If there were a reality show called “Who’s the REAL Feminist?” Andrew Sullivan evidently considers himself a candidate for judge. He, predictably, had the unmitigated gall to assume the role of “feminist maven”on an “Overtime” segment of HBO’s Bill Maher Show. How appropriate!
He debated the issue with Wendy Schiller, associate professor at Brown University on the segment. Talk about picking your opponent! Sullivan, once again, has shown himself to be the good old misogynist we have all come to know and despise. There is a video in the article. WordPress would not accept the code, so I could not post it here. You can watch it when you click into The Daily Caller article.
Andrew Sullivan slams Hillary Clinton: ‘Not a feminist’
Published: 6:26 PM 03/24/2012On Friday’s “Overtime” segment of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Newsweek columnist and The Daily Beast’s “The Dish” blogger Andrew Sullivan made a comparison between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
According to Sullivan, Thatcher’s legacy was “amazing” because she never played the sex card.
“Thatcher was amazing to me because … she never allowed another woman in her own cabinet, by the way, ever, in 11 years,” Sullivan said. “She’s also a woman in the 50s, got educated in chemistry and had a family and ran as a single woman, and never once in her entire life played the sex card. Never, never played it.”
“… she never allowed another woman in her own cabinet.” What a testament! These women would probably disagree with Judge Sullivan.
There are many, many more like them. Hillary Clinton has worked for 40 years for women, children, and families. As Secretary of State, her signature issue has been the empowerment of women and girls. Meryl Streep stated, introducing this amazing woman, a hero to so many of us, at the Women in the World Summit this month, that there are women in the world who are still alive today only because they had their pictures taken with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Comparing her unfavorably with the woman who showed not an ounce of empathy with the mothers of the Long Kesh hunger strikers, defies reason and serves to disqualify Sullivan as any kind of judge of feminism.
How dare you, Andrew Sullivan! You crossed the line, and we are watching you!
Andrew Sullivan is an ignorant jackwagon.
LikeLike
‘Nuff said.
LikeLike
Case closed!
LikeLike
Yeah, I think it’s enough. Definitely. If I ever run into Andrew at a gay pride event, I’ll just have to drag him gently into the light of day…..
LikeLike
Okay, I’m replying to myself. Haha. In a way, I see Andrew’s point, and… she still fights for women and has, albeit imperfectly. Like I said, I’ll just have to drag him gently into the light of day. No one should have to be Queen Elizabeth I with her sex life to qualify as a feminist. G-d help us all. That was the… other extreme. Although, just how much of a war hawk as a politician… well… good question….. Okay, now I’m waxing poetic. Hillary is somewhere in the middle where most women end up. We’re all just lucky she’s extraordinarily smart and persistent as heck.
LikeLike
Maher is a despicable little man with a Napoleon complex. Sullivan is an arrogant POS – pretending to be a feminist.
The progressives are still scared to death of Hillary. The strength of character she demonstrated after the 2008 theft of the election, as well as the great success she has had as Secretary of State, and the sustained admiration and respect she has received, both in this country and abroad, have shown them what a formidable force she is.
LikeLike
That’s what I have never understood – what’s “scary” about her?
LikeLike
Her hawkishness has put some people off in the past. I’ve heard some people go on about her ferocious, take no prisoners, political tactics, but that argument strikes me as a tad ridiculous. It’s a contact sport, after all, why should she be expected to be softer and gentler than the ones accusing her every crime and unethical action under the sun?
LikeLike
Especially since, of the two, she is the diplomat and the OTHER is the one who sent warships to the Malvinas. Last time I checked, HRC did not start any wars unlike Thatcher. Don’t get me started on THAT issue!
LikeLike
I wasn’t talking about her hawkishness as compared to former Prime Minister Thatcher, but the general opinion circa 2008 that, in comparison to Obama, Hillary Clinton would be the one more apt to send us marching off to war with Iran much quicker than Obama.
Incidentally, it’s very interesting to look back on that argument – one that I myself sited as a reason for my less than effusive support.
LikeLike
OK, but the comparison being made by Sullivan is between HRC and Thatcher – far more hawkish than HRC ever has been. Calling her a feminist is like calling Phyllis Schlafly a feminist.
LikeLike
I understand. I was just answering your question about what makes Hillary Clinton scary.
LikeLike
Oh. Well I don’t think that’s what is scaring anybody now.
LikeLike
Now it’s the roughly 20 points between their two approval ratings that scares some.
LikeLike
They should have thought of that when they reassigned HRC’s delegates to Obama. It all goes back to that RBC meeting. 05-31-08. The day democracy died in the DNC. They deserve to be scared.
LikeLike
What’s “scary” about Hillary is that she represents REAL change, not that saccharine sap Obama was peddling in 2008.
LikeLike
Any woman who voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 Democratic primary is not a feminist.
LikeLike
I agree 100 percent!
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more.
Re: What’s scary about Obama? Jen’s right. Hillary is the real deal. She offers real answers to complex questions – not platitudes and sound bites.
The Obamanuts would have traded their first born to get Obama in office (and did trade their credibility) – not because they wanted what was best for this country. The progressive Dems wanted to end the Clinton influence – which totally failed. The idealistic kids and latte-libs were loyal to Obama – not to democracy, truth, and real democratic principles – but he turned out to be a little less godly than they thought. They have seen Hillary rise in popularity. They have seen the incredible job she is doing as SOS. The country understands fully that the wrong Dem occupies the Oval office. She is a threat.
LikeLike
This is why I wondered whether Obamanuts ever really listened to what she said – the content – in her stump speeches and the debates. When I tried to raise that issue with any of them I was rudely interrupted and yelled at in my face – very close – invading my personal space. It was a tactic they were taught to use. (The “get in their faces” tactic.)
Yes, HRC had the real answers and when you tried to explain those answers they would get in your face – rudely.
LikeLike
At the risk of upsetting some of you, I disagree. I think a fair amount of women genuinely voted for Obama just as many women voted for Hillary. I know from personal experience that choosing between the first African American and the first woman can be very difficult. I think maybe it’s because I straddle the racial line and the religious line. I can see the appeal in both choices, and I suspect that a fair amount of people saw in voting for Obama something of a post-sixties culture war vote. Not that it was, really. We all know well with Trayvon and the crazy war on women right now that we’re really only at the beginning of taking in that era in this country, not the end. I just have a problem with such a blanket statement. After all, you could say that any black woman who voted for Hillary was a racist, and we all know that this isn’t true, yes? Yes. So, while I’m not defending everyone, and certainly there are many who made those choices, I think it’s fair to say that I can’t lump everyone in the same boat. I can’t, and I won’t. Another reason why? Assuming the worst can eat away at the soul just as much as not accepting the worst, at times, can. At least that’s my experience. Let’s lose our innocence only when we have to.
LikeLike
I refer to my comments above. There was very little identity politics – if any – among HRC supporters. I am still friends with the people I met then – we still get together. It never had anything to do with her being female or making that kind of history. . It was the content. It was her plans. Anybody who really listened got that. The rest – from what you say – voted based on physical characteristics. Really? people chose between the 1st AA or the 1st woman? Then I am right. They never bothered to listen to her,
LikeLike
I think we can disagree without getting upset regarding the female vote for Obama. Obviously, this is a matter of opinion and perspective, but I still fail to see how any true feminist could have voted for Obama – especially after the sexism and misogyny with which Hillary was treated – by Obama, his supporters, and MSM.
Even if Obama had made no sexist comments, or comments which had implicit sexist messages, he knew about the blatant sexism and misogyny in remarks of MSM, and in the comments and actions of his followers and campaign workers. How can someone who demonstrates sexism and gender bias be a candidate feminists can support? How can he fail to speak out against the sexist, misogynistic slams of his followers, his employees, and of his own personal PR team – the news media – and not be considered unworthy of the true feminist’s vote?
I fail to see how any feminist could overlook Obama’s sexism.
Had Hillary made or implied racist slurs about Obama, all hell would have broken lose – and rightly so. She made no such remarks about him. It would have been unthinkable. And, had anyone else who supported or worked for her, or anyone representing MSM made a racist comment about Obama, Hillary would have been the first one to condemn such remarks. She would never have stood silently by, as Obama did.
If you believe it as unpardonable to be sexist as it is to be racist, then the choice is clear. – a sexist candidate of a minority race, who fails to condemn sexism against his female opponent, and engages in it himself versus a female candidate who supports gender equality in all respects, and who also supports racial equality and civil rights for all. Between the two, which one seems the only choice for feminists? Hillary.
Of course the competency issue could be mentioned (he has little – she has lots), but it’s not directly relevant to the issue related to so-called feminists who voted for Obama.
LikeLike
Part of that undercurrent of sexism was, I feel, more because of her being Hillary Clinton than just her being a woman. In this country, since the early nineties, it has been “ok” to say things about Hillary Clinton that would be seen as crossing the line if the same statements had been made about another woman in public life. Even someone whom many people absolutely detest, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is not treated with the same venom as Hillary Clinton has been over the course of her time in the public eye. For some reason she is treated very differently than her peers.
LikeLike
You know, there’s truth in that and I don’t know what it is about. her. I can say that when people were saying she was polarizing and that people either loved her or hated her, I liked her – a lot – but I didn’t get the polar thing. Then there was that night when the boys’ club attacked. I watched her face as she stood up to them, and that was it. I knew I loved her and wanted to beat up all those boys. Been that way ever since. Some of it is something about Hillary. I don’t know what it is!
LikeLike
Which night was this? She seems to have spent many a night fighting with a bunch of boys.
LikeLike
Drexel. Joe Biden was the only man on the stage that did not join Russert’s gang bang.
LikeLike
He likes her too much.
LikeLike
I’m with you, Rachel, to a degree. People chose their candidates for a bunch of reasons. Some are as you described and some had other reasons for choosing one over the other. I’m don’t ready to paint people with broad brushes. It does little good.
I don’t think that race or sex played as much of a part as some think, though it was certainly there. Age did in a number of ways, and not all of them against Secretary Clinton, and so did personality, perhaps more than it should have.
LikeLike
What abut the content of the plans? That was what hit me right between the eyes with HRC.
LikeLike
That was obviously also a factor. It all gets put together and weighed and people figure out what carries more weight in their minds. Is her hawkishness outweighed by the fact that she is a boomer? Do the plans she’s talking about cancel out that decades old image of Hillary Clinton (that only subsided a bit after she began to have some successes as Secretary of State)? These are all things people ask themselves and not everyone is as wonkish as some here are.
I agree she was the lady with the plan, but there’s more to being elected than that. It has always been the case and it’s never fun to think about, but there are a number of things go into picking a president and some of them are pretty shallow.
LikeLike
How did you people get from Andrew Sullivan’s despicable attack on HRC to going back to the primary battle? Get over it people. He won and now she’s a member of HIS cabinet. They are a team not opponents.
LikeLike
#1: “You people?”
#2: He did not “win” he was selected. We watched every step of it.
#3: We know who she is and why.
#4: 05/31/08 I will NEVER get over what I saw my party do that day.
LikeLike
#5 Obama is a lousy president, no matter how hard the obots try to spin it or blame things on Bush, racism, the Tea Party, the religious right, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh.
#6 The PUMAs were the first ones to realize that the emperor of hope-and-change has no clothes. We knew the country would go to hell if he got elected, and it did. We were right. And that’s why we won’t “get over it.”
LikeLike
Still and Jen, you guys are spot on!
Obama supporters were bamboozled in the worst way, fooled into believing that their chosen one had the ability to lead this country, and the desire. Those who are astute enough to recognize that have publicly denounced him, and expressed their regret for not supporting Hillary.
Maybe, the slower ones will catch on before too much longer.
LikeLike
The fact that anyone is talking about 2016 long before the 2012 election speaks volumes. It’s crazy! Still another thing I have never seen before as I have never seen anyone keep people and cohesive as HRC has. And it is not because she is a woman. Where are the diehard Gore supporters? The diehard Kerry supporters? If Obama had NOT been the selected one, there would not be a diehard movement behind him right now.
LikeLike
There would be less of a “diehard movement” if the Republicans had managed to hang onto a few of their marbles this election cycle. I don’t know how strong the real pro-Obama crowd is versus those that say “I can’t vote for a return to the Gilded Age”.
LikeLike
I think the reason for the “diehard movement” has more to do with the fact that Hillary supporters recognized in 2008, that Obama’s “nomination” was illegitimate. We all knew then that democracy was hijacked by the DNC, who had hand picked Obama years before. With the help of the media and other progressive groups and blogs – several of which felt no compulsion to maintain even minimally acceptable standards of truth and decency, Obama was given the nomination. The Obama people recognized this, as well, as did, I believe, much of the general public. This knowledge, I believe, is the reason there has been so much discussion in the media, especially in progressive blogs, suggesting that a Hillary Presidency would have been more successful than Obama’s.
Another reason HRC’s supporters have remained cohesive and dedicated to seeing her in the Oval Office is that the woman inspires loyalty like no one I have ever seen. How any woman could be against someone who is so clearly and compassionately dedicated to improving women’s lives and supporting gender equality as Hillary is, defies comprehension.
LikeLike
Reminds me of what she said: “It’s not ‘Who are you for?’ It’s Who’s for YOU?’ ” I knew she was for me. Barack was for Barack. Still is.
LikeLike
Still, just wanted to say that The Dept. of Homegirl Security has been on fire, lately. Great job, girl.
LikeLike
Thank you! I had been neglecting it, but when people started beating up on Karen I had an ideal place to kick them where it hurts. Then, look! This cool way to give clothes to sisters in need! 🙂
LikeLike
It’s now more like Department of Homegirls Security – for Secretary Clinton and Ms. Finney.
LikeLike
Ms. Finney was trained by the best and has been trashed by the worst lately. That’s why we’re here.
LikeLike
Well, if women don’t defend other women from sexist attacks, who will? It’s certainly an appropriate time to ratchet up the defense – with the increasing attacks on women’s rights, particularly reproductive rights.
LikeLike
Right. And Karen has been a warhead against those attacks. For doing that she has been attacked relentlessly on Twitter for just about anything she says.
HRC is the Chief Homegirl. If you look at the “Why we are here” page, you see that this blog began because HRC was being eaten alive by her own for campaigning for Obama as she had promised she would.
LikeLike
Speaking of the “war on women”, I believe the House blocked reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act today. I’d ask what’s next, but I think the answer would scare me.
LikeLike
WHAT????? They’re American Taliban!
LikeLike
There was objection to proposed broadening of the act to include Native Americans, undocumented persons, and the LGBTQ community. They’re partying like it’s 1899 over there again.
LikeLike
Just flew around the room like a balloon that someone blew up and let go of. Sitting in a spent limp, rubber heap in a dark corner.
Did you say an objection about Native Americans and LGBT? You did, didn’t you. Wish I lived in a high rise so I could go in the elevator and scream. If I do that here, the police might come. What could I tell them? The GOP … please arrest them!!!! (Oh, wait, they already ARE arrested.) GGGUH!
LikeLike
It’s foul. They can’t pass one damn thing. The Violence Against Women Act used to be a very bipartisan thing, because once upon a time we could all agree that domestic violence was a bad thing. Now it is apparently only bad if the victim is a straight, citizen who has no connection to a reservation. We used to be able to pass transportation bills without them turning into pissing contests of epic proportions. We used to have no arguments about funding emergency disaster relief without having to quickly find a ton of budget cuts to offset it because we all used to understand that emergency disaster relief is and EMERGENCY measure, not a form of government tyranny. If it were all serious business, it would be a rollicking farce.
LikeLike
* if it weren’t all serious business…
LikeLike
We don’t even have to go back that far, but it’s a heck of a picture. It’s beyond crazy.
LikeLike
Factoring in their economic ideas and it looks more and more like a slow trudge toward the Gilded Age.
LikeLike
The worst part is that they know they’re American Taliban/Al Qaeda look-alikes. It’s scary beyond belief how they claim they aren’t, but they *are*.
LikeLike
The Anthem of the House Republican Caucus
LikeLike
OMG!!!! That is one of my fav ever Marx Bros. clips! EVER! My two fav comedy clips are this and Abbbott & Costello “Who’s on First.”
LikeLike
I love it too. Great minds…
LikeLike
Don’t forget the Senate! Both! This is a terrific clip. Love it. Thanks for the share.
LikeLike
The Department of Home Girl Security
Yup, love that!
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike