It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is passed over for a man

Clintonistas have recently taken to comparing the Obama-Clinton campaign to a sort of hiring process, whereby the most qualified candidate in their minds, Hillary Clinton, has lost out on the promotion because of her gender.

Let's say for argument's sake, that it is appropriate to describe the election as a competition where Ms. (or Mr.) American Electorate, the CEO of the United States of America, has to choose the new manager of the firm. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both want to be considered for the promotion, but Ms. American Electorate is pretty sure that he/she is going to hire Sen. Clinton. But, because the company policy requires that the candidates sit down for an interview (the campaign process), Ms. American Electorate has to go through the formality.

Barack Obama shows up for the interview, and Ms. American Electorate is surprisingly very, very impressed. He is well prepared, knowledgeable, and has demonstrated that he has the skills for the job. Ms. American Electorate is second guessing her previous decision to give Sen. Clinton the job and decides to see what Sen. Clinton has to say.

Senator Clinton was really confident that she was going to get the job. She was sure that her resume was more impressive than her closest competitor, and decided that the interview process wasn't that big of a deal.

She showed up 15 minutes too late for the interview and obviously came unprepared. And over the course of the interview, she happens to slightly offend Ms. American Electorate to boot.

It's a no-brainer to figure out who is going to get the job.

If Clinton had displayed this kind of conduct for a top corporation, she would have, too, been passed up for the promotion.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Job Interview (all tags)





by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 02:24PM | 0 recs


by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 02:26PM | 0 recs
What Are You KIDDING Me?

Fifteen minutes late and unprepared??!!!

C O L !!!!

This woman is beyond prepared.  She's run circles around your guy in every debate and rarely trips up when it comes to offending folks.

I won't even go into your candidate's performance during the interview or how many of us he's offended along the way.  

As for his refusal to go toe to toe with her in more than just a single debate since Edwards dropped out... well I'll leave that to others to figure out.

by alegre 2008-05-25 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

Love the energy alegre. I hope you bring that same enthusiam (and spint) to Obama's general election campaign.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 05:13PM | 0 recs
Women have had the vote since 1919

They make up slightly more than half of the electorate.

WHY have we not had a female President yet?

by architek 2008-05-25 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Women have had the vote since 1919

Because many women vote for a leader with quality and integrity instead of voting for a very  flawed (IMO) candidate just because they are a woman.

by GeeMan 2008-05-25 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Women have had the vote since 1919

Yeah I guess since blacks have only had the vote since 1964 she obviously gets "first dibs" and we shouldn't vote on who we would actually want leading us.

by kasjogren 2008-05-25 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Women have had the vote since 1919

just because the deep south denied blacks the vote doesn't mean the rest of the country did.

AA men got to vote 60 years before women did.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-26 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

I said the same thing to her, already knowing what the response would be. It's predictable, like a broken record.

by terra 2008-05-25 05:58PM | 0 recs
To quote alegre's statement on that score:

Don't hold your breath. 3928/5053/20#20

by Elsinora 2008-05-25 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

"rarely trips up when it comes to offending folks." Now that's rich! I guess you're choosing to forget what she said Friday?

My only answer is to quote Holly Golightly

"There are certain shades of limelight that can wreck a girls complexion"

by venician 2008-05-25 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

She was unprepared in the sense of the interview, Alegre. Her campaign has been quoted as acknowledging mistakes in not adaquately planning for post February 5th states.

I also take issue with your use of "rare." She may not have offended you many times, but I've been hurt and offended on several occasions, moreso than wiht Senator Obama, though I, of course, have a bias.

Senator Obama has performed very well. Even after Wright, Ayers, and his bad media weeks, he wasn't hurt that much.

As for his debate choice, it's pure politics, and that's sad. I don't like it; however, its hard to feel much sympathy when Clinton did the same thing in her Senate race.

by Falsehood 2008-05-25 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

The most glaring example of poor planning and unpreparedness on Hillary's part is the financial mess she got herself into early on in the campaign.  But the time Super Tuesday was coming up, she was already in the hole financially, even though she figured she'd be campaigning until Super Tuesday!  Even though she'd raised more money than any other candidate at that point.

Hillary's 2006 Senate campaign also blew threw many more millions of dollars than was necessary as well.  It's a pattern with her.

It seems that fiscal management is not Hillary's strong suit, and given the economic/fiscal problems we have now, I'd say that this is a big issue for a lot of voters.

by tibbs 2008-05-25 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

Clinton can't campaign her way out of a paper bag.

Thanks for playing, Alegre.

by dsharma23 2008-05-25 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

They've had more than 1 debate since Edwards dropped out.

What about her claim that it would be over by February 5th?

I won't even call it kool-aid you 44ers are drinking. It's clearly shrooms.

by terra 2008-05-25 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: What Are You KIDDING Me?

See why is that you think your opinion holds any special validity? It is just your biased opinion and nothing of any more substance than that.And no I'm not kidding you!

My opinion is just the opposite of yours on all counts you mentioned.

by GeeMan 2008-05-25 06:17PM | 0 recs
Hey, alegre...

If you've got time, I posted a couple questions in your "My 2 Cents" thread.  I'd really appreciate it if you could answer them for me.  Thanks!

by Elsinora 2008-05-25 06:41PM | 0 recs

indeed.  great diary.  right on.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-25 06:27PM | 0 recs
The interview was the debates

and Obama SUCKED. In fact, he refused to go to more interviews. Questions were too hard (HARD WORK).

Also, who did Hillary offend (besides the Obama followers)? It was Obama who insulted and pissed off large swaths of the American population.

by observer5 2008-05-25 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

No it wasn't. The interview was the entire campaign process, INCLUDING the debates.

I'm sure AA's could tell you precisely who the Clinton's insulted.

by dsharma23 2008-05-25 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

That's why they didn't vote for him and he's way behind.

by Becky G 2008-05-25 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

Well, that is why he hasn't done as well as she has for the past three months. A good ad campaing and tightly crafted message of hope will only carry a candidate so far.

by Inky 2008-05-25 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hope will take a candidate only so far

tell that to...

Bill Clinton, circa 1992.

by dsharma23 2008-05-25 02:44PM | 0 recs
Since the debates, Obama's totals are WAY DOWN

There is no denying that..

What else could that possibly mean other than that the American people are not so clearly behind him that he is certain to win. The Democrats need a winner, and America needs a DOER. Obama is a great guy and a promising politician and he has earned a lot of votes but he is not the best candidate and he is not up to the task of getting America out of its long nightmare.. When I look at the debates what I see is a person who evades hard questions. When i see Hillary I see a thinker, someone who WELCOMES hard questions and CHALLENGES - welcomes them as an opportunity to SOLVE problems.

Which one would you rather have representing YOU?

by architek 2008-05-25 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the debates, Obama's totals are WAY DOWN

You say Senator Clinton is a 'DOER' but what major pieces of legislation has she brought through the Senate? What problems has she 'solved'? The most important issue that she  had direct control over was the Health Care reforms of the early 1990's and she failed to get them passed, which might I add, is the most important aspect of any prospective Health Care plan.

I don't deny that Sen. Obama does not have a lot of experience in Washington, but let's not make out Sen. Clinton to be Daniel Webster either.

by JENKINS 2008-05-25 07:31PM | 0 recs
too bad the campaign is 7 months

name recognition and white resentment will only carry you so far.

by JJE 2008-05-25 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: too bad the campaign is 7 months

Ah yes, it's always about racism. It never could possibly be about Obama's own deficiencies as a candidate. And of course, sexism has nothing to do with Hillary's trouble with voters in certain regions.

And since when hasn't Obama had name recognition, esp. among Democratic voters? Given the contempt the press has always shown for the Clintons, why should Hillary's name recognition be such a favorable thing?

Moreover, while Hillary's unfavorability ratings have not budged since the start of this campaign, Obama's have risen steadily, to the point where they are now tied, although Obama's "highly unfavorable" ratings are now higher than Clinton's. And this is in spite a a loving treatment by press corps. So name recognition may not be all it's cracked up to be.

by Inky 2008-05-25 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: too bad the campaign is 7 months

Are there really regions that are more sexist than others, and if so, are you suggesting that these regions include the Upper Midwest, Pacific Northwest, and half of New England over Appalachia?

I mean, I hate to pile on states like Kentucky and West Virginia, but are they really that much less sexist than Oregon and Minnesota?  Based on what I know of the region, it's really hard not to come to the conclusion that those states aren't that much less sexist, but rather that much more racist.  Okay, so I'm basing this on a general knowledge of American history and anecdotal evidence, but seriously. On this note: x.jhtml?videoId=168561

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Good

She was ready on March 4.  He was ready on Day One.  That's how he netted the same number of pledged delegates from Virginia (25) that she did in the Texas (4), Ohio (9), and Pennsylvania (12) primaries combined.  Again, ready from Day One ...

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Good

The media has his back ... for now. If Obama has run such a sterling campaign, why then is he having such trouble closing the deal.

by Inky 2008-05-25 03:14PM | 0 recs
Close the deal?

I thought Hillary wanted to let all the voters have their say.  You can't fault Obama for agreeing, can you?

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Close the deal?

I totally agree. Let the voters have their say. They've been speaking loud and clear in recent elections where Hillary has been winning more primaries and more overall votes than Obama. Let's see who wins more votes in the three remaining elections.

by Inky 2008-05-25 03:28PM | 0 recs
Sure, we can see, but it doesn't matter

This is the sum of your argument.

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure, we can see, but it doesn't matter

If you expect me to read another blithering Hillary hit piece by an Obama supporter, you are mistaken. Has Hillary or has she not won more votes (close to 600,000 more votes, from what I've seen), since March?

by Inky 2008-05-25 04:49PM | 0 recs
It's a short satirical piece from The Onion.

WASHINGTON--Significantly trailing Sen. Barack Obama in delegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton made a last-ditch effort to settle the hotly contested presidential race Monday, when she loudly shouted a proposal that the candidate who gets the next vote wins the Democratic nomination. "All sides have battled long and hard, and now it is time to take up a fair and impartial method for deciding this: next vote takes all," Clinton said, adding that she was crossing her fingers behind her back to ensure that the electoral process is allowed to take its course. "Although I am open to discussing the feasibility of implementing a best-two-out-of-three policy, it has become clear the only way to settle this historic campaign is whoever can run to that door first--go!" Members of the Obama campaign disputed the results of the footrace, pointing out that the Illinois senator had long ago called for ace of black magic times infinity with no backsies.

Who cares who's done better in the last half?  If that is even true, Obama's done better overall.

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: It's a short satirical piece from The Onion.

Maybe I'll go back and read it then -- I just glanced at the title and rushed to judgment.

Who cares who's done better in the last half?  If that is even true, Obama's done better overall.

It may not be important to you, but to others it suggests that his support is weakening while her support is strengthening. It also suggest that she would be the better candidate in the GE, in spite of Obama's amazing ability to win Red State caucuses in the Democratic primary.

by Inky 2008-05-25 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: It's a short satirical piece from The Onion.

I reposted the whole thing above.

Anyway, the only way you'd think from the available evidence that his support was weakening is if that was what you wanted to see.  Here's a graph which plots the average of all available national polls (apologies to Causist)

Of course you'll call this slanted, but some day soon HRC will withdraw and you'll look around you and wonder where all this Obama support came from overnight, but it was there all along.

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's a short satirical piece from The Onion.

Yeah, but those polls only guage Democratic support--of course, polls like that are going to have Obama ahead, given the media narrative that Hillary is like Glen Close in a hot tub to metaphorically knife the anointed nominee. Here are the polls I'm talking about: 175116/499 inton/Maps/May25.html ama/Maps/May25.html

by Inky 2008-05-25 05:24PM | 0 recs
From the same outfit,

Here's the vs. McCain averages from the same outfit.
First Clinton

Then Obama

Look at the dots above and below those lines which represent polls favoring Obama and polls favoring Clinton.  If you cherry pick polls, you can show that either candidate is ahead.  If you average them all together, which is a good idea statistically, it's clear that they are evenly matched.  Claiming that Obama is clearly going to lose the GE while Hillary is clearly going to win is simply dishonest based on the data and can only rely on a cynical 'gut-level intuition' that Americans will reject him.  If this is a convincing argument, why have so many supers switched away from Clinton to Obama, rather than the opposite situation she needs?  Do you claim that every superdelegate is blind to the reality that is so obvious to you?

by semiquaver 2008-05-26 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: He did.

With 150+ pledged delegate lead and 408 pledged delegates left, out of 187 pledged delegates up for grabs on May 6, he won NC by 15 delegates, and lost IN by 4.  That's called closing the deal.

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: He did.

You forgot about WV and Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, but feel free to count Oregon while you're at it.

by Inky 2008-05-25 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: He did.

Let me refer to semiquaver.

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: He did.

Your reference is lost on me, but that's okay.

by Inky 2008-05-25 04:04PM | 0 recs
I get the feeling....

That quite a few references are lost on you.

by Deano963 2008-05-25 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: He did.

Does anyone else find this person's sig to be really ironic considering who they support?

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Close the deal?

How about someone who was ahead by 18 points nationally, 16 points in South Carolina, and had over $19 million more dollars on hand last December?  Why couldn't that person close the deal?

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Close the deal?

He took her 100 SD lead and is now up by what, 30?

He's closed the deal.   He's just being respectful and waiting for Hillary to sign the papers.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: We're on the same team.

Soon, everyone on this blog will be on the same team.  I can't wait for that day.

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

"as she has for the past three months." Yup, she done well decreasing that 100 SD lead down to a +31 for Obama.

by catilinus 2008-05-25 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

Which skill is most important for a President to have?

(a) Managing and determining the direction of a large organization.

(b) Giving bland answers to canned questions.

Running a campaign is a big part of the "interview," and Obama crushed Clinton in that part.

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-25 02:55PM | 0 recs
It depends on the selection criteria

It doesn't hurt to have some sugar daddies around to provide lots of cash and at least the illusion of being able to get more where that came from. Sounds more like a gathering of the "old boys" at the country club to me. How handy to find a lackey who also happened to be an African American.

by pan230oh 2008-05-25 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: It depends on the selection criteria

Actually, the illusion that Hillary can get any more cash from her small donor base faded a long time ago.

by catalysis 2008-05-25 03:33PM | 0 recs
You might have a point...

If Obama didn't have over 1.5 million people donating to his campaign and an overwhelmingly large number of donations coming in amounts less than $200.  But, alas, reality again rears its ugly head.

Irony abounds in your post, as Clinton's donations have been larger and from fewer people.  Who has the sugar daddies again?

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-05-25 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: It depends on the selection criteria

What on earth are you talking about, pan? You know very well that your candidate is the one with the big donors (and money trouble as a result) while Obama has been using the internet to kick ass with small donors.  But please, tell me who his "old boy" masters are.

You've been otherwise pretty reasonable, so I'll chock that one up to fatigue from the long campaign.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

Can you used a term other than the sexist "sugar daddies" comment? Thanks.

by catilinus 2008-05-25 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

Sugar mommas and daddies.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The interview was the debates

Uprated because insulting a politician isn't one of the things that require a zero.

by Scotch 2008-05-25 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

Obama gained a lot of support because of debate performance. In 18 interviews more and more people liked him. ( I agree with the diarist about some of Clinton's strategy being inadequate, but still think the war vote is what did her in.) But they're both wonderful debaters, Dems should be proud of our two remaining nominees in that regard.

by Deadalus 2008-05-25 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

The war vote absolutely did her in for the following:

-Gave an opponent an opening.

-Reinforced the meme that she would do or say anything to get elected.

-Even after voting for it she was arrogant about her vote and if I remember correctly she said, "I will not apologize and if you want someone who didn't support the war, I'm not your candidate."

She's right, SHE is not my candidate!

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

I'm sure youg guy was helped along the way by teh MSM's complete lack of coverage regarding his voting record on Iraq once he joined the Senate - it's in lockstep with Hillary's but whatever.

by alegre 2008-05-25 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

Only vote that mattered was the authorization.  Everything else would have been tagged immediately as endangering the troops.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

The fact that he was against it from the jump is very telling. Hillary on the other hand has been running for President since she was born and instead of standing up and being a champion she decided to play politics with peoples lives.

I honestly believe she would be the nominee if she had voted no. Can you imagine how strong she would look right now?  She would win hands down the judgment theme against McCain.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 06:09PM | 0 recs
Most Companies do not allow nepotism
So the analogy is a little off there.
Also having an interviewees husband redfaced and wagging his finger is usually a turnoff for the hiring manager.
by parahammer 2008-05-25 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You mean ...

... like this?

((youtube KIyewCdXMzk))

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:05PM | 0 recs
You speak Klingon too?

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: You speak Klingon too?

No.  It's the disgraceful 1990 Jesse Helms "hands" ad.  I thought what I did was embed the youtube video.

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: You speak Klingon too?

I know.  I was just joking.

Anyways, allow me.  

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 03:31PM | 0 recs
highly qualified woman is p

the NYT endorsed her solely on her job qualifications. They clearly  preferred Barack and the thumb has been on the scale for him ever since, but they did endorse her.  She showed up on time, she's been in every contest, and she's spoken from the beginning about her qualifications and she's presented her detailed plans, her solutions. This is why she had an early lead, and why many continue to endorse her. She has a vast number of professionals and experts who back her candidacy and who'll work with her to clean the bush mess.  If it's job qualifications, it's her. If it's hiring by party insiders, it's him. If it's the voters who get to decide who to hire, it's her, I think, we'll see, there are some more contests and he could regain his momentum.  She's one the second half, though, so I'd say those odds are with her.  

by anna shane 2008-05-25 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting

If it's the voters who get to decide who to hire, it's her.

Then why does he have around 150 more pledged delegates than she does?

by Brad G 2008-05-25 03:15PM | 0 recs
How to get delegates

See Jerome's post elsewhere that shows the commanding lead in delegates, all derived from wins in state caucuses. Some of that excellent executive demeanor you attribute to Senator Obama either instigated or stood around and permitted others to instigate some pretty significant bullying techniques and process of manipulation (taken from the handbooks of community organizers no doubt)that have strong anecdotal corroboration but that will not be exposed until it's way too late.

by pan230oh 2008-05-25 03:29PM | 0 recs
this is what I hear

"People in Caucus states shouldn't have a voice  If it's not a ballot-based election, it's not Democracy."

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: How to get delegates

Obama inherited this election process. Talk to Mr. Ickes about who had more effect in shaping it.

The system is designed to prevent gate crashers & to protect incumbents or incumbeciles. This time, one crashed the gate. The gate fell on top of the Clintons. They're too dazed to see what happened.

Pity them, they fell from the pinnacle of political power.

by catilinus 2008-05-25 03:42PM | 0 recs
We all knew the rules

Clinton lost the caucus states not because they're somehow unfair to her, but because she didn't bother building an organization in those states, which is what you have to do to win.  She didn't plan past Super Tuesday, and assumed a few big-state wins were all she needed.

One candidate runs in 50 states; one runs in 20.  It's certainly a disadvantage, but you can hardly call it an unfair one if she opted out of the 30 that "don't count".

Also, note that the same campaign that's claiming the caucus states don't count because they were unprepared to win there, are claiming the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot should count.  'Cause that's super-fair.

by schroeder 2008-05-25 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: We all knew the rules

that's no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot.  Had he been able to close the deal his tactic would have worked for him, but it also depended on winning more big states and taking his momentum to fare better in polls. this is a strange contest, each has fairly different supporters, with some cross overs, and it's a virtual tie.  The longer it goes on the more she has a chance to increase her lead and show her continuing momentum. He has nothing to gain by her staying in, except making himself a stronger candidate in the GE, and keeping the pug attack machine at bay until they're sure it's too late to torpedo him, meaning until he's got a lock on it.  Soon the game will be in overtime and then the polls will carry more weight.  It's to all of our advantage to run the best of the two, meaning the one that can best beat McCain.  The voters are more progressive than either party - the voters aren't as racist or as sexist, who knew? It's the pundits and party insiders who want it closed down and her safely sidelined.  The voters seem to prefer her, because she's 'winning' in the electoral polls, the ones that will count for the GE, and she's even ahead in the overall polls.  I'm impressed with our voters, for seeing past the sexist stuff and thinking about real issues, who can beat McCain, who they most identify with on issues, who they want to see as president, and although she's now showing better, it's still really half and half, a black guy and a girl, isn't it great.    Go Democrats!!

by anna shane 2008-05-25 04:23PM | 0 recs
Are we talking about the same election?

Obama [i]has[/i] closed the deal.  His lead in pledged delegates is officially insurmountable.  He leads in superdelegates.  Clinton's run a strong campaign, and it's certainly incredibly close, but she lost.  Increasing her lead?  I wasn't aware that she had a lead in anything that actually matters.  She only has a popular vote lead depending on her own version of which states "count" and which ones don't.  It's like the Patriots crowing that they had more offensive yards in the Superbowl.  So what.  The Giants won the game.  Likewise, Obama's the nominee, and let's face the facts, he deserves to be.

Clinton started out with a big lead - besides being the presumed nominee from the get-go, she had 100 more superdelegates going into Super Tuesday - people who basically made up their mind before the campaign started.  And she blew it.  

If she were really that great a canddiate, she would have slammed the door on Obama back in February.  But the fact is, he ran a better campaign.  He campaigned in every state and didn't dismiss half the country as not counting.  He rarely went negative - certainly not to the degree that Clinton and her proxies did.  And his campaign was more professional, more organized, and more disciplined, and we have every reason to believe his campaign against McCain, and his tenure in the White House, will be the same.

As for Clinton's late "momentum", it tends to come in the form of, "Obama wins landslide in North Carolina; Clinton underperforms and barely wins Indiana; Clinton claims victory for the night."  Yes, Obama has problems in the Appalachians.  But he's also going to pick up Colorado, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia - hell, even the Carolinas are within striking distance.  Clinton's whole November strategy is getting Kerry + Florida.  I think we all remember how well things went last time we put all our eggs in that basket.

by schroeder 2008-05-25 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we talking about the same election?

To be fair, I think Obama should have won NC by 20 and won IN outright.  It was an underwhelming win but nevertheless a convincing one.  Clearly, Hillary Clinton never was able to cut into Barack Obama's base, which is what she had to do (i.e., win PA by 15, IN by 5, and lose NC and/or OR by 5 or less) if she were even to have a case at the convention given her deficit in pledged delegates.

by Brad G 2008-05-25 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we talking about the same election?

I agree, but remember Obama was just coming off the Rev. Wright Returns thing - he basically had the worst two weeks of his campaign, and still won the day handily.

by schroeder 2008-05-25 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: We all knew the rules

Can someone rewrite this person's post in a way that makes any sense at all?  Am I crazy?

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 05:22PM | 0 recs

I still don't get the job qualification bit. Obama has as much legislative experience as Hillary if you combine two terms in the Illinois senate. Combine that with a luminous academic career as editor of the Harvard Law Review AND a grass roots activist in Chicago, and on his CV alone, Obama has the DIVERSITY and RANGE of political experience to trounce many other former Presidents.

True, he hasn't sat on endless committees, and been deformed by bureaucracy, lobbying and the DC gravy train. I think these things also recommend him.

Apart from the AUMF vote, I'm afraid Hillary's time as first lady doesn't help, either in demonstrable executive experience, or on what is needed to run a campaign or a country. Dynasties are too static and inward looking to respond to changing events (cf Bush) and dynasties by marriage bring too much political baggage.

Above all, President of the United States is not a CEO position - it's the head of state, a symbolic and executive figure who has to represent the US to the world as well as to itself.

by duende 2008-05-25 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Qualifications

I was going to point this out as well.  The analogy in the diary is incomplete as it forgets to mention that one of the job candidates claimed being married to the former CEO counted as job experience.

by Philoguy 2008-05-25 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Qualifications

Also, who was the most experienced President of the 20th century, going in?  Richard Nixon.  And among the least experienced in American history, at least in terms of Washington experience?  The two Roosevelts, and Abraham Lincoln.

by schroeder 2008-05-25 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: highly qualified woman is p

If it's hiring by party insiders, it's him.

Hillary Clinton had a 100 delegate lead before a single vote was cast.

If it's the voters who get to decide who to hire, it's her

...except that Obama leads among the pledged delegates, leads overwhelmingly in caucus states and leads in primary voters (sanctioned contests, not straw polls in which the electorate was explicitly informed the vote was meaningless).

She's one the second half,

"Final third" - by an insignificant margin, reflecting Clinton's continuing strength in Appalachia. The implication that Obama's support is weakening on a national scale over that time period is unabashed nonsense:

by Casuist 2008-05-25 03:21PM | 0 recs
MyDD Lesson of the Day

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics - particularly poorly designed polls and such as the one shown above. The sign of a good poll is its ability to be replicated. This one is all by itself out there.

by pan230oh 2008-05-25 03:33PM | 0 recs
This is an aggregation of ALL POLLS

A central tenet of stats is (assuming the data is good) that the more data you have, the closer to reality your sample is.  

A central argument of people that don't understand statistics is "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: highly qualified woman is p

According to this logic, neither Obama nor Clinton should be 'hired' considering the 'qualifications' of ALL the democratic candidates that were in this race at the get go. But I guess that tells us that you are deciding what 'qualifications' matter, just like what states matter, what popular vote metrics matter, and what 'electability' means.

by Iago 2008-05-25 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: highly qualified woman is p

Party insiders?  Um.  The DNC group of super delegates were the last group of super delegates for which Hillary had an advantage until even the "party insiders" saw that Obama is the more viable nominee in the long run.

I mean, that's not even mentioning the fact that the Clintons have straight owned the democratic party for the last 16 years.  But, no, you must be right, the party insiders declared for Obama.  Unbelievable analysis.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

So if John Kerry and Al Gore had been female, then both 2000 and 2004 would have been sexism instead of either an electorate who's preference differed from yours or the GOP cheating?

Your headline is a silly statement that shows why sometimes what we have is an insistence on finding sexism even when it's not really there.

Sometimes when a qualified woman is passed over for a less qualified man it is sexism.  Sometimes it is an injustice not driven by gender.  Sometimes it's in ill informed boss or electorate.  Sometimes it's because not everybody in the decision process weighs the specific qualifications that same as you do (does being 1st lady count as presidential experience?).  Sometimes a person is qualified, but their track record or personality is seen as a big enough problem to disqualify them (AUMF, same mistake re:Iran, serial lying, running as a McCain surrogate, RFK remark, hard working white folks comment).

Lose the victim complex.  Hillary lost the nomination fair and square and disqualified herself from the veepstakes on her own by virtue of her behavior, not her gender.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism whp

Al Gore was so qualified, he's been vp for 8 years, was given a real role, was in on even more decision making than HIllary, he would have taken over on day one and we would have had the most competent administration of my lifetime. Gore is smart and he's a man of duty. He would not override experts and professionals with his own gut feeling, that was a tragedy when he 'lost' that election, and we'll pay for it forever.  Kerry was a lightweight, chosen to beat Bush cause he was a war hero.  But he wasn't strong as a candidate, he annoyed even many who voted for him, and he did not keep trying, he was above it all.

Barack is at least trying, he's not always on the mark, but he isn't just giving up, and that's a sign he's better than Kerry, although with the exception of military service they are similar.  Well, Kerry went to Yale and earned gentleman c's. Barack went to his father's alma mater, and I don't know what grades he earned.

Hillary was of course an ace student, and participated in everything.  She was smarter girl wherever she went, and she still is.  Which doesn't make her perfect or all knowing, for sure, but she does it the right way, by studying up and hiring the best people and then listening to them.  

Barack has very little experience, but he says that's a plus, that he at least doesn't have the wrong experience.  

Whenever a highly qualified woman is passed over in favor of a younger and less experienced man, it's sexism. If this weren't so the stat's wouldn't shout it.    

by anna shane 2008-05-25 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism whp

Al Gore is an example that sometimes the more qualified candidate doesn't get the job and it's not always sexism.  The simple fat that one of the candidates today is a female doesn't make her loss sexism.  I do not accept that she is better qualified than Barack, but for the sake of this discussion suppose she were: the fact that Al Gore was "passed over" despite the fact everything you said about him being true (and I do agree entirely with you about Al Gore) kinda makes my point.  It is not always sexism when the more qualified person isn't chosen for the job.  

"She's female so that means it must be sexism" doesn't fly intellectually.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

please read the diary. You would find that I'm trying to refute the "victim" complex Clinton supporters feel.

by dsharma23 2008-05-25 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

there's nothing I love better than being attacked for a diary's title, rather than its content.  It double pwnage for the attacker.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-25 06:34PM | 0 recs
Not bad, but title is wrong.

It's not sexism when a highly qualified woman is passed over for a man. Its sexism when a MORE qualified woman is passed over for a LESS qualified man. That is not the case here.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-25 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Not bad, but title is wrong.

they always say that, but it's really the corporate climate, there are some corporations that will promote the most qualified, whether or not they're women, and some who don't promote women beyond a certain point. I think the fortune 500 companies have something like six female CEO's or CFO's, it's pathetic.  

This isn't a hiring process, but if it were, she would be hired only by a corporation that promoted based on experience and qualifications.  There has never been a way that the party insiders would hire her, that's why he was recruited by Kerry and Dashle, and Kennedy.  She was a force to be beaten and he got that part.  Just like Bush was recruited to beat Gore.  Bush was a designer candidate, a southern good old boy who drank beer and cursed, the antithesis of Gore. but, they knew it would be Gore, they had time to prepare.  

They also knew Hillary was strongest and intended to run, so there's been preparation here too.  Barack was given the key-note speech at the last convention, and Hillary was shut out, given no role at all.  Kerry's wife gave a long and self-serving speech and she was the female representative.  

Her only chance from the beginning was that the voters would hire her, that the non-insiders who don't care if Bill Clinton moves back into the white house, and only want the best possible person for the job, vote for her.  

She's been gaining momentum the more people get to know her, despite her bad press and the way she's spoken about by party insiders and by the media. The only time a girl can be hired is if the corporation isn't sexist, or it's bottom up.  turns out the people aren't sexist, isn't that great?  

by anna shane 2008-05-25 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Not bad, but title is wrong.

Are you actually trying to argue that Hillary Clinton is the outsider candidate?


by DeskHack 2008-05-25 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Not bad, but title is wrong.

Qualifications and experience can be measured in different ways.  Obviously.  And it can hardly be captured in a resume alone.  So I don't see how you can possibly argue that there's a clear winner, in terms of qualifications and experience.

This is the point of the electoral process.  Everybody gets to vote based on our personal assessment of the qualifications and experience.  Our personal biases can't be removed from this, unfortunately.  But even among two white men, there would be argument about which one was more fit for the job.  There would be honest disagreement about it.  

I don't appreciate your implicit denial that we can disagree about which candidate's experience and qualifications are superior.

by Matt Smith 2008-05-25 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Not bad, but title is wrong.

yes, based on the resume she clearly has the stronger case, and he used to give her that and just say experience is overrated. it also shows, in the debates, where he often repeats things from his campaign speeches and can't stay cool under fire.  Sorry if you're offended though, you're free to disagree but if we were debating it, i'd have longer and more detailed notes.  

by anna shane 2008-05-26 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman is p

interesting analogy.  rec!

by bluedavid 2008-05-25 06:57PM | 0 recs
Dear Obamanoid,

There are some really good seminars on how to identify sexism in hiring practices.  You're trying to understand the concept but you haven't gotten there yet. You have things all mixed up. Perhaps some training would help you out.


by Scotch 2008-05-25 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Obamanoid,

Oh gosh, I thought that affectionate names were okay to use here.  I mean the diarist uses one herself in the very first sentance.  And the diary is so well thought of. Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

by Scotch 2008-05-25 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Obamanoid,

Did I mention the hypocracy of it all?

by Scotch 2008-05-25 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Obamanoid,

Or even the hypocrisy?  Diarist?

by Scotch 2008-05-25 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Clintonista,

It wasn't for the affectionate name, it was for the dumb comment about sexist hiring practices. If you're thinking the Democratic primary was sexist, you and your candidate would have had a rude awakening in the general against the Republicans.

Thank goodness we won't have to experience that.

by dsharma23 2008-05-25 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Clintonista,

So it was a comment that you didn't agree with, is what you are saying.  Your interpretation of sexist hiring practices falls short of the truth. And yeah I guess since the republicans would always choose that route, then we should never run a woman for president because god knows, we don't want to displease the republicans.  Got news for you, Obama has something coming in the fall based on race.  So should we also never run a person of color?  

We will see at the end of the campaign whether or not you are thanking goodness for the crap we will have to go through over Obama.  Have fun because we won't be there to help you through.

by Scotch 2008-05-25 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Clintonista,

That isn't what I said.

It's just that I didn't see systemic sexism pervading the Democratic primary. The only time I saw blatant sexism was when John McCain's supporter said "how do we beat the bitch" to John McCain's chuckles. I thought that was wrong. Barack Obama has not done anything even close to that.

by dsharma23 2008-05-25 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Clintonista,

How about when he ignored a very public supporter of his, a much more obvious supporter than McCains nameless woman in a crowd, calling Clinton a fucking whore at a fund raiser being held for him, and instead fell all over himself apologizing for someone calling mccain unpatriotic at the VERY SAME TIME.  How about his not condemning the sexism from the media done on his behalf?  I could go on.  Because you are viewing him with rose colored glasses does not mean the rest of the world hasn't noticed a pattern.  If you want to refer to something as "dumb" or at least naive you might look to judge your own diary.

by Scotch 2008-05-26 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Clintonista,

You know what I love about Clinton supporters?
They think they're so fucking smart.

They know precisely when a statement is sexist intead of offensive; they claim to know who exactly the voters want by calculating that in the "right" way (add Michigan and Florida, subtract four caucus states and VOILA! the winner of that is who the people want); they know that she is going to win "better" than Obama because of polls conducted in May;

Stop that elitist bullshit. I'm not viewing my candidate through rose colored glasses; just because someone disagrees with you about your preference, doesn't mean they are.  

by dsharma23 2008-05-26 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: It's sexism when a highly qualified woman

You forgot the part where the three biggest achievements on the applicant's CV are:

1) 1993-94 Failed health care plan

2) 2002-2006 Support for a failed invasion/occupation

3) 2000-2008 Renamed several post offices

and under future goals

3) Another doomed militaristic adventure.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-25 07:45PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads