@TheOtherMaven She is a black hole. Like the Typhoid Mary of moral and political capital.

This is why Her needs to go the hell away and STAY away from any kind of public life - Her stains, corrodes, and corrupts everything and everyone in Her vicinity.

@Steven D toward me from women in my peer group because I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. When I tell them that I voted for Jill Stein, they do not even try to disguise their anger toward me. The most common responses are "how could you not vote for Hillary?" or "it is your fault that we now have Trump as President." These people are incredulous that I did not have the same personal investment in Hillary that they did.

When I explain my reason for not voting for Hillary which is her war mongering, they seem to not want to actually know what her real positions on war and regime change are. I told one friend who claimed that Hillary was against war, that she (Hillary) was for the no fly zone in Syria and was the architect behind the debacle in Libya. These people simply are blinded to the Hillary baggage of war mongering. I have never seen anything like it before, not even with Obama. It is almost cult like. Hillary cannot fail, she can only be failed in their eyes.

From what I have personally experienced, the older Clintonites are angrier at people like me whom they believe owed their votes to Hillary than at those who voted for Trump or Johnson, even though Jill Stein received considerably fewer votes than Johnson. And now, even five months later, they continue to be angry at voters like me who believe my vote belongs to me and not to any one candidate.

were emotionally invested in having a woman President, especially older professional women who saw Hillary Clinton as one of them. They view her loss as a direct rejection of their lives and identities. It's personal to people like Bordo. They cannot be objective about Hillary Clinton and her baggage. So, to protect themselves they need a story that can protect their own identity and self worth and that story is one of the oldest ones we know - their hero was betrayed and defeated by evil villains, the same people who have been oppressing them their entire lives.

Why do you think the "Bernie Bros" slander was invented? Or that Sanders was criticized as a sexist and misogynist? Because it fits the narrative these Hillary supporters need to tell themselves. That's why these women like Bardo are angry with younger women like my daughter who saw through Hillary Clinton's facade as a supporter of women and of people in general instead of a corrupt politician who did the dirty work that benefited her corporate donors. They didn't want to hear the truth about HRC because they wanted so badly to see someone with whom they identified win and become the most powerful political leader on the planet, thus validating all the struggles they went through in their own professional careers.

Yet, their own life experience is vastly different from younger women and working class women, who also suffer from sexism, but much more from class warfare. Indeed, HRC's support often came from corporations that were sexist institutions who most often applied sexist attitudes and discrimination far more at the rank and file level as opposed to the managerial and professional level, yet that never troubled her, and I imagine that many HRC supporters have no idea what the lives of younger and poorer women are really like.

This is why you will never convince them Hillary wasn't taken down by a vast conspiracy that included sexists, all Sanders' supporters, Green party members (who ran a much better woman as their candidate), working class "racists," and of course, Russia. Telling them that Obama overcame a far greater handicap to win two terms because he was an African American will also fall on their deaf ears. Their emotions are ruling their judgment regarding Hillary Clinton and always will, as well as their ignorance and lack of empathy for those who do not live the privileged lives they lead.

@Steven D to Bordo. I found the Gaurdian piece shocking in its banality. I expect more from an academic than the lies and distortions put forth in the excerpt of this book. First, no thinking person (certainly not a professional thinker) would use the superlative to describe anyone or anything. It's juvenile in instinct and bespeaks a weak mind. To repeat as if by rote the trope that Clinton was the most qualified candidate EVAH- without even providing so much as a metric for this conclusion- should embarrass her. There is no rational basis from which to conclude she was the most qualified. If it's merely a matter of resume, Bush pere would get the title. If by professional accomplishment, she is not even in the running. As what pointed out during the campaign, her judgment is for shit.

The shallow analysis about Sanders hurting Clinton simply by providing an ethical contrast is pathetic enough. But Bordo goes so far as to lie in order to defend Clinton when she claims the superpredator comment was not directed at black youth. It has been quite enlightening throughout this election to witness the number of people who would sell their integrity to defend Hillary Clinton. It's a fascinating phenomenon that hopefully will be the subject of books to come.

It's a sad commentary on contemporary higher education that this kind of bilge is produced by tenured faculty. I understand why the kids is not learning.

were emotionally invested in having a woman President, especially older professional women who saw Hillary Clinton as one of them. They view her loss as a direct rejection of their lives and identities. It's personal to people like Bordo. They cannot be objective about Hillary Clinton and her baggage. So, to protect themselves they need a story that can protect their own identity and self worth and that story is one of the oldest ones we know - their hero was betrayed and defeated by evil villains, the same people who have been oppressing them their entire lives.

Why do you think the "Bernie Bros" slander was invented? Or that Sanders was criticized as a sexist and misogynist? Because it fits the narrative these Hillary supporters need to tell themselves. That's why these women like Bardo are angry with younger women like my daughter who saw through Hillary Clinton's facade as a supporter of women and of people in general instead of a corrupt politician who did the dirty work that benefited her corporate donors. They didn't want to hear the truth about HRC because they wanted so badly to see someone with whom they identified win and become the most powerful political leader on the planet, thus validating all the struggles they went through in their own professional careers.

Yet, their own life experience is vastly different from younger women and working class women, who also suffer from sexism, but much more from class warfare. Indeed, HRC's support often came from corporations that were sexist institutions who most often applied sexist attitudes and discrimination far more at the rank and file level as opposed to the managerial and professional level, yet that never troubled her, and I imagine that many HRC supporters have no idea what the lives of younger and poorer women are really like.

This is why you will never convince them Hillary wasn't taken down by a vast conspiracy that included sexists, all Sanders' supporters, Green party members (who ran a much better woman as their candidate), working class "racists," and of course, Russia. Telling them that Obama overcame a far greater handicap to win two terms because he was an African American will also fall on their deaf ears. Their emotions are ruling their judgment regarding Hillary Clinton and always will, as well as their ignorance and lack of empathy for those who do not live the privileged lives they lead.

@Steven D I think you hit the nail on the head, Steven.Incredible how so many otherwise intelligent, rational people become just the opposite when HRC is brought up. For an academic to write such a tawdy, emotional piece-- utterly devoid of HRC's murderous foreign policy problems, conflicts of interest, lies, obvious lack of empathy to an almost sociopathologoical level, etc-- incredible. Her piece sounds like it was written after half a bottle of booze on election night.

were emotionally invested in having a woman President, especially older professional women who saw Hillary Clinton as one of them. They view her loss as a direct rejection of their lives and identities. It's personal to people like Bordo. They cannot be objective about Hillary Clinton and her baggage. So, to protect themselves they need a story that can protect their own identity and self worth and that story is one of the oldest ones we know - their hero was betrayed and defeated by evil villains, the same people who have been oppressing them their entire lives.

Why do you think the "Bernie Bros" slander was invented? Or that Sanders was criticized as a sexist and misogynist? Because it fits the narrative these Hillary supporters need to tell themselves. That's why these women like Bardo are angry with younger women like my daughter who saw through Hillary Clinton's facade as a supporter of women and of people in general instead of a corrupt politician who did the dirty work that benefited her corporate donors. They didn't want to hear the truth about HRC because they wanted so badly to see someone with whom they identified win and become the most powerful political leader on the planet, thus validating all the struggles they went through in their own professional careers.

Yet, their own life experience is vastly different from younger women and working class women, who also suffer from sexism, but much more from class warfare. Indeed, HRC's support often came from corporations that were sexist institutions who most often applied sexist attitudes and discrimination far more at the rank and file level as opposed to the managerial and professional level, yet that never troubled her, and I imagine that many HRC supporters have no idea what the lives of younger and poorer women are really like.

This is why you will never convince them Hillary wasn't taken down by a vast conspiracy that included sexists, all Sanders' supporters, Green party members (who ran a much better woman as their candidate), working class "racists," and of course, Russia. Telling them that Obama overcame a far greater handicap to win two terms because he was an African American will also fall on their deaf ears. Their emotions are ruling their judgment regarding Hillary Clinton and always will, as well as their ignorance and lack of empathy for those who do not live the privileged lives they lead.

@Ken in MN

Thanks so much!

Someone had posted this at some other place (and the part where the ants figured it out) quite some time ago, and I'm thinking that such inspirational snippets work wonders for the mood, as your post certainly improved mine!

...for not getting the fuck back into line...

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jkNNNRkYlM]

@dkmich
meme has come undone. Even those that bought it hook, line and sinker, bobber, boat and water are begining to reexamine.

The people commenting on the Guardian were having none of it. This is one time no one is going to believe the lie no matter how many times they tell it. Once you see the emperor naked, it can't be unseen.

@CS in AZ
"I'm With Her" almost had to think Hillary had it won before the first Primary vote was cast. Worst campaign slogan ever.

The Clintons and their minions have effected a takeover of "feminism" in which Hillary is cast as the Goddess incarnate. "I'm with Her" was the creepiest campaign slogan ever. They didn't even pretend the election was about anything beyond giving to Her what she deserves and demands.

This is at the top of my list of reasons why I genuinely despise her (although the top spot is getting crowded).

I have said since 2007 that the Clintons' manipulative co-option of feminism and their cult-building enterprise would be a huge setback for women and equality. The very idea that the "most qualified person ever" would be a woman whose so-called "qualification" is who she married is downright offensive and the antithesis of feminism. I'm glad their cynical use of her gender as the reason to elect her failed. But the cult carries on, unfortunately.

@CS in AZ What did Hillary Clinton actually do to support women? She came from a background of privilege by nature of her education. She worked on the Watergate Committee, she sat on the board of WalMart, and she was appointed Secretary of State without having any prior experience in world affairs other than being first lady. As a feminist, she pushed for regime change in multiple countries and stepped up bombing in those countries, resulting in the deaths of many innocent women and children. How is this being a feminist.

The article talks about how badly treated she was as if it was her gender that caused it. But other women have risen to very high office without being subjected to the scrutiny that Clinton was. Perhaps the problem is with Clinton herself, not her gender. The part about how unfair Bernie was to her by telling the truth that she was the establishment candidate really reeks of sour grapes.

There are many of us women who had to endure far greater trials in the workplace than Hillary Clinton ever did. I am the same age as Her and I was systematically discriminated in the workplace in the terms of pay and benefits. I am now retired, but I will never recover those years of lost pay and it is reflected in my pension. So, Ms. Bordo, cry me a river about how hard Hillary has had it. Paving the way for her nomination by rigging the process certainly does not speak well of her qualifications that she needed to cheat to get the nomination. The problem with Hillary Clinton is not sexism. It is with Clinton herself.

BTW, I could not make it through the entire article. Banal is the correct description.

The Clintons and their minions have effected a takeover of "feminism" in which Hillary is cast as the Goddess incarnate. "I'm with Her" was the creepiest campaign slogan ever. They didn't even pretend the election was about anything beyond giving to Her what she deserves and demands.

This is at the top of my list of reasons why I genuinely despise her (although the top spot is getting crowded).

I have said since 2007 that the Clintons' manipulative co-option of feminism and their cult-building enterprise would be a huge setback for women and equality. The very idea that the "most qualified person ever" would be a woman whose so-called "qualification" is who she married is downright offensive and the antithesis of feminism. I'm glad their cynical use of her gender as the reason to elect her failed. But the cult carries on, unfortunately.

@native I don't think sexism is the problem. The people who have that problem would never be part of her voter base anyway, even if she were Eleanor Roosevelt. All she could do with them is work around them and wait for the vaunted demographic shift as some of them died off. Some would come around eventually if she provided Rooseveltian (Eleanorian?) policy consistently and really fought for the working class. Or would have, had she chosen to do that eleven years ago when she started on her Path to the Presidency.

But no sensible campaign manager would suggest that she try to win on the basis of those votes anyway, anymore than Barack Obama could have won by appealing to white supremacists; you have to work around those things by getting enough of the rest of the people on your side.

Hillary is remarkable because she's hated by both ends of the political spectrum as well as a significant chunk of the middle, something not attained by many US politicians since Hoover. Maybe Nixon...but it seems to me a lot of right-wingers kept the faith with Tricky Dick after his fall. It's hard to get that many people hating you at once, and in her case, I think the problem is that she doesn't even bother to tell a plausible lie. She considers the electorate so unimportant that she doesn't even make a serious effort to gain credibility with them. Cass is right; this is basically how she approaches the electorate:

and persuaded her way to the very top rank of the Democratic Party, which is no mean feat. But I think a lot of people perceived that the driving force that got her there, was not devotion to feminism nor any other particular ideal, but rather a markedly unprincipled lust for power. I'm not sure how accurate that perception is, but a large proportion of Americans have it -- both male and female.

However, I think sexism probably did play a role in Hillary's defeat. It is widely considered to be more acceptable for a male to be power-hungry, unprincipled, ambitious -- even occasionally cruel -- than for a woman to openly display these traits. What might have been good for the gander was not good for the goose. At least, not in the case of Hillary Clinton.

@native
Was Hillary. I couldn't imagine voting for her, but it wasn't becuz she had feminine plumbing. There's "something about Hillary" that rubs many of us the wrong way, and it's got nothing to do with her plumbing. Teachout, Warren, maybe one or two others, I can see myself easily voting for them. Hillary? Never in a million years.

and persuaded her way to the very top rank of the Democratic Party, which is no mean feat. But I think a lot of people perceived that the driving force that got her there, was not devotion to feminism nor any other particular ideal, but rather a markedly unprincipled lust for power. I'm not sure how accurate that perception is, but a large proportion of Americans have it -- both male and female.

However, I think sexism probably did play a role in Hillary's defeat. It is widely considered to be more acceptable for a male to be power-hungry, unprincipled, ambitious -- even occasionally cruel -- than for a woman to openly display these traits. What might have been good for the gander was not good for the goose. At least, not in the case of Hillary Clinton.

@shaharazade She was a prominent figure in 1980s academic feminism--which actually was a thing, when I was coming up. Though academic feminism should never have been in charge of feminism as a whole, it wasn't actually bad to have a large number of scholars engaged in debate & discussion over the issues feminism brings up. Bordo was engaging in a philosophical discussion of how Western culture (Euro-derived, Europe and its former colonies, basically) viewed the human body, and how that affected concepts of race, gender, and beauty. She was also one of the scholars that attempted to talk to a general audience as well as to other academics.

So that's why we care. This is the Clinton camp mobilizing one more surrogate, and that means one more ally gone. It also represents one more piece of what used to be feminism chopped off and hauled back to the Clinton camp as a prize of war, but since I consider US feminism to be dead anyway, it's more like watching a velociraptor tear a hunk off the wildebeest it killed the day before. It hurts me less than losing Bruce Springsteen, (or Frank Coniff).

Who is this woman? Who gives a rats ass what she has to say. I'm really freaked out about the so called left's buying into this elitist shit. Is this not a by-partisan site? Why are we rehashing and concentrating on the fake bs. emanating from the powers that be. Let them go. They are nothing I want anything to do with. Get real people as long as you believe that the current so called resistance including Bernie and Caitlin Johnstone goes your stuck. They all revolve around the the sad sick story perpetuated by the powers that be. This is a tale all of it none of it warrants belief in. No facts no nothing.

This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Read more at: https:/

/www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamsha155103.html