Oh, what a difference a year makes. When Hillary Clinton made her “I’m in to win” announcement on January 20, 2007, her path to the Democratic nomination looked like a rose-petal strewn cakewalk.
Since three-fifths of the Democratic electorate are female, it was reasoned that most of these women would line up obediently behind Hillary’s campaign. Clinton would reassure her media adorers that “this campaign isn’t about gender,” and then huddle with her all-female staff to plan the next Women for Hillary rally.
If anyone criticized her record, Hillary’s advisors would mount a “Politics of Pile-On” counter-offensive. And the New York Times could always be counted on to run a sympathetic “wounds I gladly bear” front-page story.
Lacking any real competition, Mrs. Clinton would sweep the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries, and begin practicing her acceptance speech while the Republican contenders battled it out through the Spring.
But one day reality intruded.
A charismatic politician from Illinois threw his hat into the ring, assembled a cracker-jack team, and began to rake in a craterful of cash.
As chance would have it, last December 13 their private jets were parked side by side at Washington’s Reagan airport. So Hillary summoned the political upstart to her plane for a little talking-to. Soon she was “flapping her arms” over Barack’s charge that she was log-rolling the release of her first lady papers.
A few weeks later the Iowa caucus-goers cast their votes and Hillary Clinton placed a disastrous third place. In a single day Hillary the Inevitable had become Hillary the Question Mark.
Then came Super Tuesday. Mr. Obama didn’t corner the male vote in every state, but he racked up enough male and African-American ballots to prove Barack the Movement had arrived. Following his convincing win in South Carolina, Obama delivered a masterful victory speech in which he declared himself the candidate of unity.
Last week it was revealed that Clinton had been forced to shore up her campaign with an emergency $5 million loan. Then came the string of weekend losses, followed by more set-backs in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia on Tuesday
It’s a little too early to write the obituary on Hillary Clinton’s historic quest, but indulge me while I hammer out the first draft.
David Paul Kuhn’s recent book The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma surveys the politics of last half century and concludes, “No factor has been more instrumental in causing the Democratic decline in presidential politics than the loss of white men.”
Likewise pollsters like Celinda Lake have been warning the Democratic Party to reach out to the white male voter. Time after time the Dems ginned up a presidential candidate who failed to exemplify the qualities of constancy, resilience, and strength. No surprise, the white male electorate turned its back on these effete apologists for the Nanny State.
Hillary not only ignored the white male voter, she repeatedly tweaked men’s collective noses. She staged a preposterous “Iron My Shirt” protest at a New Hampshire rally. Her campaign’s nearly palpable message is, “Step aside mister, the pantsuits are here to run the show.”
And women turned out to be far more independent-minded than Hillary’s advisors were counting on. Writing in the New York Times Magazine, Linda Hirshman recently revealed that compared to men, women are less interested in public affairs, less likely to follow “hard” news, and are less knowledgeable about political issues.
This is Hirshman’s most revealing quote: “With the possible exception of 1996, women have never voted a candidate into the White House when men thought the other guy should win.”
Every two years the leftist media undergoes a political mating ritual that goes something like this:
First remind the candidates that women represent 54% of the electorate. Then browbeat the Republican candidate because he is lagging with the ladies, while ignoring his greater lead among men. And after your candidate loses, come up with some loopy explanation like, “The Democrat lost because he didn’t endorse reproductive rights for teenage girls.”
The nation’s 97 million white males represent the second largest block in the American electorate, after white females. What white men lack in raw numbers, they more than compensate with electoral cohesion and political acumen.
If Barack Obama goes on to sew up the Democratic nomination, which seems more likely every day, his triumph will be a testament to the hubris and folly of Hillary Clinton, who once believed she could ignore the white male voter.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Artfldgr said,
Please forgive my humble interjection here, but a slight faux pas has been made and I do hope that you dont mind my pointing it out.
Assumation, is not reason.
or put quite properly, they assumed. If one looks at the situation, there is absolutely no way to reason to that position because it assumes, that women are a homogeneous group that all want the same things, and so when one is in office all are in office.
Kind of Borgian, but it comes from the projection that everyone is like me, so i can model the mind of everyone. belief in tabula rasa means that you stop at that point and you no longer attempt to model a viewpoint that is actually different than yours. pretty much all your analysis is condescending (to be clear i am not refering to carey, but to the nature of the subjects that he is refering to).
Sociopathy also creates this same sense of mind which leads to a kind of organized paranoia where the secret schemer and manipulator (the sociopath), believes that the others are like them, and so knows that there is the same dark nature as they have under others if the other is not in a position to easily be victim. They confuse merit with successful manipulation, as they have a cargo cult mentality (and a natural propensity to megalomania due to thinking that because they can manipulate others so easily that others are inferior. the reasoning being that if they werent inferior, then they wouldnt let me do this, because I wouldnt let them do this)
This is why sociopathic leaders work the crowd and make a movement, rather than orate like cicero. a sociopathic leader doesnt actually care which side an issue something is on, so they have no problem burning the candle at both ends to collect the middle by attaching a lable to the issue.
a common example i use is pornography. There are feminists FOR pornography, and feminists AGAINST pornography. feminism actually has no meaning (what i call an adobo ideology, its just supposed to make everything better, like msg, but ends up giving you headache after headache), so it actually takes no real side, that way it can gather up the people on both sides of every argument rather than win people over by having the best collection of meritocritous points based on real judgements.
Its lying to one group, and lying to another group, and because the groups are generally diametrically opposite, they never check notes and discover the sociopath playing them to the middle. They do this by using more than one individual, so that the buck stops at some individual. so the leader of the FOR side and the leader of the AGAINST side maintain their group, and the leader of both, maintain the sum of both groups.
meanwhile, the issues will NEVER be resolved since the group above the FOR and AGAINST doesnt ever want it to be resolved, as ANY resolution or coming to the table is a reduction of their power and control, which is all they really want. they dont care about misery, so they can keep this miserable situation going as long as the two groups (the scissors) are cutting themselves into parts and never compare notes.
in meritocritous politic, they would have to choose a side, and then make a point, and then justify why their position is best to sway you to their side.
in sociopathic politic, they dont choose either side, they add their tag to it and then gather both sides that are permanently kept at odds so that they can maintain their position. while the two groups are bickering on the lawn, the sociopaths are stealing their house and lives blind.
and since sociopaths think that being polite is manipulation and such, they HAVE to cause pain to FEEL the power that they have. until they exercise it, they dont know that they have it. superman isnt superman till he picks up a building or moves a planet, until he ACTS he is only clark kent an everyman (so much for marx in superman).
the sociopathic leader wants to be a superwoman, or superman. an uberman like nietsche speaks of where there are only two kinds of people those who rule and those who are ruled. So they MUST do things against the people that support them because thats they only way they can tell that the people are following and they are not just walking at the front of a crowd.
when they turn left, and go the wrong way, we tell them that we are with them or against them by not stopping them.
Socialism FORCES end justifies the means thinking as one HAS to justify state power to steal for some arguable justice.
that gives them the key to the kingdom… that gives them the ability to test their power theories out by taking things away from people.
and when they own all property, then they have taken all the power.
cute, eh?
February 14, 2008 at 7:56 am
Ouderkirk said,
properly addressed as the vaginocracy, Hillary thought that with herself as president, and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and could easily move Feinstein or Boxer into the Majority leader the triumvirate would be complete. They could then institute a new era of Jim Crow against men.
February 14, 2008 at 8:50 am
PolishKnight said,
I believe Obama also grabbed the women’s vote as well. The Democrats overall want to be rid of her and her’s husband’s bad reputation.
And in the Democrat’s defense: They aren’t just the party of women. Women are just one special interest privileged group in a very big tent of sexist, racist, and economic class entitlement groups. Obama’s formula of “hope” is nothing new: It’s just warmed up 1930’s democrat rhetoric which is also just warmed up mobacracy scapegoating.
The founding fathers specifically designed the constitution to avoid something like this happening not (only) because of concern for minority rights, but also because they recognized that this group bashing and manipulation would be used by the state to ultimately set up a tyranny that would ultimately harm everyone.
Freedom and liberty create a society where everyone wants to live, including the wealthy and elites. I know. I’ve been to places where the government is clearly corrupt and they have to hide behind gated mansions with guard dogs and electric fences. It’s like a prison. They then import goods from countries with a strong middle class and vacation there.
The Marxist agenda in the United States is unique because it doesn’t rely mostly upon bashing the wealthy (although they do continue to engage many people at that level), it’s now founded mostly upon race interests. Democrats are racists. What’s amusing is that most Republicans are not except in a clinical kind of way where many still engage in white guilt.
Check out this link: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
Women are walking away (slowly but surely) from the Democrat party when they don’t have class interests (unwed mothers) or racial interests. The problem is that when they’re a “twofer” (a term that liberals hate precisely because it descibes a dirty little secret they have about their hypocritical racist agenda), such as a minority woman or an unwed mother or a threefer: A minority unwed mother or a fourfer: Minority unwed LESBIAN mother, then they might as well not even request a ballot with anything BUT democrat on it.
This raises an interesting problem: How can republicans compete with a sugar mommy? It’s like a health food store trying to compete with McD’s.
War. That always gets the mob’s attention. What makes the Iraq war distasteful to liberals isn’t the fact that people are dying, blah blah blah. In fact, most secretly giggle over the fact that it’s mostly white males dying (even as they lie and pretend that it’s mostly minorities dying.) No, they hate it because it’s a war that spends THEIR precious money OVERSEAS. You see, wars to protect SOMEONE ELSE who isn’t a special interest voting group doesn’t do it for them. (Darfur, though, is another matter for obvious reasons.)
There’s also basic economics: Bill and Hillary are hated by hardcore liberals for selling out and signing off on welfare reform and embracing basic (in other words, obvious) economic theory that, gasp, a good economy is a good thing to brag about a legacy rather than big, monstrous government programs that they wanted but couldn’t pass even if they would trash our country.
Prediction: McCain loses big time when conservatives such as me stay home or, hopefully, show up to vote for conservatives in the house but vote for Obama or third party.
Obama makes his regal procession and his inauguration speech and…
It’s everyone’s worst nightmare INCLUDING to nearly all working Democrats. He proclaims the “hope” of Karl Marx and a racist agenda that sounds just like the KKK only in reverse.
Wall street rumbles and the country rallies to conservatives.
Then we have some house cleaning to do.
February 14, 2008 at 9:44 am
Jim Peterson said,
Artful Dodger: Your essay on Sociopath Feminists being for and against Pornography was brilliant. Please clean it up and present it as an article in and of itself. I can get it published around the net with your byline if you send me a spruced up version at veterans at veteransabroad dot com.
I have a feeling that the crowd at http://www.dailypaul.com might start to dissipate soon. That is too bad because the Ron Paul supporters never really caught on to the MRM while they were whining about individual rights being taken away. I fear the crowds that remain in the next months might just concentrate more and more on being anti-war, which takes away from the MRM message.
February 14, 2008 at 12:38 pm
fourthwire said,
“There are no illegal women!”
In addition to her obvious power-play to develop a vaginocracy, Clinton managed to step into mainstream America’s backlash against illegal immigration, while toadying up to knee-jerk female voters.
And Clinton’s alienation of men is hardly an unforeseen occurrence.
Just as male viewership of CBS News waned after Katie Couric’s “Have you considered castration?” fiasco, male voters are increasingly turning their backs on Clinton’s shrill, schizophrenic angry feminist / wounded victim messaging.
Ignoring men outright was Clinton’s mistake….. a mistake due to her own arrogance and ideological beliefs.
By packing her campaign staff with women, she likely didn’t have a clue about men’s backlash against the looming prospect of a pantsuit vaginocracy.
True, many in the nation are sick of the Clintons and simply want to see both of them go away, or at least advance no further than their present positions.
Although Clinton did better among female voters than among male voters, Obama has even nibbled away there, especially among those female voters who sensed that voting for Clinton’s genitals might not be the best move after all.
And then there’s the point that many women have less political interests or interest in current events than the mainstream media consistently attempts to give them credit for.
On his syndicated radio show, Tom Leykis proves this point repeatedly by asking female callers VERY basic political questions……
………. which the majority of his female callers cannot answer correctly (and in more amusing instances, cannot even provide a coherent reply to!).
From my perspective, America’s candidates for the presidency are mostly bad choices, at least for those individuals who believe in limited government, less interference in families, national defense, etc.
The prospect of a middle-aged feminazi-socialist in the White House (again!) supports the scenario behind my imaginary bumper-sticker “Anyone BUT The Bitch!”…………
America’s voters might indeed be ready for a female president….. but too many men and women are undoubtedly saying to themselves “Just not THAT woman!……..”.
February 14, 2008 at 1:38 pm
college activist said,
February 14, 2008 at 6:12 pm
roger said,
Don’t you just love catty women?
February 14, 2008 at 8:44 pm
steven deluca said,
February 14, 2008 at 8:51 pm
amfortas said,
Now he’d get a lot more votes if he UNITED the black male and the white male vote.
Doesn’t he get it that there are a few millions of women out there who are hurting because of Feminism? They will vote along with the men. It would wipe out the anti-male female dominance in the voting booths. Those women just want reassurance that revenge won’t be visited upon them for the crimes of their ugly sistas.
They, and the men want to hear a clear expression from a candidate that the gravy train, the corruption, the lies of feminism will be exposed. They will be happy to have ’shelters’ for the tiny minority that need them, MEN as well as women.
So, Obama. Let’s hear it. Otherwise it is all just one lot of empty rhetoric versus another lot.
February 15, 2008 at 7:52 am
PolishKnight said,
Ironically, Hillary Clinton is a fantastic representation of the average American woman.
She’s ambitious (or should I say, ambitchious) and in addition: cold-hearted, cruel, obsessed with her own victimhood while showing no compassion for others, and worst of all: unreliable and needy.
She’s the poster girl for feminism and leftism.
Ann Coulter said something hilarious: (paraphrased) “Hillary is more likely than McCain to support us using torture. I think she would enjoy strapping someone to a wall and whipping them.”
Obama on the other hand is trying to play on being an unknown and using such nebulous terms as “hope” and “change” because the more you know about a leftist and a feminist, the less you like them.
February 15, 2008 at 9:43 am
PolishKnight said,
Obama is a race hustler and race hustlers are interested in their own personal ambitions rather than solving problems. On the contrary, hustlers are all about exacerbating problems to keep their users coming in for a “fix.”
As long as the blacks line up to vote for him, he’s not going to change this tune when most black households are headed by women. On the contrary, he’s not going to want to disturb that gravy train.
February 15, 2008 at 9:47 am
Artfldgr said,
An author freind has decided to help once in a while and edit my work to make it more accessible. I have other pieces that can be even more revealing or shattering depending on whether your life is full ideas, or ideology.
One thing I will point out, that little thing as to controlling an issue, doesnt just apply to feminists. It applies to all movements in the socialist dialectic of power and its acquisition when merit is not on your side.
If you want to know where I learned it you can credit the thinkers from the soviet union and the analysts that examined their methods. The techniques were specifically worked out so that power could be obtained quickly and that power once obtained can be disconnected from having to report or answer to the source of that power, and thereby direct it to other ends.
this process is done on MANY levels.
so i showed you feminism gathering power from both sides of the issue… well guess what. feminism connected to Mens rights, is the EXACT same thing. the two parts will remain in opposition forever if the mens movement solidifies. even more interesting is the concept of push poop in this.
the stuff above doesnt show how the state helps this. in this case, the push pop is constructed with the state. while the two issues of pornography is not. the state pretends to favor women, it gathers power there… it does this by pushing down one side. when all the power is gathered that can be gathered (without giving a side enough power to actually use what they collected), then the pop happens.
the mra thing right now is the pop after the push. the resentments from being held back creates the desire for fairness, and so the men are pushing pushing to be heard… then they get the illusion that they are making a difference because the cover is off and they can start popping up.
at this point the system flips and the state starts collecting the power from the other side who now thinks that the state will help them.
in both cases the trade off is more power for the illusion of helping an issue that they orchestrate themselves by doing this.
when this is over, there will be two permanent factions that the false issue will permanently be a spike between the two power bases that could oppose the state!!!
with one side yelling at the state to judge the other, and the other side yelling at the state to judge the other… they never realize that they both gave the state complete total power to judge everything and act on its whim.
after all, when everyone yells to move in a direction, the only direction that they go in is the one in which the pilot steers them.
if every person has a different destination in mind, the captain can go wher ethey want, and attribute it to whichever in the group said it. in this way the captain can go where they want, and never be blamed for getting there. (che guevera flag is a great example)
however if every person on the ship compares notes and stops using a judge with their own motives, then there will be a majority on that boat, and if the captaion dont take them there, there will be a mutiny.
see how it works?
fun fun fun….
February 15, 2008 at 11:38 am
tonysprout said,
February 15, 2008 at 8:14 pm
amfortas said,
The worse things get, the more sense it makes.
February 16, 2008 at 8:47 pm