This article reminded me of the saying, "A woman has to be twice as good as a man to be thought of as half as good." (no attribution because I don't know who said it.)

This is the undiagnosed issue that all the male commentators have been relieved to abandon for the race issue:

Obama can "pass" as black or white, and does so when he so chooses, and he is adept at it. No woman can switch hit by passing as a man or a woman, at will when the situation demands it, or whether she wants to or not--the majority of this nation's citizen's voters will not let her. That is the number one reason so many hate Hilary--not misogyny, but gender stereotyping. You can have one or the other but not both. She was the supportive wife and mom therefore we MUST deny her this opportunity.

This is an illustration of how and why gender roles are MORE primary to our culture than race, because we are forced into an appropriate gender role before we even leave the home or womb. Race is forced shortly after--at least you have to walk out of the house. No one is in your nursery telling you to act like a man or act like a girl. That is, apparently, why so many can't see it.

The people voting against her are voting against a liberal egalitarian view of gender equality and voting against an out of the box female who may as well be a lesbian as much as she needs her husband--for rural folks, women do compete with men for jobs. The males voting for her are metrosexual urbanites who no longer fear the job competition, they see her as an ally.

We may have hope on the race issue but only if we don't act our race. We may have hope on the gender issue but only if we don't act our gender. As a married female with a child, Hillary is politically considered trite. Obama is not trite because he represents the many multicultural citizens that have always lived in this country. Unfortunately, we still have not gotten past the view that citizens first and foremost must be men.

The people voting against her are voting against a liberal egalitarian view of gender equality and voting against an out of the box female who may as well be a lesbian as much as she needs her husband--for rural folks, women do compete with men for jobs. The males voting for her are metrosexual urbanites who no longer fear the job competition, they see her as an ally.

I'm voting against her purely on her record. My Mom is an ardent feminist and is doing the same. And she's our Senator, for crying out loud.

Talk about putting people in boxes. It isn't all gender and race. It isn't even close to being all about gender and race. I'd go down the list of my disappointments with Clinton and why I think Obama's message is crucial if we're ever going to have responsible government again, but I don't want to type it out if it's just going to fall on deaf ears (or whatever the appropriate eye metaphor would be).

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for supporting or not supporting either candidate. Yes, some people are voting against each according to identity politics. And some are voting for each according to identity politics. And to many of us, identity politics plays no role whatsoever.

No presidential race can be turned into a referendum on equal status for women. Wishing it or demanding it won't make it so. If you want a political resolution then reconsider passing the Equal Rights Amendment.

Obama 08!

a classmate said a couple weeks ago, nobody wins when they play "oppression olympics." that's obvious from some of these threads.

Obama can "pass" as black or white, and does so when he so chooses, and he is adept at it. No woman can switch hit by passing as a man or a woman...

this argument is a little tricky, i'm going to say the difference is, obama actually is black AND white. according to the way race is constructed in our society, he actually meets the criteria for both.

instead of trying to "pass," believe he's trying to stand n the border between the two. since he actually is biracial, and has strong family and community connections in both, it's probably the only honest way to handle it. i read that he had a brief college period when he acknowledged only his black side, before realizing how that was taking away a vital part of who he was.

this connects with those who are complaining about him calling his grandmother a "typical white person." this is one of the people who raised him, she is part of him, genetically and culturally. to think of his comment a different way, obama is white, as much as he is black. and if we think of him as a white person, talking about what a typical white person is, that changes it.

so what does it mean, how is it useful to call obama simply "black" without the plural identity he has (and claims frequently)?

comparing this to your point: i don't like your claim that a vote against clinton is a vote "against a liberal egalitarian view of gender equality." there is a ridiculous argument, that anyone who doesn't vote for obama is afraid of having a black man as president. as another response says, there are many reasons to choose or not choose someone. my ideas about hillary have less to do with gender roles than her experience.

you could very well be right, that gender identity is "primary" in some way. but in the voting booth, the majority of black females are voting for obama. this is hard to simplify, but let's assume it really is only about race and gender politics:

i think they consider themselves black, they consider obama black (not white, even though he is). race seems "primary" to them. and white women, they consider themselves women, they consider obama a black (not white!) man. they believe gender is primary, and might even claim race is "not an issue." the black women would probably never claim gender is not an issue, but they oviously disagree with you on how important it is.

is this a strategic error, on their part? would they be "better off" with the decisions which a white woman would make? maybe. but it doesn't mean they're necessarily misogynist, or stuck on gender stereotypes.

So, your argument is that the only reason that anyone would have to vote against Hillary Clinton is sexism, then? Sorry, but that doesn't wash. I would vote for a female candidate, but I will not be voting for this particular female candidate.

Seems to me, she already beat several male candidates, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, she just didnt go undefeated. Your reasoning is so flawed and paranoid, like much of the NOW crowd, that you really need to think about what the agenda you support is actually saying.

Hillary is not losing because she is a woman. Hillary is losing because she is Hillary.

Obama 08

Also Hillary is losing because celebrity status can carry a candidate only so far. Just ask Rudy Giuliani.

Obama 08!

According to this article, Clinton is only half as good at raising money as compared to Obama.

Hmm... the article doesn't state the obvious. It gets harder and harder to raise money when your chances of being nominated shrink with each additional primary.

This is mostly why Hillary Clinton has had to stubbornly maintain the fiction that she is still a viable candidate. But after the North Carolina primary on May 6, the nomination will be beyond Clinton's grasp. Then the money will dry up and reality will force a reckoning on her.

Obama 08!

What really has happened here is that Hitlary has been judged as only being half as good at fabricating the truth as Obama. That was her shortcoming, not her gender. Take a hard and honest look at Obama's policies and then look back at the policies in place in the 1960s. The similarities are scary. They didn't work then and they won't work now. Obama's change is only a trip back in time, at a time we should be going forward. I lived the 1960s once and while I would not trade the memories, I don't want to see this country repeat the political mistakes either.