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i did get a kick out of gloria steinem’s take on all this — but then she’s an evil, outdated, old hag feminist from back in the day, right, and they all need to crawl away before they shame the new modern women, but anyway, she maintains that:  “gender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.

Advertisements

May 5, 2008 - Posted by | Uncategorized

11 Comments »

  1. The ironic aspect of Obama’s campaign is how He (meaning the whole campaign and often not directly himself) chastises Hillary for a dirty campaign (what with using the “bitter” comment against him, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright debacle, etc) only to use those same dirty politics by chastising her (and still come out looking clean). So, uh, yeah! Watch that Jesus guy because he’s a manipulative little fellow.

    And besides, we need a democratic candidate that can weather the dirt(y/ier) politics of McCain by a) Fighting back, b) Overcoming what has been said, and c) Limiting the baggage that results in those dirty politics.

    And isn’t it our job (and those pesky superdelegates) to determine the best candidate for the job? Isn’t this what we as Dems signed up for? If a candidate feels they are the best for the job, shouldn’t they fight it out (and to much avail, so far taking a lead in Indiana and closing a wide gap in North Carolina)?

    And besides, isn’t Satan cooler anyway?

    Comment by jason | May 6, 2008 | Reply

  2. I personally don’t have a problem with strong intelligent women, unlike most women.

    Comment by amingox | May 6, 2008 | Reply

  3. clearly you all need to get your minds right. if you are not for barack, you are going straight to hell with the she-banshee.

    i’ll be the one serving martinis.

    Comment by lidiaohlidia | May 6, 2008 | Reply

  4. I’m still not for any of them really, but hey martinis in hell, yay!

    amingox -that is a great comment it made me laugh even though it’s incredibly sad and true.

    Comment by Jodie | May 6, 2008 | Reply

  5. satan’s way cooler but he’s not running for prez this year. the best we’ll get is R.U. Sirius or Ron Jeremy

    Comment by trevor | May 8, 2008 | Reply

  6. i dunno, man. according to the media and my women friends aged 35-40 she’s more satanic every second. apparently middle-aged snatch is too spooky for human consumption.

    Comment by lidiaohlidia | May 9, 2008 | Reply

  7. Senator Obama is running as the candidate of change against the media-driven narrative of politics as usual ascribed to Senator Clinton. But is it not the case that it is the establishment Democrats are the ones behind Obama? From Pat Leahy and Tom Daschle across the spectrum to “liberal” corporate talk radio, Obama is the guy. Even the talking points, “She is hurting the party” suggests a devotion to a higher purpose than change. And why? Because Obama is bringing in the cash? Assuming Obama really does mean it when he advocates change, do the people riding his coat tails benefit from that change? What will happen to his ability to govern once his campaign ends and the money stops flowing? Clearly we remember the way the Dem establishment failed to support President Clinton in the 90s; now they are throwing Senator Clinton under the bus and seem to be astounded and somewhat offended that she is a strong, competent political fighter. Obama’s turn will begin in January when the parasites in the democratic party turn on him. That is why they oppose Clinton so passionately–they know she can govern without them.

    Comment by volker | May 16, 2008 | Reply

  8. Well, I voted for her. What’s worrying me now is that my “republican friends” (I know, I know) WANT her and they don’t want Obama… I wish they’d make up their minds !
    My thinking is that she’s been through hell and back and is still standing, isn’t that what we require from a President?

    I’m in for the martinis by the way!

    Comment by Terry | May 21, 2008 | Reply

  9. sorry lidia, my sister showed me your blog and I resisted for a while.

    Satan and Chocolate Jesus?! nice!

    Sorry though, where are you getting the satanic rhetoric? Clearly our friends at Fox News have always gleefully proclaimed the Clinton’s (especially Billy boy) as the great anti-christs. I guess I’m missing the references by other mainstream media to hill being Satan. Obviously a woman president (powerful women in general) scares the living shit out of millions of macho American men.

    Some of us on the left (you and I fundamentally disagree on Marxism, as I am more a fan of Democratic Socialism, so your probably more left than me on economics at least) remember the roaring 90’s and that memory of Billy moving the Dems toward the middle is scary. I try to silence it with self medication but goddamnit if it doesn’t come back. The bastard came in in 92 like Obama and then gave up on healthcare, came up with NAFTA, bombed the shit out of Bosnia, gave us working class millions of wonderful new food service and various other shit jobs while touting his economic prowess. Yes Ive seen the bumper sticker, no one died when he lied, but he is still one of the most overrated presidents in American history. Just ask our man Zinn, much more eloquent than me. Can American’s separate Bill from Hill, no! They really don’t want us to themselves.

    My point (do I have one? maybe) is that some of us are turned off by another Clinton presidency on the left and right. The Machiavelli shit (sniper fire? Didn’t inhale? Not truly sexual relations? Hill, the poor damsel in distress? Bill America’s 1st black president?) is getting old. Hill’s whole move toward this damsel in distress paradigm is so fuckin calculated and smells of ripe cowboy. I love to hear Dems like our rebel yeller Howie Dean preach the fantasy that this prolonged race is good for liberals, and that everyone will lineup behind the candidate and we will finally be rid of Neo-Con control in the white house.
    At this point I still perhaps slightly favor Obama over Hillary and damn it if I’m not upset about my lack of jaded bitterness yet. I really hate that the bastard has me at hope. Nearing 30 I really thought I was smarter than that, but not quite. Not the first (or the last) time i thought I was smarter about stuff than I am. Self delusion is a sweet drug. Anyway I do totally agree with you about sexism and racism in America. Your blog inspired a semi related rant.

    Comment by Jesse Morris | May 23, 2008 | Reply

  10. jesse: GREAT RANT! but…my point in exaggerating her “evil” is that they are BOTH unusually driven POLITICIANS. see my most recent post. all politicians do what they must to win. and the presidency is the most competitive race of all. what’s ridiculous to me is that the “change we can believe in” slogan and the “that’s washington politics” rhetoric is a cover story. obama fights hard when he has to. it’s easy to research.

    lid

    Comment by lidiaohlidia | May 29, 2008 | Reply

  11. You seem to inspire me to rant, I am not sure why, sometimes in my typical half assed crazily influenced and highly opionated way. I agree with your point about political campaigns being essentially choreographed. (bad spelling? who cares its a blog response) I also got a kick out of the semantics of your rhetoric, chocolate Jesus and so forth.

    Comment by Jesse Morris | June 3, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: