Greenwald: Women will be invested in Hillary, opposition to her will be depicted as misogynistic

[Cali_Democrat]

<...>

“Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/greenwald-bashes-neocon-hillary-clinton-shes-a-fcking-hawk/

[boston bean]

1. Guess to avoid all this the only thing to do is only vote for straight white males.

[YoungDemCA]

4. But as long as they are "progressive"!

[davidn3600]

25. Because "privileged" white males can't possibly be progressive

[boston bean]

28. Yeah, that's exactly what I said. NOT.

[msanthrope]

37. Well, that privileged white male sure as shit ain't. GG is pretty

far fom progressive.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. Libertarians are NOT Progressive no matter how much they wish for it....

[JDPriestly]

158. Or Elizabeth Warren. Or Bernie Sanders who is not wedded to Goldman-Sachs and Citi-Bank.

[YoungDemCA]

2. What an asshole

nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. I guess anyone who votes for Hillary is just Misandrist by his perception....

you are totally right...he is an privileged White asshole!

[Capt. Obvious]

3. It's been a few days

[quinnox]

5. There will be some like that, no question

but is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. Women being invested in a candidate seems to me to be a good thing.

Still, I'm not convinced (A) Hillary will run, or that (B) Hillary will win if she does run for president

And I am a long time admirer of Hillary, but the truth is the truth.

[randome]

6. You know, my father is gay. I have nothing against gay people. At all.

But just as some straight people have 'issues' with gays, Greenwald has his own serious issues. He's been telegraphing some embarrassing aspects of his personality of late.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

7. Using Limbaugh's talking points is always a winner.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Yep...

Greenwald says opposition to Obama is depicted as racist and opposition to Hillary will be depicted as misogynistic.

This is a common notion in right wing circles. Greenwald isn't even trying to hide it anymore.

[JoePhilly]

12. You'd think ...

... he'd have no problem defending his own opposition to Obama, and Hillary. And yet he falls back on Limbaugh's pre-emptive defense ... and so ... if you disagree with Greenwald, you've actually called him a racist or misogynist.

[uponit7771]

97. Yeap

[Mr_Harshaw]

8. He's not wrong...

... Just be honest and use it as tool like any other.

[NOVA_Dem]

16. We have a +600 post example of what Greenwald is talking about right here:

Constantly referring to President Obama as a "used car salesman" is expected of a RW racist.

[OilemFirchen]

89. Okay.

Greenwald is a tool. Good suggestion.

[uponit7771]

98. He is....not new though

[KittyWampus]

9. So opposition to her won't be largely misogynist? Opposition to Obama isn't largely racist?

[alp227]

69. In a way, yes. I wish Greenwald used "largely" as a qualifier.

If you go to that "Stop Hillary" page on Facebook, you'll see a whole fucking sewer pit of misogynistic crap. See this example from the My Right Wing Dad blog.

Or any right wing website about Obama, you're bound to see "Kenyan" or any racial microaggression that falls short of the N-word.

There are plenty of constructive criticisms to be made about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Problem is that the crazy bigots get the most attention for their trash talk.

[KittyWampus]

90. I am so sorry I clicked on your link (jaw dropping). Not a fan of crudity like that.

Have no stomach for it.

[SamKnause]

11. Not this woman.

Mr. Greenwald I agree with your assessment of Hillary Clinton.

She will not get my vote.

I will support Bernie Sanders.

If he doesn't run, the Green Party will get my vote.

My conscience will not let me vote for Hillary.

This country needs to make a sharp left turn !!!!!!!

P.S. Just my 2 cents and the opinion of a proud, dirty, socialist, fucking, hippie, female.

[JoePhilly]

13. The GOP thanks you.

[SamKnause]

15. You will not shame me

into voting against my best interests.

That is the job of Fox News and the majority of the mainstream media. (I do not get my news from the corporate media)

The voters are responsible for all those sent to Washington to represent the needs and wants of the citizens.

Hillary will not do that if elected.

[JoePhilly]

51. Didn't try to shame you.

The GOP knows that votes for a 3rd party helped them get Bush into office in 2000.

They are perfectly happy for folks on the left to split their vote. It closes the gap and gives them a shot.

And they appreciate it.

How you feel about it is totally up to you.

[JDPriestly]

160. And Wall Street knows that a vote for Hillary is a vote for the oligarchy.

And they really appreciate it. In fact, they appreciate it so much that I will bet that they will award themselves big bonuses once they learn she has won.

[OilemFirchen]

92. There's that civic duty shining through!

Fuck the good of the country. It's all about you, amiright?

[Jake Stern]

124. My, what arrogance you have in chastising someone for voting as their conscience dictates.

Thanks for showing us the One True Path, oh wise one.

[MADem]

151. This is "Democratic" Underground, you know.

Is it "arrogant" to point out what the goals of the site are? I think maybe you need to "wise" up and read the TOS...you seem unclear on the concept. The stated goal here is to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office, after all, not to bash/trash Democratic candidates.

The poster avoids censure by making the comments outside of "campaign" season, but a point in time will arrive when those kinds of comments will be sanctioned.

Discussionist is over that way, where people can vote for whomever they like.... -------->

[Tarheel_Dem]

162. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable posting on a site that doesn't have a "partisan" mission?

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Beacool]

164. And a Republican in the WH will?

I'm glad that your conscience is sated.

[wickerwoman]

36. Because, of course,

Hillary is the only Democrat in America who can win a presidential election two years away.

[TheKentuckian]

44. They thank you as well. Either they win or one of ours pushes their agenda and we get the blame.

[Dawgs]

59. No. The GOP should thank the Democrats for moving to the right.

Pushing the GOP where they really want to be.

Many of us on the left no longer have a party that represents us.

[Doctor_J]

146. And the 1% thanks you for supporting corporatists

[Jake Stern]

21. Stop with all this "conscience" blather and vote with the rest of the herd. Moooooooo!

Apparently they no longer have to earn your vote. You should just give it to them because the talking point is that a vote for anybody else is a vote for the Gee Oh Pee.

[leftynyc]

24. The republicans thank you

so does karl rove, justice scalia and all the teabaggers.

[Dawgs]

60. See post #59. You're blaming the wrong people. n/t

[leftynyc]

161. No, I'm not

Anybody who wastes their vote on a third party may as well stay home - you aren't sending a message. You're having a temper tantrum.

[Capt. Obvious]

27. The BOG condemns you

[pansypoo53219]

46. yes. the GOP thanks you.

childish need for perfection is losing us the WAR. because now its WAR. and the UN-LOYAL OPPOSITION IS winning AGAIN.

[G_j]

140. might find it more productive to get a young person out to vote

than brow beat an individual who sounds passionate and committed about their choice.
Maybe two young people!

[PFunk]

130. My (and others) thoughts exactly.

Not letting the 'fear' meme stop me from voting my conscience this time. Greenwald may be an idiot but he's spot on about Hillary.

[Katashi_itto]

144. +1000. It's Sanders or nobody for me.

[Scootaloo]

14. Just out of curiosity...

Was everyone on this thread born after the 2008 primary? The only possible reason you could have ever supported Obama over Clinton in 2008 was because you hated women, according to many people... a good number of whom "went PUMA" with their outrage that a black guy got the nomination, so... yeah.

[JackRiddler]

17. I know, he's just describing DU ca. 2008.

Or at points right now, this site has a certain number of high-posting personas who will shamelessly make either of the following points:

If you criticize Obama -- never mind, if you criticize any policy of the U.S. government even if you don't mention the name of the current nominal executive -- it must be because you're a racist.

And if you don't cheerlead for Clinton -- who is the only Democrat who could possibly win in 2016, and furthermore totally inevitable -- it's because you hate women.

[Scootaloo]

19. Which is strange, considering one such poster just HATED Clinton back then!

Me, I'll vote for Clinton against a Republican. But I'll vote for any liberal against Clinton.

[notadmblnd]

32. I'll vote for Clinton if she is the best candidate

However, if she decides to run, she has to win the nomination first. Now, in the primary, will I vote for Clinton? Not if Warren, Sanders or Biden runs.

[temporary311]

18. You beat me to it.

My only complaint is that the article tries to make it seem like the next set of PUMAs will be anything other than a deranged minority, much like the originals.

[JI7]

68. Primary fights always get ugly, but the fact is that most of the party

would have been happy with either Clinton or Obama. most also wanted to see both of them on the ticket. if either of them had dropped out most of their supporters would have gone to the other one .

those who are closely involved and on internet forums where you have strong supporters it will always get very ugly.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Ask yourself why this mf'er is obsessed with the possible Dem nominee, and not the Repuke.

[temporary311]

22. Because, barring any shennanigans,

the Dem nominee is gonna be the President.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. That's "a reason", but I don't think it's GG's "reason".

[Capt. Obvious]

29. I KNOW THE ANSWER

He's pushing his book.

[joshcryer]

145. That is EXACTLY what he is doing.

The question was answered during his book tour. Why was he so hateful? Because he knew it would stir up controversy. That means page views. That means more people hear about his book. That shit is libelous. If someone said something like that about him he'd lose his shit on twitter, might even sue.

But Clinton is above that. She's been getting smeared for over a quarter century. She can deal with petulant little nothings like Greenwald.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. It's interesting

When you read the GQ interview, Greenwald was asked a simple question about the 2016 field....it wasn't a specific question about Dems or GOPers.

Then he proceeds to launch into a tirade against Hillary and says opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. Then he says something strange about the Dems running a gay candidate after Hillary. I don't even really know what his point was there.

Of course he says nothing about Republicans.

Greenwald is NOT the left.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. What an asshole. I'm not surprised that he pre-emptively went after "a gay candidate". In all his

diseased ramblings, have you read any expression of solidarity from him for the LGBT community in Russia? I mean, after his support for Citizens United, you'd think liberals would've awakened to the reality that this asshole definitely isn't "the left". Everything GG does, is for GG, just ask Sibel Edmonds.

He flirted with backing Gary Johnson in 2012, but he was too chickenshit to just come out and say so definitively, because that might have meant losing some support from the few remaining idiots on "the left" who think he's super groovy.

[Whisp]

41. +++

[sheshe2]

106. +1

[Beacool]

165. The virulence of the attack is personal.

Why?

[uponit7771]

99. Yeap

[joshcryer]

127. Money.

He has to start Clinton bashing early.

[Tarheel_Dem]

135. Yup. That way, the Kochs and the CATO Institute get their money's worth.

[joshcryer]

136. The great right wing conspiracy is real.

And money is its name.

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. Which explains his love of the Citizens United decision. nt

[joshcryer]

141. And association with billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

[Tarheel_Dem]

148. Oh, he loves the company of billionaires. CATO, aka Koch-topia, is fully funded by them.

I think that's one of the Koch brothers he's chatting with, with his back turned.

[leftynyc]

26. He really is quite the dick, isn't he?

Just so he knows, I would have no problem voting against the gay candidate if it were him.

[onecaliberal]

30. Note to Greenwald

Kindly go fuck yourself. Not because of any perceived vote for or against Hillary, but because you insult my intelligence. People like you make me completely sick.

[Louisiana1976]

56. Well said. And welcome to DU.

[onecaliberal]

64. Thank You!

[Peacetrain]

31. Like I would ever listen to his libertarian nonsense

piffel

[Prophet 451]

33. Opposition to Obama HASN'T been labelled racist

That was only ever a Republican strawman. While there has been some obvious racism directed at him (mostly from Teabaggers), it's never been the case that criticism/opposition was universally, or even mostly, painted as racism. That's a complete and utter lie.

I have many issues with Hillary, she wouldn't be my preferred candidate (I would like Elizabeth Warren or, better yet, Tammy Baldwin) but she will inevitibly be better than whatever frothing madman the GOP nominates.

[Skip Intro]

48. Come on, let's be honest.

Opposition to and criticism of Obama was routinely labeled as racist, and still is. During the primaries, many here were called racist (and still are) for not joining the choir in kneeling at the Obama altar. One would have to be living under a rock in order to miss it.

I was for Hillary during those primaries, and I have no doubt she will win the nom, and probably the presidency if she runs, but I also have no doubt that criticism of her will frequently be labeled as sexist. That's just modern politics 101.

[Louisiana1976]

61. I imagine that there are those who will critiicize Hillary out of sexism--

and they'll be the same folks who are standing against Obama out of racism.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. Would the birther thing have happened if Obama was a white man?

The reality is that there is opposition to Obama that is just plain racist.

Are you willing to acknowledge that?

[NOVA_Dem]

66. Birtherism is racist but Clinton had it worse than Obama IMO.

Clinton was called a rapist, murderer, and drug dealer. Dems don't know how to be nasty like republicans but "most" of us are too intellectually honest and consistent to make false arguments.

[AverageJoe90]

74. Mostly this, pretty much.

Yes, there are a few extremists out there who have indeed engaged in such.....whether out of careless(even if well-meaning) paranoia.....or out of some other less scrupulous personal agendas, but this is hardly universal amongst liberals, just as most of us also don't believe that all men are potential rapists or that all white people are automatically literally "privileged", just for being white. etc.

Honestly, I myself don't think Hillary is perfect, but I'd certainly vote for her if she ran.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Yeah, so?

Why should that depiction gain any traction? Why should it have any more traction than Fox news telling us that people that voted against Bush are terrorist sympathizers?

No one has a monopoly on ridiculous hyperbole. The people harmed by it are those whose message is subsequently discredited.

[wickerwoman]

38. Thank God we have Greenwald

to steer us away from any misogynistic tendencies like assuming women will support Hillary just because she has a vagina.

[KT2000]

40. Greenwald may know some things

but he does not know women very well.

[alp227]

76. "does not know women very well"

This post sounds awkward, since Greenwald is gay and you may be insinuating something bad.

[ancianita]

88. But he did work with Laura Poitras to get Snowden's intel out of Hong Kong and to the Guardian.

So there's that.

[KT2000]

117. Did not know he was gay

none-the-less - he does not know women very well. There are some women who despise Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. A segment of the female population has their "guns" out for other females. It's a curious thing but when women are successful in the workplace or politically, their harshest critics can be women. Not all women see it as shared success. They would certainly deny misogyny though.

[Whisp]

42. If this asshole said water is wet I would have trouble agreeing with him.

What a toxic pile of angry dung he is.

[Comrade Grumpy]

100. That probably reflects on you as much as him.

[Dawson Leery]

43. Strange how Glenn does not go after the Republican nominees.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. That jumped out at me as well.

[Dawson Leery]

50. I have no use for him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. That makes two of us. And I don't buy that race doesn't play a role here. Who defends an avowed...

white supremacist, pro bono?

[Dawson Leery]

65. Greenwald and Snowden's libertarianism needs to be brought into consideration

when you see that neither was nearly as critical of the Bush regime.

Glenn and Eddy have openly discussed their disdain for any government services which help the common people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. Critical? Until Obama, Snowie thought "leakers should be shot in the balls". Remember this?

Edward Snowden In 2009: Leakers Should Be 'Shot In The Balls'
The Huffington Post | By Luke Johnson Posted: 06/26/2013 3:56 pm EDT | Updated: 06/26/2013 4:07 pm EDT


NSA leaker Edward Snowden despised classified leaks in 2009, illustrating that the former Booz Allen Hamilton employee was not always the champion of transparency that he has become.

The technology website ArsTechnica published IRC chats where he railed against a New York Times story about the U.S. rejecting an Israeli request for aid to attack an Iranian nuclear site and the United States' covert efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

"Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ. they're like wikileaks," he said in the chat.

"they're just reporting, dude," said another user.

"moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?" he said. "those people should be shot in the balls."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/edward-snowden-leakers_n_3504746.html

[Dawson Leery]

132. This is why I question his motives.

Snowden may just be intent on taking down anyone who wants to use government services to help people, i.e, healthcare, student debt reform, small business loans, civil rights protection, etc.....

[Tarheel_Dem]

137. In one of his internet diatribes, he pretty much called old folks, deadbeats.

Didn't care much for the Social Security, but his fanatics completely overlook everything that happened prior to "the leak". It's like he didn't exist for them before that. Leaking wiped the slate clean as far as they're concerned.

[ancianita]

85. Snowden now says that he's changed his previous views. His days in Geneva changed him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. What date did he change his views? He thought "leakers should be shot in the balls" in 2009.

He was in Geneva from 2007-2009 (Bush administration). His "crisis of conscience" came about shortly after the black guy took office in 2009. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right?

[giftedgirl77]

107. Oh those pesky facts...

[ancianita]

119. Yes, gifted, ALL those pesky facts.

[giftedgirl77]

120. Are you choosing to ignore them?

Because they blew your bogus talking points out of the water.

[ancianita]

122. See my quote of Snowden about his politics. His words as pesky facts must also stand.

[ancianita]

118. So what if it isn't? You're still representing how he WAS with how he IS. In his own words:

"Snowden says today that he is amused by reports of his

'right-wing politics, based on what seem to be Internet rumors and third-hand information, and I have read it with some amusement...I support a guaranteed basic income, I think we should take care of sick people, I believe women can make their own choices, and that the government is at its best when it's building bridges instead of bombs. Does that sound right-wing? But I also think it's common sense that people have individual rights, a right to be left alone, and a right to protect our families from violence....Personally, I'd describe my political thought as moderate.' "

Burrough, Andrews and Ellison, authors of the recent Vanity Fair article on Snowden, say "His earlier online comments suggest frustration at losing his dream career..."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2014/05/edward-snowden-politics-interview

At least you could try not to censor the guy if you're trying to build some profile of him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

134. Thank you. Now pull the other one.

[Scootaloo]

73. There aren't any

That pool is so shallow that they can't even produce a prospect, much less a contender. They're going to end up trying Romney again because bad ideas never die, they just stink. Who else have htey got? Rubio? Paul? Oh, maybe Perry, even though he got laughed out of the nomination by his own party?

Maybe Greenwald would circle his wagons around the Republican contenders. I dunno. And since there aren't any such people, it's likely a moot point.

[Adrahil]

125. That's 'cause he's gonna be stumping for Rand Paul. NT

[yodermon]

152. Well he *did* write an entire book bashing republicans.

Of course that was 6 years ago.



http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Hypocrites-Toppling-Republican/dp/0307408663

[pnwmom]

47. GG's comment is misogynistic. He thinks women will be driven by their emotions

rather than by a rational appraisal of the candidates and their positions.

P.S.

A great deal of the opposition to Obama IS racist. When in history have Republicans in Congress ever filibustered more bills and been more determined to oppose a President at any cost?

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. "He thinks women will be driven by their emotions".

He really does have some issues of his own, doesn't he?

[Spazito]

49. Fuck Greenwald...

All he ever writes, once one crosses out all the extraneous words, is 'Fuck Obama, Democrats and everyone who dares to criticize me'. He needs the extra words to get his paycheck.

[randome]

128. You got that right! Not only is he misogynist, he's a poor writer.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Spazito]

131. Yep, the more he writes, the more obvious he becomes n/t

[Demit]

52. Why do you care so much what this guy says will happen?

Why does it matter to you so much?

[MohRokTah]

58. what a misogynistic asshole. eom

[abelenkpe]

62. Opposition to Obama is depicted as racist because in many cases it's just plain racist.

[AverageJoe90]

79. In terms of the right-wing, that is certainly very much true. nt

[abelenkpe]

129. Exactly...maybe I should have

Specified that. When I think opposition it's Republican Party and their supporters, tea party etc.

[alp227]

67. FOOK! I was listening to Terry Gross interview with Greenwald today on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/14/312454746/greenwald-on-nsa-leaks-weve-erred-on-the-side-of-excess-caution

And now THIS? Sheesh, Greenwald is all over the damn place, right on so many things but on full Fox News mode next. Nobody's perfect.

[alarimer]

70. Is he wrong?

Leave out the person who said it for a minute.

I think he's kind of right on this, although I don't know if all women will be invested in her winning.

But I think a lot of criticisms of her policies will be decried as sexism almost automatically, at least by a subset of supporters.

Which is not to say she won't face ACTUAL misogyny (already has in fact), especially from the right wing.

[justiceischeap]

75. If Hillary runs and there isn't a better candidate I will support her

firstly, because she's a Democrat, secondly, because she won't take shit from Republicans...she loathes the entire party and thirdly because I'm concerned about Supreme Court nominees.

As a woman, I'd be happy to have Hillary Clinton as the first female President (if there isn't a better female candidate that runs). That said, I didn't support Sarah Palin solely because we have anatomy in common. Policy and capability do make a difference to most women.

I suspect if Hillary runs, I will be calling Greenwald a misogynist because he certainly comes across as one. And his preemptive whining won't stop me from doing so.

[Cha]

112. Well done, justiceischeap~ nm

[Skidmore]

168. This. Never been a huge Hillary supporter but

I will vote for her if she heads the ticket. I will not be voting for Rand Paul or any other libertarian in sheep's clothing. I think the dribs and drabs of Greenwald's revelation schedule is tied to trying to impact elections.

[alp227]

78. He gets half credit for "women in America are going to be completely invested"

This statement of his, "Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist," is WAY hyper generalizing.

[joshcryer]

142. "Opposition labeled as misogynistic" is wrong.

In fact, what will happen is that any truly misogynistic criticism that is rebuffed will be labeled as "name calling people misogynistic." It's a preemptive dismissal of the undeniable misogyny that the 2016 elections will harbor.

[JI7]

72. this reminds me of when Arnold was running for Governor, he went on Leno and said there will

be stories that come out accusing him of things and how it was part of the negative campaign he knows will happen .

this way anytime something negative did come out him and his people would go "see, we told you he was going to be attacked" .

greenwald is doing the same thing here so when there are sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton and people complain he wants people to go "see, we said this would happen and you should not fall for it because it's to avoid discussing .........................."

[BeyondGeography]

77. He's kind of miserable, isn't he?

[frazzled]

80. Oooooh, preemptive defense!

Whatever shitty, misogynistic thing I might happen to say over the next two years with regard to Hillary Clinton should in no way be construed as being misogynistic ... it will just be honest criticism! Like railing against a call to sympathize with 300 Nigerian girls and turning it into a diatribe against American imperialism--that was not in the least bit insensitive or misogynistic either; it was just your garden variety isolationist, anti-imperialist rant! Who really cares about of kidnapped little girls, anyway?

Yoy ... this is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[SidDithers]

95. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[joshcryer]

143. Home run. That's exactly what this is.

Clinton has been a champion for women's rights for her entire life. And suddenly, some tragedy happens, and she says something about it, she's being imperialistic. It's not a genuine concern that she would legitimately hold as a champion for women's rights for her entire life.

[wheniwasincongress]

81. I wonder why women weren't completely invested in Sarah Palin

I wonder if it has to do with Democratic policies towards women...hmmm... I hope GG Man can answer this! What a wise, big man!

[turk151]

82. No validity to criticizing the Clinton Dynasty?

If he had said the same thing about Elizabeth Warren, it would be clear cut misogyny. But, with Hilary, I get that "New York Snow" feeling.

[hrmjustin]

91. New York Snow?

[bettyellen]

166. I think it's a reference to the song Betty Davis Eyes - "She's as pure as NY snow"

[Agschmid]

94. What?

New York snow?

[octoberlib]

114. "I get that New York Snow feeling". What do you mean by this?

[randome]

126. Right. Anyone who votes for Obama is a reverse-racist.

And anyone who votes for Clinton is a reverse-misogynist. You know Greenwald is full of shit. He can no longer hide it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Chan790]

84. While I'm not fan of Hillary, he says that like it's a bad thing.

I'd sooner vote for her than an anthropomorphized pilonidal cyst like Glenn Greenwald.

[octoberlib]

86. This female isn't 'invested' in Hillary at all. I won't

be voting for Hillary in the primary but I will if she becomes the Democratic candidate. I don't vote for candidates based on their sex.

[Sheepshank]

87. just another asswipe that states women waste their votes

on the wrong candidate. I guess he should just come right out and join the throng of mysoginists that proclaim women should never have been given the right to vote in the first place....they have been speaking loudly since Mittens' ungracious loss. I know plenty of Conservatives that blame the women for voting in Barak Obama lol.

[bettyellen]

167. Saw a woman post here complaining about women voting- for Warren G Harding, LOL!

You can't make this shit up- but you could probably google nd find out where she got that sexist talking point.

[Cha]

93. Nice pic.. his vicious persona is written all over his ugly face. Go get

'em, Greenwad.. Rofl. Got his venom all in an uproar over any perceived Democratic nominee.. even a hypothetical future Gay person. What a load of bullshit/AKA/Glenn Greenwald.

Bet he just loves him some asshole like rand paul.

[sheshe2]

102. I thought the exact same thing when I saw that picture Cha~

and...."Greenwad"!

[Cha]

104. Sorry,

I can't help it, she.

[sheshe2]

108. My dear Cha!

Don't apologize to me.

[Cha]

110. Right.. it should be

"Bullwad"!

[pinto]

96. "They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing."

Fuck you, Greenwald.

[lpbk2713]

101. HAH ... " ... been around forever"

For a male candidate that would be a plus. It would imply seasoning and experience
well suited for the task at hand. But in his context ... it's code for "she's an old hag" .


This assclown's a dipshit. Why anyone wastes their time on this fool ...

[arely staircase]

105. dickheads

gonna be dickheads

[Niceguy1]

109. he must be lurking around here at du

[Jamaal510]

121. I would like to think not, but

then again...you never know for sure if people are really who they claim to be:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023152339

[Niceguy1]

150. I can fill a post with links

Where posters assume that opposition to something that Obama is doing or suporrts is based on racism. And I would bet money that posters here will accuse the anti Hillary crowd of misogyny. Happens all of the time.

[Vattel]

111. dupe

[DCBob]

113. I guess we should consider voting Republican seeing as how horrible our candidates are.

[Pirate Smile]

115. He's such an asshole and he proves it over and over again.

[WhiteTara]

116. Depicted? Well, we will see how misogynistic the country is

by the comments that will occur.

[Jamaal510]

123. Roger Ailes should seriously consider hiring this dude. nt

[steve2470]

133. if the Republicans can say something they would say to a MAN, then no

If they start going down the hysterical etc path, then damn straight they will get that label.

[Doctor_J]

139. quite true. I will vote for her, and then bitch while she continues the

corporate takeover of the country. Most of my bitching will be attributed to misogyny

[cherokeeprogressive]

147. Concussion and Senior Citizens... is it misogynistic to ask about THAT?

Toss your best bullshit sarcasm at me... You know I can take it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

149. "Report claims Anonymous will protest Glenn Greenwald for ties to PayPal billionaire"

While sweeping the nation, and raking it in, it sounds like GG has raised quite a few hackles, of some pretty unlikely sources. I thought they were allies?

Raw Story reports: The Internet hacktivist group Anonymous is calling for protests against author and civil liberties advocate Glenn Greenwald because of his relationship with eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

In a release posted to Pastebin, the secretive activist group is calling for members to attend and disrupt scheduled book signings where Greenwald will be promoting his new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State.

The point of contention between Greenwald and the group stems from his relationship with First Look founder and eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

eBay purchased PayPal in 2002.

Representing the “PayPal 14,” — a group charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act after they attempted to disrupt PayPal’s operations in retaliation for PayPal’s refusal to process donations to WikiLeaks — Anonymous stated that the 14 are “struggling to raise more than $80,000 in court-ordered restitution” that must be paid to eBay/PayPal.

http://warincontext.org/2014/05/14/report-claims-anonymous-will-protest-glenn-greenwald-for-ties-to-paypal-billionaire/

[Whisp]

154. Interesting.

Anonymous members are instructed to attend Greenwald’s book signings to protest, record their activities, hand out fliers, and explain the relationship between the author and his financial benefactor.

The “YourAnonNews” Twitter account expressed support for the campaign on Monday, along with the account representing Occupy Wall Street.

---

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. I think decent people find GG's passion for $$$$ to be antithetical to the things they actually care

about. This is the reason you don't hear much from him on the socio-economic issues that Occupy claimed to care about. GG loves attention, but he loves him some capitali$m even more. I guess, some folks of conscience, have figured out when GG shows up, there's a smell in the room, and it has the whiff of elephant dung.

As an aside, I found out last night that he's a "former" member of the National States Rights Party, I guess that's the party ticket he ran on back in the day. I think you & I know what "states rights" really means, don't we?

[yodermon]

153. Contrast the following statements:

1) "Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic" vs
2) "Opposition to her is going to misogynistic"

because criticism of GG in this thread is acting as if he said #2.

[Whisp]

155. #2 is not a sentence.

Is this one of those 'GG didn't mean what he said and wrote, he meant something else entirely but worded it all wrong' defense?

[MadrasT]

156. Meh. If I am "invested" it will be because she is the D candidate.

And I don't want a republican anybody in the White House.

Certainly not because she is female. It would be great to see a female president but I am not a huge support of Hillary Clinton.

She is nowhere near my first choice, actually I would be UNHAPPY to vote for her, but I would still vote for her, because voting R is unthinkable.

[JDPriestly]

157. This pretty much says it about the NSA:

"I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesn’t get affected by election choices and that isn’t in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/greenwald-bashes-neocon-hillary-clinton-shes-a-fcking-hawk/

Intelligent, insightful. Thank you, Glenn Greenwald.

[davidpdx]

159. First a few disclaimers

I don't like Glenn Greenwald, nor his politics. I voted against Hillary Clinton in the primary and would in 2016 because of her policies if she ran (I would reluctantly vote for her in the GE).

That being said I have seen one person thus far make such a comment. The person is a celebrity and was a supporter of Clinton in 2008. To the best of my knowledge, the person did not openly support Barack Obama (my guess is the person voted for him). The replies to the person's post were generally negative in terms of disagreeing with the person (which tells me it isn't something that would work).

Whether this becomes a mainstream argument or not, I have no idea (I hope it won't). All I'm saying is I have witnessed such an argument.

Last disclosure, I generally like the person who made the comment as I have seen the person in several television shows.