Jane!

Chelsea!

Hi Jane. Can you describe Mills’ diversity in more detail & how it got to be that way?

So, Romney has the “All-American family” and Chelsea is “spoiled and snippy.” Guess that disqualifies Hillary and makes Mitt a shoo-in.

Bayh is of so worried about those nasty Iranian getting da bomb & coming over here & using it on us.

The right-wing has always considered Chelsea “fair game”.

Good to know the Huffingtonpost got the memo.

My ex-wife used to babysit Chelsea. Even if the fourth grade journalist looked like a young Tim Russert with a Big Chief tablet and a crayon.. well I say Chelsea needs to lighten up.

hey jane, good to see you this morning

not on topic but I’m sure you’re gonna get some insight from this link

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/…..02063.html

it documents line by line the clear deliberate lies told by colon powel

snippet:

Here’s the conversation as Powell presented it at the UN. As Woodward reported, the underlined sentences were simply added by Powell:

POWELL: “They’re inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.”
“Yes.”

“For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.”

“For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?”

“Yes.”

“And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.”

Powell then explained:

This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.

According to the official State Department translation (and confirmed for me by Imad Khadduri), the Iraqi soldier merely said:

“And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas.”

And it’s no surprise the Iraqi said this. Here’s what the Duelfer report found about what was going on within the Iraqi government just before the January 30th intercepted conversation:

It’s in Oakland and places a high value on providing scholarships and taking people from the community to achieve diversity. It also has a really high percentage of lesbian students and a fantastic women’s studies program. It’s extremely liberal. I was very fortunate to go there and the article’s snide dismissal of its inner city student body as just too stupid to ask the pointed questions that someone from Stanford would’ve been smart enough to raise really got my back up this morning.

And Tagg Romney aside, I’m not wild about having people attack people’s kids to score points for their candidates.

Are they going after Chelsea because she’s Sen. Clinton’s daughter or because she’s another successful woman who needs to be put in her place? Inquiring minds want to know.

there is a slight whiff of spoiled child about her

Her Dad has been spending lots of time with the Bush family in the last few years so some of that may have rubbed off on Chelsea.

Thanks. Very interesting.

All of the above, no doubt, and add her awkward appearance when she was in the WH.

So is Ms. Fowler seeking work with TIME or the WaPo?

They don’t need a reason. Remember when Rush said Chelsea was a “dog” and she was 13 years old? They’re pigs.

Didn’t see this mentioned anywhere except here:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk…..oundup.php

* Hillary only raised $13.5 million in January — a good deal less than the $32 million Obama raised in the same month.

Ah, this is simply stunning, just like Obama getting over twice as many votes as Hillary in South Carolina. I’d say “the people” are speaking, now that Obama and Clinton are going actually going head-to-head.

I can’t ever remember seeing such huge shifts in money and polls in such a short period of time. Amazing…

It seems to be a pattern with some folks. I seem to recall a large amount of mocking of Amy Carter, who was 9 when her father became president. Chelsea Clinton was twelve when her father became president.

It was obviously impertinent for these young girls to have the audacity of being born into families with ambitious members and then actually go to school and learn things. I guess better that they choose the path followed by the Bush twins or the Hilton sisters or something. /s

the kicker is that the quote about cutting of the kid was not “snippy” at all. the actual quote:

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute,” Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.

a young Tim Russert with a Big Chief tablet and a crayon..

WAH! Nightmares for a week now. Thanks.

there is a slight whiff of spoiled child about her

When I clicked on the author’s bio over at HuffPo, I noticed that she went to Berkeley for her MA (’72). So it’s no surprise that the description she applies to Stanford grad Chelsea is a “spoiled child” who gives a “snippy rejoiner.” UCB folks are not known for their love of anyone associated with Stanford.

If the Berkeley stereotype held by the people at their archrival Stanford is that UCB is the home of DFHs, from one end of campus to the other, Fowler provides the Berkeley stereotype of Stanford students like Chelsea as spoiled brats.

Please. Give me a break.

Mills is a great place — I’ve got several friends who went there, as well as some friends who went to Stanford. I’d put the Mills grads I know up against my Stanford friends any day, and it’d be a toss up as to who would carry any given political argument.

If The Obama’s girls end up growing up in the White House, I wonder how they’ll be treated.

I remember when rush had about 5 listeners in his entirety and clear channel saw fit to give him a national forum

ah the free market at it’s best

Let’s not forget The Most Belligerent Man in America, also known as John McCain made a crass, coarse joke about Chelsea when she was in her teens.

Oh that Maverick, he’ll even insult children.

-G

If I did the arithmetic right, Mills has an endowment a bit under $200,000 per student, whereas Wellesley has one about $600,000 per student. Diversity means scholarships, supported by endowment. Yet Wellesley is not as diverse as Mills, and its diversity is heavily concentrated in Asian-Americans. Well done, Mills.

I remember them trashing on the young Chelsea.
Seeings how FDL is a lot more family oriented than my vocabulary, I’ll let myself stop and take a breath and remember I do actually know more than seven adjectives. I lost any respect I ever had for most MSM journo’s when they went after Chelsea.
There are some things that are supposed to be sacrosanct and children are one of them.

And in case you missed it, it went like this:

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.”

Completely tasteless and indicative of McCain’s character.

Granted my view is from the South but a lot of the right wing or conservatives, if you prefer, seem to reflect a Southern male attitude toward women. This means that deep down in their black little hearts they are scared to death of secure, successful and powerful women and though they may pretend to defer to them they use every tactic they can to attack them. The thought of addressing Hillary as Madam President just makes them crazy.
I humbly point you to the Southern Baptist Convention’s manifesto of a year or two ago if you have any doubts. It was enough to cause Jimmy Carter to drop a lifelong affiliation with them.

It started with Reagan, America’s 2nd worst president.

A cheap laugh from his supporters at the expense of a young girl. It’s disgusting and I truly detest this man.

You remember correctly, I had forgotten about that.
Of course, I have a raging case of CRS though.

Rush is bleeding listeners. In his prime he was averaging over 20 million listeners a week. Now he is down to less than 13 million.

I can’t ever remember seeing such huge shifts in money and polls in such a short period of time. Amazing…

On top of that, I maintain that the way polling is conducted misses a very large portion of Obama’s support. The polling organizations have their “formulas” for adjusting for people who no longer have the landlines that the pollsters call, but I think that Obama is getting a much larger portion of that population engaged and voting. Those who have only cell phones are very disproportionately young. I expect Obama wins almost across the board today, beating the “poll” numbers by close to double digits.

“Nevertheless, the strong presence of Students for Obama at Stanford might have had something to do with the decision. Surely, a Stanford student or two would have confronted Chelsea about her career path.”

What is it about that quote that makes it about intelligence? Seems its about the “strong presence of Students for Obama”? No?

Just read the linked article in full. I don’t see any denigration of the intelligence of Mills students elsewhere in the article either.

Though some would die for 13 million!

Jane,
Did you ever get a response from Darcy Burner?

Actually, if the photo up top is any indication, Ms. Clinton has blossomed into a rather lovely woman.

OT: While I’m not generally much of a fan of his art, Oliver Stone is so “on the money” (pun intended) with this video about the Writer’s Strike and other things…via C&L:

http://voices4action.org/video…..038;page=1

Huffpo has become a fan club for Obama.

My daughter graduated with a teachering degree from Mills. She lived in an apartment on campus. I used to visit with her and run on the cross country course that wound through the paths in the eucalyptus woods and the campus. I even ran a few races there. I don’t recall ever meeting any students there who gave the impression that they were ‘dumber than a Stanford Student’. I should have played closer attention. I could have warned my daughter that she was being dumbed down by slow minded fools with no imagination.

And of course Lucianne Goldberg (who has enough pull among The Villagers — or rather, among the bosses of The Villagers — to get her otherwise-unemployable son a nice cushy wingnut-welfare slot) was the one who said Bill Clinton “finger-f**ked” Chelsea.

She certainly has. I saw her out at Westchester Airport the other day. She is stunning.

Whoa.

Lower than a snakes belly in a wagon wheel rut, that.

Here’s the problem, the left is as sexist, or even more sexist than the right. McCain supporters, Obama supporters, Romney supporters have all gladly joined in the sexist chorus against Hillary. Hillary Clinton is the best chance that women have of breaking the ultimate glass ceiling in politics. If she can’t be nominated by the democratic party it will set the cause of women in political life back by a quarter century. It will prove that a better qualified woman has no chance against a less qualified man. Great message for our daughters, isn’t it?

I’ve had similar thoughts as that. The South Carolina polls were averaging approx a 10% win for Obama. They were 17% off, with Obama winning by 27%! I haven’t seen much analysis of this huge discrepancy, since IMO the BigMedia wants this to drag on as long as possible for ratings and ad revenue, but Im thinking your ideas might have a lot to do with it.

As far as today, there’s so much variety in demographics and voting machines, that I wonder if this same phenomenon will carry across everywhere. Personally, I hope you’re right.

Baloney.

Mills College. I spent a week there as an architectural photographer for the then upcoming catalog. I also photographed some of the women attending the college then, although there was another photographer to do that.

I felt quite honored as some of the best photographers on the West Coast preceded me, such as Imogen Cunningham, and I think Ansel Adams did also.

This was in the mid 70’s. I don’t remember the exact year.

The Eucalyptus woods were one of my favorite places, although the emphasis for the shoot were the buildings.

Wingnuts have incredibly filthy minds to think up all the slimey stuff they spew. I wonder where such family value folks learn such muck? lol

I haven’t been to Mills this election cycle so I can’t say for certain but I’m going to guess there are quite a few students who support Obama. So obviously it’s not the lack of presence of supporters at Mills that leaves them mute, according to this article. It’s true, as the author implies, that Stanford students are a on the whole a lot richer and a lot whiter than Mills students. Why would they ask such a question and Mills students wouldn’t?

Perhaps because it’s a stupid question.

Sexist chorus? How do you figure?

Remember when that “Saint” McCain supporter called Hillary a bitch? And how McCain wouldn’t even correct her(yeah, that’s right the “Saint” McCain supporter was a woman herself).

Yes.

Of course, this was never, ever a national media scandal. Yet when the GOP wants to create a mass distraction, they go into hissy kabuki mode over some doofus like Ward Churchill and their press fluffers dutifully transmit it as the Word of God.

I’ve often wondered what that said about her as a parent and what effect her motherhood had on the Doughy Pantload.

They are calling Chelsea a spoiled child. WTF do they call the idiot who’s been occupying the white house for the last 8 years. Oh the irony.

Don’t agree at all. Yes, sexism abounds on the left and right, but do you honestly believe a woman could ever compete for the Republican Presidential nomination?

Huffpo long ago joined the media trashing of Hillary, it seems following Arianna Huffinton herself, who seems to have a personal animus against her.

(I know I shouldn’t be taking the bait, but) Which came first chronologically: the civil rights movement, or the mainstream feminist movement?

Someone here a few days age was saying that black women reported being more discriminated against on account of their gender than on account of their color.

I keep going back to the alpha male phenomenon. Humans are a herd animal & want alha males as leaders. Women just can’t hack it, according to that model.

Why is that pig Bill Bennett on CNN as an election analyst today? I thought that people who were supporting particular candidates were not allowed?

Really? I started there in ‘77. Could very well have been the catalog that enticed me to go there.

Thanks, starbuck.

Here’s the problem, the left is as sexist, or even more sexist than the right. McCain supporters, Obama supporters, Romney supporters have all gladly joined in the sexist chorus against Hillary

Gee, as a recent Obama supporter, thanks. As a devoted husband, and father of three daughters, and who works for non-profits that promote equal rights, especially for women, that kind of talk isn’t helping your cause, or the cause of women everywhere.

Sometimes CRS is a curse and sometimes it’s a blessing.
I can’t wait for Easter this year so I can hide my own eggs.

Good Point. He is still the King of Talk Radio. I find it so ironic that a Thrice divorced, hillbilly heroin addict is the voice of the conservative movement. Conservatives definitely live in an alternate reality.

Yeah, I witnesses Arianna’s Hillary animus on KO a couple of night ago. What’s with that? I don’t like Hillary much myself for a variety of reasons, but geez.

Well if you don’t count Wollstonecraft or the Grimke sisters, I’m gonna say the civil rights movement came first in the 19th century and then again in the 20th. I would put the rise of the modern feminist movement in the mid 60’s with most of the growth in the 70’s. Other thoughts?

This was almost word for word what I heard from my 27 year old daughter the other night. I had high regard for her arguement, and I was with you right up until you said this:

It will prove that a better qualified woman has no chance against a less qualified man.

That is a very subjective statement which may or may not be true.

(I know I shouldn’t be taking the bait, but) Which came first chronologically: the civil rights movement, or the mainstream feminist movement?

The Abolition movement and the Women’s Sufferage movement ran hand-in-hand for quite a long time.

Both Clintons. Remember her during the impeachment mess? Trashing Bill Clinton night after night on Geraldo?

LOL, ya gotta love Fark.
Back to back headlines;

(SurveyUSA) Cool There’s no denying it, Hillary is the clear winner in California : SurveyUSA says 52% Clinton, 42% Obama
Reuters Cool There’s no denying it, Obama is the clear winner in California : Zogby says 49% Obama, 36% Clinton

Mel Martinez on MSNBC: I’m for McCain because he can win in November.

i thought i’d prepared myself for the stupid s*(t that would be exposed in this election, but i didn’t set the bar high (low?) enough. the author’s characterizations of chelsea clinton in that article make my teeth clench.

fwiw, chelsea did appear at stanford a couple a weeks ago, at a small invitation only event that reportedly didn’t go over well with those unable to get in to see her.

http://daily.stanford.edu/arti…..usiveEvent

Mel Martinez on MSNBC: I’m for McCain because he can win in November.

Exactly the kind of razor-sharp analytical insight I’ve come to expect from cable news.

?? The article says there is a strong presence of Students for Obama at Stanford. Hence, Mills College students are stupid? Seems a stretch.

(granted no evidence is marshalled that Obama support at Stanford is stronger relative to Mills, though the comments on this thread and general polls seem to indicate stronger support among women for HRC, so an all female college is safe bet to be lower % Obama support)

Reminds me of the argument that “out with the old, in with the new” is somehow dog-whistle anti-middle-aged woman, when a more straightforward explanation is right out there Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(?).

Plus, I’ve spent a lot of time going over the “Issues” sections of Obama’s and Clinton’s sites, and have left many comments here explaining why I think Obama is better than Clinton based on those issues, and the various things each one has chosen to do with their lives.

Assuming you are, why have you chosen to vote for Hillary over Barack? Can you name some specifics?

Party before country.

The following is not meant as a political Q. Seems to me like Zogby has gotten less & less connected to reality. Anyone else have the same impression? Don’t know how I picked up this idea.

#26. I am glad you quoted McCain’s filthy crack about Chelsea. I have no doubt Chelsea’s mother will fiercely fight McCain.

And then the abolitionists got what they wanted, and they didn’t need the women’s suffrage supporters anymore, and women had to work another 55 years before they got the vote.

Fast-forward 100 years, and the same dynamic played out again.

“The only position for women in the SNCC is prone.” – Stokely Carmichael

WigWag has left the building.

In the lull after Super Tuesday, perhaps we could prevail upon Arianna and Tweety and…. you fill in the blank… to enlighten us on their animus toward Hillary.

Did she hurt their widdle feelers?

Explanations long overdue.

Remember to vote or caucus today!

Guess if Charles Manson was running and ahead of McCain, he could count on ol’ Mel to switch to him.

Hayden argues for torture.

From your link:

…left a bad taste in the mouths of the many Clinton fans and political junkies across campus, many of whom would have stayed home from Lake Tahoe ski trips for a chance to attend.

Now that’s sacrifice for ya! The Romney boyz must be impressed with that comMITTment.

Exactly. I remember second-wave feminists emerging because they were relegated to coffee-brewing, soup-making etc during the “movement,” basically a DFH version of “barefoot and pregnant.”

WigWag ZigZagged perhaps?

#26. I am glad you quoted McCain’s filthy crack about Chelsea. I have no doubt Chelsea’s mother will fiercely fight McCain.

As will any righteous Democratic parent of daughters.

I went into my files to see if I could locate the catalog. Haven’t found it yet.

Seems it was 1976 as that was the Bi-Centennial year and that triggers my memory.

Although I certainly do not support mean spirited comments about Chelsea, let’s not be hypocritical. A little self examination is in order. The Bush Twins have gotten their share of ugliness just for having Bush as a father. None of his policies were their fault, but besides the underage drinking (which almost any college age kid does) they sure got dragged through the mud. By many at FDL, I might add. We should all leave the kids of the venom spewing.

Geoff Morrell (Pentagon spokesman) on MSNBC: The Military Field Manual applies to us. What’s the CIA doing? That’s the other guy’s problem.

OT from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -
The Bush administration has threatened to veto any terrorist surveillance legislation that does not give intelligence officials “the tools they need to protect the nation.”

Hmmm. Getting “dragged thru the mud” for underage drinking or being dragged thru the mud for being homely. I can see the moral equivalence already.

Not that I approve of attacks on children for any reason I should hasten to add.

OT from the AP: WASHINGTON (AP) -

The Bush administration has threatened to veto any terrorist surveillance legislation that does not give intelligence officials “the tools they need to protect the nation.”

Fine. Let him veto it, and then let him have nothing. I’m sick of this spoiled brat getting whatever he wants just because he stamps his little feet and holds his breath.

You mean the Bush administration has threatened to veto any terrorist surveillance legislation that does not allow telecoms to continue breaking the law under the farce of protecting the nation.

While I favor Obama myself, I am deeply offended by the treatment of HRC (and now her daughter) in both the MSM and the blogosphere. I have considerable respect and sympathy for her, and would gladly support her if nominated.

IMO, also, we have gotten beyond gender and race sufficiently that Obama is no more black than Hillary is a woman; they are both superb Democratic candidates, and we are lucky to have the two of them.

If Obama gets the nomination we will start to hear whispers that (gasp!) he is married to a Black Woman on whom he has sired (shudder!) two Black Children. I just know it.

seriously! I’m totally sick of the primaries as well.

Seems The Tax Whisperer Mittmo stepped into some doo-doo again. Whoops. Not a very graceful way to go out, Mittens:

http://politicalticker.blogs.c…..k-on-dole/

Even earlier, you may have heard of an instance when a critic wrote a derrogatory article about Margaret Truman’s singing. Truman responded with a letter stating that he would kick the critic in the gonads. I matter was made public. Truman’s popularity was low at the time, and many of the fussy were shocked that a president would use such language.

Which means retro active immunity.

Agreed. (However, it has also been implied that they should have joined up in the military just because their father started the war and that they are cowards for not doing so.)

we have gotten beyond gender and race sufficiently that Obama is no more black than Hillary is a woman; they are both superb Democratic candidates, and we are lucky to have the two of them.

Hear, Hear!

Romney’s mouth faster than his brain?

Agreed. And since Arianna is how headlining Hillary having a coughing “fit” I offer an appropriate remedy for HuffPo–the best part of the blogosphere is the options…or just stayin’ right here at FDL.

Oh, I thought Mayhill Fowler was some sort of medieval position, like the Forrestor of Whipplestich, or the Dippshitter Warden.

Chelsea Clinton has been subjected to any number of vile attacks over the years, to the point where I don’t blame her for talking to the press. However, many Clinton partisans used to attack John Edwards because he once worked for a hedge fund. Chelsea Clinton is working for a hedge fund, Avenue Capital Group, a politically connected outfits that has given to lots of Democrats. She’s an intelligent young woman, but if you don’t think that there are political considerations involved, or that her employer isn’t interested in having influence with her parents, you’re rather naive. We have no trouble seeing what’s going on when family members of Republicans are put on someone’s payroll.

No “sins of the father” stuff for you, huh? Fair enough. If my son had to pay for my sins …

The Abolition movement and the Women’s Suffrage movement ran hand-in-hand for quite a long time.

The Abolitionist movement predated the Women’s Suffrage movement — in fact, Frederick Douglass and Susan B Anthony split over Douglass’ refusal to support the inclusion of women in the 15th Amendment:

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

On the other hand, there were many advocates for Womens Rights within the Transcendentalist community — including Margaret Fuller, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, and Mary Moody Emerson.

Margaret Fuller’s untimely death in a shipwreck on a Fire Island sandbar deprived the nascent women’s movement of one of it’s finest thinkers. Her “conversations” on women’s issues were a turning point in American History.

The Peabody Sisters

it has also been implied that they should have joined up in the military just because their father started the war and that they are cowards for not doing so

And what’s so wrong with implying that?

There are plenty of examples of unfair treatment in the press, by a**hats like McCain (and his un-rebutted supporters). Looking for offense everywhere however, especially imputing it when its just not there, invites marginalizing characterizations such as “shrill” and “overly-sensitive” (and I feel they’d be correct in those cases, even if not correct as a general rule).

Basically, there’s enough BS out there (whether race, gender, class, whathaveyou) that we don’t need to go looking for it and otherwise imputing it when it’s not there.

O/T
Interesting waterboarding discussion today:

http://www.reuters.com/article…..5120080205

My spouse was watching the roundtable of CNN clowns trashing Sen Clinton. He looked at Gloria Borger and described her as the ” rictus of jealousy”. I thought it rather apt.

See my 105.

Ariana hates Hillary Clinton. It’s been obvious for years.

1) Glass houses …

2) We don’t even know what they really think about the war. If they disagree with its continuance, feel free to call them cowardly for not speaking up. But calling them cowards for not sacrificing their lives for their father’s ego? That is a standard that should not be applied to anyone IMHO.

Isn’t it curious that no one from the Bush family is willing to serve in a war that was started for reasons that keep shifting?

Sleepwalkers all.
Will they awake?
Or stay in thrall

No one from most families is willing to go into the U.S. military, even before the war.

True. At some point though, children become adults. And sometimes those adult children need to be pilloried and called cowards. Otherwise, we end up with folks like Junior, Jeb, Mitt (and *his* boys)…and sometimes despite best efforts to pillory them :-)

Chelsea was attacked as a minor. Very uncool. She is, now an adult on the campaign trail doing campaign events. She is fair game *for fair critiques*. Just as Mary Cheney, Romney’s boys…etc are fair game “for fair critiques”.

BTW, I totally agree with the idea that Bush not having any relatives fighting makes his choices more cowardly. I’m just not willing to put the burden on his kids for the situation. Keep it where it belongs, with Bush himself.

Operative word: fair. Then I have no problem.

I have nothing against Bush’s daughters, but it was always notable that, while the chicken hawks preached the importance of the war to the continuity of civilization,few had any familty committment. I particularly wondered if he would have said, “Bring them on,” if he had a family member over there. I don’t even think he would have said that in regards to some of the nightclubs they hung out at in Austin.

Yes but the Bush family is allowed to portray themselves as so pro-military.

OT from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -
The Bush administration has threatened to veto any terrorist surveillance legislation that does not give intelligence officials “the tools they need to protect the nation.”

Will he? That scares me. I’m so scared. Bush will veto terrorist surveillance legislation…

oh no, not that…oh my, what will become of us, woe is me

Don’t think their daughters have been brought into that embroilio (sp?).

Geez, I really don’t want to defend W’s daughters. Must stop being provoked on that subject.

It seems that if this war is so very important amid the struggle of civilization, then it should have some members of the “leading” family willing to go fight.

But rather like it was during Vietnam, it seems to be more a war that it’s important for others to go fight.

I will give the McCain family this, since one son is at the Naval Academy and the other is in the Marine Corps and I believe has deployed to Iraq.

I wish people would stop throwing around the word hate. It’s unfortunate that the Obama supporters and Clinton supporters use this kind of invective. It does nothing to advance their cause. I appreciate the passion, I just wish they’d make reasoned arguments. April can’t come soon enough.

I think my bottom line response to this article and to any future presidents: if you are going to speak to me and tell me why you or your relative/protegee/fillintheblank are qualified to represent me in government, you’d better take questions from me or the press.

My take on the Stanford/Mills thing is that Stanford is so important that it’s going to be handled by the big girls like Hil herself. JMHO.

We’re gonners.

Speaking of families & fighting, listen to yesterday’s democracynow.org on McCain. Apparently his father & grandfather were admiral Admirals. Sounds like it really f*cked with his brain. There’ve only been a handful of examples of that in the navy (or less, I forget the specifics).

Exactly. That’s very, very important. And too often breached.

I also do not include standing on the dais and waving hands as active participation in campaign events. But if you are working on the campaign, making calls and, in particular, speaking at events in an advocate’s role, you’re putting yourself out there *for fair critiques*.

In that vein, I would consider the Bush twins (unfortunately) generally off limits. Though perhaps someone can correct me.

Whether the Center for Contemporary Music or the MBA program, Mills college has been in the forefront of higher education. They were innovative and the first in many areas. In 1965 conducted a program in Indian music. Great dancers from India joined them. They have one of the oldest dance programs in the country, founded in 1941. Their summer arts program is enviable. They excel in their writers program.

The contemporary artist, Afandi, from Indonesia is like saying Picasso in the Western World but few Americans know about him. Mills did. They invited his daughter, Kartika, several times to lecture in their arts program. Mills College is amazing.

This is a great choice for Chelsea and the Clintons to appear. Everybody goes to Stanford even if you only know about ten schools of higher education in the country. Smart choice.

Oh man.

What will it take for people to wake up about this? NJ Guv Corzine wasn’t able to vote today for 45 minutes because the electronic machines didn’t work, and they didn’t have backup paper ballots there.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5651

All of our efforts in the blogosphere don’t mean much if elections still get corrupted. This needs to become a priority issue for us IMO. Why is this so hard to understand?

http://blackboxvoting.org/

What will we tell the children? Although I’m sure it will be good for McCain.

Right on. A situation in which symbolism & reality line up, it sounds like.

I’m not speaking just of the daughters. There’s lots of cousins that don’t serve as well. When the Preznit talks of sacrifice, his family does not share in that.

I don’t recall Vietnam as being so blatantly that way. There was still a draft during most of it. Women were still not allowed in combat proximity. I believe Chuck Robb did see combat in Vietnam after he was engaged to Linda Bird Johnson and we know Al Gore did have an assignment there. Of course there was George Bush and his unique assignment as a pilot in the Texas ANG and Dan Quayle’s enlisted national guard assignment.

well, don’t you think it’s a sacrifice for her daughters to travel the world spreading their “good will” around the planet

btw

I think both of them would do an entirely better job then he did

OK, point taken.

Deferments my friend. Only for those who could afford college…

The real probelm is that no one will even ask the Preznit why no one from his family is willing to serve. He could give an answer like Mitt had to, but he gets away with not even having to give an answer. It let’s him keep on strutting around like some tough guy.

In fact, I think his father was CinCPAC while he was a POW..

Jane, I started at Berkeley in 1977 and knew some pretty strong women. But the women from Mills were FIERCE! I was a bit in awe–and heck, most of my friends thought I was the smart, tough one.

I also must say that I strongly disliked (insert stronger words here) Stanford then and still do and while I try to give recent grads a break (you know, older, wiser), I have trouble doing so. The Cal-Stanford rivalry is genetic and unbreakable.

And, I do not believe that children of fortunate people are required to take vows of poverty. But as Joe Buck said, we should be fair about applying our standards.

I wonder how fast it would take for the president to admit he’s a war criminal if he subjected himself to the same “enhanced” techniques he claims power to use

Hey, Commander Codpiece landed on an aircraft carrier. And you say none of the Bushses have put in any military service. /snark

Digby’s got some great thoughts today on converting voters to your candidate of choice.

I was thinking of Bush and Quayle specifically as among those whose families and they themselves supported the war as long as they didn’t have to fight in it.

Chuck Robb I believe did indeed serve in Vietnam, as did Al Gore, even though his father was a leader of the anti-war Dems in the Senate.

There’s never been a better President at playing dress-up.

Something like that. I found the DN piece really interesting. I had no idea.

Speaking of McCain’s temper, I wonder how he would react if someone asked him how his family’s military heritage influences him. Sounds like he has enough (subconscious) mixed feelings on the subject that he just might misspeak himself.

Stanford? Home of the Hoover Institute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

Donald Rumsfeld has recently become fellow of that illustrious group in addition to some other fine Americans like:

Other fellows of the Institution include such high profile conservatives as Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell, Dinesh D’Souza, Shelby Steele, Edwin Meese and Pete Wilson

Now that’s class! I saw a PBS report a while back that suggested the idea to create the Shrub Administration was hatched at Hoover.

Mills College graduated Hamsher. Any thinking person would choose Mills over Stanford.

Which is why, in any election, we have to win by large margins.

No Loo Hoo we are not, not taking issue. The fat lady hasn’t sung her song yet-keep walking, and laugh at the assholes even when they try to crush us and our wonderful minds.

Chelsea Clinton attended a Sidwell Friends School, a private Quaker K-12 School while she lived in the White House. A couple of Sidwell’s alumni include Nanch Reagan (I kid you not) and Gore Vidal

Would that be cross dressing.

Which won’t always be possible, so we must fix the voting process. BlackBoxVoting.org has many suggestions for how to do this.

Stanford? Home of the Hoover’s Institute Last Erection

There, fixed that for you. If you doubt this, look up a photo of the “tower”.

That’s certainly a well thought out response. Is it the best you can do?

I’m a native of that area, so yes, I know of Herbert’s Pop Tart quite well. War mongers and their fascination with the phallus. Strange stuff…

Well, let me give you one example. When Hillary Clinton surprised everyone and won the New Hampshire primary, the progressive blogs (e.g Kos) and large numbers of Obama supporters (blogging on the Huffington Post) joined the main stream media in dismissing her victory as a result of thousands of New Hampshire women being moved by the fact that she cried. Except… she didn’t really cry did she, and even if she had, it is profoundly sexist to claim that women in New Hampshire based their vote on her crying. Do you think that women are so stupid that they would base a vote on an event that never occurred. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps those women voted for Hillary because she is the best candidate. Of course not, it impossible to contemplate that these women were voting for the candidate who they thought could best improve their lives. Women are sooooo emotional, they must have based their votes on tears alone.

About as thought out as your initial comment.

So I really want Canada style health care in this country, but from what I could understand from Hillary’s proposal and the “mandate” within in it really bothers me. I don’t want to be forced to pay for insurance from companies that are milking America dry. I currently do not have health insurance. I’d prefer Barack’s proposal which doesn’t include a mandate, but does include a lot of initiative to move us in the right direction. Granted I have a very limited understanding of the economics of it all, but being forced to buy health insurance now would really hurt my business. These kind of nuances that I have found throughout a comparison between Obama’s and Clinton’s plans, which are on their Web sites (Obama’s is much more detailed), are why I am supporting Obama.

Making blanket accusations of sexism to those not supporting Hillary is not helping you, or women’s rights in general. In fact, just the opposite.

i think you’re right few women could compete successfully for the republican nomination. But we do have some evidence that conservatives are willing to nominate women, do you remember Margaret Thatcher? She led the conservative party in England for over a decade, she is also Great Britain’s only female prime minister. I lived in Europe for part of that time. I can assure you the Mrs. Thatcher was as conservative or more conservative than John McCain, Mitt Romney or anything the Republican Party has to offer.

Wigwag’s criticism was not a “blanket” draped over all who do not support Hillary. It was specifically aimed at prog-blogs and some Obama supporters who dismissed Hillary’s NH win as an emotional reaction of female voters.

And as a small biz owner myself (who was in a major traffic accident not long ago) I urge you to consider some sort of health insurance that would at least cover any catastrophic health problems that could arise, if not routine health maintenance. My medical bills would have been almost $100k. How would that affect you?

You use a pretty broad brush in your statements. I’m going to assume that in each of the groups (Progressive blogs, Obama supporters) you point out, you are saying “some of the…” and that “you” you mention is rhetorical.

I think much of the hullaballoo you are talking about was people’s reactions to *coverage of* that particular incident. Not the “crying (indeed it wasn’t crying, Jon Stewart was hysterical on that front)” but the talking about the crying…which in certain circles (Matthews, was f*cking absurd).

That hardly constitutes a chorus amongst Obama supporters and the progressive blogs.

Regardless, its a pretty big stretch to go from that to the left is more sexist than the right. Do you really believe that’s the case?

What I think is not disputed is that polls were indicating an Obama victory and NH (women in particular) broke heavily for HRC. That may have been unexpected given the IA outcome, but before IA, HRC getting those numbers (in overall and crosstab women) would have been completely unexceptional.

Given an unexpected result, people look for answers. Some concluded it was about the crying incident. My recollection was that a lot of folks on blogs were talking about the result being a poke-in-the-eye for the coverage of the media on that incident.

My personal view was that the polling was skewed by the IA result and people gravitated back to their pre-existing support.

The health front is one *major* issue on which this Obama supporter prefers HRC (also why I was for Edwards over either).

Bonkers, a mandate is crucial to making the whole thing work. Without it it’s a dysfunctional system as healthy people opt out. That’s one reason why the current system is so flawed. Insurance companies spend a lot of time seeking to exclude the ill (or likely to be so) and the healthy exclude themselves. So much effort spent trying to pin the bill on the other guy is where a large portion of the excess cost of private insurance over Medicare (and universal coverage in other industrialized countries) comes in.

Here the initial comment that started this conversation at comment #43:

Here’s the problem, the left is as sexist, or even more sexist than the right. McCain supporters, Obama supporters, Romney supporters have all gladly joined in the sexist chorus against Hillary

That’s a pretty big blanket. Plus, this has become such a common theme around the blogosphere, and despite my usual replies about specific proposals and actions as to why I don’t like The Clintons, these same people never respond to those. It’s simply sexism for them. Yes, America is still very misogynistic, and we should all be doing things to eliminate these problems, but calling anyone who doesn’t support Hillary a sexist actually hurts the cause.

Yes, I used to have catastrophic insurance but stopped it to help fund some expansion. As your story attests, need to get it again (hope the healing is going well). Again though, I don’t want to mandated to get insurance within a scammed system. Growing up I used to get allergy shots. Also was told by doctors I had “chronic sinus infections and chronic bronchitis” when I was older, and frequently given antibiotics. Since switching to natural and organic remedies, all this stuff has gone away. I haven’t even had a “cold” for several years now, despite three kids constantly bringing home illnesses from schools.

We had homebirths and don’t vaccinate our kids, who are very healthy (those bugs they get at school don’t last long). From what I can tell, a mandated system like Hillary’s will make us follow the rules set forth by the Medical-Industrial Complex, which really does not like people thinking on their own and finding their own solutions. Sure, happy to have all the medical advances when needed, but I don’t want to be forced to use it, especially when so much of is designed to generate consistent revenue, and not necessarily in people’s best interests.

I’ve worked a lot in Canada and always ask friends how they like their health care, and 100% of the time they report happiness with the system. I’d like this sort of system in place in America, where there’s incentive built in to encourage prevention so we don’t need it much, and where it’s simply available to you if you need it. I’m not sure Obama’s plan is the answer, but I do like it more than Clinton’s plan.

That’s one reason why the current system is so flawed. Insurance companies spend a lot of time seeking to exclude the ill (or likely to be so) and the healthy exclude themselves.

I’ve read some in-depth articles about the mandate issue, and Paul Krugman isn’t the only Economics PhD out there. There’s a pretty good debate going on about this in academia.

Much like the BigOil industry, it seems they can write their own rules. There aren’t many “market forces” acting upon them, at least not anytime soon. The problem seems to me to be the incredible amount of profit margin people are able to have up and down the industry, from equipment manufacturers, to middle-men to hospitals and so on. That’s the problem – not those of us who chose to barely use the system if at all.

Forcing me to partake in this flawed system doesn’t seem like a step in the right the direction. In fact, it’s exactly what the Medical-Industrial Complex wants.

Jane!
Mills women rock! I got my MFA from there
back in the paleolithic era.
you are amazing!!!

Jane, not sure if someone has already linked to this in all the above comments, but I find it intersting from Slate: Confessions of a Young Hillary Supporter Or, how I became the loneliest man on campus.
By Alex Joseph (Feb. 4, 2008).

Found it on WaPo, along with an account of another Bush subversion of anything progressive that came out of Congress–this time through the domestic budget process. Here’s my review and a link back to the story on Newstrust.

Well, it’s hard to say. Many feminist historians say that Dolly Madison was the first American feminist, but of course, there was no feminist movement at that time. The abolitionist movement and the suffragist movement were roughly contemporaneous but the abolitionist movement probably started slightly earlier (maybe a few years at most). In modern times, the civil rights movement predated the feminist (”women’s lib”) movement by six or seven years. Despite its wonderful accomplishments any hsitorian of the period will tell you that women were not universally treated well by all civil rights leaders.

A better questions is, what has been the result of each movement in modern times? My answer would be that both movements were transformative. African Americans are now only occassionally victims of governmental sanctioned discrimination but still suffer mightly from de jure discrimination. Upper middle class women have benefited mightly from the women’s movement but working class women (who support Hillary in droves) largely fail to benefit from the advantages won by their more advantaged, upper middle class, college educated sisters.

One way that the civil rights movement has been more successful is in changing the tenor of the national discussion. When Imus made disgusting racial remarks he was fired (although now regretfully rehired). When the news media comments on Hillary’s cleavage or her style of dress, or the timbre of her voice, or whether she is in touch with her true emotions, or whether she cried, or whether she is too wonkish, the silence is deafening. Senator Obama would never have to respond to remarks like this. I am sure that Senator Obama doesn’t endorse these stereotypes but he is silent when they come up. By voting for Senator Obama you are enabling this type of sexism.

well if you attribute all of it to human nature how do you explain Mrs. Thatcher, Merkel (of Germany), Bhutto (of Pakistan) etc. It seems that sexism runs even deeper in the United States than other countries (even countires with a long history of discriminating against women).

Jane: Question about Mills College:

If you wouldn’t mind answering this question, Jane, what years did you attend Mills?

I saw and still see, after having read more of your posts, that there was no need say anymore about your post than I did. Your claims about sexism, and if Hillary Clinton loses feminism will be set back, are so outlandishly broad that “baloney” was all the reply that your words deserved.

Truer words were never spoken, dakine.
OTOH, if Chelsea had gone back to Stanford to speak, she’d have been criticised for ‘overusing her Stanford associations’. She’ll be criticised no matter what she does, so WTF. She should just follow her own judgment and ignore these twits.

Whether Hillary wins, or Obama wins, or whether this contest goes all the way to the convention is entirely beside the point of insulting a candidate via their kids.

And really, do the other candidates honestly want to ‘go there’?

Thank you for responding to my post. I am sure that you are a loving father who cares deeply for your three daughters. From the way you describe your work, it sounds like you are working hard to make the world a better place. I also don’t doubt that your decision to vote for Obama was heartfelt and well considered.

Here’s the problem. Senator Obama is the media darling. Hillary Clinton is deluged with sexist criticism and commentary. The meida feels free to comment on Hillary’s cleavage, her style of dress, the timbre of her voice, her relationship with her husband, her relationship with her daughter, the fact that she’s too smart and wonkish and not in touch enough with her feelings, whether she shed a tear, etc. While Senator Obama may not endorse these comments, his silence and the silence of his supporters is deafening. I don’t even necessarily blame Senator Obama for his silence, he wants to win and will do anything to accomplish it. That’s okay, Hillary Clinton would do (and has done)the same thing; that’s just politics. But you have to admit, remarks pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s gender are left uncommented on by most so called progressives, while similar invective directed against Senator Obama’s race would never be tolerated.

By any objective measure, Senator Clinton is more qualified than Senator Obama. In their younger years, they were both activists. Senator Obama then entered the Illinois legislature (I don’t know where you live, but where I live, being a state legislator is hardly an impressive credential.) Hillary became the wife of the Attorney General of Arkansas, the first lady of Arkansas, and first lady of the United States, twice. To my way of thinking that experience easily trumps serving in a state legislature. To claim (as many Obama supporters do) that her experience as first lady doesn’t amount to much is demeaning in a way that most working women and stay at home moms, well understand. Both served in the Senate. Senator Clinton has been in the Senate three times longer while Senator Obama has spent half his time in the Senate running for President.

Now perhaps you don’t think experience is all that important. That’s okay, you should weigh all the factors for yourself. But the simple reality is that if Hillary Clinton, with all the advantages accruing to her in this election, can’t get the democratic nomination, no woman can. Unless Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, it is inconceivable to me, that any woman (most of whom won’t have her ability to raise money, her fame, etc.)is likely to be nominated by a major political party for a generation. If Hillary isn’t nominated the message to your daughters will be crystal clear–work as hard as you want, there’s plenty you can achieve. But if you strive too high, we will comment on your looks, your voice, your demeanor or whatever it takes to take you down. And don’t worry, the clownish press, the blogospere and progressives of good will everywhere will silently play along. A great message for our daughters, that’s what I meant

Policy wise, on women’s issues, both Senators are roughly similar. As I indicated in my last response to you, it’s Senator Obama’s silence (and the silence of large swaths of the progressive world) at the sexist invective directed against Hillary that I find extremely objectionable. As for specific issues, I’ll mention a few. (1)I believe in a health care mandate; (2)I prefer Senator Clinton’s foregin policy team (Richard Holbrooke) over Senator Obama’s (Zbigniew Brzezinski) . Holbroke was the savior (albeit two years too late) of the Balkans, Brzezinski made a mess of President Carter’s foregin policy when he was Carter’s national security advisor. I like Senator Clinton’s response to the housing crisis better (interest rate freeze) than Obama’s. More generally, I don’t care for Senator Obama’s “let’s all get along” message (I know that’s an over-simplifcation but you know what I mean). I believe that Senator Clinton is more realistic in realizing that politics is war by other means and that to get change, fighting your opponent is necessary. But look, reasonable people can disagree about all of these issues. Unfortunately, if Senator Obama wins the nomination it will mean that the sexist attacks on Hillary worked. For woman at least, it will be same old, same old.

Come on Sparkatus, speculation about Hillary crying was as prominent in blogworld as it was in the main stream media. It wasn’t just the rampant obsession with the “crying” incident; it was the speculation about Hillary finally getting in touch with her inner-self, her womanhood. The so called crying was just the icing on the cake. Male politicians are never, ever, subjected to this type of commentary. If it was an isolated incident it would be one thing, but Hillary has been subjected to comments about her gender that would never be tolerated if made about Senator Obama’s race.

Well, at least this comment is cogent.

This stuff on Chelsea Clinton is juvenile and ignorant.. its thekindof post that makes me note the name of the writer and avoid them like the plague.. I however don’t see why Obama has to respond to this.. or perceived slights to Senator Clinton.. its just as annoying when one black person is asked to explain the actions/statements of another black person. IE. if u were ever at a rally or gathering and Louis Farrakhan was present you of course believe everything he does..
Methinks some Clinton supporters..and NOWNY wants it both ways..

Well said! The hatred for the Clintons extends generationally. Bill’s mother used to be panned for her poor, white, Southern roots, and Chelsea has been savagely attacked repeatedly in a manner that even Amy Carter was sparred.

Simply put, if Obama had been white, he wouldn’t have made it past even Gravel. OTOH, if Hillary were a two-term black male senator she still would be the best qualified candidate.

The open bias in the Huffington Post leaves a very sour taste. There is nothing that they won’t stoop to in order to bash Hillary, including her coughing fit! I am very disappointed with Arianna, but not all that surprised; I do recall her Lady Macbeth role in propping up her ex-husband’s political foray. Sexism existed well before racism, and cuts across all racial barriers. Geraldine Ferraro faced a very hostile press in her time; an extent of scrutiny that none of the current male candidates have been put through, the least of whom, Obama.

Great replies. Thanks for taking the time.

As you said, reasonable people can disagree, and we do on some points. Honestly, those are some the best defenses I’ve seen of Hillary anywhere.

This talk of “experience” and “qualifications” has always been a weird one for me. My entire adult life has been filled with people complaining about all the corrupt politicians in Warshington. I’ve never understood then why people think they need to have Warshington Insiders elected. For years I’ve been looking for politicians that do not “know how Warshington works.” Then, Obama comes along and I see I’m not the only one.

You don’t seem to think this accounts for much, at least compared to Hillary, but Barack’s life history and what he’s accomplished are huge reasons why I support him. He has exactly the kind of “experience” I want in a President, and he’s perfectly qualified to me.

Basically I just don’t think Hillary is a good candidate, and that has nothing to do with gender. Do you think the incredible shift in the polling numbers and fundraising in the month since they’ve started going head-to-head is because of our sexist society? I suppose you might think that, but the number shifts are so dramatic, probably unprecedented, that I think proves Hillary is just not a great leader, which like it not requires the ability to motivate the masses, among many other things. Obama got 27% more of the vote in South Carolina. Obama raised $32 million in Jan alone, while Clinton raised $13 million in Jan. This is just stunning, especially considering the name recognition and connections advantages Clinton had, in addition to years of BigMedia telling us Hillary was “inevitable.”

It’s too bad we didn’t have two women running against each other at this point. If Hillary was going against Cindy Sheehan I’d vote for Cindy. If Hillary were running against Nancy Pelosi, I’d vote Pelosi (although that’s wavering). From what I’ve seen so far, I might vote for Michelle Obama over Hillary. And there are many other women I could say that about. I just think there’s a lot more at play here than sexism, which is no doubt a factor, especially in the BigMedia coverage, but it’s not the only factor for Hillary’s descent.

Simply put, if Obama had been white, he wouldn’t have made it past even Gravel. OTOH, if Hillary were a two-term black male senator she still would be the best qualified candidate.

Ah, that’s just silly and ignorant. And there goes that “qualified” thing some more. What does that mean? So you want the most entrenched, insider politician you can find? I want the exact opposite.

Obama has gotten himself into this position all on his own. His story is already one for the history books. No connections. No money backing him. Just hard work and hope. Lots of it. To dismiss his accomplishments as a result of his skin color is incredibly insulting. Sexism and racism are still very strong and real, and they both should be dismantled as much as possible. Debating which one is stronger than the other seems like a waste of time. Both need to be destroyed.

Bonkers, people of good will can disagree about policies and they can disagree about the type of experience they think is most important, that’s just fine. The original post was about the sexism of the left being as severe as the sexism of the right. I get that you don’t think Hillary would be a great or even good president. In your post you say that you would happily vote for Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama over Hillary. That’s fine too, except for one thing. If Hillary Clinton can’t get the nomination the chance that the women you mentioned or any other woman will become president in the forseeable future is essentially nil. My guess is that you would agree that this would be a bad outcome. The tried and true approach to destroying a woman candidate will have worked (once again)and it will be amply evident to women everywhere that they can’t rely on their so-called progressive allies for support.

If Hillary Clinton can’t get the nomination the chance that the women you mentioned or any other woman will become president in the forseeable future is essentially nil

I just don’t think that’s true. The fact that our two main candidates are Barack and Hillary is showing that we’re entering a whole new era in America. I think a Barack win or Hillary win opens up a lot of minds, especially in younger generations. I’m liking where this goes no matter which one of these two wins.

“Obama has gotten himself into this position all on his own… To dismiss his accomplishments as a result of his skin color is incredibly insulting.”

I’m sorry, but I see a free ride from the MSM and voters who don’t scrutinize him half as hard as they do other candidates. And THAT is very insulting, in my opinion.

“Sexism and racism are still very strong and real, and they both should be dismantled as much as possible. Debating which one is stronger than the other seems like a waste of time. Both need to be destroyed.”

Amen. But to give one candidate a pass because he is overcoming racism, and subject another to harsh scrutiny because she is (only) breaking a far more pernicious barrier is not the best way to destroy these fetters.

WigWag, have you even considered the fact that the Thatcher PMship suggests that merely electing a woman to high office isn’t necessarily the best choice for a country? Thatcher didn’t exactly do wonders for the UK, unless you were wealthy and well-connected, in which case you did very well. Thatcher was great for women…. rich, white women, that is.

And the Clintons, BOTH of them, are corporate, Republican lite. They both, Hillary included, surround themselves with the same old corporate DLC insiders who have been such a disaster for the Democratic Party over the last 20 or so years. More of that is the LAST thing we need.

Clinton has taken more money from the military-industrial complex than any single other candidate, R or D. She took in more than all of the other Democratic candidates COMBINED, and 60% of the total given to ALL REPUBLICANS. This is the woman you want to elect to the Presidency?

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-bucks-the-trend-and-rakes-in-cash-from-the-us-weapons-industry-397281.html)

You want four, or eight, years of Mark Penn and Burson-Marsteller? (Just what did they ever do for women? At least, women who work for a living or are poor?) You want four, or eight, more years of Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, and Rahm Emanuel? You want four, or eight, more years of cut-throat Clintonism?

As reported in last week’s Nation:

Dan Slater, vice chair of the Colorado Democrats, endorsed Obama in part because of his concern that a second President Clinton would take steps to dismantle the 50-state Strategy. “With Clinton you get the same professional DLC types who’ve been making the same mistakes for thirty years,” says Slater. People associated with the Clintons–Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer–have been Dean’s loudest critics. James Carville took his last swipe at Dean after the 2006 midterms….

Unfortunately, the party powerful have a long record of preserving their power first. Rahm Emanuel famously cherry-picked candidates to back in the 2006 primaries. His successor at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Chris Van Hollen, vowed to maintain a hands-off policy in primary contests. Suspicions were raised that there may have been pressure from on high, however, when Angie Paccione–whose grassroots campaign nearly beat maniac homophobe Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado’s 4th District last year–bowed out last fall after one of Senator Salazar’s staffers entered the primary against her. It left the same bad taste in Colorado as did Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to throw a fundraiser for old-school incumbent Al Wynn, who’s facing a movement-stirring challenge by Donna Edwards, in Maryland.

In the end, trust and motivation matter. No amount of sweet “we” talk and Internet tools can patch up a party that’s trampling on its partners or cowering when it has promised to stand tall.

Plenty of feminists (Laura Flanders, Frances Kissling, Katha Pollitt) are supporting Obama over Clinton because of their FEMINIST values. Voting for a woman just because she’s a woman, while ignoring the rest of her record, is the worst kind of identity politics. Clinton’s war votes, both on Iraq and on Iran (Kyl-Lieberman), her political connections, her votes on the “Religious Freedom in the Workplace Act” (which would, for example, allow pharmacists to refuse to prescribe morning-after pills to rape victims) and much more are all exceedingly troublesome.

It is far from established — despite your bare say-so — that Clinton is more qualified than Obama. And feminists don’t think it’s established either.

Pollitt:

[R]ight now, I’m supporting Barack Obama. On domestic politics, their differences are small … But on foreign policy Obama seems more enlightened, as in less bellicose. Maybe Hillary Clinton’s refusal to say her Iraq vote was wrong shows that she has neo-con sympathies; maybe she simply believes that any admission of error would tar her as weak. But we already have a warlike president who refuses to admit making mistakes, and look how that’s turned out…. Obama is a candidate in a different mold. He’s a natural politician who connects with people as Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, just doesn’t, and appeals to the better angels of their nature. He sparks an enthusiasm in people–independents, the young, the previously disengaged. An Obama victory could have big positive repercussions for progressive politics….. Plenty of feminists support Obama, by the way. for example Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL, and Ellen Bravo of Nine to Five. I signed a letter from “New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama.” Other signers include the historians Linda Gordon, Alice Kessler Harris and Ros Baxandall; the sociologist Judith Stacey; the political scientist Ros Petchesky,and writers Margo Jefferson and Meredith Tax.

(http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=25&pid=279745)

Flanders: “”I’d like to believe a female president would be good for the advancement of “womanhood” worldwide. But so far Senator Clinton’s votes have not been good for Iraqi, or Palestinian, or a whole lot of global womanhood.”

(http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=280397)

Kissling:

…I still don’t buy Clinton as the women’s candidate.

I’m a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn’t a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy. …

[Being a feminist] means an unrelenting attention to the questions of exclusion and marginalization, and to leveling the playing field. Asking whether Clinton is that person is not just a fair question, it is the feminist question. In answering that question, the history of centrist Democrats and Clintonism must be confronted.

Now, I’ve never been a centrist Democrat and everything I have seen of Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council confirms that women are far down their priority lists. … [W]hatever the reason, there is no evidence that Clinton’s feminist history currently influences her thinking about women, or that it is any further advanced than Obama’s and Edwards’ thinking.

The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids’ access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country. She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women’s needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda….

I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women’s reproductive health to the Catholic Church’s demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

The women’s movement, along with other progressive movements, did little to challenge the Clinton administration to live up to its campaign promises. And now it seems that the longtime women’s movement is falling into the same trap over Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Just read the feckless and stale defense of Clinton’s record on the war posted on the National Organization for Women’s Web site to get a sense of how willing some in the feminist establishment are to defend any woman, regardless of her track record.

But some women aren’t buying it. We’d like to see a woman president, but more than anything we want to be able to say at the end of the first woman’s tenure in the highest political office that it really mattered. That the first woman president did things no man would have done, that feminist values were at the core of her decisions — and that the country was on the road to further transformation.

(http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/01/10/kissling_clinton/)

So spare us, please, the shallow “if you don’t elect a woman then you’ve set the cause of women back a quarter century” line. Electing the wrong woman could set that cause back even further, and if that woman is tempted to show how Tough she is, or how Centrist she is, by say, attacking Iran or selling out poor people (most of whom are women, and who were pretty much sold out under Clinton 42, with little to suggest that it would be different under Clinton 44), it could set the cause of the United States back, possibly irreparably.

Barbara Boxer for President? Damn right. Hillary Clinton? “Better than McCain” isn’t much of a rallying cry.

If Hillary Clinton can’t get the nomination the chance that the women you mentioned or any other woman will become president in the forseeable future is essentially nil…. The tried and true approach to destroying a woman candidate will have worked (once again)and it will be amply evident to women everywhere that they can’t rely on their so-called progressive allies for support.”

More shallow identity politics. It just can’t be possible, can it, that Hillary could lose the nomination, not because tried-and-true tactics for destroying women have worked, but because people didn’t like her record, her policies, her political connections? Or because they were tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Or because someone else, who just happened to be male, was more inspirational? Nah, couldn’t be. Gotta be sexism. That’s the ONLY possible explanation.

For the record, it’s possible to be progressive, and not “so-called” progressive, and still to not support a particular woman for a particular candidacy. (Marilyn Musgrave, anyone?) It’s possible for progressives to look at someone’s record and to decide that a progressive politics would be best advanced by someone who just happens not to be a woman.

BTW, you can’t have it both ways. You wrote up-thread that Hillary’s New Hampshire victory couldn’t possibly have been about issues of sexism, Hillary “crying”, or anything else. But a Hillary loss HAS TO be about sexism, and those tried-and-true ways for destroying women, and the perfidy of “so-called progressive allies”? Sorry, like I said, you just can’t have it both ways.

gharlane, thank you for your exhuberent and well reasoned post. Unfortunately, you completely ignored or misunderstood my comments. I have no objection to you or anyone else concluding, after a study of the candidates, that they prefer Obama. That’s not my choice but I don’t criticize you for making it your choice. Your litany of criticisms of Senator Clinton could be easily rebutted but to regurgitate those would distract from the main point I am trying to make about sexism on the left.

You are certainly right that there are quite a few passionate feminists supporting Senator Obama. I think you would agree that there are probably more supporting Senator Clinton (see Emily’s list endorsement as just one example). Dueling quotes from Obama versus Clinton supporters elucidates nothing.

My main point througout my string of posts on this subject, is that people who think of themselves as progressive are just as guilty of sexism as people who they think are right wing. This is what I said…

“Here’s the problem. Senator Obama is the media darling. Hillary Clinton is deluged with sexist criticism and commentary. The media feels free to comment on Hillary’s cleavage, her style of dress, the timbre of her voice, her relationship with her husband, her relationship with her daughter, the fact that she’s too smart and wonkish and not in touch enough with her feelings, whether she shed a tear, etc. While Senator Obama may not endorse these comments, his silence and the silence of his supporters is deafening. I don’t even necessarily blame Senator Obama for his silence, he wants to win and will do anything to accomplish it. That’s okay, Hillary Clinton would do (and has done)the same thing; that’s just politics. But you have to admit, remarks pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s gender are left uncommented on by most so called progressives, while similar invective directed against Senator Obama’s race would never be tolerated.”

If you want your post to be a meaninful response to what I said, this is what you have to address. I would certainly be interested in hearing your comments, if you want to make them.

By the way, I acknowledge that the sexism of many Obama supporters is an act of ommission (not speaking out, but instead, remaining silent)not an act of commission (making sexist comments themselves). In my opinion silence in the face of an injustice is just as bad, but you might not feel this way.

In your post you say, “Barbara Boxer damned right” Hillary Clinton just barely better than McCain (that’s a paraphrase). Perhaps you missed my point that if a candidate with all the advantages (money, fame, passionate supporters nationwide)Hillary Clinton has can’t secure the nomination, the chances of someone you would prefer (like I guess, Barbara Boxer)stands no chance at all. All the sexist talking points made by the main stream media and blogworld could easily be directed against Barbara Boxer or any woman that you might prefer. If it kills a Clinton candidacy it would surely kill a Boxer candidacy. Your unwillingness to acknowlege (and fight)the profound sexism directed against Senator Clinton because it temporarily benefits the candidate you prefer, destroys the prospects for woman candidates anywhere, anytime. That’s what sexism of the left is all about.

Two other points; you disparage my comment referring to the fact that women will get the message that they have no allies when sexist attacks are directed against them and the left remains silent, as “shallow identity politics.” I wonder why you think that its not shallow identity politics when African Americans give their votes to Senator Obama by margins of 70-80 percent but it is shallow identity politics when I suggest that true progressives would fight sexism tooth and nail.

My final question to you is, don’t you think its sexist to attribute Hillary’s New Hampshire victory to women motivated by the faux crying episode. Do you think that’s how women vote? They see a sister cry and they decide to abandon their principles and just give her their vote? Do yu believe they ignore their view of which candidate can best help their family and their situation in life and instead make their decision based on a television clip that anyone could see is bogus. You can’t have a high regard for women if you think that.

One additional postscript, you can dial down the indignation. I never said it was good for women or anyone else that Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of England. I was merely answering another post which asked if conservatives would ever consider nominating a women. The answer was, at least in England, they did. Her name was Margaret Thatcher. I could also have pointed out that the current Chancellor of Germany, Andrea Merkel, is also the head of the conservative party there. So at least in Europe, conservatives are willing to advance women candidates to the highest office. In the United States, progressives remain silent when a credible women candidates is attacked about her dress, her demeanor, the timbre of her voice and her relatinship with her husband and daughter. So you tell me, gharlane, who is more progressive, the conservatives in Europe or the so called progressives in the United States?

Late at night. Hopefully there aren’t too many typos, repetitions (though some points bear repeating), or untoward jumps in reasoning. Here we go.

For starters, I certainly agree that both sexism and racism are rampant in America. Oddly, you appear to discuss sexism to the exclusion of racism, which is a factor in the Obama campaign, and it’s a factor in the attacks directed against Obama by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates. Clinton surrogates have also used the fake “Barack’s a secret Muslim” meme against him. Do you have any comments on that?

Second, I do not present myself as being either nonsexist or nonracist. I am anti-sexist and
anti-racist, and I know that I live in a society that is both sexist and racist, and I am not immune from either. The best I can do is struggle against it, in myself and in others.

Now, your original post in this thread read as follows:

Here’s the problem, the left is as sexist, or even more sexist than the right.

No disagreement that both the left and the right are sexist. You’ll have an interesting time proving that the left is more sexist than the right, but if you want to, have at it. But I’m not taking your word for it. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s worth it. There is certainly sexism, and racism, and anti-Semitism, and all the other isms and ills, on both sides of the political spectrum, and everywhere in between.

McCain supporters, Obama supporters, Romney supporters have all gladly joined in the sexist chorus against Hillary.

Probably so, although you’ve not demonstrated your characterization of a “sexist chorus.” I’m willing to concede the point for the sake of argument.

Hillary Clinton is the best chance that women have of breaking the ultimate glass ceiling in politics.

Best chance? Really? Why? Because she happens to be a woman candidate, running now, regardless of her record or her merits?

If she can’t be nominated by the democratic party it will set the cause of women in political life back by a quarter century. It will prove that a better qualified woman has no chance against a less qualified man. Great message for our daughters, isn’t it?

And here’s where you lost me. First, you make the bare assertion, without substantiation, that Clinton is better qualified than Obama, and that she’s the better candidate for the country. I disagree with that, as do many others, including feminists, as I pointed out, and for reasons that have everything to do with feminism. I described the reasons why they and we do so, something you have failed to do. I dispute your assertion that “If she can’t be nominated by the democratic party it will set the cause of women in political life back by a quarter century.” I have explained why, and I explain in even more detail below. But in brief, that sentence assumes, without demonstrating, that if Hillary loses then it must be because of sexism, and for no other reason. That is the central problem I have with your reasoning, and none of your responses to date have addressed that problem.

Now, on to your last post.

You are certainly right that there are quite a few passionate feminists supporting Senator Obama. I think you would agree that there are probably more supporting Senator Clinton (see Emily’s list endorsement as just one example). Dueling quotes from Obama versus Clinton supporters elucidates nothing.

I’m not interested in a numbers game about whether “more” feminists support Clinton or Obama. I’m interested in their reasoning from feminist principles, examples of which I presented. That’s not a “dueling quotes” game, it’s a presentation of reasoning from principles. Sorry if that’s opaque to you.

Here’s the problem. Senator Obama is the media darling. Hillary Clinton is deluged with sexist criticism and commentary. …..

I don’t listen to MSM that much, and I don’t watch it at all. Literally. I have a TV but it’s permanently off. Every now and then I see quotes. I see YouTube clips. I agree that sexism has been directed against Clinton, and some racism against Obama. There has been some push-back against both, almost certainly not enough. So I can’t really comment on whether there’s been more racism against Obama, or sexism against Clinton, or for that matter sexism against “Breck Girl” John Edwards. (Yes, sexism gets directed against men, primarily by claiming that they’re — gasp, horors — “girly girls”, and Edwards was relentlessly feminized in the media, because they were scared of him.) I can say that in the blog world (check, for example, the TPMElectionCentral blogs) that lots of Obama supporters have voiced disgust at sexism leveled against Clinton. I also think that Obama supporters have probably construed some comments as racist when they were not (Bill’s “fairy tale” comment comes to mind), and some Clinton supporters have construed some comments as sexist when they are not. I don’t however, concede the assertion that “remarks pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s gender are left uncommented on by most so called progressives, while similar invective directed against Senator Obama’s race would never be tolerated.” Clinton supporters make that assertion all the time, but it’s very, very easy to claim bias, and much more difficult to back it up. Same with the assertion that Obama is the “media darling.” Several months ago Clinton was the presumptive nominee, and she was routinely described as “inevitable”. Did that make her the media “darling?” Again, it’s easy to claim bias, difficult to substantiate.

In my opinion silence in the face of an injustice is just as bad, but you might not feel this way.

Silence in the face of injustice is not quite as bad as actively committing injustice, but it can be damn close (speaking as a Jew, I have a certain historical perspective on that one, as the world mostly sat by and watched a few million of my people get rounded up into ghettoes, shot, gassed and burned). So I think I agree with you that silence in the face of injustice is pretty bad. I disagree with you that it’s “just as bad.” That’s a minor quibble. But judging just from my own impressions, Clinton supporters have been just as unlikely to call out racist attacks on Obama as Obama supporters have been unlikely to call out sexist attacks on Clinton.

Have you, WigWag, said a single word about racism directed against Obama? If you claim that I am under an obligation to oppose every single instance of sexist stereotypes being used against Clinton, then I submit that you are under an equal obligation to oppose every instance of racist stereotypes being used against Obama.

I do acknowledge the sexism directed against Clinton. Where I disagree with you is in your conclusion that if she loses a particular race, it must be due to sexism, as well as the obverse claim, that if she wins a particular race, it must be attributable to her record and her merits, as opposed to her status as a woman. And I repeat what I have said above, and the women I quoted have discussed at length: Clinton may be a woman, but she is NOT the feminist candidate, her anatomy and chromosomes notwithstanding.

Two other points; you disparage my comment referring to the fact that women will get the message that they have no allies when sexist attacks are directed against them and the left remains silent, as “shallow identity politics.” I wonder why you think that its not shallow identity politics when African Americans give their votes to Senator Obama by margins of 70-80 percent but it is shallow identity politics when I suggest that true progressives would fight sexism tooth and nail.

You are, at best, putting words in my mouth. Why do you think that I think what you claim I think? You are also rewriting the history of your own posts. I agree with you that progressives should fight sexism tooth and nail. I disagree with you that a Hillary loss MUST be attributable to sexism.

The Clintons came in to this campaign with a sense of entitlement and inevitability. I have already posted on why I think Eight More Years of Clintonism would be a very bad idea for this country. Better than McCain, but still bad. I haven’t even scratched the surface of why, but I did mention it, and you have ignored that point. Do you acknowledge that it is just barely possible that people might agree and pick a different candidate for reasons other than sexism? Why is it that a Hillary win MUST be attributable to her own merits, but a Hillary loss MUST be attributable solely to sexism?

I think that African-Americans voting for Obama simply and solely because he is black IS shallow identity politics. I think that Jews voting for (ugh) Joe Lieberman simply and solely because he is Jewish would also be shallow identity politics. I think that Latinos voting for Bill Richardson simply and solely because he is Latino would be likewise. I don’t doubt that there are some women, some African Americans, some Jews, and some Latinos who practice that. But that was not my point, and you have twisted my point in to something you would like to respond to, rather than what I actually said. Let me quote it to you again: “It just can’t be possible, can it, that Hillary could lose the nomination, not because tried-and-true tactics for destroying women have worked, but because people didn’t like her record, her policies, her political connections? Or because they were tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Or because someone else, who just happened to be male, was more inspirational? Nah, couldn’t be. Gotta be sexism. That’s the ONLY possible explanation.” The “shallow identity politics” I refer to is the assumption that no factor other than sexism can be discussed if a woman candidate loses. “Shallow identity politics” is what Clarence Thomas practiced when he presented the eminently justified attacks on him and his record as a “high tech lynching” during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. I don’t enjoy seeing Clinton supporters using Clarence Thomas’s tactics.

In your post you say, “Barbara Boxer damned right” Hillary Clinton just barely better than McCain (that’s a paraphrase). Perhaps you missed my point that if a candidate with all the advantages (money, fame, passionate supporters nationwide)Hillary Clinton has can’t secure the nomination, the chances of someone you would prefer (like I guess, Barbara Boxer)stands no chance at all.

I didn’t miss it. I just disagree with it. And I pointed out why in my previous post. You still fail to even consider whether a Hillary loss could be attributable to something OTHER than sexism. Did you miss that point?

Two other points; you disparage my comment referring to the fact that women will get the message that they have no allies when sexist attacks are directed against them and the left remains silent, as “shallow identity politics.”

If you construe every attack on Clinton as sexist, and every loss of hers as being because of sexism, then you have presented us with a foregone conclusion. And that’s what you wrote: “If Hillary Clinton can’t get the nomination the chance that the women you mentioned or any other woman will become president in the forseeable future is essentially nil. My guess is that you would agree that this would be a bad outcome. The tried and true approach to destroying a woman candidate will have worked (once again)and it will be amply evident to women everywhere that they can’t rely on their so-called progressive allies for support. You present NO OTHER REASON for Hillary losing the nomination than sexism. None. It just doesn’t hit the radar screen that people might, you know, disapprove of her record or something. I disagree with your premise: I believe that some other woman could very well get the nomination, even if Clinton could not. And the reason HAS TO DO WITH HER RECORD, and her connections, and Clinton family history of militarism and Republican-lite governance. It has to do with Clinton taking more money from the military-industrial complex than all the other Democrats combined, and far more than any single Republican candidate. It has to do with Mark Penn and Burson-Marsteller. It has to do with the DLC. It has to do with Ickes, Rubin, McAuliffe, and Emanuel, and Holbrooke, and on and on.

I presented plenty of reasons, in my own words and others’, why people might oppose a Clinton candidacy — reasons having nothing to do with sexism, and in some cases, reasons having everything to do with feminism. You have ignored every single one of them (except for the throwaway line that the “litany of criticisms of Senator Clinton could be easily rebutted.” Because if she loses or is opposed, it’s gotta be about sexism.

My final question to you is, don’t you think its sexist to attribute Hillary’s New Hampshire victory to women motivated by the faux crying episode. Do you think that’s how women vote? They see a sister cry and they decide to abandon their principles and just give her their vote? Do yu believe they ignore their view of which candidate can best help their family and their situation in life and instead make their decision based on a television clip that anyone could see is bogus. You can’t have a high regard for women if you think that.

That’s not how I remember it being portrayed (again, mostly from YouTube clips and quotes. I really don’t watch TV. Really.) The portrayal I recall was: Women (and men) came out and defended Clinton from sexism directed against her in the MSM arising out of the “crying” episode. And I certainly attribute at least a portion of her margin as a reaction from women and men against that kind of sexism. I think that’s natural and in some respects even laudable, although it’s not the motivation I would choose to cast my vote. But once again, the way you portray this episode demonstrates how you are trying to twist a narrative into something that better suits a single-issue focus. The narrative wasn’t “women voted for Hillary because she cried,” it was “women voted for Hillary because they were pissed at Chris Matthews and the rest of the sexist media who used sexist stereotypes against her after she cried.” But that doesn’t fit your narrative. I also resent your repeated insinuations that if I disagree with you, or your narrative, or how you present it, then I must not “have a high regard for women” or disrespect how or why women vote, especially when I never said such a thing. In fact, I said nothing about the “faux crying episode” at all. Nothing. You brought it up, and then proceeded to presume to know what I think about it. Please stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. Thank you.

One additional postscript, you can dial down the indignation. I never said it was good for women or anyone else that Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of England.

Sigh. My point, for the umpteenth time, is that a woman candidate is not necessarily either a good candidate or a feminist candidate. Margaret Thatcher is a glaring example of that principle. Marilyn Musgrave is another. So would Phyllis Schlafly if she were to run for office. Condi Rice. The list of awful women may not be as long as the list of awful men, but it ain’t short, either. And I think Clinton (both of them) are a lot closer to Margaret Thatcher than their supporters care to admit.

I am indignant, btw, at what Thatcherism, Clintonism, Bushism, Blairism and Reaganism have done both to the UK and the US — not to mention the rest of the world, which doesn’t even have a say in whom we elect, but which suffers the consequences. Sorry if that offends you. And I don’t want to see more of it.

So you tell me, gharlane, who is more progressive, the conservatives in Europe or the so called progressives in the United States?

Well, if the sole measure of progressivism is a willingness to nominate or elect a woman of any stripe, regardless of record, policies, positions, etc., then I guess the progressive prize goes to the European conservatives. But once again, I don’t buy the premise. And I might add that a lot of European (and Canadian) “conservatives” stake out positions well to the left of United States “centrists” and in some cases, even “liberals.” They certainly stake out positions to the left of Hillary Clinton. And all of this renders your whole “who’s more progressive” construct logically suspect.

BTW, Chancellor Merkel’s first name is Angela.

I have no particular illusions about Obama, btw. He was never my favorite. My favorite was Kucinich, with Dodd and Edwards sort of tied for second. Richardson was in there too. And guess what? It had nothing to do with the color of their skin or their anatomy. It had to do with their records, their stands, their policies. Regarding the two Democrats left standing at this point (and more’s the pity), I think Obama’s advisors are somewhat less corporate and distinctly less warlike than Clinton’s. But progressives are going to have a fight on our hands to get real progressive, feminist, antiracist, antipoverty, just and peace-oriented policies passed no matter whether Clinton or Obama gets the nod. I just think it will be harder — significantly harder — with Clinton. Obama has a decent record of community organizing among ordinary working-class and poor folks, and I harbor some faint hope that he can be persuaded (by us) to remember those roots, even as the corporate suits running the Democratic Party and the country continue to mold him in their image (although not for public consumption). I also think that, for whatever reason, Obama has shown that he can win over independents, which will be crucial in a general election, and Obama has been shown to inspire people to get active in politics, often for the first time, which is crucial to the future of our battered, tattered, endangered democracy.

For those reasons, and those reasons alone, I prefer Obama over Clinton. Clinton’s record, on too many crucial issues, is too unambiguous for her to merit my support. And I think that that record just might explain some of the opposition to Clinton. Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, or, God forbid, gets the nomination but loses the general, you’ll consider the possibility that she wasn’t the right candidate, for a host of reasons, rather than assuming that it had to be sexism.

Also for the record, if Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her and support her. Holding my nose, which I am really $%#@!&! tired of doing with Democrat after Democrat after Democrat, but I’ll do it. In particular, Supreme Court nominations will be too important to let the election go to McCain or any other Republican.

~~~ModNote: In the future, please break up long posts such as this into several comments to avoid it being caught in the spam filters .~~~

gharlane, hi and welcome to the lake. i don’t think we’ve met. i am one of the moderators here.

please do not post comments that are excessively long. they get caught in the filters and the moderators on duty have to free them.

this was pointed out when your comment at 187 which was caught and freed with a MODNOTE at the end. in case you did not see it, i’ve cut and pasted it into this comment.

~~~ModNote: In the future, please break up long posts such as this into several comments to avoid it being caught in the spam filters .~~~

your petition comment was moderated because it exceeded fair use – which is usually understood to mean one uses less than 200 words or so and then give a link to the site so people go there to read it.

Gharlane, thank you for debating with me. I will try this one last time. It’s not sexist to prefer Senator Obama over Senator Clinton. It’s not sexist to prefer David Axelrod in Karl Rove’s seat instead of Mark Penn (seems like a wash here to me). It’s not sexist to think Senator Obama’s health plan with no madate is better than Senator Clinton’s plan with a mandate. It’s not sexist to prefer Zbigniew Brzezinski as the chief foregin policy advisor over Richard Holbrooke. It’s not sexist to object to Senator Clinton’s proposal for an interest rate freeze to ameliorate the effects of the mortgage crisis. There are a million non sexist reasons to prefer either candidate.

It is sexist to comment on Senator Clinton’s cleavage. It is sexist to call her voice shrill because women have higher pitched voices then men. It is sexist to comment obsessively about Senator Clinton’s relationship with her daughter and husband when not doing the same to the male candidate. It is sexist to require the female candidate to make peace with her inner voice while not requiring the same thing of the male candidate. It is sexist to call a female candidate a bitch. It is sexist to comment on the way a female candidate dresses while not doing the same for the male candidate. While you have been spending your time on you tube, so called liberal columnists for the New York Times and Washington Post as well as pundits on so called liberal tv like CNN and MSNBC, have assidiously been working to promote all of the commentary mentioned above.

Senator Obama has said nothing and his supporters in blogworld have said nothing. In your posts, you have said virtually nothing about this. That’s sexist and that’s my point. You and many of the people who support your candidate are happy to sit quietly while Hillary Clinton is subject to attacks not based on issues but based on gender. This may provide a temporary tactical advantage to Senator Obama’s candidacy; it sets a terrible precedent for any woman audacious enough to seek the presidency.

As for racism in the campaign, it is disgusting to claim that Senator Obama is a follower of Islam when it isn’t true. Any suggestion that this came from the Clinton campaign is innuendo and slanderous. Bill Clinton did mention that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice. That’s not racism, its factually true. Please don’t try (as pundits often do) to claim you have any special insight into why he said what he said. What ever you think of the comment, it’s factually completely accurate.

Senator Clinton’s comments about the role played by President Johnson in signing civil rights legislation was not racist, it was accurate and the comments was praised by many civil rights leaders of the time, black and white. Senator Obama’s criticism of the comment was a cannard.

As far as I can tell, the only questionable comment pertaining to race that came out of the Clinton campaign was when Governor Sheehan’s husband referred to Senator Obama’s youthful use of illegal drugs. I think that was designed to inspire racial feelings and was disgusting. Senator Clinton promptly dismissed the man who made these comments from her campaign. She acted quickly and appropriately. When Mr. Johnson of BET made similar remarks, he was reprimanded, but in my view, not severely enough.

If Senator Obama wins the nomination it certainly doesn’t mean that the people who voted for him are sexists. But don’t tell me that the sexist barrage directed agaisnt Senator Clinton will have had no effect. The effect will be real, it will be lasting and it will discourage female candidates in the future, the ones, Gharlane, that you like as well as the one’s that you dislike.

With best wishes.