slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Yahoo Report

Hillary Clinton has always been at her strongest when she has seemed most vulnerable. From her soaring popularity during the impeachment hearings of her faithless husband to her brief e*******l comeback in the New Hampshire p**********l primary in 2008 after misting up in a diner, one of the most battle-scarred figures in American life has proven again and again that she has the capacity to rouse v**ers’ empathetic instincts.

Now, as Super Tuesday’s results bring us closer to a general e******n between Clinton and Trump, two brash New Yorkers who do not shy away from a fight, an unprecedented question looms. How does a man whose insults and old-school machismo only amp his popularity compete against a woman who has made an art form of turning the other cheek to such attacks?

In other words, how ugly will things get should Donald Trump run against Hillary Clinton? And how good — or bad — for each of them might that be?

“It will be a war,” says Rebecca Traister, who wrote a book, “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” about Clinton’s 2008 race, and has just published another, “All the Single Ladies,” about Clinton’s most important constituency this time around. “Trump is popular because he is channeling the anxiety of those who are losing power — white men — to those who are gaining it — women and minorities— and he is willing to say anything that expresses that h**e.”

Certain conventions have been accepted about the political ground rules for running for office as a woman and for male candidates running against a woman, wisdom carefully accumulated over the decades by consultants working with focus groups.

Now, all of them are about to be upended.

Men are more analytical and women more emotional? Many v**ers see it the other way around this time. Men are traditionally seen as insiders while women are seen as outsiders? Those roles are flipped in the cases of Clinton and Trump. Women, arguably, are traditionally credited by v**ers with honesty and the ability to bring about change. Those are Clinton’s weakest areas, according to pollsters (though Trump doesn’t fare well on the honesty count, either).

And then there is a long list of things that men are supposed to avoid when running against a woman candidate: Never call her names, insult her looks, patronize her, act like a bully, encroach upon her physical space or appear physically threatening. (No, until this campaign, it wasn’t considered good strategy to do this to candidates of any g****r, but there is an added menace perceived by v**ers when a man appears to demean or humiliate his female opponent).

Trump, though, has done most of these things to many people who have gotten in his way thus far in the campaign, including more than a few women. Megyn Kelly, for instance, who he called a “bimbo” and suggested she was hormonally unstable. Or Carly Fiorina, of whom he said, “Look at that face! Would anyone v**e for that? She’s a woman, and I’m not supposed to say bad things, but really folks, come on! Are we serious?” He’s had choice words for Clinton already, too, calling the fact that she used the bathroom d********g and turning a vulgar word for penis into a verb to describe her loss to Barack Obama.

When and if Trump becomes the Republican nominee, will he stop?

Not likely, says author Michael D’Antonio, who spent four years studying Trump for the book “Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success,” which was published last fall.

“That’s who he is,” he says. “I don’t think he respects women, I think he’s made to feel vulnerable by them, and the way he expresses that comes out as hostility.” D’Antonio concedes that Trump insults and demeans both men and women, but he sees an added edge in his interactions with women. Based on conversations with Trump and comments the candidate has made in public over the years, D’Antonio says Trump divides women into “who’s a 10 and who’s not a 10, who he would like to have sex with and who he wouldn’t. The impulse is so strong in him to attack, and to do it in the lowest possible way will be irresistible to him.”

Adds Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Clinton supporter: “He has a long history of offending women, and he’s not likely to change his stripes. Trump’s never met a group that he couldn’t offend.”

The Trump campaign could not be reached for comment for this article. But Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen has previously told Yahoo News, “This notion that Donald Trump h**es women, that he’s a misogynist — that’s just plain wrong.” And Trump himself has repeatedly claimed to “cherish” women.

Less clear is the effect that any such attacks might have on 2016 v**ers. Subtle sexist attacks have arguably worked against Clinton in the past. These include the backlash against Clinton in her efforts to reform health care during her husband’s presidency and the allegation at that time that she was running a so-called co-presidency. This animosity also informed the existence of groups like Citizens United Not Timid, reportedly founded in 2007 by Roger Stone, now a Trump supporter, which raised money to combat Clinton during her first p**********l campaign, using the first letters of each word as its logo.

But none of those were full-on attacks directly uttered by an opponent, for which, historically, male candidates have paid a price, at least temporarily. P**********l candidate Barack Obama was forced to explain himself after he said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, and it’s still a pig,” because Republicans believed he was insulting Sen. John McCain’s vice p**********l running mate, Sarah Palin. GOP p**********l candidate Mitt Romney faced a backlash in 2012, after referring to the “binders full of women” he had called for in staffing his cabinet as governor of Massachusetts.

The galvanizing effects of misogynistic comments are so well-recognized that Sen. Claire McCask**l of Missouri has admitted that her campaign actively helped Todd Akin to win the Republican nomination in the 2012 Missouri Senate race, bargaining that he would say something that would offend women in the general e******n. (His chances were shot after he let loose a line about “legitimate rape.”)

Add to that general guideline the more specific fact that Clinton has done particularly well when she is under attack. Think of such moments as the scandal over her husband’s infidelity, which resulted in Hillary Clinton’s highest approval rating in her two decades in public service. Or the first debate during her run for a New York Senate seat, when her opponent, Rick Lazio, marched across the stage, wagged his finger at her and waved some pages of a finance pledge in her face, demanding that she sign it. Post-debate polls (helped along by a lot of post-debate advertising by the Clinton camp) found that v**ers saw him as a sexist bully and that this incident marked a turning point toward her eventual victory. Another such moment came in the 2008 New Hampshire debate in which Obama told her, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” The resulting outrage from women v**ers may have lost him the New Hampshire primary. Most recently, Clinton’s 11-hour marathon hearing before the Congressional Select Committee on B******i helped to confirm the impression among many Democrats that she had proved her strength and stamina.

It would follow, then, that the coarser her opponents’ comments become, the better she will fare. But in a year where all bets are off, will this conventional wisdom work?

Aready, Trump has turned the g****r tables on Clinton, proving himself a sk**led fighter on terrain that might have undone her other opponents. After Trump asserted that Clinton had been “schlonged” by Obama in the 2008 e******n, she responded that Trump had shown a “penchant for sexism.” He, in turn, accused her of playing the “woman card” and tweeted: “Hillary Clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but HE’S DEMONSTRATED A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM, so inappropriate!”

A day or two of news stories and editorial columns followed, in which the focus shifted from Hillary, the wronged wife, to the Hillary who was willing to stand by her predatory husband.

Which leaves veterans and prognosticators in new territory. “It’s hard to judge Donald Trump on those kinds of things, because he says such strange, somewhat irresponsible things, and it hasn’t seemed to harm him in the primaries thus far,” says Dick Riley, who was Bill Clinton’s secretary of education and who has endorsed his wife. “People seem to respond differently to him than they have to other people.“

D’Antonio echoes this thought, saying: “You can’t predict anything about his effect on people.” He recalls a Trump rally where the candidate called out a male protester for being fat “and people in the room didn’t recoil, they cheered. Even though a lot of the people cheering were also fat. In order not to be the target, you join the bully.”

Liz Goodwin contributed reporting to this story.

fullspinzoo

She might not be the nominee. She might be indicted. Sad but true. Look what happened to Petreas, and he did hardly anything compared to her.

HistorianDude

Petreaus knowingly and deliberately gave classified information to his mistress and biographer.

Nothing Clinton has been accused of comes close.

3jack

General Petraeus knowingly removed from his office and shared, with his lover, secret and top secret documents in order for her to complete his autobiography. He admitted such, so there is no comparison. He gets to keep his retired rank, his full military pension and his full civil service pension. His treasonous ass should be in prison as we speak.

fullspinzoo

Yeah, and she put over 1000 confidential, secret, or Top secret emails out there on an unsecured server for anybody to hack. She, in effect, shared them with the WORLD. This is material that even most Congressmen don't have the proper clearance to read. Oh, and by the way, it's a FELONY. So let's see if this Administration treats her like a normal citizen or if gets special treatment. We all know the answer to that because this President is not very liked (a POS). That's why Trump is doing so well. Everybody in this great country is s**k of politics and the bulls**t in Washington. I wonder who brought that on. Oh by the way, GFY.

fullspinzoo

OMT- If she is not indicted, it proves one thing. That this President and Atty. General are as corrupt as HELL. But we already knew that, didn't we?

HistorianDude

Assumes facts not in evidence. The server was only briefly "unsecured" near the beginning, and no one has established that any confidential info was on it at that time. It also appears to have never been hacked.

The rest of your post are little more than your deepest hopes and desires... but that does not make them true. If it did there would be no investigation underway.

Hold on to those hoes and desires if they make you feel better. But be prepared; life is filled with little disappointments.

JW

Hillary deliberately and knowingly t***sferred 50% of US uranium reserves to Russian ownership.

Hillary deliberately and knowingly violated the official records laws, laws regarding classified materials, and repeatedly ignored that 3:00am call from B******i.

If you find those things less egregious than Petreaus' infraction then all I can say is, hi, Chelsea!

HistorianDude

Given your necessary unfamiliarity with the actual investigation, perhaps "proves" is a bit of an exaggeration.

3jack

No matter how many times you say it, it's still bull s**t. The discovery of potentially classified documents happened AFTER THE FACT....I know this is hard for you to grasp, but give it a try. Your hopes that Clinton will be found to have willfully or intentionally distributed classified documents will not come to fruition. Your hopes that a Grand Jury will be convened, and an indictment of Clinton will occur will also not come to fruition. You might want to try hoping in one hand and s**tting in the other to see which one fills first.....BTW, YTMFY.

HistorianDude

Pure fiction. It never happened.


The first accusation assumes facts not in evidence. The second is pure fiction. It never happened.


I never find fiction or speculation any more or less egregious than it actually is. But your fiction and speculation here certainly is egregious.

JW

Hi, Chelsea!

fullspinzoo

Hillary is a LIAR. Pure and simple. One of recent best? Hillary: I never sent any classified emails. Fact: She sent over 1000 including some that were higher than "Top secret" (SAP). Her lies she told in that hanger to families of those k**led in B******i is disgraceful. She was still advancing the story about the infamous "video" and then Susan Martinez went on five Sunday shows and continued the LIE. If you're still on board, it only PROVES that you are in the tank for Hillary no matter what FELONIES she commits. But I remember you. You're not very good with strong comeback arguments. You're better with something resembling a childish schoolyard comeback like "Go phuck yourself".

HistorianDude

Everybody is a liar. Pure and simple. Even you.

It has probably been 5000 years since being a liar ever actually disqualified anybody from political office.

And everyone is called a liar by their political opponents, regardless of whether they actually lied or not.

For example... the Beghazi claims about the cause of the attack? They may have been wrong. But they were not a lie.

fullspinzoo

Like I said, if she doesn't get indicted, it's because YOUR first black President and Loretta Lynch are corrupt. Americans are disgusted with the job Oblome has done and that's why Trump is doing so well. Hillary is a LIAR and you're phucking naive.