After watching saturday night's debates, Did you feel like Hillary played "the woman card"?

For those who might not remember or didn't watch, during a particularly heated discussion about "change" between former Senator Edwards, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, Hillary defended herself against Edwards "status quo" attack by replying that as a first female president she would be a beacon of change. (something like that, can't remember the exact quote)





Perhaps as a regular GWSer, my opinion is jaded, but I was turned off by her quickness to play what I felt to be "the woman card"





In her defense, she did offer many other responses to the same argument such as her 35 year political career experience laden with change, etc.





Should the fact that she is, in fact, female matter? Or is her womanhood the proverbial elephant in the living room no one wants to discuss, therefore she must draw attention to it?





(btw, did anyone else fall in love with Gov. Richardson after his quip about hostage situations being more civil? lol)

After watching saturday night's debates, Did you feel like Hillary played "the woman card"?
i see what you're saying, but hasn't everyone else been going on about how shes a woman? come on! we all know many people will not vote for her because she has a vagina; some people even go so far as to say this directly. I'm sure she is feeling that pressure; she is human. and it IS a big deal, just like if Obama gets elected it will be a big deal. I think Edwards was out of line calling her the Status Quo when white, christian men (like him) have been the status quo for years.





i don't mind if people don't want to vote for her, we all have our personal reasons for voting for who we vote for. i am pretty sick of hearing about how she is cold and about her "cheating husband". what relevance does that have? she seems cold because people criticize her when she shows emotion-she can't win.
Reply:I unfortunately have not seen that debate yet. But, from news reports, I must say your reaction was exactly mine. Hillary's no fool. She's a brilliant political mastermind. Those tears were absolutely artifice. As for playing that card too soon, I doubt that. A politician's every nuance plays off timed-to-the-second polling and analysis. More's going on than whatever happened in Iowa. Can't you feel it? Stay tuned.
Reply:Isn't that what politicians are supposed to do? Obviously you can't lay all your cards on the table, but isn't it in their best interest to appeal to as many interest groups as possible? If I were Obama, I would have insight into 2 groups that have suffered racial divide for what seems forever. This would mean I would have a diverse perspective appealing to a broader group of people....which is the whole point right? I don't think it's a smarmy tactic, and it may well benefit Hillary to be a confidant woman more than it hurts.





Cool blog "Why Hillary's Campaign Is Imploding":


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/7/7...





EDIT: Snorzle! You're funny! Thanks for the LOL!!!
Reply:She may have been playing that "card", so to speak..but in her defense I would say that she did so in order to illustrate a point and defend against Obama's statements of being a "bringer of change"...I think he was using his skin color (be it mixed - a non-white) as a card, so to speak...I also think she made brought out a good point: that she's been working on change for 35 years....it's not a new concept to her. Everyone's jumping on the "universal health care bandwagon" but it was she who first really sought to find an answer to this problem...granted, many have not appreciated the changes she brought about, but the health care problem is vast and very complex...and she had the courage to tackle it first. I respect her for that. And, I believe that she has learned much through the trials and errors of the past, and is best suited to apply that knowledge to our current situation.





I doubt that Hillary would have brought up her gender if Obama hadn't made such an impact bringing into this the fact that he is a non-white American. He may not have ever directly stated it as such, but the message was definitely there- and it looks to me like he's winning a lot of support because of it. Why shouldn't she "cash in" on the same thing (in regard to her gender)? But when it comes down to it, I hope people vote on the issues- not race, not gender. And I hope people listen to what each candidate actually says regarding the issues. Seems to me there's a lot of talk coming from Obama, but very little actually being said. He's good at riling up the crowds...but what he says seems to lack anything substantial. And in my opinion, he's young and inexperienced compared to Hillary when it comes to politics...but he may win anyway...as charismatic leaders often do.





Just my opinion.
Reply:I've actually been impressed with the scarcity of any issue of sex coming up in Clinton's campaign. While other candidates have strongly emphasized race, age, or religion, I've seen her using "White House Experience", not "It's Time For A Woman".





Geraldine Ferraro was another story... that was all about putting a female in the White House.
Reply:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/110...





That's back from November, but yeah I think she was, and she has before. The fact that she's a woman shouldn't matter, and I think it's sad that it does. She's making it a bigger issue than anyone else is, and I'm not too sure that's a good idea. Turning it into "men vs. women" can cost her more votes than it gains...





As far as I know, Obama has never called it a "white boys' club."
Reply:Hmm, interesting.





I think any candidate who HAS a card to play is going to play it right now! But I believe she may have been referring to the fact that among so-called democracies, the U.S. is the only one that has never yet been led by a woman. Citizens of some countries look at that as sort of backward, you know? If any woman were to become president, it would take one small reason out of the huge pile of reasons some other people have disdain for our country. And we could use that kind of change, LOL.





Edit: The Baron of Truthiness is very right about this. Personally, I want a president who can talk a good line. We've been a good while without one!
Reply:OMG, there is a woman card?! I thought I had them all!
Reply:Excellent breakdown and analysis, and I totally agree. She is, as someone else pointed out on another question, a bit too phony to be believed and trusted and also I would not vote for anyone that unstable emotionally...
Reply:Haven't seen the debate yet. But I have seen her in a few and she uses the women card every time. I strongly don't like her for that reason. I want someone who's in for the right reasons, not in because "they took what they can get".
Reply:Ummm.


As a politician one plays whatever cards one has at ones disposal.


If she is successful she will become your first Female President.


This is a huge responsibility.


Compare your present situation with ours over here in The UK.


Margaret Thatcher became our first Female Prime Minister.


She had been secretary of state for education.


Never before had our country had a female in this position.


On numerous occasions she played the "female" card- why?


because it worked for her and helped her achieve what she considered to be in the best interests of our country.


The fact that she turned our society on its head.


She made it popular to be selfish, uncaring and avaricious.


Never a favourite o mine.


However, she managed as she saw fit.


Almost destroyed our educational programme and national health service, but that is UK Conservatism for you.


Ronald Regan adored her- misguided but there you go.


Internationally there have been some very powerful female heads of state.


Golda Meyer- Israel.


Indira Ghandi- India.


So strong women who were not averse to self exploitation.


interestingly Mother Theresa was quite a character.


My philosophy is if you've got it use it.
Reply:Everyone might not want to believe it, but the novelty of a first woman president or a first black president, is uppermost in many a voter's mind. Whether or not it has any substance.





It takes a long time to get to the position of being considered for the top job and most candidates will do virtually anything to make it a reality. All this considered, it is hardly surprising that both Clinton and Obama have levelled it down to some 'common denominators'.





Britain's Gordon Brown is forever raking up his Presbyterian, upper-working-class background, but no-one believes it has any critical relation to what he thinks and does. Rhetoric is the meat of politics and people should take it for what it is. If it has undue influence, people need to check closer to home for the reason why.
Reply:She would, obviously, but that isn't changing much besides the record of American presidents being male.