Part One: "Mommie's dearest: Chelsea outshines Bill" at The Politico. To headline an article that is essentially about an alleged rivalry between Bill and Chelsea Clinton, The Politico invokes one of the most infamously horrible mothers of all time who was loathed by her own children: Joan Crawford, whose daughter Christina's memoir Mommie Dearest was made into the camp classic starring Faye Dunaway in the title role. (I defy anyone who knows the film to not read that Politico headline and picture Hillary Clinton wielding a WIRE HANGER!!!)
Mommie Dearest represented Joan Crawford as a complete lunatic, who spun increasingly out of control as she aged and got desperate in her career. (Gee, that sounds vaguely like the same memes the rightwing and MSM have been using against Hillary, doesn't it? What a coinkydink!) She beat her daughter, treated everyone around her like total shit, and essentially embodied the stereotype of the crazed, hysterical, vindictive bitch.
And I'm sure that had absolutely no bearing on The Politico's decision to use an allusion to that character in a story about Hillary Clinton.
Jebus.
Part Two: In a magnificent fit of sympatico, Eleanor Clift pens for Newsweek a piece that casts Clinton as—wait for it!—a crazed, hysterical, vindictive bitch, without all the bother of film allusions.
I'm beginning to think Hillary Clinton might pull this off and wrestle the nomination away from Barack Obama. If she does, a lot of folks—including a huge chunk of the media—will join Bill Richardson (a.k.a. Judas) in the Deep Freeze. If the Clintons get back into the White House, it will be retribution time, like the Corleone family consolidating power in "The Godfather," where the watchword is, "It's business, not personal."
Not that anyone will be sleeping with the fishes with Hillary in the White House, but with the Clintons it's business and it's personal. Just think of all the scores to settle, the grievances to indulge.
The grievances to indulge. Hillary Clinton's such an insane bitch she probably licks her lips every time someone crosses her, just because it gives her the opportunity to indulge her grievance later! That's just what an icy psycho-witch she is!
The thing is, what Clift describes is true of any potential president. If Obama gets the nomination and gets elected, he's going to favor the people who helped him—the flipside of which is disfavoring the people who didn't—but every president does the same thing. There's nothing unusual, or scandalous, about it. And it's not like Clinton is going to run, say, Ted Kennedy out of Washington. She couldn't even if she wanted to.
And does she? The evidence is pretty thin that Clinton is catastrophically vindictive. (The "Judas" comment was not Clinton's, but James Carville's, for a start.) She worked with '90s arch-nemesis Newt Gingrich in 2005 on a bipartisan healthcare proposal, as but one example. And, of course, more recently, she met with Richard Mellon Scaife, which was supposed evidence of how she's unfit to be president—though here we see that holding grudges is also supposed evidence of how she's unfit to be president. Funny how that works.
As Jeff says over at his place, "This is part of politics. When John Kerry chose to back Obama, he did so knowing it would hurt his ability to get a job under Clinton, just as Ed Rendell will probably not get a job under Obama. Unless, of course, Clinton and/or Obama and/or McCain can get some benefit by turning to an enemy. Kennedy picked Johnson for veep, Reagan did the same with Bush. Clinton could very well appoint Bill Richardson to secretary of state—if Clinton thought it would help her advance her agenda. That's not evil, or Machiavellian. It's just politics."
It's so intrinsic to the nature of politics (and human nature; after all, I'm a lot more likely to link to people who are fair toward Shakesville than people who blog about what an evil cunt I am) that Clift certainly knows this fact, or, if she doesn't, shouldn't have a job writing for Newsweek. Which suggests that she ignored it when it comes to Clinton, either deliberately or subconsciously. And when a double standard that coincidentally fits into an existent misogynist frame (crazed, hysterical, vindictive bitch) is applied to a candidate who just happens to be a woman, well, it's pretty safe to say that 2+2=4.
[Hillary Sexism Watch: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three.]
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
