Saturday, June 4, 2016

Hillary Rallies With an All-Star Cast in Culver City, CA (6/3/16)

After a series of great introductory speeches, Hillary comes in at the 1 hour & 15 minute mark.

At the Culver City event at West Los Angeles College tied to Women for Hillary, Clinton was joined by Hollywood celebrities, elected officials and labor and community activists, including Elizabeth Banks, Sally Field, Sophia Bush, Mary Steenburgen and Debra Messing. Samantha Ronson served as DJ.

A number of her surrogates also delivered sharp attacks on Trump. Messing called him a “reckless bigot and misogynist,” while Banks got in a few digs at Trump University.

“He ran a university. It no longer exists. He had a TV show. It no longer exists. He had hair …” she said to laughs.

Clinton made a reference to the Los Angeles Film Festival, noting that she heard that about half of the directors with films there were women.
“We are moving towards answering the age old question, ‘Are Americans ready for a women director?” The comment drew laughs.
She said that “we are going to break the celluloid ceiling. Then, starting next Tuesday we are on our way to breaking the highest and hardest ceiling.”
Several of the celebrities addressed a double standard that exists between female and male candidates.

Steenburgen, a longtime friend of Clinton’s from their days in Arkansas, said that men don’t face the same criticism when they “think before they speak.” With women, she said, candidates can be called “calculated.” That had been a word used to attack Clinton.

Field mocked all the attention paid to whether Clinton was “likable.”

“Over the past month I have heard the word ‘likability’ used so frequently — how Hillary Clinton is not likable. How she is cold or shrill or opportunistic or not someone you would want to have a beer with. What is this? A high school popularity contest?” she said. “She is not running to be everybody’s friend. She is running to be the president of the United States at a critical time in human history.”

She said that what is needed is a “a president who is smart, strong, wise, experienced.”

She refuted the idea that women candidates had to be “nice.”

“We don’t need sugar and spice and everything nice,” she added. “We do need kindness. We do need generosity. And these qualities are not the same as being likable.”


  1. part 1:

    kindness, generosity yes,

    the sexist part is when a woman is seen as castrating just for not being nice, and that depends on the man, whether or not he's one that has 'protection' and on the woman who points out his lack, whether or not she's earned that right.

    It's all perception, none of it's real, but for all that, it exists.

    Not everyone has the right to tell you that you don't know. (your mom can, your friends younger brother can't --- your mom can't, your teacher can --- your teacher can't, your father can, --- your father can't god can)

    You see it with kids, the youngest kid can't mock the older one without causing him or her shame, and that shame may lead to violence. But if the younger kid does and older kids side with the younger one, the older kid is 'destroyed.' Men can't get ahead by respecting themselves alone, they need respect and from certain quarters.

    Even with chimps, the head chimp is male but gets the job from the females. They protect him and they back his replacement, without him necessarily knowing how he got the job.

    Men get their egos protected all the time, for various reasons. But it's mostly so they won't find out that they're not as masterful as they wish and their supporter wish for them, (or are thought to wish).

    It's a question of who has the right. A 'man' may be challenged by someone deemed worthy enough, it's a matter of prestige, a clash between Titans is always honorable, but girls by definition lack it. A challenge from a girl is a challenge to masculinity itself.

    Women know this, whether or not we know what we know, there are things we are not permitted to say without risking severe backlash, but that men can say them. It's about shame.

    Hillary did something top women can do, if they have the confidence and are willing to take the risk. In taking him on she 'showed up' the male establishment, that could not take on Donald without diminishing themselves in the process. She wasn't gratuitously nasty, and she wasn't dripping with sarcasm, she let his words speak without anything extra-editorial.

  2. part 2:

    She wrote the Donald term paper, she said what she was going to say, she said it, and then she said what she'd said. She used primary sources and she provided a bibliography. She backed it all up, she didn't wait to be challenged and then defend, she included the challenges in the term paper, A+.

    And somehow she got away with it, in that she incited jealousy, not envy. No Republican defended Donald (a few attacked her, but just on grading, said she didn't make her own plans clear enough, and of course she has all along, foreign policy is principles and examples, not a cookbook.)

    instead of feeling shame (from envy), they are competing with her (from jealousy), in writing their own Donald term papers, not hating her for having done what she isn't allowed to do.

    i am not totally sure how it worked, but part of it was her delivery, she didn't bombast, she said it simply and directly. She didn't laugh (only the line about him probably tweeting and that was daring). She nodded when her audience laughed, but she was serious, she was agreeing seriously that they got the joke.

    And part of it was she framed truth, if you say the truth and it's heard, it creates an acknowledged truth on the level of received wisdom (university discourse), and now what she said is there and can't be denied, you can't put the genie back into the bottle.

    And she entertained them, the audience was with her, she didn't put herself above the audience, she didn't speak down, she was there for them (us).

    and it was timing, she'd been holding it back, giving everyone else a chance first, and Bernie stepping on her toes asking to debate Trump gave her cover, he was obviously being an insulting jerk, he opened a 'she deserves the pleasure of taking down Trump.'

    And preparation, she didn't just say stuff, she turned it into a piece of popular cultural scholarship.

    And it's all true, Donald is dangerously incoherent, he has no policies, he has no idea what he is saying, as anyone can plainly see (now, since provided with that frame, there isn't much choice).

    (She gave Donald a copy hours before, and he still fell into it, claiming he hadn't said what he'd said, which proved he doesn't know.

    She took the risk that she had him down, she knows Donald, knew he would prove incapable of a coherent response that showed he knew what she'd said and what he'd said, even given a copy hours in advance.)

    the battle is always for prestige, pure prestige

    Donald got a spanking.

    you have to know your enemies to take them down, but that's not all you have to know, and there are always some risks.

    the coup part is no one sided with him, they all sided with her, so he's destroyed.

    When that happens to kids it's unspeakably cruel, but to Donald who has cheated so many of what little they had ..... you decide