Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Iranian Columnist at Huffington Post Sides w/ Iranian Terrorists Over US Navy
Did Pelosi Endorse Obama via Proxy? »

Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton

I’ve long thought Camille Paglia one of the most sane and reasonable voices emanating from the Left.

And in this piece at Salon, Hillary without tears, there’s very little for me to disagree with in her assessment of Hillary.

You often hear people say something to the effect of, “I don’t know quite what it is, but there’s something about Hillary that just rubs me the wrong way.”

For me, I know exactly what it is that rubs me wrong about Hillary, and Camille has hit it square on the nose:

Hillary’s willingness to tolerate Bill’s compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause — which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

It’s no coincidence that Hillary’s staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary’s rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern.

Hillary’s disdain for men — especially good, honest men — is palpable.

Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary’s default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. It’s a Nixonian reflex steeped in toxic gender bias. How will that play in the Muslim world?

I’ll tell you how it’ll play — it won’t.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Thursday, January 10th, 2008 | Trackback |

17 Responses to “Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton”

Please.

Got any examples?

How will that play in the Muslim world?

So, we’re to decide who our president will be- not by picking the best candidate- but by appeasing bigots and chauvinists? Okay.

Left by Preston on January 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

…by appeasing bigots and chauvinists?

If that were the case, we’d elect Ron Paul.

Left by Robbie on January 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I would have agreed with you that she was a sane and reasonable voice from the left, had it not been for what she said concerning the reason she is supporting Obambi.

The Obamas represent the future, not the past.

If that were true, and I don’t believe for a nanosecond that it is, then we are so royally screwed that it wouldn’t matter who is elected.
Obama has knowledge of Christianity? From who, this guy? His alleged minister has been described by a man I know, thusly:

In several C. A. countries we found a rampant idealogy
of humanistic collectivist Marxism selling itself to the
people as ‘Christian’ under title, “Liberation Theology.”
The resulting damage to religion, governments, and
people, goes on to this day.

I recently went to Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s
church site to read what his ‘pastor’ teaches - and he
obviously supports. I found Liberation Theology &
Racial Collectivism (Black) - neither of which is Bible-
based, or Christian, or American-principled. Little is
even said in behalf of Jesus other than superficial
camouflage. It is a site dedicated to pure humanistic
error.

I think Camille has a valuable insight into Mrs. Clinton, but is, like so many others, caught up in the emotion of Obambi’s gobbledy-goop rhetoric, and empty platitudes, because she wants to believe them.
Here’s Obambi’s church website.

Left by no2liberals on January 10th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Interesting!
Is Obambi a Muslim or an apostate?

All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.

In sum: Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he “for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father.”

Therefore, what MMfA calls the “Obama-Muslim falsehood” is in fact confirmed by both articles as truthful and accurate.

Calling this a falsehood is in itself a falsehood.

From Daniel Pipes.

Left by no2liberals on January 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Obama has knowledge of Christianity?

I forgot- this year are we voting for President or Pope?


Is Obambi a Muslim or an apostate?

So the party whose candidates are racing to see you can give the biggest “fuck you” to the Muslim world is suddenly concerned that Muslims might not like that the President’s grandfather was Muslim? What a bunch of phonies.

Left by Preston on January 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Camille Paglia is truly a genius and her prose is an art.
I really like this spot-on comment about Hillary:

She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark

Goodness, does America want to go back to “…vast right-wing conspiracy…” and Hillary illegally getting political enemies’ FBI files; and that scornful, hateful demeanor that Hillary always has? Gosh, no. Please, be sensible and vote for Obama.

Obama has served longer as an elected official than Hillary. He has had experience as a grass-roots activist, and he is also a highly educated lawyer…

Left by B W on January 10th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Preston, you really need to read the links.
Camille said he has knowledge of both Christianity and Islam, and I say he doesn’t, but she is basing part of her decision to support him on that contention. She, as you, hasn’t given it much thought.
As for if he is a muslim, in Islam, if your father is muslim, then you are by birthright, add to that he attended madrassah’s and prayed at mosques with his FIL, he has satisfied all the requirements of a muslim. So that claiming to be a Christian, although his church is more of a black supremacist organization that uses Christianity for cover, he is an apostate. By Sharia Law, any muslim is obligated to kill any apostate on sight. That doesn’t present some complicated scenarios if he is dealing with any muslim nations, as POTUS?
Being called a phony by an uninformed liberal zealot makes me cry Hillary tears.
/ Don’t cry Hillary

Left by no2liberals on January 10th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

I honestly can’t believe what I’m reading: American conservatives are basing their votes for President on Sharia law. WTF?!?

Left by Preston on January 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am

“American conservatives are basing their votes for President on Sharia law.”
i read this thread several times and can understand why you may want to try and stretch that misinterpretation but i didn’t get that impression at all.
on the flipside, a conversation about basing votes on white guilt definately appears to be in order. or perhaps we should discuss the sense in endorsing a candidate over gender. it’s hillarious that in the party of “progressives”, we’ve finally reached a point where the backlash of hollow pc ideaology has democrats fighting over which victim should be the next to represent them. really, what’s the difference?

Left by adam on January 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Camille Paglia doesn’t speak for me- she’s the same journalistic psychobabble you get from Maureen Dowd or cable news.

If you go to an actual debate between progressives there is no discussion such as you describe.

As for Sharia law, I was informed that I can’t vote for Senator Clinton because Muslim men would object and that I can’t vote for Senator Obama because Muslim theocrats would object. It sounds like the search for dhimmitude should begin at home.

Left by Preston on January 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

“If you go to an actual debate between progressives there is no discussion such as you describe. ”

on the contrary, most liberal debate seems to be concerning obama vs. clinton, which is essentially what i said. you aren’t seriously trying to suggest that these two are the best the democrats have to offer as leaders for the country? just out of curiosity, where would one find “an actual debate between progressives”?

Left by adam on January 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Well, if you don’t have any liberal friends try a blog.

Are they the ‘best’? I don’t know, but they’re good and any discussion on their merits has little to do with their race or gender as I read the following to suggest:

it’s hillarious that in the party of “progressives”, we’ve finally reached a point where the backlash of hollow pc ideaology has democrats fighting over which victim should be the next to represent them. really

Left by Preston on January 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

“Well, if you don’t have any liberal friends try a blog.”

tried a variety of both and neither was “good”. in fact i’ve seen little in any liberal context that doesn’t primarily highlight race or sex, usually not so subtly veiled by words like “historic” or “change”. but seriously, the platforms are essentially indistinguishable, extremely vague, and naive.

Left by adam on January 11th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

I honestly can’t believe what I’m reading: American conservatives are basing their votes for President on Sharia law. WTF?!?

No, once again you are way off.
I would never vote for a donk, first off, as I’m a devout anti-Marxist. Secondly, I would never vote for a muslim, stealth or practicing, for any public office.
Hope you can grasp that info correctly.

Left by no2liberals on January 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Nice walkback.

Left by Preston on January 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Not sure what you mean.
But for your difficulty in comprehending what you have read from me, I tried to be as clear as possible.

Left by no2liberals on January 11th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

camille paglia (aka: cruella de mon) rubs me the wrong way.

Left by misspris on July 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.