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.
“E-Mas-Cu-Late
Or to be colloquial: Ballbusting.”
clearly we have a difference in ideologies. You seem to think that the primary role of a woman in a relationship is that of a “help-mate”, whereas a man is the primary “bread winner”. I disagree. also, i think you are misunderstanding the feminist concept of partners (equal relationship based on mutual respect)… and i’m not sure where most of your arguments are coming from… you seem to be attributing traits and perspectives to people & groups that in reality do not exist.
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
—-
there is NO justification for saying that you want to “mate” with a female politician. it IS demeaning – you are really reaching with that defense. Note that the “key ingredients” are “super mom, sexy, perfect age, lioness, funny, real, rock solid, feisty, smart.” this has nothing to do with politics. Granted smart is a necessity – but all the candidates could be described as same – this doesn’t set her apart.
“There’s the kind of girl you bring home to mother, you know?” how is this relevant? we are picking a P/VP not a wife. republican pundits seem to be supporting Palin because she is a great “help-mate”, a pretty woman who knows where her place is – behind a man. gross.
—-
lastly i feel as though we are winding down a road of insignificance. i was just trying to find a common ground.
Well, Bethany, I exist and these are my perspectives. We don’t have to agree.
Regarding the “mate” reference from Deutch, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mate has this to say:
mate 1 (mt)
n.
1. One of a matched pair: the mate to this glove.
2. A spouse.
3.
a. Either of a pair of animals or birds that associate in order to propagate.
b. Either of a pair of animals brought together for breeding.
4.
a. A person with whom one is in close association; an associate.
b. Chiefly British A good friend or companion.
c. A person with whom one shares living quarters. Often used in combination: advertised for a new flatmate.
Sex isn’t the first definition, and it isn’t the last. “Spouse” is high on the list, and I think that spouse is more than a sexual partner.
We don’t have to agree on this interpretation.
Since the womenagainstpalin.blogspot.com was linked, here is a article with an opposing viewpoint:
Since the day John McCain selected Palin as his running mate, I have spoken with only women callers to my radio show. For the past week I have limited callers to those who are calling a radio show for the very first time. All the lines have been filled every hour of every day. Caller after caller wants to discuss their affection for Sarah, their willingness to work for her and contribute to the RNC and to share stories of like-minded women in their families and among their friends.
Each new attack on Palin brings increased enthusiasm for her. Take, for example, the astonishing report from by Los Angeles Times reporter Andrew Malcolm that a “senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.” This is just one of many brazen attacks on the decisions of Sarah and Todd Palin on how to raise and care for their family. Nothing remotely like it has ever been seen in modern politics, and the disgust level is growing as a result.
This from Hugh Hewitt, a L.A. radio personality and blogger. Here’s the link: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/09/12/an_army_of_sarahs?page=full&comments=true
I like that he brings up some of the anti-Down’s Syndrome prejudice, too. It does exist, unfortunately.
I really like what you had to say here! It\’s about time! Would you mind if I placed a link back from my blog?
О черной магии
В наше время научный прогресс шагнул далеко и многие из Вас не верят в магию, а зря… При всем при том магия является первой наукой на земле. Ее давние корни и множество лет существования уже могут доказать, что колдовство – это реально имеющаяся действительность и ничего общего с обманом и мошенничеством не имеющая. Это самая истинная наука, которой подвластно поменять всю человеческую жизнь.
С греческого магия переводится как колдовство или волшебство. Вместе с тем даже слово маг переводится как священнослужитель или жрец.
Магия пережила многие цивилизации с их особенностями, многобожием или верой в единого бога. Знания о магии передавались из поколений в поколения и не исчезли с лица земли вместе с исчезнувшими цивилизациями. С годами магия только лишь совершенствовалась и предстала в настоящий момент перед вами как единственный гарантированный инструмент для завоевания цели.
Если Вы не верите в магию, и не придаете ей значения, то подумайте об том, что во все эпохи сильнейшие мира сего обращались к услугам магов. Подводя итог, можно утверждать о том, что магия и послужила той первой причиной существования у сильных мира сего большой силы и власти, а также поддержания ее в надлежащем облике. А кто может изрекать, что ключевые бизнесмены, обладающие богатством, славой, властью и успехом не обращались к черной магии? Да-да, именно к черной. Как ни говори магии другого цвета не бывает. И те, кто объясняются вам об белой либо серой магии, элементарно вас обманывают.
Деньги, сила и власть, скопленные в одних руках, в наше время – это работка магов, достаточно сильных и могущественных таких как Константин Красовский, Маг Эльбрус, Игнатий Новгородский, Маг Тамерлан и др. А люди, обращаясь к ним, получают то, чего хотят – власть, богатство, славу, успех, любовь, убирают конкурентов и остальное. В наше время магов на государственном уровне заменили особые ученые, какие по сути своей занимаются наукой, в античности названной магией. Это астрологи, метафизики и биоэнергетики. Все они одаренные от рождения редкими сведениями и способностями. Такими же знаниями владеют и черные маги, только несут они свои сведения в простой народ, ничего не имея общего с правительственными структурами.
После подобного сопоставления вряд ли кто из вас назовет черную магию пустой вещью. Маг разнится от ученого только следованием традициям и проведением обрядов, имеющих наружно порой отталкивающий вид. Хотя в научную лабораторию мы не допущены, и не можем сказать, что там творятся вещи не менее пугающие тривиального обывателя, в чьем сознании пожизненно отпечаталось убеждение о том, что колдовства нет, а все маги шарлатаны и жулики.
На сегодняшний момент проводится много изучений сущности магических ритуалов и все они научно объяснимы с точки зрения биоэнергетики, каковая становится совершенным новшеством, хотя магия существует уже миллионы лет.
С каждым из вас тоже способны случаться не очень хорошие обстановки. Так зачем же не принять решение их с содействием магической науки, в каковой нет ничего дурного. Фактически магия несет тому, кто прибегает к ее помощи лишь вожделенный итог.