Will Obama Give Hillary the VP Nod?

Quote:

Again, there is certainly some sexism going on (I'm not 100% immune to it myself), but there is NO justification for you to ascribe Obama's rise or Hillary's recent hiccup to it.

No, there wouldn't be. But that isn't an argument I've advanced.

Here's an example of where my predictions were influenced by the general and fairly broad consensus that Hillary would end up as the candidate. Of course, that could still happen, but it now seems to me that Obama might be able to achieve some of the things that many of us initially hoped. That's very good news to me. I'm really pleased as punch with the results including Huckabee's win.

But two elements in all of this discourage me. First, I have come to conclude that cultural resistance to a female president is deeper and more tenacious than even I feared.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Again, there is certainly some sexism going on (I'm not 100% immune to it myself), but there is NO justification for you to ascribe Obama's rise or Hillary's recent hiccup to it.

No, there wouldn't be. But that isn't an argument I've advanced.

Really? That's funny... because that's what I was discussing with you.

[i]You[/i] wrote:

Here's an example of where my predictions were influenced by the general and fairly broad consensus that Hillary would end up as the candidate. Of course, that could still happen, but it now seems to me that Obama might be able to achieve some of the things that many of us initially hoped. That's very good news to me. I'm really pleased as punch with the results including Huckabee's win.

But two elements in all of this discourage me. First, I have come to conclude that cultural resistance to a female president is deeper and more tenacious than even I feared.

Must just be a coincidence that you arrived at that conclusion less than 24 hours after Clinton finished third to Obama's first. I guess I got it wrong...

Nice Iowa turnout. Hillary is finally going to have to learn to cook, drive, and suck SOMETHING.

Tell me... how significant is gender (in the manner of the dispute we are engaged in here) in Mexican politics? Secondly, from your perspective, do you grant some or much credit to my arguments that notions of Hillary here in the US are informed by gender biases - abetted or strengthened by long term political attacks which utilize negative gender ideas and which arise (at least in part) from an acute ideological rejection of feminism?

paull wrote:

Nice Iowa turnout. Hillary is finally going to have to learn to cook, drive, and suck SOMETHING.

Oh grow up already.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Again, there is certainly some sexism going on (I'm not 100% immune to it myself), but there is NO justification for you to ascribe Obama's rise or Hillary's recent hiccup to it.

No, there wouldn't be. But that isn't an argument I've advanced.

Really? That's funny... because that's what I was discussing with you.

[i]You[/i] wrote:

Here's an example of where my predictions were influenced by the general and fairly broad consensus that Hillary would end up as the candidate. Of course, that could still happen, but it now seems to me that Obama might be able to achieve some of the things that many of us initially hoped. That's very good news to me. I'm really pleased as punch with the results including Huckabee's win.

But two elements in all of this discourage me. First, I have come to conclude that cultural resistance to a female president is deeper and more tenacious than even I feared.

Must just be a coincidence that you arrived at that conclusion less than 24 hours after Clinton finished third to Obama's first. I guess I got it wrong...

Yes, you've got it wrong. This is an on-going discussion we've been having here for about a year.

eoe wrote:

Tonight is the night to revive this one, I think.

LOL...indeed it is.

Here's an example of where my predictions were influenced by the general and fairly broad consensus that Hillary would end up as the candidate. Of course, that could still happen, but it now seems to me that Obama might be able to achieve some of the things that many of us initially hoped. That's very good news to me. I'm really pleased as punch with the results including Huckabee's win.

But two elements in all of this discourage me. First, I have come to conclude that cultural resistance to a female president is deeper and more tenacious than even I feared.

blatham wrote:

Tell me... how significant is gender (in the manner of the dispute we are engaged in here) in Mexican politics? Secondly, from your perspective, do you grant some or much credit to my arguments that notions of Hillary here in the US are informed by gender biases - abetted or strengthened by long term political attacks which utilize negative gender ideas and which arise (at least in part) from an acute ideological rejection of feminism?

On the first matter, we have had women as national leaders of two of the main political parties: at the moment Beatriz Paredes leads the PRI (being a national party leader is an important job, like in Europe, not like in the US), a few women governors (again, from 2 of the 3 main parties: none from the conservatives) and a few women presidential candidates. But all women presidential candidates have been from minor parties, with no chance of winning. Three of them (Rosario Ibarra in 1982, Cecilia Soto in 1994 and Patricia Mercado in 2006) gathered enough votes to keep public funding for their party. Both Soto and Mercado had a coat-tail long enough to enable their party to arrive to Congress. And the most influential union leader, the leader of the teachers' union, which boasts 2 million members is a woman... strong enough to effectively block a male candidate's possibilities in 2006.
The gender issue has not mattered in governor races, but we still haven't seen a woman make a serious try for the presidency.

On the second matter, I can only post an opinion. And I agree with you, blatham.
The Hillary nutcracker comes to mind.
The US has a huge cultural divide. This is one of the places where it shows.

fbaezer wrote:

nimh wrote:

Bachelet got elected in Chile and that's a macho enough country I suppose.

A few years ago I dug profoundly into a international poll on values, and the results were astonishing.
The countries were ranked on two levels: "survival versus postmodern values" and "tradition versus legal values".
The first one is about what matters more to people: strictly economic wellbeing or "quality of life" (vacations, spare time, participation within the community, etc). The second one is about who tells people what to do: tradition -and this could mean churches, too- or the legal binding.

As one might imagine, the postmodern-legal societies are in Northern Europe: Scandinavia, the Netherlands. Germany is very high in the "legal" axis, but not so much in the "postmodern" one.
China is very high in the "legal" axis" but totally "survival" prone.
Most Eastern European countries are somewhat behind China, but end in the same segment.

Now here comes the interesting stuff: Strongly Catholic European countries (Poland, Ireland), richer Latin American Countries (Mexico, Chile and Argentina) AND the United States end up around the same spots. Middle of the road between "tradition" and "law". The US is just a little on the side of "postmodern values" and Poland is on the side of "survival".
Some Catholic European countries like Spain, Italy and France (and Canada) were between the US and the Northern European countries.

Countries like Kenya or India, and Muslim countries ranked highest in "tradition" and everyone, but India, leaned highly on "survival".

All this is to say that the US is culturally closer to its Latin American neighbors than you could imagine. Closer than most Americans imagine. And farther away from Europe than they suspect.

(If I can remember, I'll fetch the source book: it's at home)

fbaezer

Wow. That's very interesting. Lovely way to approach a bunch of questions.

Tell me... how significant is gender (in the manner of the dispute we are engaged in here) in Mexican politics? Secondly, from your perspective, do you grant some or much credit to my arguments that notions of Hillary here in the US are informed by gender biases - abetted or strengthened by long term political attacks which utilize negative gender ideas and which arise (at least in part) from an acute ideological rejection of feminism?

Okay then...

Bernie is a very good guy, but he too often interprets outcomes he doesn't like as evidence of hidden malignancies in the country. That itself reflects an interesting bias.

Butrflynet wrote:

paull wrote:

Nice Iowa turnout. Hillary is finally going to have to learn to cook, drive, and suck SOMETHING.

Oh grow up already.

Paull provides a neat example of the sexist attack on Hilary that is so obvious....however, I do wonder if it is just the right wing nuts who espouse it, and do so noisily here and on things like Fox, so I am aware of it, and that they would be equally gross re any male candidate?

There is a reaction to Hillary that reminds me of the kind of evil "possession" is the best word I can think of really (though I know that is daft in reality) that gripped the crasser Australians re Lindy Chamberlain...though Bill attracts the same insane hatred....


I have no idea whether sexism has had any real effect on Hillary's chances......but it sure is there.

Bernie is a very good guy, but he too often interprets outcomes he doesn't like as evidence of hidden malignancies in the country. That itself reflects an interesting bias.

georgeob1 wrote:

Bernie is a very good guy, but he too often interprets outcomes he doesn't like as evidence of hidden malignancies in the country. That itself reflects an interesting bias.

Great guy. Pity his glass is always at least half empty.



Blatham: For a year now I've been reading how:
America isn't ready for a black president.
Oh, the evil trickery of it all.
Obama wins Iowa. Do we stop and say, "wow, maybe we are ready for a black president!", or do we immediately shift to:
America isn't ready for a female president.

Since my glass if half full; I'm excited to see the first signs of the former being demonstrated nonsense and don't believe one candidate's early rejection constitutes any proof of the latter.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Bernie is a very good guy, but he too often interprets outcomes he doesn't like as evidence of hidden malignancies in the country. That itself reflects an interesting bias.

Great guy. Pity his glass is always at least half empty.



Blatham: For a year now I've been reading how:
America isn't ready for a black president.
Oh, the evil trickery of it all.
Obama wins Iowa. Do we stop and say, "wow, maybe we are ready for a black president!", or do we immediately shift to:
America isn't ready for a female president.

Since my glass if half full; I'm excited to see the first signs of the former being demonstrated nonsense and don't believe one candidate's early rejection constitutes any proof of the latter.

Though you speak as someone who resides in the deep end of an abyssmal denial that has been filled from an endless reservoir of WASP insulation and privilege, even you should be able to acknowledge that the doubts about the realtime status of race and gender equality in the US are at least not unreasonable. But then I'm just a cockeyed optimist.

snood wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Bernie is a very good guy, but he too often interprets outcomes he doesn't like as evidence of hidden malignancies in the country. That itself reflects an interesting bias.

Great guy. Pity his glass is always at least half empty.



Blatham: For a year now I've been reading how:
America isn't ready for a black president.
Oh, the evil trickery of it all.
Obama wins Iowa. Do we stop and say, "wow, maybe we are ready for a black president!", or do we immediately shift to:
America isn't ready for a female president.

Since my glass if half full; I'm excited to see the first signs of the former being demonstrated nonsense and don't believe one candidate's early rejection constitutes any proof of the latter.

Though you speak as someone who resides in the deep end of an abyssmal denial that has been filled from an endless reservoir of WASP insulation and privilege, even you should be able to acknowledge that the doubts about the realtime status of race and gender equality in the US are at least not unreasonable. But then I'm just a cockeyed optimist.

I'm beginning to think this post contained precisely 13 too many characters. :wink:

What is your problem lately? Did someone get away with picking on you while I didn't have your back, or something?

(Where is that feisty lady anyway?)

I'd like to believe O"Bill that you are not just the know-it-all jackass you seem to be, and that you can actually give me credit for having an honest to god viewpoint that opposes yours without attributing it to a "'tude" or some emotional blip. I've got to rein in my audacious idealism.