When I first heard about the #BanBossy movement, a movement that is backed by Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg and The Girl Scouts, I was incredulous.
First progressives emasculate America’s men; now, they are emasculating its women!
Professor Jacobson was right to be concerned about the tendency of “low information voters” to respond to victimization campaigns, and that this approach might be poll-testing well in studies done by Democratic operatives. And it seems to be an obvious effort to hamstring Republican challenges to Hillary’s actions as Senator and Secretary of State, which are justifiable points of discussion during a campaign in 2016.
As I Democrat, I wanted to remind Legal Insurrection fans of the Democratic primaries of 2008. I assert that part of the reason we are in the midst of the most inept presidency in the entire history of the country (about 400 years, according to Sheila Jackson Lee) is that Hillary wasn’t “bossy” enough.
My first stint with citizen activism wasn’t with the Tea Party. It was with PUMA. There are several variations on that acronym, the most tasteful being: People United Means Action.
PUMAs are the disenfranchised Democrats who refused to follow the direction of the Democratic National Committee in their selection of Barack Obama as the illegitimate nominee for president. Obama supporters point out that he got more delegates. So do the dictators, aka Howard Dean}, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. A few facts should be considered, though. 1–Obama outspent Sen. Hillary Clinton by a ratio of 4:1 from March-June 2008. 2–Clinton garnered more than 600,000 more votes than Obama during that period. 3–Clinton won more votes in both Texas and Nevada, yet Obama was given more delegates. 4–During the March-June period, the so-called Democratic leadership continued to call for Clinton to drop out of the race, for the sake of “party unity.” Clinton still got more votes. 5–Clinton earned more votes than any other candidate seeking nomination for the presidency in American history. 6–Despite the overwhelming support for Clinton, party “leaders” selected Obama.
I followed the convention from a distance, on PUMA boards where posts of convention-goers were visible. Hillary supporters were called “whores” and “bitches”. They were harassed in the elevators. Delegates were refused seating. In fact, here is a video reminder, when they were going to negate the votes of 600,000 Michigan voters in the push to select Obama.
It’s been a long time, but I remember vividly a video showing a grandmother who was a longtime Democrat activist weeping because Hillary supporters were being railroaded at every turn. She couldn’t believe that, as a feminist, all her efforts at being respected were as nothing to the Democratic leadership.
Because Hillary Clinton failed to fight, Obama was allowed to use arcane rules, caucus-loading, and super-delegates to win the nomination.
Many wish she would have tapped her inner #Bossy then. And, of course, a bit of #Bossy would have been great in Benghazi — but, I digress.
Subsequently, PUMA Democrats changed party registration. Many, like myself, organized into “Democrats for McCain” efforts. That, my friends, is how I became a Palin Democrat.
So, the #BanBossy effort is ludicrous on many levels…including the fact that Hillary isn’t when it’s needed most.
In her recent column in The Washington Post, Tammy Bruce touches on why we need to #BeBossy:
I don’t suppose Ms. Sandberg and Ms. Chavez get the irony of how being bossy as girls (and the jealousy they encountered) was very probably the trait that informed their drive to achieve more in life than even they could have imagined.
Amazingly, conservatives (young and old alike) manage to thrive despite being called all sorts of names by liberals, including racist, sexist, homophobic, racist, mean, racist, Nazis, Brownshirts, terrorists, dumb, dumber, and, oh yeah, racist.
Another “bossy” woman, Teri O’Brien of the self-named Red State Radio show and “America’s Conservative Warrior Princess” and I also discuss this subject on Canto Talk this week!
Two final points:
1) If Hillary Clinton had won in 2008, she might not have been a raging presidential success — but it is hard to imagine her administration being as awful as our current one.
2) Legal Insurrection Editor Mandy Nagy will #BeBossy with me on Canto Talk this upcoming Thursday (March 20).
In conclusion: PUMAs never, ever forget.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Neither do Grahams: Ne Oublie
Leslie, nobody can emasculate women, except figuratively.
Hillary Clinton isn’t bossy; she’s just ring down, stone cold, mean bitchy. Just ask the guy who ran the WH travel office, kinda hard since he may be dead by now, Juanita Broderick and all the women she slimed, and the military staffers whom she treated like slavish lackeys.
Now, Sarah Palin is bossy, cuz she gets things done, and successfully controlled a rather bureaucracy. Bossy is positive. Hillary? Ring down, stone cold, mean, incompetent bitchy.
Not much difference between Hillary and Obama. Both are hard core Alinskyite Marxist Communists; both are huge statists; both believe in government control of the American economy and people; both lie faster than a horse trots; both are contemptuous of dissent and the Constitution; both are secretive and see nothing wrong with using the power of the various state services to investigate, blackmail, and intimidate citizens.
So, I fail to see how her presidency would not have been as disastrous as Obama’s. No point in saying she.d have had Bill as a guide and how he successfully grew the US economy. He didn’t. He taxed the hell out of it until the GOP forced him to sign Conservative laws.
I devoutly pray Hillary is never elected. The USA can’t be that bad to deserve her after experience the vindictive and incompetent boob that we have now.
Don’t kid yourself, Leslie. The rot goes down pretty far in the Democratic party. Almost the entire leadership is compromised, from Obama through every member of his cabinet (and former members), to members of the Senate and House who vote in lockstep with his agenda.
Had Hillary been elected instead of Obama, things might’ve been different, but only marginally. Remember HillaryCare?
It is of no consolation to say a Hillary-led administration would’ve been “more competent” if the policies supported were fatally flawed.
If we had Clinton 2.0 rather than Obama 1.0 in the Oval Office, we’d be in a different frying pan but over the same fire. In other words, Clinton vs. Obama is a distinction without a substantive difference. One wears pantsuits, the other wears pants ~
actually the other wears sissy-looking mom-jeans
1. I followed the convention from a distance, on PUMA boards where posts of convention-goers were visible. Hillary supporters were called “whores” and “bitches”. They were harassed in the elevators. Delegates were refused seating. In fact, here is a video reminder, when they were going to negate the votes of 600,000 Michigan voters in the push to select Obama.
…
Because Hillary Clinton failed to fight, Obama was allowed to use arcane rules, caucus-loading, and super-delegates to win the nomination.
That sounds…odd…not the way I remember it…oh, yeah:
(boldface mine) In other words, MI apparently flouted DNC rules and held its primary early. (To speculate: from everything I know about the Clintons, it wouldn’t surprise me if Clinton operatives had been surreptitiously encouraging MI to hold an early primary.)
2. If Hillary Clinton had won in 2008, she might not have been a raging presidential success — but it is hard to imagine her administration being as awful as our current one.
It’s not hard for me to imagine. YMMV.
I really wish I had time to detail all the inaccuracies, errors and omissions in your comment. Suffice it to say that David Axelrod wouldn’t have said it any different.
Here’s a rebuttal:
http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/its-rbc-day/
Interesting link. The part that is not clear to me, and I hope you can clarify, is the decision to hold the primary election in January for Michigan & Florida. The link says “Subsequently, the duly elected representatives of the people of Michigan and Florida set their primary elections in January.”
That’s a state legislature decision, right? When did this date get set? Was there a motion prior to the primary election to adjust DNC rules to accommodate the facts on the ground?
There were all kinds of things going on. Hillary wanted to hold revotes in both states. She even offered to pay for the cost.
Obama blocked that idea.
The primary schedule was a Democratic party RULE. The elected representatives of two states disobeyed that rule with legislation.
As a punishment, the Democratic party said they were going to disenfranchise all the millions of Democratic voters in those two states.
That doesn’t seem very democratic to me.
As far as the states were concerned those were both valid primary elections and were legally binding. For months afterwards the media and the Obama campaign (but I repeat myself) insisted that those two primary elections did not count. The term “beauty contest” was often used.
What was never mentioned was that millions of Democrats voted in those states and in both cases they preferred Hillary.
Explain this: Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot, as did Edwards and a couple others. The Obama campaign spread the word that his supporters should vote for “uncommitted” (an option in Michigan) rather than not vote.
On election day, Hillary won handily and “uncommitted” came in second.
On 3/31/08 the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) gave Obama 100% of the uncommitted delegates, as well as four of the delegates awarded to Hillary!
1. myiq2xu | March 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm
The primary schedule was a Democratic party RULE. The elected representatives of two states disobeyed that rule with legislation.
The constraints on primary dates were passed in 2006. MI and FL had ample time to adjust before 2008.
As a punishment, the Democratic party said they were going to disenfranchise all the millions of Democratic voters in those two states.
That doesn’t seem very democratic to me.
The last sentence reminds me of secular leftists who dictate to Christians how they should practice their religion.
2. Why did MI flout the rule? This explanation makes sense to me:
Why should Iowa and New Hampshire determine who our nominees will be? I live in California, and most election years the nominations have been decided before I get a chance to vote.
I was one of the original PUMAs. For the record, PUMA was born at a blog called The Confluence.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/monday-puma-power/
I no longer consider myself a Democrat and I no longer support Hillary Clinton. Nonetheless, it is sad to see so many people repeating the same tired lies about her.
it is hard to imagine her administration being as awful as our current one
**********************************
so what has obama done that she didn’t try to do in her first 2 terms?
people need to smarten up, shes played everyone.
he did what she tried to do and hes taken the blame for it.
shes already gotten what she wants done and he takes the blame.
think about it.
gay in military.
obamacare.
reducing the US world standing
hurting energy companies
the list goes on.
this is ALL stuff she tried to force on us before.
I find it hard to believe that Hillary would have stocked her administration with corrupt Chicago hacks and flunkies. On the other hand, Chicago doesn’t have a monopoly on corruption.
You’re forgetting some of the corrupt ones that Bubba held close.
John Podesta
Rahm Emanuel
Janet Reno
Eric Holder
Andrew Cuomo
Algore
Harold Ickes
Easy to do when Hillary herself is corrupt. Remember Whitewater? Remember cattle futures trading? Remember Billy Dale of the WH travel office? Remember Vince Foster? Remember AR troopers pimping for Bill? Remember Benghazi?
Yes Hillary would have found her hacks and flunkies from Arkansas and other parts of the country the Dem party does not have a shortage. Where do I find the list of all Hillary’s accomplishments while serving the public? Hillary a low information voters XXX dream.
Name a more qualified Democrat.
Who ya gonna call? Joe Biden? Jerry Brown? Nancy Pelosi?
1. Name a more qualified Democrat.
Fortunately you pointed out that you’re no longer a Democrat and no longer support Hillary.
2. But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
(boldface mine) No longer being a regular at LI, I don’t know when & why your change of support occurred.
3. I’ve criticized Leslie Eastman’s post (hopefully fairly), but I give her credit for being candid about where she’s coming from.
In answer to #2, the events surrounding the incident in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 were the key factor, but my support for both her and the Democratic party had been waning for years before that.
What on earth is she qualified to do? Gain the most frequent flier miles? If she’s the most qualified democrat then that corrupt and Communist party is in for a world of hurt. But what can you expect from a party that consists of people who don’t care about God, life, the truth, and people who are willfully ignorant as long as their snouts can go into the public trough.
Also, with this comment of yours, yiq-1/4xm.
“We need OUR people in there [the travel office]!!” — HRC.
Sounds like a Stalin-Trotsky sort of thing. Mary Poppins ain’t in it.
In 1968, I was very active in the DFL and there were then open signs of the Communist / Socialist rot that became very clear by 1972 when McGovern ran. By then, the old idea that a person could be a conservative American Democrat, like Senator Scoop Jackson, was dead.
Leslie, what your article shows is that no one who wants to follow rules should pretend that rules, laws, judgments, or facts have any further basis regarding the Democrat Party in any way. The Dems now are only concerned with excising raw power and using it to crush anyone who gets in their way; my view applies to how I see Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, the Clintons and have for many years now.
Hell, name one active Dem politician who would support defending the USA against any and all aggressors, foreign or domestic, and that person is finished in the Dem. party.
Leslie, how is it you are still a Democrat?
Technically, I am still registered as a Democrat, but that’s only because I never bothered to re-register as an independent.
You’re still in Hillary’s corner; there’s nothing technical about your affiliation.
You’re wrong.
There’s a film about Hillary supporters — including black women — who ran up against a lot of bullying and shenanigans in the caucuses, and they thought it was only their own caucus until they started comparing notes.
A blogger (and psychotherapist) calling herself “Robin from Berkeley” started rethinking her politics when a patient of hers described the trauma of being abused by fellow “liberals” over her expressed support for Hillary Clinton instead of Obama.
I believe that Hillary was robbed of the nomination, but I cannot summon up any sympathy for her in view of her own deviousness (e.g. pretending she remembered nothing at all under oath) and brass-knuckles approach to people who stand in the way of her ambition, including the various women abused by ol’ Bill. For her to pose as the wronged wife is a joke.
Hillary might have appointed a smaller quotient of idiots to important positions, and she wouldn’t have stacked the Justice Dept. so heavily with flagrant racialists, and being female (and Democrat) would have been slightly less insulation against criticism than being black (and Democrat). But a Hillary Clinton presidency would probably have had all the sleaziness of the Bill Clinton presidency with less moderating pragmatism.
She would’ve stacked her entire cabinet with flagrant islamicists, of the Muslim Brotherhood type, and done so more openly than Obama; moreover, her policies with regard to Israel would have been just as, and maybe more, devastating. Never forget Huma Abedin.
I miss her articles on American thinker