There’s nobody who gets treated quite the way Hillary does. That said, you’re remembering some things wrong. First off, Clinton has always received a lot of criticism for trying to play the victim, including during the primaries. Remember when she sarcastically asked two debate moderators if they wanted to give Obama a pillow? As a matter of fact, a Republican VP candidate who shall remain nameless criticized her for complaining about things like that. The crying happened in the first week of January, a couple of days before the New Hampshire primary. Clinton won that primary and it kept her alive in the race. Nobody talked about her dropping out at that time. That talk started around March, after Obama had won a bunch of primaries in a row and built up a lead that was small but not realistically surmountable given the way the Democratic primaries work.
That’s probably because Hilary never said that Obama was mean to her, whereas Palin’s favorite refrain is how very persecuted she is. That doesn’t mean that women can’t compete, that means that Palin is a poor example of womanhood. Or humanity, for that matter.
Sorry, I’m typing this on my iPad from the air port, so I’m being less than clear (and probably spelling every other word wrong to boot). The part I’m not seeing is that people are going to get riled up if Obama is supposedly ‘mean’ to Palin, not that Palin might not try to play the sympathy card. If Obama trounces Palin on the issues then I’m sure she might try to play the ‘he was mean to me’ card, and I’m sure that some of her more rabid supporters might lap it up, but by and large I don’t see how it would get any traction anywhere else. This isn’t the 50’s or 60’s, or even the 80’s or 90’s…I don’t think that people think that a woman being defeated in a debate constitutes some sort of beyond the pale ‘meanness’, or that people are going to react against such a defeat because some guy beat a woman in a debate. If women are able to compete in politics (and I’d say this SHOULD go without saying) then stuff like that is going to happen…they are playing with the big kids now, so they will have to take their lumps like everyone else. And, frankly, that’s as it should be…in fact, I’m surprised it’s even a question, or that there are still people who think women need some sort of extra protection.
Or maybe trying to follow this debate on a 7" screen has me confused and/or I’m missing something here.
-XT
I expanded the thread title to make the topic clearer.
Thanks for clarifying. I actually don’t remember the pillow thing at all. It does seem to me that Hillary doesn’t get to whine about being a victim with the enthusiastic media response that Palin gets, which is why I think Palin would get to spin a debate in which Obama trounces her into a “Why is Obama so mean to white American mothers?”-style pity party in a way that Hillary never could.
I suppose it is likely the Repubs would have their own candidates debate. It might be a better question to ask if Romney and Huckleberry will be nice to her. She will have to get through that dog and pony show first.
This is it. She’s making a reference to an SNL skit (I thought the skit was made in response to her complaint, but it was the other way around). But she was complaining that she “always” had to answer questions first, with Obama going second.
To the extent Clinton does it, I think she does not often get away with it. Most people see her as too tough to pull it off.
Every time the intellect of Obama is compared to that of Palin ( clearly Obama wins on that score) I am reminded of Ronald Reagan who demonstrated little intellectual prowess, but rather a ra ra USA attitude that served his political career very well.
Palin has that, and Obama needs to step up the ra ra USA rhetoric, rather than present himself as an intellectual in the vein of Bill Clinton. It worked for Bill, but then he was some sort of good ol boy who never had to compete against a Reagan type opponent.
If Obama ran up one rhetorical side of her and down the other, to the point where she forgot her own name, soiled herself on stage and threw up on her podium she would still claim to have won the debate handily – and the TeaBaggers would agree with her right down the line.
The only people who Palin ever claimed were mean to her were the darn stinkin’ liberal press. And that works because she gets to call them the darn stinkin’ liberal press … and all the TeeBaggers would agree with her right down the line.
Reagan was never mean-spirited. He didn’t try to score points by personally smearing the other side or using “death panels” type rhetoric, and he never played the victim. He had a much different disposition, and he was not without any intellectual substance at all the way Palin is.
I really hate this argument. I’m an independent who generally votes grudgingly Democrat so I’ll admit to a liberal bias.
I think Teddy Roosevelt was one of the best presidents the country has ever had. I think Eisenhower was an excellent president and generally doesn’t get his due. I think JFK is overrated. I think Barry Goldwater was an intelligent, principled man and would have made a fine president. I think George Bush Sr. was an excellent politician and skillfully handled what could have been a disastrous situation in Iraq/Kuwait. I think Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are all smart and competent and formidable opponents to those who don’t share their worldview. I also think Sarah Palin is a fucking idiot.
The idea that anyone I disagree with just looks like a big indistinguishable blob of stupid and evil is kind of galling. Sure we all have bias, but most of us are capable of looking past it to some extent, and some of us really try. I’m not Der Trihs, and you’re not Starving Artist. I think you can do better than this argument, in much the same way I think the Republican Party can do better than Sarah Pain.
Is ‘clean her clock’ a common phrase in the US? As a Brit it sounds more like a euphemism for something one might call “rude”.
I think Clinton was able to make the distinction that she wasn’t complaining about being the media was too hard on her but rather she was complaining that the media was too soft on Obama. Obviously that’s a subtle distinction but elections are about appearances at least as much as they are about substance. Clinton was able to avoid appearing weak - if anything she was able to turn it around and claim that this showed she could take the heat more than Obama could.
It’s a euphemism for punching somebody in the face.
No, no I dont remember anyone outside of Fox saying that. Who said that?? The only thing I remember from that speech is her disgusting attack on community organizers that set the whole area laughing and claping. It was at that point I decided I could never vote republican again even if God himself was runing.
Is it conceivable that Palin could get away without doing a debate? I don’t think so but a couple of years ago no one would have believed that a VP candidate could have gotten away without doing the Sunday morning talk shows and facing some critical questioning. Palin managed to avoid that (or was prevented from appearing). The precident was set and in the most recent elections Angle and O Donnell (maybe others) avoided any non-softball interviews as far as I saw. Granted, they lost but I was wondering today if Palin could get away with declaring the traditional Presidential debates “lamestream” and declining to participate. Such a move wouldn’t faze her base in the slightest.
Again, I don’t think so but… we’re through the looking glass at this point.
it wont be any worse than having Dubya as President. One idiot is about the same as another …
Right, he had staffers do all that for him. He would have had to be even more oblivious than most of his critics charge him with not to be aware of it and therefore to approve of it.
Not since it’s become so entrenched an expectation. It is not conceivable, though, that she could avoid the Tina Fey treatment, and that would be far more effective anyway.
Yes, but usually in the fisticuffs sense.
I don’t think that Palin has any sort of talent of self-promotion; I think she’s just very good at allowing others to groom and promote her. She’s eminently usable. Her one talent is her “folksy charm”, and right now, that’s what a segment of the population is looking for- they want someone they can identify with. She’s willing to fulfill that role for a paycheck.
Because what you actually say in a debate matters far less than what the spin doctors say you said. The risk of ad-libbing a comment, even in passing, that is capable of being presented as stupid or dangerous, in today’s Fairness-Doctrine-free, 24-hour-yakking cable “news” world far exceeds any desire to “do it right”. That’s why answers almost always seem scripted and over-rehearsed - because they are.
And thereby allow the “non-cheerleading” Sam Stones of the world to claim the “liberal attack machine” rather than her own corruption and incompetence is what did her in.
The situation won’t arise anyway, because this talk is just about getting her Fox ratings (and income, both direct and ancillary) up, not about anything serious. And if it did, Obama should take the approach that worked so well for Chris Coons in DE against the effectively-interchangeable Christine O’Donnell - don’t interact, don’t go down to her level, just look competent and capable.