<p>BO devotees do not help the political and public arena by being aggressively negative about others. Support your candidate, sing his praises, but stop the ugly discourse.</p>
<p>I did not follow the debate (been traveling) but from reviews, it appears that aside from her plagiarism dig, Clinton was very gracious and ultimately personal and moving. If she could have sustained this tone throughout the campaign, it might have turned out very differently.</p>
<p>Re: post #21-</p>
<p>Clinton “devotees”. Get a grip. Many who are opposed to Clinton are not swooning over Obama. </p>
<p>Yes, most agree that she has done well with staged sympathy. Why do all the Clinton obsessed get so defensive when their candidate is crticized, yet they continue to diminish the accomplishments of her opponent, and her opponent’s supporters?? I don’t get it.</p>
<p>The Clinton Kool-Aid is amazing.</p>
<p>Speaking of “ugly discourse”, in my opinion, Hillary totally embarrassed herself when she attacked Obama on the plagiarism charge. Yet her touching concluding speech sounded very close to what John Edwards said when he conceded the race. :eek:</p>
<p>I repeat: “Support your candidate, sing his praises, but stop the ugly discourse.” The discourse of which I speak is here amongst us. It is not helpful to the process.</p>
<p>Lorelei, </p>
<p>For those of us who may still be undecided in the general election, I also hope that the Clinton campaign will stop the ugly discourse and attack ads. It does nothing for the unity of the Democratic party or for the integrity of the American people.</p>
<p>I repeat…</p>
<p>Interesting summary of the debate.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Grasping at straws](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEDkqVvpkk]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEDkqVvpkk)</p>
<p>I am a Hillary Clionton supporter and fan. I suspect the right time for her to quit the campaign was last week. I think if she loses either Texas or Ohio, it will be the week after next. The money won’t be there, and she would have to be able to run the table afterwards even to get a chance to win ugly. Dividing the party further won’t help her, and her high-profile supporters will be grateful.</p>
<p>JHS, I had that thought last week, too, but I do think there are constituency issues at play. The caucuses and the open primaries do not necessarily reflect the will of the party…there are many non-Democrats affecting the results. It would have alienated Democrats in Texas and Ohio to eliminate them from the process, and that could affect the party in the general election. I imagine she would much prefer to retreat to a spa, rather than experience defeat, I know I would prefer to lick my wounds in private. But she is a professional and she is dedicated to those she seeks to serve. Those of us who are uncomfortable with this situation will find our own ways to react and recover.</p>
<p>“it appears that aside from her plagiarism dig, Clinton was very gracious and ultimately personal and moving. If she could have sustained this tone throughout the campaign, it might have turned out very differently”</p>
<p>I am on record as being the farthest thing from a Hillary fan, but Marite was spot on with this observation. Sad for Senator Clinton in that had the authentic Hillary run for President, she might just haev gained a lot of support.</p>
<p>The only female presidential candidate we have had takes far more hits on her style and “tone” than her leadership abilities. As a female, that makes me VERY cranky. It is easy to say that a woman would be fine, just not this woman, but meanwhile, no other woman who has come along has been adequate either. There is something very wrong with this picture. Pointing out her personal issues and style flaws do not change the fact that women are judged harshly for things which do not relate to ability.</p>
<p>Well, part of the Hillary Clinton paradox is that she has NEVER been able to sustain “gracious, personal, moving” public discourse, although I think she has all of those qualities in abundance.</p>
<p>My wife and I have been talking about this a lot. We think it relates to the fact that successful women in her age cohort really had to communicate all the time that they could talk like men. “Feminine” discourse was the kiss of death for professional women in the 70s and 80s. Of course, the general population really resents and distrusts women who refuse to acknowledge their femininity. Younger women are generally much more comfortable using their “different voice”, and confident that it will not limit their success.</p>
<p>Furthermore, no woman is ever going to be elected President because she’s an admirable mother and spouse. We’d all like her to be those things, sure, but what has to be there is leadership, command, ideas. Clinton knows she’s done for if she doesn’t focus on those.</p>
<p>Add to that what seems like natural WASPy reticence and sense of privacy, plus the experience of having had her private life attacked over and over again for years, plus having perfectly good reasons not to want to discuss her feelings about stuff in her life that everyone knows about . . . and she has a really hard time finding the appropriate tone, and keeping it up.</p>
<p>"The only female presidential candidate we have had takes far more hits on her style and “tone” than her leadership abilities. As a female, that makes me VERY cranky. It is easy to say that a woman would be fine, just not this woman, "</p>
<p>Not THIS woman because she married her success, rather than earned it.</p>
<p>Good analysis, JHS, but it does not make me feel better…sigh. Because it all makes me so angry and feel so protective, I have a very hard time accepting or respecting the consequence of this fatal flaw…no matter who HE is or what he represents. I do not admire myself for this limitation of perspective, it is an intellectual weakness, ruled by my emotional and defensive empathy, but it is what it is…</p>
<p>I’m actually starting to like Hillary. I change my mind every day. I may be one of the people making my decision in the voting booth. I think Obama is more electable, but Hillary would be a better president. I think I would feel incredible Female Guilt if I didn’t vote for her.</p>
<p>Zoosermom: in most cultures, marriage and paternity have been the only source of access to the political system for women…otherwise they have been shut out. Nancy Pelosi has earned her position, but she would not have had the sophistication to worth through the system without lessons learned and access gained from her father’s political stature. Perhaps we should think of it as a scholarship, which has enabled women like Pelosi and Indira Ghandi and HRC to gain access to the system. It should not be used to demean their own abilities.</p>
<p>“I don’t think she’ll ever quit. It’s not in her vocabulary.”</p>
<p>I lean toward this position.</p>
<p>I truly don’t understand the female guilt. My mother is a pioneer of Hillary’s generation, and she’s a bigger Obama fan than I am. Women broke for both Gore and Kerry, but Hillary supported W’s damn war when the women in my family were begging for peace. How is she a greater friend to women than Obama? What’s feminist about starting pre-emptive wars?</p>
<p>“Zoosermom: in most cultures, marriage and paternity have been the only source of access to the political system for women”</p>
<p>BUt that is not the case here, and the fact of it makes her “35 years of experience” claim ludicrous and people know that.</p>
<p>No, lorelei, it doesn’t make us feel better, either. She’s being held to an impossible standard, but that alone isn’t a reason to vote for her. And her positive message is just being swamped by stuff like this . . . people who like her essentially deconstructing her hairdo.</p>
<p>In the end, Obama’s story is much simpler. It’s this lovely, smooth curve pointing to the sky, with no real dips and overhangs. And his “tone” task is simple. He’s “of color” enough just by standing there, and by tossing in a few teaspoonfuls of Southern Baptist preaching style (which does double duty by reminding people that, yes, he is Christian). All it takes to remind people he’s smart is a Harvard Law Review word here or there. Until now, he’s never tried anything big, so he has no big failures to explain (and no tabloid humiliations over romantic rivals or friends’ suicides). He’s never even really had a tough election until now, and – “plagiarism” notwithstanding – the gloves have been ON all the way here. Finally, people can feel just as good, if not better, voting for the first African-American President vs. the first woman.</p>
<p>I see an even simpler explanation.</p>
<p>Obama does not at all appear cold, calculating, and deceptive; nor does he seem to be laden with a scandalous past. If he is, he is much better at concealing those <em>attributes</em> than his opponent. In my opinion, this is not a race or gender thing at all. It has more to do with human nature, and overall presentation and credibilty.</p>
<p>I agree with Hanna. I don’t buy in to the feminist guilt. I would hope that my daughter wouldn’t either.</p>