Texas macho (think Bush
and the Neo-Cons) for Clinton to offer her "obliterate" comment than reassuring
Feminist diplomacy?
Wouldn't it have been the more Feminist thing to do to answer by saying,
"As leader of the strongest nation on earth I would look at every effort to
prevent such an occurrence and I think that can be done through diplomatic
means. Look, we survived decades of the cold war without a nuclear attack
because we were patient and diplomatic. I believe that we can do the same in the
Middle East."
But, no, Hillary went Texan on us, and that's not Feminist.
In fact, Mary Matalin's uxorious husband, James Carville, boasted
the other day that -- and we are not making this up -- if Hillary gave one of
her three gonads to Barack Obama, they would each have two.
Now would a Feminist keep a high-testosterone male chauvinist clown like that on her staff?
Of course, wouldn't a Feminist have read the NIE before authorizing
Bush to proceed with the Iraq War?
Wouldn't a Feminist have voted for the banning of cluster bombs in civilian areas, instead of for their continued use in populated communities, where they particularly kill children?
Wouldn't a Feminist be supporting MoveOn.org's anti-war work and party activists for peace instead of denouncing them as extemists?
Would a Feminist have stood by and
said nothing during the slaughter in Rwanda?
Would a Feminist have sat back and let the Bush Administration run roughshod through our civil liberties?
Would a Feminist, today, May 8th, channel the ghost of George
Wallace and openly run as the candidate of "white" people "who are hard-working"
(as compared to those "other" non-white ones -- we are to assume -- who are
not).
We can go on and on about Senator Clinton's "male" positions on
domestic and foreign policy. Yes, she once worked for the Children's Defense
Fund, before becoming a corporate lawyer who also defended rapists, before
joining the Wal-Mart board which was crushing unions, before supporting a
"welfare reform" program which was vigorously opposed by the Children's Defense
Fund.
Progressives support positions that embetter our country, champion our
Constitution, and promote the equality of all. It is not a gender issue.
You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote international
reconciliation and dialogue (the assumed Feminist position). Or you can be a
woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and basically be a war hawk who only came to
claiming to want to end the Iraq War once she declared for president.
You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote racial healing. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and exacerbate the racial divide by re-opening the wound of racial division.
You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote a politics that doesn't depend upon character assassination and guilt by association. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and run a campaign out of the Karl Rove-Lee Atwater playbook.
...
Certainly, blatantly pouring hot coals in America's festering racial
history is not "Feminist." To be a Feminist is to nurture and to heal, not
to render asunder a nation that is seeking to overcome its differences and
divisive history.
Hillary Clinton has employed the basest of political tactics. She has betrayed the accomplishments and advancements of the Civil Rights movements to become the "Great White Hope" of 2008.
Is it because she wants to wound Obama to the point that he cannot win and then she presumes that she will be able to walk into the Democratic nomination in 2012?
We are not mind readers, so we don't know.
But we do know this. George Wallace would be proud of her.
Couldn't have said it better. Thanks, Buzzflash Editors!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment