The sexism issue is being used to distract and deflect away from Sen. Clinton's serious flaws.

[Guaranteed]

Although one to some posters may have used the words "shrill" (arguably sexist) or "cackling" (not at all sexist, in my mind- no gender connotation in how I've heard it used) in reference to Sen. Clinton's debate performance, that's neither here nor there. Turning that into an issue is merely an attempt at distraction, much the same kind of tactic Republicans use when they have something to hide. Think the flap Lynne Cheney created after one of Kerry's debates with Bush about his mention of her daughter being a lesbian.

The plain truth is that Hillary Clinton, as a LEADER of our party, has been miserable failure, to take a phrase from Dick Gephardt. For years now, she was supposed to be using her name and political weight to push a progressive agenda and stop BushCo from doing so much damage to our country. She didn't- not in the slightest. She didn't even try.

And don't tell me she did, either. I was watching, we've all been watching for years, waiting for her help. The only time we ever saw or heard from her was when she needed to make it clear to everyone that she was on BUSH'S side of things. Otherwise, she hid from the media- because she was afraid of publicity. In her mind, when you already have the name "Clinton"- and can, supposedly, come into a presidential race at any time you want and be the frontrunner- you don't have to stand up to actually defend your country, your party's policy positions and philosophy. You can just sit back, wait things out, till that day comes...

Then it does. Suddenly, Sen. Clinton wants all the airtime she can get- cuz she's running for President (why?). Suddenly, according to her, she's "standing up to the Bush Administration" (HA!!).

Sorry, Senator, but you are WAY, WAY late to the party- so to speak. You fucking BLEW IT. You knew what was happening in our country, and you sat back and let it happen, even jumped on the bandwagon at times.

So you can forget getting my support, at the very least in the primaries. And it has nothing to do with your being a woman. You're not a leader, and I don't respect your approach to politics.

And while I can't speak for everyone who doesn't like Sen. Clinton, I'm thinking that this is, far and away, the rationale for most. The reason for her bad reputation.

So, instead of deflecting this criticism, I would expect Sen. Clinton's supporters to answer it. Tell all of us who are tremendously unsatisfied with Sen. Clinton as a leader why, exactly, our perceptions of her performance over the past several years is wrong. Don't start throwing around the word "sexist" because you don't want to deal with it. For the most part, doing that is just dishonest.

[Sparkly]

1. Not so.

I'm NOT a "Clinton supporter," but I HAVE become a "Clinton defender."

It IS the sexism that frosts me. When people make sexist jabs at Clinton, it's something that I take personally as well, as a woman; it's something I care about for the sake of other women. It's very important to me.

So, I'm okay with people expressing their opinions of her as a politician. That's fair and to be expected. I'm not trying to distract from anything; on the contrary, I think the claims of "playing the gender card," disdain of her voice as "cackling" or "shrill," and ridicule of her appearance in photographs (as examples) are the distractions!!

[Guaranteed]

2. So you don't like the negative attention she is getting, while she is a

woman.

She gets negative attention because she wasn't there for us, as a leader of our party, when we needed her most. People don't LIKE her- because of that. A couple of posters may have used the word "shrill" in describing her, but that doesn't change anything about who she is. Besides- frankly, what a couple of people said doesn't amount to a full-blown "issue."

And so people have bagged on her appearance- well, we do that to all candidates. We bag on Fred Thompson, too. It's not a gender thing, although for women I suppose often times it could feel especially harsh.

This is what she has been hoping for- that you will relate to her, as a fellow woman, and that you will internalize the negative attention she gets as a result. Because you're internalizing it, you're not listening to the very real and important criticism of her. You're being distracted by inconsequential things, and losing the big picture of who this person really is.

[Sparkly]

4. You didn't understand me.

I don't care if she gets negative attention. I expect all candidates will get negative attention, and especially the front-runner. I more than understand the criticisms.

Please don't condescend to tell me I'm being played somehow. I know my own mind, and I just explained it to you. To me, it is the SEXISM, PERIOD. I am not a Clinton supporter.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Kucincih is the only candidate worth voting for, at least from my perspective.

1.Voted against the IWR and against funding the illegal invasion and occupation

2.In favor of civil rights for all (yes to gay marriage)

3. Non profit single payer fee for universal service health insurance system (get the private insurance companies out of health care decisions)

4. Voted twice against Patriot Act

5. Out of NAFTA and the WTO

6. Will guareentee accountability for the war criminals

7. Universal education pre-school though 4 years of college.

8. Cut the war budget increase the peace budget.

9. Pro choice

[polichick]

14. DK's positions reflect true Democratic morals & ideals...

While I disagree with him on immigration (I'm for zero pop growth because of environmental concerns), he offers a clear progressive alternative to the Republicans. I think we're doomed as a party if we can't offer something more enticing than sticky middle-of-the-road muck.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. You know, I don't know Dennis' position on immigration, but for myself I'm

pretty liberal on it. I think trying to close our boarders off isn't going to work, and it makes a lot more sense to make it easier to come and go within a framework that encourages union membership and a legal way to do that.

That said, I also believe that unchecked world population growth is a very serious problem and is undoubtably connected to environmental concerns.

I don't think that we can hope to shut it out from our boarders though by stopping the flow of people in both directions.

If the population explodes in other countries it's most certainly going to effect us here, just in Co2 and also in many other ways.

NAFTA has fueled immgration as people abandon farming areas because they can no longer survive. So we need a wholistic approach that allows for as much freedom of movement as possible but also addresses the push pull factors of all emigration.

Did you know that the birth control pill was invented in Mexico?

[MethuenProgressive]

59. The "Cancer Card" is being used to distract and deflect away from ex-Sen Edwards serious flaws.

He's an expert at misdirection.

[ripple]

9. SHE made it about sexism, Sparkly

with her comments about a bunch of guys 'ganging up on her'. I'm a woman, too. She can't claim to be best equipped to beat the 'republican machine', and then shift into the 'damsel in distress' mode when things don't go her way.

The cackle thing is bullshit, but Hillary's voice is often shrill when she's making her point. Her intonation could use some work, just as Obama still needs to eliminate the 'um's', Biden needs to appear less angry, Richardson needs to toughen up, and Edwards needs to muss his hair up a bit. These folks are running for president and Hillary happens to be the front-runner. It stands to reason that she will receive her fair share of criticism. When a male candidate is described as behaving like a buffoon, isn't that sexist, too?

[BootinUp]

12. I have never seen a debate before

where one candidate took as many character jabs from his/her own party and the moderators. It was ridiculous. The repukes had a blast watching that shit. She was piled on for pete sake.

[ripple]

19. They weren't character jabs

They were honest questions about her position on the issues. If you've seen any of the republican debates, Giuliani and Romney are getting much of the same. It's about being a frontrunner, not about being a woman.

[Guaranteed]

21. And it's about having rested on your name for years instead

of showing real leadership- and still today. She dug herself into a hole.

She had to know that day was going to come, eventually. Yeah, she got her ass kicked. But she deserved it.

[BootinUp]

24. Here's my answer to your problem

Stop blaming one democrat for all the things you don't like about politics. In particular it would be better if you didin't try to destroy one of the strongest ones we have. The netroots has its head up its you know what when it comes to political strategy. Precisely why these people are in the netroots instead of making decisions.

[Guaranteed]

25. No, I think our "strongest" leader- according to you- should ACT that way.

Not like a wimp.

If she won't, maybe we shouldn't be giving her such respectable titles.

[BootinUp]

27. There is no candidate

that can appeal with red meat to the left all the time and then win a national election. Its a fantasy of your imagination.

[Guaranteed]

29. "All the time" is not what I'm looking for.

Let's take Howard Dean as the example. He is not a leftist by any stretch.

What he is is simply a populist. It's a damned shame that he never made it to the GE, because Americans would have loved him. His opinions were based on his common sense, not leftist ideology. It just so happened that common sense- and the courage to speak on it- left a lot of room for slamming the Bush Administration.

And that is what Edwards and Obama are doing now. Clinton doesn't want to do even that. She wants to hug the line- whereever possible, she just doesn't want to say anything at all. Nothing.

She only wants to be "Hillary Clinton," and win on that basis. That's all.

[BootinUp]

33. A simple analysis

on Dean his meteoric rise was in large part due to the anti-war stance, not his populism. I do think the populism has appeal, but at this time, this political environment, the audience for that style is much smaller than you think. If you look at the candidates today and their support, its clear that people at least in the Dem party favor a different message. They are looking for experience and an ability to work for change by engaging with the Congress and that means being able to get support from across the aisle.

We need a mandate to pass specific programs or legislation. Clintons proposals are very similar to the other candidates proposals. She is a policy wonk, she can get the best compromises worked out in the event we still do not have 60 Senators.

Since you like Edwards, did you watch the interview on This Week ABC today? If not you might want to watch it. Its available online at ABC.

good night.

[Carrieyazel]

35. Then Hillary should stay in the Senate, where she can keep working on getting compromises.

She's a terrible candidate for President. Totally unelectable for different reasons than a "netroots" candidate. She'll be painted as yet another establishment liberal Senator.

And her experience is questionable. Never elected to an executive office, she's never run anything biggger than an office. Dealing with Congress as a President and dealing with your fellow Senators across the aisle when you're IN Congress are two totally different things.

[BootinUp]

23. I disagree

the main charges that I am talking that were made over and over:

That she reverses her positions and talks doubletalk and can't be trusted.

Those are character assaults that will be repeated against her in the GE.

Furthermore it is splitting hairs to find any significant differences in policy between the top three, that is exactly why they resorted to the attacks I am complaining about.

I haven't watched the republican debates except for small portions. But I suspect a comparison with transcripts would show that there is a difference along the lines I suggest.

[Guaranteed]

26. If she doesn't want to look like a flip-flopper- as if the Republicans never thought of

such things before- she shouldn't act like one.

[BootinUp]

28. A careful review of the attacks

that is not possible in a debate would reveal the attacks were unfounded. But a lot of good that does when its on video.

[Sparkly]

13. I've posted about this at length over the past few days.

Suffice it to say, I don't believe she did make it about "guys ganging up on her." If she's making efforts to appeal to women, I think that's fine, and I think she's expressing pride and strength, NOT "damsel in distress." I also don't think her voice is "shrill" at all.

As I said, criticism is fine. When the attacks on DU are identical to rightwing and media spin, and when I think they're bogus, I say so.

[ripple]

16. She said it in a speech the following day

It was only after the hypocrisy was pointed out that she made the statement about being attacked because she is the frontrunner, not because she is a woman.

I agree about some of the DU attacks that smack of RW hacks, though. My candidate receives his fair share of those, as well. Even though I disagree with you about this particular criticism, I truly appreciate that you speak out when you believe a candidate has been unfairly attacked. I wish more Du'ers would do the same.

[Sparkly]

17. Did she ever say otherwise?

Did she ever say, "They're piling on BECAUSE I am a woman?"

And yes, I defend any candidate when I think they're being unfairly attacked.

[Guaranteed]

18. Do you think what was said in the debate to her was unfair? nt

[Sparkly]

20. That's a separate question altogether.

Not germane to this topic, so I'd rather not muddy the waters.

On topic, I'll say that I don't think what was said to her was said because she is a woman.

[papau]

31. She did a pep talk to a women's college - nothing about the debate was mentioned n/t

n/t

[Bitwit1234]

3. Jumping jelly beans just think of all the fibs Obama supporters

are using against Hillary to distract people FROM HIS SHORT COMINGS. HALLY LOU JAH AMEN.

[Guaranteed]

5. Yeah?

What are THOSE guys doing?

[Forkboy]

41. Good defense.

"But but but they do it toooOOOOOO!" :eyes:

[eridani]

6. Could we just dispense with the bullshit terms "shrill" and "cackling"--

--when applied to any female politician? Yes, those terms are sexist. And no, those terms have exactly jackshit to do with the fact that Mark Penn, union-busting defender of Blackwater, is her chief strategist.

[truedelphi]

11. And the terms have nothing to do with her

Second good ol boy buddy James Carville Making big bucks attempting to get a fascist
billionaire elected to the top position in Venezuela.

I want to be able to vote for someone who is not surrounded by ghouls, or is not a ghoul themselves.

[MADem]

32. Cackling always refers to HENS. It IS a gender based word, and anyone who says otherwise is being

disingenuous. There are some words that signal gender-specific meanings; the women's words have been discussed ad infinitum, and they usually do signal a NEGATIVE.

The men have it easier, though-- macho, aggressive, tough--these are all 'positives' when looking at male politicians. Men get in trouble when it's suggested that they are too "female"--wussy, girly, sissy, that kind of language, implying weakness.

[bvar22]

45. Old news. No longer relevant.

The forced cackle has suddenly and completely disappeared...as suddenly as it appeared.

No one can say that Hillary isn't superbly stage managed.

[maxanne]

7. you're creating a false dilemna

Some of the coverage Clinton has gotten is sexist.

That doesn't take away from the fact that she's a terrible candidate.

[Guaranteed]

10. Nope, the post is quite gray.

I'm not arguing with whether there is SOME sexism being aimed at Clinton. I'm just saying it's trivial, and that it's being used as a distraction.

And, no, I'm not saying that we can't talk about more than one thing at once. But I am saying that we typically don't, and that hot-button issues can often suck up most of the air in the room. While we're talking about whether a couple of posters made sexist comments against Clinton a few weeks ago, we're not talking nearly as much about what a shitty leader she is. And that's the idea.

That's all I'm saying. No false dilemma.

[jgraz]

15. Why do you hate women?

:P

[illinoisprogressive]

22. Actually the dragging of this issue makes Hillary look bad and will hurt her

Her supporters do her no favors. They are making Hillary look like she wants special treatment and weak. not strong.
They are putting any credibility Hillary may have at stake.

[Froward69]

34. Hillary practices

"politics of distraction" plain and simple. SHE said that her "all Womens college" prepared her for dealing with "the all boys club". She brought her vagina into public debate to distract us the very next day after her waffling on the license to illegals issue. and her overall dismal performance.
then lumping Joe Biden into the group that attacked her. which by the way is a bald face LIE!

I however must complement her for acknowledging Joe Biden is correct on a particular issue, three separate times during the debate. then stopping herself from mentioning him by name two additional times. That in itself shows, who hillary herself, acknowledges should be our next president.

[ThomCat]

46. "She brought her vagina into public debate to distract us"

:wtf:

[noamnety]

48. She brought her status

as a member of an oppressed gender into the debate. You can argue the relevance of that if you like.

YOU brought her vagina into the debate, and I have no idea why. :wtf: is right.

[iverglas]

49. there are just so many things you don't get, aren't there?

I wonder whether, if you made an effort, you might begin to.

I am favouring Biden as the Democratic nominee (from my vantage point north of the border). Somehow, I just don't find that this makes me unable to perceive reality, or demands that I deny it. No matter whose reality it is.

[rufus dog]

36. Very interesting and I must embarrassingly admit

that I opened this thread thinking I would be defending HRC a bit. But as I read the post I realized that I never considered HRC a leader. I never expected her to stand up to Bush, I have got pissed at Pelosi, DiFi, Reid (so I am not accused of being sexist) for not doing so but it never crossed my mind that HRC could have been leading the party. I have always viewed her as an opportunist out for herself, doing what it takes to get elected.

[Guaranteed]

38. Yeah, it's funny that we don't think of her like that. It's also very

telling, though. We just don't expect that of her.

But with her name, and the weight she can throw around, more than ANYONE, really, she should have been doing what she could to stop all of this.

Not a peep from her, though, for our benefit.

[AtomicKitten]

37. A good deal of the calls of "racism," "sexism," and "bigotry" here at DU

... are knee-jerk and over the top. The outrages de jour of this place should be tapped to run turbines or something constructive.

[Perry Logan]

39. Hillary has strong support from progressive groups. Are these groups stupid?

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

[Guaranteed]

40. For the most part, yes. nt

[cuke]

42. Yes, I've noticed very little criticism of HRC since the issue of sexism came up

It must really be distracting you

[LanternWaste]

43. i think I can handle both sexism and flaws with one brain...

I think I can handle both sexism and flaws with one brain, neither one denying the existence of the other. I think she has some flaws, and is also the victim of low-grade sexism.

Although I do like worlds where everything is either A or B (fun, easy and simplistic), it's a world I could no longer live in after puberty and the discovery of nuance and context.

[iverglas]

53. yeah, well,

I think I can handle both sexism and flaws with one brain, neither one denying the existence of the other.

... that's just because you don't have a vagina to drag into the debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3685335&mesg_id=3685653

Those of us who do, you know, we don't have room for two more thoughts at once. And Clinton can't both have policy positions and be a member of a stereotyped group at the same time.

Nuance and context. Quelles idées!

[rinsd]

44. "She would be nowhere w/out her husband" is a fav of the "its not sexist so stop saying that" crowd

Ya know they're just looking for a honest debate on the issues.

:eyes:

[bvar22]

47. Not Fair. Hillary has TOO shown leadership as a Senator.

Who can forget the courageous charge she led against violence in Video Games!!!!
And then there was the memorable stand against Flag Burning!!!!
.
.
.
Oh wait. Those are Republican Issues.
My bad.
Please ignore this post.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Sparkly]

50. She voted "no" to an amendment banning flag burning.

Edit: Is this the video-game issue you're upset about?
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=240603

[bvar22]

54. Hillary joined with her conservative peer Joe Lieberman

to draft legislation censoring violence in Video Games.
She did this while supporting the Iraq War where REAL children were being violently KILLED every day.

Clinton sprung into action after a controversy earlier this year involving the latest edition of the "Grand Theft Auto" game which could be modified to include graphic sex with a modification called "Hot Coffee" available on the Internet.

"I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids cant walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content," said Clinton,

Way to "spring into action", Hillary, and lead the charge against GTA (a cartoon) while REAL death and Destruction rains from the skies in the ME.
Some priorities "your girl" has.

Flag Burning
Hillary DID vote no on a Constitutional Amendment against Flag Burning, but joined with conservative Republican Bob Bennet (Utah) to author legislation banning Flag Burning. Once again, Hillary springs into action protecting our nation from another dire threat while the REAL threats go unchallenged..
Thanks, Hillary!!!!


Are you being willfully misleading, or do you know so little about the candidate you support?




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Sparkly]

55. I'm not a Hillary supporter.

But I've become a Hillary defender because of the level of attacks made against her here.

I don't see a problem with labeling violent video games.

Flag burning isn't a big deal to me either way, as long as there isn't a Constitutional amendment. I think the ammo it would have given the GOP at the time would have been a bad trade-off (and I think that's why the GOP raised it). But I understand the concerns about free speech, as well.

I don't think the "support" for the Iraq war was extremely different from a lot of Democrats at the time. I think she, Edwards and Obama have similar stances now for what to do about it.

[bvar22]

57. You don't see a disconnect between

leading the charge against cartoon violence while supporting and funding an illegal War/Occupation of Choice that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocent children?

Maybe its just me. :shrug:

[Sparkly]

58. I think they're two separate things.

And I think you're equating funding with supporting the war in the ideological sense. Many Democrats voted to continue funding once the forces were there, while voicing disagreement with the policies that sent and keep them there.

On edit: About labeling violent content, I think that's not a bad idea anyway. And I think for any politicians, doing something that's not bad is still okay, even if other things they do are "bad."

Who's your candidate, btw, if you have one? (I don't have one.)

[rasputin1952]

51. Every one of these candidates has flaws, some "serious" some

not so serious. With the amount of time left, especially until the General Election, the # of "flaws" that will be "exposed" will be astounding.

The biggest "flaw" I've seen is the one where some morons decided that a YEAR AND A HALF Primary Season was something "desirable". So far, we haven't seen what the these "flaws" truly are in any of the candidates...(except for the GOP candidates, but they are so pathetic...like looking in the vegetable bin for substance...:eyes: )

As for me, I'm looking for someone that can stand up and do what is right for the nation and it's citizens. I know there will be errors, I don't expect perfection from any politician, nor should anyone else. To see people waiting for a stumble, a flaw or fault to come forth, like buzzards on a crap wagon, people just wait and look for an "error".

This is a direct result of this extended Primary Season. Not one candidate can say with specificity what they would do because the other candiates would hound them to death if, God forbid, they get better information in the future and change or their minds about something.

Personally, I'm all for destroying the GOP candidates, using anything legal in the book, I enjoy watching them cringe and shuffle, I love seeing Ghouliani sweat and make disastrous errors in judgment; I adore the look on Romney's face when he gets hit with his pandering of the RW, deciding what to say to a specific audience, and then change 20 minutes later when he's in a different forum...:D

What I see here on Du is the case of "eating our own". Brow beating D's is something we should essentially avoid. If the case is serious enough for a candidate to be taken to task, he/she should be taken to task...but what I see are people actively searching for "flaws" in our candidates. Good D's looking to destroy another D because of some perceived "deficit".

To be perfectly honest, not one of these candidates has done a darn thing to make me respect them any more than any other candidate. The only one who is trying is Richardson, and people are ignoring him...go figure.

Perhaps we can get past the gender issue, perhaps we can get past the point where are looking for things to complain about. Maybe then, we can come up with a candidate that will reverse the horror that bush and his cronies have wreaked upon this nation. But not if we can't get past the simplistic garbage.

[blm]

52. I was concerned when she LIED about opposing Bush and Cheney this whole time

because the biggest problem many of us Democrats HAVE with Hillary and Bill is that both of them SUPPORTED Bush so firmly on his decisions on terrorism and this Iraq war for so long, especially before the 2004 election.

Hillary was INVISIBLE during all the major fights that other Democrats were having with Bush from 2001 through 2006.

Hillary didn't even shift her rhetoric supporting Bush on Iraq till AFTER Joe Lieberman lost his primary and shortly before she started running her own primary race for president.

So - while some focused on Hillary's horrendous debate performance and waffling, many of you actually let Hillary get away with her biggest lie of the night.

[Basileus Basileon]

56. I agree with your headline, though little else.

I think she is indeed using her gender as a tool. Given her status in the post-debate polling, though, it seems her strategy of construing legitimate attacks on her as evidence of men beating up on a woman was well-thought-out, though perhaps dishonest.