Jackson Free Press

This is pathetic; the GOP is going to have to do better than playing the angry-woman card. If not, they're going to p!ss off a lot of already-perturbed female voters, and they really ought not do that. The Associated Press today:

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential presidential contender in 2008, "seems to have a lot of anger" and voters usually do not send angry candidates to the White House, the Republican Party chairman said Sunday. "When you think of the level of anger, I'm not sure it's what Americans want," said Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee.

Mehlman cited the New York senator's remarks on Martin Luther King Day in which she called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history and compared the Republican-controlled House to a plantation where opposing voices are silenced.

"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates. And whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger," Mehlman told ABC's "This Week."

Honestly, can't they do better than this!?! The playbook's a bit out of date, boys.

LOL.

Previous Comments

ID

104524

Comment

I am always amazed at the fear Hillary seems to strike in the heart of so many. Makes me wonder are all these males married to Hillary types.

Author

jada

Date

2006-02-05T18:26:48-06:00

ID

104525

Comment

i'm going to venture into this topic on my tiptoes (becuase I don't normally comment on the political topics), and say that Donna is right about this completely. Hillary Clinton is a woman that everyone has a strong feeling about---- whether it's positive or negative. She is a brilliant woman, one that I believes knows how to make a statement, not just by what she says but what she doesn't say and when she says it. I was a little confused by the comments she made while the world was celebrationg MLK day, but I have to admit that I was just as confused by Ray Nagen's comment the same day that he wants New Orleans to return to being a chocolate city... The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate for any election she chooses to be a part of. As as for president... well. I think Geena Davis has showed us it's closer than we might think.

Author

c a webb

Date

2006-02-05T18:53:49-06:00

ID

104526

Comment

I pray daily that Senator Clinton will in fact become the Democrat Party's Presidential candidate.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-02-05T19:23:28-06:00

ID

104527

Comment

I don't. I've made my feelings clear in the past about Ms. Rodham Clinton. I sure don't want her ending up being the lesser of two evils. However, that's not the point here. The point is that the national GOP are making piggish a$$es out of themselves by playing the angry button. There is PLENTY to be angry over, and most of the country is well aware of it. Acting like cavemen and attacking a viable presidential candidate for being angry because she happens to be a woman is really, really moronic, and telling. They better watch out on this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-05T20:24:22-06:00

ID

104528

Comment

The day Senator Clinton , Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, (save Joe Lieberman thank God) ...hell you name it...delivers a speech and doesn't sound not only angry, but furious, frustrated, shrill, you name it is the day I will say hey guys let's talk. It cuts (sadly) both ways big time. The Republicans have no need to play the angry button, I will agree. Just let the lady talk.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-02-05T21:07:44-06:00

ID

104529

Comment

The day Senator Clinton , Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, (save Joe Lieberman thank God) ...hell you name it...delivers a speech and doesn't sound not only angry, but furious, frustrated, shrill, you name it is the day I will say hey guys let's talk Come on, Councilman, that's a cheap, bullsh!t post, and I expect you know it. I know you have more to you than making such swipes. I've heard plenty of Republicans sound "angry," and that's the least of my worries. You should be "angry" about protecting America and American freedoms. I'm a bit more concerned -- no, MAD AS HELL -- at the lying and attacks on our civil liberties and freedoms that we have suffered in recent years. And at being told that I don't have the right to speak up about it. These days, if you're not "angry," you're not paying attention.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-05T21:11:45-06:00

ID

104530

Comment

Donna...you sound . Sorry. It wasn't a bullsh** post. I agree...we (Republicans) have more than our share of "angry " mouthpieces. I wish fewer were. Our country throughout its existence has plenty to be about at ANY point in time, these times are no different...we as a country just lose perspective of "history" from time to time.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-02-05T21:19:05-06:00

ID

104531

Comment

It is undoubtedly undisguised B.S. to simply dismiss people of the opposite party (or any belief) as just being "angry"—and it's hypocritical. I can find plenty of your own posts from this site that are mighty angry--and that's a good thing. You're engaged; thus you get "angry" when you feel like something is happening that is going to hurt your city. Good for you, Ben. You should get angry. As should I. Sometimes we'll be angry about the same things; sometimes we won't. I have no problem people noticing that I'm angry; good! It's not like I keep it a secret; I'm not a withering violet who thinks I don't have a voice or don't deserve to be angry, especially when it comes to my freedoms being diminished or my family members dying in a bullsh!t war with no end. But don't go around belittling me, or anyone else, simply because they're "angry." That's pure propaganda designed to discredit without engaging the issues. Try to convince me not to be angry, using real facts, but don't belittle my anger. In America, we get to be angry and express it. Sure, criticize public figures on specific merits (or lack thereof), but you come across as a sound-bite spewing screech-radio host when you simply line up your enemies and shoot them down with the "angry" rifle as you did above. It's absurd. And you, and your party, can do better than this. It's hard to put out more divisive rhetoric than this. Play ball on the merits if you want to be taken seriously as more than a sound-bite politician repeating what the party tells you to. Speaking of radio ... just how would you characterize many of those booming statements made on your radio show every week? Angry, perhaps? No, you can't be "angry" because you're a Republican. Or because, well, you mean it. Or, because you're right. See how silly this road is? Truth is, the anger I hear on your show has never bothered me. You said you came to the JFP to engage in real discussion with people who don't agree with you that cuts across boundaries. I am encouraging you to do just that. But it's not going to happen, if you get into the business of flinging the "angry" label -- as if that's some sort of ugly, un-American place -- at your political "opponents." Even if "angry" is the talking-point-of-the-week from the national GOP and FOX. I really believe we can do better than that. It's cheap. Besides, at the moment, you're posting on MY personal blog, so the "angry" meme ain't gonna fly far. You're in my sandbox now. Welcome. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-05T22:17:59-06:00

ID

104532

Comment

I should probably mention that I'm glad we're having this conversation about the "angry" meme—and I'm not mad at youl. (You likely realize that, but others may not, and I don't want them to think ol' Ben and Donna are having a falling-out because we're hashing this out. ). These kinds of conversations aren't supposed to be easy, so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. But, Ben, Good Lord, how many times does someone have to be dismissed so handily as being "angry"? As a woman who speaks my mind, I've been saddled with this for years; ain't stopping me, of course. I'm pretty self-aware and silly insults don't bother me. But my concern is all the other people y'all are muzzling with this kind of rhetoric. I ask you to think about it, and rise above it. You really can do better than this. I know you can.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-05T22:28:49-06:00

ID

104533

Comment

Anger vs. Strident: What's the Difference? Fundamentally, I'd say it lies in the ultimate motivation (although it's very easy to confuse legitimate stridency with mere cheap anger - but that tangent can take up a whole other post). Anyway.... I'd say it's "mere anger" when it's designed to stir up irrational hatred or fear. Personally, I'd say it's also merely anger when the puprose is to make snide remarks that give off airs "I just made my opponent look sooo stupid! HA HA HA! Look how clever I am". As for Legitimate Stridency - it ALWAYS has to be a logical argument (or at least a semblance of one) that attacks the merits of an issue. It doesn't even portray the issue as a "stupid position to hold". That's not to say the campaign platform has to be a dry academic treatise. But it does have to have to make some logical sense.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-02-05T23:33:24-06:00

ID

104534

Comment

If the Republican Party can convince America that Hillary Rodham Clinton really is angry, and not just opportunistic, then that will help her campaign more than anything she actually does ever will. Mixed feelings about Rodham Clinton (I'm trying to break the meme of calling all female politicians by their first names). On the one hand, I badly want to see a woman president. On the other hand, I don't really want it to be her. For manifold reasons, one being that she's trading on her husband's success, and electing a Lurleen isn't really a great big feminist step forward. The best chance we have to put a woman in the White House, IMHO, is for the 2008 Democratic nominee to select Maria Cantwell for the VP spot. But that probably won't happen, because she's from Washington and the Pacific Northwest already trends heavily Democratic. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'll support her. I won't go quite as far as Molly Ivins, because I think the stakes are too high to allow for another four years with a Republican in the White House. If Bush doesn't get the opportunity to replace Justice Stevens, his successor probably will. I want that successor to be a Democrat, even if it's the junior senator from New York. Now, about the "angry" thing... I wouldn't say angry. I'd say inarticulate. There is a serious problem, right now, with inarticulate Democrats who don't seem to know what they believe in the first place and don't seem to know how to express it on the rare occasions when they do. I think Lieberman has made too many concessions to the center, but I'll grant that he's one of the few Democrats in the Senate who makes any damn sense. Barack Obama, a real progressive, is another--Ben, even if you've gotta admit that. Russ Feingold is another. Joe Biden can be another on a good day, though I am not personally drinking the Kool-Aid yet. Patrick Leahy used to be, but every now and then he does something that's obviously a political calculation, like supporting Chief Justice Roberts, and then tries to explain it away as if it wasn't. We need leaders who can level with the American people. Ted Kennedy can't. Nancy Pelosi can't. And I firmly believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton can't, either, though I don't think it's because she's too angry. I think it's because she isn't angry enough. She is so obviously calculating every decision she makes that it's impossible to tell what she really believes anymore. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-06T00:12:38-06:00

ID

104535

Comment

Damn, I read the title and thought there was a blog entry about me. ;) Here's my contribution to the lovely "angry" thread. Three days ago I was in a gas station in south Jackson standing in line at the check out behind a woman who was obviously buying food for her two children with an EBT card. It wasn't going thru. This was forcing the three people in line behind her to wait. A while. I have a tad bit of social anxiety (I know, who would know, right?) Anyway, I tend to feel sorry for people in social situations whom you can tell are uncomfortable. This woman was obviously uncomfortable that she was holding up the line and that this was going on. The man in line behind me was the only other man in the store. He was extremely well dressed and he was talking on his cell phone. And, he was angry. He was being very vocal about his anger towards this woman in the store. Just not to her. He was voicing his obvious anger at the way the "world works" to the person on the other end of the phone. Leaving all of us to hear about his anger regarding people enrolled in social service programs and what he thought about them. He closed the conversation, after the woman ran the card for the third time with, "Out of all the stores in Jackson, I have to walk into this one." The derision with which he said it truly made me angry. I walked out of the store angry at this man. Angry at him for not understanding she was buying food for her kids. Angry at this man because he thought he should be able to pay for his gas FIRST, while she waited to pay for her purchases. That's a pretty clear cut example of how "anger" is passed from one individual to another. That's a pretty clear cut example of how a "woman" gets angry. I was an angry woman. Now, does that make me incapable of making a decision, being good at my job, or worthy of male mockery? Nope, just makes me aware of the real world. It just means I'm actually paying attention to what is going on around me.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-02-06T07:33:51-06:00

ID

104536

Comment

What can people do when they end up in line with somebody like that? I always want to say something, but it never seems like a good idea at the time. I remember one time I was in line behind a slightly intoxicated hee-haw at what was then a Jitney Jungle. After reading the headline from a nearby tabloid (I still remember it: "SEXY WRESTLER'S BOOOOOB EXPLODES!," he shouted), he started making nasty comments about how the ancestry of the African-American cashier should mean she works faster. She was working plenty fast, but he was in line behind a few people. He looked to me for approval. I avoided giving him those looks of approval, if memory serves, and muttered something about how she was pretty fast but there weren't enough registers open. But I didn't even address his overt racism. Then there was the local "pro-life" activist who rambled in my ear for five minutes about how women's lib was destroying America, all while I was in line in front of him at the post office hoping there wasn't a "NARAL Pro-Choice America" envelope in that day's batch of mail. What he had to say was so obviously knee-jerk, and he was so obviously already worked up in a tizzy, that I didn't particularly feel like arguing with him. If I said "I believe in the right of a woman to choose," I suspect he'd have taken a swing at me. He was volatile. The idea of being a woman walking up to the only clinic in town, having to walk by this guy and keep walking... I realized that afternoon how much courage these women have. Or at least how much desperation. I only had one bad experience with a social services client, and it haunts me to this day. Attractive young African-American woman with a young son. She'd just checked out and her kid had tried to get her attention about something or other. I only had one item, and no kid, so I checked out and was ready to go before she was. Absent-mindedly started to leave without my sack, went back to the counter, glanced in it to be sure I wasn't walking out with something of hers instead, locked eyes for a split second, and caught an unhappy expression from her. "I wasn't going to steal it," she looked with a pleading expression on her face, then grabbed her sack and kid and walked out before I could finish the sentence that started off "I know--." I thought at the time that she was just playing with my head, because how could she possibly have thought... Then I hear stories like the one you just told, and it makes me realize that no, she probably really did believe I was scared she'd steal my stuff. Depresses me. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-06T09:19:21-06:00

ID

104537

Comment

I would say the Republicans are playing the misogynist card. If Democrats are getting angry, that's a good sign: it means they are finally growing spines and exhibiting the kind of moral outrage that the criminality of this administration and congress warrants. Anyone who cares about anything should be outraged by the actions of this government (including spineless Democrats like Kerry and Clinton), and I hope that's reflected in the next election. The Democrats are not the party of anger. The party of anger is the one with pundits who are invective mongers of hatred, like Michael Savage, Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilley, etc...

Author

Mac Causey

Date

2006-02-06T19:26:27-06:00

ID

104538

Comment

I don't know that I would put Michael Savage in with Bill O'Reilley. That would be like putting James Carville in with Jello Biafra. I do like angry democrats though. Given political trends, by all means, get angry. That pleases me pretty good b/c it pushes you left, which hurts your party. Get angry, get shrill, hee haw. I second Mr. Allen's fervent desire that Hillary obtain the nomination of the democratic party. Perhaps Mr. Kerry could run with her. That would be a one two knockout for sure. On the other stuff, I hate when people talk on cellphones like no one is there, whatever the topic. For some folks its like a cone of silence descends as soon as their call connects. I have heard some very personal stuff waiting to get my oil changed...... RNH.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-02-06T19:43:23-06:00

ID

104539

Comment

That pleases me pretty good b/c it pushes you left, which hurts your party. Get angry, get shrill, hee haw. Niles, there is nothing about that statement that makes one iota of sense. How does "anger" push one left? The phrase "hee, haw" is more than appropriate when you, or Ben, make such sweeping, nonsensical statements that anger=left. That is simply stupid, even if Savage and O'Reilly are leading the charge on the latest meme. Try harder, please. You're not making the GOP look very intelligent here. And, yes, Mac, the national GOP here is definitely playing the misogynist card. Of course, the party leaders are likely arrogant enough to believe that most people think just like they do. Or, at least the people who matter. But they might be selling the level of real anger in the country short right now (try visiting the Coast). Belittling people due to real and justifiable anger is a really dumb political strategy. I also suspect that this is a classic case of attacking strengths. That is, GOP strategists likely realize that, if Democrats will find their damn spines and start getting angry and speaking up, they will resonate better with voters in this climate. So they're trying to scare them into silence by belittling them and trying to make anger look un-American or such bullsh!t -- when, in fact, righteous indignation is very American and patriotic. I say belittle the strategy and call it for what it is: desperation.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-06T20:10:07-06:00

ID

104540

Comment

And, Niles, you're new here -- although making a certain impression quickly -- but I'm not a Democrat (if the "your" is directed my way). I'm an equal-opportunity critic. You?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-06T20:11:14-06:00

ID

104541

Comment

Niles: Bill O'Reilly invited al-Qaeda to destroy an historic monument erected in honor of firefighters in San Francisco, and then said that they would deserve no aid from the federal government in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. That's hate speech, and it's not nearly the only time he's been guilty of such. He belongs with Coulter and Savage. He's just another angry white sociopath. P.S.: Speaking of angry white people, I forgot to include Michael Reagan: "Howard Dean should be arrested for treason and either hung or put in a hole until the war's over." That's an affront to the First Amendment. That's hate speech. That's anger. That's Republican.

Author

Mac Causey

Date

2006-02-06T20:52:01-06:00

ID

104542

Comment

That's an affront to the First Amendment. That's hate speech. That's anger. That's Republican. It doesn't have to be, though. I know smart Republicans who would never defend this kind of talk -- or say that it is, somehow, leftist to be "angry." They engage the issues. They have conversations without blanket attacks and ridicule of others just because they disagree with them. And they certainly never would defend this kind of talk and what the national GOP is saying about Rodham Clinton being "angry." Smart Republicans really do need to step up and take back that party. It had something to recommend it at one point -- before it sold its soul to the Dixiecrat devil. Times have changed; that party needs to start keeping up. Good Lord: You can believe in small government and fiscal responsibility without being hateful and making deals for votes with people you wouldn't want your children to meet.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-06T21:18:06-06:00

ID

104543

Comment

Perhaps a better term than "Republican" would be "Neoconservative."

Author

Mac Causey

Date

2006-02-06T21:48:10-06:00

ID

104544

Comment

OK, you won't get a single argument from me on that one. I have yet to encounter a neo-conservative who isn't an angry, closed-minded, santicmonious prick. I think it's a requirement of the label. And that said, I will admit that there may be some out there. They should speak up more often, though. There are some real bad apples ruining the party on their behalf.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-06T21:50:01-06:00

ID

104545

Comment

Damn it. See, I get censored here, too. ;-) Let me try again: I have yet to encounter a neo-conservative who isn't an angry, closed-minded, sanctimonious pr!ck. I think it's a requirement of the label.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-06T21:50:50-06:00

ID

104546

Comment

I heard about the Hilary Clinton issue on The View this morning, and I think the comment made by Mehlman is the biggest bunch of organic waste I have ever heard - so far this month, that is. The Donna Reed days are over! Women aren't just gonna spend their time vacuuming wearing heels, pearls and a fake smile, no matter how much some may want us to. We are gonna tell it like it is, so deal with it.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-02-07T00:00:07-06:00

ID

104547

Comment

See, if I would just cave into the blog censor and use phrases like "organic waste," I wouldn't get bleeped. But at least it shows that anybody can get out of line around here. ;-D Yeah, that's some high and mighty horsesh!t -- sorry, couldn't do it -- that the GOP wunderkids are putting out there. We have a viable female candidate and the best you can come up with is "Oh, the woman is so angry. She's shrill. Oh, and get this, she has her own OPINIONS. HOLY FLIPPIN' COW; WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?" Honestly, I can argue against Rodham Clinton better than these goobs can. I may not be a fan of hers, but she sure is going to make fools out of a bunch of folks, if this is any indication. And, hell, the women's movement could use a shot of adrenaline -- or is it estrogen? What silly little pouty boys.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-07T00:11:37-06:00

ID

104548

Comment

You know, I just had a funny image of a well-coifed but visibly angry man, probably wearing a business suit, sitting with his little daughter shaking his finger at her. "Now, little Britney, you cannot ever, evershow anger. You are a good little girl, and no man will ever love you if you sound shrill. Be like your mama, and don't have opinions, and when you do, don't tell anyone about them. People will think you're ..." (Here he stops and looks directions, then turns back to Britney and continues in a forceful whisper) "... a liberal!" LMAAO (A new one, meaning: Laughing My Angry A$$ Off. We'll add it to the glossary.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-07T00:20:35-06:00

ID

104549

Comment

There is a huge national backlash against women's rights going on right now, but you don't need to hear it from me. The Bell Curve/Pioneer Fund style garbage that was so hot 10 years ago vis-a-vis race, used by white supremacists to argue against affirmative action policies, is now being used against women. The science of "gender differences" (which has become a simple euphemism for male supremacy in many circles) is effing huge, with the latest generation of hack scientists conducting experiments where baby male and female gorillas are asked to choose between pink frying pans and blue toy trucks, as if a baby gorilla knows what the hell frying pans or trucks are for, and the results tabulated to show why men are better at getting jobs and women are better at staying barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. At least two Harvard dons are openly making anti-female arguments, one saying that women may be "dumb at math," the other saying that women may be dumb at politics. The New York Times is regularly publishing op-ed columns--three in a single week not long ago--from various purported "thinkers" arguing on behalf of "gender differences." So the fact that Mehlman is playing the "angry woman" card is completely unsurprising to me. I mean, I think we had already surmised that he says far worse about her when he's not in front of the cameras, and gets the usual laughs and back-slaps for it. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-07T00:26:01-06:00

ID

104550

Comment

There is a huge national backlash against women's rights going on right now, but you don't need to hear it from me. The Bell Curve/Pioneer Fund style garbage that was so hot 10 years ago vis-a-vis race, used by white supremacists to argue against affirmative action policies, is now being used against women. The science of "gender differences" (which has become a simple euphemism for male supremacy in many circles) is effing huge, with the latest generation of hack scientists conducting experiments where baby male and female gorillas are asked to choose between pink frying pans and blue toy trucks, as if a baby gorilla knows what the hell frying pans or trucks are for, and the results tabulated to show why men are better at getting jobs and women are better at staying barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. At least two Harvard dons are openly making anti-female arguments, one saying that women may be "dumb at math," the other saying that women may be dumb at politics. The New York Times is regularly publishing op-ed columns--three in a single week not long ago--from various purported "thinkers" arguing on behalf of "gender differences." So the fact that Mehlman is playing the "angry woman" card is completely unsurprising to me. I mean, I think we had already surmised that he says far worse about her when he's not in front of the cameras, and gets the usual laughs and back-slaps for it. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-07T00:29:09-06:00

ID

104551

Comment

Sorry for the double-posting; Internet connection mysteriously crapped out. For added fun, Google Hillary + "vagina dentata" and watch the fireworks. The "angry woman" charge is very, very old, and is basically just a reflection of--and an appeal to--castration anxiety. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-07T00:33:21-06:00

ID

104552

Comment

"Castration anxiety." Laughing out loud. So glad you posted that phrase tonight. We've been practicing saying the word "vagina" in mixed company today—being that the Georgia O'Keeffe exhibit of vaginas and flowers is in town and "The Vagina Monologues" is coming to the Coast. Mississippi is in the mix, baby dolls. Now click your heels and say "vagina" three times. It's OK, we're OK, you're OK, they're OK. (Thank goodness the blog censor didn't ding that one.) LMAAO. ;-P

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-07T00:41:04-06:00

ID

104553

Comment

How can there be castration anxiety when there's no testicularity to begin with? (Hee hee...got the t-word from The View.)

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-02-07T01:19:45-06:00