CE Week #10: “Hillary’s problem is Hillary”
Kathleen Parker
Orlando Sentinal
November 3, 2007
When you’re leading the Democratic presidential race, as Hillary Clinton is, you might expect other candidates to focus their sharpest criticism your way.
Yet the spin coming out of the Clinton campaign is that the men were ganging up on Hillary. Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul – or change the game to dodge ball – when they get bruised.
Not that Hillary Clinton did any whining herself following Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. She’s too smart for that. But somehow the idea magically surfaced that the men were piling on.
The New York Times reported that Clinton’s campaign officials tried to create sympathy for Hillary the same way they did when Republican Rick Lazio confronted her during their 2000 Senate race. A Clinton adviser told the Washington Post that, “Ultimately, it was six guys against her, and she came off as one strong woman.” A headline on the Drudge Report said:
“Scorn: As the Men Gang Up.”
Piffle.
Hillary’s campaign people took swift advantage of her status as assault victim. A clever video, “The Politics of Pile-On,” shows in rapid-fire succession the other candidates mentioning Clinton’s name and ends with her saying:
“I seem to be the topic of great conversation and consternation, and that’s for a reason.”
Sa-wish! Score one for Clinton.
There’s a reason, all right. Hillary’s having her cake and eating everybody else’s, too. It must be frustrating to challengers who need to attack her positions, but fear the inevitable piling-on accusations and the appearance of bullying a woman.
In debate post-mortems, moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert were also accused of joining the pile-on, especially Russert, who kept pounding Hillary for straight answers when she tended to “bridge” to other topics.
In some instances, the pounding was justified. Hillary is nearly as proficient, if not as artful, as her husband in avoiding a firm position that might alienate someone somewhere.
When asked, for example, whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, as Clinton apparently said she did to a New Hampshire newspaper, she circled the question.
She wasn’t necessarily for it, but she wasn’t necessarily against it.
She wouldn’t necessarily support it, but she could understand why Spitzer was doing it: to address the failure of the Bush administration, of course.
She also mentioned Congress’ failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who deserves a more prominent place in the Democratic lineup, seemed to better understand the concept of answering a question.
No, he said, a driver’s license is a privilege and illegal immigrants don’t get one. How hard was that? Pretty hard, apparently, if you don’t want to offend a single Spanish-speaking voter in the U.S.
Hillary also refused to answer candidly when asked if she would release communications between her and then-President Bill Clinton that might illuminate her claims to White House experience. The former president has ordered all records kept under seal until 2012, but Hillary’s response suggested that she has no choice in the matter. She can’t ask her husband to lift the ban?
In another instance, Russert asked three times whether Hillary would pledge as president to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Hillary gave three answers that were sort of yes-ish, but that left uncomfortable wiggle room for failure. She pledged “to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.”
Why not just say, “Yes, I pledge”? She can still try diplomatic approaches, including carrots and sticks, as she mentioned, but why not simply say Iran won’t get the bomb under her watch?
Getting a straight answer from Hillary is consistently challenging, as other candidates noted – hence the many “Hillary” references. Their “attacks” weren’t only because Hillary leads the pack, but because she’s cagey to a fault.
At times, Hillary’s relationship to nuance borders on compulsion more than wisdom. If her husband triangulated, she pentagonates. She’s been working so many sides for so long that she seems incapable of yes or no.
Hillary can handle the men just fine. What’s giving her problems is Hillary.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/11/03/ce-week-10-hillarys-problem-is-hillary/trackback/
I wonder if this fence sitting Hilary is doing will come back to bite her in the butt? One can’t help but wonder if she’ll hand us a straight answer on the issues.
I found the whole idea that if the men candidates “ATTACK” Hillary and think that gives us a right to call it ganging up a bit funny…and a bit sad. IT’S POLITICS. You’d think people would know what politics are about by now. But they don’t. Oooh she’s a woman! All the mens are ganging up on her! Oh no! That poor girl!
No. She’s tough enough she dosen’t need to be babied. She’s on track to become a stinkin’ president.
“If her husband triangulated, she pentagonates.”
That doesn’t seem to be a good thing to have said about you when you’re running for president of the United States. Obviously you can’t be everyone’s friend and meet everyone’s expectations of you all the time but it’s fun to try apparently. Honesty is something that I look for in a politician (lofty goal I know) and this doesn’t seem to be something Hillary can comply with. In her mind giving three different answers to the same question during the same debate is an alright thing to do — I don’t really agree.
On to the “bullying” she’s facing from other candidates. Hillary chose to run for president knowing that she would more than likely be the only woman doing so. I think it’s cheap of her to play the blame game on the other candidates (whether she does it directly or strongly influences others such as the media to do so) for hammering her with good questions even though she’s a woman. Hopefully she is treated with respect and dignity, yes, but I don’t think she deserves preferential treatment just because she happens to be a woman. In fact, if she continues to fence hop and blame others for her downfalls because she’s a woman I think she’ll lose some of the woman votes she would have gotten because she’s not holding her ground and being the strong woman candidate that many woman want.
Well, this was an interesting article. When I read the title I was confused. Why would Hillary have a problem with herself? But I now know that she doesn’t have a problem with herself; her political campaign’s problem is her sidestepping personality. She talks in circles and thinks that she’s being clever, but really she is just talking herself into the ground. I am glad that the male politicians are bringing it up that she’s not answering questions, or that she seems to be tiptoeing about acting as President. If someone doesn’t point it out, than we would get a push over for our leader. It’s ridiculous that she is pulling out the ‘I’m a girl, stop picking on me!’-card. She knew very well that putting on her britches she would have to be tough. The author states it perfectly, “Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul – or change the game to dodge ball – when they get bruised.” Because she’s a girl, she needs to be tougher to prove that she can handle it. When you step to the plate, step up! Hillary talks herself dizzy and then yells that the boys hit her too hard. “Getting a straight answer from Hillary is consistently challenging, as other candidates noted – hence the many “Hillary” references. Their “attacks” weren’t only because Hillary leads the pack, but because she’s cagey to a fault.” It frustrates me very much that the strong woman who said she could make it is now playing dirty ‘antifeminist’ cards!
SSEMB
At first I was wondering how Hillary Clinton’s problem could be herself, but reading the article I realize that she is the problem and her actions could ruin her chances for the nomination. Hillary never gives a straight answer and that is what the public wants, a straight answer. If she is going to sway from one side to the other, then the Democrats are going to be hesitant to nominate her as a presidential candidate. Someone once asked her what baseball team she rooted for and she said the Yankees. Then he asked her who she would root for if the Yankees were playing the Cubs, Hillary said that she would root for both of them. What the heck? Who is going to vote for a candidate who can’t make a firm stance? If Hillary is going to sway from one side to the other just to get people to like her, then she is not going to make a great leader for our country. We need a leader who takes a firm stance on his beliefs and will play them out and not ask what other people will think of it. Hillary needs to work out her issues or she will have no chance of winning the nomination or the presidency.
I think Stephanie said it right and I think it is embarrassing that Hillary is playing the politics game like a little girl. One would think that with Hillary being the only woman running against all the other men, that she would want to show them up. Don’t you think they would have expected her to whine about being “bullied” and try to plead for sympathy? I think that Hillary should think her strategy over, because she is beginning to have some problems and they are with herself. She isn’t completely answering questions and is leaving room to cover up her mistakes, if she happens to make any. I just think that Hillary needs to step up and stop acting like such a girl. If she’s going to make it running against all men then she needs to become the bigger and better candidate, showing them whose boss. If she is going to let them walk all over her and start to complain when they gang up on her, she’s going to loose her edge. Hillary just needs to keep her cool and continue to run the campaign as she was going to. She can’t let a couple of boys ruin her campaign and reputation, as she begins to have problems with how she is dealing with issues. She needs to just cut to the chase and stop talking her way around the questions and maybe then the boys will stop bullying her.
Hillary is a strong candidate, in my opinion, because she is a strong woman. She works hard to portray herself as firm and grounded and uses this to her advantage. However, it almost appears that she thinks she can get by on persona alone; it won me over for a while, but now I want to know where she stands on specific issues. Her tendency to “pentagonate”, while useful in some instances, could very well be her downfall if she doesn’t find a balance soon, and I would hate to see her lose the nomination because of such a correctable habit.
My father says that while Hillary may win the nomination, he is not sure if she will make the presidency simply because she is a woman. He isn’t being sexist, he just isn’t sure the nation is ready for a woman in the White House. Personally, I agree. Being a woman is a trump card that could easily be turned against Hillary. Some may think that it is cheap of Hillary to call her femininity on other candidates; I think she’s just playing the game smart. If people are going to make an issue about the fact that she is a woman, than she might as well capitalize on that. The playing field may appear level, but at some base level, it isn’t. Until that is corrected, Hillary has the right to turn her disadvantage into an advantage. This isn’t preferential treatment, its politics. I just hope she toes the line when the time comes.
Hillary is in fact being specially targeted by opponents. But, I don’t think she is a target just because she is woman in a field of men. I do think she has a little bit of an uphill battle to wage just for being a woman, because although it is sad, I believe there are some Americans who would not vote for a woman President (although they’d never admit it…); but I’ll save that for another blog. Hillary is targeted because she is a front runner. Any front runner would be the aim of opponents’ offensive and gender really has nothing to do with that. Those running against Hillary obviously feel threatened because she is ahead; thus they are going to try to put her in difficult situations and basically give her a run for her money. What I find most interesting , though, is the way the media has exploded all of Hillary’s question dodging and what not. But people forget: she is a politician. Not being decisive is basically just politics, and all candidates have probably done it a few times. It’s the nature of the game. Being indecisive on issues has been going on in politics for years; Hillary’s behavior is nothing new.
RE: Melissa
Wow! “Hillary needs to work out her issues or she will have no chance of winning the nomination or the presidency.” Are you kidding me? I’m pretty sure that Hillary has been doing a “darn” good job at reinforcing her lead among the democratic candidates. If she weren’t than the people (polls) would express that. Secondly referring to her being “indecisive” because she said she would root for both baseball teams is irrelevant to how she would run our country. Sure making direct statements on where you stand makes it easier for the people to decide whether they want to vote for you, but I don’t think she is being abrasive as much as people are portraying her. “She pledged ‘to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.’ Why not just say, ‘Yes, I pledge’?” What I can’t get past is the fact that she did indeed answer that question. I’m sorry she didn’t word it how you think it should be but she did answer it. Apart from Melissa’s “logic” I was surprised to see the author was a woman. “Yet the spin coming out of the Clinton campaign is that the men were ganging up on Hillary. Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul – or change the game to dodge ball – when they get bruised.” How much control does Hillary have on how the media portrays her? None to little. So don’t make the assumption that she is “whining” and cant play with the boys because she apparently is kicking their ass’s.
-Caitlin Barschig
I am replying to Emily in this topic. At first I strongly disagree with her statements of Hillary can’t comply with honesty. I think she can, it’s just that she has not made up her mind yet, and also she is trying to win the presidential race so she does have to be very careful with the words she says. It also seems that Emily is sympathetic for Hillary. Why? What is the need for sympathy just because she is getting bashed around like the front runner of the democratic race should be at the presidential debate. No, don’t be sympathetic for her; enjoy the bashing she is getting. Now for the second part of Emily’s writing. I definitely agree that she is not getting bullied; only running for office. She is getting all the criticism she should be. But let’s hope just because she is a woman she is getting treated differently; let’s hope that our country is mature enough to treat everyone equal. Just because she is a woman does not mean she is as good as a man, they are both the same. Personally I like the Republican Party but if a Democrat wins I hope its either Hillary or Barrack.
Kelsea you said “No. She’s tough enough she dosen’t need to be babied. She’s on track to become a stinkin’ president.”
It’s not about babying Hillary but, it’s about keeping you party united and your front runner strong. Do you remember Howard Dean? He was flying strong but, the Democrats along with his little yell were his down fall. They picked Kerry instead and look where it got them. The fact is Hillary is pretty strong and if the Democrats start attacking her character it just gives more ammunition to the other side.
Emily you said, “On to the ‘bullying’ she’s facing from other candidates. Hillary chose to run for president knowing that she would more than likely be the only woman doing so. I think it’s cheap of her to play the blame game on the other candidates (whether she does it directly or strongly influences others such as the media to do so) for hammering her with good questions even though she’s a woman. Hopefully she is treated with respect and dignity.”
It’s wrong to blame Hillary for playing the “blame game” because she isn’t. One of her advisors said, “Ultimately, it was six guys against her, and she came off as one strong woman.” This is true. Everyone in there is out to get Clinton and it has nothing to do with her sex. They are trying to get her because she is kicking their ass like she said, “I seem to be the topic of great conversation and consternation, and that’s for a reason.” For one to claim she is creating cries of “bullying” is a lie.
Stephanie Semb you said,
It’s ridiculous that she is pulling out the ‘I’m a girl, stop picking on me!’-card. She knew very well that putting on her britches she would have to be tough. The author states it perfectly” Because she’s a girl, she needs to be tougher to prove that she can handle it. When you step to the plate, step up! Hillary talks herself dizzy and then yells that the boys hit her too hard.” It frustrates me very much that the strong woman who said she could make it is now playing dirty ‘antifeminist’ cards!
Like I said all Hillary ever said, “I seem to be the topic of great conversation and consternation, and that’s for a reason.” For one to claim she is creating cries of “bullying” is a lie.
Morgan McDonald Says:
I just think that Hillary needs to step up and stop acting like such a girl. If she’s going to make it running against all men then she needs to become the bigger and better candidate, showing them whose boss. If she is going to let them walk all over her and start to complain when they gang up on her, she’s going to loose her edge.
The article is not claiming that Clinton is whining it is merely stating that attacking her could be viewed as bullying particularly 6 vs 1. BUT it has nothing to do with her being a woman.
Amanda Nicol Says:
Some may think that it is cheap of Hillary to call her femininity on other candidates; I think she’s just playing the game smart. If people are going to make an issue about the fact that she is a woman, than she might as well capitalize on that.
No one is targeting her because she is a woman! This article has very little to do with her being a woman at all.
1. Kaitlynn Knol Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Hillary is in fact being specially targeted by opponents. But, I don’t think she is a target just because she is woman in a field of men. I do think she has a little bit of an uphill battle to wage just for being a woman, because although it is sad, I believe there are some Americans who would not vote for a woman President (although they’d never admit it…); but I’ll save that for another blog. Hillary is targeted because she is a front runner. Any front runner would be the aim of opponents’ offensive and gender really has nothing to do with that. Those running against Hillary obviously feel threatened because she is ahead; thus they are going to try to put her in difficult situations and basically give her a run for her money. What I find most interesting , though, is the way the media has exploded all of Hillary’s question dodging and what not. But people forget: she is a politician. Not being decisive is basically just politics, and all candidates have probably done it a few times. It’s the nature of the game. Being indecisive on issues has been going on in politics for years; Hillary’s behavior is nothing new.
2. Caitlin Barschig Says:
“Yet the spin coming out of the Clinton campaign is that the men were ganging up on Hillary. Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul – or change the game to dodge ball – when they get bruised.” How much control does Hillary have on how the media portrays her? None to little. So don’t make the assumption that she is “whining” and cant play with the boys because she apparently is kicking their ass’s.
THANK YOU CAITLIN YOU NAILED IT.
In response to Cody’s post, I think that it is a load of crap that she can’t comply with honesty. She can, she just doesn’t what to alienate anyone that would vote for her so she swings both ways for all the issues, and on the Democratic debate she was called on it. In response to the video that Hillary’s people put out that basically said that she was the center of attention, which is such a lie. Hillary was asked during the debate if she would allow for the records of conversations would be let out to the press earlier then the date of 2012 that Bill Clinton has asked for, and she danced around that question and made up some excuse that she couldn’t speed up the process if she wanted to. I think that her real motive is that she knows if that information is released before the 2008 election, she won’t get elected because there is probably harmful information about her. It seems to me that she thinks it is a good thing that people were talking about her, but it is not because she is being called on all of her lies. One thing that that will do though is open up an area for the Republican Party to attack once the general election starts. To me this seems like the next election could play out like the one with John Kerry.
I agree with the article when it says that Hillary can’t give a straight answer and niether can most poloticians. No one ones to step on anyones toes and loose a singel vote even though there answere could make twice those mad happy. Most would argue that most politicians do this until they get elected because after that it doesn’t matter about votes so they will take firm action. I am just worried because I kind of don’t think that Hilliary will change pace and start taking strong stances a take actions. I’m just worried that if Hilliary is elected she will just be indecisive the whole time. I totaly agree with Derrick on this one when he said “I think it’s cheap of her to play the blame game “. I think Hillary is just trying to find a cheap way out of answering questions and getting more people to vote for her. she new she would be the only women running and she is trying to manipulate that to her advantage and that is really anoying and cheap to me. Its not like if everyone started to Attack Edwards on his ‘free needle” idea he would start to cry like a baby and say they are attacking him because he is a man. No thats non sence. The reason candidates attack others is so they discredit there oponents and gain votes. And since Hillary is in the lead then everyone needs to cut her down so she doesn’t start slipping away and win the Democratic Nominee.
Hillary is very aware of what she is doing. She is staying moderate on any crucial issues. That is smart if she wants to appeal to the majority of the public. Yes, Hillary never gives a straight answer, but it is still early in the race believe it or not. Why would she lean one way and possibly give up being the front- runner? Melissa said: “If she is going to sway from one side to the other, then the Democrats are going to be hesitant to nominate her as a presidential candidate.” No, the Democrats are not going to be hesitant to nominate her as the presidential candidate because they will nominate someone who they think will win, and with Hillary so far ahead of the other Democratic candidates she is very likely to win their nomination. “Hillary needs to work out her issues or she will have no chance of winning the nomination or the presidency.” Hillary knows what she is doing. She may not seem very decisive now, but once she gets that Democratic nomination she will be more opinionated. The race is still early and she is in the safe seat. Why not ride it as long as she can?
Everyone thinks it’s totally okay for Hillary to be moderate on everything to get a hold of as many votes as possible, but I find it completely illogical. I, personally, want to support somebody who will take a stance on an issue that I agree with!! She hasn’t proven this whatsoever. I mean, I know that the point of campaigning is to bet as many votes as possible, but why can’t Hillary lean more towards the Democratic side of things? Why can’t she support some issues? After all, that defines her campaign!
As far as the whole “ganging up on the women” business…if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. She knew this is how the election process would go had she run. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s feeding her publicity using the fact that she’s a woman. WOW!! Furthermore, it makes me really, really, really mad that she thinks they candidates are piling up on her in debates. It’s a debate…you aren’t supposed to agree for God’s sake! Her and her campaign people are manipulating the public with the media coverage their getting. ugh…sweet job. not! Maybe you can prove why you are a competent candidate…rather than just riding the fence to win the primaries//popular votes//campaigns.
Hillary is a great woman for what she is doing. Running against all those men out there that think they’re better than woman and have no self pride. However, Hillary needs to work on her tactics of winning the election. She never takes a stance on anything which proves to be a problematic issue. Therefore, until she decides to take a stance on something fully she might as well kiss her campaign good bye. A lot of people won’t vote for her just because she’s a woman. Even more won’t vote for her if she doesn’t take a stand on something that will determine that input on who votes for her.
Also, she needs to quit the poor me factor with Bill. We all know what he did, we was impeached for it but not found guilty. So get over it. She had the perfect chance to leave him and she didn’t. That her choice. The reason she didn’t leave him was because he helped her campaign. Instead of seeing her as a cold hearted witch, she was now the victim of what so many women go through. However, what president hasn’t been caught with his pants down, sort of speak, we just never hear about it. So why is it that damn important now?