This photo is based on ancient news, but it was recently revived by Hillary Clinton’s awful chief strategist Mark Penn, who claimed in a GQ interview last week that Hillary was undone by “latte voters.” It’s true that we “coastal elites” were a major block of Obama’s support, but that doesn’t explain why he did so well in the mountain west.
It was with some trepidation that I suggested on one of xJane’s posts that Obama actually embodies certain desirable “feminine” qualities more than Clinton does, though we might agree that he has an unfair advantage considering that the culture makes it easier for him to do so.
I half expected someone (not necessarily xJane) to give me the third degree, but instead, she linked to a another post where she makes essentially the same point. And now we have Clinton’s former spiritual advisor chiming in:
Ironically, Clinton’s problem today, Houston said, may be that Obama has given better voice to that new pattern of possibility — that he embodies a more female, inclusive approach to problem-solving, while Clinton has become mired in proving herself capable of emulating the male model, which requires combat and the demonization of enemies.
Woodward wrote that Houston tried to steer Clinton away from her “warrior mode” and “the need to have enemies who could symbolically be singled out to embody the opposition.”
“It’s a shame the warfare model is still there,” Houston said. “If she could have moved to the next level, she would be the next president.”
I don’t meant to pile on Hillary, but I find the whole phenomenon interesting.
I’m not sure about the last claim. I suspect she would’ve won the primary but lost the general that way, unless she pulled a classic primary/general pivot, acting macho only after she got the nomination. But then instead of people forwarding around scandalous videos of Rev. Wright, this summer they’d be forwarding scandalous videos of Hillary talking about her feelings
Lawrence Lessig has great video explaining why he supports Barack Obama, essentially a better version of my argument (though a little too worshipful at the end IMHO). If you have friends who haven’t voted yet, you should send this to them.
Just poll-checked for the Obama campaign at a polling station in Boston — Fields Corner, Dorchester, 42 Charles St., precincts 1507 and 1508 I believe. All systems normal.
I was also there to put up signs, which was an interesting experience. When I first walked by last night, the trio of pristine Hillary posters on the fence seemed ominous, even menacing. But after I put up my Obama signs next to them, they seemed harmless. I almost felt bad for them.
(I suppose I shouldn’t, because momentum notwithstanding, Hillary’s more likely to win today.)
I’ve been supporting Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, but I haven’t been extremely enthusiastic. Here’s why.
If we look at Obama’s and Hillary’s basic policy ideas, they’re not terribly different. The difference in their health policies everyone is talking about, i.e. forcing everyone to join the new plan (Clinton) vs. simply offering a new plan and making it affordable (Obama), is blown out of all proportion. Please, people, let’s focus on getting health care for 95 percent of the country before we freak out about that last 5 percent.
But if we look at what kind of people they are, and how they would govern, Obama, for all his faults, looks way better. So much better it’s not even funny.