Cokie Roberts said it best on the Charlie Rose show last night. To paraphrase, 'a smart woman works hard, takes her lumps and succeeds all her life; then another cute guy comes along and wins the pot of gold'. We over-fifty women have seen it too often. Mrs. Roberts believes if Mrs. Clinton's considerable talents and achievements are overshadowed in her charismatic rival's starlight, she could become another Ted Kennedy in the senate, which would not be a bad thing. Mr. Obama doesn't have a lot of baggage --- yet. Wait four years.

Why does the media, including Slate, focus on the rise and fall of poll numbers and election strategies? Is she shrill, is her laughter forced, what is she wearing, should she drink beer with the guys, should they bowl with the blue collar boys, have they sufficiently distanced themselves from (former) associates who blackened their reputations, should Michelle have said what she said? . . . I'm told both candidates discuss the issues on the campaign trail, but I can't learn where they stand on what in print or electronic media. Thankfully, there are fewer references to 'Hillary' and 'Obama'. How sexist was that?

The 24-hour news cycle isn't serving the electorate well. I used to watch Keith Olbermann nightly, but no more. He's just as guilty of Clinton bashing and crunching and blathering about shifting poll numbers as the worst of the television opinionators.

I'll bet John McCain is enjoying the media yammering about democratic infighting. It can only win votes for him. Be responsible journalists and clean up your act.

It's far too reductionist to refer to Obama as just "another cute guy" in the same breath as giving Clinton credit for being "a smart woman" who "works hard, takes her lumps and succeeds all her life" when the same (except the woman part) could be applied (perhaps in different measures) to Obama.

While I'll acknowledge the "glass ceiling" in general, it does not follow that every time a woman is passed over (for promotion, for the party nomination) it is due to sexism. Sometimes the man (sorry, "cute guy") is a better choice on his merits. This is one thing that frustrates me so much about some Clinton supporters; the immediate conviction that opposing Clinton or favoring Obama is primarily gender driven. I think it's fairly insulting to nearly half of Democratic primary voters, both for insinuating pervasive gender biases AND implying that they are not choosing in part on substantive issues (say, votes authorizing the invasion of Iraq or the influence of lobbiest money).

I'll agree that the media does a piss-poor job of covering all this, and tends to get caught up in nonsense such as you describe. I don't think Clinton has been treated much worse than Obama (or Edwards, or anyone other than McCain, really), and if it appears that the coverage lately has been particularly anti-Clinton I would suggest it is because mathematically she's effectively eliminated. A high profile and otherwise intelligent person quiotically pursuing a lost goal is going to generate ridicule, and high profile Democratic doing the Republican's dirty work is going to generate anger.

The proper response for the press would be to stop treating this as a race that is still in question, since a simple examination of the numbers indicates that it is not.

LMoE

JB-

It strikes me as a little unfair to call the media sexist for referring to Sen. Clinton as "Hillary" and Sen. as "Obama."

Every campaign poster or sign I have seen for Sen. Clinton says just "HILLARY" on it in bright bold lettering.

So she is just as much to blame for the fact that she is "Hillary" in this campaign. It seems to me she wants it that way.

You think hillary is successful? Watch this and weep!

She is a disgrace to this country, an insult to every human being.

She would do more for humanity serving as a dartboard.

<link>