Sexism? No.

It was not sexism that hurt HRC. She started out a far better known candidate(with high negatives). She had the well liked former president at her side. She had much of the party establishment.

She wasn't cheated out of this by her gender. She just wasn't the better candidate. She hasn't raised as much money. She hasn't inspired(finally) the youth vote to get involved.

The crutch excuse of sexism just doesn't work. If sexism was as big a hurdle to her campaign as so many of her supporters have claimed, she never would have been one of the final two candidates. Granted, there are sexist voters, and racist voters. I don't think that either have had a make or break effect on this race. Obama won because he's run a better campaign, with a better message.

Hillary made a historic run, but she also made some very poor choices. She and her "kitchen sink" battle plan just don't offer the American people what we need after the worst presidency in history. We need somebody that's more concerned about getting results then getting elected at all costs.

I used to have a massive amount of respect for the Clintons. No more. Hillary and Bill have both shown that when the chips are down, they'll drop everything they "believe" in to get what they want. Whatever the cost. I thought they were better then that. I know they have the ability to be.

just like....

http://counterpunch.org/wise05172008.html

Personally, I don't think HC's strategists delivered the goods because they considered it win:win (McCain:Clinton) for themselves, so they under-performed for her. She thought their track record was enough to gaurantee success. They should have advised her very early on to go ahead and have a public discussion about her vote on the IWR, so she could at least listen to us and then demonstrate, whether she agreed with us or not, her understanding of what the IWR means to us. All we got from her on this was more avoidance. That showed a lot of people who her constituency really was and it wasn't us.

... and walled Clinton off from being that candidate. That left her with nowhere to go but to the right.

The race-baiting wasn't required, though - that was sui generis, to her eternal demerit.

In a nutshell.

HRC's run revealed how rampant and acceptable sexism is in America. "She wasn't cheated out of this by her gender" -- true. The other gender -- the one that controls the money and the media -- decided derision was acceptable, making up reasons along the way.

If you don't like Obama, racism is blamed. If you don't like Hillary, it's her fault, you say.

believes that neither racism nor sexism were key in the primaries.

obama's hardly perfect, but he recovers REMARKABLY well from his mistakes. he's got an almost judo-like way of turning attacks against him to his advantage.

hillary's most fundamental mistake was that she took the nomination for granted, which cuts through nearly all her strategy. you're supposed to shore up the partisans during primary season, then swing to the center during the general election campaign.

hillary's been campaigning for the general election from the start of her tenure as senator, positioning herself to appeal to conservative democrats, independants, and maybe even some disgruntled republicans. meanwhile obama went after the more partisan democrats and captured the nomination.

therein lies the seed of truth in hillary's argument that she's the stronger candidate for the g.e.
unfortunately for her and her legions of supporters, she won't get the chance to prove it.

now watch obama swing to the center, right on schedule. the man knows his political strategy.

"hillary's most fundamental mistake was that she took the nomination for granted." So is he, so is DU. But it's a calculated pr stance.

I fondly remember how much fun contested conventions can be on TV.

The Repugs started scripting them as infomercials, and Dems want to do that too, but we're too scruffy.

behind the scenes, obama continues to work hard to accumulate the remaining delegates needed to secure the nomination. outwardly shifting focus toward mccain and sending out the message that it's over, it's won, is all part of convincing the remaining superdelegates.

he could have gone this route quite a while ago, but chose not to out of cautiousness.

i'm fully convinced that if there were any hint of a swing back toward hillary, he would be back to full focus on winning the nomination.

That's not to say she wasn't affected by sexism, but it clearly wasn't the sole reason she lost.

She needs upwards of 70% of every remaining state to even come within striking distance of him. For all intents and purposes, it is over, regardless of whether it's been finalized or not.

Those superdelegates are free to vote at the convention for the candidate most likely to win. So we don't have another McGovern, ya know?

So they can jump back later. :eyes:

Without sexism, that is, without women voting for her because she is a woman, she would not have won a single contest, with the possible exception of New York. She begged for women to vote for her because she is a woman.

She was sexist in her campaign, and sexism helped, not hurt, her electoral effort. Without it, she would have disappeared from the scene early, as just another phony DLC senator with more ambition than talent.

Sexism allowed the media to vilify her. Sexism allowed the attacks and the minization and dehumanization. To deny that sexism exists is to perpetuate it.

You only have to look at some of the posts to see. Racist posts were immediately deleted--as they should have been. Sexist posts were sent off to the greatest page. Name calling, belittling, reducing very typical and accepted--and denied by those who pretend to be "progressive."

I wonder what makes a person like you deny it exists?