To answer your questions, no, none of it ever happened. Camp O-Bomb-A is simply (and once again) going off the deep end. Desperation does that.

Oh please parse me again!

Dick Cheney never said Saddam was linked to 9/11 and he never had sex with that woman
(Depends on which woman)

Hillary no more said that Obama was mean to her that Obama said that Hillary was playing the race card.

In both cases those are the words of the newscaster who is asking the question.

Lauer, ASKED Barack if Hillary was playing the gender card.. Barack did not accuse Hillary of playing the gender card.

Tucker FRAMED his statement as Hillary said Barack was mean to her.

In neither instance were the words of the candidates used by the person seeking answers.

This seems to have been Tucker more than Samantha Power; she was responding to what he presented, and she did at least have the presence of mind to express some skepticism that Hillary actually meant what he was suggesting. More than anything else, this illustrates the peril of going on the teevee with sophistic lying tools unarmed.

I've got to agree with several on these threads and elsewhere today: the hubbub over this "gender card" bullcrap just makes me want to vote for Hillary. And I don't want to vote for Hillary.

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. ... She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” Leon Wieseltier

I can't figure out why Yglesias digs Samantha Power so much. Last time they trotted her out she said Obama would be different than most liberals in that he loves America.

She may or may not be a good foreign policy adviser but her political skills are crap.

Samantha Power never "claimed" that Hillary said that "policy differences come about because of gender differences."

Read your own goddamned transcript of Samantha Powers' remarks:

I can't conceive that Hillary Clinton...would think that...points of policy difference come about because of gender difference...To think that women in this country will respond to that...would be, if that what's she's implying -- and again, I can't believe that it is -- but that would be quite insulting to women voters who are trying to actually make decisions on the merits.

Even Sargent Hill got the message for crissakes, albeit in rather round about fashion

As we noted earlier at some length, Camp Hillary is definitely trying to highlight the gender dimension to all this for political gain

Jeezusaleezus I thought only Busheviks were willfully blind. The Booboisie of the Left here on display

(Love the royal "we" Greg!}

Greg "I shill for Hillary Clinton" Sargent strikes yet again.

This place has gone down the obvious bias tubes. yack.

Not a day passes by without Hillary this, Hillay that from TPM Election Central. Grow up, Greg!

One thing that is unfair here, Greg, is that you have a misleading headline. This is a recurring problem. Power did not "push" the Hillary/gender card meme. When a surrogate goes on a cable show, we all know when they are there to "push" a particular storyline. Power was talking about Iran, not gender. And Tucker, at the last minute, plugged an overhyped version of the story. As others have pointed out, Power expressed some doubt that Hillary would have meant what Tucker was attributing to her.

Are there standards of consistency and objectivity for headline writing over here at TPM?

Honestly, this site risks losing its more objective cast that distinguishes it from other blogs and risks devolving into a Kos-like collection of different partisans. Greg used to be quite objective, but it's starting to seem like Hillary's campaign has a hotline to Greg and he runs a blurb whenever some story will advance the Hillary narrative.

Thank God Josh seems to call each incident as he sees it, and though edging a bit toward Hillary, still seems pretty objective. Not so with Greg and Eric Kleefeld.

this just makes me sick; i'm wondering if you greg sergent are on clinton's opposition research team.

to echo the previous poster: don't turn this into a partisan blog where anytime i read a post i get annoyed at the bias.

it's nauseating.

Is there a way to write to Josh and complain about Greg's increasing bias? Seriously? Is there an Ombudsman or a person who is a meta-muckraker making sure that TPM does not itself become the very muck it was set up to fight? KP is dead on. This post is really unbelievable the more I think about it. Obama advisor goes on obscure cable show; doesn't bring up the topic of Hillary; gets a sort of Tucker Carlson like oversimplified version of the Hillary gender card story; and praises Clinton's professionalism while conditionally criticizing Clinton.

The whole story is so small bore--indeed, tiny bore--that it does not even merit a mention or a link. Yet Greg gives it the snark treatment. I feel the credibility of EC melting away daily and it saddens me, because I have long appreciated this site.

Yea Greg Sargent....and sorry but homie don't play that Leon.

I am not going to re-parse the parsings for to do so gives them more credibility than they deserve and makes me party to the very diversion away from Hillary's gender play that they're aiming to achieve .

All that needs be said is that if it took Sargent this many posts to clean up after his candidate's wretched performances over the last three days, it's going to be a long winter at ElectHillaryCentral

OK, I've been critical of camp Hillary all day, but I don't think anyone has accused them of saying what Tucker says -- that Obama has been mean to Hillary BECAUSE she's a woman.

Also, calling this a "push" by the Obama camp is *way* over the line, given that Powers is responding to Tucker's (fictional) account and being very tentative about it at best. Her dubiousness comes off even more strongly if you watch the tape, rather than just reading the transcript.

From the New York Times

Shortly after the Democratic debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday, when Mrs. Clinton came under attacks from her rivals, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign posted a video on her Web site called “The Politics of Pile On” that showed short clips of all of the men at the debate. On Thursday Mrs. Clinton went to Wellesley, her alma mater, and said that “in so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.” The same day, her campaign sent out a fund-raising appeal condemning the men’s actions in Philadelphia and saying that “Hillary’s going to need your help.”

The Hillstar gaggle around here must think we all fell off the turnip truck yesterday

What a remarkable coincidence. Political Wire links to an AP article by none other than Ron Fournier with this quote:

"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."

When I read that I couldn't help thinking, yeah, I am so sure that "Clinton's advisers" go around dishing on internal campaign strategy to a guy who just did a hit piece on John Edwards a couple of weeks ago. Now of course I can't help thinking how very remarkable that the very same thought just happened to have occurred out of thin air to an Obama aide appearing on Tucker Carlson's show the very same day the AP articale came out.

Have there been any black women comment on or react to this stuff?

The Wellseley crowd seemed......white.

"But still, none of the stuff alleged above by Tucker and Power ever happened."

power went from what seemed a serious thinker to a shameful disgrace.

Now there is no choice but wonder how much of her serious thinking was just bullsh*t. Has anybody ever bothered to fact check her books? To obamavangelist that might sound like a threat but to a thinking person what else comes to mind?

I believe that Ms Powers pooched this. She is partisan . . . RATHER than framing this conversation as WOMEN feel offended, She needed to frame this in the first person . . . SHE, herself felt . . . Obama's staff did the same farging misstake Clinton's staff did. The lack of critical thinking in both of their camps has been obvious for months . . . Now it is stunning.

Now there is no choice but wonder how much of her serious thinking was just bullsh*t. Has anybody ever bothered to fact check her books?""""""""""""""""""""

You can't. Obama will not let you until 2012. As much as she wants you to check her facts, being a woman, she cannot say anything to Obama on this. It would take too much time.

Bill Clinton has the same policy regarding his wife's policy memos, etc. from the years of experience upon which she is running.

hadenough. My favorite thing about you is that you spend all day posting just about the same thing on every blog around, then like to pretend you're somehow less of an evangelist for your girl than Obama's supporters are for him. It's a really quite charming quality in its pathetic way, but I want you to know personally that I'm not trying to convert you. You seem perfectly irredeemable in your devotion.

Read the transcript, Dave.

I read the transcript, but I also watched the video, which is probably a better gauge of her intentions, and it seems clear to me that Power is essentially rejecting the premise of Tucker's question, saying that Hillary herself would never believe gender plays a role in policy differences because to do so would be incredibly insulting to women.

She makes sure to let it be known that believing gender plays a role in these policy disputes is insulting (just in case anyone does believe this) but makes clear that she doesn't think Hillary herself follows this line of thinking.

By saying she hopes it was a slip of the tongue, Power expresses belief that Hillary said what Tucker asserted she said.

So then essentially what she is saying "if what you say is true, Tucker, then it must be a mistake, because Hillary Clinton would never believe that." And this is somehow problematic?

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Watch the video, Power is not trying to insinuate that Hillary Clinton believes policy differences are related to gender.

She rejects Tucker's premise that Clinton is using gender to deflect substative attacks, saying she "can't conceive" that she is doing that, that she "can't believe that she is" doing that, that "that makes no sense to [her] whatsoever."

"Slip of the tongue" is probably the wrong phrase, but you can hear her reach for it, trying to articulate what she's saying and stumbling upon "slip of the tongue."

Her answer is pretty good: make clear you don't believe Hillary Clinton is making this insinuation (in three different ways) but also make clear that such an insinuation is highly offensive.

Da(ve?) -- I take your point, but skeptically. Power couches her response in phrases and inflections that could indicate skepticism.

Problem: the very same couch supports the typical deniable non-accusation accusation -- in the world of talking heads and even moreso in Power's native sphere of diplo-speak when someone unequivocally said something they shouldn't have said, e.g., "We are more than certain you did not say what some may have suggesting you said, because of course this would mean WAR!"

Maybe we'll just have to hear a clarification from Ms. Power (and Mr. Obama?).

RonK - Yeah Da is me (Oops).

I suppose you're right, there is a touch of what you describe in her remarks, though I do think, in this circumstance, it is at least somewhat warranted.

It doesn't seem Power believes Clinton thinks policy differences are related to gender.

But as Greg has pointed out, the Clinton camp has definitely played up the "gender dimension" (as he called it) so it wouldn't be out of line for Power to subtly insist that believing gender is tied to policy is "insulting to women voters" on the chance that this message is somehow getting across.

In other words, she rejects that Clinton believes this and stunts the "gender dimension" strategy without coming right out and accusing anyone of anything, essentially saying "lets knock of the BS that gender plays a role in this and talk substantively." I don't have a problem with that.

sorry to post again but listening again and reading the headline I too am a bit miffed at sargent. spinning this as power being insulted by hillary might buy you a few latte's but it doe not come close to the kernel of this interchange between them. on the whole i trust tpm not to do this bs, i expect it from fox, msnbc, the politico, and fox, but i think your catchy headline misrepresents the point power was trying to make. you have to look at yourself in the mirror before you make those kinds of decisions. what might sell advertising costs you credibility. in protest, i think i will take a hiatus from tpm for a while. i encourage others too as well.

The worst thing Samantha Powers said was that is a mistake for the United States to keep legitimizing Ahmadinejad. She said it shortly after saying that Obama is different because he would personally meet with Ahmadinejad. Huh?

Thinking about this mystery a little bit more and I believe the first use of the "six guys against one girl" line I heard was from the AFSCME president when he officially announced the union's endorsement of Clinton (that Barack Obama wanted). When he said it though, the context was that six guys against Hillary Clinton was a pretty even match. That also appears to be the context in which it was picked up and used on her web campaign web site. It was a good line and you can't blame them for using it.

How we got from there to "victim" appears to have been largely based on a report of an attempt by the Clinton campaign to use the mugging she took at the last debate as a fundraising pitch. But the more I scrutinize the day's events, I'm really guessing at this point that this whole affair really has been more coincidence than anything else and that the Obama campaign's involvement probably amounted more to opportunism than stage direction. I believe there are probably only a couple of operators working the Democratic side of the street who would be capable of orchestrating a media sleazing as multi-threaded as this one anyway (most of the real talent seems to be on the Republican side) and I just read yesterday that one of them is busy quashing the California electoral vote thing right now. So coincidence plus a little timely opportunism is probably the more plausible explanation.

But it would still not surprise me if a few folks were about to find themselves in line for a genuine Arkansas ass-kicking from this particular “victim” in retribution. This could definitely get interesting.

Note to Leon723: What I was pointing out about Ron Fournier of the AP is that he has now done two pretty blatant hit pieces on two democratic presidential candidates in two weeks. You are correct in inferring from my obvious inference that I did not find the line I quoted from his latest article to be entirely credible.

And yet another pathetic and disturbing slamfest from the Hillary-haters at TPM. Yes, there is a major problem in this country and a growing trend of irrationalism and hysteria in this forum. But its coming from the Obambots. Its time for the sane to take back the blogosphere for the rational progressives. The so-called netroots are just an embarrassment to the democratic party. If they have their way (which means they either get exactly and everything they want or they go home crying and refuse to come out to play on election day), we will prostrating ourselves to King Rudy for the next eight years.

The only distinguishing qualifications Hillary has are being a woman and Bill Clinton's wife. Of course she has to play the gender card. Otherwise, she has only her vast record of dead-end legislation introduced as a follow-the-leader Senator, in a do-nothing Congress.
Sisters unite. Hillary's the girl for president.

please see the update I added to the post responding to the assertion that Power was sticking up for Hillary.

As for the claim that this site is pro Hillary and out to get Obama, do these posts fit into that reading:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/obama_to_hillary_stop_playing_the_victim.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/_poll_hillary_and_obama_in_dead_heat_in_iowa.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

seriously, this site is not in favor of any of the Dem candidates. we report on as many polls and as many public statements from the candidates as we can. and we've frequently defended Obama against unfair media attacks and even against attacks from rivals that we thought were unwarranted or disingenuous.

Greg,

Given the constant to-and-fro about bias in media coverage, it might be nice if TPM or Horse's Mouth could cover the recent Shorenstein study on media attention to different campaigns. It would be interesting to hear your take on it.

http://journalism.org/node/8187

I am an Obama supporter, so take my response to this with that in mind (assume bias, even if its unintentional or subconscious).

Taken all of the Clinton camp's statements together, it appears to be clear that she is indeed promoting the message that it was wrong for the other candidates (Barack included) to question her so forcefully together during the debate because she is a woman. Now, she did not come out and say that directly. We never should forget, however, that when watching a campaign is that a candidate and their staff do not have to explicitly say something for the message to come through loud and clear. (Raise your hand if you think Corker's "call me" ad didn't intentionally appeal to racist sentiments without explicitly saying "I hate black people and they want your white women.") I would point anyone and everyone to Drew Westen's "The Political Brain" for more on this.

So, we have a case where the Clinton camp is making an implicit gender-based appeal, relying on a woman's victim-hood to gain sympathy.

Now, how should the opposing camps respond to this appeal (which, by the way, is actually shameless and should be out of bounds)? I would say you have to make what had been implicit explicit. So, Power's job (and I have little doubt she went on because she wanted to nip the "poor little girl" meme in the bud) is to make clear that this is what is happening and to say its inappropriate. The question, I think, actually accurately captures what the Clinton camp is trying to do (I still hate Tucker though). Power's job, then is to make clear this tactic is bad and insulting. The problem is that the response was inartful--Power doesn't say which slip of the tongue and it looks like she is saying that the question contained a quote rather than a campaign theme.

--An Obama Fan

PS- A few links isn't convincing evidence that there is no bias, being anecdotal and all. Heck, even the liberal media says nice things about Republicans every now and then. (I actually don't think there is an intentional bias, although there have been cases where there has been questionable judgment in the headlines and a seeming benefit of the doubt to Clinton.)

So other than the fact that it's entirely contrary to the very core theme of Mrs. Clinton's campaign to ever show any weakness of any kind and the fact that the Clinton campaign itself has made no statements I've seen that could actually be construed as claiming victimhood without purposeful distortion, I guess this interpretation would be completely defensible.

Let's ponder that. Hmmm. Nope. I think I've got go with the Clinton campaign's assessment that people are ganging up on her not because she's a woman, but because she's a woman who's been kicking all their asses, which is rather obviously true. Certainly we would not be having this conversation if Clinton had not apparently moved solidly into the lead in Iowa recently and were not already running away with the race everywhere else.

"NamelessFaceless wrote on November 3, 2007 11:24 AM:
...
We never should forget, however, that when watching a campaign is that a candidate and their staff do not have to explicitly say something for the message to come through loud and clear."

So you are saying obama is playing the race card? There he is right in front of our eyes as non-white as can be. Nobody needs tell us what can and can't be said we just know certian things are gonna be off limits. There will be special treatment. Think of Joe Biden. He got knocked around pretty good. I doubt Biden is a racist/bigot. I think he said what he meant. But there's that unwritten/unspoken rule, some things ya just can't say because obama is black.

hadenough: I am not quite sure what you are saying, but let me try to respond. Obama and Clinton are in a situation where they belong to groups of people that have suffered and continue to suffer from discrimination and prejudice. It is unacceptable nowadays even in the South to appeal to those prejudices overtly. What is left is subtle (or attempted subtle) appeals to racism or sexism. There are cues that enough people know (or even operate below the level of consciousness) that appeal to those prejudices. Making an appeal to those prejudices, I think we can all agree, is wrong.

Conversely, Obama and Clinton are in a position where they can use claims of racism or sexism to gain sympathy among their supporters and make their opponents look like racist or sexist schmucks. Again, making this claim, especially when you are not confronted with an explicit racist or sexist statement is politically dangerous (you don't want to look like a whiner). Look at the Harold Ford example. He did not come out and say Bob Corker is a racist for running those ads--my guess is he did not want to be seen as making that kind of accusation even through Corker used a despicable tactic. So you make the appeal implicitly, as I think was done here. After hearing what Clinton and her camp said, I was under the very clear impression that gender was a very clear part of her response to her poor performance in the debate.

So, you are right, there are certain things about Obama because he is black just like there are things you can't say about Clinton because she is a woman. You can't call him a n*gger. You can't call her a c*nt. And you can't make statements or arguments that they are unfit for the presidency because he is black or she is a woman (or even tap into the prejudices many Americans still harbor to make voters not like someone because of their race or gender). Conversely, Obama can't claim racism where none exists and Clinton can't claim sexism where none exists. Let's hope she remembers that going forward.

Clear?

Powers is an embarrassment to Harvard. She has proven that she will say anything to help Obama get elected. A few months ago she was insinuating that Hillary would use nukes if elected---and now this.
Obama's campaign is falling apart.

The message I'm hearing loud and clear is that Edwards and Obama both have an awful lot riding on Iowa -- Edwards in fact is very likely toast if he doesn't win the caucuses outright -- and Hillary Clinton seems to have solidified a narrow lead there at this point (to go with her more substantial leads in all other early states and nationally). Edwards and Obama both still want to be president of course, so hell yes, they're going to try throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the front runner to try and ding her any way they can.

So I think what we've got here is not in fact a case of the Clinton campaign playing the gender card. If anyone is playing the gender card it's Obama's campaign. Whether this represents a deliberate strategy or they're just along for the ride, one can't help noticing that it's a possible two-fer for them. They get to both remind people that Clinton is a woman, tickling the underlying discomfort that many people doubtless still have with that concept and by packaging it up in a bank shot off the alleged "victim" angle, there's also an opportunity to try and dull that aura of strength that Clinton has so carefully cultivated. The rather obvious subtext of course is, "Look how weak she is, that woman, Clinton" (who's been kicking everyone's butts up one side of the street and down the other). That's hardly a message Clinton herself would benefit from sending. So who benefits?

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.

I am not enthusiastic about Clinton as the candidate for the Democratic Party. That said, when I see 5-6 -7 men making a national debate with Hillary as subject, damn right it appears to take a gender turn. And Hillary is smart to use it.

One thing that is happening is, in my opinion, that a woman running for President and someone as intellectually capable as Hillary, is one of those 'politics is personal' moments. To have her as the subject of discontent by all her male peers will cause a reaction to events in our personal lives. I am not victim, but I sure as hell have had to defend myself enough. When I see Hillary stand up for an hour versus stand down, I said "you go girl".

I also thought that expecting one line answers to immigration policy, Iraq war, Iran, etc is pretty simple thinking and low expectations for anyone.

So there it is. May not be my first choice as a candidate but I sure as hell will defend her. And, the more I see, may just vote for the Hill woman.

Madelyn Bryson
Florida

I think Obama is taking his Cheney relationship to heart. It's stuff like this that's completely removed any possibility of Obama getting any support from me. He's acting like just another contemporary Washington politician. He likes to claim that he wants to change the climate of how elected officials behave and do things, well he isn't acting like it. Change begins at home.

ATTENTION HILLSTARS!

As your matron says, "can't stand the heat, don't bake the cookies"

Oh the HERESY!

Uppity Obama Rips Bush, Mr and Mrs. Bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/ap_po/obama_clinton_4

SPARTANBURG, S.C. -Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama told voters Saturday that in the wake of President Bush's "catastrophic failure of leadership" the nation needs a candid leader like himself, not rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's calculated politics. ...."This catastrophic failure of leadership has led us to a moment where it's not just Democrats who are listening to what we have to say, but independents and Republicans who have never been more disillusioned with what the state of our leadership in Washington has done to this country," Obama told an audience of about 850 at Converse College in Spartanburg.

My old ears cannot stand the pain.

I don't pretend to speak for the Billary Boosters around here, but I didn't sign on to their marriage settlement

If Big Dog wants a third term, be a man and amend the Consitution.

Telling women how they are suppose to feel -- which emotions and thoughts they are allowed to have and which they aren't -- is no way to win votes.

The guys who are happy to see you take Hillary down a peg and land one in the chops of every woman in the land, and the women who are happy to see other women being "put in their place" (the frightened place they've decided to settle for) are not going to vote for any Democrat anyway.

While the women who might want to vote for you are just going to think less of you for doing it.

Basically, this is a story about 2 men mischaracterizing 2 women: Tucker did it to Hillary Clinton, and Greg did it to Samantha Power.

I agree with the commnters' accusing Greg Sargent of pro-Hillary bias. Your commentary is somewhat slanted toward Hillary, but your headlines would do a tabloid proud.

For crying out loud, it's the media that is looking for and fueling the conflict. I thought bloggers in the Marshall group were above all of this stupid horserace bullshit.

And, hadenough, if Hillary pays you by the word, she's gonna want a refund. You post the same crap over, over and over again.

I am a woman, and I find it offensive that Hillary is playing the gender card in her race for the presidency. It's sexist, it's stereotypical, and it does nothing for our cause.

Obama, however, is running on the issues.

OBAMA '08

"brewmn wrote on November 3, 2007 4:45 PM:
...
And, hadenough, if Hillary pays you by the word, she's gonna want a refund. You post the same crap over, over and over again."

Hey thanks for noticing. And thanks for stopping by.

Anyone who reads TPM and Election Central regularly has recognized the strong Hillary bias for months. It's not so much in the posts themselves as much as their spin, particularly overstated headlines. And in the items not posted, like a Huffpo link to the item about a significant, growing Hillary drag - those who will never, ever vote for her. Also missing was any mention of Bill Clinton's loud denials that he has tried to keep Hillary's White House papers underwrap. If Hillary is going to run for president on her "record" as First Lady, then the nation should have a chance review the documents of that record now, not in 2012. Part of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton agreement is supressing all the presidential records.

RonK --

I was under the impression we were having a constructive discussion (one complimented by other people on this board). I had no idea I was exceeding the limits of "respectful disagreement."

Carlson does not say Hillary Clinton explicitly said Barack Obama is being mean to her because she is a woman. He (most likely falsely) said it is her position, an inference I can only imagine he came to because of implications he has found in her, and her campaign's, recent comments, given that she herself has not explicitly said this (we'll have to see the full transcript to see how he broached this topic). As far as I know, this discussion was not in reaction to Hillary Clinton's speech at Wellesley college or any specific remark Clinton said herself, but in light of a number of gender-related assertions made by the campaign as a whole following the debate.

Hillary didn't say she thinks Obama is being mean to her because she is a woman. Hillary's campaign has, however, made certain comments that play up the "gender dimension" of the current campaign, continually referring to her as "one tough women" (rather than "one tough candidate") and going so far as to describe the debate as such: "Six guys against Hillary. I’d call that a fair fight. This is one strong woman." Sargent has documented that fairly.

Despite the way Sargent has interpreted this exchange (I think he's wrong on this), Power clearly rejects the notion that Hillary believes or deliberately meant to imply that gender plays a role in policy differences. She accepts that this may have been the impression Hillary has given (whether or not Hillary has given this impression is debatable, but given the "one strong woman" rhetoric, I lean towards yes), but rejects that Hillary believes it. That is a perfect way of countering the implication that the policy differences of the debate were somehow gender related, something that can clearly be seen in the "six guys against Hillary...this is one strong woman" line of post-debate spin.

I'd Just like to admit I'm for Hillary!

This was a 2 hour debate! I would expect any candidate for President of the United States to be able to stand up under any 'pressure' and scrutiny in a debate.

Imagine the pressures of the Presidency itself day in and day out!

We can't have a President who is playing the victim when things get stressful.

What bothers me most is not the debate itself, but Hillary's response in playing the gender card and complaining people 'piled on'.

I expect the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and many others will 'pile on' from time to time. She can't go crying to Bill those men were mean to her.

I think her handlers made a serious error in casting her as a victim after a 2 hour debate that wasn't all that difficult. It was just that she wasn't used to having to explain herself more clearly.

And Bill didn't make things any better by having to 'run to her rescue' and then giving a more confusing answer about the release of documents - that only reinforced the lack of straight - forwardness.

I had sort of forgotten a lot of the negatives about the Clintons, but this episode and other recently have brought it all back.

I am exhausted from having to listen to them with all their explanations - and we haven't even gotten to the first primary yet.

I'm also a little older and wiser these days.

I can't imagine 4-8 more years of this nonsense when we have so many serious issues with which to deal.

Jane,

You wrote: "Polls also show that Hillary is liked more as a person than are the other candidates. This may account for her lead."

To which polls exactly are you referring?

for people bored with arguing over what power's meant in her response to a dumb question - check out the text of a speech Obama gave (today I think.) It's posted it at onemillionstrong. It is the kind of speech I have been waiting/hoping to hear from Barak.

Dave - Yes, "this instance" includes the entirety of post-debate spin ... which provides no support for any assertion Hillary played the victim (much less played the gender victim).

As for Power's rejection of gender-based policy differences, that's just bizarre. blue. Nobody - not even Tucker - injected any hint of gender-based policy differences into the post debate discussion until Power brought it up (in the guise of rejecting it).

Tucker put words in Hillary's mouth (victim and gender victim), and Power bought them. Power introduced a new straw man (gender-based policy differences). Others surrogates of rival candidates have claimed Hillary wants to take issue-based debate off the table entirely!

Clinton's surrogates presented her as "one tough woman". If the debate had been 6 or 8 against Biden, his people might have described him as "one tough hombre" ... not the stilted "one tough candidate".

It's up to Power to clarify or leave the false endorsement hanging. It'd be to her overall advantage to clean it up.

Thanks noexpert - a much better use of time then this silly argument!

Shame on you, Greg Sargent. Time and again over the past several months you have shown that not only do you lack journalistic integrity, but you also lack the intellectual chops to be associated with the once-great-but-rapidly-crumbling TPM.

I was heartened to see many TPM readers express the same sentiment in their comments. Lest you or your boss write them all off as counter-attacks from Obama campers, take it from a highly educated, entirely unaffiliated and undecided reader: you are (and I apologize that I cannot find a more respectful way to say this) both a hack and a dimwit.

On that note, Josh, what on earth has happened to your site? Is it just that you got too big, too fast? Whatever the cause, you have lost control over the quality of your reportage. I am saddened that I will no longer be reading TPM, and that the already short list of media sources upon which I can truly rely for objectivity and insight has become even shorter still. Honestly, I may as well return to DailyKos, and the likes of KagroX, DevilsTower and DemFromCT. They often lack objectivity, too, but at least they are shilling for, in most cases, progressives, and at minimum, ACTUAL DEMOCRATS.

Good night and good luck, gentlemen.

redrabbit,
as someone who claims on your blog that Hillary turned in among the best debate performances on Tuesday, while also claiming Obama's was the worst, you have ZERO credibility.

Greg Sargent, you are a fraud. Please stop masquerading as a journalist. Please go work for Hillary full time. And please leave your Democratic party credentials at the door.

Your "Late Late Update," where you link to an outspoken (and more often than not ham-handed) Hillary supporter, Taylor Marsh, who basically parrots everything you said (and then links to you)? So somebody out there in the blogosphere agrees with you. Does this prove *anything*? Other than that you are not alone in your shameless Hillary-biased "coverage" of the election?

Here's a clip of Marsh on MSNBC on this very topic...

http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/17858-taylor-marsh-ably-defends-hillary-clinton-on-dan-abrams

Watch the clip, Greg-O. "If Mr. Russert would have asked her about S-CHIP, or something like that... But why does she get all the [tough] questions, and Barack Obama gets something about air travel, what he's gonna wear for Halloween, for god's sake." She then goes on to note how, for years, she has been writing about how Russert discriminates against women in terms of having them as guests on MTP less frequently than men. What a joke.

Greg, go work for her. Seriously. You do not belong on TPM, and you're ruining this site for those of us who are actually capable of analytical (rather than tautological) reasoning.

Oh no, Sluggo!!! Greg Sargent didn't support my opinion on Hillary!!! He must be a hack!!! TPM must be going down the tubes!!! I must go seek out a site that agrees completely with me!!!

Might I suggest Andrew Sullivan's column? He has a bitchy little comment about Hillary almost every day, no matter how divorced from reality it might be.