I do think the primary factor that swayed voters in the NH primary was the "Tweety effect."

However, I'm not sure at what point, after numerous race baiting comments from Clinton directly and from her surrogates, you stop calling them inadvertent.

I think the problem with this isn't that it's wrong. I believe some undecided women probably did use their vote to protest the sexism. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

But as usual, the media can't seem to deal with complex ideas. It was probably one factor among many that Clinton won in NH. It's being used now to diminish her victory and spout more sexist crap about women voters.

After hearing the entire comment for myself, I'm not sure that Clinton meant to imply that it takes "a white president to get a black man's hopes accomplished". I can see how that interpretation came about, however it seems to me that she is saying that 1) presidents have a lot of control and influence over what legislation gets passed and 2) It is possible to hope for something (like Kennedy) but it is different (and more meaningful) to get it done (Like Johnson). Given that Obama has been compared to Kennedy, I think she is inferring that he does have hopes and is charismatic but may be unable to get things done (admittedly stretching the comparison).

I think race (like gender) is a very hot button issue. Because people are very sensitive to these issues (with good reason) it is easy to accept the worst possible interpretation of statements.

I agree with Ephemeral Fortress. I didn't se her comment as saying that it takes a white president to accomplish a black man's dream at all.

This could be a case of something flying right over my head and under my feet as things sometimes do though.

I agree that Clinton wasn't making a comment about race. Her example can give it that air, but I don't think saying it took a President to pass the Civil Rights Act means King had nothing to do with it (that all or nothing characterization of people's words always irks me). Certainly it takes the courage and power of people like King to get presidents to act, but King himself could not have passed the Act, plain and simple. This was a bad example for her to use anyway since I don't think it really illustrates the point she's been making about change/hope/etc.

By the way, has it occurred to anyone that it wasn't the tears but what Clinton was actually saying that swayed people? During her "emotional outburst," she talked about how people think politics is a game, who's up who's down, but it matters, and it's important, etc. It was actually very moving. If that clip was played for a whole day before the election I can see how it would've reached people.

It's actually similar to the elements of Obama's speeches that make me like him too.

In the words of Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

I do think there is a very slight Tweety effect. The misogyny of the MSM, coupled with the sexist bile being spewed by Obama supporters, motivated me to really examine the two candidates and ask myself why I was so caught up in the Obama-mania. I now support Clinton.

The MSM mistakenly characterizes this phenomenon as a knee-jerk reaction by fickle female voters.
This itself is a sexist stereotype and reflects the attitude that women don't vote "correctly" (like men, hah).

What people fail to consider is that Clinton dared to meet face-to-face with the voters of NH to answer their questions and explain her platform. That is something Obama HAS NOT DONE. Perhaps women appreciate this move on Clinton's part?

Oh no, it must just be unthinking female solidarity. Far from it.

Is it possible that Clinton won her back yard,(Northeast) and Obama won in his (Midwest)?

Or perhaps the more "liberal" (according to media branding)of each party won in NH, while Iowa came out more conservative in both parties.

Is it possible that Clinton won her back yard,(Northeast) and Obama won in his (Midwest)?

Or perhaps the more "liberal" (according to media branding)of each party won in NH, while Iowa came out more conservative in both parties.

I live in NH. Lots of people really liked Clinton when she started out. Her politics were good, she was popular, she could have taken this state easily.

Then she started campaigning. The Clinton campaign was aggressive, abrasive... her campaigners came to my house and my dorm room repeatedly, they all but assaulted people on my campus trying to get them to vote for their candidate. Her entire campaign was managed a bit like a middle school class president's campaign, a fact which I doubt was her fault but did not endear her to voters. Meanwhile the Obama campaigners were polite, nice, left you alone if you wanted to be left alone, etc. Thus, due to the campaign's abrasiveness many people refused to vote for her on principle. Perhaps men were more likely to be offended by security guards nearly assaulting them and campaigners blocking their entry into campus dining halls, I don't know. It's probably one factor of many.

I know I voted for Obama. I had already pretty much decided on him because I prefer his politics but the more horror stories I heard, and the more times I saw the aggressiveness of her campaigners, the more resolute I became.

Also, rule #1 about NH: Never trust polls of any sort. I answer every poll I am asked. And I lie every time. I actually don't know anyone who tells the truth on political polls and lives in this state. We're trying to mess with them in the hopes that they'll leave us alone.

I like Obama, and would happily vote for him if he gets the nomination - what perplexes (and yes, kind of bothers) me is that so many women, who identify themselves as feminists, don't support Clinton. That's what I've been reading a lot of online, lately. It seems to me that there probably are not a lot of black male civil rights activists who don't support Obama, despite lack of experience, moderate positions, weak health care plan, etc., so why do so many feminists not support Clinton?

Meanwhile the Obama campaigners were polite, nice, left you alone if you wanted to be left alone, etc.

*blink*

No, they just call you a racist. But THEY are certainly not sexists for not supporting a "ball-busting bitch."
They are hypocrites and NONE of them can tell me why Obama would be a better president than Clinton. I have completely lost faith in our nation's young people because they are being so short-sighted and naive - they've been sucked into the hype and can't articulately or reasonably defend their candidate against accusations that he's a cowardly empty suit. No, no, don't you worry. Obama will magically withdraw the troops from Iraq because he's super hopeful about it.

I mean, how do they thing policy happens? Wishful thinking won't cut it.

Beigelights, I think because feminists are still under pressure from the men in their lives. Right now I see a lot of women competing to determine who has the most cred as "one of the guys." You know the type - they're all for abortion rights and voting rights but otherwise, they're not like other women. They're one of the guys, bitchezzz!

Oh, for god's sake, give up on this nonsense about Hillary's so-called racial comment. It was nothing of the sort!

I've no patience, really, for this hypersensitive parsing and re-parsing of each phrase and word.

It brings about the worst symptoms of political correctness, without any substantive gains at all!

I agree with Antiope's second paragraph above. My biggest problem with Hillary has been that she has not seemed real to me. I like many of her policies, but didn't think that she was at all sincere or likely to follow through with them, and would instead take the expedient path when presented with it. I'm more inclined to favor her now that she has actually done something that looks quite sincere to me. Tears have nothing to do with it -- and besides, there weren't any, though there was plenty of well controlled emotion.

And, incidentally, I'm a man. Not that gender has anything to do with the way I vote -- I'm looking for policies that move the country the direction I'd like it to go, not genitalia that match my own.

Obama's results tracked almost exactly with the pre-election polling, as did Edwards', so there was no Bradley effect.

Clinton, however, picked up the undecided vote, and she got almost half of the female vote (which, considering the 14-point spread between men and women turning out, helped her significantly).

Consider this: she got 39% of the total Democratic vote, but only 29% of the male Democratic vote. So it wasn't just that women voted for her, it was that men voted against her.

I would love love love if the MSM would obsessively question whether men vote with their dicks.

"what perplexes (and yes, kind of bothers) me is that so many women, who identify themselves as feminists, don't support Clinton."

Why should feminist women support Clinton? Just because she's a woman? I doubt that if a woman ran as a Republican with Huckabee's policies and beliefs we'd hear people saying "Vote for her because she's a woman, it's your duty as a feminist!"

Um, no, it's not. How is voting for a candidate because she's a woman any different or better than voting for a candidate because he's a white man?

My duty as a registered voter is to vote for the candidate whose policies and beliefs (as best I can determine) most agree with my own. It has nothing to do with their gender.

Exactly, zuzu. There may well be a Bradley effect, but we haven't seen it yet. And this 'women support Hillary' thing is getting twisted out of proportion to the actual facts, which is that she is supported by both genders - has to be to get elected. The MSM makes it sound like Hillary has only women as supporters.

I also don't see why it's wrong at all, or why women should be attacked, for changing their votes because a candidate is revealed as having a poor policy or attitude towards women. Isn't voting all about voting for people to represent your interests? Why is it that women are criticized for changing their minds over one issue when it is the important issue about how they will be treated in our society? This makes no sense to me.

Beaten to the punch by gamma above, but I might as well post:

I think it's more complex than mere emotional backlash. It's a sense that the campaigns are showing their true colors on what they think of women by what they're willing to say to dissuade voters from choosing Clinton. As has been noted here, it's not been just the right with the double-standard coverage (which has been overwhelmingly bitter), and most of those guilty on the left have written uniquely glowing pieces on Obama. (In other words, when backed into what they perceive as a corner - i.e., confronted with those who do not share their fervor for their given candidate, particularly Obama - those who support the other major candidates can be just as sexist as Chris Matthews and all the rest such assholes. (It's gotten worse in the wake of New Hampshire; the "women are 2 to 1 stupid" comment from Jezebel is representative, though many other reactions I've seen manage to include "bitches" in there somewhere.)

It's more than "wow, what a jerk, take this"; it's "wow, you really _do_ hate women, don't you?". It's only natural not to vote for a campaign that, when it comes down to brass tacks, sees you as a second-class citizen - a "stupid bitch".

(And, no, it's not Obama or Edwards *themselves* spewing the vitriol, mostly - but they're not doing anything to rein in their followers, and in Obama's case, a big part of his appeal is the mass movement he's inspired. If this is what those in that movement think of women, then I want no part of it.)

Beaten to the punch by gamma above, but I might as well post:

I think it's more complex than mere emotional backlash. It's a sense that the campaigns are showing their true colors on what they think of women by what they're willing to say to dissuade voters from choosing Clinton. As has been noted here, it's not been just the right with the double-standard coverage (which has been overwhelmingly bitter), and most of those guilty on the left have written uniquely glowing pieces on Obama. (In other words, when backed into what they perceive as a corner - i.e., confronted with those who do not share their fervor for their given candidate, particularly Obama - those who support the other major candidates can be just as sexist as Chris Matthews and all the rest such assholes. (It's gotten worse in the wake of New Hampshire; the "women are 2 to 1 stupid" comment from Jezebel is representative, though many other reactions I've seen manage to include "bitches" in there somewhere.)

It's more than "wow, what a jerk, take this"; it's "wow, you really _do_ hate women, don't you?". It's only natural not to vote for a campaign that, when it comes down to brass tacks, sees you as a second-class citizen - a "stupid bitch".

(And, no, it's not Obama or Edwards *themselves* spewing the vitriol, mostly - but they're not doing anything to rein in their followers, and in Obama's case, a big part of his appeal is the mass movement he's inspired. If this is what those in that movement think of women, then I want no part of it.)

"Why should feminist women support Clinton? Just because she's a woman?"

Why should feminist women support women? Just because they're women?

I look at it like, "I'm a feminist, and there is a liberal (okay, centrist liberal) democratic woman with a real chance to become the first female president of my country, ever, after hundreds of years - yay!" I'm willing to overlook some of her mannerisms and an ill placed vote on Iraq to see a liberal female president. Also, yes, it is interesting to see how the other campaigns try to dissuade people from Clinton - Obama's campaign co-chair suggested that when Clinton got emotional it was about her hair: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_tears.php

I agree with antiope that what has been much overlooked about Clinton's "emotional" moment was what she actually *said*. The gist of it was "the personal is political" -- a feminist message. Hell yeah, I can get behind that.

Now I think the reason we Clinton supporters expect female "progressives" to get behind Clinton is because when it comes right down to it any of the three candidates would make a fine POTUS.

So why *not* be a part of something historic?

It's not like we're asking the Ann Coulters of the world to vote for Clinton. Her worldview is diametrically opposed to Clinton's. But women who describe themselves as "feminists" and "liberal?"

If we don't elect her now we will not see another female candidate nominated by the Dem party ever again.

Why should feminist women support women? Just because they're women?

"Hey, look, Phyllis Schlafly just announced! Vaginas to the polls forthwith, ladies!"

"Hey, look, Phyllis Schlafly just announced! Vaginas to the polls forthwith, ladies!"

Ah yes. The extreme polarization begins once again.

Ah yes. The extreme polarization begins once again.
"Yeah, hi, I guess I did kind of just realize that 'support women because they're women' really works better as a platitude than as a practical guide or the ultimate rubric for supporting a political candidate, but being unwilling to admit that women could consider the selection of a president to involve more factors than gender, you should know that you totally picked a mean example."

I can't wait for the primaries to be over because this Clinton vs Obama infighting in the feminist blog-o-sphere got real old months ago. I don't see them as hugely different, politically, and my biggest concern is less which of them runs and more being terrified that someone like Romney or Huckabee might win. It will be nice to have everyone rallying unified behind the democrats again.

It would be irritating if I had to move to Canada or New Zealand or something because of this election. I think a Huckabee presidency would qualify me for asylum.

Also, it seems pretty obvious reading Clinton's comments in context that she's not comparing LBJ with MLK, but LBJ with Kennedy, Clinton representing LBJ and Obama representing Kennedy. I really can't understand how it could be interpreting in any other way unless one is purposefully taking it the wrong way because of an ax to grind.

SarahMC: Clearly all the campaigners you were exposed to were different from the ones I was exposed to. I'm talking about the door-to-door, on the streets people I encountered who were trying to get out the vote for Obama. Race never came up, and they never slammed other candidates-- some were even supportive of voting for any Democratic candidate, even if you disagreed with them.

I actually simply do not agree with Clinton's ideas and I prefer Obama's. Also, I do not like how she interacts with people and I don't think she would be a good president to repair the world's faith in the USA. You may disagree of course, but I can dislike a female candidate for reasons other than her gender. In fact, voting for her simply because she is a woman IS sexist. If politics are ever to be gender-blind, we can't vote for someone based on their gender, even if they are a woman.

If you agree with Clinton's political views and track record, great. Vote for her. But if you simply want a female president, think about it. You're being every bit as sexist as someone who only wants a male president.

Ewok, a *hypothetical* ultra-conservative female presidential candidate is a BS reason not to support Clinton. There is no such candidate. If feminists can't support Clinton in this historical moment, there may never be *any* variety of female presidential candidates ever, at all. Your statement is based on the assumption that there will ever only be *one* female candidate to pick from, and that is a sad scenario indeed.

But, if women can get this monkey off their back of never having had a female president, and elect a Democratic woman in the process, then they can afford to be more discriminating based on politics-only reasons later on.

That day is not yet here. We do not live in an ideal world where that is yet possible. Basiorana, in our current status quo of inequality, voting for a female candidate because she is female actually *fights* sexism. Saying the opposite is true is turning a blind eye to the history of women in this country, and assuming, perhaps in error, that the future will automatically bright for women's opportunities.

I personally am not someone who is willing to wait around for a mythical, *perfect* female presidential candidate to come out of the woodwork, because I know that perfection in politics does not exist, for men or women.