Did Hillary "Play The Gender Card"?

Comments (122)

Keith wrote on November 2, 2007 4:02 PM:

She's not playing the gender card; she's playing the VICTIM card. Everything that goes wrong is always someone else's fault. The only person with a worse record of acknowledging their responsibility for things going wrong on his watch is President Bush.

rssrai wrote on November 2, 2007 4:04 PM:

She played the gender card, and has been playing it all alone, and you have to be stupid not to see this. And calling respectable men, boys is insufferable even to me a woman. If the leading candidate was a man and the same thing happend that happened to Hillary nobody would have cared. So, yes Hillary with her video did play the gender card, and she did in her senate campaign too. Even my husband was offended with her.

The reason the candidates went after her was she is the leading candidate and Hillary saying it was a boy's club was sexist. Tim Russert goes after all the candidates. That is who he is.

BC wrote on November 2, 2007 4:09 PM:

Not true about Russert. He plays favorites, mostly going soft on conservatives, and has had a special need to be an asshole to Hillary for years. He's a pathetic, though typical, example of the current punditocracy.

Texas Reader wrote on November 2, 2007 4:10 PM:

If she is "playing the gender card" she's entitled to. I'm in my 40's and am pretty fed up with how I and other women have been treated by the "boys club" of American business in the southern U.S. I can't speak for the northern states, but I'm sure Hillary had it harder than I have as she is older.

ccpup wrote on November 2, 2007 4:14 PM:

rssrai,

If you can cite one instance where Russert went after another candidate with the same level of vitriol he went after Hillary, I'll be shocked. It didn't happen! He painted a bulls-eye on her back and gave her opponents -- who are all men -- bows and arrows to shoot at her -- someone who happens to not be a man.

And if you can name for me the first female President of the United States -- thereby proving the Office of President ISN'T the biggest Boy's Club in the world --, I'll give you a cookie or something.

Hillary is stating fact after fact and people like you keep slamming her with some Gender Card Sexist accusations. It's really quite confusing.

Leon723 wrote on November 2, 2007 4:15 PM:

A remarkably judicious post. I apologize for assuming (on a different thread) that the follow-up would present the view that Hillary was not playing the gender card.

The easiest way for me to understand this controversy is to substitute "white" for "boys" and "black" for "women" in the Hillary camp's statements. If you do that, it sure feels awfully close to playing the gender card.

For example, if Obama had said, "My time as a community organizer in Chicago told me how to navigate the whites only club of presidential politics," we'd all feel that was a fairly explicit invocation of race, justified or not. Similarly, if Obama's camp had said after the Iowa debate, "The other candidates all piled on, and the public saw one strong African American man stand up well," we'd have little doubt. The two examples I just gave come straight from Hillary's official campaign website, but with "African American" substituted for woman.

Finally, if Obama's handlers had convened a conference call regarding fundraising strategy and said, let's try to to use the theme that the white candidates piled on Barack, with the assistance of two white moderators, to increase fundraising or volunteering in the African American community, there'd be no doubt in my mind that that would create front page news. The story would be that the candidate trying to transcend race is about to resort to old-school race card politics.

So, while Hillary herself has not played the gender card in the most blatant way, Hillaryland has done so. And Obama was right to call them out on it, and hopefully cause them to stop it.

Mosi Tatupu wrote on November 2, 2007 4:15 PM:

Is she the tough girl ready to fight, or is she the girlfriend in the horror movie who trips and falls, and kicks her legs helplessly until her boyfriend doubles back to save her from the monster. She can't be both.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 2, 2007 4:15 PM:

Clinton's campaign did. One can't be treated like anyone else campaigning and whine about being piled on by GUYS becuase ones competition points out that ones policies are for shit and one trianglizing every-farging-thing.

Her speech at the school was about glass ceilings and while some of her phraseology skated on Snips and Snails vs Everything Nice, it was understandible given the message and the audience.

What is more distrubing is the corporate media repeating the bad Democrat boys beating on the po' lil' girl meme. If anyone thinks criticizing Clinton for her actual points of view and platform just wait 'til we get past the Primaries and have to live the PMS and finger on the button crap.

Clinton's folks pooched this one.

Edwards ad and Obama's lukewarm words were dead on.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 4:16 PM:

It would be nice if you did an analysis of Obama's position on Iran or the Iran resolution. This hard hitting and largely inconclusive analysis is just a bunch of hand wringing designed to distract us from the substantive issue.

And yes, she's a victim . . . of her own conniving and politically calculating ways.

rssrai wrote on November 2, 2007 4:16 PM:

Well regardless how men or women see this, it is good that it is out in the open now. When the other democratic candidates go after Hillary again, and they will I hope that Hillary will not play the gender card. Russert went after JRE really hard when he went on Meet The Press. He was soft on Hillary when she went on. If you don't believe me go back and look at those segments.

JKW wrote on November 2, 2007 4:17 PM:

I do not see how anyone could doubt that she played the gender card. Also the victim card. And of course she was expecting to get away with dealing from the hypocrisy deck. Under what circumstances does the Clinton campaign consider it legitimate for anyone to question HRC on any issue? Of course the answer to that is none.

Jeremy wrote on November 2, 2007 4:17 PM:

They went after her because she's the front runner not because politics is a "boys club". Suppose Obama made repeated references to politics as the "white folks club". Would ANYONE question whether that constituted playing a "race card"? To Obama's credit he has avoided that kind of identity politics and run on his track record of achieving change on gridlocked issues and showing good judgment in foresight not hindsight. The suggestion made by emphasizing her gender in response to her poor performance at the debate is pretty clear. I just think she's running on identity politics because she doesn't have a track record that shows an ability to achieve substantive change and certainly NOT of showing good judgment.

addy wrote on November 2, 2007 4:18 PM:

I didn't have much of a response either way to the reports after the debate. I figured, she can take care of herself just fine. I got no sense of it being a gender issue. But I'm a woman and a feminist so according to all the geniuses on the blogs I should be sensitive to it. I should be mad at her for saying what she didn't say, is that about it? It seems the responses in the blogs are more likely making me inclined to vote for her than anything she says. The dislike and over the top reactions from otherwise sensible people is startling.

LJ wrote on November 2, 2007 4:18 PM:

I don't know if that constitutes "playing the gender card" or not -- the exact meaning of the term is unclear, at least to me...

You could have saved us a lot of time by starting the post with this admission.

I'm trying to imagine reading an article about fishing only to find out at the end of the article that the author is not even sure what a fish is.

mat wrote on November 2, 2007 4:18 PM:

Even worse, she's playing the "I'm experienced" card - I have trouble buying this whole "osmosis" argument - hoping ppl start talking more about this angle...

hwc wrote on November 2, 2007 4:19 PM:

"Hillary's campaign sent out an email describing her as "one tough woman" "

What is she supposed to say here:

"one tough guy"

"one tough cookie"

"one tough homo sapien"

"one tough person"

Whispers wrote on November 2, 2007 4:21 PM:

Pointing out that politics is a male-dominated world isn't fair!

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand what the argument is.

(Oh, and Mark Penn is an ass, but what else is new?)

RonK, Seattle wrote on November 2, 2007 4:22 PM:

Did she play the VICTIM card? No. Again, that it not evident in anything released by Hillary or her surrogates.

She played the STRONG card, as in I'll take you all on if that's the way you want it - all six of you ... seven, if you count Mr. Russert.

This counters the potential liability of a "woman = weak" stereotype operating consciously or subconsciously in the minds of some fraction of her audience.

Who did play the VICTIM card? Obama (and maybe others). And this was counterspin to neutralize or at least discount Clinton's STRONG play ... by giving audience members a less flattering alternative impression of the same set of events, and hoping (by echo chamber repetition) that the VICTIM impression will displace the STRONG impression.

Obama double-faults -- first by reinforcing the impression that people ARE ganging up on Clinton, and second by expressing it first-person rather than letting a very willing - and story-starved - echo chamber handle it.

Texas Reader wrote on November 2, 2007 4:24 PM:

In reading the comments here, it seems most of the commenters really don't like Hillary. I'd prefer to have Edwards as the Dem nominee because I think Hillary is too centrist, but I don't dislike her. I have to wonder what is driving all this dislike of her? Would some of you post comments again and state what it is? I'm interested in whether its the view that she's a sell-out, or that she's unqualified, or what.

BAllen wrote on November 2, 2007 4:24 PM:

She's not saying she's being picked on because she's a woman--which implies her opponents' motivation is misogynistic. Rather, Clinton's camp is suggesting (without saying) that it is unfair for "boys" to gang up on "girls."

This is, of course, a ridiculous and insulting claim--certainly demeaning to women. All the more so, because it is calculated to make Clinton seem as tough as any man.

gqmartinez wrote on November 2, 2007 4:25 PM:

Hillary doesn't have to explicitly play the gender card. The GOP has looked silly for obsessing on Hillary and now the Dems are doing it too (save Richardson). It's not really the victimhood storyline that the Clinton campaign needs to push, but the fact that all these supposed tough guys can't get the job done alone, they have to all gang up on her. That story would be true if Hillary were a male.

Obama is inadvertedly highlighting Hillary's strength and resolve by bringing this issue up again. I'm not sure whether the Obama camp has biased focus groups or are just plain clueless. Hillary didn't explicitly say they were picking on her because she was a woman, but Obama is forcing people to think about it. Stupid idea.

noname wrote on November 2, 2007 4:25 PM:

I think the real story here is the self-serving hypocrisy of her campaign portraying her as a victim, inserting a subtle subtext of gender, while the candidate herself makes statements to the contrary in order to appear above it all. It strongly reminds me of george w. bush, circa 1999.

see the AP report where campaign staffers (off the record) confirm the victim strategy: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_po/on_deadline_clinton_1

Let's all agree on the blatantly obvious: Clinton will try to use her gender to her own advantage in any way she can.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 4:28 PM:

What is she supposed to say here:

How about one tough candidate?

Or she could have not sent the email in the first place.

Or she could have actually acted like a tough candidate and not made such an issue about it.

Take your pick.

joejoejoe wrote on November 2, 2007 4:28 PM:

1) Hillary Clinton is entitled to play any 'card' she wants to win. Politics ain't beanbag. If John Kerry allows people to think he's Irish and it's certainly no sin for Hillary Clinton to use gender to relate to Democratic voters in a way that is advantageous to her campaign.

2) Hillary Clinton is absolutely using her gender in a way that Obama is NOT using his race. This isn't about the last 48 hours, it's about the whole "I'm your girl" posture of the Clinton campaign. It's laughable to even entertain the idea that the Clinton campaign isn't playing gender politics to win. It's a smart, obvious move. Obama CAN'T use his race because race doesn't generate a majority of voters. Is SC, Obama uses race more than Iowa. This is called 'politics' and should really be less of a suprise to writers at TPM, Atrios, and Tapped.

3) Obama is right to point it out. He did get slammed from everyone on stage for his radical 'I won't nuke Pakistan' remarks. He confronted the substance of the complaints, he didn't whine that people were piling on.

addy wrote on November 2, 2007 4:29 PM:

Wow, I did not realize there were so many mind readers at loose in the world. I think what many are intrepreting as coming from the Clinton camp is pulled out of their own asses. It's like a freaking rorschach test.

Leon723 wrote on November 2, 2007 4:33 PM:

It was also the "bad tactics" card. If Hillary's camp had said nothing the day after the debate, and just carried on their ordinary business, the story of her having one weak debate performance after six strong ones would have lasted about ... one day. Indeed, the one-day story would have been that "some say Hillary was very weak; others say she help up pretty well against her first sustained attack."
Instead, the perfectionism and drive of Camp Hillary -- usually their great strength -- became a liability. Even up by 20 points, they could not stand the idea of one bad news cycle. So they made excuses, spun and fumbled. Her bad debate performance became a three-day story that will continue with heavy play to the Sunday talk shows. Yay!!!!

Seriously, I am obviously for Obama and not Hillary but I was beginning to feel OK that if Hillary won the nomination, she'd be a good general election candidate and we (the Democrats) would probably win the election. She handled the small bore ammunition shot at her in the first six debates so well I thought she'd handle whatever GiuliaRompshon might throw at her. Now I'm nervous that she's brittle when the going gets really tough and only graceful when the shots at her are indirect.

draftedin68 wrote on November 2, 2007 4:37 PM:

IMHO, men can't help it.

Piling on women is a genetic trait that, like all "instincts", has to be restrained by forcing our animalistic first impulses to defer to our higher thought processes. Clearly, some are better at it (restraint) than others.

Likewise, women are genetically predisposed to more easily resort to crying when men exhibit aggressiveness.

Nevertheless, when compared to Timmy or Tweety, I'd bet that Hillary would be more likely to understand this gene-driven scenario, accept it for what it is and realize that neither behavior would automatically disqualify men or women from performing their duties as POTUS.

Greg wrote on November 2, 2007 4:41 PM:

this is a great, great thread all. thanks for it (and for all the others, too)...

jsamuel wrote on November 2, 2007 4:46 PM:

The whole gender thing is a distraction from her double speak. It is being brought up so that we talk about her being a female instead of talking about her refusal to answer questions on the issues in a straightforward manner.

Clinton Aids admit to using gender as a distraction from double talking

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/1 1/02/playing_the_gender_card_is_part_of_ clinton_strategy.html

Aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton 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. The idea is to change the subject while making Clinton a sympathetic figure, especially among female voters who often feel outnumbered and bullied on the job."

Paul Dirks wrote on November 2, 2007 4:48 PM:

I seems to me that the press had this story waiting in the wings all along and were only waiting for an actual event to shoehorn into their existing narrative.

The fit however is questionable.

NCSteve wrote on November 2, 2007 4:49 PM:

I do not understand why we're even debating whether she played the victim card. Her campaign has flat out admitted it to the AP.

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

"Clinton's advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss internal matters, said there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of gathering against her.

The idea is to change the subject while making Clinton a sympathetic figure, especially among female voters who often feel outnumbered and bullied on the job.

As one adviser put it, Clinton is not the first presidential candidate to play the "woe-is-me card" but she's the first major female presidential candidate to do it.

The victim is a familiar role for Clinton.

In her first run for the Senate, Republican rival Rep. Rick Lazio alienated many women voters when he strode across the stage in their first debate and demanded Clinton sign a pledge banning unregulated contributions known as "soft money" from her campaign.

Analysts considered the confrontation a turning point in the race, generating sympathy for Clinton while making Lazio look like a menacing bully."

This was always Plan A for them if she ever stumbled. Then when Obama pointed out that he didn't cry "racism" when everyone piled onto him in the Iowa debate, she suddenly changes her story again.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/11/02/clinton_response/index.html

Tex, you asked so I'll tell you why I don't like her.

Contrary to the constant insistance of many here, I don't hate her personally, but this victim weave she's doing is a defining example of what I absolutely hate about her as a candidate. Since about 1999, she has become a veritable caricature of the dodging, weaving, mealy-mouthed, finger-in-the-wind, politician we all profess to loathe. If you'd asked me in 1997 who she was and what she stood for, I would have had an answer. In 2007, I have no idea, and the more I listen to her the less I know.

Most of her hard-core supporters seem to think that, deep inside, behind the focus-group tested, consultant-written platitudes and semantic nullities of her robotic campaign, there's a "real Hillary" who believes exactly what they believe, but she has to hide her real principals to get elected. However, once she's done whatever Rovian dirty work is necessary to get the unenlightened rubes to vote for her, they're all just absolutely sure that this "real" Hillary will burst forth and lead us into a liberal utopia.

What I see, however, is Willie Stark in a skirt. Over and over again, we've seen that its precisely the kind of subordination of principle and conviction to electoral necessity that her supporters think she's doing that turns people from political idealists into the amoral powermongers that have finally brought our democracy to the brink of collapse.

Do I prefer our amoral powermongers to the Republicans? You bet I do, but whether its their amoral powermongers or ours in charge, the collapse is coming if we don't make a radical break from the kind of content-free politics she's been peddling since her first Senate run.

wes2 wrote on November 2, 2007 4:51 PM:

I agree wholeheartedly with Leon's strategic assessment.

I also think that one could qualify Keith's argument that she was playing the victim card by saying that she (or rather her campaign) was playing the victim card *in a way that they thought would appeal to a wide array of female potential voters.* Their desire to generate Lazio-recollecting coverage was palpable. The campaign started the ball rolling with "6 on 1/piling on" slogans, and sure enough, the media picks it up and heightens the "woman as victim" imagery -- "hitting a girl" "gang attack" and so on. Was it deliberate on the part of the campaign? I don't pretend to know, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't. And then finally, when people start squawking about the contradiction between the argument that Hillary was the best candidate she's so battle-toughened and the "poor Hillary, attacked by all those boys" self-pitying tone, they realized they needed to back off. That's how I read it.

Is that a "gender card"? I'm not sure, but it certainly seems to be a bid for public sympathy based on playground ideas of fair behavior between boys & girls.

dcshungu wrote on November 2, 2007 4:56 PM:

Everyone is right... The inescapable fact is that a bunch of guys, including a couple of "moderators", ganged up on Hillary and relentlessly tried to "Trippi" her. She managed to do a Houdini act, and escaped largely unscathed, and then her camp moved quickly to capitalize on the powerful mental picture of a "little" lady taking on a bunch of guys, to show that this is one "tough cookie." There is no way getting around the fact that whatever is attempted would have some elements of playing the "victim" and the "gender card." There is no getting around that. The question is "does she have a winning hand in playing the gender card?" Time will tell.

pacc wrote on November 2, 2007 4:57 PM:

What happened here is that the Clinton campaign successfully managed the spin to their benefit.

Immediately following the "debate" and the next day, everyone was clucking about how Clinton stumbled, about how she tries to straddle the fence, and of how she blundered in addressing the driver's license issue. Then dumb-ass Barry opens his big-ass mouth (proving yet again that he is not ready for the national stage) and allows Clinton to change the subject (to her benefit).

Now everybody is clucking about how all the men attacked the woman (and everything else goes out the window).

This is exactly the frame that benefits the Clinton campaign (or so her team presents).

Add to that the gigantic leap in youth support (predictably coming after O-Bomb-A's gay-bashing tour) and you understand why she's the front runner.

Sally wrote on November 2, 2007 4:57 PM:

Nice post, Greg.

Now if only Senator Clinton will bring out those boxing gloves at some point in the next debate.

By the way, she has talked before about how having brothers has benefited her.

I have been a Hillary supporter since she came on the scene and watched and listened to the nonstop hateful attacks against her. Ironic that the republics immunized her to weather the storms from them and now from her "colleagues". She can give as good as she gets, folks.

Helter wrote on November 2, 2007 5:00 PM:

This whole "what did she say explicitly" or "don't read into her words" arguments reminds me of what right wingers used to say on blogs when the left accused Bush of suggesting that Saddam planned 9/11 to pump up the case for war. You'd go look at what he said and lo and behold, he never did say that explicitly. And yet at the time nobody on the left had a problem with connecting the dots and quite rightly pointing out that his words were carefully chosen to give a certain impression.

My how times change.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 5:00 PM:

So Sally, are you now saying that she weathered the gang rape? What a tough girlie.

LJ wrote on November 2, 2007 5:00 PM:

She managed to do a Houdini act, and escaped largely unscathed...

Wow! You've obviously been watching a different debate and aftermath than the rest of us!!!

Outside the beltway wrote on November 2, 2007 5:01 PM:

It depends on what the meaning of "is" "is".

you report the AP says it's part of the plan but than conclude it's not?

more ElectHillaryCentral

hwc wrote on November 2, 2007 5:04 PM:

The real issue here is that the male candidates know that 60% of the primary voters are female and that Clinton's strength with female voters puts them in a deep hole.

Thus, we see Obama playing the reverse gender-card, doing anything he can do to put gender off limits in the campaign.

Is Clinton's gender advantage fair to the boys? No. However, the fact that Presidential politics were off limits to women for 230 years (150 years of which women weren't even allowed to vote) wasn't exactly fair, either. I don't think the boys club has much room to complain.

Sally wrote on November 2, 2007 5:07 PM:

Anonymous, I never said she didn't weather the POLITICAL gang-rape. I found it sickening. Do you change everyone's words around or only those you don't like?

addy wrote on November 2, 2007 5:15 PM:

For a fun time,read the source article linked to above. Unbiased reporting my sweet uncle Fred.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_po/on_deadline_clinton_1

JR wrote on November 2, 2007 5:22 PM:

I say kudos to Russert! He's the only member I've seen in MSM unafraid to stand up to HRC. Most seem to soft-pedal, probably for fear that they'll lose access to HRC and, most importantly, her husband. I'll bet he was extra-motivated from his previous debate with her. She stood up to him when he called her on responding with non-answers.

Just look at Fournier's piece today c/o AP. Her campaign has been WAITING to play the gender card! What distresses me is how many women have been drinking the Kool-Aid. Did we really work so hard, only to cry foul when a female candidate is treated equally? Can you imagine the reaction if any other candidate complained of being bullied?

dcshungu wrote on November 2, 2007 5:25 PM:

Wow! You've obviously been watching a different debate and aftermath than the rest of us!!!

The noise machine went into drive and spun itself out of control, if that is what you mean, but early indications are that not much has changed other than the circular "firing squad" managed to ratify Hillary's front-runner status.

RJ wrote on November 2, 2007 5:29 PM:

Hillary got exactly what she wanted.

Ain't nobody here talking about how badly she did in the debate are they?

Nope.

Mission Accomplished.

joejoejoe wrote on November 2, 2007 5:34 PM:

Helter - Best comment I've seen all year.

"This whole "what did she say explicitly" or "don't read into her words" arguments reminds me of what right wingers used to say on blogs when the left accused Bush of suggesting that Saddam planned 9/11 to pump up the case for war. You'd go look at what he said and lo and behold, he never did say that explicitly. And yet at the time nobody on the left had a problem with connecting the dots and quite rightly pointing out that his words were carefully chosen to give a certain impression.

My how times change."

Hell yes!

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 5:38 PM:

I would argue that at worst, the Gender Card has been in play since before this election began, and now Clinton is capitalizing on it.

Comments on her apparel, her hair, her laugh, her nagging voice, her cleavage have been rampant since the beginning of her campaign (and before.) Her being a woman is already an issue in this campaign. And I do not see why she should not turn that to her advantage when she can.

And if the other candidates all attacked her during a debate debate, well they sortof ganged up on her, and it's already been established that she's a woman. So, therefore they are ganging up on a woman.

I would argue that if the world viewed men and women truly as equals then no one would care that the other candidates attacked her in the debate. And her coming out and pointing it out would seem like weakness and whining.

The fact that barely mentioning being ganged up on by others makes her seem like she is playing "The Victim" well isn't that really just evidence of society's sexism?

(Don't get me wrong, I am voting for Chris Dodd, it is just as wrong to vote for a female candidate because she is female, as it is to vote against one for the same reason, IMHO.)

Donald from Hawaii wrote on November 2, 2007 5:39 PM:

JR: "I say kudos to Russert!"

Of course you do.

In these extraordinary and troubling times, any journalist who would waste the public's time and insult its collective intelligence by asking a presidential candidate about the existence of UFOs, is both a fool and a tool. The Beltway-wallowing Tim Russert is an embarrassment to the craft of journalism.

LeeNYC wrote on November 2, 2007 5:39 PM:

RJ is right on the money. I am disgusted by the victim act. It's all staged and the campaign's performance accomplished its mission--change the topic.

God, I hate these people.

kozmik wrote on November 2, 2007 5:41 PM:

Hillary has been implying it and happy to allow pundits to pursue that line because it's sensational and helpful to her campaign. It's also sleazy like Nifong.

N.Way wrote on November 2, 2007 5:43 PM:

Of COURSE she shamelessly played the gender card the same as she did when Rick Lazio crossed the stage during their senate campaign. Even though we're supposed to treat women as equals the liberal left media decided that Hillary was "victimized" by sexist behavior. Did she rally to change this perception? Hell NO. Like a liberal feminist she chose to ride the bandwagon and cry the boys were picking on her. This is the same women that parents are telling their daughters whose example they should follow: something doesn't go your way instead of taking responsibility blame it on men.

kozmik wrote on November 2, 2007 5:44 PM:

Sally - "political gang-rape"

Geeze, no gender issues and personal baggage there...

yomama wrote on November 2, 2007 5:52 PM:

Did Hillary play the gender card?

Is the Pope Catholic? Of course! Big deal!

She's doing this because it is a marvelous distraction to get people to talk about something other than the difficult position she put herself in during the debates.

Now we are discussing (pointlessly) whether or not it is a boys club and whterh those mean boys were just ganging up on her cause she's a girl instead of the substance of what occured. They were going after her because she's in front: period. Nobody said it's a white people's club when Obama was the target. Sheesh! If Hillary didn't have the gender thing going for her she wouldn't even be in the race. Her entire campaign is afloat almost entirely because she is a woman. If she didn't have the massive support of female voters she would not be in the lead at all.

Alan wrote on November 2, 2007 6:01 PM:

I am astonished and the stupidity that passes for political commentary and analysis. Do you Democrats want to win the Presidency? Do you think Obama is the Man? Are you so devoid of political smarts that you think politics is not the art of the possible. Jesus: the Progressive Left is perhaps as idiotic as the Wingnut right. You guys are high on dudgeon and low on smarts. Get ready for Rudy and don't complain when he kicks your collective asses.

NYMARJ wrote on November 2, 2007 6:04 PM:

Interesting that the Democrats would not want the issue of gender be be important in the campaign - since we do best with female voters and on their issues. If we have a candidate who is a woman maybe we should help her play that card and any card that is helpful in winning elections - WINNING after all is what it is about. You may not like it - but it is politics (I know even if it is Hillary) all the cards that may work are the cards that should be used not destroyed

yomama wrote on November 2, 2007 6:06 PM:

And...

What difference would having females asking the questions make if they are from the same pool of corporate media whores that Russert, et al come from? Zero, of course!

The whole notion of allowing a symbolic female body in the room to do the very same thing that a male would do on behalf of the corporate masters is moronic. I'm astounded how many women fall for this idiocy and how the whole idea is given any respect at all. Did women advance when Paula Hawkins was elected to the Senate simply because she was a female? How about Libby Dole or Senator Hutchinson from TX? I think not. And the very idea that they bring something qualitatively and quintessentially different to the table simply because of their gender is simple and obvious hogwash. Give me a real Democrat of any gender over a real Republican of any gender anytime!

Kudos to the Hillary people for throwing this bone out there so "journalists" would gnaw on it all weekend long instead of talking about her poor debate performance. It was a good tactical move on her part. I wonder how many more times it will work?

But still there are those who are captured by the notion of having a different physical form occupying a place on stage as though the sex of the person standing there in and of itself makes any difference whatsoever. Remember the line about "the content of their character" instead of the color of their skin? How about the content of their character and what they propose to do instead of their gender?

pacc wrote on November 2, 2007 6:37 PM:

RJ wrote:

Hillary got exactly what she wanted.

Ain't nobody here talking about how badly she did in the debate are they?

Nope.

Mission Accomplished.

And to repeat from upthread... the reason it worked is because O-Bomb-A took the bait.

The best strategist in this race ain't the half-colored boy from Hawaii.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 6:41 PM:

Actually Sally, I am picking on you a bit, because your posts are an example of what I see as the one of the main problems with playing the gender card in this way. The Clinton camp is taking advantage of, or even encouraging, a rhetorical slippage between two very different images of being the lone girl/women: one out-and-out unfair, and one relatively benign. So, one day the debate is a gang rape -- 1 guy versus 6 men with no one stepping in to save her. Think Jodie Foster in The Accused. The next day the image is the scrappy tomboy, the girl playing with a pack of male siblings,the one girl on the little league team. Maybe Tatum O'Neal in Bad News Bears, although I'll confess I haven't seen it in so long that all I remember is that she was the lone girl.

If Clinton wants to paint herself as the tomboy, the lone girl on the softball team, that's fine by me. I don't begrudge her that. But if they do it in such a way as to encourage supporters like you to move over to the violent metaphor of the gang rape, or even the harrassing boss, then that's a blatantly unfair distortion and a pretty low appeal to solidarity based on false victimhood.

canadian visitor wrote on November 2, 2007 6:44 PM:

It appears quite obvious that those who dislike Hillary will attribute all the worst motives to any actions she or her campaign carries out.
We watched the debate and felt she didn't play any card whatsoever.......and we honestly felt she didn't do as badly as everyone is harping about. Who honestly says that the media are a good arbitor of passing on day after day who they "personally" think won? I don't care what Russert says about anything, nor do I care what Fox or O'Reilly or most of the Washington Post who always look for the worst in her or anyone not a Republican.
I want to know when the media are going to go after all the lies Giuliani has been telling lately! He did another whopper today about Joe Biden and then tried to say he didn't say it......why does he get a pass while the media nitpick after very movement or breath a democrat takes?

Emma Anne wrote on November 2, 2007 6:47 PM:

I'm in the camp where gender was already an issue in the campaign (as noted above, cleavage, cackle, etc.), and the only question is whether Hillary can finesse it to her benefit or not. That remains to be seen, but not a bad start.

Note: I am an Edwards supporter.

Emma Anne wrote on November 2, 2007 6:49 PM:

Hell NO. Like a liberal feminist she chose to ride the bandwagon and cry the boys were picking on her.

Hmmm. With friends like these . . .

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 6:50 PM:

Whoops, that should've been "one GIRL versus six men."

And a quick note to our Canadian friend. No one is saying she played the gender card in the debate, or even that she did so herself. The whole tempest in a teapot is about how her campaign spun what was a perceived as a poor debate.

CJ wrote on November 2, 2007 6:55 PM:

She played the gender card and it isn't the first time. She's been given a 'pass' up until this debate and she proved to the entire nation that, when things really become 'equal' she can't walk and chew gum at the same time. And this is because she has no platform other than 'a million ideas' that amount to 'lots of your money'. She has no concrete stand on any issue because her strategy is to play the room...'which ever way the wind blows..that's my stand.' She's stated she is 'uniquely qualified to be president', but hasn't provided one single qualification that validates that claim. She wants to play ball with the big boys and run with the big dogs but 'based on the simple fact that I'm a woman' which roughly translates 'don't ask me the hard questions' and that is insulting to women every where. She lies, she is shady, and she can't bring one single thing to the table that makes her unique..she isn't even the first woman to run for president. Based her own qualifications (I've spent time in the White House) Monica should be her running mate. Hillary is a joke.

margaret wrote on November 2, 2007 6:59 PM:

Guess what, Senator Clinton is a woman - stop the presses!

Good grief! When my mother was born, women were not allowed to vote; when I was born, women were expected to be wives and mothers and if they HAD to work, secretaries, nurses or teachers. Now you, Richard and Jeremy and Clint and Steve and Greg all you other guys, want to tell me it's not fair that Hillary Clinton is reminding us that she is a woman? I say to you, go suck an egg and I mean that in the nicest way possible :-)

Ran wrote on November 2, 2007 7:04 PM:

While I think the whole controversy is overblown, good lord this was a biased article. It starts off asking if she played the gender card, then links to three websites that said "no".

opulent wrote on November 2, 2007 7:28 PM:

Hillary playing the victim female card is just as despicable as women who climb the corporate ladder by laying on their backs.

Hillary is a disgrace to professional women everywhere who earn their achievements by their individual accomplishments independent of their gender.

I despise females like Hillary as they make it that much more difficult for women to succeed. They set the bar low and perpetuate sexist stereotypes, this is not what counts as breaking the glass ceilings.

These antics on Hillary's party along with her double talk make her completely unacceptable as a candidate.

What needs to happen now is for Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama to come out and say precisely this to women across America.

Better yet, this is a job for Oprah.

Barry needs to play his 'Oprah card'.

She will be a great equalizer for both the trumped up gay issue and this female victimhood of Hillary's.

I loathe these damsel in distress tactics by a she-wolf.

LJ wrote on November 2, 2007 7:30 PM:

The noise machine went into drive and spun itself out of control, if that is what you mean, but early indications are that not much has changed other than the circular "firing squad" managed to ratify Hillary's front-runner status.

Nothing much changed this week?

I'll type a phrase and you tell me the first thing to jump into your mind. Ready?

Double Talk.

Anybody out there think of Hillary Clinton? Yep. A whole bunch of you did. Fair or not (and I think it is fair) Edwards succeeded this week in affixing the phrase "Double Talk" to Hillary Clinton and unless she's suddenly afflicted with an outbreak of candor, she's going to have one hell of a time escaping that label. Edwards' video of Hillary was devastating. Potentially race changing.

She managed to do a Houdini act, and escaped largely unscathed...

If I recall correctly, didn't Houdini meet his end when someone chose to test his often reported ability to take a punch? Kind of rounds out your Clinton-Houdini analogy nicely, doesn't it?

Madeleine and Jamie wrote on November 2, 2007 10:36 PM:

John Freaking Edwards stupid little video about Hillary won't have any effect on her at all. What's he going to do? Show the video to all the corn farmers in Iowa? No. It's on his website and his followers are having a great time sharing it with each other.

Hillary has survived, just in the past 9 months, the publication of three books that were written to destroy her chances at the Presidency; the production of a film that Dick Morris describes as scathing; 1,234 anti-Hillary websites and blogs at last count; The so-called HSU Scandal; the so-called Peter Paul Scandal; and I sure as hell must be leaving SOMETHING out!

You people who cling to John Edwards as your last hope need to take a chill pill. The guy is leading absolutely nowhere in the country and polling at only SEVEN in his homestate. He has no strong support from any constituency, even the poor and disadvantaged (they support Hillary). He is broke or will be soon enough. He is now lagging behind Hillary in Iowa by ELEVEN points.

And Hillary is supposed to be worried about this guy?

Come ON!

Henry in Denver wrote on November 2, 2007 10:40 PM:

ROFL!

Hillary's gonna be crushing Johnny Edwards like a little bug. She will do it in her own way and on her clock.

Mark my words.

And I ain't no Hillary supporter. But Johnny Edwards is toast man. Frickin' toast.

Coonsey wrote on November 2, 2007 11:02 PM:

I thought her commercial showing all the men saying her name - was more like kid being a cry baby, "they're picking on me mommy"

bouvet2000 wrote on November 2, 2007 11:03 PM:

Well now, let's picture this a little differently:

What if Obama becomes the front-runner; and at the next debate all of the other six candidates, and the two moderators, stick it to the black guy as aggressively as they stuck it to the gal in the last debate.

Won't that also look kind of bad?

Would the Obama campaign suppress images of that so nobody can accuse him of playing the 'race card'?

Perhaps the mainstream media should censor themselves so that nobody gets the 'wrong' idea about Obama being bullied by a gang of white/light-skinned candidates.

Face it, when the punching bag is a member of a visible minority, that kind of a thrashing is gonna look bad.

So why not have everybody stay reasonably respectful.

Hilary demonstrated that it can be done in the last debate.

HILLARY WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO DIDN'T RESORT TO ATTACKING HER OPPONENTS. SHE DID HER UTMOST TO KEEP THE FOCUS ON HER OWN CAMPAIGN ISSUES.

If the other candidates follow her example in the next debate nobody will end up looking like a thug and nobody will end up looking like they've been gang-banged.

Let's see if the guys can live up to that challenge.

DonnaG wrote on November 2, 2007 11:37 PM:

For decades now, Hillary Clinton has not stood on her own feet. She has for all the relevant years of her public life been riding and continues to ride the coat-tails of Bill Clinton. The only position in which she is supposed to have stood on her own feet was in the Senate, but even there she did nothing outstanding legislatively, and in the most important of votes, she failed to do her homework. It is important to look at this.

In her Senate career, which was done as a stepping stone to get she and Bill back into the White House, she relied on staffers and advisors to guide her, or to do her work for her. The reason I believe that she is propped up by staff has to do with her failure to read the NIE before the AUMF vote. That complete NIE was made available only to the Senators themselves, and not to their staff. Hillary herself would have had to go to the secure room and read those 90 pages which included caveats about the intelligence underlying the case against Saddam and Iraq. Instead of doing that work herself as urgently requested by Bob Graham, Hillary later admits that she relied on her 'advisors'.

Someone upthread wanted to know why people are against Hillary. I personally believe that she is a carefully crafted, 'created' candidate, not a strong person in her own right at all. If anyone cares to grope through the purposefully created fog surrounding her, the facts are appallingly scant which could even begin to support her as an independent person.

So, playing the gender card? Of course, whatever works to keep the fog thick enough to obscure the reality behind the 'creation'. The entire Hillary campaign reminds me way too much of the Bush campaign in 2000.

Desider wrote on November 3, 2007 12:04 AM:

I don't quite get it. Hillary's constituency can be New York because she now represents New York. But she can't have a female constituency even though she's more active on female issues, because that would play the "gender card"? (So presumably Jessie Jackson didn't discuss race and empowerment of the masses in the "Rainbow Coalition"?). Give me an f'ing break. "If it's too hot, get out of the kitchen - well I'm at home in the kitchen" - it's called a "double entendre", folks, it's cute and slightly humorous and presumably would disprove the slur that Hillary was a stiff robot that was last month's complaint.

Hillary is a woman, and while it may be cute for us to think of Demi/GI Jane incorrectly going "suck my d***", no, most women are not just men with a female coating, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman making a cute comment about the kitchen because if you've spent some 20,000 hours of your life in the kitchen, you get to comment on it. (As someone noted, hooray for the Mr. Moms out there, all 17 of them, okay a few more, but the reality is women are doing most of the cooking and house cleaning even if they have a career - one of the issues Ms. Clinton can address).

If you're going to take up causes of the poor in America, you have to discuss imprisonment, insurance, job training, unemployment, and other issues that relate to them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with talking about people's problems as a politician who wants to represent them. Hillary wants to represent women - she talks about issues that relate to them. Bully for her. Who does Obama want to represent? "Everyone". He's a lets-pull-us-all-together candidate. Well that's poor marketing - he hasn't defined his audience, so he has a luke-warm presentation.

And by the way, Russert continually asked very negative questions about Hillary to Hillary and to the rest of the candidates. Go look at Daily Howler to see it. So yeah, "piling on".

Katie wrote on November 3, 2007 1:49 AM:

Okay ----Once again we get to argue about the "gender" crap and play right into the campaign's spin.All day every day so that there is no talk about how she did poorly and even less responsive than usual. So instead of looking at the least qualified and least progressive candidate (that has been annoited by the way) we can play into this. Remember the war vote.Kyl-Lieberman, largest benefactor of corporate cash etc etc--this is the best we can support and to add injury to insult argue over this point ad nauseum?????????

Katie wrote on November 3, 2007 1:51 AM:

Okay ----Once again we get to argue about the "gender" crap and play right into the campaign's spin.All day every day so that there is no talk about how she did poorly and even less responsive than usual. So instead of looking at the least qualified and least progressive candidate (that has been annoited by the way) we can play into this. Remember the war vote.Kyl-Lieberman, largest benefactor of corporate cash etc etc--this is the best we can support and to add injury to insult argue over this point ad nauseum?????????

Anonymous wrote on November 3, 2007 2:52 AM:

"The campaign also produced this video, called "the politics of pile-on," which featured all her opponents attacking her. This vid didn't reference the fact that her opponents were all men, or reference her gender, however. It just so happens that her opponents are all men, so this one doesn't tell us anything, accept that the campaign wanted to emphasize that her opponents were attacking her."

I am not sure what the journalistic term is, but does this paragraph meet the TPM standards for print? Hillary can't speak out against her opponents collectively because they are all "boys" in the club? If the "vid didn't reference" that "boys will be boys," then the need to onsider its evidentiary value is a non sequitur. Hillary is not responsible for the gender of her opponents.

anonymous wrote on November 3, 2007 4:32 AM:

Texas Reader wrote on November 2, 2007 4:10 PM:
If she is "playing the gender card" she's entitled to. I'm in my 40's and am pretty fed up with how I and other women have been treated by the "boys club" of American business in the southern U.S.

OK, please please please people.... this election is way too important for this. This is the most important election this country has had in any of our lifetimes. Our very liberty is at stake. I am not going to put forth my political arguments here, all I ask is to elect the best candidate for positive change. I sure hope Hilary wouldn't play the race card, although I think it does appear she has, and that is a shame. To anyone who really thinks Hillary is being 'picked on'... news flash... all front-runners are contested and made to defend their position, regardless of gender or race, that is what campaigns are all about and if the candidate can't take it then God help us all if that candidate becomes our leader. This should not be solely a popularity contest, and it most certainly is not the time to vote for a candidate just to elect the first woman, or black man for that matter. Obama would tell you the same, he wants to be elected because he is the best candidate for President. Look at the issues, not the gender or race or anything like that. Who is going to get this country back on track? That is who you should vote for, we're not buying and gender card tricks, or any other tricks for that matter.

Tsam wrote on November 3, 2007 4:38 AM:

Hillary is asking to be supported as a woman and at the same time asking to be treated as an equal. As the old saying is, it's a woman's prerogative to not make up her mind.

Tsam wrote on November 3, 2007 4:47 AM:

When I heard about this controversy it reminded me of Josh's interpretation of Swift Boating in the 2004 election by the "Bitch Slap" theory of GOP attack politics. It is necessary to respond to unfair attacks by hitting back rather than by crying foul. This response just won't cut it in the general election.

Desider wrote on November 3, 2007 5:24 AM:

Reality check: I don't recall Hillary asking to be "treated as an equal". I think she has said she's the best candidate, and ticked off a number of reasons, including a good grasp of women's interests (of interest to over half the population which is often neglected in our focus on war and taxes and who had the most profound military background), and this grasp just might have something to do with her having a woman's sensibilities. Vive la difference.

Dawn wrote on November 3, 2007 7:57 AM:

If playing the gender card means asking for support based on her gender, then of course she is playing it. She's playing a lot of cards - all candidates are using anything unique about themselves to get an advantage. If Obama thought his ethnicity would be an advantage, you bet he would play it up more. Every pundit I have heard has said it is especially important for him to do well among African-Americans in South Carolina. No one says it is unfair for him to court a particular demographic. Race and gender play a role in how people vote - well, duh! Obama is just frustrated because he has been unable or unwilling to play his cards better.

I don't think Hillary supporters like her only or even primarily because she is a woman - how many of them supported Elizabeth Dole?

I thought the men in the debate came off more as the whiny victims than Hillary. If those were attacks we are in for a long fight against Rudy if one of them gets the nomination.

Carol wrote on November 3, 2007 11:46 AM:

What Digby said

Moishele wrote on November 3, 2007 12:01 PM:

Since when does an anonymous campaign spokesperson come out and say 'yes, we are using the exact technique that is being slammed in the media, and using it was our plan all along'?

Good grief people! Can you pull your heads out for five seconds and realize anonymous sources are worthless?

Mystylplx wrote on November 3, 2007 12:52 PM:

It's not necessary for her to have explicitly said, "The all-boys club were piling on me because I'm a woman." for her to have been playing the gender card. If Barack Obama had gone to a black college after the Iowa debate and said something about the 'all-white club' piling on him he wouldn't have explicitly have said it was because he was black either, but that would have been the implication. Everyone would have recognized it as such. But for some reason lots of people want to give Hillary Clinton a pass for doing the same thing.

Up till just recently the media has been very gentle with Sen. Clinton. Now, when she gets a small taste of adversity, she immediately goes into victim mode. And she claims to be the toughest most experienced candidate who will be best able to defeat the Republican attack machine...

Not if her first response to being seriously challenged is to break out the gender card she isn't.

Mystylplx wrote on November 3, 2007 1:14 PM:

Remember, she's the one who chose to make it about her gender. She's the one who chose to portray it as the 'all-boys club' piling on the lone female candidate. It's not necessary for her to have come right out and speak the words "because I'm a woman." She could have just complained about her fellow candidates piling on, or better yet, she could have shown a little more toughness and not complained at all. Barack Obama never whined about them all piling on him at the Iowa debate. Too bad she doesn't have that kind of class.

Desider wrote on November 3, 2007 2:03 PM:

And this the wise men of Washington say is quite okay:

Obama stopped picking at his grilled salmon in order to stare out at the sky for a few moments. “I think,” he said, in that deep and measured voice of his, “that if you can tell people, ‘We have a president in the White House who still has a grandmother living in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria and has a sister who’s half-Indonesian, married to a Chinese-Canadian,’ then they’re going to think that he may have a better sense of what’s going on in our lives and in our country. And they’d be right.”

That's not the "race card", that's the "gee, vote for me, I'm like a genetic Chinese menu with international frequent flyer miles" card.

But Hillary gets dinged for making a joke about being fine with being in a hot kitchen.

esmense wrote on November 3, 2007 3:48 PM:

If you are a woman, everything you do is going to be judged within the context of gender. That's just reality. A reality that every woman who has ever tried to accomplish anything on her own or as a "first" well knows.

So, yes, the media definitely played, and is definitely playing, the gender card.

Harold wrote on November 3, 2007 3:52 PM:

OK Everybody Stop. Accuse Clinton of playing the victim, wining etc. But ehm.. who is the complaining, wining one ?

I am European and obviously pro-democrat. The whole show with Russert was pretty pathetic. In Europe it could not have happened but hey that's American media. To call him balanced, non-prejudiced or not having Clinton as a target probably means you don't know better. I do. She was.

So instead of everyone complaining how she is playing the gender card... SO WHAT ????

As a man you can't handle it ? Forget what other candidates are doing/have done ?

I had high hopes that America would get some of its standing back after the elections... but reading these comments.. you guys are totally loosing it.

America is closing for business. The King is dead. God save the New King ??

egalia wrote on November 3, 2007 4:18 PM:

'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." Though one should approach anonymous stuff with caution, this doesn't seem especially difficult to believe.'

Rightwing Ron Fournier has contacts inside the Clinton campaign? Sorry, but I do find that especially difficult to believe.

JB wrote on November 3, 2007 7:45 PM:

**I'm a woman, and I think Hilary is expecting those of my gender to vote for her simply because we are female. What utter crap. She's almost as belligerent as Bush, and a far cry from what I hope for for our country. I adored her husband, but SHE is NOT BILL. She's a woman who will not hesitate to hold up that finger and see which way the wind is blowing before she decides what her policy will be. Come on, Democats!!!! For Christ's sake!
If you don't start making a distinction between US and those pathetic pols on the right, what is the frigging point?????? I am thoroughly disgusted for what passes for democratic leadership at his point. Hilary is not inspirational. She's same old, same old. (And not of the Bill same-old.)

Rachel wrote on November 4, 2007 9:45 AM:

"Is she the tough girl ready to fight, or is she the girlfriend in the horror movie who trips and falls, and kicks her legs helplessly until her boyfriend doubles back to save her from the monster. She can't be both."

Yes, because clearly a woman is either a witch or a damsel in distress, a whore or a saint, a tough bitch or an incompetent sweetheart. Pathetic.

So what if she's relying on her gender to appeal to women? How many times have we heard about Obama's international childhood or Edwards' mill worker father? How is that different at all?

This rubbish about Senator Clinton suddenly acting like a 'victim' because she noted how ridiculously vicious that debate was--which is clearly empirically true--would NEVER happen if she was a man. She should go ahead and play the so-called 'gender card'; clearly all of you are.

rabbit wrote on November 4, 2007 12:03 PM:

Obama and his supporters played the race card overtly (and disgustingly) with the McClurkin affair.

Obama's campaign stated that he "will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African-American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin."

How is that not mobilizing race as an excuse for an offensive position?

By the logic people seem to be applying to Clinton, he should not even have held a gospel fundraiser (regardless of the McClurkin issue).

But in a different sense, I challenge commenters to demonstrate that Obama is not selling himself as the black candidate, ALL THE TIME, to African-American supporters and potential supporters.

E.g.: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/23/427151.aspx

Not to mention any number of speeches by Michelle Obama. The fact that it's not being reported on negatively doesn't mean it's not happening.

I have no problem with the latter kind of demographic appeal (i.e., not the Donnie McClurkin kind) -- it's fully appropriate way to run a campaign in this political landscape. What's irritating is the complaint that Clinton is playing the gender card when all candidates constantly play whatever cards they have.

I actually like Obama better, marginally. But the sexist attacks on Clinton frankly make me less unhappy, on a gut level, about the prospect of voting for her against the Republican next November.

Amos Newcombe wrote on November 4, 2007 1:45 PM:

When the MSM focuses on the horse race instead of the issues, we bitch and moan. Then I come here, to this place which is supposed to be better, and read this story, and all the messages, and they are just about crap. The election is not a card game. So many are shocked -- shocked! that politicians engage in politics. None of this is substantive. Greg Sargent: take a time-out until you can write a story worth reading.

nightengale wrote on November 4, 2007 1:53 PM:

GO HILLARY!!!

MonaL wrote on November 4, 2007 5:37 PM:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/lets-see-what-youve-got-babe-by-digby.html

If you're a Dem you're for the candidate that can win in the general. Try to avoid demonizing the obvious front-runner for the dems. We're supposed to be better than that. We're eating our own and giving the election away to the rethugs when we do this. Think Ralph Nader, 2000.

Talk about the the differences on issues, but for chrissakes, stop with the Hillary hate. Look at her record of the last 35 years! Does she still look like a conservative. Gimme a break!

Hieronymus Braintree wrote on November 4, 2007 7:56 PM:

I'll be the first one to knock a feminist for playing victim, but I think the accusations against Hillary are bupkis. The truth is that everyone is attacking her but it's because she the frontrunner and to me they look rather weak and desperate while doing it.

As for Hillary's remarks about the "boys' club," well, yeah.

Hillary had plenty of opportunity to play victim during the so-called Whitewater scandal or the, ahem, Vincent Foster murder case, etc. and didn't. She had the chance to play victim when bonehead Rick Lazio tried to bully her during their debate. She didn't.

Screw Sargent. It's bupkis.

Quackers wrote on November 4, 2007 10:23 PM:

Gender card no, smart card yes. Intended or not (do the Clintons do anything not intended?)this is what the media is talking about instead of her answer about illegals having driver licenses in New York. The victim/gender thing is pure fluff, the other could haunt her in the general election.

mystylplx wrote on November 9, 2007 12:41 PM:

THIS could haunt her more in the general election than the other. This is more fundamental.

And though it's debatable whether she played the 'gender card' or not, it's not debatable that she played the 'victim card.' She's the frontrunner and it's November. This is waht happens to frontrunners at this point in the race. And frontrunners usually make some kind of comment about 'being a target' or something, but they ususally don't make it a campaign theme, complete with fundraising emails, a youtube video, talking points and a name--"The Politics Of Pile On."

The reason people think she played the gender card is that no-one can believe she even thought she could get away with playing the victim card so strongly if she wasn't the only woman on a stage full of men. THAT'S why she thought she could get away with it. She was wrong.

ly462392 wrote on January 10, 2008 10:19 AM:

savos rerugyji gykma
suji http://ly462392.sqyllds.info/sitemap24.html [url=http://ly462392.sqyllds.info/sitemap24.html ]pova[/url] fefur

xu615314 wrote on January 11, 2008 3:27 PM:

xunos nizydala gukma
nyhi http://xu615314.cylyfxw.info/sitemap22.html [url=http://xu615314.cylyfxw.info/sitemap22.html ]bagy[/url] kefyw

wi199258 wrote on January 12, 2008 6:52 PM:

vomos ramukabe gukma
suve http://wi199258.flmhntj.info/sitemap16.html [url=http://wi199258.flmhntj.info/sitemap16.html ]walu[/url] haweg

go703141 wrote on January 13, 2008 3:44 AM:

ryvos sufyhusy gykma
jyjy http://go703141.lxiqdqj.info/sitemap20.html [url=http://go703141.lxiqdqj.info/sitemap20.html ]wipa[/url] zypyn

la647025 wrote on January 14, 2008 6:32 AM:

kejos vucofixe gykma
sazi http://la647025.flmhntj.info/sitemap3.html [url=http://la647025.flmhntj.info/sitemap3.html ]zacy[/url] kopum

no247575 wrote on January 14, 2008 11:31 PM:

nyjos wesakoxu gokma
puny http://no247575.il4dwhc.info/sitemap19.html [url=http://no247575.il4dwhc.info/sitemap19.html ]hepy[/url] perip

wo21774 wrote on January 16, 2008 12:41 AM:

rapos hamotobi gikma
jyka http://wo21774.mc4nri6.info/sitemap25.html [url=http://wo21774.mc4nri6.info/sitemap25.html ]pyka[/url] bycan

su727114 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:40 AM:

nuzos kobekije gekma
lygi http://su727114.il4dwhc.info/sitemap11.html [url=http://su727114.il4dwhc.info/sitemap11.html ]runy[/url] bifiv

cy412726 wrote on January 16, 2008 8:16 PM:

xevos dohikeja gykma
guvo http://cy412726.mc4nri6.info/sitemap4.html [url=http://cy412726.mc4nri6.info/sitemap4.html ]xuhy[/url] gikiw

la511628 wrote on January 18, 2008 1:14 PM:

punos hupicuti gokma
xuza http://la511628.behplbb.net/sitemap21.html [url=http://la511628.behplbb.net/sitemap21.html ]josu[/url] niroh

ze441031 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:37 PM:

wucos zydatywo gakma
togu http://ze441031.behplbb.net/sitemap25.html [url=http://ze441031.behplbb.net/sitemap25.html ]kite[/url] bujoh

xo164771 wrote on January 20, 2008 12:12 AM:

zapos cododuru gakma
suce http://xo164771.mc0ltil.net/sitemap12.html [url=http://xo164771.mc0ltil.net/sitemap12.html ]mify[/url] puwob

sa600367 wrote on January 21, 2008 6:44 PM:

nynos zygefuwu gukma
kobu http://sa600367.mc0ltil.net/sitemap25.html [url=http://sa600367.mc0ltil.net/sitemap25.html ]nexe[/url] bufel

nu260276 wrote on January 21, 2008 11:16 PM:

danos nozapefe gikma
ziku http://nu260276.mc0ltil.net/sitemap12.html [url=http://nu260276.mc0ltil.net/sitemap12.html ]byho[/url] panav

vy858098 wrote on January 22, 2008 3:44 AM:

rajos zuzekypi gokma
gudo http://vy858098.mc0ltil.net/sitemap23.html [url=http://vy858098.mc0ltil.net/sitemap23.html ]lixe[/url] dycuw

hu362031 wrote on January 22, 2008 8:17 AM:

rutos xuvumedy gokma
xebu http://hu362031.mc0ltil.net/sitemap1.html [url=http://hu362031.mc0ltil.net/sitemap1.html ]veju[/url] jujot

zy534604 wrote on January 22, 2008 6:04 PM:

gedos nilonany gekma
gyna http://zy534604.hvmjhoy.net/sitemap9.html [url=http://zy534604.hvmjhoy.net/sitemap9.html ]syla[/url] dukil

za29883 wrote on January 22, 2008 10:35 PM:

vidos jazezoka gykma
pyxa http://za29883.hvmjhoy.net/sitemap23.html [url=http://za29883.hvmjhoy.net/sitemap23.html ]gofu[/url] nizen

vy279539 wrote on January 26, 2008 1:43 AM:

mopos dacogahy gokma
kehe http://vy279539.xk9jhp5.net/sitemap23.html [url=http://vy279539.xk9jhp5.net/sitemap23.html ]byzy[/url] dewed

ho624232 wrote on January 26, 2008 9:24 PM:

mubos zaxilero gokma
puri http://ho624232.yd4o3ek.net/sitemap22.html [url=http://ho624232.yd4o3ek.net/sitemap22.html ]kyga[/url] wygyj

gy733486 wrote on January 27, 2008 1:49 AM:

gezos lacyrevy gukma
vyta http://gy733486.yd4o3ek.net/sitemap9.html [url=http://gy733486.yd4o3ek.net/sitemap9.html ]rugy[/url] rejus

fu189513 wrote on January 28, 2008 7:17 PM:

rubos kinaguzo gokma
foty http://fu189513.je8h3jp.net/sitemap2.html [url=http://fu189513.je8h3jp.net/sitemap2.html ]ruvi[/url] xybef

ke746622 wrote on January 28, 2008 11:36 PM:

jycos venuwida gokma
myvi http://ke746622.npmt0lw.net/sitemap7.html [url=http://ke746622.npmt0lw.net/sitemap7.html ]gyje[/url] fufuv

pi368012 wrote on January 29, 2008 7:51 PM:

kufos honizeso gukma
tawo http://pi368012.je8h3jp.net/sitemap25.html [url=http://pi368012.je8h3jp.net/sitemap25.html ]jeme[/url] fafuf

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)