Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

It's a tired argument that there is no policy behind Obama's soaring rhetoric. I sometimes wonder if any commentators who make it their business to follow politics have bothered to search the legislative record or even take a cursory look at the candidate's web site. Here is a link for starters; http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/Obama_Keeping_Americas_Promise.pdf

Reply
Report this post

I think Estrich is right on target about sexism invading this election. I think it's not so much about how great Obama is, but the belief that the nation is not ready for a female Commander-in-Chief. As I listen to Clinton define her policies and ace the debates, I can't help but think we are up against "good ole boy" politics. It saddens me to know that there exists an intelligent, amazing, and overly capable woman that can step into the shoes of the presidency, but will more than likely be defeated by the "isms" of our society.

Reply
Report this post

In late 2002 I heard a speech by Hillary Clinton emphatically supporting the resolution for the invasion of Iraq and stating that having been in the White House with Bill she knew first hand how necessary the invasion was. At that moment I became totally negative about Hillary. I swore I would never support her. She has regularly supported appropriations for the occupation of Iraq. She tries to give the impression that she is for withdrawal while she at the same time supports permanent bases and permanent "non-combat" U.S. military personnel in Iraq. She has voted for two resolutions threatening Iran and has said that everything, including an attack on Iran, is still "on the table". I oppose Hillary Clinton because Hillary, like Margaret Thatcher, is a warmonger, not because she is a woman.

Reply
Report this post

If Susan thinks its about Hillary's gender then you would have to believe no woman in America would do any better then Hillary in this campaign. I prefer to think that after a few years of retrospect even the demos are not ready to go back to the sleazy conduct of the Clinton White House and give the Presidency to the very woman who is very gullible about her husband's character, doesn't give a damn, or hangs on to his coat tails for power.

Reply
Report this post

Susan...you are one of the smartest people in politics. I would vote for any one else ...but Hillary...and you are on target. People do not like her. I don't ...why ...to me she is an enabler to her husband "slick". To me the "G" word is gender...that has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned.

Reply
Report this post

I think that Ms. Estrich misses the point with the lack of support for Ms. Clinton. I'll give my family, where the only Clinion supporters are over 75. My wife and the four daughters I've talked with on this subject are strongly opposed to her. The single main reason is her willingness to win at any cost. The prime example of this was the pulling of the race card in order to alienate white voters from Obama. Lest my points be dismisissed simply because I'm male, let me point out that I come from a long and honerable tradition of matriarchial households....I grew up in one, my folks both grew up in them, my wife grew up in one. My kids (in their 20s) all knows who's boss in the family...and it's not me. I admit living in a household with 3 alpha females was a bit hard on me, but strong women have always been the women I tended to want to hang with (and in one case marry...(As an aside, I took my wife's name when I was married...but that had to to with symmatry, not the fact that I have a strong wife). Hillery has the problem that she shares the obvious ruthlessness of Bill without the charisma that makes one forget it. She's a qualified senator, but taken as a politician, she offends the women in my family. So, it's not that the boys are beating up on the girl....she's losing fair and square. The nation is finally sick of the nasty trends in politics and Hillary has been hurt by this just as Romney has.

Reply
Report this post

I don't know about anyone else, but I was planning on voting for Hillary all along. Obama convinced me I should vote for him, despite me strong feeling that Hillary would be the safe choice. Why? Two reasons: 1) If Obama stays true to his word we might be able to make changes in this country that would be impossible otherwise due to the influence of lobbyists and special interest contributors; 2) I see young people in their early twenties out with Obama signs on freeway overpasses, and I have never seen that before in my entire adult life (I'm 45). I feel bad for Hillary; I really do.

Reply
Report this post

Ms. Estrich, I think you're wrong about us not knowing Hillary. The problem is that we know her only too well and we don't like what we see. Greed, gratuitous meanness, violence, the ability to tell whoppers with a straight face, racism. If Hillary is what you say she is, then there surely must be a vast right-wing conspiracy - from Obama and the Democratic voters. Frankly, I'd rather vote for you than Hillary any day.

Reply
Report this post

Well, I guess we have the vast right wing conspiracy against her. The republican attack machine is against her. Now, the majority of demcrats are against her. I suppose the face-saving explanation is that she is a woman. That's much easier than the truth that all these people have an abiding distrust and dislike of her. Supporters point to her positions as if they are printed up and divorced from the person. They aren't. Her problem is that people see her act and speak, and have an immediate and instinctive dislike of her. At the same time, they have an immediate and instinctive likng for Obama. Bottom line: they hate Hillary.

Reply
Report this post

Hillary's problem is three-fold. First, as Ms. Estrich observes, she is dislikable. Much like Al Gore, she comes across as sanctimonious and dismissive of anyone who would dare question any part of her agenda. She always claims the moral high ground, but no one can figure out what this is based on. To claim sexism and gender bias as the reason for her recent misfortune is to overlook the outright racism that Obama faces. My son is an Obama volunteer at the University of Texas in Austin, the most liberal city in Texas. The calls he has been making to registered democrats are unbelievable. The “N” word is prevalent in many of the calls and in Texas, at least, is a much larger obstacle to overcome than gender bias. In the last few years Texas has elected 1 female governor, 1 female U.S. senator, and countless female congresspersons. African Americans haven't faired nearly so well. Secondly, she has a problem with her last name. Her husband was probably the best politician America has seen in the past 70 years, but he came with a heavy load of baggage. Hillary now, much like Al Gore in 2000, is being punished for carrying his water. Their good cop/bad cop routine before Super Tuesday was shamelessly transparent and has reminded the populace of how tiring and embarrassing they had become. With all of the abuses of power that the Bush administration has flaunted, America has grown wary of reelecting half of a family that did the same thing. Most American women would grade the most powerful man in the world being sexually serviced by an intern who wasn't old enough to rent a car as an abuse of power. Some might even consider it to be sexist. Finally, she just might not be the strong candidate that all of the pundits and party elite had assumed. Most of her early accolades came in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses in what was by anyone's standard a very thin field. When the actual contests began and real votes began to be counted, she found herself more and more vulnerable. Since the Obama machine first began to gain momentum she has been unable to strike a chord with the electorate. Perhaps the public is on to something.

Reply
Report this post

Hillary's problem is three-fold. First, as Ms. Estrich observes, she is dislikable. Much like Al Gore, she comes across as sanctimonious and dismissive of anyone who would dare question any part of her agenda. She always claims the moral high ground, but no one can figure out what this is based on. To claim sexism and gender bias as the reason for her recent misfortune is to overlook the outright racism that Obama faces. My son is an Obama volunteer at the University of Texas in Austin, the most liberal city in Texas. The calls he has been making to registered democrats are unbelievable. The “N” word is prevalent in many of the calls and in Texas, at least, is a much larger obstacle to overcome than gender bias. In the last few years Texas has elected 1 female governor, 1 female U.S. senator, and countless female congresspersons. African Americans haven't faired nearly so well. Secondly, she has a problem with her last name. Her husband was probably the best politician America has seen in the past 70 years, but he came with a heavy load of baggage. Hillary now, much like Al Gore in 2000, is being punished for carrying his water. Their good cop/bad cop routine before Super Tuesday was shamelessly transparent and has reminded the populace of how tiring and embarrassing they had become. With all of the abuses of power that the Bush administration has flaunted, America has grown wary of reelecting half of a family that did the same thing. Most American women would grade the most powerful man in the world being sexually serviced by an intern who wasn't old enough to rent a car as an abuse of power. Some might even consider it to be sexist. Finally, she just might not be the strong candidate that all of the pundits and party elite had assumed. Most of her early accolades came in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses in what was by anyone's standard a very thin field. When the actual contests began and real votes began to be counted, she found herself more and more vulnerable. Since the Obama machine first began to gain momentum she has been unable to strike a chord with the electorate. Perhaps the public is on to something.

Reply
Report this post

I can't speak for anybody else, but for me the problem with Hillary is not her, it's Bill. If she had divorced Bill I would find it hard to decide between her and Obama, but I can't bear the thought of Bill Clinton back in the White House in any capacity.

Reply
Report this post

Speaking as an Obamacan I think the Clinton campaign ran on the wrong message. After 7 years of Bush her experience may have seemed like a winner. However, Obaama's message of change resonated more. Make no mistake, they are both politicians, but she has yet to make a compelling case for how her brand of politics will be any differnet from Bush's. If anything, her running like a Republican may be why Obama's message of change seems to have more "authenticity".

Reply
Report this post

Susan's dated argument about believing it's always about sexism with Hillary just shows her experience is out of touch now. Saying that Obama is without substance is just the Hillary party line...after all, during campaigns, how much can anyone really do except sell oneself? Policy papers and pat answers mean nothing, a hostile or self-interested congress can nullify a grand plan easily, and it's just as glib to put out detailed policy papers that haven't passed muster with congress. In the end, it's all words...we do have to try and judge other qualities from what we see, not what either say, or in Hillary's case, claims of glass ceilings.

Reply
Report this post

Ms. Estrich has it exactly right. As a liberal Democratic man who leans toward Obama --I have always found Senator Clinton like her husband a bit conservative -- I have wondered at the visceral distaste people have for her. My boss got it in one pass. He said people can't stand a strong woman. The Hillary haters with whom he or I have spoken haven't been able to correctly identify a single issue with which they disagreed with her. Why were they against her? It was because "she's a bitch". [Polls show that the public think Ms. Clinton more liberal than the rest of the presidential field when she was in fact more conservative].

Reply
Report this post

It's not sexism. And the obvious proof of that is right in front of your eyes is Obama's success. People don't like Hillary because she and Bill are all about tactics whereas Barack is himself. Hillary either doesn't like her real self, or she's afraid people won't like her, or she's believed in tactics for so long it has become her. At any rate, she is demeaning and embarrassing herself daily and she doesn't seem to have a clue.

Reply
Report this post

About comment #27 and similar partonizing posts: In other words, let's put Obama to the back of the bus like a good boy and let the caucasian majority feed off his popularity (or use it) and let him get his experience from what? What major accomplishments has Hilary done other than claim she's achieved it? It's more about supposed and assumed seniority. Hillary is a war monger, she voted for the war and won't apologize for it, and her husband (source of 80% of her experience) shot off cruise missiles like a squirt gun on a summer day. That's who we're getting. That and an automatic 45% negative vote against her at the starting line. Feminists are quick to marginalize Obama, and it's about sexism and race in many cases. Don't fear about Obama, he's a big boy and way past the age of needing a mother figure to fear over his possible immaturity and lack of ability to face harsh realities, which is another way of saying he isn't intelligent enough to figure it out, and lacks the character to face challenges. Lady, I'm sure a smart guy like Obama will do just fine and rise to the task, as many a great leader did in the past, as I'm sure Hillary could if she could get Bill out of her hair.

Reply
Report this post

Ms. Estrich: "A strong showing on Super Tuesday???" Wasn't Hillary supposed to have slammed the door on all challengers by that point? Give me a break that you don't know why Hillary isn't doing well. You are too smart for that and never have I seen you at a loss for opinion. She isn't doing well because she is UNAPPEALING compared to Obama. Why can't learned, professional people like yourselves just admit that?

Reply
Report this post

I should add that it's been written in a few sources that Hillary is very influenced and wants to impress the Generals, and will be afraid to appear weak or not decisive against terrorism or agression in any case...she would be in fact an amateur possibly playing with our national weapons arsenal either with the advise of similarly inexperienced staff, or on the advice of Generals. Not a warmonger, but definitely an accident waiting to happen.

Reply
Report this post

This argument is getting old and tired: Sexism? Hardly. You want to say it like it is then here it is: Hillary Clinton is unlikeable. Hillary and Bill Clinton struck fear in the hearts of Democrats everywhere. They must have mistaken it for love. Obama gives every Democrat the opportunity to kick the Clintons (both of them) in the groin while not having to vote for a republican. They can simply vote for Mr. Cool and worry about the republican later. This has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman. This has everything to do with Hillary being a loathsome person.

Reply
Report this post

Susan you just don't get!!! It's not that Hillary is a woman; its that she is a Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! With these people about them first and America second!!! That is how 49% of America looks at Bill and Hill.

Reply
Report this post

Thank you Susan. This is a most disturbing campaign. One example, current today, a crawl on Fox News: "Hillary tries to hold lead in Texas" which should have read, and would have read about a man: "Hillary holds lead in Texas" There are thousands of examples. Why does Obama not comment on this? Is he missing it? Does he believe in the possibility of a sexist bias? Was he not disturbed, PERSONALLY DISTURBED, by the comment "pimping out Chelsea?" What is he position on Israel? Exactly what does he mean by "change?" Who and what position is held by the senior woman on his campaign (not ceremonial list, but [aid list?) Who is the senior African-American on his campaign. He seems not to notice sexism, and seems not to notice racism which are the two ever-present, but not to be discussed, key elements of this campaign. What actually has he done legislatively? Not piling on, not listing his name, but what example is there of his leadership beyond organizing Chicago, which is a very empty reference. Bill Clinton told the truth, he won the argument, and he did not introduce racism. Really, we are experiencing the early days of limited political speech, and Obama is not showing leadership. He is a dangerous man. Vapid and shadowy and vague. Scares me.

Reply
Report this post

Thank you Susan. This is a most disturbing campaign. One example, current today, a crawl on Fox News: "Hillary tries to hold lead in Texas" which should have read, and would have read about a man: "Hillary holds lead in Texas" There are thousands of examples. Why does Obama not comment on this? Is he missing it? Does he believe in the possibility of a sexist bias? Was he not disturbed, PERSONALLY DISTURBED, by the comment "pimping out Chelsea?" What is he position on Israel? Exactly what does he mean by "change?" Who and what position is held by the senior woman on his campaign (not ceremonial list, but [aid list?) Who is the senior African-American on his campaign. He seems not to notice sexism, and seems not to notice racism which are the two ever-present, but not to be discussed, key elements of this campaign. What actually has he done legislatively? Not piling on, not listing his name, but what example is there of his leadership beyond organizing Chicago, which is a very empty reference. Bill Clinton told the truth, he won the argument, and he did not introduce racism. Really, we are experiencing the early days of limited political speech, and Obama is not showing leadership. He is a dangerous man. Vapid and shadowy and vague. Scares me.

Reply
Report this post

I believe I know the Clintons very well and I don't like either one. It has nothing to do with sexism. I don't like her nor do I trust her. She certainly believes in a double standard; e.g., her White House years are part of her 'experience', yet she had nothing to do with NAFTA -- she wasn't even a Senator yet. You can't have things both ways, Senator Clinton. You can't take credit for your husband's few successes yet want the people to forget about his many failures -- personally and politically.

Reply
Report this post

Liberals will not rest until they have a disabled black woman lesbian illegal alien win the Presidency. Until that happens, the whining will continue.

Reply
Report this post

Give me a break. If females don't want to be defined by gender, they are going to have to stop hiding behind it whenever it suits them to invoke it. I still remember the bellyaching following Ms. Clinton's weepy moment on camera and right before the New Hampshire primary, when some women purporting to be feminists were already denouncing the electorate because men can cry and get away with but women get stereotyped as weak when they do it. That commentary abruptly disappeared when it turned out that she did inexplicably well in New Hampshire and the only credible explanation was that showing a little bit of humanity and genuine feeling for a change made the difference. Too bad she and her campaign handlers didn't quite grok that. Ms. Clinton needs to be seen not as a female candidate but a candidate who happens to female, just as Mr. Obama has had the statesmanship to make voters see him as a candidate who happens to be black. I have no doubt that if their two life stories were to be compared, he could claim a longer and more profound list of civil rights grievances than she could. But he has no interest in going there, and I suspect that one of the unique benefits of his leadership will be his ability to convey to those who want to keep leaning on the same old excuses for failure that it's time to leave that crap behind and stand up.

Reply
Report this post

Give me a break. If females don't want to be defined by gender, they are going to have to stop hiding behind it whenever it suits them to invoke it. I still remember the bellyaching following Ms. Clinton's weepy moment on camera and right before the New Hampshire primary, when some women purporting to be feminists were already denouncing the electorate because men can cry and get away with but women get stereotyped as weak when they do it. That commentary abruptly disappeared when it turned out that she did inexplicably well in New Hampshire and the only credible explanation was that showing a little bit of humanity and genuine feeling for a change made the difference. Too bad she and her campaign handlers didn't quite grok that. Ms. Clinton needs to be seen not as a female candidate but a candidate who happens to female, just as Mr. Obama has had the statesmanship to make voters see him as a candidate who happens to be black. I have no doubt that if their two life stories were to be compared, he could claim a longer and more profound list of civil rights grievances than she could. But he has no interest in going there, and I suspect that one of the unique benefits of his leadership will be his ability to convey to those who want to keep leaning on the same old excuses for failure that it's time to leave that crap behind and stand up.

Reply
Report this post

Re: Rebecca You and Estrich have it all wrong. Most women don't like her. Its as simple as that. Look, she's getting burned by HER OWN PARTY. If she can't get strong majorities of her own party, how do you think she's fair in a general election. "That women", to borrow a phrase from her dysfunctional husband, has approximately zilch in her own accomplishments. She hooked her wagon to a charmer and, like a ramora, has lived off his tidbits. Can anyone really believe that but for her marriage to him that she would be a US Senator from NY? She was a First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the United States and a former partner of a corporate law firm in Little Rock. Her credentials end there. And THAT is why most successful women, strong women who have made it on their own merit, their own talents, brains and guts, despise her. America loves a strong woman. She's a weak one. Give me an American Maggie Thatcher and I'll be out there knocking on doors for her. But Hillary? Please. We need to move on. Really, assuming the nails in that family's political coffin get hammered in Ohio or Texas, it will be the best thing for the democratic party in the long term. Its next problem? The apparent nominee. Mr. Obama.

Reply
Report this post

We know her verry well. That is why the 50% unfavorable rating. The time has come for young democrats to take over from the 'establishment'. Seems like that is what Bill & Hillary did many years ago.

Reply
Report this post

Re: Rebecca I am an over 70 woman from South Carolina, a life long Democrat, feminist and Hillary supporter. who has switched from Hillary to Obama. It was a tortured decision, but Bill Clinton made it easier for me when he began the negativism in SC. I had to make a quick decision . It became clear from his approach that another Clinton presidency would be business as usual. Obama is a ray of hope for civility in Washington. I hope that Estrich doesn't have the opportunity to write a similar column on racism.

Reply
Report this post

This ought to be parody, but Estrich seems sincere. Of course, she's the one who participated in the Mondale and Dukakis campaigns (can anyone here think of more extreme examples of political loss?) Now we have the Democrats who invented Identity Politics, in which voters are not individuals but parts of aggrieved classes (female, uneducated, Black, Hispanic, transgendered, or what-have-you). I recall with bemusement the Al Gore website that started off with asking the viewer to log into the group that best represented one's "concerns,''as though there was some part of my voter "identity" that was more crucial than that of being an American. But I digress. It is simply too funny that Hillary, who thought she could ride the identity train of being both female (more than 1/2 half the voter population is female) and the wife of the "first Black President" )about 90% of Black voters vote Dem) into the Presidency. Now we see that 90% of Black voters are voting Obama. It's a truism that without the Black vote no Dem cold have been elected to national office in the last @ 50 years. Hillary and Susan are hoist on their own race petard.

Reply
Report this post

You pegged it about gender. I think it is a gender issue. I know actual women who will actually say that they do not believe a woman "has any business leading this country". These people are in my family. It's becomes a heated debate when this comes up. I've been a Hillary supporter when Bill was in office and knew I wanted her for president back then. Now that she's finally running, I'm thrilled and at the same time, it's disappointing to see that people's mentality hasn't really changed in all this time... even after all we've been through. We need a strong leader who's not going to be another war monger and not going to put our country further into debt. That's Hillary. I voted for her in the primary and I'm contributing to her campaign, blogging FOR her, and praying that she gets the nomination - and I will vote for her in the running. And you had it pegged again with Obama. He's a fantastic speaker. He's enthusiastic and empowering and idealistic. The kind of idealistic we haven't seen since Kennedy. The thing I fear about Obama is that if he were elected, is that the moment he took office, the harsh reality would hit and he wouldn't be up for the task of handling the job, and his promises would go majorly unfulfilled and he would be bulldozed by general politics. He's not in the big game yet and he's not ready for it. Hillary for Prez and Obama for Vice is what I say. He'd get his experience in and we'd have a fantastic ticket that would be sure to win.

Reply
Report this post

Ms Estrich: The problem is not gender or sexism, the problem is Hillary. As a Republican, I am buying a bottle of the finest champaign for next Tuesday when Obama cleans her clock in Texas and she and her husband will have to face the facts that many, if not most ,Americans are simply tired of them both. Tired of being lectured, tired of having fingers wagged at us, tired of the endless political triangulations and tired of the drama. I believe Maureen Dowd articulated this well in one of her recent oped pieces. If liberals are saying these types of things, then the 90's that they claim so much credit for have become practically ecliped by fatique and satiation of the Clintons. It is no wonder that someone as charming,energetic and articulate as Obama is has captured peoples imaginations, even without a cogent message on issues (except the war). When people are tired they will resort to what seems easy. Please don't succumb to your own form of gender bias . The problem is Hillary.

Reply
Report this post

Like others here, I admire Susan Estrich an honest, insightful commentator. But she occasionally has a tin ear. This shows in alleging gender bias. In this case she is too close to the candidate. By all accounts if you are a personal friend of Hillary Clinton, she is warm, generous person and "nothing like the person you see on TV." But the electorate doesn't know her personally, it knows her through TV. Publicly she isn't likable. Every survey since she first hinted she wanted to be President has shown that. She has sky-high negatives for no other reason than her public persona. Where else do we see that? Look at primaries in both parties. G.W. Bush was far more likable and far less accomplished than McCain in 2000, but who got the GOP nomination? In 1980, George H.W. Bush had a far better resume than Reagan, but Reagan came off more likeable. In 1988, Gephardt, Gore, Biden, Simon and Hart all had more experience than Dukakis. Hart was the most likable, but imploded. Dukakis came across more appealing to the primary voters. When little ideologically separates the candidates, people start looking at the candidates they like. In Hollywood, they say a star "has that certain something." Obama has that certain something. Hillary, not so much. I also find the argument, made by a Democrat about a Democratic primary an interesting charge. Are we supposed to believe that Democrats are suddenly more sexist than racist? So why isn't Edwards the nominee? I don't think enough people, Republican or Democrat, vote that way in 2008 to make a difference. Negative attribution is always less motivating than positive reinforcement. Barack Obama is appealing in many ways that Hillary Clinton lacks. Its as simple as that without having to make any claims about gender bias.

Reply
Report this post

It's the undemocratic caucuses. It's the small states. It's the media giving Obama a pass. It's Obama's dirty trick campaigning. Now, it's her gender. Please. It's amusing watching Susan and other Hillary supporters struggling to find out why the voters prefer Obama. It cant be Hillary herself so it must be sexism. She is a divisive person. She doesn't have much charisma. She is often shrill. She comes off as being disingenuous. Gender has nothing to do with it. We simply refer to men who possess these qualities by another name. Hillary's campaign brings me those lovely memories of being back in 8th grade. Citing Obama's kindergarten essay? Plagiarism charges? Posting pictures of him in a robe? "Get Real", is that supposed to be catchy? Did Harold Ickes really just point to the Saturday Night Live sketch as evidence of something? Are these some kind of jokes? Perhaps, instead of blaming caucuses or badmouthing states after they dont vote for her, some of Hillary's campaign staff should also try a little self-reflection.

Reply
Report this post

From my perspective, the question isn't why has Obama won, but why did Hillary not lose sooner. Hillary started with the support of most Democrats. Including men. She led with a 70% rating. It was her election to loose. She was inevitable. I've been watching this campaign daily since the end of October. I have chronicled her campaigns racist, and dirty campaign. It is founded on anything but experience. It is why she lost my vote, that she started with. It made me angry that she was the only Dem candidate to vote for Iran, and the only Dem Senator to vote against coupling Iraq funding to progress. It maked me angry that she tried to debase by vote with sexist calls to vote for her because she's a women. Her racist tactics that belittle Obama and MLK, her responses that call us deluded for wanting change; or attempts to disenfranchise voters in NV; or having to win by changing the rules in MLK and JFK, or by overthowing popular support with superdelegates; or by lying about Obama's present votes, are all valid reasons to not vote for Hillary. The G opinion only holds up if one shuts one's eyes to her campaign strategy's, or assumes that everyone agrees that the end justifies the means. Yes, given that more woman support Hillary, I agree that it is the gender. But, it is not the gender that pushed people away, it is the gender that kept them in longer. Given Hillary's tactics, though, even the most ardent supporters have turned away from her. See for example, Lornal Brett Howard, past president of NOW in Chicago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Reply
Report this post

There's a reason the sexism issue is so prominent in this primary. It's a button Hillary has pushed over and over again to suit her strategy, and she uses the usual phrases of "glass ceiling" and complaints of being attacked because she is a "strong" woman. Also, taunting your opponent's speeches is essentially taunting those who are inspired by those. It's no wonder she's blown one of the biggest leads ever seen. Al

Reply
Report this post

Susan is making the most tired argument that there is on Hillary.The point is we are tired of them.It doesn't matter which one runs,we're tired of them.This is not about gender.It is the wrong woman at the right time.

Reply
Report this post

I can confirm, it's gender. After hundreds of phone calls in numerous states on behalf of Senator Clinton's campaign, male voter's will not vote for her. As soon as a man answered the phone and I identified myself as a Hillary Clinton volunteer, I was either hung up on or given a resounding NO as to voting for her. Where as when it was a female voter, they all supported and voted for her. It's really terrible that this truly qualified candidate is being discriminated against based on her gender. Also, the media has played a major role in this, especially CNBC!

Reply
Report this post

I totally agree with Susan. I am not an American, but have been living in this country since 8 years now.To me sexism seems very prevalent in America and I feel that ,to some extent, American women are to blame for that. I feel that most American women are happy being pretty and catching a rich husband. This is the reason why there are very few American women leading organizations. I am a technical person and the ratio of females to males is about 1:20, in my department (back home the ratio was 1:1). The point I'm trying to make is that the majority of women in this country are NOT ambitious and when the public sees an ambitious woman, she's automatically disliked. CNN interviewed a few people about their voting prefrences and a woman said that she dislikes Clinton because she's too ambitious!!! If a man is ambitious then it's great, but if a woman is ambitious then ambition somehow becomes a negative quality.

Reply
Report this post

I totally agree with Susan. I am not an American, but have been living in this country since 8 years now.To me sexism seems very prevalent in America and I feel that ,to some extent, American women are to blame for that. I feel that most American women are happy being pretty and catching a rich husband. This is the reason why there are very few American women leading organizations. I am a technical person and the ratio of females to males is about 1:20, in my department (back home the ratio was 1:1). The point I'm trying to make is that the majority of women in this country are NOT ambitious and when the public sees an ambitious woman, she's automatically disliked. CNN interviewed a few people about their voting prefrences and a woman said that she dislikes Clinton because she's too ambitious!!! If a man is ambitious then it's great, but if a woman is ambitious then ambition somehow becomes a negative quality.

Reply
Report this post

I totally agree with Susan. I am not an American, but have been living in this country since 8 years now.To me sexism seems very prevalent in America and I feel that ,to some extent, American women are to blame for that. I feel that most American women are happy being pretty and catching a rich husband. This is the reason why there are very few American women leading organizations. I am a technical person and the ratio of females to males is about 1:20, in my department (back home the ratio was 1:1). The point I'm trying to make is that the majority of women in this country are NOT ambitious and when the public sees an ambitious woman, she's automatically disliked. CNN interviewed a few people about their voting prefrences and a woman said that she dislikes Clinton because she's too ambitious!!! If a man is ambitious then it's great, but if a woman is ambitious then ambition somehow becomes a negative quality.

Reply
Report this post

Hillary entered this campaign with a smugness, an air of entitlement. Her strident, confrontational, and abrrasive style has finally worn thin - even with ardent Democrats. It has nothing to do with "sexism", Ms. Estrich. Men (AND women!!) are not going to vote for someone for President who shows no genuine emotion (fake tears don't count!), and seems to be always spoiling for a fight. Most humans don't live their lives in such a mental state, and we damn sure aren't going to vote for such a person for President. Most men I know want a strong, compassionate, caring person - regardless of gender. But abrasiveness and coldness are never admired. Perhaps it's time feminists realize this type of behavior doesn't show how far one has come, just how far one has to go.

Reply
Report this post

Re: jah Did you ever think that it was the women you were talking with that were the sexists? If not racists? So, if you agree with a feminist, you are open minded but if you disagree you are automatically a sexist. Nice logic for a narrow mind. I find it refreshing that finally the media is speaking of her gender gap. They have been talking about it with republican candidates for years.

Reply
Report this post

It's ridiculous for Susan Estrich to write that men won't vote for Hillary in the Democratic Primaries because she's a woman. I voted for Hillary in her second Senate race even though I did not vote for her in her first Senate race. But I won't vote for Hillary for President because she is a flawed candidate. Her strengths are that she's intelligent and very organized, both qualities I respect in a leader. But, she is a divisive politician, who polarizes voters. Look at how she polarized the African American voters in South Carolina. She won't admit her mistakes, such as her vote on the war in Iraq and her support of NAFTA, and she doesn't seem to adapt to changing situations very well. She plans incredibly well, but when the plan doesn't work out, she struggles.