Obama '08?

Yeah me too. CNN spin is that Ohio result might go well into the night

Yeah, this isn't one that I plan to stay up until the final resolution -- don't think that will be for a while.

Sozlet's school was a polling place and she asked everyone she saw who had an "I voted" sticker who they voted for.

Sozlet exit poll:

Obama: 25
Clinton: 5


:-D

LOL Brattleboro voted to arrest and detain Bush and Cheney!

Texas 1% Obama 59% Hillary 40%

The post preceding this wasn't intended as anything like a personal slam against you or any obama supporter, soz. It was intended as a perspective on our culture and present media. The 'truth' here is nuanced and very complicated and neither I nor digby would suggest these things discussed fully account for Hillary's present standing. But they are important enough to deserve our attention.

As to 'pulling rank' ... I didn't make the related comment with any other intent than to forward an hypothesis or a question for my own and others' reflection. I have no personal game to play regarding this question (yesterday, btrflynt assumed I wished women to vote for Hillary...it was a completely incorrect assumption). These are both very interesting sociological tendencies and important social justice issues. Trying to figure out remedies for them requires an accurate estimation of what causes or dynamics are at play in both cases.

nimh said (now, pages back)

Right on the money, nimh. It's a thin line and I'd love to wring some necks over in her campaign.

Oh, I didn't take it as a slam. I was just questioning the purpose of pointing out sexist Hillary jokes, etc. ("Proves... what?")

Let me try this.

There is a football game going on between the red and blue teams. A strong wind is blowing from the East. The teams switch sides every quarter -- two quarters against the wind, two quarters with the wind at their backs.

The red team is ahead. The following conversation takes place:

Person A: This is so unfair! The blue team has had to play against the wind!

Person B: Well, the red team had to play against the wind, too. The red team quarterback is doing really well today, though.

Person A: Look! See, the weather report says that the wind has been gusting up to 25 miles per hour! That's terrible.

Person B: Yes, it's windy. I think the red team has been adjusting pretty well to it, and that's part of why their in the lead.

Person A: I don't think you understand the significance of the wind.

Person B: I totally accept that there's wind, really. I just don't really think that the red team is losing because of it.

Person A: Wow, check out THIS report! It looks like it's sometimes been gusting to 30 miles per hour!! Are you still going to deny that the wind might impact the blue team's ability to win?

Person B: That's never been my point. The wind is there, sure. Both teams are playing against it. The red team simply seems to be doing better despite the wind. I think there are a lot of reasons for that -- the quarterback's skill, the play-calling, the blue team's tendency to fumble, etc.




See where I'm going?

The wind in this case is sexism and racism, though the article I mention would seem to indicate that it's actually stronger against the red team (11% wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race) vs. the blue team (6% wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her gender). But the overriding point is, sure, there's sexism. Can all of Hillary's ills be laid at the foot of it? No. So what point do you make by continuing to bring up the sexism?

Not quite. You misinterpreted my question to you. What I asked was if you were using the "women are dumb" column as an explanation of why women were not voting for Hillary. Go back and reread it.

There's two sides here, soz. It also won't work if the supporters of the Obama camp push too much in the direction of 'our guy is goodness but the other guy/girl is a slag-deserving characterless political creature' That's an important part of what digby (and others) are saying.

A little bit of levity in a somewhat stressful day - for some.

Hillary Clinton goes to her doctor for a physical, only to find out
that she's pregnant. She is furious... Here she's in the middle of her
first term as Senator of New York and this has happened to her. She
calls home, gets Bill on the phone and immediately starts screaming;
"How could you have let this happen? With all that's going on right
now, you go and get me pregnant! How could you? I can't believe this!
I just found out I am five weeks pregnant and it is all your fault!
Your fault! Well, what have you got to say?"

There is nothing but dead silence on the phone.
She screams again, "Did you hear me?"
Finally she hears Bill's very, very quiet voice.
In a barely audible whisper, he says,


"Who is this?"

Well, why would you suppose digby or Yglesias or Sargant or many others continue to focus on this element?

<googling St. Eve :wink: >

I read Yglesias pretty much every day and he responds to specifics or refutes things (like that stupid Charlotte Allen (?) Op-ed) but I don't see him just talking about it in general.

I guess that's my main point, actually -- your style is very much refutation. "See? Here's more evidence." What are you refuting? Who here are you arguing with?

I am getting a good feeling here in Dallas watching all these voters standing in line TO CAUCUS just like Obama has been telling them to do.

Obama is getting the early votes roughly 60 to 40...STATEWIDE!

And digby? Who is she arguing with, soz?

I don't know, I don't read her as often...

My question remains, who are YOU arguing with?

If you have no argument with me, I'll stop taking it as such.

So far it's seemed like you just keep telling me how strong that wind is blowing.

Hillary wins RI CNN

Nah, you're brighter about this gender issue than many folks here who pretty commonly fall into sexist language and categories without even realizing what language they are speaking. But I do think this element is deeper and less visible or understood than all (or certainly most) of us have previously granted. It's really taken me by surprise. I wish more folks were up for discussing it but it runs headlong into these election dynamics which muddy the whole issue rather badly.

The argument I do have with you (probably least of bunch of others here) relates to the so commonly unresisted temptation to slag Hillary. If there's an opening to do that, the opening is zestfully jumped into. I think it is destructive in the medium or long run.

So whats the problem, ci, all she has to do is go get an abortion. And if she were in charge and had Hillary care already, I'm sure we, the taxpayers, would be paying for it.

I thought of a couple pretty rotten jokes, but I will refrain.

I know you didnt ask me, but this is what I'd answer:

I suppose because it's important, societally, to keep pointing out that women do face that "headwind".

However, of course it's just as important to point out how blacks (or Latinos etc) face a headwind - and one that's at least or just as strong. We all agree on that, I presume.

Now I'm not going to dig into their archives, but I think it's an easy guess that people like Yglesias and Sargant have also dealt with the racial "headwind". That they've discussed both kinds of disadvantages.

OK. But now we're dealing with a race in which a white woman faces a black man. So you've got two candidates who both face a headwind of prejudice, resistance and predisposition. Right?

Now what does it mean if one of these two candidates continually brings up his/her particular headwind as reason for the troubles she's facing, for the obstacles (s)he's failed to overcome or had to battle to overcome - or in general just keeps complaining that (s)he faces such a headwind - in this race?

In that context, it's little more than a red herring. The opponent faces the exact same kind of headwind. So there's no relative disadvantage there.

If the issue is that candidates who belong to a group usually excluded from such a top power position face extra obstacles, and face entrenched dynamics that are simply unfair -- then, sure. Absolutely. But if the discussion is centred on the race between the two candidates, as the discussion here by necessity has now primarily been for long - if the analysis is about who has had more success and how, or how it's gone for each of them, etc etc -- then this is just a red herring. An excuse, yes.

You dont hear Obama going on about how remnants of racism or still deeply entrenched racial preconceptions and negative predispositions just stack the cards against him. He will angrily speak up if the other campaign appears to make use of them, but he doesnt complain about how such attitudes among groups of voters, the media, pundits, or fellow politicians impact him. Hillary does. The Hillary campaign keeps expressing this sense of how they are victimised this way -- and of course, yes, in the broader context of political and media climate, she is the victim of gendered prejudice and resistance, just like he is one of race-based dispositions -- but in the race she's in, it's just not a credible complaint, because she's not enjoying a relative disadvantage compared to the other candidate.

Meanwhile, for both candidates many of these negative resistances they meet are at least partly counterweighed by the benefits that come with their group identity, especially in a Democratic primary -- both women and African-Americans are overrepresented demographically in the Democratic primaries, and both candidates benefit from identity-related senses of loyalty.

There is a clear difference between offering a critique of the existing obstacles for women, blacks etc in general, and using these critiques as explanations for the deficits a woman or black candidate has run up facing another candidate with the same disadvantages.

Which brings me to your posts. Bringing up only the identity disadvantage Hillary faces, over and over and over again, while never speaking of the one Obama faces and overcomes, is akin to using it as explanation for Hillary's lesser results in the race with him. Which just doesnt hold up.

OK, I wanted to edit (and shorten!!) this further but I'm just gonna plunk it in like this, overused italics and all.