First, his reference to “Hillary and Obama,” however intended, is not parallel. While some might see the use of Ms. Clinton’s first name as a complimentary recognition of her iconic status, others may see it as the kind of over-familiarity designed to put a woman in her place.

Second, using the phrase “If I was a woman in politics trying to accentuate my advantages” is simply asking for trouble. If the point is that charmlessness alienates voters, then there is no need to invoke the candidate’s sex.

When Obama talks about bogeymen in the baby boomers’ closets, such sensitivity about language, such political correctness, is one of the tools the politicos routinely use to devide the electorate. To quote that quintessential MCP, My Fair Lady’s Henry Higgins, “the French [in this case Americans] don’t care what they do exactly so long as they pronounce it properly.”

The rhetorical traps are everywhere and even now the Clinton campaign is laying out more, yesterday threatening to boycott MSNBC-sponsored debates because of the stupid, careless comment of one of its reporters. With the public record extending with each successive debate, it is a remarkable comment on Obama’s charm and carefulness that he himself has to this point avoided the most dangerous bait.

As for some of the comments posted above, I am thoroughly impressed and humbled by the degree to which our Australian cousins care about and understand our peculiar U.S. politics. Philly’s comments are among the most entertaining. Might not one of a conspiratorial mind wonder is she were actually a parody of a feminist perpetrated by a misogynistic male?

There are even blue state facts and red state facts. Gasp! Well I never!

There is no real “liberal” or “conservative”, Democrat or Republican media per se in the US.

And the notion that the liberal media rules ok is the finest bit of spin of the Republican Party.

Sucker bait, mate.

Rupert spotted an unexploited niche in the American news market and filled it – the niche in question was the other half of the population

So of course Fox is number one – they are the only outlet pandering to half the country whilst the other three share the other half.

More seriously, if media = ‘Fox News’ to you then you need eyes, and ears, and something inbetween.

Two words for you: Fox News

The Democrats simply have no equivalent propaganda machine to this one alone. And, as it boasts, it is Number One.

Her current proposals for health care in the US ,the biggest issue to confront any politiciaan, seems to me to the best poicy of anyone running.

I think what is going on with Hillary is that the people whp hate the Clintons just can’t let it go

If Democratic is still right-wing in your book, as in Obama’s case it evidently is, that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it Republican. Eg, Rudd is a conservative, but he is not a Liberal. Ron Paul is a fruit-loop, but he is not a Democrat, etc.

Chris Matthews is an idiot and always has been. He screeching voice is like chalk on blackboard.

However the one major non-accomplishment by Clinton was Hillarycare, which was possibly the biggest domestic (not foreign) policy disaster in a generation. From what I recall Matthews – a former aide to long time Dem speaker O’Neil- despises the Clintons so much he would lose his composure at the thought of those two occupying the Whitehouse again. Despite his Dem pedigree Matthews was one of the biggest media enemies of the Clintons throughout Bills presidency.

Having said that, do you think that Matthews actually is indicative of how media players actually feel about Clinton? Mind you Matthews is a small time player in the media world over there. Certainly the polls dont show the public at large having reservations towards a woman prez. I think youre over egging this one.

But it doesnt prevent numerous social commentators in the US media from trying their best to put Hillarys gender up front and centre, and ridicule her thereby.

Can you offer one example with a link of this endemic sexism you talked about yesterday in the american media?

Yea, i kinda like Obama. i think he has the makings of a great prez given the chance. And yea I simply don’t like Hillary simply because I find her a dishonest creepy nixon-like individual.

What is it that makes you froth at the mouth over an Obama presidency? The only thing I can think of is that it must be the color of his skin. I suggest you get over it.

Dave, I broadly agree but I think you are understating Guiliani’s electability. Also, I think McCain would get Clinton pretty convincingly – he is perceived as having too much ‘consistency’ and ‘gravitas’ for her, especially in light of her husband!

PS: To the pretty convincing list refuting the ridiculous ‘fuckability’ claim one could add German PM Angela Merkel and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni and Evo Morales.

Yulia Tymoshenko may be too ‘fuckable’ to count as refutation of the theory but I have certainly never seen or heard it suggested that she ever sought to trade on such a quality.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Yulia_Tymoshenko_press_conference.jpg cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.” />

Republican-leaning voters, on the other hand, require “toughness” and experience in a candidate to consider voting for a Democrat, and thus are less likely to vote for Obama than Hillary in a general. Hillary does therefore have appeal to Republican-voting women of her own age.

So… my guess is
Obama v anyone-but-McCain : Obama win
Obama v McCain : McCain win
Hillary v anyone-but-McCain : Hillary win
Hillary v McCain : VERY tough call

I have no problem with Hillary being aggressive. It’s just a matter of whether it works for her – and more importantly for those she claims to represent in bringing a Democrat to the White House.

I doubt it will. I actually think that aggression is way overrated in politics – for both men and women. It worked OK for Keating when he was Treasurer – indeed it worked very well for him. When he was PM it was obvious to some of us that he needed minions to do his dirty work, but they weren’t any good at it and he was – and he enjoyed it. But it was a disaster.

People don’t like it in the person who is their leader. (I suspect they like it even less in a woman – but don’t shoot me, I’m only saying what I think is the case in the electorate). All politicians need to work out ways to present aspects of their personalities in ways that get across their messages. Note that, however he acted behind the scenes, Bill Clinton was a study in optimism and niceness towards his opponents. He used to say how much he liked George (H.W.) Bush. Still does.

This, (thank you Geoff) is gold:

Ironically, Hillarys greatest liability, in this respect, is the inevitable comparison with Bill who parlayed an over-abundance of personal charm into a two-term presidency in which she played a kind of dependable, home-front policy wonk drudge to his ever-twinkling incarnation of the national Lothario. Oddly, Bill has now morphed into some red-faced, shouting dude – because of love Hillary unconvincingly asserts – while she, ever-dependable, is seemingly sticking to the original script.

And further… FWIW I kinda hope Obama wins the Presidency. I think Hillary is already so much part and parcel of the White House, knowing as she does already, its corridors, its exits and its skeleton closets she’d possibly try desperately to hold it all in check, which would be a really rather boring to watch. Obama OTOH, has more in common with Rudd, a fresh face and a person who would make a clean sweep of things.

It sure is a savage game in the US, and a telling one too–of a very fierce ’spirit’ of individualism, with so much diabolical brinkmanship within the same team. Sheesh, they can have it. Any normal person would be completely burnt out, and totally fucked over trying to get through their merciless primaries.
May the best, person win (and I think that might be Obama). As with Howard, I’d have voted for the Monkey’s uncle to see the back of him. Anything, anyone’s gotta be betta than Dubbya.

And I could say the same about you in terms of you understanding of what men think.

-10 out 10 for you girly in the understanding men department. This boy-girl thing youre trying to spin is just so 80s its amusing.

I suggest a full course in men’s studies at one of the sandstones

You really don’t have a goddamn clue what is happening in this election do you? There is a possibility, a strong one that we may be seeing a great transcendent, inspirational leader take the presidency. Obama if he wins the nomination of his party could actually be a world-changing event that carries meaning to all corners of the world. I am also assuming he would win the presidency with 45 states with the help of many GOP supporters. Very few people have ever had that pull.

He’s actually attracting the interests of even the most hardened conservatives.

I would never have thought that old conservative warhorse like Ress-mogg the former editor of the FTimes would be coming out for Obama. Coming out of the closet carries new meaning with Ress- Mogg supporting Obama

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23120065-26397,00.html

I’m sorry but Hillary just doesn’t match up to this guy.

The “she’s a gal” routine just won’t cut with this election.

Lets just say I don’t think you have any idea what I’m talking about. I’ve not denied what you claim I deny – it’s not relevant to what I was saying.

The clintons are the like the flu. They make you feel like shit.

Here’s Triple A lefty telling us what he thinks about the Clintons and how November may turn out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?ref=opinion

So JC and Nic Gruen deny sexism in politics and the media exists?

is it like that is it?

Like , are you still selling ice to minors, Philly?

My own opinion is people don’t give a hoot about the sex of a candidate, philly. Not any more. Hillary is immensely disliked because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Sorry that dog just won’t hunt but nice try at getting it out there in the field.

And if sexism does exist, then elaborate, please, why sexism, specifically in the treatment of women in politics – in this case, the treatment of Hillary Clinton – even by the slightest measure, is a figment of my hysterical imagination bearing absolutely no relationship to objective, identifiable facts.

Who knows why you are imagining, it Philly. I’m not a mental health expert so i couldn’t begin to figure the reasons.