I think Paul’s larger point — that for either campaign or its supporters to indulge in either racism or sexism is ultimately destructive to their own cause — is one we should all be able to agree on. Paul does stress the sexism, and as you’ll see in the last part of the series, he does so with good cause. I frankly get very disturbed by some of the repetition of old Limbaughesque tropes about Hillary I hear from Obama supporters. But that cuts the other way with Hillary, too. I have to say that her indulgence of the current “Obama is an elitist” trope probably has a similar effect.

Then he started off about how Hillary was clearly the superior candidate when the data and analysis actually showed that because of the factors he stated just the opposite was true. But then he denied that one could make any such claims of relative electability, just that sexism and racism were significant factors, but sexism was more important. His response to folks wondering how Hillary being the better candidate came out of the “data” was simply ansered by the assertion that Hillary’s been dealing with this for decades…Obama’s a neophyte. I’m not sure how such deeply ingrained sexism can be dealt with in the course of a few months.

But then again one strategy to make oneself more electable than the opponent in ones own party is to increase the factor that is the weak point of the other Democrat (i.e. race). Paul pointed out that currently it’s a less critical force than sexism in the scale of people jumping ship. But if racism can be amped up it increasingly makes BOTH McCain and Clinton look like better opponents. Of course, McCain gains more than Clinton by this strategy…but Obama suffers the most…and Hillary can win the nomination.

It’s analogous to the Cuckoo in the Robin’s nest. The Cuckoo can only survive if the parent robins feed it more than their own nestlings. But in many cases the Cuckoo does die…but so do the Robin chicks. But the strategy only has to work once in awhilre for it to propogate. That’s why Cockoos are still about doing this.

If he is passionate about his candidate, then he should not try to pass off his writing as unbiased analysis.

Calling people idiots, and “pimping” your candidate is not exactly the most diplomatic way, imo, to generate a real discussion about sexism.

I appreciate his past credentials, but didn’t appreciate the tone of his present post.

Oh, I don’t disagree with you – you’ll notice I blamed the writing in the original post as being the reason it went off the rails.

I’m waiting to see if he will respond to Cinnamonape’s comment, because she is responding to his post.

I disagree with Paul about Clinton, but he isn’t some loon. He’s just passionate about his candidate, and passionate about the underlying racism/sexism things he’s seeing.

This is the man whose FOIA requests got us the information about Bush’s ANG service.

And also in his defense, he wanted to have a discussion that he didn’t get to have – I think his poorly written paragraph caused that, but he really wanted to look at a real issue, sexism.

If he is passionate about his candidate, then he should not try to pass off his writing as unbiased analysis.

Calling people idiots, and “pimping” your candidate is not exactly the most diplomatic way, imo, to generate a real discussion about sexism.

I appreciate his past credentials, but didn’t appreciate the tone of his present post.

I want to to keep this story alive another day, and that seems like one way to do it.

It’s as if their strangely twisted psyches start unraveling right in front of you.

Still, I think that there are moments when that approach can break down walls of hatred. Even if racists continue to refuse to open their hearts, in my opinion it probably is the only “tactic” which has even a small chance of working.

[And in a nod to the other ongoing conversation in this thread, I think Obama knows this. His candidacy, in addition to drawing out all the haters into the open, has a chance of creating real moments of healing.]

Honestly, I am not sure what it is that Hillary is doing that is so dreadful. Her opponent has made an error, he admits that, and she is trying to take advantage of it. This is called politics.
At any rate, I think some reactions to this are a bit over-the-top.

The way I see it her approach has been for the last few weeks

…vote for me, not my Democratic opponent…because I and the Republican over there are less elitist, more experienced, and both love guns, go to the right churches, and can drink folks under the table. The black guy is unelectable.

I don’t hear Obama cheerleading for McCain if he isn’t nominated.

does his presidential candidate–John McCain–approve of the remarks?

Someone should ask him if he is going to “denounce and reject” Rep. Davis.

The quiet gentle senator who wrote legislation to authorize torture and in a fit of anger called his wife names in public?

The “moderate” senator who wants us to stay in Iraq forever?

The maverick senator who voted with Bush on everything?

The candidate who is violating Federal Election laws, even as I write this?

You want *him* to denounce another Republican? Fat chance.