I can stay silent no longer!

Over the past few weeks, in conversations with various people in person, on the phone, and online, I’ve noticed something…strange.  So strange, in fact, that I’ve kept it to myself because I was just so surprised by it.  I think it’s actually part of the reason why I reacted so vehemently towards the Tina Fey bit on Saturday Night Live last week.

It seems that any criticism leveled against Hillary Clinton boils down to the fact that she’s a woman.

 I’m as stunned by that as you are, but in the last few weeks I have been on the receiving end of endless deflections based solely on Hillary Clinton’s gender.  It’s fairly nuanced, too.  If the criticism seems small, then I’m the offensive party, as I’m only making that criticism because she’s a woman.  If the criticism is larger, her actions are condoned because she has to act that way to get ahead because (all together now) she’s a woman.

I have — multiple times now — freely admitted that Hillary Clinton has had to behave in certain ways because she’s a woman fighting for equality and a tradionally male playing field.  But I am baffled by this idea that she’s no responsible for her own actions because of this, or that people aren’t allowed to dislike her because of who she is.

It’s a bulletproof argument, too, which makes it all the more frustrating.  How do you argue with “you just think that because she’s a woman.”  The natural response is “no, I don’t” or “that’s not true” but how do you prove it?  You really can’t.

By the same token, it’s impossible to argue that the our society doesn’t put women down.  It’s a idiotic argument to even try to make given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  For that matter, Hillary is treading in unknown territory, so we have nothing to compare her campaign with.  People can claim she’s being treated a certain way because she’s a woman, but there’s no way to make a comparison otherwise.  The only support we have is the way women have been treated in this country since its inception.

I mean, I have female friends (and relatives) that dislike Hillary Clinton and even THEIR criticisms are being dismissed as gender based.

This morning the Clinton campaign said that they were considering legal action against the state of Texas for their rather strange election process (a primary during the day for a certain number of delegates followed by a caucus that night for the rest, which ostensibly allows certain people to vote twice).  This process has been in place for years.  The primaries have been going on for months.  No one said a word about it until now.  Coincidentally, the most recent polls in Texas have Obama up by as many as six points.

Combine this new threat with Clinton’s desire to count the votes in Michigan and Florida (which were both negated before the primaries and which she never mentioned at the start) and the mathematical fact that Clinton can’t win the nomination through any means other than superdelegate vote and you have a litany of actions that point to Hillary’s desire to be the nominee no matter what the cost.  You have a list of moves that take advantage of the system and, with the superdelegate vote, a disregard to the will of the American people.

These are not the actions of someone who would change the political process in Washington, but the actions of someone who thrives on the system as it is.

It’s understandable, then, that people would dislike her on this point.

I’ve listed three factual incidents that underscore what many see as Hillary Clinton’s disregard for anything other than her own advancement.  These are three factual incidents that point to a disregard for unity in the Democratic party, not to mention a disregard for the will of the people.

And yet it’s nearly impossible to suggest that those are legitimate concerns because someone somewhere will say that she has to do these things because she’s a woman.  And that’s that.

I’m beginning to wonder if it’s really the Obama people who are drinking the Kool-Aid…

Applicable side thoughts:

The media absolutely positively has a bias in favor of Obama.  Anyone who says any differently is just not paying attention.

And why wouldn’t they?  Our media deals in stories and Obama is clearly the better story.  He came out of practically no where, has no connections to any established politicians, and has a crazy name.  Obama winning the nomination to face McCain is a much better story than Hillary winning.  For that matter, Obama becoming president is a much better story than anyone else.  So of course the media has a bias towards him; they want him to win.

That, however, is the name of the game, and the idea that this was shocking to anyone, let alone the Clinton campaign, is another example of how near sighted certain people have been.  Then again, I suppose if you assumed the race would be over by February 5th, it makes perfect sense that you’d be so surprised.

Like a cucumber

The most unfortunate aspect of the last debates for Hillary Clinton is that her most talked moments aren’t good ones.  Even worse, they’re clearly the ones that were written in advance, and both got groans from the audience.

In Texas it was “change you can photocopy.”  In Ohio, it was “should we get Barrack a pillow.”

What was even worse in Ohio is that it came early in the debate and seemed to paint her into a corner.  She was never able to come up with another sound bit that would top that one.

Obama, on the flipside, was unflappable.  No matter what charge was leveled against him, he rolled with the punch and turned it back around.  He never got flustered.  To quote Pat freaking Buchanan (Pat Buchanan, for god’s sake!): “He looked Presidential.”

And making Obama “look Presidential” had to be the absolute last thing that Hillary wanted to do.

It’s impossible to claim anyone other than Barrack Obama as the winner last night because even if you think that Hillary did a better job, she failed to make any strides.  Even worse, today another Senator endorsed Obama and another superdelegate flipped on Hillary.

The next six days should prove interesting.  The big concern among Democrats has got to be Hillary winning by a slim margin.  Mathematically speaking, she needs to win big in both states to stay competitive.  If she fails to do that, there’s no way she can win the nomination without a big chunk of superdelegates.  But if she wins by a slim margin she can argue that she still won and that she will stay in the race because of that, ignoring the fact that she will basically be dragging out a fight that she can only win through back room deals.

I find it absolutely impossible to comprehend that mindset.  Using the superdelegates to determine the Democratic candidate only undermines any promises of changing the politics in Washington that the Democrats might make.  How much water will they hold when their own nominee is chosen against the will of the people?  And how long will it take the Republicans to jump all over that fact?

The best thing that can happen for all parties is for Obama to win both states on Tuesday and to win them handily.  Because this whole thing could get real ugly real quick if he doesn’t.

The Great Debate III: Round on the side, high in the middle

The National Review says Obama’s a dirty liberal.  That’s not much of a question.

Hillary gets a Putin question which she should do well on, although I think most everyone knows Putin has a severe mad on for her that I’m pretty sure is mutual.

Obama gets a chance to comment and, ostensibly, show off some international savvy.

And time for our hypothetical.  Evidently, Russia is joining with Serbia to reclaim Kosovo.

I wonder why Obama got the hypothetical question and Hillary didn’t?  I would be a bit pieeved about that if I were Hillary.

Wow, closing comments time and Hillary goes to the Iraq vote.  That’s as close to an apology as we’ve ever seen from her, I think.  She rolls right into foreign affairs, clearly something she feels she’s stronger on than Obama as she obviously has more experience.

Obama brings out Terry Schiavo which is pretty bold of him.  That’s a contentious issue to bring up, but he’s clearly trying to make the point that, even though he’s a liberal, he won’t be pushing for a government that looks over your shoulder.

And now he’s rolling into his closing comments — I don’t think Hillary’s going to get any.

Oh, surprise surprise, Brian Williams pulls out a closing comment section.  “Why is the other person deserving of being the nominee?”  Interesting choice of final question.

Obama jogs around for a bit, but eventually lands on the fact that he can bring people together to make change happen in ways that Hillary can’t.

I would imagine she’ll go to experience on this one…and there she goes.  Again, both hitting the gist of their campaigns.

I find it interesting that Hillary gets the final say again this week, although I suppose that’s to make up for the fact that she always has to open (as she pointed out).

Summary thoughts tomorrow, I think.

The Great Debate II: Cleveland Rocks

Actually, Cleveland has been incredibly tame compared to Austin.

Hillary gets a tedious question and seems to stumble on it.  I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone openly challenge the tax returns issue and the more she talked about it the shadier it seemed.  I honestly didn’t think much of it until now.

Now Obama is stumbling.  A simple “I reject his support” about Farrakhan would have been the best route there and Russert is clearly jumping on his weak turn here, as well he should.  It seems like he’s getting his footing back now, though, speaking about a return to a Jewish/black coalition.

Hillary jumps in to give her opinion.  I would expect her to take more of a hardline on Farrakhan, but I’m not sure why she’s giving her side, unless she’s going to call out Obama on being somewhat wishy-washy.  It would be a good point for her to make, honestly, to challenge the fact that Obama didn’t just flat out reject Farrahkhan’s support…and she just did, but I don’t know if it landed…

 …and Obama just spun it in his favor, doing as she said and saying that he both denounces AND rejects Farrakhan’s support.

More coming after this commercial break.

The Great Debate Part I: Battleground State

If the Clinton campaign needed a clear moment to point to media bias, they just got it.  Supposedly Brian Williams was going to ask Obama a question that would be introduced by video.  Instead of the video he supposedly wanted, we got a clip of Hillary making fun of Obama’s speeches.  It was a fairly easy set-up for Obama to knock out of the park.  He tried to be gracious about it, but it was impossible to ignore.

They appear to be trying to make up for that with the original video, which puts Obama on the spot about calling out Hillary on taking credit for what Bill did well, but distancing herself from what he did poorly.

Still, that accidental first clip was pretty awful.  I can’t imagine why they had it cued and while I favor Obama, he should have to answer for something similar, although I don’t know that he’s mocked her so overtly in any of his speeches.

And now Obama is referring back to that clip again.  They really did set him up.  He’s smart enough to take adantage of it without being a jerk, but still.

Tim Russert just asked a question that’s been answered dozens of time.  I can’t believe he’s even asking this, although I suppose he needs to clarify for those who don’t follow things like I do.

For the record, Obama never said he’d using only public financing in a general election.  He said (wrote down, even) that he’d work with the Republican nominee to come to an agreement that involves public financing.

More in half an hour, I’m sure…

Heady

I’m beginning to get a little concerned about the Obama campaign.  I’m beginning to think that they’re starting to realize that they’ve managed to beat Hillary’s team on a regular basis and they’re pushing the envelope a bit too far because of it.

Case in point, the picture of Obama in Somali garb.

According to the fine folks at the Drudge report (undeserving of a link — that site, not the picture, you can find that on Politico’s main page), it was sent to them by someone in the Hillary camp.  Obama’s team is running with that, claiming this is another attempt to paint Obama as a divisive figure with ties to Muslim states.

And that’s about the most ridiculous thing they could have said.

Let’s break down the Obama campaign’s response to the picture.

First, they side with the Drudge Report on the source of the picture, even though there’s no proof of it.  That is NEVER a good move.

Second, they are implying that there is something inherently wrong with wearing traditional Somali garb.  Yes, the majority of Somalians are Sunni Muslims, but isn’t this the campaign that’s fighting against fearmongering and blind hatred?  Isn’t this supposed to be the campaign that’s above that kind of petty behavior?

Third, this makes the Clinton campaign’s argument for them.  Their hard line these last few weeks is that Obama is all talk and no walk.  So now we have a picture of Obama in Somali clothing and they’re acting like someone just unearthed a time stamped picture of Barrack doing lines off a hooker’s ass right after last week’s debate.  You can’t run on a ticket of hope and freak out at something so clearly benign.

Yes, I know that the media could have run crazy with such a picture.  But given the amount of good standing Obama has in the primaries, a simple explanation that he was visiting Somali and donned the tradional garb as a sign of respect would have been enough.

To mangle the bard, me thinks he doth protest too much.

What’s most disconcerting about this is that it doesn’t bode well for the general election.  The Republicans will dig up things far more divisive than African clothing.

Then again, I heard Obama won’t even say the Pledge of Allegiance, so I don’t think I’ll vote for him, anyway.

SNL

The main appeal, to me, in watching the Oscars tonight is that Jon Stewart is hosting it during an election year.  Stewart, aside from Steven Colbert, is one of the few people doing good political comedy these days.

Which brings me to Saturday Night Live.

SNL opened the show last night with a skit that attacked the fact that the media has a bias towards Obama, which I think is a legitimate point to go after.  The problem is that they set the skit during the latest debate in Texas, arguably the least biased televised debate we’ve seen.  In the previous CNN debate, Wolf Blitzer went Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton at one point.  That was a moment rife with comedic potential and that deserved such attention.  Yet, as is often the case with SNL these days, they dropped the ball and tried to force a joke where it was least welcome.

That, however, was nothing compared to what would come at the end of “Weekend Update.”  And unfortunately for SNL and Tina Fey, it pointed to a fundamental misunderstanding of Hilalry supporters.

In the bit, Tina Fey returns to “Weekend Update” to do a segment called “Women’s News.”  After a few pop culture stories, she delves into why it is that people don’t like Hillary.  From what I can remember, she mentions the Rush Limbaugh (always a source of valid commentary, of course) criticism that America doesn’t want to see their president turn into an old woman, which she follows with a joke about Reagan.  She mentions that people don’t think she’ll be able to control Bill and that the office will be a co-presidency, which she explains wouldn’t be a bad thing, having two qualified people in office.  And she mentions that people think Hillary is a “bitch” (her word, not mine), which she claims is actually a good thing, because, to paraprhase, bitches get things done.

The problem with this bit is that these are, in fact, not the reasons why people dislike Hillary.

The “bitch” tag has nothing to do with whether or not she gets things done, it’s HOW she gets them done.  From staying with Bill to moving to New York so she could be a senator, many people see Hillary as conniving and opportunistic.  Her campaign has only served to amplify those feelings.  As the article I linked to the other day pointed out, steps like introducing race to the campaign (and they can claim it was the media all they want, but Bill’s comments about Jesse Jackson were unprovoked and, in context, completely random) indicate that the Clintons will do whatever it takes to win, no matter who gets in their way.

As Jonathan Alter from Newsweek said recently on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” the Clintons believe that what works is what’s right, as opposed to, in his example, the Kennedy’s, who believe that what’s right works.

The “bitch” tag also comes from hypocracy.  It’s hard to believe that Hillary will change the way things are done in Washington when she’s taken more money from lobbyists than anyone else in the primaries (and that’s including the dozen or so people who have dropped out).  It’s hard to believe she’ll take a hard line against insurance companies in the fight for universal health care when she takes more money from the healthcare industry lobbyists than anyone else in Congress.  It’s hard to take her seriously when one days she’s arguing for a positive campaign then the next she’s going after Obama on, of all things, plagarism.

And the “bitch” tag also comes from her smugness, her seeming sense of entitlement, like claiming in December that the nomination would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

All of these things work to make her an extremely divisive figure, particularly for conservatives.  The idea that she can win over anyone on the right in a general election seems at odds with reality and is clearly at odds with recent polls that have her either tied or losing to McCain.

I’m applying all these things to the public in general.  If there’s any specific reason I personally would give for disliking Hillary, it’s her inability to motivate the disenfranchised.  I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the simple act of getting Americans to vote is revolutionary and the importance of that can never, ever be overstated.  It’s just huge.

So there you go, Tina Fey, SNL, and Hillary supporters, a few actual reasons why people dislike Hillary Clinton.  I would recommend taking that information and running with it, but at this point I think it might be too late.

Dirty Pool

Shockingly enough, I’m going to open a blog entitled “Dirty Pool” with a charge against the Obama campaign.  See?  At least some percentage of my blood has not yet turned to Kool-Aid.

As brought to everyone’s attention by Hillary herself, the Obama campaign currently has to mailings going around in Ohio (the extent of their coverage, however, is debatable, as very few people at the speech she was giving even knew what she was talking about).  The first claims that her health care plan forces people who can’t afford it to buy it — which is true, although she claimed otherwise today in Ohio.

It’s the second mailer that’s questionable.  It says that Hillary believed NAFTA would be a “boon.”  The quote is the issue.  Because the quote doesn’t come from Hillary, but from a Newsday article that ostensibly puts those words in Clinton’s mouth.  While it really is a quote, there’s no source given, so the implication is that it came from Hillary.

The problem for the Clinton campaign (and I’m sticking with that, as I truly believe Hillary has been done a great disservice by the people running her campaign) is that there’s no way she can argue political tactics and expect to come out on the shiny side.  In fact, Obama’s people released a statement going so far as to egg her on in that direction.  Honestly, it seems to me that Obama’s people pieced together the fact that they could produce half-truths against Hillary and get away with it, because any cry of “foul” from her would come across as hypocracy.

Even worse for Hillary, the issue at hand is NAFTA, which plays right into Obama’s hands.  Even if she were to argue that she was against NAFTA in some capacity, Obama could ask for proof of that and could also return to a key a point: Hillary will take credit for Bill’s successes but will claim to have had no part in his failures.  Which, again, leads us to the hypocracy issue.

As bad as lying on a mailer might sound, I think this is another case of the Obama camp out manuevering the Clinton camp.  I’m not fond of their tactic, but I can’t fault their strategic thinking.

Austin Debate II

I actually ended up seeing all of the debate, although I didn’t have time to comment on it last night.

Clearly, Clinton had the moment of the positive moment of the night at the end.  It was a truly fantastic statement, although the extent of which she was bolstering herself is debatable.  In fact, neither candidate actually answered the final question.

On the flipside, however, Clinton also had the negative moment of the night.  If getting a standing ovation is the peak of a debate, having the crowd boo you has to be the valley.  While the Clinton campaign has been claiming that the media was running with the plagarism story, it became very clear last night that wasn’t the case.  It was obvious that the Clinton campaign had been stoking those fires, and that really backfired on them because no one cares.  Even worse for Hillary, the one big soundbite that came out of the debate was the “Change we can Xerox” line that got her boo’s.

Had it not been for her ending comments, I would have given the debate to Obama.  He was able to give greater detail into his plans and managed to belittle the Clinton campaign’s attacks, all while remaining extremely calm.  He rattled off a streak of counter attacks, too, without sounding defensive or aggressive.  His comments about the Clinton campaign painting his supporters as “delusional” and that the plagarism attack was “silly politics” really landed.  With that ending, though, I’d call it — yet again — a draw.

And how about that ending?  As many have pointed out, it seemed like an attempt by Hillary to reconcile with Obama, perhaps in an effort to position herself for a vice-presidential role.  I don’t think it was her concede defeat so much as setting up the remainder of her campaign.  The fact remains that she’s going to have to continue to attack Obama in commercials and in speeches but she can’t afford to cross the line where people dislike her for being so aggressive.  I think that her closing comments last night were an effort to soften that coming blow.

Again, this points to the problems her campaign has had from the start.  It appears they’re of two minds.  On one hand they want to be a positive campaign that’s winning on their merits, on the other hand they want to go after their oppenents as aggressively as possible.  I don’t think they’ve had any idea what to do because I don’t think they thought they’d have to run a real campaign.  Hell, in December Hillary claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s any way Hillary gets chosen for a VP spot if Obama wins, not because of the primary but because she would bring nothing to the ticket.  My guess is Jim Webb, but more on that in a later column.

Austin Debate

I’m not going to see the whole thing since it’s my lady friend’s birthday, but after the first half an hour it appears that Obama’s game plan is to polite Clinton to death.

It’s a pretty smart strategy, actually, as most talking heads believe Clinton has to go harsh on Obama if she’s to make any headway.  It’s hard to attack someone who responds with a smile and a calm voice.

If it works, it’s another example of Obama’s campaign (and while he deserves credit as well, I’m specifically citing his campaign team here) outflanking Hillary’s.

 We’ll see.