"The Politics of Pile-On," Mrs. Clintons' Web site announced this morning. "What happens when the 'politics of pile-on' replaces the 'politics of hope.'" The campaign later released a video that featured Mrs. Clinton's Democratic rivals saying her name repeatedly. A headline on the Drudge Report, which said it was reflecting thinking in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, read, "Scorn: As the Men Gang Up."So, instead of talking about the substance of what the candidates said, we're supposed to talk about whether Hillary Clinton's opponents are too mean to her — they'd better stop! — and view it all through the gender lens.
ADDED: Obama: "The politics of hope does not mean hoping that your opponents aren't going to point out the differences between you and them."
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
"[Obama said that his phrase] 'The politics of hope does not mean hoping that your opponents aren't going to point out the differences between you and them.'"
That's right, it means "vote for Obama, come what may."
They're all playing to women in any case ; it's gender cards all around.
Via the soap opera imperative. Nothing complicated must ever trouble their tiny minds.
AA said: So, instead of talking about the substance of what the candidates said, we're supposed to talk about whether Hillary Clinton's opponents are too mean to her...
Exactly. The classic Clinton Misdirection Ploy: Quick! Look over there and forget what I said/did! In this case, it's her! illegal alien NY drivers license screwup - which only highlighted her! constant waffling.
If you support Clinton, you aren't supposed to notice that she does this frequently. You are supposed to be a mindless idiot who will vote for her! no matter what. Bonus points for mindless idiots with vaginas.
Typical feminist strategy. Insist on being treated as one of the boys, and then whine when you are.
She can't have the biggest balls in the room and play the little woman. She can't? Just watch.
Bob, where did you see Hillary whining about it?
From the linked story:
Her campaign sought to stir sympathy of Mrs. Clinton -– in a way that was reminiscent of what happened after she was confronted by Rick Lazio, the Long Island Republican, in their Senate race in 2000 — by suggesting that she was the victim of ganging-up by a stage of presidential opponents and one of the moderators, Tim Russert.
Right there, Simon. Clintons, male and female, never do their own hatchetwork, it's always contracted out.
where did you see Hillary whining about it?
Having her website declare that it was "The Politics of Pile-On," and having her spokesman go out and call the debate "Six guys against Hillary" contain more than enough whinging to qualify as her whining.
Me, I expect Michelle and Elizabeth to be the ones to now come out and tell Hillary to get over it.
I think what it comes down to is that Hillary! is unstoppable as far as the Democratic nomination is concerned. It was a masterful recovery from essentially losing the last debate when the other major candidates started finally getting some traction against her for her flip flopping and refusals to commit to a position.
So the national debate, or at least the one going on in the Democratic party right now, has been effectively shifted from her refusing to take positions and flip-flopping to being ganged up against by a bunch of men.
Oh, how unfair!! She has an almost insurmountable lead, and yet all these men who also want the most powerful job in the world ganged up on her. She would be stupid if she didn't expect it, and she is anything but stupid. So, she got out the hatchet people and is making lemonade from the lemons. She isn't getting any more male voters this way, and maybe is losing a couple. But in the end, that is irrelevant, since this whining is the type that will probably pick up more women voters than it loses male ones.
Bob - fair enough. I didn't construe it that way, but I guess that's a fair reading.
Simon - - too seldom in blog debates is touché! heard. To acknowledge it is fair play and the mark of an adult, for which I salute you.
You can't have it both ways. Like playing the race card, Hillary and her campaign are playing the feminine card.
1. I am woman I am strong. I can lead the United States with force and using my unique perspective as a woman.
2. Waaaah. The men are being mean to me and hurting my feelings. My poor frail feminine psyche is being damaged.
No wonder men go crazy dealing with women. Which is it. Strong leader or female that needs to be protected from the mean men?
No wonder men go crazy dealing with women. Which is it. Strong leader or female that needs to be protected from the mean men?
The answer, always, is whatever is expedient at the time.
Bill was much better at this stuff. When pressed, he immediately switches to the attack. I predict that Hillary! will be much quicker to invoke Bush's responsibility for all the evil in the world when she is getting uncomfortable questions.
When she loses, boy is she going to be pissed!
No wonder men go crazy dealing with women. Which is it. Strong leader or female that needs to be protected from the mean men?
Women want equality -- on their own terms: All-male work environments I worked in years ago were marked by nudie pictures, crude sexual talk, and horseplay. When women started entering those workplaces, they wanted to be treated as equals, yet they didn't want nudie pictures, crude sexual talk, or horseplay. Those soon were defined as "sexual harassment" and "creating a hostile workplace." Maintaining the pre-chick status quo got you written up and possibly fired.
I believe this tactic of claiming the mean old men were piling on the woman was originally to be saved for the debates in the general election, but had to be pulled out now because she screwed up so badly on the DLs for illegals question. Already on October 22nd, after the last GOP debate, this story from AP had already set the narrative and even used the same phrase: "GOP Hopefuls Pile On Clinton."
You knew it would come to this, right? Hillary playing the vagina card?
Who knew it would take so little.
Women are so not ready for positions of leadership.
Bull! It is a long tradition for lesser candidates to gang up on the leading candidate. How else are the second tier candidates going to advance? Sex (gender to be politically correct) has nothing to do with it; neither does sex have anything to do with the Clinton camp's response. Any candidate who performed poorly in a debate is going to try to change the subject. Some of the comments here that generalize Clinton's conduct to all females are outrageous. You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Me, I blame the media. For decades they have exaggerated the importance of both Iowa and New Hampshire. Neither state represents the electorate in any way, manner, shape or form. If either pretty-boy Edwards or empty-suit Obama gets a few dozen retired farmers or union hacks to turn out on a cold winter night, the media will proclaim it the will of the people and what millions of the rest of us think don't mean squat. That is what those candidacies are about. Neither Edwards nor Obama could win a primary in a real state, and they certainly cannot win in November.
Hillary will use all of her wiles, make no mistake about that. But she is now sounding strangely like Mme. Royal when she used the same techniques against Sarkozy.
I predict that ultimately, those techniques will be no more effective in the good ole USA than in France.
"Her campaign sought to stir sympathy of Mrs. Clinton ... by suggesting that she was the victim of ganging-up by a stage of presidential opponents and one of the moderators, Tim Russert."
The politics of victim-hood. It doesn't work for me. The way I see it, always the victim, never the victor.
paul a'barge said..."You knew it would come to this, right? Hillary playing the vagina card? Who knew it would take so little. Women are so not ready for positions of leadership."
The "vagina card?"...and..."Women are so not ready for positions of leadership."
Margaret Thatcher
Eleanor Roosevelt
Indira Gandhi
What century are YOU living in??
Eleanor never really led a nation, but surely did not play the victim card.
Golda and Margaret led their nations without ever playing the "poor widdle me" role. Indeed they were far tougher than the men whom they handily defeated.
Hardly examples of playing the "vagina card".
Lucky, it is so annoying to agree with you.
Margaret Thatcher
Eleanor Roosevelt
Indira Gandhi
Hillary Clinton
Unfortunately only one of these rose to the top through her own merits, and not family connections.
Hillary Clinton = today's Lurleen Wallace? I'd respect her a lot more had she not started her political life as Senator. She has seven more years of elective office than H. Ross Perot did when he first ran.
"Women are so not ready for positions of leadership."
"Women want equality -- on their own terms:"
"Nothing complicated must ever trouble their tiny minds."
Is it ever wise to paint with such a broad brush?
former law student said...and with a straight face:
"Unfortunately only one of these rose to the top through her own merits, and not family connections."
You have the balls to say something this incredibly dumb...with George W. Bush as President?
Good Lord...
Joe,
Get used to it.
I'm right more than most here want to admit.
And thankzzzzzzzzz, I appreciate anything I can get from this crowd.
Caroline asks: "Is it ever wise to paint with such a broad brush?"
New to the forum?
Caroline asks: "Is it ever wise to paint with such a broad brush?"
Luckyoldson replies:
"New to the forum?"
:)
You're implied point is taken. Broad, baseless assumptions do seem to be commonplace in many online forums. Which is why I rarely comment. Ultimately, it seems rather pointless.
In this case I got momentarily sucked in. ;)
Luckyoldsod -- I was hoping for something a little better than W. (Long nat'l nightmare over time) If he's lowered the bar for eternity I'm moving to Canada.
Former,
You're the one who has such a disdainful impression of successful women...not me.
If you want to discuss people who have really "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps," you might want to read about William Jefferson Clinton.
But we both know you could care less about someone like that...
The Politics Of Pile-On
What happens when the "politics of pile-on" replaces the "politics of hope?"
Barack comes out on top.
Despite the best efforts of six white candidates to trip him up, Senator Obama stood strong and made his case on critical issues like Iran, Iraq and Social Security. He kept his focus on the real target in this election: Republicans and the Bush Administration. Instead of going after the other white Democrats, Barack, a black man, made the argument for why change is needed and why he has the strength and experience to lead the Democratic Party in its efforts to make that change happen - specifically using the unique qualities provided by his blackness.
With each attack, Senators Edwards and Clinton undermined the central premises of their own candidacies. The sunny speeches and rosy rhetoric that once characterized their remarks has now been replaced by the kinds of jabs one typically sees from white candidates desperate to gain traction in the polls.
The American people are looking for a President who can stand strong and come out ahead under any circumstances - especially if 6 white people are attacking them at one time.
Last night, once again, that person was Barack Obama.
One strong black dude.
"Women want equality -- on their own terms:"
Is it ever wise to paint with such a broad brush?
Wise? Do you mean prudent? I don't see the downside risk. But it is an accurate observation from my experience. As women enter a particular workplace, that workplace either changes to suit the women or the women leave.
LSD, I would vote for Margaret Thatcher in an instant. I would vote for Dianne Feinstein, too, though I despise her politics. Of the women you mentioned:
Eleanor Roosevelt -- Former First Lady from the middle class.
Hillary Clinton -- Ditto
Indira Gandhi -- Former First Daughter from the Brahmin caste
Margaret Thatcher -- Grocer's Daughter.
Former Law Student:
Since you asked ;)
The issue I have with your statement
"Women want equality -- on their own terms:"
is that, like the phrase "black community", this conveys a myth that a group all think and act alike. Your statement may be true in your experience, however my work experience says the opposite.
I worked in a male dominated field- Unix System Administrator in investment banks - for 15 years. Never once did I give a damn about changing the workplace. I did my job, and was paid well for it.
I had a small number of female co-workers who were all just like myself. Not one of us was ever likely to succumb to the vapors upon hearing a dirty joke or seeing a dirty postcard on a cubicle wall. A few of the women could make a sailor blush.
So my point was just that it is never wise to uncritically accept stereotypes as a premise for an argument. You can end up being wrong or looking foolish.
But that's just my opinion, of course.
BTW-- not all Unix admins are fat, socially inept slobs who drink Mountain Dew all day. Just some. ;)
Reality check: if Hill is the next President of us all, from day one, she’s gonna be “piled on” by a bunch of thugs, a/k/a World Leaders, mostly men.
Oh well, besides whining & playing the gender card, she & her epigones can blame it all on Bush. She can compare herself to Abe Lincoln succeeding Buchanan.
Caroline:
I appreciate your sense of humor, I’m glad that you are a woman who believes in hard work rather than playing the gender card, & it’s great that you don’t get the vapors when you hear good old boy humor, but perhaps you missed the lecture, in my case from a white man & white woman, who told us males that we didn’t know what it was like to be a woman or a minority. (They both, of course, being consultants, did understand & were handsomely paid to impart their knowledge to us.)
We were told that any “male pattern” behavior was per se grounds for our dismissal if anyone got the vapors. I could relate many unfunny experiences brought about by the pre-emptive defenses enacted by über fuehrers & the unsurprising reactions to formerly de minimis nonsense by workplace women unlike you. And the unfunny experiences of listening to women put down men in a manner forbidden to men.
But there I go, losing my sense of humor, appreciation of the absurd, or a deep understanding of the ironies of life.
As you might say:
BTW, not all women in the workplace are whining weasels going through life playing the victim card; just some.
And, not all women in the political place are whining weasels going through life playing the victim card; just some.
FLS
You said
“As women enter a particular workplace, that workplace either changes to suit the women or the women leave.”
Um how about:
“As women enter a particular workplace, that workplace either changes to suit the women or the men are asked to leave.”
Caroline
This is what the the workplace also can descend (defining deviancy up) re gender/minority issues (or see the U. Of Del. flap):
From VC:
"U.S. Magistrate Judge Wayne Brazil issued a temporary injunction against the CSU system Wednesday, in which he struck down a portion of the CSU conduct code that mandates students "be civil to one another." That language would likely not survive First Amendment scrutiny at trial, the magistrate found.
"It's fine to say, 'We hope you're civil to each other,'" Brazil said from the bench. "It's not fine to say, 'We'll punish you if you're not.'"
Latest Polling of Americans:
Do you think things in this country are:
1) Going off in the right direction - 24%
2) Off on the wrong track - 74%
3) No opinion - 2%
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा