Sex and Race, Continued

[Isaac]

In her interesting discussion with Amanda Fortini over at The New Republic, Michelle Cottle says the following (see, also, Alyssa's post below on the same topic):

The best way I've found to explain it is through a contrast with the media's reaction to Barack Obama's candidacy. You have pundits like Andrew Sullivan waxing rhapsodic about how fantabulous it would be for America's image, how great and glorious a morning it will be, when we have an African American taking the oath. You would never hear someone say that about a woman. Even if they're talking about the historic nature of it, they don't talk about it in such grand and soul-cleansing terms. And I think part of it is that in the history of this country, slavery, Jim Crow, and racism have been much uglier, more overt, nasty phenomena than sexism.

Sexism is here, sexism is present, but it's been more paternalistic, and presented in soft, warm and fuzzy terms: "We want to protect the women! It's not that we don't like them." Even when talking about being in battle, it's, "We don't want women to get hurt." Women weren't persecuted for burning their bras. Feminism is a different cause than civil rights. Slavery is kind of a moral scar for America, so we can be poetic about how great it's going to be when we, at last, elect an African American.

There are two important points here, the first being that the media seems much more excited by the prospect of a black president than a female president. The second is that the world would be more excited by a black president than a female president. To take the second point, I think Michelle is right to note that the particular history of America is one of the reasons that people abroad would see a black president as a more historic step. Our place in the eyes of the world, after all, is in part defined by our historical role in the slave trade, and by what many see as a legacy of racism that extends to this day. Were a dark-skinned man with Algerian parents to be elected as the president of France, I think it would be a very, very big deal here and abroad (or at least as big a deal as French elections can be).

The gender issue is more complicated because every country and every society has "gender issues." Some nations have already chosen female leaders, and some nations are beset by vastly more misogyny and sexism than the United States. So the election of a female American president, viewed through the various prisms of people abroad, will mean a variety of different things (yes, many countries have ugly racial histories, too, but there is still a distinction to be made, I think).

More broadly, I think people tend to overstate their excitement about electing the first female or black president. Here's Fortini, from earlier in the conversation:

I was surprised to read in a recent New York Times article that some of them have formed a group, "Clinton Supporters Count Too," and that they plan to campaign against Barack Obama in November, which seemed very surprising to me and certainly counterproductive in terms of women's rights. If you compare McCain and Obama on the issue of reproductive rights, you have to consider that McCain will very likely appoint two pro-life Supreme Court justices. He also hasn't supported the Fair Pay Act because he believes it would create frivolous lawsuits against big business. In his view, pay inequities should be dealt with through education and training. But that doesn't address the fact that in the workplace gender-based pay discrimination remains a problem, nor does it leave women legal recourse if they experience such discrimination on the job.

I agree wholeheartedly with her point, but it begs the obvious questions: Would a female candidate who had the McCain position on these issues be attracting much support or excitement? Similarly, would African-Americans or "guilty" white liberals be supporting Alan Keyes? I am not asking these questions to be glib, or to fault people excited by the prospect of someone other than a white man assuming the office of the presidency (I am among the excited throngs). But they do seem to suggest that we are much more interested in policy outcomes than other considerations. To put it another way, we are more utilitarian than we like to believe. My favorite example of this is a conversation I always have a with a liberal relative, who frequently mentions his solemn wish for higher voter turnout. Whenever I ask him if he'd be in favor of 100% participation if it meant Republican supremacy at the polls, he answers that of course he would not be.

Comments

Even Argentina had Peron's wife as president.

There is nothing to get excited about someone like Hillary getting the job.

Posted by David | May 28, 2008 4:23 PM

Some nations have already chosen female leaders

I think this is a very important point for the, dare I say it, less parochial among us. In the UK, Germany, Canada, France, etc. having a woman leader already just doesn't seem like that big a deal. Historically women have managed to achieve real leadership even in chauvinistic societies (Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, etc.). There's just a very strong historical precedent in the West for female leaders, and I've always assumed that the US will have a woman President some day. Honestly, I don't think I ever really believed the US could have a black President in my lifetime.

Posted by vanya | May 28, 2008 4:25 PM

Full disclosure: I'm for Obama. Now, to your post. Women are persecuted for exercising their rights, for just being women, but they are often maimed or killed through individual acts, such as domestic violence, etc. And folks overlook this. Unfortunately, one of the theme's of Susan Brownmiller's "Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape" (i.e., rape as part of the military strategy used by both the Nazis and Soviets in WWII) is not outdated, but the main war tactic in Central Africa where guerrilla armies and government soldiers rape women over and over as villages switch control from one side to the other.

Folks don't get excited about Clinton as the socioeconomic political successes of a few women are mistaken for the emancipation of all women. Men of all races and ethnicities may harbor sexist tendencies but few of them are ready to admit that they do so. If you aggregate all these subgroups of men together, that is a powerful collective (and oppressive) force.

I would say, however, that Clinton's bid, alas, falls at an unfortunate cusp in our nation's history (mainly 9/11 and the Bush's administration's deplorable and depraved response to it) and many of us "Generation Jonesers" (1956-64) and younger members see Obama's campaign as a move forward while Clinton, largely because of her campaign message and connection to her husband, as the status quo, reliving the last decade of the '90s as opposed to providing a fresh start to the first horribly bungled eight years of governance of the United States in the 21st century. Race and gender far too often eclipse generation in the discussion of Obama's popularity or Clinton's failure to convert her '07 momentum into winning the nomination.

On another note, I'd like to see a whole new area of scholarship open up and explore the horrible consequences of legacy affirmative action, starting with George W. Bush as the first case study.

Posted by BEmama | May 28, 2008 4:37 PM

The HillaryIs44 folks are completely over the edge, even by the overheated standards of this primary. I guess the pro-Obama analogue is Andrew Sullivan, but even he doesn't reach the kind of crazed Dr. Bronner's Soap label rantings that you get at hi44 and Taylor Marsh.

Nonetheless, I certainly wouldn't take them as representative of Clinton voters in general, nor do I really think they're going to campaign against Obama in November when the other candidate has scored a nearly-perfect career zero from NARAL. I mean, you'd hope that ideological purity would stop at the point of an anti-Roe SCOTUS, right?

Posted by tWB | May 28, 2008 4:57 PM

One of the lessons of the OJ Simpson trial was that race trumps sex. DA Marcia Clark, a good feminist, wanted to pack the jury with women, while Johnny Cochran, a very successful lawyer, wanted to pack the jury with blacks. So, they compromised and packed the jury with black women. Johnny proved smarter than Marcia about race vs. sex.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 28, 2008 5:01 PM

"The second is that the world would be more excited by a black president than a female president."

1. do you have any evidnce for this? I think the world just might be exited enough to have a Democrat in the White House again.

2. does it really matter? Is there really any substantial argument that Obama being black will make more of a positive difference to the US role in the world than Hillary being a woman - or of them both being not Bush?

Posted by Neil | May 28, 2008 5:02 PM

. Our place in the eyes of the world, after all, is in part defined by our historical role in the slave trade, and by what many see as a legacy of racism that extends to this day.

I don't think it's directly tied to slavery.

I suspect what dirty fer'ners find remarkable is the possibility that a member of a well-defined, ill-treated permanent minority might be elected President. Basically, if you'll let a black guy into the club, you'll let anyone in. Obama's election would suggest that no one is out of the running.

The difference, on gender, is that women are ill-treated, and a minority in power positions, but not actually a minority. If a woman is elected--as has happened in much less liberal places than the US, as well as more liberal places--it might be because there are a lot of female voters. (This is not an argument about which is worse, etc.) Her election would be a signal to other white women with specific backgrounds; Obama, OTOH, means that anyone--even, perhaps, the American child of a foreign national from some far off land--can dream that dream.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 28, 2008 5:05 PM

Were a dark-skinned man with Algerian parents to be elected as the president of France, I think it would be a very, very big deal here and abroad (or at least as big a deal as French elections can be).

When I read the piece at TNR, I had a thought similar to Vanya's: In terms of leading a powerful western democracy, the gender barrier was broken long ago. Meir. Thatcher. Clark. Richardson. Segolene came close in France, and no one was having fainting fits at the drama of it all, her being a woman. (There, too, Sarkozy's implicit rebuke to Le Pen received far more "the image we wish to have of ourselves" attention than did Segolene's gender alone--her resemblance to the French Liberte symbol got a lot more.)

I also agree with BEmama's point:
"Generation Jonesers" (1956-64) and younger members see Obama's campaign as a move forward while Clinton, largely because of her campaign message and connection to her husband, as the status quo, reliving the last decade of the '90s as opposed to providing a fresh start to the first horribly bungled eight years of governance of the United States in the 21st century.

HIllary just is not a new direction. A female president would be different, but a Clinton president would not be.

Posted by Deborah | May 28, 2008 5:07 PM

Obama is winning because he's now getting 90% of the black vote, despite advocating policies little different from Hillary's. If Hillary was getting 90% of the female vote, she'd have wrapped it up months ago.

People care more about race than sex because race is all about who your relatives are.

Think about the controversy over affirmative action: everybody wants to argue, pro or con, over affirmative action for blacks, but affirmative action for women is that exciting to people. That's because every man has a mother, and most have some combination of wife, daughters, and sisters, so quotas for females might help their immediate families. Similarly, every woman has a father, and most have some combination of husband, sons, and brothers, so they can also see the downside to gender quotas. Thus, the most fanatical feminists tend to be lesbians, because they have fewer male loved ones.

In contrast, the controversy over racial quotas goes on and on because few people have close relatives of another race.

Indeed, much of Obama's appeal to whites is based on his constantly talking about his white mother and white grandparents to reassure whites that he is a moderate on racial issues (although there's little evidence that he actually is). That's why the Jeremiah Wright revelations were so surprising to naive whites who had bought into Obama's campaign image. In reality, because Obama is a half-white preppie from paradise, he had to spend 20 years proving he's "black enough" by being mentored by Wright and the like in order to win a foothold with Chicago black voters suspicious of his black bona fides.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 28, 2008 5:13 PM

What vanya said. Viewed from abroad, a female leader just doesn't seem to be such a big deal and is not necessarily regarded as a progressive thing - Maggie Thatcher anyone?

Posted by novakant | May 28, 2008 5:30 PM

Well HRC ceded the black vote to Obama. We also must remember that women encompasse all races, ethnicities, sexualities not just white women.

Posted by Micheline | May 28, 2008 5:33 PM

Well HRC ceded the black vote to Obama. We also must remember that women encompass all races, ethnicities, sexualities not just white women.

Posted by Micheline | May 28, 2008 5:33 PM

A female president might have been seen as a big deal abroad if she had come out strongly against the Iraq War and ran directly against the "my big dick... I mean stick is bigger than yours" mantra on foreign policy, torture, etc. that rules the GOP and too many pro-war Dems. However, a former first lady who voted for the war? Not a chance. To a certain extent, an Obama presidency wouldn't send any real message if Obama had been pro-war. Since he has been against the war, against torture, in favor of diplomacy, etc., his race is only the cherry on top.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2008 5:39 PM

Neil: I'm not sure if it's substantive, but the 2 to 1 results for Obama from Democrats Abroad--where you'd have thought name recognition would give Hillary a hand--suggest that those living overseas, out on the pointy end of US foreign policy, think Obama would be a much more positive change in our image than Clinton.

This is also a case where, while their policies might be similar, their different management styles count for a lot. Remember, Clinton claimed Vladimir Putin had no soul, compared Helen Clark to a cockroach, and threatened to obliterate Iran--the US press may not cover how New Zealand felt about the cockroach comment (not positive) but a willingness to randomly piss off other countries just is not good.

As for domestic vote, though, people want change, a new direction, a fresh start to the century to replace the one Bush bungled so badly, and no Clinton (or Bush) can embody that change. Even if the Clinton or Bush is a woman. Or a nonwhite, though that's less likely for the reasons of relatives put forth above. (Jed's kids aren't old enough to run for president yet.)

Posted by Deborah | May 28, 2008 5:47 PM

Oh, and the Obama version of Taylor Marsh is Marty Peretz, except that TNR's commentors tend to view him as unhinged rather than an unbiased journalist telling it like it is.

Posted by Deborah | May 28, 2008 5:50 PM

Steve Sailer wrote: "(although there's little evidence that he actually is)"

Right. Because Steve Sailer understands his true inner essence, and you *alone* know that as soon as Obama is sworn in, it'll be bone-through-the-nose ooga booga headhunter time.

Posted by Jon h | May 28, 2008 5:51 PM

"Remember, Clinton claimed Vladimir Putin had no soul, compared Helen Clark to a cockroach, and threatened to obliterate Iran--the US press may not cover how New Zealand felt about the cockroach comment (not positive) but a willingness to randomly piss off other countries just is not good."

I live in New Zealand, the Helen Clark joke made barely a ripple. Hasn't Obama been saying some fairly critical things of Chavez recently? (and isn't it true what she said about Putin). "obliterate Iran" was half of her argument - the other half being how possibly to stop other Middle East countries going nuclear in response to a nuclear Iran.

A recent Pew poll had Clinton the most popular candidate by far in Pakistan.

I can't see much difference between Obama and Clinton policy wise.

But if people are going to make a case that Obama being black will make an important difference then shouldn't there be some substantive evidence put forward and why shouldn't Hillary being a woman have a significant effect? OK there's been other woman leaders - but no woman POTUSs. Maybe she can appeal to woman through out the Middle East in way Obama can't.

Posted by Neil | May 28, 2008 6:02 PM

"And isn't it true what she said about Putin?"
Diplomacy isn't about telling the unvarnished truth; it's recognizing that Putin would still be an important player with whom the new president must deal. Clinton is constantly sending signals of toughness--I had enough of that from Bush. And I really expected the remark to cost her with religious people--soulless isn't a term you expect a Christian to toss around.

As for Clark, didn't at least the characterization of her as the "former Prime Minister" raise some eyebrows? To me it rankles because it seems so dismissive of another woman who beat her to the leader of a major democratic nation sweepstakes, and without even a Mr. Clark to start her off.

"Maybe she can appeal to woman through out the Middle East in way Obama can't."
I'm sure the threat to obliterate Iran warmed them right up to her.

This is a confusing thread in that the overseas perception, while real, plays into a teeny percentage of US primary voters (except those in Dems Abroad). The domestic perception I maintain is that we'd love to think of ourselves as a nation where anyone can succeed, regardless of skin color, the child of an immigrant, a post-racial nation, etc. This is NOT the Limbaugh/Ferraro argument--it's not massive affirmative action, it's looking over the candidates and saying that this is the right face (speaking metaphorically--background, demeanor, speechgiver) to put forward. Putting a co-president from the 90s back in charge--that's no way to go forward. Even if she's a woman, she's still a Clinton.

Posted by Deborah | May 28, 2008 6:16 PM

"As for Clark, didn't at least the characterization of her as the "former Prime Minister" raise some eyebrows?"

It was a joke, she was reading out some joke that someone had sent her she keeps on her palm pilot. We have a sense of humour down here and fond memories of Bill Clinton. So "she's still a Clinton" is actually a complement.

I don't have a problen with either Obama or Clinton being the next president but I think there's a little bit of strangeness in the thinking that Obama is so definitely going to make such a difference in foreign policy because he's black and that her being a woman most definitely won't.

Posted by Neil | May 28, 2008 6:37 PM

I think a woman without the taint of nepotism and more charm would make enormous difference in the world and I'm psyched to vote for her someday if I agree with her on policy. We can say this is about gender, and older, middle class white women have sad that ad infinitum. For me, (young, white, female) Obama has always been the better candidate and the more feminist choice -- anti-war from the start, not relying on family members to get ahead, up from nothing. Not a victim. I'm proud we're about to nominate him.

Posted by Arabella | May 28, 2008 6:52 PM

"I was surprised to read in a recent New York Times article that some of them have formed a group, "Clinton Supporters Count Too," and that they plan to campaign against Barack Obama in November, which seemed very surprising to me and certainly counterproductive in terms of women's rights."

Doesn't surprise me. This is exactly what I'm predicting - that Clinton will use people like this to undermine Obama's campaign right through November - and if elected, beyond.

Of course, she'll do it very carefully, trying to avoid being TOO connected to Obama's defeat.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 6:59 PM

"Sexism is here, sexism is present, but it's been more paternalistic, and presented in soft, warm and fuzzy terms: "We want to protect the women! It's not that we don't like them." Even when talking about being in battle, it's, "We don't want women to get hurt." Women weren't persecuted for burning their bras. Feminism is a different cause than civil rights."

That's because in the '60s, women had the right to vote for over 40 years. Prior to "earning" the right to vote (it was not freely given) sufferagettes were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured for trying to vote.

Talk about the memory hole. Seems we all need to learn a little history.

Posted by TimB. | May 28, 2008 7:14 PM

he is a moderate on racial issues (although there's little evidence that he actually is).

Steve, you've been harping about this for months, yet you never explain what we're so supposed to be scared of. So Obama is a radical on racial issues? And what does that mean? Do you think he's going to force white folks to pay reparations? How would he do that, even as President? Do you think he's going to give black folks all the cushy jobs? Even if he did do something that dumb, I don't see that as any worse than Bush giving cushy jobs to loyalist semi-illiterate Southern Fundamentalist Christians. Those people aren't my kin either. Just what is "Black radical" Obama going to do that we white people are supposed to get worried about?

Posted by vanya | May 28, 2008 7:17 PM

1) I think you people are all wrong.

2) Sex and race are irrelevant. It is the person who counts.

3) There are politicians who give a shit about this country. And there are politicians who don't.
Hillary is the latter.

4) There are politicians who care about their fellow citizens -- not in a Marxist way but as their fellow countrymen. And there are politicians who regard 99 percent of the US populations as cockroachs. Hillary is the latter.

5) In 1998, I worked for a female lieutenant colonel in the US Army who I greatly respected. I would have gone to great lengths to help that person --because of her integrity.

For the same reason, I would go to great lengths to work against Hillary --because she has no integrity.

People who define politics in terms of race or sex are morons. I'm a white man grew up in the South -- in Appalachia. Yet I greatly respect Jesse Jackson --in spite of his flaws.

By contrast, if some parent who lost a kid in Iraq blew Senator Lindsay Graham's fucking brains out, I would not convict that parent if I was on the jury.

Posted by Don Williams | May 28, 2008 11:08 PM

What Don said, above. Right on, Don. A minimum of integrity and judgment is crucial. There are plenty of women out there who more than fit that bill and one will be elected President when the moment is right. This just ain't that moment ... Not because of sexism but because Senator Clinton has run a truly despicable campaign. Despicable and ineffective. She's shown her true colors -- just like a man of no character would have done.

Posted by charlotte | May 28, 2008 11:38 PM

Some nations have already chosen female leaders, and some nations are beset by vastly more misogyny and sexism than the United States.

That should say "including" rather than just "and." All the female leaders mentioned (Thatcher, Meir, Merkel, etc) and no one mentions Indira Gandhi? Pratibha Patil? Benazir Bhutto?

India, a country where women are still occasionally urged or forced to immolate themselves on their husband's funeral pyre, has democratically elected female prime ministers and presidents.

I'd also like to think that the fact that no one mentioned these names is further evidence that when y'all talk about "women," you mean "white women."

Posted by alli | May 29, 2008 1:12 AM

Don Williams, David & Charlotte

I vote for a candidate and not the party. Obama's racism strategy has already started to backfire. The Presidency is not an Affirmative Action position. Only the Obamabots can delude themselves that he has a chance in Hell to win.

Posted by nobama | May 29, 2008 3:03 AM

Just a random data point from abroad: whenever Chinese people here in Beijing ask me who I'm backing and I say Obama, they are dismissive and say that Americans are just too racist to vote for a black guy (while also conveniently ignoring the huge amount of anti-black racism in China). It will likely be a surprise to a lot of Chinese people. Then again, since China is not a democracy, the average person's opinion won't really affect policy much.

Steve Sailer thinks Obama is a radical on race because Obama doesn't talk like Jar Jar Binks and doesn't think black people should spend all of their time apologizing to white people for rap music, Oprah, the Civil Rights music, "Roots" and Tyler Perry. Ignore him.

Posted by Reality Man | May 29, 2008 4:58 AM

"the Civil Rights music,"

of course, should have been

"the Civil Rights Movement,"

Always remember, when you delete something after accidentally typing it twice ("rap music"), make sure to delete all of it. This has been a reminder from your friendly neighborhood Reality Man.

Posted by Reality Man | May 29, 2008 5:04 AM

Actually Alli, Benazir Bhutto was a "white" woman. Take a look at her. Indira would also be considered "white" in New England if not the Deep South. But yes, I should have mentioned them, sorry for not posting an exhaustive list of all female leaders in the 20th century.

Posted by vanya | May 29, 2008 6:33 AM

Nobama,

What do you mean by racism? HRC lost because she thought it was going to be a cakewalk and she got out organized by Obama. Why don't acknowledge that/

Posted by Micheline | May 29, 2008 6:39 AM

"Actually Alli, Benazir Bhutto was a "white" woman. Take a look at her. Indira would also be considered "white" in New England if not the Deep South. But yes, I should have mentioned them, sorry for not posting an exhaustive list of all female leaders in the 20th century.

Posted by vanya | May 29, 2008 6:33 AM"

Speaking as a Indian from New England, what the hell are you talking about?

Posted by Reality Man | May 29, 2008 7:28 AM

Reality Man:

Tell Lewis Turner of KC Dat/ Asian Tigers moving I said hello.

Posted by JimmyJack | May 29, 2008 8:11 AM

Speaking as someone from the rest of the world, the impact of electing of a female President would be significantly lessened by it being this woman.

The bigger story would be extent to which it was achieved on the back of her husband's career and the growing nepotism/ dynasticism of US politics (Bush/ Clinton/ Bush/ Clinton is a somewhat ridiculous presidential lineage for a supposedly meritocratic republic)

Posted by Nickyg | May 29, 2008 8:42 AM

Micheline

Obama has not achieved victory by any meanns. If you are speaking about the undemocratic caucuses, you're right he has won.

Over 32 million people voted in the primary elections. Only 1 million people voted in the caucuses. Obama has won when fewer Americans have turned out to vote.

Playing the racism card may win the delegates, but the public will have no part of it.

Posted by nobama | May 29, 2008 9:53 AM

RealityMan,

Speaking as a person of Anglo-Irish-Italian descent, so I should know, most white people consider people from Northern India, and Iranians, and Afghanis, to be white. How is that even controversial? And what do you mean "speaking as an Indian"? That's a fairly meaningless sentence. If you are a Bengali or a Tamil, then probably in Boston you aren't "white." If you are a Brahmin from Kashmir, as Indira Gandhi was, then you are probably white in most social circles. My Italian grandmother was darker than Benazir Bhutto, hell my brother is darker than Benazir Bhutto.

Posted by vanya | May 29, 2008 10:20 AM

Anonymous troll:

Obama has not achieved victory by any meanns. If you are speaking about the undemocratic caucuses, you're right he has won.

Over 32 million people voted in the primary elections. Only 1 million people voted in the caucuses. Obama has won when fewer Americans have turned out to vote.

Playing the racism card may win the delegates, but the public will have no part of it.

This sounds like Petey, complaining about the caucuses. Take it up with the various state Democratic parties, not Obama. He played by the rules and didn't make them up as he went along to suit his needs as the lawyerly Hillary has done. (The Hillary campaign reminds me of the Republicans in the 2000 election.)

Looks like the Democratic Party has shut down the Clinton campaigns' bullshit argument over Florida and Michigan. Good, that was the second worse thing they did, the first being the constant playing of the race card, forever sullying the Clinton name. Oh, and Obama should pick Edwards as VP or AG. Edwards didn't have to endorse him when he did, but he did anyway.

Pelosi think it will be over in early June and will "step in" if it isn't over by late June.

And then Obama will trounce McCain (what's up McClellan?) and there will be a huge inaugeration day party.

Posted by Peter K. | May 29, 2008 11:06 AM

I believe that blacks who are not willing to accept my view of the world should pack their bags and go back to Africa. This is a white nation and they should accept that just like Clarence Thomas does. Plus I would appreciate it if they would send their young bucks over to my house to cut my lawn for free. I'll even provide lemonade and watermelon because I'm a really nice guy.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 29, 2008 11:07 AM

Peter K

How does the 1 million votes from a caucus system serve as a template for the November election? You're right, he's entitled to his caucus delegates and shutting down MI & FL will secure his delegates. But, at what cost?

To win in November, the candidate needs to bring in voters. Disenfranchising the votes of any group will drive them to the other candidate. Except for the Obamabots, no one believes he's Presidential material.

Posted by nobama | May 29, 2008 11:36 AM

Steve S

Your comments are pathetic.

Posted by nobama | May 29, 2008 11:40 AM

Nobama/anonymous troll:
"Peter K
How does the 1 million votes from a caucus system serve as a template for the November election? You're right, he's entitled to his caucus delegates and shutting down MI & FL will secure his delegates. But, at what cost?"

Again, I'd take it up with the Democratic Party. As I understand it, Obama is winning the popular vote also. And techincally, Obama didn't shut down MI & FL, the political establisments of MI and FL shut down their votes by whoring themselves for tourist dollars. Good job!

Tedious troll:
"To win in November, the candidate needs to bring in voters. Disenfranchising the votes of any group will drive them to the other candidate. Except for the Obamabots, no one believes he's Presidential material."

If you look at the turnout figures, Obama has increased turnout and most of the turned out are so-called Obamabots.

What's funny is to hear Republicans like Limbaugh complaing about the "undemocratic" Democratic party, when often Republicans' main election strategy is preventing people from voting by any means necessary as has been demonstrated in Ohio and Florida. Talk about hypocrisy.

Posted by Peter K. | May 29, 2008 2:35 PM

I want a leader with a spine. Someone that will stand up for Americans even if he loses his edge in the delegate or popular vote.

The one million votes from the caucus elections that gave Obama the edge in delegates do not translate into a November victory. Tens of millions of voters and their money will leave the DNC.

Posted by nobama | May 29, 2008 3:55 PM