And I’ll let you in on another little secret as to why Hillary’s in trouble now; her complete inaccessibility.
I work for a political consultant who is supporting Hillary. At the very beginning, he worked his “rolodex” to rally support for her. One of the people he contacted was a very good friend of his, Los Angeles City Controller, Laura Chick. Laura said she’d love to talk with Hillary, but also wanted to hear what Barack had to say. Both Laura and my boss made several attempts to get Hillary to get in touch with Laura.
After a while, Laura just gave up. Alan was very disappointed when she called him and told him that Hillary had snubbed her and Barack had gotten right back to her, and in fact, pursued her to some extent, making sure to get phone calls and meetings set up so they could talk, and therefore she was going to be endorsing Obama. Not only that, she became the co-Chair of Southern California Women for Obama.
And even from Hillary’s supporters we hear the same thing. A prominent female Rabbi here in Los Angeles is still behind her, but told my boss, “I feel I have to run after Hillary, and Obama is running after me.”
So not only has she played a bad outside game, she’s played a bad inside game, too.
There’s a kernel of truth here, but recall that Gore’s fashion actually was widely discussed in 2000 (the earth tone suits). Similarly, in 2004 there were stories about the candidate’s sartorial decision-making. She gets a little more of this, probably partly because she’s a woman and partly because there is just more to discuss since men just wear suits all the time.
I actually think the media bias, to the extent it exists, has much more to do with the media than the candidates. They love two things: process stories (narrative) and freshness. Obama is all about process, according to his critics, to a fault. And he is fresh. So we would naturally expect more and better coverage from a national media obsessed with not saying anything about substance and looking for the next big story.
>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?
These aren’t separate issues, they’re coupled. But I think it’s fair to say that “who she is as a person” is a pretty compelling candidate, a good choice for president. And “she is up against a very charismatic, capable opponant” - in fact this one is very unusually and significantly true. Roughly, I think she should be winning any election that Obama isn’t part of.
So, she’s as good as any other candidate in decades, but Obama is the best candidate in the last half a century.
I listened to his speech at the Democratic Convention and then and there I wanted to vote for him and contribute to his campaign, as soon as he could start one. And this, without knowing a single thing about his political history, his policy positions, his knowledge of affairs of state. I ws ashamed, but galvanized.
I’m glad to have found substance to support what I wanted to see and hear, so I did contribute and vote. But more than anything else, I wanted to. It didn’t even feel like the lesser of two evils it usually does.
Hillary Clinton does strike a negative chord in many of us, one that is hard to name. I would say that she is clearly aware of and sympathetic to the plight of the working class, and that this awareness and sympathy feels like it’s her way of avoiding being part of that class. Are the Clintons trustworthy? Better not to ask, better to just realize that things seem to work pretty well with them around.
Is Obama trustworthy? Well, he seems to be, by and large, and I want him to be. I imagine little kids again wanting to become President…
For better or worse, Clinton is indelibly linked to the politics of the 1990s. While many folks see that as a plus, remembering the Bill Clinton years as a time of relative prosperity and peace, others (including myself) don’t want to continue the political nastiness of the 1990s and the Noughties. Clinton seems very good at insider wheeling and dealing and “politics as usual.” The trouble is that a whole lot of Americans from across the political spectrum are thoroughly sick of politics as usual.
Clinton seems like a good politician. Obama seems like a good person.
I suppose that is meant to contrast the shallow approach of the traditional media to the deep, on-the-ground, productive, unbiased, investigative journalism being done by Rush and other talk show hosts.
Unless people are in complete denial, oblivious, or both, the media have served as a flagrant endorsement of Obama, even Fox defends Obama against Clinton, which concerns me.
I understand valid criticism of Clinton based on facts: her voting record, purported experience, and platform. What I don’t understand is the virulent criticism of Clinton for arbitrary reasons. Everything from her voice, facial expressions, and temperament is fodder for Hillary bashers. The over the top hatred of Hillary is, in my opinion, misogynistic.
In one of the republican debates, Huckabee said the U.S. should continue the space program and put Hillary Clinton on the first rocket to the moon. I doubt Huckabee would make that comment about a male opponent.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614041/posts
To unconventional: well, I was very happy with Hillary before, and was prepared to vote for her. I thought Obama was a pipe dream. I thought she had a great shot. Then she campaigned. Over time, I have grown to dislike her in stump speeches and debates. Does this mean that I have become misogynistic? Or that my misogyny before was subsumed under some sort of political pragmatism and was then freed by the emergence of a legitimate male alternative? It’s to a certain extent an honest question- if I was misogynistic then I might be very good at justifying my woman-hatred.
Speaking with the disadvantage of being the other side of the Atlantic, I have paid zero attention to her sex, her clothes, her styling etc. It’s her character: she’s got the worst aspects of Margaret Thatcher (who is one of my heroes) without the redeeming ones. Hillary Clinton reminds me a lot of Glenys (?) Kinnock. And that’s not a recommendation.
That said, I think she’d serve America well as President. But there are (what seem to be at the moment) better choices. She’d alienate the public and wouldn’t win a second term.
No, your dislike of Clinton is because of her campaign tactics. I have developed distaste for Clinton’s campaigning and feel strongly that she is now hurting the party. However, I am referring to the Hillary Clinton bashing that has been prevalent for years. I don’t understand it and can’t seem to attribute it to anything substantive. It is clear to me that Clinton’s gender is an issue for many voters.
I’m a registered independent voter in Pennsylvania; I’ve been a feminist for over 20 years; and I got royally sick of the way Hillary was treated when she was first lady and thought she didn’t deserve most of it. You’d think I’d be a prime Clinton supporter, wouldn’t you. Instead, I’m keeping an eye on the calendar, reminding myself it’s not too late to switch my voter registration to Democratic so I can vote for Obama in the primary. Here’s why.
The longer the campaign’s gone on, the less I’ve liked her. I don’t like the negative campaigning she’s been doing or the tactics she’s used. I caught her whining during the last debate, and believe me, I would have called it “whining” if a man had done it, too. I don’t like whining. I admit she has the edge on Obama in foreign policy experience, but I’m not sure about the rest of her policies.
Also, in the 20 years I’ve been eligible to vote, there has always been a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket. As I said 8 years ago, political dynasties don’t suit American politics.
Third, as a feminist, I’m afraid I don’t see Clinton as a self-made woman. I suspect she got her Senate seat in large part because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, and I don’t think she’d be doing nearly as well in her run for president if it weren’t for that. Yes, she’s impressive, but somehow, when I pictured voting for a woman for president, I didn’t see doing so for the wife of a former president.
The last point, however, is relatively insignificant. The main reason I’ve come to like Clinton less and less is because of the tactics she’s used. Negative campaigning may be a fact of American politics and may have been so since the beginning, but I don’t have to like it. Has she been treated unfairly by the media? Perhaps, but the president does get treated unfairly by the media. George Washington himself thought he was the most abused man by the press in history. My advice to Clinton is simply, “Deal with it.” She’s up against a good opponent. I’d rather see her rise to meet him, rather than sink to level him.
You know, I used to think that, until I realized what horrible choices she’s been making as a candidate. She has treated this campaign almost EXACTLY the way Bush treated the Iraq war. Seriously, they couldn’t be more similar. She was completely unprepared and has been completely irresponsible. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like her because I don’t, it just makes me feel like we are dodging a bullet by electing Obama because if anyone owns this campaign it’s Hillary. Her campaign is arguably the biggest thing she’s ever run and she’s done a horrible job of it.
That’s something I’ve never considered. How feminist is it to support a woman who stuck with an obvious cheater for political benefit? To ride in on her husband’s fame? That seems like a setback if you ask me. There are plenty of self-made female politicians that would be better examples like Kathleen Sebelius and that governor of Michigan. Although the Gov. of Michigan can’t run for prez since she’s was born in Canada. But seriously, Hillary made it this far because of Bill, her lack of skills is showing that she hasn’t really been tested before.
My mother esteemed feminist and subject of the famed threads on Woman vs Womyn - gives the exact same answer you do for her voting for Obama over Clinton. I am going to see Barack for the second time this weekend when he comes to Rhode Island and I’m taking my 68 year old mother with me. She’s a hellian of the highest caliber and one who will be shouting quite loud!
When Kate Michelman began to back Barack that was another sea change for feminists in this country. Did it have any baring on your decision?
Unless people are in complete denial, oblivious, or both, the media have served as a flagrant endorsement of Clinton, even CNN and people like Wolf Blitzer and Diane Sawyer defend Clinton against Obama, which concerns me.
I think the Republican hate her because of the Bill connection. I think they can’t stand the concept that the evil Democrat presided over good times. It’s even worse now that the virtuous Republlcan has put us in the toilet.
But it is more than that. When the campaign started, I preferred Obama but had no trouble with HRC. My wife hated her guts. Maybe she’s misogynistic, who knows?
As for the media, she’s getting quite a free pass after losing 11 primaries/caucuses in a row. Think of how they roasted Giuliani for losing so many, some of which he made no attempt at winning.