New Hampshire was about change. Was Obama ready for it?
No one, male or female, young or old, Left or Right, has trouble recognizing, and applauding, the historic, inspirational aspects of Barack Obama's campaign.
But this campaign season has revealed that men, including the leading male Democratic candidates and their mostly male campaign advisors, may be having difficulty fully recognizing, and effectively acknowledging, how historic Hillary Clinton's campaign is. How inspirational it is, at least for women. And, why its ground-breaking nature requires a ground-breaking response from them.
That failure to grasp what the first serious female Presidential candidacy means, including what it means for women who are not committed Clinton supporters, or fully decided on any candidate, and what it requires from candidates who want their votes, had consequences in New Hampshire.
For instance, if the Obama camp had been able to put themselves in the shoes of women, to see the campaign through their eyes for a moment, Obama might not have missed the opportunity handed to him on a platter in the New Hampshire debate, when Clinton was questioned about her "likeability" -- a question that, for women, resonated with all the age-old dismissals of public women and their attractiveness. He would have known immediately that he needed to renounce the cringe-making, sexist nature of the inquiry. He would have understood that it wasn't Hillary's likeability that he needed to defend -- which he did with a dismissive, "You're likable enough" -- but a woman’s right to be taken seriously, and engaged with, seriously. He would have known that it wasn’t about standing up for Hillary, a competitor, but about demonstrating that he could stand with women -- women whose support he needs, and who he is, after all, campaigning to represent.
Women, especially those of Clinton’s generation, have spent a lot of their lives rising to meet responsibilities they were never prepared for; bushwhacking into unknown territory without guides or guideposts. They understand that competing against a woman is mostly new, and therefore tricky, territory for male politicians. They're willing to forgive a few mistakes, but not too many.
Both Obama and Edwards made rooky mistakes in, at times, appearing to take cues on how they should compete against a woman from the mostly clueless, still male dominated media. They also allowed themselves to be lulled into over-estimating how much the orgy of over-the-top negative coverage of Clinton could benefit them. Now they’ve been given a chance to get a clue from women voters themselves.
If they know how to listen, here is what they’ll hear; they have to take every opportunity possible to disassociate themselves from the boy’s club discomfort with a girl in the tree house that characterizes too much of the coverage of Clinton’s candidacy -- and campaign like men who fully understand the respect women have earned.
A good place to begin would be with condemning the media narrative that puts Hillary's victory at the door of "women's sympathy." Not because it's dismissive of their competitor, but because it's dismissive of all women. Women with votes they need.
The bottom line is; male candidates can still be reassured that women won’t vote for a woman just because she is a woman. But it’s past time for them to wake up to the full implications of this reality; increasingly, women don't have to vote for men simply because they have no other choice.
The same could hold true for African American's voting for and African American.
That failure to grasp what the first serious Black Presidential candidacy means -failure for Hillary Clinton and John Edwards campaign.
Hillary may have women, but Obama could have BOTH women and Blacks if he handles himself well.
Coonsey's View
HTTP://WWW.FREEWEBS.COM/COONSEY/
January 10, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The Clinton camp seems to be putting out the theme that if you don't vote for Hillary, you're a sexist. See for example, Bill Clinton's statement before the primary that he couldn't make Hillary taller or male.
But if that's true, does it mean that all the people who don't vote for Obama are racists?
Let's cut the crap here. The media hasn't been that hard on Hillary. They haven't been soft on Obama. Everyone gets pretty much the same treatment.
There are a lot of people, myself included, who genuinely dislike Hillary Clinton, and it is not because we've bought into some media narrative about female leaders. Here's the story: Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war. Clinton voted for the Patriot Act. Clinton voted for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard resolution, etc, etc. She has a terrible fucking record when it comes to all this.
And then add on top of it all that she's Hillary Clinton. Bill's presidency was a long time ago, and I'm not looking for some restoration. Hillary needs to stand on her own two feet as a candidate, but when she does, all I see are right wing views. She is undoubtedly the most conservative Democrat in the race.
I'm not looking for a conservative Democrat and I'm not looking for a return to the 1990s. Does Clinton have anything else to recommend her?
January 10, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may not have noticed, but this blog isn't about whether you should like Hillary or not, or whether you should vote for her.
It is about male candidates communicating with women voters and learning to deal with a new political environment -- one that includes competing with woman on a more serious level than they have in the past.
January 10, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed and am reposting this here.
Bullcrap. The men perhaps choose not to acknowledge as none of them are running as historical hispanic or black candidates either. Did you ever think about that? First off Hillary is not the first female to run for President in this country. Chisholm and Braun preceeded her.
Pshaw. Women are no more of a monolithic group than blacks or hispanics are. Give me a break. The NH vote outcome in time will be determined to have been due to massive voter fraud just like FL and OH.
Boy. You sure do have this twisted. The truth is that it would have totally SEXIST for Obama to have PRESUMED that attractiveness WAS the issue. More importantly, most folks who have been exposed to Hillary over the years know and understand that her likeability has zilch to do with her gender and everything to do with her character as an INDIVIDUAL. She is not a likeable PERSON. People dislike her as a HUMAN BEING. She is a powergrubbing, calculating, polarizing, vindicative individual none of which are attributes soley exculsive to the female gender. There are men like that also. Obama was in fact being gracious given the known negative attributes of her pesonality by acknowledging that she was INDEED likeable enough.
How young are you to be spouting this sexist rhetoric? There is no one on the political scene who does not take Hillary seriously, she is a known poliicy wonk. Her intellect and competence as a professional are not issues, nor are they called into question, ever. Rather it is her judgment, integrity, humanity and empathy for others which is her problem. Hillary's likeability doesn't have a darn thing to do with her appearance. Nada. Perhaps, these are issues for you as a female but most women who are not likeable it is not about appearance rather it is their attitude and/or personality as individuals that makes them unlikeable. Especially when folks vehemently dislke them as is the case with those who are polarizing. It ain't about their looks!
So you are wrong about what Obama knew. He knew that her likeabilty had nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her character. Thus his gracious response that she was 'likeable enough.' Nothing about the response was dismissive of Hillary, if anything it was dismissive of the assertion being made that she was 'not likeable' and empathic to her 'that hurts my feelings' snark.
I disagree. The way for Obama to demonstrate he stands with women is not by being effusive about Hillary as his political rival (let's not forget they are opponents in a debate) but rather by how he votes. Women who are intelligent and serious know that Obama is a staunch supporter of womens issues and in fact was the only sitting Senator who held a fund raiser to repeal the most restrictive abortion ban in S . Dakota. Hillary did not advocate for the repeal of the ban nor did Emily's List. So, as far as women being bright and smart and knowing the candidates if they check Obama's record any such skepticism of where he stands would be erased. Unless, they listened to Hillary's scurrilous attacks that have misconstrued his record without recognizing that was a nasty smear tactic on her part as his political rival. In fact, it is a classic example of why Hillary is NOT likeable and underscores just how gracious Barack was being when he said that she was likeble enough.
Perhaps, it is just women who are uninformed about Baracks record that fall for these dirty politics as Barack surely understands that he needs and seeks womens votes and has a record to demonstrate he has EARNED their votes by his legislative record. Did you even bother to check it?
This is nothing but sexist female victim rhetoric. Male politicians have been competing against female politicians for decades. Female politicians that is who have actually achieved on their own merit that is and have no reason to claim their spouse's experience like Boxer, Feinstein, Dole, Pelosi, Waters etc..all have had male opponents. Again, how young are you? I am of Clinton's generation and there were plenty of guides and posts along the way, if you chose to look for them. Just because we were trailblazers does not mean that we all thing Hillary is a historic candidate. Lots of us believe she is the absolute worst role model to be held up as historic anything as she has not achieved on her own personal merit but rather has attempted to pigback a career on her spouses power and influence. Which is anything but new territory for women. It is the antithesis of female individual achievement.
O please, just stop it with this archaic and arcane gender stupid rhetoric. Are you leaving the doll house and all your Barbies behind? Is that what it takes for you to fully understand and respect how to be a competitor regardless of your gender? Did you throw out everything pink, also? How about burning your bra? Did Monica make you discard your thongs, too? Having done all that do you think you will have earned the respect of men?
Did you really mean to say here that as long as you have a choice to vote for a women you will soley on the basis of gender? If so, that would have saved you about 5 paragraphs. As one female the only thing you can assure men of is of your vote alone.
January 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For everyone looking for the demographics on who voted for who in NH, CNN has its exit polls here.
whiterosebuddy, after reading your entire post, I think maybe there is a fundamental miscommunication or misunderstanding type of problem here.
Point 1. For women and/or people of color, this is our first chance to elect a President who looks like us, shares many of our experiences and knows our issues better than a white male. Until now, our only choice has been to choose WHICH white male to elect.
Point 2. Most Democratic women can tell you that Hillary is pro-choice, very smart, can be trusted to promote the kind of health care that families with children need and is sensitive to child care and working women's problems and would very likely try to get parity in men and women's pay. Yes, these women are against the war and torture and they hate Bush/Cheney, but their votes are going to go where their awareness is the most focused. It's not about sexism or sympathy (and it's not about Iraq). But, it is a normal desire to vote in the candidate that you think can best promote your daily life issues.
Point 3. Let's face it. Current male candidates and former white male Presidents may talk about health care, but it's usually based around the economics of it. And when was the last time we heard anything about child care, equal pay or working mother's issues from any of them?
Point 4. Many African-American women may break from the above to go with Obama because they believe he understands their issues in the same way. And maybe he does. I have no idea.
Does esmense's point about the sympathy vote make sense now? It demeans the people who make the comment and it demeans women who do not view their core concerns as 'sympathies'. And why the failure of Edwards and Obama (and all Democrats) to correct the sympathy vote meme hurts them and all of us?
esmense's final point-- with women in the races now, women do not have to vote for a man anymore. Would any man in these comments vote for a woman that demeaned men if he had another choice?
Final thought - If the Democratic party is the party that can offer both sexes, whites and people of color representation that increasingly corresponds to their core concerns, how can it not be the majority party if only some white males are left to the Republicans?
Having said all of that, I'm for Edwards and hesitate over Hillary for all the reasons everyone here does, her vote on Iraq, the Iran shit, right of center leanings, etc. Most voters are not wonky about politics like the commenters here, though.
I thought esmense's blog was brilliant and offer kudos.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 11, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Happy New Year Seashell
No what we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion. Steinem vs. Paglia so to speak. Here is someone who expresses the point I was making even better:
I want no special privilege nor government discrimination either. Whereas Esmense seems to beleive that men must accord women special treatment to the extent that later in the threads she asserts that Obama should have come to Hillary's defense. Surely, she would not have expected Nanci Pelsoi to come to the defense of her rival on the basis of 'likability' yet Barack as a male, should have? I beleive that women and all people should compete on their own merit and not expect special treatment based on race or gender. Esmense seems to beleive that men owe women some additional sensitivity based on sexist views. I don't.
No there are numerous female politicians and 2 females have previously run for President. Besides, choosing the best candidate for President based on gender vs. individual merit and achievement simply does not hold sway with me. While being black or female should not be the reason to vote for the candidate it should not exclude them on basis of gender or race either. There are far greater policy issues of importance to this country than to let those shallow attributes be the driving factors in selecting a President.
Having been raised by a single mother, Obama talks about them continually and repeatedly in ads as well as numerous campaign stops in IA and speeches. He even mentioned the rights of women when he was voting against John Roberts confirmation as a Supreme Court justice to underscore why he believed he did not have the right temperment to sit on the highest court in the land.
Quite the opposite. AA's do not have the luxury of relying on race as a privilege in this society and thus a black politician holds no particular sway culturally. AA's vote for policies and track records not physical attributes.
I disagreed with Esmense's point fundamentally and found it to be very sexist on her part. She tried to enforce the sexist rules of our society only in a way that would benefit females vs. males. That is not progressive, brilliant nor egalitarian.
January 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a very Happy New Year to you, Whiterosebuddy :-)
I'm been dithering about the dilemma we have come to in this conversation, wrb. So rather than dither by myself, I'll explain my thoughts and invite you into the dilemma with me.
I know with great certainity that you have not understood what either esmense or I were trying to convey. It is with just about the same amount of certainity that I believe I HAVE understood what you are saying. The trouble is we are not at all on the same track. So should more attempts be made on my part to convey at least the concept? And it is not that I'm looking for you to agree with me before I'll believe that you understand, but I will know because the arguments that you are making now to refute what you think I'm saying, are not even coming close to, or for that matter refuting, what I really am saying.
I feel stumped. I hate that, don't you? :-) Welcome to my dilemma.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 11, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure I am open to discussion. I think we have different opinions but if you beleive I have missed your point as you do understand mine, I'll listen harder.
Yup. I'm all ears, well given the format..all eyes. :-)
January 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok - here we go.
Neither my post or esmense's was about Hillary the person or the candidate or her politics. Both posts were essentially about the women voting for her.
Let's look at some specifics. You really took umbrage at what you thought was esmense's suggestion that Edwards and Obama should be sensitive towards Hillary. Esmense seems to believe that men owe women some additional sensitivity based on sexist views. I don't. But what she really said was that E & O should have questioned the question about Hillary's likeability -- why Hillary's likeability was questioned in the first place. Speaking of Obama, esmense said, with my emphasis:
In other words, this 'question of likeability' is not something that is questioned of male candidates and it should not be a question or issue for female candidates, either.
Here are some snippets from a fray thread on Slate.com that also make the gender point:
Another misunderstanding in esmense's original post was here (with my emphasis):
You responded by saying, Did you really mean to say here that as long as you have a choice to vote for a women you will soley on the basis of gender? Notice where I italicized the women won’t vote for a woman just because she is a woman part. I don't think I can make that any clearer.
esmense's post was concentrated on the failure of the two male candidates to speak out against the gender attacks on Hillary and how that failure may have cost them some uncommitted or undecided votes in NH. In Edward's case, by attacking Hillary's attire, he actually committed the same offense. In doing so, he and Obama are missing the chance to win more votes than they will win by particpating or not taking the offense in the gender attacks on her.
In your response to me you highlighted this:
You then said that there have been plenty of women in politics and we should not be voting based on gender, anyway, which is a theme you presented in other parts of your responses.
Please note in my previous sentence I had singled this out as a Presidential campaign. And, yes I know about Shirley Chisholm in 1972, but even Shirley knew that her chance of winning was hopless. So for the first time ever, there is a very real chance that a woman might win, which makes it a historical event in any book. Maybe you don't find that exciting, but many, many women do, including myself. It does not mean that women will vote for her just because she's a woman, including myself and esmense (we're both supporting Edwards), but that doesn't take away from the fact of actually having the choice.
I'm trying to wind this up soon -- :-)
Having said that, many women will vote for Hillary. According to CNN's exit polls, 87% of all Democrats in NH think she has the best chance of winning, vs 75% for Edwards and 70% for Obama. She also beat out the others in worries about the economy, global warming, withdrawing troops from Iraq, and people that believe she cares about people and her experience. People that are very worried about terrorism also voted for her over the others, as well as union households.
I bring this up to show that people are voting based on their beliefs about a candidate's policy positions. In NH, 57% of them were women. Your belief is that Hillary is piggy-backing from Bill's popularity, or what I call playing the gender card. I don't agree, but the main point is not that such an attitude is demeaning to just Hillary, but that it is also demeaning to the women (and everyone, really) who vote for her. It implies that they are voting for her for reasons other than an ability to competently carry out her Presidential duties. And that was the entire and only point of my post.
How does our dilemma stand now?
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 13, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you demeaning women like Oprah Winfrey and Elizabeth Edwards? Do they not know that they are supposed to vote for someone who looks like them? Or have they had only male experiences?
Hillary's health care plan sucks. She has sold out to the insurance companies. She is the largest beneficiary of donations by corporate, including Republicans.
Hillary is now said to be the main inspiration behind ending government aid to many poor women and children. How exactly is that helping women?
The trade deals of the Clinton Administration hit low wage workers where they were most vulnerable. Aren't many of those working women?
Gender politics stinks as bad as racial politics. I notice you got in the usual dig at those white males too.
Are you really sure we should vote by gender and tribal affiliation and forget all the ideals of American democracy?
Best, Terry
January 14, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Terry, I'm not voting for her either, for all the reasons you listed and more. If you want to solve the conundrum, go up a few posts and read back down. I just can't do it anymore. Thanks.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 14, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, so what you are suggesting is that I should imagine that someone who I respect and admire be substituted for Hillary in tersm of the message?
Why were E&O suppose to based on their gender question the premise of the question? This is a real fundamental difference to me. All of the candidates likeability was determined in those polls.
Obama has been queried numerous times about his 'blackness' 'is he black enough' they asked. They ask him why he is running behind Hillary with black voters. Hillary nor Edwards not ever once challenged the premise. Now, why those were clearly questions singling out his race, this question on likeability cannot in anyway be presumed to be about her gender. Thus, my question is what causes anyone to believe that a question about likeability is about gender vs. the individuals character and personality?
It is not as though the likeability question has not been polled in prior presidential candidacies when women were not a candidate. Unlike the race question, all the candidates were asked about likeability and Hillary's high numbers with black voters were touted to Obama.
Well if this is the standard. Hillary is seriously remiss in expressing disdain for the fact that Obama is the only one expected to have black voters. No? That should not be a question or issue for a black candidate, right? This is the core issue here right. The demographics of the votes based on the gender and race of the candidates. So what we have is a female opponent not standing up for Obama on questions of race and all male candidates not standing up for females on questions of gender. Which underscores the point of why is this race focused on gender or race. Obama understands not to emphasize race and he eschews any such conjecture and speculation. Race is far more polarizing than gender. Why is Hillary, or any woman, then allowed to pander on the basis of gender for votes IF the males are supoose to question any comments that can be construed as sexist?
Yes, so in light of the pass 2 days of race being the focus of the campaign let's take Esmense statement and change the word to black. Here is Esmense statement again tell me how you interpret it with the change:
"White candidates can be reassured that blacks won’t vote for a black just because they are black. But it’s past time for them to wake up to the full implications of this; increasingly, blacks don't have to vote for whites simply because they have no other choice"
Isn't that what mainstream America calls playing the race card?
Why then are Esmense remarks not playing the gender card?
I did, and considered that a given as the candidacies of Braun and Chisholm were Presidential.
This is the equivalent again of playing the race card, only it is the gender card so it is acceptable. That is what the pass 2 days have been about the race baiting of the Clintons as they seek to gain racially soldarity from white voters to offset what they beleive will be the loss of the black vote, despite Hillary consistently leading among black voters.
Hillary is indeed piggybacking as MRS. Bill Clinton. But the larger issue here is that whites have no problem demeaning blacks when they say accuse Obama of playing the race card despite the clear evidence to the contrary of HRC having been the one who injected race into the campaign as she knew it was far more polarinzing to Obama and deleterious to his candidacy. Especially given that all the remarks came from the Clinton campaign. White American has assumed all along that Obama would monopolize the black vote, yet instill, they insist that would be racial politics and they resent that.
All I am trying very hard to get you and Emense to see is that what she is demanding of males is gender politics and that all that mainstream America resentment falls to the wayside along when it is gender vs. race. It is acceptable to play gender politics but not race politics. When if we as a society seek equality on the basis of race and gender then both should be unacceptable.
Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.
I beleive we have common ground in that sexism can be perceived by women voters.We differ on how that sexism should be handled.
PS, I only used race as an example...I do not want to shift our discussion focus there.
January 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The characteristics you list as the reasons you hate Hillary are exactly the same set of characteristics demonstrated by every other candidate for the Presidential nomination who is in contention in either party. They especially apply to Obama, Huckabee (hidden behind a great smile), Rudy (in spades, with no ability to smile), Romney, Edwards, Richardson, and I'd have to say that Kuchinich and Ron Paul have too little of to be contenders or competent for the job of President. Do you hate them all, or just to woman who belongs to the crowd?
Because no one without the ability to demonstrate the characteristics you listed as reasons you hate Hillary is competent to be even a Senator, let along Governor or President. Any politician who is not ambitious ("power-grubbing" is the pejorative term for an "ambitious" woman), calculating and vindictive can be described in a single word - loser. Politicians without those characteristics don't last, and never will. (Polarizing is not a characteristic she possesses. It is one attributed to her by others because they dislike her and they are offended that she is so competent in politics that she defeats men, thus stepping out of the passive female role to which they wish to limit her.)
You are angry at Hillary because she refuses to be locked into your image of a sweet, generous, giving, easy-to-negotiate-with, emotional, forgiving individual as you view women should be.
Instead she is competing for the most powerful political job in the world, one that requires exactly the characteristics you excoriate her for.
If you have any good sense, you will gladly recognize her competence and her intellect, and ignore the sexist bullshit you are spouting because she isn't campaigning for the job of "First June Cleaver and Beaver's mom." She is campaigning for the job of President of the United States, one she is highly qualified to fill.
Hey, you can even recognize her very high qualifications for the office of President and still vote for Edwards, or even for the pig-in-a-poke about whom nothing real is known except his ambition, intellect, vacuous rhetoric and smile, Obama. (Bush ran in 2000 as a unifier who was going to bring a new comity to Washington also, remember?) But you will find that they also are calculating, ambitious and vindictive. They have to be to get as far as they have, and the job of President demands those characteristics. But since those are considered male characteristics, they can't be accused of stepping out of their proper (male) role, can they?
The rest of your lengthy screed is little more than your rant that she is stepping out of the female role; and it is only your personal definition of that role, one which you demand she she remain in so that you do not get upset.
Christ! She's 60 years old! Let her be a full, rounded human being and apply for a job she is quite prepared to perform at a level so high that no Republican living could even dream of, and forget your anger at a mere woman who dares to act like a ambitious, cold, calculating and powerful political leader who just might have to be Commander in Chief instead of family cook, nurse, and neighborhood den mother.
January 12, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ricky, I do not hate Hillary. People who say this are generally too blind to see her faults and have no logical rebuttal and resort to inflammatory emotional language as a defense instead. Is that true for you?
I simply do not find those attributes to be ones I am willing to support in an individual seeking the Presidency without them having integrity, honesty, teambuilding, leadership and judgment to balance them.
I like smiles. I like people who make an effort to get along as HUMAN BEINGS. Individuals who show empathy and compassion for others rate high on my list as likeable people.
I do not hate Hillary. My feelings regarding her do not rise to the level of hate. I am contemptuous of her character. I dislike her as a person and I am not alone.Lots of people do. That is why they do polls based on likability because they have learned that it is those traits that make a candidate electable. It is not about whether politicians demonstrate those characteristics it is the balance of attributes. While there may be those who are stupid enough to beleive that those same negative traits do not occur in the candidates they like, I am not one of them. It is about balance not whether they have a trait deficit.
People are not called polarizing and divisive unless they engender deep distrust and animosity due to their own lack of integrity generally demonstrated by frequently equivocating on issues and folks not knowing where they stand. They are deceptive. They use vague and dubious language to make you believe they are agreeing when in fact they aren't. Such as Hillary did in the debate when Dodd called her out after she said she 'understood' Spitzers stance, when Dodd said she agreed Hillary rebutted firmly 'no, I did not' yet Edwards and Obama also were under the impression she had agreed. Individuals who send out mixed signals like that by using misleading language deliberately when they mean something else engender strong dislike as people act on their understanding only to have the rug pulled out from under them. THAT's why Hillary is viewed as divisive and labelled as a doubletalker. It is not hate but the fact that her words do not match her actions.This is sometimes also called playing both ends against the middle.
No. No. No. Powergrubbing is a gender neutral term and has nothing to do with ambitions with regard to Hillary. Being a powermongerer in this case is about lacking leadership. Both women and men can be either. Calculating and vindictive are character deficts that result from the goals of the individuals actions whether it benefits them or many. The flip side of these are judgment and strategy.
Not so. Polarizing is the outcome of her equivocating, obfuscating and deceptive language. An individual can also be inclusive when engaging dissent it is all about the tactics they employ to achieve their goals. Her competency is not an issue. Most find her to be politically incompent as her legislative attempts have been huge failures. Again, this is a result of her manner in dealing with opposing views.It is not about gender. It is a lack of leadership, and persuasiveness. Hillary's mastery of language and lack of empathy for others handicapps her ability to achieve consensus and agreement. She substitutes power when she encounters dissent and that polarizes people. If you agree with her, you like her wielding power but if not, you find her use of powerful oft-putting and divisive. Karl Rove is polarizing and so was Nixon. It has nothing to do with her being a female at all.
Ricky, you do not know me so why are you making all these declarative statements about how I feel. Simply because I do not like Hillary does not mean I hate her nor am I angry with her because I find her poltical methods intolerable and deceiftul. I do not need Hillary to be sweet, generous and giving. I like Maxine Waters and Barbara Boxer as well as the steal trap mind in a velvet glove Elizabeth Dole. Olympia Snowe is very shrewd, unemotional and not known to be easy to negotiate with either and I like her too. It is all about integrity and knowing where folks stand, not on whether they are sugar and spice and everything nice.
It is not my fault that she chooses to compete for the Presidency using the resume of Bill Clinton. Nor do I have anything to do with her lacking a balance of positive attributes to offset her negative ones or the judgment and discipline to have mastered how she demonstrates them to benefit her ambitions i.e. learning from her mistakes
Well, well, well, aren't you just a piece of work. Typical Hillary supporter just like her, you attack the messenger knowing the substance of the message you are unable to rebut. Hillary does that a lot on the campaign trail. In fact, that is probably one of the big reasons she lost IA. She was rude and dismissive to the voters. Her arrogance did not go unnoticed either. While no one expects Hillary to be June Cleaver they do not want a Virgina Wolfe either.
Especially, one whose claim of experience is limited to what she learned observing her husband's achievements. As a graduate of Yale one of the most prestigious law schools in the country Hillary was not even capable of passing the DC bar, one of the most rigorous bar exams in the nation, despite having worked on Nixon's impeachment. O I have plenty of sense. Sense enough to know that Hlllary lacks judgment on foreign policy and continues to listen to all the foreign policy advisors who also got it wrong about the war, like Albright, Berger and Cohen such that she is only highly qualified to repeat the same mistakes as demonstrated by her voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
More unwarranted attacks and mischaracterizations, you must have been in full blown Hillary mode when you wrote this unintelligent post as you obviously lacked the critical thinking skills to grasp that stepping out of the female role was not the issue whatsoever. Who cares how unfeminine Hillary is. My point was that men are not responsible for defending Hillary and that many women do not view it as a miscommunication on the part of men when they treat Hillary as an individual vs. like a very delicate flowerof womenhood who needs a strong bigdaddy to defend her. How about you go back and read it again and stop being blinded by your weeping heart faith in Hillary.
Ha, ha, lol you really don't get it. My point was that she is being treated like an individual and that is why she is disliked. It has nothing to do with her age or gender. Esmense thinks she needs to be treated special on the basis of gender. I don't.
Look, you are totally off base. I could care less what roles a woman chooses to have. What I care about is that she accepts her choices and the consequences of them while she competes as an individual on her own merit for those goals and role choices.
The only person angry here is you and it has clouded your judgment and your reading comprehension. Keep your hate and anger to yourself/ Don't post unless you can do so reasonably, rationally and with a well thought out opposing view. It just makes you sound petty, mean and vindicative ...you know ,like Hillary.
BTW, does that B in your moniker rhyme with the word catty.
January 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, John Edwards could be the first Male White Christian Southern Middle-Aged Middle-class Well-educated Well-off Lawyer Family-man South Carolinian President!
January 10, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I woundn't be so sure about that. Did you see this excerpt from the latest issue of Larry Sabato's "Crystal Ball" newsletter?
I was floored. I can understand the dynamics of the Bill-Hillary brand, but this is pretty damning. Electing a President based on the strengths of her spouse is a shaky proposition at best. I'll admit I'm not voting for Hillary so that Bill can be the First Gentleman. I'm voting against her neoliberal/neoconservative political tendencies.
January 10, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The explanation for that is simple -- Bill is a known quantity. We know how he'd be as President, because he's been president.
No one will ever ask, but I don't know that Obama would do much better with that question -- which was at its heart; who would you prefer, the President who has already proved himself, or the candidate who is still unproven?
January 10, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that is true, then why don't a majority of the Obama and Edwards supporters jump ship for Bill on this hypothetical question? He's just as much a known quantity to their supporters as he is to Hillary's.
January 10, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Edwards voters weren't asked the question -- only Clinton voters.
January 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The statement "...while all other Democrats kept most of their own voters" leads me to believe that it was asked of the other candidates' supporters.
You say that this blog post "is about male candidates communicating with women voters and learning to deal with a new political environment -- one that includes competing with woman on a more serious level than they have in the past."
I think you're trying to use Hillary's gender as a cover for the fact that her very political existence is an extension of her husband's Presidency. Given that fact, along with her performance in the Senate, I assert that she is not deserving the support and deference she has received to this point. Her gender has insulated her more than it has hurt her so far--Bill's protests to the contrary .
In case you've forgotten, this election is not about women becoming equals to men in Democratic Presidential primaries. That won't deliver universal health care or high-paying jobs for single moms. It's about nominating the best person to lead the country who can also defeat the Republican nominee this fall.
January 10, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I saw it reported the reporter said that "Clington voters" were asked the question. No mention of the other candidates.
January 10, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is cut and pasted:
"By a margin of 58 percent to 27 percent, Hillary Clinton's voters preferred Bill, while all other Democrats kept most of their own voters..."
Therefore, it WAS asked of other voters, but they stuck with their candidate
Jan
January 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they did ask that same question of Obama voters, and they chose Obama over Bill Clinton by a large majority, but I don't really find that too surprising, given that so many of Obama's supporters seem to hate both Clintons with a purple passion. (And a lot of them seem to be too young to clearly remember Bill Clinton's presidency anyway, or at least to be able to put it into historical perspectivve.)
January 11, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The writer has an excellent point. While the candidates and the press are walking on egg shells with respect to Obama's race (they say he "transcends it" when in fact he knows good and well its import and plays it magnificently), they are openly sexist toward and dismissive of Clinton. They refer to her as "witch" and "fishwife," repeatedly refer to her anger as "petulance," insist she won due to sympathy as opposed to her merits. The white establishment is desperate not to be seen as racist at this stage, so Obama gets a pass. However, there are obviously no penalties for being sexist.
January 10, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit.
You are the one who has bought into a media narrative. It's just that it's a counternarrative which maintains that the media has been hard on Clinton.
January 10, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can point me to any press discomfort with Obama practically sucking his finger during the New Hampshire debates, asking if we want to endure a Presidency watching his ears, and his lame reliance on a teleprompter for his concession speech THEN I will concede that Hillary has been equally treated.
January 10, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because equivalent things happened to Clinton in the debate. Sheesh.
January 10, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes. i find that whole 'transcends race' thing absolutely insulting.
no. i find these claims equally insulting.
the race issue with obama is pervasive. the gender issue with clinton is limited and entirely overstated.
January 10, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget "PIAPS" (Pig in a pant suit). I find that one highly offensive.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 12, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lessons of New Hampshire are not known. There are questions regarding vote counting, that may be resolved, or not. There are questions about polling techniques, etc.
Geraldine Ferraro had a decent shot without being from a presidential family. Senator Clinton is not as revolutionary a phenomenon as some might like.
Speaking of liking, don't men have to be likeable as candidates? Bush was the guy you could share a beer with while Gore was the bore.
The man-shadow Hillary is laboring under is not Men but Bill. Ironically, she only has such profile because of Bill. If she had run for the Senate, and served there, and run for President, as Hillary Rodham, I'd be more impressed. But she dropped Rodham, even as a middle name. I'll let others speculate as to why.
January 10, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you totally dismiss 35 years of work on public issues. Is it because you think they were "just women's issues?"
Sure, Hillary's marriage to Bill is a big reason why she has been taken seriously -- not by women, but by the MEN who still primarily finance and influence such things -- as a Presidential candidate at a time when it is still unlikely that any other woman would be. Including women with many more years in public office than she has.
But, as your comment indicates, that same connection that has allowed her unusually serious consideration as a candidate, also allows many to dismiss her as a candidate.
The bottom line is that the Clinton name can only get her in a position to be considered. She's going to have to win, just like the other candidates, on her own merits. And, given the hostility that the first serious bid for power by a woman, in our nature's history, has and could have been expected to engender, that's not going to be easy.
Shirley Chilsom always said her gender was a bigger obstacle for her in public life than her race. That's still true today.
Hopefully, though, the day is coming when neither will be an obstacle.
January 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point here is that the Senator's particular circumstances preclude drawing general conclusions about women on their own. She has by choice conflated her career with Bill's. If the Senator's individual record is persuasive, why is she not Hillary Rodham? She is asking to be viewed as Bill's partner, so I will do so.
And apropos this question, how about:
Check out BradBlog on this.
January 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I generally agree with you about consciously using Bill to boost herself but the name stuff is a total waste of pixels even as hyperbole. She's not Hilary Rodham and is instead Hilary Clinton because that's how most married people, especially at the time of her marriage, changed their names.
January 10, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The main point is not that, it is that she dropped using "Rodham". She used that during the WH years, likely to keep some personal identity. But since her Senate run she has been "Clinton" only.
It just irks me a bit that her supporters claim she is not being viewed on her merits. I do look at those and find them unpersuasive. But she is transparently exploiting her White House tenure. On that score there are plenty of reasons to argue.
I feel Shirley Chisolm, and other women that have become legislators and governors, mean much more for women than the Clinton story.
January 10, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
On her Senate home page, she is referred to by all three names -- Hillary Rodham Clinton -- or simply as Senator Clinton.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the United States Senate by the people of New York on November 7, 2000, after years of public service on behalf of children and families.
On her campaign website, she is often referred to familiarly with only her first name:
Hillary has a plan to restore America's middle class. After six and a half years of Bush administration policies, the middle class is struggling to succeed in an economy that is leaving more and more Americans behind.
When she married Bill, she didn't take her husband's name; she was simply "Hillary Rodham," rather unusual for 1975. It wasn't until after Bill was governor of Arkansas that she took his surname.
January 11, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
So she followed the trends of the times in her life.
I seem to remember some media coverage when Bill was elected that made a big deal out of the fact that she went by Rodham not Clinton. First Lady protocol or something. There were also quite a few who were quite insistent that she behave like a proper First Lady and wanted her to stay out of the West Wing. If Hillary could have worked more closely with Bill maybe Monica would have been booted before she caused trouble.
January 11, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out these other Sites too:
Clinton wins over Obama in Diebolt counted towns,
loses to Obama in hand counted towns.
Statistical analysis of NH machine vs hand count/ town by town.
2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results -
A Closer Look At The Count
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
And check:
black box vote
January 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious?
1. She stopped calling herself Hillary "Rodham" years ago when the press criticized her for it. Now she's being criticized because she isn't calling herself Hillary "Rodham". Why this is any kind of issue is ridiculous.
2. Chris Mathews is a first class asshole who made his career out of destroying democrats, especially Al Gore and the Clintons - this is the asshole who told us that Al Gore would lick the bathroom floor to be president, who gave air time to Gennifer Flowers and the Clinton murder list, who told us that Sen. Clinton wanted to strangle Obama in his crib, who told us that Sen. Obama's mother and grandmother were Muslims, and mentioned 11 times in two weeks the story about Obama and the Madrassa school, along with one of the first cable shits to mention his middle name over and over as though it was a dirty secret and generally did everything in his power to push the Clinton impeachment and now, NOW, you think he's on to something?
Here's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the polls were incorrect - TWICE as many people voted than was predicted by ANY poll.
January 10, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the explanation for the absence of "Rodham". I'll admit I didn't notice when it happened.
Agree Matthews is a jerk. Offered because Brad Friedman highlighted it to show some profile to the question. As to explanations, I am still unpersuaded that the newbies, or the undecideds, in Olberman's explanation, broke in a disproportionate surge to Clinton.
January 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another little fact the news assholes have forgotten to tell you - they stopped polling Sunday night.
If Brad Friedman is quoting Chris Mathews as a reliable source, he's more desparate than any of us could guess.
January 10, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which assholes are the news assholes? Or maybe I should ask which news people are assholes?
The assholes or other have not forgotten to tell me of the polling stop after Sunday, but also in the mix are pre-adjustment exit polls.
Friedman is not using Matthews to add credibility but to show a venue where the question came up.
Can you really feel good about denigrating a call to recount votes tallied on Diebold machines that are easily hackable?
I do not assume Americans are inherently more virtuous than citizens of other countries. Elections get tinkered with everywhere, and we are not expected to simply trust officials.
January 10, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is verging on wingnutterism, Tom. Do you think that Clinton rigged the voting machines? Do you think that maybe the polls don't jibe because the pollsters stopped polling Sunday? Don't you think that's a more reasonable answer to what happened? Do you think that another reason might be a much higher turnout than expected? Do you think that maybe the undecideds made up their minds Tuesday and went for Clinton?
You know, the pollsters didn't predict McCain's margin either, and they have been wrong on many, many occasions, not just this one event.
I am really tired of Cider House Rules for the Clintons, and professional rules for everyone else? Did you hear anyone claim that the votes were rigged in Iowa? That somehow the votes were fixed for Sen. Obama? So why is it when Clinton wins all of a sudden Mathews is asking reasonable questions? So here we have a republican for Ron Paul claiming that the voting was fixed and the damned democrats jump on the band wagon along with him. Yep, if Clinton wins it must have been rigged...
January 10, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There likely is a reasonable answer. But why should I have to take it on faith? Why does NH need machines to do its counting?
The most likely innocent answer, I would think, is that the precincts that had hand-counting were non-random, such as having a particular education level or something. In that case, the deviation would follow the demographic. I haven't heard the particulars. But still, I can see giving out machine-count advance reports, as long as they are provisional until hand counts finish.
Update: Here's theory that accounts for the discrepancy, if rural precincts fall for Obama vs cities for Clinton.
Kucinich is ponying up the money for a recount. We'll know more soon.
BTW, the Bradley effect is a non-trivial possiblity, too.
That undecideds broke so unevenly is in need of explaining only because the system is opaque.
Iowa is rather the opposite in terms of transparency. BTW, did you read the BradBlog or any other sources? You keep reverting to harping about Matthews.
January 11, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I read the Bradblog. I wouldn't comment on it if I hadn't.
No, I don't believe the Bradley effect had anything to do with this. I'm not so sure the Bradley effect is a true phenom anyway. There is no way of knowing that - the problem with polling for primaries is that the polling often stops short with the undecideds. If the voters indicate they are leaning towards a candidate that is considered a vote for that candidate - I've often leaned towards a certain candidate and then changed my vote the day of the election.
I don't care if they recount the votes, what I dislike is this insinuation that Clinton fixed it. As Mathews, no I have no respect for someone who uses Mathews to give legitimacy to his insinuations.
January 11, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Discrepancies between polling and vote tallies are trivial if transparent counting settles the case. May I point out that we are quick to believe in manipulated elections in other countries but prefer to believe we are better behaved?
There is no reasonable argument why NH cities can't find enough people to count ballots, while rural precincts can. Screw trust---verify.
I think you are purposefully ignoring the intention of quoting Matthews. It is not his insight (yuk), or his record (har) but simply that the question was being raised in a major venue. You can't believe Friedman finds credibility in Matthews. For now, the story is winding down. Hillary Clinton will win or lose fair and square, we hope.
January 11, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I don't believe for one minute that elections aren't rigged in this country - what is offensive is Mathews, et.al, insinuating that Clinton rigged the vote because she couldn't have won if she hadn't.
Secondly, I'm not purposely ignoring the intention of quoting Mathews, I'm questioning why anyone would quote him for any purpose at all other than ridicule and exposure of his bias.
January 11, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I find this question sexist. This is not an issue that men ever have to confront, and if every anything is made of a male candidate's name, those making an issue of it are quickly hooted down (as happens when someone tries to make an issue of Sen. Obama's middle name).
The fact is that whatever name or names Sen. Clinton uses, somebody is going to pretend to take offense that she didn't choose something different.
January 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take exception to your finding. I am not sexist since I encouraged my wife to keep her name (if names mean something concerning sexism).
The question arose in the context of why we tend to say "Hillary" and use the bare "Clinton" less often. In that context, it was distinguishing her from Bill (in our discussion) that was at work. Then it blossomed to "She has a career all her own" against "Bill made her well-known and gave her a leg up".
I wish she had stuck to her guns and dropped "Clinton" altogether while in the White House. I certainly was not asking her to fade into First Ladyhood.
I have posted here that after eight years of Clintons I would prefer to see a fresh dynasty. Surely they don't need any opportunities, with Bill a (deservedly) successful speaker, and Chelsea doing fine. Wish mine were doing so well.
And I feel a bit irked to hear Mrs. Clinton say that "some people are right and some are wrong." I resent more Manichaeism. Last thing we need.
January 11, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said I found the question sexist. Men never have to decide what surname they are going to use. Why should it be legitimate to fault a woman for the choice she makes, given that any married woman has to make a choice? This is a no-win issue for any woman who aspires to high national office, and to me it is more or less on a par with the hoo-ha that was raised over cleavage.
January 11, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is not sexist in the context in which it was raised. A marrying woman does not have to choose, in any state I know of. She can simply be herself. I haven't researched that so I could be wrong, but I married in Virginia, not exactly San Francisco. No choice needed, my wife kept her name.
I notice the NY Times now using the Senator's middle name in this picture caption:
Not sure if that measns anything.
January 11, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I submit that your wife did choose -- she chose to keep her maiden name. The choice may not be the big deal it was a generation ago, but in this society, it's still a choice a woman cannot avoid when she marries, even if what she chooses is to make her last name "Whatever" instead of one surname or another. I think it is sexist to make an issue of it whichever way she chooses.
Possibly only to readers of entrails.
January 11, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there something wrong with a woman having the right to choose? Isn't that what the entire feminist movement was about? Housewife or corporate executive, single or married, childless or parent, birth name or spouses' name...Ms. or Mrs. Choice is what women fought for no?.
The question is not sexist. The only reason it is an issue is because her husband was president. So folks can either say Senator Clinton if they want to type all that or Hillary. Which is the name you see on all her campaign literature. Nothing says SENATOR Clinton. It all says HILLARY.
So, if it is sexist and folks refer to her as Hillary and her opponent as Senator Obama that is Hillary's choice. That is how she chose to be referred to politically ostensibly to distinguish herself from Bill, no doubt.
Tom was not being sexist, nor was raising the question sexist. It is all about choice. A woman's right to choose. Just like Hillary chose not to drop RODHAM until Bill Clinton lost his first re-election as Governor in ARK. Only after his political loss did Hillary refer to herself as Hillary Clinton. When she ran for the Senate she chose Hillary without Clinton or Rodham.
Therefore it is not sexist to call her Hillary but it is sexist to refer to Obama as Barack given that he did not choose to be referred to as Barack because Hillary has chosen to be Hillary. He should be Obama just as Biden and Dodd and Richardson and McClain, and Hucklebee and Romney are. Or he should be referred as SENATOR Obama just as all the other political candidates are in the race or Governor.
Simply because HILLARY is Senator Obama's political opponent does not mean that people get to diminish his political stature by referring to him as Barack. So if there was any sexism here it was reverse sexism.
Hilliary chose her first name as her signature brand politically. Making her opponents submit to being referred to by their first names is REVERSE sexism and the males should not have to forego their stature and the long standing formality to refer to elected officials by their last name simply because Hilliary CHOSE to forego it.
After all, it is a woman's right to choose that is important, here. Let's not get it twisted.
January 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typically the choice is made at the time of marriage. In Hillary's case, she kept her maiden name of Rodham. The "Clinton" wasn't added until he was President.
Jan
January 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
Do you really think that someone with all the personal negatives that Bill Clinton has displayed could ever have become President had he not married one of the most outstanding women every to come out of Chicago?
I don't. He'd never have gotten out of Arkansas, and probably wouldn't have lasted there as governor. Hillary made Bill President.
January 10, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to give the Senator lots of credit for supporting and molding Bill, except that she hasn't asked for it.
January 10, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if she had asked for it, the response would be ...
Fill the blank and any positive answer is wrong.
January 10, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right?
Bill Clinton by all accounts is an extraordinary politician, and Hillary has very little to do with that.
January 10, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, by contrast, is just chopped liver. Right?
January 10, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think, folks, think.
Is my above comment any more ridiculous than to say that Bill made Hillary the politician she is? Those two people literally made each other, and brought out the best in each other. To try to detract from what Hillary has done by saying that Bill made it possible or created her as a politician is as ridiculous as the reverse.
But you see, women don't get credit in America. What they do is get down-rated because they are merely women and wives. But you don't find many men at the very highest peaks of performance without really impressive women helping them get there. Hillary had as much to do with Bill's success as he has had with hers. Only someone ignorant about the normal dynamics of marriage, or someone biased against giving women credit for their contributions, could miss that fact.
The responses to my post clearly demonstrate the attitudes against women that I was trying to expose.
January 10, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That's why Barbara Bush should receive a lot of the "credit" for both GHWB and GWB.
January 11, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of insulting to suggest we haven't been thinking until you suggested it.
Most successful artists have an agent, without whom success might have been impossible. The agent is not therefore automatically an equivalently talented artist.
No one works entirely alone; all of us have members of our team that are essential to the success of the venture. Why is it ridiculous to say that Bill helped Hillary?
Many Obama supporters here are rather thin-skinned (disclosure: I'm leaning O), but Clinton supporters are equally touchy. We're all on the same team. Let's break up the firing squad.
Those of us that are not impressed with Sen. Clinton's resume are not woman-haters, OK?
January 11, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are Bill's negatives that Hillary turned to positives. Bill's biggest issue is that he is a womanizer. He was a womanizer when Hillary met him, dated him, married him, had a child with, was First Lady and US Senator.
What accomplishments support your assertion that Hillary was one of the most outstanding women who came out of Chicago? What did she do before she went to Wellesly and never returned to Il that made her outstanding?.
Untrue. Bill was a Fulbright and Rhodes Scholar plus a graduate of Georgetown and a student at Yale law school when Hillary met him 6 years after he had already left Arkansas. Hillary RODHAM was the reason that Bill was not re-elected Governor after his first term and succesful stint as State Atty General in Ark. The folks in Arkansas found her to be just as polarizing as the rest of the nation would when she became First Lady. Hillary did not make Bill President, Hillary cleaned up the trail of female bimbos and acted as his henchman to terrorize the poor women that fell for his charm and animal magnetism. Hillary did nothing but cause political problems for Bill in Ark as governor. She offended Southerners with her uncoventional ways and insufferable lack of feminity. She didn't know how to stand behind her man and wear dresses and she insisted on keeping her birth name. When Hillary finally realized she was the issue she dropped the Rodham and Bill was elected to another term for Governor the third time he ran.
Bill was somebody long before he met Hillary. Whereas Bills political stature catapaulted Hillary into a partnership at Rose Law firm, onto the board of Walmart, created a global platform for her to visit 82 counries to pad her resume as First Lady and into a US Senate seat as well as front runner for the Democratic Presidential nominee.
On her own Hillary was an outstanding scholar and she has been a good lawyer as well as wonderful mother to her daughter also.
January 10, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds like it was written by Peggy Noonan or Bay Buchannan.
January 11, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds more like something Camilia Paglia would write.
January 12, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is an excellent discussion between Steinem and Lacewell. It is lengthy but well worth it.
January 16, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You play the cards life dealt you. She can't undo the fact that Bill was a good president nor should she but you shouldn't dismiss her accomplishments because of his. The advantage that gave her simply offset the disadvantage of being a woman in politics. Or do you have some other explanation for the lack of female representation in the US Congress?
January 10, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is a smart, accomplished woman, and a decent senator, if not a great one (neither is Obama great).
I'm pleased to see her, as a woman, in the race. But she of course would prefer to win than to merely earn points as revolutionary, so she is "Clinton" not "Rodham". I'm just going along with her approach, in that she is more a Clinton repeat than a free woman standing tall.
January 10, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
esmense, I did not originally view Obama's comment as dismissive, but with so many viewing it that way, I reviewed the video and will now agree that it could be viewed that way. I found the continued use of "first black president" to describe Bill to be insulting; I also find Hillary's torture of a Southern dialect to be insulting.
See how easy it is to be insulting? Now, I will agree that Obama (the other men count, in your view?) needs to correct his tone and perhaps be more obviously respectful of Hillary.
But I want to know where Hillary's leadership without fluff--references to the two-fer with Bill yet the documents PROVING that are sealed away, with Bill's approval. That's not good enough but is part and parcel of the secretiveness that the Clinton years represent to a lot of us. Remember Hillary's secret healthcare meetings that were only rivaled when Cheney came along and did the same damned thing with energy policy. And if Hillary were "leading", provide examples where she led the fight for "universal healthcare" outside the confines of this campaign? She voted to extend healthcare--but so did others, including Obama. How does this distinguish Hillary from others?
What I hear from Hillary is that I've been at Bill's side for 35 years and I've been pursuing Democratic policies. What I want to hear is I'm Hillary and here's what I've been doing ON MY OWN to implement Democratic policies. And it is simply not sexist to insist on that. Hillary wants to be president and that's a solo office.
January 10, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about insults. It's about a missed opportunity.
Male candidates can't let their natural, competitive desire to see Hillary taken down lead them to dismiss the meaning and import,for women, of her sexist treatment. Women whose votes they need.
They have to show they understand what's going on here.
January 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is getting extremely good treatment from the male Democratic candidates. It certainly does NOT approach anything that the far right has flung her way. So let's not muddle the two.
I actually think the problem occurred with Hillary's choked up moment and the resultant media play that reminded me of the gang-up on Hillary in the 1990's. I do not dismiss the possibility that Hillary received female votes because these gals wanted to support Hillary and punch the media in the eye at the same time. I view these votes more of a support of Hillary under severe and unnecessary media criticism and not as a rejection of the male Democratic candidates. (I will, however, reserve judgment on Edwards' remarks which I thought were over the line.)
Are you asking for Obama to come out in defense of Hillary after the media trashes her as they did for the choked up moment? What EXACTLY are you asking the male Democratic candidates to do?
January 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, as I said clearly in my post, it's not about defending HIllary.
In fact, seeing it only as a situation in which he was required to either defend or attack Hillary (which the questioner, certainly, wanted it to be) is exactly the mistake Obama made.
He should have challenged the whole rationale behind the question.
January 10, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? That would be like the opposing team challenging the referee's penalty call on the other team.
It simply is not done.
January 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Because it would have worked to his benefit.
January 10, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I earnestly question whether it would have been beneficial as often times today what was once considered chivalrous is now deemed sexist. Even his gracious response has been perceived as 'dismissive and sexist' by many.
January 10, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gracious? He looked like he was sucking on a lemon when he made that remark, as if it pained him to rouse himself to give her even that little bit.
January 11, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What it looked like was that he was exhausted. He was very listless the entire debate not just on that question. Despite being tired he had enough compassion to respond in her defense graciously.
January 13, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama was supposed to be the candidate who was above politics.
January 11, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is BS. What you seem to be saying is when Hillary elected to treat the idiotic question lightly and laugh it off, it then fell to a male candidate to challenge the question. Au contraire, my dear, it was up to Hillary to handle this question correctly--not anyone else.
There is no male knight in shining armour, esmense. Hillary is on her own and women of her age (as I am) expect her to hold her own and do it in an authentic way. If Hillary held her tongue with her answer, take it up with Hillary.
Her fellow male candidates are treating her with the respect given a good competitor. She defends herself, as the men do. If Hillary cannot do that, then she needs to exit the stage.
January 10, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary won in New Hampshire, and she won with women. She obviously didn't need anyone to come to her defense, and she obviously did an adequate job of communicating to the people she needed to help her win.
Obama didn't win in New Hampshire. And he didn't win the votes of 50% of the women who turned out, in impressive numbers, to vote. Maybe he does need to sharpen up his communications with women.
Obama is not at all obligated to defend Hillary. But, if he wants to win, he does have to convince women that he can represent them.
That's the issue -- not Hillary.
January 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
esmense, let's not overblow the results the results in NH. No candidate won 51% of the votes and that's what it really takes to get the delegates to win the votes at the convention. Hillary was far short of that at 39%.
Hillary got the plurality--and good for her. But she simply is not getting to the 51%. Neither is anyone else. Focusing on Obama to "fix" his campaign simply doesn't address issues Hillary may have to "fix" to get to 51%.
Hillary has her own gaps to fix--not having enough of the male vote is one.
January 11, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she did handle it correctly, as the target of the question, but what is "correct" is different for the target of the question than it is for those who are the bystanders. If she had responded aggressively, if she had challenged the whole premise of the question, she would have been described as defensive and shrill, and some sort of feminist harpie. No, the only good way for her to handle that question was to be good-humored about it, however much it must have made her angry.
You're correct that Sen. Obama was under no obligation to challenge the the premise of the question, but had he done so, he would have shown himself to be a leader, and isn't this what the whole contest is about? People could have said, "Wow, here is a guy who does not hesitate to stand up for what is right, even if it means defending someone he profoundly disagrees with. That's the guy I trust to stand up for me."
But -- he didn't.
January 11, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, you say that Hillary could not defend herself by challenging the premise of the question and only a male candidate could have ridden to the rescue. I would have viewed the male candidate as an a$$ for taking up for the "little woman".
I expect women who want to be leaders of the entire nation--and not just other women--to stand up for themselves. It's called leadership. Hillary doesn't get a pass on it.
January 11, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the 'contest' was about being a leader, then people would have supported Edwards when he asserted " what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business" in response to Hillary's mistyeyed response to the 'who does your hair' query. Instead, the same folks claiming that Obama should have shown 'leadership' by defending his rival from the indefensible also were angry when Edwards pointed out that crying was not leadership and accused him of being sexist. Individuals with that mindset that Edwards was sexist are also perceive that Obama's response was not gracious as well even though he did respond by directly rebutting the assertion and saying that Hillary was likeable enough. A direct rebuttal is deemed insufficient. They instead characterize the response as diffident and dismissive despite being fully aware that Obama showed leadership and graciousness in the prior debate when defending Biden on assertions of racism and it would be out of character for him to have been umempathtic.
It just sounds like the individuals defending Hillary want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a sexist response from men to demonstrate leadership on a sexist issue and they want to criticize Edwards when he says that crying is not what a commander in chief does.
It is all quite fickle.
January 12, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there ever was question deserving of being challenged, it was the one to Kucinich about UFO's. It was clearly meant to ridicule him; there were plenty of substantive questions that should have been asked instead. Hillary's "likeability" is an issue. I don't like her and I am a woman and a yellow-dog democrat. It is a real issue that so many people dislike her.
It was a mean question, but not out of bounds, in my opinion.
Jan
January 10, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the level of political discourse that we accept. It's beyond disgusting, it's dangerous.
January 10, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if someone here said:
Male Female candidates can't let their natural, competitive desire to see Barack Hillary taken down lead them to dismiss the meaning and import,for black men women, of his racist her sexist treatment. Black men Women whose votes they need.
You ARE saying, "Vote for Hillary because she is a women and women deserve a femal President this time around." Maybe you don't even realize it, but it is pretty obvious, and hard to take what you say seriously because of your denial.
Jan
January 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Jan, I'm a John Edwards supporter. This post was inspired by watching both of the leading male candidates make what I saw as some awkward mistakes in terms of communicating, most especially to women. It made me realize that while all the conversation is focused on how Hillary handles herself as the first woman to seriously compete in a presidential race, nobody was looking at or commenting on how the male candidates were coping with this historic development. It's not just a first for her. It's a first for them too. And a first for the media. And a first for all the rest of us.
January 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was your realization elicited by the pundits declaring that Barck had loss the female vote based on their interpetation of the voting outcome? IOW's would you have had the same impression if Barack had won the primary?
Also, do you think it is condescending on your part to assert 'how male candidates are coping'? Are you communicating in the same partronizing manner that you are accusing the male candidates of only yours is directed at men?
Is it possible that you are reading too many firsts into this? After all, these men do have wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, as well.
January 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not running for president against their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers. Nor (I hope) do they have to campaign for the votes of their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers. This isn't an accusation that the male candidates are sexists (which I don't believe they are). And it is not about how they relate to and communicate with women in their personal lives. It's about an historic change -- a genuinely historic change (it's historic no matter how you feel about Clinton, or how much you don't want it to be) in our political process. One that naturally, unavoidably, impacts, in new ways, the voters, the candidates and the media.
January 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way men learn to respect and understand women is through their personal lives. It is very germane to the issue you raise. I am uncertain why you beleive there is something more afoot when opposite genders compete in terms of respect. It sounds a lot like you think females should be given some special consideration which is what is truly sexist. It is the same as if blacks were asking for some special dispensation based on being black when they chose to matriculate at Ivy League universities or have high powered jobs. I do not think your point is conducive to egalitarianism, rather it seems to advocate for special treatment on the basis of gender. I disagree with your premise as it is even more sexist than what you perceive to have occurred.
It is really unclear what you mean by historic. How are you using the term. Clinton's candidacy is not historic on the basis of gender. It could be considered historic in terms of her having been a First Lady but we have had two other female candidates run for President. More importantly there are many many female politicians in Congress today. Can you please provide some perspective on what you mean by historic in our political process?
I see nothing of the magnitude that you are asserting here that is impacting the voters, candidates or media. Afterall, we had a female candidate running for the Presidency in 2004. Is it historic to you simply because the female candidate is white, is that what you are saying?
January 10, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama does not respect Hillary and he and his wife have shown that time and time again with repeated snide remarks. Nor do I believe that Obama understands at a gut level what it is about choice: he was willing to see overriding Terri Schiavo's choice not to exist in that horrifying limbo as an extension of her civil liberties. He was willing to vote present on choice issues -- not excusable. Making show boat reparations for political gain does not excuse the lack of a fundamental understanding of the right of women to make their own choices. He seems to view Hillary not as a person in her own right but as an extension of Bill.
If you had done your research on the sealed documents you would learn that Bill has approved their release but that the underfunded institution which has them has to vet them for the privacy of third persons before releasing them.
Hillary is a policy wonk -- she was busy receiving a thorough education in national level issues while Obama was still trying to figure out how to deal with Rezko.
January 10, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prove your first sentence. Examples, links, etc. The Micelle comment about how she ran HER house never came close except in the minds of radical Hillary supporters looking for any slight whiff of crap to come down on Obama.
Give me red meat and not your little fluff, AJM. Terry Schiavo--BS. Anti-choice--BS.
And don't give me your non-research about Bill. He only authorized ONE PERSON to review the personal documents. Bill could--at any time--add more people to the review process. That's been possible for MONTHS. Has he been doing it? Nope. Nada.
And if Hillary is so GREAT on policy, explain getting Iraq WRONG. Oh, yes, she relied on the "vast right wing conspiracy" leader. Or, how about, she studies so hard in her "education" that she can't be bothered to read the current intel and instead relied on Bill and other 2000 and earlier Clinton administration folks to guide her. Where is her judgment in this?
And yes, sending military folks to die or to be injured is a lot more important than this other CRAP that you mention. She was wrong and fails to admit that, now doesn't she? Hillary is in a category I've seen a lot in my life--the s/he's who cannot be wrong.
I see absolutely NO advantage to going back to the Clinton years. None. Hillary needs to prove herself, by herself, and in a forward direction and not a backward direction. Then she can match the male candidates where it matters instead of relying on Bill's record and his campaigning to pull her through.
Hillary will be heard when she decides to share with the American voter who she really is. This is not an annointing, a coronation, or "she has been around long enough and deserves it". Hillary says she "got it" in NH. We'll see.
January 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you ask for a standard that should be uniformly applied.
January 10, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would anyone rate this a 1?
January 11, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would answer that, but then I would have to troll-rate myself for unacceptable language. ;-)
January 11, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why would anyone rate this a 1?"
Thank you Bev for standing up for my right to post without insult. I believe I was rated with ones by these posters because of something I may have written or because of an opinion I may have expressed that they disagree with.
Bruce
January 11, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, ratings abuse is rampant on this thread alone. I have received ones ratings from jalamari, slb, northern observer, wilder, scraig. Undoubtedly this is a function of folks being unable to articulate an opposing view when they read dissenting opinions. Clearly, if the ratings guidelines were being followed the posts would not recieve ones.
January 12, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't done your own research. The bottleneck is NOT from anyone waiting for Bill Clinton's appointed representative to sign off on anything. The bottleneck is the LoC's OWN review, as they have to pass on each and every page of each and every document. Clinton's representative only has to review whatever subset the LoC passes along for additional review.
January 11, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Documents are normally released after five years. For the Clintons, that would be 2005. Both Bush and Clinton must review and approve the release. The CEO of the Clinton Library Foundation had 26,000 papers to review before being released. Apparently Hillary's schedules from the two terms will be added to this pile. These should be available before the general election. So, yes, Bill could speed this process up, now couldn't he? He could designate more folks to perform the review.
The second area is the executive order that President Bush signed that allowed Bill to put certain categories of documents off limits until 2012--not 2005. Those documents include "confidential communications regarding a sensitive policy, personal, or political matter" and "communications directly between the president and the first lady." Bill took full advantage of that executive order to take these papers out completely. Bill, not anyone else.
Bill is having his lawyer molasses-step his review until the general election and then none of these papers shedding light on Hillary's policy involvement in the WH years is off-limits until 2012.
Nice try, slb.
January 11, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you claiming that NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other such groups are misogynistic anti-choice backers of Obama's strategy or are you smearing Obama with another lie emanating from the Clinton propaganda machine?
Would you like to apologize for being taken in or stick with the lie?
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I share your views on the Clintons for the most part, but in fairness, this is not the point of the original post.
The need for Obama and Edwards to take a lesson from what the women of New Hampshire had to tell them is the point, and in many ways it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary. Or Bill, for that matter.
That said, nothing that the Clintons and their minions have been doing lately has done anything but reinforce my opinion that she is unfit--on moral grounds--to hold the office of President.
January 12, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
esmense said:
who would you prefer, the President who has already proved himself, or the candidate who is still unproven?
-----------------------
It has to be kept in mind that both Barack AND Hillary are unproven. One dynamic I noted going on was represented on the Scarborough show today. Scarborough noted that his Conservative mother felt Hillary was being unfairly attacked by MSM. Mika B chimed in with her agreement.
Scarborough then mentioned a statement by Donna Brazile saying that, as an African-American (AA), she was diappointed by Bill Clinton calling Obama's plans a fairy tale and Obama a kid. Scarborough, Mika B, and Willie Geist were all in agreement that Brazile was playing the race card. Geist said that he wished he could have Brazile on to explain her statement. While there was a female voice in the form of Mika to explain NH,, an African-American voice was not "at the table" to explain Brazile's feelings. Thus Brazile is a "nut". Think of the number of female MSM figures seen during the day compared to African-Americans to counter the sensibilities of Joe Scarborough, Mika B and Willie Geist. Not really balanced, is it? Hillary has a higher probability of a female reporter coming on to explain the NH result from a female perspective than Obama does of an AA reporter explaining Obama's importance.
I can understand the position that women took in coming to the defense of Hillary. However, I don't understand that women don't understand what Obama represents to many African-Americans.
If Obama has to be sensitive to women's feelings than Clinton supporters are going to have to be sensitive to the feeling of African-Americans. It is a two-way street. African-Americans of Hillary's generation have stories of their own struggles including facing hostile crowds during marches, denied services at certain businesses, and being trust into situations where you were the only African-American in a room full of Caucasion men and women professionals. Most of us had little on site-mentoring.
We all have stories of strife. We should be respectful of each other as we attempt to get the candidate that we feel represents true change elected. If Sen. Obama needs to tone it down, so does Sen. Clinton. Otherwise we are going to see a cackling Pat Buchanan laughing about the "Sisterhood" attacking the "Brotherhood".
January 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary has a higher probability of a female reporter coming on to explain the NH result from a female perspective than Obama does of an AA reporter explaining Obama's importance."
I disagree. Our political stories have always been told from a male perspective, and any woman in a position to be heard (that is, a woman who has earned a voice in the mainstream media) has to report from that perspective, too. Most probably she will be doing so without even realizing that she is doing so. (If she does realize it, she probably long ago realized also that being able to tell the story from that perspective was one of the talents she needed to qualify for the job.) Most, if not all, female reporters have stuck to the same storyline about Hillary as their male colleagues.
The story of race, while fraught with all kinds of sensitivities, isn't one that challenges that (mostly unconscious) perspective.
The story of gender and the story of race really aren't that alike. The story of race is a fairly straight-forward one -- of those without power suffering great injustice and over time demanding and struggling to gain both justice and power.
But the story of gender is much more complicated and psychologically fraught; women, in their traditional roles as wives, mothers, lovers, etc., already have immense power. But, it is a power that we, as a culture, are uncomfortable recognizing. We deny, degrade, sentimentalize, trivialize and infantilize it (with, for instance, in the political realm, talk about "mommie wars" and the "mommy party"). That discomfort with traditional female power, and our diminishment and denial of it, complicates women's attempts to gain and use non-traditional power. Its the elephant in the room that we don't know how to deal with. It makes the story of a woman competing for and gaining power, in the public sense, beyond traditional power, not just a story of a member of a formerly powerless group demanding rights it has been denied and fully deserves, but, at the same time, the story of someone with great (but unrecognized, and, to some, scary) power asking for MORE power.
So while a black politician may have to deal with very real prejudice, a female candidate will have to also deal with very real resentments. Those resentments are complicated further by the fact that, culturally, we are reluctant to acknowledge them. And while embracing a black candidate presents us with the potential to confront and overcome our racial prejudices, embracing a female candidate requires us to look much more deeply into our cultural psyche and confront our very concept of power. To tell not just a new, more uplifting story about who we are politically, but an entirely new story about ourselves as human beings.
January 12, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
esmense
I think that a gay politician running for President would argue that they face obstacles greater than either an African-American, heterosexual female candidate, or Mormon. A Buddhist candidate would tell everyone to just be quiet about bias.
I believe that it is possible that the media does an equally poor job in reporting on an African-American or a female candidate.
I think if Obama appears too agrgessive it will be seen as a negatve by MSM. That is why MSM keeps harping on his "pledge" to not respond forcefully to charges made by other campaigns. MSM loves Shelby Steele, John McWhorter types. Don't be too Mandingo. From a standpoint of religion, an important force in the african-American community, a MSM reporter who may or may not be religious will have an inbred reaction to that of GW Bush when confronted with an African-American church service. They will wonder, as GW did, "How long can this service last?" Characterizing Obama's church as radical would be easy for a MSM reporter just by reading the mission statement on the churches website. The reporter would run in terror from images of a Black Jesus, Mary and Angels found in Black churches in their own communities. The figurines of Thomas Blackshear with massive muscles and wings would be unnerving. How many MSM reporters answer to African-American bosses? The idea of an African-American in charge is foreign to many of them. Even, Slate not known as a wingnut publication, ran a series by William Saletan that asked the question, "What if it's true about Black intelligence?" The MSM feelings regarding race are often not so unconsciuous. MSM often overlooks stories that are of major concern in the Black community. Take Jena 6, for example, the story circulated in the Black community for months, and never got the detailed attention given to any Britney Spears or Anna Nicole Smith story.
I will stipulate that the MSM covers issues of importance to women poorly as well. The Blackwater rape case barely made a trickle. The murder of a female Marine appears to be the tip of the iceberg regarding handing of sex cases in the Marines. I found out more information that put the case of the murdered Marine in perspective here at TPM than on CNN or MSNBC.
We are not going to make any advances if we negate the validity of different observations of MSM bias whether it be race or gender-based. Both sides are telling the truth.
As I noted before the MSM will be another opponent in the Presidential race whether it's Hillary or Obama. We have to hope that the individual campaigns realize this and are developing quick response teams.
MSM gives you snippets and horse-race data, but no substance regarding positions. If you only get political info from MSM, you will remain uninformed.
January 13, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
rmrdooo --
I agree that a gay candidate would have a much harder than time getting elected than either a woman or African American. It too would require a very deep cultural shift -- in terms of our concept of ourselves and of power. Having a woman as president would challenge our cultural assumptions about power as "masculine." Having a gay man as president would challenge our conceptS of and assumptions about both power AND masculinity.
I also agree with most of the rest of your post. I don't think anything I said in my previous post contradicts your points.
January 13, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I question that. Yes, it seems for a certain demographic of women, they feel a sense of identification with her. But it's an identification of "being downtrodden" and fighting the odds. That to me is not "inspirational" at all. It's the appeal of the "victim."
Obama is an inspirational speaker. And not down-trodden. Hillary... same old, same old...
I would love to see a woman president. But not Hillary.
In my view, NH was about emotion, not change. It's not repeatable.
January 10, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever considered that it may be identification with a woman who worked hard, broke new ground, and accepted the hard job of straight-forwardly asking for and working to earn real authority and respect, rather than, as too many women do, settling for serving male ambition and trying to win male approval?
January 10, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
ummmm..... no. That's a pretty simplistic argument. Doesn't take the events into account. Doesn't take her personality into account. Doesn't take which women went for her - or didn't - into account.
Are you aware that the woman who asked the question that prompted hill's tears voted for Obama?
January 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Are you aware that the woman who asked the question that prompted hill's tears voted for Obama?"
Yes. Are you aware that it doesn't do anything to support the idea that women voted for Hillary because she teared up (a little).
It would be not only a big mistake, but a big betrayal, for the Democratic party to buy into the idea that women who vote for Hillary, or any other candidate, do so only because they are "emotional."
January 10, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not say women only vote out of emotion. You said it was about change. I said, the NH result was related to emotion - and unrepeatable! Voting for the "victim" in hillary's case. And covertly against a black in Obama's case. That's emotionally laden. Also hillary is very self-centered. Why did the woman vote for Obama instead? Cuz he made her cry, inspired her. Hillary was crying for herself... and people responded to that... it was not about change. And not about "inspiration."
January 10, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're unaware of it because the "pundits" who called the primary for Obama are falling all over themselves convincing the electorate that she won "because she cried". It never, never, ever occurs to them that she might have won because she worked day and night to convince voters she was the right person for the office. That notion is too much for them to handle - it has to be one moment out of years of work that turned the tide. Of course that could be because they're too shallow and lazy to consider anything but a soundbite as the "reason" she won. That reason would actually involve pushing themselves away from the television and going to New Hampshire and finding out why she won. They're so dependent on the pollsters and spin miesters telling them what to think (and then complaining vociferously that the candidates are dependent on pollsters) that they're stunned when the pollsters get it wrong and makes them look like the fools that they are.
January 10, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
But the fact that many other women (cf NPR on Wednesday)said that that's why they voted for her , does.
You make many points with which I agree but you undermines them by refusing to acknowledge there are lots of ways to San Jose.
Of course many women voted for Hill based on completely rational criteria: sound judgement, unique experience watching presidential decisions that worked or didn't. AND of course many voted for her on "irrational" ones :to help a woman
"humanized" by her tears, to retaliate against the male opponents who 'piled on' Saturday night , even because her situation reminds them of how much they hate their ex.
So what else is new.
Lots of people voted for Obama on Edwards on similarly irrational grounds.And for Bush,JKF, FDR , Lincoln or the Father of the Country.
Well only is a stretch . Most of us act, or at least think we do based on multiple motives. But no it's not a betrayal for the Democrats to accept that lots of voters , vote for emotional reasons.Like my conservative Catholic family who voted for JFK without ever voting for a democrat before or since.
Buying into that idea isn't betrayal. It's realism.
January 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that they consider that because for the last fifteen years they've been told that democrats are opportunistic, ambitious, eager to seize power, liars, bad bar buddies, girly men, manly women, calculating, cunning, amoral, immoral, bathroom floor licking, shrewish, baby strangling, nagging, political, partisan whores. And this is coming from the so-called liberal media.
On the other hand, McCain deserves the presidency, he's a straight shooter, Bush is a regular guy, Thompson is avuncular, Gulianni is America's mayor, Huckabee is reasonable, Ron Paul is appealing and Romney might be a Mormon, but he's probably not a nutty Mormon. And this is coming from the so-called liberal media.
January 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re us liberals: You left out "tax and spend atheists."
Re the repubs: You left out "tax-cutting & Family Values." Oh, and individual responsibility-loving, just say no-ing; church-going ... oh, I'll stop!
Jan
January 10, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are we, as a nation, going to stop ignoring the role of Diebolt in this primary in NH as well as Diebolt's role in Ohio in 2004, giving Bush the electoral votes he needed to win the presidency.
Clinton wins over Obama in Diebolt counted towns,
loses to Obama in hand counted towns.
of machine vs hand count/ town by town.
2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results -
A Closer Look At The Count
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
See also: bradblog and
black box vote
January 10, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting numbers. does anyone know if the recount in NH (I've heard it's going to happen... is that true?) will be able to accurately recount votes in the electronic machines? I should think if someone were going to hack them, they'd be smart enough to cover their tracks, too. \
It sure would make the outcome different if the votes were cooked like this, though. In the same vein that if you go to bed and there's no snow on the ground, and you wake up to a white winter wonderland, it probably snowed overnight.
January 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try this. The guy that always writes about elections for Salon recommended
this site. Yes, I heard NH told Kucinich (?) that they will do the recount.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try this. The guy that always writes about elections for Salon recommended
this site. Yes, I heard NH told Kucinich (?) that they will do the recount.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Diebold want Hillary to win? Is that the same company that hacked into Ohio and Florida for Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry?
Could it be that they agree with Newt Gingrich that Hillary is the Democratic candidate sent from "cheating elections" heaven? They know that not one Republican anywhere will vote for Hillary, but some, and many independents will go with Obama.
Diebold trying to steal influence an election? Why am I so dispirited? Why do I have no hope? New Hampshire went against pre- and post polling surveys -- despite all the other reasons offered, I fear that the answer is --> the fix is in!
I don't even submit that Hillary was in on it,. I think she honestly expected to lose. I just think that those who control the ballot counting (republicans) wanted her to win. They know they can win against her, and they already have their hacking in place.
Has anyone bothered to investigate the hacking that took place last time? Has anyone fixed the lack of a paper trail? Too hard? Tell that to the bank! There is only one reason that we don't have a paper trail and that is so that fraud can occur without repercussions. I have absolutely no faith in our voting system.
How sad is that?
Jan
January 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that they agree with Newt Gingrich that Hillary is the Democratic candidate sent from "cheating elections" heaven? They know that not one Republican anywhere will vote for Hillary, but some, and many independents will go with Obama.
Yay... Thanks, Jan. I argued the same thing in another thread, but it didn't fly there at all, it didn't even get off the ground. So I thought maybe I was crazy... but it still makes the most sense to me because they ARE Diebold optical scanners. It makes no sense the other way.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 16, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats usually do a pretty bad job of determining who the Republicans fear most and would have the hardest time defeating. Case in point; all the arguments for Kerry in 2004 based on his "electability."
I'm pretty sure the Republicans, who have a much sharper grasp on demographics than we seem to, understand perfectly that both Hillary and Obama offer an opportunity for the Dems to pick up Republican votes, from the same source; moderate Republican and Independent women. It is where these women go that usually determines the presidency.
So, I don't think they have any pressing desire to see one of these candidates eliminated in favor of the other. They understand the threat that both candidates offer (especially following a disasterously unpopular Republican president), and understand that both have big weaknesses that they can exploit.
January 17, 2008 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please show one citation that shows that Hillary can bring in any Republican -- moderate, rich, fiscally conservative, or even DEAD! Republicans viscerally hate all Clintons (I agree that it is not justified, but it is a fact; kinda like the way any Democrat would feel about any Bush, no matter how brilliant - cough, cough), and Hillary's hanging on to Bill's coat-tails doesn't help in the Republican voting sphere.
Has there ever before been a first lady that people didn't like? I just heard the other day that Laura is a wonderful first lady! She is the kind of FL that the Repubs love; just stares adoringly at her dimwit hubby and doesn't do one damn thing else! They hated Hillary even when she was just someone's wife!
I'm not saying it's right; it is simply a fact!
Jan
January 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that Obama deserves credit for not pouncing on her at the time, showing good judgment in more than one way: it would be wrong, and it would have backfired. On the other hand, Edwards's reaction got way too much attention in the blogosphere. They were all exhausted, Clinton lost it, Edwards lost, people agonized over it and drew various conclusions, but it's all trivia. It's also notable in two ways that the media mostly ignored Edwards's part: that is, first the bloggers were overreacting, and of course the media are sexist.
But that doesn't mean Obama had a greater responsibility to use the opportunity to lecture us on sexism. It doesn't mean I have an obligation to think more of Clinton. It doesn't mean that MJR's gushing over Obama's character or yours over Clinton's is in the least a good way of deciding on a nominee. In attempting to convince me of important political and moral issues surrounding blacks and women in America, you end up this way just showing me that American politics has become degraded to inanity. I'm just glad I didn't support Lieberman for the 2004 nomination on the grounds of his faith.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a little bit disconcerting that the final outcome here in New Hampshire may have been decided on the basis of factors that are somewhat remote from the candidates' records and likely performance as President. I'm not saying that's how most people evaluate a candidate. But the few who do might have played a decisive role in a close race.
January 10, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's really disconcerting is that you believe this.
January 10, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen Bev, I have been following the news very closely here the past few days, and have heard and read numerous interviews with voters, and a number of women voters have said precisely this. They made up their minds or switched their vote at the last minute based on watching the now infamous moment caught on film in Portsmouth. It happened.
January 10, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many, Dan? Seriously, how many said that and how many women voted? I also might occur to some viewers of news that reporters seek out those voters who echo and reinforce their narrative - I've witnessed this quite a few times.
Secondly, what was the problem with her response in N.H. to that voter's question and Sen. Clinton's response?
January 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say that there was any problem with the response, only that in my view it influenced the result. Polls completed on Sunday showed Obama and Clinton even among women. Then we had the coverage of the "iron my shirt" jackasses, and the welling up incident. I think these helped to tip a lot of women into Clinton's camp.
Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. Pollsters are doing post-mortems and opinion research on these results right now, so I guess we'll have a clearer picture in a few weeks.
January 10, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan.
Since you are an NH local I thought you might be interested in a post by another NH resident (HRC supporter) that describes the Clinton campaign's actions on the day of the election. These folks are Dems and have an unlisted phone #.
"Here is what separates HC from the rest of the pack: Between noon and 6PM, on Tuesday, we received four calls from the HC campaign. Not robocalls, mind you, each had a human (male and female) on the other end. The message was simple: "She needs your help."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/01/homage-to-new-h.html
In the context of the wall-to-wall media coverage of Hillary's Singular Moment, this well-timed message resonates.
January 10, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does one have to do with another? I've made plenty of phone calls to voters exactly like that with exactly the same message - "Candidate A. needs your help to get elected." All the candidates make those phone calls, to listed and unlisted phone numbers. I have no doubt at all that all the candidates' campaigns made exactly the same kind of phone calls, weeks, days and election day.
January 11, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the simple last-minute messages "She needs your help" was an effective tie-in to the whole narrative of Hillary-as-victim.
If you'd followed the link, you would have read that despite your doubts, the commenter also relayed the info that no one from the Obama and Edwards camps made any phone calls to his household.
January 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? That's just good organizational skills on the part of the Clinton campaign, it has nothing to do with "Hillary as victim" and more to do with the script I myself have used a thousand times. The commenter can read into it anything he chooses, but this is nothing unusual at all. All campaigns do not call all the same people all the time and some campaigns choose not to call or can't afford it or can't get volunteers to do it.
January 11, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev.
Your use of a similiar script "thousands of times" were not used in the context of wall-to-wall media coverage of Hillary's Singular Moment so are irrelevent. This instance stands alone and it worked.
January 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, Obama didn't have a "greater responsibility" to deliver a lecture on sexism; he did have an opportunity to show some leadership on that issue. An opportunity which he did not take -- perhaps because he, too, was tired, and was not at the top of his game. (See? It happens to men, too.)
Clinton did not "lose it." For a few seconds, she got a little emotional (being tired will do that to you, especially when someone offers an unexpected kind word). She quickly recovered herself. That shows strength, but of course, the Clinton-haters pounced on that recovery not as a sign of strength, but as "proof" that she was faking.
January 11, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
First post and on the front page! Terrific! And well-written. That said, I have a mixed reaction here.
On one hand, I disagree with conflating "likeability" with "anti-woman." Likeability, as Tom points out, has been a (media-created) issue on every election since 2000, when Bush was the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with. It has nothing to do with Clinton, or her being a woman. It is a factor with which the news media uses to talk about candidates. (I also think it's related to "authenticity," which is a more valid measure for a politician, and not something that's simply dreamed up by Chris Matthews and others.)
I also disagree, along these lines, of what you seem to be implying, that Obama's reaction ("You're likeable enough") is somehow sexist. I watched that as it happened, and Obama was being dryly witty, a subtle sense of humor that's he's displayed at many of the debates and in interviews. It was sincere, charmingly understated, if that makes sense. Obama is not my top choice, but I have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton was asked a blatantly sexist question in a debate, he would call it out.
On the other hand, I absolutely agree with this narrative that's developed, about a sympathy vote. That's insulting. And I agree, it would be smart for Obama and Edwards to speak out on that.
One last thing I want to make clear -- this post was about the candidates recognizing the historic nature of a potential first female President, but I hope it's not implying that the rank-and-file also doesn't get this.
I certainly do, and it's why no matter who wins for the Democrats (assuming it comes down to Obama and Clinton, and assuming he/she wins), we're going to make history, and send a symbolic message to the world, something that, post-Bush, will go a long way.
That's something I think is really being missed in the media chatter, and I wish more D's that appear on the teevee would point this out -- we have a lot of good choices, unlike the R's, who are doing the lesser of all the evils dance.
January 10, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this case I think "likable" and "anti-woman" are one in the same. It's all that Chris Matthews garbage about how she's a witch or a ballbuster -- likable is just a code word for that.
Obama stepped in it because his response seemed patronizing.
And when Edwards jibed her for kind of almost crying I think a lot of people threw their hands in the air and wondered why Hillary can't get a fair shot. If she's tough she's a bitch if she's emotional she's a girl.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep. but because hillary's a woman and because barack's a man, 'patronizing' gets translated into "SEXIST!" and it's that translation that is fundamentally sexist, not the patronization.
same goes for the gotcha on edwards' response to reports of clinton's getting all verklempt.
January 10, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that's disturbing about the whole debate is... does anybody really think that either Obama or Edwards are sexist types? Anybody at all?
These aren't Trent Lott moments where a guy with a spotty civil rights issue says something stupid and disgusting and we all legitimately react because it's a revealing gaffe.
So, yeah, I don't know what I'm arguing about here.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 10, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that's disturbing about the whole debate is... does anybody really think that either Obama or Edwards are sexist types? Anybody at all?
Of course not.
Your point really weakens the whole argument put forth here. The argument essentially is, Obama and Edwards both have to go to extraordinary measures to prove they are really really really not sexist women-haters. Or something like that.
And, to do it in the middle of a debate, carefully monitoring the questions for sexist overtones. For questions thrown to other people.
I'm not buyin' it.
January 10, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't believe they are, in fact, I think both have been supportive of "women's issues" ( a phrase I particularly dislike) but the media sure is spinning it that way.
January 11, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS, it also should be mentioned that choosing a President based on whether they're black or a woman is probably the stupidest reason to vote for someone.
Better would be, "Who is less likely to drop bombs on other countries?" Things like that.
January 10, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Voting for a candidate just because she's a woman is as stupid as not voting for a candidate just because she's a woman.
What's Hillary anyway, woman first and Clinton next, or the other way around?
January 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct. As Robert Scheer pointed out yesterday at truthdig.com if this were true Condi Rice should be our perfect candidate.
January 10, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs said:
That leaves McCain out.
January 10, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
and clinton
January 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm largely in agreement with the writer's take on the chauvinism directed at Hillary Clinton, particularly from the media. And she also has a point that her rivals like Obama and Edwards should speak out against it in obvious cases such as the "likeability" question in the New Hampshire debate. However, the major responsibility lies with the larger public to speak out against this trend.
That being said, I think there are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton on the merits. She has moved considerably to the right from the days that she was involved with progressive NGO's like the Children's Defense Fund, and her votes for the war and for labeling the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization, plus her insistence that we keep "all options on the table" vis-a-vis Iran are just some of the examples of how she is more conservative than either Edwards or Obama on foreign policy issues, one of my main concerns.
I also question the point, made by Gloria Steinem and others, that it is harder for a woman than an African American male to run for the highest office in the nation. The long history of racism in this country is still a strong undercurrent in American society, and it is hard to see how any other form of discrimination can be said to be a greater obstacle to progress. But the real point, I think, is that we shouldn't be trying to debate which "ism" is worse, but to find ways to unite against both. The writer's suggestion that male candidates speak out against sexist characterizations of Hillary Clinton could certainly help that cause, but it's only one element of a larger challenge.
January 10, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Obama campaign has to do a much better job talking about Clinton's record on national security issues. Given this week's events in the Straits of Hormuz, which seem remarkably well-timed from the Bush administration point of view, Democratic voters have to be made to confront more forcefully the question of which candidate would be most likely to address these issues in a constructive, sound and imaginative manner consistent with progressive values. Clinton has gone along with the Bush administration on most of the key elements of the war on terror, the Iraq war, Lebanon policy, Israel-Palestine policy and Iran policy. Obama has to begin to call her on this Bush-lite approach to the Middle East, and where it has gotten us.
They also have to be willing to counter lies and distortion more aggressively. I continue to be dismayed by how much disinformation there is out there among rank and file Democrats about Clinton's record in the national security area. The Clinton campaign, led by Bill, was very casual with the truth during the last week, both on national security and other areas. Obama tried to stay completely on the high road, but it may have cost him. There is nothing wrong with defending one's record forcefully, and countering untruths.
If it is important to do something to acknowledge the excitement of women over the possibility of a woman president, it is also necessary to communicate to them that Hillary Clinton is the wrong women at the wrong time. One factor here is the "terrorism card". Polls continue to show women are more frightened than men about the possibility of another terrorist attack. If the Clinton campaign is going to continue to hype these fears, as they did in the last week in New Hampshire, the Obama campaign cannot let her get away with the implication that she is somehow better equipped to deal with the issue. There really is no objective basis for this judgment.
But Obama needs a more compelling story to tell both about what he is going to do to prevent such an attack in the first place, and how he would respond in the event of attack to address the damage and find the perpetrator. One thing he might want to emphasize is his reputation as a unifier, a reputation that is now firmly established in the minds of Democratic voters, and contrast that to the Bush record of dividing the country following the 9/11 attack by exploiting the attacks to pursue a side-agenda that has only made the situation worse. He should also suggest that Clinton's judgments following 9/11 were impetuous and perhaps politically motivated, and that there is a difference between experience and wisdom.
He might also say something concrete about how he is going to reform intelligence to make sure he gets the information he needs in his hands, to prevent these attacks from occurring. Clinton's admission that she did not read the NIE about Iraq before voting on the war is a vulnerability. We don't need that kind of Bush-like failure to acquire good information again.
Obama has to go on the offensive here and take this issue away from Clinton.
January 10, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She has moved considerably to the right from the days that she was involved with progressive NGO's like the Children's Defense Fund, and her votes for the war and for labeling the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization, plus her insistence that we keep "all options on the table" vis-a-vis Iran are just some of the examples of how she is more conservative than either Edwards or Obama on foreign policy issues, one of my main concerns."
Yes, definitely. THAT is the reason we are voting for Edwards --
way separated form her policies, or Obama, somewhat separated.
What REALLY concerns me is this:
Clinton wins over Obama in Diebolt counted towns,
loses to Obama in hand counted towns.
of machine vs hand count/ town by town.
2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results -
A Closer Look At The Count
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
See also: bradblog and
black box vote
January 10, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christie, If you're interested, there is a post in the blogs section dedicated to the Diebold subject. Not sure I would want to pour Diebold on the flames already leaping in this thread. :-)
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 11, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't it rankle the feminist's out there that Hillary is where she is right now because of MARRIAGE? If she were to gain the Presidency, how does it not put out the message that if you wanna go far, MARRY SOME GUY, and hell, cling to him for all your worth, even if he fools around with interns.
This is why I feel that many middle-aged older women (re: New Hampshire) see Hillary as a milestone, they grew up dealing with the same shit she is going through. However, all the young people that had to have awkward conversations with there parents during the impeachment proceedings and have gone to college surrounded by empowered women just see her as out of date.
January 10, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just absolute nonsense. Senator Clinton isn't "where she is right now because of marriage", she's where she is right now because of hard, diligent work.
Why do you assume that Sen. Clinton married Pres. Clinton to advance her career? In the first place, her career held more promise and was more advanced than his was. Secondly, why doesn't it put out the message that Sen. Clinton married Pres. Clinton because she loved him, wanted marriage and children and a career, believed in his dream along with her own, forgave his transgressions because she believed in the vows she took and wanted to make it work, and gasp, loves him.
Lastly, why do you assume that "middle aged older women" voted for Sen. Clinton because of all the "shit she is going through?" Maybe they voted for her because they like what she has to say and believe in the same political ideals she believes in?
January 10, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its as idiotic as saying Bill Clinton got to where he did because of Hillary.
January 10, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, and Rick B. tried to illustrate this very point, John.
January 11, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said that. Nice try with the inflammatory language though. If I was in the business of assumptions, I'd say she probably married him because he was a sweet and successful guy who could get her riled up in the sack. At least thats what works for me. But regardless, I don't think anyone can deny with rational scrutiny that being married to a President of the United States doesn't help ones career...
January 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I can respect that she has worked hard and diligently, I also believe the case can be equally made that she is a Senator today due to the power and influence of being MRS. Bill Clinton. Just as our current President is in the Oval office due to nepotism. I will not take away that once the door is open she has earned the right to remain there yet there are many many many individuals in this country who would have ran for the US Senate seat without Hillary having a claim on it from Moynihan thanks to Bill Clinton.
The case can be equally made that she is a top tier, frontrunner, corporate and establishment candidate for President because she is MRS. Bill Clinton as well. Biden and Dodd had far more experience and a far better legislative record in terms of running for President. They did not have the ability to raise money though like MRS. Bill Clinton.
January 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The only reason she came out ahead of more experienced, more qualified candidats like Dodd and Biden is that she is the wife of Bill Clinton. If she had been Hillary Rodham (Sp?) she would never have gotten the opportunity of running for Senate in New York or at least would have been a minor candidate with no chance of winning.
January 13, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they voted for her because they like what she has to say and believe in the same political ideals she believes in?
Bev D, that is apparently a novel thought to many of the commenters here. It also does not seem to occur to them that it is not Hillary that they are demeaning with their 'sympathy vote' noise or their 'married to Bill" meme, but the women who are voting for her. It's a display of stunning obliviousness, to put it nicely.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 11, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that she got where she is only by marriage. She won over a lot of upstate New Yorkers not just because of Bill. Bill was probably a disadvantage going into her first Senate race upstate. She's a Senator on her own.
The "cling to him" is just an unfair shot. It's actually admirable that they were able to ride out their marital problems -- most people can't. And their daughter seems to be pretty well adjusted, a credit to their parenting skills and to Bill and Hillary simply as people (that is, they seem to be good people and raised a good kid).
January 10, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify my statement, I was talking about what it LOOKED like, not what it was. Bear in mind my peers and I were in elementary and middle school when all this was happening, on the cusp of puberty, so we obviously saw all of this through a very skewed lens. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I was trying to say Hillary has gone through all kinds of undeserved garbage from both right-wing hacks and the media at large. "Cling to him" was exactly the message that was shouted at us, over and over. I am not saying young people agree with that; we just want to leave it in the past.
I do still think Hillary is far from the ideal first female president from a feminist standpoint. She is about as White Old-Money elite as you can get, and basically says woman too can hold the reigns of power IF they are white, well-connected, married to one of the most famous people of our time, etc. Of course, I'm young and idealistic, so your just gonna have to deal with that.
January 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to do some research. "Old money elite?" She comes from a middle class family and her father was a blue collar tradesman. He owned a printing shop, he wasn't a rich man.
January 11, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Wikipedia, his business was wholesale textiles (maybe they printed textiles?) -- but in any case, yes, hardly the Rockefellers or the Roosevelts.
January 11, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, sorry, what you said was "Hillary is where she is right now because of MARRIAGE". You didn't just say that it looked that way; you said it WAS that way.
Nor is Hillary Clinton part of an "old money elite." Her father was a first generation American, a small businessman, and a descendant of Welsh coalminers. Her mother had left an unhappy home at the age of 14 to work as a nanny, and after graduating high school was a clerical worker. Very middle class; hardly "old money" or "elite."
I do agree that your lens is rather skewed.
January 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think an attorney from Arkansas or from Illinois could have moved to NY to run for the US Senate without holding any political office in NY?
January 10, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you underestimate the level of near hatred people in upstate NY had for Bill Clinton. I know people up there, some of which still would never vote for anyone named Clinton. (At least one of those people is now an Obama backer, others would probably vote R.)
Had someone from Arkansas or Illinois tried it, they certainly would have started out from zero, and not with negatives as Clinton did.January 11, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Obama is that we are not talking about Obama himself very much at all.
The fact is that instead of talking about Barack Obama, we are talking about how good Obama makes us feel about ourselves. We also are talking about how good it would make us look, if he were the next president
We are probably talking more about ourselves than about Obama, because he hasn't really been around that long or done that much and except for what he tells us about himself we know next to nothing about him... so there isn't that much to talk about.
Obama, who has been in the US Senate for barely two years certainly has the thinnest presidential CV I can ever remember, even Dubya had been the governor of one of America's most important states. If Obama were a successful two term governor of Illinois, which is a very complex state with a huge budget, this would be a much more serious conversation. If Obama had ever done anything outstanding in "private life", like most of the other candidates (Hillary excepted) have done, it would give us something solid to hang on to. As far as I can see, he has written a book about his search for who he "is" and given a couple of good speeches and that is about it.
The campaign(s) are going to be long and brutal and the question is going to be: will our own self-flattery finally be enough to carry the entire country behind it?
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 10, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of accuracy can we use correct arithmetic?
If Obama began serving in January 2005 he has completed 3 years of Senate, not barely 2. A 50% error is non-trivial.
January 10, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching MSNBC on the night of the
N H primary and at one point there was Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Tom Brokaw.
Matthews spewed his usual bile toward Hillary Clinton.
I like Olbermann, and I was surprised at some of his negative comments toward Hillary.
While Brokaw was critical of Matthews and the press he too had little good or neutral to say about Hillary.
What you had was 3 white guys speaking negatively about Hillary Clinton.
January 10, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's candidacy would be truly historic if she actually were the person that the Wingnuts say she is. But she's not. Radical Hillary is not radical; she's quite ordinary. Hence, my lack of enthusiam.
January 10, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, thoughtful piece.
It might be helpful for Edwards (I am making an assumption in assuming he feels this way) to work into their next debate words to the effect of:
"Before I respond to that question I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the historic nature of this campaign. Even when we have not lived up to that promise in deed and in fact, we in this country have always held our openness as a society as an ideal we want to strive for--the idea that the American Dream is open for all of us who have the commitment as well as the opportunity to pursue it.
We believe deeply that birth is not, and should not be, destiny. And at our best we act on that belief to make ours a fairer and stronger society.
What you see in this Democratic primary campaign is, for the first time, what appears to be a very real possibility that either a woman or a person of color will be our party's nominee for the presidency, the highest office in the land. I think this says a great deal about our country and about the party to which I belong, the Democratic party. And I hope that the voters come this fall will vote their aspirations and hopes for the best America we can be.
I also say that the differences I have with my opponents are in my assessment of where we are right now as a country and where I think we need to go, to do a far better job of growing, strengthening and supporting our middle class, so that America can remain a country that offers a good life for as many of us as possible. I've tried to be concrete about how the ways I would approach that are different from those my opponents have spelled out.
If I could make this request I would like to ask the voters to make their choice on the basis of who do they believe best represents their view about what America is right now, and needs to be and can become if we make it better and stronger.
I say unequivocally what, to the people voting in our primary, the Democratic party's primary, what I hope is obvious: that if you are considering voting for me because I am a man, or because my skin color is white, please, don't. Vote for me if you agree with my view of where our country is and where we need to go, and if you want to join with me to help make that happen as a nation, together."
Maybe some variant of that as a closing statement.
He should say it because, frankly, he needs to say and do something to shake up the dynamic that leaves him trailing, consistently, in the polls and running out of time.
And he should say it because it needs to be said, and would constitute an act of leadership which he is perhaps uniquely capable of providing at this moment in time.
January 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just Obama. Hillary also needs to get to 51% in an election in order to be the front runner. None of the candidates have reached that number yet.
What does Hillary have to say to get to the magic number?
January 11, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with how cscs described the wry tone of Obama's remarks, sufficiently respectful of Clinton and dismissive of a dumb question for me. (I still fine the whole post a bit irony challenged, as perhaps would any attempt for me like Bev D's to talk of real people and real campaign's in terms of the personal experience of women everywhere.)
It's worth noting that Clinton herself responded later very much the same way. Asked, maybe it was by Matthews but I forget, if she were running into the likebility issue, she said she hoped she were likable enough. It was clear from the tone that she wasn't apologizing either, and it made me laugh aloud. She's not always capable of that, and I respected her for it.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 10, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
John --
Hillary has to respond to those kind of narratives with humor. And she does.
The men in the race actually have an advantage in being able to challenge this kind of nonsense without being accused of "playing the gender card," being "whiny" etc.
In my post I didn't have time to delve into any of this too deeply -- I was just trying to get people to see things from a different angle. But, it's not just a matter of the male candidates having to be aware of, and find an effective way to respond to, the various sexist attitudes out there. They also can't let themselves be seduced by the dismissive media narrative into believing that Hillary, who has walked in their shoes, isn't a powerful communicator to women on issues that are very important to them. Having a woman in the race, for the first time, may require men to re-think how effectively they really do communicate to female voters -- who will be, after all, very important to whether they succeed or not. Most of all, they may have to give a little more thought to how seriously they do take issues that are extremely important to woman.
In the past, male politicians have actually been able to get away with being a little lazy in how they communicated with and represented women (in terms of the issues of most importance to women). They didn't have any competition from someone with another approach -- one grounded in the realities women live with.
Now, that just may have to change.
January 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that we require wholesale changes in male candidates because of what male media pundits did in NH after Hillary's emotional moment. If you are able to back up your assertions with facts, then do so. Right now, I view your statements as opinion and it is an opinion I diagree with.
There is simply nothing shameful in NH women voters viewing the media attacks on Hillary's emotional moment as sexist and deserving of a response. The election was handy and that's where the protest was delivered.
It was cross-wise because it hit Obama. It did slow the media and bring attention to the sexism displayed by the media--that's a good thing. And it's also a good thing that Obama now has to recognize that he is not closing with enough voters and he has to sharpen his campaign.
We'll see if Hillary learned that opening up with voters is not a bad thing. That is the first time, on film, that I saw Hillary being authentic. It brought her votes and it will continue to bring her votes if she will open up. She will lose if she is not able to do this.
January 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest narrative out of the Hillary campaign is that sexism is the major issue today. Everybody get in line and think of sexism. We must all unify and combat sexism. Think in those terms. Do not think about what the DLC stands for. Do think about the war in Iraq or the votes that authorized that war. Forget about the Kyle-Lieberman vote. These are all secondary to our lives. There is only one issue to ponder -- that is the sexist attacks that have been perpetuated against Hillary. Especially, any man who dislikes Hillary should recognize that she is a woman and carefully examine his soul to uncover the latent sexism that motivates those feelings. Deep psychological examination is probably warranted since we all know repression can hide true feelings. Ah let us all lie back on the couch and find the truth. Comfortable? good, then go to sleep.
January 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The latest narrative out of the Hillary campaign is that sexism is the major issue today. Everybody get in line and think of sexism."
Come on syvanen. You're a straight shooter and sharp as a tack. I haven't seen anything from the campaign today about sexism (I could have missed it). But, in any event, even if you are correct about Clinton's current focus on sexism, is her campaign doing anything different than any of the other campaigns? Honestly? Can we not all at least agree that we are choosing among politicians, each of whom is going to do things to try and get elected?
And, by the way, you mention Kyl-Lieberman. Just what does Senator Obama's campaign have to say about that vote?
January 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget, she has been called "calculating" by many, and I'm never gonna vote for any politician that's calculating!
January 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh heaven forbid John! I bet you have never seen a calculating politician before Hillary, eh? ;-)
January 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course any campaign worth that name is calculating. The issue raised here is that I am not interested in joining a narrative that is being pushed by the Clinton campaign (and yes this one is, if not as blatantly as some other issues that she is pushing).
January 10, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a narrative [sexism] that is being pushed by the Clinton campaign (and yes this one is, if not as blatantly as some other issues that she is pushing)."
Seriously, do you have a link for this assertion or is just speculation? I have no doubt that the campaign is accepting the benefits of people smelling sexism in the other candidates and/or the media, but I would also think that this is the kind of thing you let others push for you frankly. I don't think the Clinton folks want to be "seen" pushing sexism. It won't play in Peoria, or more aptly Reno or Charleston.
January 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I recall is that Hillary and Penn have been pushing the gender card narrative since the beginning of the campaign. First, touting that it was women who were her biggest supporters and heaviest voter demographic. Then there was the 'cleavage' fundraiser..the "I'm your girl" comment in one of the first debates. Then she whined when she was challenged as the frontrunner on policy issues with 'the boys are piling up on me' tape, then Bill came on the stump and used the same talking point, saying the 'boys are ganging up on her' and last we had the whole 'mistyeyed' moment and emotional breakdown. Not to mention the touting of her being a 'historical' candidate on the basis of gender ( it should actually be inexperience) despite there being both an hispanic and black in the race as well.
The Clinton camp has been pushing this sexist narrative for quite awhile. It is more than appropriate that someone call them on it.
January 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, and guess what else???
It just broke over the blogs....
she's a biped.
January 10, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what he has said about Kyle-Lieberman. But he didn't vote for it and here is what he says about it: http://www.thebarackobamareport.com/the_barack_obama_report/congressional_voting_records/index.html
January 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen:
He MISSED the vote. What difference does it make what he said about it? I do not understand how he gets a bye on this by his supporters who believe that Kyl-Lieberman was a critical vote, particularly when many of these same supporters were and continue to be all over Senator Clinton for voting for the legislation.
Bruce
January 10, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vote in itself was not critical, because I believe it passed with something like 72 or 73 votes. Obama was going to go back to vote against it if the margin was close, but learned it was going to pass overwhelmingly. The crucial thing is not the votes, since the amendment passed easily, but the simple fact that Clinton supported the amendment and Obama opposed it.
January 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
DanK:
"The vote in itself was not critical"
Respectfully, what does that mean? Senators are elected to cast votes. And, by the way, as far as I know, Senator Obama has not, and I bet will not, explain that he missed the vote because it wasn't important. He'd be hoisted on his own petard.
Why cannot people admit when their candidates make mistakes or errors in judgment? I don't think that Senator Obama's failure to participate in the vote disqualifies him, but I do think it's hypocritical for him and/or his supporters to criticize Senator Clinton for her vote when he chose to sit on the sidelines. And we're in an election year; nobody, absolutely nobody, is going to convince me that the campaigns of Senator Clinton AND Senator Obama were not involved in the respective decisions to vote yes (on Clinton's part) and not show up (on Obama's part).
Bruce
January 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, maybe you don't understand how the Senate works. Its not like a Board of Directors seeking approval from the shareholders. Absentees ballots aren't automatically cast for management. Him not showing up has the same effect as a nay vote. Or are you just bitter you didn't get to watch his sexiness strut around on C-SPAN? :-D
January 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am enjoying your humorous posts. Quite comical.
January 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Absentees ballots aren't automatically cast for management. Him not showing up has the same effect as a nay vote."
What on earth are you talking about? He wasn't on the floor and he didn't vote. And not showing up is just that; it is not a "no" vote, and would not and did not count as a "no" vote. Your post might be comical, but it is also designed to insult a fellow poster with whom you obviously disagree, and is ultimately nothing more than meaningless snark that simply lowers the bar even more with respect to intellectual integrity at the TPM Cafe.
Bruce S. Levine
January 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
BS. When I select a candidate, it is certainly likely that I will look at various positions and even weigh in emotional facts like likeability and electability and other intangibles. And if a position on an issue is critical, then I will look for the closest match.
I looked at Hillary when I was deciding on a candidate--and I researched thoroughly what folks did. The majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the Iraq War in 2002. I read Hillary's signing statement--as well as those of Biden, Edwards and Dodd. I read Richardson's support from afar. I read Nancy Pelosi's statements as well as those by Kucinich and Gravel with Obama's disapproval from afar.
And I selected a viable candidate based on those positions. And I will continue to criticize Hillary for her vote and her apparent foreign policy beliefs that led her to this vote that she has not refuted. And I will continue to tell folks who do NOT like Hillary's vote that Obama is the only viable Democratic Party candidate who was against the war. It is neither a lie or something that I "should not do".
The same thing applies with the amendment you bring up. I can certainly criticize Hillary for her vote; approve of Biden and Dodd who voted against it; and perhaps give 1/2 a point to Obama for being against it but not there to vote nay. There's enough turbulence in the water surrounding Obama's failure to appear so one can say he was a coward or that it was hastily scheduled to make him look bad. Either way--he's the only viable candidate with a position approaching mine.
But to say we can't criticize Hillary unless we're supporting a candidate who meets every little bit of fluff you want us to examine is a bit silly and I think you really know that.
January 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But to say we can't criticize Hillary unless we're supporting a candidate who meets every little bit of fluff you want us to examine is a bit silly and I think you really know that."
I never said that you cannot criticize Hillary Clinton unless . . . I have been posting here for over a year and I have consistently taken the position that I respect any of my fellow posters who have stated that they cannot support Hillary Clinton: (a) because of her October 2002 vote; and (b) because of her refusal to admit her vote was a mistake. I stand by that, and in particular stlounick I respect you if Senator Clinton's stance on the Iraq war precludes you from supporting her. And I mean that sincerely; I hear you.
But Kyl-Lieberman is a different story, actually three stories here. You suggest that the vote may have been scheduled to make Senator Obama look bad, Mr. Weakland asserts that not showing up is the same as voting "no" (a rather bizarre assertion), and DanK, for whom I have infinite respect but often disagree with, suggests that missing the vote wasn't critical because it was going to pass anyway and it was sufficient that the Senator announced his opposition to the amendment. Sorry, I just don't buy any of those excuses.
Bruce S. Levine
January 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE (81-126) voted against the AUMF, but not in the Senate, where the Democrats were 29-21 in favor. It's a little distorting to add Senators to Representatives, since there are so many more Representatives than Senators.
January 11, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a difference without distinction when the term Congressional is used it includes the House and Senate. Ergo, it is not a distortion. It requires the reader to know the breakdown, query for it or look it up. But it is not a distortion.
January 12, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is the one boasting that she is ready to be Commander in Chief from day 1 because of her foreign policy experience. So I'm evaluating her on her "experience" and she's failed my test.
January 10, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the link Bruce, he provides a good explanation. It is not an issue.
January 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Syvanen, sorry, I must have missed this comment last night. No, I haven't checked out what you link to above but I will definitely do so this weekend. Thanks.
January 11, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Query: Is the barakobanareport.com an official obama campaign site or is it run by aa outside entit