Everyone accusing Hillary of getting out of control during the "change" thing is really sexist.

Look, I think I'm going to vote for Obama next month because I like him a little bit better, but this thing about Hillary being mean or angry in this clip is so sexist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA

People on one side are going to say she was strong and people on the other side are going to say she was angry and bickering, but we all know that if a man said that in that manner we wouldn't give it a second thought. It just disturbs some people that a woman can act that way too. If you don't believe me, look at the Vice Presidential debates from 2004 and you'll see Edwards get just as confrontative, even more really. So keep spinning all you want, we all know that you are acting like pigs and should just go stick your head in a bucket of water if you are going to be trying to hand us that crazy mash.

I think her debate performance could be summed up with one of her lines. "Can we have a reality break?" She said that very rudely and very nastily.

I'm sure the others could handle her being impolite. :eyes:

to the world? I don't want my children to see that as an example of an American leader or role model, I try to teach my children to not lose control of their emotions because it impairs their judgment. Its tough sometimes but you would think with all the experience she says she has with dealing with the republican attacks, she would have come through but again...Experience means nothing with bad judgment.

If we elect someone like that our children are looking at a very dim future.

then we complain that she's not "polite."

Excuse me, this is politics! She did not lose control of her emotions; she was attacked and she defended herself! The same way the other candidates do!

For cryin' out loud!!

Edwards responded and called her status quo and I agree. I'm happy my children didn't see how she responded because then they may think thats the way to respond to people in a conversational debate. Responding the way she did only left people looking at her actions instead of the actions of the person she was addressing. I'm not sure what she accomplished by acting that way. If you are a Clinton supporter, maybe you saw it differently?

I saw a debate, with people criticizing and defending, raising voices and pointing, making accusations and counter-accusations.

But only ONE is accused of becoming "livid" and "enraged" and "losing control" etc. etc... It's just over the TOP.

elect her because of her ability to handle the heat from the republicans? If this is a representation of how much better she is than the others, we may just get a republican for another 8 years. If that is what she brings to the table, I still do not want her to represent my childrens future. She looks like she is losing her cool lately (I mean she actually looked angry) , and I'm not sure if they will be able to come up with something to counteract it. Everyone wants these debates to take place without any of the candidates disagreeing, why have the debate? They should disagree with each other without everyone saying that they are attacking.

I guess Clinton supporters will see it one way and Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama and Richardson supporters see it another way.

MANY here who aren't supporting her have defended her.

I have no problem with her "anger" and do not believe she "lost her cool." She can definitely take the heat -- I think she's proven that.

It's always been that people (I thought conservatives) have a hard time with the molds she breaks.

debate with anyone. I try to explain to them that it only leaves people looking at YOUR ACTIONS instead of the ACTIONS OF THE PERSON YOU ARE DEBATING. These people are competing to represent, we the American people and the president of the united states should be a role model to our children.

This is crazy.

don't let your children see this.

men so when they get attacked they can cry about something. Everytime she is dissed rightly or wrongly, people rant about sexism. Politics is a dirty business. You have to be up to it. Having the sexist flag waving or whatever is not indicative to me of someone tough enough to be the choice. This is the easy part. The GE is the one where we're all going to have tears.

I'd say she was giving them a little "tough love" and the boys resent it.

You go girl!

that's you're opinion, I thought she was fantastic. She made that "can we have a reality break" after the tag-teaming duo spouted nothing but rhetoric about what terrific change agents they both were.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator, I'd like to start with you. I was watching the exchange in the first half and saw what looked like a little bit of a double-team that's probably going to have a lot of people talking tomorrow morning.

SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.) (Inaudible) -- notice.

MR. SPRADLING: Yeah, I did notice. And I'd like to ask you this.

sexist.

and then the next line would be, Can we really have a hothead like this with his finger on the button?

Go look at Edwards from 2004.

YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!!

I didn't see in yet- Calif, I like Edwards, but I know what you mean.

Would you say she was out of control? Do you want this sexist attack perpetrated on every female candidate we run?

:puke:

:hi:

:P

When men get righteously miffed, it's considered "passion," when women do it's "not becoming," "out of control," "over the top." "bitchy..." What B.S.

That seems to be a favorite, too, used only for women.

I didn't read down far enough. :eyes:

It's sadly amazing isn't it?

men don't cackle

...between men and women when it comes to passion or saying something in a strong way. Men are admired for it. Women are called derogatory names for it.

We still have a long way to go.

but it's certainly undeserved.
I didn't even vote for Hillary for senate this second time - but can't stand stupid attacks. I had missed that part from the debate and wondered what new "Dean scream" they made up this time....

..about Hillary. The fact that so many compare it to the "Dean Scream" should be warning enough to anyone, like myself, who hated the way it was used against him. I don't like her at all, but I didn't think it was even half as big a deal as some here seem to think it was, or want it to be.

I prefer a president who doesn't lose his cool over nothing. She just changed from the candidate of "experience" to the candidate of "experienced change" (or whatever) last night. Didn't have time to focus poll it and she went out on a limb with it.

I'd go with "royally pissed."

When a male responds to a direct attack on his fundemental character the way that Hillary did in this case a lot of folks here would write that he "bitch slapped" his accuser. It's funny how words get used isn't it? Not.

She showed a little fire - I like that. dammit, I am sick to death of pussyfooting word-mincing polticians trying to figure out what to say and how to say it for best affect instead of just voicing their opinions/ideas factually and enthusiastically. She was fired up over what had been said and she responded quite acceptably.

Hilary acted like the same old Washington politics. Attacking and bickering.

Nobody EVER attacked her.

And we can't have any "bickering" during DEBATES! :eyes:

they always result back to the same old Washington attacks

and he's attacking and defending himself just as she did -- especially before he became the frontrunner. It's what they do.

with the flailing hand made it even worse.\

Woman here, and definitely not prejudiced.

or Ahmedinejad with all her "experience" and those types of OUTBURSTS and shrill tone and flailing hand gestures. Regardless of gender, a MATURE future world leader should be calmer and MATURE without the TONE and gesturing.

We've already had enough POSTURING and tone and weird body language by the current pResident and his vice.

You can bet focus groups who watched that exchange felt that she was losing it and pushing the volume up more than she needed to.

Was it sexist? Come on.

It was Hillary Clinton at a moment when she was responding to Edwards where she jumped too far.

I work at a media relations company where some very media saavy people train executives and others how to deal with confrontation with the media and press when things like bad press releases come out or protests on issues are on news cameras. The first thing an executive doesn't do is overreact or come off angry before the cameras. It looks bad and it makes people not trust you.

This is exactly what Hillary Clinton did.

If it was a training session, she would have been told to take a walk around the block and sit down for a bit before continuing.

Which is what happened tonight. Its worse for Clinton because everyone else at the table came off as very cool and level headed.

Could have saved us from a lot of killing a maiming.

:eyes:

she could have worked to pull people to our side, instead of giving him the rubber stamp that he asked for.

Did you see her facial expressions during her rant and after she stopped speaking.

I always heard about how ruthless and vindictive she is. I think we saw that side of
her.

With that said, was her rant a bad thing? I'm wondering if she didn't score a few points
because she looked "tough." She looked like someone who could handle an attack. However,
it was a bit over the top.

I will say this. It's obvious that Obama and Edwards both agreed before this debate that
they would work together to pile on against her.

Man, you could just see the rage in her eyes! After Obama went after her, then Edwards
echoed Obama's point and then dissed Hillary for going after Obama, she started to say
something about..."Ok look...it's obvious..." and she stopped at the word "obvious."

She was thinking...Ok, guys. Obviously, this is a strategy to take me out by tag
teaming against me. She was PISSED!

It was interesting to see that side of her. You always hear that you don't cross
the Clintons and we saw a glimmer of why that is tonight.

I didn't see "the rage in her eyes". You're buying into the anti-Hillary propaganda.

I DID see the rage in her eyes, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

I'm not buying into any anti-Hillary propaganda. I think she's
a pathetic, warmongering, corporatist hack. I thought of that
all on my own. She's a disgrace.

Will her nostril-flaring moment have an effect on her in the
NH election, who knows?

I'm wondering if it might help her, because it demonstrates
that she can handle attacks and respond.

But please...don't insinuate that I'm incapable of understanding
anger and rage when I see it, and certainly don't assume that my opinions
are not my own, but are the product of being bamboozled by "propaganda".

Please.

I thought that the look in her eyes was not very good. It was damn scary and I think that that's what made people think that she was out of control. If she had said the same words without the eyes and hand gestures, it would have been much better.

Just sayin'

"RAGE" in her eyes! If that isn't a tell, I don't know what is. That's the problem with all you sexist, Hillary bashers - you stick your foot in your mouth every time you mouth off. You have no finesse. "Shrill," "Nails on a Chalkboard," "I'm a woman, therefore I'm not sexist," "the RAGE in her eyes," I feel like I need to take a shower after reading some of these inane posts!

She stood up for herself, strongly, after being attacked. That was exactly the right response.

of Cruella DeVille that flared. I don't exactly think that is the effective
or persuasive way of driving home a strong point.

I agree that she had the right to stand up for herself. She was being tag
teamed.

I guess I'm seeing her response as more anger at what they were doing to her--than her
standing up for herself.

She's always remained very above board in the other debates, even when she was being
attacked.

I heard she broke Edwards' chair.

Very impolite of her.

NEVER thought I'd see this in 2008, among "liberals."

Amazing.

being practiced by callow supporters. She did just fine. She almost made Edwards cry. I am not a Clinton supporter

I'm of the opinion that Hillary sided with Bush and helped him
take this country to war with Iraq, when she knew that the neocons
were a lying bunch of weasels who asked her husband for the same war.

So yes, I don't like her policies.

So yes, it may taint my view of her show of emotion tonight. However,
the people who like her, have their own selective perception as well.

We all see what we see. That's what makes the world so glorious.

Are you kidding me?

I guess there's a lot of spinning here tonight. Spinning that involves
completely denying people their opinions.

She got angry for God's sakes.

Do you think anger is a bad thing, because obviously you're attempting
to wrap your candidate of choice in bubble wrap and protect her from
any sort of observations or discourse.

I find that kind of odd.

She seemed pissed to me, and not just at what was said about her.
She seemed pissed that two of the candidates appeared to be ganging
up on her in a concerted, planned fashion.

I happen to have an objective opinon on the matter is all. I have been 'accused' of supporting Hillary and Obama - my candidate of choice is John Edwards.

Hillary gave Bush the leeway to commit that "shock and awe" that you now
are so indignant about.

She knew damn well that the Iraq war was a colossal lie and a slap in the
face to Americans who were being sold a giant pile of lies. The same neocons
who launched the war with Iraq asked her own husband for the same war, in 1998.
Bill declined. Hillary knew damn well that the neocons had been shopping around
this war for years. They tried to sell it to her husband.

She said NOTHING on the Senate floor to stop it. She didn't tell America, "Wait a
minute, these guys came to Bill several years ago and wanted to take out Iraq. Maybe
we need to assess this situation."

No. She stood on the Senate floor and gave Bush his war when she made a connection
between Saddam and Al Queda and when she suggested that Saddam would have nuclear
weapons.

Please. Spare me the horrors of "Shock and Awe" when your candidate could have
stopped it, or at least told the American people the truth--and tried to thwart
the effort.

I don't have your assumed skill to know what was in Clinton's mind in 2002 but Obama claimed to be opposed to war before reaching the Senate yet voted to keep it going after reaching the Senate.

Incidentally Clinton is not my candidate but I despise sexism and am beginning to think it might be time for a female president. I hate to lose the gains women fought for in the last century.

However, I don't think opposing Clinton or pointing out her
negatives is sexism.

Also, I'm not "assuming" to know "what was in Clinton's mind in 2002" as you said.

It's a fact that the neocons asked President Bill Clinton for war with Iraq in 1998.
Here's a link to the letter in which they demanded that he give them war with Iraq.
Signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many other neocons.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I"m not "assuming" anything about what Clinton was thinking. She knew the neocons
tried to sell him the war. I doubt this major detail slipped her mind as she
stood on the floor of the Senate, during the run-up to the Iraq war and didn't
stop it.

I know it's revolting. It's one of the reasons I am totally opposed to her obtaining
the Presidency. She votes with the neocons and remains silent on their crimes.

from that that H. Clinton know the Iraq Was was a colossal bunch of lies. I believe John Kerry was also aware of the Neocon proposal and I saw indications that he was suspicious of Bush's actions re war after 9/11/01 but he also ultimately voted for the IWR. Why?

I believe that Bush successfully conned most of Congress. He told them he needed the IWR to show resolve to Hussein but told them he would allow inspections re the supposed wmds. He lied. He initiated the disgusting Shock and Awe invasion while the inspectors were still in Iraq and they had to scramble to get out.

Unfortunately most of the Congress voted for the IWR.
Why did so many Democrats opposed to the war vote for Kerry in 2004 primaries and general election yet now hold Clinton's vote against her?

Actually Clinton of all the Senators, along with Chuck Schumer, probably had a constituency highly in favor of being tough with Iraq due to the large jewish population in NYC. Many people in NYC seemed to me at the time to be sincerely fearful of what a Saddam Hussein, armed with wmd might do.

I think mostly the population of NYC knows Bush deliberately lied.

I was opposed to the war from the beginning, saw clearly that Colin Powell, Bush and Rumsfeld were dishonest about the wmd but I don't know what Senators were told that made so many of them give Bush leeway to initiate an invasion.

Some people still don't know that Bush tortured small animals as a child and that this is a one sign of a sociopath.

I cannot believe that DUers think that she was "angry" or "Dean scream moment."

She was decisive and detailed the specifics of what she has done and what she can do.

None of the others even came close.

calling me sexist when I critique Hillary for responses that come across very badly on tv.

once she saw the double team occur she took it up a notch and in so doing scored over both of them. I was happy she had that fire and passion and you obama folks can call it what you want, but if a man does this in a debate there is nothing said but when hrc does it then what? she is to just sit there prim and proper and take all that chit from those two. HELL NO! She gave it to em and when she said that obama might be better off debating hisself I thought that was dead solid perfect.....

Hey, you obama folks if you think your guy came across looking presidential and not getting into the wray you are sadly mistaken. He was lackluster. No fire, no passion and honestly he reminded me so much of bob dole in 96 when he gave the republican response to president clinton's state of the union adress and he then as obama tonight reminded me as being the national directors of morticians.

Ben David

Why? Because Mark Penn obviously read a poll and programmed her to say "change" at least 3 times in every sentence she utters. "Experienced" obviously bombed, so now she's going to try "change", except when it comes to her war votes of course. She's so pre-programmed and transparent and I don't believe a word she says anymore.

of her career. I support Obama but I think Clinton's life's work is being trivialized because of the electoral dynamics of 2008 and the fact that she has entrusted her campaign to a bunch of political consultants who have their feet set in the concrete of the 1990's while their heads are firmly shoved up their asses. My hope is that Obama or Edwards, if either gets the nomination, can stand up to the brutish attacks from the RW as well as she has, because they are certain to come.

Is that what all the bitching is about? Puhlease! I thought she would be stomping her fist on the desk and standing up and repeatedly saying "LET ME FINISH!" It looks like she put Edwards in his place. We all know the only reason some are making a big deal about this is because they already don't like Hillary and this gives them an excuse to pile on. Simple as that.

I missed the debate and missed what came before and after, so context is missing. The clip shown doesn't seem out of line by itself. But many people will nonetheless take it that way. That this is being taken so far out of proportion is blatantly sexist. That said, if she can't find a way to deal with that discriminatory impulse in a Democratic primary, there is no way in hell she'd survive the sexist backlash in the general election. Maybe she can still turn it around, but the problem with Hillary is that there are so many reasons to dislike her, it is impossible to confront anyone with the charge of sexism. Even if you tear talking point after talking point down, there are a thousand rationalizations left to fall back upon.

Full disclosure: I support John Edwards.

She's getting tagged because she lost her cool and hurt herself. Anger is fine as long as you're in control. She wasn't. You're unlikely to ever find a place less sexist than DU, so the insistence that all criticism of Hillary is based only on sexism, rather than the serious faults of her and her campaign, is bullshit, and anyone making that argument should be ashamed.

She had to be restrained!

Did you see the Edwards debate I mentioned in the OP? What part of the Edwards debate do you think I'm comparing to this?

EVERY man on that stage has had 'heated' moments defending their record. I say this as an Edwards supporter.

Then I don't think we were watching the same debate.

it's called "passion" when a man does it on the campaign trail. I watched the debate, and this is much ado about nothing.

Did you ever watch Wellstone campaign? Ever watch Ted Kennedy give a moving speech on the Senate floor?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N5z67UNOUcA

Pardon my Rumsfeldian response, but ...

Did Mr. Kennedy lose his temper above? Sure.
Was that ok? Of course!
Was Hillary's 'temper' even close to what Kennedy demonstrated above? HELL NO.

Is this argument an example of either spin or sexism. You bet! ;)

She was not out of control, she was frustrated and defended herself. Any time a woman does that she is criticized for it.

Hillary looked really, really pissed off. The camera cut to Chelsea and there was a look of concern on her face, too. Since Bill was no where to be seen, I wondered if they'd been fighting or something. She rallied later on in the debate, but you have to wonder what goes on in the background. Someone reported the flight from Iowa to New Hampshire was a giant argument about whose fault it was Hillary didn't win.

thank you Rona Barrett.

Fucking tabloid worthy bullshit.

you're working for the Star that's exactly what you'll report.
I guess Hil's got to keep a smile slapped on her "pretty face" around the likes of you, otherwise who knpws what silly bullshit people will make up...
:eyesroll:

i'm sure that happens all the time with the male candidates.
how bizarre is that?

problematic? Or, if he doesn't want to promote the notion of 'statusquo' given the new 'change' meme? I'm sure he'd have been there if it were simply about a fight. They've been married long enough to carry on politically/professionally in the face of a marital tiff. ;)

I can't read anyone's mind, so I don't know if the silly stuff about how "out of control" she was is sexist or not, individually. However, there IS a pattern showing, and that pattern is, as it always has been, that a woman can't get away with forcefully expressing herself, even when it's defending herself. We're just not supposed to do that. Hillary did, last night, quite forcefully, but I didn't see her lose control at all, and I think she had a right to defend her record. (I'm an Edwards supporter, BTW, and she was responding mainly to Edwards)

It's a DEBATE, folks. People tend to disagree with each other in debates, often strongly, and particularly when the stakes are high. And it's going to get more confrontational.

Support whoever you want but for godssakes people, cut the sexist crap, any racist crap, just cut the crap. This is politics.