First of all, welcome to Open Left. (4.00 / 2)

I'm a huge admirer of your work.

However, I have some serious questions about your post. (And no, I'm not a Clinton supporter, just to get that out of the way up front).

First, could you point me to where Senator Clinton is "playing the victim card" or "raising the white flag" or "asking for a change in the rules"? I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't see it.  I don't think anyone disagrees that Senator Clinton should answer questions about her record. But it doesn't follow that its fair game to interrupt her, or to ask her half the questions in a debate, particularly in a personal and hostile fashion as Russert did. Frankly I would think the other candidates would be even more annoyed about that than her, since it denies them the opportunity to talk.

Second, the whole notion of "playing the gender card" makes very little sense to me in the context of this Presidential race. it isn't as if gender goes away if Senator Clinton and her advisors don't bring it up. It's a huge part of this race, whether or not people discuss it openly.

Third, (and I'm sure this is gender politics heresy to say out loud) but why shouldn't Senator Clinton make her gender work for her in some circumstances? Men do that all the time, often  without even meaning to. That's why every single President we've had in this country has been male. It hardly seems more fair that her gender should only work against her.

Fourth, may I respectfully suggest that, if the Edwards campaign is determined to go forward with this line of attack, it may be helpful to draw a bright line between the candidates' legitimate need to ask tough questions and some of the outrageous sexism coming from the talking heads in the media. I would absolutely welcome a vigorous and pointed debate between the candidates, but its a little hard to have that against a media background of "vaginal-Americans" and "crossing my legs" and "let's see the records, babe" and "crying like a little girl" and various permutations of "all this strident feminism will alienate men". That hardly strikes me as holding everyone to the same standard.

---

by: brklyngrl @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:29:22 AM CDT

A few things to consider. (4.00 / 4)

The victim card is well demonstrated with the video that the Clinton campaign put out the next day
- The Politics of Pile On and the comments made by AFSCME president Gerald McEntee at the endorsement "Some of you may have seen last night's debate. Six guys against Hillary.  I'd call that a fair fight.  This is one strong woman."  Despite the words they point to the fact that the guys were against her and she is still strong.  That is spin.  Interesting that that quote is no longer on her site when I just looked (maybe it has been moved elsewhere).  She used it when she said "I'm your girl".  And she will keep using it if she thinks it gives her an advantage.  I don't necessarily blame her, but that is not what we need in a president.

Any woman running for president for the first time will have to deal with "outrageous sexism" in the press and elsewhere.  It is HOW she deals with it that will determine her ability to really be the leader we need.  I don't think it is being handled well at all. 

She has backed off the victim card a bit since she also is trying to be the "strong leader". 

Frankly what I find discouraging about the Clinton candidacy that it is all about her and her right to go for the position, even her as a symbol for women.  Right now the country has too many problems to deal with such narcissism.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

---

by: pioneer @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:36:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

asdf (4.00 / 1)

First - "I'm your girl." That seems like a pretty innocuous line to me. Is it not the equivalent of "I'm your guy" or "I'm your man"?  I hear those two lines from men (in politics and out) all the time and think nothing of them. Now all of sudden that's playing the gender card? Are men playing the gender card when they say "I'm your guy", and, if so, should I be able to call them out  and castigate them for doing so? Because I'm willing to play by those rules, but it does seem like a change. Furthermore, in the category 'things politicians do to get elected' trying to turn gender into a positive rather than a negative just seems like smart business to me.

Second, Gerald McEntree is not Clinton. So if he played the victim card on her behalf, that's really not the same as her playing it. But leaving that aside, I fail to see how saying basically the equivalent of 'rough going last night, but she's tough, she can take it' is playing the victim card. He sounds like a football coach talking about a quarterback who got roughed up. And while we're on the topic, what exactly is "the victim card"? I'm not sure if I've heard that term before, but it instantly rubs me the wrong way.

Third, there's no right way to handle sexism, though so far I think Clinton's handled it relatively gracefully. Probably better than I could.  So if that's the test I'm going to have to pass her.

Fourth, I'm sorry but I really don't see what you're seeing as far as Clinton running on the historic nature of her candidacy. I know there are people who are excited about it, but I really don't see her pushing that angle. Just as well, since it speaks for itself. I do think she hasn't clearly laid out why she wants to be President and where she hopes to take the country, but I don't think she's run on her gender.

I have my own issues with Clinton (though they're largely matters of degree) but I have found the sexism enlightening (in all the wrong ways). I thought we were well past the point where some of the things I've seen were acceptable on television. And it makes me mad. I almost certainly won't support her in the primary, but if a lot of women close ranks and vote for her just because of that  I'll understand.

---

by: brklyngrl @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 13:41:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My take? (4.00 / 6)

For me, it's the "girl" vs. "woman" thing that bugs me the worst.

I'd wager none of the men on that stage would've said "I'm your boy."

It's the way that "I'm your girl" casts her in diminutive terms, as non-threatening, as inconsequential, even weak(er than the men?)... but all of a sudden she's a "woman" again when she needs to portray herself as strong. Wasn't she a strong woman all along? Why the need to play up to the non-threatening "girlie" stereotype?

As to the other stuff - she's letting surrogates play the "gender" card for her. IMO, if I was the candidate and saw that as an inappropriate meme for my candidacy, I'd quash it immediately, not allow it to get out into the media. Sure, it casts her in a sympathetic light, but if she's so strong, why does she need surrogates decrying "those mean men" and their "base treatment" of her? Can't spell "sympathetic" w/o "pathetic".

I'm a woman. I didn't see anything on that stage from the other candidates that resembled "ganging up on the woman" (and think for just a moment of the connotations that phrase holds...). I saw candidates trying to prove why they would be the best choice, instead of the others on the stage with them. Isn't that what the debates are supposed to be for?

"If the word populist means that I stand with ordinary Americans against powerful interests, the answer's yes, I am a populist." - JRE

---

by: machka @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 14:57:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sigh. (4.00 / 1)

Take the girl/woman thing up with the whole culture. Have you ever heard anyone say "I'm your woman"? I certainly haven't. That all goes back to the discussion about having no female equivalent for the word 'guy'. I don't love it either, but I'm sure as hell not going to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for solving it while running for President.

On your other point, I find it really hard to think of the head of the AFSCME as a Clinton surrogate. I know the union endorsed her, but I hardly think that makes the union head her surrogate. And, as I said, he reminded me more of a football coach encouraging a quarterback to buck up than someone painting Clinton as a poor weak woman in need of rescue.

I think Russert (and Tucker, and Matthews) was out of line. If the Edwards camp wants to debate the issues, I say good for them. But this post is about how it's oh-so-unfair for Clinton to use gender to her advantage, and I think that's just silly, even if she were doing that, which I really don't see.

---

by: brklyngrl @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 15:27:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you kidding?? (4.00 / 3)

Hillary has based her campaign on GENDER! The recorded messages on MY phone from Hillary state very clearly - our mothers and daughters will be "able to hold their heads high" when Hillary is president...er Savior for women.
No thanks!  the Clintons DLC has damaged the Dem Party for 20 years - and another Centrist Clinton will cultivate more Blue Dogs!

---

by: annefrank @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:00:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regarding her using gender (4.00 / 2)

Read Taylor Marsh. You don't seem from what I've read of you here to be naive. So I can assume you understand that people like Marsh are surrogates to float trial ballons in the media. Let me give you my standard- if this were the GOp woould I accept this tactic? If the answer is no- then whats the difference here. And would i pretend that whats normal for politics in every other regard isn't happening here?

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:12:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Plenty of us read TM (4.00 / 1)

Taylor's radio show is pretty good, and most of time, until a few weeks ago, I agreed with most of what she said.  I even gave Taylor some pocket change because I do like her show.  I don't have a problem that she is a moderate as I grew up as a moderate, but she's not an Open Left progressive either, nor should anyone pretend that she is.

However, Taylor needs to come out and say that she endorses Clinton's candidacy, if for any reason, only because Clinton is a woman and she wants a woman president more than anything in her lifetime, especially one who polls very well and has great name recognition.  She continues to deny by saying she doesn't have a dog in the hunt, but defends Clinton on almost any turn, and accuses Edwards of not speaking out more often on defense, and being a Republican at the same time.  She's also been very critical of Mrs. Edwards coming out to speak on behalf of her husband, yet it is OK to Mrs. Clinton use Bill as a defense or a campaigner when Clinton doesn't have time to deal with the criticism.  I don't get it, other than she says Bill is an asset.

However, I would say Edwards is lucky compared to Obama about who gets criticized the most.  And in both instances, TM is not pleased that neither candidate has made an appearance on her blog.  I'm digressing for a moment, but I get the impression that she feels she has been treated unfairly by not having access to the top strategists, especially those online communication directors from the campaign.  Daou has gone out of his way to make exclusives available to TM, knowing that Taylor writes more favorably about Clinton (TM says she gives her more fair representation).

I would also argue that Taylor doesn't have women pundits or famous women bloggers phoning in to defend Clinton.  Of course, she could have FiredogLake, but everyone knows Taylor is affiliated with them.  I suggest instead of Chase Martyn she has Lydia Weddington from Iowa Independent phone in to give an objective view of Iowa voters.  I suggest Taylor have someone from New Hampshire radio to give a viewpoint.  But don't use the pile on of men such as Mike Lux at this blog. It's good to have men's views about Clinton, but if Taylor is trying to stay neutral, she should find more neutral folks and deal with their opinions, then figure out how to translate her views to her readers. 

And she wonders why Obama or Edwards haven't made a guest post at this time?  Clinton has yet to make one, but that seems to be OK with Taylor since Clinton gave her Joe Wilson to be a guest on her blog about Clinton's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which TM first thought was a bad move by Clinton. But in dancing the new Clinton Double-Talk Waltz, TM dismissing Clinton's decision on it.  I am purposely using those words because TM is a former dancer and entertainer.  She's pretty clever, but with Clinton, her thoughts have been replaced with emotions.  I cannot use a Maslow hierarchy on TM because I'm not quite certain where TM feels vulnerable yet, but she feels it nonetheless when Clinton stumbles, as she did the other night.

---

by: Benny @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 17:13:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if you call the media (0.00 / 0)

ignoring edwards "lucky" i suppose most candidates would prefer not to be so lucky.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 17:38:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Misreading here (0.00 / 0)

I don't consider TM as part of the MSM or CM. 

---

by: Benny @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 17:42:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I now consider the A list blogs (0.00 / 0)

TM, MSM and the rest a part of the same infrastructure. Whatever chance we had of changing that died this year when the usurption and willing surrender of the blogs by the establishment media. Much of what you see here is a matter of them trying to fit in as "legitimate." As for TM, I have idea why you would separate out from this infrastructure.Can you explain your thoughts?

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 17:46:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She is part of a group that want to be MSB's (4.00 / 1)

Main Stream Blogs

But she's not...but she is listened to, and should be.  I don't deny.

Thanks for your comments.  I like Taylor, but I think her thoughts are not objective, and it's OK that they are not, until she says, "Hillary Clinton: New Free World Leader".

---

by: Benny @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 18:03:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (0.00 / 0)

but not their own facts. As we are discovering the left is as equally capable of being faith based as the right. THe little I have done to help get rid of bush and his Orwellian manipulations was not done to replace it with Orwellians from the putative centrist parts of the Democratic Party. Or left for that matter. To the extent that TM, or Bowers or Stoller or any other blogger plays into these games, is the extent to which I have problems with them. I am kind of in the last few months giving up. Occasionally every few days I post like mad on these topics hoping someone will get whats happening. But i am pissing in the wind, and frankly am tired. Anyway, thanks for the nice chat. Seeyou later.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 19:06:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary's campaign made it a gender issue (4.00 / 6)

by releasing a video the next day casting Hillary as "victim" of all those mean men - also reported in the NYT.
Hillary's recorded messages on my phone cast her as the savior of women. But if that were true, she wouldn't have begun her campaign seeking a conversation - as if she had no idea that working poor and middle class women with NO health care have been paying her health care costs for 30 years.
After 15 years - no health care plan - but a contest for campaign song and a Mafia video - until she stole Edwards UHC. That's not leadership!
I'm voting for a candidate that will do the most for ALL races and genders - John Edwards!

---

by: annefrank @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:42:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary's campaign made it a gender issue (4.00 / 1)

by releasing a video the next day casting Hillary as "victim" of all those mean men - also reported in the NYT.
Hillary's recorded messages on my phone cast her as the savior of women. But if that were true, she wouldn't have begun her campaign seeking a conversation - as if she had no idea that working poor and middle class women with NO health care have been paying her health care costs for 30 years.
After 15 years - no health care plan - but a contest for campaign song and a Mafia video - until she stole Edwards UHC. That's not leadership!
I'm voting for a candidate that will do the most for ALL races and genders - John Edwards!

---

by: annefrank @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:42:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your post (4.00 / 7)

I truly admire the work you have done and am heartened that you are part of the Edwards campaign.

As a woman who has worked hard to break through glass ceilings in education circles (I became a superintendent of schools) I fully concur with your points.  You cannot have it all ways. 

My problem with Sen. Clinton is that she did not earn her way to this opportunity strictly by her merits.  I recognize she is a brilliant woman, but her approach has been to cosy up to people of power, mostly men. 

I also know that she does support women, but I don't think she is the ideal model for women. 

She does have to answer questions and she needs to make her vision for the country clear.

My observation is that she wahts to manage government rather than lead the government.  There is a big difference. 

Join other progressives at EENRblog

---

by: pioneer @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:15:24 PM CDT

Thanks, Kate for your Diary. It was great. (4.00 / 5)

I just wish you would edit it so that it would be "perfect."

In response, I'll post both of my comments from The Nation

First:

My response as a "Fictional Candidate":

"If Hillary Clinton is going to start accusing Democratic Candidates of ganging up on her because she's a woman when the other Democrats running have fought hard over the years for women's rights and equality, what would she say when the Presidents, Royals, and religous leaders in the Middle East start ganging up on her...just because she's a woman?"

Her argument is absolutely the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. But, it's not meant to be "logical." It's meant to illicit a surface-level response from the audience, who Penn expects to just say, "Yep, that's what they are doing," without much thought given to the issues they are criticizing her for.

Posted by FRAMECOP 11/02/2007 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person

Second:

If I was a "Real Candidate" this is what I would say:

"To not criticize Hillary Clinton's statements and her record would be to look down on her for being a woman, not the other way around."

Hillary Clinton is a running for President of the United States. She is a candidate. It shouldn't matter what her gender is, even though it does to many mental "surface-dwellers", just like Obama's race does. Many Democrats support both because of that with the two largest Dem constituencies being women and blacks, and the largest being people who like Bill Clinton. Equally, there are many voters who would never vote for them because of those reasons.

I think both are wrong.

But the fact is, she is a candidate for President. If her opponents treated her any differently, meaning not going after her like they would a man, simply because she is a woman, that would be sexism.

Posted by FRAMECOP 11/02/2007 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person

Third:

MASK said:

"There is a reason they all "ganged up" on her. And it's not just becuase she is a front runner. It's because she parses her words and is political double talker!"

MASK, this should be the message:

"If her opponents didn't go after her record and statements simply because she is a woman, that would be sexism."

That's what all of them need to be saying. Edwards, Obama, Biden, and Dodd.

To not go after her, when they would go after a man, would be to treat her differently just because of her gender. She deserves the same scrutiny as every other candidate who has ever run for President.

Anything else would be sexism.

Posted by FRAMECOP 11/02/2007 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

Hillary Clinton should be happy that her opponents see her as an equal.  Isn't that what Democrats have been fighting for over the years?  No one's just going to hand her the White House.

Detecting the Message Inside the Message

---

by: framecop @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:39:38 PM CDT

Thanks Kate! (4.00 / 2)

I've always admired you and appreciate your support for John Edwards.

---

by: annefrank @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:45:09 PM CDT

Thank you, Kate (4.00 / 5)

A similar discussion has been going on at the Daily Kos for a couple of days.

This morning Invisiblewoman (ironic since Clinton uses the word invisible instead of forgotten) at the Daily Kos typed this comment and it resonated with me:

There are women fighting in Iraq right now.  They are risking their lives every day.  They can't use the gender card to protect themselves.  They have to assume the same responsibility as the men they are fighting with. 

And then HRC plays the gender card against democratic candidates who ask for a straight position instead of confabulation?

From my teens, I remember Margaret Court certainly didn't pull out the gender card when she lost to Bobby Riggs (a true chavanist) on Mother's Day in 1973.  Instead, she observed, "I didn't hit out enough."  Wimbledon Champ Billie Jean King would not pull out the gender card if she had lost to chauvinist Bobby Riggs.  She learned from Court's game and beat him solidly.

Clinton was caught with the same style of rhetoric she had been giving since her days as First Lady in the White House.  The other night was a wake-up call and should be treated as such.

 

---

by: Benny @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:53:48 PM CDT

One can also make the argument... (4.00 / 6)

....that this 'gender card' play is classic Rovian distraction.

It's intended to keep the voters away from Hillary's policy positions, or lack thereof, and seems to be working.

Does Hillary propose to withdraw all, or almost all, troops from Iraq and seek diplomatic solutions?

What are the implications of Hillary's healthcare proposals for those who currently are unable to afford same?

What is Hillary's position on Telcom immunity?

What is Hillary's position on the BushCo. lawlessness and the current AG nominee?

Nobody freakin' knows due to her evasive answers when asked and you will note that some of these questions I've posed haven't even been asked of her or the other candidates. That's how screwed up the debate has become with the introduction of identity politics by both Hillary and Obama.

To be perfectly frank, if you have not seen my comments before, I think Hillary as President would be an utter disaster for progressives and more importantly the nation.

We do not need 'more of the same'.

But even more important than that we need to focus our, and the voters, attention on the candidate's policy positions.

Not their gender or race.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 13:08:24 PM CDT

A post (4.00 / 1)

all about Hillary. Who are you building a case for?

---

by: dblhelix @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 13:21:46 PM CDT

Edwards History with Playing the Race, Gender, and Cancer Cards (4.00 / 1)

Given Edwards own history of playing the race and gender card, your argument has no credibility.

Elizabeth Edwards, blaming the media for their poll numbers said; "We can't make John black and we can't make John a woman".

With that statement, the Edwards campaign makes the ludicrous assertion that somehow being a white, southern, male, Christian, millionaire was somehow a hindrance to his Presidential aspirations.

Absurd!

Further, on his recent "Bubba" tour where with Mudcat and Cooter, Edwards said:

"If you're running in a tough congressional district somewhere in America, anywhere in America, and I'm in one right now, okay…You gotta ask yourself would you rather have Senator Obama at the top of the ticket to help, Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket to help, or John Edwards at the top of the ticket to help. ... .. You got to have someone who is strong in all those places and who is not a drag on candidates who are trying to win in those places. ... .. The easiest way to do it, honestly, is to picture in your head each of us running in a tough place -- we're in one right now -- and which one's going to be more helpful and which one's not, because I think that does matter."

Finally, while we're being honest, let's not forget the cancer card that Edward played in his "heros" ad.

If it's OK for Edwards to play these race, gender, and cancer cards, then it's OK for everyone else!

---

by: JoeCHI @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 14:14:30 PM CDT

Let me clear something up here.... (4.00 / 1)

....my position, as an individual, is that it's NOT OK for any candidate to use identity politics.

The REASON I think it's not okay is clearly seen in the threads here and elsewhere in the blogosphere where the vast majority of comments are about identity not policy.

I happen to think that's a loser both tactically and strategically.

I'd like to think that Edwards is moving away from the use of id politics but it's not clear if he is yet.

My theory, and it is 'just' a theory, will not be tested until one of the leading candidates tries it.

And by the way, save teh 'Pile On' about 'your candidate good vs. my candidate bad' for someone who cares about that stuff.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 15:28:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Different view (4.00 / 1)

the assertion was that amongst the Democratic base and the press, the more interesting narrative was that of gender and race than of policy and character. She said it poorly, but the point isn't incorrect. The reality is that identity politices weighs heavily amongst both the left and right.  Obama responded correctly as to Clinton's jujitsu on the issue. Just as he did when Biden was discussing how "articulate" he is.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:16:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you are wrong (4.00 / 3)

in your accusations.

This is a great diary by Kate and she is right.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:18:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards hiding behind Kate's skirt (4.00 / 1)

Since the beginning of OpenLeft's launch i have been one of those silent readers.  Watching the discourse and for the most part, even if disagree with something, I always walk away with something to chew on.  The posts typically get my brain thinking about something in a slightly different way.  I say all this because it wasn't until today's post that i felt compelled to post a comment.

In general I disagree with most of Kate's post, but the reason I felt compelled to respond was that it is Kate Michelman that gets dispatched by Edwards to call Hillary onto the carpet for trying to have it both ways - something the Edwards campaign is trying to do by having Kate go after Clinton.  Clearly they are seeing the same polling that Clinton is -- can't have John go after Hillary and call her out for playing the "victim",  women voters might not t like that, send Kate (or Elizabeth).

I have more respect for Senator Obama, who made the same argument today (although staying on this topic keeps it about gender versus policy differences which seems like a bad strategy).  Senator Obama didn't dispatch Michele or one his women campaign staffers, HE did it himself, because he is the one on the ballot, he's the one running for President. 

If Edwards wants to engage in this debate - then HE should engage.  He can't have it both ways.  I'm tired of hearing from Elizabeth or Kate telling me how John is a better feminist.  if that's an argument he wants to make then it's time he step up and make that argument himself.

(disclosure: I'm a Clinton supporter -- but not anti-any of the other candidates.  Although as a former Edward supporter I find it increasingly difficult to still feel positive about him.)

---

by: CristinaU @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 14:16:21 PM CDT

Dispatching surrogates (4.00 / 3)

Hillary always dispatches Bill when she is in trouble, so why can;t any candidate dispatch a surogate?

So it is okay for Hillary to dispatch Bill to comment on a area of trouble for Hillary, but not Elizabeth Edwards to talk about women's issues or any other issue.

---

by: BDM @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 14:37:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unfortunate comment (4.00 / 4)

This is not the first time I've seen anyone accusing Edwards of hiding behind a skirt.  But that is truly sexist.  That's like saying Clinton hides behinds a man's trousers, meaning Mark Penn's, and that would be sexist as well.

Ms. Michelman's official role in the Edwards campaign is an advisor on women's issues.  Therefore, it is  appropriate for her to speak on his behalf. 

---

by: Benny @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 14:42:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is, but ... (0.00 / 0)

... Ms. Michelman should be identified here as a paid advisor, and not merely as a "supporter".

---

by: Adam B. @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:14:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Adam B (0.00 / 0)

Are you paid or not for Obama? I'm not paid for JRE.

---

by: Benny @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 17:21:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meaning (4.00 / 1)

that I am not a paid advisor to JRE. I'm just a blogger, support JRE as a volunteer, nothing more. I've not seen many who have to specify in the way you suggest, but perhaps they should.  But if you are Adam B, you should say so.

B

---

by: Benny @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 17:25:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not paid by Obama. (0.00 / 0)

Never have been, never will be.

---

by: Adam B. @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 23:18:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you expect Kate to be sidelined BECAUSE she is a woman? (4.00 / 3)

Edwards himself has been speaking out on Hillary's parsing: he did it at the debate (and we all have witnessed the resulting distraction from victim Hillary from that) and after the debate.  He speaks for himself clearly.  He is undeniably engaged in this issue, like he is all the issues in his campaign.  From a statement yesterday, for example:

"I believe Senator Clinton should be held to the same standard that every one of us should be held to - tell the truth, no more double-talk and no defending a broken system.

"What I heard from Senator Clinton on Tuesday night was more of the same double-talk-and the American people are tired of it. We need a president who will say the same thing all the time.

"If the Democrats want to win in 2008, it is crucial that we nominate a candidate who can restore the trust between the president and the American people. What we saw in the debate were the 'politics of double-talk.' I have a really simple rule: if you get asked a yes or no question you shouldn't give a yes and no answer."

http://johnedwards.c...  Emphasis added.

and from today:

"The Democratic debate on Tuesday was a defining moment in this election. From my perspective it is important for the next president of the United States to be honest and sincere and trust-worthy given what's happened with Bush over the last seven years. Instead of straight talk, there was a lot of doubletalk in the debate from Senator Clinton on some of the most important issues facing the American people.

"In this election, it is important for voters to know what choices they have. I don't think you can be a candidate for change and say you are going to bring about change and then defend lobbyists and a broken system. Those things just don't go together.

"If you want to be the candidate of change you have to have the strength to say no to the Washington lobbyists' money and the courage to tell the truth about why the system is broken and why it doesn't work for regular Americans.

"For the sake of ending the corruption in Washington, we've got to have a fresh start and the strength and honesty to fight for real change."

http://johnedwards.c...

He can't however, be everywhere.  That is why campaigns have spokespeople. Kate is not new to his campaign, and she works on a variety of issues.  By your reasoning, she should be precluded from having a voice on this particular issue, one where she feels strongly.  I appreciated her perspective as a woman working in politics.  It puts Hillary's reaction to being challenged into a context based in reality.

Accusing him of hiding behind Kate's skirts is just more of the sexist game.  Kate has every right to speak out.  And candidates have every right (and the responsibility) to challenge an obfuscating frontrunner to be specific on issues.  Hillary has the right to try to change the subject (and has done so), but we don't have to be fooled.

---

by: Boadicah @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:01:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Skirt Hiding (4.00 / 1)

The remark that Edwards is hiding behind Kate's skirts is totally illegitimate.  It's the kind of blabber that makes me disregard and stop reading the comments of whoever says it.  Arguments like that reduce the level of the controversy to a playground squabble.  If you have no better argument than that, give up.

---

by: Querent @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:49:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pile on (4.00 / 3)

Any one who thinks it was not a "pile on" with the media (Russert & co) trying to go after Hillary and get the Democratic candidates to do that as well should read THE DAILY HOWLER discussion of the questioning.  He compares the way Russert questioned the front runner Bush in 2000 and the way Hillary was questioned the other night - the comparison is truly shocking when you read it. And people say she was not smiling at the end of the night so you could see her true colors- really now.  At least be realistic. 

---

by: NYMARJ @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 15:26:41 PM CDT

Lousy Journalism, Yes, (4.00 / 1)

Pile on, NO.  Russert and Tweety are pathetic.  This is not exactly news.  Russert has a fourth or fifth rate intellect at best, but he thinks his understanding is profound, so he pollutes everything he speaks about with his egotism.  Chrissy is just a pre-adolescent geek.  Neither of these two dwarves should be "moderating" these "debates".  They are intrusive, distracting, boorish, puerile, and obstructive. 

But what is illegitmate and unprofessional from the mike monkeys is totally legitimate and professional from the candidates, and that is discussion of the issues and where the leading candidate stands on them, WITH an AGENDA.

I don't give a damn about Russert's agenda.  Matthews' agenda is useful to me only in being able to immediately identify his interests as trivial and pointless.

I do want to hear Edwards' agenda, and Obama's, and Kucinich's, and Dodd's, and Gravel's, and Hillary's, and even Biden's and Richardon's.

So the candidates are supposed to stand aside and let two morons with microphones determine the points of discussion?
I don't think so.

Hillary needs to 'fess up.  She doesn't get a pass because she's famous and interesting.  If she has to equivocate on everything, then she's not a leader.  On the other hand, she's under no obligation to answer yes or no to any and every simplistic slogan she's presented with.  She's been given lots of time and opportunity to speak.  Her positions should be clearer than they are right now.  So far it's mostly "what he said," (referring to Edwards.)

Hillary is not running on the issues.  She's running on her reputation and the Clinton administration's record.  Not good enough for me, but it is one possible approach. 

---

by: Querent @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:13:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I can not believe the Obama (4.00 / 2)

and Edwards campaigns are actually trying to co-opt such a disparaging, harmful meme as the one being pushed by the decidely male-centric corporate media.  I think saying her alma mater prepared her for the all boys network of presidential politics is NOT playing victim.  Why is the acknowledgement of the historic position Clinton has found herself in so insulting to the Edwards and Obama campaigns? 

---

by: masslib @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:05:59 PM CDT

except this isn't a discussion (4.00 / 1)

of one particular comment or event, but whether its an over all strategy that has proof of its existence in all of the circumstantial evidence together rather than any one picked a part or parsed moment or event or statement.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:18:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

CALLING THE OTHER MALE CANDIDATES BOY'S (0.00 / 0)

So are you also calling Obama a boy?

---

by: BDM @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 17:45:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To Summarize (0.00 / 0)

I guess if you want to deconstruct people's grammar and diction, you are free to do so.  I'm actually much more interested in the issues than I am in the byplay.  Hillary has to accept the fact that she is going to be questioned by the other candidates.  If I were she, however, I would not participate in any more events hosted by Russert, Matthews, or
Williams.

---

by: Querent @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:22:43 AM CST

DEBATES TEST OUR CANDIDATES (0.00 / 0)

Our candidates need to be tested in order to prepare them for the GE. kERRY WAS NOT AND WHEN HE WAS HIT ON THE sWITBOAT HIS RESPONSE WAS LATE AND WEAK.

This is the first time in this campaign that Hillary was hit and her campaign did not respond very well. She needs these type of debates because if she win's the nomination, she will be hit hard by the GOP.

dRIVER'S LICENSE issue is one in which the GOP will be giving a definitive answer. Clinton needs to take a position and defend it.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 08:48:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ms. Michelman (0.00 / 0)

Ms. Michelman:

It is you, not Hillary but YOU, who is playing the gender card on behalf of your losing candidate.

And quite frankly, as a woman, I find it despicable.

---

by: Regan @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:43:57 AM CST

Hillary's toughness (0.00 / 0)

I thought Hillary was tough and the first time she gets confronted on her record she goes crying that she is picked on because of her gender.

She will never stand up to the on-slaught from the Republican nominee if she cry's foul when they go after her.

Remember she has to appeal to independents and they will not tolerate hiding behind her gender in the engagement of hardball politics.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 17:42:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When? (0.00 / 0)

Neither she nor her campaign has specifically stated that.  And since every campaign cries foul when their candidate is under attack, language is fundamentally gendered ("strong woman" non-issue; no one blinks an eye when men profess their strength), and gender is immutable trait, she couldn't possibly defend herself from your charges.

---

by: Patrickson @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 18:12:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When (0.00 / 0)

They never admit it but they imply it and use other's to do it for them.

She can defend herself by answering the questions and stating I am the front runner and can take it. She finally did it when the other two aspects OF HER RESPONSE were not working.

The implication of being a victim to the males on the stage and the moderator's questioning  makes her look weak. It makes her look like she can't take a rhetorical punch.

My take on this is that she isn't as strong a candidate as purported by the MSM

---

by: BDM @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 21:05:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Take this back to Mr. Edwards (0.00 / 0)

She Beats 'Em All

"Within her party, Clinton's riding the two-horse team of strength and electability. Sixty-two percent of Democrats pick her as the candidate most likely to win in November, a new high and up 19 points since June. Fifty-nine percent also pick her as the strongest leader, her next largest advantage. Her reputation for overall leadership also lends Clinton a more-than 2-1 advantage among Democrats in trust to handle Iraq and Iran alike..."--Washington Post/ABC News Poll

---

by: Regan @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:16:53 AM CST

Every Campaign Does It! (0.00 / 0)

As an Edwards supporter, I must admit I'm a bit pissed that his camp has failed to call bullshit on this whole "gender card" nonsense, especially the accusation that Clinton is "playing the victim."  She *never* even said that they attacked her because she's a woman.  Not.  Once.  The TV pundits, the same fools who insisted that Gore claimed he invented the Internet, did that (Since gender is immutable, the only way Clinton could've avoided the charges was not to have been a woman).  At Wellesley, she stated *fact*: presidential politics is an all-boys club (Are we so PC that we can't even say that?).

What her campaign did is what *every* campaign does: when under attack minimize the damage by using distraction and dismissing criticism and, thus, could be accused of "playing the victim" and yet only her campaign is singled-out.

What complete bullshit, especially considering that when our own man Edwards was under attack by Ann Coulter the campaign allowed his *cancer-stricken wife* to defend him.  Unbelievable.

---

by: Patrickson @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 18:06:54 PM CST

Your logic is like several people (0.00 / 0)

here is not clear to me. So unless a politiican directly says something we can never say they implied it? Bush if you go back to look at the records has never once directly said Saddam was behind 9/11. Not once. But its well understood thats what he meant. Why? But according to your logic, if I am understand it, you would be pissed now at all those people who attributed that to him, correct>?

And let's get to another bit of twisted logic from a 'supporter'. You are saying because Clinton is being called on her manipulations this is something unique? Are you serious? If what she is doing is natural- so is the behavior of those around her to call her own it. Like the diarist writes it seems you want some kind of special treatment for Clinton because this is gender that she is using. I've been accused of psycho babbling people,a nd I won't do that with you here, but it seems odd to say the least the contortions most so called progressives are going through to justify patently manipulative behavior just because I suspect its one of your hot button issue- namely gender. But thats no excuse to ignore the manpulation.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 23:30:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Michelman (0.00 / 0)

I am pissed that Kate Michelman has set up diaries here and on Huffpo for the purpose of wagging her finger in Hillary's face.  There is absolutely NO way that Hillary played the gender card.  It has pretty well been debunked effectively.  And Michelman damned well knows it.  And so does John Edwards and all the desperate members of his team.  This makes Kate Michelman a fraud and a liar. (I refer to her in the 3rd person because it seems she posted the diary and than disappeared). 

Every candidate must do his or her best to convince voters he or she will be the best President for the country.  It's a highly competitive thing - but a seasoned politician which Edwards is supposed to be - must honor at least the most basic protocol.  Obama knows this.  Hillary knows it even better.  John Edwards hasn't got a damned clue.  His interview with Stephanopoulos yesterday had him squirming as GS shone a light all over Edwards hypocrisy. Does anyone actually believe the American people can't see through this guy?

I hope Hillary's team finds this diary today and features it on hillaryhub.com with a heading that goes like this:

"John Edwards Dispatches His Feminist Supporter to Attack Hillary"

This diary is one of the most despicable things I have ever read in all my 40 years of following Democratic elections, the slogan stolen directly from a fucking cigarette ad.  John Edwards is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

---

by: Regan @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:15:07 AM CST

Debate (0.00 / 0)

I have really found this whole issue fascinating. I watched the debate and thought that the men (except for Richardson) ganged up on Hillary. This was strickly my perception and I was looking forward to what other people thought. But a pile-up is what I believe I saw. 

I often post at a forum where liberals and conservatives both post. I expected the conservatives to go after Hillary but what I found out surprised me, that many liberals just didn't see the same debate that I did. Either that or they've once again internalized the RW meme. I really don't know.

But lets say that Hillary is playing the "gender" card. So what? Why shouldn't she? Does it make her stand on issues invalid?

But the most frustrating thing about this whole incident is that Hillary was not the candidate I was rooting for. I think some of her issues, like healthcare for example, just suck. But I've found myself defending her and sympathizing with her and frankly it pisses me off. And I don't think I'm alone with my feelings and I think it was a mistake to go after her the way they did.

---

by: Kewalo @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 15:48:02 PM CST