Hillary in 2008? Who Cares?
Why are leading conservatives supporting Hillary Clinton’s run for the oval office in 2008? Because they know she has no chance of winning.
Newt Gingrich, staunch conservative and the most celebrated hater of Democrats, says “Senator Clinton would be a formidable opponent, and a fine president.” Let us seriously be honest. Gingrich doesn’t believe this. He knows that main-stream America, dare I say patriarchal America, isn’t ready for a female president. Remember how many red states there were just last year? Progressive America did an about face fifty years into American history when they decided to reelect George Bush. Evangelicals were the leading factor. Yes, the same Evangelicals that teach women to obey their husbands, live as obedient housewives, and never look far beyond the home.
Hillary’s fault, though it’s really no fault, is that she is too ambitious a woman and too judgmental for our humble flag-waving, bible-toting, apple-pie-eating America. Hillary doesn’t even cook! How the hell is she ever going to be president when she doesn’t take responsibility in the home and cook for her man? No wonder Bill had an affair. As the saying goes, “You can’t keep a rooster in the hen house when there aren’t any hens.” That’s right, Hillary isn’t even a woman according to many of these same Evangelical mischaracterizations of her. It's as if they feel she's trying too hard to be a man. And lord knows, America can’t have women acting like men, right?
Okay, I have a flare for the dramatics and the use of hyperbole, but echoing Gingrich, John McCain has also jumped on the cheerleading bandwagon to endorse Hillary’s run for the presidency, stating that she would be a "good president." Of course McCain wants this loser to run. He's going to run against her. I gurantee it!
Understand this: these statements serve as two rhetorical strategies. First, it would be political suicide to outwardly say that Clinton has no chance of winning because she is a woman. Therefore, in saying that she would “make a fine president,” McCain and Gingrich are creating the illusion that they are in support of women’s rights when they really are not. The second is to bait Hillary into running using her own sense of self worth. Knowing that main stream patriarchal America would never elect a woman, especially this woman, the best opponent to their party would be a sure loser. Why not tell her that she would do great? To learn more about the effectiveness of this technique, please refer to Sigmund Freud's id (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego).
This is not to say that Hillary shouldn’t run. In all fairness, she is the best candidate for the position and would do a great job addressing the real problems facing America, most notably the Republican Party. Let’s not forget her star power in Washington and the fact that she is a Rhode’s Scholar and brilliant attorney. However, since the Democrats are so consumed with regaining governmental powers, they should let the 2008 presidential elections run itself and focus more on next year’s important senatorial races. Other than that, they could jump on the bandwagon, suppress Hillary’s right to run, and put up a leading male Democrat. But who do they have, Joseph Biden? This is the 1988 U.S. presidential aspirant that admitted plagiarizing a speech by British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. You better believe the Republicans will hold that against him. Needless to say, Biden dropped out of that race. They may also have the young Barrack Obama who has been flirting with the idea of running. However, electing a Black man may be as taboo to White America as electing a woman. Whatever Dems do, they're going to have a tough time retaking the oval office in 2008, even with a weak Republican party. Shame!
Newt Gingrich, staunch conservative and the most celebrated hater of Democrats, says “Senator Clinton would be a formidable opponent, and a fine president.” Let us seriously be honest. Gingrich doesn’t believe this. He knows that main-stream America, dare I say patriarchal America, isn’t ready for a female president. Remember how many red states there were just last year? Progressive America did an about face fifty years into American history when they decided to reelect George Bush. Evangelicals were the leading factor. Yes, the same Evangelicals that teach women to obey their husbands, live as obedient housewives, and never look far beyond the home.
Hillary’s fault, though it’s really no fault, is that she is too ambitious a woman and too judgmental for our humble flag-waving, bible-toting, apple-pie-eating America. Hillary doesn’t even cook! How the hell is she ever going to be president when she doesn’t take responsibility in the home and cook for her man? No wonder Bill had an affair. As the saying goes, “You can’t keep a rooster in the hen house when there aren’t any hens.” That’s right, Hillary isn’t even a woman according to many of these same Evangelical mischaracterizations of her. It's as if they feel she's trying too hard to be a man. And lord knows, America can’t have women acting like men, right?
Okay, I have a flare for the dramatics and the use of hyperbole, but echoing Gingrich, John McCain has also jumped on the cheerleading bandwagon to endorse Hillary’s run for the presidency, stating that she would be a "good president." Of course McCain wants this loser to run. He's going to run against her. I gurantee it!
Understand this: these statements serve as two rhetorical strategies. First, it would be political suicide to outwardly say that Clinton has no chance of winning because she is a woman. Therefore, in saying that she would “make a fine president,” McCain and Gingrich are creating the illusion that they are in support of women’s rights when they really are not. The second is to bait Hillary into running using her own sense of self worth. Knowing that main stream patriarchal America would never elect a woman, especially this woman, the best opponent to their party would be a sure loser. Why not tell her that she would do great? To learn more about the effectiveness of this technique, please refer to Sigmund Freud's id (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego).
This is not to say that Hillary shouldn’t run. In all fairness, she is the best candidate for the position and would do a great job addressing the real problems facing America, most notably the Republican Party. Let’s not forget her star power in Washington and the fact that she is a Rhode’s Scholar and brilliant attorney. However, since the Democrats are so consumed with regaining governmental powers, they should let the 2008 presidential elections run itself and focus more on next year’s important senatorial races. Other than that, they could jump on the bandwagon, suppress Hillary’s right to run, and put up a leading male Democrat. But who do they have, Joseph Biden? This is the 1988 U.S. presidential aspirant that admitted plagiarizing a speech by British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. You better believe the Republicans will hold that against him. Needless to say, Biden dropped out of that race. They may also have the young Barrack Obama who has been flirting with the idea of running. However, electing a Black man may be as taboo to White America as electing a woman. Whatever Dems do, they're going to have a tough time retaking the oval office in 2008, even with a weak Republican party. Shame!
posted by Caleab at 2:23 PM
1 comments
