It never ceases to amaze me the tactics that other women will use to try and drag Hillary Clinton down. Here's an excerptfrom an article summarizing Senator McCaskill's comments on Senator Clinton
"Missouri voters are won and lost on passion, who is motivated to come out and vote and if people are motivated for change, there is a good result. If Republicans are motivated, whether it's fair or not, no one motivates the Republicans in Missouri like Hillary Clinton."
The GOP, she said, was "in chaos. The only thing I can see right now that excites the very conservative base of the Republican Party in Missouri is coming out to vote against Hillary Clinton and that worries me."
Let me be clear. I am a fan of Senator McCaskill. I encouraged people to vote for Senator McCaskill, and I was just as excited as everyone else at a 2006 watch party when they called the race for Senator McCaskill. That said, I find it appalling, that Senator McCaskill would use the same argument against Senator Clinton that many Missourians used against McCaskill. When Claire McCaskill ran in 2006 many people argued that she was too political, too divisive, and YES even too assertive. The same traits that people are now arguing make Hillary a lightening rod for the Republican base.
For instance, this letter to the editoraround the time of the mid-terms, explains some of the criticism that McCaskill was subjected to
State Auditor Claire McCaskill has been a target for gender-based criticism during her various election campaigns on the local and state level. Some say she is too political, for instance, which means to a lot of women that she is being criticized for being assertive and a fighter...
Not to mention the sexist attacks launched by her opponent Jim Talent
Sexism is now a constant presence, too. The Republicans evoke the terrible spectre of Representative Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker - second in line to the presidency after Vice-President Cheney. In Missouri, another of the states in the balance, an ad for the 50-year-old incumbent senator, Jim Talent, says his Democratic opponent, Claire McCaskill, aged 53, is a "liar" who will not hesitate "to cheat" to get elected. Women, I should point out, still have much less equality in US politics than they do in Britain.
Claire McCaskill was too political, willing to do anything to get elected, and calculating according to her opponents ... hmmm ... sound familiar. The fact that Senator Clinton's name could be substituted for Senator McCaskill's is disturbing but not surprising. Women are always considered too cold and calculating even when they engage in behavior identical to that of their male counterparts.
It is an insult to Missouri voters to insinuate that we are too wrapped up in Hillary hating to make an informed decision.
Even more insulting to Missourians and to Senator McCaskill the Obama campaign is relying on the exact same attacks used by Talent against McCaskill to try and derail Hillary.
Here's the title of the latest memoreleased by the Obama campaign
Hillary "Pulling Out All the Stops"
How dare a woman try and win an election!
Equally disturbing is the fact that Senator McCaskill's attacks are straight out of the Republican play book. Don't believe me? Type Karl Rove and Hillary Clinton into Google News and then select the year 2007. Rove employed the same tactics against Clinton calling her fatally flawed and arguing that she would mobilize the Republican base. What are they waiting for? If they are so worried about Hillary why haven't the Republicans been able to match the Democrats in terms of fund raising? They have to consider it a significant risk that she would win the nomination... and yet ... the Republicans lag far behind in mobilization, organization, and fund raising.
Consider this
- American's dissatisfaction with Bush is driving them toward Democrats... even Hillary!
- The Republican base always vote (unless they are isolated by a Republican candidate). So do not fool yourself into thinking that they will stay home if Obama is the nominee.
Perhaps a better strategy for all of us including Senator McCaskill is to focus on getting the person with the most relevant experience enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton is the most experienced Democratic candidate. She has relevant experience in community organizing, policy development, international diplomacy, and human rights advocacy.
I am on the ground in Missouri making phone calls, meeting with voters, writing letters, and meeting with people who are still undecided. I do not see a community of people in Missouri who are only willing to vote for the most "passionate" candidate. I see a group of voters who take their vote very seriously and who want to make the best possible choice. I do not believe Senator McCaskill when she says that Missouri voters are won and lost on passion. Perhaps, I have more faith in the voters of Missouri than she does. I believe that Missouri voters will be won over on substance.