Matthews and National Journal's Douglass on Clinton's "anti-male thing"
During the November 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) speech at Wellesley College, her alma mater, in which she asserted, "In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics," host Chris Matthews asked: "Is this pandering or playing to the Seven Sisters crowd up at these all-women's colleges, where there may be that sort of mood if you're -- and they all want dates. I assume a lot of them do, on weekends. But this anti-male thing, is that something that's particularly something you can sort of spruce up, you can play up, up there?" Matthews opened the segment by asking his guests -- National Journal contributing editor Linda Douglass and NBC News political director Chuck Todd -- "Don't you both agree, Linda, that she should just lighten up on this gender -- 'the boys are coming to get me' routine?" Douglass replied: "I think, in this case, she's making a really big mistake, because now she's ventured into feminist territory where the man is the enemy."
Later, when Matthews asked, "Can [Clinton] get away with making this on the front page, in this weekend's newspaper, a boy-girl issue, rather than a ... flim-flam issue?" Douglass replied, "I think it is not smart, because I think what it does is tap into the discomfort that male voters, many male voters, have about her anyway. She was a feminist wife of a candidate in 1992." When Douglass started to add, "There was a lot of talk about whether --" Matthews interjected, "I think you're so smart," later continuing, "You are so smart! I am so glad you're on because I had this very positive feeling. OK, I'm a metropolitan guy. I'm not a metrosexual, but I'm very metropolitan guy." Matthews also stated, "This country -- it may well be time for a woman president. It may well be time. A lot of men have that attitude. They'll be looking to women, and the way they talk about it, to decide if that's true. If women take a positive attitude and say, 'This woman is talented, qualified, and let's face it, honey, smarter than the guys she's running against,' a lot of men will be open-minded to that. If, however, they get a scent that this is a woman-against-male thing, they go, 'Wait a minute. I'm supposed to be part of that bandwagon?' "
From the November 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Don't you both agree, Linda, that she should just lighten up on this gender -- "the boys are coming to get me" routine?
DOUGLASS: Well, you can't ask people to be gender-blind and then make it all about your gender. And I think, in this case, she's making a really big mistake, because now she's ventured into feminist territory where the man is the enemy. That's part of what comes across when you say, "It's the boys. It's all about the boys attacking me." And I can imagine conversations that are going on at kitchen tables all around this country between husbands and wives, and the husbands are getting irritated. And I think --
MATTHEWS: Is this something that's --
DOUGLASS: -- that this has legs for that reason.
MATTHEWS: Is this pandering or playing to the Seven Sisters crowd up at these all-women's colleges, where there may be that sort of mood if you're -- and they all want dates. I assume a lot of them do, on weekends. But this anti-male thing, is that something that's particularly something you can sort of spruce up, you can play up, up there?
DOUGLASS: Well, certainly, in that crowd, I mean, with an all-women's college, there certainly is going to be a lot of that. In the Northeastern colleges in general, there's often a feeling among women students that they aren't treated equally with men.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
DOUGLASS: All around the country, there are women who feel they aren't treated equally with men.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Can she get away with making this on the front pages, in this weekend's newspaper, a boy-girl issue, rather than a flip-flop -- flim-flam issue?
DOUGLASS: Well, I mean, they are the ones who made it a boy-girl issue by running the video saying that everybody was piling on. And she's added to it today --
MATTHEWS: It's not smart.
DOUGLASS: -- and the boy's world -- and I --
MATTHEWS: [inaudible]
DOUGLASS: I think it is not smart, because I think what it does is tap into the discomfort that male voters, many male voters, have about her anyway. She was a feminist wife of a candidate in 1992. There was a lot of talk about whether --
MATTHEWS: I think you're so smart.
DOUGLASS: -- you could have a strong and professional --
MATTHEWS: You are so smart! I am so glad you're on because I had this very positive feeling. OK, I'm a metropolitan guy. I'm not a metrosexual, but I'm very metropolitan guy. I really want --
TODD: You've got cuticles, [inaudible]. You know, I'll give you that. So, you know, you've got a little bit going on.
MATTHEWS: I'm trying to make a point. This country -- it may well be time for a woman president. It may well be time. A lot of men have that attitude. They'll be looking to women, and the way they talk about it, to decide if that's true. If women take a positive attitude and say, "This woman is talented, qualified, and let's face it, honey, smarter than the guys she's running against," a lot of men will be open-minded to that. If, however, they get a scent that this is a woman-against-male thing, they go, "Wait a minute. I'm supposed to be part of that bandwagon?"
Clinton playing the gender card, well it's about time.
Hillary really brings out the fundamental MISOGYNY of the Rightwing. Their hatred and fear of the female sex. Their disdain and condescension towards women who don't "know their place".
And they can't help themselves, they have to go on and on about it, digging that hole deeper and deeper.
Just as time and opportunity has revealed GW Bush for the failed human being he is, so the Hillary candidacy is revealing the Rightwing for the Neanderthal dysfunctional woman-haters THEY are.
They can't help themselves. Grab a chair and watch the show, and for God's sake, don't do a thing to make them quit!
(It may be what explains rightwing ideology; mommy issues. She just didn't show the little tykes the LOVE they felt they deserved and needed. So they grew up full of hatred and resentment. Or maybe they're just macho asses, self made. Guess it doesn't much matter, they is what they is, and Hillary brings it out like a Perry Mason courtroom confession. Gotta love it ...)
While I wouldn't begin to argue against the notion that many men (and women, for that matter) are somewhat apprehensive about the prospect of a woman in the role of president of the United States, you have to recognise that what Senator Clinton is doing presently is playing on the excitement of many others of the prospect of a woman president. I mean, it's pretty clear that her two greatest strengths are her gender and her last name. The question some people are asking is whether or not she should be openly saying that people should essentially vote for her because politics is a 'boy's club,' and we need a woman--any woman--in charge. It's a sentiment that directly plays on a latent hostility with regard to men.
The problem is that Clinton wasn't "openly saying that people should essentially vote for her because politics is a 'boy's club,' and we need a woman--any woman--in charge." She came nowhere close to saying that. It wasn't even hinted at.
Clinton was speaking at Wellesley College, which she had attended, singing it's praises. All she stated was that the education she received at Wellesley helped prepare her for the competing in this traditionally all-men's situation.
Exactly how is this pandering? How does someone twist this around to read it as "vote for me because I'm a woman."?
I think we have some paranoids determined to see what they expect to see whether it's there or not.
As a matter of fact, this is the soundbite everyone's working with: "In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics."
I shouldn't have to say this, but 'All-boys club' is an evocative phrase. It is, in fact, specificaly evocative of an oppression of women by men. Much more so than your phrasing 'traditionally male.' This is a statement that says men have kept us down and kept us out, I'm the only woman in the race, you owe it to yourself and to all women born, dead, and yet to be born to send a message to these men that it's time we had a woman in charge.
I think her gender is obviously an important strength to her campaign. One she should definitely use. I just question whether she should be using it for the purposes in which the men she's running against become the oppressors of women at large.
Do you actually want to dispute that presidential politics has been almost entirely a male-dominated process right up until now? The participants, the influence peddlers and the behind-the-scenes deciders have been almost exclusively men. I disagree with the idea that the phrase "all-boys club" is evocative. It seems to me to be extremely apt.
This is a statement that says men have kept us down and kept us out, I'm the only woman in the race, you owe it to yourself and to all women born, dead, and yet to be born to send a message to these men that it's time we had a woman in charge. - Breakerbaker
How on earth do you dredge that interpretation out of that three-word phrase? I think you are making a huge, HUGE logical leap. I doubt whether there was a single person sitting in the audience at Wellesley listening to Clinton who heard that phrase and came away with your interpretation.
Her words simply don't support your suggested meaning.
Do you actually want to dispute that presidential politics has been almost entirely a male-dominated process right up until now?
What would give you the impression that I'd want to dispute anything of the kind? I'm simply speaking to the tone of the phrase. The phrase is one meant to remind the audience of women that women have been kept out of the process. All-boys clubs are that way not because men simply dominate the process, but because women are not allowed to be a part of the process. It's a loaded phrase in the way that it would be if Barack Obama were to start saying uttering the phrase 'white's only.' It's one designed to suggest misogyny and sexism--concepts several of the talkbackers here have already invoked. Which, by the way, is a simple and lame strawman. The argument that it's not evocative is just silly. You know it's evocative; you just concur with the basic premise and therefore justify to yourself the use of the phrase. Which is fine. I simply disagree with that justification.
I guess we'll just have to disagree about the connotations associated with the phrase "all boys' club." To me it just seems a big stretch to go from that phrase to an interpretation of "Oh, dear, I'm so oppressed that you must vote for me because I'm a woman" as you did.
It's simply a well-known descriptive phrase, one with which her selected audience could relate. It's miles from the "anti-male thing" that Matthews & Douglass pull from it.
Tex,
You got all that from the above article? Obviously, Matthews is no RW, so I don't know how you got 'there from here'.
Hillary (or the campaign, whatever) is clearly trying to move her opponents into a position where if they question her positions or point out where they differ they are simply 'attacking the girl'. Whether this is a ploy to put her opponents on the defensive, or a ploy to try to drum up the female vote, it's disingenuous and transparent either way.
Wah Wah the boys are picking on me!!
Hillary playing the gender & victim card.
Wow, she can flip cards out on a table faster than a Vegas dealer.
Tommy, I think we better bone up on HillarySpeak if we want to keep up ;-)
Not to worry pal, whatever we scratch our heads over the brethren here will be able to tell us what she really means.
What she really meant is she's a man-hater who wants to come and take away your guns and establish drive-thru abortion clinics with your tax dollars and have state dinners with Usama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il.
Happy now? </sarc>
Oh come now, I doubt she HATES men......and I have no guns, and as long as the abortion clinic pays their property taxes, and she serves good ole' meat and potatoes to those guys......we are all cool with that.
It's Friday! After the dookie we exchanged today, which I enjoyed BTW, it was time for a little banter.
Ok J and Tommy, don't make me bring out the board and the water.
lol. Women ARE treated differently to men. Women have been fighting for gender equality in the work place, in the home and in society in general for centuries, and really only second-wave feminism has seen any tangible progress (bar the franchise). If talking heads are going to constantly point out that Hillary Clinton is the female candidate and treat her differently because of it, its entirely unfair.
In New Zealand, we've had two woman Prime Ministers in a row. During the campaigns for elections, the fact that the leader of the labour party was a woman was, to my recollection, not even touched by the media. Because it shouldn't be relevant, and its insulting to both men and woman.
"Can [Clinton] get away with making this on the front page, in this weekend's newspaper, a boy-girl issue, rather than a ... flim-flam issue?"
As proven by the first five posts, she certainly can't get away with it in the forums of MMFA.
i dunno, i think its a fair point, she shouldn't make it a boy-girl issue. but i wonder if maybe this is similar to the kid in the playground who is constantly bullied and pushed around, and one day he punches someone back and everyone points and goes 'look, see? he IS violent.'
But this wasn't a case of her punching back. This was a case of her campaign complaining openly of an unfair pile-on. They went into victim mode and there really is no denying that if you go through and read all the stuff in the order it came out.
Her campaign isn't staffed by political idiots. They are definitely going to use anything at their disposal. It's that woderful 'seasoning' we've heard so much about. If it means holding her up as exceptional because she can hack it in a male-dominated world, they will do that one day. And yes there are a bevy of quotes that show a calculated message there.
On another day she is the front-runner in gaffe avoidance mode avoiding questions and they know rivals go after that front runner and push them to clarify positions and call them on ambiguities. On that day, she is a victim of six men ganging up on her. Look to her campaign, it is rife with this kind of leading language. They are clearly operating under the belief that since the Rove methods worked last time for the Bushies, there is room on board the cynical express for some Democrats as well. We should be so proud.
This is a SERIOUS issue, this gender thing.
We need to rally all the rightwing's experts in gender relations, and maybe we can get to the bottom of what women's problem really IS.
Let's ask Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and old Bob Barr. Between them, they have enough ex-wives to field a baseball team, with a few on the bench!
(And Newt's and Rush's ex-wives all agree: Their ex-husbands are the true standard-bearers of all FAMILY VALUES issues.
Other stalwart GOPers who have so proudly carried the FAMILY VALUES banner:
Edison Misla Aldarondo, Randal David Ankeney, Dick Armey, Jim Bakker, Merrill Robert Barter, Robert Bauman, Parker J. Bena, Bill Bennett, Louis Beres, Howard L. Brooks, John Bolton, Mike Bowers, Andrew Buhr, Jeffrey Buley, Ted Bundy, Jim Bunn, John Allen Burt, Dan Burton, Neil Bush, John Butler, Ken Calvert, Charles Canady, Helen Chenoweth, Keola Childs, Roy Cohn, Carey Lee Cramer, Dan Crane, Paul Crouch, Randy Cunningham, Richard A Dasen, Richard A. Delgaudio, Peter Dibble, Brian J. Doyle, Nicholas Elizondo, Larry Dale Floyd, Mark Foley, John Fund, Jack W. Gardner, Richard Gardner, Philip Giordano, Matthew Glavin, Marty Glickman, Mark A. Grethen, Jon Grunseth, Dr. W. David Hager, Ted Haggart, Mark Harris, Dennis Hastert, John Hathaway, Howard Scott Heldreth, Mike Hintz, Neal Horsley, Henry Hyde, Don Haidl, Tim Hutchinson, Paul Ingram, Bill Janklow, Bernard Kerik, Earl Kimmerling, Randy Steven Kraft, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Lukens, Pat McPherson, Jon Matthews, Jeff Miller, Nicholas Morency, Sue Myrick, Bill O’Reilly, Bob Packwood, Jeffry Patti, Brent Parker, John Paulk, Mark Pazuhanich, John Peterson, Harvey Pitt, Dennis Rader, Ronald Reagan, George Roche III, Beverly Russell, Jack Ryan, Rick Santorum, Joe Scarborough, Ed Schrock, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Larry Jack Schwarz, John Scmitz, Don Sherwood, Tom Shortridge, Fred C Smeltzer, Jr., Jim Stelling, Roger Stone, Jimmy Swaggart, David Swartz, Randall Terry, Bill Thomas, Strom Thurmond, Robin Vanderwall, Robert Waltrip, J.C.Watts, Jim West, Keith Westmoreland, Stephen White, and Paul Williams.
Google the name, "Republican", and "SCANDAL" to find out what these fine GOPers did to earn their Family Values creds.
Hillary's right... this is a man's game... but, she needs to be tough (tougher) than the faux-tough guy's she's facing... Pandering for sympathy (from whoever) is not the right approach. I've heard liberals criticizing her about this too.
The irony is, she probably is 'tougher' than half of the men she's up against.
Agreed. It's only a man's game until a woman proves she can play without a rule change. If Clinton thinks she's that woman, more power to her.
The Tired Tirades of Tweety the Twit
And, today, as part of his anti-Hillary crusade, Tweety said "...men gave women the vote..."
Uh, Tweety, I think it was the Constitution that really gave them the vote; men were just in denial for about 130 years.
Truth is, the "gender card" was created by the ball-chasing puppies of the MSM. As one of the litter, you can count on Tweety playing clips of Hillary that he can twist to fit his premise just as you can count on him not playing the clip of her view on this strawman.
Good puppies. Goooood Puhh-peeees!
all you have to do to understand what happened at that debate is read the Daily Howler, that is all. the debate was unprecedented. i think Hilary should be pissed... at the moderators.... i don't even like her, but it was clearly a Hilary bash-fest, and it was unprecedented, and it's a fact..... as you were....
Clinton's making it a gender game????Hello Americans. 232 years.....every president has been a white male. One of the most advanced countries in the world and a pig like Matthews is whining that gender might be an issue and it's all HER fault.
Gender has been an issue for the first 43 presidents. Who made it so?
A little perspective, please. Hillary said to a female audience at a women’s college, that this college prepared her to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics. Number one: she is playing to her audience. Number two: is there anyone out there who thinks this isn’t true? Do you doubt that a school that helps women enter the real world as equals to men did not contribute to her being the leading candidate for president of the United States? Okay, Chris Matthews and others can argue whether it was a smart thing for Hillary to have said, i.e. will it alienate men, who will see it as “playing the gender card.” But that is a whole different question than the veracity of what she said.
Personally, I doubt that it was the big blunder that Matthews thinks it was. He’s got a program to produce, and it depends on controversy to get ratings; but I think only political mavens really got interested in this particular speech and really thought it was a big deal. In any case, how does it compare to the abject fawning that Romney and McCain are doing with the evangelicals? What shall we call that, playing the “religion card”? (To be fair, Matthews is as perfectly willing to call them on this pandering, as he is to accuse Hillary of it.)
These are politicians, folks. They’re looking for votes. Not infrequently, they screw up, and alienate more people than they win over by stands that they take, or things that they say. They’re like poker players: they assess their odds, play their cards—and winner takes all, but there are a lot of hands to be lost, before the outcome. Hlllary is no different.
Back on the topic (Mathews statement)
Clinton mentions the all-boys club of presidential politics in a sentence intended to praise the college and that qualifies as this anti-male thing,
She can't even mention the fact, and now she's ventured into feminist territory where the man is the enemy."
The last paragraph sumarizes his view. Real men, "metropolitans" like himself might vote for HRC if she does not pander to the feminist anti-male crowd. Got it.
THE NEW AXIS OF EVIL: RUSSERT, MATTHEWS, AND WILLIAMS ...........