Are Clinton's troubles because of her Gender, the Media or "wicked witch of the west"

Great Debates
1

I’m listening to NPR’s Day to Day - sorry no link to audio until 3pm EST. Kim Campbell former Canadian Female Prime Minister was talking to NPR about the problems with running a campaign for the highest post in the land as a woman. Trying to garner tips from the former PM was not as easy as it may appear because Clinton and she are very different people. However, some interesting debatable points were brought up about Clinton’s charge that media outlets are being unfair to her and further, are treating Obama with Kid Gloves.

Campbell brought up several points about being a woman and trying to run for high office, everything from your demeanor to your clothing is scrutinized when you are a woman. And any past accomplishments you have do not stick with you through the years, whereas a man builds up a certain patina around him of his accomplishments and record. However, the way Kim overcame this was on her experience. She noted that she had more experience in the cabinet than 11 of the preceding 18 PM’s, yet her rise to the position was “a quick rise to fame from a relatively unknown cabinet member to prime minister.” Which likened her more with Obama’s camp than Clinton.

This is interesting, Campbell mentions that a lot of what happens in the public’s eye is **contingent ** on who you are running against. Obama shows a clear, stark contrast to Clinton not only in gender obviously, but with his entire demeanor and mode of running a campaign. Obama comes across as being trustworthy and honest [rightly so I might add] He also does not bring years of baggage with him, and he can capitalize on that in the campaign by running a clean campaign and staying close to the radar of his supporters.

Campbell went on to mention that Clinton needs to look clearly at how Obama is acting and ask herself if A) she can do that too B) if it would go against who she is to emulate his actions and C) what does he do that appeals to so many that she doesn’t.

She further went on to mention that Clinton has tried to change herself several different times during the campaign and nothing has stuck to the populace at large as being attractive. And instead of winning new voters she is alienating them.

**Good Morning America ** tried to spin this same topic this morning when Diane Sawyer [Outspoken Clinton Supporter] interviewed Susan Huffington of Huffington Post and Sam Donaldson about the issue that Clinton is getting treated unfairly and Obama is being made to look like a Teflon candidate of some sort.

Basically, Diane Sawyer tried to spin this story as the media is at fault for making Clinton look bad and making Obama look good. Susan Huffington flatly rejected it by saying that the Senator did this to herself by being blatantly over confident early on and not planning for a long battle against Barack Obama, and she further went on to say that Clinton has been using old school smear and negative campaigning to try and get a leg up on Obama, and this is backfiring to a large degree because the media is showing Obama filling stadiums and Clinton is firing campaign managers, going awkwardly negative and tyring to bully a win. She also mentioned that had the roles been reversed Clinton would be in the spot light and Obama may be thinking he was treated unfairly.

Sam Donaldson a former anchor for Primetime on ABC, and Diane Sawyer’s friend basically said the same thing. If Clinton were on top we wouldn’t be having the conversation. Diane Sawyer had an :eek: moment and ended the interview.

How much of Clinton’s troubles are because of who she is as a person? And how much of her troubles are because she is up against a very charismatic, capable opponant?

Personally, I think if Clinton were going to have taken this race she would have taken it already by winning more votes, delegates, and the majority of the dems to her side. Unfortunately for her that is not what is happening, Obama is winning the majorities.

2

OK, but’s it’s not really like Clinton is being “rejected” and Obama is being “embraced”. It seems like people are teetering between the two options.

I have to admit that listening to Clinton yell in speeches is very grating to me. It was grating to me when I was an unabiguous Clinton supporter. I wish she would stop. I can see this alone turning people off (of course not a man as sophisticated as myself). I get that she is in a room with a bunch of supporters and trying to pump them up, but it’s not like the Dean thing, she does this repeatedly. It’s shallow, and it’s unfair, but the feeling is there. Is this because she is a woman? Maybe partly. It’s a little bit like being yelled at by my mom.

However, when I listen to George Bush speak it drives me batshit, with him it’s the perpetual annoyance with everyone than the voice, per se, but still. I can’t stand McCain’s voice either. And the whole “my friends” thing. Also Obama with the pauses. Come on!

Maybe I just have a voice problem.

3

Your title gives us three options; in your post, you offer two more - who she is as a person, and the nature of her opponent.

I’d say it’s a mix, based on my own personal survey of voters - universe size: me.

Obama’s rhetoric is very appealing, his delivery is top-notch. I’m a jaded old fart, and I find myself fantasizing about having a President who will unabashedly appeal to my better nature and challenge me to do something good. He sounds like a politician whose speeches I could listen to without wincing. I’m giddy as a schoolgirl just thinking about it.

The other half of the recipe, for me at least, is Clinton’s history. I see a little bit of Dick Cheney “I know better than you” and secretiveness in her - going back to her Healthcare proposal of ninety-something (old fart; bad memory). Not “who she is” so much as how she operates.

4

Her public speaking voice is very grating, for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on.

I have thought for a while that rather than trying to do big rallies where she has to use this unpleasant yelling voice, she would be better served to host policy roundtables and town hall meetings. That would allow her to do what she does best: discuss policy issues in a calm and thoughtful manner.

The less yelling she does the better off she will be. She just can’t pull off a rally the way Obama can. Calm and quiet works best for Hillary. It may be a gender issue, but there it is.

5

What Genghis Bob said. I have always felt that Hillary was one of the most condescending people I have ever seen. Her entire career has been “I know better than you do about everything, therefore I am better than you, and you must bow before me.” Perception is Truth, and that is how she is perceived by a large number of folks.

6

I don’t think it has to do with gender. I think it has to do with the fact that Obama is much more likeable and affable than she is (shouldn’t be relevant, I know, but it has been since the televised Kennedy-Nixon debates, so get over it). And, frankly, I think people have seen a contrast between her negativity and win-at-all-costs attitude and Obama’s restraint and dignity.

As for Obama being the Teflon candidate, maybe stuff isn’t sticking to him because there’s no real mud to dig up on him. God knows people have been trying; I can’t help but think that if there were something on him more incriminating than that he once donned a tribal headscarf, people would have found it by now. Maybe he actually hasn’t done something terribly unethical or illegal during his life. Hey, it’s a thought; many people accomplish this.

7

I’ve thought about this too, and it occurred to me that Hillary Clinton’s public-address voice sounds like someone’s sixth-grade teacher getting ready to yell at the class to sit down and shut up.

Well, that’s what it does for me, anyway.

8

Of the three choices I would go with “Wicked Witch of the West” although I would not phrase it that way.

I do not think the media is unduly biased against her or for Obama. I have seen some examples that may indicate the media gives Obama a bit more breathing room but I do not think it adds up to all that much and certainly not enough to noticeably sway either candidate’s performance at the polls. As noted in the OP is HRC was winning the discussion would not even be brought up it is so barely noticeable.

As for being a woman I realize a glass ceiling still exists in the US but by and large I do not think her being a woman pushes people one way or the other. Sure there will be some few who vote for her only because she is a woman and others who will vote against her for only that reason. By and large I would bet she gains more votes by virtue of being a woman than loses because of it. Our society has gotten used to seeing female mayors and governors and senators and so on. Women are still under-represented there but it is common enough no one really blinks at it when a woman does win. Only the POTUS position remains to be taken by a woman but Americans have seen notable female leaders in other countries (Thatcher, Bhutto to name two but there are many others). In short the notion is not “odd” to most people and I doubt it figures in much.

So that leaves us with the Wicked Witch. Unfortunately that implies something about her being a woman which I think is wrong. My opinion is people have had quite enough of the “old boys” club in Washington and really want change (sorry to hit the Obama buzz word). Despite being a democrat and a woman I think HRC is as much a part of the “old boys club” as anyone in Washington. The “witch” part is that I think she is viewed as someone running their own little fiefdom for their own benefit and everyone else be damned. In this respect I actually get turned off at her beating the “experience” drum. To me that translates as, “I am a part of the system you have come to despise so much.”

9

Also an old fart with bad memory: I was in medical school at the time, and I remember hearing that she had been having meetings with insurance companies and med-mal lawyers about health care reform, but no physicians were included in these discussions. Was this true?

10

I think it boils down to this.

For example, on the front page of Obama’s campaign page, he is asking for people to donate to his campaign, and has a running tally of such. Clinton, on the other hand, is asking for money, and has a bar graph of how much less she has raised than Obama, and urges her followers to “Close the Gap”. It may be a subtle difference, but the distinction of asking for $400k and asking to show your support with a $25, $10, or even $5 donation to get the supporter numbers up seems like an important distinction to me.

Also, as I mentioned in another thread, it really bothers me that she always interrupts during the debates. She does things ten times dirtier than Obama, and then calls him on it. Many of the facts on her fact page are blatant lies, and some don’t even make sense. I think it has nothing to do with her being female, and I think the media is only reporting on what she’s brought onto herself.

11

I do think a large part is simply being female. Why? Several reasons.

I heard an NPR story today where the couple interviewed (some evangelical couple) said the country should be run by a man. I got an email a couple of days ago where she was called “Hilarious Rotten Clinton”, which I also hear on the radio followed with “Her Thighness” added on (pariculary Michael Savage- I think he wants to “do” her, myself). I’ve seen and read way too many comments in the last several months about her looks, breasts, clothing, hair. Even this thread mentions her voice.

Most of these things you will not hear in reference to males. For example, I cannot recall a single comment ever on McCain’s or Obama’s clothing. It has been my experience that people suffer personal attacks when there is nothing else to attack, yet she has plenty of other things to talk about, so why so much attention to these kinds of items?

12

An evangelical couple, Michael Savage . . . those sound like Republicans. Their antipathy can’t explain why she is doing so poorly in the Democratic race.

You don’t recall the stupid little dustup about Obama wearing traditional African dress, including a turban? That only happened earlier this week.

13

Luckily, I doubt the evangelicals or many of Savage’s listeners vote in the Democratic primaries, so I doubt they are the issue. I think the major problem is over-confidence. She was sure she was going to be the nominee after Super-Tuesday, and never saw Obama coming. So, no money and no plans for the later primaries. Maybe Obama has less experience, but he has out-organized and out-maneuvered her.
Now she isn’t handling being behind very well, and that’s where the wicked witch comes out. Or, as I call her now, Tricky No-Dicky. :smiley:

14

Nice - I think you hit it on the head [no pun] - and it has to do with what Kim Campbell said as well: Clinton’s behavior hasn’t been very … presidential. Don’t whine on national TV, especially during a debate - I don’t care what Gender you are. Don’t court reason by shaking your opponants hand and saying you are honored to sit next to him, and then not 12 hours later say…SHAME ON YOU! It doesn’t help your campaign image or your public image i.e it doesn’t make you look stronger!

15

What’s wrong with Clinton? I don’t agree with any of your choices. I think it has nothing to do with her gender at all. Her behavior is just like Bill’s which is despicable to me too.

She has perfected the dual role of playing the victim, and never blaming herself. She is completely without ability to look back on things and admit a mistake. She JUST NOW admitted regret for her Iraq vote, when countless others had. Her argument was, “If you’d have seen the classifided info that we had.” All I can say is, come on. Anyone who didn’t trust the President 100 percent knew it was all bullshit. Hillary, we all know you voted for it because it was the easiest way out and the politically expedient thing to do given the nations mood at the time. Pure and simple.

There’s that. Secondly I would say that her complete and utter denial of the significance of the other states in this contest. She’s been marginalizing the other states as we go. She just got done doing it to Texas because it’s gone Obama’s way. I can’t wait to hear what she says about Ohio, there’s no way you can marginalize that state.

I have absolutely no problem with a female commander in chief. It pisses me off that someone puts forth someone as unlikeable as Hillary and accuses me of being misogynistic if I don’t like her. Listen, I’m all for women’s equality. I’ve lived in places where equality is much higher and I think it’s paradise. But I don’t like Hillary. She has very little experience, and what experience she does have she’s fucked it up. She is a blatant liar and she only cares about herself.

The Hillary of the Clinton Administration I can feel sorry for. The Right demonized her, sure. Maybe some of it was brought on by her own doing. She had a real opportunity, at the beginning of her campaign to run her operation in the right way, and had Obama not turned out to be such a strong candidate then I’d have enthusiastically voted for her over any other primary opponent.

But she showed tremendous error in judgement by following Mark Penn’s advice after Iowa. The “Kindergarden essay” Bill Clinton in SC, Change you can Xerox, the WWE Smackdown-esque taunts over the flyers (Shame on you Barack Obama), and the Celestial Choir mocking. This is all tired bullshit that nobody wants to go back to. Americans in general have bullshit fatigue. We are so sick of the political bullshit that we’re just begging for someone to not insult our intelligence. When you have a President whose words you can categorically mistrust these days (Didn’t he get on TV today to say there would not be a recession?) someone who isn’t completely full of shit sounds refreshing. Obama is pretty damn good at that. When asked about Hillary’s tirade about the pamphlets he had a terse response saying that they were, “accurate.” He did it in a no nonsense way. Clinton isn’t Bush, but I think we all associate the Bill Clinton times as more partisan bullshit too, except from our side. What exactly did Bill Clinton achieve? NAFTA? Don’t ask don’t tell? Kosovo was good I guess, but really he wasn’t that great. He sure as hell won’t go down as a great president.

How condescending was she before Iowa though? Seriously? Anyone here remember “It’s time to pick a President?” What the hell was THAT supposed to mean? Might as well have been “Just pick me already.” When she was in the front-runner position, she never did the humble thing and hedge bets, she always said, “I WILL be the nominee.” Hillary learned the lesson that you have to be tough, and show toughness to survive in politics. The problem is that she has forgotten for what reasons she needed to get tough in the first place. Have you heard her new “get real” line? WTF is that? As if people voting for Obama are fools? Is that what we’re supposed to believe? Jesus I am so happy I didn’t vote for her ass. Each passing day Obama makes me proud.

So no, Hillary’s electoral woes are 100 percent her own. If she shares the blame with anyone it’s Bill. That’s it. Bill came into this election with a great reputation. Then he started attacking Barack Obama with questionably racist themes. His rep was completely restored in my book. I really liked him before he started doing all of this garbage.

The media likes going after Hillary not because she’s a woman, but because she is completely reprehensible for reasons completely unrelated. She displays such a cynical point of view that I for one am glad appears to be dying. Clinton supporters who believe this is all about her gender? Well, it wouldn’t surprise me, because if you’re still in her camp after her completely destructive behavior, you’re just like the solid 30 percent that will always gives Bush a pass. I can imagine that people who vote for her because she’s a woman would fit into that mold. America is ready for a woman president, and a black president, just not ready for another Clinton president.

16

At the moment she reminds me of nothing so much as how a nerdy guy (like I used to be) acts when a good looking girl acts a tiny bit interested - in other words desperate.
Example: TDS played a clip yesterday about HRC bugging Obama about Louis Farrakhan. I forget the language exactly, but she claimed he didn’t repudiate Farrakhan strongly enough. Finally Obama used the exact language Clinton wanted, and made himself the winner and her look as if she were making a big thing about nothing. Did HRC really think he wasn’t going to repudiate Farrakhan? Obama dragged it out just long enough to get maximum benefit - it was well done.

17

Her troubles are a combination of everything mentioned here, and - if this wasn’t mentioned - errors in the way her campaign was planned and the way she’s presented herself. She’s made a lot of mistakes that way.

The problem isn’t only, as Clinton would sometimes have it, that the media is unfair to women. That’s an issue at times. But it’s not just that she’s a woman - she’s Hillary Clinton. On the one hand, the press probably would have freaked out if a female Presidential candidate got choked up at a campaign stop. However, another woman might not have been so prominently accused of faking her tears.

I think there is no question that sexism played a role in the far right’s opposition to Hillary 15 years ago. Today? It’s a lot more complicated. People have feelings about her that go beyond anything she’s done and are more about a sense of who she is. She has gotten into the habit of complaining about the bad side of this, and overlooks the good side - for example, she had enormous advantages over her rivals in fundraising ability and name recognition, are where would she be without those?

Likewise, I think the press - while it is always quick to overanalyze everything she does - also tends to take her side of the story in the current campaign. If Obama made the same sort of comments about how the press is treating him, nobody would pay attention. But Clinton said it, so they are taking it seriously.

18

I finally decided what Hillary reminds me of, recently. She reminds me of a Gerry Andrews Supermarionation puppet. I think it’s the smile. It’s not that relevant, but man, she’s been stiff. And a little fragile.

19

Condescending and arrogant. Take this, for example:

Perhaps she ought to have.

The bottom line is, she was WAY ahead even as recently as a week before the first set of primaries, sometimes by as much as 30 points. I hardly think that reflects people not liking her because she’s a woman. In fact, just the opposite.

What’s happened in the interim is that she has run a terrible campaign. She and her surrogates have been rude, condescending, arrogant, nasty, vicious, mean, angry, petulant and whiney. Who the hell wants a President like that?

Not to mention that she has been disorganized, unprepared, over budget and under-staffed, proving in yet another way that she simply isn’t qualified.

The more people who see all these issues piling up around her, the more votes she loses. It is NOT because she’s a woman.

And believe me, there have been PLENTY of biased articles and newscasts at Obama’s expense vs Hillary. CNN isn’t called the “Clinton News Network” for nothing. I recall one of the primary weekends, sitting and watching CNN, waiting for them to show Obama’s rally, live. They kept switching over to it to say they were waiting for it to start, but talking about HILLARY. And when they’d break from the 10 second spot about his rally, they’d re-show Hillary’s rally, over and over and over. I had it MEMORIZED!

And then, as SOON as Obama walked out on stage and started to talk, they interrupted him to do a split-screen interview about Hillary having just fired Solis-Doyle!!

And for just one example in the written press, see this recent article:

The Washington Post runs with the big, bold title: Top Obama Flip-Flops, then proceeds to numerically list 5 of them. But wait, there’s more! There’s actually a numeric list of Hillary’s flip-flops, too. Only, most of them are on page 2, almost making it look like she only has 1, and she certainly didn’t share top billing with Obama, even though it’s about both of them.

Hillary’s troubles aren’t because of her gender, they’re because of her incompetence.

20

The Honorable Ms. Clinton failed to realize that a large fraction of her potential constituency was counting on her to resist the neocon militant chest thumpers that we were using for a government five years ago. She also failed to realize that we might remember it.

Tris