http://www.observer.com/...
Plausable deniability is being claimed by the Clinton campaign in this flap, seeming less and less plausable, almost like the John McCain, I didn't know he was going to say "Barrack Hussein Obama" flap. If this doesn't give one pause as to why HRC is not such a hot idea for a GE candidate, then I can't help you. Upshot - at an event billed as "One Million For Clinton With Gloria Steinham", Gloria, stumping for Clinton said....
“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.
McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”
She went on further to say this....
“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting.”
To the Observer, Steinem insisted that “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”
Other Clinton proxies, notably Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson and a New Hampshire campaign chair, Billy Shaheen, have generated controversies with their criticisms of Obama. By contrast, Steinem told me the Illinois senator was “an intelligent, well-intentioned person.” She added: “I would like very much to see him be president for eight years after Hillary has been president for eight years.”
Gloria, might I refer to your previous statement as to why someone with as much scruples as Barack Obama would never be caught dead with HRC. Imagine for a second if a Barack Obama surrogate, receiving top billing, had said the same - it would have been all over the news. But here we are with this story, and cue crickets....
Cue the kicker....
In her speech, Steinem argued that there was a major sexist component to the murmurs from some quarters suggesting Clinton should abandon her presidential quest.
There is, she said, “a great deal of pressure at play for her to act like her gender and give in.” Several shouts of “No!” came from the crowd. Steinem went on: “It’s a way of reinforcing the gender roles, right? Men are loved if they win and Hillary is loved if she loses…But maybe we shouldn’t be so afraid of an open convention that actually decides something. After all, it was an open convention in New York City that gave us Abraham Lincoln.”
Sexist? There is no other candidate that wouldn't be receiving a lashing for not being out of the campaign after 11 straight loses, and to suggest that that's somehow sexist, well I find to be absolute and utter crap.
Update: Looking at the poll, it seems to suggest that over 60% of responses seem to think that for one reason or another, this has no relevance to the issues at hand. Might I beg the question to that 60%, what makes you so sure in your conclusion, that it wouldn't show up later, and that the McCain camp wouldn't have a field day with this? Or that if it does out there en masse, it wouldn't blacken the party's collective eye's? This deserves damage control to the Nth degree, or it will bite us in the ass. After all, McCain has figured out the series of tubes, and the dump truck, that leads to You Tube. Hope you're prepared HRC and supporters for the eventual onslaught in regard to what happened here, it ain't gonna be purty.