One of the things that keeps me from backing HRC - not her being corporate or being a hawk

[Peregrine Took]

but the scariness of the Clinton mafia.

For example, I heard on the Bill Press show that a possible Dem 2016 prez candidate put out feelers for a meeting regarding his plans and no one would attend - too scared the Clinton folks would find out they had attended. Very, very creepy.

Now that Martin O'Malley has come into their purview- they aren't liking what they have been seeing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/03/watch-it-marty-team-hillary-said-to-put-omalley-on-notice-1336979224/

[Autumn]

1. Oh come on. I don't support Hillary but this is just silly.

Clinton mafia. Right out of Fux news.

[Man from Pickens]

26. You may want to compare notes

with Nita Lowey

who would be Senator Nita Lowey right now if not for said mafia

[JaneyVee]

2. The Clinton Mafia? What do they break legs to help cure hunger?

[emulatorloo]

3. Seriously? Fox News and the Washington Examiner?

Right-wing slant for free in DC's new daily paper, the Washington Examiner
http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/02/02/right-wing-slant-for-free-in-dcs-new-daily-pape/132677

[Scuba]

4. There are good reasons to not support Hillary. This isn't one of them.

[elleng]

5. No surprised.

[MADem]

6. You're quoting FOX NEWS when you tout this pathetic theory?

Donors can't be bullied. They're rich and they don't give a shit. Supporters can't be bullied either -- not if they're "true believers" and not dilettantes following the latest fashion.

If donors don't show up, they don't show up. If supporters don't show up, they don't show up. There's nothing nefarious about it. And if Fox News claims otherwise, you KNOW there's nothing nefarious about it.

[LiberalElite]

7. Please. Don't link to

Fox News here. Kills your credibility, and for good reason.

[demigoddess]

8. your post-

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Whoa! Fox News link. Stop everything!

Carry on.

[BainsBane]

10. Let's for a minute suppose this is true

How would this supposed Clinton mafia have any effect on your life or that of the rest of ordinary Americans?
I continue to be astonished how much people here care about the fortunes of the political elite and the spoils of elections. It's almost as if you are talking about your own. I don't care about who is in or out with the political big wigs, if they get invited to parties or shunned, or if someone who people admire gets a cabinet appointment or not. I, like 99.9999999999999% of the rest of the country, have better things to worry about than the machinations of the political elite. So you go ahead and fret about the Clinton mafia. The rest of us will worry about civil rights, economic opportunity, social security, reproductive rights . . . you know, the stuff that doesn't make into gossip of the DC social set.

[misterhighwasted]

17. Thank You BainsBane.

Well stated.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Clinton Super Volunteers issue fatwa on alleged sexist terms.

(Although none are gender-specific.)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=xD0fVfTBFsrioASTxILwAw&url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/the-13-words-you-cant-write-about-hillary-clinton-anymore/&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNEHIU7r1bF7enVHIBe3dbO68m6Bbw&sig2=LbDvWLBFPOsGToN0JNweyA

Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Inevitable
Entitled
Overconfident
Secretive
Will do anything to win
Represents the past
Out of touch

[BainsBane]

16. God forbid anyone call out sexism and misogyny

How good of you to contribute to this Fox News post with another reactionary position. Sexism and misogyny are real, and they are evident in the discourse surrounding every woman in public life, on the right and the left. That you take this FOX NEWS OP as an opportunity to share your contempt for concerns about equal rights and the language that works against it is sadly not surprising. There has been far more obvious sexist language used on this site against Clinton, but of course not just Clinton, against any number of public figures as well as other members. A lot of times it's more blatant, B...h, c...t, that sort of thing. But we are told free speech not only depends on the unfettered use of such language, misogynistic speech should be particularly protected because any criticism of it threatens freedom everywhere.

You don't need a doctorate in cultural studies or gender studies to figure out that comments about Clinton or any other female politician as being hard, tough, and cold are sexist. It should be obvious to anyone who is even marginally aware. I expect they are aware, and that choice of language is at least in some cases quite deliberate.

So today we have had Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, the Clinton mafia and now your insisting a critique of sexist language is a nefarious plot. Using the term "fatwa" to describe feminists is particularly cynical. When people invoke right wing sources and right-wing arguments to advance their cause--which is no more than stopping a single undeclared Democratic candidate from seeking office, the only conclusion to be drawn is that they share the goals of the right, which go far beyond stopping Clinton. Your remarkably uninformed dismissal of gendered discourse contributes to that long-term effort.

It's not enough to oppose Clinton. You have to make sure all women are put on notice that any efforts to confront sexism and misogyny will not be tolerated. That is a long standing position of some on this site, so it is hardly surprising to see anti-feminism marshaled to defeat Clinton. The benefit of this and some other threads, like the one where a poster expressed outrage that Clinton was appealing to "women and minorities," is that we get to see exactly what we are dealing with. Clearly the idea of confronting sexism is unacceptable to you, as speaking to women's issues was unacceptable to the other poster. So absolutely, if you are firmly wedded to the idea that sexist language should never be confronted, you should do whatever you can to see that Clinton nor any other woman is elected to the presidency. And we in turn get to see what it is that people really care about.

Lastly, why have you included a list of words discussed in the article, but not listed as you have done here now, as though it were an excerpt? Did you mean to include another link that contained the list as such, or did you purposefully misquote the article?

[AtomicKitten]

19. Sexism vs. racism got quite an airing here in 2008.

Interesting times in which Hillary's devoted following regularly complained loudly about sometimes real and sometimes imagined sexism/misogyny perpetrated against her while at the same time she and her Wrecking Crew went after her opponent's race in less than subtle ways.

ELECTION 2008: Hillary Struggles Against Sexism But Regularly Plays Race Card
link: http://www.alternet.org/story/84150/hillary_struggles_against_sexism_but_regularly_plays_race_card

-- snip

The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an "oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.

Yet what is most troubling -- and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement -- is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right -- in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country -- seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many non-white and non-mainstream feminists crying foul.

From Rolling Stone who captured the sentiment perfectly:

(Edited to add this first appeared in the Florida Sun Sentinel in 2008 and reprinted with permission in Rolling Stone, a distinction moot to this conversation but raised downthread.)





Finally, my steadfast support for Elizabeth Warren 2016 renders much of your essay laughable. Although I'm flattered by the PMs I received from your buddies here asking if I'm afraid to answer your post (I have a life and don't spend much of it here), DU has been here before (2007/2008 - although I see you joined in 2012) and remember clearly the mis/abuse of the accusation of sexism used as a cudgel. The brow-beating didn't work then and won't now. Your candidate is going to have to pull up her socks and answer to her record because it stands between her and the White House.

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. Well said

I'm sick of that kind of attack too. The Clintons are as progressive as NAFTA, Repealing Glass Siegel, DOMA, voting for Iraq War, Speaking tours for Banks and other progressive things they have done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. What does that have to do with making misogynistic attacks on Ms. Clinton as is often the case here?

The range of healthy weight, depending upon body type, is 115 to 157. As to her dress size, I gave her the benefit of the doubt to say size 18 - more likely a 22.


-Democratic Underground member

If Secretary of State Clinton is a size 22 I'm Brad Pitt...

[AtomicKitten]

25. Thank you. Cheers. /nt

[BainsBane]

23. You are not the arbiter of what is "real or imagined sexism"

Last edited Sat Apr 4, 2015, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Particularly after your last post in which you misquoted the linked article.
Warren isn't running for President, which you well know. Nor does that have anything to do with the sexism you ridiculed.
I didn't say, "you won't vote for a woman." I talked about sexist and misogynist discourse, something that you decided to ridicule as part of the so-called Clinton mafia.

What makes you feel entitled to decide what constitutes sexism and what concerns women are allowed to raised is beyond me. You do not get to control which issues women are allowed to raise, no matter how insignificant you think we are.
This goes far beyond a single presidential candidate. I understand you manifest the sort of political consciousness that is limited to individuals, but some of us actually care about more enduring problems of social justice. You and the rest of the Clinton haters stop at nothing to oppose a single candidate, and in the process it has become clear to me that nothing is what you all care about, not issues, not reform, just cults of personality for and against.

I could give a rat's ass who you vote for. But when you use attacks on feminists in cynically dishonest ways to promote your narrow agenda, I will speak out about it. This election will pass, but you will continue to be a person who talks down to women about what they are allowed to raise and belittles their concerns, because really, how could any of that possibly matter compared to your views on a single individual. I'm tempted to say you manifest a lack of principle, but I think that would be mistaken. I think your post reflect quite clearly what your principles are, and that includes belittling women's concerns about sexism and misogyny, which was the point of your entrance into this thread in the first place.

I don't know who PMed you, nor do I care. If they were to have asked me in advance, I would have told them not to waste their time.

[AtomicKitten]

24. I see you've doubled down on your baseless accusation of misquoting an article I posted.

I thought I'd give you some time to rethink your ridiculous accusation in light of the fact that you clearly and embarrassingly did not read the article I posted upthread entitled "The 13 Words You Cannot Write About Hillary Clinton Anymore" from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/the-13-words-you-cant-write-about-hillary-clinton-anymore/

Not only are the 13 words listed in a series of tweets referenced by the article, but an entire paragraph of their very own:

So these words are now off the table: "polarizing," "calculating," "disingenuous," "insincere," "ambitious," "inevitable," "entitled," "over-confident," "secretive," "will do anything to win," "represents the past," and "out of touch."

The rest of your snotty response is crap just as your declarative OPs in which you issue blanket dismissal of fact (e.g., Sidney Blumenthal's spy network working with then SOS Clinton) in an effort to smooth over Hillary Clinton's bumpy ride at State.

Be warned that Hillary Clinton's record and in particular her record at State will be discussed and dissected and mulled over in this vetting process. You can huff and puff and try to blow those discussions down with complaints of Hillary being put upon in some way, but the conversation will be had regardless.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Really

Finally, my steadfast support for Elizabeth Warren 2016 renders much of your essay laughable

Everything we know about human interaction suggests folks can harbor prejudice, animus, malice, et cetera, against members of their own group and that often that prejudice, animus, malice, et cetera is the greatest...

Colloquially I know when someone says my best friends are black, Jewish, gay, lesbian, what have you I know that group, is about to get slammed.

It's not who we support or claim as friends that defines us. It's our actions.


Opposing sexism, homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, et cetera is a hill I would die on.

BTW, the cartoon you posted isn't from Rolling Stone as you wrote, " From Rolling Stone who captured the sentiment perfectly." It's from the right leaning Sun Sentinel:

Look closely

Oh, and substitute gay, Jewish, African American, Muslim, et cetera for girl and think how noxious that cartoon would be.

[sheshe2]

12. oh please!

[GusBob]

13. You listed 3 things eom

[dissentient]

14. Welp, if O'Malley ends up dying in a small plane crash then I will give this some attention, but

otherwise this sounds like the "Clinton body count" stuff that has been around a long time.

I do think there is something to the general idea in terms of the Kennedy assassination though, there were a lot of suspicious deaths that happened after that. A recent book I bought on Amazon is interesting and lists them all, "JFK: The Dead Witnesses".

[tracks29]

15. Great. Someone will now use this to paint all Bernie/Warren fans as crazy.

They do it with everything else

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I see what you did./NT

[pnwmom]

21. Please don't support anti-Clinton OP's with articles from Faux news.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Fox news?

Really?