Did Clinton Damage "Glass Ceiling"?

[Leafless]

Schroeder said Clinton's campaign showed, "There's a tremendous amount of sexism still out there," and society simply doesn't deal with sexism as it does, say, with racism and anti-Semitism, and the campaign showed we still have "a lot of ground to cover" combating sexism.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/...in4163909.shtml

This is interesting.

And the big question is will Hillary's female chauvinistic troops turn their backs on Obama and vote Republican out of spite?

Edited June 9, 2008 by Leafless

[bush_cheney2004]

This conflict was predicted early on, and it is understood that racism trumps sexism. American society has always reflected this reality.

[Shady]

Arianna Huffington continues to amaze me with her incredible political insight, "a woman will be in the Oval Office one day." Thanks for that bold prediction Arianna.

I think Hillary's campaign illustrated that in the Democratic Party and especially the MSM, a woman will be thrown under the bus when it comes to a possible visible minority candidate, as BC already alluded to. Senator Clinton did a lot to promote the idea and reality of a female President. There's no doubt that it will happen, but it probably won't be a female Senator that finally breaks through, but most likely a female Governor.

[August1991]

This thread and this debate just show how much the Democratic Party and the modern North American Left have been taken hostage by "identity politics". It's political correctness run amok. (As an aside, the current US Secretary of State happens to be a black woman and rightly, no one on the right really cares.)

[maldon_road]

This thread and this debate just show how much the Democratic Party and the modern North American Left have been taken hostage by "identity politics". It's political correctness run amok. (As an aside, the current US Secretary of State happens to be a black woman and rightly, no one on the right really cares.)

And the price they pay for factional politics it that the losing faction (in this case the female left) gets in a huff and threatens to vote for the opposition.

[BubberMiley]

(As an aside, the current US Secretary of State happens to be a black woman and rightly, no one on the right really cares.)

That's because she's a Republican. If she were a Democrat, they would be making up stories about her referring to "Whitey" and analyzing her preachers' every word.

Because Obama is a Democrat, the right wing is conjuring images of the big black boogeyman to scare people from voting for him. They are the only ones bringing up the issue of his race and, therefore, the only ones playing "identity politics."

But I would agree that that game is a losing one and the party trying to factionalize America is, this time, going down.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's because she's a Republican. If she were a Democrat, they would be making up stories about her referring to "Whitey" and analyzing her preachers' every word.

Because Obama is a Democrat, the right wing is conjuring images of the big black boogeyman to scare people

I think it is very obvious which Democrats played race bating politics...and it cost her the nomination.

[capricorn]

Because Obama is a Democrat, the right wing is conjuring images of the big black boogeyman to scare people from voting for him. They are the only ones bringing up the issue of his race and, therefore, the only ones playing "identity politics."

Let's suppose the shoe was on the other foot, i.e. Obama is a Republican. Do you honestly think Democrats would not play the race card for the exact same reason? It's about winning and everything is fair game.

But I would agree that that game is a losing one and the party trying to factionalize America is, this time, going down.

The only game is that there will be a winner and a loser. As an observer, I haven't a clue who will win the White House although as a Canuck I think McCain would be less disruptive to our way of life. Once the votes are counted, regardless of who is elected POTUS, Canada will still be the mouse tip-toeing around the elephant.

[Leafless]

This conflict was predicted early on, and it is understood that racism trumps sexism. American society has always reflected this reality.

Racism trumps sexism.

How so?

Maybe Clinton's campaign craftily played the race card, but Hillary's critics attacked everything from her pant suits to her personal character.

On the other side of the coin, if Obama was a women, although his speeches are good, he would not have been taken seriously lacking Clinton's experience.

Sorry, sexism trumps racism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, sexism trumps racism.

The history of civil rights in the US demonstrates that the dismantling of barriers due to race lead sexism, to wit:

1) Slavery

2) Voting Rights

3) Miscegenation

4) Abortion

5) Equal Rights Amendment (failed to ratify))

6) Same gender marriage (banned in many states)

Ergo, "racism" has been perceived (and actioned) as the greater social/political wrong, and leads causes based on sexism. That includes so called minorities trying to break through political glass ceilings.

Edited June 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Leafless]

The history of civil rights in the US demonstrates that the dismantling of barriers due to race lead sexism, to wit:

1) Slavery

2) Voting Rights

3) Miscegenation

4) Abortion

5) Equal Rights Amendment (failed to ratify))

6) Same gender marriage (banned in many states)

Ergo, "racism" has been perceived (and actioned) as the greater social/political wrong, and leads causes based on sexism. That includes so called minorities trying to break through political glass ceilings.

How can that be when the term 'glass ceiling' was relating to discrimination of women in the workforce.

The term glass ceiling was used prior to the 1984 article by two women at Hewlett-Packard in 1979, Katherine Lawrence and Marianne Schreiber, to describe how while on the surface there seemed to be a clear path of promotion, but, in actuality, women seemed to hit a point where they seemed unable to progress beyond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling

We are talking 'glass ceiling' discrimination related to Hillary's presidential campaign which is the factor that really knocked her out of the race.

Wonder why Black Obama is still there and the White WOMEN is out, if racism trumps sexism?

[bush_cheney2004]

How can that be when the term 'glass ceiling' was relating to discrimination of women in the workforce.

The question was racism trumping sexism, and it applies to the "glass ceiling" as well, with "black" CEOs leading the way before women.

Wonder why Black Obama is still there and the White WOMEN is out, if racism trumps sexism?

You have just answered your own question.

[FTA Lawyer]

I don't dispute for a moment that some out there would fight to keep a woman from being anything but First Lady in the Whitehouse, but I can't help but state the obvious:

When a woman is right to the wire to become one of two candidates for "leader of the free world" as the US likes to say it, where pray tell is the glass ceiling if she is not already through it? Between presidential candidate and God? 'Cause that's really another topic then...

If you ask me, rather than look for a glass ceiling, go for the most obvious explanation. She lost the campaign. Notice I didn't say Obama was smarter or a better candidate or anything else like that.

There was a campaign...many very high powered men were crushed by Senator Clinton during that campaign...but, in the end, she came in second.

FTA

[bush_cheney2004]

...There was a campaign...many very high powered men were crushed by Senator Clinton during that campaign...but, in the end, she came in second.

Agreed..and she wasn't the first to do anything....including losing.

[BC_chick]

Hillary Clinton and her supporters want to have it both ways - all throughout the campaign she was just another candidate, yet when she lost, it was because of "sexism." If Obama had lost though, no siree, it would be Obama who lost, not a black man. Forget all the ape-comparisons, forget all the polls that showed many of Clinton supporters stating race as a primary reason for their vote, forget the disproportionate number of older generation voting for her who could never bring themselves to vote for a black man. No way - Obama would never lose because of his race!

I'm especially disgusted with such a claim because Obama never once brought up her femaleness throughout the campaign, yet she was playing the race card against him time and time again with her assertions that he can't win with the white voters. So to see her play the um, "gender-card" now, I find it truly despicable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - IMO I still think America is much more ready for a white woman than a black man.... just not THAT white woman against THAT black man. A charismatic white woman would've destroyed your average black-man. It just so happened that Obama has a certain je ne sais quoi which has baffled many political pundits, while Hillary Clinton stirs up as much of a negative emotion amongst some as much as she does admiration by others.

And don't even get me started with the negativity she supposedly received from the media - tell me how often the Reverend Wright fiasco was played on the air any given day, and compare that with the blatant lies about landing amongst the snipers in Bosnia during her tenure as First Lady.

What lies about snipers you ask? Oh, you must've blinked that day and missed the whole thing.

She had the gestures down, the facial movements, everything as she just stood there and openly lied with a big warm smile on her face. The woman is either a terrific actress or a sociopath. I'm betting it's the latter.

[Leafless]

You have just answered your own question.

Not at all.

IOW, you are stating racist actions allowed Obama to win and Hillary to lose, due to 'sexism'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not at all.

IOW, you are stating racist actions allowed Obama to win and Hillary to lose, due to 'sexism'.

No, I am saying that historically and in this primary competition, racial "injustice" is the more compelling issue. Hillary sealed her own fate by demonstrating this during the campaign.

Race before gender.

[Leafless]

No, I am saying that historically and in this primary competition, racial "injustice" is the more compelling issue. Hillary sealed her own fate by demonstrating this during the campaign.

Race before gender.

If Hillary is racist why would Obama want her part of his team?

Race issues work both ways.

Hillary did not get the hard working Black vote.

Obama did not get the hard working White vote.

So Obama is bound to lose in the end.

If Democrats were smart, they would run only White candidates.

To late now!

Race in America counts.

[bush_cheney2004]

Race in America counts.

...indeed...race before gender.

[Leafless]

...indeed...race before gender.

I am connecting racial preference, perfectly normal, vs. outright racism which no one will admit to anyways in a presidential election and cannot be proven. So race is simply an undesirable medium that must be tolerated with no emphasis placed on actual racism.

Unlike Hillary, Obama has 'little hands on experience' and his speeches although compelling are vague and lack substance.

The 'glass ceiling' primarily disqualified Hilliary and secondly, personal preference and possible racism from the Black states.

So sexism, in this race up to now trumps racism as perceived racism can be summed up has simply racial preference and is not an issue.

Obama will probably be next within the ranks of the Democrats to lose his quest for the presidency of the U.S. and if he does, watch out for immediate imaginary racist allegations as the primary reason why he failed.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Leafless

[Guest American Woman]

Racism trumps sexism.

How so?

Maybe Clinton's campaign craftily played the race card, but Hillary's critics attacked everything from her pant suits to her personal character.

On the other side of the coin, if Obama was a women, although his speeches are good, he would not have been taken seriously lacking Clinton's experience.

Sorry, sexism trumps racism.

I agree with this. To an extent. It wasn't PC for any of the media to mention race, but it was just fine and dandy to attack Clinton for being a woman. So she had to deal with gender in her campaign in a way that Obama didn't have to deal with race. You didn't see any headlines about Obama comparable to "Can Hillary Cry Her Way to the White House?" She couldn't win. She was either an emotional female or a bitch.

But here's how I see it. Obama is good looking and half white. If he were an unkown black-as-spades African-looking black man with exactly the same credentials, I doubt he would have won the nomination.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But here's how I see it. Obama is good looking and half white. If he were an unkown black-as-spades African-looking black man with exactly the same credentials, I doubt he would have won the nomination.

Well, that explains a lot. Good thing Obama is not very very very very African-American looking!

I will let Alan Keyes know why he failed!

[RB]

QUOTE

Schroeder said Clinton's campaign showed, "There's a tremendous amount of sexism still out there," and society simply doesn't deal with sexism as it does, say, with racism and anti-Semitism, and the campaign showed we still have "a lot of ground to cover" combating sexism.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/...in4163909.shtml

Did Clinton Damage the Glass Ceiling?

Clinton conceded, as a woman it is a struggle to get to the top. She started the race with the insistence that she was running for president and happen to be a woman.

The truth is women are too foolish when it comes to decisions to promote and enhance other women. They simply do not reproduce power the way men do. Women believe in their struggles i.e. as a woman, you are heavily penalize for being the opportunist at the right moment. So unlike men who invariably push each other to the top and they stayed there, also called the patriarchy.

Many women did not resonate with Clinton being cold, tough, unwomanly like, seem calculatingly distant and not to share experiences of married women. Hence, though harsh, women just did not trust her.

Next, it is strange how women seeking the top jobs always portray themselves as men. Trying to become a man, well, don't sit well with men. Now, even, Kerry's windsurfing was not taken too kindly in politics and simply meant he was not man enough to run a country. To put it another way being a wolf in sheep clothing. Hilliary disposition and politics was in direct conflict with the traditional macho image of politics. How would a woman compete with masculinity of Bush and Chaney who really took politics (maleness) to a higher, ruthless level since Sept. 11.

So there you have it, men don't want a woman trying to be man, and women feel that women trying to be a man is compromising what women stand for.

So, what women really want. A tough one.

I have come to a conclusion that women will never be as good as men, so they have to always try to be better than men. Second place actually means there is so much more room to try harder to be better, the sort of struggles women have become accustom to, and experiences all women can share. I mean even Hillary shed a dear old tear, to prove that women really deserve opportunities, EQUAL opportunities. So it is not ironic that Hillary attempted to run against the tough boys with demeanor of the same lost out on both the men and women votes. Women felt let down.

Barack Obama however offers something of change and a breakaway from the struggles (the same struggles women wish to overcome), and he is outreaching to the length and breath of America. He simply offers optimism and set apart the past with a future of caring and nurturing the people.

I meant women's theme have always been about caring and nurturing. Perhaps women are just doom whenever they try to emulate power (MEN), like they are done being women, discarding their lipstick, high heels and their femininity and the female traits take a hike.

Edited June 11, 2008 by RB

[Mechanix]

Hillary lost because she is too flawed of a candidate, not because she's a woman.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hillary lost because she is too flawed of a candidate, not because she's a woman.

Exactamundo.....lots of better qualified women (and men) are available. We wouldn't even know who Hillary is if not for Slick Willy.

Edited June 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004