I like Janet Napolitano—she’s competent, down-to-earth, and she communicates very well.

I was thinking for ticket balance, Obama should pick a southern white man. But that strategy didn’t help Kerry.

Hey, maybe McCain will pick up Hillary. They both agree Obama is woefully inexperienced.

i dunno, i have this sneaking suspicion that this primary has perhaps opened the floodgates so to speak. as you pointed out, two strong non white male candidates battled it out and raised a ton of money. it will just get more and more normal. i’m thinking primaries are going to be looking quite a bit more diverse from here on out. raise a glass.

Atrios has posted several times today that all of the media analyses of “what went wrong” keep completely ignoring the big fucking elephant in the room:  Clinton’s Iraq war vote.  If not for that, it’s extremely likely that she would have waltzed to victory despite the assholishness of the media and right now we’d be talking about President Clinton and Vice President Obama (who even before this was a rising star frequently talked about as a VP possibility).  It’s not a coincidence that the one candidate who was able to challenge her and win was the one who was most closely identified with the DNC and the anti-war crowd.

The media can’t let even a whisper of that enter their analyses because then they’d have to look at their own support for the Iraq war.  Next, we get to prepare for them to continue to completely ignore the issue of the war and start talking about how November will be white people vs. black people, because they sure as hell won’t start talking about the war as an issue.

Well said Amanda.

Clinton went further than any woman ever has toward winning the presidency, and that is a real and lasting accomplishment that will pave the way for the woman (and there are quite a few contenders making their way up the ladder right now) who eventually does become the first female president (heck, it might still be Hillary in 2012 or 16). Hillary fought hard, and lost fair and square (largely because she supported the war and made some big strategic campaign errors).

I hope you’re right that her supporters will come home to the party (I think Hillary needs to start moving them in that direction ASAP) and I know that the wailing and gnashing of teeth in some corners of the blogosphere is not representative. Let’s mend fences and whip McCain, eh?

In your LAT Dust up piece today you wrote

Take, for example, the subtle realization that your husband might like you for being strong and ambitious, but only as long as you make a little less money or have a little less power than him; the social messages decrying ambition in women;

Can you distinguish for this reader when you are speaking of a stereotype of patriarchal behavior and when you are describing some jerk minority?  I confess I get a little resentful since I admire my wife’s many superior organizational and professional traits AND she makes shitloads more money than I do.  Please qualify your “example” as to how common you think it is.

As far as people who might vote for McCain rather than Obama while they had formerly supported Clinton: I am saddened to report that would not require a “level of bitterness, cruelty and stupidity”, just an unreasoning emotional tie to Israel’s present de facto borders.  I have to listen to such people.

I think the Democratic Party has never had so many talented, prominent female politicians, some of whom, like Napolitano and Sebelius, are not only on the shortlist for Obama’s running mate but, regardless, are clearly among the leading future presidential prospects to be watched. If we can hold onto the White House after Obama, there’s a very good chance that our 45th President will be a woman.

And yes, the conspiracy of silence about the major role of the Iraq war vote in Clinton’s loss- among her supporters as well as in the media- is shameful. If she had voted the other way, she’d never even have faced a serious challenge. Certainly not from Obama, for whom there simply wouldn’t have been any opening.

I talked a little about this in another thread a few days ago, but the idea that there will ‘Never” be another female contender, or that we won’t see one in our lifetimes, or at least not for 50+ years, is outrageous.

50 years ago, women often had trouble getting their own checking accounts.  There are women still alive who were born before the 19th amendment was passed.  The American social and political landscape has been proven to be much, much more malleable than one would think.  Shit, there are probably still black people alive in this country who remember poll taxes and literacy tests.  It took under 60 years between the time that we decided black people were entitled to an education and the time that we elected our first Black major party candidate.

Even 8 years ago it was still pretty unthinkable that we would have a woman president anytime soon.  We just came thisclose to achieving that.

Personally it pisses me off that Hillary has somehow managed to hijack liberal/popular feminism, so that “Hillary Clinton will never be president” is somehow equivalent to “A woman will never be president.”

Where better to ask this: What would be wrong with an Obama-Clinton ticket?

What Hillary decides to do now is going to establish a lot of how we (well, not the Pandagon we, but the US we) think about the future of women in politics for at least the short term.  She’s doing an awfully good job of getting her supporters to conflate ‘women in politics’ with ‘Clinton in politics.’  A few members of her coterie have been insisting that Obama would be deeply mistaken to choose another female veep.

Everything. Her high negatives, baggage (none of the post-2000 potential problems have really been vetted yet), pathetic performance last night suggesting she’s incapable of being a loyal subordinate and of not hggoing the limelight, previous praise of McCain, previous attacks on Obama (long after the contest was really over) which a e already being used by McCain. And above all, Bill. What in the hell do you do with him?

Apart from it being a total disaster on every level, it would be just fine.

A few members of her coterie have been insisting that Obama would be deeply mistaken to choose another female veep.

THAT needs to be widely publicized. Not very sisterly, eh?

I thought Obama’s speech from MN last night was gracious and left doors open that we just hope HRC won’t slam shut.  Memnosyne, thanks for the perspective of Atrios reminder: Clinton has much worse problems for some of us than her gender [if that were a problem at all]. 

I would have gladly voted for and chipped in funds for either candidate…my god, just look what they are running against!  We had an embarrassment of riches so lets not impoverish ourselves looking for disrespect in the rough and tumble of political campaigning.  I believe Clinton still has some history to make and whether or not she does is still partly in her hands.

What would be wrong with an Obama-Clinton ticket?

1. Clinton and her surrogates (Clinton, Shaheen, Ferraro, et al.) went way out of their way to denigrate and deprecate Obama. I don’t see how she can suddenly paper over all those insults.

2. Clinton represents the same old, same old, which contradicts Obama’s message of change.

3. As the Vanity Fair piece points out, Clinton’s husband’s baggage is considerable. Republicans can raise the spectre of Bill back in the West Wing, preying on interns.

Those who are heavily vested in the patriarchy want you to think this was a referendum on gender.

This includes some Clinton supporters who talk of it being “their turn” to head a broken system, just like the men have.

Had Clinton been nominated, it would have been a ‘referendum on race” for the patrarchy privileged.

What they don’t even want to think about: the fact that a woman and a person of color were head to head and dragging voters out of the woodwork to get involved.  Why?  Because the days of unearned privileges are numbered or even over when this happens.  That’s because we’ve done had ourselves a partial revolution - a complete revolution if we hail President Obama in January 09.  And this revolution has been televised.

The race between Obama and Clinton turned out to be one of age more than anything.  It was made possible by younger generations of voters willing to even entertain the notion of a female or black president.  The old white men may make belittling noises and pin their hopes on McSame, but they are shaking in their boots.  So too are those who were waiting their turn to take over the patriarchy for themselves.  The sea change is sinking in.

I just want to step in and correct myself a bit—since the 24th amendment and Voter Rights Act were passed in the 60’s, PLENTY of black people definitely still remember poll taxes and literacy tests.

Wait until Obama is beaten (a middle class guilt trip is no basis on which to select a candidate) and those people who have been saying “but he’s like a breath of fresh air” will be saying “we sudda gone for the one with balls,”
Obama is indeed like a breath of fresh air, totally insubstantial.

I haven’t finished this post yet cause I nipped over to read you and Katha Pollitt in the LA Times and I just wanted to say, I am so LOVING you both right now.  I hope this isn’t some kinda isolated-incident thing.

You’ll be waiting a hell of a long time for that, Ian. The contrast between one-foot-in-the-grave Mumbles McCain and the dynamic Obama on TV last night was so laughable it almost made me feel sorry for McCain. Almost.

As I commented on Oliver Willis’s site, this is going to be like a “race” between a Ferrari and a Model T.

Oops, I already sort of talked about the veep situation somewhere else and you probably will see it there so I am gonna shut up now. 

The door’s been kicked open; it’s not going to close again. Generations from now, Hilary will be hailed for what she’s done.

Right, Ginger ... so long as she stops trying to get that door to hit her in the arse on the way out!

What would be wrong with an Obama-Clinton ticket?

1.  As Amanda says, most hard-core Clinton supporters will eventually come around.  Did you know that a majority of McCain supporters said they wouldn’t vote for Bush in March 2000?  But in November, they showed up.  That’s how this thing goes. 

2.  Clinton’s top-level staff aren’t especially good, and they won’t work well with the Obama people.  Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, and expected to be running the Democratic general election campaign.  They won’t take kindly to orders from David Plouffe and David Axelrod.  There’s a whole bunch of potential for organizational dysfunction here.

3.  You don’t want to muddle Obama’s wonderful antiwar message with an unrepentant war supporter. Especially when public disapproval for the war is in the high 60% range. 

4.  An Obama/Edwards ticket is absolutely devastating.  Here’s a summary of the most interesting poll numbers from SurveyUSA.  To take an example, if McCain picks Tim Pawlenty, the GOP governor of Minnesota, this adds 10-13 points to McCain’s score in Minnesota against most Democratic VP choices.  But you set up Obama-Edwards against McCain-Pawlenty, and Obama’s lead expands from 5 to 7 points.  Edwards is such a powerful boost to a ticket that he <i>helps Obama more in any random state than that state’s best-known GOP hero can help McCain<i>.

Wait until Obama is beaten (a middle class guilt trip is no basis on which to select a candidate)

Ah, yes, the old “You only picked him because of white guilt!” trope.

Seriously, you guys are going to have to come up with something a little more substantial or Obama is going to repeat his feat from Illinois and get 49 percent of the Republican vote.

norbizness, Steve L: Thanks…I was just playing the provocateur.  I am glad there are live arguments on both sides.  I also hear “I will vote for Obama if he will pick Clinton as VP”...but I don’t listen to so many people as most of you.

Give some weight to Ian’s threat scenario, it will keep you in fighting shape.  I have tried to have sympathy for McCain but frankly he has no core, he is captain windsock. He never got above Capt. for all his suffering and connections because what he did best in the military is what he will do best for the defense contractors and energy companies who sponsor him:  TAKE ORDERS, not give them.  He is no longer the warrior, he is the war, a hundred years of it or 5, by his volatile reckoning.  McCain appreciates a hard fight so lets get busy and fillet his fishy warmed-over Bush positions like so much salmon.  There are only a few Ians on this thread so put up your cash as well as your words: we need ads that reach the few doubt-plagued who are not comfortable in either camp.

We crow about barriers of bias coming down but I remind you: Obama is not a progressive and read, for instance, Chris Bowers: Obama does not make any show of closeness with the net roots.

What they don’t even want to think about: the fact that a woman and a person of color were head to head and dragging voters out of the woodwork to get involved.

Remember that. Write it in headline fonts, 144 pts large. That’s a GOOD thing—no ifs, ands or buts.

And it’s actually quite an accomplishment for Clinto to go as far as she did, with a malformed campaign strategy, an inferior set of organizational chops and poor sense of tactics. Any other candidate would have been sunk months ago.

We crow about barriers of bias coming down but I remind you: Obama is not a progressive and read, for instance, Chris Bowers: Obama does not make any show of closeness with the net roots.

And neither is (nor does) Clinton.

It is, of course, wonderful that an African American has become the nominee of one of the major political parties and it would have been wonderful if a woman had become the nominee of one of the major political parties.

However, the Democratic Party has just replaced an old set of “New Democrats” with a new set of “New Democrats.”  There’s no question that that’s less bad than what the GOP offers, but that’s really the best that can be said for either Clinton or Obama on policy grounds.  “Third way” centrism is not the solution to our problems.

As far as people who might vote for McCain rather than Obama while they had formerly supported Clinton: I am saddened to report that would not require a “level of bitterness, cruelty and stupidity”, just an unreasoning emotional tie to Israel’s present de facto borders.

Never fear, greensmile. I expect this race will feature two major party candidates who will fall all over themselves to repudiate anything that remotely looks like a meaningful, rational change in US policy toward Israel.

Hey look, Obama has already started!

I agree with Ben, but for now it’s craploads better than the alternative. Progressives will certainly need to keep the heat on Obama, and continue to work to elect more and better Democrats.

Neither party can possibly hope to elect a candidate who does not have the support of AIPAC.  Sad, but very, very true.  I’d rather have a president committed to actual diplomacy, with an awareness of how the rest of the world views the USA, with family in multiple countries with sizable Muslim populations,  the son of an anthropologist, who is nominally forced to support Israel, than a hawk with ties to the Dominionist religious right who is only too happy to hop in bed with all the Israel-connected lobbyists he can find.

Mnemosyne, thank you for calling Ian on his noxious reference to “middle class guilt” (an accusation just one rung up from “affirmative action hire”).

As for Clinton as VP, anyone who says that could never happen is advised to meditate on the initials LBJ.

As for the importance of choosing a capable VP candidate, same mantra as above.

And for anyone who thinks Clinton’s loss shows that it’s “not time” for a woman to become President, remember that LBJ and JFK were just two highly-qualified candidates in 1960 (the other options included Humphrey and Stevenson, for God’s sake—it was a gathering of titans).  If Kennedy had not received the nomination, would people have been justified in saying, “nothing has changed for Catholics since Al Smith lost in 1928”?

As for the importance of choosing a capable VP candidate, same mantra as above.

Wow, that’s almost as noxious a statement as “Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, you know…”

Thanks Amanda. I wanted to scream in all-caps over at Shakesville that this is not the end for women’s presidential aspirations. But they wanted their day and their place to rest, so I let it be.

I’m going to predict right now that one of the four or five next presidents (not counting the 2008 winner) will be a woman. Which means that it WILL happen in my lifetime, and it WILL happen in the lifetimes of many older women who today probably think it won’t.

I really don’t think the country as a whole is “ready for a woman president” but because of Clinton’s run, they’re a whole lot closer than they ever would have been without her. That sexist gap was still too wide this year, but in 20 years when we’re getting used to saluting Madame President, I think we’ll be looking back and saying that Clinton did as much as anyone to make it happen.

Not sexism (of course it existed, but it wasn’t fatal). The war. (DO mention the war, dammit!   ) Without that Clinton would be the nominee long since, and the odds-on favorite to crush McLame in November.

I agree with the person saying the fact and viability of diversity in the election has broken the barrier and we will see *more* female candidates in future.

And Barbara Boxer is my pick for a progressive female candidate next time.

I would like to add that it’s never a time when female candidates shouldn’t run. I think all the proclamations prior to the primaries of whether the country was or was not ready for a female/black candidate were not something that could be said at the time. That kind of judgement can only be made in hindsight: you can only say, Clinton lost, I guess we weren’t ready.  Having women run for office is the empirical test that determines whether women can win. You’ll never know if women can win if they don’t run! And what we’ve seen is that if the country isn’t ‘ready’ (Whatever ‘ready’ means) then it’s damn close. We almost passed the test, and we certainly came closer than most thought.

Along the lines of what MH said, it’s pretty hard to decide that there’s no way a woman will be able to run for President in this generation when she was running against an African-American man.  If she had lost to yet another white Southern male, maybe, but trying to argue that Clinton losing to Obama means that no other woman will be able to run for another 50 years is being a little too pessimistic, IMO.

Clinton had huge strikes against her with the twin drags of her Iraq vote and her DLC ties.  A female candidate without that baggage can and will do perfectly well now that Clinton’s knocked over the barrier.

Whatever one might say about Hillary Clinton’s campaign, I think there’s been one real effect of it, and that is that the next time we look at a slate of Presidential nomination candidates and there are no women, or only one woman, on that slate, the immediate question should be—and will be—why not? The group of people who make it to the point of holding a credible run for president is a very small sampling of America, but women are like 51% of the population and I think from here on out if that sampling lacks women that absence is always going to stick out like a sore thumb, in exactly the same way that the presence of a woman would have stuck out before. “Why not” is going to become the default, where “why” used to be…

Really if you want to know what the Clinton candidacy says about the future of women in Presidential politics, all you have to do is look at why Clinton lost. The two biggest, most vital reasons were that Clinton was an establishment candidate at a time voters were looking for change; and Clinton’s onetime support for the Iraq war. Take away those two forces that Obama exploited to rise to victory—anti-status-quo and anti-Iraq sentiments among the populace—and Clinton would be the nominee right now. (Sorry, Edwards was great on the issues, but he was never going to win.) In other words, Clinton lost, but it wasn’t because of her gender; the Democratic voter base have demonstrated that being a woman is not a disqualification for winning.

The two biggest, most vital reasons were that Clinton was an establishment candidate at a time voters were looking for change; and Clinton’s onetime support for the Iraq war.

Both could have been overcome had she not been taking advice from the DLC Made Guys who crafted the idiotic “inevitability” strategy, lacked any kind of contingency plan, and failed to adapt when it was clear that the srategy wasn’t working.  For this alone she deserves to lose the nomination - it’s straight up incompetence on the part of her inner circle, the people who would be advising her in the White House.

Took the words right out of my mouth, togolosh. I actually think the country’s ready for a woman president. It’s that Hilary Clinton wasn’t ready.

I really don’t think it’s sexist to point out that she didn’t manage her campaign and staff well and executed a poor strategy. I believe that if she had a smart staff and nimble management, she would have overcome the sexism and probably even the war vote and establishment aura.

In addition to her absolute idiocy in refusing to repent on Iraq, she doubled-down by voting for the odious Kyl-Lieberman amendment for Iran.  Those two things alone, regardless of gender or race, probably sealed her doom for the Democratic nomination (the activated, progressive base was/is pissed about Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman just affirmed that Clinton didn’t (and still doesn’t) “get it.”)

Still, Clinton MAY have been able to overcome those giant boat anchors (and the anchors associated with Mark Penn and his crew) if she hadn’t adopted her “kitchen sink” strategy to “get” Obama.  She had such an institutional advantage and name recognition advantage… it blows my mind to think how she could have so royally screwed up.

I was quite agnostic for much of the primary, with leanings towards Edwards (until he dropped out).  I wasn’t particularly charitable towards Clinton’s candidacy (because of said blunders on Iraq and Iran), but I didn’t dislike her and would have easily voted for her in November if she became the nominee.  But when she started viciously attacking Obama and giving republicans talking points to use in November and became completely deaf to logic and reason, my vague indifference became a concrete opposition to her candidacy. 

I don’t “hate” Clinton and would have still voted for her in November (McSame would be a disaster of epic proportions), but her irrational, baseless, and vicious attacks on Obama made me quite glad he won the nomination.  Clinton needs to re-connect with logic and reason and realize that the way she acts in the next couple of days could influence whether Obama wins or loses in November. 

One reason I began to be more of an Obama fan (in addition to his ripping Bush and McSame on Iraq, instead of cowering away from “national security” like most other Democrats have in the past) is that he flat-out refused to go negative on Clinton when she “kitchen sinked” him.  Yes, for the nit-pickers out there, he did put out some mildly negative information about Clinton (this is politics, after all), but if he had responded in kind, he would have brought up Monica, repeatedly.  He didn’t, and I like him a LOT more because of it.

Grandad was a mechanic (Tech Sergeant, if I remember right) in the 332nd from ‘42 to ‘44.
I always think of the Airmen as a great example of why we need legislative impositions to level the playing field.  Some might argue that we should not “make exceptions” for women—that if they are to enter politics, it should be on their “merits.”  People argue against quotas like this all the time, and it has a lot to do with unacknowledged privilege: “I worked to get here, I don’t see why that person gets a break.”

Anyway, the point is, the Army didn’t make any “exceptions” for the Airmen to fly, except in a policy that was already tilted against people for the color of their skin.  Once they were given a shot, they excelled.  The policy that prevented blacks from flying tilted the playing field; they would never have gotten a chance to prove themselves unless it was challenged.

Likewise, quotas for women in a male-dominated field can be a good thing.  I don’t think Hillary bowing out spells the end of women in politics.  She’s still a trailblazer.  If we make “exceptions” to let women in, it basically guarantees that the first round will be elite, which she is.  This is not the end of it.

“Is this it for female candidates?”

Oh, please.

We gave women the vote in 1893. They had access to Parliament in 1919(*). We elected our first female MP in 1933. Jenny Shipley made PM in 1997.

You gave women the vote in 1920. You first elected a female Senator in 1932.

It’ll come.  And you should be saving all the crap that’s been spouted about Clinton - people are not going to believe what a fuss was made about a Presidential candidate being on the distaff side in a couple of decades. If you have a very young daughter now, a scrapbook made now might pay off big in fifteen years time…

(*) And my family treasures the newspaper article fulminating at my great grandmother as an “unnatural woman” for campaigning for one of the first candidates.

Well, I don’t think it’s the end of Women In Politics, but white people… oh yeah.  The whole white thing is SO over, considering one of the two major parties picked an African American for their presidential candidate.  It just follows, doesn’t it?  If at any time, one group or another suffers one setback, it’s just positively the end for them politically.  Seriously, white folks better pack it up, and go invade some South Pacific island or something looking for a new homeland, ‘cause even a border fence won’t save America from going over to ‘the other side’ now. 

Isn’t this the same argument used by religionists to keep the Ten Commandments plastered everywhere and to keep offensive chocolate Jesus art down?  Isn’t this the same reason all the conservofudies in CA are lathered up about getting a same-sex marriage ban voted up, because that way all those homo marriages won’t somehow taint and crowd out their precious God Love unions?  The logic here is overwhelming. I even think Nostradamus had something to say about this, didn’t he?
/snark

Really, I am sure some lameheads somewhere are going to say Hillary’s loss in some way will deligitimize women in politics, with secret glee burning in their eyes.  And if they bleat it loud enough often enough, conservo-sheeple who all ready feel their entitlement slipping will probably parrot it.

But that doesn’t make it true.

One campaign lost, no matter how high-profile, can’t keep women down, any more than government-sanctioned same-sex marriage can destroy different-sex marriage, or gazing on a chocolate Jesus can make Christians question their faith.  People, ideas,movements,beliefs- they are all much more durable (for good and for ill) than they are often portrayed as being.  I think people have been brainwashed by the prevailing modes of entertainment into believing that everything will be Revealed and Decided in the special two-hour series finale show, to be followed by the words ‘THE END’ superimposed on the screen.  Women are alive and kickin’, thank you very much.  I just dont see how a win by Obama invalidates that at all.

To the extent that the campaign was a referendum on whether a woman or a black could be elected president in this country—the good people won.  The good showing made by both candidates proves, regardless of who actually won the nomination, and who wins this fall, that a woman or a black can be elected president in this country, even if one isn’t this time.

As for Clinton as VP, anyone who says that could never happen is advised to meditate on the initials LBJ.

[tongue firmly in cheek response…]

After HRC’s “June” comments, I wouldn’t be so quick to bring up LBJ, given what ended up happening on 11/22/1963. Not that LBJ was responsible for that, but it was in Texas. And everyone knows that HRC has a track record.

To the extent that the campaign was a referendum on whether a woman or a black could be elected president in this country—the good people won.  The good showing made by both candidates proves, regardless of who actually won the nomination, and who wins this fall, that a woman or a black can be elected president in this country, even if one isn’t this time.

Really.

Not this time, but it would have a first no matter who one. People gotta remember that.

I think the argument that Hillary Clinton lost not because of her gender but because of her position on the Iraq War is simplistic. Her position on the war is unpopular (and wrong), but as a woman running for national office, she faced intense pressure to prove that she was just as tough as any man. Her vote on the war was either foolish or cowardly, depending on whether or not one believes she was duped by the Bush administration—I’m incredulous that such a thing is possible—but I’d be very surprised if the pressures of sexism didn’t inform her decision to be so hawkish.

That was her big mistake.  If she had run as a more “authentic” person, she probably would have won it all.  She made the decision to try to “out-tough” the guys, responding to the subtle sexist pressures, and it contributed to her losing the race.  But it was her decision to a) get fooled by Bush, or b) respond to the raving lunatic fringe who would never have voted for her in the general anyway.  She could have ignored the whispers about her not being tough enough on war issues and told her detractors to stuff it. 

The sexism was there, but it wasn’t a major factor in her losing to Obama.  Incompetence (listening to Mark Penn) and being really nasty in an intra-party competition (going so far as to slag your intra-party opponent and praise the other guy) were the two biggest factors.  Both of those factors she had complete control over and she messed up anyway.  She didn’t mess up because she’s a woman, but because, at the end of the day, she was stupid.  She’s not stupid because she’s a woman.  A guy (look at Bill Clinton) could have and did make the same mistakes.  She was just stupid in a human way, not any gender-specific way.

Thom, I don’t think you’re looking deeply enough. There simply would have been no space for the emergence of Obama as an antiwar candidate without that vote. You to look not just at its role in the actual campaign, but at the alternate-history question of whether Obama would ever have gotten off the ground if she hadn’t had that vulnerability. I think not.

as a woman running for national office, she faced intense pressure to prove that she was just as tough as any man

But here we are in 2008, where opposition to the Iraq War polls at nearly 70%.  If she’d had the foresight to vocally oppose the war early, her celebrity status would’ve made her the leader of the doves in the Senate.  Today, that’d pay off huge.  And she wouldn’t have been up for Senate re-election until 2006 in safely blue New York. 

If she’d just had the foresight to get on the right side of an issue that basically all Democrats agree on these days, she’d have won the nomination.  In fact, if she’d voted against the war, I’m pretty sure Obama wouldn’t have run.  There just wouldn’t have been an opening on the left.

Yeah, it’s something called “courage” instead of focus-group, poll-tested, go-with-the-crowd idiocy.  Mark Penn may have been Clinton’s biggest failure as a candidate… I’m sure his “polls” had something to do with the fact that voting against the Iraq war would have been a “bad” idea.  Once you trust a person like that blindly, he/she will lead you on the wrong path, sooner or later.  Clinton never seemed to give what Penn said any sort of reality or morality check, just kept following him blindly.

Some might argue that we should not “make exceptions” for women—that if they are to enter politics, it should be on their “merits.”

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking affirmative action means giving positions to people who don’t deserve them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  No one looking to fill a post gets only one qualified applicant.  The question is, do you take the person who has had almost every advantage and grades an A, or the person who had to struggle and overcome long odds to get to B+?  Especially if hiring that person would open up benefits to an under-served quarter of society.

I’d be very surprised if the pressures of sexism didn’t inform her decision to be so hawkish.

Oh come on.  Hundreds of men made the same decision trying to look “tough” on national security.  Were they victims of sexism too?

The main reason that Hillary Clinton lost was because she ran a bloody incompetent campaign compared to Obama.  Remember, when she started out, she had the recognition, the name, the money, the supposed network, the contacts….and then proceeded to squander all of it.

I didn’t support Clinton because I have no reason to believe that she knows how to get things done.

Of course there will be women running for President again.  Probably fairly soon.  And they’ll come without all of Clinton’s problems, which have been well documented above.

There may even be one on the Democratic ticket this year, though it probably won’t be Clinton.  Both Sebelius and Napolitano have to be on any list, along with men like Richardson and Edwards.  (And, if I’m in a really optimistic mood, Boxer and Feinstein, though neither one seems likely.)

Steve: Oh, I agree entirely (except with the part about me not looking deeply enough). If Clinton had not voted for the war—and maybe if she had retreated as Edwards did—she would be the nominee. My argument is merely that the effects of sexism (in this case, instantiated as her need to appear especially hawkish) are not wholly separate from her vote. That doesn’t excuse her vote—political success is a poor justification for sending people to kill and die in a pointless war—but I don’t agree that this is an either/or situation.

Oh come on.  Hundreds of men made the same decision trying to look “tough” on national security.  Were they victims of sexism too?

Yes.

Thanks for being a voice of reason.

I have to admit, I don’t know why Hillary lost in the final round, I don’t know why Obama won. I wouldn’t have chosen either one of them to represent me.

If it was just about race or gender I could come up with several candidates I would choose over them. But this presidential election isn’t about that.

America can’t afford 4 more years of anti-science hypocritical religious extremists that violate the Constitution and international laws and start wars on lies.

We have to stop the torture, we have to stop the Iraq war, and we have to start the healing of America the beautiful.

I don’t think the Iraq AUMF vote was all that critical - UNLESS you posit that Obama would never have run if she hadn’t voted for the AUMF.  I don’t really believe that, but I could be convinced of it I think.

Once he decided to get in it The AUMF vote wasn’t all that critical.  Sure he gave a speech at an anti war rally that he can point to as a difference.  But he really didn’t run as a seriously anti-war candidate. (I wish he had…)

He ran as an anti-Washington candidate.

I just wish he had waited a few years.  He’s still young, and he really could use some more experience.  We could have had eight years of Hillary followed by eight years of Obama

That would really rock.  As it is, if he gets two terms he’ll get out as a 55 year old man, and be done with politics for the rest of his life.

What a waste.

And I gotta wonder, am I the only one who thinks having a woman president would be a LOT more significant a departure from business as usual than a male of any color.  Testosterone poisoning is color blind.

I’m actually not that worried that there will be many Clinton supporters who don’t vote or vote for McCain out of feminist foot-stomping temper tantrum throwing.  That’s a level of bitterness, cruelty, and stupidity that most people just don’t have, even and especially feminists. p

I dunno, Amanda: you’re showing a level of bitterness, cruelty, and stupidity that I didn’t think you had, in continuing to trash Clinton and her supporters even after Clinton lost.

I hope that everyone who voted for a Democratic candidate in the primaries will turn out and vote for the Democratic candidate for President in November - whether they voted for Edwards, Obama, or Clinton.

But it would be kind of nice if Obama supporters weren’t acting like they can continue to kick Clinton and call her an unworthy candidate; if instead of demanding niceness and loyalty from the people who won’t get the President they wanted, they were prepared to show respect for Hillary Clinton as an extremely successful Presidential candidate, who did better than any woman ever before her and who came damned close to winning.

It would both be nice, and it would be tactically sensible.

Instead, we’re getting an ungraciousness in victory that doesn’t bode well for the future.

Tejota: And I gotta wonder, am I the only one who thinks having a woman president would be a LOT more significant a departure from business as usual than a male of any color.  Testosterone poisoning is color blind.

I think it’s incredible and wonderful that the US Presidency has a good chance of not being a whites’-only club. Go Obama!

I think it would have been incredible and wonderful if instead, I could have said that the US Presidency had a good chance of not being a boys’-only club. Go Clinton!

I think it’s incredible and horrible that so many people, even people who identify as feminists, aren’t seeing that both situations - the one that nearly happened, and the one that has happened - are incredible and wonderful. Both Obama and Clinton did something amazing.

I’d love it if every blog that supported Obama was saying something like that today. Instead of which, what we’re getting is a steady rain of let’s-keep-trashing Clinton.

That would really rock.  As it is, if he gets two terms he’ll get out as a 55 year old man, and be done with politics for the rest of his life.

I think the alternate history plan was to have Kerry win in 2004, get re-elected in 2008, then maybe Obama from 2012-2020.

But we (and by that I mean the entire country) failed in 2004, and had to push the schedule up.

We will not fail in 2008.

Onward to victory!

Jesurgilsac, the reasons people keep beating up on Clinton are two-fold.  She took incredible institutional advantages (name recognition, Bill’s fundraisers, etc) and still managed to completely screw it up and lose to a young guy with almost none of her advantages AND she was completely ripping on Obama’s character and doing incredibly stupid, damaging things to Obama pretty much since Super Tuesday. 

You are being naive and stupid to believe that Obama supporters won’t be a bit sore over the complete trashing Hillary’s “kitchen sink” strategy entailed….

This is also a thread where people are trying to figure out “what went wrong” in how Hillary screwed the pooch so badly with such a high and seemingly invincible start.  It isn’t Obama supporters “trashing” Hillary, it’s a bunch of Democrats trying to figure out how she could mess up so badly, with a few gratuitous insults thrown in once in awhile. 

If you’ve read an anti-Obama thread (see Larry Johnson), the vitriol directed against Obama supporters by Clinton supporters makes the worst “insult” on this thread look like a kindergarten playground insult in comparison.

Just picked this up off of TPM:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121252558317842545.html?mod=blog

A rehash of most of what we’ve gone through here, but with some sources to back most of it up. 

I think it’s really sad, because if she had shown her human side (without getting too maudlin), she might have overcome…  Mark Penn was the main person advocating against humanizing Clinton because he thought that people wanted a “tough woman, commander-in-chief” type.  She could have chosen not to fall for such BS, but she listened to Penn to the exclusion of all else save Bill (who was also completely swayed by Penn).  Sigh.