An excellent editorial from the New York Times, of all places, because the Times has been among the most blistering on her candidancy as far as how they have, in the main ,focused most of their coverage this election cycle on appearing to be a rank shill for Barack Obama. Even as The NYT's had early on endorsed Senator Hillary for President, most of their recent coverage has been pretty rough on her.

So, today it was heartening to see them address this very cogent issue regarding the largely ignored 'gender issue' and instead how much of the media has placed such an undue amount of very caustic emphasis on 'pantsuits' and hip size or whether her hair is messy ,her make-up or lipstick color too bright or too drab or using clear gender bias buzz words when endlessly evaluating whether her voice is 'shrill' or soft and gentle.

Despite all the many ways the media and all anti Hillary types have attempted to use her gender against her in these endless subtle and not so subtle ways,she has continued to thrive and continue to do well both in the polls and among the voters. The precise numbers do show Obama ahead..okay, he is..we all know it..but they have remained virtually neck and neck closerthanthis in those precise numbers count.

That says a good deal about the strength of the woman and is a testament to her that despite the media onslaught against her. Millions of democrats actually do seem to trust in her campaign and in her and have come in droves to vote for her despite the almost mind numbing din scraming at her via the pounding relentless media telling her she has no hope.

Kind of an irony that it is the very 'hope' crowd that screams so loudly that she should 'just go away' because she has no hope.

But be that as it may....she is someone to be admired for her tenacity alone.But of course there is so much more to admire her for.

I was also moved by the photogragh accomapanying this editorial of the adorable little girl with the sign.

It is such a poignant and important story that has been largely ignored outright by the media.

The story about how Hillarys' candidancy actually does matter to little girls all across the country and what it means to them and their sense of themselves as equally empowered individuals in our still very male dominated world.

Just as her run for president deeply matters to some elderly women who were born in a time when women could not even vote lest they be thrown in jail for trying,so it's a shame these stories haven't been the focus of the media's attention.

Yes, we know Obama is going to be the Democratic Nominee now. It has been shouted and screamed at us from every nook and cranny imaginable.

I think some of what the media has done to HRC will scare and frighten little girls back down in their seats and make them continue to think they have to 'good girls' look pretty don't make waves, play silly, flirty games to get ahead...etc. and that is the shame of it for the media.I suspect there are some women who will not easily forget ....but, for others we know and admire the courage of what she did and continues to do and are very grateful to her for how well she has done it.

'Hope' for more fair and equal treatment for women will continue to thrive.Hillary Clinton's run for the highest position in the land has done much to keep and promote that hope, indeed.

<link>

"What the media does" to any Presidential candidate will discourage most people from seeking the Presidency.

Little girls are no more prone to this phenomenon than are any other American citizens.

Excellent summary & post, thank you, Laurie. I only hope that a lot of people on here, especially the more rabid BO supporters of either gender, will read both your post & the linked article. "L."

It would be so refreshing to see you post, AFTER you have done some homework -- rather than just toss off your usual one-liner responses. Btw, are you a parent? Because if so, you would know that your second sentence is inaccurate. "Little girls" are far more vulnerable to all kinds of harm in this sick society of ours, not just possible future career self-esteem issues. Just LOOK at the faces on the little girls in the lead photograph in the Times article, if you doubt that. (Of course, that would necessitate opening up the article and actually looking at it!)

The New York Times has been among the "most blistering" of Clinton critics? Wait a second. The Times endorsed her. The Times did have some belated heartburn about that endorsement when Clinton began her scorch and salt the earth assault on Obama. All nonbiased observers recognize that Clinton's tactics since March have been divisive, destructive, and inappropriate -- and have caused lasting harm to the Party. This is what the Times has observed. It is not a "blistering" criticism; it is an apt and universal observation. (Fortunately, Clinton has changed her tactics in the last couple weeks -- so some hope is returning to the race as we no longer see a Democratic candidate cannibalizing her own party.)

That said, the Times's position -- like that of most neutral or well-meaning observers -- is that Clinton has (or had until recently) every right to remain in the race -- but she has no right to campaign with the goal of destroying her fellow Democrat, who was likely to be the standard-bearer of the Party.

With regard to the gender issue in the race -- sexism is real, and sexism has an effect. There are voters who vote against Clinton (and for Obama) because she is a woman and he is a man. However, the exit polls show that Clinton is winning the "identity politics" race (a majority of people who are voting on the basis of "the gender of the candidates" vote FOR Clinton; and a majority of the people who are voting on the basis of "the race of the candidates" vote FOR Clinton). The fact that Obama is winning despite these handicaps -- and despite Clinton's name-recognition and the strength of the Clinton brand in the Democratic Party -- is nothing short of amazing, and underscores that he is probably the most gifted campaigner the Democratic Party has produced since JFK.

Beathan

It's the responsibility of any candidate to try and show your opponents weaknesses. Hillary Clinton hasn't done anything that any other candidate wouldn't do. Obama also has taken a few pot shots at her calling her Annie Oakley and such. Politics as usual. Now that Obama is the designated nominee probably the focus should not be spent on the continuation of bashing her but more so on how the Obama supporters can find a way to unite the party, if they really want him to win in the general.

thx for your reply.

Lunesta,

I have daughters and I have a career to tend to. I enjoy reading and sharing opinions with others on this forum.

Even if I did have the spare time necessary to pretend that I was a professional columnist, I don't think that I could maintain an interest in bloviating on this forum for very long. I'm sorry that you are offended by my more brief posts. Sometimes it just doesn't take very many words to express an opinion.

My daughters may not ever run for the Presidency, but I wouldn't describe them as "vulnerable". Strong and opinionated would be a better description.

Best Regards,

NS

Laurie Ann but when it's coming from a candidate who is running, purely & primarily, on politics NOT AS USUAL, it is dismaying, to say the least.

LaurieAnn --

I agree with your assessment on where we are and where we should go from here. Obama needs to emphasize that he supports equal rights -- for all people -- including gender equality. To be fair, I think that he has been clear on this already -- but the point bears constant repetition.

However, I disagree with your assessment of the history of this campaign or of Hillary Clinton's challenges to Obama. (I agree with Lunesta even less.)

The Clinton campaign turned very negative in February, and Obama stayed on the high ground. Obama had just come off a series of solid victories -- and the initial assessment was that Clinton had to change tactics to have a hope of catching him. However, true to his claim to stand for a "new kind of politics", Obama did not respond in kind.

The result was that he lost Ohio badly and had an apparent defeat, which later turned into a draw or slight victory, in Texas. Initial thoughts were that these were demographically unfavorable states for Obama -- but the Clinton campaign attributed its success to its negative campaign and increased its attacks.

They even started using Obama's decision to take the high road against him, claiming that his refusal to hit back with Clintonesque low-blows was a sign of weakness, not of priniciple. They claimed that Obama was a bunny -- and he would be eaten alive by McCain and the GOP in the general. The Clinton's proof -- he was not responding with classic negative ads despite the Clinton attack machine working on him 24/7.

This attack began to play -- so Obama had to prove that he was capable of hitting back. He did so in Pennsylvania, knowing that the state was demographically loaded against him -- so he had relatively little to lose by backing off his principles to prove that he held them out of genuine conviction rather than out of weakness. I think of Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania as the political equivalent of a metal band singing a sweet love ballad -- it proves that they are capable of singing the old kind of music, and that their genre choice is an aesthetic decision, rather than a default because they cannot sing.

After Pennsylvania, Obama (for the most part) returned to his style of campaigning "above the fray." In other words, proving that his early style of campaigning was a principled choice, rather than a symptom of his inability to campaign old school, he returned to his principles. Clinton did not -- but, in her defense, the only campaign method that worked for her at all was the ugly campaigning of "kitchen-sink" attacks and race and gender baiting identity politics.

I think that the difference between these two campaigns, and these two candidates, is summed by by a quote from Zhuangzi, a Chinese Philosopher from the Warring States Period, who said, "Great wisdom is generous; petty wisdom is contentious. Great speech is impassioned, small speech cantankerous."

From the beginning, I have considered Obama to be a great candidate and Clinton to be a small one. Obama has the soaring lofty ideals and the big picture of a true reformer; Clinton has the detail-focus and small-picture approach of an apparatchik. So far, everything about this campaign has confirmed my opinion.

We have selected the right candidate for the general election, now is the time for all good Democrats to come to the aid of the Party.

Beathan

Excellent post as usual LaurieAnnM, and I totally agree. It emphasizes what is wrong with "glass ceilings" and the media. Too many times picking a woman because she doesn't eat and wears too much make-up filters a woman into a position that another woman who is more down-to-earth and simply heavier or homelier would be much better at doing.

I do not believe that the best women for the job are currently in place in the media or even in the entertainment industry.

I know that the best women for the jobs are not in corporate positions. Unfortunately, too-many-times the media decides our lives, because for the most part people are too weak minded to think for themselves.

I look forward to the day when all male newscasters, are as pretty and vapid as the majority of females that supposedly represent women. Maybe they represent women who were cheerleaders, but they sure as hell don't represent most of the women I know and have met. The reason why I look forward to the day is because, women tend to just go along, men will stop watching. Until that happens we will continue to get idiotic women on TV shows.

My point is....these newscasters who really don't have the brains to be where they are but are where they are because of looks, try to apply the same logic to the President of the United States. Personally, all this need for a charismatic president makes me wonder how we are still standing as a nation.

Hillary is the better qualified and the best person for the job period.

What her hairstyle is , or the color of her nails is best left to people who think that the President of the US is some type of beauty pageant, and not a job that should have someone who knows what they are doing onboard.

That gender even comes up at all is pretty damn pathetic. Obama has been the worst at this also, I feel as if he is some throw back from the 50s. His choice of a wife is pretty indicative of how stupid he thinks women are.

"His choice of a wife is pretty indicative of how stupid he thinks women are."

Michele Obama is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. <link>

Obama 08!

Beathan,I appreciate the long and lengthy reply. It's clear you mean what you say and you really feel strongly about Obama. You believe he is this great man. and you view HRC as small and very petty in comparison. I respect your right to your own beliefs in that regard.I just happen to have an entirely different viw.

I see him as completely disingenous and not very capable of being able to settle the issue regarding his pastor. The fact that his story continued to change and evolve as the pressure came upon him really concerned me.The fact that he was so naive' to have not known a controversial preacher like Wright would surely put his candidacy in question and his judgement on question for initially giving Wright the credit as his spiritual mentor and inspiration for his book is highly disconcerting and speaks very ill of his judgement or lack there-of.

Then to simply toss him under the bus when his back was to wall like so much excess baggage also looked terrible for him from a human perspective.

It was just bad in so many ways.

And when I saw HRC speak at her rally she struck me as a person of genuineness and someone who means it when she says she is going to work like hell for the issues we as dems care so deeply about.

So, I respect your right to choose as you like and believe what you do. He is going to be the nominee. But I just personally can not get behind him.

Thx again for letting me know how you feel about him and why though.

I do know many see him as this very special person. That's great for you...because you'll have a chance to vote for the person you believe in.

Some of us HRC supporters will vote for Obama..I'm sure...but many of us female and male HRC supporters that I know will choose to wait until we someday get a candidate we can believe in be it a man, or a woman.

For the reasons above many just can't get behind Obama.

Hi, Hi,Hi,jegal! Missed you!

Thanks for coming back to read the post. I figured you like it. We chatted so much on the Hillary and The Math post that I figured you would like this one too.

And thanks for getting what I was saying about the focus from the media on her hair, weight, voice tone etc etc..

The other part I like is how young girls see this race. I know even today all girls are still to some extent being placed in a more subordinate position in the everday world in so many subtle ways just as the media does to Hillary. Some of this sort of stuff is so commonplace and casual people don't even know they do it and/or when they do they don't even see it. Some women don't see what it is or what impact it has on them over time and how it pigeon holes a woman to believing right down to her sub concious she must 'just sit down', 'look pretty',' be a good girl',' act nice', 'don't make waves',..'don't argue with the boys'..all of that stuff.

It's ingrained in some so much they just don't see it happening and revolt against the idea that it does or that it affects them in very subtle negatives ways.

I would love to see that equity with the newscasters too. Good point. and your last few lines were killer...

you wrote this above: That gender even comes up at all is pretty damn pathetic. Obama has been the worst at this also, I feel as if he is some throw back from the 50s. His choice of a wife is pretty indicative of how stupid he thinks women are.

------------Damn, jegal..That last line is amazing revealing food for thought about him for real! Great call!

;-)

I have been a Hillary Clinton fan since first she revealed to the world that she and Bill were partners in their marriage and that she was nobody's marriage property.

I was going to write a significant reply but realized that it was again becoming an angry riff over the way that the national press and the DNC of her own Party began treating her once Obama and she were the lone contestants.

The thing is that Hillary represents many things to many people and her advocacy of women's rights and decent treatment within this nation and at large in the greater world is only a part of what thinking people find appealing about her. In every way imaginable she was the better of the two candidates for the nomination.

Had it been a fair contest rather than one deliberately stacked against her, she would have won, and so, too, would have the nation.

Thanks so much,Gatewood. I've enjoyed many of your posts here ,too!

It's been a rough one..this Primary Season.

I too,felt especially angry when Edwards endorsed right on the heels of her very notable actually stunning 43 point win in W.Va.That was awful how they slapped away our small moment of feeling good for her.

It did nothing to help unify the party. That's for certain.A big error on Edwards part if it was his intent to really help in any real way, other than perception for the moment.

I agree with you, she clearly is the most electable. The points she made about the electoral map are so true,too. And you know the DNC knows it. Yet we know they have made the decision to go with Obama.

We'll get through this. But, it's been a campaign that has diificult to understand the rationale of the DNC and supers when so many indicators she is the one ,now, since Wright happened, who can actually win in the general.

Thx Gatewood!