Bring It On!

Between the Lies

May 1st, 2008 | by Jet Netwal |

The Daily Howler speculates on Clinton motives:

CLINTON DOES IT AGAIN: Hillary Clinton has done it again, provoking yet another scandal. Yesterday, she was endorsed by North Carolina governor Mike Easley. In the process, Easley said this, at Clinton’s direction:

EASLEY (4/29/08): There’s nothing I love more than a strong, powerful woman. So, I’ve been in hog heaven today. This lady right here makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.

Easley made his unfortunate comment because he’d been told to by Clinton.

How do we know that Clinton told Easley to say what he did? We base our judgment on a well-known fact: In January, Clinton told billionaire Robert Johnson to make another unfortunate introduction, the one Johnson authored in South Carolina. Johnson made a foolish (apparent) reference to Obama’s youthful drug use; he then compared Obama to Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Johnson’s introduction was deeply foolish. But sooth-sayers widely informed us that it was part of the Clinton campaign’s racial strategy. Translation: A person like Johnson never makes dumb remarks-unless told to by “The Man.”

So too, we can only assume that Easley made his remark at Clinton’s direction. Ain’t life grand when you get to type the stories you very much like?  – The Daily Howler

Ah, the gentle art of insinuation. It’s the backbone of racism gone to ground, and the harbinger of hate everywhere.  We all get now that Hillary, (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) doesn’t  like “teh gay”. She just acts like that because that’s how it’s done in polite “society”.

Insincerity, insinuation, in sin. Coincidence? I think not.

  1. 36 Responses to “Between the Lies”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Seems to me that the only thing the Clintons are insinuating here is that Hillary has the (metaphorical) stones to fight her way from behind, rather than complaining about private citizen groups engaging in free speech. Why is it that politicians, once they get some power, think that the Constitution doesn’t apply to their critics?

    I don’t know if I’d use the word “pansy” with regard to a politician trying to shut down the free speech rights of US citizens who are one’s political critics. The word I would use for that would leave Obama preferring that he be called a pansy.

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Of course, I mainly have my man, McCain, to thank for the complex and daunting infringements enacted by Congresspersons against the speech rights of US citizens.

    Thanks a heap, McCain, you pansy!

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Relax, Dusty. I was comparing him to a beautiful flower, glistening in the sunlight. It was a compliment, you see! ;-)

  5. By Alex on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    It is becoming apparent that anything anybody associated with Clinton says is an insinuation of something sinister. Interesting.

    When hearing that comment it seems to me that Craig’s interpretation is right on. He is clearly saying that Clinton has back-bone, nothing more. Why do I think this? Because that is exactly what is said! Not much left there to be interpreted. However, for the Obama supporters, I could say Clinton shines down like light, or something stupid like that, and Jet would interpret this as my racial hatred “gone to ground.”

    You are becoming a humorous group. This is sinister, but Wright get’s a pass - and we are “racists” who dislike the Black church if we call him out on it, and question Obama’s judgement.

  6. By Jet Netwal on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Good Lord, where to start?

    Let’s get the pansy definition out of the way:
    3. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a. a male homosexual.
    b. a weak, effeminate, and often cowardly man.

    So what is really being said here is not that Hillary is tough, Craig, but that the voters she’s trying to woo see mocking homosexuals as PREFERRED. She’s getting the point across that she’s WITH them, without actually parsing an anti-gay sentiment.

    If she wanted to say what you think she’s saying, mocking a demographic with a slur is not the way to do it.

  7. By Ken Grandlund on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Didn’t directly hear the comment, only reading it here.

    For me (and maybe me alone) the term “pansy” does not hold connotations of homosexuality, despite the dictionary definition. I would even submit that using “pansy” as a reference to homosexual men is outdated, with the more common understanding being that of a weakling. To me, “pansy” merely implies weakness. The juxtaposition of “pansy,”, “Rocky Balboa,” and “Clinton” (again to me) seems to be a remark that Clinton is tougher than Rocky. And in that vein, it becomes fairly innocuous.

    But let’s look a bit more here…first off, Rocky is a fictional character, albeit a popular one in current American mythology. For a politician to compare themselves to a fictional character to give themselves “props” may well be a statement on the absurd nature of American hero worship, where real heroes are disregarded in favor of fictional characters and charicatures of heroes-instead, why not compare her to a real life tough guy like Mohammed Ali? (Oh right- would that then be “offensive to both Muslims AND Blacks???) For at least Ali was a real character, WITH character, a man who put his money where his mouth was.

    Likening herself to a fictional character, or even more, as BETTER than a fictional character, makes me think that she is little more than a fictional character herself.

    “I am better than Batman. (But since Batman is not a real person, I am better than fiction.)”

    That sure doesn’t sound very persuasive to me.

    And as a side note, what kind of a tribute is that to Pennsylvanian’s who helped boost her in the last primary? “Hey thanks for giving me another round, but you’re fictional hero is a pussy compared to me.” Seems like a funny way to ingratiate yourself with voters who do live in the world of imaginary heroes…

    I wonder if the term “pansy” has regional connotations that differ. Certainly it’s not a term that I’ve often heard used to describe gay men in real life, except perhaps in old western films.

  8. By Jet Netwal on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    I’m thinking regionality is a factor, Ken, also age demographics.

  9. By Ken Grandlund on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    well, i’ve always been a “left coaster” but you don’t have THAT many years on me…..

    still, i’m sure you’re right about that to a certain degree…

  10. By Jet Netwal on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    No, I’m not thinking my age group (a decade isn’t that much time). :-)

    I have heard my husband use it (I think that’s a republican thing) but Florida has lots of seniors, and they are who I thought of.

  11. By Ken Grandlund on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    I hear you…but I still don’t think you have a decade on me! (insert smiley emoticon here-because I can’t!) ;-)

  12. By Ken Grandlund on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    or apparently I can! who knew that this commenting thing was smart enough to convert the key strokes into a little face?!?!?

  13. By Jet Netwal on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Technology! Sweet nectar of the gods!

    I’m a remarkably well preserved 46, Ken. ;-)

  14. By Ken Grandlund on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Indeed.

    And I’m 37, so there you have it. ALMOST a decade, but not quite. And after all, what’s 12 months between friends…

  15. By Jet Netwal on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Well, that roughly equates to most of the 80’s so I suspect I had way more fun than you. :-D

  16. By Ken Grandlund on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Don’t let my lack of years fool you into thinking I haven’t lived beyond them for some time. Suffice it to say that the 80’s were definitely filled with plenty of fun times for me.

    (The fact that I had an early sprout of full facial hair in high school certainly contributed to my being the “go to guy” for many parties- oh- and by the time I turned 21, no bar in town gave me the free “Happy 21st” beverage because of my several years of established patronage…)

    But let’s not quibble over who had more fun when. I’m sure we’ve both had our share of grand times and wanton debauchery- followed by (now) more matured forms of enjoyment…

    However, if you like, you win the ribbon in the “Who’s really older than Whom” contest for today.

    (me ducking and running from the expected slap aimed at my chin) :-0

  17. By Jet Netwal on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Well, considering my state’s drinking age was 18, I had a figure that could stop traffic and I could hold my liquor (and most other recreationals — never was much for ludes) I had no trouble in the patronage department either. :-D

    Oh, and I NEVER slap. I might drink you under the table for being impertinent, but I’d help you find the couch after. Party courteously!

  18. By Ken Grandlund on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    I consider myself duly chastised. I am no match for the female form when it comes to stopping traffic!

    I’ll get a bottle ready and prepare for a soft landing under the table.

    Cheers!

  19. By Jet Netwal on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Cheers!

  20. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Jet,

    There’s more there, of course, than the word ‘pansy’. words like, “This lady right here [Hillary Clinton] makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.” It is perfectly clear that the one and only point of that is to say that Hillary is tougher than Rocky Balboa. Sheesh, Jet, are you so out of it that you ignore every word said and focus only on one word? Get a grip!

    As for pansy and gays, I’m with Ken’s early comment. If you insist on seeing an anti-gay subtext, you’re welcome to do that but what, exactly, do you find in Hillary Clinton’s back-history to make you think Hillary is an anti-gay bigot?

    And, Jet, I find it interesting that NOW, you’re AGAINST slurs. When it was the Baptist Church sign and ‘religious nuts’, slurs were just fine and dandy, the hight of Christian communication…Hmmm!

  21. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    And an openly anti-gay bigot at that.

  22. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Ken,

    Comparing Hillary to Mohammad Ali would also risk being seen as a slur on people with Parkinson’s Disease. There’s just no pleasing some people, or avoiding criticism.

  23. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Odd fact, completely off point of anything, the number one hit on the day I was born, according to Billboard Magazine, was Mr. Sandman by the Chordettes…oddly, I never knew but have always found the harmonies and voice blending of this song to be especially appealing. Perhaps it was playing in the delivery room when I was delivered?

    That’s all.

  24. By Jet Netwal on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    It’s a question on intent. Did that little church intend insult with their sign, or was it a question of a church member using (in your opinion) poor word choice?

    At a political rally, for the highest office, using a word that can be perceived as a slur, intentionally, is not the same thing. It sent a message.

  25. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Jet,

    Honestly I don’t know the intent of whoever came up with that sign. There’s simply not enough to go on. I just don’t find calling someone, anyone, a ‘nut’, religious or otherwise, to be consistent with speaking the truth in love, with gathering with Jesus rather than dispersing against him. It was, after all, a Church sign, not a political campaign. If anything, it is the Church that should be expected to be held to a higher moral standard. They profess to believe the Bible, to follow Jesus, to speak the Truth (with a capital ‘T’). Is it too much to expect them to follow the Bible’s stricture to speak the truth in love?

    You’re right. It’s not the same thing. The Church sign was far worse. Hillary and the guy introducing her are politicians. The sign was out front of a house of God, the sign representing God to the community. Why would you hold a politician to a higher moral standard than you would a Church? That’s all I’m saying.

    And what, pray tell, makes you think it was an intentional slur, that it was intentionally chosen with the express purpose of slurring gays? Even you admit that the word only “can be perceived as a slur” What makes you think they intended it as a slur on gays, rather than, exactly what it sounds like, to say that Hillary is tougher, much tougher, than Rocky?

    Honestly. I asked a question earlier that as yet remains unanswered. One was, “what, exactly, do you find in Hillary Clinton’s back-history to make you think Hillary is an anti-gay bigot?” Anything? Anything at all? Another question is, what is it in the Daily Howler that convinces you that Hillary had ANYTHING to do with the intro? Is it the unnamed “soothsayers” (adept at reading the entrails of birds, no doubt) that vouchsafed the mere rumor of the earlier arranged intro or was it the non sequitorial argument that, because an earlier arrangement had been rumored by unnamed sources to have been made, that therefore THIS intro must have, for a fact, also been arranged by Hillary? Honestly, there’s nothing here but rumor and fallacious reasoning to even start this post, let alone to pin Hillary as a gay bashing, bigot baiting bitch-woman from hell.

  26. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    After all, you’re willing to give the Church the benefit of doubt by suggesting that ‘nuts’ may have just been an unfortunately chosen word. So why couldn’t ‘pansy’ have been an equally innocent and unfortunate choice of words?

  27. By Jet Netwal on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    From the post:

    “In January, Clinton told billionaire Robert Johnson to make another unfortunate introduction, the one Johnson authored in South Carolina. Johnson made a foolish (apparent) reference to Obama’s youthful drug use; he then compared Obama to Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Johnson’s introduction was deeply foolish. But sooth-sayers widely informed us that it was part of the Clinton campaign’s racial strategy. Translation: A person like Johnson never makes dumb remarks-unless told to by “The Man.”

    This kind of under the table crap may be lost on you, Craig, but to the people it’s designed to denigrate, I suspect they get it.

    Google your own crap about Hillary. I’m not here to entertain you with my research prowess.

  28. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    But Jet, as I said, there’s nothing even approaching evidence convicting Clinton in either the older or the most recent alleged offense. Who are the “soothsayers”? Do you know? Do you care? Or is it enough that they slime Clinton on nothing more than their say so? That may be enough for you to buy that crap but it’s not enough for me. You see, as I said, you’ve given us unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable rumor compounded with fallacious (that is, invalid) argument. In short, Daily Howler has nothing…and you’ve bought it and tried to pass it around as fact.

    That kind of slime job may be your cup of tea, Jet, but anyone with an ounce of objectivity and understanding of logic, we know better.

    And why should I google anything when you provided everything I needed to debunk this bunk. Your research prowess ain’t what you think it is…and I’m not entertained at all. I’m appalled.

  29. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    I suppose you can accuse me of a lack of objectivity. All I can say is, I don’t really care which is the Democratic nominee, Hillary or Obama. They are both seriously flawed candidates, as is John McCain, whom I’ll be voting for in November. Whichever Democrat gets the nod will will very likely be the next president. I will be equally unhappy with both of them so it’s hard to see what advantage I might gain from spinning this for Clinton.

  30. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Anyway, my work is done here. Toodles!

  31. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    I take it back. To prove I’m not in the tank for Hillary, I link to an example of liberal Democrats engaging in suppression of votes in predominantly black sections of North Carolina. Hmmmm…I wonder which candidate’s supporters would do that?

    Not that there’s any evidence that Hillary is actually involved but it seems slam-dunk certain that Hillary backers are behind it. It also seems certain to hurt Hillary because the dirty tricks are already being traced to a women’s group in which many Hillary supporters are members.

    So it seems we have Rev. Wright out doing his darndest to sink Obmama, and doing a pretty good job by the polls, and we have Hillary’s supporters trying to sink Obama but likely only hurting Hillary and causing a further rift in the Democratic party.

    Is it possible that EVERYBODY is a pawn on Karl Rove’s political game of Chess?

  32. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Oops, forgot the link. Here it is. Now that’s the way to link Clintonites, if not Clinton herself, to dirty tricks in a way that will damage Clinton. Wired is showing the rest of us how it’s done.

  33. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    And to prove that I’m not even in the tank for McCain, I link to this. Apparently McCain was asked by someone in the audience at a shin-dig if he had ever called his wife a cunt. Wow! If you follow the link, scroll down to comment #69. That’s where I respond:

    69 I suggest that this matters. Imagine President McCain in an important
    summit with a head of state who’s cooperation we need in some foreign affairs situation that is vital to America’s interest and, in a fit of anger, McCain calls the other head of state a cock-sucking ass-hole. So if McCain would call his wife a cunt, why couldn’t McCain tank sensitive talks with his famous anger? It goes to temperament. Rage-ahaulics make for bad negotiators.

    Posted by: Craig R. Harmon at May 02, 2008 01:36 AM (21lwF)

    I am, at least, an equal opportunity critic.

  34. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Call it McCain’s 3:00 am crisis call, this time from the Middle East and McCain explodes, “Do you know what the f*** time it is, you pr*ck?”

  35. By Jet Netwal on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Craig,

    I labeled the Howler report as speculation, and I called it out as insinuation. You seem to feel that unless something is overt, it does not have the power to wound. I don’t understand that position. As far as this example goes, the Howler is hardly the only source discussing it, and I chose that because they were very specific in stressing that is was an opinion piece. I felt that nuance was important. It was lost on you. You instead used is as a prop to attack me.

    If the meaning of the word used in the introduction was harmless, why is it cut out of the speech that Clinton posted on her website? Perhaps because the purpose of the slur was to effect the NC crowd, but avoid pissing off the GLBT vote block in general?

    This is politics, the most over analyzed game in the world. Everything is planned, and anything that happens unplanned is considered a gaffe and exploitable. That little church sign is not on that scale. I imagine the member assigned the job to put slogans on the sign thought that they were clever. I will grant you your offense, although I don’t share it. I think that little sign with its self deprecating message might have had the effect on those driving by of a church that values effort over zeal. You obviously feel otherwise, and are welcome to do so.

    Bill Clinton’s signing the Defense of Marriage act compounded with Hillary’s anti gay marriage position created a less than perfect relationship with the GLBT community. This is documented in various gay periodicals. So no, there is not overt baiting. I never said there was. I talked specifically about insinuation. If you are unable to grasp how in a society a group of people can alienate another group without being overt in their attack, I can’t help you. As a parent, I see this mentality played out a hundred ways in the school yard, and for those it’s directed against, the hurt (and the damage) are real.

    I will probably close comments on this thread. Despite your taunting on the other thread about banning you, BIO does not ban for anything other than personal attacks, a rule I was instrumental in forming. You wouldn’t know, but between Cranky, Steve O and myself, I am the one who goes to the mat for conservative commenters. I am also the one who calls up progressive ones when attacks on the conservatives get personal.

    Today that feels rather thankless.

  36. By manapp99 on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Jet, I DO want to thank you and the others for allowing conservatives to be allowed in BIO. Even though we have vastly different opinions most of the comments here are way more moderate than most websites. The personal attacks here are mild in comparison.

    I do not want you to feel your efforts are unappreciated. :)

  37. By Craig R. Harmon on May 2, 2008 | Reply

    Jet,

    My mistake. I thought that it was the introduction of Hillary, not the Howler’s story that you were referring to with the ‘insinuation’ thing. My mistake. I apologize. It seemed to me that you were treating the howler’s story as fact, however speculative it was. Again, my mistake. I apologize. As for further comment on this thread, I’m done.

    And thank you for defending maintaining diversity of thought around here. Thank you!

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel