Why Hillary Terrifies the GOP

[Beacool]

Good old-fashioned misogyny just doesn’t play the way it used to.
by Sady Doyle
August 8, 2013

“Hillary Clinton—the name alone strikes dread in the heart of freedom loving Americans.” So reads the opening line of the “About” section on the website of The Hillary Project PAC. And whether or not we are all, in fact, filled with “dread” when we think about the former secretary of state, the Hillary Project certainly seems to be: The website bills itself as “the only thing standing between Hillary and the White House.” The fine folks behind The Hillary Project—they include Republican operative Christopher M. Marston, who just stepped down in the face of blowback—are convinced that a 2016 Clinton run is not only likely, but inevitable. They're also convinced that as it stands now, if she runs, she will win.

They're not alone. On August 3, the Daily Beast ran an article by conservative writer (and campaign advertising expert) Myra Adams, listing “16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016.” Adams cites “a great social movement to elect the first Madame President,” a “toxic punch of media bias that the Republican presidential candidate will be forced to drink,” and the fact that Clinton—like just about anyone who runs for President—will have lots of money for her campaign. All of this, in Adams' view, adds up to certain victory.

--------

It's this—the Right's fear that it can no longer win elections by relying on the widespread hatred of women for being ambitious or hard-working or demanding or eloquent or anything else that falls under the “raging bitch” label—that's the true message, and the silver lining, of all the Hillary panic. The public consensus on Hillary used to be that she was ambitious, conniving, cold, harsh, demanding, insufficiently sexy or maternal or sweet, and therefore unworthy of serious consideration—and lots of this came from her own party. Jon Stewart once quipped, when confronted with a clip of Hillary smiling, that “that look is where boners go to die.” Now, a photo of Hillary Clinton frowning can become a meme about female toughness and cool. Any progressive who suggested that Hillary ought to be processed in terms of her ability to nurture boners would be roundly, and rightfully, slapped down. Of course this doesn't mean that sexism has left the planet, or even that Clinton wouldn't face sexism if she ran; that's absurd. It only means that a certain very old, very well-practiced version of sexism has begun to seem increasingly threadbare and outdated. The world hasn't changed, not completely, but it is changing, and the future will have more room for women like Hillary in it. Whether you'd vote for the woman or not, that's good news.

Which is not to say that the old methods have disappeared entirely. The Hillary Project recently unleashed one of its “smartly targeted social media campaigns” in the effort to “wage a war on Hillary’s image.” Give them credit: Hillary's “image” is, in fact, involved. Because they've been Twitter-spamming reporters to cover their “Slap Hillary” game, in which you, the player, induce a disembodied hand to assault a photo of the former Secretary of State. It has had, aside from a few jokey blog posts and complaints about violence against women, no impact. I mean, it's hate-mongering, it's misogynist, it's indecent, sure. But its primary sin is that it was made in 2000, and looks it. Like much of the Hillary-hatred the GOP unleashes these days, it doesn't seem hurtful so much as pathetic, and really old.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/15429/gops_the_hillary_project_pac_panics_about_clintons_possible_2016_presidenti/

The third paragraph, that was one of the greatest disappointments of 2008. The realization that sexism was not only a purview of the Right. So many of the put downs from the media were personal attacks and not based on policy issues. MSNBC was particularly guilty on that front. Chris Matthews and David Shuster were suspended for a brief time. Matthews for his continual sexist remarks and Shuster for stating that Hillary was "pimping" Chelsea. I also remember Olbermann saying that someone should take Hillary to a room and "only he come out". If she does run in 2016 I don't expect much change in the media.

[Bluzmann57]

1. I think she scares them

because she's tougher, meaner, and smarter than they could ever hope to be. And when I say meaner, I am not referring to putting people down because of their race, sexual orientation, income, or anything else. I am saying that she knows exactly how to fight these people and beat them.

[COLGATE4]

2. +100! nt

[Beacool]

3. I know what you mean.

Hillary has been dealing with Republicans since the mid 70s. First when she served in the Watergate Committee and then as the wife of a Democratic governor in a Republican state, let alone all the years since Bill became president. The hate came from all sides.

I think that she would be an effective president because she would know how to deal with Congress. She wouldn't have any illusions about them. She worked well with most of the Senators, even the very conservatives ones grew to respect her. She keeps her head down and works very hard.

[AlinPA]

14. She should do some serious ass-kicking.

[Chan790]

4. Hillary terrifies me.

A tax-cutting pro-big-business anti-American-public free-trader monetarist who claims to be a Democrat but only holds Republican fiscal positions. The only way I'd ever consider supporting Clinton is if she publicly repudiated the legacy of Bill; her previous fiscal stances; the DLC or whatever it's currently calling itself; and her belief in lower taxes and unrestrained free trade. In addition, I think we can expect her to gut and fuck up Obamacare and turn up her nose at any opportunity for progress towards a more-universal more-public-friendly healthcare system. We can certainly count on her to insure TPP happens. The continuation of the permanent-war economy while domestic infrastructure rots and opportunities to modernize continue to pass us by. No green/clean-energy/cleanup initiatives. No improvement and expansion of public transit.

I've said it before and I mean it, if Hillary's the nominee, I'm reflexively voting for somebody else on the ballot. I think she stinks.

[AtomicKitten]

5. +1

+ Back-off promoting Keystone.
+ Repudiate Iraq War vote.

[Beacool]

8. Do you mean in the GE?

If she's the nominee and you vote third party, please remember that any Republican nominee will be far worse. Particularly since a Tea Party Bagger may get the nomination.

[CTyankee]

16. I'm sorry, I will not abandon my granddaughters' future to vote for someone who is NOT strongly

pro-choice and a full panoply of reproductive rights. And that is what it is going to come down to if it is Hillary against a real Tea Party Republican candidate.

There will be a HELLUVA big fight here on DU over this issue. It is the undying cause of many feminists, both male and female and I am one of them.

[Chan790]

18. We'll be on opposite sides.

I view Clinton fiscal policy (which is what conservative fiscal policy was before the GOP went completely off the rails) as being the single biggest realistic threat to America's future and the future of anybody's children and grandchildren. I'll sacrifice all other issues and agendas to annihilate it.

[CTyankee]

19. Your fiscal policy vs. the lives of our female citizens.

We can reverse fiscal policy. We cannot bring back daughters, granddaughters, sisters, friends who had died because safe, legal abortion wasn't available to them.

[Chan790]

22. This is what happens when people forget feminism didn't start Jan. 22, 1973.

No, you really can't reverse the capitulation of the public's freedoms to the corporatist state...and the fiscal policy is the bigger anti-feminist catastrophe as, whether Clinton realizes it or not, that fiscal policy is hand-in-glove to the larger conservative agenda of redoubling the wage gap, patriarchy, glass ceiling and second-classification of women as part of their effort to restore mid-20^th-century American society and economic-realities minus worker protections, reasonable wages, fair rates of taxation, equal rights, civil rights, women's rights, environmental protections, protections from corporate overreach...I can go on but I feel I've made my point: Feminism does not equal reproductive-rights to the exclusion of all other issues that effect women and their role in society. Feminists are better off having to fight and march and raise hell to retain or regain reproductive freedoms than they are embracing policy that will inevitably lead to the loss of every other feminist gain of the past 150 years, save maybe suffrage only because I cannot conceive how social conservatives would go about repealing the suffrage of women though I have no doubt they would if they could.

Hillary can't embrace the fiscal policy without setting the stage for the social policy...this is what Democratic "moderates", "third-wayers" and "New Democrats" have never understood. They are the hand-servants of the social-conservative right by embracing the economics of the conservative right.

All supporting Clinton does is insure the ability for you and your granddaughters to be made second-class to a man again while we're all made subject to corporatist rule (on the bright side, they'll have the reproductive freedom to avoid having to take time off from wage-slavery and indentured-servitude for children)...all that to stave off the most-remote possibility that conservatives might do what I do not believe they are actually capable of doing: banning abortion.

Calling Clinton a feminist is insulting to feminism, she may be concerned about women but clearly she's not a deep enough thinker to realize that "centrist" policies she supports are the tar-traps of the opposition actively meant to restore the oppression of women in society. Clinton's economics are the real threat to women. It's Clinton as much as people like Santorum and Huckabee putting us on the path to A Handmaid's Tale.

No, I will never support her.

[CTyankee]

23. I go WAY back before 1973 and grew up in the time of illegal and unsafe abortion. I consider myself

a part of that wave of feminism, but I am acutely aware of the long struggle before the Roe or the Griswold decision. I know it because I lived it as a girl and as a woman.

You say that feminism does not equal reproductive rights to the exclusion of all other issues, etc and that's where you are dead wrong. If women can't control their own bodies they are at the mercy of whatever system is in place because it will control them and their lives and their futures. And no, I don't want women to have to "fight...to retain or regain reproductive freedoms..." because somehow in your thinking they are "embracing policy" that would mean the loss of every other feminist gain. If we lose our reproductive freedom, if somehow that is "sacrificed" to your other goals, women have already lost a great deal, including the lives of some of them.
Your breezy trade-off is specious to say the least and a downright embarrassing argument for a "progressive" to make.

I could go on myself about HRC's long career, including her service as SOS that was actively feminist oriented all over the world, but here's the question for you: If she is the nominee in the next election running against a Tea Party Republican, who would you vote for? If you wouldn't vote for either one, what would you do?

[Snowfield]

17. well put

She is profoundly flawed, and a progressive agenda will never occur under a regime that she oversees. In fact, the right will simply falsely tar the majority of her initiatives as 'left-wing', communist, etc, when in reality they are in strict deep-level accordance with the corporatist power structure. A wolf in sheep's clothing indeed. Of course, in the utterly controlled 2-party sham system, the Rethuglican opponent will be so horrific that the majority of Democrats will simply accept the lesser of 2 evils. This is the way empire dies, and the road to ruin, absolute long term, systemic failure, its attendant suffering, and tyranny of the elites over the masses is first paved, then trodden upon in a downward arc.

[CTyankee]

25. No, it is actually ridiculous. Hillary was a proponent of an earlier version of Obamacare. That is

universal health care, folks. She has been a strong proponent at home and abroad as a champion for women's rights and when women have those rights, others in society do also. But the fact is that she is now held up as the end of civilization as we know it. Hyperbole, much?

Please, everybody get a grip. Hillary hating cannot infect so many minds on DU to produce this amount of hysteria, right? If not, I shake my head and say, good night...

[pnwmom]

29. Another 3rd party Dem hater on DU.

I am sure there will be plenty of people welcoming you here.

[Snowfield]

32. the truth will set you free

welcome

[Splinter Cell]

28. YES

Amen a thousand times over.

[Cartoonist]

6. Why Hillary terrifies some DUers

They want a fantasy world. They want their Dems to be just as obstructionist as the Repubs (no compromise).

Why some DUers terrify me.
They would rather have Jeb Bush than Hillary, just like they preferred George over Al when they cast a proxy vote for Ralph.

[Beacool]

9. I agree.

They keep hoping for some ideal that could never win in the general election. It's just as misguided as the Freepers who hope for Palin or some other Bagger. It ain't going to happen.

[karynnj]

15. I know of no DU er who prefers Bush to Hillary or who preferred George Bush to Al Gore

please give me a list of even three .... or two ... or even one. I think it takes enormous chutzpah to make such a bizarre claim about a site that you are pretty much a newbie on.

I am not the least terrified by HRC - and will vote for her against a Republican in the general election, but it is nearly 2 and a half years before the primaries. We do not even know who will be running -- though she seems a good bet. I think HRC extremely well positioned to win and consider that anyone with the media and party support she has had someone whose election it is to lose -- just as it was in 2008. In 2008, for anyone to win three things were likely ALL needed:

- That person had to run an excellent, skillful campaign
- HRC had to run no more than a mediocre campaign
- The race had to reduce to just two candidates very early

The combination made her loss of the nomination pretty improbable. The party had even created a "firewall" for her. There were 23 states that all voted on the same day - including almost every big state where the Clintons had a reservoir of support - including California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. The idea that anyone else could - starting with much lower name recognition win enough delegates that day to keep her from becoming the defacto nominee was unlikely. Obama was helped by Edwards imploding leaving it a 2 person race, major endorsements - especially of the Kennedys and Kerry and - as importantly - the Clinton campaign put little effort into the caucuses. The endorsements kept down the number of delegates that HRC got in states she won while the latter gave Obama a large percent of the caucus state delegates.

It should be noted that in all the times in primaries, Democratic or Republican, there has never other than this instance when the Anybody but X vote was consolidated behind a single candidate. ( Look at 1976, 1992 and 2012(R). Is it likely to happen again against the same person - the odds seem against it. The other thing unlikely to repeat is that the HRC strategy in the primaries will again be awful. They will not make the same mistakes.

I do think that it is silly when people argue that all of this is because HRC is tougher than anyone else. She was not a person to take on challenges as either Senator or Secretary of State leading on issues that were more likely to fail than succeed, but which were necessary. I also do not get the repeated - never with backup support - claim that she knows how to work with Congress. She led nothing in Congress as a Senator and I can think of nothing where she took the lead in winning over the Congress as SOS. As first lady, this was her weakest area.

[Cartoonist]

24. Naderites

First, I resent being called a newbie. A low post count is indicative of nothing. I have been here for years. Making that assumption gets a low score on the intellometer.

Second, I'm sorry, but I can not name names. I merely refer to all those who voted for Ralph when they KNEW it was in reality a vote for GW. Yes, I mean reality as opposed to the fantasy that they were making some kind of statement, or that they were voting their conscience. In 2000, the barbarians were at the gate. Instead of firing their weapons at the GOP, the Naderites turned their guns on Gore. Ralph had no real chance of becoming president, his voters KNEW that. That means they preferred GW, or they would have stopped him from becoming president.

I will never forgive Nader for what he did.
I will never forgive the Green Party for what they did.
I might be willing to forgive his deluded voters if they can show they learned from their mistake. Denying their responsibility for putting GW in the White House does not show me this. Threatening to not vote for the Dem candidate tells me that the right has no monopoly on ignorance.

[pnwmom]

30. Nader preferred Bush to Gore. He thought the revolution would come faster if we hit bottom sooner,

and that we would with Bush. And that part was true.

So, by extension, many of the Nader fan club here probably accept that reasoning, too.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. with this electoral system

progressives who want their ideal candidate will end up getting a Republican. With PR it might be a different matter.

[Sunlei]

7. Have to give a big THANK YOU to the R2008 Hillary haters for giving us President Obama :)

and Mrs. Clinton as SOS.

Awesome result of R PAC spent billions.

Thanks for the economic boost for all the usa small businesses. Nothing but the best hotels,open bars,pretty clothes & spray tans for all the R.. "grass root volunteers" /snicker

[Beacool]

10. Hmmmm, I sense some sarcasm there..............

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. We need a woman president

I Hillary has a lot of experience which the country would benefit from but she needs to promote environmental issues etc.

[Whisp]

12. We need a good President. If she is a woman, that's a bonus and not a pre-requisite. Liz Warren.

Liz Warren is of character that would be a great President. Character, not gender.

History is full of 'we need white males of european descent' for Pres. and we should learn and be sick of that kind of choosing.

[Beacool]

13. I think that the country is finally ready for a woman president in ways that it wasn't in 2008.

The question is whether Hillary is interested in running again.

[DonCoquixote]

20. Itb should not be a woman issue

because there are many women that would be bad for America. if gender alone mattered, Palin could run.

However, I offer my list of women I would love to see run, and who I would like more than Hillary:

Janet Napolitano: Arizona governor that spent years keeping Jan Brewer and John Mcain in their place. Jan brewer should thank Obama, because she would not be near the governor's mansion if janet did not hit D.C.

Kathleen Sibelius: Again, a democrat used to fighting regressives in Kansas.

Kristine Gillbrand: Helped get rid of DADT.

Senator Wendy Davis: Gave the Texas GOP it's first bloody nose, and strong Pro-Choice.

All of these ladies have given the GOP a few loose teeth, and they do not carry the baggage Hillary does. No keystone pipeline, no making laughs about killing gaddafi.

[JS06]

21. Wendy should run!

I agree with Wendy Davis all the way. if Obama can do it, so can Wendy!

Clinton would be better than any of the ultra right wing lunatics the repugnants are going to nominate, but that's not saying much. I would respect Clinton a lot more if she would quit supporting free trade, and run against corporate controlled politics.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. I could see Wendy being a VP candidate in 2016 if she wins the gubernatorial campaign...

[Oakenshield]

27. They SHOULD fear Hillary.

She's smarter and tougher than they could ever be. If she runs, and it's very likely she will, she will stomp any teabagger candidate like a bug. While I would certainly prefer a more genuinely liberal canidiate like Senator Warren as president, we could do a hell of a lot worse than Hillary.