A readers comment from the first Maria Shriver hypocrisy article deserves a response because it attempts to make a logical point.
"What part of women not being a monolithic entity don't you get?"
What the writer/responder is getting at is that women should not automatically support other women simply because they are a woman. This is a valid point, and I actually addressed it in the first article, but I'll do it again here in more depth.
Who out there believes that Barack Obama's past behavior at crucial times in his life was properly vetted by the media? I'm not even talking about Pastor Wright. I'm talking about his college days.
I'm talking about the time he spent writing his book in Bali when his mother was in the final year or two of her life dying from cancer.
I'm talking about Barack Obama's desire to question each and every signature of his political opponent's petitions that were being used to qualify for various political races. This "by the book" behavior by Barack Obama repeated itself all the way to Florida and Michigan, yet Barack Obama remained above the fray to actually produce his own documentation about his own past.
Why did Barack Obama spend time in Bali in the early to mid 90's writing a book about his sperm donor father rather than being with his dying mother? Maybe there is a good answer, but it appears nobody in the media seems to think it important to ask Barack Obama.
I do know that Barack Obama, and this is the point I keep making over and over, CHOSE TO POLITICIZE HIS MOTHER'S FIGHT WITH CANCER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN EVEN IF HE DID NOT DO ALL HE COULD TO FIGHT FOR HER WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE!
Not only did Maria Shriver not support Hillary Clinton, she chose to be a roadblock to Hillary Clinton getting the nomination when she just as easily could have stepped back and WAITED to support whichever fine candidate became the democratic nominee based on the vote OF THE PEOPLE!
The let the people decide aspect of the 2008 race was never addressed by the media. The media, celebs and marginal democratic political figures that agreed to manipulate the democratic nomination process BEFORE democratic voters had all voted amounts to a scandal in my opinion. Keith Olbermann was so incensed that Hillary Clinton chose to stay in a race that was too close to call that he advocated "taking her into a room" until one person came out, (presumably not Hillary Clinton).
Maria Shriver actually had to "make a difference" in toppling a WORTHY FEMALE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, then puts on her own women empowering conference. Wouldn't you feel betrayed if you found out that the Barack Obama administration helped Shriver put on the women empowerment convention as payback?
"Hey Maria, support Barack Obama now against Hillary Clinton, then we'll help you put on your own women empowerment conference", if that actually happened, would that be the kind of behavior we should accept from those who first kidnapped, and then re-politized women's issues for their own gain?
Hey, lets get prominent women from all over the country such as Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi, Maria Shriver, and others, to go against Hillary Clinton and support Barack Obama, even though all three could have just remained neutral UNTIL THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS DECIDED who they wanted. Instead, these three prominent women who backed the defeat of Hillary Clinton expect to get rewarded for their role in stopping the first female president.
Um, no thanks. I am here to make sure you DON'T get your rewards for going against the very thing you claim to be for now, now that you will selfishly profit from the very thing you prevented form happening a year earlier.
This type of arrogant, the past is the past behavior is something that needs to be uncircled from the drain before we are awash in the next wave of bulls--t from those who think we have a short memory. I think it is self serving to be a prominent woman who believes in choice, but then shills for women empowerment that she herself helped thwart the previous year.
Electing Barack Obama did not empower women the way a Hillary Clinton presidency would have, nor has real, simple change occurred.
There are dozens of Barack Obama "supporters" that were nothing more than PR shills who may have been promised some type of reward for helping to stop Hillary Clinton. I view these sellouts as vampires who sucked the blood out of our country and have actually helped prevent a rebound from the 8 previous years of the United States being more focused on outside military maneuvers versus healing from within.
By giving Barack Obama a free pass on his past, the several dozens of democratic celebs and politicians who went out of their way, not just to support Barack Obama without a proper vetting, but to diss Hillary Clinton as well, were saying "it's ok Barack Obama, you get a pass on your past just because you're african american". I find that offensive, condescending, and racist.
And what makes these supporters behavior so suspicious to me is that they absolutely could not stay neutral until the american people first decided which democratic candidate they preferred. You want Barack Obama, let the people vote him in, AND THEN back him. Instead, we had CONSTANT shilling by the media, always announcing a new "backer" whenever Hillary Clinton won a primary race.
You all know that Hillary Clinton actually won more delegates than Barack Obama from the primary races, EVEN WHEN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN ARE NOT COUNTED.
If many celebs and politicians were willing to voraciously promote Barack Obama without a proper vetting, then they LOWERED THE BAR for all future non caucasian presidents. If these unwitting condescending celebrity and political supporters of Barack Obama now portend to promote women's issues, or blue collar issues, they should be publicly outed for stopping the first women from becoming president even as they now attempt to profit from the perception that they are for women's issues.