I agree with most of your comments paradox...however several candidates picking on another candidate who happens to be female does not, in my opinion, amount to "abusing women". They are politicians running for office, regardless of gender. And if you think HIllary is being "abused" now, wait until the GOP gets in on the action. This is not a job for people worried about being "picked on". Hillary has had plenty of that in her eight years in the WH and is still kicking. My guess is that she's less worried by the debate "attack" than most of the blogosphere seems to be.
Posted by T2 at November 1, 2007 06:48 AMIn this regard my frame of reference is extremely sensitive and fairly irrational.
It does strike me as abuse, in a way. I won't tolerate men who pick on women to allegedly compensate for their own shortcomings.
Rarely for me, for once I don't care if it's unfair. Hillary is female, tough shit, find another way to win before you disgust me even more, you lousy lowlifes.
Posted by paradox at November 1, 2007 07:06 AMIt does strike me as abuse, in a way. I won't tolerate men who pick on women to allegedly compensate for their own shortcomings.
Who's doing the 'alleging' other than you?
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 07:15 AMWhile we obsess about manners and debating style, Sen. Dodd is attempting to lead the country away from illegal wiretapping. He is standing up to the spineless leadership of his own party, as well as the Republicans. That's what I care about, and what I'm looking for: convictions, and the political courage to stand up for them.
Sen. Clinton has evinced neither. I don't care how mean the other candidates are to her, she offers only management, not leadership, at a time when the nation desperately needs leadership.
Wow, Paradox! You certainly ARE irrational in your latest rant. As T2 pointed out, these are POLITICIANS, arguing among themselves to be HIRED FOR A JOB. Gender has nothing to do with rational, political discourse.
Your disgust with all the male candidates is also irrational. Dodd, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Hell, even Biden all bring something to the table, (although none as much as Gore) and to piss on them because they annoyed your sensitive feelings of "chivalry?" is pure and pureile, frustration talking. Please try to relax!
Posted by DeminNewJ at November 1, 2007 07:50 AMHillary has never been my first, or even my second choice. But I have to admit I'm getting fed up with all of the attacks on her. There is no way that she would not be a very competent president. She way she has handeled the attacks from the Dems - just makes me believe she will be able to handle the ^&*&* she will get in the general election. Whoever gets the Dem nomination will be attacked - by the likes of Russett and Rush et all. But Hillary as proved she can come back fighting. I have to admire that.
Posted by JWC at November 1, 2007 07:54 AMWhat a ridiculous post... it reminded me of Clarence Thomas and his "high-tech lynching" comment. Just because she is attacked, doesn't make it a gender thing. And while the Obama campaign may be floundering, I think Edwards and Dodd have done the best they could given the money they have raised and the limited free media they have been given.
Posted by downtownla at November 1, 2007 08:10 AMIf it's too hot in the kitchen, time to get out. Wait, much too sexist, if she can't can't hunt with the big dogs she should stay on the porch. OK, her husband is the big dog. Oh well, this will only make her stronger, right.
Paradox, I think your tirade is a bit misplaced. Try bashing the media, the pundits or the republi-con candidates. I've never heard of a hands off policy in politics.
Especially trying to go after the sympathy vote because the men on the campaign trail were a bunch of 'meanies' to her.
As a politician, and especially the presidential frontrunner she is open and vulnerable to all attacks on her character and senate voting record. If she isn't used to it by now, she better get used to it quick.
Remember Hillary is who the 'pukes' want us to choose.
I still say, regardless of qualifications, the USA is still not ready to elect a female or minority as President.
It will be a white, christian male. Edwards or Dodd folks. Edwards is my choice. Anybody but a republi-con!
Remember Hillary is who the 'pukes' want us to choose.
I don't buy that. Never have.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 08:35 AMAs a woman, I am offended by this post.
To equate a voluntary competition where character must and would most definately come into question with "abuse of women" is a ridiculous supposition. It not only diminishes Hillary's abilities to handle such attacks (that she would need the blogosphere to come to her rescue) but it also diminishes what true abuse of women is.
I have watched every debate and as much of the "Road to the Whitehouse" stump speeches and events that I have been able, as well a the MSM's take on all of it.
The main reason that Hillary is the frontrunner is because her single largest campaign contributor has been the MSM. Most of the other candidates have been virtually ignored while she is mentioned in almost every episode of the 'news' for the last 6 months.
I - and most people I know - have been desperately waiting for someone to speak with passion and conviction. This is what I saw in the most recent of debates.
I did not see it as "baseless attacks" on Hillary; I saw it as legitimate calling her out on her robotic campaigning and evasion of the truth.
I really enjoyed seeing the candidates come out swinging with passion and I did not take issue with the content of what they were saying. I have seen no one dispute the content - only the method of the message.
Hillary can take the heat Paradox. I believe that she probably thrives on it. If she takes the messages that the others offered her and turns around her behavior as a result, she will be all the better for it.
She is no stranger to this. The attacks that she suffered in the 90s were real and absurd and cruel and unnecessary. The "attacks that she suffered" during the debate were honest critiques of her own behavior.
Posted by Anjha at November 1, 2007 08:43 AMI don't buy that. Never have.
The guy opposing Carville on CNN yesterday thought that the repukes would do better against Hillary than any other candidate. This coming from a political insider (forgot his name).
Regardless, Hillary is a polarizing figure to large majority of Americans.
snark, check this out from dkos, yesterday, a bunch of poll stats that shows Edwards has the overall lead head to head against the pukes.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 1, 2007 08:44 AMAnjha, I just checked your site yesterday. That telepathy works!
Glad to hear from you. Hope all is well.
SoS
7o6, are you telling me that Dodd or Edwards will be confirmed as the Democratic nominee at their convention? 'Cause unless that happens, they won't have a chance to win the presidency. I don't disagree with your assessment of the electorate, but I'm just wondering how you figure Dodd or Edwards will win.
Posted by T2 at November 1, 2007 08:55 AMThat telepathy works!
Always.
I am a voyer nowadays. Not much for posting and by the numbers of post it seems that many people share my {apathy}....
I am not sure if apathy is the correct word. Mostly it is powerlessness. A feeling that I cannot make a difference no matter how much participation that there is.
It is frustrating.
I do miss you all, very much.
I have no problem with honest attacks but pile on lead by Tim Russert loaded with Republican talking points is a complete turn-off.
It will definetely back-fire
Posted by New Age at November 1, 2007 09:03 AM7o6, are you telling me that Dodd or Edwards will be confirmed as the Democratic nominee at their convention? 'Cause unless that happens, they won't have a chance to win the presidency.
Yes T2, if white, christian male, republi-con runs against the minorities, Hillary, Obama, or Richardson they will get beat.
Just saying the Dems need to run a white christian male versus a white, christian male, republi-con to win.
As much as I'd like to deny it, that's the reality I see from my crystal ball.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 1, 2007 09:11 AMParadox - this is a stunningly emotional and thoughtless piece. downtownia nails it with the Clarence Thomas analogy. If this were 2000, you were a moderate Republican and McCain, Romney and Guiliani ganged up on GWB in a debate, would you be so repulsed by that you would defend GWB? I think not. If the DEM/DLC machine were lined up behind Bill Clinton's brother or son, would you defend the son or brother? Do you really think that if DEM/DLC machine was running someone else, say Gore, that Hillary wouldn't look somewhat pathetic at this point?
How many times do we have to see Hillary playing the woman as victim card before people get it? Poor Hillary blindsided by a lying, cheating husband -- that's when she first got the sympathy of many Americans (Americans too naive not to recognize that Monica wasn't anything new in the Hillary-Bill relationship). Then poor Hillary (the carpetbagger, NY DEM nominee for the Senate) threatened by the wimpy Lazio. Now poor Hillary, the guys are being mean to her. Bullshit.
The guys are fighting the political machine that's decided that Hillary's going to be the next President. Go ahead and vote for her. I expect that she'll win. And it will recreate the '90s - endless Clinton bashing for stupid, unimportant stuff combined with the DLC, neoliberalism agenda. As there never was any Clinton magic, this time a Clinton in the WH will be a disaster.
Posted by Marie at November 1, 2007 09:12 AMThe last debate was a total waste of time, only 30 seconds devoted to Education and no other serious issues like Economy, Global Warming, Universal Health care gets any serious attention.
Tim Russsert had only one mission and that is to weaken Hillary ahead of general election.
Democrats need to be very careful, the likes of Tim Russert and Chris Mathews focused more on Al Gore sighing during a debate with George Bush and they used it as a distraction from the real issues. Same thing was done to John Kerry.
Our candidates should be free to disagree, but they should not help hacks like Tim Russert and Chris Mathews make the eventual primary winner unelectable. Otherwise, we will all surfer another 8 years of Republican rule.
Posted by New Age at November 1, 2007 09:17 AMNice comments, Anjha, good to see ya again! Yeah, I was put off by the sentiments here, too.
The main reason that Hillary is the frontrunner is because her single largest campaign contributor has been the MSM. Most of the other candidates have been virtually ignored while she is mentioned in almost every episode of the 'news' for the last 6 months.
Exactly! As Jeff Dinelli recounted yesterday, the whole damn debate was hyped as a cage match against Hillary by the media; they were slobbering over the prospect of it!
And watching the debate itself, I was put off by Obama's, and to a greater (and sadder) extent, Edwards' complicity with the cage match atmosphere. And I love Edwards! But he didn't seem to bring anything else but attacks to that one. It was cringe-worthy, not because he was attacking a poor defenseless woman, but because he bought into Russert's game so fully. It was ugly to me, and totally diminished him.
How many times do we have to see Hillary playing the woman as victim card before people get it?
Huh. Don't remember her ever doing that... There's a difference between "playing the woman as victim" and being a woman portrayed as "playing the woman as victim." Thanks, Marie, for showing it to us.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 1, 2007 09:23 AMNo Clinton was on the tickets for the last two presidential elections and Democrats still manage to loose.
I guess some like Marie will rather have Republican President for the next 8 years rather than see Hillary in the White House.
Posted by New Age at November 1, 2007 09:48 AMRegardless of whether one wants to see Hillary Clinton as president I have to agree with Iamcoyote. How does paradox writing a post about 'woman abuse' translate into 'Hillary playing woman as victim card?'
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 09:57 AMI think the paradox piece is off base, but not off the reservation. A lot of bloggers are claiming Hillary is being abused and the other candidates are just desperate males willing to do anything or say anything. I think paradox is just eager to pick someone who can win and get on with it. The Democratic Reservation.
I think this piling-on stuff and copying Republican talking points stuff is nonsense and it is based on simple eagerness by those who just want to win the easiest way possible.
I am an Edwards supporter. I do not want more dynasties. I do not want retro-Bill. I don't want to swallow poison to kill the bad tissue if it means I kill the good tissue with it. I don't want fiddling around the edges by master-fiddlers.
I don't want other Democrats down the ticket, at state and local levels, to have to defend being associated with a polarizer like Clinton. I don't care who the Republicans want to run against them. I want to put John Edwards up against them.
Since it doesn't appear that Gore is running, I wonder who he will support for the Democratic nomination.
That would be a huge endorsement!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 1, 2007 10:48 AMsnark, new age and iamcoyote - you either get it or you don't. The victim card is played so frequently by both parties and many candidates today that it may no longer be as obvious as it once would have been. Nixon started this whole trend -- whining about the MSM when in fact he was mostly given a pass. Since then only Carter, Dukakis and Gore were subjected to truly venomous coverage from the MSM. Most of the attacks on Bill Clinton came from the rightwing; whereas the MSM had a love/hate relationship with him.
The "victim card" is used because it works. You may choose to think that Hillary on the Today Show in the midst of the Monica thing whining about the vast right wing conspiracy wasn't carefully planned and calibrated, but I don't. You may also choose to think that Hillary was as out of the loop as Gore was on the truth about Monica and personally devastated when the truth had to be told. I don't. Nor did I miss the spin and MSM defense of Hillary when Lazio could be viewed as threatening in one of their debates. Nor the spin out of Hillary's current campaign that the guys ganged up on her.
Hillary wasn't abused in the debate -- she was treated like the choice of the DEM party power brokers who have turned her into the front runner. Being a woman had nothing to do with that, and as a woman and a feminist, I'm repulsed by this abuse of the very real existence of the abuse of women in this country and around the world. That is analogous to the dominant Christians in this country declaring that there's a war on Christmas.
I guess some like Marie will rather have Republican President for the next 8 years rather than see Hillary in the White House. Excuse me, but when did that become the only choice? When was it written in stone that the next president will remain in office for eight years? I suppose that Nixon wasn't as bad as GWB -- but their agendas were the same. It's no longer a question of where this country is headed but only how quickly we'll get there. Fast or faster. Read "The Shock Doctrine" and Chalmers Johnson's trilogy beginning with "Blowback..." and come back and tell me how much difference there is between the powers in the two national parties.
Posted by Marie at November 1, 2007 11:06 AM
7o6, "Just saying the Dems need to run a white christian male". Well you certainly have history on your side. But my question was, what event will result in the Clinton bandwagon losing so much steam that the Dem Convention will nominate the White Christian Male?
Would repeated polls showing Hillary within the margin of error with Rudy=Bush do it by summertime? Would repeated polls showing 50% of the country say they won't vote for her under anay condition do it? Because those factoids exist now and she's 20% ahead of the closest WCM.
You can't have it both ways. If a woman is every bit as qualified and capable to run the country as a man is, than it's every bit as fair to attack her as it is to attack a male candidate. Gender should not be a factor at all.
What I'd like to see is all the dems on that stage ganging up on the questions. When prodded to go negative by the questioner, the answer should be "if you want to ask me about my position, or why I disagree with Sen. Clinton on a particular issue, I'd be happy to answer. But I'm not going to play into this game you seem to take so much pleasure in of encouraging personal attacks against one another. Do you have a question of substance you'd like to ask me?" That's what I want to see.
Posted by CG at November 1, 2007 11:18 AMsnark, new age and iamcoyote - you either get it or you don't.
Marie,
Nothing you wrote in that comment demonstrates Hillary Clinton playing the "woman as victim card" following the most recent debate. You choosing to believe it doesn't make it so.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 11:20 AMyou either get it or you don't
What it are we not getting, Marie? The it that throughout the history of politics, people have pretended to be the victim for sympathy? No one's disputing or discussing that. You tried to assert that Hillary, in the context of the debate, was playing the "victim" card without any sort of evidence. Or maybe you thought Hillary wrote this post? Seems to me, the only one that doesn't "get it" is you.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 1, 2007 11:46 AMI'm very tired of American politics, tired of all the lying, death and failure. I'm truly sorry, really, that I fucked up in my quest for truth and justice. I don't know how to be anything but myself, and I'm also sick to death of hurting from my own people who are so sure I'm so wrong in this world.
Offended. By htpp pixels in some fat obscured sheltered American life. I believe you.
I loathe the sight of a woman being persecuted because the assholes who can do nothing but fail have not other disgusting choice.
I'm sorry for being me. I'm sorry I've fucked up so much, okay? I do the best I can, I tried.
Just go to hell in your incredible American arrogance, why I suffer and labor for this crazy place where people think I'm full of shit I do not know. Fuck....you.
Posted by paradox at November 1, 2007 11:59 AMActually, I think Thomas Jefferson played the victim card too. And John Adams was definitely a big whiner.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 11:59 AMWhat if Obama was leading the field by 20% and Hillary and the others ganged up on him?? Would we be debating the White folks ganging up to hold the Black man down? Would we be calling Russert a racist because he asked Obama more questions than the rest? Or would we be saying politics is politics.
Posted by T2 at November 1, 2007 12:07 PMWould we be debating the White folks ganging up to hold the Black man down?
Only if Hillary wore those little diamond encrusted noose earings I believe she has.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 12:11 PMOnly if Hillary wore those little diamond encrusted noose earings I believe she has.
Oh dear, I feel bad for laughing out loud at that one... especially after misreading it to say "nose" earrings...
And I'm sure Garfield and Lincoln would have played the victim card, though JFK was too much of a hero to consider such a thing.
Paradox, don't be upset - you've actually started a good and relevent discussion with this post! One that, I think, really needed to take place. You speak to a lot of people's hearts, and have immense courage to lay yours out on the table like this. You're doing a good thing, though it truly does feel like a thankless job sometimes.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 1, 2007 12:34 PMBut my question was, what event will result in the Clinton bandwagon losing so much steam that the Dem Convention will nominate the White Christian Male?
T2, Al Gore running! Hell, I don't know what will slow her down. I don't know what kind of answer you want.
I see a disturbing pattern emerging in the media about illegal immmigration becoming the big story (f*ucking Lou Dobbs, wish he kept focused on the middle class losing out).
The Iraq War is on the back burner now. Healthcare got shoved aside.
More fear on Iran, brown people invading our country, gays are bad, and guns are (Blackwater) good. The republi-cons are shaping these issues and the media are abetting them.
The Dems are not calling them on their lies or even standing up to bu$h calling congress out.
Damn paradox, I love your posts. We can still agree to disagree sometimes can't we? Telling people to "fuck...you" should be reserved for the trolls.
As my 11 year old says, "chill-ax"!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 1, 2007 12:54 PMAnd I'm sure Garfield and Lincoln would have played the victim card...
I'm sure it was the beards, right?
Posted by Seven of Six at November 1, 2007 12:58 PMParadox, please hang in there. As a guy who gets beat up on a daily basis wearing his Hillary tee, I feel your pain. It was a good, honest, opinionated post. I assume that's the point here, and like Coyote says, you've started a vibrant discussion.
There are two facts that cannot be ignored in this campaign, that Hillary is a woman, and that Hillary is Hillary, in that order. This country just is not ready for a (this?) powerful woman to be president. I wish I didn't believe that, but the history of the '90's and my head tells me it's so.
And because nobody wants to stick to the issues (GOP, Dems, MSM, blogs), 2008 is going to be a complete circus. I stick with my guns from my post yesterday, that debate was framed and performed like a total Beat Up On Hillary Night. Look again at the stats regarding the number of questions asked and their context and to whom they were directed in Taylor Marsh's post, which I quoted.
But I digress. Paradox, you are a great writer. You have to take these comments sometimes with a grain of salt, Man. I wish that our different opinions around here didn't deteriorate into personal attacks and insults, but I suppose it's the Nature of the Beast. Don't you remember us getting beat up when we were talking about FOOTBALL?? Hang in there, Bro.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 1, 2007 01:11 PMSorry, was I playing the victim, there?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 1, 2007 01:12 PMHere for Clinton's campaign use of Boys Against Girl
I'm done here for a while. If the rest of you choose not to read, think and explore the root causes of what has infected our body politic and how it didn't begin with GWB, then don't complain when President Hillary is as disappointing as Speaker Pelosi. (Unlike many other Democrats, if nominated, I expect Hillary to win because she's corporate America's girl and that is what has been swinging our elections since 1980.)
Paradox - many women appreciate men like you who recoil at how women are abused and mistreated. However, just as all men aren't the enemy, all women aren't our friends. The Maggie Thatchers, Madeleine Albrights and Condi Rices are no friend of women; their friend is personal power.
Posted by Marie at November 1, 2007 01:13 PMMarie,
All the references to gender in the examples Salon cited reference "woman" in a positive way. There is no sense of victimization. And the quote of Hillary speaking at Wellesley College is laughable. She's speaking to a college full of women about being empowered. Not about being a victim.
But take care. I'm sure we'll soldier on without you.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 01:24 PMDitto, Snark.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 1, 2007 01:31 PM7o6, I thought Al said he was not running? You originally stated that the country wasn't ready to elect a woman president. However, a woman is at this point poised to get the Dem nomination. Assuming Gore doesn't flip flop, the answer I sought was how/when will the Dems switch from the unelectable woman to the electable Dodd or Edwards. What's that mechanism? I don't have the answer either, but I'm wishing I did.
Posted by T2 at November 1, 2007 01:31 PMI'm done here for a while.
Thanks for the heads up.
If the rest of you choose not to read, think and explore the root causes of what has infected our body politic and how it didn't begin with GWB,
So everyone doesn't agree with your over-generalizations isn't reading or thinking the right things, is that it?
Unlike many other Democrats, if nominated, I expect...
I didn't know you were running for the Dem nomination! Why didn't you tell us?
Hillary to win because she's corporate America's girl
So who's the one not reading? And why the insistance on infantilizing her with the "girl" moniker?
As for your link, I followed it back to Hillary's website, and she says nothing about being a "victim." In fact, it says the opposite, "a strong woman" emerged from the debate. No where in all the links that came from the link you offered did anyone talk about her playing the woman as victim. There was a lot of talk about boys and girls and pile ons, but not victimization, so I think you're hallucinating.
TTFN, sweetie!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 1, 2007 01:47 PMT2, You'll have to forgive me, I'm having some real good painkillers kick in so what I'm saying might come out a bit flippant.
This is what I said:
Remember Hillary is who the 'pukes' want us to choose.
I still say, regardless of qualifications, the USA is still not ready to elect a female or minority as President.
It will be a white, christian male. Edwards or Dodd folks. Edwards is my choice. Anybody but a republi-con!
I just think this country is in such a sad state of affairs that Clinton will be loved to be hated by her enemies. It will be a vote against Hillary, not for a republi-con candidate, and they will come out in droves to vote against her.
How do we stop it? I wish I knew. Besides this is all early, the primaries haven't even hit. I gonna sit back and "chill-ax" now.
I mentioned Gore because of my previous statement about who he endorses. That really could be a momentum booster for someone.
The Teamsters Union endorsement will be huge. Especially because her husband started NAFTA.
There is a long way to go. I'm just a schmoe with an opinion.
All I can say is if Hillary is the Dem nominee, she damn well better win. This is a pretty important election to be "making history" on. It could be an anti-Bush blowout for the Dems, but I'm betting a Rudy=Bush vs. Hillary will be a squeaker one way or the other. Given Bush's performance it should be a blowout, but with Hillary, no. I think Gore will endorse the nominee, but will not endorse prior to the nomination.
Posted by T2 at November 1, 2007 02:09 PMIf Giuliani is the next president of this country I'm leaving.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 02:15 PMI'm listening to Nirvana and Matthew Sweet and Urge Overkill and Pavement for good luck. Back to the '90's.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 1, 2007 02:19 PMIf Giuliani is the next president of this country I'm leaving.
Still need a nanny? I'll come with you. As long as you don't mind a Mary Poppins with a gutter mouth...
Posted by iamcoyote at November 1, 2007 02:27 PMer, Paradox, take a chill pill. I'm a woman and didn't see "6 boys beating up a girl" on that stage. What I saw was a LONG overdue moment when the Dem candidates actually attempted to clarify their differences. Answer me this: how exactly has Hillary shown leadership ability? What important legislation has she ever authored? Why exactly does she WANT to be president? I still don't know the answer to these questions because the pre-ordained one isn't talking. In case you've forgotten, this is what "debates" are all about -- debating. Not standing up on stage and making all nice with each other. Who in the world does that benefit? Certainly not the voters. We're trying to make an informed decision here. The more that comes out, the better we can all make up our minds.
Posted by Kris at November 1, 2007 06:00 PMIn case you've forgotten, this is what "debates" are all about -- debating.
What was Edwards' position on the New York drivers license issue?
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 06:20 PMOne day I opened the door for a woman and she recoiled in horror and yelled, "I CAN OPEN THE FUCKING DOOR MYSELF, ASSHOLE!"
I dunno. Something about this thread reminded me of that day.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 2, 2007 07:57 AM