Clinton plays the female card

Clinton plays the female card

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton's campaign Monday made its most overt bid yet to highlight her historic potential as the possible first US woman president, suggesting female voters could vault her to victory.

The front-running Democrat kicked off a week of events highlighting her perceived appeal to women, as her campaign released a memo implying she could best exploit the "pivotal" voting bloc in 2008.

"Women are and will be a powerful force in American politics this presidential election," the memo said.

"They were the critical swing voters in the last three elections and they promise to again play a pivotal role in this one," Clinton's top strategist Mark Penn wrote in the memo.

Less than three months before first party nominating contests, the memo argued the New York Senator was trouncing her fellow Democrats and potential Republican rivals in the battle for the female vote.

<SNIP>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071015/ts_alt_afp/usvote2008clintonwomen_071015144925

her in the General, and I do like the idea of "the first woman President". The men haven't dons a very good job of things ya know!

She's not my first choice either but I agree with you.

I'm tired of the southern white male card.

support

She is a class act

to get rid of your "tiredness"

So what did you do to help Carol Mosely Braun? Hmmm?

Which is what slays me as I see these diaries and hear women gush about voting for the "first woman" President?

Where were they when Carol needed them?

Hmmm?

of years and years and years of the white male card, southern or otherwise?

Seems like your complaint was tailored made for supporting her.

her record wasn't as good as others in the race. I won't vote for a woman simply because of the nature of her chromosomes.

until she decides to run again? I am not following the logic here.

That's what I mean by not following the logic here.

that plus her husband was not the 42nd POTUS might have something to do with it.

and not made it. And when it comes to senators, even more so. And when it comes to senators who lost a reelection bid, the odds get even longer. So I think you are not being very thoughtful about this by ascribing it to "narrowmindedness" of the electorate.

I do not recall impassioned pleas on behalf of C.M. Braun

I'm sure she would have appeciated all the support HC is getting because some are tired of "white, male, old boy southern candidates"

But she didn't get it back then

Was it because her husband was not the past President of the US as well?

I wonder....

No...I don't have to wonder.

With that kind of logic no woman or any minority candidate would never get elected. That's what I mean. We have to start where we are - not make our judgements based on what may have happened in 2004.

"starting" with( what a slap to C.M. Braun and Margaret Chase Smith!) happens to be married to the 42nd POTUS

Has she really broken any glass ceilings then?

Except Flip Flopped on issues.

She was elected as Senator and reelected. She has built a national organization and garnered the support from financial backers to make a serious run for the nomination. Braun did none of that except get elected as Senator once and then get appointed as an ambassador as a political consolation prize after getting defeated in her reelection bid. She never built a national organization and raised serious money to support a presidential bid. You are making simplistic comparisons. It is a lot more complicated than all that.

We can only support a Black female failed Senate candidate? Anybody else isn't "real" enough? Any candidate with the resume and personal life experiences that might assist them in breaking the glass ceiling are disqualified?

One has to wonder... it seems the only candidates some can support are those that are sure to lose. Potential winners are automatically wrong. It's "rooting for the underdog" run amok.

Moseley-Braun voted for NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act (media consolidation), by the way.

At Wellesley, she was the first ever commencement speaker. When the guest speaker delivered a speech that supported the VietNam War she tore up her speech and instead, delivered an impromptu speech criticizing the war. For this she garnered national attention in the media

After graduating, she continued to break glass ceilings by

1) Getting on the board of the Legal Services Corp
2) Getting on the board of Wal-Mart
3) Being the 1st female partner in Arkansas most prestigious law firm
4) Working as a lawyer on the committee that was investigating Nixon

All of the above occurred before Bill became President

Not to get into a big pissing match, but CMB lost a Senate reelection race prior to her being named an ambassador, which suggests either an inept campaign structure or lack of support within her own home state. Or maybe both. There was that corruption cloud that was tossed at her, too. Additonally, she did not have the national "footprint" or name recognition that Senator Clinton had when she threw her hat into the ring. Thus, she didn't have the fundraising clout to start with.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, you cannot exchange one woman for another. They aren't spark plugs, they're people, and they don't have interchangeable political platforms, either.

Hmmmm...indeed.

just substitute one woman for another and call it even. Hmmmm...indeed.

all she had to do is look in the mirror. I noticed people will not answer me directly. It was because of her race. Not that she was not qualified. It is because people could not get pass their narrow mindedness. People always like to fake the funk as if they have moved pass race. It comes out in subtle ways.

Talk about a faux pas.

It wasn't because of her race.

Her campaign was underfunded, and frankly, uninspired. Her staff fucking SUCKED. No, that's not strong enough--they REALLY fucking SUCKED. Her announcement was so poorly planned, I've seen grade school assemblies with better production values. They were entirely unable to think on their feet, turn on a dime, and adapt to changing circumstances. I'll bet they spent the donations like drunken Sailors instead of economizing and doing the hard work for their candidate on the cheap, like 'true believers' do. I KNOW that woman didn't get value for her campaign dollar, and I hold her staff accountable for that. They didn't work very hard getting her venues to enhance her profile, and they could have, with just a little bit of smiling and dialing.

She also didn't have the political chops, having lost a senate race, and backers, because she had no overarching national presence, to make it work.

You DO realize that "politics" has something to do with how well people do in a race? So does networking. Organizational support plays a massive role. She had none, or very damned little.

I gave you reasons, and those, along with that corruption business DID suppress her support.

I answered you directly. What more do you want? Probably not much, because your mind is made up. The Victim Card is so easily played, when other factors really cannot be ignored.

narrow minded racism. You refuse to debate Braun's deficiencies as a candidate (campaign disorganization, no national organization, no financing, Senate reelection loss). HRC trumps her on all of those points. But it is because HRC is white and married to Bill Clinton. Right.

the fact that she is married to the 42nd POTUS

I know HC supporters do not like to hear this but it is striking how often when talking to a HC supporter you get " and she's married to Bill! W;'ll get him back too!"

Which to me diminishes the support for her because it is not just about her. And when you probe a little deeper they can't point to a single thing about her Senate record that they like. It's enough to them that she's a women and she's married to BC. I've asked about C.M.Braun and a blank look comes to their faces.

Odd, to me very odd.

support if (god forbid) Bill keeled over from a heart attack next month? Would all the "two-fer" support drop away? How much of her support is for her, and how much for an idealized vision of what once was?

want him not her.

thought they would get Bill Clinton also? That's just nuts.

she's really bright and competent. She really isn't that different in terms of her ability to handle power than any of the male candidates.

She just seems to scare more folks for that reason.

I really don't think folks would vote for her just because of BIll, as much as a lot of Dems would love to see him back in the WHite House.

Senate because she was married to Bill Clinton. That is what you are saying. So be it. You want to find racial and nepotistic reasons so you have found them. Beats thinking it through, I guess.

Get a grip. That's a political advantage, and you can be damned sure if CMB had a husband who could have helped her, she would have used him gladly. Eagerly. Early and often.

I've explained why CMB didn't do well in more than one post here. Reread them, and quit this bullshit 'blaming.' Your thought process is disturbed on this matter. You seem to be averring that because CMB didn't get the support you seem to feel she merited, despite piss poor organization, a shitty staff, missed opportunities, and NO BASE to start with, that HRC should take her ball and go home.

If you don't mean that, let me clue you in--that's the way you're coming across. And it's a "woo woo" argument, and by "woo woo" I don't mean in a good way.

Odd IS the word. And I don't mean that in a good way, either.

liability also.

Female AND black -- a twofer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm

:eyes:

And I don't know if you feel the same, but I find it tremendously insulting that any candidate, supporter, or pundit assumes that I will vote for someone on the basis of their gender....almost as insulting as the insinuation that if I DON'T vote for her, I'm either sexist, or dominated by my husband.

She's taking something that will be used against her, whether stated or not, and turning it around into a plus.

:shrug:

It pisses me off every election when I hear the pundits opine about how "so and so" will win the female vote because he is better looking that his opponent. It's maddening.

Second...I find the fauxrage drama much more insulting.

Get a grip and avoid the vapors :crazy:

Did you bother to read the article? That is EXACTLY what the Hilary camp (among others) is doing:

"The front-running Democrat kicked off a week of events highlighting her perceived appeal to women, as her campaign released a memo implying she could best exploit the "pivotal" voting bloc in 2008.

"Women are and will be a powerful force in American politics this presidential election," the memo said.


Women are ALWAYS a powerful force in EVERY election, not just this election because a female happens to be running. If I choose to support Hilary, or not support Hillary it will not be because she has played the "female" card.

My point was more about your ridiculous drama


It is a fact that Hillary will get plenty of female support.

You find that "tremendously insulting" I find it perfectly normal

Or are insults all you have? If you disagree with me then make an argument...if not then I welcome you to use the ignore option.
Oh, and it's spelled: Hyperventilating.

Why do you believe (and repeat, complete with bold font AND underlining) a reporter who says Clinton wants to "exploit" her gender? Hillary is not quoted as saying the word "exploit". It is the reporter who said that.

Is it that you believe reporters, or do you just believe it because it's about Hillary?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3719




"WOMEN ARE KEY:
Hillary is winning this race and her lead has been built on a strong base of women supporters. Women make up 54% of all voters and an even larger percentage of Democratic primary voters, making them a critical voting bloc that will help propel Hillary to victory in November 2008."



To me, that entire press release smacks of exploitation. Did they say the word exploit? Of course not, but it is certainly implied.

I don't blame her for trying to get every vote she can..hell she'd be a fool not to. But what I resent, is the implication that I'm supposed to vote for her because I'm female, or the implication that I WILL vote for her because she's female....as though I have no ability to examine a candidate for the issues that matter most to me. It pisses me off when it's assumed I will vote "Male candidate X" because he's "handsome". I don't like it when the pundits do it, I don't like it when campaign workers do it, and I don't like it when the candidates themselves do it. If you want my vote you gotta'earn it. It's not an award because you are a female, or your mother was from Mexico, or your dad was a coal-miner or any other bullshit reason.

favorable demographics, which is why Mudcat's out dredging for the "bubba" vote on behalf of John Edwards. (his words not mine)

First, you said it was insulting for Hillary to think/say/imply that women should vote for her because she is a women.

Then, when asked for evidence that Hillary said/thought/implied that women should vote for her based on gender, you quoted a reporter (not Hillary) saying that Hillary was going to "exploit" female voters. You even bolded and underlined the reporters word.

PLEASE NOTE: You quoted the reporter in order to bolster your claim that Hillary was exploiting.

Then, when I asked if you believe the reporter, you say yes because "To me, that entire press release smacks of exploitation"

IOW, you believe Hillary is exploiting because the reporter says so. And you believe the reporter is right because you agree with the reporter. You're right because the reporter agrees with you, and the reporter is right because you agree with the reporter.

And nowhere have you shown any evidence that Hillary herself has ever implied that women should vote for her becuase she is a woman

1. I gave you the link to the Hillary Clinton official website where the press release is posted.

2. I do happen to believe the reporter...because I went to the source (the above named link) read the press release (from her campaign) myself. I happen to agree that it is exploitive. I'm allowed to do that.

3. I have shown evidence that Hilary implies that women should vote for her because she's a woman, if you'll simply follow the link that I will now post for the second time. :
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3719

4. I did quote the reporter, and that was my mistake.I should not have done that..as I did not need to. Hilary has made it pretty clear herself that she will be exploiting the female vote. (Here's that pesky link again):
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3719

On edit: When you click on that link...scroll to the very bottom of the page. You'll see quite plainly "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President "

I don't know why you think that's exploiting anything. She's laid out where she stands on the issues that might appeal to women, and sites some stats about her current support with this group.

I'm not criticizing her "zoning in" on women..I am taking issue with the assumption that she has the female vote locked up by virtue of the fact she is a woman. THAT is the implication that I got from her website. I take issue with the pundits that insinuate that because I am a woman I will automatically support her, and I take issue with the people on this board that insinuate that if I don't support her I am sexist or repressed or some knuckle-dragging mouth breather.
In fact..the issues they chose to highlight in that press release (with the exception of healthcare) are not the most important issues to me (and many women I know) in this election cycle.
I don't speak for all women, and they certainly don't all speak for me.

on the "female" vote, but I back away from arguing about personal opinions. Everybody's got one, and they're usually too hard to change.

HRC supports that benefit women. I think that may have something to do with her support from women

2) You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. You said that Hillary implied that women should vote for her because she is a woman. Hillary never implied any such thing

3) From the press release YOU link to:

"ADDRESSING ISSUES WOMEN CARE ABOUT:
Hillary has a 35-year record of fighting on behalf of issues important to women and families, including:

Health Care: In September, Hillary announced her American Health Choices Plan, which will provide quality, affordable health care for all – including the 21.5 million women (14 percent of women) and 8.7 million children without insurance.
Retirement Security: Last week, Hillary announced her American Retirement Accounts Plan, which would provide universal access to a 401(k)-type retirement savings account, including up to $1,000 in matching tax cuts for lower and middle-income families.
Economic Opportunity: Today, despite the progress women have made, they earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn -- and women of color earn even less. Hillary is leading the charge in the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen equal pay laws and end pay disparities between men and women.
Balancing Work & Family: This week, Hilary will announce a new plan to help families juggling multiple responsibilities at work and home. She has long been an advocate for increased child care and work-family leave policies that protect women’s jobs and enable them the flexibility to spend time with their children. Her plan will build upon the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that she championed as First Lady and also improve access to and quality of child care.
Choice: Hillary is committed to upholding the rights guaranteed in Roe v. Wade, and to reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Her fight with the Bush Administration ensured that Plan B, the morning-after pill, will be available over-the-counter to millions of American women. "

Hillary implies that women should support her, not because she is a woman, but because her policies are good for women. Nothing in that press release supports your claim that Hillary made such an implication. The only support for that ridiculous claim is the opinion of a reporter

4) Of course it is a mistake to rely on a reporter's characterization. They have proven themselves untrustworthy

re: your edit point - At the end of the page, a see a list of Clinton policies that are good for women. I don't suppose that has anything to do with her appeal amongst women voters.

is not going to capitolize on the female vote? Seriously?
The underlying implication is that women should support Hillary...why? Not because of her record, but because she is female.Other candidates have just as good a track history on "women's issues" as she does...but they aren't holding separate rallies and press releases.

And I believe the reporter's characterization is dead on.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

and she never implied that women should vote for her because she is a woman - two claims you made that you now seem to be backing off.

Every candidate is going to try and capitalize on every demographic. None of the candidates are going to allow their competitors to capture a demographic without a fight.

"The underlying implication is that women should support Hillary...why? "

Why don't you read the press release that YOU linked to? Right there, near the bottom, is a list of policies that HRC supports that are good for women.

"Other candidates have just as good a track history on "women's issues" as she does"

No they don't. None of the other candidates have a record of fighting for women's issues as long and accomplished as HIllary's

"but they aren't holding separate rallies and press releases."

Nor are they winning as many votes from women, as Hillary is doing. Maybe they should consider putting out some press releases

"That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it."

Yes, because obstinancy in the face of facts has worked so well for this country

What I find insulting is the assumption of who I will vote for because I fit some demographic. Yes, Hillary will get plenty of female support. SO will Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich.
She doesn't have the female vote locked up because she is a woman.

This is no different from Obama reaching out to black voters. Is that also unacceptable? Appealing to the idea that he would be the first black president?

The fact that women have been shut out of the corridors of power for virtually our entire history is entirely relevant...and there is no doubt that a Hillary Presidency represents a fundamental step in the right direction on that score...that fact that she is a woman reaching that height of power is relevant enough, but her life long fight for women's rights only adds to her appeal on this issue...

She did a great job.

Have they had others on the show, or do they plan to? It's a good format for any candidate.

Joy was on Bill Maher and said many of democrats have already been on. She called the republican's pussies for not coming on The View.

his most recent scheduled appearance a couple of weeks ago

There was a poll out that say that Obama had the advantage with more educated women.

most women I talk with are all for Hillary.

I do a lot of interaction/volunteering with old folk. The 65+ women who were initially opposed to her are changing their minds in massive numbers, I've noticed. It's surprising, actually. Some of the ladies I have dealt with sounded a lot like the vitriolic folk here, and in the last month or so, they've done a complete one eighty. Not sure why, but something's happening. They're really (genuinely) warming to her.

FWIW, for full disclosure, I am still an undecided voter, not an acolyte.

Also, I can post one where Hispanics have said they will be the deciding factor. Must I go on. There was someone over the weekend talking about White men and this Election and they will be the deciding factor. Hello Duh.

If you don't want to discuss these issues civilly, why do you even bother? Just say you aren't enthralled, your mileage varies, and move on. Don't say what you COULD do, and then not DO it. You either have facts in support of your assertions, or you don't.

Unless it's actually 'the argument' that delights you, regardless of the subject. I don't play that game. Life is too short.

More grist from the same mill:

Clinton's current lead in the polls, both in the Democratic primary and in a hypothetical general election contest, is thanks in large part to women. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Clinton leading in the Democratic primary with 57 percent of female voters compared with 15 percent for Senator Barack Obama, and 13 percent for John Edwards.

But if what you are trying to say is that it's too soon to tell, sure. That's the truth. You're the only one that throws that down as a retort of any kind.

Does that mean we should curtail discussion of possibilities and trends?

Sorry, just because you might want that, it's not gonna happen.

Trends are worthy of discussion, and this is a discussion board.

You cannot say that about anyone else in the dem race.

Political analyst have all agreed the general election polls does not mount to anything. It all depends on Iowa, NH and SC. They do not even include the indys in those polls. The indys will be the deciding factor in NH.

Assuming that because we're women she's our candidate is the same as thinking we vote for a man based on his sex appeal. Wrongheaded and simplistic reasoning on the part of the campaign.

He has stated vote even if you do not choose to vote for me.

and she wasn't any more explicit in trying to target women than Obama was in targeting the AA vote:

“Barack Obama's campaign is targeting with a series of ads that started yesterday and will air on 36 black and gospel radio stations in the state. The 60-second spot, called "It's Time," features an announcer uttering that phrase and then includes statements from Obama's speeches in which he makes explicit racial references, such as "we have more work to do when the black incidences of HIV/Aids & diabetes and every other illness is multiple times higher than the rest of the population" and "we have more work to do when more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/25/obama_courts_black_vote_in_sc.html

community. He is addressing issues in the AA community. More candidates need to address the same issues. Show me where he states vote for me because I am Black. So far you have not.

Clinton plays the female card

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton's campaign Monday made its most overt bid yet to highlight her historic potential as the possible first US woman president, suggesting female voters could vault her to victory.

because I'm a woman.

"As Hillary says, she is not running as a woman candidate -- the only reason to vote for her is that you believe she is the most qualified to be president," Penn's memo said."

Hillary Clinton has never said "vote for me because I'm a woman."

and I'll say it again. She's not trying to exploit the "female" card any more than Obama's trying to exploit the AA card.

Obama Uses Radio to Court Black Vote in S.C.

“Barack Obama's campaign is targeting with a series of ads that started yesterday and will air on 36 black and gospel radio stations in the state.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/25/obama_courts_black_vote_in_sc.html

what issues are she addressing?

She's exploiting demographics in this ad, which is the same thing Obama did in targeting the radio stations he chose.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3719

Women Changing America
This week, the Clinton campaign will focus on Women Changing America. During the week, the campaign will highlight the decisive role women can play in this election, discuss issues important to women, and celebrate the ways that women are changing America in their communities everyday.

WOMEN ARE KEY:
Hillary is winning this race and her lead has been built on a strong base of women supporters. Women make up 54% of all voters and an even larger percentage of Democratic primary voters, making them a critical voting bloc that will help propel Hillary to victory in November 2008.



AND JUST FOR BALANCE (contrast, comparison, whatever):

On Obama's website:

http://africanamericans.barackobama.com/page/content/afamhome

That is the link to the "African Americans for Obama" part of his campaign website.

which is what every politician in this race is doing and will continue to do.

(and I'm surprised that I have to bring up this pretty obvious political strategy 3 times on a political message board)

:-)

I support both Obama and Clinton, and I think this inter-squabbling (yes I just made that up) needs to stop!

can i watch this thread turn into another flame war?
Please?????

:popcorn:

Shrewd move, indeed...

:rofl:

:rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

How does an AFP article stating the obvious (that Hillary is trying to attract women - Duh, is that really a surprise) become a flamewar?

What next? Will people react to a thread saying Edwards is married with 3 kids? That Obama was born in the 60s?

Sorry, but I am neither thrilled nor shocked. If this is what people consider news, may be it is time to find new sources.

:popcorn:

who will respond that they don't hate Hillary, they just hate her policies.

As if appealing to women voters was a policy, and not merely a campaign tactic

It is the silliness of this campaign, not the character of Hillary's haters.

and they support a wide range of candidates, but take a look at this thread and see which posters are getting their panties in a wad because a candidate is using their demographic attributes to appeal to voters in the same demographic group.

EVERY CANDIDATE does that. But it's wrong when Hillary does it. Go through this thread and see who the critics support.

...