Sometimes It Takes Balls to Be a Woman

I was going to write this whole long post about how Hillary's alleged "scream" gave voice to something I put up with at work almost everyday. But Elizabeth Cook sums it up nicely, already:

"Sometimes it takes balls to be a woman
Standing up to a test, while wearing a party dress
Sometimes looks can be deceiving when you're quietly over-achieving
Yeah sometimes it takes balls to be a woman"

I might just change my mind and support the women on general principle - the comments about this supposed "scream" are ridiculous, comical, so effing sad and actually beginning to piss me off

There was no SCREAM people.....

Thanks for your post.....

I've been anti-Hillary, even. DLC? Ickle. Terry McAuliffe? Double ickle. But geez ...

:)

She's be perfect. But what would she do with the line about "Dolly and Loretta?"

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGkArY4AcUI

:P

So now, even a powerful woman has to be given male attributes to be taken seriously?

Indeed.

She tells this story in her deep raspy voice, wearing a black turban, tons of eyeliner, with a cigarette in a long thin holder.

In the 50's she worked in a "man's" discipline: sculpture. One day she was talking with another sculptor (a man) who told her: Louise you have to have balls to be a sculptor.

She waves her cigarette holder around a little and says: "I told him, 'Oh, I've got balls.'"





My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

Many of them.

nt

I couldn't give a shit whether her voice became 'shrill' or she demonstrated passion. Hell ... passion is a Good Thing.

But one of the reasons (just one of many) I regard it as a Good Thing is because it usually gives a very good glimpse behind the curtain of prepared talking points and adherence to the language of a well-crafted message.

And Hillary did offer such a glimpse ... and it was anything but Good.

There were TWO such glimpses ...

"We don't need to be raising the FALSE HOPES of our country about what can be delivered..."
and
"35 years of change"

For me, these were mind-boggling displays of cluelessness. She. Just. Doesn't. Get. It.

It's in the nature of the "Organization Man" (or Woman) to invest themselves in attaining expertise at comprehending the System and learning to negotiate the mazes and labyrinths of that System to attain some personal Success.

But these people are NOT "change agents" ... they're NOT Mikhail Gorbachev's.

REAL progress ... REAL change ... REAL improvements come from those who understand the structural flaws in any System, NOT to exploit them for their own 'Success' but to identify the source of Systemic malfunctions in order to move humanity forward and lend their efforts and skills to making Sturctural Improvements. Call it renovation or remodeling ... every structure can eventually use it.

No System of governance is morally legitimate that does not maximally assure Justice. Justice (political, economic, legal, social) is the SOLE legitimate rationale for forming ANY System of governance.

Ours is broken. (It has been - getting more broken over the past 25 years - but Smirk and Sneer make it obvious to even the insensate.)

Hillary, in alleging "35 years of change," betrayed a COMPLETE absence of comprehension of the nature of the "change" so critically needed.

Even worse, however, is that she is so blithely willing to dash the aspirations of millions that we actually improve our "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" by calling those legitimate aspirations "false hopes."

FDR's "Four Freedoms" were false hopes? (Mind-boggling cluelessness, Hillary! Mind-boggling.)


No, Crisco ... it had NOTHING to do with a 'scream' or any other superficial crap. It was a VERY SUBSTANTIVE moment. And Hillary blew it.

I personally MOURN the fact that she's not up to the job. That's tragic. I'd give damned near anything to joyfully knock down the glass ceiling and elect a woman. Or a person of color.

She ain't. (GODDAMN IT!!) :grr:

But if you want to look at it as a text issue, okay sure. I don't have to tell you about the economic and political forces at play against single-payer, universal health care.

To expect any one of these candidates to deliver that in this cycle would, indeed, be a false hope IMO.

We DISCARD candidates at our peril. An enormous amount of the 'consideration' of each candidate has to do with ephemerals ... "looking Presidential" or "showing leadership" or "stature" or "ability to influence others." LOTS and lots of very PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE assessments ... from Edward's hair and house to Kucinich's height and seemingly Quixotic penchants and his UFO experience. Subjective. Unrelated to the POLICY POSITIONS they take.

When the candidate is cast aside due to some ephemeral, those who would seek advantage in opposing their call for policy change will re-frame their 'loss' as a rejection of their positions instead of a rejection of their appearance.

We've seen this, over and over and over again. The constant drumbeat of "Mondale lost because he was a liberal" (instead of an appearance that didn't meet Central Casting's criteria) has been employed repeatedly by the Status Quo Democrats and Neoconservatives as 'evidence' that People don't want Equity and Justice and really DO want a Banana Republic.

When we discard Kucinich, we discard (in a revisionist sense) "Single Payer Health Care" and ceasing the illegal occupation of Iraq and impeaching Cheney and an array of positions that (imho) a huge number of well-informed people are steadfastly supportive of.

So ... the question I have is:

What ISSUE (policy position) do we lose if we discard Hillary? What higher aspiration gets lost?
I have a hard time identifying anything that she's not been a "weak proponent" of - where others are greater champions.

I don't see a damned thing where Hillary has been the foremost champion ... just 'triangulation' and "me tooism."

When we discard every other candidate who has taken firm stances on some SIGNATURE ISSUES ... we lose EVERY issue.

It's just not what was utmost on my mind when I started the thread. What was on mind my was

a) Hillary's very understandable debate response to her opponents implications that they can bring change and she can't: reminding them and viewers of her considerable accomplishments in bringing, or attempting to bring, Liberal wish lists to reality.

b) the sexist response to that response, plenty of which is right here on DU and it's a pisser.

At this time I don't have a candidate. I've got another 4 weeks before it becomes a necessity. I'm not arguing for Hillary, although if she is nominated, I'll vote for her.

Up until about four days ago, I had pretty much X'd her out of my possible primary votes. Now, I'm not so sure and it's not because of anything she's saying or doing - it's what her opponents are.

"I have the experience to take the helm."

While that's an extreme metaphor, it's the kind of image I got from her assertion of "35 years making change."

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that we've been on the WRONG COURSE in this country for over 25 years - a course that's almost eradicated any semblance of economic justice in a system where the POLITICAL component is almost solely devoted to establishing greater and greater privileges to wealth. From health care to wages to voting to the off-shoring of jobs that are the heart and soul of participation in the economic system, pathological capitalism in the form of corporatism is creating a new Feudalism ... few Lords and many Serfs.

When Hillary portrays her experience, it's NOT as one who has seen the iceberg. It's as one working for tips moving the deck chairs around for the temporary comforts of passengers WHO ARE GOING TO DIE.

When she dismissed the idea of a change of course as a "false hope" she indicated no comprehension whatsoever of the fundamental problems in the system.

I couldn't give a shit about HOW she said it - or what her gender is - and care a great deal about her being BLIND to the greater issues that face us.



In the interests of full disclosure ... I agree MOST with Kucinich. Edwards has been a distant second and Obama behind him in my regard. I have yet to see a good reason to support Hillary - other than my very strong desire to see a woman in the Oval Office. It's with enormous disappointment that I find that I cannot.

Her willingness to disavow the concerns and wishes of the people disgusts me.

Same for the Dean "scream;" I saw it live, have my own opinion, but this place went ballistic over it for no apparent reason.

FWIW, Hillary is still way down on my list, but geez, people.