Lidia Yuknavitch’s Weblog

the body of the word

the eve of destruction: will hillary (satan) bring down barack (chocolate jesus) or go down like the whore she is?

nice shot, huh.

well i thought i’d weigh in again — over the last several weeks i’ve again witnessed a rather colossal load of shit piled upon THE GREAT SATAN as she had the audacity to win a contest, put some of her ideas out there, and even take some pride in her momentum.

too bad she’s the evil whore who is, according to the readers comments i’ve been tracking at CNN, NYTIMES, SALON.COM, THE HUFFINGTON REPORT, THE CAFFERTY REPORT, and out of the mouths of my obamarama friends:

“she should know when to quit. she’s damaging the party by staying in the race this long.”

“she is more interested in power and fame than in what’s good for the country.”

“her staying in the race is destroying barrack’s chances of winning–the people have spoken and it’s barrack’s new ideas about change that the country wants” (this one truly puzzles me, since the electorate is pretty much evenly divided between them at this point, and i still have no idea what the specifics of the “change” are beyond lip service and the REALLY slick pamphlet we got in the mail from barrack’s campaign that doesn’t have anything but sound bits and glossy pictures on it, just like every other politicians publicity materials…)

“what the fuck is wrong with her?  the clintons just want to maintain their power and wealth.”

“while she’s cramming herself down the throats of the american public, he’s having to fight off her attacks when he could be preparing for the real race.” (somehow the reverse is not true, since, as we’ve noted, she’s a satanic power hungry whore, and not the first woman to run for president.)

“it’s the clinton political machine that has played the race card and made sure that the reverend wright fiasco has center stage.”  (what?)

“her negative ads are shameful.”

“her staying in the race is destructive of hope.” (what?

i did get a kick out of gloria steinem’s take on all this — but then she’s an evil, outdated, old hag feminist from back in the day, right, and they all need to crawl away before they shame the new modern women, but anyway, she maintains that:  “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life,” that “It’s time for feminists to say that Senator Obama has no monopoly on inspiration,” and “They acknowledge racism—not enough, but somewhat . . . They would probably be less likely to acknowledge that the most likely way a pregnant woman is to die is murder from her male partner. There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female.”

Oh and this one:  “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.”

if we’re waving goodbye to hillary, could we admit she’s a pretty tough opponent, or are we still invested in demonizing the crap out of her?

and if she’s sticking around, could we quit whining?  this IS what the voters have chosen.  be careful what you wish for.

oh and obama? it’s MATT, not TIM, and i don’t need to turn my television off to educate my child, and autoworkers don’t need to be told that fuel efficiency is more important than a living wage and universal health care.

May 5, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | 11 Comments