I'm not sure, but I think it may have been the visual representation of Mohammed, not that he was portrayed as violent, that set them off. Not that that makes it any more acceptable.
I take all of this to be fairly obvious and boring.
Right. And none of the seventy-bajillion words written about this over on the WingNet have added anything interesting or novel to the analysis. My take is exactly the same about any other issue over which religious fundamentalists of any stripe get themselves worked into a lather: oh, get over yourselves already.
Why do you insist on trawling the wacko right sites? She isn't worth this much trouble, Abu.
I didn't get the impression that this isn't an interesting issue for lefty sites, just that they have a different take: yeah, fundamentalism, that's bad.
I went and looked for the cartoons. My take: fundies need to chill out, rioting over cartoons is bad, living in a pluralistic society means dealing with criticism, and the Dutch newspapers, given the current climate in the Netherlands w/r/t Islam, were being inflammatory.
I dislike this tendency of the blogosphere. 'Where is the left?' or 'Where is the right?' Enough, already. We saw how praising the Iraqi election worked; oops, now we have a very theistic little democraccy.
Anyhow; I've seen posts at Crooked Timber and Phryangulallalaababyzebrazygotes on this and neither were going on about how Awful it was that Muslims were being Oppressed, so I suspect Tigerbait just can't read.
Also, the righties' self-congratulating over their principled defense of free speech just rings hollow to me. I suspect that if this were Hindus torching some European embassy over some slight or another, it wouldn't be getting 1/10 the attention from those guys because their real interest in the issue is going, "See? Those Muslims are bad, smelly, primitive people."
now we have a very theistic little democracy
Or we might. Someday. If they ever get around to actually forming a government.
Denmark, whatever. All those northern European places look alike to me.
Which is relevant, because Denmark hasn't exactly had the same problems the Netherlands have.
I find the burning of the Danish flag & riots somewhat amusing, if only because it's kind of like kicking a puppy. What of the Danes offends? Stinky cheese? If a newspaper cartoon is the worst you can say about a country, well, jeez, people, grow up and quit burning things.
Right wing parties have been on the rise in Denmark.
Where is The Left? I'm right here, people! I already apologized on my site for not doing everything in my power to stop the riots from spiralling out of control.
See also: insufficient enthusiasm over Uday and Quasy being killed, failure to think that Saddam's capture will break the back of the insurgency, skepticism that purple fingers will stave off a civil war, unwillingness to condemn the riots in France, not wetting oneself over the elections in Lebanon.. er.. scratch that Lebanon thing.
"Liberals pretend to be indignant about ......., but we know that they really ......, and are just too cowardly to admit it."
Dancing to their tune is a waste of time. Either they whip us or we whip them. The right hasn't been willing to play fair or be civil since Gingrich put out his one-page list of words to smear liberals and Democrats with.
But they'll always be willing to tell us what we should be doing.
Better still is to sing it to the tune of "Where is the Love", by Black Eyed Peas.
It is relevant to note that the newspaper in question deliberately printed the cartoons to stir up shit, because "they thought they were being censored on Muslim issues." Guess they're basking in their success now.
now that Teh Left has spoken to this issue, maybe tigersharkdeathray (princetone + iowa = warbloggy manhood! and attack helicopters!) can move back to important issues such as "why the democrat party wants al qaida to rape your wife as proven by their opposition to FISA's warrant requirement."
It also seems relevant to note that these cartoons were printed in what, September? Made a splash then, but no rioting until it seems there was a fairly organized campaign to drum up outrage.
16: I actually think that starts to be a defense of the cartoons on purely aesthetic grounds (it gives them a point other than crude caricature and bigotry), though they would have been better if they had some kind of meta-text like "This is what you have to tolerate in secular pluralism." It doesn't defend the cartoons on intelligence or pragmatism grounds; it sure would be better to make it look like secular pluralist societies would be ones that could respect, tolerate, and integrate them, rather than going out of their way to inflame, and through gradual integration instill in the radical Muslim minority respect for pluralism, hopefully.
Okay, but the one that says, 'Stop, stop, we're out of virgins!' is funny. The rest were pretty lame as art or cartoon commentary.
Just read this explanation of why it's occurring now.
From Comment 7:
Also, the righties' self-congratulating over their principled defense of free speech just rings hollow to me.
Indeed. As Gary Farber points out, Malkin, who is in a tizzy about these Danish cartoons, also was soooo upset about a Toles cartoon that, she thought, targeted American troops.
I had a hard time following the argument of that Kos entry, ac. This year, as in so many years, there was a nasty incident during Hajj; thus, Saudi Arabian Powers That Be decided to publicize the cartoon issue to take the heat off?
I mean, these sorts of Hajj problems happen, as the diary entry noted, more years than not. (This year, in fact, SA is demolishing and rebuilding the bridge to improve smooth pilgrim flow. I don't know if this year's problems were treated differently in the Pakistani press, but the diarist doesn't really go into detail on this either.) Is there a history of SAn attemps to direct attention elsewhere? Is there evidence that the renewed attention was motivated by the Hajj disaster? Or was it just that the news got around?
Anyway, I also don't quite see why this matters.
I don't know if I buy into it, but the Kos diarist is saying that SA is performing a reverse Swiftboat Vetting: shoe-horning an issue into the MSM spotlight, though in this case it's the leaders feeding it to the fundies.
24: Well, at a minimum, if the theory is correct, then it looks not entirely dissimilar to a govt. ginning up anger to justify the invasion of another country. That is, we do think it's important in the US that the govt. not be actively pushing anti-X propaganda on our citizens. Presumably, we don't think the Saudis should be doing this, either.
It doesn't excuse what they're doing, anymore than the sacklessness of the Right excuses our decision to go to war (or bomb Iran, or whatever). But it explains how it might have happened.
Even if it's not a deliberate campaign to throw attention off of Hajj disasters, it does explain the timing. This issue was in the Saudi papers during the Hajj, so that's when it coalesced into an issue.
It doesn't matter overly much, but it does take some of the moral force out of the idea that people were rioting spontaneously because they were so offended when it took four months and a lot of prodding to get there.
Not overly sure about the Hajj claims, though.
I don't know, SCMT: the fundamentalists, at least the very 'core Qaeda sympathizers, don't swear allegiance to SA or other pan-Arabist governments. It seems like it's well within SA interests to ensure that the violent fundamentalist bloc does not make inroads to more moderate sympathies.
Why has no one yet informed Mr. Hawk that "declames" is not a word in English? I was going to, but I had trouble logging in to publish.
It's not AQ folks rioting, is it? I thought it was roughly the same idiots who loot stores after their team wins a championship. But the Muslim edition. And in a sense, you can't blame them. Their international sports teams suck, so if they had to wait for a meaningful win, they'd never get to riot.
Tim, you've totally put your finger on it. Maybe we should let the Umma draft Vince Young.
Is it not fundies rioting? I guess I don't know. But I like where you're going with this—you could translate the sentiment into, say, better draft pick for the Dallas Cowboys, or else.
I am deeply offended by the use of this crisis -- unlike any other crisis of the modern age -- for the purposes of political football.
The referees in political football are always biased.
Also, I'm not clear why it is that in a conflict between small bands of right-wing Islamists and a right-wing Danish newspaper no American had ever heard of, it's a moral failing of those on the left not to loudly and publicly pick a side. Really, you guys fight it out and let us know who comes out on top.
Re: John Emerson's - "Dancing to their tune is a waste of time. Either they whip us or we whip them. The right hasn't been willing to play fair or be civil since Gingrich put out his one-page list of words to smear liberals and Democrats with."
Indeed, and I've agreed with things you've written in the past on this theme too.
Interestingly, here in the UK, the right seems to have adopted some kind 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' technique where both of the major parties have transmogrified into interventionist centre-right parties committed to not obstructing the right of the rich to stay rich. [with some safety-net commitments to keep things 'sweet']
Some of the religious 'memes' from US politics have started to poke through here as well, unfortunately. There were some pretty transparent attempts at the last general election to invoke concerns more common in the US - abortion and issues surrounding sexuality and the family - however they seem, largely, to have failed to engage the general public.
This 'foe' is harder to oppose -- it's not as transparently nasty or confrontational.
23: You know, I've seen a lot of lefties try to draw this equivalence, and it rings false. I think it's wrong for the joint chiefs to be writing a letter in their official capacity when the WaPo cartoon was about Rumsfeld, a civilian, partisan official, and the cartoon obviously was not intended to convey disrespect to soldiers, but there's no suppression of speech there (what, exactly, is supposed to be the mechanism by which the "threat" is carried out? what threat?), and it's perfectly coherent to complain about the Toles cartoon and the rioters (just as it's coherent to complain about the Danish cartoons and the rioters.)
Regarding smears, the GOP is apparently trying to see if "angry" can be the new "flip-flopper" when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
That one's going to be tough (I say. Who'da thunk they could have sold Al Gore, Straightest Arrow In The Senate, as a big fat liar.) because she just doesn't come off as particularly angry. She's kind of a flat speaker.
"Angry" worked against John McCain. (Granted, it probably wasn't the dispositive issue in S. Carolina.) Otherwise smart people of my acquaintance would say things like, That John McCain – such a maverick! Too bad he's so Angry. Why is he so Angry?
What especially annoys me about the "angry" label for Clinton is that "angry" seems to be a proxy for "unladylike". Dean had to do his yawp before they could label him as unstable and angry but I think all they'll need to do is harp on things Clinton does or says that may seem unladylike to upsell people to "angry", especially since they seem to be coupling it with "far-left". What is the logical fill in the blank for "far-left angry ____"? Feminist. Somehow "angry" seems like a code-word for that since you can't exactly come out and blatantly use that as an epithet anymore.
Well, but he does come off kind of excitable. Clinton really doesn't.
My great fear is that Hillary will get the '08 nomination. They don't need to convince that many people to vote against her; there's a sizable contingent that are willing to do that right now.
I think she loses in the primaries against anyone with a better anti-war record. (I'm not saying a pure anti-war record, because hardly anyone has one -- just an earlier move to "Hey, this was stupid. Can we go home now?")
Are you serious? They don't need "angry" for Hillary. There's a whole stockpile of anti-feminist cliches just dying to get out on the hustings. She's cold, calculating, manipulative. Heck, you don't even have to use explicitly negative words for it to work. She's hard-charging, tough. (Gosh, she sounds like a bit of bitch, wouldn't you say? I mean, if she were a little, you know, warmer, Bill might not step out so much.) Also, whisper whisper sapphic whisper. I mean, cripes, even Stewart couldn't resist making her the top Google hit for this.
Well, but he does come off kind of excitable.
See what I mean?
damnit. thus the repubs pre-empt the juggernaut hillary clinton / bruce banner '08 ticket.
my great fear is being zombified by parastitic wasps.
I've heard that mommy-type women don't like her because she didn't leave Bill. That proves a deficit in judgment, because of course, they, stay-at-home-moms, would leave in a flash, or something.
See, I think her not leaving Bill is a winner. Family values and all that.
She's hard-charging, tough
Actually, I think this would help sell Clinton. Even as might "cold, calculating." Women who can get elected to high office are women who act like men.
48: Well, that was my point - I can see 'anger' being an effective slur against McCain, just like it is against Dean, because both of them do have an excitable style. Clinton, not so much; everything in 47 would be a better tack to make her look bad.
43: also, a quibble: I think Dean was labeled angry far before the "yawp."
B, one would think, but all it seems to take is one person saying 'God, she must have only been interested in her career, she has no backbone, how can she run a country if she can't get rid of cheating Bill?' and that seems to be it.
My great fear is that Hillary will get the '08 nomination. They don't need to convince that many people to vote against her; there's a sizable contingent that are willing to do that right now.
i wonder about this. if her nomination would be such a boon for the repubs, why trash her now? wouldn't they want her to get elected?
personally i oppose her b/c the ongoing royalty / nepotistic movement in our government freaks me out. i'm voting for horatio alger.
elected s/b "nominated." my brain is full of beer, chili, and joy after the super bowl.
Dean had to do his yawp before they could label him as unstable and angry
They were doing it well before that. Well, not "they," so much as "we," insofar as "we" includes the DLC/TNR crowd.
And even before they hit "bitch," they can hammer "crazy leftist." After all, she did try to nationalize healthcare in closed committees.
Women who can get elected to high office are women who act like men.
I think it's tempting to conclude this on the basis of Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir (I don't know anything about the new German chancellor. Iron?)
But I'm not sure the U.S. isn't significantly different. On my own unscientific assessment I'd say we're much more obsessed with traditional gender roles than any European nation, or Canada.
I'd say our woman president, if any, is going to be someone like Liddy Dole -- she might be tough underneath, but she's spun sugar on top, and that's how these superficially macho men want women to be, if they're going to order 'em around.
Well, that was my point
I know, LB, I was just joshing.
I want a yawp-positive political leadership.
In re 39:
. . . and it's perfectly coherent to complain about the Toles cartoon and the rioters . . .
It may be, but the devil's in the details, and I think the way that Malkin, in particular, frames the issues is incoherent.
In defending the Danish cartoon, she quotes, approvingly, this --
Strike a blow for freedom today. If you value freedom of speech and freedom of the press, please -- politely and calmly -- contact your local newspaper, wherever you are, and ask them to reprint some or all of the cartoons
-- in which printing cartoons is a noble act, upholding freedoom of speech.
In attacking the Toles cartoon, she strongly suggests that a cartoon not be printed because -- in the words of the letter to the editor that she quotes -- is is "beyond tastless."
I think that is inconsistent, especially in the way that Apostropher initially said -- the right (in the person of Malkin) thinks that a cartoon which offends some people should be showed again and again to prove that the press cannot be intimidated. Another cartoon, of which she doesn't approve, however, should not have been printed. Hardly a ringing endorsement for freedom of speech.
As to the mechanism by which speech might be curtailed in the Toles case -- um, I would think that the government coming out and saying that such speech is not appreciated would have, at least, a chilling effect on further speech of that type. Sure, they haven't outlawed such speech. But if you're going to be so cavalier about government officials reccomending against certain kind sof speech, why be upset at the rioters at all? After all, what's the mechanism by which they've shut down freedom of speech. It would seem that there actions helped to disseminate the cartoon.
We should be upset about government officials reccomending for and against certain kind sof speech because, at least, it has the appearance of censorship and can have, much more importantly -- and much more difficult to identify -- chilling effects.
What about Jennifer Granholm? Isn't she supposed to be touch and hard-charging?
See, I think her not leaving Bill is a winner. Family values and all that.
There is a well-worn idea that her marriage to Bill is a sham in which she stayed in return for power. It is certainly an idea that respectable Republicans feel comfortable discussing. This will be the drumbeat used to explain every moderate turn she makes. "If she could last 20+ years in a marriage that is a lie, she can lie about her moderate credentials for four."
What about Jennifer Granholm?
Canadian-born.
don't like her because she didn't leave Bill
I've heard this from liberal career women too, and it's a completely stupid fucking thing to say. The one thing I've learned from my own and my friends' marriages is that you don't have the first idea what's going on inside anybody else's marriage. Not your friends', not your family members', nobody's but your own. And especially not people you have never met. At best, you have one side of the story, and even that is generally incomplete.
None of us knows whether Hillary was faithful to him, whether they had touched each other in years, whether they had reached some sort of agreement about other people, yadda yadda yadda. It's all just projecting their own relationship fears onto people about whom they don't know anything, then making judgements based on what they think they would do in that situation.
With Hillary and every other candidate, the Republican control of "ambient political opinion" can kill the Democrats. It's unimportant specifically how they go about it, or who specifically the candidate is.
Thoughtless voters dependent on free media (TV, radio) will almost never hear a strong liberal voice or a partisan Democratic voice. They'll hear partisan Republicans, extreme conservatives like Ann Coulter or Michael Savage, patsy liberals like Colmes, and moderates and neutrals. And some of the moderates are fake; without declaring partisanship, and while taking scattered independent stands, at key moments they relay GOP talking points.
I'm not saying it's hopeless, but this is what the Democrats have to fight. In 2000 and 2004 they failed miserably, and I'm not optimistic about this year or 2008. To a degree the problem is Republican media control, but gross Democratic ineptness is a major factor.
Peter Daou at Salon understands these issues very well. So does Dave Johnson at my old political site, which I've put at my URL (though both Dave and I are running out of gas these days.)
The one thing I've learned from my own and my friends' marriages is that you don't have the first idea what's going on inside anybody else's marriage.
This, absolutely (and now to contradict it) I always got the impression that they were genuinely fond of each other. Maybe because Chelsea always seemed so nice and stable.
64: But elected to U.S. office; she's tough; Americans like her.
In re 61:
Or more succinctly, Malkin approves of the Danish cartoon even though it has the power to offend and does not approve of the Toles cartoon exactly because it has the power to offend. On first principles -- or the First Amendment -- that sounds contradictory.
69: I don't think people mind tough women. But that's not the reputation Republicans have built for Hillary. Most people get that there are tough people you like, because they're fair, and tough people you hate, because they're not. They've painted Hillary as the latter.
I think we'll have either a female or black VP candidate in '08, and if it's a woman (my bet), it'll be the governor (IIRC) of Arizona.
But elected to U.S. office; she's tough; Americans like her.
No, I meant she can't run for President. Even if she could, national office is different from Michigan office, I think. There's a lot of William Jennings Bryan territory to win out there.
Anyway, yes, in the abstract we want tough leaders, even tough women leaders. But we're also supposed to want smart leaders -- and we do, just not more than we want bubba leaders.
Culture warrior venting alert! Notwithstanding the violence, protests are far superior to the obscenity trials and legislation to which Andres Serrano, the NEA 4, and poor Robert Mapplethorpe were subjected to by the right. I'm saddened to see Michelle Malkin hang up her well-worn Piss Christ, with which she has broadly painted so many government culture subsidies. I know, I know.
um, I would think that the government coming out and saying that such speech is not appreciated would have, at least, a chilling effect on further speech of that type.
Only because newspapers are generally prisses these days, but the sine qua non there is editors' weak knees, not government action. Government officials are always complaining about how they're represented--I'm sure they've complained directly to newspapers before. What the joint chiefs did was wrong because it bleeds into the military acting as a partisan organ, not because it of necessity (with a spineful enough newspaper) is threatening. Don't do this or you'll be audited, etc.--that's an action to suppress speech.
But if you're going to be so cavalier about government officials reccomending against certain kind sof speech, why be upset at the rioters at all? After all, what's the mechanism by which they've shut down freedom of speech
Don't do this or civil order will be entirely disrupted, property will be destroyed, and it won't be safe in the streets is actual threatening behavior. Writing a letter saying "please don't do this," is not.
Or more succinctly, Malkin approves of the Danish cartoon even though it has the power to offend and does not approve of the Toles cartoon exactly because it has the power to offend. On first principles -- or the First Amendment -- that sounds contradictory.
But Malkin thinks one cartoon legitimately causes offense and the other doesn't. So she thinks, on grounds of taste, that one should not be printed and the other should. Similarly, I think the Danish cartoons should not have been printed on grounds of taste and incitement to religious hatred. I might look for an apology from the original newspapers, organize a media campaign to shame the J-P, whereas I'll defend the publishing of the Toles cartoon and encourage that it be reprinted. Since neither I nor Malkin am actually seeking to suppress speech using any other mechanism than our own speech as citizens, we're both in the clear, free speech wise.
On further reflection . . .
But if you're going to be so cavalier about government officials reccomending against certain kind sof speech, why be upset at the rioters at all? After all, what's the mechanism by which they've shut down freedom of speech
Don't do this or civil order will be entirely disrupted, property will be destroyed, and it won't be safe in the streets is actual threatening behavior. Writing a letter saying "please don't do this," is not..
A lot of the work in this argument is being done by the possibility of future threats. Civil society entirely disrupted? Obviously hasn't happened. And, as I said before, the riots have had the paradoxical effect of spreading the offending message. So, what's being done is not working -- but the fear is the tactics may get worse. If that's true, then why not apply the same logic to military complaints about what the Post published. This is the government, after all, and so its disapproal carries the threat of some coercive force, as you yourself admit with regard to the possibility of audits, etc. Just as the rioting implies the threat of complete civil breakdown, though of course that hasn't happened yet.
It's not as though the government is going to announce auditis of dissenters. It just does it. Or it uses the possibility to, as I said, chill speech.
I didn't say I agreed with it.
It was clear that you didn't. My jeremiad wasn't aimed at you.
Civil society entirely disrupted? Obviously hasn't happened.
Danish civil society is okay, but lots of M.E/Central Asian countries are having a bad week. Let's take Afghanistan for example. When a U.S. military installation is targeted, and Afghan police kill four protesters, that is bad for the stability of Afghanistan, bad for the Global War Against Violent Extremism, or whatever we're calling it this week, bad for the stability of Pakistan. It's not hypothetical future acts that have destabilizing potention, but current actual ones.
It's not as though the government is going to announce auditis of dissenters. It just does it.
But then the act of auditing a dissenter is the threat--against the auditee and all other dissenters. The threat isn't contained in a government expression of disapproval of a private action. If Bush gets up and says "I think flag burning is disrespectful," in the wake of a protest in which a flag is burned in front of the White House, is that a threat against flag burners? What if Clinton says it? It could be a portent of worse to come, but any current act could be succeeded by a worse one. There's still no threat, actual or implied, in the statement, "We don't want you to do this." The military should not be involved because of the importance of the partisan neutrality of the military, but the only way the military's disapproval could be construed as more inherently threatening than a civilian government official's (which I argued above is not threatening) should not be construed is if you seriously believed in the possibility of military action against the WaPo. I don't think the WaPo is afraid of this.
I have discovered a subatomic partical that may someday exist: the potention!
And I make spelling errors in my self-deprecating comments about my spelling errors.
re: the electability of 'tough' women and Thatcher...
Thatcher didn't start off that way. In fact right up until the '79 election her public persona was still fairly 'soft'. Furthermore, the first few years of her first term were pretty unpopular.
It took a 'rebranding' as tough -- which included signficant changes in her appearance and a deliberate deepening of her voice, among other things -- and a honing of a particular public persona through the Falklands War before she became the 'Thatcher' everyone remembers.
Of course that's a simplistic picture -- she'd made some pretty hawkish speeches on the Soviet Union in the 70s, for example -- but I'd be wary of drawing specific lessons for Thatcher -- strong cultural differences between the UK and the US, aside.
And I make spelling errors in my self-deprecating comments about my spelling errors.
The singularity!
auditis
The irritation caused by an audit.
I like Piss Christ, though it's far too religious to really hang on one's walls.
It's curious why anyone would clamor for the left to denounce violent protests. Has the left developed a reputation for supporting violent protests against cartoons? Did I miss that memo?
The syndication of Garfield is a form of soft structural violence that can only be met with resistance.
30 -- the Oxford English Dictionary staff think otherwise; they list DECLAME, DECLAIME, and DECLAYME as alternate spellings for DECLAIM.
Oh, I only searched for it as a main entry, I didn't take the next step of searching for "declaim" (which is what I assumed he meant to type) and seeing what the alternate spellings were, but let me further note that all OED definitions require that whatever is declaimed is spoken, rather than merely written. I don't really have a problem with extending it to writing by analogy though, so now I'm just being extra-quibbly.
i am terrified of the possibilities if the arab street gets word of ziggy.
IIRC, the OED records every spelling that ever was been published a few times. Since spelling was only standardized around 1800, that's a lot of spelllings.
A llot of spelllingss.
if the arab street gets word of ziggy.
Ogged heard of Family Circus and, less than two months later, disappeared altogether.
Ogged heard of Family Circus and, less than two months later, disappeared altogether.
leaving nary a trail of dots and dashes in his wake.
if only that worked for arabs as well as persians, we could send the insurgents to join grandma and grandpa gazing creepily down from the clouds as iraqis basked in their freedom.
So Clinton's unelectable b/c she's tough, and Ferraro was unelectable b/c she cried, wasn't she? Gawd.
I'm gonna vote for whoever the Dems put up, just like everyone else. I'm a bit itchy about people talking about Clinton's "unelectability" in advance, though, I gotta admit. If she gets the nod, this shit is gonna come back and bite us in the ass.
Re. health care, I think that's her strongest credential. Hell, even Bush is jumping on the health care bandwagon now.
After some more thought, and John's comment, I think my position has to be that "declamed" is just as acceptable as spelling the word normally spelled "claim" as "clame."
Clinton's problem isn't that she's tough, it's that she comes off as insincere and calculating.
I'm a bit itchy about people talking about Clinton's "unelectability" in advance, though, I gotta admit.
Oh, come on. This is like saying that it's liberal critics who're making it hard for us in Iraq. No: liberal critics didn't want the war in Iraq because it's a bad idea. And Clinton critics don't want her nomination because it's a bad idea.
See, I don't see why it is. The *only* real thing that's an "electability" problem is that she's a feminist. And if we concede that a feminist is unelectable, then we suck.
The *only* real thing that's an "electability" problem is that she's a feminist.
But this is not true.
1. She has a very, very bad track record in the executive branch. Hillary Clinton bears a significant part of the responsibility for why we don't have a national healthcare plan today. I quote Brad DeLong, no shrinking violet nor armchair commentator:
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.
2. She's a mind-changing opportunist to much greater degree than even Kerry.
3. She's not very likable, even to people who might ought to like her, politically. See Jon Stewart as mentioned above.
4. And lest we forget, she's connected to the whole Clinton shebang, and all the cultural baggage that brings with it.
Oh heck, you know all this and you're just trolling from malice, aren't you?
Okay, I'll go along with #1 as a reason not to vote for her, although I seriously doubt that most voters will care what Brad DeLong says about her. I don't see #2, frankly, and I think that 3-4 basically amount to "she's a feminist," honestly I do.
I can see that 3 comes under the heading of "she's a feminist," though it's arguable around the margins.
4 definitely does not: "Clinton" is a red flag to right-wing bulls because it sums up this whole list of almost entirely fictional derangements and abuses from Vince Foster onwards, a list well-known though latent in the minds of the media, that can be easily exhumed. Hillary Clinton is automatically associated with all that in a way that every other feminist on the planet isn't.
1 isn't just what DeLong thinks, it's what a lot of people think. And though nobody cares what he or "a lot of people" think, it points to something: she's manifestly not going to be a good president, and that's a significant drawback for the Party of Competence.
2 I do see, specifically on abortion / choice.
That's crazy, B. Her feminism isn't the problem, except with people who wn't vote Democratic anyway. The problem is she keeps coming out with these wack-ass crusades like on flag burning and video games that NOBODY believes she actually cares about.
The #3 isn't about feminism; it's about being cold and prickly. And if you look back at the last several decades of presidential elections, the colder and pricklier candidate lost (Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush Sr., Dukakis, etc.).
I don't think her position on abortion has really changed all that much; her rhetoric, maybe. I think that "cold and prickly" *is* a feminist issue--in some contexts I honestly think she seems downright warm and emotional, e.g. on religion, on family and children issues (both of which, I think, are winners with swing voters). I honestly think that the wack-ass crusades are part of an intelligent and, I think, winning strategy of running as a pro-family candidate.
I'm not a committed Clinton backer at this point; I'm just saying, I think the "she can't win!" thing is awfully self-sabotaging. Shit, we didn't think GWB would be a winner either: no experience, dumb as a brick, etc. etc. And yet...
I think that if it came out that Hillary was having an affair of her own while Clinton was screwing around, it would humanize her and also make her less the victim.
Especially if the guy were way classier than Monica. Maybe Bono or Craig Venter. No athletes or Hollywood types, no writers.
re: 102's "Shit, we didn't think GWB would be a winner either: no experience, dumb as a brick, etc. etc. And yet..."
GWB was supported by the vast right-wing media machine and a truly huge amount of money, though.
FWIW, I can see the point -- if Hilary Clinton might end up the candidate it would seem stupid for those who would otherwise vote for her to talk her up as unelectable if that might damage her actual chances of being elected and hence the defeat of the Republicans.
However, if she really has no chance of being elected then the Democrats cutting their losses and being honest about it and choosing a different/better candidate makes sense.
The problem is, how do you tell if she is really unelectable or not?