Exactly. I’m a woman and a feminist, and I find Clinton’s voice and mannerisms when she’s speaking before big crowds grating. That’s not why I’m not supporting her in the primary, but I can’t deny that it’s my gut reaction. Other female politicians can pull off speeches without sounding like someone’s nagging mother. I think it would have served Clinton very well to invest in some serious voice coaching before launching her presidential bid.
Living in the DC area I’ve heard countless anecdotes about HRC some wildly improbable however never have I heard anything positive. Her persona does nothing to dispel these rumors. Most of us have probably had professional dealings with overly ambitious women that lack basic people skills and have little if any ethics.
I think it’s that simple and that makes her unqualified to be POTUS in my opinion.
And it shows. Her numbers have been declining ever since a candidate who could beat her showed his face during the primaries. She made 35 million in February, good show…Obama raised 55 million in February. He’s outspending her in Texas and Ohio 2-1. We’ll see what happens come Wednesday Morning.
Well, according to HRC herself, it’s because she is a woman.
bolding mine. Gee. That must be a big surprise to these women.
I don’t care if she is a man, woman, transgendered, eunuch or hermaphrodite. She is arrogant (remember her saying about Whitewater, ““I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.”) and irritating. As others have said, in public forums her voice is grating where Obama’s is mellifluous. It’s better in one-on-one conversations.
But what grates me more is her condescension and attitude of superiority. Nader is another one who projects an attitude of “I know better than you what needs to be done.” Cockiness and arrogance from candidates like Fred Thompson and Rudy “America’s Mayor” Giuliani got old real fast. Rudy wasn’t owed anything just because he was running New York at the time of 9/11 though he tried to play that up.
Hey, Hillary. A little humility can go a long way. But at this point, it would be too little, too late.
Here is a quick example of how bad the Clinton campaign has been.
I requested the Clinton bumper sticker/campaign kit back on January 9th.
I received it yesterday with the form letter dated January 9.
Does this have anything to do with the TX primary? Anyway, I’m off to early vote for Obama today.
See for yourself. (Scroll down to watch the video.)
While there’s no argument that there are certainly individuals whose distaste for Hillary Clinton is because she’s a woman (just as there are people whose distaste for Barack Obama is because he’s black), I am not buying into the idea that the media have treated her worse because she’s a woman. In fact, on the contrary, I think she’s been given better treatment in some cases, than men who’ve come before her who’ve done similar things. Howard Dean had one incident of hysteria and it cost him the race, but Hillary’s still in it, and being defended by many.
Are you serious? You haven’t seen all the anti-Bush websites, particularly the ones comparing him to a chimpanzee? See, I have a hard time taking you seriously when you make statements like that.
And what was said about Dubya, huh? The only reason he had a chance in hell was because his daddy was President and the silver spoon he had in his mouth. These comments aren’t made because of the party’s gender, they’re made because the impression, right or wrong, is there.
Ok. But is he doing that because she’s a woman? Has he never done that with any other candidate? Has no other debate host ever done that with any other candidate? And again, I repeat, is that treatment specifically because she’s a woman?
Well, did she? Again, did Howard Dean get a pass when he went all hysterical?
Make no mistake, I’m not condoning that type of reporting, but I’m disputing that it is directly tied to the fact that Hillary is a woman and that similar behavior by a male candidate wouldn’t also be questioned.
That’s really all I have time for this morning, but I think it makes my point.
Now, if you want to talk about a female candidate who was treated differently because she was a woman, let’s talk about Geraldine Ferraro. When she was on the ticket with Walter Mondale, they were nicknamed “Fritz and Tits” and “Wally and the Beaver.” If you think for one second that anyone would have the utter gall to speak of Hillary Clinton in that manner, you’d be mistaken. “Bitch” is lightweight stuff (and potentially true).
The decline and fall of the House of Clinton has been fascinating to watch. I think it has been a perfect storm of events and decisions, perhaps none fatal by themselves but devastating in combination.
She Fell In Love With Herself She assumed that everyone would read her version of her resume and conclude that she was head and shoulders above every other candidate. All of her life experiences were presidential-qualifying experiences. Her agenda was everyone’s agenda. She developed a blind spot about herself and could not address her weak points.
**She Picked The Wrong Horse In Experience Vs. Change ** She assumed that the voters wanted experience over all other attributes. They didn’t. Worse, not everyone was willing to concede that being First Lady for eight years gave her experience by osmosis. The “Day One” line never gained traction, yet she refused to concede that and change strategy.
**Overconfidence ** She read the press clippings and gladly accepted the mantle of inevitability. She told Katie Couric quite matter of factly that “it WILL be me” when discussing the nomination. As a result, caucus states and post Super Tuesday states were thought of as unimportant distractions from the plan to wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday.
The Howard Dean Factor The Clinton camp saw the Obama phenomenom as nothing more than a second incarnation of the Deaniacs. Their reading was “Yeah, we’ve seen the college kids go ape over someone before. They won’t be around for long.”
Misreading New Hampshire She saw the NH result as validation of her and repudiation of Iowa. In truth, she may have won due to a combination of feminine sympathy over her teary moment and the fact that Obama was leading so far in the polls that independents concluded that the Democratic race was decided and instead went to the Republican side to help John McCain. If Iowa was the wake up call, New Hampshire was the snooze button.
Lack of Plan B She was supposed to wrap it up on Super Tuesday. Only after then did the campaign start in the post Super Tuesday states, where Obama had already set up his organizations and both outhustled and outspent her.
Wild Bill Between Iowa and Super Tuesday, Bill Clinton became a human wrecking ball. His over the top statements (roll the dice, fairy tale, give me a break) backfired big time, and his attempts to paint Obama as “the black candidate” in the Jesse Jackson mold lost the black vote completely and gained little if anything among whites.
**Her Personality **Many who know her say she’s personable and warm with a good sense of humor in private. On the stump, she comes off as shrill and whiny. Dismissing out of hand every state that she lost as unimportant made her look like a sore loser, as did her failure to acknowledge her losses or to congratulate Obama.
Keep Hope Dead How do you run against a guy who’s saying things like “together we can make America great again”? It certainly isn’t by running a woman saying things like “I’m the only one that knows how to fix things and if you don’t vote for me, you’re gonna be sorry!” The optimistic candidate always tops the pessimist. Mondale and Carter can attest to that.
We Beats I In Obama’s speeches, you heard a lot of “we will do this, we can do that”. With Hillary, it was “you will vote for me because I know what’s best and I will do it for you and you will like it” In the end, I think this was the biggest factor. Hillary ran to be our mother, Obama ran to be our brother.
He did it again yesterday at Bryant College in Rhode Island, where Clinton has a lead already…the crowd was all jazzed about Bill being there, but when he got into the talk about his wife -Oh yeah, my wife is running for president - the crowds all sat down and got quiet, he was noted as asking questions to the crowd that no one answered… We’ll see how it pans out for her…but as it looks now…I smell victory for BHO.
My favorite was always “No matter who you vote for, you get Bush for vice-president.” 
Hillary Clinton’s troubles are because of her gender, sure. And Adolf Hitler’s unpopularity can be blamed on pervasive societal antimustachism.
Maybe we should combine the best of both worlds! Then she’s sure to get elected.
Ha! That’s funny.
Is Fuehrer a masculine noun?
If so, what’s the feminine version? (I think Frau is not the right word…)
A blinder of a post.
Frauhrer?
Criticism of G.W. Bush is deserved. Most of the Bush sites were launched after he decimated the U.S. Constitution. Democrats didn’t gather eight years before the W. Bush presidential bid to raise money and launch a smear campaign to keep Bush out of office. But, there was a well funded and planned smear launched against Hillary Clinton long before she ever announced her presidential bid. Hillary Rodham Clinton: What Every American Should Know (05) and Klein’s The Truth About Hillary (06) are two books published by conservatives to hobble her. Klein’s book in particular has received strong criticism for its innuendos and lack of facts.
Hillary Clinton is frequently discounted on the basis of how she speaks not what she says. The substance of her words are frequently ignored or misrepresented because the focus is placed on assessing her form, style, and intonation. The criticism of Clinton conveys a cultural link to gender stereotypes, for example emotionality, moodiness – the Sybil comparison. The comments in this thread support my assertion.
Well, I am sure degrading comments flow behind closed doors.
The same sorts of criticisms were leveled at “wooden” Al Gore and “droning monotone” John Kerry.
It ain’t sexism.
What makes you think much of Hillary’s criticism isn’t deserved? I personally think she’s a terrible politician who fucked up Universal Health Care in the '90s, pretty much making it impossible to move forward on it for decades, and her refusal to read the NIE report before casting her vote to allow George W. Bush to take this country to war is unconscionable. She gives more weight to loyalty than competence, is fiscally irresponsible, arrogant and petulant (two complaints I also have about Bush).
And most of the Hillary sites were launched after her eight years as First Lady and “Co-President”. So what?
And that’s because she’s a woman, not because of things she’s done or views they oppose?
Seriously, how have any of your arguments supported the contention that Hillary is being treated worse because she’s a woman?
John Kerry was frequently discounted on the basis of how he spoke, and his “long horse face” and not what he said. Was that about the fact that he has a penis, or perhaps people are naturally going to respond to how people look and sound? It’s human nature, for goodness sakes!
No, they don’t.
It’s not her voice. It’s that she is yelling. It is a poor public speaking style. Look at that Cunningham kook. He’s a male example of a yeller. He is not orating, he is yelling. Dang, look at all the crap Dean took for yelling in a speech, and he’s no female.
Oh, that’s good. That’s very good. Spot-on post.
Yeah, I really, really like that. I may have to steal it. 