You won't see Hillary Clinton in the same light ever again
Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 12:52 AM PDT
You won't see Hillary Clinton in the same light ever again
by BlankBeat
Read Meryl Streep’s introduction of Hillary Clinton during the recent 2012 Women in the World conference:
Two years ago when Tina Brown and Diane von Furstenberg first envisioned this conference, they asked me to do a play, a reading, called – the name of the play was called Seven. It was taken from transcripts, real testimony from real women activists around the world. I was the Irish one, and I had no idea that the real women would be sitting in the audience while we portrayed them. So I was doing a pretty ghastly Belfast accent. I was just – I was imitating my friend Liam Neeson, really, and I sounded like a fellow. (Laughter). It was really bad.
So I was so mortified when Tina, at the end of the play, invited the real women to come up on stage and I found myself standing next to the great Inez McCormack. (Applause.) And I felt slight next to her, because I’m an actress and she is the real deal. She has put her life on the line. Six of those seven women were with us in the theater that night. The seventh, Mukhtaran Bibi, couldn’t come because she couldn’t get out of Pakistan. You probably remember who she is. She’s the young woman who went to court because she was gang-raped by men in her village as punishment for a perceived slight to their honor by her little brother. All but one of the 14 men accused were acquitted, but Mukhtaran won the small settlement. She won $8,200, which she then used to start schools in her village. More money poured in from international donations when the men were set free. And as a result of her trial, the then president of Pakistan, General Musharraf, went on TV and said, “If you want to be a millionaire, just get yourself raped.”
But that night in the theater two years ago, the other six brave women came up on the stage. Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:
"I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together."
"I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me."
"I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her."
I’m here today because of that, because of those stores. I didn’t know about this. I never knew any of it. And I think everybody should know. This hidden history Hillary has, the story of her parallel agenda, the shadow diplomacy unheralded, uncelebrated — careful, constant work on behalf of women and girls that she has always conducted alongside everything else a First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State is obliged to do.
And it deserves to be amplified. This willingness to take it, to lead a revolution – and revelation, beginning in Beijing in 1995, when she first raised her voice to say the words you’ve heard many times throughout this conference: “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.”
When Hillary Clinton stood up in Beijing to speak that truth, her hosts were not the only ones who didn’t necessarily want to hear it. Some of her husband’s advisors also were nervous about the speech, fearful of upsetting relations with China. But she faced down the opposition at home and abroad, and her words continue to hearten women around the world and have reverberated down the decades.
…
She’s just been busy working, doing it, making those words “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” into something every leader in every country now knows is a linchpin of American policy. It’s just so much more than a rhetorical triumph. We’re talking about what happened in the real world, the institutional change that was a result of that stand she took.
…
Now we know that the higher the education and the involvement of women in a culture and economy, the more secure the nation. It’s a metric we use throughout our foreign policy, and in fact, it’s at the core of our development policy. It is a big, important shift in thinking. Horrifying practices like female genital cutting were not at the top of the agenda because they were part of the culture and we didn’t want to be accused of imposing our own cultural values.
But what Hillary Clinton has said over and over again is, “A crime is a crime, and criminal behavior cannot be tolerated.” Everywhere she goes, she meets with the head of state and she meets with the women leaders of grassroots organizations in each country. This goes automatically on her schedule. As you’ve seen, when she went to Burma – our first government trip there in 40 years. She met with its dictator and then she met with Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman he kept under detention for 15 years, the leader of Burma’s pro-democracy movement.
This isn’t just symbolism. It’s how you change the world. These are the words of Dr. Gao Yaojie of China: “I will never forget our first meeting. She said I reminded her of her mother. And she noticed my small bound feet. I didn’t need to explain too much, and she understood completely. I could tell how much she wanted to understand what I, an 80-something year old lady, went through in China – the Cultural Revolution, uncovering the largest tainted blood scandal in China, house arrest, forced family separation. I talked about it like nothing and I joked about it, but she understood me as a person, a mother, a doctor. She knew what I really went through.”
When Vera Stremkovskaya, a lawyer and human rights activist from Belarus met Hillary Clinton a few years ago, they took a photograph together. And she said to one of the Secretary’s colleagues, “I want that picture.” And the colleague said, “I will get you that picture as soon as possible.” And Stremkovskaya said, “I need that picture.” And the colleague said, “I promise you.” And Stremkovskaya said, “You don’t understand. That picture will be my bullet-proof vest.”
Never give up. Never, never, never, never, never give up. That is what Hillary Clinton embodies.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/18/1248523/-You-won-t-see-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-same-light-ever-again
= new reply since forum marked as read
It was terrific, and I thought, "I'm looking at a future president" too. I did NOT expect it to be in the very next election, however. I would rather have observed what he did as a senator in the next few years. But these days we get all excited about one thing a politician does and immediately want to elevate them to president (cf. "Elizabeth Warren for President!"
. I think we should see what they do over a somewhat longer haul.
get the nomination in 2008!
I'm just saying it's 2013. The next presidential election is 3 years away. Who knows what's going to happen between now and then. Certainly Hillary has the inside track! She showed me a lot as Sect. of State. very impressed! But, maybe Hillary won't even run ... maybe.
As far as "who" .... Warren does come to mind; but, also Biden, Cuomo, O'Malley or Patrick are all "possible". Longshots, but possible.
glad we got that one decided. 
It 's up to us to change the paradigm.
I am not cool with that, and I am not cool with calling her that either.
Are either of the two as far left as I'd like? Since they're center Dems, I'd say no. But "filthy (???) centrist technocrat (?) with center-right economics"? is a bit much, for ANY potential nominee.
Or president for that matter. Why do the right's work for them? 
Just read some of the comments. They are vile and nasty.
that's not "taking over" anything.
Amusing that you're trying to attack me for being to right wing when I usually get that I'm way too left.
As for you? Based on your posts, I've never had a shred of respect for your inanities. Your loss of respect for me doesn't exactly break my heart.
Now that you have explained your reasons for not wanting Hillary Clinton to be the candidate, I feel fully informed and understand completely. 
Did Hillary announce her candidacy and somehow I missed it?
How about Meryl Streep, she's a political flak too?
Or is the problem that this portrayal of Hillary does not fit your preconceptions so you refuse to believe it?
Response to cali (Reply #1)
'Oh my stars and garters-- this has nothing to do with the elections, shucks!'.
I do agree with your post.
Agony
But be aware that, despite the hate that she encounters, she will continue to forge ahead. There are millions of us who will make sure that, if she chooses to run, this time around she will be victorious.
Obama gets raked over the coals regularly, I see no reason why Hillary shouldn't either.
It's possible those whose accounts will implode had no intention of voting, for instance.
But there will be blowouts.
BTW, you've been here long enough to know how to avoid a blowout. My comment wasn't directed at any long timer who knows the deal, knows how to be civilized, and generally avoids drunk posting.
Note: there's another possibility that the naysayers will just stop posting and not have a breakdown, either way the result is going to be amusing.
Everyone has a chance of Redemption, but the Coup in Honduras convinced me that Hillary is not the kind of person I would want as POTUS. She could have nipped it in the bud by not giving her OK for it to proceed. It was undemocratic, illegal and Immoral.
Is this an indication that all your assumptions are flawed?
And it does alter my opinion of Ms. Clinton.
That said, if I believed her coattails would be long enough to get us 60+ Senators and control of the House in 2016, I'd jump on her bandwagon. I simply do not believe that her coattails would be that long in the U.S. It's clear, however, that she is respected by women around the globe ... perhaps not as much in the United States.
-Laelth
Can't have that.
That must account for the radical shift by Walmart away from rank exploitation of their workforce.
Right now, I'm pretty impressed with Elizabeth Warren. Feel free to tell me how she won't run and can't win if it makes you feel better. Personally, I hope she does run.
-Laelth
I think I read somewhere that she has said that she isn't.
A woman president would be great, I was hoping for a strong, liberal woman like Warren. At least we know where she stands on issues.
... the other side is going to paint that person as "the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin." Even if we nominate a die-hard DLC'er, they will make this claim. If so, I think we might as well nominate a real liberal.
-Laelth
Since they are going to scream, let's really give them something to scream about. 
For better or for worse, he has marginalized himself by running as an independent, and I think we need to choose a Democrat to head the Democratic ticket. Call me old-fashioned, if you must.
-Laelth
programs --but yes, I get what you're saying. It may have to get a hellava Lot worse before folks understand to have productive "self governing system" one (and all) Must be engaged in it/be Part Of It or "eat what ya get" claim No rights to Bitching about how shitty things are-whether they vote or not.
Voting is the End of the Process--Thoroughly Vetting and making informed decisions come first. One cannot make effective the latter without first completing the former.
Even if I were to forget the fact that she was a College Republican in her youth, it's a serious stretch to call Hillary a liberal. In fact, that's a stretch that I lack the mental flexibility to take. She's DLC through-and-through--better than a Republican, but only marginally.
Look, no matter whom we choose to nominate the other side is going to paint that person as "the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin." Even if we nominate a die-hard DLC'er, they will make this claim. As such, I think we might as well nominate a real liberal.
-Laelth
Amazing stories, loved the videos!
Thanks for posting! 
Julie
I really did not see anything political in this post, other than advocating for the empowerment of women around the world.
What am I missing? What is wrong with lifting up a woman who advocates for so many other women... I thought that was a good thing.
Should she run, she would be defeated.
A new survey shows that Americans, by and large at 51%, are Centrists. Senator Warren would be too liberal to win the majority votes.
It’s the most conventional wisdom in Washington, the unchallenged idea that America is a divided nation, a country ripped into red and blue factions in perpetual conflict. The government shutdown this fall would seem like only the latest evidence of this political civil war. But is the idea of two Americas even true? Not according to a new Esquire-NBC News survey.
At the center of national sentiment there’s no longer a chasm but a common ground where a diverse and growing majority - 51 percent - is bound by a surprising set of shared ideas.
“Just because Washington is polarized doesn’t mean America is,” says Robert Blizzard, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the lead pollster for Mitt Romney in 2012. His firm co-created the survey with the Benenson Strategy Group, pollsters for President Obama, and the result is a nation in eight distinct segments: two on the far right ("The Righteous Right" and "The Talk Radio Heads"
, two on the far left ("The Bleeding Hearts" and "The Gospel Left" , and four in the middle that represent nothing less than a new American center ("Minivan Moderates," "The MBA Middle," "The Pick-up Populists, and "The #WhateverMan." Now, survey could be totally wrong, even bought and paid for by multinational corporations to make Liberals believe something that isn't true, but then you need to ask yourself why we haven't been able to get someone as liberal as Senator Warren or as Teabaggerish as Santorum to win the primaries and the presidency. There can be some truth in this survey.
Excellent clip, thanks. And let's play it for the President too....
It's going to be great to see her announced as the next President.
Especially considering the amount of vitriol the politically illiterate sling her way every single day.
The praise that these women were lavishing on her were not just empty compliments directed at a famous woman. They really meant what they said. It is very sad and depressing to read the constant bashing and vile comments that one has to read at a Democratic site. There are some comments that would be more appropriate for the Daily Caller or Free Republic.
The Hillary I know is not the woman portrayed by some here. She's extremely bright, but she's also a great listener and compassionate. The real woman, not the caricature, resembles more the person described in Meryl's speech than the one described here by some. There are many stories that could be told, but they are deeds done in private, away from the media and not for political gain.
At times this site makes me very angry, right now it's just sadness that I feel.
... aside from the OP, the thread itself has become toxic sludge.
One would have thought that the woman being honored was Nancy Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. The venom is that bad. Quite pathetic considering that this is supposed to be a Democratic site.
No one controls Bill Clinton. He's a force of nature.
I know people who live there. They see the Clintons all the time (particularly Bill since Hillary was either in DC or traveling most of the time). They are very accessible.
What's even more disappointing is how many pooh-poohed the claims of many women from around the world who said publicly how Hillary had helped them with their cause and in some cases with their lives. The vitriol against her is so disappointing, it reminds me of the kind of visceral hate that I read in RW sites. She can never win in their book, no matter what she does.
