NY Times again falsely suggested that any Dem is saying Clinton should be treated differently from her male rivals
A November 5 "political memo" by New York Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy discussing the role of gender in presidential campaigns in the aftermath of the October 30 Democratic presidential debate asserted: "In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals?" The headline itself echoed the false suggestion that one or more of the male Democratic candidates were advocating that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) be treated differently because of her gender: "Different Rules when a Rival is a Woman?" However, the article provided no evidence that any Democratic campaign has said that Clinton should be treated differently from the male candidates.
Nagourney and Healy included quotes from Clinton; fellow Democratic candidate John Edwards; 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter; former NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman, an Edwards supporter; and a video compiled by the Clinton campaign from clips of the October 30 debate. None suggested that Clinton "should ... be treated any differently from her rivals."
Similarly, in a November 3 Times article, reporter Elisabeth Bumiller wrote: "Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama [IL] tangled on Friday over whether women should be treated equally to men in the boxing ring of presidential politics. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton elaborated on the 'pile-on politics' video her campaign prepared, which showed her under assault from the six male candidates at the Democratic debate on Tuesday." Media Matters for America noted that, as with Nagourney and Healy's article, none of the quotes Bumiller provided in the article support the suggestion that either the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign had asserted that women should not "be treated equally to men in the boxing ring of presidential politics."
When Mrs. Clinton acknowledges that the "piling on" is because she is the front-runner for the nomination, and not as she whined about at Wellesley by inferring that the all boys presidential club is beating her up because of her gender.......she will put this to rest. She is using the media by fanning these flames, and not fooling anyone by her and her supporter's, including this website, "distancing" themselves from it.
"When Mrs. Clinton acknowledges that the 'piling on' is because she is the front-runner for the nomination..."
She has, Tommy-boy; she has said exactly that.
Been watching FOX lately, Toomy...?
I didn't know her speech at Wellesley was a Fox manufactured imagined event.....sorry.
I saw a clip of Mrs. Clinton toady (not on FOX) specifically saying that the reason she was being piled-on by the other candidates was because she was winning...not because she was female. You apparently have not seen that clip or else you would not have posted what you did.
today...not toady. Sorry.
I haven't seen that clip, but of course she isn't going to publicly admit her gender advantage that she wants played up...she planted the seed, and gleefully watches as the media runs with it.
I also meant that if she publicly acknowledges this while also denouncing the gender implications 100%, then she would put it to rest. We will see.
She planted the seed? By what, being female? Geesh.
"her gender advantage"???
Advantage? Oh yea, and Barack is so lucky to be black, too, huh?
I don't see Hillary's gender as an advantage. The media are turning her gender into a distracting side show. What are we discussing at this very moment?
Um, do you know how many women voters there are?
Women voters?
Yes...uhh, no. I mean I believe that women voters outnumber men voters, but I don't know how many there are exactly.
Nevertheless, there are staunch Republican, Lynne Cheney-type women who would never vote for Hillary Clinton, as I am sure there are women from the religious right who would not vote for her either.
Republican men are terrified of Hillary Clinton...and she has been so demonized by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others that it is not surprising that Hillary carries a substantial negative component.
I understand your point about the greater number of female voters but I don't think Hillary's gender automatically translates into an advantage for her in particular. To reiterate, what disturbs me is that he gender has been "sensationalized" like a sideshow.
The people you cite wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway. There are, and have been for the last couple of cycles a number of moderate women voters who've voted Republican in higher than expected numbers. If you look at demographic polling, she's doing very well among moderate women. It's a pretty strong advantage.
...specifically saying that the reason she was being piled-on by the other candidates was because she was winning...not because she was female.
The reason she's being "piled on" is because she can't give a straight answer. I'd say it's about time Edwards & Obama drilled her. Hopefully others will follow.
The coronation is not a done deal!
Tommy, I used to respect your opinions because I thought you put a lot of thought into your answers. Watching you take the brainwashed path suggesting she whined when she clearly didn't has really detracted from your credibility.
Please forgive Tommy... he is probably still giddy from Glenn Beck getting a $50 MILLION contract extension. That popping noise you hear? No, it's not the kids playing with bubble wrap... it's the sound of Liberal heads exploding all over the country.
HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!
Let's see... Air America = Bankrupt. Glenn Beck = $50M richer. GOD BLESS free market economics. GOD BLESS supply & demand. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
You are so cute when you lie like a rug!
Cannonba111, I don't know whose head you think is exploding.I'm pretty sure that, aside from you and Glenn Beck, nobody is very excited or even cares about his raise.
At most, you may be sensing some bemusement or mild embarrassment from your fellow Americans.That's due to the fact that stoopidity is so regularly rewarded in this country, and worshipped by the flock of the Church of the Stoopid.
Sorry to interrupt your celebration. Please return to typing HAHAHA and congratulating yourself on helping to lower the bar.
The rest of us will just laugh quietly, without having to type it. Understanding evolution is a very serene and secure feeling.
Snoop,
You have your opinions on the motivations and calculations of Hillary Clinton, and I have mine. Obviously they are not the same at this time.
Good lord!
Talk about filtering out information that doesn't support your point of view.
Is the bottom line that this country is incapable of adjusting to the idea of a female President?
Hillary Clinton is not being "treated differently by her rivals"...she's being treated differently by the media. Hillary cannot open her mouth, and her rivals cannot mention her name, without either the MSM media or the right wing lunatic fringe media interjecting some goofy, unsupported gender angle.
This is getting freaking ridiculous...and, in a way, I almost wish Hillary Clinton would go away so as not to distract further from the importance of this election. It's becoming a side show...
This is getting freaking ridiculous...and, in a way, I almost wish Hillary Clinton would go away so as not to distract further from the importance of this election. It's becoming a side show...
I agree, but for entirely different reasons.
There was a moment in time that I considered voting for Hillary BECAUSE of Bill. I admire Bill Clinton, thought he was a good President. Hey having him back in the White House, even as only First Gentleman, sounded like a plus.
But now I'm sick of both Bill & Hill. Not because I don't still admire the guy, but maybe it's wrong to think we can go back & recapture the 90's.
In a way it's like The Beatles. For years I kept hoping they'd reunite. But now, in hindsight I'm glad they didn't. It never would have been the same. Better to remember how great they were, than be disappointed.
That's how I feel about Bill Clinton.
And oh yeah, I can't stand Hillary ;-)
Jeter and Irony,
I think y'all are dreaming. Getting rid of Hillary won't stop the freak show. From Mondale to Kerry, Monica, Hillary, seeing the revisitation of JFK and FDR for the purpose of trashing what they stood for, even demeaning Paul Wellstone's funeral, I believe Democrats could run Jesus Christ and he'd be picked on for his beard and sandals, mocked for the color of his skin and trashed for being Jewish. The right will just find someone else to turn into a freak show for their own personal pleasure.
Snoopy, you're right...but it's still pretty damn annoying. Everything with them is about creating distractions and diversions. IMO, this election isn't about Hillary...although I would support her over any Republican candidate. It's about taking back our country from the Republican insanity of Bush/Cheney.
This election is more important than Hillary Clinton, and if her candidacy helps the Republican slime machine create more diversions and distractions then my choice would be to say "Thanks anyway, Hillary..."
Agreed, but who to run? I think Obama is stepping in it by attacking Hillary instead of going after her positions, Edwards has been thoroughly trashed for the moment, Kucinich? Add to that the fact that republicans in california got a huge infusion of money to go forward with their plan to collect half a million signatures by Nov. 29th to get their electoral vote reapportioning plan back on a ballot (cause the whiney babies can't win on issues so they have to change the game in only areas that would give them an advantage) and I'm thinking that these right wingers who took over the republican party are so shameless that they couldn't care what law or commandment they break as long as they achieve their goal of one party rule and a theocratic nation that doesn't tolerate diversity or opposing viewpoints. I'm pretty darn tired of hearing how liberals are trying to silence opposing opinions when they are clearly making advances doing just that.
Great post. I'm with you all the way.
The headline doesn't suggest any of the rivals are advocating treating a woman differently. It's suggesting a calculation many male rivals must have to ask themselves when their chief rival is a woman: what is the possible risk in treating a woman as harshly as you would treat a man? I've never been a huge defender of MMFA editors, but I always thought them capable of critical reading. This is the second article in a few days in which they simply misread the article either intentionally or accidentally. I don't know which one is worse.
If republicans wanted to prove that they are color and sex blind, they should stop attacking Hillary's looks, laugh, sex and dress and instead just debate the issues. Of course, they will 1st have to develop some issues, but once y'all get some, please prove you really are sex blind.
And there's the truth had the MSM and the Right-Wing-Scream-Machine not chose to pay the "she's a women card" I feel for them but now that thir worried about how they would appear attacking a woman -- what a laugh they went after a sick 12 year old -- I say go jump now that you see the back of "the woman card".