The nag, the witch and the media

[antiimperialist]

Monday October 1, 2007 09:16 EST
Salon

Sen. Hillary Clinton's strong lead with Democratic female voters has undermined the media myth that women might be toughest on a Clinton candidacy. But there's one group of women Clinton is still having a hard time with: female pundits. I winced Sunday when I read Maureen Dowd calling Clinton a "nag," and Joan Vennochi, in the Boston Globe, comparing Clinton's suddenly controversial laugh to the cackle of "hens" and "witches." If David Brooks or David Broder started throwing around terms like witch or nag when talking about Clinton, they'd be castigated as sexist throwbacks, but Dowd and Vennochi can get away with it? To be fair, both female columnists could try to argue that they were just playing off male doubts about Clinton, but the two nasty columns served to reinforce stereotypes, not dispel them.

Dowd's column was noteworthy for embracing another silly stereotype that, in a better world, the New York Times columnist would have instead debunked: The notion that the Clintons are some kind of "dynasty," comparable to the Bushes. I didn't like the dynasty language when Kevin Phillips used it about the Clintons. Of course, it doesn't literally fit the Bush family either, since the country elected both Bush presidents, but it makes more sense given the enormous wealth and political power both men were born in to. Like them or not, both Clintons come from families not marked for worldly power. Only in a country as deluded about class and history as this one would people call the Clintons a dynasty. But the Irish-American Dowd, in particular, should know better than to use the language of royalty to describe people who worked their way into the highest reaches of power and influence, up against people who were born into it. Or maybe that's my working class Irish-American stereotyping.
Read more: http://salon.com/opinion/walsh/

[emilyg]

1. Thank you.

[Bitwit1234]

2. The green eyed monster rears it's ugly head.

Neither of the women are well liked, well placed. Course they have to swift boat Hillary. Doesn't every jealous person...

[JDPriestly]

3. Sorry. As a woman who wants a woman president, I am hoping

that Hillary does not win the primaries. It isn't jealousy. I have no political aspirations. I don't like her know-it-allness. She reminds me of too many girls/women that I have had serious problems with in my life. She looks and sounds like trouble, big-time trouble to me. Maybe a lot of smart women feel as I do -- she is the kind of "friend" who will talk about you or gossip or stab you in the back or take all the credit for something you have done -- if you give her a chance. I don't trust her.

[antiimperialist]

4. So you won't vote for Hillary because you have a funny feeling about her?

How smart.

Ever heard of this thing called "issues"?, you know, as in health care, war...yes, war. If you don't like her vote on the war, despise her because of that...not because she looks gossippy. Give me a break.
This is why Al Gore lost...(or almost lost) the 2000 elections; because some voters ignored that he was the most capable, but thought he was "robotic", "boring", and other superficial things that mean nothing. Voters who think like you should stay home election day.

[JDPriestly]

5. People vote for a president that makes them feel confident and

comfortable.

Several of the Democratic candidates qualify. Hillary does not. We have a great choice of other candidates. Hillary is all around the worst. We should be choosing the best candidate. As for issues, I like Edwards best. But Richardson, Dodd and Obama are also quite good on the issues. Let's get a candidate who is kind and attractive. Hillary is not kind. She is harsh and unlikable. I think she has been beaten up too much. She is too strident. Edwards is a fighter without being strident or impatient with others. I like him best.

[antiimperialist]

6. You heard it, parents of kids without insurance. Vote for whoever is cooler

Note how you talk about the issues in a "by the way" fashion, right after your priority: a candidate's likability.
Please stay home on election day.
Your justification is that we should follow the heard, because may Americans vote for whoever we want to have a beer with.
No comments.

[JDPriestly]

7. Do you think people voted for Bush based on the issues?

I assure you they did not. They vote, in part based on a few slogans, in part based on a kind of "team spirit" feeling but mostly based on whether they like the candidate, whether the candidate makes them feel good. Hillary is not a person who makes other people feel good. She is a person who makes other people feel like she thinks she is smarter than they are. Besides, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd and even Richardson are better when it comes to the issues. Hillary is pro-war. She is bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. Clinton did next to nothing about the environment and energy independence when he was president, worsened the imbalance of trade, showed no mercy on the poor, did not protect our pensions, encouraged the Europeans to enact laws that permit Europe to snoop on telephone calls, internet and other electronic communications and the list of his failings goes on and on. We cannot expect anything different from Hillary. P

Personally, I like Edwards' stands on the issues far better than Hillary's. Hillary copied much of her stance on health insurance from Edwards who was the first to stick his neck out and announce his health care plan. Personally, I would prefer a single payer plan. In addition to a losing personality, Clinton is way behind on the issues.

[antiimperialist]

8. That's exactly my point

You focused on the issues. Oh the other hand, the lady who had an argument with me thinks that if most Americans focus on silly traits, then we should follow suit, instead of focusing on issues, like the ones you mentioned: Ties with the pharmaceutical industry, the war, etc.

[JDPriestly]

9. I'm the same woman.

I chose to support Edwards based on his stands on the issues and in particular the fact that he has clearly spent so much time and energy on preparing his campaign and thinking about where he stands. I like several of the candidates, however. Hillary is the only one I don't like. And my reasons are mostly her stand on the war, her links to special corporate interests and her stands on a lot of other issues. But in addition, I don't think she can be elected. Bush's policies are wrong, but he is a bad president not just because of his policies but also because of his horrible personality problems and his bad character -- and the fact that he takes money and is influenced to such a great extent by big corporate interests.

Personality/character counts in a president. We need a president who can be flexible and who can respond to reality, who will listen to others, someone who is not helplessly and obsessively moved by his or her neuroses but who can go beyond self-interest and the need to feel good about him- or herself or even to prove him- or herself. We need someone who can focus on serving our country. I think Gore was that person in 2000. If he were running now, he might be my choice. I don't know.

But of those running, by far Edwards is my first choice. I believe he understands what sacrifice means, how much it is needed to day, and I believe he is willing to make sacrifices himself for America. He is everything we need in a leader. I think people will sense this and vote for him. Hillary is better than the Republican candidates, but not nearly as good as Edwards. And because of her personality, I don't think she can be elected.

[MasonJar]

10. That is the most assinine thing I have heard...people may vote for people they

feel comfortable with, but they shouldn't. That is just the situation that has brought us 7, going on 8, years of the worst president in US history, George W Bush. Remember him, that besotted druggie loser that people wanted to have a beer with. I am sorry, but your argument is fallacious. It doesn't matter which of our candidates you tag with your presumptions; they are not facts and have no relevance in a sensible discussion. I am sorry to be so harsh, but I am sickened about the horror we have suffered over the past 7 years and I now have zero capacity to suffer fools in the dem ranks. It is time to work together to get rid of ALL GOPers. They have proven to be illiterate, shameless, crooked and criminal. They are old and malicious and traitorous. What more do you need to convince you to get rid of them? We have great candidates. Please quit excoriating any of them.