Comments on: Clinton’s toughness

By: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » “Clinton’s Toughness”

Fri, 16 May 2008 18:30:32 +0000

[...] That’s the title of a recent post by Historiann. Not a post to read if you are burned out on politics, or if you think Clinton is the Antichrist. It doesn’t do any Obama bashing, FWIW. [...]

By: GeekLove08

GeekLove08 — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:07:09 +0000

I helped create the “Mad is Hell”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM
video along with IndyRobin.

I created a NEW VIDEO: “We’ve Come a Long Way, Baby!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke64670GkZ8

It’s about Obama’s silence on sexism against Hillary Clinton and his own sexist remarks.

If you approve of the video, I’d appreciate your help in spreading the video by creating a post on the video and ask that you and your readers go to youtube to RATE, COMMENT & mark FAVORITE the video.

Thanks.

By: David

David — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:42:00 +0000

Honestly, Historiann, as long as you keep deleting my comments, I’d like to know how what I put in my first comment on this thread was so deeply offensive. I certainly did not come here to “gloat” about anything, or to be a “sore winner.” Clinton’s “toughness” is clearly a double-edged sword; it makes people like and hate her. As for the gender angle of it, who was the last presidential nominee who was as tough as Clinton, in the way Clinton is, or rather has portrayed herself to be during this campaign? She tends to wear her toughness on her sleeve, in a way that her husband didn’t. By toughness, I mean the ability to convey the message that you will never back down from a political fight, no matter what. That’s Clinton’s toughness. To me it betrays an overcompensation of some sort, perhaps because she wants to appear manly, and thus, presidential. If so, I think she misjudged the voters. During this campaign she always appealed to me the most when she was more calm, more measured, more “feminine,” if that’s the word we have to use. But then, that’s also what appealed to me about Obama.

On the other hand, a lot of this is just overanalysis. She would be the nominee now if she had just ditched Mark Penn from the get-go and prepared for the campaign to extend beyond Super Tuesday.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 13 May 2008 00:11:25 +0000

Fair enough–although I would argue that it’s evidence of gender bias that we can give Obama credit for being “feminine,” but Clinton taking on masculine qualities is percieved by most people as a bad thing. I guess a girl can’t win!

By: Laurie9

Laurie9 — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:51:11 +0000

You know, upon further reflection, I think what I meant was that he seems more “feminine” to me than she does– and I really do mean that as the highest compliment! I think Hilary has acted in ways to broadcast to the world how “macho” she can be, if necessary (obliterate Iran, e.g.). I realize that it’s political, that she may feel she has to overreact, and that it may be an act– but even if it is, I cannot feel good about a female candidate who cannot show her best side. It’s a sick country we live in, where the male candidate comes across as more compassionate, and less a part of the “old boys club”. Obama resonates with me, and Hilary does not. I do not think Hilary is a monster at all– but I also do not think her projected presidency is what America needs in 2008.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:57:43 +0000

Hi Laurie–thanks for stopping by to comment. As I have said ad nauseum here, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to prefer Obama to Clinton. I’m just tired of Obama supporters who are apparently unable to refrain from complaining about what a horrible, disgusting monster Clinton is.

How is Obama more feminist than Clinton? I’m interested to understand your thinking.

By: Laurie9

Laurie9 — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:29:40 +0000

I read your blog via RSS, so I don’t often come to the site to comment. I am a 52 year old woman, and I consider myself a feminist. I agree with David’s comment; I don’t think he was being disrespectful of Hilary, nor was he advocating for an “ideal” female presidential candidate. I support Obama because he seems to embody more “feminist” qualities than Hilary does, in my opinion.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Sun, 11 May 2008 22:21:00 +0000

I’m not sure how truly enthusiastic I’d be for this unity ticket, but I suspect it would bring me within the fold as a way to achieve some sort of closure to a bizarre year. Historiann’s MCI scenario recalls one of those over-the-top Latin American soap operas that Mario Vargas Llosa wrote about (and actually wrote!) years ago. The Big Dog may be needed in support of a unity ticket. The critical white males this fall may be cowboys and wellhead riggers on the Oil Shale Plateau, in those Northern Rockies caucus states where he could be sent instead of small town East.
Back here in the played-out nooks of the Declaration of Independence Triangle, meanwhile, folks are polishing their bowling balls, circling calendars for “First Day Buck” (December 1 in Pa.), scrounging tickets for the Purdue game up in Happy Valley, and hoping for the best.

Senatorella will need all of her toughness to continue working under the baleful scrutiny of the New York Times, which is taking vindictive second thoughts to new levels. The Editorial page is trotting out a columnist a day for gleeful, if demented, last whacks. The purloined midnight White House furniture seems to be the common theme. With endorsers like that, you’d soon enough long for the glory days of the Daily Worker and the East Village Other.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:02:22 +0000

Interesting, Rad–you’re a unity ticket supporter! I always thought that if Clinton won the nominations she’d offer the VP to Obama–not sure he’d take it, but I think she would recognize his value and want to co-opt it. I don’t think it works the other way, and I don’t think he’ll do a unity ticket voluntarily, unless the Superdelegates extort it out of him. After trying to convince people that the Clinton years were just as bad as the Bush years, and telling everyone what lying scumbags both of the Clintons are, I don’t see him being nimble enough or self-confident enough to make her his VP. (Unless Bill drops dead from a massive MCI this summer–in which case, he might take her on, as a wounded warrior whose plight would draw out sympathy and affection, and quite possibly more votes. I think Obama is intimidated by Hillary Clinton, but he’s VERY intimidated by the prospect of a former president potentially hovering around his campaign and his presidency.)

Incidentally, I don’t blame Obama for this, if this is indeed his thinking–I wouldn’t want the Clintons around either if I were trying to brand myself as the one true savior of Democratic politics. I think Obama is historically wrong to trash the Clintons along with the Bushes, but I understand his reasons for doing so.

By: Rad readr

Rad readr — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:35:41 +0000

I would never count out Hillary!! It’s become clear that Obama is going to have a very time convincing certain people to vote for him, and the most effective way to neutralize some of the stuff thrown out him is to bring her on board.

I think people would love and flock to the polls for Obama/Clinton. I look forward to having that bumper sticker on my car. And I have come to wonder if one of Clinton’s strategies is to set herself up as VP.

I know a lot of Republican pundits are saying it will never happen. That’s the fear speaking. Obama/Clinton will be landslide.