I think the forum last night was overall pretty fair and actually fun to watch.

[boston bean]

Last edited Sat Nov 7, 2015, 09:52 AM - Edit history (2)

All three did a good job.

There was one question asked of each candidate that was really indicative of how the media (including Rachel Maddow) tries to pidgeon hole Hillary Clinton and can actually be unknowingly sexist to the female interviewee. She got different treatment and I do think it's fair discuss this. Do I think Rachel Maddow is a sexist, no. Do I think what she did in this instance was, yes I do.

Two candidates were shown a picture of some event in their life and were essentially asked what they were thinking and how it shaped their life.

For O'Malley it was a picture of him working on a campaign for Gary Hart when he was in his twenties.
For Sanders it was a sit in in Chicago protesting segregating dormitory housing at the University he was attending.

One candidate (Hillary) was shown her wedding portrait and was not asked what she was thinking or how it shaped her life. But instead was asked if she was actually thinking I ought to be president and not him.

I thought that really sucked. Her wedding picture, really? Not her speech in Beijing? Not her winning the Senate. Nothing from her time as SOS? Her Wellesley commencement speech?? The Watergate Committee? Working on the McGovern Campaign?

And then to ask her if she was thinking something specific, instead of asking her what she was thinking open ended like it was for the other candidates, was just low.

This purposefully or not, portrayed Hillary as some craven calculating evil power hungry woman way back to 1970 something.

Hillary answered it with aplomb. But Rachel, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[JaneyVee]

1. Bernie got a softball interview, O'Malley and HRC...

Answered actual tough questions. Good forum though, and I'm confident Democrats will retain the WH.

[Vinca]

4. Yep. I enjoyed the hard hitting questions to Hillary that involved

her hair being curly in her wedding picture. Give it a break - they were all asked good questions. Bernie was not treated differently.

[R B Garr]

47. Oh, please. She wasn't there to talk about her hair

or her wedding day. Bernie got some softballs tossed at him in comparison, especially the picture of him doing The People's work in his college days which was an easy segue to talk about what a hero he is. He had much easier questions tossed at him for his halo polishing and stale applause lines.

The other part of that equation is that Clinton was treated more seriously which had its upside.

[Vinca]

51. I'm sorry. I watched the entire thing and all of the candidates got important questions.

To imply Bernie was thrown softballs is nasty and demeaning . . . but not unusual for this forum.

[R B Garr]

52. So you think Bernie would have rather talked about his hair

on his wedding day rather than his participation in a political rally about housing during college? I bet not.

[Vinca]

53. Oh, give it a rest. The faux outrage is getting old.

[R B Garr]

56. Okay, so you can't be bothered with answering if you

think Bernie would rather talk about his political accomplishments in college or his hair on his wedding day at a forum for PRESIDENTIAL candidates, but you are sure it was fine for Hillary and everyone should just shut up. Got it.

[Vinca]

57. You obviously didn't even watch the program.

[R B Garr]

58. Yes your post #4 says you enjoyed the hard-hitting

question to Hillary about her curly hair on her wedding day as if that was a softball question, so I see where your stubborn confusion comes from. You obviously think women would prefer to talk about their hair in a PRESIDENTIAL forum instead of their political accomplishments. Got it.

So I:ll put you down as Yes you would prefer to see Bernie talk about his hair instead of his political work in college since hair is a softball question. Got it.

[Vinca]

59. I feel sorry for you. You have no sense of humor.

The moderator asked silly and serious questions of all 3 candidates. Somehow you've gone out on the ledge over my mentioning the hair portion of Hillary's interview. So let's cut to the chase. Your point is "Bernie bad, Hillary good." I am a woman. I am sensitive to sexist questions. I have no idea what your gender is, but you definitely need to lighten up a little. You're going to pop a vein before the election at the rate you're going.

[R B Garr]

64. HA, this is always the answer for you Bernie people

Make it as personal and/or morally holier-than-thou so you can make yourselves out to be the final arbiters of all that is good and true in the world. What heavy halos you all have to drag around.

You made a sarcastic remark to someone that a hair question to a female in Presidential forum was the actual softball when it seems obvious that the true softball was for Bernie to talk about being a hero in college politics, which was the actual purpose of the forum in case you hadn't noticed. Yet you refuse to answer a rather simple question as to which question you think Bernie would rather answer: a question about his hair on his wedding day or his political accomplishments. Instead you want to talk about me popping a vein, so it's pretty obvious it's you who went out on the ledge.

Which question do you suppose Bernie would rather talk about in a Presidential forum: his curly hair on his wedding day OR his political accomplishments in college?

[Vinca]

66. I give up. Bernie baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, Hillary good. Happy?

[R B Garr]

67. This was about the Presidential forum questions.

Not good vs. evil.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. I don't have msnbc but

If your portrayal is accurate, I would agree that it was avery poor and likely sexist question. Probably more straight up rude question imo.

[lonestarnot]

3. Well neither Bernie nor Martin are spouses of a President, so I think you may be extra sensitive.

[sarge43]

28. Yeah but

Too often women are defined by who they're related to - someone's daughter, mother, wife, etc. Their own accomplishments are seldom put first.

Regardless of our opinion of her, she has a remarkable c. vitae.

[MH1]

5. I tend to agree but I think she was using photos from an approximate age.

So more recent photos from Hillary's "mature" political life wouldn't have consistent with the others either.

A more appropriate photo for Hillary might have been on a political campaign (did she work on any at that age?), attending a protest (did she attend any at that age?), or if nothing like that was available, maybe a photo from law school?

I agree that I think she should have been put in a similar situation than the others, and apparently was not. (unfortunately I haven't been able to watch any segment in full except Martin O'Malley yet. But DANG, Martin was good.)

[boston bean]

6. How about her commencement speech at Wellesley College?

[livetohike]

8. Exactly! n/t

[lostnfound]

15. That also would have been appropriate but the photo used

Rises to a level of greater historical importance. And which was more influential to her future or her political presence?

She did fine in her answer. It was a more thought provoking moment to put her future life in context.

[boston bean]

17. I said she did fine in her answer, but that wasn't the point.

[dsc]

16. she was a staffer for the Watergate Committee

and gave the first ever student speech during commencement at Welseley

[boston bean]

20. Another good one, her on the Watergate committee?

I mean this woman did nothing in her younger years worthwhile except marry Bill Clinton, right?

[askew]

60. Didn't she get fired from that committee?

[dsc]

68. only if you believe the likes of Limbaugh

and Tucker Carlson.

[DURHAM D]

21. She worked on the McGovern campaign in 1972.

Mostly in Texas. I have seen a pic from that campaign. If I have seen it Maddow could of found it.

[boston bean]

23. Another good one that could have been used! Thanks!

Also, the were you thinking this, instead of what were you thinking, was real low.

And different treatment. It was not the same question.

[livetohike]

7. Really good points boston bean. I watched the forum twice and was stunned that Rachel chose that

picture and they were having a conversation about Hillary's hair! Really?

[boston bean]

9. Thanks! It really bothered me that they chose a wedding picture.

Like that was some defining moment of her own accomplishments.

And then to add that she was thinking at that moment that she should be president not him?? WTF?

[livetohike]

13. Rachel should have shown each one their wedding picture. I would have been interested to hear their

responses. Now the more I think of it, I think it was deliberate and that angers me.

[boston bean]

18. Good point. Why not show them all their wedding pictures?

[Laser102]

29. The media is obviously having some difficulty with a female running for president.

The questions are different from the ones asked of the men. Weird. I'm waiting for the ones of clothes and shoes and all the fluff they think women are engaged in.

[R B Garr]

48. I cringed at that too. That pissed me off.

Also her framing of the Wall Street questions sounded like someone elses vacuous pile-ons instead of based on what Clinton actually did. It reeked of gossipy blog talking points instead of an actual analysis.

Overall, Rachel cheap-shotted her more, whereas Bernie got much easier questions tee'd up to spin his way.

[thesquanderer]

10. All of them were shown pictures of themselves in their 20s.

And they were all asked about what they would tell their younger selves. A picture of her speech in Beijing or winning the Senate or her time in SoS wouldn't have served that purpose. I think you missed the point.

[DURHAM D]

22. A picture from her work with the McGovern campaign in 1972

would of been more appropriate. It exists.

[thesquanderer]

24. Yes, that would have worked (n/t)

[lostnfound]

11. it was an interesting question to ask and the answer was fine

Would she have wanted to be president first? Hillary's answer was personally revealing, and not on a bad way at all. She has no ambition to run for office until 199& or so. The picture question was a great chance for candidates to connect with who they are, with their "original self". And to talk about whatever they chose to talk about, their life's ambitions.

What shaped or influenced each candidates political life or future? For Martin O'Malley, being part of Gary hurts campaign was probably formative. For Bernie Sanders, bleeding and antisegregation protest in the 60s was probably formative. And for Hillary Clinton, falling in love and getting married to the politically remarkable Bill Clinton, certainly the politically (and personally) remarkable Bill Clinton, was certainly politically formative. formative.

Hillary could've talked about what Bill meant to her in those early years, whether she was influenced by is probably more liberal thinking. The Clintons are a remarkable couple. I don't think it's sexist or inappropriate to notice that. When Bill was running he said "you get 2-for-1", him and Hillary, and it was one of the many reasons why I liked him. There are so few men who don't see a strong women in their life as a threat.
It's not as if Bill is unpopular baggage like George W is to Jeb. There is no reason why her marriage to him or EIGHT YEARS of living in the White House should be irrelevant or off limits.
I thought Rachel's format was highly respectful to all candidates, without being just softballs or pandering, and gave candidates a chance to display their thought processes, temperament, motives and "original self" very well.

[boston bean]

14. She was asked if she was thinking something, not what she was thinking.

And a wedding picture really?

After the guys are shown doing admirable political activity?

Her wedding really?

[thesquanderer]

25. I actually think this may have worked to her advantage

One of the knocks on her has been about whether she is "relatable" - I think this gave her an especially relatable moment. In a way, it may have been a gift.

[Armstead]

12. I half agree with you.

She should have been shown a similar photo and asked the same open-ended question as the others.

But, to defend Maddow, I think she was actually addressing the sexism question with that, and also addressing the unique circumstances of the Clintons.

A more direct way of asking might have been, "You and your husband are both obviously equally capable, and you are now running for the same office he held. Did you ever feel that you were not being the same chance to do that as your husband simply because you are a woman?'

[treestar]

19. wow, that really is surprising

coming from her, but then she always puts down our candidates as she did that with Obama. I think she's the type here who fans the flames of "disappointment" and fear they won't win, etc.

[DURHAM D]

26. The bottom line is that Rachel thinks more like

Seth MacFarlane than Gloria Steinem.

Put another way ... she is bright but not smart.

[Ed Suspicious]

27. Bright but not smart?

Really?

[Dem2]

30. That's really unfair

[msanthrope]

36. And there you have it. That is the perfect and succinct explanation. nt

[R B Garr]

49. I was disappointed in Rachel. One of the first times

that I've been that disappointed in her, but her questions seemed lightweight and youngish in a non-serious way. Not to suggest that young equals lightweight, not at all but it was not an overall good impression for a Rhodes scholar.

[ejbr]

31. Cannot argue against your point

Hillary has an impressive resume without Bill and should have been treated as such. The question distracted from her own accomplishments and you are right to take Rachel et. al to task.

[boston bean]

50. Thanks!

[retrowire]

32. ehhh not sexist

seems more like "you get the funny softball question"

but I'll agree, I would've wanted to hear what was going through her mind regarding politics at a young age.

perhaps the young republican club?

or this, which is safer/easier

her giving a speech on women's rights?

[boston bean]

33. And the question to O'Malley and Sanders showcasing their

political bonafides were hardballs?

[SmittynMo]

34. The short of it. IMO

OMalley 6
Sanders 9
Clinton 6, or 7

It was fun to watch it.

[George II]

35. It was very interesting, and played out better than I expected in advance. And I'm glad...

....you're calling what it was, a forum. It was not a debate.

One interesting thing that I heard is that only one of the three candidates mentioned any of the other candidates by name.

[kimbutgar]

37. They should ask the same exact questions of rethugs and when they complain show them the videos

Of last night's forum.

[Maineman]

38. I'm a Bernie supporter, but I too was surprised by the wedding picture.

Incidentally, Hillary provided a very clever response about the potential effect big money donors would have on her decisions. Something to the effect that "no one can push me around". But that clever response completely discounted the serious concerns that many of us have about her ties to big money. This is my number one concern about her as president. She is a corporate Democrat, and corporate Democrats are a very serious problem for this country, in the same class as Republicans.

[TDale313]

39. Thanks for bringing this up...

It genuinely made me think. I hadn't noticed that with the pictures, and you make a fair point.

I'm gonna ask the question, because I can see both sides, and frankly I'm torn as to my answer. Is it sexist to make the point that the Clintons have been a political team/partnership as well as a married couple for decades, and that that has been defining- for both of them? Perhaps that's true in most political marriages, but the Clintons are a particularly potent example of this in my mind. Yes, Hillary is an incredibly accomplished woman apart from Bill and who knows- maybe she would have gotten here even sooner without some of his baggage. But is it unfair to point out that they have undoubtably been a team and that has had a huge influence on their paths?

[boston bean]

40. That wasn't what was asked.

[riderinthestorm]

41. I wondered about it but thought Bill Clinton is the elephant in the room

Maddow would have looked silly not acknowledging it at some point in the interview. She couldn't use a picture where Hillary is helping Bill Clinton gain public office because there would then be howls about how she put up a picture where Hillary looks secondary.

But yeah, I can definitely see where it could be interpreted as sexist.

[boston bean]

42. The purpose of the questions that two were asked were flattering.

To show they had done things politically, a chance to tell what motivated them, and how it shaped them.

For Hillary, the picture segment was her wedding photo? And then on top of that the question was different. It wasn't what she was thinking that day, and how it shaped her. It was along the lines of, were you thinking yourself that day that it should be you as president?

[riderinthestorm]

43. Understood

I am trying to understand why Maddow used that photo. She was very careful I thought to show each candidate in a good light. They all came out looking fantastic.

I just wondered if Maddow was trying to find a way to let Hillary speak about Bill Clinton in the gentlest way. It also reminds us that Hillary and Bill, despite his affairs, are still married - quite an accomplishment in this day and age. I also thought it allowed Hillary to debunk the notion that she's always just been super political. It showed her in a very human moment.

Or yeah, it's just sexist. I did say that too in my post.

[Avalux]

44. It's impossible to talk about Hillary's career without Bill in the picture (so to speak).

It's entirely appropriate to show that picture and ask that question. Could Hillary have been just a successful without being married to Bill? We'll never know. Was she jealous that he became president and not her? We'll never know.

[boston bean]

45. Was she jealous tht he became president and not her??

WTF?

[Spazito]

46. I completely agree...

I woke up stewing about that choice of photos for Secretary Clinton. Why her wedding picture? Why not one of the myriad of photos of Secretary Clinton as a young woman like the photos you mention, the hearings or Bejing? Why not use the male candidates' wedding photos as well?

Rachel has a wonderful way of using photos and video clips to subtly make a point in much of her coverage of issues, the photos and video clips often, at first blush, don't seem to have a purpose until she begins to connect the dots. What point was she trying to make by deliberately choosing the wedding photo? I can not come up with a good reason and, sadly, a number of bad ones like intimating she has accomplished little on her own or she owes her success to her marriage, etc.

The question Rachel asked was equally disturbing, imo, and so different from the ones she asked the male candidates, imo. Add to that the hair comment from Rachel, well, that was quite bizarre and trite, not something Rachel usually does.

Secretary Clinton responded very well given the poor choices made by Rachel on this part of the forum focused on her, imo.

[Avalux]

54. Whether you like it or not, marrying Bill was a choice that framed her life.

If she hadn't married Bill, would she be right where she is now? It's worth thinking about.

[Spazito]

55. Former Senator Clinton is an accomplished woman in her own right...

I find it rather offensive you feel a choice to marry defines a woman and that choice is the only choice by which you judge one.

[askew]

61. She wouldn't have been elected Senator in NY or become SoS without first being

wife of a former president. Hillary supporters ignoring that makes them look foolish. She got a huge leg up due to her famous last name and that bothers a lot of people (men and women). Rachel gave her a chance to address that in her answer. I don't think it was particularly effective though.

[Spazito]

62. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether she would have been elected as Senator in New York...

or not and to assume otherwise is ridiculous. Given her poll numbers, she is being recognized as a woman with the qualities to become, first the Democratic Presidential candidate and, second, the President of the US so it seems not much is bothering the majority of people being polled within the Democratic Party and even among Independents.

I understand your need to be dismissive of her abilities, most don't see it your way.

[askew]

63. Anyone with a brain realizes that she only won because she was married to Bill.

She carpetbagged into NY, a state she never lived in, cleared the primary field and raised an obscene amount of money based on Bill's political connections. None of that happens without being married to an ex-president.

Her supporters do no good to pretend that Bill isn't the primary reason behind her career. It insults women to pretend she did this all on her own.

[Spazito]

65. Wow, very insulting of you...

to intimate I have no brain because I disagree with your view that Hillary is nothing without her man. Well done, reverting to insults really helps your argument...or not.

Given the tone and tenor of your posts, I see no reason to continue to respond to you any further.

[pnwmom]

71. She was valedictorian at Wellesley and got a law degree from Yale.

It insults women to imply that there was no way she could rise politically without Bill Clinton.

It is sexism, pure and simple, that has kept more women out of Congress and any woman out of the White House. Without sexism, there would have been many more women like Hillary Clinton by now.

[pnwmom]

70. You don't know what kind of support HE got from HER over the decades.

She was part of the team that got him elected President and re-elected. If she had behaved differently, he could have kissed the elections goodbye -- especially the second one.

[pnwmom]

69. Then how come the other two candidates weren't shown pictures of their wedding days?

Surely their spouses have made a difference in their lives.

This was overtly sexist and Rachel should be embarrassed.

If Bill hadn't married her, he might never have had the career he had. None of us can know.

[Avalux]

72. If their spouses had been successful and popular presidents, then it would have been appropriate.

Don't try to tell me his status did not provide Hillary with opportunities to succeed that otherwise may not have been there. Asking such a question is perfectly ok, not sexist.

[pnwmom]

73. You don't know what other opportunities she or he would have had.

A woman with her education and ability would have had many.

And without her strength to lean on, Bill might have fallen by the wayside.