Gender Card03 Nov 2007 04:05 pm As long as we're all worried about Hillary Clinton and the 'gender card' we do realize that about 75 percent of the 2004 race between John "I've killed people" Kerry and George "no you're a windsurfing frenchman" Bush was a series of efforts to play the gender card, right? It's actually stunning how much of thr erstwhile foreign policy debate is primarily an argument about the size of the debaters' dicks. Comments (45)
right. only it is, as always, the love that dare not speak its name. if matthews would just come out and say 'i don't like girls; i feel sexually attracted to boys', then he wouldn't do the same damage to the terms of the debate. it's because it's all closeted and repressed that it gets presented as though there are substantive issues of foreign policy in play. 
So does the Clinton's campaign tactic of claiming 'all the boys are ganging up on me' reinforce or undercut said misogyny? Does her 'one tough woman' talking point offset her crying foul when confronted by opponents?
And Fred Thompson just fathered children!! republicans are cartoons.
It's actually stunning how much of thr erstwhile foreign policy debate is primarily an argument about the size of the debaters' dicks. Question for all: Do you think a man could be elected president if it were common knowledge he had a 4" cock?
Nope, don't think that man would get elected to dog-catcher. I've got my own theories on the endowment of your typical warmonger and I wish someone would get some pictures and put it to a test.
One need only watch the cable and network news shows to see the male gender card being played, swapped and collected 24/7/365. Further, every President of the United States got there because he played the male gender card.
Do you think a man could be elected president if it were common knowledge he had a 4" cock? No. Even better question: do you think a man could be elected president if he had a freakishly large cock? As in, it was completely conspicuous, going 3/4 of the way down to his knee, or something like that.
Ah, high-minded political discourse. It's like a Dan Savage column, but with less politics.
Well you're right Matt, but the fact is that HRC is trying to dismiss legitimate criticism by playing the Gender Card. It's not the Card but the way it's used.
Now you've done it! Exposed the dominant ape motif of presidential elections.
"the fact is that HRC is trying to dismiss legitimate criticism by playing the Gender Card. It's not the Card but the way it's used." Yup. If this nomination battle is fought over the future direction of the Democratic Party, Senator Clinton is going to lose. If this nomination battle is fought over identity politics, Senator Clinton is going to win. Team Clinton is well aware of this.
It bears noting, if you've been reading Stoller or Digby or GFR on this subject, that the Gender Card issue came up before Hillary's appearance at Wellesley and was largely derived from the spin Mark Penn deployed immediately after the debate--including that "Politics of Pile-On" video.
It's a shame you're not allowed to say that on the cover of a newspaper, because the statement, crude as it is, is more insightful than a lot of the crap you tend to see. Has there been an onion article to this effect? "Bush to Kerry: U.S. Should Pursue 'Big-dick' Foreign Policy Agenda."
Even better question: do you think a man could be elected president if he had a freakishly large cock? Pre 9/11, no.
First of all, what do you mean by "erstwhile"? Also, isn't dick size mostly a way to impress men, not women?
Even better question: do you think a man could be elected president if he had a freakishly large cock? As in, it was completely conspicuous, going 3/4 of the way down to his knee, or something like that. Well, it didn't stop Cheney. And yeah, look up 'erstwhile' when you get a sec, Matt.
"It's actually stunning how much of thr erstwhile foreign policy debate is primarily an argument about the size of the debaters' dicks." Well, the candidates play to their audience--the national political press corps.
"It bears noting, if you've been reading Stoller or Digby or GFR on this subject, that the Gender Card issue came up before Hillary's appearance at Wellesley and was largely derived from the spin Mark Penn deployed immediately after the debate--including that "Politics of Pile-On" video." Yup. There was a rather masterful 36 hour rollout of a variety of Gender Card talking points following the debate. The Clinton apologists need to focus on the Wellesley appearance while ignoring the other bits in order to make their case. ----- The Clinton campaign is fascinating in how dependent it is on being able to continually deflect and change the topic. They're very good at doing that. But the fact that they're so dependent on doing so reveals an interesting weakness at the heart of the candidacy, namely that the Clinton campaign doesn't really stand for anything. If they ever get backed into a corner where they're not able to deflect and change the topic, they're going to have some very real problems.
Also, isn't dick size mostly a way to impress men, not women? That's a myth.
If they [HRC's campaign] ever get backed into a corner where they're not able to deflect and change the topic, they're going to have some very real problems. Edwards has their number.
well that's not unreasonable: a big dick is more likely to scare off the terrorists, right? the bigger the dick, the scareder they get.
It's actually stunning how much of thr erstwhile foreign policy debate is primarily an argument about the size of the debaters' dicks. Then it's time to stop all the talk. Unzip flies, bring out the tape measures, and we'll know for sure. Note 1: Of course Obama will have an unfair advantage, so some sort of handicapping system will be required. Note 2: Hillary will win the "contest."
Note 1: Of course Obama will have an unfair advantage, so some sort of handicapping system will be required. Posted by Peter This is not a myth.
George Carlin had this all figured out in 1991.
Even better question: do you think a man could be elected president if he had a freakishly large cock? I know where you're going with that, but forget it. If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.
If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Posted by Woody Bombay Phone number???
I just thirty minutes ago recommended this blog to my 23 year old daughter, and I check to see what MY is posting about, and this is what I see?
I just thirty minutes ago recommended this blog to my 23 year old daughter, and I check to see what MY is posting about, and this is what I see? Believe me, she'll understand,
If you are looking for gender and member think DICK Cheney.
If you are looking for gender and member think DICK Cheney.
But the Clinton approach seems to be: "Hillary has the biggest dick but we really shouldn't talk about who has the biggest dick even though Hillary's is the largest."
It bears noting, if you've been reading Stoller or Digby or GFR on this subject, that the Gender Card issue came up before Hillary's appearance at Wellesley and was largely derived from the spin Mark Penn deployed immediately after the debate--including that "Politics of Pile-On" video. I just watched that video again and I'm having a real hard time ascertaining how it supposedly played the gender card.
I just watched that video again and I'm having a real hard time ascertaining how it supposedly played the gender card. It was a developing theme, of course. And some commentators still maintain she hasn't played the gender card at all, so I may not be able to demonstrate the connection to your satisfaction. I can't track down the news coverage of Penn that I saw (which prompted my comment). Still, this press release begins to link the politics of piling-on to the candidate's gender: 10/31/2007
Well if gender stereo types are any guide, Obama wins by several inches. Hillary’s gender card was her same old, tired conspiracy, victim BULL SHIT. Not “Right Wing” this time, just all those fucking people with cocks. I keep wanting to like her and give her the benefit of the doubt, because she is the likely nominee. However, every time she pulls this crap, my gut tells me that she has a very significant character flaw. And if it’s not a character flaw, then I sure hate the way she runs the campaign… Iran vote, supports Constitional Amendment against flag burning. Then I start thinking about those horrible last few months she and Bill were in office, the pardons, the corruption. Those last few months and those pardons had a lot to do with the country’s rejection of Gore. OK. I feel better now, but I hope she can figure out how to lead; otherwise she needs to be pushed aside for Obama or John.
So the only problem with this analysis, MY, is that HRC and her camp are among the worst practitioners of "testosterone based foreign policy" in the Democratic Party.
She shall be pushed aside. Not because she's a woman, but because she's so utterly hollow when you remove the bullshit, and because nobody likes being told that the nominee has already been decided for them. The "inevitability" that's carried her along so far will rub people the wrong way, and so will these godawful votes she's cast.
So the only problem with this analysis, MY, is that HRC and her camp are among the worst practitioners of "testosterone based foreign policy" in the Democratic Party. I think you're making the classic mistake of assuming the candidate's actual policies have anything to do with the size of their peos. The salient feature of Matt's Kerry V. Bush exchange above is that it's entirely symbolic.
Classic chimp behavior. It's basically why Bush wants to nuke the Iranians - monkeys throw shit at their enemies. If Hillary really wanted to prove she was "one strong woman", she should have dumped Bill long ago and hooked up with some billionaire - or some rich woman. (Note: Rich is the operative word here.) Sure, the males are ganging up on her because a) she's the front-runner; and b) she's female. Big surprise. The two are connected - she's a front-runner because she's a well-known female running for President. That breaks the "good ol' boy" mold just enough to give her an edge. But it also means she has to deal with attacks from the "good ol' boys," None of which is relevant to whether she would make a good President - which is so unlikely as to be not worth discussing. She will play the gender card because she clearly wants the female vote. What's not clear is whether she will get it - because females vote for powerful males like her husband - not powerful females. Feminists might vote for her - but I doubt most females will absent some other reason to dislike the other candidates. So whoever is the best looking, most dynamic Democratic male will get the female vote. Prove me wrong. And she's not as good looking as Segolene Royal, so she won't get the Democratic male vote, either. Obama has the dynamics and the good looks to get the female vote. Plus he's black - a plus for a Democrat (a nightmare for a Republican.) You get to feel you're beyond racial politics by voting for him, how nice! It's not clear if he has the "balls" to get the Democratic male vote compared to the other guys, though. My guess is that will mean less in the end than Hillary's problems. Obama will get his male votes based on his policy statements and whether he is perceived to be able to deal with the Republicans - which even Matt is not sure about. The Republicans are in worse shape, since they're a bunch of ugly, old, probably gay, guys, Thompson's young trophy wife notwithstanding, or known philanderers like Rudy (but a lot of women like philanderers like Bill Clinton - as long as they're not married to them.) But then they count on crazed Christians to vote for them anyway - not women. The reason Hillary will lose in the end is because people will see through her and notice that she has too many negative character traits which are not offset, but merely accentuated, by her being smart and calculating. Obama may be just slick, but he comes across as having a lot of positive character traits and not many negative ones except possibly not being aggressive enough for the beta chimps. On the other hand, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American electorate. They put Bush in power twice, so there you are. A Republican might yet be President in 2009 - especially when the Iran war starts.
Male Gender Card: First of all, not every President was elected for playing the Male Gender Card. Carter was definately not, since America at that time was sick of what a 12” penis swagger gets us into. Ironically, it took someone known as Tricky Dick for us to catch on. And I think may, may be there for 2008. However, until Mathews services Guliani on his television set, I am afraid the media will continue to shower tongue baths each day over the candidate which most represents the hairy bear they slept with the night before.
Either way – this will never end, since the media also plays to who watches the news (men). Obviously, men are also at fault from the standpoint we somehow always equate violence with strength, versus seeing perhaps that it will only cause vicious cycles of violence. But, then again – what can you expect when being overly aggressive is what wins you mates.
Still, this press release begins to link the politics of piling-on to the candidate's gender: After paragraphs and paragraphs of unremarkable argument, your argument for the "gender card" is that the statement concludes with the words "one strong woman"? Seriously, you guys are defining the "gender card" down to where it means nothing at all. I'm surprised you'll let her get away with using the feminine pronoun.
Hillary’s gender card was her same old, tired conspiracy, victim BULL SHIT. Not “Right Wing” this time . . . What, you think Hillary was wrong that there was a right wing conspiracy out to get Bill and her? It's rather well-documented, even if you're so young you don't remember the 90's. I mean, they held meetings, made videos, and everything . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifeside050299.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project
Steve, "They really went from 'Let's talk about what I believe' to 'Let me try to do a gotcha against Hillary Clinton,' " said one Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Ultimately, it was six guys against her, and she came off as one strong woman."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103103093.html?hpid=topnews
While there was a vast right wing conspiracy against Bill and Hillary Clinton, it was the country, and not the Clintons, which felt the most profound effects of that right wing conspiracy, and I wish someone had been there to fight against that.
You gotta wonder how much Rudy's prostate cancer-induced impotence fuels his foreign policy views.
Comments closed November 17, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's actually stunning how much of thr erstwhile foreign policy debate is primarily an argument about the size of the debaters' dicks.
So when Hillary said all the men were "ganging up on her"...we're to infer...
Posted by Bill | November 3, 2007 4:24 PM