Clinton Campaign Takes a Turn For The Weird

[Isaac]

Andrew flags a Hillary Clinton interview where she says the following about the state of her campaign:

"You can't tell how far a frog will jump until you punch him."

Okay then. But her other comments were even stranger:

"I am tired," said Clinton with exasperation. "I am tired of politicians and people in the press saying we cant do things. We are the can do nation."

Clinton was asked Wednesday night if she really wanted reporters to be more vigorous and aggressive – she said that she does, but on the "right things."

"I really do," insisted Clinton. "I really do. On the right things. On things that are important to the future of our country. On things that really matter. I would love that."

For more Clinton weirdness on the trail, check out Mark Liebovich's piece in today's Times.

As for E.J. Dionne's column today on Hillary's angry female supporters, I agree with Te-Nehisi's point that--in essence--the plural of anecdote is not data, and thus that we should be wary of extrapolating a larger meaning out of quotes from individual women. But I do take issue with his juxtaposition of these two sentences:

I don't think there's much of question as to whether gender/sexism affected the election. The need for pundits to comment on Hillary's appearance has always seemed bizarre to me.

One can agree with the assertion in the second sentence without thinking it has anything to do with the first sentence. Sure, sexism affected the election, and sexism affects how people treat Clinton's physical appearance, but listening to HRC supporters (like the ones quoted by Dionne) can almost lead one to believe that Clinton lost to Obama because of some Drudge photographs and a Washington Post article that mentioned cleavage. Please.

Comments

You are either with us or with the misogynists.

Posted by nice strategy | May 30, 2008 1:40 PM

Of course, if the Clinton & Obama situations were reversed, "angry black supporters" would be saying it was racism that did Obama's campaign in (and would Matt agree?).

Identity politics at its finest.

Posted by kafka | May 30, 2008 1:41 PM

She's ready to be fitted for a straitjacket. And to keep things gender-neutral, Bill's been ready for quite a while now.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 30, 2008 1:41 PM

"I am tired of politicians and people in the press saying we cant do things. We are the can do nation."

Except elect a black president. That, we absolutely cannot do.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | May 30, 2008 1:45 PM

Gee, whiz, Isaac, you're right. She sure is weird! One out of context metaphor and a perfectly innocuous answer to a question prove that point beyond any doubt. Thank goodness Matt brought you in today to post such insightful wisdom.

Clinton wants reporters to aggressively report on "the right things". What could she possibly mean? She must be crazy. I mean, sure, she immediately says, "On things that are important to the future of our country. On things that really matter." But really, she could mean anything. That is sooooooo incredibly weird.

Of course, Isaac is weird too. He said the following:

"Only 2,279 people killed under Pinochet!" What can he possibly mean by that?

Later on he said this:

"First Lethal Weapon. Then Die Hard. Then Indiana Jones." What a nut!

Posted by Rob Mac | May 30, 2008 1:56 PM

What's strange about the second quote? She's saying journalists should be more aggressive about things that matters, like wars and corruption, I imagine, as opposed to blow jobs and cleavage (and probably outspoken pastors as well). Do you really disagree?

Posted by Laurent C. | May 30, 2008 1:58 PM

What's strange about the second quote? She's saying journalists should be more aggressive about things that matter, like wars and corruption, I imagine, as opposed to blow jobs and cleavage (and probably outspoken pastors as well). Do you really disagree?

Posted by Laurent C. | May 30, 2008 1:59 PM

People are saying we can't add one and one and get three, but they are forgetting we are the "can do" nation!

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 2:02 PM

I'm pretty sure a punch would kill a frog.

Posted by Sirkowski | May 30, 2008 2:03 PM

What others said. The stuff in the middle is not at all "strange". It's perfectly innocuous stuff. What it *is*, if anything, (the "can-do" bit) is a little rich soming from someone whose entire rationale for still running, at this point, is that America can't overcome racism enough to elect a black president.

Posted by Ryan | May 30, 2008 2:04 PM

Incidentally, I don't think the last bit about the press covering the "right things" is weird, just hypocritical (this is, after all, the campaign that brought us Kindergate). But maybe Isaac meant it is weird that Clinton is being so blatantly hypocritical.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 2:08 PM

What's strange about the second quote? She's saying journalists should be more aggressive about things that matter, like wars and corruption, I imagine, as opposed to blow jobs and cleavage (and probably outspoken pastors as well). Do you really disagree?

Not at all, but I'm not the Presidential candidate who felt that Reverend Wright 'really should be examined,' now, am I?

Posted by Persia | May 30, 2008 2:16 PM

Maybe she's hitting the sauce. That Crown Royal can put a nice, fuzzy blur on a cold, cruel world:

Drudge had up a link to this article/pictures:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23488377-details/One+for+the+end+of+the+road+Merry+Clinton+knocks+back+whisky+on+campaign+plane/article.do

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 2:20 PM

The media has exhibited sexism. As one of HRC's female boomer demographic, I don't like it either. But she is not a great feminist example. Her pretense that there hasn't been a big slice of sexism working in her favor is disingenuous. How much of her "hard-working white" Appalachian support is operating on the same sexist assumption that has elevated the political careers of numerous other wives of famous politicians in the past* -- the assumption that no self-respecting wife would act independently once elected, that in fact their support for Hillary is a vote for the otherwise-impossible third term for Bill?

*Examples: Ma Ferguson, Gov. TX -- Mrs. Ferguson served as the first lady of Texas during the gubernatorial terms of her husband (1915-17), who was impeached during his second administration. When James Ferguson failed to get his name on the ballot in 1924, Miriam entered the race for the Texas governorship. Before announcing for office, she had devoted her energies almost exclusively to her husband and two daughters. This fact, and the combination of her first and middle initials, led her supporters to call her "Ma" Ferguson. She quickly assured Texans that if elected she would follow the advice of her husband and that Texas thus would gain "two governors for the price of one."

Nellie Ross, WY -- In 1922, William Ross was elected governor of Wyoming by appealing to progressive voters in both parties. However, after little more than a year and a half in office, he died on October 2, 1924, from complications from an appendectomy. The Democratic Party then nominated Nellie Ross to run for governor in a special election the following month.

Lurleen Wallace, AL -- In Alabama ... governors were not allowed to serve two consecutive terms. ... Wallace devised a plan in which his wife, Lurleen, would run for governor while he continued to exercise the authority of the office behind the scenes.

Posted by bemused | May 30, 2008 2:26 PM

The important thing for any politician to have is something to say for those times when he's got nothing to say.

"Punch a frog"? I love it when politicians contrive stuff like that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 30, 2008 2:31 PM

Fallows will blow a gasket when he sees that quote. Gone from boiling to punching!

Posted by Tel | May 30, 2008 2:44 PM

As for E.J. Dionne's column today on Hillary's angry female supporters, I agree with Te-Nehisi's point that--in essence--the plural of anecdote is not data, and thus that we should be wary of extrapolating a larger meaning out of quotes from individual women.

Gee--I posted a comment on this earlier, noting newly released Pew data backing Dionne up. I might add that I'm seeing a lot of this sentiment from women bloggers here in Tennessee. It's a real problem, and one that can't be reduced to Beltway intramurals.

Posted by David in Nashville | May 30, 2008 2:53 PM

It took about thirty seconds to find this weird page:

He ketched a frog one day, and took him home, and said he cal'lated to educate him; and so he never done nothing for three months but set in his back yard and learn that frog to jump. And you bet you he did learn him, too. He'd give him a little punch behind, and the next minute you'd see that frog whirling in the air like a doughnut--see him turn one summerset, or maybe a couple, if he got a good start, and come down flat-footed and all right, like a cat.

Weird! Why, it's almost like she read a book or something.

Posted by TLB | May 30, 2008 3:03 PM

I agree with Laurent C. among others that the second quote is not strange.

The issue of the press's focus on HRC's appearance is interesting, since I don't think that's where the media's sexism lies. Remember the comments about Al Gore's wardrobe, choice of colors, and efforts to adopt an alpha-male style in the 2000 campaign? Remember the speculation that Kerry had botox treatments in 2004?

We look at a candidate's appearance when it seems that s/he's trying to project an image that doesn't fit her or him. Do we judge such self-conscious efforts at image-manipulation more harshly in women than in men? Possibly, although I have to say Al Gore got creamed on this in the press in 2000.

Posted by tobie | May 30, 2008 3:08 PM

What do you mean a "turn" for the weird?

I have always thought it weird when someone pisses on my leg and then tells me its raining. I can see you pissing.

Hillary has consistently shown the public disrespect by refusing to bother to make her lies even appear plausible. She is like the toddler who says "I didn't eat the cookie" when she still has the crumbs on her face.

I disrespect Hillary because she disrespects me.

Posted by libarbarian | May 30, 2008 3:09 PM

Actually, Tel, I think Hilary is on Fallows's side.

If you boiled a frog to death over a slow fire, then you would know how far he would jump if you punched him -- he wouldn't jump at all. Because he would be dead. So Hilary is asserting that the frog-boiling hypothesis is false!

Posted by roac | May 30, 2008 3:09 PM

Maybe Hillary Clinton wants to run as a third party candidate? Sort of like Liebermann in Connecticut.

Posted by stm177 | May 30, 2008 3:16 PM

Gore and Kerry got a lot of attention for the way they looked and dressed at various stages in their campaigns. Reporters loved talking about John Edwards hair. Bill Clinton's weight issues were reported on during his campaign and presidency. Yet as always with Hillary, getting the same harsh treatment as other candidates get from time to time is put down to sexism.

Posted by Helter | May 30, 2008 3:19 PM

TLB is (ick) right -- it's a Mark Twain reference. Calculated to sound down-home and folksy, no doubt. Though apparently it's sailing over the heads of many people. Odd kind of dog whistle -- aimed at, what, American Lit majors?

Posted by hadleyburg | May 30, 2008 3:42 PM

The issue of the press's focus on HRC's appearance is interesting, since I don't think that's where the media's sexism lies. Remember the comments about Al Gore's wardrobe, choice of colors, and efforts to adopt an alpha-male style in the 2000 campaign? Remember the speculation that Kerry had botox treatments in 2004?

Meh, that was sexism too-- they weren't 'manly' enough to be President. (See also Edwards' haircut, Anne Coulter, etc.). No one rags on what John McSame is wearing.

Posted by Persia | May 30, 2008 3:59 PM

@ Persia -

True - no one rags on what McCain wears.

but let me be the first to say... "Oh John, please do something about that comb over!"

Posted by Myself | May 30, 2008 4:11 PM

Yeah, really weird. She said punch instead of poke.

Blogging at its most inane. Where did MY find you?

Posted by Decided | May 30, 2008 4:14 PM

It's gotta be getting pretty bad when Hunter Thompson would have had trouble manufacturing any more weirdness than what a straight transcript provides.

Posted by cmholm | May 30, 2008 4:35 PM

Meh, that was sexism too-- they weren't 'manly' enough to be President. (See also Edwards' haircut, Anne Coulter, etc.). No one rags on what John McSame is wearing.

That's a failure of Democratic branding. Not only would sexist attacks on McCain work, they'd work better, because coded sexist appeals are an integral part of Republican base motivation.

Again, I vote for calling him "Barbara Ann." Cracks the code, and when someone asks "why do you call him Barbara Ann?" the answer leads into another favorable Democratic frame.

Posted by scythia | May 30, 2008 4:36 PM

I heard Clinton just said "if you fire a chicken out of a cannon, it may end up in the swamp, but pour that bilgewater over some ruffage and you've got yourself one heckuva meal."

I'm not sure what that means, but I think it means she's staying in the race for a few more days, subsisting on nitrous oxide balloons and mezcal.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | May 30, 2008 4:37 PM

Thank you,TLB.

It's a pity that whenever Senator Clinton drops her guard and speaks like a person who read and understood Mark Twain many years ago, Harvard graduates find this "weird".

They don't teach Mark Twain in Harvard anymore? What the hell do they teach?

I am also very tired of stuff getting printed in newspapers with "can't" spelled "cant".

Posted by wobbly | May 30, 2008 5:20 PM

What's weird is not what she said but the fact that journalists get to speak of a sitting U.S. senator like she's the scum of the earth. Just to give you a taste of your own medicine, allow me to repeat a comment I saw on the Atlantic site last time I visited. "Ken, how do you type with Obama's cock in your mouth?" Not very nice, is it? And yet you talk like this about the only presidential candidate with a shot of saving this country from the Soviet-like collapse that's coming.

Lambs on the way to slaughter, that's all you brilliant wits are...

Posted by YRM | May 30, 2008 5:22 PM

Apostrophes are done, wobbly. They're not conducive to modern communication. I give 'em 20 years before Chicago declares them "optional."

Posted by scythia | May 30, 2008 5:27 PM

"I am tired," said Clinton with exasperation. "I am tired of politicians and people in the press saying we cant do things. We are the can do nation."

Clinton was asked Wednesday night if she really wanted reporters to be more vigorous and aggressive – she said that she does, but on the "right things."

"I really do," insisted Clinton. "I really do. On the right things. On things that are important to the future of our country. On things that really matter. I would love that."

Excuse me, but what is "weird" about this? A sane and reasonable answer to the crap microphone in the face our candidates face...

Good job, Hillary.

Bad job, Matt.

Posted by wobbly | May 30, 2008 5:37 PM

Bemused, you are spot-on. As a 50ish woman from a largely-female extended family, I know exactly one woman who supports Hillary Clinton. She just wants Bill back in the White House. Same goes for the other HRC supporters I know: six men (three straight, three gay).

I know a LOT of women who dread HRC. Mom sums it up this way: "I don't trust her." General consensus is that her campaign is far more about the Clintons than what's best for the family. Further, we're horrified by the way her campaign has been run. Alternatively, we've voted for Edwards and Obama.

Personally, I've seen little sexism. Pre-IA, the press had basically conceded that HRC would be the nominee. How many primary votes has she lost because she's a woman? Far fewer, I'll bet, than those she's gained from those who, like my step-father, refuse to vote for a black man. If Clinton truly cared more about equality than herself, she would have loudly announced that she does not want such a vote, if that is the intention. (In fact, Papa - a WWII vet - will vote McCain in November._

Posted by Judy | May 30, 2008 5:53 PM

The context of the "aggressive" quote comes after a discussion of the finances of her campaign. Clearly Clinton was annoyed that the press is focusing on the fact that her campaign is nearly broke, and she wants them to focus instead on her determination to win the nomination.

It's fairly obvious to me that Clinton, in talking about what reporters should focus on, was referring to focusing on HER winning the nomination.

That is what SHE thinks is important.

In other words, "it's all about HER".

The frog quote was just a stupid joke. but again, trying to justify her attempt to sandbag the Democratic campaign for her own benefit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 6:36 PM

When Andy prods, all the tadpoles jump.

Posted by muppets | May 30, 2008 8:21 PM

Why, we're all sewed up in horse pies.

Posted by Beige | May 30, 2008 8:33 PM

The comments or reasoning that I think are weird is the claim that she has more votes, but sexism is somehow the cause of her being behind in the delegate count.

Guess what? She will not be able to manipulate the electoral college in the Fall, and there are no superdelegates to manipulate either. Her argument that she is more electable stands in contrast to her argument that she suffers from some form of discrimination.

Posted by tomj | May 31, 2008 1:00 AM

CAN HILLARY CREATE A NEW POLITICAL PARTY TO REPRESENT THE WOMEN AND WORKING CLASS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION? MILLIONS OF VOTERS HOPE SO.
The DNC has made it clear that they have a nominee that represents blacks and college kids and that they don't care about women and working class voters. Obama's supporters have made that abundantly clear in their comments to these blogs. What hasn't yet dawned on women and working folks is that the democratic party no longer represents their interests - which means a new political party has splintered off from the democrats - a working class and women party to be exact. Hillary Clinton represents that constituency. Since the democrats will not be able to convince these voters - the ones that Obama has blatantly and consistently insulted - to accept the lesser of 2 evils - McCain vs. Obama - they will either change parties or vote for the lesser of 2 evils - McCain. The DNC has forced a split in the party - by its reckless disregard for women and working class voters - thank God Hillary is there to represent them.

Posted by Betty | May 31, 2008 3:36 PM

I am a retired attorney and I have seen the likes of Hillary in court. They are so afraid of losing that they will do ANYthing, and I mean ANYTHing to prevent it. Destroying evidence, playing games, coaching witnesses, telling witnesses what to say (an ethics violation), on and on. And when they finally lose, they say it was because of gender. What a joke. This country needs someone who can bring integrity and honesty back to the White HOuse. We can wait for the right woman, and I would like to see one down the road, just not ole Hillary, - the queen of pander and dishonesty.

Posted by tony | May 31, 2008 10:03 PM

Obama's not a "black" candidate. He's been raised white and is trying to be black, but he's not. What one learns is that skin color is only part of the problem of why blacks (African-Americans) have difficulty in assimilating into American culture. I don't think the skin color is the whole problem. The attitude may be. The pendulum swings left and right, but now it's gone too far off center.

Posted by Bev | June 1, 2008 3:38 AM

Obama's not a "black" candidate. He's been raised white and is trying to be black, but he's not. What one learns is that skin color is only part of the problem of why blacks (African-Americans) have difficulty in assimilating into American culture. I don't think the skin color is the whole problem. The attitude may be. The pendulum swings left and right, but now it's gone too far off center.

Posted by Bev | June 1, 2008 3:38 AM

Obama's not a "black" candidate. He's been raised white and is trying to be black, but he's not. What one learns is that skin color is only part of the problem of why blacks (African-Americans) have difficulty in assimilating into American culture. I don't think the skin color is the whole problem. The attitude may be. The pendulum swings left and right, but now it's gone too far off center.

Posted by Bev | June 1, 2008 3:38 AM

Obama's not a "black" candidate. He's been raised white and is trying to be black, but he's not. What one learns is that skin color is only part of the problem of why blacks (African-Americans) have difficulty in assimilating into American culture. I don't think the skin color is the whole problem. The attitude may be. The pendulum swings left and right, but now it's gone too far off center.

Posted by Bev | June 1, 2008 3:38 AM