Over at Slate, Guy Branum, who has a history with the Clintons-- including a search by the Secret Service-- over the public role of Chelsea Clinton. His take: it is not about gender, an anti-Clinton bias, or misogyny, but the attempted use of someone as a campaign spokesperson and a public figure who is removed from public critique.
Also from Slate: A History of Pimpimg, well...the word. "A Brief History of the Verb To Pimp."
6 comments:
"the attempted use of someone as a campaign spokesperson and a public figure who is removed from public critique."
Speaking of word choices, it's rather loosy-goosy to apply the word "take" to the above.
After all, in terms of Audience, the percentage of American viewers who would register the verb "pimp" according to the above "take" is approximately ZERO.
Again, the obvious in front of your nose truth is, the word has nothing to do with Chelsea's accountability or lack thereof, and EVERYTHING to do with suggesting that she is being used, even degraded, to the benefit of her parents.
Bringing us back full circle to the David Petraeus example (it's a wonderful example), this is an accurate description of what many of us felt was actually happening: we questioned Petraeus's Agency, assuming he was being used as a cover to the benefit of the Bushies. In other words, he was indeed pimped out.
If you want to argue that Chelsea Clinton, while visibly increasing her participation in the campaign, is being accorded a somewhat unreasonable amount of Untouchability, then Harrogate can get on board with that argument.
If you want to question her effort to persuade Super Delegates, this is also perfectly legit.
But to say she is being pimped out is to rob her of Agency, to elide the more accurate Narrative that she is simply proud of her mother, and campaigning vigorously on her behalf.
How much of a zealot must one be in the process of becoming, not to see simple truths?
From your link (how you take such a thing seriously as argument is difficult for an admirer of yours like Harrogate to conceive):
"By its harsh rules, use of the verb "pimp out" to describe Sen. Clinton's calculating use of Chelsea can hardly be deemed over the line"
Grammatically, "Clinton's calculating use of Chelsea" is represented as default truth, as though he were writing, "the Tar Heels' calculated reliance on Tyler Hansbrough......"
So. Reaffirm the Lie that Hillary Clinton is uniquely calculating (nothing gendered about this lie, either...) while at the same time denying Chelsea's agency. Very reasonable stuff, that sentence.
Two paragraphs later he writes, "Now that Chelsea is an adult who fiercely campaigns for the candidate she believes in"--here we are happy to be somewhere in the ballpark of what the fuck is actually happening, but alas, we soon discover that the dependent clause is simply a setup for the Free Speech and They-Keep-Her-Unreasonably-Isolated Straw Men that for the life of him, Harrogate can not believe otherwise reasonable people think applicable in this case.
The "pimping her out" comment will never have anything to do with the exent of her public accontability, no matter how many much some would like it to be so. It was and is an implcit denial of Chelsea Clinton's Agency, with the added benefit of piling on sexualized language in a discussion of all things Clinton.
Ugh. Harrogate no more comment or post on this topic.
As someone who believes in human agency, even to the point of not voting for a party if you disagree that the party's candidate would not be a good choice...I think that your move to make this about agency is curious.
At no point do I state that the Clinton campaign forced Chelsea, against her will, to campaign for her. This would be impossible for everyone has a choice, even Gen. Patraeus. Military Generals do not have to follow the commands of the President and they can follow their conscience without facing reprimand. There may be negative consequences as a result of their choice, but a person must make the choice they feel is best, as Gen. Patraeus did. (There is a contradiction in your argument if you believe that Chelsea Clinton has agency but Gen. Patraeus does not.)
The point that this article from Slate makes is that the Clinton camp is gaining an advantage by having Chelsea campaign because she does not have to respond to the Press. It has been on on going practice by the Clinton. Further, the Clinton campaign attempted to use the Chelsea/ MSNBC fiasco to their advantage, regardless of whether or not the comment was sexist or misogynist or hateful to Clinton. They attempted to translate the controversy into votes. The point is to win an election and you attempt to do this through any advantage you can.
And no... to be "pimped out" is, in an existential sense, not a loss of agency. It is still a choice. You may not like the consequences but you still have to choose to do something. You cannot give away your agency, this is a logical and philosophical contradiction.
And, please, spare me your hyperbole of being a zealot or involved in a cult... as it would take away my agency to make a decision. I can choose who I support for my own reasons. Just because we do not agree does not mean you possess the truth and I am blinded from the "reality" in front of my nose.
The zealotry comments do not deny that you have chosen who to support for you own reasons. What they assert is that you are so dialed in to Obama's campaign that you seem unable to find it within yoursself to cede such a simple truth as, Chelsea Clinton is supporting her mother of her own volition--she is not the Object of the proverbial sentence, but rather the Subject.
That you cannot cede the simple truth that when a reporter writes of "Sen. Clinton's calculating use of Chelsea", he is making an ass out of himself.
We have all performed some amusing Rhetorical gymnastics to support our candidates lately, but just look for a moment at thine own. Just look at the gymnastics you have done, here, in order to deny outright the credibility of commentary not decidedly pro-Obama. Because it takes gymnastics, and not reasonable ones, to avoid what should be a very simple evaluation with respect to Schuster's comment. Or to shift discussion of Hillary Clinton's face on a target seat away from the grounds of cultural critique, and into some Straw Man championship of free speech, which NOBODY on this blog is against.
In short, from you what we have seen in terms of this primary is the markings of an ideologue.
1) At no point have I denied the agency of Chelsea Clinton. Instead,I wrote, "At no point do I state that the Clinton campaign forced Chelsea, against her will, to campaign for her." This is the second post in which I have stated Chelsea has the agency to campaign for her mother.
Yet, for some reason, you state that may support for Obama causes me to deny Chelsea's agency. Yet, I have never argued this. Further, these two claims have nothing to do with one another.
2) In addition to Chelsea campaigning for her mother, there is another issue: the Clinton camp is using her for a partisan advantage because Chelsea is not accountable to the press. This means that Chelsea can campaign for her mother, and choose to do so, AND, that the Clinton campaign receives an advantage because Chelsea is does not have to answer questions on anything she says. These are two issues and not one. And, like the first, this has nothing to do with my support of Obama.
3) I do not think that the reporter is making an ass of himself because, as I have tried to argue, the Clinton campaign is attempting to use Chelsea as a way to gain a political edge. Campaigns do this. I have studied many, I think I would know.
4) Any attack on Clinton is not pro-Obama. I have actually not said much of anything about the coverage of Obama. I have commented on the Clinton Press but not too much on the Obama coverage.
Don't make this to an Evolution/ Intelligent Design Debate. Advocates for ID argue that if evolution is not true, then ID is. However, debate does not work like this. Pro-Obama coverage is not anti-Hillary coverage; anti- Hillary coverage is not pro-Obama coverage. Pro-Hillary coverage is not anti-Obama coverage; anti-Obama coverage is not pro-Obama coverage. This is not an either/or fallacy.
5) I have defended Schuster's comments on free speech grounds. I take the position that an absolute protection of freedom of speech is necessary for a free society. Any attempt to limit speech based on tastes or offense create many problems for a free society.
I am constant on this position for all free speech cases. This has nothing to do with my support of Obama. In fact, I criticized Obama's answer during the last Democratic debate when he discussed violence in movies. This is not his decision to make.
Further, I am sorry, posts here have not convinced me that hate of Hillary is hate of women. While you may find the urinal offensive, it is speech. Because individuals interpret communicative acts in multiple acts, not everyone will interpret this as being misogyny. I mentioned the free speech defense because the beginning of the post mentioned free speech as if it should not be protected. Typically, when people find a message offensive they begin with qualifiers about free speech.
Oh ideologue. I guess we are all then. We can never escape it as long as we use language....
Wow. Harrogate never said hate for Hillary Clinton was hatred for women. What he has maintained over and over again is that, her womanhood is inexctricable from the hatred she has experienced, specifically.
And thus it is no surprise to Harrogate that many women have ben disgusted by the Media representations of her, whether pro-Obama, anti-Obama, pro-Roger Clemens, or pro-Schnapple.
Finally, Harrogate doed not question the level of your passion for free speech. He sincerely does not see how the 1st Amendement extends to Schuster's case.
And as Harrogate is first and foremost a cultural critic, he isn't going to hold back from pointing out harmful discourse out of fear that someone might interpret this to mean he's calling for said discourse to be stifled at the point of a gun.
And we are not all ideologues. Harrogate isn't an ideologue, he can even bring himself to praise Duke basketball if you get enough drinks in him. Also, he once praised George W. Bush for rightly asserting in a speech that baseball was always meant to be played outside, in the daytime, on grass.
And, Harrogate is sure there have to be some other people out there in the world, other than megs, who both support Barack Obama and also see that Hillary bashing quite frequently (not always! your points about her role in 1993 health Care reform have been well taken!) involves the use of gendered discourse to denigrate. And surely there are some Obama supporters out there somewhere who can acknowledge this is an indefensible thing, and that it speaks poorly of us as a nation that we look the other way.
Out there. Someone. Anyone?
Post a Comment