The Hillary Rodham Clinton Watch

[cynsaligia]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

Blaming the general distaste many have for her on her gender is just a way of denying that she is an unappealing candidate for other reasons.

is that what you think? okay. *shrug*

i most decidedly believe that all of the top three dem candidates are VERY desirable--and that's even without comparing them to our current pres. to dismiss the lot as undesireable displays ignorance of their resumes, i believe. while i'd obviously prefer clinton, i'd be more than happy to vote for either obama or edwards if my first choice doesn't make it.

[glossyp]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

i most decidedly believe that all of the top three dem candidates are VERY desirable--and that's even without comparing them to our current pres. to dismiss the lot as undesireable displays ignorance of their resumes, i believe. while i'd obviously prefer clinton, i'd be more than happy to vote for either obama or edwards if my first choice doesn't make it.

I don't recall dismissing any of them as undesirable as potential presidents. That I find HRC unappealing and think she is being treated pretty much the same as other candidates doesn't mean anything other than that.

[cynsaligia]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

I don't recall dismissing any of them as undesirable as potential presidents. That I find HRC unappealing and think she is being treated pretty much the same as other candidates doesn't mean anything other than that.

you didn't--sorry for giving the impression that i thought you had said it. i knew it was uilani who did.

i disagree with you that HRC is treated the same as other candidates. they're all excoriated for one thing or another, yes. but HRC gets it in a way that no one else does. a good number of journalists have commented on how much of the press covering the race have been decidedly cool, if not antagonistic, towards her--here's one example.

chris matthews is the poster-boy for how unfairly she's been treated. matthews, in response to criticism for the comments he made about why clinton has even gotten this far (see post #36), spent several minutes apologizing on hardball. last week, tom brokaw had to chide him on air. contrast that to how matthews consistently fawns over obama, just recently proclaiming that one of obama's recent speeches practically made him cry.

maybe you can tell yourself that's all part of the process for running for president, female candidate or not, and that's okay--you've decided not to vote for her already.

i'd say that unfortunately, it seems to be the process only if you're the first viable female presidential candidate. i feel someone who is still undecided about whom they'd like to be the democratic candidate is, at this point, not getting the kind of coverage re clinton they deserve from the press in order to make a well-informed decision.

[glossyp]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

you didn't--sorry for giving the impression that i thought you had said it. i knew it was uilani who did.

Thanks for noting this. Expanding on the point of desirable/undesirable, I think a lot of people are still undecided because they don't really "like" HRC, Obama is really an untested quantity and Edwards comes off as a lighweight. I know I am for the first time ever in a presidential campaign at this stage.

i feel someone who is still undecided about whom they'd like to be the democratic candidate is, at this point, not getting the kind of coverage re clinton they deserve from the press in order to make a well-informed decision.

I think HRC has been a very public figure for so long and her positions regarding health care, Iraq (depends on the week, I know), the role of government in our lives, etc. etc. are so well known it's hard to believe people need more info. Her baggage is so much more interesting to the press and I don't think it has to do specifically with her gender - it has to do with her. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

I think HRC has been a very public figure for so long and her positions regarding health care, Iraq (depends on the week, I know), the role of government in our lives, etc. etc. are so well known it's hard to believe people need more info. Her baggage is so much more interesting to the press and I don't think it has to do specifically with her gender

That's similar to what I said earlier in this thread:

I dislike HRC because her policies closely mirror those of her husband ...
My attitude is not affected by perceptions of her femininity, coldness or physical appearance ...

Gender is not a factor to me, nor is race. Yet I realize that religion IS a factor to me.

Does anyone see that as inconsistency? If so, I'll answer that --- we do not choose our gender or race (for the most part - yes, there are modern-day exceptions), yet our religious beliefs are a conscious decision that reflects aspects of our personality and ways of thinking. Just as we choose to be Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, independent, conservative, liberal, uninvolved ...

[glossyp]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

Does anyone see that as inconsistency? If so, I'll answer that --- we do not choose our gender or race (for the most part - yes, there are modern-day exceptions), yet our religious beliefs are a conscious decision that reflects aspects of our personality and ways of thinking. Just as we choose to be Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, independent, conservative, liberal, uninvolved ...

Not at all, though I tend to view people who actively choose a religion vs. someone who grew up in a religion (like JFK was a born and raised Catholic) differently as many people aren't seekers of faith or desirous of what I guess you could call a spiritual epiphany. I also respect those few politicians who follow their chosen religion faithfully (Joe Lieberman is an example) though that doesn't necessarily mean I'd vote for them.

[cynsaligia]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

I think HRC has been a very public figure for so long and her positions regarding health care, Iraq (depends on the week, I know), the role of government in our lives, etc. etc. are so well known it's hard to believe people need more info. Her baggage is so much more interesting to the press and I don't think it has to do specifically with her gender - it has to do with her. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

here's another point upon which we disagree. i think that because everyone knows who she is, people think they know exactly what her positions are.

initially, new yorkers balked at her for having the audacity to run for the senatorship in their state. after she went on her listening tours, enough came around and voted her into office. twice.

my opinion is that her "baggage" includes:

being a former first lady
being a wife who was cheated on, and then took her husband back--all done in the most public way possible
not being the most attractive
not having the most mellifluous of voice or laugh
not having the most "feminine" of styles
once wearing a top that revealed a hint of cleavage, regardless of whether she wore it under a jacket
having had her voice crack before the NH primaries when she spoke emotionally
she puts fear into the hearts of conservative republicans (something perfectly acceptable in a man, however)

if you want to talk about her stance on issues, fine. to me, her stances are not "baggage," they're legitimate positions.

the fact of the matter is that quite a good number of the posts in this thread related to the "baggage" i described--including yours, glossyp.

to me, that's proof enough that she's evaluated on a different scale than the male presidential candidates. that's proof enough that you, glossyp, like many other voters, male and female, on some level, evaluate her first and foremost as a woman, not a presidential candidate.

in my opinion.

[glossyp]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

the fact of the matter is that quite a good number of the posts in this thread related to the "baggage" i described--including yours, glossyp.

to me, that's proof enough that she's evaluated on a different scale than the male presidential candidates. that's proof enough that you, glossyp, like many other voters, male and female, on some level, evaluate her first and foremost as a woman, not a presidential candidate.

in my opinion.

The original premise of this thread was to watch and comment on the HRC campaign for president. Along the way, the question was asked about what the electabilty problems with HRC are and as responses have shown they relate in no small part to her marriage, her treatment of the women victimized by her husband and her mannerisms - and I see that as judgment of who she is as a human being. John Kerry was judged harshly for his mannerisms as was Al Gore for not being macho enough. I suppose that is gender basis as well. The fact is we live in a media rich environment where how you look, how you talk and how people perceive you has become overly important. That will not change no matter how we dislike it. HRC supporters fall back on gender basis to try and diffuse criticism of her and I think that's a red herring.

If you want to start a thread about why you support HRC, that would be a great place to showcase her positions and strengths as you see them. It could lead to some lively discussions which would probably be quite enlightening.

In the meantime, the Nevada caucus is underway and HRC is the projected winner, so the campaign rolls on to South Carolina.

[glossyp]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Clinton Watch

Delegate tracking shows HRC with a strong lead in the delegate race on the Dem side after today's Nevada caucus.

[cynsaligia]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

HRC supporters fall back on gender basis to try and diffuse criticism of her and I think that's a red herring.

lovely blanket statement about us HRC supporters.

equally admirable is your blanket statement about the many people who have pointed out the gender bias against hillary being HRC supporters.

there are lots of people in the media alone who are NOT HRC fans who acknowledge the gender bias she suffers. that's not my opinion. that's fact. i know you read salon--you'll easily find evidence there of non-HRC proponents who are rather disturbed about how she's treated/viewed first as a woman, not a candidate. i'm not going to belabor the point, but no one's talking about obama's sartorial choices. even edwards pretty much got a pass (in comparison to HRC) when word came that he might have been unfaithful to his wife.

the true red herring is being cast by people like you who claim that HRC supporters are the only ones crying foul on how she is treated, and that crying foul is only a strategic display to distract from her shortcomings.

pfft.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

I think her baggage is all the people, who for whatever reason, have decided that they don't trust her and will vote for anyone but her.

Unlike the other names in this contest, her politics has been in the national spotlight for sometime. I don't think there are too many undecideds.

Frankly, I think if she gets the nomination, the race will be the republicans' to loose.

She strikes me as not personable enough, too eager for power and too radical.

[glossyp]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Clinton Watch

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter takes aim at Bill Clinton's role in the HRC campaign. A number of instances where BC speaks his mind a bit too freely are mentioned along with quotes from various insiders. Not suprisingly one of the more interesting ones is from Obama's camp: "Clinton aides admit the boss sometimes goes off script. Obama officials say this itself should be a campaign issue. Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."

Read the entire article.

[cynsaligia]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

She strikes me as ... too radical.

contrast this with her being criticized earlier on this thread for being "GOP-lite."



again, more proof to me that more people assume they know than actually know.

i'm not here to convince any of you whom you should vote for, or against. all i'm asking is that you take the time to research what each candidate wants to bring to the table thoroughly. or at least pick three or four candidates to consider carefully.

don't base it on how someone "strikes you" or "seems" or whether you think you'd have a great time at the bar or the nail salon with them. don't base it on pieces on newsmags like even my beloved salon.com where they are reporting what one candidate's team says to criticize another candidate. always consider what's reported in the media with a critical, thoughtful eye. for example, if you don't already realize that fox is far from being fair and balanced and is with a certain agenda, or that something like huffingtonpost.com leans more to the left than it ever leans to the right, then you need to educate yourself, pronto.

take the time to go to hillaryclinton.com, barackobama.com, johnedwards.com or ronpaul.com., or what have you. find out what each candidate says about themselves. if you have certain special interests, find out how they've voted in the past. for example, i'm into women's reproductive rights, so i've checked out the section on naral.com to see what they say about the candidates. watch the debates. consider their voting record. then make the decision as to which candidate truly speaks to you and your needs and what you envision for yourself and the country.

THAT'S what i'm asking for.

so many people admitted that they voted for bush instead of kerry because they felt he was personable and was someone they could get along with.

look where that got us.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

contrast this with her being criticized earlier on this thread for being "GOP-lite."

Well - just to be accurate, I referred to the Democratic Party as heading towards "GOP-lite," but did reflect that she is part of the branch of the party that seems to be steering in that direction.

But your point is still valid. Some see her as "too radical," others as not radical enough. Same person, viewed from different perspectives.

[glossyp]

Re: The Hillary Rodham Watch

But your point is still valid. Some see her as "too radical," others as not radical enough. Same person, viewed from different perspectives.

This is the very nature of politics. People view candidates through the prism of their personal experiences, beliefs and values. Ohe of the things that holds our system together is the belief that we are all ultimately citizens who value our freedoms, and while we may disagree about all manner of things, we have respect for the views of others. My sense is that we (speaking collectively) have gone down the path of condemning those who don't agree with us as stupid, ignorant or, worst case, evil. And that attitude comes from all sides of the spectrum. I appreciate that our discourse here at HT is, by and large, positive and informative. It's refreshing in these times of hyper-partisanship. And the good news is that it's only going to get more interesting!