Friday, March 28

In which I find myself defending her.

Two columnists this week have treated Senator Clinton unfairly, to say the least:

I wrote about this at a bigger blog but Michael Kinsley's oped about how long it takes Hillary Clinton to get ready in the morning and isn't it unfair that women's looks count more than men's...please. Some readers didn't see a problem with this article but here's my take: there is NO reason to bring up the makeup issue in the editorial pages of the Washington Post. Kinsey is writing a piece on fluffy gender differences rather than political realities because he hasn't a clue. Painting it over with the "life is unfair" conclusion does not excuse the intimation that Senator Clinton will lose valuable sleep because her LOOKS matter more than the other candidates. Why didn't they tell that to Golda Meir and Maggie Thatcher?

I think this is an area, particularly in terms of media analysis, where reasonable people can disagree. But I don't trust that Kinsley was making a straight statement about media fairness where Senator Clinton is concerned. He was bringing up issues of looks and vanity and image handling to infect the discourse, in my opinion. I'm not a Hillary supporter, and this article struck me as pandering to sexism.

Then there's Maureen Dowd
, and yeah, she should change her name to "Maureen Dowd, heavy sigh why does she have her job."

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

EVEN IF Dowd had not put McCain's name in the same sentence as the prediction of Clinton's age, seriously what the hell is Dowd thinking?


I mentioned this to some fellow bloggers, one of whom was so bold as to make the "it's different for girls" argument. Somehow Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir are allowed to be older successful women politicians, but what, Hillary is too pretty for that? Or not tough enough? Or what? What?

I'm not the only NYTimes reader who ain't buying that.


While we're on the subject of Senator Clinton, here is a juxtaposition I would like folks to think about. I seriously think it's time for Mister Dean to start spanking, if not some candidates than some state party chairs. Michigan and Florida broke the party rules. Deliberately. Very deliberately. Senator Clinton respected those rules by not campaigning in either contest, good on her. What is with this?

Does Senator Clinton write the rules? Just asking.


  1. and yeah, she should change her name to "Maureen Dowd, heavy sigh why does she have her job."

    Wow! Did you really hear me sigh all the way from Maryland when i read her name?!

  2. I'm with you on Kinsley and Dowd, and have tried to defend her from BS attacks while criticizing her on issues.

    The first video wouldn't play for me beyond a few seconds, but her interview with NPR on 3/13 really disappointed me. Her positions and rhetoric are those of a hack. She's arguing for personal advantage, and disingenuously, not for fairness.

  3. Maureen Dowd. I grow even more tired of her than I do of Hillary sometimes.

    And the Kinsley column- unconscionable.

    Great post BG- excellent.

  4. Hi Blue Gal...

    In Florida, we have a really stupid situation...the Republican legislature moved our primary ahead, thus creating all the problems...the Democrats had no say in the matter.

  5. Jacob, the vote that moved the primaries forward was a unanimous vote. Democrats and Republicans moved it forward together. I remember Florida and Michigan representatives being interviewed saying "There is no way the DNC will disenfranchise our delegates," when the matter was brought up. It was an active, willful attempt to challenge the DNC (and RNC).

    Kinsley's article was completely idiotic and did not deserve the bits to send it over the internet.

  6. jacob is right... in Florida it was the decision of a Republican governor and a Republican congress

    like Florida needed the winter tourism money more than Michigan

  7. John J, you simply don't know what you are taking about! AGAIN!! You are so blind in your support for Obama that you refuse to acknowledge the TRUTH about what happened in Florida. It was the REPUBLICANS in the state legislature that moved the primary forward, with the support of the REPUBLICAN governor. Included in the measure was a provision to insure that ALL VOTES WERE COUNTED. Do you HONESTLY think ANY politician in the state could vote against THAT, given the states history?

    Come on guy ... you claim to be a 'reasonable voice'. So start using some reason here.

    BG, your analysis of Kinsley and Dowd are spot on, but I wouldn't expect any less.


  8. Sounds like Howard Dean needs to go to Florida and tell them that if they want their Democratic votes to count at the DNC, they'd better vote Democratic in statewide elections (which they often don't, I'll bet), and make sure those Florida Democrats support the rules made at the national level. If the Republicans in the State House set the date for the Democratic primary, more needs to change in that state than just hanging chads. I thought the individual state parties had much more power than that. Go figure.

  9. It makes me pretty nervous to hear Clinton talking about those votes counting whether there's a re-vote or not. I am also not convinced that Obama doesn't want something fair to occur, but I would certainly agree that through no fault of their own, the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan are getting ripped off. The politics of this is making my head spin. Of course, I do believe, in the end, that Obama and Clinton are going to behave in whatever manner get's them each respectively the nomination.

  10. Anonymous9:29 PM

    Dowd is a fucking nightmare.

  11. So many blogs, so little time. Just surfing through the DU blogroll, and I find another high profile Democratic woman blogger (Blue Gal) who does not support Hillary.

    Isn't 99% of the bad press about Hillary just BS when you mine down to get the whole story? I think Hillary would make a superior president and perhaps even a great one. Obama is OK, but I'm not that impressed with overblown rhetoric.

    I'm 62 and this is the first time I have followed a presidential campaign this closely from the beginning. It feels like the media and the Obama supporters are trying to decide the primary before all the voters have their say.

    McCain has pulled ahead in the polls in Missouri, and I don't think Obama can win here. He won only in K.C., St. Louis and Columbia. All of the rural areas of MO went for Hillary. This does not bode well for the November contest.

    Most of all, I just want a Democrat in the white house next time.


I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!