Right Wingers Organizing To Attack Hillary
A Republican group called Stop Her now is vowing to raise and spend between $500,000 and $600,000 in an all-out effort to derail Hillary's Presidential candidacy between now and February.
"We expect we'll be much more intense in our efforts between now and Feb. 28," said Texas businessman Richard Collins, a leading organizer of the group. Among their efforts will be adding more mainstream humor — not just the right-wing kind — to their Web site and other efforts.
In addition, another group called Citizens United is producing an anti-Hillary documentary, which backers intend to serve the same role as the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth campaign against John Kerry in 2004.
Comments (47)
dcshungu wrote on September 28, 2007 1:50 PM:This seems like a godsend for HRC... I was wondering what it would take for the Dems to unite (for a change) and push back against the well-oiled GOP smear machine from the Lee Atwater School of Hard knocks.
This might just be it. The response to the swift-boating of John Kerry, the decorated Vietnam vet, who was successfully painted as cowardly and unpatriotic by the supporters of a draft-dodger, was too lame and should never be repeated if we wish to every lay claim to the White House!
john mccutchen wrote on September 28, 2007 1:58 PM:Sure to remind us of the good old days!
Gergen said any fatigue factor Clinton faces is "overwhelmed by the positive nostalgia for Bill Clinton among Democrats." The thought is seconded by Todd Gitlin, a professor at Columbia University's School of Journalism who has written a new book about national politics. He said that while some people are bothered by the dominance of the two families, "right now there is one massive fatigue in America and that is with George Bush. No other fatigue comes close."
The only thing the right wing has going for it in 2008 is Hillary Clinton.
That's why they do what they do. It isn't rocket science though it does seem lost on the little Bill butt kissers here at TPMEC. Quite beyond them in fact
Sure why not let GWB determine the next Demo nominee? He's screwed everything else up
but...but...but they want her to be the nominee because she's the least electable.
Given all the fun stuff I've read here about Hillary, I'll wait to see the united Democratic push back to believe it.
donna wrote on September 28, 2007 2:16 PM:I suspect they will be surprised to find Hillary just itching for a fight and quite well-prepared for it.
ANd she has a rather large and potentially vicious attack dog in Bill....
phil james wrote on September 28, 2007 2:25 PM:Rules of engagement:
1) No matter who the Dem nominee is, they will be way ahead in the polls coming out of the Dem convention.
2) No matter who the Dem nominee is, regular Repubs and swift-boaters alike will say and do whatever it takes to smear whoever it is with no holds barred.
3) Whatever the situation in Iraq or Tora Bora, the thugs will continue to play the fear card claiming that they and only they can protect Americans and that Dems want us to surrender to the terrorists
4) The thugs will continue to claim that Universal health care is a communist, anti-Christian idea, that will create a massive bureacracy catering to fat sassy welfare scam artists
5) The thugs will continue voter suppression tactics and outright fraud whereever they can
6) The thugs will attempt to drive each and every hackneyed wedge issue down voters throats like a cheap stomach pump
7)Dems should pool their money and broadcast an ad describing this playbook of thuggery in advance of the campaign on behalf of all Dem candidates, giving illustrated examples and challenging the thugs to run a clean campaign about the issues
8) Kerry appeared to be the most electable Dem candidate in 2004. Turns out he wasn't.
and don't forget the supreme court will be delivering a ruling right around election time about the constitutionality of voter i.d. requirements.
any guesses on the outcome ... and the impact on the 2008 election.
bicmon wrote on September 28, 2007 2:34 PM:"$5000,000"is a shitload of money!
Keith Lammers wrote on September 28, 2007 2:40 PM:Phil James,
You left out the most important rule of engagement. 1A1. No matter what the truth is, the "media" will support the Republican talking points faithfully. The Democratic message will be drowned out by the sound of crickets in the field where journalism lies buried and forgotten.
pinson wrote on September 28, 2007 2:40 PM:Exactly what are they going to throw at her that hasn't already been aired in the press over and over again since the early 90s? Not only is she bulletproof at this point, the wingnuts ain't got no bullets. Another round of Whitewater and Vince Foster conspiracy theories? Please. Bring it.
Nin wrote on September 28, 2007 2:43 PM:Fool me once, shame on you. Or as Bush says, Fool me again, I won't get fooled again!
Been there done that. They have to retire the tactic because all Hillary has to do is laugh that laugh and say, "oh folks, they do the same thing now that they did for 8 years to me and bill"...let them do what they do, cause in the end it just makes them look desperate.
bob wrote on September 28, 2007 2:44 PM:Can't they let us have our own primary first?
Rick B wrote on September 28, 2007 2:44 PM:Donna,
I don't really think Hillary needs Bill as an attack dog. The Republicans have trained her well, and I am willing to bet we are going to find the Democrats have no meaner, nastier candidate out there.
The difference is that unlike the republicans who do it for fun and bragging rights, she reserves the really harsh stuff for those who deserve it, and her fingerprints will never show up on it.
Just my opinion.
NH Dem wrote on September 28, 2007 2:45 PM:These folks are misnamed.
They do not want to Stop Her Now.
They want to Help Her Now.
They want to Stop Her Later; namely, in the general election.
And what they are doing is designed and intended to do both.
RobertSeattle wrote on September 28, 2007 2:45 PM:Hillary isn't my first choice either, but I'm starting to like the idea of seeing the Right Wing in a 8 year long hissy-fit 2009-2017. No matter what Hillary does in her first term, it will look better than W for 70% of the people out there.
Hillary Clinton is Bush/Cheney lite. She can't beat the GOP machine, she EMULATES their methods. As in all cases when she does not prevail she capitulates and acquires power to use as a blunt force to make other's do her bidding.
As first lady in particular she developed a reputation as an attack-first-ask-questions-later type of infighter. And the memoirs of former staffers and the post-administration tell alls are littered with cringe inducing stories about the instant retaliation faced by friend and foe alike that didn’t toe the party line as the First Lady demanded.
What is shocking is that Hillary Clinton seems intent on acting as if none of this ever happened. She is understandably working hard to soften her image and appear as a charming and likable candidate.
But in an effort to gain support with the anti-war Democrats, she has opened herself up to charges of blatant hypocrisy. Because the very tendencies she faults BushCheney for embodying secrecy, cronyism, heavy handed suppression of dissent, over reliance on loyalty, etc. - litter her history and define her personality.
Remember “Travelgate”? Longtime friend and campaign contributor Harry Thomason had been lobbying the Clinton’s to get rid of the White House travel office and give the contract to his travel company. Sure enough, four months into the first term the travel office staff was fired.
Rumors were put out that the staff was corrupt and mismanaging funds. The FBI was strong armed into an investigation and the head of the travel office, Billy Dale, was even indicted. When journalists and Congress looked into the matter the White House offered a host of contradictory reasons, then stonewalled any investigations; and even altered and destroyed documents to prevent the truth from coming out.
Eventually at least a partial understanding was reached. The First Lady was involved from the very beginning, she had lied about that involvement, and there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the travel office staff. It was all a botched attempt to replace civil servants with Clinton loyalists.
Why bring all this up again? Because Hillary is counting on the public’s desire not to rehash the scandals of the Clinton White House, but this history shines a spotlight on the very history she would like to claims as “experience.”
She should not be allowed to have it both ways. Either her time in the White House is the critical experience that differentiates her from her competitors and thus should be subject to the scrutiny it deserves. Or she is simply just another undistinguished Senator running for the White House.
Her decision to not release the documents related to her time in the White House only reinforces this hypocrisy. If she is intent on attacking Bush/Cheney for supposed secrecy, cronyism, and over-reaching executive authority, then it is only fair that the voters have access to the documents necessary to judge her time in the White House.
As the above example makes clear, what we already know about her time in the White House doesn’t paint a very flattering picture. Her refusal to release the rest of the documents begs the question: what is she hiding?
Hillary is Joe Lieberman in an bright orange pantsuit.
I'd say this is pretty clear evidence that Hillary is not the opponent that the republicans are hoping to get. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't fear a general election contest against her. Karl Rove's claims to the contrary were disinformation.
Allsburg wrote on September 28, 2007 2:48 PM:Wow...I never thought I'd donate money to a Republican organization, but where do I sign up?
colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 2:51 PM:At last, a press secretary job opening for john mccutcheon and elrapierwit!
Of course, you'll at least have to appear to make sense, so practice.
NH Dem wrote on September 28, 2007 3:00 PM:phil james: You were exactly right about everything except for this:
"8) Kerry appeared to be the most electable Dem candidate in 2004."
People with either a clue or a front-row seat had been shouting for all 2003 that he was an awful candidate, with all the crossover appeal of Metallica playing bingo nights at the local retirement home. But the Washington-based self-appointed guardians of wisdom and reason declared that he was just fine, and that the guy that would be the ultimate disaster to nominate was that psychotic radical from Vermont with his bluntness and his ultraliberal record of supporting civil unions and balancing eleven budgets and suggesting that endorsing Bush's invasion of Iraq was not a wise thing to do. Boy, was the establishment ever happy when it managed to take HIM down.
dweb wrote on September 28, 2007 3:03 PM:I think if the Dems are smart (and from current performance that is a very big IF) their presidential candidate runs not so much against whoever is selected as the GOP opponent, but against what the current GOP stands for and their record over the past eight years.
If Hillary is the nominee or whomever, they sound a constant refrain: The GOP has an unbroken eight year record of lying, corruption and incompetence stretching from a massive war based on lies to global warming to Katrina and Jack Abramoff.
They are trying all the old tricks to divert your attention from the sheer disaster they have created over the past eight years and convince you that they have a better plan for the next eight.
Don't let them fool you again.....and then keep reminding them of your stance on issues that the voters are really concerned about.
kjoe wrote on September 28, 2007 3:05 PM:This helps Hillary get the nomination.
The attitude about the presidential general election is "who knows what will happen", but it guarantees that it will be fought on the basis of personality crap, and will not be nearly as issue oriented as it would be against Obama or Edwards.
The turnout will be lower with hillary, because a significant percentage of potential democratic voters won't have much enthusiasm---same old crap------------and that will help minimize damage for the gop in senate and congressional races, where republicans should be clobbered.
Hank Essay wrote on September 28, 2007 3:11 PM:One thing the Clintons know how to do is fight and fight hard in elections...
To the RNCGOP thug noise machine, I say: BRING IT ON!!!
-
The Clintons will castrate these microphallic fools.
Fred F. wrote on September 28, 2007 3:14 PM:This will mostly backfire since Hillary and a lot of her background is already out there, and has already been dragged through the mud, repeatedly, for 16 years.
But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight back. The best way to do that is sling some mud at the one's attacking Hillary, start discrediting them now.
ennui wrote on September 28, 2007 3:14 PM:It is about time someone decided to do the job of informing the public about Hillary since the press and the pundits are not doing their job. Americans need to know just how poor her judgment is and how she lacks the integrity and honest to lead this country. Barack was right in the former debate when she declined to tell the public her views, he retorted...it's OK to think it but just not to tell the public. Hillary will be extremely deceptive and rule this country like a manaical despot. All folks have to do is pay attention to her deeds not her words.
Take for instance the debate Wednesday night
Russert by using a creative hypothetical caught Hillary Clinton in a bind. Not surprisingly she said what she thought the audience wanted to hear. She even managed a nice comeback line.
The only problem was her answer didn’t mesh with her previous statements.
This will not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with her history. The truth is that Hillary has a long record of instinctive responses that sound good but turn out to be untrue or contradictory after further investigation.
In discussing the issue of torture as a tactic in the war on terror, Russert raised an interesting hypothetical that had been offered by a guest on his program. We have captured the number three man in Al Qaeda; a bomb is set to go off somewhere in the country; and we know he knows where it is. Wouldn’t we, the guest argued, have an obligation to “beat it out of him?”
Hillary responded that torture "cannot be American policy, period." Russert than sprang the trap he had set: the guest who had offered that scenario? Her husband, Bill Clinton. The former first lady had a ready quip when presented with this surprise: “Well, he isn’t standing here right now.” And when pressed on whether this meant she disagreed with her husband, she responded “Well, I’ll talk to him later.”
Hillary’s response drew applause, but in substance it was a change from her previous position.
The New York Daily News pointed out that her response conflicts with the answer she gave them last October. When questioned about a “ticking time bomb” scenario then she seemed to indicate that a narrow exception was possible:
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.
Hillary has been fighting to project a tough demeanor to convince voters that she can handle the role of Commander in Chief. And it is likely that the way she answered last October was part of this strategy to project a “whatever it takes” attitude about the war on terror.
On Wednesday, however, her fellow candidates were all forcefully rejecting torture as an option. Perhaps fearing that she had already ducked too many questions (responding to Syria, her Iraq vote, Social Security, etc.), and not wanting to appear equivocal, she gave her full-throated rejection of torture without thinking that it contradicted her previous statements on the issue.
Her quick response to Russert’s surprise seemed to go over well with both the audience and with media pundits, but it once again highlights a less flattering trait than her sense of humor:
Hillary is all too quick to respond with an answer that makes her look good at the expense of the truth.
Few may recall the controversy and scandal that rocked the first years of Bill’s administration and even fewer may be aware that a great deal of the problems were caused or exacerbated by Hillary.
Whether it was Travelgate, Whitewater billing records, the Health Care debacle, or any other of the innumerable early stumbles, Hillary regularly shaded the truth and held back information.
This tendency caused suspicion and distrust amongst the media and White House staff and acerbated an already shaky start for the new president.
Imagine Hillary as Commander in Chief with the same dishonest cunning character traits..only now we will be a war. The disinformation campaign and propaganda from Hillary will be beyond belief.
Vote for anyone but Hillary if you care about America
Democrats who want to win next year, and are particularly concerned about keeping/growing majorities in Congress, also should be trying to "Stop Her Now."
Hillary is what she's always been: a moderate who's perceived as a liberal. The other side hates her because they think she's something she isn't; a lot of us progressives dislike and distrust her because we know she isn't that person.
She's running to be the Kinder, Gentler Empress. Unless and until she forswears the Executive SuperDuperPowers Bush and His Loyal Bushies have amassed, and acknowledges that the Iraq misadvanture wasn't just badly run but tragically, ludicrously ill-conceived and fundamentally immoral, no clear-headed progressive should view her as anything more than the perpetuation of the two-family dynasty.
keith wrote on September 28, 2007 3:29 PM:Whoever the nominee is needs to remember one thing: the media (like a substantial part of America (myself include)) don't like to work. I think have of the Democrats problems in the media would be solved if they stopped assuming that the media will do their job and point the bs in most Republican talking points.
And this suggests that the polarizing figure meme is not just a meme. She's a fundraising dream for the Republicans. They need to energize the base and their current candidates ain't doing it. Reminds me of the 2004 election cycle....
bp wrote on September 28, 2007 3:32 PM:dajafi: have you read your stuff. Is is different from the right wing venting that is regularly on display. Don't vote for Hillary. What we don't need are own goals. If the right wants to take a slam let them. Hillary can fight back with or without your support.
colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 3:45 PM:ennui
Hillary will win in a landslide even without your vote so start getting used to it. Maybe you can find solice in the joy of sticking another Clinton in the eye of the ones who have been sliming us Democrats for the last four years, or the election of the first woman president, anything(?).
Unlike your obviously thin(skinned) Democratic credentials, Hillary has a lifetime record of service in the Democratic Party and carries a 90% + liberal rating on every major social issue from those organizations that quantify such things.
Sorry she doesn't meet with your progressiver-than-thou approval.
I obviously favor her, but I would certainly vote for any of the fine crop of Dem nominees if they would happen to win the nomination. So, keep working hard for your preferred candidate and he's got my vote if he wins.
In addition, another group called Citizens United is producing an anti-Hillary "documentary"...
=========================
"Documentary"?
Is that what they're really going to call their political attack infomercial? The one in which the Repubs engage in the politics of personal destruction?
The only way we can win this is to identify every Repub involved with this "documentary" and create our own "documentary" on every one of them, and see who can do a better job with the demonizing.
The Repubs have set the rules of engagement. It's either time to sit back and take it, or to punch them back in the nose and send them running home to their Mothers.
Anonymous wrote on September 28, 2007 4:02 PM:Yep, the MSM will run the anti HRC ads for free under the guise of "analysis."
They'll have a faux Dem like Lieberman on one side and a foaming at the mouth GOPer on the other side defending them.
That "analysis" will serve to legitimize the wingnut allegations no matter how bizarre or unsupported by evidence they are.
Also, $500 - 600 thousand doesn't sound like a lot of money these days.
I can't imagine HRC hasn't war-gamed this one. It'll be interesting.
osama_been_forgotten wrote on September 28, 2007 4:06 PM:Hillary is just going to bring more of the same dishonest DLC crap to the white house that has allowed conservatives to continue their agenda nearly uninterrupted from Nixon to Ford, over Carter to Reagan and Bush, and Clinton, and Bushagain.
A Hillary Clinton presidency will result in an America in 2013:
- Still in Iraq.
- Still borrowing massive amounts of money to fund oil-dependency.
- Still shipping jobs overseas.
- Still kowtowing to Israel.
- Still diverting the bulk of our economy into the corporate accounts of the Health Insurance industry.
- Still crapping on the 4th and 8th amendments.
Hillary will change nothing of importance.
hastingspete wrote on September 28, 2007 4:14 PM:This lack of enthusiasm for Clinton is the corollary of low expectation for Bush in 2000. What's left from the '90s is the tarnish of right-wing lies about Hillary and about Bill - but the more people see Hillary, the more debates she does and the more campaigning she does, her numbers head in ONE direction, and on direction only, month in and month out. Up. The more people see of her, the more they realize, damn, she is competent, smart, thoughtful, serious, and capable. And look at the Republicans she will be up against? I will put her up against Rudy any day. Give me a break. What's left is sexism and little else as far as a reason NOT to vote for Hillary. She's as competent and smart a presidential candidate as we have had since, well, since her husband. She's great, and Dems have got to grow up and get over the right wing noise machine's slander of her from the 1990's. She is going to slaughter the Republican candidate because, gosh darn it, she deserves to. She is way superior by any measure, period.
thepeoplechoose wrote on September 28, 2007 4:17 PM:I don't think the GOP wants to go up against Hillary (and Bill) in the general election campaign. The GOP is mounting this campaign now because their only chance to stop Hillary is before she gets nominated. After that its all over for the GOP. Hillary will beat the hell out of them in the general election.
Most people will remember what happened in 2004 and are far less likely to buy what the swift boaters will be selling this time. If the GOP should happen to put Rudy up then it is no problem at all. He'll self destruct. And I seriously doubt they would nominate Romney. Romney is even more of a political hack than Giuliani. Romney is a political chameleon and the GOP faithful will have a problem with that.
illlich wrote on September 28, 2007 4:19 PM:*sigh* Not that I approve of this crap, but it does seem like the only way to fight it is to return it in kind. I'm sure they will make up a lot of stuff about Hillary (like they already have), but I think someone on the left can do a more brutal (and honest) job just pointing out all the inconsistencies in Giuliani's past: there was that article (in the New Yorker? or Harpers? help me here) that debunked all the major points that Giuliani makes about his record that was well researched and absolutely devastating (it made him look like an incompetent demagogue.)
I just hope Hillary will actually FIGHT rather than try to ignore it like Kerry did.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on September 28, 2007 4:23 PM:ennui: "It is about time someone decided to do the job of informing the public about Hillary since the press and the pundits are not doing their job."
Well, your manufactured outrage has sure convinced me. I'm now supporting Mrs. Clinton. Travelgate and Whitewater, indeed! I'm rather surprised that you didn't also infer that she killed her ex-lover Vince Foster and dumped his body in Ft. Marcy Park because he knew too much.
tom in ma wrote on September 28, 2007 4:40 PM:There is no reason why any progressive cannot make the statement that they will support the nominee of the Democratic Party, given the general level of quality of the candidates.
There are three reasons why people who claim to be progressives will not make that statement.
1. Their true political loyality is to one of the socialist/communist/green/naderite formations and they are trying to skim off the most left Democrats to build their party and are using HRC as a wedge to split them off.
2. They are actually GOP interns trolling on progressive comment boards inflaming divisions between Democrats, which is their only hope of winning in 2008.
or
3. They are hysterical and overstating their objections to HRC for rhetorical effect and to build support for Obama or Edwards or Kucinich or Gravel or somebody. They are in fact, so hysterical that they repeat and develop the right wing talking points about HRC, just like Joe Lieberman. Every candidate for President among the Democrats can be counted on to support the eventual nominee of the party; shouldn't their supporters?
I suggest whenever you read some of these hysterically anti-Clinton screeds, accusing her of being Bush's secret buddy, that you ask yourself why would any Democrat or progressive make that kind of accusation? Who benefits?
I don't think it makes any difference who the Dems nominate. I think whoever gets the nod will be a formidable candidate regardless of who the thug candidate is. That's why I don't feel any compelling need to support or defend Hillary at this point. I do think there is a level of adolescent school-yard back-and-forth between the Clinton camp and the vast right-wing conspiracy (which HRC was correct about) that I would just as soon leave back in the 1990's if I could which is where Dubya should have been left. I think her nomination would breathe additional new life into that whole nasty agenda (as if the stale marijuana-like smell isn't already permeating the campaign). It would be equivalent to the thugs nominating Gingrich. I think we are done with the 20th century and ready to move on so I'm hoping we have a fresher, more idea- driven candidate.
boris the spider wrote on September 28, 2007 6:35 PM:I sure hope they pass a non-binding resolution to condemn this! There's no other important issues to address.
On the other hand, I sure know a few public school districts hat could use $500k.
johno wrote on September 28, 2007 7:52 PM:Ennui
You, like Russert, are showing no class in dragging out this bullshit “ticking bomb” trap.
Hillary’s answers to the “ticking time bomb” question are not inconsistent, and in fact are the only realistic answers to that phony question. If we are to remain true to everything this country has stood for, torture must be illegal. “It cannot be American policy, period.”
In the unlikely scenario of the “ticking time bomb”, the president would, like almost anyone, act on his gut. And answer to the consequences later. But that doesn’t change the policy against torture.
Stophernow has been around for a few years with a rather odd progenitorhttp://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/05/04/stopher/index.html?calendar=200705
Clovis wrote on September 28, 2007 8:37 PM:I hope Hillary is the next President if for no other reason than to keep Jeb Bush from becoming President one of these years. I would imagine that the country would be pretty tired of seeing the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty continue. If anybody will be able to fight those nasty Bill-Kristol-nutbags it will be Bill and Hill. I'm with RobertSeattle @2:45, it will be fun watching all the rightwingers wringing their hands over the Executive branch's grab for power. I hope everyone has archived all those posts on how it's okay for the President to have over-reaching powers. Rush Limbaugh will go apoplectic. Donald from Hawaii @4:23: LMFAO. colonpowwow: too funny!!! This has been one entertaining thread today.
HRC doesn't care wrote on September 28, 2007 11:54 PM:Kinda funny, I think. "elrapierwit", who is not witty, and "ennui", who produced his/her own namesake, wrote the longest commentaries above. They are filled with criticism of HRC. It's a bit like the advance guard for this media effort, that the article speaks of, to derail or defame, or dislodge HRC from her position as a front runner.
Somehow, all the right-wingers have to do is threaten to spend money attacking HRC and the attackers come out of the woodwork and write long pieces about how unsuitable she is.
Now, the question is, are those longwinded folks on the dole? Or, are they just so enamored by the rightwing attack machine that they are throwing their services in for free.
In the end, I suspect, it will matter not. Resistance is futile. She is borg... and I do mean that in the nicest of ways, of course
TexasEllen wrote on September 29, 2007 5:08 AM:Make them spend the money. These folks are experts at throwing good money after bad. The current Republican crop is not experiencing the usual Republican financial edge.
Whoever is the Democratic nominee, the Right Wing Noise Machine will attempt to mislead voters with claims that are dubious at best.
wellstoner wrote on September 29, 2007 7:33 AM:...
jesus, there is a lot of fear in
you democrats.
Can we just go boldly forward
and damn the torpedos for once?
what a bunch of scaredy cats
If they got you doing 'double think'
then the battle is lost.
Sexism is alive and well in America, and Hillaryites are smart to be using it as a manipulative tool. Absent any self-awareness that I can discern, the democrats are inadvertently exposing their own subtle sexism-in-reversal in response to the idea of a right wing attack on Hillary.
I say this from reading some comments above, which follow a certain emotional baggage logic that, in effect, is telling us, "Our woman candidate is going to be attacked, so we all need to rally behind her asap". "Big strong Bill Clinton will attack back, good....now let's all join Bill in fighting for his [our] woman."
If you think this sexism has not been hooked, I ask that you simply try this experiment. In your mind's eye, create a set of pictures, one separate picture of each democratic frontrunner [Edwards, Obama, Hillary] standing alone to cope with a pack of snarling republican attackers. Which of those three pictures is the one that most evokes your viscera?
I am not saying there is anything to do with this insight except to be aware of it, how it plays on emotions, and what it means in subconscious manipulations from any side. It is especially something to ponder when observing an untenable juxtapositioning of statements about Hillary being the 'toughest' with statements that urge all dems to hurry to rally around her, um, 'right now'.......instead of the actual due diligence we need to be doing 'right now' which is to compare our candidates with each other so we may be wise in our primary votes.
Well, Hillary is experienced, and expects I think everything to be thrown at her. Her "laugh" is the first layer of the body armour.
The "swift boat" may need to yield to her "life boat". In this horse-race the only 'female jock' is not ready to turn over and play dead-- I dont think. I have my ring side seat-- and waiting for the gates to open. Let the games begin!!
www.vernasmith.blogspot.com
