home

Pack Journalism and Gender Politics

Taylor Marsh has a good post on the media's gender bias against Hillary where a show of passion or a flash of anger or forceful self-defense is deemed shrill and a laugh is deemed a cackle.

While Big Tent doesn't agree, I think Kevin Drum nails it:

Am I feeling bitter? You bet. Not because Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose — I can live with that pretty easily — but because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her. Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill.

I'm disgusted and embarrassed by the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton. And their fawning over Barack Obama and his mantra of "change."

Kevin goes on to say: [More...]

Because we insist on an idiotic nominating system that gives a bunch of Iowa corn farmers 20x the influence of any Democratic voter in any urban area in the country. Because the fever swamp, in the end, is getting the last laugh.

I agree it's ridiculous to give any one or two states such an edge in determining the Democratic nominee. But I don't think Iowa is just a bunch of corn farmers. The caucus I went to had 494 attendees. It was urban and there were middle-aged and young people and minorities. It looked like my neighborhood caucuses in Denver (Ok, Denver isn't New York or LA or DC but it's not the hinterland either.)

While Taylor says women everywhere get what's going on, I'm not sure that's true. Check out this e-mail I got from a a gay male observer:

I have a question that I don't see anyone talking about right now and that is the disturbing behavior I see from women toward Hillary Clinton.

I belong to other on-line forums -- Democratic forums -- and I see women referring to Hillary as "bitchy", "catty", "shrill", "ugly" and some too bad to mention. Most of these come from women supporting Obama. The idol worship and willingness to throw their gender under the bus in order to elect Obama is disturbing.

My question is, what happens when the campaign is over and women realize that they have set themselves back ....Will they be surprised?

I am a gay male and I could NEVER set aside my sexual identity to promote a candidate. Imagine if I, as a gay male, attacked a gay male as inferior because he was gay -- or used terms like fag to put him down just because I favor a non-gay candidate.

What do you think? Is it worth it to women to take two steps backward in their fervor to promote a male candidate? How will women feel when this is over?

Obama did better in Iowa with women except in the age group of 60 and older. David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register told the Examiner,

Older, blue collar women liked Clinton while younger and professional women liked Obama."

So, are women hostile to or just uninspired by Hillary? Is Hillary losing ground due to the media hype over Obama or because she's Hillary Clinton? And is it even true that women voters will not support Hillary?

Personally, if I decide to support Hillary, it won't be because she's a woman but because I think she will make the best President. I could care less whether the best candidate is male or female, white or black. My decision will be based on which candidate I believe is the best qualified and most equipped for the job. The Presidency of the United States is too important to reduce to a historical marker or game of "firsts", whether it's a female or African-American. Neither gender nor race will affect my decision.

That said, the gender-based slamming of Hillary, both in the media and online, is very disturbing.

< New Hampshire: Fox Republican Debate | CNN: WMUR Poll: Obama Ahead With NH Dems-Indep. Combo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Last night (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:43:22 PM EST
    I commented very strongly on this issue more than once. I am not one of those women who let other women get smacked around because it is easier to get out of the line of fire than it is to stand up and say "knock that off". Anybody who wants to hunt around for it can do so.  I made at least one person quite annoyed with me.

    If you think that is why you were annoying (none / 0) (#61)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    then you are quite deluded.

    Parent
    tee hee (none / 0) (#63)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    you are stalking me (none / 0) (#79)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:27:14 PM EST
    I have asked you several times to leave me alone.  WHAT is wrong with you?

    Parent
    Help (none / 0) (#69)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:17:48 PM EST
    I AM BEING STALKED.

    Parent
    you are stalking me, Dan,. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM EST
    Hey Jpete (none / 0) (#85)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:42:15 PM EST
    Thank you for the 5.  Maybe you could help me out here.

    I am being followed around by a poster I have asked to please leave me alone. He name calls an just wont back off.

    I have another one who has already made nasty comments now come back and post more - when what I said here had nothing to do with him.  

    Do you think that is stalking?  Or an attempt to gang up on me and intimidate?  Isnt that what we were talking about?

    I have to go - but I have rarely seen a more stunning example then right here.

    Parent

    You should watch Edwards' (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:56:49 PM EST
    expression when Hillary lashes out there.
    He's got a chesire cat grin.
    Between his transparent posturing last night and his  unconscionable emotional manipulation today, I have never thought less of him.

    he lost me, too (none / 0) (#19)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:14:53 PM EST
    I know he is playing tough politics but since he cant win anyway it seems pointless to get vicious.

    Parent
    What he's doing is a fine way to (none / 0) (#21)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    win a lawsuit, a terrible way to make a case to be President.

    Parent
    he already did lose (none / 0) (#25)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    now it seems to be a case of - how can I lose and take a torch to my dignity?

    Parent
    many fine people over at DK are (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    just eating this up---and I mean this with all due respect. There are  a lot of really passionate, smart, informed voters who are totally for Edwards.


    Parent
    free country (none / 0) (#43)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:43:34 PM EST
    Why? (none / 0) (#62)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    Do you hate men?

    Parent
    who is that directed to? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:16:42 PM EST
    who hates men?

    Parent
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#70)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM EST
    seriously - I am being stalked.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#77)
    by Rojas on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:26:25 PM EST
    by all means (none / 0) (#82)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    in a thread about women applaud it.

    Parent
    Perhaps you should change (none / 0) (#91)
    by Rojas on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:54:17 PM EST
    your display settings to "nested".

    Parent
    MarkL (none / 0) (#74)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:20:53 PM EST
    He said Edwards has a "Cheshire Cat Grin."  It's not something you would say about a woman.  I want to know why he is being so sexist and hates men.

    Parent
    it was directed at me (none / 0) (#75)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:22:09 PM EST
    Dan and his other poster pal are stalking me - not you.  

    Parent
    The reason HIllary (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    lost Iowa is because Barack, and the way he has portrayed democrats values, got out the vote, for DEMOCRATS!

    The media may well be unfair to Hillary, but to chalk up Obama's success to an unfair media, is to insult a huge victory democrats had last Thursday.  

    a victory in one state (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:40:37 PM EST
    that as a whole, is very unrepresentative of the nation.

    Parent
    Well Obama (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:47:33 PM EST
    Didn't invent the primary system, i think you point to problem with her strategy.  She ran a national campaign in a primary.  The primary didn't conspire against her, she picked a bad strategy.

    Parent
    "inevitability" = hubris = arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:57:39 PM EST
    Arrogance doesn't make you very popular in a primary - especially when the first two states think it's their "birthright" to put you in your place.  imho.

    Parent
    Who deemed Hillary Clinton the (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:09:34 PM EST
    inevitable nominee though?  I don't recall hearing that from her campaign.

    Parent
    there was a leaked (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:37:03 PM EST
    memo back at the beginning of the year. Her strategy was to run as inevitable.

    Parent
    well there you go! (none / 0) (#47)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST
    link please? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:44:19 PM EST
    I don't recall that. I recall her campaign continually disavowing the inevitable mantle.

    Parent
    ok straightened out (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:20:49 PM EST
    so her campaign didn't say it, they might has well; have though.

    here is the link

    Parent

    must say (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    that memo is laughable now

    Parent
    "Might well have though"? (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:44:55 PM EST
    When did you stop beating your wife?

    Parent
    totally fair (none / 0) (#30)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:23:40 PM EST
    I don't think her campaign ever used the word "inevitable."  But the press sure used it alot, and she (and her staff) didn't do much to downplay expectations.  Instead, she used the "inevitability" talk to cement her spot in the lead.  As a candidate it left her a little unchallenged (arguably), and allowed Obama to ride the rhetorical wave in Iowa.

    Parent
    If someone decided to deem me the (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    inevitable winner, I doubt I'd try to talk them out of it.

    Parent
    but you see (none / 0) (#34)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:27:09 PM EST
    you must be blamed coming and going.  There is no logic to hatred - it simply feeds and feeds.

    Parent
    It's a tough spot (none / 0) (#46)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:47:38 PM EST
    ...and of course you don't talk them out of it (I wasn't saying she should).  But the primary states like an underdog candidate.  If you're deemed the inevitable candidate, embrace it and shape your image and rhetoric to reflect that, then people think it might be nice to take you down a peg or two.  Obama came along and directly challenged the inevitability which appealed to a lot of people who (unfairly) interpreted her unwillingness to downplay the press comments as arrogance.  If he hadn't come along, or hadn't played with the language the way he did, I think it would have worked in her favor.

    I'm not saying she is arrogant.  I'm just saying that being hung with that label means you have to tread carefully or perception swings towards hubris.  As a strategy, it ended up not working for her (as other posters have mentioned).

    Parent

    NYT termed unidentified headline (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:32:30 PM EST
    writer termed her "defiant" during last night's debate;  the two males who reported the article described her as fighting back "with feistiness and flashes of anger, pursing her lips, stiffening her back, and staring intently at her rivals."   Feistiness, yes, but I missed the rest of that, although I was watching and listening to her every word.

    Wonkette/Cox had the most sexist, derogatory labels.  

    sad (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    Cox is a wannabee Dowd which is setting ones intellectual sights about coffee table height.

     

    Parent

    The gender slamming has been consistent (none / 0) (#7)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:47:08 PM EST
    through the entire campaign, it just didn't become pronounced until Obama started doing well.  Before that, the was getting the brunt of the criticism and Clinton was receiving ignorant, maybe unintentionally, sexist coverage.

    I absolutely agree with Jeralyn:

    I could care less whether the best candidate is male or female, white or black. My decision will be based on which candidate I believe is the best qualified and most equipped for the job.

    Two things really surprise me:  1) that it took until now for the press to call attention to the sexist rhetoric that has surrounded her since she was First Lady, and 2) how many feminists do not want her to win.  Why?  Because she stayed with Bill to use him to get to the Presidency.  I've had a lot of friends who criticize her for not leaving him to do it on her own.  Maybe it's true that if she had pursued things that way she'd have the support of the younger women, too.

    Does anyone see any truth to that?  I brushed it off at first, but I've heard it repeated a lot.

    Speaking only for myself... the "girl" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:23:28 PM EST
    comment at the Teamsters' rally may have set it off.  When Hillary said, "I'm your girl."

    Suddenly, it was discovered that a lot of young women don't want to be considered "women" but rather "girl" when they are in their late 20's.  If they were 12-15... I could understand it.

    Hillary is drawing out the complexities of feminism and our "successes" (or not) in this nation.

    She also carries the burden of Bill Clinton and his interactions with women's issues... and he wasn't exactly considered a friend. Remember the treatment of Lani Guinier and Joycelyn Elders.

    It is not her burden to carry, yet there it is.

    Parent

    I think it's a collective burden (none / 0) (#38)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    and she's just being highlighted at the moment.  

    Before the primaries blew up, it was Katie Couric carrying the burden.  Back in September she went to Iraq and the Boston Herald (reporter Jessica Van Sack) wasn't alone when it lead with:

    Katie Couric has traded in short skirts for body armor as she anchors the CBS Evening News from Iraq this week. "America's sweetheart" scored a one-on-one interview with President Bush and toured the battered streets in what many view as a bid by the leggy anchor to earn her boots.

    The New York Post said:

    The plucky, 5'11/2" newswoman will trade her high heels for combat boots and don 30 pounds of body armor for the assignment...

    Other articles questioned whether she was doing her children a disservice by going to a war zone.  Was Brokaw, Jennings, Rather or any other news anchor scrutinized this way when they went to a war zone?  Do we even know what kind of shoes they wore before or during the trip?

    Sorry if this seems off-topic, but Couric and Clinton only exemplify the societally-sanctioned habit the press and commentators have to speak down to women in traditionally male fields.  Sometimes it's a little more subtle, but as we're seeing now it can flare up offensively.

    Parent

    I attended a concert by the Berlin (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    Philharmonic conducted by a guest conductor, who was filling in for a man.  The guest was a female from Australia.  All the reviews discussed her swinging long black hair and her stiletto heels.  

    Parent
    Same paradigm that allows (none / 0) (#48)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    reporters to comment on the content of an Edwards or Obama speech, and the tone of Clinton's voice (or cut of her pantsuit) when delivering a speech.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM EST
    You people don't the world with different eyes.  People call Edwards angry all the time.  She even says it "some want to demand change."  You guys think that anyone who doesn't support Hillary has some kind of personality flaw.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:27:49 PM EST
    Who said I support Clinton?

    And when has anyone critiqued Edwards' masculinity the way they've critiqued Clinton's femininity?  Have you ever read an article that discussed the cut of Obama's suit or the color of his tie as if it mattered (the way articles make note of the cut and color of Clinton's suits)?

    Is Edwards ever accused of playing the "guy card?"

    When discussing Edwards' anger, does anyone ever also tack on "over-emotional," "shrill," "hysterical," or (as I saw in a comment following an online debate article) "menstrual?"

    I am absolutely not saying that people who don't support Clinton are sexist.  I'm saying that women, in general, when covered by the press are subject to a different kind of scrutiny and more personal (less professional) adjectives and descriptions.

    The fact remains that women, and anything feminine, are perceived by this culture as being emotional and weak.  It's just how we operate.  Look at the prison that is punishing its inmates with pink cells.  What does it say about us that a purportedly feminine color is a punishment?

    I'm not a fan of Senator Clinton's campaign, but I do think our culture makes it more difficult for a woman to campaign for an office like the Presidency.  

    Does that make more sense?

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#68)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:16:49 PM EST
    "And when has anyone critiqued Edwards' masculinity the way they've critiqued Clinton's femininity?"

    What do you think the haircut story was about?  Was it to show his masculinity?  

    This is ridiculous.

    Coming off of 2004, after what happened to Howard Dean, you people are being ridiculous.

    Parent

    You people?? (none / 0) (#83)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:38:15 PM EST
    Which people?  (looking over my shoulder)

    I would agree with you if the haircut was the subject of a full-length article focused solely on the cut, how it compared to his previous hairstyles, and how it accents his face-shape (which was an article I read following a haircut Hillary got back in the 90's).

    The reason why the Edwards haircut story gained traction was because the guy preaching on poverty paid $300 for a haircut, and billed it to the campaign.  Not really the same thing.

    Parent

    aren;t you going (none / 0) (#54)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:29:31 PM EST
    go educate yourself by reading the the piece in Vanity Fair I cited as where I got the Michelle Obama quote (paraphrased)  I mean, you made a nsaty accusation and I quoted my source - arent you interested in actually looking into it or is your effort done once you accuse?

    Parent
    I thought (hoped) (none / 0) (#56)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:42:30 PM EST
    you weren't going to address me anymore.

    I'm sorry, I didn't catch your reference to the article - don't flatter yourself, I don't go out of my way to read all of your posts.

    I'd already read the article - please refresh me, what was your point about it?

    Parent

    you are staking me (none / 0) (#81)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:31:38 PM EST
    I am? Are you a vampire? (none / 0) (#84)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
    In need of "staking?"

    Parent
    this post was clearly for jgarza (none / 0) (#59)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:03:21 PM EST
    go educate yourself by reading the the piece in Vanity Fair I cited as where I got the Michelle Obama quote (paraphrased)  I mean, you made a nsaty accusation and I quoted my source - arent you interested in actually looking into it or is your effort done once you accuse?


    Parent
    Staying with Bill.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Angel on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
    You really don't know why she stayed with Bill.  None of us do.  And it isn't any of our business.  

    Parent
    No, it isn't anyone's business... (none / 0) (#55)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:32:17 PM EST
    The post before commented on the younger women's vote, and I've heard a handful of college freshmen say they couldn't respect her because she thought she needed Bill to get to the White House.  I don't agree with that assessment, but I was wondering if anyone else had heard that or agreed with it.  

    That's all.

    Parent

    Here is a survey of one: (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:19:18 PM EST
    a female cab driver who was probably 55 sd. she would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she stayed with Bill after Monica. She didn't connect it to presidential ambitions, just though she should have left.  

    Parent
    According to my (none / 0) (#94)
    by RalphB on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:12:54 AM EST
    daughter, a psychiatrist, a surprisingly large segment of the population have largely hidden abandonment issues.  These are more prominent among women than men.  It seems these cause some people to be more upset about spousal cheating.  Obviously Hillary was able to set aside her pain and keep her family together, when many others would have split. I personally consider that a very positive character trait and I respect her more for it.


    Parent
    Interesting. I've (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:18:07 AM EST
    had some really close female friends who had such a decision to make.  They eventually left the marriage.  Can't say one way or the other.  

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#97)
    by burnedoutdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:21:41 AM EST
    I didn't know abandonment such a common issue.  It makes sense, though.


    Parent
    But Jeralyn (none / 0) (#10)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    I thought you already said you supported her for President.  

    No one (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM EST
    should be elected (or not elected!) for their gender or ethnicity. Ever.

    Is it relevant that Mark Geragos (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:06:57 PM EST
    is representing them in a lawsuit against CIGNA?  I think so.  Also, many, many people who are approved to receive a liver transplant do not actually receive a liver.  Short supply.  

    Explain about Geragos (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that this meeting was his idea, to get favorable publicity for the lawsuit?

    Parent
    I suspect (with no evidence) (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:11:37 PM EST
    that he held a press conference with his clients and the Edwards campaign either got word of the case that way or Geragos suggested his clients contact Edwards's campaign or Edwards's campaign contacted Geragos to get permission to speak with the clients.  Excellent tactics on Geragos's part.  A whole nation as sympathetic potential jurors.

    Parent
    Remember musharraf? (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:16:44 PM EST
    Edwards said musharraf called him;only later did we learn that Edwards called first.

    Parent
    The last I read, Edwards called (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    the American Ambassador to Pakistan and sd. he'd like to speak to Musharraf if M wasn't too busy.  Then M. called E.  

    Parent
    Yes, but originally they were just (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:27:02 PM EST
    saying that Musharraf called Edwards, as if out of the blue, at least IIRC.

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:10:43 PM EST
    He said Musharaf called him and in the same conversation when asked why, he said he had called the Ambassador (or whoever) and asked him to ask Musharaf to call him.

    Parent
    BTW, Jeralyn, I think BTD limitied (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    his post to exclude bloggers's criticism of Hillary Clinton's performance last night in NH debate.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:16:14 PM EST
    Big Tent and my posts are different. That's why two of us write here. If we always agreed, it would be boring.

    Parent
    Isn't that the truth! (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:19:47 PM EST
    Ah yes, the age old refrain... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Aaron on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    Things aren't going well for us, start searching for scapegoats.  Instead of buckling down and doing something about your problems, trying a new approach, or opening yourself up to new ideas, let's start looking for people to blame. Bad move.

    This is of course a common human response, and history is replete with the ugly destructive consequences of this tactic. Not the kind of thing you want see to coming from someone who wants to lead, or their supporters.

    Notice that as soon as things didn't go Hillary's way in Iowa, Mark Penn, on the plane ride to New Hampshire, started blaming people, Bill Richardson, the media etc. The rationalizations were coming fast and furious, and what did they conclude in the end, we'll just keep on doing what we've been doing, and hope for a different outcome in New Hampshire.  A tactic that was doomed to fail.

    How sad that the Clinton campaign is already reduced to finger-pointing, they don't really think that this will somehow save them, somehow redeem them in the eyes of the American electorate do they?   That kind of thing doesn't impress the voters, because it foreshadows what you will do in the White House when things don't go your way.

    The Clinton campaign can still pull this out, but not with these tactics.  Time to dump Penn reevaluate and regroup, and come back with a new message for South Carolina, and Super Tuesday.  Otherwise the Clinton campaign is going to die a fast ugly death.

    So the people who support Clinton can sit around complaining, looking for scapegoats, and making excuses for why she's not doing well, or you can get up and go do something about it, the choice is yours.

    Even though I'm an Obama supporter, I don't want him to walk away with this nomination virtually unchallenged after South Carolina, I want him to have to keep fighting for it, I want him to prove to me that he's got what it takes to go the distance.  Does Hillary? The chips are down, now's the time to prove your quality Mrs. Clinton.

    And spare me the poor little picked on girl routine, she already played that card in another debate.  You wanted to get into this game with the boys, and now you're going to excuse your obvious failure by not going after Barack Obama in the last debate, which is what she needed to do, by saying you're not being treated fairly, please.  

    And before anyone in the mainstream media had a chance to mention meltdown, I and others over at Kos used that description in comments while the debate was happening.  So I think the media was just reporting on what people were saying and thinking.

    It isn't all women who come off as shrill when they speak up for themselves, it's Hillary Clinton who comes off as an amateur surrounded by pros, pros who know better than to let their emotions get the better of them in a nationally televised debate.

    That explains it then. The "mainstream (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:20:53 PM EST
    media" was reading DK.

    Parent
    funny (none / 0) (#28)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    It's disgusting (none / 0) (#24)
    by MikeDitto on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    I could hardly watch the caucus coverage on MSNBC. I can't support Hillary because I know what she and the people she surrounds herself (start with Mark Penn and head down the line) with would do to the party. Howard Dean will be finished. The progressive movement would be over just as it's getting started.

    But listening to Tweety and Andrea Mitchell talk, I wanted to run to Iowa and caucus for her myself. It was just out of control.

    nice comment (none / 0) (#27)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:21:19 PM EST
    you sound fair.

    Parent
    but (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:25:40 PM EST
    your reasons for not supporting her strike me as extremely...well...not to my taste.

    Parent
    Not sure waht your tastes are (none / 0) (#105)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:29:12 AM EST
    and I'd never delude myself into thinking I could please everybody. I can only speak from my own experience. Bill Clinton's people were Gore's people were Kerry's people and are now Hillary's people.

    Only now are those people beginning to see that Democrats will win in the west but not in the south, and that's a start, but they resent the bottom-up approach and like the party to be managed from the top.

    I also am not a Deaniac, and I think Howard's a little whacked at times. But the fact that he's returned the party to being participatory and not ruled by fiat. People actually go to caucuses and party meetings now because they believe they can make a difference.

    The 12 years of history of how the Clintons' people ran the party leads me to believe that it will be a return to heavy-handed management (and liberals, unlike conservatives don't like to be told what to do at every turn) along with concentration on 50% +1 electoral votes, abandoning the party building that has led to massive gains in state, county, and municipal offices in all 50 states.

    If Clinton would make a compelling case that she believes the party is about the people who make up its membership and not DC consultants, and state unequivocally that she will continue building the party from the bottom up, I might change my mind. But I can't in good conscience support her for president unless I know it won't endanger the possibility of electing people like Kathy Hartmann, the first Democratic County Commissioner in Jefferson County, CO in about a million years.

    Parent

    Mike was TalkLeft's webmaster (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    for a long time, is from Denver, has worked for many campaigns and is a terrific guy.

    Parent
    Thanks J! (none / 0) (#106)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    Right back at ya! :-)

    Parent
    OT: Gore Vidal is speaking and (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:30:10 PM EST
    answering questions on C Span.  He says he likes to think of himself as a "minor twin" of Mark Twain.  

    My *only* brother died last year (none / 0) (#37)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    at the young age of 40.  In the prime of his life, with three very successful businesses, a lovely sweet wife, and four sweet children.

    He had insurance and lots of money. But he died a horrible death in a hospital emergency room lying on a guerney for 8 hours with NO treatment.  I presume the insurance company was taking its time in processing the "approval" paperwork to let him be readmitted again.

    He was in a hospital with new facilities and multi-millions of dollars of equipment that just sat there not being used.  And they let him die.

    Do NOT presume that Edwards' talk is cheap and tawdry and means nothing to people.  

    If Edwards is the change and the fight that has to come to give us and our doctors some measure of control over our healthcare, then we better stand with him in some capacity... even if you do not want him to be president.

    You can ignore it and think it can't or won't happen to you.  Just like I did.  Just like my brother did. He would NEVER have thought they would treat HIM, of all people, like that.

    You and you family have my sympathy. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM EST
    I'm very sorry for your loss. (none / 0) (#44)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:45:43 PM EST
    There is no question that medical care is in a terrible state now. Many hospitals are in a lot of financial trouble now. The reasons for this aren't perfectly clear to me, but what I am sure of is that the solutions have to be systemic, and cover much more than insurance. To my mind, the Sarkisian case is a poor example because it involves a difficult decision over a very expensive treatment with a poor prognosis, for a very sick patient.
    I'll leave the discussion with this point: my lack of respect for Edwards in no way  is meant to imply lack of empathy for the Sarkisians.


    Parent
    I am sorry, too. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    So sorry, Bronte. We need all 3 legs on the (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:00:54 PM EST
    healthcare stool...a president, a congress and trial lawyers who sue their socks off when they screw up.  No law will prevent mistakes but the Rs and insurance companies emphasis on tort reform is designed to prevent you from suing the incompetent, careless or stupid.

    Does your family have a good lawyer?

    Parent

    Per the lawyer... yes. (none / 0) (#108)
    by bronte17 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    My sister-in-law has an excellent firm that has taken the case and she has the support of our entire family.  But, it doesn't give me my brother back and there isn't enough money in the universe to replace him.

    I was too emotional with that comment above... really shouldn't write about it... it's still too soon for me to control it.  

    So, the bigger point in this is that it isn't just some "other" that is suffering from this horrendous bureaucratic nightmare of our healthcare system... it isn't just the poor or the single mothers or the immigrants or whomever it is that are "deemed" to not be deserving of equal care within our system.  

    My brother worked hard his entire life, played by the rules, was a good citizen and did nothing but contribute to the greater good of society.  They walked by him, ignored him, and left him in incredible misery during his final hours.

    As if I should have to say such a thing.

    Anyway... whatever it takes to get attention to this issue... I want it brought to the forefront in our domestic issues.


    Parent

    I love how (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:43:19 PM EST
    all this post has are quotes from other people complaining that there is gender bias and pack politics (even really unbiased sources like T. Marsh)  yet not a single citation to prove this supposed bias.

    Seriously are you saying that pointing out Hillary lost Iowa is is about to loose NH is sexist? give it up.

    Oh, geez, that is *not* what I'm saying... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:03:34 PM EST
    but I can't speak for anyone else.

    All I'm saying is that sexism is alive, well, evident in the press and affects more women than just Senator Clinton.

    BUT an "ism" by itself cannot sink a campaign - if it did, Obama would still be organizing in Chicago.

    My central point is that a woman campaigning against the patriarchy faces limited rhetorical options and increased likelihood that more insignificant aspects of her public presentation (hair, heels, laugh, gaze, tone, etc.) will be unfairly scrutinized and criticized.  In Senator Clinton's case, I really believe she's been in the political realm long enough to know how to manage her image and rhetoric (and is probably why she is deemed "calculating").

    Yeah, my point is a little rambly.  Sorry about that.  This thread is fun, though.

    Parent

    To add something (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:47:29 PM EST
    Posts freaking out about how bias the media is and how unfair everyone it to Hillary, feed  a narrative the her campaign is imploding.  This just isn't going to help her.

    I thought I heard McCain specifically (none / 0) (#60)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    target Obama for lack of experience last night.  He didn't mention Hillary although he had the chance.  Smart.  Why make an enemy until you have to?  If they are both the nominees, that will be soon enough.

    Women dissing women. I call (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    that the "queen bee" syndrome.  

    It Is The Media THat Reinforces (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:50:48 PM EST
    The stereotypes. According to your list, and the media, no woman is fit to lead the US.

    And the way the media knocks down a male threat is to feminize him, haircut etc.

    What a loss. Basically the media have not evolved beyond cavemen.

    and you're Ok with that? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Joebasic on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:53:34 PM EST
    so if a man dissmissis your comment as typical of "that time of the month" or something..thats all OK..
    I have seen much more than that said by males and females alike.
    and thats OK now?
    Really?
    the times..they are a changing, I guess.

    Hadn't heard that one. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    Despite Mark Penn goof-offs, (none / 0) (#92)
    by bordenl on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:58:41 PM EST
    Hillary's campaign is "relentless" in the same sense that Greil Marcus observed when she was at a fundraiser during impeachment. She kept reading her script, with traditional Democratic themes, despite everything that was happening around her.
    In terms of elected official experience on any level the three candidates are very close together. When Hillary talks about "experience" she lets the first lady experience work both for and against her depending on how important voters think it is.
    This campaign has increased my basic respect for Hillary. The woman who goes out and debates is knowledgeable and is no dummy. You can only wish she was out there without the appendage of Bill to color how people see her. Even without this obstacle she has made it easier for the next female presidential candidate by being competent. The next candidate will encounter the same levels of celebrity and doubt which male candidates do if she has a similar resume.

    We've all (none / 0) (#96)
    by RalphB on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:19:11 AM EST
    seen how little competence counts in this campaign. I think the next woman candidate will have just as hard, or a harder time, than Sen Clinton because this one was so shallow.


    Parent
    See "similar resume" (none / 0) (#104)
    by bordenl on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:57:21 AM EST
    However shallow the media is, they have had to get used to covering figures like Nancy Pelosi without gender bias. If the next person comes up not from being first lady, which is a gossip trap, but from being a governor or a senator, they will know them in those terms and speak about them in the same ways.

    Parent
    see Pat Schroeder. (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:49:54 PM EST
    And BTD is doing a super job (none / 0) (#93)
    by bordenl on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    Very little time spent on meaningless candidate partisan attacks.

    Rush Limbaugh and media bias (none / 0) (#100)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    Media bias exists when it is against Hillary.  Of course, there is no such thing as media bias in a general election campaign, when the overwhelmingly Democratic (except for Fox) media report impartially about both Democrats and Republicans.

    gender politics (none / 0) (#101)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:14:27 AM EST
    Sorry guys-Margaret Thatcher was plenty aggressive and Republicans would crown her as their nominee if they only could.  It's HILLARY that people hate, not women.

    The older women were more likely to support (none / 0) (#102)
    by JSN on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:43:47 AM EST
    Hillary at the Iowa caucus and the younger women were more likely to support Obama. Whenever I hear someone say they hate Hillary it is most often a younger woman not a man.

    Parent
    Yup! (none / 0) (#103)
    by burnedoutdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:45:54 AM EST
    And I really can't figure out why she's turned off that entire gender/age group.  

    Parent
    Politics is unfair. (none / 0) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:44:18 PM EST
    Always has been, always will be.

    HRC has an "edge" which, according to many, can pretty accurately be described the way the media and bloggers have done. There are many highly successful women who don't have that edge and don't get labeled the way she does.

    There are enough male-only descriptors for men who have an "edge."

    Pols get media bias, both pro and con, for a huge number of "unfair" thing - like birthplace, accent, looks, etc.

    fwiw, this whole topic sounds a little whiny to me, to use a word one of this site's headliners likes to use, and I'm not sure that's a word or concept HRC, especially, needs to be associated with.

    iow, I think this type of continuing convo hurts her more than helps her.