SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Sexism V. Racism, American Style

THE PLANK JANUARY 9, 2008

Sexism V. Racism, American Style

BY MICHELLE COTTLE

In today's WaPo, columnist Mike Gerson lays out the three big reasons that, as he recalls one reporter gushing to him, "on the day Obama becomes president, America would think differently about itself." One, Obama's uplifting, high-minded style. Two, his bipartisan potential. And last but not least, his race: "Obama's race matters greatly, because most of the American story-from our flawed founding to the civil rights movement-has been a struggle between the purity of our ideals and the corruption of our laws and souls. The day an African American stands on the steps of the U.S. Capitol--built with the labor of slaves--and takes the oath of office will be a moment of blinding, hopeful brightness."

There has been chatter on the web this week about Gloria Steinham's NYT op-ed about feminism and Hillary and the lingering sexism that may or may not be impacting this race. It wasn't a particularly inspired piece, heavy-handed and a little sloppy in its arguments.  But the resulting discussion did get me thinking about sexism, how differently it is viewed/talked about than racism, and why that is.

You would, for instance, be unlikely to find Gerson writing a similarly lofty passage about what it would mean for a woman to be sworn in to the presidency. This isn't to say that people don't think that it would be a kick for a gal to shatter the highest of all glass ceilings--not to mention inspirational for all those young American Girls out there watching the process--but the idea doesn't strike the same chord of moral redemption as when we talk about a black man doing the same.

I suspect this has something to do with the different forms racism and sexism have taken in America, especially in recent years. Until just a few decades ago, our racism was blatant, violent, and indisputably hate-filled. By contrast, American sexism (and I'm obviously dealing in generalities) has tended to be of the kinder, gentler, more patronizing, paternalistic variety. Women may not have been allowed to vote until 1920, they may face pay disparities in the workplace, and they may be barred from joining certain hoity-toity golf clubs. But they've never been lynched for sport. No one took fire hoses to or sicced police dogs on those 1970s bra-burners.

In many ways, even overt sexism here has long been about treating women differently than men--better, some claim--rather than specifically about keeping them down. (All part of God's/nature's grand plan, we are told.) As often as not, the folks who object to, say, women in combat don't publicly argue that gals shouldn't be on the frontlines because they're unfit (save, of course, for Newt Gingrich, who gently reminded us that babes in foxholes "get infections")--but rather that the mothers and daughters of this nation shouldn't be exposed to the brutality of war zones. It is a sweet form of discrimnation, a caring form-one that enlightened people dislike but don't have to feel all that guilty about.

In part because of the nebulous, non-aggressive nature of modern American sexism, many women are loath to talk about it lest they be labeled whinging purveyors of outdated victim politics-or gross manipulators of the political gender card. Team Hillary unsurprisingly has taken some whacks for playing identity politics in this race. Team Obama, not so much. In fact, Gerson specifically lauds Obama for not making "cynical use of his race."

It's true enough that Obama is not running on his blackness. But that doesn' t mean his campaign hasn't been happy to remind us of their man's potentially history-making genetic makeup and background, if only to charm us with his unlikely tale of upward mobility. Michelle Obama has been dispatched talk about whether her husband is black enough to satisfy African-American voters. And Gerson is hardly the first media blabber to go on at length about what it would mean for America's self-image and global image if a black man-middle name Hussein, no less--went all the way. Obama hasn't cynically run as a black man. He has very elegantly run as a black man. And while his race isn't at the core of his appeal, neither is it--or could it possibly be--a non-factor in a country still so very sensitive about the subject. (Oh My GOD, can you believe a black man won Iowa!!!) 

But we're not all that sensitive about sexism-at least, not in the same way. Yeah. We know it's out there, though we prefer to think of it in terms of the more egregious, retrograde examples that pop up (such as when  Bill "loofah" O'Reilly allegedly takes a shine to one of his young staffers). Most of us are confident that we personally couldn't possibly ever harbor any such biases. (After all, look how far women have come! Look at all the women in our workplaces!) And we don't particularly find anything awe-inspiring, uplifting, or even noteworthy about a woman who runs for office without ham-fistedly playing the gender card.

More broadly, we certainly don't feel driven to wipe away sexism's ugly stain the way we do with racism. And sometimes we seem almost surprised (embarrassed even) when the issue of gender bobs to the surface at all. The WaPo's dispatch from last night's Obama rally features the sad story of 19-year-old Obamaniac Tobin Van Ostern. Initially pumped for victory, Van Ostern grew ever more antsy as he watch the returns role in. When it became clear that Hillary was going to win, and which demographic block had made this possible, a disspirited Van Ostern could only respond,  "Oh, women."

Oh, indeed.

--Michelle Cottle

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 35 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

35 comments

Simple explanation for why there would be less uplift with Hillary as the first woman president.  For better or worse, she started her career in electoral politics based on her husband's reputation.  That does not of course provide a reason for voting against her, but it makes the story a tad less inspiring.  Even in backward countries, from a gender perspective, loyalty to the spouse of a male leader has caused woman to secure high positions.  

- LDuncan

January 9, 2008 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle- great piece about racism and sexism in America.  But with Hillary I think it has a lot to do with many people not seeing her becoming President as a victory for women, but rather for this very famous woman who has been grooming herself for years, and someone from whom the country has been anticipating a run for nearly just as long.  That isn't to say she isn't impressive, and she wasn't foisted on us because of blood, like Bhutto or Indira Ghandi (but rather as part of a political team).   A Clinton victory wouldn't be "Any girl can be President!" but rather "any girl who marries a President can do so!"  Maybe this is unfair- I don't care much for her, am sick of the Clintons, but still say she is impressive- but that is the way it seems.  To me at least.  

My girl disagrees, but an ex feels the way I described above, and my sample group is now shot.  So if any of the female commentors have any thoughts on that I'd be thrilled to read them.

- boneill

January 9, 2008 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not sure I agree with the violence distinction.  Yes blacks were lynched publicly, but women got the crap kicked out of them privately.  Remember when cops turned a blind eye to domestic violence, or when it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife?

Is being attacked by a group of angry strangers worse than being attack by someone who lives with you?  I honestly don't know...

- asistos

January 9, 2008 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We still await the American Thatcher or Meir.  Now THAT will be a victory for women.

- butchie b

January 9, 2008 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Golda Meir was a strong, self-made woman. So was Thatcher. Barack Obama is a strong, self-made black man.

Hillary's story is not inspring because she has been a professional wife. She was first lady of Arkansas twice and then first lady of the United States twice. Her marriage is what got her to fame and to power. (It also helped that she found a nice blue state to run for Senate.)

- rozenson

January 9, 2008 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle: Doesn't it also matter that women make up more than 50% of registered voters whereas blacks make up closer to 10%?

- jon shaw

January 9, 2008 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is exhausting.  

- Wandreycer1

January 9, 2008 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle, I think you're dead on that " because of the nebulous, non-aggressive nature of modern

- Anonymous

January 9, 2008 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with the distinction between the issue of violence and the more subtle forms of sexism. I also agree with all the comments regarding Hillary as a "professional wife" as opposed to being a self-made woman. I would like to add that a President Obama would go a long way to help us restore our self-esteem as a nation and it would remind the world again of what is great and distinct about us, we are the land of opportunity (albeit imperfect). It would also be a wonderful reputation of the Bush presidency.

- jenramapo

January 9, 2008 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle, your analysis is disappointing in that equates womeness with whiteness.  Your statement "But [women]'ve never been lynched for sport" is only true if you ignore the well-documented historical fact that women, black women, were often the victims of so-called mob justice alongside black men.

I also agree with asistos' comment.  "Modern" sexism is far from "non-agressive".  Rape and domestic violence are gendered crimes -- overwhelmingly, women are their victims -- and there is nothing non-aggressive about these crimes.

- mcher001

January 9, 2008 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama wins in Iowa because he captures women, young people, and independents. Clinton wins in New Hampshire because she captures women.  Who would have thought Iowa women are post-feminist.

Having two serious candidates that are not white old men seems to be putting liberals into fits:  That's way too much psychoanalysis for one campaign.  What if Obama won in Iowa because they liked his message better, and New Hampshire liked Clinton because of her message?  

Wouldn't it be awesome just to enjoy the fact that Democratic Party can have a black man and a woman to run and they are being taken seriously.  Let's find out who would make the best president, not the best female president or black president.

(I was trying to find the quote of Lisa Simpson's inaugural address about being the first non-black, non-jewish, non-lesbian, female president to insert here)

- anonevent

January 9, 2008 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exhausting, yes, but interesting.  I have been asking myself - for a good while - why I'm not excited about the possibility of a woman president.  I mean, her gender is not going to cause me to vote for her, but shouldn't I be thinking, if she wins, "yeah but - silver lining - precedent set!" I was pretty excited when Geraldine Ferraro became Mondale's VP, for exactly and only that reason since I didn't know thing one about the woman herself.  Result of soul search:  I think it's because of how Clinton got here, like a bunch of other people already said.  Husband's coattails.  It takes all the steam out of it.  An exception that would prove the rule.  Just doesn't count.

- psantillana

January 9, 2008 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really? I find it hard to believe that historical reasons are the primary bases for differing views of sexism versus racism.  Having just taken a drive through my relatively large city in the Rust Belt, I didn't see blighted neighborhood after blighted neighborhood filled with white woman.  Nor did I see any white women neighborhoods stricken by joblessness, served by terrible schools or targeted by white collar and violent criminals.  

Only in the rarefied air of the successful is sexism anywhere near the same as racism.  Why? Because those Black people are already successful!  At that point the playing field is closer to level.    For the other large percentage of the population, race is much more of a problem.    If you doubt me, take a quick drive through D.C.  

- Sirhc

January 9, 2008 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Cottle-

I guess things are such that one must point out the obvious: There is no real genetic difference between, or among, the races. There are differences, however, demonstrable differences, between women and men.

Which is to say, the whole basis for making distinctions based upon race is a fiction, whether it originates with the KKK or the Third Reich.

On the other hand, the basis for making distinctions based upon gender has a kernel of truth to it, a kernel which has been perverted beyond all measure, yes, but a kernel nonetheless.

For just one instance, upper body strength. Take an average, overweight, beer-guzzling, couch potato of a guy in his mid-fifties. Now, pit him against virtually any woman of any age in a fight. It is the rare woman, even the rare, fit, gym-addicted, twenty-something woman, who could kick his out-of-shape ass.

That said, there is a vast array of assumptions that derive from such a difference, assumptions that are, quite simply, false. For instance, that a woman would be naturally inferior to a man as a news anchor or a novelist or a CEO or a president.

Which bring us back to HRC.

As I noted on another thread, I've always thought that the most inspiring speech of the Clinton presidency came not from Bill, but from Hillary, her women's-rights-are-human-rights speech in Beijing.

That said, she hasn't done very much to inspire me since.

And her vote on the Joint Resolution on Iraq was enough to put me off her for good.

As for whether the press treats female political candidates unfairly, well, duh. Isn't this all too obvious?

Men, most men, have trouble dealing with a woman in any position of authority, let alone the presidency of the most powerful country on earth.

Some years back, there was a woman on my coop board who did more work, more effectively, more intelligently, more diligently, than any other man in the entire development. But at board meetings, no one else took what she said seriously. (I was president and found myself having to repeat what she said before anyone else would credit it.)

After one meeting, I remember driving back with her in the same car, and pointing out the obvious: that the other men on the board couldn't even hear what she said. "Because," I said, "you're a woman."

I remember watching her flinch when I said this. And at first, I think she thought I was coming on to her.

It took a few momments before she saw that I was just describing what was obvious. It didn't change anything, of course. The other men on the board continued to ignore her, even after I publicly chastised them (repeatedly) when they didn't listen to what she said.

All of which is to say, men, as a whole, have difficulty taking women seriously, especially as presidential candidates.

But Hillary isn't simply a woman running for president. She's Hillary. People on the right hate her, people on the left hate her, people with no political affiliation hate her. And it doesn't necessarily have much to do with the fact that she's a woman.

- JosephCuomo

January 9, 2008 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The bigger issue-- much bigger than Hillary pro or con-- is that in these perilous and critical times, we cannot afford to elect anyone president because they are female or because they are black.

The whole notion of "it's their turn" meaning it's the turn of some identity is absurd, disastrous, and tokenism writ very large.

Every candidate has an argument to make on behalf of their candidacy.  But on the list of attributes, whether spoken or unspoken, never ought there to be, "and because I'm a woman/black/Eskimo pie".

If women are really and truly going to the polls in the millions and voting for a woman primarily because she's a woman, then women's suffrage ought to be rescinded before February 5th.

I choose to blieve that only a relatively few foolish women voted for that reason Tuesday.

- ChanRobt

January 9, 2008 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jenramapo  wrote:

"...a President Obama would go a long way to help us restore our self-esteem as a nation and it would remind the world again of what is great and distinct about us, we are the land of opportunity (albeit imperfect). It would also be a wonderful reputation of the Bush presidency."

These are terrible, irrelevant reasons to vote for anyone for president.  We don't have to prove our openness to global opinion by putting a non-white male in the White House.  

What we have to do is put the most competent person we can find in that office.  The president is not a symbolic monarch or official hand-shaker.  The president carries incalculable responsibility.  This tokenist thinking is just disastrous.

And may I add, frankly, there are few nations on earth in any position to judge our record on human rights of any sort, the vast majority of them having rather sullied records themselves.  

Just for one example, Brazil had millions more slaves than we ever did and freed them thirty years later than we did.  No white Brazilian shed his blood for black freedom.  A quarter million Yankee soldiers did.

I'll tell you, addled thinking of this "self-esteem" sort can shake your faith in  Democracy.  Thank God the people have usually been right in their votes for the American president.

- ChanRobt

January 9, 2008 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, while I'm up, how about this as a symbolic reason to vote against Hillary Clinton.  Reason:  because her last name is Clinton.  Even if she weren't related to Bill, that would be enough reason.

Why?  Because America is not a nation of dynasties.  Electing Bush Clinton Bush Clinton sends a terrible signal to the rest of the world that the White House is owned by two families.  And will have been for 28 years at the end of two Hillary terms.

Then what.  Seventy-something Jeb comes to claim the throne?  Chelsea (she'll be over 35 by then, right) takes her shot?  Or, one of the repellent Rodham brothers stakes his rightful claim?

Jeez.  Talk about negative symoblism.  28 years or more of B.C.  Sounds antedeluvian, indeed.

- ChanRobt

January 9, 2008 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't kid yourself, ChanRobt.  This country would be enormously improved by an Eskimo pie right about now.  Well, the part of it between my belt and my collar would, anyway.

- austinexpat

January 9, 2008 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

austinexpat, I'm backing off.  I must, indeed, concede your point.

- ChanRobt

January 9, 2008 at 7:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did anyone else happen to notice that the difference between the percentage of the vote Hillary received in NH and the percentage of the vote Obama received was so negligible that both of them--both HRC and BHO--received exactly the same number of delegates?

In other words, after Hillary's supposedly devastating defeat of Obama, the delegate tally is as follows:

Clinton: 9 NH delegates

Obama: 9 NH delegates

Which is to say, the primary ended in dead-even tie.

Seems like most of the press missed yet another story. . .

- JosephCuomo

January 9, 2008 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JosephC, the press misses big stuff every damn day.

And the professional columnists are often way inferior to the better posters here at tnr.

- ChanRobt

January 9, 2008 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is exhausting because every single post here is 100% right.

- Wandreycer1

January 9, 2008 at 9:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JosephCuomo is right.  About everything in his post.  And williamyard is too, in that the only way people get over their prejudices is through repeated exposure that debunks them.  At least I think that's what he meant.  That's why homophobia is so drastically down within the last 20 years as more gays come out of the closet and people see they are human and not creepy pervs.  The creepy pervs are still in the closet, but that's another story.  

So there are people who might think that a woman president or black president will show everyone that gee, Mrs. Clinton has a brain, or, gee, Obama isn't screaming "where's my iced tea, motherfucker!"* at diplomatic dinners. Or whatever. And we can be done, and people's tiny minds will be blown for keeps, no more prejudice, goes the theory.  I can see their point.  Clinton and Obama repudiate those sterotypes nicely and publicly.  But as these two are so much more than just White Woman and Black Guy, [and oh yeah, White Guy is still in it], I think we need to pick the prez on the basis of other considerations.  Because the whole point is that you can't make a generalization on their governance based on their gender/race. Unless you're "mommy party!" tep, in which case you need to be sent down to the country for re-education. Unless he's joking. That only just occurred to me now.

*was this Rush or Bill O?

- psantillana

January 9, 2008 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

psant- Bill O, I believe, and excellent reference.  

- boneill

January 9, 2008 at 10:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just want to add that I'd rather not see any more articles or columns trying to establish who has had it worse - blacks or women.  It's a bad game to play; like ranking top-10 genocides.  Next time a writer gets the urge to do that (I'm looking at you Gloria Steinem) the rest of us should take the keys to the keyboard out of their hand and not let them drive.

- cypess

January 9, 2008 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joseph and Chan:  Regarding the media's herd mentality, I have this "Hairdresser" theory which sort of applies.  It's incredibly hard to find a decent hairdresser.  Most of them are just not that good:  They do a style that has nothing to do with your face, it's just trendy; they stink at getting things even; they either layer too much or too little; if they're at all competent, they're boring.  You're guys, so you probably don't quite get this.  In any case, my theory relates to the fact that most professonals are pretty mediocre and uninspired in what they do.  Hence, it's unusual to find many people in the media who can stand back and get things right.  This was a close race, but the focus now is "Hillary's on a comeback!"  I just can't believe their bosses aren't reigning them in, though likely they figure the shouting headlines are good for business.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 9, 2008 at 10:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

psantillana-

Thanks for the kind words.

___________________________________________________________

ChanRobt & mollysimon-

Yes, the press misses things every day. But missing the fact that the end result in NH was a tie isn't the same as a woman getting a bad haircut. It's like a woman getting an ear cut off and saying it was a bad haircut.

The fact is, innumerable press reports to the contrary, Obama did not lose NH. And Hillary did not win NH. They both came away with the exact same number of delegates.

But who would know this with all the smoke that's been blown up our collective ass.

- JosephCuomo

January 9, 2008 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have a theory called "people are stupid" - I'm one of those people, so this has intuitive appeal for me.  The even delegate count is a story, alright - about delegates.  People know that Hillary beat Obama by 3 or so percentage points.  More people voted for her, and they get that.  As soon as the news says "but the delegate count, interestingly, showed Obama even with Clinton at nine, and Edwards with four" - then that's so mind-blowing that they have to explain it, and get into superdelegates, and get into the fact that Clinton already has a ton in states that haven't voted, which is just going to make people's heads spin like tops.  Like when they have to explain the electoral college, every four years.  They already resent having to do that, because then a bunch of people shut off the tv because it's over their heads.  This is even worse.

But that's no excuse for blogs and websites - I want a tutorial, please.  You guys can use the same one every four years, unless the law changes.  And you'll get a lot of hits from lazy news sources.  And The Economist can advertise on it.  

- psantillana

January 10, 2008 at 5:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cuomo:  My point wasn't that the media screw-ups was the same as a bad haircut, just that most people aren't very good at their jobs.  When I was a magazine editor, I couldn't believe that most of the writers whose work crossed my desk could actually make a living.  And not only did they make a living, some were highly sought after.  Although what ended up in the magazine was a complete rewrite on the editor's part.

This is a major screw-up on the media's side.  The primaries have a domino effect, and not noting the delegate issue is complete idiocy.  And there's no excuse--even the New York Times didn't point this out.  But then they didn't exactly nail the run-up to the war.

Psantilliana.  Love your 'people are stupid" theory.  Which sort of jibes with my remarks above.  People are stupid and most certainly people are lazy.  I don't think they'd have had to go deep into the delegate explanation to have gotten this across.  So it shoiuldn't have been too much effort for their lazy asses.  

- MOLLYSIMON

January 10, 2008 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How cynical it is to use the fact that a woman has come to prominence because of her husband (or father) as an excuse not to vote for her.  As Gloria Steinem pointed out in her article, this country's reluctance to elect women to high office is what resulted to the phenomenon of women succeeding their husbands to mayoralties, governorships and senate seats.  After a while women were able to fill those positions  without relying on relationship to a man.  The presidency of the United States is the last glass ceiling in political life.  Hillary Clinton has more  than relationship to Bill Clinton.  She used her political celebrity to run for the U.S.Senate.  She won when most peop[e said she didn't have a chance.  She then went on to be a damn good Senator, gaining the respect of her colleagues on both sides of th aisle.  She won reelection in a landslide - 67% of the vote, 60 out of 62 counties - with many Republicans contributing to her victory.  She has her own record to run on.  She had the paitence and the desire to learn what she needed to make her a credible candidate for president.  Barack Obama did not have that patience or desire.  He decided to jump into this race without enough experience.  What a shame.  He was in place in the Senate, he had only to stay there and learn his craft and run when he was really ready.  Can you imagine what the reaction of politicians and media would be if a woman with Obama's resume  was running?  Don't make me laugh.

- myskylark

January 10, 2008 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If it is fair to ask what the press's reaction would be if a woman of Obama's credentials were to run for president, it would be equally fair to ask what the media reaction would be to finding out that a former first lady was Black.   See there has never, ever been a black president or first lady.  So, while it is possible for an unqualified white woman to run, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a black person to run with the former first lady advantage.  A huge advantage for white woman I would say, Steinem notwithstanding.

"Foul" you say?  I agree.   But that's where the claptrap about people don't like HRC because she is a woman gets us.  

- Sirhc

January 10, 2008 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mollysimon-

Sorry if it seemed that I was mischaracterizing what you said. Actually, I was mostly responding to ChanRobt's assertion that ". . .the press misses big stuff every damn day," but I was using your haircut analogy to make my point, re: the magnifude of the thing missed in NH (that in terms of delegate accumulation, the Dem race was a tie).

But I do take your point that most people don't really apply themselves to their jobs (especially most reporters and anchors and commentators).

- JosephCuomo

January 10, 2008 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

myskylark, the coattails thing is not an "excuse" for me to not vote for Clinton. I'm not voting for Clinton primarily because of her Iraq war vote, secondarily because I really admire Obama, and the rest is a descending pile of pebbles.  The fact that she's a woman, however, actually WOULD be a plus for me, a teeny plus, dwarfed by the war vote, etc., but I would be happy about the precedent set.  Woman president, yay, right?  Well, sorry, but that is deflated - for me - because she got an express elevator to the glass ceiling through her husband. She had NEVER HELD ELECTIVE OFFICE before becoming a U.S. Senator.  It's like a burr on someone else's pantleg that says "look how far I came!" She could be Ghandi plus Einstein, but her win "as a woman" would just not be as impressive as it would be for someone who had to climb every step.

- psantillana

January 11, 2008 at 4:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mollysimon, I'm in complete accord with your thesis that most professional are mediocre and that explains the mediocre performance and herd behavior of the media.  It's essentially Bell Curve stuff and 'splains why everything--- movies, tv, ads, the kids in your 8th grade class, architecture, are mediocre.

But, it's worse than it sounds, because in certain realms-- brain surgery, the presidency, the congress, architecture, and the media-- mediocrity doesn't mean middling, it means disaster.

Because certain things have to be done superbly well, or you're screwed.

Which is why I only go to barbers.

- ChanRobt

January 11, 2008 at 4:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I generally buy into your thesis that NH was a tie, but only in the narrow sense.

Because unlike electoral votes, which are decisive, the winning of these early primaries is not about delegate collecting.  It's about establishing credibility and momentum.  

For better or worse, smarter or dumber, these pipsqueak  states with their early primaries have inordinate importance (at least we tell each other that and so it becomes true.)  So winning is winning.

While we're on the subject, the 2000 Florida vote was a statistical tie.  Doing a recount was absurd, because you could recount from here to eternity and never come up with the same result twice.  At least not with our imprecise methods.

Three flips of a coin, best two out of three, would have been a more sensible solution to the problem than the insanity we went through.

- ChanRobt

January 11, 2008 at 4:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close