Yegads, what happened? I was out all day and come back to this? Blech.

Bloomberg '08!

I was disgusted to see that she won after the sobfest that was the last few days. Really New Hampshire? Let's vote for the candidate(s) who are sore losers out of pity! Of course, maybe people really were voting on substance and issues, but I doubt it, as that women voting for Clinton stat seems to be the major factor in Clinton's victory. If so, shame on women for their sympathy for a fake teary moment and their consequent vote in NH. Clinton "authenticism" vs. "calculation"? Still take calculation in my mind.

In any case, I'd rather Obama steamroll his way to the nomination, rather than our votes possibly mattering cm (I vote absentee in GA Feb 5.). But I guess it will make for more interesting chatter over the next couple of weeks.

It really was disgusting. Do the Democrats ever want to win? The results from dopey New Hampshire could not be worse. Hilary can't win. McCain can.

For me, the worst thing (aside, you know, from her winning) was seeing Bill attack Obama in really petty ways. I adore him, and to see him reduced to that was kind of sad/disappointing. I heard a theory on MSNBC last night that it wasn't just Hill choking up that brought sympathy, but when Chris Matthews pinched her cheek. I could imagine a lot of NH feminists not being down with such a condesccending gesture. Doesn't mean they should have actually *voted* for her...

I'm going to have to take issue with the word "sobfest," Slater -- that was fully the construction of the media, and I thought it bordered on sexism. I think she deliberately chose to show a little emotion (which is all she did), and while it was off-putting to me (because she was emotional about losing and not, say, someone not having health care), I do believe it had a major effect on women. (She lost among men.)

is it weird that my biggest complaint about last night is that MSNBC doesn't have an HD channel, or at least Comcast doesn't carry it in Boston, so i had to watch *ugh* blitzer on CNN?

seriously, though, i'm a GObama man now, but i don't mind a tight Dem race for another week or two. the repugnicans are a wide-open mess in disarray; it's okay for us to have a challenge.

i think GObama wins the south, eh?

ps, in her defense, the context wasn't that she was "emotional about losing," it's that she was emotional about "the country going backwards."

at least that's the clip i heard.

but yes, a calculating/ed moment nonetheless.

If you listen to the whole context of the quote, she goes right into talking about Obama (implicitly):

"You know, I've had so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards. So, you know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game. They think it's like who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' futures. It's really about all of us together. You know some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds. And we do it, each one of us, because we care about our country. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not."

So, yes, it shows authenticity (Clinton actually cares!) but it also shows entitlement (The only way to guarantee that this country doesn't fall backwards is for me to be president!)

Ya know, it's funny. No one in my department (poli sci) is at all involved in the campaigns, debates, punditry, or clairvoyance surrounding the election. Perhaps it is a fluke--we might just be strangely apathetic--or we might have self-selected into a less polarized department--because we are quantitative scholars. But the hullabaloo about change and experience and shifts in direction strikes me as naive. Decrying Clinton's win seems bizarre; thinking Obama is savior likewise is odd to my eyes. I'm all for a Democratic victory in 2008 (we'll do very well in the Senate); but the enthusiasm and despair seems a symptom of sheer fanaticism.

i'm with GObama for a simple reason:

the system is flawed, the "viable" candidates are all right out of the cookie-cutter, and no "career politician" will ever solve the problems in the system.

so i go with the one of 'em who offends my sensibilities the least. who doesn't make me angry and want to throw things at the television. who doesn't strike me as a self-important, arrogant, rich asshole.

i'm not with GObama because i "want change." i'm with him because i know things WON'T change, but i want someone who i can respect and like while we live under the status quo.

NV will be more interesting for sure, especially if BO picks up the Culinary endorsement, despite his loss.

Although, even though NV Dems are insular and pro-establishment, it's interesting to me that Billy V. supports Obama.

By the way, Obama's speech last night was very smart -- the main slogan from it was, "Yes, We Can!"

Why was this smart? Because in Latino communities, "Sí se puede" has major significance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%AD_se_puede

I can't imagine that hurting in Nevada, especially when the Spanish-language stations report on the new slogan.

I'm totally satisfied with the results of the NH primary. Yes, really.

I wanted a tight finish between Clinton and Obama so that the primary fight between the two of them can continue for a few more weeks (as jbg said). Why? Because Obama needs more time to be vetted in the press and by voters before becoming the nominee. I didn't want everyone in NH to jump on the Obama bandwagon just cause he's the new young thing in the Dem party. Voters who don't know about him need to see the attacks on his voting record, or his drug use, or ugliness from the Republicans, before deciding that he can make it in the general. If several weeks from now, after more attacks have come out, we all still love Obama and think he can beat McRombeeani in the general, I will be totally happy to support him. But I don't want a bunch of Dems to be all, oops, we should have voted Hillary cause it turns out shining boy has some baggage we didn't know about before.

So now we get more time to focus on Clinton and Obama and evaluate which one is less likely to be destroyed by the Republican machine. Er, be a better president, I mean.

Culinary confirmed for Obama: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-endorsed.html

For those who don't know, the Culinary Union is the largest and most influential union in Nevada. Members are mostly service and food workers who are employed by major casinos. (Except for The Venetian, which is the only non-unionized casino on the Strip. Don't go there.) With them, you can actually make a very good living being a single-mom waitress. Of course, this is only possible because casinos make so much damn money.

I think people overestimate the power of their endorsements, but it's a big deal here nonetheless.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/nh/nh_exit_polling/

They don't have data for Dems, but 40% of Republicans made up their mind within 48hrs of the primary. That could signal that the emotion speech had an impact (thought that requires you to believe some voters want this out of a president), but I think we should all be looking at this instead from the perspective of how flawed polling can be.

Hillary's win was not an upset and I believe it had little to do with tears - her campaign in NH was simply stronger and better organized than Obama's. A friend of mine who works for Hillary there told me a month ago: "we're killing them, if we lose NH we should all lose our jobs." I think the polls that had Obama up double-digits on Sunday were just a reflection of what people were thinking that weekend (post-Iowa). Most of these folks were gonna come back to Hillary's camp in the voting booth regardless of whether she showed emotion.

A correction: it's not that polling is "flawed," it's that we shouldn't consider this an upset or search for the spark that turned things around for Hillary based on the polling that took place 48 hrs before the vote.

And yes, Obama looks very good in Nevada given the endorsement and other factors.

commie leo makes an excellent point.

in football, you don't want to peak too early in the season anyway. same thing here.

the steelers got off to a great start, only to lose to the jags (aside from the pats, the hottest team in the league).

dallas started off huge but faces a suddenly-hot giants team this weekend. all of a sudden, the NFC picture isn't so certain.

man, i want it to be saturday already!

I realize I'm a little late getting back to the conversation, but cm, I first heard Clinton's remarks on the radio, and it sounded like the whining of a crier. I later saw the tv footage and I think that in the context of what it means for Clinton, it is entirely appropriate to label it as a stunt and a sobfest (even if tears did not fall is a moot point I think). The part that I find most offensive is that Clinton's arguments have been predicated on her preparedness to take on the Republican smear machine and be strong in the world... I don't think it's sexist to call it a sobfest when someone reacts like a high schooler to losing a primary while attacking his or her opponent. So if a foreign leader calls Clinton a bad name, and someone says that they don't like her, public crying is an appropriate response? Sounds really tough to me. I can't wait until John McCain lets someone call her a bitch again.

So, after all that negativity, I will say that I think the press is much more harsh with Clinton than with other candidates-- I think that is a function of who she is though than her gender. We will need another female candidate in the US of equal significance before we can entirely come to judgment though. Remember-- she received a HUGE pass through the first part of her candidacy. Do I think she needs more vetting if that is the term du jour? Absolutely... What's this 35 years of experience about anyway? Do I have 10 years of experience working for the Park Service? What is she counting exactly? Her whole professional career post-college?

Yeah, her experience argument is pretty much, "I'm older."

I do think it's a big deal if America puts a woman in its highest office, but the same is also true for an African-American. If Obama wins, I hope that his administration brings several new women to the national forefront who would be promising presidential candidates. It's unfortunate to me that our first major female presidential candidate has to go hand-in-hand with presidential dynasties, especially in a time where America needs to really shed its recent past.

I was wondering about the experience thing, too. She is largely riding on Bill's coattails here, but that's mostly with regard to attaining the positions she worked in. After law school she worked in HCJ on watergate. Once married to Bill she worked for the Rose Law Firm and served on lots of committees regarding health care and education, as well as the boards of several non-profits and corporations. I would say she does have a legitimate claim to experience, even if only a little of it was elected.

Of course she has a claim to experience, but is her experience so stunning as to qualify her for the presidency above nearly all other considerations? I don't think it disqualifies her, but I also don't think it leaves Obama in the dust either.

If Clinton loses the race, I sure hope that she becomes either Senate majority leader or another position of high authority, such as serving in the cabinet. She's a dedicated, competent, and intelligent politician, and the country needs her.

no, what the country *needs* is violent class warfare. but failing that, yes, dedicated, competent and intelligent politicians will do.

It didn't border on sexism; it was obvious, blatant sexism. I didn't even see tears. Her voice broke for a few sentences. It was not a sobfest, or whiny, or crying. I don't know if I'll vote for her, but I'm sick of watching the media make shit up in order to avoid engaging her substantively/find another excuse to attack her for daring to leave the kitchen.

Zoom out a bit, guys. No matter which of the two frontrunners gets the nomination, we get 1) a bona fide Democrat and 2) a HISTORICAL NOMINATION. Liberals oughta be throwing parties.

Wow--I've been wondering why this seems to be such a circus to me and I figured out this is the first American national election where I'm living here through primary season. As L said, it's no better than celebrity gossip and is it worse because there's nothing else to watch? I feel like just wake me up when it's voting day.

I also agree it was blatant sexism. I watched the French elections debate this year and at one point when the topic of education for children with learning disabilities came up, Segolene was upset for Sarko's record in office of ed cutbacks; because she leaned in and was firing back, Sarko smirked and told the moderator that "Mme [Sego] was getting all emotional" and said "that's not very Presidential." Meahwhile throughout the entire debate he was in my opinion more "emotional" whereas she was very composed. He was gesturing all over the place and reshifting his body position and using a higher volume, etc. So I would submit that men at the end of a long campaign show their emotions in different ways. We're not used to seeing women at that point in an election and hurray that we finally have this point to discuss.

But I still maintain, what a media circus! And I wouldn't be surprised if the media is pushing Obama to be taken down by the Republicans.

"And I wouldn't be surprised if the media is pushing Obama to be taken down by the Republicans."

Well, Obama polls much much better among Republicans than Clinton does, so I don't think that's the case.

As for sexism, I agree that there is some, but I wonder: are we that much worse than the British? Margaret Thatcher was hugely popular, and as far as I know the sexism towards her wasn't a problem. Was it because she was a conservative? Was it because she didn't come out of the feminism movement, like Clinton? Is this less sexism and more anti-feminism? (Which in most cases is probably sexism as well, but not in all cases.)

Where on earth did you get the idea that the British weren't sexist toward Margaret Thatcher? Maybe you just don't know about any sexism toward her because you were an American child in the eighties. Google turns up plenty of results for "margaret thatcher sexism."

It returned plenty of results, but none of them on the front page were about sexism against her. (Some were about *her* sexism.) Please educate me.

Would charges of sexism toward Thatcher have even been expressed as such back then? It might have been termed differently.

Of course it would. Modern feminism as we know it developed in the 1970's.

Here's a (to my mind) more-level headed and less sexist analysis of Sen. Clinton's win by Karl Rove, of all people.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119992615845679531.html

Sorry. That should have been "more level-headed."

Wow. I could almost hear the resounding thud of Josh repeatedly kicking his desk in typo-fury from here.

Josh Marshall thinks that that Rove article has several racial code words:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063354.php

Hey, I got my racial code word decoder ring in a George Bush Crackerjack box too. "Racial code words?' Give me a break.

Not to defend Rove, but NYT ran a piece on Obama's pickup games and personality last June. So while it may be a stretch on Rove's part, I don't see it as racist.

As for Rove's comment on laziness, well, I'd say a more appropriate and less charged adjective (within the context of the point he's trying to make) would be "sloppy," so maybe he is a racist after all, or at least is race-baiting.

Is there a difference between racist and racial? Marshall used the latter.

Anyone wondering why Rove didn't write a "Why Obama Won?" article after Iowa?

Because he's a racist.

Or better yet, because it was only one data point. At least with NH there is some reference, a point of comparison by which to assess why Obama played better in IA than NH.

yeah, if a dude's pick-up basketball games are a documented fact about him, bringing up his "trash-talking" doesn't strike me as racist.

however, since it's karl rove, of course it's racist.

Well, in general, I believe Margaret Thatcher faced sexism in the eighties because the British are human, not a race of hyperegalitarian superbeings. But the search results are out there if you care to look for them. I don't. I'm out. Think what you like.

I spent a little more time on it, and still can't find anything on this topic, although it is admittedly old. Of course she faced discrimination throughout her career, but what I was looking for was evidence that the press had a bias against her because of her gender -- I can find no such thing, and will remain agnostic on this unless someone can wise me up. All I could find were various articles written by conservatives saying that, unlike Clinton, Thatcher got to where she did without "playing the gender card."

Maybe the Brits had little issue with it because they've had female monarchs throughout history?

Sexism is not necessarily bias. Lorelei frequently points out the necessity of the press to describe what Clinton is wearing in stories that don't need it. That strikes me as sexist, even if it isn't expressing any particular opinion -- by bringing up the superficial you keep making it relevant when it shouldn't be.

I was not able to find too much, but New York Times article from 1987 has what I think Lorelei is talking about, though it does seem more reserved than what we see toward Clinton today, but then again by all reports Thatcher did what she could to negate aspects of her femininity.

It's long, so here are some choice quotes:

"ON THE DAY AFTER PRIME MIN-ister Margaret Thatcher called a general election for June 11, she appeared in the House of Commons wearing a black dress and the icy expression of contempt she reserves for gazing upon Socialists." -- at least they didn't mention her earrings.

"In fact, Mrs. Thatcher's bullying of male Cabinet members is so notorious that it has become part of the sexist stock humor of British politics." -- not a sexist quote itself, but claims that the Cabinet did not refrain.

"Mrs. Thatcher does much of the cooking, basic British, and they employ only one housekeeper, paid out of the Prime Minister's pocket." -- toss up...I guess if Blair did the cooking it would warrant a mention, but they probably wouldn't ask.

Like I said, there isn't much I could find, but the web doesn't represent the press of the 70s and 80s. This was the only article that seemed worth looking at when I googled "margaret thatcher sexism -clinton" and that minus was rather needed. As a side note, it seems like a good read...I don't know much about Thatcher and would maybe like to.

I searched the NYTimes archive but didn't find that, but that's interesting.

Another question would be if there was much of an uproar by the British (or any other) feminist movement when such things happened (especially the "sexist stock humor"), or if Thatcher discouraged that somehow. Obviously, there's been major uproar here recently w/r/t the press coverage of Clinton, some deserved and some not.

I think what I'm trying to get at is whether there's something particular about Clinton, the American press, or the American feminist movement that has turned this into such a huge topic of discussion. Comparing it with the history of Thatcher is one way to try to answer that. And if there *is* something peculiar, does it reflect positively or negatively on that entity?

This one from The Guardian is a little more obviously sexist.

One big difference is prime ministers don't really run for the job in the same way that presidents run, so there's less of a horse race / popularity contest to it. But there's so much more news coverage these days, there's simply many more opportunities to be sexist.

both US & UK have absurdly low female election rates. i think it's difficult to answer your Q, Cmonk, but maybe one way to get at it is: why are scandinavians so goddamn UNsexist?

I saw Margaret Thatcher speak in Springfield MA with my Mom--probably in 1998 or something. All I can say is that it was frightening entering the building. There were so many protestors (Americans) outside waving signs and wishing her death and they wanted us to boycott. I didn't really know what I was getting into at the time as a child of the 80s. It was part of a series of women leaders. I barely remember what she said--of course this was after her leadership, so it wasn't really about political content. But she was a very strong presence. And I do remember some "emotion" about the effect on her as a person behind the political mask.

I know in Canada they had a female PM, Kim Campbell, for about 6 months (Parliamentary system). People still make jokes about trying out a woman and that it didn't work. She was at Harvard for a year and the thesis of her course on women in leadership was that women lead differently and because people are not used to it, they colour it a certain way.

I do think it's sexist to comment on emotions, fashion, and "coldness"--people would never comment on a man like that (unless in the case of extreme emotional outbursts-McCain). But I have no problem with the fact that women, in general, are different from men, in general. Women, in general, tear up more easily then men, don't they? I just think that we could analyze men for their reactions--shifting in their seats, ignoring the issue, making a joke, getting angry, throat closing---it's not like men lack emotion; they express it in a range as do women. Obviously Hillary is not a big-time crier in her professional realm; once in a few decades of public service and limelight should really not be news.

Obviously Hillary is not a big-time crier in her professional realm; once in a few decades of public service and limelight should really not be news.

That's exactly why it should be news. She breaks down and has an emotional moment in front of the cameras moments before the most important election day of her life when she's in the midst of doing everything she can to turn around a faltering campaign in a very, very short period of time? It's news because it's either a once in a decade event and shows something about her ability to control her emotions, or it's news because she's fake-emoting in an effort to connect with women. Either way I think it's relevant.

Any candidate expressing an emotion that was as close to crying as Hillary's was in the same circumstances as Hillary (an election defeat) would be the focus of news scrutiny regardless of gender. The focus Hillary received is different from that which a man would have received, but it still would have been there. Can you imagine if Mitt Romney suddenly got choked up during an interview? It would be a stop the presses moment. The plastic man cries!

Hmm, HTML BLOCKQUOTE commands don't appear to work in the comments...

I don't know about you, but Mitt Romney looked like he was crying continuously from Thursday night to Sunday night last week. Maybe his eyes were just red.

Jon, the Guardian article was eye-opening, and the best I've seen on this subject. It implies that Thatcher was able to become a leader in the UK precisely because she was dismissive about women's issues, which of course indicates an underlying sexism in the system. But it also indicates that she didn't exactly ignore the benefits of her gender either. Clinton is definitely the opposite, having spent much of her life working for women and children, and being not afraid to bring up and refer to her gender in her speeches, etc. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't talk about his race much at all. I don't think one approach is better than the other, but Clinton's approach does make it slightly more OK for the press to talk about the relevancy of her gender (since she does it herself).

Also, Annie's post reminded me that I've seen Thatcher speak as well, as a freshman in college (1998-ish, probably the same trip to the US). I remember several students asking her confrontational questions, and her dismissing them with sardonic British wit.