If Not Her...

I think Hillary has helped the next woman. She has demonstrated that woman are strong, and be tenacious, and win a knife fight. She would have mopped the floor with McCain. Obama will, too, but Hillary has made everyone consider the idea of a woman President, and it's not so scary. Hillary did not lose, in the end, because she was a woman, nor was Obama chosen because he's black. We really had the two BEST candidates slug it out, and though they faced the usual problems of race and gender, they succeeded in SPITE of their race and gender.

This was a contest based on the merits of the candidates. How could that have done anything but help expand the playing field for others to enter?

I have to agree with KT. I think we are going to see a viable female candidate sooner rather than later. First, I am a 60 year old male who would love to vote for a female candidate. This election had more to do with who rather than what.

I think you're dead on about this one, Joe. I also think the sexism brought out in this election is a two-way street. Hillary's now famous (infamous?) crying in New Hampshire was something that only Hillary could have done and gotten away with. If Obama or McCain had cried on national television over anything other than the death of their own family members, they would have been immediately tossed out of the race. Indeed, the masculinity of a candidate always seems to become a topic in one way or another, regardless of the gender of the candidates. The criticism of John Edwards comes to mind, along with Kerry's windsurfing photo and Dukakis' tank photos. Reactions to all of those incidents were the same: men should be men. They shouldn't care about their hair or wear neon outfits in watersports, and if they're in a tank, they have to look cool while doing it.

No one needs any more evidence than Hillary's own campaign strategy. Nowhere have we seen her talking about her long and admirable history as a children's rights advocate, but we couldn't seem to hear her speak without her making herself out to be John Rambo on foreign policy (or Annie Oakley on domestic policy). She knew that the only way for her to win the Presidency in America was to play the macho game better than the men (except when it was convenient to play the damsel, as in New Hampshire).

But all-in-all, Hillary has broken down the barrier and if anything, the next legitimate female candidate for president will stand to look like a godsend by comparison. Many of Hillary's democratic and independent detractors will be eager to prove that their previous distaste for Hillary was not sexism, and will be more forgiving of the next female candidate.

That is unless she tries to be Hillary, in which case she probably doesn't have a chance.

Whoops, sorry KT I saw Joe's head and this article on the front page and thought he wrote it. Je suis desole'.

KT, thanks for posting about this. It's an important issue.

I don't think that it will be generations before a woman President is elected, but it could be a generation. At the start of this campaign it would really irritate me when someone would mention Chelsea Clinton or another woman of my generation as a contender to be the first woman President. I find that incredibly depressing. And while I still think that's overly pessimistic, the numbers of women who are experienced enough to overcome the gender double standard is still quite small, and I now think there is a small, but real, possibility that the first woman President will be a Gen-Yer. There is a similar shortage of highly experienced men (who are over the age of 50, who have older children, and who have an uncontroversial past, since no female Bill Clinton, JFK or even Obama could be elected), but as the NY times article points out, men don't need as much experience to be elected. And Meg Whitman and others obviously can't get that experience quickly. So we may have to wait around 12 or 16 years.

About the issue of how much of the hatred was directed at HRC specifically, or women in general, I believe that the 16 years of Republican attacks against Clinton are responsible for a unique kind of sexist hatred where criticisms of her are framed in terms of sexist stereotypes, while always being accompanied by a "I'm not sexist, but..." disclaimer. So sexism actually can look like a smaller part of all this than it really is. I'm sure a similar phenomenon will develop with racist attacks against Obama is he has a long public career. In addition, many journalists, voters, and even the Democratic establishment seem to have a memory loss problem where they think that if they bring up a new Democrat to national prominence, they will undoubtedly be far less polarizing than every other prominent Democrat. It was the same thing with Kerry in 2004. No one hated him in 2003, but by 2006 he was the most hated politician in America. In this cycle I have heard so many people say that they are choosing Obama because Clinton is so polarizing. People have largely stopped saying that, now that he is clearly on his way to being as polarizing as her. Anyway, that "If we nominate someone new, things will automatically be completely different" thinking undoubtedly hurt her.

And as for why any woman would want to run for President, you could say the same for any strong career women running to be First Lady. Michelle Obama will be treated horribly in the GE, so as a woman, you might as well be hated and have a really cool job. Also, this is the Presidency we're talking about. They should be tough, and able to handle unfair, personal hatred. Anyone who would be a good President wouldn't be prevented from running because some prejudiced people will hate them.

"Nowhere have we seen her talking about her long and admirable history as a children's rights advocate," - TheSimulacra, what election have you been watching? She talks about that all the time.

Pleeeessssse, someone explain why this garbage about media bias and women having lost their only chance keeps suddenly popping up as a subject. It's an excuse. Why can't anyone one out there just make the obvious statement, Hillary was the wrong woman candidate.

What is wrong with women's own views of themselves? Hell, everyone knows they are tough.. they have babies, they endure idiotic men, they are there for their elderly parents and many are quite effective in business leadership. My best boss ever was a woman.

And yes the Hillary Clinton nutcracker is on sale everywhere, but she herself propagated that image and appeared quite pleased when someone referred to her as having testicular fortitude. Even her own propagandist Carville said she had three gonads and if she gave one to Obama they’d both have two. Hillary herself probably owns a Hillary nutcracker.

It's real easy to look for an excuse when one’s team, political figure or you yourself losses. It’s always easier to find an excuse than to accept reality. So the natural excuse for Hillary supporters is to blame media bias- sexism, rather than the reality. The media isn’t set up against woman anymore than the media was set up against a black man. It’s the media’s job to tear down people. And if you have flaws in character, or leadership skills or who you choose to run your campaign, the media is going to devour you. What women columnists like Zernike and influential women now appear to be saying is we throw in the towel, we are not tough enough, we want special rules because we are woman, etc. What they should be saying is we’ll find a better candidate next time.

Yes KT, you can say the sexist bile was aimed at Hillary because she was the candidate. And it is true for a number of reasons.

Reason 1: Many people did not want a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton Presidency. To have the highest office in the land controlled by two families speaks more of a Monarchy rather than a Democracy.

Reason 2: She approached the Presidential primary as an entitlement, because she was First Lady.

Reason 3: She at time ran the campaign not as a referendum on her potential as President but rather as a referendum on a woman’s potential as President. And she succeeded, as suddenly more and more women have come to see her loss as a loss for women rather than a loss for Hillary.

Reason 4: She made up a stupid story about sniper fire. After 8 years of lies, we really need some honesty in the White House.

What women should be saying is let’s move on from Hillary. She was a flawed candidate. Let’s see if we can influence the choice of Vice President and get either Janet Napolitano of Arizona, or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas on the ticket. Even if we can’t, let’s make sure Senator Obama become President because a McCain Presidency guarantees the erosion of abortion rights and our own rights because he will get to choose at least two new Supreme Court nominees to replace liberal women friendly nominees.

It's time for women writers to stop personalizing the obvious: Hillary’s loss was not a loss for women, just a loss for Hillary!

Rose, great post.

I know some people say "Sure I'd support a woman for president, just not that woman". I have no doubt in the GE plenty of Repugs will be saying "Sure I'd support an African-American for president, just not that African-American".

The sexism in the media has been tremendous and very depressing. I have not seen any serious attempt to backtrack and examine the way HRC's "negatives" had been created by the Repugs atack machine. From the beginning of her campaign the MSM talked about her being a polarizing candidate, thus driving the narrative that she is a polarizing candidate.

Her sniper fire story should be no more damning than the questionable stuff McCain and Obama have said about their pasts.

I myself am pretty pessimistic right now about the prospect of a female president in the forseeable future.

HRC was a wonderful candidate whose campaign was no always run the best. But it was the media who was determined to focus totally on her shortcomings rather than also highlight her strengths that undermined her at every turn.

Her positive legacy actually is to the American people in general, not just women. Her complete mastery of details and passion for policy and concrete ideas forced Obama and McCain to look at the issues, too.

There will be a female president before there is a 100% African American president.

I am convinced that Obama could not be where he is right now if he were not half-white.

On the other hand, Hillary would have beaten any other democrat in the country other than the once-in-a-generation talent of Obama.

We can argue about Hillary's baggage, but she almost made it despite all that baggage.

So I can understand the disappointment Hillary's supporters are feeling. It has to be hard to lose this thing that they thought was inevitably theirs.

But I hope that women will take the long view. Hillary has cracked the glass ceiling for another to break through.

There are reasons for optomism.

If Obama wins, it will be a defeat of a politics that is defined by excessive machismo. Obama is taking the extraordinary position that being tough is much more than talking tough or being the biggest warmonger. By showing the success of a less overtestosteronized politics, Barack Obama will pave the way for women to be accepted as Presidents.

I feel bad for Hillary that she felt like she could not apologize for Iraq, that she had to be more hawkish than she really felt because she was a woman.

But that will change.

I think Obama will move the ball forward. \

But time is on our side. The older generation is the most sexist and racist and everyday they are being replaced by voters who are much more color and gender blind. I think America is going to be so much different even in 10 or 20 years. Opposition to gay marraige will fall. People will care less and less about race and gender.

So I hope Hillary supporters will not lose heart. I think there is a lot to feel good about.

Rose,

In re: your comment that there's a need for a lot of experience before running, please bear in mind that in both parties, very experienced candidates simply don't catch fire every election season.

There were over 10 male candidates in both parties this cycle who weren't thought of as serious candidates (Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Huckabee, Paul, Tancredo, Fred and Thommy Thompson and Hunter).

It's pretty darn tough for ANYONE to run for President of the United States.

Are there any natural candidates in waiting in either party?

With the possible exception of Ms. Sebelius on the Dem side, nobody is very obvious right now, but political winds change in 4 to 8 years (assuming an Obama victory, the Reps might want to fight back with a Christine Whitman in 2012. Assuming a McCain victory, HRC herself might be back in 2012, as might be Ms. Sebelius and even Ms. McCaskill from Mo.).

It's a giant step backwards, but not for the claimed reasons. Rather, women in this campaign have abandoned feminism; not for the new progressive attitude of equality, but for the old idea that a woman's status and "experience" are based on her husband's achievements.

It's truly bizarre.

Equality will continue to march forwards in every area other politics, but politics will lag behind, until feminists, or better, women in general, would remember to stand up and shout down a wannabe leader whose name is only known due to their husband, and whose personal experience consists mostly of failure, cynicism, and lies.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

I just read Joe Klein's recent article in Time Magazine "Exit Wright". Joe are you stupid or just nieve or both. I have been a manager of people for 32 years, I have hired, supervised and fired many many people. It always starts with an interview with the potential candidate. As you may know candidates are always on thier best behaviorActions Speak Louder Than Words

I just read Joe Klein's recent article in Time Magazine "Exit Wright". Joe are you stupid or just naive or both. I have been a manager of people for 32 years; I have hired, supervised and fired many many people. It always starts with an interview with the potential candidate. As you may know candidates are always on their best behavior when they apply for a job.

Now I am also an idealist, I get inspired by people’s words and promises. When I was younger, occasionally I would interview people that talked a very good game, they said all the Wright things they seemed very excited about the prospects of working for me, and they were reaching for the stars. That is they were applying for a job that was way above there experience level, or even not related to their past experience. Sometimes on these peoples resume, they may have short stays at other jobs; they may have a job that they respectfully request that I don’t call for a reference; with excellent reasons as to why I should not call. But the bottom line would be that there would be indicators in there past and on their resume, that somehow did not match up with the rhetoric that they were espousing in the interview. That is the actions or the things they actually had done in the past do not match up with what they are saying.

Early on in my career, I would fall for these people every Time, you see they sounded so good. They sounded like everything that I needed. I was sure they even believed their own words. I would think, why don’t all my employees have such a good attitude. More than once I would hire them on the spot, not even checking their references. In the vast majority of these cases, I found myself either having to fire the individual or that individual quitting after unfavorable performance review. You see inevitably when it came to take action and perform, their true colors did come through.

Here is the lesson that I have learned in the last 32 years; Actions Speak Louder Than Words. In evaluating another individual, the largest weight of the evaluation, must fall on the full breadth of that persons past, what they have done, who they have associated with and what they have said. Because in the end a persons past history is a much better indicator of their true colors than what they may or may not be saying today. I have learned to see what was staring me in the face. That is when I am interviewing a candidate with a golden tongue, I make myself look deeper, I ask the questions about their resume that need to be asked. I make double sure that I can reconcile any concerns I have with things that look inconsistent on their resume, with what the individual is sitting in front of me saying. Sometimes they get indignant or even Wrighteous with me that I would be so inquisitive and challenge them. Its like an active alcoholic that is sober but regretting his or her past actions, they say they are sorry they say they will never do it again. The certainly believe their own words at the time. They get angry when challenged.

The point is this; I learned not to take a risk with these people. As good as they sound; I decided not to be the proving ground with an individual that seems to say something different than they have demonstrated in the past. You may think it is unfair of me write?

I can tell you this the companies that I have managed are important to me, they have an impact on stockholders, investors and the people that live in the houses and apartments that I have built in the past. I refuse to put these things at risk.

Joe how can you be so naive to think that because Barak Obama, and finally denounced Reverend Wright that somehow this would magically put an end to “The preachers brand of hate…that has haunted the Democrats for decades.” How can you ignore the fact that Barak sat in those pews for twenty years, listening to that brand of hate. How can you ignore is close friendship and relationship with Bill Ayres. How can you ignore what is staring you in the face.

Barak wants to be elected; he needed be more black so he joined Reverend Wright’s church. He needed the support of the left wing democratic machine in Chicago so he developed a relationship with Bill Ayres. He hung out with those guys for 20 years, 20 years. Come on, wake up Joe, and wake up America.

He knew Wright might be a problem so he moved him to the basement at his announcement speech. When all the press came out in the last few months, he softly denounced him. When Wright got upset at the betrayal, at the fact that the public face that Barack put on the relationship did not match up with the relationship that Reverend Wright new. Barack strongly denounced Write. Joe you buy off on this, because he now says so? Barak gets Wrighteously indignant when challenged on these things. He gets angry.

From these associations here is what I think is true. Barack buys into the victim mentality of the Black community. Barack buys into the victim mentality of the Terrorist. Barack buys into the victim mentality of jihadist. He will be sensitive to there plight and he will be an enabler of these mentalities. That I what Reverend Write does, that is was William Ayres does. You want to know something else Oprah Winfrey does not buy into these things and she left Trinity. Think Joe, think America….

Sure I would love Barack to show up as the magical “Avatar of a new generation… and step away for 40 years of liberal self-laceration.” But we cannot take the risk on this man, we can not elect (hire) him for the presidency of the United States with the Write and Ayres blemish on his resume. We cannot take that risk. We must look at what is staring us in the face. We must remember Actions Speak Louder then Words.

The risk is too great for America, and frankly the risk is too great for the Black community. The Black community does not need a black man at the helm of the country that holds a victim mentality regarding their community, a mentality that if it continues to pass down from generation to generation, will prolong the time when there are truly not divisions of Americans distinguished by race.

RKA - Which is it? Is Barack Obama's success due to the fact that he is half-white or because he is a once-in-a-lifetime talent? Your 'half-white' statement is very disappointing since it comes in the same post that you claim to look forward to a time when Americans are less race and gender conscious.

As for the timing of a female president, I am convinced that she will have to come from the GOP. The reason for this is because the media will be afraid to treat a Republican female in the same way that they treat a Democratic female. For evidence of this, look at how they treated Hillary in Bill's campaigns in the nineties. They kept disparaging the idea that she was a career woman and part of a 'power couple' without ever mentioning other such couples as the Cheneys, Doles and the Buchanens. Karen, I am sure that you could mention more. This was only a problem for a Democratic candidate because the GOP knew that conservatives would feel threatened by it and because the media was more interested in selling the claim than in debunking it.

And the GOP - the main source of misogeny in this country - will hold their bile in the effort to elect a conservative. It would have to be a Nixon-in-China sort of moment.

"From the beginning of her campaign the MSM talked about her being a polarizing candidate, thus driving the narrative that she is a polarizing candidate." - Southern Bell, great point.

"There will be a female president before there is a 100% African American president.

I am convinced that Obama could not be where he is right now if he were not half-white." - RKA, you could be right (although of course there really is no such thing as 100% anything). In this election, being half-white did probably help Obama overcome racism, and Clinton having been an incredibly active First Lady who probably knows the job as well as anyone who hasn't done it probably helped Clinton overcome sexism. However, Obama's mixed-race heritage and Clinton's marriage to the President definitely caused some problems (e.g. RubyPanther's post, and all the "is he black enough?" discussion), so it's not a simple issue. I think that being of African-American - as opposed to African - ancestry would have been a net plus for Obama, because so many of the problems he faces are related to his name, and the perception that he is a foreigner; Being black is a problem for a national politician, but being called Hussein and having a Muslim family is an even bigger problem.

And even if you are right, having a white wife would have been a far more serious problem than having a black mother. It will be at least 50 years before we'll see a mixed-race couple in the White House...

"Rather, women in this campaign have abandoned feminism; not for the new progressive attitude of equality, but for the old idea that a woman's status and "experience" are based on her husband's achievements." - RubyPanther, that really makes sense. Not giving Clinton credit for the work she did in the 90s because of who her husband was is obviously a step forward for feminism. So electing Bill Clinton because of a record that his wife helped to create was perfectly reasonable, but electing her because of the work she did with him would be sexist.

That's MSNBC logic.

Other countries, with a worse history of sexism than ours, have elected female leaders. Indira Ghandi, anyone? How 'bout Margaret Thatcher? Benezir Bhutto ring a bell?

I think we'll get there - we just need to get rid of, or overpower, the Bubbas, like Rusty, who can't get past their fear of something different.

Personally, I'm not a betting man, but I'd say we'll see it before too long. And as for the media bias, it's a meat-grinder for every candidate - except li'l ol' sweetheart, McCain - so you'd better have the internal fortitude to handle the pressure.

She ran a poor campaign and lost, then compounded the problem by trying to run to the right of Obama in a country in which the pendulum has swung away from the right. Add to that dalliances w/ Richard Mellon Scaife and Limbaugh, her ridiculous transformation to reguler* gal and the antipathy towards her on the left makes a lot of sense. Back in the day when the pundits were telling us she was inevitable I had no problem w/ the idea of voting for a woman, in fact I was kind of savoring the idea that her election would drive the wingnuts over the edge and into the mental institutions they so desperately need to be in. Dodd was my guy from the start and I still think he's the best candidate the Dems put up this year despite the charisma deficit. Obama has the advantage of being a transcendent speaker who can move people to see the bigger picture and beyond issues of race and gender, Hillary can't do that, or certainly not as well. A huge part of this, which KT doesn't touch upon is the fact that for older women, Hillary may indeed be the only viable female Presidential candidate they'll see in their lifetimes, so I get the deep dissapointment, I really do...it's hard to see the dream die, and maybe, just maybe, a lot of this is just a coping mechanism.

*mis spelling intentional

It's time for women writers to stop personalizing the obvious: Hillary’s loss was not a loss for women, just a loss for Hillary!

Bingo!!

Patrick E. - Your post is troubling for many reasons - the first of which is that it is posted in the wrong thread. This discussion has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

But let us address your concerns so that you may go away comforted.

Barack Obama does not hold a 'victim mentality'. A victim does not work hard to achieve high marks academically, go to the best universities in the country (without having to rely on legacy like Bush) and then rise to become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. A victim does not spend years organizing members of his community to help themselves. A victim does not win a seat in the Illinois senate. A victim does not win a seat in the United States Senate.

You may not like the fact that Rev Wright said twenty seconds worth of controversial statements in thirty years of sermons. You may not believe Obama when he says that he had never heard Wright say those things. And you may not believe Obama when he say that he refutes those statements and Wright himself. But you are missing the larger point - Wright's church actually taught fairly conservative values. Self-reliance, independence, education, self-improvement...why do you dislike those things?

One thing that a victim actually does is to reach for ridiculous arguments in order to try to generate a reason to opppose something - and that is what you are doing Patrick E. You are not judging him by his actions at all, you are engaging in guilt-by-association. You are engaging in stupid fear-mongering by using the terms 'jihadist' and 'terrorist'. You are a frightened little man, Patrick E. And a very poor judge of character.

I have enjoyed this post because of the diversity of opinions all put forward without the distraction of offensive language.

HRC has not and will not get good press because the likes of Matthews and Russert, of Andrea Mitchell and Nora O'Donnell, the inimitable and bloody awful Maureen Dowd and assorted MSNBC/ABC scallywags have their knives out for her. Sad but true. However, HRC will grow into a formidable political figure in the US in a while and I hope she would encourage other women to run in spite of the built in sexism so prevalent in the US.It is time for women to understand that it is up to them to become a political force. And they have the votes. They need to bridge the divide between town and gown among women.

KT,
you should have let me know you were coming...i have a good friend that is the exec. chef of fedeli in downtown and i am sure he would have taken great care of you (he is also the exec chef of chrissie hynde's veggie restaurant in akron) maybe next time!

If Hillary had voted against the war, or by 2005 forcefully apologize for her vote, she would be the nominee today. Hillary's women vote trends older. Alot of these women have been discriminated against enough to overlook the stupid foreign policy gambit.

Although team Clinton won't admit the war has alot to do with it, as well as the media (who cheerlead for several years) won't, alot of people still have Iraq as their number one issue.

That "speech" Obama gave, was the tie-breaker for many people.

Patrick E., why do you choose to judge a political candidate not by his accomplishments, not by his policy proposals, not by his speeches, but by his pastor?

Remember, it's important who is elected president because the president implements policies that affect people's lives.

What, exactly, are you scared of?

As to the original subject, it's always tough to draw general lessons from the highly contingent events of one campaign. I agree with KT, though. Prof. O'Connor's plaintive comments are a bit over the top-- it's tough for everyone. And I agree that folks in the media like Matthews and Dowd have their claws out for Clinton. Not every female candidate will have been smeared for a decade and a half by the GOP before running. Female candidates face an uphill battle in elections in general, though, there's no doubt about that.

But then again, if Kay Bailey Hutchison can pull it off, how hard could it really be?

trifecta - You wrote: "If Hillary had voted against the war, or by 2005 forcefully apologize for her vote, she would be the nominee today."

This is an interesting point but I am not sure that I agree. One of the interpretations of Clinton's Iraq vote, Iran threats, DLC-approved, GOP-lite positioning is that it was posturing to appeal to the 'Appalachian White' demographic. I think the theory was that there would be no alternative for the 'Democratic Wing' of the Democratic Party and that we would all have to support her. I think they were genuinely surprised that Barack Obama generated such a following and I think they feel genuinely betrayed that so many would choose somebody other than her. If you agree with the theory that her Thatcheresque stances were part of an electoral strategy then you are accepting the notion that she is actually more Progressive than she has been acting. Which makes this entire episode so tragic for her - if she had acted more out of principle than calculation then she would have been a champion of the Democratic base instead of Obama. Of course, the Appalachian White might have been scared away by that.

Either way, this campaign is a living testing ground for the disagreements between the DLC strategists and the Progressive activists. What is even more bizarre is that there probably would not have been a Progressive movement if the DLC had not been so incompetent to prevent so much of the horrible excesses of the GOP. So we will find out in November who was right - or if they were both necessary.

"What, exactly, are you scared of?"

Loss of WASP hegemony.

Before I comment, I'd just like to commend RKA for

"So I hope Hillary supporters will not lose heart. I think there is a lot to feel good about."

, which is a good model for Obama supporters to begin addressing their roles in helping the party come together, come what may in June.

RKA and I have said some bitter things to one another during the past year (and I'm not even a Hillary supporter), but if the attitude expressed above can be adopted en masse as easily by Obama supporters as some other notions have been taken to heart, then there really will be "a lot to feel good about".

Well done, RKA, well done.

KT, as a 63 year old male and a big former supporter of Hillary Clinton, I have to agree with other writers above who believe Hillary lost because of Hillary, not because of gender.

I and millions of men like me, who have come through the difficult struggles of the feminist years and have evolved our thinking to believe in and defend the equality of women across the board, will vote for any woman any time starting right now...but like men, women running for office must first prove they are worthy, as a person, of our trust and confidence, and thus our votes.

Hillary, like Obama and McCain and all candidates, become projection screens for our own beliefs, values and desires. That older women (all the women in my family, for example) believe she was discriminated against or unfairly treated, says as much about those women and their frustrations in life and about the system as it does about Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton ran a flawed campaign. She got outflanked, out-thought, out-strategized, out-inspired, out-classed, and outfunded by the American people, plain and simple. That she made poor decisions, then sought to deflect the outcome of those decisions rather than take responsibility for them (finances, Bosnia et al), did not advance her cause.

She went into the gutter, tried to drag Obama in with her, with some success unfortunately, and is now paying the ultimate price for it.

I think she got too much of a free ride sometimes from the press, frankly, and yes, at other times she was unfairly jumped on - just like all the other candidates. Her fortunes rose and fell, like them, depending on the mood of the press and the electorate on any given day. I don't think she suffered any worse than anyone else on that score.

Hillary failed to earn the trust of enough people, plain and simple -- as a person, not as a woman or a man.

I believe in my heart that the answer to the question "Is America ready for a woman President?" had been and remains a resounding yes!

Hillary showed us, unintentionally I believe, that it takes more than just gender politics for a woman to get elected. She's got to be strong, yes, but also wise, and show a lot of integrity and character. I think that is her principle failing: she failed to show unwavering character and integrity.

Ultimately, if the Democratic electorate said one clear thing this year in the primaries, it was that we didn't want politics as usual, kitchen sink or otherwise.

That's so last week, as the kids say.

That Hillary showed her willingness to say anything, do anything to win, that she was comfortable with playing the victim card, the race card (through surrogates like Bill), was ultimately the big turnoff for me, not because a woman was doing it, but because it was unseemly, below-the-belt politics and I'm damned tired of it.

The "change" everybody's been talking about, that Obama has patiently and tirelessly offered , is that desire to depart once and for all from the Rovian venality, made popular by the Original Snake, Richard Nixon, of modern politics.

Woe betide anyone these days who sinks into the "ends justify the nasties" GOP playbook... decent, civil people are (read our votes) Sick. And. Tired. of mean-spirited politics.

When Hillary belittled Obama with her weak "just words" attempt to demean the people's excitement and desire for better political discourse in this country, she started driving the nails into her own campaign coffin.

You can't tell people they are shallow for wanting the best in life, any more than you can tell a woman not to try to be equal to a man, or that she can only be strong if she's strong like a man. Baloney. History is full of strong women national leaders who managed to keep their womanhood as a sacred part of their being.

We want, though, a woman with some real moxey, not just boxing gloves lined with lead weights and the willingness to throw them in the service, not of the American political discourse, but solely in the service of victory.

How, ultimately, male. And not the best part of male either. Hardly a vision for change, for rising to the occasion of our pressing needs at home and abroad.

So shame on you, Hillary Clinton. You dug your own defeat in the sands of misdirected attacks that revealed your own meanness of spirit. It has nothing to do with your gender, and everything to do with the poor personal and political calculations you made.

I want to admire my leaders again, not see their reputation and personhood dragged through National Enquirer-style slime just so their opponents can outlast the carnage and win an election.

I want a President, man or woman, who is less victim, more leader, with integrity, character and justice for all.

Terrapinion,

It's both. Obama's bi-racial identity is at the core of his unifying political message. Look at his 2004 convention speech. Look at all the commercials that feature pictures of his white grandmother.

It takes once-in-a-generation political talent to parlay a biracial guy named Barck Hussein Obama into a viable presidential candidate.

As great as I think he is, I have doubts about whether he could have done it in 2008 vs a candidate as strong as Hillary if he were 100% black.

But 2008 is 2008, terrapinion. Society is dynamic and changing. I feel like we just passed the point in societal change in which a President Obama is possible. It could not have happened 10 years ago. In 10-20 years it will be no big deal for a woman or a black person to be president. A more and more decuisive percentage of the electorate will have grown up after the feminist and civil rights movements of the 60's. If you look at exit polls, most of those people who vote based on sex and gender are older.

Perhaps it is morbid, but every day more racists and sexists die than those who become old enough to vote. The trendlines are in the right direction.

In terms of racism and sexism things are far from perfect, but they are going in the right direction.

I was in London last week-end and was talking to a friend who works for Parliament and knows Margaret Thatcher. He is quite interested in our election. Although he feels, as do a couple I also visited with, that the important thing for the world is to get George Bush out of power. That said, the candidate he thought was the better was Hillary because of her experience.

I said I had read a commentary that indicated that if we had a Parliamentary system, we would likely have had a woman leader earlier as in the examples of Thatcher, Ghandi, and Meir. He challenged me and asked who would it have been. I couldn't think of anyone who had risen to that level within their party. He then pointed out that in theory they vote for a party, the reality is that the general electorate votes for the person, just as we do.

This has been an interesting thread, but I am among those who think it will be on the longer rather than the shorter side before we elect a woman president. Some friends and I said several years ago that we thought it likely we would see an African-American president before we saw a woman -- and that was with no specific candidates in mind.

I have never understood Clinton's campaign strategy. She and her team downgraded Obama for being inspirational rather than speak forcefully and from the beginning about the inspiration of her candidacy. How can a woman candidate tell folks inspired by Obama's example that they are being deluded?

I also feel the her candidacy sought to benefit from racism. She herself said that White folks would not vote for Obama. She has even gone far enough as to say he could not be president. He is unelectable. She has backed away from her comment about working class White voters, but she has been doing the "unelectable" bit for a while. How is Obama unelectable? The only characteristics in the constitution about the president deal with age and location of birth.

Finally, for some, her playing her story up about the sniper fire may have been a trifle, but for me it spoke to the heart of her candidacy... she was running as the experienced candidate. You can't have a lie attached to the heart of why you are running.

Fact is, I am disappointed that Clinton sought to utilize racism to her advantage. I am disappointed that she gave credence to a bombastic style of leadership. With Obama as her competitor, it could have been her opportunity to speak out in ways not typical that would open up the national dialogue about leadership. Instead, she seemed to operate with the understanding that traditional ways of running are the best ways. Her candidacy in contrast to what Obama was trying to exemplify and the unbelievably brave moments he has risked himself upon was too stark.

I don't think sexism trumps racism. Both will meet the candidate come the general election. I don't believe Obama is free and clear for the general election. But, had Hillary won, she would not have been in the clear either. I would have appreciated this recognition from her.

My heart goes out to the women who feel the defeat of Clinton for presidency is a defeat of womanhood. I am saddened that Obama's leadership cannot serve as that bedrock for them. As a woman, his leadership definitely inspires me.

I read that piece in the paper this morning. My first thought was of Nixonland by Rick Perlstein.

While all the pundits and analysts were talking up the centrist republicans, like Romney and Rockefeller, Nixon was methodically targeting the law and order voters.

And that reminded me that not only have been told the first woman president would be a Republican, but that the first black president would also be a republican moderate. He certainly won't be a northern, urban community organizer.

It actually depends on the candidate, not just on identity politics.

Thanks, Stuart.

I hope more Obama supporters will take their leads from Obama and start to be more concillatory.

it's time to forgive and forget.

If you read my arguments with Stuart in the heat of the primary, I was as critical of the Clinton campaign as anyone.

But there is no reason to be sore winners.

If you are an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter who has residual anger from the primary, may I humbly suggest kicking John McCain and the republicans instead?

Because seriously, folks, whatever racism and sexism there was in the Primary is nothing compatared to garden variety GOP fare.

John McBush voted against MLK day and he called his wife a "c*unt" and a "trollop."

It's time for his free ride to end. And we need all hands on deck for this fight.

Isn't it ironic to have two credible candidates, so closely competitive, of a gender or race never before nominated for President? How might Hillary's challengeshave been different--especially with the media--pitted against a white male?

Frankly, I'm delighted, no matter which is nominated, just to watch this country experience such miraculous political progress.

As for how it's affected future women's chances ....as a white male I hope my white brothers can acknowledge as I have that it is time for other than one of us to lead this country. The rut has become too deep.

RKA - Thank you for the reply.

I was not sure where you were going with the 'half-white' comment so I responded a bit more harshly than, perhaps, I should have. Your reply clarifies things nicely.

Discussions that center around whether somebody is 'half-white' or 'full-black' or 'black-enough' tend to leave me with a sad feeling for where race relations may be heading. Certainly, anybody who might have thought that Barack Obama was going to be more acceptable to white people because he was biracial has very little experience with the lesser angels of the white community. If anything, it only increases their visceral reaction.

I agree that Obama's bi-racial identity is at the core of his unifying political message and, as has been made evident from his electoral victories, a great many people are open to his message. But as is clear from the behavior of Appalachian Whites, not everybody is ready to be unified. If the Appalachian White is necessary for Obama's success then he will have to succeed despite his biracial identity and not because of it.

No discussion about whether we are ready for a woman President would be complete without two words.

Chris Matthews.

As long as he, and idiots like him have the power to announce the time of day on TeeVee let alone anything of substance, then we will continue to be unready for a proper debate over a suitable candidate for the executive postion of running our country.

America is more than ready to graduate Jr. High, but that doesn't appear to be in the interest of our current media stars.

"Hillary's women vote trends older. Alot of these women have been discriminated against enough to overlook the stupid foreign policy gambit."

It's this kind of thinking - and I don't mean to just single you out trifecta, it's very common in the blogosphere and the media - that demonstrates how little the sexism in this election has to do with HRC. It is completely acceptable to belittle the choices of women voters in a way that it is - thankfully - unacceptable to do to the African-American voters who are overwhelmingly supporting Obama. Yes, older women have been discriminated against more than younger women, but with the maternal glass ceiling that may have much more to do with the place where we are in our lives, as opposed to where society now is. In addition, there are actually a lot of reasons to vote for a highly experienced candidate who has demonstrated great strength, intellectual ability, and a firm commitment to progressive issues such as universal health care, that have nothing to do with gender. Amazing, but true.

If women aren't going to be trusted to vote competently, we won't be trusted to govern competently.

"You can't tell people they are shallow for wanting the best in life, any more than you can tell a woman not to try to be equal to a man, or that she can only be strong if she's strong like a man. Baloney. History is full of strong women national leaders who managed to keep their womanhood as a sacred part of their being." - JimNY, "sacred part of their being"? Womanhood is something you can only lose with an operation. We need to greatly expand the definition of "womanhood," because where we are right now is that people are commonly criticizing Clinton for being too aggressive - which can be fair - in terms of her "being like a man," which is always completely unfair. The truth is that a lot of women are naturally ambitious, confident, aggressive, willing to get angry, and competitive. Those qualities are not in conflict with being feminine, or retaining our sacred womanhood; In fact they are just another facet of femininity, like nurturing or being perceptive. It's fair to say that you don't want those qualities in a President, but it's not fair to criticize a woman for having those qualities more than a man. It has nothing to do with gender.

"That older women (all the women in my family, for example) believe she was discriminated against or unfairly treated, says as much about those women and their frustrations in life and about the system as it does about Hillary Clinton." - Okay, I have to at least admit that it's nice you are being so honest, even when it hurts your argument. Here's an alternate explanation for the disconnect with the women in your family: they are better at recognizing sexism than you are because it's been directed at them. When non-whites complain of racism, whites should listen. And when women complain of sexism, men should listen. It doesn't mean they have to automatically accept our arguments, but they should listen carefully and with an open mind. We have a really big advantage in detecting these prejudices.

RKA, I also appreciate your conciliatory words. But can we please not make this election about John McCain's marriage?! We have no idea how they typically speak to each other - although Cindy's movie tastes suggest she is pretty comfortable with R language - and if we make this an issue, we will have to find out how she speaks to him, what their acquaintances say about their marriage, how the Obamas speak to each other, and what Michelle thinks of Wedding Crashers, and the whole thing will become incredibly boring and pointless. And health care will be completely forgotten.

Please have a glass of good French wine, watch an old classic Parisian movie, and stop being so American for a while so that you can forget about politicians' marriages...

More of this from Senator Clinton please-

"At a Friday night town hall in Oregon, Senator Hillary Clinton criticized Senator John McCain for his speech predicting victory in Iraq by the end of his first term.
"It sounded a lot like 'Mission Accomplished,' only postponed into 2013," said Clinton, referring to President George Bush's declaration less than two months after the Iraq invasion that major combat was over. "From my perspective, it's just more of the same. It's a continuation of the Bush policies that have been failures."

It was/is far more than Chris Matthews,

Patrick Healy from The New York Times
"But nothing particularly funny had occurred; it was, instead, a deployment of the Clinton Cackle."

Robin Givhan in The Washington Post on Senatoe Clinton having breasts.

The two most mainstream newspapers in the country trading in that kind of stuff I think shows how institutionalized the sexism is.

Terraopinion, about having to win because of or despite his biracial identity...I have this theory that the issue ends up being a wash.

For every vote Obama loses because of his race, I think he gains one as well.

I think the same dynamic applied to Hillary. For every vote she lost on gender, I think she picked up one as well.

Most of the new votes were coming from newly registered voters motivated by it all.

The irony is that while we have talked endlessly about race and gender in this campaign (because it drives media ratings), I think that the issues have been less determinitve than the candidates' messages. I think that Obama edged out Clinton primarily because of his message. While identity politics played a role, I think that a lot of the dynamics canceled each other out.

I can't prove my thinking, because people don't tell the truth to pollsters on issues of race and gender. But I am pretty sure the demographic factors mean less than people think.

Rose: ok, ok....John McCain opposed equal pay for women...I'll try to stick to that...thought when they attack Michelle Obama, it's going to be hard for me to keep my mouth shut. Unlike Obama, I am not blessed with very much restraint in fighting back!

I'm late to this conversation, but I think that Rose and SouthernBell as usual made good points. As the mother of a young daughter, I am feeling very bitter and discouraged about the whole tone of the campaign. Esp about the way in which female pundits in the media like MoDo, Rosa Brooks, Melinda Henneberger, Michelle Cottle, etc... piled on Hillary.

I think the one thing that should give Obama hope that women will end up supporting his canidacy is that most women are pissed at the media rather than Obama. But if he keeps calling female reporters "sweetie," he better watch out.

Mr. Nice Guy: "Other countries, with a worse history of sexism than ours, have elected female leaders. Indira Ghandi, anyone? How 'bout Margaret Thatcher? Benezir Bhutto ring a bell?"

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

I wish people would stop bringing up those names. They mean nothing in this context. Those women became Prime Minister because they were the head of their party and their party won the most seats in a parliamentry system. That would be like saying Howard Dean will be named president because he is the head of the DNC. None of those women won a nation wide election.

First off, Hillary is NOT the "Ron Paul" of the Democrats. She is not that far behind and I do not join the tone of this article that assumes she is done! The pressure for her to end the race is suspect at best! Second, the sexism that has pervaded the mainstream media's coverage of Hillary – and ignored by the DNC - is nothing short of astonishing! I'm saddened to be part of a country and party that 1) is unaware of the signs of sexism and/or 2) doesn't care. This race was SUPPOSE to be a historical time for TWO reasons and we will NOT forget what Hillary stands for us RIGHT NOW! We're still behind you Hillary & we know "the more experienced choice who is more capable of making change" when we see it. Let our own party force us out. Its far from the first time women (or gays or other pro-female communities) have had to walk our own path. God helps us all.

TeresaKopec - You wrote: "But if he keeps calling female reporters "sweetie," he better watch out."

Just so we are all up to date on this one, Obama sent a very gracious apology to the reporter. An actual apology - not one of these 'mistakes were made' kinds so popular with most politicians.

gayUCCpastor1 - Yikes! Please take a breath - nobody is forcing you out of the party. There is every reason to believe that Hillary will land on her feet in a very prominent, productive position. She ran a strong campaign and will see it out to the finish and then make her final argument about who is more electable. In the meantime she can continue to collect contributions that she will us to pay off her debts.

But, of course, if you think that another four years of a Republican administration will produce better results for your community then by all means stay home or vote Republican. After all, how bad could a few more Supreme Court Justices be for America?

what a crock!
this african-american male supported hillary in the beginning of this campaign because i expected her to finally return to presenting herself as the more liberal half of the clinton duo. i thought, and still think, that it is very unlikely that the country will actually vote for an african-american presidential candidate.
i want the white house to be in democratic hands and i supported her because i truly believed that she was the best choice to win the white house.
instead, i watched her morph into a democratic version of a right wing republican, complete with the kind of race-baiting that pat buchanan has been proud of.
she ran a bad campaign and for me the final straw was bill clinton's obvious attempt to drag the dems and the country back to the bad old days of racial antagonism.
the nomination was hers for the taking and she blew it.
she was beaten by a superior candidate with a superior message and a superior strategy.
were there instances of sexism in the way the media dealt with her?
of course. but what she got hit with paled in comparison to the routinely racist innuendo that obama endures even to this day.
the simple fact that hillary openly talks about the sexism directed at her and her campaign shows how ridiculous it is to blame that sexism for the failure of her campaign.
can you imagine what would be said about obama if, everyday, he complained that, as a black man, he just couldn't get a break from the media?
how much grief he would get if he correctly complained that the reverand wright controversy was a reflection of blatant racism?
his candidacy, even at this point, would be destroyed if he even started to talk about the open and subtle racism that has bogged down his campaign over the last few months.
hillary, on the other hand, sinks deeper and deeper into the pile of excuses, rather than looking at her own choices and conduct.
unlike hillary, obama has refused to wallow in the type of excuses and self pity that she has relied on, and he has risen above the daily obstacles that present themselves.
hillary's failure has been about hillary's failure.
bad campaign. a bad strategy. bad advisors. a horrific vote on the most important issue of the last 6 years, and then being unable to adequately address that bad vote.
the chris matthewses and the rush limbaughes had nothing to do with the kinds of choices she made and was burdened by.
hillary and her supporters need to deal with what really happened in this campaign and stop crying about issues that really had nothing to do with the utter idiocy that crippled her candidacy.

Teresa: not to score points: but whatever the system the two party democratic system, with all its imperfections produced Srimavo Bandaranaike as 1st woman PM of Sri Lanka in the late sixties. Fact is her husband was murdered so there was a sympathy factor. But she ran in an election and won. Bangaladesh and Pakistan (Muslim countries0 produced dynastic successor ( in Bangledesh both parties have women as their head of the party), then there is the formidable Golda Meyer of Israel, Indira Gandhi (India), Margaret thatcher and a slew of women Prime Ministers in Northern Europe, plus the Chancellor of Germany, and a woman President in Liberia. For all their imperfections and weight in favour of dynastic succession the fact is their system gave women a break.

Ours, always touted as the best ever, has favoured men, and favoured a certain class of men (wealthy elites and lone rangers like Nixon, Clinton and Truman). Say what you like about our system, it is as corrupt as the one's we criticise for in the end it all comes down to money and advertising and an appeal to our lowest instincts. We are in the business of marketing and money is King (or Queen?) Our is not a superior system.

bitterpill8: Our is not a superior system.
----------------

I'm not arguing that our system is superior, just that it is a whole lot harder for an individual to become President. You have to appeal to your own party through the primary system, then a general election based on YOU, not your party.

Thatcher, Ghandi, Butto, Merkel, etc... had to work hard and rise to leadership positions in their party (or have their husbands be killed by the opposition). Their names never appeared on a ballot for the entire voting public to vote for or against. Neither did they have to endure the kind of media attention any of our canidates -- male or female -- endure. Maybe that system is better because it allows for more diverse candidates to come to power.

My point is simply that you can not say, "oh a woman will be president soon" because Golda Meir was PM of Isreal 50 years ago. The two systems are just too different to make those comparisons.

RKA, Honestly, if I thought it would help Obama get elected I'd probably be talking about it, since I think he needs all the help he can get. Especially after this week's "No, Obama is not a Nazi appeaser," narrative.

On that note, I really liked Clinton's response that Bush's comments were "way out of line and really outrageous and should be rejected out of hand." They should be rejected out of hand. If your opponent accuses you of being a Martian spy whose mission is to steal the country's water resources, you don't give a calm and detailed speech explaining why you are not a Martian spy. This is winning the battle and losing the war.

Also, does anyone know if Obama is planning to run national security ads in the swing states soon? I don't see any downside to that.

gayUCCpastor1, nothing will be better with a McCain Presidency than with an Obama presidency.

You make some excellent observations, Teresa. But we seem to have developed a system which we claim to be very effective, but which has produced some doozies like Bush 2.

On bitterpill 8: I am guessing here, but what you seem to be saying is that even in Muslim countries (Pakistan & Bangladesh) men have voted for women candidates as prime ministers in successive elections. Like Teresa I draw attention to the profound differences in both our system and those in the other democracies.

That is not to say our system is better. My sad conclusion is that our system appears to me as prone to manipulation as theirs because we have given over a large part of our political management to a bunch of noisy gasbags in the MSM; and our standard of political journalism is abysmal.

We give pork whereas they give bribes. Same thing: different terms. Ask Jack Abramoff. Sorry, he is away on enforced leave at this time.

Teresa: I am NOT saying our or their system is superior. They have what they have, and we have what we have. And I am happy to live within our own.

I am just struck by the irony that women prime ministers have been a feature of THIRD World and Muslim countries in the noneteen sixties and seventies. A beleagured Israel chose Gold Meir. And here we in 2008 asking a question about America being ready for a woman or Black to be President. Why is our system so complex that it has not produced either before now?

A woman and a man of mixed race running for president with one of them winning the party's nomination and hopefully the presidency - isn't that what liberalism and the progressive movement are all about? And conservatism is not all about (I know, I know, Margaret Thatcher was a conservative)? If the country has indeed taken on a more progressive bent, as I believe, then the election of a woman president is just a matter of a short time. I was disappointed in my cursory reading of Kate Zernike's article. NYT should have found a writer with a bit more passion to write the article. Meanwhile, we could ponder the reasons why ERA never passed.

I'm late to the thread - one of the best discussions here in a long time. I thoroughly agree with Floridian's 4 points at the top of the thread.

I think's Hillary's been a better candidate than Barack the last week. I think she would have been the nominee if she'd chosen her team better, trusted her own instincts, and not allowed herself or her staff to assume she was going to win. That being said, the fact that she didn't do those things is the reason that, in the end, she wasn't the better candidate.

Hillary spent too much time trying to prove things she really didn't need to prove, and was either defensive or aggressive about her gender in ways that made me cringe. When Barack says "If I lose it won't be because of race" he might be wrong, but he's wise and gracious to make it clear he's not going to play victim. I wish Hillary could have done that too.

I think a lot of people ended up supporting Hillary who probably didn't think 6 months ago they could do that. So yes, I think she has prepared some ground for the next woman to run for president.

I would add to Independant's argument that feminism does not have to be genderized or racialized. It is a world view, with a core aimed at both social justice and privileging the female experience. It does not need have a particular physical appearance. However, it seems that the women referenced in the piece are genderizing feminism and I would say racializing it (black WOMEN did vote for Obama...along with other women for that matter). I came away from the piece KT posted feeling that a particular female experience was being privileged. It bothers me that the experience of White women can serve as the universal experience of femininity or feminism.

I say again that if Obama has demonstrated reception to feminist ideals, then those ideals could potentially inform the presidency. The endorsement by NARAL, no matter how contentious, points to that. Whether Obama or Hillary takes the mantle of the presidency, feminists win.

If Hillary Clinton had opposed Bush's war, or even if she became a latter day convert against it like Jack Murtha (or John Kerry or John Edwards), she would have won the nomination without breaking a sweat, and probably the presidency. There still would have been nutcrackers and shock-jocks and the sad Freudian spectacle of Chris Matthews, but she would have won the nomination.

To discuss this primary and her career without discussing that vote is incomplete, to say the least.

For clarity's sake, I should add that my response is directed towards the idea that feminists are obligated to vote for Hillary. KT's piece along with the piece on the Time homepage and the piece KT links (along with some the comments posted here) seems to be informed by this particular narrative.

Jim: If Hillary Clinton had opposed Bush's war, or even if she became a latter day convert against it like Jack Murtha (or John Kerry or John Edwards), she would have won the nomination without breaking a sweat, and probably the presidency. There still would have been nutcrackers and shock-jocks and the sad Freudian spectacle of Chris Matthews, but she would have won the nomination.

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

I don't doubt that is true, but why did there have to be those other things and why was it considered perfectly acceptable by the media as a whole? If we had seen lawn jockeys in airports with Obama's face, or Chris Matthews was talking about Obama in racist terms he would be off the air and there would be a huge outcry. Why is sexism accepted with a smirk by the same people who decry racism?

KT here--

Have to agree with KathyR. This has been a fascinating discussion. And Cbhenderson: Sorry I didn't let you know I was coming your way. I had a great time, and went to a really good Italian restaurant in Canton, but alas, the name escapes me. I'm traveling a lot over the next month. Any Houston recommendations, anyone? I'm there for a New Media conference sponsored by UT. I think I'm there to be the token Old Lady Blogger.

If we had seen lawn jockeys in airports with Obama's face, or Chris Matthews was talking about Obama in racist terms he would be off the air and there would be a huge outcry.

As opposed to Curious George T-shirts?

Racism and sexism are both still serious problems but at least in the circles I travel, sexism carries significantly less stigma whereas racism is more underground and couched in less blatant language. Simply compare the prevalence of 'blonde' jokes vs actual racist humor to see what I mean. (Of course, I can only speak of my own circle, there are probably places where I would be appalled at the racial humor.)

My point remains that the two forms of discrimination are treated differently in this country. The prevalance of feelings of victimhood are probably also different. The percentage of women who feel that sexism isn't a problem and are OK with the status quo is probably much higher than the percentage of African-Americans who feel that racism isn't an issue.

(Note that these are the observations of a relatively isolated white male who will gladly accept correction if either of these assertions are wrong.)

Paul Dirks:"My point remains that the two forms of discrimination are treated differently in this country."

I'm sure that is true. But the larger issue is that both racism and sexism spring from an obdurate resistance to change from the existing status quo. If we lose sight of that fact, we merely play into the hands of those who want to maintain that status quo at any cost because it is to their advantage.

we merely play into the hands of those who want to maintain that status quo

And few things played into the hands of the status quo more effectively than having the Hillary and Obama backers argue incessantly over which camp was being treated unfairly while McCain tooled around looking Presidential and avoiding any hard questions whatsoever.

Thank goodness we seem to be turning that particualr corner.

I find this whole thing weird. It's like, I've slipped out of sink with the country as a whole. I have that same disconnect I have every time people talk about Obama getting assassinated, almost as if it's wish fulfillment. I know about the assassinations in the 60s, but still, it didn't even occur to me. Wouldn't Powell and Rice be targets?

Then the ingenius Digby worries we're getting too many conservative Dems. Wha? Look, in Mississippi's 1st, if it wasn't Childers, it was a Nazi. Jesus couldn't win with a D next to his name in that district, and this man did. The country, and the 1st, are a little bluer for it.

Then, this. Any doubts I had about a woman being able to become President are gone. Hillary has shattered any of those stereotypes, and won over the very people who would be most resistant to the idea of a woman President.

If there is one thing I've proudest of, it's that Obama and Hillary were not the frontrunners, and did not win because of race or gender. It was there, but they were really the best choices. People talked about using race, etc., but when people got down to why they supported one or the other, it was all substantive: how they were campaigning, cynicism vs. hope, realism vs. naivite. It was about who was tough enough, who could win, who had the best plans, how much politics we are willing to play before we can no longer call ourselves Democrats.

Hillary's about the only person I know of who has walked away looking stronger as a loser. It has been in her tenacity of a lost campaign that her work ethic has become most clear.

And there is sexism and racism, and we'll lose some votes, but if we believe as a Party that one day, we need a woman or person of color to lead us, the time is now because we have the wiggle room to take a risk. Politics will never be better aligned for us to get the cushion we need to overcome that hurdle the first time, and it's not going to happen because of their ace or gender, but because there was a long, drag-out knife fight, and won fought just a little better. Either would clean McCain's clock.

For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country again.

"Thank goodness we seem to be turning that particualr corner."

Amen.

KT-
I haven't eaten at home in Houston in years, and Houston's an eating town. You probably wouldn't want to see the meme in person. It's not that I'm rude, just kind of pudgy and un-inspiring. As far as you know.

UT? You mean UH? UT's in Austin. If you're out there, go to the Thai Nazi's place on Telephone road. I can't remember the name because he's only referred to as the Thai Nazi or Telephone Thai. Cafe Piquet is great Cuban. Downtown/midtown, I'd recommend Indika for fru-fru indian, or Demenici (sp?) for gourmet pizza. Hugos is unique Mexican, in that it's not like any Mexican you've had. No chips at the table. Best Mexican restaurant outside of Chicago's Frontera/Topa.

The first Tex/Mex is Felix's, and it's awful, but the first. I mean Tex/Mex as in spaghetti as a side instead of Spanish rice. Their chili relleno is hamburger meat wrapped in dried chili skins, wrapped in doughnut dough and deep-fried. But they're the first.

There's also a boom of Malaysian lately, for some reason. And Boba's so huge, you can find it in malls now - the asian shakes with big straws so you can vacuum up the jellis and tapioca pearls. Ethipiean, of course, but also Nigerian. If you like eating your soup with a wad of playdough.

Just search through Robb Walsh's columns at the Houston Press. One of the best food writers in the country.

"Hillary spent too much time trying to prove things she really didn't need to prove, and was either defensive or aggressive about her gender in ways that made me cringe." - Kathy, that's where I disagree with you. Both Obama and Clinton have had to make some adjustments to deal with prejudice, but it's about prejudice, not gender or race. So I have never seen her be defensive or aggressive about her gender, only about her efforts to overcome prejudice. And as we all know, she has had to deal with an incredible amount of blatant sexism. Also, when she withdraws I'm sure she'll make it very clear that the loss was not because of sexism. Her supporters may think differently, but candidates shouldn't be judged by their supporters. In addition, it's reasonable for the candidates to talk about prejudice, as Obama so eloquently did in Philadelphia. That's the only way prejudice has ever been overcome - you can't deal with it if it's being ignored. But the media has a tendency to look at this too simplistically, and see any mention of blatant sexism (or racism) by the candidates as somehow exploiting identity politics.

When you actually look at her gender comments, they are incredibly innocuous. Everyone got so upset over the "boy's club" comment, when this woman who serves with 15 other woman Senators and was running against about 15 men for the Presidency dared to point out the obvious. And is talking about shattering the highest glass ceiling really that controversial? Can any of us actually disagree with her? She has also mentioned a few times, such as on KO, that some people don't know how to cover a female candidate. Again, an incredibly obvious statement.

Also, in response to Floridian's third reason, it was the media's blatant sexism that at times turned this election into a referendum on whether a woman could be President or not. Believe me, at the start of this campaign I was sure a woman could win. For me it changed before NH, when the media acted like she went nuclear when she raised her voice about 15% in the debate after Edwards kept attacking her. Edwards was being reasonable, and her response was reasonable, but the media totally lost it. I remember Matt Bai writing that he actually recoiled in his seat, yet another example of male journalists revealing more about themselves than about this campaign.

After watching the post-debate coverage, I remember thinking "If the media is really allowed to do this, it's impossible for a woman to be elected President." And that was the first time in my life that thought crossed my mind. NH voters said that wasn't (always) allowed, and showed women can win. I absolutely agree with Kathy that if she had ran her campaign better, she would be the nominee. But it's the media who turned this into a referendum on gender, by being so blatantly sexist. With sexism being such a huge factor in this campaign, it's hard to see how this could have avoided turning at least partially into a referendum on women in politics. The sad truth is that a defeat for Clinton is a victory for sexism in the media, although she may have lost even with a fair media. But since the media wasn't fair, this is a victory for MSNBC and the rest of the sexist media.

5un5shin3, I know there are many feminists who support Obama. I'll be one of them in the GE. But people have to either be sexist or in deep denial to not see that sexism has played a huge role in this campaign.

What an excellent discussion!

Posted by Independent | May 18, 2008 6:16 PM:

A woman and a man of mixed race running for president with one of them winning the party's nomination and hopefully the presidency - isn't that what liberalism and the progressive movement are all about?

Er...umm...No.

It's about realizing the individual freedom and community power to change our lives and our country for the better in the form of concrete democratic political action to resolve counter-productive conflict, and to enact structures and policies that are in the long-term interests of our nation as a whole, and not merely those of state or estate or corporate elites (or any particular constituent interest, for that matter).

"A woman and a man of mixed race running for president with one of them winning the party's nomination and hopefully the presidency" are just symbols of realizing that freedom and power, but aren't necessarily the result of having solved any systemic problems or resolved chauvinistic disputes.

These things aren't an end in and of themselves...

Those women sound like the sorriest lot of whiners I hope to never meet.

Sexism sucks. But rare is the individual who doesn't face some variety of unfair treatment, owing to the fact that ***spoiler alert*** life isn't fair.

"Who dare try it now..." Jiminy Christmas. Where do these people live? In china cabinets?

And how laughable is it that these weak willed women are playing into the worst sorts of stereotypes of their own gender? Just a wee bit ironic, doncha think?

In any case, regardless of what these people think, other women will come along, and soon. And with luck, they'll display the same sort of grace on the issue of their gender that Obama has displayed regarding the issue of his race.

> For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country again.

I'm not. Not even close, until we right the major wrongs of the past 8 years, at least. I want to see people held responsible and accountable for their actions in damaging this country and their all-out frontal attack on the Constitution.

Don't misunderstand: I'm not into "paybacks." But the only way we can safeguard our Constitution, the only way it means anything, is if we, as a country, hold those who would attack it responsible. This goes for both those within and outside the country.

If Bush and his cronies walk, after the way they've trashed our civil liberties - National Security Letters; domestic spying without warrants; etc - and flouted the laws of this country - the Plame outing; torture of persons under our control; e-mail records management requirements, among other things - then America means nothing, anymore, because all you have to do is buy yourself into a position of power, or have a buddy who is, and you're good to go. "We hold these truths to be self evident: That all Men are created equal" will be nothing more than a quaint ideal, championed at one time by honest men, but since tossed into the trash bin of history, along with the hopes of the "Great Experiment."

No, I'm sorry, but I don't feel that America can hold it's head high until we've held those people responsible for crimes against all Americans accountable.

Rose,

I will not deny that sexism has played a role in this campaign. My difficulty with this discussion is on two fronts:

1) If there was any time to engage in the perpetuation of politics that lifted us a bit beyond the morass we get stuck in when talking of race and gender, this would have been the time. The media be damned, I do not believe she would have been penalized by Obama and his camp if she'd gone at this primary in a way true to tenets I believe true of feminism.

The example I brought up earlier was the business with the sniper fire. Both candidates will be running against a dude who was a POW. He wins the experience with war award, hands down. What could these two bring to the table about this business in Iraq that would contrast with McCain and also speak to the top-down, bludgeoning approach Bush took to getting us involved in Iraq? Bush lied, the Pentagon sold us a bill of goods through generals for hire. What vision of leadership would Clinton offer that would blast that style of leadership out of the water? I didn't hear one. Instead, she blasts Obama for being willing to communicate. And she tells tall tales of her experience in Bosnia.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, she really strayed from the tenets of social justice by implicating race in this election. Not only that, she trivialized, underestimated, ignored Obama's appeal, an appeal that seemed, in my mind at least, connected to possibility and hope.

How can a feminist poopoo a message of hope about what this country could be should we look beyond our blinkers?

2) I am disappointed that some focal feminists cannot see the potential of an Obama presidency fulfilling feminist aims. Instead, they seemed to put feminists aims in lockstep with Hillary's aspirations for presidency. The articles I have read that speak of some women's frustrations with this race do not also have these same women acknowledge the comingling of gender and race or gender and SES and, in the case of Obama, gender and age. Instead, as has happened several times throughout our history, white women seem put in competition with Black men specifically (and Black people generally) when it comes to access to power and influence. If that is not the case, this competitive bickering is being allowed to prosper by self-professed feminists.

As far as I know, the aims of feminism are such that it would be folly to house them with one particular population. So, if not Hillary bringing elements of feminist concerns to the forefront of our national consciousness, then Obama, or the sister in Kansas who serves as governor, or some unknown person in our future who will have the temerity to run for office and be in office in a principled manner.

Suffice it to say, I have not been interpreting this as a discussion about when the next women will run for the presidential office. Sexism and racism, two -isms with roots in the