Recently, high school juniors in a US History class were asked: "Of those here who will be eligible to vote in the upcoming November Presidential election, which candidate are you considering; Clinton, Obama, or McCain? I’m embarrassed to say it was my son who yelled out what I have up there as the subject header. His sister is in the same class, otherwise I'd probably never have known about it. According to my daughter he got a big laugh and spitballs volleyed at his head, but their teacher (a woman in her 30's) just shook her head and sat down. She was quiet for several minutes before the class finally noticed that she wasn't laughing with them.

Disclosing this is bound to get me dodging a few fray spitballs here myself, so to those who profess to raising perfect and politically correct children, congratulations and more power to you. As for me, I've never subscribed to that old "boys will be boys" way of thinking when it comes to disrupting a class, but even more so on issues like teenage drinking, sex, drugs - and now, misogyny. But while seventeen year-old boys can be many things, mature doesn’t always come in first on the list. Still, this was what we parents call a “teachable” moment, and I sat down with both of my sons as well as my daughter that night after hearing what happened in history class. We talked - or rather, I talked, about women and power, sexism, discrimination and misogyny, and I explained in simple terms exactly what these things meant. About how it didn't matter that all the girls in that class may have been laughing at his remark; what it implied was dead wrong. Women are fully capable of being President of the United States and they will be, and women are not inferior to men.

Yeah, yeah, we hear you Mom, and we know you're right. But Obama is the man. Obama is cool. Even girls think he is, most of them don't want to vote for Hillary. I looked at my daughter; she was nodding her head and agreeing, she usually never agrees with her brothers. Obama over Hillary. Why, I asked. Why do you think Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton, or John McCain? What does he stand for, do any of you even know? What has he said or done, what has he promised, that makes you feel this way?

"He's just cool."

To a teenager, the MySpace generation, the presidential race is visual, mostly all surface, very llittle to do with anything in their day-to-day lives. A couple of years away at college and they'll be completely different people of course, but this is the here and now. Is the presidential race much different for them than watching the Grammys this week? I get the feeling it isn't. Put Obama and Hillary next to each other and what do they see? "He's cool."

Truth is, Obama is cool. But looking at it through their eyes, more and more I'm troubled by perception, about how no matter which candidate - its all about getting that package of perception across. It takes planning, and managers, handlers, stylists, dressers, speechwriters, advance people, spokespeople, audience plants, unbelievable amounts of money. So much money, that only millionaires can become President of the United States.

If my kids don't start reading up and getting themselves familiar with a little more beyond "he's cool", if they don't get serious about this privilege they have of voting, I don't think they deserve to vote at all. They'll be 18 by November, but they'll still be living under my roof.

If they don't get with the program, I may just end up grounding them on election day.

Hi topazz,

Nah don't ground your kids. If they want to vote for a guy because they think he is cool it is their prerogative. After all there are many middle aged women voting for Senator Clinton because she has a vagina. Neither are good reasons.

So many women want to see a female president in their lifetime that they have become blinded to their own sexism. There was even a letter to the editor in my regional paper by one of these women recently that said "If not now, when?" The woman never addressed any issues other than we need a woman president.

Lest ye think i am a sexist, (which on occasion I probably am) there are some women today who after gaining a little more experience would make a decent president. A Senator from a neighboring State to mine is one. Hillary herself would probably make for a decent president but I think Obama can win, and win with the ability to actually have a honeymoon period with America.

McCain would not be a total disaster if he had not been pimping himself out to Bush for the last 7 years and now to the hard right of the party in order to get the nomination. So its either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. If its because one is cool or because one has a vagina then I guess its shame on all of us.

Obama's qualities go far beyond perceptions and packaging. He is genuine, and that connects with people. He doesn't have some packaged, focus-grouped, bug-eyed, contrived smile that tries to cover up some calculating strategy. He merely talks to audiences, feeds off their enthusiasm, and then rallys with them.

Your post dismisses his qualities, ones that he works hard to develop. Hillary Clinton's campaign dismisses his qualities too. She's tried to frame him as fluffy or pretty or eloquent like some prissy debate team captain, but she can't compete with his background. He came from little, worked his way up, and continued to stay connected to the streets. She can't touch that.

I appreciate the historical gravity of this long-overdue opportunity for a woman to lead this country. I look forward to that day too. I'm sorry your son did not understand how pressing this opportunity seems for you and other women. I'm obviously an Obama fan, but I'm also a Hillary fan too. And if she's nominated, I argue for others to recognize her intelligence and exceptional work ethic, but don't dismiss Obama and his supporters as fluffy. And don't jump to hyperbole and label his supporters as misogynistic.

For many, it's simple. She's good. He's better.

Genuine, a word that is very accurately descriptive of the Senator. One I have been using before he was even in the U.S. senate.

Being cool is not a crime nor is being a nerd. Its when one or the other dismisses one or the other for being what they are that we begin to see a problem.

If your son thinks Obama is cool, does that mean he thinks Hilliary isn't cool? He may have better instincts than you suppose.

Sorry to play the Manipulated Manipulating American Bitches card, (because I know what I have in store), but here it is.

<link>

you misunderstand. I wasn't labeling my own son as being sexist just because he doesn't want to vote for Hillary. I got after him because he said "No way I'm voting for a woman!" He was wrong, flat out wrong.

I'm still undecided as to who I'm voting for, its going to be either Obama or Clinton. And I'm fully aware of those who level misogyny and sexist charges at women who are voting for Obama. Believe me, I ain't one of them.

You're pretty cool.

My wife wants Hillary to win like nobody's business. So I've learned to temper my enthusiasm at home. That's why I get excited here. It's the only place I can vent.

you should listen to (not being a parent -- though I'm frequently apparent!) but I'd suggest ix-nay on that final eat-thray thingie (for just one thing, if they're determined to defy it -- and they'd have my sympathies in the present case -- there's probably not a damn thing you can do to stop them).

One of your best posts ever. Seriously. (Perhaps you might have had that little chat with them before he turned 17?)

At least you didn't raise a Republican.

I was so afraid my daughter would turn into one, but she voted for Edwards. And that was against the advise of her husband the lawyer. Ok, so he's a corporate lawyer, but still. He voted for Hillary. Go figure. And my son, he lives and breathes Obama. Do they know what's going on. Yeah, maybe more than I do. I just like Obama because I think he's cool.

Excellent post. I can sympathize with your frustration with your children - at your son's remark (although it did sound like something a teenage boy would say just to get a laugh and look cool) and at their lack of a real reason to vote for Obama. I've beaten my head against walls over the essential injustice of the moronic reasons people vote the way they do. But keeping them from the polls isn't the answer; consider the possibility that maybe they are just reading him in the general way that each of us reads people every day - their sincerity, their directness, their general perspective on life. I think you could make the argument that they've formed a judgment somewhat like mine; I disagree with almost every one of Obama's policy positions, but I'm going to vote for him if he's the nominee because he seems like the guy best able to get us past the partisan nastiness and gridlock of the last fifteen years.

It's really a question of getting people to step outside of themselves and examine things without their "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican" assumptions, which is a difficult thing. When I was living in Louisiana, the governor's race several years back was neck and neck, and in a freak of electoral happenstance, it came down to a female Democrat versus an Indian-(Asian type) American Republican. The Republican (Bobby Jindal, who ran again in the next election and is the current governor) was clearly the more intelligent, more thoughtful candidate, while she was essentially a party apparatchik who had stuck around long enough to earn her reward (strangely reminiscent of the Hillary supporters who argue Obama should "wait his turn"). In talking to my in-laws, who are otherwise very intelligent people, I was baffled by their inability to cite a solitary reason they were voting for her, other than her party affiliation. I'm sure for some people his race factored into it, but for most people I'm convinced it was solely for the "D" next to her name.

An unfortunate tag line for this story: when Jindal ran the first time, he ran as essentially a moderate technocrat - a thinker, a conciliator, someone smart enough to get the state's sorry ass together. A lot of northern Louisiana (Republican territory) didn't come out for him on election day, and he learned his lesson. The next time, he ran as a hard-right, gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' wingnut. He's too intelligent to actually be the person he ran as, but it's unfortunate that he had to do that to win.

I disagree with almost every one of Obama's policy positions, but I'm going to vote for him if he's the nominee because he seems like the guy best able to get us past the partisan nastiness and gridlock of the last fifteen years.

******

We don't need a black (OK, half black, half white) President and we don't need a woman President. A President may even be extranoeus but it's the logical first resort. What we really need at this point in time is a sure way out of a national tailspin, not an impossible way back.

******

Americans are ready for a leader who will restore America's reputation in the world, and Hillary is prepared to lead America back in the right direction.

<link>

******

No way I'd go back, even if going back was more a real possibility than a cheap political hook.

topazz,really great topic and post!

I can relate to this sentiment and feeling too. Both of my kids are solidly for Obama.So, it really hit home with me.

My grown 30 year old daughter and my 14 year old son..both of them want him to win.

I still think Hillary is the best choice and I am one of those who really would love a woman president, but I can certainly see many pluses in Obama, as well. Besides his being 'cool' as they kids see him..I think he's an inspriring figure and will help us here and Internationally to unite and improve our image in the world, at large.

I would love to vote for him for many reasons if it were not for Hillary. If he gets the nomination, I will be solidly behind him,too.

Hi, topazz!

You were right to remind your children that: "Women are fully capable of being President of the United States and they will be, and women are not inferior to men."

That's nothing less than God's own truth. . . but it's not a principle at stake in this election. There are reasons, having nothing to do with sexism, for voters to lend their support to Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant and accomplished national leader whose record suggests that she would make a good President. She's a stronger politician than any candidate the Democrats have nominated since (at least) her husband, in 1992. In the normal course of events, she would have certainly taken the nomination, and the Presidency, against all comers.

And yet, like your kids, I'm supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton. It's not that she isn't great. It's that he's even better.

About why you would expect your son to think more highly about women than his mother does?