WASHINGTON - As Hillary Clinton struggles to regain her momentum in the presidential race, frustrated feminists are looking at what they see as the ultimate glass ceiling: A female candidate with a hyper-substantive career is now threatened with losing the nomination to a man whose charismatic style and powerful rhetoric are trumping her decades of experience.

Questions:

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?


Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?


Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?

No. She's old news, he's new news. She represents the same old same old and he represents... uh, something.

What's the depiction? She's losing? Then, Yes. And uh, what does she have decades of experience in again?

Well some folks will tell you that no one wants to criticize the "Black Guy" even SNL had a take on this. At the moment the "press" is pretty much unabashedly pro Obama.

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?
I think it's a small factor in her overall lack of support (not necessarily having anything to do with losing supporters to Obama), but hardly anything significant. I am sure there is a small segment of the Democratic party who wouldn't vote for a woman no matter what, but I just can't imagine that it's any larger in size than the segment of the party who wouldn't vote for a Black man (or a man with an African/Muslim name ). There's probably a lot of crossover there, too.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?
I know what you're getting at (or at least I *think* I do) and I think some of her treatment is unfair (the jabs at her emotions, namely), but she also has created a lot of the negative treatment based upon the type of campaign she has run (citing "35 years experience"? Come on...what a joke) and is being called on it. They are definitely harder on her and some of it probably has to do with the fact that she's a woman in a man's world. That I happen to agree wtih a lot of the criticisms is a different story...

Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?
Absolutely. I'm an Obama supporter and have been following him with the hopes that he'd run, but I can't deny that he's getting pretty 'nice' treatment from the media. Some of the criticism Hillary gets is unfair (as I said above), but some of it is not and that's not any fault or reflection on Obama. The SNL skit was pretty hilarious, I must say.

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?
Not in the recent turn of the tide.

But sexism is a fundamental factor in the image Hilary has.

It's a big reason why Hillary is so "polarizing" despite having a rather benign political record.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?
Not always, but neither is Obama's

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?

Sexism is the only reason Hillary is still in this race. Women voting their gender... (and now Barrack is cutting into that.) riding the coat tails of her husband... Simply put Hillary has a double edge sword... the name given to her by her Husband. What elected office did Hillary obtain prior to her Husbands political success. If she is not the wife of Bill Clinton she does not carpet bag the New York Senate seat. But with the ups comes the downs, the sword cuts two ways, and that can be seen in the high negatives of Hillary.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?

Truthfully, you tell me. Do I need to see the media depiction to see she is willing to do or say anything to win?? e.g. the picture of Obama in traditional african garb.. or the mood swings she seems to go through... being honored, being in rage... Is it the media or is it her??

Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?

Well that is called Karma. Who's doing more low balling?? I think a negative vibe spewed from the clinton camp is responsible for the negative vibe received. I'm not saying Obama doesn't do any, but even when he was 10-20 points down he was running a campaign of positivity, IMO.

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?

Sure. Just as racism is a factor in Obama losing supporters to Clinton and ageism is a factor in McCain losing supporters to both.

So what? The entry of a woman into the presidential campaign did not mean the exit of sexism. It's something Clinton has to deal with. Her main problem is she's run a lousy campaign. She had the money. She had the name recognition. She had the endorsements. She had the political machinery. She had every advantage. Maybe in a sexist society having a penis too would have helped, but I doubt it.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?

Define "fair." When she was leading Obama by 20 to 30 points last year there were no complaints about her media coverage. Now she's lost 11 straight primaries, her money is drying up and she's got "nomentum" going into the crucial contests next Tuesday.

The media, like the money, loves winners, not losers. When in doubt, blame your troubles on the press.

Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?

A campaign that is running on vapors is going to come under harsher treatment compared to one that is humming along like a well-tuned BMW. Any campaign that has fired both its campaign manager AND it's assistant campaign manager and at one point had to stop paying staff is going to be scrutinized. Any candidate that has to "loan" their own campaign $5 million is going to be criticized.

Any campaign that burns through over $100 million is going to get burnt like toast:

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Mrs. Clinton came into January with a cash advantage over Mr. Obama, with about $19 million available for the primary, compared with about $13 million for him. She wound up spending at roughly the same rate as Mr. Obama, about a million dollars a day, but because she performed dismally compared to him in raising money, she ended the month essentially in the red and was forced to lend her campaign $5 million, while he had $19 million for the coming contests.

Over all, Mrs. Clinton has spent more than $35 million on media, polling and consulting. A comparison with Mr. Obama’s spending is difficult because of the ways the campaigns labeled expenses, but it appears he spent about $40 million in those areas.

In other notable expenditures during the lean month of January, Mrs. Clinton paid to $275,000 to Sunrise Communications, a South Carolina firm that was supposed to turn out black voters for her and collected nearly $800,000 in total from her campaign. She lost that state to Mr. Obama by a wide margin. Even small expenses piled up quickly in January: the campaign spent more than $11,000 on pizza and $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts runs.

"Obviously, some campaigns are more careful and wise with their money than others," Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who ran John Kerry’s presidential campaign until November 2003. "But these budgetary postmortems tend to follow a familiar pattern; winners are by definition smart, and losers are dumb and wasteful. In truth, campaign budgeting is hard and complicated and three-dimensional and just impossible to understand without the full time-and-place context of the whole race." link

Hillary Clinton's biggest advantage? She's a known quantity.

Hillary Clinton's biggest disadvantage? She's a known quantity.

Love her or hate her, there's not a lot of people out there who don't have some idea as to who Hillary is and what she stands for. That's one of the reason she entered the election with whopping negatives of 40 percent of the electorate saying there was no way/no how/no chance they would ever vote for her. There's some knuckle-dragging sexism in that equation but there's also a general distaste for her as well.

The media prefers fresh faces and stories to the same ones repackaged and told over and over again. Barack Obama is a fresh face on the scene. His negatives are low and his "hip" factor is through the roof. That's a tough combination for any candidate to beat. Should he match up against Obama in the general election, McCain won't even try.

There has been more critical stories by the press directed at Hillary's campaign. Then again, she brought a lot of this misery upon herself. Chickens coming home to roost and all that, y'all.

I meant to point out that there are a LOT of women out there who are voting for Hillary SOLELY because she's a woman and can't imagine a female Democrat NOT jumping up and down at the chance to elect ANY woman and the president of NY's NOW chapter said so (in not so many words) on national TV while blasting Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. I'd think an organization that is pro-women's rights would be more inclined to think women should make the decision about the candidates of their own volition. "YAY women's rights...but only if you vote how I want you to vote" (doesn't quite jive with me).

I'm all for a female president (I was torn between Wesley Clark and Carol Mosely Braun in 2004, but she dropped out and made my choice easier), just not this one.

1) No. Its the goshawful, fingernails on the chalkboard sound of her voice versus the euphonic, rich sound of Obama's bass voice. Well, maybe that is sexist. But it's real. Both of them are so similar on the issues, to the extent we get to hear anything about issues, that it's the little things that are making the difference.

2) No. She gets much better than she deserves, but then the media boys are very scared of her and her machine.

3) Hillary's criticism is fair because it's accurate. But, no question Obama is the Teflon black man--how many of you have heard about how Obama financed his Mansion in Chi-town?

Obama gets such a free ride--just ask Bill Clinton after his inocuous comments in South Carolina caused such a stir, relative to Michelle Obama's "I'm not proud to be an American" comment; if McCain's wife said what MO did, McCain would have to quit the race.

One of McCain's biggest challenges will be how to blast Obama without being labelled a racist.

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?

Absolutely. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll from January, people were asked if America was ready for a black president. 72% said yes and 26% said no. When asked the same about a woman president, 65% said yes and 34% said no. I think the no responses are interesting - one quarter vs. one third. In an Iowa Register poll on the eve of their primary, the results were similar - the negatives for each category were 24% and 38%.

John Lennon and Yoko Ono wrote a song in 1969 called "Woman Is the Nigger of the World". Sadly, little has changed in the intervening forty years:

We insult her every day on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she's young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb

Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is... if you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yes she is... if you believe me, you better scream about it

"Woman is the slave of the slaves", incidentally, is originally from a speech by the Irish statesman, James Connolly - so I guess little has changed in the intervening hundred years. As Tina Fey said last Saturday, "Women have come so far as feminists that they don't feel obligated to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman. Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to." I still think there's an extent - perhaps a large extent - to which men and women just think that a man is better suited for the job as president. At the very least, the question of whether a man is capable of leading the country because of his gender simply never figures. It is presumed.

Some people are saying that of course they'd endorse a female candidate - just not this one. But in a race where there is little policy difference between two candidates (and what differences there are seem to be to Clinton's advantage), that dog just don't hunt. In such a race, it comes down to more trivial things - like personality and rhetoric - or apparent differences that come with a whole host of deeply ingrained stereotypes, like race and gender. I realize that the US remains unforgivably racist in many respects, but our racism is nothing compared to our sexism. The polls cited above tell you all you need to know about the important difference between Clinton and Obama. Women are second class citizens regardless of their race, creed, national origin, age, physical ability, sexual preference or anything else. Compare the pay scales of women and black men. There's no "glass ceiling" - it's made of freakin' steel. And the prejudices that keep women out of executive positions in industry keep them out of executive positions in government.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?

Nope. It is a paradigm of the double standard. If she's tough on an issue or critical of another candidate, she's a bitch. Every other candidate in this campaign has been tough and critical at certain points - are McCain or Romney or Giuliani or Edwards or Obama characterized as bitches? Then, if she shows any emotion whatsoever, she's either a manipulative, phony bitch or weak and emotional.

We are seeing all of the female stereotypes coming to the fore in this election - God forbid a racial stereotype should rear its ugly head. An Ohio steelworker who's supporting Clinton put it pretty well in the Wall Street Journal: "People don't want to speak out against Obama because of the fear of being seen as racist. It's easier to say you want to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant. ... You can call a woman anything."

Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?

It's hard to tell - I haven't seen the criticism of Obama. I've seen criticism of Clinton's criticism of Obama, but so far the Illinois senator has been getting a free ride. (Should he win the nomination, expect that to change.) But criticism of Clinton? It is ubiquitous and unceasing. And there's been a new and different criticism almost every week, with snappy little subtitles for cable news. We've had "she's too vulnerable", "she's too manipulative", "she's too strident", "she's too emotional" - this week the theme seems to be mood swings - "she's too erratic". Hell, we've even had "she won't age well" for God's sake. I doubt any of those characterizations would be used to describe a male candidate - and certainly not as a matter of consensus among every media outlet in the country.

For example, I have seen very little coverage of Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko. Almost a year ago, the senator himself suggested that his house deal might become a problem for his campaign and that allowing it to appear as though Rezko had been doing him a favor was "a bone-headed mistake". Since then, he's been asked about Rezko only a few times - and his story has changed with every second interview on the subject. Any follow-up questions? Uh, no. Our press is evidently okay with the fact that Obama is lying misspeaking at least 50% of the time. If there were something like that in Clinton's past, there'd be freakin' Congressional hearings. It would be the headline story 24/7 for weeks, if not months - if not years. With Obama? Virtual silence. Now, maybe Obama is as innocent as the Clinton's proved to be in relation to Whitewater (though you wouldn't know it on the basis of the coverage Hillary still gets), but no one's even asking. To me, that is negligence on the part of the media of the highest order. Because you know this is going to figure - prominently - should Obama get the nomination.

The coverage of Obama has become so biased and uncritical that it's been parodied on Saturday Night Live (and the "parody" wasn't much of a leap from the reality). MSNBC might as well be Barack Obama Campaign Headquarters - I can't even watch the formerly sometimes credible Keith Olberman anymore. He makes Fox News actually look fair and balanced. And CNN is little better.

Even what's being touted as Obama's key selling point has little basis in reality - his amazing skills as an orator. I've watched rallies led by both Clinton and Obama and have found both inspiring. Have any of the people singing Obama's praises as Great Communicator 2.0 even seen Hillary Clinton speak? Or have they just seen twenty second clips of press conferences? She's good - she's very good. And on incorporating specifics into her rhetoric, she leaves Obama in the dust. Yet one is hard-pressed to even see an entire speech by Clinton on cable news because they are consistently interrupted to broadcast Obama's neatly timed addresses. Sure, Clinton is lacking a lot of the media-imposed glamor of Obama - she needs a better stylist and better publicists to compete with Obama's carefully contrived rock star appearances (keep the crowd waiting for 37 seconds between the candidate's introduction and his appearance to whip them into a frenzy without allowing them to lose energy), but her actual speeches are very stirring, they're not nearly so contrived, and they even have content. Yet the media falls for the paparazzi hype every time.

Now I can't say that Clinton's treatment by the media has been because she is a woman (and one that refuses to "paint her face and dance" as Lennon put it), but they are certainly using the fact that she is a woman to frame their criticism. There is, of course, the omnipresent assumption in gender politics that men are capable leaders until proved otherwise, whereas a woman can only be considered a capable leader if it is incontrovertibly proved through her individual life and actions - and that assumption permeates the press corps as much as it does anything else - so maybe Clinton's fall from grace was inevitable and, were it not Barack Obama winning our hearts and minds, it would be John Edwards or Joe Biden or some other - any other - man. To that extent, Obama can only be blamed for taking advantage of the prejudices of others.

Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but to be honest, I'm sick to death of being ruled by testosterone. Yet the subtext of a lot of Clinton's criticism, what's scaring a lot of people away from her, is the fact that she menstruates - or, worse, is maybe getting hot flashes. It's a pity, really, because having a woman in the White House would be a real change - not a "change we can believe in", but a change that would exist.

Oh, don't fret about that quick. You will be happy to know that those busy little bees as the GOP are burning the midnight oil working on strategies on how to run against a Black or a woman.

Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.

The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s

Republicans will be told to "be sensitive to tone and stick to the substance of the discussion"� and that "the key is that you have to be sensitive to the fact that you are running against historic firsts,"� the strategist explained.

GOP operatives have already coined a term for clumsy rhetoric: "undisciplined messaging." � It appears as a bullet point in a Power Point presentation making the rounds among major donors, party leaders and surrogates. The presentation outlines five main strategic attacks against an Obama candidacy, with one of them stating how "undisciplined messaging carries great risk."� link

Is it just me or is it really pathetic the Republicans are probably paying thousands of dollars to consultants just to teach them how NOT to be racist and sexist?



Actually, quite a bit HAS changed since John & Yoko warbled that tune. It's not quite as seminal a song, but I give you the one-hit wonder, Meredith Brooks:



Ms. Brooks took a slur and turned it into a Number One hit of empowerment. There are women who celebrate the role of being a "bitch" in a way that Black people never do with the term, "nigger." Sure, some homosexuals have taken "queer" or "dyke" and flipped the script to make it empowering. But besides some young and clueless rappers, I can't think of too many Black musicians who joyfully call themselves "nigger." I certainly don't find that term to be one of endearment.



Not to front on you Wertz, but I really don't think a White male is the best qualified person to make a statement like, "...our racism is nothing compared to our sexism." Because if you do, then I'm going to want to see the facts and figures that support such a remark.

If you were a Black woman I might be able to accept that a little easier. As it is your minority status (as a gay man) is somewhat less obvious than Hillary's as a woman or Barack's as a Black man. A White gay man can move with greater freedom and comfort through Corporate America, the military, Hollywood and most other institutions as long as they're willing to be covert about their sexual orientation. Blacks and women can't conceal their status quite that easily.

I've hung out with enough Black lesbians to know they catch hell from both a racist and sexist gay community and a sexist and homophobic Black community. Pity we don't have any that I know of on this board. We could use the insight.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?



Oh PUH-LEEZE! Has Hillary Clinton has her gender credentials challenged the way Barack Obama has with his race credentials?

...when black Americans refer to Obama as "one of us," I do not know what they are talking about. In his new book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama makes it clear that, while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American. --- Stanley Crouch

Which brings me to the main reason I delayed writing about Obama. For me, it was a trick question in a game I refused to play. Since the issue was always framed as a battle between gender and race (read: non-whiteness -- the question is moot when all the players are white), I didn't have the heart (or the stomach) to point out the obvious: Obama isn't black.

--- Debra Dickerson

I'm heard people whisper that Hillary is on the down-low (goes for that girl-on-girl action) and she's denied it. But it doesn't keep coming up over and over and over again like the charge that Barack is a Muslim. When Obama was 20 to 30 points behind Clinton, Black people ripped him because he wasn't Black enough. Now that he's possibly one week and a wake-up call from becoming the Democratic nominee White people rip him by suggesting now he's too Black.

What's a brutha gotta do to get some love?



Nobody's called her a Muslim. Nobody's said she's not "woman enough."

Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?



(snipped for length)

Gloria Steinem made a lot of the same points you have that women get it worse than Black men, so for the sake of not making a long post longer, I'll just let anyone who is curious read her remarks.

However, I will include a few remarks made by my current Shero, Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who debated Steinem on a broadcast of Democracy Now! and moderated by Amy Goodman:

...What she's trying to do there is to make a claim towards sort of bringing in black women into a coalition around questions of gender and asking us to ignore the ways in which race and gender intersect. This is actually a standard problem of second-wave feminism, which, although there have been twenty-five years now---oh, going on forty years, actually, of African American women pushing back against this, have really failed to think about the ways in which trying to appropriate black women lives experience in that way is really offensive, actually.

And so, when Steinem suggests, for example, in that article that Obama is a lawyer married to another lawyer and to suggest that, for example, Hillary Clinton represents some kind of sort of breakthrough in questions of gender, I think that ignores an entire history in which white women have in fact been in the White House. They've been there as an attachment to white male patriarchal power. It's the same way that Hillary Clinton is now making a claim towards experience. It's not her experience. It's her experience married to, connected to, climbing up on white male patriarchy. This is exactly the ways in which this kind of system actually silences questions of gender that are more complicated than simply sort of putting white women in positions of power and then claiming women's issues are cared for.

I am an unmarried working mother. I certainly understand, in a very intimate way, you know, the power and the value of domestic and caretaking work. But I also know very clearly a history that I believe Steinem's piece attempted to distort, and that is that as white women moved into the workforce, much of that caretaking work did not go to white men who sort of took up and helped out, but it fell on women of color--African American women, immigrant women--who stepped in to do much of the domestic labor and childcare provision, so that white women could in fact become a part of the workforce. So to, for example, make an argument like black men had the right to vote long before white women is to ignore that black men were then lynched regularly for any attempt to actually exercise that right.

I just feel that we have got to get clear about the fact that race and gender are not these clear dichotomies in which, you know, you're a woman or you're black. I'm sitting here in my black womanhood body, knowing that it is more complicated than that. African American men have been complicit in the oppression of African American women. White women have been complicit in the oppression of black men and black women. Those things are true. And so, to pretend that we can somehow take them out of the conversation when a white woman runs against a black man, when she tears up at being sort of beat up by him, when her husband can come in and rally around her and suggest that we need to sort of support her because she's having difficulties, while Barack Obama is getting death threats, basically lynching threats on him and his family, these are--for a second-wave feminist with an understanding of the complexity of American race and gender to take this kind of position in the New York Times struck me as, again, the very worst of what that feminism can offer--in other words, division. link


Actually Wertz, Hillary is 61 years old and should be safely nestled in her menopause phase. What is scaring a lot of people away is her last name. Clinton Redux is not that attractive a prospect in 2008. Not all of us are all that damn nostalgic for the Nineties and the prospect of Bill wandering around The White House looking for something to do with his mouth and hands.

What we should get away from with the quickness is this poisonous and acidic debate over "Who's suffered more?" (If I didn't know better, I'd say our friend quick deliberately started a topic guaranteed to make the board liberals and progressives fall all over each other trying to reach our high moral ground. But he couldn't be that Rovian, could he? )

I've said it before, when Marlon Brando was asked why he was championing the cause of the Native Americans over other oppressed groups he replied, "It's not an ouch contest." You know something? He was right. It's not about who's had the toughest time or who deserves it more.

What it's about is POWER. White men have it and have held onto it for centuries in this world. Some seem to think it's theirs by divine right and the will of God. It's not and it's time they learned to share and take turns.

If we keep playing these dumb games of divide and conquer we'll be right back where we've always been: on the outside looking in and wondering what the hell happened. Whomever triumphs in the next few weeks, let's get behind them and go on to win in November. President Obama or President Clinton still sound a lot better to me than President McCain.

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?

Let's see, if one had supported Hillary and then moved over to Obama, that kinda indicates that sexism is not at work. A sexist would not have supported Hillary in the first place. Perhaps it shows a lack of certainty in the first decision, which would be humanistic. Humans tend to change minds quite often. I changed mine yesterday, but it had nothing to do with elections. I could change minds again today. I have a whole wardrobe full of minds.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?

Maybe it's fair in that the depictions of anyone in the media are unfair somewhere along the line. Think Howard Dean. One crummy little scream and it's all over.

Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?

Seems that some media pundits have discovered that Hillary is a woman, and for some reason this is seen as manipulative and fake. I would call that sexism, or at least stereotypical thinking. All politicians are manipulative and fake

Maybe not Huckabee? Or Carter -- and therein lies a big difference, eh?

So it's not sexism to criticize men for being loose canons, like Dean, or hopeless idealists, like Huckabee and Carter. Then you've got the attacks on others, often just a bunch of lies or gross exaggerations. However one cuts it, running for POTUS is still hazardous work.

I'm pretty sure that when the nominations are over, there will be plenty of attacking going on. Maybe what's happening now is that there are two targets, thus confusing the snipers.

Here's what's really not fair -- lies can gain traction given the right time and person. Seems that this principle of political science knows no gender. I do think that certain pundits are morons. So what do you expect from these types, rational thought tempered by wisdom? Ha!

Lots of unaffiliated voters are in this mix too. They can't vote in primaries or partake in caucuses, but they can contribute money. My guess is that unaffiliated voters are helping Obama perhaps more than can be detected using the typical metrics of polling and reading tea leaves.

Personally I see Hillary as being a competent politician but lacking in charisma. You can't buy it or learn it, charisma just happens. Being a charismatic leader has a lot of negatives to it too, so it's like a high shelf road in the mountains. One side is a solid wall and the other a straight dropoff. The path meanders here and there, so pay attention and don't scream into any microphones. A boulder could come tumbling down and squash all that charisma flat.

With this in mind, Hillary still has a chance at the nomination. Obama would have to screw up big time, and that is very easy to do. This is one of the maddening things about politics -- waiting for your opponent to misstep, because attacking can backfire. Looks like this might have happened with Hillary's campaign.

Who does? Who's implying that anyone does? As to bitch empowerment, I can but agree. As Tina Fey also said last Saturday, "Maybe what bothers me the most is that people say that Hillary is a bitch. Let me say something about that: Yeah, she is. And so am I. ... Yeah, you know what? Bitches get stuff done. ... So I'm saying, it's not too late, Texas and Ohio! Get on board! Bitch is the new black!"

But that doesn't mean that the characterization is doing Clinton any good in the polls.


Sure, but I'm not certain when I'll get to it. I'm heading out for a couple of weeks on Thursday and will be spending most of today running errands and packing (we're heading to Ohio for about a week - Sean is covering the primary for Irish radio - then to New York for about a week) and I'm not sure what my internet access will be like once we're on the road.

But I should mention for now that I'm not talking about casual street racism or sexism (which are probably comparable), but institutionalized prejudice. There are many simple indicators throughout our history - from black men getting the vote in the US fifty years before women (whether some of them in some parts of the country were lynched for attempting to exercise that right or not) to the fact that black men make more money for the same jobs than women do today - not to mention things like the polling about black and female presidents cited above. In short, I'm obviously not speaking from experience, but from research. I don't want to let voters in the Year in Review polls down by skimping on the hyperlinks, though, so I'll leave this point for now.


It depends which female sterotype you're talking about. If women are supposed to be the "gentler sex" - the nurturers, the providers of warmth, the emotional goddesses of hearth and home - then, yeah, she sure as hell has. Again, I have to abandon my customary links here, but a few weeks ago I collected a bunch of press quotes about Clinton for another project and, of the several dozen I pulled, these are typical: "a cold-hearted, emotionless machine" - "largely emotionless and detached " - "cold, distant, cautious and calculating" - "a politically calculating, frigid, liberal monster" - "unlikable, cold, and manipulative" - "the ice queen" - "her cold, distant, and aloof presence" - you can almost feel the chill of the icicles depending from her nipples.

If, on the other hand, you're trafficking in the stereotype of woman as bitch, then no: no one seems to be disputing her credentials in that regard. AuthorMusician is right, of course, that "lies can gain traction" - especially with endless repetition. So can negative characterizations.


Or, one might ask, a sister?


Again, that depends on your definition of "woman enough". I would argue, though, that no one who believes the Muslim story was going to vote for Obama anyway. Many who might have voted for Clinton could well be turned off by the media characterization of the emotionless ice queen, which we hear everywhere. Are CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News reinforcing the Obama-as-Muslim story on a daily basis? I think not.

But it's hardly the gender credentials that are the main part of the sexist perspective on Clinton. More voters might be turned off by the notion that she's "too woman" on the basis of many of the stereotypes being bandied about - too ruled by emotion over reason, too manipulative, too fickle, too moody. When I hear the mainstream media suggesting that, because he's black, Obama is lazy, shiftless, untrustworthy, and a threat to defenseless white women - then you might have a comeback. Meanwhile, one can call a woman anything - with impunity.

Again, sadly, I don't really have time now to address your Shero's response to Steinem point by point. To generalize, while I agree with much that she is saying theoretically, Harris-Lacewell ignores or glosses over many specifics in relation to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - and puts considerable spin on a few aspects of American history and women's role in it. (A brief example: black and immigrant "help" was a mainstay in many upper middle class families well before large numbers of women began taking full-time jobs - and when working class women began entering the labor force, they couldn't afford domestic labor or childcare providers: they did both. And many of those working mothers (both words operative) were immigrant and black in exactly the same state as their working class white sisters. What country is Harris-Lacewell living in?) Hopefully, I'll be able to get back to this while it's still salient - after Ohio, though, who knows?

Briefly - and where Harris-Lacewell's piece really has little to do with my position - I'm not suggesting that we "ignore the ways in which race and gender intersect", nor am I arguing that Clinton would be better on women's issues or Obama on race issues. I'm talking about the whole spectrum of political issues and those that are most important to me. When it comes to gender stereotypes, women are more concerned with things like health care and education. It's men, by and large, who want to conquer Poland or "bring democracy" to the Persian Gulf - or bomb Pakistan.


That's why I mentioned the hot flashes. all I'm saying is that many are reacting to the mere fact of her physiology.


Well, if that's the extent of your concern, I don't think we'll have to worry too much about Hillary's mouth and hands.


I agree - and I'm not really trying to initiate an "ouch contest". But the question was raised and I do believe that sexism figures prominently in this campaign - as does racism. I'm in no way subscribing to the notion that putting white women in positions of power will result in women's issues "being cared for" any more than I think you're suggesting that putting a black man in power will result in race issues "being cared for". I'm just saying that, given the choice between a man of any race and a woman of any race, assuming that I agree with a plurality of their positions, I would opt for the woman at this point in our history. If it were a choice between a black or hispanic or asian male and a white male, I'd lean toward the man of color, again assuming that their views were roughly similar and in enough accord with my own. This will doubtless sound like reverse sexism or racism to some, but I feel that "minority" leadership could bring a refreshing, perhaps essential, perspective to our government.

And I agree that we should get behind whoever prevails in the Democratic primaries. A President Obama or President Clinton would be a lot better than a President McCain. I think the only real difference between us is who we believe has the better chance of actually being the not-McCain.

Sorry if this post has sketchier foundation than usual, but I didn't want to just leave it indefinitely. I may be able to get back to this from Ohio - I'll try. If not, I hope you don't feel I'm trying to evade anything here.

1.) No. I've heard a lot of people say and write that her gender is not registering on their radars. The fact that she's "scary" to some of them is deciding, her biological make-up is not.

2.) As fair as it can be.

3.) Not really. If Hillary Clinton, who is running against him, can't dig up the dirt and has the motivation to dig up the dirt, why should the news media be forced into attacking his relatively clean record?

Without question sexism still exists (even among Democrats) and plays some role in the primaries. However, I think it is clear that Clinton has benefited more from the loyalty of women than she has suffered from prejudice from men. This is particularly evident when one considers her track record on supporting the resolution authorizing the President to illegally invade Iraq and the fact that white women more than men oppose the war yet still offer Hillary their support.

I think the support of antiwar voters is vastly under-rated in these contests. 2/3rds of the population and an even a greater per centage of Democrats regard the invasion as a mistake. Obama didn't really take off until the other candidates with uncompromising positions on the war dropped out. Most of their supporters shifted to Obama. That should not be surprising given Senator Clinton's vote for the Iraq resolution, her failure to even acknowledge it as a mistake, and her craven vote for the Liberman/Kyle resolution supporting the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization which, at the time, played into the hard liners' hands while they attempted to generate a military confrontation with Iran.

I don't think Hillary actually believed in either vote but she was willing to politically triangulate on issues of war and peace, and that is unforgivable. Women of the quality of Barbra Jordan deserved to be elected President but not Hillary. However, I would hold my nose and vote for her over a war monger and militarist like McCain.

Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?

1.) Nearly every major pundit I can think of, from Keith Olberman to Bill O'Reilly is... a man. So, when these guys ooh and aah in the face of the crumbling house of Clinton, it certainly takes on a gendered tone. No matter what.

2.) I can think of many female politicians -- democrats and republicans -- who have been great governors, legislators, cabinet members, advisers, etc. Janet Reno, Sarah Palin, Kathleen Sebelius, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Plus, I can think of many female political icons: Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisolm, Ann Richards. But I can't think of a single female "superstar" on par with JFK, RFK, Obama, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton. I wonder why this is.

Perhaps it is because women have not historically been protagonists in our mass culture. At it's showiest, politics still works on a level of hero worship, and I think women have had a hard time historically donning that mantle in a culture whose saviors, rock stars, action heros, and sports legends have almost all been men.

Take I am Legend, for instance; I can imagine Will Smith playing that role without it being an explicit commentary on race. Put an actress in that role and I think the movie would have been almost totally about gender.

3.) having said all that, I have very little sympathy for the Clinton and their media treatment... They have Paul Begala and James Carville on every round table, they can have a magazine like GQ drop an anti-Hill story for Bill access, and they have masterfully exploited the 24 hour news cycle since they left Arkansas. Even putting sexism on the scales, the Clintons should have had the upper edge... Hill is just not a great candidate.

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?

Hm. Maybe. I think yes.

I personally find Hillary unlikeable. But if she were likeable, would she appear as too "sexual"? The type of woman whom men tend to respect enough to vote for to govern over them are the sort of asexual "motherly" types like Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth or the Virgin Mary. It's a catch-22. They won't likely vote for a candidate they don't find likeable, but if a woman is too likeable (and attractive) she might be too sexual to have a chance for the presidency.

It would help if she didn't do things like this though.

I don't think so.


For 8 years, the Clintons darn near owned the media. They couldn't get praised enough, and everything they did was gold. Everything they said was delivered without question or scrutiny. Of course, until the intern.

Even the criminals they surrounded themselves with were eventually pardoned, if they were caught, and if they were busted. Remember Sandy Berger stuffing his pants? No consequence.

Hillary can't blame the media for who she surrounded herself with and what lasting impression that leaves with Americans. Hillary reportedly took White House artifacts, and refused to answer questions. Is that what an innocent person would do?

I find her disingenuous, and completely impossible to vote for.


Sure there is. Hillary Clinton is a name brand of popular liberalism. Her failed policy while Bill was in office is her running platform, and it's as popular now as it was then.

Obama Barack is a middle eastern named virtual unknown who is optimistic and fresh, not sold out to organizations, and gives even staunch Conservatives a sign of relief that we don't have Mrs. "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" running the show. He deserves a second look.

If Obama is genuine, he could actually bring a lot of people together. Clinton has already made her decisions, and they aren't even presented for her to make yet.

It has nothing to do with Clinton being a woman. It has everything to do with her attitudes, attacks, and actions in the past 16 years of public life. For Obama, it's not about being black. Or whatever. It's looking at the inside of people instead of concentrating on the outside.

I should point out that Thatcher was actually considered sexy by some people, especially in her early cabinet. She is often described as having used her 'womanly ways' to get her way. Personally I don't see it, but I've read it and heard it stated many times.

(I watched that video, and it was awful. If a Danish politican acted like that they'd be dropped faster than a lead ball down a deep well. I'm not surprised so many American don't even bother to vote!)

I may as well answer the questions now I'm already sticking my finger in this hornets nest...

Is Sexism a factor in Hillary losing supporters to Obama?

Without a doubt. Hillary is the shrill woman. Barack is the strong man. 2+2=4. The perception is Barack Obama would make a better leader because he appears more 'leaderlike'. That is to say, Strong. Masculine. Heroic even.

Any one who claims he represents change is either very naive, or just a liar. Both condidates represent a shallow change (man of colour/woman in the White House), neither will be able to change America in any significant way.


Is the depiction of Hillary in the media a fair one?

No. Hillary Clinton is always shown as a taut, high strung woman, usually with a worried or angry facial expression. Obama is nearly always shown with a calm repose, often with a hand or two in the air, waving/saluting to his suporters in a congenial manner. 'King-like'.


Is there a discrepancy between the criticism Hillary gets versus the criticism Obama gets?

Without a doubt. Hillary Clinton represents a business as usual, realistic approach to overnment. Barack Obama represents forgiveness, change and the dawn of an unspecified new era. Both make use of clumsy, yet strangely effective manipulations, yet only Obama gets kudos for his efforts.

I agree with your sentiments regarding either candidate's likelihood of dramatically changing things in America. I don't see it happening. But as for the question of sexism as it relates to the way Hillary is depicted in the media - it is absolutely occurring.

Many women are unconsciously sexist themselves. We are conditioned to dislike strong women who are decisive and take control. That is Hillary, in a nutshell.

If I were to vote for a democratic candidate, I would vote for Hillary based on her stand on the issues and confidence in her ability to achieve the goals she claims she will. I've never seen a man criticized in the same way that she is. If she were the female version of George Bush she would never get in the door of politics. George W. Bush has proven that a man can lack a whole lot of important skills necessary in leading a nation, and he can still become president.....twice. A woman has a much higher mountain to climb just to get into the game of politics and when she becomes a contender she will be judged as a woman first.


Women are supposed to have a smile on their face, and be standing in the background beside some big strong man. And when they come to the forefront, with convictions and opinions, we are taken aback to some degree. Furthermore, she is an aging woman and that is a taboo. We are not supposed to get wrinkles and when we do, we should fade into the background and let the next young goddess take the stage. Meanwhile, a man can look about as dreadful as McCain and it is perfectly acceptable.



Obama, as a man, has the luxury of speaking in a mellow and calm voice and will be taken seriously just the same. For Hillary, as a woman, she must show she knows what she's talking about and that she has the guts to toe the line. If there is anything that has opened my eyes to the large degree of sexism that permeates the country, it has been Hillary Clinton in her quest for the almighty presidential throne.

She will never get elected. And it has nothing to do with her abilities in the world of politics.

Just because there is a woman running and I don't support her doesn't mean that I don't support women.

Would it be fair to say that all Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, and John McCain supporters are racist because they are not supporting Obama?

DP


Well does it help that Hillary is crying on the campaign trail?? Does it help that on the last debate she said this:



The tears in New Hampshire, the plea to her womanhood, and who was Hillary Clinton prior to be the first lady to Bill Clinton?? It is only because Hillary is a woman that she is even in th contest. If there is sexism involved it has only been to the benefit of Hillary. I mean her BIG start, not when she started but when she was able to do things... is As the WIFE to Bill Clinton. She held no office prior to him. She is not Charismatic. She is smart, she is educated, she is tough. but you can't make a beef that she her gender take precedent over her accomplishments when she embraces that gender, reminds of that gender, sell us on the idea of that gender, and then you throw in the fact that many of the opportunuities, for her accomplishments and experience she talks about, came BECAUSE of her gender.

Can anyone say that Hillary Rodham from Illinois, wins the Senate seat of New York, without first being the wife of the President?? I don't see it.

On a side note. A woman can be strong, she can be smart, she can be heroic, historical and present figures show us this time and time again. But a woman can never be a man.

Women have to realize the imitating what they think a man would do then replicating that behavior, looks like they are trying to be a man. If you have to say... well when a man does this it is ok, and a woman does this it is not... that is not indicitive of sexism, it merely looks fake when a woman does something perceived as manly.

You do not act strong, you exude strength. You do not act like you can endure, you simply endure. And if you are not a good leader it is not because you are a woman, it is because you had not the ability to capture the hearts, minds, and loyalty, of would be followers.

It's just you. And it may be more than thousands. You may be stuck in Dr. Evil warp.

One of the key purposes of a campaign is to vet the candidates. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, campaigns were much, much rougher than they are today. Writers using pseudonyms in various partisan newspapers and pamphlets dredged up every imaginable charge, fair and unfair, to attack candidates. But, even with the execesses, the electorate learned about a man's character under fire and that surely gave indications of future success in elected office.

The problem with Obama is even perfectly legitimate criticisms will be attacked as racist (not necessarily by him, but surely plenty of black leaders will play the race card) and this will unfairly chill the vetting process. Indeed, I think his color has already so chilled the process.

During this internecine stage of the campaign, we have learned very little about Bam. Hillary has done little to attack him (a racial chill may be blowing at Mizz Hillary), and Bam discloses very little about his issue positions in these debates and speeches.

For example, Bam has admitted in Dreams his drug use. In a normal campaign, a candidate would have been peppered with questions about this, as he could not pass a normal FBI background check with those admissions on record. Bill Clinton had to deal with the issue and replied with the "I didn't inhale" foolishness, as we all recall. But, Bam has hardly been questioned about these admissions, and his color surely is a big reason for that.

Mitt Romney has been skewered over his Mormonism, but Bam has been gliding by despite the aggressive black separatist language found at his church's website and the racially hostile speeches and sermons made some of its pastors.

We need to see what Bam is made of because he is something of a stealth candidate and, if he is not thoroughly vetted, we may find that he will gain access to the "football" and to the bully pulpit and yet be wholly unprepared to handle these responsibilities, or worse, be too corrupt to do so. The Republicans needs to spend the money--indeed they owe it to us, the electorate, to spend the money--to thoroughly vet Barry and to do so while walking that fine racial line they surely must walk.

This is twice we've had this 'football" analogy in about 30 minutes. I'm confident you can come up with something more creative.

C'mon and try. Most of us are a bit more sophisticated than that.




Who in the hell is "Barry"?

I understand that. I am not saying that is the case for every single voter. Quite frankly, I am not a fan of what Hillary and Obama are advocating. But, if I were, I would vote for Hillary over Obama, and not because she is a woman, but because she looks like the more experienced candidate. I would not let sexist superficial hype sway me so easily.



The fact that he is thus far getting a free ride is a sign that we are so uptight about race we will walk on eggshells rather than treat the candidate as any other one. I've heard it said, that will all change should he get the nomination. I guess time will tell.



Droop, there is another sexist attitude. A woman is weak because she shows emotion, therefore she shouldn't be in politics? Have you ever cried? Does it make you less of a man?

Again, focusing on her womanly attributes as opposed to her abilities in the arena of government.



I would argue that her accomlishments came despite her gender. She has proven she is up to the task of the presidency in many ways. If you want to drag Bill into it, think back to the scandal of 1998. Hillary handled that with a lot of poise. She has proven she can take the heat. And like you say, she is intelligent and would be able to take on the required duties of a presidency.

We have yet to see if Obama can handle the heat because we haven't seen any heat on him yet. But he is a man so we assume he is competent?




No, you are just so used to the dominance of testosterone in the world of politics that when a strong woman comes along you think she's "aping" a man. Historically, women are not supposed to be outspoken and when they are, as we see with Hillary, they are called "bitches" or accused of trying to be a man.



I would say she has proven she can endure. Her male rival has yet to prove his strength. But he's a man, so it's assumed.

Yes I have cried. No it does not make me less of a man. Crying is not something women do, it is something we all do. Emotional crying is however a reaction that happens when a person is over whelmed. We can become over whelmed with pain, joy, sorrow, frustration.. etc.

You want the statement to be sexist, but the truth of the matter is it wasn't. If Obama started to cry while on the campaign because he was not doing well, it would have been seen as the rigors of unsuccessfully campaigning was overwhelming him, that would have been seen as weakness. But because she was a woman, people not only gave Mrs Clinton a pass, but they sympathized and the votes in new hampshire showed this.

It's not sexism DP because my thought pattern is not because she is a woman and she cried, she showed weakness. Instead my thought process is because she cried she showed weakness. Let me also add, it is why she cried that worries me, it was not pain or joy that was overwhelming Mrs Clinton... it was losing.



Really?? Show us what Hillary had accomplished before becoming the the first lady, or the Governors wife. She's got 35 years experience right!! Was she an elected official?? Take away all she was able to do BECAUSE of who her husband was and what do you have left.

She has not handled the heat, because her husband cheated on her. We assume he is competent?? This man has overcome a seemingly impossible task of beating Clinton, to become the front runner and more probable nominee, but we're not sure if he is competent??

But what if go I ahead and play your game and use you logic DP. The fact that Obama has had all the accomplishments that he has had and you still question his competence seems like you are being a litlle racist. A Black man can't be competent??



I am used to a male dominant world because by virtue of being male we tend to be more dominant. And if you look around in nature most species of mammals tend to have dominant males. It's not sexist to notice the obvious. It's only sexist if I discriminate because she is a woman.



You say a lot but you are only thinking a little. Hillary was ahead on polls everywhere, why if she was a woman? It was a three person race, why aren't the two people standing John Edwards and Barack Obama, if sexism is involved?

John Kerry, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George H Bush, John Edwards none of these men have been able to inspire the people like Obama has. This man is packing Arenas, this man has got the people drinking the kool aid, this man is engaging. This man has artists taking his words and making songs from his words.

Hillary isn't losing cause she is going against a man, Hillary is losing cause she is going against THIS MAN!!!

What are his accomplishments? Can you please tell me. I seriously would like to know what you know about his accomplishments.




But we are not out in the wild, trying to hunt for game and survive based on physical strength. This is a different "animal", as it were. In politics, the qualities that set men apart from women are not necessarily advantageous to men. Look at all the damage that has been done while men were in control. Maybe men need some help in this arena.



The media played a huge role in that. Which brings me to one of the debate questions. Is the media treating Hillary more harshly than Obama. YES. They have left any skeletons that reside in his closet, alone, which has benefited the "rock star", "messiah-like" image that has resulted.



If you are inspired, that is wonderful. He still has to deliver the goods. What exactly do you hope he will achieve and how has he convinced you that he will indeed be able to meet your expectations?

How about being elected to the U.S, Senate without having to be the spouse of someone first. Can you say the same about Hillary?? Baracks political career didn't start out as the Husband of Michelle Obama



Well that is cool.. but wasn't your whole point earlier how Hillary would be just like any other man?? Just like any man in the political realm??



Tell me who has gone negative more in debates or speeches Hlllary or Obama?? Whose got more negatives?? Maybe you are only seeing the circulation of negative energy.



Well, he hasn't inspired me, he has impressed me, but I am a different breed than most Americans... not because I'm not drinking his Kool-aid, but because I don't drink any ones kool-aid. Not even the "founding father's" I hope that Obama is playing the Democratic party it's what I would do. I am convinced that Hillary is thoroughly entrenched in the Democratic Party.

No one can deliver the good DP, don't you understand that?? The people have to care for anything to change.. the people must EFFECT change... and Hillary does not AFFECT the people.

I've just been informed by a friend (you know who you are and thanks for the info) that "football" refers to the device that launches a nuke.

I find it ironic that our next president, regardless of who is elected, will at least be able to pronounce the word "nuclear."

I don't care who you are, that is funny! Good one, BoF!

But of course you do. It MUST be his race and the fear of militant Black leaders mau-mauing the press and opposition into cowed silence. What else could it be?



No examples of this "aggressive Black separatist language" provided I note. Guess we'll have to take your word for it, huh?

It's reassuring that in a world of doubt and inconsistency, I can depend upon quick to play The Race Card of fear, speculation and paranoia.

If you don't know much about Barack Obama after 20 debates and vast exposure in television, radio, magazines, talk shows and all over the Internet, it's not his fault. It's yours. It's funny how supposedly intelligent people keep saying, "What's he stand for?" and "We don't know much about him or his stand on the issues." That sort of flies in the face of your earlier pronouncements that Obama is just another hopeless tax-and-spend liberal. You seemed to find enough information to reach that determination.

There is no shortage of pro and anti-Obama websites, resources and information as far away as a good search engine.

Anyone who can't find all the information they could ever need about Barack Obama simply isn't trying very hard.

Did you downgrade from high speed to dial-up?

Mitt Romney had to make a specific speech declaring his independence from his church. Barack Obama's church is not about being "Black separatist" as much as it is about self-determination, non-reliance upon waiting for others to do what you should do for yourself, and self-help; virtues so-called conservatives supposedly advocate. He has distanced himself from remarks his minister has made in the past. Obama has been upfront with his youthful drug experimentation and certainly more than Bill Clinton with his weak vacillations and George W. Bush, the former cocaine cowboy who also abused alcohol (but refused to ever speak openly and honestly about his life in the fast lane).

Obama (if he gets the nomination) will be quizzed on and should respond to legitimate questions about legitimate issues. His religion and his drug usage do not qualify as legitimate issues. Those are "when did you stop beating your wife" traps. Those questions have been asked and answered. Move on.



Funny thing about "stealth" candidates. I've seen that same sort of remark directed at one John McCain Anti-McCain types suggest he was broken and turned by his Communist captors in Vietnam and is a "Manchurian Candidate" just waiting to be activated. Other smear merchants say McCain was less than zealous in trying to find missing in action P.O.W's. Wonder what like of Internet maggots will be digging up and disseminating that particular load of garbage?

Maybe the Democrats need to spend the money---indeed they owe it to us, the electorate, to spend the money---to throughly vet Johnny and to do so while walking that fine ageism and war hero line they surely must walk.



Much of Hillary Clinton's climb to power has come by a traditional path many before her have taken. She has been along for the ride along with her husband. Starting, as The First Lady of Arkansas and later as The First Lady of the United States. She established a residence in New York and then used that as her base to launch her run for the Senate. Now she's fulfilling her long held ambition to become the first woman to be elected to the presidency. Good for her.

But the sad fact that many Clintonistas are in denial about is she has run a lousy campaign. Blaming her disappointing performance thus far on sexism is far simpler than examining the numerous flaws, missteps and failures that she has made.

There has been much speculation recently about why Clinton has ended up in this position, and many pundits are pointing to the difficulty of her being able to run because she is a woman.

I just don't buy into that, and neither do the citizens of this country.

A year ago Clinton was up 30 points in the polls; six months ago she was up 25 points in the polls; a month ago she was up 15 points in the polls; two weeks ago she was slightly ahead; and now she is significantly behind.

Did the public in the last few days just now discover she is a woman???? Hardly. link

Clinton supporters fall back on the excuse that sexism and a free ride from the press for Obama accounts for his success and her failures. That's simplistic. It couldn't be that Obama has out-hustled, out-raised, out-messaged and outflanked Clinton thus far? Oh no. It HAS to be because she's a woman and everyone is ganging up on her.

I'm all for strong women running for high office. But claims of sexism as the be-all and end-all for why they fall short require a lot more proof that the Clinton supporters have provided thus far.

Wonder what will be said should Hillary win next week and regain the momentum? Sexism is dead? Hallelujah! Great. Then we Obama supporters can start griping about racism.

Sheesh.

I actually hadn't thought of that. It's a fair point given that most [reasonable] people don't view race or gender as a "problem" anymore. I think it's totally valid to ask that question and that it should be asked of anyone claiming Senator Clinton is being targeted because of her lack of male-level testosterone.

Yes. I agree.

I also think its daft to deny the underlying sexism in any elections which show such a sparse number of female candidates. If elections were fair, then the gender, and ethnic proportions of politicians in elections would mirror the general population.