My disgust with HillBilly is tangible. For all the talks of sexism, it's been implied and accepted with the Dem rank and file that they're getting a 2-for-1 if Hillary gets elected. Oh yeah...Bill not having a White House office in a Hillary Presidency means he has totally no say whatsoever...
real_egal- The headlines after the SC primary were: With the help of the black vote, Obama wins. That was _everywhere._ No news outlet failed to mention it. After that, his winning 80 percent of the black vote in any state was no longer a surprise. It wasn't "news" because it wasn't expected. I saw, on many occasions, news outlets mentioning that Obama was getting more of the white male vote than the white female vote. In fact, I've heard it in every breakdown I've seen and read. I don't know what news outlets you are watching that leave these out. The fact that HRC got the latino/asian vote in CA was news- she was expected to get the white female vote but everybody was talking about the latino vote because both parties were pursuing them hard, and it's newsworthy that the latino vote could have a significant impact on the presidential race. There was nothing belittling about it. The Clintons discussing race and Bill making the J Jackson reference was a calculated political maneuver. By sticking Obama with the "black president" label, they tried to polarize voters into voting along racial lines. This would be a winning strategy since blacks are only 10% of the electorate. This is why Jackson and his predecessors never had a chance. You can counter with the "well, it's true" line but that doesn't excuse the calculated, underhanded maneuver to use race as a polarizing element to win the election. batman- I think you're being too personal with the real_egal. Your posts are great, very informative, but I think we'll all get more out of this if you leave the personal attacks out.
I talked to a friend of mine who worked for the state dems for many years. She loves both candidates and was a HUGE Clinton supporter in 92 and 96. She hasn't been heavily involved in any campaign, but she has lots of friends who are working for both. She said that the buzz in the party is that Obama is gaining significant momentum - the kind of momentum they last experienced with Bill Clinton, but with a much more emotional component to it. She said that even the staunchest Hillary supporters fully admit that Obama seems to be a candidate of destiny if not this year, most definitely in the future. Most of them think that it is going to be really close, but the underlying feeling is that the party is better off with Obama running and a lot believe his momentum will only continue to grow.
I get the same feeling. I also get the feeling that a fair number of men simply don't like the idea of a woman being President. Since that is based on personal interactions with people, I can't cut and paste some article or column supporting it (I could do that with some posts here, but I won't), but saying that it doesn't exist or that it is there, but most of the attitude towards Ms. Clinton is because of her "past" is being disingenuous, in my opinion. Sexism exists. It is being exercised against Ms. Clinton, whether one supports her or not. That is simply a fact as far as I'm concerned. I also don't dig the personal attacks. I'd prefer they all come from me. Impeach Bush.
I agree there are those that are sexist in regards to their feeling towards Hillary, but I think that would come into play more from those that aren't Democrats. I haven't really seen any Dems have a reaction against her just because she's a woman.
You are dead wrong IMO. If there had never been a prior Clinton administration where Hillary established her reputation, feelings about her would be a LOT different. Sure sexism exists and it affects some people in their voting, but contrary to her own delusion of conspiracies, etc, Hillary has painted an unflattering self-portrait (even within the Dem Party) that she can't blame on sexism.
i dont doubt that there are people opposed to a woman being president (just like there are people opposed to a morman or an african american), but to say that "most" of the attitude towards her is simply due to her being a woman is disingenuous at best and seems like a weak attempt at playing the gender card. there are legitimate reasons to oppose her which i wont bother to get into again, but none of them have to do with the fact that she is a woman. for the record, i think a woman could be president...just not hillary clinton.
At least use the whole quote: I also get the feeling that a fair number of men simply don't like the idea of a woman being President. Since that is based on personal interactions with people, I can't cut and paste some article or column supporting it (I could do that with some posts here, but I won't), but saying that it doesn't exist or that it is there, but most of the attitude towards Ms. Clinton is because of her "past" is being disingenuous, in my opinion. I stand by my post. Impeach Bush.
again, im sure there are people out there who just will not vote for a woman, but you said "most" of the opposition is due to this. so voters cant have legitimate issues w/ her? its all about gender? - people who are critical of her policies arent really against her policies, just the fact that she is a woman? you honestly think this? seems like you are playing the gender card.
You are playing a bad hand. I'm not going to parse my post yet again. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. Impeach Bush.
Deckard, I respect your thoughts and agree with you occasionally, but you are in the ditch this time.
Interesting column from that well known sexist pig, George F. Will... Democrats Living Dangerously Early Voting Insanity And a GOP Gift By George F. Will Thursday, February 7, 2008; A21 LOS ANGELES -- Forewarned, Democrats now are forearmed -- not that they will necessarily make sensible use of the gift. Tuesday's voting armed Democratic voters with the name of the candidate that their nominee will face in the fall. Will their purblind party now nominate the most polarizing person in contemporary politics, knowing that Republicans will nominate the person who tries to compensate for his weakness among conservatives with his strength among independent voters who are crucial to winning the White House? Perhaps. The Republican Party's not-so-secret weapon always is the Democratic Party, with its entertaining thirst for living dangerously. John McCain has become the presumptive nominee of the conservative party without winning majority support of conservatives. According to exit polls, he lost them Tuesday to Mitt Romney in his home state of Arizona, 43 to 40. He lost them in that day's biggest battleground, California, 43 to 35. The surest way to unify the Republican Party, however, is for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama, the foundation of whose candidacy is his early opposition to the war in Iraq, would be a more interesting contrast to the candidate who is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to a first presidential term and who almost promises a war with Iran ("There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran"). Obama's achievements on Tuesday would have been considered astonishing just two weeks ago, but they have been partially discounted because the strength of his ascendancy became so apparent in advance. And he would have taken an even larger stride toward the nomination were it not for a novelty that advanced thinkers have inflicted on the political process. Once upon a time, in an America consigned to the mists of memory, there was a quaint and, it is now said, oppressive custom called Election Day. This great national coming together of the public in public polling places, this rare communitarian moment in a nation of restless individualists, was an exhilarating episode in our civic liturgy. Then came, in the name of progress, the plague of early voting. In many states, voting extends over weeks, beginning before campaigns reach their informative crescendos. This plague has been encouraged by people, often Democrats, who insist, without much supporting evidence, that it increases voter turnout, especially among minorities and workers for whom the challenge of getting to polling places on a particular day is supposedly too burdensome. The plague made many Super Tuesday voters -- those who hurried to cast their ballots for John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani and other dear departeds -- feel like ninnies, which serves them right. On Tuesday, the Democratic Party paid a price for early voting, especially in California, where more than 2 million votes were cast in the 29 days before what is anachronistically called Election Day. The price was paid by the party's most potentially potent nominee, Obama, whose surge became apparent after many impatient voters had already rushed to judgment. Although Obama lost California to Clinton by almost 390,000 votes, he surely ran much closer in the votes cast on Tuesday, after her double-digit lead in polls had evaporated. Had he won the third of the three C's -- he won Connecticut, where a large portion of voters are in her New York City media market, and in Colorado, a red Western state rapidly turning purple -- he might now be unstoppable. Evangelical Christians, who in 2006 gave Republicans more votes than Democrats received from African Americans and union members combined, wanted to determine the GOP's nominee -- and perhaps they have done so. By giving so much support to an essentially regional candidate, Mike Huckabee, rather than to Mitt Romney, they have opened McCain's path to capturing the conservative party without capturing conservatives. McCain's Tuesday triumph was based in states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California) he will not carry in November. Although Obama is, to say no more, parsimonious with his deviations from liberal orthodoxy, he is said to exemplify "post-partisan" politics. The same is sometimes said of McCain. Five days before Super Tuesday, McCain received an endorsement from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, another supposed practitioner of post-partisanship, which often looks a lot like liberalism that would prefer not to speak its name. Three days before that endorsement, the emblem of Schwarzenegger's post-partisanship -- his extremely liberal (lots of mandates and taxes) and expensive ($14.9 billion, slightly more than the state's current budget deficit) plan for universal health care -- died in an 11-member state Senate committee, where it got just one vote. Perhaps we are seeing the future. It looks familiar. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../02/06/AR2008020603943.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 One of the reasons I lean towards Obama is that Repubs can't seem to figure out how to run against him. Some even appear to like him. Pretty freaky. Impeach Bush.
it's simply projection. the opposition to HillBilly is entirely predicated on her record. I'd gladly vote for a woman, just not this one.
I think Deckard is right about people being sexist towards Hillary. Just because they would vote for a woman if it was a different one doesn't mean they aren't sexist. I think the sexism with Hillary lies in the fact that if male candidates fought for things as hard as she has, they wouldn't be judged by the same harsh standard Hillary has been. I think even a number of her dirty tricks, and underhanded moves would be excused. Obviously that's the case, because we've had 8 years of a Bush administration. When men are ambitious it's accepted more easily. It isn't that people who are sexists would never vote for a woman.
you are right. i dont get it. maybe im misreading your post and if so i apologize, but it appears that you are saying that "most" people who are critical of her past or policies are being "disingenuous" when they say thats what their issues are with her. that it is really about the fact that she is a woman. is that what you really think? if so, that is by definition playing the gender card. i dont see obama supporters saying "most" of the people who are against him are against him b/c of his race. or mitt "bling-bling" romney supporters saying "most" of the people against him are against him b/c of his religion. its just very weak. can you not see that there is a myriad of legitimate reasons that people do not want her as president and none of them have to do with the fact that she is a woman?
Here's an interesting insight by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who loathes Hillary but who thinks she will win because: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/ NOTE TO POLLSTERS IT'S THE SINGLE WOMEN, STUPID By DICK MORRIS Published in the New York Post on February 6, 2008. Hillary Clinton's victory in California restores her as the front-runner, a title that was in doubt as Barack Obama racked up victory after victory in states he was not supposed to win. While the apportionment of the delegates will distort her victory, the message is clear: Obama's surge fell short. Once again, the polls proved to be blind to the single women, the core of Hillary's base, who flood the polls to back the possible first woman president. Obama may inspire, but it is Hillary who quietly wins the unmarried women who struggle at minimum-wage jobs and desperately need public schools, mass transit, day care, health insurance and public services. The political establishment does not hear their voices, but Hillary's victory on Super Tuesday is based on them. The polls will continue to be wrong because they are not geared to counting those who have never voted and are not normally part of the political system. Ultimately, Hillary's candidacy is so much stronger than her campaign. Her efforts to polarize the race racially backfired massively. Her speeches are downright boring. Her focus on experience, hitting the "ground running on day one," and her pathetic attempts to adopt Bill Clinton's record as her own are falling flat. But through it all are the inexorable demographics in Democratic primaries where women cast upwards of 60 percent of the vote. Yesterday, inspiration confronted demographics. Charisma faced a laundry list of proposals that a large block of voters needed. The prosaic won. And the doctrinaire ideological construct that her candidacy represents is likely to sweep the remaining contests and land her in the White House. MCCAIN CAN BEAT HILLARY The California result likely means that Hillary will be the Democrat ic nominee. And John McCain can beat her. He appeals to Hispanics and to the disaffected Obama voters. The enthusiasm of the Obama voters for a lobbyist free candidate will feed directly into McCain's message. Hillary's and Bill's ties to the special interests will be a big problem for them as they face the patented outsider -- McCain.
deckard is right in that there are people out there who will not vote for a woman as president, but he is totally wrong when he says that "most" people who are critical of her past are being "disingenuous" and really just dont want a woman president. that is a very weak attempt at playing the gender card and it totally ignores the real issues. she is a warmonger and says bush isnt being hawkish enough on iran she will not commit to having the troops out of iraq by the end of her first term (2013!). that is totally unacceptable. she is pro-amnesty/open borders she is pro-gun control she supports the north american union, just like her husband supported nafta she is anti-free speech and has protesters removed from public events she continues to lie about obamas record and her own she says she will garnish our wages for health care she is too tied to corporate america and lobbyists she sat on the board of directors for wal-mart for 6 years and her husbands trade policies ended up directly benefiting them, while hurting the american worker. these are all legitimate reasons to be against her and guess what? NOT ONE OF THEM HAS ONE THING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN! deckard - am i lying when i say i am opposed to these things or do you think i am only against her b/c she is a woman?
As of right now I would vote for: 1. Obama 2. McCain 3. Clinton For me, the details of the candidates policy are less important than the tone. Policy is always (with the exception of the Bush administration) the result of the compromises within Congress. No pure policy decisions ever come out of the Presidency other than those within his power as Commander-In- Chief. I would go so far as to say that if Obama were elected we would not be completely out of Iraq during his administration. It sounds good, but we are just too invested in maintaining the country of Iraq to just leave. The tone of bi-partisanship, living within the checks and balances of the Constitution and putting a lid on the rhetoric of divisiveness (the Talk Radio mentality) is what I want out of my newly elected President. Then we can get to work on policies that address our nations problems and opportunities.
