So, this op-ed piece by Lynn Forester De Rothschild framed a lot of loose ideas for me. She was a Hilary supporter, and the piece is focussed on the shortcomings of Obama. I will have to add a few thoughts at the end regarding Ms. Clinton. But here’s what Rothschild has to say:
I’m a longtime Democrat. … But I must face the uncomfortable truth that liberal elitism has been a weakness of the Democratic Party for more than half a century.
She previously defined elistism:
While Obama supporters attempt to dismiss the charges about their candidate’s perceived hauteur, they confuse privilege and elitism. Elitism is a state of mind, a view of the world that cannot be measured simply by one’s net worth, position or number of houses.
And then, more directly:
Mr. Obama is not connecting to millions of middle- and working-class voters, as well as women voters of all classes. Not only is his legislative record scant on issues that make a difference in their lives, but his current campaign is based mainly on an assumption of his transcendence….
his creation and display of a mock presidential seal with his name on it, his speech at a mass rally at the Prussian Victory Column in Berlin, and his insistence on delivering his acceptance speech in front of fabricated Greek columns in a stadium holding 80,000 chanting supporters have crossed the thin line that separates galvanizing voters and plain old demagoguery.
This makes room for my favorite politician:
In this context, it should come as no surprise that Sarah Palin, mother of five, hockey mom turned governor and maverick reformer, would instantly zero in on the inherent weakness in Mr. Obama’s candidacy, and contrast it with her own compelling life story.
So, Obama is a snob and has surrounded himself with other donkey-party snob advisors. He is the one who won the nomination.
But then there is the one who almost won: Hilary Clinton–the other female candidate. And the comparisons between Palin and Clinton are on people’s minds.
Before this election, I had often yearned for a female in the white house. I had thought, if a candidate comes up I will have to vote for her regardless of her political positions. Sister solidarity!
But then there came Hilary Clinton. As much as I wanted to like her, she gave me the heebie jeebies. Mostly because of:
ELITISM
Thank you, Ms Rothchild, for showing that I’m not the only one who sees it across the board in democrats.
So, my impression of Hilary is that she felt she was owed this position. I say, based on what? Being married to the president? The seat next to the heart surgeon doesn’t qualify the sitter to do a by-pass.
Oh, wait. Let’s be fair, she is a Senator. So, how about that?
My impression of Hilary Clinton is that she is like a compassionate wealthy aunt. When she discovers troubles in someone around her–and she is interested in finding troubles she can help, really she is–she would sit the gentleman down to hear his troubles. Then she would put on her reading glasses, get a fancy pen and her checkbook and say, “Tell me a number.”
Everyone repeat with me:
E-Mas-Cu-Late
Or to be colloquial: Ballbusting
Self-respecting men (and most of them are self-respecting, god bless them) do not want a hand-out. Men want to be paid fairly for a fair day’s work. They want to use their strength and their skills to take care of themselves and their families. And if their families need more, men want to know that they can pull together enough sacrifice and smarts to handle whatever comes. A man who knows he has, in himself, what it takes to pull everyone through is a secure, confident and happy man.
Being handed a check means “Your strength and your skills mean nothing.”
Most men would rather carry a bag of rocks around the world than hear that message. So, yeah. Hilary could be off-putting.
Feminists seem to be missing perspective on men. Okay, yes, men are very interested in the sexuality of women. But that’s the easy answer. The bigger picture is that men respect women who are their partners.
Some women look to men and say “look at this mess you got us into!”
Others “I know you can get us through this. Let’s work on this together.”
I’ve been accused of ballbusting. I wear it proudly. For me, it looks like this:
Working with a vendor, and the job isn’t done quite right:
“Guys, it’s not working. It needs to do this. You have to fix it. I can stay here for as long as it takes, don’t worry. It’s got to be to the spec.”
And I do stay. And they do get it done. And they love me; they know I’m tough, but they know that I will give them what ever they need (from me) to get the job done as quickly as possible.
These guys rave to their bosses to me, and dont’ want to work with anybody else in the company. Yeah, I bust their balls ’til the get it done, but with ME, they can get it done. And they feel good about their work and about me.
So…Palin is, in my opinion, that kind of ballbuster. She’s tough, she’s not asking for favors and she’s not dispensing largess to the less-fortunate.
And she’s telling men–women, too, but this is the language men speak–that they can stand up on their own and she’ll help them.
Donny Deutch got a lot of heat for this, but I think I know what he means here:
“men want to mate her” is only partly about sex. It unfair to men to say that’s ALL they think about. Having a mate is different than getting it on. There’s the kind of girl you bring home to mother, you know? And Palin, unlike Hilary, presents herself as more of a tough partner (“lying in bed next to you”) who will hold you to the standard of your best self.
I see the feminists reacting squeamishly to this statement, but I can see that men are able to and DO hold women in higher esteem than the feminists give them credit for.
Hey democrat politicians…Drop the “we know better than you because we ARE better than you” elitism. Don’t ever forget that Americans can handle themselves fine. We could use Washington to handle their business, and leave us alone to handle ours. Keep things legal and fair, and let us live our lives.
