Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Missing Women of Afghanistan






Truthdig Bazaar
Motherhood Manifesto

Motherhood Manifesto

By Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner
$8.97

more items

 
Report

Maybe It?s a Guy Thing

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 31, 2008

By Marie Cocco

    WASHINGTON—Have you noticed something similar about those Barack Obama campaign surrogates and the media soothsayers who have started a drum-beat to force Hillary Clinton out of the Democratic presidential contest? Hint: They tend to share a certain anatomical attribute.

    I guess the boys are just being boys again. They’ve failed to dispatch Clinton in the race thus far—remember, they were predicting the fall of the “house of Clinton” in New Hampshire. Then Kennedy magic was supposed to transform Obama into the anointed nominee on Super Tuesday, but star-power appearances in California by the women of Camelot failed to help Obama there, and not even Ted Kennedy could deliver his home state of Massachusetts. Clinton won decisively in the Bay State and took all the big states on Super Tuesday, except Obama’s home state of Illinois and Missouri, where he edged her by a single percentage point.

    Clinton then was supposed to bow out after March 4 if she did not win the crucial states of Texas and Ohio. But darn! She messed up their game plan again by winning both of those states—and Rhode Island, too.

    Those looking ahead now see no way, based on current polling and the way the demographics of Pennsylvania break down, that Obama will win that next mega-state on April 22. Those looking even further ahead see only more uncertainty—a series of contests lasting until June in which some states seem to naturally favor Clinton (Kentucky, West Virginia) while others seem to favor Obama (North Carolina, Oregon).

    Since we’re talking boy-talk here, we might as well get right into their rhetorical comfort zone: Obama now is ahead by a field goal in the third quarter. But the fourth quarter has yet to be played and who knows what the score will be at the end of regulation? So here’s their plan, hatched in the locker room: Push Clinton off the field now so that Obama can take his early victory lap.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    Obama denies that he is personally behind this strategy. But let’s face it. The pronouncements by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., both big-name Obama supporters and superdelegates, that Clinton needs to limp away with her head held low looked terribly orchestrated.

    Leahy was particularly odious when, after declaring Clinton had “no way” to win the nomination, he offered her a very warm seat. It happens to be one she already holds and it is, of course, comfortably below the glass ceiling. “Frankly, I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate,” Leahy declared.

    If it weren’t so galling, it would be amusing to watch the Democratic men shuffling nervously in their television studio chairs, trying to conceal the audacity of their arrogance. For they have something in common besides their anatomy: It’s Hillary Clinton. For nearly two decades, she’s raised more money for more Democrats than anyone except, perhaps, Bill Clinton. She’s certainly done more obligatory “Women-for-(Your Candidate’s Name Here)” events than, say, the Obama girl on YouTube.

    Now Clinton’s methodical, dogged history of work for the Democratic Party is treated just like the methodical, dogged histories of so many women in the workplace: Having come this far she must not go too far. She must step aside to take the smaller office, with the lesser title and the lower pay to make room for the younger guy with the thinner résumé. And please, would she just go quietly like a good girl?

    Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination. But Obama hasn’t won it either—and contrary to the myth his campaign has spun, Obama can’t win without superdelegates to put him over the top.

    Somehow the Obama campaign has come to believe that insulting Clinton is the same as beating her. It isn’t. And insulting her supporters—especially women and, in particular, working-class women, who have clung to her candidacy all these months—isn’t much of a general-election victory strategy. Women were 54 percent of the electorate in the presidential election of 2004. Without their support, Al Gore would not have won the popular vote in 2000 and John Kerry wouldn’t have come so close in 2004. Women voters put Democrats in control of Congress in 2006.

    So, the Obama campaign can continue trying to get its allies in the media and various party pooh-bahs to push Clinton aside early. Or Obama can welcome the fight—and win it like a man.
   
    Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.
   
    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

wordsonfire, You of all people should know what is fair and right but you want Hillary out before anyone else gets their chance to vote.  Whats fair about that. 
Obama’s Oil Spill
March 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn’t take money from oil companies. We say that’s a little too slick.
Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, “I don’t take money from oil companies.”

Technically, that’s true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.


Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama’s bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton’s. Don’t believe it.
Summary
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We’ve had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what’s the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.


It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.


It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.


It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail’s assertions, Clinton’s and Obama’s contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Don’t know why it came up here.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

Well if youR post wasn’t the worse bunch of crap I have seen in a long long time it came damn close. .
I can’t believe anyone walking around on the face of this earth would actually believe in what you posted.  Misogyny with a capital M!!!

Report this

By Gatsby, April 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What is this, the oppressed woman syndrome?  There are a number of things that I don’t like about Hillary, and yes they do include a goodly portion of female bitchiness, as seen from a male perspective.  Should she manage to win the nomination I will, with husbandly dutifulness, vote for her.  Perhaps her pudendum is less visible than my pecker, but it won’t disappear and should be acknowledged and accepted for what it is.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

Whoa Liz, did you think Hillarys vote is the only one that sent us to war.  I guess you like the fact that Obama was against the war before he had any authority to do anything about it and then changed his mind again in 2004 and again in his book. Check it out.  If you hate Hillary that is one thing but don’t lie about the reason or use talking points from the Obama campaign.

Report this

By Paracelsus, April 1, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

As to Obama’ sympathetic audience to a bitter preacher, I don’t thik we are going to get an immigration policy that helps out most American workers. La Raza is full of “hate America” rhetoric and it seems to power the open borders lobby to some extent.

I can’t stand my government in Wash. DC, but I cannot totally soil the the nest I live in. No other country worth living in would take me. I am not wealthy and I am no scientific genius.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Noonan is only faintly disquised as a woman.  Liz Trotta another he woman. They are both vicious hateful women who would LOVE TO BE A MAN !!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By liz, April 1, 2008 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am a 72-year-old woman, a former president of a NOW chapter in NJ, and I voted against Hillary Clinton because she voted to allow Bush to bring us into war in Iraq. I don’t care what her gender, color or religion is. I just care that she did not have the judgment and insight or courage to vote against giving him the go ahead in Iraq.  Why don’t you discuss how many women and their families (especially the working class families she says she champions) have suffered form her decision? 4,000 young women and men dead, thousands more wounded, most of them from working class families, some so badly they will suffer for their whole lives and god knows how many innocent people in Iraq killed or wounded.
  This election is not about the old problems between the sexes. It’s about more than that.  It’s time to put aside discussing girl-talk and boy-talk and act as adults to deal with what the president with the support of congress and the press has done to our country and the world.
      And one other question. How can we trust someone who three times tells a totally false story about an incident to make a claim that she is more competent to deal with international matters?
  As a journalist, you have a big responsibility. Use it wisely. We all have gone through so much in this country and we have spread death and suffering to other countries because of our policies. Our choices in this election should be made on facts, not on attempts to put phony issues, like boy-talk-  in the campign. Think about the 4,000 dead and their families before you write any thing more about this campaign.
  I noticed the “anatomical attribute,” those who have called for Sen. Clinton to drop out of the race shared. They were all white! I didn’t notice that in your column. So are they all talking white-talk now? Or don’t you want to discuss that because it wouldn’t hold up your theory. Are they asking her to be a good white girl and step aside? It’s nonsense , just as your theory is.
  I don’t see why she should drop out of the race now but I do think that it should end by the beginning of June, since to go to the convention would give the Democrats only September and October to campaign. And I am angry that she has said that McCain was more qualified by experience than Obama to be president! That kind of behavior is why some people want her out.
Liz Sheehan

Report this

By Gatsby, April 1, 2008 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What is this, the oppressed woman syndrome?  There are a number of things that I don’t like about Hillary, and yes they do include a goodly portion of female bitchiness, as seen from a male perspective.  Should she manage to win the nomination I will, with husbandly dutifulness, vote for her.  Perhaps her cunt is less visible than my pecker, but it won’t disappear and should be acknowledged and accepted for what it is.

Report this

By Fernando, April 1, 2008 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

td,
You are so off the mark. Men do not hate Billary for sexist reasons, oh how simple to assume that, but most men tend to dislike, not to say loathe, the Clintons for their baseness, their crudities, their lack of a moral center, their ‘win at all costs’ attitude. Men may be simple folk, to be sure, but we do know the meaning of ‘is’ and we do know that lying and crying are simply not sufficient criteria for taking on the job of President of the USA and leader of the capitalist world.

Report this

By sapeye, April 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary as oppressed!  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Good one! 

Down-trodden, a helpless victim.

If she actually believes that, then perhaps she really does believe she came under sniper fire in Bosnia…

Report this

By tdbach, April 1, 2008 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Peggy Noonan speaks for you? You’ve got more problems than you know, Elko.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 1, 2008 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

Bill Clintons ties to the Bushes, Neocons, NAFTA trolls and alike are now being exposed for what they are, a bad deal for mainstream Americans.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 1, 2008 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have a thought… Maybe it is not sexism that keeps Hill-the-business-shill from trouncing a badly bruised Obama.. and maybe it is not racism that keeps folks from overwhelming support for Obama.  Maybe…. and before you get all mad and stuff, think about it… Maybe they are both lousy candidates who do not deserve the keys to the White House??

Maybe they are equally bought and paid for corporate whores who have an enlarged sense of self esteem, but lack honesty, expertise and a real plan for where this country should be headed…

How about we tell them all we don’t care for their resumes` and resubmit our ad for chief executive…

Report this

By Ivan Hentschel, April 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marie, isn’t this just slightly a case of your pot calling the kettle sexist? Or racist? Besides, collectively, “guys” aren’t that smart.

Report this

By Fade, April 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Scaife, Limbaugh. Hillary lost me forever when she allied herself with the men of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And Unlike Marie’s decisionmaking, mine has nothing to do with gender.

Report this

By sapeye, April 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

tdbach:

Excellent post.

Report this

By Not a guy, April 1, 2008 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

...and I would not vote for her. What would you say if she was running against another woman, let’s say Boxer, and people were choosing Boxer?
She has a very low rate among people regarding honesty and trust. She lies, she really does not have that much experience and for me she is fake. NOTHING to do with gender!

Report this

By drea, April 1, 2008 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stephen - this is probably one of the most thoughtful things I have ever seen posted here and right on the money.

I’m a female. More than well acquainted with how sexism works in the world. But I’m halfway through “The Audicity of Hope” and astounded at the fact that the same guy who wrote this book is a guy that I have the opportunity to vote for in this year’s election. Beyond the fact that he’s a man (which seems to be what most women want us to focus on about him), he’s so knowledgable about our country, our history, our struggle, and our current situation, and makes a genuine argument for an approach to a government of values - real values - like equity, work, accountability, and some semblance of controlling the corporatized greed machine. Even if he can only muster an iota of that energy if elected, it will be an improvement simply because of how much vision he has.

Does Hilary have that? She hasn’t written a book like this. She’s had more than her share of time to prove that she could stand for something other than the machine, and though I really want to believe that gender equality should move forward, there’s no doubt in my mind that voting for her means voting for the same old monarchy, the same old thing, the same old ridiculous system that got us into this mess.

I’ve had plenty of women over the past few months tell me I’m a traitor. Sadly, most of them are blatantly lazy about their political education and no nothing about current events. They are simply choosing her because they wrongly assume that voting for the woman means voting in their own interest.

It’s easy for women to complain that we’re always getting the short end because there is some truth in that - it’s a lot harder to admit that we aren’t necessarily running our best horse.

Report this

By Jonas South, April 1, 2008 at 11:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marie Cocco is wrong to assert that Clinton won Texas. The latest delegate count shows that Obama won the state Texans think of as not just one of the big states, but THE BIG state.

Report this

By harpo, April 1, 2008 at 8:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Those who say that Hillary should stay in the race, can’t seem to understand the near impossibility of the math.  “Math class is tough!”—Barbie®  Now who’s sexist?

Report this

By ElkoJohn, April 1, 2008 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

it takes a woman to know a woman
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
take that you Lady Hill Hawks

Report this

By blueshift, April 1, 2008 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

I think the goal posts have moved for Hillary: the party now believes they no longer need Bill Clinton to win. (In fact, quite the reverse - he is now a huge risk, and the millstone weighting down Hillary Rodham.)

But I wish the Obama fans would stop trying to referee this affair. If the party is ready to move on without the Clintons, let the voters make that decision - and the superdelegates entrusted with adjudicating a close match. Leahy and his ilk should just shut it.

Report this

By Expat, April 1, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

^ can’t win because “they” were eliminated long ago.

Report this

By Expat, April 1, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

^ you have chosen to close with; “So, the Obama campaign can continue trying to get its allies in the media and various party pooh-bahs to push Clinton aside early. Or Obama can welcome the fight—and win it like a man.”  Surely you intended dramtic irony, yes?

Sexism oh my!  Of course; we would be naïve to assume sexism and all other forms of racism and bigotry have magically disappeared from this society.  The candidate must run with the consequent reality of the day: And that’s the reality of this day.  If one can’t stand the heat, then get out of the fire.  If anyone knows this; it’s Hillary.

And, not as an after thought; Obama has welcomed her continued campaigning.  May the best “man” win.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 1, 2008 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Gender, race and age are distractions, as you are all very well aware.

Raise your hand if you really believe the salvation of America’s working class is embodied in Hillary the woman, Barack the AA, McCain the old military fart.

Why can’t this discussion ever progress?

Report this

By Collea-Devi, April 1, 2008 at 7:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Seems to me when the Dem’s started acting like Republicans they began loosing - I have been a Dem for a long time and am ashamed for what I see the “leaders” are doing. This is a letter I wrote to Sen Leahy and would write to any “super-Delegate” with an additional comment to wait til the Convention votes are in - then make up your mind - not before - Any of us can push for results - few results that are predicted now will mean anything before the convention - What the #$%^ - Bush and Cheney have made the Constitution null and void and appear obsolete - Is that really the direction the Obama people and the Democratic Party want to go in?
Collea-Devi
**********************
Dear Senator Leahy,
    I would ask that you reconsider your endorsement of Obama. Not only can Clinton win but she is/will be the BEST candidate for President and possibly one of the best Presidents’ this country has ever had.
    I say this knowing the apparent mass movement toward the Obama camps. It simply isn’t so. When you consider most of what we see in the media is geared toward the celebrity Obama - Obama this… Obama that.. with wonderful pics and all this good and complimentary rhetoric while Clinton’s media coverage is limited at best and skewed for the worst pics and only the very worst coverage and rhetoric - it’s plain to see that media can no longer be trusted - as a matter of fact they are doing to Clinton what they did to Kerry - They made Bush look all wonderful and good and Kerry look less than a village low-life.
    Beyond the rhetoric are the facts that Clinton has the American people, American business and the American way-of-life in mind when governing and presenting solutions. She wants everyone to prosper - not just special interest groups. I will list below reasons why I believe Clinton is the best option for American President but would like to remind you the length of her career, the direction of her life and the stability she offers while making changes.
    If you go to her web site you will see she has WRITTEN solutions that have been available since she announced her candidacy - Obama has copied so much from her - only the rhetoric, mind you - not the solutions that will work. In an effort to do the best possible for our country she has consulted experts, common people, and historical resources - this is her “way”. She can admit to making mistakes and has the energy to correct those mistakes. She can make necessary changes when presented with better solutions or shown that something won’t work, and works toward real consensus so everyone wins and all of us give up something to be able to win. As I will say in my “reasons” I believe she will make war less profitable and trade/research/education/production/science a lot more profitable than war has ever been.
    I would ask that you reconsider all these things and remember her accommodation to all sides when working in the Senate and her strength when it was called for - also consider all the officers in the Pentagon that support her – and the simple fact that if Obama were so ready to be President and make all kinds of “Changes”, why hasn’t he done so already given the committees that he is on? - With 937 lies told to Congress, I can see why almost everyone voted to go to war – Frankly, I don’t think Obama would have done differently given the same information - but I believe Clinton’s solution will not only work but bring America to step to a new direction - one the world will applaud and follow. 
Thank you, Collea-Devi
I believe she is the ONLY one who can make the necessary changes for our great nation. She has more than rhetoric; she has a strategy and the experience that will work — For an America that works for ALL Americans there’s only one: Hillary Clinton - President 2008.

Report this

By tdbach, April 1, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

Marie makes a good case indicting sexism for the chorus of voices calling for HRC to withdraw. Of course it’s more complicated than that. There are a lot of people, both men and women, who can’t stand the sight of her. And even more who simply don’t trust her the way they don’t trust a used-car salesman or just about every politician than doesn’t represent their district. She’s smarmy, pandering, underhanded, immoral – and on top of it all, she’s sort of, kind of, sure-looks-like a…well…bitch. And most of these people thinking this way about her would never in a million years accept the mantle of “sexist.” Some are even avowed feminists. Hell, even Samantha Powers sees a “monster” in Hillary. Everyone agrees that there are sexists who are against Hillary for no other reason than that she’s a woman, but blaming sexism is just an easy way to explain the fall from grace of HRC by loyalists who are determined to turn a blind eye to her legion of flaws. Right?

Well, not exactly. We’re a complex animal. We like to think that our decisions are based on reason focused through a prism of “life experience” – which we would happily define as how we grew up. But our choices don’t come like answers to an algebraic equation, with a couple of unique variables of our own. They’re much more organic than formulaic. They grow and evolve and pull in ambient nutrients to sustain themselves.

Do you remember back when the Clinton’s first took office? I use the plural advisedly, as Hillary was very much a partner in the presidency, not just the marriage. Everyone saw and accepted that – even celebrated it. Except the hard-core and, yes, sexist opposition who were appalled not only at Bill appropriating some of their talking points to “steal” an election from them, but at his wife for daring to be more than an ornament. Remember “It takes a village to raise a child”? Remember how they mocked and ridiculed her for saying that? It was so…feminist. And smacked of communism to boot! Well all those years of rightwing-dominated talk radio and television finally had a lasting effect. By the time the Clintons left office, the air was thick with negative Clinton ion-memes – so much so that even good Democrats started absorbing them, now that their partisan defenses were down.

When this campaign began, all of us started “growing” our choice. We inclined toward one or another candidate, we nurtured that budding choice with supporting negatives about our opponents. We all do it; we can’t help it. Very quickly for some, Clinton – who was ordained as the frontrunner by the press, not Clinton herself – became the pariah that the right wing (and socially conservative Democrats) portrayed all those years ago. It fed the validity of their choice. It helped their choice to grow stronger and more certain. It took longer for others, who remained “undecided” and open to a Hillary presidency, but who couldn’t shake the uneasiness left by all this negative meme around Clinton (or more accurately the Clintons). When the race narrowed to Clinton and a comparatively “pure” (that is, unknown) candidate with an exquisite style and an apparently anti-political message, the deal was sealed. It was a relief to be able to abandon the uncertainty of a Clinton choice in favor of an unadulterated Obama choice. And all those horrible originally sexist memes about Clinton came rushing in to nurture that choice.

Sexism may not be on the conscious mind of all Obama supporters, but its molecules vibrate in every cell of that advocacy, whether you’re aware of it or not.

As Marie points out, it’s just more obvious in some than in others.

Report this
tallahassee_chode's avatar

By tallahassee_chode, April 1, 2008 at 7:06 am Link to this comment

their campaigns are inherently different models of organization.  clinton’s camp lacks the flexibility of obama’s donor base to survive much longer anyway.

this article is misogynistic and should be abhorred for how insulting it is to legit gender discourse.

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 1, 2008 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

We always knew that Hillary’s negatives were high . . . and she has only exacerbated them.

I want her out and I’m a woman of color!  You are conflating two separate things . . . there is sexism in the country, just as there is racism.  But, that doesn’t mean there aren’t real, pressing and valid reasons to prefer Obama over Hillary.  You do a great disservice to all of us who are engaged in the political life of our nation and who are concerned with the overwhelming negative outcomes flowing from Hillary continuing in the race.

I want her out and I was a supporter until I couldn’t sustain her position on the war, her position on flag burning, her membership in The Family and more.

I want her out, because I believe she is doing more harm than good.  What was that comment . . . Oh yeah, that McCain, right wing militarist that he is has the experience to be president and Obama has a speech he gave in 2002 . .

I want her out, because of how she dismisses Obama’s leadership . . . and with it the hopes of his many supporters.

I want her out because of her actions and behaviors, which have nothing to do with her gender.

I want her out because when I talk to older white people they seem to think that Hillary is saying that McCain would really be a preferable president than Obama . . .  If we lose the supreme court for another generation it will be because of Hillary’s ego.

NOTHING peeves me more than someone mis-attributing motives the way that Maria is here.

IMHO she is no better now than David Brooks who continually lies about the motives, actions of those who hold different views.  Her judgment and ability to see reality is completely suspect given her dismissal of the valid reasons that many non-sexists have for wanting Hillary out of this race.

The biggest being that we’d like to see a Democrat in the white house in January 2009.  IMO the longer Hillary stays in the race, the less likely it is that we’ll have a democratic president.

Report this

By Stephen, April 1, 2008 at 6:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You, Mr. Chalmers, are referring to me, probably one of the most far left commentators here.  Wrong movie again: I’ll re-state my main point:  Like another commentator said, I know of no one who isn’t voting for Hillary because she is a woman; instead, we are not voting for her because she is not a nice person, nor inspirational, nor does she embody the values of women like Michelle Obama or Barbara Lee that set women apart from the militaristic bozos like Bush.

Report this

By Bubba, April 1, 2008 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

Marie Cocco: “Clinton then was supposed to bow out after March 4 if she did not win the crucial states of Texas and Ohio. But darn! She messed up their game plan again by winning both of those states—and Rhode Island, too.”

http://tinyurl.com/29lbkw

Darn!

Report this

By Aegrus, April 1, 2008 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

Actually, much like Nevada, Hillary didn’t win Texas because the delegate count went in favor of Obama. Sorry Clintonistas.

Yes, she can stay in the race. I don’t mind. She isn’t getting the nomination anyway.

Report this

By Frikken Kids, April 1, 2008 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

The reality is, despite her huge advantage coming in she’s already lost. The only way she can conceivably win is for the super delegates to take the nomination away from the first black man ever to have been selected by the people as the nominee.  That would pretty much guarantee a republican victory.  It isn’t about sexism, no matter how attractive an excuse that may be to her supporters.

Report this

By TheRealFish, April 1, 2008 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

Well, it is unfortunate that people are openly speaking their minds, and equally unfortunate that most are men on this issue.

Of course, let’s not mention the likes of Amy Klobuchar or Mary Long, superdels endorsing Obama in March. True, they don’t specifically say anything about Clinton getting out of the race, though the fact of the endorsements speaks for itself.

Besides, as the Clinton rising negatives and falling head-to-head poll numbers probably indicate, it is not a matter of sexism (hanging member or not).

I personally do not believe that lying, party disloyalty (McCain — the Republican, correct? — is way more qualified than Obama?) and kitchen sink negativity started by the Clinton campaign have anything to do with gender.

Yes, there has been truth-stretching on both sides, but completely fabricating bullet-dodging heroics is, all by itself, probably the single biggest whopper of a lie told by any candidate from either side of the aisle in this campaign so far. And, yes, both sides have used negative tactics. But it *was* Wolfson or Ickes or another of the top Clinton strategists who first used the phrase “kitchen sink” before Ohio and Texas to signal the direction that the Clinton campaign was going to force the Democratic dialog to wallow in.

They started it and every negative thing since has been in response. They own kitchen sink negativity and the polls show it.

I personally believe the sense of revulsion at the Clinton camp completely embracing negative tactics, and near bi-polar behavior in shifting positions and goalposts for achievement are completely gender neutral.

Report this

By Adams42, April 1, 2008 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marie,

As a good ole rad-fem from the 60s, I’d like to ask you to do one thing.
IMAGINE, Hillary as a white male and then review her policy statements, VOTES in the Senate and the conduct of the campaign. NOT.

If any male members are to blame it is the white-male handlers.

I appreciate your support for Hillary—but get a grip.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 1, 2008 at 3:13 am Link to this comment

Yeah, tits’n'ass, bert. Look how many Smilies that got you….. no doubt the ‘boys’ in the newsroom at T’Dig, duh….. still in their infancy and unweaned!!!!!!!!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 1, 2008 at 3:10 am Link to this comment

Another Republican voter, duh…....

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 1, 2008 at 3:07 am Link to this comment

By HG, March 31: “Nearly 30 years of Republican values indoctrination….. Even the male editors at TruthDig can’t see the double-standard…”

Its been a long march already since last year’s campaign commencement, HG…....

Ms. Marie Cocco “is the outsider’s insider in Washington…... She uses her strength and experience as a reporter to uncover hidden histories that illuminate the present…....” But try this one, uhh…........

“Cherchez la femme,” advised Alexander Dumas in: “When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman.” In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama’s women reveal his secret: he hates America.

We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him.

But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife…. http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

Report this

By Tony Duncan, April 1, 2008 at 12:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That is one of the reasons I am supporting Obama, because our society is still too sexist to elect a woman who can truly support feminist Values. I am supporting Obama because his policies and past behavior seem much more likely to result in presidential policies that willl benefit woman.

Because Hillary is a woman, she has had to show how tough she is. So she has had to support all this horrendous militaristic legislation. Can anyone imagine Hillary voting against banning landmines if she didn’t have to prove how tough she was? or be a cherleader for the massacre of 1,000 Lebanese civilians or the ghettoization of Gazans?  She supported the War Resolution, NOT bcause she supported the war, but because she couldn’t afford to look like a wimp when Bush kicked Saddam’s ass. She refuses to sign the American Freedom Campaign that pledges to restore the constitutional protections and balance of Power that Bush has destroyed

She blames the Iraqi government for the current problems in Iraq. She is one of the worst Senators regarding whistleblowing legislation. She won’t talk to our enemies without them prostrating before her first.

Now there are some ways where she might have better positions than Obama, but not many. And both of them are part of the status quo to some degree, that will not allow the deep change that needs to occur in this society to really solve our biges problems

But, I don’t want a woman as president who has to show us she has balls. I want a woman as president that is strong enough to stand up to the militarism that is destroying the world. I want a woman that is strong enough to stand for peace and for basic human rights. NOT one that votes for legislation that undermines our constitution. I want a woman as president that will not bastardize her real values because that is the only way to become president in our still sexist country today.

Report this

By A Johns, March 31, 2008 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination”...and Obama said on Saturday he has no problem with her staying in.

And you say “Somehow the Obama campaign has come to believe that insulting Clinton is the same as beating her.” Based on what? Have you listened in to any of the Clinton campaign’s conference calls?

I don’t know anybody that is anti-Hillary because she is a woman, but I know dozens of folks that were ready to vote for her and changed their minds because of the way in which she and her crew have run their campaign. Behavior matters, manners matter, tactics matter, and it is a disservice to all to reduce the anti-Hillary sentiment to some kind of woman-hating.

Report this

By Stephen, March 31, 2008 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am sorry, but it is apparent that the author of this essay and the first three commentators are conjuring an old story and applying to it Hillary Clinton.

This is not the story of the woman in the workplace getting displaced by the bully male.  You are talking about a woman who had eight years exposure as First Lady and began this nomination process with the full force of the (male dominated) Clinton machine behind her.  Hillary was so confident that her time had come she signed an agreement about Fl and Mi delegate voting which she is now more than willing to renege on just because she is losing; and she is willing to   impute the stupidity of the FL and MI Democratic parties to Obama and suggest he is the one holding up the seating of the FL and MI voters.

But, surprise, a genuinely different human being came along with an inspirational message that Hillary can only mock and parody.  This isn’t anything to do with double standards. It’s about a nicer, smarter, more in tune, more spiritual human being slowly beating Hillary at what she thinks is rightful place after putting up with Bill Clinton for so long.

I would love to vote for a woman someday, as would my wife.  If it were Barbara Boxer or Barbara Lee, or even Nancy Pelosi, I might be persuaded to not vote for Obama.  But, it’s not.  If it were Michelle Obama running against her husband, I would consider seriously voting for her.  Michelle Obama has the heart and soul of the kind of woman this country needs.  But, it’s Hillary who is running and she’s not a very nice person nor a good representative of what is special about women.

She lies about her experience; she insinuates about Barack being a Muslim; she countenances Ferraro’s racist talk.  She’s a top down manager in a world that needs horizontal management.  She is tied to so many corporate interests like her husband that she can never vote her conscience.  She voted to authorize Bush to get us into this horrible war when 21 of 50 fellow Democratic Senators voted against Bush and she doesn’t even have the decency to apologize as did John Edwards. 

If Hillary weren’t a woman my bet is that Marie C. and the two female supporters would not be voting for a person H.R. Clinton. If you weren’t so blinded by your devotion to the wrong woman in the wrong movie, you would be able to read Barack Obama’s speech he gave recently and recognize that this speech has the same power as several of Lincoln’s addresses.  Hillary can’t write or give those speeches.  None of the Democratic contenders could, male or female.  Barack Obama and his incredibly wonderful companion, Michelle, are once in a life time people. 

Don’t sully their story with the wrong movie, wrong woman.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment

RIGHT ON Marie !!!!!!!! Thank you for saying this. THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH.

It is about time someone noticed and said this.

“They tend to share a certain anatomical attribute.”

Yeah, and they are all afraid of a couple of mammary glands.

You spoke it as it is. God bless you.  smile  smile  smile  smile
smile  smile  smile  smile

Report this

By HG, March 31, 2008 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

Nearly 30 years of Republican values indoctrination has turned the clock back on women by at least 60 years.

Even the male editors at TruthDig can’t see the double-standard applied to Ms. Clinton.

Report this

By 1twenty1, March 31, 2008 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

If Hillary wins, she will have by god earned it.

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook