Election 2008: So is Hillary Clinton finished?

sevenoneeighty

I'll spare you the Poll.

Man, it's not looking good.
But it is early, I think. Seriously, she is in for the long run...even if she loses NH, she is not dropping out. All indication are that Obama will beat her by double digits maybe. Even here rally's are getting smaller already...

I was not happy to see her getting teary-eyed today.
You're Bill Clinton's wife dammit! Pull yourself together!!!
The hardest thing you have dealt with is some folks in Iowa and you start tearing up? C'mon Hil'.

The person who wants to be president cannot start crying (almost) on the campaign trail - especially a woman. I know this may make her more "human" to some, but this is a bad sign. If McCain or Romney got teary-eyed, what would the national reaction be?

carnivore

Yeah, that might have been her Howard Dean "YEEAAAHHHH!" moment.

@import url(http://skreemr.com/styles/embed.css);

	DarkMateria - Howard Dean Loses (and Loses It)
	Found at skreemr.com

drano

"We're gonna take New Hampshire...and Washington...and Hawaii...and Rhode Island...and Washington... and...BLOOOOOORRRRRAaaGGGHH!"


Good times, good times.

quijibo

the question felt planted


even if her response was genuine, she should not have used it as an opportunity to attack her opponents

drano

Poor Hillary. Cry more, n00b. One gets the impression she doesn't even know why she wants to be president - it's just that she's ambitious and it's the biggest job out there. Same thing when she dragged herself to New York. "Well, it's a big job, it's open...sure, why not? It would be cool to be senator, right? Ok, let's buy a house, LAWL." The weak opposition was icing on the cake.

It will be amusing to watch the cavalcade of scrubs falling all over themselves to endorse Obama if he should win New Hampshire.

sweet tea

i've been torn hillary/obama for a long time, and had finally decided (at great cost to certain parts of my idealism, frankly) to support obama, BUT

i'm so sick of this shit that gets heaped on powerful women. one minute they're too robotic, the next they're dangerously emotional. not enough like a woman, not enough like a man. it's such crap. everybody claims it's about the individual, not the gender, but it happens like fucking clockwork every damn time. might as well be the "athleticism" of black tennis players vs. the "grace" of white ones.

tiresome, i tell you what.

livetotravel

sweet tea wrote: i've been torn hillary/obama for a long time, and had finally decided (at great cost to certain parts of my idealism, frankly) to support obama, BUT

i'm so sick of this shit that gets heaped on powerful women. one minute they're too robotic, the next they're dangerously emotional. not enough like a woman, not enough like a man. it's such crap. everybody claims it's about the individual, not the gender, but it happens like fucking clockwork every damn time. might as well be the "athleticism" of black tennis players vs. the "grace" of white ones.

tiresome, i tell you what.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's absolutely bullshit that the male dominated response should be as it is - what progress have we made as a society if that is the dominate reaction? I found Hil human and appealing for the first time when I watched that clip.

Nobody said it better than Gloria Steinem in her Times piece this morning...

January 8, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
Correction appended.

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

Correction: An earlier version of this Op-Ed stated that Senator Edward Kennedy had endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has not made an endorsement in the 2008 presidential race.

Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.

MOD

ditto, SweetHam. However, I'm pissed enough right now at everyone woman hating on Hillbit, that I AM going to vote for her. So far at least... :?

drano

Gah, backlash to the backlash to the backlash! Ok, I like Hillary again!

carnivore

People are blowing what happened way out of proportion. It's not like she was bawling on the air. She just got a little choked up. This is just the media paying "gotcha" in a way that's very similar to what happened to Howard Dean in the last campaign, which also shouldn't have been that big a deal. It's not necessarily a woman thing (although obviously, for some people it reinforced a pre-existing bias).

mr. met

yea, that howard dean thing was really not a big deal. it was all about the microphones. it didnt sound wacko to the people that were actually there.

drano

BLOOOOORRORRRRAAAAAGH!

How would you write that sound? I think I've got it there, go ahead and just try to do better.

mr. met

haha, i mean it wasnt as loud to the people that were there.

carnivore

Drano wrote: BLOOOOORRORRRRAAAAAGH!

How would you write that sound? I think I've got it there, go ahead and just try to do better.

I think "Byah!" is the traditional way of writing it.

queencallipygos

Carnivore wrote: People are blowing what happened way out of proportion. It's not like she was bawling on the air. She just got a little choked up.

Exactly. I saw more tears out of Dan Rather when he retired.

Plus, she was clearly frustrated with the fact that she got what sounded like a stupid-ass question, one which also showed up the gender difference (seriously, would anyone have asked a man "who does your hair"?). Granted, I'm still not voting for her -- the rest of her manner as well as her record has soured me -- but I definitely understand where she's coming from and I sympathize.

witch-king

i'd support either clinton or obama. but it seems hillary's current argument boils down to 'it's my turn, who is this newbie and why are you people interested in him?'

steinem's op-ed is curious. she makes no specific argument against obama other than suggesting that support for obama falls in line with a bias against women. is it not possible that obama is simply out-competing clinton?

sweet tea

i don't think steinem's point was to argue against obama, but she does have a paragraph explaining that she supports hillary because she has more experience than he does. that's a fairly solid rationale in my book.

sprite

sweet tea wrote: i don't think steinem's point was to argue against obama, but she does have a paragraph explaining that she supports hillary because she has more experience than he does. that's a fairly solid rationale in my book.

Steinem goes on to applaud older women in their 50's and 60's who get "more radical with age." Supporting Hillary because of her longer track record is valid, but it's not particularly radical, and from what I can tell, Hillary's politics aren't either. I just don't think her gender is sufficient to justify that label.

But fine; if Hillary is radical because she's a woman, and Obama is radical because he's black, then they're both equal on that playing field, and Obama must be outshining her for some other reason. My impression is that he's got more charisma. That counts for a lot in politics.

sweet tea

well, she does say "more radical", which is fair enough, i think, if seen in opposition to the notion of "people" (aka men) growing more conservative with age. my father, for example, is certainly more conservative than he once was; he's still not A conservative.

as i said, i like obama; i just don't like the kind of criticism of hillary i'm seeing all over the place. lord knows there's enough to criticize in her record.

likewise, i think steinem isn't sidestepping the issue of obama's appeal -- she says she's not opposed to him, so avoiding tearing a potential dem nominee to shreads at this point is a wise restraint i wish were more widespread -- but rather trying to discuss a more general problem.

sevenoneeighty

witch-king wrote: i'd support either clinton or obama. but it seems hillary's current argument boils down to 'it's my turn, who is this newbie and why are you people interested in him?'

steinem's op-ed is curious. she makes no specific argument against obama other than suggesting that support for obama falls in line with a bias against women. is it not possible that obama is simply out-competing clinton?

Word, that is REALLY what is going on here, I think.
And the scary question that caused her teary response:

" Senator, How are you doing"? (I paraphrase)
Are you sh*tting me?!!

Look Ladies , you cant have it both ways.

You cant run on the "I'm just as strong as a man" ticket and then cry when someone ask you how you are doing after 98 white folks didnt vote for you in Iowa.

Yo, I need you to deal with Kim Jong Il and Osama, not behave like you just got your christmas bike stolen. this is serious business and it is telling.

Any many who cries on the campaign trail will have his ass handed to him - by women too!! Especially by progressive women who still don't want crying commander in chief. I didn't like it.

Yes, men in public office have teared up or even cried, but they were ALREADY in office and usually at a veterans funeral, war battlefield site or on an occasion something that happened To someone else. NOT when commenting on their own personal mental and physical state! See the difference?? no one is making you run for office Hillary - you chose to run.

Stop crying.
Pull yourself together.

carnivore

SevenOneEighty wrote: [quote=witch-king]i'd support either clinton or obama. but it seems hillary's current argument boils down to 'it's my turn, who is this newbie and why are you people interested in him?'

steinem's op-ed is curious. she makes no specific argument against obama other than suggesting that support for obama falls in line with a bias against women. is it not possible that obama is simply out-competing clinton?

Word, that is REALLY what is going on here, I think.
And the scary question that caused her teary response:

" Senator, How are you doing"? (I paraphrase)
Are you sh*tting me?!!

Look Ladies , you cant have it both ways.

You cant run on the "I'm just as strong as a man" ticket and then cry when someone ask you how you are doing after 98 white folks didnt vote for you in Iowa.

Yo, I need you to deal with Kim Jong Il and Osama, not behave like you just got your christmas bike stolen. this is serious business and it is telling.

Any many who cries on the campaign trail will have his ass handed to him - by women too!! Especially by progressive women who still don't want crying commander in chief. I didn't like it.

Yes, men in public office have teared up or even cried, but they were ALREADY in office and usually at a veterans funeral, war battlefield site or on an occasion something that happened To someone else. NOT when commenting on their own personal mental and physical state! See the difference?? no one is making you run for office Hillary - you chose to run.

Stop crying.
Pull yourself together.

Only 29% of the vote is in right now, but so far it doesn't look like this hurt her in NH.

sweet tea

word to the wise, 7180:

phrases like "Look, Ladies, you <blah>" smack of condescension. in fact, that kind of talk riles me up and makes me want to vote for hillary after all.

maybe it was inadvertent, but just so you know for next time.

sevenoneeighty

I was absolutely referring to Ladies, meant with the utmost respect and kindness, of course. Not all women are ladies.

Especially those who were complaining about folks complaining about Hillary crying. Don't take it personally, but take it seriously.

livetotravel

jeezus - is this 1950?

BTW - for anyone interested - apparently Ms Clinton is not finished - by any means

quijibo

automatically refreshing map
http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

quijibo

oh man. hillary is the projected winner

wow! :shock:

carnivore

Interesting article from the Huffington Post about Clinton's post-Iowa strategy:
Link

carnivore

quijibo wrote: oh man. hillary is the projected winner

wow! :shock:

By the AP. CNN isn't calling it yet because some big college towns haven't reported in yet.

quijibo

Carnivore wrote: [quote=quijibo]oh man. hillary is the projected winner

wow! :shock:

By the AP. CNN isn't calling it yet because some big college towns haven't reported in yet.

barack is about to give a concession speech....

carnivore

Yep, that's a wrap.
The Democratic turnout was amazing. Whoever winds up winning the primary, this bodes really well for November. Both Clinton and Obama got way more actual votes than McCain. And that's despite the fact that NH has more registered Republicans than Democrats.

quijibo

going from an obama, to a hillary speech
is like chasing a jameson's with rubbing alcohol

blech :oops: