You're saying sexism shouldn't be blamed, doesn't make it so. The fact remains that Hillary was a better candidate and Obama is pretty empty. That isn't resolved by this commentary. Obama was a sad choice for a presumptive nominee. He ran a better campaign apparently but Hillary thought she could depend on a record and experience. That factor hasn't changed. Obama only has more experience in running a campaign and rallies. She still has more of what it takes to be a president.

Your statement that Clinton was a better candidate is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact.

Here's a fact: Many, many people find Obama to be the superior candidate.

Ditto.

I knew it!! gone overboard is in reality, that really fat conservative radio guy who takes more Oxycontin than prescribed!!

The Clinton duo has a lot more experience at politicking than Obama did, yet he won the delegate race and she lost. You see it as something slick he's got going for him, but some of us see it as symptomatic of a great disaffection for the Clintons. Why can't you concede that point? Maybe a lot of people are just tired of the "same old politics" and don't see anyone as a candidate for change except Obama. True, he has a lot of pressure on himself to deliver what he's promised, and politicians, even the best-intentioned, seldom do. But you can't blame the disenfrancised for grabbing on to his coat-tails. I hope for the best with Obama, but I never thought I'd get anything but the same old BS from the Clintons. And I say the Clintons because we all know that if Bill Clinton got in the White House, even as "first gentleman," he's not just going to be a bump on a log. If you voted for Hillary, you'd get Bill in the bargain, for better or worse, and we all know that. Perhaps that was just too much baggage for her to bring to her candidacy.

I look forward to voting for a woman president before I die (and I am a senior), and I hope it will be someone better suited and prepared than Hillary was. Her gender had absolutely nothing to do with the reason she turned me off during her do-anything, say-anything, on-again off-again race. But some people will never see it that way. I don't, for one minute, believe that the voting public in the most feminist nation in history won't elect a female president if she comes to the race without a lot of baggage. India's had a woman leader, so has the UK, and Germany, and countries in Asia and South America. How can you possibly believe that her gender alone defeated Hillary's race for the candidacy of her party? Some people cherish victim-hood, even when it's not present at all.

Good post. I agree.

I knew YOU would opinionated. But, looking at your examples in another way, maybe Ireland and Britain and India and Pakistan and Canada and the Philappines and so forth, represent countries whose populace doesn't hate or fear women as much as the U.S. does? You see: we remain tied with Saudi Arabia for the number of chief executives in our nations' histories that were female...[0].

aerodynamics wrote:

"Here's a fact: Many, many people find Obama to be the superior candidate."

Kindly defend your position.

I see nothing that defines Obama as 'superior' in any context. The fact that he won the nomination does not make him superior. It may make his handlers superior to HRC's. Let's not becloud the issue.

He cannot be superior because HRC is not inferior. There is nothing to support this thesis, which must be true, for if he was indeed superior, it must be asked, superior to whom? And he is certainly not superior to HRC. Perhaps to nincompoop Senator McCaskill, and more possibly only to her.

In point of fact, what we have been handed is a Laurel vs. Hardy general election. I will be voting for McCain now that HRC apparently is off the ballot, or I may write in her name. But I will never vote for a black man for president. For just as the race issue has elevated him, so will it control him. It is the fatal flaw in his persona, for it will whipsaw him. He must ever remain beholden to black America and graciously do their bidding, or be ridiculed as an Uncle Tom.

Speaking of superiority, I doubt that BO is superior even to McCain. There is nothing in the junior senator from Illinois who has served less than two years in that capacity to even suggest he is presidential timber. His sense of entitlement outstrips even that of HRC, who has been accused of this by Hitchens.

I wish just one of these wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth Obamatons would itemize this impostor's accomplishments that would rate him not just the nomination, but the White House. Like him or not, McCain has a resume. BO just has oratory and a well-pressed suit.

Get ready to say President McCain, Obamatons. You brought it on yourselves. I intend to help it along.

Lynn E wrote:
"You're saying sexism shouldn't be blamed, doesn't make it so. The fact remains that Hillary was a better candidate and Obama is pretty empty."

Ohhhh, finally I think I get it!

It's all in the definition of the term "sexism" - as any Clinton fan knows before the conversation even begins!

The exact same thing happened in 2004 - the better candidate lost the general election to a chimpanzee, er, to a lesser candidate.

How utterly obvious! It was SEXISM!

I'm gonna have to start looking at all the strange crap that's been going on in this country over the last few years, hey, even longer, corporate criminalism, all of it....... SEXISM!

What's the opposite of rose-colored glasses?

American_Bottom:

aerodynamics wrote:

"Here's a fact: Many, many people find Obama to be the superior candidate."

Kindly defend your position.

I see nothing that defines Obama as 'superior' in any context. The fact that he won the nomination does not make him superior. It may make his handlers superior to HRC's. Let's not becloud the issue.

He cannot be superior because HRC is not inferior. There is nothing to support this thesis, which must be true, for if he was indeed superior, it must be asked, superior to whom? And he is certainly not superior to HRC. Perhaps to nincompoop Senator McCaskill, and more possibly only to her.

In point of fact, what we have been handed is a Laurel vs. Hardy general election. I will be voting for McCain now that HRC apparently is off the ballot, or I may write in her name. But I will never vote for a black man for president. For just as the race issue has elevated him, so will it control him. It is the fatal flaw in his persona, for it will whipsaw him. He must ever remain beholden to black America and graciously do their bidding, or be ridiculed as an Uncle Tom.

Speaking of superiority, I doubt that BO is superior even to McCain. There is nothing in the junior senator from Illinois who has served less than two years in that capacity to even suggest he is presidential timber. His sense of entitlement outstrips even that of HRC, who has been accused of this by Hitchens.

I wish just one of these wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth Obamatons would itemize this impostor's accomplishments that would rate him not just the nomination, but the White House. Like him or not, McCain has a resume. BO just has oratory and a well-pressed suit.

Get ready to say President McCain, Obamatons. You brought it on yourselves. I intend to help it along.

Um, there's nothing to defend, it's just a fact. Obama won the majority of the votes to become the nominee; therein lies the fact of him being chosen as superior.

You being a moron, however, doesn't need to be illustrated by anyone else.

Oh, and thanks for this gem:

But I will never vote for a black man for president. For just as the race issue has elevated him, so will it control him.

Good luck with that write-in vote. If you can't decide between Clinton or McCain, you can always write-in David Duke.

Davelias12 ! A Hillary supporter here ! I guess you could say that we led obama by the nose,right to the very place he wants to go ! You see,the country is in an AWFUL mess! It's all bad.War,terror,gas,food,money,­housing.......ect.!! Knowing that deep inside he's just another Dumb NEGRO,it was easy to get him to play along ! My greatest JOY in all this will be to watch him FAIL miserably ! But the BLACKS will finally shut the f**k up about how the white man is keeping them down ! He will win,be the biggest failure we have ever seen( even more than bush )His term in office will be so miserable,he will be begging to get out ! Michelle will go back to hating America again.(PROUD NO MORE)since her hubby's not in there ! And of course barry can return back to REV.wrights Black loving,white hating,NAACP racist CULT ! What a waste of four years !

Reddawg:

It amuses me to try and read your shit.

Rednecks, god bless 'em.

Davelias12 ! Hey thanks dave ! Not everyone has the brain capacity to keep up ! (you must be white ) !

it wasn't her experience she was relying upon, it was that of her horrible husband...this is feminism?? count me out..I can speak for myself, and don't need hilary and the rest of those horrible baby boomer has been wannabe's to tell me how to think ...

Real Slim:

Give me a break. You're saying that Americans are no different than Saudi Arabians because we haven't yet had a female president? Hell, women can't even drive a car in Saudi Arabia, and they can't go out unescorted. You want to try to fit that into your ridiculous comparison?

I doubt there are few working men in America today who haven't had women bosses. Can you likewise say the same for the men in Saudi Arabia? This is the most ridiculous attempt to play the victim that I've come across in years. We shouldn't elect a woman to be president just because she's a woman. Hillary brought a lot of baggage to her campaign, and she made it much worse by the way she campaigned. Don't forget that a lot of women, including some white women, supported Obama, because they just didn't see anything to get excited about in Hillary's race to become the candidate of her party. I condemn the actions of the idiots who held up signs about ironing shirts, but I resent having myself and my entire gender labeled and put in a box because of what they did. Is this your idea of being fair or open-minded?

I repeat, I have no problem at all in voting for a woman to be president, but now, after this campaign, I'd have to add the proviso: Anyone But Hillary. I feel sorry for her, in a way, but she is wedded to much of her problems, and Motor-Mouth Bill hurt her far more than he helped. Unfortunately, there's a lot of voters who dislike Hillary, and probably more who dislike Bill, and they know that if they voted for Hillary they'd again have Bill in the White House. This fact, and the desperate say-anything do-anything way she conducted her campaign are what did her in, not her gender. But apparently you'd have to give up your righteous indignation over phantoms to accept this fact. I am acquainted with history, ours and world history, and I still say ours is the most feminist society in the world today. Comparing us to Saudi Arabia is simply ludicrous, and if climb down from your high horse, you'll see that.

I, for one, would still have held my nose and voted for her if she had won the nomination of her party. I would never vote for McCain, and not because I hate him, but because he would continue too much of the inexcusable Bush policies if elected. Now he's trying to picture himself as a rebel and independent, but I can't get past my remembrance of him stumping for Bush in 2004, saying over and over again, "he's the best man for the job." Well, now he's wedded to that image, and he has only himself to blame.