Does Hillary Clinton Really Want People to Think the Other Democrats Are Beating Up a Woman? (Updated):
The Rude Pundit almost got his ass handed to him by a lesbian friend some time ago because he said that, right now, he wasn't supporting Hillary Clinton for President. He tried to explain that he was feeling the love for maybe Edwards, maybe Obama, but at that point, really early in the process, he didn't actually give a fuck. This was not good enough for the aforementioned lesbian, who scoffed at the Rude Pundit, calling over to some friends, "He says he's not gonna support Hillary." The lesbian loves Hillary, has a picture of herself with Hillary at some gathering or other, has convinced all those friends, who now surrounded the Rude Pundit at the dyke bar, that the nation needs Hillary. And why? Swear to the fuckin' god of the obvious, the overwhelming reason is that she's a woman.

Because the Rude Pundit (who by this point had hominah-hominah'd his way into saying that if she's the Democratic nominee, he'll support her all the way) said he didn't think that Hillary's vagina was a compelling enough reason to think she's the best candidate despite her conservative views on foreign policy, her nauseating triangulation gene, and more, the Rude Pundit was labeled sexist. Saying that the lesbian's positions were closer to Kucinich than to Clinton sure didn't help. Even pathetically tossing out that Obama's black didn't help. Of course, being among friends, buying a round of drinks helped blunt the impact of the Rude Pundit's transgression. And it led to much discussion of Hillary's vagina.

Right now, in her post-debate hangover, Clinton's handlers and spinners are out in force, playing the female card. One told the Washington Post, "Ultimately, it was six guys against her, and she came off as one strong woman." Tim Grieve points to the likelihood of this becoming a campaign talking point, asking us what would be the reaction if Barack Obama's campaign said, "ultimately [he had] five whites and a Hispanic against him, and he came off as one strong black man." Or, to take it in another direction, what if John Edwards said he won the debate because he's a strong man?

It's a stupid, bullshit move by the Clinton people, because the strength of Clinton's sex comes from her presence as a woman, her fact of being a woman, not from all the attempts to make her into the image of a woman, as the right demanded when she was First Lady. The Rude Pundit's not saying that Clinton's sex doesn't matter. It sure as shit does. But it's one thing for a woman to be the frontrunner for the presidency (and, no matter how you feel, it's cool to say that, finally, at last, in America) - it's another to make it an issue in the campaign. What happens if Clinton seriously fucks up in the next debate, as opposed to the minor fuck-ups of this past one? Will she have gotten beat up by the men? Does that make her a weak woman? Does the campaign want that image out there?

The act of making sex an issue shuts down dialogue and will sow resentment and backlash among the very voters Clinton guru and corporate lackey Mark Penn thinks will be wooed to Clinton because of her sex: Republican women. Penn may be right that this demographic will shift to Clinton but it ain't just because she pees sitting down; it's because women may take a closer listen to her because she's a woman and vote for her because they agree with her. That's a huge fucking difference from women voting for a woman because she's a woman. One view paints women as sheep without perspective, manipulated by seeing tits like they have. The Rude Pundit's view says that women have agency: the ability to think for themselves and make decisions. And if the Clinton campaign pushes the "strong woman beat the men" meme, however true it might be, it's gonna turn off Penn's microtrending women.

Sure, people will vote against Clinton because of her sex, and that's ignorant, just as it's ignorant for people to vote for her just because of her sex. The Rude Pundit thought (and still does think) that he had a trump card with the lesbian when he asked her if she would have voted for Condoleezza Rice if she was running and Hillary Clinton wasn't. That question was never answered because, well, the god of the obvious was smiling.

One other note on the debate: Bill Richardson was wrong to say everyone should stay positive. If Clinton's the nominee, she will be met with a shitstorm of negative ads and attacks that'll make the Swift Boat-ing of John Kerry seem like a raft trip down a calm stream. And if it's Giuliani for the Republicans, that vile fucker's campaign will be like Karl Rove on speedballs. Let Clinton take her licks now. Let her get her answers straight. The more shit that gets out now in the playoffs, the less impact it'll have in the championship game.

(By the way, did you notice what the Rude Pundit did up there? He kept calling his friend a "lesbian" because, playing on our fucked-up stereotypes, it seems less wimpy to get dressed down by a lesbian than by an undefined "woman." Does it add anything to the narrative? Of course not. It's a punt to make the Rude Pundit seem a little tougher. Get the fuckin' point?)

Update: You mark the Rude Pundit here: Hillary Clinton tying her fortunes to Mark Penn will fuck her over. Big time. Motherfucker is Bob Shrum in slightly better suits.