Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

Brainchild imo is like 99-0, never been defeated. He is too good for this thread but I hope he stays.

Lol, you're too kind.

I really don't try to be controversial or disruptive, but amazingly, I have always found myself arguing with the majority whenever I post in this thread.

I think the problem is that I don't really concern myself with 'conventional wisdom' when it comes to politics, and I simply speak my mind. However, I never realized how contentious this would end up being.

 

[Cybit]

Bill Clinton is a likable, master politician. Hillary isn't particularly likable and is not a good politician. Does being a woman impact the way she is perceived in many ways? Of course. But you can criticize her behavior, career, and talents without criticizing her gender.

She's not good at this, guys. And she's surrounded by loyalists who are stuck in the past.

It doesn't help that her husband is one of the single most charismatic human beings ever to walk the planet. But, pretty much this.

She's likable enough.

Publicly she isn't. I think she overthinks / overcompensates too much for being a woman in that she's still sort of stuck in the early 90s mindset of "what to say, what to do, etc". There's a really telling generational gap (which, mind you, IS COMPLETELY OK, because we're all going to be in the same position at some point), and due to the amazing progress made in her lifetime, I think what she thinks should work based on her 90s baseline comes off as too forced and inauthentic.

If she would just come out and be her private self, which is the snarky, I am fucking smarter than you deal with it you dumb son of a bitch, bitingly funny and takes no shit from no one momma bear...sure, it would piss off a lot of people. Who were not going to vote for her anyway. That's the part I think she hasn't adapted to. With the rise of social media; authenticity has become exponentially more important. I don't think she's figured that out yet.

Women just aren't given as much benefit of the doubt when it comes to their personalities and how they're judged socially.

I think a similar comparison can be made to female comediennes and how many people find them 'unfunny' compared to men, and the struggle they have. It's an ingrained prejudice, an expectation that many people want to see of a woman. A powerful, smart, ambitious political woman is more likely to be labeled "fake" "deceiftul" "two-faced" than a man with a similar political history.

Eh...I think this is a fairly bunk argument when you consider the nature of being a politician. See: GWB vs Jeb. It's not a gender thing or a race thing primarily any more at the point of running for president (see: Obama). Day to day in normal life, absolutely. But at this point, everything is being put under the microscope anyway, primarily by people looking for reasons to like you or dislike you anyway.

You could also argue that she has far stronger systemic advantages due to her husband, her hand-wrapped senate seat, and being Secretary of State than almost any other candidate in the election.

One of the things that I think Obama tapped into (and Trump & Sanders are masterfully tapping into now) is this realization that in a world where everyone is on their best (fake) behavior due to the nature of social media and being publicly shamed and hate trains (on both sides) - being authentic is a super, duper powerful attribute. Add in that people are starting to really resent the outrage/clickbait machine that has sprung up in the last few years, I think it has become even more important.

AKA, what brainchild said. She has her reasons, but I think her reasons, like her campaign, are still struggling to adapt to modern times.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You didn't get the joke.

I don't really know where the idea that Warren doesn't have to modulate comes from. She does, but she's not typically on the national stage. Because this is the reality as we currently live it.

Also, I'm not quite sure whether that Slick Willy can get away with being a rapscallion, with blowjobs in the Oval, detracts or reinforces the impact of gender. That rascal, boys will be boys. The traits we typically ascribe to "charisma" tend to fall towards masculine gender norms.

It would be kind of amazing if she just decided to go DGAF, be the smartest, snarkiest person in the room without reservation, were the dowdiest most comfortable clothes she has in her wardrobe and forget about the hair and make-up.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Women just aren't given as much benefit of the doubt when it comes to their personalities and how they're judged socially.

I think a similar comparison can be made to female comediennes and how many people find them 'unfunny' compared to men, and the struggle they have. It's an ingrained prejudice, an expectation that many people want to see of a woman. A powerful, smart, ambitious political woman is more likely to be labeled "fake" "deceiftul" "two-faced" than a man with a similar political history.

and like colorblind racism liberals love to defend themselves from the charge they're practicing in it.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I'd argue that, given the relative newness of the BLM moment at the time, a lot of people (politicians included) are learning a new vocabulary they may have not had to examine before.

If you had asked someone at the beginning of the BLM movement "Do all lives matter?" you might get a "well no shit" answer. I don't fault someone for learning more about BLM. They've been a great force and I think have educated Hillary on these issues better than anyone else could have.

She said "all lives matter" like 7 months ago. I remember being at a BLM protest in December 2014, and BLM existed well before that. For a candidate who claimed, yesterday, that racial justice is going to be the mission of her presidency, I simply don't buy that she thought "all lives matter" was ok last Summer. Do you trust Hillary when she says racial justice is going to be "the mission" of her presidency? Or is it more likely that, with South Carolina 10 days away, she's trying to win the state and then take the black vote for granted like the democratic party always has? When she says racial justice is going to be the mission of her presidency to a mostly white audience in, say, Wisconsin, I'll perk up. Until then, I kind of despise the way democrats court black voters in primary season and then give the "personal responsibility is needed in the black community" Bill Cosby bullshit once the general rolls around. Even Obama did it.

 

[User 406]

If someone can present a cogent argument as to why she will follow through on yesterday's claim, I'm all ears.

There isn't one. The track record of the Democratic party and American politics in general has been utterly dismal when it comes to racial justice. Attempting to argue that she said the thing so she's totally going to follow through completely would be facile.

That said, I don't think I've ever heard a white politician lay it out as plainly as she did in that speech. That's the kind of conversation on race we need to be having, and the kind of conversation white politicians have been forever ducking.

So since she said it, I'm holding out some very cautious hope that it could lead to something more.

Guess we'll find out.

 

[Cybit]

You didn't get the joke.

I don't really know where the idea that Warren doesn't have to modulate comes from. She does, but she's not typically on the national stage.

Also, I'm not quite sure whether that Slick Willy can get away with being a rapscallion, with blowjobs in the Oval, detracts or reinforces the impact of gender. That rascal, boys will be boys. The traits we typically ascribe to "charisma" tend to fall towards masculine gender norms.

I think that's a flat out Clinton trait, to be honest.

I don't think GWB or even Obama gets away with it. If you've ever met / interacted with Bill for more than like 2 minutes, you understand the sheer amount of charisma that man exudes. I think it's clear that I am as much of an Obama fan as you can get - but Clinton made me, as a straight male, want to throw my pants at him. It is unbelievable until you experience it in person. And this is coming from someone who thinks Michelle is about 2x more charismatic than Barack (I have a giant thing for forceful / strong women)

 

[East Lake]

This is all true, but surely you can see why Hillary Clinton is one of the worst politicians to make this argument for. Bill Clinton has been accused by liberals of being duplicitous for decades. To this day there are a lot of people still angry about the welfare reforms and NAFTA. Clinton wiggles out of a lot of criticism with a general charm (and spin) because he's good at what he does...yet still there are those who haven't forgiven him. Hillary Clinton is just as duplicitous, yet she has none of his talents as a politician. She voted for the Iraq war, has supported Wall Street, endorsed all of her husbands worse ideas, etc. Now she is running as Wall Street's worst nightmare, embracing all of her husband's best ideas, and seems to expect to be handed the nomination. I don't see why it's hard to grasp the genuine reasons why she is disliked.

Yeah. She'd have a rough time emulating Bernie's angry style as a woman but if it were possible for her to emulate Bill's style she'd likely not have problems winning people over. Trouble is it's hard to do for anybody, and particularly a technocrat type.

 

[Abinash117]

That she said "all lives matter" months after being on record having said "black lives matter", as you pointed out, is only further proof that she does not at all follow the issue from a place of personal interest. No one who is genuinely supportive of the BLM movement would make the mistake she made. Anyone who's actually concerned about these issues, reads about them, follows them as a matter of personal investment knows exactly what the intention of "all lives matter" entails. That Hillary Clinton said it signifies that her commitment to BLM is superficial at best.

Looks like no one can make no mistake which is kind of ridiculous. She didn't really need to say BLM in 2014, but she did. It might be because it was beneficial at the time for her to say that, but at the same time she wasn't running and talking to an audience that wouldn't be so receptive to the phrase. It looked like she slipped up right there , but at the same time it doesn't look too bad as she was talking about her mother( like her mother telling her all lives matter, including minorities).

She may or may not believe in the group exactly, but she did tried to court AAs on some level before and a bit after her announcement. On some point I think she at least knowledges the issues going on.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Cybit - I completely agree.

The politician I would liken Hillary to is John Kerry, actually. Like him, her whole demeanor and presence is stiff and uninviting, and that simply doesn't read well in a modern national political campaign. Bill was accused of, and DID far worse stuff than her, but he bounced back because he was able to project likability, charm, and humor even at his lowest moment. Bush was the same - the country was a disaster in 2004, but he nevertheless eked out a victory against Kerry because the country could relate to him, and to the difficulties they faced, in a way they couldn't relate to Kerry. I think the complaints against Hillary do resemble some of the more general struggles women face in leadership positions, but I also think the resemblance is superficial, because in her case, I think they're genuinely true.

 

[dramatis]

Those are all opinions that I hold, opinions that are not particularly uncommon when you step outside the sphere of Democratic diehards, hence her poor favorables with independents. They are also all refutable, and this board generally has a standard wherein arguments are supposed to be, well, arguments, not name-calling. I only accused that poster of sanctimony when they basically called me a clueless asshole and told me how stupid I sounded, without actually making any points in response, while openly misconstruing my points in their summation of them. Note that I haven't said anything similar to shinra, Prost, or others.

I didn't check stuff from earlier in the thread, but let's be honest: you don't have any actual points either, other than your personal opinion of how unlikeable and 'fake woman' Hillary is.

So it's a bit rich to be saying that I'm being sanctimonious when you're offering your apparently superior 'argument' that Hillary is emphasizing being a woman too much.

What is so sanctimonious about asking you about why you don't seem to think your judging a woman negatively because she talks about her experiences as a woman is wrong? You still haven't seemed to figure out the problem with complaining about a woman talking about her personal experience being a woman.

And it's really telling that you think Obama handled his race in a superior manner by not talking about it at all. Can you imagine what black people wanted him to do? To acknowledge the black experience? To openly talk about racism and race relations? But he didn't in 2008, and he sure made YOU comfortable and happy about his performance.

Perhaps talking race would have been too much for the white people who would run in fear. But surely talking gender isn't too much, since half the population are women, and surely it's okay to hear them air their concerns and talk about the yet unresolved inequalities between men and women? Yet apparently it's 'too much' and 'too fake' and 'too calculated' and 'too unlikeable'.

The problem with trying to pin it on Hillary alone is that you are still exercising sexism. You say it's particular to Hillary because she's so fake and lying, but in the end it's you exercising your personal feelings based on your perception of her rather than on her ideas and expressions for women. Holding Hillary to a different standard. Judging her more 'ugly' than Elizabeth Warren. You are not going to say Ben Carson should not talk about race just because you don't like him. You are not going to say Rubio should not talk about being Hispanic because you don't like him. You are not going to say Obama should not talk about being black because "he's not really black".

But you will say you think Hillary should tone down the woman stuff, because it's "unappealing". What is a woman supposed to think about that? That you're right?

 

[JesseEwiak]

She said "all lives matter" like 7 months ago. I remember being at a BLM protest in December 2014, and BLM existed well before that. For a candidate who claimed, yesterday, that racial justice is going to be the mission of her presidency, I simply don't buy that she thought "all lives matter" was ok last Summer. Do you trust Hillary when she says racial justice is going to be "the mission" of her presidency? Or is it more likely that, with South Carolina 10 days away, she's trying to win the state and then take the black vote for granted like the democratic party always has? When she says racial justice is going to be the mission of her presidency to a mostly white audience in, say, Wisconsin, I'll perk up. Until then, I kind of despise the way democrats court black voters in primary season and then give the "personal responsibility is needed in the black community" Bill Cosby bullshit once the general rolls around. Even Obama did it.

You do realize much like a lot of black voter supported the crime policies of the 80's and early 90's because it was their neighborhoods that were full of gangs shooting each other, Bill Cosby ain't the only older black person who thinks like he does, right? Not every black person is Ta-Neishi Coates.

 

[Teggy]

Lawrence O'Donnel needs to drop this "it's a tie!

Spoiler

sort of based on Quinnipiac"

act. So annoying.

 

[disastermouse]

Elizabeth Warren has been in office for one term. She's not running for president. The entire country made fun of Hillary for saying we should be kind to one another and then the right destroyed one of the few policy issues she openly advocated for.

Comparing Hillary's experience to any other woman's in public office is silly. To say that other women in politics don't have to modulate their public persona is silly. I find this entire point to be really problematic, and this feels like kind of a half assed way to walk it back.

Hillary is a special little snowflake and so she has to be fake and any evidence to the contrary doesn't matter because...Hillary Clinton. The fact that she's a terribly bad politician outside of any other factor is ignored because of her essential Hillary-ness which makes null and void all arguments that she's just not good at this.

 

[Jenov]

and like colorblind racism liberals love to defend themselves from the charge they're practicing in it.

On the nose...

 

[brainchild]

Elizabeth Warren has been in office for one term. She's not running for president. The entire country made fun of Hillary for saying we should be kind to one another and then the right destroyed one of the few policy issues she openly advocated for.

Comparing Hillary's experience to any other woman's in public office is silly. To say that other women in politics don't have to modulate their public persona is silly. I find this entire point to be really problematic, and this feels like kind of a half assed way to walk it back.

I love how you went after the second paragraph and completely ignored the first paragraph which gave context to the second paragraph.

Hillary's situation is unique, yes, but it isn't just because she's a female politician.

You didn't get the joke.

I don't really know where the idea that Warren doesn't have to modulate comes from. She does, but she's not typically on the national stage. Because this is the reality as we currently live it.

Also, I'm not quite sure whether that Slick Willy can get away with being a rapscallion, with blowjobs in the Oval, detracts or reinforces the impact of gender. That rascal, boys will be boys. The traits we typically ascribe to "charisma" tend to fall towards masculine gender norms.

It would be kind of amazing if she just decided to go DGAF, be the smartest, snarkiest person in the room without reservation, were the dowdiest most comfortable clothes she has in her wardrobe and forget about the hair and make-up.

No one HAS to modulate. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. Would it make their lives easier if they do? ABSOLUTELY! But they don't have to. If they do, it's because they feel that it's best for their career; not every female politician is willing to do whatever is necessary for the benefit of their career.


EDIT:

I'd like to add, not everyone is a pragmatist. There are some female politicians who simply put a stronger emphasis on idealism and principles than others, and thus, feel less inclined to conform to societal norms. Saying that everyone woman in Hillary's position would be as modulating as Hillary is categorizing women as a monolith, which they are most certainly not.

 

[shinra-bansho]

So, I guess to the point of the importance of identity representation in general, I don't think it's contentious and may be worth noting that none of this discussion would be taking place if this was a primary race with only a bunch of men running.

EDIT: I guess, it's fine if you want to pretend that to succeed in fields that are dominated by straight, white, cis- men that no one needs to balance the expectations placed on anyone with different identities. But I'd say that the reality of people actually living in the world that we live in and not some hypothetical world where everything is sugar and rainbows would say otherwise.

 

[Suikoguy]

Hillary is a special little snowflake and so she has to be fake and any evidence to the contrary doesn't matter because...Hillary Clinton. The fact that she's a terribly bad politician outside of any other factor is ignored because of her essential Hillary-ness which makes null and void all arguments that she's just not good at this.

Did you pull up your textbook on circular reasoning to make that? ;p

 

[Macho Madness]

Lawrence O'Donnel needs to drop this "it's a tie!

Spoiler

sort of based on Quinnipiac"

act. So annoying.

The one which affirms the most interesting narrative is the one that matters most.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

AKA, what brainchild said. She has her reasons, but I think her reasons, like her campaign, are still struggling to adapt to modern times.

Which is interesting - a lot of the ppl on Obama's campaign were essentially focusing on the strengths Obama had that just excelled him forward.

Hillary certainly does not have the same strengths but she has others. I'm surprised her campaign hasn't tried making her apply those strengths when she's going to be saying something nationally so she isn't judged as being non-genuine.

Or perhaps her strengths just aren't as strong in the limelight? Which I wouldn't buy at all - I mean, when she was drilled during Benghazi, that was definitely her right there. Or maybe her campaign manager sucks.

I think I'm only looking at it from this perspective cause I've recently read this book "Discover your strengths". It's really fascinating stuff (HR provided it for me tho so I didn't have to pay for the test lolz)

 

[ivysaur12]

Cybit - I completely agree.

The politician I would liken Hillary to is John Kerry, actually. Like him, her whole demeanor and presence is stiff and uninviting, and that simply doesn't read well in a modern national political campaign. Bill was accused of, and DID far worse stuff than her, but he bounced back because he was able to project likability, charm, and humor even at his lowest moment. Bush was the same - the country was a disaster in 2004, but he nevertheless eked out a victory against Kerry because the country could relate to him, and to the difficulties they faced, in a way they couldn't relate to Kerry.

Bush won because the war was popular and the economy was good. I don't think there were any Democrats who could've won. Even still Gore beat wanna-have-a-beer-with GWB. Likability is good, but doesn't always mean votability.

I love how you went after the second paragraph and completely ignored the first paragraph which gave context to the second paragraph.

Hillary's situation is unique, yes, but it isn't just because she's a female politician.




No one HAS to modulate. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. Would it make their lives easier if they do? ABSOLUTELY! But they don't have to. If they do, it's because they feel that it's best for their career; not every female politician is willing to do whatever is necessary for the benefit of their career.

I'm only ignoring your hand waving of context when you keep bringing up non analogous situations.

You brought up Nina Turner, which you had to have known was a non apt comparison. The same is true for Elizabeh Warren. The same is true for any woman you could mention because our country has no one analogous to Hillary.

 

[Basileus777]

Bush won because the war was popular and the economy was good. I don't think there were any Democrats who could've won. Even still Gore beat wanna-have-a-beer-with GWB. Likability is good, but doesn't always mean votability.

Gore lost despite a great economy and being the successor to a still popular President.

 

[Macho Madness]

At least there's a disclaimer in the headline this time: http://www.politico.com/blogs/south...6/02/2016-south-carolina-rubio-adviser-219410

 

[ivysaur12]

Gore lost despite a great economy and being the successor to a still popular President.

And yet he won the popular vote against a well liked challenger in an open race.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

You do realize much like a lot of black voter supported the crime policies of the 80's and early 90's because it was their neighborhoods that were full of gangs shooting each other, Bill Cosby ain't the only older black person who thinks like he does, right? Not every black person is Ta-Neishi Coates.

Fully aware of that. Being black doesn't give someone a pass on claiming that black culture is the issue though. It's bullshit when Bill O'Reilly says it, it's bullshit when Bill Cosby says it, it was bullshit when Barack Obama said it, it's bullshit when Ben Carson says it, so on and so forth. Of course not everyone is Ta-Nehisi Coates, but I would love it if Hillary kept giving speeches as though he wrote them even after South Carolina. The cynic in me, though, says that this tone on race issues lasts about as long as the primary does. It's important to discuss these things, and for that I applaud her. I don't have faith in her to treat these issues with any more respect than any other previous democratic president has, though. Probably better than her husband was, but that's a low hurdle.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Bush was the same - the country was a disaster in 2004, but he nevertheless eked out a victory against Kerry because the country could relate to him, and to the difficulties they faced, in a way they couldn't relate to Kerry. I think the complaints against Hillary do resemble some of the more general struggles women face in leadership positions, but I also think the resemblance is superficial, because in her case, I think they're genuinely true.

I'm not getting into the larger discussion about Hillary Clinton's charisma or lack thereof but the persistent belief the Kerry lost because people didn't want to have a beer with him or whatever has to stop. To the average voter the US was doing fine in 2004! The economy created more than two million jobs that year and by November the unemployment rate was down to 5.4%. People who seriously followed Iraq saw it was falling apart but most people still saw it as a success. That's why Bush's approval rating was around 55% when he was re-elected. '08 Obama may have been able to pull out a close win but against any one else Bush was going to take it.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I didn't check stuff from earlier in the thread, but let's be honest: you don't have any actual points either, other than your personal opinion of how unlikeable and 'fake woman' Hillary is.

So it's a bit rich to be saying that I'm being sanctimonious when you're offering your apparently superior 'argument' that Hillary is emphasizing being a woman too much.

What is so sanctimonious about asking you about why you don't seem to think your judging a woman negatively because she talks about her experiences as a woman is wrong? You still haven't seemed to figure out the problem with complaining about a woman talking about her personal experience being a woman.

And it's really telling that you think Obama handled his race in a superior manner by not talking about it at all. Can you imagine what black people wanted him to do? To acknowledge the black experience? To openly talk about racism and race relations? But he didn't in 2008, and he sure made YOU comfortable and happy about his performance.

Perhaps talking race would have been too much for the white people who would run in fear. But surely talking gender isn't too much, since half the population are women, and surely it's okay to hear them air their concerns and talk about the yet unresolved inequalities between men and women? Yet apparently it's 'too much' and 'too fake' and 'too calculated' and 'too unlikeable'.

The problem with trying to pin it on Hillary alone is that you are still exercising sexism. You say it's particular to Hillary because she's so fake and lying, but in the end it's you exercising your personal feelings based on your perception of her rather than on her ideas and expressions for women. Holding Hillary to a different standard. Judging her more 'ugly' than Elizabeth Warren. You are not going to say Ben Carson should not talk about race just because you don't like him. You are not going to say Rubio should not talk about being Hispanic because you don't like him. You are not going to say Obama should not talk about being black because "he's not really black".

But you will say you think Hillary should tone down the woman stuff, because it's "unappealing". What is a woman supposed to think about that? That you're right?

My point from minute one in this conversation has been that Hillary is not effective at engaging this issue and that her use of it thus far has been politically cheap, not nobody should do it at all. My point re: Obama is that he was politically savvy to let the matter bubble up from the grassroots, because it totally circumvented any complaints that he was "playing the race card" or some such nonsense. I also said, specifically, that I don't have a problem with the idea of a woman going the other way and trying to tie her sex into her campaign, but that you have to do so in a cogent, consistent way, rather than just dropping it in once in a while like a bland drum fill in the middle of a rock song, which is what she's done so far. My complaint is that she hasn't gone far enough in talking about her sex, if she's going to choose as a candidate to do so, because her engagement with the issue thus far has come across like a superficial talking point, which comes across as a pretty cynical thing to do and not even necessary, since her record on fighting for women's issues is strong and could serve as a great starting point for her to build an actual message for once.

Edit: Also, I didn't say anything about Elizabeth Warren. That was brainchild. I don't much care for either Clinton, I will admit, but I accepted long ago that Hillary was going to be the nominee this year and that she has to win as long as there are Supreme Court seats on the line. These are just flaws I perceive in her campaign - a campaign that has lost a lot of ground to an even older New York socialist, despite having the largest initial advantage possible and having been chastened by a savvy campaign eight years earlier.

 

[disastermouse]

Did you pull up your textbook on circular reasoning to make that? ;p

I was just winnowing the argument down for simplicity. Bullshit loves to hide in the dark corners of inconsequential minutia.

Hillary is bad at this. Is it because she's a woman? Some of it may be, but other women seem to be figuring it out. But Hillary is prevented from doing that by any number of Hillary-centric details that just make it impossible guyz...so any criticism of her gets filtered through the meat grinder of bad arguments.

 

[Macho Madness]

I feel like '05 is when public opinion shifted and the Iraq War was seen as no longer worthwhile. People gave Bush the benefit of the doubt for a while but the grace period didn't last too long.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Which woman has figured it out? Elizabeth Dole?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

When ever people bring up Nina Turner I wonder

Would anybody have touted her pre-bernie? Did anyone know her before she supported him who didn't live in Ohio?

It rings of tokenism. People who know nothing of ohio politics all of a sudden touting a state senator who had no big national profile.

I'd love to search for her name in reddit or neo gaf over time

 

[Aaron Strife]

So is this George Bush gun thing like his Dukakis tank moment

Because it's pretty hilarious!

 

[brainchild]

Bush won because the war was popular and the economy was good. I don't think there were any Democrats who could've won. Even still Gore beat wanna-have-a-beer-with GWB. Likability is good, but doesn't always mean votability.



I'm only ignoring your hand waving of context when you keep bringing up non analogous situations.

You brought up Nina Turner, which you had to have known was a non apt comparison. The same is true for Elizabeh Warren. The same is true for any woman you could mention because our country has no one analogous to Hillary.

They're apt comparisons if the argument is that Hillary is modulating just because she's a woman. Which was the original argument. If we include all the contributing factors that have influenced Clinton's public persona, then the comparison is no longer apt, but then I'm no longer making that comparison.

Furthermore, if Elizabeth Warren and Nina Turner WERE in Hillary's position, you couldn't definitively conclude that they'd modulate just like her. They're their own persons and make their own decisions for their own reasons; their not some part of groupthink for all women in public office.

 

[disastermouse]

When ever people bring up Nina Turner I wonder

Would anybody have touted her pre-bernie? Did anyone know her before she supported him who didn't live in Ohio?

It rings of tokenism.

The tokenism accusation is hilarious coming from a Hillary supporter - a candidate who has framed her entire appeal to women in the 'we haven't won until there's a woman in the White House' language of 100 proof tokenism.

So, yeah...that happened.

 

[danm999]

So is this George Bush gun thing like his Dukakis tank moment

Because it's pretty hilarious!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The tokenism accusation is hilarious coming from a Hillary supporter - a candidate who has framed her entire appeal to women in the 'we haven't won until there's a woman in the White House' language of 100 proof tokenism.

So, yeah...that happened.

I really wonder if you're even paying attention to the race at this point

 

[ivysaur12]

They're apt comparisons if the argument is that Hillary is modulating just because she's a woman. Which was the original argument. If we include all the contributing factors that have influenced Clinton's public persona, then the comparison is no longer apt, but then I'm no longer making that comparison.

Furthermore, if Elizabeth Warren and Nina Turner WERE in Hillary's position, you couldn't definitively conclude that they'd modulate just like her. They're their own persons and make their own decisions for their own reasons; their not some part of groupthink for all women in public office.

Right. You moved goalposts.

And no, I can't. But you can't either. So let's just drop this entirely silly line of arguments. I get very frustrated whenever we talk about a female politician's "likeability", so I might tap out.

 

[disastermouse]

Which woman has figured it out? Elizabeth Dole?

Are we limiting our vision to 'Murica or should we look outside the boundaries of our own borders?

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

At least there's a disclaimer in the headline this time: http://www.politico.com/blogs/south...6/02/2016-south-carolina-rubio-adviser-219410

"We've never been in the business of saying we need to finish in this position or that."

 

[Plinko]

https://twitter.com/JonathanCohn/status/700152717885448192

Really, really well said.

 

[Macho Madness]

http://soonerpoll.com/soonerpoll-clinton-remains-frontrunner-but-sanders-continues-to-rise/

Feb 6th - 9th

Oklahoma

Clinton 44
Sanders 28

Trump 30
Cruz 25
Rubio 21
Carson 6
Bush 5
Kasich 3

 

[disastermouse]

I really wonder if you're even paying attention to the race at this point

I sure am! 'Vote for me because I'll be the first female president' is pretty goddamned tokenistic. Token-tastic, even!

Is she good for poor women? Probably not. Black/brown women? Probably not. Mammals in general? Probably not.

 

[B-Dubs]

They're apt comparisons if the argument is that Hillary is modulating just because she's a woman. Which was the original argument. If we include all the contributing factors that have influenced Clinton's public persona, then the comparison is no longer apt, but then I'm no longer making that comparison.

Furthermore, if Elizabeth Warren and Nina Turner WERE in Hillary's position, you couldn't definitively conclude that they'd modulate just like her. They're their own persons and make their own decisions for their own reasons; their not some part of groupthink for all women in public office.

What you leave out here is that Nina Turner was a state senator and when she tried to run statewide she got her butt kicked. So her whole thing didn't exactly work for her like you say it did. It's a completely different situation at the state senate level and LOL at the idea that Warren doesn't have to modulate. She's pretty careful about how angry she gets, if she tried to be like Bernie it wouldn't work.

 

[ivysaur12]

I sure am! 'Vote for me because I'll be the first female president' is pretty goddamned tokenistic. Token-tastic, even!

Is she good for poor women? Probably not. Black/brown women? Probably not. Mammals in general? Probably not.

Ah yes, a classic refrain from Hillary Clinton!!

EDIT: Fixed the clip

 

[Makai]

Mammals in general? Probably not.

Hillary got a perfect score from the Humane Society. Checkmate!

 

[brainchild]

Right. You moved goalposts.

And no, I can't. But you can't either. So let's just drop this entirely silly line of arguments. I get very frustrated whenever we talk about a female politician's "likeability", so I might tap out.

I'm not the one who went from talking about inherent sexism in politics to why Hillary's situation is unique. The goal post was moved, but not by me. You're welcome to go a few pages back and see how this conversation started though.

When it comes to saying that a female politician HAS to modulate, the burden of proof is on the person making such a statement. I don't need to definitely conclude that they wouldn't modulate, only that they don't have to, which I've already done.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I sure am! 'Vote for me because I'll be the first female president' is pretty goddamned tokenistic. Token-tastic, even!

Is she good for poor women? Probably not. Black/brown women? Probably not. Mammals in general? Probably not.

That's not her pitch at all.

But there's not much point in engaging with you on this. Your gonna stick to your "hillary is evil" theme.

 

[ivysaur12]

When it comes to saying that a female politician HAS to modulate, the burden of proof is on the person making such a statement. I don't need to definitely conclude that they wouldn't modulate, only that they don't have to, which I've already done.

If you are going to be, frankly, naive enough to believe that almost every single female politician doesn't have to modulate in some way, on a scale in ways in which their male peers do not have to do, then I have nothing left to say.

 

[disastermouse]

Hillary got a perfect score from the Humane Society. Checkmate!

You mean the 'Establishment Society'?

 

[Plinko]

http://soonerpoll.com/soonerpoll-clinton-remains-frontrunner-but-sanders-continues-to-rise/

Feb 6th - 9th

Oklahoma

Clinton 44
Sanders 28

Trump 30
Cruz 25
Rubio 21
Carson 6
Bush 5
Kasich 3

The fact that Rubio and Cruz alternate second and third in so many state polls leads me to believe they are both in it until the end.