To me it is based on the presses frustration that Sen. Clinton has not made any gaffs up to now. It is a rather boring story if one candidate romps through the primaries and then on to the White House.

So, in a press that is mostly men, any mention that she is the only woman seems like self-pity. That is a good story line.

But to me it just feeds into the idea that she is going to be the nominee, after all this is nothing that any single campaign has done to close the gap, it would be the entire field against Sen. Clinton, plus some unfair moderators at this last debate, to produce one gaff and one expression by her campaign of unfairness.

If that is what it takes to make this candidate slip, then I am confident that we will see our first woman president in early '09.

Cheers,

I saw the "Hardball" segment. Matthews is near-hysterical about what he perceives as Hillary's "unfair advantage," i.e., that she's female. He seemed genuinely frustrated by this fact. Not sure what can be done about it, save for her to quit (which he'd like fine, no doubt). The point is, even if Hillary never mentioned that she was female, Matthews (and the rest of the Village) would do it for her.

Hillary can never win with a guy like Matthews (or any of the idiots that say she's "playing the gender card").

Shorter Democrats: We can make up for our shallow ideas and lack of seriousness by playing the race and gender card, as needed. SOMEBODY FIND A BLACK LESBIAN IN A WHEELCHAIR!

I think she's not making it enough about gender. There are many men and some women who will not vote for a woman under any circumstances. In order to counter them, she needs to bring out many new women voters - young, unmarried women who are energized by the prospect of a woman president.

if Obama, speaking at a historically-black college, had said "In so many ways, this all-black college prepared me to compete in the all-white club of presidential politics," would that be playing the "race card"?

It's a snapshot of what will happen should HRC be elected President. They will hound her about every insignificant thing they can pull out of the collective arses.

That's it!? That's all they're whining about? She was talking to young women at a women's college who may justly fear going out into careers and professions controlled by men. She was just reasuring them that they were being prepared for that future.

Cripes. Just proves that there really is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against the Clintons.

Speaking as a definite non-HRC fan:

From the speed and ferocity of the response, it seems folks have been waiting breathlessly for Clinton to make any mention whatsoever that she's a different gender than the other 16 candidates so they can jump all over her for "playing the gender card."

Obama and everyone else are making fools of themselves over this.

I think *commentators* are playing the gender card *for her.* This is a mistake.

HRC (who is not my favorite person for various reasons not related to gender, but nevertheless) seems to be staying away from gender, per se, for the most part.

I think Hillary is right. She can't win the election by turning issues into gender issues and she can't win by running on gender issues.

But, like I said, she's not the one I see doing this. "Well intentioned" Hillary fans are doing it.

"Shorter Democrats: We can make up for our shallow ideas and lack of seriousness by playing the race and gender card, as needed. SOMEBODY FIND A BLACK LESBIAN IN A WHEELCHAIR!

Posted by: American Hawk"

Guess you get paid every time you post this stupid remark, right Hawk, since you've been repeating it pretty regularly today. Or is it just that writing the words "black lesbian" give you a special little thrill down under your keyboard?

After doing stories about her boobs, her laugh, and how she's too aggressive, stories they'd never write about men, Clinton gets at least three freebies anyway.

I saw the Hardball segment too. Matthews really has big issues with gender.

He used as an example of Clinton's gender-card-playing that she once said "I'm your gal."

I await Matthews sending his staff out to find when other candidates have said "I'm your guy" or similar, and then making it a big deal about how they're playing the "gender card."

Or, if Matthews' ever was asked to speak at his alma mater and he referred to his malenss (or ethnicity or religion), I'm sure that's indicative of him being underhanded about playing some card or another.

I wish these supposed political commentators would stop doing theater criticism. Talking about policy more would be a nice change.

The term "card" is a right wing device for discrediting arguments without addressing them. Don't you know that?

This Dem woman and virtually every other woman I know say yes, she is playing the gender card...and yes, we resent it completely. It insults all of our hard work.

There's plenty of references her campaign has made to her gender out there if you care to look for them.

Her problem isn't being a woman, it's that she refuses to take a stand...on anything. Answer the questions, stop equivocating, and most assuredly stop drawing attention to her gender if she wants our votes.

Imagine if Obama or Richardson used their race the way she uses being a woman...would that set well?

HRC's comments are being distorted. She was not claiming she was being beaten up, attacked or picked on by fellow candidates because she was a woman. I wish she wasn't in the race. I've been so generally disinterested in all fo them.I tend to like Chris Dodd more lately. The whole process is full of absurdity.

So Matthews wasn't playing the gender card when he gushed over Bush's manly flight suit, or Thompson's manly odor, or Romney's dashing good looks? Ugh.

"Imagine if Obama or Richardson used their race the way she uses being a woman...would that set well?"

Hell no. They wouldn't get past "Go."

But, as someone who is all too intimately acquainted with scores of people who have built entire careers out of running on gender, I think Hillary has not run on gender all that much, and that she should not start to do so. If she does resort to that, she loses. And so do women.

No can do.

Oh Jeebus yes sure, gender is such an enormous advantage in presidential elections as demonstrated by the uninterrupted multitude of women who have been president... oh wait no, that's idiotic.

Gee there must be nothing else for matthews to talk about, like torture or wars or attorney generals or the president using the bully pulpit to insulate fellow-travelers from the consequences of his criminal conspiracies, or anything like that.

Are people really saying that being a woman is an ADVANTAGE in politics? What country do they live in, and may I please move there?

Do they realize that women haven't even had the vote for most of American history?

Jeezus Christmas, what a bunch of morans. Hillary's advantages are her experience, her smarts, her campaigning ability, and her husband. Her gender is a huge disadvantage. Anyone who denies this is full of poop.

"Do you guys think Clinton is making this about gender, and I'm giving her comments too sympathetic a read? Or has the press been aching to make this a race again, and so are now in a feeding frenzy mode?"

This isn't necessarily an either/or question. It can be both.

This Dem woman and virtually every other woman I know say yes, she is playing the gender card...and yes, we resent it completely. It insults all of our hard work.

Did you just play the gender card? What does Hillary Clinton have to do with "all of our hard work"?

G Davis:

"There's plenty of references her campaign has made to her gender out there if you care to look for them"

Since there are plenty out there, care to share a few?

Hillary pulled the gender card out of the deck the second she posted the "Piling On" video on her website. Hillary was on the receiving end of concentrated attention because she happens to be the frontrunner, not because she's a woman.

As a person who only is interested in where the candidates stand on issues and how the comport themselves as potential POTUS', its disappointing that Clinton immediately used deflection and accusation to defend her less than stellar evening on Tuesday.

I don't want a President full of excuses, we've already got one. If she finds it impossible to convey her own ideas and policies in a concrete manner so that the electorate isn't guessing where she stands, then perhaps she needs to re-evaluate whether she has what it takes to be President.

Hillary was challenged because there are differences between her and the other candidates, not because she happened to be the only female on the stage.

Listen.

Obama may not be a sexist, but the "debate" narrative, relentlessly pressed by the bloated bully-boy Russert and the bilious dim-bulb Matthews, has deep misogynist roots. Face it: it has it's origins in the carefully orchestrated smear campaign against Billary we all endured in the 90's.

This vilification is now ressurected by the MSM harpies, and the witless Dems lap it up. And there is no question that any kind of ganging behaviour by men, when directed to a female, draws upon inherent male aggressiveness- that's sexism, folks.

Obama- certainly more than the already-angry Edwards- revealed something cynical and desperate in his posturing. It was not only repellant- it was also deeply stupid. The media dummies, and their Republican puppeteers, are savoring this Democratic fratricide. Obama's infamous behaviour will come back to bite him- and it should.

Disgusting.

Whatever you think about Clinton's comments about her alma mater, it seems clear that the Clinton campaign - if not the candidate herself - has been working since the debate to cast Clinton as a tough and courageous victim who didn't break down in the face of mean attacks by men.

OMG! My husband and I were watching Hardball when he paused the DVR to agree with Chris! We disagreed quite vociferously. Once he unpaused the show, you came on and repeated the point I had made exactly. I got to turn to him with a self-satisfied smile and say "See."

Thank you, thank you, thank you Ezra! If I were 20 years younger I'd leave this fool and become your own personal geisha! Keep showing Tweety what a tool he is.

Re: American Hawk comment

...and I had wondered what James Watt was up to these days.

G Davis - you're going to have to provide some kind of example if you want to be taken seriously. I've never seen Hillary Clinton play the "gender card".

I think you're right, Ezra. As someone who wouldn't vote for Hillary for reasons that have to do with her Republican-appeasing positions (primarily adopting the "US military as OFFENSIVE force" position that has been the hallmark of the draftdodgers currently destroying this country from the White House), I try not to think about how she achieves orgasm, and what she plays with between her legs, any more than what the man-loving Bush does to gets his pathetic rocks off. When we're talking about sex in a country as sexually retarded as the United States, it's logical for the press to want to giggle and finger-f**k about the candidates. It's this lack of seriousness by our media that has allowed a functional illiterate, morally bankrupt coward to drag America to a level of international hatred that makes anyone with a conscience ashamed to live in the United States under Republican rule. And under Hillary, I fear, that Repulican ethos will continue

I couldnl't agree more with Ezra and the other commenters here. Just go and look at the multi post thread over at Kos to see what an incredibly vast reservoir of anti Clinton and anti woman sentiment this has tapped into. People who are usually very politically savvy are lapping up the accusation that
a) she "played the gender card" in that anodyne alumni speech and

b) that she should have been forced to wear a scold's bridle before she was allowed to flash her boobs in public (to mix my metaphors with a vengeance).

People don't seem to be able to decide which they are more enraged about: that she is a woman, that she is treated like a woman, that she refuses to be treated as a woman (ie like an interloper), that she refuses to lie down and let the boys define politics for her or what. Even democratic activists are happilly explaining how their male friends hate her and at the same timea ssuring us all that its "not about gender."

GMAFB

As for myself. I was leaning edwards but formerly (very formerly) interested in Obama. After seeing his latest performance in which he criticizes hillary at the behest of the right wing host, I say "screw him."

aimai

Huh. You know, I went to an all-women's college. I graduated in 2000. One of the things that I kept being told by people who didn't go to women's colleges is that I'd have trouble "in the real world" because I'd have to deal with sexism that somehow magically disappears on entering campus, male grad students, staff and teachers not withstanding. Which is total bullshit on so many levels. Women who graduate from women's colleges tend to do really well later on. So in this context, her comments make total sense. She's puffing up her school, countering a lot of stuff the women there are probably hearing, and talking about her actual experiences. What she said is both totally mild and totally true.

Pretending that Clinton could talk about herself without ever mentioning that she's a woman seems pretty unreasonable. And if she did run totally without ever using a gendered pronoun, she'd be attacked for not bringing enough of the womanly magic to the campaign trail.

Man, she's my least favorite candidate on the issues, but every time she gets pinged like this, I want to vote for her.

G Davis - you're going to have to provide some kind of example if you want to be taken seriously. I've never seen Hillary Clinton play the "gender card".

Mark Penn, Clinton's chief political adviser, the day after the Philly debate, as quoted in The Hill:

"The criticisms followed Penn’s assertion that Clinton was “unflappable.” He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already “detecting some backlash,” particularly among female voters.

Those female voters are saying, “Sen. Clinton needs our support now more than ever if we’re going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her down,” Penn told those on the campaign call."

it's not as vulgar as saying, "they attacked me because i'm a woman," but the implication is clear -- as is the narrative of "clinton the tough, resilient woman" that the campaign has been putting forward from the beginning. it seems to me that this narrative is fine, and perhaps even effective. but the problem is you can't then say it's unfair when all the boys gang up on you.

"Man, she's my least favorite candidate on the issues, but every time she gets pinged like this, I want to vote for her."

Resist that. You were probably right the first time.

I think the debate is a little confused here. Whether or not Clinton is playing the gender card -- and it is genuinely arguable, as you've demonstrated -- she's pretty unambiguously playing the victim card. Whatever you think of her answer, the idea that her opponents' attacks on her are out of bounds is disingenuous Liebermanism at its worst.

Unfortunately, all this focusing on Hillary just makes here nomination more likely. People like aimai (people of which Iowa is full) are going to sympathize with her. Just watch.

I say this because all this crap is succeeding in making me forget why I opposed her nomination and remember how idiots like Russert piled up on Bill Clinton ten years ago.

"'Man, she's my least favorite candidate on the issues, but every time she gets pinged like this, I want to vote for her.'

Resist that. You were probably right the first time."

The question isn't how we'll respond, it's how the American, specifically the Democratic, voting public will. I say that that public likes an underdog, and seeing her get beaten up for no good reason will end up being beneficial to her campaign in places like Iowa and NH. Just watch.

in support of g.davis:

G. Davis said:
"There's plenty of references her campaign has made to her gender out there if you care to look for them."

Give us examples of HRC using the gender card prior to the debate in Philly. Any time she refers to herself as a "woman" or "mother" or "wife" doesn't count.

My wife, who doesn't follow politics even slightly, is strongly pro-Hillary because of her gender. So is almost every woman at her large corporate office, she says, and she's in upper management. Penn's polling has already clued the campaign in on the importance of gender, and it's an underpinning of their "take no stands" strategy. It's ridiculous to discuss this--it's a given, just not very overtly expressed except when they're having a bad week and need to buck up the Hillary core.

"After seeing his latest performance in which he criticizes hillary at the behest of the right wing host, I say "screw him."
"

Well, someone does need to criticize Hillary. If they have to wait until they have a *non-right wing* host, it will never happen!

And, likewise, when someone does criticize her, her fans can't whip out the gender crap just *because* they criticize her. You can only whip out the gender crap if they say something sexist, *per se.* I don't think I saw Edwards do that, at least not at that debate.

That kind of *whining* is not going to help legitimize her presidency should actually she win.

The right wing knows this. So, they'll be out looking for opportunity. People can throw their hands up in despair or they can decide not to help them.

I'm not even a Hillary fan and I'm defending her. That's not necessarily a good thing, at the end of the day. It has to stand on its own. It can't be the Southern Belle presidency.

Give us examples of HRC using the gender card prior to the debate in Philly. Any time she refers to herself as a "woman" or "mother" or "wife" doesn't count.

Erm...why not? OK. I'll give you "wife." Those references are clearly playing the "I'm running for Bill Clinton, my HUSABAND'S, third term -- Wink, Wink" card.

Clinton's not making this about gender.

The 'boys' (other candidates and talking heads) are. They don't want a girl in the treehouse.

Clinton is my least favorite Dem candidate, but this is just BS.

"Whatever you think about Clinton's comments about her alma mater, it seems clear that the Clinton campaign - if not the candidate herself - has been working since the debate to cast Clinton as a tough and courageous victim who didn't break down in the face of mean attacks by men."

Was it not just a few months ago that the question being thrown around was "can a woman stand up to big bad men?!?!?!" So she gets piled on as the front runner in a debate, does well and holds her ground. And then when she tries to use that to her advantage by saying 'see, y'all thought I'd start crying cuz I'm a lady, but I'm actually a bad ass mofo' she's "playing the victim"?

Right. Ok. So what way would you address the idea that women aren't tough enough to lead?

I'm with Daniel M here. I don't know if she's playing the gender card, but she's certainly throwing out the victim card. Can some one give me an example of another time when a front runner (or their campaign) complained about other candidates "piling on" them in a debate? That's what they're supposed to do. Maybe everybody on stage was attacking her cause she's a woman, but maybe it was because she couldn't give a straight answer to the questions she was asked. Oh, and because they want to be president too.

I wouldn't say that she has been playing the "gender card", but she has been trading on the fact that people are very reluctant to bring up that subject in a meaningful way.

What I mean by that is: Clinton is trumpeting her "experience" as First Lady, which she gained by expanding that office in the exact same way that Dick Cheney expanded the office of Vice-President. Though I like him less, Cheney's actions are more excusable. The Vice-President is an actual office. The First Lady is simply the person who is legally f***ing the President.

Presidents' wives have probably always had influence, but the more influence they have, the more important it is to codify what they can and can't do, otherwise it becomes yet another loophole for people to do an end-run around the Constitution. Clinton hasn't done that.

To put it another way, Clinton increased the power that Bill will have after 2008 if she wins the election, but has been downplaying his potential role. That is fundamentally dishonest, and it is not unfair to attack her for it, because she's the only one in that position. The whole point of the term limits was to limit the amount of power that someone like Bill (or Dubya for that matter) can have after they have been President.

In short, the issue isn't that she is a woman: it's that she's been a President's wife. There are plenty of women I'd much rather vote for, from Gloria Steinem to Dolly Parton, whose claims to my vote rely on their own merits, not the fact that they rode on another politician's coattails.

" say that that public likes an underdog, and seeing her get beaten up for no good reason will end up being beneficial to her campaign in places like Iowa and NH. Just watch."

You may well be right. And that's not a good thing.

I agree with aimai. After reading the Kos thread (a third of the way through, got sick of it by then) I was ready to vote for Clinton. And I'm a Kucinich voter. The illogical animus on both sides is not helping their cause at all.

Actually, the real issue here is what is WRONG with playing the gender card in the first place? It is a historic thing that a woman is the leading contender to be the next President of the United States.

And, I don't blame Hillary for subtly reminding women voters out there of that fact.

Nor do I blame her opponents of the media for trying to portray that as somehow unseemly.

I happen to think that if you vote for Hillary solely becaus she's a woman, then you are a fool.

Sadly, I have seen some evidence that a percentage of her support in the Democratic party is of that variety.

"The First Lady is simply the person who is legally f***ing the President."

That's a pretty threadbare view of the role of a spouse in their partner's accomplishments. Most First Ladies contributed to the success of their husbands for their entire life in politics. Most vice presidents contribute squat until they're selected, and the choice is based on geography or political benefit rather than merit.

Ezra, you are familiar that the word "backlash" that Penn uses is almost certainly a refernece to groundbreaking, and best selling book by Susan Faludi? BACKLASH, examines the attack by entrenched male power on successful second wave feminists (of whom Hillary is one) during the 1980's and early 90's. There are several chapters about this specifically in the media.

"Backlash" is a gender shibboleth. Not unlike other political shibboleths, such as "culture of life."

Why I'm a post-feminist:

The "gender" issue" has no relevancy re ability or goals, but plays out in Dem contests as a win-win for Sen. Clinton, regardless of her merits. If you don't acknowledge gender, it means you don't understand what a monumentally important historical event will possibly occur. If you do mention it, you're a pig. Don't tell me about historical inequities, we're talking here and now.

On the other hand, her popularity among minorities is striking, and respect must be paid to how she and Bill earned it. Still not my candidate, tho.

Uh, speaking as a Vaginal American (thank you Cliff May, for that incredible epithet used on MSNBC--with zero repercussions), I must say that the amount of anger, ridicule, and, amazingly, astonishment that Hillary is a woman and polling well is driving Chris Matthews completely bonkers.

If he can't talk about Bill Clinton's sexuality, he talks about her being a female. He seems obsessed with both.

Either he's been told by his corporate masters to do this--or he is bonkers. Both seem logical.

Seems to me he's gone particularly over the top lately, but he certainly has not been shy about talking about this "shrill" woman, whose voice is like nails on a blackboard, who is "castrating" and other demeaning and ugly things I've forgotten.

I also must say that Hillary was not my first choice to win the Democratic nomination, but after Tuesday's debate, where I thought she was in command of the situation--excepting perhaps only for the drivers' license issue, and that was minor (she actually tried to explain what the issues were--BIG MISTAKE with these media types who play reporters), imho--and acquitted herself very well, I now find myself feeling more support for her.

Maybe because I've been in the position she's in now--and it pissed me off then and pisses me off now.

Not a good move, "gentlemen."

Man, it gets even funnier when you have people arguing that *even if she's not playing the gender card" and (thus) is being *falsley accused of playing the gender card* its *even worse* if she mentions it or fights against it because that is "playing the victim card." This is a total catch twenty two for her and the reason this actually generates so much sympathy from women is not because we identify with her because she's got a "vajayjay" (as I understand its now called) but because we've all experienced exactly this problem over and over again in our professional lives as women. Too tough: your a bitch, too gentle, you're a pussy--these are *all* gendered terms. There is literally no way for Clinton's standing in the polls or her standing up on the stage not to be gendered in a way which cuts completely against her as a political actor and as a human being. And when she, or anyone else, points it out she is accused, variously, of being calculated and clever (the bitch) or weak and a "victim" (the pussy).

I'd like to point everyone here who has whined that if clinton is seen as a "victim" (what, is she getting a pity vote like a mercy f*ck?) she won't have legitimacy in power to wander over to Sadly No!. Sadly No (I believe) wrote a brilliant essay about "getting in the voters pants" which pointed out that poltiicians have to do whatever it takes to get elected. I don't care if HRC has to throw up her skirts and flash her thighs at the press, or wear armor, or a pantsuit. I don't care if she plays the thatcher card or the mommy card or any other kind of card so long as she wins. And I don't object to Obama playing the whiny "she hit me first by being the front runner when I'm naturally magnetic" card, either. Sure its childish adn bad manners but I object to it primarily because its bad politics.

Look people: its politics all the way down. Our objective as democratis is to have the best and loudest and most sucessful primary that pushes all our canidadates towards the left and pulls the country with them. This back and forth about HRC's womanliness, or her meanness, or her cunning, or whatever is just stupid. It pushes the debate into utter vacuity, doesn't tell the voters what any of the candidates would do on the key issues of the day, and makes us all look like idiots. Can everyone who is acting out his own anxieties about his relationship with women through commenting on HRC please just go to a therapist or a prostitute and leave our political system alone? Because the democratic process isn't supposed to be therapy for you, or come-uppance for bitchy women who don't know their place. Its a way of choosing the best policy maker/visionary of a pretty good set of candidates. And it could be that if we don't let them dumb it down to pantsuits and horseracing.

aimai

Just so the record is clear, Obama did not suggest or insinuate that she was playing the gender card, Matt Lauer did.

Obama rightfully pointed out that she's been campaigning the last nine months, in part, that she is, more than any other candidate, uniquely qualified to rebuff and handle the right wing attack machine. Her toughness-factor.

Yet, the first time she is challenged on her position and her proclivity to provide evasive or non-responsive answers, she (through her campaign and other surrogates) is pushing the meme that she's being treated unfairly.

I think that's fair point. She's the frontrunner. She's going to be attacked from those in the rear; it's part of the game. Her supporters and her campaign, I believe, are doing her a disservice making this a gender issue.

Hesiod,
i usually respect your posts and your blogging but I have to say that the assertion that some portion of HRC's support arises solely out of her being "a woman" and that those who do so are fools is just utterly wrongheaded.

The fact of the matter is that Edwards and Obama's supporters are supporting them, variously, because they are a white guy and a black guy. Are they as stupid to do so? There's tons of work on the concept of "marked" and "unmarked" categories in social life. Look it up. Just because HRC's womanhood is the most salient factor to the *guys who are opposed to other people voting for her* doesn't mean that its the most salient factor for those who say they *will vote for her.* Or, at any rate, its not different from the supporters of edwards and obama who take for granted that their nominee should share some characteristic in common with themselves (maleness, whiteness, maleness, blackness, lawyerness, parenthood, christianity). People vote on the identity of their candidate all the time *it just goes without saying* when its an unmarked category like whiteness or maleness.

aimai

My sense is that Senator Clinton's remarks at Wellesly weren't the problem. The problem was that people from her campaign as well as many of her most vocal supporters started playing the definitely unfeminist card of "Ooh, look at those mean men piling on a poor little woman" as soon as Tuesday's debate was over. This approach culminated in the Piling On video.

That approach bothers a lot of women who work hard to be taken seriously on their own merits. Senator Clinton is perfectly capable of fighting this battle and going toe-to-toe with any opponenet or group of opponents. That's what it takes to run for president. She shouldn't have to resort to such "they're picking on me" strategies.

Unfortunately, such a response not only undermines Senator Clinton's own hard work to prove she is eminently capable of holding her own in a presidential campaign, it also seems to provide another illustration of the problem criticized in the debate: Senator Clinton holding one position publically (that she can handle the rough and tumble of a national campaign) and conveying another message behind the scenes (that she only did badly Tuesday because everyone was picking on her).

My feelings are that the argument they (male candidates) use to discredit her experience, based upon the fact that she says that she gained valuable experience while being first lady, are at their core - sexist. It smacks of the arguments used to not give an ex-wife alimony because she was just a housewife and didn't do anything but take care of the kids. It completely negates her experience as a senator and also her experience prior to being first lady. Look at both her and Bill's resumes prior to the White House and it's abundantly clear who had more experience to be President.

Aimai --

You're absolutely right that you can reframe the "victimhood" debate in a sex/gender context, but that wasn't the way I was originally making the point. What I was trying to convey is that Hillary's use of the "victim card" -- most clearly exhibited in the bizarre "pile-on" narrative her campaign is pushing -- indicates an underlying belief that she sees her opponents' shots at her as an out-of-bounds act. She's well within her rights to claim this, but my personal view is that she's using it to distract from the substantive merits of the issue. That I cited Lieberman explicitly should tell you that this has nothing to do with gender in my mind. My distaste for him stemmed from the fact that he seemed to see attacks on him as somehow inherently lacking in political validity, and thus deserving of exclusion from serious substantive consideration -- not because I objected to the argument (which, to his credit, he never made) that rich, WASP-y Ned Lamont and his blogger friends were all piling on the poor, kindly Jew. I don't really have an opinion as to whether Hillary is trying to use her gender as a shield against attacks, but I think it's pretty clear that she's trying to do *something* that shields her from having to answer them -- in this case, portraying herself as having been victimized by frankly fairly run-of-the-mill politics. Again, it's her right to do it, but color me unimpressed and unpersuaded.

Kate,
I couldn't disagree more. No candidate ever "fights his own battles" he *always* has surrogates out there explaining that he "misspoke" or that he is "really a war hero" or that he's a "great father" or "a man's man" or "was only joking" or "was in a suit because..." or "wore hunter's dress because..."

Its. All. Politics. It doesen't demean other women's struggles for Clinton or her surrogates to point out that its hard for a woman to be taken as a man in public space. If you thought for one minute that all your hard work in the rough and tumble of the work world meant that you were *ever* judged exactly like a guy would have been in the same circs you might want to read all the latest research on just how you've been judged all these years. Clinton will *never* be judged purely on the merits of her policies as long as the debates are held in public and the candidates answers aren't simply flashed as a typescript on a screen devoid of all personal markers.

aimai

DR and MonaL...first read what I wrote. I said her campaign has referenced the gender card, not her. She's not dumb enough to be so overt as that.

Stolen from TPM for expediency sake:

LJ wrote on November 2, 2007 11:26 AM:

Those female voters are saying, “Sen. Clinton needs our support now more than ever if we’re going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her down,” Penn told those on the campaign call.

He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/campaign-call-reveals-clinton-debate-concern-2007-11-01.html

"Six-on-one", "unfairly targeted." Can anyone honestly read these comments and not see that they are obviously saying "don't pick on me"???

Need more?

Gerald McEntee, AFSCME’s president, mentioned the debate during his endorsement speech, and took Penn’s and Mantz’s view of the results.

“Some of you may have seen last night’s debate,” McEntee said. “Six guys against Hillary, and I’d call that a fair fight. This is a strong woman.”
...
The Clinton campaign released a video Wednesday, entitled “The Politics of Pile On,” showing clips of the senator’s rivals going after her by name during the debate.

Those are just a few of the latest examples of outright or inferred *piling on* always prefaced with the 6 men...

If you can't take the blinders off long enough to get the inference, not my problem.

I know I'm outnumbered here, and that's fine. I don't like excuses, especially those that reinforce the idea that women need to be *helped* or that it's amazing she stood up so well.

I would love to see a woman in the most powerful job in the world. But I want no backlash that she got there because folks went easy on her.

More than wanting a woman in office though, I want an honest, innovative thinker that can help guide my country out of the mess it's in. If HRC can show that she'll do that, fine. But so far she's shown me equivocation more similar to what we have now than anything honest, transparent and innovative.

Get her to speak openly and frankly and without excuse...I'll listen.

I actually think Hillary has maneuvered through the "gender issue" masterfully. It's obviously been well-thought-through and well-rehearsed. I no longer believe women are genetically or culturally more inclined to govern more humanely, logically or effectively, but I'm not voting against women because they're women either. Post-feminist.

I would guess that to most Dem and independent voters, how Hillary "handles" being a woman candidate is a non-issue. It's obviously driving old-school pols like Russert and Mathews nuts that they can't get a good fight going about something that's so last century.

The entire issue is complicated by the fact that she'll be bringing Bill Clinton into the White House with her. He's male, she's female. In some sense, it's the most balanced ticket ever.

The spouse takes on what the V/P used to bring to the campaign.

aimai: "the assertion that some portion of HRC's support arises solely out of her being "a woman" and that those who do so are fools is just utterly wrongheaded."

I respect a lot of what you've said, but this sentence is just wrong. In my experience, there's a significant amount of knee-jerk Hillaryism among Dem women. I've been a party officer and delegate, and let me assure you that a lot of women pols are thrilled to back a woman based on gender alone, just like they give to Emily's List and favor ANY woman for party endorsement for local offices over ANY man. Let's discuss whether to call them fools, but please don't go on believing it isn't true.

"I would guess that to most Dem and independent voters, how Hillary "handles" being a woman candidate is a non-issue. It's obviously driving old-school pols like Russert and Mathews nuts that they can't get a good fight going about something that's so last century."

Well, but it's looking like they *can* do that. I don't think they're doing it because they think they're going to *help* her win the presidency. I happen to agree with them. If this turns into a campaign about gender, she *will* lose.

I'm saying *don't fall for it.* I'm not holding my breath, though. Unfortunately, here are too many women and too many women pundits with almost nothing to say if they can't pull the pink tape.

So be it. I'll be content with my Republican tax forms. And she's sure not my favorite persson.

I respect your experience, W Action, but since those democratic women never crossed voting lines before to vote for a republican woman while *democratic men* are saying they will stay home or cross party lines to vote for a republican man I just see this as another case of special pleading. When women say they are thrilled to vote for a woman candidate for their own party they are, somehow, voting for her *because* of her gender and when men say they won't vote for a woman candidate for their own party because of her shrillness, her lack of sexuality, her overwhelming sexuality, her female victimhood, etc..etc..etc... that's *normal?* Or when they say they will vote happilly for any of the guys their party offers them but they can't bring themselves to vote for HRC that's *not* gendered?

My point isn't that some women in the democratic party aren't happy to finally get a chance to vote for a woman. They are. I don't happen to be one of them. My point is that imagining for one minute that those women are voting for HRC solely and illegitimately because she is a woman is incorrect. If that were true they'd all have voted for female candidates when fielded by the republicans. What's that you say? the republicans don't field too many female candidates? what a surprise. I suppose that's not gendered either? Its not illegitimate or emotional or incorrect to take a candidates gender into account when choosing whether to vote for him or her. men do it literally all the time they just don't know they did it. They do it when they vote against women candidates lower down the ticket so that there is no woman high up on the ticket when it comes time to make the big votes. They do it when they prefer the manly men over the "feminized men" but don't articulate it that way. Why is it a problem only when women do it?

By the way of course this question has been raised in the context of race when we point out that Obama is seen as illegitimately appealing to black voter sentiment when no white candidate is seen as naturally and illegitimately appealing to white voter sentiment. Its not because of anything the candidate does or doesn't do, its because some voter sentiments are seen as "legitimate" and some are seen as "illegitimate" by the commentariat.

aimai

aimai

Two thoughts:

First, the fact the Chris Matthews is borderline unhinged in his dislike of the Clintons is not a reason to support Hillary's candidacy.

Second, the idea that she gained legitmate governing experience as First Lady is laughable. After the Hillarycare debacle, she disappeared from the scene except as the target of rightwing smears and bogus investigations (again, not a reason to vote for her). She had no visible policy role at all for the last six years of her husband's presidency.

This point beings up a related question: if she was so valuable and productive in the white House, why isn't she pushing to get some evidence, in the form of White House records from her husband's term, of her contributions until after the election?

My hunch is that she is running on a the rhetoric of experience rather than the fact.

aimai: "My point is that imagining for one minute that those women are voting for HRC solely and illegitimately because she is a woman is incorrect."

My experience would disprove this statement. Most women in the party, especially the "base" are strongly anti-war. Sen. Clinton has been perhaps the most opaque candidate about her position and intentions. Sorry, but I have heard women, in party meetings and elsewhere SAY that they don't think Hillary is the best candidate on the issues, but it's time a woman was elected. I think a large part of your argument is based on the idea that women biased against men (i.e., in favor of the only woman because of gender) is a better thing than men biased against women (i.e., opposed to the only woman because of gender). I don't agree, but I can understand why you feel that way. I used to.

The latter. DUUUHHH!

As someone mentioned upthread, HRC isn't playing the gender card, it's her surrogates who are trying to ride gender to the White House.

I can't count the number of times when I've been posting in comment thrads on the "Big Orange Satan" and HRC's supporters constantly remind me that I should just naturally be an HRC supporter, because of this first for a women candidacy. And Mark Penn has suddenly noticed single women voters after decades of trying to disappear us from the electorate.

I think her supporter's use of gender is crass, creepy, and a bit insulting, i've typed this before, but "I'm not going to vote for HRC just because we're both "Vagina Americans."

Well, I'm grateful that I've yet to hear worries about her having her finger on the trigger when she has her period. (Yes, I heard this kind of thing 25 years ago). But yeah, it's amazing how much everyone seems to be parsing every conjunction and participle she uses to find a scandal.

Daily Howler shows the difference between kinds of questions Russert gave the front runner in 2000 - quite different than his negative focus on Hillary. "Piling on" can refer to the other candidates following Russert's lead. Of course the "6 to 1" might be leaving out Richardson, who apparently didn't feel a need to join in.

And as she said today, it's because she's in the lead. Of course she's lucky Russert didn't ask about Monica-gate *again*.

As for Chris Matthews, any announcer who builds up Bush's flight suit & Romney's sculpted build and tells female broadcasters he can't stop staring at them really really really has problems.

P.S. Why isn't the real possibility that a candidate could be undergoing chemotherapy *again* not a campaign issue? Unlike gender and race, it can be a real debilitating handicap for a normal human.

"when men say they won't vote for a woman candidate for their own party because of her shrillness, her lack of sexuality, her overwhelming sexuality, her female victimhood, etc..etc..etc... that's *normal?*"

I have to say that I haven't heard that. I have heard them say they won't vote for her because she's war mongering corporate shill, but that sounds legitimate to me.

Do we really have to fantasize up out of our heads that the reason they won't vote for her is that she's 60 and she's not sexy enough? I know it's frustrating for women that men want 22 year olds boobs to date perpetually and look at on TV, but do we really think that's their qualification for everything? I don't think you can take juvenile right wing smear campaigns and start generalizing to all men.

If anything, you got the candidate pile on the other night because they'd refrained from criticizing her previously, and now they realize how dumb they were for not saying anything sooner.

I would just like to follow aimai around, nodding my head in agreement.

there's more to politics than what's on Hardball! there is some key info missing from this discussion here. this is not about Hillary's statement to Wellesley, did you miss the "pile-on" video her campaign released about how she was being "yelled at" and "ganged up on"? cause I don't see you mentioning it anywhere. the actual evidence that she's in whatever way interjecting gender to try to garner lighter treatment does help make the case that she is in fact doing so, you know. much easier to prove she isn't if you simply omit it!

Aimai, you wrote:

If you thought for one minute that all your hard work in the rough and tumble of the work world meant that you were *ever* judged exactly like a guy . . .you might want to read all the latest research on just how you've been judged all these years.

Actually, I've read the research. However, I can't control how I'm viewed, only how I act. I can't force people to treat my fairly. If I feel they are not treating my work fairly, it's legitimate to complain, but if I play the victim anytime something I do is critiqued, then I'm not going to be treated with more respect and fairness, but with less.

Up until now, Hillary Clinton has done a good job of removing the gender issue from the campaign. Does that mean that it is really gone? No. But does it mean she marginalized it as much as is humanly possible? Yes, I think she did.

This sort of behavior, however, undoes all that good work. It says, I will ask for equality when it suits me, but I will fall back on old mores when it doesn't. As a political strategy, I don't think it's effective in the long run when running for an office where no woman has ever served before.

Just as women soldiers have to put up with a lot of crap (in some cases truly horrendous stuff) to be treated as equal comrades by fellow soldiers, so any woman reaching for a historic position like this must be tough enough to forge ahead without using such strategies. And if she really thinks her treatment is unjust in a way that cannot be ignored, she should show the strength to declare the injustices with her own strong, upraised voice, not leave it for surrogates to do.

I came back to this very interesting thread to post something that I think has gotten a bit lost in the apocryphal and anecdotal "I've heard some guy say X" and "I've heard some woman say X" brand of analysis.

There is nothing new here: Clinton is a woman, running for high office. She is going to get it coming or going for either being not womanly enough, or too womanly. It is literally impossible for the narrative not to be gendered because there is no narrative about men and women that is not gendered.

This came up very strongly during and after the Anita Hill testimony. Patricia Williams wrote a long and very thoughtful piece about how Anita Hill's narrative of a black woman sexually harrassed by a black man didn't fit into the publicly acceptable stories we are told, or allowed to be told, while Clarence Thomas neatly fit himself into the "high tech lynching" story.

The same thing happened to clinton with the "six guys against one girl" story. There is simply no culturally understood way to describe six guys and one woman that is not either "they all want sex with her" or "they don't all want sex with her" or "they are all attacking her" or "they are all supporting her." Those are the principle pre-existing story lines available to us as viewers and to the audience of pundits. Groups of men and one woman? sex or no sex, mommy or rape, those are pretty much the only stories avaiable. And if obama had been the front runner and they'd all ganged up on him you can bet your boots someone would have dragged out the lynch mob allegory.

Because these are our cultural myths and symbols and they are what we turn to when we try to explicate what we are seeing up on stage. The exact same thing happened during Clinton's run for the Senate. The "usual" power plays were put into play. Her opponent (whose name I've forgotten) tried a stunt that he certainly would have tried on any slightly smaller or slighter guy--he walked over to her and tried to force her to sign some piece of paper. If he'd tried it on a smaller guy (a la dukakis) no doubt the guy would have lost major points for being "too weak" or "too feminine." Clinton *gained points* to the rage, shock, and horror of the men watching the little power play because *the women in the audience* sympathized with her situation. They said "hey, I've been in this story myself with my ex husband beating up on me and trying to control me." Men are *still* howling about that because women's experience of power plays are not supposed to rule the story line. They aren't supposed to vote out of their own experience and interests, they are supposed to cave to (right wing) masculine definitions of who wins the debate (the angriest ape) or who just gets to "have authority" (the tallest guy with the best hair.) Every time a male politician tries to beat that story (like Dean, or Kucinich) we are just told flat out that they can't win (and they don't.) Every time a woman tries to beat that story line we are treated to endless explanations of how the gendering of this discourse is *our* fault and not the cultures.

Look, vote for Clinton/don't vote for clinton but don't confuse the kind of rabid, anti female hysteria that is being directed at Clinton for not simply letting words alone do the work of public posturing delude y'all. The attacks on Clinton get their extra rage and their extra self righteousness from the members of the democratic party who still can't get their head around the fact that a woman has the nerve to not only run for the top office but to do so without apologizing. I know that no one here will cop to that but its pretty clear from reading the actual posts that this is a big part of the rage. I don't like clinton because she's not a progressive--but I won't be party to taking her down because she is a smart politicians who is strategically playign the hand she's dealt. Because none of the other "progressives" in this bunch (other than kuchinich who can't win because there's no leprechaun vote) is apparently enough of a dead on politician to sell his progressivism honestly. Each one is attempting to triangulate Clinton's negatives without actually exploiting his own positives. And i'm sick of that. Let them *all* stand up for their own policy initiatives instead of bitching (gendered) about clinton playing the gender card. I'd like to see one of them get as far as she has doing politics while female.

aimai

Howard Fineman said the following on Brian Williams' show on 9/21/00: "I don't think the media was going to allow, just by its nature, the next seven weeks and the last seven or eight weeks of the campaign to be all about Al Gore's relentless triumphant march to the presidency."

I think that pretty much sums it up. This gender nonsense is.....nonsense. Are men really so weak and insecure that they can't handle a woman using her gender to her advantage, after men have done so for all of recorded history? I have no doubt that Rudy or the other clowns will use their (supposed) masculinity as a weapon with which to bludgeon Senator Clinton if they have the misfortune to run against her.

And I say all this a man, and as someone who disagrees with her on virtually everything of importance. When she's continually raising the stakes with Iran ("I don't advocate a Rush to War".....you'd prefer a Slow March, I take it?), the idea that we're spending any time at all on her invocation of gender is disturbing. Where is Al Gore?!?!?!?!

Kate,
We seem to be cross posting and I don't want you to think that my response at 4:02 was a response to you.

here's my response to you:

Politics is a zero sum game. You win or you lose. There's no "good conduct prize" for the woman who loses because she doesn't take any advantage she can in getting first to the post. Guys tell you there is. they tell you that they really admire the way you "take it like a man" or that you've "blazed a trail for other women" or some other crap but there is only one winner. I truly don't care if Hillary wins the election by "playing the victim card." I think its an entirely phony way of analyzing the situation. If people vote for Edwards because they think "geez, his wife has cancer, he'll grasp what lack of in surance means for me" is Edwards getting in on a "sympathy vote" or "playing the victim card?" Sure he is. Does it matter? Not a bit.

People don't vote on policy issues and there is no gold star for being the most policy oriented. They vote on feelings, colors, the weather, and a hundred other things. A smart politicians, male or female, exploits any avenue of sympathy they can get. Its very significant to me that a certain kind of woman sees everythign HRC does through the prism of their own experiences in a male dominated work force where women have been told again and again that they have to win "just like the boys" to be considered an honorable victor. Most women lose out, eventually, accepting this model for success. Because you are never evaulated like one of the boys, and you don't get a wife like one of the boys, or your children carried in someone else's womb like one of the boys. I say if there is any advantage at all to a woman politician in being a woman she should play that card and play it hard. Because *that* represents reality as much, or more, than some phony notion of playing by etonian standards of male "fairness."

I think its absurd to say that the behavior of a female politician can be just like that of a male when by behaving exactly like a male (taking and using any advantage she can) she is faulted for bringing dishonor on her sex. This is the very definition of a catch twenty two. If HRC is playing the victim card, which I utterly deny, she's just doing what any male politician would do if he could: trying to turn a perceived weakness into a strenght. We can argue all we want about whether that is or is not a smart move. But lets not confuse what she is doing with some generic problem for women. Its not. Or, to the extent that it is, its just the same problem minorities/jews/etc...always face when the first one or two goes up for a new position. In other words its a problem of history and placement in time and not a problem of HRC personally.

aimai

Suppose Obama was running around refering to politics as a "white folks club"? Would anyone question that that was playing the race card? It is TRUE as well. Obama's not running on identity though, because unlike Hillary he has a track record of sound judgment and legislative achievement to point to.

Jeremy, that's absurd. Obama *is* running on the identity card (which is also the race card) he is *explicitly running as a post racial candidate capable of uniting, in and of himself, the two warring factions in this country.* And at the *same* time he is running as an african american candidate (and more power to him) and a *christian* candidate in a peculiarly african american christian context (viz the whole blow up in South Carolina). As for his "track record of sound judgement adn legislative achievement" I haven't seen him do a single thing in the Senate that an actual progressive wanted.

kqprps

aimai: That's a lot of feelings of oppression packed into one lengthy post. The "rabid, anti-female hysteria," such as it is, is not being driven by members of the democratic party, especially the other candidates, who have carried themselves extremely well. This discussion thread is about the hysteria being injected by media whores, so you're headed off into different territory with that anti-male assertion.

A quick search turns up a July CBS/NYT poll showing an expectation among respondents that more people will vote against than for Clinton based on her gender, but I just don't think that represents core Dems accurately. Still, 13% respond that her gender will INCREASE the likelihood of voter approval, and I'm saying it's higher than that in Dem circles, especially women who have been in the trenches. Discount my experience if you like--I've been a local elected official for over a decade now, so I have a lot of political conversations-- but I think you just prefer to be comfortable in your prejudice. The HRC camp is skillfully playing the gender card as part of a likely winning primary and caucus campaign. More power to them. It doesn't work on me, but it's bonding many leftist women who otherwise would be more skeptical. The backlash is coming from the usual thug sources and MSM itching for a narrative, not from the Dem establishment. I think you might be buying into that narrative a little too much. We can count of Rovian tactics next September when the attacks will all be about Hill's strengths: gender, Bill and experience. It would help a lot if she could be right on the issues, because that's one argument the thugs don't want to have.

"I actually think Hillary has maneuvered through the "gender issue" masterfully."

That's the irony of Hillary's current attempt to play the gender card (and I simply don't see how any honest person can look at the material g. davis has posted and not conclude that that is exactly what her campaign is trying to do).

I have been remarking to a number of people how extraordinarily well Hillary has been handling the gender issue in general. She had mostly managed to do what she absolutely needs to do in order to win over voters: convince them that her being a woman was NOT an issue they should concern themselves about, one way or the other.

She should really be ashamed of herself for having pulled this stunt. It's going to antagonize all kinds of voters who simply refuse to accept that a vote for President, of all things, should rest on how persecuted the candidate imagines himself or herself to be. And "inclusion" is one of the last things we might ever want to think about when we choose the most powerful person in the world.

And if shame means nothing to Hillary and her campaign, maybe they should think about just how successful Geraldine Ferraro was when she pulled the gender card during one her debates.

That worked just wonderfully for her, didn't it?

i love this from aimai:

The attacks on Clinton get their extra rage and their extra self righteousness from the members of the democratic party who still can't get their head around the fact that a woman has the nerve to not only run for the top office but to do so without apologizing.

so the attacks on clinton aren't because some people disagree with her policies?

this is the essence of what the clinton campaign is trying to accomplish. they are trying to use her gender to place her in a position where she is beyond criticism by suggesting that such criticism is driven by misogyny.

it reminds me of republicans' use of the "patriot card" to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. ultimately, the point isn't to convince people that your arguments and policies are correct. it's merely a way to distract from the issue at hand -- in clinton's case, the fact that she didn't do well at the last debate.

"And if obama had been the front runner and they'd all ganged up on him you can bet your boots someone would have dragged out the lynch mob allegory."

Actually, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all "ganged up" on Barack in the debate after his Pakistan comments. I must have missed all the cries of victimization and piling on on the part of his campaign afterwards.

"As for his "track record of sound judgement adn legislative achievement" I haven't seen him do a single thing in the Senate that an actual progressive wanted."

Rather than relying on what you have seen to trash Obama, maybe you should read something. There was a post either in Firedoglake of Echidne of the Snakes that laid out how successful he has been in passing progressive legislation, especially for a neophyte. If anyone has that post bookmarked, please post the link here.

It would also help to show what Clinton has done to prove her progressive bona fides. Because I think she is the least progressive candidate in the primary.

Regarding Obama's judgment, you might check out the NYTimes Magazine article on his foreign policy vs. Clinton's that is linked to in a later TAPPED post. It summarizes better than anything recently why I am such a strong supporter of his. I was starting to forget in the midst of all the nitpicking and nonsense that represents the coverage of the campaign to date.

Has anyone read the source article for that "anonymous" quote?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_po/on_deadline_clinton_1

That's some fine unbiased journalism right there.

Aimai,

I agree with you about the fact that any politician has to use all the advantages at her or his disposal to win. I also agree about the role of emotion in voting and that people use their gut to select which information they have about a candidate will be important and which won't in influencing their vote.

Where we disagree is on the impact of this particular move. I think it hurts rather than helps. No matter how often Hillary claims she was strong at the debate, the reaction of using this argument of piling on after the fact makes her look weak.

The debate and her performance in it did not shake the confidence of any of her already solid supporters. However, the follow-up strategy by her campaign has not only kept a negative story alive, it has raised gender as an issue in a way the debate itself never did, and it has also strengthened a perception of Hillary as someone who says one thing in publich and something else (through surrogates) behind the scenes.

"I say if there is any advantage at all to a woman politician in being a woman she should play that card and play it hard."

Well, this is the point. I just fundamentally disagree with this. Some benefit no doubt accrues to her based on her gender with some people. But if she runs on gender, she will lose.

Certainly, Hillary has the right to fight and to fight back.

However, I very fundamentally disagree with the notion that women have carte blanche with regard to ethics and fairness because "it's a man's world."

Frankly, I think is part of Hillary's problem and part of why a lot of progressives don't like her. She thinks she needs to play to the skankiest war-mongering and corporate elements in order to win, and we just should forgive her for it because we have the great blessing of The First Woman Presidency.

And, if she doesn't think this, certainly some of her fans do.

F-that. I say. F-that, for sure.

I think there's a confusion here between what I think about Clinton's situation as a woman and what I think as a progressive. Let me say up front that Clinton is not progressive enough for me, and that I would not vote for her *as a woman* over a more progressive candidate. As I said way upthread I'd far prefer Edwards or, if fate only allowed me, Gore.

I'm objecting to the confusion commenters are demonstrating between "the gender card" (now, not with Ferraro) and Hillary running as a woman. She is running as a woman *and has no choice in the matter*. I recommend everyone skip on over to crooks and liars, bob somerby, and firedoglake for a review of just how biased and perverse the coverage of her is. That doesn't mean she should win. Indeed, I want the best progressive to win.

However, in beating up on Hillary for running as a woman, for failing to be as progressive as we think a woman should be, for playing the gender card or for whatever else the flavor of the day is in beating up on Hillary we are all missing the boat.

There is simply no attack on HRC qua woman that will not also be launched against both Edwards and Obama. Indeed, the feminization of Edwards and Obama is already well under way. If you don't think that they must *demonstrate their masculinity* against her perceived femininity while she is running you are missing the boat on how the media is crafting this election cycle. And if you think that once having forced the primary voters to be disgusted with her because she is a "victim" and "whiny" and "playing the gender card" the exact same charges will not be applied to both Obama and Edwards you are sadly missing the boat. The "breck girl" the "fag" and the "ladies man/cool dude" are all feminized attacks that have been levied at both Edwards and Obama. We'd better realize that when we allow the press to smear one democratic candidate we are allowing them (ultimately) to smear them all. Its an interesting and not contingent fact that all democrats have been represented as women, whiny, victims, not strong enough to lead for several election cycles. The democrats have failed to recognize this and run against it (with the exception of HRC) adn that is *too bad for all of us.*

I repeat: I'm not supporting HRC in the primary and I am much more progressive than she is on every front. But make no mistake: every bit of this infighting and hatin' on Hillary is good for the republicans and bad for the dems. Instead of bitching about how hillary won't talk policy because she's too busy being a victim I think you might better criticize both edwards and obama for bitching about hillary playign the gender card instead of seizing the moment to talk policy.

aimai

"And if you think that once having forced the primary voters to be disgusted with her because she is a "victim" and "whiny" and "playing the gender card" the exact same charges will not be applied to both Obama and Edwards you are sadly missing the boat."

They may well do that. But I don't agree that the public will therefore rush to vote Republican because, of course, they're all stupid closet masculinists.

"I think you might better criticize both edwards and obama for bitching about hillary playign the gender card instead of seizing the moment to talk policy."

It seems to me that Obama accused her of playing the historically oppressed minority victim card, while pointing out that he did not do so, when they all attacked him for his foreign policy. It seems to me that, perhaps, Obama *has* a right to do that, although *I* would agree that it's not productive.

I know Edwards said you can't pin her down on her positions. If he complained about "the gender card," I haven't seen it. Has he? Or are HRC's fans are taking the opportunity to tar them with the same brush?

Of course, if we're going to keep splitting hairs about this, identity politics style, I do think Obama can call foul...

brewmn: Maybe the endorsements of Hillary by Repubs all the way up to the Prez himself (has he really been giving her policy advice as he claims? I didn't see where she denied it) as the "best of the bad alternatives" haven't registered with her supporters as not such good thing. I agree that she's the least liberal, but that's usually what the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and certainly the DLC prefer. Regarding the "gender issue," its common for a faction to accept something not in its interest at the promise of some unspecified future benefit, or just to show they can play the game, too. Witness lower income people favoring property tax cuts, which benefits landlords and corporations while driving up their own state income taxes and reducing services. Hard to see how another eight years of Clintonism is a good thing, but a certain proportion of Dem women think electing a woman is in itself going to be a worthy step forward...somehow, eventually. In a way, it is. That's the conundrum.

"Hard to see how another eight years of Clintonism is a good thing, but a certain proportion of Dem women think electing a woman is in itself going to be a worthy step forward...somehow, eventually. In a way, it is. That's the conundrum."

Well said. Also, it doesn't help that the president we've been dealing with for seven loooong years makes Bill Clinton look like FDR. It's hard to run against Clintonism when the immediate alternative is Rudy Giulani.

addy: Followed your link, read the story. Other than the sartorial references, which I found pretty sexist, what's not accurate? Is that a phoney insider quote? I've read two more like it today alone. I think her campaign made a mistake, but better now than next October. Karl Rove didn't retire, you know. He left to work full time on the campaign.

"Hard to see how another eight years of Clintonism is a good thing, but a certain proportion of Dem women think electing a woman is in itself going to be a worthy step forward...somehow, eventually. In a way, it is. That's the conundrum."

You might be able to make that case, if they can do it without whining. If they do it by whining, it is going to be hell. Whining about her gender treatment is not a positive statement about her capacity. Who votes for that?

W Action,
really? Wow, it seemed to me like a nasty smear piece all the way through. Which to me made those anonymous quotes pretty suspect. For a bit it seemed like I had time traveled back to the nineties.
But being a Kucinich person, I may just be over reacting to the UFO silliness that's gone on. He really should have knocked Russert off the chair for that....and had a talk with Shirley McClaine.

You mean this anonymous 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.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."

They better watch it with that. It's not as if men are doing the bullying of lower level women in the workplace.
I guess some people don't get out much.

Such cute little rarified notions.

addy: I'd have treated the UFO question like the guy was asking about my sex life or religion: "I don't see how that has anything to do with why we're here tonight, Tim. Do you have a serious question?" Sometimes it's too bad Special K is so honest.

I think the AP piece reads much to snarky, especially for an MSM source, but it also referred to things that actually happened. The Fazio story doesn't reflect poorly on Hill at all. She handled it exactly right and the poor schmuck was sunk.

W Action,
And that would have been exactly the right way to do it. Shoot it right back at him.Kinda like Clinton did in the last debate. Why can't we get our candidates to do that?
And though the article referred to things that have happened it was couched in language that couldn't help but support the fact that she is an awful person and probably eats christian babies for breakfast. Of course! She's Hillary Clinton. It's that kind of stuff that makes me question 90% of what's said about her.

W. Action, I've got to agree with addy, the number of phony, unnamed, democratic insider quotes on any given subject doesn't really add to versimilitude. God, when on earth will we ever learn?

aimai

""The First Lady is simply the person who is legally f***ing the President."

That's a pretty threadbare view of the role of a spouse in their partner's accomplishments. Most First Ladies contributed to the success of their husbands for their entire life in politics. Most vice presidents contribute squat until they're selected, and the choice is based on geography or political benefit rather than merit."

If you believe that a politician's spouse is an integral part his or her office, then you might consider the possibility that the two-term limit for the Presidency might apply to the First Lady too. When the limit was imposed, it was definitely not intended to give a political couple a total of four terms in office. At the time, no one (apparently) imagined a woman would ever run for the office in her own right and so a loophole was left open to get around the limit.

Clinton's candidacy will be the first real test of this, and if she wins the nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans will try to have her declared ineligible. The more crucial one imagines Hillary was to Bill's administration, the better chance they have of succeeding. Keep in mind that if this question goes to the Supreme Court for a decision, it will be the same court that decided the 2000 election - minus a few Democrats and plus a few Republicans.

The only way to argue the case, in fact, is to downplay the First Lady's role in the Presidency, but to be honest I agree completely with what you said: a political wife (or husband) is pretty much elected along with his or her spouse as part of a team. Clinton was merely one of the first to get properly recognized. She's not going to be able to argue one way in the primaries and the other as the nominee.

I'm no fan of Hillary; I dislike the way she does business, to be brief, and I'm not, uh, really comfortable with this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dance we'll've been doing, if she's elected. So that's full disclosure, up front.

But there's something else, something that, um! Terrifies me about her.

And, god, it pains me to say this, but—I don't believe a woman can win the presidency. Nor do I believe a black man can win the presidency.

Maybe I've lived in the South too long. In fact, I've lived down here all my life, but it seems to me we Southerners are more blatant about our prejudices than the rest of the country. That doesn't mean these prejudices don't exist elsewhere.

Too much is riding on this election. It's a risk to run a woman, a risk to run anybody but a white male, and I'm just shocked at the lack of discussion about this very, very real problem—or at least that's how I see it (discrepancy between supporters of and actual voters for Harold Ford, Jr., gets called to mind).

Mind you, I feel guilty as hell for pointing out what seems to be obvious. If somebody could disabuse me of these fears, great! I do know we can't afford to lose the next election, and it seems some of our candidates are frankly recipes for electoral disaster.

Did somebody really say -

Thank you, thank you, thank you Ezra! If I were 20 years younger I'd leave this fool and become your own personal geisha!

!

At the time, no one (apparently) imagined a woman would ever run for the office in her own right and so a loophole was left open to get around the limit.

Unlikely. There'd already been women senators at that point, and women governors were at least not far off. George Wallace got around term limits in Alabama in 1966 by running his wife.

I don't care what HRC or Obama or Edwards or anyone does, so long as they kick those repuke bastards out on their scrawny, cracker, male, normally-abled, sighted, whale-eating pervert asses. Fuck civility and fuck them. This is just too important.
.

I'm not even a Clinton supporter and I was pissed about all this bullshit.

First, are we so politically correct that we can't even mention basic facts anymore? Presidential politics has always been an all-male institution and she is, indeed, the first to break the mold. Second, her campaign did what any campaign would do under attack, especially as a front runner defending against the inevitable pounce from rivals as the primaries get closer: deflect attention and dismiss criticism. Her campaign tried that and got nailed for it simply b/c gender is an immutable trait. Lastly, the "strong woman" comment made by a staff member should not trigger hysteria since language itself is fundamentally gendered (ex. he/she, Mr./Ms., brother/sister, husband/wife, etc) since men never get heat for mentioning how strong and even "manly" they are. In fact, the more they perform a caricature of "masculinity" the more they're rewarded for it.

I am amazed at how insane this issue has become. Worse, I'm most disappointed that *both* Obama and Edwards have decided to play this up, especially the latter who could be accused of playing the "cancer-stricken wife" card.

中联石化不锈钢管销售公司,专业经营各种不锈钢管,不锈钢板,高镍合金不锈钢管等,是国内知名的不锈钢管材料供应商,公司不锈钢管不锈钢管生产技术力量雄厚,经验丰富,是广大不锈钢管消费者的首选

zhanghe wow goldwow power leveling

First, are we so politically correct that we can't even mention basic facts anymore? Presidential politics has always been an all-male institution and she is, indeed, the first to break the mold. Second, her campaign did what any campaign would do under attack, especially as a front runner defending against the inevitable pounce from rivals as the primaries get closer: deflect attention and dismiss criticism. Her campaign tried that and got nailed for it simply b/c gender is an immutable trait. Lastly, the "strong woman" comment made by a staff member should not trigger hysteria since language itself is fundamentally gendered (ex. he/she, Mr./Ms., brother/sister, husband/wife, etc) since men never get heat for mentioning compaq n610v battery with battery charger and mouse how strong compaq n610c battery with battery charger and mouse and even "manly" they are. In fact, the more they perform a caricature of "masculinity" the more they're rewarded for it.

buy wow gold

AYpearl is a professional jewelry wholesaler from China, we can supply all styles of fashion jewelry including pearl jewelry,gemstone jewelry,crystal jewelry,coral jewelry,shell jewelry,turquoise jewelry,swarovski jewelry and so on.Each style has the jewelry set.We have thousands of regular customers all over the world who all highly appreciated of our high quality of items and excellent custom serive.

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.

Bing is a really overlord!! support Bing~~