Recommended. I await a response.

Are you trying to make Clinton supporters look foolish? That's like shooting fish in a barrel. Very unsportsmanlike.

I've never heard Obama or his campaign blame race for anything, nor have I ever heard them say anything I'd consider sexist, etc.

That doesn't mean Clinton's concerns about sexism and misogyny are unfounded, just that the garbage isn't coming from her opponent.

I certainly don't think sexism is the only reason, or even the main reason, she's lost this race. I just don't understand how one can look at the venom and vitriol that was directed at her and not see the role gender played in it.

Interesting read if anyone cares: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/17/black_man_vs_white_woman/

Again, doesn't explain all of what went on during this campaign, but it does I think shed light on some of the ways race and gender have played out in it.

I lamented to a friend today the stark reality of the discourse surrounding the democratic race. I am an Obama supporter and I have to agree with griffin on this.

First off, you won't see Obama disparaging Clinton based on her gender either explicitly or implicitly. I could be wrong but if there is an example, it has either been loosely interpreted and buried deep in some gaggle with reporters. But there is a second fiddle that plays an equally important song... the Media.

It is currently acceptable to make bone-headed statements relating to gender (cackle, nutcracker, b***h, witch, pants suit).

It is currently unacceptable to make bone-headed statements regarding race (or at least, it has to be veiled in an "analysis" of the demographic and the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate).

Clinton has had a tough break in the media. Obama has had a tough break at the polls (WV, KY). I'm sure that many Obama supporters have had their negatives of Clinton heightened by the testosterone dominated media coverage of this campaign.

Clinton, to her credit, has also used gender to her advantage

I should get more points for how long it takes me to get ready

Guys, part of the reason for the disparity is that Obama is winning. He's got more to lose than to gain at this point by complaining.

Hillary no longer expects to win, so she's making a point.

Let's not over-interpret it.

Hillary Clinton never claimed that sexism is the cause of her failures. Indeed, Hillary doesn't believe that she's failed yet, and if she does she's not admitting it. She did recently respond to questions about sexism in the campaign, and I take it you think it was somehow inappropriate for her to express herself in response. Is that the point that you're trying to make here?

The truth about sexism is that it exists - I've personally experienced it BUT the majority of the people I've dealt with aren't sexist. The same may be true about racism.

It's time to put this shameless spin and the leverage of unsavory bigotry to score politicxal points to rest.

Here's what I think:

1. Race has been an issue in this campaign.

2. Gender has been an issue in this campaign.

3. Both candidates have experienced good and bad on account of their race and/or gender.

4. Race and gender issues are inextricably intertwined on so many levels but it doesn't make you a ninny brain or worse if your particular focus happens to be on race or gender, or both. The key is to try to be sensitive to where other folks with all different types of life experiences are coming from.

5. There's a lot of weird stuff going around these days. But at this moment in history each of us can choose to exploit our opportunities to influence others in many different ways. That is the challenge.

Gender, race, and other prejudices have worked for and against both Obama and Clinton. In the end, it's a wash. The people who tip the balance are the ones judging the candidates as potential presidents.

Hillary got low scores for her pro-war vote and for co-sponsoring anti-flag-burning legislation, among other missteps, and high scores for name recognition, nostalgia for the Clinton years, and the press's initial "inevitability" reports. She failed only because there was a better choice, a candidate who brought refreshing change to the political stage, who didn't sound like or pander like everyone else.

It's going to take enormous effort, enormous sacrifice, and enormous luck to turn around this country's fortunes after 8 years of Bush/Cheney. What I see in Hillary Clinton's latest gambits are attempts to undermine Obama's candidacy so that her supporters refuse to back the Democratic candidate and McCain wins. She's using her last few weeks in the spotlight to utterly undermine Obama.

If she succeeds, it's 4 more years of Bush/Cheney economic and foreign policy doom.

Canada, anyone? I hear Costa Rica is a pretty nice spot for American ex-pats, too.

"That evening, the Democratic campaign became truly tangled up in racial politics--directly and forcefully introduced by the pro-Obama forces. In order to explain away the shocking loss, Obama backers vigorously spread the claim that the so-called Bradley Effect had kicked in. First used to account for the surprising defeat of Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley in the California gubernatorial race in 1982, the Bradley Effect supposedly takes hold when white voters tell opinion pollsters that they plan to vote for a black candidate but instead, driven by racial fears, pull the lever for a white candidate. Senior Clinton campaign officials later told me that reporters contacted them saying that the Obama camp was pushing them very hard to spin Clinton's victory as the latest Bradley Effect result. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a cheerleading advocate for Obama, went on television to suggest the Bradley Effect explained the New Hampshire outcome, then backed off--only then to write a column, "Echoes of Tom Bradley," in which he claimed he could not be sure but that, nevertheless, "embarrassed pollsters and pundits had better be vigilant for signs that the Bradley effect, unseen in recent years, has crept back."

In fact, the Bradley Effect claims were utterly bogus, as anyone with an elementary command of voting results could tell. If the "effect" has actually occurred, Obama's final voting figures would have been substantially lower than his figures in the pre-election polls, as racially motivated voters turned away. Later, Bill Schneider, the respected analyst on CNN, several times went through the data on air to demonstrate conclusively that there was no such Bradley Effect in New Hampshire. But even on primary night, it was clear that Obama's total--36.4%--was virtually identical to what the polls over the previous three weeks had predicted he would receive. Clinton won because late-deciding voters--and especially college-educated women in their twenties--broke for her by a huge majority. Yet the echoes of charges about the Bradley Effect--which blamed Obama's loss on white racism and mendacity--lingered among Obama's supporters.

The very next morning, Obama's national co-chair, Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., a congressional supporter from Chicago, played the race card more directly by appearing on MSNBC to claim in a well-prepared statement that Clinton's emotional moment on the campaign trail was actually a measure of her deeply ingrained racism and callousness about the suffering poor. "But those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said, "they have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest ... we saw tears in response to her appearance, so that her appearance brought her to tears, but not Hurricane Katrina, not other issues." And so the Obama campaign headed south with race and racism very much on its mind--and on its lips."

tnr.com

"So here's the first part of my challenge to those who believe Sen. Clinton's primary misfortune is due to unfair treatment by the media or the American public: can you find a single instance of Sen. Obama or a legitimate surrogate blaming racism for an electoral defeat or some political failure?"

Fair question, and here's your answer...

"Obama Warns SC Voters of 'Hoodwinking'
January 23, 2008 8:06 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., warned a Sumter, South Carolina crowd against the "hoodwinking," "bamboozling" and "okey doke" by people in other campaigns.

"Don't be confused when you start hearing a whole bunch of this negative stuff. Those are the same old tricks. They're trying to bamboozle you. It's the same old okey doke……Don't let people turn you around because they're just making stuff up! That's what they do. They try to bamboozle you…. to hoodwink you!""

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-warns-sc.html