[Dan]

Originally Posted by Hector

Crandc, why aren't we hearing from women's groups supporting Clinton? I hear only crickets in the media from them. No organized advocacy. What happened to the groups wanting a woman president?

Although I'm not a woman, and my answer is a cliche, I would guess part of it is because women don't just want a woman president because she's a woman.

[crandc]

I was asked Hector's question before, and answered it in another thread.

Some women, and women's groups, support(ed) Clinton. But as was said, JUST being female is not enough. Sure, the idea that the US has never had a female president or VP and only 2 Supreme Court justices, etc etc is ridiculous. But I remember when Ms. magazine ran a positive profile on the outright racist Boston pol Louise Day Hicks. I was not the only one outraged that this racist scum was presented as some kind of advance for women.

Clearly Hillary Clinton does not fall into that category. And I have to say that as a woman I have been sympathetic to her. So are a lot of other women, especially those over 40, who know the damned if you do, damned if you don't. If she shows emotions she's a hysterical women, if she does not she's a cold b----. If she dresses conservatively she's a frump, if she dresses fashionably she's frivolous. If she laughs she's silly, if she doesn't she's humorless. And so many women have had the experience of working their butts off for years, only to see the big promotion go to a younger man, always with some real good reason. Clinton was called a witch, a hag, a she-devil, castrating, compared to Nurse Ratched and Madame Defarge, all by the so-called responsible, mainstream media. Honestly, does anyone talk about, or care about, Obama's or McCain's ankles?

But Clinton has squandered much of that sympathy when she decided on the "kitchen sink". Turning from running a good solid campaign to character assassination, cozying up with jerks who slandered her and her family for years, race-baiting, not bothering to worry if what she said was true or accurate.

Despite my sympathy I would not have voted for her because of her support to the Iraq war, her vote for Kyl-Liberman essentially authorizing a new war on Iran, and her support to the death penalty. Now my sympathy is largely gone.

So women's groups are outraged by the sexism Clinton has faced. However, one can defend a person without supporting her.

[Hector]

I guess I'm the only one who sees little difference between Clinton and Obama. Clinton is older, more experienced, and has more powerful friends who can help her pass legislation. Obama is younger and a more idealistic orator. It's like Kennedy vs. Lyndon Johnson in 1960.

[crandc]

No Hector, I agree, the programmatic differences between Clinton and Obama are minor. That is why many at one time thought a joint ticket would be very good; they have different strengths (he is the inspiring leader, she the nuts and bolts policy wonk) and different bases of support (he has African-Americans, youth, professionals, Asians, she has older women, seniors, Hispanics, blue-collar whites; I realize that's an oversimplification but those are the trends). But unfortunately, maybe because there are not major differences, the campaign turned nasty and personal.

Right now I think Clinton is suffering from "George Bush disease". Her supporters after the last 2 primaries actually said that they showed she was the better candidate because she kept fighting. I am all in favor of giving a good fight, but now it likes like a case of "if I say it is so, it must be so" and "I don't make mistakes" and "whatever happens proves I'm right, even if it's the opposite of what I predicted".

[Hector]

The Republican-owned media are the ones who turned the campaign nasty and personal, with micro-coverage of every word and nuance. Clinton's words don't differ from past presidential campaigns. The people calling her slimy will mostly vote for McCain anyway. They're the same ones who opposed her husband for every little detail they could think of. The media gives no analysis of how the convoluted Democratic rules favored Obama--1) she won the primaries and he won the caucuses, where only the strongest believers show up, and that got him most of his early delegates, 2) he got early massive financial contributions from Republicans, not to mention the favorable coverage from the media they own, 3) the 2 states denied valid primaries would have put her over the top, 4) several of his primary victories were in states which will vote Republican in the Fall, while she won the industrial states which are the core of the party.

Then there is the main issue, universal health care. (Remember issues? And when the media covered non-war issues, decades ago?). His plan covers only those who jump through several hoops of paperwork, while hers automatically covers every American. Millions will be left out, while he'll be saying everyone is covered who wants to be.

I rarely watch TV anymore, but a couple of days ago I looked at the news (CNN, MSNBC, I forgot, they're all the same now). It wasn't a "personal" show like that hater Nancy Grace, it was the supposedly neutral news. When Hillary news came up, the newscaster immediately asked an expert when she would drop out. The expert got a sad face, like we should all be ashamed she dared to run for office, and didn't know. In the written media where I dwell, it's been the same for many months, even when she had a big lead. "Obama is surging--When will she drop out?" (Sound familiar? "Why won't Clinton resign his Presidency?" for about 6 years.) I'm just sick of it. They ignored all the other good Democratic candidates, too, asking one by one, when will X drop out?

I'm surprised that after being so vocal in the 70s and 80s about many snitty trivial things, women's groups dropped the ball when it really mattered. An opportunity like this doesn't happen very often. Crandc, you are nitpicking your own side this time.

[crandc]

Originally Posted by Hector

I'm surprised that after being so vocal in the 70s and 80s about many snitty trivial things, women's groups dropped the ball when it really mattered. An opportunity like this doesn't happen very often. Crandc, you are nitpicking your own side this time.

Hector, take a deep breath.

Of course you are right that issues should decide elections, not flag pins, trophy wives, loud mouth husbands, et al. As to women's groups, Hector, there is a difference between support and defend. I unconditionally defend the RIGHT of any woman, including Hillary Clinton, to run for public office and to be judged on her platform and record, not her ankles and clothing. That does not mean I, or any women's group, is obligated to support that candidate if we do not agree with her. I think Clinton was dead wrong on Iraq and dead wrong on Kyl/Liberman, two very important issues. I am judging her on her platform and record. Just as I would a male candidate.

I have not announced support for Obama although there are things I like about him. There are also things I don't like about him. Let's stick to facts, he was not financed by "Republican money" and the "Republican media" was only "nice", comparatively, to him when he was not the front runner. As soon as he became the front runner we got wall to wall Jeremiah Wright and nothing about issues.

I also agree that it is up to Clinton to decide when or if to leave the race but it is not comparable to the Bill Clinton impeachment. He had no reason to resign; a majority in the country supported him, he was not guilty of impeachable crimes, and he had enough support in the Senate to beat the impeachment. But in a race for a party's nomination, there does come a time when one candidate's delegate count is such that it is all but impossible for another to catch him/her. To use a sports analogy, would a team keep their starters in the game when they are down 29 with 3 minutes to go? At some time you have to admit you are not going to win. The odds of Clinton snagging the nomination are so long IMO (and this is my opinion, not a dictat to her) she would go out with a lot more dignity if she did not hang on to the end. And yes, race baiting, e.g., "hard working white people", is not productive, to say the least. At least Obama never said "hard working men" won't support Clinton.

As to whether caucuses vs primaries helped or hurt any candidate, as far as I know each state party decides how to go. If anyone within the Democratic Party finds that unfair he/she can try to change the rules. Since I'm not a Democrat it's not up to me to decide their internal matters.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by crandc

Sure, the idea that the US has never had a female president or VP and only 2 Supreme Court justices, etc etc is ridiculous.

It is to be expected since as of today no qualified and competent woman has ever sought the office.

As soon as a good, honest, intelligent and compassionate woman with the nation's best interests at heart runs, she'll have a landslide vitcory.

[crandc]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

It is to be expected since as of today no qualified and competent woman has ever sought the office.

As soon as a good, honest, intelligent and compassionate woman with the nation's best interests at heart runs, she'll have a landslide vitcory.

Wow, Maris, you relieve my mind. It's sure good to know that ALL the men who have been President, Vice President, or Supreme Court justices are qualified, competent, good, honest, intelligent and compassionate with "the nation's" best interests at heart! I mean, I was really beginning to think otherwise.

[Hector]

The media drumbeat for Clinton to drop out has been going on for months, long before Obama took the slight lead he now holds, and probably causing it. Here is how the neutral AP starts today's article. They can't even wait until the second sentence.

BATH, S.D. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded John McCain Thursday for his opposition to the farm bill, attempting to maintain the sense that she is already competing against the certain Republican presidential nominee even as her chances for winning the Democratic nomination dim. [It goes on.]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...3j3dwD90M8AP00

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hector

The media drumbeat for Clinton to drop out has been going on for months, long before Obama took the slight lead he now holds, and probably causing it. Here is how the neutral AP starts today's article. They can't even wait until the second sentence.

BATH, S.D. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded John McCain Thursday for his opposition to the farm bill, attempting to maintain the sense that she is already competing against the certain Republican presidential nominee even as her chances for winning the Democratic nomination dim. [It goes on.]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...3j3dwD90M8AP00

I have never in all my years of watching political commentary seen the media so universally in the bag for one candidate as they are for Barack Obama. I have never particularly been a Hillary Clinton fan, but her refusal to be intimidated by the talking heads of Washington has really earned my respect.

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I have never in all my years of watching political commentary seen the media so universally in the bag for one candidate as they are for Barack Obama. I have never particularly been a Hillary Clinton fan, but her refusal to be intimidated by the talking heads of Washington has really earned my respect.

Its amazing how I've heard on the one hand that the media is responsible for keeping the Clinton campaign going to get ratings... and that they're in the bag for Obama on the other hand...

Couldn't it just be that SHE CAN'T WIN at this point and they're just reporting the truth?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Dornado

Its amazing how I've heard on the one hand that the media is responsible for keeping the Clinton campaign going to get ratings... and that they're in the bag for Obama on the other hand...

Couldn't it just be that SHE CAN'T WIN at this point and they're just reporting the truth?

Why can't she win? Is Sen. Obama at 2,025 or 2,209 delegates? Let's not forget that Ted Kennedy took his campaign to the floor against an incumbent president in 1980 over 700 delegates down. The election is in the hands of the superdelegates, who are free to vote for whomever they wish. She can win, all she has to do is prove to the superdelegates that she can win and Sen. Obama can't.

And do you really think the two forces (Obama adulation vs. keeping Clinton in the race) are equal? The former has been going on for six months; the latter for a few weeks. And from what I've heard on the news networks, it's not even close. If I were Kathleen Matthews (Chris Matthews' wife), I'd be jealous of Sen. Obama, because his adulation is bordering on the uncomfortably erotic.