home

New McCarthyism, Hillary Style

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:06:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Atrios, Glenn Greenwald catches Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doing her George Bush imitation:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Shameful. Via Doug Mataconis, Hillary back in the day, on the GOP New McCarthyism on the Iraq Debacle:

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’ “

Speaking for me only

< House Rejects Libya Action | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New McCarthyism, Hillary Style | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Count me as against the Aspiration Bombs (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    I guess I heart Qadafi. I'll order a t-shirt.

    Really way out of line there Madam Secretary.

    Ugh. Just ugh. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    I truly hate this kind of rhetoric, this with-us-or-against-us garbage.

    us-or-against-us garbage (1.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    rhetoric is a staple of your posts Anne on other matters.
    If all wars are equal and Iraq=Libya, logic and consistency demands that all health care policies are equal, i.e. ACA=single payer. If the only discriminator on issues relating to war is war Vs no war, then the only discriminator on issues relating to health care is health care Vs no health care.
    I did not like the rhetoric of HRC on Libya but you and your friends in TL are no saints when it comes to garbage rhetoric. It is like the pot calling the kettle black.

    Parent
    If all wars are equal? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 04:03:30 PM EST
    Who said that?

    No one.  Ever.  Except the rare and ultimately committed pacifist.

    Strawman made of air.

    And your notion that if someone did believe every single war in history was wrong, then that somehow must translate to every other debate about every other subject, well, I'll let that piece of "logic" speak for itself.

    Parent

    This attack on Anne (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    is totally unwarranted, inaccurate, untrue, and uncalled for.  Is an ad hominem attack on a woman "ad feminam"?

    Parent
    Your q made me google (none / 0) (#55)
    by Nemi on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    Close but not quite, ad feminam:
    An ad feminam is an ad hominem attack, used in attempt to defeat a woman's argument. An example would be the response "Is it your time of the month?" to a woman making an argument.


    Parent
    Yup, and let's be clear ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Hillary was speaking for the administration.  This is the Obama policy.  This ain't an example of Hillary "going off the reservation".

    Parent
    she's not off the reservation (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CST on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    she's also not a pawn.

    Parent
    Yes, she's ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    clearly committed to this policy.  But let's not pretend this exact language wasn't vetted by the Administration.

    She's been making statements like this for past two months.

    Parent

    Agree. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    She's a part of the administration.

    But framing what should be a dispassionate (dreamer) discussion in that manner is way off base.

    Parent

    I love it cuz I am NOT on the Clint-0-Bummer side (none / 0) (#44)
    by seabos84 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 09:51:37 PM EST
    of $ell out$!

    when liberal / progressives / the left "leaders"

    stop being f'king retards about using fear and hate, we'll STOP losing.

    ALL us bottom dwelling pee-ons should FEAR the power of the top 1%, AND

    ALL us bottom dwelling pee-ons should HATE policy which favors the top 1% over us bottom dwellers.

    rmm.

    Parent

    Yes, Ms. Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    Yes, Ms. Clinton, we can be with the Libyan people while still thinking that defying our own constitution so we can bomb them isn't the right approach for "saving them".

    It's called shades of grey, shades of grey! I remember saying that so many times during the Bush era.

    Double yes... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    there must be some way we can stand with the Libyan people that doesn't involve raining death from above, and crossing our fingers we killed the "bad guys"...intelligent people like Hillary and Barack surely know this, which means they are being disingenuous, as usual.

    Lets try a Nader or a McMillan...you guys ready yet or is it gonna take another 50 years of the Brand D and Brand R lipstick on a pig shuffle?

    Parent

    okay, kdog (none / 0) (#13)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:30:42 PM EST
    What do you think? Given that you (and many of us) would like to find a way to support the Libyan people, how should we proceed? Are you thinking about long, intermediate, or short-term support? Would the time-period preferred have anything to do with Qaddafi's bombing his own people (aka the rebels?) If your take is that the time period is somehow related to Qaddafi's actions in the immediate past, would it be better to have a short term approach (e.g., military support in the NATO sense or a variation) or a long-term approach (international resolutions, etc.)

    One note: The Arab League asked for our assistance in this one...as did the EU countries of Britain, France, & Italy. And, they apparently asked openly & loudly for that assistance to allow for a chance for the now-dubbed "Arab Spring" to continue in Libya before Qaddafi could eradicate the rebels. A very tricky dilemma. And, if "politics ain't beanbag," international Springs (or otherwise) haven't been demonstrated to be resolved by kumbaya.

    Yes, a bit of spouting from me. The whole thing is frustrating. It especially stings after (as the President has pointed out in his statement Wednesday night) after 10 years of war and the ugliness in loss of lives throughout the world that that has entailed. But, the question raised by Egypt earlier this year--when so many people here advocated heavier intervention on our part--is going to keep coming up in the coming years. The "little wars": What are they & what should they be...and, most definitely, WHEN & WHY should they be? (Yep, it most certainly would have been cleaner, better to have that consultation with Congress about Libya...but, here we are & I suspect we would have been here in any event.)


    Parent

    Tough questions... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    especially to ask of an admitted knucklehead, but here it goes.

    I tend to run isolationist in regards to military intervention myself...I'd help the Libyan people by doing stuff like...

    A) Seize Qaddafi's offshore money and assets, spread it amongst the Libyan people.

    B) Humanitairian Aid up the wazoo...whatever they need except for weapons.

    C) If their rebellion fails, offer poltical asylum here in the US or in Europe for freedom seeking rebels.

    D) Probably not feasible without great sacrifice, but stop buying oil from sc*mbags and giving them the means to oppress.

    Just a few off the top of the dome...how did I do? :)

    Parent

    Remember ... (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    we don't really support "the people" of Libya.  We support a faction of the military.  A faction that wanted to overthrow Qaddifi.  But couldn't even overthrow an aluminum lawn chair.  And UN reports have found they're as guilty of war crimes as the government forces.

    There is no rebellion.  This is a six-to-one and pick 'em war.  In short, standard third world nonsense.  If they didn't have oil, we wouldn't touch it with an 18,000 mile barge pole.

    Parent

    "If they didn't have oil..." (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    Goes without saying my friend:)

    Thanks for the recap, haven't really been following it, as I haven't really been following Iraq or Afghanistan.

    After years of following our occupations and foreign mis-adventures semi-closely, and the high blood pressure that went with it,  I came to grips with the fact I am not willing to do what is necessary to try and stop it.  Tax revolt, laying down on the runway as the supply planes take-off getting locked up, or setting myself on fire at the White House gate...better men and women than I take the necessary steps and necessary risks to life and limb.  

    Parent

    Pretty good (& not at all isolationist) (none / 0) (#22)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    Your points A & B would always be my preferred options. One thing: Real complexities in delivering $$ or humanitarian goods to the populace in need IF Qaddafi is in full military charge.

    The MidEast-Oil-As-Life's-Blood situation doesn't go away, does it! (Just witness the media, followed by US populace, outburst over the rising cost of gas in the past few months...enough to take an Administration down, as President Carter well remembers & all succeeding Presidents have re-learned.)

    Nope, you don't even pose well as a "knucklehead," kdog. And, if you did, you would be one of the favorite "knuckleheads" even for a would-be isolationist.

    After my statements about practicalities, know what: I'm practicing wishful thinking that NATO can successfully conclude this operation quickly now in a way allows for a portion of self-determination in Libya.

    Parent

    You're too kind, as always... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    Another thing to consider, which our leaders perpetually fail to consider, is blowback.  Everytime we arm somebody or intervene military it bites us in the arse eventually.

    Much like a domestic dispute, it can be heartbreaking not to get involved, but it is often the best play, lest those in the domestic dispute reconcile to gang up on you...nobody likes an interloper, even a benevolent one.  

    And besides, our house is a mess and "get thy own house in order" is always good advise.  At the end of the day the Libyan government is the responsibility of Libyans and Libyans alone.


    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    IMO, all your suggestions are pie in the sky stuff without military backing. 15 years ago we could not even distribute food in Somalia because the Somali warlords would determine who got to eat and who did not by seizing our humanitarian aid.
    Are you writing stuff just for writing's sake? If we just send humanitarian aid, all that aid is going to end up in the hands of Gadaffi's forces while the rebels get slaughtered.
    We have already seized Gadaffi's offshore money, there were reports that it would be distributed among people fighting Gadaffi's forces.

    Parent
    Somalia (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 04:48:06 PM EST
    If we wanted to, we could have flown so many sorties over that country, dropped so much food and medicine and every other necessity, that no amount of warlords could ever confiscate or control it.  

    Just saying.

    Imagination has no limits, the military most certainly does.

    That said, certainly violence is sometimes, though rarely, necessary to protect and defend oneself.  However, the violence of modern warfare is almost never genuinely defensive.  Hence we are MIRED overseas in the kind of foolish entanglements about which our founders warned us specifically.

    We have nothing to lose in trying other, less violent things.  More people might die?  Yes, they might, and they also might not.  And, um, when you start dropping bombs more people DO die, always have and will. Somehow that part never gets mentioned when non-violence is criticized. Please, at least have the self-critical ability to say "I also realize that my more military-centric approach can certainly lead to more death and bloodshed than imaginable."

    Parent

    Cheers mate... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 05:52:42 PM EST
    Ya do the best ya can, but first you do no harm.


    Parent
    "Ya do the best ya can (none / 0) (#42)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 08:27:20 PM EST
    but first you do no harm" rationale is the reason why banks got the bailouts and the Deal was made. Life savings in 401Ks for a lot of folks, unemployment compensations, etc would have to be sacrificed for a lot of vulnerable people (and in the process a lot of people would have been badly hit in the short term) if your (and those of many other TL posters) demands for regime change in Wall Street and a complete overhaul of our economic system were listened to by the Obama administration. The banksters and ultra rich in the United States (or in any other country) are like the Gadaffis. They do not wish to relinquish their power and wealth, they are also willing to hold everybody else as hostages to preserve their lifestyles.

    Parent
    The harm of our... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 06:54:43 AM EST
    bailout shakedown was pawning off the eventual collapse and rebuild on our grandkids instead of shouldering the burden ourselves.

    We were being held hostage, absolutely right...we paid the ransom instead of resisting, allowing ourselves to be held hostage again and again.

    Parent

    But you want a ransom to be paid (none / 0) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:09:48 AM EST
    to Gadaffi instead of resisting and allowing Libyans to be held hostage again and again.
    I support the prosecution of banksters and want to see all the people who sabotaged our economy to be behind bars. If you remember, I was also totally against the tax deal.
    However, I also want to see Gadaffi being put on trial for all the things he did to Libyans and others and do not want to pay him a ransom unlike a lot of folks here.

    Parent
    FYI (none / 0) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    barely half of the Arab League nations actually voted on this

    Parent
    Where's the shameful/unpatriotic part? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    I say with all respect that the Congress is certainly free to raise any questions or objections, and I'm sure I will hear that tomorrow when I testify.

    Remarks

    That's a nice concession on her part (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    while she says that if they do so they will be standing with Ghaddafi.

    Parent
    And if someone is standing with Ghaddafi, (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    doesn't that mean it is ok to blow up their house with a drone, regardless of who else lives there?

    Parent
    Difficult question, (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    Glad I don't have the responsibility to answer it. But it's not a new question, all soldiers have to decide how to handle enemy combatants who use family, or other innocents, as shields.

    Like I said, glad its not my decision.


    Parent

    Oh, man .. are you ever suffering (none / 0) (#58)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    from an irony deficiency!

    Parent
    that was irony? (none / 0) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    o.k.

    btw, are you, by any chance, related to Dr. Frist?

    Parent

    We thought she was smarter (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    Clinton, of all people should understand that her statement is way out of line.  Suppressing opinion about US foreign policy is unAmerican. With us or against us also distracts from the serious discussion the nation needs to have about the military, its place in our society and future US foreign policy.  We still have a Cold War mentality that's, IMO, flushing us down the drain.

    Beyond Clinton's remarks, does the State Department even know who we're assisting?  If there are factions among the rebels how do we know which faction would gain control if Qadhafi is overthrown.  How do we know Libya might just end up with another Qadhafi.

    IMO, from a policy standpoint we should recognize that this is an internal conflict within Libya and jumping into the fray is unwise at best.

    The "how do we know" (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:23:35 PM EST
    Great questions. Clearly, we don't know whether one dictator would replace another. The fact that EU nations such as France, Britain, & Italy talked loudly urging our intervention (apparently wanting US as the leader) probably only reflects their own strong interest in Libyan oil. The open request from the Arab League, together with the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution, is a bit more difficult to explain away...esp in terms of present & future international relations in the area.

    But, you are correct that we cannot know what will happen with replacement. As in Egypt: In speaking with a good friend who spent a month plus in Cairo (her husband's family home is near Tahrir Sq.) in Apr to May, this usually calm, non-plussed person told me of the definite inroads of the religious influence that she & other women relatives were starting to feel. She remarked that it may just be the unsettling events in any transition. As you say, we don't know. It takes awhile.

    Parent

    Secretary Clinton's (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    'whose side are you on' is as unfortunate as it is predictable.  Unfortunate for it diminishes her credibility, and predictable for it reacts to the desperation of a threadbare casus belli. But what is most saddening to me is the willingness of so many Americans to be hoodwinked into yet another war, or if you please, non-war.

    Libya seems to me to be an example of a war marketed with a lofty mission only to evolve, within days not weeks, into a new species, like one coming out of water onto land.  And, this species comes to like its new surroundings and plans to stay a while. Indeed, it can't go back.

    But, the feelings are not mutual (e.g. For Libya, in March 21, 47% approve, 37% disapprove and June 22, 39% approve, 46% disapprove).  And, second thoughts emerge: the head of the Arab League, who played a central role is now looking to a cease-fire; NATO ally, Foreign Minters of Italy also wants a cease-fire, the African Union calls for an end to NATO bombing with concern for abuse of UN resolution 1973). And now a bipartisan effort is developing that is not of the variety typically strived for by the administration.

     But, we never seem to learn, the next war will be marketed as (fill in the blank) only to be unconditionally supported initially, then doubts will be expressed after the fact and more widely only to find them questioned as to " what side you are on, anyhow."

    McCarthyism it ain't (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by White Hat on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    Haven't read Hillary's full speech, but the quotes really don't read like either McCarthyism or Bushisms to me. In light of the mixed messages from the House today (voting not to approve the war while refusing to defund it), calling on Congress in particular to make a clear choice on the matter seems perfectly appropriate. She might have left out the rather clumsy rhetoric, but since her job is to support the president's policy, maybe even that isn't unforgiveable.

    Maybe we could tone down our rhetoric too. McCarthyism it ain't. Bush-like fraud it ain't. Not pro-war myself, but get real.

    Kudos (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    and correct you are.  Poster's use of the term is incorrect, although poster must know the definition.  So the question is interesting as to why this red flag was waved?

    Parent
    Excuses and condemnations. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Addison on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    (a) You, of course, are past shock on this issue and know that this is just what the executive branch does. I would go further and say that in some sense this "controversy" and even the fact that Americans are against Obama on this helps Obama, since how can an authoritarian warmonger be weak on defense?! Or so goes the conversation in the WH, anyway.

    (b) I think that the context of her comments (bringing up Republican faux-opposition and the political fallout) and especially the last sentence ("For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy") places this binary decision within the realm of insider political decision-making and not necessarily her ultimatum for everyone else. In other words, she's talking about how the administration came to its decision, not how others should come to theirs.

    That said, this is all sorts of screwed up. I wonder if Obama is kicking himself for not getting some slim approval when the thing first kicked off (if the UN approved it, certainly he could've wrangled some sort of thumbs up from Congress). War is now apparently above a citizen's pay grade and not to be decided by democratic means.

    I actually agree with most of what President Obama does. Most times I wish his process-makers had a better sense of timing and tactics, though.

    Is this the Madwoman (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    theory of politics?

    Yeah, that is a bunch of bull. (none / 0) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:46:14 PM EST


    A classic (none / 0) (#5)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    The institutional assertions of power; the Executive & the Legislature wanting to expand and/or protect their interpretation of their Constitutional authority. In this case: It appears that it would have been better to have the conversation/do the hand-holding beforehand, etc....in that, as most commenters for various orgs that I've heard, it would have been quite unlikely that this military support effort would have been denied to the WH (esp. surrounded by the early euphoria of Arab Spring.)

    Meantime. stepped up negotiations abroad are reported as to Qaddafi's replacement & all that. In a strange way, I'm wondering how all this periodic "power" definition plays into the debt-ceiling outcome...particularly, Boehner's rushing to the fore to sound the alarm on behalf of his caucus and the Libya vote, rushing to the fore after Cantor quit the negotiations & passed to Boehner...maybe allowing for a resolution of the revenue aspect of the current deficit issue without losing "too much face" in his party as he points to scoring points of "power" on Libya. Stranger things have happened; & stranger things in settlements are quite common.

    Just another Sign ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    though Liberals keep trying to deny it, that the Obama administration is Bush II.

    Maybe you meant to say that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:18:30 PM EST
    "progressives" keep trying to deny that Obama is Bush III - because I don't know any liberals who think that it isn't.

    Parent
    YMMV ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    let's just agree that TOO PEOPLE DENY IT.  

    And most of these people should know better.  Be they liberal, progressive, or one of Captain Video's Video Rangers they all should know better.

    Parent

    TOO MANY PEOPLE (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    typo ...

    Parent
    I have a question....I apologize it's off topic (none / 0) (#19)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    I had an exchange today with the mother of a marine who just returned from Afghanistan. Why would they be offering him a $20000.00 bonus to sign up again.....if indeed we are supposed to be taking the troops home.

    Depends on what his MOS is (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    You probably have spent a great deal of money training this person.  In certain MOS's it will cost you  millions to replace him and even though we are talking draw down the military is always hiring the best they can find.  They are one of the few organizations still compelled to improve itself and maintain the best at this time because there is still a demand for what they provide and their success is very politically important too.  It can cost you $20,000 to retain this person, or millions to replace this person.

    Parent
    Tracey....Thank You (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by samsguy18 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:04:03 AM EST
     Although My head understands how important our troops are for the country.....my heart wants them all home safe and sound.

    Parent
    The statement (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 04:04:19 PM EST
    is loathsome. We have gotten into many a useless and unnecessary war with that kind of rhetoric.

    The statement is a common tactic (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 04:13:02 PM EST
    As for me, the "with me or against me" stuff is neither here nor there. People use such statements to push in all the various war undertakings I've witnessed...and people use it in other situations to press for a position wherein the other side doesn't truly represent good or rationality or the people or even (praise be) the real Democrats.

    But, the statement--while always reflective of either a weak argument or a passionate conviction--is merely a statement made in argument. Frankly, IMO, I'd rather see less of the type of "we good--you bad" usage there or, sometimes, here.

    Parent

    The House loves it some Gaddafi (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 04:19:18 PM EST
    What a bunch of dictator terrorism creating lovers they are :) Could anybody have said anything more pathetic than this today?  Usually the Republicans steal the most pathetic statement of the day every single day, but not this day.

    I said something more pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    Had a tiff with my wife about her not taking today off like she was supposed to.  This woman has worked her way up to VP, negotiated five weeks of paid vacation for herself, and still she feels like she has to be there every day or they'll think she's a slacker.  I tell her "Your mom's in town for the day, she's eighty, you can take a day off."  Wife still won't give in, insists on going in for the afternoon.  So I finally have had it, desperate house-husband that I am, and I say, "You know, you should have WELCOME written right down the middle of you, because you, my dear, are a doormat."  She wasn't amused.

    Now that's pathetic.

    Parent

    Did you apologize? (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 06:05:34 PM EST
    Maybe just maybe the executive is feeling pressed from all sides? Heck...it is a common malady for women who have seen success to continue to push & push in the famous search-for-respect from the colleagues. Yep, a propensity for men & women who have worked their way up...some of my female friends & I have been caught in that. (it is hard to pull back.)

    Empathy helps.

    Parent

    I empathize ok (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    It's the random mean line I've always gotta toss in like an as-hole.  I don't like my mean streak.  Or that it's going grey like the rest of my head.

    Parent
    And yes, I apologized (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:56:50 PM EST
    For being mean.  And, corporate thick-skinned gal that she ultimately is, she said she didn't even hear it as mean, "Nope, not at all, all I heard was you were pissed.  You have to be a lot worse than that doormat line for me to take it personally."

    Parent
    A smart lady! (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 12:39:02 AM EST


    Parent
    no-vacation nation n/t (none / 0) (#46)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:24:41 PM EST


    Parent
    What HRC said doe snot surprise me in the least (none / 0) (#45)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 10:56:50 PM EST


    To be fair... (none / 0) (#50)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    The Qadhafi regime killed a bunch of people and then announced their intention to kill more people.  This really was/is a humanitarian crisis.  I get how the rhetoric sounds GMBish but this isn't some war we started for oil.

    light, sweet crude (none / 0) (#51)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Why Gomer! That's not my belly button!

    Parent
    Snappy comeback, BUT (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    the earlier evidence does support what masslib stated. Difficult dilemma, isn't it...especially with the humanitarian facts that the UN and its member nations have validated?

    Parent
    You really should check again. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Romberry on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:02:45 PM EST
    What you just posted are talking points that really bear little relation to actual events. Qadhafi wasn't engaging in massacres, nor is there any evidence at all that he and his forces were planning to.

    Parent
    New McCarthyism, Hillary Style | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment