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

[QUOTE=Voyager]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that’s it. A lot of the Republicans I know trace their hatred and distrust of her back to the Healthcare debacle, and her earlier proclamation that we were getting “Two for One” now that we had elected Bill. Her name was nowhere on the ballot. Where does she get off claiming she has any position whatsoever. On anything. In any Administration. She just waltzed in and took over, like she owned (or was owed) the place.

I know I’ve hated her as a person ever since. But I got to respect Bill. For awhile. Until this campaign, in fact.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
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.
[/QUOTE]

In all fairness though,

When she loses 11 contests in a row she still gets delegates. Rudy got none for his lack of efforts, so I don’t think that comparison is really valid.

So, tell us: If she’s such a bad candidate and a bad person, and her campaign is in such trouble, why hasn’t Obama been able to put her away yet? Why is she so close to even?

The premise of this “debate” is dubious - unless it’s just another bashfest.

[QUOTE=silenus]
I don’t think that’s it. A lot of the Republicans I know trace their hatred and distrust of her back to the Healthcare debacle, and her earlier proclamation that we were getting “Two for One” now that we had elected Bill.
[/QUOTE]

I thought he said that, not her.

Either way, she comes off looking like an arrogant ass. But I recall her as saying it. Could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.

[QUOTE=Marley23]
I thought he said that, not her.
[/QUOTE]
He did. But when has Clinton hatred had to be based on* facts*, anyway? That takes all the fun out of it.

No kidding! Much better to ignore facts and go straight to mindless loathing. Saves time, effort and braincells, or what passes for them, anyway.

[QUOTE=Shayna]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Got any studies to back that assertion up, from somebody like FAIR for instance?

Or is it just easier to peremptorily dismiss any possible question of your views? It’s obviously more fun.

[QUOTE=Marley23]

I thought he said that, not her.
[/QUOTE]
Well, they kind of both said it, in not those exact words

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
He did. But when has Clinton hatred had to be based on* facts*, anyway? That takes all the fun out of it.
[/QUOTE]

You know, you’re right! How DARE she? (More seriously, I’ve seen her credited with the “We are the President!” remark, but I don’t know the original source.)

unconvential and Shayna offered the same amount of evidence for their views, so I’m not sure why she’s the one getting the sarcasm. I’ve seen a little evidence on this board that Sawyer leans to Clinton, but that’s about it. I deliberately don’t watch a lot of TV news, but I’ve seen nothing that makes pro-Clinton or pro-Obama bias as obvious as they’re saying.

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

Got any studies to back that assertion up, from somebody like FAIR for instance?

Or is it just easier to peremptorily dismiss any possible question of your views? It’s obviously more fun.
[/QUOTE]
Got any studies to back up the assertion I was mirroring, from somebody like FAIR for instance?

Or is it just easier to peremptorily dismiss any possible question of your views? It’s obviously more fun.

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
So, tell us: If she’s such a bad candidate and a bad person, and her campaign is in such trouble, why hasn’t Obama been able to put her away yet? Why is she so close to even?
[/QUOTE]
You’re looking at the issue the wrong way. Clinton was leaps and bounds ahead of every candidate going into the primaries. Now she’s behind in delegates and her leads are shrinking if not disappearing outright. No matter how you look at it, a campaign that can lose the leads that she had and even start dropping states that she was leading in is not doing well. Do you think that her going from being the clear frontrunner to having to catch Obama is her doing a good job?

[QUOTE=Marley23]

You know, you’re right! How DARE she? (More seriously, I’ve seen her credited with the “We are the President!” remark, but I don’t know the original source.)

unconvential and Shayna offered the same amount of evidence for their views, so I’m not sure why she’s the one getting the sarcasm. I’ve seen a little evidence on this board that Sawyer leans to Clinton, but that’s about it. I deliberately don’t watch a lot of TV news, but I’ve seen nothing that makes pro-Clinton or pro-Obama bias as obvious as they’re saying.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the support, Marley!

However, I actually did provide more “evidence” than unconventional in an earlier post upthread. Granted, it was one anecdotal recollection of a newscast I watched and one written article I linked to, but it still qualifies as more support for my perception than either of those two have provided.

And if Elvis wants, I’d be happy to hunt down the Diane Sawyer interview with Governor Patrick where she audibly huffed at him when he wouldn’t say Obama did something wrong by using the same words he did, repeatedly browbeating him to try to get him to bash Obama. "Let me try this one more time. . . " WHY? You got your answer 3 times now, bitch. Just because it isn’t what you wanted it to be, doesn’t make it good journalism to ride your guest like that!

[QUOTE=Shayna]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Shayna, Good Morning America is soft news/entertainment, and Diane Sawyer is a soft interviewer. She gave McCain an unchallenged platform to falsely tout his positive campaign in New Hampshire. She interviewed Bill O’Reilly without challenging his numerous false claims. Sawyer has done feel good stories glorifying Ronald Reagan. It is a stretch to say Good Morning America or Diane Sawyer is bias towards Hillary Clinton. A sappy interview is hardly an endorsement. Sawyer’s conversation with Stephanopoulos about media bias was just as weak. I don’t watch Good Morning America but read the transcripts. Unless I missed a specific comment by Diane Sawyer, I didn’t read any defense of Clinton.

How did Wolf Blitzer or CNN defend Clinton?

I don’t think it’s misogyny to notice that Hillary has an abrasive manner (at least in her public persona).

To provide a counter-example, I find Elizabeth Edwards very appealing. In fact, I think she might make a better president than her husband. She has all of the positive characteristics of a Hillary - brains, wit, grasp of policy - but with an added element of charm that Hillary lacks.

John Kerry had the same lack of charm, IMO.

Like it or not, style matters when you’re trying to win votes.

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
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.

[/QUOTE]

That dog won’t hunt.

First off, Campbell is in no position to give advice on running a campaign. Sure, like Hillary her gender was an asset and got her the the leadership of the PC party. There was really no charismatic person to counter the desirable novelty of a female prime minister. But she did not become Prime Minister by a general election. She was appointed by our Governor-General. Sure, when she did run in the general election not only did she lose every riding in the country except two, she lost her own riding to a rookie. The most dismal performance by an incumbant prime minister in the history of our country.

F
Refering to the bolding in your quote, She didn’t overcome anything and her experience in federal politics prior to winning her party’s leadership is about on par with Obama’s.

[QUOTE=Shayna]

However, I actually did provide more “evidence” than unconventional in an earlier post upthread. Granted, it was one anecdotal recollection of a newscast I watched and one written article I linked to, but it still qualifies as more support for my perception than either of those two have provided.

[/QUOTE]

I am not defending Hillary Clinton or her campaign tactics. I don’t particularly like Hillary Clinton. I am simply pointing out that Hillary Clinton’s gender has been a significant issue in this electoral process, whether people genuinely hate Clinton for her politics or not, she has been treated differently because she is a woman. There has been an anti-Hillary web site up and running for years. I have never seen a male politician met with this level of disdain. I know her husband is hated by the Right-Wing, but Hillary is treated with a level of hatred that is unique and surpasses her husband. Hell, dubya is treated with more respect.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802280016?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802280004?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270010?f=s_search

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77972/

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3240

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, in order to save myself the time of typing my own 2 cents I’ll just say “what Merkwurdigliebe said!”

One could argue the gender trouble is a wash-for all the misogynists who say NEVER I know perhaps more single issue women who’ll vote Hillary simply for feminine solidarity.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
<snip>Refering to the bolding in your quote, She didn’t overcome anything and her experience in federal politics prior to winning her party’s leadership is about on par with Obama’s.
[/QUOTE]

I was paraphrasing her interview on NPR. That is what she told the interviewer on national public radio. Wether it is true or not is up to the judgement of the listener to find out. You pointed out how false it was, I assume you are a Canadian, no? If so, then I’ll take your word for it…
However, Clinton is going through a tough bone right now, I do believe she is going to lose, and lose big come Wednesday morning. That is why I started this thread, to see how people are reasonsing for or against HRC. The Campbell reference was just that, a reference, and according to you, a bad one. I’ll bet this is ancient history in a week .