Did Identity Politics Carry the Day for Hillary in New Hampshire?

Would you have used a first name to entitle this article if referring to John or Barak?
Has it gotten so bad that we don't even see how sexist we are.
Secondly most often when referring to Clinton's position you editorialize, while giving the others a free run,did you notice that either?
The shame of being sexist does not seem to follow men into the male locke room where they would not dare reveal their racist tendencies.
Who are the "us" you refer to? Some sort of male club?
If John or Barak refused to do a confrontation would you say they did not have the balls?
Give me a break. If a racist remark was held up in front of Barak you would scream
to high heaven as you would also if an anti jewish sign was held up in front of Joe. But sexism like "iron my shirt"is only the "lads" being irresponsible.Not worthy of outrage.Shame on you
Give me another break.
Sincerely Andy O'Donnell
Sacramento.

Voting for someone because of sympathy for "her plight" or whatever other emotionally pathetic reason someone uses to justify his/her vote is as stupid as voting for the guy you want to have a beer with.
I didn't think Hillary's "meltdown" was a big deal at all. Hillary would get more sympathy from thinking Americans if she and her husband weren't sellouts to big business and the military industrial complex. Women don't have a hard time in this country like Black men do. That is an undeniable fact. Face it ladies.

This article sounds oh so very nice and oh so concerning towards our Country... Your not really fooling us. All I can say is bais, bais, bais, manipulation, manipulation manipulation...please give us a break...You are shaking in your boots to the thought of a woman in the White House... You would prefer someone that talks of hope, someone that talks about change but never tells us how, where and when. You talk about experience and you have sugar coated the idea of Obama's experience and therefore lets just let the fools believe what you are trying to tells us (BS).. The truth and bottom line is Mrs. Clinton does have more experience than Barrack H. Obama and therefore my vote will go for the person that has made change and has the experience to continue making change and the experience to bring our hopes to a reality: Hillary R. Clinton
Stop trying to be the nice guy...many are not believing your biasness towards Obama and it is not going to work! or??? Ok for the fools it may work..not for women & men that are aware of the way this race is going. Media,journalists have turned it into something that was not and then there is you..The nice guys, the fair guy..Please give us a break!!! Believe me..Women are tired of doing the same Jobs as Men and getting less of salary than men. when we can do the josb just a great as men. Please its time journalist stop pileing on!! give the woman a break!! It's shamefull the bias format that we all have to watch and stand still because if we speak out we are considered feminist..What about Obama saying at the debate. "Hillary you are likable enough" while she was trying to be gracious.ENOUGH?? would he say this to Edwards, Richardson or any man??? a little bit of an abusive attitude there, just a little but because the man knows how to hold himself, but slip ups are fothcoming... Lets face it you and everyone knows he would not talk to another man this way. What about Edwards, he would not talk about a man or refer about another Man Candidate the way he did towards Mrs. Clinton... If all these insecure men think we can be walked on...think again. I am sure all women and men (Yes Men, there are millions that know who they are and that its Ok for a woman to be our next president, Its just the little men that having a women in the White House make them feel smaller than they are)realize this and unite and give their vote to the best candidate! Hillary Clinton!

"What instead?"

"Stopping the bloodshed in Iraq."

"And just how are we gonna do that?"

"By choosing a candidate who, upon being elected, makes good on her (or his) campaign promise to end the Iraq war."

"What about candidates who are with us on other vital issues, such as health care for all, employment, pensions, equality and cooling down the earth?"

"Unattainable on a dying planet?"

"Meaning?"

"We either end the Iraq war or it'll be the end of us."

The guys holding-up the "Iron my Shirt" placards were paid by idiot, male radio shock jocks from Boston to do it. The lady that asked Hillary the question that brought tears to Hillary's eyes was interviewed about it. She said Hillary then went immediately to strict campaign mode. She was so surprised at how Hillary simply turned it off and on that she voted for Obama. All politicians, and we non-politicians, manipulate some. Hillary will do what ever is needed to win. I will say Obama hasn't complained that whites are ganging-up on him to deny his nomination.

I'm sick of hearing the ridiculous labeling of Hillary Clinton as Status Quo. It's laughable and then actually sad when you realize people are that shallow in their thinking to buy that erroneous notion. Go back to their roots. Go find the pictures of the Clintons in the 60's, Bill with beard and long hair, his arm around Hillary in big horn-rimmed glasses and long frizzy hair, both smiling, and see a vibrant smart couple energized by the 60's movement emerging within the spectacular zeitgeist of their generation. These were the original movers and shakers of the American Revolution of Human Rights, and the evolution of Human Consciousness. The Clintons have within them the zeitgeist of the astonishing generation that created the Civil Rights movement and made the many changes fostering the betterment of Humanity. They were part of the glorious movement of his nation that forced the Status Quo to become far more Humane and Just. To say Hillary is Status Quo, when she’s fought against it and made inch by inch inroads and changes in it to make parts of the Status Quo humane and just, is utter nonsense. She and Bill are an astonishing couple that this nation should be extremely proud of creating. The fact that they have such fierce hate-slingers being paid huge dollars to keep the lies churning to make the public “Hate Clintons” is a testament to the fact that Hillary Clinton is anything but the Status Quo. She’s a 60’s revolutionary political scientist lawyer who has for her entire life been working for the changes in the system. It can’t be done, kiddos, without working with the Corporatists who hold the purse strings. You want change? You want someone for your president who has been fiercely fighting the Status Quo for decades? Be proud. Madame President will serve us best. The creepy little cowards in this country who feel far more comfortable cowering to Authoritarians, have sold this country out to the Neocons. They are the same little creepy cowardly Americans who choose to hate Hillary Clinton because she threatens their little sexist, J-freak, progress-fearing shuddering world view that is too big and expansive and inclusive for their little Status Quo control-freak bigoted non-evolved un-educated minds. These idjits America has produced are the ones willing to absolutely turn the remnants of our Republic over to fascism and theocratic imbecility, and they are not only going to completely destroy America, they will choose war-mongering anti-evolution psychos to be our next President, AGAIN, and the reason they are sooooo dumb and so horribly destructive? Because Ronald Reagan began in the early 70’s to destroy the once-very fine educational system of America, and the monstrous Republicans have ever since dismantled education in America to put more money in the rich man’s pocket, leaving our once great nation a pile of violent floundering imbeciles. You think, when you actually examine the roots, education, bios, voting records, speeches and platforms of the Clintons, that they are the Status Quo? Could either of them choose to follow in the footsteps of Ronnie the Clown? Not these 60’s generation movers and shakers who participated in the movement that created all the policies that made the world begin to admire the Americans. Wake up, people! Make Hillary our next President, kick the psychocon RePubnaTards out of Congress, vote every nutwad reichwing pig out of any local, county and state office, so we can get some real changes done that will bring America back to her feet and to her Glory. AFEM!!

Regarding Mark Karlin's article about Hilary's victory in New Hampshire, identity may have played a significant role in the final outcome. I could not help but notice the emotion she displayed when she stated that we have come so far and "did not want to see us fall backwards". Hillary is a smart woman and never appeared to daunted by anything, but was she showing her soft side to rally the female vote as well as any undecided independent voters? And the question posed by Charles Gibbons during the final debate about her "likeability" compared to Obama may have left her appearing more like a victim to the public.
I am not a supporter of Hillary mainly because I do not know what agenda she really supports other than furthering her own ambitions. She will often take whatever position is popular at the moment when it comes to accomplishing a certain objective, like running for office be it the Senate or the presidency establishing a record of a play-it-safe centrist. For a long time she strongly supported the war in Iraq and even possibly war with Iran until public sentiment turned against it. She touts experience as her strongpoint, but can she be trusted with making important decisions given her tendency to bend with the wind? Identity may be the main factor in helping her to win primaries.

It is not surprising that the MSM 'solved' and oversimplified Senator Clinton's unforeseen New Hampshire primary win with an absurd thesis: that a 2-minute video clip of a teary-eyed Clinton last week somehow so viscerally endeared her to most female voters that they - immediately and en masse - changed their voting preference from Obama to 'Hillary'.

There are many flaws in the 'mostly women voted for her, because of the tears' hypothesis. The message behind the words is the ridiculous but ancient folk logic that ever reemerges to explain why women can never be effective managers. And that is: "Women are emotional."

Let's follow this archaic train of thought, seldom uttered anymore but obviously still lingering in the minds of some people: "Women are emotional because they are physically cyclical." "Because women are subject to hormonal changes, the performance of female managers is necessarily inconsistent." "A woman's intellectual potential will always be undermined by her emotional vulnerability."

These crazy old ideas about the supposed self-limiting nature of women have long ago been debunked (one would think) by generations of thoughtful, productive and efficient women who have attained high status in our world society, serving and leading in both business and government.

The proposed 'reason' Clinton won is unsupported by viable evidence or context, and is untenable on two levels. First, the press set-up is that Senator Clinton, unable to achieve future gains in the Presidential Race based on her merits or recent history, finally surrendered into a feminine display of emotion to make her last, sad appeal to the voters of New Hampshire.

Secondly, apparently men and woman ARE from different planets, because Senator Clinton's acute sadness signal was sent out in a wavelength that only women were able to receive and respond to. This strategy obviously worked in a TITANIC way! Seemingly like robots, the New Hampshire women set out in droves to the polls where, irregardless of their party affiliation or previously-stated candidate preference, they emotionally (of course!) voted for poor 'Sister Hillary'!

Once again our corporate masters from the far right would have us cleave American voters into 'us' and 'them', this time based upon gender. Some orator on cable TV this morning went even farther, suggesting that some of the women who voted for Hillary were probably themselves involved in unhappy marriages! Wronged women seeking revenge? Yet another U.S. division revealed! 'Red vs. blue' was getting tiresome anyway...

Hillary Clinton now joins the ranks of other recent illustrious Democratic candidates branded with a denigrating label. Marshall McCluhan once proclaimed the media to be the message; it later evolved to be the massage, gently nudging our opinions in another direction. Today in the realm of U.S. politics the media serves more like a macerator, ripping us away from our long-held beliefs and scrambling our brains with skewed information. Our media voices urge us collectively onward, toward alignment with the pre-selected (almost mandatory) group-think position chosen for us good citizens by people who obviously already took the time to research the subject.

Personal analysis relative to elections is discouraged, and with one unanimous voice the TV elite intelligence source now informs viewers which candidate is 'right for our country'. As sure as George W. Bush is always called 'resolute', Democrat candidates are labeled (with generally defamatory lexicon). Al Gore, an intelligent, questioning and serious legislator was usually described as wonkish and/or stiff. John Edwards was "the Breck Girl". John Kerry, the sober and thoughtful longtime Massachusetts senator and war hero morphed into a poser, a traitor and a waffler.

So far, Hillary Clinton is called 'Hillary', perhaps to downplay her lofty (some say presumptive) aspirations. Why is that? Senator Hillary Clinton is referred to by the media as (the familiar) Hillary or (the pedestrian) Mrs. Clinton, when Senator Barack Obama's handle is either Obama or Senator Obama? Do some people(even on a professional level) need to refer to women only as either a familiar woman or as someone's wife? Would you call a female doctor "Mrs. _____" or, even worse, by her first name? It's just another sign of disrespect.

As a literate woman and - surprise! - a liberal Democrat I am shocked that this nonsensical "only women voted for the woman" theory has seemingly been accepted wholesale by the U.S. media in this year 2008, and is being repeated throughout not only the usual suspect news organizations. Some of my favorite, rational and (I thought) agenda-free, 'progressive' thinkers are parroting this nonsensical notion, as well.

So let me ask you: what happened to the idea of complexity in the American mindset? Where did our individual, creative and open-minded spirit go? Does anyone remember the days when feminazis were feminists, and that 'Women's Lib' was considered a positive social change for women? And there was a new title, 'Ms.', to indicate that a married woman was even still an individual? No, huh?

As for Senator Clinton's tears, I think you are all missing the mark, AND being unncessarily cruel. Instead of sound-byting the incident in question to indicate a mystical for-women-only emotional experience, you should consider that emotion is a human tendency. All (most?) Americans are human. Most people still have enough general empathy to wince when they see someone else getting hurt. We can all recognize and react to human expressions of pain or distress.

At the same time, a person who appears efficient, emotionally strong and invulnerable to stress can be intimidating and somehow off-putting to others. I recall that many Americans (surprisingly, even some of my friends) were irritated when Mrs. Clinton did not leave her husband after his very public infidelity. At the time there was of course a void of real information about the overall state of the Clintons' relationship, and especially of the emotional status of the wronged wife. Why wouldn't she leave him? One of my girlfriends guessed that Hillary Clinton must be a gold-digger, staying in the marriage for the money. In lieu of the facts, why not create some? And if so, the more salacious the better...

In my view, the tears and cracking voice of Senator Clinton last week were not the actions of a weak or desperate woman. That video moment was instead an assertion, an insight into the very humanity of the individual that we as a nation of people had not been allowed to see before. And somehow we individuals tend to feel some comfort when we first see the crack in the Bell, the humanness in an iconic figure who was previously perfectly unreachable and therefore unfathomable to us.

Our lives are individually diverse, but the human chord is the slender ribbon that joins us all. I do believe there was a metamorphosis in the public's reaction to Senator Hillary Clinton last week, but it was about humanity, not just women. At last we had a glimpse behind the public face and we recognized ourselves in a kindred spirit, one who knows not only the joys and successes of great personal achievements but also shares the imperfections and moments of self-doubt that we all know. Americans seek a leader with great intellect and good judgment but also evident humanity, who exercises head AND heart and can share our goals of fidelity, honesty, freedom, and sustainable peace within a sustainable world.

That's all.

I'm a long-time reader and advocate of Buzzflash, and will continue to be, but your editorial abounds with ironies. You're obviously upset that Obama didn't win New Hampshire. I'm sorry about that.

I saw that video of Hillary. I have also noted how the mainstream press has treated her, and how the liberal sites have presented her, and I found the video to be quite a convincing indication that she is not nearly the cold, calculating, ambitious agent of the corporate status quo that she is made out to be. It affected me, and I'm not a woman. The story here is not people voting for a woman because she's a woman - it's about people learning a little bit about who she really is - something they will never learn from the conservative media, the mainstream media, or, for the most part, the liberal media. To suggest that women are voting for her because she's a woman is insulting to those women.

Sure, Hillary's health plan didn't work out. Fifteen years ago, she tried to create a compromise plan that would be palatable to both sides of the aisle. It failed, largely because her own party didn't fully support her. Sound familiar? In any case, it could just as easily be argued that this experience gives her an advantage next time around.

You note that Obama served in the Illinois state legislature, whereas Hillary has no such experience. However, Hillary has two more years experience in the Senate and lived in the White House for eight years! I'm no great fan of Hillary, and you are free to believe that his experience is better than hers, but your argument is, frankly, weak.

I also take exception to your argument that Obama trancends identity politics. He does have an identity - the young, Kennedyesque, progressive agent of change (and racial healing). Here's another one - the guy that doesn't make progressives feel bad about not voting for the woman. How about this one - the one that helps us keep our irrational dislike of Hillary Clinton alive.

Oh sure, you have plenty of concrete reasons not to support Hillary (Lieberman-Kyl, for instance), reasons which are valid and which I agree with. But I still sense irrationality. Your arguments are irrational. And you seem to know it.

I'm a progressive - I hate centrism. I'm an Edwards supporter. I'm actually a Russ Feingold supporter - I'm disappointed he didn't enter the race. But here's the thing that steams me up about your editorial, and other editorials like it emerging from the liberal blogosphere: I've been following Obama, reading his quotes, and taking note of his positions and votes since he was elected to the Senate. And I don't see a significant ideological contrast between him and Hillary Clinton. Certainly not to the extent that would justify a rabid support of Obama and rabid opposition to Clinton. Obama seemed centrist, yea, Clintonian in his comments on the war and Bush's nominations, and the idea of impeachment. His message of 'moving on from the divisive, negative tone' thing reminds me of Bill Clinton deciding not to pursue Iran-Contra in order to make nice with the Republicans who later stabbed him in the back.

No, at this point, if you want the most progressive candidate (not counting Kucinich, of course), you're going to have to vote for the white male. Why do progressives support Obama over Edwards, if identity has nothing to do with it?

I'll be the first to deride the Clintons' movement eviscerating centrist and wall-street friendly positions. But there is something very strange going on here, and I don't like it, and it makes me feel a lot of sympathy for her.

I don't understand how people can say that somehow being a "black" man is easier than being a woman of any race. One only need look at the prison population and the murder rate among black men to see that that's not true.

But the point is not who has had it worse in life, women or black men. The point is that we should elect people who will be harbingers of change. Hilary Clinton is about status quo. She has only "recently" become the agent of change because it's a popular buzzword now. Let's not forget that she voted for the Iraq war, and she voted for the bill classifying the Iranian guard (the U.S. equivalent of the Army) a terrorist organization, making it possible for Bush to start a war with Iran.

When Gloria Steinem supports Clinton simply because she's a woman, I'm saddened. Some of the most steadfast feminists are men. Let's not vote someone into office because "we identify with them" because if we do, all minorities--black, latino, Asian, gay/lesbian, or disbabled--will be excluded from the political process. Let's vote for the right person who will do the right thing.

One Angry Black Woman

I agree with this entire article. I so wish I liked Hillary Clinton, but her centrism and triangulation really put me off. She kind of makes my skin crawl. There have been a lot of articles concerning the Clintons and the damage done during the Bill Clinton presidency. For a very good synopsis, see "We Forget What It Was Really Like Under the Clintons" by David Morris on AlterNet.

NAFTA, deregulation, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the failed health care proposal, and sanctions against the Iraqis that resulted in thousands of deaths - many of them children are among the disasters. Along with this comes the fact that Clinton began with a democratic congress, but by the time he left office, the republicans were in full control.

I'd surely hate to see this legacy continued with a Hillary Clinton administration. Dennis Kucinich is certainly the only candidate who really shares my views, but I can imagine voting for Edwards or even Obama. If Clinton is the democratic candidate, I'm still not sure I could hold my nose and give her my vote.

"Let’s make our choice on what is best for the nation, not what is best for us personally."

Good blog, but for thoughtful people, aren't those the same?

I think the guys out in the audience yelling 'Iron my shirt' would have a larger impact on women voting for Hillary than the near tears.

Near tears likely would be seen as a weakness. Iron my shirt is fighting words.