The New Republic

Um, when it's a black man vs. an avowed feminist, doesn't this mean the white male cares more about gender than race?  Didn't Edwards get all that white anti-Hillary male vote while he was still an option?

As John Lennon sang, woman is...well, you know.

- Lymon1

February 7, 2008 at 11:12am

Lymon is right. What this showed was that any lingering white unwillingness to vote for a black candidate isn't fatal to Obama, while the unwillingness of men of all colors to vote for Hillary Clinton probably is fatal.

How much of that unwillingness is the result of generic gender bias, versus specifically related to Hillary as an individual? Mostly the latter, but some degree of the former. I know that in my case, I enthusiastically vote for women candidates at all levels, and I've occasionally voted for Republican women solely on the basis of gender in local elections. I have a mental list of Democratic women I wish would run for president. But I almost certainly will not vote for Hillary in November if she's on the ballot. So I like to think that my anti-Hillary sentiment has nothing to do with her gender, but I'm sure Erica Jong would see Taliban-like gender hatred in my opinion.

- rhubarbs

February 7, 2008 at 11:52am

It's more than just Hillary's orthodox feminism that turns me off.  Her victory would mean that since 1989, the White House will have been occupied by Bush, Clinton, Bush and Clinton. I seriously doubt that the Framers had dynastic rule in mind in creating the presidency.  Besides, 20 years of Bush and Clinton are enough.

- nbarry

February 7, 2008 at 12:09pm

What is most stunning is that nobody even suggests that the votes are about issues or experience (maybe because of another prejudice!  -- e.g., that women would be more likley to blame Clinton for her Iraq war vote and credit Obama..ut maybe it's that women are more forgiving!)  Yes, I know that Obama and Clinton are pretty close ideologically, but there are differences between them.  

- Lymon1

February 7, 2008 at 12:31pm

Comon, guys,

Idaho had  caucuses. Obama wins caucuses and l;oses elections

Obama is not electable. At the moment he has 100% support of all media, and more money and is only  doing so so, in general elections against McCain  the media will split. He'll lose for sure.

- jacobt1

February 7, 2008 at 12:58pm

Yeesh.  No wonder Obama avoid this identity politics stuff whenever he possiby can - it's so airless and dehumanizing for both the voter and the votee. How about assuming these men voted for Obama because he's a truly exceptional candidate (a terrific milestone for a man of color, yes).

I'm an Obama gal myself, but I always think Hillary's supposed rabid feminism (what exactly IS that anyway?) is about the least supported accusation against her.

- Wandreycer1

February 7, 2008 at 1:03pm

I know Hillary won the traditional "blue states" of MA, NY, NJ, and CA and I have heard plenty of talk about  how this means she has support where democrats actually might win in November. What I don't understand is why no one is challenging this assertion with the very salient fact that Obama actually won in the actual democratic centers WITHIN those states. He won Boston, Cambridge, Amherst, and the Metrowest in MA. He won San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, and Alameda in CA. He won Trenton and Newark in NJ. He did well in NYC. All over the map he did well in the counties that traditionally go democratic in national elections. Can someone with more expertise please comment on this?

- jzallen

February 7, 2008 at 1:31pm

Since when is being a hawk feminist? Since when is not coming out clearly against torture and in support of civil liberties feminist? Since when has Hillary Clinton represented feminist ideals? Since when has being a corporate lawyer, on Walmart's board to boot, constituted "experience in government?" I consider myself to be a feminist, and I certainly DO NOT identify with Hillary, her political "experince" and her hawkish policies.  

- irunkle

February 7, 2008 at 1:35pm

Lymon, Rhubarbs -- for your theory to be correct, the 70% of hispanic voters who went for HRC would have to be overwhelmingly women. Or else hispanic males would have to be somehow miraculously free of the sexism that, in your reading, afflicts their non-hispanic brethren. I don't see it; maybe you can explain?

The only explanations for this overwhelmingly lopsided support among hispanic males for HRC are a) racism, b) name recognition, or c) cultural-linguistic differences that insulate Nurse Ra- I mean Hillary from the kind of visceral loathing she inspires among white males.

I'd guess it's mainly c), with some b) and perhaps a smattering of a). White males especially seem to have a problem with Hillary's style of speaking, her tone of voice, the Ratchet business.

- teplukhin2you

February 7, 2008 at 2:03pm

Well, I'm a hawkish feminist who doesn't care if she was on the Wal Mart board, who finds her experience as a corporate lawyer even less relevant and I don't consider Hillary Clinton a feminist either.  Feminism is not associated with one ideology.  

The question was - what proof is there of orthodox feminism (please define) in her record, statements. life story?  I see none.

- Wandreycer1

February 7, 2008 at 2:21pm

I met a bartender while I was waiting for my husband last night - a pretty 40 something actress working in Greenwich Village -  white, a single Mom, Hillarys demographic I hear.  

She asked me what I thought of Hillary, I said - well? I think she's a good senator.  She said "I feel bad, but I have the worst visceral reaction to that woman. I like Obama, but I think I'll vote for McCain."

I just smiled - she made me realize that the only people obsessed with the motivations of people based on their gender, racial or class identifiers are pollsters and freaks like us un Talkback.  

Latino men probably vote for Hillary because they think she'll do a good job and may even like her. Imagine that.

Tep - that Rachet business stuff has a very specific sting to it. Since we're all trying to be honest here and stop giving Hillary a pass for playing the victim, we should try and all learn something.  That phrase - fair or not, comes across as personally insulting in a way that feels very gender specific and WILL piss off women, period.  I'm not saying this is fair, I'm just telling you how it is.  Too many women will vote for Hillary just to spite that stuff.  I don't agree, but I do get it.

- Wandreycer1

February 7, 2008 at 2:32pm

Tep: Marty's argument, I think, is about white voters, not Latino voters.  For them I think the data can be better explained by sexism via the Edwards numbers, but nothing is conclusive. For Latinos, especially in California, where you have Latino gangs ethnicly clensing parts of L.A. and, from what I'm told by my friend in L.A., a lot of heated rhetoric between the groups that has been escalating since the last mayoral race, I go with "a" -- look how much more acceptable (or engrained) anti-Black racism is in Mexico (Vincente Fox "lazy" comments, Sambo-like stamps, etc.)

- Lymon1

February 7, 2008 at 2:32pm

To some of the other posters, as valid as your arguments may be as to "what is feminism" and why can't a feminist be a hawk, etc., my point is that *men* tend to view Hillary Clinton as a feminist, and that view of her deepens whatever influence gender has on their vote.  

- Lymon1

February 7, 2008 at 2:34pm

"a narrative showing how stunningly well Barack did among white males and in red states"  This analysis does not seem to consider that he did "stunningly well" among white males who voted in Democratic primaries and attended Democratic caucuses and he did "stunningly well" in Democratic primaries and Democratic caucuses in red states.  Do we really know how these stunning numbers translate to all white males who will vote in the general election or to general election results from red states?

- kyoung

February 7, 2008 at 2:39pm

Tep,

I think we can identify degrees of group identity that don't necessarily reflect bigotry against other groups. If, for example, Latino voters identify certain issues as being important to them as members of the Latino community, and they decide that Hillary would best serve those interests, then we don't have to ascribe racism or sexism or whatever. And I think that's mostly what's at work this election, with the exception of liberal women, who are clearly voting against their actual preferred policy interests when they back Hillary.

It might be true that white men are, for reasons of gender bias, unwilling to overlook personal and public mendacity on Hillary's part that they might overlook in a man. This seems a more likely theory given that the bias of Hillary's cynical behavior has been toward red-meat positions in favor of war and against civil liberties, which in a male candidate would tend to strengthen his appeal to white men. Then again, the party of white men just rejected Giuliani and Romney after they similarly struck cynical right-facing poses like Hillary. So maybe white men just aren't cutting anyone any slack this year.

And as a white man, let me also mention that I do find Hillary's public voice to be grating in the extreme, and I am kind of tired of having a president whose voice gives me a headache. (Not that John McCain is easy on the ears, either.) But her normal voice, which she rarely uses in public, is actually quite attractive. Then, once you hear her real voice, her speaking voice becomes even more grating, since now you know it's yet another calculated pretense.

- rhubarbs

February 7, 2008 at 2:47pm

You're probably right about that Lymon, but why? Why do men view her as a feminist?  There's no evidence for it, so why do they think that?  

- Wandreycer1

February 7, 2008 at 2:48pm

Wandreycer1: I'll speculate, only-half jokingly, that it was when on 60 Minutes she said she "wasn't some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette."  Dissing Tammy Wnette makes you Andrea Dworkin in a red state!

- Lymon1

February 7, 2008 at 3:42pm

Rhubarbs

Patti Solis Doyle as campaign manager brings about at least a certain %more Latino voters to HRC's side automatically. Appeals/emails from her connect with Latinos far quicker than HRC herself.

BHO as far as I know has no Latino so high up in his team.

Also, Bush had deployed his nephew effectively to get the Latino vote in 2004.

- hotshot22

February 7, 2008 at 3:42pm

Rhubarbs- I hear you. I cannot listen to Bush; I switch the dial every time I hear his voice. I myself don't have a problem voting for Hillary (though her husband's behavior recently gives me the, uh, willies), but if she's POTUS I will probably tune her out just as I do W.

- teplukhin2you

February 7, 2008 at 5:07pm

Re outreach to hispanics, Obama's got a serious problem here, given McCain's popularity with same. If Obama's team doesn't solve this problem, he could well lose the southwest to McCain, probably FL too.

- teplukhin2you

February 7, 2008 at 5:08pm

Discrimination against women (of all colors, ethnicities, etc) is a much bigger problem at this point in our history than race and ethnicity bias. The comments and screeds (Peretz is just one example) against Hillary Clinton make the point big time.  lyman1 and some other commenters on this thread point to other examples of anti-female bias....as wandreyceyer says, there's little if anything in Clinton's background that makes her a feminist -- but that doesn't stop the attacks that mark her as "shrill," etc. for the same words and actions that would be seen as just the usual stuff coming from men.

- LISAH

February 7, 2008 at 5:57pm

...and there'll be a male black or other "minority" president before we have a woman. That's part of why Clinton is so, so, the wrong woman to be the first serious female candidate...She's where she is largely because of being Mrs. Clinton....

And Obama is where he is largely because he gave a good speech at the 2004 convention.

- LISAH

February 7, 2008 at 6:02pm

A little confession here and a question or two.

In 1992 shortly after Bill Clinton beat George Bush, I was stunned and had to find out more.  I bought two Hillary Biographies and tried to understand the women who got Bill elected.  That year of the women was a stunning accomplishment of the Democrats.

As a Reagan Republican I was interested to see what would happen.  I was fascinated by the plan to share power.  Hillary really represented the promises of 1969.  Uniquely prepared to capitilize on the changes in America.  When she stumbled and refused to explain herself, it was a disappointment.  By the time Newt Gingrich came along, I really gave up on the Democrats.  I haven't seen one idea from the Democrats in over 10 years, but maybe I am just to biased.

The Hillary - Obama battle here is just a distraction for me.  I have my doubts.

But the Obama phenomon was lost on me and I had to go back and look a second time to understand this more.  I really think Obama has done a good job as the reflection candidate.  People look at him and see what they want to see.  White people see Obama as proof of their progressive renunciation of racism, whether that is accurate or not  Black people see him as one of their own, when really his culture is more white (Asian/hHawaiian) than black.  Young folks see him as one of their own, when really he got a late start and dallied along the way and is roughly the same age as Bill Clinton when he was elected, but Bill had more experience.

Obama reminds me a little of Hillary and the year of the woman.  There is a lot of hope, but maybe we're just projecting our optimism rather than evalauting the man.

My caution here is two fold.  There will be a huge dissapointment if Obama loses either the primary or the General Election.  I can hear it now, how he just aren't ready to elect a Black Man President.  It's a slap in the face to the progressive movement.  Remember that most of the people that run for president lose.

My second worry is what happens when he runs into the buzzsaw of Washington Politics?  It's almost impossible to get anything done, and money is tight.  Are people ready for a potential Jimmy Carter?  High and mighly sounds good on the campaign trail, but the truth is that LBJ got a lot done, but sounded like a real asshole.  

This year they all have electibility issues.  But I think we need to look at the voters a little closer to understand what they are seeing in the candidates.

- CRS9TNR

February 7, 2008 at 10:06pm