New at Reason
Kerry Howley questions whether Hillary Clinton actually dealt the gender card after last week's disastrous debate performance.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Sorry, but this article seems to be more discussion about whether we should have a discussion to discuss what is being talked about. If it is a non-issue, drop it. If it is an issue, lets get into it a bit more than talking about what Brit Hume had to say.
Warren | November 12, 2007, 12:56pm | #
dangerman, ditto.I don't give a rat's ass about gender. My fear and loathing of HRC is all about the socialism.
smacky | November 12, 2007, 1:21pm | #
Well, I think the article was worthwhile. I wanted to know if Hillary is really playing the gender card, and I think the article attempted to answer that question for me. It sounds like people are anticipating her playing that card.A woman in a powerful position being needlessly criticized about her gender? Never heard of it!
lunchstealer | November 12, 2007, 1:33pm | #
It's certainly worth knowing if people are billing Bob's Handy Teacup Tempestettes as the real McCoy. It seems that there are so many reasons not to vote for HRC that we wouldn't need to make up false ones. It's all about the socialism and the warmongering.The other Democrats aren't beating up on HRC because of her gender, they're taking swings at her because she's the frontrunner. If HRC had 10% in the polls, they'd be taking swings at Barack instead, and pundits would be implying it was racism.
ad | November 12, 2007, 1:36pm | #
She is being criticized about a tactic she is alleged to have engaged it.I think this is all a bit silly. Whatever people feel about HRC, it is rarely sympathy.
A bit like Margeret Thatcher, whatever their other differences.
Marcvs | November 12, 2007, 1:56pm | #
I *wish* we could get a Margaret Thatcher in this country! I'd vote for her in a second.So nobody here thinks power is sexy? Not one of you finds power sexy?
Rattlesnake Jake | November 12, 2007, 2:04pm | #
"It's all about the socialism and the warmongering."And the corruption.
Taktix® | November 12, 2007, 2:06pm | #
So nobody here thinks power is sexy? Not one of you finds power sexy?It would take a lot of power to make HRC sexy. Luckily, she seeks that much power anyway, so...
Marcvs | November 12, 2007, 2:31pm | #
Sorry, that last line I wrote was a quote from Cleveland on Family Guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fish_out_of_Water_(Family_Guy)
brotherben | November 12, 2007, 2:45pm | #
Janet Reno:The epitome of power and seduction.
ed | November 12, 2007, 3:01pm | #
The epitome of power and seductionI understand Reno's coming out with her own line of fancy perfumes.
"Waco" should be hot.
I am a Democrat who doesn't even like Hillary Clinton and I have to say that(although it will not get me to vote for her in the primaries) this relentless attack by the media against Clinton seems pretty ridiculous and in some cases outrageous...it is becoming reminicent of the gang-tackle of Howard Dean in 2004...attack the front-runner and make it competitive. It is also reminicent of the over-the-top treatment of Al Gore (Did he really claim to have invented the internet? Ummm...NO) but the media in this country is awful...I mean really really awful in every conceivable way so I am not surprised.
joe | November 12, 2007, 3:28pm | #
Chris Matthews has some weird gender issues. Ever see him go off on what he thinks Republican candidates smell like up close? Eek.Based on the complete absence of card-playing that Clinton actually engaged in, I've gotta conclude that these pundits had the "Hillary's Playing the Gender Card!" stories in the can months ago, and were getting impatient to run them, so they broke them out without any good reason.
Jim Bob | November 12, 2007, 3:44pm | #
This is a much more important issue concerning Billary Clinton than, say, her idiotic staff planting questions at campaign events.And sure...she didn't know anything about it. Right.
It does seem like an important issue..however and this should not be a newsflash...Every campaign plants questions, every campaign choses people they know to ask softball questions, I mean during the run-up to the Iraq war Bush intentionally didn't call on reporters who he knew would ask confrontational questions and you had to sign a loyalty oath just to get into a Bush re-election event...not to mention the fake town halls he would have. This is all strategy, I think it was proved by Howard Dean. If you have an unscripted moment and mess up in some way you will be crucified.
Jim Bob | November 12, 2007, 4:22pm | #
Let's keep...the use of ellipsis...down...to...a bare...minimum...no need...to...string...your...thoughts together...that...way...makes you sound...as if...you are speaking...parseltongue.Well, James, even if your assertion that "everybody" does it is true, which I don't think it is, we should collectively frown on such a practice. Citizens seeking public office should be able to think, and speak, on their feet without sounding like an idiot. Yes, W has failed miserably in that regard, but he's not running for anything anymore.
Rattlesnake Jake | November 12, 2007, 4:45pm | #
"it is becoming reminicent of the gang-tackle of Howard Dean in 2004"There may be a connection here. When the leftist press realized how easy it would be for Bush to defeat Dean, they started to knock him down to get him out of the race. They may be doing the same thing with Hillary now. Lots of Democrats are concerned that Hillary has too much baggage to win the general election.
James | November 12, 2007, 5:08pm | #
"There may be a connection here. When the leftist press realized how easy it would be for Bush to defeat Dean, they started to knock him down to get him out of the race."Well other than the absurd notion that we have some kind of leftist press in the United States...I tend to think that usually the media (outside of Foxnews/Talk Radio which are tabloid quality) is sort of easily led and usually fooled...like a baby or animal when something sparkly is waved in front of them.
Terry | November 12, 2007, 5:14pm | #
Kerry Howley pursues irrelevancies. Who cares about Hillary complaining or being complained about. Did Hills make sense in the debate? NO. Report on that.and Rattlesnake...I think the press is just doing what they do best - playing with their food and then eating it. Dean, Clinton, Bush it makes no difference, eventually the press has more to gain by going negative than reporting the news. Scandal/bitching sells.
R C Dean | November 12, 2007, 5:19pm | #
this relentless attack by the media against Clinton seems pretty ridiculous and in some cases outrageousWelcome to the front runner slot. If you can't take the heat, etc.
Stevo Darkly | November 12, 2007, 6:10pm | #
I understand Reno's coming out with her own line of fancy perfumes."Waco" should be hot.
Actually, I think they're going to call it "Immolation."
VERY hot.
Stevo Darkly | November 12, 2007, 6:11pm | #
Kerry Howley pursues irrelevancies.I wish. I'm irrelevant.
joe | November 12, 2007, 7:00pm | #
Welcome to the front runner slot.Yup, everyone attacks the frontrunner, the frontrunner tries to garner sympathy and/or points to the attacks as proof that they're the frontrunner, lather rinse repeat.
If you can't take the heat, etc. Anyone seen any evidence she can't take the heat?
The Libertarian Guy | November 12, 2007, 7:38pm | #
Again... ask Rick Lazio, who had the "don't hit me"/gender card played against him. It was the jump-the-shark moment for the Hildabeast; it helped cement her unfortunate Senate victory.joe | November 12, 2007, 7:57pm | #
Except Hillary and her campaign didn't play that card.People saw Lazio's behavior and didn't like him for it. Sort of like the Bush/Gore debate where Gore got all up in his grill.
Did Bush play a gender card then? No, people just didn't like the opponent's rude behavior.
Ms. Howley hasn't been paying attention - to Geradine Ferraro screaming " It's sexism!', to the " Politics of pile-on", to "six men against one woman" and old Slick Willy himself today, " The boys are being tough on her". Of course she is playing the victim card - it's worked for her before. Past time someone called her on it. It's a contact sport, baby.
ChrisO | November 13, 2007, 7:57am | #
What's interesting to me is that the same tactic (even if performed by Hillary's various lackeys) is having the opposite effect now than it did against Lazio. Everyone knew that the "poor defenseless woman" thing was going to happen sooner or later. I think perhaps it happened too soon for Hillary, and the negative reaction she's received for it is telling.Fact is, she's terrible at retail politics, and all of the gender stuff won't cover that up over the grueling march of a presidential campaign. She's just lucky that she's running against Tweedledum and Tweedledummer.
The Libertarian Guy | November 13, 2007, 9:22am | #
"People saw Lazio's behavior and didn't like him for it."And *I* didn't like the way Hillary reacted to it, the way she feigned like he was about to physically attack her, on live TV, in front of hundreds of people.
I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks this way about that incident. Was Lazio rude? Sure. But the way his "victim" reverse-sucker punched him, was even lower behavior.
Rattlesnake Jake | November 13, 2007, 10:20am | #
"Was Lazio rude?"It probably would not have been considered rude if his opponent was male. It seems Hillary can have it both ways. She can criticize her opponents to her hearts content, but don't let anybody criticize her. If they do, they're violating her space. If Hillary had gone over to Lazio and challenged him to sign something, people would have said, "go get him, girl!"
The Libertarian Guy | November 13, 2007, 10:38am | #
Good points, Jake.joe, if you have the "perception" that I wouldn't vote for a female Presidential candidate... I'd ask you to rethink that. I've heard such nonsense so many times, it's almost a mantra. In fact, it IS a mantra.
Fact being, I would vote for a qualified, sane, free-market & limited-government female Presidential candidate. Hillary doesn't fit any of those parameters, however; let's be honest, she's the antithesis of those parameters.
Now... go ye forth, and have a government-approved day, joe. ;)
lunchstealer | November 13, 2007, 10:43am | #
"It's all about the socialism and the warmongering."And the corruption.
I figured that corruption was part of both socialism and warmongering.
joe | November 13, 2007, 11:11am | #
It probably would not have been considered rude if his opponent was male.I'll point you to Al Gore's little invasion of George Bush's personal space in a presidential debate.
Libertarian Guy (I'm sorry, THE Libertarian Guy. Like Ohio State. But not like Batman),
You misunderstood - I meant your perception that Clinton was feigning victimhood after the Lazio debate, not anything having to do with your voting preferences.
Rattlesnake Jake | November 13, 2007, 11:13am | #
"It's all about the socialism and the warmongering.""And the corruption."
"I figured that corruption was part of both socialism and warmongering"
By corruption, I meant all the scandals.
The Libertarian Guy | November 13, 2007, 6:46pm | #
Come ON, joe... Missus Clinton didn't play the Victim Card *after* the Lazio debate... she played it DURING the Lazio debate. It's what put her over the top, not that she wasn't going to weasel her way in as One of One Hundred anyway.Now, she wants to be Borg Queen. And you seem to think that's just peachy, unless I'm reading you wrong.
As for my voting preferences... straight-ticket Libertarian, with the occasional foray into Brand X territory if one of ours isn't on the ballot. Not that it matters... we'll just wind up with a schmuck from either Party R or Party D, and our slide into socialism and irrelevance will continue unabated.