Usually, I admire what Charles Pierce writes, but when he wrote about the question and answer period following Hillary Clinton's speech at the Conference of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, he was obviously still feeling the Bern. Apparently, he can't get past his Sanders love to give Hillary Clinton a break, for this is one of a series of blog posts in which he, at best, damns Clinton with faint praise, or, at worst, is outright critical, often about trivia. Read his post; it's not long. I repost my comments to his blog post below; they are long:
Oh my gawd, Charlie. You sound like nitpicking Chuck Todd. Is this your version of bothsiderism? Clinton is who she is, and she's not going to have a personality change to suit you or anyone else before the election. Get over your issues, or at least write about something else so you do no harm.Further, still me:
By the end of the primaries, I liked watching Clinton speak a lot more than I liked watching Sanders speak. If I chose my candidate by likability or by which one I wanted to have a beer with, Clinton would have won hands down. But, if Sanders had won the primary vote, I'd have supported him without thinking twice.Though my comments were way down in a long comment thread, I do have a Facebook page of my own and a blog, and I thought my comments worth sharing. I share; you decide.
What I would not have done is suggest that if he just changed this or that about his personal style, or if he'd just say something in a different way, he'd gather more support. Sanders is who he is, and expecting him to be other than he is, would have been completely unrealistic. It's the same with Clinton. If you don't like her, vote for Trump, write in a name, or vote for Stein or Johnson, and enable a Trump victory, but stop the bloody nitpicking about style.
TV talking heads do that stuff every day on TV, and I don't understand why a usually sensible blogger would join in. This is not even a serious policy discussion, which would be different and welcome from what we see all day, every day on TV. Yeah, I'm way down in a long thread of comments in a reply, at that, and I expect few people will read what I typed, but I sure feel better for having written.
well worth sharing, June. and thanks. Susan
ReplyDeleteThank you, Susan.
DeleteFirst, they wanted her to be more like a man, and then they whined about her being too hawkish, then freaked out when she got a tad emotional in New Hampshire ... clearly, the problem is that "they" just can't handle a really smart, original, female who works circles around them and (horrors, Batman!) went off and got paid to speak at all those generally useless, self-congratulatory business meetings ... somehow, a man getting paid handsomely is just wonderful, but unseemly for one of the fairer sex ... and oh, by the way, that she is likely to at least try to be fair to everyone when she governs instead of bullying and brushing off anyone not quite in her set, well, that attitude just infuriates competition junkies. Honestly, I'm just sick of the talking heads over-dosing on trivial nonsense while they bemoan the lack of serious policy debate. But, hey, the Olympics are on - I'm taking a break from men behaving badly. :-)
ReplyDeleteDo you catch a whiff of sexism, Marthe? Of condescension? I do.
DeleteYup.
Delete