Video: Guess why Gloria Steinem thinks the media wanted Hillary out of the race
posted at 5:08 pm on June 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
Because they’re Obama partisans who feared, correctly, that without a mountain of pressure the Clintons’ mad ambition would lead them to drag this thing out to the convention even though they stood no realistic chance of winning? Alas, no, that’s the reasonable, nondogmatic explanation. The Steinem explanation: Misogyny, of course. Never mind the grudging Strange New Respect Hillary earned from people like me for fighting on, and never mind that we here at HA were grumbling about Huckabee staying in race too long even though he posed far less serious of a threat to McCain than she did to Obama. The Narrative is cast, amid the exquisite irony of Steinem warning us against simplistic, single-factor analyses.
Exit question: Does anyone here think Bill was one iota less determined than she was? If this is all about hating on women, presumably there should be some distinction within the media in terms of how BJ’s own ambition is perceived vis-a-vis Hillary’s. Anyone sense that at all? Please cite examples, because I evidently missed it. Click the image to watch.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Steinem ceased being relevant around the Carter administration. If she could think straight and analyze why Clinton lost, misogyny would be way down on the list.
JammieWearingFool on June 9, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Look at it this way. Y
ou can’t expect a potato chip company to ask you to stop buying potato chips.
Translation: this hag has been selling the same bs for 30 years; its her stock in trade. If nobody buys, she’s out of business.
Labamigo on June 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Oh brother … people like her are so tiring. On one hand they want you to judge someone based on their character and abilities, and when you do and find them wanting it’s because you’re a misogynist.
If misogyny is so pervasive Gloria, why in the world are they seeking comment from you?
darwin on June 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM
NEW YORK (Fortune) — You’d think this would be oil shale’s moment.
You’d think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast – 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone – it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
You’d think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale – a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen – into light crude oil.
You’d think all of this, but you’d be wrong.
Last month, the U.S. Senate’s Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all – at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington – the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.
“Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request,” Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn’t dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.
Arghh!
She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate’s leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.
Salazar’s efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell’s single biggest R&D expenditure.)
Salazar says he’s simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don’t get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.
I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:
funky chicken on June 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Well, if misogyny was a factor, you can partly blame Hillary’s crying and shrillness as confirming their bigotry.
SPCOlympics on June 9, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Steinem is one of those feminists who will never be satisfied. Even if excepting her premise that there is this inherent sexism prevalent in the culture of the nation, and if they were magically eliminated, she would still find something wrong. She’s a liberal. She could never be happy until everyone else is just as equally miserable as her!
Weebork on June 9, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Hillary’s misanthropy trumps anyone else’s msogyny, her myriad clever attempts to cover it up, notwithstanding.
She’s well known. Obama isn’t, yet. The only question is – will he be known in time, or too late?
Entelechy on June 9, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Gloria is irrelevant.
Hillary lost because she cannot manage, misjudged the political landscape, arrogance of inevitability, agenda driven class and race warfare, and high negatives.
Did I leave out anything……
Oh yeah,……..the party got tired of hearing it.
Starlink on June 9, 2008 at 5:21 PM
“even though he posed far less serious of a threat to McCain ”
Thanks to McCain’s enablers like Fred, Mitt, Rush, Michelle, and AP.
Al-Ozarka on June 9, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Reporter:
And given that he disowned Rev. Wright after stating unequivocally in “The Speech” that he could never do such a thing, it was amazing, riveting, steaming bullcrap.
trubble on June 9, 2008 at 5:24 PM
The plain and simple fact is that if she weren’t a woman she never would have had a chance, just like the plain and simple fact is that if Barry was a white guy, you’d never have heard of him.
The grievance industry’s been very, very good to the likes of Gloria and Uncle Jerry. Facts be damned, they ain’t never letting go.
Typhoon on June 9, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Gloria Steinem: anything that goes wrong is because of sexism
Osama Bin Laden: anything that goes wrong is because of resistance to radical Islam
Barack Obama: anything that goes wrong is because of capitalism and racism
Howard Dean: anything that goes wrong is because of Americans not voting Democrat
Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Brian Williams: anything that goes wrong is because God did not give us Barack Obama until now
indythinker on June 9, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Michelle’s latest post begins with: “A few bloggers whose opinions I value think that I, along with Charles Johnson of LGF, are making a mountain out of a molehill about the anti-semitic moonbat guano infesting the MyBarackObama website.”
Michelle…along with other pundits…have saddled us with McCain precisely via making mountains out of molehills!
Al-Ozarka on June 9, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Pelosi grabbed the brass ring, how has that worked in the house? BO delivered the race speach and then backtracked on everything in it. The only person amazed seems to be “the thrill up my leg” Mathews.
Les in NC on June 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Click the image to watch? Are you insane? Voluntarily expose myself to Gloria Steinem?
Splashman on June 9, 2008 at 5:30 PM
We will get a female president as soon as this which changes her hairstyle. :-)
Hillary lost because there are more star-struck Obama lemmings than there are deaf Hillary supporters.
cannonball on June 9, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Hillary dons colorful clothing, sports eyeshadow to match, perfectly coifed ‘do’s, dares to show cleavage (first and only time in my memory), cries on cue, and then blames her near victory on sexism. This in spite of the fact that the third in line to the US presidency is a woman, and Hillary herself has been elected to the Senate twice. Some sexism. Where can I get me some?
Sloan Morganstern on June 9, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Dude, you’re insane.
Nichevo on June 9, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I am so sick of leftist women categorizing me as anti-woman. My problem with Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with the type of genitalia she sports, but with her ridiculously Marxist attitudes. Give me a Maggie Thatcher, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, or, dare I say, Sarah Palin, and try to keep me from voting for her!
sondiehl on June 9, 2008 at 5:39 PM
“Dude, you’re insane.”
Dude, you’re in denial.
Al-Ozarka on June 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Gender and race should not be perceived as part of nature? Did I hear that right? Yes I did, she actually said that.
Dollayo on June 9, 2008 at 5:50 PM
She’s old and tired like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The words “mysogyny” and “racism” are the only difference between these three tiresome people. It’s amazing how ignorant, boring, and annoying people are willing to be just to avoid having a full time job. The upside is they’re all long in the tooth.
UnEasyRider on June 9, 2008 at 5:53 PM
I agree, there has been an Embarrassment of Talent. No Talent.
PappaMac on June 9, 2008 at 5:58 PM
From Steinem’s wikipedia page:
That has always made me laugh.
AndrewsDad on June 9, 2008 at 6:07 PM
I wonder if Clinton advanced the status of women more by almost winning than by winning. If she’d won, she could have gotten creamed in the general. If she’d have won the general, she would have been judged by her actions, not just by her potential, and we would have been more like Pakistan (where the first woman leader got there due to family) than the UK (where she got there of her own accord). A female friend told me that if Clinton got elected, she’d screw things up so badly that no other woman would have a chance in decades. You better believe it’s not going to be that long until another viable female candidate comes along now.
calbear on June 9, 2008 at 6:07 PM
You sent me running to the dictionary with that one. And of course you’re correct.
Maxx on June 9, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Nah Gah Dah. She makes my skin crawl … mainly because she very quietly and convincingly makes her points, all the while touting the most maniacal explanations for her alternate universe.
pabarge on June 9, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Imagine, hating your own gender…a White House without a Clinton is like a fish without a bicycle.
right2bright on June 9, 2008 at 6:11 PM
sic transit gloria steinem
FredCDobbs on June 9, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Steinem is one to load on the one way rocket of this friggin Earth. I hold her partially responsible for a lot of this nations problems including the anti-male, excuse me, anti white male, attitudes floating around. Keep it up , and keep watching America as you knew her, to never be the same as feminination of the country and men continues. The country wasn’t built on that and countries like Russia are just kicking back watching it all go down the tubes. Laugh, but watch. Where have all the real men gone you ask? Down the drain thanks to women like Steinem.
johnnyU on June 9, 2008 at 6:14 PM
It’s the U.S. Presidency, Steinem… Not a delicious batch of cookies or a tasty ham sandwich. Wait, there goes that Misogyny again. *Yawn* By the way, Steinem, don’t speak again until someone pulls your string.
Claypigeon on June 9, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Has anyone really given a rat’s ass about anything Gloria Steinem has had to say?
GarandFan on June 9, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Are you saying she’s still in business?!
Couldn’t hit the link – nobody needs more lecturing about a uterus from an old, unattractive, barren woman of grandmotherly age, with a bad hair dye job.
If she’s so liberated, why is she still wedded to a patriarchal social construct of feminine beauty and a slave to hair fashion, such as it is?
Jaibones on June 9, 2008 at 6:30 PM
….and if Obama loses, then its racism. Thanks Ms Steinem, I think we all know the script by now. BTW, you delivered your lines perfectly!!
c3ichief on June 9, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Hillary couldn’t have been legitamately beaten or bested by a mere male. No, Hillary is a victim of misogyny, living in a society that oppresses women.
I blame white males.
Dork B. on June 9, 2008 at 6:33 PM
She said that the US is slower (to accept women in power) than most other countries.
haha……..what a fool she is!
nottakingsides on June 9, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Trust Gloria Steinem to get it totally wrong. It wasn’t sexism that did for Hillary; it was that other “ism”
Racism.
If Obama had white skin, was the same man in every other way, does anyone think he would have got 90% of the black vote?
infidel65 on June 9, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I need Gloria’s opinions like a bicycle needs a fish.
profitsbeard on June 9, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I guess sexual harassment encounters are something she has no worries about. All that Fema-Nazi stress has really taken its toll.
Hening on June 9, 2008 at 7:15 PM
the talent has been embarrassing, no question. she at least got that right
billypaintbrush on June 9, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Gloria missed the real story… Hillary Clinton simply found out that her husband wasn’t really viewed as “the first black President” as the MSM so desperately painted him to be; that Bill Clinton was always viewed as a white master with the power to “give” other people’s money to black communities that were (are) ravished by alcohol and drug abuse, and controlled by drug dealers and thugs; that Obama represents something to black America that a white former first lady could never represent, no matter how “black” she made herself sound.
Obama is black; Hillary is white. Neither Gloria nor Hillary will ever fully comprehend this lil fact.
Keemo on June 9, 2008 at 7:43 PM
This might be the first time in my 49 years I agree with her.
S-C-A-R-Y
jukin on June 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM
How delightfully condescending. People don’t agree with you because they regressed to a child-like state!
Typhonsentra on June 9, 2008 at 9:22 PM
She seemed racist.
BL@KBIRD on June 9, 2008 at 11:06 PM
What the HELL is she talking about. Is she crazy?! How many times did she bash the US. 85th in the world? What? So dictators and monarchs are some kind of progress? I guess england gets a thumbs up for Elizabeth and Thatcher.
Agrippa2k on June 10, 2008 at 1:05 AM
“Exit question: Does anyone here think Bill was one iota less determined than she was?”
Yes. I don’t have examples, but think about it. Clinton has been screwing around for
yearsdecades. Did he care one iota about Hillary then? Bill Clinton is the definition of narcissism and the notion that even Hillary could be elevated to his level was something that he could tolerate, but only as option number two. He feels that he belongs on the perch above everyone and anyone else – because he’s “special.”perroviejo on June 10, 2008 at 9:44 AM