On the most superficial level, I'm glad that the race continues to be open. NPR was saying this morning that Obama really needed to win SC in order to keep campaign momentum.

And I have a fondness for McCain as a Republican candidate, even though I wouldn't ever vote Republican. I appreciate his anti-torture stance (sad, isn't it, that this is a distinction??)

Here's a direct link to the NPR map (interactive), which updates the returns regularly.

Meh.

Based on my time in Georgia, the south is scared of strong, intelligent women. I always had the impression that women were just supposed to make dinner and pump out babies.

FYI, the Republican primary in SC was a week ago. So they're really only calling it for Obama tonight.

Meh.

Based on my time in Georgia, the south is scared of strong, intelligent women. I always had the impression that women were just supposed to make dinner and pump out babies.

Or, at least, people there seem to actually buy the crap dished out about Hillary.

I remain just as underwhelmed with McCain was I was a few weeks ago when he won the SC Republican primary. I'm really unsure about him running against either of the two Dem frontrunners, to be honest.

As for Obama... he underwhelms me as well. I am so not feeling these top candidates in the least. I'm sick of moderation and the rhetoric of "change" that Clinton and Obama seem to be trying to claim. I can barely tell Obama and Clinton apart, and I will suck it up and vote for one of them in the general election, I suppose. *sigh*

The two-party system is failing me right now.

Relieved about McCain. I have to hope that he's the Republican nominee; he scares me the least.

I, for one, am happy about the Obama win.

Aside from his win, I'm also interested in the fact that this primary (and the heightened discussion of race & gender in the primaries) seems to have suddenly alerted the media to the presence of black people in South Carolina. Thoughts, anyone?

I'd rather see Obama (or even McCain) than Hillary. I'm proud that a woman has made it this far, but Hillary ISN'T a feminist. To the contrary, she let Bill treat her like dirt while he was president, and now she appears to be riding his coat tails.

Has anyone noticed that the major papers show dignified looking photos of Obama and hysterical looking ones of Hillary Clinton? In one recent
photo, Hillary Clinton is shown with her mouth wide open, making it look like she's screaming at the crowd while Barak Obama is closed mouthed, at the podium, his hands clasped together. They choose photos from hundreds of shots, of course they do this on purpose. I am sick of the cartoons of her as well.
All of this reminds me: the United States hates women.

"All of this reminds me: the United States hates women."

I'd love to hear you say that to a woman who was forcibly circumcised in
Africa. Or tortured for her clothing/appearance in Iran. Or to a woman who never got the chance for an education in Afghanistan. The United States is still struggling in many ways with its reconciliation to the notion of gender equality, but to say that our country hates women is a bit melodramatic.

Just because his "present" votes on abortion issues are Planned Parenthood-approved, doesn't mean I have to like them.
link

Other than that, though, (and that his supporters are acting childish over the NYT endorsement of Clinton) I'm glad for him. I'm underwhelmed by him as well, but he seems like he'd be a good president.

“ …but Hillary ISN'T a feminist. To the contrary, she let Bill treat her like dirt while he was president, and now she appears to be riding his coat tails.�
Whatever, who are you to judge her for staying with him? I do think it is strange that women are not voting for her. Everyone says they are voting for change. With that they vote for a man to get the top job over an older woman with more experience. That sounds like the same old same old to me. Nothing will change. YAY! Feminism in the modern era is about making sure women can be sex workers but NOT president. Wow, all those women’s study classes just to find out that there is no Susan B. Anthony day; and unlike the Civil Rights Amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment did not pass. But no, you continue to tell yourself when you are passed up for a promotion by the young guy that you trained how Hillary Clinton as president was nothing to vote for.

I think it's awesome, and I just sent Obama another donation. Mind you I'm on disability and between my and my husband's annual incomes, our kids still qualify for reduced price lunches at school, so I'm not exactly rolling in cash (this is also the first Presidential election in which I've ever felt inspired enough to make such donations). Clinton is my 2nd choice candidate, and if she wins the nomination I'll support her 700%, and I condemn, without qualification or hesitation, the grossly misogynist attacks on Clinton (along with the racist ones against Obama, which, I have been ashamed to note, have also come from some feminists).

But the bottom line is, I trust Obama more.

Why would I vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and I'm a woman? That's ridiculous. Her list of campaign donations is sick-making and hypocritical (not that that's a shock for any major candidate) and I don't agree with her platform. I'm not voting for anyone that I don't like, just because she's a woman.

It's really ironic/hypocritical that people judge Hillary for staying with Bill when you KNOW they'd be just as judgmental (or worse) if she were divorced.

Not that their marriage is anyone's business BUT theirs.

You know, Hillary Clinton is a terrific choice to lead this country. She has experience. She is tough. She takes no bullshit. We need a tough fighter not someone who may compromise important things like abortion rights away. It is so strange to see women letting the media pull Clinton down. Everything she says is distorted. They cal her shrill, focus on her clothes, call her cold and calculated when really she is just being herself. No other candidate is held under the microsope like she is. Look I get that it is next to impossible to sell a 60 year old very intelligent, very independent woman to the young men in this country. But my God, how can that be a hard sell to the women?! Are we really more concerned about being attractive to men than feeling our sisterhood? Perhaps the real question is, can we women really imagine, no can we accept a woman president?

Well said Jennifer.

Has anyone noticed that the major papers show dignified looking photos of Obama and hysterical looking ones of Hillary Clinton? In one recent photo, Hillary Clinton is shown with her mouth wide open, making it look like she's screaming at the crowd while Barak Obama is closed mouthed, at the podium, his hands clasped together. They choose photos from hundreds of shots, of course they do this on purpose. I am sick of the cartoons of her as well. All of this reminds me: the United States hates women.

And the US has been soooo kind to Black people. [/sarcasm]

I have never posted on this blog before and am surprised that I am being attacked. Are we not allowed to talk about 7,000+ years of misogyny (which means the hatred of women) here? To understand things you have to go to the root. Maybe I'm too old to post here, and my memory of the days when there was no such thing as girl's soccer or the WNBA too vivid. Hatred in a wealthy first world country is quite different from other countries. And the US supports violence against women all over the world - just follow the money. Of course the US has not been kind to black people, but my comment is about sexism.
Why is it that we are allowed to talk about racism (finally!) but not about sexism?!

The comments are much more heated now than they were for Iowa or NH...looks like dispassionate observation is going out of style!
Hillary is absolutely a feminist--the work she's done for women around the world is immeasurable. How dare someone discount her accomplishments because she's stayed married to an imperfect man?
But I worry about the Clinton baggage, the absolute vitriol conservatives have for Hillary, that they would make her election and presidency next to impossible like they did in the nineties. And I was extremely disappointed by the Clinton camp behavior on race. On this topic, Bob Herbert nails it.
I'm voting for Obama on the 5th because I believe he can fundamentally change the political dialogue of this country--I find him to be very thoughtful and more progressive than Hillary.
I read their books and plans, and could back either of them happily for the general election, but Obama decidedly won my caucus vote.

I really don't think doing the "who has been more oppressed in U.S. history" dance is going to do any good here.

"I really don't think doing the "who has been more oppressed in U.S. history" dance is going to do any good here."

Seconded.

Sheesh, this isn't a oppression contest. Bickering amongst the downtrodden is what helps elect Republicans.

Women can be mutilated and do face all sorts of atrocities throughout the world AND women are not represented in American politics and suffer sexism is many forms in the United States AND there is racism in the American media.

I am afraid that Obama cannot beat McCain. I am actually an Edwards fan. He beats McCain in head to head polls so far, and Hillary and Obama do not. And I like his clarity on economic issues and income inequality. I would be happy if any of the three won (I was really a Kucinich fan...sniff sniff.)

Of course I would love for a woman or anyone of color to be elected president. Hell, I was happy that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of Great Britain, but I wouldn't have voted for her (if I were British) because her policies were too conservative.

I think I can be happy with advances made for minorities, but I still need to vote for a candidate that I think is the best in several categories. Allen Keyes is NOT up for consideration, for example.

Absolute siempre julia! You know the fact that women who represent a majority in this country are still fighting to have a voice is appalling. I am 30, but I do know how much women had to suffer to just get us where we are today. We only got the right to vote 88 years ago and the ERA has still not been ratified. So do we really have equal rights in this country? Seems like everything we are raised on shows us this is a man's world and we women are merely their support and objects of desire. We can only hope to be first lady of a great man. Here is food for thought. When Hillary announced she was running for president, the media immediately wondered if Chelsea would take the role of First Lady. Obviously the role is beneath any man...

"But my God, how can that be a hard sell to the women?!"

Because many of us disagree with the majority of the elements of her platform, perhaps? I vote based on the issues. I don't agree with her stances.

Of course the US has not been kind to black people, but my comment is about sexism.

Yes, it was, but the way that you compared how the media was portraying Obama as compared to Clinton didn't come across well, in my opinion. I do agree that it sucks the way that Clinton is being portrayed, but it's not as though Obama has had an easy run of it, either.

And I'm not raising the torch for an Oppressions Olympics; I just wish that people would think before they post.

"Because many of us disagree with the majority of the elements of her platform, perhaps? I vote based on the issues. I don't agree with her stances. "

Fair enough. I do get that there are Republican women. Women have the right to vote for the candidate that most represents them. But my biggest concern is the unfair treatment she is getting by the media. Yes, more so than any of the other candidates. She has been distorted into a caricature and much of what she says is reported falsely. I am surprised at the way women aren't more angry about it. I do think if Hillary doesn't win, we will not have another woman candidate in my lifetime. Why would a woman want to suject themselves to all that BS.

"Fair enough. I do get that there are Republican women. Women have the right to vote for the candidate that most represents them."

I'm a Democrat. ;)
I just find her stances to be hopelessly moderate. I will definitely fall in line after her if she wins the Democratic nomination and will gladly vote for her in the general election over any Republican.

Despite my lack of support for her policies, I think she's a pretty awesome and strong woman. :) It also disgusts me on a daily basis the way the media [among other things...] treats her based on sex. It's pretty sickening. I am definitely angry about it; I might not support her as a candidate, but there are better reason to oppose her than the fact that she's a woman. That's not even REMOTELY valid! I hope that more women follow in Clinton's footsteps and seek the presidency despite the sexism they're up against. I have respect for that.

I was going to post something of my own, but it turns out LlesbianLlama has basically said most of what I was going to say :) I would like to add, though, that I find it very frustrating that "the female vote" is construed by the media as incapable of voting on the basis of anything besides gender and so is thought of as a given for Clinton, but then when we do vote for someone else, we're somehow construed even by some commenters here as betraying our gender and even betraying our ardent feminism by daring to vote for the candidate we feel is best suited. I would LOVE for there to be a female president, I would absolutely love it, but for a variety of reasons I believe that Obama is the best option for this next presidency. I can't in good conscience vote for someone who isn't my first choice simply because I do think we are long past due for a female president. I can, however, defend her right to be treated with the dignity and respect due to any presidential hopeful, and I can be rightfully outraged when I see sexist attacks against her (and do I ever); neither of these things require that I actually vote for her.

"the female vote" is construed by the media as incapable of voting on the basis of anything besides gender and so is thought of as a given for Clinton, but then when we do vote for someone else, we're somehow construed even by some commenters here as betraying our gender and even betraying our ardent feminism

Back during the suffrage campaign, anti-suffragists worried that women who had the vote would just vote however their husbands told them to.

These days, I'm wondering how far we've really progressed, since the media seems to read everything "women" (an apparently singular entity) do as entirely driven by their hormones. Whether we vote for Clinton or Obama, it's totally irrational and based on our sex. (Either our desire to have a woman president, or our desire NOT to have one ????)

Sigh.

My thought is that anarcho-syndicalism would be nice and any political debate about our pre-approved mainstream candidates and their cute little circus lasting longer than five minutes is sort of pointless.

(I'm not saying I won't vote, on the offchance that it might actually help something or other. I'm just saying that it probably won't.)

Jennifer - "Why would a woman want to suject themselves to all that BS."

Not to be flippant, but, um, because the prize is four to eight years of being the most powerful human being on the face of the planet. I'd run a marathon across hot coals for that kind of chance. There are millions of smart, dedicated, eloquent, potentially-transformational women in this country. Especially given that the Baby Boomer old guard will be retiring from politics within the next decade or so, I highly doubt that Sen. Clinton is the only woman who will have a real chance at the presidency in our lifetimes. People should make their decision based on who has the best chance to beat the Republicans and who has the potential to be the best President. By my analysis, that's Obama, but by the same token, if he loses, I doubt there'll never be another chance to have a black person in the White House. This is an important election, but let's not make it a winner-take-all competition between race and gender. That benefits no one.

Jennifer - "Why would a woman want to suject themselves to all that BS."

Not to be flippant, but, um, because the prize is four to eight years of being the most powerful human being on the face of the planet. I'd run a marathon across hot coals for that kind of chance. There are millions of smart, dedicated, eloquent, potentially-transformational women in this country. Especially given that the Baby Boomer old guard will be retiring from politics within the next decade or so, I highly doubt that Sen. Clinton is the only woman who will have a real chance at the presidency in our lifetimes. People should make their decision based on who has the best chance to beat the Republicans and who has the potential to be the best President. By my analysis, that's Obama, but by the same token, if he loses, I doubt there'll never be another chance to have a black man in the White House. This is an important election, but let's not make it a winner-take-all competition between race and gender. That benefits no one.

I'm voting for Obama on the 5th because I believe he can fundamentally change the political dialogue of this country.

Not to take a swipe at katiedivina, but this is just the kind of political rhetoric that does NOT impress me. Sweeping, grandiose claims of impressive vagueness. The 2008 update of "uniter not a divider". I'm just not buying it.

We couldn't even get the Republicans to extend a program insuring working class children, suddenly they're to sit down with Obama and agree to universal healthcare? I'm not buying it.

He's done an impressive job of rallying young people, college educated people, women, african americans and those fickle independents. But those groups already trended Democratic anyway, I'm not sure he's really expanding the coalition, except bringing back the independents who went for Clinton in '92 then for Bush in '00 (flip-floppers!). I'm worried they won't stick through the viscous, racist assaults the Republicans will launch, and if elected, through the trench warfare it is going to take to actually pass a healthcare bill.

I'm for Edwards. I like his clarity and forcefulness on issues of economic inequality and corporate greed. I think he offers the potential of adding white males and rural communities to the coalition, whom I think would be more reliable.

I am amazed how trusting people are. Every politician in the U.S. history talks about doing great things in their presidency. Of course! But, looking at what actually happens in the White House has no correlation with the promises. NONE. Voting on the basis of the issues spoken in the campaign makes little sense to me.

What makes sense to me is voting on the basis of the record of a lifetime work of each and every one of them. Obama and Edwards have very little to talk about as far as changing the world. On the other hand, Hillary has a strong record that she works HARD to support children and women. None of the other candidates, left or right, manifest that.

If I could vote, I'd vote for Hillary without a hesitation. The rhetoric is just a rhetoric; the deeds are the action we need.

I agree, Macfrugal.
No matter how much we Dems want to sing Kumbaya, the Republicans WILL NOT. Electing Obama is not going to magically turn Republicans into ethical progressives.
If Obama and his supporters really think that's going to happen, I'm worried.
We need a pit bull in the White House - someone who understands how the system works and is ready to fight for us within that system.

skilled-junkie: Amen.

I'm confused about all the people who say they trust Obama but they don't trust Hillary. Hillary has been in the public eye for decades. Every single one of her skeletons are out of her closet.

Meanwhile, Obama is still kind of the wildcard/new guy. Most people know almost nothing about him. The fact that he uses pretty words and just seems so goshdarn NICE is not enough to make me trust him.

Think about how quickly he has risen to prominence. You think you get that far that fast thanks to ponies and rainbows? I don't think so.

With Hillary, we know what we are getting. A flawed woman, yes, but we know who she is. She puts it all out there. And guess what? She IS a bitch- and I mean that in the best possible way. Obama just seems like the prom king.

@ SarahMC, Macfrugal, the point isn't that "the Republicans" are going to stop fighting if Obama is elected, the point is that Obama has the potential to bring independents and people who have not historically participated in politics to the table. If Hillary is elected (a big if in my mind), it will be with 50.1% of the vote. That kind of mandate won't get healthcare reform, education reform or anything else of substance passed, because centrist Congressional Democrats won't have the political leeway to support her in what will be a bruising fight. She's too polarizing and has too much baggage (fair and otherwise). This country isn't neatly divided between Republicans and Democrats, it's divided between Republicans, Democrats, and the rest of the country that's either cynical or doesn't give a shit. I understand why, for true partisans (like me) there's an instinct to be somewhat contemptuous of political independents, but those are the people who can tip the balance in a new direction if they're inspired enough to get involved. Almost everyone who's voting for Sen. Clinton now would vote for Obama in a general election. There are plenty of people who are voting for Obama now who would NEVER vote for Clinton (even as a committed Democrat, I'd pull the lever for her while holding my nose, and I'd probably need a drink when I got home). On the question of both electability and having a mandate to govern, Obama's the candidate.

"Hillary has been in the public eye for decades. Every single one of her skeletons are out of her closet."

Have you taken a look at the Clinton Library Donors? Or any of the papers that the Clintons have hidden from public view? This idea that all of the Clinton's "skeletons" are out in the public is as false as Senator Clinton's "35 years of experience" making change, which started apparently with which class she was going to attend at college.

Not to stereotype, and this should certainly not be taken to reflect on any of the people on Feministing, who seem to be very politically aware and informed but...

"...the point isn't that "the Republicans" are going to stop fighting if Obama is elected, the point is that Obama has the potential to bring independents and people who have not historically participated in politics to the table."

That's just it. For every person I've met who bashes Clinton for no reason other than "I just hate her", there's two people I meet, usually young people such as myself, who have NO IDEA why it is they even support Obama, nevermind what he stands for politically. They like how he looks [no lie], they like how he speaks [very well, I definitely agree], and they like that he is promoting "change" [which is a bunch of sound-byte rhetoric]. Hell, they even say they like his policy positions... even though they can't name any of them [he seems a bit skimpy on the actual policies themselves, to be fair].

This is anecdotal, yes, but when I see people who are usually politically apathetic vote for Obama, in my experience it's got very little to do with political reasons, and very much to do with this star-struck fan thing that Obama has got going.
Not to say that it's everyone, but I see it enough for it to make me squirm.

I will gladly vote for Obama in a general election, don't get me wrong, and I don't like Clinton either [also for political reasons], but I feel like peoples' stances right now are all over the place, and very little of it is based on what the election is supposed to be about. This goes for the vast majority of the candidates and their supporters [or the people who "loathe" them]

By the way, can anyone give me some solid references to instances where Clinton has proved herself deserving of this "fighter" image? I could see how she might come off that way in terms of public image, but to be honest, she's always seemed too vaguely moderate and a little too eager to compromise to me.

I think that some voters believe that they just want a virgin in the office. But even Obama is not Mr. Purity.

Another thing to consider is, what happens with a combined ticket? And who should be at the top of the ticket? What if it is a very close race? Given a very close equality of delegates, who should be at the top of the ticket? I think this is a big feminist issue.

Anyway - back in 2006 this was published by Harpers.

Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

"Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense)."

I can't for the life of me figure out why any progressive would want the Clintons back on office for a third term; other than an awesome economy (which I admit I benefited from) the eight years of the Bill & Hillary co-presidency resulted in decidedly anti-liberal policies. Rather than looking back at the past with rose-colored glasses maybe we need to remind ourselves of what was going on back then:

* Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - The federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses.

* Communications Decency Act - Criminalized "indecent, but not obscene" speech.

* Telecom Reform Act - Eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.

* Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act - Limited welfare funds to no more than 24 consecutive months and no more than 60 months over a lifetime.

* Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) - Had a tremendous impact on the law of Habeas Corpus in the United States by limiting the power of federal judges to grant relief

* Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - Allowed states and the Federal government to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages. Bill Clinton's pre-signing statement on DOMA, "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position."

* Waco Siege - A month-long fiasco that ended with the deaths of more than 80 men, women, and children. This was the deadliest government action taken against American citizens on U.S. soil since the Civil War.

* Extraordinary Rendition - Clinton authorized the kidnapping and transport of persons to foreign countries to be tortured. Refer to the ACLU Fact Sheet on Extraordinary Rendition at www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

* Regardless of how your feel about Bill "getting a little" on the side, the way he humiliated Monica and tossed her under the bus by calling her a liar wasn't gentlemanly particularly when you consider the fact that Monica adored and idolized Bill.

* Controversial pardons and commutations signed on final day in office.

* And more...

I agree with LlesbianLlama, I don't see Obama's support (especially among those fickle independents) as being issue driven, it's more "character/charisma/inspirational" based. So while I'm sure he could win by a bigger margin than Hillary (and likely Edwards), I don't see him having a mandate on the issues. He would likely have better downticket effects than Hillary, which would give him support to enact an agenda, I still question if these independents will stick with him through the dirty politics hellstorm the GOP will unleash. The Clinton's romp in the muck in SC cost them the state, but it reduced a lot of Obama's support among whites.

John Edwards is really the candidate who has run on ideas, for better or for worse (apparently for worse). Even the Economist noted that John Edwards is basically defining the issues and positions for all the Democratic candidates. If you want to send a mandate on progressive issues, John Edwards is the candidate.

I agree that you have to follow the money and see who sponsors the candidates. Hillary Clinton is the most candid, because she'd not pretending to work for peace in The Occupied Territoties, she'd not pretending that she will not invade Iran. To get far enough to be a serious contender for the Democratic Party you have to follow their rules. Obama voted for the Internal Terrorism Act. That will affect all of us, our right to protest, strike, anything we do against the system. In truth, I voted for Nader because he tells the truth and I don't think our votes are counted anyway; I may as well vote for who I believe in. So even if my personal vote goes to Cynthia McKinney, it still makes me crazy to see the amount of sexism in this (s)election. And that is why I am posting here!

I have never posted on this blog before and am surprised that I am being attacked.

Siempre Julia, Don't let the turkeys get you down. Some people feel the only way to make their sentiments known is through a message board attack.

Please don't let such behavior prevent you from posting. We definitely need more perspective from the older folks (though you didn't specify your generation). There's a tendency for a few people to insult others' character when a conflicting opinion is presented. If we all had the same opinion on exactly every subject, we'd lose the ability to attract a variety of people and educate.

I'm still blown away with all the "average joes on the street" interviews, and how they giggle when talking about how they or their male friends don't think a woman can "protect" the country from terrorism. Evidently this is still acceptable.

I keep hearing about these so-called groups of male, blue-collar Democrats secretly cozied up on their local bar stools, and how they "won't vote for a woman or black person, period." I've read on supposedly progressive messageboards
on how some people even know such voters personally, and they seem to throw their hands up in defeat.

It blows to have so much fixing to do within our own party when we have to focus on the Republicans (and specifically, how to make any candidate more appealing than McCain). The best way to make a difference is to find one of these people and tell them they are slowing down the herd of the Democratic Party...like Cliff Clavin's theory on the importance of alcohol in killing off the slowest and weakest brain cells to make the human brain a more efficient machine.

I get the exact same vibe from Obama supporters, LlesbianLlama.
Most don't appear to be politically savvy or sophisticated; they're just riding the Obama train 'cause it's fun and he's charismatic. But his entire platform is ephemeral. Change, change, change. Yeah, and how ya gonna do it? And why weren't you courageous enough to take a stand on all those issues on which you voted "present?"

One way of finding about Obama's views on various is by going to his website. I'll also provide a link about the candidates' stands on class and race:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/25/taking-on-class-and-race-the-candidates-on-poverty/

While there is some overlapping between the candidates there are some differences. From what I see his policies doesn't ephemeral to me.

MGJ: respectfully, the differences between Obama and Clinton are incredibly negligible. They disagree on the tiny, specific details of certain policies, but neither of them is really anything "new" or "different" in the world of politics.

Obviously one could find information on Obama from his website. I got my information about him from the website, as well as watching every single Democratic debate, listening to and reading the news obsessively every day, and listening to what he says at his rallies. I've done the same with all of the other candidates.

But.
That's ME. Someone who is politically obsessed, and who has always been interested in politics. I take the initiative to learn the nuances of each candidate's stance.
I do not see a lot of the same behavior from the majority of Obama supporters I know. It's anecdotal, definitely. But it's my experience, and I thought it was worth sharing. :)

If you weren't responding to me, I apologize. It was a little unclear.

I just wanted to say that I am an Obama supporter and I believe in his candidacy because of his stance on the issues. I think that I have researched and compared my stance on issues with the candidates and the one I agree with the most is Obama. I realize that those who have posted saying that the Obama supporters that they know are just hopping on the charisma wagon, they are referring to the limited sample of people that they personally know. I just want to point out that I, for one, am an Obama supporter who is supporting him based on the issues, and not just because I think he's cute or he gives a good speech.

I also work in Illinois, and I know that Obama voted present on the choice bills as a strategy that was advocated by all of the pro-choice groups in Illinois. The Republican controlled senate in Illinois would put up multiple controversial bills - not because they thought they would pass, but so that they could use those votes to make negative campaign mailers about the democrats who would vote No against "partial birth abortion". A present vote in Illinois = a No vote. Why did Obama vote present? To play the political game, and encourage other senate dems to vote present so that the republicans couldn't use those votes against them in elections.

It's funny how a democratic campaign is latching onto those same votes to make negative mailers during a campaign.

I guess, from what I know of Obama's record in Illinois, and his reputation here - it is encouraging that he will continue to make wise decisions as president - and I agree with the positions that he has articulated more so than Clinton or Edwards (although I give Edwards props for coming out with a comprehensive media/net policy before the other two) - and I don't believe in following a candidate just because of rhetoric. So just because a candidate is popular, and *some* people just hop on the bandwagon, some of us actually have made an informed decision to support.

I totally understand. As I said before, I don't doubt the readers of Feministing when they make political choices. Namely because we seem to be involved heavily in politics anyways. I was speaking more to the comments about how "previously uninterested" demographics support Obama, and how he's encouraging people to get involved in politics. I'm just pointing out that a lot of these "previously uninterested" people aren't the most educated voters, and may be voting on rhetoric rather than actual understanding of the issues.

Let me "me too!" LlesbianLlama one more time. I did not intend to say that Obama is a shallow candidate, or one could not examine the candidates seriously on the issues and choose Obama. My concern is the fickle "independents" and political novices that Obama has shown impressive talent at mobilizing, and whose Obama's success has relied on. I just don't know if they're in it for the long haul, and I don't know if their support will be interpreted as a mandate on the issues. It's a concern I would be delighted to be wrong about.

Maybe getting people who were previously disillusioned with (or even feeling disenfranchised by) U.S. politics to be more interested and involved is actually a good thing?

macfrugal:

Nice to see someone in agreement!

the_becca:

Don't get me wrong, I think all of us should do everything we can to get more people interested and involved in politics! What we're saying is that not all of these newly-interested people seem to be interested in actually examining the candidates in question.

As for people who were previously disillusioned or feeling disenfranchised... why in the world they'd want to support Clinton OR Obama is kind of beyond me. IMO it really is more of the "same old same old" we've been seeing for year. That is, the same of of the Democratic party, not the craziness we see on the other side, and I will be happy to support it when my options are limited. ;)

I'd be delighted to see lots of people come out to vote for the party I support, especially if they weren't usually going to get involved. I'd be even more delighted if these people had substantive reasons to support the candidates they do.

I also work in Illinois, and I know that Obama voted present on the choice bills as a strategy that was advocated by all of the pro-choice groups in Illinois....

I know that, which is why I said "even if it's PP-approved, doesn't mean I have to like it."

And I don't like it.

Also, not all pro-choice groups supported the decision.

But other than that one (slimy) position and some media mistakes (openly homophobic preacher!) I do like him. But that doesn't mean I have to like everything he's done as a politician.

Liza - Sad, but true, about Georgia. I grew up there. :-(

And I can just about guarantee you that most of the whites, especially in the southern part of the state, will vote republican in the generals, and prolly for the most fundamentalist breed of christian in the primaries. Good news is that the whites are outnumbered in most of the state, especially in the southern portions, where I grew up.

llesbianllama - You'll play hell getting seasoned voters to examine the candidates, let alone newbies.

Why did Obama vote present? To play the political game, and encourage other senate dems to vote present so that the republicans couldn't use those votes against them in elections.

I don't think the ability to play the game is a negative quality of a candidate (and one of the reasons I'm voting for Clinton). In fact, I think Obama gets it more than Edwards. Both Obama and Edwards are very inspiring, but in order to begin undoing the damage of the last 8 years I think you need someone who is already familiar with the White House floorplan.

I'm an Obama supporter, so of course I'm feeling bummed out to see so many fellow feminists be so uninspired by him. The top three democratic candidates this year are all amazing people and exceptional leaders. So why did I choose to support Obama? Contrary to what some other people have posted, I believe there are really important differences between Obama and Hillary (that have nothing to do with race/gender). Both are running on a platform of change, both have very similar policies, but where they differ is that Obama (unlike Bush) does have the potential to unite the bitterly divided social and political factions in the US. Why? Because for many reasons (most of which she unfortunately does not deserve) Republicans and social conservatives HATE Hilary Clinton. And while she tries to project an ability to work with both sides of the isle, the reality is that the right just won't work with her. In fact, there's a real chance she could unite the right against her in November, especially if McCain is her opponent. On the other hand, Obama's strength is that he is a fresh face with few enemies and he projects his willingness to work with both sides of the isle very well. He is well perceived by the democratic base, independents, and even a surprising number of republicans. People have expressed a lot of cynicism over whether or not Barack's message of change is real, they see it as empty rhetoric, which is understandable considering the state of US politics. But after following Obama through the debates, hearing his speeches, and seeing the overwhelming enthusiasm his supporters have for him, there is something genuinely inspiring about him. He has this aura about him that Clinton does not, and I don't think that aura is the sole creation of the media, either. I can't help thinking that he will change things for the better here. All I can say is please check him out, watch his speeches and debates on youtube, browse his website. I'm actually excited about a candidate for the first time in my whole life, and I just wanted to share why. Thanks.