Clinton: What doesn't kill her only makes her stronger
Polls (and trading markets) are showing that Tuesday's debate didn't hurt Clinton; in fact she might have gained some ground. And as for her playing the gender card? Last I looked, every candidate plays the gender card -- whether it's Bush in his codpiece, or Kerry "reporting for duty." Even the fortunate candidate who has overt sex appeal is playing the gender card. Anyone who thinks otherwise (including that sexy candidate) is being disingenuous.
I liked that Clinton refused to be shoe-horned into the Republican frame of "decisiveness vs. nuance:"
"I will continue to say what I believe," Clinton said. "And sometimes it may not be as artfully presented as I would wish, but I think some of the challenges facing our country and some of the difficult issues we have to grapple with are not so easily answered in a 15-second hand-raise or sound bite."Edwards, who is drifting dangerously close to Rick Lazio territory -- and, in a deja vu moment, even being aided by Tim Russert, no less -- had the wrong response IMHO:
Edwards, scoffed Friday: "I have a really simple rule: If you get asked a yes or no question, you don't give a yes and no answer."
This is one of those cases where being a trial lawyer may actually hurt -- after all, Clinton isn't in the witness box and I think people sense that Edwards is coming off a bit harsh.
IJS.
Posted by Ara | Link
| Comments
(4)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election
, Democrats
, Media
Comments
I suppose you saw Digby's brilliant and hilarious takedown of the whole "playing the gender card" meme.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2007 11:09 AM
And while you're at it, take a look at what Kate Michelman said over at Open Left.
Posted by: Mark Adams![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2007 12:33 PM
Actually, I thought that in the first comment “brklyngirl” had the better argument.
1) The debate was a mugging, by both the moderators and the other candidates. 2) If Hillary were a man and said that everyone was ‘piling on’ him as the frontrunner, what would the candidates and the punditocracy say then? 3) The only “gender card” that has ever won a hand in presidential politics has a king on it and it remains to be seen if there is any winning hand featuring a queen, so why would smart pols like the Clintons play one?
I expect Hillary to play whatever advantage (if any) her gender gives her but I seriously doubt she will ever play the victim (that's what we're really talking about) because that's just political suicide.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2007 01:26 PM
re: Digby's brilliant and hilarious takedown
Yes, I did see that. And Matt Stoller's piece as well, which informs my post.
Bottom line for me is that Hillary is a smart girl playing a boys' game. In one way her options are limited: she can't wear a codpiece. But only a stupid girl would try that. So Hillary goes the other way, where her options are unlimited: she plays both sides -- playing the gender card when it suits her. Of course it drives the boys nuts and probably pushes her negatives higher. But I think for every vote she loses (Kate Michelman included) she picks up a vote from people who want someone who can take a punch and punch right back.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 4, 2007 07:20 AM