NY Times claimed Clinton "essentially portrays [Bush] as an exasperating husband who is beyond marriage counseling"
In a March 6 front-page profile of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), headlined "Clinton Shapes Her Image for '08 Race," New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich claimed that Clinton, in her campaign appearances, "essentially portrays [President Bush] as an exasperating husband who is beyond marriage counseling" and "tries to connect with women by expressing her frustration with those men now in charge." Leibovich offered no evidence to support his claim that Clinton's criticism of Bush is tinged with references to gender or marriage to an "exasperating husband." In fact, the direct quote he provided -- that Clinton denounces Bush's "stubbornness" -- is one echoed about Bush regarding opposing viewpoints in general, and it includes no suggestion that Bush is not listening to her specifically.
From Leibovich's New York Times article:
She contrasts the give-and-take of her chitchats -- even though she does most of the talking -- with what she suggests are the pig-headed pronouncements of a male bogeyman, George W. Bush. She rails against what she calls the "one-sided conversation" of Washington during the Bush years, bemoans President Bush's "stubbornness," speaks of her frustration at getting him to hear opposing views. She essentially portrays him as an exasperating husband who is beyond marriage counseling.
[...]
But she tries to connect with women by expressing her frustration with those men now in charge. In Berlin, she waves her hands in the air when discussing Mr. Bush's -- and Vice President Dick Cheney's -- seeming infatuation with invading Iraq from early on in their administration.
"I'm not a psychiatrist," she declared, "so I don't know all the reasons behind their concern, some would say obsession, with Saddam Hussein."
In fact, a range of political figures and media figures have remarked on Bush's stubbornness:
- In a January 14, 2007, interview with President Bush, CBS 60 Minutes co-host Scott Pelley said to him, "You know that there's a perception in some quarters of the country that you're stubborn." Pelley then asked Bush: "You agree with that? I mean, people said -- people say that."
- In a December 10, 2006, editorial, The New York Times wrote, "The [Iraq Study Group] report shows that there have always been plenty of alternatives to Mr. Bush's stubborn insistence on staying the course, and that if he were just willing to make an effort, it would be possible to forge a bipartisan consensus on the toughest issues."
- On September 24, 2006, then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement that said, "President Bush's repeated missteps in Iraq and his stubborn refusal to change course have made America less safe."
- In a September 20, 2004, speech at New York University, then-presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said, "But over and over, when this [Bush] administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence."
Furthermore, in a February 10 posting on The Caucus, a New York Times political blog, reporter Patrick Healy, like Leibovich, also described Clinton's comments in Berlin, New Hampshire, regarding what she described as the Bush administration's "obsession" with Saddam Hussein, but did not indicate that Clinton was, as Leibovich claimed, "try[ing] to connect with women by expressing her frustration with those men now in charge." In fact, according to Healy, Clinton was responding to a question from a man. From Healy's post on The Caucus:
Another man complained of the "congenital lying" from the Bush administration on the war, and asked Mrs. Clinton for the "real reason" that the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. She responded by asserting that President Bush and his advisers came into power in 2001 with an "obsession" to oust Saddam Hussein and resolve the "unfinished business" of the first Gulf War of Mr. Bush's father.
"From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein," Mrs. Clinton said. "I'm not a psychiatrist -- I don't know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession."
"I guess they must have seen it as unfinished business, for want of a better term," she added. Mrs. Clinton then turned to criticizing the administration's handling of the war, saying: "If you had been obsessed with doing this, as they apparently were, why were you so incompetent?"
Additionally, Leibovich wrote that "male politicians," unlike Clinton, do not "worry aloud about gaining weight." In fact, former President Bill Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee -- like Clinton a former Arkansas governor -- have been very public about their struggles with weight loss. From the Times:
In Keene, N.H., in February, Mrs. Clinton said she was so thankful to all of the people "who gave me confidence," not something that male politicians typically say. Nor do they worry aloud about gaining weight.
to go from declaring bush "stubborn" [he is] to these supposed claims by clinton is irresponsible at best. either show proof or retract.
By "these supposed claims" do you mean Senator Clinton's reported assertions that "Bush and his advisers came into power in 2001 with an 'obsession' to oust Saddam Hussein...[and] 'From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein'"? Then read The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind and Against All Enemies by Richard A. Clarke. There Clarke and Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury (both men were part of the Bush Administration from the start) describe Bush&Co's Hussein obsession.
Linus, kiss that blanket goodbye. {snag!}
uh no linus, i meant the supposed claims that she is painting bush as an exasperating husband and how she is trying to connect to women by bashing the men in charge. not her claims, the reporter's claim of what she is "really" saying.
Holy cow, the war in Iraq is over ????
The War in Iraq has been over for some time. The Left Wing Media just doesn't report on any of the good things happening over there, so you haven't heard about it.
You mean Iraq has NASCAR and baseball now? This is indeed a remarkable achievement... and all worth it.
what exactly is " it ' I haven't heards yet ? I do know my friends daughter was in a firefight and came out of it alive, which is a good thing that I heard. You have any good things to report ?
stubborn why not try for instance arrogent ignorant greedy corrupt insane smarmy yeah that sounds more better
From one crazy cajun to another... Bush's momma never raised him right. ;>)
But about this article... I'm having trouble either understanding the article or exactly what the problem is with it. It looks to me like Hillary Clinton is just having 'girl talk' with female voters. It's a good strategy, in my opinion. So some writers have said similar things, it takes on a different dynamic when it's woman to woman talk... and I think Hilary is clevrly playing that angle. You can almost picture some women in the audience nodding in agreement in reaction to her remarks. A guy can say one thing, but it may have a completely different efffect when a woman says it. Maybe that's what the article is really about.
I wouldn't want a woman President just as an experiment but I often wonder how differently a woman President would handle foreign diploacy, and how effective she would be.
Irony 101 -
With all due respect, I think you are not understanding the article. My understanding is that Hillary did not say anything that indicated that she was "chatting" with the girls. She said that Bush is stubborn, and that he was obsessed with Saddam Hussein. The reporter is the one who added the layer of girly chit-chat about those stubborn husbands.
I'm finding it difficult to sort through this Hillary-as-a-woman situation. Remember the "joke" she told a few weeks back, saying something about her experience with evil men? In that case, if you saw the video of the comment, you could tell by her coy, playful delivery and her embarrassed reaction to the crazy applause that she received that she was referring to her husband. What else could she have possibly meant? Then when the press asked her about the joke, and was she referring to her husband, she was outraged. "Of course not!! When I lighten up you awful press psychoanalyze me!!" (I don't believe she ever explained what it is she DID mean). I came across a democratic blog that then railed on the press for asking her about it. If you saw the video, you KNEW what she was saying in the joke - she meant her husband. But if you only read about the comment, you might be a little surprised that the press inferred she meant her husband. (In my opinion, if she didn't mean her husband, why didn't she clarify what she DID mean)?
So, in one case, the girly chit-chat is there and she denies it and the press gets in trouble from democrats for reporting on it. (She did do it but is being defended as if she didn't). In the other case, the girly chit-chat is not there and the NY Times puts it there. (She didn't do it and should be defended because she didn't). Sometimes she uses the tactic, sometimes she doesn't. But everything that comes out of a woman's mouth should not be interpreted as just girl talk about the men. That is sexist, pure and simple. (That is why I personally don't like her tactic of girl talk. I know I wouldn't like it much if a male candidate spoke about "us guys know what it's like. . . ")
Man, you really have to pay close attention to what is said and how it is said. The press will spin it as they see fit.
she could have meant ken starr, and as for why she did not say that, i don't think she wanted to start all that up. you know limbaugh et al would have been all over it. and you're correct, there was no girl chat in new hampshire. it was a town hall meeting.
Hmm. . . you've got a point. She could have meant Starr. It still bugs me though. . . if she was not willing to deal with Limbaugh being all over her joke, then why did she tell it? Do you think all those people in the audience who cracked up for a good 45 seconds were laughing at a Ken Starr joke? (And I don't understand why Limbaugh would be all over a Ken Starr joke). Anyway, whatever she meant, it was a botched joke, so bad she couldn't even dare explain the punch line. I am suspicious of people who refuse to explain what they mean (even something as insignificant as a botched joke), and then blame the awful press for making incorrect assumptions.
i thought myself at first she could have meant bill, but then i thought ken starr. as for limbaugh, i can just hear it: "there she is folks, playing the victim....."
And IF she didn't mean her husband, then I am guilty of layering on girly chit-chat where none existed. Mea culpa. (but note, that is a big IF).
Geez you are stil wrong in that comment
The WHOLE tape clearly shows her repeating a question back that was asked from the audience then after the audience laughed was embarressed when she realized what they had inferred. That was it it. THis whole thing of a botch joke is coming from left field. It only takes half of a brain to figure that out.
It is so unbelievable what gets twisted in todays media cycles.
I think the Democrats in general have been too easy on Bush. He's either a pigheaded moron or an empty sock puppet animated by Cheney and Rove. In any case he's an embarassment to our nation and will probably go down in history as the most inept, corrupt president in U.S. history.
It sems to me that Hillary says what she means and means what she says. If the reporter would just let her own words stand, that's enough for me. Male chauvanists have a way of altering context, making incorrect attributions, and making characterizations that belie the experience of the public at these events. It's that woman thing. The guys don't have to deal with hardball: softball is their game.