What Makes Clinton Stronger.

[McCamy Taylor]

1. Men ganging up to attack her. Her star began to rise in New Hampshire when Edwards and Obama did a dog pile on her during the debate. My mother, an Edwards supporter up until then, switched immediately to being a Clinton supporter after watching how well Clinton handled herself in the face of what she considered male bullying. Sorry to all the guys out there. I know you did not create our sexist, woman bashing world and I am sure that you are not personally guilty of sexism. However, you live in a world where women get paid 78 cents on the dollar, are accused of "asking for it" if they get raped at the age of 11 and where reproductive politics take a back seat to economic politics, even though lack of choice is why so many children (as in over half of them) live in poverty. Men---especially heterosexual men---have benefited from sexism all their lives whether they realize it or not. They attack women from a position of power--at least that is how it looks to women.

2. Her tears. Forget Muskie. That was a whole other gender. A woman's tears are her weapon. Society does not allow women to get angry--they label angry women "shrill", "hysterical". Society prefers that women cry to show their sorrow and their anger. Those were not "crocodile tears" in New Hampshire. Those were a woman's feelings. Those were all women's feelings. When Hillary cries over the plight of third world children forced into sex slavery or folks here at home who can not get necessary health care, she completely negates all the "war hawk" rhetoric. She does not have to actually mess up her makeup. It is enough for her to get a little choked up and misty eyed. Yes, I know the guys think that it is unfair that women use their tears. But remember, we make 78 cents on the dollar, do not have access to birth control, have fewer opportunities to become professional athletes, are tossed on the Hollywood rubbish heap when we turn 30, get passed over for promotion---- and are called psychotic if we get mad about it.

3. Denigrating motherhood. Every time someone says that being a mother is not an important job experience or that "women's and children's issues" are optional (and yes, it really was posted here at DU), they buy into the old myth that raising a family is not a vocation, it is a vacation. Those who claims that motherhood does not teach important life skills which can be useful in the White House--can you cite an example of a mother who was a bad president? No, you can't. Because we haven't had a woman president. Not yet.

[Thinkingabout]

1. She has had to fight for a long time, is still advocating for women and children's rights.

Women have broken glass ceilings for many years, we will continue to break glass ceilings.

[enough]

2. I agree with 1 and 3, not sure about the tears. Tears will be very dicey.

I also think her grandmotherhood is a separate issue, and very positive for her.

[karynnj]

3. I think that a lot of 1 was after the fact spin -- and the fact that the Edwards campaign DID

take the strategy of having him out there strong - bashing HRC ... and Obama. I rewatched the debate after the guys bashing HRC became the "theme". I really didn't see it.

Possibly the ONLY Obama example people cited was the Clinton "likable" issue was raised. In fact, the question was weird - and ultimately a softball for Clinton.Watch it - she is pretty charming in her response. It's not clear what response Obama could have made.

This debate came after Obama won Iowa rather strongly -- and Clinton came in third. To me, it looked like the Obama goal was mostly to be dignified and to appear to have sufficient gravitas - the main thing any on the fence wondered about. (Even in phone banking in NJ for Super Tuesday this was an issue of many very positive about Obama otherwise - and many actually wanted both and said that HRC/Obama was the most likely way to get that.) If that was Obama's strategy, an attack Hillary strategy would be very strange.

In addition, the immediate polls after Iowa showed Obama could possibly win NH - a place where a week before HRC polled almost 20 points above Obama. This is not the point you try something with a big likelihood of backfiring.

Edwards, on the other hand, knew he had little support in NH, and he had not won in Iowa - something he needed as a springboard. Edwards had nothing to lose and in the remaining debates - he was an attack dog.