This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.


Because she's a woman


The article <a href="" author="Matt Taibbi" source="Rolling Stone">Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie</a> includes this passage, right at the top. <bq>The arrival of the first female presidential nominee was undoubtedly a huge moment in American history and something even the supporters of Bernie Sanders should recognize as significant and to be celebrated.</bq> I can't agree with this facile lip service to political correctness. How can it be a huge moment when nothing has changed except for the genitalia? The ideas are the same. The policies will be the same. The platitudes are the same. The hope is the same. The execution will be the same. There is no huge moment, there is no change coming, there is nothing in America that will be better or worse because of Hillary Clinton. The people for whom things are great will continue to profit and benefit. The overwhelming majority for whom America is a cancerous influence will continue to suffer. Significant? Should we all pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened enough to nominate a female president? Why? Dozens of countries have already elected one. Even a backwards military regime like Myanmar has Aung San Su Kyi, who is a true breath of fresh air on the world stage. Even Pakistan---a Muslim country, by the way---already had Benazir Bhutto who, though not quite as neoliberal as Hillary is, wasn't anywhere near as enlightened as Su Kyi. She was more or less Pakistan's Clinton---and they did that back in the 90s. There was Margaret Thatcher, the neocon to end all neocons, who was just as heartless and evil as any man. Congratulations, England. And now America has found its own woman to lead it. One who won't change anything, who won't be any better than a man, who won't fulfill the promise of benevolent leadership that we'd hoped a woman could offer. Instead, we get a bait and switch, as usual. America is a con job from top to bottom, so why should this be any different? Bush had Condaleeza Rice advocating war and antagonizing enemies and allies alike. Colin Powell looked positively gentle in comparison. She didn't clash with Richard Perlman or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney. Obama had Hillary herself to flatten Libya for him, egged on by Samantha Power (now ambassador to the U.N.) and Susan Rice (former ambassador to the U.N., now National Security Advisor). There are already woman in positions of power and influence, but they're only allowed in if they're exactly as brutal and stupid---brutish---as the men they're replacing. America might not care about genitalia anymore, but you still have to know which side your bread is buttered on. So stop telling me to celebrate Hillary's nomination like it means anything. It only means something to dupes who haven't been paying attention---who only see gender, not substance.