home

Is It Sexist To Point Out . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

. . . the following?

Clinton loses among men by five points or more in 43 states. Clinton does better with women than men in every state, with the biggest gender gap of 31 points in Colorado.

And if it is not, why would it then be racist to point out that Obama does much better with African Americans and Clinton does much better with whites, as Chris Bowers does, and as I did this morning?

< The Candidates On NASA | Wolcott . . . Heh >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    Peoples' pc radars work overtime.  

    But what about when Obama joked about needing to see Bill Clinton dance to know if he was truly the first black prez?  I thought it was a good line and personally wasn't offended but imagine if a white person had said the same thing.  Very little consistency in these things.

    I am very PC (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    This is not about being PC imo. I am not discussing being careful with your language. I am discussing the hard electoral data.

    Ignoring will not make it go away.

    Indeed, it is sort of anti-PC to pretend sexism and racism do not exist imo.

    Parent

    And you know where we're seeing that. . . (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    umm (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:08:39 PM EST
    Not sure what your comments are referring to.  I didn't say anything about pretending racism/sexism don't exist nor did I suggest ignoring them.

    To your original point, I believe that part of the problem is people trying too hard to be pc and that there is gross inconsistency in this.  I accept that someone might take sincere offense at some reading of data and that others might put it forth seeking that effect, but those aren't most people.  

    Parent

    It's a struggle for me (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:33:29 PM EST
    I know people who think it is wrong for women to prefer Clinton any iota-smidgen because she is a woman.  And yet, regarding the black identity voters--one cannot Go There.  It can't be discussed with these guys.

    It seems like a double standard in the blogosphere, and the bloggers I know toss it off by saying their own feminist creds are untarnished because their attitude is "they want a woman president, just not THIS woman".  Everything is fine!

    I don't think I support Clinton because I am a woman and she is too.*  But I don't have a huge problem, either, with identity voters.  My BFF is black, and her extended family is very excited about Obama--I think they are all kind of dazed, thinking "who would have thought this would happen?"  They are jazzed, and I think they are really enormously proud.  When I think about how they feel and some of the stories she tells me of what her family has been through--just little things, like her elders not being able to try on clothes at stores before buying them--I get to feeling squishy, and I can totally understand how big this is for them.

    *But I know I will be blown away if she does win--utterly blown away.  I was caught off guard when Pelosi was sworn in.  I didn't expect it but I stared at the teevee when she was and just started bawling like a baby.  

    Hope I'm not off topic.

    Parent

    I am disgusted by the (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    "Just not this woman" argument.

    Okay--who?  What other woman in the entire United States of America, in our entire history, could get this far and still be standing?  What woman would you support?  Please name the lady so we can all rally behind her and make this happen!

    And the thing is that all this codified Hillary-hate goes to the core of her being a woman.  The good ol' boys were outraged that she dared to take on a policy role in the White House.  Remember the cookie bake-off challenge?  She didn't know her place, and that place was a woman's place.

    Parent

    Or maybe Obama could be replaced with (none / 0) (#132)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:55:40 PM EST
    some other man.

    Parent
    Okay--who? (none / 0) (#135)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    Well, I'm glad you asked that.  The "liberal guys" I know that have been saying that give me the impression that THE woman that will "earn" their support for the WH will have an utterly blameless past (political, familial, and personal), will have not "scummy" people around her (like Penn or whatever), and so on.

    And it's pretty darn clear to me that she'll get a great deal more enthusiastic support if she has lovely ankles, thighs, buttocks, breasts, face, hair, taste in clothes, laugh, etc.  

    Makes me madder than I can say on a moderated forum, but it's true.

    To be fair (grump), I have to admit that Obama would be nowhere if he had a squeaky falsetto voice, would he?

    Parent

    One person suggested Dianne Feinstein (none / 0) (#136)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    No, I'm not kidding. I was reading a thread on Salon and a commenter said that Dianne Feinstein was a presidential hopeful. She is 74, which might make future runs a bit difficult. Other than that, the only really recognizable female politician is Nancy Pelosi, who does not seem to aspire to higher office and probably wouldn't stand a chance if she did. There are a few governor's who might make the list, but none have attracted much attention nationally. I suspect that if Clinton loses it will be at leat 20 years before we see another serious female presidential contender. And even when we do, she probably won't win - our society simply doesn't see the kind of leadership characteristics we want in a female candidate. That won't change for generations.

    Parent
    As a man who supports Hillary, if she doesn't (none / 0) (#155)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:22:10 PM EST
    win this time, I believe the first woman President will almost certainly be a Republican.  Seems to me the Democratic establishment has shown itself rather clearly on the issue.

    A possibility is Kay Bailey Hutchison.  She's not running again for the Senate and, if she doesn't get pulled in as McCain's VP, she'll most likely run for Governor of Texas and win.  That would be an excellent launching pad for a Presidential run.


    Parent

    Oh, that would be a twist (none / 0) (#160)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:41:19 PM EST
    The Republican Party running a woman as VP would  go a long way toward neutralizing the Democrats "we are revolutionary" argument. It would also attract moderate women who are currently voting for Clinton but would not be as enthusiastic about Obama.

    Parent
    Republicans have almost always (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:40:32 AM EST
    been ahead in women in politics.  In part, it was more the home of reformist women as well as men a century ago, so a lot of suffragists were aligned with it.  So many of them were the first in office -- such as the first woman in Congress in 1916, as many of the more Republican states in the west also were the first with woman suffrage, some of them decades before 1920.

    But in part, Repubs put in place a structural advantage for women with their own organization as of 1920 -- women ran it.  By comparison, Dems kept women in an auxiliary, an age-old way of men retaining more control in organizations.

    And then Repubs were the first to support the ERA, etc., and the first to put a woman's name in nomination for president on a major-party ballot, etc.  Not that either party were great supporters of women and women's rights, but one was better than the other.

    Long way around to saying that I agree with you, if perhaps for different reasons.  I always expected that a Republican would be the first woman to get this far -- the first ever to win a primary, then the first to win many, then the first to still be in contention -- but it's Clinton.  

    We have yet to see, of course, and after all the awful sexist crap from Dems and among the party, whether it still will be a Republican woman who gets farther than this.  

    Parent

    BTD, beg to differ on language (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:34:37 PM EST
    but not yours.  However, some of us may not use language as wisely in comments.  Some of us may not intend to offend but will be misconstrued.  And then, may I say, you may find it frustrating to see a thread go off your focus.  Or it may just be so much work to delete so as to refocus discussion.

    So maybe it is helpful, in this "pre-hash," for some of us to find out more -- as many of us have here in other threads -- about how to discuss these topics?  That they are to be "discussable" seems agreed.

    Or feel free to delete this if discussing how to discuss is off topic, too. :-)

    Parent

    You would do us all a favor (none / 0) (#144)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:30:29 PM EST
    if at the same time you can discuss the fallacy and illegitimate dismissal of the stereotyped "angry white man."

    As can be seen in this election cycle there many if not most Caucasians seem perfectly eager to support either Clinton or Obama.

    You say you're PC.  Too often, any disagreement my a "white man" with identity politics be it feminism or (what's the equivalent?) is dismissed in the left as "the angry white man".  It's an ad hominem attack, it's unfair, and it's very PC.

    Parent

    It could be sexist and racist (none / 0) (#166)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:38:10 AM EST
    though it needn't be either.

    Simply breaking down the data to analyze the demographics of the campaign as dreaminonempty does isn't sexist or racist. There is no argument being made in that diary. It's observational, drawing out the existing patterns in the data.

    But when one goes beyond that and starts using the demographics as a line of attack - raising gender as an issue to harm Clinton, raising race as an issue to harm Obama - then it does become sexist/racist. And it is inherently more unfair to racialize the situation that way than to genderize it, because of the comparative numbers and in the context of the themes of this campaign.

    Raising gender as an issue energizes women (51% of pop.) and may make them more inclined to support Clinton. It has the downside of antagonizing people who oppose feminism, women's rights, women in positions of leadership, etc. - people who probably wouldn't be inclined to vote for a woman or even a Democrat anyway. So raising it as an issue would tend to only be helpful for her.

    Raising race energizes A-A's (12% of pop.) and may make them more inclined to support Obama. It has the downside of working against the message of post-racial unity to enact change that is at the heart of his campaign. As such, the more it's raised the more it tends to undermine his support outside that demographic, which would obviously be fatal to his candidacy, not to mention a lost chance to move some of the country's deep racial issues into an entirely new phase.

    So when you ask "Is it racist to point out that Obama does much better with African Americans and Clinton does much better with whites" I'd say no. Facts are facts and it's better to see things as they are. Whether that particular bit of data has any relevance is another thing, considering that only one of them will be the candidate in the GE and they will not be cutting down each other's support that way on racial/gender lines in November.

    I agree it's not helpful to pretend sexism and racism aren't factors or that PC requires they not be discussed. But that doesn't mean that any old way of raising the topic won't be racist or sexist. How it's done and to what end makes the difference.

    To explore race as an issue in the campaign, to raise awareness, to share experience, to build understanding - that's not racist. But to use race as a weapon to fatally damage the viability of one of the candidates - well, that pretty clearly would be, at least in my view.

    Parent

    I bring this up now (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    because these issues will be discussed, BY ME, A LOT, in the coming weeks.

    it's absurd to believe (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST
    that racism and sexism aren't important factors in this campaign. and it's absurd to believe that they don't both cut both ways.

    Is it sexist or racist to discuss it? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    Of course not. But I wanted to clear the air right now because BOTH of these issues will be discussed at length by me at this blog in the coming weeks.

    I will not be cowed by Obama supporters on discussing the racial demographics of this race nor will I be cowed by Clinton supporters about discussing her problem with attracting male voters.

    We can discuss the why of both of these things as well, and will.

    But I want every one to know I will be discussing these topics.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:05:47 PM EST
    because we all worry about you being easily cowed...

    Parent
    [Query: why this preview?] (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:13:54 PM EST
    query (none / 0) (#28)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    huh?

    Parent
    Just encouraging your to speculate (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:18:17 PM EST
    along with me.  Given BTD isn't easily or ever, actually, cowed, will our opinion make any difference as to his post in the future?

    Parent
    hope not (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    within jeralyn's guidelines, let btd be btd!

    Parent
    Speaking for himself only (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:13:26 PM EST
    -- of course. :-)

    Parent
    I will tell you now (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    Because when I do discuss it, I will not be spending time discussing why it is not sexist or racist to discuss it in those posts.

    Comments to that effect will be deemed off topic.

    This is the time to get it all out.

    Parent

    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:50:18 PM EST
    So anyone who has not read your justification and makes some normal comments based on that lack of information will be deleted?

    As you say, "heh."

    Parent

    It is not sexist or racist (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    to discuss sexism and racism as conditions that exist. For the same reason that discussing a crime that happened does not make one a criminal.

    Parent
    However (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:11:38 PM EST
    some people might enjoy the discussion because it might force them to examine their own way of thinking.

    Parent
    It's Obama rules. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    His supporters called everyone who was even trying to discuss the effect of out-of-state students voting in Iowa, racist.  Because, they were disenfranchising the voters.  This is well-documented in a certain blog that shall remain nameless.  

    Now the same crowd are trying like crazy to exclude MI and FL from the convention.  They don't want to count January votes, and they don't want to have a re-do.  Go figure!

    Now, the elephant in the room is that he wins southern states on the strength of 80-90% AA votes, but heavon forbid if you mention it.  

    Have you seen the latest issue of Newsweek? Anna Quindlen has a great article about double standards.  There are also other articles, on how anyone tip-toes around race, but sexist language against Hillary is par for the course.  

    I could go on.


    Parent

    In my experience the people (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    who do not want to talk about these kinds of things have an agenda.

    It is like the "class warfare" mantra that the GOP throws around to discourage anyone from talking about economic and societal inequities born out of their war on the lower classes.  They don't want people to go there because if they did it would be like the philosopher kind turning around and seeing the true nature of what is casting the shadows on the wall of the cave.

    Parent

    I think they need to be discussed. They are a (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:15:45 PM EST
    part of the narrative of this campaign whether or not some people want to admit it. I just want the discussions to be civil and factual.  

    Parent
    BTD, I agree with (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by dk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    you, though I feel I feel like it often degenerates into argument of why one or the other CAN'T win (i.e. Hillary can't win because men don't like her, or Obama can't win because whites and latinos don't like him).

    Frankly, even if someone could make an airtight argument one way or the other (which I don't see as possible), it wouldn't matter.  Why?  Because african americans and women know they are the underdogs, and aren't going to be convinced to drop out simply because someone points out they are underdogs.

    I'm definitely not saying that is what you intend to do, I'm just pointing out what often happens when the citing of these statistics turns into an analysis of them.

    Parent

    Awesome. I look forward to it. n/t (none / 0) (#19)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    good for you (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:07:19 PM EST
    nor will I be cowed by Clinton supporters about discussing her problem with attracting male voters.

    Will you be talking about how there are more woman voters than there are aa's?  And what about the Latino voters (and why, oh why, does no one worry about being racist when we talk about Latinos?  I just don't understand it.)

    Parent

    looking forward to see your reports (none / 0) (#134)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    mainly because I am at a loss to understand why many men has such a deep seated hate for Hillary.

    Is it because she is a strong woman?
    Is it because she is a Clinton?
    Is it because they have listened too much to Rush Limbaugh?
    Is it because the GOP did a bang-up job at smearing her for years?

    My guess is the first and the last -- but looking forward to your considered opinion.

    Parent

    Here's the answer (none / 0) (#156)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:22:19 PM EST
    to your question: link

    Parent
    It's a very delicate issue (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:00:06 PM EST
    I don't think that discussing the hard numbers is racist--if you actually have numbers and not just vague assertions.

    Stick to the data, and you should be safe from all but the hyperpartisans whose interest it's in to call you racist/sexist, etc.

    And yes, I think it's essential that we hash these issues out, because it's pretty clear to me that the superdelegates will.  

    This is where it is valuable to (none / 0) (#133)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:00:24 PM EST
    have friends from all backgrounds

    You are able to have discussions - where race or gender is not the main topic of discussion because we are way beyond that - but can discuss policy questions first - and then later explore if the views are grounded in race or gender --

    will the super delegates be able to do that -- I'm not really so sure.

    Parent

    pc can be overdone. i think (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    you handle these discussions with care, so i don't see any problems with that.

    Colorado...so do the men dislike her that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    much or do the women like her that much? That's just weird.

    I don't think either of your examples are sexist or racist. They're just facts. It's hard to discuss the racial one without being accused of bad motives though. I think CNN tried one night and it angered a lot of people.

    I remember CNN making a bunch of (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    black women in SC mad b/c they showed up with a microphone and essentially asked, "So, will you vote your race or your sex?" Completely discounting the idea that any of them would actually look at the issues. Is that what you mean?

    Parent
    I saw that and it made me mad too. I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:17:21 PM EST
    sure if it was from the hour long show they had on this issue. It may have been. Black women are truly between a rock and a hard place when they are asked to discuss this.

    Parent
    Yeah, the hour long show was kinda (none / 0) (#41)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    controversial, too, but they did a little better job with it.

    There is an element of society that does feel that for the media to bring up such things only reinforces them. I can see the point. Like covering the Obama-Muslim thing so much. Every time they mention it, it only puts the seed back in people's minds. Journalists are on the bottom of the public trust scale, right above or below lawyers, so when they try to say one thing, a lot of people intentionally transpose it to the other.

    As wonderful as having these two people representing the Democratic party is, Bill Clinton is right when he points out that God played a cruel joke by giving us both of them at once.

    Parent

    Or maybe God, she (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:12:24 PM EST
    found it necessary to remind us that apparently we all came from Africa, too?

    Parent
    Could be! ;o) (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    Think we could convince white people in MS of that? hehe.

    Parent
    I tried to find the link (none / 0) (#81)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    but so far not able.

    But there was an article with black women discussing race or gender -- and in that article the black women were leaning gender - for as they said - black men got to vote way before women - white or black - so in this case sisterhood was stronger than skin-color.

    I can see some sense in that -- though looking at votes in many states - I do not know if that is so, as blacks seems to be voting in extremely hight numbers for Obama.

    Parent

    Well, that is bad (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    Did CNN ask a bunch of white men in Texas whether they were planning to vote against their race or against their sex? I highly doubt it.

    Parent
    Wow. Has anyone seen CNN (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    get a bunch of white guys in a room and ask them if they're all voting for McCain because he's the only all-white guy?  Or if some are voting for Obama because he also doesn't have ovaries? while others are voting for Clinton because her heritage is from Canada instead of Kenya and Kansas?  

    That CNN interview you saw would be classic for classroom discussions -- in many classes, but including in journalism!  If anyone ever sees it on the 'Net, do tell.

    Parent

    I found a link to the online story. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:57:35 PM EST
    It has a link to the TV segment.

    And this segment--and this one, too--do address the role of white men: do we vote our race or our sex? Turns out the one we choose is often the deciding factor for Obama, at least according to the ABC post.

    Parent

    Excellent; thanks -- (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    these links will be forwarded around, including to a few friends who teach journalism.

    We'll get 'em when they're young, before they get even more socialized by their newsrooms-to-be.

    Parent

    Do you teach journalism at (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    UW-Milwaukee?

    Teach those young'ns to be more sensitive to how they pose questions, and to look beyond race/gender in electoral politics.

    Best of luck with it. Glad I could contribute.

    Parent

    I don't, but friends teach it (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:03:49 PM EST
    at Marquette -- one of the oldest j-schools in the country.  Turns out students so good they get to the top of the field, where we can hope they will look beyond race, gender, and more when they ought to do so . . . but also will be capable of handling those issues better than did CNN when those issues ought to be confronted.  

    Btw, I did work in journalism eons ago.  Sure got out at a good time to do so.  I would not be able to deal with what some in the field have done to it today.

    Parent

    The first quote in this story (none / 0) (#72)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    is from a guy who says "someone's missing" from the remaining Democrats. Hmm?? John Edwards?? And is that b/c he's a white man, or b/c he is the true populist/union candidate?

    Parent
    Oh, and I read that as BTD saying (none / 0) (#43)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:26:56 PM EST
    she beat him by 31 points among women in CO. So the question is do they like her that much, are they racist, or do they just want a woman?


    Parent
    See, we can take the same set of facts and (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:38:17 PM EST
    come to a totally different conclusion. I saw it from men not liking her and you saw it as women voting for a woman. This really is difficult.

    As for me personally, if Obama would fight for Democrats and take the Edwards/Clinton health care plan, I could have just as easily decided to support him. (Though I do believe she is more ready than he is.)

    Parent

    I think both are true, in that (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    women will support a woman and men will support a man. And some men would never support a woman. That is where the issue becomes one-sided. Women have never had a choice. They either voted for a man or not at all. No denying that fact.

    The thing that makes the sexist topic difficult this year is that Sen. Clinton has been a public--and polarizing--figure for a long, long time. It's really hard to separate her sex from her personality or policy positions b/c of that fact. For instance, Liddy Dole and Carol Moseley-Braun never came close to being competitive. That may have been due to sex, or race in Moseley-Braun's case. With Sen. Clinton, she is running neck and neck. That makes it harder to claim sexism. Same with Obama and race. He's won places with scant diversity, so it's hard to say his race is a problem.

    But yes, the thing with stats is that they can be spun any number of ways; it's all in the perspective of the spinner.

    Had Obama not burst on the scene, I would have voted for her. I was never a fan of Edwards. I actually thought he was the lest authentic among the top 3. And I am a white guy!! ;o)

    Parent

    I really like that Bill Clinton quote you had. (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    Yes, it's a cruel joke that God gave us both at the same time. What is so frustrating is that I don't see another AA at this time, or woman at this time who can really win a nomination. I know you don't agree but that's why I'd love to see Clinton/Obama and then Obama/? for 16 years.

    Like I told you last night, though, I'll vote for either. I'm not even mad at Obama, I'm just really angry at the media and I'm trying not to let it affect how I feel about him. I don't think voters are sexist, I think the media is.

    Parent

    I know what you mean. (none / 0) (#77)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST
    I was trying to come up with another example of a woman I would support, but was unable to do so. I don't know anything about Napolitano or Sebelius or Granholm.

    I also don't know of another AA I would vote for. Maybe Colin Powell if he switched parties (did he actually choose a party?)

    If Obama manages to blow this thing and has to be VP, I could deal with it. I'm just not confident that he would be the same candidate in 8 years or that Democrats could control the WH for that long. Americans seem to like rotating residents of that address.

    My ideal--and I think you mentioned support of this if she loses--is that Clinton would become Obama's main legislative liaison, working with the WH to push through their major agenda initiatives, like ending the war, healthcare, and education. If he loses, though, I'd want him to go run for governor (his original plan) and show his executive skills in IL.

    Parent

    Yes, I very much would want her to be his (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    legislative liaison. She'd be much more effective doing that than as VP. Unless he made that her priority as VP. If Obama loses (and I still believe he will win) I think he should run for Gov., too. There are too many votes to be held against you in the Senate.

    I'm not sure any of the women you mentioned have the fire in them to fight for a nomination or to inspire others to help them do it. Unlike men governors, they would probably benefit from being in the Senate first to get more national attention. But then, I honestly don't know even about them to judge them either.

    Parent

    I'm not sure that God did give us both ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    ...at the same time. Obama is a relative newbie to politics. When JFK ran for President he was just slightly older than Obama is right now, but he had been involved in politics at the federal level for 14 years. I think that when the Democratic Party tapped Obama to speak at the convention, they were envisioning him running for President after he had more experience. He just doesn't want to wait.

    Parent
    The only reason she is "polarizing" is (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:15:03 PM EST
    because of fifteen years of relentless, insane attacks by the right wing media machine.  And even with all that, coupled with the same kind of vicious attacks by our "progressive" blog friends, she is still in the running.  

    It's almost as if people who make these comments about her being polarizing do NOT notice that she is winning states like New York, California, Florida and Ohio by significant margins. I guess nobody gave all those voters the memo about how polarizing she is.

    Parent

    I notice what she wins. (none / 0) (#86)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST
    Regardless of why she is polarizing, she is. That is all I said. I did not accuse her of anything in my comment, but I understand you're just generally angry.

    And being polar mean that a lot of people love her to no end, thus she has significant support, as your presence on that end of the pole demonstrates.

    Parent

    I think that Clinton as polarizing (none / 0) (#112)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:10:08 PM EST
    is a media-made fairy tale (yeah, you heard me).

    If she were so polarizing, this race would have ended a couple of Tuesdays ago.

    Parent

    So in your daily life, you only know people (none / 0) (#125)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:33:15 PM EST
    who either know her and like her, or don't care either way?

    I know she's polarizing just from talking to people. Some people think she's inspiring, wonderful, intelligent, etc.; all the things people say about Obama (the good). I also know people who say she's crooked, dishonest, power-hungry, evil, two-faced, etc.; again, all the things people say about Obama (the bad)!! ;o)

    Political figures are inherently polarizing. Hence, two parties. We Americans like our poles, but there are a big swath of people mulling about in the middle. That's the nature of a spectrum/bell/whatever.

    If she were truly hated, she'd have been out after SC, and it would have been Edwards facing Obama. So, in that sense, you are right.


    Parent

    Well, if all political figures are polarizing, (none / 0) (#131)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    then they cancel each other out. However, if I said Obama is polarizing, you would probably be upset about that.   Calling people polarizing is offensive and this is a right wing meme that has been applied to Hillary since 1992, before she even had a chance to do anything to offend anyone.

    I know you think this is just about Hillary, but I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal about a month ago and they were starting in on Michelle Obama. The whole article was about how she ruled Obama and his staff knew better than to cross her. Then it showed a picture of her looking very unattractive, looming above him with her head on his shoulder. Just watch, she's a strong woman and pretty soon she's going to be known as the "polarizing" Michelle Obama.

    This is what the press does. Just don't surprised when it happens to your candidate.   Also, please try to analyze where these words come from and who benefits from making them part of the public dialogue. If you hear it over and over from the press, someone is planting that word for a purpose.   It's bad enough when this kind of thing comes from the other side, but even worse when Democrats pick up Republican insults and use them against each other.

    Parent

    Oh, they raked over her senior thesis. (none / 0) (#169)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:06:36 PM EST
    They made her sound like a spoiled rich angry woman with the whole proud story, even though the context had to be undeniable to those in the room. Does the media play to the lowest common denominator? Heck yeah. They do it to Clinton. They do it to Bill. They'll do it to Obama. They will do it to Michelle. First Ladies are far from off-limits.

    I just think it's a function of the media, not sexism. All four of those people hold a lot of power. Two of them say they should be the leader of the free world. The other two are their biggest cheerleaders. One of those two did lead the free world. Escaping scrutiny is not going to happen. I just wish the Obamas were a little more open, since I do think the Clintons helped the media's cause by being standoffish and appearing secretive.

    I lament it for your candidate; I really do. I just don't attribute it to her sex.

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#139)
    by corn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    She's only polarizing because so many are conditioned to believe it.  It's become a truism with no substantive support.  I've challenged countless people on this point and their responses are always about her voice, her laugh, etc.  She'll deal with it forever, but she'll still be one of the best presidents in history.  I can't think of a candidate that could have endured the wrath of the media, almost two decades of negative republican pr, a phenomenon competitor, and still be in contention.  She's awesome.

    Parent
    Then the same (none / 0) (#158)
    by tree on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:28:41 PM EST
    thing could be said about Obama

    Parent
    First that was Bowers post (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    and the data point is Clinton does 31 points better with women than men in Colorado.

    Parent
    Ok then. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST
    I was wrong. Teresa was right. I should have known. She's smarter than me. She still lives in Knoxville.

    ;o)

    Parent

    Or could it just be that they think (none / 0) (#159)
    by JON15 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:40:09 PM EST
    she is the better qualified candidate.

    Parent
    In Colorado, women are from Venus and (none / 0) (#80)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    Men are from Pluto.

    Parent
    i have a conservative friend who (none / 0) (#161)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:45:50 PM EST
    over the years has made some comments about hillary i don't think of as complimentary. he did it a few times and learned it wasn't a good thing to continue doing i might add. but my point is now he talks about her with a lot more admiration. hillary suffered from the right wing hate machine like no other woman i have seen in recent history, and she is still standing. so we need discussion about these issues.

    Parent
    Is it partisan to point out that (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    Democrats tend to do better with Democratic voters?

    Neither sexist nor racists as its (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    factual.  But still startling.  Meanwhile, Rove is touting Cindy McCain's bringing a sick Bangladeshi child home and Ward McConnell is pushing the "no affirmative action" ballot initiative in swing states.  

    Does the fact that the McCains (none / 0) (#62)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST
    adopted a Bangladeshi child mean that the Republicans in general, and McCain in particular, do not espouse policies that are contrary to the interests of many African-Americans and other minorities?  Does the fact that they adopted this little girl mean that persons of color should vote for him?

    Parent
    I assume Rove would like Republican (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:53:00 PM EST
    voters to forget the W campaign's smears and embrace the concept that there is absolutely no need to vote for Obama, should he be the nominee, as the McCains are the embodiment of racial diversity and compassion to the less fortunate.

    Parent
    Ummm, duh. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by znosaro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    Because, "Clearly, this represents white prejudice against Obama because he is an African-American and not the racial solidarity that regularly wins him 90 percent of the African-American vote."
    Roll Call Magazine

    Clearly... how do you not get that?  Clearly...

    And, the clearly analogous... (none / 0) (#16)
    by znosaro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:08:27 PM EST
    ... This represents female chauvinism against Obama because he is male and not the gender solidarity that regularly wins him the male vote.

    Parent
    It is not sexist to point it out (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM EST
    However it does indicate sexism in the voters. And racism.

    We are so eager to kill the messenger, probably because the beneficiaries do not want the message to be heard.

    Markos excoriated a pollster, and by extension the Clinton campaign, as racist because of his analysis. The pollster pointed out that Hispanics would not  favor of Obama in primaries. This was before Super Tuesday. Well we have seen exactly that result over and over since then.

    Bigotry is alive and well in America. Denying doesn't make it go away.

    Markos owes that pollster a front page apology on DKos but I doubt if we will ever see it.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:12:35 PM EST
    or maybe it's the case that people don't see much difference in the candidates so they vote for the one they most identify with. Maybe this is how people always vote.

    Parent
    It does not indicate sexism or racism (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    in voters.  Now, really.  For example, I do not believe that, just because only about 40% of one candidate's voters share one of his racial heritages, that hardly means that they are racists.  I know a lot of them, and I don't know a one of them that is a racist.  Indeed, far from it.  

    Now, that some of them think that I support the other candidate because she and I share a few anatomical features -- and say that I am a sexist -- well, that may not even mean that they're sexists.  Maybe, but that is not sufficient evidence.  It is a sexist thing to say, but it might have been from ignorance of my intent rather than malice.  (I catch 'em making assumptions about me twice, though, I let 'em have it.)

    And on it goes.  Basically, I think this is exactly what we have to be careful about as BTD attempts to take the discussion in these directions -- these blanket statements and sweeping generalizations without evidence.

    And if and when I slip, too, I expect to be called on it.  And called on it politely by other posters, if they get to it first, or this is going to be too massive a task for BTD and/or Jeralyn.

    And then we may not have the discussion -- of the demographic data and perhaps other info that may help us understand not only this election but also each other in this country.  And that would be a shame.  

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#25)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    I respect BTD and Jeralyn a lot, and it's their blog.

    Otherwise, I would have loved to say what I think of a certain blogger. I'd say this much.  He has no integrity, not anymore.


    Parent

    These things must be discussed (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:10:02 PM EST
    I do not view these observations as sexist or racist. I'd like to hear more about the obstacles each faces -- whether and how Clinton can improve her standing among men and African Americans, and whether and how Obama could do the same among women and whites.

    Substitute (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    Clarence Thomas for Obama and let's say Ayn Coolter for HRC

    So much for Democrats voting race or gender. Although a historic moment for both BHO and HRC, but their gender and racial identity are but a small part of the package.

    If those were the choices (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:24:09 PM EST
    I'd definitely be staying home! But here, there's not nearly as much contrast between the candidates. Identity could be more important than in past races.

    Plus, given the dominance of white men among political candidates (which I simply note as a fact, no judgment intended), it's not as if anyone gets much chance to practice sex or race based identity politics. In any case this will be an interesting discussion to have over the next few weeks.

    Parent

    I'm sure glad (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    I don't have to pick between those two!

    Parent
    The question is not whether mentioning such (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:19:29 PM EST
    facts is sexist or racist.

    The question is what role sexism and racism play in those facts being true. Do women support Hillary merely b/c she is a woman? Do some of them actually prefer Obama's policies, yet vote against their interests in the name of electing a woman? Do men really like Obama more, or do they simply not want a woman CiC?

    The same questions should be raised as they relate to race. How much of that 90% is just pure racial vs. policy based vs. anti-Clinton? They are all valid, and I look forward to going over the evidence you produce.

    As we have the discussion, I would encourage everyone to remember that perception is indeed reality on these things. If the black community gets mad about a statement, they may be wrong, but their perception is their reality. Same for women. Obama angered a lot of black people for not speaking out more on the Jena 6, and made some more mad when he skipped the Black State of the Union. Now, did he deserve that? I say no. But those who were offended were genuinely offended, so I can't just dismiss their feelings.

    My view (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    is that Obama has the feminine posture - rather non-confrontational

    and Hillary has the very male posture - confrontational.

    If that was opposite - I would have a lot less problems with Obama - but problems then with Hillary.

    After 8 years of Bush and Democratic weakness - I would not prefer a "meek" president - but someone in the LBJ model. Kick butt and taking names.

    Parent

    I find Obama's metrosexual aura (none / 0) (#84)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:14:42 PM EST
    attractive, but I was totally upset that he did not fight back more in OH or TX. That was his chance to land a knockout blow, and he passed. Had he done so, he would have had 6 months to make up with the party and the Clintons. Now this thing's gonna most likely go the distance.

    He needs to go for the kill in PA. If he has any chance to knock her out, he should do it. He'd still have months before the convention, and in the fall it would be forgotten by enough Democrats to not matter.

    So you're right. They both want to be president. No time for either to be passive.

    Parent

    He does project a metrosexual aura, (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:30:49 PM EST
    but then we have McClurkin on stage, "present" votes on abortion bills in IL, and recognition of the moral values of thoese opposed to equal rights for the gay and lesbian community and right to lifers.  But maybe he drinks appletinis.  

    Parent
    Those present votes are pure red herring. (none / 0) (#107)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:59:52 PM EST
    I won't go into it, but he's solid on choice. Take it or leave it.

    All the other stuff you mention is how you get people to listen to you. Railing against them as bigots, demagogues, and loons only amps them up and causes raw emotion. That is not Obama's way. Because he is a Christian, he does understand how their religion blinds them to the secular world they live in. He doesn't capitulate. He stood in Dr. King's pulpit and called out the black community for turning their backs on "our gay brothers and sisters." That is a powerful message, one delivered in a tone and context they can understand. It's effective rhetoric, not a demonstration of Obama's secret capitulation or quiet support for their positions.

    That's just how I see it. Recognizing that Christianity rebukes homosexuality is important in understanding how to turn that position on its head. Admitting that viewing a fetus as a baby is valid is also smart. Do you have kids? I'm pro-choice, but the day I found out my wife was pregnant, we were having a baby; she wasn't just carrying a zygote or fetus, though I understood those terms.

    The issues you bring up are deeply entrenched, emotional, and religious in nature. Disrespecting those things in your opposition is no way to bring them around to your view.

    I do agree that there are times when you simply have to beat them up, but it doesn't have to be every time you address the topic.

    Do you hear Sen. Clinton using terms like wingnuts? After all, President Clinton did sign the DOMA.

    Nobody can be 100% pure and be elected president.

    Parent

    I am female and I have adult children. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:06:19 PM EST
    Your reply is persuasive but Obama is not as persuasive to me. BTW, not all Christian demoninations presently hold that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, etc.  

    Parent
    Well, thank you for that. (none / 0) (#115)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    I know how heated all this can get sometimes, and the written word often seems more harsh. I'm glad you weren't offended. I really believe what I said, but I also understand how Obama's words can sound to someone deeply committed to the causes you mentioned.

    I am a very, very liberal Christian (in my faith, not necessarily my politics). I attend a PC-USA church for 10 years, but when they made their General Assembly essentially all about taking a hard-line stance against gays, I was really turned off. I know the Episcopal Church has lost a lot of congregations to the Anglican Union over their progressive views on homosexuality. The UU Church is also very progressive. Any others you know of? Do you know the official stance of the UCC, Obama's Church, or the UMC, Sen. Clinton's?

    I'm truly touched you called me more persuasive than Sen. Obama. That is very cool.

    Thanks!

    Parent

    Lutheran Church (not Missouri or Wisconsin (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    Synods) does not condemn homosexuality, although there is a big controversy over ordaining gay or lesbian ministers who aren't "latent."  Two large Presbyterian congregations in my large city terminated very fine church music directors with the statement they were seeking "family men."  Not sure what the official policy of the United Meth. Church is.  I would expect UCC to be pretty liberal, but Obama's particular congregation may not be, given the minister's support for Farrakhan.  No info on Methodists, although one of the terminated gay church musicians is presently employed in a very large Methodist church here.  

    Parent
    Thanks for that. n/t (none / 0) (#126)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    halstoon (none / 0) (#142)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:23:03 PM EST
    a special thank you to you for our back and forth conversation - so very special

    I am new to TalkLeft so this conversation today has been so special - thank you so much for your openness - I truly have enjoyed this - thank you so much.

    Parent

    You're very welcome. (none / 0) (#167)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:38 PM EST
    I'm glad you enjoyed our back and forth. I did as well.

    Parent
    Addendum: my kids are both female. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:54:59 PM EST
    I have 2 boys (none / 0) (#168)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    and I'm not shy about thanking God for that. The idea of raising a little girl scares me. Bless you for the job you're doing...

    Parent
    I think it is a problem that many has with Obama (none / 0) (#102)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    and now combined with the fact that Obama did not close the deal - did not "put Hillary away" in TX and OH - and that Hillary won 3 out of 4.

    So it will be interesting to see what Obama will do -- but his problem is that he has been "preaching" to be the good, the nice nominee -- so if he goes totally negative that is going to be a problem for many of his supporters - because they like his meek posture.

    My guess is that as time goes by many - men especially - will find that to be a problem for them.

    Parent

    Yes, we men will. (none / 0) (#103)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    We understand that change and hope and progress all come after we beat the clintons. Now is not the time to play nice. Do that from 1600 PA Ave. Not now.

    Some supporters may get turned off, but he'll deliver a couple of quality speeches, pet a couple of hands, and all will be good.

    Parent

    Your of course could solve the problem (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    with toughness - and vote for Hillary :)

    Just saying -- :)


    Parent

    Thanks for the advice. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:01:57 PM EST
    I'll tell you what: if Obama doesn't get his s#$t together and ends up losing this thing, I'll be right there with you in the fall.

    Deal?

    And if you're in Seattle--I'm in GA--we've both already cast our vote for now...

    Parent

    Yes - I am a delegate for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    in my district for the country convention in WA State - and I am not planning to change my mind at this late date.

    So for all sense and purposes I have voted my choice

    Parent

    I would love it, of course, if you did (none / 0) (#122)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:24:29 PM EST
    change your mind, but the idea that you elected delegates are open to persuasion bothers me. I mean, you were chosen by those supporting Sen. Clinton. If you changed your mind with her still in the race, that would be a miscarriage of justice imo.

    Stay strong. But jump upon the Change bus when the time comes, k?

    Parent

    The number of Delegates are (none / 0) (#140)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:19:43 PM EST
    reduced from the Country convention to the State Convention to the National Convention.

    So not all delegates of course has a chance to go -- so as the numbers get reduced - there goes some of the support I'm sure - percentage wise it likely will stay the same though for the State.

    Though I doubt I would be able to make it past the County convention -- though - who knows.

    Parent

    Oh. (none / 0) (#170)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    So, at some point, you could switch in order to go to Denver?

    Parent
    I read a HuffPo a while back (none / 0) (#116)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    (way back, when I read it) wherein someone noted that the lower a job's status becomes, the more likely women are to fill it.  The author mentioned the medical field being crippled by malpractice suits and the prestige of the job going down, and contrasted that with how there were now more women than men in medical schools.  Basically, the premise was that the crappier the job got, the more likely a woman would be in it.  The punchline was something like, "Now that George Bush has so lowered the prestige of the presidency, can Hillary Clinton get the job?"

    I'd google it, but I don't go on HuffPo anymore.  They don't get my clicks.

    Parent

    That's pretty good. (none / 0) (#119)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    I like that.

    I love women. I tell my friends--male and female--that the idea of us being stronger is pure farce and folly. I don't know a single man who is as strong as the women in my life. I'm nowhere near as strong as my mother. My wife had 10x the strength I do. I mean, I can pick up a heavier box, but in every other way she kicked my a$$.

    But I love Obama more than Hillary...for now!!!

    Parent

    No, of course not (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Angrybat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    It's a factual statement.  How is that sexist?

    Clinton does better with women.  That's a fact.  If you want to talk about whether sexism is part of the reason that's so, fine, but facts themselves are not sexist.

    Similarly, it's not racist to say that Obama does better with African-Americans.  That's a statement of fact.

    Your question is like asking whether it's sexist to say that only women can get pregnant.  Of course it's not.

    BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:41:26 PM EST
    Is there any information on the chronology of those numbers? It would be interesting, for example, to find out if Clinton's strong female support was there from the very beginning of the race and held steady or, if instead, it grew over time (perhaps because women started to rally around her over time in response to perceived unfair treatment). Both still speak to sexism, but I think these patterns are much more complicated than just women voting for a woman, and AAs voting for an AA. Thanks.

    An interesting question (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:44:01 PM EST
    I do not have the answer at the ready.

    Parent
    When you say that women (none / 0) (#67)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM EST
    rallying around Hillary because she of her treatment in the media, "speaks to sexism," do you mean the women are reacting to sexism or that women who vote for Hillary for this reason (I doubt if that would be the only reason for their vote) are sexist?

    I don't think it is necessarily "sexist" for women to vote for Hillary partially with the goal of having the first woman president.  Similary, I don't think it is necesarily "racist" for African Americans to vote for Obama partially with the goal of elected the first AA President.


    Parent

    It's actually about "experience" (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:21:33 PM EST
    which is such an amorphous term.  Have we seen a poll yet that asks voters, if they say that experience matters, how they define it?

    Media may definite as legislative experience.  Candidates are defining it as everything from childhood experiences to community-organizing experiences to military experiences to who knows what next?

    And voters may mean the same -- meaning some sort of shared experiences with which they make a connection to a candidate.  And that can be a connection on an issue.  It may be experience in the military or experience with discrimination or even experience with a spousal addiction or multicultural adoption.

    (I am finding Cindy McCain to be more interesting than she seemed on paper -- i.e., heiress, cheerleader, etc. -- but not having shared those experiences, I'm sticking with my vote.:-)

    Parent

    Experience - I think you are right (none / 0) (#147)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:40:53 PM EST
    shared experience with the voter - and/or the nominee's life experience

    I never really looked at it that way - but I think you have hit on something very central to how people choose.

    I have also wondered about right-brain - left-brain choices.  There seems to be such differences between how people look at the nominees.

    To me the Obama - hope-thing and inspiration-thing does nothing for me -- and it actually a negative.

    To me the Hillary -- factual, wonkish, hard work ethics is a positive

    Parent

    To me - the sexism first came afterwards (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:22:59 PM EST
    and only because the media and the blogs were so outrageous in their bias.

    If anything that bias likely has cemented my support for Hillary - to begin with that was not a priority -- but now it is.

    I am a professional woman - and a lot of the treatment of Hillary is something that many women at all levels in the job-market has experienced - and this just ended up being a matter of - enough is enough!!

    and it is now a matter of solidarity too

    Parent

    sara (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:25:47 PM EST
    I feel the solidarity, too.  I think being a woman myself gives me insight into how freakin' incredible it is that despite all the attacks, all the media-deranged bullsh*t, her own daughter being insulted...she's still standing.  Holy crap, isn't that who you want for presidents, someone who can take all the slings and arrows and still come out fighting?

    Why on earth would we not want that?

    Parent

    Amen - sister :) (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    I have no doubt that Hillary will be kicking butt and taking names -

    and I laugh when "some people" say that the GOP wants Hillary for President -- yeah right, she will be their worst nightmare - she will go after all their messes -

    Hillary has a long, long memory and trust me if she gets elected President - you will se even more GOP senators and House members planning to retire - because they know that their names are on her list.

    Parent

    That is the same way I feel. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:20:02 PM EST
    Actually, I started to like and respect Hillary more after watching her in the debates.  But when the sexist attacks started in earnest, especially after Iowa, I was pushed to look at her more carefully.

    When Edwards dropped out, I found that I just couldn't vote for Obama.  I almost surprised myself when I voted for Hillary.  But it's not because she's a woman per se.  If I didn't respect her and think she would do a good job, the fact that she's a woman wouldn't make me vote for her.  

    But the fact that I have experienced sexism all my life has made me more sympathetic to Hillary and more impressed with the way she has handled the sexist attacks in this campaign.


    Parent

    I actually was for Obama to begin with (none / 0) (#117)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:18:14 PM EST
    but the first debates changed my opinion of Hillary.  I liked her directness, I liked her answers, I liked her knowledge - I really was surprised.

    Obama was too wishy-washy not very factual - and after Bush, - I would really truly prefer not to have to deal with this kind of thing again.

    I want someone working very hard to solve all these problems - I really do not want to be inspired - I have church for that.

    To me this is about hiring the best worker for the job - who can get the job done -- and to me that is Hillary - she is certainly tough enough to get the job done

    Parent

    Empircal declarations (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM EST
    based on statistical data cannot be biased.

    However the analysis that follows can be.

    If someone uses the data to say that "we can't nominate Obama because he's black and America won't vote a black man" or "we can't nominate Hillary because she's woman and America won't vote for a woman" then you are using race or gender as a political wedge.  While not racist it is exploitative.

    This comment is not directed at anyone in particular.  I am simply pointing that you can use empirical data to promote biased arguments.  See The Bell Curve as a case in point.

    Replace the words Clinto or Obama in that (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    now what say you?

    Parent
    I wish (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Pete Guither on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:07 PM EST
    that all the Clinton fans would stop [insert offensive sexist stereotype here] and all the Obama fans would stop [insert offensive racist stereotype here] and get on with the business of saving us from the destruction of the last 7 years.

    Even when there are instances (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:56:14 PM EST
    of racism or sexism, you wish this?

    Who would that be for?

    Parent

    Oh, those embarassing examples (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:51:55 PM EST
    of "manly men" games.  I forgot Kerry on a Harley -- and I come from the town that makes Harleys, so it not only was a hoot but made me want to yell at him to stop revving the darn thing.  Lord, they're loud.

    And I still cringe when recalling the goshawful advice that Gore go all "alpha male."   As I recall, it involved switching to corduroy slacks and plaid flannel shirts.

    As you say, such a strange set of rules.  But yes, most fascinating may be that white men never practice identity politics, especially according to media.  The sort of media who fill up panels with all white men -- or, when discussing race, with no white men or women -- or, when discussing gender, with only women.

    Was it W.E.B. DuBois who said, a century ago, in reply to the question about "the Negro problem" -- about race -- that as whites seemed to be most perplexed, perhaps it was a "white problem"?  Same goes for gender:  Clinton doesn't have a problem with her gender, so who's got the problem?


    "manly men" (none / 0) (#118)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    the funny thing about Bush vs Kerry is Kerry dated MODELS, for the love of peeps.  He married one of the wealthiest women in the world.  Bush had Laura.

    Who would you want to be more like?

    Parent

    Neither please. (none / 0) (#157)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:24:03 PM EST
    Perfectly put, and not too (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:11:15 PM EST
    academic at all.  But then, I'm a nerd. :-)

    Parent
    Oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:24:50 PM EST
    I don't actually think in terms of "first woman" or "first black".  This is probably because I consider them both politicians first, and their genders and skin colors are pretty far down the list for me.

    There was one of the various "epiphany" posts at daily kos not too long ago.  It was about someone's coworker apparently going from hardcore rightwing to voting for Obama - which they interpreted generously to mean seeing the light in terms of political ideology.

    I saw it differently.  I saw a rightwinger who felt betrayed by the Bush administration and unwilling to embrace another Republican (or a particular Republican) candidate.  So he was looking for someone he could feel comfortable with and Obama fit the bill.  I doubt he suddenly went liberal and voted straight Democrat down ticket.

    That searching for comfort and that gut check reaction plays a role in who people will vote for.  It always has.  Before it was various flavors of White Guys and it was assumed the difference was in the issues, styles and messages.  Now we have gender and race that might affect people's "gut feelings".

     Now I'm curious how much anti-Bush sentiment there is among Rs and Is.  Is anyone asking that question?

    Anectotal evidence: I talked with (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    a 40 something Caucasian male law enforcement officer who is a McCain supporter but thinks either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain due to W's unpopularity.  I'm not as confident though.

    Parent
    Greatr comment (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:44:26 PM EST
    It is worth exploring.

    I see you just came to the site. Welcome.

    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:47:31 PM EST
    I like real discussions.  Things seem pretty lively and informative here.

    I especially like the series on the whole structure of the primary system.  I'm feeling simultaneously confused and enlightened.  Confused because I still don't understand all the calculus and enlightened because I previously thought it was simple system.  

    Parent

    Can't answer your question (none / 0) (#101)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:44:37 PM EST
    But it's a good one.  On one hand, McCain is practically the ideal candidate to run after Bush considering their personal history and his image.  
    [off topic:]

    As for independents, I was wondering today what they believe and what motivates them.  For instance split Independents up into groups.

    1.  Not involved in the political process enough to register with a Party and show support.
    2.  Tends Democratic but has issues with the party structure
    3.  Tends Republican but has issues with party structure
    4.  Tends super liberal and hates both parties
    5.  Tends super conservative and hates both parties

    maybe there's also a vote to be won from people who view themselves as simply 'independent' / choosing from not necessarily issue based criteria?

    Parent
    Neither appear to denigrate so no bias as I see it (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Salt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:48:28 PM EST
    I'm a 2. this round I am motivated to choose a competent, ethical, intelligent tough President who can bring our troops home while dealing effectively with our energy insecurities and the new burdens of our massive debt and deficit, someone who will empower Americans to recall that they the People are the ones who hold the power in this Country and not rouge Elected Officials who act against our interest, and I am really excited the candidate I believe can do this happens to be a women like me.

    Parent
    what I want to see you discuss (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:23:50 PM EST
    is how when aa's vote for Obama, it's empowering.  It's historical.  It's time.

    When women vote for Clinton, it's because they're stupid and don't know any better.

    And before y'all give in to that jerk you feel in your knee, look around the blogosphere; this is exactly the attitude, and it was echoed by Kristol who said (I loosely quote), "the women voting for Hillary, well, we can't do anything about them."

    Hahaha! (none / 0) (#128)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    You give him too much credit!  What he actually said was "White women are a problem, that's, you know, we all live with that."

    Parent
    If i hear one more person say that Obama is... (none / 0) (#146)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:45 PM EST
    ...run an historic campaign, I'm going to vomit. Both Clinton and Obama are running historic campaigns, but he seems to be the one getting all the credit for busting down walls. The perception seems to be that Clinton is simply riding her famous husband's coattails, so it doesn't matte that she's been able to convince some of the smartest and most politically knowledgeable people in America to support her.

    Parent
    Obama supporters say it is (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:15:52 PM EST
    I actually became a full-fledged Clinton supporter when Obama's people called Bill Clinton a racist for suggesting that Jesse Jackson had also won the South Carolina primary, indicating that the state Democrats had a history of supporting black candidate. I know, he suggested that he didn't really mean that, but he did, and it isn't the least bit racist, unless you assume that there is something wrong with black people being proud to vote for black candidates. Every talk show in the nation had been saying pretty much the same thing for days before the election, but suddenly the Obama Nation was calling Clinton a race-baiter. That's when I realized that racism was playing a huge role in this election, and it wasn't going to come from Clinton's camp.

    We always have discussed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    "identity politics" -- I have examples in history going back in time, if in differing terms over time.

    So I laugh at the Lou Dodds who freek that we do so (he has a short memory), just because we have, for the first time, candidates from those categories that previously were discussed as anonymous little people going to the polls to always vote only for white men.  Just because the candidates have those identities doesn't mean "identity politics" is a problem, nor is it problematic to discuss it.

    It is how we conduct the discussion that matters.

    Terminology helps.  There is a difference between racialized messages -- say, advertising with people of several racial categories -- and racist messages.  There is a difference between gendered messages -- say, addressing issues re reproductive rights -- and misogynist messages.

    The advice that emerged in the era of the Anita Hill hearings, when men said they couldn't say or do a darn thing around the office, still applies:  

    Would you say or do that if your white or African American or Latin@ or Asian American coworker or classmate were in the room?  Would you say or do that if your mother or father, your wife or husband, your daughter or son or sister or brother were in the room?  Would you say it to their faces?

    In this case, would we say what we do if our family and friends of color or of another gender were standing behind us at the keyboard, reading what we say?  Would we say it aloud to them?

    If not, and if it's of value to discuss, there's probably just a better way to say it.  Replace words we use with words that would describe ourselves and see how it would sound said about or to us.  

    please..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by txprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:24:26 PM EST
    if you want to suggest people (men) will not vote for her becase she is a woman...then you have to conclude that women only vote for her because she is.  more women vote in the first place so you might suggest that women are more sexist because they are not voting for obama.  of course there will be people who will not vote for either of them due to sex or race and there are those who will only vote for them for the same reason.

    stop trying to find excuses for why hillary is losing.  fact is half of the country hates her including many, many, many democracts who see her for what she is. self serving dlc hack that only cares about herself and her corporate buddies.  she has run a lousy arrogant campaign thinking she would win long before she ever announced running.  the strategy was to forget about 2/3 of their constituents and only go for 'BIG' states.  they are the only states that matter. her name recognition alone will carry most of the states and most people vote for what is familiar.  turns out that has not been the case.

    stop bring up silly sexist issues.  there is no way for her to 'win'.  her fault.  more women vote for her because she is a woman than men who vote otherwise.  same reason more black people will vote for obama than whites against him because of race.  both benefit.

    she lost.  move on.  vote obama.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    You do  not take your argument to its logical conclusion.

    Hint - Obama is garnering 85% of the African American vote.

    Will you follow your logic?

    BTW, your comment is a nonsequitor to this post.

    Parent

    indeed (none / 0) (#73)
    by txprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:01:12 PM EST
    i thought my logic was clear and indeed i follow it.  i think both hillary and obama gain more votes because of their race and sex than they lose.  i have more black friends that vote obama becasue he is black those those who vote aginast him for the same reason.  i have more female friends who vote for hillary becase she is a woman than those who vote otherwise.  hence they both gain from their sex and race. (within the democratc party that is)  now the general election may be a whole new ballgame.

    Parent
    No you still do not follwo your logic (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:25:54 PM EST
    Are Obama's A-A supporters racists the way you posit that Clinton's female supporters are sexists?

    Funny how THAT phrase is not possible for you to write but the other one was.

    Parent

    indeed... (none / 0) (#95)
    by txprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:37:09 PM EST
    those who support obama becasue he is black are racists as are those who vote against him for same reason.

    same goes for hillary on the sexist issue.

    they both benefit in the primary...hillary moreso due to the number of women voters.

    Parent

    Dick Morris agrees with you. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    I don't.

    Parent
    never... (none / 0) (#75)
    by txprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    heard of dick morris until now.  just looked him up and i am not quite the hillary hater that he is but he does raise some intersting points.

    Parent
    Hate (none / 0) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    Hate?   well that was special.  BTW the charts suck.  I couldn't read the numbers so I clicked one to make it larger.  When I reduced, it went to girly myspace layouts at myprofile pimp.  Who wins?  BTW #2.... your attitude on top of Obama's inexperience it what prevents me from voting for Obama.

    Parent
    hate? (none / 0) (#78)
    by txprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:08:16 PM EST
    yes there are many people who HATE hillary clinton.  i live in dallas and i know many people (including democrats) who think clinton is a four letter word.  i dont get it.  they prefer bush of anybody with the name clinton.  perhaps she is guily by association.

    BTW#2...you will project what you want about my 'attitude' but what 'experience' does hillary have that makes her so qualiifed over obama?

    Parent

    That has been discussed here (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:27:02 PM EST
    already and would take too long in our limits here.  You can search this blog or, probably more easily, just go to her website and read Clinton's bio.

    It's a long one, so the more recent part might be most apt to answer your question.  But I gather from your posts that you may be a younger voter, maybe a college student?  If so, you might find most enjoyable -- as some of my students did -- reading about what she did as a college student on her campus.  She was a troublemaker.:-)

    And then, her early years of her career were interesting to my students, thinking about what they want to do to make a difference.  Clinton did.

    Parent

    project what you will.... (none / 0) (#104)
    by txprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    i am a younger voter in my mind...32.  however i am a college professor with masters degree.  i have very few students who support hillary (except for a handful of female students who think it would be 'cool' to have a woman president for a change).  i dont disagree with them just not this woman.

    i did not bring up the experince issue.  another poster did.

    bush was a trouble maker in college as well.

    i know many people that have helped gotv drives, helped register people for democratic party, door to door canvassing to help people to vote especially in aa neighborhoods, and mexican neighborhoods..including myself..however that does not constitute experiece in my book.  just political party activism.

    Parent

    Well, then. As a teacher (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    you are especially open to learning.  And I am sure you do not come to such quick judgments based on no research whatsoever in your classroom, judgments such as equating Bush's college antics with Clinton's efforts to change her campus  . . . sufficient that she was the first student ever to be chosen by student to give their commencement speech at one of the oldest colleges.  

    And then what she did with her speech that landed a 22-year-old in Life magazine will, I'm sure, show you that to assume from one word that it means the same as what Bush did as a cheerleader . . . well.  Again, I will only assume that you will go forward to find out about Clinton now and are just having a tiring weekend that causes such a rush to judgment.

    As for why your women students support Clinton, this is what they said as the reason when asked?  Really?

    Parent

    I would suspect that (none / 0) (#162)
    by tree on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:50:55 PM EST
    it might be easier for his female students to use that excuse, rather than to subject themselves to verbal inquisitions and pontifications on the "wrongness" of their reasoning.

    Parent
    speeches...... (none / 0) (#163)
    by txprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:02:49 PM EST
    i thought speeches dont mean anything.  they are just words.  who cares about speeches... especially those made 40 years ago.  now being in life magazine... thats a reason to vote for her.

    Parent
    Do you accept (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    the blogospheric assumption that anyone who tells an exit pollster "race was one of the factors in my vote" is a racist if they voted for Clinton?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:43:27 PM EST
    Did you ever see the numbers on that in Alabama? 60% who said race was a factor voted for Obama.

    This is really a stupid argument for OIbama supporters and they best stop making it. That will be a post Tuesday night for me. Making fun of the people who made the argument.

    One of them was featured in the NYTimes today.

    Parent

    Something interesting (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    is the number of black voters who tell pollsters they are "undecided" in pre-election polling.  In every state, there are huge numbers of black voters in this category, and they always end up with Obama in overwhelming numbers.

    It doesn't bother me, but clearly a lot of the people who say they're undecided really aren't, just as a lot of the people who say race or gender isn't a factor are kidding themselves.  It's sort of a bastard cousin of the Bradley Effect.

    Parent

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    the "Embarrassed Voter Effect," according to an analsyis on pollster.com -- a good read, came out soon after the NH primary.  Btw, it suggests that age and especially economic class were, at least then, more significant than race or gender.  The media and others, of course, did start discussing age . . . but still so little discussion of economic class as a factor in our society.

    Because, of course, of the myth that we abolished such silliness when we revolted against the Brits, so we never have had a class system in this country since. :-)

    Parent

    No it is not (none / 0) (#58)
    by 0 politico on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    sexist or racist to discuss the statistics and demographics in voting.  If anything, it is illuminating on the voters and voting groups in general.

    From what has been recorded in the stats so far, it does appear that there is a sexist dynamic to those voting against (or even for) the female candidate.  Is that predicated no general upbringing and ingrained social training regarding the perceived "weakness" of one gender, or is that out of a general fear that if it is accepted that a female can lead the country it would lessen the value of males in some manner?  Who knows?

    As for ethnic and racial voting, the statistics do indicate that there appears to be a general racial voting trend among African Americans for the candidate that they see as being the one they can ethnically or racially identify with.  This is an observation, so don't flame me, but the voting statistics are staggering (something like 85% or more for the primaries, so far).  Hispanics do seem not to favor that candidate.  Is this an ethnic thing, or is it that the other candidate has a long, established history with that community?  My understanding is that there has been some tension between groups in the past.  Is that because of the Spanish/Portugese influency, or because most Hispanics are part native Americans (regarding continental roots, not specifically from the US)?  I don't have enough of a reference to go by.  If there was a viable, front running Latino candidate in this race, would they behave the way the African America community has in regards to their identified candidate?

    However one wants to parse this, my feeling is that this is indicative of continued divides in the general US population.  Voting for an African American candidate is not going to make the racial/ethnic issues disappear, nor is voting for the female candidate going to make the sexism go away either.  As a society, we are still in a learning process (and we are relatively young compared to European and Asian societies.  If we are afraid to discuss these issues, which have been a topic for as long as I can remember, then how are we ever going to resolve how we are to treat each other?

    It is a dense article, but... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:41:43 PM EST
    Stanley Fish tried to address the idea of a deep, or rational, identity politics.

    To me, one problem is that there is a tendency to consider the identity politics of white men as "politics as usual" (commander codpiece's epic performance) and the economic interests of white male household heads as a generic national interest (and as Phyllis Schlafley and the growing corps of blonde Republican women as spokespersons on the teevee demonstrate, white male identity politics is not just for white men). Unfortunately, there are also plenty of Democratic public policies - from Social Security to the GI Bill to technical re-education programs of the 1990s - that did not just support the political economy of the middle and working classes, but also continued to produce wage and civil rights gaps between men and women, white and non-white.

    So, I can imagine that, when many non-whites and women vote, they not only have to consider the impact of public policies on the whole economy, they must also consider the potential for those policies to enlarge or reduce the wage/achievement gap in America. The impact of proposed policies on the wage/achievement gap presumably ranks highly in the political rationale of such voters. Rather than just the superficial "tribal" identities, there are probably substantive policies or meaningful rhetoric that appeal to voters who vote for an "in-group" candidate. A big part of both Clinton's and Obama's "identity politics" coalitions may reflect this and many other reasonable political estimations about the candidates' overall platforms.

    While the Democratic party is certainly not beyond  racism or sexism, I think painting all male and all non-African-American voters as either sexist or racist is a specious statement by either campaigns (and what I despise most about the current environment on unnameable blogs). Obviously, many Asian-Americans and Mexican-Americans may actually think that the wage/achievement gap will be reduced more effectively with Clinton's program rather than Obama's program. "Minority" is not a generic identity of identity politics, minority identities are particular and multi-faceted.

    White men then represent the most problematic group in the demographic analysis, the most common "man on the street" interviewee that affirms the media's and the campaigns' deepest suspicions that we are all racists and sexists now (and does not that just play into the Republicans' wildest fantasies of a new American century?). However, I hope that many Democratic white men are now capable of seeing the economic benefits to themselves if the wage and occupational gap with nonwhites is reduced--particularly in competitive labor markets with highly gendered and racialized occupations like the rust belt states. Likewise, many Democratic white men seem entirely capable now of recognizing the economic benefits to their own household income if their mothers, wives, and daughters did not have to work in business environments with highly questionable wage or promotional gaps. If Democratic white men favor one achivement/wage gap over the other achievement/wage gap, there may be reasons - not racism or sexism - that explain how these two Democratic coalitions have emerged around Clinton and Obama (and why Edwards never got off the ground).

    Anyway, all this talk about Democratic racism and sexism (which I attribute to the MSM more than either campaign) entirely deflects us from a substantive conversation about the real gender and racial gaps in education, wages, occupations, the media, politics, etc., that still afflict our country and how voters may weigh these considerations at the polls. The MSM does not want to start talking about it now, because then the media would have to talk about it during the general election--and how would that help St. John McCain?

    Stanley Fish article... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:42:30 PM EST
    We Liberals are facing (none / 0) (#98)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    questions of identity politics, but the Right wing is NOT going to be able to handle a Rice or Powell as frontrunner for the nomination, much less the Presidency. Frankly we've been pretty nice to our nominees (though I'd say Hillary has still gotten the worse of it).

    Facts are not Racist or Sexist (none / 0) (#143)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:24:06 PM EST
    (except when they're not facts, but manipulated information to falsely show inferiority/superiority among races or genders)

    Voters who vote based on race or gender however, are racist or sexist.

    Al Sharpton/Edwards (none / 0) (#154)
    by NaNaBear on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:14:43 PM EST
    42% of black voters in S.C. and Va. voted for Edwards when Sharpton ran for president. THere have been other blacks, ( usually Rep. ) that have ran for office and black voters voted for the white candidate. We can't use a blanket indictment against women who vote for Hillary or blacks that vote for Obama. Some are using gender and race, but not all.  THere are voters for both candidates they really do belive in the person they support.

    Disappointment (none / 0) (#165)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:47:18 AM EST
    When this election started I thought we would be talking about the economy and the future of American democracy in the new age of globalization.  I though Corporatism would be the unifying issue, instead, it has devolved into identity politics.

    Guess who wins?  Not the women, not the AA's, not the Latinos and not the Gay community.  We all lose.  This is about class.

     Personally, I do hold Obama responsible for making it an election about his "person" and not about the issues we are facing.  He has created a feeble movement that is held together by "his person" not by the ideals. In the process of creating this feeble movement, he has damaged the old alliances.   I wanted the Democratic lines to be forged together:  Labor, minorities, elderly, and add to that youth.  But we have devolved into mini bickerings that truly are not dignified.  They distract and we have no time.

    I thought Katrina would have been the 9/11 unifying populist symbol the way 9/11 was the "security" symbol.   But no, we are back where the powers that be want us.  The GE will end up being a "how mean can you be fest".