Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial?

I've been reading some of the comments on a recently recommended diary at Daily Kos and I've been left feeling more frustrated than ever about Hillary Clinton's run for presidency.  The diary was a lovely entry about how much the person respected and admired Hillary Clinton, and was inspired by her.  I'm happy for the diarist, and for any young woman who has been inspired by Clinton, but I don't think, like many of the comments I read, that she's been able to 'blaze a trail' at all....

I think she's been blazed by the process.  How tempting is it going to be for any self-respecting woman to put herself out there for the mainstream media to vilify like they did Hillary?

There has been an unrelenting onslaught of sexist, demeaning comments by MAINSTREAM 'anchors' and pundits (see Chris Matthews) and sadly, also by fellow democrats the entire time she's been running.  She's been called screechy, she's been called a bitch (while the republican candidate laughed at the remark), and its been repeated countless times on Dailykos, (a `democratic' blog); yes, yes, sometimes the comment is `hide-rated', but its often also recommended.  She's the big, bad `incumbent' but she's ALWAYS either `barely beating' Obama when she wins states, or she's `being trounced' by him when she loses states.  Yes, she's been crowned as the imaginary `front-runner' by the media, the narrative plays out so much better if you can create a `Goliath' to take a huge, dramatic fall.  But Obama with the huge cheering crowds, mammoth fund-raising, countless endorsements by `establishment democrats' was the underdog??  I guess I had the concept of underdog wrong all these years, I always thought the underdog was the one who got the short end of the stick in things like media coverage, and framing of the story... Huh, go figure....

I read a comment that stated: "no other woman has come as close as Hillary to getting a major party nomination" - that's a good thing, I think?  But I ask, could any woman, GET any further?  Because it seems to me, that this is as far as anyone this gleefully demonized could or will ever get.  But "wait wait WAIT", (I'm sure I'm going to hear): "she gets this kind of disdain because of her political stances!" Oh right.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with her being a woman, because she and Obama differ so drastically in voting records, and policy proposals right?  Her voting record MUST be so CENTER-left versus his, right?  Guess again.  And no, I'm not going to fill this entry with a flurry of links to her voting record and her policy proposals, because those of you who have so steadfastly decided she's the devil-incarnate, a race-baiter, or Bush-lite won't bother to read any of it anyway.  Those of you who ARE familiar with her voting record, and her achievements already know exactly where to find such information, and you've probably been more than civil about her anyway.

I wrote this pseudo-rant because I disagree with people who call her attempt 'trail blazing', and that her run has made it easier for women to run in the future.  But how could it have been a bad thing- look at all the `hoorays' she's being given as her consolation prize, despite having lost yet, despite being INCREDIBLY close in delegate numbers and despite showing how LARGE a support base she still has in the remaining states-  She's going to lose, but what a wonderful attempt. Right?  

These kinds of comments, these 'nice try' comments are platitudes, platitudes along the same lines as women have been getting for YEARS, a pat on the head, and a "thanks for coming out, champ", while doing nothing to condemn the very reasons that the candidate was destined to FAIL.  Obama got no real criticism from the media till they felt Hillary was 'safely stowed away'.  She was villified for 'slinging mud' when she asked him to lay out his policy proposals months ago, but now, that he's been all but crowned, these sorts of questions are important for 'vetting' him, and getting him prepared to battle McCain.  All the while Hillary was hammered for non-starters "she broke down" (when she had a hint of extra moisture in her eyes), "she's so uninspiring" when she carefully lays out policy in her speeches.  "She's faking it" when she DID show emotion, laughter, (recall the cackle).  Deliberate mischaracterizations of her intentions with her past votes (she voted to slaughter Iraqi's, she authorized a war), NOT as she, and John Kerry and John Edwards have repeatedly stated, to give the president some sort of leverage over Saddam Hussein at the time.  To have what they intended to be the THREAT of use of force in order to persuade Hussein to let weapons inspectors continue their work.  (because lets all conveniently forget that he had tossed weapons inspectors out of his country before and lets forget that he was capable of transgressions like the whole invasion of Kuwait thing).  And lets just ignore COMPLETELY Bush's role in this, no, HILLARY was the reason this war happened, it had nothing to do with Bush's deliberate misrepresentation of the intelligence.  Nevermind Obama has stated he doesn't know HOW he would have voted that day himself, and lets all just ignore the fact that the British supported the intelligence too.  Lets just let Hillary carry that albatross around her neck alone.

While Obama's explanations of his 'controversial votes'/statements are always FINE- "yes we know that's what he voted, but that's not what he meant" -what he meant when he voted AGAINST a cap on the amount of interest credit card companies could charge was REALLY that he thought that cap was too HIGH... so no cap at ALL, was in PROTEST of their audacity... uh, yeah....... etc etc"...

I think the only 'significant' matter from here on out, is that its been firmly re-established that a female candidate will NOT get a fair shake- the coverage of her campaign will be slanted- when she's WINNING states - her opponent will be 'barely losing' when she loses states, her opponent will be TROUNCING her.  Hillary couldn't win the media over, but I hope she DOES win this race.  I hope that despite all of this, she DOES WIN, because that, would truly be inspiring.  For once, to not have to hear, after months and months of arrogant, dismissive  attitudes "you're likeable enough, Hillary", to be victorious DESPITE it all.  Hillary Clinton inspires me, the way her campaign has been characterized has not.

crossposted at Dailykos as 'hopefulcanadian'...



Display:


Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (2.00 / 2)

a hearty good luck to Hillary Clinton.  I hope she pulls this out, it'll be EXTREMELY gratifying to see.


by Maole on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM EST

Re: Loser is a gender neutral word (none / 0)

I'm just wondering if you actually know something about running campaigns?  What exactly are the "grave tactical errors in campaigning" in light of what the diarist wrote here?

Did Hillary ever actually say it was her "turn" to be President?  I don't recall that.  Can you provide a link?

I think we all believe in the mantra "may the best person win" - some of us just happen to think it's Hillary.  And not because she's a women - but because there are issues of concern to us, and we need someone to clean up the current President's horrific mess.

Some of us believe that Hillary is now the "right woman" as President for this critical job.  


by cameoanne on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:24:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (none / 0)

In fairness, the barely winning vs. trouncing meme isn't an example of bias (of which there has been plenty) its a case of mathmetical fact, Clinton's win's have been by and large, close ones, while Obama's have been blowouts.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (2.00 / 1)

Everyone's calling Wisconsin a blowout. It was.

But Clinton also won some primaries by big margins--CA, NJ, MA, OK, TN, FL*, for example. I think these were all 10+ point wins, which is hard to do in a large state.

The popular vote margin favors Obama, but only by a few percentage points.


by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (2.00 / 4)

So many people I know feel the same frustration, but things are beginning to turn around.  There's a good article at realclearpolitics this morning called "The Obama Delusion."  I think people are beginning to get it.  We have a couple of weeks for OH and TX, and then about 6 weeks for PA.  We need to do everything we can to turn this around.  I'm not giving up.  I know Hillary won't.  I urge her supports to keep going.  She's got a small deficit to overcome, and she can do it--she's done it before.  Contributing would also help, so her ads aren't smothered by his.  


by FarWest on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (none / 0)

Yeah, if MI and FL delegates are counted, Hillary would actually be ahead. Not that MI and FL matter. And, if WA votes were counted on the basis of who people wanted as the democratic nominee, rather than on who had the meanest, leanest caucus machine -- well Obama and Hillary would've split WA's delegates.

We WA voters may take the issue to court.


by seattlegonz on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:55:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay - pop quiz, Hillary fans: what's 2+2? (2.00 / 2)

your condescending attitude would be welcomed with OPEN arms by Obama would it??

Will winning that LONG LIST of states that you mention help him in the general if he CAN"T win over the big states the democrats have a CHANCE at actually taking???  Here's some MATH for you:

to quote Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left:

"California - 55 EVs. Texas - 34 EVs. (A GOP stronghold) New York - 31 EVs. (A Dem stronghold) Florida - 27 EVs. (Thanks Howard and Donna.) Illinois - 21 EVs. (A Dem stronghold.) Pennsylvania - 21 EVs. Ohio - 20 EVs. Georgia - 15 EVS. (a GOP stronghold.) North Carolina - 15 EVs. (a GOP stronghold) New Jersey - 15 EVs. Virginia - 13 EVs. Mass - 12 EVs.

In my view, Clinton has a perceived advantage, for many reasons including the DNC's idiotic behavior, in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey and Arkansas. That adds up to 144 EVs.

Obama NEEDS to prove he can win electoral vote rich states that Dems can win, like Ohio and Pennsylvania. This election will NOT be won in Utah, Alabama and North Dakota. "...

and Greuben, your attitude frankly SUCKS.  I'm not going to respond anymore to belittling comments....


by Maole on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:18:49 PM EST

Re: Yes, Math is SOOO Condescending (2.00 / 2)

This we can kick Hillary and all her supporters and treat them like trash but they'll still vote for me in November...that's Obama's naievete showing again.

Obama and his supporters have so ruthlessly used the GOP Hillary-hate as the premise for their campaign that they have created among many democrats an equally strong Obama-hate, similar to GOP-hate. By using the same rhetoric as the GOP many of us trust him nor more than we trust the GOP. It doesn't help that he is using GOP and Ron Paul plans in his economic strategies. I don't even trust him on Roe v Wade. I don't trust him on Israel and Palestine. I don't trust him not to bomb Pakistan (well in fairness, that's because he said he would.) I don't trust him to fight for womens rights or minority rights or housing for the poor, or universal health care or...hmm...anything I value as a progressive. Why would NY, CA, FL, or any other state besides GOP strongholds vote for him?

Get a clue. This is a GOP strategy to blow the democrats chances in the fall. Our only hope is that they wake up and realize that if they overplay their Obama hype it'll be harder to pull the lost souls back. McCain may end up having to win with democrat support instead of GOP...but there's no way a nation at war hands the presidency to a freshman senator who has shown no skill at articulating a reasoned approach to mideast conflict and terrorism.


by seattlegonz on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People don't create hate (2.00 / 1)

People don't create hate? Engender maybe is the better word. And, they can engender hate as easily as they engender hope.


by seattlegonz on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:43:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, Math is SOOO Condescending (2.00 / 3)

Obama is the nominee to the Obama "movement" not the Democratic Party. This "movement" is more interested in appealing to the independents and the Republicans. Sadly, my Democratic Party has been hijacked.


by no pasaran on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not YOUR democratic party (2.00 / 1)

Well that's not a fact. And, you just forgot that Bill and Hillary Clinton have done more for the democratic party and the progressive agenda over the past 20 years than anyone.

That's what's sickening about the so called Obama movement and the character assassination of Hillary that Obama "allows" his henchman like supporters to repeat over and over again. (Again, I'm talking the Hitlery, Billary, witch, evil...those kind of description of Senator Hillary Clinton.) We're all supposed to be democrats first, candidates second. Saying Obama is all about words is nothing compared to calling Clinton an evil b*tch.

Hillary is trying to get people and the press to compare records, agenda, priorities...so that people don't pick the person they'd most like to have a beer with, but pick the person that can get the most progressive agenda accomplished.


by seattlegonz on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (none / 0)

You're missing the story. It's not a story of a woman who was mistreated by a sexist media. That's just a minor subplot at best. People really don't watch as much MSNBC as you think they do. Matt Drudge may run Chris Matthew's world, but he doesn't actually run the real world.

The story of Clinton's defeat is the story of a woman who hired incompetent and short sighted campaign managers who ran a big-state only inevitablity campaign and couldn't adjust effectively on the fly. She thought California + New York + superdelegates = win. It's also the story of a woman who decided to wait until 2008 instead of going for it in 2004. She thought voters wanted to hear a harsh reality check instead of a little inspiration and uplift. She decided to go for big donors instead of small donors, big blue states instead of all 50. These are all very real and very important tactical errors that she's responsible for. The mean things people say on TV or on the internet are inconsequential compared to the strategic mistakes her campaign has made. She's done better than any other female candidate in history and she and all her supporters should be proud of her. She beat Biden, Richardson, Dodd, and Edwards. She's still a powerful senator from New York and she's still young enough to run again in 8 years. And, she could still pull this one out. It's not over yet.


I am The Etchasketchist!
by Jumbo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (none / 0)

Sure a woman can win. It's just really really hard. It's hard for everybody. It's hard if your a woman, hard if your black, hard if you're a trial lawyer. It's going to be impossible for John McCain and he's got the media behind him, plus independents and an impressive resume. And he's going to be trounced. Running for President is a very difficult thing to do. You have to be very good and make very few mistakes. Hillary is very good, she just made a bunch of really bad mistakes. She could learn and do better next time.


I am The Etchasketchist!
by Jumbo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (none / 0)

You know HRC is the big bad incumbent because -- say it with me -- that's what Mark Penn and she decided to run as! Inevitability, competence, establishment support, experience... shes the incumbent because that's how she cast herself for months and months.

We are taking her as the image she built up over years.... how is that wrong?


by MNPundit on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (none / 0)

I truely feel sorry for the Hillary supporters who have been let down by the campaign's staggering ineptitude.  When the race started, my wife and I were rooting for BHO, even though she was "the heir-apparent".  When he faied to get traction nation-wide over the summer, Clinton's people didn't give him the time of day.  But in the fall, when he started his ascent, she paid a little more attention.  Right before Iowa, she tried to deliver the knock-out blow, but could not.  It was then that the race was over, but her people couldn't see it.  Now here we are; as sweet as this is, I really hoped that this would turn out differently.  As it stands not, there is no way they could share a ticket, which would be a good thing for the party.  She has also done major damage to her standing in the Senate.  We'll see how this plays out, but from where I stand, she has no one to blame but herself.


by Inmyforces on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:13:21 PM EST

Re: Okay - pop quiz, Hillary fans: what's 2+2? (2.00 / 1)

Obviously you chose 16 points, instead of, say, 10, to help your case.

The overall popular vote totals are still quite close.


by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST

Re: Okay - pop quiz, Hillary fans: what's 2+2? (2.00 / 1)

Is it really only 200,000? I thought it was more. 200,000 is only 1% of the 20 million votes cast so far in the Democratic primary.


by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (2.00 / 3)

I would be OK if she lost out in a fair fight.

But this is not a fair fight to the slightest.  Maybe it's because of her gender, or maybe it's because of who she is.

- Media bias against her.  she didn't get a fair coverage.  her pictures on the front page always deliberately made she looks ugly and abnormal.  while Obama's picture always looks calm and collect.

  • GOP shadow vote in the DEM open primary
  • DNC party create a mess that clips away her base.
  • Obama spread flyer dishonestly attack her records, and went uncheck by the media.

So she has been hold at her ankles while trading punches with Obama.   It's not a fair fight.


by JoeySky18 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM EST

Re: Blazing a trail? Or Blazed by the trial? (none / 0)

Hey there, Maole,

So I realize you wrote this diary before I discovered this site (which I only happened upon as I was discovering how these ratings work tonight and what they represent...so a thank you too!  ), but after reading this, I just had to comment.  This was a beautiful diary, despite the harsh reality of the truth of your words, that calls it as I've so often seen it!  Hillary Clinton is in fact blazing a trail...but unfortunately, you also call it very well in noting she's getting blazed by the trail.  I could go on and on in agreement with the many statements and examples you made within, but suffice it to say, it touched me seeing my feelings expressed so very well. And something in either your title or the diary itself, I'm not really sure, brought to mind a few images that seem somewhat relevant.  

First, it reminded me of the 91-year-old African American woman who attended the Texas Town Hall Hillary gave (along with her 101-year old friend).  That woman's speech brought me to tears when she talked about praying for Hillary since first meeting her during Bill's campaign--the same woman who in an earlier interview I'd seen with her on our local news talked about her earlier and ongoing work for civil rights...a fight where she undoubtedly saw many injustices being doled out.  But then it also reminded me of another trailblazer.  So I went looking and found this quote from Rosa Parks in her book "My Story,"

"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."

Although this is kind of flipped around, I believe the same courage and audacity that Rose Parks showed that day on that bus, when she decided not to stand and move out of the way, is the same courage and audacity and tirelessness that Hillary has and is showing on this campaign by continuing to stand and moving along that path that she has already carved in history.  She has shown courage throughout her public life, and she has backed that courage up with real actions that, as you note, anybody who truly looks at the facts will realize have been so helpful to this country and to this world.  We would be privileged to have her for our President--and I only hope we are lucky enough to have that realization!  I for one believe that just as Rosa Parks carved a new path that day so long ago, Hillary is carving a new path today.  It is extremely disheartening to see the treatment she receives--but God bless her, she keeps standing and goes on in spite of all the adversity she is facing.  So while she may have been blazed by the trail, and will undoubtedly continue facing such hurdles, as each day passes I feel more and more confident that she will in fact be blazing a trail to the White House soon.  Thank you for writing this diary!


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:00:39 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.