• if Obama wins the nomination.

  • in different ways.

    1. We need to increase margins among female GE voters as much as possible because it's the Democrats' strength.

    2. Women already tilt Democratic.  We need a candidate to appeal to other demographics where there's more potential for growth.

    I don't know which argument applies more here.  I do suspect that Hillary may hit a ceiling among women voters in the general, and that Obama can cut into several key Republican demographics.  But I could be wrong.

  • who don't subscribe to identity politics.  Campaign tactics matter; it's one of the main reasons I moved away from Hillary in the first place.  How can't you see this?  Do white Hillary supporters simply "not want blacks in power"?

    My dislike (not hatred) of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her gender.  I would gladly support a Barbara Boxer, Kathleen Sebelius or Gennifer Granholm (if she could run) candidacy.

    The "not wanting women in power" is an offensive canard.

  • you're saying that the Obama campaign is claiming Clinton "played the race card".  Fine, I don't agree that she did, though the Lyndon Johnson reference was pointless and petty.

    I'll grant you that they were lifting the quote and twisting its meaning.  That doesn't mean they are "playing the race card" themselves, i.e. trying to get people to vote for him because he's black.  Tons of politicians refer to MLK (even [shudder] Bush, when contesting affirmative action).

    I don't think Obama would be above doing that if he thought it would work.  He knows it wouldn't, and not just because there aren't enough blacks.  It would make the rest of the population feel excluded.

  • mindlessly cheering for Obama.  I'm not beholden to any of his campaign slogans.

    I did read the Krugman column in its entirety.  One of his weakest, I thought.  It sounded a lot like one of David Brooks', full of unreaserched impressions and disdain for voters' emotional connections.  Krugman does a lot better when he keeps to popularizing economic concepts.

    If you think opposition to the idea that Hillary should promote her campaign based on her gender is misogynist, then I won't continue to argue the point.  As an admitted

    partisan, n. A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
    hack, you're unlikely to see the flaws in applying that definition.

    Yes, a metaphor using an abstract concept like misogyny as kindling for a campaign fire (what, is she going up in flames?), is clumsy.  And lame because it uses the tired the misogyny straw man and more ad-homs.

    And so you don't think I'm cowardly attacking your crappy writing without offering something myself, here are some limericks:

    The Hillary camp had resources:
    Donations from lobbyist sources.
    But it wasn't enough,
    Once the campaign got tough,
    To whine 'bout misogynist forces.

    Monster Tuesday was hardly a blowout
    The calender presaged the next drought:
    Since, she's gone oh-for-five.
    Now, to hope to survive
    Gender wars are the easiest cop-out.

  • but so far it seems that Obama has been avoiding it like the plague, at least overtly.  Which I believe is the right strategy.  Clinton doesn't need to emphasize that she's a women; voters already know that.  But try to appeal to voters because you're a woman, and you start to create resentment.

  • Seymour,

    You've taken several opportunities to boost your own credentials and experience in this thread, without showing how they're relevant.  You dismiss polls and contrary opinions without demonstrating why they're wrong.  Circumstantial ad-homs and appeals to authority abound.

    You throw around labels like "misogynist" without appearing to understand what they mean. Your semi-verse is clumsy and lame.

    I don't have any hard data to support my prediction of a backlash, and I don't know how far the Clinton campaign will push the gender issue.  But I don't claim to be an authority or to be able to read people's minds.

    You, on the other hand, are a partisan hack, and not a very good one.

  • and that's the conventional thinking on Clinton anyway.  I'm not addressing her merits as a candidate.

    What I'm saying is that if her campaign starts being perceived as some sort of "feminist crusade", both men and women will resent it.

    It would be similar if the Obama campaign started using rhetoric like "for too long, African-Americans have been shut out...".  Of course they won't, because blacks are nowhere near a majority.

    Which is the danger for the Clinton campaign.  They must be looking at their strength among women, knowing that women are over half of the electorate.  They might want to push the margins by overemphasizing women's issues, female empowerment and such.

    In my experience, people get politically involved more often out of aversion to a candidate or campaign strategy than affection for one, the Obama hype notwithstanding.  I got involved in 2000 because of GWB, for example.

    I'm convinced that playing the "gender card" (to employ an overused phrase) will amount to a net loss in support.  Especially among men, but women as well.

  • comment on a post Survey USA: Obama 52% Hillary 33% in Maryland over 6 years ago

    can start wildly inflating expectations again.

  • screams into the microphone :)

  • how am I in a position to threaten you with anything?  Please learn to interpret comments better.

    I'm predicting a backlash against gender-identity politicking.  Especially in the general if Hillary's the nominee.

  • Dems terrified of another Repub president are not up to your level of wisdom and experience, they read the poll and decide they'd better vote for Obama in the primary because he's the more "electable".  Is the poll meaningless then?  It can't predict the race in November accurately, but it can effect people's perceptions of the race now.

    Oh, and you will not get your gender-war primary race.  The NY NOW gambit didn't turn out too well.

  • Is Obama claiming that superdelegates shouldn't be seated?  How is asking them to think "long and hard" an attempt to change the rules?  Oh I see, you're trying to create a false equivalence with the disgusting HRC bid to seat MI and FL invalid delegates.

    You know that Obama bought a national ad, and that he tried to get it blacked out in FL but couldn't, right?  Also, how do you think all those Hillary signs appeared in the hands of her FL supporters at her sneaky post-election rally?  Do you not agree that passing out signs is "campaigning"?  And that it had to have started before the polls closed?  If that's the way Hillary keeps pledges, I don't want her anywhere near the Oath of Office.

    In the end, FL and MI won't matter.  The credentials committee decides whether to seat the delegates, and it will be controlled by whichever member has the most delegates outside of MI and FL (including superdelegates).  In other words, they will only be seated if Hillary has already won.

  • on a comment on MyDD on the Rise over 6 years ago

    the only direct quote from Obama:

    Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune 11/14/2004)

    Nowhere does Obama even say anything mild like "these people deserve compensation for the suffering of their ancestors".  It's all made-up hack job by a hack journalist.

  • on a comment on MyDD on the Rise over 6 years ago

    but it's not usually because they favor one candidate.  The media usually get stuck on stupid sensational side-issues and narratives.

    If Hillary can't figure out how to play the media suckage to her advantage, she doesn't deserve the top prize.  She has more experience with it than Obama.


Advertise Blogads