General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVanity Fair joins in the effort to silence the Democratic base
by telling Hillary Clinton to go away. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/can-hillary-clinton-please-go-quietly-into-the-night
I don't know who the this reporter is, but he doesn't represent me. His determination that issues relating to equal rights are no longer relevant is perfectly fitting in the modern political landscape in which the white bourgeoisie has recast its relative affluence and privilege as "working class." We see an effort to reorient the party away from the single women, people of color, and the working and non-working poor toward the more affluent voters earning over $100k a year that backed Donald Trump.
Clinton's voters by and large lack the privilege and wealth of the sanctimonious reporter. He talks about "feeding the poor out of compassion." Clinton's voters are the poor, the people who need to be fed. Her greatest margin was among voters earning less than $30k, while she also won voters with household incomes under $75k. The demographic that voted for her in the highest numbers were African American women, the base of the Democratic party.
But we know live in a political culture where whiteness and maleness is the prize. Women must slink away, stay silent. African American women, whose incomes are far below the national median, are maligned as the "establishment," the source of oppression for those angry that those women dare to vote in their own interests rather than recognizing that the lives and concerns of the $100k plus a year white male voters matter more.
The author maligns "Onward Together" because he doesn't share the organization's goal of strengthening the Democratic Party. He criticizes Clinton's statements about moving the country forward rather than turning the clock back as vague, ignoring the fact that she had very specific proposals for doing just that when she ran for president but that she is now seeking to support others running for office at all levels. Frank of course ignores all of that and instead tethers to Hillary policies from the Bill Clinton administration, voted into law by politicians who fault a woman who was First Lady at the time rather than accepting responsibility for their own votes. Hillary's policies from her own campaign don't merit a mention because like all women, her sole function is to serve as a vehicle for male power and privilege.
Clearly failure to champion turning the clock back a half century is what makes Clinton the enemy. We live in a world where the goal of making America like the fifties again cuts across the political spectrum. Moving the clock back is precisely what men like TA Frank want because it is the party's failure to elevate their privilege above the rights and lives of the majority that they find so unacceptable.
The effort to silence Clinton, to force her from public space, is an effort to silence the Democratic base, the single women, people of color, and working poor who voted for her. Many of us recognize in the treatment of Hillary what we have experienced in our own lives, which is why many of us took so personally her defeat in November. Trump's victory has emboldened the TA Franks of America, and they now seek to imbue the Democratic party with the values of the Trump era. Hillary's involvement in the public sphere complicates that mission, just as the continued engagement--and votes--of the Democratic base confounds efforts to center the party around the exclusive interests of the already privileged.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Children's books? How can he even keep a job writing such inanity?
JI7
(89,247 posts)She hasn't said she will do.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)LisaM
(27,803 posts)I'm a crankopotamous today, but I am particularly pissed at the Hillary haters today.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And he thought that was uppity.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)and shut up. He disapproves of Chelsea's particular "iteration of the Clinton dynasty". In addition, the author finds that Chelsea has "a self regard of unusual intensity". Apparently, she is neither meek nor self-effacing enough to suit the writer.
Oh goody. Another marginally competent, self-important freelance analyst who wants to put women firmly in their place.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/please-god-stop-chelsea-clinton-from-whatever-she-is-doing
Vanity Fair published an appalling piece by him shortly before the election, "The Idiot's Guide to Voting Your Conscience". He was right about the "idiot" part.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/the-idiots-guide-to-voting-your-conscience
LisaM
(27,803 posts)how is that a DYNASTY?
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Could not find ph# right away but to write to them:
http://www.vanityfair.com/contact/contact-us
Letters to the editor, including general feedback and comments, should be sent electronically with the writers name, address, and daytime phone number to letters@vf.com. The magazine reserves the right to edit submissions, which may be published or otherwise used in any medium. All submissions become property of Vanity Fair.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)These people are so transparent ...lol
betsuni
(25,472 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... we will not be silenced or intimidated or bullied by anyone.
True. Faithful. Loyal. Genuine. Honest. DEMOCRATS!
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)That confirms what you said in the op about this being about keeping white men at the top.
The fact he supports Biden running for president says a lot also since Biden has a very pro corporate voting record yet he is playing the Hillary was about 1 percent crap even though the facts as you point out go against it.
We all know chromosomes are what matter, not voting records.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)Her hard-core supporters are most animated by the response to her (witness this thread) and her critics want her to go away. Is that base that you're referring served by this dynamic? I don't think so.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)And how is the base served by being disenfranchised?
I haven't seen any discussion of issues from Clinton's detractors either.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)At least none besides Bernie who are working to get the message out right now. Maybe this is because HRC is standing in the way, and maybe it's not.
I'd like to see HRC use her fundraising abilities and PAC to get behind someone who has potential. I don't want to see her ride off into the sunset, but neither do I want her to continue to be the face of the party. It's time for her to move into more of a backseat role. She is part of the past and someone else needs to be the future.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)that's the way it will necessarily go.
LisaM
(27,803 posts)She also was a Democratic senator (overwhelmingly re-elected), a Democratic Secretary of State, and has stumped for Democratic candidates all over the country for decades (she worked for Snyder's opponent in Michigan, e.g., while Bernie did not).
Everyone on this forum should be a de facto supporter of hers.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)board. The above comments aren't even close to the tone of what he is trying to get across. I don't know the man, may or may not have read any other article by him, I get to VF every now and again.
It's about how the Clinton's never go away, unlike Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, etc.They seem to always be sucking up the lime light. Those words don't sound familiar???
Jeez, why is everyone reading/parsing through these little bitty prisms, looking for anything that they can bitch about? People as whole aren't that one dimensional.
I really don't see how you can read an article about Hillary Clinton, get to shutting her up, and then make it a diatribe about black* Democratic women, reading between lines that do not exist.
The hell???
*I do not use terms like "AA" because these are terms that the bastard Frank Luntz forced upon the public, dividing us, squishing us into these little boxes. Frank Luntz also came up with the term "climate change" because it sounds less threatening. There was a documentary on Discovery Times, when it existed, and he was bragging how he can change the language, and guide the narrative to how he thinks. I refuse to use his language.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Is if you assume voters don't matter. The voters I referenced are the base of the party. Clinton only has the prominence she does because of our votes.
Many of us see attacks on Clinton as attacks on us. This article doesn't exist in a vacuum. Arguing that Clinton should be driven from public space corresponds with the accompanying efforts to orient the party away from its base toward white male Trump voters. I see the author as part of that effort, particularly since he insists issues like marriage equality are mired in the past, and he has come out in opposition to immigration reform.
There is no reason why Clinton's occasional appearances constitute sucking the air out of anything. She isn't on television multiple times a week demanding that the party do this or that. She's formed a PAC to support Democratic candidates. I see no logical reason to oppose such a thing, unless of course one does not want to see the Democratic Party strengthened.
The author wants Clinton silenced like McConnell wants Warren silenced and Burr wants Harris silenced. It's all the same fucking thing. Millions of women have been told to be silent our entire lives. We are not going to oblige the reactionaries. Just because the Krelin made Trump president doesn't mean the rest of us are going to acquiesce to remaking America according to his values.
You don't have to like my OP or even read it. I really don't care. What you don't get to decide, however, is what I am allowed to care or write about.
mythology
(9,527 posts)By definition anybody who wins a party's nomination has the support of the party base. By your logic no losing candidate should ever leave the public stage.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)It's an effort to banish Clinton and with her the 67 million who voted for her. No one, even the corporate media, has a right to banish anyone. Americans still exercise the right to free speech, much to the chagrin of Trump and the Vanity Fair author.
George II
(67,782 posts)brer cat
(24,560 posts)Thank you for this, and the OP.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)on what you read or care about, but as a female, I think I do get the right to have other females quit shouting about PERCEIVED shutting up of female voices, When.That.Has.Absolutely.Nothing.To.Do.With.The.Article.
What the writer was saying, in the past, post-election losers (as opposed to winning) of national elections, go quietly away and do good works, not have their mugs in the paper/internet tubes each and every day. He is asking for another female/face of the Democratic Party (or any face, really) because the Clinton's aren't the only Democrats to have ever existed, unless you ask them, of course.
It's the problem of Clinton Triangulation that has gotten Democrats in this miasma in the first place. They have a very long history within the Democratic Party, and people have a habit of studying history, especially if you live in the state where he was Governor.
That is the summation of the article, nowhere near shutting up of women's voices. It gets old, these faux poutrages over absolutely nothing.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Your rights begin and end with yourself. You don't own or control me, and you have absolutely no right to get me to do a damn thing.
She has given one media interview in seven months. That is hardly being plastered on the media every day. She has never been the kind of politician who lives for the cameras. There are others who fill that role. Now you could easily avoid her one interview or commencement addresses, just as you could could avoid reading my post, but that isn't sufficient for someone who feels compelled to "get other females" to do what they demand. You feel entitled to control public discourse itself. Rather than simply turning the channel or even turning the damn TV off, you feel compelled to ensure that no one anywhere is allowed to read or access information that doesn't conform to your narrow concerns.
You disagree with me, and I disagree with you. Most reasonable people understand that disagreements are the nature of politics. They don't feel compelled to 'get females" do so what they demand. But then most people don't get upset because a former presidential candidate leaves the house rather than remaining locked in a cellar for time immemorial. Well, we shouldn't really say former presidential candidate, should we, since I'm going to hazard a guess that your problem with former candidates doesn't extend to John Kerry or Al Gore. Just a wild guess.
Spare me your trite bumper stickers about "triangulation." Talk about a non-sequitur.
Hillary Clinton is not 'the Clinton's." She is an intelligent, enormously talented woman who is not a mere appendage of a her husband. 67 people voted for her. Many of that 67 million is interested in what she has to say, the same of which cannot be said about you or me. Now she has chosen to use her position to work to straighten the Democratic party by forming a PAC to support other candidates seeking to lead it forward. There is no logical reason anyone who wants to see Democrats succeed should object to such a thing.
You are more than within your rights to continue to devote your life to working to banish Hillary Clinton from public space and trying to ensure the only losing candidates allowed to speak in public devote themselves to attacking and undermining the party rather than working to improve its electoral prospects. Do exactly what you please, and I intend to do and think what I please. You will no more "get me" to do anything than I will ever arrive at the point where I find your bumper sticker political wisdom remotely interesting or relevant.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)-Steph-
(409 posts)irrelevant, bitter, and should just keep quiet now. I've been wondering if that's just a talking point in the media, or if the majority of Democrats actually felt that way too. Because honestly, I feel the opposite. I love hearing from HRC and I want to keep hearing from her. Why should we silence someone that the majority of Americans just voted for. I feel like she's in a position where she still has a lot to offer. I don't want her to go quietly into the night.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)What moronic tripe.
QC
(26,371 posts)and anti-Clinton as your summary would make it appear. In fact, the author says a lot of positive things about HRC's concern for America and her persistence in the face of overwhelming obstacles.
The author's argument is that former candidates, especially those with star power, can suck up all the air and keep new talent from rising if they won't yield the stage.
Do you have anything to say about that? It's certainly a point one can argue for or against.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)in seven months. One. She has spoken at a tech conference and two graduation commencements. How on earth does that suck air out of the room? Frank may have a Trump-level attention span, but few of the rest of us do.
Why would anyone who claims to be a Democrat want to ensure that Onward Together not fund Democratic candidates? Who benefits from that, other than Trump and the GOP?
His article is the written version of McConnell telling Warren to be silent and Burr telling Harris to be silent. It's the same damn thing. Warren persisted. Harris persisted. Hillary Clinton persists, and I and millions of other women plan to persist. If that makes men like Frank uncomfortable, all the better.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Seems irrational to predicate support on nothing other than age of blood.
I imagine those absurd little bumper-stickers are necessary when we lack substance to support our shrill opinions.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)since Clinton isn't running for office and has been very clear that she will not run again. Age and blood apparently determine whether a person should be allowed to leave the house.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)If you watched her interview at the tech conference that was clear. What she has done is form a pac to fund Democratic candidates. No one who wants to see more Democrats in office has any rational reason to object to that.
Oh, and by the way, the VF author claims to support Biden in 2020. Whatever Joe's strengths, he does not constitute new blood.
Cha
(297,154 posts)want to run or back those who want to run in 2020 want to denigrate Hillary.
They should be building on her strengths.. not tearing her down and pissing off her supporters beyond all recall.
It shows me nothing except they don't know how to build coalitions but they do know how to make bad decisions.
Cha
(297,154 posts)should "go away".
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)And enjoy the next 8+ years of Trump
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)by silencing Clinton and the 67 million who voted for her? It's not possible to defeat Trump by mobilizing those voters rather than silencing them?
Cha
(297,154 posts)not be silenced.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)58Sunliner
(4,384 posts)Why is it I always see op's that do not even mention this? Talk about invisible. And please don't give me POC. The base is not limited to one race/ethnicity. I am not going to bother posting the demographics of the Democratic party, but the continuous harping on numerous op's that black women are the base is not supported by statistics, given the demographics by race/ethnicity in this country. And the boondoggle that the media and many people on this board are contributing to by using the demographics based on what we know to be a hacked election, although we do not know exactly how deeply we were compromised, really just looks like opportunistic propaganda.
I am am very aware of the importance of all groups, including AA women. But I don't think focusing specifically on one race builds a coalition.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)a crucial part of the base.
Certainly the exit polls are problematic, and research has demonstrated that particularly so in regard to the Latino vote. Yet all of the data about the electorate does not come from exit polls.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Why should the Democratic Party base, which is NOT male and white, put up with a lot of robo-shit talking?
Well she's not and we're not.
On edit--I forgot to mention that the article is a smarmy hit piece, and I don't get the defense of it.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)What world do you live in?
Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #34)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)leftstreet
(36,106 posts)Not to taint the butter on this bucket of popcorn, but aren't white males less than 30% of the US population?
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Response to leftstreet (Reply #37)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Missed you boo
Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #41)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #43)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)You crack me up tho
JHan
(10,173 posts)Now I'm curious as to how the poster reached to that thought...bedwench is a nasty, now very racialized term, used by bitter men.
irisblue
(32,969 posts)Where do they come up with such dumbass stuff?
JHan
(10,173 posts)irisblue
(32,969 posts)NOPE!
JHan
(10,173 posts)it references the worst stereotypes about black women who were sexually abused and traumatized during slavery to inflict shame on young black women today. Most fucked up shit imaginable.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)who called me a "coalburner"?
irisblue
(32,969 posts)Good job MIRT!
MineralMan
(146,287 posts)People say the oddest things and then are gone forever from DU's pages. I always seem to miss them, somehow. Thanks for repeating what was said. That helps?
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Don't forget that. The goal is to undermine equal rights. Trump's victory was the first stage. Remaking the Democratic Party in the values of Trump are the next.
Vilis Veritas
(2,405 posts)I wrote about them many years ago here at DU.
They are owned by the Oligarchs of this country. That particular media empire has been around for several hundred years and multiple continents.
So...media. They play us like fiddles...
niyad
(113,275 posts)appears I was incorrect.
and, as another poster said, your third paragraph nails it. everyone who isn't rich, white, maie (and old) needs to just sit down or slink quietly away (after making sure the menz has their whiskey and cigars, and we have cleaned up all the mess)
Greybnk48
(10,167 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)is he going to ask Biden to account for his flaws or lapses in judgement?
And is Hillary supposed to answer for Bill's past policy decisions when she was a thorn in the side of many of his aides?
Why the persistent double standard over and over again?
And he's going to pretend he doesn't understand what "Turning back the clock" means - I've never seen such ridiculous deconstructing of a person's language, their mannerisms, their use of words as I do when ridiculous people comment about Hillary. It's fucking insane.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Apparently he has made similar pronouncements about Chelsea, that she shouldn't leave the house to promote her children's books because it offends his delicate sensibilities.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I don't even get how anyone could interpret a couple sentences of him trying and failing to be fair as an example of him not really being ridiculous. It's inane from start to finish.
Cha
(297,154 posts)does he know.
What babbling bullshite.
Mahalo for your response to his Orwellian bullshit, BB.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
Post removed
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)We will not be ceding the party to those who resent it and its voters. Hillary has has said in no uncertain terms that she will not run again. Instead she has formed a PAC to support Democrats and to organize her supporters around that mission. You don't have to approve or take part in those efforts to elect Democrats, but neither I nor Hillary will be seeking your permission to leave the house.
Politicians who have never succeeded in earning a fraction of the votes she has have decided they should be able to determine the future off a party. Unlike them, Hillary isn't seeking to determine the future if the party but merely to support those who seek to carry it forward.
I take efforts to banish Hillary as an attack on me and my rights as a citizen. Clinton per se matters far less than the voters she represents, and it is we who are the targets of such efforts.
You do not determine who represents me, anymore than I determine who represents you. Moreover, the efforts to silence Hillary are part of the same socio-political culture that seeks to silence Warren and Harris. (If you ever looked at Warren's poll numbers, you would know your claims about her having less baggage are false. She too suffers from the crime of being female). Like them, Hillary persists, as we persist.
All you need do to avoid the horror of being exposed to the Democrat who has won more votes than any except Obama and more than the current occupant of the White House is refrain from watching the ONE media interview she has given in seven months. That should not be difficult. What is less easily achieved is silencing those who supported her or undermining our future votes.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)From December to February the left was all: "WHY IS HILLARY HIDING? WHAT'S SHE RUNNING FROM? WHY ISN'T SHE OUT FRONT AND CENTER TRYING TO LEAD THE PARTY? WHY IS SHE ASHAMED TO BE SEEN AFTER LOSING? WHY ISN'T SHE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE RESISTANCE MOVEMENT? WHY HASN'T SHE APOLOGIZED FOR BEING THE WORST NOMINEE EVER AND RUNNING THE WORST CAMPAIGN EVER? WHY IS SHE SO SILENT ON THE GROWING LIST OF TRUMP SCANDALS, etc???!"
And since April it's all been: WHY WON'T HILLARY GO AWAY? THE PARTY CAN'T MOVE ON WITH ESTABLISHMENT LOSERS LIKE HER HOGGING THE SPOTLIGHT! HILLARY ONLY CARES ABOUT GROOMING CHELSEA FOR 2020! I HATE CHELSEA CLINTON EVEN WORSE THAN CHELSEA THE SOCCER TEAM! AND SHE'S SO CORRUPT! DID YOU KNOW SHE WAS CORRUPT? WHY IS HILLARY MEDDLING WITH THE DNC? WHY DOES HILLARY REFUSE TO DENY CHELSEA IS RUNNING IN 2020? WHY CAN'T THE CLINTON FAMILY STEP ASIDE AND LET SOMEONE ELSE HAVE A GO?? WHY DOES HILLARY REFUSE TO DENOUNCE SLAVERY?
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)the anti-Hillary muscle memory is deeply ingrained.