The New Republic Channels Dick Morris
|-- enlarge graphic --
"Voices in Her Head: Hillaryland's Fatal Psychodrama"
by Michelle Cottle
also see Shakesville and Feministe
The Fox "News" toe sucker, aka Dick Morris and head Hillary hater, has to be grinning from ear to ear over this one. Democrats channeling his characterization in cover art. It's a depiction that could have easily come from wingnut central.
The cover screams. The implication is obvious. Hillary Clinton is a crazy, power hungry shrew. The picture puts the punctuation on TNR's cartoon cover editorializing, which might as well come with the headline: Don't nominate this bitch! It makes me wonder what's going to happen to the profile I'm about to get in The New Republic. After all, I'm a female supporting Hillary Clinton, so after spending hours being interviewed, which included a visit by veteran reporter Joe Mathews to my home studio to watch me on radio, I can only apply the standard phrase about pr for solace, especially since I've already been trashed on almost every Big Boy Obama blog on the web: The only bad publicity is no publicity. But then I'm not running for president.
But in the May edition of The New Republic, in cartoon bubbles coming out of a wild-eyed Clinton on the verge of a breakdown, this is what TNR's editors put coming out of her mouth:
You'll take away this nomination from my cold, dead hands!
Wait... I'm getting verklempt!
And I said to Sinbad, 'Leave me, save yourself.'
I bowl with Jesus.
How do you say "Judas" in Spanish?
Caucuses are elitist!
If you exclude states that start with a vowel, Americans abroad, and former members of the Confederacy, then multiply my numbers by pi... ..
The article, entitled of all things, "Voices in Her Head, Hillaryland's Fatal Psychodrama" I guess is meant to complete the introduction of Screaming Clinton complete with captions on the cover, which come straight from a wailing, open-mouthed Hillary, ala Howard Dean's scream for extra political punch (after all, Dean lost too, even after climbing so high). It is written by Michelle Cottle. TNR seems to be continuing in The Atlantic tradition of getting some scoop on the inner workings of Hillaryland. Seriously covering Clinton fairly has nothing to do with either of these efforts. It's yet another attempt to cover "the soap opera," which was long ago pushed by MSNBC.
But what is it about so called "progressive" outlets, starting with the biggest blogs who long ago went went to bat for Obama, who simply cannot take this woman running for the highest office? Why is every characterization from this pack epitomized by such anti-feminist characterization and derangement that it reveals a gender power paranoia from the men running these outfits that has heretofore gone hidden, unnoticed, or maybe simply ignored, because if they're not writing about women's opinions do they really exist? TPM's response to Linda Hirshman is now the norm, with Meyerson's race-baiting against Clinton another example. TNR doesn't miss a beat applying it as well, though at least they got a woman to write it to give them cover. And after all, Cottle isn't responsible for the cover art, nor is she to blame for the dramatics inside the Clinton camp. However, Hillary pushing on with great strength is or should be an equally important story, especially compared to the incompetents around her.
If anyone wants to know why Clinton's supporters, especially the women, will not support the Democratic nominee, The New Republic cover is example S, for sexist, which follows in a long line of progressive pimping of all things anti-Clinton, anti-women, anti-feminist that has streamed out of the Democratic and progressive ranks ever since Clinton started rising. It leaves Clinton supporters and women across this country feeling no affinity or allegiance to the Democratic party. I feel their outrage and hear it every single day, with many male feminists feeling the same.
Can anyone imagine a cover of Obama with such stereotypical screaming bubbling out of his mouth on a cover of a so called progressive magazine? Racism would be the immediate charge, but for Clinton it's all a big yawn.
Sexism? What sexism? Misogyny in the progressive ranks? Nah, not possible. It's not only possible, but it's our ugly reality.
This is what Democrats and progressives have been doing on the web for months now. Hunting powerful women is now considered sport in the Democratic party, especially online. It's why if Clinton is not the nominee her supporters will defect in droves, and progressive Democrats will have only themselves to blame when McCain rides in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on the back of Democratic voter outrage after what Clinton has experienced.