Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 15, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

LOYALTIES IN PLAY....Compare and contrast. In the LA Times, Jerome Karabel reminds us that lifelong political loyalties tend to be cemented during your 20s, which means that Democrats are playing with fire if they don't nominate Barack Obama:

The future political loyalties of today's 18- to 29-year-olds — a huge group of 42 million — are still very much up for grabs. Nonetheless, their preferences in the primaries so far are clear....In fact, were 18- to 29-year-olds alone to decide the Democratic nominee, Obama would win nationwide by a landslide of at least 20 points.

....It is now clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will be able to win enough pledged delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. In all likelihood, it will fall to the superdelegates to resolve the increasingly bitter contest between them. As they search for the wisest course of action, they would do well to remember that today's young people — those born between 1979 and 1990 — will still be a major electoral force in the 2050s and beyond. If the party alienates them, it will be a mistake whose reverberations will be felt for decades to come.

Next up is Amanda Fortini, who writes in New York magazine that Hillary Clinton's campaign has — perhaps — put women's loyalties into play too:

Not so long ago, it was possible for women, particularly young women, to share in the popular illusion that we were living in a postfeminist moment....Then Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy, and the sexism in America, long lying dormant, like some feral, tranquilized animal, yawned and revealed itself. Even those of us who didn't usually concern ourselves with gender-centric matters began to realize that when it comes to women, we are not post-anything.

....The women I interviewed who described a kind of conversion experience brought about by Clinton's candidacy were professionals in their thirties, forties, and fifties, and a few in their twenties....A not insignificant number of women mentioned arguments they'd had with male friends and colleagues, who disagreed that Clinton was being treated with any bias. A high-powered film executive for a company based in New York and Los Angeles recounted a heated debate she engaged in with two of her closest male friends; she finally capitulated when they teamed up and began to shout her down. Nearly all of the women I interviewed, with the exception of those who write on gender issues professionally, refused to be named for fear of offending the male bosses and colleagues and friends they'd tangled with.

....The past few months have been like an extended consciousness-raising session, to use a retro phrase that would have once made most of us cringe. We've parsed the gender politics of the campaign with other women in the office, at parties, over e-mail, and now we're starting to parse the gender politics of our lives. This is, admittedly, depressing: How can we be confronting the same issues, all these years later? But it's also exciting. It feels as if a window has been opened in a stuffy, long-sealed room. There is a thrill at the collective realization. Now the question is, what next?

It's a common meme that Obama's idealistic supporters are disgusted with Hillary Clinton (and Clintonism in general) and could well just stay home in November if their guy doesn't win the primary. It's much less remarked that an awful lot of liberal women are appalled at how Hillary has been treated during this campaign and that some of them might stay home as well if she doesn't win.

In the end, my guess is that neither group will stay home. The specter of John McCain in the White House will simply be too strong. But read Fortini's piece, especially if you've been inclined to dismiss the idea that there's a sense of genuine feminist outrage bubbling under the surface of the campaign. Fortini taps into something real here, and Obama and his supporters ignore it at their peril.

Kevin Drum 12:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (206)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I wouldn't argue that there's no misogyny in the press coverage of Clinton--Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd are by themselves evidence of it--but I think Clinton's negative coverage is far more due to anti-Clintonism than sexism. To take what is probably the most famous example, Shuster's "pimping" remarks, I take that more as evidence of the MSM's need to see political calculation behind every move a Clinton (not a woman) makes.

Most of the other examples of misogyny come from flat-out right-wing cranks like Savage or Limbaugh (and IMHO Matthews is just a degree or two away from that category), or putzes on call-in radio shows or at trolls at rallies (the "iron my shirt" boys).

Also, I've heard from a lot of younger women (Lizz Winstead the concrete example that comes to mind) who said they want to vote for a woman, but not a woman who got where she is by being married to a president.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

A lot of young Obama supporters are appalled at the way the way Hillary has been treated, too. What will make them stay home is not a Hillary victory, but a Hillary victory by Superdelegate that reverses an Obama victory by pledged delegate.

Posted by: Boronx on April 15, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hon. Sen. Obama should tap a(non- Clinton) female VP candidate.

Posted by: jhm on April 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

When Obama does finally take the Dem nomination, one way to keep female Hillary acolytes from staying at home on voting day would be ... for McCain to name Hillary as his VP candidate.

Posted by: The Confidence Man on April 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

One need not be a misogynist to dislike Hillary Clinton. She has given me plenty of reasons to hate her that have nothing to do with her gender. I would love a female president, just not this female. Count me among those who will not vote for her if she steals the nomination. McCain or not.

Posted by: Alfie Paul on April 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

It's much less remarked that an awful lot of liberal women are appalled at how Hillary has been treated during this campaign and that some of them might stay home as well if she doesn't win.

Um, you wouldn't say this if you read your own comment threads. And virtually every liberal political blog has covered this at length for weeks now.

We have ourselves in a bit of a pickle here. Lose the entire African American vote plus everybody under 30 for a lifetime? Or lose white women over 60 for their lifetimes? It's not a pretty choice.

This is one of the reasons Dems have been right to dial back on the "Clinton, drop out now" business. Some of the angrier Clinton supporters won't vote Democratic this fall no matter what (and wouldn't even if this went to the convention and she lost there), but letting the primary process play out to gradually bring most doubters to the realization that Clinton can't and won't win is better than the superdelegates swooping down to cut this off en masse now.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

I don't discount this piece at all. My mother a black woman, who is an 58 year old HR exec, would seem to be someone who might swing between Obama and Hillary, but she has definitely at this point decided on Hillary with a fervor. She is considerably angry over what she sees as the sexist treatment of Hillary, and has even talked of voting for McCain. We spent about an hour speaking about the campaign and most of her arguments were about the sexism that's she's felt in the workplace over the years and the commonality with Hillary's experience in the campaign. I'm convinced that she is just really upset over her candidate losing and won't be that drastic(hopefully after my sister and I work on her), but I could easily see how a number of woman with these types of feelings might not be able to get back from the ledge at this point.

Posted by: Derrick on April 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Leave it to John McCain to really bring people together for a common cause.

Posted by: humanfaculties on April 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

So ... refusal to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is being treated with a sexist bias == proof of sexist bias?

Seems ... circular ...

Posted by: Tom Dibble on April 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

in re those "skip the polls, my way or the highway" voters: Are there really that many who pull the presidential lever and igonore the Senate, House and local races? I think not, especially when getting a sixty vote Senate is a real possibility.

Posted by: DAY on April 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'm one of those women. I'm 40 and have been appalled by the media and the way Obama supporters (if not the candidate) treat Hillary. I was initially attracted to Obama and contributed money to his campaign, but have been increasingly radicalized by the way she is treated by the press -- including women like Rosa Brooks, Melinda Henneberger (see her article in Slate on the Clinton marriage), etc... who ought to know better. The pile on in NH was ridiculous. So Hillary teared up... how many times did Romney tear up on the trail and no one was saying he was playing the "gender card."

I really love it when Obama supporters accuse Hillary of running a "GOP campaign" against Obama while they themselves parrot every right wing talking point against the Clintons. The latest is the stupid idea that some how Obama is less "elite" than Clinton because they have made money post-Bill's presidency. When the Clintons got to the White House they were making about $250K a year -- far, far, far less than the Obamas are making. We get to hear how poor Barack came from a single mom home. Well so did Bill. So what? Do we really want to play this game?

I'll vote for Obama over McCain, but this whole thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

Posted by: Teresa on April 15, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Male, 54 years old...I started this campaign thinking Hillary would be a good President, but not wishing to have another 8 years of grinding right wing noise, so I flirted with Obama. His whole persona and campaign have cemented my interest, but separate from that is how much I have come to loathe Hillary clinton. I knew she was untrustworthy, but I didn't accept, until recently, Safire's characterization of her as a congenital liar. I don't think we can trust her words at all.
I don't think it's a sexist thing, but I can understand how women might attribute hillary hatred to sexism. I even agree that some of it is

Posted by: bruce on April 15, 2008 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

I fall into the age group that you mention and I have to wonder at the sanity of electing again and again inexperienced people to the White House. When will we ever learn that competence is a prerequisite for being president? If the Democrats opt for Obama for puerile reasons like how inspiring he is, then yeah, it's going to make me think they're as dumb in politics as they are smart in policy. And speaking as a young woman, it's hard not to notice that Clinton has had to work three times as hard as Obama to get to virtually the same point in her campaign. The rules don't favor women and ELECTING OBAMA WILL NOT CHANGE THAT.

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

As an older, formerly professional female Obama supporter, I think that many of these women are just waking up to the biased coverage that Dems in general receive. And I agree that much of it is anti-Clintonism not anti-Hillary as a woman. Granted Chris Matthews and some of the others are hopeless, but they fundamentally just buy the Dems are weak, GOPers are manly and strong theme even if it is not true by the evidence. Hillary is a subset of that larger mindset.

Posted by: Mimikatz on April 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Let me add that I am also sick of the comments about HIllary only being where she is because of being married to Bill.

1) Name me a single female leader in the world who was directly elected to office without having her father or husband been a prominent politician. And don't say Thatcher or Merkel because what they did was to become leader of their party in a parliamentary system. A far different thing than winning an election.

Maybe that isn't ideal, but clearly this is a world wide problem.

2) We are told that Obama has the 'experience" to be president while Hillary is riding her husband's coattails. By all accounts Hillary has been an effective senator from NY. No one has said that she shirks her duties there or acts like a prima donna or a showboat in the senate. Why does she get no credit for that?

Posted by: Teresa on April 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Read Taylor Marsh's blog to get the sense of what
(some) women are feeling towards Obama.

I don't think Obama is sexist, but the impression is out there that his supporters are.

Posted by: mikeel on April 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

It's interesting to hear the stories--and I've heard quite a few from Clinton supporters lately--of how some (mostly older) women see Obama as every man who ever got a job or a promotion or the respect for achievement they should have gotten. I know how much harder it was for women 20 and 30 and 40 years ago, and I could see this kind of total identification if Clinton were running against a white man. But the failure of so many women to look beyond Obama's maleness and even acknowledge, much less respect, that he also is a member of a mightily marginalized group is puzzling.

It's one thing to say, "Okay, I recognize that black people have had a huge struggle in the U.S., but I identify more with my own demographic, women, and that's that," but a lot of older women I talk to don't even do that. Many really seem to see Obama as the establishment and Hillary as the crusading outsider, all because of his XY chromes. It's wild.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

I have been surprised by the relative weakness of Hillary's run. I thought the Clintons had mastered the political game and I thought they would assemble a team that could deal with negative press, the noise machine and the dirty politics of the right. I am also surprised at the alienation of the left. It is not all to do with Barack Obama.

Posted by: bellumregio on April 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

When the Clintons got to the White House they were making about $250K a year -- far, far, far less than the Obamas are making.

And far, far more than the Obamas were making before he wrote his books.

, it's hard not to notice that Clinton has had to work three times as hard as Obama to get to virtually the same point in her campaign.

She started out with the advantage in money, endorsements, name recognition, establishment support and polling. The reason she is losing is because she never "worked hard" enough to show any leadership or "fight" for eight years in the Senate. Almost every politically engaged, Democratic woman I know, many of them ardent feminists, who haven't been "young women" for twenty years and more, are supporting Obama because of her AUMF vote. There comes a point when Clinton and her supporters have to acknowledge that her passivity and timidity in the Senate are what cost her this nomination.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Can we please stop over-intellectualizing identity issues and just vote for whoever we think will make the best president?

/sigh (I know)

Posted by: sdh on April 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Many young voters will stay home, or be out having fun, regardless of who wins the nomination. The risk is with the lower income, usually marginalized voters who have become energized by Sen. Obama's campaign staying home. Their support for Sen. Obama scares the Wall Street Democrats and Republicans, who would prefer these voters either vote for the candidates the elites have chosen or stay home.

Posted by: Brojo on April 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

I was somewhat ambivalent about Hillary Clinton's candidacy, mostly because I'm more than a little tired of Bill and many of the people with whom she has surrounded herself. As the campaign drags on and she makes more and more absurd attacks on issues which only smack of desperation, my feelings have taken a far more negative turn. Still, if she does manage to steal this nomination, I will be spending the next several months convincing myself to hold my nose and vote for her in the general election anyway. A McCain presidency would be too awful to endure for the sake of standing on principle. I'm really hoping that it won't come to that. I was looking forward to the opportunity to vote for someone for a change, rather than just voting for the lesser of two weasles.

Posted by: Outis on April 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

It's interesting to hear the stories--and I've heard quite a few from Clinton supporters lately--of how some (mostly older) women see Obama as every man who ever got a job or a promotion or the respect for achievement they should have gottenI

Following this seniority argument, shouldn't Clinton have deferred to Dodd, who should in turn have deferred to Biden?

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

(1) People are emotional right now, but very few supporters of Hillary or Obama will stay home on election day, and practically none will vote for McCain. I was an Edwards supporter and felt a bit tantrum-y when he dropped out, but then my brain took over again.

(2) Yeah, the way Hillary has been treated has been a bit of a shock for this middle aged career woman. I knew that Repubs and the media would behave this way, but I didn't foresee my own allies getting into the same mud. I truly hope when this primary is over we can have some much better discussion about the issue of sexism on the left. Right now people are divided up into teams too much to be willing to see the other side.

The one that discourages me the most is when people say that Hillary only got where she is because of who she married. Can people really look at her and not see the talent, brains, and hard work she embodies? All they see is that she is married to Bill? Yikes. There are many reasons to prefer another candidate to Hillary, but to not see her as a formidable politician just flabbergasts me.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on April 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Plenty of liberal women are well-aware of sexism, without being happy with Senator Clinton's tearing down a fellow democrat. Please do not condescend.

If Senator Clinton loses the nomination after winning fewer votes and fewer delegates, her supporters presumably will come around. If Senator Obama loses the nomination after winning more votes and more delegates (but having the supers take it away), his supporters are less likely to come around -- and that's fair.

I want the Democrats to win, and I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination. But it doesn't seem as hard as you're making it out.

Posted by: Genevieve on April 15, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK
By all accounts Hillary has been an effective senator from NY. No one has said that she shirks her duties there or acts like a prima donna or a showboat in the senate. Why does she get no credit for that?
Actually Clinton has done pretty much nothing in the Senate except carefully calibrate every word and vote in preparation for her presidential run. (Pity about that gross miscalculation on Iraq...)

The idea that she's been treated any worse by the media than they treat every other Democrat is so moronic as to be laughable.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

It's a common meme that Obama's idealistic supporters are disgusted with Hillary Clinton (and Clintonism in general) and could well just stay home in November if their guy doesn't win the primary.

Obama supporters might stay home (i haven't seen the stats), but it's Clinton supporters who have reported that they are far more likely to vote for McCain instead of Obama.

so, either Clinton is pulling a lot of support from Republican women who are voting their gender (but don't you dare call them sexist!), or Clinton is pulling a lot of childish losers who would rather have a president McCain over a Democrat that isn't Clinton (but remember, Obama supporters are the cult).

go the hell away, Hillary! enough already!

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I sympathize for the women who identify with Hillary as a woman who put her career on hold while her husband succeeded and then hoped that she would have her chance in the spotlight once his career was over. And now it looks to them like Hillary is being "cheated" out of something that she delayed her career for by a younger and more charismatic man.

I'm sure that if Hillary weren't married to Bill, she'd have become a successful corporate lawyer or even an Illinois Senator. However, at crucial moments, "hard work" translated to "playing it safe" during her senate career, and not everyone's willing to get behind a hawkish, DLC-democrat simply as a reward for her "hard work."

Posted by: Tyro on April 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Boy does the electorate have issues. :) I can't begin to imagine how this would play out here in Brazil, when we finally have a viable black or female candidate (female will probably happen faster). As for the US: as much as I tend to agree with sdh over there (that issues should clinch this, not identity or personality) wouldn't it be easier for the Dem party if the superdelegates brokered some kind of ticket agreement between the two candidates, where they would decide who would be on the top, to ensure that both groups (african-americans and women) would stay on the game?

Posted by: Tricolaco on April 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Let me just say that Hillary Clinton has made me bitter and I am clinging to my religion to get me through.

Screw it! I'm going hunting!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

In the end, my guess is that neither group will stay home.

No, you're wrong. Young people will stay home.

Young people will stay home whether the nominee is Clinton, or whether the nominee is Obama.

I'm so damned tired of hearing the garbage about young people voting in this election or that election. The numbers just don't support it. (Here are the numbers: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/tabA-1.xls)

Even if young people vote at record numbers this election they still constitute the most inactive, apathetic age group.

The bottom line is always the same: young people don't vote. (In 1964 and 1968, slightly more than 50% of young people who were registered to vote bothered to -- we haven't come close to those numbers since.)

That's why McCain has a chance.

Posted by: Dicksknee on April 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

The selection of Hillary by super delegate vote would only happen if it was clear that it had to happen. People seem to leave this out when they do analysis. From where we sit now, this looks like it would be outrageous. But if it comes to that, it will be because its obvious that Barack will lose by George McGovern proportions. Visit my favorite blog - www.barackswhitelies.com.

Posted by: Rosa H. on April 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek says, "Obama supporters might stay home (i haven't seen the stats), but it's Clinton supporters who have reported that they are far more likely to vote for McCain instead of Obama."
-------------

Cleek -- You are an uninformed idiot. Both camps have nearly equal numbers of supporters who say they will stay home in every poll.

Posted by: Teresa on April 15, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

I'd argue that neither Hillary or Obama really dealt with the typical obstacles that affect their race/gender groups.

Posted by: B on April 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

i think a lot will stay home. i don't think the specter of McCain will be that strong -- the media will present him as a clear-thinking anti-bush god.

Posted by: John McCain: More of the Same on April 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

You are an uninformed idiot.

oh yeah? well, you smell like rotten eggs. so there.

Both camps have nearly equal numbers of supporters who say they will stay home in every poll.

now that's quite the assertion. got any data to back that up?

If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain.

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that she's been treated any worse by the media than they treat every other Democrat is so moronic as to be laughable.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM

And what planet have you been living on the last few months?

Posted by: optical weenie on April 15, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Steve LaBonne says, "The idea that she's been treated any worse by the media than they treat every other Democrat is so moronic as to be laughable."
-----------------------------

Really Steve? Here is Melinda Henneberger -- a supposedly liberal reporter with Slate. After stating that she is sure Bill is fooling around on Hillary (although she doesn't offer any proof), she offers this charming anecdote:

"In a long, and at times rather loud, interview in her Senate office four years ago, I asked Hillary Clinton whether she might hesitate to run for president to avoid having her private life rummaged through all over again, and she either took offense or pretended to: "I'm never going to get out of scrutiny" in any case, she snapped. "Here you are talking to me, and it never ends." As things were going so well, I went on and asked her how it was going on the homefront. "It's the same as it's been," she said coolly, drawing out the words, "for 32 or 33 years."


Please name me any kind of similar question that Obama has had to answer about his own marriage. Please.

Posted by: on April 15, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Those who think that the bile piled onto Hillary is politically motivated, not sexist, really haven't been reading the posts.

I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. I will not use my vacation time to campaign for him. With the possibility of such an inexperienced leader at the helm, I will be saving the vacation time and any expense money to help me after the pink slip arrives.

Posted by: jen flowers on April 15, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

As a feminist and women's studies prof, I am deeply sensitive to misogyny and certainly note it in play with Hillary...and Nancy Pelosi, too. But I also note the power choices Nancy and Hillary make... and the ones Hillary keeps making have disappointed me to the point of grief. "She knows better" - these may be the truest words Obama has spoken. What good is a woman in power if she brings the old world order with her?

Posted by: Victoria on April 15, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Steve LaBonne says, "The idea that she's been treated any worse by the media than they treat every other Democrat is so moronic as to be laughable."
-----------------------------

Really Steve? Forget the Chris Matthews of the world. Here is Melinda Henneberger -- a supposedly liberal reporter with Slate. After stating that she is sure Bill is fooling around on Hillary (although she doesn't offer any proof), she offers this charming anecdote:

"In a long, and at times rather loud, interview in her Senate office four years ago, I asked Hillary Clinton whether she might hesitate to run for president to avoid having her private life rummaged through all over again, and she either took offense or pretended to: "I'm never going to get out of scrutiny" in any case, she snapped. "Here you are talking to me, and it never ends." As things were going so well, I went on and asked her how it was going on the homefront. "It's the same as it's been," she said coolly, drawing out the words, "for 32 or 33 years."


Please name me any kind of similar question that Obama has had to answer about his own marriage. Please.

Posted by: Teresa on April 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jim: Following this seniority argument, shouldn't Clinton have deferred to Dodd, who should in turn have deferred to Biden?

No, the women making this argument aren't characterizing it as a seniority thing; they're arguing that the more qualified woman is being passed over in favor of the less able man. There is an element of "young upstart" in it, but I don't think that's the driving factor for most of them...at least not the ones I've been talking to.

General: Can we lose the "Hillary hasn't been treated any differently" nonsense, people? Of course she has; this campaign has been rife with 1950s-era gender-specific insults (shrew, harridan, bitch, harpy, ballbuster, frigid, blah blah blah) from both the media/GOP and, sad to say, Democratic men. She's continually being compared with nagging mothers, bitchy ex-wives and unsatisfying lovers. It's pointless to pretend that she's been treated the same as any Democratic man would be--she hasn't.

The real point is that regardless of the sexism, she has a vulnerable legislative record and fundraising practices and has run an absolutely atrocious campaign any Democrat should be thoroughly ashamed of. That point can be backed up perfectly well without pretending, in the binary way so beloved by our Republican friends, that it's got to be wholly A or B: A) Hillary's loss is wholly because of sexism or B) she has run a ridiculously bad campaign and is losing because of that; therefore, there has been no sexism.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek try keeping up with the news:

26 percent of Clinton supporters would back McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee; 19 percent of Obama supporters would back McCain if Clinton is the nominee. http://thepage.time.com/more-on-quinnipiac-pennsylvania-poll-2/

Posted by: Teresa on April 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

The latest is the stupid idea that some how Obama is less "elite" than Clinton because they have made money post-Bill's presidency.

Teresa, Clinton is the one stoking the whole bullshit "elite" meme? You want Obama to not respond? Seriously, WTF????

Posted by: Brautigan on April 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Lower income, often socially marginalized voters know Sen. Clinton voted to authorize W. Bush to invade Iraq. They also know Sen. Clinton's husband was president when welfare 'reform' was instituted. They may not know Hillary also wants them to make state mandated health insurance purchases and they may not know Hillary is quite good at domestic policy formulation. They do know Sen. Obama is speaking and appealing to them. If Barrack does not win the nomination because of backroom party politics, they will probably conclude this election is no different than any other and trudge off to their way below median wage jobs and forgo voting.

One thing that almost everyone considers conventional wisdom though, is that most moderate conservatives will never vote for Sen. Clinton. A significant portion of them would vote for Sen. Obama, which would offset any women who abandoned the ballot because of the sexist treatment Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton received.

Posted by: Brojo on April 15, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I did a lot of hard work in a class I took in college. And I got a C in it. You know why? Because sometimes your hard work isn't good enough.

Hillary put in a lot of hard work to get all her ducks in a row for the primaries, and then she blew it, big time, in Iowa and was unprepared to compete in the primaries after Feb. 4. Her hard work, such as it was, does not entitle her to anything if it's ineffective. The rewards of hard work are earned. They are not granted as a reward.

Posted by: Tyro on April 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

26 percent of Clinton supporters would back McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee; 19 percent of Obama supporters would back McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

yes. thanks for confirming my point.

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, if the Dem ticket is Obama-Hillary (or vice versa) and identity issues are really that important on this race, such ticket might deflect both racists and sexists... gee, that might be a losing proposition. Maybe the Democratic party (or at least liberal opinionators) should, then, fight the identity thing, instead of trying to, or letting the press, capitalize on it. It could help sustain this ticket, and it would have the added benefit of improving society as a whole.

Posted by: Tricolaco on April 15, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

48 year old white professional woman who is utterly conflicted on this issue. I have definitely seen what I would call sexist treatment by media types, but it hasn't spurred me to support Clinton, because of the tenor of her campaign and the objective reality that her candidacy is the result of her relationship with the former president and the unmistakable signals she and they have sent that she will continue to play ball as usual in Washington.

Having said that, I would vote for her if she were the nominee, though I have debated about this in my angrier moments. I am sure I would not vote for McCain and force of habit would not let me stay home on election day.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop says, "The real point is that regardless of the sexism, she has a vulnerable legislative record and fundraising practices and has run an absolutely atrocious campaign any Democrat should be thoroughly ashamed of. "
----------------------
Really? Then I guess Democrats in Ohio, Texas, NH, NY, NV, California etc... are all just big idiots because they seem to find her campaign quite compelling.

You might want to ask why Obama with all his money and powers of inspiration can't even close the deal in the Democratic party -- and what that might say about him in a general election. After all, he is outspending her with all his grassroots financing 4-1 in some states and still losing.

Posted by: Teresa on April 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I am not moved by the complaints from either side. Obama's supporters appear to me to have started making the stay home threat first. Josh Marshall tells me he noticed it the other way round.

The problem is certainly not the people making the threats, apart from a small core of Naderites who are intent on being spoilers anyway they are going to hold their nose and turn out for the Democrat. There is something of a question as to how hard some people might work for a Clinton or Obama campaign if their candidate looses and that is more of an issue.

The real concern is the people who do not ordinarily vote at all. Here the big attraction of Obama is that he has done what Dean failed to do: get people to turn out for the actual poll. Dean mobilized the net-roots but they only showered him with money, they did not get the turnout. The reason the Democratic establishment has largely switched from Clinton to Obama is self interest, they hope that the new voters that Obama has mobilized will turn out for them as well.

The big question is whether Obama can seal the deal and get a huge turnout in the general election. That is certainly not a sure thing. It might take a third candidate to close that deal.

From a party standpoint the cost of bruised egos is so severe that the candidates have absolutely no choice but to do what is best for the party.

Obama has no choice on the veep question. If he is the nominee he has to choose a woman to balance the ticket. If Obama is not the nominee he has to accept the Veep nomination or quit politics. The party is not going to either understand or forgive Achilles if he sits and sulks in his tent.

So at the end of the day neither side can afford to play the 'take my ball home' issue. The nastier the contest gets, the harder it is for Obama to refuse the veep slot.

Posted by: PHB on April 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Obama over Clinton.

Hillary is 15 years behind the battle, she has few clues.

The difference is that Obama knows he is clueless, Hillary doesn't know it yet. We need a president who is a bit uncertain, willing to listen to new idea, and that is not Hillary.

Posted by: Matt on April 15, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Posts like this baffle me. You underestimate Clinton supporter's anger. You really think after all the shit that's been thrown at them by the left and right, they will come home to support Obama, particularly if the votes in Michigan and Florida are not counted?

My god you are deluded.

Posted by: chrisc on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama is not the nominee he has to accept the Veep nomination or quit politics.

What a ludicrous statement. For one, Clinton will never offer Obama the VP slot. Nor he her.

Sheesh.

Posted by: egadfly on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama is not the nominee he has to accept the Veep nomination or quit politics. The party is not going to either understand or forgive Achilles if he sits and sulks in his tent.

Obama will be a Senator until 2010. i'm pretty sure The Party isn't interested in putting a Senate seat in play before then, if they don't have to.

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

particularly if the votes in Michigan and Florida are not counted?

I'm not sure Clinton wants the votes in Michigan counted....

MI-Pres
Apr 14 EPIC-MRA Obama (D) 43%, McCain (R) 41%
MI-Pres
Apr 14 EPIC-MRA McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 37%

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

One of my closest female friends is about as strong a feminist at there is (she sued and won a sex discrimination lawsuit against a former employer) and she cannot abide Senator Clinton, though, like me, she'll probably hold her nose and vote for her in the general election.

Personally, I'm very tired of all of the Clintons and the Clintonistas and I'm ready for a change. If that's Senator Obama, that's okay by me, though his recent kowtowing to Jesus makes me a little ill.

As a side note, I'd like to propose a Constitutional Amendment that term limits families as well as individuals and extend that as far as great-great grandchildren. The last thing we need in this country is dynastic rule.

Posted by: Steve on April 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

What did Obama do to earn the scorn of feminists? Feminists are going to score a blow against media injustice by passively (not voting) or actively (voting) supporting John McCain?

What's it say about feminists and their concern about issues, like abortion rights, if they are willing to support John McCain over Obama?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on April 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

This whole issue of being Clinton's wife has really flummoxed me too. It's not that I don't appreciate that many women have and continue to put their careers on hold and then return after their children have grown or their husbands have retired. So I convinced myself early on that wasn't a dealbreaker, and I was pleasantly surprised that Hillary Clinton had seemed to have grown up politically during her appearances and the debates. I was open minded. But then, her husband obviously and continuously put his thumb on the scale, calling in favors based on what he had done for people, most notably with Bill Richardson. I don't know many women who have returned to work after extended family duties who would have liked that at all, and more important, it makes it hard for me see Hillary Clinton as an independent force and I wish, very hard, that she had just banished Bill from the campaign and removed this issue to the fullest extent that she could. I honestly think that she would be in a better position right now if she had.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

I really really hope Matt is joking. He must be. Good one, Matt. Right?

Posted by: Pat on April 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

You really think after all the shit that's been thrown at them by the left and right, they will come home to support Obama, particularly if the votes in Michigan and Florida are not counted?

awesome!

your dedication to liberal positions is most admirable!

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

What's it say about feminists and their concern about issues, like abortion rights, if they are willing to support John McCain over Obama?

They are misandrists.

Posted by: Brojo on April 15, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, isn't this a bit antagonistic to the idea that people should not be judged by what they are, but by what they do? I always thought the US system was pretty insulated to the real problems caused by a dynastic rule. Bill or Hillary - it's not like Fidel stepped out in '01 and Raúl might get in '09, is it? And if it's not, what is the big deal?

As for the ticket composition - I might be being naïve, but wouldn't an Achilles-like stand (to paraphrase PHB), as in "If I'm not it, I'm out of it", be even more damaging to either Obama or Hillary, at least on the eyes of the party establishment?

Posted by: Tricolaco on April 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Those who think that the bile piled onto Hillary is politically motivated, not sexist, really haven't been reading the posts."

Funny, I have been. It's impossible to know what's motivating people -- and I know for a fact that some people won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman just as some people won't vote for Obama because he's half-black. But as far as the comments in the campaign wars have been going, I see a lot more name-calling in general coming from the Hillary supporters let loose from the Taylor Marsh, Larry Johnson, and Hillaryis44 sites than I see from Obama supporters, though they can be rude, especially when goaded.

However, I have to say, I have seen very little sexism OR racism in any of these exchanges.

The exception, of course, is when Republicans join the party, then both get an unhealthy airing. But please, please, please do not confuse strong opposition to Hillary Clinton and her horrible, insidious campaign with sexism or misogyny. I know I speak for most male Obama supporters when I say that I'd LOVE a good female Democratic candidate, there's just serious problems with THIS female candidate. Heck, put me down right now for Barbara Boxer in 2016.

People who vote based on skin pigment OR genitalia are to be pitied.

Posted by: Bob on April 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

"I fall into the age group that you mention and I have to wonder at the sanity of electing again and again inexperienced people to the White House. When will we ever learn that competence is a prerequisite for being president?"

"Competence" and "experience" are two entirely separate attributes. It is entirely possible for someone to have one but not the other. An example we can all agree on: George W. Bush has "experience" but is entirely lacking in "competence."

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

chrisc on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 PM:

You really think after all the shit that's been thrown at them by the left and right, they will come home to support Obama...My god you are deluded.

Hope you enjoyed having control of your reproductive system through things like Roe v. Wade, chrisc...And just think; in a couple hundred years, everyone's granddaughter's great-granddaughter can end up on a faith-based breeding farm/harem like those fifteen-year-olds down in Texas.

...19% of Obama supporters, 26% of Clinton supporters: All 100% Complete-Fucking-Idiot*...

*If I abbrieviate that to CFI, can y'all follow that? I have a feeling that I'm gonna get carpal tunnel syndrome from typing and retyping that over the next few months.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

I would love a female president, just not this female.

Got it in one.

That said, while I'm firmly behind Obama, about the only thing that could make me not vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination would be a Clinton/Lieberman ticket.

Posted by: have clue -- will travel on April 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK
Please name me any kind of similar question that Obama has had to answer about his own marriage. Please.
That's a really, really inane question. The correct Question is whether he's gotten heat about a lot of stupid shit- some of it connected specifically to race- that has nothing to do with his fitness for office. The question answers itself, if you've been paying attention at all. Also look back to the chickenshit about Gore's wardrobe and sighs, Kerry's windsurfing, etc. ALL DEMOCRATS GET THIS TREATMENT. Sorry to shout, but you really need to start paying (less selective) attention.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Heck, put me down right now for Barbara Boxer in 2016.

Hey, did you guys know that Barbara Boxer's daughter is (or was) married to Hillary Clinton's brother? Am I the last in America to find this out?

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I freely acknowledge that there is rampant misogyny directed at Clinton, but I have to wonder how much of that is coming from Democrats and from Obama supporters. I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of Rush Limbaugh, Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, and the rest of the usual suspects.

I also refuse to be held accountable for the usual trolls in comment sections. Anyone can go "nutpicking" to find sexist, racist, and horrendously offensive comments about all of the candidates, but why should those candidates, or the rational supporters of those candidates, be held accountable for those nutjobs?

My first choice, at this time, is Obama, but I will cheerfully vote for Clinton in the November election despite the fact that I deplore her tactics of the last month or so.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

And by the way, if Obama had a wife with a notoriously wandering eye then yes, he would get such questions. And triply so if the wife happened to be a former president who had been impeached for it.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

"Competence" and "experience" are two entirely separate attributes.

Also, the notion that Clinton, with eight years of elective office, automatically has more "experience" than Obama, with twelve years of elective office, is simply absurd.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, did you guys know that Barbara Boxer's daughter is (or was) married to Hillary Clinton's brother? Am I the last in America to find this out?

Posted by: shortstop

Pelosi's daughter, and they're divorced.

Posted by: on April 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

ALL DEMOCRATS GET THIS TREATMENT.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Hmm. I do read Bob Somerby a lot. He is consistently coherent. And what he recorded for the last months is that Clinton got frequently smacked by the press while Obama was praised - until Obama clearly showed up as the front-runner. Now Clinton is being smacked out of habit, but Obama is starting to get the standard treatment, and it looks like it will be the Kerry version (or, as Somerby speculates, Dukakis'): he is not from this world. All the while, McCain got and gets a huge pass. I do believe the Clinton camp has some right to hold a grudge.

Posted by: Tricolaco on April 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

the only thing that could make me not vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination would be a Clinton/Lieberman ticket.

Shush! Don't even say it out loud where Mark Penn can read it!

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of Pelosi, while she hasn't done nearly everything I'd like our Speaker to do, she's probably about as good as it gets among Democrats mainstream enough to get nominated. I'd be happy to support her for President.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Pelosi's daughter, and they're divorced.

Unless Pelosi's daughter married another Rodham, no, it's Nicole Boxer. Anyway, I now see they're divorced (that didn't last long) and as of last year, Rodham apparently owed her some $150K in back child support. What is it about presidential siblings/siblings-in-law who are assholes?

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"And speaking as a young woman, it's hard not to notice that Clinton has had to work three times as hard as Obama to get to virtually the same point in her campaign."

It's also hard not to notice that Clinton initially ran a pretty lousy campaign, running through money way too fast, pretty much ignoring quite a few states, and not shifting strategy quickly enough when it became clear that Obama was a genuine contender. How much of Clinton's problems come from incompetence and how much from misogyny is is very much an open question.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

What Bob said at 2:04.

Posted by: Vincent on April 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Mark Penn resigned

Posted by: asdf on April 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

And speaking as a young woman, it's hard not to notice that Clinton has had to work three times as hard as Obama to get to virtually the same point in her campaign.

Yeah, this really is a silly statement, given that Clinton started with a huge advantage in name recognition, donors, dollars, committed superdelegates and national campaign experience. Rather than saying she had to work to catch up, she worked to throw away each of these advantages.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Mark Penn resigned

What, today? Really resigned or pretended to like he did the other day?

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

"You might want to ask why Obama with all his money and powers of inspiration can't even close the deal in the Democratic party -- and what that might say about him in a general election"

Um ... you might want to put that the other way around. Why on earth is Obama winning when Hillary had the money, the name recognition, a popular ex-president by her side, the party machinery backing her, and a widely recognized "air of inevitability"?

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the Hillary supporter women who feel all wounded and victimized. my caucus was full of such women--upper mifddle class all who drove to the causcus fro their nice view property homes to whime about how it is Hillary;s year , meaning THEIr year, and how unfair it is that she isn't gettng the nom for free.

Sure the press has been bad to HRC but she's behind in the primary race due to her own bad campaigning. I just don't buy the middle class baby boomer women as victims thing.

Even though I am a middle class baby boomer woman.

Get over it. Life is a lot tougher for black men.

Posted by: wonkie on April 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

What is it about presidential siblings/siblings-in-law who are assholes?

Posted by: shortstop

Growing up overshadowed by a smarter sibling who was a superstar in school and (most likely) favored by their parents? Remember, Jebbie was the one who "shouldaben" president, then we'd be reading about his goofball brother with all the shady business deals.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Steve La Bonne,

When you can show me articles about Obama's cleavage, "shrill" voice, choice of pantsuit, style of hair, or his make-up then come tell me how the treatment of Hillary is exactly the same as what "any Democrat" gets.

Posted by: Teresa on April 15, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Teresa, Obama hasn't had to answer questions like the one posed by Henneberger, but he has been asked by none other than Tim Russert to answer for comments made by Louis Farrakhan, I guess on the theory that all black men are totally responsible for stupid things said by any one black man. Hillary Clinton has not been asked, for example, to explain why she doesn't agree with Phyllis Schlafly under a similar line of reasoning.

Sexism and racism have similar effects but different operating assumptions.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM:

What, today? Really resigned or pretended to like he did the other day?

If so, then it's prolly because of this column by Novakula, detailing Penn's continued ties to the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, this really is a silly statement, given that Clinton started with a huge advantage in name recognition, donors, dollars, committed superdelegates and national campaign experience.

Um, she worked for all of those things... Why won't you give credit where credit's due?

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, Jebbie was the one who "shouldaben" president, then we'd be reading about his goofball brother with all the shady business deals.

Damn, Jim, I never thought of that. Smirky relegated to the Island of Lost Siblings with Sam Houston Johnson, Donald Nixon, Billy Carter...so much more appropriate.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Um, she worked for all of those things.

Did she? All by herself? With no...er...family help at all?

Did Dubya "work for all of those things" before the 2000 race, too?

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK
Um, she worked for all of those things
No, she didn't. Many of these resources automatically accrued to her from her husband's entourage. That's not a knock on her; the same was true of Gore in 2000. It's just a fact. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Um, she worked for all of those things... Why won't you give credit where credit's due?

Posted by: Young Woman

And she blew it, in large part by voting for Bush's war and by not showing any leadership and "fight" in the Senate and by running a mean-spirited, dishonest campaign.

Why won't you apportion responsibility where responsibility is due?

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Teresa, I again refer you to the crap about Gore's wardrobe and his sighing in debates. Were you a child in 2000?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Um, she worked for all of those things..."

No, actually she didn't.

"Why won't you give credit where credit's due?"

Well, mostly because I'm not seeing that she's due any "credit" for what she got largely for free.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Is this a variation of "she slept her way to the top"? Because you're acting like she put no work into it all.

All successful candidates are supported by their families in one way or another.

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 2:38:

PMUm, she worked for all of those things... Why won't you give credit where credit's due?

The original comment was that Hillary 'worked three times as hard' as Obama for those things.

Here's a few questions:

Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton would have had 'all of those things' if she wasn't married to Bill?

Would Bill have experienced the early success he did without Hillary?

And finally: Can you really separate the two?

Posted by: on April 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

But few are close associates of a former president of their party. (Did Gore sleep with Clinton too? What a truly dumbass comment on your part.) Those who are have built-in access to party leaders and big donors. Nothing wrong with that, but it's ludicrous to make it sound like she accrued these assets from scratch purely on her merits.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

If Sen. Clinton is such a great liberal femminist, why has she not embraced Cindy Sheehan's antiwar movement?

If Sen. Obama is such a great liberal who was against the Iraq invasion before the invasion, why has he not embraced Cindy Sheehan's antiwar movement?

Cindy Sheehan is a better femminist than Clinton and a better liberal than Obama.

Posted by: Brojo on April 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Steve LaBonne, it's also ludicrous to think that she is somehow owed the nomination because she managed to accrue all of these assets.

The person who got the bronze in the 100m dash worked really hard, too. That doesn't entitle the runner to the gold.

Posted by: Tyro on April 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

That last message is for shortstop, and I suppose, PaulB (who is so misogynistic I will refrain from responding to him in the future).

Jim,

Most of the American people would have voted as she voted, so let it go. That fight is bigger than Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

So she worked for it all, but she had a little help from having been married to a president, but not that much, and hell, everybody's family is supportive, and despite starting out with every major advantage in the race, through no fault of her own she's now mysteriously "almost" where Obama is, and that's because over the past few months she's pulled herself up to his level through sheer, tenacious labor.

Is that about it?

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Um, she worked for all of those things..."

On the one hand, we are to view Clinton as her own candidate, even as she subtly and sometimes not so subtly calls on the experience of the William Clinton administration as being her own.

Look, we can't have this both ways. I won't hold Clinton's association with the former president against her if you stop pretending that having the name Clinton is not an advantage in name recognition, which Clinton has not worked for in the conventional sense, and that she hasn't gotten a lot of electoral advantage out of being a former president's wife.

It's okay and no, it isn't fair to concentrate our outrage at Clinton but it's wrong to pretend that the advantage doesn't exist -- look at how many male politicians suffer from this particular "defect": Bob Casey Jr., Albert Gore, Jr., George W. Bush, Jebbie Bush, Andrew Cuomo, anybody with the last name Kennedy, and the list goes on.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Young Woman, most Americans would not have voted the way she did and if they did, most of them would have sincerely apologized and regretted that vote by now.

In any case, there is a reason most of America is not in congress. The select few there are supposed to meet certain requirements with a higher threshold.

Posted by: GOD on April 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

it's ludicrous to make it sound like she accrued these assets from scratch purely on her merits.

I never said she did, and it's paranoia to think so. I merely said she worked for them. It's really an unassailable fact, so I don't know what you guys are so worked up about. Is it so hard to accept that a woman might have earned the right to play a man's game?

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK
Steve LaBonne, it's also ludicrous to think that she is somehow owed the nomination because she managed to accrue all of these assets.
Not sure why this is addressed to me, since I completely agree and haven't said a word to the contrary.

We have two centrist DLC-type candidates neither of whom I feel passionately about. But Obama is a slightly less in hock to corporate America and, more importantly, is better for the future of the party because he understand the importance of 50-state organizing. Those are sufficient reasons for me to support him over Clinton, whom I nevertheless would of course support over McCain (who would be a disastrous president and might even make Shrub look good.)

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Most of the American people would have voted as she voted, so let it go.

Oh, I thought we wanted the leadership of the country to be smarter and more far-sighted than the guy at the end of the bar.

"Let it go".

You nicely reflect why your candidate is losing and deserves to lose. A million people dead and a country in ruins, but we should just "let it go".

You're disgusting.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

the press has giggled over Obama's bowling form, his choice of beverage at diners, his smoking habit, his middle name, his last name, his skin color, his parents' history, his pastor....

yes, poor persecuted Hillary. and to think, she's only pushed 3/4 of those attacks herself!

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB (who is so misogynistic I will refrain from responding to him in the future)

Beep! Totally Blindered Candidate Lackey alert. Well, we tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Regular Poster Currently Pretending to Be a Young Woman.

Anyway, back to the real topic of this thread. It would be interesting to do the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not a real progressive!" poll properly breaking it down by demographics and intended action. Not how many Clinton supporters will vote for McCain instead of Obama, but what age, what gender, what race, and how many will go Green or stay home? How many African Americans won't vote for Clinton in November, and will they stay home or will they vote third-party or McCain? How many people under 30 of each gender and of different races won't vote if Obama's not on the ticket, how many will vote Green, etc?

That stuff would be good to know, just so we know what we as a party are dealing with.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

i correct myself:

"...she's only pushed 3/4 of those attacks herself!"

should be

"...she's only pushed 1/4 of those attacks herself!"

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Another schtick on Obama that Clinton won't face: The NR crowd saying that his upbringing should be closely examined because the only people interested in interracial marriage in the early 60's were Commies. In other words, he wore red diapers. I kid you not. Kathryn Lopez said it herself.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Not so young (but not so old) here and not so long ago was getting into shouting matches with my spouse("let me finish--you never let me finish!") because of our views of the primary. Oh yeah--he was the one saying "let me finish" and I was the one defending Obama.

I don't know--maybe I'm an elitist, but I'm just about out of patience with the women (whoever they are) who have made the Hillary experience somehow "about them". They were never concerned about Liddy Dole or Carol Mosely-Braun's recent runs for president--I never saw them lift a finger for Condaleeza Rice. I've never seen any of them call a man a sexist for saying something less than complimentary about Nancy Pelosi. So why is Hillary so special?

If you want to be consistent, there are two ways to look at this--you could be in favor of Hillary the person--a person you favor largely regardless of her gender--a person you'd favor if she were a man, or not white, say. Or you could just be in favor of any and all female politicians, or even any and all who happen to be Democrats. But this middle ground is annoying, and dare I say it, irrational.

Hillary's not the best candidate or the best potential president--would that she were, but she's not--and it has nothing to do with her gender--and honestly not much to do with how she got her job either. It has everything to do with her current performance, which I've judged to be less compelling than that of her rival. I don't know--is it because most of the people I work with are women? It's not so difficult for me to see that some women are stand-outs at their job and others are not--and that doesn't have much to do with their gender.

Posted by: JMS on April 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

I've gotten myself in a situation that I don't want to be in. Enjoy your rage, folks.

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Look, why should we let the Iraq vote go? I cried when I heard that Congress acquiesced to the president's motion. I knew that it meant war was inevitable and felt deeply that it was unjustified, and yet, I am supposed to "let it go?" If people like Clinton had stood up and called Bush to the mat there's a good chance it would have played out differently. If she claims experience on the basis of Senate service, how she voted matters.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

"That last message is for shortstop, and I suppose, PaulB (who is so misogynistic I will refrain from responding to him in the future)."

ROFL.... Do let me know where I've made a single "misogynistic" statement, won't you? You cannot find any, of course, because I've quite literally never made one. You have provided a classic example, though, of why people don't always take accusations of misogyny as seriously as they ought -- because sometimes these allegations are simply, and blatantly, false.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Enjoy your trolling, somewhere else.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

I've gotten myself in a situation that I don't want to be in

At least you admit you've dug yourself into a hole. That's something. Some free advice for someone older:

Don't be stupid, you won't find yourself in these situations.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

"I've gotten myself in a situation that I don't want to be in. Enjoy your rage, folks."

ROFL.... And another classic accusation. Dear heart, where on earth is there any "rage" in this entire thread?

Your "situation" is that you said some pretty stupid things that you cannot back up and you're now being called on them. Just admit that you said some pretty stupid things and move on.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

PS I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Obama supporters would engage in baseless character attacks, but what do I know? I'm just a young woman who apparently has the right to look forward to a future in which, regardless of my efforts, I am judged to have gotten ahead by simply saying "I do." Charming.

Obama: the candidate for people who would put women in their place!

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just a young woman who apparently has the right to look forward to a future in which, regardless of my efforts,

Keep whining. Why don't you go down to your local recruiting office, and after your first tour in Iraq is over, come back and let us know if your opinion is still "Let it go".

Or just go volunteer at a Vets' hospital, and then tell them to "let it go".

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

"I never said she did, and it's paranoia to think so. I merely said she worked for them"

Look back on what you first said:

And speaking as a young woman, it's hard not to notice that Clinton has had to work three times as hard as Obama to get to virtually the same point in her campaign.

This is the statement that got you into that hole you've been digging, because Clinton demonstrably has not had to work "three times as hard as Obama". Instead, she had all of the advantages going into this campaign, including money, name recognition, a popular ex-president backing her, and the party machinery and bigwigs behind her. Obama is winning at least in part because he worked harder than Clinton, contesting for every vote in every state.

You can claim that this post is filled with "rage" and that's it "misogynistic" but that doesn't change the reality of the situation here, which is why you have nothing left but those tired old ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Is it so hard to accept that a woman might have earned the right to play a man's game?

Hillary earned the right to play a man's game. Not only that, she started the primary game with three railroads and two hotels already on the board. It's not our fault that she hasn't played well and has followed lots of bad advice on her playing style.

Posted by: have clue -- will travel on April 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

"PS I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Obama supporters would engage in baseless character attacks, but what do I know?"

ROFL.... And accusations of "misogyny" and "rage" are, what, pretty fluffy bunny compliments?

"I'm just a young woman who apparently has the right to look forward to a future in which, regardless of my efforts, I am judged to have gotten ahead by simply saying 'I do.'"

That depends entirely on your circumstances, a fact that you conveniently ignore. Were Hillary Clinton not the wife of Bill Clinton, it is pretty inarguable that she would not currently be the Senator from New York. On the other hand, she might well be, say, the Senator from Arkansas in her own right. We do not know, of course, but it's pretty foolish to pretend that her advantages in this Democratic primary did not come from her marriage to Bill Clinton. And it is not "misogynistic" to note this.

In any case, Clinton has struggled in this campaign for at least one pretty solid reason: her campaign strategy sucked. And, again, it is not "misogynistic" to point this out.

"Obama: the candidate for people who would put women in their place!"

ROFL.... And, once again, an accusation wholly removed from reality.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

"Young Woman" reminds me of Mary, who delivered this classic here at this site:

"Clinton earned the right to run this year but Obama apparently decided that experience is irrelevant and heck, she's only a girl, so why not give it a shot. That stinks."

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Alright guys, let me ask this:

she started the primary game with three railroads and two hotels already on the board

How is this not the same as saying "she slept her way to the top" and how is that not misogynistic given that it clearly demeans her ability as a female politician?

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

John McCain is either a shrewd politician, or he has seen the polls, too, that say 30% of Clinton’s supporters will vote for him in the general election, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Yesterday, he told his supporters to refrain from attacking Hillary.

I guess, if Obama supporters CONTINUE to alienate the millions of Democrats who support Hillary with their constant attacks on her—and them, McCain can just sit back and pick up some easy support in the fall. (The treatment of Young Woman in the above comments is a perfect example of how to drive voters to McCain.)

Posted by: emmarose on April 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Young Woman", if you're still trolling around to indulge your victim complex, look at this picture and tell me again to "let it go".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-idon_b_96696.html

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

PS I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Obama supporters would engage in baseless character attacks, but what do I know?

yeah... good question...

Obama: the candidate for people who would put women in their place!

well, i guess you know all about baseless character attacks!

good for you!

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

shorter emmarose: don't make us vote for 8 more years of Bushism, cause we'll do it!

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

How is this not the same as saying "she slept her way to the top" and how is that not misogynistic given that it clearly demeans her ability as a female politician?

Hillary Clinton started the primary season with a MASSIVE name recognition advantage over Barack Obama. She had a group of superdelegates already locked up, the backing of the DNC, money in the bank, political favors waiting to be called in by both Clintons, many years of being in the national political spotlight, and a widespread concensus that she would have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

When the smoke cleared, her main opponent in the primary was a junior Senator from Illinois with an Islamic-sounding name who had beating Alan Keyes soundly on his resume. (Note that a traffic cone could probably force a runoff against Alan Keyes.)

Now, you can discuss the above advantages that she had when the campaigns begun, or you can continue to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is talking about Hillary's genitals.

Posted by: have clue -- will travel on April 15, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM:

How is this not the same as saying "she slept her way to the top"..

Er, because the Clintons had built up a political machine that gave Hillary's candidacy clear structural advantages going into her Senate and Presidential campaigns?...Just like it would be with anyone running for higher office who's been in politics for a while?

..how is that not misogynistic given that it clearly demeans her ability as a female politician?

You keep using that word, 'misogyny'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: grape_crush, channeling Inigo Montoya on April 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

I'm puzzled by those who worry about Hillary Clinton's campaigning "tearing down another Democrat" but find nothing harmful in Obama's constant use of very personal Republican character attacks and Republican talking points against Clinton, and, even more important, his total denigration of the achievements of the Clinton administration (constantly equating it with the Bush administration, comparing it unfavorably to the Reagan era,m etc.). In doing so he is not only "tearing down another Democrat" in a way that can be hurtful if she is the nominee, but, much worse, he is denigrating the most recent successes of his own party and undermining the Democratic brand in a way that will harm him if HE is the nominee.

Posted by: esmense on April 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm puzzled by those who worry about Hillary Clinton's campaigning "tearing down another Democrat" but find nothing harmful in Obama's constant use of very personal Republican character attacks and Republican talking points against Clinton, and, even more important, his total denigration of the achievements of the Clinton administration (constantly equating it with the Bush administration, comparing it unfavorably to the Reagan era,m etc.). In doing so he is not only "tearing down another Democrat" in a way that can be hurtful if she is the nominee, but, much worse, he is denigrating the most recent successes of his own party and undermining the Democratic brand in a way that will harm him if HE is the nominee.

Posted by: esmense on April 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

"How is this not the same as saying 'she slept her way to the top'"

Sigh.... Well, for one thing, nobody here has accused her of marrying Bill Clinton specifically to get ahead, which is really what "slept her way to the top" almost always means. For another, nobody here is claiming that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President of the United States, which is another thing that "slept her way to the top" usually means.

What we are saying is that Hillary Clinton had certain advantages as the wife of a former President of the United States. Are you going to claim that this is not true?

"and how is that not misogynistic given that it clearly demeans her ability as a female politician?"

As noted above, pointing out Hillary Clinton's advantages as a former First Lady in no way "demeans her ability as a female politician." It's only in your fevered imagination and knee-jerk reaction that this is taking place.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

esmense, you are indeed puzzled. That's why you double-posted!

Posted by: GOD on April 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm puzzled by those who worry about Hillary Clinton's campaigning 'tearing down another Democrat' but find nothing harmful in Obama's constant use of very personal Republican character attacks and Republican talking points against Clinton"

Who says we don't? I found Obama's "Harry and Louise" pamphlet to be over the top and pretty offensive, and said so at the time. If there are other examples, then by all means let's hear them.

Lately, I've heard nothing but Hillary's attacks, all of which I think not only buy into Republican memes, but all of which can be used against both Democratic candidates in November. McCain can "out-experience", "out-3 a.m.", "out-security", and "out-regular-guy" both Clinton and Obama, and using those attacks was both thoughtless and damaging.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

"I guess, if Obama supporters CONTINUE to alienate the millions of Democrats who support Hillary with their constant attacks on her—and them, McCain can just sit back and pick up some easy support in the fall."

Um, and the constant "CONTINUED" attacks of Clinton supporters aren't "alienating" the "millions of Democrats who support Obama"? You might want to be more careful about those stones you're throwing; your glass house is pretty damn fragile.

"(The treatment of Young Woman in the above comments is a perfect example of how to drive voters to McCain.)"

Oh, rubbish. "Young Woman" said some pretty stupid things and then started tossing out insults right and left. She got precisely the treatment she was looking for and earned. She has, thus far, been unable to substantiate her many accusations. Maybe you can do a better job?

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Another schtick on Obama that Clinton won't face: The NR crowd saying that his upbringing should be closely examined because the only people interested in interracial marriage in the early 60's were Commies. In other words, he wore red diapers. I kid you not. Kathryn Lopez said it herself.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Barbara - it's starting right now, someone on the wingnut side dug up a paper Obama's father wrote in the 60's. It's pretty left left wing socialism/commie sounding.

Posted by: optical weenie on April 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

esmense on April 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM:

...find nothing harmful in Obama's constant use of very personal Republican character attacks and Republican talking points against Clinton..

Constant? Would you care to elaborate on that?

..and, even more important, his total denigration of the achievements of the Clinton administration..

Like? If Obama is 'constantly' demonizing Hillary using Republican talking points, I really would like to know what they are. Links, quotes, whatever. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Like? If Obama is 'constantly' demonizing Hillary using Republican talking points, I really would like to know what they are. Links, quotes, whatever."

The most recent one was actually part of "Bittergate":

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not," he said. [Emphasis added]

That isn't specifically playing into Republican hands, nor is it something that McCain is likely able to take advantage of. Other than that, the only ones I'm aware of are:

- the "Harry and Louise" furor (see this post for details)

- using the word "crisis" in reference to Social Security.

- arguing that "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." See this post for details, if you don't remember the fuss.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

How is this not the same as saying "she slept her way to the top" and how is that not misogynistic given that it clearly demeans her ability as a female politician?

Adding to what others have said, let's go back (since you're still here) to my comparison of Hillary Clinton to George Bush in this regard. Do you think pointing out that Dubya started the 2000 primary season with an ex-prez daddy, huge name recognition, family connections, a party machine and donors and dollars galore at his disposal is misandrist? If not, why not? No one here has said or even remotely implied that it's specifically and uniquely Clinton's romantic or sexual relationship with her husband that is the advantage; that's your odd interpretation of what's actually been said.

Obama's constant use of very personal Republican character attacks and Republican talking points against Clinton

Piggybacking on grape and Paul (if Paul will allow it, what with his well-documented hatred of girl people and all): What examples besides the icky "Harry and Louise" flyer can you provide of this "constant" phenomenon? (And let's skip the willful misinterpretation of his remarks re Reagan.) When Obama compares Clinton to Bush he's running against her from the left, not the right, which is not in any reasonable person's understanding equivalent to saying she is less competent or qualified than the Republican candidate.

Only Clinton has crossed that unforgivable line, which, as many have pointed out, will be fodder for the GOP against either candidate this fall. In fact, if she had been able to get the nomination, it probably would have hurt her worse than it will Obama, given that "experience" is all she's offering as a differentiator, and she can't compare to McCain on it.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

What we are saying is that Hillary Clinton had certain advantages as the wife of a former President of the United States. Are you going to claim that this is not true?

No, of course not. That's not controversial, unless you also think being associated with Mr. Clinton doesn't come with disadvantages -- as voters for Gore found out in 2000.

I'm not the only one to have noticed that there is a clear bias against Clinton both because of her husband's presidency and because of her gender. It's conventional wisdom that Obama hasn't been vetted enough, but neither has Clinton gotten a fair shake on her individual merits. When you say she is successful only because she was and is married to Bill, you're demeaning her political abilities on the basis of her choices as a woman -- which, given the vehemence with which these comments are made, is clearly misogynistic.

This conversation is exhausting. Now I'm really outta here. Good luck to all, and may you reflect more on your prejudices.

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

emmarose on April 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM:

..if Obama supporters CONTINUE to alienate the millions of Democrats who support Hillary..

If I said, "if Clinton supporters CONTINUE to alienate the millions of Democratic who support Obama", it would sound just as self-centered and whiny, emmarose.

McCain can just sit back and pick up some easy support in the fall.

Sigh. Then they would be CFIs*. Let's look at McCain's position on reproductive rights, shall we?

Nowhere is the gap between "straight talker" and pandering faker more obvious than on questions of reproductive freedom and sex education. Usually obscured by his image as a "maverick" Republican and (former) critic of the religious right, his actual record infuriates many women when they learn what he believes -- and how he has voted.
Late last month, the Democratic National Committee released a memo based on focus group interviews with undecided voters in Minnesota and West Virginia concerning McCain. The female voters in the groups were surprised, dismayed and angered to learn that the Arizona Republican not only favors overturning the Roe v. Wade decision and curtailing abortion rights but is also opposed to requiring contraceptive coverage by health plans and favors abstinence-only sex education.
Even women who described themselves as "pro-life" said that the latter positions cast McCain as a man who is "unrealistic," "out of touch" and "stuck in the past," according to the memo. And those same women were especially disappointed because they had expected him to hold the moderate views that the media has so often ascribed to its favorite.
[McCain bio author Cliff] Schecter quotes an August 1999 speech that McCain delivered to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:
"I'd love to see a point where [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force x number of women to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
Then he flashes forward to 2006, as McCain prepared for this year's presidential race, when the senator declared that he does not merely favor overturning Roe, but supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion in almost all circumstances. Schecter provides another quote, from a McCain appearance last year on "Meet the Press," when he claimed that he has "always been pro-life, unchanging and unwavering." Except when he wavered and changed, of course.

So, yeah - take your votes to McCain.

(The treatment of Young Woman in the above comments is a perfect example of how to drive voters to McCain.)

Unfortunately, Young Woman is interpreting criticism of Clinton as evidence of mysogyny.

*see? I told y'all...

Posted by: grape_crush on April 15, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

It's probably useless to jump in at this late time, but lets try a little objective reasoning, shall we? Hillary has been treated unfairly, and so has Obama. There are lots of examples of each. But it's uncontrovertible that Hillary started with the advantage in the race. She was spoken of as inevitable both by her campaign and by the press throughout 2006 and 2007. She had the Clinton administration contacts, voter lists, donors, party officials, name recognition, and organization far ahead of Obama going into the contest. She was the frontrunner, and everyone knew it.

But then she ran into a charismatic inspiring guy who would also break barriers and make history. That guy won 28 to her 14 contests, won more votes, more pledged delegates, raised far more money, all while her campaign used Mark Penn for strategy and didn't plan for post Feb. 5 contests. Objectively speaking, he's now the frontrunner. Her campaign ran out of money, used what money donors had given frivolously, and often told untruths and got caught in the act. Tuzla, anyone? Anyone here think she "misremembered" being under sniper fire? You don't get false memories of such an event. She made it up. That was the most galling one to me, the fact that she made up stuff to make herself sound like she was a combat veteran or somesuch when the truth would have served. Bill Clinton proved to be a serial liar through the campaign, and the Big Dog turned into a big dud for Hillary this year. These things all count, but the main fact is that Obama raised more money, got more delegates, and got more votes. How is it he is supposed to not win after that? Answer that and maybe I'll listen, but first you have to beat objective reasoning. Thank you.

Posted by: Eclectic on April 15, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks.

Posted by: Sherry Chandler on April 15, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

..."vehemence and ill-intent," I meant to say.

Posted by: Young Woman on April 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

"if Paul will allow it, what with his well-documented hatred of girl people and all"

That's me - all misogyny and rage, all the time. Film at 11.

Keep in mind that esmense was leveling two accusations - Obama also using Republican talking points and Obama downplaying the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, so you actually can probably find another example or two, but does anyone honestly think that McCain is going to use these?

"Only Clinton has crossed that unforgivable line"

Yup. I was leaning towards Obama, anyway, but made up my mind when Hillary pulled that crap about how she and McCain had both crossed the "Commander-In-Chief threshold." That was an incredibly stupid and shortsighted thing to say. And she's reinforced that stupidity and shortsightedness with her attacks since then.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

" I think Clinton's negative coverage is far more due to anti-Clintonism than sexism."

Maybe so, but I don't recall there being nearly so much "anti-Clinton sentiment", especially in liberal circles, until Hillary decided to run for president. All of a sudden a bunch of Clinton Derangement Syndrome materialized out of seemingly nowhere after Clinton declared her candidacy. I've never seen the like of it except for places like Free Republic. It's bizarre.

Posted by: Pocket Rocket on April 15, 2008 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

'she slept her way to the top'

Monica is not running for president.

"Let it go"

What should be let go is the trap door to the gallows for all of the leaders who helped destroy Iraq, including the Democratic ones.

Posted by: Brojo on April 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Wanna bet, that we'll vote? I'm not going to, accept to write in my candidates name, which means I'm the new "nader voter" who ruined 2000. And you know what, I don't care. I'm a little sick of the misogyny evidenced every day in the left wing blogosphere. Brad DeLong, Josh Marshall and Kos can kiss, my vote good-bye.

Posted by: AnnL on April 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

"No, of course not. That's not controversial, unless you also think being associated with Mr. Clinton doesn't come with disadvantages -- as voters for Gore found out in 2000."

Most of those disadvantages no longer hold in 2008, I believe. After 8 years of Bush, people have a certain nostalgia for Clinton and are more willing to overlook the man's personal failings.

"I'm not the only one to have noticed that there is a clear bias against Clinton both because of her husband's presidency and because of her gender."

Because of her husband's presidency? In the primary campaign? From Democrats? Where on earth have you found this bias? As I noted above, I refuse to be held accountable for idiots like Matthews and his ilk, just as I refuse to be held accountable for Republican comments. I've yet to hear a Democratic pundit, politician, or blogger be biased against Clinton because of her husband's presidency.

As for her gender, nobody here has argued that she has never suffered from gender bias or misogyny. Of course she has. But again, I refuse to be held accountable for people like Matthews, Limbaugh, and the occasional nutcase blog commenter, just as I refuse to be held accountable for these same folks when they're rabidly anti-Obama.

"It's conventional wisdom that Obama hasn't been vetted enough"

That depends on your definition of "vetted".

"but neither has Clinton gotten a fair shake on her individual merits."

That is entirely possible.

"When you say she is successful only because she was and is married to Bill"

Again, nobody here has said this! This is what I actually wrote:

Were Hillary Clinton not the wife of Bill Clinton, it is pretty inarguable that she would not currently be the Senator from New York. On the other hand, she might well be, say, the Senator from Arkansas in her own right. We do not know, of course, but it's pretty foolish to pretend that her advantages in this Democratic primary did not come from her marriage to Bill Clinton. And it is not "misogynistic" to note this.

Now, is there anything in what I wrote there that you take issue with? If so, let's hear why you think I'm wrong. Don't just holler "misogyny": tell me why you think I'm underestimating her or not treating her fairly.

"you're demeaning her political abilities on the basis of her choices as a woman"

??? On the basis of her choices as a woman??? Are you for real?

"-- which, given the vehemence with which these comments are made, is clearly misogynistic."

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.

"This conversation is exhausting."

Only because you're taking it far too seriously and far too personally, neither of which you should ever do in an unmoderated online forum.

"Now I'm really outta here. Good luck to all, and may you reflect more on your prejudices."

I'd say the same thing back to you but I suspect it's a hopeless cause.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

You know: I really believe that if Sen.Obama puts a smart Governor like Sellibus on the ticket whose also a woman he will lock down those voters who would leave and stay home over a sense of loss for Sen.Clinton. I say this because I feel like while the media has blown things in a sexist way; Sen. Obama himself hasn't hit that note and it would be easier to mend fences.

With the Clinton's and the AA community; I feel like it's a lost battle for here and she's counting on a strong showing among Hispanics and AA voters to stay home as they won't vote McCain to put her over the edge. Only, a lot of AA voters and a lot of women voters I talk to actively talk of crossing over.

Posted by: Rhoda on April 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

"And you know what, I don't care."

Yeah, that's really an adult attitude.

"I'm a little sick of the misogyny evidenced every day in the left wing blogosphere. Brad DeLong, Josh Marshall and Kos can kiss, my vote good-bye."

I've been asking for some time now for someone, anyone, to point to a single misogynistic statement in this thread. Maybe you can finally do it?

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Maybe so, but I don't recall there being nearly so much 'anti-Clinton sentiment', especially in liberal circles, until Hillary decided to run for president. All of a sudden a bunch of Clinton Derangement Syndrome materialized out of seemingly nowhere after Clinton declared her candidacy."

Really? Because I didn't see much anti-Clinton sentiment, at least not of the vitriolic kind, until Clinton pulled the "Command-in-Chief threshold" crap. I did see a lot of partisanship, but mostly in the healthy, "I like both candidates but I like this one better" way.

I freely acknowledge that it's entirely possible that I completely missed all of the CDS prior to that event; maybe you can point me to a couple of examples?

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

When you say she is successful only because she was and is married to Bill

NOBODY FUCKING SAID THAT!

God, you're exhausting. You finally got not the rage you were looking for, but pure exasperation at your rank dishonesty and inability to admit that you misspoke. Now go and reflect on the fact that words have actual meaning beyond what you twist them into to try to get yourself out of a hole.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM:

"And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration.."

I'm not quite seeing that as a Republican talking point, but go on.

..the "Harry and Louise" furor..

Yeah. Not cool. There's one.

...using the word "crisis" in reference to Social Security.

That's more like talking about an issue using a Repub frame rather than an attack on the Clintons. Not good, but not an attack.

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."

A kinda of abstract intellectual point that doesn't sound bite well, but not really 'total denigration of the achievements of the Clinton administration', is it?

Posted by: grape_crush on April 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

" I think Clinton's negative coverage is far more due to anti-Clintonism than sexism."

Maybe so, but I don't recall there being nearly so much "anti-Clinton sentiment", especially in liberal circles,

I was specifically referring to MSM coverage, as distinct from talk radio or bloggers.
But as to anti-Clinton sentiment on the left, there was quite a bit: NAFTA, welfare reform, DOMA. I'm not one of those people. I'm both cynical and pragmatic and long ago gave up expecting perfection. My problems with Hillary Clinton are based on Hillary Clinton, as a senator and a candidate.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

What tore it for this 50-year old lifelong female Democrat was when when, at an Obama rally, Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton a fuc"ing wh"re.

DEMOCRATS calling another Democratic woman a fuc"ing wh're and getting applauded for it. Getting support for it on the blogs.

Because of course, that's what Hillary is, right...?

No REAL progressive calls another woman -- ANY WOMAN -- a fuc"ing wh"re. No REAL progressive would applaud and support that, just as no REAL progressive would applaud and support calling another DEMOCRATIC candidate a fuc'ing k'ke or fuc'ing n'gg.

I do realize that wasn't Obama himself saying that.

But I think there's a whole swath of the Democratic party, and certainly of the so-called progressive community, that's in for a very rude awakening.

Posted by: dandelion on April 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm not quite seeing that as a Republican talking point, but go on."

That one was in response to esmense's claim of, "his total denigration of the achievements of the Clinton administration." So not a Republican talking point, per se, but part of that so-called "denigration". It's a pretty weak case, as you can see, but it was the best I could come up with. If there's anything else, we'll have to hear it from esmense or from another Clinton supporter.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

dandelion,

1. As you well (or should) know, that event was not sponsored by the Obama campaign.

2. Randi Rhodes, who was disgusting me long before this happened, should have been fired on the spot--I believe that any man in that same circumstance would have been. Air America is a thousand times better off without her, and I've seen a lot more of that sentiment on the blogs than "support" for Rhodes' remarks.

Posted by: shortstop on April 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

"What tore it for this 50-year old lifelong female Democrat was when when, at an Obama rally, Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton a fuc"ing wh"re."

Randi Rhodes crossed the line and was subsequently, and appropriately, in my opinion, suspended. Rhodes then got her dander up and left Air America.

"Getting support for it on the blogs."

I just did a Google search and I'm not seeing support for this. Can you point me to the blogs that supported it?

"No REAL progressive calls another woman -- ANY WOMAN -- a fuc"ing wh"re."

Which is why we're not seeing any real progressives calling Clinton that or supporting Clinton being called that. As far as I can tell, exactly the right thing happened: someone crossed the line, was suspended (and subsequently moved on), and got very little sympathy. If you have evidence that this was not the case, I'm quite serious that I would like to see it.

Posted by: on April 15, 2008 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Hon. Sen. Obama should tap a(non- Clinton) female VP candidate."

You really WANT to lose, don't you?

Posted by: nene on April 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

On second thought, maybe Hillary should pick a non-Obama black man as VP. I guess black men can be just as interchangeable as women.

Posted by: nene on April 15, 2008 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

The 5:14 remark was mine.

"NOBODY FUCKING SAID THAT!"

Careful, now, SS, or you'll be accused of "misogyny". :)

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

What's sad about people like "Young Woman" is that they end up harming their own cause. There really is genuine misogyny being directed at Clinton but, as we've seen on this thread, "misogyny" gets tossed around as an accusation far more than is really warranted. As a result, we have a classic case of the boy crying wolf.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

But I think there's a whole swath of the Democratic party, and certainly of the so-called progressive community, that's in for a very rude awakening.

go ahead, vote for McCain. i'm sure he'll appreciate it. maybe he'll even start a war just for you.

Posted by: cleek on April 15, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Love the comment about young women saying they'd vote for for a woman, but not for a woman who got where she is by being married to a president.

It was OBVIOUS to all who watched Bill Clinton's rise to power that HE got where he was by being married to Hillary.

What is it about a successful livelong marriage of equals that so unnerves people?

Posted by: on April 15, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Randi Rhodes was not connected with the Obama campaign, and she was fired, or whatever, she resigned in lieu of. Because it was an outrageous thing to say. Samantha Power also resigned (though I don't think I would call her comments sexist, they were immature and unprofessional in the extreme).

Was Shaheen sacked or Robert Johnson ostracized when they not so subtly impugned that Obama was a drug abuser?

I would like simply to say that I don't like the creeping dynasticism of our politics, and what might be unstated in some of the criticism of Clinton isn't so much sexism directed at her as it is serious discomfort with the political trends that are blowing more and more in the direction of rewarding those with existing family ties and connections. As people have said, this is not unique to Clinton, but it is a more difficult dilemma for women who are married to noteworthy men, because holding their connections against them punishes them unfairly notwithstanding their own merits. As we have seen with Bush, it is really hard to tease out the individual merits of people who are so well connected.

And even on that score, the relationship between Hillary Clinton and her husband's administration is problematic mostly because she is running for the SAME job and has, to one degree or another, assumed some degree of credit for its positive accomplishments, which further muddies the picture of her own merits versus those of her husband. It really wasn't nearly as much of an issue during her Senate election, just as it would not be if she were a scientist being vetted for a top level position at a university. It might have entered into the debate a little bit, but it would not have been determinative.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

"Do you think pointing out that Dubya started the 2000 primary season with an ex-prez daddy, huge name recognition, family connections, a party machine and donors and dollars galore at his disposal is misandrist? If not, why not?"

This needs to be repeated, early and often. George W. Bush would not be where he is today were it not for his father. And it is not even remotely being "misandrist" to point this out.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing to add, just proud of myself that I got through the entire comments section without felling the need to pounce. ;)

One question, though...is Laura Bush qualified to be president?

Posted by: elmo on April 15, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

AnnL on April 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM:

I'm the new "nader voter" who ruined 2000. And you know what, I don't care.

Clinton/Nader in '08! Guaranteeing a permanent Republican majority for America!

dandelion on April 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM:

What tore it for this 50-year old lifelong female Democrat was when when, at an Obama rally, Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton a fuc"ing wh"re.

What tore it for Rhodes was Clinton's dumb "Commander in Chief threshold" remark, because it gave McCain something to beat whoever the Dem candidate is over the head with in the general...

Having said that, there is no justification for what Rhodes said, and there is no valid defense for her remarks about Clinton...in fact, it was worse than what Clinton had done with her 'threshold' remark, for exactly the same reason: You don't tear down someone who is at least nominally on your own side.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 15, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a 49 year old woman.

Initially an Edwards Supporter. Always acknowledged Clinton's brilliance and skill. Certainly feel she's more than capable to be the president.

But I migrated over to Obama once Edwards bowed out, initially because I believed Obama more closely reflected the anti-corporatist/special interests/lobbyist views of Edwards.

However, I was always open to switching from Obama and over to Hillary and watched closely when it got to S. Carolina and Mississippi. It was shortly thereafter, that this former Bill Clinton supporter and respecter of Sen. Clinton became highly turned off and disgusted by Hillary's Iand Bill's) tactics.

I am a feminist. And Hillary Clinton has come to both embarrass and disappoint me to no end as such, mimicking the worst of traits in men, or conversely parodying cringe-inducing clichéd female behaviors that women from previous generations may well have understandably had to rely on to simply be heard or not dismissed.

However, enough is enough. Feminism, as taught to both myself and my brother by our parents, was about not being judged, minimized or excluded on the basis of one's gender, but on one's merits, abilities, talents etc.

The fact that Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States of America is verifiable proof that the feminist movements' struggle was not in vain.

So for this feminist, it's about picking who I believe to be the best.... person.

I support the person who wants to conquer the divide. Not the person who wants to divide and conquer. -- voxpopgirl.

Posted by: voxpopgirl on April 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'll be sexist and ageist. I find most Hillary supporters comments to be as self absorbed and ignorant as I find many Boomer women in real life. They may mean well, but they're utterly clueless (about finance, computers, politics, reality...) and they don't bother listening to or respect anyone who is significantly younger than they are.

Posted by: anon on April 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Where were you in 2000? I was fighting for Al Gore with time money and letters lots of letters. The media was horrible, sort of like the blogosphere is to Hillary. I didn't think much of Sen. Obamas remarks about "Hillary sometimes feeling down" or his advertising repeating the republican line about healthcare. No one has clean hands here. So remove yourselves from your high horses, they are both politicians, they will do and say things that make us cringe. But there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. I'm sick of being told to sit down and shut up, "Obama is the one", not for me. Sorry, you go your way I'll go mine. I'm sorry that you don't care for my reasoning, but it's my vote and I intend to vote for the candidate of my choice, not one dictated to me by a party that won't count Mich. and Fla. Age has it's privleges as does youth. I spent mine fighting the powers that be about the Viet Nam war, womens rights, minority rights, I'm still waiting for the ERA to pass.

Posted by: AnnL on April 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

What tore it for this 50-year old lifelong female Democrat was when when, at an Obama rally, Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton a fuc"ing wh"re.

Randi Rhodes, who is exhaustingly self-important and obnoxious, isn't on the ballot, and it wasn't an "Obama rally".

Just in case you were interested in facts and not just looking for an excuse to nobly declare that you would never vote for Obama.

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

RAndi Rhodes didn't make her stupid mean statement at an Obama rally. Any collection of individuals can get together and fundraise for his campaign with no offical blessing from the campaign.

That sort of dishonest overstatement-- "Obama rally"-- is typical of HRC deadenders. There isn't any honest way to justify their antagonism toward his campaign.

Posted by: wonkie on April 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Brad DeLong, Josh Marshall and Kos can kiss, my vote good-bye.

Okay, then.

Bye!

Now to turn my attention to someone else whose mind isn't welded shut.

Posted by: have clue -- will travel on April 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

"No one has clean hands here."

But the "hands" are not identically dirty.

"So remove yourselves from your high horses, they are both politicians, they will do and say things that make us cringe."

Is anyone pretending otherwise?

"But there are lines that shouldn't be crossed."

Yup, and Hillary crossed them. Not her supporters, not some idiotic pundit, not some Republican gasbag, not some anonymous blog commenters: Hillary.

"I'm sick of being told to sit down and shut up"

Um, nobody is saying this, either. Like your earlier accusations of misogyny, I'm afraid that this accusation is equally unsupported and equally unfounded.

"Sorry, you go your way I'll go mine."

You're entitled to do so, just as we're entitled to tell you what the possible consequences of your childishness are.

"I'm sorry that you don't care for my reasoning,"

That's because you have not demonstrated any "reasoning". All you have shown is a fit of childish pique.

"Age has it's privleges as does youth."

The rest of this is a complete non sequitur that isn't worth the trouble to respond to.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

AnnL: Are you from Michigan or Florida?

The Michigan/Florida fiasco is not Obama's fault, if anything, it is the fault of Clinton's biggest supporter in Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, who was trying to sway the results of both the Michigan and the national contest in Clinton's favor, only to have it backfire on her. Nor is Obama (or Clinton) to be faulted for not being willing to get behind a revote that would clearly penalize one of the candidates. Ickes has already tried to argue that not seating the delegates would be racist, are you now claiming that it would be sexist?

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

"There isn't any honest way to justify their antagonism toward his campaign."

What's silly (from supporters of both candidates) is the refrain from all too many of them that circumstances like this "drove" them to support the candidate of their choosing. Sheesh ... can we not all be adult enough to own our own choices?

I support Obama but it has not one damn thing to do with the silliness, racism, or downright insanity of some of Clinton's supporters.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Paulb, did you really mean to say that you have seen no signs of misogyny in this contest? As for your other shots. I am sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I'm much better on the stump. I'm not used to the sharp repartee you exhibit.

Posted by: AnnL on April 15, 2008 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,
How many cups of coffee have you had today?
Based on your posting activity I suggest at least 15. Ever heard of the phrase "I think he doth protest too much"?

Posted by: optical weenie on April 15, 2008 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

After reading the mean and obnoxious comments directed at Hillary by Obama supporters here there is no way I am voting for Obama in the GE.

I am a long time Democrat but I have now seen that the party has left me.

Posted by: Tom on April 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Paulb, did you really mean to say that you have seen no signs of misogyny in this contest?"

No. I've repeatedly said otherwise (including in this very thread). I was referring to the very specific allegations of misogyny directed at the commenters here and, in your case, the DailyKos, Brad DeLong, and Josh Marshall blogs. The accusation against the latter, in particular, is simply ludicrous. I don't read Brad DeLong and I'm quite sure that you can find some examples of misogyny in the comments at DK, but I doubt you'll be able to come up with any from the recommended diaries or from the site's founder.

"As for your other shots. I am sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I'm much better on the stump. I'm not used to the sharp repartee you exhibit."

It has nothing to do with clarity. It has to do with actually supporting your assertions and accusations. Thus far, you've failed to do so. If you'd care to do so, you'll get a (reasonably) respectful audience.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

"PaulB, How many cups of coffee have you had today?"

None. I don't drink coffee.

"Ever heard of the phrase 'I think he doth protest too much'?"

I have. Now if you'd care to tell me how it applies to me, I'd be ever so grateful. Sheesh ... another idiot who gratuitously tosses out accusations without bothering to try to support them. And I'm supposed to take this seriously?

I assure you I can take it just as well as I can dish it out -- find the specific posts and points you disagree with and show where I'm wrong or point out what I've overlooked or point out where my word choice is, shall we say, unfortunate, or where I've treated anyone unfairly, or any other sin I'm supposed to have committed. But just don't toss out random vague accusations and expect me to be impressed.

I'm neither anti-woman, nor anti-Clinton. I'm anti-stupid. There's a difference.

Posted by: PaulB on April 15, 2008 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

A zillion posts in, and this has (hopefully) been said, but nothing, that is nothing, will keep me home or keep me from voting against McCain in November.

For those that say they'll abstain, here's a collective thanks a fucking lot. Basing your decision on what some supporter says is simply pathetic.


The problem with "getting the government that one deserves" is that not everyone does.

Posted by: e henry thripshaw on April 15, 2008 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

What is happening in these comments is what I often read anywhere the sexism is discussed. The discussion turns completely away from the issue.
People don't seem to think it is possible to totally dislike Hillary and/or her politics and at the same time note and decry the sexist attacks.
Just because this is happening to someone you really dislike doesn't mean it is not happening. Countering with arguments about why you do not want Hillary as the nominee does NOT address the issue.
Hate her, dislike her, there are plenty of reasons for that. Work like hell for her to NOT be the nominee. But - don't use or excuse or deny the sexism. Recognizing it does not take anything away from your arguments in favor of another candidate.

Posted by: ClareA on April 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

ClareA, lots of people have made that exact comment, including me and Victoria.

Posted by: Barbara on April 15, 2008 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

e.h. thripshaw: For those that say they'll abstain, here's a collective thanks a fucking lot.

Exactly.

Posted by: thersites on April 15, 2008 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

What I find so interesting about comment sections such as this one is that it truly shows just how small the numbers of actual liberal/progressives there are.
Here we are, into our eighth year of George II's reign, facing the possibility of a four-regency under McCain, and what do I hear from various supporters of the two Democratic candidates? "If my candidate isn't the nominee, I'll vote for McCain or not vote at all in November!" Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...
I prefer Sen. Clinton as the Democratic nominee. In my estimation as a liberal Democratic voter, Sen. Clinton is the better of the two candidates my party has to offer. The better. Not the only.
Should Sen. Obama be nominated at the convention he will certainly have my support, because, you know, I have been known to make mistakes and perhaps I might possibly be wrong. Maybe.
Right now, however, I am more worried about my country than my ego. We, as a country, just can't afford too many more mistakes and allowing Sen. McCain into the White House would definitely qualify as a major mistake.
I have little doubt that, whoever is the Democratic candidate, the loser will do all in their power to ensure the Democratic nominee is the winner; both have 'way too much to lose if they don't. And so do we.

Posted by: Doug on April 15, 2008 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Jim, Jesus FC, are you deaf, dumb AND blind? Or just DUMB? Feck.

Posted by: roar on April 15, 2008 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

Jim, Jesus FC, are you deaf, dumb AND blind? Or just DUMB? Feck.

Posted by: roar o

Um.... is this addressed at me?

Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2008 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Feminism

The sexual liberation movement of the late Sixties/early Seventies has devolved into Feminism.

I voted for Sen. Clinton in the primary but have since supported Sen. Obama's candidacy because of the greater potential for a landslide win. Pointing out Sen. Clinton was not a member of her president husband's cabinet, held no office until her NY senate victory and has depended on the popularity of her husband's presidency for her popularity is not sexist or misogynist. Calling others sexist or misogynist for these views is sexist though.

Posted by: Brojo on April 15, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Well, would the feminist tensions have been much different if Obama was white? I don't think so.
They may even have been worse. At least by being black, he must draw some sympathy.

When Hillary announced her candidacy, every other guy should have dropped out of the race, or be removed by bitter self-inflicted wounds. How else to avoid this mess? So if that was how it was going to be when the first serious female candidate ran for office, all of us should at least get a choice of which female is best suited for this uncontested run. There needed to be a general acknowledgement among Dems that she was the best female candidate available. Clearly this was not the case.

In addition, Obama has, for the most part not trashed the Clintons or acted like a clone of Sean Hannity. Hillary has, and uses every opportunity she gets. The bitter ad she is running in PA is a good example. This is acceptable?

Posted by: Manfred on April 15, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

>liberal women are low information voters

WOW. Way to prove there is no sexism at play in this election.

Posted by: Evie on April 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Not to dismiss the problem of sexism against Hillary Clinton or the related problem of female Democrats who are offended by the above, but isn't it a bit strange to talk about Democrats losing women by nominating Obama over Hillary when he is not even losing the female vote to her by very much? I mean, he has a double digit lead in the Gallup tracker, and women comprise over 50% of the Dem electorate, so he's clearly not too far behind among women. Is he even behind at all among women? And what about women under 60?

Posted by: Curious on April 15, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

I got it. If we don't nominate Obama the Democratic party has lost a whole generation. Sheesh. What a freaking cult.

Posted by: Pat on April 15, 2008 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton is a carpetbagger.

Posted by: Bobby Kennedy on April 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

I have been appalled by the way Hillary has been treated, and I'm a woman supporting Obama.

The result is, while I'll vote for either, I don't think I can stomach working for Obama, which I was going to do. If I go walk the precinct for Obama, I'll hear gobs of men saying they just don't 'like' Hillary, and I'll remember the blowhards on teevee and want to throw up. I can't work for a campaign with those associations.

Posted by: lark on April 15, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

@ AnnL: I happen to be a woman from a younger generation. I was crushed when Bush stole the 2000 election and I watched with increasing dismay as Bush/Cheney/neocons showed themselves to be even more deluded and evil than my always very low expectations had thought possible.

I watched with equal dismay at 8 years of Democratic inaction, cowardice, pandering to the right, and eating its own. And I count Hillary Clinton right in the middle of this clusterf_ck of self destruction. And in this election cycle, I've seen plenty of Clinton supporters (not all) who refuse to acknowledge the arguments of Obama supporters, who claim that Obama supporters are just a cult of latte drinking foolz who stand in their candidate's way to HISTORY. And then after all that trashing, they're expect these cult members to line up behind the Clinton without a murmur of complaint.

I've seen very few Obama supporters who claimed that they will not vote against McCain in November. I've seen many Clinton supporters who say they WILL NOT vote for Obama. So when they accuse Obama supporters of throwing this country to the wolves, ergh, projection much? I'm sick and tired of these Clinton supporters telling me (an Edward supporter until he dropped out) that they know better and that I have to vote my identity (via the extreme reductionist version of feminism) rather than my mind. This country is in crisis and it's dragging the rest of the world down with us, and you all think now is a good time to play identity politics (gender, race, religion, personal income)?

For my own survival, I will vote against McCain. But if Clinton gets into the Oval Office, I don't expect things to get better. I see them getting worse: where you see experience, I see years of playing first lady and cozying up to mega corporate interests followed by 8 years of unacceptable and unacknowledged moral failures and more cozying up to corporate interests - I'm very happy to do without her brand (as she said herself) and McCain's brand of "experience."

Posted by: anon on April 16, 2008 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

20-30 year olds are morons-- they always have been, and they always will be. I still remember my 20-something colleagues in the Reagan years telling me it wasn't worth the bother to vote.

Posted by: elbrucce on April 16, 2008 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

20-30 year olds are morons-- they always have been, and they always will be.

Wins the thread! (not that I was, of course...)

I just have to read the number of comments at the bottom of a post to know that it's going to be aboutHillary vs. Obama. Time to calm down.

Posted by: thersites on April 16, 2008 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

I'll hear gobs of men saying they just don't 'like' Hillary

Those are McCain voters if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination.

Posted by: Brojo on April 16, 2008 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

"WOW. Way to prove there is no sexism at play in this election."

Evie, that came from a regular spoofer here at the site. Formerly a right-wing nutcase spoofer, he's now an anti-Clinton spoofer. Do a search for site:washingtonmonthly.com "posted by: Al" and you'll see what I mean. Most of those posts are, quite intentionally, stupid and wholly disconnected from reality.

That's the problem with nutpicking, as all too many people do. In this case, you picked a post that seemed to validate your point of view, but that in reality did nothing of the kind.

Posted by: PaulB on April 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Please, name a Democrat to the right of Hillary Clinton (Mr. Lieberman is now an Independent).

That is why I prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton. (And, if Obama is really the Senate's most liberal member, than Socialist Bernie Sanders really isn't doing his job very well)

Posted by: Piper on April 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly