Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president has been savvy about talking to young voters in the parlance of the social web, using emojis, sleek graphics and other formats. But the list “7 things Hillary Clinton has in common with your abuela” seemed to backfire this week.
After Mrs. Clinton shared news of her daughter’s second pregnancy, a “content strategist” for her campaign posted the list, an effort to appeal to young Hispanic voters by pointing out how she was just like their abuelas, or grandmothers: She cares for all children. She reads to her grandchild before bedtime. She doesn’t tolerate disrespect.
Her critics were not impressed. Soon, the hashtag #NotMyAbuela was circulating as a critique of what some saw as a tone-deaf move to pander to a powerful but marginalized bloc of voters. Her critics pointed out that Mrs. Clinton did not grow up poor like their relatives, and was not separated from loved ones by country borders. Others just made their points with the magic of memes.
Mrs. Clinton is not the only politician who has attempted playful acknowledgment of Latino culture: Jeb Bush, a Republican contender whose wife is Mexican-American, sold a “guaca bowle” on his website, and supporters of Mrs. Clinton’s main challenger, Bernie Sanders, have long referred to him as #TioBernie on Twitter. (On Wednesday, Mr. Sanders’s campaign took steps to distance him from the hashtag.)
In Mrs. Clinton’s case, the Internet soon gave new currency to the word “Hispandering.”
In an email on Wednesday, Lorella Praeli, Mrs. Clinton’s director of Latino outreach, responded to the critics.
“As a Latina who recently became a citizen, I know firsthand the challenges that many in this country face,” Ms. Praeli wrote, “including fear of deportation, and Hillary is committed to fighting against Republican attacks to tear families like mine apart.”
Mrs. Clinton’s occasional online gaffes tend to attract more attention than the day-to-day operations of her campaign on social media. In June, she ramped up her efforts to appeal to the digital crowd by hiring an editor from Buzzfeed, the website known for perfecting the captivating art of the Internet list, to run her social media presence. Her social media output has expanded to include question-and-answer sessions, blog posts written by content strategists, a plethora of hashtags and colorful variations of her campaign logos.
Even so, her staff has made some awkward attempts at good memes, and critics generally respond by showcasing their own fluency in the language of the Internet. In August, Mrs. Clinton asked her followers on Twitter to use up to three emojis to tell the tale of their student debt.
In December, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign designed a logo meant to honor the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Ala., in 1955, but the logo appeared to place the civil rights hero at the back of the bus.
Correction: December 23, 2015
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated when the word “Hispandering” was coined. Some citations go back more than a decade.
I don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things compared to the craziness of the Republicans who I would never vote for. But it does bother me that HRC and her staffers seem have a hard time recognizing her immense privilege. I would have thought she had learned this lesson in the 2008 campaign. "Just like your grandmother?" Yeah if you happen to come from one of a small handful of the wealthiest and most powerful families in the country. Come on.
("And tell us about your student loan debt in 3 emojis or less?" I am embarrassed for whoever thought that up).
Different audience but how is this different than Bernie mansplaining all the time? She doesn't realize how out of touch she is and instead of acknowledging it she pretends she is just like the rest of the country.
Different audience but how is this different than Bernie mansplaining all the time? She doesn't realize how out of touch she is and instead of acknowledging it she pretends she is just like the rest of the country.
That's a really good comparison. It's like they don't even know they're doing it. It does surprise me that Hillary's team is not more aware of this though and reviewing everything she says with a super critical eye to make sure things like this don't get out. Sanders' main critique against her is that she is too cozy with the wealthy elite, both in the past and the present.
Post by Velar Fricative on Dec 24, 2015 8:48:22 GMT -5
Politicians do this all the time ("Look, I'm just like you [except with buttloads more money]!!!!). But there's a cheesy way to do it and a disrespectful way to do it. This is the latter. Hillary is not Hispanic so this is just dumb.
Different audience but how is this different than Bernie mansplaining all the time? She doesn't realize how out of touch she is and instead of acknowledging it she pretends she is just like the rest of the country.
That's a really good comparison. It's like they don't even know they're doing it. It does surprise me that Hillary's team is not more aware of this though and reviewing everything she says with a super critical eye to make sure things like this don't get out. Sanders' main critique against her is that she is too cozy with the wealthy elite, both in the past and the present.
She is this board's golden child, so I'm sure this discuss will be only a few pages. Don't get me wrong, if she is the nominee I will vote for her but Bernie is getting my vote in the primary. Bigger issues aside, these media snafus bother me. She should know better, someone with her political expertise should have the right people around them to make sure things things don't happen- which is what makes me think she believes she is above all of this. Like she is untouchable. That she assumes she will get the nomination and this stuff won't matter.
That's a really good comparison. It's like they don't even know they're doing it. It does surprise me that Hillary's team is not more aware of this though and reviewing everything she says with a super critical eye to make sure things like this don't get out. Sanders' main critique against her is that she is too cozy with the wealthy elite, both in the past and the present.
She is this board's golden child, so I'm sure this discuss will be only a few pages. Don't get me wrong, if she is the nominee I will vote for her but Bernie is getting my vote in the primary. Bigger issues aside, these media snafus bother me. She should know better, someone with her political expertise should have the right people around them to make sure things things don't happen- which is what makes me think she believes she is above all of this. Like she is untouchable. That she assumes she will get the nomination and this stuff won't matter.
I think you are right about her thinking she is untouchable. From what H learned working in Dem politics, Clintonworld is a weird place. And I think she's survived so much, she assumes she'll survive anything.
Why can't you just say you relate to parents and grandparents everywhere without co-opting ethnicity? SMH.
This blog post from October highlights several of the missteps in the Latino targeted campaign including a post on the Spanish language campaign site called "Six things you didn't know about Hillary Clinton," which mentioned the grandmother bit and also a reminder that her own mom was a domestic worker. The domestic worker business is what strikes a negative chord with a lot of us; it's Kelly Osbourne all over again.
What HRC needed to do was hire Obama's social media campaign folks. You don't get to announce you have a POC card. That is bestowed upon you by the group.
Like Black folks happily claimed Bill Clinton - to us he was the 1st Black President.
Hopefully some of our Latina sisters chimed in this thread because I'd love to hear their take on it.
She's truly out of touch with the average American. Most politicians are but I think even more so in her case.
Remember she isn't baking cookies.
And the thing is that I'm not asking her to be in touch with me. What I want out of HRC is her Damn fight. I don't want granny HRC. I want Secretary of State HRC because ish is getting real on the foreign policy front.
I want HRC because I'm 100% certain that Obama's policies will remain intact.
I don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things compared to the craziness of the Republicans who I would never vote for. But it does bother me that HRC and her staffers seem have a hard time recognizing her immense privilege. I would have thought she had learned this lesson in the 2008 campaign. "Just like your grandmother?" Yeah if you happen to come from one of a small handful of the wealthiest and most powerful families in the country. Come on.
("And tell us about your student loan debt in 3 emojis or less?" I am embarrassed for whoever thought that up).
I feel like it's that section in people "celebrities are just like us" and then it goes on to list things like "they eat pizza!" "they take their kids to school!" (while wearing $800 shoes and carrying a $14k bag)...
says the New York Times who has had a hate boner for her since the beginning of time.
See this is what I don't get... How is this any better than a "Bernie bro" claiming a conspiracy?
I'm sorry you don't get it. I was an adult during Whitewater, Travelgate and Vince Foster. If you don't think the media, especially the NY Times didn't have a bias against the Clintons I respectfully submit that you maybe you weren't paying attention or not old enough at the time to read about it. And it is has continued on with the bullshit story from the Times about her the criminal investigation into her emails.
New York Times' Washington Bureau Shake-Up Follows Years Of Shoddy Clinton Reporting
Research September 8, 2015 2:36 PM EDT ››› HANNAH GROCH-BEGLEY
The New York Times announced that current Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan was stepping down to become a political editor, and would be replaced by Washington Editor Elisabeth Bumiller. Ryan was bureau chief for less than two years, and during that time the paper published a series of flimsy and often inaccurate reports about presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, causing other media figures and their own public editor to heavily criticize the paper.
Carolyn Ryan Steps Down As DC Bureau Chief After Less Than Two Years In Role
Politico: Ryan's New Role Will Focus Entirely On 2016 Coverage. Politico's Dylan Byers reported that Ryan would step down and focus on her role as political editor for the 2016 presidential campaign:
New York Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan will step down and be replaced by current Washington Editor Elisabeth Bumiller, the Times said on Tuesday.
The change, which was announced by executive editor Dean Baquet, reflects the longstanding editorial arrangement that existed in everything but name, several Times sources said. Bumiller had served as the de facto bureau chief while Ryan, who also serves as political editor, had focused on the paper's 2016 coverage.
Ryan leaves the bureau chief role less than two years after replacing David Leonhardt, a Pulitzer Prize-winning economic columnist who now heads the Times' 'Upshot' column.
The new assignments will match that division of labor: Ryan "will now focus all of her attention on the campaign," Baquet wrote in his memo. "Her appointment as a senior editor for politics is a testament to the remarkable job she has done running coverage as the campaign evolved into the story of more than 20 candidates, and billions of dollars." [Politico, 9/8/15]
Last Two Years Of Times Politics Coverage Featured Series Of Errors
THE CLINTON EMAILS: NON-EXISTENT FEDERAL LAWS AND A NON-EXISTENT CRIMINAL PROBE
Times Quietly Walked Back Initial Email Reporting, Which Falsely Claimed Private Email Use "Violated" Federal Law. In its initial report on Clinton's email, the Times accused Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements" with her use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department, specifically citing the Federal Records Act. But they subsequently published a report explaining that oversight of email guidelines had been "vague" at the time Clinton worked at the State Department, and that "there has never been any legal prohibition" against private email use. [Media Matters, 3/13/15]
Times Issued Two Corrections On Heavily-Criticized Story Falsely Claiming Clinton Is Subject Of "Criminal Probe." On July 23, the Times published a story that falsely claimed that two inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation by the Justice Department into Clinton's use of email during her tenure as secretary of state. In reality, the probe was not criminal and was not focused on Clinton personally. The Times, which issued two separate corrections, came under widespread public criticism and was strongly reproached by its public editor. [Media Matters, 7/31/15; Media Matters, 7/24/15]
Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan: Clinton "Criminal Probe" Story Had "Major Journalistic Problems" That Damaged The Paper's Reputation. New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan published a column examining the problems with the Times' error-riddled story about Hillary Clinton's emails. Sullivan strongly criticized the paper for running a "sensational" story before it was ready and for not being transparent with readers about revising it. After speaking to reporters and editors at the Times who worked on the story, Sullivan concluded, "There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution." [Media Matters, 7/27/15]
THE "EXCLUSIVE" WITH AN ERROR-RIDDLED BOOK
Times Made An Exclusive Agreement With Conservative Author Peter Schweizer For Portions Of His Error-Riddled Book. Politico reported in April 2015 that "The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have made exclusive agreements with a conservative author for early access to his opposition research on Hillary Clinton ... to pursue some of the material included in his book, which seeks to draw connections between Clinton Foundation donations and speaking fees and Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state." This agreement for the Times resulted in a piece that uncritically hyped Schweizer's evidence-free suggestion that Clinton changed U.S. policy while secretary based on donations to the Clinton Foundation. [Politico, 4/20/15; New York Times, 4/19/15; Media Matters, 4/23/15]
Schweizer's Clinton Cash Contained More Than 20 Errors, And Multiple Other Media Orgs -- But Not the Times -- Documented The Factual Inaccuracies. Media Matters' review of Schweizer's Clinton Cash found that it was shoddily researched, featuring over 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions. Multiple media organizations, including Politico, BuzzFeed, ABC News, FactCheck.org, and Time detailed factual shortcomings in the book. Time noted that a central claim was "based on little evidence," and even Fox News' Chris Wallace told Schweizer he didn't "have a single piece of evidence" to support one of his claims about Hillary Clinton. [Media Matters, 4/30/15; Media Matters, 5/1/15]
Multiple Media Figures And The Times' Public Editor Called Out The Times' Coverage
Public Editor Agrees With Concerns That The Paper Has An "Unfairly Critical Edge" When Reporting On Clinton. New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan agreed with concerns that the paper subjects Clinton to tougher scrutiny than other 2016 contenders, and promised to evaluate the Times' future coverage of Clinton for fairness (emphasis added):
My post quickly generated more than a thousand reader comments (a record), many of which had the same complaint: The reporting on Mrs. Clinton from such a dominant news source has an unfairly critical edge.
[...]
I agree with this sentiment from a reader, Evan Hannay, who is troubled by some of the Clinton coverage: "Hillary deserves tough questions when they are warranted. But it is undeniable that she is already facing significantly tougher coverage than any other potential candidate." He thinks The Times should make "a promise to readers going forward that Hillary is not going to be treated unfairly as she so often is by the media."
Last Thursday, I handed Mr. Baquet a printed copy of Mr. Hannay's email and asked him to address it.
To that end, he told me that he has urged reporters and editors to focus anew on issues stories. And he pledged fairness. "I'm happy to make a promise that she'll be treated fairly," he said, though he added, "If you look at our body of work, I don't believe we have been unfair." One testament to that, he said, was an investigative piece written by David Kirkpatrick shortly after the 2012 Benghazi attacks, with conclusions seen as favorable for Mrs. Clinton, who was then secretary of state. It came under heavy attack from the right.
But the Times's "screw-up," as Mr. Baquet called it, reinforces the need for reporters and their editors to be "doubly vigilant and doubly cautious."
Times readers (and on their behalf, I, too) will be watching and evaluating that over the next months. No one should expect a free ride for Mrs. Clinton. But she certainly deserves a fair shake. [New York Times, 8/1/15, via Media Matters]
Boston Globe Columnist Michael Cohen: "There's Also No Getting Around The Fact That The Times Coverage Of Hillary Clinton Is A Biased Train Wreck." [Twitter.com, 7/24/15, via Media Matters]
NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen: "It's Fair To Say The Times Has A Problem Covering Hillary Clinton." On Twitter, Rosen wrote after the email story unraveled: "I have resisted this conclusion over the years, but after today's events it's fair to say the Times has a problem covering Hillary Clinton." [Twitter.com, 7/24/15, via Media Matters]
Former Times Reporter Eichenwald: NY Times Committed "Journalistic Sin" In Clinton Emails Story. Writing in Newsweek, former NY Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald heavily critiqued the paper for its "recklessness" in trying to create a "Clinton scandal" out of "current bureaucratic processes" related to a FOIA process the former secretary has no part in. As explained by Eichenwald, the memos that the NY Times based its report on "in no way discuss Clinton, her handling of emails or anything approaching those topics":
Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. (For those who have thoughts of late-night meetings in parking garages or the Pentagon Papers, they were unclassified documents. Reporters obtain those kinds of records through the complex, investigative procedure of asking the press office for them.) And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That's like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner's mechanic.
So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: "The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released."
In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton's emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information--a fact that goes unmentioned--is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.
The heavy breathing of deception or incompetence by the Times doesn't stop there. In fact, almost every paragraph at the top of the story is wrong, misleading or fundamentally deceptive.
See this is what I don't get... How is this any better than a "Bernie bro" claiming a conspiracy?
I'm sorry you don't get it. I was an adult during Whitewater, Travelgate and Vince Foster. If you don't think the media, especially the NY Times didn't have a bias against the Clintons I respectfully submit that you maybe you weren't paying attention or not old enough at the time to read about it. And it is has continued on with the bullshit story from the Times about her the criminal investigation into her emails.
You are right, I was too young to pay attention to the Clintons back then. Did they report about something her people put out that was racially insensitive and just plain out of touch- yes. NYT didn't make this bullshit up.
She's truly out of touch with the average American. Most politicians are but I think even more so in her case.
Remember she isn't baking cookies.
And the thing is that I'm not asking her to be in touch with me. What I want out of HRC is her Damn fight. I don't want granny HRC. I want Secretary of State HRC because ish is getting real on the foreign policy front.
I want HRC because I'm 100% certain that Obama's policies will remain intact.
She's truly out of touch with the average American. Most politicians are but I think even more so in her case.
Remember she isn't baking cookies.
And the thing is that I'm not asking her to be in touch with me. What I want out of HRC is her Damn fight. I don't want granny HRC. I want Secretary of State HRC because ish is getting real on the foreign policy front.
I want HRC because I'm 100% certain that Obama's policies will remain intact.
Yes. There are two kinds of "in touch." The first is important - presidents should actually know what challenges are facing every kind of America - black, white, rich, poor, urban, rural, etc, etc.
But then this whole idea that a candidate should be "in touch" as in "I'm one of you!!!" is stupid. We don't need that. And whenever they try it, it backfires horrendously. You'd think they would know better by now. You'd think Hillary Clinton of all people would know better by now. But no.
I just want to shake her and say STAAHHHP. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS.
I thought the they were poking fun at HRC when they started listing out the ways she is like my abuela and started using Spanish such as, "She isn’t afraid to talk about the importance of el respeto...". This does not speak to me nor appeal to me in any way and I don't buy it. I don't know if I'm offended but it doesn't sit well with me.
That's a really good comparison. It's like they don't even know they're doing it. It does surprise me that Hillary's team is not more aware of this though and reviewing everything she says with a super critical eye to make sure things like this don't get out. Sanders' main critique against her is that she is too cozy with the wealthy elite, both in the past and the present.
She is this board's golden child, so I'm sure this discuss will be only a few pages. .
Oh please. The reason the Bernie fuck ups go on for 12 pages is because some people come in, repeat stuff that is not true or try to minimize it as NBD because he marched with MLK or something. So there's a long discussion because that ish is cray.
There probably won't be 12 pages of discussion here because all the Hillary supporters are coming in and agreeing this is bullshit, or only needing a slight bit of needling to come around.
That's a really good comparison. It's like they don't even know they're doing it. It does surprise me that Hillary's team is not more aware of this though and reviewing everything she says with a super critical eye to make sure things like this don't get out. Sanders' main critique against her is that she is too cozy with the wealthy elite, both in the past and the present.
She is this board's golden child, so I'm sure this discuss will be only a few pages. Don't get me wrong, if she is the nominee I will vote for her but Bernie is getting my vote in the primary. Bigger issues aside, these media snafus bother me. She should know better, someone with her political expertise should have the right people around them to make sure things things don't happen- which is what makes me think she believes she is above all of this. Like she is untouchable. That she assumes she will get the nomination and this stuff won't matter.
What do you want people to say? This is an eye roll and it's a stupid campaign. Why call attention to your age? We agree. Where else is this supposed to go? This is not on par with emails, which were roundly side-eyes here, nor is it on par with Bernie "shrill" comments or Bernie data scandal (which people defended, lol). And HRC is not at all the golden child around here.
Politicians pander to Hispanics all the time. I find it eye-roll worthy most of the time and sometimes I find it so tone deaf that it's offensive.
Hilary Clinton is nothing like my abuela.
Did she flee political persecution in Mexico? Did she give up medical school in Mexico to come to the United States because it would be safer for her daughters? Did she settle in the Texas panhandle and work in jobs such as a cafeteria worker and a the church house keeper and save every single penny she made? Did her husband work the Santa Fe railroad as a car steward his whole life, doing lawn maintenance in the fancy neighborhoods on his days off? Did they save all their hard earned money to be able to pay for their two daughters to go to college because that was the only way they knew their children would have the opportunity to a better life, one with less struggle? Did they plead with their daughters to be as American as they could, even suggesting they never speak their native language and only speak in English so white America would accept them?
My abuela was not a white woman from the suburbs of Chicago who attended Wellesley College and Yale Law School and became the First Lady of the United States. My abuela was not a woman who spent her career in politics trying to equate her experiences with those who are nothing like her. My abuela was a woman who gave up her future as a doctor in order to make a better life for her daughters in a country she felt would give them the absolute best chance at success.
Frankly, Hilary Clinton will never be half the woman my abuela was. HRC is a great woman, but own it. Don't co-opt someone else's life.
This is my soap box. This is my story. That's my abuela. I'm tired of politicians pandering to minority groups in an effort to relate to us. It doesn't work. It only increases skepticism and makes them look stupid.
Post by underwaterrhymes on Dec 24, 2015 15:45:38 GMT -5
I like Hillary and will be voting for her unless something drastic changes.
But this was a really poor choice.
This is an area where a lot of politicians fail.
You do not connect with people by telling them you are just like them. You be yourself, speak out on the issues that affect people, and allow them to decide what level of connection you have.
This makes me uncomfortable on sooo many levels. First of all, the blatant pandering but that's typical politics. Every candidate has pandered to Hispanics (and other voting blocs) with varying levels of cringe worthiness. But it's trying way too hard to be funny and clever that it's giving me a major case of frendschamen. Third, Hillary is just not grandmotherly. She's just not. People don't love her because she reads to her grandchildren and crochets shit or something, they love her because she's a badass who has stood toe to toe with world leaders, broken barriers, and held her own through global humiliation and massive (failed) efforts to destroy her. So this "abuela" stuff is just...no. It's totally phony and what's more, it's unnecessary.