Attitudes to Hillary Clinton

[Felascloak]

Been reading the Beebs coverage of Hillary Clintons nomination today (and the comments on HYS) and I'm pretty disgusted. Very little support for her as the first female nominee. Loads of disparaging comments about her marriage. Suggestions on nepotism

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36475840

And to top it off the BBC have a video about how she "must own her inner bitch".

Ffs. What is the male equivalent of an "inner bitch" and do men ever have to own it?

I couldn't give a shit about her politics, surely it is to be celebrated that a woman has got to this stage for the first time? Compare with all the excitement about Obama.
Today is one of those days where the world's sexism has slapped me in the face
Apologies for the rant

In this instance, I prefer CNN's reporting to the BBC's.

www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-historic-nomination/

I think again women are in a double bind. It's so rare to get to the top, then when it happens loads of special pleading is made as to why this woman isn't a "real woman" or that this woman did it because of nepotism/connections.
That reminds me of being told in my first job that I only got it because the boss wanted to sleep with me (by jealous colleagues, my boss never gave any indication it was anything but a professional relationship).
Also I don't expect Hillary to be a feminist just because she's a woman. My thinking is along the lines of Avas - that it will help to make it unremarkable for women to be in positions of power.

Not only that, Thatcher broke every female stereotype. She was not weak, or more sympathetic, or empathic, or kinder, or more nurturing than a man, I didn't like her politics, but I loved that she did not conform in any way to gender stereotypes.

I do think Bernie Saunders has let himself down, if he as progressive as he claims, he should celebrate a woman winning the nomination. 50% of the population and we have never held the top job? That is so wrong, that whatever you think of Clinton, this does redress that hideous, glaring inequality.

Clinton is a highly experienced politician who has been deemed by her party to have the best chance of the candidates presented of beating the Republicans.

There is no reason why she wouldn't win this nomination. If a man with her CV had won, it would be utterly unsurprising.

Of course she's not perfect but neither is any man who has ever run for president. She's better qualified than many of them.

Win or lose, the first female presidential candidate is a cause for quiet satisfaction.

Why aren't you casigating Tina Brown then rather than the BBC?

Those comments about the BBC are very misleading. The remarks were not BBC Ccomments but reported comments made by a prominent and influential female supporter and friend of Clinton.

Of course she's not perfect but neither is any man who has ever run for president.

They've always been various shades of evil/corrupt, in my opinion, and Clinton is no different apart from being female.

My point was, likening someone to a head of state who has done reprehensible things is still taking him seriously. "inner bitch" ... not so much

Only inasmuch as saying his politics are equally as reprehensible.

You do realise "inner bitch " was a comment made by Clinton's friend and supporter Tina Brown?

lass the bbc didn't have to pick that particular statement as the headline for the story. They did it because it was an attention grabbing statement. I think it's sexist and there were plenty of other things they could have used as a headline. It grated on me because I get fed up with hearing women are bitches - resting bitch face, inner bitch etc etc.
It interests me what someone said up thread about black people using the word bigger. If that happened I doubt the BBC would use a snippet as a headline. Because it could be perceived as racist. No such qualms about sexist language though.

*nigger
Even my autocorrect hates it

One tiny report out of the probably 1000s which the BBC has run yet the BBC is at fault, not the woman who actually made the comment.

If a man had said what Tina Brown had said I expect you would be down on him like a ton of bricks.

The link you posted had several BBC reports not one of which was even the one you are complaining of.

I'm sure Tina Brown is on twitter or Facebook- have you tried telling her you get fed up with hearing women are bitches - resting bitch face, inner bitch etc etc?

Maybe I wasn't clear in my opinion and subsequent posts. I'm not particularly singling out the BBC (except for the inner bitch headline, the article which I did link to. I can't help it if the beeb changed their links after I posted). I just found it extremely depressing that a woman had passed a major milestone and yet all the comments were really negative.
I said it was a rant. There's no need to be so goady in your responses lass

1. not nepotism as such but by staying married after such a humiliating-to-anyone-else affair
2. the fact that American politics is just so unutterably insane And some other things I'm struggling to articulate.

I'm pleased it's happened, but more in a 'about bloody time' way than a 'crashing through the glass ceiling way'.

It's rare I agree wholeheartedly with Polly Toynbee but I do today: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/demonise-hillary-clinton-careful-us-president

The widespread downplaying of this historic achievement depresses me. In one article I read it was downplayed because X number of countries around the world have already had a female leader, so nothing to see here folks! By that reasoning over 60 countries have already had black leaders so Obama's achivement wasn't very impressive either

The other thing that annoys me is the incessant need for people to hold her to a higher standard than any male politician. "Oh I want a woman leader but I didn't want it to be this woman!" Well you know what, I don't want this man in charge of the Labour party, but I'll still support and vote for them. To say we shouldn't have a woman as President until it is the absolute perfect woman is ludicrous sexism. No politician is perfect and no man has ever been held to that standard.

Lost first half of post. Said something like I'm not as over the moon as I'd like to be for a bunch of reasons. (Then I only managed to list two FML)

bue exactly. Great post, thank you

LassWiTheDelicateAir

I think you confusing Lenin with Stalin
The latter was responsible for soviet union atrocities.Lenin was an idealistic,no doubt greatest revolutionist of 20th century

Let me try again.

I'm pleased there is a female nominee. But, because of her circumstances, I don't believe she's blazed a trail others can follow or smashed a glass ceiling or that equality has been achieved or any of those other things that would be worth a huge celebration IMO.

Which maybe makes it all the more remarkable an achievement for her personally but not for womankind in general.

But, because of her circumstances, I don't believe she's blazed a trail others can follow or smashed a glass ceiling or that equality has been achieved or any of those other things that would be worth a huge celebration IMO.

What circumstances are you talking about? Of course equality has not been achieved, but do you have any idea how difficult it is for anyone to make a run for the presidency in the US? Multiply that difficulty tenfold for a women, no matter her circumstances.

Apart from having been married to a president I don't particularly see how her circumstances are much different to those of any other presidential candidate. They're overwhelmingly a privileged bunch. I'm curious if you saw Obama's election as an achievement for black people ftw?

Yes, of course running for president is difficult or we'd all be doing it.

I know they're overwhelmingly privileged and nepotism is not new, but she was married to a president. I do not believe at all that HC would be nominee now had BC not been president, not through any personal failing on her part, just because of the patriarchy the US political system.

Yes, I do see Obama's election as an achievement for black people and it's different IMO because he wasn't married to a president.

And I don't believe the analogy with black leaders mentioned above holds up because where there have been black leaders it has been (AFAIK) mostly of nations where black is the majority/indigenous population, which is obviously not the same as being elected president of a country where all the privilege still rests with white people.

(Sorry if incoherent. Tea time.)

Clinton has absolutely served her time in her own right though, from junior to senior political positions. bill was president 1992-2000, 16 years have gone past during which his star has faded and her career progressed. Only 8 years separate the Bushes, fyi.

Being married to a previous president is no more or less an advantage than any of the advantages other candidates/past presidents have brought to the table.

She is the only one who has been married to a previous president, because she is the only woman who's even run. I don't understand why this particular 'advantage' would be singled out over and above any other.

I doubt she will blaze a trail. Thatcher didn't either.

We're supposed to have one woman make it, and be satisfied with that. In the eyes of many, this is equality.

I'm with Dowager.

But I will go further

GO HILARY! You absolutely rock.

I know a Republican who thinks Clinton is more socialist than Saunders! Their vote is for Trump. Even though they think he is ridiculous.

And Saunders, give it up already. And show some support.