Let's say that a majority of men and women in the DU community are

not in fact sexists or racists.

--At the suggestion of an especially keen and gracious DUer, I am re-posting this (slightly modified) from Flying Squirrel's post regarding "sexism." Many Edwards folks participated in that thread.--

So, again, let's say that a majority of men and women in the DU community are not in fact sexists or racists.

Working with that premise, assuming that landscape, allowing for exceptions, we did not see "sexist" threads related to Senator Clinton when she was riding at the top of the polls. The summer went by and on into fall, and you would have been hard-pressed to find anyone complaining of sexism in relation to her frontrunner status. She was all over the media and many threads on DU and other blogs bemoaned the "crowning" of Hillary Clinton versus the other 7 candidates for our nomination.

When the field narrowed and the stakes rose, and only two strong contenders for the nomination remained, we saw a dramatic correspondence between Sen. Clinton's collapse of support nationally and "sexism" posts on these boards.

There was the occasional news story in which Elizabeth Edwards took a shot at Senator Clinton. I wouldn't attribute that to sexism but to a kind of traditional elbowing-under-the-basket aspect of politics. Would the same allowance be made if a male spouse had done the elbowing? Perhaps not then and certainly not now, because anyone who finds fault with Senator Clinton is "sexist." The theory is under considerable strain though, since Elizabeth Edwards, an extremely intelligent soul, most certainly is not a sexist. Yet the criticisms were launched.

Numerous feminists, including Naomi Wolf and Katha Pollitt, have endorsed Senator Obama. There is the possibility that John Edwards will endorse Clinton, or maybe he will endorse Obama, or maybe there will be no Edwards endorsement. It's worth a consideration that he could endorse Obama, which would throw an interesting light onto those posting harshly against Obama in the Edwards group. Elizabeth Edwards is reportedly favoring Obama.

I respectfully disagree with FlyingSquirrel regarding "sexism" as something we can be "sure" of as a factor in Clinton's having fallen so far so fast. It is not sexist to point out that the Clinton campaign did not have a strategy in place post-Feb. 5th and that they arrogantly assumed the nomination would be in the bag from that point forward.

It is also not sexist to assert that her campaign has been top-down from the very onset while the other 7 announced Demorcratic candidates strove with varying degrees of success to build a grassroots scaffolding for their candidacy. Absent that structure, and with no post-February 5th strategy at all, Hillary Clinton got smashed in Wisconsin, a state she originally held a lead in by very significant percentages, and which turned out in even larger percentages to support Barack Obama, and not because Hillary Clinton is female.

I reject the association of her collapse in support as being owed to "sexism."

If we are a community here, we are a community of people with often very different takes on the same issues or candidates. Some of us are not responding to either Obma or Clinton, and some of us have chosen one or the other. I've chosen Obama because his coattails are longer, IMO, than Clinton's, and while it's clear many of you are going with Clinton, it does seem to me that the vitriole here against Obama among some Edwards supporters is well over the top. Our first choice isn't going to be the nominee. The Democrat who eventually is our nominee will be so at the behest of other Democrats just like you and me. Their votes count also.

Three days out, Senator Clinton is leading in Ohio and Rhode Island, and possibly in Texas, while Senator Obama leads in Vermont. If she wins those first three, she's obviously back in the game, and back in the game on merits and appeal and not because Barack Obama is Afro American. If Barack Obama wins one or both of Ohio and Texas, his victory will not be attributable to "sexism" on the part of voters in those states held against his opponent.

I was saying that regardless of the reasons for her fall (and I personally believe the most important reasons were: 1. mismanagement of the campaign on many fronts, 2. negativity on Hillary's part) sexism had a role to play in her campaign's overall failure. Regardless of how large a part it played, to me we should not just leave that unexamined.

One of the main reasons that I and a lot of people could not get behind Hillary's campaign is that we knew the Republicans would turn out in droves to vote against her - and that this would probably lead to our defeat in November.

But what is the reason behind that? Well, look. She was the FIRST first lady to attempt to be more than window dressing. Guess what? The Republicans didn't like that much. A lot of Democrats joined them there (men and women alike). Similarly they slimed Teresa Heinz Kerry, she was just too strong of a personality. So this was a factor in their decision to attack her with all they had. Is it the only reason? Of course not. Doesn't matter to me, I see a certain undercurrent in their attacks and I'm just calling it the way I see it. They don't like strong women. They feel threatened. A lot of men feel threatened. They respond with misogynistic statements, but they're more careful these days and choose their words more carefully - wouldn't want to appear sexist, wouldn't want to generate a backlash.

These people got what they wanted in 2000 and 2004 - Laura Bush. In a way, they got what they wanted during the Clinton years too - Hillary had to back down, out of public view and into the WH kitchen where she belonged.

I have a feeling that certain people feel a lot more threatened with a female president than a black president. You get a black president, it might not hit you where it counts. You get a female president, suddenly your wife might get all uppity and leave you or stop cooking your dinner and doing your laundry while also working a full-time job just like you do.

JMO

talking to one of them right now, however.

The Constitution specifically sanctions adults of a certain age and national birthright to seek the presidency. After that, it's all social and cultural overlay.

Senator Clinton is female, but for many voters, perhaps most, that is not the reason they vote for her and it is not the reason other voters will vote against her.

I reject out of hand your hinge between degrees of rejection on voters' parts for female candidates versus black candidates. Was Carol Moseley-Braun rejected because she was female or black or both or neither? The Constitution is clear in its modest criteria.

I don't imagine Geraldine Gerraro considered herself to be "window dressing," and that IS a sexist slam you made on her candidacy.

County chairs I have worked with in the past and am in close touch with now are less than enthusiastic about Sen. Clinton as the top of the ticket becasue they feel it will increase Republican turn-out. This is anecdotal except that the story is replicated in more than one state and more than one county. Most prefered Edwards as a first choice or I wouldn't have been hanging out with them in the first place. Absent Edwards, they liked Biden and Dodd next. Then Obama. Clinton was well back in the pack from the early going with the people who organize the party's apparatus to win elections.

Your post works on a hunch that "more peope feel a lot more threatened with a female president than a black president." If there's statistical support for that claim, I'd happily look at it. But I don't think there is.

When did I talk about Geraldine Ferraro? And call her "window dressing"? Do you have me mistaken for someone else or am I misunderstanding your point? Of course she wasn't. But gosh, just listen to the type of question she got asked in debates with regard to her ability to defend the country if something were to have happened to Mondale. :puke:

As far as statistical support for being threatened by female vs black, like I said it's my opinion.

You agreed with my premise that Clinton would have increased Republican turnout, without addressing the underlying reason of WHY they didn't like her.

I feel like I'm talking to Socrates here. Don't think I'm gonna be able to keep up with your twisted logic. I think it's interesting that in GDP of all places, the most argumentative and contentious place on the planet, my post managed to be untouched by any kind of disagreement for over a full day - until you showed up. Makes me wonder what exactly you're trying to accomplish. And why not post this on the thread I suggested in a public forum where it's already being discussed, and where more than a few people might see what you're saying and have a chance to respond?

Just curious.

where I please.

Let me know if that's a problem.

Peace

FS

I didn't expect this discussion to have been brought into the Edwards Supporters Group.

If you have a response to the content of the post, do let us know.

I have come to the realization that it is her judgement that has been a major disappointment to me.

It was John Edwards judgment that drew me to him. Edwards is a shinning example of how personal growth and wisdom nurture good solid judgment.


Sen. Clinton's new 3AM Phone Call TV ad, is just one example of her lack of judgment. It was during the IWR that Sen. Dick Durbin made a middle-of-the-night phone call to Democrat Senators urging a NO vote, and we know how Sen. Clinton voted, and has defended that vote. I call it a lack of judgment.

Read here about Sen. Durban's call.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/717363.aspx

I will be voting for Sen. Obama this Tuesday, in the Ohio primary. I have spent hours researching his record and reading various articles and found a very substantive record.

For example, there are acts he has introduced that made it into law

the Co burn-Obama Government Transparency Act
the Luger-Obama Nuclear Nonproliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
and an association with the 2007 Government Ethics Bill

Sen. Clinton has no comparable record.

And so it goes.

I decided to post today, because of my profound respect for thoughtful and heartfelt debate Edwardians have been known to participate in.

I respect all points of view. However, have difficulty in finding reason in pure emotional and heart wrenching pleas and/or hit pieces without reason or debate.

to remember how to react to a thoughtful post such as the ones you always put up on DU.

I thank you for that.

I still love Senator Edwards and feel he would have been our best bet by FAR. But we are left to navigate the landscape we're left with.

Agree with you completey -- all viewpoints matter and should be considered and respected.

have had to accept.

My angst these days is over the youngsters who are like a heard of cats, mewing and crying and so out of control.

and feel that privately, he might have preferred John Edwards too.

I have no evidence for that hunch, I'm just hunchin'.

have had to accept.

My angst these days is over the youngsters who are like a heard of cats, mewing and crying and so out of control.

I thought you'd enjoy another discussion on FlyingSquirrel's topic titled

The Tale of Two Edwards Supporters - Is this a common tale?

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=112


:hi:

'Had read that thread.

Once any candidate withdraws from a nomination race, his or her supporters may withold support for other candidates or align with this or that candidate. Udall supporters in 76 had to go somewhere and eventually went with Carter.

Kennedy supporters in the 80 nomination race eventually had to go somewhere and didn't vote in great numbers for the party's nominee.

Democratic delegates to the 1856 convention refused to re-nominate Pierce, opting for Buchanan instead.

We have some really, notably, historically awful Republicans to defeat in November.

As you and I have discussed before, I respect anybody's choice in the primary. But HClinton isn't the only choice.

It was awful. I don't see that happening now, but the media wants it to be...RATINGS! LOL.

I'm just glad Edwards didn't endorse, it's more fun trying to make up my own mind, which is easier staying out of GDP. I like them both, even though they weren't my 2,3 or 4th choices early on :( Either would make a fine President.

:hi:

and crooks John McCain plans on bringing in.

Which is incentive enough to stop his momentum. I find myself rooting for Huckabee to upset the fool on the Republican side tomorrow, and then both of them clawing at each other all the way to their convention.