I think the things that make people dislike Hillary with such passion, would not elicit that same level of hatred and bile coming from a man. Hillary is ambitious, ruthless, at times whiney, and plays the victim card, and guilty of delivering low blows in her political campaign. There is plenty of reasons to dislike her that has nothing to do with being sexist. But the passion and zeal behind the dislike is where I think most of the sexism comes in. She is no where near as bad with any of that stuff as was a certain texas congressman named Tom Delay. Delay certainly isn't popular, and people didn't like him. But there dislike for Tom Delay was nowhere near the zealous hatred aimed at Hillary, despite the fact that she hasn't done half the bad things that DeLay has. Clearly certain character traits that people see as negative are more accepted more in men, than in women amongst a large segment of our populace.
I'm sorry but Hillary is one of several pathetic political figures who inspire very negative emotions. Her problem now is she's close to being president which raises things to another level. Let's make it a true apples to apples comparison. Take a couple of minutes and think about Tom Delay being close to getting the GOP nod for president. The rancor would be off the charts and it wouldn't be due to sexism. Tom Delay hasn't had the national spotlight on him like Hillary. For those of us who know him well, the level of contempt is worse.
But the irrational level of hatred toward Hillary didn't just start with her campaign. It started when she was just the first lady, and has grown. Thinking about Delay close to being President is scary, and I'm sure that people would bring out his negatives, but I still don't think it would inspire the same level of hatred of the person. IT might inspire a zealous hatred of his positions, and close to the same amount of zeal aimed at hating his tactics, but I still don't thing it would equal out. I guess in the end there isn't a way to scientifically rank people's hatred, of candidates, and if that changes when candidates of the opposite sex do similar or worse things, so it's just my opinion, and I will acknowledge that I might be wrong. But obviously that's the way I feel about it. Granted, I don't Hillary, and I'm an Obama supporter.
I am more in-line with the Cat and FranchiseBlade on this. I like Obama better than Hillary, no question. But Hillary is still thought well of by about 50% of the population. It is clear she is commanding about 30% of all votes being cast this primary season--and a heck of lot more than John McCain (both before and after the Reps had a race). That is a lot of votes she is getting. Many of these voters are tremendously committed and invested--many of them are in groups who often feel disenfranchised (Latinos, single women, poor). So let's not pretend leaving her out (if she is not on the ticket) would not be a major blow to a substantial portion of the electorate and US unity. The same is true if Obama was off the ticket. Now Obama is going to be the nominee. Unfortunately it may be too late for Hillary to make history as the 1st women VP. Sad for her and maybe the county. Had she stuck with the tone of "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama..." at Austin and gone with that it could have happened. Getting tougher with every low blow her campaign pulls. But there is always room for Obama to be the bigger person and fold her and her supporters in. To basically say "yeah she was a tough opponent, and I had some problems with her campaign, but she brings too many attributes for some of my personal disagreements with her to get in the way to moving the party and my country forward." Again, though, I no it is getting harder to do this with every negative attack her team does.
It started when she made herself a polarizing figure in the White House. It wasn't because she's a woman. And we can disagree about this, but if Tom Delay had been a major White House figure who was now close to being president, the level of rancor against him would be greater than Hillary IMO. With Delay, it wasn't just a dislike of his positions. He inspired the worst emotions from people because of his personality, rhetoric and methods. Her first term in the Senate, Hillary didn't inspire much of anything. Now that she is close to being president and is also openly displaying her worst traits for everyone to see, you get the current atmosphere. Of course there are some people that are sexist but that isn't her main problem. Hillary's main problem is herself. I'm gonna sit back and watch the Dems make their choice. They can go backwards or forwards. If they go backwards, they don't deserve to add the presidency to their control of Congress and I will influence as many people as possible to choose McCain.
Excellent post. I agree that it is getting more difficult for Obama to have her as the VP, but not impossible, and you point out many of the reasons. I still think she should retract the McCain statement. She could and she ought to. Impeach Bush.
I would use Newt Gingrich as an example more than Tom DeLay. But I agree that for the very reasons she has a supportive hard-line dem party base (being a GOP "fighter"), many on the other side revile her. Because of this, having her on the ticket cancels out a lot of the good she brings with the anti-hillary mobilization of the GOP. I personally think she would be poison on Obama's ticket.
If I were the Obama campaign I would basically say this almost exactly, including the part about I'm going to be the nominee, and how she was a tough candidate, but let's look at the math, and it's pretty much over for her. I'd wait for after Mississippi to say it, but then he should say it just as strongly as that. Because if you put it out there as concerted message that they repeat, that they are winning, and have basically already won, people will frame the election that way in their mind even though the contest isn't over. Obama has the tact to do it in a graceful way, that it won't seem too dismissive.
I know you posted a good source for this....but I just can't imagine a significant number of people who support Sen Clinton not supporting Obama given a bit of time to cool down after the primaries.
Because Obama's support is so passionate, I think he rallys it more by playing both the front runner with momentum, and underdog cards. If he continues the...we gotta fight, and we're starting to succeed theme it keeps his constituants stoked. If he declares the contest over there's a danger his base becomes complacent.
With the majority, I agree. However, I also think the reverse would be true as well (of Obama supporters supporting Clinton in time).
I'm on the opposite side - I think everytime he starts acting like he's won it, it rubs people the wrong way. I think he should completely ignore the math and just focus on convincing voters he needs their support. The math may be true, but Clinton's committed through PA anyway. I think if he acts like he's already won, people are more inclined to not bother to show up and vote. You can't simultaneously say "I've won" and "I really really need you to come out and vote for me in PA", I don't think.
I see what you are saying about the complacency angle. I hadn't thought of that. It's just that right now with Clinton acting like she's the front runner and might have Obama on her ticket, she can make people think that while she's doing that they don't have to vote for Obama because even if Clinton wins they'll still get Obama. I was just thinking of trying to demoralize the Clinton voters into not being energized on the primary days and turning up for her. But I think the risk you brought up, it is probably better for Obama to take the tact that you mentioned. I would also highlight the way Hillary's campaign is taking things, and show the super delegates that if they want someone who really cares for the Democratic party Hillary might not be the best choice. He could hope that the super delegates will take that into consideration, or that enough of them will. Obama has been good by responding to Hillary's charge of experience, that if being Washington a long time is what qualifies someone as President and CC then she's going to lose to McCain, and that it isn't smart to play that card. He should also should respond to her latest attack questioning his commitment to ending the Iraq disaster because his adviser said that Obama would of course take the situation on the ground into consideration when making his plans. I would ask if Hillary is ready to commit to not looking at facts and the situation on the ground into consideration? Then point out that if she wants to take that position, then it's clear who would be the better CC between the two of them. That way she either has to make that commitment, or back off that attack.
While it is possible that she never should have said it in the first place, once it is out there, it should not be retracted. You only do that with things that are factually incorrect. McCain very well may be (in fact, probably is)more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Obama (military experience and tons more foreign policy experience). Clinton was probably honest when she said so. Taking it back would be an indication that she doesn't think it is true, and that she only said it for political gain. That would be both dishonest and politically stupid.
The problem with these Hillary voters is either they don't care about the character and ethics of their candidate or they terrible at recognizing them.
Not true IMO, at all. I couldn't care less about her being a woman, and I'm pretty certain about that since I feel about the same about her husband.
Makes me see that neither Dem should be near a phone. Seriously. What's he gonna say? Kim Jong Il: "We are launching nukes on South Korea if you do not answer our demands." Barack Obama: "But I am the president of change... I was in the senate... let me wow you with some deep voiced rhetoric... BarackObama, BarackObama, I approve this message.. change, change, change. Got a limo?"
I've only skimmed the first two pages of this thread and will try to read through the rest when I get a chance but IMO a lot of these comments sound like sour grapes on the part of Obama supporters. The impression I have of many is that there was a strong belief that on March 4th the Clinton campaign would be finished with a crushing defeat in TX only to suddenly find out that it actually has life and hasn't been steamrolled by Obama's momentum. It seems like now that Obama's campaign and his supporters are showing more their frustration over the tenacity of the Clinton campaign rather than getting upset that the Clinton campaign has hit new lows. While The John McCain comment was something new the Clinton campaign has stuck to the same themes that Obama isn't experienced as they have all along. Lets face it but it does take a certain toughness and ruthlessness to run for president. Also given the amount of scrutiny that one goes through along with the grind of campaigning and fundraising it also takes a strong sense of self-serving interests to run for president. I doubt there is any serious candidate that has run for president who hasn't been self-serving since they believe strongly enough that they are right person to be president to run. I have no doubt at all that Obama thinks this way as much as Hillary Clinton and John McCain does otherwise they wouldn't put up with this. That is also why I'm not surprised that Obama has decided to ramp up his own attacks against Clinton and challenge her on her record. While Obama's nebulous themes are appealing he is stull running against an actual opponent. While I'm still not supporting Obama for the nomination, yet, this might actually prove to be a good thing for him and his campaign to test their mettle and prepare them for what will be a hard fought election in the Fall if they do win the nomination. As for Batman Jone's, Franchiseblade's comments that I saw on the first two pages of this thread with all due respect to both of you I find your comments somewhat shortsighted given your espoused views on this forum. While your frustration and annoyance may drive you to either sit out the election or vote for a third party if Clinton wins the nomination that strikes me as acting against the interests that you profess to support. Consider the issues that are at stake. While yes Clinton might be politically closer in terms of national security issues to McCain than Obama there still is a large gulf between them. Consider where they stand on social issues and on things like civil rights. Now thinking about those issues would you rather have John McCain appointing judges, wielding the veto pen, and issuing executive directives or would you rather have Hillary Clinton? Given the nature of US politics there will almost never be a presidential candidate that fits any one voters ideal or even most of them and its a fact that people lose elections. I have no illusions regarding Hillary Clinton but they guy I was backing, Bill Richardson, didn't have what it takes to wage a successful campaign. Rather than deciding to sit out since none of the remaining candidates matched what I was looking for as closely as Richardson I took a look at the issues and decided which one I might agree with more or feel more comfortable with supporting even if there are many things I don't like about them. Politics is the art of compromise especially at the national level and if you don't except that then be prepared to remain frustrated that almost noe of the issues you support ever get acted on.
