How much did Hillary Clinton’s gender contribute to her losing the nomination? Or, did it help her?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
62 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 45: I Explain Trumpism to Justin Trudeau
- Day 43: The #TrumpRussia Conspiracy Goes Mainstream At Last
- Day 40: Republicans Contemplate Giving Up On Deficit Control Forever
- Progress Pondcast Episode 22 With Bill Hangley Jr, on DOGE and U.S. Alliance With Russia
- Day 37: The Last Bulwarks Protecting the Merit-Based Civil Service
Recent Comments
I don’t think it had anything to do with her losing the nomination, either way. The only reason she will not be the nominee is because she ran smack into a once-in-a-lifetime type candidate, and for once the American people were actually ready to embrace that.
Any other year, she wins. If Obama doesn’t run this year, she wins. Simple as that, I think.
I agree that if Obama hadn’t run she would be the nominee and she would have wrapped it up by SuperTuesday.
I really think she lost because he had a better campaign strategy than she did AND he executed his campaign strategy almost perfectly.
I do think that Hillary’s gender was a factor in one sense – I think that there was a lot of sexism in the media coverage of her. But it’s hard to say how much that hurt her because if she had been exactly the same person except she was a man (making Bill the first woman president) she would still have had bad media coverage. They don’t like her and that is a separate issue than her gender and their sexism.
But all in all I think Hillary’s gender was a net positive for her – the excitement over the possibility of having the first woman president outweighed, in many cases, the other negatives that have always surrounded her.
Hillary and Bill in campaigning in a state of denial. Some one should tell them they are both damaged goods. – at home and abroad you read:
found among the comments posted at the New Hampshire Union-Leader some buyers remorse.
“Dear New Hampshire,
We from the state of Iowa handed you the chance to end the democratic nomination race by handing you Barak.
But you believed the Clinton lies.
Tsk. Tsk
Well … now you now.
– Chip, Iowa City, IA
Perhaps New Hampshire’s pledged delegates should take Hillary up on her position that they have the right to switch sides — to Obama.
– Marc, Chicago
This is just occurring to you NOW?
– Ted Stryker, Manchester “
Yet more distortions and political maneuvering by the Clintons for their own advantage!
I was mildly surprised by the NH primary outcome in February, although we did no better here in California. I now hope that PA will take their opportunity to put an END to this travesty of a campaign by HRC, and vote for Barack Obama.
Let’s get on with the business of winning the election with a powerful candidate, and a unified Democratic Party.
– John Mc., Valley Village, CA
I;d tend to agree with the first commentor. I can’t speak for anyone else but me, but Hillary Clinton’s sex had nothing to do with whether i think she’d be a good president or not.
Of course a woman can be president. Just not that particular woman.
In the end I think it was a wash. She lost some votes among some demographics, she gained some elsewhere.
Also in the age of Teh Google, bad things happen to all.
Bullseye.
But hey, it’s a good thing she hasn’t dropped out yet.
The Village wouldn’t approve of that, and besides, Clinton makes Obama look good.
You know, the same way the fighting in Basra is a “positive development” for Iraq.
You should be grateful to her for doing this. So sayeth the Village, so shall it be.
What does that mean, exactly? Obama took what could have been the end of his campaign and turned it into an amazing plus. When has Hillary (or Bill) Clinton ever done that? Bill just got pissy during the Lewinsky scandal, and Hillary gets just as pissy as he does.
I didn’t choose that word carelessly — I’ve been wracking my brain for weeks looking for the right word. The Clintons are pissy when they don’t get their way. 😉
the clintons have done it plenty of times
obama did it better than both ever have
makes me feel much better about his chances in nov
Her gender helped her. The fact that she is Hillary Clinton hindered her just a little.
The fact that she had the poor judgment to hire Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson dug the hole.
The fact that Penn and Wolfson decided to speak directly to the press themselves and to carry out a negative, even racist, campaign against Obama sent her campaign into the losing column.
People really are fed up with the crap, and they are beginning to figure out how negative and attack ads affect them unconsciously when they go into the voting booth. And they are beginning to mentally take stock and offset the garbage.
Some more education about why negative campaigning works even though you hate it would add immensely to having voters make rational choices. They don’t like being psychologically manipulated any more than they like being spied upon.
And it is the perception that Hillary is a manipulative personality, true or not, that has hurt her the most.
It seems to me that people are eager, desperate for a female president. Some of them are backing Clinton just because she’s a female. They don’t care about her votes, her lies, her triangulation. They feel “it’s time” and are whole-heartedly supporting Clinton. Others are not supporting her because she’s Clinton. Almost any other female would be better. Here’s me: I’d much rather back Olympia Snowe for president and that woman has said some crazy-assed things when she’s toeing the GOP line. Still, from where I sit, Snowe has a lot more wisdom, and would probably be a more even-handed president.
But with the “some”…I find it distressing to hear low information voters say how much they’d prefer Clinton over Obama because she’s married to Bill Clinton and they liked Bill Clinton and have the warm fuzzies for the 90s. To that extent, I think her gender does play a role. These people don’t expect Sen. Clinton to do anything as president (because she’s a woman), but they do feel that it’s a chance to get Bill Clinton back in the White House. To me, that’s just icky to the nth degree.
What will be interesting if (when) she loses the nomination is how the older women feminists will react. It’s one thing to say that you are angry and won’t vote for Obama if there would be no downside to having John McCain from a feminist point of view; if John McCain really were a moderate.
Ambinder has a link to a DNC memo that was just issued. The DNC did focus group studies with swing voters in a couple of states.
So when push comes to shove are the older feminists going care about these things? These are things they have been fighting for all their lives. It seems to me unlikely that they will decide to give up on them simply because there was a close nomination fight and Hillary came close but couldn’t quite close the deal. That strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
when she loses the nomination may have just gotten a big boost. just heard on npr: Sen. Patrick Leahy Calls on Clinton to Drop Out
She won’t listen to him. But it’s one more news story that hurts her because it makes some people start to wonder what the point is in continuing through the process.
I still say the poll numbers need to show that more Democrats than not think this thing should be over before the uncommitted superdelegates really think about moving towards him in a block. Stories like this should end up being reflected in poll numbers in a couple of days.
l acquiesce to your take on it, as your “drip, drip” comments from a day or so ago have proven to be very prescient.
but like you say, it’s still a big hit and quite likely to drive her already declining numbers even lower. l think these statements are going to have a strong effect on the superdelegates who have, to date, found it advantageous to sit on the fence.
it’s past time for this charade of a candidacy to end.
no more icky than the low info voters who couldnt tell you what obama has accomplished but are voting for him because he is black.
and how icky are the high info voters who couldnt tell you what obama has accomlished?
how do we know who the low info voters prefer exactly?
do they prefer clinton over obama?
i have no idea.
there are some pretty intelligent accomplished people on the clinton endorsement list.
then again flat earther sherri on the view was for clinton till she heard obamas speech. what slot would you like to cram her into?
I’m with Fabooj about the ick factor.
Hillary was okay with me until I saw her seriously dis Obama.
Took me a while to understand the word ‘dis’ until I saw it brought to life by Mrs. Clinton. She spoke of a U.S. senator, a colleague, a fellow Democrat as if he were a 15-year-old boy. (and we all know how much respect they get.)
She made me gag. I’m not even gonna think about her gender. I don’t want that kind of person in charge of anything.
That’s a major problem I have with her. I’m really offended by politicians who talk down to voters and competitors. So, when I see Clinton doing it, I think, “Gosh, Hil, I know more about that topic than you could ever hope to. Please, just stfu.”
That, by the way, is a major reason for why Obama has slaughtered her among young people, in my view.
Some elderly white woman on a city bench wanted him to agree with her that Hillary would definitely keep those kneegrows in line. That’s the third ick factor. She’s embraced racist code words and actions in her burn-every-bridge fight to become the nominee. I loathe her for the destruction she’s creating for the party.
The Democratic Party is not The Clinton Party. The Clintons don’t own us, period.
Add to that her brazen lying about Tuzla and Ireland:
She and her handlers are fucking delusional for thinking that they could get away with nothing less than resume padding. Professors have gotten kicked out of colleges for things like this. All Hillary has been is First Lady, which despite everything to the contrary (including powerhouses like herself, Nancy Reagan and Edith Bolling Galt Wilson), is strictly a public relations “job” that isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution.
She’s never been the equivalent of Madeleine Albright or even war criminal Henry Kissinger.
She must have gotten some of this stuff from Dianne Feinstein, who in her time has fantasized about being a one-woman part of the Israeli armed forces, behavior stemming from when she was Mayor of San Francisco.
I think that I want to vote for a woman candidate for president in my lifetime.
BUT NOT THIS WOMAN CANDIDATE.
Yes, but, as I’m sure you know, elderly people tend to say things that younger, saner people find powerfully stupid. (Two words: Geraldine Ferraro.) They believe we’re being invaded by Mexicans who are going to steal the lettuce-picking positions that imaginary Americans want, too, because they watch garbage like Lou Dobbs. Hillary appeals to them, because they’re mainly elderly women who want to see a woman elected in their lifetimes, and they mistakenly believe that Clinton actually did something other than fuck up important issues when she was First Lady. In their view, it’s “her turn” and that “boy” just doesn’t know his place.
I just passed my fifty-fourth birthday this month.
You’d best believe that I’m not getting any younger…or getting more demented.
If she had a positive message instead of being negative, the gender issue is a wash. Her message is one of politics as usual divide and divide some more.
I do not think it was [woman] that was the nail in the coffin…for me is was [her]. I do not like her. I do know what the bush-clinton-bush-clinton white house is for us. This is a sign of making of dynasty that we do not subscribe to here in America. If it was someone like…oh lets say Brenda Stewart RN and Veteran or someone such as this who has no experience at all, but has a terrific message for America with a great team of advisers, she could have made it. But to our sadness, it takes a lot of $$$$$ to do this, of which Brenda Stewart does not have…she has no one on her side to bankroll her existence to do such a thing, even though she has a great message out here to push her forward. Which is and of itself is so very sad. These things should not be the intention of making of a president. I am just as qualified by the constitution as any of them are to run…
It is not the gender of it or the race of it, it is the message that is getting pushed. As I have read many times here and other places, their message on issues are much the same, but it was the way they pushed it forward and their team that did this. Besides, she had a husband that was bulling from the pulpit and that is not good. Mrs. C thought she was owed the WH and she deserved it or something to this effect, but she failed to see that this is not how we work here in our democracy. Might I suggest to Mrs Obama, she might want to think more carefully before she speaks even tho I know what she means and so does others, there are those out there that will twist her words to make her look like a meany of a person or a nut case..or what ever they want to say it means. So until this is won and in the bag, Mrs O, needs to stay out of the picture for a while, I think. She is a lovely woman and a great supporter of her husband and she is perfect for this…such as a great wife or whatever her qualifications might need to be pushed forward. Not that she is wrong, but she is not that experienced in politics like her husband is….or, so I think.
So it is not the gender of Mrs. C, it is her reputation and mind-set that has me turned off to her…besides she let her husband get in the picture and say too many of the wrong things. Too much second guessing as to what one means about something or outright baiting on things such as race or “I am the hurt one/victim” because of “things” being said. I just want the ISSUES discussed…
There is more but that basically hits the high spots, for me anyhow. I hope I have put this as kindly and respectfully as I possibly could have.
I said a while back on EuroTrib that I actually believed Clinton’s gender and Obama’s race would be help rather than hurt because I believed that both automatically gave certain people something to be excited about initially.
I was afraid, in Obama’s case, that would go out the window with “Pastorgate,” but reading the polls it seems I’ve, once again, underestimated the intelligence of the public. (I must admit I’ve done that more than once this year.) It occurred to me that I might have been underestimating the public at the time (though I doubted it), because I think a large portion of the white population recognizes the ugly history and the work still needed, and is not averse to talking about it. (Mike Huckabee’s reaction to Wright was a good example.) Obama’s speech did a lot of good by opening up a dialog, getting the feelings of all sorts of people out there.
Anyway, getting back on topic: In the end, it turns out, Obama is a damned good candidate, while Clinton is lousy. That’s what has given us this outcome, in my opinion, not her gender.
This just popped into my head: ‘she’s a twentieth-century fox’.
I’m actually not sure this IS a serious question frankly.
I rank the candidates’ genitals right up there with whether they wear a flag pin or not.
I think it helped her stay in the campaign by forming a group of older white women who are hardcore supporters. They definitely came through for her in NH, and have kept her poll numbers reasonably high despite the fact that she has no chance of winning. THe fact that her last name is Clinton has something to do with that as well of course.
I don’t think that it had anything to do with her losing the nomination, but I do think that it was the only reason that she was in the race at all. If she wasn’t the wife of former President Clinton she wouldn’t even be a Senator right now. Maybe she could’ve accomplished that on her own, but the fact is that she’s where she is only because she rode on her husbands coattails.
and bob casey is a senator because he rode in on the coattails of his father….and how many other men got to where they are because of a family connection.
i think this is subtle sexism not to put hillarys entitled career in perspective.
Yes, but most of them don’t run by claiming that being related has given them vital experience. And they don’t claim that they and the other party’s candidate have that vital experience, while their primary opponent doesn’t.
well technically she does have more experience…and even if she had no experience in anything, her position papers are way more articulate and progressive than obamas, particularly his plans for iraq and afghanistan, in spite of his lack of support for the war (which he didnt actually have to vote for).
Speak accurately: his opposition to the war. As for progressive, put this in your pipe and smoke it. And this, and this. Those last two are particularly important; Obama’s been rapidly moving left on GBLT rights as it becomes clear that he doesn’t need the support of the homophobic old guard. Also add his recent (excellent) speech on the economy.
In short: Hillary may have more progressive position papers, but she’s also got a documented tendency to exaggerate the truth when “sleep-deprived”. Obama’s got progressive positions, which I consider much more important.
i read your links….whats the point? clinton is far ahead of obama in endorsements from gay organizations nationwide.
dont play sleep deprived lotto with me…show me a side by side comparison of their position papers and tell me whose is more articulate, fleshed out, and progressive.
watch the mtv meeting with the young iraq vets and tell me which one comes across as having the better grasp on the issues, obama or clinton.
Position papers don’t matter. What matters is what they actually say and do. If Clinton’s going to claim her husband’s experience, she gets his failures as well – and those include some disgusting betrayals of GBLT concerns. (DADT and DOMA)
But hey, if you’re going to seriously argue that Clinton is more articulate, I doubt anything is going to make you think that Obama might have a good policy.
I don’t really want to step in the middle of this, but let’s take a step back : they are both extraordinarily articulate. Obama is a much more masterful orator, but let’s not confuse the two.
How about this? Obama sounds much more articulate, fleshed-out, and progressive to Zander, and I agree with his excellent analysis.
Oh, wait… Or does that not count because it’s not a
primary stateposition paper?She could’ve ditched Bill and made her own way, but they’re a package deal, and that’s the problem.
I’m tired of the assumption that because I’m middle-aged, white, and working class, I’m part of her base. This imagined voting block of angry old women isn’t my reality. She lost my support when she refused to apologize for her Iraq/Iran votes. I looked at her record and her words, nothing more. She’ll do or say anything to win and can’t be trusted. People are dying. We can’t allow another narcissist to run the show.
That’s a complicated question. One thing her campaign made clear is that being female is not the kiss of death for somebody running for president. I suspect that with the right candidate, it would be a plus.
Clinton is a special case, beset by a kind of built-in cognitive dissonance from the start. On the one hand she presents herself as a competent, experienced leader who has honed her skills and her character in the tough arena of high-stakes politics and governance: the very image of the new woman who made it on her own. On the other hand, that same much-trumpeted experience came almost entirely as a freakishly charismatic guy’s serially betrayed wife — the very image of the country music heroine who stood by her man.
That’s pretty hard to reconcile. Some people chose to see one image, some the other, some yet something else. I don’t think there’s any way she could have resolved the dissonance. Is that fair? Probably not — she should have the right to be judged on her own. On the other hand, would she be in a position to run for anything at all without her Bill attachment? I suspect not, but we’ll never know — and that’s the truly unfair part of the whole story.
The bottom line: Clinton’s gender probably set her back as a part of her particular history and circumstance. But that doesn’t apply to all women, and the fact is, every candidate has personal circumstances that they have to either finesse or turn to their advantage. Obama had a heavy load of preconception burdening him, too, but managed to make most of it work for him. Hillary didn’t. So she’s not in the least any kind of cautionary tale for other women aspiring to high office — in fact she can legitimately claim to have helped blaze their trail.
A woman acquaintance of mine who is a staunch Republican was telling me that her 4 year old daughter has been paying attention to the election and driving her mother a bit crazy by always talking about Hillary and pointing out things Hillary is doing. This woman said that even though she doesn’t support Hillary (obviously) it dawned on her one day that her daughter was growing up in a world where a woman candidate for president would never be considered unusual. And she did think that was a good thing.
So here’s what it has all finally come down to: Bitch or Negro. Your choice.
Read it.
How many of you fell all OVER Bill Clinton when he ran?
Please tell me the difference between NBill and Hillary other than the facts that:
A-Bill is more charming.
B-Hillary is smarter, hareder working and more in control of her…ahem…baser instincts.
and of course
C-She’s a witch, a bitch, a cunt, somebody’s momnmy, what the fuck does she think she’s doing trying to take John Wayne’s place, while Bill is a stud cunthound who takes care of BIZNESS!!!
The men of color who have been able to assume some of the John Wayne seats in American culture set this one up, people. Not on purpose, just…that’s the way it is. Subliminally TV sleep-hypnoed by the media to accept a studly man of color as one of “us”…and I include in this “us” group men, women and children of almost ALL races except the Spanish-speaking minority that does not get quite the hypno-message massaging as do the rest of “us” due to language and cultural barriers…Hypnotized into our sexual, racial and political role acceptances by an incredibly all-pervasive media and then given a choice between a truly gifted man of color and an equally if not gifted woman who has three times his experience in national affairs, both of whom occupy almost exactly the same positions in terms of what they say they will do if elected and who they owe BIG time for their financing…and America falls all OVER the stud while pissing on Mommy every chance it gest.
Middle aged womern in the acting business…hell, women over about thirty…have been complaining for decades about the lack of good roiles for them while over the hill action heroes in their fucking 60s strut their stuff in movie after movie.
SHEEEIT, people!!!
Do the fucking ciultural math.
Unfuckingbelievable.
The depth of sleep here is…
Unfuckingbelievable.
And I was foolish enopugh to think that a NEWSTRIKE!!!?MEDIUASTRIKE movement might actually have some legs.
From a february 21st article on HRC from My Left Wing:
He remains a front-pager.
From yesterday:
What’s left to say?
Except…
wake the fuck up!!!
To your own media-caused prejudices, if nothing else.
Lord have mercy!!!
AG
Even without editing…
It’s true and if you have any sense whatsoever you should know it.
Or…go turn on your fucking TV and glom the national news.
Lord!!!
AG
Michelle MalkinTaylor Marsh every could be.#2-The Spanish media in the U.S. is a popgun compared to the nuclear howitzers of big-time American business-produced mnedia. It does not have have NEARLY the hypno-clout of the thousands upon thouisands of English language 24/7 hypno-media outlets.
Not as effective on any level.
And if you do not know THAT, then you are hypnotized as the classic stage hypnotist’s subject who says “Hypnotized? Not ME!~~!!” and then proceeds to climb up on a chair and make mad chicken choices.
Wake the fuck up.
#1-There are “standards” everywhere. For a long while Booman allowed two “ex”-intel hustlers to post here regularly. Automatically on the front page. Maybe they still are but have better things to do with their hustle. Other assigtnments, I don’t know. One of them was a laughably racist mnotherfucker who lives in France and advocated “shooting them wogs down”…not his words, but the gist of his attiude for sure…when the Islamic youth and other lower-working class people (all of whom are held in their class places throughout Europe by systemically applied racism) started raising hell last year.
You’ll never see THAT at MLW.
3-They have each approached the voters according to their strengths and weaknesses, fabooj. As they must. Obama is an outside fighter. Elegant, graceful, but without much power. he’s stiull young yet. It will come if he survives in this game. Clinton is an inside fighter…gritty, a brawler…and when all of this started she DID have some power. Establishment power, the strongest kind. But she and the power(s that be) got old. It happens to fighters and pols both. One day they’re the champ, the next day they’re in down by 6 rounds in round 11 and looking to figure out what happened.
So it goes.
The ongoing mockery of her life and efforts however, will forever disqualify the so-called “left” from my serious consideration as a force in this country. In my opinion it is almost all driven by sexual matters…like I said, there really isn’t that much else that separates the two candidates, and many of the Clinton positions were literally forced upon her by political calculations that were themselves based on sex.
Yup.
And here come Joe Bageant’s “soft, moody, self-absorbed American lefties”, screaming for her ass on a plate.
Get real.
These are the same people who were supporting that narcissist dickhead Edwards.
Get real.
Yup.
Maybe next year.
Probably not, though.
AG
huh?
why cant you name names instead of inferring things about persons…are you afraid they will kick your ass or something?
Y’know why?
Because they mean so little to me that I have literally forgotten their names. They’re just spook names anyway. Might even be real. No spooks are “real”. Din’t your mommy teach you that?
Plus this whole scene is beginning to mean so little to me that I did not feel like burrowing through the debris of the broken left blogosphere to recall them.
Got better things to do than talk with the hypnotized.
Nap on.
AG
The Spanish-language media is part of the American media. There’s no way to pretend that it’s this separate entity when American megacorporations are feeding what’s on TV and in print because they own them. Even some of the media in other countries are still owned by American companies. They get what the American media wants them to get.
It’s like a C level minor league ball team compared to the networks and cable.
Really. You can’t see that?
AG
It’s clear that you know nothing about Spanish-language media beyond scrolling through channels. I’ve worked Spanish-language media from two sides and I see daily the effects of the American corporations on it. I live it daily.
You can make assumptions based on whatever it is you catch for a a few seconds, but you’re crazy if you don’t realized how much the American corporations affect Spanish-language media, you know…since they own them. Take Univision…it’s owned by a comglomerate headed by Haim Saban. The same Haim Saban who’s a HUGE Clinton backer and signatory on that heavy-handed letter to Pelosi.
Turn it on…LOL…that’s hilarious.
I did not say that the Spanish language stations were not owned lock, stock and barrel by American corporations.
So are C level minor league teams owned by major league baseball.
I said that their level of hypno-media influence is much less.
They are just not as “good”…bad?…as big time American media.
Why?
Follow the money.
It doesn’t pay enough.
It ain’t worth it to the bottom liners.
Again…if you can’t see that then you are blind.
But then you are writing on this blind blog which is part of a blind leftiness blogosphere, so there is no surprise there.
The ongoing kneejerk, vicious campaign against Hillary Clinton…a currently recommended diary right here asks the truly idiotic question “IS HILLARY A SOCIOPATH?”…is all you need to know about the success of subconscious programming by the mass media. It is totally driven by media images of men and women that have been literally pounded into the American subconscious for over 80 years. Since the advent of talkies.
Short synopsis?
Man hero, woman fool. Strong woman dangerous. Unless she yo’ momma. And even then she’s probably half-clown.
The racial and religious stereotypes change with the demographics.
The sexual ones?
Not really.
Spanish language stations are as guilty of this as are English language ones. They just don’t have the horsepower…the money, the clout…to be as effective at driving it down into the deep subconscious of their audience as do the English language ones here. American mass media has reached a level as a mind-control device that surpasses any other in the history of the world. The American people have been fed a line of bullshit that is nothing short of awe-inspiring. From the day JFK went down and America was told it was Lee Harvey Oswald and only lee Harvey Oswald who did the deed even after a Mafia-connected underworld guy silenced him live on national TV the media has been used to pulll their own wool over the eyes of the American sheeple with ever-increasing success.
Univision just isn’t in the same league.
i repeat…if you cannot see this, then you are blind.
Blinded by the bullshit just as are most of the rest of Americans. The ones who let BushCo steal the elections in 2000 + 2004. The ones who are now being stampeded into the Obama camp.
Beware the hyped orthdoxy, fabooj.
It’s always false.
In what direction?
I am not sure yet.
Either Barack Obama is seen as effectively less threatening to the right wing of the PermaGov should he come to power than is Hillary Clinton (He has either already made his deals or he doesn’t have the info that Clinton does and is not likely to get it real soon.) and/or they think that he will be easier to beat.
Beware the orthodoxy.
The common wisdom.
It is ALWAYS wrong, long-term.
Always.
Later…
AG
P.S. I LIVE in th Spanish subculture of NYC, fabooj. I have been a musician on the latin music scene here since the late ’60s. Tito Puente, Celia Cruz, Machito, Eddie Palmieri, Fania…the works. Bet on it. What I see is not based on quick travels through the Spanish language TV staitons.
Not hardly.
Bet on it.
arthur can you explain why its ok to say bitch but not nigger?
why are you comfortable with demeaning a woman but not a black person?
im really interested in your thoughts and feelings
You’re really interested in my thoughts and feelings?
Then read tthe goddamned article and you will see what I have to say.
It’s not ABOUT demeaning anybody. Other than the fools who are kneejerking on Hillary Cllinton, of course.
Bitch? Cunt? Nigger? Dyke? Faggot? Kike? Spic? Etc.?
No mattter to me.
ALL equally bullshit.
As is your post-feminist PC crap.
Fuck off.
AG
Hillary’s sex has helped her in that the only reason she’s running is because she’s Bill’s wife. Unfortunately for her, that’s not enough to win a “change” election. Hillary’s losing because she voted for the war in Iraq. Had she voted against the war, Obama wouldn’t even be running and she’d be the prohibitive favorite to be the next president. But since she supported a disastrous war and occupation, she’s going to get trounced like many other Republicans who voted for it. It serves her right.
That was before she did much in the Senate. But when I saw her record there (sponsoring a bill against flag-burning?? I’ll stop with the bad examples there) quickly grew less excited about Hillary as President.
The thing is, Clinton is like the record of our military – always fighting the last war – and her campaign is the one of the last of the 20th Century in style.
I don’t think Clinton’s trusted minions payed any attention to Howard Dean’s movement. They just saw him as unsuccessful, and I don’t think they still understand why Dean is so admired in the face of his failure. How dare he supplant their anointed successor to Terry McAuliffe? They saw him crash; they didn’t see the sea change.
The idea that “older women” want Hillary as President is just bull. Yes, some women of her generation and beyond want her to succeed – but many older women dislike her and distrust her. Her cohort did not embrace feminism, except in part. Some heard a lot of garbage thrown around about her, they didn’t like Bill Clinton giving her the health task force, and many were deeply ambivalent about her decision to stay with Bill after his feet of clay were exposed.
So I don’t think her sex trends much positive or negative at this point in either direction. The main trouble is that she has run a very poor campaign, given that her way of running it has been way behind the times. In effect, she’s run her campaign very much like Bush – overcontrol, and when confronted, slipping into mendacity and unwillingness to face the truth.
i’m sure there are people who voted against her merely because she was a woman, just as there are some who would not vote for Obama because of his skin color.
but she did not lose because she is a woman.
she lost because she campaigned badly,
underestimated what kind of race it would be
(didn’t really believe anyone would pose a serious threat)
and also because she is a Clinton.
I don’t believe that a William Rodham would have married Bill Clinton, thus her gender definitely helped her to be seriously mentioned for the nomination. Her considerable distance from the truth contributed more towards her losing the nomination. Here’s a speech that Hillary could have given around September-October of last year that would have sealed the deal for her (cribbed and adjusted from a speech that I wrote for a Senate candidate a few years back):
Of course, that would also have required her to change everything else about herself…
Woman is the Nigger of the World
John Lennon
Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is…think about it
Woman is the nigger of the world
Think about it…do something about it
We make her paint her face and dance
If she won’t be slave, we say that she don’t love us
If she’s real, we say she’s trying to be a man
While putting her down we pretend that she is above us
Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you don’t believe me take a look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Ah yeah…better scream about it
We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother then
We tell her home is the only place she would be
Then we complain that she’s too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you don’t believe me take a look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Yeah (think about it)
We insult her everyday on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she’s young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb
Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you don’t believe me take a look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Yes she is…if you believe me, you better scream about it.
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
******************
remember when arthur wrote the diary; Bitch or Negro
that illustrated my thesis perfectly its okay to slam the bitch but not the nigger….cant even say the word…but saying bitch is fine….somehow women can still be dehumanized….not blacks…..not on progressive websites…mostly…the words we use tell us a lot….jeffrey feldman, an expert on framing, says we pick the person who is most likeable….i wont discount that….a lot of people do not like clinton….i admit it myself she comes across as……a bitch!!!!!! obama is much more likable…thats why so many people voted for that dunce bush…he was the guy you could sit and have a beer with…he didnt scare anybody…he didnt threaten anybody….obama is the same way…he is a likeable guy…he doesnt threaten people, esp white men, the way al sharpton or jesse jackson does…they are niggers….obama passes….clinton doesnt….she doesnt pass the test…i personally dont know how anyone can look at obama and clinton side by side on the issues and come out thinking obama is smarter or more progressive than clinton (including krugmans latest opinion on both their plans for healthcare)….except for that war vote, although how everyone conveniently forgets obama saying he and bush were on the same page back in 2003 i dont know….but forget the war vote….hell forget the personalities…..forget the dirty campaigning….forget the surrogates….its not an accident women didnt get the vote till after black men…its not an accident bitch is ok to use in polite company but nigger isnt…..if we could take all clintons mistakes out she still would not have won this one….she is seen as a bitch and bitch wont win over likeable black man that passes and doesnt threaten the man.
a better question might be how much did obamas “passing” contribute to his winning the nomination?
I agree w/ the first commenter. Any other year and Clinton wins. I was for her for awhile. She is a smart person.
Obama just gives me confidence that he can bring disparate groups together and find a workable solution.
I think it’s been a major boon for her. She’s managed to draw the older feminist vote by simple virtue of being a woman, while playing up her gender to provide cover for misogynists and conservatives. Its the usual trick, used by countless wide-eyed female conservative talking heads: “Oh, but I’m a woman, so it must be okay to believe X!” Where X is, say, “religious rights” in the workplace, effectively destroying access to contraception and reproductive medical care for many women. (And don’t try to tell me she doesn’t support that – look at her legislative history. She’s sponsored bills!) Hillary’s just a lot better at it than most of them are. She wouldn’t be in the race right now if she wasn’t female.
I honestly think that’s an excellent thing. Not only has a woman been accepted as a serious presidential candidate, but so many people want a woman in office that they’re willing to accept such a poor politician just to achieve that goal. While she’d doubtless be horrified to hear it, I think she’s done more than anyone else to create the possibility of a real feminist as President eight years from now.
Probably a wash. To the extent that it helped her, it also hurt her. However, I really think she’s so iconic, so well-known, and such a force unto herself that the fact of her gender really had very little to do with anything that happened, helpful or not.
Did Hillary Clinton’s gender contribute to her losing the nomination? Hell no.
Her gender has nothing to do with it -unless being a DLCer counts as a sex . I don’t like what the Clintons did on economics in the 90’s and I see no reason to think ,with the possible exception of cigaring bimbo interns, that she’d be any different from Bill -and I wouldn’t vote for him again either , even if he gave up the thong wearing humidors.
Has Hillary Clinton’s gender . . . she has certainly attempted to exploit her gender and its been embarassing watching her using tactics that look remarkably stagey and false. As a woman, who was excited about a woman candidate, I have been increasingly turned off by the theatricality, the lack of consistent authentic presentation, and the outright lying. This is not strong to me, this is character disordered. She is looking like a female George Bush, and the fact that this is another enmeshed potential presidency seems DANGEROUS.
I would love to have a woman President one day: NOT THIS ONE! for the love of God, not this one!
Obama is authentic, transparent, and the smartest candidate we’ve seen in a long time. Thank God he’s willing to serve the nation.
This is a hard question to imagine, because it’s difficult to imagine what a “Male Hillary Clinton” would be. One could easily imagine, say, a “male Barbara Boxer,” or a “male Olympia Snowe,” or whatever. But Hillary Clinton came to prominence as the first lady, and also has all that baggage from being cheated on by her president husband. Once you take all that away with the “male Hillary Clinton,” I’m not sure what you’re left with.
I do think that Clinton’s gender has certainly helped her during the actual campaign season – (older white) women voters saved her campaign in New Hampshire and have generally prevented her from getting crushed since. I think a male establishment candidate who struggled as much as Clinton did early would have been finished off by now.
So, anyway, I think this is ultimately unanswerable, because a “male Hillary Clinton” is basically unimaginable.