RUSH: You think there’s still not anger at the Democrat Party over what happened to Hillary Clinton? I have to read excerpts of a column in the San Francisco Chronicle today written by Robin Lakoff (rhymes with). I do not know if this woman is a relative of George Lakoff (rhymes with) who was hired by the Democrats to help ’em come up with language to camouflage their liberalism and relate to average people. They eventually threw Lakoff (rhymes with) overboard, and they went out and they found somebody else. Robin Lakoff (rhymes with) is professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley. She is the author of The Language War, Talking Power, and Language and Woman’s Place — three different books.
‘It may seem as though the Democratic Party can give a sigh of relief: Women have returned to the fold, and will support Barack Obama for president — and presumably his party — after all. But not so fast. While I and many other women in my demographic (older, professional, liberal) are likely to vote for Obama in November, our feelings about his party (and ours) are not so clear. We remember the perpetual misogyny and sexism of the media during the primary campaign — misogyny aimed less at Hillary Rodham Clinton herself than at ‘uppity women’ (like ourselves) in general. And many of us feel that the Democratic Party is even more to blame than the media. Let me mention a couple of reasons why I am thinking this way: First, of course, is the failure of the party leaders to comment on the sexism rampant in the media, especially the liberal media, for months on end.
‘Second — and this factor bothers me, and no doubt others, perhaps the most: Why did the superdelegates move in such numbers to support Obama? Why did this occur, especially after Clinton victories? For example, I am thinking here of Robert Byrd. After Clinton’s impressive victory in West Virginia, the senator and elder statesman representing that state came out in support of Obama. Because the superdelegates were created to ensure that the Democratic candidate be a centrist, why did so many superdelegates — including liberals and many women — support Obama? Two arguments were made: They wished to follow the will of the people in their district; and they believed that Obama was more electable. But as the Byrd case shows, the first claim was often false; and no one has any idea which of the two, Clinton or Obama, would be more electable in November. It seemed to me that the term was more often used as a kind of excuse, ‘I’m voting for Obama, but I can’t really tell you why,’ than a reasoned argument.’
Now I suspect Ms. Lakoff (rhymes with) actually knows the answer to her questions. What do you think the answer to the question is? Why did the superdelegates, every time Hillary won a primary, she’s right — Operation Chaos was in full tilt, every time she won a primary, more supers announced for Obama, as he was losing primaries. Why? (interruption) Hm-hm. That’s part of it, that’s part of it, that’s part of it, but that’s only half of the answer. It is true that many of the superdelegates, true that many in the Democrat Party are tired of the Clintons, particularly Mrs. Clinton, and they didn’t like her inevitability and wanted her out of there, just get her gone. No question. But there’s a second reason, Mr. Snerdley, a second reason. That second reason is race. There was no way the superdelegates of the Democrat Party, when he had even a lead that was only visible through a microscope, were going to not give him the nomination. They would not risk the outcry that would befall them if they were to deny the nomination to Obama, whether he could win or not. And I suspect that Robin Lakoff (rhymes with) is fully aware of both of these, and it’s the first one, the fact that they hate the Clintons in that party that really has her teed off here. But this gets even better.
‘So many women feel that the election was somehow stolen, and by their own party, to boot. They thus feel much the way many Democrats feel about the 2000 election: bitter. When one side feels that they lost an election fairly, any bitterness recedes early on (think of the 2004 election, by comparison). But when the adjective ‘stolen’ leaps to mind, bitterness is apt to prevail, vanquishing any desire for reconciliation and cooperation. That is what many former Clinton supporters are feeling now.’ Now, folks, do you realize the importance of this? This is July 29th. We are 30 days away from Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the convention, and they are still writing about how mad they are over what happened to Hillary, with a campaign that’s supposed to unify and bring everybody together, Kumbaya, and change things. But wait, it gets even better from Robin Lakoff (rhymes with) in today’s San Francisco Chronicle.
‘We are disgusted with the party we have long trusted to represent our interests,’ and she refers to herself and her friends as ‘uppity’ women because that’s how she thinks the party looks at them. ‘We are disgusted with ourselves for being snookered — again. We assess the party leaders’ rejection of Clinton as a cynical strategy. If Clinton had ended up as the candidate, the Democrats stood to lose the votes of many African Americans, who then might not vote at all. But if they made Obama the candidate? Well, then (the reasoning seems to have gone), the women always vote, and they will come around. Women always come around, no matter how badly they’re mistreated.’ Battered Liberal Syndrome we call it here.
And now, the final paragraph. If Robin Lakoff (rhymes with) is still writing this stuff on July 29th… and when was the last meaningful primary, June 5th? ‘I am reminded of a particularly chilling passage in Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Lolita.’ Have you read Lolita, Mr. Snerdley? Then you know of the character Humbert Humbert. ‘Humbert Humbert, after raping the 12-year-old, is pondering why she has come back to his bed. ‘You see,’ Humbert tells the reader, ‘she had absolutely nowhere else to go.’ That’s just how I feel,’ writes Robin Lakoff (rhymes with). Oh, she’s married to George! This is George Lakoff’s (rhymes with) wife. Even better. ‘That’s just how I feel,’ she says, ‘and they want my enthusiastic support. The Democrat Party can fend for itself.’ Robin Lakoff (rhymes with) has just written a piece in the July 29th San Francisco Chronicle, in which she feels like the Democrat Party has raped her, except she’s not going back to Humbert Humbert. They can fend for themselves.
By the way, permit me a brief reaction here to the column I just read by Robin Lakoff (rhymes with) in the San Francisco Chronicle. I understand you’re mad, ladies. In fact, I tried to convey to you my ability to relate to your anger, but at some point isn’t it time to get over this? What is it about Mrs. Clinton that inspires this never-ending hatred and anger which is based on some sense of entitlement that you women must have? I mean, we men, we’ve been losing elections for years, close ones, stolen ones. We’ve been the victims of all kinds of dirty tricks. We play ’em on each other; we have ’em played against us. It’s part of the territory; it’s the lay of the land! Learn it, love it, live it. Well, Algore, he whines about it, too. I think that’s part and parcel.
Liberalism is a certain amount of whining, but, come on, ladies, get over it, ’cause we all know, Ms. Lakoff, you feel like the 12-year-old in Lolita who has been raped by Humbert Humbert, and you say you’re not going to go back to Humbert Humbert, i.e., the Democrat Party, and be raped again. On November 4th, where you gonna be? Or whatever Election Day is, November 5th, you’re going to be back in a voting booth, and you are going to open yourself up for more abuse. You’re going to do it. We know how this is all going to turn out.