Slog - Comments on Clinton's Gender Politics

Comment by Just Me

Just Me — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:13:48 -0800

Playing the victim card is better than running on things like qualifications, ideas to help the country and the like. If that were the case then she would not stand a chance. It would go to Kucinich or Edwards.

But she is rolling in that millitary contractor money right now. MORE WAR WAR WAR with Hillary!!!

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:26:26 -0800

I don't see a contradiction. If a our hero takes on six bad guys in a fight, our hero looks strong. If you are one of the six bad guys, you look weak for ganging up. I refer you to about six thousand cheesy movies for evidence.

So putting herself in this role is fairly shrewd. The fact that this narrative can be cast in two different ways to appeal to both women who feel outnumbered and anyone looking for a tough leader makes it all the more politically useful.

We will indeed see, but I expect a bounce in the polls. Which is too bad since so many of Hillary's are wrong.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:29:57 -0800

She'll make a great Ambassador to Japan in the Gore-Obama administration.

I think Dodd will get the nod for Ambassador to Iraq. Hope he remembers how to pilot a chopper when the pilot gets shot landing on the embassy roof.

Comment by gavingourley

gavingourley — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:30:05 -0800

The response to Clinton's comments about Spitzer's effort to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is mystifying to me. She didn't say anything that was worthy of this level of response. As I understood her, she understands Spitzer's desire to license drivers as a reasonable response to Congress' and Bush's failure to pass immigration reform. It's not a Yes or No answer to the question, but a complicated issue is worthy of a sophisticated answer.

Obama's response is pretty simple though. He's playing "Get Hillary" and trying to turn this into an issue when it's really not. She's justified in complaining about the pile-on. This effort to beat on Hillary seems to be a tacit admission that she's pulling ahead and they want to drag her down. That's fair enough, but it doesn't make the criticisms valid.

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:32:57 -0800

[...] Hillary's [policies] are wrong, I should have said.

Comment by Big Sven

Big Sven — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:38:45 -0800

Eli-

Your conflation of feminism and victimhood is bizarre to me. I'm a guy, but pointing out "the all-boys� club of presidential politics� doesn't seem like victimhood, it seems like "now is finally our time." Strength, not weakness.

Also, the "Politics of Pile On" has NOTHING to do with her being female and EVERYTHING to do with her being the FRONTRUNNER.

Comment by um

um — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:58:35 -0800

Eli-
Grow a vagina and then talk about the "gender card". Your whole white-boy rant is taking a very complicated experience and trying to sum it up into some sort of cliff-notes version of real women's lives. Lives you obviously know nothing about.

Comment by David

David — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:12:05 -0800

God, Eli, SHUT UP.

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:18:31 -0800

um @ #7: That's funny, I was amused by how hard Eli was trying to explain himself without sounding like he was being anti-feminist. Part of the reason it brought a smile to my face is because I knew from experience that no matter how diplomatically he phrased his point, somebody would respond with some version of "shut up, you couldn't possibly understand!" to tell him he was wrong.

Which kind of makes his point for him, if you think about it.

Comment by max solomon

max solomon — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:19:27 -0800

my moms hates hildog.

she'd vote for larry craig before hillary clinton.

Comment by Irena

Irena — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:27:57 -0800

Politics is ALWAYS about card-playing! How is this any different, except that it's the first time a woman has had a chance to play?

Comment by tsm

tsm — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:10:09 -0800

Damn it, elenchos, how do you so consistently beat me to posting the same point?

Comment by Greg

Greg — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:45:47 -0800

Will, are you being snarky, or do you really believe that?

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:16:33 -0800

Well. A bit snarky.

She's most likely going to get the VP nod, but I'd rather have a Gore-Obama ticket.

The question is, who gets the Iraqi Ambassador position? Have to be one hell of a masochist, IMHO.

Comment by herbert browne

herbert browne — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:03:03 -0800

I'd agree, Mr. Sanders, if Hillary had given HERSELF a pair of boxing gloves... (or muskrat-lined numchuks... whatever) ^..^

Comment by Mystylplx

Mystylplx — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:00:00 -0800

It's one thing to appeal to women voters and speak from her experience growing up female in America--those things are perfectly legitimate, AND she has done those things without anone complaining.

It's another thing entirely to play the victim card as a means to excuse away a poor debate performance. That's what she did.

And she did it to such an extent it's hard to imagine she thought she would get away with it... unless she thought she would get away with it because of her gender. That's the only explanation that even seems to make sense.

Comment by E.

E. — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:58:51 -0800

Some women know how to use the fact of this phenomenon to their advantage?

Oh really Eli? You think sexism is a phenomenon? Like crop circles or something?

And please DO share your knowledge further as to how I can take advantage of the sexism around me to affect a positive outcome.

It would be great if I could make my salary equitable.

Eli - show me the 'Hillary Way.'