Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Re: Clinton and the Boys


You are amazing.

Posted by Amelia | November 5, 2007 5:07 PM


Posted by bored | November 5, 2007 5:08 PM

Okay, so the content of this aside (which I think you've both said some pretty good thinks about), don't you two work in the same office? Aren't you within hollerin' distance of each other? I mean... this seems so pointlessly, publicly roundabout. And especially vicious!

Posted by Horace | November 5, 2007 5:08 PM

She's right, you're wrong. We all know it. Get over it, and move on.

Posted by Big Sven | November 5, 2007 5:12 PM

ps- other bloggers' opinions != facts. Quoting other bloggers to make your point is just creating an echo chamber, not proving your point.

Posted by Big Sven | November 5, 2007 5:14 PM

Now, when Erica responds to this, will you both disappear up each other's arses, like the snake who swallowed his tail?

Seriously, this is NOT A STORY. Not what Clinton said, not what her handlers said, not what the other candidates said, not what they claim they said, not what Clinton says she said, not what Clinton says she meant about what she said about what her handlers meant when they said those things about what the male candidates meant when they said the things they said about what she meant. THERE'S NOTHING HERE.

All we really have a contest between you two to see who thinks whom is the bigger feminist. A contest you're both trying to lose?

Posted by Fnarf | November 5, 2007 5:15 PM

@3... While I wholeheartedly support any and all viciousness directed at Erica, this post doesn't seem particularly so. Eli is just rightfully irritated at being misrepresented to readers.

Posted by Amelia | November 5, 2007 5:18 PM

I am confused - didn't Eli tell us he DOES not have a vagina?

End of story. Erica can do the vagina stuff, Eli can do the cock stuff.

BOTH expert in their own way..... Eli, for the short course, women have better feminist politics than you do, trust me honey.

In fact you, dear Eli, may be suffering from male chauvinist KNOW it all .... oh, gosh.

Posted by Lyn Ward | November 5, 2007 5:34 PM

I got through 2 paragraphs of this. Do I win a t-shirt or something?

Posted by twee | November 5, 2007 5:37 PM

I'm glad Stranger staffers fight. It's a sign of a healthy institution that cares about what it does. But can you guys fight in a more interesting way about more interesting stuff.
Amazingly, Stranger writer can be more dull that an actual Democratic Party debate!

Posted by lisa Gin | November 5, 2007 5:50 PM

this is pretty much just a clam-swinging contest at this point. could someone at the stranger get out a ruler and settle this once and for all? please?

Posted by brandon | November 5, 2007 5:57 PM
Maybe some will find that to be a small and subtle distortion, or merely an example of boredom-induced misremembering ... This tactic is beneath Erica, of course

LOL, really?

Anyways, yes, Eli, you're correct, but you will never win. Give it up. Please, for the love of God, give it up.

Posted by tsm | November 5, 2007 6:03 PM

Eli, it's over. Her argument was better.

Posted by Irena | November 5, 2007 6:19 PM

Really, I'm more surprised by the fact that some people here think Clinton's campaign would be so inept as to not capitalize on the fact that many women voters would be sympathetic to perceiving her as unfairly attacked for her gender.

Posted by why wouldn't she? | November 5, 2007 6:25 PM

This proves beyond any scientific doubt, Erica would kick Eli's ass in a fight. If you are so great Eli, why whine about her? Seriously, between you and Christopher, it's like watching the Neville Chamberlain caucus take over the Stranger. Mark this on your calendar, this paper just jumped the shark.

oh, and Hump was boring this year.

Posted by TheTruthHurts | November 5, 2007 6:28 PM

I'd like to think you'll come to your senses and delete this post in the next few hours. This is truly embarrassing stuff.

It's amazing how you parse through your own and Erica's posts word by word, then you throw in concepts like "resistance from leading opinion makers" without any interrogation whatsoever of that concept, as if it were impartial, abstract, like fate or divine judgment. And you blithely assume the "sophistication" (vs. naivete), not to mention good faith, of political reporters, and that they play merely a passive fact-finding or recording role in political coverage -- assumptions not justifiable with reference to reality, these last ten or twelve years.

If Giuliani gets elected next year, God help me, I will link to this post in the comments of everything you post on Slog. You probably still won't get it, but maybe some innocent readers (who can still be helped -- if you consider Maureen Dowd "good company" to be in, there's nothing that can be done for you) will.

Posted by David | November 5, 2007 6:48 PM

P.S. to Fnarf @6, I agree that there's no story here, and your comment reminded me of something a favorite writer of mine wrote, which for present purposes I would paraphrase as: This stuff is meaningless -- but the way in which it is so is significant.

Posted by David | November 5, 2007 6:55 PM

Jesus, Eli, you sound like a spoiled child. Maybe you should spend less time citing Maureen Dowd and whining that nobody understands you and more time, I don't know, reporting. Agree with the commenter above- embarrassing.

Posted by whatev | November 5, 2007 8:24 PM

Eli: I misconstrued you because, apparently, what you are actually trying to say is way more offensive and off base than what I thought you were trying to say.

Wow, women will vote for Hilary because we think we are victims? That is just... really offensive. First off, in the history of the world, there has been A LOT of oppression of women, and there continues to be today. America has made quite a lot of progress, but we've still got a ways to go (such as, say, having a female president).

So many women, knowing or at least having a sense of this history, INDEED are drawn to a candidate that will take us another step in the direction of equality between the sexes. It is not because we like being fucking victims, it is because we know our own history and that it's not goddamn over and that we have a truly history opportunity to make some progress.

And you know what? If women DO identify with Hilary being attacked by lots of men, if that looks familiar to them because in their own lives they've had to compete with unfairly advantaged boys, why SHOULDN'T they feel drawn to her? Not because she's a victim, but because they recognize the struggle as their own.

Also, I agree with Irena that Erica's argument is way better. By the way, Irena is my new Slog friend, whether she knows it or not. 'Sup, Irena?

Posted by exelizabeth | November 5, 2007 8:39 PM

*truly historical opportunity to make some progress.

Sorry, that's what that was suppose to say. It's hard to proofread in these little boxes.

Posted by exelizabeth | November 5, 2007 8:41 PM
Wow, women will vote for Hilary because we think we are victims? That is just... really offensive. First off, in the history of the world, there has been A LOT of oppression of women, and there continues to be today ... If women DO identify with Hilary being attacked by lots of men, if that looks familiar to them because in their own lives they've had to compete with unfairly advantaged boys, why SHOULDN'T they feel drawn to her?

WTF, exelizabeth? You can't sit there talking about how wrong and offensive it is for Eli to think women consider themselves victims (and thus will be drawn to Hillary) and then talk about how women like yourself are victims (and thus will be drawn for Hillary). Is he right, or is he wrong?

Posted by tsm | November 5, 2007 8:43 PM

("drawn for" = "drawn to")

Posted by tsm | November 5, 2007 8:44 PM

TSM: You really don't get it. I am not a VICTIM and it is insulting to say. I understand the struggles women face in this country, and I identify with them. That doesn't make me a victim. Okay? THAT'S what's so offensive. Victim implies that I am weak, that I have no agency, that someone has to help me because I can't help myself. I've faced the shit that women have to face in our country, but I have agency, I am not weak. And that's why I find if offensive to call me a victim just for being a woman in a sexist country.

Being a victim and identifying with a common struggle are different things, and THAT is what I am trying say. Clearly, you don't think they are different, and if you can't understand that, then I've got nothing more to say to you.

Posted by exelizabeth | November 5, 2007 9:11 PM

Damn, apparently HTML tags do not work in these comments. I totally closed those italics. I meant to italicize "understand" and "identify" only.

Posted by exelizabeth | November 5, 2007 9:12 PM
Being a victim and identifying with a common struggle are different things, and THAT is what I am trying say. Clearly, you don't think they are different, and if you can't understand that, then I've got nothing more to say to you.

Too busy ranting to close your tags there, eh? If you say so. But you're drawing a particular and somewhat arbitrary semantic distinction between "being a victim" and "being unfairly subject to discrimination" that not everyone would. That Eli doesn't necessarily share your very specific view of the connotations of "victim" isn't automatically evidence of him being off base.

And this doesn't really contradict Eli's basic point here, which is that there are plenty of women who sympathize with Clinton for exactly the reasons you say - and that the Clinton campaign fully realizes this, and will use it to electoral advantage insofar as is possible. Indeed, it is only rational for any politician to do so.

Posted by tsm | November 5, 2007 9:29 PM

Wait a minute. Actually, rereading the post, I see that Eli didn't even make them claim that women sympathize with Clinton for these reasons; he just said that the campaign thinks they do - which makes your response a complete straw man.

However, feel free to attack me for saying that some women will rally around Clinton out of a feeling of being a fellow vi ... errrrr, subject of unfair treatment, because I'll think that some will.

Posted by tsm | November 5, 2007 9:48 PM

I'm baffled by all this. I thought Eli would be pro-Clinton 'cause she's winning. But he's not because she's female? What? I need to re-read this whole freakin' thing. Thanks a lot.

Posted by me | November 5, 2007 9:57 PM

I liked this take on Hillary from Digby

"I'm sorry, but this is truly sexist crap. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are out there one upping each other on who will be the most macho sadists among the crowd of warring GOP thugs. Hillary goes to her alma mater and says that her education at the women's college prepared her to do battle with the political boys club and the gasbags' eyes roll back in their heads and they start drooling and whining that she's broken the rules.

Well boo fucking hoo. The rules are changing. Get used to it.

Half of this country is female and they've noticed, in case these manly men haven't, that presidential politics is a very exclusive a boys club and we don't find it all that odd to mention it. Certainly, if it's ok for politicians to literally walk around with a codpiece to show their masculine bona fides, I don't think it's out of line for a female candidate to speak to a younger generation of women at her college and take a little bit of pride in the institution and her own accomplishments --- since she does happen to be the first serious female contender for president in the whole history of the country. Excuse me for thinking she has the damned right to do it.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | November 5, 2007 10:15 PM

Eli rocks. I didn't put much past Erica after her distortion of "guys pleading innocent to rape" into "guys said she asked for it", and it's nice to see someone else on the local staff call her on her shit. Cheers.

Posted by torrentprime | November 5, 2007 10:24 PM

Wow. If there was anyone on the planet who actually disagreed with your final statement, you would totally have put them in their place!
It's a shame you raised a non-issue that no one is, you know, actually arguing against, but that doesn't diminish the courage required to take that stand one bit.

Posted by torrentprime | November 5, 2007 10:27 PM

This is the journalistic equivalent of farting in church, and that's a compliment.

Calling out Erica is long overdue, but, geez, the sins you hang on her were learned by her mentor, Josh.

Josh's whole gig is to mischaracterize his targets then attack the mischarecterization.

Props to you for calling out bullshit, but wow, it's so deep at the Stranger, so imbedded in their whole hipster 'tude, it's a wonder you can work there, a rag led by a knob licker.


Posted by Join the club, Eli | November 5, 2007 10:36 PM

'Sup, exelizabeth? Hey, thanks!

Looks like tsm, torrentprime, Eli et al got spanked too hard by the nuns to see beyond their own defensiveness. You could whisper the simple fact -- "men have oppressed women" -- and they would snark back that you are attacking them, emotionally manipulating them, and playing the victim card.

*Sigh* And then there's guys like @31 up there. Thank goodness they're not all like that. Enough said.

Posted by Irena | November 5, 2007 11:18 PM

"and they would snark back that you are attacking them, emotionally manipulating them, and playing the victim card."

Of course! I've said each of those things so many times now, "so many" being "none whatsoever, ever".

But this is why Eli should just give up - he could write a post that simply stated "Erica was right" and you and the same six posters would still be off ranting about what you all clearly wished he had said so you would have an opportunity to rant about it.

Kudos if you're trolling, though - you're doing a fabulous job.

Posted by tsm | November 5, 2007 11:26 PM

This attributed to Andre Gide, but it works for Hillary as well: "The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on." C'est suffice.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | November 6, 2007 12:03 AM

huh? Eli, you look crazy. Calm down and stop trying so hard to be interesting when you have nothing to say.

Posted by the truth | November 6, 2007 12:46 AM

Wait....I thought "Eli" was a woman's name.

Posted by mikeblanco | November 6, 2007 4:29 AM

Oh yeah??? Well MAUREEN DOWD agrees with Eli. That's right bitches: MAUREEN DOWD.

Posted by Kiru Banzai | November 6, 2007 7:16 AM

erica wins. the end. can we move on?

Posted by kim | November 6, 2007 9:05 AM

Agree. ECB wins in a slam dunk. Move on!

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 6, 2007 11:47 AM

god this whole country has gone to the even those on the left can't have a debate. it's time we left the rovian approach behind. what i don't understand though is why is it ok to attack obama's campaign for a minor member and not hillary's? i did think that obama handled it badly but what is good for the goose is not for the gander i guess. also as for ECB being a feminist, her feminism is really a white middle class feminism that to me doesn't seem to incorporate the entire spectrum.

Posted by Jiberish | November 6, 2007 1:03 PM

Eli wins. Particularly for this bit:

It also ends up operating in a style akin to many politically-motivated smears. Here’s the time-tested strategy: Mis-attribute, then attack based on this mis-attribution, and presto, the accused has two jobs: Defending himself and clearing up the confusion.

This, incidentally, is exactly the shit hilary's team pulled on Obama with the McClurkin smear.

Posted by Kevin Erickson | November 6, 2007 2:00 PM

Eli and Maureen Dowd and Greg Sargent and Ruth Marcus are wrong about the Clinton campaign subliminaly pushing female buttons by trying to convey an image of six men ganging up on Hillary. As Erica pointed out, it is a standard political practice to gang up on the front runner in elections, and the front runners usually try to use that to reinforce their status. That said, Eli's argument isn't unreasonable or crackpot. Gender inevitably hangs over everything in the Clinton campaign, whether it's implied or explicit. Sometimes it hurts her (like now) and sometimes it helps, (as shown in Erica's column this week). Whether gender should play a role is a bigger question. I don't look down on women who vote for Clinton just because she's a woman. It's better than the reasons 90% of people vote or don't vote for candidates (Bill O'Reilly/the NYT/the Stranger told me to, he's a Mormon/Jew/Catholic, I'm gonna use my tax refund to buy an HDTV/ant farm/cocaine). I also think Erica was a jerk face for summarizing Eli's entire post as "Hillary pretends to be strong but cries like a little girl when she's challenged", when his point was significantly more nuanced. Basically shame on both of you.

Posted by Oscar | November 6, 2007 2:20 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).