Mouth, meet foot

Gloria Steinem steps in it: "Stumping for Clinton, Steinem Says McCain's P.O.W. Cred Is Overrated."

That's one of those headlines which really, really requires you to read the article its attached too. Editors write the headlines, and you want to see if the editor is nuts or correct. In this case, it's the latter:

From the stage, the 73-year-old seemed to denigrate the importance of John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In an interview with the Observer afterward, she suggested that Barack Obama benefits—and Clinton suffers—because Americans view racism more seriously than sexism. [...]

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

Wow. Just wow.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

With all due respect, Gloria (and by "all due respect," I mean to say that you're being an asshole), I don't think anyone has pitched McCain's time as a POW as the sort of experience one needs to become president. But it's a huge part of his life story, and it shows his commitment to his country, so yes it's going to get advertised.

This kind of criticism is really just beyond the pale. Anytime somebody gets me to defend McCain, then they have gone too far. The article goes on to note "Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises," and this is a valid argument. However, you don't make this argument by making fun of someone who was subjected to 5-6 years of torture. That is just disrespectful.

I'm also sick of opposition to Hillary being equated with sexism, and people like Steinem trying to making me feel shame if I don't vote for Hillary because "she suggested that ... Americans view racism more seriously than sexism." Oh fucking please. While this also might be a valid point, it has nothing to do with Hillary's current woes.

The Clinton campaign and her supporters can make whatever excuses they want about her upcoming defeat in the presidential primaries, but this all comes down to her personality. The tone of her campaign is colored with enough meanness and pettiness to choke a donkey - and that's why Obama is winning. And I pointed this out before he was in the race, and long before 2008 -- or even 2006, for the matter: Hillary doesn't have any charisma. Her husband has charm but he wouldn't have won in 1992 if Perot hadn't played spoiler, since he only got 42% of the popular vote; and in 1996, he barely managed to get 50% running against an uber-weak candidate in Dole. So, as I reasoned way back when, if the Clinton with a personality could barely win, what makes the Clinton without a personality think she can win?

Excuses don't even count in hand grenades. Hillary's campaign would do well to cut the bitterness and stop making fun of torture victims. Of course it's too late for her now, but would it be too much to ask for her to lose gracefully?