Daily Kos

As a woman, the TM especially Matthews insults and offends me

Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 04:53:17 PM PDT

How freaking dare Matthews accuse Hillary of playing the gender card?   Who the hell has been playing the gender card, the race card and even the religion card for the last two hundred years if not white males like Matthews?

I am sick of this garbage. I really am.

More.......

Chris Matthews had the nerve to say that when Hillary said, "I'm your girl" she was playing the "gender card."  He said she was also playing it when she visited her all female alma mater and last night.

Of course, if she said "I'm your woman, I'm your sister" he would accuse her of it too (It wasn't the word "girl").  So every time a male has said, "Vote for me, "I'm your guy, or I'm your man"  has Matthews accused them of playing the gender card?  Of course not.

People have been playing the gender, the race and the religion cards for two centuries in this country.  Do Matthews and all the other neocons think there hasn't been a woman in this role because we didn't want it?   Do they  think we are still making less than men because we want to?  
Do Matthews and his neocon buddies honestly believe that when woman and/or minorities point out these issues it is because they want to "play" anything?

Give me a freaking break!

Let's get real people.  Why has it taken so long for a minority male, or a woman, or anyone other than white male, mostly anglo saxon protestant, to gain the power of this office?  BIAS, that's why!

Of course Matthews and his cohorts don't even recognize their own misogyny.  Same thing with xenophobia.  Matthews doesn't even get it. Nor does Dobbs.   The good old boys club is just going along as always.  
Others do it too.  Yes, females can be misogynistic too.  Just like some minorities can be racist.  And bigotry in religion is all over as demonstrated by several major religious leaders. Pointing it out is not playing cards.  
I have to laugh every time "liberals" accuse Al Sharpton of "playing the race" card as if our jails are not overwhelmingly filled with young black males.  

Once I had an acquaintance complaining to me how it's all the fault of minorities and women that her son didn't get into medical school.   Those weren't her words but her message was clear.  I didn't say a word.  
"Well, don't you agree?" she confronted me. "Don't you think its unfair to guys who are not minority?"
"No, I don't."  

She was in a huff because I told her that in the overall scheme of things, I really did not believe white males got a bad deal.  That was as nice as I could put it.
Her son is a nice kid, eventually got into a different school and is doing quite nicely.  

My point is that no matter how people want to pretend there should be no difference based on race or gender or religion, history says something way different.  And if we dare mention it, if some women say the fact that Hillary's a woman does matter means we are playing the gender card, so be it.
It's 2007, a year before the election.  This democracy has existed since 1776.  That's 232 before a woman, or a minority male, has been a serious contender for this office.

And, in a panic, anytime the female candidate addresses women about this milestone, she is playing the gender card?  Was Barack playing the race card by going on a gospel tour of black churches?  Why wasn't Matthews all bent out of shape over that?
Do men like Chris Matthews and his ilk not get it?  

This is ridiculous.  Her gender is an issue.  A woman as "commander-in-chief" will be judged harsher on whether she can be tough and strong enough. Just ask any woman who has applied for any traditionally male position from firefighter to school superintendint.  For forty years of my teaching career, the overwhelming majority of educators were women, and the overwhelming majority of school superintendents were male.  That is a fact.

Matthews himself has already mentioned that "Can she be tough enough for leading the military?"  Has he asked that about Fred Thompson, actor?  He already loves how tough Guiliani is.  

I am really frustrated.   I accept that some here just don't like Senator Clinton because of her stance on the war.
That's fine.   But, don't tell me for one minute that is why these misogynistic pigs went after her.   They love them some pro war Guiliani and McCain and of all the candidates on the left, they single out Hillary?  Does that contradiction make sense.

Yes, Chris there is a gender card and it has been played for you and yours for two hundred plus years.  Now, because for the first time the gender card is being played differently you are hysterical?  

Sick of it.

Tags: Gender Card, Hillary Clinton, MSM, Chris Matthews, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 455 comments

  •  Tips or not... (227+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, NegSpin, Ed in Montana, SteveLCo, coral, section29, miriam, Peace JD, Asak, Radiowalla, ghost2, tryptich2, markw, Gooserock, emal, pelican, Bob Love, Lahdee, littlesky, Debby, DCDemocrat, oysterface, Mnemosyne, Duncan Idaho, LuLu, dr z, marjo, shpilk, Norwegian Chef, mysticl, ranee, texas hostage, perro amarillo, Paulie200, pitbullEmily, RubDMC, DemInGeorgia, opinionated, joyous, EvieCZ, Boston Boomer, WIds, Xeno of Elia, indybend, Cassandra77, elveta, sarahnity, hornrimsylvia, Baldwiny, ellefarr, DaleA, CoolOnion, stevej, roses, etherapy, badlands, Torta, Mber, lilnubber, Sacramento Dem, bewert, Cedwyn, high uintas, litigatormom, lulusbackintown, psnyder, heartofblue, oldjohnbrown, Dr Colossus, Sycamore, roseeriter, LimosineLiberal, exiledfromTN, hairspray, ademption, NYCMARJ, penguins4peace, johnnygunn, snakelass, dnn, Brian82, DMiller, exlrrp, random6x7, ScienceMom, fran1, Josiah Bartlett, murrayewv, Spam Spam Bacon Spam, macmcd, Julie Gulden, julifolo, MichDeb, angrybird, tmendoza, historys mysteries, marina, DianeNYS, Steve M, keila, Gabriele Droz, BluejayRN, Alegre, Heiuan, arnott, Lying eyes, PBen, tgray, chidmf, skeptigal, EJP in Maine, Salo, Turkana, lorelynn, klk, ofao, eru, cris0000, sallyfallschurch, pasadena beggar, lotlizard, RElland, HillaryGuy, wulidancer, CSPAN Junkie, Rosemary, Doodlespook, LivesInAShoe, loggersbrat, tigerdog, Paddy999, RainyDay, Jim R, begone, debedb, Nowhere Man, esquimaux, atdnext, BachFan, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, vigilant meerkat, ej25, concernednyer2005, tobendaro, emeraldmaiden, Themistoclea, Ky DEM, Ellicatt, Gorette, dougymi, DInPhilly, VictorLaszlo, dennisl, kck, TalkieToaster, Lashe, nilocjin, CTLiberal, filmgeek83, ER Doc, Dinclusin, astoundedstill, Cato come back, Texdude50, Stripe, WarrenS, cherryXXX69, RantNRaven, scoff0165, mjminPA, thepdxbikerboy, Temmoku, illusionmajik, Nulwee, cpresley, GoldnI, MikeTheLiberal, VA02 femocrat, Owllwoman, gustynpip, masslib, phoenixdreamz, lizpolaris, jedennis, Heyroot, sabershadow, beemerr, jnhobbs, Rumarhazzit, madgranny, Hairy Legs, slade7, arogue7, rogerdaddy, MollyStark, Blackacre, belindapope, wayoutinthestix, brklyngrl, KnowVox, geez53, Judge Moonbox, bythesea, OutCarolineStreet, lineatus, c r b, ProgMa57, NogodsnomastersMary, randomperson26, kyril, kitsapdem, SleepingWillow, ShainZona, MizC, lvillelass, Zulia, domma, Izarradar, cameoanne, Chad Michaels, tabby, malibu1964, rubyclaire, Mr Tentacle, a synthetic cubist, bushondrugs, River103

    I feel better!

    •  Its really sad. (43+ / 0-)

      She's such a great candidate, that's why she is being attacked so much.  Its sad that the Democrats are trying to Swiftboat her.  This is why we don't win national elections.  We attack our own and play into the MSM.  

      •  I know (43+ / 0-)

        And honestly, I think a strong healthy debate among our candidates is needed and is welcomed.  But when liberals or progressives defend the obvious bias of the MSNBC team it just bugs me.

        I would love for someone to show me the transcript where Russert or anyone asked Mitt point blank if he thinks Guiliani is being honest.   Or where the moderators singled out one of the repubicans for trashing.  I haven't seen it.  

              •  Yes, it is sad (15+ / 0-)

                I have a lot of trouble with how so many progressives have used the same arguments as Matthews did tonight.  This is a nothing incident and it meant nothing.  The one night Senator Clinton was imperfect, everyone piles on.  What a bunch of BS. All the MSM wants is a horse race, so they can sell their ads for more money.  Without drama, they might actually have to do some real reporting.  I'm old enough to remember when TV news actually had some news during the broadcast.  Not now, all we get are calculated attempts to make a contest appear close.

                I wish Kos hadn't written about this earlier today.  He may not realize it, but he's playing right into the MSM's hands.  I find it tiresome and why come here if all I'm getting is the same as what's already on TV.  

                I come to Kos and other progressive sites to find something more than a repeat of what I see in the MSM.
                We progressives should be concentrating on getting Democrats elected--period.  Maybe some would like another party, but right now the Democrats are our best way to get at least some of our ideas out there.

                I hope the progressive blogoshere doesn't regress into a "me too" version of what is already out there and I hope we don't become a just an echo chamber for the Chris Matthews types out there.  

                •  It is very disappointing (14+ / 0-)

                  I was hoping places like KOS had a higher level of discourse and didn't go along with right wing talking points to eat our own. This is why we've been losing. I have to wonder if Kossacks are really committed to change. Because all I see is they are willing to engage in this destructive group think that destroys our own Democratic candidates and helps the GOP.

                  Hillary, Commander in Chief AND CEO of the Free World.

                  by kitsapdem on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:39:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is the PRIMARY (21+ / 0-)

                    It IS NOT the General Election for pete's sake.

                    And no one is "destroying" anyone.

                    What makes you think that no one should take issue with Hillary's position, and that by doing so we're destroying our own "Democratic candidates."  Where on earth did you get that idea?

                    I don't get it.  Just because someone doesn't agree with Hillary (or anyone else for that matter), or her supporters, doesn't mean we're "eating our own".

                    It means we have a difference of opinion, plain and simple.  Period.

                    Stop being so touchy.

                    A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

                    by Terre on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:41:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is the tip of the melting iceberg (11+ / 1-)

                      Anytime you disagree with Hillary?
                      The supporters will call say you hate her so much you're blinded.
                      As in: You hate America. Love it or Leave it. You hate Bush so much you can't think straight.

                      If you don't like her positions?
                      The supporters will say you're sexist and hate women.

                      If you don't like her as a candidate?
                      The supporters will say you're sexist and hate women.

                      If you don't think she'll make a good President?
                      It's because you think women belong in the kitchen.

                      If you have a problem with her taking money from Big Pharma and Big Oil and Big INSERT BIG NAME HERE?
                      It's because you hate her so much. And, you're sexist and hate women and think they belong in the kitchen.

                      See?
                      It's simple.
                      You can dislike ALL the male candidates for any reason you my desire.
                      And no one will call you a man hater or sexist or blinded by hate.
                      If you dislike Hillary...well. You know the drill.
                      It's the same shit every single Bush supporter has pulled on you since 2000.
                      It's the same shit Hannity and Limbaugh and Horowitz and Coulter pull.
                      Your opinion is invalid because you're a hater.  

                      Oh.
                      And add "eating your own" if you don't want to vote for her.
                      So don't forget:
                      You're sexist.
                      Blinded by hate.
                      The Kitchen.
                      You eat your own.
                      And of course the goodwin card of 2007 -
                      SWIFTBOATING.

                      Yes.
                      When we ask Bush, Cheney or Lieberman questions they flip flop on or won't answer?
                      They are scumbags.
                      Bastards. Thieves. Assholes. Dissembling. Liars.
                      And please INSERT TWO HUNDRED OTHER adjectives and nouns we like to use HERE.
                      When we demand accountability from our own, we're eating them.

                      Odd - I always thought that would make us hypocrites for NOT questioning.
                      No! I'm a swiftboating hater.
                      Have I learned nothing on Daily Kos in the five years I've been here?
                       
                      And not for nothing, but this bullshit gender crap better end now.
                      You better believe women get shit on every day.
                      We still make less then men.
                      There's hardly any women Senators or Reps or Govs, or CEO's for that matter.
                      Not to mention the amount of women getting beaten and raped by violent men who get away with it.
                      BUT, the last a scared, frightened, chicken shit take my civil liberties American needs to hear is that 'The Guys are Ganging Up On Me".
                      Because if she can't handle a bunch of guys on the podium who are ONLY going after her because she's the frontrunner -
                      She sure as hell can not handle all the men who seem to hold positons of power in the rest of this fucked up world.
                      That's what they'll think.
                      Give us Big Tough as Nails Crazy Old Fucked Up Rudy.

                      Full Disclosure - Hillary was my third choice, and happily my first if she won.
                      That hasn't changed.
                      The second part of my sentence.
                      The first part has though.
                      She's not my third, or fourth or even fifth at this point.
                      And it has nothing to do with Mathews, the talking heads, the GOP, or gender or polls.
                      I don't care for her positions, period.

                      "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                      by Christin on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:55:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  This had nothing to do with issues (3+ / 0-)

                      If Matthews had been discussing issues, I'd have no problem. But this was criticizing her for saying that she had learned enough at her all female school to run with the old boys club. He turned it into her saying "evil men" which as far as I know, she didn't. It has been an old boys network for over 200 years; that's a fact.

                      I am an Edwards supporter (though if Hillary wins the nomination, I will be proud to work my butt off for her), but Chris Matthews made me mad enough yesterday that I had to turn off the TV. I would assume that anyone who listened to the show would be equally pissed. It was sexist and unfair.

                    •  it has nothing to do with (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      kitsapdem

                      not agreeing with her.  In fact Edwards doesn't disagree with her and neither do any of the other candidates. They wouldn't say anything different.  
                      She didn't actually get to finish what she was saying before Edwards jumped in interrupted and accused her of saying two different things.  She didn't as has been explained several times.
                      I understand that you all have a new talking point.  But the actual point is that the republicans are pulling their usual swiftboat routine.  They are lying about what she said and you all are swearing to it.  
                      And the diarist is pointing out that the whole thing is sexist.  Everyone is accusing her of pulling the gender card when the real gender card is being pulled by the media.
                      In addition the media has decided the race was no close enough for ratings and they are manipulating the story.  This is the same thing they did in 2000 and we ended up with bush.  Smarten up Terre, if they can do it to Clinton they can do it to whoever you support too.

                  •  All She had to do was be clear on her positions (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    bejammin075

                    Then there wouldn't have been near the problem. Strange when she had a 30 point lead on .. There wasn't much complaining.

                    Then She got hit hard.  She was under pressure and we got a glimpse behind the facade. The Office of The President is not where you want to found out how a person reacts under extreme pressure. We've already seen that. Better to see it now and let the voters decide if they can live with it then have it happen when the issues are right there, real and immediate and have her do "poorly".

                    We don't know if this was just a "bad Night". We don't want to find out in the General that this is what happens when the heats on and certainly not in the White House.

                    So I say, put the heat on. She's the front runner. She wanted this gig. Lets see if she's up for it.

                    Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

                    by Dburn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:18:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  half the question of the evening (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      kitsapdem

                      were either to her or about her and all but two were negative.  Either they were gotcha questions or questions asking someone if she were being honest etc... The moderators became part of the attack.  She was asked about Spitzer  and she defended him but she never said she fully supported his position, she was explaining it until she was rudely interrupted by
                      Edwards who has become nothing but a yappy ankle biter these days, a really unpleasant man.  But had he been given the same question his answer would have been no different.  Why?  Because it would kill him in the primary.  Liberals are not for shipping them all back to Mexico.  We have to find a way to make these people legit and we all know it.

                      Go read the transcripts if you don't believe me.

                      And everyone can stop pretend she is whining about this. She is just stating fact.  They were all on the attack. That happened. Even Dodd got in to the act. She is using it to her advantage.  She wouldn't be the front runner if she wasn't smart enough to do that.

                      •  I read the transcript (0+ / 0-)

                        I also saw part of it. Like I indicated, she is vying for one of the hardest pressure filled jobs there is.  The crux of this is; the performance of the person in that job can literally mean the difference between life and death for thousands of people.

                        So to me it's a good thing to test what level of stress a frontrunner can take. I would expect the same thing to happen to Edwards or Obama should they take the lead.

                        We know the GOP won't  allow that to happen to their candidates but we also know they've marched in lockstep with the worst President in the history of the country and kept him protected.

                        I think the public will elect a D as President. I damn sure want to see that the best candidate we have gets in. The only way to do that is to put the heat on. No excuses. No whining. If they can't take it, then we move on to the next one.

                        In other words; this time we are serious.

                        Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

                        by Dburn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:19:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  The Boys were petulant spoiled frat boys (0+ / 0-)

                        They were sad little excuses for candidates during the last debate. Hillary looked like the only mature person up there. If you want a school yard bully go with one of the boys, because that's what they looked like.

                        And it had nothing to do with substance or issues, it was all about personal attacks that had no basis. And a lot of pot/kettle stuff, especially from pretty boy Edwards - he is a very unpleasant little two faced, opportunistic lawyer. He's the reason lawyers get such a bad name.

                        Hillary never whines. She shows strength and wisdom. All the boys ever do is whine. Boo hoo.  I can't wait until she turns them into puddles.

                        Hillary, Commander in Chief AND CEO of the Free World.

                        by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:37:41 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Not in primary season. (8+ / 0-)

                  You say, "We progressives should be concentrating on getting Democrats elected--period." Getting Democrats elected is not the issue in primary season.  I would hope that in primary season the goal of progressives would be to get the most progressive Democrat on the general election ballot, in the process building the grassroots organizations that will carry those progressive Democratic candidates to victory in the general . That's the point of the Donna Edwards fund-raiser, among others.

                  Not all Democrats are created equal. Look at Steny Hoyer. He's the fracking Majority leader in the House! Really! The impulse that says we have to get Democrats elected, period, is what lets the Democratic Party establishment take progressives for granted. If the Democratic Party is not going to represent democratic values and policy positions, I'm not down with that, and it can go down in flames as far as I'm concerned. If Democrats are not going to stand up for democracy and the Constitution, fuck 'em, I'm not voting for them. Down here in Florida, I've got Bill Nelson as "my" senator. He's been a useless Bush-enabler. I'm not voting for him next time his turn comes up.

                  Yeah, I know about Duverger's "Law," that odds are we're stuck in a two-party system, and we need to make the best of it. But if progressives don't stand for getting rid of corporate control of the Democratic Party and stand against corporate candidates, then we're done for anyway. The fascists have won, and whether they call themselves Republicans or DLC Democrats doesn't make a bit of difference to me. While I would like a bigger margin in the Senate, it doesn't make me sad that Harold Ford lost in Tennessee.

                  This is not a question of the perfect being the enemy of the good. We have a primary season for a reason, and I think Markos is right that that is when progressives have their shot, because in the general we have little choice. But I'm done enabling DINOs

                  Having said all this, I will tell you that while I do not think that Clinton is the most progressive candidate out there and I am concerned with her corporate orientation, I actually thought that she won the Spitzer clash in last night's debate by taking the most reasonable position. Although I support him, I thought Edwards was trying too hard to draw a distinction with her and ended up looking like he was playing silly, Russert-style, gotcha politics, and I thought Dodd was demagoging the issue ("It's a privilege!"). Overall, I thought she won the debate, frankly. Still, her corporate orientation and triangulation (flag-burning? really?), not to mention her hawkishness, are major concerns to me. It's her politics that concern me, not her gender.

                  "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

                  by psnyder on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:50:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I have to say (7+ / 0-)

                  I feel the same.  I was stunned with Tweety's show tonight.  All I could think is he really really hates or is threatened by Hillary, on a visceral level.  More likely, he is scared to death she might win.  These guys literally can't take the idea that a woman could ACTUALLY be the president.

                  There has been some serious shape shifting going on.  The debate I watched is not the debate I am reading about.  

                  Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin

                  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:21:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Very strange indeed. (13+ / 0-)

              I really don't get it.  The pile-on around here is so over the top it's not funny.

              •  It seems very self-destructive (9+ / 0-)

                I guess it's more fun to be miserable and suffer and beat up our own candidates.

                Hillary, Commander in Chief AND CEO of the Free World.

                by kitsapdem on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:40:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well, as someone has pointed out (19+ / 0-)

                there is a demographic here that is mostly male.  

                I am close to Hillary's age.  I have been there, done that since when I got my MA in Technology in Education, I was in a cohort group that was 80% male.  As well the techie committee for the district was mostly male. I had to fight to get on it.  

                I always had a penchant for the tech side of things and still in school almost all the teachers always went to my teammate (male) when they needed computers, or any equipment fixed.   He and I always had a good laugh since he was basically clueless about all of it.  

                Even today, people assume now because I am an older (62)female I am computer illiterate.  Sigh.  Stereotypes have been driving me crazy since I was a kid and not allowed to play Little League.

                •  Know what you are saying (14+ / 0-)

                  Fifty two year old lawyer, graduated from law school eight years after HRC. How many times have I been "shrill," "rigid and inflexible," and yes, the rhymes with rich word.  For doing and saying things that are called "tough," "strong," and "forceful" in reference to a man.

                  I support Clinton, although she's hardly a perfect candidate.  There are many legitimate things to criticize her for, and I do too.  But so much of what she's criticized for is just gender sterotyping. It really makes me mad, and sad, and was part of the reason I did an Adios Mundo Cruel diary a few weeks ago.  Criticize her on the substance, fine. She deserves some it, even in my books.  But please, the circular firing squad?  No más.

                  "Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?

                  by litigatormom on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:14:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Totally agree (6+ / 0-)

                    I have been supporting John Edwards, but Hillary is my second choice.  She isn't the perfect candidate.  I'm still looking for that person, regardless of gender.  

                    All of them have some things I agree with, some things I disagree with.  But when they (the traditional media) start using the stereotypes, and then start accusing Hillary of "playing the gender card" I lose it.

                    Like my diary said, the gender card has been played my entire life by white males in most everything but most especially in presidential politics.

                    If someone can prove to me that the gender has not been an issue for the last 232 years, then I'm all ears.  But in my view, gender, race and religion are all cards that have been played in every election.  No one seemed to think of gender being played as a negative thing until now....hmmmmmmmmmmmm

                    Just sayin'.....

                    •  Time out, Hillary isn't "playing the gender card" (4+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      moira977, Morague, Philoguy, kyril

                      but when the pack goes after her for Iran, and for her wishi-washiness in the face of tough questions, -- it's only b/c she's a woman?

                      Good effing grief! I'd be very excited by the prospects of our first female President, if she wasn't part of the DC establishment. But my problems with Clinton II have nothing to do with her sex.

                      Please stop inferring that I'm a mis-ogynist. I'm not. My disagreements with the Clinton gang have nothing to do with Hillary's gender, and you demean me, the Democratic Party, and the country as a whole, when you pretend otherwise.

                      Your arguments are as equivocally as lame, as, hypothetically, were the Obama crowd to say people were criticizing him b/c of racism.

                      Weak, weak, weak...

                      Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

                      by TrueBlueCT on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:18:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think criticizing HRC for her vote on (3+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        ScienceMom, kindertotenlieder, kyril

                        Kyl-Lieberman is totally legit -- I am unhappy about it too, and I've called her office about it. I don't think the diarist is calling YOU a misogynist, I don't even think that she's calling the other candidates misogynists.  As I read the diary, she's criticizing the MEDIA for framing their stories, commentary, and debate questions in terms that would not be used -- ARE not used -- with respect to men.  NO ONE at any Gooper debate has yet called about Rude E. JulieAnnie for his incredibly revisionist tales of his 9/11 prescience. No one calls Mitt "Plastic Hair" Romney dishonest -- the worst he gets is "flip-flopper." No one asks John McCain why he's spent the last seven years with his nose up Bush's ass.

                        HRC is a flawed candidate -- all candidates are, the question for each voter is whether the positives outweigh the negatives.  Even though I hoped until recently that my true dream candidate (Gore) would get in the race, I am delighted that there are so many good candidates this year.  I  think Obama or Edwards would make good presidents; I'm liking Chris Dodd a lot lately too.  For me, for a variety of reasons, HRC's strengths outweigh her flaws.  For others, they don't.  That's what its all about.  I just would prefer it if the various competitors for the nomination could avoid buying into the Gooper frames (Clinton the She Devil, Edwards the Pretty Boy, Obama the Novice). Especially the Clinton the She Devil thing -- she's cold (what male leader gets criticized for being "cold"?), the pantsuits, the hair, the decolletage (at least half a Hardball segment was devoted to that one), why didn't she divorce Bill?  Why doesn't anyone ask Rudy why he DUMPED his wife on TV?  

                        "Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?

                        by litigatormom on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:52:44 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So Howard Dean should have cried (2+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          moira977, kyril

                          "anti-Vermont" when the race suddenly became 7 against 1?

                          I didn't hear any of the candidates refer to Hillary as a "she-devil". They did question where she stood, and if she wasn't feeding us double-speak.

                          God Bless! And that's what primaries are about. If Senator Clinton can't stand up to Tweety and Russert, she'll prove a complete flop against the GOP onslaught.

                          What was revealing to me was that in the face of pressure, Senator Clinton reverted to her old personality, (defensive, fast-talking, semi-aggressive, and yeah, shrill). What happened to the kinder, warmer, Clinton?

                          Anyway, this latest is nothing compared to what will be coming down the pike. Yeah, the GOP will bring up Bill's multiple affairs, no doubt.

                          Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

                          by TrueBlueCT on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:58:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Like I said (3+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            ScienceMom, kindertotenlieder, kyril

                            I am certainly not accusing the other candidates of calling HRC anything, and I don't think the diarist was either.  The issue was the media framing.  And there, it is glaringly obvious that Timmeh and Brian were framing her, and the questions about her, in a way that they've never done with anyone else.  

                            I'm not worried about what HRC can stand up to.  I think she can stand up to anything.  But why is she put to tests that no one else is?  To me, that's the question.  

                            And what's wrong with fast-talking semi-aggressive women?    

                            "Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?

                            by litigatormom on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:06:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry to say (0+ / 0-)

                            You have truly missed the point of my diary.
                            Maybe if you reread it, you will the point.

                            It's about the media. And they are using unfair tactics in their framing.  With Matthews, it even comes off as a personal vendetta.

                            I said NOTHING, not a damn thing about the other candidates using sexism.  My complaint is that the media is claiming the Hillary is playing the gender card when in reality, THEY are playing.

                            Hillary is using reality.  

                            What part of 232 years of bias gender for this office is not true?  
                            Even today, Thom Hartman, hardly a centrist, not even a Clinton supporter said it on air: THE RIGHT IS USING THEIR TALKING POINTS TO FRAME THIS AS "Hillary is playing the victim....using gender."
                            It's a damn freaking lie.

                    •  Their reactions say so much about them (0+ / 0-)

                      and less about Hillary.  I don't mean reasoned criticsm of particular postions, or even criticism of overall strategy--but all these other emotion-based, over the top subjective leaps that are so repeatedly offensive.

                      When Matthews makes that ridiculous comment about Hillary playing the gender card- as if it were ever a trump card anywhere--he is seeing her through a prism of his own ideas of how a woman "should"act, and what she is capable of. WHen Matthews moons over Fred Thompson's manly cologne- he is commenting on his own ideals of "manly" qualities, superficial though they may be.

                      When Andrew Sullivan ascribes motives to Hillary that he can't possibly verify,  warns that she will be no different on Iran, or global warming than the administration and then, practically shouting, declares her to be "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" - my head spins.

                       My god, on the pages of the "paper of record" Maureen Dowd helps us choose our presidents by telling us Hillary is too manly, and Edwards and Obama are too womanly. We are screwed up about gender and boy does it show.

                       As the first woman to come this close to the presidency, to be not only a legitimate candidate for the most powerful office in the land, but a leading candidate, I think, she engenders a range of conscious, unconscious, reasonable, unreasonable, deep-seated or superificial reactions based on the fact that she is a woman.   This is unavoidable- especially in a country that has never elected anyone else but white males to the highest office. But it doesn't excuse journalists, etc from being lazy about their own inherent biases when covering the first woman (and the first man of African descent) to make a serious bid for the White House.

                •  I wasn't allowed to play Little league either (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  kindertotenlieder, MollyStark

                  and ever since then I have been aware of the All Boys Club-

                  Hillary sees both sides as do I. At 55 I understand that change especially in the politics of the day take a long time. That Hillary has learned the political game as well and better than her male counterparts is So Admirable! But that she is piled on HARDER because of that blows my mind. I write a lot of it off to just plain ignorance.

                  We must move closer to the center at this point in time before we can take apart the horrors that the republicans have done. I wish more HRC haters would get that part.

                  Go Hillary!!!!

                  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

                  by roseeriter on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 03:01:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (4+ / 0-)

                I am reeling from what I have been reading.  I have to wonder, "what the hell is going on"?  What I am reading has little relationship to what I saw watching the debate on Tuesday night.

                Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin

                by vigilant meerkat on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:24:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  YUP (8+ / 0-)

            Edwards and Obama just played right into their hands. Talk about no minds of their own, just a couple of sheep.  I think voters would have had a lot more respect for them, if they had stuck to debating her on the issues. Except for Richardson, they went along with Russert's attack machine. Frankly, I thought Hillary did as well as anyone would  and stood strong. The debate reinforced how weak and pathetic Edwards and Obama are. Biden had a strong showing and really showed his smarts on foreign policy. I think he was probably the standout at that debate.

            Hillary, Commander in Chief AND CEO of the Free World.

            by kitsapdem on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:38:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When Russert asked (13+ / 0-)

              Obama if he thought Hillary was being dishonest, I was angry for both Obama and Hillary.  What an asshole question.  

              Do you disagree with Senator Clinton?  How do you differ with Senator Clinton?  Those are appropriate.  

              Obama was uncomfortable and that is to his credit.  But the bottom line is that Biden was right....why the hell are they allowing Russert to pit them against each others.  Debating is not the same as calling your opponents names.

              MSNBC must be getting a lot of negative mail as Abrams has just been angrily defending Russert.

              •  If Hilary is tough, she is a bitch, if a man does (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                NYCMARJ, random6x7, MollyStark, kitsapdem

                the same he is being strong and decisive, if a man shows a sense of humor, he is called likable, when Hilary laughs she is obviously "calkelling" and being coy. If she starts to give an answer that is substantive she is stumbling, if a man does it, he is being thoughtful and wise, if Hilary speaks to women's and children's needs she is playing the gender card, if a man talks about being pro-life, Hilary becomes a baby murderer, if Hilary worked on her marriage and cared enough to regain trust in that relationship, she was weak and cannot be trusted...if a man has been married 2 or more times, it is just business as usual, if Hilary works the current system (as it is set up) she has "sold herself to the devil", if men do the same, they are given a "lighter sentence" so to speak.

                When you swim with the sharks you get bit, so you better know how to swim faster. Historically women have to work twice as hard, and she is standing tough, playing ball, but she is getting pitched balls that are full of greasy main stream medium types like Russert and Matthews, who are simply parasites with no class, who are more interested in getting the attention focused on them, making points for their ego driven agenda's and it is becoming more and more obvious how below the belt and out of line they have become.  Really disgusting.  

                Badabing

                'Course I'm respectable. I'm old. Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough. Noah Cross, Chinatown

                by Badabing on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:29:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  If Obama had balls he would have (0+ / 0-)

                spoken up and challenged Russert on that question, not just felt uncomfortable. Then I would have had respect for him.

                Hillary, Commander in Chief AND CEO of the Free World.

                by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:40:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I don't quite know how to say this (10+ / 0-)

              but as I'm reading down the comments I find that my jaw just dropped reading your comment.

              Maybe you forgot what you said, just above:

              I was hoping places like KOS had a higher level of discourse and didn't go along with right wing talking points to eat our own. This is why we've been losing. I have to wonder if Kossacks are really committed to change. Because all I see is they are willing to engage in this destructive group think that destroys our own Democratic candidates and helps the GOP.

              So, what is with your calling Edwards and Obama "a couple of sheep" and "weak and pathetic"?

              Sounds like right-wing talking points to me.

              Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.  

              A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

              by Terre on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:56:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I e-mailed MSNBC and NBC about Russert. (35+ / 0-)

          I told them I was unhappy with him in the debates. I also told them that Russert gives softball questions to the repubs. Everyone here should complain. Maybe they will get the message.

          "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

          by Owllwoman on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 05:08:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why couldn't Hillary just answer the question?? (14+ / 0-)

            because Mark Penn hadn't run it by focus groups yet.
            But apparently, by today he had - and Hillary supports 3 different drivers licenses.

            Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

            by annefrank on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 05:50:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah Russert was bad, but Hillary trapped herself (4+ / 0-)

              I mean the lightning round was the stupidest thing ever and they should never do it again.

              But it was totally predictable that Timmeh would ask Hillary a rough question -- he loathes her.

              Personally, I think Timmeh is an asshole, a fat bastard who is trying to ruin America for his own benefit.

              But as powerful as he is, Hillary has more power than he. She had the microphone, and she alone blew it.

              Interests: Politics and the English Language.

              by Patel1946 on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:19:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  As a woman (22+ / 0-)

              I am offended that she is playing that card as her email today dictates:

              On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary.

              She is one strong woman. She came through it well. But Hillary's going to need your help.

              Awww.  Poor Hillary.  Those 6 mean pesky boys demanded answers.  

              She blames those who are running against her instead of the actual offender which IMO was Russert.

              Although, Timmeth's tone towards Clinton had "asshat douche boy" all over it, that does not mean you don't take your lumps when you don't answer questions.

              Grandpa is mean and he smells funny.

              by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:36:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You and the (12+ / 0-)

                traditional media are the ones imposing the men against the women.  It was six against one.  That was clear.
                Timmeh was an asshole.  That was clear.  One does not discount the others.

                •  Clear as mud. (15+ / 0-)

                  It was six against one.  That was clear.

                  Only clear to Clinton partisans, who willfully forget that EVERY frontrunner in EVERY primary automatically gets a target on his/ her back...especially when he /she is so far ahead in polling.  

                  It happened to Bill Clinton in 1992, it happened to Howard Dean in 2004, etc.  

                  But many of you have made it into an issue of a girl being picked on by a gang of boys.  It's absurd, and insulting.

                  JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

                  by chumley on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:28:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And that was not what my diary (13+ / 0-)

                    was about.  It was about people like Matthews imposing that "Hillary is playing the victim" and "it's the boys picking on the girl" narrative.

                    Her narrative was about six on one, not six men on one women.  One is about the frontrunner being the target...we all get that.  The TM narrative is about Hillary using the gender card and whining.

                    My diary is stating realities.  There is a gender issue.  Alway has been.  But it is one of society's making, not Hillary Clinton's.  Neither Hillary nor any other woman made gender an issue by not being able to be elected to this office for 232 years.  That's my point here.  Being a white male was part of the being able to be president for 232 years.  
                    Acknowledging the fact that this is historic is being used as a negative.  Like suddenly, the population never being able to elect anyone but a white male is Hillary's fault?  She's playing the card that no woman had any say in?  That's the point.  Sorry you missed it.

                    •  Chris Matthews is a pig. (6+ / 0-)

                      He's seriously deranged, and hates women.

                      I don't deny that there is a gender issue.  Of course not.  And Hillary is breaking new crowd, and good for her.  She's brave.

                      I'd like to see a woman President sooner rather than later.  I don't support Hillary because of her record on war and peace issues.

                      However...

                      Al of this doesn't change the fact that her campaign and many of her supporters ARE trying to put out a message of Hillary getting ganged up on, because she's a "girl."   To her credit, Hillary hasn't said this herself.

                      But Penn and others have sent out that message loud and clear.

                      You're right -- Matthews is a disgrace.  In a sane world, he'd be nowhere near a TV camera, but in a halfway house.

                      It doesn't change the fatc that Hillary's campaign is going to a dangerous place, giving fodder for idiots like Matthews.  She has a very tough job ahead, but this is the wrong spin.  She's strong enough to run without relying on pity.  

                      JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

                      by chumley on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:49:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I so totally agree with you (2+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        ranee, lvillelass

                        I switched channels to cool down, watching only part of his show.  My blood pressure was getting dangerously high.  He so clearly and literally hates Hillary.  It's visceral.

                        Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin

                        by vigilant meerkat on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:27:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  sorry, typo (0+ / 0-)

                        Meant to say:

                        Hillary is breaking new ground, and good for her.  She's brave.

                        JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

                        by chumley on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:38:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Chris Matthews is a tool - and he is much less (0+ / 0-)

                        respectful of his female guests, than the male ones.
                        Sometimes he barely lets them get a word out of their mouths.  Yeah, I know, he does interrupt all of his guests, but when there's a woman, especially a liberal woman on his show, he totally steps on everything she tries to say.

                        "United we stand, divided we fall"

                        by Cassandra77 on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:53:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  FYI (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      enough already, pgm 01

                      From Newsday, today:

                      WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton played the gender card Thursday after the worst stumble of her campaign, suggesting she's being singled out as the lone woman in an all-male presidential field.
                      "In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys' club of presidential politics," Clinton said during a speech at her alma mater Wellesley College in Massachusetts Thursday.
                      In a fundraising e-mail to supporters Thursday, Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle struck the same theme, calling her boss "one strong woman" and chiding Clinton's male opponents for attacking her "six against one" at Tuesday's Drexel University debate.
                      Raising the issue of her sex so early in the campaign is risky for Clinton -- especially since her opponents' attacks haven't been explicitly gender-based and Clinton herself has emphasized her toughness, repeatedly saying she wants no special consideration as a female contender for the nation's highest office.
                      Clinton's remarks were part of a multi-media damage-control blitz that included attempts to target debate moderator Tim Russert for being too harsh on Clinton.

                      Speaking on a conference call with donors Thursday, Clinton strategist Mark Penn said his polling shows Barack Obama and John Edwards already suffering a "backlash" among female voters.

                      Mark Penn is trying to make this a gender issue.

                      He's wrong.  AND Russert / Matthews are jerks.  Not mutually exclusive.

                      JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

                      by chumley on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:01:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Dividing the country further (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        enough already

                        is the Clinton gang...

                        I'd be very happy about the prospects of America's first woman President, if it wasn't saddled with Clinton redux.

                        My problems with Senator Clinton are substantive, and not gendered based. For someone to suggest otherwise is sooooo counter-productive.

                        And just as I think Elizabeth Edwards would be the better candidate, I always thought Hillary was the better partner, but for us to go backwards to a Clinton "Dynasty" is just so problemmatic for the people's party, that I don't know where to begin.

                        Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

                        by TrueBlueCT on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:25:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not so sure (0+ / 0-)

                    The diarist is not making that claim.

                    HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

                    by kck on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:02:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not really in the body of the diary, granted. (0+ / 0-)

                      But this seems pretty clear:

                      You and the traditional media are the ones imposing the men against the women.  It was six against one.  That was clear.
                      Timmeh was an asshole.  That was clear.  One does not discount the others.

                      FWIW, in response to a woman who objected to the substance of this diary.

                      JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

                      by chumley on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:06:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's my point as well. (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        oysterface

                        Hillary's campaign referred to piling on which is gender-independant, not unheard of i general but standard operating procedure for treating a front runner.

                        How is that playing the gender card?

                        WaPo certainly did, and Matthews, and a lot of posters embellishing the debate with all sorts of gender drama but not the Clinton campaign that I'm aware of.

                        HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

                        by kck on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:13:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks (5+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          miriam, oysterface, ranee, kck, lvillelass

                          I just said the same thing.

                          Nowhere in the Clinton press releases do they make the claim of six men against one woman.

                          THAT is the media spin and it is frustrating how many here have bought it.  And, to act like it is some insult for any women to think about gender is bogus.

                          The history we have lived is WHY gender is an issue, not a playing card.

                      •  And the point I was making (4+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        daria g, oysterface, lvillelass, River103

                        is that nowhere did Hillary or her people insert the words men or woman.
                        Six against one....was the truth.  As many have said, she is the front runner and that is to be expected.  If Edwards was the front runner, it would have been six against one also.  Or Obama.

                        But it is/was the TM who were making it gender specific and spinning that Hillary and her people were whining about it being six men against one woman.

                        The media were doing that narrative to justify the claim of Hillary playing the gender card.
                        A) it is a lie
                        B) Gender is an issue no matter what anyway and history has proven it is......

                        That is the point.

                        I went and read the press releases and it clearly talks about "piling on" but nowhere does it say six men against one woman.  THAT is the media narrative.

                  •  No, it wasn't the usual frontrunner stuff (5+ / 0-)

                    No one ever asked John Edwards or Dick Gephardt if they thought John Kerry was dishonest.

                    "Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?

                    by litigatormom on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:16:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      daria g, NYCMARJ, lvillelass

                      I actually went and looked at the republican debates to see if I could find anyone asking them that question.
                      Didn't happen there either.

                      That was so blatantly obnoxious.

                    •  I don't know if that was sexism (0+ / 0-)

                      or the result of having an asshat as a moderator, but every debates questions seem to get lower and lower.  Matthews was way over the line, but he usually is.  There have been a couple of time where I thought he was finally going Imus himself but he always stops before he hits that point.

                      Hillary Clinton has played the gender card and it is irritating.  I realize that she needs to overcome the stereotype of the emotional woman who can't handle big decisions.  Part of the way she combats this is by focusing on her strengths as the commander and chief by being the candidate that is the most willing to use force and I have no doubt that her positions on the issue of force reflect her actuals views.  What is irritating is when she turns around and makes an "us girls" speech and hints at the idea that the men are out to get her.  Some men are, and the majority of those reside on the other aisle.  The men on the stage with her only have the option of attacking he