Interesting. But I don't think Liddy Dole is a good example to use here. I do remember her as a serious contender but...

The media has never been as obsessed with the Doles the way they were with the Clintons. And Liddy Dole, while a contender never had the real credibility of HRC.

There's something more nefarious and anti-Clinton at work here.

Mrs. Bill Clinton has chosen to make herself a gender candidate.

Take a look at the placards that candidates hand out at the various events. Obama, McCain, Romney, Dodd, Biden, Richardson. There last name.

Mrs Clinton's say "Hillery" That is an intentional gender name distinction by Mrs. Clinton to appeal to woman on the basis of gender.

Since Mrs Clinton decided to run a campaign on her gender Identity, then she has created the conditions for others to scrutinize her on that basis.

Hillery opened that can of worms, so she has no grounds to complain when others follow her lead.

DLC

As clarification, her incompetence was demonstrated in her first pass at universal health care, her bad judgement was demonstrated with her Iraq vote, her hubris has been demonstrated in the character of this campaign and the Clinton scandals just keep coming. Most recently the Kazhakistan dictator, oil magnate, Clinton Foundation bizness reported in the New York Times. I've seen no refutation of the facts - only an attempt at denial and then a backtrack when the account of a meeting at Clinton's home held - and I have to say as someone who defended Clinton during the Lewinsky debacle, I'm sick of this stuff but fully expect more embarrassments from Bill over the course of an 8-year Hillary tenure in the Oval Office. Jesus Christ, when will shoot-yourself-in-the-foot Democrats with their eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror finally extract themselves from the Clinton "cult of personality" and move on with their lives.

[Dittoheads'] discussion style seem (to me) to have been adopted, lock, stock, and barrel by the anti-Clinton crowd.

I see several flaws in this short comment.

First and most importantly, it is largely untrue. Much of the criticism of Senator Clinton is based on her track record as an elected official and her proposed policies.

Second, while there is some basis in fact for accusing those who oppose the junior senator from New York of anger -- and even exhorbitant anger -- the anger is often engendered by the Clintonistas themselves, and the author of the comment to which I am replying is no exception. It would seem that some react angrily when accused of being cult members. This is particularly true of those of us who are not enamored of Senator Obama, either.

Third, as a person with no significant stake in the Clinton/Obama fracas, I see Obama supporters being less (not more) willing to resort to the practice of questioning the other side's motives, methods, or ancestry. Perhaps this is simply due to my bias against Ms. Clinton, but I don't think so. In the words of, probably, Don Henley, I could be wrong but I'm not.

Finally, the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) "crowd" is hardly monolithic. Some despise her because she is an effective rival to their favorite candidate. Others because they perceive her as another politician with a wet finger in the air, willing to bend whichever way the polical wind blows at any moment. Some dislike her for her so-called centrism -- which they see as the very conservatism we are trying to depose -- and "triangulation" which they see as willingness to not simply compromise, but to compromise principles and character. Still others hate her for her husband, it's true. And as varied as their reasons are for disliking her, their prose styles are even more disparate.

I agree that women candidates are vulnerable to certain gender-based attacks--but similarly black candidates are vulnerable to race-based attacks. Whether that vulnerability becomes a liability, however, depends on the underlying appeal of the candidate's personality and vision. Obama has largely avoided race-based attacks because he is so likeable. Clinton is less likeable and therefore more vulnerable to gender-based attacks. If Al Sharpton were running instead of Obama, I'm sure racial stereotypes would have a far greater influence on the covereage of the campaign than they do with Obama running. Similarly, if Clinton were as appealing as Obama, gender-based attacks would be less pervasive and certainly less effective. Wilson is right that more women in a campaign would lessen the focus on gender (much as more blacks would reduce the focus on race). But it's also true that if Clinton were a stronger and more appealing candidate, her personality would negate the gender-based attacks in the same way that Obama's personality effectively negates any race-based attacks.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is the "one and only" woman in this campaign, but I agree with bluebell that this situation is extraordinarily complicated by her marriage to a living, 2-term Democratic president.

However, there is clearly a level of antagonism against her that no male candidate seems to be able to create: look at brucds's vast overgeneralizations in this thread. If she were Bill's brother would this same level of hostility exist? Also, I think it's important to keep track of the gender essentialism used against her by the press and her opponents, and Wilson is right to point out that her singularity as the only woman makes her more of a target. Also, note that Obama's racial singularity in the race does not create as much uproar in the press as Hillary's gender.

btw, re Wison's anecdote about HRC's fussing aides and her "playful" remark: I think the point is that Hillary understands the political importance of her physical image (thus pragmatically allowing aides to primp her) and notes the irony (male public figures do not have to be so heavily groomed).

There are many elected Women in the Democratic party who came up through the ranks on their own merits. They have become US Senators and State Governors, even in Red States. Mrs Bill Clinton is not one of them.

She is Mrs. Bill Clinton. The Democrats version of Libby Dole. Neither one of them made it to the head of the line on their own merits. Senator Obama came up through the ranks on his own merits. Mrs Bill Clinton did not. Those who are following her because she happened to be married to Bill Clinton are the real Cult Members. They are behaving just like those Cult Followers of Juan Peron who kept electing his wives/slash mistresses.

Stay together Clinton Cult. After Hillery, you will then be able to emulate those Peron Cultists by electing Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewiniski.

The point is that Hillary is about issues: she doesn't need to hire handlers to advise her not to debate. Obama plays on his good looks but his handlers can't even let him debate. H emay win but I'm not looking forward to another teleprompter President.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with being the “one and only”: your difference (here, gender) becomes what defines you.

What a bunch of crap, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto as an example seem to take your premise and either stipulate that the USA is unique in it's sexism, or that your focus on genitalia first rationalizations obscures the obvious.

You seem to come to the argument as an intellectual pauper, with an empty tin cup of self-imposed, low self-esteem and emotional poverty; stating: "Though it may be uncomfortable for her to experience, just as it’s uncomfortable for us to watch, Clinton, like Dole before her, offers a good lesson to aspiring women leaders everywhere about what the political world will make of us until there are more of us vying for the helm."

And you seem to ignore the fact that OBAMA is black! That within the lifespan of people in this nation, we went from the civil rights speech of Martin Luther's I have a dream, where a black is the front runner for POTUS and then in comparison to that “one and only” reality, the only black running, we get an apologetic's of the genitalia basis interpretation of why Clinton's meessage is being rejected, when you yourself harp about the hemline.

You seem to imagine that the myoptic assertion that women are "incapable" of voting in a non-gender based manner, or being perceived in a non-gender manner, or for that fact that gender is the issue is the core of your fallacy of an argument.

There is one segment of the public that 15% of the far right that short circuits on religion, and then the other 15% who short circuit on genitalia. It is either some sidebar missed logic of religion or genitalia and then an omission of the issues that the 'rest of concensual reality' gets.

Or is it your proposition that the larger population are rubes? Lacking Vaginas don't get it?

Or maybe we do, and the idea of fining people whom lapse in proposed mandatory healthcare is a bad idea! That being the difference as well as the debates illustrated it.

Perhaps people instead reject Hillary for other reasons, least of all a fatigue from the historical controversy that surrounds her.

Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, and Benazir Bhutto all take the vagina argument wrapped in political correctedness and begs the question, was it instead a lack of an idea and a message that resulted in your being uncomfortable with Hillary's performance as a woman, the performance itself, and not the fact that she is a woman?

The argument as an intellectual pauper, with an empty tin cup of self-imposed, low self-esteem and emotional poverty; when the fact might simply be that Hillary simply failed at the task of convincing people that she was the best choice in the absence of a more lurid excuse.

It's occum razor deja vue all over again, the people whom count (voters), the votes, the number of small contributions stand at odds with the argument that you make that it's all about gender.

I should be kind in Jonah's site, and civility is inexpensive online, but what a ridiculous assumption to draw, that women are not capable based on the poor performance of Hillary and in comparisson and contrast to Obama.

NEXT THING YOU KNOW, it was prejudice that excluded Edwards, you know he was the only candidate with a white penis after Super Tuesday don't ya?

If it ain't sex it's race.. at least your not touting lil biddy baby jezus and corporate profits.... and how the club for growth is all about your soul.

jeesh.....

lame

Hillary Clinton is criticized and scrutinized because she claims to be a feminist but has used her marital connections for upward mobility.

She also has a bad track record. She talks about 35 years of fighting for change, but really has been a typical upper-middle class person who is only interested in sitting on corporate boards, or representing their interests in court, etc.

As First Lady, she blew it on health care because she didnt have the gumption to take on the insurance companies. And then she voted for the damn war, only because she knew she'd be running for President, and didnt want to be attacked for being weak on Iraq if things had turned out differently.

I am a woman, and I am extremely uncomfortable with such a flawed and compromised person becoming the first female president.

Playing the gender card has to stop. This isnt about gender for alot of us. It IS a class issue. When you look at these two candidates, look at where they come from, and what motivates them.

I am an inner city teacher, and I see the problems that poor people deal with every day. Obama understands my world more than Hillary ever could. He is familiar with the problems we deal with here in the cities. And this is the first time in my life I can say that about any presidential candidate.

GO OBAMA!

From the desk of:

Mark Poison Penn Head.

We have discovered that there is a pattern of subliminal gender discrimination in the signs that the male candidates have been distributing to their followers. They say Obama, or Edwards, or Biden or Dodd etc, but the signs of the only woman in the race say "Hillery" This is clearly a case of where the woman has been singled out and identified by her first name which makes her gender apparent.

We here at Hillary Headquarters, I mean Clinton Headquarters, decry such blatant gender differentiation in the signs being distributed by the candidates during the primary season.

NOW seems to think she's a feminist.

I guess they wouldn't know.

http://www.nowpacs.org/2008/hillary/issues.html

This Obama supporter voted enthusiastically for Bill Clinton in 1992 and was sorely disappointed by his eight years in the presidency. The health care debacle was noteworth - Hillary handled it with secretiveness, defensiveness, and slowness - all destined to doom the effort despite a Democratic congress and 70% of people in favor of it. Why can't we judge her on this failure - do we have to give her a pass because she is, after all, a woman? The Republicans took Congress in a landslide in 1994 largely due to the incompetence of the Clinton administration. I've supported just about every other woman who's run for anything - Nancy Pelosi and all the recent senatorial candidates. But Hillary I can't support - not because she's a woman, but because she would not make the best president.

I'm glad that at least one thread is supportive of Hillary. The rest of the male commentariat here seems to be gaga for Obama. Not very balanced Andrew

What a compelling article to come across these days.
I am used to reading essays that are either
vague, partisan, or just plain petty.
Thanks for addressing the forest instead of the tree.

Anyway, one issue that routinely bothers me, apart
from the allegations that Clinton is old, or that she is
a liar, and that you can't trust her (ie "you can't trust
a cheating woman"), is the allegations that she is
less than worthy because she didn't dissolve her
marriage after her husband was publicly exposed
for his sexual encounters. Indeed, the woman once
again is blamed for the sexual excursions of her
spouse. And while one could argue this point isn't
as patently sexist as blaming a woman for being raped,
the idea she has a character flaw because of her decision
to resolve their marital problems, is beyond reason.

Candidates wins if the voter identifies with them.
If the candidate is made out to be a lying, cheating, two-timing (default guilt by association with husband), negative creep (see media focus on Clinton as negative v focus on Obama’s negative attacks), then they tend not to draw a crowd. Gender bias is pretty deep in this country, and Hillary is being pitted as a fighter and Obama is the example of consensus. So, of course, she’s said to be angry -which to the bigot- means she is “out of control”. Watch how often this “in control” “out of control” and “desperate” label gets tossed around.

Just in percentages alone, Women have a hard enough time getting their ideas and concerns represented when males dominate news media centers and professional fields. Knowing greater numbers of rich, white men are more supportive of Obama isn’t exactly a comfort.

You started out in this discussion by comparing all Clinton critics to "Dittoheads". I'm not "touchy." I'm just not impressed with someone who dishes out insults and then asserts that the other side is arrogant, rude and insulting. Nor do I feel that you've made a single compelling argument - just innuendo and denial when presented with evidence.

You started out this conversation by labeling the concerns of women, "crap."

Was that supposed to be an example of polite behavior? It hasn't escaped my attention that Obama's more vocal followers like to pile on anyone that tends to show them up for the shallow and pathetic ignoramuses they aspire to be.

Good for me. I plan on continueing to do it, so fasten your seat belts.

I'm quite sure that the rudest posts on this thread aren't mine. You might want to look in the mirror.

One more reason to reject Hillary's stale "experience." She's aligned with the absurd, counter-productive - and politically opportunistic in the context of domestic electoral concerns - Bush administration stance toward Cuba.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002321.php

Old-boy Beltway politics. Again.

@elliottness (February 19, 2008 2:07 AM)
.
.
.
Stating what is obvious isn’t complaining. However, it is important to note how often men tell women to stop complaining.
.
.

"I belong to no organized political party; I'm a Democrat."

Remember Eleanor Roosevelt???? Maybe she never ran for president but if she had woudn't people be saying almost exactly the same things about her and Franklin?? In fact they did say as much and more simply because she acted as Franklin's surrogate. She was also one of the WORLD"S most admired people (not Woman but Person).

If George Bush had listened more to his real father and less to the other one he claimed to be talking too perhaps things would be different.

That Hillary has the ear of a former president, with all of the experince he has in the job, plus what she had working with him is in OUR best interest, not thiers.

Why do they want power? To do the things I want done-- health care, better education, a livable country/world, a better life for my children and grandchildren, to care for the poor and help them rise above poverty, -- the list goes on -- Hillary's list just happens to be my list.

Mr. Obama stirs hope and says he will change things. Change is difficult to achieve-- ask Bill Clinton, he tried it and was attacked from every direction. He stood his ground on what mattered and learned to compormise in order to get things done.Perhaps he was ruthless, the other side was worse-- he fought back-- isn't this what we teach our kids-- if the bully beats you up, fight back-- then when they do we tell them thats not the right way to fight back????

We live in a shallow, selfish world, as reflected in out politicians. If Mrs. Clinton is all of these and a ruthless politicain on top of it good for her as long as she gets done what I want. Lyndon Johnson was also a ruthless politician-- and if he had not listened to Kenndy's advisors who got us into Viet Nam the world may well have been a different place today. Except for that war, his agenda, the war on poverty, was my agenda.

The conservative agenda, the war against the people who keep the country running, its workers, is not my agenda.

So far Hillary has at least tried. I certainly have not agreed with her on everything she has done but at least we know what she's done.

Valdron correctly states “It's about the hate machine. The Clinton's were just there.”

Mrs. Dole was treated kindly, as a woman, by her own party. Well, at least a well as the Republicans ever treat women. She was also protected from them and from the MSM, to a considerable extent, by the power and popularity of her husband.

Go back to Geraldine Farraro’s run for Vice President and you see the same incredible sexist and fowl mouthed Republican hate mongering as we see against Hillary. Remember Momma Bush calling Farraro a “rich bitch,” then looking down her nose at Farraro because she bought her clothes “off the rack?” Kinda makes you wonder at the level of discourse that goes on in private amongst the Bush Mafias’s intelligentsia?

My parents were Republican. When I was caring from them in their last years I got the chance to read the political mail that they received from the Republican Party.
Hillary wasn’t even running for office, or in office, but the propaganda was aimed largely at her. I had had no idea of the lies and filth and pure blind driving vagina targeted hatred that the Republican Party has against her. They did not just attack her, they attacked her through her gender with every sexist word, slur and lie that I had ever heard and many that I had not heard. And that was when Bill was running and in office, not Hillary.

Hillary also has the burden of the Clinton name. Her husband beat the Repocons at their own game to gain the Presidency, and they will never forgive him for that, and have openly stated that they will hound him to his grave.

The Clintons, to a great extent, Gore, and Kerry have gotten on with their lives and successes. The Republican Hate Machine is still mired in the Nixonian era of using the government to destroy American citizens that they, the Republican, hate.

religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat

Are you good until this issue thanks admin.
Chat | chat