Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Backlash Against The Politics of Victimhood

1

I like it when you write things that aren't just quotes or videos.

Posted by Amelia | November 1, 2007 5:27 PM
2

I agree. She has to run from a platform that endorses the view that Americans stand for their core values of Truth, Justice, and the American Middle Class way of life, and that we not only refuse to live in Fear, but are made of Sterner Stuff than that!

Of course, Gore-Obama will get the nod.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 1, 2007 5:28 PM
3

I have not yet decided on a candidate, so I am probably paying more attention than many to Democratic debates. While I think Hilary has had better evenings, I thought Edwards and Obama both came across as desperate and almost pathetic. They're way behind all polls with no signs of gaining any traction and it's starting to show. I'd say their performances were worse than Hilary's. If I had to pick a winner, it was Biden.

Posted by david in wedgwood | November 1, 2007 6:10 PM
4

I call bull shit. She is only retorting the attacks on her character ... I'm sorry, she is not the most likable person in the race. Mostly becaue she is the most unreadable.

Then again she is also the most qualified for the job. I would rather have Obama get the nod, because he is at least more likable than Clinton. How our country works.

Or doesn't

Posted by OR Matt | November 1, 2007 6:45 PM
5

wonder what would have happened if Hillary was a black woman?

Posted by Could you Imagine | November 1, 2007 6:49 PM
6

One more thing I LOATHE about our democratic nominees. None of them hold executive jobs! Something so many people overlook, and can not be stressed enough! There hasn't been a president elected from the senate since Kennedy. I think he might have been the only president EVER elected who was prevously a senator. Senator is more commonly something a president does AFTER he is done with his term.

Senators are extremely hard to elect because they have a voting record that comes from making compromises, so you can turn any candidate you like or dislike into a flip flopper or something anti- your agenda based on a voting record which plays into partisan bickering when running for national office.

As an executive/governer, your need to compromise is minimal, you can litteraly SAY and mostly do any hard stance you want without ever backing down, the only effect you have over most peoples lives is to support legislation (not even write or vote), a budget, and veto.

Posted by OR Matt | November 1, 2007 6:53 PM
7

@6 - well, Bill Richardson is a governor. But he also seems condemned to also-ran status.

Posted by tsm | November 1, 2007 7:04 PM
8

@6, you're forgetting Richardson. Not that he's a viable candidate at this point. Still, every Dem is way better than any Republican.

Posted by spencer | November 1, 2007 7:04 PM
9

@7

Not disaggreeing. I whole heartedly agree. I'd be hard pressed to vote for a republican ever again, seeing how embittered and divided the country is. Still, last year the election, the crap that Kerry had to answer to was mostly on his flip flopping voting record, they do it to ALL DEMOCRATIC SENATORS. Clinton was sort of guilty of doing to Dole too.

Of the Republicans seeking the nomination, most of them are governers I belive, a mayor, and one senator. Mitt Romney, Giuliani, Thompson (if hell does exist, there is a special place for him there) they all hold executive offices

Posted by OR Matt | November 1, 2007 7:10 PM
10

Hillary has the potential to break thru all barriers and assumptions.

The point about the traditional role of the Senate as springboard is almost moot along side her political resume. Hillary after all, was billed as co-president for many years.

Wish we could import Edwards style rhetoric to Hillary - but - that is not the game.

The Clinton response that they piled on is just a media reply and a good one.
Victimhood is a chauvanist pig arrow - very male - she is as hard as nails.

If you are sexist I guess you might see every word from Hillary in twisted terms, but, no, she will be canny and a hard ball player.

Posted by George | November 1, 2007 7:20 PM
11

Just in case anyone is paying attention, the defense industry has identified Hillary as the front runner for 2008. She's yeilding most of their campaign contributions this year.

http://www.alternet.org/story/65869/

Posted by morgan | November 1, 2007 7:22 PM
12

They can complain all they want about the way she is running her campaign, but there isn't a one of them that wouldn't cut off his left nut to be in her position today. I'm not a great fan of hers, but she is mopping the floor with them.

Posted by ratcityreprobate | November 1, 2007 7:30 PM
13

Oh please. This whole country is full of victims. You ain't anything in the US unless you're some kind of victim. Our TV is about victims. Our radio (especially conservative talk) is all about victims. Everybody is always insulted. Everybody is always demanding an apology. Victimization is what it's all about in the USA. Another brilliant Clintonian move.

Posted by Look in the mirror.... | November 1, 2007 9:07 PM
14

Wow LITM, cynical much? You're so 90s! I wonder which candidate is getting your vote.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | November 1, 2007 9:18 PM
15

Cynical, Boomer? Guilty as charged. Anybody who's not retarded is cynical. Surprisingly enough, I was a lot more optimistic in the 90's.

As for my vote, anything without an (R) next to it. They could run a turd against the GOP and I'd vote for it.

Posted by Look in the mirror.... | November 1, 2007 9:32 PM
16

Boomer - tactics, just tactics

Best voters are older - and they feel very victimized by then. Pass the word fair around a focus group and the shit hits, all will tell you just how unfair life is via their own personal stories

Called empathy politics, kiss the baby and connect with the woes of life in modern society

Posted by T. Donald Overfield | November 1, 2007 9:33 PM
17

There's two ways this could go with this sort of response. There's the one mentioned in the post, but there's an alternative. Clinton's campaign could sell this as a strength: She's such a contender (or, perhaps, the other candidates are so weak) that they can only take her on as a pack.

Posted by Matt | November 1, 2007 9:46 PM
18

@15

Look in the mirror?

A couple things amaze me about America.

The fact that people pay relatively THE LEAST in their taxes bitch about them the most.

People who are ADDICTED to welfare seem to be voting for the people who hate it the most.

And that damn victim mentality. Big business is one of the BIGGEST offenders frivilous lawsuits.

Aside from the secret abortions by people who couldn't deal with the father bringing down the family ...

I guess one thing about republicans is that ... they are so much in denial about the human condition, it's diversity and the dynamics of the REAL world. They have this master plan that we are too stupid to understand.

Oh and follow Jesus ... he knows the way

Cynical ... yes

Posted by OR Matt | November 1, 2007 10:00 PM
19

Harding - the other senator.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | November 1, 2007 10:33 PM
20

hey anyone go to that club, Havana, to drink with the candidates tonight?

Which one slammed down the most?

Posted by Affluence of Inkahol | November 1, 2007 11:20 PM
21

Somebody tell her you don't look like the victor when you act like the victim. If she becomes President, she'll have to deal with a lot of men who won't treat her like a lady -- will she ask Bill for help against the real bad guys?

Posted by ab hrc | November 2, 2007 12:00 AM
22

#21
above
the rap is already - you get hillary, you get bill

for me, it a closer - always liked bill - he can schmooze while she does the hard ball politics

Posted by 333 - 666 - 999 | November 2, 2007 12:48 AM
23

6:

Andrew Jackson was a Senator. He also served in the House of Representatives. He also was a governor -- all before he became president.

He also is the only president who retired the national debt, and the only president we have had, to my knowledge, who specifically identified the unbridled concentration of wealth as a threat to our national security.

Posted by ivan | November 2, 2007 5:02 AM
24

This is a post from the Page, run by Mark Halperin, formerly of ABC's the Note. He believes the mainstream media are too liberal. See here:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/mark-halperin-and-hugh-hewitt-all-you.html

I'm sure the Republicans would love these anonymous talking points.

Posted by chicagogaydude | November 2, 2007 6:05 AM
25

@6:

Hmmm....strange that you say this as I think almost no President has held office after they completed their presidency, the notable exceptions being Taft and the whole Supreme Court thing, John Quincy Adams in the House, and Andrew Jackson joining the Senate.

Mayhaps you should do some research before you claim "Senator is more commonly something a president does AFTER he is done with his term".

"I think [Kennedy] might have been the only president EVER elected who was prevously a senator", you say.

15 presidents were senators ye olde history books say.

You are a dolt, I say.

Try to get at least one fact right when proseltyzing so vehemently.

Cheers!

Posted by newyorkguy | November 2, 2007 7:33 AM
26

I got too "holier-than-thou" as I meant Andrew Johnson joined the Senate after his presidency. Jackson was there before. So exactly one president became a senator after his term.

But you're still a dolt.

Posted by newyorkguy | November 2, 2007 7:38 AM
27

One point that I think is missing from the debate thusfar is the quite obvious observation that this this characterization of Clinton playing "the victim" isn't coming from her campaign, but from one of her rivals', which makes this simply a battle to frame the original statement: Clinton: "I'm so strong, the only way the others can take me down is to join forces", versus "she's trying to play the 'victim card'".

I think it's going to backfire, simply because it's becoming increasingly clear to voters that the also-rans are now at a point where they're getting so desperate to draw attention to themselves this will be perceived merely as an attempt to score some easy points at the expense of the front-runner.

But it's a Phyrric victory at best; clearly some of the weaker candidates are going to be dropping out of the race in the next couple of months, most certainly after Iowa and New Hampshire, and I think the perception on the part of voters will be that they're trying to band together and collectively take their shots now, while each of them gambles that by doing so they'll remain part of the dwindling pack that survives into the Spring primaries.

Posted by COMTE | November 2, 2007 10:03 AM
28

So, Will, how's your 'draft Gore' campaign going? Wishful thinking aside, he's not going to be in the Oval Office chair any time soon.

Now head of the EPA - we can talk.

Posted by Greg | November 2, 2007 10:06 AM
29

She is the prototypical American woman, a woman who wants to be seen as an equal in the workplace, but also wants to play the Woman As Victim Of A Man's Society, as a means of getting men to capitulate or do the heavy lifting. And then they whine, point fingers and attack you when you call them on it.

Feminism, and the credibility of female leaders, is undermined by such hypocrisy, and she and women in general should really cut it the fuck out. Either stop making excuses and get to work, or get back in the kitchen and make our fucking dinner.

Posted by Gomez | November 2, 2007 10:21 AM
30

Dammit, COMTE beat me to it.

"It takes six of you to equal one of me" is not "I'm a girl! Waaa!". I believe she is arguing the former.

So I taped the debate but haven't had a chance to see it yet. Does anyone have a link w/ Hillary's actual answer on the driver's license question, rather than a Republican PR video? I want to see if she gave a nuanced, "you're not going to trick me into giving the Rs a sound bite" (which I like) or if she was just evasive.

Posted by Big Sven | November 2, 2007 10:23 AM
31
Posted by chicagogaydude | November 2, 2007 11:09 AM
32

@25 ...

I thought I was referencing it more like a question ... I BELIEVE there was only senator who then became president. I also was not aware that Andrew Jackson was a senator before he was president, I only thought it was afterwards. I also don't think he was a senator immediately before he went into national office.

Andrew Jackson was a quite a character for a lot reasons. I would say I liked except for the whole cherokee thing ... that was ugly.

Still in the last 100 years, I don't think it is common to be a senator BEFORE you go into office ...

I would do more research on this, but I'm trying to get the FUCK out of here. Happy Friday everyone!!

Posted by OR Matt | November 2, 2007 11:19 AM
33

Russert and Williams asked Clinton factually-slanted "gotcha" questions all night, then invited the other candidates to pick through her answers for supposed character flaws ("Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton’s answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?"), which they were generally happy to do. That she came out of it as well as she did just cements in my mind that she is going to be the Democratic nominee -- stick a fork in it, it's done.

So if she points this out, she gets chided for "playing the victim"...and if she doesn't, she'd probably get blamed for that, too (e.g., she doesn't have the courage to respond to attacks on her character, or she's not willing to do what it takes to become President, or some other tortured script). That's the position Kerry was in with the Swift Boat attacks.

It saddens me that Obama and Edwards -- or the rival Democratic strategist quoted here -- don't seem the realize that all they're doing by playing along with this crap is laying the foundation for President Rudy in '08. (Kudos to Richardson, of all people, for being the only one to decline Russert's aggressive invitations to ridicule Clinton.) At a certain point they have to suck it up, decide whether they want a Democrat in the White House or not, and put on a united front -- instead of putting ammunition into the eager hands of the corrupt pundit/journalist class.

The frameworks are being established now with which the media will pound Hillary constantly for the next twelve months. Everything Hillary does (or doesn't do), says (or doesn't say), proposes, wears, etc. will be interpreted (spun) to fit the scripts being established now. The Republicans have figured this out -- you don't see them attacking each other this way.

Posted by David | November 2, 2007 11:28 AM
34

You Hillary fans should be happy that she's being asked non-softball questions now -- it's good practice for the general election as well as the job of president.

HRC's main problem against Rudy is that her lack of management experience and accomplishments of any kind will really show. She couldn't even keep Bill's pants zipped, something that the vast majority of wives manage to do.

Posted by anybody but hrc | November 2, 2007 12:16 PM
35

abh-

"She couldn't even keep Bill's pants zipped, something that the vast majority of wives manage to do."

Sure, if 50% = "the vast majority":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extramarital_sex

"anybody?" Tancredo?

Posted by Big Sven | November 2, 2007 12:25 PM
36

chicagogaydude, thanks for the script link.

To be fair, I think HRC's answer was somewhat evasive in the sense that in this (as with the fixing SS thing at the last debate) she was (and is) focused on the general election, and trying to *not* give the Republicants sound bite ammo. Dems (except Dodd) love giving undocumented workers drivers' licenses; indepedent voters, perhaps not so much.

I can see why Obama supporters and Edwards supporters want her to focus on the nomination; but I personally am glad she's focusing on the general election.

Her position on the larger issue is clear: we need to pass immigration reform to make this particular question a non-issue.

Posted by Big Sven | November 2, 2007 1:29 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).