One of Seattle’s weekly
publications has a regular column that lists some “news” item from each day the
previous week, and it seems that whoever compiles it has a preference for
gender “victim” stories. If facts are lacking or in question, “opinion” will
always suffice. Last week, Vermont’s independent Sen. Bernie Sanders was the
subject of a rare “positive”—sort of—characterization—of a male. That is to
say, when he was given the opportunity on CNN, he didn’t say anything
“bad”—meaning “sexist”—about Hillary Clinton, even though he will eventually
have to say something opposed to her cliché-ridden sound bites if he expects to
win the Democratic presidential nomination. This refusal to engage in the
“sexist” politics of daring to criticize Clinton was deemed as laudatory by the
weekly. Sen. Sanders might even get the writer’s vote—if Hillary doesn’t “need
it.”
Reverse-sexism, anyone? Or as Obi-Wan Kenobi said: "Who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him"--or her?
Sen. Sanders should “excite” the
liberal base far more than Clinton; when I was listening to Thom Hartmann’s radio
show (before it was replaced by yet another sports talk station), Sanders would
come on every Friday and elucidate the issues of the day in a common sense,
factual way, in a way you never hear
politicians do. While Sanders typically votes with the Democrats, he is largely
ignored by the leadership; nevertheless, since he doesn’t answer to anyone but
his constituency, he is free to talk truth, and the fact that he has been
repeatedly re-elected shows that his constituency finds his non-nonsense discourse
refreshing. Unlike Clinton, Sanders actually has qualities that she is decidedly lacking in:
Credibility, integrity and the courage of his convictions.
The conventional “wisdom” would
say that Sanders has no chance even if nominated; he just too “liberal.” While the right stupidly accuses the president of
being a “socialist” and a “communist,” one wonders how they would characterize
the senator’s positions. But I think that Sen. Sanders could pose a real danger
to Clinton if his cogent elucidation of the issues and how to fix the nation’s
problems are permitted to be heard in contrast to Clinton’s banalities, however
“forcefully” spoken. In a general election, it is very well possible that
“independent” voters would see in Sanders a true kindred spirit.
Unfortunately for Sanders, he has
only a miniscule fraction of the campaign cash the Clinton machine has been
extorting from people who feel they “owe” her something for their support of
Obama, even groups for whom the only qualification that Clinton offers their
progressive agenda is that she is a woman, and because she is, she is
“entitled” to their support.
Still, that some Clinton promoters
in the media consider Sanders a threat to her in the primaries was demonstrated
recently on CNN’s State of the Union,
where Sanders appearing to answer “tough” questions for daring to challenge the
Clinton News Network’s chosen one. After Sanders made an effort to define and offer
solutions to address growing income inequality in this country, CNN’s White
House correspondent, Brianna Keilar, attempted to suggested that Sen. Sanders
would be “forced” into an implied “sexist” personal attack on Clinton in order
to make any “headway” against her.:
KEILAR: I just
wonder is this going to be a civil debate with Hillary Clinton? Even if you're talking about issues and not
personality or the fact that she's establishment, you have to go after a
leading candidate with a hard edge. Are
you prepared to do that?
This of course assumes that by
the time of the first primaries that Clinton actually will be the prohibitive
frontrunner; one may recall that this time eight years ago she occupied a
similar position, mainly because the media wasn’t even talking about an
alternative. Sanders, however, refused to take the bait:
SANDERS: Well,
Brianna, let me turn it around to you, OK. I've never run a negative political
ad in my life. People in Vermont know
that I run in many, many campaigns. I
don't believe in ugly 30-second ads. I
believe in serious debates on serious issues.
I've known Hillary Clinton for 25 years.
Maybe I shouldn't say this. I
like Hillary Clinton. I respect Hillary
Clinton. Will the media, among others,
allow us to have a civil debate on civil issues? Or is the only way to get media attention by
ripping apart someone else? I certainly
hope that’s not the case.
Keilar, flummoxed that Sanders had
the audacity to question the media’s interest (or lack thereof) in issues of
public concern, and accusing said media of being more interested in
manufactured “scandals,” continued to channel Jerry Springer’s sewer-dredging:
KEILAR: Overall, I don't hear a lot of
forcefulness from you; a lot of people who observe politics say this is a
contact sport. You have to have sharp
elbows. Even if it's not going fully
negative in character assassination and there may be somewhere in between - are
you -
Yes, there you have it. Here is a
confession that the media is not interested in the issues, but food fights and
mud wrestling between parties and candidates—especially if it gives media
feminists red meat to make accusations of “sexism.” Sanders, himself by now
exasperated by the direction of the “interview,” responded to Keilar’s lack of
knowledge of his long time positions on issues:
SANDERS: - Brianna,
Brianna, you are looking at the most progressive member of the United States
Senate. I have led the effort in taking
on Wall Street. I have led the effort in
taking on disastrous trade agreements. I
have led the effort in fighting for universal health care. I have led the effort in terms of trying to
reverse our approach toward climate change and move away from a fossil fuel
society. I've led the effort on many of those issues. I've taken on every powerful special -
Keilar, not interested in having
her ignorance of his positions exposed, interrupted him with a demand to know
if he intended to “sharply point out” where his Democratic opponents have
failed—meaning if he was going to go on “attack” mode, which of course means
against Clinton. Again, Sanders saw
right through the mendacious smokescreen, accusing CNN and the rest of the
media’s utter failure to expose how Republican policy positions only serve the
rich and harm the middle class and poor:
SANDERS: Of
course I am prepared to engage in serious debate. But let me throw it back to you. I'll tell you something else. The American people want to hear serious
discussions on why they're working longer hours for low wages. They want to know about why year after year
we have these disastrous trade agreements, why the rich get richer and
everybody else gets poorer. Are you in
the media prepared to allow us to engage in that serious debate? Or do I have to get media attention by simply
making reckless attacks on Hillary Clinton or anybody else? I don't believe in that. I believe in serious debates on serious
issues.
Rather than discuss the “state of
union,” Keilar only sought to paint Sanders as at best a dangerous “spoiler” to
Clinton’s quest for the presidency, and at worst a male candidate out to
deprive Clinton of what is rightfully “hers.” Reading between the lines, what
is being implied here is that any
discussion of the issues must necessarily be a personal attack on Clinton,
since it would expose the vacuity of her policy positions. After all, when
Clinton was on the ropes in 2008, did she fall back on her “superior” policy
ideas? No, because they didn’t exist; instead, she resorted to racist code
words and bizarre statements about assassinations.
Of course, what is
implied in all of this is that anyone who poses a “threat” to Clinton can only
do so by making attacks that are automatically assumed to be “sexist” in
nature. That is what our society has become. You cannot have a civil discussion
with the female candidate without her or the media accusing you of being
misogynist for having the audacity of forcing a logical or specific answer out
of her. It is “ungentlemanly” to force a woman to play by the rules of
give-and-take, even if she is running for the highest office in the land. CNN,
of course, is perfectly happy to run with her clichés and sound bites, and
forget about what people need to hear
from her.
No comments:
Post a Comment