Hillary: They're Attacking Me Because I'm Winning, Not Over Gender

Comments (47)

Hatch wrote on November 2, 2007 2:18 PM:

"Hillary has just offered her own thoughts," translates to:

"Penn figured out the attacking-the-woman framing was backfiring horribly."

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 2:20 PM:

OK, I'm baffled: It's not about gender, but, by the way, I'm very at home in the kitchen??

john mccutchen wrote on November 2, 2007 2:22 PM:

The rare Double Talk Whine - degree of difficulty 8.7

Keith wrote on November 2, 2007 2:24 PM:

So who should we believe, her or her campaign?

Outside the beltway wrote on November 2, 2007 2:24 PM:

anyone have the Youtube link of Hillary saying "she doesn't bake cookies" and she doesn't believe in the tammy wynette stand by your man crap?

is she insulting Mr. Mom's on this?

Matt Ahrens wrote on November 2, 2007 2:26 PM:

I was for it being about gender before I was against it.

LJ wrote on November 2, 2007 2:26 PM:

Stay tuned for a longer post on whether Hillary "played the gender card" or not.

I predict the longer post will defend Hillary and be critical of Obama. Otherwise there wouldn't be a longer post.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 2:27 PM:

It's not the "boy's club" comment, it's the post-debate spin!

john mccutchen wrote on November 2, 2007 2:27 PM:

I'm baffled as well

I thought she didn't bake cookies

john mccutchen wrote on November 2, 2007 2:30 PM:

OUCH LJ

The frost is on Sargent's Romney Pumpkin

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 2:30 PM:

Flip-flop!

Hillary repudiated being at home in the kitchen in 1992! She was for getting women out of the kitchen before she was against it.

Helter wrote on November 2, 2007 2:32 PM:

She's not saying she bakes cookies, or even that she would bake cookies if she was in the kitchen, just that if some other people baked cookies because they needed cookies, she supports their efforts in baking because the Bush administration has consistently failed to deliver cookies to the American people. Really, she won't know what level of involvement in the kitchen will be needed until she gets into the White House.

We need to have a kitchen table discussion about this.

AJM wrote on November 2, 2007 2:33 PM:

Backfiring all the way to the top of the polls.

People who dislike Hillary have a really hard time assessing how she is doing.

Each of the candidates takes who they are and makes to most of it. Obama is attempting to exploit a stereotype that women whine -- whining while he does so.

Some men who would vote for Hillary in a heart beat if she were a guy, can't seem to get past her metaphors: especially that ahistorical youngster who does not recognize the Truman quote.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 2:35 PM:

Helter, you slay me. None of this "LOL" bs -- I am sitting here with actual tears in my eyes from laughing over your post.

Kudos to Matt Ahrens for a highly amusing post too.

Hatch wrote on November 2, 2007 2:35 PM:

Brilliant, Helter.

anns wrote on November 2, 2007 2:35 PM:

Sentaor Clinton has managed to move me from the "Okay, I can vote for her back to total baffflement and distrust.
Does she stand for anything? Does she not think any words matter?

grayslady wrote on November 2, 2007 2:39 PM:

Agree, Hatch. Peter Daou spent last night reading the Daily Kos diaries cremating Hillary/her campaign handlers for playing the gender card. Now we have Hillary pretending to distance herself from her handlers. Unbelievable.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 2:41 PM:

AJM, I'll raise you one more Truman quote, also appropos here: "If you can't convince them, confuse them." Fits nicely, I think.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 2:48 PM:

When the Commenters on TPMec are wiser (and funnier!) than 99% of the country's so-called journalists and columnists, it's no surprise that dead-tree "news" is on its way out.

When Hillary stands up and says she'll instigate war-crimes investigations against anyone (American or foreign) who promulgates torture (including water-boarding, "stress positions," "enhanced interrogation," etc.), then I'll vote for her.

john mccutchen wrote on November 2, 2007 2:50 PM:

Ahrens gets my vote too ..for the Golden Easy Bake Cookie

Excellent.

Wait til the Republicans get her.

vdomeras wrote on November 2, 2007 2:55 PM:

Obama's remark on this "issue" was excellent, but hers is even better. I like her laugh and her sense of humor. Of course, both must be used sparingly, or another "issue" will emerge.

Tommy Ates wrote on November 2, 2007 2:56 PM:

Clinton got that line from Chris Matthews ' MSNBC "Hardball" yesterday, Thurs., 11/01/07. In the show opener, he wrote his 3rd 'pseudo-speech' for the Dem candidates. I believe it is word for word: "..I think they're piling on because I'm winning."

I don't have the transcript.

Could you confirm?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21585245/

On Thursday?s ?Hardball,? Chris Matthews, a former speech writer, offered his advice to Sen. Hillary Clinton on what she should say regarding the negative backlash to her performance at NBC?s Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate. His suggested speech is below: "Taking the heat is what leadership is all about. As Harry Truman said, 'If you don?t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.' Taking heat is all part of the process of proving yourself for the world?s most important democratic office. The fact that I am the first woman has nothing to do with the heat on me in this week?s presidential debate. I was the target because, quite simply, I am running well in the national polls. I have gotten nothing but respect from my rivals for the nomination and have no complaints, certainly none to do with our difference in gender. So let?s move on. They?ll be more debates. There?ll be more shots from my opponents. There may even be a few from me at them. But those were the rules we agreed on, not in Philadelphia this week, but in Philadelphia back when we declared Independence. Besides, a little trouble I don?t mind. If I get to be the first woman elected to lead this country I don?t want it said it was because my rivals went soft on me - or I on them."

wes2 wrote on November 2, 2007 3:07 PM:

(deferential whisper): Excuse me Madam, your gender card is showing ... you might want to move it further up your sleeve.

hwc wrote on November 2, 2007 3:08 PM:

Thanks for the Chris Mathews transcript. That makes Hillary's "degree of difficulty" for her remarks even higher because, she not only made a statement for public consumption, but worked in a private zing to Matthews as well.

As you may know, the reason Matthews has been foaming at the mouth over Clinton is that her campaign has frozen him out. For the last month, they have refused to even have a Clinton surrogate appear on his show. While at the same time, giving Olbermann interviews with both Hillary and Bill.

To take his "advice" is a riot, especially when she then turns it on its head at the end by saying "I'm very much at home in the kitchen".

Chris is going to need the defibrulators for his show tonight!

keith wrote on November 2, 2007 3:09 PM:

Greg:

You may want to include this nugget from this AP article in your longer post:

Clinton's advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss internal matters, said there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of gathering against her.

The idea is to change the subject while making Clinton a sympathetic figure, especially among female voters who often feel outnumbered and bullied on the job.

As one adviser put it, Clinton is not the first presidential candidate to play the "woe-is-me card" but she's the first major female presidential candidate to do it.

The victim is a familiar role for Clinton.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_po/on_deadline_clinton_1

Leon723 wrote on November 2, 2007 3:09 PM:

Greg, save your time on the longer post. You already gave us your view over on the Horse's Mouth this morning. Since comments aren't allowed on Horse's Mouth, here's my preemptive comment against Greg's longer post:

The sad saga of Greg Sargent's extreme pro-Hillary bias at TPM continues. It is
inconceivable to me that TPM has now made a Clinton team talking
point -- that the only reason HIllary finally lost a debate was
because the questions (cue the weepy music) were unfaaaaaiiiiir! --
into a full length story. Going into Tuesday's debate ,Hillary was
the prohibitive front runner.

Greg, can you go back and find one other campaign where the
prohibitive front runner was left alone by the other candidates, or
did not receive the lion's share of the attention from the
moderator? I know the answer. You did not do research; that's for
journalists. You are starting to forfeit your claim as a journalist
and you are about to cross over into being a flack for a particular
candidacy, in some ways worse that Sean Hannity because when he goes
to Giuliani fundraiser we know it.

Don't get me wrong. I expect TPM to have a progressive bias or
orientation; it's not a news network. What I don't expect of TPM is
that it directly or indirectly promote any particular progressive
candidate's candidacy or make excuses for any particular candidate.
Be equally tough on, or equally cozy, with all of the serious
candidates, please, including Edwards, Obama, etc.

Sorry for my stream of consciousness rant but here's more evidence of
TPM bias: Was there a TPM story when Keith Olberman asked Barack
Obama -- and only Barack Obama -- his opinion on black athlete
Michael Vick? Answer, No. That question was far more unfair or
implicitly discriminatory than any question Timmy Russert has asked.
Second, was there a TPM story when George Stephanopoulos started the
Iowa debate in August with a question that invited the candidates
running below Obama in the polls to take a whack at Obama before
George gave Obama a chance to answer? Nope again.

The meme that Hillary was the only woman on stage Tuesday and was
unfairly ganged up on by a bunch of men is deeply offensive, as I am
glad Ruth Marcus in the Post pointed out this a.m. Not one comment
about Hillary by Edwards, Dodd, Obama or the others on Tuesday had
even the faintist whiff of sexism: nothing about "shrillness" or any
other code word. Unless that line is crossed, crying "sexism" should
be out of bounds.

Now, back to Tim Russert. He is deeply flawed and exhibits his tough
cross examiner persona quite randomly. I've complained about him
myself. You don't always know when it will appear, but for gawd
sakes, Hillary is only one of many who have been confronted with it.
He was very very tough on Edwards back in March this year on MTP I believe,
and he had Richardson tied up in knots as well on MTP. He's made many a
Repub look not ready for prime time.

By the way, how can you possibly claim that the question Russert
asked during the Lazio debate was an "ambush." The Hillary vast
right wing conspiracy comment was one of her most famous; of course
it was predictable she'd be asked about it. And any good political
analyst will tell you that it is often the best thing that can happen
to a candidate when the question that voters talk about over the
water cooler is posed in an open forum, so that the candidate can
take a shot at defusing the matter. Hillary of course took the
opportunity and got good reviews for how she handled it, which only
helped her in NY. The "Obama Osama" question just last Tuesday was
within that genre.

hwc wrote on November 2, 2007 3:10 PM:

BTW, for those who doubt that Presidential politics is a "boys club", please list all of the female nominees for President in the first 230 years of American history.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 3:17 PM:

Did Obama get a Michael Vick question too? In addition to the one about whether he'd invite Barry Bonds to the White House? That's crazy. (Or maybe my memory is already going and someone else got the Barry Bonds question.)

Leon723 wrote on November 2, 2007 3:18 PM:

Hwc, you miss the point by a mile. Obviously, there have been no female nominees. There also have been no black or Hispanic nominees. Heck there haven't even been any black or Hispanic VP nominees, whereas Geraldine Ferraro got that far.

The point is that the criticism that Hillary received the other day in Philadeplphia was not the product of any "boys club" getting together to prevent a woman from getting the nomination. It was, as Hillary now belatedly states (after her staff said the exact opposite for two solid days!), the product of being in first place with 65 days to go. If a "boy" were in that position, and Hillary were where Obama or Edwards is, you can bet that she'd be tough on the front runner as well, and rightly so.

rssrai wrote on November 2, 2007 3:26 PM:

What I want to know is how does Hillary get away with calling these respectable men boys, and one of them is black. To me it is highly insulting, and women like this? I am a woman, and I find it disgusting.

Leon723 wrote on November 2, 2007 3:27 PM:

My Bad. Anonymous at 3:17 has a better memory than I do. Olbermann asked Obama about Bonds, not Vick. At a forum in Iowa, a pro-life audence member asked Obama about Vick, and I confused the two incidents. Still, Olbermann's asking only Obama about Bonds was something that at least could have allowed Obama's camp -- if it were so inclined -- to whine about discriminatory questioning. Obama's camp did not do that. Hillary's camp, on the other hand, cannot cite to a single question or comment made at the Phila debate that had even the slightest gender connotation to it, and yet the tried out the "men piling on women" meme, or at least until they were called to the carpet for doing it, at which point they beat a hasty retreat.

wes2 wrote on November 2, 2007 3:30 PM:

rssrai -- I think the problem with referring to it as a "mens' club" is that that carries rather different connotations than simply a group with restricted membership.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 3:38 PM:

Leon723,

Thanks for the clarification and the info about the IA forum. If he'd gotten both questions in debates, I'd suggest we should all be out there screaming bloody murder. As it is, I don't think Vick v. Bonds changes your basic point.

hwc wrote on November 2, 2007 3:45 PM:

"Obviously, there have been no female nominees. "

So, you agree with Clinton's characterization of Presidential politics as a boy's club, then?

230 years of boy's club, to be precise.

You are missing the point. The motivation for the gang attack on Clinton at the debate is irrelevant. It's the visceral, symbolic response to eight men turning and beating up on the one woman. Just like it's the visceral response to complaining about her coral jacket. Or the visceral response to the editor of the Atlantic saying that the woman candidate needs to learn to speak with a really low voice so that she sounds like a man.

You have to understand that Clinton has the largest group of firm supporters of any candidate in this race, from either party, that her support is especially strong among women, and that women make up 60% of the Democratic primary voters and 54% of the general election voters.

The "gender" card in this election is operating at a deep emotional, symbolic level. Candidates should ignore that at their own peril.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 3:46 PM:

re: "Greg, can you go back and find one other campaign where the
prohibitive front runner was left alone by the other candidates, or
did not receive the lion's share of the attention from the
moderator?"

I'm not Greg, but can you tell me one time where going personal ("unelectability" and "polarizing" are not policy differences) on the prohibitive frontrunner did a damn thing for the not-prohibitive frontrunner?

Bill Bradley was a disaster calling Gore a liar in 2000.
No one, contrary to popular meme, was the prohibitive frontrunner in 2004.
1992?
1996?

Since they don't take each other down on the GOP side...

Your point sounds good, but the competition in an election is between Democratic policies vs. Republican policies.

Republicans get that and that's why they win elections.
Democrats don't and that's why they don't win elections.
(sigh)

bp wrote on November 2, 2007 3:47 PM:

Get ready for a Republican President. The Progressives won't support Hillary, they will not have the votes to elect Barack and Edwards will get swiftboated to extinction as a "trial lawyer". As usual the Democrats will take the high road to political oblivion while the Republicans will take the low road to the White House.

goldberry wrote on November 2, 2007 3:57 PM:

Ummm, you *can* do both. You can point out that she is the only woman in the race and it has been an exclusive "boy's club" for over 200 years. That's just pointing out the obvious.
But the piling on is definitely all about her frontrunner status. It has nothing to do with her gender. That was pretty clear from her ad.
But, if people connect the two, well, maybe perception is reality, even if it's not.

Nuf wrote on November 2, 2007 4:03 PM:

Anon at 3:46:

Kerry went hardcore negative on Dean just about 4 years ago today. It got so bad at one debate that I attended in Detroit that during one commercial break, Dean had to walk up to the moderators and ask them to give him some time to do nothing but respond to all of the negative attacks Kerry had personally been making against him that night.

Jan wrote on November 2, 2007 4:09 PM:

bp wrote on November 2, 2007 3:47 PM:
"Get ready for a Republican President. The Progressives won't support Hillary,"

Yeah, that's why a lot of us who aren't part of the far leftwing of the D's can't stand the far leftwing of the D's.

Anytime a Democrat (quote:) WON'T support a Democrat...
Get ready for a Republican.

cvcobb01 wrote on November 2, 2007 4:14 PM:

Quippy, clever and funny.

I'm not an HRC supporter, but if she keeps this up I might become one.

Look, if I was in her shoes I would play any card I could because I'd be playing to win. As I hope any Dem would do.

CJ wrote on November 2, 2007 7:29 PM:

I'm very much at home in the kitchen," she said.

Hmmm...initially I believe it was "I don't bake cookies and I don't subscribe to the 'stand by your man' crap". Now she claims to be comfy in the kitchen and we all know she 'stood by her man'..again and again and again and again and again....

She doesn't know where she stands....

shelby wrote on November 3, 2007 3:03 AM:

In the spirit of Stephen Colbert, I created this hilarious mashup-equation that adds President Bill Clinton and future-President Hillary Clinton to get.. Billary! It balances out their equalities and differences in a humourous way. Please click below to check out and let me know what you think. Spread the link on if you can!

http://www.brickfish.com/Pages/PhotosAlbums/PhotoView.aspx?picid=114698_97187440&=PPIMEMAIL&isep=1&pbapi=59976&pbvi=6229200

Anonymous wrote on November 3, 2007 1:27 PM:

Hillary is the most qualified candidate. Let's face it. she's a winner.It's time for change. John Edwards failed to carry his home state in 2004. Obama can't win.

Mohamed wrote on November 3, 2007 1:34 PM:

Absolutely, gender still matters in this society of the dominant white male. Hillary is right. Pile-on is a strategy. who else is most qualified besides Mrs. Clinton. John Edwards treated Cheney with kidds glove, we know that. Obama is uncertain and cannot win. All ye democrats and Republicans, Hillary is your "girl." She's the most qualified to lead this nation.

Canaan wrote on November 4, 2007 2:07 AM:

Hillary is the one who has maneuvered O/E into this kamikaze position. Attack politics backfire in the primary--that's no surprise. But the losers have nothing to lose, so fire away. Notice that all the news, I mean all of it, is about Hillary. O/E can't make a move in this climate, but hey--you're buying Tim Russert a new house.

Michael wrote on November 4, 2007 7:39 AM:

Anonymous, "It's time for change." Change what? The curtains in the whitehouse and that's about it. Give me a break. I wish the clinton II people posting on this site would join one of the repuke campaigns. How about romney? He has about as much credibility as clinton II and he's "for change" as well.

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:18 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)