The Hillary Pillory Clinton Campaign?

This is going to get me in trouble, but screw it. It needs to be said:

I wonder if the increasingly shrill Hillary Clinton campaign and its supporters are really aware of the “meta” message they’re sending out this week?

What’s this I hear about the Eagle Rights Amendment?

Perhaps you’ve heard of the “pimped out” controversy? From The Politico:

Hillary rips MSNBC’s Shuster
By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Michael Calderone
Feb 9, 2008 02:39 PM EST

ORONO, MAINE — Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday morning ripped MSNBC over reporter David Shuster’s suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was “sort of being pimped out” by the campaign.

“I found the remarks incredibly offensive,” Clinton told reporters in this snowy town outside Bangor. Earlier, she sent a letter to NBC brass that called for swift action against Shuster, who was suspended Friday by MSNBC.

“Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient,” Clinton wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus, who apparently had already called Clinton to personally apologize.

“I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language,” Clinton wrote. “There’s a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.”

Mark Twain once noted that the difference between the right word and ALMOST the right word was the difference between “lightning” and “lightning bug.” The difference in this case, between “pimped out” and “pimped” is equally vast, and while Hillary and her minions are busy being offended at “pimped” the MySpace/Facebook generation is wondering what’s wrong with “pimped out”?

Indeed, if you GO to MySpace (no longer hip and cool, BTW) you will see page after page that’s been “pimped out” and even little notations saying “if you want groovy, flashy graphics and this look, go to” pimpmypage, and similar variations.

Here, here and here. (Video of the actual comment HERE and HERE.)

They’re worried about lightning damage, in other words, when only lightning bugs have been spotted. It’s tantamount (old curmudgeons) to your parents sniffing dramatically as a clueless politician in 1969 said: “They said my son was ‘groovy,’ and I take EXTREME OFFENSE at this! His skin is smooth and there are no ‘grooves’ as you put it, anywhere ON him!!!”

We’re only missing the Emily Litella moment of “never mind.”

But, instead, we have comments like this:

I think we’ve had enough of the sexist remarks coming from MSNBC pundits and other counter parts in the media. I’m equally appalled that other top level Democrats have not called these pompous talking heads out on this. The rampant and pervasive sexism that has surrounded Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House disgusts me as a woman and the mother of teenaged daughter in his (sic) first year in college.

When does it stop? I know I sure as hell would be outraged if someone said something like that about my daughter, and anyone who thought Hillary Clinton and her campaign would sit back and let Shuster get away with this was dreaming. (Pamela Leavey, The Democratic Daily).

Or this anile sniffing from Ron Chusid at Liberal Values Blog:

Is Pimping Inherently Offensive?

[...] Yes, pimped out is inherently offensive, especially when used to refer to a young woman. No, that is not what the campaign is doing with Chelsea. The third question is a bit harder to answer. We know Hillary Clinton is someone who will say or do anything to win, and we cannot exclude the possibility that her campaign saw this statement as an opportunity to obtain favorable publicity. We also know that Hillary Clinton is a woman who heard her daughter insulted, making an angry reaction understandable and placing her in a strong position here even if she is being manipulative. Maybe this is ultimately a brilliant chess move on Hillary’s part, but if so it came about as a consequence of a really dumb move by a journalist.

Or this headline from The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman:

MSNBC’s David Shuster “Pimp” Comment About Chelsea Clinton Causes Suspension And Reflects Cable Media Culture

and this “point”:

… His use of the phrase was dumb because, unless he needs to get wax cleaned out of his ears, there have been enough instances now of people using flippant language and getting themselves into career hot water. Some instances have been over racial language. Using sexual language linked to prostitution when describing a candidate’s daughter is giving your critics a gun to shoot you with. (emphasis added).

Good lord, what a bunch of thin-skinned fuddie-duddies Woodstock Nation has become.

And, again, I am reminded of the Don Imus controversy where one sentence became a firestorm in a media cesspool in which Righties like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage routinely say much worse to an audience many times larger than MSNBC’s microscopic market share.

Still, Hillary successfully pilloried David Schuster (a pro-Democrat reporter, most of the time), as he sits in a virtual “stocks” after being 1) suspended, and 2) forced to apologize multiple times, and has been roundly taken to task for NOT apologizing correctly:

Since when do the public airwaves deserve speech like this? Can’t Schuster say what’s on his mind — that the Clintons are exploiting their daughter — without bringing whoring into it?

Schuster subsequently apologized, in that smarmy, limited, disgusting new style of apology that’s becoming the national norm:

Some people have taken it literally. To the extent people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that.

What would be so hard about saying, “I’m sorry I used that word. It wasn’t appropriate, it was pejorative, and I apologize to Chelsea Clinton, the Clinton campaign and our viewers.” That’s an apology that’s worth uttering; Schuster’s actually makes matters worse. (Cheat Seeking Missiles (sic — ought to be ‘missals‘ – HW)

Here’s the YouTube video of the actual apology.

The term “pillory was not chosen casually. From the Merriam Webster Dictionary online:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French pilori
Date: 13th century

1 : a device formerly used for publicly punishing offenders consisting of a wooden frame with holes in which the head and hands can be locked 2 : a means for exposing one to public scorn or ridicule

Because, in many ways, these screams of outrage are more relevant to 13th Century political realities than 21st Century language usage. Sure, it was dumb.

But is this the message that Hillary’s troops want to be sending?

“We are going to attack anyone and anything that we perceive to be “sexist” and any slight, no matter how minor or inadvertent”?

Does anybody actually believe that Schuster was suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was being forced to accept money for sexual favors in order to get her mother elected? Good grief. Get “with it” gramps: this is why the younger voters are coming out in droves for Obama and the 50-something Soccer Moms for Hillary are rapidly returning to their harridan roots of the 1970s.

It would seem that they were born under the astrological sign of Virago. (I am sure that they would think the second definition applied, but I think the first is the appropriate meaning here).

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. vi-ra-goes or vi-ra-gos
1. A woman regarded as noisy, scolding, or domineering. 2. A large, strong, courageous woman.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin virg, from vir, man. See w-ro- in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: vi-ragi-nous (v-rj-ns) —ADJECTIVE

And here is where Hillary has fallen into the viraginous soup:

The Clinton campaign immediately demanded an apology and floated the possibility that Clinton would no longer participate in an MSNBC debate, scheduled for Feb. 26. The campaign did not explain under what conditions Clinton would participate in MSNBC’s debate.

In her comments to reporters Friday, Clinton sounded ambivalent about participating in the debate.

“We’ve accepted a lot of debates from a lot of different sponsors, and we’re going to wait and see how this plays out,” she said. (Politico, ibid.)

And here’s the kicker (ibid.):

She cast Shuster’s comments as part of “a troubling pattern of comments and behavior that has to be held accountable.”

MSNBC host Chris Matthews last month apologized over remarks he made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist.

Which is, frankly, CRAZY. Why? Because it conflates Schuster with Matthews, and they are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. Matthews didn’t put Schuster up to it, and there is no conspiracy at MSNBC to make stupid quasi-sexist remarks about Hillary’s campaign.

But, sometimes, being too thin-skinned can have the opposite effect of that which was intended.

Because, to the Reptile Brain, there is a strange negative meta-message communicated here. Tuesday, fearing a meltdown of her candidacy, Hilary was more than happy to jump into bed with the devil (and yes, you can take the full vile meaning of my comments to lambaste me), as Hillary’s campaign REVERSED positions and ACCEPTED a debate on Fox News, formerly, by general agreement, shunned for its vile comments and coverage of Democrats — many much much worse than “pimped out” it should be noted.

Just as she’d decided that ignoring the agreement to stay out of Florida could be repudiated so that she could fly down and claim “victory” in the the tainted primary, now she was reversing the ban on Fox News to mousetrap Obama into as many debates as possible.

Now, having fairly screamed that she wanted as many debates as possible, three days later she is talking about boycotting MSNBC.

This is NOT the meta-message that her campaign should want to be sending.

This is what the fence-sitters are “getting” in the way of a meta-message:

1. Hillary changes the rules to suit her own ends (Fox v. MSNBC). And she tars all offenders with the same brush. (Reinforcing the old negative stereotype that “women are irrational that’s all there is to that/their heads are filled with cotton, hay and rags” — My Fair Lady, “A Hymn To Him”)

And, MOST damning,

2. Hillary will punish anyone who steps over the “sexist” line.

This is particularly offensive to many who lived through the Seventies — myself, admittedly, included. Because the meta-message here is IF YOU ELECT HILLARY, the bad old days of the language police — the “feminazis” stereotype that fueled Rush Limbaugh’s rise to prominence — WILL BE BACK.

For four years in the White House, the viragos of the ’70s — the 50-somethings whose first political crusade was the failure to pass the ERA — will stridently attack any criticism of Hillary on the grounds that it’s “sexist.”

A word, by the by, that ought to be retired, not because ’sexism’ has vanished, but because the word has been so abused as to render its very interjection into public discourse as counter-productive, like “Nazi” or “Hitler.”

I know, from “back room” gossip of the Democratic party that men are secretly ENRAGED by Democratic women’s use of “sexist” to get their way in debates, and, while they’ve learned to “go along to get along,” the level of crypto-animosity is staggering. In the GOP, it’s the “angry white men,” but there is a huge unknown segment of the Democratic party that is equally angry, and many of them are women, as well. Ditto independents.

You see, another meta-message here is, increasingly, you CAN’T criticize Hillary without being accused of “sexism.” The viragos are holding up a NEW double-standard. I can’t think of a male president (or major candidate) that hasn’t been subjected to the MOST offensive, vile “satire” and “criticism” imaginable: no bodily function is sacred, no schoolyard or bathroom wall attack is beyond the pale.

But, increasingly, the implication is that Hillary can’t be attacked that way, because she’s a woman, and, therefore, such attacks (e.g. the Hillary Clinton Nut Cracker) are “sexist.“

No: they’re normal American politics: sux, but get over it.

For over 2000 years, a salient feature of democratic forms of government has been their juvenile willingness to get into the gutter, make fun of personal habits, of physical features, call stupid names, snigger, and use scatological humor. ‘Taint going away just because Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem are running for prexy. Mammismo is just as toxic as machismo.

And, if she can’t take the heat, she’s just disqualified HERSELF from the office sought. Because it’s not going to be a smooth ride, no matter how great the margin of victory. And that’s a meta-message that’s resounding in the reptile brains of John and Jane Q. Voter.

Now: given the choice between making a federal case over the fuddy-duddy’s misinterpretation of the term “pimped out” and igniting a groundswell of passive-aggressive rage at having the old “language police” back (how many times was I snottily corrected for saying, say, postman, instead of postperson by that 50-something generation of women?) , which would you rationally choose as your meta-message:

“We’ve got thick skins,” or, “Elect Hillary and you’ll have to face the Wrath of the (self-appointed) Sisterhood every time you criticize anything, any time you misspeak, any time your language is not simon-pure”? P.M.S. P.C., if you will.

(No WONDER the Republicans want to run against Hillary.)

The louder that “women” scream (like Gloria Steinem) that they’re “owed” this presidential term, the more that they disqualify their standard-bearer from serving.

Last night, on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” on HBO, Bob Costas made a superb observation that applies equally well to gender politics: he said that American voters earnestly yearned for a “post-racial” America. And, I’ll add, a post-”sexist” America. That is Obama’s appeal. And its opposite is Hillary’s achilles heel.

Seemingly, her campaign is drifting into Achilles Hell:

As her campaign melted down in the week leading up to South Carolina with reminders that Bill Clinton with all his baggage will once again be in the White House, so now it’s melting down again over an over-the-top attack on a friendly reporter. Do you think that David Schuster is going to be sympathetic to Clinton in future? Really? And NBC?

He’d be a damned saint if he didn’t — at least subconsciously — try to get even.

And the absurd contradiction of accepting the vile Fox News debate and then threatening to reject the neutral MSNBC debate (MSNBC, who really IS still NBC) is going to be troubling and contradictory to the Reptile Brain — that DOESN’T “get” nuance. That’s why Karl Rove was able to exploit it to crucify Dan Rather and John Kerry, folks.

[@ right: Typical hate stuff, and this is mild.]

Oh, Hillary pilloried Shuster, all right. (And I’m not defending him or exonerating him: still, the punishment seems excessive as far worse “criminals” are being ignored during this bizarre linguistic jihad).

But I wonder if Hillary didn’t pillory herself far worse.

Courage.

===========

UPDATE 11:00PM PST: Perhaps I was onto something. While Hillary was dominating the headlines with her attacks on MSNBC, the New York Times reported:

Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 10, 2008

Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday, giving him an impressive sweep going into a month when the Democratic nominating contests are expected to favor him.

Mike Huckabee attended a rally Saturday at the University of Maryland. He later won the Republican caucuses in Kansas.

The successes come just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money, providing important fuel for the nominating contests ahead. Still, the results were expected to do little to settle the muddle in the delegate race that resulted after the wave of contests last Tuesday in which the two candidates split up states from coast to coast.

And Bloomberg reports:

Obama Sweeps Louisiana Primary, Washington, Nebraska Caucuses
By Karen Leigh and Nicholas Johnston

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama won the Louisiana Democratic presidential primary, completing a sweep of the three states holding contests today for the party’s nomination.

With 87 percent of Louisiana’s precincts reporting, Obama led with 56 percent to Hillary Clinton’s 37 percent.

The Illinois senator also won caucuses in Washington and Nebraska. Obama had 68 percent of the votes in Washington to 31 percent for Clinton. In Nebraska, he had 68 percent to Clinton’s 32 percent.

“We won North, we won South and we won in between,” Obama, 46, said at a Democratic Party dinner in Richmond, Virginia, tonight… Obama also won the three pledged delegates available in the territorial convention in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Associated Press reported.

And, as Politico notes, Obama didn’t just sweep Hillary, he CREAMED her:

Obama landslides could break deadlock
By: Ben Smith
Feb 9, 2008 11:03 PM EST

Barack Obama’s landslide victories in three mid-sized states Saturday suggest that he has the opportunity build a significant lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton among the locked-in “pledged” delegates before the candidates face off in the big battlegrounds of Ohio and Texas on March 4.

The results in Washington and Nebraska vindicated Obama’s strategy of preparing expensive efforts to organize votes after the Feb. 5 contests that many expected – wrongly — effectively to decide the race. Clinton’s campaign, meanwhile, downplayed its own efforts in the states, though she did air television ads in both Washington and Nebraska.

Obama also won in Louisiana, buoyed by taking nearly 90% of the support of black voters, according to exit polls. And he won overwhelmingly in the U.S. Virgin Islands, winning all three of the territory’s pledged delegates….

UPDATE Feb. 11:  This post has a sequel, “Chelsea Mo(u)rning“

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized