Hillary Clinton lost because she tried to equate her time as First Lady with real experience in running this country.  This notion seemed as silly to me as hiring my wife to fix an electical problem because she has been married to an electrician for more than ten years.

Hillary Clinton had my vote until I learned of the sniper fire incident. That was clearly a lie used to deceive the voters, this is not what we need to lead our country.

I don't think sexism had a huge role in this election cycle, but I have been astonished a couple times recently to hear people say in the context of this election that women just don't have the capacity to lead like men do. And do you know what astonished me even more? It was women and girls saying that every time.

Howard,

Full disclosure: I have been an Obama supporter since before he announced his candidacy, and

The point isn't that Sen. Clinton LOST due to sexism - anyone who makes that argument is blindly ignoring the power of the Obama campaign, not to mention the numerous other factors at work.

The point is that from the beginning, there were blatantly sexist remarks being made about the Senator without there being any of the pushback one might expect to come against something our society (supposedly) condemns.

Sorry, didn't realize my full disclosure was unfinished. Guess that's what I get for posting comments while at work!

In retrospect, I don't really have anything to add. :p

Anna - good point. And Peter - I heard that too and then some. I heard people say that they can't imagine either party running a female for office in the next few Presidential cycles because of the results of HRC and Palin. Makes me ill to think about, honestly.


Something else I wanted to add, but didn't really fit into the piece is that whether or not you were a HRC supporter or an Obama supporter -- I hope everyone realizes how much she really boosted the turnout for the Democrats in the Presidential race. Not only by pulling in a lot of voters, but by keeping the race relevant for as long as she did.

Think about the media coverage during the primaries - it was focused on the Obama-HRC horse race for months. That not only allowed the Dems to stay in control of the media cycle and really communicate with the masses, but also improve the enthusiasm surrounding the campaign. I really credit her for not only dealing with the sexist attacks from the media, but also then utilizing the media to make sure a Dem could get into office - regardless of whether or not she was the nominee.

Anyways, that's my political punditry on this and I hope it sheds light on why she was an effective campaigner. I am really excited to see her take control of the Senate. She's probably the only person, next to Ted Kennedy, who can effectively lead on Health Care in my opinion.

Howard--have you forgotten that Hillary Clinton has been a US Senator longer than Barack Obama? She is a professional in her own right. Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she didn't have enough experience. She lost for the same reason that John McCain did. Because they had too much experience when the country was hungry for "change." 

I supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries and would do so again. However, in the general election I worked extremely hard to help get Barack Obama elected--as did Hillary Clinton--simply because he agrees with me on most issues, whereas Sarah Palin does not. 
 
I'm glad that the country elected its first African American president, and I believe that Obama will do a good job. However, I can't help feeling sadness that the biggest glass ceiling in this country is still intact. There absolutely was sexism in this campaign--and I too noticed a level of hatred from fellow democrats toward both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin that I find disturbing.

What I think we as feminists need to do to make sure that someday there is a woman president, is to increase the number of women in office at all levels. Though 52% of the voters this year were women, only 17% of the House and Senate is female. There is a similar sex discrepancy in state legislatures and governors offices.

Hillary was my first choice too.  She would have made a good Pres. in my opinion.  Obama had the money, the minority vote and was equally as impressive. 
Palin is a completely different discussion.  She had very little knowledge of key political issues and was not qualified to be one heartbeat away from president.  What about her opposition to abortion even in the event of a rape pregnancy?  I don't like abortion, but that is going to extremes.  I know many female voters must have been against that.

The liberal media which claims to be compassionate and tolerant engaged in a vicious smear campaign against Sarah Palin.  They did it out of fear and hatred.  Their actions were DISGRACEFUL AND DESPICABLE.  If that doesn't define misogynism, what does?  Misogynism should apply to all women, not just Hillary Clinton.

Howard, respectfully, I'd challenge anyone who believes that Senator Clinton was "just the wife of a president" to take a closer look.  While it is true that being a spouse of someone does not necessarily qualify a person for a position, it is also true that being a spouse should not *disqualify* them either.

Many people wrote her off as trying to ride the coattails of her successful husband, but that's a two-dimensional view.  It's also wrong. 18,000,000 people do not vote for a pretender.  But I'm not relying on the subjective, just check out her history in a wiki search. 

She, more than any other candidate, was responsible for injecting substance and real numbers into this latest contest.  History will rightly credit her for bringing the issue of Health Care to the table.  While health care has been an on-going problem for decades, no politician has tackled it considering it too hot a potato to handle.

History has already credited her with pushing Senator Obama to refine his message and make him a stronger candidate.  Senator Obama has himself graciously recognized that fact. 

Assertive women don't fit our cultural image of what a woman should be, so when an assertive woman like Senator Clinton or, say, Martha Stewart comes along, people feel put off.  That feeling is the very essence of modern sexism and is far more insidious than the more blatant "stay in the kitchen" philosophy.

Oh, and Ms. Johnson, as for the "sniper fire incident", the gunfire was, I believe, a quarter-mile away.  Close enough that everyone on board was wearing bullet-proof vests.  Now, while that may not qualify as "under sniper fire" technically, it'd be close enough for me!

I don't want to take anything away from Senator Obama's win, though.  He ran one hell of a good campaign, one in which I participated once Senator Clinton stepped aside.  His organization was incredible and he deserved his win.  But Senator Clinton's vetting helped him get there.

I do agree that sexism is still very much an issue in this country. However, I don't think it factored much-- if at all-- in Palin's criticisms or loss. Man, woman, or transgender; she still would have struck me as one of the least knowledgeable politicians I've ever seen.

On another note, what's sad, to me, is that many people interpret the bible to say that women should not be leaders. "A woman should not usurp a man's power," or something. I know at least a couple women who would never vote for a woman president. I find that so backwards. I asked one of those women if she had a daughter, would she tell her daughter she COULDN'T be anything she wanted to be? How sad. I would love to see a blog post on the effects of religion on women's rights.

I never believed sexism was an issue in this past election. I just believe there was something bigger going on here. Obama won because he was the best choice and America needed 'change'.

Gov. Palin lost because she was supporting the wrong mand and Sen. Clinton lost because, like someone else pointed out, she believed her previous gov't work (as first wife) was enough to run a country.

Oh, and I'd also like to add something....

I don't want women to get discouraged for this. It had nothing to do with timing or whether America was ready for a female leader or not. The women running during this election just weren't the right choice, whether they were women or men.

Try harder next time girls! <3

Jen,
A woman in power should be able to effectively execute what she has been empowered to do. The same should apply to a man in power.

Denigrate because of gender shouldn't be overlooked, yes. But then maybe women should not be so quick to attribute to sexism remarks that are harmless enough. Crying "wolf" too often... After all "men don't cry" is sexism too. And  I guess the governor of California wouldn't make those remarks about a woman's legs as he did about Obama's.

As to your third point, I think you're right. Still why shouldn't we reach out to men in the same conditions?

I am a woman, successful in a profession where there are mainly men. I never had to disguise or somehow retool my gender. It's there, it's negligible to what I do, and I treat it as such when I'm working.

Senator Clinton probably tried to use her gender as a gimmick, sometimes. She's intelligent, capable, ordinarily she would have no need for such manoeuvers. Governor Palin... well, suffice it to say she didn't show much more than gender... and I think we'd agree that alone is not enough.

OK, I'm just going to throw this out there:

Hillary didn't lose because she's a woman; Obama was just better than her... get over it.

Palin didn't bring down McCain's ticket because she's a woman; she brought down the ticket because she's a stupid bimbo. Did you see her interview with Katie Couric? The SNL version wasn't even that far off and people laughed at it.

Which brings me to my final point...

Obama didn't win because he's black; he won because AMERICA VOTED. America thought that after eight years of bad economic choices and a war (see: Iraq War) that we shouldn't have been in, we were going to elect someone who represents change we need, someone who will stand up and tell it like it is and run a country the way it should be. Obama is right-headed on every policy he has declared stance on. He isn't afraid to sit down with leaders from other countries and get their side of the story before providing an ultimatum, he isn't afraid to say that the rich got their tax cuts... now let's give the middle class a chance, he isn't afraid to say that we got mixed up in a war that had NOTHING (I repeat.) NOTHING to do with 9/11, WMD's, or any of that horseshit Bush fed the American people.

Give it up people. Saying that Hillary and Sarah didn't become the president and vice-president (respectively) because of sexism is like saying that McCain didn't win because of racism. They weren't the people for the job. That's that.

Gregory - please note that you employed sexist remarks in your post:

"Palin didn't bring down McCain's ticket because she's a woman; she brought down the ticket because she's a stupid bimbo."

If you'd like to effectively criticize a female politician, then I would cite some actual reasons rather than resorting to cheap shots and calling her a "stupid bimbo." Not very effective, and guess what - it's sexist. This is exactly the sort of language we need to avoid when having these conversations.

And while I do agree with your points about Barack Obama - I was a big supporter of him throughout the primaries - I think that it is about HOW HRC/Palin were critiqued. The media fell into the traps of sexist language almost immediately when responding to their campaigns. You can read some good examples of that exact comparitive language here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-hopkins/unmasking-sexism-in-media_b_90916.html

I want someone to explain to me please how it is that Sarah Palin wasn't qualified to be Vice President of the United States, a Governor of the State of Alaska, but that Jimmy Carter, Governor of the State of Georgia, Ronald Reagan, Governor of the State of California, Bill Clinton, Governor of the State of Arkansas, George W. Bush, the Governor of the State of Texas, and Barack Obama, a Senator for approximately 100 days, all WERE qualified? 

I don't think sexism was a big influence in this race. If HC did win people would be writing about Obama losing because of racism. People always need to pin point the reason with gender, race, religion, etc. as to why people lost/won.I also think that we will be seeing another woman running soon due to all the media coverage. I think thats why the demos won.  Think about it. They chose a woman and a black man. Both never President before. The media was all over that so why wouldn't they try it again. 

I think the Demo. probably planned it that way.

Dear Jen N.:

You can say it's sexist... but the fact is that she is retarded. She is an ambiguous person McCain chose so that Obama would not use his running mate's words against him; this is exactly what McCain did... he used Biden's attacks on Obama that he made during the primaries against Obama.

I apologize if you feel that my comment was inappropriate, but get over your insecurities of sexism. Calling someone a stupid bimbo is not at all sexist. Here's the definition if you are not capable of using a dictionary:

1. a foolish, stupid, or inept person.
2. a man or fellow, often a disreputable or contemptible one.
3. disparaging and offensive. an attractive but stupid young woman, esp. one with loose morals.
"bimbo." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 11 Nov. 2008. .

Also, if you want to know ideologically why I believe she was not (obviously) the right person for the job:

Abortion - A girl can be raped by her father and be in the middle of an ectopic pregnancy and she would be against her having an abortion.

Health Care - Same ideology of the past eight years.

Economy - Same ideology of the past eight years.

Taxes - Tax the middle class because there are more middle class people to tax = more money for government = give the government power.

Global Warming - "The cause of it doesn't matter... we need a solution and finding the source of global warming won't get us an inch closer to finding the solution."

Dear Phyllis Vaughn:

The fact that Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska is not the reason for her inadequacies. See above.

Oh, and I forgot:

"Google: The new, cool way to find a running mate."

And finally,

My sentiments exactly Amanda.

Gregory,

I agree with Jen's comments, your remarks were sexist. I think it is apparent that you were the third definition of bimbo: "Disparaging and Offensive. an attractive but stupid young woman, esp. one with loose morals." The reason that "Disparaging and Offensive" is in italics on dictionary.com is because that's what the word "bimbo" is. Disparaging and offensive.

Obama is a gifted politician. I hope he's a gifted president, because we sure need one right now. I'm not blaming HRC's or Palin's loss on sexism. But the reality is that sexism did exist in this campaign, and continues to exist. Sexism should have no more place in a civilized society than racism.

I think women who are 48 or older who went to school and started working in the 60's 70's and early 80's are all used to this.  The chase women around the desk was quite common back then.

So, national office is the new frontier.  We will get beyond this as women continue to run for higher office and show they are capable of dealing with the political fervor.

Sexist, racism, biggotry were all prevalent in this race.  But, we must continue forward, not withdraw because of the issues of a few!

The greater number of American people are better than this!

Thanks for the positivity Margaux! We need to be solutions oriented and while dissecting what happened is very important, we also need to make sure we are moving ahead - saying No to sexist comments, helping out those who are the most vulnerable and really raising the consciousness of conversation about female leadership.

New Change.org policy suggestion:

DON'T FEED THE TROLL.


Now excuse me while I go staunch the bleeding from my chomped on tongue.

Oh, and Lisa, one blog post would never be enough to address the effects of religion on women's rights. However, if I ever manage to come up with something that is intellectually valid, rather than just a string of expletives and condemnations, I will definitely let you know. ;)

I completely agree.  There is no excused anymore for the high amount of sexism toward women, including all political women.  Let's criticize them if we don't agree with their views or if we think they are unqualified.  But it's past time to be done with sexist language of any sort to describe any women.

I think that Obama won b/c he knew how to game the system. The caucus system is inherently biased against people with children and the elderly and favors people that can go to caucuses (young college students)
I think that Obama did as well as he did b/c people are sexist and weren't ready for a woman president.
My husband wrote a great piece on Sexism vs. Racism in the primary.http://aapiforhillary.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=9

and I think that we hear sexist jokes/remarks all the time and we "don't notice" them b/c it is so common. We need cultural training to recognize sexism and call people out on it.
For example, David Whitman writes about the "New Paternalism" where schools act like parents, but shouldn't that be the new "parent-ism"? or something like that? Subtle but key in that if you let that slide the subconscious message is that "fathers are role models and set rules" and mothers are something else...  Parents should have equal roles.

I actually to some degree there was a little sexism involved. More so in Sarah Palin's case than Hillary Clinton's. Hillary came to the table with a lot of baggage. And I don't mean that in the negative sense, only her husband had already been president. We were already quite familiar with the Clintons. So I think if anything that was her blessing and her curse; it had little to do with sexism in terms of the outcome of things is my opinion. 
Now Sarah Palin, yeah, I definitely think there was some blatant sexism going on for her. The whole clothing fiasco, the making a big deal out of her taking her children with her on official trips...that stuff was stupid and way out of line. And I'm a die-hard democrat who campaigned for Obama all the way. 
Also the fact that she is attractive--- a lot of men and women couldn't get past that. And yeah, I want to point out that the sexism on Palin's behalf came from both sexes. She came under a lot of "personal" scrutiny merely by the fact that she was a woman and a mother. I didn't dig that at all. I'm surprised the sexism aimed at her has not been a bigger topic in mainstream media outlets. I guess they're just blind to it. 
Derrickwww.unclefatlips.com

I doubt that sexism was a large in the defeat of either Clinton or Palin. Clinton was arrogant and thought that she had the right to the nomination. I am a long time Republican who decided to re-register Democrat when my party choose John McCain. Clinton lost my support with her personal attacks on Obama and by bring in unrelated issues like Rev Wright. If instead of playing on peoples prejudices had she opened a national dialogue on sexism I might have supported her. But please don't cry discrimination when it was her tried to use racial discrimination to her advantage.
As far as Palin her intolerant religious views would never have allowed me to support her. But it was a sexist act to pick her because she was chosen only because she was a woman and John McCain thought that women who supported Clinton would support her. The fact that he they spent so much time in Pennsylvania where Clinton beat Obama reinforces that.
In the final analysis both choose to divide in a year when America wanted cooperation. Both used fear when we desired hope.  

I am a 60-year-old anglo feminist who supported Obama from early days.  Hillary never engaged me the way he did, and when she and Bill started playing fast and free with rascist tinged inuendos, well that did it.  Damn right I'd like to see a woman as President but not that particular woman, and I did not fight all these years for equal rights in order to be told by my fellow feminists that if I didn't support Hillary, I was somehow betraying the cause.  Michele Obama, now she's someone I could get excited about!!

Sophia

If Hillary would've won, people similar to yourself would be bitching about how people just "aren't ready for a black president." Give it a rest; Obama was the underdog and beat her, not because she's a woman, but because he represented real change. Hillary in my opinion did not get a lot of respect for universal health care. Health insurance should damn well be affordable, but we can't give it away free; then there's no incentive to work. Same reason why we don't give away houses. We must motivate unprivileged (and downright poor) people to work, pay taxes, and support each other as a country. Universal health care flies too far on the side of communism.

PunditMom and Sophia

I totally agree... using the word "paternal" is sexist. How come many schools have sports for guys and girls and some sports only girls can play? What if a guy wants to play volleyball? That offends me. Now instead of women staying home and the guys working for living, women can do whatever they want and guys have t work; otherwise they're pussies. Why is liberty a lady? Why can't it be a man? Why do we say "she" when referring to boats or cars? That offends me. Mother nature? Why is nature a mother... is it because the woman is always comforting?! That offends me.

Until you are ready to be like the Germans and have a neutral gender and then use it when referring to ANYTHING except specific men and women, stop the complaining. If it were something legitimate it might be tolerable. Arguing that some guy said "paternalism" instead of "parentism" is just obnoxious.

To deny the role of sexism is to show the double standard that people who aspire to progressive politics always apply to ourselves. When a republican makes a racist comment, we call it what it is. When Joe Biden makes a statement to a young Indian supporter that he always see's his people working hard at 7-11, we just turn a blind eye. When the right-wing denegrates Hillary's achievements due to her gender, we are outraged. When our own people and our own media make a big deal out of her tears, cleavage and pantsuits we remain silent.

When Bill Clinton has an affair in the White House, it winds up impacting Hillary as much (or more), with people sniping at her "how can you stay with him?". When pretty boy John Edwards lies about his affair long enough to cost Hillary the Iowa primaries, boy does that story die out quickly. Sarah Palin buys an expensive wardrobe, the media mocks her and questions it. Do you have any idea how much custom Italian made suits cost for men? You probably don't because the media doesn't care to report it because you don't comment on mens clothing; after all, thats a "woman thing".

When a candidate with 1 years experience as a junior senator rises to challenge another candidate with years of experience and dedication to her party, we call that "change". Strangely we havent seen an action like that since Kennedy rose to challenge an obviously weak Carter candidacy. You don't think barack Obama and his team thought that sexism would play to their advantage and he would have a unique chance (despite his inexperience) to seize the nomination because of the doubts produced by sexism? If you don't, you're dreaming.

While everyone is drunk off victory and an end to the last 8 years, maybe we should all take a good hard look in the mirror and see if there is anything left of the soul we sold to get here. And maybe we'll all remember that nature selected the female gender to nurture and raise up the young across almost all species of animals and mammals. What does nature understand that we don't? Could a woman not nurture a nation? a world?

This isn't change. This is just more of the same. We only call it change because we've all decided that equality for women just isn't that important. At least in this election cycle, we decided race trumps gender. And if you don't like hearing that, remember that it only took a little over 40 years since they received the right to vote to see an african american president of the United States of America. DO you know when women got the right to vote: 1920. Yeah, alot has really "changed".

You know Darren I was actually engrossed with all that you were saying until you went left about "the candidate with 1 year experience."

That when when your logic went left. So...it's cool to hate on someone cause they don't have as much experience as their opponent? You know, "sexism" is nothing more than a bias--blind thinking. A way of viewing the world that's just not progressive and inclusive to all. Matter of fact, it serves to slow things up. Cheats us all out of opportunity and a true diversity of contributions and ideas. ANd that's cause it's a hang up. Nothin' but.

I'm sorry that in the midst of your diatribe you revealed your hang up. Cause I was enjoying your perspective for a while, there.

And I'm not going to defend Obama--the yearling. I can't do that cause he's not President just yet. I find it interesting however how some in their "bias" are nonetheless able to create criticism already.

But I guess that's the way bias works--a study in being a downer--no matter what.

I too was a Clinton supporter until she attempted to play the race card, in addition to other faulty tactics.  While I still feel that Clinton is a great candidate and an inspiration I do not feel that she represented the change that the Obama campaign promised and has already started.  I think his candidacy was more than just knowing what to say and how or when to say it.  I think Obama is truly representative of diversity.  Forty-one years ago mecegenation was illegal in thirteen states and now we have a president that represents two major cultures in American society; the cultures that sparred the most.  Embrace this change and the opportunity that comes with such change and quit complaining.  I too would love for a woman to be president one day and would campaign as hard for her as I did for Obama. 

My suggestion: Be very analytical of every societal, economic, poltical decision, but do not attempt to use sex and race as the tool for criticism.  For example, critically examine Obama's economic plans, but do not suggest that simply because he is a Black man those plans are purposeful or harmful. 

Derrick I totally agree. I liked where Darren seemed to be going until he tipped his hand. The most subttle of lies begin with the truth. It turned out that he was not opposing sexism but using it as a platform for racism.

Well you guys caught me...I tried to hide the virulent hatred in my heart but you clever little folks caught it! Congrats! And you did it without even seeing the posters of David Duke and the confederate flags I have posted all over my apartment. How ever did you do it? Such clever, clever folks. But you certainly paint an excellent picture of what is to come in the next 4 years from people steeped in ignorance such as yourself. The instant someone questions some action President-Elect Obama makes, you and your ilk will be out there crying racism.

My only bias against Obama is that he got a pass from the media when he is an untested individual. There's no "record" to look back on so the media has a greater obligation to find out who this guy really is. Now let me ask you something...are you a saint? An angel? Never did anything wrong...Mischieveous? I have absolutely no clue if Barack Obama has ever done anything wrong. I've never read a single article and im so curious that iud gladly accept links to read! I know John Mccain has a temper, Sarah Palin doesn't read the newspaper etc etc...heck I even know what I know about Joe Biden. But Obama? Zero. And NO ONE is interested in Barack Obama the human. They only want Barack Obama the messiah. Im a psychoanalyst, and in my field this is a type of defense known as "splitting": when a mind decides that something is either all good or all bad and cannot entertain the notion of the opposite. With my clients, I often have to work with them so they can learn that the people in their lives can be both good and bad, and that its okay and tolerable to make that realization. I think much of the american public and the media is unwilling to see Barack Obama as a fallable person and will be equally disinclined to investigate anything that may disprove what they see. I feel the media would've kept Hillary honest, and thats something no one ever considered (i feel). The media won't keep Obama honest and we are left to rely on his good nature to be all it is presented. But to ask that of Obama is to ask him to not be human.

I didn't mean for this to become a diatribe about Obama. But when people decide to come out with a charge of "racist" against someone who dares to question an aspect of the Obama phenomenon I am only further emboldened to press on further. Intimidation and thuggery won't work here, not on me. So, nexttime dig down a little deeper and come up with something a little more substantive. You picked the wrong target, because psychoanalytic training is about discovering the best and worst about yourself and coming to peace with it. I know when Im having a racist thought or reaction and can acknowledge it. But it will be a cold day in hell when I take flak from a PC thug like yourself.

Im still holding out hope that the atmosphere will allow a qualified woman to assume the positions of power they have earned. Maybe if some of us men would pick up a hammer, we can help break this glass ceiling. Teamwork!

I appreciate that there is follow up on this topic.  Sexism pervades our culture at a very deep level and has taken effect in women just as much if not even more, in some cases, than in men.  It shows up in the most liberal of us, at times, it seems, and in the "elite" & educated as well.  This is extremely unfortunate.  It takes a refined pair of lenses to see it, I believe. 

I'd like to comment on what it takes to be a "woman in power".  First of all, we need to think about what it means to be a woman in an equal opportunity world w/out sexism.  Do femininity and masculinity really exist?  I'd argue that these ideals are constructs of a masculine world.  Perhaps they should be thrown out if we want to be truly equal.  I do believe there are differences, but I'm not sure that our current common ideas of these differences are adequate.

Second, I don't believe that "woman in power" is the best term.  We need women leaders, but I argue that power is not what we are seeking in a leader. 

I am looking for a woman with integrity, ability & desire to nurture, courage, intelligence, an open-mind, sensibility and sensitivity.  There are millions of women out there with these qualities, but they are not yet commonly recognized as leaders.  Herein lies the problem.

Darren Whether you are racist or not has nothing do do with my remarks to your post. Let me say quite plainly. I do not care how you feel about Obama. The discussion here is about sexism. You seem to justwnat a platform to bash Obama. You guy lost get over it or go toa sitethat wants to discuss it. Try Yahoo answers/government/politics/elections. We are here to discuss one subject sexism.
Nicole, I saw where Hillary Clinton accepted Obama's offer as Secratary of State.

Thanks Daniel! I didn't know that Hillary accepted. How exciting! That's just great news! And just one last word to Darren about Obama and I promise I'll drop the subject because the topic of this discussion is sexism which is why we're all here in the first place. Darren, I can actually see some of your perspective regarding Obamaphiles and their sensitivity whenever he's perceived to be criticized. But I don't think it's a sort of blindness on folks behalf who are excited about him. I think it's because of what he seems to represent to many people. This nation is brimming over with extremely bright talented incredibly diverse and amazing people---like the guy who created Change.org. Quite honestly I think they just see a bit of themselves in Obama. I think they see a politician of the Bill Gates/Google/Apple/multi-cultural/mash-it-up generation. Someone who is in tandem with the NOW. And it's exciting for a lot of people.  Now getting back to sexism---Congratulations to HILLARY CLINTON. I honestly feel she will make an outstanding Secretary Of State. This is a very good thing. I must go post that news on my blog right now! 

Thanks Daniel! I didn't know that Hillary accepted. How exciting! That's just great news! 

And just one last word to Darren about Obama and I promise I'll drop the subject because the topic of this discussion is sexism which is why we're all here in the first place. 

Darren, I can actually see some of your perspective regarding Obamaphiles and their sensitivity whenever he's perceived to be criticized. But I don't think it's a sort of blindness on folks behalf who are excited about him. I think it's because of what he seems to represent to many people. This nation is brimming over with extremely bright talented incredibly diverse and amazing people---like the guy who created Change.org. 

Quite honestly I think they just see a bit of themselves in Obama. I think they see a politician of the Bill Gates/Google/Apple/multi-cultural/mash-it-up generation. Someone who is in tandem with the NOW. And it's exciting for a lot of people.  

Now getting back to sexism---Congratulations to HILLARY CLINTON. I honestly feel she will make an outstanding Secretary Of State. This is a very good thing. I must go post that news on my blog right now! 

This debate is agonizing, especially in the case of Palin. Anyone who called her out for failing to understand very simple concepts was labeled sexist. She's not smart -- it has nothing to do with gender! If I point out that this column makes a very basic its/it's error in the last sentence, is that also sexist?

We should elect the best candidate, regardless of gender, color... whatever. Regardless. Clinton wasn't it, Palin wasn't it... if Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano or someone of that ilk wanted to scale up to a national presence, perhaps one of them may be it. But the idea that sexism prevailed because Clinton and Palin lost... please.

P.S. Let's not forget that HRC surely picked up as many racist votes as Obama scored sexist votes in the primaries, if not many, many more.

Just because Sarah Palin is dumb and Obama out campaigned Hillary clinton does not mean sexism does not exist. I do think that the sexist and racist canceled each other out in the election though. But the failure to address sexism might have hurt Clinton. I think that sexism played a role in the chooice of Sarah Palin because the Republican Party thought that disgruntled Clinton voters would vote for her just because she is a woman.The fact that they campaigned so hard in Pennsyvania where Clinton beat Obama even though the polls had him ahead 12% bares this out.
 Sexism is more accepted in our society because we ignore it. It is more subtle than racism. Obama, McCain and Biden were called by their last or full name but Senator Clinton was called Hillary. OK I see the fly in the ointment people called Sarah Palin by her last name. But you have to admit everything about her is strange.
However I think that we need to talk about sexism because because women make $.77 for every dollar a man doing the same job. There is no equal rights amendment for women. Women are the victims of violence 8 times more than men.

News update. A Clinton spokesperson said that the news that she accepted President Obama's offer is premature. The Senator is speculating that she might make a better partner for the new admistration in the Senate.

Daniel Ford,

Thanks for letting us know that the news is premature; big deal.

Is it seriously a big deal that we called her Hillary to distinguish her easily from President Clinton? How can you cast that as an indication of sexism when, as you pointed out, Palin is referred to by her last name. Cite your source for the $.77 per dollar a man makes because I have loads of examples of women making more than men. (i.e. me) And as for the violence; that is not necessarily a factor for sexism, but a factor of human biology that women tend to be (Dare I say it?!) weaker than men. Now before I get a hundred people calling me a chauvinist pig, realize that I am merely citing a fact of human biology. Males produce genetically more testosterone which enlarges muscles, deepens voice, and increases competitiveness. Women on the other hand produce larger amounts of estrogen which increase the tolerance for pain, and make women in general calmer, more collected, and not as rash as men tend to be. However, women still have equal rights; and the fact that they are the victims of violence 8 times more than men does not, in any way, disprove that.

Brian Edmison... agreed.

Just wanted to  give you an update on the Clinton bid for Sec of state.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/clinton_secretary_of_state

Gregory I didn'tcall you that but if the shoe fits.
I don't agree  with the anti american Brian edmison on anything.

He is a latest update on Hillary Clinton. President Obama is nominating her for Sec of State but the Senate has offered her a key leadership position if she remains in the senate.