by Steve M, Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:25:55 AM EDT
A little history to set the stage. Long before the word "macaca" entered the public discourse, Jim Webb had to win a bruising primary in order to win the right to face George Allen. In the closing days of the primary campaign, Webb's opponent, Virginia businessman Harris Miller, chose to make a desperate accusation of anti-semitism against Webb in a response to flagging poll numbers.
Neither I nor any other Jewish person I talked to saw any merit whatsoever in these accusations of anti-semitism, and you might say we know it when we see it. But even though Webb went on to win the primary, the reverberations were felt. Predictably, Allen's campaign made it an issue in the general election, arguing "even Democrat Harris Miller says..." And as we all know, Webb ended up winning by a mere handful of votes. This manufactured issue, thrown out there at the last minute by a nearly defeated primary opponent, could have easily cost the Democratic Primary its majority in the U.S. Senate.
by Sandy1938, Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:41:17 AM EDT
I am new to this site, and new to writing in BLOGS. I have been reading this blog, as well as others, for quite awhile now. In my first DIARY, I would like to know why so many people seem to hold HILLARY CLINTON to a different standard than other Presidential candidates?
For example, while HIllary did vote to authorize to use FORCE in IRAQ, she also made it clear in her speech on October 12, 2002, that her vote was not to authorize a new foreign policy of pre-emptive warfare. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton also supported the BYRD AMMENDMENT, which would have limited the IRAQ war to ONE YEAR. John Edwards both voted against, and lobbied against this ammendment to the joint resolution.
I keep reading that HILLARY CLINTON accepts FEDERAL LOBBYIST MONEY, but I have read that OBAMA and EDWARDS both accept LOCAL AND PAC LOBBYIST MONEY themselves.
I am not knocking any DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE. That is not the point of this diary, AT ALL. The point is to ask others what they make of the seemingly DOUBLE STANDARD that people apply to HILLARY CLINTON. Is it sexism? Is it that familiarity breeds contempt (since she has been in the public spotlight for 15 years now), or is it that she is taking the heat for the perceived mistakes of her husband? I honestly would like to hear what others have to say.
by Trond Jacobsen, Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:36:18 PM EDT
Social desirability bias is not a myth. A great challenge in making surveys more scientific is developing designs that avoid social desirability bias.
A number of persons have wondered whether or not Obama would suffer from the "Wilder Effect" or the "Dinkins Effect", particularly in the closest states where every vote will make the difference. That is the explicit point of areyouready's diary.
Recent research indicates there may be an ever larger "gender effect". Poll respondents in significant numbers may disguise their unwillingness and dislike of a female candidate for President. If these findings are valid, then a portion of those declaring a willingness to vote for Senator Clinton are lying.UPDATE
: One of the authors of the study provided me a link to the version of their report to appear in POQ: Streb, Burrell, et al., Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President
. He says that POQ has a backlog of articles and he is hoping this research is published in the fall issue. I have a meeting so I have not yet read the paper but I thought I would post a link here for those of you who are interested.
by DoIT, Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:34:41 AM EDT
I read the title of one diary here, Biden and Dodd Carrying Hillary's Jock Strap, posted by someone that has earned Trusted Poster credentials. This title is blatantly sexist. I mean this is vile. It is one thing to criticize a candidate but quite another than to demean their gender. The last time I checked Democrats stood up against such characterizations.
It is wrong to allow someone that is obviously a sexist to be a trusted poster at this or any other blog. We Democrats don't put up with that kind of shit. So I implore the owner and the managers of this site to reconsider the trusted poster status of this particular individual. I am sure that having a sexist as a trusted poster was never your intention.
I would personally criticize this individual on the offending diary but since this person can make someone's comments just disappear it would be a waste of my time. And my time is valuable. Clearly many people that dislike Hillary are sexists. This has been the not so secret secret. And it is rarely discussed. But I did not think anyone here would be so bold as to demonstrate their blatant sexism for everyone to see plainly.
by The Bilerico Project, Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:02:54 PM EDT
(Originally posted on The Bilerico Project by Bil Browning)
I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary Clinton. Do I think she'll end up the Democratic candidate? Yeah. Will I support her if she does? Hell yeah. But am I excited about the possibility of Hillary as Prez? Let's just say I'm about as excited over the idea as I was over a Kerry presidency - better than what we have but not particularly exciting.
I have to admit, however, that some of the sexism that has been directed Hillary's way is really starting to piss me off. You don't have to look very far to find blatant examples - check just about any mass media story. In fact, you know things are going a little too far when even the wingnuts are starting to tire of the same sexist drivel.