What happened in the election was sexist, although the Obama camp did not play the gender card. More men voted for Obama by maybe 5-10 points with virtually the same platform. More women voted for Clinton by a 10-20 point margin. Even with sexism working in her favor by crunching the numbers, she still lost. The south, the west and midwest other than the rust belt disliked Hillary from previous Republican attacks, not by the Obama camp attacking. Rose law firm parties, Whitewater, Foster's suicide, travelgate, disappearing whitehouse papers, no compromise on healthcare reform, Hsu and Peter Paul donations, Pasternik doing time for fondling a seven year old and countless other dirty attacks were not used by Obama, but Hillary's team did not miss a beat when given the chance. Her Wright attack turned off many super delegates who switched to Obama after hearing it. Dividing the party by preying on their prejudices like Rove and the Republicans was a contributing factor in her loss. She waited until losing 11 straight contests before lending her campaign some coin. If she wants to blame anyone for the loss, she should look in the mirror.

All angry hillary supporters,

please vote for Maccaine as you wish...
And just take the consequences... either in 2012 or 2016, Your beloved Hillary will never get a chance to be a nominee let alone POTUS... because we, other 1.8 million obama voters will never vote for her....

you will reap what you sow !!!

nan4: How ironic: the woman who whines all over this message board about sexism now openly engages in age discrimination. My age is none of your business.

As I said, I really don't care if you vote for McCain. Just do it. But don't delude yourself into thinking all Hillary supporters are doing the same. To the contrary, the vast majority are lining up behind Obama. There are several polls out there that show this. You might have a read of this LA times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-women16-2008jun16,0,6187010.story

This election year people had a choice between the same old DIRTY politics that was pedaled by people like Hillary and Romney, or a cleaner level of politics on a higher ground like that coming from Obama and McCain, and they chose the latter. If you want to continue to support dirty politics, then go ahead: you're not alone. But it's not going to prevail this election year. And if Hillary comes back in 2012 or 2016, there are a lot of people like me who just aren't going to support her. This is nothing about sexism, instead it's about character.

So if you really want 4 more years of Iraq war, fiscal irresponsibility, weak dollar, and politics ruled by lobyists, then you have ever right to vote for McCain.

rp44g6nq60e84sz zeqvh2o3wk [URL=http://www.754707.com/388539.html] oe9hviwgynebis9o0 [/URL] uaa1i5ko692o2luxa

Hi, it's me again, Patience. Please ignore my comment below. I have a split personality and I'm getting medical help for it. I do not really know what I am saying half the time, so you can ignore me when I talk about Hillary. Thanks!

Beware of all posters who endeavor to be witty, cunning and funny in their use of your online moniker. I hope it is clear that Patience of June 9th 7:14am (me) is not the same person as Patience June 11th at 11:19pm. Nice try fake Patience. Why don't you be the individual that you are and use your own special name. If you need help in coming up with something, please let me know!

Billy Mc:
You are so eloquent and such a fine representative of your candidate and his campaign. Are my words too heavy for you? How old are you, 12?

Nan4, quit your whining on this page. We are sicking of your sore loser attitude. We don't really care if you vote for McCain, all we want is for you to shut up!

And one more thing and I will make it short:
I submit to you that the argument I presented, though lengthy, probably is the reason why women are so very angry still and considering not coming aboard the Obama Train. We are furious with the DNC; with his campaign whose bloggers fueled it; with the media. We are furious that no one stood up and said STOP! In fact, they perpetrated and encouraged it and continue to do so even in victory mode. I have always been a Democrat---until now. I, being of the generation that promoted civil rights and raised my children not to notice racial differences---could have been thrilled to come aboard had my candidate fairly lost to the first black presidential candidate. Instead, because I based my choice on criteria such as experience and record and proposed solutions, I was called a "racist" and all those other slurs targeted to my candidate and invited to leave the Party by his ardent, ill advised supporters.
A speech by Howard Dean; a call for "common ground" by Pelosi; and anything else Obama could do now, all motivated by the "get unified" strategy, comes way too late for me. Continued negative behavior by his bloggers and supporters while they are in victory mode at that! just reinforce that I cannot be part of a campaign of Hope fueled by Hate. He will probably win, but, not with my help. And no one really cares, including me.

First, I take note that I am unable to use the same terminology on this blog that was used over the networks and cable outlets in their descriptions of Hillary. That, in itself, speaks volumes.
Second, whether you like or not, voted for her or not, there is no precedent for the media to use profanity, slurs, crude vulgarisms in their dialogue about Hillary. Celebrities whose lifestyles are questionable do not provoke that kind of commentary. We have always assumed that kind of "reporting" was out of line and never permitted or engaged in before.
Now, it appears, there is a new norm. My question is does it apply only to women? You may call it sexism, or rudeness, or crudeness, or profanity, or anything you like, but it is not "normal" and it reflects on the person(s) doing the calling and not on the person being called. Be that as it may, I want to see this new norm applied to the male candidates now. I want the reason they all wear dark suits with baby blue ties psychoanalyzed; I want their male anatomy compared and joked about and I want vulgar slang terminology used for it; I want to hear ridiculed their physical characteristics, ie, their big ears, their balding hair and receeding hairlines, their paunchy bellies, their height or lack of it; I want their gruff voices compared to an abusive and stern man; I want them called names that bring into question their birth legitimacy and make that street lingo, slurs. Until I see this applied to men, I will call what women all over the country experienced "SEXISM". Even if a woman did not support Hillary politically, your not finding anything wrong with this indicates that you must be accustomed to the notion that "if women do not behave in a certain way, they should be taught a lesson." All of this certainly had the possibility of influencing election outcome.
Third, all of the calls for her to end her campaign and get out of the race after millions were voting for her and millions more were voting for her; alleging that she was damaging the party by allowing those who wished to vote for her to do so; premature endorsements by The Endorsers; calling elections prematurely by the TV media---all of these attempts to interfere with the election process and to negate this candidate and make her and her achievement, and so, her voters!---invisible. This most certainly did affect election outcome.
Fourth, the DNC's effort to deny voters in MI and FLA early in the season--was it because they anticipated Obama would have difficulty there? No matter, they fixed it just fine for him by allocating all the Uncommitted to him (perhaps that was acceptable since he advertised in Fla that he would not be on the ballot and his voters should vote uncommitted); but, then, to give him as a gift, 4 delegates from Hillary's earned pool based on exit poll interviews, is certainly interfering in election outcome.
So, if you use a clear head, these facts are irrefutable.
However, I am new to blogging. It is my opinion that blogging is just one step below the new press/media resources. In blogs, especially, one finds emotional responses not based on fact, just knee-jerk reactions wherein anything is sprung from the mouth--or the computer keys--without a pass through the mind. There are people who know nothing about history; they heard a little bit about this, a little bit about that, and it is enough for them to "prove their point". When you operate like that, reason can effect nothing. They become more and more emotional more and more irrational and I submit to you, more and more non tolerant. The first, second, maybe third time Obama must do something not very popular, which he surely will, they will turn on him like a lightbulb. For awhile, he will walk on water.
I still say that none of us, no matter who you are, no matter how much you may dislike Hillary, no matter how much you adore Obama, should ever feel it is OK to talk about a woman like that over the airwaves. It is not Ok to do it to a political candidate, to a movie star whose lifestyle may indicate it may be true, to a female athelete, whether she is black or white. If we never hear that characterization applied to men, why is it applied to women with seeming impunity?
Women, do you allow your male bosses and supervisors to speak to you and about you like that? Is it OK with you if your daughters are treated like that at school by their male teachers and coaches? Are you so accustomed to the men in your family referring to you in that way? If the answer to any of the above is Yes, then I say, RISE UP!! You do not have to take it. We do not have to take it!

Dear all, I must apologize about by rant below about sexism. I only now learnt that Hillary got more votes because she is a woman than she lost votes due to sexism. I was wrong all along. Now I will amend my error by voting for Obama. Please forgive me.

It is the racist, egocentric, machoistic "little men" who forced Hillary Clinton out of the Presidential race.Obama thinks and behaves like Elvis Presley.We want a mature and experienced President not an Elvis Obama Presley. You wait and see how Mac is gonna kick his butt back to a music concert where he belongs. Hallelujah.

It is the racist, egocentric, machoistic "little men" who forced Hillary Clinton out of the Presidential race.Obama thinks and behaves like Elvis Presley.We want a mature and experienced President not an Elvis Obama Presley. You wait and see how Mac is gonna kick his butt back to a music concert where he belongs. Hallelujah.

Wow, what an awesome article, one that I wish I personally could have and would have written. It says how I feel perfectly.

Short and sweet. At first I liked Hillary, then when she attempted to change the rules on Florida & Michigan, I lost respect for her. A person who would attempt to cheat so brazenly, in view of the public eye, I have to question your integrity. It doesn't matter if you are a man or woman.

Plain and simple...that was wrong.

I'm sure that to some, there was no way they would vote for a woman for President. Just as there were some (i.e. KY & WV) who would not vote for a black man for President. I think for most though the decision was made on whether or not they wanted a continuation of the old guard or the chance for something new.

Let us not forget, Obama won using the system agreed upon. At the beginning, all the candidates agreed that FL & MI should not count. I do find it disingenuous that Hillary only wanted to count those delegates when she realized she would need them. Wonder how FL & MI would have faired if she had been ahead?

Yes sexism raised it ugly head during the primaries. I wish those who deny it even played a part would view the blogs, the replays of coverage on YouTube, the synopsis presented by those sites that self critique the news, with open hearts and mind. Is it the only reason she lost during the primaries? No, absolutely not.

She was a formidable opponent to Senator Obama. Many tried to credit her win of the popular vote to her husband. I say that opinion borders on sexist itself. Was she helped by being the wife of Bill Clinton? Sure for some. Was she hurt by being the wife of Bill Clinton? Yes for some.

But to have a candidate openly criticized by the likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann and their pundit followers for cackling, for her pantsuits, for her devious motivations, for pimping her daughter (apparently no other candidate has had or asked their relatives to campaign for them), goes beyond fodder as most comments of this nature was stated in the most serious of discussions. They were said to influence the public. And influence they did.

And to deny that some of the voting American public was not influenced to adopt the overall disdain these enlightened political celebrities (sarcasm) had for Senator Clinton is being myopic in my opinion. That goes for the author of this piece as well, Andres Martinez.

I watched these shows and read many opinions and responses on a variety of blogs. Some posters and pundits seemed to be repeating verbatim the comments made by the same insensitive, sexist, pontificators who were the most egregioius of all, without any thought that maybe, just maybe, the views of those with the highest ratings/readership were tainted by sexism, while sounding credible.

Why is it so inconceivable that sexism played a role in the primaries when it plays a significant role in the larger society today? The majority of executive level Corporate positions, certainly CEO positions are held by men. Does that mean mostly men are qualified for those roles? I think not. Why does data culled by the U.S. Government indicate women are paid 76% to 80% on the dollar as compared to that of men? Is it possible sexism created this lopsided pay disparity? Of course it does. So isn't it possible the same elements of sexism had a measure of impact on the media, therefore those who allow their opinions about Hillary to be wholly crafted by the media? By the way, there is hope as pay disparity between the genders is slowly decreasing.

My thoughts are presently honestly. If you are not sexist, great! It doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist. I hope we, collectively, can start to openly discuss sexism and stop dodging the subject or attempting to marginalize the millions (guessing) of Senator Clinton's supporters and desenters who understand it negatively impacted her campaign.

Hillary's loss was her own fault. She ran a poor campaign and she just didn't get the message that people are sick of the way politics are running today. Rather than speaking out strongly for a different way of doing politics, she labelled Obama "naive" several times for his different approaches, and even showed that she could be tough too by threatening to "obliterate Iran". A lot of us are sick of this same old crap. Obama is a refreshing, honest, and intelligent alternative to the same old politics of the last 20 years of Bushs and Clintons.

Please don't pay any attention to the bimbo below:

"...I disagree with your contention that Hillary Clinton's failed candidacy, and the way it was covered by the media, revealed a widespread disdain for powerful women across the country...."

What a misogynistic, anti-woman load of crap. OF COURSE there is a sexism problem with this country. Just look at how it ranks compared to other industrialized countries of the world and you will see that the United States is wallowing at the bottom of the list when it comes to equal treatment of women.

Tony! Don't listen to that jerk. Of course it was sexism. Their positions were basically identical what else left could be used by Obama.

I have voted democratic my whole live....52 years in every vote, presential, state, county, city. I will be jumping ship for the first time in the November election UNLESS Hillary Clinton becomes the Vice Presential Candidate. The fact that she has been denied the presidential position is inconcievable to me. I feel like I have woken from a bad dream only to find out it is true.

There is no way I will vote for a person who is a charismatic idealistic smooth talker without Hillary. The contry is a mess and the stakes are way too high. Experience is a must. This election has been a travesty. I must vote for the best person, and that is John McCain.

PS I am NOT part of the Walmart crowd as those who voted for Hillary have been characterised. I am a master's prepared profession with a 6 figure salary. In Tennesse and Kentucky, I will work my heart out to make sure Obama is NOT elected

Jan Freeman

"Again, the attitudes on this blog, the misogyny, the lack of basic decency towards the loser in this kangaroo "election" process ..."

You sound like a really sore, and poor, loser. Get over it.

"Again, the attitudes on this blog, the misogyny, the lack of basic decency towards the loser in this kangaroo "election" process ..."

You sound like a really poor, and sore, loser. Get over it.

i agree with everything you wrote. But, if Obama loses a cry of racism would be appropriate. Sickeningly this was all too true with the many Kentuckians and West Virginians who said as much in the exit polls. Now there's the real disgrace!

A bumper sticker I saw today says it all:

Barack Obama 08
John McCain 08

We are f*cked

How true....

I'm a white female voter who would LOVE to see a woman in the White House... but NOT Hillary. Her arrogance and sense of entitlement are part of the reason, but anyone who would choose to stay married to a sleazy, jerk like Bill Clinton after everything he has done and CONTINUES to do to publicly humiliate her and sabotage her success is not someone I can respect. And I don't want that nasty, corrupt couple back in the White House embarrassing America!!

It is the nature of abusers to deny that they are abusers- to discount and deny the pain they inflict. And it is the nature of sexists to deny that they are vile, ignorant pigs. I am referring to some of you on this blog. Again, the attitudes on this blog, the misogyny, the lack of basic decency towards the loser in this kangaroo "election" process places you all back with the Romans cheering as lions and gladiators tear each other apart. If it weren't logistically impossible for you, I am sure you would be thrilled to parade Hillary's head on a spike. I won't vote in November.

Same on CarolTate2

How ignorant and silly to deny Barak Obama his skin color, as though somehow, by some standard, a person who is not white will not be benchmark that black, tan, green, or gold could see of our nation's will to move forward through all this global pain and confusion and, obviously, racism.

It's people like you who make it hard to keep this party unified.

I can only speak for myself, but I didn't vote for Hilliary and it wasn't because she was a woman, it was because she was a Clinton and I thought she ran a sleazy campaign. Call that sexist if you want, but it had nothing to do with her sex, it had to do with the way she played political games and her low opinion (which is probably right) about the average voters intelligence and gullability.

Precisely, Andrew. Stumped is apparently getting paid to simply Xerox the same comment posted hundreds of times by Obama fans. No one is claiming that sexism was the sole reason for Clinton's defeat**** no but racism took it over the top! Were any of you there I was! from the beginning! The bama campaign was racist from the beginning......he made himself up to be a rightous black man (cough, cough). He will only allow his supporters to say he is half white & half black...truth is: 50%White, 43.75%Arab, 6.25%black."Barack Hussein Muhammud Obama"..(one black person who supposedly shows up in his father's Arab Slave Trader ancestors lineage) Kenya claims & documents that the Obama family are Arab-Africans....NOT Black-Africans.....Kenya called bama, Odinga's muslim stooge..........but I guess everyone in the world is lying but bamaliar?? 90% black support for an Arab pretending to be black...how intelligent???

hmmmmmmm? "Angry White Men" posted "I will NEVER vote for a woman, I will support Obama"..did any of you go to any of the blogs & read what was posted.....I even got an email from this group sent to my inbox.......they were filled with such hate! what did you think of "Hillary should be baking cookies..not running for president" making fun of her wearing pants suits...what does that mean?....I guess the dirty ole men wanted to see more skin like they do in the bamacamp.....NO SEXISM? I was called every filthy name in the book just because I was a woman voting for a woman (In my opinion the better candidate)....but I'm just an ANGRY Hillary supporter being a traitor to the dem party for not supporting bamaracist! Most of the "Hillary supporters have left the building" YES THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US looking for a good president for the U.S. McCain08..so here we are peoples.....

hmmmmmmm? "Angry White Men" posted "I will NEVER vote for a woman, I will support Obama"..did any of you go to any of the blogs & read what was posted.....I even got an email from this group sent to my inbox.......they were filled with such hate! what did you think of "Hillary should be baking cookies..not running for president" making fun of her wearing pants suits...what does that mean?....I guess the dirty ole men wanted to see more skin like they do in the bamacamp.....NO SEXISM? I was called every filthy name in the book just because I was a woman voting for a woman (In my opinion the better candidate)....but I'm just an ANGRY Hillary supporter being a traitor to the dem party for not supporting bamaracist! Most of the "Hillary supporters have left the building" YES THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US looking for a good president for the U.S. McCain08..so here we are peoples.....

AMEN.

Though racism hurt him, it also helped him and any racist remark was rebuked by media fervently.Even media made some non-racist remarks as racist.But whats about sexism?Now some people are writing about role of gender hatred played in politics after the game has been lost.And the media?Chris Mattwes, Thaker Carlson type of pseudo-pundits are the perfect example of most of the media.Please,don't characterize all American's in the same mind set to promote your analysis.See the comments of many Obama supporters in different blogs.You will see comments frequently start with 'this woman...'.Yah, it was not the sole reason but one of the reasons and in such a close fight even 1% of votes are important.
I hope Hillary supporters will vote for Obama. Because he is also a feminist and is a better option than any conservative.

trace - Exactly.

It's vintage Clintonism to try to have your political cake and eat it too.

And as for sexism, let's ask BubbaZipper's sexual victims,Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broaddrick, to name a few.

One NEVER hears the Hillary-heads talk about how their hero led the assassins' squad that slimed ANY woman who dared to expose his crimes and thereby jeopardize her political ambitions.

The field in New York was cleared for Hillary to run for Senator. (How many people claim a US Senate seat for their first elected office?) She has gained prominence BECAUSE she is a woman MARRIED to Bill Clinton. She expected the field to be cleared for her to run for the Presidency, too -- until Obama crashed her party. Plenty of sexism exists, but that is NOT want brought her down. She has clearly benefitted in her political career all along from being a woman.

Finally, somebody got it right. Thanks for an insightful and well written piece. If the situation were reverse, I seriously doubt Obama would claim racism was the reason, although we all know it exists.

"The witch evidently didn't get instructions with her mirror or she wouldn't have told us ..."

Strange comment when complaining about sexism. ;)

No sexism? Which planet are you from?
I listened to a reporter insult Hillary's looks with such glee. The witch evidently didn't get instructions with her mirror or she wouldn't have told us Hillary looked 90 and was a mess. Another kept insulting everything Hillary said. From pants suits to the length of time Hillary would need to dress in an emergency.

Male or female, I don't care what they look like, though Hillary is by no means ugly, I vote on the issues and was so tired of these tiresome and borish so called reporters that my brain went into a freeze.

There has been sexism and racism in this election. But for me, family, friends, and associates the worse was "Our vote in the primary was worthless." Over 18 million votes for Hillary and still the delegates were snubbing not only Hillary but the voters.
You tell me why we should bother to vote when the decision was already made.

"the misogyny manifested in relation to her candidacy--including comments responding this column"

Going down the thread, the only "sexist" [it cuts both ways!] posts I see are pro-Hillary.

"I'm voting on character. Hillary has none."

Amen.

No more corrupt Clinton slime in the White House. Ever.

;)

"Bea and superclasseux seem to be truly nasty people. What is the point of beating up on someone who has been though what she has? this is why I don't trust Obama- the quality of garbage that seems to be attracted to him.

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 10:26 PM "

WHAT SHE'S BEEN THROUGH??!! Are you referring to Wellesley or Yale Law School? Being a corporate attorney for Wal-Mart, perhaps? Or Monica, et al.? Perhaps her grandfather's summer cottage not having central heat? [Why would a summer cottage need central heat, anyway?]

Hillary ISN'T one of you: she is a rich, selfish, self-absorbed narcissist who is taking advantage of you. She happens to be female. Fine. I'm not voting for President based on genitalia, whatever they may happen to be. I'm voting on character. Hiillary has none.

"With SD and MT now counted, Hillary finished this race with 21,000
more votes than Obama - EXCLUDING Michigan. Toss it in, it's a
349,000 lead.

Ladies (and gentlemen), if you are ready to demand that Supers honor
that - or you will vote McCain - read and sign the Nobama Petition
at;"

Even accepting your fuzzy math, which I don't, you should be made aware of something: the popular vote doesn't count. The [presumed] Electoral College vote doesn't exist. What counts is delegates. Obama beat Clinton in delegate count, even though Clinton's senior advisors [McAuliffe and Ickes] were in charge of writing the rules. She, for all her vaunted "experience," was outpoliticked. Is that someone you want in charge?

Whether or not Hillary Clinton made mistakes in her campaign, or would have made an effective president, the misogyny manifested in relation to her candidacy--including comments responding this column--has been mind-boggling. How can we change this state of affairs?

With SD and MT now counted, Hillary finished this race with 21,000
more votes than Obama - EXCLUDING Michigan. Toss it in, it's a
349,000 lead.

Ladies (and gentlemen), if you are ready to demand that Supers honor
that - or you will vote McCain - read and sign the Nobama Petition
at;

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Nobama

-

Hillary, of course, undoubtedly was looked at initially as the presumptive nominations because of her Clinton connections. But I think Bill did her in. At least, to me, he interfered on her behalf too much -- to the point that it was clear to me that he wanted a piece of control again in the White House. We had 8 years of Bill and it was a much better 8 years than with George W. But presidents have two-term limits for a reason.

Hillary showed me in her campaign that she is strong enough to handle things herself. She does'nt need Bill. As close as the race came, I think the Bill factor, not the Clinton name in general, that made the difference that ultimately cost her the nomination. If she could have put a muzzle on him, she'd have had the nomination.

Barack needed one for his former pastor too who almost cost him the nomination and may yet affect the general election. But at least he's now done all he can to stop the bleeding.

Could a New York Senator take a stand against the Israel hard right lobby on the war? Only if she placed principle and decency above opportunism. Live by the sword, die by the sword. No sympathy here.

Bea and superclasseux seem to be truly nasty people. What is the point of beating up on someone who has been though what she has? this is why I don't trust Obama- the quality of garbage that seems to be attracted to him.

"Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly capable and qualified to be president."

You were doing fine up until that. Hildebeast is able to pull the wool over the eyes of the Clintonista sheeple, but most Americans want leadership, the ultimate qualification for the post.

And BubbaZipper's wife is sorely lacking.

Look, there is still sexism in this world.
Was there some sexist comments made in this primary season, yes.
Where those views expressed by Obama or his campaign, no.
She ran a bad campaign. She lost. Get over yourselves.
Obama ain't perfect (I supported him from the beginning). He doesn't carry the mantle for all black people (and I'm black). He also hasn't personally insulted Clinton, he hammered her on her policies.
Where is the sexism in that?
Is that serious enough for you TOM?
If you are going to hold someone responsible for whatever your greivances are, point the gun in the right direction. Don't shoot yourself in the foot...

Yes, arrogance is the word to describe the Clinton campaign for the presidency. I do not remember Mrs. Clinton ever saying she wanted to be president of all the American people.
The only sexism involved with Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign is exhibited by the fierce Clinton supporters who, even now after defeat and in response to this column, repudiate anyone other than their favorite.
This stubborn defiance of anyone who does not adhere to their ideology is misplaced and unAmerican. It is what caused Governor Bill Richardson to be call Judas because he concluded that Senator Barack Obama was the best candidate for the presidency he worked so hard to achieve for himself.
This neconservative attitude towards those who would DARE disagree is what turned so many Democrats away from the Clinton camp. That plus her lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia - which exposed her fatal flaw of being willing and able to say anything to be elected.
Senator Clinton has now had to disengage herself from these rabid supporters in their attempt to pressure Senator Obama into selecting their queen to be vice president.
I wish that their anger and hatred be washed away soon, and that they will once again see a way to contribute to the restoration of this country's character and our national ambition for equal justice under law and the American Dream for everyone.

I am a 43 year old white middle class mother. I struggled quite a while over whether to support Clinton or Obama. I loved the Clinton years. For me they were good. And I also prayed Obama would run because of his power to instill hope. I did not decide until right before time to vote.
I made my decision to vote for Obama when I saw Michale Moore's "Sicko." We need real change in this country, not more of the same. Once I got over wanting so bad to vote for a woman, I was able to see the effect that Obama had when he came to Maine. Incredible amounts of people showed up to caucus, people were engaged and excited about the process. So many people I ran into felt like Obama spoke to them.
There is hope out here now. Thank God.

No, no, no. The Stump has it exactly right. There were PERSONAL comments made about Hillary. Because she's a woman, some of them couldn't have been said about a man. That doesn't automatically make them sexist.

There were PERSONAL comments made about the other candidates, too. Look at all the flak Kucinich took. Lots of folks expressed amazement that a geeky guy like him could have married such a beautiful woman. Was that sexism? I don't see it that way, although I do see it as a cheap personal attack. What about Edwards and the $400 haircut? Was that sexism? After all, well-off women drop that much at the salon fairly regularly. Why is it so wrong for a man? It's an occupational hazard of candidacy to endure ugly, embarrassing personal comments. But you can't call it an "ism" just because the target is a member of some group or another.

People are always accusing me of being anti-Semitic because I'm critical of Israel's foreign policy and America's uncritical support of Israel. I'm not, of course. I just think both foreign policies are unjust. Believing that sexism caused Clinton's defeat is just the same kind of faulty thinking. Clinton ran a stupid campaign and Obama ran a smart one, and that's why he won and she lost. End of story.

This article is GARBAGE. The Media made her the front runner, because she had more
money. Obambi was planted and when the
black people bought it, the sinister Obambi's supporters went all out. GE, and NBC and Oprah were the main reason that Senator Clinton was defeated, and of course the AA community who are convinced Obambi is one of them, sadly he is not. I have invested the time to research this man, I can tell you, he is a muslin, Marxist, of blind ambition and his wife has nothing but hate in her heart for our great Country. Then yes Hillary made mistakes, and yet, she has WON!! this contest. I researched that too. Obambi cheated, he rigged the caucuses, and cheated in Indiana and others. Senator
Clinton by being the first qualify woman
that receive 51% of the votes crashing
him in all demographics except AA, is the
more historic event, but is not written
any where, the media distorted it all.
Now, Hillary is beaten her character record and reputation destroyed even her career at this time they trying to destroy
(read this article and this blog) this is a
result of who Obambi is plain and simple. A thug from Chicago period. She was also a victim of woman jealousy and Nancy Pelosi comes to mind, Nancy another corrupt politico, is nothing but an inept undemocratic representative that needs to resign, she has done nothing, zero, nada for us Democrats. After Indiana Hillary was threaten and told to step down, she did not budged, well now she was force
and pushed out, they are tapping into her
donor base which is huge and has to endorse
Obambi, when the outcome should have been,
both going to the convention, it is a spin
by the pundits that it would be a broken convention, no, the convention is to elect and ratify the most competitive candidate for the GE. This is why Hillary needs to keep her delegates and go on to Denver, we will not give up!!!!! Folks get it, it is not a woman thing, that was the icing on the cake for women, this lady has a proven record she has a resume, her opponent did not, she is the best person for the job that is why we will never support Obambi,
Obambi got a free ride, he is won the
battle but not the war!! Oh! We will
not support a dream ticket, Obambi flip us
twice in national TV, when he flipped Hillary.

Very aptly put: A repudiation of dynastic arrogance. Nothing more, nothing less!

All this blame on sexism is a mere route of escapism from a flawed campaign deficient of any tangible substance. Her campaign was not about advancing the women's cause, but rather, it was about advancing her own cause.

True, the women were rallying behind her, not because she was championing their cause. But because they want to be part of the moment that may culminate into the making of a history: The first woman president! Certainly a very attractive proposition for any woman voter.

But a conniving and culculative politician as she is, Hillary fully exploited that sentiment to her favour. And everytime she suffered a setback in her campaign, she blamed it on the media and the so-called sexism.

All said, Hillary Clinton has every qualification to be president of the most powerful nation on earth. Her gender was in no way a handicap to that quest. But what caused her to fail in her quest is her flip flop manner in which she conducted herself and her campaign.

Her overly irritable use of the gender card, the race card, the fear card and the smear card in this primary campaign switched off many thinking voters and turned their back on her. Even in defeat she was not showing graciousness. Instead, she was still gloating about how she "who had polled more popular votes" should be the winner!

Blame yourself Hillary. Don't blame others for your defeat.

Dear Stumped

Your article is absolutely on the point, except for
""Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly capable and qualified to be president""

She may be capable, but absolutely not qualified to be President. Nearly all her alleged experience is not hers, but Bill's and in very selective form, because where it seemed inconvenient, she stated, mostly untruly, that she had or is disagreeing now with the done.

And her absurd and often untrue statements trying to feed the largely low educated or blindly feminist potential voters with arguments they were not able or not willing to analyze, has bought her the disdain of many and especially of independents and potential cross-over Republicans.

The gender issue has brought her MORE VOTES, nor less, the polls and statistics show this clearly. Just the contrary as for Obama, who gained nearly all the Black votes, but at the cost of the loss of many more votes between the anti-Black racist (concienciosly or not)of mainly older Whites, Latinos and Asians

And finally: even if this was not really exploited by OBAMA, as it would have damaged the Party, many already perceive that there are questionable or worse issues how the CLINTONS made their over $ 100 million since the elections, by means of clearly suspiciously outrageous speech fees and the STILL UNDISCLOSED LIBRARY DONATIONS, which could have originated as compensation of favors, preidential pardons or similar.
As the GOP will certaily focus at that, this could make her totally inelectable,
for President or VP !!

Caminito

excellent piece! BULLSEYE!

Today, I did what I had said I would do should Obama be nominated.

I contributed to McCain's campaign.

I just want to ask all you Hillary supporters, women and men. To consider how the media and the Democratic Party elite would react if we were good to our word and indeed delivered 49 percent of the votes given to Hillary to someone other than Obama.

Do you imagine all those pundits and party elite would blow us off as they do now?

I think not.

I know there are a lot of theories about females and males exercising their power. How men tend to back each other while women have BBEN TRAINED not to. After what we have been through with Hillary, I believe there just may be something to that theory.

Therefore, I will do all I can to see that we do not have ANY repeat of the disgusting, misogynistic behavior displayed this primary season.

We need to follow through and be as good as our word.

If we either withhold our votes from Obama or support and vote McCain, I don't think we will have any smirking Keith Olbermann next time. I promise you. Don't let anyone talk you into accepting second best. And second best is letting someone vastly INFERIOR be your President just because he is male.

So. stay strong, make a choice and flex your power. Together we can do this.

Yes lets teach them a lesson..
Don't vote for Obama, he didn't say anything sexist or demeaning. But he must be penalized b/c he beat her, even if penalizing him would penalize us all.
Obama even had the nerve to argue about the issues and policies, what an a$$.
When we HRC supporters said he was whining about the Penn. debate & his news coverage. He couldn't help but not comment on Bosnia, what a pig!
I will not vote for Obama!!!!!
now, my pamper needs changing & where's my bottle?

Case in point. Bravo!

Mary, Eliz,
What do you do with the branch of the Kennedy that endorsed Hillary? Get back to your senses.

Yes lets teach them a lesson..
Don't vote for Obama, he didn't say anything sexist or demeaning. But he must be penalized b/c he beat her, even if penalizing him would penalize us all.
Obama even had the nerve to argue about the issues and policies, what an a$$.
When we HRC supporters said he was whining about the Penn. debate & his news coverage. He couldn't help but not comment on Bosnia, what a pig!
I will not vote for Obama!!!!!
now, my pamper needs changing & where's my bottle?

We could always take a look at Bob Barr for President!
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

We could always take a look at Bob Barr for President!
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Absolutely on point.

I am sick of the Kennedy dynasty that has reigned for over 50 years in the Democratic Party. Ted Kennedy pushed Obama to run as the Clintons would not bow down to any dynasty. Of course, Caroline Kennedy is on the VP Committee and so the dynasty continues.

I can't believe that you got it soooo wrong!

You make assumptions that are completely unsubstantiated. The point is that she did not make this a campaign about women, there was no sexist agenda on her part. Fortunately, one nationally syndicated program put together a montage of all the gender bashing media videos just last night. There were too many to show; but they included comments about her shrill voice, her cleavage, taking out the trash, ironing a shirt, and "every poor man who's gonna have to listen to that voice for four years." Had anyone played Obama's minority card, they would have been fired. You didn't here any of that did you? You obviously didn't watch the DNC proceedings either. To voluntarily break charter rules of the Democratic Party? It was a sham. They also need to clarify their demographics and figure out who Obama supposedly has to "make-up" with. They've got it all wrong.

Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly capable and qualified to be president. But her failure to secure the nomination cannot, and should not, be interpreted as a repudiation of women in politics or as a sexist verdict. Consider it a repudiation of dynastic arrogance.

----------------------------

This is utter nonsense and not supported by the data. Young voters supported Obama disproportionately, yet have no real memory of the Clinton years. They voted for Obama because of his message, not because of "repudiation of dynastic arrogance." African-Americans supported Obama even more disproportionately, and they did so largely because of the pride and singularity of having an African American run for the highest office. However, if Obama had not run African-Americans would very likely have supported Clinton in large numbers.

Mr. Martinez, who has been accused of suffering his own lapses in judgment when he was at the LA Times, should perhaps be a little less judgmental.

References to the candidates' femininity or lack thereof, references to their dresses or pantsuits, references to their hairstyles--these should be taboo to the news media. Fine for "America's Top Model" but out of place for objective news reporting and commenting regarding political candidates, especially in an age where our problems are more extreme than ever in our history, and we are desperate for fine leadership from our public servants.
How low we do stoop!
We are a "fen of stagnant waters. . ."

I hope angry Hillary voters will take a fresh look at Obama and realize what a McCain presidency would truly mean - if you truly support Hillary's priorities, then don't dishonor her by voting McCain (or not voting at all).
__________________________________________

You know what I hope? I hope women and men of conscience sit this one out only to teach you arrogant jerks a lesson. If our absence is enough to demonstrate the legacy of invidious comparisons and the impact of ill-will by the media and Obama staffers, then so be it. BRING-IT-ON! Time to boycott. After all, if your Obama is a superstar, he should have no problem pulling victory out of the jaws of defeat. If he's truly a Messiah, then he'll have no problem rising from the dead.

What a testimony it would be to women's voices to say "enough" and affect the outcome of an entire election. Minorities in this country will be taken seriously for once.

If you haven't figured it out, an entire group of people is furious at perceived disenfranchisement by both the DNC and the Media, especialyy in its relentless attacks on Clinton. Throw in duplicitous statements by the Obama staff, and there is enough rage out there to do real damage to the Democratic Party. Yet, not a word of understanding or consolation. Or even silent remorse, a hushed recognition that something might be wrong. Shame on you all! This is a moment of crisis and most of the voices on this post are taunting like ten year olds. This is a real problem, and left untouched it will have repercussions come November and beyond.

The blame game has begun, and Hillary was always very good at it. But this time the shoe is on her own foot. For one thing, it is a myth that ALL women voted for her. If you remember the cheering Obama crowds -- there were masses of women. Indeed, the white women of Iowa started his victorious campaign. "All women" did not vote for Hillary. Old white women did, but only because they wanted to see Bill back in the White House for a third term. Now that they can't get Bill, they may prefer Obama.

Like Nixon, she couldn't handle the press. And believe me the press was 10,000 times tougher on Nixon. That led to Nixon's paranoia and self-destruction and attitude: I'm the only person qualifed for this difficult job"

What Hillary put up with was absolutely nothing. Democrats, many who do not like Bill and in fact resent that he and Hillary lost them in 1994, power in Congress they held excllusively in Washington DC for all but 2 years since 1960. Hence the Super delegaters changing sides starting after SC, even Iowa was not surprising. A stronger woman will come along with far better credentials and an ability to really handle criticism and not just the lapdog press without becoming arrogant and paranoid. What do you thing being president should be?, like a pre-school teacher's classroom? Where do live? Venus?
I mean, like her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher handled the British press which are a viscous gang of pit bulls compared with the poodles we have in the US. Reagan would sit there and take the attacks, some quite legimate, and blow them off with a one liner that made the reporter look ridiculous. Handling the press is nothing new. They are a very cowardly now compared to those fom 1776-1990. If you can't handle some nothings like them, how are you going to handle Vladimir Putin, a viscious powerful man who assinates his opponents in cold blood including in the press, in the government and civilians, and anyone who challenges him, ala Josef Stalin (or Adolf Hitler, much the same type). I do fear him. He is ruthless, dangerous and pwerful and soon to have a very wealthy country with its petroleum reserves. The world is not Disney World for Children. Seems a lot of people think it is.I'm not militaristic, I hate this war and the other dozen in the 20th-21st century do resent but damn, you need someone who is really tough.Thar prevents war. She came off as tough as Dukakis driving his tank. Boo-hoo, its so hard running for president. She never had any opposition to anything she did, like GW Bush. Same thing.

I would LOVE to vote for a woman for President, but Hillary isn't the one. A vote for her would be a vote for the same ol same ol'.

If she had kicked Bill's behind to the curb when he rubbed her nose in the Monica affair, I would have had a lot more respect for her. But she sucked it up to maintain her dynastic entitlement. Too bad that didn't work out.

I would have MUCH more respect for a woman who struck out on her own and didn't depend on sliding in on her philandering husband's coattails.

Hillary stayed in the race because we the people voted for her to. Obama won most of his delegates in Caucus states from ultra left activist. (not Joe Voter)
Hillary won more legitimate votes in the most relevant states and swing constituencies.
Say what you want but the polls show still today that she would beat McCain and Obama would lose to McCAin.

Obama people should be so proud of themselves but you can tell how WORRIED they all are now.
As a Hillary supporter, I'm "undecided" now and I LOVE IT!!!

She lost mostly because her husband has become an angry, resentful pitiful man who can no longer control his temper and his mouth. He wrecked her in SC, when she was the annointed one, stop blaming the press. He is a spoiled child throwing temper tantrums because for once, he didn't get what he wanted. His conartist manipulation of the press didn't math that of his Dick Morris managed Media. Frankly, I haven't seen a president as deranged since Nixon in his last year. At least Nixon had the class to retire and live a private, quiet life. Bill can't stand not being in control, and cannot even control himself.
I never could guess why any professional woman would so strongly back another woman who put up with his nonsense crap fom a man in this day and age. He made her, and then he destroyed her. He did it to himself twice, once in Arkansas, really twice in Washington. BLIND AMBITION as Jonh Dean titled his study of Nixon.

ps Driscone, if McCain were a good presidential candidate GW would NEVER have been president.

He simply got drilled by Bush and Rove in 2000.

What makes you think that he's any better now than he was then, or that you Republicans have any more sense in choosing your candidates?

McCain is a neophyte babe lost in the woods, only winning the Republican nomination because there wasn't a serious politician in the race. His "war hero" days are long, long gone, same for his "straight talk" days. He is as much a part of the Republican Establishment as anyone else. He is a big part of the reason that we are in the situation that we are in today, with the Patriot Act and numerous tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

And you think that putting him in the White House is going to change things for the better? If you believe this, I must ask: have you been in an "interrogation session" for the past 8 years? Were you suddenly shipped off to a secret CIA camp in Angola in the middle of the night and subjected to years of psychological and physiological "reeducation"?

You're freaking crazy!

Electing McCain to the Presidency would be like putting Andrew Fastow in charge of the SEC!

Hillary was held to a different standard; she got away with more lies: "35 years of experience" and "running under fire overseas." She didn't expect a contest, she expected a coronation.

She's behind this "draft Clinton" crap no matter what she says. No other president in history has ever been told who should be his running mate, and it should not start now. Forget Hillary.

This is basically why Hillary lost.

She said that whites, blue-collar, white-collar, "hardworking whites", women, older folk, won't vote for Obama. Hispanics...

...then how'd he get the nomination over her? :)

How did she lose if he can't win and she's the only one who can?

There's a message in this, somewhere :)

And the fact that she's a woman is just part of the larger issue. But it isn't the primary issue. The primary issue is that she's just out of touch with reality. She wants reality to be the way that she wants it to be, not the way that it actually is. And she's willing to do or say anything to make that happen. She is, at best, an idealist who got stuck in her own dreams while the world passed her by. At worst she is a harridan who tortures people who don't agree with her point of view. Is this "sexist"? Yes, of course, because she is a woman, and it is to condemn her, a woman, partly because she is a woman. If she were a man, then people would just say that she's an a**hole. But that's a secondary concern. And to vote for her as a response is *primarily* sexist.

How can anyone who voted for her primarily because people put her down in sexist ways, complain about it? They're just being sexist in return! Such hypocrisy will always end up biting where the sun doesn't shine.

great column -- thanks! I hope it will be widely read.

Clinton is fond of telling the story of how her mother sent her back out to fight a neighborhood bully. She was proud that she'd won the right to hang with the boys.

Unfortunately her mother never taught her how to fight with dignity and honor.

Nor did she teach her how to lose with grace. Too bad, so sad.

Amen!

There are some on this blog who are claiming that the media slighted Hillary in a sexist way. I must have missed it. Can you share those examples? It wasn't Faux News was it?

I strongly agree with virtually all of Ms. Martinez' statments. The elections of the past two presidents has resulted in a polarization of the general population greater than anything since the election of Lincoln. I am essentially conservative, the only way I can come close to understanding the hatred of President Bush by the liberals is by comparing it to my (and virtually all conservative-leaning others) absolute hatred of the Presidents Clinton. I do wish that liberals would try to make the corresponding attempt at understanding. We must break this cycle. I think John McCain (while something of a loose-cannon, which I like) is an authentic hero and the kind of man I want to be representing me (and all of us, of course). Even before the primary process began my decision tree was decided: If McCain is nominated, vote for McCain. If not then if Obama is nominated, vote for Obama. If not then if Clinton is nominated vote for who or whatever she is running against, even if she is running against a 12-speed blender. Sen. Obama is quite a bit too liberal for my tastes but he is a fine man with "Presidential" qualities that would make me proud to have him representing me. For the first time in memory I feel that the country will not lose regardless of who is elected. By the way, regarding sexism, remember that there was a significant movement to get Eleanor Roosevelt to make a run for the presidency. Also, the fact that Jean Kirkpatrick was never seriously considered is a far greater indication of sexism than these ridiculous arguments in support of Sen. Clinton. If both of these individuals were athletes the appropriate comparison of their relative capabilities would be "Clinton couldn't carry Kirkpatrick's jockstrap".

But don't rely on my thoughts, here is a well thought out article citing non-biased analysts thoughts on why sexism didn't play a part in Hillary's loss: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080606/ts_csm/aregrets

Here's a very interesting question, why would life long Republicans cross over to vote for a liberal Black man?

Then here's another question, why did so many of us Republicans despise the Clintons so much even when Bill was pandering to the public whim and stayed fairly moderate?

Answer #1: Change baby. We want a new Washington.

Answer #2: Personal behavior of the Clintons and their smug self serving, egotistical attitudes enraged us. Bill pulling it out after some reflection time enraged not only us Republicans, but also Democrats.

Hillary lost because she is a Clinton. Simple as that. Any claim of sexism being even in the top 10 reasons why she is hated is laughable and the cry of whining losers.

Google "Clinton Lie" or "Clinton Ethics" or try www.hildabeast.com or www.i-hate-Hillary.com and you'll be educated. But in the end, the Hillary backers aren't educated, nor are they interested in educating themselves.

Andres you couldn't have said it any better I agree 100% We someone loses it's easy to have a pitty party and say what I could've;should've did to change the outcome of the race.

I know deep down Hillary should have realized that she was running out of options since Indiana primary well there's no since of crying over spilled milk. The primary race is over.

Hillary made herself look foolish in the end bys parcasinating for much too long now she has to swallow her pride and do what she should have done on Tuesday bow out and endorse Senator Obama.

What was she waiting for??????????

Hillary garnered 18 million votes. Obama did the same. Yes, he won and will be the nominee. OPED writers ought to stop dancing on Hillary's grave. You aren't helping anyone by doing that. With an election this close and hard fought, there are going to be hard feelings to overcome...you people are fanning the flames.

Sexism(mostly media) hurt Hillary and racism (not from the media) hurt Obama...no one denies the racism but they do deny the sexism.

Did you watch the skit that John Stuart did on the sexist remarks made by the media about Hillary?...Wow. Strung many of them together...shocking.

I think sometime in the future, we will see Chelsea Clinton run for President. Redeeming her mother's loss as GWB redeemed his father's single term.

I am not saying that Chelsea would in anyway shape or form be a female GWB. It's just how family dynamics appear to work in political families.

Spot on Andrew. You got my feelings completely right and I'm a middle aged woman.

This myth that Hillary only lost because America is a sexist country is laughable - insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Hillary's arguments at the end of the primaries was that ONLY SHE could get the uneducated, working class, white male vote.

Hillary and Bill lied and distorted compulsively. Everytime the media exposed their lies the Clintons accused the media of being unfair. As if the media is supposed to let triangulation, spin, and lies go unquestioned or else the media is biased against the woman.

Anyone who bought into this "sexism" charge is an uninformed fool.

Amen, brother. This article said it all. This misogyny spin on the election is pure fabrication stemming from the Clinton political machine. Hillary was out for her own name- a brand permanently marred by the shabby performance delivered this year.

I was open to supporting Hillary in the beginning, although, Bill Richardson was my first choice. Like others have mentioned, I did not end up supporting her for these reasons:
(1) In the beginning, her speaking style reminded me of John Kerry or Al Gore - all policy (wonky) and no inspiration or sense of who she was;
(2) I was moved to tears by Barack Obama's speech after his Iowa win, and it made me take a closer look at him; when I did, I found that his policies/plans were nearly identical to Hillary's;
(3) As much as I had yearned for a return to the U.S. under the Clinton presidency in some ways, I quickly grew tired of Bill Clinton starting with S. Carolina (the dismissive Jesse Jackson comment) and his character defects became more evident as he clearly became outraged that Obama was a serious threat to "their" nomination;
(4) Hillary began to follow Obama's "change" message and she continued to dismiss him as a lightweight - the straw that broke the camel's back for me was when she unbelievably stated that she and John McCain both would be better presidents than Obama - that was when I knew she was out for herself and not the party/country and I completely wrote her off as "my" candidate.
(5) As the campaign went on, it became clear after Super Tuesday that Hillary's campaign had no money or strategy in place for the subsequent contests because they didn't think they'd need the "smaller" caucus states (so much for caring about "all" the votes); I was impressed with Obama's superior organizing and fundraising operation despite his alledged "inexperience."
(6) Finally, a true test of charcter is grace and integrity when losing or under pressure, and I saw Hillary's campaign going increasingly negative; having internal negative conflict; and I feel that Obama has generally conducted himself with calm, strength, and integrity as well as the capacity for sharing ambivalence (e.g. breaking from his pastor), which has been lost in the polarized world American politicians live in recently. I feel he talks with intelligence and while not perfect, he has generally not run a negative campaign to win.
(7) Finally, I live in MI and I was disgusted with Hillary's attempts to present the MI primary as legitimately "her" win. We had lower turnout than other states as it was a snowy day, and many dems did not vote, voted uncommitted or republican to try to affect that race. Obama was virtually unknown at that time without campaigning here - the attempt to change the rules mid-stream and stir up victimization in supporters reminded me too much of the Clintons no one liked in the 90s: loose with facts and the truth; ambitious to the point of running over others; and a tendency to externalize blame, not take responsibility for errors; and go to the victim role. Sadly, I hear the same tendencies in some of the posts from Hillary's supporters - their character deficits successfully convinced supporters that she was wronged by Obama and the DNC despite ample evidence that she was given lots of room to stay in the race and make her case to the DNC about MI/FL. There was sexism in the media, but anyone who says Obama had an advantage by being biracial African-American with an Arabic middle name - you're crazy!

None of this has to do with sexism - yes, sexism and racism are alive and well, but Hillary did very well and could have won had she and her campaign not made some strategic errors that cost them the delegates they needed. I am a woman, 46, and I simply could not feel inspired by Hillary's candidacy. I respect her and wish her well, and if she had won, I would have voted for her because I believe that a democratic, progressive agenda is in line with my values for the US in which I want to live.

I hope angry Hillary voters will take a fresh look at Obama and realize what a McCain presidency would truly mean - if you truly support Hillary's priorities, then don't dishonor her by voting McCain (or not voting at all).

It's not sexism- it's new brand of ism- Hillarysexism. It is specific to her. And it is not about sex. It is about being perceived as self-entitled, about veing delusional in the interpretation of experience, about making outrageous claims ( sniper attack?????I am still chewing on that one ), it is about dressing badly- and hey, if Obama wore shiny or ill-fitting suits or crazy ties, the media would have been all over that- so calm down...her pant suit mania- just bad. I know she has bad legs- but there are ways and ways. A really creative stylist could have done wonders. I would have been more impressed with her "liberation" if she had actually worn skirts. She kept saying "NOW, I get it" in front of each new-disparate group. She should have smacked around Geraldine Ferraro for her comments- but she did't and stood associated with the harpy, Witch of the West. Geraldine Ferraro was never going to help her in any real sense. She should have been really bold there but she ended up looking like a old pol. She has no voting history in the Senate to call her own. She tries to take credit for a child health care plan that is really Ted Kennedy's. Her husband is going looney- did we want that around the White House? It wasn't because she is a woman- but because of the woman she is.

we all know there are misogynists and racists in this country, and xenophobes and homophobes and anti-clericals and the list goes on and on.

people in this country invariably hate other kinds of people. perhaps that's part of being the melting pot that we are.

But in this case, Hillary has done NOTHING for New York since she was elected. She USED that state as a stepping stone for this run. It would be different if she came to this state and had some sort of record showing improvements to NY under her watch. But she hasn't, and feeling like we were duped, I chose that I would NOT further her political ambitions when she hasn't even accomplished anything here.

But to her supporters, that is unimportant. They cannot give specific, detailed reasons as to why we should vote for her. Just that she's a "woman", "smart", "good leader", blah, blah. All vague generalizations.

My wife is smart, she chairs committees and has good leadership skills AND she's a woman. Based on what they say, my wife is qualified to be President. But she won't run, mostly because she hates politics (and it would interfere with her scrapbooking hobby).

So, please Hillary lovers, let's stop this nonsense. I can barely handle having her in my state, let alone running the country.

Why doesn't she join the Republican Party, she can become John McCain's running mate, remember this {I HAVE 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE, SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN HAS 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE, SENATOR HAS A SPEECH}, and a lot of people have fell for it, I ask you to look up the bills that have passed under Senator Obama when he was a State Senator and what he sponsored, co-sponsored and bills that passed only in his 1st year as US Senator, compared to Senator Clinton's 8 yrs of not so substantial bills, this is mind boggling, now go with the comparison of how Obama has ran his campaign and how she has ran her campaign, let's me know how you want your commander and chief to run the Whitehouse.

People this is a very important campaign, and the Clinton's and some super delegates and supporters think that this primary and election is somehow owed to her, I have lose all respect that I ever had for the Clinton's and will never come back, they alone have injected race in this campaign, and it's very funny how {Clinton and the media always talks about the white rural vote and the white woman vote as though she would not need the African-American vote to win as though this vote does not exist, a healthy part of the Democratic Party.} Obama is a strong candidate and can and will beat John McCain if this country wants CHANGE, and I am not voting for him because he is an African-American, but because he is smart, not polarizing, and wants to truly help the middle class and poor, contrary to what others are saying, which is a contrast to what Clinton and her supporters have stated that they will not vote for Barak Obama, and it is only because of his race, not because of the content, but his supporters will vote for the ticket because most are not selfish as Clinton and her supporters are, still today she is still in the race telling the DNC that she is the strongest candidate, although, Barak Obama is ahead in the POPULAR VOTE, the DELEGATE VOTE , in the STATES and in SUPERDELAGATES

I have always pictured one day having a African American or a woman president, but not this one, because she is too polarizing, and has too much baggage on her own, on the other hand if somehow the DNC chooses Clinton, it would be the worst backlash in the history of the DNC, there is no way that MI and FL or Clinton should be rewarded for breaking the rules of the DNC, and yes I included Clinton because I do believe that she went behind and campaigned privately to win the votes, but even if she did not, she 1st agreed and then disagreed with the rules that were sent, she is a liar, and will do and say anything to win, she has no credibility, this is my belief, this is an AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN that as other's will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November, not in 2012 or beyond, NEVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR, oh, but oops, I almost forgot, the AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE DOES NOT COUNT BECAUSE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TAKEN FOR GRANTED, not this time, not this year, not this primary, and not this election.

HRC suffered many slights because of sexism. I am still amazed that even female journalists are referring to her as Mrs. Clinton instead of Sen. Clinton. But she is not alone in the isms being launched at her. For every sexist jab she's taken, Obama has taken a racist one. And some of it has come from Clinton's camp.

But HRC's biggest problem is that she voted for to give GW the ability to launch this stupid, immoral and illegal war. Her next problem is that she keeps trotting out Bill. Smart guy. Maybe the smartest president we've had ever. But the guy is a calculating politician who only wants to win and has proven that he doesn't care about the people (NAFTA, weLfare reform, executing that mentally ill child in Arkansas before the election in 92).

Bill is better than GW, Bush I and Reagan. But would he have been better than Bradley or even Gore? I'm not so sure. He might be smarter, but he's ethically challenged as a friend used to say. His wife backs him, which makes me question her ethics as well.

That's why she lost. Not because she's a woman. No more than Obama won because he's black.

I remember first seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1992 on 60 minutes. When she refered to marital difficulties (in the past tense, what a joke I now think), she made the now famous remark, "I'm not some little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette." I remember thinking, "holy cow, did I just hear this woman diss Tammy Wynette? I guess they're probably not going to get many votes in the South." She came across then as an arrogant hard-ass who happened by gender to be a woman. Little has transpired since to change my opinion of her. First impressions are the most lasting. If that's the kind of person, much less the kind of woman, that people look up to and admire, then that goes a long way toward explaining why the country is in the mess it is.

Check this out and see what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U&eurl=http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2008/05/27/sexism_sells/

I think people are missing the point of the question, including the person who is supposed to be helping us overcome our "stumped"-ness. The question is not "Did Hillary lose because of sexism?" Obviously, there were many reasons she lost, and for the record, I'm not really a Hillary supporter either, so I'm not looking to make excuses about why Obama beat her. The question is, specifically, would the kinds of (mostly alarmingly casual) sexist references that people in the mainstream media made about her be tolerated if they were casually racist remarks made about Obama or anyone else? And what does it say about our culture that these remarks were not deemed newsworthy? There is a great article on the NY Times web site by Judith Warner about this very topic. I would encourage everyone to check it out.

This blog is in a state of self-righteous denial. Sexism is indeed alive and well, and we saw it exposed throughout the campaign. What if gross racial terms and jokes were thrown at Louis Farrakhan. Most Americans reject him, but there would have been a huge outcry if racisl invectives had been unleashed at him because he was a particular black, not all blacks. Baloney!

I'm 78 years old. I really thought we women had come further than this. I am outraged that so few men or women protested the ugly attacks on Clinton that used charged anti-woman words and stereotypes. It's even more shocking that so many of these vile comments came from liberals. I'm so disillusioned that I have re-registered as belonging to no political party. The hell with all of you!

I do smell a bit of sexism in the air after all is said and done. Everyone said "No more Clintons running the country!" They compared the Bush Dynasty to the Clinton gang. The fact is, Bill didn't raise Hillary. He just married her. I assume she had aspirations and ideas before she married him. Heck, for all I know, she may have contributed some of those ideas when he was in office.

So, it IS a bit sexist to compare a son with a wife. A wife is a partner, a grown person with her own mind and her own ambitions. George Bush, Sr. raised our current President.

Now, if electing Presidents was EVER fair (it hasn't been) we would have seen men and women in office of every color by now. But the fact is, because racism and sexism STILL exist, we shouldn't pretend that they don't. We can see the results with every white man that takes the oath of office. We will see how far the country has come this November.

I'm not holding my breath. The re-election of George, Jr. told me that any country that asks for more of the same can't be too bright.

I think this is the primary reason why there is so much personal anger against Obama. The thought that someone took, overlooked, slighted, overstepped, the other candidate. I do not think Obama or his supporters created that narrative...I think Hill and Bill Clinton created this narrative. I further believe that it was done with purpose and with malice in an effort to further divide the party and work a certain group in a frenzy. No of course some may disagree but I challenge anyone to name a factual instance that Obama did anything but campaign.

He created a narrative just like they created a narrative whether you agree or disagree with that narrative is up to you. But you can not then say they somehow someone did you wrong because they painted a picture of you which was not consistent with whom you think you are or call it unfair play, or sexist, or sexism. My problems with Clinton are that she manipulates the facts. But maybe I just believe the picture that has been painted about her and I have been convinced by her actions that have proven that to me. Maybe it's true maybe its not but that is what I believe and that is why Obama got my vote. People who voted for Clinton quite possibly believed the narrative of Obama. Maybe its true maybe its not but that is what they believe which is why they voted for Clinton. But that is a long way aware from thinking he is a Muslim, thinking he is coming to erase Jews from the face of the earth or ruin the country, or that he is part of a conspiracy to destroy America from the inside out. I think Hill and Bill supporters should take a step back and exhale. This is politics....Who can get the edge on the other person. The best person won.

Sexism may not be the "complete" issue ... but, anyone who claims that Hillary's "arrogance" was her ultimate downfall is blind to their own hypocrisy.

If the same "personality traits" that cause people to vomit in Hillary's case were applied to ALL politicians ... there would be whole lot of puking going on in this country.

The fact is: No matter how you spin your opinion ... Hillary was and is held up to a different standard.

The same awful traits everyone loves to hate about Hillary are evident in most, if not all, of our politicians. Men and women alike. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich, Lieberman, etc. etc. etc. Every last one of them are every bit as nasty and arrogant and ego-driven and dishonest as people claim Hillary to be.

McCain and Obama are NO different, but becuase they are held to a MALE standard of behavior ... they aren't blasted for every misstep or arrogant comment.

Hillary is a bi-t-h. Hillary is a liar. Hillary is ... Hillary is ... Hillary is ...

The exact same type of hatred being directed at Hillary is the exact same type of hatred that the Civil Rights movement fought against. Make no mistake. This is a perfectly relevant historical parallel.

Misogyny is alive and well. And, we will see, in the coming months, just how far we have come as a people when the first black man in history is campaigning for the highest office in the land.

JBE needs to go back on his medication.

"She has earned her own way in the senate in NY and in the US Senate. Hillary has earned my trust and was and is the most presidential of all the candidates"

Lizfi, you obviously don't live in NY or you wouldn't have written this.

Your bias against Hillary was evident from the beginning of the article. Reporter do not like the front runner so let's level the playing field and mow her down-see if she can rise. And she did - more than 650,000 people voted for Hillary over Obama since March despite the sexism and bias. This country does not have dynasties but if electing Hillary would give our country a dynasty, I for one am all for it. Let's go back to the prosperity, the world recognition and esteem for our country, to the peace and ability too work with the international community. I would far prefer that than four years based on hope and oratory, or a continuation of any of the failed policies of perhaps our most inept president ever. The change I want and the country needs is offered by a woman who is indomitiable, resilient, enduring, extremely intelligent, hardworking, who knows the issues, willing to respond to questions and is not afraid to vote on controversial issues, who does vote present or absent herself, who runs the whole distance and isn't winded like a sprinter who drags at the end. She has earned her own way in the senate in NY and in the US Senate. Hillary has earned my trust and was and is the most presidential of all the candidates. I can only hope and pray that who ever is elected will have half of Hillary Clinton's insight, courage, wisdom, stamina and willingness to serve the all the people of this great country. I know she will continue to serve and her lifelong dedication to serving the people will continue.

Go ahead, vote for McBush you F-ing tools! He needs idiots like you to make the margin of his loss in November a little smaller. You sound like a bunch of 12 year old girls when you say, "Oh I knew she was right for this country, but the public had to chose a black guy.....with no experience. I'm a woman and every woman I know is voting for McSame because Hillary was not treated fairly. She didn't get to leave on her terms."

Hillary is a public servant, as is Barack Obama. Barack's campaign focused on what he wants to do for our country. Hillary's campaign focused on Hillary herself.

Hillary and Bill ran a despicable campaign, and they perpetuated and threw gas on the fire of the sexism issue themselves, in order to look like victims. You fell for it. You're probably still waiting for us to find WMDs in Iraq.

You're like kids who didn't get some candy so they refuse to eat dinner. You would sacrifice more of your civil liberties in order to prove a (idiotic) point that Hillary was treated unfairly?

This is the most lucid, nuanced and precise delineation of the question of sexism I have read. Excellent.

Sorry, Stumped. In Macholandia, Hillary lost because she WAS a woman, not a Clinton. What kind of hairy ass idea is that anyway? Women do not have the same rights that men do, let's face it, even in a supposed democracy such as ours! So, get you head out of the sand and look around--You will discover that Hillary lost because she was a woman.

So, Grandma Dee, you're going to write her in anyway, huh?

She did not get the nomination under the current rules & regulations, but that doesn't matter to any of her supporters. You're going to sabotage Obama's campaign because you didn't get your candidate in.

How incredibly sophomoric! You see, this is one of the MANY, MANY reasons why I will NEVER vote for her. Her supporters are so narrow-minded, frothing and glassy-eyed about her, they cannot stomach that she wasn't handed the nomination.

Thank you for a common sense reflection on what I just watched transpire in American politics.

Hillary lost my vote at the very first moment I heard the "inevitability" argument. My vote doesn't matter? OK. Done with you. Next...

Then, having been raised in a feminist home, I was ENRAGED at being accused of misogyny just because I view Clinton as a dinasaur, pandering, lobbiest owned politician insisting she is inevitable and telling me I have no choice in the matter.

Then Marie Cocco... and Gloria Steinem - the hypocrite misandrist seperatist - chimed in about how men hate women and the media is conspiring to keep our sisters down.

You know, that sounds an awful lot like Al Sharpton, Andrew Young, and Jesse Jackson's failed philosophies that have kept poor african americans in a slave mentality - and it reinforces failure to our girls, too.

Then Clinton's lobbiest money ran out.

Then Bill made racist comments.

Then Hillary made those religion based, fear mongering and race baiting comments I refuse to reprint here.

Then Hillary's supporters began parroting the hypocrite-seperatist-failure Gloria Steinem's comments.

Then I got completely disgusted with Hillary and her supporters.

Then Hillary tried to change the rules, flip-flopped on herself, claimed victim, and whined that the press hates her.

This race was not about who is the best candidate - it was about Hillary's HUBRIS and power hunger. Her willingness to bait hate, victim mentality, and pander to, and sow fear. Her louse financial management resulting in no molney left after super tuesday. Her failure to plan. Her writing off the idea that voters HATE inside the beltway politics as usual.

The best part is the RIGHT candidate was REJECTED by the electorate, and the BEST candidate got the nomination!

The second best part is the misandrist throwbacks to the Gloria Steinem Hypocrisy mantra that we ALL HATE women, a conspiracy to that effect is underway in the MSM, and that men are only required for sperm production have exposed themselves for the nut-jobs they are.

These people are totally out of touch with reality and staring straight into their own navels like they started into a candle flame while listening to Joan Baez in 1971.

They are whining, losers, self-defeating, afraid to compete on a level playing field, and want a hand out.

They are so insecure they actually assume they are hated because of their gender.

It never occurs to them that powerful women all over the nation are living proof of their failed notions' innacuracy. They HATE the idea that many women choose children over science and math after graduating with high degrees in those fields and blame the low numbers of women in science and engineering on "mysogyny".

And they think a pantsuit looks presidential. Hint: They DON'T. Pantsuits looks casual BY DESIGN. Of course I'm a misogynyst for speaking the obvious.

God these people make me want to hurl!

THAT is why Hillary lost.

Interesting column. Senator Clinton almost pulled it out over the last part of the campaign. Why did she get better? Why did her supporters get stronger and more loyal? I think she finally figured out what Obama had going for him. See George Lakoff's post on the Huffington Post from January 30, 2008 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

Clinton's campaign woke up too late. Whew!

"The only qualified candidate who actually would represent my rights and needs as a citizen and a human being: Hillary Clinton"

Whip Master, wonder if you could expand on that in more specific terms.

All I ever get from Hillary supporters are vague generalizations.

What the hell is going on over here at the Washington Post?
Did a bunch of freakin teenagers take it over?

Grow up and learn the craft of journalism.

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 3:11 AM
*************

hahahahahhahahaha!!! This made me laugh out loud - I have often wondered how "Stumped" came into existence and what its purpose is! I like the blogs, I like the comments, but yes, this one dips into a smug, adolescent mentality more often than not.

What sexism indeed?

I'd love to have Barbara Boxer or Kathleen Sibelius to vote for.

On the other hand, I hope any Democrat here would walk a mile to vote against a Condi Rice - Kathleen Harris ticket.

Let's face it. The most powerful person in Congress is a woman. More women than African-Americans are governors and senators. A woman President would be a big deal. This is bigger.

Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy due to hubris, arrogance, ego, and more word like that. The sense of entitlement was palpable. The surprise, to me, is that she almost succeeded. We are fortunate indeed to have Barack Obama to save us from that fate. If our savior were a woman, I would be just as happy.

Sexism was blatant, spewed out by news commentators and fully veted by the media. It might have not been the entire reason she lost but it certainly did not help her. She could not even leave the race in her own terms without some type of female vilification.The good thing is now who I don't need to watch for my news coverage.I also know whose name I am going to write in the voting ballot. The only qualified candidate who actually would represent my rights and needs as a citizen and a human being: Hillary Clinton

Nonsense. The sexism in this campaign is only slightly less disgusting than the inherent racism. I always thought I was a tried and true Democrat, and I'm ashamed of my party - well, it's not my party any more. Although both candidates are horrible, I'll be voting for McCain, because he's the less horrible of the two, and because Democrats, after this sickening display, deserve to get creamed. And may God help us when we get exactly what we deserve, regardless of which rotten candidate wins.

JerryFLA, I couldn't have said it better. Well stated!

For me, and just about everyone I know, sexism had nothing to do with it.

This time, it's personal. Many of us despise Hillary Clinton not for her policies, not for her sex, but for the kind of person she is.

We see her as conniving politician totally lacking in any moral fiber. The thought of Hillary and Bill back in the White House is absolutely infuriating to many, many people. We see her as a perfect slick match for her husband, whom we despise for the great dishonor he has heaped upon America.

If Barrack errs and selects her as a running mate, he will lose all of our votes. We'd much prefer Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Mikulski on the ticket, two strong outspoken women.

So many of these comments are written like Obama beat Clinton by 20 million votes. For someone so despised and hated as the posters here seem to think she is, Hillary tied or exceeded Barack's vote count. Get a grip, people. You sound childish.

Barack talks about changing the tone and nature of politics. If he read the kinds of things his supporters post on sites like this, he'd quickly abandon all hope for that project.

And Andres, this was one of your weaker efforts -- a lot of assertions backed up with nothing. No data, no facts, nothing.

Martinez, you are definitely IN DENIAL!

And of course, you are not a woman, sooooo, there ya go!

Where did you hide out all year when Channel 5, CNN, MSNBC and every other fat cat related or connected to the fat cats in Washington treated her so unfairly. The comments that were made were dispicable, but I was happy to see she stood up to all of them. That is a strong person, the best to lead the nation.

Tim Russert, Donna Brazil, Andrea Mitchel, are at the top of the list -- to the point of having angry faces and eyes and making angry statements. I was ashamed of all of them and do not want to ever watch them again on tv. They were once my favorites, not again, not after I have seen their true colors come out.

Well, its June 5 now, and I do not intend to change my mind about Obama, as the pundits are hoping.

I intend to write Hillary in on the ticket. Neither Obama nor McCain deserve her spot in the whitehouse.

Well said!

It wasn't sexism. We rejected the Clintons returning to the White HOuse!

There's truth to this article. The truth for me is my 67 year old step mother.
She has been a die hard conservative republican. When she saw that Senator Clinton would be running she voted with Senator Obama to keep Hillary out of the white house. Over time, as she learned more about Senator Obama she became a full supporter and has left the republican party.

In the beginning of the Clinton campaign the public didn't think of her as a women. They thought of her as a Senator and Clinton first.
It wasn't until some strategists in her own campaign thought they needed to humanize her, that she started becoming a "female" running for president.

We have women CEOs, leaders in congress, more women than men in the senate. The glass ceiling was broken years ago, the problem is many feminists still live in the past and hold onto past ideals. Were they to be in the now, the present, they would understand this.

just a correction to a couple of the comments.

women are not minorities - they are approx. 50% of the world population and 50% of the US population.

gender discrimination/inequity is one thing, but women are not a minority. Women are a minority in certain careers, academic majors, fields...

obama has faced just as much racism as hillary sexism. often it was worded oddly sometimes not. and if you look at comments and message boards, you'll see tons of both...And if you look at the campaign trail, there are tons of reports of aggressive behavior against obama's campaign offices and outright racist comments to his field canvassers. but he knows better than to complain publicly because the backlash against him crying "racism" would turn away voters and stir up fear. it's good to confront racism and sexism where appropriate. but using it as an excuse rather than saying that you achieved in spite of it tends to not look great to the public unless you have a lot of power and money and constituents behind you. in hillary's case, there are a lot more women (population wise) that will hear that sensitive call and not turn against her than there are black americans in the population that will hear such a call from obama to mobilize the US population to defend him.

hillary accomplished a lot in spite of the sexist remarks thrown around about her campaign and had a strong constituency to back her up and throw mud back. we've got a ways to go nationally on all fronts. but women - and especially white middle class women, have achieved leaps and bounds in status since gender and civil rights laws have been put in place. minorities have as well, but the glass ceilings and brick walls have been a lot harder to knock down. neither is right, but there is a better way to address it than saying being a woman cost her the vote. things are more complicated than that

Thank you. Accurate, concise and, while not exactly original, a telling essay on the Clinton approach.

Several Democratic leaders warned (off the record, of course) of Clinton Fatigue in the fall. She started and remained unable to sense the moments that required dignity and grace, preferring arrogance and bullying.

Only her legacy remains to be determined.

The Hillary supporters are so passionately adamant about the role and impact of sexism that they fail to even acknowledge others factors for her loss. I simply don't understand and at this point, very annoyed, with this tunnel vision they have. Yes, there was sexism. But there was arrogance as well as lack of planning on her part. Why can't her supporters see that what was so unappealing about her candidacy was the sense of entitlement she exhibited. In the beginning of the primary, she behaved as if the ensuing contests were simply a formality. I really hope we get more female presidential candidates but one can't use sexism as a general excuse for failure. I would say the same thing about Obama. Yes, there is racism but I wouldn't respect Obama if he used that as a singular excuse for not winning the race. He should accept OTHER reasons, such as not explaining his positions clearly enough, and/or simply people not believing he was the best person to lead this country. I am tired of this blame game that is poured on to the media to explain Hillary's loss. It is as if she didn't REALLY lose the nomination but that sexist media TOOK it away from her. That explains the no-concenssion concession speech on Tuesday.

If she does not go to the mat for him from now until November (and counteract all the sound-bites of hers that the McCain campaign is now using), she will share blame for his loss and probably be damaged goods forever.

Posted by: Okonkolo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, this is just what Eugene Robinson and Anderson Cooper were saying.

Let me see how this works. If Obama wins then HE gets the credit and if he loses, which is likely, then BLAME Hillary.

Wow, how grownup, how mature, how democratic!

Fortunately for all of we history buffs, this campaign has been conducted on TV, newspapers and the internet.

Ms Martinez is entitled to her opinion but cooler and wiser heads will study the evidence and come to a fair conclusion in the future.

I know what I think and it is not about dynasty otherwise we would have heard his said of George W. or the Roosevelts.

Nice Try.

beastfan, I heartily concur with you. I am tired of the screeching misandrists claiming gender bias when they are backing a seriously flawed candidate ONLY BECAUSE she is a female.

Isn't it sad?

I will readily vote for a Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir or an Angela Merkle. They worked hard and earned their leadership roles. Hillary tried to create another failed American dynasty fashioned after the Bushes.

No to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
No to more Clinton pardons for moolah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
No to misandrists threatening to take their vote and go to the other team

No to Hillary Clinton!

Ms. Martinez: WORD!

"Hillary turned down no racist votes, proudly accepting them as a constituency."

Damn her for not turning those down! At least Barack Obama showed his purity by turning down the sexist votes. Oh, wait...

Politicians take votes wherever they can get them.

Whether we call it sexism, racism, classism, ageism, homophobia, mental health stigma, elitism, the prejudicial tendency in each circumstance is about plain, unvarnished (except as strategic ploy) ignorance - with those promoting any of these living somewhere beyond their own humanity.
The word bigotry is a strong one, yet it is based in a lack of education, a lack of cultural awareness, and any politician or political operative with the crass ruthlessness to offer any of these as a strategic assist - such base politics needs to be called out at every turn. These divide and conquer polorizations should be seen for what they are - tyrannical maneuverings of corrupt minds.

So what happens if BO wins and his wife decides to run for a Senate seat. Dynastic ambitions? Will MSM pundits of the future be willing to take that issue on, or will they let it ride for fear of stirring "racial divisivness"? What a bunch of wasted airtime, and page space!
This article is but another attempt by the MSM to put us "free thinkers" in our place by saying our observations of reality are nothing more than delusions. Once again no account was truly made on the effect deep feelings about gender have, rather we are supposed to believe that errors in judgement or in blind ambition were the cause for HRC's loss.
Anyone who has been alive for this struggle knows "wash my shirts", "she devil", HRC "nutcracker", and like comments and artifacts strike at levels that can't be measured. To defend against such attacks is to draw criticism for not bein able to "take it". How can a woman ever win?

For the 2012 dead-enders: what makes you think Hillary will go to the front of the line if Obama is not elected? If she does not go to the mat for him from now until November (and counteract all the sound-bites of hers that the McCain campaign is now using), she will share blame for his loss and probably be damaged goods forever.

Andres, would you have written an essay like this if the shoe were on the other foot?

"There is plenty of racism in America, but I disagree with your contention that Barack Obama's failed candidacy, and the way it was covered by the media, revealed a widespread disdain for powerful black men across the country. It would be insulting to the American people, and grossly unfair, for Obama and his mostly black supporters to push such a postmortem."

Would you really want to make such a sweeping claim? Can you imagine the uproar? You should imagine it. It would be fierce and unrelenting. Sorry for the invidious comparison. It is merely meant to expose them.

A typical debate in the Democratic Party over who is the bigger victim (Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama), who got the best or worst press coverage, benefited more from their identity etc. Identity politics is by its very nature divisive as individual groups struggle to show that their particular identity is more worthy of public sympathy and support. Isn't it amazing that one Democratic Presidential candidate even made an appeal based on her ability to deliver the white vote?

This Presidential election should be a cakewalk for the Democrats given the horribly bungled Iraq occupation, the failure to regulate financial institutions which is leading to a financial collapse and government overspending. Instead Democrats obsess on how their candidate was mistreated and make threats not to support their nominee.

In the general election, there will be one identity that matters, the American identity and who has the experience, knowledge and judgment to lead America at this critical juncture. Democrats risk seeing their opponent whose "identity" was shaped in the crucible of war and who knows something about mistreatment inaugurated next year. If this occurs, it will be one of the most stunning defeats in modern political history.

Tom, I don't buy your argument. I have voted for women to hold office in the past, and I will in the future. But I will NEVER vote for Hillary for anything.

I live in the state she represents, and conditions here have been terrible. And yet she is nowhere to be found, but again, her supporters excuse her failings and charge sexism on any criticisms.

It never seems to occur to any of her people that maybe it is the fact that she IS HILLARY that many do not want her around.

Darryle wrote, "I stopped taking Hillary Clinton seriously as a candidate the moment she voted to give George Bush authorization to conduct an illegal and unjustified invasion of another sovereign nation no matter how bestial and reprehensible its leader was. It was a cynical and utterly immoral act on her part. No genuine feminist would countenance the killing of so many helpless Iraqis, including women and children, and using our own troops and their families as if they were an expendable commodity."

Yes: Hilary's political cowardice cost her my vote before she even announced her candidacy. I realize this makes me such a sexist.

Richard, yes, there was sexism in the media. And yes, it was ugly and it needs to be addressed. But I don't believe sexism affected the outcome of the election--those voters most likely to be swayed by sexist remarks (less educated, lower income) went for Clinton. Clinton may be blaming the media rather than voters, but it comes out sounding like that's why she lost. I think she is happy to promote this perception among her supporters, which hurts Obama.

It is telling when a minoritie's claim of unfair treatment is regarded as "pathetic and illegitimate." No one is saying Clinton didn't make mistakes or surround herself with bad advice. But gender discrimination is not a zero sum game. Clinton obviously benefited from white privilge and a position of power and wealth. That doesn't mean she has not been evaluated unfairly, as many comments on this post attest.

Hillary lost the nomination on her own merits. However she was, in the course of running, subjected to sexist and misogynistic treatment at the hands of reporters, columnists and pundits. What's enraging is not the outcome of the race, it's that none of the institutions that should have taken issue with this behavior, did in any meaningful way.

What we are is what we are. Hillary turned down no racist votes, proudly accepting them as a constituency. In a world where racism and sexism is a sad fact of life, to blame a loss on sexism without condemning a win because of racism is hypocrisy raised to a very disturbing level. All in all, she was an odds-on favorite, beaten by a charismatic, super-intelligent, opponent in a very tight primary contest. Sexism and racism were probably reduced, rather than enhanced, but certainly not eliminated.

Hillary's monumental ego brought her down. I don't care if she is a hermaphrodite, the result would still be the same. Even Americans are smart enough to know a self-obsessed megalomaniac, of either sex. Particularly after eight years of the same, in a male format.

Sexism did not kill Hillary's campaign. However, the perception that it did will have an effect on whether her supporters get on board with Obama.

Clinton's claim re: sesxism refers not to the voters but, primarily, to the media. Many commentators and pundits were blatantly sexist or, for whatever reason, clearly biased toward Obama and against Clinton. E.g., MSNBC-Mathews, Olbermann, Shuster, Alter, Fineman; CNN had its token mysogynist in Jack Cafferty. NBC had Tim Russert. And there were many, many more in the print media. It can't be denied and whether or not it had a significant on the outcome of the primaries, it was, and will continue to be, disgusting. These people are not professionals but not so funny cartoon characters.

Contrary to Hillary's rabid supporters, sexism is not what killed her campaign. If the truth be told, if any "ism" would have killed a campaign, racism would have killed Barack's campaign. Hillary gain millions of votes, even with her fuzzy math. Barack just out-strategized her camp. After watching the likes of Harold Ickes and Howard Wolfson and others in the camp, it's no wonder she lost.

For all of you who are saying Barack was very sexist towards her, please note all the times and places he treated her less than respectful, more than can be said about the way she treated him. Barack tried to stay above the "isms" and did an excellent job. While detractors, including the media, were beating up on him about Rev. Wright, he went on in Pennsylvania to give a speech since he was put on the defensive. When Hillary used her hard working, harding working whites she was fighting for and who supported her, that was divisive, but no speeches from her.

Hillary made many missteps in her campaign because she was relying on being the presumptive nominee. Her key staff members did her a great disservice. They underestimated Barack's team. If anything, Hillary relied on her being a "White Female" to oust Barack. Her team underestimated the amount of "White" support Barack would receive. They also underestimated his fundraising abilities (I donated several times online).

Would these rabid supporters who wanted to see the first "female" president be as rabid if the candidate were a black female. NO, NO AND NO!

Hillary was so caught off guard by Barack's campaign, she kept copying everything he did, from his message about change to talking about the poor family she met with no health care.

Hillary's camp were successful at painting Barack as elitist and out of touch with the everyday American. Well, take a close look at their backgrounds and see who really is the true elitist.

Well, ladies, stop using sexism as an excuse for Hillary losing the nomination. She was her own worst enemy. She was ill advised and Bill, in his rants, did not help her. Her ability to play loose with the truth and feeling that she was the inevitable candidate cost her as well. Barack won fair. Barack followed the rules and did not try to change them as Hillary did when things weren't going her way.

My daughter had the wonderful experience of meeting Hillary at a restaurant. She had high praise for her cordiality and kindness and willingness to chat. Next time around, maybe Hillary can surround herself with more high-class staff than Ickes, Wolfson, Penn and others. They are the ones who really hurt her.

When a candidate who has her own legacy and her own credentials runs and loses to an inferior candidate, I will be the first one to admit their is sexism.

Obama ran the better campaign. His team knew the rules, played by the rules, and won. Period, all the Affirmative Action comments in the world wont change that fact.

If sexism was so rampant then why was Hillary the front runner over MORE EXPERIENCED Sens. Dodd, Biden, and Gov Richardson?

If Obama's race got him nominated, hy didnt it work for Jackson, Sharpton, or Braun?

Give it up clintonites, it is over... on to McCain

Wow - Andres Martinez on all cylinders with that response! As a fortysomething working woman who has experienced the glass ceiling -- and who does not want Hillary as her president -- I am tired of her and her supporters suggesting that any criticism is the result of misogyny. Just as they couldn't/wouldn't accept defeat, they wouldn't accept that people didn't like her and her tired old ideas -- so it HAD to be because she was a woman. And so the 50 & 60 something women who are STILL fighting the war of sexism (just like a senile grandfather still relieving WWII) were convinced it was sexism as well. WAKE UP!

Contrary to Hillary's rabid supporters, sexism is not what killed her campaign. If the truth be told, if any "ism" would have killed a campaign, racism would have killed Barack's campaign. Hillary gain millions of votes, even with her fuzzy math. Barack just out-strategized her camp. After watching the likes of Harold Ickes and Howard Wolfson and others in the camp, it's no wonder she lost.

For all of you who are saying Barack was very sexist towards her, please note all the times and places he treated her less than respectful, more than can be said about the way she treated him. Barack tried to stay above the "isms" and did an excellent job. While detractors, including the media, were beating up on him about Rev. Wright, he went on in Pennsylvania to give a speech since he was put on the defensive. When Hillary used her hard working, harding working whites she was fighting for and who supported her, that was divisive, but no speeches from her.

Hillary made many missteps in her campaign because she was relying on being the presumptive nominee. Her key staff members did her a great disservice. They underestimated Barack's team. If anything, Hillary relied on her being a "White Female" to oust Barack. Her team underestimated the amount of "White" support Barack would receive. They also underestimated his fundraising abilities (I donated several times online).

Would these rabid supporters who wanted to see the first "female" president be as rabid if the candidate were a black female. NO, NO AND NO!

Hillary was so caught off guard by Barack's campaign, she kept copying everything he did, from his message about change to talking about the poor family she met with no health care.

Hillary's camp were successful at painting Barack as elitist and out of touch with the everyday American. Well, take a close look at their backgrounds and see who really is the true elitist.

Well, ladies, stop using sexism as an excuse for Hillary losing the nomination. She was her own worst enemy. She was ill advised and Bill, in his rants, did not help her. Her ability to play loose with the truth and feeling that she was the inevitable candidate cost her as well. Barack won fair. Barack followed the rules and did not try to change them as Hillary did when things weren't going her way.

My daughter had the wonderful experience of meeting Hillary at a restaurant. She had high praise for her cordiality and kindness and willingness to chat. Next time around, maybe Hillary can surround herself with more high-class staff than Ickes, Wolfson, Penn and others. They are the ones who really hurt her.

For the people that are talking about affirmative action: It is highly unlikely that AA got Obama into Harvard. What did get him there (besides good grades @ Columbia) was the fact that his father went there first. That's why Michelle got into Princeton - her brother went there first. Ivy League schools (most schools, for that matter) are quick to pay attention to "legacies" - especially if their familial predecessors had good grades, a high reputation, or the ability to write a large check to the Alumni fund. Therefore, legacies tend to get accepted over the rest of us in greater numbers.

With regard to the campaign, AA didn't help either candidate. Any racial/ethnic minority or female candidate would have drawn some attention because of race, ethnicity, and/or gender; however, attraction to the candidate goes far beyond those things - it has to include whether the candidate stands on your side of the issues, whether they are "likeable," whether you perceive others will support that candidate as you have, etc. If supporting a candidate strictly on race/ethnicity/gender and without taking these other factors into consideration, then also-rans such as Jesse Jackson, Geraldine Ferraro, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely-Braun, Shirley Chisholm, and Alan Keyes would have performed way, way better than they did in their respective presidential bids.

This entire argument that Clinton lost because of rampant sexism is complete GARBAGE! She lost because of her hubris, her arrogance and her single minded Republican campaign tactics which turned off a lot of people! Look at the base of her supporters.... under educated, lower income, white (racist) people. When it came to competing head to head in the urban centers all across this nation she lost...and she lost BIG. Most of the urban centers went for Obama by 20 points or more. Are you going to sit there and tell me that the most educated and affluent americans are misogynists...but not racist? CATCH A CLUE!!!

The demographics paint the picture very clearly. She lost for the very reasons that the above article mentions....she came into this race thinking it was her crown to don and that is an attitude that does not sit well with many Americans. This country was founded on the concept that ANY American regardless of their family background (privileged or not) has a chance at greatness....and Obama's entire life story is the epitome of the American dream.

If anything...Clinton was defeated by fate...by her own Karma if you will. If the saying is true, "People get the government they deserve", then hopefully Obama's legacy will be to completely reform our government one politician at a time!

Hillary proved in this campaign that she has the biggest EGO of the three running. I will NEVER vote for her for any office because she suckered New Yorkers into electing her to the Senate when most people knew it was merely a pretense at running for the WH.
And since she has been here, she has done NOTHING for New Yorkers, and even though most of the citizens of this state still find that to be a redeeming quality worthy of re-election, many of us here do not!

Incidentally, all the cries of sexism are pretty pathetic when you consider the countless attempts that were made to get a single one of her glassy-eyed, frothing supporters to QUALIFY her electability beyond being a woman, smart and, from one poster, because she crapped out a kid.

Last I checked, affirmative action does not give you unelected access to White House policy making (and the supreme court would disagree that it is "inherently discriminatory"). But for Hillary's marriage to Bill Clinton, she would not have the ability to argue about her "experience" relative to Obama. At least Obama had been elected to positions other than the US Senate.

Therefore, your affirmative action analogy crumbles. Hillary won her Senate seat largely based upon the high profile her status as First Lady conferred upon her. Is it sexist to acknowledge this fact? Did she do anything to be "elected" to First Lady? Would we have even known who she was in 2000 but for Bill's election to the Presidency?

By contrast, while Obama "most likely" benefitted from AA in terms of his admission to Harvard law school (you are certainly making an assumption here) that alone did not guarantee his success. He finished Magna Cum Laude. Affirmative Action does not help you get good grades on a blind grading curve.

So, from there, its hard to see where he benefitted from "affirmative action". Certainly, you don't win elections based on that, otherwise, race would have resulted in Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson being the Democratic nominee.

___________________________________________

My point is that it shouldn't matter if Obama benefited from Affirmative Action just as it shouldn't matter who Hillary Clinton marries. Both are invidious comparison made by powerful majorities as a means to discriminate. Regardless of the adequacy of the analogy, you have unwittingly proven its merit: minorities are unfairly treated to stereotypes that should have nothing to do with their ability to govern this country.

Fortuantely, no one (so far) has claimed that Obama's race is an impediment to his ability to be president. Clinton, however, by virute of her marriage has been ruled "unelectable" because of her relationship to her husband. She is assailed by people who make statements like, "Hillary won her Senate seat largely based upon the high profile her status as First Lady conferred upon her. Is it sexist to acknowledge this fact?"

As a means of determining her candidacy and evaluating her fairly? Yes, it is sexist.

All this talk about sexism is interesting, but ultimately not relevant to why Clinton lost since it did not cause her to lose (much as some people, particularly women, would like to believe this to be true). She started out the race with an overwhelming lead, so where was sexism then? Did sexist comments in the media during the course of the campaign sway people toward Obama? In which demographic would this have occurred? As a white, educated 49 year old woman, I judged Clinton by her own words and actions, not by what others said about her. I knew enough to ignore blatant sexist comments and found them distasteful. Most people I know, both MEN and women, did the same. One would think that those voters likely to be gulled into letting sexist views influence their opinion of Clinton would be those who are less educated and or ignorant, and Clinton seems to have had a lock on those votes ("hard working white Americans"). So the sexism argument does not hold with me.

(different Tony here)

Stumpy,

I think you've got it right. Like you, I invite anyway to examine both campaigns pre and post-Iowa. Team Obama was in it for the long haul and gathered the ducats to do so. Team Hillary? Not so much. She/they thought Super-Duper-Doo Tuesday was going to be a Coronation Of Sorts for the Clinton Restoration. Oopsy. Didn't see Obama coming, I guess.

The sour grapes described by the other Tony do need to be addressed by both candidates if we're truly going to do the hard work of telling John McCain "NO THANKS, JOHN."

BTW, I live in North Carolina. Would someone among the Republican't trolls in this comment section PUH-LEASE tell Go-Johnny-Go (away) to select Liddy Dole (the NC Senator) as his female running mate? You'd be doing the Nation and the Great State of North Carolina ("to be rather than to seem") a great favor! Mucho gracias!

"Maybe it's not a repudiation at all. She won the popular vote" an earlier poster wrote.
Look again, she won the popular vote only by quite convoluted arithmetic. First, it counted her vote in Michigan where Obama did not run. Second, it repudiated both caususes and "beauty contest" votes in states where delegates were elected by caucuses. "count al the votes" meant count all the votes except on es Clinton lost.

"Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly capable and qualified to be president. But her failure to secure the nomination cannot, and should not, be interpreted as a repudiation of women in politics or as a sexist verdict. Consider it a repudiation of dynastic arrogance."

Maybe it's not a repudiation at all. She won the popular vote.

So who's doing the repudiating?

Looks like the Rethuglican trolls posting here want to keep up the gender splitting rhetoric b/c they know McSame can't get into the WH any other way than the backdoor -- by default.

That's what happens when all you have to choose from a field of loser prez candidates is, a loser. Toooo bad!

Go ahead. Try throwing YOUR kitchen sink at Obama. Ask the Clintons how well that worked for them, too.

Thank god the Rethuglicans are so dumb!

Obama Tsunami in November.

"You argue that Clinton is merely a byproduct of her marriage, a continuation of her husband's presidency; according to you, she is not her own person. Without doubt, you would be assailed if you said something like, "Obama cannot be president because he took advantage of Affirmative Action and electing him would be confirmation of an inherently discriminatory practice." And rightfully so; you should be assailed. Hateful stereotyping is wrong and invidious comparisons bear no fruit. Holding women to these kinds of standards is malicious and wrong."

Last I checked, affirmative action does not give you unelected access to White House policy making (and the supreme court would disagree that it is "inherently discriminatory"). But for Hillary's marriage to Bill Clinton, she would not have the ability to argue about her "experience" relative to Obama. At least Obama had been elected to positions other than the US Senate.

Therefore, your affirmative action analogy crumbles. Hillary won her Senate seat largely based upon the high profile her status as First Lady conferred upon her. Is it sexist to acknowledge this fact? Did she do anything to be "elected" to First Lady? Would we have even known who she was in 2000 but for Bill's election to the Presidency?

By contrast, while Obama "most likely" benefitted from AA in terms of his admission to Harvard law school (you are certainly making an assumption here) that alone did not guarantee his success. He finished Magna Cum Laude. Affirmative Action does not help you get good grades on a blind grading curve.

So, from there, its hard to see where he benefitted from "affirmative action". Certainly, you don't win elections based on that, otherwise, race would have resulted in Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson being the Democratic nominee.

The nytimes did a graph the the other day about how the voting was going between Hillary and Obama..when the graph for the male vote came up, Obama had about 3/4 to Hillary's 1/4 boxes of States in th graph....and I knew then that the male gender is more sexist than racist..

So, I will not blame Hillary's loss on sexism.....I will say Barak Obama won because the male gender happens to be more sexist than racist...

Whether or not sexism was the demise of the HRC campaign, it is impossible to deny the fact that it was pervasive, not just on the web but in MSM. Take a look at this video done by the Women's Media Center: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html and try to tell me that Hilary was not covered differently because she is a woman. I am disgusted with the press and with men and women who fail to see that women are treated differently in the media. This is not a racism vs sexism battle, and it angers me that those who say that Hilary has faced more sexism than Obama has faced racism have undermined the efforts to show people that sexism is RAMPANT in our country.

I agree, sexism did not kill the campaign. However, this post did not answer the original question.

Andres: I could not agree more with what you have written. I am a Gen X working mother who would dearly love to cast my vote for the first woman president. But nearly a year ago I concluded that on principle I could not vote for Hillary because I do not believe it is in the best interest of our country to foster political dynasties. Interestingly, at that time I thought it would pain me to vote for a man instead of a woman. But after the way Hillary ran her campaign I had no problem - and was actually excited - when I cast my ballot for Obama in my state's May primary. I still look forward to the day when I will be able to vote for a woman who will become our President. And it will happen soon. Just not this year and not this woman.

Perhaps HRC is not congratulating about Obama's victory because he race-baited since North Carolina? The worst thing about being called a racist is to congratulate the politician whose campaign called you a racist to begin with.

Didn't North Carolina happen like, a month ago? Give me quotes from Obama where he "race baited" Clinton. I want direct quotes from Obama, with dates and sources.

I also want you to explain whether you believe that Hillary was "race baiting" when she made her "hard working Americans-- white americans" statement.

Why did she limit the category of "hard working Americans" to "White Americans"?

It was most certainly about race and sexism in America. To say different is a down right lie! All one has to do is read the nasty editorials about Hillary in your own paper! The press has damned her since, Bill's lie! The Good old boys club is alive and kicking, and as usual, it is women whom are look at from a window darkly... Good job Guys!

I hope Hillary isn't still pushing (or extorting) her VP desires on Obama. Read what George Will has to say about this.

"Clinton, having risen politically in her husband's orbit, is a moon shining with reflected light. Were Obama to hitch himself to her, he would reduce himself to a reflection of a reflection." (Quote attributable to George Will of Washington Post 6-6-2008) George is quite right.

If anything shows that Hillary was indeed a lightweight, it was her unwillingness to admit defeat and show true support for Obama last Tuesday night as Obama garnered more than enough delegates to claim the nomination. She held on to her 18 million votes like a child playing a game of marbles with rules that the loser turn over hers to the winner at the end...BUT she wouldn't. And I submit....This one incident, because of its monumental importance, also gives evidence that it was Bill, not Hillary who was directing her campaign all along. Ya know, with that old Clinton style of so-called "politics of personal destruction". It really was their style...their modus operandi....and....it almost worked again....almost, but not quite. Personal destruction meant destroying others, anyone who got in their way. It also meant to attack, then deny (i.e.; lie). The political technique which typifies the Clinton's strategy to a tee reared it's head this past Tuesday night for EVERYONE to see when as Hillary showed Obama total, unquestioning disrespect by refusing to concede...she accused HIM of not showing her respect. THIS IS THE CLINTON WAY.

What struck me as very ironic throughout the latter part of the campaign particularly, is how Hillary (Via Bill's seasoned political operatives) was able to morph herself so quickly using differing political strategies to suit the desires of differeing Primary audiences. She went from "The Queen deserves her coronation Hillary", to "I'm not as good as a speaker as Obama but have more substance Hillary" (remember the celestrial choirs speech), to "I have more hutzspa than Obama Hillary" (remembering Pa primary with her downing shots and talking about shooting shotguns), to "I really represent the down-trodden working-class white male Hillary" (W. Virg and kentucky), to ...... what exactly???? Well, in the end, she alligned herself with what may have been the most radical fringe of her support....those willing to become politically active for her when she needed them most for a big show at the DNC's Rules Committee meeting. And there is where she seemed to have ended it...suggesting her supporters are really made up predominently of life-long disenfranchised females (also known as feminists). But, like almost everything associated with Clintonian politics, this is a mirage. The strength of her feminist support certainly makes up only a minority of her true support. Hillary was always a feminist wanna-be though, so she'll quite glady reinforce the false image that she represents such a crowd(Especially when it suits her).All of these morphed political strategies in whole have other names. It's been called "Modern Populism" or simply "Pandering for votes". It's been called political brilliance before (When it's been successful). But, even though this Primary has been described as tortuously slow in reaching a decision by some pundits, the reality is just the opposite. These changes or morphs which Hillary was able to accomplish took place at lightening speed as they must in a Primary where she continually gets ready to do battle in the upcoming States who have their votes sometime only a week apart. This was too little time for Team Clinton to successfully perform their very well practiced "Rope-A-Dope" from week-to-week. Too much light shown on the real picture. (you know, like turning the lights on late at night in a roach-infested motel kitchen room and seeing what really has been going on there-it's all quite unseemly, yet you find out-true).

Because of this, it was easier for the voting masses to see that Hillary's defacto Primary theme became: "Change You really Can't believe In". She deserves it as her epitaph.

Let's stop blaming Obama's supporters here. Sexism played a role, and most regret it Few Obama's supporters are sexist, and I submit most gave Hillary a fair review before making their choice.

Blog sampling really bears little or no relationship to the wider electorate.

I also don't agree the sexism killed Clinton's candidacy. To be sure, there were some widely reported instances of sexism (the "Iron My Shirts" t-shirts, etc). But I am a woman and was always a bit suspicious of Clinton. I think she has strayed into the Republican camp one time too many with certain positions (flag burning amendment, for one). But I would've been willing to support her if she had not been so obviously pandering on key issues and willing to use race as a wedge. In one debate, she said that black voters resented immigrants taking their jobs while Obama rejected that idea as scapegoating. The gas tax suspension proposal was just silly and never meant to go anywhere. Despite all that, I do think Clinton has proven any woman can run for president and will eventually get there.

It is ironic that as you attempt to dimantle the argument that entrenched sexism in any way contributed to Clinton's loss, you offer an alternative rationale - "the continuation of a political dynasty" - which is, of course, sexist. When you say this you might as well be saying, "she slept her way to the top." You argue that Clinton is merely a byproduct of her marriage, a continuation of her husband's presidency; according to you, she is not her own person. Without doubt, you would be assailed if you said something like, "Obama cannot be president because he took advantage of Affirmative Action and electing him would be confirmation of an inherently discriminatory practice." And rightfully so; you should be assailed. Hateful stereotyping is wrong and invidious comparisons bear no fruit. Holding women to these kinds of standards is malicious and wrong.

"I disagree. While the arguments are plausible, they are more defensive than accurate. Obama has few qualifications other than being Black and it is fashionable to half heartedly support diversity. Edwards and Clinton were both more qualified than Obama, especially since Obama played the role of a potted plant for 20 years in Wright's church. Clinton lost because of sexism within the democratic party big wigs, not the voters."

Ha,ha...
You give your true sentiments away, here. What does Obama's membership in a church have to do with his "qualification" to be president?

How was Edwards more qualified than Obama? Because he was in the US senate an extra 2 years? Doesn't Obama have more experience in public service than Edwards? Edwards spent 6 years in the US senate. He spent two of those years (2003-2004) running for President. He co-sponsored 203 bills, the most significant of which, authorized the war in Iraq, claiming that Sadaam was a grave threat to the US. He defended that statement as late as 2004, well after Obama and Howard Dean correctly stated that Sadaam wasn't a threat to us, and that the war had not made us safer. Didn't Edwards admit that he was wrong on the war? Isn't the war the single most motivating factor amongst democratic voters at the beginning of the primary process? Didn't Edwards reverse himself on nearly every major public policy issue in this campaign, including immigration?

What exactly, in your opinion, qualifies Edwards over Obama? An extra 2 years in the Senate? What about Obama's 4 additional years in State Senate service? Irrelevant?

Or is it because Edwards is white that you assume he is more qualified, since you have no facts to back your conclusion.

Your clear bias in favor of Obama is a betrayal to journalism and to the American public. First and foremost, to explain the Clintons as being a dynasty is misleading and an egregious exaggeration. A political dynasty is described as a family that has been involved or held political power for generations. As a side note, it's interesting that you use dynasty in a negative way (only linking it to the Bush family) considering that from the birth of the United States, dynasties have played a large role in American politics for better and for worse. For example, the Tafts, Roosevelts, and Lees were all important dynasties in American politics. Even JFK, a man once seen as the hope of the future and a changing of the guard, was born and groomed from one of the longest standing dynasties in American politics. All that aside, Hillary and Bill Clinton have no former blood relatives who have held political power. Hillary is a grandchild of English and Welsh immigrants and a daughter of a father who owned a small business and of a stay at home mother. Bill is the son of a mother who spent her life as a nurse and a father who was a traveling salesman. This is hardly a dynasty especially when equated with the Bush family.

Andres, your article is loaded with underlying sexist themes and sexist descriptions; i.e. "desperation"; (She got to where she is because of her husband). i.e. "What made her the formidable front-runner, in a field in which she was neither the most experienced candidate nor the most charismatic one, was the fact that she was a Clinton -- able to command her husband's political network and to rely on the strength of the family brand."

In addition, the betrayal of journalism by the media stems from their reporting of stereotypes, drama, and their own interpretation of candidates' character. The media is charged with covering the facts, the policy positions, and not framing an article to meet a set image of a candidate, in effect recycling a tired narrative. Your bias is so evident in your sentence: "Indeed, it's myopic to equate "negative" coverage with unfair coverage or to demand that all candidates receive equal doses of negative coverage. Candidates don't all behave with equal measures of callousness."

You argue that some candidates receive more negative coverage based on their actions; some are more callous than others. This seems to be your defense for why Hillary receives such negative press including your article. We are reading your interpretation of her as callous through this statement. Your job isn't to interpret the candidate's character or to state your beliefs, or even to tell us what we should or shouldn't think, but it is to report a candidate's policy position and how that position may affect the public.

Your article is merely a regurgitation of a narrative the media has been circulating about Hillary for years. This narrative is a clear attempt at character assassination and preys upon the covert and not so covert sexism in our society.

The "Hillary supporters," as you narrowly define the diverse majority of the Democratic Party that supported and supports Hillary, aren't all simply stating that sexism was the only impediment to her clinching the nomination. Many of her supporters are stating that it played a crucial role.

Consider this rebuttal a repudiation of media arrogance

This hit the nail on the head. The single greatest reason I've opposed Hillary (and will oppose Chelsea if she runs, or Jeb Bush, etcetera, regardless of the other choices) is because she is a Clinton.

She has no right to the Presidency, no entitlement to sit in the White House.

To say that Hillary lost because she is a woman is to deny any possibility that she might be disliked for other reasons. It is an idiotic denial, because anyone can list a handful of reasons why much of the country might not like another Clinton, or even this Clinton in particular.

It is certainly true that HRC did not win the nomination. But to say that she was rejected by the voters is, at best, sloppy language and thinking. The woman won at least half of all Dem votes cast this year. Almost 18 million votes! Obama and his team had a better strategy for winning delegates. End of story.

What bothers me about all the complaints that Hillary was done in by "misogyny" is that it doesn't admit that I, as a man, might not like her because of any other reason.

Please. There's the vote for the war, the failure to vote against the "bankruptcy reform" bill, the Rovian attacks on Obama, the ruthless triangulation, the car salesman's bonhomie.

Fact is, I'm perfectly capable of disliking Hillary in exactly the same way that I dislike her male analogs.

and what was up with that "hidden bunker" thing on tuesday night for hillary's speech?

she had to go 2 stories UNDERGROUND, with no cellphone reception, no text availability, no internet access, and no television signals or cable???

so, while the entire country is hearing that barack obama won the nomination, everyone (300 people) in that underground bunker were blishfully unaware of it all, and could only hear from hillary?

some called this a manifestation of her own unrealistic dreamworld. is that the kind of rose garden-mentality she would have brought to the white house if one of her policies starts failing?

selfishly keeping a group of people in the dark while the whole world stays informed of the truth shows a narcissim and personal insecurity beyond all measure.

political textbook writers, and mental health textbook writers, will have plenty of material, thanks to her.

While this is likely to get lost in all the comments, nonetheless here I post.

For those who say there are no documented instances of Sexism: http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-charge/
Read it and try to understand. (But if you haven't noticed it yet, you are already NOT in touch with reality, so might still not see-"none so blind as those who WILL not see.")

The sexism was a MAJOR factor in her loss though there are others: Obama's wins- he is a formidable candidate, a fine person, and he and his campaign planners are world class; some missteps on strategy (most stemming from believing, or appearing to believe, that it would be a cakewalk); words twisted by others to mean what was not meant.... but all in the context of the misogny.

We still have a lot to overcome.

Absolutely true for me, anyway. I remember voting for Bill Clinton the first time because I was told by him that I would be "getting 2 for the price of one", and I liked the Hillary Clinton I saw then. But when she(they) ran this time, all I could see was the continuation of dynastic politics a la Bush. And what person on earth, not to mention one who just happened to have been president a mere 8 years before, would be able to sit back and let his/her spouse be president without getting involved? Everyone knew that this would be a re-election of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. That isn't the same thing as electing a woman as president on her own right. Because Clinton's presidency did so much good for so many people, B and C believed that they would be able to be elected to a third term. But they had a number of problems haunting them from their previous presidential terms, and Obama ran on a ticket of change. It's what most Democrats want. Now we will get to see if that's true for the rest of the country as well.

Coming from the man who disparaged her campaign visciously since Iowa, I am not surprised of his vehement opposition to the author's implication that somehow sexism DID play an important negative aspect to her campaign. After all, the author doesn't want anyone to figure out that his sexism did show during the entire campaign season.

"Crocodile tears", "shrill", "Bosnia Sniper" are all covered extensively in his column in a negative light, but Obama's Revered Wright, race-baiting, etc are not covered at all.

Perhaps HRC is not congratulating about Obama's victory because he race-baited since North Carolina? The worst thing about being called a racist is to congratulate the politician whose campaign called you a racist to begin with.

Hillary went from substance early on to pandering and saying anything to anyone to get their vote. Although I voted for Bill in '92 this kind of craven politics turned me off to Bill by '96 and turned me off to Hillary in February this year. Both Obama and McCain have a much better record of saying what they believe although McCain clearly caved in on bogus tax policy. All this current gender and racial emotion may be unavoidable but it clearly is counter productive. This is one old white guy who is voting for Obama.

"Edwards and Clinton were both more qualified than Obama"

I keep hearing this. What does this mean? When you're qualified to do a job, that means you're qualified to do a job. There is no "more" qualified. Once you've crossed that threshold, that's it, other aspects come into play.

John Mccain is "more qualified" than all 3 of them. Does that mean you'd vote for Mccain over Clinton if she'd won the nomination?

Great article.
One point, why can't the Clinton folks just say 'good fight' & walk away?
When you start making excuses after the game, it does help your case; it just makes you look like a sore loser.
Pundits comment on politics (that's their job).

I am a woman of 50 who really has not seen much of sexism in this race.
I have seen plain old fashioned politics but, that is not sexism. When people make fun of things about Hillary it is in the same vein as when they do with other candidates. And they were not sexist.
If there were complaints about her it was about her as a person and a clinton. She evoked all the bad about the Clintons from the dishonesty to pandering to triangulation.
And she was more hawkish then some republicans.
Her gender did not play much of role except for when she and her supporters would bring it up and use it as a weapon.
Until her campaign faltered she got overwhelmingly positive press, by the way.
I have seen Nancy Pelosi excepted and respected as leader of the house and never was there sexism used against her and I cannot imagine Pelosi using gender the way Clinton has. Or playing the poor victim or encouraging the excuse of sexism for her own failings.

I disagree. While the arguments are plausible, they are more defensive than accurate. Obama has few qualifications other than being Black and it is fashionable to half heartedly support diversity. Edwards and Clinton were both more qualified than Obama, especially since Obama played the role of a potted plant for 20 years in Wright's church. Clinton lost because of sexism within the democratic party big wigs, not the voters.

Posted by: MKG | June 6, 2008 10:51 AM

Obama built an insurmountable delegate lead by winning 11 straight races in February because Nancy Pelosi is sexist?

we've said it way back in iowa that hillary clinton seems to have a huge character flaw when it comes to standing up in the face of things not going her way.

in iowa, she couldn't bring herself to congratulate obama for his victory, saying instead a generic "tonight is a victory for the democratic party". nor could she do so when barack went on his 11-win streak.

don't we teach kids, boys AND girls, to congratulate their opponents in little league? in cheerleader tryouts? in school debates? why is it than when you turn 60 years old you don't have to live by those standards any longer?

but if you criticize it, then you're a sexist? if barack didn't do it to her and got criticized, his critics are now racists???

hillary is just like former rep. mel reynolds: when you fall short, blame other people for your mistakes with every false claim you can muster.

tuesday night should have been a celebration for this entire country, for all those freedom marchers and freedom riders, for all the abolitionists and reformers...instead, tuesday night was selfishly taken away by someone who truly doesn't realize that her day is done.

obama doesn't owe her anything. he played by the rules and won. hillary played by the rules and lost. if she wants to get mad at someone, she should get mad at her campaign management, male and female, who didn't have a firm grasp on what the rules were.

Let's face it, Hilary would have never been considered if she wasn't Bill's wife.

But, any sexism really paled in comparison to the racism, especially with the Limbaugh Republicans who crossed over to vote for Hillary after McCain had it in the bag.

We have just witnessed an incredible event. While we have had many women become heads of state in the West, we have never had a person of African decent become the head of state of a colonial, slave owning country (except where the Europeans have been kicked out of the African countries.)

We are making history. The world can see we are getting back to our values of hope and fearlessness and generosity.

Hillary has been playing the victim for years, don't you all remember the vast right wing conspiricy, the "they've been trying to crucify us since Bill was Gov. of Ak", the "I'm sleep deprived" now it's "sexisim". Please, Hillary is her own worst enemy, she cries, not often, lies, quit often, denies, all the time, and just plain thinks she's entitled. Being an older White grandma, I know what sexisim is, been there done that, ya it exists but she wasn't a victim. She attempted to race bait, invoked RFK'S assasination, you name it she's used it. She is always playing the victim that's part of Hillary.

Andre gave an excellent description of the Clinton campaign, albeit her ugly Karl Rove smear tactics could have been emphisized more. It was really Hillary we were all rejecting, and she really was a repulsive personality, not her gender.

I think it is obvious that the overt and covert sexism hurt Hillary, but in a weird way it helped her too. I started out definitely behind Obama, not being able to forgive her for her vote on the war. As the campaign dragged on I got madder and madder about the sexism. The debate moderated by Tim Russert had me yelling at my TV and committed to never watching any show he is on again. It clinched my voting for her out of a sense I needed to defend my gender. I'm not one of those who is going to vote for McCain because I really think Obama is great too. Overall I think though the constant negative drum beat by the frat boys in the press definitely hurt Hillary more than it helped, because they are opinion makers more than reporters. In the end this race was a statistical dead heat in who voted for who. (I'm one of those who has been for throwing out the electoral and delegate systems since 2000).

Check out this link for how close it was.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

I would say the vitriolic misogyny on many boards and blogs by Obama supporters is his biggest problem right now. That stuff is what is most likely to push Hillary supporters to vote for McCain or stay home. I have to remind myself every time I read this stuff that it doesn't represent him and any cause no matter how great attracts creeps.

Excellent column/blog. I would add that Hillary Clinton benefited more from sexism than she may have been hurt by it. Plenty of women seem to have supported her simply because she is a woman. Ms. Clinton's sense of entitlement, her "big lie" about being the most experienced candidate, her falsehoods (example: Bosnia sniper fire) and past unseemly behavior (how did long-overdue subpoenaed material suddenly appear in the White House private quarters and get "discovered" by a staff member?) and general arrogance and jerkdom were and are all non-sexist reasons to dislike her. Let's elect a female president someday who comes without all that baggage and is not prominent because of her husband, but because she has worked her way up.

I disagree. While the arguments are plausible, they are more defensive than accurate. Obama has few qualifications other than being Black and it is fashionable to half heartedly support diversity. Edwards and Clinton were both more qualified than Obama, especially since Obama played the role of a potted plant for 20 years in Wright's church. Clinton lost because of sexism within the democratic party big wigs, not the voters.

I disagree. While the arguments are plausible, they are more defensive than accurate. Obama has few qualifications other than being Black and it is fashionable to half heartedly support diversity. Edwards and Clinton were both more qualified than Obama, especially since Obama played the role of a potted plant for 20 years in Wright's church. Clinton lost because of sexism within the democratic party big wigs, not the voters.

I disagree. While the arguments are plausible, they are more defensive than accurate. Obama has few qualifications other than being Black and it is fashionable to half heartedly support diversity. Edwards and Clinton were both more qualified than Obama, especially since Obama played the role of a potted plant for 20 years in Wright's church. Clinton lost because of sexism within the democratic party big wigs, not the voters.

As an Edwards supporter, it was perfectly clear that sexism and racism actually benefited both Hillary and Obama since their strength in the face of both prejudices made for a more interesting story than actual policy. Edwards couldn't get equal attention from the media as a result. In the end however it was Hillary who used both of these issues which she rightfully saw as attention grabbing. For many progressives, Hillary's campaign tactic was executed in a manipulative and distasteful way and detracted from what we really wanted, a race based on ideas. Obama stuck to his message and did not try to play the victim even when he was attacked for not being black enough. Hillary has only herself to blame.

Vnd22 - Thanks for posting that. I needed a good laugh. That article was a joke, right?

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

If that's what you call sexism, I feel sorry for you. Geraghty has just reaffirmed how little credibility this claim to sexism has.

"There were 2 sets of folks with a viscerally negative reaction throughout to Hillary--the media, and Obama's supporters, (who thanks to the Internet, could trash talk more ubiquitously than ever). "

Have you ever stopped to think that a large amount of Obama supporters actually like Hillary Clinton, but just didn't vote for her?

Certainly, the vast majority of Obama supporters voted for Bill Clinton twice...do you think they decided to support Obama over Hillary because of gender bias?

I believe that Hillary's gender was of great benefit to her during the entire course of the primary campaign. Of course there were the obvious jokes and put-downs, but can anyone imagine a man being treated as "gallantly" as Clinton was during the last five months? Any man who behaved as Hillary has and is still behaving would have been ridiculed and removed immediately, not tap-danced around and bowed to. She has made good use of her gender. She did not lose the nomination because she is a woman, but in spite of it.

Have people been looking at the blogs on hillaryclinton.com and pumapac.org? I looked at them for the first time today, and was shocked and saddened. One of their main obsessions is to thwart the election of Obama in November, so that their candidate, whose nomination was stolen by the DNC, can run in 2012.

I would like to know where Mr. Martinez has been for lo these many years regarding his keen sense of "dynastic arrogance" and the need to repudiate such offensive aspirations? Why is it "dynastic arrogance" on the part of Hillary, who Mr. Martinez agrees is unquestionably qualified to be president? Where was Mr. Martinez during the Bush dynasty, to use his term?? Manning the barricades to the Governor of Texas succeeding his father eight years later as president?? I doubt it. And I guess he never heard of John Quincy Adams and his relationship to John Adams, or Benjamin Harrison and his relationship to William Henry Harrison. And I am sure that he has been standing at the bridge for many decades to prevent Robert and Ted Kennedy from succeeding their brother John.
I suggest that in light of Mr. Martinez' hypocrisy on the issue of "dynastic arrogance," it is obvious that a personal dislike for Hillary and her husband is the root cause of his thought process, not any rejection of misnamed arrogant dynasties.

For those of you having trouble seeing it...

If you want some good examples of sexism in the campaign, check out Jim Geraghty's round-up yesterday in the National Review:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWFkMjc1ZTJjNzgyMWI3ZjliMDQ3MzQ2MjhjYTZhOTQ=

Spare me the Gerry Ferraro whining. There are 16 white female US Senators currently serving in Congress. There is only 1 African American. Only 2 other African Americans have been elected to the Senate SINCE RECONSTRUCTION (one was a black woman). So that's 3 blacks in the last 150 years compared to 16 white females serving NOW! If being African American is such an advantage, as Ferraro claimed, shouldn't there be more african american state-wide representatives in the senate?
Why didn't race help Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton win the Democratic Nomination when they ran?

Same thing with white female governors. There have been 2 black governors elected in US HISTORY. One is serving now. There are 7 white female governors CURRENTLY SERVING.

The numbers do not support this claim of rampant sexism, dooming white women to subordinate roles in politics. Ferraro and her ilk are simply upset that their person didn't win this time.

Hillary did not give Sexism as the reason for her not getting the nomination. She only brought it up because she noticed that it was going on in the media.

Hillary did not become the Democratic nominee because Obama learned from Kerry and Kennedy how to stack the deck in caucuses with his supporters.

The problem is Hillary lost for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with sexism, and several commentators made openly vile and blatant sexist remarks about her, and were never taken to task for them. This enables both sides to point fingers at the other while refusing to address their own problems.

If the Clinton camp really wants to do something about the allowed sexist comments in our society. They should admit that Obama ran a superior ground campaign, is an inspirational leader at a time when the country is dying to be inspired, and that he played by the rules and won (all with no strings attached).

Only then can you point to the MSM and say how did you allow these sexist statements and moreover how did you allow them to continue. As long as Hillary and her camp cling to the notion that Obama is a usurper who got in the way of her coronation, and refuses to admit that things like her vote for the Iraq war, sloppy ground campaign, and other issues might have caused problems, accusations of sexism no matter how justified will be perceived as sour grapes fall on deaf ears.

Jack writes:

>>

My friend - I know you mean well, but please do go back and read the AUMF. There is nothing conditional about it. It's a blank check for Bush to do as he sees fit with Iraq. And everybody with a memory remembers that Bush really *really* wanted to go to war with Iraq and that he would if given the opportunity. The AUMF gave him that opportunity and everyone who voted for it knew it.

Also consider the fact that Clinton pimped that war for YEARS - next to Lieberman, she was arguably the biggest Dem promoter of that war.

So please stop with the revisionism and recognize that Clinton made a mistake that she has not owned up to. There were PLENTY of people screaming at the top of their lungs that Saddam had no WMD (the former weapons inspector for 7 years, Scott Ritter, comes to mind, as does Muhammad El Baradei, Hans Blix, etc.) and she had access to that and even more info. So she wasn't duped into anything. She triangulated.

As usual.

And we've had enough.

Sorry MArtinez, but you simply tie yourself into knotts attempting to prove a negative-That Hillary was not discriminatied against for being female during her nomination attempt.

And to make matters worse you attempt to imply that because she lost the nomination attempt (by a slim margin) this proves that Americans couldn't be wrong in their assesment However,try finding an American these days who will admit to having voted for Bush JR....

Great article. I have voted for a woman for Governor and would gladly vote for a woman again...just not Hillary. Her running was defined by a sense of entitlement; her speech on Tuesday night just oozed of this sense of entitlement still...she can't believe she has lost! She and Bubba should wake up and realize it is a new day. By the time she gets to run in 2012 alot of the women now supporting her will probably be gone from this world. The younger generation seems to want no part of the Clintons. And yes, I am a 64-yr old, non-college educated female...supposedly part of her "demographic" support.

Anamika said:

"Her intolerable immaturity, her obstinacy, her crying, her whining and her heavy dependency on her husband for every little thing just sought to reinforce the negative stereo-type of women.

i didn't see any sexism. i am sure it played a neglible part. but most of it is just her."

-------------------------------------------

That's got to be a joke, right?

The sexism runs so deep you can't even see it.

Posted by: Vnd22 | June 6, 2008 9:22 AM

If you can't see it, how do you know it is there?

It's funny how some people can cry "sexism" without citing any tangible instances.

Can't you accept the fact that people simply didn't like your candidate?

Obama ran a great campaign - very organized very disciplined. He got the advantage of extreme anger at Bush for the Iraq war which Mrs. Clinton conditionally authorized if there were WMD (which there were not - Dubbya lied - 925 times accord ing to a bi-partisna commission) - he got black support even though the Clintons did more for African Americans than any other administration - he was good and he was lucky - good luck and may God bless him.

Agree with all posters who say that yes there was sexism and especially by the media. Since time immemorial strong and ambitious women were viewed as negative for the human/animal psyche deep down fears such a one - not good for childbearing, rearing or playing second best. And yet she is a mother and by all appearances a great one. Time will tell. The US is not as progressive as it postures.

i had a lot of respect for hillary at the start of the campaign and i thought obama was more talk.

At the end of the primaries i turned 180 degrees and completely lost respect for her.

Her intolerable immaturity, her obstinacy, her crying, her whining and her heavy dependency on her husband for every little thing just sought to reinforce the negative stereo-type of women.

i didn't see any sexism. i am sure it played a neglible part. but most of it is just her.

there have been women leaders around the world like Mrs.Tatcher and Mrs.Gandhi, who commanded presence and leaderly attention. she simply does not have it.

i think pelosi would make a much better leader than she would. she has the composure and presence. hillary could learn a thing or two from her friend.

"The proof is in the proverbial pudding: she is much more highly qualified as a candidate"

And John Mccain is more "qualified" than both of them. Would you have voted for Mccain if Hillary won the nomination?

The sexism runs so deep you can't even see it.

You say Clinton was desperate and incapable of acknowledging she might not be president.

If she were a man, these traits would be lauded as a stubborn determination against tough odds, a willingness to persevere.

But no, a woman is called desperate.

It's disgusting.

Posted by: Vnd22 | June 6, 2008 9:22 AM
---------------------------------
No, you're wrong again. Reaching for things that aren't there.

The same things have been said about current President George W. Bush.

His article was ripping Bill Clinton too. Is that because he's married to a woman?

Your assertions are the ones that are disgusting.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding: she is much more highly qualified as a candidate, and if Barack Obama were a woman with that experience, it would be a whole different ballgame.

Take one look at the Nissan Pavilion entrance Obama made and you'll see where the power lies: three men, two of them white dudes. It was a walking metaphor for who runs this country.

When all is said and done Clinton lost for one reason - she voted for the war on Iraq. This infuriated most Democratic progressives, who responded by supporting Obama.

The sexism runs so deep you can't even see it.
You say Clinton was desperate and incapable of acknowledging she might not be president.
If she were a man, these traits would be lauded as a stubborn determination against tough odds, a willingness to persevere.
But no, a woman is called desperate.
It's disgusting.
Posted by: Vnd22 | June 6, 2008 9:22 AM

Hehe that's either brilliant satire or oblivious self-satire, but either way it's perfect.

sexism is alive and well in this country true But In HC case she was her own worst Enemy as to voting on Iraq i think most sen. were fooled,her biggest problems is faied to see the problems of the people of the USA we most have change Busniess as useul will no longer work

Iowa men went to the polls (unfortunately people I grew up around) saying (and I quote) "I'd vote for a niqqer before I'd vote for a woman." This country is still racist AND sexist.
To say otherwise (and to think Obama--who will have my vote-- can win in November) is extremely naive.

Posted by: Former Iowan | June 6, 2008 9:41 AM

And to think the entire country, or even the majority of the country thinks this way is equally as naive.

Nobody is arguing that racism and sexism have been overcome. But the fact that a black man and a white woman have BOTH outlasted a qualified white male for the candidacy (Edwards) has shown that your assumption - that Obama can't win - is patently false.

Iowa men went to the polls (unfortunately people I grew up around) saying (and I quote) "I'd vote for a niqqer before I'd vote for a woman." This country is still racist AND sexist.
To say otherwise (and to think Obama--who will have my vote-- can win in November) is extremely naive.

Okay, if I called Susan a dumb B***H right now, would that be sexist?

It was Hillary's overwhelming ego and campaign mismanagement that put her second in this race, not her gender.

Someone mentioned the Hillary nutcracker, and yes, that was tasteless, but overall, I think both candidates got the love and hatred of the media in equal measure.

The Clintons just don't know how to lose, so they blame it on everyone but themselves. I am looking forward to Saturday.

Great Article. Very well written. Right on the money. The Clintons have disgust me this entire campaign. He wicked, no holds bars, does anything to win truly showed her true colors. She's a sore loser and a terrible politician. She is a disgrace to women. Obama won not only because he is the better candidate, but because Hillary is the worst! All the people that said they will not vote for Obama weren't going to vote for him anyway. They are racist and sore losers as well. Bill Clinton showed his true colors with his racist, elitist comments. The Clintons thought this primary and the presidency was a no brainier and they were wrong. Oh so wrong!!!!

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

I've liked Obama since 2004, but I assumed Hillary would be the nominee (and so did she) and I looked forward to voting for her. Even now, if she were the nominee, I would, because although John McCain is an honorable man his policies and attitude are terrifying. But after the arrogant, sleazy and above all incompetent campaign she ran, I'm glad I won't have to.

The sexism runs so deep you can't even see it.

You say Clinton was desperate and incapable of acknowledging she might not be president.

If she were a man, these traits would be lauded as a stubborn determination against tough odds, a willingness to persevere.

But no, a woman is called desperate.

It's disgusting.

You could only see the infamous nutcracker, you could see her bruised picture inviting anybody to hit her face again, you could hear the comments of cable Tv hosts and one at least one of Obama supporters, you could hear those denigrating comments and marginizing laughs. You could read week after week, day after day extremely critical and biased pieces on Op_ED pages of New York Times written by Dowd (the most nausating) Herbert and Rich (very biased) to make your mind. Moreover those attacks were published in newspapaer which supposedly endorsed her. On day of New York primary, another attack, sickenning to the bones by Columnist Brooks. She didn't have even one day to respond. Obama listened for 20 years to sickenning, alienating message from his racist pastor, but it was Clinton, who was immediately lynched when she just made an allusion to that. His listenning to this guy, exposing his children to that hatered and poisonous resentment was fine. When she mentioned this, she was commintting crime. The same for Obama fundriser charged with breaking the law. Obama didn't see anything, He went over that and nobody even suggested that it might be his problem at least of jusdgement. Hillary mentioned it, she was again the one committing crime. His supporters attacks on Clinton, so often showing hysterical hatered prove that Obama is not able to lead even them, to restrain from antagonizing comments that do not serve well Democratic party. And of course you could go on and on to compare how differently media treated Michelle. She would have to think about voting for Hillary, if she won. She was never before proud of her country (woman who was given many chances others do not have), and everybody forgets quickly. The behavior of Democratic party leadership toward Clinton alienated me even further. And most offending those Democratic leaders, just like so many of you Obama supporters on these pages not only undermind Hillary, attacked her insidiously, tie her hands (forbiding really to present negative facts about him) but then blame her. With Democrats like that who needs Republicans.

I cannot believe the Hillary supporters that claim that they will vote for McCain over Obama, simply because they're angry about Hillary's loss. How childish and shortsighted. This is politics, not football. The winner has serious implications on the policy direction of our country. Would you really condemn us all to another four years heading down the dark neo-con path because your pride is hurt? No wonder the GOP keeps winning.

Clinton or Obama? Just please give us a Democrat.

I am a woman. I say, Mr. Martinez, WELL SAID.

For once Stumped, who regularly trades in ugly stereotypes, prejudice and caricatures to make his points, had got it right.
How can sexism be Hillary Clinton's downfall, if there was broad belief two years ago that she was an inevitable candidate? Did the country become less sexist as she approached announcing and then more sexist after she became a candidate?
If so, then she is really arguing that Hillary Clinton makes people sexist. And that is absurd.
Yes, a think the idea lurking in many minds was that we had enough of the Clintons. Perhaps Hillary's first and lasting strategic mistake was to include Bill Clinton as Endorser-in-Chief. She made the connection strong, when she could have shown separation, although I don't know how believable it would be. (And perhaps there's an irony here -- how close, personally, are Bill and Hillary?)

But I don't think you've yet revealed the complete answer.
I argue that Hillary Clinton is not a very good candidate. By her own admission, she's not very good on the stump or at the podium.
Remember "Let the Conversation Begin!"? -- That may be the single-most boring slogan in the history of American politics.
As for her vaunted policy credentials -- nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever gotten elected president by laying out in such excruciating detail what they intend to do in office. There's a good reason for this -- the American people know that there's a Congress, and that Congress is what passes the laws and was intended to slow down decision-making by presidents.
So bottom line -- Hillary, shackled to Bill, was a boring candidate.
Now it seems not surprising that she didn't win a majority of delegates. Came close though, but didn't set the world on fire.
Solid B+ student.

Nicely written response that didn't actually answer the question.

I am a woman and I voted for Obama. Regardless of why Clinton lost, the way the media portrayed her was insulting to women. I heard multiple times that the only thing men would hear when she spoke was "take out the garbage!" They talked about her cleavage, they talked about the way she dressed, they talked about watching her grow old in the whitehouse. Maybe I'm too young and naive, but I thought we lived in a different world...one where I could maybe one day be president.

Clinton lost for one reason - she voted for the Iraq War. Postering for her future run for the presidency instead of doing the right thing, she voted for the war to show as a female she could be tough. She knew it was wrong, as did the 20 or so Democratic senators who voted against it. Be she put personal gain over personal honor voting for the war on Iraq. Now she is upset because has reaped the fruits of her action.

Stumped has hit the nail on the head. Throughout this campaign, very few gave credence to the reality that a lot of us were just plain sick of the Clintons and the Bushes. This is a democracy and it's not healthy for our nation to continue without an infusion of fresh ideas. I didn't reject Hillary because of her gender. I looked for an alternative because I felt uncomfortable with the concept of the presidency passing back and forth between two families. I could just see it - Clinton again for two terms and then one of the Bush nephews. Not good.

'Stumped' and Susan Cohen (blogger):

Thank you for your insights on HRC and sexism as a non-factor in her nomination lose.

If sexism was a factor in this primary season then how does HRC explain her various victories in terms of delegates and the popular vote?

The primaries are over and Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

The reason why we are still talking about HRC, sexism, etc. is because she refused to simply concede like any other candidate would have on Tuesday night. She remained indecisive until supporting Congressmen and Party leaders forced her hand, insisting that it was time to finally sit down.

Even with that, she is still dragging her feet...maybe Friday, no perhaps Saturday. What is this? We are trying to win back the White House here! What is she doing, other than egging her supporters on with the false hope of a VP spot when even if Obama's camp would have considered her for the post, with her over-the-top bullying tactics (via her surrogates), she has forced the Obama camp to take a position of "anybody but Hillary."

He could not possibly consider putting her on the ticket now without appearing weak and this ultimately is HRC's doing. Which means, as many of us suspect, her interest is not with the Party but with herself.

As a woman, I want to see a woman as President. But there are other highly qualified, esteemed women politicians who can fill this position.

I don't know about other women, but I resent the idea of a spouse taking personal credit for the professional achievements of her husband. If HRC was that intricately involved in the Clinton administrations, then why didn't Bill Clinton just give her a cabinet position. Otherwise, I find it uncomfortable as a woman that I should say, "since my husband has been a medical doctor for 8 years, his experiences as a MD should be tagged onto my own CV."

I respect what HRC has done as a Senator from NY State and could she have not run on that record alone? Otherwise, I find relying on her years as First Lady, to be degrading to fellow women politicians who did not use their husbands to gain positions of political power.

((BTW, for those supporters who insist that it is sexist when critics bring up the issue of Hillary staying with her husband after Monica, etc. sorry, it is fair game, since this is a very public marriage, the questions of her husband "sexual relations" led to a very embarrassing (and public) impeachment and as she argues for her experience in The White House, skeptics such as myself wonder if she stayed in her high profile marriage with her own political ambitions in mind.))

From the jump, these questions have been highly problematic and constructing a Presidential campaign based on "restoration" simply highlighted these issues.

Finally, I employ HRC women supporters, please cool your tempers, put the mantra of sexism aside and let's ensure that we do not have 4 more years of conservative policy on issues of Abortion, Iraq and the Economy!

I really think the sexism argument has been overblown and makes Hillary look like a sore loser who is unable to examine her strengths and weaknesses objectively.

Hillary lost because she was competing against a phenomenon and because her campaign made many, many strategic errors. By March, the media had gone negative on BOTH candidates, and a Pew research study showed that the press was more negative toward Obama, not Hillary.

In the end, the Clintons proved that they rightly deserved their unfavorable ratings. They will say anything and do anything to win. There was no depth to which they would not sink. They were willing to divide the party along racial and gender lines if it would win Hillary the presidency.

Playing the victim card is par for the course the Clintons.

"Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly capable and qualified to be president."

Oh no, she isn't. Ridng on her husband's coattails all of her adult life and carpetbagging her way to a seat in the Senate does not qualify her to be president.

I am so sick of hearing how the media was so hard on Hillary. BS. The only one sided thing I saw was the ABC debate in which they spent the whole debate beating up Obama. That showed me that ABC was definitely in Hillary's corner. I was surprised they were able to switch gears and report on Obama's acheivement. Oh and BTW, the final primary to close was Montana and Obama won it!

There are women in politics that are women of integrity like Gov. Sebelius of Kansas. Put someone up that doesn't play by every dirty trick in the book and we'll have a woman president. A slimy politician doesn't play well as a woman or a man.

You write: "if journalists hate anything, it's a foreordained result."

Really? How exactly does that square with the media calling incessantly for Hillary to leave the race since February because the result was foreordained. And boy, did they ever work to make it so.

This column is pure bunk. In the closing months of the campaign Hillary won state after state that was heavily predicted to go for Obama -- ending with South Dakota on June 3. In many of them she won with wide margins, and in ALL of them with Obama blanketing the airwaves and spending 3 or 4 times the amount of money she did.

Yet there was a virtual media black-out on Hillary's amazing wins in all these primaries; the only story, ever & anon, was how many more delegates Obama picked up and how much closer he was to the nomination, based on a conveniently low number for the needed delegates, to make it appear it was "foreordained".

Add to that the "reporting" on polls, always focusing on Obama's having a lead -- however tiny -- over Clinton nationally, without ever mentioning that in ALL of the critical swing states to win the electoral college, Obama would lose to McCain, and Clinton would win handily, and usually by double digits.

Not to mention the blatantly sexist media coverage throughout, and Obama completely getting a pass on his sexist comments.

McCain in 08.

Hillary in 2012!!

Please separate the issues.

HRC lost for a lot of reasons: she did some really dumb stuff strategically; people hate her because she chose her marriage over something else (undefined); the pundits like a fresh face and an exciting story and were soft on BO at the beginning (admit it for heaven's sake); the structural process of caucuses was used effectively by BO; Bill could have been a problem and we all suspect dynasties, etc. etc.

All of that is separate from the issue of the extreme sexism displayed by the MSM and the legions of so-called progressive bloggers. (Thanks, Bros. Nice to know how you really feel.)

Some HRC supporters are saying she lost because of sexism; MOST admit her failures.

So drop the anti-HRC hysteria (wow - what a word!) and have a frank and honest discussion about sexism in this society.

The fact that there is still racism in this society is NOT a valid counter-argument. It is a different topic.

One final personal thought: to all those young women who say they have accomplished everything on their own, please respect those who fought for your opportunity to do just that. Saying, "Thanks" does not diminish your personal accomplishments.

Concerning the popular vote, since every state must count as Hillary stated in her reasons for staying in, the popular vote must include the caucus states. When an estimate of the caucus states are included, Obama won the popular vote. The uncommitted in MI must go to Obama because he pulled his name due to an official pronouncement by the DNC that the state was void of all its delegates. The DNC's ruling prompted several candidates to stand with the party. If anyone's is going to count, those who were standing by the party's pronouncement have to be given votes that would have gone to them. Probably less than he would've got if he stayed on. Counting all states, Obama won the popular vote.

A "repudiation of dynastic arrogance?" Oh, give me a break, what BS. I was a John Edwards supporter who voted for Obama when Edwards dropped out before my state's primary; but it was crystal clear to me that the media did everything it possibly could to kill Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and much of the coverage was purely sexist. I agree that there is also an anti-Clinton element, since the media also did everything it could to sabotage Bill Clinton's presidency a decade ago - including using the same blatantly sexist tactics against then-First Lady Hillary. "It's not because she's a woman," I keep hearing, "it's just Hillary I don't like." OK, maybe, but I bet most of these same people would develop a similar objection to any woman who came as close to the Presidency as Hillary has.

Andrew makes a good point at 12:51 a.m. While sexism wasn't the cause of Senator Clinton's loss, it most certainly was evident. Regardless of how abrasive one finds her personality, calling a woman a "b*tch" is sexist. Calling a woman a "ball-buster" is sexist. Saying voters wouldn't want to watch a woman "get old" in the White House is sexist.

"When Hillary speaks, men hear "take out the garbage"; "men won't vote for Clinton because she reminds them of a nagging wife"; "Cankles", "shrill", "cackle"; all are demeaning shots at women. Her pantsuits, her make-up and, by god, her freakin' CLEAVAGE is analyzed and commented on. These aren't political or temperment issues, these are jabs at Clinton's gender and "uppity" women in general.

Sexism exists and is so ubiquitous in American culture that most people don't even see it.

But that isn't why Hillary lost.

>>

Yes, and guess who voted for the war, defended it for years, and still refuses to even apologize for the vote? I'll let you guess.

if a man were to assert himself as hillary did, those sexist imbeciles would cheer him on as being a real stand up man!

Too bad for our country and people that these biased individuals are not able to see more than the tip of their noses!

The cost for ignorance is going to be horrible "Their CHEERS Will Turn Into TEARS". OBAMA WILL STRIP THIS COUNTRY OF ITS FREEDOMS!

But they didn't reject her did they. She essentially got the same amount of votes as Obama and a substantial majority of the female vote. To say that sexism played no part in all this is as silly as to say that race played no part in why some voted for or against Senator Obama. This sort of absurd bloviating which is really just an excuse to attack Senator Clinton serves no purpose other than to reveal the malice of its writer.

Brilliant Andres Martinez. It's not about race or gender. Clinton took voters for granted. The attempt to connect to them was way too late (and negative). Anyone who believes that gender is and was an issue in this race is not ready for change. Stop whining. The best campaign won. Accept it and move on.

What I see here frightens me. Hillary envoked the "Glass ceiling" so many times in her stumps I have lost count.

Obama, did not run as "A BLACK man" ..

They both took a lot of heat based on gender and race. Personally I think Obama handled all of the heat much better than Hillary.

Question.. Has anybody ever seen Margret Thatcher cry?

I think not! I don't care who you are.. Leaders of the free world DO NOT CRY! Period! Gender aside!

I have clients both male and female whom I answer to aon a day to day basis. I treat them all with honor and respect. I do not see gender in my daily life.

I see MONEY and MOBILITY. I don't have time to be hindered by societal BS.

Hillary was not prepared for th efight she was in. Low on funds and frankly, it seemed many were ready to jump ship as soon as they thought their careers would not be ruined.

Its called politics.

Learn it..

This article could not have better reflected my own view of this subject. I am opposed to the trend toward political dynasties in this country, and I also saw a very nasty strain in the Clinton campaign which suggested she wished to use the same tactics the Republicans used against Bill Clinton (and always use, for that matter). We need to move on and not relive the 1990's.

HILLARY IS A STRONG WOMAN AND SHE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE FROM THE SENATE FLOOR AND WILL BE ABLE TO HELP UNDUE THE DAMAGE OBAMA WILL TRY TO DO IN THIS COUNTRY AND TO THE CITIZENS "WHO ARE THE REAL AMERICANS"

tHOSE WHO WILL VOTE FOR HIM, THEIR "CHEERS WILL TURN INTO TEARS" THE REST OF US WILL FIGHT WITH HILLARY TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY!

Awesome article! Right on the money. If clinton showed some humility in conceding the races she lost, she would have gained even more voters and probably have won the nomination. She dug her own grave from the very first contest and continued digging with the nastiest campaign she could come up with. She thought that others wouldn't think the emails falsifying Obama's religion, the video clips out of context of his former pastor, her supporters law suit to take voting out of casinos in Nevada as Obama got the culinary union endoresment, they thought we wouldn't think they had anything to do with those attacks. Who else? But their own words couldn't be denied, Bill in NC saying it's no big deal for a black man to win there, Ferraro saying he's only winning because he's black, and Hillary saying he can't win working class white votes and finally she needs to stay in the race because something might happen like RFK. You can't hide from your own words. I hope no one ever forgets disgusting the Clintons were in the race. The only vindication will be when New Yorkers send her packing. Goodbye and good riddens clintons.

Excellent response to the bogus sexism charge. Keep telling it like it is!

There is sexism and racism still. Obama had ran an good and for some a great campaign. That doesn't mean the media didn't bash Hillary every chance they got. They did. And they are still doing it. Each show has their favorite guests they invite to comment. The questions are pre-set and they throw in one loose cannon usually Pat Buchanan. He's supposed to sound Pro-Hillary. But they can dismiss him easily because he's really a Republican. The thing that keeps getting blatantly missed is each time they go after Hillary or Bill if they have time to squeeze him in is the 18 million they keep touting to have voted for her gets dissed as well. Its like how dare we vote for Hillary?! Now they call us sheep to be herded over to Obama. Or our votes are so depreciated that maybe Obama doesn't really need them anyway. I always intended to vote for the "Party Nominee" Whoever that turned out to be. Even after all this I am still voting for the Nominee. The media telling me first I can't have my choice of Democrat and the media telling me I'm voting for McCain coz I'm so upset.
Bah! Humbug!

The writer was apparently in a parallel universe throughout the recent campaign season. Everything I see and hear indicates that Hillary was the choice of the people, they were not tired of the Clintons, and she failed because of a better early strategy on Obama's part, plus "choice" on the part of delegates. He was actually no. 2 and may very well lose this election. Also, it was the media that played the race card, telling blacks everywhere that Clinton mentioning Jackson's win in SC was somehow demeaning to Obama. Facts are not racist - they are facts.

Clinton's treatment by the media was an abomination that should get heads rolling and I hope reflection brings about a lot of hand wringing on the part of the media as they look at what they did.

We can only hope now that this arrogant young man will surround himself with some intelligent people and do something good for our country - but ready for prime time he is not.

For the most part, this article was correct. I'm shocked. The most brilliant piece of insight was this one:

"it's myopic to equate "negative" coverage with unfair coverage or to demand that all candidates receive equal doses of negative coverage. Candidates don't all behave with equal measures of callousness."

That says it all, beautifully. Hillary deserved all the negative coverage she got. It wasn't sexism. It was journalism. She screamed sexism every chance she got. We've got news for you Hillary - a qualified woman who didn't vote for the war, campaigned positively and kept on message would have gotten the nomination. Don't blame your failures on anyone but yourself.

Poppycock. She was railroaded when she had enough voters to win. But we never got to a vonvention vote before she was tossed under the bus.

wow, that was an awesome read--thanks, andres.

and by the way, andres, my last name is martinez too--fist bump to you!!!

Firstly, STUMPED did not answer the initial question about whether the "deafening silence" would have been tolerated if it had been directed towards Obama. Most commentators in the media, had they said the equivalent things about Obama that were said about Clinton, they would have been fired or suspended at the very least. More tellingly, Obama himself did not speak out against it.

Secondly to deny that many people did not vote for Hillary because she is a woman is as inane as suggesting that no one voted against Obama because he is biracial. Obama's victories (through a very well executed strategy by the way) were in large part because of huge, overwhelming African American support, which is a big part of the Democratic Party base. Most of these voters voted for him because of his race.

Thirdly, Clinton's campaign was as historic as Obama's, though this is often downplayed. She is not her husband and though she benefited from the connections, so does every politician. She is a senator and a person who has achieved much in her own right, though again, this is continually downplayed.

I really don't believe superclasseaux has the psych credentials to "analyze" Ms. Clinton without having even met her.

the billary group that whine misogony by the enemy produce no proof- only rants. My spouse and I followed the obama statments and those of the pundits carefully. They were devoid of gender-- UNTIL Billary introduced it AND race. Hillary played the "girl" card often- and both hill and bill worked the race card repeatedly. When it was clear that the "inevitable" "we're an experienced team" plays were not working, they flooded the press with female pundits clai ing gender. Go back and check it. They appeared everywhere almost simultaneously. Check the prior record. There was nothing from Obama OR the pundits to support the charge. It was orchestrated and contrived- as have been all their campaigns. Let's face it. Billary are dirty old Arkansas pols- always were- always will be.
Now they will p;lay the poor me gender card to hold her gender cult for 2012. Won't happen, because if they don't stop sulking and start behaving, they will be read out of the party. The pros are tired of the Clinton threats and arm twisting. There is a new game in town- and they will climb on board.

Watch McBush salivate over Hillary. He wants her depressed fems. He wants her on the D ticket, so they can bring up the old stuff which Obama never touched- the near indictment of Hillary (who was spared by prosecutor Fisk because she was a presidents's wife. the evidence is still there. Slick willie's endless games- then and since his presidency. There is so much there that Obama didn't exploit- but Republicans would. Billary will get important, but appointed jobs, if they behave and release their troops. But Obama is far too wise to give them an elective office base, where they can torpedo his presidency.

These folks would beg to differ:

Princeton Astrophysicists' Take on Obama's Chances Against McCain:

nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?

Hours old website and forum:

hillaryvotersformccain.com
hillaryvotersformccain.com/forum

Good piece, but I disagree with the author's final assessment of Hillary's Executive Office abilities. I don't think she would make a credible prez b/c she demonstrated abominable personnel decisions during her campaign -- and would most likely continue to do so in her presidency. Think George Bush II.

Her worst sin, tho, was hiding behind her sex to cover up for running a cheesey campaign based on bad advice she got from Bill. And, for the hard-core feminists who backed her in that scam, it is ironic that they lent credibility to the tired, old negative male stereotype about women not being able to think rationally when it comes to voting.

The bottom line is, Hillary was in way over her head, but was pushed along by ambition and the need to feed her narcissistic personality disorder -- one which she shares with her husband.

I repeat my post that people don't see how mean and sexist they really are. That includes Obama supporters.

Why not look at her record as a Senator of NY rather than continue to take out your frustrations on her husband's past actions? He's wasn't running. It's hard to understand the negativity of Clinton. I disagree with the opinion that there isn't sexism, the misogyny is palpable. The hate visceral and scary. Why? I have a neighbor I respect greatly and he doesn't like Hillary because she stayed with her husband after Monica? Isn't marriage one of the things above all else that this society deemed sacred and salvagable? Seems to me that the Clintons have gone on to live in spite of the debacle. Because the Clintons have succeeded monetarily and professionally, they are objects of scorn. Why don't these people scrutinize our current administration instead? They have cheated our country, killed our people and squandered away our money and resources on an illegal invasion of Iraq. There's something to get mad about.

Thank you for your insightful reply.
Like she, many cannot believe the inevitable did not happen. The majority of Democratic delegates saw through her, saw what she was about, and it was not service to country, it was about Hillary Clinton. Her victory, rather than concession, speech Tuesday reaffirmed what most Americans already knew.

A test for Hillary Clinton. If she means what she says that she is fighting for us - for better health care, for an equitable economy where the less well off can join in the prosperity, then she will give Obama her endorsement and unqualified support. The only way to get these things is with both a Congress and Executive branch in Democratic hands. Otherwise, nothing will get done - Republican filibusters in the Senate will ensure this. And anyone who thinks McCain will advance these things is living in a dream world.

If Clinton does not do this, then she is not fighting for us, she is fighting for herself.

Simple.

ME-ME-ME! Sounds like she was running for middle school drama queen.

This is our country is it not? As Americans we are looking to vote for a president who will work for us, represent us and hopefully impress us. With that said, please try and think of a single time you have heard Obama ever start a sentence with "I" did this or "I' did that.

On the flip-side, every single sentence that HRC begins starts with "I", with "ME" interjected somewhere shortly thereafter.

She was NOT running for the people first but was running for herself. Who on earth would ever run a campaign of inevitability? She is as narcissistic as her thumb-pointing husband...a person who I voted for but have seen enough of frankly. The 90's are over. Sexism and racism only became issues in the campaign when HRC and her campaign interjected them in an effort to regain lost ground. The media then took it and ran like scolded dogs.

Barack Obama represents everything this country needs, in otherwords some prospect of a future including healthcare, education, diplomacy and intellegence. Although I believe that HRC has great ideas and would have also made a great nominee, her candidacy would have been about her own ambitions first and the country second. This has nothing to do with her gender but with who she is and how she ran her campaign.

To all those whining about sexism... where is your evidence that it had any effect on the campaign? You can prattle on about jokes in the media, but find powerful (not anecdotal) evidence that this cost her the presidency.

As stumpted notes, she was the wide favorite in the beginning of the campaign. I am fairly certain she was a woman back then. The reason she lost is, first and foremost, that she ran a pathetic campaign that had the wrong message, elevated personal loyalty above competence (a la Bush) and was in a washington bubble.

Sexism is a two-way street!

Misandry comes to mind!

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

This column is 80% false. Hillary's campaign (and most of her life it seems) have been destroyed by sexism. Many Americans don't see how backward and mean they really are. Men don't see sexism as sexism because they see it as the natural order of things. And many women are in denial, because they personally reap the "benefits" of sexism. But This country is as sexist as Brazil.

Man, the Primary Season is over and all of you Hillary Clinton haters are still going at it! I am so sick and tired of reading all the nasty, hateful comments from you Hillary Clinton Haters. I think all of you need to GROW UP! Hillary08!

The article by STUMPED is quite accurate. As another over 50 white feminist and an ardent OBAMA supporter, Hillary lost more because she listened to MEN!

Had she stayed true to her woman's instinct and surrounded herself with strong women for for example, are not afraid to apologize when they screw up, instead of trying to out-macho Obama ( never admit you are wrong, act tough no matter how wrong you are etc) she listened to the men in her campaign. From Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Harold Ickes and of course Bill Clinton, she was BADLY served by them and allowed them to rule!

Yes, there is SEXISM-- but her loss is a lesson of expecting a coronation rather than running a truly efficient campaign.

First it takes the press to expose the widespread sexism in our society, then the press to deny it's there. It's called rewriting history. The MSM has spoken, "OINK."

Frankly, Stumped, your are just unloading bs. Your views have no connection with the facts on the ground. As usual too many rumpsters in the Beltway think they know it all. Take some time off and go to the Hill country and talk to women. If you try your bs there they most probably will give you swift kick where it counts. Never read just bilge.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. According to HRC's rabid feminists I should have supported her because I'm a woman. That's just silly, I didn't like her before the campaign, I disliked her more every time she opened her mouth & out spilled lies. By the end of the campaign I couldn't even watch the tv if she were on. She failed because of her character or lack there of. Good riddence HRC, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The impression that some have that Clinton was poorly treated by the media and Obama got a free pass is, in a backhanded way, a compliment to Obama and his campaign team.

Can anyone forget the All-Wright-All-The-Time period in the media that lasted about two weeks? Apparantly many do and, in part, their poor memory of it is due to Obama's adroit handling of that situation.

I think Stumped analysis is spot on...
If you do objective Analysis, Clinton's and their supporters are the greatest whiners in the history of American Politics. First it was vast right wing conspiracy.. then in between many things.. such as media bias.. etc..and when they could not win finally its sexism.

I agree that the power of Hillary-hatred is amazing. Neither Obama, nor Clinton were my first choices for the dem candidate. And I think HRC did some truly stupid things during this campaign. I would also agree that the hostility to Hillary is not primarily because she is a woman, but it is clear that those who hate her were quite happy to attack her in ways that addressed her gender and of course in the case of Obama's church her skin color. Part of me feels that, while not particularly attractive, this is real life, Hillary can take it and no harm is really done to female politicians. The time will come for a woman candidate. It is inevitable, but not for this year. What I do find frustrating is the Hillary-haters who attacked her in very gendered ways are often those who like to imply that democrats who voted for her were closet racists for not voting for Obama instead. I am willing to believe that Obama is pragmatic and could consider running with Clinton as his VP. But how can his supporters and the likes of Pflegger accept her as VP if they really believe that she is the racist monster they have been portraying her as?

It never ceases to amaze me how vitriolic the anti-Hillary people are, whether it is the the cable talking heads who somehow believe that they have the edge on political wisdom, and worldly righteousness because of their positions of power, (witness Stewart's recent attempt, through skits, to balance his own political ledger, which overwhelming favored BO, now that the primary is over. His skit included a series of misogynistic statements by the MSM that, taken together, reveal a telling truth), or sounding boards like this which will always have a Joop de Bruin type that pretends it isn't because of gender that he hates Hillary with such passion. I am a white, middle-aged male, with a small herd of three young boys to provide for, who holds a couple of degrees from an elite school, and who has chosen to work as a builder of boats and homes for a number of years with other blue collar types. I don't know what demographic that fits, but, while I like BO, I liked HRC more as a presidential candidate. And I came to like her better after witnessing the wave of bias that suddenly drenched her campaign immediately after Iowa, (it did not come, as some have suggested, gradually - the MSM begrudgingly announced her inevitability status, feasted on it, negatively, for a time, and then promptly used it against her with great and consistent fervor), leading into New Hampshire, when the backlash against the biasd so obviously portrayed by the Chris Matthews, Alters, Olbermanns, and press members types, took hold. Yes, sexism reigns heavily in this country. It seems to go hand in hand with our cowboy image of ourselves. And no, I don't think it sank HRC's campaign; but it helped in many quarters. And the loudness of it in the MSM, particularly NBC/MSNBC, allowed those with latent misogynistic leanings to come forth and express them - witness the blogs. But what really bothers me about both the nicely worded intellectual explanations for HRC's self-destruction, such as the one offered by the author of this board, and the sheer vitriol, much of which comes from the BO camp, and has been well documented by the likes of Paul Krugman, is that too few acknowledge the fact that HRC actually received a greater portion of popular votes than BO - nearly 18 million. Were these people all "man-haters" or racists? Or were there many millions across the country - most of whom BO will need to get elected - who simply appreciated HRC for what they perceived her to be - a strong, determined, fair-minded, experienced, intelligent representative of what they/we want in a president?

I feel that Obama is merely BLING. Sparkling and shinning. Distracted voter from any real issues and substance. After 8 years of Bush, I guess Bling is easier to view than real issues.

Stumped, I wholeheartedly concur with your analysis of the Fall of the House of Clinton. Certainly I would not deny that sexism is alive and well in the US, and I don't wish to deny it, as we certainly need to face up to these ugly realities in our society. But continued racism is also an ugly reality that we have to face up to (remember to response of one Pennsylvanian to an Obama staffer's call, asking for support - "Hang that darkie from a tree."). But I earnestly hope that such neanderthal attitudes as sexism and racism are not the guiding principle of most of the electorate, that the voters arrived at their choices based on a rational thought process. For myself, I favored Barack Obama from even before he declared his candidacy and I never wished to support Clinton (although clearly I would have voted for her over McCain). My reasons are pretty much reflected in what Stumped wrote. The Clintons lost me with the Lewinsky scandal (have all the affairs you want Billy Bob, but don't go on national TV and lie to my face, that pisses me off) and the last minute pardons (that made me puke and really was the last straw). The Clintons strike me as an awful example of narcissistic moral relativism whose only compass is whatever serves the interest of their pursuit of power. From my perspective, her death-bed conversion to a feminist, voter rights advocate, tough drinking gun-toting good ole gal woman defending the common people simply confirmed my view of them. We still have a long way to go to deal with sexism and racism in our society, especially after the grave setbacks of Bush II, but focusing on Clinton's plight is only a red herring that would hurt the cause of feminism - it will spread the impression that feminism is opportunistic and unprincipled, that anytime a woman does not achieve her ambition or is bested by a man it will be attributed to sexism. We have enough tension in our society without needing to add that on.

As the campaign season started out, I was ambivalent about the Democratic candidates and would have been happy to vote for just about any one of them. As the campaigning has dragged on, I have found Clinton harder and harder to like, not because she is female (I am myself female; I don't consider it a flaw), but because she seems much more interested in promoting herself than in the good of the country.

As Sara pointed out, McCain is not a moderate candidate at all on women's issues nor is he particularly on issues that are relevant to the working classes. Clinton supporters who fall into these categories and vote for McCain or don't vote at all will be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

If Clinton were truly concerned with changing the policies of the White House, promoting universal health care, finding a solution to the Iraq mess, etc., she would not be dragging her feet to show her support for Obama. She would be first in line now, because like it or not, Obama is now the best hope for changing the policies in the White House with regard to the war, the economy, and health care.

I imagine that there are Clinton supporters (and others) who will not vote for Obama no matter what, but I really hope that most of you will come around when you realize that voting for McCain or not voting in all is a vote for more of the same of what we already have in the White House.

Don't let Clinton become the Nader of 2008!

"What made her the formidable front-runner, in a field in which she was neither the most experienced candidate...Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly capable and qualified to be president."

She has no experience other than 6 yrs in the Senate and being Mrs Bill Clinton, both of which are hardly qualifications for President. Obama is a Jr Senator and is also not qualified. The only candidate qualified, is McCain.

To Joop deBruin:

I completely agree with your closing statement.

Andrew: Thank you for your most thoughtful analysis of why HRC lost the nomination - not because of sexism - rather because she ran a dirty, poorly planned campaign because she thought of herself as a shoo in candidate. Her story about dodging bullets in Bosnia, her husband playing the race card, whining about sexism, etc etc etc were all superficial to the overall problem that she is not very charismatic and her story did not resonate with enough voters. She deserved to lose and she lost.

I would strongly support a woman for U.S. President - someone like Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi or Golda Meir. All three of these women had unquestioned integrity, high principles and charisma - 3 qualities that are completely missing with HRC.

Hillary exploited gender throughout. She referred to the glass ceiling over and over and over in her speeches. Obama never raised race as a reason to vote for him. Not once! But Hillary's speeches vibrate sexism; "never mind if I have or don't have qualifications, vote for me to break the glass ceiling". Then she got nasty. The gender barrier became something being used "by them..." specifically to oppress her supporters. Then she deftly turned the knife to imply that this was Obama's fault. All woman, all civil rights, are being "dissed" by him, by the media, by his supporters, by males, by everyone and anyone who ever whispered legitimate criticism of her. For Obama or one of his supporters to even peep, it was sexist, or, it was "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!". But there was no heat and no kitchen for Clinton. It wasn't that she was constantly whining, "Obama needs a pillow". It was that everyone in the world was against her, and being against her was equal to being against women, and she had 18 million (half of them male) votes to prove it. She didn't peep, she didn't need to, she roared, "I've got 18 million hostages that say, "Nobody, nobody is going to savor the moment that a black man became the nominee of a major political party for the presidency of the United States of America". Instead, the nomination of a black was suddenly proof of misogyny. In a speech that turned the notion of concession or gracefulness upside down, with the same breathless absence of logic that was used to get us into a war in Iraq, she concluded with a call to arms; go to her web site. This almost pathological sense of entitlement was Hillary's way of bringing the country together on a momentous historical occasion.

The notion that she needed time is vacuous. Look at all the concession speeches made by all the candidates during all of our general elections. It's done right then and there! And they have invested a lot more of themselves and their supporters by that time than in the nomination process. No time, no self pity, no matter how close a call; one wins and one looses. And except for Nixon, it falls to the one that looses to bring the country together. Not Hillary, no..., a moment in history is lost forever in the greatness of she, herself, and her.

To say that either a woman or a black man with an unusual name got a free ride while the other was pummeled unfairly is ludicrous. Lost in all this are some really important choices that contributed to Hillary's loss. She played it safe with Iraq and couldn't bring herself to say that authorizing the war might have been a mistake. The country is really tired of hearing that. Also, importantly, Hillary's strategy in the election was to ignore caucuses and go for a super Tuesday knockout. She felt that was inevitable. When Obama was left standing within striking distance, she was out of money while he racked up weeks of consecutive wins. His campaign plan was better, his leadership was better (Mark Penn and Solis anyone?), his operation was better, and his campaign more positive. Hillary made some unfortunate choices and had a few bad breaks. A lot of the anger toward her comes from her decisions (praising a Republican front-runner over her democratic rival, saying Obama isn't Muslim "as far as I know", not conceding when the election was over, etc.). That's done. She will be a huge asset to the party in the coming months. Racism and sexism still exist, but let's not forget the judgment and decisions of the candidates.

I can affirm Stumped's reporting of the arrogant dynastic strategy behind the Clinton campaign. Three years ago, Clintonista pollster Stan Greenberg came to London and told a sizable audience of Democrats Abroad members that HRC would be the nominee. When the audience grumbled, and one said "What about Va's Mark Warner, I really like him." Greenberg replied -- with a strong NO -- you don't understand, I have done the polling in all 50 states, and I can show you that Hillary is the only viable candidate. And I can only guess that other potentially viable candidates were showed the same polling results and told not to even think of taking on the powerful Clinton dynasty if they ever want to work in DC again.

This person is in a cocoon (kuckoo)..Fact is, that Clinton had phenomenonal success despite media, despite sexism and despite affirmative action sort of bias towards BHO. Obama is a great speaker, but the fact is, he was put on a pedestal by the press. Press corps, stop spinning, start forming solid strategy, else you will lose the democrats the elections like you did for Gore and Kerry.

All men dip their wicks where they shouldn't at every opportunity, so why be so hard on Bill? You should look into BO's wick dipping and his relationship with Larry Sinclair if that sort of thing helps you determine whom should be president.

Joop DeBruin is an excellent example of misogyny. We have heard his kind of hate talk so long that we would not want to associate with his sort, BO backers. I will vote for Nader.

I agree with Les.

The media and that BO hate mongers and BO's hate mongering friends are a huge part of the reason Hillary lost.

What the hell is going on over here at the Washington Post?
Did a bunch of freakin teenagers take it over?

Grow up and learn the craft of journalism.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart put it quite aptly by coalescing the slew of positive media coverage for Hillary at the start of the campaign. Joe Scarbourough (sp?) went as far as to say "Barack, this is going to get ugly." Virtually every media pundit and outlet agreed wholeheartedly that this was Hillary's time. Her press coverage was overwhelmingly positive until Obama's campaign began to chip away at the Clintonian superstructure.

This was never about sexism. The overwhelming reversal of Clinton's fortune has nothing to do with her gender; rather, as the campaign unexpectedly wore on, her flaws as a candidate were revealed in ever starker fashion. I would argue (as many commenters have) that the sexism argument orginated first and foremost with the Clinton team. What a great way to undermine what has been the most revolutionary campaign, both in terms of message and strategy, in at least 40 years!

@Andres Martinez:
Yours a very convenient, specious and ridiculous analysis. If infact it was a repudiation of arrogance then I would expect the same result for Obama in November, because no one has been more egoistic and arrogant in this primary than Obama. To deny the prevalent undercurrent of misogyny is to deny truth, to me there was even a bigger elephant than that- the inexplainable bias for an incompetent candidate, Obama.

"But who even claimed that voters had rejected Clinton due to sexism? Nobody said that."

Er... do you even read posts and comments that you respond to?

"i do beleive the media and the "good old boys" just couldn't let a woman acheive the heighest office of the land. so once again a woman have been "put back in her place" to serve only what men wish for them."

Obviously, a lot of Clinton's supporters are just outright claiming that sexism is the cause of Clinton's loss, rather than Clinton's own poor strategic and tactical choices. Just read a little, and you'll see that the rallying cry is "Obama only won it because he's a man and the 'old boy network' couldn't handle the thought of a woman in power!"

Yes, there is a lot of sexism around. No, sexism is not what caused Clinton's loss -- Clinton caused Clinton's loss. Obama played a better game, a cleaner game, showed humility rather than dynastic arrogance, and his message of "change " (which, by the way, Mrs. Clinton tried to simultaneously co-opt and belittle -- not a very smart strategy to mock one of the things you're proclaiming you should be elected for) very much trumped the message of "experience" (which many, myself included, read as "politics as usual").

So yes, Andrew, many Clinton supporters claimed, and are still claiming, that Clinton lost because of sexism. Stumped is addressing this and debunking it (very well, I might add).

Obama won because the Blacks voted solidly for him, about 80 percent. Since about 40 percent of all Democrats are black, he therefore was able to capture 32 percent of the total Democratic votes (80 times 40 = 32). Add about 10 percent who are SEXISTs and about 10 percent who got fooled by the "change" slogan, you then have Obama capture the nomination.

Unfortunately, in the general election, the Blacks will only constitute about 20 percent. Since he will be running against McCain, a man, the SEXIST votes will be split by both men, thus Obama getting 5 percent of the sexist votes.

I would not be surprised if the Republicans will run negative ads such as Obama would likely free thousands of Black criminals from jails and increase welfare assistance which would benefit mostly Blacks. Surely that will put fear into the dynamics, scaring the white majority, male and female, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Hillary's women will just stay on the sidelines and wait for next election.

Hillary is now using sexism as a defense as soon as she realized that she was not winning the race. I doubt if she has ever even been a feminist to start with, she is always been an ivy league ladder climber.She may be a "democrat" but at heart she is a republican.

Dear Stumped,
I think you are absolutely correct.

i have been waiting for many years to have a woman with the standing of Hillry Clinton become President. i do beleive the media and the "good old boys" just couldn't let a woman acheive the heighest office of the land. so once again a woman have been "put back in her place" to serve only what men wish for them. I have been a voting Democrat for 50+ YRS but this year i will not be supporting a democrat.

Brilliantly said. I have just copied this piece as a word document. It says it all in a nutshell and I can forward it to Hillary supporters who are having trouble moving on. This election is not about a person, it is about our country.

Well, It easy to point fingers when things were not coming in our way, and then someone or somebody is gonna blame. But the truth is, it was Clinton alone fault, her own failures to run a good and positive campaign compare to Obama's campaign. There is no doubt she would far more qualify to be president but she made a huge mistake by belittling Obama and proclaims herself as an enviable candidates and "will in to win." Where is that now? Nothing! Let support Obama and move on for the sake of this country and your children. And do not blame Obama or the media for her lost.

To Joop deBruin, you might not be aware of what you were saying, but "She" means female, and so you have mentioned gender in your statement "She's an egocentric, power hungry, conniving, back stabbing, evil human.".

As such, your subsequent statement "And I never once mentioned gender or race." is not true.

I mention this because many people think in a certain way that they are not aware of, and you might be one of them. So there exists a possibility that you might be sexist but yet you think you are not. We should all be more cautious in what we say and make sure that it is the absolute true, as far as possible. Good luck.

im surprised that clinton would run a campaign of hegemony. what with most of us knowing that something is wrong with the way our government is being run. ¨my government kills innocent humans.¨ so is it not obvious that we need a new mind, untainted by the sludge of washington?

Those women who are claiming sexism and threatening to support McCain should know that he has voted against women's issues 100% of the time. He voted against equal pay for women. He wants to overturn women's choice and has voted as such.
And what does it say about a man who leaves his crippled wife who stuck with him while he was a POW for a rich mistress...Then preaches about the sanctity of marriage.

There were 2 sets of folks with a viscerally negative reaction throughout to Hillary--the media, and Obama's supporters, (who thanks to the Internet, could trash talk more ubiquitously than ever).

Most other groups gave Hillary a fair chance, including shockingly, the right-wing media who had vilified her through most of the 90s.

The mainstream media was completely derelict in their duty to ask the tough questions of Obama. Occasionally, events (e.g., the start of the Rezko trial) would force them to bring up a topic that wasn't completely flattering to Obama, and when he fled, Dubya style, sputtering that he had answered 8 questions already, no one called him on it.

If there is a silver lining in any of this, it is that millions of Americans noticed the highly biased treatment. It seemed, well, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood(!), just un-American. Even Oprah's ratings dropped:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26oprah.html?scp=2&sq=Oprah&st=nyt
Women are the primary shoppers in most households, so I can only hope that the press in general, and NBC in particular takes a real beating in coming months.

I never have understood how Washington picks who will be running for President. It never seems to be the best known, most experienced or most popular. I think it has more to do with who raises the most money for the party (take Nancy Pelosi becomming Speaker of the House) than anything that the voters care about.

I would agree with the author that Hillary seemed to feel that she simply deserved to be President. Perhaps a deal was struck when she didn't leave Bill after the Monica thing, whatever the case I certainly didn't want another Clinton in the White House. Americans are hungry for a change in the way Washington politics works, Clinton is certainly not the one to change Washington, she is the way Washington works.

Yes I do know she is a woman and I love a good gender based joke, but I would let those jokes sway me when it comes to voting for President. I don't care that she is a woman, I care that she is the kind of woman she is.

i dont think it matters. obama is red herring it up right now. he may be the nominee but he isn't going to win the race. in a few statement alone recently it sounds like he is ready to strike the final blow to the airline industry by introducing a super speedy train that is going to connect the midwest. that will "instantly" give new jobs. everyone is right, obama isn't black, he's a cracker.

Unfortunately a tremendous amount of Hillary backers are Misandrists (man haters). There isn't a single thing that can be done to convince them that yes, once again, the male oriented American public crapped on them again......just like Slick Willy did to their Goddess Hillary Rodham CLINTON!

I will readily vote for a Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir or an Angela Merkle. They worked hard and earned their leadership roles. Hillary tried to create another failed American dynasty fashioned after the Bushes.

Her "stand by my man" act after Willie got caught dipping his wick yet again in another inappropriate relationship (like any illicit outside of marriage sexual relationship is anything but inappropriate) was pitiful and all females should have rejected this b_itch right then and there. This wasn't the first time, nor even the sixth time the fat nosed idiot did the dirty deed with a female other than Hillary.

She's an egocentric, power hungry, conniving, back stabbing, evil human. And I never once mentioned gender or race.

I stopped taking Hillary Clinton seriously as a candidate the moment she voted to give George Bush authorization to conduct an illegal and unjustified invasion of another sovereign nation no matter how bestial and reprehensible its leader was. It was a cynical and utterly immoral act on her part. No genuine feminist would countenance the killing of so many helpless Iraqis, including women and children, and using our own troops and their families as if they were an expendable commodity.

So the word is that McCain is wooing Clinton supporters and some may be interested - good luck with that. In the end, there is no way he is going to convince us to vote for someone who:

1.) Thinks the war in IRAQ is going really well.
2.) Thinks the war in IRAQ is going so well, war with IRAN might be worth a try.
3.) Supports war so much he does not think there is money left over to help GI's with education after the military - this REALLY irks me.
4.) Is adamantly against universal health care.
5.) Still believes that trickle-down economics will save us all.
6.) Supports CORPORATE welfare while being against social programs.
7.) Is for FAIR TRADE, but does not support FAIR COMPETITION (Trade, Labor Standards, Living Wages).
8.) SAYS he is against torture, then VOTES to allow water-boarding (torture).
9.) SAYS he is a world apart from Bush, but VOTES with Bush 95+% of the time.
10.) Can't think of good reasons for anyone to vote for him, but hey, maybe a mission to Mars will entice them.

Am I voting Obama? You'd better believe it.

Actually, a lot of Hillary supporters (mainly women) are claiming sexism (i.e. in the media, Obama's campaign) as the reason for her failure to secure the nomination. Look at Geraldine Ferraro, for instance. They can't be content with the fact that *she* has won more popular vote than anyone else in history, and *she* got so far in the race for the presidency. They also make it seem as though black men are nowhere near as oppressed, now or ever, as (white) women; that he has had a "free ride." It's ludicrous, sure, but the zealots are out there.

There are surveys which show that people actually voted against Obama because of his race (see exit polls from Kentucky, W. Virginia, etc.). Even though there are overt expressions of sexism against Clinton in the media, it does not seem to be affecting voters. People are not voting against her because of her gender in the same way they are voting against Obama because of his race. Although it is socially unacceptable to express blatant racism in the media, voting on the basis of race seems to be acceptable for some segments of the population.

Precisely, Andrew. Stumped is apparently getting paid to simply Xerox the same comment posted hundreds of times by Obama fans. No one is claiming that sexism was the sole reason for Clinton's defeat. This red herring has been used throughout the primary to silence anyone who dared draw attention to the rampant sexism and misogyny streaming from the media and many Obama supporters.

But who even claimed that voters had rejected Clinton due to sexism? Nobody said that.

Marie Cocco, Washington Post columnist, noted that she does not claim sexism has been the factor that kept Clinton from winning. She simply noted that sexism exists and its hurtful.

But "Stumped" is great at the playing-dumb game.