Well, judging by DU, Hillary has succeeded in changing the subject

[ruggerson]

Yesterday, everyone was up in arms over whether she made a blunder in her not-so-black-and-white explanation of her views on Gov. Spitzer's driver licenses plan for illegal aliens.

Today, that discussion has almost completely vanished.

Instead, we have outrage from people here who were anti-Hillary to begin with, that she has played the gender card in her post debate spin.

There are ten or more threads on this alone.

Boy, is this woman good. She pullled this off in ONE day. She and her strategists masterfully changed the subject and her detractors amongst you followed along like little, compliant sheep.

This is why she's running to become leader of the free world, and the first woman ever to be the frontrunner; because she knows how to play this game so damn well.

When she makes a chess move like this, I first thank God that she's on OUR side, not theirs, and then I love just sitting back and watching it unfold.

[BootinUp]

1. yep.

Chuck Todd MSNBC said pretty much the same thing. They were strangely concerned about its effect in the GE. Not likely to be a factor by then.

[Bitwit1234]

2. Gee and all the saint has is his halo ..boo hoo boo hoo.

[jefferson_dem]

3. So this was really a masterful strategic move on her part?

Ok. :rofl:

By the way, I recommend you look a little closer. Some of her supporters may actually be criticizing her too, for her post-debate "gender play" rather than for her sorry debate performance.

[ruggerson]

5. Yep

I believe magicians call it "misdirection."

[jefferson_dem]

9. And realists call it...

"trying to put lipstick on a pig."

[ruggerson]

14. Aw, you're just jealous, my man

watch the master (mistress) and learn how it's done. :P

[NewHampster]

4. Thats what she'll also do to the repugs

come the general. She and her people know how to fight the bullshit.

She won't back down and she won't take any crap.

[Mojorabbit]

6. LOL

Thanks for the laugh:) I needed it tonight.
Truly I can multitask on both conversations at the same time.
I love how passionate this place is.

[Joe the Revelator]

7. There is no way she wanted this type of attention

...when real femminists are showing backlash, this is NOT what she wanted.

[Sparkly]

11. Who are the "real femminists?"

:rofl:

[ruggerson]

12. Was she jeered or cheered at Wellesley?

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1041892

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Exactly. None at all.

They're hoping and probably praying that this doesn't catch fire; this is just the nasty little spark they didn't want out in the open. If they did, they're absolute fools. Who knows? Perhaps they are.

[Debi]

8. Yes, who needs to discuss candidate's platforms or their voting records

Or their plans for America's future. Let's focus on the 'pile-on' and whether or not the gender card was played.

Politics of distraction.

[ruggerson]

10. That's what politics is

whomever plays the game smartest, wins the prize.

[Debi]

15. There are candidates out there who actually answer questions

who actually want to discuss their plans and who invite critique of their record.

Senator Clinton has the ability to be direct and clear in her plans. Why she chooses not to is beyond me.

[CyberPieHole]

13. agreed...n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Wimpering about being picked on 'cuz she's a woman doesn't help her indestructible image.

It just makes her sound unprincipled and disingenuous, expecting to be treated gently while demanding the mantle of the toughest of the bunch.

I wonder what Pat Schroeder has to say about this cheap little bit of emotion-playing.

Not only is this not a brilliant bit of legerdemain, it's a sizeable blunder. Have you not heard the many women on the board who are disgusted by this move? She's lost some ground there, do you think this gains her any with men?

Go on whistling in the woods if that makes you feel better, but people hate this kind of crap.

This is like Clarence Thomas saying he's being picked on for being black.

[Sparkly]

18. Again -- I am not seeing any "whimpering... 'cuz she's a woman."

I haven't seen nor heard her take a "whimpering" tone, or say that she's being picked on BECAUSE she's a woman.

Male frontrunners, too, have pointed it out when they're attacked in debates. It's normal for both to happen -- they get attacked, and then they point out that they're getting attacked.

WHY, when a woman does it, is it "whimpering?" (Or "wimpering?") Why do you characterize it as though she said she's picked on BECAUSE she's a woman, when she hasn't said that at all?

[ChiciB1]

19. And HER Middle Name I s"Walker" & I'm So NOT On Board With All

this TRIANGULATION!! C'mon America, aren't WE better than being MAN-IP-ULATED?? Screech!! Scratch the blackboard and quit making EXCUSES for this woman!

I've simply HAD enough, enough of ALL the absolute STUPIDITY of people being led down the Yellow Brick Road!! Oh, Auntie Em, I wanna go Home! For crying out loud... support YOUR candidate but for FUCKS sake stop this eye-balling with a magnifying glass of EVERY SINGLE MOVE that anyone who dares to take her on OR point out that she may NOT be what she presents herself to be is beyond comprehension! I'm SO NOT a Hillary supporter, and am sick to death of having her pushed in my face that I want to SCREAM!! But I refuse to let her call FOUL when she knew the ODDS from the get-go and HAVING such MONUMENTAL support in D.C., her past experience as a First LADY and the CHARISMA of the man called "Big Dawg" is a load of shit that I CAN NOT buy!!

She got to start her campaign on the inside track, and never had to change lanes... she was given a head start from the get-go, and NOW she made a mistake and thinks that she's "entitled" to make gender an issue because so many women KNOW that this is a reality for so many "other" women. Let's just be clear, Hillary Clinton doesn't even have to worry about what MOST women in America face on a daily basis! Sure she did the time, but that DOES NOT entitle her to be evasive on the one hand, and then cry FOUL on the other! I am a woman, Hillary was born one day after me and I don't think she represents what I'm feeling! And I most certainly don't like how she "panders" the issue of women versus man! My struggles to gain recognition of equality are so far removed from her that it's wide as an ocean! But to be fair, even most men running don't understand how "We The People" feel! REALITY is an experience MOST of them can't/won't ever UNDERSTAND!!

But for her to go to her Alma Mater and present herself as THEIR Savior is nothing other than a "political ploy" and if they buy what she's selling, than women deserve to stay in their "proper place" and need not complain when they find out that "reality" is REAL and most of us don't have a Hillary head start!