It’s all over bar the shouting (make mine a bourbon) for Hillary. Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte and Katha Pollitt look at the race/gender wars in the context of this year’s primaries at the LA Times.
Pollitt has the money quote:
I can’t tell you how many reporters have interviewed me for stories about “why women are divided about Clinton.” How about a story explaining “why men are divided about John McCain”? In fact, gender as a factor in men’s voting is one of many elephants in the political room, even as male (and female) candidates slaughter innocent wildlife, sit through endless NASCAR races and profess their love of hot dogs and beer.
Remember John Kerry’s bizarre gun/hunting fest from 2004?
However you think identity politics issues have played out in this year’s campaign, one thing is certain - through their complicity in all too predictable story lines, the media - and the much touted “netroots” - have both dropped the ball in terms of genuine civic engagement - discussion of the issues (and for that matter, a reasonable scrutiny of the candidates’ capacities). But both campaigns have been guilty as well of playing the race/gender cards to their advantage.
Heh, discussion on the issues stopped around early Jan, when it was apparent there was 3/5ths of bugger all difference in most of their policies. The one serious policy divergence - Iraq, Foreign Relations etc got folded into nebulous crap about ‘experience’ vs. ‘fresh ideas’, and that’s been the race barring the bi-weekly ‘gaffe’.
There seems to be a difference in their health policies too, which is a big deal for the poor Americans with their private health system.
Absolutely, suz.
Obama’s healthcare plan is more gradualist (as I understand it) than Clinton’s.
Thats a policy difference, and it’s a big issue over there to be sure, but serious campaign discussion over that petered out sometime in February. It’s complex stuff, and the details, claims, counterclaims aren’t the most enthralling stuff to report on.
Identity politics, personality politics and gaffe-watching on the other hand…
Hillary might have done better to talk about policy… as John Edwards was doing. Or not! But “Change we can believe in” might well not occur if the opportunity isn’t taken - at every available moment - to hammer home the message about health care and social justice.
She did do a lot of that stuff, and did hammer Obama on his refusal to mandate co-pay top-up deductible service fees for out-of-pocket single-payer Schedule II Spaceninjas (well that’s what it sounds like to Aussie ears). But it’s not something you could a whole campaign on, especially when you’re both aiming for the same thing. There was fairly abundant policy talking prior to, and during the first few contests, but when it became old news the identity/personality-to-policy ratio started to ramp up, especially after both candidates Plan A didn’t eventuate and Edwards dropped out.
I know I’m dreaming, Leinad!
Anyway, its wrapped up. Who got the most popular votes is still disputed but both Hillary and Obama got about 18 million votes.
I’m watching Hillary’s New York speech now, and it is not really a concession.
Much speculation going on about whether Obama would make HRC VP.
Also speculation about whether Bill can be left alone in a hotel lobby, but that’s another matter.
actually who got the popular vote is not disputed, Obama did. Clinton’s BS argument about the popular vote depends on ignoring the caucus states that don’t count the votes and on including Michigin, where hers was the only name on the ballot and voters were told that their vote wouldn’t count. garbage.
Kim, you might be interested in this excerpt from Rough Rider
in the White House.
(came across it during ‘Climate change denialism - why now?’).
What strikes me is the lengths Roosevelt went to contrive his ‘Cowboy’ image…120 years ago.
TR is supposedly one of GWB’s heroes - would make an interesting comparison.