Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 12, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

HARD TO GET....Meghan Daum takes a crack at figuring out what Hillary Clinton's real problem is:

For a lot of people, Hillary Clinton just wants this too badly. Her Achilles heel is not that she cries (or doesn't) from disappointment, but that she is visibly salivating from hunger. That may be OK for male candidates, whose appetites tend to be selling points. But if there's anything that's drilled into women's heads before we're old enough to even ask for something, it's the importance of playing hard to get, of pretending we don't want anything at all.

....As difficult as it to say out loud (which is why you haven't heard it), Clinton's aching need for the presidency is freaking voters out....What we want from Clinton is the impossible. We want her to pursue the nomination without looking like a pursuer.

Discuss.

Kevin Drum 12:23 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (176)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Actually, what we want is a President not named Bush or Clinton.

Posted by: redterror on January 12, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe that we're going to have to put up with five years of this shit.

Posted by: Gabriel on January 12, 2008 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Bletch. Just, kill me now. I'm beginning to think Americans haven't EARNED a woman for President yet. If they can't stop paying attention to media figures who push sexist (and racist and homophobic and classist) nonsense, then they DESERVE Giulani or Huckabee or one of the other lunatics. Americans are mooks.

Posted by: s9 on January 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree. Many the male villain in movies is presented as "overly ambitious." A more relevant distinction is "confident determination" vs. "confident entitlement." Regardless of gender, the latter is stereotypically negative and the former is stereotypically positive. Whether any of the candidates view the presidency as "theirs" (i.e., they deserve it, rather than they are pursuing it), I don't have the faintest. But the distinction is important and has nothing to do with gender.

Posted by: noogs on January 12, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Give me a break. We are told that Hillary is horribly ambitious by male pundits. I haven't seen any of that from the candidate herself. If in fact this were true, why did she work so hard in the Senate instead of keeping herself in the public eye.

Romney seems to me the one to want it too badly. He is willing to change his opinion on ANYTHING to get votes.

Posted by: Teresa on January 12, 2008 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

I just think she'd be a middling to bad president, who would rally the right, get filibustered to death, and maybe be defeated in 2012.

The misogyny stuff is just a cheap distraction Clinton surrogates and pundits with deadlines whip out every so often for obvious reasons. It's not material, except as a campaign tactic.

Posted by: Steve C on January 12, 2008 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

[Deleted Content]

Posted by: Al on January 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

No. As with everything else: Not because she's a woman, but because she's a Democrat. If you remember, Kerry wanted the presidency badly in 2004, Gore wanted it *really* badly in 2000, and Bill Clinton wanted it REALLY REALLY badly in 1992. They were all utterly shameful in their ambition.

Of course you've never heard that about a republican -- even about, say, Romney, who's willing to spend tens of $millions of his own money and lie about everything, or, say, Giuliani, who craves power like a vampire craves blood.

Same old same old: IOKIYAR.

Posted by: mars on January 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Al, you douchebag, any fact to back up this ridiculous nonsense:
"Hillary always to be scheming and manipulative. Her cold looks reflect her attempt at arbritrary control of whatever she can. She simply can't be trusted."

This is just so stupid that you could be on TV.

Posted by: karen on January 12, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary's real problem is stupid journalist from today's ugly, worthless newspapers and TV media.

Like for instance, who's idea was it to create the meme that John Edwards is the "angry" populist? I haven't noticed Edwards screaming, or not smiling enough? So where did this "angry" come from? Murdock and company?

Who is calling Edwards "angry" except angry Repug journalist like those at the WP, who want to label someone and get Dems to repeat the meme like there is anything to this lie.

Edwards, the angry populist of Iowa who may become a Southern-fried Democrat as the South Carolina primary unfolds, has a critical decision ahead. How long can, or should, he keep his candidacy going?

Well clearly Dan Balz of the Washington Post would like Edwards to drop out right now, reader be damned.

I don't give a damn about Dan's nasty, partisan tricks of his trade. Bloggers have to fight hard against this kind of labeling, particulary since it's made up out of pure thin air, and pushed via a very nasty group of thugish journalist.

Posted by: me-again on January 12, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Of the top three Democratic candidates, I consider Edwards to have the most desire without content. Sen. Clinton has at least a history of trying to accomplish some progressive policies and Sen. Obama has a legislative history. Edwards accomplished very little while in the Senate and has done nothing since his failed VP run.

Posted by: Brojo on January 12, 2008 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like for people to care about policy, efficiency, and good government. This is a close second though. Caring about this stuff is pretty cool.

"cries from disappointment","salivating", "appetite", "aching need", "freaking voters out" -- great framing for a post highlighting sexual stereotypes! Couldn't have done better myself. Well maybe I would have added something about a strap-on, but overall I think they created a great image.

Posted by: B on January 12, 2008 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

With all due respect, that is, IMO, a load of crap. I think that a lot of people blame the Clintons for the impeachment(instead of blaming the Republicans, who were salivating at the idea of taking Bill Clinton down.) They hate her because she doesn't suffer fools gladly, and they want to take her down. All you had to do was to watch TV before the NH primary. Media types could hardly contain their glee that she was about to lose-they thought. It was revolting.

The press is mesmerized by Barack Obama's oratory. They want his "fresh" face in the WH. I have been hearing a few attacks beginning from the wing-nut gallery, though, so his honeymoon may be over shortly.

Posted by: Susan on January 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I want a driven president. Especially when contrasted with some lazy-assed douchebag like Fred Thompson who couldn't care less.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 12, 2008 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

oops, here is Dan Balz's link

Posted by: me-again on January 12, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

more hooey that ought not to be repeated.

Posted by: Lee on January 12, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Count me amongst those who think this is a "load of crap".

I caucused in 1992 for Tsongas as I am repulsed by those who have been angling to be president since the adolescence (Bill Clinton). For the same reason I was not enthused with Gore and am not enthused with Senator Clinton's campaign. Their DLC affiliation also turned me off.

None-the-less, I voted for Clinton and Gore in the general elections and will certainly vote for Senator Clinton should she gain the nomination.

Posted by: Chris Brown on January 12, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo nailed it.

Posted by: coldhotel on January 12, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "Discuss."

I think that Eric Alterman writing in The Guardian/UK says what needs to be said:

Seriously, let’s cut the crap. Cover the candidates’ stands on the issues, please, so voters can make sensible decisions. This obsession with the horserace is only making everyone doing it look like a horse’s ass.

And what goes for the "obsession with the horserace" goes double for the obsession with the fake, phony pop-psychoanalysis of both the candidates and the voters. Seriously, let's cut the crap.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Redterror nailed it.

Posted by: KathyF on January 12, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, god.... what the hell is it going to take to repair our fundamentally broken national media? Why on earth was this column written? And why the hell was it printed? Just shoot me now....

Posted by: PaulB on January 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I could give a damn about Hillary Clinton's ambition. My problem with her is that she's just a terrible politician. Oh, don't get me wrong, I think she'd be an OK president, and I do think she's an effective manager. But she's a terrible communicator, she is completely uninspiring and unpersuasive, her "attacks" are laughable, her experience is a perpetually unknown quantity, and she seems incapable of actually connecting with other people aside from the ones who see her as the apotheosis of feminist principles, which she is not.

I have little respect for someone who decides to play the victim card all the way to the White House, despite such obvious flaws. Being President isn't being Prime Minister. I don't hate Hillary by any means, but I don't think she's suited to the task, and I really hope that Obama wins the nomination. I'm already sick and tired of media types going pop psychology on the voting public, though.

Posted by: Lev on January 12, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Unbelievable. The rush to innoculate Hillary Clinton with The Shield of Sexism has not hit the red-line.

It's not because she's a WOMAN that wants it too badly, it's because she's a CLINTON. Their "say and do anything to win" campaign has been disgusting. From alluding to Obama being a drug-dealer, to the Bill Clinton hissy-fit about the media gong easy on Obama to the manufactured "tears" of Hillary because she was cracking under the pressure and all of the race-baiting, they've been disgusting.

The truth of the Clintons is that they've been irrevocably corrupted by reaching the very heights of power. Remember the reason Bill Clinton gave as to why he messed around with Monica? "Because I could." He was so drunk on power, he thought he could do anything. And Hillary was hitting the bottle right along with him.

THAT'S why THEY want it so badly. They're not running "for the people" or "for the country", they simply desire to drink from the Cup of Ultimate Power again and the people can see and smell it all over them.

It has NOTHING to do with the fact that Hillary's a woman and I'm SICK TO DEATH of her supporters always trying to portray it as such.

Posted by: Luv on January 12, 2008 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo wrote: "Of the top three Democratic candidates, I consider Edwards to have the most desire without content ... Edwards accomplished very little while in the Senate and has done nothing since his failed VP run."

Unfortunately I share that view. I am a Kucinich supporter, and I think that Edwards' rhetoric is right on target with regard to the economic class disparities and the destructive role of corporations and the ultra-wealthy in this country, and I admire his courage in running as an outspoken anti-corporate populist.

However, as Brojo suggests, I don't see the substance in Edwards' record to back up the rhetoric. His record as a lawyer going after corporate crooks is impressive, but as a politician he seems to have been a pretty mainstream DLC sort of Democrat and not to have rocked the boat very much.

I get the impression, as I did in the 2004 primaries, that he is actually running for the VP nomination with Obama as the presidential nominee. That would make sense, since Obama and Edwards combined votes in both Iowa and New Hampshire are well ahead of Clinton.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Sen. Clinton comes in about fourth on my preference list (particularly because of our foolish willingness to keep families in power), but I do not buy your point. The British had no problem electing Lady Thatcher and she certainly wanted the role.

Sure, Senator Clinton is happy to be senator and wants to be president, but she hasn't been doing this on her own.

Posted by: freelunch on January 12, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Meghan Daum: If Hillary wants it too much she's a whore, and if she doesn't want it enough she's a bitch.

You know Hillary Clinton might win big simply by running against the media.

Posted by: David W. on January 12, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't read the whole article (so sue me) but the excerpt above makes it hard to know if Daum agrees with this characterization, or is just saying a lot of people feel this way. I think a lot of people do feel this way, which is why there are so many people who don't like her but can't say why. Anyway, anybody who does feel that way is a flipping moron. EVERYBODY who runs for President really, really wants to President (except maybe Fred Thompson), because if they didn't they wouldn't tolerate the bullshit that comes with running for Pres. Frankly, I don't want anybody stumbling into President with a "aw shucks...me?" grin on their face. I don't give a shit if they're as ambitious as MacBeth, so long as they know what the hell they're doing.

Posted by: Xanthippas on January 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

It is the Sen. Clinton's sense of personal entitlement that irritates people more than her ambition.

It doesn't irritate everyone, of course, any more than George W. Bush's sense of entitlement -- which is just as pronounced, but which he concealed as a candidate a bit more artfully than Clinton is able to -- irritated everyone. There are Americans who are actually comforted by the idea of only having to choose between candidates representing prominent and familiar families. There are also Americans who regard Presidential candidates who seem to think they have the office coming to them with distaste. Which group is larger is one of the things we will find out by November.

Posted by: Zathras on January 12, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

But, on the other hand, Obama running for Prez is perfectly OK, by these standards? He's been in national politics for a grand total of 3 years, he's used his Senate position as merely a stepping stone to the presidential run but no, he's not salivating or anything...

I'm voting Clinton precisely because I'm sick to death of these idiotic double standards. I wanna see all the effing pundits eat a big dish of crown when Sen. Clinton wins that election in November. That by itself will be worth it.

The fact she's well qualified for the job does not hurt either.

Posted by: mike on January 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Translation: The little lady is too ambitious and doesn't know her place.

What sexist crap!

Posted by: JoeCHi on January 12, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Well, it's certainly freaking REPORTERS out. As for voters... uh, isn't Hillary still comfortably leading in national polling?

Posted by: NK on January 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

The problem isn't that she wants it, but that she'd be bad at it. Having questions about gender (and questions about questions about gender) dominate the discussion is good for her, because it draws attention away from the questions that are bad for her. And you can't deny that she and her advisors help to keep the gender questions, and meta-discussion about gender questions, in the forefront of discussion. Obviously they think it's to their advantage.

Posted by: bob on January 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Addendum: I do wonder if reporters are more susceptible to this stuff because of their need to boil everyone and everything down into neat little self-contained stories in order to properly do their job.

Posted by: NK on January 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, nobody ever criticized Al Gore for 'wanting it too bad'...

For all the people here willing to scream that people are finding racism where there is none, you all seem pretty quick to find sexism where there isn't really any evidence of it.

Posted by: soullite on January 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Psychobabble by someone with the same initials as Maureen Dowd, or is 'Meghan Daum' Maureen's new nom de plume

Anyway, you get the point....

Posted by: dcshungu on January 12, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Of all the extremely qualified American women politicians, like Cantwell and Boxer and Feinstein and Pelosi, Sebelius and Napolitano, why do we have to be guilt-tripped into voting for the one who is the least likeable, the most nepotistic, the most hawkish, and the most corrupt?

Posted by: lampwick on January 12, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

soullite, it isn't the "wanting it too bad" part but the sexist virgin-whore dichotomy that Daum places it in that's the point. I was harsh on Daum, but it's certainly true enough that plenty of voters do have that sexist frame that they see Hillary Clinton through that they never did with someone like Al Gore.

Posted by: David W. on January 12, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm voting Clinton precisely because I'm sick to death of these idiotic double standards. I wanna see all the effing pundits eat a big dish of crown when Sen. Clinton wins that election in November. That by itself will be worth it.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Clinton and her team encourage this kind of thinking. Hillary and her advisors are constantly reminding people that she's a woman and a victim of a double standard, etc. The Tearful Moment may not have been planned in advance, but the followup buzz from her advisors was deliberate.

They do it because it works. It pushes people to vote for her out of sympathy, to get the pundits to eat crow.

Posted by: bob on January 12, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

A couple weeks ago in Bakersfield I saw a pickup truck festooned with various bumper stickers that gave me the idea that the driver was a social conservative: Man + Woman = Family was one; God, Guns, and Guts was another. The third had a picture of Hillary Clinton with the caption: A Woman's Place is in the House--Not the White House. The two women with me were rather angry. What struck me was the fact that there is no Equal Rights Amendment and the idea of overt discrimination against women, while not in the political mainstream, is a legitimate form of personal expression. On the other hand, you'd never see a bumper sticker with Obama Barack's picture saying, An African-American's place is in the...wherever. Which gives me an idea that there is Bradley effect for women as well as African Americans. But I don't recall seeing any statements that it would be wrong not to vote for Hillary Clinton on the grounds that she's a woman. And I find it very interesting that, since women are not a protected class either in legal or social terms, a female candidate's attributes and behavior can be discussed in terms of her sex in a way that would be beyond the pale in terms of a candidate's ethnicity. We can talk about Hillary acting too much or too little like a woman or trading on her woman-ness. But we're never going to hear about Barack Obama acting "as an African-American man is expected to", or Huckabee behaving "like a typical Southern Baptist". It's not considered proper to compare a male political candidate to his ethnic/religious archetype (or stereotype). So both supporters and detractors can try to define and evaluate Clinton in comparison to a standard of womanhood that looks pretty subjective. That leads both to a lot of useless tomfoolery by pundits and the rather dangerous belief that it's OK for observers to objectify and critique a female candidate on the basis of her gender and their own preconceptions. That allows everybody (including Hillary) to have their own Hillary instead of defining her by her positions and character. It's a dangerous and dishonest place for politics and society to go. The real issue isn't whether Hillary can use her gender in the campaign; the real question is whether everybody should be allowed to.

Posted by: China Hand on January 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

And finally, the "wanting it too bad" is fueled by a perception of what she's willing to do to get it. It's not just "wanting" it, but wanting it badly enough to have her team out there dropping subtle and not-so-subtle racial code words about Obama. Etc.

Posted by: bob on January 12, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

For a lot of people, Hillary Clinton just wants this too badly.

And the others don't?

Posted by: Daryl on January 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

please, make this stop! can every pundit who feels the need to share their "insights" into hillary's gender or barack's race just pause before hitting the "post" button and ask themselves "what do my insights reveal about me?" in this example, ms daum really wants to be part of the kool kidz and may be having a hard time fitting in. pundits: less projection, more self-reflection! thank you.

Posted by: lawrence on January 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jeebus, so what this really is, is Bush over in the Mideast recruiting terrorist for al Qaeda via setting up long-term occupation with his permanent military bases and also pushing for grossly inequitable Hydrocarbon Framework laws totally indifferent to humanity and people of Mideast - which of course is the thing Bush and Cheney ever do.

Sorry, Barack, You’ve lost Iraq.
Bush's efforts to negotiate a long-term U.S-Iraq pact may remove troops as an '08 election issue for Obama, Clinton.

Yeah, right.

The nasty pigs of today's ugly corporate owned press world. THIS is why 9/11 happened.

Posted by: me-again on January 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Meghan Daum wrote: But aside from concerns about Clinton's electability, authenticity or trustworthiness...Her Achilles heel is not that she cries (or doesn't) from disappointment, but that she is visibly salivating from hunger

It's hard to separate these issue, because her ambition sometimes leads to inauthenticity. For example, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Hillary initally denied it and blamed the "false" accusations on a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 12, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Has any other politician said anything like the following?

"But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't really thought that through enough."

Does this not go beyond saying she has more experience or more relevant experience and cross the line towards being a bit patronizing towards her opponent? Who says Obama hasn't thought through what he would do on day one? And who says one of the two is "right" and the other is "wrong"?

Imagine if Bill Richardson had said the same words towards her or even the elder Bush had said it in response to Clinton in 1992. (Well, the Republicans were patronizing towards Clinton in 1992, but that was one of the reasons why they lost.)

Posted by: PE on January 12, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

I do not care what there last name is as long as it is not another wishy washy war hawk republican.

Posted by: Al on January 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, ex-lib, why won't you answer my question?

How many draft deferments did you ask for and receive during Vietnam?

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 12, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

If you ask me, this meghan daum is doing a bit of old fashioned projecting. She should see a therapist before she airs out her personal problems on the record like this.

How the hell do you "play hard to get" while you're campaigning for president!!!

Posted by: sampo on January 12, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Redterror got it exactly right, as far as I'm concerned. Everything else is bull.

Posted by: Winslow on January 12, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

dcshungu is right. Sounds like a Maureen Dowd wannabe. Problem is Maureen Dowd's psychobabble "analysis" is silly and this is a cheap immitation of silly.

When a writer begins the first paragraph with a sentence saying Hillary "clawed"!!! her way out of Iowa, that writer needs to apply some psychobabble analysis to herself.

Why does the msm continue with these ridiculous insights from imbeciles who base their thoughts on cheap pop psychology best sellers and made up theories.

Posted by: Chrissy on January 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Can we just call her that Daum bitch and get it over with?

(C'mon - someone had to say it!)

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 12, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

My problem with Obama is I'm not convinced he wants it that badly.

Posted by: AF on January 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

The Onion already ran this article:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48757

Posted by: Matt12 on January 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, got that right! I am chagrined about it too.
As a feminist, I have not liked what Hillary became as a Senator--it was not on behalf of the village. Thus, I have a lot of rational reasons for not wanting her.

But in my gut the big deal is the subsumed drool. Rationally, you could also say that since this is the obvious drive for the plan--it is why she has been a weak Senator. Certainly not one with a core of character and an intact, expressed vision.

Posted by: yoduuuh on January 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

It's hard to separate these issues, because her ambition sometimes leads to inauthenticity.

You mean like when the scion of a New England family of bluebloods dresses up like a cowboy?

Dipshit.

Posted by: junebug on January 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

As difficult as it to say out loud (which is why you haven't heard it),

Is there some sarcasm here I'm not getting or is she unaware that this is a major right-wing limbaugh talking point.

Posted by: Boronx on January 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

With very few exceptions, these folks aren't up on the podium for your benefit, they are up there to fill their own needs.

The same goes for so-called 'leaders' in other areas... business, finance, law.

Ego-satisfaction is the primary driver. Most of these people are 'successful' [sic] because they are willing to do things a normal, mentally healthy human being won't do. The further up the ladder you go, the worse it gets.

History teaches us that lying, cheating, stealing, and eventually killing seem to be the norm rather than the exception. So, sadly, it ends up that humanity is mostly run by psychopaths. Our founding fathers knew this well and created a structure intended to prevent a single individual [like a GW Bush] from gaining too much power.

Now, back to Hillary. When I look at her personal history and see her literally 'beaming' up on the podium, I see a person who DOES want this real bad... WAY too badly for my taste. She has structured her entire life around this moment. Her gender has nothing to do with it.

While I don't see her becoming massively evil like our current administration, I also don't see much in the way of integrity or courage either. I see a person doing what is expedient to further a personal agenda. [i.e. a clever policitian, business as usual]

Edwards has taken a bolder verbal position, but like some other people have commented, His history is not in alignment with his speech. I don't think he really means it.

On the other hand, Kucinich really believes what he says... probably the most 'genuine' candidate of the lot. Unfortunately, honesty and integrity don't get you far with the american public.

Obama also looks to have a significant ego. His big advantage is that he has a charismatic personality and may be able to rouse the common folk out of their stupor. [Which is the only time change really occurs].

Republican candidates... IMHO: all 'business as usual' except perhaps for Ron Paul. Like Kucinich, he pretty much says what he means and is therefore not electable.


Posted by: Buford on January 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

But if there's anything that's drilled into women's heads...it's the importance...of pretending we don't want anything at all.

Not sure about the overall tone of this article, but speaking as a woman who has butted up against various degrees of misogyny all my professional life (in a "non-traditional" field for women) the catch-22 set up by this almost always unspoken - and never examined - expectation is impossible to adequately or effectively address.

Hillary is not my first choice candidate, but I, too, would be ecstatic to see the pundits and political establishments gag over her election. Should she win, however, the barriers thrown up against her actually achieving her agenda will make the previous obstacles to her success look trivial.

I hope she is prepared for that. It's not that she cannot prevail, it's just that it will take more effort, savvy, cunning and bloody-mindedness than she has ever had to use, even during the impeachment. The Republicans, abetted by the media, will throw dirt we cannot imagine. Truthfulness will be a lost cause, and the swiftboating of Kerry will look like a church tea.

Finally Hillary must be prepared for her successes, which will be minimized , to be credited to anyone else (quite probably Bill) and her failures, which will be greatly magnified, to be hers alone.

Posted by: clio on January 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Who wants the presidency more, who is more desperate, who has sacrificed more principle to stay in the race than John McCain?

Posted by: Jim on January 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Notwithstanding the ambition of any candidate, we shouldn't expect too much from the next administration. The next President will inherit a poor economy and Iraq with an electorate that will continue to be ambivalent, unsophisticated and easily influenced by Republican talking points.
But any Democratic administration will be more competent and rational. I'll take it.

Posted by: don't know on January 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

I do agree that male and female politicians play under different rules. And yes, the media have been shamelss. I think this isn't the way to understand Hillary's weakness.

The contrast shouldn't be with Hillary and the male pols, but with other successful female politicians. The quality that made women like Pat Schroeder and Anne Richards shine was their sense of humor. They could make people laugh. This defused many dangerous situations for them.

Hillary is at least as bright as either of those two. But she's never made me laugh out loud or cheer, something Pat and Anne did almost every time I saw them on TV.

Posted by: Gene Ha on January 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Who wants the presidency more, who is more desperate, who has sacrificed more principle to stay in the race than John McCain?

Mitt Romney.

Posted by: junebug on January 12, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

I think that the observation re Clinton is oversubtle: What IS freaking people out is the nastiness that the Clinton candidacy is provoking--and not only among Republicans, who are gleeful at her resuscitation both for fundraising purposes and the prospect of facing her in the general election, but also among Democrats. Even if none of what is alleged lately with respect to Billary's statements is true, that many Democrats/liberals believe them to be malintentioned does not bode well for the next year's (or years', God help us) political discourse. Billary is extremely polarizing: it's a fact.

Posted by: SJW on January 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with SecularAnimist back at 1:08--this horse-race/psychoanalyitic crap really is a waste of time.

I'll add that Meghan Daum is one of the few op-ed writers who makes Maureen Dowd look thoughtful and articulate by comparison.

Posted by: James Gary on January 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I wish Pat Schroeder had run in 1988. I was ready to work for her and I remember how many were nasty to her regarding her show of emotion when she decided against her run.

Posted by: PE on January 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Some people make the incorrect and prejudiced assumption that Ambition is attractive for men but not for women. They therefore expose their prejudice by suggesting that Hillary would be fine if she was male, therefore everyone who doesn't like her ambition is a misogynist. Like all prejudice, this is just flatly false. I don't like Hillary not because she's ambitious. I don't like her AND ALL PEOPLE LIKE HER MEN OR WOMEN because she's Slavish and devoid of principle. I know that as soon as she gets the nomination, she will turn from her lukewarm progressive principles and start tacking hard to the Right, never to look back (since if she is elected, she will also be the presumptive nominee in 2012 and will no longer need to suck up to the Left). So, it's not that she is Ambitious. It's that she is Void of Principle. She is an empty vessel that she will fill with whatever she needs to fill in order to achieve Power. That is what I dislike about her and everybody like her from women to men.

Posted by: BombIranForChrist on January 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Murdock own TIME mag sez...

War NOT an issue any more.

Will Iraq Return as a Campaign Issue?

TIME - 34 minutes ago
US President George W. Bush gestures as he speaks to military personnel and coalition forces during a visit to US Camp Arifjan, 35 miles south of Kuwait City on Jan. 12, 2008.

Hide the coffins and pretend there is NO war in Iraq. Pretend it's not a campaign issue. Put lipstick on the pig.

War?

What war, is there a war?

Posted by: me-again on January 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Meghan Daum is the version 2 of Moron Dowd !

Nuff said

Posted by: bob on January 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

I just want somebody who didn't enthusiastically support the war, and lie about their reasons for doing so. I don't particularly care whether they have a uterus or not.

Posted by: Brautigan on January 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

A silly piece of writing that overanalyzes gender when the plain fact is that Hillary, for her many gifts, is not a gifted candidate. She can't tell a story or give a speech to save her life. In a head-to-head with McCain, this would be a wash. But against great communicators like Edwards or Obama or even Huckabee she's really SOL.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on January 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Wu wei.

Posted by: joey slinger on January 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

If anything, the "overly ambitious" rap could be made against Edwards, whose first run for the White House came at a lower level of experience than Clinton has now, and whose second run came after having done nothing else in the interim.

I think I'll decide for myself why I'm not excited about the prospect of President Hillary, thanks. People telling me it must be because I'm a secret misogynist are not changing my mind, strangely enough.

Posted by: Hyde on January 12, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Without trying to parse the psychology here, isn't the point of the excerpt Kevin posted that Hillary, because of her sex, is perceived by many in our still unevolved, sexist country as "wanting it too badly" because women aren't supposed to show that they want things? We're expected to manipulate males and play "hard to get" and that is why there is some underlying distrust of her. It is too obvious that she "wants it." I actually think this is a quite an astute interpretation (and one I hadn't considered before) of a part of the anti-Hillary sentiment that lots of people, liberal and not, have.

It's also damn clear that every male who ever ran for President has wanted it really, really bad, too. But that's ok. IOW: IOKIYAM.

Posted by: Cranky on January 12, 2008 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK


Ambition is the ability to succeed without butt smooching.

What politician today doesn't kiss butt for campaign funds?

Posted by: Ya Know.... on January 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Start a table with your presidential possibles across the top and your favorite issues down the left. Put checks where you know you agree and x's and ?'s otherwise.

As a Democrat, I gave Edwards, Obama, and Clinton columns. My rows stretched to more than twenty with personal, state, regional, federal, and global issues including economics, health care, global climatics, and military expenditures. (We spend more than all other countries combined!)

Checking off what I think I know and researching the other boxes forced me to Web sites, e-mails, and a few phone calls. Clinton and Obama are playing a game between "we the people" and their rich funders, guess who wins. Vote for John Edwards.

I will never have a beer with any of the candidates, nor with the president. All of this personal stuff is beside the point: Hire the most capable and discard media palatives and pundratic motives. Polls do not decide, we do!

Posted by: Bob Johnson on January 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

redterror, post #1, got it right.

Hillary's Achilles Heel is that she is the wife of a former President. Some rules should not be broken: Bosses should not grope or be groped by their subordinates; Executives should not trade stock based on insider information; Therapist's should not sleep with their clients; each POTUS is limited to two terms, nations should not invade and occupy other nations to seize their oil. Each of these is a violation of power--someone in a privileged position uses his or her power to get something for him or herself.

Hillary's supporters keep excusing her. She's a woman, which is what they want. She's competent, too, a nice improvement over the last legacy candidate. Therefore, they don't see anything wrong with using her privileged position to springboard her campaign for POTUS.... For me, on the other hand, it's a deal-breaker.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 12, 2008 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: paxr55 on January 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Therefore, they don't see anything wrong with using her privileged position to springboard her campaign for POTUS.. -PTate

Yet thats the very reason that Junior got elected. Name recognition.

Posted by: Ya Know.... on January 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton is not even president and yet already, once again, we are stuck in some onanistic boomer melodrama!

It's like "I didn't inhale" all over again. I can't take this for 8 years.

When will the most solipsistic generation disappear up its own asshole and leave the rest of us alone?!

NO MORE POSTS ON CLINTON.

Talk to us about global warming, Kevin.
I yearn for a bar chart showing health care costs.
Trade law, imports ... chinese defense spending...

Anything... Please.

Posted by: Adam on January 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

What nonsense. Her "tears" were self-pitying, and that's never attractive. Contrast her emotion at losing with Al Gore's concession speech in 2000.

Even worse, her comments were extremely narcissistic. For Pete's sake, she conflated the fate of her campaign with the fate of "the children."

In any competition, there are going to be winners and losers --- this is true from sports to politics. Only poor losers emphasize their personal pain after the competition.

Posted by: Dagome on January 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary doesn't want it any worse than any of the other candidates, nor does she appear to want it any more. Hillary is just a screen on which her detractors project whatever they don't like.

And I say that as someone who prefers Edwards and Obama over Hillary.

Posted by: The Fool on January 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Zathras: It doesn't irritate everyone, of course, any more than George W. Bush's sense of entitlement -- which is just as pronounced, but which he concealed as a candidate a bit more artfully than Clinton is able to -- irritated everyone.

I caught this of Bush as candidate. It creeped me out and I couldn't get my friends who couldn't see it. While there can be no comparison policy-wise (though I find Hil's sudden touting of populist positions a tad opportune), I also get this palpable sense of 'It's our place' from both Hil and Bill.

As for wanting it badly, Giuliani is a complete and total creep out and Romney takes the contortionist prize.

So, no... while other things certainly are, I don't think this is about gender much as some would like it to be.

Thank god though we don't get so much of this horse race crap in our own elections. Are your journalists utterly incapable of talking policy?

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Disagree. The thing that makes me uncomfortable with Hillary is that she is the wife of a former president. I don't think dynasties are good for America (do you need evidence?), and there's just something too Peronist about the whole thing. I think the country has plenty of people who are capable of doing a good job as President (none are members of the Torture Party), and we don't need to keep going to the Bushes and the Clintons to find them.

Posted by: Sempringham on January 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

If I hear one more "feminist" reason why Hillary Clinton isn't running away with this nomination, I'm going to puke.

I'm a feminist and the same age as Hillary. I've lived through the triumphs and horrors of it all. And, in my opinion, Hillary just doesn't have what it takes to make a great president.

I've seen her invoke every cheap feminine wile...I'm your girl, you hurt my feelings, the boys are picking on me, and crying because some of us don't see her as our last great hope! And, oh yeah, a former president campaigning for her! Give me a break.

Some of us have seen her record and it leaves us cold.

Posted by: Cyn2 on January 12, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

"We are told that Hillary is horribly ambitious by male pundits."

What a bunch of bullshit. From Salon (Paglia, Kissling) to the LA Times (Daum), to the Washington Post, to the New York Times (Modo, Judith Warner) we've had plenty of women pundits telling us how ambitions Clinton is.

I think that charge is bullshit. But I think, Teresa, your charge is worse.

Let's be reality based. There are lots of good reasons to vote for or oppose Hillary Clinton. Worse still, matters of personality like "shrill", and "demanding" are important. Look how the left blogosphere opposed Bolton for the UN due to the way he badgered people.

In many ways I admire Hillary Clinton, and I do not think she is either shrill or demanding or whatever. I oppose her because of her votes and closeness to parties I dislike and the overall vagueness of her positions. Luckily for her, I am not all that gung ho on Obama either for similar reasons.

None of this is any excuse for your blaming the male pundits on this issue. There is plenty of "Hillary's a bitch" going around from women.

Posted by: jerry on January 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

It's OK to want the job real bad but when you say that all the other candidates are not up the task of governing, Clinton is asking for trouble and more divisiveness.

Sadly, even if she wins both the nomination and the presidency we are looking at 5 years of ear splitting, raging discord. Face facts: earned or not, she had high negatives and causes rancor.

Best bet: Go with Obama or Edwards.

Posted by: Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers on January 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

I have no problems with Hillary fighting hard to get what she wants -- the presidency; but I think somehow she is going to screw up real bad especially when she mentions her experience dating back 35 years.

With all that --what took her so long? Does she just expect to have it handed to her on silver platter because her name is written on it? She is beginning to appear 'mean' and that for me is a turn off-- I just hope she keeps me engaged! I want to hear her message.

Obama's oratory could prove effective in re-setting my dial, I hope she never allows me pick up the remote, because by then, I will be gone.

www.manchestersquare.blogspot.com

Posted by: Vale on January 12, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary's problem is that a substantial group of people hate her (not fatal for a presidential candidate) and another substantial group of people dislike her (potentially fatal).

The tears were a remarkable moment because she somehow got a bounce from tearing up about the possibility of her losing and combined the tearing up with an attack on Obama for not being right, ready or having thought enough about "what to do on day one."

By the way, I know there are Edwards fans here. I have heard him repeatedly tell the heart rendering story of an insurance company delay in approval of a liver transplant for a 17 year old girl that resulted in her death. It apparently is another example of the plaintiff lawyer phoniness of Edwards. He takes bits of truth and puts them into a dishonest story. If you listen to Edwards, the story seems like Cigna delayed approving a treatment that would have saved the girl's life and she would have lived happily ever after.

The truth is that the poor girl had luekemia, a bone transplant failed, her liver failed and she was in a coma [I'm not certain about the coma part]. The UCLA doctors, whose treatment had failed to successfully treat the girl, wanted the experimental liver transplant, premised upon their opinion that there was a 65% chance that the girl could live six months with the transplant. So the Edwards story of an insurance company killing a girl is actually a story about doctors recommending a desperate treatment that might have allowed the girl to live another six months in pain and distress. Apparently, UCLA is very aggressive/experimental in these types of matter, and I read that other health care facilities were skeptical/would not have sought the treatment.

Additionally, UCLA would have immediately proceeded with the transplant for a payment of $75,000. The family could not afford it, the doctors were unwilling to proceed without it, and apparently Edwards was unwilling to pony up $75,000 for his millions of dollars of wealth. I don't think the insurance company is the villain here and certainly not the villain that Edwards makes it out to be.

The sooner Edwards is gone, the better, although I expect to see him either as VP candidate again this year or as a candidate in 2012 or 2016.

Posted by: brian on January 12, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

I'd say no, but maybe that's how women look at it. From my male point of view there's nothing wrong with being ambitious. Anybody running for president has to want it badly enough to put themselves thru this hellacious 2 year long marathon campaign.

I think Hillary's problem is she has no real role model for this. She's tried to neutralize her femininity to appear "manly" enough or something to be president. Consequently until recently she's looked stilted, hasn't acted like the woman she is and that looks phony to a lot of people.

I'd have no problem voting for a woman for president, though Obama is my first choice and I think will by far make a better president. But Hillary is going to have to be herself, a woman, not some neutered version determined to hide or stamp out her natural human feelings and attitudes if she's going to win.

Posted by: markg8 on January 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Her Achilles heel is not that she cries (or doesn't) from disappointment, but that she is visibly salivating from hunger. That may be OK for male candidates...

IOW, just one more big serving of double standard with extra cheese.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist on January 12, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

I guess people do look at Hillary and see what they want.

What I see is a woman who wants to undo all the damage that Bush has done to this country. I like that kind of ambition!!

I worry about Obama because, like this Ted Rall cartoon illustrates, he only wants to compromise.

http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2008/01/10

We need a fighter.

Posted by: emmarose on January 12, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Projection and lack of self esteem on the part of the analyst.

Posted by: Rula Lenska on January 12, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

'The fires of Hell are fed by the souls of ambitious men (or women).'
--William Shakespeare

Posted by: Quotation Man on January 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

If Clinton wins expect tons and tons of psychological "concern trolls" like this. Crap. Crap. Crap.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on January 12, 2008 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, female candidates should campaign like Fred Thompson?

Posted by: Crissa on January 12, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary should quit the Senate to focus on the race (Senator is probably a shitty job anyway, and Dole did this in '96). This would be a sign of her confidence, and a dare to McCain and Barack to do the same.

Posted by: bob h on January 12, 2008 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Please, no matter how much white women love to talk about how it's still okay to discriminate against them, they just don't understand reality.

Nobody is afraid of women. Nobody's misogyny causes them to fear roving bands of women trying to steal their stuff or rape their family members. When Katrina hit, it wasn't the fact that some people were women that kept Bush from giving a shut. When Katrina happened, the police didn't wall off the wealthier areas of the city and threaten to shoot women if they got to close.

So please, shut the fuck about how much the Media hates women and how much the political cards are stacked against Clinton. Maybe you know what it's like to be resented, but you don't know what it's like to be feared because people look at you as part-animal.

Posted by: soullite on January 12, 2008 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

People without minds, like Daughn or whatever her name is, ought not try to read the minds of other people.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton's union in Nevada files voter suppression lawsuit.

"Discuss."

I 'double-dog-dare' you, Kevin.

Posted by: Stephen on January 12, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

"So please, shut the fuck about how much the Media hates women and how much the political cards are stacked against Clinton. Maybe you know what it's like to be resented, but you don't know what it's like to be feared because people look at you as part-animal."


Sorry, no can do. While it's true that blacks have suffered horribly in our history, it is also a fact that the press has been skewed against Hillary. And this is an election year, so people are going to be talking about all sorts of things regarding the candidates. Hillary Clinton has had a lot of rotten press, while most of Obama's press has been favorable. If you watch some of the talking heads on TV, it is obvious that most of them are rooting for Obama. So we need to talk about it. I'm sorry that it makes you uncomfortable, but that is not a good enough reason not to discuss it.

Posted by: Susan on January 12, 2008 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Meghan Daum: We want her to pursue the nomination without looking like a pursuer.

Isn't this the political equivalent of every man's (sexual) fantasy? For a woman to pursue us, without looking like she is pursuing us -- until behind closed doors?

So we can take her home to mother?

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 12, 2008 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody may have said this already, but my big problem with Hillary Clinton is not that she salivates for the presidency, it's that there is NOTHING she will not do to get there. I believe the woman is absolutely unscrupulous.

Also it's my opinion she's fundamentally dishonest. Additionally, I think she would gladly join Dick Cheney in using the Bill of Rights as toilet paper. If domestic spying weren't expanded under a Hillary Clinton presidency, I would go into a coma from shock.

Posted by: Helena Montana on January 12, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

I have never seen a sense of entitlement on the part of Hillary. She's not a rich girl who had things handed to her, rather she has worked hard and taken a lot of body shots from some really nasty political enemies.

Some of her supporters may think she is entitled. Same for some Obama supporters who seem hyper sensitive to criticism.

I'm just sitting back watching how the candidates themselves respond. Can they control their campaigns at all? I don't blame them for everything said, even by campaign officials, but there is a limit to how much their campaigns can get away with.

So far, Barack and Hillary have not cracked. Neither has Edwards. But there is a long way to go.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 12, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

This is absurd.

Willingness to say anything to get elected is awfully unappealing in either sex. Mitt Romney, last I checked, is a man, and nobody's giving him a free pass. And, obviously, the accusation leveled at Hillary (rightly or wrongly) is that she's guilty of exactly the same kind of "Clintonism" - overly calculated, too-clever-by-half manipulation - as the men.

Whether Hillary deserves the label I leave to others to decide, but it's obviously not a gendered one.

Posted by: TedL on January 12, 2008 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Megs is over working the point.

I'm more concerned about commentators who work so hard no to see the humanity in those they cover. It says more about the reporter than the subject.

And can why stop with beauty pagent coverage, and focus on the policies.

Like what are the Dem positions on net neutrality now that ISPs are talking about filtering?

Posted by: patience on January 12, 2008 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Enough about Hillary.
Kevin, here's a good topic to blog about:

http://financialsense.com/editorials/turk/2008/0109.html

$53 trillion and growing - the US govt's debt load.

Posted by: Speed on January 12, 2008 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Just a sampling of what to expect from the monkeys on the press busses for the next 9 years.
Pity, because even though I support Sen. Clinton, it would be nice to read something about how her positions and suggested policies are fueling the support for her or against her.
Silly dreamer...

Posted by: Doug on January 12, 2008 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Or this subject:

http://financialsense.com/editorials/casey/2008/0109.html

Are we currently on the Peak Oil Plateau?

Posted by: Speed on January 12, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, female candidates should campaign like Fred Thompson?

There isn't one woman in the US who is as dumb and lazy as Fred.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 12, 2008 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Invented reason #1396 for why people don't like Hillary.

Posted by: Rich on January 12, 2008 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK
….The tears were a remarkable moment because she somehow got a bounce from tearing up about the possibility of her losing….brian at 4:55 PM
That is a double lie. Firstly, there were no tears, and secondly, her voice caught when she was describing why she was running despite and the hate she was generating. Read the statement:

"I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation. I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some difficult odds."
"We do it, each one of us, against difficult odds. We do it because we care about our country. Some of us are right, and some of us are not. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't thought that through."
"This is one of the most important elections we'll ever face, so as tired as I am and as difficult as it is to keep up what I try to do on the road, like occasionally exercise, trying to eat right—it's tough when the easiest thing is pizza. I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation. I'm going to do everything I can to make my case, and then the voters get to decide."

….Nobody's misogyny causes them to fear roving bands of women ….soullite at 5:46 PM

You have obviously never been a rockband roadie, but you ability to whine is impressive.

Clinton's union in Nevada files voter suppression lawsuit…..Stephen at 5:58 PM

…The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes….

Yup, the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Clinton does all these things to poor little Obama who never stretches facts.

…the woman is absolutely unscrupulous…. she's fundamentally dishonest…... the Bill of Rights as toilet paper….Helena Montana at 6:03 PM

Do you just have an hyperactive imagination or are you channeling Lee Atwater? Anyone one like the Lady Macbeth your hatred is conjuring would have coshed hubby and ruled from behind the throne a dozen years ago.

This Toles cartoon sums it up

Posted by: Mike on January 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

My feminist vote goes to Nancy Pelosy, 2016. Meawhile I will vote for the candidate who did not vote to send thousands of brave women to fight a senseless, destructive war in Iraq. I never saw Hillary cry over that vote. Or even apologize for it. Its devastaion did not compare to the prospect of losing in NH, I guess.

Posted by: stik2issues on January 12, 2008 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

I am really getting sick of Andrew Sullivan and Arianna Huffandpuff making it their personal missions to screw the Clintons seven ways to Sunday and claim that Obama is the New Jesus.

I have no dog in this fight yet, but their vitriol is not helping either Dem frontrunner, and according to CNN and MSNBC these two major supporters of the Clinton impeachment back in '98 are the major blog sites for the "left-wing".

Posted by: magisterludi on January 12, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

Meawhile I will vote for the candidate who did not vote to send thousands of brave women to fight a senseless, destructive war in Iraq.

Can we have a reality check here?

President Shit-for-brains went to the congress and said, essentially, "I need this AUMF for leverage in negotiations with Saddam. I'm not planning aggressive action."

That is how Bush sold the vote to congress. That is a fact. Don't deny it, and don't accuse those who voted for it of "voting for war." That's a pile of hooey.

Posted by: mattski on January 12, 2008 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

.Meghan Daum takes a crack at figuring out what Hillary Clinton's real problem is...

Just to echo some previous comments: Meghan Daum takes a crack at WASTING OUR TIME ON NONSENSE.

God forbid we should actually talk about policy. For example, god forbid we should talk about the direction gov't policy and regulation have taken since 1980, when his highness RR took office, as documented by David Cay Johnston in his newest book, 'Free Lunch.'

Conservative policy has turned the government into Robin-Hood-in-Reverse. But who would want to educate the public about that?!

Posted by: mattski on January 12, 2008 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

That is how Bush sold the vote to congress. That is a fact. Don't deny it, and don't accuse those who voted for it of "voting for war." That's a pile of hooey.

Bush said he wasn't planning aggressive action, but he was lying about that.

Some saw at the time that he was lying, and opposed him. Some voted for it, but came around eventually to seeing that Bush had lied and admitting their mistake. But some voted for it and to this day can't admit that they were bamboozled and made a mistake.


Posted by: bob on January 12, 2008 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

'President Shit-for-brains went to the congress and said, essentially, "I need this AUMF for leverage in negotiations with Saddam. I'm not planning aggressive action."'

I thought reality was that some vote holders did not read the intelligence report carefully enough. Is reality reinvented with every election? Or has amnesia already set in with regard to the war? There are still people dying there everyday. It is so apt that Clinton compared herself to Lyndon Johnson. Hers would be a Lyndon Johnson presidency.

Posted by: stik2issues on January 12, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

If anyone wants to see some of the facts relating to Edward's dishonest representation of the story about the insurance company delaying approval of the liver transplant for the 17 year old girl (I think the 65% is the chance that she still would be alive in six months with the transplant - apparently guesswork by the doctors trying to justify the transplant):

http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/01/bad-cases-make.html

Mike, I think Hillary teared up before the langauge you quoted. It doesn't matter exactly where. She was emotional about her plight or, at best, the country's plight if she does not get elected president. In any event, obvious short term gain for her. I think long term it is either neutral or a negative, but we will see.

Posted by: brian on January 12, 2008 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Red Terror at the top of this thread. If Hilary wins, the last 24 years of governance in this country would look like this:

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton

I don't want to live in a 14th-century British monarchy.

Posted by: cajun on January 12, 2008 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

This is so off the mark and obviously calculated to create controversy, I was really surprised to find out this wasn't a piece in Slate. My problem, with HRC is exactly the opposite: I've never gotten a good feel for why she wants to be president. What's her vision for America? What are the issues and causes she feels most passionately about? And why should we want to vote for her? Whatever their flaws, at least we have a pretty good idea what Obama's and Edwards' answers to those questions are. I've always liked Hillary as a person, but she's not a natural politician. She's more like a female Al Gore than a female Bill Clinton, and she would do well to study the 2000 campaign and make an effort not to repeat Gore's mistakes.

Posted by: C.L. on January 12, 2008 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton's Use of Voter Suppression Tactics in the 2008 Election: Chapter One, begins now...

Posted by: lampwick on January 12, 2008 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Worst commentary on NH so far. I wished this morning when I read it that the LA Times had a comment button. So last century!
Nobody I know cares that Hillary "wants it too much." Believe it or not, we're actually for the other Dems based on POLICY DIFFERENCES.
Gah.

Posted by: rebecca on January 12, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

I'm amused by all these detailed analyses of what's wrong with Hillary Clinton just a few days after she pulled off a surprise victory in New Hampshire.

No doubt after she's re-elected in 2012, idiots like Meaghan Daum will still be writing about how hard it is for a woman to serve as president, and idiot-enablers like Kevin Drum will still be pretending that such nonsense is worth talking about.

Posted by: Wilbur on January 12, 2008 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it's not such a feminine thing either - Romney shows the same salivation through his flip flops, and we loathe him for it too.

Posted by: r on January 12, 2008 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

No doubt after she's re-elected in 2012, idiots like Meaghan Daum will still be writing about how hard it is for a woman to serve as president,

No doubt after she throws the election to McCain when it turns out that (who knew?) she really is extremely polarizing and really does motivate the hard-core wingnuts in a way no other candidate possibly could, her supporters will still be looking for a way to blame it on sexist attitudes.

Or ... no doubt after she wins the election narrowly, and continues to support every proposal of war that comes along for fear of being painted as "weak" by her opponents, and generally gets nothing through congress because both repubs and dems from red states can't afford to appear tied to Hillary if they want to have any chance of being re-elected, her supporters will still be looking for a way to blame it all on attitudes toward women.

Etc. Without the gender card, could a candidate who was bamboozled by Bush into voting for the war, and who refuses to admit that Bush was obviously lying and voting for the war was a mistake, have any chance at all to be a viable candidate?

Posted by: bob on January 12, 2008 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Could it be because, um, she's changed the name theme of her candidacy three times in the past two week. Through Iowa, she was the Experience Candidate. The day after Iowa, she's the Change Candidate (but with results!). Now, after in Nevada, with an increasing Latino electorate, she is working class "Chips, Guac and Cerveza" Candidate.

Voters are suspicious of fast-pivoting candidates. Romney, a man, last time anyone checked, is being rightful punished by Republican primary voters for his aggressive gymnastics with bread and butter Republican issues. Not as much to do with "gender" as with a candidate that has no core identity.

At the end of the day, any gender issues regarding Hillary's psyche will be due to the fact that she is where she is because she was the wife of a former President. Her first time for elected office and she's a Senator for one of the largest states in the nation? That's usually the province of billionaries, and spouses/family of former Presidents and Senators.

Posted by: Shine on January 12, 2008 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

lampwick: "Hillary Clinton's Use of Voter Suppression Tactics in the 2008 Election: Chapter One, begins now..."

And thus, we hear the steady drum machine-generated beat of lampwick's cheesy porno sountrack, completely in sync with the graphic opening scene of Karl Rove's favorite political wet dream.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 12, 2008 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

a candidate who was bamboozled by Bush into voting for the war, and who refuses to admit that Bush was obviously lying and voting for the war was a mistake

I would add: ... and whose chief foreign policy advisor and probable future foreign policy architect not only did not cry foul when Bush invaded before the inspections finished -- but, rather, he criticized Bush, in early 2003, for wasting time going to the UN at all and thus delaying the invasion.

It is possible to agree that Hillary gets a lot of unfair criticism from many quarters -- but criticism of her hawkishness, and of that of her advisors, is justified. (The same applies to Edwards, btw).

Posted by: JS on January 12, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone, just leave the Hillary Clinton hating to aging male foreign has-been gasbags working at the World Bank. Let them mill around the Bank without anything to do as they deny to themselves their absolute pointlessness, sputtering with rage at a powerful woman.

Let them go back to India or Pakistan or Greece for their twice-yearly baths and a new supply of cologne.

At least Hillary Clinton doesn't stink. (Actually, I've never smelled Hillary, but I'm sure she smells fine--in the sense of "perfectly okay.")

Posted by: Anon on January 12, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK


How about we discuss the number of dingles hanging from Kevin Drum's ignorant asshole?

Posted by: Ward Conned on January 12, 2008 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like the guppies will eat their young in the dem party this election. Pissants.

Posted by: magisterludi on January 12, 2008 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

ex-human: "... Hillary initally denied it and blamed the "false" accusations on a vast right-wing conspiracy."

That was about Whitewater and the huntng of the president, not about Lewinsky, you Republican ball-licker. And what about HER charge was false?

Posted by: Kenji on January 12, 2008 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

Donald - Stop listening to my internet porn!

Posted by: lampwick on January 12, 2008 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

I am astonished that so many Clinton supporters are unconcerned about the dynasitic implications of her running for president. That PLUS the strange blurring of the line concerning what "experience" means by citing her history as first lady.

Hillary just opens an ugly can of worms, regardless of her gender. She is not just any woman, as George W. was not just any idiot.

Posted by: sweaty guy on January 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary continues her voter suppression tactics, and Kevin just silently ignores it. As do other hillary supporters. If she continues at this rate, by February, she will have alienated 25% of the _democratic_ party, who will decide to just sit home out of sheer disgust.

Posted by: Jor on January 12, 2008 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sick of people in the media talking about what "we" want or what "we" think. Speak for yourself!!!!

It's time these folks let go of the delusion that they can read our minds and predict the future. I know what I don't like about Hillary Clinton, but I don't pretend that means I know why anybody else does or does not support her.

Posted by: janet on January 12, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

i am reminded of a joke i heard in 1984 when jesse jackson was running:

jackson was walking through a park with a group of reporters and goes to a pond and walks on water. the headline the next day reads "jesse jackson proves unable to swim."

you connect the dots.

Posted by: navarro on January 12, 2008 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

I see from thepage.time.com that Mrs. Clinton is now attacking Obama for playing the race card.

What a day for shamelessness in Camp Clinton!

Posted by: lampwick on January 12, 2008 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

The more people talk about all the things wrong with Clinton, the better she looks to me. It's all damned if she does, damned if she doesn't BS. Today the complaint is she "wants it too much." Tomorrow it will be that she doesn't have "the fire in her belly."

Posted by: treetop on January 12, 2008 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

lampwick: "Donald - Stop listening to my internet porn!"

Then stop posting it.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 12, 2008 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Jor: "Hillary continues her voter suppression tactics, and Kevin just silently ignores it."

That's because the only thing being suppressed is your bowel movements.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 12, 2008 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly, I think all this psychobabble about Clinton is beside the point. Americans have made up their minds years ago what they think of her. In New Hampshire, maybe everyone can meet her and modify their prejudices. But among 300 million people? Naw; they're going to vote with those same durn prejudices.

What Clinton has to, and is trying to do is to convince enough *Democratic primary* voters that she is *electable*. In a small state like New Hampshire, she can change minds (whatever else went on). In South Carolina? In California? In Florida? I don't think a lot of minds are going to be changed. And her negatives are so high, I think other candidates can cast doubt in a lot of minds about her electability.

(As for polls, I hate to say it, but how many husbands are going to admit that they won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman? How many are going to say out loud, "No *way* am I voting for her"? We're in uncharted territory, with an African-American man and a woman as front runners; I think polls are basically useless.)

It's going to be a weird one, alright.

Posted by: dougom on January 12, 2008 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

All these accusations against Hillary are silly, of course. What is not silly is that when Hillary was voting to authorize force against Iraq (however nuanced her stance), Obama was giving this speech in an anti-war rally:

I don’t oppose all wars... What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics...

I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein... But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

It's hard to gloss over the difference.

Posted by: JS on January 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

All these accusations against Hillary are silly, of course.

That was addressed to the accusation that she cries false tears -- in Kevin's next post, where this comment was intended to go.

Posted by: JS on January 13, 2008 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Daum's analysis is probably the most ridiculous I've ever seen, at least based on those quoted portions.

It seems like political season gives people free reign to explore the inner recesses of psychobabble in trying to explain voting, rather than just focusing on the obvious (and the surface).

Posted by: Jimm on January 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

We are a deeply patriarchal culture. By divine right and grand design (subconscious and Freudian in nature), a man is supposed to be the boss. A woman boss = a bossy woman, and bossy women are not liked, especially not if they are still young enough and pretty enough have sex appeal. Such women upset the supposed divine design of male domination and the patriarchal status quo. In rare instances we accept a woman as leader, if she is grandmotherly, like Golda Meir, or a sexless Mother Superior, like Margaret Thatcher, (aka, Angela Merkel, or Finland’s current leader).

Hillary Clinton fits neither the grandmother-Golda Meir model or the sexless Mother Superior –Margaret Thatcher model. We find rational sounding excuses, explanations for not liking her; i.e., she is a Clinton machine politician, she is too Centralist, she is not inspirational, she is not new (read as“change”), etc., -- most of which are not true, or are basically irrelevant. Let’s be honest about it, in truth, there is not much difference in political philosophy or policy positions between Obama and Hillary. There is also not much difference in the election machines each has set up to propell them to the nomination. So, for instance, if you were to take Obama’s, much lauded, inspirational oratory style, put his “inspirational words in her mouth and have her deliver them with the same studied, grand, pointing gesture style he does, it would not make Hillary a more acceptable, more attractive and less hated candidate. Quite the opposite. Hillary in Obama style and dress would be an even less attractive candidate in the eyes of many.
The reason: Subconsciously, a non-maternal/non-grandmotherly woman president presents too much of a culture shock, too suddenly. For many, for now, Obama is the safe retreat from that culture shock. (He, not Hillary,as some say, is a return to the past.) It is Obama that represents what we are already acclimated to, soothing, inspirational rhetoric, promises of change and hope by an attractive, take-charge male (for instance, JFK, Bill Clinton, etc., etc.) . . . But, Democrats are the party of change. In the process of taking a this-is-for-real, second look at Hillary, voters will in large enough numbers be able to overcome their irrational, subconscious impulses and feelings and realize that Hillary, the woman, the knowledgeable, compassionate, savvy, experienced and unusually able candidate is their best choice.
Moreover, to the extent that Hillary bashing by the media, the pundits and bloggers and the“iron-my-shirt,” “marry-me-Hillary” hecklers continues, voter anger at the unfairness of it will contribute to the overcoming of the subconscious, culturally imposed, irrational reluctance to vote for her non-male candidacy.

Posted by: Erika S on January 13, 2008 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

With that speech by Obama posted by JS, I don't see how democrats can vote against him. Right or wrong, his position amazingly became almost exactly the democratic position four year later.

Posted by: brian on January 13, 2008 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

Helena Montana: "Also it's my opinion she's fundamentally dishonest."

Since you once again provide no proof whatsoever to support such a serious accusation, I'd contend that it's your partisan opinion that's dishonest.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 13, 2008 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

Erika S: I'm sorry but you sound like a Clinton campaign worker (and if not, my apologies...)

I myself have no difficulty with a non-maternal, non-grandmotherly woman (and I hope you have the grace not to accuse me of being otherwise; if so, it's nice you know me better than I know myself). I do have problems with Hillary and am irritated beyond irritated at the efforts of some Hillary supporters to paint any opposed as anti-woman and anti-feminist and to argue that you cannot rationally choose anyone other than Hillary - I sure as darn tootin' can! (or more accurately, could) That said, I still think she'd make a decent if not inspiring president even if her route to power is something we tend to see in democracies of the sort of Sri Lanka, Philippines, Pakistan and not in better developed democracies like Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Germany. Then again, I've often made the argument that American democracy is closer to the former than the latter.

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 13, 2008 at 4:46 AM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack! I have been looking for you for a couple of weeks, and missing you! I'm glad I refreshed before I closed the tab and headed for bed - I posted a rant that ended with "And I have no qualms at all about swinging the Vorpal Blade" and as soon as I hit "publish" I thought of you.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 13, 2008 at 5:02 AM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist: And what goes for the "obsession with the horserace" goes double for the obsession with the fake, phony pop-psychoanalysis of both the candidates and the voters. Seriously, let's cut the crap.

Ah, a sane comment. Agree.

Mike: Yup, the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Clinton does all these things to poor little Obama who never stretches facts.

Tell me about it. His flat-out denial that his NH campaign manager was a lobbyist -- either ignorance (WTF?) or a willful lie. Jim Demers, a registered lobbyist for PhRMA and Pfizer as well as tobacco companies.... magically not a lobbyist. Uh huh.

Obama's speeches are great but I'm underwhelmed by his record. His lack of leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, a big missed opportunity for an aspiring president, is bothersome.

From the TimesOnline/UK:

Denis MacShane, a Minister for Europe in Mr Blair’s Government, said he had been troubled by comments Mr Obama had made on the Middle East peace process and the prospect of military action in Pakistan. He added: “A lot of people are concerned that international policy is not his strongest suit, just as it was not with George Bush in 2000.

Donald from Hawaii: Then stop posting it.

Amen to that!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 13, 2008 at 5:25 AM | PERMALINK

I am 62. My generation of feminists won some significant battles, and so brilliant younger women need not make feminism their absolute priority. I was 18 when the Feminine Mystique was published, 23 when the second feminist movement began. Belatedly, I have realized this week that feminism is my make- or -break issue. But my absolute commitment to feminist issues would not necessarily make me a Clinton supporter.

Both men and women can be feminists. Clinton, although the target of hundreds of thousands of vituperative misogynist attacks, has not committed herself to a feminist platform, advocating the policies necessary to enable people to combine caregiving with careers. stressing. If Obama campaigned as a feminist, spoke out against the sexist attacks against Clinton, and made family issues an essential part of his platform, I would work for him in a heartbeat. I am sure Michelle Obama could write eloquent speeches for him. That he doesn't seem to be considering a potentially winning strategy indicates how thoroughly feminist and family issues have fallen beneath the political radar. I can't figure out why.

I might even prefer to vote for feminist Obama than a beleaguered Clinton. Voters would find it much more possible to understand feminist issues if a younger candidate was explicating them. Even as I type, I am struggling whether I should add "a younger male" candidate.

I was flabbergasted when Obama's aide Jesse Jackson jr. started competing with Chris Matthews for woman hater of the zeitgeist. Obama's failure to repudiate or fire Jackson offers me no assurance he even understands feminism, never mind supports it. Perhaps his daughters need to educate him.

Posted by: Redstocking on January 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Blue, so many Jabberwocks to slay and so little time! Have been here but am reticent to jump in too animatedly on threads on the U.S. elections. Am just happy that it looks like some of the darkness may lift.

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 13, 2008 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

The MSM is full of this pernicious type of ignorant and irrelevant drivel. Do your readers a favor. Focus on the issues and what a candidate will do if elected and keep this crap out of your blog.

Posted by: Bob Hall on January 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Good lord, of course she wants it. Everyone running for President except Fred Thompson wants it. I do think there's an argument to be made for the person who hasn't spent his/her entire life salivating for the presidency, but you only get one of those in crisis. Like Gerald Ford--who, for my money, was one of the best. But anyone, male or female, who makes a serious run wants it badly, or they wouldn't put themselves through this meat grinder.

Posted by: BWR on January 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I want a president that isn't bought and paid for by special interests that could care less about the concerns of the middle class: the big pharma, the insurance companies, and the hedge fund and financial industry.

She is a Republican light, and that is not what the democrats or the country needs right now.

Posted by: Brian on January 13, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

First of all, I agree that the comments of Jackson (Obama's co-chair) were deplorable. Obama has in the past quickly denounced attacks made in his name. I am disappointed that he did not do this now when other times, such as with the Punjab memo, he has forcefully put down those attacks.

That said, I watched Senator Clinton on Meet the Press and again I find her explaining her 2002 vote to be entirely disingenuous. To me, it would be OK for her to admit a mistake. However, to say she thought what she was voting was NOT a blank check for war just makes her out to be a fool or worse. There were plenty of amendments put out there that would have required Bush to come back to Congress before invading Iraq. This was what was done for the first Gulf War and could have been done this time as well. The reason why Levin, Durbin, and others were writing these amendments because clearly the resolution as written gave Bush the power to go to war without further consultation with Congress. Again, I would totally forgive her if she would at least acknowledge that a mistake had made, not just by her but by others as well.

Senator Clinton was also far too cute about the lawsuit that is attempting to change Nevada's caucus rules when, from my understanding, these rules were set months ago.

Yes, all politicians, including Obama, avoid questions. To my ears, however, I just never hear the Senator answer questions directly. Every answer is an artful assemblage of talking points as opposed to a real answer.

Posted by: PE on January 13, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

me-again at 12:46, I'm so glad you brought up the fable about Edward's anger. WTF? He's passionate and no angrier than any other candidate in his delivery or style. It's pure ka-ka, but it looks like it's going to stick to the wall unless we all call the media on this with one voice.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Thought-provoking post, Brojo at 12:50, but hard to know what Edwards has done since his failed VP run since he's been so effectively "disappeared" by the media.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Luv, it's cause she's a Clinton for YOU...maybe. It's very much because she's a woman for a depressing number of others. In 1992 when she was still wearing her headbands and an unknown quantity nationally, you could cut the misogyny with a knife when she made the mistake of saying she wasn't some hillbilly madonna content to beatifically "stand by her man". And it's continued right through to this very day. You're living in a dream world if you don't see this.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

If Hillary wants it too much she's a whore, and if she doesn't want it enough she's a bitch.

Phew! This takes my breath away, David W at 1:27. You may have it exactly right.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton and her team encourage this kind of thinking.

Oh, give it a rest, bob. Clinton and her team encourage whatever kind of thinking will get her elected. Just like every other candidate and candidate's team. As they should...or why bother?

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

China Hand at 1:47

You are my personal hero. Why can't I think and write like that?

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ever heard of letting others take the lead, Sen. Clinton? If you're going to become the first woman in the Oval Office, you should start thinking about acting a little more ladylike.


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48757

Matt12: Abso-fucking-lutely brilliant! Thanks a million. I'm posting the link again. It's required reading for this group.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

What Bob Johnson at 3:53 said.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

PTate, you make a very good point. I don't entirely agree, but it's a good point nevertheless.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Susan, so glad you said it. How does a conversation about virulent misogyny in the media and society imply indifference to racism? And I do know what it's like to be looked at as part animal. I've been raped. So, STFU, soullite. Everything's not about you.

Posted by: sdunn4 on January 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack said:
"Erika S: I'm sorry but you sound like a Clinton campaign worker (and if not, my apologies...)"
THANKS FOR READING AND COMMENTING ON MY POST, AND APOLOGY ACEEPTED: NO, I'M NOT A CLINTON CAMPAIGN WORKER --OR WORKER FOR ANY OTHER CAMPAIGN.

snicker-snack said further:
"I myself have no difficulty with a non-maternal, non-grandmotherly woman (and I hope you have the grace not to accuse me of being otherwise;. . ."
NO, OF COURSE, NOT! MY COMMENTS ON CULTURALLY INGRAINED GENDER BIAS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL. I'M GLAD YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE THAT IS NOT SO AFFECTED.

snicker-snack said:
"if so, it's nice you know me better than I know myself)."
AGAIN, MY COMMENTS ARE BROAD GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT SUBCONCIOUS SOCIAL ATTITUDES, IN THE AGGRIGATE. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.

Finally,snicker-snack said:
"I do have problems with Hillary and am irritated beyond irritated at the efforts of some Hillary supporters to paint any opposed as anti-woman and anti-feminist and to argue that you cannot rationally choose anyone other than Hillary."
OF COURSE YOU CAN "RATIONALLY" CHOOSE SOMEONE OTHER THAN HILLARY. MY COMMENT GOES ONLY TO THE FACT THAT, IN MY OPINION, ALL TOO OFTEN THE CHOICE IS NOT BASED ON SOMETHING THAT IS KNOWINGLY RATIONAL. AND, I CONCLUDE WITH STATING MY EXPECTATION (HOPE)THAT THOSE WHOSE ANTI-HILLARY REACTION IS NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN GENDER BIAS WILL CRITICALLY EXAMINE THEIR REASONS FOR NOT CHOSING HILLARY, AND THAT THIS SECOND LOOK WILL GIVE HILLARY THE EDGE.

Posted by: Erika S on January 13, 2008 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii, you are in fine form tonight. Gasp...choke...wheeze...cough...LOL...I wet my pants!

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Absolutely brilliant post! Bravo! Erika S at 1:59 , who are you? Why aren't you running Political Animal? You are amazing.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

I am 62. My generation of feminists won some significant battles, and so brilliant younger women need not make feminism their absolute priority.

I'm right there with you, Redstocking. BTW, love your site.

Didn't you think Erika S's post was brilliant?

What none of us had back then that we do now is this ability to have this kind of dialog. Thank you Political Animal.

Posted by: Sharon on January 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

I prefer to vote for a candidate that actually wants to be president.

Posted by: 2 cents on January 14, 2008 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't you think Erika S's post was brilliant?

Um, no, not particularly. Far too reductionist for my liking. Reductionism a great tool but important that it actually capture the world.

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 14, 2008 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK

Fine that people don't like that she "wants it too badly", but maybe, just maybe, if a male candidate wanted it just as badly, he'd be penalized too? Some people get a lot of mileage out of this idea that total and unbridled ambition is totally positive for men, but not for women. I think that total and unbridled ambition (take Mitt or Giuliani for example) can be pretty unattractive in men also, and they can be and are penalized for it.

Darn it, I really wish Clinton *were* running against another viable female candidate in the primary. Then maybe we could prove once and for all that this stuff is at least 75% about *her* and not about women generally.

Posted by: JMS on January 14, 2008 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

I like the info shown here and it has given me some inspiration to have success, so keep up the good work. I’m a frequent reader. I think it is so informative, that I’ve actually gone ahead and linked to your site (dofollow) from here: http://reviewedcentre.com/websites-that-i-like/

Posted by: schwinn 230 recumbent exercise bike on April 8, 2011 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly