The press has finally latched onto the fringe feminist voters and turned Hillary Clinton's presidential race into a gender issue. In the continuing tradition of irresponsible journalism, they have put the onus on the public at large, perpetuating their fabricated myth that the media is not blatantly trying to manipulate their readers. Once again, however, they have pushed out a message so reactionary that it will only cause a backlash. So, for any of you out there who are worrying about the possibility that a callous, intolerant, pro-censorship, elitist, corporate whore (gender-neutral whore, pertaining to anyone who will accept money from corporations in exchange for getting fucked) will be elected purely as the token minority, rest assured that her more radical supporters are doing more to push away voters than they are helping her.
The main coverage is of women who say that they never intended to vote for Hillary before, but after the Iowa caucus, they realized that a woman candidate can't even take one primary vote because of her gender. Yes, they actually said that, and yes, they said that after one primary worth less than 1% of the country's votes. The fear is that democratic voters are frightened by the concept of a woman being president, and are unwilling to support a minority candidate. As proof, they point to several instances where democrats have referred to Clinton as a cold, calculating evil Washington insider, which they allege is playing into the stereot
ypes of women. So, they have fallen back on the safe vote of a beltway conservative that won't ruffle up too many feathers as he meets the description of every president elected in American history: Barack Obama (pictured right). Rest assured, however, that these people are not the majority of Americans. They may have pushed the Hillary vote in New Hampshire, but the nice thing about reactionaries is that they're traditionally lazy (after all, if they had any sense of perserverance, they might actually take the route of fixing their own problems instead of blaming everyone else for bringing them down). So, after they've pulled New Hampshire and maybe a couple of the Super Tuesday states (I predict Nevada goes to Obama and South Carolina goes to Edwards), a majority of them will either be exhausted from the fight or will give up after a couple small defeats in other insignificant states. Above all, remember that they don't really want Clinton to win– after all, if there isn't a man in charge of the country, who will they have to blame for all their problems?
ypes of women. So, they have fallen back on the safe vote of a beltway conservative that won't ruffle up too many feathers as he meets the description of every president elected in American history: Barack Obama (pictured right). Rest assured, however, that these people are not the majority of Americans. They may have pushed the Hillary vote in New Hampshire, but the nice thing about reactionaries is that they're traditionally lazy (after all, if they had any sense of perserverance, they might actually take the route of fixing their own problems instead of blaming everyone else for bringing them down). So, after they've pulled New Hampshire and maybe a couple of the Super Tuesday states (I predict Nevada goes to Obama and South Carolina goes to Edwards), a majority of them will either be exhausted from the fight or will give up after a couple small defeats in other insignificant states. Above all, remember that they don't really want Clinton to win– after all, if there isn't a man in charge of the country, who will they have to blame for all their problems?
No comments:
Post a Comment