Note to Clinton: The Issues Are Fair Game

by be inspired

Ever since Tuesday night's debate, the Clinton campaign has been complaining that the other candidates ganged up on her. This is part of a fundraising email I got from the Clinton campaign:



Note to Clinton: the issues are fair game. If you are running for president, the other candidates have a right to point out where they think you are wrong on the issues.

I like the response from Edwards campaign communications director Chris Kofinis to Clinton's complaints of being unfairly attacked.



In Salon's War Room, Tim Grieve points out that it does a disservice to the Democratic Party to stifle dissent.



Taylor Marsh, in a piece titled "Russert Leads the Boys in All Out Clinton Assault" very nearly accused the other candidates and Tim Russert of attacking Clinton because she is a woman.



Clinton herself has even called presidential politics a boys club.



Let me get this straight. The other candidates (and Tim Russert) are not allowed to criticize Hillary Clinton on issues because she is female? Is that truly what Taylor Marsh is saying? As a feminist, I agree with RJ Eskow over at Huffington Post.



It really damages the cause of feminism if the first "viable" (according to the media) female candidate for president is going to complain that she's being unfairly attacked every time someone disagrees with her on an issue. Hillary is not being attacked by the other Democrats in an unfair way. She's being questioned because she is wrong or inconsistent on issues (in their view, anyway). There is a big difference, and if she wants to be taken seriously as a leader, she had better start acting like a leader and be willing to stand up for what she believes in (whatever that may be).

In fact, I will go so far as to say that as a woman who has sometimes faced real gender discrimination, I am very angered by the Clinton campaign's response that seeks to marginalize the real issue concerns of her opponents by complaining that she's being singled out and unfairly attacked. American voters deserve to know her positions on these issues. It is not fair to us, or to women in particular, if the response to questions on the issues is dismissive of dissent, and it's worse if the response even comes close to seeming to be "you're just mean boys beating up on a girl." If she is truly prepared to compete in what she calls the "boys club," then she had better be prepared for substantive debate on the issues.

As Joan Walsh at Salon points out, Hillary Clinton can take it, or at least, she certainly SHOULD be able to. Furthermore, if she can't take reasonable critiques on the issues from Democratic candidates, how is she going to be able to confront Republican attacks?

If Clinton continues to take multiple positions on an issue and try to silence dissent from her opponents, it won't be long before her candidacy becomes little more than a joke, as in this Jon Stewart clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHhu9z8qj08

Senator Clinton, with all due respect, please get serious about the issues. As Joe Trippi points out:



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/1/192032/180

others fail to see with whats wrong re: Clinton's explanations, or lack there of with respect to her views and answers of not so tough questions.

"In the Senator's defense, she has never said that it's unfair or bullying for men to take aggressive stances against her."

I'm glad that was said.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that as a woman who has sometimes faced real gender discrimination, I am very angered by the Clinton campaign's response that seeks to marginalize the real issue concerns of her opponents by complaining that she's being singled out and unfairly attacked.

As another woman who has sometimes faced real gender discrimination, I am angered that something THIS par for the course -- the frontrunner getting attacked and then noting that -- is twisted into something related to gender. ALL such #1 candidates say, "Whoa, they're singling me out!" That's the way the game is played.

Of course, criticizing her is fine. But this over-the-top outrage when she does what they ALL do, and particularly spinning it as sexism on HER part, is ridiculous. And it's like DU is being played with a score nearly everybody's happy to sing.

The Clinton campaign, even if not Clinton herself, seems to be pushing the gender factor explicitly.

Though I'm not seeing proper quotes to justify that from this Kos post, sorry. I think I saw something to that effect elsewhere but... no evidence, no claim.

and what is "over-the top outrage."

Generally what makes me most angry at Clinton and her supporters is this high-handed attitude that we all are somehow honor bound as Democrats to give her a pass on the issues that we disagree with her. I'm sorry, but if I think that someone is a closet neo-con then I'm going to call them on that - even if they are the Democratic front-runner and even if it hurts their poor wittle feelings.

I'm voting for the best dem I can find. I haven't settled on one yet, but it's clearly not someone who voted for the IWR, Lieberman-kyle and the patriot act and doesn't regret a bit of it. She has spent eight years trying to act tough and yet so much of the Democratic party actually believes she's a dove on Iraq and Iran.

This is not to say that Clinton won't be better than Bush. She might even be a good president on balance, but there is no way I am voting in the Dem primary for someone who buys into the neo-con shell game on Iraq, and Iran, whether out of sincerity stupidity or political calculation

Fwiw, I'm not a Clinton supporter.

I have no problem with anything you said about disagreeing on issues. I'm talking about the idea that criticism "hurts (her) poor wittle feelings." My point is that criticism of the frontrunner is to be expected; the frontrunner then saying, "Look, everybody is criticizing me" is to be expected. I've never seen people so hysterical about it before, claiming that it's about her "feelings" or that she's a woman or that she's saying she shouldn't be criticized, etc. etc... That's the reaction I'm referring to.

sorry.

Thanks, jsamuel, for cross-posting my diary here. (jsamuel had my permission to do this before doing so.)

crossposting from DK to DU can be somewhat laborious due to the tags being constructed differently. Your post deserves to be posted everywhere!

Thanks again!

current - and did not note that the body of the letter in 94 was the standard language that has been in every Presidents document storage request.

Tim is so owned by the GOP.

is embarrassment. Hillary got caught ducking, dodging and in the end, trying to have it both ways. the term clintonian is making a come back this week.
What happened and all the above know this is that with 60 days to go, Hillary was put on the hot seat because the people need answers and Clinton won't make her positions clear or answer straight. So, she tried dodging, ect. rather than just answer and go on. The whole debate revolved around the issues and substance and the need to know.
As a result, Hillary embarrassed herself and got caught out and so, now the furious blaming rather than saying, okay, we need to rethink. Maybe times have changed and we need to be open and honest with the people.

I check out her website but don't want to link to anything. That would apply to any website that is so pro- someone/anyone. It's a turn-off to me. Most blogs are hedging their bets.

thoughts. That was not as you all think it was. It was Timmy lookimg for some got ya facts so he can play them next year. Not one of the people on the stage laid out concrete thoughts on what they would do. Neither Edwards nor Obama were honest in their facts. People don't want honesty look at gwb. Not an honest bone in his body. You can't make decisions untill all the hidden stuff is out in the open. SS is a tough thing to get under control. That is until you know what the hell they have been doing with it. bush never tells the truth and the facts about what is happening are all messed up. I hate Tim Ruussett and think they should fire him for his dishonesty.

And was the frontrunner, and had fat Timmy set up the whole debate to take you down, feeding softballs and setups to the other candidates and have them all go at your guy for two hours straight, you would be singing a different tune.

Russert all but announced it was time to take Hillary down before this, and that is exactly what he tried to do. Because they are bored. Because this hasn't been an exciting contest. Because they don't give a flying fuck about who the people want to vote for they love to prop up and then destroy candidates because it makes for good talk shows.

Just ask Dean.

And Clinton also mocks "real" gender discrimination" and those of us who have experienced it with her claim. I am beyond insulted by this. I didn't think I could have less respect for her but I do. I am offended for my mother, for Bella Abzug for Susan B Anthony and all early feminists that their efforts should be so diminished. There are woman getting mentally and physically beaten up every day and for the Clinton Camp to in any way equate a Presidential Debate as a "pile on" as a result of gender is a disgrace to those woman.I am ashamed for the Campaign.