Obama '08?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo has it right; women are voting for Hillary based on gender and not much else.

Nonsense. At most, they vote for her because they think that, as a woman but also based on her record or life experience, she understands their problems and concerns - whereas, rightly or wrongly, many fewer women have that same sense about Obama. Look at this for example.

Most of my life the President and Congress have been in a virtual deadlock that prevents the middle from moving very far in either direction, while the corruption and waste escalates.

Cyclo has it right; women are voting for Hillary based on gender and not much else. American politics always falls to the lowest denominator when picking our president.

Our differences are being exploited (race, gender, etc).

If the polls say we will vote black, female, democrat or republican then $90,000,000 (Hillary, Obama) of interest money will go to that candidate.

Intill the we realize this manipulation in democracy there will be no real change.

When we get disenchanted with one side or the other the Special interest money changes sides.

And the candidate without any Special interest money is left out and we are left voting for the same powers year after year.

The media is a special interest. They sit in the same boardrooms of the people perpetuating the things the American voters want changed.

I would lay money, that in any primary state, 80% + of voters - male or female - couldn't correctly identify Hillary or Obama's position on many issues or tell you what their past careers consisted of. But they still
vote.

You are pretty good at analyzing things, but one thing you lack in my opinion, is understanding the actual mood of the country here, one being the true love and admiration by Americans for Ronald Reagan. Perhaps the younger folks born later do not, so there is a large segment of the population now that does not understand it either.

I disagree completely. I highly doubt that Hillary is winning vast numbers of women voters based upon her record or her life experience, as there is very little to differentiate her from Obama when it comes to that

It's far more likely that gender identity politics are to blame. I've seen proof of it all over in my life; I know many Republican women who speak well of Hillary, not that they like her policies, but that they would vote just to put a woman in the office.

Cyclo

Quote:

I would lay money, that in any primary state, 80% + of voters - male or female - couldn't correctly identify Hillary or Obama's position on many issues or tell you what their past careers consisted of. But they still
vote.

The same could be said for any election present or past held in the US. The American public is generally politicaly ignorant or uncaring.

Seriously Nimh; would you rather have an effective President with Obama's policies in mind, or an ineffective Presidency that speaks your language but can't get anything done? You may think that's a false dilemma

I dont like the implicit undertones here -- you know, women = irrational, group creatures, men = objective, rational (that stuff is pretty deeply imbued in us).

I would agree that sinking to the everyday pettiness of tit for tat weakens him somewhat; but it's not as if there's a candidate any further above it.

No but there are other candidate with better professional credentials and more extensive experience. To offset this liability he needs to remain well beyond the image of the self-absorbed, cynical opportunist that comes to so many minds when the word politician is used. I am not arguing that he fits this definition, but it won't be enough for him to be the nicest guy in the bunch, he must be transcedent. You can be certain that if he wins the nomination and faces McCain or Gulianni (or even Romeny or Huckabee for that matter) his lack of experience will be constantly hammered. That he appears younger than he is works for an against him, and it will work against him in terms of the experience issue. Whether we like it or not, if his race has been at all an issue in the Democratic primaries we can be certain that it will be in the general election. For people to vote for him for president they have to believe that the enthusiasm and hope he inspires has a source somewhere inside him. They have to be able to think (as I suspect you do): "I know this guy doesn't have an impressive resume and there's no reason, based on experience alone, to believe he's the real deal, but listen to him, listen to what he says and look at him, look at the way he acts. This guy is genuine. This guy is special. He has qualities of character that can trump experience. We need him to lead us."

There's a whole lot of faith wrapped up in support for the transcendent Obama. He needs to remain above, and the lower he slips the more that faith is tested and the less he will be able to instill it in new supporters.


He hasn't sunk to the "vote for me because I hate Bush and the republicans as much as you" rhetoric Hillary is cultivating. If he makes it though the Clinton gauntlet, the independents who actually decide these things will remember. Trust me; I am that man.

IF...he makes it through without seeming to sink to their level.

Mark my words: against Obama the Republicans had better put up McCain or at least Rudy or lose in a landslide.

I agree that it's certainly possible for him to win if he can remain transcedent. I don't see a landslide under any circumstances but that isn't important. McCain would have the best chance of beating him, followed by Rudy, but if he leaves the primaries looking more and more like the conventional politician, I don't think he can beat Romney.

Why them? Because they appeal to the moderates and independents too. Hillary, on the other hand, will fair worse... and I'm not sure she could even beat one of those two... though she too would easily defeat any other Republican. Bill Clinton had the charisma to walk through the ****-storm of the Republican machine, and survive. Hillary does not. Further; where McCain or Rudy Vs. Obama might lead some on the far Right to stay home in protest to moderation; I believe Hillary will bring them out like the second coming of Ronald Reagan… moderate Republican or not.

Agree completely. Conservatives who hate McCain, hate Clinton more.

We'll see… well, actually, I hope we won't. :wink:

Yes we will, and a lot can happen between now and then. McCain could easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Bloomberg could decide to enter the race.
There is one thing I think we can count on happening:

Hillary will run a very rough contest. As Obama closes on her, the attacks will intensify. Most improtantly - if Obama really has any chance to win the primaries, the media will turn it's piercing gaze on him. Up until now it has treated him with kid gloves, perhaps because he is favored, perhaps because the outlets are sensitive to claims of racisim, or perhaps (as I believe they would argue) because untill he becomes the front runner he doesn't warrant the intense scrutiny. He if becomes the frontrunner they will start digging, and start considering publishing the stories the Clintons have almost assuredly been feeding them. Bill Clinton is never going to allow them to give Obama a pass. If you think he's heated up now....

(I was thinking last night: Watching these debates is like listening to Beethoven. Edwards and Clinton bore you to sleep, ... )

The Cage-Match in Carolina

I understand why it was important for Obama to show some backbone tonight after the intense Clinton assault of late. And, if that was the goal, he clearly accomplished it. Having said that, I suspect the Clintons would be delighted to turn this race into an endless game of tit-for-tat.

With the possible exception of health care--about which more later--it's not that Hillary dominated any particular exchange. In fact, I think Obama won more than his fair share. But the whole tenor of the first half of the debate was too small-bore and sharp-edged for Obama's good. He'd mention Hillary's dubious bankruptcy bill vote, then she'd come back with a dubious Obama vote against capping credit-card interest rates. He'd hit her for working as a corporate lawyer while he was fighting against the Reagan revolution; she'd come back with his work on behalf of slum-lord Tony Rezko. I don't see how Obama wins the nomination if voters can throw up their hands and dismiss them both as typical pols. The first part of tonight's debate made that a little easier. [..]

As for health care, this is the one portion of the debate that benefited Hillary on its own terms. [She] had her best moment of the night during the healthcare back-and-forth. "I think that the whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it," she said. "I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I'm not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care." Later she added, "When you come up with a universal health care plan and you don't have any wiggle room left, you know that you're going to draw a lot of political heat. I am not running for president to put Band-Aids on our problems." The effect was to distill the entire case for Hillary into a single response. She was passionate, courageous, tough, and exceedingly well-informed--everything that would make you proud to have her as a nominee.

That said, the second half of the debate evoked similar feelings for Obama. His response to a question about Bill Clinton being the first black president was incredibly winning [..]. I also thought he reached his usual rhetorical heights with a response about redrawing the political map, in which he worked in a riff about why he's running for president. "I believe that I can inspire new people to get involved in the process," Obama said. "[T]hat I can reach out to independents and, yes, some Republicans who have also lost trust in their government and want to see something new."

The question I have after tonight is: Which half of the debate is likely to define the rest of the campaign? If it's the first half, that could mean trouble for Obama. If, on the other hand, the first half was just a one-off demonstration of mettle--and maybe a warning shot to the Clintons--I think it was probably helpful, even necessary. Moreover, if the second half was an indication that Obama can easily revert to his seductive high-mindedness even after sticking a shiv in Hillary's gut, that could bode pretty well for him. We shall see.

No no!

Men = irrational, group creatures.

EVERYONE = irrational, group creatures.

I disagree completely. I highly doubt that Hillary is winning vast numbers of women voters based upon her record or her life experience, as there is very little to differentiate her from Obama when it comes to that, not in the mind of the public.

It's far more likely that gender identity politics are to blame. I've seen proof of it all over in my life; I know many Republican women who speak well of Hillary, not that they like her policies, but that they would vote just to put a woman in the office.

I would lay money, that in any primary state, 80% + of voters - male or female - couldn't correctly identify Hillary or Obama's position on many issues or tell you what their past careers consisted of. But they still vote.

Sexism v. Racism, American style

In today's WaPo, columnist Mike Gerson lays out the three big reasons that, as he recalls one reporter gushing to him, "on the day Obama becomes president, America would think differently about itself." One, Obama's uplifting, high-minded style. Two, his bipartisan potential. And last but not least, his race: "Obama's race matters greatly, because most of the American story-from our flawed founding to the civil rights movement-has been a struggle between the purity of our ideals and the corruption of our laws and souls. The day an African American stands on the steps of the U.S. Capitol--built with the labor of slaves--and takes the oath of office will be a moment of blinding, hopeful brightness."

There has been chatter on the web this week about Gloria Steinham's NYT op-ed about feminism and Hillary and the lingering sexism that may or may not be impacting this race. It wasn't a particularly inspired piece, heavy-handed and a little sloppy in its arguments. But the resulting discussion did get me thinking about sexism, how differently it is viewed/talked about than racism, and why that is.

You would, for instance, be unlikely to find Gerson writing a similarly lofty passage about what it would mean for a woman to be sworn in to the presidency. This isn't to say that people don't think that it would be a kick for a gal to shatter the highest of all glass ceilings--not to mention inspirational for all those young American Girls out there watching the process--but the idea doesn't strike the same chord of moral redemption as when we talk about a black man doing the same.

I suspect this has something to do with the different forms racism and sexism have taken in America, especially in recent years. Until just a few decades ago, our racism was blatant, violent, and indisputably hate-filled. By contrast, American sexism (and I'm obviously dealing in generalities) has tended to be of the kinder, gentler, more patronizing, paternalistic variety. Women may not have been allowed to vote until 1920, they may face pay disparities in the workplace, and they may be barred from joining certain hoity-toity golf clubs. But they've never been lynched for sport. No one took fire hoses to or sicced police dogs on those 1970s bra-burners.

In many ways, even overt sexism here has long been about treating women differently than men--better, some claim--rather than specifically about keeping them down. (All part of God's/nature's grand plan, we are told.) As often as not, the folks who object to, say, women in combat don't publicly argue that gals shouldn't be on the frontlines because they're unfit (save, of course, for Newt Gingrich, who gently reminded us that babes in foxholes "get infections")--but rather that the mothers and daughters of this nation shouldn't be exposed to the brutality of war zones. It is a sweet form of discrimnation, a caring form-one that enlightened people dislike but don't have to feel all that guilty about.

In part because of the nebulous, non-aggressive nature of modern American sexism, many women are loath to talk about it lest they be labeled whinging purveyors of outdated victim politics-or gross manipulators of the political gender card. Team Hillary unsurprisingly has taken some whacks for playing identity politics in this race. Team Obama, not so much. In fact, Gerson specifically lauds Obama for not making "cynical use of his race."

It's true enough that Obama is not running on his blackness. But that doesn' t mean his campaign hasn't been happy to remind us of their man's potentially history-making genetic makeup and background, if only to charm us with his unlikely tale of upward mobility. Michelle Obama has been dispatched talk about whether her husband is black enough to satisfy African-American voters. And Gerson is hardly the first media blabber to go on at length about what it would mean for America's self-image and global image if a black man-middle name Hussein, no less--went all the way. Obama hasn't cynically run as a black man. He has very elegantly run as a black man. And while his race isn't at the core of his appeal, neither is it--or could it possibly be--a non-factor in a country still so very sensitive about the subject. (Oh My GOD, can you believe a black man won Iowa!!!)

But we're not all that sensitive about sexism-at least, not in the same way. Yeah. We know it's out there, though we prefer to think of it in terms of the more egregious, retrograde examples that pop up (such as when Bill "loofah" O'Reilly allegedly takes a shine to one of his young staffers). Most of us are confident that we personally couldn't possibly ever harbor any such biases. (After all, look how far women have come! Look at all the women in our workplaces!) And we don't particularly find anything awe-inspiring, uplifting, or even noteworthy about a woman who runs for office without ham-fistedly playing the gender card.

More broadly, we certainly don't feel driven to wipe away sexism's ugly stain the way we do with racism. And sometimes we seem almost surprised (embarrassed even) when the issue of gender bobs to the surface at all. The WaPo's dispatch from last night's Obama rally features the sad story of 19-year-old Obamaniac Tobin Van Ostern. Initially pumped for victory, Van Ostern grew ever more antsy as he watch the returns role in. When it became clear that Hillary was going to win, and which demographic block had made this possible, a disspirited Van Ostern could only respond, "Oh, women."

Oh, indeed.

--Michelle Cottle