‘Gender card’ nonsense makes a comeback

This looks likes the whole Petraeus kerfuffle in Dem’s clothing. What better way to immunize Hillary from criticism than to claim any disapproval of her is sexist. When other candidates start claiming she won’t be a good enough leader because even a small pair of balls trumps a big pair of ovaries then I’ll rush to her defense, but for Christ’s sake she’s the frontrunner and as the saying goes if she can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen (even if she’s not pregnant and is wearing shoes.)

I think it’s a manufactured issue. The pundits are desperate for something exciting to happen in the Democratic horse race and there just isn’t anything, except Hillary didn’t do as well as usual last week. There was no meltdown, but the pressure affected her. So they have a spirited, ridiculous debate on whether the men ganged up on a woman, or whether the candidates ganged up on the leader. Similarly, whether Hillary accused them of playing the gender card, or the ganging up on the front runner card.

To me it’s all utterly ridiculous, manufactured drama because – God forbid – they’ve nearly run out of things to talk about except the ISSUES. And we can’t have that.

Maybe Edwards will get another haircut and save the day.

I have to agree with Zeitgeist (#1). This is simply too reminiscent of GOP tactics to have been accidental or coincidental. Almost nothing happens by accident or coincidence in campaigns where, literally, many millions of dollars are involved.

Of course Hillary’s campaign were playing the gender card, even if they deny it at the same time. It’s not accident that she immediately went to Wellsley and talked about the “all boys club” of presidential politics. As always with her campaign, she wants to have it both ways. The true answer is that she thinks she’s above criticism, no matter how silly or valid, just as Howard Wolfson, et. al. get trotted out each time someone questions her stance on issues and bemoans “personal attacks.” They see no difference between personal and political attacks because all there is to her is politics. She stand for nothing other than her own ambition.

If Hils wanted to show she’s above the mudslinging, then I think she’s failed.

This gives the Repubs and voters a whole lot of issues. Hils shouldn’t have thrown around this crap that anyone is above criticism (like a woman or minority.) This encourages the idiots like Rush or makes independents less inclined to vote for her.

This has been an unfair criticism of women and minorities, but shit like this DOES NOT HELP.

It amazes me when people argue that she didn’t play the gender card simply because she never explicitly said, “They are piling on me because I’m a woman.” She definitely and intentionally implied that, but let’s all keep our eyes tight shut and pretend that she didn’t.

After the Iowa debate, where they all ‘piled on’ Barack Obama, he could have gone to a black college (like Hillary went to a womens college) and referred to his opponents as the ‘all-white club’ piling on him (as she referred to her opponents as the ‘all-boys club’). Then he could have put out a youtube video obviously playing into racial stereotypes (as her campaign did with sexual stereotypes) and finally sent out a funraising email playing on those same stereotypes (as she did), I suppose we wouldn’t recognize that as playing the race card if he said, a few days later, “I didn’t mean they were piling on me because I am black! Honest I didn’t!”

No. We would all recognize that as playing the race card, just like every honest person recognizes what Hillary did as playing the gender card.

And note that Obama did NOT do that. Hillary Clinton DID.

“It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist,” Ms. Ferraro said.

No s***.

“We can’t let them do this in a presidential race,”

Hells, yeah.

CB, I think there’s a larger battle to be fought here against sexism than just against intra-party strife. Clinton has been getting it from day one and no one has stuck up for her until Ferraro did.

This country (like the rest of the world) is suffering from grave wounds due to sexism, and electing a totally qualified and smart woman President like Hillary Clinton is a great part of healing it. It would be pretty bad to pass up such a great opportunity,

I think what a lot of the comments on this post are neglecting is that the press started the shit. You are all talking about fighting sexism amongst yourselves, and in closed-door, academic settings. And when it comes to fighting sexism, a lot of feminists have no problem going after an easy target that isn’t scary– the best one is a weak, individual guy who maybe has a lot of sympathy towards feminism already and maybe doesn’t even realize or intend what he’s doing when he steps on some toes with a slight. The real chauvinist assholes more often go unchallenged in face-to-face confrontations, because it’s more comfortable not to have to talk to them, and to believe their bullshit that they are really not sexist and really Mr. Perfect who wants to do right by everyone.

Let’s fight the fight when the fight is actually here, ok? Let’s not leave a fighter like Hillary Clinton by herself. Let’s not just bow our heads and leave all the assholes to decide how the dust is going to settle on fights like this. If stuff like how the ERA turned out leaves modern feminists with a background of feeling discouraged- it shouldn’t. You should be waiting and ready for the next fight to fight like a mad dog, instead of just saying that things didn’t turn out right once or twice, so we then have to rethink whether we even really want to fight for things that matter.

Hillary played the gender card the way Obama played the race card when he said he wasn’t making a big deal out of how he looked different from everybody else — meaning, he mentioned it.

What has shocked me is how little has been made of the historic possibilities of a Hillary or Obama presidency. Again, it shows have far backwards we’ve gone that being a woman or black is automatically portrayed by the MSM, not as perhaps an obstacle to overcome, but a character flaw. That is racism and mysogyny of a more benign type.

When it comes right down to it, why is Obama’s name and Hillary’s cleavage an issue? It’s a late night monologue way of pointing out Hillary’s a woman and Obama had a Muslim dad. It’s a dog whistle attempting to play on people’s prejudices. Obama dresses stylish like the Iranian President — there’s a three-fer! He’s effeminant, uppity, and a terrorist!

Since they can’t be biggots outright, they will continue to play this kind of “special rights” Orwellian double-speak and projection of their own sins.

The GOP, through the willing MSM, is not accusing Hillary of playing the gender card, so much as they are playing the mysoginy card.

She certainly played the ‘victim card.’ Even if you believe her denials that she didn’t intend her blatent pandering to the ‘woman as victim’ stereotype then you have to agree she played the victim card.

And that doesn’t sit well for a woman who has portrayed herself as the toghest candidate in the race, the one who is best able to withstand the Republican attack machine, yet the first time she is seriously challenged in this whole campaign she resorts to playing the victim card.

Criticism about Hillary isn’t sexism. This country is more than ready for a woman president: just not this one. This is too important an election for the Democrats to throw it away on someone who thinks she’s entitled to the office and will then get blown out in a general election.

Memekiller,

Obama never played the race card. He never even hinted at the idea that his opponents were criticizing him because he is black. He never used racial stereotypes to portray himself as a victim.

Given what transcendant liars the Clintons are – David Geffen (who should know about this from his career in Hollywood) said they could smile while they lied to your face – I agree with Zeigeist. Sorry, but I have watched too many non-white-males of both genders and all races use the “white guilt/male guilt” card whenever things get a little “hot” for them. Most of the time it’s bullshit, and when it is it makes me angry to be so accused. My differences with Hillary Clinton involve her lies, her sellout to corporations, her constant triangulating, her refusal to take responsibility for her support of the war, her refusal to adopt any real changes in foreign policy from the failures of both the past two presidents. None of that has anything to do with her chromosomes or her plumbing.

There is nothing that is ever “coincidental” when it involves these two liars.

Ashleigh,
Not in any way did Hillary play the victim. Hillary is not my first choice by far, but she did the exact opposite. I am amazed at how smartly she has used her gender here — not only did she distinguish herself from the pack, she’s made all these suits look like suitors grovelling to become her date to the prom. It’s not “whoah little me,” but Madonna in the Material Girl video, soaking in the attention of a bunch of anonymous dancers — who everyone probably assumes are gay.

Let me just state again how in awe I am of the Clintons. I, more than anyone, have rejected the triangulation and centrism that came to dominate the party to our detriment after he left office, but that doesn’t change the fact that these guys are master politicians. Every time Hillary makes a comment like this, she saps away all the machismo and turns it into a weakness, while making her gender a strength.

It’s as if she’s saying, “They’re my boys.” The little ruffians, always trying to get into trouble. Where would they be if they didn’t have me around to keep them fed and clothed and to the school on time?

Memekiller,
Did you see the youtube video? She played the victim untill it became clear that was backfiring on her, THEN she turned it around and started reframing it in the way you mention.

But whether it’s victim or “They’re my boys, the little ruffians! And look how strong I am to be able to take them all on!” It’s still playing the gender card. Just calling her opponents “boys” is inexcusable. If any of her opponents called her a “girl” you can bet she’d be out for blood. It’s disrespectfull and belittling.

Zeitgeist nailed it at one.

CB, I think there’s a larger battle to be fought here against sexism than just against intra-party strife. Clinton has been getting it from day one and no one has stuck up for her until Ferraro did. -Swan

Ohhh…poor widdle Hillary. We should be ashamed of ourselves for opposing her on merit. I guess since she’s a defenseless girl, we can let her awful voting record slide by.

Giving her a pass because she’s a woman is sexist.

By weak, I mean men who need friends or support because they don’t have a lot of friends/money/connection/power, etc.

By sympathetic, I mean men who will readily feel guilty about it and give the matter some honest consideration if they are accused of being sexist, whether the charge is really a good one or not.

When feminists go after men like that, they put themselves in a situation of shooting “ducks in a barrel,” scoring easy points and putting themselves in a situation where they get to tell each other / themselves they are being big feminists– but unfortunately, they are probably actually not accomplishing that much. While ‘feminists’ are training these men to write “womyn “instead of “women,” and to feel a lot of guilt for being raised as a man, and so on real women (that is, lower and middle class women out in the real world, not the extreme academic activists who are relentlessly going after Hill, maybe because she doesn’t have a slutty history or because she got to be with Bill in the White House, or something) couldn’t give a damn for your spelling “womyn,” for worshipping nature Goddesses, for the benefits of transsexualism or taking on lesbian partners. They don’t think a lot about browbeating nice men like you do, and although a lot of those extreme activist feminists wouldn’t believe it, they’ve known lower class men who knew how to treat a woman right without even having had a lecture from a feminist on how to do it, just like they’ve known lots of bad men, too. What these women want is things like not to have to worry about date rape, and to have easy access to abortion and other gender specific services, and to have men respect them and not demean them or keep them out of the loop. They want a fair chance in the job market and still to be able to be mothers and be women if they want to without having to compromise things like career goals too much. These women get it– look how so many women called into Geraldine Ferraro’s office over this. I wonder when the rest of the feminists will get it– will it take right up until Hillary is formally declared the winner of the nomination, or right up until the day before? Things that are going to help real women are things like showing the press they can’t push around a woman who tries to run for President. The rest of you will be able to insulate yourselves with your bubble of money and like-deluded friends– who gives a damn about the women who have to work at a real job for their money. They can be held up as a symbolic cause and ignored whenever they are too stupid to echo your esoteric pet beliefs. At least there are some of us who care about common people first and foremost.

Just mentioning ones gender isn’t playing the gender card. Gender is a big part of all of our identities, and that of course includes Hillary Clinton. She wouldn’t be the same person she is today if she weren’t female. But playing into the “woman as victim” stereotype in order to excuse a bad debate performance is not a legitimate use of gender in a Presidential campaign.

Ashleigh,

What YouTube video?

Ashleigh,
Hillary IS a woman. She may very well be the first woman President. It’s going to become part of any campaign and media narrative. The only question is how, and it’s Hillary’s job to defines herself in a way that shows what kind of President she’d be. Macho posteuring has dominated the Bush era, and the Republican primaries are still entirely about who has more testosterone — who has fewer scrupples or can torture the most. Kerry was a failed Democratic attempt to show Republicans do not own machismo, which is why Rove worked so hard to cast him as a botox injecting, blue blood who can’t even defend himself against a sucker-punch like the SBVs.

The politics of the past decade or so — hell, since Reagan — have been about feminizing Dems and the masculinity of Republicans, the “Daddy” party. That’s been the dominant MSM narrative that all stories plug-n-chug into. It’s absurd to say everyone BUT Hillary is allowed to play these gender games, or that everyone but Hillary is allowed to define what possibly being the first woman President means.

Obama has been asked if he’s “black enough”, and it’s his job to define what that means for him, just as Kennedy defined what his Catholicism meant. People are asking these questions, the media is asking these questions, and the media will, and has, done so on GOP terms. In fact, you are doing it as well, but employing their frame of the “gender card”, meant to box her in the same way mocking her laugh was meant to neutralize a likable and effective personality trait, so that she would always have to guard against it and have every comedien watching and waiting to pounce the instant she ever dares to laugh, so she’s always the cold hearted bitch. And if she ever says anything that in any way appeals to women, or acknowledges the fact she’s a woman, she’s using her gender.

The whole “gender card” is a Republican frame that’s meant to say: “She’s a woman!!! Be afraid!!! Be very afraid!!!!”

Ohhh…poor widdle Hillary.

Yeah, screw her for daring to push through the muck and struggle of trying to become president. She gets in the way of individuals’ crusades to define what ‘woman’ should mean for their own psychologies, so she should be crushed on one or two scapegoat issues, skillfully ignoring that no candidate is likely to be perfect, even on the issues.

CalD,

This one–

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zk16oxb4Ck4

Memekiller,

Obama has been hit on racial issues far more than Hillary has been hit on sexual issues. Is he black enough? Is he really a muslim? Did he go to a madrassas? Is he a “magic negro?” etc. etc.

And he has spoken of his experience of growing up black in America and cited leaders of the civil rights movement, saying he stands on the shoulders of giants. All that is legitimate. Hillary Clinton has spoken similarly about her experiences as a woman and that is perfectly legitimate too. It’s only when she uses gender to portray herself as a victim in order to excuse a porr debate performance that anyone complained.

Clinton is not trying to hide behind the “woman” card. She never even suggested it because she knows it isn’t true. The ones bringing it up are just wrong and it’s insulting to Clinton and the other candidates as well as the rest of us to suggest her being a woman has a damned thing to do with her seeking the presidency or how the other candidates perceive her. It’s noted like Obama’s black, Dodd’s hair is grey, Kucinich is short, Edwards has a southern accent, Clinton’s a woman etc..
Ferraro is being ridiculous by instigating this absurd position and should apologize. It is Ferraro who has the problem with Clinton being a woman not the other candidates. How dare she debase the discussion with such petty accusations? (It’s as if she expects someone to answer, “she’s just upset…she must be getting her period”)

The primary reason why it simply is not credible the Clinton would want to “play the victim” is the same reason she’s running so far out ahead of everyone else in the Democratic field:

Because she has gone to great lengths to position herself as the toughest guy in this race.

Note to Geraldine Ferraro: I’m sure that you’re still carrying a few scars from your own run for VP and while I am not unsympathetic or ungrateful, I believe I can confidently promise that if John Edwards or Barack Obama were running as far out in front as Hillary Clinton is now, everyone else in the race — all the Democrats and certainly all the Republicans — would be throwing every thing they could lay their hands on at him including the proverbial kitchen sink, to try and ding him up a little any way they could.

…so she should be crushed on one or two scapegoat issues… -Swan

Since when are Iraq, Iran, and the Patriot Act scapegoat issues? To me, and real progressives, they’re make-or-break issues. Period.

Ashleigh,

Are you sure you linked to the right YouTube video? That one you referenced does not seem to support your contentions in any way.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton does seem to be the subject of great conversation and consternation. No surprises there. Howard Dean once said he could tell he was the frontrunner because he had to keep picking buckshot out of his butt. (I always thought that was one of the two best lines of the 2003 primary campaign.)

“Because she has gone to great lengths to position herself as the toughest guy in this race.”

That’s why it was such a bad idea, and why she’s backpeddling so furiously. The point is that instead of rebutting her opponents very valid criticisms she accused them of ganging up on her and did so in a context that highlighted the contrast of all the “boys” piling on the lone “girl.” And anonymous Clinton advisers told the Associated Press that “there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of gathering against her.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_po/on_deadline_clinton_1

Ashleigh,

Really. “Backpeddling so furiously…” from what? From other something other people accused her of doing? Sorry, dude. That won’t wash. You can only “backpedal” from something you said yourself. Bring me an example of something Clinton or her campaign actually said that could be seriously construed as “playing the victim” without purposeful distortion and we can talk. Otherwise, it’s just a classic straw man.

Cleaver (#14) and doubtful (#17) – I appreciate your support for my analysis, but I suspect a critical difference is that you see it as a evidence of a bug and I see it as a well-functioning feature. 🙂

Giving her a pass because she’s a woman is sexist.

Asking the question of whether it’s likely that Hillary supporters are “giving her a pass” just because she’s a woman just begs the question, though, of whether Hillary’s critics are right not to support her and to support someone else because of the issues they claim support their critical position.

Since when are Iraq, Iran, and the Patriot Act scapegoat issues? To me, and real progressives, they’re make-or-break issues. Period.

Do you really think Hillary wants an Iraq occupation, and Iran invasion, or abuse of surveillance tactics?

CalD,

“Bring me an example of something Clinton or her campaign actually said that could be seriously construed as “playing the victim” without purposeful distortion and we can talk.”

The youtube video I linked to shows her playing the victim. Howard Dean made a humorous quip–he didn’t make it a campaign theme, “The Politics Of Pile On.” And he didn’t use it to avoid dealing with serious questions and criticisms–it was a good line, but he left it at that and went on to deal fairly with his opponents.

“Do you really think Hillary wants an Iraq occupation, and Iran invasion, or abuse of surveillance tactics?”

She voted for the Iraq war. She voted ‘yes’ on Kyl-Lieberman. What are we supposed to think?

Obama and Edwards are surely not sexist. But are they pandering to sexism? What’s really behind the “Attack Hillary” strategy?

It’s not self-evident that ”Attack Hillary” is the smart thing to do–especially for Obama, who has a political future to think about. Mark Green–ever heard of him? No? Green should be Mayor of New York right now instead of Bloomberg. He destroyed his career by going negative against an ‘identity’ candidate in the Democratic Primary. But Obama doesn’t need me to tell him that attacking Hilary will most likely backfire with women. He’s gambling on a longshot.

Edwards is pandering to the anti-Hillary kult (a fringe element caught up in a wildfire wave of ‘Hillary Hate’. They make noise on the internet but are too small to win at the ballot box). Obama has to join in the attack so he doesn’t lose kult voters to Edwards. Both are trying to depress the vote in Iowa, gambling that moderate voters are turned off by an ugly campaign and only hardcore anti-Hillaryites turn out. Note that any positive message about Obama or Edwards is completely drowned out by the anti-Hillary noise. But that’s part of their gamble–their ugly longshot strategy.

Ferraro is just voicing her emotional reaction. She mirrors many voters natural reaction to the anti-Hillary ugliness. It’s a fact of life — negative campaigning in the primary backfires. Squeal all they want, Obama/Edwards and their anti-Hillaryite base can’t escape that backfire.

You roll the dice, you pay the price.

CalD,

I can’t tell if it’s just willfull obtuseness or something else, but if you can’t see that her whole “Politics Of Pile On” theme is all about playing the victim then I don’t know how to explain it to you.

Ashley,

I thought Clinton’s video was kind of humorous too (thanks for posting the link, BTW). Also thought that in showing her appearing all cool and composed at the end in the face of the onslaught, it did a pretty good job of supporting her (also humorous) positioning line that in her case, six against one is a pretty even match. But that’s obviously still a long way from supporting your contentions.

“…in her case, six against one is a pretty even match. But that’s obviously still a long way from supporting your contentions.”

Doesn’t work. First of all she clearly lost that debate. Even the pundits said so and they’re usually the last to admit that Hillary Clinton lost. Post-debate polling showed she lost and lost bad.

Second of all, even if she’s more or less saying, “Look how well I stand up to my opponents. See what a strong woman I am?” That’s still playing the victim–it’s just playing the strong victim who stands up well under abuse.

There was nothing unusual in that debate. She’s the frontrunner and it’s November. And she still hasn’t addressed any of the criticisms that were directed at her. Instead she started whining about “The Politics Of Pile On” and calling her opponents “The all-boys club.”

One thing I’ve noticed is that since the beginning of Hillary’s campaign is that practically every news story describes what she’s wearing. The guys, for the most part, don’t have to put up with this. So, yeah, Hillary is treated differently because she’s a women. To pretend that no one has noticed her gender is just silly.

Her “Politics of Pile On” is about blurring all her rivals into one indistinguishable “pile”. It’s a brilliant strategy where she defends against multiple attacks without going negative herself. It’s the reason why the Clintons are the only Democrats to beat a Republican in 40 years.

If you can’t see that the “Attack Hillary” strategy is going to backfire with most voters, I don’t know how to explain it to you. How did “Attack Petraeus” work out? It stopped the run on the bank among Republicans who were in the process of dropping Bush on Iraq–just brilliant.

Please keep up those ‘willful obtuseness’ type of remarks. I love it when Hillary Haters cop a superior attitude.

I still think Dean’s “buckshot” line, from back when he was in the same situation, was funnier though. Clinton’s six of them are about an even match for one of me positioning may very well prove to be more effective, but Dean’s line was still funnier.

BTW, what “card” did you think Howard Dean was playing when he dared to notice that he seemed to be in everyone else’s gun sights?

Ashleigh wrote:

She voted for the Iraq war. She voted ‘yes’ on Kyl-Lieberman. What are we supposed to think?

So everyone who voted for the Iraq war still wants it? Did Kerry still want it when he was running for President, then? And Kyl-Lieberman stops far short of saying we should invade Iran. I don’t think we should kill a bunch of Iranians for the sake of getting rid of one madman dictator, but there’s no problem with pointing out that there actually is a madman dictator.

Also, check out the numbers of recent coalition casualties:

Jan.: 83
Feb.: 81
Mar.: 81
Apr.: 104
May: 126
Jun.: 101
Jul.: 78
Aug.: 84
Sep.: 65
Oct.: 38

What happens if the surge works a little bit, for more than the really short term? What if the generals say, “We’ve got it down to 10 U.S. deaths a month, and if we stay in here for a while we can rebuild a lot of things that are going to add to chances for stability- but if we leave now, there’s a greater chance a lot of people are going to be a lot more irksome about a lot of things because they don’t have running water”?

Is Hillary a war-monger if she then says “Ok, 10,000 people can come home now, and we’re going to wait and see about the rest” when she takes office? Is that kind of flexibility supporting the invasion, or is it making the most out of a bad situation to save lives? I trust Hillary to do what’s smart, not what people tell her to do. I can’t count on her always having perfect judgment, but I trust her and I hope her judgment will be true as often as possible while she’s the President.

“BTW, what “card” did you think Howard Dean was playing when he dared to notice that he seemed to be in everyone else’s gun sights?”

The humor card. Notice he didn’t try to make it a campaign theme. He didn’t use it to excuse away a bad debate performance. He didn’t use it to ask for money. He didn’t produce a campaign video showing him as all put upon and ganged up on.

I don’t think we should kill a bunch of Iranians for the sake of getting rid of one madman dictator, but there’s no problem with pointing out that there actually is a madman dictator.

That is, I don’t think we should do an ill-advised, ill-planned rash war that is about taking over the country and not about freeing people, and that ultimately leads to the deaths of a lot of nice, innocent people. I don’t mind killing bad Iranians. If we can find a way to do the war that gives a good chance that the regime will be deposed and put in the hands of a stable, capable, just replacement, that will not immediately be subverted by an Iraq-like whirlwind of violence then I am for it. I am not for another disaster just because Cheney wants to get his war-jones satisfied.

Ashleigh wrote:

The humor card. Notice he didn’t try to make it a campaign theme. He didn’t use it to excuse away a bad debate performance. He didn’t use it to ask for money. He didn’t produce a campaign video showing him as all put upon and ganged up on

Whoa, has Hillary done any of these things? Because if she hasn’t, let’s try to keep that all clear, so people don’t get confused about what’s going on.

And if people are are piling on you, you naturally have to acknowledge it and say something about it, otherwise you’re just implicitly saying, “Well, people are out to beat me up and I see no problem with that.” It’s tacitly resigning frm the race. If Dean just said something about what was happening to him, and Hillary just said something about what happened to her, then they both did exactly the same thing, and not only is it not a big deal, it’s the least you could expect a smart candidate to do to respond to it.

Canaan,

Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to beat a Republican in a Presidentail race in 30 years, not 40.

“Her “Politics of Pile On” is about blurring all her rivals into one indistinguishable “pile”.

Exactly! It’s the boys against the girl. That’s what she’s trying to portray. But you’re wrong when you say it’s a brilliant strategy. It’s backfiring on her, isn’t it? She’s already lost a third of her (huge) lead in the last month. Watch the polling that comes out next week. It’s a dumb strategy.

…I suspect a critical difference is that you see it as a evidence of a bug and I see it as a well-functioning feature. -Z

Ha, well, for years I’ve thought the Republicans were master campaigners, and having your supporters send out messages while retaining plausible deniability for yourself seems right up their alley.

I guess that’s why I wouldn’t be surprised to see it come from Hillary.

Effective? Maybe. Ethical? Definitely not.

Asking the question of whether it’s likely that Hillary supporters are “giving her a pass” just because she’s a woman just begs the question, though, of whether Hillary’s critics are right not to support her and to support someone else because of the issues they claim support their critical position. -Swan

No, it begs no such question. You were skirting the argument that no matter how substantive one’s disagreements will Hillary may be, they should not vocalize them because she’s a woman. I find that argument to be the very sexist.

To me, she’s just a politician. One who has made many bad choices and not exhibited the leadership I deem necessary to be President. Does that make me sexist? I don’t think so. I don’t see how the two (her voting record and gender) are related.

And, for the record, people can choose not to support Hillary for whatever reasons they want and, in our supposedly democratic society, they would be ‘right.’

Do you really think Hillary wants an Iraq occupation, and Iran invasion, or abuse of surveillance tactics? -Swan

Yes, yes, and yes.

Why wouldn’t I think that? She voted for the Iraq war, she authorized the forthcoming Iran invasion, and voted for the Patriot Act twice. I can only assume from your contrary tone that you disagree.

What in her voting record speaks to her having the opposite position on those major, major issues? How does someone atone for sending innocents to their death on the word of a known liar and a serial warmonger? Has she atoned in any way that makes her a strong, responsible leader?

You can waffle, excuse, and ramble all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that there are many substantive arguments against her and none of them involve her gender.

Ashleigh,

Humor isn’t a “card.” It’s a rhetorical device. Nor is six of them are about an even match for one of me a campaign theme. It’s bravado under fire — although it may serve to reinforce one fundamental plank of her campaign platform if she pulls it off, which of course would be toughness, which of course is the very plank people are trying to attack with this “victim” canard. It’s pretty transparent.

“Whoa, has Hillary done any of these things? Because if she hasn’t, let’s try to keep that all clear, so people don’t get confused about what’s going on.” -Swan

Yes. She made “The Politics of Pile On” a campaign theme. She put out a youtube video depicting that theme. She sent out fundraising emails with that theme.

And she’s the frontrunner and this is November. There would be no problem if she had merely mentioned it like Dean did, but she’s made it a (currently) central theme in her campaign. And she did so just after her worst debate performance yet. Coincidence?

CalD,

“The Politics Of Pile On” is a campaign theme. And if humor isn’t a “card” then Dean wasn’t playing any card when he cracked that joke.

What happens if the surge works a little bit, for more than the really short term? -Swan

The surge is working? Really? What significant political strides have been made in Iraq since the surge began?

You cite US casualty rates as if they are the measuring stick for progress in Iraq.

They aren’t.

I’m glad they are coming down, but what does that mean in terms of progress in Iraq?

I don’t think we should kill a bunch of Iranians for the sake of getting rid of one madman dictator, but there’s no problem with pointing out that there actually is a madman dictator. -Swan

Besides not understanding the text of the bill by making that statement, you’ve also just excused an irresponsible vote giving Bush the go ahead for military action in Iran. Can Hillary just shrug and say that wasn’t what she intended when Bush uses her vote to expand his total war? What the hell did she think was going to happen when she voted yea on it?

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

She rolled out the red carpet for him in Iran. She bears responsibility for Iraq, Iran, and the destruction of civil rights within our own country.

Ashleigh: So you’re saying that the “The Politics Of Pile On” was Howard Dean’s a campaign theme when he cracked that buckshot joke? Or is it that Dean was allowed to notice that he was being ganged up on but Clinton is not?

CalD,

There’s a difference between cracking a joke and engaging in a systematic campaign theme with a name (The Politics Of Pile On) and everything. Dean did the former. Hillary Clinton is doing the later. See the difference?

Sure, I see the difference now, Ashleigh. When Hillary Clinton dares to notice that as the front runner, everyone else is coming gunning for her (as is always the case) it’s “The Politics Of Pile On.” But when Howard Dean did the same thing, in the same situation and for exactly the same reason, that was OK. Nope, no double standard there (yep, I’m being sarcastic). Sorry dude, but I’m afraid that even with a catchy slogan thrown in, it still doesn’t add up to cogent argument. What else you got?

Doubtful, as you know, a lot of people have voted for the Iraq war, have voted for the Patriot Act twice, and voted for Kyl-Lieberman. If you’d ask me what’s really going on screwy in this country, I’d say it’s stuff you never hear about- until they get caught. When people abuse powers of government, they don’t put it places that everyone can see, like in the Patriot Act. Maybe the Patriot Act makes it easier, but it isn’t the abuse itself. I think there’s a lot more Hillary could have / would have done to advance the Iraq war, abuse of surveillance, and an invasion of Iran if she really was where the Republicans are on these issues. To become President, she’s having to talk to a lot more people than just you and me about what she’s about- to people who are a lot more ignorant on the issues than either of us. She’s just not letting herself get painted in the corner of “not having voted against Ahmadinejad” and that’s smart. You don’t take the world you’d like to have to maneuver around in, you have to settle for the one you’re actually in.

Doubtful wrote:

You can waffle, excuse, and ramble all you want.

I wasn’t doing any of those things, so don’t ad hominem me, jerky.

Doubtful wrote:

It doesn’t change the fact that there are many substantive arguments against her and none of them involve her gender.

Well I also introduced the possibility that many liberals were opposing her because of their own egos. I wasn’t limiting it to an “any opposition of Hillary is sexism” thing.

Ashleigh wrote:

There would be no problem if she had merely mentioned it like Dean did, but she’s made it a (currently) central theme in her campaign. And she did so just after her worst debate performance yet. Coincidence?

Just because too things happen at once does not mean that one leads to the other. Why couldn’t it be that she was responding to being piled on, because she was piled on, because she is winning, just like she said?

Hillary has suffered from really unfair criticism for years. A lot of liberal voices were concerned about it hurting her chances to win up til now, but despite the lack of faith in her, she is winning in the polls. So now she is sticking up for herself. Kind of makes sense, since too few others seem willing to do it. Good for her for having a spine.

Doubtful wrote:

I’m glad they are coming down, but what does that mean in terms of progress in Iraq?

I’m just talking about a hypothetical of whether Hillary should pull out all the troops full stop depending on what she’s handed when she takes office. I’m not saying all the indicators are there. I’m just demonstrating that you can’t let people take options away from you by putting you on a pro-war v. anti-war dilemma, because if you let the enemy determine your range of flexibility, you are going to end up being a disaster when it’s your turn to handle the ball. You’ll be a pile of meaningless rhetoric and disaster of action.

Doubtful wrote:

Besides not understanding the text of the bill by making that statement, you’ve also just excused an irresponsible vote giving Bush the go ahead for military action in Iran.

Where did you get that from? The Guardian or some similar tabloid rag? You can find the text of the bill here. You should check it out so you are informed and up-to-date about our policy.

Whoops, I wrote ‘Just because too things happen at once does not mean that one leads to the other,’ and it was certainly supposed to be ‘two things.’

No CalD, it’s not just “noticing.” It’s a whole campaign theme complete with a youtube video, aids echoing the talking points, fundraising emails, etc. ALL playing on the “Politics Of Pile On” theme.

Dean just cracked a joke and that was it.

Where did you get that from? The Guardian or some similar tabloid rag? You can find the text of the bill here. You should check it out so you are informed and up-to-date about our policy. -Swan

I quoted you the text relevant text of the bill that countered the assertion you made that Kyl-Lieberman was about labeling Ahmadinejad a madman and you link me to the text of the bill which I already directly quoted?

Go read the article you linked and you’ll find the section I quoted. It’s not from a ‘tabloid rag;’ it’s from the bill. Maybe you should come up with a coherent rebut to my argument instead of calling me ill-informed.

Doubtful, as you know, a lot of people have voted for the Iraq war, have voted for the Patriot Act twice, and voted for Kyl-Lieberman. If you’d ask me what’s really going on screwy in this country, I’d say it’s stuff you never hear about- until they get caught. -Swan

What does that even mean? I should shut-up and excuse those votes? Are you mad? Because there are worse things I don’t even know about yet?

When people abuse powers of government, they don’t put it places that everyone can see, like in the Patriot Act. -Swan

The Bush Administration has been nothing but blatant in it’s abuse of our civil rights, daring the Democrats to stop them at every turn, but the Democrats have been nothing but complacent. You’re making excuses for them. Honestly, I don’t even know what you’re thinking or getting at here. It makes no sense.

Fear the trespasses you can’t see and ignore the ones right in front of your face?

She’s just not letting herself get painted in the corner of “not having voted against Ahmadinejad” and that’s smart. -Swan

We’ll see how smart it is when Bush goes to war with Iran and Hillary can’t speak out against him because he’s got her signature on the okay.

Ashleigh: Her in this world the entire theme of the Clinton campaign has to construct and reinforce, an image of Clinton as a tough, smart, experienced and competent progressive centrist whom the American people can trust to bring change for the better in Washington and keep them safe from all the bad people in the world that the Republicans have convinced them want to come and eat their babies. The Clinton camp has been relentlessly on message in that respect — something acknowledged by their critics and fans alike — to the point everything they say, every ad, every speech, every utterance in public by the candidate or her campaign has played to that central theme.

Now, since you have yet to provide a single example of Clinton or anyone in her campaign saying anything that could be reasonably interpreted as claiming “victimhood” to back up your claims, we’ll just have to conclude that you cannot. Perhaps you can do a better job of explaining how such a claim might credibly serve to reinforce the actual theme of Clinton’s campaign.

“Now, since you have yet to provide a single example of Clinton or anyone in her campaign saying anything that could be reasonably interpreted as claiming “victimhood” to back up your claims, we’ll just have to conclude that you cannot. Perhaps you can do a better job of explaining how such a claim might credibly serve to reinforce the actual theme of Clinton’s campaign.” -CalD

I have. You just don’t want to admit it. The real truth is that neither you, nor anyone else here, has been able to come up with a credible rationalization for how her ‘The Politics Of Piling On’ theme is anything other than playing the victim role. Your argument now seems to be that it was a dumb move therefore she must not have made it.

Sorry, but you’re half right–it was a dumb move and she DID make it.

BTW, love the “…keep them safe from all the bad people in the world that the Republicans have convinced them want to come and eat their babies.” line. Mind if I use that?

Ashleigh,
This whole debate appears to revolve around whether one watches the video and feels she is playing the victim. Most people who watched it here don’t. But the pundit class, as usual, has come up with their usual reinforcing of the GOP narrative which usually works to convince Dems like yourself — as it has with Petreaus. You’ve totally lost me there. Of course, DC declared him untouchable, and the right wing megaphone followed the GOP script, as they always do, the centrist Dems vascillated, the cowed media institutions like the NYTs started charging double for leftwing groups and half price for conservatives. That’s a given — the right wing is going to go to the fainting couch, and those DC institutions will always follow.

But the blogosphere and public opinion remained unchanged. We did not cave, and MoveOn had a fundraising bananza. So, by not playing along with the usual talk radio shoutmeister’s game, we’re better off than all the years of capitulation have gotten us.

The other thing is that the “gender card” is just a proxy for people who are angry at her for other things to go after her — be they Clinton haters of old, or the Kyle-Leiberman haters of today. Fine. Criticize her for that. I do. It has nothing to do with her victimization (by the way, Republicans are the greatest victims in the world — not making homosexuality illegal is a “special right” to these people).

I just can’t see how, in good humor, embracing her position as the center of attention as the entire world attacks, does anything but make her stronger and turn everyone else into an indistinguishable blur of fuddy-duddies.

Doubtful wrote:

I quoted you the text relevant text of the bill that countered the assertion you made that Kyl-Lieberman was about labeling Ahmadinejad a madman and you link me to the text of the bill which I already directly quoted?

Go read the article you linked and you’ll find the section I quoted. It’s not from a ‘tabloid rag;’ it’s from the bill. Maybe you should come up with a coherent rebut to my argument instead of calling me ill-informed

OK, I obviously wasn’t being literal when I said Kyl-Lieberman called Ahmadinejad a madman. The amendment says this: there’s a ton of evidence that Iran is trying to kill Americans in Iraq, and we should do something about it. That’s what’s good about the amendment. What’s bad about the amendment is it’s a step toward war while Bush is in office, and Bush is not a good man to run any war, nor is Cheney. However, where I think you are doing me an injustice is, I think the bill is not so much of a big step toward war or an unforgivable sin as you seem to be painting it to be. On its own text and it’s own merits, the bill makes a lot of sense. It’s just bringing Bush into the picture that raises the possibility it could be used for some bad actions. And we haven’t seen him attack Iran since Kyl-Lieberman was passed. I bet we won’t ever. At any rate, even if we do attack Iran, it’s not exactly the Holocaust. This is a rogue state that is sending its armed forces out in some unprovoked acts of aggression against people we are responsible for protecting. I’m not saying I support a war with Iran, I’m just questioning why anybody would want to dump Hill over this.

A facial reading of the bill would have revealed that it’s what I described, not what you described, so I think I was totally justified in questioning whether you were just repeating the spin coming out of The Guardian.

Doubtful wrote:

What does that even mean? I should shut-up and excuse those votes? Are you mad? Because there are worse things I don’t even know about yet?

It means we should get a capable fighter into the nation’s highest office to frustrate the conservatives from abusing our government’s processes any further than they already have. The sooner we get her in and lthe onger we keep her in office, the better. And we shouldn’t throw any stumbling-blocks in her path.

Doubtful wrote:

The Bush Administration has been nothing but blatant in it’s abuse of our civil rights, daring the Democrats to stop them at every turn, but the Democrats have been nothing but complacent. You’re making excuses for them. Honestly, I don’t even know what you’re thinking or getting at here. It makes no sense.

It’s a pretty simple point that the Patriot Act could be a useful weapon against terrorism if it wasn’t put into the hands of those who were likely to abuse it. One could see how Hillary would want to vote in favor of it. Also, I think it’s possible that there are a lot of people willing to engage in abuse who work for the government, and that a lot of the abuse they are capable of perpetrating isn’t even the kind that the legal protections in place pre- or post-Patriot Act are likely to prevent. Bush may be just the tip of the iceberg as far as jerks who are abusing government power, so we need something more potent and systemic than bitching about the Patriot Act, an act the proponents of which can easily explain until they are proven to have taken illegitimate advantage of it.

Doubtful wrote:

We’ll see how smart it is when Bush goes to war with Iran and Hillary can’t speak out against him because he’s got her signature on the okay.

Well, what she approved by signing Kyl-Lieberman was a bill calling for defending against Iran training and sending terrorists into Iraq to murder our troops (that didn’t specifically say anything about or specifically authorize an invasion of Iran or an attack launched on Iranian soil), so I’d say she’s well-positioned to criticize any action that amounts to more than a proportionate, appropriate response to that threat.

The real truth is that neither you, nor anyone else here, has been able to come up with a credible rationalization for how her ‘The Politics Of Piling On’ theme is anything other than playing the victim role.

There’s a difference between “Everyone’s picking on me,” and “Bring them on”. Taking on the entire Democratic field does not make one weak, and pretty much every time she brings it up, it’s cavelier and relishing in it. How else to interpret her statement about how nice it is to have all these men obsessed with you? Even if you accept this moment in the debate was whiny, it was certainly the exception. I have seen her hit this theme many times, and it has always been with a tone of relishment. The impression she gives is in having the time of her life as everyone else gets their jockies in a bunch. And that’s by design.

Memekiller,

Why do you call it a GOP narrative? Seems to me that’s just an obfuscation–if you can’t rebut an argument then claim it came from the devil, that way anyone else who makes it must also have come from the devil.

And it isn’t only the video, that’s just what has gotten the most attention. It’s really the whole package–the speech at Wellesly, the video, the fundraising emails, comments by her staffers, etc.

I’ll ask again, how is her whole, “They’re all piling on me!” NOT playing the victim? I mean, is she suggesting that she likes it? Is she really trying to say, “Yay! They’re all piling on me! Hooray!”?

And do you think she would have even thought for a minute she could have gotten away with this ‘woe is me’ theme if she wasn’t a woman? Imagine John Edwards trying to inject the same theme in his campaign for such transparent reasons. Imagine that youtube video with all of them saying, “Edwards, Edwards, Edwards,” and him in the middle looking put upon. That would be even less effective than it’s been for her. Obama could conceivably do such a thing playing into racial stereotypes, but it would be an even bigger mistake than it’s been for Hillary.

It’s one thing to make a comment or a joke–it’s another to introduce a whole new theme into your campaign–They are all piling on me… AND they’re all boys and I’m a girl! Please help out the damsel in distress! Send your contributions to the Clinton for President campaign office. (Donations are tax deductable.)

Doubtful, from your comments, it sounds like you are the type of person who actually believes the Democrats are actually evil for not voting exactly the way you would like them to. Are you . . . a madman?

Sounds like you should have the number 666 tattooed on your forehead, to represent your evil + madness.

“There’s a difference between “Everyone’s picking on me,” and “Bring them on”. -memekiller

Absolutely. And her “the politics of piling on” is the former and not the later.

Everyones piling on me! = Everyones picking on me!

Bring em on! != Everyones piling on me!

Here’s a good website for Hillary gear, if anyone’s interested:

link

YEAH, HILLARY! WOO-HOO!

Ashleigh,
I get that she came off that way to you. But I just don’t see how pointing out ( reiterating the many commenters above ) her frontrunner status is victimization. It’s a fact, first of all, and secondly, it speaks to her strength, and third, it’s claiming she’s above the fray and doesn’t have to respond. Every time she says this stuff, it’s said with confidence and good humor, not whiny victimization. And that’s by design.

This isn’t even new. Every candidate who is the frontrunner claims attacks are based on desperation, and work to solidify their status by painting any criticism as people who are behind trying to take her down. It’s only because she’s a woman that it even becomes an issue. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And as a woman I’m very comfortable in the kitchen.” (paraphrase). Where’s the victimization there? She’s saying that because she’s a woman she’s the only one who can handle it.

It reminds me of Ann Richards quip how Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, “She just did it backwards and in high heels.” Is that playing the victim? No, it’s saying the woman is tougher than the man is because, as a woman, you often have to work twice as hard as a man to get the same results.

It’s discussing gender, yes, but not as a victim. She’s too smart to do that.

But yes, this is a GOP frame. Believe me, they want to neutralize any advantage her gender gives her, the way they neutralized Edward’s focus on poor people by making it hypocritical to do so when you’re rich. What is Edward’s left with, once this becomes conventional wisdom? One of the central plancks of his campaign is now gone. How wonderful it would be if it would be a liability any time Hillary laughs or talks about girl power. As talking about the other 95% of America makes Edwards a hypocrit, and the SBVs made Kerry’s talking about Vietnam a liability, and the “invented the Internet” made one of Gore’s greatest accomplishments a liability, and Michael J. Fox getting the shakes makes it a liability for him to work to eradicate the disease he’s suffering from, they want to make any mention of Hillary’s gender by here off limits, so only her enemies can define her and make what would be a historic election too controversial to mention.

Sounds like you should have the number 666 tattooed on your forehead, to represent your evil + madness. -Swan

You are a petty, rambling troll. Go comment on your own blog posts.

Hey, you asked me whether I was mad. ‘Give and ye shall receive.’ That’s my motto.

Also you should develop a sense of humor, as you are being a drip.

Memekiller,

This is just another beautiful example of Clintonese. When she voted for the Iraq war she was really voting for peace. But that’s OK since she is willing to ‘take responsibility’ for the mistake which she won’t admit she made. Her vote against a policy of NOT selling cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians doesn’t mean she’s opposed to such a policy. And her vote for Kyl-Lieberman was really a vote for diplomacy.

And now we have the assertion that when she said, “They’re all piling on me!” what she really meant was, “Bring em on!”

Right.

Maybe in the bizarro universe where “up” means “down” and “black” means “white.” But in THIS universe it means she’s playing the victim card.

It’s really too bad she doesn’t have two mouths, because if she did she would be able to quadruplespeak, and THAT would really be something to hear.