Dahlia Lithwick, Emily Bazelon and Melinda Henneberger get in front of the camera for a post-Super Tuesday II discussion of the candidates and the issues.

Wanna talk about it?

See the video here: <link>

Given the preponderance of male writers and male-oriented topics at Slate, the XX Factor Blog seemed like a good thing when it was introduced. Then it got underway and it seemed like a very unfortunate showcase of pettiness and vapidity. Watching this video of the XX Factor bloggers engenders a number of visceral reactions in me, primarily shame. I want to talk about that, and about the depth and content of their analysis. It gets particularly interesting nine minutes in when the discussion turns to issues of gender, feminism and why female voters vote the way they do.

I've long offered, with disappointingly scant response.

As to why female voters vote the way they do, I offer four words: Women Hate Each Other.

Wayne's World! Wayne's World! Party time! Excellent!

Better shed that lapdancer first.

because I'm busy giving myself a lobotomy with a carpet knife, I am nonetheless eager to read the details of your shame and other ill feelings regarding the video.

I am surprised Dahlia could resort to pettiness or vapidity given the way she turns Supreme Court coverage into such a smart, hip and sassy topic with her non-stop wit. Very disappointing.

Anyway, you go ahead and talk. Please.

Well that was something to see, indeed,Dawn! What a great 'get'. I am glad you found that and posted it here.

Considering however, that these three women work here ,at Slate, I imagine it would take a bit of moxy for many to post as freely as they might like about the tenor and tone of the conversation they shared in that video.

But, yeah, I can understand to a good degree that some parts of it made you feel shame.It did me, a little bit too, as well.

Especially, in the way the one on the far left of the sceen appeared to be a bit catty/petty in her descriptives.

Melinda Henneberger ,on the right of the screen, seemed to be the most intelligent , very savvy, and smooth, in my humble opinion.

She also is the only one who didn't have the air of vapidity that you describe and I think is pretty apropos'.

She was able to make some very good points towards the end of the conversation despite the fact that I think it seems clear that both Emily and Dahlia are trying to work, through their disappointment over BO's loss/ and their concerns about a possible HRC nomination.

That was my take on it, anyway. But, because these two are , I think, a bit miffed over the recent HRC wins..I can understand their use of resorting to a degree of pettiness in order to deal with their disappointment.

Melinda Henneberger on the other hand..seemed to be able to drive home some positive points to both of them about HRC without it resorting to a catty retort sort of mode. That is why she appeared quite savvy and smooth to me because clearly the other two were or appeared to favor Obama.

All in all, it wasn't all that bad...they tried to illustrate the varying angles of the the problems with delegates and the implications of the divisive campaign season we are now in.

The Daffy Duck vs. Bugs Bunny analogy was a bit over the top..and beneath them as women, I thought.

It seemed they felt the need to use such childish sort of analogies to lend an air of,'oh, no matter what we say, we all just think in comic book like terms anyway..so don't feel threatened by us silly little girls here" I thought that was just sad that they went there. but... no biggie. As you say...they have to work in man's world and we still all have a long way to go.

So ,in the main...they didn't do too badly.

In total I think they were doing a pretty good job as upwardly moblie young women trying to have a civil and intelligent conversation regarding the status of the campaign.

Thanks again for posting this, Dawn. It was elucidating as to who some of the people are working behind the scenes as Slate Employees here.

Eye opening and interesting stuff.

They sound like a bunch of teenagers gossiping instead of talking intelligently.

I didn't like Lithwick's insistent emphasizing the humanity of Hillary Clinton. Does she expect her to only behave in some automatic mode?

She insults her gender and everything any motivated and dedicated female wants to have or accomplish in this world.

The only thing whe said was that of Identity politics taking place at this time...that many people relate to the two candidates so emotionally and viscerally because, simply, one or the other of the candidates look like "them", the citizen voter. With that, is what they identify with.

Excellent Post!

You do surprise me at times !

for a bunch of flat-chested airheads I mean.

Jack

<link>

At one point on Monday or Tuesday, in a video montage of voters' opinions, some woman appeared to say that it's most important to her that the next President should be sensitive to womens' issues. Clearly, she didn't have Barack Obama in mind.

I saw that as a manifestation of feminism over common sense. What womens' issues are more important than general issues like justice, privacy, national security, economy and the like? Abortion/choice was the only mainly womans' issue I could imagine. (For that matter, gun control was the only mainly male issue that I could imagine.)

Your pain could be an artifact of political marketing. This year's Democrats are run aground like Kerry ran aground in '04. Their constituent demographics are mixed in ways that restrict the issues they can address and accentuate. No wonder their positions appear to be so close. Race and gender emerge as stupidly petty issues because nobody (candidates nor voters, women nor men) care to get to the bottom of our sinking cultural boat.

She's a friend, was a colleague, and is now married. She can't help being hot.

Thank you, NoHablo. :-)

why are you still here? You insult everyone's intelligence by assuming you have an ounce of credibility. Do you seriously think you can undo what was witnessed here yesterday, by obvious pandering?

Not going to happen.

Primarily, I look for cleavage in political discussions. Assuming we can't perch girls on bar stools in short skirts.