I’m going to do a Jessica Valenti on the Hillary washup.
70 Responses to “Gender and New Hampshire”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Heh.
I was just finishing up Traister’s column and coming over here to write that exact same post!
Heh!
Great minds, etc.
It’s the obvious post to write!
Thanks for that link. I had of course been aware on the neocons hatred for both the Clintons, but was not aware in any detail of how they had been ganging up on Hillary. I had put her NH win down to the teary bit humanising her - is the fact she’s cold and unfeeling a right wing myth, and NH women being pissed off at Edwards’ uncalled for put-down about the teary bit.Made me very disappointed in him. And if I was in the US I’d be campaigning for Obama. But he’s probably too good for them.
I turns out I only needed a day away…
This piece does also speak to the discussion on the earlier thread about media effects. Traister speculates that the dominant MSM position on Hilary may have swung people towards Clinton, but concludes that there is a fundamental uncertainty about the causes of the outcome in New Hampshire at the end of her piece. This is a sensible position, and whether the speculation is correct - ie people are reacting critically to vilification of Clinton - or not, it is in the gap between the media construction of the democratic process and the outcomes of that process that we can find some hope when faced with the kinds of positions that emerge with such regularity when women attempt to contribute publicly to that process.
Clinton certainly scored the points in this round. Traister does acknowledge one unfortunate truth, that even politically aware and independent thinkers can fall for cheap stunts and decide their vote on irrelevant emotional issues:
nice link. Thanks. i’ll have to look for the Steinman peice now.
it seems funny that after the women’s studies 101 referance that there was no mention of the “Iron my shirt” episode. between them the tearing up and the old school misoginy neatly bookend the dilemas of modern women. how to cut it on a set of playing fields where the rules have been set by patriarchy and still be a woman without any of the so called baggage that is supposed to make you unfit for office.
Traister seems to be expressing a bit of guilt that she has not been exhibiting the degree of solidarity towards Hillary that she feels that she ought. but there is a feminist victory of sorts in the fact that she can support Edwards or Obama, or any of the others. Traister could feel pretty good about the fact that she can make a choise in the Dem primaries that doesn’t demand adherance to old school identity politics or too much intelectual of emotional compromise. as long as she is willing to do her bit and vote for whoever it is that the dems put up in November and help rid us of this long gop nightmare.
The wisest move Hillary ever made was fleeing the Gender Studies coven. What errant nonsense these dopey bints have been shrieking on with over these primaries.
Please elaborate, John. In all seriousness, use evidence and make an argument of it. Your contribution on the high culture / low culture thread, while couched in your usual rhetoric, still offered a substantive position worth disagreeing with. The whole anti-Gender Studies thing is just not that interesting in the context of this post. What particular part of Traister’s piece do you disagree with? How does that relate to your broader position on contemporary feminism?
I can think of a few points that would be worth some real scrutiny, and both Desipis and dylwah have offered examples worth discussing.
Desipsis, your analysis is really missing the point of Traister’s article. She isn’t admitting that she fell for a cheap stunt at all, and more importantly she’s arguing the opposite - that these aren’t “irrelevant emotional issues”. She’s arguing that the behaviour shown by so many of Clinton’s opponents demonstrate that these issues are still important, and that in a way, it’s wrong to suggest that we’re beyond the symbolism of whether or not we need a woman in the role in order to advance the interests of all women.
If she’d admitted that she’d been swayed by Clinton’s “tears” (by tears, of course, we mean “she almost cried because - see - she’s an emotional woman), then you’d be right about falling for stunts. But that isn’t what she’s saying at all. She’s saying that the incredible reaction to it shows that we really haven’t gotten as far as we thought we had, and that that realisation made her reconsider her choice of candidate.
This was good too.
I like that piece too Anna, it takes that tiny piece of creative uncertainty represented by the polling booth and stitches it to a narrative of the kind that would be given no space in the MSM environment - a deeper narrative about memory and a different kind of political awareness to the kind that say ‘x is unelectable because of y’. While you’re correct that “the incredible reaction to it shows that we really haven’t gotten as far as we thought we had”, at the same time both Traister and The Ghost of Violet draw our attention to that uncertainty as well.
Anna Winter, I realise my comment went off on a tangent from the point of the article. Perhaps I need to clarify my point a bit. The cheap stunt as I see it, wasn’t Clinton trying to appeal directly to women, but rather trying to draw out anti-women comments from anywhere she could, a classic political ploy. I’m not suggesting that we’re beyond the symbolic factors (of a female president or otherwise). Rather, that Traister had apparently made a rational decision inclusive of symbolic considerations however let an emotional knee-jerk reaction to (temporarily) override her choice.
I know New Hampshire a little and the folks up there are naturally contrarian so sympathy for a victim of media bias is not unexpected there. Plus the retail nature of the NH primary and excellent work by Hillary’s long standing organisation there will have helped capitilise on any blowback.
Hillary may have in more of a challange in some of the following states where bigger populations, and short timeframes, mean more reliance by the campaigns on the media to get the message out. Also, the populations in some of those of parts are more (how do we say this politely?) ummm biddable in the face of media messages.
I still think you are wrong, Desipis.
Even if Clinton planned the entire thing, which I don’t think she did, it doesn’t negate the fact that such vicious and obvious sexism changed the calculus that many women used to make their decision. That is, it wasn’t emotional, knee-jerk reaction to a cheap stunt; it’s a very important factor to consider, that had been somewhat overlooked because a lot of women were much more optimistic about the status of women than they should have been. Even if some of the women who changed their vote to Clinton subsequently change it back, that doesn’t mean it was a temporary insanity, or giving in to irrelevant emotions. What Traister is arguing, and I agree with her, is that this has changed the way in which many women will make their choice now in the light of this “new” information.
However, I think it gives Clinton both too much, and not enough, credit to imply that this is exactly what she planned. Firstly, even if it’s what she planned, it would have been way too risky to count on it - it could have backfired enormously. I doubt any adviser would have put forward such a plan - no-one would have been confident enough to predict that events would unfold in such a way. Secondly, to suggest that someone as complex as Clinton acted in such a one-dimensional manner is silly. I think the moment was perhaps partly scripted in the sense that she was advised to show a bit more emotion, a bit more “softness”. But I think it was also a genuine display of feeling, regardless of whether she was advised to let said feelings show a bit more often. Lastly, it’s important to remember that some of the “surprise” isn’t because lots of people changed their vote in a day, but because too many people wrote her off way too soon. This is something that Clinton would have been pleased with (and no doubt helped contribute to) - no-one wants to be the front runner that early.
It would be interesting to try to measure or otherwise apprehend the difference you refer to, RobertBe, in terms of some populations being more ‘biddable’ than others. It sounds plausible, and I wouldn’t reject it out of hand, especially if you have a feel for local conditions, but I wonder if there is distribution/ratings etc data for mainstream media and alternative media outlets that would support your assertion about New Hampshire. Or failing that some qualitative research showing different responses to media, or perhaps different kinds of media environments.
Population and timeframe are important variables, especially with a system that demands not only that the minds of voters be changed but that they be motivated to get out and vote. Some political theorists point to the speed at which communication takes place as a factor in influencing the qualities of political activities. On the other hand, voters in other states have the advantage of observing the field of play and the outcomes of New Hampshire if they are interested.
Klaus,
I’m guessing that reliance on media (forced by short timeframes) may be more important than interstate cultural differences when we get to South Carolina and Florida etc.. The sort of media storm that followed Hillary’s loss in Iowa can be capitalised on to generate sympathy given the right preconditions. Namely that people be paying attention and that a retail level campaign organisation is already in place and can be effective in getting those responding to show up and vote. All of which is possible in New Hampshire because the lead up is several months long. Most of the rest of the country really only tunes in to primaries at the last minute. Meaning first impressions count, even when they are provided by media pursuing their own agendas.
That said, and this is just my personal impression, I think that there are cultural differences that may be important. Which is mainly a case of New Hampshire being different from the rest of the country (i.e. more sceptical and libertarian) rather then state by state differences.
It will be fascinating to see if the female vote in opposition to media chauvinism effect shows up in subsequent contests. I think we can rely on Chris Matthews et al to continue saying dumb things.
I don’t think I’m giving too much credit to Clinton, and I’m not saying she doesn’t have feelings or emotions. I’m saying that anyone with such a long and successful career in politics would have learned to suppress every shred of humanity while in the public eye. I can’t believe that she lost ‘control’, even for a second. Yes, there was a risk to the ploy but (I haven’t been paying too much attention, so correct me if I’m wrong) she was behind in the polls before the primary, justifying the risk to gain the valuable momentum from the early primaries.
Found this analysis on NH.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/women_nonworking_for_hillary.php
Klaus
First of all, I am on the record as being a huge fan of Hillary, and have been praying her becoming President for many years, since I very briefly met her (but that’s not important right now). So, the points I make below are not criticisms of her in my book, BUT they are facts. Facts the Gender Feminazis ignore. The reason I invoke Gender Studies is because of their dopey insistence that men and women are not different, ergo any response to any individual woman that the GF decide would not be the exact same response that would attend their childishly impossible example, “if Hillary were a man…if Obama were a woman…” So they mine any examples they can possibly come across before dumping a huge ideological edifice of Pepe Le Pew garbage onto some cherry-picked incidents to PROVE their “misogyny” theories.
TV is all about “if it bleeds, it leads.� If it had been Lindsay Lohan crying, I would not have run from the bathroom to watch (as I did with Teargate), nor if it had been Princess Diana (not again), nor David Beckham, nor Michael Leuning. But the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock? Now THAT’S a story!
The Gender Feminazis, such as Traister are up in arms
the loosening of a clenched resentment that it was a chick who had dared be confident about her ability to win, who had exercised infuriating control over the press, who had exerted uncomfortable and unrelenting dominion over her male competitors. When Clinton lost her grip, ever so slightly, over that dominion, there was a release of rip-roaring, rollicking fun at her expense.
In other words, Hillary is nothing but a female. Ironically, it is Traitster who is denying Hillary any agency outside her gender.
The words thrown around about her fizzed with ill-disguised misogynistic energy: In her presumptive defeat, Clinton suddenly was shrill, panicked, desperate, emotional.
Never a hint, there might actually be something about the human being Hillary HERSELF that is in the driving seat. Same locally, where we get these
Its obviously true the media treats women candidates showing emotion far more viciously than men…I’d agree with the point that America is, in regard to candidates at least, more sexist than racist.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/01/08/new-hampshire-primary/#comment-425733
Well, “obviously!
For the past 16 years, Hillary Clinton (nee Rodham-Clinton) has been part of the psycho political DNA of any of us over the age of 30. Her fascination has largely derived from her consistency with an ageless gender archetype; the Ice Queen. She is that latest in a long line from Homer’s Omphale (whose Ice Queen ways emasculated Hercules) to Aeschylus’ Persian Queen, Atossa and Clytemnestra to Justinian The Great’s empress, Theodora, to Lady MacBeth . To draw the bow perhaps a bit too far, we might say Obama’s Iowa win tamed the shrew,
However, unlike these other archetypes, there is no threat of an orgy of sex and violence being unleashed when she is cornered; a little rehearsed tear is all we were ever going to get.
The Yale Law School valedictorian who became one of the top corporate litigators in the US, told us all sneeringly that she was never going to “stay home and bake cookies.� Still she (and Bill) have done a remarkable job in raising by all accounts a very poised, highly educated, centred daughter who, herself, is now making waves in the even more male world of Wall Street hedge-funds.
The gender feminazis flip their crew-cut wigs when a heckler demanded “iron my shirt� yet are silent on the bizarre coincidence that her teary moment occurred while a TV camera was perfectly positioned in a coffee shop! They are also silent on the reality that the only reason any of us have even heard of Hillary Clinton is because of who she married - Bill Clinton - as is attested by her very surname. In his first term, Bill very ill-advisedly put his missus in charge of one of the most fraught and ambitious domestic reform agendas since the New Deal and GI Bill; healthcare. Her failure was massive, and provides an emblematic justification for cynicism against her.
Similarly, the Gender Set while going ape shit over Anita Hill re Clarence Thomas, were silent on Bill Clinton re Monica Lewinsky and, and , and….In Australia, an even more reprehensible hypocrisy by the Gender sisterhood was their treatment of Pauline Hanson, but I digress.
John Greenfield,
Firstly, and off topic, there are a variety of positions in contemporary feminism re: sexual difference, not all of which are represented in the articles cited here so far. Also, not many poststructuralist positions floating around in the Anglophonic blogosphere from what I have seen, and this is as much true of feminist blogs which from my experience tend to take fairly mainstream liberal and/or radical feminist positions on most issues.
Secondly, and closer to being on topic, it is interesting, given the invocation of the ‘Ice Queen’ archetype, that one of Clinton’s formative influences was (if I remember correctly) Saul Alinsky ie the man responsible for the infamous ‘Symphony of Farts’ prank and other creative forms of counter-cultural activity. I believe she wrote a thesis on Alinsky, in fact.
Now, I’m not entirely clear on how you are arriving at the idea that Traister is denying Hillary individual agency since the object of Traister’s criticism is media discourse. From my reading there is space for a critique of that discourse on the one hand and for Hillary’s individuality on the other. You seem to be attributing the denial of agency inherent in the discourse on femininity being criticised to the feminist critics themselves. There may be more scope for discussing Hillary’s management of and manipulation of that discourse, a point raised by Desipis and others, but that is not contrary to criticising the image of ‘woman’ being deployed there.
As for the idea that we only know about Clinton because of who her husband was/is: well, I guess we’ll never know for sure, but I’m not sure how the circumstance of her coming to prominence is pertinent to what she is trying to do at the moment. You are onto something more substantive in citing her previous political failures (if they are in fact failures, I simply don’t have the information on hand to evaluate them) and suggesting that the issues under discussion could obscure those. Even if Hillary has managed to calculatingly stage this incident, knowing the reaction, then the discourse of femininity unleashed still requires scrutiny.
I think I have begun to address your arguments here, please correct me if I’ve misrepresented them because I do have trouble sometimes sifting through the insulting terms such as ‘feminazi’ for the point.
“”while a TV camera was perfectly positioned in a coffee shop!”"
Sheesh, the woman is the first potentially electable presidential candidate. There are cameras e v e r y w h e r e.
Also, your comment about “nee Rodham-Clinton” would look much less desperately snide and daggy if you’d been able to resist the cheap snark and used the “née” accurately.
Sheesh, the woman is the first potentially electable presidential candidate.
I meant first chick one, obvs.
I wouldn’t characterise it like that, but I can.
Hillary has never been in a campaign like this one - New York Senate campaigns are small biccies compared to hotly contested presidential primaries. She’d be exhausted, and worried, and probably offended that people question her good faith in running. I don’t think it was a ploy, and it’s perfectly possible to see how it could not have been.
Also, what Anna said (in the spirit of the post).
It’s not about losing control, Desipis. I mean, really, she almost teared up. She didn’t burst into tears.
But frankly, just as it’s naive to assume that candidates are always showing us their real face, it’s also showing a lack of understanding of politics to act as though everything they do is always calculated. No person is capable of that, no matter how much they wish they were.
What Anna said.
I think I agree, but somewhat mischievously and just a little seriously: what if it is both? I mean that living so much in the public eye, is it possible for any public appearance shy of complete emotional outpouring for a politician to not contain an element of calculation? Surely the heads of ordinary citizens tearing up or coming close to it in public spaces also contain thoughts of advantage, rationalisations, some understanding of how they are being perceived in that moment, alongside overwhelming emotion.
I think it was Doris Lessing who suggested that all tears except those shed in sleep are tears of self-pity. One element of self-pity is an implicit appeal to others, and one aspect of that could be calculation. It does not necessarily do a disservice to the genuineness of the emotion to admit that, it is just that there are discourses - and archetypes, as Mr Greenfield has reminded us - waiting to take up such a possibility and use it against her.
I realise that this discussion is at risk of veering off topic.
Gender Studies is about differences, not sameness.
I just discount any post that uses the eword ‘feminazi’. It’s the first sign of idiocy.
From everything I know about Hillary Clinton (mainly from ploughing through her autobiography, which I disliked), my guess is that it was a genuine moment of fragility/tiredness/worry, but that her steel-trap intellect (for her husband is not the only person in that marriage with a brain the size of a planet, and she was a champion debater at school and college) came up with that weird non sequitur about ‘not wanting the country to go backwards’ (Backwards from what? How can they possibly go backwards from Bush?) to provide a noble public-minded rationale for what was actually a private and momentary arrival at the end of her rope, and cover for what she knew would be seen — and crucified — as a moment of weakness.
Maybe tears were less potent than some electronic hanky panky in Clinton’s NH victory.
Dennis Kucinich has forked over $2000 to have a manual recount of the NH votes.
Seems that machine-counted voting stations all favoured Clinton, whereas hand-counted voting stations all favoured Obama.
If this is true then it is a very suspicious anomoly.
Kucinich, who lost anyway, doesn’t worry about being called a sore loser. He just wants to know the truth.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
I just discount any post that uses the eword ‘feminazi’. It’s the first sign of idiocy.
I’m with you, Fine. Also, why does “feminazi” or “femonazi” always get a free pass and not trigger Godwin’s?
Well, I didn’t read the comment. As stated, the use of that word is a sign of rubbish to follow.
I’m afraid I am promoting its use by responding, but I did request an elaboration further up the thread so I thought it correct that I continue the discussion, without at the same time turning it into a stoush. I don’t know about it being a Godwin’s trigger - since it is basically the dumb anti-feminist equivalent of that old lazy-leftist chestnut ie ‘fascist’ - but I do think it is a stupid word.
Katz, re electronic hanky panky; here’s how it’s done. Diebold computers “counted” most of the NH vote.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/exit-polls-obama-won-new-hampshire.html
Hooray! Twisty’s back!
Now I can truly enjoy my summer hols!
Sorry -
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2008/01/11/an-unexpected-post/
Zoe
please re-read my first paragraph.
Klaus
Interesting. I did not know any of that. But will now read up Alinsky, he sounds like an interesting dude. And WHAT a cracker title. Perhaps a “blazing� sequel will follow?
You seem to be attributing the denial of agency inherent in the discourse on femininity being criticised to the feminist critics themselves. There may be more scope for discussing Hillary’s management of and manipulation of that discourse, a point raised by Desipis and others, but that is not contrary to criticising the image of ‘woman’ being deployed there.
This is precisely my criticism. The Traisters have got their panties in a twist because they are IMPOSING a “discourse� (I will not use that awful word again, as it is a form of discursive terrorism) on the media treatment of Teargate; media treatment that Traitster assumes she is not inextricably involved in. They deny Hillary any agency over the past 17 years in the broadcasting of her persona. What the Traisters are doing is accusing the media of merely instrumentalising Hillary qua individual in their grander metanarrative of “woman.� This is errant nonsense and profoundly misogynist; misanthropic even.
JG, You Would Do Well (to use a favourite, and insufferable, expression of your own) to stop saying that things are errant nonsense. Nonsense is errant by definition. The expression is arrant nonsense.
Please note that I mention this only in order that no innocent third party be misled.
“Teargate”.
Oh for fuck’s sake.
Well, Helen, you’ll be happy to know the 2nd cricket test drama is now known as “monkeygate”.
Also, it’s either ‘knickers in a twist’ or ‘panties in a bunch’.
Great. Can’t keep up, so get out the Tipex? Good for you!
So the noun is awful, but the adjective is fine?
Yep.
Ps - Tippex has two ps.
And it’s knickers in a knot. The alliteration is amportatnt.
Alas, poor Zarquon, beset by the dogs of assonance while correcting a cat.
I fail to see how that is misogynist or misanthropic, at worst it is a mistaken understanding of where the media sits in our culture. By the way, I don’t think feminist critics are suggesting that the media is the origin of those ideas about ‘woman’, but a space in which those ideas are visibly deployed and a terrain on which they can be more directly contested.
Hillary certainly is involved in cultivating her own media persona, but the material she is working with involves a potentially debilitating patriarchal inheritance. It does not deny her agency to suggest that, rather it implies that she has had to do more than her male counterparts.
Exactly.
I deduce that this will come as shock to you, Greensleeves, but not only are (1) keeping up with an argument and (2) spelling said argument correctly not mutually exclusive, they are in fact usually found together.
I would argue that twist is legit but have to agree that knot is better.
Pfft. Cats do not take correction.
* See Mark’s PS at #43
Seems the Clintons are now in trouble over comments interpreted as racist now. Bill’s attack on Obama, which was actually a critique of his voting record on the Iraq War, is being labelled racist. And Hillary is being castigated for allegedly giving Lyndon Johnson credit for Civil Rights legislation instead of Martin Luther King. Things are really hotting up in an attempt to corner the black South Carolina vote.
The forces of the right are really out to get Hillary. Reckon if they hate her so much, she’d make a damn good President.
Hillary also has the disadvantage of being perceived as ‘privileged’, and not only in terms of background, but also in her position as an insider. She is more likely to be a focus for ‘ressentiment’ given her conspicuous links to the powerful.
Klaus K,
I absolutely agree with you. But, since most Presidential candidates are usually members of a plutocracy nowadays, I wonder how much bite that would really have among people inclined to vote for her.It would certainly form part of an excuse to attack her (somewhat hypocritically) from the right. But GWB was privileged (and dumb, and unfit to be President, but that’s another somewhat old debate.) And given Bush’s stuff-ups would not the American public feel safer in the hands of a President who was obviously capable, extremely intelligent, and probably less prone to making stupid decisions? One wonders how relieved the American people might be to know that they are likely to elect some-one who is not going to have continual ‘moments’ that embarrass their country before the world. Perhaps aspects of the Bush factor could be a hidden driver in the forthcoming elections? Or perhaps not so hidden.
I suppose it is a relative thing. One could argue that Republicans are supposed to be privileged (read ’successful businessmen/actors/politicians’), whereas part of the Democratic appeal is that they govern for the people. Hillary will be open to accusations of the ’sins’ of privilege, probably more so than her opponents on either side of politics. Also, the way in which Hillary’s public femininity has been constructed means that there is a potential for mutual reinforcement.
Dopey Traister is clearly blisfully unaware that she is reacting to Hillary Clinton’s very agency, NOT her imagined Dictatorship of the Discourse. Why do Gender Feminists talk such crap?
Why do you make no sense? You haven’t taken into account the ripostes to your point. You couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag.
Kim
Respond to the Tippex Twins? Please. Let’s see YOU argue, darl!
Klaus, actually Romney is probably the most privileged insider candidate in the race. Which is no doubt one reason why he’s not running so well.
It may indeed, although I think perceived privilege is more likely to affect the Democratic candidates, and also that some forms of privilege are less visible or less likely to play negatively - eg being a ’successful businessman’.
Kim
WTF? More privileged than Hilary? You really are weird, dudette.
Romney is an extremely wealthy businessman, whose father was an extremely wealthy businessman. Romney is a former Governor whose father was a former Governor. Romney was born into great wealth.
Actually, Klaus, Romney’s background has been used against him negatively with great effect in the GOP primaries - McCain focusing on his use of his fortune to run (as McCain alleges) lying negative ads, and Huckabee arguing that people would rather vote for someone who’s like the person who works with them, than the person who sacks them - a reference to Romney’s role in private equity as well.
Kim
Whoever said otherwise? Compare that to that effort of merely marrying Romney!
Huh? You just did, JG.
Thanks for the update, Kim: I hadn’t been paying much attention to the Republican side, although it may parallel the idea that the Republicans are getting ready to move away from the preoccupation with small government as well.
Though that perception has only recently been just that, Klaus. Bush has practiced (unashamedly) big government Conservatism, and it’s interesting that the backlash against that largely takes a populist form rather than a return to Reaganite quasi-libertarian rhetoric, Ron Paul notwithstanding.
Agreed on the big government Conservatism of Bush et al. The shift of position may be defensive at some levels, in that case: the party can no longer claim the initiative on the matter after Bush.
Off topic now: my brother, who is a great frequenter of the US-centric tech blogs, humour sites etc, informed me the other day that (and I quote) “the internet is obsessed with Ron Paul”, which I thought was an interesting observation given that Paul is doing so poorly in the primaries.
Kim
You are trying to delegitimise Romney with your sophomoric Derridean sneer at Romney’s being the “most privileged.” Yet you show no willingness to extend your trope to Hilary.
Oh, don’t be a goose, JG. I’m using “privileged” in its normal sense. I personally couldn’t give a toss about Romney, as he’s not going to win. I’m just saying what Republicans have been saying. And if you’d been reading what I’ve been writing, I’m no fan of Hillary’s.
John Greenfield,
Read the thread: it is all about how candidates are perceived. What Kim and I have been discussing is the idea that a perception of privilege may work against certain candidates. I suggested that it could work against Hillary, and Kim informed me that it was already working against Romney. Oh the ‘Derridean sneer’ of the GOP!
Derridean sneer? Is that what Peter Costello used to do?
I know, OT, sorry, but I couldn’t resist it.
I know this isn’t exactly New Hampshire etc, but as this seems to be the only thread on the US Primaries at the moment … Mitt Romney is reported in the NY Times today (printed instructions on how to link lost among chaos of notes for other writing) as telling the voters in Detroit, Michigan, apparently to resounding approval, in his effort to become become President, he is against the raising of fuel efficiency standards in tthe car industry, and that a bill recently introduced into Congress to cap and trade greenhouse emissions is a “jpb-killer.” Looks like we’ve got another climate change denier on our hands, if this was not purely for local car industry consumption.
Neither Obama nor Edwards are standing in Michigan, and Obama is telling his cohorts to vote uncommitted in the Democratic primaries.