Ownership

~ Clarissa

More dumbassery from the desperately woman – hating Corey Robin:

On a related topic, Rutgers historian Donna Murch has an epic piece in The New Republic about the Clintons’ tough-on-crime policies in the 1990s.

I wonder, how does this lame piece of fluff explain his failure to ascribe Hillary’s activities as Secretary of State to both Clintons? Or her work in Senate?

I also wonder, if there is some hopeless, god-forsaken broad that sleeps with this loser, does he refer to his posts as “our posts” and his salary as “our salary”?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

20 thoughts on “Ownership”

  2. Bill Clinton said that in electing him, the nation would “get two for the price of one”, referring to the prominent role his wife would assume.”

    “I’m the Sultan of Brunei. Now that I said it and, more importantly, placed it online, it has totally got to be true. Right?”

    I don’t quite follow how the second comment here is related to the first one. Are you saying that the Internet article quoting Bill Clinton is false (It isn’t), or are you acknowledging that Clinton actually said it (He did, repeatedly), but that he wasn’t being truthful about Hillary’s future role in his administration?

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’m suggesting that adults are allowed to analyze stump speeches of politicians critically. Let’s also remember that Bill was actually impeached for lying about the nature of his relationships with women. Hence, people who pretend to believe everything he says on the subject as gospel truth are being wilfully obtuse.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Let’s also remember that Bill was actually impeached for lying about the nature of his relationships with women. Hence, people who pretend to believe everything he says on the subject…”

        Ah, Clarissa, I love your statement: Since he was impeached for lying about women, don’t believe anything he says about Hillary. 🙂 🙂

        I wish every Democratic voter in this election felt that way!

        Like

        Reply

        1. Don’t believe everything and don’t believe anything are two entirely different statements. I’m inviting people to use their brains and analyze for themselves. And if the need for faith is so strong, there is always religion.

          Like

          Reply

      2. Well, if you’re saying this was a promise unfulfilled, I guess you were in a dogmatic slumber when the Hillarycare thing took place.

        The Clinton White House is like no White House in history. Never has a First Lady, not even Eleanor Roosevelt, been as powerful. None has been entrusted with an issue like health- care reform, potentially the most important piece of social legislation here for three decades. No first lady has ever been sent to Capitol Hill to present so vital a programme, and carried off the feat so dazzlingly. None has been as influential in high-level appointments. Privately, any White House official will testify to her authority. Irrespective of the alleged philandering by her husband, the Clinton marriage has always been in good measure a professional partnership of equals. By their staff she is feared at least as much as he, and understandably so.

        Now, if you do want to be a reality-based feminist, you’ll admit that what Clinton was quoted as saying was, in fact what he said on the campaign trail, instead of irritably trying to brush it off as somehow made up and fictitious.

        Like

        Reply

        2. The woman wasn’t even allowed to keep her own name, for Pete’s sake, even though she really wanted to do it. She had to subject herself to endless humiliation of baking cookies and Tammy Wynetting like a sad trucker whore. And “feared by the staff” is nothing but a reiteration of the ancient sexist myth of a shrewish wife. While Bill was president, she made no money of her own, had no right to any unsupervised activities, and lived as a constantly guarded and spied on hostage with not a shred of agency or privacy. And she did all that so that HE could be powerful and rich.

          Patriarchy compensates women for castrating their existences in service of male achievement with these pathetic lies that “it’s not his achievement, it’s ours.” But it’s an illusion. There is no “professional partnership of equals” when only one person in the “partnership” is allowed to have a name and a job.

          Like

          Reply

            1. If she were allowed to have a life of her own while Bill was president, how do we know that she wouldn’t be doing something entirely different at that time? She made the best she could out of a traditionally shitty deal. That is extraordinarily amazing because she’s the only one of all these presidents’ wives who started having a life of her own after the husband’s presidency. That’s an incredible achievement. And she’s being pissed on for it by a bunch of supposed Liberals. That’s what bothers me so much. People can’t even acknowledge how enormous Hillary’s achievement is.

              Like

              Reply

              1. How do you know that it wasn’t her idea to take on reforming health care? Do your advanced degrees also give you telepathy so that you can read her mind and say what she would’ve done some other issue .

                As for a life of her own she had her own staff and all that goes with it, if you want to make the arguement that she was in a mild form of purdah, you have to take that into account as well.

                Like

              2. People who have a choice in the matter work for the benefit of their own name and their own career. They reform health care or do anything else not as somebody’s relative but in their own right, as individuals.

                And yes, my degrees are mine. If, like many wives of the past, I had to assist my husband in his research published under his name because the world was not ready for a woman having a scholarly career of her own, that would be the exact equivalent of what Hillary had to do.

                Do you know how many women still have to give up any hope of tenure and accept crappy adjuncting jobs because the husband’s career comes first? They get hired as spousal hires and everybody despises and laughs at them. See what happened to one such academic wife at Yale when she decided she was entitled to an opinion?

                Like

              3. That is extraordinarily amazing because she’s the only one of all these presidents’ wives who started having a life of her own after the husband’s presidency.
                You mean she became an elected politician in her own right after her husband’s presidency while her husband was still alive and active. Eleanor Roosevelt was also appointed to a high post, but this was after her husband died.

                Like

        3. Never has a First Lady, not even Eleanor Roosevelt, been as powerful.

          Are we forgetting about Edith Wilson? Or possibly Nancy Reagan (Officially the guy was diagnosed in 1994 but some people think he suffered Alzheimers before his second term and Bush Elder wasn’t thought to be the power behind the throne. My mother FWIW, always thought the guy was senile. Nancy was known to consult an astrologerto set times for debates and meetings).

          No, I think it was these markers of feminism and not being inclined to humor people that attracted so much venom. I think the key word is openly wielding influence. Also I think a lot of flack that Hillary got can be attributed to the fact many people didn’t like Bill Clinton. Michelle Obama isn’t nearly as active and she still gets weird inexplicable venom over how she looks, what she eats, and her first lady projects and it’s usually from the same people who absolutely hate Barack Obama.

          Like

          Reply

          1. All of these women were allowed to play at being important to soothe the sensibilities of female voters. But “power behind” is not power. And “little lady plays at being important with astrologists and other lady things” isn’t either. It’s a surrogate offered by the patriarchy that many people still mistake for the real thing.

            Michelle Obama is clearly finding the whole thing as pathetic as it is and is not even trying to fake a great interest in it. If I were in that situation, I’d be nothing but resentful and angry and nothing else. But I’m used to a different conception of womanhood that is still very far from perfect but at least not as beaten down as the one of the English speaking world.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Edith Wilson was doing all of that in secret. When a president is incapacitated like that, the president should have stepped down and let the vice president assume the presidency. It was because of that situation and others in which the president died or was incapacitated that the 25th amendment is part of the constitution.

              Further what female voter sensibility was she playing to? Her husband was elected in 1915, before any women had the right to vote. <a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution’>The 19th amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920.
              I’ll agree that “power behind” is not the same as power.

              If I were in that situation, I’d be nothing but resentful and angry and nothing else.
              You would never consent to being a politician’s spouse. 🙂

              Like

              Reply

Leave a comment