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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, they kind of both said it, in not those exact words

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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/

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.

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 .