Sexism and Racism

After reading Gloria Steinem's op-ed, Brian Beutler reflects that what we've been seeing "may answer a question a friend of mine hinted at long ago: Is America more racist than sexist? In politics? More sexist." That's not quite how I would put it.

Dahlia Lithwick, reacting to Steinem says "The real contrast between Obama and Clinton lies not in this who’s-carrying-a-greater-burden sweepstakes. It’s that he figured out how to transcend labels and she tried to do so by turning herself into an android."

That, I think, is closer to the mark. But here's where being black is less of a handicap than being a woman. American society is awash in certain negative stereotypes of African-Americans, especially African-American men. But it's possible for any individual African-American to "transcend" those stereotypes by simply not living up to them. So Barack Obama can't afford to show the kind of populist outrage John Edwards expresses lest he be deemed a threatening radical, but if he avoids falling into pitfalls of stereotype he winds up getting praised in a somewhat condescending, but still helpful to his political career, manner as "one of the good ones."

A woman faces a very different problem. A woman who's seen as possessing the stereotypical characteristics of femininity won't do well in presidential politics. But a woman who's seen as lacking those characteristics will be penalized as well. The female politician can't be too femme or too butch, and she can't be androgynous either. That's why, as Kerry Howley sagely observed in The New York Times, frequently the only way for a woman politician to break through is by more-or-less riding the coattails of a male husband or father. Once some critical mass of women acquire political power, it becomes possible to start creating new models of political behavior. But right now, our model of executive leadership is heavily male-coded, but insufficiently feminine women are disparaged so widespread sexist assumptions create an inescapable trap.

Comments

I think a lot of the recent coverage of Clinton has been sexist as hell and over the years she's taken so much crap it's unbelievable but none of that changes that she was 10 points ahead a few months ago. The country didn't all of a sudden get sexist. Clinton stumbled.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 8, 2008 2:38 PM

I mostly agree with this, though I think it underestimates the difficulties a black candidate normally faces. However, I'm not at all sure that having lots of women politicians will somehow change this dynamic. What if it runs deeper than that? I know plenty of women professionals, and in college and law school I had many women professors (and needless to say women classmates). None of that keeps me from, despite myself, responding better to displays of emotion, etc. when they are made by men. I feel as though there is also almost always a "voice gap" - Fred Thompson has a fantastic voice that would compare favorably to most women's voices (and, in fairness, to most men's voices) (I'm talking about the voice itself, not his accent).

Posted by minderbender | January 8, 2008 2:42 PM

There's something to this, but I think there's also some overgeneralisation from what's happening to Obama and Clinton here. If it was so much easier for someone from a disadvantaged racial group to overcome prejudices than for a woman to overcome sexist prejudices, I'd think we'd see that reflected across the country. But right now we have 9 women governors, and only 2 racial minority governors. I'm not sure of the Senate numbers (i.e. I'm too lazy to look them up) but I think the ratios are about the same.

Now obviously a 9-41 discrepancy in Governors indicates that a lot of sexist bias is alive and kicking, but if sexism was such a bigger factor in politics than racism, or it was so easy to sidestep racial prejudices, I'd think we'd see it in these numbers.

Posted by Brian Weatherson | January 8, 2008 2:42 PM

It's also true, though, that Senator Clinton has received far less sympathetic media coverage in general than Senator Obama, and right wingers have been far more focused on attacking Clinton. The racist attacks against Obama are out there, they just haven't been given quite the same megaphone that the sexist attacks on Clinton have.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | January 8, 2008 2:42 PM

> That's why, as Kerry Howley sagely observed in
> The New York Times, frequently the only way for
> a woman politician to break through is by
> more-or-less riding the coattails of a male
> husband or father.

And then she's pilloried for that. (e.g. Sullivan is good about every other day for that criticism)

Posted by Texan for Obama | January 8, 2008 2:42 PM

What you say about racism vs. feminism might be true, but I suspect you are over thinking the importance or gender and race in this particular election. Obama's younger, fresher, is a fantastic speaker, was right about the war, and has an appealing optimistic view of America's future. Hillary is a "B+" public speaker, she supported the war, and she's a policy wonk.

Obama's simply a better candidate. It has nothing to do with skin color or gender.

If Hillary voted against the Iraq War resolution in the fall of 2002, she'd be President in January 2009. I'm not saying there's no glass ceiling for woman, but in Hillary's case she appears to be hitting a glass ceiling for liberal hawks.

Posted by MikeS | January 8, 2008 2:44 PM

You could also break it down like this:

Black people in this country face systematic disadvantages due to their race and, frequently, their inner-city upbringing. But for a black man who avoids the associated stereotypes and gets a good start in life, he may be able to do pretty well for himself.

Women, on average, are probably better off than black people. After all, on average they're raised by the same parents as men. But they face a glass-ceiling problem. Too nice and they're a push-over. Too strong and they're bitchy. Rising to the top of anything as a woman is pretty difficult.

I'm not sure which group is in a worse spot overall. But its pretty clear what the impact is going to be in the political sphere: women get the short end of the stick.

Posted by mpowell | January 8, 2008 2:44 PM

For comparison's sake, it's worth looking at the Spitting Image caricature of Margaret Thatcher, as the domineering woman 'handbagging' a cabinet of weak, effete, boarding-school educated Tory men. She didn't, however, need to rise through the party ranks on the coat-tails of a man.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 8, 2008 2:47 PM

I'm not sure of the Senate numbers (i.e. I'm too lazy to look them up) but I think the ratios are about the same.

Obama is the only African-American senator. Mel Martinez and Ken Salazar are Hispanic. In contrast, there are 16 women senators, according to Wikipedia.

I think the lower number of minorities as compared to white women is likely due to the difficulties that minorities (especially black men) face in rising into a high enough social station to run for senate or other elected office.

However, I think it's fairly clear that the media and most voters are more latently sexist than racist, and a woman (especially on a national stage) will face more sexist hurdles than a black man will face racial hurdles.

Posted by Ben | January 8, 2008 2:49 PM

women get the short end of the stick

Other than a good run by the "Tiger Woods of politics" (bwaha) what makes you think black politicians get anything close to a fair shake?

Posted by Barbar | January 8, 2008 2:50 PM

I'm sorry but Gloria is a fluff piece and always has been. Obama's story is just as improbably being a narrative for a black man as for a white woman, and this is supposed to be evidence of sexism? Or the idea that women aren't allowed to be emotional but men are? Doesn't anyone remember Muskie? I wasn't even alive then, but I know the tale. Even the monologue about "experience" is a trite piece. Obama was in the state legislature while HRC was trying to carpetbag in New York. And being the first lady is now "on the job training"? Please.

The honest truth is that a lot of conservatives hate Clinton and the Clinton nostalgia narrative. They are equally as happy to take pot shots at Hillary as at Bill.

Posted by freddiemac | January 8, 2008 2:51 PM

You aren't giving personality its due. People don't think Hillary is a cynical, calculating, power-hungry -- hate to say it -- bitch because she is a woman. They think that because of her personality. The larger issue here is that her whole campaign has a back to the future feel to it. We've had 20 years of Bush's and Clinton's. That's more than most can stomach. You can read too much into this "black man" vs a woman meme and what that really "means." A lot of people are just sick of the Clintons and want something new.

Posted by jim | January 8, 2008 2:52 PM

Only in America is this a problem.

All throughout Europe and Asia history is replete with strong women who wore the crown and led their nation. They did this not through elections but by rising through heriditary monarachies.

So most of the rest to the world a woman running for office today pundits do not subject her to the same kind of analysis Matt puts forward above. Their focus is more on policy. With a long history of females in top leadership positions they just do not have the same level as angst as American pundits do over the possibility of a female at the top.

Posted by ken | January 8, 2008 2:55 PM

The Steinem argument does seem off in suggesting that Obama was typical in being able to catch on with his experience and race. It is hard to think of a second black man who could have done it. Obviously it is impossible to think of a second black senator who could, because there is no second black senator. (I think in the last century there have only been two others both of whom seem to have been flukes. Braun in Illinois, and Brooks (a republican) in Massachusetts.

But it is true that black candidates gain an advantage by not being overtly black which woman do not gain whatever they do.

Posted by Lon | January 8, 2008 2:56 PM

This is a dumb kind of inquiry. Mainly because compare and contrast incomeasurables is a useless exercise. But second because vote for me i'm a bigger victim than you is a democratic party vulnerability, not a point of advantage that ought to be a persuasive reason to cast your vote.

Posted by Footloose | January 8, 2008 2:56 PM

All of this racicst/feminism stuff is garbage.

The reason Hillary doesn't appeal is not because she's a woman, it's because she's Hillary.

As much as she talks on and on about her so-called 35 years of experience, most people see her as a carpetbagger who won a Senate seat on her husband's name and someone who is now running for President on her husbands accomplishments.

Besides Bill and Hillary, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone else who really believes being First Lady is good experience for being President.

It's also tough to believe Hillary when she says she can make the change, when we all saw her given Health Care years back and blow it up. And how? By going at it on her own, not consulting other people, not working with them - in a way that people believe Obama will - and then it all blew up in her face.

If that's the kind of experience Hillary is running on, the choice is clear - that's not the kind of experience we need or want.

Anyway, since when did "change" mean "let's go back to the 90's." She has a fundamental misunderstanding of what change means.

Anyway, looks like she won't just lose today, but get totally and utterly destroyed.

In New Hampshire, you can't win unless you are authentic.

Posted by TheCarpetmuncher | January 8, 2008 2:58 PM

The Tiger Woods comparison has legs. Tiger set a precedent for a black man that hard right, white middle and upper class men can openly respect and admire. The country club class love Tiger and are prepared to welcome Obama.

I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't visit family over Christmas only to be informed by my Rush-listening, W-supporting father that he was going to vote for Obama. I was more than a little shocked.

Posted by cj_n_pa | January 8, 2008 2:58 PM

Gender also makes a great excuse for failing to run a decent campaign. How many women have run a presidential campaign? Men get laughed off the presidential stage all the time. Why no sympathy for Michael Dukakis for not living up to the "warrior" motif the voters in 1988 mandated? Politics suck, and men know that. Why don't feminist writers?

Plus, look who we're discussing here as a representative sample. A lot of dems hate Hillary because in 2002 she had the opportunity to speak up for the anti-war movement in a way no other democrat outside maybe Al Gore did, and she stayed silent. Then she turns around and gives some horseshit answer about how she never intended to give Bush the permission to go to war, even though everyone else on the planet understood the vote as doing exactly that.

That's not opposition to her as a candidate because she hits the wrong emotional buttons; it's not irrational. It's looking at her failure to lead when democrats were begging for a leader. She ran and hid from the republicans, and now she tells people she's "ready from Day 1." It's not anti-feminist to call BS on that.

Posted by Helter | January 8, 2008 2:59 PM

How did Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi overcome this problem?

Posted by SC | January 8, 2008 3:00 PM

Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of Britain 29 years ago and then won twice more. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. There are numerous women governors and Senators. Could it possibly be that Mrs. Clinton just isn't a very good candidate?

But, yes, Matt, it's good to see you're finally starting to get it about Obama -- that race plays the dominant role in his appeal. Lots of whites hope that electing Obama will send a message to other blacks: "Don't act so black. Act more Barack!"

If you're looking for a more direct comparison to Obama, look at Bill Richardson, who is 3/4ths descended from America's largest minority and who grew up in the capitol of the most important foreign country for America. That, and $3.75, will get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 3:00 PM

Viewed from outside the US, the Obama tsunami is a little ... scary.

What it reminds me of more than anything else is Oliver North in 1987, given a platform for a week and bamboozling the country. (It also reminds me a little of Princess Diana's death and the national nervous breakdown that ensued).

In real terms, I've yet to be convinced that there's much policy difference between any of the top democrats. In other words, in terms of policy, Obama's nothing special. What he does better than anyone else right now is give highly emotional speeches that carry audiences away despite there not being much content there.

When you get down to issues, he seems a lot like downtown Houston to me (more an abstraction than a real thing).

My worst nightmare at present is that he'll knock out the competition too early and then when it's too late turn out to be a flawed national candidate in the general election.

Posted by Michael Farris | January 8, 2008 3:09 PM

This is too complex a subject to boil down to racism vs. sexism.

What about vocal differences between men and women? It's been proven that different vocal qualities have different subterranean, preparatory effects on human cognition. That's not sexist, that's nature.

This is just one of many 'natural' factors that could be at play here. To assume sexism without even discussing these others is a gross, an unfortunately common, oversight.

And then you have the idiosyncratic characteristics of Hillary and Obama, any one or combination of which could be the determiner.

And then you have the idiosyncratic, instantaneous mindstates of individuals as they exist in January '08 -- i.e. an inheritance of genetics which backgrounds a personally-assimilated experiential history. Just think what kind of patterns and 'structure' might emerge from combinations and confluences over time.

And then you have socialization pressures, information compression by the media, and myriad other factors which might be dispositive.

Be wary of oversimplifications and category error. To see a result, in this case a round of polls, is not to see the cause. Not in a nation this large, this diverse, this complex.

Stereotyping, indeed.

Posted by JA | January 8, 2008 3:10 PM

Let through a few other ideas out there and see what sticks.

1) Most racists out there don't actually know any black people. Obviously, this is not true for those who are sexist. This might give the black candidate more wiggle room to disprove the characterizations.

2) Hillary has been in the public eye for 16 years and the general characterization of her is already set. In other words, be may be comparing the sexism of 16 years ago to the racism of today.

3) Hillary is of the generation of women who needed to go out and prove they were just as good as men. Today's young women take this as a given. I think that dynamic radically changes both the person and how others respond.

Posted by Mark | January 8, 2008 3:11 PM

Mike S

You brought up the "Obama's younger, fresher" thing, and that immediately made me wonder whether a woman with a "younger, fresher" thing going could at this point in time successfully run for national office. It might be that a woman must present the "gravitas" of age to be taken seriously? It might even have to do a bit with a "neutering" effect of menopause? There is also the "passion" thing all wrapped up in here, which would include some male emoting being more comfortable for most people than female emoting. With the noted exception of Golda Meir, who played the "motherly" image, it seems that women world leaders must do "ladylike" in personal presentation style to achieve gravitas, i.e., Bhutto, Thatcher, Pelosi. They can't have an "exciting" edge? Just provocative thoughts, don't know where I am going with them or am sold on them.

Posted by artappraiser | January 8, 2008 3:12 PM

Tom Bradley won five terms as mayor of LA from 1973-1989, even though blacks were only about 15% of voters in LA. Bradley came within a whisker of being elected governor of California in 1992. A victory there, combined with the success of the 1984 LA Olympics, which he had pushed through when nobody else in the world wanted to host the Olympics, might well have made him the Democratic VP candidate in 1984, instead of Geraldine Ferraro.

He and Mondale would have lost in the fall anyway, but his career raises the question of why black politicians haven't made more strides above the district level. I think much of the blame has to be attributed to the 1986 Voting Rights Act, which Republicans supported because it mandates the gerrymandering of "majority minority" districts that lumps together lots of black voters. (The benefit to the GOP is if you create a district so liberal it's sure to elect a black or Hispanic, the GOP can win more districts narrowly.)

The Voting Rights Act trains young black politicians to be "race men." Thus, for example, Obama can get elected to the state legislature in a mixed race district around the U. of Chicago. But when Obama tried to get the nomination for the highly black district held by former Black Panther Bobby Rush, he was humiliatingly rejected by blacks, who found the Preppie from Paradise arrogant and too white for their tastes. This plunged Obama into a period of depression, from which he seems to have emerged with the realization that, despite his lifelong obsession, with being black enough, it's white people who like him more. So, he decided to leapfrog the Voting Right Act-gerrymandered majority-minority system by running for the ungerrymandered Senate and Presidency.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 3:12 PM

Ben - I'm not sure that your mathematics really make sense. It would be more meaningful to compare the number of minority senators to the number of minority Americans and the number of female senators to the number of female Americans. America is about 25% non-white, so with 3 non-white Senators out of 100 (as opposed to 25), we can say that the Senate underrepresents American minorities by 88%. There are slightly more female Americans than male, so ideally there would be something like 50-51 female senators. At 16 out 50-51, women are underrepresented in the senate by close to 70%. So yes, minorities are more underrepresented in the Senate than are women, but not by as much as your numbers would seem to indicate. Both groups are severely underrepresented, for different but nonetheless troubling reasons.

Also, let's remember that it is possible to be both a minority AND a woman. (Like me.)

And to ken, I don't think the fact that Europeans are less likely to discuss a candidate's gender is necessarily evidence of an absence of sexism. The British may have had more female heads of state than we Americans, but they also believe that women are incapable of running and bouncing a ball at the same time, as evidenced by the existence of "netball."

Posted by Katie | January 8, 2008 3:12 PM

You aren't giving personality its due. People don't think Hillary is a cynical, calculating, power-hungry -- hate to say it -- bitch because she is a woman. They think that because of her personality.

Except that almost nobody knows anything *about* her personality, not having met or dealt with her. So they base their judgments of her personality on ridiculous cues like the sound of her voice or her accent or the fact that she went to Yale or that she sometimes uses her maiden name and didn't ditch her cheating husband and, most importantly, the fact that Chris Matthews *says* she's "cynical, calculating and power-hungry" -- all qualities which, by the way, he wouldn't bother disparaging in a man. You can't get away from the sexism in considering the ways in which her personality is portrayed.

Posted by Ryan | January 8, 2008 3:14 PM

4) Barack is a candidate who happens to be black. Hillary, though, comes in as a former first lady; she doesn't just happen to be a women, it is part of her political identity.

Posted by Mark | January 8, 2008 3:15 PM

Also, Margaret Thatcher was never exactly elected Prime Minister. She was the head of the party that won the most seats in Parliament a few times in a row.

Posted by Katie | January 8, 2008 3:15 PM

"Will Smith: The Black Man Everyone At Work Can Agree On" - The Onion, July 28, 1999

Obama 'transcending' his race/gender takes no more than habitually omitting reference to it (coded or otherwise). I'm not talking about it, why are you talking about it? Compare and contrast with the Clinton campaign.

Posted by rickhavoc | January 8, 2008 3:18 PM

p.s. to my comment above:

As to Hillary specifically, I do think joejoejoe in the first comment is correct. The country did not change in sexism quotient overnight. Hillary WAS taken pretty seriously. But as related to my comment above, Hillary played the gravitas card to date, which we already know helps sideline problems related to sexism.

Posted by artappraiser | January 8, 2008 3:19 PM

Hillary sports very high disapproval ratings among women. Are these sexist women? Self-loathing women? What?

Posted by JA | January 8, 2008 3:21 PM

Reading the Steinham piece I couldn't help but think "this seems pretty ridiculous", then when I got to the end I thought "this is ridiculous". Voting for Hillary Clinton is a radical act? Is this what has become of the old 60s era radicals (if she ever even was one)?

Posted by musa | January 8, 2008 3:21 PM

rickhavoc claims: "Obama 'transcending' his race/gender takes no more than habitually omitting reference to it (coded or otherwise)."

But Obama talks about his race all the time -- that's what he started his 2004 Democratic convention keynote address with. That's all he wrote about for the 442 pages in his autobiography, which he correctly subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance."

Lots of white people just _want_ to believe that Obama "transcends race." It's quite amazing to see how impervious this white fantasy that Obama is "above all that race stuff" is to reality.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 3:24 PM

Except that almost nobody knows anything *about* her personality

I guess by the same token, then, no one knows anything about George Bush's personality, either. Or any other public figure, according to your logic.

It is hard to keep up with all of the media conspiracies afoot against Hillary, really. You've got the "vast Right-wing conspiracy" and you've got the "liberal media that spins fairy-tales about Obama" because they just hate Hillary so much. But I'm sure if we *really* got to know her (like you do?) we'd all realize what a great personality she has and what a poor misunderstood victim she is.

Posted by jim | January 8, 2008 3:25 PM

Obama is the only African-American senator. Mel Martinez and Ken Salazar are Hispanic. In contrast, there are 16 women senators, according to Wikipedia.

I think the lower number of minorities as compared to white women is likely due to the difficulties that minorities (especially black men) face in rising into a high enough social station to run for senate or other elected office.

There are also fewer ethnic minorities in many states than women, though-- probably most states. I live in Vermont, and I'd say the gender division is 50-50-- yet we have two male senators, a male governor and lieutenant governor, and a male congressional representative.

Posted by Persia | January 8, 2008 3:25 PM

"The Voting Rights Act trains young black politicians to be 'race men.'"

Steve Sailer has been trained to be a disgusiting degenerate racist. The most disgusting of the tem all, and a vile sexist as well. Well trained, creep.

Posted by Jennifer | January 8, 2008 3:26 PM

At the Iowa Democratic caucuses, 57% were women, so Hillary's failure can't be due to her being a minority. In contrast, only 3% were black, so Obama's success is likely due in part to his being the kind of black that white people like.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 3:27 PM

The sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton have been hideous month in and month out. I understood this at all time, even though I was supporting John Edwards. Now Edwards shows himself using the attack of a sexist creep. I made a serious mistake with Edwards, but the attacks on Clinton are frightening.

Posted by Jennifer | January 8, 2008 3:33 PM

Ben - I'm not sure that your mathematics really make sense.

I didn't offer any mathematics, besides perhaps for the "in contrast" I stuck in between the number of minority senators and the number of women senators. I'm sorry if I didn't make sense to you, but let's not sully the good name of mathematics with our lack of clarity.

I didn't mean to say that the senate or any other part of the US electoral system does a better or worse job at representing minorities as opposed to women. However, as the absolute figures demonstrate, and as you probably acknowledge, there is a disparity between minority representation and female representation (though neither group has anything close to proportional representation). I think this disparity stems from the factors I briefly mentioned above, to which I have no more to add.

Posted by Ben | January 8, 2008 3:33 PM

so Obama's success is likely due in part to his being the kind of black that white people like.

Or perhaps Obama's success is due to the fact that he's the kind of person that people like in general, which, to be fair, is something you may have missed because you yourself are not really one of those types of people, Steve.

Although, again, to be fair, white supremacists are people too, and they like you - so there ya go.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 8, 2008 3:34 PM

Sailer, go back to you stinking hole you rotten bigot.

Posted by Jennifer | January 8, 2008 3:35 PM

People, especially women, like Nancy Pelosi's femininity. She's got five kids and a hugely successful political career. That's pretty amazing, like Meryl Streep having 14 Oscar nominations and four children, or Nancy Lopez winning all those golf tournaments and endorsing all those products while having three kids. (You'll notice that few women golfers have gotten many big endorsement contracts since Lopez retired). Women idolize womanly women.

Hillary, despite being married to sexy Bill, only managed to squeeze one out. She's always been dogged by questions about her sexual orientation, although the most plausible explanation I've heard is that as a 1970s feminist, she approved of lesbianism in theory, but couldn't muster much enthusiasm for it in person, especially in contrast to Bill's charms, which, undersexed as she is in general, still made an impression on her.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 3:37 PM

Tom Bradley lost his first mayoral election in 1969 because Sam Yorty managed to successfully scare the living daylights out of enough white voters that Bradley was a Black-Power loving commie. Bradley also lost an gubernatorial election in 1982 in which all the polls showed him ahead - that's what the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect"Bradley effect is named for. So he actually serves an example of the obstacles black politicans face to getting elected by a white majority.

Posted by Peter H | January 8, 2008 3:38 PM

For the most part, I think Hillary has run a great campaign, although she has obviously stumbled in the last couple months. Although I've been supporting Obama throughout, I've always liked Hillary and have her as my 2nd choice.

Her main problem is not that she's running a bad campaign, or is unlikable. Its that Obama is running a great campaign and is inspiring people.

I agree with others who have said that drawing general conclusions about racism vs sexism from this particular campaign and these particular people is silly.

Now Edwards shows himself using the attack of a sexist creep.

I think this vindicates those of us who never trusted or really liked Edwards.

Posted by Jim W | January 8, 2008 3:40 PM

Lots of whites hope that electing Obama will send a message to other blacks: "Don't act so black. Act more Barack!"

This is the dumbest comment I've seen on this site in a while, and that's saying a lot.

Posted by jim | January 8, 2008 3:40 PM

It's difficult to find a viable candidate - of whatever race or sex - who is also charismatic and personally appealing. Obama has those qualities and happens to be black. Clinton seems closer to a Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry type of candidate - competent, intelligent, but also boring and uninspiring - and happens to be a woman.

Posted by blah | January 8, 2008 3:40 PM

the plank nails it.

Posted by JC | January 8, 2008 3:41 PM

One of the big problems for Gloria, and by extension Hillary, is that this brand of feminism doesn't resonate with younger female voters. It is certainly a generational divide -- I'm well aware that my mother puts Hillary's campaign in a different context than I do, and it's largely due to the feminist backstory.

I have no problem admiring Hillary for being an outstanding public servant and brilliant woman -- I think we'd be lucky to have her in government for years to come. But I get overwhelmingly irritated hearing her tout her First Lady experience (not elected office! Gah!), I'm turned off by any effort to make me think she's being ganged up on by mean boys, and I am absolutely unswayed by the opinion that I either owe Hillary or the feminist movement a presidency.

I had the advantage of growing up as a girl in a post-feminism world, but that also means my vantage point's very different from my mother's generation. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the 60s warriors may not get the payoff they were hoping to witness. The generation that benefited from their struggle has a different idea of what the world needs.

Posted by Grace | January 8, 2008 3:41 PM

Tom Bradley lost his first mayoral election in 1969 because Sam Yorty managed to successfully scare the living daylights out of enough white voters that Bradley was a Black-Power loving commie. Bradley also lost an gubernatorial election in 1982 in which all the polls showed him ahead - that's what the Bradley effect is named for. So he actually serves an example of the obstacles black politicans face to getting elected by a white majority.

Posted by Peter H | January 8, 2008 3:42 PM

But Obama talks about his race all the time

I haven't once seen Obama state that we should vote for him because of his race. Hillary, on the other hand, has said many times that her being a woman is a reason to vote for her. Identity politics like this turn many people off.

Posted by Jim W | January 8, 2008 3:44 PM

Howley's thesis is full of holes!

Whose coat-tails did Margaret Thatcher ride to office, or Angela Merkel? Michelle Bachalet or Kim Campbell? Heck, she lost in the general, but Sergolene Royal might deserve mention as well.

It IS interesting that women have been more successful coming to power in putatively more sexist countries that also have a stronger tradition of dynastic politics. That said, it's not the pattern found elsewhere.

We're really, really lagging on this one, and it's disappointing.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 8, 2008 3:45 PM

And Bradley won the next election, 35 years ago, and proved Yorty's scare tactics wrong by governing as a centrist, which enabled him to win four more elections and almost getting him elected governor of a huge state with a well below average percentage of blacks.

This all happened a generation ago, but not many blacks have emulated his career since, which demands an explanation. I think the Voting Rights Act of 1986 that means that most blacks start their careers running in black majority districts works against the emergence of blacks with appeal to whites. They have to start off as race men to get the Democratic nomination in their local districts, so that selects and trains them to be race men. Look how humiliatingly Obama lost in the 2000 Democratic primary in a Voting Rights Act gerrymandered "majority minority" district to a former Black Panther.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 3:46 PM

The reason, among others, that Obama is ascending is that he didn't get too deep into this offensively stupid bullshit about gender and race. Hillary did, and now she's paying the price. It was obvious that Hillary is a woman and therefore would be the first woman nominee and the first woman president of the U.S. if elected. But instead of treating us like grown-ups who could decide for ourselves if that was an important trait, HRC and Steinem and others have instructed us that it is important. Well, fuck that. This is just another theme that she slapped onto her campaign, and that's why it didn't work. Too many themes, too many messages and buzzwords. And then in the end she tried to coopt Obama's theme. Give me a break. It was cynical politics, and that just ain't playin' anymore.

Posted by tinisoli | January 8, 2008 3:47 PM

I'll clarify...like the more effective pols out there, Obama talks about you, not himself. This is the transcendence-by-omission that I meant. He does not confuse or conflate the message with the messenger. Clinton, I believe, does.

The takeaway from the '04 speech was that the US is so fantastic that it has "a place for a skinny kid with a funny name". Previously, he invoked his heritage, not his race. It was done quite skillfully, and was 'altogether fitting and proper'. The word "black" appears twice: to deny the divide between the black and white America; and to "eradicate the slander" that black kids pursuing an education are "acting white".

As for political autobiographies, the above Transcendence By Omission/Do Not Talk About Yourself Except In the Context of the Times rule would not apply. Books are a different medium, written for a different audience, an information seeker. Frankly, I didn't know anyone read those things.

On the other hand, Clinton seems to only talk herself. This is not a female thing, just bad tactics. Al Gore did much the same for what its worth. When he stopped talking about himself and started talking about the planet, he won one of those Nobels.

To say that Obama and Clinton face qualitatively different barriers does not deny that both face barriers that Corn-Fed Middle-Aged White Males do not. The Art is what you have but what you do with it.

Posted by rickhavoc | January 8, 2008 3:48 PM

The first time most voters took any notice of Obama was his famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. I will reproduce the opening to show that Obama didn't ignore his "story of race and inheritance" or transcend it or whatever, he wallowed in it:

"Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dick Durbin. You make us all proud.

On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, Land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention.

Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father -- my grandfather -- was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.

While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty; joined Patton’s army, marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised a baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through F.H.A., and later moved west all the way to Hawaii in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter. A common dream, born of two continents.

My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or ”blessed,” believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined -- They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.

They're both passed away now. And yet, I know that on this night they look down on me with great pride.

They stand here -- And I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my two precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 3:51 PM

Fixing the final two graphs:

On the other hand, Clinton quite often talks about herself as integral. "I This, I That, I The Other..." This is not a female thing, just bad tactics. Al Gore did much the same for what its worth. When he stopped talking about himself and started talking about the planet, he won one of those Nobels.

To say that Obama and Clinton face qualitatively different barriers does not deny that both face barriers that Corn-Fed Middle-Aged White Males do not. The Art is not what you have (or don't have) but what you do with it.

Posted by rickhavoc | January 8, 2008 3:54 PM

On the level of parlor psychology, I think it's clear that black men face more substantive discrimination in our society than white women. But black men who conform to the social expectations of white America are treated much better than black men who embody the negative stereotypes about black men. Women who "act masculine" on the other hand, tend to face a great deal of prejudice and resentment from both men and other women. There is a large and ever-expanding set of jobs that women can achieve while "acting feminine," but President of the United States doesn't seem to be on that list yet.

All that said, if Hillary Clinton had Barack Obama's gift for inspirational rhetoric (or her husband's gift for politicking, for that matter) she'd be winning the nomination in a landslide. Pop psychology aside, Obama is currently winning because he is running an extremely savvy campaign and Clinton isn't.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 8, 2008 3:56 PM

Steve,

As far as I can tell, the only allusion to race I can see is an oblique one, when Obama says

...grateful for the diversity of my heritage...

Boy, what a race hustler!

Posted by Jim W | January 8, 2008 3:58 PM

You are making my point, Sailer. Obama took up precious Me Time to tell the story of other people, then indicated at the end that he felt he had a lot to live up to. I don't know if he means a single word of it, but its very good as political speech.

Posted by rickhavoc | January 8, 2008 4:00 PM

All that said, if Hillary Clinton had Barack Obama's gift for inspirational rhetoric (or her husband's gift for politicking, for that matter) she'd be winning the nomination in a landslide.

Even with her more prosaic campaigning skills, Hillary probably would have run away with it if she had done the right thing and opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. The fact that she supported the war is the main thing that keeps me from feeling sorry for her.

Posted by Jim W | January 8, 2008 4:01 PM

"Howley's thesis is full of holes!
"Whose coat-tails did Margaret Thatcher ride to office, or Angela Merkel? Michelle Bachalet or Kim Campbell? Heck, she lost in the general, but Segolene Royal might deserve mention as well."
Ding! We have a winner. Arguing that women can't win without nepotism is ignorant and false.

Obama has a much more daunting obstacle to overcome. Finding examples of women getting elected heads of state was easy -- where are the examples of blacks winning in overwhelmingly non-black countries?

If Hillary Clinton doesn't get the nomination, it is because of her deficiencies as a candidate or the success of the Republican smear machine, but not because the Democratic electorate is sexist.

Posted by Ted T. | January 8, 2008 4:05 PM

If you think obama doesn't talk about race, you're an idiot.

He just talks about race likes he talks about everything else, which is to say very very well.

Posted by dbt | January 8, 2008 4:05 PM

Obama is a fascinating and complex personality, rewarding of extended contemplation. But most white people, on this site and elsewhere, including Matt, are clueless about him because they hold various fantasies about him and don't want to let go of them. Matt, for instance, won't read his candidate's autobiography, perhaps because he wants to nurture the fantasy that with Obama it's all about the issues.

Lots of other whites fantasize that Obama is about "transcending race" or that they can elect Obama to send a message to blacks to stop whining about racism -- "See, we elected a black guy President, so you African-Americans ought to stop complaining and start working hard, like all the immigrants do."

And lots of whites want to vote for Obama to show they aren't racist.

If Obama's autobiography is too long for you, another literarily-gifted thinker with a black father and white mother, Shelby Steele, has written an extremely insightful analysis of Obama's memoir, "A Bound Man."

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 4:07 PM

Matt --

I'm really amazed (a little disappointed) that a historically literate person could comment on Steinem's monumentally fatuous essay without addressing the claim that blacks were "given" the vote 50 years before women were enfranchised.

If Gloria Steinem has to write Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, and the Civil Rights movement completely out of history to make her "point", it probably isn't much of a point worth making.

Posted by moron | January 8, 2008 4:07 PM

But they face a glass-ceiling problem. Too nice and they're a push-over. Too strong and they're bitchy.

But what if a woman is just right? Perhaps the problem is that too many women (e.g. in politics) are either too nice or too strong: look at HRC, e.g., other than her recent "break-down" (with which the media has had a "Dean scream" style field day, making a mountain out of a mole-hill*), I wouldn't even give her a B+ for public speaking as she just sounds so strident because of her grating voice and complete lack of any modulation in it to give it emotional and humanizing leaven.

It isn't necessarily the media, etc., saying HRC, et al., are too strong or too weak ... sometimes the people involved really are not able to strike a balance. I think in these sorts of discussions we tend to over-estimate the (indeed very real) sexism of the media, etc., and under-estimate the larger role of sexism in how we socialize boys and girls.

Looking at kids today, things are different, but even when I was a kid (which was only 20 some years ago), girls and boys were raised very differently. Any bit of passive-aggression in a boy, any bit of lack of emotional balance, etc., was stamped out (and, for good reason -- those of us guys who still had traces of passive-aggression by college found we couldn't get dates or anything and ended up falling into the Nice Guy(TM) trap, etc.). OTOH, the girls never were encouraged to be anything but passive-aggressive and never encouraged to have any emotional balance (nor did they need any such balance come the final formative years of college).

The result is naturally that even us guys with the strongest passive-aggressive, hot/cold emotional tendancies are able to, e.g., give a speech in which we can show emotion via voice modulation, make a strong point yet not seem too bitchy or too weak. OTOH, while a few of the most naturally assertive women know how to strike a balance in their speechifying, etc. (Sen. Boxer comes to mind), most people do need to be encouraged a bit to achieve an emotional center in communication, and even women my age simply did not receive that encouragement growing up.

While we are often aware (and in some cases try to correct for, e.g. via affirmative action) the barriers to success due to race (although we need to address the class issue more), we do tend to ignore the degree to which even as recently as 20 years ago, girls and boys were being raised in very separate ways in which girls were stunted and boys encouraged to grow.

Part of the issue is that those most likely to recognize the issues of socialization are so attuned to sexist slights they see the very real sexism of the media, e.g. in dealing with HRC, that they miss the larger picture.

I suspect (and hope) that the glass ceiling will soon be a thing of the past. However, the change will be not because of a critical mass of women in high enough positions (although getting people used to female leadership will help alleviate sexist double standards) but because kids today will not be socialized so strongly into sex roles. You won't hear complaints about women being either weak or bitchy -- not just because of a decrease in sexist standards, but because women will have been raised to achieve the same balance between passivity and aggression and have the same assertiveness that we currently raise men to have.

(* I'm surprised the media even went with this spin ... if I were a media type out to get HRC, I'd engage in question begging and call the crying episode "fake" and "calculated to show an emotional side, which calculation itself indicates the HRC is inhuman")

Posted by DAS | January 8, 2008 4:09 PM

It looks like there's another Ben running around. I need to figure out a new way to distinguish myself I guess.

Posted by ben | January 8, 2008 4:10 PM

Obama is a fascinating and complex personality, rewarding of extended contemplation. But most white people, on this site and elsewhere, including Matt, are clueless about him because they hold various fantasies about him and don't want to let go of them. Matt, for instance, won't read his candidate's autobiography, perhaps because he wants to nurture the fantasy that with Obama it's all about the issues.

Lots of other whites fantasize that Obama is about "transcending race" or that they can elect Obama to send a message to blacks to stop whining about racism -- "See, we elected a black guy President, so you African-Americans ought to stop complaining and start working hard, like all the immigrants do."

And lots of whites want to vote for Obama to show they aren't racist.

If Obama's autobiography is too long for you, another literarily-gifted thinker with a black father and white mother, Shelby Steele, has written an extremely insightful analysis of Obama's memoir, "A Bound Man."

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 4:11 PM

Agree. If Hillary had opposed the War, opposed the neo-Nazi Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Perle regime even slightly like Ted Kennedy- I could have supported her no problem. But, no, she had to triangulate, to capitulate, and join in with these devils. On a personal level- she doesn't bother me in the least and never has. But, she's no damn good. And, a loser. And, wrong for the country.

Posted by Trevor | January 8, 2008 4:12 PM

And lots of whites want to vote for Obama to show they aren't racist.

Ok, Steve - what about the whites who want to vote for someone because they are racist?

For example, who are you voting for?

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 8, 2008 4:12 PM

The only reason HRC was the predicted winner of this contest is that A) Chris Matthews and the other asshats were saying so for several years, and B) all the polls that were conducted prior to primary season seemed to be of the "Who's going to win the World Series?" sort, which obviously aren't very helpful because they don't ask "Who do you WANT to win?"

And to her discredit, HRC never said "I don't feel like I'm entitled to this at all; I just really want to be president and I believe I have real qualifications for the job." She let Matthews and the other nonsense play out and disseminate and saturate, and she was quite happy to let the system carry her along to the nomination without much ado.

Blech.

Posted by tinisoli | January 8, 2008 4:14 PM

There's definitely more than a whiff of misogyny in the media's special scrutiny of women who run for the presidency. But I am questioning Matthew's argument that Americans' view of female candidates is a zero-sum equation in which they're always seen as either "too femme" or "too butch." We can debate the political legacies of Nancy Pelosi and Condoleezza Rice, but both have succeeded in crafting a gendered public image that avoids stereotypes of weakness (while tantalizing the Maureen Dowds of the world with a smart fashion sense and a knack for subtly disarming male adversaries). Carol Moseley Braun's primary campaign in the last presidential election suggested a similar classy confidence. Is Americans' perception of major female presidential aspirants really that much different from their view of other female politicians? I'm inclined to think that Hillary Clinton's self-transformation into an ice queen was her own mistake; had she branded herself differently, she wouldn't be as vulnerable to charges of being "too emotional" upon showing signs of humanity.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 8, 2008 4:21 PM

Steve's right. I am so worried about my own undetected racism that I am voting for Obama only because he is black. See, I just feel bad about all this racism, so I'm gonna vote for the guy. It will make me feel better, and it will prove that I am not a racist. I am so hellbent on proving this that I am paying the New York Times $250,000 to print a copy of my primary ballot. I will also be mailing a copy of my ballot, framed and stained with tears of joy, to President Obama upon his inauguration.

I also am voting for Obama because I really want to let other black people know that I am sick and tired of their whining. By voting for Obama, I will clearly be letting these whiny whiners know that their whining will no longer be tolerated. By me. They will know this because I will have voted for a black man who isn't like them, and they will understand that while I voted for a black man, I didn't vote for a really black man. Anyhow, they'll get it.

I don't know much about Obama—pretty clueless, actually!—but I know he is black and that he doesn't whine and play rap music and take welfare and frighten me like other blacks. And that's all I need to know. I would rather maintain my fantasies about Obama than learn anything about the real man.

Posted by Sailer's fantasy | January 8, 2008 4:28 PM

Yup, that's pretty much just how stupid white people's various fantasies about Obama are.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 4:31 PM

JC's right, The Plank nailed it.

My worst nightmare at present is that he'll knock out the competition too early and then when it's too late turn out to be a flawed national candidate in the general election.

I wouldn't worry, first off, I really doubt he'll turn out to be a flawed national candidate - given his performance in Iowa - and secondly, the Republicans are a mess this time around.

As a hawkity liberal hawk, I like Clinton on foreign policy better, but come on, Obama is so much better.

I don't think foreigners or members of the upper class media, left or right, understand what a big deal it is that a black dude has the distinct possibility of becoming President. The US has had so much racial nonsense for so long. This would be giving the finger to that, whatever else you can say about his candidacy. Even if Obama is sort of a middle of the road liberal (against torture, warrantless wiretapping, capital gains tax cuts, etc.) even though I supported him before Iowa, his big win there was kind of a shock.

Posted by Peter K. | January 8, 2008 4:34 PM

Steinem's claim that "Achola Obama" would called "too emotional" by the media because black men can get away with being more emotional should be taken with a grain of salt--I mean, would Barack get away with acting as emotional about poverty as John Edwards? No, then he'd "like Jesse Jackson".

I think another explanation for why there is no female Barack is that African American men have a set of parallel institutions, constituencies and peer groups in which to acquire the subconscious aura of leadership--the confidence required to get people to buy into your vision. Black or white, women have to spend all their time in male institutions, which makes it harder to develop that kind of confidence.

So there's an injustice here, but the injustice is not that voters hate women, but that women are conditioned to be uninspiring politicians.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 8, 2008 4:34 PM

It looks like there's another Ben running around. I need to figure out a new way to distinguish myself I guess.

I can be capital B Ben and you can be lowercase b ben.

I've run into the multiple Ben problem on other threads, but I don't comment enough to justify the time and creative energy needed to come up with a witty internet moniker.

Posted by Ben | January 8, 2008 4:35 PM

Actually, I exist only in your imagination, Steve. You have assembled me out of straw, yet you speak of me as though I not only exist, but exist in the millions. It's quite pathetic, but I don't mind, since otherwise I wouldn't actually exist.

Posted by Steve's fantasy | January 8, 2008 4:36 PM

I suspect (and hope) that the glass ceiling will soon be a thing of the past. However, the change will be not because of a critical mass of women in high enough positions (although getting people used to female leadership will help alleviate sexist double standards) but because kids today will not be socialized so strongly into sex roles. You won't hear complaints about women being either weak or bitchy -- not just because of a decrease in sexist standards, but because women will have been raised to achieve the same balance between passivity and aggression and have the same assertiveness that we currently raise men to have.

We can only hope. Vocal feminists tend to disagree with your conclusion, but they also argue from both sides, claiming that we are strongly socialized into sex roles even today (although the important question is whether this is better or worse than in the past). I do believe, though, that at least some of the too bitchy/too nice dilemma stems from there being very little ground for a woman to be 'just right'.

Posted by mpowell | January 8, 2008 4:36 PM

Now, there is a sense in which the system really is rigged against women. Voters, especially women, like feminine women who have children and devote time to raising them, and who devote time to fashion and makeup.

So, it's hard to be a self-made woman in politics. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has five kids, but she comes from a super-political family that gave her a big leg up. If she had had to start at the bottom with no family connections and no family expertise on politics, there's no way she could have had five kids and made it all the way to Speaker of the House, whereas Denny Hastert didn't have to worry as much about child-raising or maintaining his svelte figure to look good in this year's fashions. But those are the kind of things that women care about in women.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 4:37 PM

Yup, that's pretty much just how stupid white people's various fantasies about Obama are.

Wait, what? There are stupid white people?

But they're still genetically superior, right Steve? Right? Or maybe not. You might have to turn in your CCC card if they see that you've besmirched the master race.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 8, 2008 4:39 PM

Make-up and child-rearing is all I care about. To hell with Hillary Clinton. Give me that make-up wearing, child-bearing, pretty Michelle Malkin every time!

Posted by Steve's other fantasy | January 8, 2008 4:44 PM

Didn't Gloria Steinem go extinct in 65 million BC when that comet hit?

Obviously, very few men take feminism seriously anymore as an intellectual analysis of reality (although the Larry Summers firing showed that feminism, like Brezhnev-era Marxism, still has vast institutional power). This is a big change from as recently as the 1991-1992 Anita Hill / "Year of the Woman" brouhaha, when a lot of men tried seriously to read widely promoted feminist drivel like the bestsellers by Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 4:45 PM

Has anybody heard of black women? What do we make of them?

Posted by kay | January 8, 2008 4:48 PM

Here's an old-timer's hint for young folk who haven't paid any serious attention to feminism because it seems so over-the-hill. It's useful in decoding feminist communiques.

When feminists are mad at men, they denounce "men." When feminists are mad at other women, they denounce "society." So, "society" is the feminist codeword for "all the women who aren't just like us."

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 4:49 PM

How about black women?

The late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who gave the famous keynote address at the 1976 Democratic convention, showed that a black woman could do very well for herself with a white electorate. Jordan suffered lots of ill health, unfortunately, and her death in the mid-1990s was a disaster for the country because she wasn't around to promote the very sensible findings of the immigration commission Bill Clinton had appointed her to lead. She died soon after her commission called for cutting back significantly on immigration, so a crucial black voice for immigration sanity was lost.

There was always a lesbian vibe about Jordan, but it wasn't a hostile one. It was just as if she had so much gravitas it seemed unlikely she could find a man with more of it, other than maybe James Earl Jones.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 4:55 PM

Steve, it's terribly clear that you love, love, love puns.

If you stop using that silly "black/Barack" non-rhyme, I'll put $5 into your Paypal drive. Hand to God. Deal?

P.S. I'd be willing to go more if you stopped using puns altogether. Really.

Posted by Klug | January 8, 2008 5:07 PM

I guess by the same token, then, no one knows anything about George Bush's personality, either. Or any other public figure, according to your logic.

Now you're getting it.

Look, obviously a politician's 'real' personality does or can get through to the voters to some extent, but in every case it's greatly filtered by his/her own media strategy of self-portrayal and (usually more importantly) by the portrayal that the press corps chooses to run with for its own internal reasons. In Hillary's case the latter factor is completely dominant -- she's not had a hope of escaping her image for a long time. And yes, much of how she's portrayed is shaped by sexist stereotypes.

To simplify: You can't claim (as you did, jim) that 'People don't call her a bitch because she's a woman -- she really is a bitch!' because the category of 'bitch' is inseparable from that of 'woman'. Really, this is elementary stuff. And the press have assigned Clinton the attributes of 'bitch' for quite some time now.

I agree with others, though, that ultimately it's questionable how decisive this has been. Obviously lots of Dems take their cues on Hillary from Chris Matthews' private sickness but lots don't. If she'd taken more progressive positions, or adopted a more inspirational campaign persona, or some of her backers hadn't been such wankers, or if Obama hadn't been so damn good, she'd probably have done better.

Slightly OT, but what I find especially remarkable about Obama is how well he's done *despite* there being another extremely viable candidate in the race who's staked out the 'change'/left/progressive end of the spectrum. I used to think Clinton's great advantage (and the key to what I assumed would be be her ultimate victory) was that Edwards and Obama were splitting that vote between them. Well, they are, but they're still both skunking her which is pretty cool.

Posted by Ryan | January 8, 2008 5:17 PM

man did I miss the boat on this thread. I wrote a long comment here on all this on another thread if anybody cares, but the short version is: HRC's campaign doesn't have a core rationale other than the fact that she's a woman (and Bill); and it's not a 'woman's personality' that is an abiding problem, it's *HRC's* personality. People want someone who is comfortable being who they are.

I think Grace's comment was insightful:

I'm well aware that my mother puts Hillary's campaign in a different context than I do, and it's largely due to the feminist backstory.....I'm turned off by any effort to make me think [HRC's] being ganged up on by mean boys, and I am absolutely unswayed by the opinion that I either owe Hillary or the feminist movement a presidency. I had the advantage of growing up as a girl in a post-feminism world, but that also means my vantage point's very different from my mother's generation. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the 60s warriors may not get the payoff they were hoping to witness. The generation that benefited from their struggle has a different idea of what the world needs.

I'd also note that a half African, American man whose father was lower middle class and from Detroit would still have a harder time rising than an African American man whose father is from Africa, or some other foreign country. Call it the 'Sidney Poitier effect'. This in no sense makes Obama less worthy. It just a reflection on how backward the country really is about race and culture.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 8, 2008 5:56 PM

Steve Sailer, could you be more of a degenerate scummy racist? How did you ever become so scummy? There is a sickness in you that is beyond sickness.

Posted by Jennifer | January 8, 2008 6:37 PM

Steve Sailer, please do think how you have come to be so sick.

Posted by Jennifer | January 8, 2008 6:42 PM

Jennie, you're doing a heck of a job.

For January, I'm going to up the monthly stipend I pay you from $3.50 to $4.25 for doing an extra double especially good job of pretending to be a mindlessly rage-consumed devotee of political correctness in order to illustrate my points.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 7:13 PM

Corporate management and politics are both about being "alpha males".

By definition, women don't qualify. That's not a "moral attitude" or "political ideology" - that's evolution in action. You want to get rid of it? Get rid of being chimpanzees.

So they have two choices: become an "alpha female" (and plenty do) and deal with the resulting perceptions from males, or become a "sexist female" and "seduce" (not necessarily by sleeping with anybody, just looking like you could and maybe would) your way to the top.

Some women could do both as required. Most of them don't bother messing with politics - they prefer areas where they have more control - like business.

Hillary can't do either approach competently. That's why she need Bill to run interference.

Generalizing from that fact alone is not correct and is not relevant anyway. How many female Presidential candidates do we have in a given year?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 8, 2008 7:13 PM

Kay, I actually think a black woman like Condi Rice would do much better in a presidential race. She just comes across as more commanding but nicer than Hillary Clinton--just my observation.

I just don't think Condi Rice is repulsive at all in the way Hillary Clinton is. Could have something to do with the fact that one is self-made why the other married into power? Just a thought.

Posted by Abe | January 8, 2008 7:14 PM

This is somewhat off-topic, but a little-known (by both left and right) fact is that makeup was actually frowned upon by "respectable" women in many Western cultures before the twentieth century. When it first came into fashion, it was widely condemned by religious leaders. I don't think it can be regarded as a timeless part of "femininity."

Posted by James Kabala | January 8, 2008 7:39 PM

I think Obama brilliantly dissipated female solidarity with Hillary by snaring Oprah's endorsement.

Posted by H-Bob | January 8, 2008 8:17 PM