Saturday, January 5

:: The Double Standard Rides Again

Watch and wait... Hillary will get blamed for going negative, when Obama's people have been haranguing her non-stop. Somehow calling her 'the status quo', 'bush lite' and 'part of the problem' is fine... but calling Barack on it is wrong. Big cheers from the crowd for the guys putting the uppity lady in her place.

Nevertheless, Barack was put off his game immediately. John rose to the fight - he's good at this. For the first time I have an opinion about whether Barack or John would be the stronger candidate. Its John.

Oops. Gotta go. Buffy insists I eat something. More later.

1 comment:

ladybec said...

I have to admit first off that I didn't watch the debate yet because I was out last night, and I have it on my DVR to watch today perhaps. I did, however, watch "the moment" and didn't get what all the fuss was about - I thought Hillary was quite passionate in her defense of what she's been doing for the last 35 years to actually create change and didn't at all see her losing her temper or whatever craziness people are saying.

However, I am sitting here eating breakfast and reading the ABC coverage and am literally starting to feel sick about how they covered the debates, especially in contrast to the comments people are writing in. I think there is such a double standard, and people aren't used to hearing from a woman at this level. When she's assertive and defends herself, people says she loses her temper and is flustered, and we don't say that about men when they do that. I think Hillary is totally right to be frustrated that she is forced to defend herself time and time again while Obama gets to speak in these broad generalities about being the agent of change when no one has any idea what that means about how we would govern. And the media lets him do it all the time without serious scrutiny.

I remember over Thanksgiving a couple of older white women told me that they were convinced that in this country a black man would win the nomination and even the presidency before any woman, and I wonder if it's true. I think the way gender is playing out in the reactions to Hillary is so interesting. Of course, as Ciccina points out, we have yet to see the full effects of how race will play out since we're in the Democratic primary, but isn't it sad that in the Democratic primary we've already seen how being female is an impediment in a way that being black isn't?

I hate to say it, but I have a horrible feeling about NH because anyone can show up at the polls with same-day registration so it's hard to figure out the turnout piece exactly. In 2004, the Dean campaign got all their people to the polls but couldn't counter the effects of the people who just showed up and voted for Kerry. And sadly, as much as I will defend NH voters as being so thoughtful about the process, there is still a big element of wanting to vote for the winner. I know of at least one person in 2004 who had a Dean sign on her lawn who ended up voting for Kerry after he won Iowa because of that dynamic, and I doubt she was the only one. With this horrible media coverage, it sets up an impossible dynamic for Clinton - once again she's damned no matter what she does.

Anyway, good luck, Buffy and Ciccina - keep fighting the good fight! I wish I could be there with you, but stupid work is getting in the way.