-
Website
http://washingtonindependent.com/ -
Original page
http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/1855/gender-betrayal -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
nbc1
409 comments · 2 points
-
naturalizedcitizen
1499 comments · 37 points
-
jjfitz
349 comments · 18 points
-
24AheadDotCom
366 comments · 28 points
-
Anteni
600 comments · 35 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Why I Don’t Write About Sarah Palin’s Facebook Posts
2 days ago · 123 comments
-
Sean Hannity Winks at the Birthers
2 weeks ago · 980 comments
-
Birtherism in the GOP
1 week ago · 335 comments
-
Covering Palin the Right Way
2 days ago · 42 comments
-
Pawlenty: Palin’s More Qualified Than Obama
4 days ago · 98 comments
-
Why I Don’t Write About Sarah Palin’s Facebook Posts
At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines last November, she cited the quote, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" before unleashing a laugh line that she used repeatedly after that: "Well, I'm quite comfortable in the kitchen."
Even before that at a union-sponsored candidates' forum at Soldier Field in Chicago, she told the labor audience, "I'm your girl."
You note that Clinton is often referred to as "Hillary," while Obama is generally referred to by his last name. But your implication -- that this occurs because commentators choose to call Clinton by her first name because she is a woman -- misses an important point: she has embraced the moniker "Hillary" from the beginning. Her official campaign logo on HillaryClinton.com says merely "Hillary for President," with no last name anywhere. Her yard signs and bumper stickers used the same logo.
I think it's incorrect to claim that Clinton has not played the gender card, but the broader point that she has misused it or failed to use it effectively may be true. She relied on subconscious queues -- the dogwhistle approach -- by making quick jokes about being comfortable in the kitchen, or by framing her candidacy using her first name instead of her last name, but she failed to make the full argument in favor of a female candidate in explicit terms.
Perhaps she should have done so, but her campaign is not known for taking chances like that.
Except ... I feel that her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq couldn't have been any more considered, calculated, callused then coldly cast only to shore up her National Security credentials. At the time of the vote, Americans favored the action so was a safe vote for her.
It was also wrong and contributory to American's largest foreign policy blunder of all time.
The fact that there was a 96 page NIE that dissuaded the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from voting for the authorization, that Senator Clinton failed to read, was a dereliction of duty she owed to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. It was a dereliction of the duty she owed all of us.
That is shameful, unforgivable and fails the Presidential threshold test.
The really funny thing is that if she had shown due diligence and come to the same conclusion that Senator Graham did, she would have had this nomination sewed up by now.
Then she could have run as the woman who could sweep out the capital of all that typical men's politics stuff, you know like unjustified and immoral wars of preemption.
But she couldn't use it because she was on the wrong side from the beginning.
Like Barack Obama said about her, "She's not so bad.", but just wrong.
I could have voted for a woman. I couldn't care less about the sex or sex life of the next President, I am however real mad about the Iraq war.
Just wondering.
I've been bullied more by women than I ever was by men. I've had the gender card played by female coworkers throughout my entire career as a means of manipulating and marginalizing me. I've been treated with more straightforwardness and respect from men than I ever have have experienced with women. I suggest that Hillary's failure to play the gender card successfully is because too many women recognize it for what it is - playing the "best friend" card whilst stabbing a "competitor" in the back. Playing the gender card is essentially a ploy to get power through manipulation and sex discrimination. A lot of women - even older white women like me - know it.
I believe that Clinton believed that, but that does not absolve her of the vote. There are weapons of mass destruction in many other countries. There was no reason to believe that any of them in Iraq were aimed at America. It was all a scam. Many Democrats saw through the chicanery; Hillary did not. That disqualifies her from the presidency in my mind, no matter what her gender.
I am an educated woman of the same generation as Hillary, and I have to say most of my compatriots in the same demographic are strong Hillary supporters.
Vivt: Hillary ran against one of the weakest candidates the GOP ever had...Hillary was lucky: she had her husband and Rudy dropped out. Face it, Hillary never earned anything on her own....she owes her entire career to Bill and the follish women that support her merely because she's a woman.
If I said: "I'm voting for McCain because he's a man" that would be sexist, but if I say "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman", all the so called 'feminists' would cheer. Again, a TRUE feminist does not vote on gender, age, or race. Just foolish ones do.
taylortoone: I don't think we are in disagreement about fundamental weaknesses in HRC's putative candidacy -- experience (peripheral), independence (missing: take look at The Body of War [Spiro&Donahue], especially at the montage of senators at the podium repeating, word for word, every GWB fabrication concerning WMD's, Al-Queda-Iraqi connivance, etc ad nauseam), authenticity (watch, in the NH video, how ferociously she works the room with her eyes, gauging the response of every person in the room), flexibility (?), adaptability (??). What people, me, too, at moments, admire is the fighter -- but so what, ultimately: this isn't a Golden Gloves tournament, right? And 4,000 US lives, 30,000 US casualties later, 750,000+ Iraqi lives and several million Iraqis displaced, HRC still does not get it, as ariehl points out above.
the worst of it is: if these three are the best the country can up with, what does that say about the corruption & depravity of the political system?
(by the way, don't underestimate the RNC oomph that was thrown behind Lazio in 2000 -- he could easily have stepped into D'Amato's shoes, dogshit and all, against a less-feisty opponent.)
Are we talking about the same candidate? Her campaign (and career) has seemed to me like one long game of playing the victim card. When a villain isn't handy, find one, like Bob Shuster. It's why she'd make a lousy president -- the public doesn't want a victim as a leader.
As a professional woman, I am surprised and disappointed in women who clearly fell for the gender trap and expect a man to look and provide for them.
As Obama is soundly beaten by McCain the war drains all our resources, people die in thousands and at home we keep dying of treatable diseases that no one will insure us against and we cannot afford to pay for the medication, remember you are victims of your own folly.