As a girl too young to be considered part of Hillary's true demographic (and also probably too educated and wealthy), I do sort of feel that the sexism against Hillary has been rife throughout her campaign, and though I will undoubtedly vote for Obama rather than McCain, I won't do so with a light heart ...

This was, in my mind, a case of a good looking young man coming in and overshadowing a stalwart older woman without the same charm and charisma ... A man very much like Hillary's husband. For me, Obama's campaign always felt like a lot of bluster, and as time passes his claims seem less and less possible: I haven't seen a new politics in action, and I certainly would prefer "old-style" politics and a Democrat in the White House than "new-style" politics and a Republican.

For me, Hillary represents just the sort of woman who, in this day and age, deserves the presidency -- the sort of woman today's feminists seem to want to emulate. She has, in some ways, had it all -- a political career AND a family -- and while the bumps along the road have been tremendous (certainly I don't envy her), they are also very real prices people have to pay. So, her penalty is because she was mommy- or husband-tracked? (Particularly when it seems that Bill himself was the one who at first benefited from his powerhouse of a wife?) As a 25-year old who plans to be a doctor and raise a family, I can only assume that my life too will be full of compromises on both ends, and I hope I am able to handle it all with the relative aplomb that Hillary has.

Certainly -- in an age when many of my friends are *afraid* to label themselves feminists at all -- I worry about how many young women avoided Clinton's candidacy.

To me the 'good looking young man' was right from the start on Iraq and the dangers of the invasion while HRC was wrong from the start, starting with her vote.

But I agree that Obama claims appear less and less possible since Obama is a Washington insider like the rest in Washington. His support of the corporate welfare Farm bill proved that to me.

Of course the rest of what you say is just one funny line after another;

just the sort of woman who, in this day and age, deserves the presidency

She has, in some ways, had it all -- a political career AND a family -- and while the bumps along the road have been tremendous (certainly I don't envy her),

So you don't envy someone that 'had it all'. Well then what is so great about 'having it all' (note that having it all is having nothing and the entire concept is bogus).

So, her penalty is because she was mommy- or husband-tracked?

NO, in my case 'her penalty' was being wrong about the Iraq invasion. Note that I tell McCain supporters the same thing!

Her 'penalty' had little to do with her Iraq vote. If you take a majority of news headlines throughout the campaign, you will note that 'Iraq' figures in relatively few of them.

Also, who would envy Hillary? She was completely trashed by Republicans, Democrats and nearly every major media outlet over the last 15 years. But to admire Hillary is not to envy her. To give her credit is not to envy her.

The original poster doesn't seem humorous to me at all; she seems correct.

No, I don't -- and I agree, "having it all" is an impossibility (sorry if tongue-in-cheek is hard to pull off on an online messageboard). I meant that it troubles me when Hillary is derided by "new-wave" feminists for making just the kind of choices they also claim to be defending themselves against their mothers for making ...

I understand why you voted against her -- I'm not arguing that there aren't legitimate reasons to do that (though I do think it is truly over-simplifying the issue to say that Obama was against the war while Hillary wasn't, ignoring that one's vote actually *counted* and had to be backed by a constituency -- it's always easy to be against wars from one's armchair) -- but that doesn't mean that sexism didn't play a real part in this primary.

I'd envy anyone that 'has it all', but since the entire concept of having it all is bogus I don't envy anyone for having it all.

BUT, don't you find it funny (even a little), that one would claim someone has it all and then NOT envy them? Oh, well maybe I just have a sick sense of humor!

Note I'm NOT able to discuss 'her penalty' because I was allowed only ONE vote. So you will note I only discussed MY reason for picking Obama over HRC.

But the general put down of the Obama supporter is clear in the original post and your reply. That they voted for Obama NOT because of policy issues but because of his looks and Bill Clinton like factors!

So I assume you believe that women and a few gays were foolish enough to vote for Obama mainly because he is a good looking young man! That is a major put down of young women in America and this is the key reasons for the XXfactor wars between older and younger women. Shame on you!

To me the question is HOW much of a part did sexism play? I don't have a clue BUT you and many with views like yours appear to know HOW much and you have decided it was a MAJOR part.

I'm not so sure but I'll admit that could be wishful thinking on my part.

I have a lot of very concrete reasons for supporting Obama over HRC and a lot more about Iraq but I hope you agree that I do NOT have to explain those reasons.

BUT I hope you can admit that your entire post is an insult to Obama supporters (I'm NOT an Obama supporter I only voted for him over HRC and I would of been happy with either one).

Your top post CLEALY implied there were NO legitmate reaons for taking Obama over HRC, otherwise, why did you use the 'good looking' crack!

Anyhow, continue to pick on your sisters for supporting Obama because of his looks!

Hey jazz -- I sort of feel a bit like you are flaming me, since you are truly misquoting me. I never said Hillary *had* it all -- the direct quote is "She has, in some ways, had it all -- a political career AND a family --", immediately implying that in some ways, she has not.

And, for me, since I feel Hillary deserved to win, I feel like Obama deserved to win less. This doesn't delegitimize his candidacy (obviously, since he *did* win, regardless of what I think), nor does it delegitimize those who voted for him. Still, it does mean that I think people who voted for him made the wrong choice -- which is an opinion I am entitled to. (And certainly not *such* a wrong choice, or I would be one who threw in her pool with McCain or chose not to vote.) And I *did* say that there were legitimate reasons to vote for Obama -- I just didn't necessarily feel that the one you stated was as obviously true as you did.

My feeling is that people vote for many different reasons, not the least of them being their perception of a candidate -- a perception that, in my opinion, was too colored in this election by looks and gender. It is altogether possible that you feel it was, in fact, equally colored by color (I don't -- though I certainly see racism as a huge problem in the country, and feel awesomely proud that our party was willing to nominate someone whose skin is not white). Still, it is frustrating that you seem keen on portraying my words as flighty and irrational -- certainly I don't feel nearly as dismissively about Obama as a candidate as I feel you are trying to portray me.

My point is clear here; I'm NOT guessing on the reasons why OTHERS voted the way that they voted.

So I'm going to give every voter the benefit of the doubt unless I see something otherwise and assume they vote for the candidate that best represents their values and stand on policy issues and NOT on issues like looks and gender.

It is clear to me that you are calling Obama supporters 'flighty and irrational' for being lead by the media hype when HRC clearly had more substance.

Also can you explain this line; Hillary deserved to win.

Really, I do NOT have any understanding of what 'deserved to win' means or how it can apply to an office like the President of the USA.

Didn't someone like Bill Richardson 'deserve to win' more than HRC? (again, if someone believes in such a crazy concept).

PS: I'm NOT an Obama supporter. I'm only anti-McCain \ GOP!

It's hard to figure what extent sexism played in the final outcome. Obama's charismatic enough that he probably would have finished off any of the other male candindates much earlier on in a one-on-one contest. A heads up Obama/Edwards race probably wouldn't have lasted past "Super Tuesday".

Also, the gender issue cuts both ways in this case. There are plenty of voters out there who voted for Hillary primarily based on geometry of her genitalia, many of whom are now among the loudest at claiming that to be the reason she lost (maybe because they can't see past gender, they assume nobody else can?).

Once again -- quoting half of a sentence isn't really quoting. "Since I feel Hillary deserved to win" implies only that I thought her to be the better candidate of the two. Of course she didn't unequivocally deserve to win -- the only way to do that is to win, right?

The person who deserves to win, in my mind, is, generally the one that I vote for -- that's why I vote for them. Of course, I live in a Republic, so my voice is one of many, and since it is less corrupt than most countries in the world, the decision of that majority is generally accepted. (And were it more corrupt, I still probably wouldn't be in the position of choosing.)

So yeah, I can explain it by saying: I think Hillary was the better candidate, and in my mind poised to be a better president, so I made the choice I made, and I stand by it. The Democratic Party made a different choice, and because I, like you, am in the end more anti-McCain than anything else, will stand by Obama. He is a brilliant and skilled politician -- as evidence by his meteoric rise and his win -- and though I personally feel that sexism contributed to Hillary's defeat, I don't think that automatically detracts from Obama's win (or his supporters' votes).

Out of curiosity, mostly: If McCain wins, will you feel he deserves it?

Since I'm known for being fair I need to ask you the same question I asked the top poster (accept her assumption was about those that voted for Obama);

How do you know that 'plenty of voters,,,voted for Hillary primarilly based on ,,, her genitalia'?

My recommendation is that everyone stop assuming what the motivations are for those OTHER PEOPLE that voted differently then themselves.

While it's true that Hillary and much of the rest of the country, including many long term liberal democrats, were dead wrong about the war and Obama was correct, it doesn't entitle him to a pass or necessarily make him a better candidate than someone who came to the same conclusion later. It's relatively easy to be against anything and much more difficult to defend what you're actually "for". Obama had much less to risk politically by voting against the war than many other more popular congressmen and especially those from New York. Being for something, anything a little more substancial than change,( is it spare, clothing, or what exactly??) would be more reassuring. If you are suggesting that your support or lack thereof hinges solely on this issue and its timing I say it is short sighted and dangerous. Note that nearly everyone today seems to be against the Iraq war except McCain. I was honestly torn about the issue at the time when we invaded and prayed that the intelligence that the White House claimed to be true would be verified and confirmed. I had serious doubts. I was wrong for not listening to my own misgivings and trusting the bastards who sold our nation down the river. I don't believe for an instant that millions of Americans who had similar feelings but marginally trusted what the press and nearly every senator and congressman claimed were stupid, lying or part of a cover up. Many well intentioned Americans including those serving in the military as well as many conservative republicans were genuinely deceived. Do you think that Christopher Hitchens was part of the Bush/Chaney administrations plot to deceive America and the world? Being right about Iraq is a positive but not enough for the cigar. Many long term persistent enemies of the US were against the invasion of Iraq as well. Does that make them better friends of America or to be trusted by us more than the Australians, Japanese, English, Spanish, Polish who believed and marginally "supported" the invasion?

Sorry for reading into the 'deserved to win' comment but the term 'deserved' has been used by women at XXfactor to indicate that HRC deserved to win because no women had ever won. I see you are using the term 'deserved' in a very different way.

You give your reasons for feeling HRC was the better candidate and I'm going to assume you feel your reasons are reasons of substance.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that most Obama supporters feel their reasons for believing Obama would make the better President over HRC are also based on substance and not mainly because of looks and his charisma.

Note the post below were I assume a Obama supporter implies that many women voted for HRC only because they share the same sex organ! I'm also call her out for making the same assumptions about why others voted the way they voted.

No one "deserves" the presidency. You have to go out and win it. It's not an award for being Supermom or whatever.

I have read many of the statements Obama made about the invasion of Iraq and they are on-target and they had an understanding of the potential nightmare that I didn't see many other American politicians have.

Of course Iraq isn't the only issue I believe Obama was light years ahead of most in Washington.

But in general I agree with your take. I have no idea if Obama will be a sucessful President or not. I just believe he is a better choice than McCain who clearly doesn't understand the issues and players relating to the so called war on terror.