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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Seems ... circular ...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

/sigh (I know)

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.

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.

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?

(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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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."

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/

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????

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%

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.

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?

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.

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

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!

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.

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?

"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.

"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."

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

"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.

What Bob said at 2:04.

Mark Penn resigned

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.

Mark Penn resigned

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

"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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Um, she worked for all of those things

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?

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

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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?

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

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.)

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.

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!

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

Enjoy your trolling, somewhere else.

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.

"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.