"A man took it away from a woman, Then they yelled at her for complaining about it."

This seems somewhat plausible.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/21/94930/5967/116/519573

That quote from Joy Behar, whom I normally enjoy whenever I see clips of "The View," reveals a stunning sense of entitlement and elitism, and yes, sexism, on the part of Joy Behar specifically, and Clinton supporters generally.

First, nothing has been taken away from Hillary Clinton. She never possessed the nomination for it to be taken away from her. Yes, she was at one time considered "inevitable" and the frontrunner for the nomination, but that was before any votes were cast. Once the contest began, she fell behind quickly, finishing third in Iowa. Sure, she bounced back, and has waged a hell of a fight for the nomination, winning some states in blowouts and others narrowly, and losing some states in blowouts and others narrowly. But since early February, Barack Obama has held the lead in popular vote and pledged votes, and he has never relinquished it. He has won the most states. He has won the most pledged delegates. He leads in superdelegates that have committed. He leads in popular votes cast if you include all the states fairly (You can't include Michigan since he was not on the ballot).

Yet, most women who are Clinton supporters do feel this way. They feel that something has been taken from them. My mother feels this way, as does my Aunt. And I understand the disappointment that comes from seeing your canidate, whom you believed in and really really wanted to win, lose the nomination. But you can't say that anything was taken away from Hillary, for that implies that the nomination was hers to begin with. Despite the "inevitability" crap, the nomination was never Hillary's to begin with. She had to compete to earn it. And she failed in that competition, and someone else won.

But it should be:

She didn't earn it, so a man stepped up and earned it, and she yelled at him for it.

The whole "entitlement" meme, I just can't wrap my head around it. It smacks of monarcy.

This is exactly the rotten smell of politics that I see. The sad thing is that the only person who can change this meme is the candidate herself. The more she behaves like Obama has usurped her right, the more her supporters will frothe at the mouth.

She needs to come out and discard this notion before any of her supporters can or will.

EDIT: One wonders, of course, if Clinton *herself* looks at it this way. That would kill any hope for a remedy along the lines you mention.

claim it was stolen or given away either, right?

What makes you think this is going to the convention? It's pretty clear that Obama will have the requisite number of delegates to make him the presumptive nominee, in very short order. Do you know how many delegates he needs to reach 2025? Do you understand that whatever the RBC decides on May 31, won't change things appreciably? In the face of clear evidence that Obama will shortly be the presumptive nominee, it just seems odd that you'd think, Hillary still has a realistic chance.

they both need the SD's and the SD's votes do NOT and canNOT be counted except at the Convention in Denver...that's the RULES!

It's just what I expected and it's sad.

The idea that both require superdelegates doesn't mean that somehow it's magically even. Obama's going to have an absolute majority of all delegates in very short order, maybe even before the May 31st meeting. Pledged delegates don't vote until the convention either--that doesn't mean they're not there.

Obama, to change their minds at the Convention?

What could possibly motivate them to do that?

Clinton won't take it to the convention. She is still a Democrat.

:rofl:

the primaries/caucuses. Hillary's crew should have been wise enough not to be taken in by it.

:evilfrown:

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand to be treated as an equal, and then when things squarely and fairly don't break your way, claim it's because you're a woman. It feeds into every unsavory and unfair stereotype there is, and those women who readily jump on this bandwagon are just perpetuating it.

I also can't stomach this sense of entitlement that she feels toward the office. Even if I did not have fundamental disagreements with her policies, that alone would have given me pause when deciding whom to support. Nobody owes her anything. Nobody owes Bill anything.

I do give her credit for being the first woman to stage a credible campaign for the President of the United States. She has broken ground. But now instead of a trailblazer I see someone who is now in it for her own ego, best interests of the party (and by extension the country) be damned. That's sad, because that mindset in and of itself negates whatever positive message her being a candidate has sent.

Why is it that HRC is being seen as the be-all, end-all of potential candidates for President of the United States? Is she the only qualified woman in politics today, at any level? That is the question we should be asking.

choice lost? All this does it make women look bad. And they are doing it too themselves.

women reacting *against* the Clintonian-entitlement thing - in this very thread, even.

Many of the women who are strongly for Clinton are older, and from comments I've heard, they view Obama as a young upstart. There is no doubt in my mind that these women have faced similar situations throughout their careers: They worked incredibly well and hard, and then a promotion was given to a young upstart, simply because he was male. Or maybe they were subjected to disrespect from young men who were in positions of authority over them, again simply because they were male.

We all know those situations were commonplace for the Baby Boom generation, and still are in some arenas. So maybe the women who have experienced this institutionalized sexism in their lifetimes are seeing this campaign as the same type of thing. We can argue until the cows come how about whether this interpretation is accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that a great many women out there are taking the situation very, very personally.

If our party is to come together—in August or November—these feeling have to be addressed in a non-dismissive way. If we are to truly be a big-tent party, then we cannot reject out of hand those who disagree with us. Understanding and empathy go a long way, and are far more productive in the long run than insults.

I've never felt or believed HC was entitled to the nod.

She is entitled to fight for the nod.

From January on, she's had to fight Obama AND the media. From February on, she's had to fight Obama AND the self-identified liberal media AND the Democratic Party. The latter of whom have been waving palm fronds and greasing the way for Obama ever since Teddy's endorsement.

It's not exactly been a fair fight.

Every punch she has managed to land on him has generated boos from those insiders. When women look at what's going on, they perceive a totally unfair fight, and look for explanations as to why HC's hands keep getting tied and insiders keep saying it's going to be Obama, even though things are so very close.

Is it because of sexism? I don't know. I do know that sexism and gender-based attacks have been used as a tool against Clinton, especially from the media. It may not be the reason, but it's still a tool that has been used against her by Obama's campaign and supporters. We do know that much.

While it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it's perfectly okay to use sex against Clinton's candidacy, (except by the Obama campaign, who've gone out of their way to publicly be seen backing off on sexist attacks for strategic, but not moral reasons), it's not okay for race to be used against Obama.

But there are a lot of Democratic women like me who want more change than a dynastic candidate can deliver. The slogan that it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush is cute but not really true. Dynastic succession alienates some of us women Democrats. So does the use of racially divisive campaign tactics, however exalted the desired end result may be.

you create equal resentment among men as a backlash.

to ignore the other jillion TRUE cry-wolves. Just like white folks know exactly 2 racial incidents better than any others (Sharpton and Duke), and they use them to "refute" all of the other jillion true one.

Just not Hillary. She has too many political negatives, too much baggage. But surely there are lots of other things of significance that she might do if Obama wins and the Democrats not only hold but increase their majorities in Congress. Then we might see a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court rather than ...
<I hate to think about the alternative, with the likely overturning of Roe v Wade being only ONE of the most visible of the MAJOR disasters we'd see if McCain wins>

"Yet, most women who are Clinton supporters do feel this way. They feel that something has been taken from them. My mother feels this way, as does my Aunt."

This is one reason I am puzzled when I hear MOST of the smart-money pundits (about whom its easier to generalize : ) ) thinking mostly or exclusively about male running mates (other than Hillary, who I think would actually COST Obama votes). Obviously having a woman on the ticket, especially one who has 'charisma power' like Barbara Boxer or, in a different way, possibly Sen Stabenow, to not only draw in those disappointed women, but have them urging all their friends to vote for the ticket also. That's one way that enthusiasm works.

If people go around saying the candidate is wishy-washy and MAYBE they'll hold their nose and vote for them, that doesn't exactly inspire others to follow suit.

put her so far behind that Obama was able to clinch the delegate lead in Kentucky with only 30% of the vote!

:headbang:
rocknation

:blush:
rocknation

bitterness. :(