|
|
|
August 22, 2005
How to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain . . .
I'm wondering whether sexism is raising its ugly head in New York's Senate race: ALBANY, N.Y. - Is this a Senate race or country music?This puts Hillary in a bit of a dilemma, because she has far greater name recognition, but she's also vulnerable to the charge that she's been coat-tailing on her husband's name. So, if she maligns Jeanine Pirro's husband, that gives Pirro an opening to make the election about Bill Clinton. Yet if she ignores Mr. Pirro's felon status, she might miss a valuable campaign opportunity, and avoiding "the husband issue" might be seen as grounded in a desire to avoid talking about her own husband. A possible no-win for Hillary -- unless she has others do her dirty work for her. (The Cindy Sheehan crowd has helped Hillary too, by making her look moderate, even hawkish.) What fascinates me about this is that wives are rarely the subject of inquiry in a race between two male candidates. Going after an opponent's wife (even when there's dirt) is seen as dirty politics -- if not "unmanly" behavior. There's always the ancient technique called praeteritio -- bringing up something by saying you won't bring it up -- but voters are sophisticated enough to catch it, which means it should be used sparingly. And subtly. Hillary could object that she won't allow "them" (that's the VRWC) to "smear" her husband, that she's running on her own issues, and that husbands and families should not be a proper focus of a campaign. This would remind voters that "the husband issue" is there, but that Hillary doesn't think it's right to dwell on it. (Specifically refusing to dwell on her own husband, of course, evokes her opponent's husband without mentioning him at all.) For extra effect, she could add that she's "paid no attention" to whatever is being paid attention to, and that no one else should either! Gotta keep this race clean, and focused on the real issues.
posted by Eric on 08.22.05 at 09:03 AM
Comments
Hillary/Hillary's campaign doesn't itself have to bring the issue up, they just have to arrange for third parties to do so. And as the tax return issue, believe it or not, many of us trust our spouses and will, after a cursory look at it will sign. Of course there are many on the left who don't understand things like "trust", "love", and "marriage". Petro · August 23, 2005 03:55 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The problem is, it isn't just Al Pirro who is corrupt. Jeanine Pirro PERSONALLY SIGNED the joint tax return that was deemed fraudulent. And moreover, Jeanine Pirro's own campaign for Westchester DA accepted bribes --err contributions-- from the MAFIA.
Clinton doesn't need to drag Jeanine Pirro through Al Pirro's muck. Pirro did it herself.