She Stoops to Conquer

Posted March 5, 2008 | 05:57 PM (EST)



stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Girl rage ...it's all the rage. Hillary Clinton and her supporters have won exactly 10 delegates by assaulting their opponent with the kind of tactics that warm Karl Rove's heart. Ah the sweet victory of vitriol. These folks really will say anything, do anything to win and that is why they lost me long ago. I don't take to being threatened, so all you gals who are reading this and sharpening your knives can just save it. If the Hillary Clinton campaign is an example of true feminism then I hereby and happily hand over my membership. I am not one of you.

The whining, spitting, savage God awfulness of Hillary's campaign can only be seen as bad intent and that is not good for anyone, not for women, not for democrats and not for the Country. We must turn the page on this kind of politics or risk being thrust into a dark age that will fill us with longing for the simple stupidity of the past eight years.

It was embarrassing to hear Mike Huckabee aver proudly that the Republican contest has been more civilized and more productive than its opponent and to have to admit that he is right. This will come back to haunt us in the general election and deservedly. The Democrats are doing it again, standing in a circle and shouting "Fire!!!!" The McCain camp must be giddy with delight. Hillary's repeated claims that she can take a punch, get down and dirty and fight the Republican attack machine do not hold up. In actuality she fights like a girl in middle school... breaking down in tears, spreading stupid hateful gossip, claiming that she is being picked on by the boys and stamping her feet when things don't go her way.

All of this talk of the fight misses the larger point that most of us are tired of fighting. We are weary of partisanship, worn out by the petty bickering and hate-mongering. This weariness has no party affiliation. It is felt by Democrats, Independents and Republicans in equal measure. We are tired of being hated and even more tired of hating.

So, for the record I am not a "Hillary hater". I did not vote against her because she is a woman, I did not vote against her period. I voted for Barack Obama because we desperately need a new direction and it is time to set a new tone. It is time to take the gloves off and speak to one another with civility I for one could use a good dose of inspiration. I do not think it is silly or empty to want to hear from our leaders that yes we can come together and yes we can dream again. Call me crazy but I'm for hope.

In recent days as her campaign smeared and jeered, Hillary was quoted as saying "This is the fun part". This begs the question ... fun for whom? It was certainly not fun for the Democratic Party to see the blood of our own on the walls. Maybe Bill's pal George Bush Sr. got a kick out of it. The rest of us... not so much. A lot of us just got kicked. Hillary's campaign manager Terry McAlluffe said he was just kidding when he stood in a room full of donors and warned "You are either with us or against us". I didn't get the joke then and it is even less funny now. The specter of a democratic party deeply divided by these high jinks is just not any fun at all.

These are serious times and we must hold ourselves to a higher calling if we are to unite this country and face our future. The contest between Barack Obama and John McCain holds the possibility that we can conduct a civilized conversation about how to shape that future. The Republicans wisely chose a candidate who is not overly combative. He is notoriously committed to fair campaign practices. McCain is no angel , but he has proven that he can forgo partisanship for the greater good. When he co-authored McCain/ Feingold he was taking aim at the very "attack machine" that Hillary claims readiness to fight. Ironically that legislation is what made it possible for the small money behind Obama to topple the big money Clintons and that folks is CHANGE.

Neither, Obama or McCain have any love of swiftboating, they will both strive to stay above the fray, though they will not always succeed. This could make it possible for the people to actually choose their own leader. For the first time in recent history it will be mankind over political machine. Hillary did not lose because she is a woman. She lost because she did not believe this was possible, she did not believe in change. She has been running so hard, raging so loudly that she was simply not listening. The American people have spoken. She can mud wrestle all the way to Pennsylvania, but it will only further sully her legacy as the first serious woman candidate.

A lot of very good very smart women support Hillary, but a lot of very good very smart women did not. It is time for us to unite and heal this divide and then the fun part can begin in earnest. She keeps saying that 'she can take a punch" It's time to prove it ... you got knocked down Hillary ... take it like a woman.


 
 

Comments
163
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Get real People!!! On all the posts and in Broderick"s rant everyone seems to think Obama is going to lead us into the promise land. Has anyone been watching the republicans lately? They can"t be reasoned with they don"t negotiate, they break laws they tell the American people water boarding is like doing the backstroke, WMDS are in Iraq and there"s no recession in site. Does anyone here really believe that the reach around oops I mean the reach across the aisle that Obama preaches is in our best interest? The only compromising that will happen if he is elected is that he will bend to the republicans will, because the republicans are not going to bend to his.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 AM on 03/08/2008

This is the most concise, perfect description of Hillary I have ever read:

"Hillary's repeated claims that she can take a punch, get down and dirty and fight the Republican attack machine do not hold up. In actuality she fights like a girl in middle school... breaking down in tears, spreading stupid hateful gossip, claiming that she is being picked on by the boys and stamping her feet when things don't go her way."

Beth, I'm jealous of you for having written that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 03/06/2008

Amen!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 AM on 03/07/2008

YES!!! It is a fabulously written piece about a narcissistic woman who will say and do anything to win! That has turned me off completely, as has her husband's behavior which is equally as bad, or worse. I am now ashamed of myself for having supported him for eight long years, and for having enabled him to lie (and worse) during those years. I won't make that mistake again, and I dare say that his legacy has been destroyed for good with his wife's dirty campaign! These two have apparently learned nothing from being harrassed for years by the Republicans. Instead of being the victims now, they have become the agressors. In the process, they have lost any semblance of humanity!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 AM on 03/07/2008

Wow!! Say, it sister.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 03/06/2008

oh...and thanks for using an Oliver Goldsmith play as the title of your essay--it warms my theatre major heart when someone cites an 18th century playwright! :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 PM on 03/06/2008

thank you for you brilliant, succinct, and astute post...I am proud to be on board the Obama bandwagon of HOPE with you!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 PM on 03/06/2008

As a strong , independent feminist, I applaud your article. Hillary's problems are because she is a woman it's the KIND of PERSON she is! I'm for Obama!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 AM on 03/06/2008

Very well said. The problem with Hillary is not that she is woman. Nor is it that she is a feminist. It's that she is playing the same old dirty politics we keep saying we are tired of. Obama is a breath of fresh air.

Peace,
Brian

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 03/06/2008

As a strong liberal feminist, I can't beleive you would vote for an inexperienced man over an over qualified woman who is doing this country a favor by running.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 03/06/2008

What experience, get a grip. You are again one of the idiots that reads one liners without doing your homework. Go watch American Idol.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 PM on 03/06/2008

Exspelly Repairo!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 03/06/2008

I do know how to spell 'believe', - it must be the magic spell on this thread that makes the typos. Expelliarmose!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 PM on 03/06/2008

You're tired of partisanship, yet willing to engage in the kind of internecine warfare that demands Hillary step aside when neither candidate yet has a clear path to victory. You claim you are not a "Hillary Hater", but pretty much every reason you cite for Hillary to step aside is laced with venom. You use words like "whining", "spitting", "bickering", "hate mongering", and "stupid". You actually posit that an Obama/McCain campaign will somehow rise above partisanship because the character of these two MEN will magically transport the debate to a higher plane. This is naive in the extreme, and it also underscores a complete misunderstanding of the function of partisanship in a democracy.

Debate is a battle of ideas, of ideals, and of rooted and nascent interests - it's not always about bridging gaps, plugging holes, holding hands, and walking together into the great beyond. It's a fight, it's messy, it's dirty, and it's personal. LBJ muscled through Civil Rights legislation knowing full well that the South would be lost to Democrats for, as he presaged, two generations. It wasn't about consensus, it was about conviction. That's the quality that Obama lacks and Hillary possesses. The WILL to fight. Her campaign has proven that, her history demonstrates it, just as Obama's campaign illustrates the opposite.

He is not ready for the fight ahead, she is. It's that simple.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 AM on 03/06/2008

Too bad she wasn't ready for the fight in front of her - or she wouldn't have had to worry about Obama, at all.

I agree with you that debate is a battle of ideas and that's why, after Edwards dropped out, I decided on Obama. As a woman, I gave Hillary very serious consideration, (and often feel guilty about my lack of support) but, in the end, Obama is much more persuasive to me in both his ideas and his ideals than Clinton.

While I concede that Hillary Clinton is a fighter, I believe there are different styles of fighting and that some are more effective than others. In my opinion, the Clinton style has already proved a failure by progressive and ethical standards, e.g., Hillarycare, loss of a Democratic majority in '94, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Telecommunications Act of '96, welfare reform, the Lewinsky affair, etc. Obama's idea of COALITION (not consensus) building to fight the fight is different. I'm moved mostly by Obama's conviction that real change is only possible from the bottom up. The Civil Rights Act is a perfect example - since nobody in Washington, JFK, LBJ etc., would have done anything if not for the MOVEMENT that preceded it. Your inference that he paints a picture of 'holding hands and walking together...' is unfair, as Obama consistently says how hard it will be.

So, his ideas and ideals much better mesh with my own. Throw in the fact that I think, as a rule, he shows superior judgment (forget the Iraq vote - compare the two campaigns!) and his temperament is much more reassuring than either Clinton's or McCain's (a fact I think his campaign has yet to exploit effectively) I think he's the superior candidate, far and away.

Unlike most Obama supporters, though, I almost welcome the extended primary. It gives him a chance to show he's up to the task of being President - something he'll need in the general election against a much more experienced candidate than Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 03/06/2008

I love when I find comments to a post that far exceeds the context of what the author was conveying. Thanks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 PM on 03/06/2008

I appreciate your civil tone. It's far above Beth's blog entry.


I agree that the Civil Rights movement was pivotal in forcing the hands of reluctant politicians, though I would point out that it was the consummate insider LBJ, as opposed the eloquent JFK, who dramatically moved the ball forward. I'm not saying that LBJ was more important than MLK - Hillary wasn't either, if you'll recall back to January - but it took the ultimate gladhander/armtwister to do the right thing, despite the political cost. LBJ was right, and the Democrats have yet to gain back the South; but make no mistake, Civil Rights as a social movement would have moved very little were it not for LBJ's realization that the political risks were outweighed by a moral imperative.


I guess this is why we fall on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to these two candidates. I don't see the president as a mouthpiece for the plurality - I see them as being necessarily independent. Beholden to the electorate and subject to oversight, yes, but politically astute enough to realize that even losing battles are ones worth fighting for. You mention HillaryCare (a derisive term coined by the right-wing, I might remind you), which, absolutely, was a failure. Not entirely the fault of Hillary, though. Bill presumed, as most young, inexperienced national figures do, that a "mandate" had been inherited as a result of the 1992 election, so he waited to pull the trigger on universal health care for about 18 months. That was a tremendous mistake. Mandates require immediate action - they are fickle and vulnerable to a death of a thousand cuts. Hillary did learn from that mistake and succeeded, through guile, will, and consultation with Republicans, to guide SCHIP through a conservative Congress. No mean feat. The point being, again, that shrewd decisions require experienced insiders. There's no way around this fact. The "Greater Good" is not necessarily promoted by what everyone agrees on, but on compromise, blunt force, and trickery. Health care is a perfect example of this fact, which is why Hillary is heads above Obama on that count.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:18 PM on 03/06/2008

I appreciate your thoughts. But, once again, I disagree. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't 'pivotal' to the amendment- it was seminal. The bus boycott that Rosa Parks sparked in Montgomery, AL, was in 1954 - the amendment signed in 1964(65?) In between, much blood was spilled - while LBJ continued to support segregation from the House and then the senate. The social movement is clearly the antecedent to the amendment, not the other way around.

Also, your using LBJ is an argument that weakens greatly when you look at his entire presidency - one that was ultimately a tragic failure - setting the table for the "conservative" ascendency that followed. Arguably, one of the reasons that LBJ failed is because of his lack of communication skills in a new world of mass media. While he was reportedly unbelievably charming and persuasive in small groups and one on one (it was called "the treatment") he was not a good national candidate, and would probably never have been elected to that office, had it not been for the extraordinary circumstances that led to his presidency. (JFK and RFK loathed him- and vice versa - he might not have made it on a second term ticket.) The skills he brought to the office - that of a master legislator (Neither Hillary nor Barack could carry his signing pen!) - were much better suited to his previous post - the Senate Majority Leader, where he could exploit the Treatment to much greater effect. It was his Senatorial skills he used to pass the civil rights amendment - not presidential ones.

Executive skills are much different than legislative ones. Frankly, Hillary has exhibited very little of either, for my money. The experience that gives you confidence in Hillary Clinton doesn't comfort me - it gives me pause. I don't think she's up the tasks at hand BECAUSE of what I've seen, not in spite of it.

The way she has run her campaign only reinforces my misgivings about her skill set. It would be hard to persuade anyone that her campaign is a good argument for her management skills. She showed enormous lack of judgment in how she structured her campaign - as if it didn't include a Democratic Primary. In my opinion, she has run the whole thing as if it were still 1996. Obama has run his as if it's 2012 - showing much greater foresight and, yes, better judgment.

Obama's game plan plays into Howard Dean's 50 state strategy - which is the best strategy for the Democratic Party, in my opinion. We've ceded states to the Republicans for too long (since the Southern Strategy in 1968) - a tactic BOTH Clintons - and the rest of the DLC - embraces. I think it's part of the overall problem. Not to mention the fact that Clinton is beholden to much fewer donors that include lobbyists and PAC's, yet another part of the problem.

I've come to these conclusions not because I'm 'delusional' as Clinton and many of her supporters often suggest. On the contrary, I find I'm usually better informed about both Obama and Clinton than most of her supporters. It's because I've seen what I think Clinton is capable of - and I'm not impressed.

And, while I think Obama can withstand the latest attacks from Clinton, I find it reprehensible that she is willing to elevate McCain above Obama for her own benefit. It will make it very hard for her to argue that Obama supporters should put their feelings aside, if she becomes the candidate, for "the good of the party." But, once again, her judgment is short sighted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 03/06/2008

"It's a fight, it's messy, it's dirty, and it's personal."

So if she uses Karl Rove tactics to win, that's OK with you? No thanks. We've had 7 years now of gutter politics from the right. I am not interested in replacing that with gutter politics from the left.

She has to resort to negative campaigning because she has no positive message of her own. It's that simple.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 03/06/2008

Even if she were engaging in Rovian-style politics, which she isn't, I would STILL support her because I think she's the best candidate. If you honestly believe that either one of our candidates isn't going to be swiftboated by the Republicans in the general, and if you think that a message of peace, love, and understanding is going to pull independents and moderate conservatives into the fold, you're in for a rude awakening. While they might decry the tactics when asked by a pollster or tv personality, the truth is that there's a large segment of the population who like a prizefight, and who look to the fighter who lands the most EFFECTIVE punches. In a close race, as the general is bound to be, both fighters will be left standing, so it'll go to the judges (us), to determine who fought best.

If McCain has two standing eights and Obama three, Obama loses. This is why I think Obama WILL lose. Hillary has taken all the shots that anyone can take. She might stagger, but she won't fall. She might go Ali, occasionally Tyson, but always Rocky Marciano. Obama proved in Texas and Ohio that he has a glass jaw.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 03/06/2008

I am so embarrassed for all the dumb asses supporting HRC, especially here on this post. They would HATE her if she were a man doing all this shit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 03/06/2008

Uh, Obama had a glass jaw in Texas? Wasn't HRC ahead by around 20 points and win by 4, netting a whole 4 delegates? You have no clue. If you're ok with winning by lying, then you are one of them... scum.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 PM on 03/06/2008

I believe that an onjecitve, unbiased look at the campaign tactics of CLinton and Obama will reveal it is Obama who has relied more on the Rove playbook than Ms. Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 03/06/2008

"It is time for us to unite" but only if we're uniting with Obama.

"You got knocked down Hillary ... take it like a woman" and give up.

Thanks, but no thanks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 AM on 03/06/2008

She doesn't need to fight like a man any more than a man needs to be seen and not heard in this election. This blogger is just speaking like she's ready for another episode of Sabrina the Good (? )Witch, where she can cast a spell on words and alter the real facts from her imaginary spell of hocus pocus. The problem is, there ar e too many ingredience missing, and the pot won't boil.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 03/06/2008

Exceptional post! I agree wholeheartedly.

I would love to see the USA lead by a woman but not this woman. Her kitchen sink tactics are not new, its part of her life stratagem - "Win at any cost".

Among many other events, she lead the effort to camouflage Bill's bimbo eruptions bending public view to achieve political gain. When the team attained power, she vowed to "demonize" anyone who tried compromise HER Health Care program including her husband, POTUS.

When he spoke publicly about accepting 80%, he was castigated when he got back to the WH and later he rescinded his offer to consider less than 100% of the program as written. The effort failed in a large part because of Mrs. Clinton"s need for supreme control, "my way or the highway"

So my question is, how would she govern given this mindset? Does this attitude go away when she attains ultimate power or does she use similar tactics with Congress and world leaders?

Both Democratic candidates are similar in political views, but there the similarity ends. Aside from the obvious and vast differences in policy, Senators Obama and McCain are alike in fundamental ways.

They both are principled, confident leaders whose quest for the Presidency is based on public service and goals for the greater good. They both speak the truth as they see it, even when "inconvenient"

So, should Barack Obama fail to gain the Democratic nomination I will, for the first time in my life, vote Republican.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 03/06/2008

" Hillary did not lose because she is a woman." She did not lose, period.

If she does lose the nomination, it will be interesting to see the kind of love fest you speak of between Obama and McCain. Maybe McCain will just be so overwhelmed by Obama's message that he'll concede the race to Obama early on.

If these are your thoughts, I can see why Hillary's tactics seem harsh to you. You are very sensitive. But fortunately for you and the rest of us, women throughout history have not all been that sensitive. We've had a lot of fighters working on our behalf. That's how we got the right to vote and that's how we got out of the kitchen.

So you just go ahead and sit back and sigh in disbelief for the rest of this political season. Because as much as you dislike Hillary's tactics, that's really how "change" happens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 03/06/2008


BALONEY! That's how power is wrested from truth, judgement and vision.

What a lousy alternative.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 03/06/2008

"In actuality she fights like a girl in middle school... breaking down in tears, spreading stupid hateful gossip, claiming that she is being picked on by the boys and stamping her feet when things don't go her way."

That's a perfect description of how Hillary acts and shows the kind of President she would be. Will she whine when foreign leaders don't do as she asks? Will she whine when Republicans in Congress refuse to pass any legislation she's trying to push through? And the stuff about her being a fighter sounds like the kind of macho talk we would see from Bush. Some of us are sick of leaders trying to prove how tough they are. Part of why I've wanted to see a female President is because male leaders too often are consumed with looking strong. But Hillary has fallen into the same trap, trying to show that she's as strong and tough as the men. Part of why Obama appeals to so many is cause he acts like a grownup, one who's not concerned with looking like a tough guy. Wouldn't it be nice to have a leader who's not handicapped by their own ego.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 03/06/2008

She doesn't need top fight like a man any more than a man needs to be seen and not heard in this election. This blogger is just speaking like she's ready for another episode of Sabrina the Good (? )Witch, where she can cast a spell on words and alter the real facts from her imaginary spell of hocus pocus. The problem is, there ar e too many ingredience missing, and the pot won't boil.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 AM on 03/06/2008

She stoops to Conquer. So true, like Rule or Ruin. Great Post!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 AM on 03/06/2008

You go girl!

Nice to know in these crazy times that at least ha;f the women in this party can still see the forrest for the trees.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 03/06/2008

I'm afraid that the mud wrestling is what you're going to get in increasing amounts. As long as voters reward this kind of thing, and there's no doubt they do, any candidate who believes that the end justifies the means, and that's most of them, will happily roll in the mud.

If voters want to put an end to this sort of thing, then they need to stop voting based on fear and rumor and nasty innuendo and start voting based on policies or plans or ideals. While there are exceptions, you do tend to get the government you deserve and as long as enough votes can be swayed by mud wrestling, you don't deserve any better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 AM on 03/06/2008

This piece is spot-on. It articulates exactly what I have been thinking and writing for months. Brava!

For all the enraged feminists out there (as opposed to those who are more analytical, thoughtful and willing to examine the possibility of factors other than sexism to explain setbacks in their lives and careers, including the extent to which their own conduct may have contributed to those setbacks), ask yourselves whether the tactics that Clinton has employed have furthered our cause or damaged it. Does the path to smashing the glass ceiling lie in emulating the least attractive and often least successful tactics of the established power structure? Does it lie in trying to out-macho the sexists? Or does it lie in a different direction altogether, such as civilized consensus-building rather than fiat? Granting that the playing field is not even, is there anything about how Clinton has conducted herself that has played a role in her fall from "inevitability" to "maybe"? Is there anything about how her supporters have conducted themselves that played a role? Just asking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 AM on 03/06/2008

Great blog . . thank you for posting . . . with hillary it is most definitely how Low can she go . . . I agree with you hillary's campaign must be warming the cockles of rove's heart . . . hillary doesn't believe in change she supports the rigid status quo and is driven by ruthless ambition and the love of power . . . and so is bill . . . it is time they were shown the door . . . .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 AM on 03/06/2008

If Obama can't withstand these comparitively tame attacks from Hillary -- "He doesn't have enough experience" is vicious? Wait till you see what garbage the GOP dredges up! -- then he doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

Politics is an ugly game, and the Democrats' problem is that they don't recognize that until it's too late. Hillary is doing what she needs to do in order to win. Ob