General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton is One Tough Mother
Hillary Clintons campaign is going to sell her as a fighter like no other.
By John Dickerson, Slate
Tough mother. Thats both the theme of Hillary Clintons big speech on Saturday and the emerging theme of her campaign. According to a preview of her remarks, Clinton will talk about her mothers struggles and how they guide her and her campaign, which the candidate has fashioned around four tough fights. Since announcing her campaign in April, at every stop Clinton has said she will advocate for families, remove money from politics, increase wages for the middle class, and protect America. How is she going to do these things? Shes going to fight.
Read more here.
rock
(13,218 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,545 posts)Response to Skinner (Original post)
Post removed
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)So I'm guessing he's equating it to the spoonerism that got NYC_SKP banned.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)That phrase is just too common for it not to be implied.
thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)Both bring vulgar terms to mind. The difference is that NYC_SKP's implied vulgar term was sexist (i.e. generally seen as demeaning to women), whereas the implied vulgar term here is merely vulgar.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Didja know there are 4,950 posts with NYC_SKP's vulgar term on DU? You too can use the site search in the top-right of this very page to keep track.
It has only gone up by about 3,000 posts since NYC_SKP was PPR'ed.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Are you aware that the author of this OP is Skinner, one of the founders of this site.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Are you aware of the idea of inconsistent enforcement?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)re: "Didja know there are 4,950 posts with NYC_SKP's vulgar term on DU?"
...but they were not directed at Hillary Clinton (or, likely, any prominent female Dem).
Also, while the two terms are vulgar, one is insulting, and the other is (in this context) intended as a compliment.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yeah. Right.
thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)I don't know where that came from.
I'll try re-phrasing the post you were replying to.
1. Most of the 4950 C* references were not aimed at Hillary, NYC_SKP's was
2. NYC_SKP's use of an implied vulgarity (in this case C*) was intended to insult Hillary; the OP's use of an implied vulgarity (in this case MF) was intended to compliment Hillary.
Those are the other differences I spoke about. Your reply to those points doesn't make sense. Maybe you somehow misinterpreted what I said, hopefully that clarifies.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)that does not apply to any other woman?
thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)I am only talking about why this OP, obliquely referring to HC as a MF, is different from the NYC_SKP's post that obliquely referred to HC as a C*; and therefore why someone might consider one to be bannable but not the other. That's all.
I have stated no position on whether NYC_SKP should have been banned for making that reference toward HC; nor have I stated any position on whether anyone else who uses that word should be banned (regardless of who it is directed toward). That's not the topic being discussed here.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)But of course NYC_SKP is a Bernie supporter, so there is that.
diamondhead
(54 posts)Motherfucker is sexist? You better give Samuel L. Jackson a call.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)pamela
(3,469 posts)Or Isaac Hayes. He'd say, "Shut your mouth."
still_one
(92,552 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)It literally meant "A man who would f**k his own mother". Or, in other words, a cruel and heartless person who has no morals and would do anything for his own gain or pleasure, and who has no problems hurting people along the way.
Look up the etymology of the word.
Today it's morphed to simply mean "hardass" or is used as an expletive in a shitty situation, but I have a hard time understanding how it can be sexist. It's never been a slur against mothers specifically, or women in general.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I thought "Tough Mother" was offensive, but I don't make the rules here.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I suppose it has to do with pre-loaded anger always ready to fire off.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)At least that's the way I think of it. Dura Mater=tough mother.
still_one
(92,552 posts)This is simply a thread you can agree or disagree with
Response to Post removed (Reply #3)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)boston bean
(36,228 posts)She won't take any shit from republicans.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She lost when she tried to win on healthcare.
She is still having to answer their stupid charges about her telephone and e-mail accounts and her "Benghazi" whatever.
I think she is making a big mistake with this tough gal approach.
But we shall see.
People see in Elizabeth Warren a fighter for the middle class and for fairness. I think Hillary is trying to grab that image that has made Warren so popular and run on it. We shall see how effective this is.
What Hillary may not understand is that the kind of toughness and righteous anger that has made Warren so beloved comes naturally to Warren. Warren doesn't make her money by giving speeches at $20,000 a pop to Wall Street. Warren's life and her claimed views and the things she fights for are consistent with her image as a tough but motherly woman.
So far this image of Hillary as a "tough mother" doesn't work for me.
I think she needs to demonstrate that she has a sense of humor and can relate to people well. This does not do it for me.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)GCP
(8,166 posts)Hillary has been cozying up to corporate interests for years. Suddenly Warren comes along and shines a light on the whole corrupt mess that is congress and Hillary finds common cause. I don't buy it.
She'd probably make a decent president, and I'd vote for her if she were the candidate, but I got put off her by her tactics in the last presidential race when her campaign went dirty on Obama.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I like both candidates. Either of them would be good for US PEOPLE, I think.
And they both can kick repuke ass, I'm guessing. Hillary's known about the vast rw conspiracy for a long time.
madokie
(51,076 posts)They're pretty much in the same corner best I can tell
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I look forward to Hillary Clinton surpassing that!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)If elected.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And support Hillary. They are amazingly similar ideologically. If Obama did not give you the change from Bush that you were looking for, Hillary won't. I say this very respectfully.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Although I believe she would have handled the Iraq/Syria crisis better, and we might have gotten single payer. Even if we didn't she probably would have worked much harder for it. I'm NOT an Obama hater, btw. I usually support him here.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She was handling the Iraq/Syria crisis when it was building up.
She tried to get a healthcare system during Bill Clinton's presidency. She failed.
Why should she have been able to do what Obama either could not or did not want to do which is get a public option or Medicare for all? She failed her first try. What do you think she could have done better than Obama?
stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)And the thought of threatening to go through budget reconciliation hadn't yet become legitimate among party members.
Obamacare was pretty unpopular when it passed. Obama had to get the House to pass the Senate Bill word for word. He was able to do that because the party understood that it had to be done.
In 1994 the Dems didn't understand that. They barely understood to pass the Clinton Budget in 1993, with its tax hikes on the rich. And if they had understood that....it wouldn't have mattered. We didn't have the 60 votes.
There was nothing Hillary could have done IMO to produce a different result.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Hillary did Bipartisanship back before Obama did. For me, the silver lining of her presidency will be this: she will lurch far right, throw many of her people under the BUS, and those not under the bus will twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why she just HAD to lurch right. Right after she lets Keystone XL get built, the reality might sink in. I sure as hell do not expect her to keep us out of war, or to defend my social security, as her friends Erskine Bowles and Lady Rothschild both want it for themselves.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)I never would have believed in my lifetime I would see a "Black" man become President of the United States of America. Now I'm a believer that a "women" will be the next President of the United States of America.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Margaret Thatcher was a woman, and she did permanent harm in Great Britain.
I really want a woman as president, but just being a woman is not enough.
I will be watching Hillary's campaign, but at this point, I just cannot vote for her. I do not trust her judgment and she seems to me to be very opportunistically approaching her campaign.
I want to know what she really, really thinks about the TPP and the XL pipeline and H1-B visas and many other controversial issues on which I suspect that she does not share my views.
boston bean
(36,228 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I do wish we could have a woman president. But not Hillary.
Elizabeth Warren? Yes. But not Hillary.
Do you have children or grandchildren?
I can't tell you how many times I have read, "But Not The Hippopotamus."
And for the sake of clarification and my reputation and my spot on DU, I am not suggesting that Hillary is a hippopotamus. I am just recovering from a visit from my grandchildren.
Do not mean to offend or insult anyone. Hillary would be the first to understand.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)during the Reagan years and it's war on working Americans and allowing viral genocide against gay men. Naturally you all prefer her to someone who has worked for Democratic causes and constituencies her entire adult life.
But hey, Elizabeth Warren validates your anger, and we know that is so much more important than basic civil rights, poverty, union busting, and any of the other issues Warren had no trouble siding with Republicans on.
Just as you have no trouble helping the GOP regain the presidency should the American people have the nerve to exercise their Democratic rights to vote for a candidate of their choosing rather than yours. That of course is your right. You are free to vote for whomever you choose or not vote at all. The part that pisses me off is people who insist they will not under any circumstances vote for a Democrat (Sanders is not a Democrat, and has not changed his party affiliation) claim to be "real Democrats." When you won't vote Democrat, you relinquish your right to call yourself a Democrat.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)because I do trust her judgment.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)Where is she on the debate over TPP? Why hasn't she let her stand on this very important issue be known? On the other hand, Senators Warren and Sanders have left no doubt where they stand.
Coventina
(27,227 posts)Sorry, that's what popped in my head!!
Don't kill me!
It's a "Shaft" reference!!!
ismnotwasm
(42,030 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)When there's danger all about?
Who is the woman, who would risk her neck for her sister woman?
MADem
(135,425 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,387 posts)... unless you're Rahm Emanuel.
hay rick
(7,678 posts)Then I checked out the song lyrics and it's "bad mother" in Shaft, not "tough mother."
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)AwakeAtLast
(14,134 posts)I don't know how.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Follows the money.
stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)SunSeeker
(51,824 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)OP considering what so often comes after the word mother in similar contexts.
I have a feeling that if I were an actual fan of Hillary Clinton I'd be even more offended.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Some are more equal than others
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I find this machismo-esque posturing discouraging....and almost right wing.
It sounds slogan-y and fake.
I sure hope things get better with her before next year!
stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Actions speak louder than words. Yes, she will talk tough, but that's about all she'll do. Her actions is what I'm listening to, and she doesn't have a very good track record.
Politicians that want to be elected will say whatever the voting public wants to hear, but, once elected, they will forget about all the rhetoric they espoused. Hillary is such a person.
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Marketing marketing marketing, not much else.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I agree
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Good to know...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)can't speak unkindly of the anointed one.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)I came here years ago believing it was Democratic Underground , that it was pro Democrat, with no sides being taken; the posters could just discuss and debate the issues and the candidates without the site admins weighing in or asserting their influence. To me, that is what a site such as this should be. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case. The admins seem to interject themselves into the discussion and promote their candidate. I really think DU will suffer from this and many posters will leave. I hate to see this happening.
If this is going to be a pro Hillary site, or Hillary Underground, the admins should be honest enough to say that. If not, they should just back off and let the posters post and debate unencombered.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)as long as you follow the TOS, I'm not sure what the problem is.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)JI7
(89,290 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)I don't see any difficulties being encountered here by people who support Sanders.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)this is a silly overreaction.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Sounds like her consultants are following in Momma Grizzly's paw prints... What audience is this supposed to be focused on?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)A nation in which the first female front-runner cannot afford to be associated with femininity in the eyes of male voters. I think that we'll see some Sec. Clinton's greatest strengths--empathy and common sense--deliberately hidden behind the adjective "tough." This same American worship of the illusion of strength has been a great driver, I think, of her hawkishness.
It's sad, but Sec. Clinton does not have the luxury a male candidate would of moderating speech. She will be "tough" until she retires from politics.
R B Garr
(17,022 posts)"One story she tells is of her mothers advice after Clinton came home crying after being bullied: Theres no room for cowards in this house. Thats one tough mother."
fbc
(1,668 posts)story time is over.
still_one
(92,552 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)not once gave me that impression.
She is too friendly with Wall Street for sure, but coward?
nah
still_one
(92,552 posts)have had to fight for everything. Just looking at her being interrogated by Congress on Bengazi is an example
One does not have to agree with someone to recognize they are strong.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)at the airport she said she endured.
(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton said she "misspoke" last week when she gave a dramatic description of her arrival in Bosnia 12 years ago, recounting a landing under sniper fire.
Clinton was responding to a question Monday from the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board about video footage of the event that contradicted her assertion that her group "ran with our heads down" from the plane to avoid sniper fire at the Tuzla Air Base.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for rival Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, said the Bosnia claim was part of "a growing list of instances in which Sen. Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
Divernan
(15,480 posts)trof
(54,256 posts)As in 'Motherf*ck*r' ?
I dunno. Doesn't set well with me.
I lean more towards 'compassionate'.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I mean come on, red arrow to the right? Blue H supporting the arrow...that is like a 'shiny button' to a broad range of the populace. So is sloganeering.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)seems a little like borderline sexism.
She's qualified, and it has nothing to do with her experience as a mother. She's a lawyer and an accomplished politician in her own right.
Bringing this into it is an implicit negative for female politicians that do not have children. Don't need to go there.
I'm going to vote for her if she's the nominee regardless, but this branding strategy does nothing for me.
underpants
(183,070 posts)Well done Team Hillary.
Response to underpants (Reply #81)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)We can dig it.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)American Thinker: Sarah Palin Is One Tough Mother
https://sarahpalininformation.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/american-thinker-sarah-palin-is-one-tough-mother/
God, Guts & Sarah Palin: One Tough Mother
http://barbaricthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/02/one-tough-mother.html
Sarah Palin, one tough mama
http://www.salon.com/2009/07/07/palin_motherhood/
Sportsman Channel: One Tough Mother
http://us4palin.com/sportsman-channel-one-tough-mother/
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why ya think the arrow goes to the right? I bet it works too, the DNC realized they can play the 'shiny button' game just as well as the GOP.
Not saying it's right or wrong, but I knew this was coming the moment I saw her logo.
Agony
(2,605 posts)yeah
that is the problem. We do not need a fracking sales job
#disappointed
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)time to become a progressive. Timing is everything when you're running for president.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)and prefer to repeat false internet memes fed to you by the RW hit squad. But hey, if it promotes the interests of the GOP, it's all worth it in the end.
Single payer, not progressive. Women's rights as human rights, not progressive. Aggressive enforcement of Voting Rights, not progressive. Working for the Children's Defense Fund, not progressive. Ensuring medical care for first responders after 9/11, not progressive. Not here. Progressive is yelling for the TV cameras, validating your anger. A lifetime in public service devoted to the poor and disenfranchised, not progressive. But hey, get a couple of post offices named and that makes someone a progressive hero. Human trafficking, that doesn't rate. Post offices is where it's at. That's what true progressives care about.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)progressive on many social issues but generally conservative on economics and hawkish on foreign policy. Since virtually all the Democratic presidential candidates have a left of center record on social policy, the examples you give are not reason enough to make her president. Her foreign policy record and cozy relationship with Wall Street are reason enough not to.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)Bumper sticker internet slogans are not policy differences. Just because you and your pals repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true.
What evidence do you have that Clinton is conservative on economic issues? I see her as more progressive than most of the people here who express a view of economic justice that seeks to restore the white middle-and upper-middle class back to what it sees as its rightful position atop the capitalist order. I looked at Sanders website and it gives no policy or proposals, simply a paragraph offering a critique that could have been written by anyone here.
I won't be voting for someone to validate your anger at Wall Street, particularly since I am not of the privileged economic class that even has any interaction with the bankers you all are so angry at. Nor will I stand with people who dismiss my basic rights as "Third Way," or worse. You all denigrate the basic civil rights of the majority of Americans, offer no economic alternatives, and repeat empty slogans. That is hardly convincing and in fact many here use those terms in ways that are purposefully alienating and exclusionary.
And as for being cozy with Wall Street. Another bumper sticker slogan that says nothing. Is that a reference to the present state of campaign finance that you refuse to concern yourself with and instead project it onto Clinton? Or to the fact that Wall Street was in fact in her Senatorial district? I find such slogans tiresome, particularly when they eschew any critique of capital itself. I'm guessing like many here you see Wall Street as worse than the merchants of death whose profits Sanders votes to protect. I myself believe murder profiteering is a worse crime than usury, and I find rhetoric about "corporate" this and that rings hollow when it excludes merchants of death, or any other business or capital you all happen to find useful. Voting against gun control promotes war at home, a war that has taken over 1.4 million lives since 1968. I think voting with the GOP on gun issues is unconscionable. But then again, I differ from many in valuing human rights, life, and civil rights above the pocket books of the upper-middle class. You will vote for your interests, I vote for mine.
So by all means, you vote based on your labels and bumper sticker slogans. I will vote in favor of my own interests. They clearly are not the same as yours, and I am done being insulted by people who insist they have the right to compel the rest of us to do their bidding. You have one vote, and it doesn't include mine.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Drop the hyperbole and ad hominem pot shots. Maybe it will make some sense then. Right now it's just an angry diatribe. These people we're talking about are politicians. Most of them wouldn't piss on either of us if we were on fire. Don't forget that. Relax.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cha
(298,139 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Obviously a conscious choice to get "street"-ish.
In concert, blues musicians typically don't say "for ya" at the end, just sayin'
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I wonder if she'll ever try to engage liberals as hard as she's courting republicans.
senseandsensibility
(17,260 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)but I do not think it was her slogan.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)K&R
But looking at this thread I gotta say, you have the patience of a saint.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Thanks, I needed the laugh. They are the same!!!!!!! Margaret Thatcher!!!!! Some are foolish enough to buy into is. I like how you mock them.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Huge Unrec.
Have a nice day.
Response to darkangel218 (Reply #124)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #127)
Post removed
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Is everything okay? I guess you've decided to just stay over at the other site. I really hope that works out for you.
Response to pintobean (Reply #128)
Post removed
Make7
(8,543 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)TPP. That she hasn't to me is a sign of weakness. If you want a tough mother, I give you Senator Elizabeth Warren.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Often it means the statement is misleading or untrue. Usually sneaky or tricky.
Remove money in politics by having a Super PAC? I'm sure that's just for the election so she can rid of the Super PACs after but I'd appreciate a more consistency with their convictions.
Lancero
(3,020 posts)On Sat Jun 13, 2015, 09:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
it has barely been over a week since you demanded to be banned
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6828966
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I'm not particularly a fan of darkangel, but "nobody missed you" seems excessively personal and really, just unnecessary.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 13, 2015, 10:01 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: That wasn't very nice.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attacks has no place in DU. Remove.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Honestly, I'm of two minds on this.
First off is that Kalis comment is borderline to being a personal attack.
However, after looking at DA's hidden posts here, I'm very inclined to agree with Kali's comment - Given just how aggressive DA is, I think Kali is correct in saying that no one missed them.
Still though, the comment is borderline to a personal attack. But I have to agree with you that there was no legitimate need for Kali to put that into the post. So minus a legitimate need, the only use I can see for that comment is as a attack, or a intentional attempt to provoke DA. So for this, I'm voting to hide.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No need to get personally insulting. It make DU suck.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with alerter. It's unnecessarily rude and mean.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Mark my words, if the campaign tries to run with this one it will be a recurring punchline on late night shows throughout the campaign.