Why do we Progressives [not all, some] have to get all “apoplectic hand wringing” over a strong intelligent Woman, who by testifying today has put herself & loved ones in the crosshairs of a Fascist Dictator tRump’s sites.
Let’s just all agree that Dr. Hill is an American National Treasure, and we need many more like her. So say I.
The point here is it wasn’t some random made up comment that @dommerdoodle made like “She’s feisty for a broad!” THAT would fit your narrative. He quoted Shakespeare and used a specific line that embodies with eloquence the simplistic notion that there is more than meets the eye.
Dr Hill presented a very calm and forthright demeanor. Her opening statement was direct and simply stated in no uncertain terms she was not there to pick sides; she was there to discuss the facts and to squash the harmful lies being told. The GOP then began to attack her and treat her as if she was a demure individual who was merely a doormat…she was having none of it.
I did not say, nor did anyone else say “I can’t believe a woman did that"…YOU ARE SAYING THAT.
If you are going to take this form of discussion than, NOPE, I want no part of it. You are putting some notion out there and then arguing that OTHER people think that.
Roger That!
And it’s another example of a media focus on a professional woman’s hair, rather than her expertise and professionalism.
What part was about her hair? Asking for a friend…
pigtails…bowl cut
What’s wrong with loving EVERYTHING about her?
She can only be expected to extinguish so many pairs of pants.
I’m loving everything about her right now. Yes Sir / Mam, I am.
She reminded me of one of my favorite heroines.
I’m trying to either watch or listen to as much of the hearings as possible. It is a reminder that there is still competence somewhere in government. Of course, being able to calmly navigate strained politics is the primary skillset of regular employees in the State Department.
As an added incentive to watch, now that the GOP has decided to add discussing the Steele investigation to their defense strategy there is always the hope of a bombshell where the pee tapes (which totally exist) might come to light.
They’ve already been doing it, especially with Vindman.
Hill did an excellent job of directly addressing it after one especially reprehensible tea party grilling. She managed to make the questioner look really small by praising some of what he said.
My impression was that the real reason Jackie Spier repeated the anecdote was not so much to praise Hill but to subtly draw a comparison between the Republican questioners and the mean little boys. I thought it was brilliant.
I want Lyle Lovet to change his song lyrics now.
I want him to give Fiona two eyes, a bowl cut and a badass firefighter disposition.
And that’s exactly what I said.
That ship sailed so long ago is almost coming back from around the globe.
See them, for example,
accusing Vindman of being a spy. The subtext being that he might be a spy since he is not really American.
I work in a bookstore and it’s disgusting to see how much that has happened to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She has an action figure, a coloring book, a book depicting her as a baby wearing a lace collar and banging a tiny gavel, bumper stickers, t-shirts… she’s been turned into a mascot character and sold, sold, sold. Whether the people who buy this stuff are just virtue signaling or genuine fans of RBG and what she does, it feels like they’re unknowingly supporting an effort to transform her accomplishments into nothing but more mindless consumerism and exploitation.
I concur as well.
The message that I take away from that anecdote about some bully setting her hair on fire is this; even as a little kid, Fiona Hill was UNFUCKWITHABLE.
…and if it was illegal he can just pardon himself and it was Giuliani who did it anyway who he barely knows and HILLARY…HILLARY…BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!
While the major part of her performance was admirable I’m confused by the opening statement. The part where she establishes her academic and professional vita I get and understand why it’s probably needed for the republican cretins who never heard of her. The first part where she tells a neat little narrative about her family seemed weird. Who cares? What is the reasoning behind telling this story? Do you need a pathos laden “american dream” narrative to be a credible witness?
