Don't over-analyze something crude like a presidential
primary campaign strategy. Its all about:

"Theres nothing wrong with women candidates, just maybe NOT THAT BITCH!"

and,

"Afro-American's are the smartest race going, just maybe NOT THAT WHITE-HATER!"

White guys like Dodd and Biden didn't have the close-to-the-wire-all-the-way-to-the-convention
kinda numbers that Clinton had...and still has.

All's fair in...nothing extra to take from it, booboo!

Us media grunts turned it into hollywood, the day we interveiwed Martha Washington about the cherry tree incident.
And the money says it won't change anytime soon.

Yet booman and the neocons have clinton and kennedy on life-support. One is still emulsifying out clinton's negatives and the others are laughing up chapaquidick (SP).

Its all most over. Hang in there.

What an historic battle: A white woman of privilage against a black man who few knew. This was fertile ground for the Republicans and they played it to the Hilt(ary), with her help. The Republicans hoped that Hillary and Barack would cancel each other out, i.e., destroy one another for the general election. Hillary went for the red-bait, Barrack did not.

The American electorate is filled with contradictions; most of the time we don't vote in our best interests as citizens --- witness "W" --- while at other times, their are flashes of brilliant understanding. Witness Barack Obama: the reason black folks did not initially coalesce around him is that he was an unknown entity and Hillary was known (So much for the axiom that black folks blindly support black politicians). What brought Sen. Obama to a multitude of black and white folks is that they got to know him, via his books and in Iowa (how many black folks there?), he spent weeks before the primary meeting with voters ---- he became a known quantity.

Hillary's chief mistake is that she used a) the gender card with regards to the media and b) the race card with Barack. At another time in American history, that combo might have worked in her favor. But let's face it, while we can all acknowledge that sexism and racism still saturate our culture --- this year, 2008 --- the dynamics have changed and the personalities have changed. Barack had the genius and integrity not to go for the identity-politics bait; Hillary, like a Pavlov knee-jerk, could not resist. The irony of course is, to my way of thinking, she has set the women's cause back: You don't Advance a cause, by employing Backward strategies.

And because Barack did not go for the bait and self-destruct, the Republican's must now devise a rationale for their existance that the voters can buy. Sure, they'll be those that don't vote for Obama because he is black, but in 2008 --- that will no longer win the day. (Nice try, Hillary).

...I repeat, I will vote for Hillary should she be the Dem candidate against McSame.

She is just my last choice amongst that f**cking outstanding field of candidates that we had at the beginning. I blame the media for it having come to this. It's not a matter of gender or race. It's about the best qualified. Experience counts, but so does policy. Policy trumps experience with my vote.

BTW...Florida and Michigan should get "do over" votes that include everyone who was in the running at that time....not just the Hillary votes. If we allowed those delagates to be seated, they should be representative of the candidates available at that time, not just the one who went against the rules and ran in those two states.

without Hillary voters. They stay home, vote McCain ,write-in, or vote 3rd party (lotsa choices there) that's it. But keep digging.

very accurately. You, in my opinion were focused and fair on this piece. I am not familiar with you but I will make a point of reading your blog in the future if you are this reasoned and in my opinion this accurate as a rule.
Of the 2 Dems I prefer Obama. I will support Hillary if she is the nominee. She has grit and brains! I hope which ever of the two prevails, that we will elect a Rooseveltesue President and not a slick sell out bs politician. I am hoping for a GENUINELY brighter future.

For centuries gender and race have been tied together when discussing the possibility of a Black or women presidential candidate or president. This discussion has raged on for years, revolving around the question "would you vote for a women or Black presidential candidate?" However, occasionally in American history that question has not been enough and must be separated to ask whether the American people would rather vote for a Black presidential candidate or a women presidential candidate. The outcome of such questions has shown that gender stereotypes are overwhelmingly, more difficult to escape than racial stereotypes in American Presidential elections based on long-standing societal, patriarchal norms that are formulated on the basis that ours is a nation built by males.

Opinion surveys are one way of determining voter preferences in which participants are asked direct questions like "If your party nominated a woman for President, would you vote for her if she were qualified for the job?", which have concluded a strong similarity attraction in the form of pro-female biases among women, pro-black biases among Blacks, and pro-white male biases among white males (Sigelman and Sigelman, 1982). Additionally the data suggests that the similarity bias becomes less relevant sooner when participants had to choose between a Black or white female President.

In a 2007 Gallup Poll 94 percent of Americans polled claimed that they would vote for a Black candidate in comparison to the 88 percent of Americans would vote for a woman President. This remained the trend in subsequent polls until 1975 when Black candidates started polling better than women Presidential candidates in America, though this says more about American's changing attitudes toward Black men than the current polling figures.

There have been two major changes in American presidential elections that increasingly place more emphasis on the candidate's sex or race than previously thought. In a pre-World War II era the Nation was very concerned with party identification and loyalty in deciding voter choice (Jacobson 1992). As the importance of party identification lessens the importance of a corresponding, strict party-line voting lowers as well. The result is an increasing importance of the candidate individual and the individuality of the voter. As time and society allows an increasingly diverse candidate pool the varied studies on voter choice become obsolete. The American Presidency is no longer a white, male dominant institution, but instead has an increasing amount of candidates from differing backgrounds, races, and genders (McDermott, 1998).

As relevant as the question between race and sex has become it is impossible to determine if gender stereotypes are more prevalent than racial stereotypes using election outcomes as there has never been a minority president (Black or female). The closest that the United States ever came to having representation in the White House was in 1984 with the Vice Presidential nominee of Geraldine Ferraro, but the Mondale and Ferraro campaign lost, arguably due to Mondale and not Ferraro.

However, voters do not feel that gender is a factor in local or even state offices. Many women hold State or local office and some of that data has been used sparingly, because of the vast difference between National, State, and local elections and offices. But, there is data to suggest that as the perceived prestige of the office increases, so does the importance of the candidate's gender (Ambrosius and Welch, 1984).

The American presidency has become synonymous with maleness or masculine characteristics, which limits the acceptance of women who run for the presidency. A woman must walk a tenuous line between what is considered "masculine" and what is "feminine." Additionally straying from one's gender roles may also interfere or hinder the candidate's chances at winning the presidency, whereas adhering strictly to one's gender roles may exclude a candidate from the process, thus lessening their chances to win the Presidency. An androgynous woman who combined the two, gender roles may have a greater chance at winning, but only when coupled with the timing and knowledge of exhibiting the accepted trait at the right time. An androgynous woman could still display "masculine" characteristics at the inappropriate times, or vise versa, and be penalized for the error (Rosenwasser and Seale, 1988). Rosenwasser's study collaborates the findings of Butterfield and Powell (1981) which suggest that a "good president" is perceived as "masculine."

The difference between perceived leadership styles of a male or woman, when leadership style is viewed as a fairly constant political behavior, can also be a factor in determining the barriers that women are faced with when running for the Presidency. Female candidates worry about the perception that their behavior creates, especially in "projecting gravitas," as former U.S. Congressional Represenatative and Presidential hopeful, Patricia Schroeder noted (Shoroeder, 1999). 'Gravitas,' a quality of accepted substance or depth of personality or having a mastery of one's emotions, has been widely attributed to males from ancient Roman society. In opposition, men are almost expected to project masculine behavior because they have cornered the political market for so many years that the American public has grown accustomed to the patriarchal society(Carli and Eagly, 2001).

There are two aspects of gender roles, agnetic and communal, that help define a person's leadership style (Eagly, et al., 2000). Agnetic characteristics are more dominantly attributed to males. Agnetic characteristics are usually associated with an assertiveness, controlling, and confident persona or behavioral pattern. In a presidential election, agnetic traits would be associated with speaking assertively, showing initiative, and making problem-focused suggestions or solutions. Communal characteristics are more closely aligned with women, associated with a general concern for the welfare of others, affection, sympathy, and "gentle" behaviors. Communal traits in a presidential election would be associated with tentative speaking styles, acceptance, and a willingness to help solve a relational or interpersonal problem (Cali and Eagly, 2001).

Agnetic and communal are leadership style characteristics closely aligned with gender roles, but not to be mistaken for over-arching gender roles of "masculine" or "feminine." In a presidential election a "masculine" issue or platform may be increasing National security, immigration, gun control, defense, and the budget, whereas "feminine" issues might be more associated with health care, education or literacy, discrimination, elderly, and traditional values. In Rosenwasser's supplemental data (1987), a trend was found to establish clear proof that "masculine" presidential duties rated higher than "feminine" presidential duties in terms of importance. "Feminine" duties were rated significantly lower than duties that were perceived to be "masculine" or gender "neutral". "Masculine" duties were rated higher than gender "neutral," presidential duties.

As Eagly (et al, 2000.) argued, the interchange between agnetic, masculine, communal, or feminine behaviors occurs not only because individuals interact with leaders in gendered terms and leaders respond accordingly or in a manner that they feel is expected, but also because most people have very set, internalized genered roles and ideologies. This interchange of social identities, allows for men and women to have differing expectations for their own behavior, based on the audience and the situation in which they are faced. The perceived requirements for a male or female leader fluctuates between the agnetic or masculine and communal or feminine spectrums (Carli and Eagly, 2001). If a woman fails to exhibit, what the audience, society, and the media interprets as "appropriate" communal or feminine behavior they can be negatively evaluated for the violation, however they may also gain some form of positive feedback from the event as well.

There is abundant evidence to suggest that people consistently use similarity as a major tool in determining likability, attractiveness, and vote-ability. The similarity effect not only shapes a person's attitudes and values, but also extends to a candidates sex and race (Olsen and Williamsen, 1978). Similarly, Hershey's 1980 survey of Indiana University students showed that black students were more likely to vote for black candidates and white students to vote for white candidates, of similar qualifications. The female students were more likely to support minority candidates than males were, were especially supportive of female candidates. Additionally experimental studies have included that there is a direct causal link between the perceived attractiveness of a male candidate being position and a negative, for a likewise attractive female candidate (Sigelman and Sigelman, 1982).

Approaching surveys in a manner that eliminates or lessens the risk of conscious bias and societal pressures, Sapiro (1981-2) designed a survey where participants read an anonymous speech by a candidate and asked to record the candidate's sex. Half of the participants believed that the speech was given by a male and half by a female. Whereas the second part of the survey outcomes supported other similar surveys indicating that significantly more participants though that the perceived male would win the election, though no definite voting preference was recorded. Such results offer up the alternative conclusion that females are less likely perceived to win the election, than the assumed male candidate (Rosenwasser, et al., 1987).

However, these studies also call attention to their participant pool, made of primarily college students who are younger and more educated than the general American citizenry, which affects voter turnout and support (powell, 1986). Also due to the participants education level and age the political ideologies may also be disproportionate to the rest of the nation as the participants were chosen at random and not by representative demographics based on past, Presidential elections. Large scale participant pools tend to have similar sampling problems when dealing with voting, as participants often over-exaggerate their voting behavior and report false figures or outcomes (Anderson and Silver 1986) because they know their behavior to be unpopular among like-minded individuals.

In American presidential elections women candidates are judged more harshly than male counterparts. In an article in the New York Times referencing Patricia Schroeder's announcement not to continue her campaign for Democratic Presidential nominee in 1987, the public were asked, "are female tears saltier than male tears?" When announcing the end of her presidential candidacy bid, Schroeder cried at her own press conference, in a move that has been harshly criticized by men and women politicians, alike. However, critics were not as sharp when Senator and Presidential hopeful, Gary Hart, or Massachusetts Governor and Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Michael Dukakis grew tearful in front of the American public (Weinraub, 1987).

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, New York Senator and Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton choked up on more than one occasion in public and was overwhelmingly blasted in the media as being "uncharacteristic" (Snow and Parker, 2008) or "womanly." Former Barack Obama campaign advisor, and retired Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, said in a telephone interview that Obama has "real gravitas, not artificially created, focus-grouped, poll-directed, rehearsed gravitas (Wallsten, 2008)." Though Clinton was simultaneously criticized for being too "masculine" in public. To counteract harsh criticism in situations where a woman is found, or perceived, to be "exceptionally overqualified, can women hope to succeed" in climbing the political ladder. Women who are perceived to have only average ability have "little, if any, chance for success (Bowman, et al, 1965.).

In a study performed by Adams (1975) females, Blacks, and other minority candidates were ran against male or nonminority candidates in a simulated election of university students. Black candidates faced a considerable advantage, with females having a slight lead over other minority candidates in local and state elections. In simulated National elections, Blacks received a proportionate amount of the votes suggesting that they are the dominant minority, whereas women received considerably fewer votes than had been previously expected.

In the arena of American Presidential elections there exists many, well-documented studies that show there is a clear "standard operating procedure" for deciding who to vote for in a Presidential election. This "procedure" does not take into account party loyalty or identification, instead focuses on the conscious or subconscious thought processes that surround the differences between race and gender. This "standard operating procedure" consists of white males, males of other races, white females and, arguably at the bottom, a female from a minority. All of this is predicated on the fact that American societal norms remain current and do not make a drastic shift as in 1958 where the majority of the American public, polled stronger in favor of a Black President, rather than a woman. Gender stereotypes are overwhelmingly, more difficult to overcome than racial stereotypes because our country is based on a patriarchal society that emphasizes the importance of men over women which affects every facet of our society. Women will always be evaluated based on perceptions and stereotypes instead of the merit of the individual, unless common societal norms are changed.

The fact remains that Obama is male and Clinton is female, but the twist in this particular election is ageism. Many studies have shown that there is a clear link between ageism and electability in elections and the perceived age bubble in which a person is thought to be "presidential." Let's not forget that Obama is the youngest candidate, followed by Hillary and finally McCain. Is McCain even electable because of his age, is Hillary?

At that point Hillary will not be able to mathematically overtake Obama in delegates.

Hillary will concede. She is already changing her tone in public. But the small number of her supporters that I consider a cult following will go nuts. Break out the popcorn.

The Clinton campaign has not been trying to convince people that a black man is unelectable. This is a typical smear that Obama supporters started launching against Clinton when Bill dismissed his victory in South Carolina. Dismissing a victory in a particular state with an overwhelmingly black democratic electorate is not about convincing people a black man can't be elected. Obama was heavily favored for that very reason by a variety of commentators prior to the election.

Any candidate who attended a church for 20 years where the minister was recorded saying "God Damn America!" would have been subjected to the same interrogation. This was about the only time the media treated Obama as a typical candidate, instead of swooning over him, and his response that he wasn't aware of this, was the disingenuous response typical of most politicians.

The sexism has been rampant, and there has been no equivalent racist treatment of Obama.
Chris Mathews has been running a misogynistic, hate-filled show, that started before Hilary even entered the race, when he referred to her delay in announcing as "coy". He has also called her Mme DeFarge, and Eva Peron.

On this very station, Belzer ran a week long hate-fest. With many sexist comments preceded by the line "I'm not a sexist"

He's not sexist, but Hilary's ambition disgusts him. When is a male politician ever critcized for ambition?

He's not sexist, but "Hilary never wears anything feminine, she wants to be a man!" If he had said something equally racist, such as: "Obama doesn't have a great big afro or dreadlocks, he wants to be white!", he'd be off the station within the hour.

...I haven't seen a single example of a high profile blogger in the left-wing blogosphere using overtly sexist language...

"Billary" is an insult, but not "Cindohn" or "Micharack".
What could be more of a sexest dynamic staring at you
directly. I guess it just blew right over your punkin head.