I am so sick of these insulting posts. Every single time Obama lost a primary his supporters claimed it was racism. So Clinton supporters claim it was sexism, so what? If Clinton had won and Obama had lost, the supporters of Obama would be screaming their heads off that it was racism and not because Clinton was a better candidate.

I remember the same sentiments being expressed when it looked like Clinton was winning - Obama supporters claimed that they wouldn't vote for her even if it meant throwing their vote away. Douglas Wilder said that if Clinton won because she had more super delegates than Obama, "there would be rioting in the streets."

If god forbid McCain does win this election, democrats will be screaming their heads off that it was because of racism and not because McCain was a better candidate. People will always rationalize disappointment, that's the nature of human beings.

Scientific, thank you for a very thoughtful post.

You said: "Let's leave aside the likelihood that a number of these (mostly White) ladies are simply unwilling to vote for an African-American candidate."

Unfortunately, I don't think we can leave this aside. I think it really is the crux of the matter. I think the hardcore "I'll vote for McCain before I vote for Obama" white ladies are people who due to various fears, biases and internalized prejudices simply will not vote for a black candidate.

I'm white myself, 50 years old, and this is something I recognize especially in people of my own generation. We grew up with a lot of racist crap simply "in the air" surrounding us, and even those of us who always considered ourselves liberal/progressive absorbed some of in childhood. Some of us are lucky enough or have worked hard enought to recognize racism in ourselves and dismiss it when it rears its ugly head. Some people breathed it in and and never questioned it or haven't recognized it in themselves.

Anyway, a lot of those white ladies in question are squarely in my generation, and I believe the race of the candidate is a strong determining factor for them, whether or not they will admit it (even to themselves).

I was over at Counterpunch reading a piece called "Your Whiteness is showing by Tim Wise. He shut my mouth wide open.

You know what, in regards to Clinton and this perceived sexism, Booman said it best a month ago:

My overall view is that Hillary Clinton succeeded in convincing the American people that she was the presumptive frontrunner, which means that people were able to picture a woman president without much resistance. That frontrunner status was so ingrained that I think it actually hurt her campaign, as people rejected a coronation. Meanwhile, the black community displayed a lot of resistance to the idea of a black president. This was evidenced by the slowness with which they rallied around Obama. Prior to his victory in the overwhelmingly white state of Iowa, the polls showed Clinton running even or ahead among blacks in South Carolina. In other words, Obama had a harder time getting people to accept the idea of a black president than Clinton had getting people to accept the idea of a female president.

Scientific,

When was the last time you spoke with Obama or Clinton or Axelrod? My point being that it is not the candidates, personally, who we come to know or who frame their own picture but the media. Even a cursory look at the coverage of the primary reveals an appalling sexism and a barely concealed hatred of Clinton (and no, it was not warranted), as opposed to, for the most part, a forgiving portrait, with kid gloves on race, of Obama. The media behaved atrociously towards HRC and, consequently, women in general, and there is simply no comparison between the coverage of these “first” candidates. If Clinton was more accepted as a candidate initially, it is because she has been working on her run for a long time (in fact, Colin Powell may have had a good shot in 2000 because of his advance favorables).

You say Obama was not allowed to bring up race, but his campaign played race-politics very well, thank you. Not only did they assist in painting the Clintons as race-baiting, they augmented that appeal to black community through their Southern church/barber/beauty-shop tour with Oprah touting him as the One. And to say he couldn’t talk about race, when he made the country talk about it in order to distract from his political problem by giving the Speech that was to inaugurate a national conversation on race is a bit insincere. And, jeez, what happened to that urgent national conversation on race?

OTOH, Clinton pretty much avoided the feminism card but it was, as you point out, played by Steinem and others. And when Ferraro tried to make the case that race trumps feminism in the media, she was accused of being racist. Obama was never sexist himself ("likeable enough" was just a joke) and I don't think most of these disgruntled Clinton supporters think that. But he was silent as the first viable female candidate was trashed. And he benefitted from it. He should have railed against it. I don't think that sexism was the sole reason that Clinton lost though I do believe her portrayal in the media created an opening that Obama used. There are always many factors that a race can turn on or that could have played differently.

I agree with you that voting for McCain is wrong for any reason. But, belittling the grievance of core Democrats (“old white women” or not) who know what they’ve seen in this campaign, is not helpful. Most of these people (there are a lot of men in there, too) may feel even more insulted by the Obama supporters who have spread their fanatical Hillary hate all over the place for months now. Many are offended by the starry-eyed “we-are-the-ones” searching for that hopeful, post partisan, post racial, unity and love who have basically run around the blogs and online papers calling Clinton a bitch, and worse, and calling her supporters, trolls, and worse, and whom they see as representative of Obama. Of course, that cuts both ways, but when the political press reinforces one side, it becomes, well, one-sided.

@ BevD,

please, I urge you to read Scientific's post again. I understand you are hurt and feeling like something was taken from you. Please, search within yourself and read Scientific's post. It is quite balanced. Here's the quote (along with the closing statement) that you should leave with:

I can appreciate the historic nature of Clinton's candidacy, to be certain. But I didn't see a flock of Black folks headed to vote for Reagan or George H.W. when Jesse lost.

Black folks did not abandon the Democratic Party. They/we understood the reasons, cultural, social and political. Why will you do less?

"Meanwhile, race remained a taboo topic for Obama to even discuss in interviews." - huh? Him trotting out his grannie on the banks of Lake Victoria all during the early days of the campaign, giving him the multicultural vision to change the world? His father, the one he wrote the book about, embodying Selma and the Civil Rights struggle? Oprah & Jesse in South Carolina, invoking "The One" from Miss Jane Pitman? The Muhammed Ali poster over his head and his constant comparing himself to Martin Luther King?

Reading comments on hillaryis44, camille424 and others, they make it pretty clear why, to them:

1. They proclaim themselves the "real" democrats
2. All others (those who even mention doing anything explicitly or implicitly to support Obama, who on some sites they won't even allow to be named directly) are apostates who must be punished to prove the error of their ways
3. The election was rigged, stolen, a crime of massive proportions
4. By electing Republicans, the "criminal" DNC will recognize how right this small group of people were and be transformed (into an all-Hillary party, some want)
5. They have convinced themselves that Obama is the absolute worst human being on the planet, a horrible misogynist who using Republican tactics to the fullest to smear Hillary with the worst lies and insults while appearing to remain above the fray
6. They have also convinced themselves that, even though McCain has stances on issues in opposition to them, somehow that's better than what they call "an empty suit" of inexperience
7. They supported Hillary not because of issues but because of identity and personalization, she became them in effect.

For what it's worth. That actual data I was talking about shows that the Hillerista diehard faction is a fringe, not a movement.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107806/Obama-Gains-Among-Women-After-Clinton-Exit.aspx

It's hard not to talk about them and visit their blogs' comment sections. Thousands of people in this country earn a living from our inability to tear our eyes away from a good public meltdown, and heaven knows I'm as bad as anyone. But let's not not overstate their importance as a political force. It is bad for us and bad for them.

"I'm white myself, 50 years old, and this is something I recognize especially in people of my own generation. We grew up with a lot of racist crap simply "in the air" surrounding us, and even those of us who always considered ourselves liberal/progressive absorbed some of in childhood. Some of us are lucky enough or have worked hard enought to recognize racism in ourselves and dismiss it when it rears its ugly head. Some people breathed it in and and never questioned it or haven't recognized it in themselves."

That is true. But let's pin it down a bit more specifically:

Every culture is racist. And everyone in every culture is inculcated with racism before they know it is a negative. As obvious result, it is a given that everyone is racist.

So the question isn't, "Am I racist?" but rather "What do I do about my racism?"

Can a "feminist" who is opposed to discrimination against women AFFORD to be a bigot in any way against equality for everyone else? "Be the change you would see in the world." -- Gandhi. Start with oneself instead of avoiding the issue by pointing one's finger away from oneself and letting fly the accusations.

Not-so-by-the-way: thanks for the sane post, "Scientific".