Hillary & Misogyny

The New York Times has an interesting editorial by Judith Warner which discusses the level of misogyny/sexism directed at Hillary during the Democratic primary campaign. It is an interesting read and also compares the situation with Hillary to "Sex and the City." (P.S. I may be one of the few men who plans to see that movie, but I really enjoyed the series!).


The editorial also has some good points about how it seems to be acceptable in today's culture to be sexist, and make abusive sexist comments, but racist and ethnic comments are taboo.

Everybody is against Hillary

President Clinton is sure there is some sort of conspiracy to keep Hillary from winning the nomination. He claims she is the one that is electable in a general election, inferring that Senator Obama cannot win.

The Clinton "win at all cost" play book is only hurting the party in the long run. But then, it is not about the Democrat's winning, it is about Hillary winning. I can't say I will be saddened when these two exit stage right.

Hillary is a woman?

Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto; what do they have in common? Obviously they are all women, and they are all women who rose to the top of the government in their respective countries. Peggy Noonan in her incomparable way discusses the difference between the first three of these women and Senator Clinton. Her bottom line is that they didn't make their femininity an excuse. They played the game with the big boys and won.

What Ms. Noonan doesn't say, that seems evident, is that Ms. Clinton belongs to the party of the victim. Of course she didn't lose the nomination because Senator Obama was a better campaigner, or because people didn't like her ideas, or because the voters just don't trust her. No, she lost the nomination because she is a woman and misogynists just would never stand for a woman being the nominee. She is the victim.

If she had won the nomination we would be hearing that racism is the reason that Senator Obama didn't win the nomination. He would have been the victim.

These people, meaning the liberals (damnit, I keep forgetting they are progressives now,) are not adults. They are two year olds. It is never their fault that things don't work out. Someone or something else is to blame. And by God, something should be done about it. Americans are such narrow minded, bigoted, misogynists that they just can't see what is best for them. Puhleeze!!

End of rant.

Women don't vote monolithically

Kathleen Parker has an interesting take on the feminists position on Senator Clinton's nomination. It is her opinion that:

What they clearly don't want is a woman president just because she's a woman. If Clinton loses, it won't be because women betrayed her.

She even makes the odd statement that, "Obama is, for certain, the more feminine of the two." It is hard to imagine that Senator Obama would find that a complimentary assessment.

I would like the progressives to remember these comments when people vote for McCain rather than Obama. It may just be that many people consider him to be a better candidate, not because of racism.

I read one waggish comment to the effect that "I have no problem voting for a black man for President, but Colin Powell is not running."

Hillary... again

How much can you pander without looking totally ridiculous? If the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the mechanism to break up OPEC, why hasn't it been done in the past 12 years? This is just ridiculous.

Et tu Hillary

I have never doubted that Senator Clinton was an intelligent woman; until now. Her gas tax holiday, which Sen. McCain also verbally supports, is just plain stupid.

I know Americans are largely economically illiterate, but the way to reduce the price of gasoline is not to increase demand through artificially lowering prices; they will pop right back up. And to state, "I am not going to put in my lot with economists" is really nutty. She wants to be President but if economists disagree with an idea she will just ignore them. That is like ignoring your doctor because you don't like what he tells you.

Read the whole article here.

It's the little things that count

Low-information signaling is the use of minor cues to form impressions about political candidates. Joe Klein of Time dismisses these as “stupid things”, but he is dismissing the actual importance of this signaling. Low-information signaling is the actual information that leaks through to the public around the framing the candidate and his campaign create. His examples of stupid things are whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American flag pin. All of the references he uses are to perceptions of recent Democratic presidential candidates; Dukakis in a tankers helmet, John Kerry wind surfing and Bill Clinton eating junk food at McDonalds. I suspect we all get an image of the three of them when we read that and the only positive one is that Clinton is a regular guy.

Journalists like to dismiss this type of evaluation as unimportant because it is not issue oriented. Samuel Popkin, a political scientist, in “The Reasoning Voter”, implies that low-information signaling is an important part of a broader definition of issues. Voters look to this information to determine if the candidate is someone they like. The elites like to dismiss the importance of the average voter looking at a candidate and making a mental note of whether this is a person they would like to sit down and have a beer with. In the three examples above it seems the answer is two no's and a yes. It would be embarrassing to be seen with Dukakis, Kerry is just not average enough to relate too and Clinton would be fun to drink beer with.

The low-information signaling is used to square the candidate’s public persona with what seems to be his/her real personality. This is why Senator Obama is having a difficult time shaking the Rev. Wright controversy and his comment about the bitter small town folk. These two things do not square at all with what he says from the campaign hustings, but when aligned with other low-information signals they have a ring of truth that someone is trying to obscure.

This is not something that any of us is immune to. It is likely (about a 75% probability) that the party affiliation will determine our eventual vote, but in the primary these signals come into play. How else can Senator Clinton’s loss of the nomination be explained? She is, based on resume, the better candidate, but almost no one sees her personality as aligned with her official persona. This is what has hurt her. The “sniper fire in Bosnia” comments openly exposed what had been low-information signaling. People just do not trust her.

EJ knows all

Anyone who didn't vote for Senator Clinton is a misogynist. God forbid you have a political difference with her, it is all because she is a woman.

And I am a big fan of Elton John (for real) but who cares what some Brit has to say about our election?

Hillary plays dirty

Big surprise: Hillary backers go dirtier. They are now threatening Speaker Pelosi.

Senator Clinton has been caught in yet another lie, so the proper response is to lash out at the rest of the party. The Clintons seem to think the Democratic Party is actually the Clinton Party and any apostasy should be punished.

It is not clear that Senator Obama is a better choice for the Democrats, but at least he is winning with the voters. Where do the Clintons come off with threatening anyone who does not buy into the Hillary inevitability. Senator Clinton seems to be nothing but bold, grasping ambition.