VOTE SHEMALE 2008
30 March 2008
12 March 2008
presumptuous
From "Democrats in a Fight to Define 'Winner'," in today's New York Times (story by Patrick Healy):
"'Obama’s supporters are going to support whoever is leading our ticket,' [Harold] Ickes, [Senior Adviser to Senator Clinton,] said."
Um, think again.
"'Obama’s supporters are going to support whoever is leading our ticket,' [Harold] Ickes, [Senior Adviser to Senator Clinton,] said."
Um, think again.
05 March 2008
deliver us
Hillary Clinton won't die!
"Why can't Obama close the deal?" is bound to be a discussion topic in the next few days/weeks. This is a reasonable question with an obvious answer.
Despite extensive press coverage, Obama begins his campaign anew almost every time a new state or set of states is contested. Clinton enjoys the hugest name recognition advantage ever, which is one of the reasons, if not the reason, she polls well among less politically sophisticated populations (meaning people who are not political news consumers, tend to vote on one issue, or tend to vote solely on name recognition). One exception to this rule is union workers, whose loyalty to Democratic politicians with whom they are already familiar is infamous. Another exception to this rule is [white] women.
This is the most dismaying part of the Clinton coalition to me. If white women were consistently voting for Clinton by 20 point margins or greater, then fine, I'd chalk it up to 20th century identity politics. The Democrats have made that bed and now they have to lie in it. But, Clinton doesn't always win this group. Obama made huge inroads with them in the Potomac Primary on February 12, and won them by a Hillary-style margin in Wisconsin on February 19. Why did this switch back in Texas and Ohio? The sad answer is victim marketing. Clinton figured out the magic of New Hampshire, when her tearing up both humanized her and made a show of how she was being treated unfairly by the press and by her rivals (Matt Drudge's wrinkly pic and Obama's "You're likable enough" remark are two examples). She used similar tactics successfully this past week. The appeal is essentially: "the media is unfair to me because I'm a woman. I am making an appeal to all women to join together in the bonds of victimhood and show the men that that's not fair."
Welcome back to 1992 both politically (a Clinton) and culturally (feminism as victims' screed). Nothing demonstrates this pairing better than Gloria Steinem, the ghost of feminism past, appearing on the campaign trail with HRC in Texas last week. The message is that women don't deserve to be in positions of leadership because they are strong and capable, they deserve to be there because life's unfair. Hillary Clinton IS strong and capable, but questioning her and being tough on her (which she invites by 1) being a Clinton, 2) changing personality and message every 72 hours, and 3) grossly mismanaging her campaign) is not victimizing her as a woman. It's critiquing her as a public figure.
On the topic of media bias - I think it's curious how successful the Clinton campaign has been in convincing a press corps that is apparently so hostile to her to pick up her narrative and run with it so gleefully. Nearly every reporter who addresses media bias against Clinton concedes immediately that coverage of her has been harsher than coverage for Obama. But "Bias" itself has become a media headline, rather than something that is simply addressed by running more investigative or critical stories on Obama. That's not the Clinton campaign's goal in flagging this issue -- the goal is to be seen once more as the victim. Hillary has learned that only when sympathy for her is at its zenith does her incredible unpopularity become neutralized, as after the Lewinsky scandal (indeed, she has that BJ to thank for her entire political career).
"Why can't Obama close the deal?" is bound to be a discussion topic in the next few days/weeks. This is a reasonable question with an obvious answer.
Despite extensive press coverage, Obama begins his campaign anew almost every time a new state or set of states is contested. Clinton enjoys the hugest name recognition advantage ever, which is one of the reasons, if not the reason, she polls well among less politically sophisticated populations (meaning people who are not political news consumers, tend to vote on one issue, or tend to vote solely on name recognition). One exception to this rule is union workers, whose loyalty to Democratic politicians with whom they are already familiar is infamous. Another exception to this rule is [white] women.
This is the most dismaying part of the Clinton coalition to me. If white women were consistently voting for Clinton by 20 point margins or greater, then fine, I'd chalk it up to 20th century identity politics. The Democrats have made that bed and now they have to lie in it. But, Clinton doesn't always win this group. Obama made huge inroads with them in the Potomac Primary on February 12, and won them by a Hillary-style margin in Wisconsin on February 19. Why did this switch back in Texas and Ohio? The sad answer is victim marketing. Clinton figured out the magic of New Hampshire, when her tearing up both humanized her and made a show of how she was being treated unfairly by the press and by her rivals (Matt Drudge's wrinkly pic and Obama's "You're likable enough" remark are two examples). She used similar tactics successfully this past week. The appeal is essentially: "the media is unfair to me because I'm a woman. I am making an appeal to all women to join together in the bonds of victimhood and show the men that that's not fair."
Welcome back to 1992 both politically (a Clinton) and culturally (feminism as victims' screed). Nothing demonstrates this pairing better than Gloria Steinem, the ghost of feminism past, appearing on the campaign trail with HRC in Texas last week. The message is that women don't deserve to be in positions of leadership because they are strong and capable, they deserve to be there because life's unfair. Hillary Clinton IS strong and capable, but questioning her and being tough on her (which she invites by 1) being a Clinton, 2) changing personality and message every 72 hours, and 3) grossly mismanaging her campaign) is not victimizing her as a woman. It's critiquing her as a public figure.
On the topic of media bias - I think it's curious how successful the Clinton campaign has been in convincing a press corps that is apparently so hostile to her to pick up her narrative and run with it so gleefully. Nearly every reporter who addresses media bias against Clinton concedes immediately that coverage of her has been harsher than coverage for Obama. But "Bias" itself has become a media headline, rather than something that is simply addressed by running more investigative or critical stories on Obama. That's not the Clinton campaign's goal in flagging this issue -- the goal is to be seen once more as the victim. Hillary has learned that only when sympathy for her is at its zenith does her incredible unpopularity become neutralized, as after the Lewinsky scandal (indeed, she has that BJ to thank for her entire political career).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
