Huckabee? Fuck me, might as well write a column about how he'll be a good leader.
This is hardly a new process. I gave up on newspapers in general ages ago.
I get all of my news from Unfogged.
The media is obsessed with sex.
It's impossible for me to read his name and not mistake it for mine. Kristol's a dick, Kristol's lying to you, Kristol got a job with the New York Times—it's g-d stressful!
Huckabee? Fuck me
Cala, are your glasses on or off?
And are you wearing your retainer?
As Atrios points out all the time, most Op-Ed pages still rely on the Voice of God presentation. Kristol's almost-frankly postmodernly dishonest work undermines that pretty strongly. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is a bad money driving out good situation. Kristol's presence will devalue both the Voice of God and Krugman - not by mere association, but by forcing readers to be so skeptical that they're no longer reading at all - just parsing.
At some point, for society to work, somebody has to be able to say "X" and have people think that she actually believes "X."
All of Kristol's housemates secretly hate him.
At the big party at Kristol's house last week, somebody dipped Kristol's toothbrush in the toilet.
Sorta off-topic and not at all fair, but I suspect this is going to kill Hillary Clinton's campaign.
I was wondering if I should post about that.
Mark Penn is thinking Home Run!
Show It's Personal
Show You're in Still in Control
Stick to the Talking Points
I think you're wrong about the Hillary moment being disastrous. The people who will find it ridiculous already hate her. For others, I think it will 1) endear her further; 2) show a "genuine" side; or 3) not matter.
I could be proven wrong, of course, but I think that's more likely than Muskie redux.
I think you're wrong about the Hillary moment being disastrous.
Well, I've certainly come up wrong on political predictions before.
10:Well, there have been stories leaking this weekend about the Clinton campaign hating Obama, and while I have listened to the usual arguments about why they would hate Obama, I also have listened the the Clinton (leaked, coded, "poseur") arguments. I read what Hillary said in that link, said between tears, and I did not totally blow Hillary off, tried to see her perspective, tried to see if she knew stuff I didn't.
b) Re:Huckabee. This will be a truly crazy year. I'm telling y'all, I ain't seen crazy in politics for decades, by my 1968 stds of crazy. I think we will reach it, not in terms of riots or assassinations, but expectations denied. President Huckabee would be a bit of a shock to the liberal system.
I hope and pray that Kristol will marry Maureen Dowd and save her from the loony bin and save us from her ravings. It drives her insane that the Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards married brilliant women when Dowd had convinced herself that smart men only want bimbos. I understand. I once thought I had to choose between intellect and love and sexuality, but I outgrew that before I was 21.
Somewhat on topic, I cannot hear the name Huckabee without thinking about Redstateupdate's video.
"When we look at the array of problems that we have, and the potential for it really spinning out of control -- this is one of the most important elections America's ever faced," she concluded.
In the threads at Calculated Risk, they are talking about massive public works programs (Keynesian stimulus) in 2009-10, projects of the scale of the 30s water projects or 50s Highway System.
But where would we get the money? FDR & Ike had a 70% or higher marginal rate to work with.
I have often speculated that Republicans wanted to revisit the 30s, this time with the Solid South on their side. The timing of this economic event is getting interesting.
People who don't think we can lose the New Deal are just wrong. If Obama, a black Democrat, is the one to kill it, you can just watch liberalism disappear in this country. Maybe better an impotent Republican. Maybe not.
Greg Sargent at TPM says that this "key line" of the column is factually false -- Bill apparently confused his "MM" wingnuts.
Haven't seen the video but am I a terrible person for the thought crossing my mind that Hillary crying might be a calculated, planned move to take on her critics that call her robotic and cold and endear herself to female voters?
I thought Huckabee's career was over after he was made a hissing and a byword for trying to injure Derek Jeter.
23: The vid makes it look like she's really, really tired, and she doesn't openly weep, but her voice cracks a bit. I just take issue with the "Some of us are right, and some of us are wrong" bit, which is not a strong position to take. It's an admission of defeat.
23: Oh, Becks. Together you and I could be the new cast of Fox and Friends!
23: No, because she's smart and knows that one of the big stereotypes she has to face as a woman is that she's too soft to lead. My first thought was this had to be the planned result of some calculus that said 'being thought human and a little weak is better than being thought a robot.'
It occurred to me too, so I guess I am also terrible. I don't think it will hurt her, really.
As long as we're talking calculation, I'm thinking that what Kristol is up to is trying to sow further confusion in the Republican field on behalf of Rudy G. Some of Rudy's flacks are out there saying that what's going to happen between now and Florida is that Romney, McCain and Huckabee are going to trade off results, with no clear winner, then Rudy G. will crush them like girly-men in Florida and our Maximum Leader will have arrived. So if Kristol is spinning that spin, then he most assuredly doesn't want to spin the other spin, which is that McCain actually won Iowa by coming in fourth since there's no chance Huckabee will get the nod.
Yes Becks you are a terrible person:) I just saw the video. If Hillary had been willing to show that side of her all along, she would still be the front runner.
As a wise elder of 62, I promise that crying can sometimes be the best way of staying in control and staying sane. And she wasn't crying.
When will America grow up? I am beginning to worry that we will never elect a woman president, because any woman candidate will be perceived as either a bitch or a crybaby. If she is really talented, she can be both simultaneously.
...because any woman candidate will be perceived as either a bitch or a crybaby
Just play the woman some respect and listen to her. Please?
Some newspaper should print Kant's "On the Supposed Right to Lie For Humanitarian Reasons" on the op-ed page -- then everyone would be anxiously wondering, "What's Kant's angle here?"
Some of Rudy's flacks are out there saying that what's going to happen between now and Florida is that Romney, McCain and Huckabee are going to trade off results, with no clear winner, then Rudy G. will crush them like girly-men in Florida
I'm actually on the record as thinking that this is a very sound strategy in a compressed schedule - except when your candidate is a fucking nutjob who has no business visiting DC as a tourist, much less residing in the WH. Rudy's campaign was shattered when the dog-walking story came out, and rightly so. A candidate in Rudy's shoes, but not crazy and corrupt, could totally have pulled out this strategy (bearing in mind that such a candidate could have pulled out 3 or 4 in Iowa w/o campaigning - Rudy was polling 10-15% there prior to the scandal). As it is, I'm glad Rudy is toast, and none of the other 3 scare me - as with Rudy, all are such damaged goods, and running uphill. The Rs need an Obama to win this year, and instead they've got a bunch of second tier candidates, ca. 1996.
then Rudy G. will crush them like girly-men in Florida
Except that Giuliani is dropping in Florida, while Huckabee is surging there.
I still cherish Rudy's comment whether he was worried about the Iowa results:
"None of this worries me - Sept. 11, there were times I was worried,
I'm not saying the Rudy guys are sane or anything. They wouldn't be supporting Rudy if they were. But that's the spin they're spinning at the moment.
Just play the woman some respect and listen to her. Please?
No. Not this woman.
Last poll in FLA was a month ago:
http://www.pollster.com/08-FL-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
35: He should just get 9/11 tattooed on his forhead and be done with it.
Off-topic, but does the news story about U.S. ships claiming to be "harassed" by Iranian ships in the Strait of Hormuz frighten anyone else? Is it crazy of me to suspect the U.S. government of provoking something like this to influence election results?
I don't think it will hurt her, really.
See, over here this would be the moment she effectively became Prime Minister elect. What species are you people again?
Josh Marshall agrees with you, Kraab.
39. Yes and yes. Welcome to 2008. Like 2007 only more so.
Flippanter, I assume "this woman" refers to Hillary and not to me. I have never been big on respect anyway. For years I had a question authority bumper sticker on my car to corrupt the hundreds of schoolkids passing my house. Sadly, my teenage daughter banished it, obviously taking my admonition to heart.
What is the female equivalent of "girly men"--ballsy women?
42: Shurely you mean "Yes and no," right?
One Fat Englishman, my English husband asks me this everyday. For pragmatic reasons, he became an American citizen this year. When people asked him if he had mixed feelings, he always told them "no." I would never have taken the oath he had to swear to.
43: Hillary.
As for respect, it, like loyalty, generally isn't demanded by people who deserve it, and people who demand it don't generally deserve it.
44. Yesh.
45. I'm not sure I even want to know what that oath was. I tend to meet my American friends on neutral ground these days.
Don't worry, Flippanter. Even though I am an old-fashioned feminist who by definition can't take a joke, I knew you meant Hillary. I agree with you about respect. Somehow I managed to raise 4 daughters without using "respect" or "appropriate." I reaped the whirlwind I sowed:)
My 4 daughters (34, 32, 29, 25) are scattered--NY, Boston, Chicago--and too busy to email much. Hanging out with you guys is the next best thing.
Fortunately, he took the oath of citizenship the same day our first grandson was born, so we totally forgot the traumatic experience. I believe their confiscating our cell phones for almost three hours brought on my daughter's labor.
Fortunately, he took the oath of citizenship the same day our first grandson was born, so we totally forgot the traumatic experience. I believe their confiscating our cell phones for almost three hours brought on my daughter's labor.
By the way, dig these crazy general election head-to-head numbers from Iowa. Obama beats Giuliani by 40 points!?
Haven't seen the video but am I a terrible person for the thought crossing my mind that Hillary crying might be a calculated, planned move to take on her critics that call her robotic and cold and endear herself to female voters?
I assume others have made this point already--I've not completed the thread--but you're a terrible person (or at least a deeply misguided one) if it doesn't cross your mind and linger for a bit.
I'm sure they polled it, and it's not going to kill her. Who knows? Maybe it'll work.
Who knows? Maybe it'll work.
Of course it won't work. There's nothing the Clinton campaign could've done in a handful of days to turn around Obama's momentum between Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama will win New Hampshire and take that momentum into South Carolina. And once he's won Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, he'll sweep the Super Tuesday states, and that'll be the end of it. Which is to say, it was all over after Iowa, same as last time.
The odds that this wasn't planned, or at least vetted, are probably around 10%. No way she does this spontaneously. I don't think it hurts her, but it doesn't much help, either. The only question now, I think, is whether her lead will evaporate in the big states after Obama takes NH and SC. She still has a lot of money and Obama might make a stupid mistake, so you never know.
Ah, hell. Fox has put together a "Showdown in the Straight" graphic to talk about Iran. Bad times.
I am really fucking sick of having to rely on the Iranian government to be the sane ones.
No way she does this spontaneously.
Seriously? You guys are a tough crowd. You know she has to be flat-out exhausted, and it's the sort of thing that can happen when you're so tired you can't see straight.
56: Did Fox spell "strait" that way? That'd be an Yglesian-level typo.
Speaking of political breakdown's, TPM has a clip of humorless Mitt's Very Bad, No Good Weekend. I had to stop before it was over because it was so painful. The guy is like a sitcom character of the humorless boss - not the one in The Office who tries to be funny but isn't, but the one who really doesn't think that humor - or wit, for that matter - has any place in the workplace.
I am really fucking sick of having to rely on the Iranian government to be the sane ones.
Holy fucking shit, is that well-put.
59: Err, actually that's my bad. At least, I think. Having FNC on is sapping my already-limited brain power.
I am really fucking sick of having to rely on the Iranian government to be the sane ones.
No shit.
whoa, didn't expect that. hi mom. I didn't realize you even read this site.
If it ends the campaign it's a sign of how fucking stupid and dysfunctional and sexist this country & especially its press are. Certainly made me more sympathetic. I do not believe it was calculated; if she was that good at "emotion on cue" she'd be in much better shape right now. And while we're all cynical & the thought crosses our minds, I'd at least look at the video before I made the judgment.
I do not & never had had any intention of voting for her. I can't forgive her for the Iraq vote & her position on it during the campaign. I don't trust her on human rights, civil liberties, or foreign policy. I don't trust the Democratic establishment's way of doing things & feel not only let down but betrayed by them over the past 6 years or so, & she's running as the establishment candidate, & I'm glad she's losing & am thrilled with Obama's success.
But you know, I also disliked & distrusted Al Gore enough in 2000 to support Bradley in the primaries & vote for Nader in the general election. In massachusetts. And in 2004 I still didn't want him to run. And these last few years in particular have made me feel like an idiot over that one.
You can say, "ok, we were wrong about Gore but we're right about Clinton"--maybe. But they get comparable levels of crap from the press, with an added frisson of sexism in her case that is really charming.
But even more than it's the sexist or biased against progressives it's the same bullshit as with Gore, and with Dean after his Iowa lost: they just loooovvve a winner, and hate a loser, and their role is to tell the voters who is who. It's horrible to watch: like watching a sports event where not only are they rooting as hard as they can for the Patriots or the Yankees or (insert your favorite evil-empire-dominant sports team here)--but they're actually DETERMINING THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME by doing so.
I think the "of course it was fake, she's a calculating robot" stuff is also, in a way, extremely naive & unrealistic, & totally ignores the effect a candidate's political situation has on their behavior.
MJK is Katherine's mom? And I was just about to ban her.
Obama might make a stupid mistake, so you never know.
You mean like if he announces he wants to be known as Barack X because Obama is his slave name?
You mean like if he announces he wants to be known as Barack X because Obama is his slave name?
That would be brilliant - totally steal the Black Power vote out from under HRC.
OK, folks, can't talk about Katherine's little secret any more.
Ask The Mineshaft:
So I've been hanging out at this virtual community, and it's really great. But then my mom showed up, and now everyone is being all polite, and it's a total drag. Any advice?
I looked up the citizenship oath on wikipedia and it seems pretty unobjectionable to me. I would have liked the relationship between "bearing arms on behalf of" and "perform noncombatant service" clarified, because I think conscientious objectors are A-OK.
I'm much more uncomfortable with the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, because pledging to a symbol like the flag seems much more likely to lead to a confused and dangerous blood, soil, volk idea of patriotism. I'd much rather people pledge to political principles (as embodied in the Constitution, say) that they can give reasons for affirming or disclaiming.
Then again, the point of these pledges is to instill unity, and I'm just a deracinated liberal at heart.
I really don't see it being the end of her campaign and I really don't see it being practiced. Katherine gets it exactly right; if she could do sincere it's-hard-but-it's-worth-it on demand she wouldn't be able to be painted as an evil android. It doesn't make me want to vote for her but it does make me sympathize with her.
Also, wow, Katherine can drop the F-bomb in front of her mom. Seriously, that highlights the weirdness of my own family's strained constraint in ways that unpleasantly tingle. Every time I email my father I read it three times to check for cusses.
The guy is like a sitcom character of the humorless boss - not the one in The Office who tries to be funny but isn't, but the one who really doesn't think that humor - or wit, for that matter - has any place in the workplace.
Being funny is for the powerless.
71: "Unity" is just another word for nationalism. Thumbs down to the pledge.
72: Your dad is sensitive to cursing and yet you don't automatically avoid it when talking to him? Odd.
She is, as I recall, a total psycho, but credit where credit is due. The Anchoress on Jan 2:
What I dread most in this political season is the "genuine" moment - and it is coming, soon, sometime between today and tomorrow, or tomorrow and New Hampshire - when Mrs. Clinton, in her ongoing effort to turn herself into whatever the polls says she must be, cries in public. It's going to be genuinely ghastly.Via [I'm too ashamed to admit--OK, Doughy].
And, hey, Apo and Katherine could be right: maybe it was real. Maybe the issue wasn't ever polled, even. And I really don't think it's going to hurt her much. And it really may help. She's always most popular when she's been done wrong, and this is going to offer a fair number of people an opportunity to do wrong.
69: I don't think this is a problem. Between apo's sex jokes & getting into acrimonious debates about gender she may actually fit in here better than I do.
||
Have received squishy pigs from Hong Kong. Are fun. Fear bursting is imminent.
|>
75: You really are a robot, aren't you?
71: Fuck the pledge and the oath. "Unity" doesn't mean shit if it's circumscribed by borders, defined by a flag and directed by politicians.
/state-smashing
Thank you Katherine; that is a great relief. And now you don't have to be subjected to my acrimonious harranges about gender.
From Yglesias. Clinton today:
"I don't think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister," she said. "They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do.... Let's not forget you're hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down."
Clinton is right to point out that she would be severely hamstrung in negotiatings with misogynist regimes. How selfless of her.
The f word has been dropped in our house so many times I expect it to be my grandson's first word. I used to be a proper Catholic schoolgirl with an immaculate mouth, but Katherine's older sister completed my education when she started nursery school at age 3. The only reason I haven't used it is I wasn't sure if it was acceptable here.
79: No...
My family was the same way, and before I started intentionally disregarding my learned aversion to cursing around my father, it didn't really take any thought not to do so, so I was wondering what was different in your case.
Who cares if Hilary tears up, whether it was calculated or not? Managing presentation of emotion is a big part of campaigning -- I have no doubt that the emotion is genuine and the decision about the manner in which to show it was calculated beforehand. The two are not contradictory.
She hit on what I think is one of the best reasons to vote for her: she has a deep level of experience and really has been planning this out for years. I don't doubt she will be effective within the system from day one. Obama truly is untested compared to her. Experience does make a difference.
After a week of heated phone calls and emails, Katherine has almost convinced me to vote for Obama, and I am conscientiously reading his first book and plan to read the second right after. I have read Unfogged for a long time, but thought I was too old to be allowed to post. I will be good, Ogged, if you promise to avoid "shrill," which immediately transforms woman elders into hysterical bitches without their conscious volition.
All my life, I have hated women crying in public and tend to view it as manipulative, but I still think Hillary seems sincere in that clip. Girls with five brothers learn not to cry in public. It's easier to get angry as long as you don't raise your voice.
//
OT: Does anyone know anything about sources for old-ish documentation and/or software. A kind unfogged commenter has offered me an ibook G4 for free. It does need a minor repair, so it's not totally free to me, but it's still less than what it would go for on the open market. I'm not sure what he has of the original documentation. I need to make sure that I have the OS and one of those nifty Restore disks, just in case something goes wrong. I think that the online manual is for the model that came out in 2005, and this is a mid-2004 model. The thing is operating 10.3, but if anyone wants to make a bootleg copy of Panther (I won't push it by going for Leopard), I'd be grateful. Normally, I'd pony up the money, since I respect IP and all, but I am poor.
//
I promise nothing, MJ, and you don't have to be good. Some people are shrill and no number of misogynists in the world will change that.
I think that was the only time I've heard her sound sincere in months.
88: fwiw, i've got one or two sets of the G4 ibook disks. We're still using a couple of them, slow but serviceable laptops. Probably no paper documentation left. I can send you something, disk-wise. I doubt I have any manuals, but you don't need much that way, it's all loaded as .pdf.
she has a deep level of experience
Which is? Her team--b/c it's Bill's old team--has a deep level of experience. And that may well matter. (Though that really was part of the argument I remember for GWB--old hands, like Cheney, on deck.) But the attribution to her, specifically, never makes sense to me.
79: It's not just you who are confused on this point, but as I have long argued, pdf23ds is not a robot. What the ellipse in 85 leaves out is that he is a brain in a vat.
soup--I may take you up on that. Can you send me an e-mail of some sort so that I can get in touch with you if I need to.
I'm a Hillary-hater, but this hoopla seems totally bogus to me, regardless of where it comes from. Unfortunatley, most Clinton-haters hate for exactly the wrong reasons (and yes, once they started trying to impeach Bill I supported the lying piece of shit 100%.)
BG, an iBook G4? E-mail me. I think I have all the disks and support materials around here somewhere.
85: For me it's a difference of context, is all. I'm not accustomed to having to watch what I say via email so of course he got internet access and started emailing me.
Ooh, I think mine is running Panther already. If that's a problem.
Yikes. I hope you were teasing me. If you are all going to be polite because I am here, I will get bored very past:) I changed my name so you can forget it's me.
92: Let me put it this way: who do you think knows more about how the Executive Branch is run, HRC or Obama?
Comparison: my wife was, for 8 years, a bureaucrat with a specific set of skills related to, but different from, my own. I guarantee you that, on Day One, I knew more about how to do that job than her replacement (with a Master's degree in the relevant field) did. If you are engaged with your spouse's job - as no one would deny HRC was - you learn a hell of a lot about it over time.
It's not as if President is some technical job that you need a PhD for; it's running a whole bunch of moving parts, and the smoother the better. HRC knows every single one of those parts at least somewhat better than Obama does. Many of them she knows in great, specific detail. If you seriously think that Obama's first week will be more productive than HRC's, then you're delusional. Six months in, probably little or no difference, but the learning curve before Obama gets to where HRC is right now is steep and high.
OT, but I saw a sign today for my state's primary election on February 5, and I thought, "WTF? I thought we voted in, like, May or something!" Apparently we were one of the states jockeying for position in the primary calendar, and I had no idea. (BG and Sifu were probably scratching their heads about a comment I made recently that inadvertently betrayed my ignorance of the new primary date.) And I like to think I'm what they call a "high information voter". That's the trouble with never watching local television and not subscribing to a local paper, I guess.
97 makes sense to me. When my mom was alive, I never had to think about not swearing around her, but the context was pretty clear - out with friends/at school vs. out with family/at home.
It's weird now cursing around my dad, and him cursing too. Still less than with at least some friends, but weird.
I had no idea Germany's primary was so soon.
HRC is very, very set in her ways. One of her people accused Obama of "sounding like 1988" a day or two ago, but what that tells me is that Clinton is stuck in 1988 (the rise of the New Democrats) and doesn't think that anything new has come up since then.
Experience combined with inflexibility is a very common bad combination.
Worse than inexperience combined with inflexibility?
If you are engaged with your spouse's job - as no one would deny HRC was - you learn a hell of a lot about it over time.
So when in need of emergency surgery, you head for a spouse? Color me unconvinced.
HRC knows every single one of those parts at least somewhat better than Obama does. Many of them she knows in great, specific detail.
Then she'll have no problem winning the primary. Part of being President is the ability to manufacture the clarifying fear that you'll be President next term, too.
If you are all going to be polite because I am here
Believe me, it won't last.
I have always wondered why women who have political ambitions don't invest in a voice coach. Maybe an English accent?
I still do not cuss around my parents, nor they around me. I've heard my mother say exactly one "damn" in my life.
Here's a real laugh: my father and his nine siblings hid their drinking from their mother until she died, at the age of 105. Until three years ago, they used to sneak around family reunions with their beer carefully concealed in a plastic cup. Since grandma's death, we no longer have to hide the keg in the back of the pickup truck.
I think I was the opposite of a normal kid: cursed freely at home, rarely or never did at school--to the point where people thought I didn't curse. Either this was because I unconsciously wasn't, or because they thought of me as someone who wouldn't.
108: I've actually thought the same thing -- if I had a practice that included a significant amount of trial work, I'd think about it for myself.
Your parents must feel left out if you are excessively polite around them. My kids did refrain from cursing in front of their grandparents most of the time. But I don't expect my grandchildren will respect my tender sensibilities.
108: This Malcom Gladwell article mentions that he tried to interest Bill Clinton in being coached about some tick or another and his campaign refused because if it were found out and reported on the publicity would be aweful.
I have always wondered why women who have political ambitions don't invest in a voice coach. Maybe an English a redneck accent?
Fixed that for you.
111: I had much the same experience: my parents let my brother and me curse all we wanted, with the result that we basically never did. I remember some of my friends being startled by me swearing as late as the end of high school.
Now, of course... fuck, I don't even notice.
If you are engaged with your spouse's job
Hilary wasn't just engaged. She is probably best understood as her husband's most important aide and advisor. If you read any good biography of the Clintons you see that she has played that role ever since his second election as governor of Arkansas. Hilary would probably be one of the most experienced first-term presidents ever. People who discount her first lady experience just aren't paying attention.
HRC knows every single one of those parts at least somewhat better than Obama does. Many of them she knows in great, specific detail.
I think this is absolutely correct. Hilary will get off to a much faster, more productive, and probably less error-prone start than Obama. Not only that, we know a great deal about how disciplined and focused Hilary is (extremely) and not so much about Obama. She's much more battle tested and proven than he is.
But exactly by dint of her experience, I think she is a little more tied to the way Washington has worked recently...not that she's in *favor* of it, but that she might have some tendency to accept it more than others would.
Overall, if elected I think she'd be a less risky choice than the others, but have a lower ceiling as President. One can add to that the question of electability.
117 was me, sorry.
My impression on her experience was: she was really deeply engaged in domestic policy wonkery & is very like the best candidate as far as her grasp of all those details. Also knows what it's like to be president--all the pressures you're subjected to & hostility you'll face--better than anyone else. Also knows Congress & how to legislate better than Obama. On foreign policy, though, I would tend to assume she wasn't as involved, & I see both of them as very well-informed and engaged but not actually very experienced. And of course I trust Obama far more.
I agree completely with 117 (not just the parts that back me up).
Tim's 106 is pretty damn unresponsive, bringing up surgery when I specifically noted that the Presidency is NOT a position requiring technical knowledge - do you want to claim that it is, Tim? And I don't even know what 106.2 is supposed to mean.
At the moment, HRC's method in NH seems to be overwhelming her audiences with her detailed and specific knowledge of the working of gov't. Ezra Klein said her discussion of NCLB is the best he's ever heard, and he's a wonk's wonk. It's not likely to win over voters, but that's not exactly to the voters' credit - they prefer soaring rhetoric to numbing detail. I'm not saying they're wrong - rhetoric is valuable for a President - but it's not so dissimilar from the thinking that got Bush within stealing distance of Gore in 2000.
If you want to say that Richardson has better/more experience than HRC, I'd accept that. But to pretend that there's no meaningful difference between her experience and Obama's (or Edwards') is, to me, dishonest bordering on sexist (I swear I can hear the "what was her experience, picking out china patterns?" in the background).
Also agree with 119, although I would imagine she gained some valuable insight about negotiating with other heads of state. I don't know how good she would be, personally, at it (it's a specific skill); I just think that picking Bill's brain after Camp David in 2000 would be unimaginably interesting and informative.
Knecht, I didn't realize that you didn't know the date of the primary. I thought that you were saying that the whole thing would be over by the time Nevada and South Carolina had voted.
80
Fair enough, but then why apply to be a citizen of a particular country?
If you're going to have an oath component of citizenship, the current one seems less jingoistic and self-congratulatory than I feared. This is probably only because Congress hasn't noticed it yet.
/false consciousness
Much as I hate to admit it, I am sadly concluding Hillary is too polarizing a candidate to be able to make the major changes that have to be made, even if she is committed to them and hiding her convictions to be electable. I wish Obama could figure out how to use her prodigious talent and hard work.
The best thing about Bill Clinton is that he seemed to respect and utilize Hillary as his intellectual equal and advisor. Obviously, she sacrificed less as first lady than Michelle Obama probably will.
England doesn't recognize any renunciation of citizenship short of declaring war on her. So my husband is both an American citizen and an English citizen. Given the current climate about immigration, I was vastly relieved when he became a citizen and our 6 years in their clutches were over.
People who discount her first lady experience just aren't paying attention.
What about those who don't discount it, but don't see it as a strong positive. With the state of things today, we really should be able to do much, much better than a return to the Clinton years.
JFK floundered badly when he became president, especially in foreign policy. I worry that Obama will do the same and Hillary would not. I need to know much more about Obama's foreign policy advisors and his relationship with them. The advantage of the candidate's being decided so early is that the winner should have his/her choice of the best advisors.
I wish it would work with Hillary as Obama's VP, but I am sure it wouldn't. She might have the humililty, but he won't.
I think 126 is the argument against Hilary. I do think her template for how to manage and govern comes at some level from the Clinton years, with the cautious approach that came from being beseiged by a surging conservative Republican movement. Times are changing and I don't quite trust her to keep up, either from her inner convictions (especially on foreign policy and military related issues) or from pragmatic adjustment. She has a certain rigidity to her for such an intelligent person.
She might have the humililty, but he won't.
No way Hilary has the humility to serve as anybody's vice president, let alone Obamas. She's been waiting for the top job her whole life.
128: By contrast I don't worry about Hillary floundering on foreign policy, I worry about her implementing her ideas on it. She's failed to distance herself from the monumentally stupid foreign policy course currently being pursued, and that's a real worry.
Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country. ...George Will, via MY
Fucking George Will. I am told that because Will is the most widely syndicated columnist in America, Will's endorsement of Obama is important & valuable.
I have fallen down the rabbit hole.
Hilary would probably be one of the most experienced first-term presidents ever.
You're skipping over a lot presidents there, including several who had tons of experience before serving as VP.
foreign policy, I worry about her implementing her ideas on it
Hillary Clinton would likely mean Holbrooke as Secretary of State, which should worry anybody.
I guess we can all agree on the "fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country?" meme?
Well, Katherine has given up on investigations antway.
I think Obama and Edwards need to make speeches condemning sexist attacks against Clinton. Read Echidne's latest post. As she says,
"So it's not about Hillary Clinton at all. It's about whether women are suited for public offices, being so very hysterical."
Hillary has been attacked as a unemotional robot for years. At the first sign of vulnerability and humanity, she is characterized as unsuited to be president. This all makes me sick. My mother should smite me if I don't support Hillary.
recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics.
Well, there is the Patriot Act and the current hard push on the FISA Bill, but I bet Will is talking about me. Ideas of reference, ya know
[Obama]is the un-Edwards
Liar! Liar! George Will, why are you lying so nice about Obama?
Hillary has been attacked as a unemotional robot for years. At the first sign of vulnerability and humanity, she is characterized as unsuited to be president. This all makes me sick. My mother should smite me if I don't support Hillary.
MJ, leaving entirely aside whether this portrayal of Clinton is accurate or fair, doesn't supporting her solely for feminist reasons just play according to the same gender-driven considerations?
fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country
Man, that pissed me off, too.
OK, having watched the video (and this won't make me popular)...totally scripted. I thought she was crying more than that. It was just some mild voice cracks. Completely pre-planned to make her look more human and more likeable to women and stuff. Especially since it supposedly happened in response to some kind of a "who does your hair?"-type question. She was looking for a way to slip that in.
Completely calculated.
141 - Bill Clinton did that voice crack shit not infrequently. It's not a gender thing -- it's that that's how they play the game. She just can't pull off the lip bite and thumb pointing.
Nice try, Becks! How does it feel to hate women so much?
Mr Adjunct just emailed me (we never actually see other in real life, we just conduct our marriage via email) to ask if I had seen the video of Hillary tearing up. He writes that he is "impressed", that it makes him think better of her. Note that he doesn't interpret it as Hillary crying or breaking down or getting hysterical, but as Hillary briefly tearing up while momentarily overcome with sincere emotion. I bet a lot of people will read it that way...or they would read it that way, if the media weren't busily spinning it as Hillary breaking down in public because women are like that (they just can't handle the pressure, poor dears).
See, I also read the "some people are prepared for day one and some aren't, some are right and some are wrong" stuff combined with the voice crack as a dog-whistle to women voters of "I have to work twice as hard and be twice as good as the men and what? They get people fawning all over them and I don't?" Trying to tap into all of the Tracy Flicks out there who were upset and getting beaten by the handsome popular jocks.
Mr Adjunct is a very nice person but -- for that very reason -- not a good proxy for the American electorate. Send him back to Canada where he belongs.
do you want to claim that it is, Tim?
Riddle me this, Batman: is knowing how to put together a team that can win elections a technical skill? To my mind--and, dollars to donuts says, to BJC's mind (who used to quote, I think LBJ on the same)--it's the most important skill a President (or any politician) can have. It's the coin of the realm. And if, as the putative front-runner, with all manner of institutional benefits, she can't win, then she lacks the relevant skill. She might make an excellent Chief of Staff, though.
And if she wins, good for her. She showed the relevant skill. My expectation is that she still gets the nomination.
(Note also that once upon a time--until apparently two minutes ago--no one doubted that the first two years of the BJC Administration were failures of inexperience, or that the next six were about the retrenchment of the Administration to fight defensively and to seek small victories. If PGD is right that her first six months would be more successful, it's as likely as not because she won't try anything. Or is there some secret annex of years of legislative success with regard to the BJC Admin. that I missed?)
I think Obama and Edwards need to make speeches condemning sexist attacks against Clinton.
Seriously fuck that. From Yglesias:
Lurking near the end of Tom Edsall's excellent piece on the Clinton campaign's efforts to retool we get this WTF moment: "In private, some of Clinton's supporters are deeply disdainful of Obama. 'He is the candidate of the "identity left",' said one, dismissively."Even I know what that means: Lee Atwater may be dead, but his soul's alive and well, and living in some sanctum sanctorum on some DLC-ite's desk. I'm (unbelievably to me) half-fine with that sort of shot: the point of the game, after all, is to win. I'm totally fine with her crying on cue. Again: win. But I'm fresh out of sympathy for her.
146: He's not even Canadian! (Okay, his mother's Canadian...).
148: It's ok, come the 2008 GOP surprise reversal, all the nice ones are being sent to Canada, regardless....
Okay, I went and watched the video. You people are all pretty cynical. I'm going to assume that she really is that tired, that for whatever reason the audience, the woman asking the question, something, really got to her, and that the moment was real. I mean, jesus, it's not like she's unaware that her every fucking move is under a pretty hostile microscope (and has been for a long, long time), or of the intensely personal nature of the criticism she gets. As tired as she (and the other candidates are), it seems quite reasonable that a sympathetic audience/question might just really tap into that.
It's been fun, but I have decided Unfogged is my daughers's playground, not mine.
147:Even I know what that [identity left] means: Lee Atwater may be dead, but his soul's alive and well
Wrong and race-mongering.
As someone who pretends to be of the actual Left, the "identity left" has a pretty clear meaning to me. Latte liberals, kids who want gay rights and no SS and wouldn't know a picketline if it trampled them.
People like Yglesias and Drum and Tim Burke who say they are liberals because they say so.
This is the old argument of that unmentionable decade we can't learn anything from again. Draftable college kids who thought the Left was about protesting the war and after 68 became ad executives. Identified as Left with no further parameters.
151: Let's all agree that this is Emerson's fault. Fucking Emerson.
As someone who pretends to be of the actual Left, the "identity left" has a pretty clear meaning to me.
Bullshit. Google "identity politics" in your spare time, mcmanus. This isn't a new type of attack. Fuck, google "identity politics" and "DLC," if you'd like. It's a foundational concern for them.
"Identity Left"
Hillary recognizes Obama's vast youthful throng. I recognize them.
Say "RFK" to Ezra Klein and he kinda melts in front of ya. And he is melting to Obama. Wonks have hearts too, ya know, they really really care, and Obama touches that deep need to be seen as really really caring.
Hillary recognizes Obama's vast youthful throng. I recognize them.
I got a honk and a thumbs up and an OBAMA!!! from a young scruffy hippie guy (in a nice car) today b/c of the bumper sticker Mr. B's put on our car.
151: NOOO! Please don't go! We need more people like you around here. Desperately.
Say "RFK" to Ezra Klein and he kinda melts in front of ya.
My recollection is that the Clintons used to make much of their similar reactions. 'Cause hope matters! What's your point? That HRC is now claiming to be the "real leftist"? Spare me.
151: If you go, could you encourage your daughter to post on more blow-job threads? Those civil rights will still be there when she gets back. I promise!*
*I don't actually promise.
Oy, that came off much creepier than I intended.
Too late, you already killed the thread, Aubergine.
It was the creepy that made it funny.
Eggplant, does this reflect the remarks you are going to make when one of my daughters runs for president? I just checked back once to see if anyone had insulted me. Bitch Ph.D. (one of my heroes), I am famous for changing my mind. I thought I should wait long enough for people to forget who I was and start writing under another name like Jane Austen, but Eggplant might have already changed my mind.
157: I thought you'd get along.
I don't get how the "identity left" thing refers to young white liberals w/ a romantic streak but I also don't think it's close to comparable to Lee Atwater's tactics.
OTOH, Edwards reaction to the Hillary video is pissing me off on two levels (1) it's sexist & ridiculous, (2) it's convincing other women in my family to vote for Hillary because, and I quote, "I like the fact that she doesn't have a penis." Which is, by the way, a perfectly legitimate factor in deciding to vote for Hillary. (Tell me, would anyone here like to argue to black voters how voting for Obama because he'd be the first black president is "just like" voting against him because he's black?) It just doesn't override the other ones.
I watched the video without sound and kept being like, "When does the part come when she cries?" Even the tearing up wasn't actually visible to me.
,i>I got a honk and a thumbs up and an OBAMA!!! from a young scruffy hippie guy (in a nice car) today b/c of the bumper sticker Mr. B's put on our car.
I knew B had some sort of reason for liking Obama. (She's insatiable, word has it. Scruffy hippies are easy.
Tell me, would anyone here like to argue to black voters how voting for Obama because he'd be the first black president is "just like" voting against him because he's black?
Difficult question. Honestly, I would like to argue that. "Just like" is a little strong, but obviously the point is that race and/or gender really shouldn't be the sole factor in choosing a president.
164:Whatever you might think "identity left" might refer to, I don't think it refers to blacks. For one thing, I had thought that blacks weren't a particular advantage so far for Obama. For another, blacks are too important to Clinton to attack in any subtle ways.
164b:Cogitamus has an post today on misogyny & Clinton, and in the comments
"ikl, the only comment by Edwards in the linked article came before the tears, and was on a separate issue. So he's not exploiting that.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 07, 2008 at 03:01 PM"
Katherine:are Neil & I wrong or confused, or are you talking about some other quote?
164:OTOH, Edwards reaction to the Hillary video is pissing me off on two levels (1) it's sexist & ridiculous,
I'm sorry, I need help on this. A comment number, a link, or a quote. I can't find it on my own.
this quote, assuming it's accurate.
Sorry--screwed up the html. Here's the source.
"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business," Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.
164, 167: It's a factor for me. All other things being equal (which they never are), Obama gets a plus because I think he'd be good for race relations in this country, and Hillary doesn't get a plus because I don't think she'd be good for feminism/gender relations. A lot of the reason I think that is because of entrenched Clinton-hatred expressing itself as misogyny.
167: no, it's not a difficult question at all. & we're not really talking SOLE factor, are we? It's not like we're discussing whether the nominate Condaleeza Rice. We're talking about "strong & ultimately decisive factor".
I am famous for changing my mind.
W00oo hook'em!
Bitch Ph.D. (one of my heroes),
You are too kind.
And yes, I'm really disappointed by Edwards' remark. All's fair in politics and war, blah blah, but boo.
Also, voting *for* a woman because she's the first woman is manifestly *not* the same as voting against her because she's the first woman. The reasons should be obvious. Same thing with voting for a black man, etc.
151: Even if it was just for the day, thanks for coming over and adding some passion. The last 4 days or so have been about the most depressing I have had in some time (and no I am not a Hilary supporter), but watching the batshit crazy Republican/Mainstream media Clinton narratives play out with assists from Liberal bloggers has been very discouraging. See a good analysis from Digby here. This thread on Holbo's hopeless proposal for Obama/Clinton is what pushed me over the edge. Sure it is not a good idea, but the righteous virtuosity and coded and oipen attacks on RC displayed in the comments just galled me.
OK, rant off. Go Dems. In the end the right-wing/media slime machine is our common enemy.
170:Okay, different & later from the one Neil is talking about.
And not at all good. Bad
171-172: Ugh. (bob: this one.) Yeah, the Lovecraft Edwards index just dropped another 8 points and the Lovecraft Obama index gained one.
Tell me, would anyone here like to argue to black voters how voting for Obama because he'd be the first black president is "just like" voting against him because he's black?
I don't agree with the formulation. It's never completely symmetric, and if you can see holding your nose on a politicians actual politics because you like their gender or race, I guess that's enough for you. But lets not pretend those two candidates are coming from equivalent places, because they aren't.
I'm not a huge fan of Obama either .... but if Obama was annointed by the Democtratic party elite, and if he was lousy foreign policy, etc.? Sure. Then it would be *exactly* the same issue. (which still doesn't make your above characteristic hold)
redstocking, I'm sorry for that remark: I was aiming for a joke and ended up waayyy over the line. Please don't leave this forum on my account. I'll slink away now.
I'm going offline in a bit and I leave you with a theory:
Part of the liberal hostility to Hillary Clinton is due to the fact that people feel like they're obligated to hedge their criticism of her or to support her because she's a woman, and this is particularly galling because she's both not very liberal, and a pretty bad campaigner. In fact, it may be the case that although there's a fair bit of misogyny in attacks on her, if she weren't a woman, she wouldn't even be in contention.
"As you said, Ezra:
Anyone who doesn't get worn out and a bit emotional after the grueling process these candidates are undergoing is inhuman.
In the same story, you linked to, Edwards quickly walked back his original line:
Later, at another campaign stop, Edwards appeared to adopt his wife's more sympathetic tone.
"These campaigns are very grueling," he said, "they're tough and difficult affairs, running for president is a tough process."
The grueling process make Edwards worn out and a bit emotional for a moment. Don't be classless about that, Ezra."
...Petey in Ezra's comments.
Gonna be a rough campaign. Edwards made a mistake.
94: BG, do you remember my old pseud here? Not so different from this one. Anyway, that works as a gmail address.
176: It's not at all obvious to me. If you're voting for a woman for no other reason than she's the first viable woman candidate, you're effectively voting against a man for no other reason than that he's a man. Are you a woman first, an American first, or a human first?
Part of the liberal hostility to Hillary Clinton is due to the fact that people feel like they're obligated to hedge their criticism of her or to support her because she's a woman,
Gosh, that must just be so difficult, folks having to watch what they say so they don't "accidentally" say some misogynist shit.
Okay, sarcasm aside, I'm sure this is a big part of why people are hostile to her. Let me point out, non-sarcastically, that feeling hostile towards feminists, feminism, or a particular woman, about having to "watch what you say" is itself misogynist. Since, you know, you're externalizing *your* problem and blaming the bitch for it--and you wouldn't *have* that problem if you hadn't, in fact, internalized misogyny *somewhere*.
k but I also don't think it's close to comparable to Lee Atwater's tactics.
Surprising. We'll have to wait and see whether they use more from that specific quiver.
"I like the fact that she doesn't have a penis." Which is, by the way, a perfectly legitimate factor in deciding to vote for Hillary.
I agree. I long thought it was the only legitimate reason to vote for her, but I'm coming around a bit.
Sure it is not a good idea, but the righteous virtuosity and coded and oipen attacks on RC
RC? Republican some conventional wisdom
185: I see. So it's reverse discrimination. I weep crocodile tears for all the poor, poor men who are being discriminated against.
Are you a woman first, an American first, or a human first?
You've got to be kidding.
Okay, that's the end of this thread.
I do find the pervasive misogyny that shows itself in so much of the discourse surrounding HRC really depressing. Oh well.
189: I don't know why I bother.
188: open attacks on HRC.
Meaning destroying typos'r'us.
189 etc.
There's a problem with all of this, in that it sort of assumes that you believe the candidates are otherwise roughly equivalent. That may get lost in some of the `first woman president' vs. `first black president' noise, I dunno.
If you are convinced Hillary is the wrong candidate for reasons totally unrelated to her sex, then even assuming you'd really, really like to see a woman in the white house it might not be enough to counteract everything else.
If Edwards "worn out & emotional" mistakes take the form of cheap shots calculated to play on *the* classic argument for why a woman can't be president (she can't be commander in chief, what if she gets PMS & gets all emotional during a crisis?)he deserves to catch hell about it from female voters. Every bit as much as Clinton deserves to catch hell from antiwar voters for her manifold sins, & every much as any candidate who made a comparably racist remark in comparable circumstances would deserve to catch hell from black voters.
You have to weigh these these things against one another. As I understand, history tells us that female heads of state are significantly less likely to puke on other heads of state than male heads of state are. Also, lady Presidents (on the average) handle the pretzels better than guy Presidents.
Agreed with 197, and even more to the point, even if his comment *wasn't* "calculated" to imply that a woman can't be president, it was still a comment that's rooted in sexism.
When it's used against men who cry, it's coding them as feminine, and therefore weak; when it's used against women who cry, it's coding them as feminine, and therefore weak. Same same. It just shows up a little more clearly b/c Clinton's a woman, and we, collectively, *are* more comfortable with women crying, so we're slightly more able to say, "well, wait, is demonstrating a little bit of emotion there *really* a disqualifying factor?" If she were a man, we might not even ask the question--since men crying in public really does disturb people on a pretty deep level in a way that seeing a woman cry doesn't.
198: I'm sold. Is Britney Spears running?
199 continued--all of which is that what I meant to say is, even if all Edwards *meant* is the conventional and traditional slam of "see, my opponent gets emotional, and that's not presidential!" and he would have said the exact same thing about a male opponent, it's still sexist.
any candidate who made a comparably racist remark in comparable circumstances would deserve to catch hell from black voters.
Unless they coded it right.
186: B., I think you're overstating.
Really, my own stance toward Clinton is that I really don't care one way or another that she's a woman. However, I take it that ogged's point is that some men, anyway, feel constrained to temper their criticisms of her lest they be construed as misogynist. This is not the same as being a closet misogynist.
Yet apparently ogged is describing a suppressed resentment toward Clinton because avenues of critique seem closed off.
Interesting. Clinton is kind of screwed then, for being a woman.
Actually they'd deserve to catch hell from white voters too. Just saying.
Clinton is kind of screwed then, for being a woman.
Yeah, that's my point.
I don't think that men have to temper their criticism of her. They just have to, you know, not talk about how "shrill" and "cackling" she is. Unless, of course, they're willing to sound awfully misogynist.
How does one compare the warmth projected by a male candidate v. a female candidate?
Don't worry, I am back. Today's reaction to Hillary's being human has resurrected every feminist passion I have ever felt since being told at age 7 that boys went up to receive their First Communion before the girls because "they can be priests and are closer to God." Shortly afterward, I was outraged because my brother 18 months younger could be an altar boy and I could not even though my Latin was ten times better than his.
I really don't care one way or another that she's a woman.
This comment made me realize something, which is that I truly do not believe that not caring about this is even possible.
I completely believe that people (Parsimon in this instance, but I'm not especially pointing at her, honest) *think* they don't care, that it doesn't matter to them, blah blah. But I simply cannot believe that, at this point in history, it is possible to be completely neutral about gender (if, indeed, it has ever been or ever will be possible). We *do* perceive gender, and it does affect how we react to people. And certainly being a woman matters *to her*; in that sense, actually, not caring about it is actually a deliberate refusal to take her at face value.
207:And all this feminist passion is going to benefit Obama instead of Clinton?
208: agreed, we can't be completely neutral about sex, or gender, or race. If Hillary wasn't a woman, I'm sure I'd like her even less as a candidate.
207: craziness. I hope you gave them all shit about it.
In fact, it may be the case that although there's a fair bit of misogyny in attacks on her, if she weren't a woman, she wouldn't even be in contention.
It's rare that I disagree with you at such a fundamental level (well, other than all of that sexblog nonsense, of course, but that scarcely counts because it's not something to be taken seriously), but I'd like to (politely, of course) register my vehement objection to this formulation.
Look, I'm not saying that America really is that mythical land of opportunity where the streets are paved with gold and any Joe (or Josephine) Six-Pack can run for President, if only he or she gets a good haircut and a wardrobe makeover. So, yeah, of course it's true that Hillary wouldn't even be in contention if she weren't already connected to this or that bit of elite political machinery. But the same must be said of just about every other (male) candidate, of course, with the possible exception of Huckabee.
And I'm sorry, but the idea that Hillary is a contender only because she's a woman is so absurd as to fly in the face of every empirical fact that we know about a country that is manifestly the most backward of the western nations when it comes to women and politics, and that, much to its shame, even trails behind many non-western "backward" countries on this issue too. You don't get points for being a female political candidate in America, is what I'm saying, and you have to earn a lot of extra points just because you're already starting from a deficit.
And anyway, what if it were true (which it isn't) that she were only a contender because she represented the 51 percent whose interests have never been properly represented by the 49 percent? To object to this would seem to commit to you a broader critique of representative politics in general, and are you willing to follow through on this, or is it just about Hillary?
Eggplant, don't you know when you are being teased? You just gave me an excuse. It's too fun to leave here.
208: I understand what you're saying in principle. I'm just sort of helpless here: I've made the decisions I've made about the presidential nominees based on their policy statements, experience, voting records and so on. Maybe it helps that I rarely see them televised.
I don't claim that I'm completely blind to or neutral about gender in general.
Dude, there's a reason I call the candidate in question "Clinton" rather than "Hillary."
if she weren't a woman, she wouldn't even be in contention.
Sure, because no one would have elected a homosexual man president in 1992.
I was asking my English husband if Margaret Thatcher was subjected to the Hillary treatment. He pointed out that Thatcher was selected by the conservative party as their leader, not by the general public. Her situation was somewhat comparable to Nancy Pelosi. The parliamentary system is looking very good to me right now.
Eggplant, don't you know when you are being teased? You just gave me an excuse. It's too fun to leave here.
Welcome to the Mineshaft.
Here is a quick reminder of what we are really up against in this race (as well as a glimpse of the nature of HRC's public life the past 15 years.) Saint John McCain at a Republican fundraiser in 1998:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."
Boy, I'm sure that caused a big public outcry, eh? Well, er no. Remember it's all the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations from the media for guys like McCain when it comes to acting like minimally decent human beings.
213: Dude, there's a reason I call the candidate in question "Clinton" rather than "Hillary."
There are two reasons I call the candidate "Hillary" instead of "Clinton" most of the time.
I've almost brought up thatcher a couple of times. She was very attractive as a younger woman.
But, forgetting that, she has a very commanding presence.
I'm not really down with the entirety of ogged's formulation, but I think this might help:
On comment threads (not just, or even necessarily, here), any criticism of HRC or Obama is more than likely going to get at least one accusation of misogyny/racism. It may be trollery, but it happens. People who don't want to get trolled that way therefore feel they have to constrain themselves artificially - not because what they say will be misogynist/racist, but because whatever they say will be called misogynist/racist.
Look at the discussion here about Obama's natural articulateness studied good talking. I was on the side of "don't use that word," but I don't deny that it's a drag to have to constantly constrain one's speech for even positive words that may have a sub-connotation (another example: who is the most famous "shrill" person in American political life? Paul Krugman. So "shrill" has its own meaning in the liberal blogosphere. But carelessly used in relation to a woman, it's poison).
I know, I know: the response to that is "suck it up or shut up." I'm not crying that I can't call HRC "shrill;" I'm saying that people who don't want to be called woman-haters for using an otherwise acceptable word/argument aren't necessarily displaying (or trying to hide) misogyny.
213: Oh, I don't mean to say that you're being dishonest; I'm quite willing to believe that people don't support her because of her positions, and that her sex isn't the deciding factor. After all, I plan to vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday. But I'm certainly not neutral about the fact that Clinton's a woman, and I don't think anyone else is, either.
220: Wait, have people non-jokingly made accusations of racism re. Obama here?
220: I maintain that no, *any* criticism of Clinton is not going to be accused of misogyny.
That said, there is a lot of language that is--whether or not we realize it--pretty gendered. After all, gender is an important--arguably, even primary--way we think about people. So it shouldn't be surprising that *many* criticisms of Clinton are going to contain (unconscious, unintended, etc.) misogyny, and that questions about gendered language are going to come up.
And again, the fact that "shrill" is a pejorative word (reclaimed in the liberal blogosphere, obvs) *is* partly about gender. So, well, yeah; the fact that, say, Krugman is "shrill" (which we mean as a compliment, in his case) doesn't mean that criticizing Clinton for being "shrill" (which we don't mean as a compliment) isn't a problem.
In my wild youth, men had it much harder than they do now. There were an endless supply of fervent, humorless feminists intent on teaching them about sexism. It should be as possible to criticize Clinton without being misogynistic as it is to criticize Obama without being racist.
It is easy to mock the earnest consciousness-raising of the Redstockings and other radical feminist groups. I belonged to four separate groups over a period of five years. But obviously we stopped raising consciousness far too soon and weren't as dedicated to nonsexist childrearing as we should have been.
and weren't as dedicated to nonsexist childrearing as we should have been.
This seems brutally hard to pull off, and I admire any attempt. Same goes for nonracist, come to think of it.
I was obsessed with nonsexist childrearing; I still have about six books on the subject. I conscientiously changed the gender of animals in picture books. I purchased every nonsexist picture book published. I refused to buy Barbie dolls. The first time my oldest daughter got any money, she bought six of them. But shortly afterward their headless mutilated bodies wound up in the wading pool. I am grateful I did not have to fight the princess wars, but I would have, even if I had to admit defeat if I couldn't find Joan of Arc and Elizabeth I dolls. When I look at the toys for kids available now, I want to vomit. With four very different daughters, I was able to shoot down almost all sexist stereotypes expressed on city playground benches.
I am pleased with my efforts.
In fact, it may be the case that although there's a fair bit of misogyny in attacks on her, if she weren't a woman, she wouldn't even be in contention.
N-word, please. IA gets it exactly right that you are exactly wrong.
222, 225: Well, again, I remind you of the "articulate" thread. Which wasn't about accusations of racism per se, but raise the issue that word choice borne of ignorance (a number of people swore they'd never, ever heard that "articulate" = left-handed compliment for black speakers) can and will lead to discussions of racism/misogyny. Which are a drag if you're just trying to wonk out.
223: Here, I believe it's entirely possible to criticize HRC in some ways w/o accusations of misogyny, in part because she has very little support here, so few knee-jerk responses. Elsewhere, less so. As for the shrill thing, I certainly know that ogged was not referencing the Order of the Shrill in his Debate Wrapup - that was poor/misogynistic word choice. My point was simply that it would be very easy for the word "shrill" to be in a liberal's vocabulary w/o much thought of its gendering. As an example.
There have certainly been threads here where I (and I consider myself fairly well-tuned to these issues) have just given up on a comment because the need to couch and preemptively explain drained the thought of its value. If I felt that it was impossible to comment on a topic in general for fear of that minefield, it would be annoying, to say the least (not that misogyny isn't annoying, blah blah).
Again, I don't personally resent HRC for limiting my ability to yatter on at Unfogged. I'm just saying that I can see where there would be frustration based in a bare minimum of misogyny.
228: if she weren't a woman she wouldn't be married to Bill, after all.
221:
But I'm certainly not neutral about the fact that Clinton's a woman, and I don't think anyone else is, either.
okay okay okay. I just don't care that she's a woman.
'night all. I find myself hoping Ogged has the time to consider IA's reply up there.
This [nonsexist childrearing] seems brutally hard to pull off, and I admire any attempt. Same goes for nonracist, come to think of it.
The princess thing is breaking me. We have done nothing to encourage - even enable - it, but socialization has done us in. A classmate (my daughter's 3.5) never comes to school w/o Princess garb. A non-blood aunt gifted her a chest full of princess dress-up clothes (with plastic high-heels! I could have killed), which was given before we could object. It is so fucking insidious. I spend every minute with her fighting this. I made her an Athene costume for Xmas. I know it will pass, but at what cost?
OTOH, she has expressed her hope that our impending baby have dark skin, so I feel we're at least having success on that front. We're getting her a dark-skinned doll, as I'm pretty sure that genetics won't come through for her (we're German-Irish).
Re-examining the linked post, I see that the spear I made her is missing. Of course Athene has a spear! (She even keeps it alongside her bed for occasional night fears)
Sweet! I don't understand how people deal with the princesses, I really don't.
229: I'm not sure how much of it is knee-jerk, though, as much as it is a response to something that is always in the background. Hillary is shrill, cold, too calculating, dumpy, unemotional -- and that's from people here willing to hold their nose and vote for her should she come to be the nominee. We're not even in lesbian-slur territory here.
And you're right, it is hard to try to have a conversation about a politician's likability (though interesting maybe why it comes up so often for Hillary), and you're also right on the answer: gotta suck it up and find different words.
I'm inclined to believe that, if you're raising your kid to be aware of gender stuff at all, this princessy phase will pass. First grade is a tough time, and I remember that, even as a self-proclaimed "weird" kid, I spent age six telling people that pink and purple were my favorite colors, even though I knew I was lying. It's tough going to school and being asked all these "What's your favorite X?" questions and everyone always being freaked out about your answers. So much of that age is about teaching kids to be gendered consumers, with the right taste in colors and foods.
But at some point, kids learn that weird will out, and you might as well own it, because someone's going to call you a lesbian whether you say you like pink or black best. If you're lucky, you own up to what you like with some panache and confidence and other kids start to think you're actually incredibly cool. This did not happen to me, but I've seen kids rock this angle rather deftly.
Oh, and she hopes to marry the mixed-race, adopted daughter of gay friends of ours. So I guess we're OK there, too.
Hell, as long as I'm bragging: she's really smart, too. But that's less about fighting societal norms, so....
234: My friends counter it with other toys, mostly. Eventually Princess Ariel ends up playing with the toy workbench & dump truck.
236: I kind of believe that too, AWB. But I've been shopping for a niece this last few years ... and boy has the toy store/section changed.
What's with this obnoxious pink wall of approved girl stuff? With stupidly gendered clothes as far as the eye can see. With this pathetic princess marketfest?
puke.
I agree that the sexist epithet can be used unfairly. It is legitimate and important to defend yourself against a false accusation, especially if attacked by a wise feminist elder like me. What sounds sexist to a 62 year old would probably elicit an entirely different reaction from a younger women who hopefully has experienced less discrimination. It is important to understand some feminist history, however. Women of my generation hated to be called girls; my daughters don't feel that way. Men and women have to keep explaining themselves. It is theoretically possible to listen and hurl insults simultaneously.
I am distressed by how often I find women to be sexist. Once upon a time, I had a sweatshirt made up that said, "Never love a man who doesn't love Jane Austen, Doris Lessing, and Margaret Drabble." I am a librarian and it was a great conversation starter, especially in NYC. It was a satisfyingly erudite way to say,"fuck men." The woman owner of a small lesbian bookstore asked me why the shirt didn't say "never love anyone..." I never figured out how to answer her.
Sexism works two ways. Men have an equally valid right to make that accusation, and they should more often than they do. It would have been far more difficult to raise boys free of gender stereotypes than it was to raise girls. I love to read what a wonderful job Bitch Ph.D. is doing raising a nonsexist son.
telling people that pink and purple were my favorite colors
She picked these, as far as we know, on her own. She also stopped wearing pants at 2.5, after never having shown much preference for clothing either way. Some of this was trying to figure out gender - her day care class was, for awhile, all-girl except for 1 boy, and she was constantly confirming the genders of people and animals around her. Her stuffed animals all turned female over the course of a single week, including Michael the Cat; Buddy Bear, her favorite from only a few months of age, made the switch, but it didn't take.
For some reason, yellow and blue have been added to the favorite colors. I guess that leaves out red, green, and orange, which are the colors of little boys' clothes. Grumble. (Although she will, in fact, wear clothes those colors)
I have a 2yo nephew now and my mom and I agonize about how hard it is to find boys' clothes that aren't either about the military or sports. One of the pictures we got of him recently shows him marching around in jungle-camo pants, and it just seems absurd. An eight-year-old in camo, due to fascination with stuff blowing up? Sure! An 18mo? Just gross.
I thought about buying him a totally cute shirt I found at a boutique with a Warholian image of Marlon Brando, with the line "B is for BRANDO" under it, but Mom and I decided my brother would think it was faggy. Yes, but two-year-old boys are kinda faggy! Rock it while you can, wee one!
and Margaret Drabble
With that terrible cartoon?
If #2 is a boy, he can expect to wear the same clothes that #1 did until he's old enough to request "no dresses" (if he should so choose).
Sometimes cheapness can be politically satisfying.
Accusations of sexism and misogyny should be the start of the conversation, not the reason to end it or avoid it. All my life I have had to struggle with my own misogyny. Choosing the women-dominated fields of librarianship and social work didn't work out particularly well for me. I am not a Hillary Clinton. I don't just work hard and play safe and avoid passionate defense of principles. I never learned tact. I love to argue and debate, and it feels much safer to debate with men. My 5 younger brothers and my five young uncles ruined me for life.
My 5 younger brothers and my five young uncles ruined me for life.
Whereas my strong (but conservative, ostensibly anti-feminist) mother and adored big sister set me up pretty well to not be a jackass. I've learned a lot about feminism as such as an adult, but I think I'd actually be doing a lot of the same things with my daughter just based on my own upbringing; I think I just get more of the little things right due to what I've learned from a lot of feminist women, including B.
Accusations of sexism and misogyny should be the start of the conversation
After two or three hundred threads of that conversation, though, one does feel ready to move on to the next topic.
left-handed compliment
Dang it all, anyway! Is there anyone you people won't insult?
I have always wondered why women who have political ambitions don't invest in a voice coach. Maybe an English accent?
Margaret Thatcher had a voice coach, of course. Lowered her voice by about an octave and slowed her down a lot. Also made her sound a lot more up-market. (Incidentally, it would be a piece of cake for a woman to be selected by a Dem. convention in 2008 compared "emerging" in the Tory party in 1976 - there are, after all some influential Democratic women around; Tories back then, not so much.)
But shortly afterward their headless mutilated bodies wound up in the wading pool.
That's feminism gone mad, training your daughters to be lady Jack the Rippers.
Incidentally, it would be a piece of cake for a woman to be selected by a Dem. convention in 2008 compared "emerging" in the Tory party in 1976
Yeah, but Thatcher had the Dark Lord and his cthonic minions on her side.
252. Very true. Are we sure Clinton doesn't?
Barbies were so boring that their only appeal was to be armless and headless with a crewcut.
My oldest daughter (almost 35) was listening to "It's All Right to Cry" on "Free to Be You and Me" sung by a pro football player when she was a toddler. Didn't everyone's parents teach that to them? I had hoped we had gone beyond disqualifying a man or a woman for the presidency on the basis of a little teariness. I would have been just as appalled if the media were belittling a male candidate for the same offense. Does anyone still tell their 2 year old son, "big boys don't cry"?
Hillary didn't cry, by any reasonable definition of that term.
When Reagan teared up, they said he "teared up," and when Bill choked up, you know what they said about that. Hillary had a brief moment where her voice cracked - did the entire episode last more than five seconds? - and everyone says she "cried."
I also wonder how many folks questioned Reagan's or Bill's sincerity in their public emotional moments. I seem to remember Reagan getting a lot of credit for being so manly he could cry, and Bill getting a lot of credit for feeling the pain of American citizens.
Strong men also cry, PF. Strong men also cry.
and Bill getting a lot of credit for feeling the pain of American citizens
Up the meds. "Feel your pain" was and is a national joke. He was accused of the same insincerity that HRC is now being accused. Hugging it out like that with the old woman is one of the stations on the Slick Willy cross.
Just a little thought experiment: what would the media reaction have been if John Edwards had teared up at a campaign stop? You wouldn't be able to hear your radio over the braying laughter. I really don't think HRC is getting rougher treatment over this because she's a woman.
crying in public is art
have you ever cried with people around?
i never could cry in public, i rarely cry for that matter
nearly once in three yrs, three mo
what would the media reaction have been if John Edwards had teared up at a campaign stop?
See 256. She didn't burst into tears -- from a man the media was sympathetic to, what happened to Clinton would have been 'momentarily choking up', 'a brief moment of emotion', or something similar. Emotion is less visible for men (although you're right, it's more heavily penalized if it's intense enough that you have to take notice of it.)
it's not that she faked her emotions, no
in fact, letting her emotions to show
she seems more human, not that cold and calculating
i sympathise
i saw once on TV how Mahathir was crying
that was really crying with tears
and it was not embarassing at all, cause he was saying things about their national unity
i felt so much respect for him then and afterwards
Just a little thought experiment: what would the media reaction have been if John Edwards had teared up at a campaign stop? You wouldn't be able to hear your radio over the braying laughter.
I think that's right. On the other hand, if Obama had teared up a little at an emotional moment, people would've eaten it up. The media is a slave to narrative. Right now Clinton's narrative is that her campaign is cracking up, so tears are a sign of loss of composure and control. If Clinton had won Iowa, was still crushing Obama in national polls, and sailing to a seemingly effortless victory, her tears would've been interpreted as a brilliant "humanizing" move by the most Amazing and Unstoppable Campaign Ever, which was the narrative for Clinton as late as October.
258: "Feel your pain" was rendered into a political joke by the media, but the public didn't get the joke and kept supporting him in some important measure because they felt he sympathized. Bill Clinton was only regarded as unusually phony by opinion leaders, not by the public.
And as stras and I point out, Reagan's tears were interpreted as a sign of his strength and empathy.
For apo: If Edwards teared up upon being asked about the more difficult aspects of his personal history, I don't think he'd be mocked the way Hillary was - though I agree that Dems in general - and Edwards in particular - are held to a tougher standard on these matters.
(I also admit that these thought experiments are treacherous, and Edwards' personal history is a lot more tragic than Hillary's.)
from a man the media was sympathetic to
Well, this is kinda my point. As an institution, TehMedia™ is decidedly unsympathetic to Edwards, as they are toward HRC and as they were toward Kerry and Gore. If anything, Clinton is receiving far less flak about this than John Kerry would have.
If John McCain did this, no problem. If Mitt Romney did it, you'd see them all salivating.
261: Edwards would've been mocked because there's a preexisting media narrative that he's too fey. The Breck Girl, Coulter's "fag" remark, etc. Not that Tim Russert and Chris Matthews would've come out and said "John Edwards is gay for crying on camera" - they would've said "will America vote for a president who's gay enough to cry on camera?"
You're right that it would be a big deal if the press wanted it to be, regardless of male or female. But the story for a man would be 'phony', not 'weak', don't you think? (People here called her phony, but I haven't seen anything but weak in mainstream stuff.) For a man that kind of thing would have been bad tactics, not a fundamental personal quality.
Eh. Arguing from counterfactuals doesn't convince anyone, and all other things aren't equal, ever.
her tears would've been interpreted as a brilliant "humanizing" move
why she would cry in the winning situation
then it would be completely fake and not believable
sometimes tears could be sign of strenghth, not weakness, may be she gain now some more moral authority if not political
It would be "phony" if Edwards cried about, like, 47 million people without health care. It would certainly be "weak" if he cried because he was tired and not enough people were voting for him.
God, this is just about the stupidest possible way to pick your country's leader.
Decathalon would be dumber. But not much.
ut the public didn't get the joke and kept supporting him in some important measure because they felt he sympathized.
Now tell me what the price of gold is going to be in a year. BJC received 43% of the vote in a repudiation of then existing economic conditions. All of the responses to the "feel your pain" moment that I can remember were media responses or responses mediated by media (e.g., talk radio callers). The responses to HRC's tears fall into pretty much the same category. Maybe people like her more now and support her in some important measure because they sympathize with her. We've had indications of that in this very thread.
Eh. Arguing from counterfactuals doesn't convince anyone, and all other things aren't equal, ever.
And of course, arguing from analogy (as I did in 256 and 265) is just as bad for the same reason. But now that I've debased myself this far, I'm going to go all the way and recommend Robin Givhan's column this a.m. Givhan screwed up badly with the Hillary "cleavage" column, but the screwup was her substantively poor handling of it, not the fact that she brought the topic up. She's usually quite interesting to read on topics that we all deem too stupid to discuss, and that we spend hundreds of comments discussing.
+ed
i don't know i sense like i start to make comments
and people are like quick to say stupid or dumb
referring to whatever
do they think they're bringing down the discussion or something
whatever though
i read stupider things here
Read, no one called your comments stupid. Stras called the American system of electing presidents stupid. As you said, there's plenty of people here saying dumber stuff than I've seen you say.
"feel your pain"
The expression "Feel your pain" was an artless moment by Bill, for the same reason that "Message: I care" was an artless locution by George HW.
I didn't mean to conflate Bill's phrase with his tearing up in public - in fact my actual opinion is that tearing up effectively conveyed the message that he made inelegantly explicit with the phrase "feel your pain."
God, this is just about the stupidest possible way to pick your country's leader.
I'll rochambeau you for the nomination.
276
thank you, teacher
i got that you know, my reading comprehension is not that bad
in my opinion of course
Whom are you accusing of calling you stupid, read?
Who. Bah. I just woke up, rather unpleasantly.
i said whatever and whoever
would you drop this, please?
279: Oh. Huh, then my reading comprehension is failing -- I don't get 275 then.
OT: Woohoo!!! Yet another interview scheduled for that job that's been in the works since the dawn of time. (Even this one won't be the last one -- I'd have to meet the statewide honcho for a final interview, and he's not scheduled for this one.)
286- Woohoo, I took my job offer, start in 3 weeks.
I took my job offer, start in 3 weeks.
DON'T CRY!
286: Excellent -- from what you said, it sounded like a good idea.
Talking to yourself is the first sign, LB.
Congrats to all!
Also: Rudy, like Rosie, says it's all right to cry! He did on 9/11! (No. Really. He said that.)
Did he say that in response to the Hillary thing? Really, oudemia?
I know campaigns are message specific, but when your entire message is that, like everyone else, you were also alive on 9/11, it seems it might be time to come up with a new slogan. You can't even parody Giuliani anymore.
Rudy is unfair to SNL and other comedy shows because he breaks the writers' strike by writing his own comedy. 9/11! On a hot dog!
294: He really, really did! TPM has a video clip up.
297:
How can that be? Is he just mocking himself now?!!? Cala has it right.
Congrats, LB, and the same, of course, to SP.
297: GAH! I hate him more with each passing day.
Yay friends with job happiness!
Who. Bah. I just woke up, rather unpleasantly.
Your lover trying to have sex with you?
Weirdly, and vaguely on-topic, I just got a pair of spammy emails bashing Clinton. "Subject: Coming Clinton witchcraft in politics also". Rant-y and loony as all get out, but also anti-Republican/anti-Bush. Signed "The Independent Voter". I wonder who is pushing this.